I 
 
 l 
 
 
 H 
 
 wgk mm 
 
 IS* 
 
 ■ i 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 
 ; BT-127 
 
 Sfpqt..: - ®«W# 'Q a - 
 
 Shelf ......i-E'5 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
THE 
 
 NATURE AND METHOD 
 
 OF 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 TITUS STKEET PROFESSOK OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN YALE UNIVERSITY 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1890 
 

 Copyright, 1890 
 By Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 1 . 
 
 John Wilson and Son, Cambridge 
 
 y 
 

 
 > 
 5 
 
 TO MY PUPILS 
 
 PAST AND PRESENT 
 
 THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The first part of this volume is composed of a 
 series of Articles which were written at the request 
 of the editor of " The Century Magazine," and have 
 lately been published in that periodical. They have 
 now been carefully revised and somewhat enlarged. 
 The additions do not cover a great deal of space, but 
 they will contribute, as I hope, to the better elucida- 
 tion of the subject. The concluding portion of the 
 volume comprises a number of Essays on important 
 topics in New Testament criticism which are briefly 
 touched upon in the preceding chapters. 
 
 There is no apparent diminution of interest in the 
 study of the Bible. Never to so great a degree as at 
 present has it been the object of thorough scrutiny. 
 The interest in biblical study, as distinguished from 
 the mere reading of the Bible for a purely practical 
 end, has spread widely, and is by no means confined 
 to the class whose calling it is to interpret its con- 
 
vi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tents. Under these circumstances it is more than 
 ever important that the Bible should be looked at 
 from the right point of view. In the course of my 
 own studies and reflections, the perception of the 
 relation of the Scriptures to the historical process 
 of Divine Revelation, the end and aim of which was 
 the full introduction of the kingdom of God through 
 him who, although he was " meek and lowly in 
 heart," did not hesitate to style himself " the Light 
 of the World," — the perception, I say, of this re- 
 lation has become in my mind constantly more dis- 
 tinct and vivid. In this ground-work of historical 
 reality, this gradual entering of God with a trans- 
 forming energy into the course of human history, I 
 find a solvent for numerous difficulties of Scripture 
 and a help in its interpretation. These are the 
 points which I have tried, with such measure of light 
 as I possess, to illustrate in the following pages. 
 
 It is now several centuries since the Bible began 
 to be examined critically, with an earnestness not 
 before applied to the study, by methods more in 
 accord with the canons of true science, and in con- 
 nection with a marvellous progress of human knowl- 
 edge in all branches of research. It would be 
 strange indeed if large gains should not have been 
 made through so great and long-continued exertions, 
 in which so many scholars belonging to different 
 
INTRODUCTION. vn 
 
 nations have been engaged. Opinions respecting the 
 character of the Scriptures could not remain abso- 
 lutely unchanged. The Scriptures remain, and must 
 continue to be, the Christian's guide in matters of 
 faith and duty, the normative exposition of Chris- 
 tian doctrine. When they are taken collectively, in 
 their entire compass, the New Testament in con- 
 nection with the Old, — and only then is their suf- 
 ficiency affirmed in the Protestant creed, — there 
 is seen to inhere in this body of writings a self- 
 completing, and in that way and to that extent a 
 self-rectifying, quality. Not all the specific opinions, 
 however, that were held in former times under the 
 general formula stated above, can be retained now 
 by candid students of the Holy Scriptures. We are 
 not living in the middle of the seventeenth century, 
 but in the last decades of the nineteenth. All the 
 ascertained results of this fruitful period of biblical 
 investigation must be frankly recognized. In the 
 end Christian Evidences will be seen to be the 
 stronger by this allegiance to truth and loyalty to 
 conscience. In these days no real service is done 
 to the Christian cause by stubbornly adhering to 
 dogmatic prepossessions which have been proved to 
 be untenable, — still less by unseemly denunciation 
 of Christian believers who have been led by con- 
 scientious inquiry to abandon them. It is wise for 
 
vin INTRODUCTION". 
 
 those who are no longer young to remember an early 
 resolution of Jonathan Edwards. " I observe," says 
 Edwards in his Diary, " that old men seldom have 
 any advantage of new discoveries, because they are 
 beside the way of thinking to which they have been 
 so long used. Resolved, if ever I live to [advanced] 
 years, that I will be impartial to hear the reasons of 
 all pretended discoveries, and receive them, if rational, 
 how long soever I have been used to another way of 
 thinking." In biblical science as in natural science, 
 incidental to all this activity in investigation there 
 are no doubt many unverified speculations. This does 
 not imply that there are no sure gains, no healthful 
 progress. The lesson to be drawn is that new opin- 
 ions are to be sifted, and the wheat separated from 
 the chaff. There is no better motto for the stu- 
 dent than the words of the Apostle Paul : " Prove all 
 tilings ; hold fast that which is good." 
 
 Five and twenty years have passed since, in my 
 work entitled " Essays on the Supernatural Origin 
 of Christianity," I reviewed elaborately the critical 
 and historical theories of Baur and his school rela- 
 tive to the origin of Christianity and the New Testa- 
 ment writings, and the rise of the Catholic Church 
 of the second century. It was then confidently pro- 
 claimed by many that by this school the last word 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 of science on these momentous questions had been 
 spoken. Now in the new school of criticism in Ger- 
 many the fundamental tenets of the Tiibingen critics 
 are pretty generally forsaken. Professor Huxley was 
 apparently not aware of this fact when he referred 
 lately to Baur, Volkmar, Zeller, and others with them, 
 as authoritative expositors of critical science. It 
 simply shows that even a man of so clear and pene- 
 trating intelligence as Professor Huxley cannot safely 
 intermit his reading of German divinity. In the land 
 where his authors dwelt, the wind changes too often. 
 In this time of ferment, when the multiform tongues 
 of the Press are everywhere heard, intellectual changes 
 are rapid everywhere, but nowhere, probably, so rapid 
 as among our Teutonic cousins over the Sea. The 
 extent to which the basal propositions of the Tubingen 
 school have already become obsolete, is indicated in 
 the following words from an article by Professor 
 Harnack : — 
 
 " The possible picture it sketched was not the real, and 
 the key with which it attempted to solve all problems did 
 not suffice for the most simple. . . . They [the Tubingen 
 views] have indeed been compelled to undergo very large 
 modifications. But as regards the development of the 
 Church in the second century, it may safely be said that 
 the hypotheses of the Tubingen school have proved them- 
 selves everywhere inadequate, very erroneous, and are 
 to-day held by only a very few scholars." 
 
35 INTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 There are individuals, to be sure, who show a disposi- 
 tion to fall back on some of the peculiar positions of 
 the Tubingen school concerning the New Testament 
 narratives. This appears to be the case with Holtz- 
 mann in his Introduction to the New Testament and 
 in his recent Commentary. But generally speaking, 
 while Baur's services in awakening thought, and the 
 value of his contributions to learning, are highly ap- 
 preciated, as they ought to be, the leading features 
 of his system are no longer accepted. It seems to be 
 our lot to hear in English the echoes of the conflicts 
 in Germany of a generation ago. Mr. T. H. Green 
 brings back Hegelism with him to Oxford, and gives 
 himself up to the fascination of Baur's historical 
 theories. An outcome of the Hegelian theology thus 
 derived is " Robert Elsmere," a pleasing love-story, 
 steeped in an infusion of Baur and Strauss, but treated 
 by friend and foe as if it contained some new dis- 
 covery threatening the foundations of the Christian 
 religion. The new criticism in Germany, however, 
 notwithstanding its comparative sobriety, brings for- 
 ward, by way of substitute for the Tubingen theories, 
 views respecting the evangelical history and the au- 
 thorship of the New Testament writings — for exam- 
 ple, the Fourth Gospel — which are open to serious 
 objections. To some of these hypotheses attention is 
 given in several of the closing Essays of this volume. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xi 
 
 The assailant of Christianity in the eighteenth cen- 
 tury was Deism ; the assailant, open or latent, of 
 Christianity in the nineteenth century is Pantheism. 
 Deism conceived of God as apart from the world ; it 
 was taken up with the thought of his transcendence. 
 Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite ex- 
 treme. Pantheism is taken up with the immanence 
 of God. Each lays hold of a half-truth. The two 
 half-truths unite in Christian theism, which does not 
 ignore the indwelling of God and his all-present 
 energy, but at the same time recognizes his free, con- 
 scious personality. In him we live and move : he is 
 a Father, and hears the prayers of his children. He 
 is neither to be separated from the world nor con- 
 founded with it. The influence of the Pantheistic 
 systems that followed Kant is not yet spent. One 
 may liken them in their seductive splendor to the 
 structure raised by the fallen angels, where — 
 
 " From the arched roof, 
 Pendent by subtle magic, many a row 
 Of starry lamps and blazing cressets, fed 
 With naphtha and asphaltus, yielded light 
 As from a sky." 
 
 Outside of its philosophical statement in the German 
 idealists after Kant, and in disciples of Spinoza, Pan- 
 theism gets a lodgment in certain empirical systems 
 where we might not expect to find it. Spencer's 
 
Xil INTRODUCTION. 
 
 philosophy has been aptly characterized by Mansel 
 as an attempt to engraft Pantheism upon Positivism. 
 The ;i Unknowable " has no function different from 
 that of a natural force. It is difficult to believe that 
 the proposal to found religion on such a conception 
 of God can be seriously meant. 
 
 In literature we are reminded of the prevalence of 
 a Pantheistic drift of thought and feeling by the recol- 
 lection of Matthew Arnold's resolution of God into 
 "a stream of tendency" on the side of righteousness, 
 or of lines of his like the following, from the poem 
 on Heine's Grave : — 
 
 " What are we all but a mood, 
 A single mood, of the life 
 Of the Being in whom we exist, 
 Who alone is all things in one ? " 
 
 A like mode of thought pervades the writings of 
 Emerson, although in him Pantheism is not har- 
 dened into a consistent creed ; for Emerson to the 
 end clung to the belief in personal immortality, and 
 he pronounced the acceptance of this belief the " test 
 of a man's sanity." The Deism of the former day 
 was vanquished. It has no standing in the courts of 
 science. No better lot, it is safe to predict, awaits 
 the Pantheism of the present day. It cannot endure 
 the contact of searching philosophical tests. It is 
 built on assumptions, — definitions converted into 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. xm 
 
 realities, like Spinoza's idea of u substance," or ficti- 
 tious notions of " the infinite " which have no re- 
 ality outside of the philosopher's brain. The only 
 religion that is possible under a Pantheistic system 
 is a vague, unsubstantial, unpractical sentiment, 
 prayerless, and with no outlook of hope for the soul 
 beyond the boundary of this fleeting life. To try to 
 collect " the data of ethics " when there is no recog- 
 nition of man as a personal agent capable of freely 
 originating the conduct and the states of will for 
 which he is morally responsible, is labor lost. The 
 reality and profound significance of personality in 
 God and in man, is a truth which is alike essential 
 in all sound philosophy and in all earnest views of 
 human life and duty. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. Revelation and the Bible 1 
 
 II. The Gradualness of Revelation 46 
 
 III. The Differentiating of Christianity from 
 
 Judaism 87 
 
 IV. Revelation and Faith 127 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY ESSAYS. 
 
 I. Remarks on the Authorship and Date of the 
 
 Gospels 181 
 
 II. Illustrations of the Character of the Gos- 
 pel Histories 206 
 
 III. The New Testament Writings on the Time 
 
 of the Second Advent 221 
 
 IV. The Theological Ideas of Matthew Arnold 243 
 
 V. Professor Huxley's Comments on the Gospel 
 
 Narratives 259 
 
 INDEX 285 
 
THE 
 
 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 In Chillingworth's famous work, " The Religion of 
 Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation," occurs a sen- 
 tence which passed into an adage : " The Bible, and 
 the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." In the 
 sense in which the phrase was used by that acute logi- 
 cian — a writer who had outgrown the narrowness of 
 the school of his godfather Laud, in which he had re- 
 ceived his early training — nothing can be more true. 
 It is not from an infallible church that a Protestant 
 derives his creed. With him the Scriptures are the 
 rule of faith. They are the guide, at once authorita- 
 tive and sufficient or exclusive, on all matters pertain- 
 ing to religious belief and moral conduct. These are 
 the customary formulas ; and the saying of Chilling- 
 worth is a strong assertion of the Protestant position, 
 which stands opposed, on the one hand, to that of the 
 Church of Rome, and, on the other hand, to the 
 
2 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 rationalism which substitutes, in matters of religion. 
 a subjective standard, be it one's own reasonings or 
 feelings, for the Bible. Statements like this aphorism 
 of Chillingworth have the value and attraction which 
 belong to any terse enunciation of an important prin- 
 ciple. They serve as watchwords in defensive warfare 
 when adversaries approaching from opposite quarters 
 are to be repelled. But even Rome, while asserting 
 the authority of tradition, and claiming for the Church 
 the place of an infallible interpreter, does not deny 
 that the Bible is the record of the whole revealed faith. 
 There is small danger of extravagance in praising the 
 Bible, as every one will admit who appreciates what it 
 contains, surveys the influence of this book in the past, 
 and knows its indispensable service in awakening and 
 supporting the life of religion in the souls of men. It 
 is the simple truth, and no mere conventional compli- 
 ment to the Scriptures, to say that Christian piety cut 
 off from contact with their light-giving and life-giving 
 power would wither away like plants robbed of the 
 sunlight. 
 
 But we need not examine the Bible long to become 
 aware of problems and perplexities which the current 
 axioms relative to the sufficiency and authority of 
 Scripture do not clear up. On opening its covers the 
 searcher for truth does not find between them a dog- 
 matic and ethical treatise in which are methodically 
 set down the articles which he is to believe and the 
 things which he is to do. His Bible is not a Triden- 
 tine Creed, nor an Augsburg Confession, nor a West- 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 3 
 
 minster Catechism ; nor does it wear the aspect of a 
 systematic account of " the whole duty of man." To 
 be sure, doctrines and precepts are strewn here and 
 there along its pages. But they must be picked out ; 
 and when thus collected they do not always appear at 
 first to agree with one another. The reader discovers 
 that numerous commandments were issued at epochs 
 far back in the past ; that they were addressed to a 
 specific people or to particular individuals, and have 
 no very perceptible application to present circum- 
 stances or to himself. The Bible, from which he is 
 expected to ascertain the purpose of life and how that 
 purpose is to be fulfilled, turns out to be a voluminous 
 collection of miscellaneous writings. They emanate 
 from numerous authors, not all of whom are known 
 even by name. These writings were all of them com- 
 posed long ago and at different times — a portion of 
 them at dates extremely remote. Here are histories, 
 some of them traversing the same ground, and with 
 striking differences in the point of view, to say the 
 least, from which they were written ; poems, among 
 them a copious collection of devotional lyrics, and one 
 metrical drama which may be styled, in the better 
 sense of the term, erotic ; likewise, a book filled with 
 dirges, besides a considerable number of other com- 
 pilations of discourses by ancient seers ; another drama 
 dealing with the mystery connected with the allotment 
 of evil by Divine Providence ; a collection of proverbs 
 also ; letters of apostles to churches ; the whole end- 
 ing with a book made up of visions. This multifarious 
 
4 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 literature, so far as the older grand division of it is 
 concerned, the ancient Jews distributed into three 
 departments, — the law, the prophets, and the hagio-> 
 grapha, or " psalms ; " the last of the sections being 
 a group that was brought together after the others, 
 and is more diversified in its contents. In the later, 
 or New Testament, division, several narratives of the 
 ministry of Jesus and one narrative of the labors of 
 the Apostles are followed by the Epistles and the 
 Apocalypse. In neither of the two main divisions of 
 the Bible are the component parts united even by the 
 external tie derived from the order in which they were 
 written. In cases not a few, the date of the books is 
 unsettled. Differences of opinion on this point prevail 
 among the scholars who are versed in such inquiries. 
 With reference to certain books, — for example, the 
 first six historical books of the Old Testament, — this 
 diversity of opinion is very wide. No doubt the disa- 
 greement on these questions of date is owing partly to 
 the influence of a dogmatic bias in one direction or an- 
 other, to subjective leanings which are void of scientific 
 value, but rather stand in the way of an unprejudiced 
 verdict. But when allowance is made for the refrac- 
 tion due to innate or acquired prepossession, there is 
 still left no small residue of uncertainty on the topics 
 adverted to. Each of the various authors whose pro- 
 ductions have been brought together in the Bible is 
 plainly marked by personal traits which are reflected 
 in both his thought and his style. Obvious limitations 
 belonging to time and place, and to varying types of 
 
REVELATION" AND THE BIBLE. 6 
 
 mind and culture, are stamped upon his pages. The 
 peculiarity of the composite volume which we call 
 " the Bible " — even this title, it is worth while to re- 
 mark, was originally a plural — is strikingly felt when 
 it is compared with the sacred books of other religions. 
 The Yedas, the ancient Brahmanical scriptures, are 
 mainly collections of hymns. The Koran is composed 
 exclusively of communications alleged to have been 
 made by an angel to one person, Mohammed, and all 
 within an interval of a little more than twenty years. 
 These oracles, flowing as they do from the single mind 
 of the founder of Islam, are identical in their style 
 and their general spirit. It is only a minor portion 
 of the Koran that consists of narratives, and these are 
 simply stories of the patriarchs, drawn from degener- 
 ate Jewish and Christian sources, without any direct 
 acquaintance on the part of Mohammed with the Old 
 Testament records. Islam is pre-eminently the reli- 
 gion of a book held to be supernatural in its origin, 
 with nothing before it, or beneath it, or after it. 
 
 Various as the books of the Bible are, however, in 
 authorship, themes, and style, it is no exaggeration to 
 say that one spirit animates them. He who approaches 
 them in a merely critical, much more in a carping, 
 temper, may miss the perception of it. A certain 
 activity of conscience and moral sensibility may be 
 requisite for the discernment and appreciation of it. 
 This is not to fall back on a mere subjective im- 
 pression, invalid except for the individual who experi- 
 ences it. A deaf man or a man with no ear for music 
 
6 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 might as reasonably bring the same objection to one 
 who is thrilled by an oratorio of Handel or a sym- 
 phony of Beethoven. I am credibly informed that a 
 noted American champion of disbelief not long ago, 
 on his way home from a visit to Europe, made the 
 remark with all sincerity that the admiration ex- 
 pressed for the masterpieces of the great painters and 
 sculptors is all a pure affectation, having no better 
 ground than a contagious fashion, and that there is 
 really nothing in these world-famed works of art to 
 merit praise or elicit enthusiasm. But where percep- 
 tions, be they aesthetic or moral and religious, are con- 
 fined to no single breast; where they are awakened in 
 a vast number of human beings, and are to a great 
 degree independent of time and place and of peculiari- 
 ties of race and education ; and where, moreover, they 
 stand related to the noblest development of character 
 as their concomitant or fruit, — they must be admitted 
 to have a catholic worth. They become equivalent 
 to an objective proof. It is vain to decry them as 
 morbid fancies. They are not to be dismissed as the 
 dreams of a mystic. They are the voice of human 
 nature, — a recognition by man of realities, the denial 
 of which on the part of individuals here or there sim- 
 ply argues an abnormal constitution, or an "atrophy" 
 of powers, an eccentric quality of some kind in the dis- 
 senting sceptic. How shall we designate this peculiar 
 characteristic of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, 
 taken as a whole ? It may be denominated the spirit 
 of holiness. It pervades the Bible as an atmosphere. 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 7 
 
 It imparts to it, if one may so say, a supernal quality, 
 — a quality not of earth. Here are not speculations 
 uttered by sages about man's nature, duty, or des- 
 tiny. Here are not precepts such as may be read 
 in the wisest of the heathen, — for example, in Plato 
 or Epictetus, or in the pensive chapters of the philo- 
 sophic Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Where there is 
 some likeness in the content, the tone is dissimilar. 
 We feel the breath of God. To say that the ethical 
 injunctions of the Bible are "morality touched with 
 emotion," is too vague a description. It is morality 
 inculcated as by a voice out of the unseen. Under- 
 lying all is the relation, taken for granted more often 
 than formally asserted, of man to God and eternity. 
 Sanctions reaching out beyond this world of time and 
 space give a solemn emphasis to the commandment. 
 And the distinction here accorded to the Bible belongs 
 to the Old Testament as well as to the New. Attempts 
 have been made in ancient and modern times to sever 
 the two parts of the book and to discard the earlier 
 collection. Such was the proceeding of Marcion in 
 the second century, and like views have been brought 
 forward again and again in recent times. It is not 
 the force of a settled tradition that has baffled every 
 such enterprise. It is not even the recognition ac- 
 corded to the Old Testament by the New which has 
 been the prime obstacle in the way of endeavors of 
 this nature. Rather is it the consciousness that the 
 two parts of the Bible, differ as they may, are not at 
 bottom incongruous and hostile, and a prevailing sense 
 
8 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of the fact that grand elements belong to them in 
 common. The same spirit of holiness pervades them 
 both, unites them, and lifts them out of the category 
 of literature in general. The Bible not only interprets 
 God, in his holiness and unfathomable love and pity, to 
 man, it is the interpreter of man to himself. Coleridge 
 tells us that, having striven to cast aside all preju- 
 dice, he perused the books of the Old and the New 
 Testaments, — "each book as a whole, and also as an 
 integral part." " And need I say," he testifies, " that 
 I have met everywhere more or less copious sources 
 of truth and power and purifying impulses ; that I 
 have found words for my most inmost thoughts, songs 
 for my joy, utterances for my hidden griefs, and plead- 
 ings for my shame and feebleness ? In short, what- 
 ever finds me, bears witness for itself that it has 
 proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same 
 Spirit which of old entered into the prophets." This 
 is not the experience of one mind only, but of a mul- 
 titude out of many kindreds and tongues, age after 
 age. 
 
 It is true that in thus characterizing the Bible, dis- 
 criminations are to be made. Not all its books are in 
 this regard, in their power to sound the deep places 
 of the soul, on a level. We find ourselves from the 
 beginning in an elevated region, yet a region where 
 there are hills and valleys. It is vain to pretend that, 
 in the quality referred to, all parts of the Bible are 
 on the same plane. Isaiah and the Psalms, John 
 the Evangelist and the leading Epistles of Paul, are 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. « 
 
 among the portions of the book that rise like lofty 
 peaks in a mountain range. There are many pages 
 within the compass of the canon which, while not 
 without their significance and value as parts of the 
 collection, lack comparatively the spiritual quality 
 which I have attempted to point out. Most readers 
 of Scripture seldom turn to them. There is another 
 fact to be noticed here. There are parts of the Bible 
 which it is hard to understand. Wholesale assertions 
 about the perspicuity of Scripture have to be qualified. 
 The learning of the most erudite scholars and the sa- 
 gacity of the most expert critics fail to decipher the 
 meaning of a not inconsiderable number of passages 
 in the sacred volume. Protestants have always been 
 obliged to encounter the Roman Catholic objection to 
 the popular use of the Scriptures, that they cannot 
 be understood by the generality of readers. The only 
 way of meeting the objection is that adopted by Chil- 
 lingworth; namely, to insist that all essential truth — 
 truth essential to salvation and the conduct of life 
 
 — is easily discernible on their pages. In this answer 
 it is tacitly conceded that there is left a pretty broad 
 margin which is — to the common man, to say the least 
 
 — obscure. Even one of the canonical writers pro- 
 nounces some things in the Epistles of Paul abstruse 
 (2 Peter iii. 16). Why is this so ? it might be asked ; 
 why all these dark places in Scripture, if it was writ- 
 ten for the direct purpose of serving as an authori- 
 tative text-book in religion ? When one considers 
 the difficulties of the Bible, not in any captious spirit, 
 
10 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 as if to hunt up materials for an attack, but fairly and 
 dispassionately ; when one looks at the difficulties 
 which obtrude themselves upon the attention of those 
 who are at all familiar with modern discoveries in nat- 
 ural and physical science, and with modern studies in 
 history and ethnology ; still more, when one takes 
 into view moral difficulties in certain parts of biblical 
 doctrine, especially in portions of the Old Testament, 
 — one may be pardoned for inquiring, Was this body 
 of writings, in its primary intention, designed to be 
 a manual of religious and ethical instruction ? We 
 may concede joyfully a high providential purpose in 
 connection with the composition of the books which 
 it contains, with their preservation, — although it 
 must be remembered that they themselves allude to 
 lost books which were regarded evidently as of equal 
 authority with those in the canon, — and with their 
 foreseen place and office in the Christian Church. 
 But this is quite different from saying that they were 
 originally composed with all this in view on the part 
 of their authors. Especially does it leave out of 
 sight a fact respecting the Scriptures which is in the 
 highest degree important for the understanding and 
 the right use of them, — a fact that furnishes a clew 
 for the solution of the major part of the difficulties 
 which have been adverted to. 
 
 The thesis to be here propounded is this : It was 
 not the Scriptures that made the religion, but the 
 religion that made the Scriptures. And the religion 
 was no abstract body of doctrine standing apart from 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 11 
 
 the life of humanity. The Scriptures of both the Old 
 and New Testaments are the offshoot of a great histo- 
 rical movement, begun and carried forward to its con- 
 summation by an agency supernatural and divine, yet 
 a movement that is, notwithstanding, an integral part 
 of the history of our race. The roots of the sacred 
 literature must be sought in the historical events and 
 transactions that gave rise to it. It were as strange 
 an error to consider the records of the French Revo- 
 lution, the memoirs of the leaders and minor actors, 
 the discourses and expositions called forth, at the 
 time and afterwards, by this series of momentous 
 events, the songs and ballads of that stormy period, 
 — to consider these multiform writings the Revolu- 
 tion itself, and in a confused way to confound them 
 with it, as it is to identify the books of the Bible with 
 the religion out of which they sprang. To see the 
 justice of this remark, it is only needful to glance at 
 the origin of the New Testament Scriptures. John 
 the Baptist wrote nothing. Jesus wrote nothing. He 
 lived and taught, he gathered about him a band of 
 disciples, he died and rose from the dead, and the 
 Holy Spirit, the source of a new spiritual power and 
 enlightenment, descended upon his disciples. Jesus 
 laid the foundation for an organization of his fol- 
 lowers. He created a society. It was not books that 
 had been written or that were to be written that he 
 styled " the light of the world " and the " salt of the 
 earth." It was the men who believed in him and fol- 
 lowed him. It was through them personally that the 
 
12 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 good which he brought to mankind was to be diffused 
 abroad. By them the proclamation of God's forgive- 
 ness and love, or the Gospel, was made. Some time 
 elapsed before anything was written, before even 
 the sayings and doings of Jesus were recorded. It 
 was the living interest taken in those real occur- 
 rences, — a curiosity on the part of Christians to know 
 more of them, and, as we learn from the introduc- 
 tion of Luke's first narrative, an increasing sense of 
 the value of a correct knowledge of them, — that oc- 
 casioned the composition of the four Gospels. The 
 book of Acts owes its existence to a similar cause. 
 As to the Epistles, of course the churches had to be 
 founded before they could be addressed. It is desir- 
 able to remember that Christianity was preached and 
 believed in before anything was written about it. In 
 an age of letters it was inevitable that the events 
 which form the subject of the New Testament should 
 very soon give birth to writings. We can understand 
 why it was impossible that the American civil war 
 should pass by without giving rise to the composition 
 of letters by those actively engaged in it, and the pub- 
 lication of books of history and reminiscence. There 
 was a like impossibility in the case of the planting of 
 Christianity by Christ and the Apostles. If the num- 
 ber of those who desired to know the facts and to be 
 taught the significance of them was at the outset 
 small, it rapidly increased, and their interest in the 
 subject was deep and absorbing. Of course the crea- 
 tion of the New Testament literature was an act of 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 13 
 
 Providence of essential consequence in its bearing on 
 the subsequent propagation of the Christian faith. 
 Our business is now with the second causes that led 
 to it, and, in particular, with its relation to the his- 
 torical facts out of which, as from a fruitful soil, it 
 grew up. What has just been said of the New Testa- 
 ment is applicable to the Old. Stretching along, as it 
 were, underneath the heterogeneous books that make 
 up the Old Testament, — heterogeneous as to their 
 particular themes and their style, — is the groundwork 
 of history, of the history of God's dealings with the 
 nation of Israel in earlier and later times. This his- 
 tory is related in specifically historical writings. But 
 the historical situation determines the character and 
 gives color to the form of the books which do not 
 belong under this head. For example, the prophecies 
 of Isaiah are a series of fervent discourses having 
 reference to the circumstances of those to whom they 
 were in the first instance directed. The prophets 
 were preachers of righteousness, —preachers to their 
 own generation. Prediction was not a prime, but 
 an incidental and subsidiary, function of their office. 
 Psalms and Proverbs embody the devotional senti- 
 ments and the practical philosophy of living men at 
 definite epochs in the career of the Hebrew people. 
 It need not be said that we do not forget the inspira- 
 tion of the prophets and the quality of their utter- 
 ances, which is dependent upon inspiration, although 
 the fact of the divine call of the several prophets, in 
 the exigencies in which they appeared, is part and 
 
14 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 parcel of the series of historical events. It is simply 
 meant that, be the peculiarity of the Old Testament 
 writings which is derived from supernatural influence 
 what it may, the discourses of Isaiah and the Pro- 
 verbs of the wise man or men who were the authors 
 of them, have an historical basis not less real and 
 substantial than is true of the sermons of Jonathan 
 Edwards and the maxims of Franklin in " Poor 
 Richard's Almanac." When the first martyr Stephen 
 spoke for the Christian cause before the Jewish coun- 
 cil, he spread before them an array of historical 
 occurrences. He w^ent back to God's disclosure of 
 himself to Abraham in the far-off time, and passed in 
 review, one after another, leading personages and facts 
 of the past down to the mission and death of the 
 Righteous One. In the same spirit the Apostle Paul 
 traces everything back" to a person, — to Abraham and 
 to his personal convictions respecting God. He .was 
 " the father of all them that believe," the founder of 
 a people becoming more and more numerous, and 
 finally bursting the confines of national kinship. 
 
 At the same time the Apostle Paul understood the 
 value of the Scriptures. It was the signal advantage 
 of the Jews that to them had been committed " the 
 oracles of God." A sacred deposit had been intrusted 
 to them. The promises of God recorded in the an- 
 cient Scriptures were in their hands. It is not only 
 as inspired interpreters of the facts that prophets and 
 apostles are the organs of revelation. They are in- 
 spired to look forward and partly lift the curtain that 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 15 
 
 veils the future. Thus they discharge an office in 
 preparing the way for subsequent scenes and events 
 in the drama of Providence as it gradually unfolds 
 itself. 
 
 The fundamental reality is not the Bible, it is the 
 kingdom of God. This is not a notion. Rather is it 
 a real historical fact, and the grandest of all facts. 
 No other kingdom or commonwealth ever had a more 
 substantial being. It is older than any other ; it has 
 proved itself stronger and more enduring than any 
 other ; if there is any good ground for the Christian's 
 faith, it will embrace or overspread them all. What 
 is this kingdom ? It is the society of believers in God, 
 — the society of his loyal subjects and children. In 
 its immature stage, under the old dispensation, it 
 existed in the form of an organized political com- 
 munity. Among the nations there lived one people 
 which had true thoughts respecting God, into whose 
 hearts he put true thoughts respecting himself. They 
 became conscious — it was he who inspired them with 
 the consciousness — of standing in an immediate, 
 peculiar relation to him. That they were a " chosen 
 people " was a conviction ineradicably planted within 
 them. Has not this conviction of theirs been verified 
 in the subsequent history of mankind ? They were 
 made to feel that they were not thus distinguished 
 for their own sake, or on account of any merit of 
 their own, but were chosen to be witnesses for God 
 to the rest of mankind. There was a divine purpose 
 of redemption, in which the entire race was to have 
 
16 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 a share. In the divine intent, to recover mankind 
 from evil, and to make the whole earth the abode 
 of righteousness and peace, was the ultimate goal. 
 The civil polity and the laws of the chosen people 
 were to reflect the will of God as made known from 
 time to time through holy and inspired men. The 
 whole course of their lives was to be regulated by 
 prescriptions issuing from the same divine source. 
 After the monarchical form of government was estab- 
 lished, revelation still remained the source of law. 
 Side by side with the kings there stood the prophets 
 to declare the divine will, to rebuke the iniquitous 
 ruler, and, if need be, to exhort the people to dis- 
 obedience. In the complex progress of the world 
 towards the ideal of human perfection, other peoples, 
 on the plane of nature, had their respective parts 
 to fulfil. The one supreme concern of this Hebrew 
 nation was, and was felt to be, religion. Their func- 
 tion among the nations of the earth was consciously 
 wrapped up in this one interest. As they well knew, 
 other religions besides their own were national. All 
 ancient religions were national. 
 
 But other religions were on false foundations, and 
 were doomed to pass away. When the political inde- 
 pendence of the Israelites was lost, their civil polity 
 shattered, the conquered people dragged off into idol- 
 atrous lands, this consciousness of being possessed of 
 the true religion, and of a grand and triumphant 
 future awaiting them, not only survived but grew 
 more confident. It not only outlived political ruin ; 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 17 
 
 under overwhelming calamities it burned with a more 
 intense fervor. More strange than all, there was a 
 foresight of a great advance to be made in the in- 
 trinsic character of this divinely given religion, as 
 well as in the extent of the dominion to be gained 
 by it. The basis of the religion was the covenant 
 of God with the people. But the days were to come 
 when there was to be " a new covenant with the house 
 of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Religion 
 was one day to become more spiritual ; obedience 
 would then no longer be legal or constrained, but 
 spontaneous ; the knowledge of God and his ways 
 would be confined to no class, but would be diffused 
 among all ; forgiveness would be full and free. Such 
 is the remarkable prediction of the prophet Jeremiah. 
 Centuries flowed on, the great hope was a hope de- 
 ferred ; but the epoch thus foreseen at last arrived. 
 The Person through whom was to be achieved this 
 vast revolution and expansion of the kingdom, dimly 
 discerned from afar in certain grand outlines, at 
 length appeared. Jesus, the Christ, became the 
 founder of a spiritual and universal society. Who- 
 ever will look into the Gospels will see that it was 
 in this character of the head of a kingdom that he 
 appeared. It was of the kingdom of God that John, 
 the forerunner, spoke, as near at hand. It was for 
 professing to be a king, however the nature of that 
 claim was misrepresented by his accusers, that Christ 
 was put to death. The prophecy began to be realized 
 when he commenced to teach and to attract to himself 
 
 2 
 
18 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 disciples. The kingdom was there. This he taught 
 when, in answer to the question when the kingdom 
 was to begin to be, he said, " The kingdom of God 
 cometh not with observation ; " " lo ! . . . the king- 
 dom of God is within you," or in the midst of you. 
 The kingdom was constituted by Jesus and the group 
 of disciples who acknowledged him as Lord and Mas- 
 ter, and who, like him, were devoted to the doing 
 of the Father's will. This last was the criterion of 
 membership in the kingdom, and of a title to its 
 blessings. Those who were one with Jesus in this 
 filial allegiance were hailed by him as brother and 
 sister and mother. Yet the consummation of the 
 kingdom lay in the future. Hence the kingdom, al- 
 though a present reality, was a kingdom in the bud, 
 and therefore a kingdom to come, — to come in a 
 double sense, in its moral progress among mankind, 
 and in mysterious final scenes of judgment and vic- 
 tory. So that the prayer of all disciples was still 
 to be, " Thy kingdom come," — a supplication that 
 points both to the continuous progress and transform- 
 ing influence of the Gospel in the world, and to the 
 goal of that progress, the final epoch. Precisely 
 how " the kingdom of Christ " or " the kingdom of 
 heaven " should be defined is a point on which all 
 are not agreed. It was declared by Jesus not to be 
 a " kingdom of this world." Its origin was not 
 earthly, but from above. It was not, like human 
 sovereignties, to be maintained and spread by force. 
 The end of the Founder's mission was to bear witness 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 19 
 
 to the truth. The kingdom was to be made up of those 
 who heard his voice, who believed and obeyed the 
 witness which he gave. In the ancient era of the 
 Church there was the Byzantine idea, which tended 
 to regard the Christian state, with the Roman em- 
 peror at its head, as the realization of the kingdom. 
 In the West it was the Church in its visible organiza- 
 tion under the Papacy that was identified with the 
 kingdom of Christ. A broader view would bring 
 within the circumference of the kingdom all the 
 baptized, in whatever Christian fold. A still broader 
 view is that which includes within its pale all souls 
 who, accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, live 
 to do the Father's will. 
 
 No view of the divine kingdom is adequate which 
 fails to see that the end of its establishment is the 
 transformation of human society. The rescue of in- 
 dividuals from sin and punishment is far from being 
 the whole good to be achieved through the instrumen- 
 tality of revealed religion. Its ethical relations are 
 never to be ignored or undervalued. It is here on earth 
 that the will of God is to be done. It is here that 
 the desert is u to rejoice, and blossom as the rose." 
 The aim of the divine kingdom was and is to renovate 
 political and social life. " Judaism," a recent writer 
 has well said, " was not a religion merely, but a polity, 
 its aim being the establishment of righteousness in 
 the relations of men within the commonwealth ; the 
 political and moral laws and the national organization 
 form its central point, its kings and judges being in 
 
20 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the fullest sense ministers of God." Nothing less was 
 designed by the later, the Christian, dispensation, fol- 
 lowing upon the earlier, than " the establishment and 
 maintenance of true relations throughout the whole 
 body of a united and organized humanity, under the 
 influence of the Christian spirit of righteousness and 
 love." As a means to this end the Church exists, 
 — an organized community, consisting of a portion 
 of human society in which the renewing power of the 
 Gospel has been experienced. 
 
 One might as well doubt whether the sun is in the 
 sky as to question the reality of that new creation 
 which gives its distinctive character to " the Chris- 
 tian era." Out of Judaism there has come into be- 
 ing a spiritual and universal society, however it may 
 be more precisely defined, and whatever disputes may 
 exist as to its boundaries. It may be added here that 
 all organized bodies which hold the Christian faith, 
 including the Church of Rome as well as Protestants, 
 unite in pronouncing that the complete deposit of 
 revealed truth was with Christ and t'he Apostles. 
 The Church of Rome makes tradition an authorized 
 channel for the transmission of this truth. But all 
 agree that Christianity is the absolute religion. There 
 is a progress in the understanding of it, from age to 
 age. But the religion itself is not defective, and 
 therefore is not perfectible. Christianity is not to be 
 put in the same category with the ethnic religions, 
 which contain an admixture of error, and are capable 
 of being indefinitely improved. The religion of the 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 21 
 
 Gospel is absolute. The allegiance of the follower of 
 Christ is unqualified. " Ye call me Master and Lord : 
 and ye say well ; for so I am." 
 
 Keeping in view this historic kingdom, which stands 
 forth as an objective reality, beginning in the distant 
 past and carried forward to its perfected form by 
 Jesus of Nazareth, we have to inquire what is the 
 relation of the Holy Scriptures to it. The answer is 
 that they are the documents that make us acquainted 
 with the kingdom in its consecutive stages up to its 
 completed form. In the Scriptures we are made ac- 
 quainted with the facts and the meaning of the facts. 
 And as in the case of all documentary materials 
 viewed in contrast with literary products of later 
 elaboration, we are brought face to face with the his- 
 toric transactions and with the persons who took part 
 in them. This is the peculiar character of the Scrip- 
 tures, and is at once the secret of their transcendent 
 value and the occasion of countless obscurities and 
 difficulties. By no other means could we become pos- 
 sessed of knowledge so immediate and so vivid. Yet 
 they give occasion for the same sort of inquiries that 
 always devolve, in historical investigation, on those 
 who delve in the sources. 
 
 Let us take an illustration from secular history. 
 We will suppose that the later narratives, such as 
 those of Bancroft and Palfrey, by which a New Eng- 
 lander learns the origin and growth of the communi- 
 ties to which he belongs, and their historic relations 
 to other parts of America, had not been written, — the 
 
22 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 narratives, we mean, which are based on documentary 
 materials, including under this head prior accounts 
 whose authors stood nearer to the circumstances which 
 they relate than the historians of to-day. We are 
 shut up, we will imagine, to this mass of documentary 
 materials. There is Bradford's pathetic story of the 
 Pilgrims, of their flight from their English home to 
 Holland, their voyage across the Atlantic, their set- 
 tlement and their experiences at Plymouth. We have 
 other writings also, — the " Compact of Government " 
 drawn up in the cabin of the "Mayflower ;" the diary 
 and the letters of John Winthrop, the Massachusetts 
 governor ; the earlier and later codes of colonial law ; 
 the " Bay Psalm Book ; " Cotton Mather's " Magna- 
 lia ; " later still, the history of Hutchinson ; and 
 along with other productions we have discourses of 
 the most influential preachers in the successive gen- 
 erations. As we approach the epoch of the Revolu- 
 tion we have the letters and speeches of the patriotic 
 leaders ; the records of the first congresses, local and 
 general ; the Declaration of Independence ; contem- 
 porary accounts of the war that followed ; the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, and expositions of it by 
 Madison and others who took part in framing it ; 
 official papers of the first President and his Cabinet, 
 etc. Imagine a comprehensive collection of these 
 documents. It would consist of prose and poetry, of 
 orations, disquisitions, letters, and so forth. Obviously 
 there would be inconveniences, especially to an un- 
 trained, unlearned student. There would be things 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 23 
 
 hard to understand, obscure allusions, apparent and 
 real discrepancies of more or less consequence. A 
 consecutive history prepared by a modern student of 
 sound, critical judgment would plainly have its advan- 
 tages. But one superlative advantage it would fail to 
 have. The reader would not, in anything like an 
 equal degree, be brought into the atmosphere of the 
 former days. He would not, in anything like an 
 equal degree, come into living contact with the events 
 and into direct personal intercourse with the partici- 
 pants in them. His impressions, if in some particulars 
 more exact and more systematic, would lack the color, 
 would want the vividness, which are to be caught 
 only from the documentary sources. The difference 
 is like that between a treatise on geography, or even 
 the descriptions of a traveller, and an actual journey 
 through a country which we seek to know. Let one 
 read either of the numerous lives of Jesus which have 
 been written by learned scholars in recent times, even 
 when imaginative power reinforces the erudition of 
 the author, and then turn to the pages of the Evange- 
 lists. He will feel at once the difference between 
 second-hand and first-hand accounts ; between those 
 who see through their own eyes and those who have 
 to use the eyes of others. The modern scholars fur- 
 nish us with collateral information of value, illustra- 
 tive of the Gospels ; they collate the several narrators ; 
 they apply the canons of historical criticism with more 
 or less skill ; but where is that living, speaking por- 
 trait of Jesus, of his walk and his talk, which the 
 
24 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 original historians, the Apostles and their compan- 
 ions, give us ? It is the difference between the her- 
 barium and the leaves and flowers in field or forest. 
 In the herbarium the classification is better, but we 
 miss the bright hues and the perfume of the blossoms. 
 To the botanist the herbarium is important, and botany 
 is a useful science in its place. But the rose-bush, or 
 a grape-vine with the clusters of fruit hanging upon 
 it, has a charm of its own which the botanist not 
 more than the unlettered man would be willing to 
 spare. 
 
 The beginnings of old kingdoms and empires are 
 commonly obscure. They start on their career in the 
 twilight. It is not until the day has fairly dawned, 
 until some progress has been made on the path of civ- 
 ilization, that written records arise to be transmitted 
 to later times. Even then contemporary writings are 
 likely to be scanty aud fragmentary. Traditions 
 exist and are handed down, but they are subject to 
 the influences that affect the oral transmission of nar- 
 rative matter from generation to generation. Thus 
 when the past comes to be studied in an enlightened 
 age, there is no escape from the necessity of historical 
 criticism. The historical student, like other laborers, 
 has to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. The 
 facts of a remote time are to be reached only by ex- 
 ploring in places where the light is dim. Great rivers 
 may traverse empires, spreading fertility along their 
 banks, but we have to hunt for their sources. If the 
 circumstances of the rise of the kingdom of God 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 25 
 
 should be found to accord with this analogy, there 
 would be no cause for wonder. There would be no 
 ground afforded for a naturalistic theory as to the 
 origin of that kingdom, unless indeed it were mis- 
 takenly imagined that the primary design of God was 
 not to plant religion in the souls of men, to raise up a 
 people, and to work out historically the redemption of 
 mankind, but rather to produce a body of writings. 
 
 In this day of critical research it is the early part 
 of the Old Testament history respecting which debates 
 and perplexities most frequently arise. These relate 
 largely to the Pentateuch, and the traditional views 
 relative to its authorship. It is interesting to observe, 
 however, that scholars of high repute, in what is called 
 the " advanced " school, who assign so great a part of 
 the Pentateuchal legislation, as well as the accom- 
 panying narrative matter, to a later than the Mosaic 
 period, do not feel justified by their interpretations of 
 the evidence in questioning the existence of Moses, or 
 the grandeur of his work as a leader, lawgiver, and 
 prophet. For example, Reuss, who claims to have 
 been first in the field with the ideas which his pupil, 
 Graf, independently developed, says : " Moses was for 
 all times the lawgiver of Israel. . . . There may be a 
 dispute as to what strictly belongs to him. But his 
 spirit — in this proving itself to be a divine spirit — 
 ruled the judgment of the centuries, and impressed on 
 the national development its own stamp and direction. 
 The continuers of his work, even the most gifted and 
 energetic, and at the turning-points of history, did not 
 
26 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 find it needful to forget or to ignore his name, which a 
 firm and thankful tradition connected with everything 
 that was great and useful," etc. In addition to what 
 he did in revealing a purer knowledge of God in the 
 midst of the barbarism of the heathen, says Reuss, 
 " there belongs to him without doubt the regulation 
 and ordering of the ritual as it afterwards existed in 
 Israel, at least in its outlines." A critic as little 
 wedded to accepted views as Hermann Schultz finds 
 it unreasonable to call in question the fact of the 
 revelation of God to Moses at Mount Sinai. He styles 
 Moses " the man who was properly the founder of the 
 true religion, the effects of whose influence condi- 
 tioned the entire religious development of Israel. . . . 
 Moses is, with the exception of Jesus, the most impor- 
 tant of the religious personages concerning whom 
 really trustworthy information remains to us." So 
 it continues true, even in the creed of the critics of 
 every stripe, that " the law came by Moses " as well 
 as " grace and truth by Jesus Christ." 
 
 It is confessed on all hands that when we reach 
 the writings of the prophets we stand on the firm- 
 est historical ground. What the religion of Israel 
 was in the eighth century b. c, the great age of 
 prophecy, is clearly and vividly exhibited to us in 
 these writings. Whatever the prophets may not pre- 
 suppose, they certainly do imply a course of teach- 
 ing and of revelation, extending far back of their 
 day. Revelation is not magic, and the lofty plane 
 on which the prophets are found to stand was not 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 27 
 
 reached at a single bound. Not until after the sun 
 has slowly climbed the sky does it shine down upon 
 us in the blaze of noonday. Amos, the shepherd 
 of Tekoa, uttered his prophecies early in the eighth 
 century. It was to Israel that he spoke, the peo- 
 ple whom the Lord had " brought up out of the land 
 of Egypt," saying, " You only have I known of all 
 the families of the earth." Nothing can surpass the 
 eloquence in which the universal sovereignty of God 
 is set forth. It is " he that formeth the mountains, 
 and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what 
 is his thought." It is " he that maketh the Pleiades 
 and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death" — or 
 the deep darkness — " into the morning, and maketh 
 the day dark with night ; that calleth for the waters 
 of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the 
 earth ; . . . that bringeth sudden destruction upon 
 the strong, so that destruction cometh upon the for- 
 tress." In the prophets of that age the nations of 
 the world, even the mighty Assyrian power that was 
 trampling kingdoms under foot, and advancing seem- 
 ingly to universal dominion, are in the hand of G-od 
 and are managed for his purposes. " This is the pur- 
 pose that is purposed upon the whole earth : and this 
 is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. 
 For the Lord of Hosts hath purposed, and who shall 
 disannul it ? and his hand is stretched out, and who 
 shall turn it back ? " The Assyrian, the Lord ex- 
 claims, is " the rod of mine anger. . . . Howbeit he 
 meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so ; but 
 
28 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not 
 a few." The religion which embodied so lofty con- 
 ceptions of God, both of his power and moral attri- 
 butes, and of his providential plan, was not born in a • 
 day. The religion which had within itself vitality 
 enough to survive the complete overthrow of national 
 independence, and even to rise to more exalted heights 
 of faith and devotion, must have had a. long history 
 behind it. There must have been, as one has said, a 
 tap-root extending far down in the earth. There is 
 no rational way of dispensing with the creative and 
 organizing influence of Moses in the Hebrew common- 
 wealth and religion. But behind Moses, in the mist 
 of a much more remote antiquity, stands the figure of 
 Abraham, the progenitor of many nations. Against 
 the extreme scepticism that would sweep off the stage 
 of authentic history this heroic character, the appeal 
 may be made to the judgment of a scholar like Dill- 
 mann, whose unsurpassed learning and impartiality 
 are acknowledged by all the critics. " The possibility 
 at least," says Dillmann, " that out of the period from 
 the twentj r -second to the twentieth century before 
 Christ historical personages may live on in the recol- 
 lection of after times cannot on general grounds be 
 contested. We are not surprised when among the 
 Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians written his- 
 torical memorials from those centuries confront us. 
 Why then should not the Israelites, when they appear, 
 somewhere about the year 1500, upon the theatre of 
 history, have preserved historical recollections out of 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 29 
 
 that time ? " Then, after pointing out that the oldest 
 Hebrew historians manifest a consciousness of the 
 difference between those old times and the later with 
 which they are conversant, Dillmann adds : " The 
 main thing, however, is that the entire work of Moses 
 admits of no historical explanation except on the sup- 
 position of a preparatory, comparatively pure type of 
 religion \_eine Vbrstvfe hoherer Religion], such as, 
 according to Genesis, belonged to those Fathers ; and 
 such a higher form of religion of necessity pre-sup- 
 poses personal agents or standard-bearers. As states 
 can be built up only through leading spirits or heroes, 
 in like manner and much more are advances in matters 
 of religion linked to persons rising above their fellows ; 
 and the memory of them is wont to abide in the minds 
 of those coming after who have gathered about their 
 faith as a centre, and to hold on more persistently 
 than even the recollection of political founder s. As 
 the head of a purer belief in God in the midst of the 
 darkening power of heathenism that had already come 
 in ; as a man eminent for his sense of God and faith 
 in him, who was accustomed to listen for the voice of 
 God and to follow his guidance in all the exigencies 
 and events of his life ; as one who advanced in the 
 knowledge of the nature and will of God, and im- 
 planted this higher knowledge in his household and 
 among those about him, — thus do the ancestral 
 legends in Genesis represent Abraham. His exis- 
 tence there has in it so little that is incredible that 
 rather are we obliged to assume it, unless we throw 
 
30 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 overboard, at the same time, as unhistorical the con- 
 nection of Moses with the God of the Fathers." Dill- 
 mann calls special attention to the credibility of the 
 narrative, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, of the 
 arming by Abraham of his dependents for the rescue 
 of Lot, taken captive by Chedorlaomer and his allied 
 kings. It is a narrative which in various particulars 
 is corroborated by the cuneiform inscriptions. The 
 substance of the narrative seems to have been drawn 
 by the Hebrew writers from written sources east of 
 the Jordan. On the whole, then, until stronger evi- 
 dence to the contrary shall be adduced than has yet 
 been found, we are justified in believing that Abraham 
 lived, and was an immigrant from Chaldasa, leaving 
 his kindred that he might escape from the contagion 
 of the incoming and spreading idolatry. These, be it 
 remembered, are historical questions such as might 
 present themselves in connection with the rise of 
 Roman power or with the Saxon invasion of Eng- 
 land. Even if they are variously answered, the re- 
 ality of the kingdom of God, and the office it has 
 fulfilled in the course of human history, remain as 
 undeniable facts. 
 
 Tn the prolegomena to the annals of Israel as an 
 organized community, — becoming such by the leader- 
 ship and legislation of Moses, — and prior to the story 
 of the patriarchs, we find the opening chapters of Gen- 
 esis, with their narratives : some of them double, in- 
 dicative, many scholars judge, of distinct sources, — 
 narratives of the creation and of the primal transgres- 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 31 
 
 sion, of the flood, of the division and dispersion of 
 mankind. In these narratives are mingled fragments 
 of ballads, genealogies, etc., — all these materials being 
 strung together on a chronological thread. Here we 
 have the background of Hebrew history. The resem- 
 blance of the contents of these chapters to the legends 
 of kindred nations, especially the Assyrians and Baby- 
 lonians, is too marked to be the result of accident ; 
 yet at the same time the dissimilarity is equally 
 striking. Both call for explanation, — the unlikeness 
 not less than the likeness. There pervade the Gene- 
 sis stories a pure theism and the ethical quality which 
 are defining characteristics of the Old Testament reli- 
 gion as a whole. They are thus in their inward spirit 
 of a piece with Revelation, and even homogeneous with 
 Revelation in the final or Christian stage of its ad- 
 vancement. Without exaggeration it has been said 
 of the first three chapters of Genesis that they con- 
 tain more moral and religious truth than all other 
 books taken together which have been written inde- 
 pendently of the Bible. Profound thinkers have dis- 
 cerned in the account of the temptation and fall a 
 psychological depth which lends support to the belief 
 that its kernel was a primeval tradition, however im- 
 possible it is to draw the exact line between the literal 
 facts and the accretion of symbol that has gathered 
 about them. Whence were these ancient narratives 
 in the introductory part of Genesis derived ? How 
 and when did they originate ? That they were brought 
 in at a late day in the development of the Hebrew 
 
32 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 religion, from Assyrian and Babylonian sources, is a 
 theory fraught with improbabilities. It would imply 
 that for an indefinitely long period the Hebrews were 
 content to be destitute of any conceptions respecting 
 the origin of things and the early life of mankind. 
 It implies, moreover, that they were ready to borrow 
 mythological tales from their heathen neighbors and 
 oppressors. In the present state of knowledge no 
 hypothesis is so probable as that when Abraham and 
 his companions left their primitive home they brought 
 with them the traditions and beliefs, as to the past, of 
 the race to which they belonged. In that region these 
 may not then have been disfigured to the same extent 
 as afterwards by the admixture of mythological matter. 
 In the light of the revelation of God made to Abraham 
 and to his descendants, this stock of inherited narra- 
 tive was purged of whatever dross of heathenism was 
 intermingled with it. The primeval traditions and 
 tales were so transformed as not to clash with the 
 fundamental principles of revealed religion, and were 
 thus left to serve as an adequate vehicle for convey- 
 ing essentially right religious impressions, until the 
 age should arrive when physical science and historical 
 investigation should supply the knowledge which then, 
 at the dawn of civilization, it would not have been pos- 
 sible for men to comprehend, as it was not the office of 
 Revelation to communicate. If the Hebrews were left, 
 for example, to share in the belief of their ancestors 
 that the world was made in a week's time, they were 
 not worse off than Christians have been until within a 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 33 
 
 century past. It is well to dispossess ourselves of the 
 notion that the Divine Author of Revelation began 
 with casting out of men's minds the whole stock of 
 beliefs which were included in their inheritance. 
 There was a world of knowledge about the way of 
 creation and other mundane things which natural 
 science and historical study in after times would 
 unfold to view. And natural science and historical 
 study are not alien and inimical to religion. They 
 too are methods through which God in another way 
 discloses truth to men. 
 
 From the historical point of view the student — in 
 fact, every one who desires to find out what really 
 occurred in the past — craves contemporary evidence 
 of a trustworthy nature. Those who were immedi- 
 ately concerned in the events, and those who were 
 in a position to be correctly informed in relation to 
 them, are the competent witnesses. Tradition is of 
 no value except so far as their testimony can be 
 reasonably thought to be contained in it. The chief 
 interest which the historical inquirer has in criticism 
 applied to any portion of the Bible is from the bearing 
 of it on this question ; Have we contemporary evidence 
 or its fair equivalent ? As regards the life of Jesus 
 and the planting of the Church, including both the 
 facts and the teaching, there can be no reasonable 
 doubt. The genuineness of the leading Epistles of 
 Paul has not been questioned at the present day by 
 the most learned sceptics, the starting-point of whose 
 disbelief, be it observed, is commonly the assumed 
 
34 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 demands of speculative philosophy far more than real 
 difficulties of an historical nature. But these Epistles 
 imply on the part of the Apostles — the pupils, friends, 
 and companions of Jesus — the testimony to the fact 
 of his resurrection. It is in the highest degree im- 
 probable that they could have believed it had they not 
 been prepared, by their real or supposed previous ob- 
 servation of exertions of miraculous power by Jesus, 
 for giving credence to so astonishing a miracle. We 
 are not left, however, to inference in respect to this 
 point. The assertion is often thrown out that we have 
 no good evidence of the existence of the Gospels prior 
 to the second century. But the assertion is made, 
 despite proofs that ought to satisfy every candid per- 
 son. There is no reason to doubt, and there are the 
 strongest reasons to conclude, that the first three Gos- 
 pels were written within the limits of the generation 
 contemporary with the events recorded, and were 
 written by perfectly veracious persons who had the 
 means of knowing what the facts were which they 
 undertook to record. The effort to bring the Fourth 
 Gospel down into the second century, and to ascribe 
 its authorship to any other than to the Apostle John, 
 encounters difficulties far more serious than those 
 which it aims to avoid ; and the only plausible alter- 
 native theory, where the Johannine authorship is 
 given up, is that the book was composed by one of 
 his disciples. 
 
 We hear it said that in that age, the age of Jose- 
 phus and of Tacitus, there was no appreciation of 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 35 
 
 the nature and the value of testimony. Sweeping 
 remarks of this nature respecting civilized commu- 
 nities at an epoch several centuries after the death 
 of Aristotle, may be left without refutation. The 
 statement is sometimes so qualified as to make it 
 applicable only to the Gospel writers. This would 
 imply that Jesus Christ selected twelve persons to 
 bear him company, and to relate to others what they 
 had heard and seen, who were destitute of the essen- 
 tial qualifications of witnesses, and that no discipline 
 in sobriety of mind and truthfulness resulted from 
 their close and continued association with him. As- 
 sumptions of this character are overthrown by a little 
 attention to the New Testament writings. Open the 
 earliest of the Gospels, that of Mark, an attendant of 
 Peter. We read : " And the chief priests and all the 
 council sought for witness against Jesus to put him 
 to death ; and found none. For many bare false 
 witness against him, but their witness agreed not 
 together" (xiv. 55, 56). This looks as if the Evan- 
 gelist, and those from whom he received his infor- 
 mation, had some idea of the need of testimony to 
 substantiate assertions, and of the necessity of com- 
 paring it and sifting it. Open the Gospel of Luke, an 
 attendant of Paul, and hear him say that the reason 
 of his writing was that — for so the passage is cor- 
 rectly rendered in the Revised Version — he had 
 " traced the course of all things accurately from the 
 first," having derived his information, as he adds, from 
 "eye-witnesses." This looks as if Luke were aware of 
 
36 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the importance of being careful not to mistake fiction 
 for fact, and understood the importance of going to 
 the right sources of information. " Ye are witnesses 
 of these things," are words of Jesus to the disciples, 
 which Luke also records. Peter, as we learn from 
 the Acts, declared to his fellow-believers that on ac- 
 count of the defection of Judas it was requisite to 
 choose another in his place from those who had been 
 with the Apostles all through the public ministry of 
 Jesus, " beginning from the baptism of John." And 
 why from this class alone ? Let Peter answer : " To 
 become a witness with us of his resurrection." This 
 looks as if the Apostle Peter understood what the 
 function of the Apostles was, what they had been 
 chosen for, and what were the proper qualifications 
 for the office. This account of the proposal of Peter 
 is a portion of the book of Acts which has been ac- 
 cepted even by Baur and his followers as authentic 
 history. Notice how carefully the Apostle Paul, in 
 the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians, reviews the testimony of the Apostles to the 
 resurrection of Jesus, and his emphatic declaration, 
 " If Christ be not risen ... we are found false wit- 
 nesses." It is evident, as one has said, that Paul was 
 no easy convert. 
 
 The Disciples, — whose testimony makes up the 
 contents of the Gospels, — in their absorption in what 
 they had seen and heard, and in their sense of its 
 transcendent interest and importance, forgot them- 
 selves. They were not in a mood to spin tales out of 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 37 
 
 their own fancy. And their situation left no room for 
 idle musing. They found it to be as they had been 
 forewarned ; they were brought before magistrates 
 and called on to give their reasons for believing in 
 Jesus (Matt, x. 18 ; Luke xxi. 12). 
 
 There is another misconception — akin to that just 
 noticed — which is frequently met with. Such was 
 the credulity then and there, we are told, that the 
 miraculous, or what was conceived to be the miracu- 
 lous, was in the line of ordinary expectation, and gave 
 no shock of surprise. But let us consult the Gospels 
 on this point. From the oldest of the documents we 
 learn that when Jesus healed by a word a helpless 
 paralytic, "they were all amazed," and exclaimed, 
 "We never saw it on this fashion" (Mark ii. 12). 
 The multitude was struck with fear (Matt. ix. 8). 
 On another like occasion they said : " It was never 
 so seen in Israel " (Matt. ix. 33). " Since the world 
 began it was never heard that any one opened the 
 eyes of a man born blind." Thus spoke the man on 
 whom the miracle had been wrought (John ix. 32). 
 
 Christianity is a religion of facts. They are not 
 appendages, — ornaments, so to speak, about the neck 
 of a king, with regard to which it matters not whether 
 they are worn or discarded. Luther and the other 
 Reformers were wise in feeling " the extreme danger 
 of substituting their belief for the object of it, and so 
 destroying the reality of both." Miracles are more 
 than proofs ; they are constituent elements of Revela- 
 tion, which unveils not only the mercy and tender- 
 
38 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION 
 
 ness, but also the power of God, and his sovereignty 
 over nature. They were, moreover, symbols of the 
 spiritual energy to go forth from the Saviour's person 
 and work in the world. Not only are they emblems 
 of this energy, they inspire confidence in its efficacy. 
 "They become arguments of trust, a storehouse of 
 powerful images that invigorate courage and stimu- 
 late hope." They were prophetic of the blessings, 
 outward as well as inward, to flow out to mankind in 
 the train of his redemptive agency. " The character 
 of Jesus," to quote the words of Horace Bushnell, 
 " is ever shining with and through them, in clear self- 
 evidence, leaving them never to stand as raw wonders 
 only of might, but covering them with glory, as tokens 
 of a heavenly love, and acts that only suit the propor- 
 tions of his personal greatness and majesty." The 
 sign-seeking spirit, the appetite for marvels, the dis- 
 position to find nowhere except in miracles evidence 
 of God's presence and of his own mission from God, 
 the demand for an extraordinary, stupendous sign 
 from heaven, Jesus rebuked. But this is all. Espe- 
 cially is the resurrection the perfecting of his own 
 person, the " first-fruits " as well as the sign of the 
 redemption of man's entire being. It is consistent 
 for those to reject the miracles who, like the author 
 of u Robert Elsmere," hold that " personality or intel- 
 ligence " has no meaning " as applied to God." The 
 real, but often unperceived, issue is between a distinct 
 theism, in which the personality of God, as well as of 
 man, is fully recognized, and a real, though it be a 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 39 
 
 vague, undefined pantheism. The attempt to resolve 
 the miracles of the Gospel into subjective experiences 
 is to dissolve Christianity into thin air. It properly 
 belongs in a scheme of pantheistic idealism. The 
 remark that " miracles do not now occur," if intended 
 as an argument, is fallacious. The questions ought 
 to be whether in case Jesus Christ were on the earth 
 they would not occur, and whether they were not to 
 be expected at the introduction of that spiritual and 
 universal society of which he was the founder. That 
 nature is not supreme, and man a slave to blind laws, 
 it was surely well for the divine Head of the new 
 kingdom to demonstrate, and thus to meet the yearn- 
 ings of the race for the revelation of a power superior 
 to material forces. Unless there is a demonstration 
 that " the world is subject to God, and not to chance 
 or nature ; that there is an order, far more beautiful 
 and perfect than that of sun and stars, in which men 
 are intended to abide, and in which everything that is 
 great and noble within them receives its full develop- 
 ment, — I see not how this materialist superstition 
 can fail to become the creed of every nation, and to 
 bring about the decay of all institutions and political 
 life, all feeling, affection, hope." " If," adds Maurice, 
 from whom the foregoing passage is quoted, " Chris- 
 tianity be the manifestation of a spiritual kingdom ; if 
 it be the satisfaction of the dreams of past ages ; if it 
 be that which was to exhibit through all the compli- 
 cations of after ages what is the law which governs 
 them, and who is the Giver of that law, — then we 
 
40 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 cannot see how it could enter the world without mira- 
 cles, or how those miracles should not be such as the 
 Bible affirms that they were." If the stories of the 
 miracles of Christ are " in accordance with the scrip- 
 tural idea of the Founder of a spiritual and universal 
 kingdom, ... we should require evidence to account 
 for their omission in any record proposing to convey 
 the history of such a person. We should have a right 
 to ask, Why did he give no signs that he came to con- 
 nect the visible with the invisible world ; why did he 
 do nothing to break the yoke of custom and experi- 
 ence, — nothing to show men that the constutition 
 which he pretended to reveal and establish has a true 
 foundation ? Take away the miracles, and there is an 
 inexplicable chasm and inconsistency in these records 
 which it would require a vast amount of wit and in- 
 genuity to explain." 
 
 It is plain that a great deal of the current criticism 
 of the historical writings of the Bible is affected by a 
 pre-existing bias against the supernatural element in 
 these narratives. There is at the start a prejudice 
 which warps the judgment respecting their date and 
 authorship and their general credibility. This pre- 
 judice, when the purpose and scope of Revelation are 
 properly conceived, will be felt to be unwarrantable. 
 At the same time it is evident that the wide concur- 
 rence of Christian scholars in rejecting the rigid 
 doctrine of an absolute inerrancy in these histori- 
 cal writings, is owing to no spirit of scepticism of 
 the sort described. Modified conceptions on this 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 41 
 
 subject have arisen and spread within the Church 
 among students of the Bible who are not lacking in 
 faith or reverence. They have been adopted as an 
 inevitable incident of the conscientious examination 
 and comparison of the writings themselves. That 
 Apostles and Prophets were inspired of God to set 
 forth the contents of divine revelation ; that even the 
 historical books composed by them are permeated 
 with the ideas drawn from a supernatural source ; 
 that the writings composed by pupils or attendants 
 of the Apostles partake of the same character, and 
 are penetrated with the perceptions that flowed from 
 the authoritative teachers near whom they stood ; that 
 misinterpretations of the essential nature of the Gos- 
 pel were precluded by the agency of the Spirit who 
 was to throw light on the sayings of Christ, and on 
 the events whose meaning was at first so dark to the 
 minds of the disciples, but was to become clear in 
 the retrospect, — all this forms a part of the common 
 faith of Christians. It is another thing to say that, 
 beyond this inspiration, a certain divine assistance 
 was forever at hand, when evangelist or other his- 
 torian took up his pen, to check him by a negative 
 influence — acting after the manner of the demon of 
 Socrates — when the author was about to misplace 
 the date of an occurrence, or to vary from rigid 
 accuracy in matters of circumstantial detail. What 
 a stupendous miracle would be involved in imparting 
 this impeccable character to so large a body of his- 
 torical writings as the Bible contains, — writings 
 
42 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 which run through so many ages ! Of what avail 
 would it be, unless not only the original writers, but 
 also amanuenses and transcribers, were all to be 
 equally guarded to the end of time ? Exaggerated 
 statements on this subject are the occasion, at pres- 
 ent, of two great evils. One mischievous consequence 
 of them is that the truth and divine origin of Chris- 
 tianity are staked on the literal correctness of even 
 the minutest particulars in the copious narratives of 
 Scripture. The conscientious student, seeing that 
 such views are untenable in the light of fair histori- 
 cal criticism, is virtually bidden to draw the inference 
 that the foundations of the Christian faith are gone. 
 Moreover, some of the most impressive arguments 
 in defence of historical Christianity, which depend 
 on the presence of unessential discrepancies, showing 
 the absence of collusion, and in various other ways 
 confirming the truthfulness of the main features of 
 the narrative, are precluded from being used when- 
 ever the obsolescent theory that the biblical narra- 
 tives are drawn up with the pedantic accuracy of 
 a notary public is still insisted on. It is a concep- 
 tion of inspiration, it may be added, which the sacred 
 historians themselves do not allege. When Luke will 
 indicate to Theophilus that his narrative is to be re- 
 lied on, he appeals to the opportunities afforded him 
 for getting possession of the facts, through the per- 
 sonal intercourse which he has had with those who 
 were directly cognizant of them. To the historical 
 student the magnifying of dissonances and the for- 
 
REVELATION" AND THE BIBLE. 43 
 
 cing of harmonies are alike obnoxious. They are 
 equally an affront to the moral sense. They both 
 count for nothing when confronted with a critical 
 tact which sees where the truth lies, divines the 
 secret of inconsistencies, and leaves undetermined 
 whatever the documentary sources offer no means 
 of settling. Nothing that the human hand touches, 
 no record of the past, is utterly free from blemishes. 
 Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon) writes of the Duke of 
 Wellington : " The conversation turned as to how 
 testimonies vary and how difficult it is to get at a 
 real fact. The Duke gave some instances of it. ' Thus 
 there is one event noted in the world, — the battle 
 of Waterloo, — and you will not find any two people 
 to agree as to the exact hour when it commenced.' " 
 Lord Mahon was unusually accurate and careful in 
 recording what he heard Wellington say ; yet he 
 quoted the Duke as having remarked that he had 
 counted " the presence of Napoleon at a battle as 
 equal to a reinforcement of forty thousand men." 
 But the Duke in a memorandum made a correction. 
 " It is very true," he wrote, " that I considered Na- 
 poleon's presence in the field to be equal to forty 
 thousand men in the balance. This is a very loose 
 way of talking ; but the idea is a very different one 
 from that of his presence at a battle being equal to 
 a reinforcement of forty thousand men." There is 
 a curious lack of agreement in the contemporary 
 records of the last words spoken by Martin Luther 
 at the Diet of Worms, and thus a difference of opi- 
 
44 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 nion as to what he really said. On the whole, there 
 is good reason to conclude that the common account 
 accords with the fact ; yet this verdict is arrived at 
 only after a careful collation of evidence. Variations 
 not unlike the above meet us in the New Testament 
 historical writings ; for example, in the accounts of 
 the denials of Peter, of the crucifixion, of the resur- 
 rection. They are not to be got rid of by artificial 
 adjustments. Some of the mosaics formed in this 
 way are mechanical, and anything but edifying. The 
 same critical judgment must be called into exercise 
 that is requisite in dealing with all other historical 
 documents. Is it said that the common man is not 
 possessed of the requisite leisure or skill for such 
 an undertaking ? The answer is, first, that neither 
 is he qualified for textual criticism or for making 
 the choice between disputed readings, of which there 
 are so many ; secondly, that he is under no greater 
 disadvantage than he is subject to in connection with 
 other authentic narratives, including the most ap- 
 proved histories of his own country ; and thirdly, that 
 the impression — the aggregate impression — which 
 is made on the mind may be quite true and adequate, 
 despite a degree of uncertainty in relation to minor 
 circumstances. The presence in the Bible of parallel 
 narratives covering the same field, as in the case of 
 the four Gospels, puts it in our power not only to see 
 how events appeared from somewhat different points 
 of view, but also to combine complementary accounts 
 and to rectify imperfections. It may seem an un- 
 
REVELATION AND THE BIBLE. 45 
 
 gracious task to advert even to slight imperfections 
 in a book so precious as the Bible, as it is an ungra- 
 cious task in a child to touch on the faults of a parent. 
 But there stands the great spying of the Apostle : 
 " We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the 
 excellency of the power may be of God, and not of 
 us." In the case of the writings and of the men the 
 jewel was not to be confounded with the casket that 
 held it. Some there are who are so dazzled by the 
 treasure that they imagine the vessel to be also of 
 gold. Others, seeing that the vessel is earthenware, 
 rashly conclude that its contents are of the same 
 coarse material. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 
 
 " First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn 
 in the ear." This picture Jesus himself drew of the 
 foreseen diffusion of his kingdom. The kingdom was 
 to be " as if a man should cast seed upon the earth." 
 He plants it and leaves it ; he sleeps and rises, " night 
 and day." Meantime the seed springs up and grows, 
 " he knoweth not how." It goes through, one after 
 another, the stages of development up to the ripeness 
 of the fruit. A parable, it need scarcely be said, 
 is framed to illustrate one point, and is not to be 
 pressed beyond the intended scope. As rain and sun- 
 shine are required for the growth of wheat, we are 
 taught elsewhere that divine influences are needful, 
 and are never disconnected from the operation of the 
 truth in the minds of men. There is enough com- 
 plementary teaching of Jesus to preclude any mistake 
 or one-sided view in this direction. Yet the parable 
 shows the confidence of Jesus in the perpetuity and 
 progress of his kingdom. There resides in it, so he 
 declared, a self-preserving, self-developing life. The 
 seed, once planted, might be left with entire uncon- 
 cern as to its growth. In these days, when " develop- 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 47 
 
 ment " is a word on every tongue, we are often told 
 that the conception of nature and natural law is 
 foreign to the Scriptures. No assertion could be 
 more mistaken. Even on the first page of the Bible, 
 although the design there is to set in the foreground 
 the creative agency of God, we read that the earth 
 was bidden to bring forth the grass, the herb, and 
 the fruit-tree, each yielding, " after his kind," " whose 
 seed is in itself." In the parable of Jesus of which 
 we are speaking, it is said that " the earth bringeth 
 forth fruit of herself," — that is, to transfer the Greek 
 term into English, " automatically." That epithet 
 is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting, 
 spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, 
 through his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, 
 and his patience unto death, was sowing in the world. 
 This grand prophetic declaration, uttered in a figure 
 so simple and beautiful, in the ears of a little com- 
 pany of Galileans, was to be wonderfully verified 
 in the coming ages of Christian history. 
 
 It is not, however, the progress of Christianity 
 since it was fully introduced by Christ and the 
 Apostles that we have now to consider. The de- 
 velopment of the understanding of Christianity on 
 the side of doctrine and of ethics, the advance to 
 a more and more just and enlightened comprehen- 
 sion of the Christian religion, the unveiling of the 
 riches of meaning involved in it, is a fascinating 
 theme. But all this belongs under the head of the 
 interpretation of Christianity, that term being used 
 
48 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 in a broad sense. The religion of the Gospel means 
 vastly more to-day than it was ever perceived to mean 
 before. This enlarged meaning, however, is not an- 
 nexed to it or carried into it, but legitimately educed 
 from it, through the ever-widening perceptions of 
 Christian men whom the Spirit of God illuminates. 
 The starry heavens are now what they were of old ; 
 there is no enlargement of the stellar universe except 
 that which comes through the increased power and 
 use of the telescope. The globe on which we dwell 
 to-day is the same that it was twenty centuries ago. 
 Yet during the past ages there has been a progressive 
 advance in astronomical and geographical discovery. 
 No one commits the blunder of confounding discovery 
 with creation. 
 
 What we have to speak of now is development 
 and progress in the contents of Revelation itself, in 
 the interval between its remotest beginnings and the 
 epoch when the Apostles finally handed it over in 
 its ripe, consummated form to the Church, to be there- 
 after promulgated throughout the world. Of divine 
 revelation itself the saying is likewise true : " First 
 the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the 
 ear." The fact that Revelation was progressive, that 
 it went forward like the advance from dawn to noon- 
 day, may suggest the hasty, unwarranted conclusion 
 that it was a natural process merely. Some will be 
 quick to leap to this rash inference. As regards 
 natural religion, the fact that creation is found to 
 have been progressive, that unsuspected links unite 
 
THE GRADUALXESS OF REVELATION. 49 
 
 its consecutive stages, that the tendency of science 
 is to unveil a certain continuity in nature, leads the 
 shortsighted to ignore the supernatural altogether. 
 They imagine that there is no need to call in God to 
 explain nature except where breaks are met in the 
 chain of mechanical causation. It is enough, they 
 imagine, to be able to trace back the planetary sys- 
 tem to a fiery vapor preceding it, as if the existence, 
 or the order, or the beauty, of the astronomic system 
 were thereby explained. If it be true that the plants 
 in their multiplied species or " kinds " spring out of 
 a few primitive germs, or out of only one, the evi- 
 dence of forethought and will-power in the organiza- 
 tion of the vegetable kingdom is not in the least 
 weakened. Nor would it be effaced if the spontane- 
 ous generation of the living from the lifeless were an 
 ascertained fact of science. It is another fruit of that 
 same unreflecting tendency to dispense with God where 
 there is observed an orderly progress of phenomena, 
 which leads to the ignoring or denial of the super- 
 natural in connection with the gradually developing 
 religion of redemption. The critical researches of 
 the time disclose bonds of connection between suc- 
 cessive stages of religious and moral teaching in the 
 sacred volume. As in geology, there is less need 
 than was formerly thought to fall back on the suppo- 
 sition of catastrophes along the path. The rudiments 
 of what once seemed an utterly new form or phase 
 of doctrine are detected at a point farther back. Be- 
 hind the most impressive inculcations of truth are 
 
50 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 found the more or less unshapen materials out of 
 which they were framed. The statue is followed 
 back through the different sets of workmen to the 
 quarry where the marble was hewn out of its bed. 
 Before the Lord's Prayer was given by the Master, 
 some of the petitions contained in it had lain dis- 
 persed, like grains of gold, in the arid waste of rab- 
 binical teaching. The first effect on a novice in 
 literary studies of looking behind Shakspeare's plays 
 to the tales out of which they were woven, is to lessen 
 in some slight degree his previous impression of the 
 poet's originality. In a much greater degree is this 
 effect produced by a first glance at the spoils of the 
 past which Milton gathered — from Homer, the Greek 
 tragedians, Dante — and incorporated into his poems. 
 That revealed religion is revealed, and is not the pro- 
 duct of human genius, despite the gradual unfolding of 
 that religion and the coherence of its parts, becomes 
 increasingly evident the more thoroughly its charac- 
 teristics are appreciated. Its unique character finds 
 no satisfactory explanation in the native tendencies of 
 the Semitic race. History belies such a naturalistic 
 solution, of which Renan is one of the later advocates. 
 This can be said while it is conceded that there were, 
 no doubt, qualities in the Hebrew people which caused 
 them to be selected as the recipients of revelation, 
 and as witnesses for God to the rest of mankind. 
 When we contemplate the true religion in its long, 
 continuous advance upwards to its culmination in the 
 Gospel of Christ ; when we survey this entire course 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 51 
 
 of history as a connected whole, — we are struck with 
 the conviction of supernatural agency and author- 
 ship. When the outcome appears at the end in Jesus 
 Christ and his work, light is thrown back on the di- 
 vine ordering of the long series of antecedent steps. 
 The accompaniment of miracle is a crowning token, 
 reinforcing all other proofs of the supernatural, and 
 confirming faith by an argument to the senses. 
 
 In glancing at the historic process of revelation, as 
 that is disclosed by the scriptural documents, there is 
 one transition which none can overlook. It is the 
 contrast, on which the Apostle Paul builds so much, 
 between law and gospel, the old covenant and the 
 new. It is true that the Old Testament is not want- 
 ing in proclamations of the merciful character of God. 
 The Apostle Paul himself insists that the Old Testa- 
 ment religion was, in its very foundation, a religion 
 of promise, and that the law came in to fill an inter- 
 mediate space and to do a subsidiary office, prior to 
 the realization of the promise. His doctrine is, more- 
 over, that even the Gospel contains a new disclosure 
 of God's righteousness, which was made necessary by 
 his having passed over human sins in the period of 
 comparative ignorance. The atonement prevents the 
 misconstruction which the divine forbearance in deal- 
 ing with law-breakers in the earlier times might have 
 occasioned. Still, the earlier revelation of God was 
 predominantly a manifestation designed to impress on 
 those to whom it was made his justice and unsparing 
 abhorrence of transgression. Only as far as ill-desert 
 
52 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 is felt can pardon be either given or received. An 
 education of conscience must precede a dispensation of 
 grace. The later revelation was one of forgiving love. 
 The superiority of Christianity to the Old Testament 
 religion is the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 Its author will show that Christ is the " mediator of 
 a better covenant," — a covenant with " better prom- 
 ises." " For," he pointedly remarks, " if that first 
 covenant had been faultless," there would have been 
 no occasion and no room for the second. The world- 
 embracing compass of God's love, its inclusion of the 
 Gentile races, was one of the prime elements in the 
 Gospel. This was the " mystery " which had been 
 hidden from " ages and generations." The ordinary 
 meaning of the term " mystery " in the New Testa- 
 ment writings is not something which is still unknown 
 or inscrutable, but something which had before been 
 concealed from human knowledge, but had now been 
 brought to light. And the term is specially applied 
 to the purpose of God to show mercy to the world of 
 mankind, — a purpose which had been concealed from 
 men, or at best but obscurely divined. 
 
 What precisely was the conception of God which 
 was entertained in the earliest periods of Hebrew his- 
 tory, is a subject of debate. There are questions which 
 will be settled variously, according to the different 
 views which are adopted respecting the date and rela- 
 tive authority of the documents. That the process of 
 expelling the vestiges of polytheism and image-worship 
 from the practices of the Israelitish people was accom- 
 
THE GRADUALKESS OF REVELATION. 53 
 
 plished slowly, is sufficiently clear. The assumption, 
 involved in language uttered by the heathen, that the 
 gods of other nations than Israel are real beings and 
 exercise power, although it may be less than the power 
 of Israel's God, determines nothing as to the doctrine 
 of Israel's own accredited teachers. But Jethro, al- 
 though a Midianite prince, was the father-in-law of 
 Moses, and we find him saying, "Now I know that 
 the Lord is greater than all gods." Jephthah says to 
 a Moabite king : " Wilt thou not possess that which 
 Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess ? So whom- 
 soever the Lord our God hath dispossessed from before 
 us, them will we possess." Even Solomon wavered in 
 his beliefs on this subject. Side by side with the altars 
 of Jehovah he built altars to foreign gods. Even in 
 the early Church the idea prevailed that the deities of 
 the heathen were demons, — really existing, but evil 
 and inferior in power. It would be natural for the 
 less-instructed Hebrews to imagine that there was 
 some sort of territorial limit to the jurisdiction of the 
 God whom they worshipped. An indistinct idea of 
 this kind is at least a natural explanation of the story 
 of the attempted flight of the prophet Jonah to Tar- 
 shish, which lay on the western border of the Medi- 
 terranean. There is a curious disclosure of a natural 
 feeling in the fact recorded, without censure or com- 
 ment of any sort, of Naaman, the Syrian captain. He 
 craved permission to take into Syria two mules' bur- 
 den of earth, — the sacred soil of Israel, — that upon 
 it he might offer sacrifice to Jehovah. Some scholars 
 
54 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 there are who consider the earliest belief of the de- 
 scendants of Abraham to have fallen short of a posi- 
 tive monotheism, and to have been rather a monolatry, 
 — the worship of one God to the exclusion of all other 
 worship, but without an explicit disbelief in the exis- 
 tence of other divinities who have respectively their 
 own earthly realms to govern. Then the progress of 
 faith would include, first, the idea of the God of Israel 
 as more powerful than all other deities ; and then, later, 
 the ascription to him of almightiness, and the distinct 
 conviction that all other gods are fictitious beings. 
 But the scriptural evidence in favor of this succession 
 in the phases of faith is scanty. We are speaking 
 now not of the populace, but of their more enlight- 
 ened and steadfast guides. The path from a more 
 narrow conception of God to a pure and absolute 
 monotheism is supposed by some to have been through 
 a deepening ethical idea of the attributes of Israel's 
 God. Wellhausen writes : " Jehovah became the God 
 of Justice and Right ; as God of Justice and Right he 
 came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as 
 the only, power in heaven and earth." The reader of 
 statements of this kind should bear in mind that we 
 are in a field where prepossession and theory play a 
 great part. If it could be established that Jehovah, 
 at the outset, was regarded as simply the tribal god, 
 the sovereign protector of that one people, while the 
 other nations were imagined to have each its own 
 guardian divinity, — still the expansion of this primi- 
 tive notion into the pure and lofty conception of the 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 55 
 
 only true and living God, the world's creator and 
 ruler, which is presented in soul-stirring language by 
 the most ancient prophets, is a marvel. The trans- 
 formation is really insoluble on any naturalistic theory. 
 Even on the supposition that there was this gradual 
 uplifting of religion from the low plane on which all 
 pagan nations stood, and that the notion of a mere 
 local divinity, of limited control, gave way to the ma- 
 jestic conception of one Lord of heaven and earth, the 
 maker of all things, the ruler of nations, the universal 
 sovereign, — no conclusion would be so reasonable as 
 that God Almighty took this method of gradually dis- 
 closing his being and attributes to that portion of the 
 human race from whom, as from a centre, the light of 
 the true faith was eventually to radiate to the rest of 
 mankind. 
 
 Neither the Hebrew people generally nor their lead- 
 ers were metaphysicians. In the earlier ages espe- 
 cially, they entered into no analytic discrimination of 
 matter and spirit. They pictured to themselves the 
 varied activities of God, of whose personality they had 
 the most vivid idea, in phrases descriptive of the feel- 
 ings and actions of human beings. It is remarkable 
 that the anthropomorphism of the scriptural writers 
 is predominantly in what is related of Jehovah, the 
 name of God in his relation to the chosen people, — 
 the Deity (Elohim) as the God of Revelation. Yet 
 from the beginning, all visible representations of God 
 were forbidden as profane. In Exodus, as well as 
 Deuteronomy, images of him are prohibited. " Ye 
 
56 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord 
 spake unto you in Horeb" (Deut. iv. 15). More and 
 more, as time went on, the prophets guarded against 
 all material associations attaching to the notion of the 
 Supreme Being. A distinct step in this direction is 
 to be observed in a passage of Isaiah, where it is said : 
 " Now the Egyptians are men, and not God ; and their 
 horses flesh, and not spirit" (Is. xxxi. 3). Yet it is 
 not explicitly said in the Old Testament that God 
 is a spirit. This was the declaration of Jesus to the 
 woman of Samaria. 
 
 The universal Providence of God is a cardinal ele- 
 ment in Christian theism. Nothing is independent of 
 him. There is no province exempt from his control, 
 where rival agencies hold sway and thwart his designs. 
 We can easily understand why, in the early stages of 
 revelation, all emphasis should be laid on the sovereign 
 power of God, and why a clear separation of his direct 
 efficiency from his permissive act should be reserved 
 for a later day. It was always taught, indeed, and 
 holds true for all time, that according to a law of 
 habit, of which the Creator of the soul is the author 
 and sustainer, sin engenders further sin. A self- 
 propagating power inheres in transgression. In num- 
 berless examples it is observed that sin is thus the 
 penalty of sin. It is true now, as it was always true, 
 that a loss of moral discernment and a fixedness of 
 perverse inclination are an ordained effect of persis- 
 tent evil-doing. The law which entails this result is 
 but another name for a divine operation. Hence it is 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 57 
 
 a false and superficial theology which will find no 
 place for " judicial blindness " and for a " hardening 
 of heart" that deserves to be called a judgment of 
 God. So far the Scriptures of the New Testament 
 are in full accord with the Scriptures of the Old. 
 But there are certain forms of representation which, 
 in the introductory periods of Revelation, go beyond 
 these statements, and ascribe to God a positive and 
 immediate agency in the production of moral evil. 
 Sometimes the hardening of the heart is spoken of as 
 if it were the end which is directly aimed at. Such 
 passages, taken by themselves, would warrant the 
 harshest doctrine of reprobation which hyper-Calvin- 
 ism has ever broached. The proper treatment of such 
 passages is not — certainly not in all cases — to pro- 
 nounce them hyperboles. It is not through unnatural 
 devices of interpretation that we are to rid ourselves 
 of the difficulty which passages of this nature occa- 
 sion. The reference of them to a fervid rhetoric — in 
 some instances, to say the least — may not be the 
 right solution. Why may we not see in them that 
 vivid idea of God's limitless power and providence 
 which has not yet arrived at the point, or felt the 
 need, of qualifying the conception by theological dis- 
 criminations ? If it be asked how it was possible to 
 reconcile the perception of the ill-desert of sin with 
 the ascription of it to God's causal agency, the answer 
 is that the inconsistency was not thought of. Reflec- 
 tion was required before the inconsistency referred to 
 could attract attention, and the need of removing it 
 
58 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 be felt. In more than one philosophical system — for 
 example, in Stoicism — there is found an earnest ethi- 
 cal feeling, which condemns wrong action, side by side 
 with a metaphysical theory as to the origin of moral 
 evil which logically clashes with such an abhorrence 
 of it. The two judgments do not jostle each other, 
 because they are not brought together in the thoughts 
 of those who entertain them. Where there is more 
 reflection in the matter, as in Spinoza and his follow- 
 ers, it is still possible to keep up a degree of moral 
 disapproval along with a theory which really ought to 
 banish it as absurd. In the ancient Scriptures, and 
 occasionally in the New Testament, especially in pas- 
 sages cited from the Old, the evil-doing and perdition 
 of classes of men, their misunderstanding and perver- 
 sion of the truth, are set forth as ends in themselves. 
 Being involved in the circle of occurrences which are 
 comprised in the general scheme of Providence, they 
 are no surprise to him who carries it forward. They 
 were foreseen and taken into the account from the 
 beginning. It was arranged that they should be over- 
 ruled and made the occasion of good. Their relation 
 to Providence is emphasized in speaking of them as 
 being directly aimed at and pursued on their own 
 account, or for the sake of an ulterior benefit. As 
 we follow down the progress of Revelation, Ave see 
 that needful distinctions are more frequently made 
 and more carefully insisted on. In the second book 
 of Samuel (xxiv. 1) it is said that God " moved " 
 David against Israel, with whom he was displeased, 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 59 
 
 and bade him go and number the people. The im- 
 pulse or resolution of David, on account of which 
 he was subsequently struck with compunction, is 
 there said to have emanated directly from God him- 
 self. But in the later history (1 Chron.. xxi. 1), 
 in the record of the same transaction, we read that 
 it was Satan who " provoked David to number Israel." 
 The earlier writer does not hesitate to describe God's 
 providential act as if it were the direct product of his 
 preference, — an explicit injunction; and the fact of 
 David's repentance for doing the act does not present 
 to the writer's mind any difficulty. The chronicler, 
 from a later point of view, sets forth the act of David 
 in such a way as to exclude, if not to contradict, the 
 supposition that it was God who prompted it. 
 
 The gradualness of the disclosure of the merciful 
 character of God is one of the most obvious features 
 of Revelation. One part of this disclosure pertains to 
 the heathen, and to the light in which they are re- 
 garded. It was natural that the contempt and loath- 
 ing which idolatry and the abominations of paganism 
 excited in the heart of the pious Israelite — feelings 
 which the Mosaic revelation developed and stimulated 
 — should be felt towards heathen worshippers them- 
 selves. The hatred thus begotten might awaken an 
 implacable desire that vengeance should fall upon 
 them. An impressive rebuke of this unmerciful sen- 
 timent, and what is really a distinct advance in the in- 
 culcation of an opposite feeling, is found in the book 
 of Jonah. There are reasons which have availed to 
 
60 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 satisfy critics as learned and impartial as Bleek, who 
 are influenced by no prejudice against miracles as 
 such, that this remarkable book was originally meant 
 to be an apologue, — an imaginative story, linked to 
 the name of an historical person, a prophet of an ear- 
 lier date, — and was composed in order to inculcate 
 the lesson with which the narrative concludes. This 
 was the opinion also of the late Dr. T. D. Woolsey. 
 One thing brought out by the experience of Jonah is 
 that so great is God's mercy that even an explicit 
 threat of dire calamities may be left unfulfilled, in 
 case there intervene repentance on the part of those 
 against whom it was directed. The prophet, who was 
 exasperated at the sparing of the Ninevites, was taught 
 how narrow and cruel his ideas were, by the symbol 
 of the gourd, " which came up in a night, and perished 
 in a night." He was incensed on account of the 
 withering of the gourd which had shielded his head 
 from the sun. The Lord referred to Jonah's having 
 had pity on the gourd, and said : " And should not I 
 spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than 
 sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between 
 their right hand and their left hand ; and also much 
 cattle ? " This humane utterance, in which pity is 
 expressed even for dumb brutes, is memorable for 
 being an important landmark in Scripture, since it 
 marks a widened view of God's compassion. To il- 
 lustrate this truth the narrative was written, and to- 
 wards it as onward to a goal it steadily moves. It 
 is a mistake to think that ill-will towards heathen 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 61 
 
 nations pervades the Old Testament. When they 
 were full of animosity against the kingdom of God 
 and determined to destroy it, anger burned fiercely 
 against them, and prayers went up for their defeat 
 and destruction. Very different was the feeling with 
 which Cyrus and the Persians were regarded. We 
 find that the conversion of the heathen nations be- 
 comes an object of devout aspiration. The sublime 
 prayer of Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, 
 for the " stranger " and " the peoples of the earth," 
 is only one of the passages in which this feeling is 
 poured out. In Micah, who was not the latest of the 
 prophets, we find the prediction that unto the moun- 
 tain of the Lord the heathen peoples will flow, will 
 ask to be taught of his ways, and will promise to 
 " walk in his paths " (Micah, iv. 1-4). An idea of 
 the kingdom at once so comprehensive and so spirit- 
 ual, was the fruit of time and progress. 
 
 The truth of a righteous moral government over 
 the world pervades Revelation from the beginning. 
 Obedience to law will not fail of its due reward ; guilt 
 will be punished in a just measure. But under the 
 Old Testament system, nearly to its close, the theatre 
 of reward and penalty was confined to this world. 
 The horizon was practically bounded by the limits of 
 the earthly life. It was here, on earth, that well- 
 doing was to secure the appropriate blessing, and sin 
 to encounter its meet retribution. The Israelite, like 
 other men of antiquity, was wrapped up in the state. 
 He felt that his weal or woe hinged on the fortunes 
 
62 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of the community in whose well-being his affections 
 were, in a degree beyond our modern experience, ab- 
 sorbed. The prophets never ceased to thunder forth 
 the proclamation that the fate of the community would 
 be surely, in the providence of God, determined by its 
 fidelity or its disloyalty to its moral and religious 
 obligations. If they deserted God, he would forsake 
 them. The people were to be rewarded or punished, 
 blessed or cursed, as a body. And so in reality their 
 experience proved. Moreover, as regards the single 
 family and the individual, the tendencies of righteous 
 action, under the laws of Providence, were then, as 
 always, on the whole favorable to the upright in heart ; 
 The arrangements of Providence were in their favor. 
 But in process of time it became more and more pain- 
 fully evident that this rule was not without numer- 
 ous exceptions. The righteous man was not uniformly 
 prospered. He might be poor, he might be oppressed, 
 he might be condemned to endure physical torture, 
 he might perish in the midst of his days. On the 
 other hand, the wicked man was often seen to thrive. 
 His wealth increased. He grew in power and influ- 
 ence. His life was prolonged. How could the justice 
 of God be defended ? How could the allotments of 
 Providence — this disharmony between character and 
 earthly fortune — be vindicated ? This problem be- 
 came the more anxious and perplexing as the minds of 
 men grew to be more observant and reflective. How to 
 explain the lack of correspondence between the condi- 
 tion and the deserts of the individual ? This problem 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 63 
 
 is the groundwork of the book of Job. A righteous 
 man is overwhelmed by calamities one after another. 
 His lot is to himself a dark and terrible mystery. 
 But his consolers, when they break silence, solve it in 
 the only way known to their theology. Such excep- 
 tional suffering implies an exceptional amount of guilt. 
 Job must have been a flagrant transgressor. Of this 
 fact his dismal situation is proof positive. The wrath 
 of Jehovah is upon him. Conscious of the injustice 
 of the allegation brought against him, yet unable to 
 confute the logic of it, Job can do nothing but break 
 out in loud complaints extorted by his anguish and 
 the bewilderment into which he is thrown. He can- 
 not see any equity in the lot which has befallen him. 
 His outcries give vent to a pessimistic view of the 
 world and of the divine management of it. Another 
 interlocutor brings forward the inscrutable character 
 of God's doings. What more vain and arrogant than 
 for so weak and helpless a creature as man to pretend 
 to sound the unfathomable counsels of the Almighty, 
 or to sit in judgment on his ordinances ? This, of 
 course, is a rebuke, but contains no satisfactory answer 
 to the questions which the distress of Job wrings from 
 him. But the real answer is given. Afflictions may 
 have other ends than to punish. They may be trials 
 of the righteousness of a servant of God. They are a 
 test to decide whether it springs out of a mercenary 
 motive. Hence it is not to be inferred that his suf- 
 ferings are the measure of his ill-desert. Thus a dis- 
 tinct advance is made in the theodicy. New vistas 
 
64 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 are opened. Pain has other designs and uses besides 
 the retributive function. Yet at the end Job's pos- 
 sessions and his earthly prosperity are restored to 
 him. The feeling that even here on earth there must 
 be, sooner or later, an equalizing of character and 
 fortune, is not wholly given up. 
 
 It was revealed, then, to the religious mind that 
 suffering, besides being inflicted as the wages of sin, 
 might also be sent to put to the test the steadfast- 
 ness of the sufferer's loyalty to God, to prove the un- 
 selfishness of piety (by showing that it might survive 
 the loss of all personal advantages resulting from it), 
 and to fortify the soul in its principle of obedience 
 and trust. But relief from perplexity in view of the 
 calamities of the righteous came from another source. 
 This was the perception of the vicarious character of 
 the righteous man's affliction. This idea emerges to 
 view in a very distinct form in the great prophets. 
 The pious portion of Israel, the kernel of the people, 
 suffer not for their own sake, but on account of the 
 sins of the nation, and as a means of saving it from 
 deserved penalties and from utter destruction. This 
 view is brought out by Isaiah in his description of the 
 servant of Jehovah. The conception is gradually nar- 
 rowed from Israel as a whole, or the select portion of 
 Israel, and becomes more concrete ; so that in the 
 fifty-third chapter the sufferer is an individual, the 
 Messianic deliverer. It is declared that the popular 
 judgment respecting the sufferer, which attributes to 
 him personal guilt, and sees in his lot the frown of 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 65 
 
 God, is mistaken. Penalties are laid on him, he is 
 taking on himself penalties, which not he, hut others, 
 deserve to bear. ■ How this principle of vicarious ser- 
 vice is illustrated in the life and death of Jesus, and 
 how abundantly it is set forth in the New Testament, 
 it is needless to say. The men whose blood Pilate 
 had mingled with their own sacrifices were not sin- 
 ners above all the Galileans. The eighteen on whom 
 the tower of Siloam fell were not offenders above all 
 men that dwelt in Jerusalem. Who had sinned, the 
 blind man or his parents, that he was born blind ? 
 His blindness, Jesus replied, was not a penalty for the 
 sin of either. This problem of the distribution here 
 on earth of suffering in discordance with desert, of 
 which we are speaking, had new light shed upon it by 
 the gradually developing faith in the future life ; but 
 of this point I will speak further on. In general, the 
 contrast between the general tenor of Old Testament 
 descriptions of the reward of the righteous, and of the 
 New Testament declarations on the same theme, is 
 very marked. In the Old Testament it is riches, 
 numerous children, safety of person and of property, 
 which are so often assured to the righteous. The 
 words of Jesus are, " In the world ye shall have tribu- 
 lation." Yet the essential character of God, the 
 eternal principle of justice that will somehow and 
 somewhere be carried out in the government of the 
 world, is at the root alike in both dispensations. 
 
 He who would appreciate the progress of Revelation 
 has only need to compare the silence as to a hereafter 
 
66 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 and the gloom that encompasses the grave — charac- 
 teristic features of ancient Scripture — with the defi- 
 nite assurances and the triumphant hopes which arc 
 scattered over the pages of the New Testament. On 
 this subject we can trace the advance from the night 
 to the brightening dawn, and from the dawn to mid- 
 day. The hopes and aspirations of the ancient Israel- 
 ites were bounded by the limits of the present life. 
 Their joys and sorrows were here ; here, as we have 
 seen, were their rewards and punishments. It is true 
 they did not positively believe that their being was 
 utterly extinguished at death. On the contrary, they 
 found it impossible so to think. There was some 
 kind of continuance of their being, vague and shad- 
 owy though it was. When it is said of the worthies 
 of old that they died and were " gathered to their 
 fathers," it is not to their burial — certainly not to 
 their burial alone — that the phrase points. It was 
 used of those who died far away from their kindred. 
 A continued subsistence of some sort is implied in it. 
 Necromancy was a practice which was forbidden by 
 law ; and the need of such a law proves that the belief 
 and custom prohibited by it had taken root. The 
 story of the appearance of Samuel, and the occupation 
 of the witch of Endor, show at least a popular notion 
 that the dead could be summoned back to life. Sheol, 
 the Hades of the Israelites, was thought of as a dark, 
 subterranean abode, a land of shades, where existence 
 was almost too dim to be denominated life. There 
 was nothing in this unsubstantial mode of being to 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 67 
 
 kindle hope, or to excite any other emotion than that 
 of dread. In the poetical books Sheol is personified 
 and depicted as full of greed, opening her mouth 
 "without measure," and swallowing up all the pomp 
 and glory of man. In a splendid passage of Isaiah, 
 Sheol is represented as disturbed by the approach 
 within her gloomy domain of the once mighty king 
 of Babylon, and as stirring up the shades, the dead 
 monarchs, to meet him. They exult over his down- 
 fall and death, crying, " Is this the man who made 
 the earth to tremble, who made kingdoms to quake, 
 who made the world as a wilderness, and broke down 
 the cities thereof ? " But this is only a highly figura- 
 tive delineation of the humiliating fall and death of 
 the arrogant, dreaded sovereign. It is not until we 
 have passed beyond the earlier writings of the Old 
 Testament that we meet, here and there, with cheer- 
 ful and even confident expressions of hope in relation 
 to the life beyond death. In the later Psalms there 
 is an occasional utterance in this vein. The sense of 
 the soul's communion with God is so uplifting as to 
 forbid the idea that it can be broken bj death. Jesus 
 refers to the Old Testament declaration that God is 
 the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a sufficient 
 warrant for the belief in the continued, immortal life 
 of those who stood in this near, exalted relation to 
 the Eternal One. What other — at least what higher 
 — evidence of immortality is there than is derived 
 from the worth of the soul ; and what indication of its 
 worth is to be compared with its capacity to enter 
 
68 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 into living fellowship with God ? How can a being 
 who is admitted to this fellowship be left to perish, 
 to exist no more ? 
 
 Besides this connection of faith in a future life 
 with the relation of the righteous and believing soul to 
 God, the demand for another state of being to rectify 
 inequalities here arose by degrees in religious minds. 
 The strange allotment of good and evil, whereby the 
 good man, and not the bad man, was often seen to be 
 the sufferer, and the holy were found to be maligned 
 and the victims of oppression, led to the expectation 
 of a life beyond, where this confusion would be cleared 
 up, and an adjustment be made according to merit. 
 The moral argument, which Kant, and others before 
 and since, have presented as the ground for believing 
 in a future state, was a revelation from God to the 
 Hebrew mind, and not the less so because this belief 
 stood connected with experiences and perceptions 
 that went before. There is a familiar passage in the 
 book of Job in which the hope of a reawakening from 
 death is perhaps expressed. It is the passage begin- 
 ning, " I know that my Redeemer " — or Vindicator 
 — "liveth." The confessions of hopelessness in ear- 
 lier portions of the book, the impassioned assertions 
 that there is nothing to be looked for beyond death, 
 are to be counted in favor of the other interpreta- 
 tion, according to which Job expected that his vindi- 
 cation would occur prior to his actual dissolution. On 
 the contrary, however, it is not improbable that the 
 foresight of an actual reawakening to life is repre- 
 
THE GRADU ALNESS OF REVELATION. 69 
 
 sented as having flashed upon his mind, displacing 
 the former despondency. Certain it is that distinct 
 assertions of a resurrection appear, here and there, 
 in the later Scriptures. For in the biblical theology 
 it is the deliverance of the whole man, body as well 
 as soul, which in process of time comes to be the 
 established belief. It is closely associated with the 
 conviction that in the triumph and blessedness of 
 the kingdom the departed saints are not to be de- 
 prived of a share. It was not a belief derived from 
 the Persians, but was indigenous among the Hebrews, 
 — an integral part of revelation, — however it may 
 have been encouraged and stimulated by contact with 
 Persian tenets. Not to refer to statements, relative 
 to a resurrection, of a symbolical character, — such as 
 the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel, — we find in the 
 twenty-sixth chapter of Isaiah a passage which is 
 explicit, and, as it would seem, to be taken literally. 
 In the Eevised Version the passage reads, " Thy dead 
 shall live ; my dead bodies shall arise." There is a 
 critical question, it should be stated, as to the date 
 of the chapter in which these words occur. In the 
 Psalms there are not wholly wanting passages of a 
 like purport. In the book of Daniel the resurrection 
 of both the righteous and the wicked Israelites is very 
 definitely predicted. As is well known, the resurrec- 
 tion was an accepted doctrine of orthodox Jews in 
 the period following that covered by the canonical 
 books. In the New Testament immortality, and with 
 it the resurrection, stands in the foreground. Through 
 
70 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the death and resurrection of Jesus there comes a 
 new illumination, a signal disclosure of God's pur- 
 pose of grace and of the blessed import of eternal life ; 
 so that death is said to be " abolished," and life and 
 incorruption "brought to light" (2 Tim. i. 10). 
 
 Other illustrations, within the sphere of religion as 
 distinguished from ethics, of the gradual progress of 
 Revelation, will occur to every student of the Bible. 
 One of these we may find in the development of the 
 idea of sacrifice. Among ancient peoples generally, 
 the approach to a superior — a human lord — was by 
 supplications and gifts. In the same way it was 
 natural to approach the divinity, and come into im- 
 mediate intercourse with him. As far as a special 
 character belonged to Hebrew sacrifices, it was owing 
 to the higher conceptions of God which pertained to 
 the religion of Israel, and to the express ordinances 
 and regulations under which all religious observances 
 were placed. But the Old Testament sacrifices were 
 gifts to God, varying in their specific import by the 
 particular feelings to be expressed and the particu- 
 lar benefits to be sought. A surrender was made of 
 something precious, signifying self-devotion to Jeho- 
 vah on the part of him who brought the offering. 
 When there was a rupture of relations by reason of 
 sin, the sacrifice took on a modified significance, and 
 peculiar experiences of feeling were evoked in con- 
 nection with it. In the age of the prophets, the 
 spiritual elements of religion are brought into the 
 foreground, and in comparison with them, and in case 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 71 
 
 they are absent, the worthlessness of all ceremonial 
 practices is loudly proclaimed. This elevated view 
 comes out in the fifty-first Psalm, where God is said 
 not to delight in sacrifice, but to crave as an offering 
 " a broken and a contrite heart." The sacrifices of 
 the ritual system might avail to take away the pain 
 of self-reproach for a time, and with reference to par- 
 ticular transgressions. But the insufficiency of offer- 
 ings of this nature became increasingly evident. At 
 last the essential idea of sacrifice was realized and 
 exhibited by him who could say of himself, " Lo, 
 I am come to do thy will " (Heb. x. 9). Here was 
 no outward gift, but himself — his own life — that 
 was brought, in a willing surrender, to the Father. 
 Here was the climax of self-denial, or devotion to the 
 Father's will and appointment. The self-surrender 
 of the Christian, even of his body, to God, the dedi- 
 cation of himself to God, is styled by the Apostle 
 Paul our " reasonable," or spiritual, " service," in con- 
 trast with the external and visible sacrifices of the 
 old ritual (Rom. xii. 1). 
 
 Another illustration still is presented in the Messi- 
 anic idea, as that idea is gradually unfolded and by 
 degrees transfigured in the Old Testament, and car- 
 ried to perfection in the New. Messianic prophecy 
 passes forward from its immature, germinant state 
 in the earlier times, until it appears in the lofty and 
 spiritual forms in which it blossoms out in later ages. 
 The Old Testament community was itself prophetic. 
 Everything in it pointed to the future. The very fact 
 
72 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 that God had entered into a direct relation to this 
 one people carried in it the promise of victory and 
 universality. But what should be the characteristic 
 features of the coming day, — this was a matter on 
 which light must be shed gradually. Only as the 
 community grew and advanced could it be taught to 
 comprehend itself and forecast the future. A pro- 
 gress or growth of prophecy was therefore a neces- 
 sary incident. Even inspired men could never be 
 transported to a distant age. There were always 
 limits in the prophetic anticipation, colors in the 
 picture caught from the scenery and atmosphere in 
 the midst of which the prophet lived and wrote. In 
 the blessing of Jacob, in his saying that the sceptre 
 should not depart from Judah ; in those exultant 
 prophecies of the dominion that would be gained by 
 the kingdom of David and his successors, which we 
 meet with in the Psalms ; in the foresight, granted 
 to the great prophets of Israel, of an approaching 
 era of universal righteousness and peace ; in Isaiah's 
 portrait, in his fifty-fifth chapter, of the suffering 
 servant of Jehovah, — we find different phases of 
 Messianic prediction. In that chapter of the " evan- 
 gelical prophet " the anticipation comes nearest to 
 the ideal in certain essential features. But for the 
 ideal purified from all imperfections of time and 
 place and finite apprehension, we must look to the 
 character of the Messiah himself, and to the work 
 actually achieved by him. 
 
 When we leave theology for the domain of ethics, 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 73 
 
 the progressive character of Revelation is capable of 
 abundant illustration. The Sermon on the Mount 
 has for its theme that fulfilment of law, that unfold- 
 ing of its inner aim and essence, which Christ de- 
 clared to be one end of his mission. Morality is 
 followed down to its roots in the inmost dispositions 
 of the heart. The precepts of Jesus are a protest 
 against the Pharisaical glosses which tradition had 
 attached to Old Testament injunctions. It is "the 
 righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees " which is 
 pointedly condemned. It is still an unsettled ques- 
 tion, however, whether the reference to what had 
 been said by or to " them of old time " was intended 
 to include Old Testament legislation itself, as well as 
 the perverse, arbitrary interpretations which had been 
 attached to it by its theological expounders. Plainly 
 the injunction of Jesus to love the enemy as well as 
 the neighbor, goes beyond the directions in Leviticus 
 (xix. 17, 18) : " Thou shalt not hate thy brother in 
 thine heart. . . . Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor 
 bear any grudge against the children of thy people, 
 but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Here 
 nothing is said of any except the " neighbor." The 
 prohibition is limited to the treatment of national 
 kinsmen. That the general obligation to the exercise 
 of good-will towards wrong-doers and foes, wherever 
 they may be, and to the cultivation of a forgiving 
 temper towards all men, finds in the Gospel an un- 
 precedented expansion and emphasis, is evident to all 
 readers of the New Testament. A supplication for 
 
74 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the pardon of enemies forms a part of the Lord's 
 Prayer. The hope of personal forgiveness is denied 
 to those who are themselves unforgiving. The ex- 
 ample of Jesus, and the pardon offered to the most 
 unworthy through him, are a new and potent incen- 
 tive to the exercise of a forgiving temper. 
 
 A glance at the ideals of ethical worth in the early 
 ages of Israel is enough to show how sharply they 
 contrast with the laws of Christ and the type of 
 character required and exemplified in the New Testa- 
 ment. It was once said by an eminent divine that 
 the patriarchs, were they living now, would be in the 
 penitentiary. Polygamy and other practices, the right- 
 fulness of which nobody then disputed, the wrongful- 
 ness of which nobody then discerned, are related of 
 them, and related without any expression of disap- 
 proval. Whoever has not learned that practical mo- 
 rality, the ramifications of a righteous principle in 
 conduct, is a gradual growth, and that even now, 
 after the generic principles of duty have been set 
 forth in the Gospel, and a luminous example of the 
 spirit in which one should live has been afforded in 
 the life of Jesus, the perception of the demands of 
 morality advances from stage to stage of progress, is 
 incompetent to take the seat of judgment upon men 
 of remote ages. Not long ago a letter of Washington 
 was published, in which directions are given for the 
 transportation to the West Indies and sale there of a 
 refractory negro who had given him trouble. The 
 act was not at variance with the best morality of the 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 75 
 
 time. The letter is one that deserves to cast no shade 
 on the spotless reputation of its author. Yet a like 
 act, if done to-day, would excite almost universal 
 reprobation. To revile the worthies of Old Testa- 
 ment times as if they lacked the vital principle of 
 unselfish loyalty to God and to right, as they under- 
 stood it, is not less irrational than to deride the 
 habitations which they constructed, or the farming- 
 tools which they used to till the ground. It is not 
 the less imperatively required of us, however, to 
 recognize the wide interval that separates the ancient 
 conceptions of morality from those of the Gospel. 
 Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, entered heart and 
 soul into the cause of Israel in the mortal struggle 
 with the Canaanites. In lending aid to the cause 
 which she espoused she did an act of atrocious cru- 
 elty and treachery. She enticed Sisera into her tent, 
 and when he was sleeping, drove a tent-pin through 
 his head. Yet for her deed she is lauded in the 
 song of Deborah the prophetess ( Judges v.), " Blessed 
 above women shall Jael be, the wife of Heber the 
 Kenite ! " Almost the same words were addressed 
 to the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 42), " Blessed art thou 
 among women ! " What an infinite contrast be- 
 tween the two women to whom this lofty distinction 
 is awarded ! Nothing is better fitted to force on us 
 the perception of the gradualness and the continuity 
 of Revelation. 
 
 We meet in the Psalms with imprecations which 
 are not consonant with the spirit of the Gospel ; 
 
76 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 they belong on a lower plane of ethical feeling. It 
 is one thing to experience a satisfaction in the just 
 punishment of crime. It is accordant with Christi- 
 anity to regard with conscientious abhorrence ini- 
 quity, whether we ourselves or other men are the 
 sufferers by it. Indifference to base conduct, be the 
 root of this state of mind a dulness of the moral 
 sense or false sentiment, is, to say the least, not less 
 repulsive, and may be more demoralizing, than the 
 fires of resentment which nothing but fierce retalia- 
 tion can quench. But the spirit of revenge is unchris- 
 tian. Christianity teaches us to distinguish between 
 the offence and the offender : the one we are to hate ; 
 the other we are forbidden to hate. Moreover, Chris- 
 tianity never loses sight of the possibility of refor- 
 mation in the case of wrong-doers. The Christian 
 considers what an individual might be, not merely 
 what he now is. The benevolent feeling, therefore, 
 is not allowed to be paralyzed by the moral hatred 
 which evil conduct naturally and properly evokes. 
 As regards personal resentment, the Christian dis- 
 ciple is cautioned never to forget his own ill desert 
 and need of pardon from God, and the great boon of 
 forgiveness, in the reception of which the Christian 
 life begins. These qualifications and correctives of 
 passion were comparatively wanting in the earlier 
 dispensation. 
 
 Many expressions of wrath in the Old Testament 
 are directed against the enemies of God and of his 
 kingdom, by whom Israel was attacked or threatened. 
 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REYELATIOX. 77 
 
 They are outbursts of a righteous indignation, and 
 as such merit respect, even though an alloy of per- 
 sonal vindictiveness may unhappily mingle in them. 
 It was no fault to be incensed against impious and 
 cruel assailants of all that was precious to a patriot 
 and to a reverent worshipper of Jehovah. It is im- 
 possible, however, to refer all the imprecations in 
 the Psalms to a feeling of the authors in relation 
 to such enemies of God and of his kingdom. No 
 devices of interpretation can harmonize with the 
 precepts of Christ such expressions as are found in 
 the 109th Psalm : " Let his children be fatherless, 
 and his wife a widow. Let his children be vaga- 
 bonds, and beg. . . . Let the extortioner catch all 
 that he hath. . . . Let there be none to extend 
 mercy unto him : neither let there be any to have 
 pity on his fatherless children." The wrath of the 
 author of this lyric against the cruel and insolent one 
 who " persecuted the poor and needy man, and the 
 broken in heart, to slay them," it is fair to assume 
 was merited. The sense of justice and the holy anger 
 at the root of these anathemas are in themselves 
 right. They are the result of a divine education. 
 But they take the form of revenge, — a kind of wild 
 justice, as Lord Bacon calls it. The identification of 
 the family with its head is one of " the ruling ideas " 
 of antiquity. It appears often in the methods of 
 retribution which were in vogue in the Old Testament 
 ages. It gave way partly and by degrees, under that 
 progressive enlightenment from above through which 
 
78 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 individual responsibility became more distinctly felt 
 and acknowledged, both in judicial proceedings and 
 in private life. The distinctive spirit of the Gospel 
 is shown in the rebuke of Jesus when the Disciples 
 proposed to call down fire from heaven to destroy 
 the inimical Samaritans (Luke ix. 55). It is most 
 impressively seen in his prayer on the cross, "Father, 
 forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 
 xxiii. 34). 
 
 It is the characteristic of Old Testament laws and 
 precepts that in them bounds are set to evils, the 
 attempt immediately to extirpate which would have 
 proved abortive. Something more than this must be 
 said. There was lacking a full perception of the moral 
 ideal. In the Old Testament expositions of duty, as 
 we have already seen, there is an approach towards 
 that radical treatment of moral evils which signalizes 
 the Christian system. An additional example of this 
 feature of the preparatory stage of revelation may be 
 found in the last chapter of the book of Proverbs. 
 There " Lemuel," the name of a king, or a name ap- 
 plied to one of the kings, is apostrophized. He is 
 exhorted to practise chastity and temperance. " It is 
 not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink 
 wine ; nor for princes strong drink : lest they drink, 
 and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any 
 of the afflicted." What better counsel could be given? 
 The judge on the bench must have a clear head. But 
 the counsellor, in order to strengthen his admonition, 
 proceeds to say : " Give strong drink unto him that 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 79 
 
 is ready to perish." So far also, there is no exception 
 to be taken to the wisdom of his precept. The Jews 
 had a custom, resting on a humane motive, to admin- 
 ister a sustaining stimulant or a narcotic to those 
 undergoing punishment, in order to alleviate their 
 pains. Something of this kind was offered to Jesus 
 on the cross. But the counsellor does not stop at this 
 point. He says : " Give strong drink unto him that 
 is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of 
 heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, 
 and remember his misery no more." There need be 
 no hesitancy in saying that this last exhortation is 
 about the worst advice that could possibly be given 
 to a person in affliction, or dispirited by the loss of 
 property. The thing to tell him, especially if he has 
 an appetite for strong drink, is to avoid it as he would 
 shun poison. Yet our remark amounts to nothing 
 more than this, that the sacred author sets up a 
 barrier against only a part of the mischief which is 
 wrought by intemperance. His vision went thus far, 
 but no farther. It is a case where, to quote a homely 
 modern proverb, " Half a loaf is better than no 
 bread." It would be a great gain for morality and 
 for the well-being of society if magistrates could be 
 made abstinent. 
 
 On this general subject there is no more explicit 
 criticism of Old Testament law than is contained in 
 the words of Jesus respecting divorce. The law of 
 Moses permitted a husband to discard his wife, but 
 curtailed his privilege by requiring him to furnish her 
 
80 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 with a written statement which might serve as a 
 means of protection for her. This statute, as far as 
 the allowance to the man which was included in it 
 is concerned, is declared by Christ to have been 
 framed on account of " the hardness of heart " of the 
 people. It fell below the requirement of immutable 
 morality. It was a partial toleration of an abuse 
 which it was then impracticable to seek to cut off 
 altogether. But Christianity lifted the whole subject 
 to a higher level. It presented a profounder view of 
 the marriage relation. It superseded and annulled 
 the Mosaic enactment. 
 
 The advance of the New Testament revelation in its 
 relation to the Old has become, in these days, obvious. 
 But the New Testament revelation, in itself con- 
 sidered, was not made in an instant as by a lightning- 
 flash. It did not come into being in all its fulness in 
 a moment, as the fabled Minerva sprung from the 
 head of Jove. As in the case of the earlier revelation, 
 the note of gradualness is attached to it. The funda- 
 mental fact of Christianity is the uniting of God to 
 man in the person of Jesus Christ. Peter's confes- 
 sion respecting his person is the rock on which the 
 Church was founded. The Epistle to the Hebrews 
 opens with the following striking passage (as given in 
 the Revised Version) : " God, having of old time 
 spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers por- 
 tions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these 
 days spoken unto us in his Son." The former revela- 
 tions were made through various channels, and were 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 81 
 
 besides of a fragmentary character. They paved the 
 way for the final revelation through the Son, whom 
 the writer proceeds to liken, in his relation to God, 
 to the effulgence of a luminous body. But modern 
 exegesis and modern theological thought, while leav- 
 ing untouched the divinity of Jesus, and even, for 
 substance, the Nicene definitions of it, have brought 
 into clear light that progressive development of the 
 Saviour's person of which the incarnation was the 
 starting-point. Not until his earthly career termi- 
 nated and he was " glorified " was the union of God 
 and man in his person in its effects consummated. 
 More was involved in his being in the " form of a ser- 
 vant " than theology in former days conceived. Noth- 
 ing is more clear from his own language respecting 
 himself, as well as from what the Apostles say of 
 him, than that there were limitations of his know- 
 ledge. On a certain day Jesus started from Bethany 
 for Jerusalem. He was hungry. Seeing at a distance 
 a fig-tree with leaves upon it, he went towards it, ex- 
 pecting to find fruit, — it being a tree of that kind 
 which produces its fruit before putting out the leaves. 
 But when he came to it his expectation was deceived ; 
 " he found nothing but leaves.'' Jesus said that he 
 did not know when the day of judgment would come. 
 Apart from conclusive testimonies of this character, it 
 is evident from the whole tenor of the Gospel histo- 
 ries that he was not conscious of the power to exer- 
 cise divine attributes in their fulness of activity. 
 The opposite idea gives a mechanical character to his 
 
82 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 actions and to most of his teachings. How, if he was 
 all the while in the exercise of omniscience, could he 
 " marvel " at the unbelief of certain of his hearers ? 
 That when he was a speechless babe in his mother's 
 arms he was consciously possessed of infinite know- 
 ledge, is an impossible conception. And the difficul- 
 ties of such a conception are only lessened in degree 
 at any other subsequent day while he was " in the 
 flesh." When we behold him at the last, prior to the 
 crucifixion, we find his soul poured out in the ago- 
 nizing supplication, " If it be possible, let this cup 
 pass from me." The supposition of a dual personality 
 in Christ is not less contrary to the Scriptures and to 
 the creed of the Church than it is offensive to com- 
 mon-sense and to philosophy. Yet he was conscious 
 of his divine nature and origin, and the unfolding 
 within him of this unassailable conviction kept pace 
 with the development of his human consciousness. 
 The dawning sense of the unique relation in which he 
 stood to God comes out in his boyhood, in the words 
 addressed to his mother when he was found with the 
 doctors in the temple, " Wist ye not that I must be in 
 my Father's house ? " And the limitations of Jesus 
 must not be exaggerated or made the premise of un- 
 warranted inferences. He knew the boundaries of 
 his province as a teacher, and never overstepped them. 
 Just as he refused to be an arbiter in a contest about 
 an inheritance, saying, " Who made me a judge or a 
 divider over you ? " so did he abstain from authori- 
 tative utterances on matters falling distinctly within 
 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 83 
 
 the sphere of human science. No honor is done to 
 him, and no help afforded to the cause of Christianity, 
 in attributing to him scholastic information which he 
 did not claim for himself, and which there is no evi- 
 dence that he possessed. It is not less important, 
 however, to observe that, notwithstanding the limits 
 that were set about him by the fact of his real human- 
 ity, and as long as he dwelt among men, there was 
 yet an inlet into his consciousness from the fountain 
 of all truth. " No one knoweth the Son, save the 
 Father ; neither doth any know the Father, save the 
 Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal 
 him" (Matt. xi. 27). His knowledge differed in its 
 source, in its kind and degree, from that of all other 
 sons of men. " The words that I say unto you I speak 
 not from myself : but the Father abiding in me doeth 
 his works." The divine in him was not a temporary 
 visitation, as when the Spirit dwelt for a brief time — 
 sojourned, one may be permitted to say — in the soul 
 of a prophet like Isaiah. Even then God spoke 
 through the prophet, and the mind of the prophet 
 might for the moment become so fully the organ of 
 God that he spoke through the prophet's lips in the 
 first person. But in Christ there was an "abiding" 
 of the Father. The union was such that the whole 
 mental and moral life of Jesus was an expression of 
 God's mind and will. " He that hath seen me hath 
 seen the Father." As conscience in me is the voice 
 of another, yet is not distinct from my own being, so 
 of Christ is it true that the Father was in him, — an- 
 
84 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 other, yet not another. And this union, although 
 real from the beginning, culminated in its effects not 
 until a complete ethical oneness was attained, at the 
 end of all temptation and suffering, — the oneness 
 which found utterance in the words, u Howbeit not 
 what I will, but what thou wilt." This was the transi- 
 tion-point to the perfect development of his being, 
 which is styled his " glorification." As the risen and 
 ascended Christ, he can be touched with sympathy with 
 the human infirmities of which he has had experi- 
 ence, at the same time that he can be present with his 
 disciples wherever they are, — can be in the midst of 
 the smallest group of them who are met for worship. 
 
 From Jesus himself we have a distinct assurance 
 that the revelation which he was to make was not to 
 end with his oral teaching. Near the end of his life 
 he said to the Disciples, " I have yet many things to 
 say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." They 
 were not ripe for the comprehension of important 
 truth, which therefore he held in reserve. The Holy 
 Spirit was to open their eyes to the perception of 
 things which they were not yet qualified to appreciate. 
 The communication of the Spirit ushered in a new 
 epoch. Then the Apostles took a wider and deeper 
 view of the purport of the Gospel. We find in the 
 Epistles an unfolding of doctrine which we discover 
 in the germ in the conversations and discourses of 
 Jesus. It was impossible, for example, that the de- 
 sign of his death could be discerned prior to the event 
 itself, and as long as the disciples could not be recon- 
 
THE GRADUALNESS OF REVELATION. 85 
 
 ciled even to the expectation of it. In isolated say- 
 ings of Jesus, in particular in what he said at the 
 institution of the Lord's Supper, the atonement is 
 taught. The giving of his life, he said on another 
 occasion, was to avail, in some way, as a ransom. 
 But it was not until the cross had been raised that 
 the doctrine of the cross was made an essential part 
 of Christian teaching, and the great sacrifice became 
 a theme of doctrinal exposition. By this subsequent 
 teaching a void which had been left in the instruc- 
 tions of the Master was filled. In his teaching there 
 were two elements, standing, so to speak, apart from 
 each other. On the one hand, he set forth the inexo- 
 rable demands of righteous law. In this respect no 
 portion of the older Scriptures, in which law was so 
 prominent a theme, is equally adapted to strike the 
 conscience with dismay. On the other hand, there 
 was in the teaching of Jesus the most emphatic proc- 
 lamation of God's compassion and forgiving love. 
 These two sides of the Saviour's teaching are con- 
 nected and harmonized in the apostolic exposition of 
 the atonement. 
 
 The Apostles themselves, individually, as regards 
 their perceptions of truth, their insight into the mean- 
 ing of the Gospel and its bearings on human duty 
 and destiny, did not remain stationary. How they 
 attained to a more catholic view of the relation of the 
 Gentiles to the Gospel and to the Church, must form 
 the subject of a special discussion. Apart from this 
 subject, where their progressive enlightenment is so 
 
86 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 conspicuous a fact, there can be no doubt that from 
 day to day they grew in knowledge. If we were in 
 possession of earlier writings from the pen of the 
 Apostle John, we might expect that marked differences 
 would appear between them and the Gospel and the 
 First Epistle, which were written when " the Son of 
 Thunder" had ripened into the octogenarian apostle of 
 love. The Apocalypse, so far as the style of thought 
 is concerned, whatever judgment may be formed on 
 other grounds, may quite conceivably have been writ- 
 ten, two or three decades prior to the date of the Gos- 
 pel, by the same author. When the earliest writings 
 of Paul, the Epistles to the Thessalonians, are com- 
 pared with his latest writings, — with the Pastoral 
 Epistles and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephe- 
 sians, — we not only find perceptible modifications of 
 tone, but in the later compositions we find also views 
 on the scope of the Gospel — what may be termed 
 the universal, or cosmical, relations of the work of 
 redemption — such as do not appear in his first pro- 
 ductions. As a minor peculiarity, it may be men- 
 tioned that when he wrote to the Thessalonians he 
 seems to have expected to be alive when the Lord 
 should come in his Second Advent ; while in his latest 
 Epistles this hope or expectation has passed out of his 
 mind. As the Gospel and the First Epistle of John 
 are the latest of the Apostolic writings, it is permis- 
 sible to regard them as the fullest and ripest state- 
 ment of the theologic import of the Gospel. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE DIFFERENTIATING OF CHRISTIANITY FROM JUDAISM. 
 
 How the ties which at the outset held Christianity 
 and Christian believers within the pale of the Jewish 
 religion, with no thought of breaking away from its 
 appointed ordinances and rites, came to be completely 
 dissolved, forms a highly interesting chapter in early 
 Christian history. The leading agent, the man spe- 
 cially chosen of Providence to introduce this new stage 
 of development, was a converted Pharisee, Saul of 
 Tarsus. A remarkable characteristic of the revolu- 
 tion — or evolution, if one prefers so to call it — is 
 the circumstance that there neither lurked in it nor 
 ensued from it any antipathy to the Old Testament 
 religion. It involved no discarding of the ancient 
 Scriptures in which the revelation to the Jews was 
 recorded. Moses and the prophets continued to be 
 reverenced as divinely commissioned teachers. The 
 Old Testament continued to be the Bible of the Chris- 
 tian churches. Up to the time of the composition 
 and collection of the Apostolic writings they had no 
 other Bible. It was read in their Sunday assemblies. 
 The God whom Christians worshipped was the God of 
 the patriarchs, the same who had " spoken unto the 
 
88 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 fathers in the prophets." The religion of the Gospel 
 assumed no antagonistic relation to the religion of 
 the Old Testament. Yet it came to pass that the 
 Old Testament ritual was dropped. The title of the 
 Jews to peculiar and exclusive privileges in the com- 
 munity of Christian believers was set aside. The de- 
 mand that the Christian believer should come into the 
 Church through the door of Judaism, by conforming 
 to the rites ordained for heathen proselytes, was no 
 longer made. Christianity was, and was perceived 
 to be, one thing, and Judaism another; and soon 
 there was a wide gulf between them. At the begin- 
 ning we find the Disciples continuing " steadfastly 
 with one accord in the temple," although they met 
 also by themselves for social worship (Acts ii. 46, 
 Revised Version). If they were, in a sense, to borrow 
 a phrase now current, " church-goers," they were like- 
 wise " temple-goers." They were like other Jews ; 
 only they believed that the Messiah had come, and 
 although he had been rejected and crucified, they 
 looked for his second appearing in power and splen- 
 dor. The daily devotions, the solemn festivals, the 
 smoking altars of the Jewish system were as dear 
 and sacred to them as they had ever been. The con- 
 verts were to be baptized, but baptism did not super- 
 sede the necessity of circumcision for admission into 
 the Judaic-Christian fraternity. But pass over a few 
 decades of years, and we discover that this conformity 
 to the old system has vanished. Numerous Christian 
 churches are planted in which the Mosaic ceremonies 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 89 
 
 are not practised. In process of time the revolution 
 is complete. The synagogue is no more a place of 
 resort for Christians. Their fellowship, such as it 
 was, with disbelieving Jews, who formed the bulk of 
 the Jewish people, is broken off. The rupture is 
 absolute. The opposition is mutual. The Jews pur- 
 sue the Christians with bitter maledictions. The 
 Christians are of one mind in discerning that the old 
 ritual with its burdensome yoke of ordinances is obso- 
 lete. They no longer tolerate the observances which 
 at first they expected all of their number to practise. 
 
 This revolution was the consequence of no injunc- 
 tion of Jesus. He himself kept the law in its cere- 
 monial as well as in its moral parts, notwithstanding 
 that he protested against the over-rigid interpretations 
 of the Pharisaic school. He distinguished between 
 the laws themselves and the " traditions of the elders," 
 — the glosses and additions which the doctors had 
 affixed to the Old Testament legislation, under the 
 pretext of expounding it or of applying it to unfore- 
 seen cases. He denounced the pernicious casuistry 
 which brought in now an evasion of moral duties, 
 and now an imposition of ceremonial performances 
 which the spirit of the law did not exact. He taught 
 that the value of institutions consisted in their use- 
 fulness. They were not an end in themselves, but a 
 means for attaining a good beyond them. Rules were 
 not framed for their own sake. Even the Sabbath 
 was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 
 While Jesus encouraged no revolt against the ritual 
 
90 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 system, while he even enjoined conformity to it ac- 
 cording to its proper meaning, and himself set an 
 example of such conformity, the spirit of his teaching 
 and the work done by him undermined it. They 
 could not fail to lead to the discontinuance of the 
 Jewish cultus. Eventually it would be seen to have 
 no longer a raison d'etre. It would come to be felt 
 to be as needless a burden as winter garments in the 
 mild air of summer. The time must arrive when the 
 Jewish system would be consciously outgrown. To 
 keep it up would then be like the attempt of an adult 
 to wear the clothes of a child. Jesus did not decree 
 the subversion of the Jewish cultus, — that ancient 
 fabric which had sheltered religious faith in the days 
 of its immaturity, when the community of God was 
 waiting for a full disclosure of his purpose of mercy 
 and of deliverance for the race. He did not by one 
 sudden stroke demolish that system, but he put gun- 
 powder under it. And yet this is not an apposite 
 simile. We should rather say that he prepared the 
 way for the gradual, intelligent abandonment of it. 
 There might be temporary confusion and even occa- 
 sional contests ; but on the whole the change was to 
 be in a true sense natural, like the melting of the 
 winter snows and the coming out of the leaves and 
 blossoms under the increasing warmth of the vernal 
 sun. Jesus taught that religion is spiritual. He 
 showed, as the prophets before him had proclaimed, 
 how empty is a round of observances into which the 
 heart does not enter, and which are not accompanied 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 91 
 
 by righteousness of conduct. " Mercy is better than 
 sacrifice." He said of one that he was not far from 
 the kingdom of God because he discerned that the 
 love of God and man " is more than all whole burnt- 
 offerings and sacrifices." The illustrations in the 
 Sermon on the Mount of that fulfilment of the law 
 which he came to secure, all relate to moral tempers 
 and moral conduct. He taught the infinite worth of 
 the soul, the impartial benevolence of God, and that 
 love is the substance of the law. His teaching was 
 void of sympathy with Judaic exclusiveness. That 
 the institutions of the Gospel could not be identical 
 with those of the old system, he taught when, in 
 answer to the question why his disciples did not fast, 
 he said that " new wine must not be put into old 
 bottles." He said that not what goeth into the mouth 
 defileth a man. This he declared, the Evangelist 
 adds, " making all meats clean." He laid down the 
 principle that defilement is from the heart alone, from 
 bad feelings and motives, — a principle which cut the 
 ground from under the ritual as far as it related to 
 meats and drinks. Jesus implied that he was con- 
 scious of an authority higher than that which pre- 
 scribed the laws of the Old Testament, when he 
 superseded the Mosaic precept concerning divorce 
 (Matt. xix. 8, Mark x. 5) ; when he declared the Son 
 of man to be " the Lord of the Sabbath " (Mark ii. 28, 
 Luke vi. 5) ; when he affirmed that he and his Disci- 
 ples were not under an obligation to pay the tax to 
 the temple (Matt. xvii. 24-27). " In this place," he 
 
92 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 said, " is one greater than the temple." The priests, 
 it had been understood, were absolved from the strict 
 observance of the sabbatical law. They might on any 
 day offer their sacrifices ; they might " profane the 
 Sabbath " without guilt. The thought was not so 
 remote that he who was greater than the temple 
 might supersede the temple. To the woman of Sa- 
 maria he said that worship was confined to no local 
 sanctuary (John iv. 23, 24). There were predictions 
 of a downfall of the temple, of the letting out of the 
 vineyard to other husbandmen (Matt. xxiv. 2, Mark 
 xiii. 2, Luke xxi. 6, John ii. 19, Matt. xxi. 41, Mark 
 xii. 9). Then he made everything turn on the rela- 
 tion of men to himself. The test of character was 
 belief or disbelief in him. The one condition and 
 source of communion with God was personal commu- 
 nion with him whom God had sent. When this last 
 truth should be fully apprehended, what space would 
 be left for any other priesthood or sacrifice ? At the 
 Last Supper he so connected his death with the for- 
 giveness of sins as virtually to dispense with the need 
 of any other offering or intercession than his own. 
 In fine, the large and spiritual view of the nature of 
 religion which Christ presented, together with the 
 sufficiency which he ascribed to his own work as a 
 reconciler, made the cultus of the Hebrews, including 
 the national rite of circumcision, superfluous. But 
 how should the free and catholic spirit of the Gospel 
 come to be recognized ? How should the fetters of 
 custom, and ingrained reverence, and national self- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 93 
 
 esteem — the claim on the part of the Jews to prece- 
 dence and to some kind of perpetual sway in the 
 concerns of religion — be broken ? For so great a 
 change time was required. In matters where feeling 
 is strongly enlisted, where lifelong prejudices are to 
 be overcome, where usages are closely linked, from 
 long association, with devotional sentiment, there is 
 often between the premises and the legitimate conclu- 
 sion a long road to travel. 
 
 The purport of the Gospel in the particulars to 
 which I have referred was discerned by the Apostle 
 Paul at an early date, and it was more clearly and 
 vividly perceived by him than by any other. Whether 
 Paul had in his hands written accounts of the teach- 
 ing of Jesus, we are not informed. For what he says 
 of the institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 23 
 seq.) he had in some way the direct authority of the 
 Lord. He refers it to a direct revelation ; for so we 
 must interpret his language. On the contrary, what 
 he says of the appearances of Jesus to the other Apos- 
 tles after his resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 1 seq.) he had 
 ascertained from them. We cannot be mistaken in 
 supposing that Paul was acquainted with teachings 
 of Christ which, in his judgment, contained an im- 
 plicit warrant for that broad interpretation of the 
 Gospel and of the privilege of the Gentiles under 
 it which he adopted, — such teaching of Jesus as we 
 have cited above from the Evangelists. In his inter- 
 course with the other Apostles — it is important to 
 remember that Paul spent a fortnight with Peter — 
 
94 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 he had the best opportunity to rectify any mistake, 
 if he had fallen into any mistake, in respect to this 
 part of the Saviour's teaching. 
 
 It has been sometimes said that Paul himself pro- 
 fesses not to be acquainted with the facts of the min- 
 istry of Jesus. This strange statement is founded on 
 a misunderstanding of his meaning when he says that 
 he did not receive the Gospel from men, but " through 
 revelation of Jesus Christ " (Gal. i. 12). This direct 
 relation to Christ, who revealed himself to him and 
 called him to be an apostle, does not preclude the 
 obtaining of knowledge through secondary sources. 
 That he did not care to learn what Christ had taught 
 and done during bis earthly life, is something quite 
 incredible in a man of his active intelligence and 
 Christian feeling. 
 
 That Paul became the leader in the work of eman- 
 cipating the Church from Judaism has been some- 
 times attributed to the liberalizing influence of culture 
 and learning. He was that one of the Apostles, we 
 are reminded, whose mind had been expanded by 
 study, and whose intellect had been invigorated and 
 widened by a scholastic training. But on this subject 
 of the education of the Apostle to the Gentiles there 
 are prevalent mistakes which require to be corrected. 
 One of them is the ascription to him of a familiarity 
 with Greek classical writers. This idea is based 
 partly on certain utterances of his which correspond 
 to sayings of Greek authors. There are three of 
 these passages. The first is in the Apostle's speech 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 95 
 
 at Athens : " As certain even of your own poets have 
 said, For we are also his offspring " (Acts xvii. 28). 
 The quotation is found in Aratus, a poet who belonged 
 to Soli, a place near Tarsus, and it occurs also in 
 that noblest example of devotional poetry that has 
 come down to us from a heathen source, — the Hymn 
 of Cleanthes. Both Aratus and Cleanthes belonged 
 to the Stoic sect. The second passage of this kind 
 is an iambic verse : " Evil company doth corrupt good 
 manners " (1 Cor. xv. 33). This has been referred 
 to Euripides by many, including John Milton, who 
 remarks that " Paul thought it no defilement to 
 insert into holy Scripture the sentences of three 
 Greek poets, and one of them a tragedian." But 
 the passage is traced by scholars at present to the 
 " Thais " of Menander. The third of the passages 
 traceable to heathen sources is the unflattering de- 
 scription given of the Cretans (Titus i. 12) : " Cretans 
 are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons." The 
 words form a hexameter, and are from Epimenides, 
 a Cretan poet whom Plato styled a " divine man," 
 and whom Paul does not scruple to call a " prophet," 
 — recognizing in him, as regards this particular say- 
 ing at least, a remarkable divination or foresight. 
 But probably all these passages were proverbial sa} 7 - 
 ings, and as such was caught up by the Apostle from 
 the conversation of the day. According to the cor- 
 rect reading of the passage from Menander, Paul 
 deviates from the metrical form, — - which indicates 
 that unless he did not know what the original was, 
 
96 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 he preferred to give it in the shape in which it passed 
 current as a proverb. There is really nothing either 
 in the style of Paul's writings or in their contents 
 to show that he was versed in the Greek classical 
 authors. As to his style, it is unlettered Greek. It 
 is not likely that a man of his high intellectual quali- 
 ties could have read an author like Plato without dis- 
 tinct traces of the fact being evident both in his 
 language and in his thoughts. On a mind of an in- 
 ferior order a feeble impression might have been left 
 by the masters of Greek philosophy, poetry, and elo- 
 quence, but not on a mind like that of Paul, in case 
 he had been conversant with them. He was born, to 
 be sure, in a city where Greek was familiarly spoken, 
 — although the inscriptions discovered recently in 
 that region do not indicate that the Greek in use 
 there was of a choice character. Tarsus was a seat 
 of Stoic philosophy. It must be remembered, how- 
 ever, that Paul was the son of a Pharisee, that he 
 was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and was no doubt 
 brought up after the strict method of Pharisaic train- 
 ing. Such a father as he had would not have put 
 pagan authors into his boy's hands. He had for 
 his teacher at Jerusalem the rabbi Gamaliel. The 
 advice which, according to Luke, was given by this 
 noted rabbi to his fellow-members of the Sanhedrim 
 reveals a certain moderation and sagacity. He dis- 
 suaded them from using force against the Apostles, 
 for the reason that if their cause was right, it could 
 not be put down, and the attempt to put it down 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 97 
 
 would be impious ; while if their cause was wrong, 
 it would come to nothing all the sooner for being let 
 alone. His appeal to the instances of Theudas and 
 Judas of Galilee, fanatics who raised a disturbance 
 which lasted but a little while, would seem to indi- 
 cate that he anticipated a like failure for the new 
 enterprise which the Apostles were trying to pro- 
 mote. Whether Gamaliel was simply politic, or had 
 some genuine tolerance in his temper, may be a ques- 
 tion. This we know very well, that his ardent pupil 
 did not share in any sentiment of this kind. He was 
 an approving spectator of the killing of Stephen. He 
 plunged into the work of a heresy-hunter and inquis- 
 itor. He seized on the Disciples of Jesus and shut 
 them up in prison. He tried in the synagogues to 
 force them to recant. He chased them from one 
 place to another ; for he was " exceedingly mad 
 against them " (Acts xxvi. 11). It is certain, there- 
 fore, that Paul had not imbibed any lenient sentiment 
 towards dissentients from the standards of ortho- 
 doxy ; and it would be irrational to credit him with 
 feelings of this kind towards the heathen. His edu- 
 cation was rabbinical ; and traces of its peculiar 
 character crop out occasionally in his way of argu- 
 ing and of illustrating truth, even after he had been 
 lifted into the higher atmosphere of the apostolic 
 calling. 
 
 Nevertheless, there exist in the writings of Paul 
 striking coincidences with Stoic philosophic teaching. 
 The correspondences between New Testament pas- 
 
98 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 sages and Stoic maxims and precepts is a fact that 
 calls for explanation. It is more marked in relation 
 to Seneca, the Roman Stoic, the preceptor of Nero, 
 than in regard to any other of the philosophers of the 
 Porch. The similarity in his case extends to numer- 
 ous sayings of Jesus as well as to other portions of 
 the New Testament. The theory was broached by 
 several of the ancient Fathers that Seneca was a 
 Christian convert. There appeared a forged corre- 
 spondence between him and the Apostle Paul. From 
 the time of Jerome it was taken for granted that 
 Seneca had been won over by the Apostle to the 
 Christian faith. There is nothing to disprove the 
 supposition that Seneca gathered up, perhaps from 
 slaves of his household, fragments of the teaching of 
 Christ and of Paul. Yet it has been observed that 
 some of the most striking parallels are with the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, and this epistle was written after 
 Seneca's death. The whole basis of Seneca's philo- 
 sophical view is utterly at variance with the Christian 
 system. This circumstance is fatal to the hypothe- 
 sis that he was connected with Paul, as the legend 
 represented. 
 
 But how shall we account for the Stoic phraseology 
 which is undeniably found in Paul's speeches and 
 writings ? The Stoic ideal of the sage painted him 
 as lacking nothing, as the possessor of all things, as 
 alone free, as alone happy, as alone rich, as the true 
 wise man, the true priest, the true king. In similar 
 terms the Apostle delineates the Christian believer. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 99 
 
 We seem to be hearing echoes of Stoic sayings. The 
 Stoic system was cosmopolitan in its character. The 
 kinship of mankind, that the Stoic is a citizen of the 
 world, a denizen of all lands, are frequent affirmations 
 of Seneca, of Epietetus, and of the imperial philoso- 
 pher Marcus Aurelius. This universality of fellow- 
 ship the Apostle affirms of the Christian believer. In 
 it the boundaries of race and nationality are effaced. 
 Such ideas in Paul are presented in an original, en- 
 tirely different setting. There is a groundwork for 
 them in Christ and his kingdom which was wanting 
 to the Stoic, with whom these lofty distinctions could 
 have but little more than a negative import and value. 
 However, the verbal resemblance remains. This is 
 best accounted for by the intercourse into which the 
 Apostle was brought with Stoics both at Tarsus, 
 where he dwelt for a considerable time after his con- 
 version, and in other cities which he visited. At 
 Athens, as we are told, he disputed with Stoics and 
 Epicureans. These were the popular philosophical 
 sects at that time. With the Epicurean tenets he 
 could find few points of contact. But in the ethical 
 ideas and maxims of the Stoics, although they rested 
 on no basis of fundamental truth that was satisfac- 
 tory, and although the Stoic ideal for this reason 
 could not be realized, the Apostle discerned features 
 which he, from his higher point of view, could appro- 
 priate. He could take them up and infuse into them 
 both a significance and a worth which they had not 
 before possessed. The relation of Paul to certain 
 
100 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 Stoic terms and phrases was somewhat like that of 
 the Apostle John to the term Logos, or Word, and 
 possibly to some other phrases in his writings. Terms 
 in current use in the discussions of the day John 
 could take up and transfigure, as it were, so that they 
 became a fit vehicle for expressing the higher truth 
 which was derived, not from any philosophical source, 
 but from revelation and from the direct impression 
 made by Jesus upon the susceptible spirit of his 
 disciple. 
 
 The reason, certainly the main reason, for the ex- 
 ceptional liberality of Paul, for his complete emanci- 
 pation from Judaic prejudice, is not to be found either 
 in his learning or in his marked perspicacity. His 
 mind was no doubt disciplined and made capable, 
 above most others, of looking into a question to its 
 very core. He had no need of an acquaintance with 
 Aristotle in order to grasp a doctrine in its logical 
 relations and to carry it out to the legitimate infer- 
 ences. And he had a superiority in knowledge, — 
 not merely in that sort of knowledge which an eager 
 scholar of the rabbis would of course acquire. He 
 had a store of knowledge, constantly increasing, drawn 
 from observation and from contact with adherents of 
 differing schools of opinion in the places where he 
 sojourned. But the secret of his catholicity, as we 
 have seen, is not to be found either in his talents or 
 in his culture. To discover that secret we must turn 
 to the history of his conversion. Great as the trans- 
 formation was at that crisis, yet in important respects 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 101 
 
 he was the same man after as before. If we look 
 at him first on the day when he was on the road 
 to Damascus, armed with credentials from the high 
 priest, and then look at him again when he was 
 on one of his great missionary journeys, we behold 
 the same energy, the same aggressive, conquering 
 force. He was a crusader from first to last. No 
 revolution of motive or of moral temper could be 
 greater. He had become humane, loving, willing to 
 give up his life, and even his own salvation, for the 
 sake of the Jewish countrymen who detested him 
 as an apostate. And the end in view — how differ- 
 ent ! Then he was bent on exterminating those whom 
 now he regards with an almost motherly tenderness. 
 Then it was to extirpate a faith which now he cher- 
 ishes, and for which he is ready to be offered up ! 
 Nevertheless, the natural qualities of the man, the 
 qualities that made him a leader and, when conse- 
 crated to the service of the Gospel, a Christian hero, 
 were his in the first as well as the last of the eras 
 into which his life was divided, and between which 
 seemingly a great gulf was fixed. There is one other 
 element of resemblance, or thread of continuity, of 
 more consequence still. His ideal from the beginning 
 to the end of his career was righteousness. To stand 
 right before God, acquitted, with no accusation lying 
 against him at the bar of the Judge and in the forum 
 of conscience, was always to his mind the one inesti- 
 mable good. He attached the same value to it after 
 his conversion as before, the same before as after. 
 
102 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 As to what is involved in being righteous, and how 
 righteousness can be attained, these were points on 
 which there was a world-wide difference between the 
 earlier and the later conception. But the aim in its 
 generic character was unaltered. 
 
 In the attempt to explain the conversion of Paul in 
 such a way as to eliminate the miraculous elements 
 in the event, a naturalistic solution has been sug- 
 gested. The persecutor, it is said, was probably 
 haunted with misgivings in reference to the course 
 that he was pursuing. He had heard of the moral 
 excellence of Jesus, perhaps he had seen him. He 
 had been touched by the forgiving, heavenly spirit 
 of the dying Stephen. The meek demeanor of the 
 harassed Disciples was not without its influence. In 
 short, there was a conflict arising in his mind ; there 
 was inward anxiety, amounting to self-reproach. Here, 
 it is urged, was a state of feeling which might give 
 rise to hallucination, — to the imaginary vision of 
 Jesus. Augustine, sitting in tears under a, fig-tree, 
 overwhelmed with contrition, heard, or imagined that 
 he heard, in a neighboring house a voice, as of a boy 
 or • girl, " chanting and oft repeating " the words, 
 " Take up and read ; take up and read." He took 
 the Bible and opened at the passage, " Not in rioting 
 and drunkenness," etc. (Rom. xiii. 13, 14). One 
 trouble with the theory of hallucination in the case 
 of Paul is, that not only is there no evidence that 
 he felt any such disquiet as the theory presupposes, 
 in regard to the rectitude of the errand on which he 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 103 
 
 was bent, but there is decisive evidence that he did 
 not. The phrase " It is hard for thee to kick against 
 the pricks " means nothing more or less than that 
 he was engaged in a futile enterprise. It has no 
 reference to any feeling of compunction. He was 
 like an animal kicking against the goad, — that is to 
 say, his undertaking against the Christian faith was a 
 hopeless one. But he says : " I verily thought with 
 myself that I ought to do many things contrary to 
 the name of Jesus of Nazareth " (Acts xxvi. 9) ; "I 
 obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbe- 
 lief " (1 Tim. i. 13). There was no insincerity, no in- 
 ward halting, no doubt as to whether Jesus might not 
 after all be the Messiah. There was no psychological 
 state of the kind which would pave the way for an 
 illusive vision of Jesus. If any are sceptical as to 
 the accuracy of the Acts in this particular, or as 
 to the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, yet in 
 Epistles, the genuineness of which is beyond dispute, 
 the Apostle attributes his conversion exclusively to 
 the grace of God and an act of revelation (Gal. i. 12, 
 16). " While," writes Weiss, " he constantly accuses 
 himself of persecuting the Church, as being the great- 
 est sin of his life, he never intimates that he strug- 
 gled long against better knowledge and conscience, in 
 opposition to the testimony of the truth." He never 
 ascribes the revolution in his convictions, which was 
 accomplished at a single stroke, to proofs appealing 
 to his understanding, but always to facts accepted in 
 faith, " on the believing acceptance of which his peace 
 
104 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of soul and his eternal salvation depend." Hence 
 if it was a vision that produced the change, it was a 
 real vision, and no product of illusion. It was a vision 
 that convinced him not only that Christ continued to 
 live, but that he had risen in bodily form ; so that if 
 this was an error, " it was God himself, by causing 
 this vision, who led him into the error." This percep- 
 tion of Christ, while he was on the way to Damascus, 
 stands apart from other visions, of which he did not 
 care to speak. On it he rested as the guarantee of his 
 apostolic office (1 Cor. ix. 1). There was included in 
 it not only his commission to be an Apostle, but more 
 specifically, to be an Apostle to the heathen. 
 
 The sight of Jesus in the glorified state swept away 
 the " stumbling-block " which was contained in the 
 idea of a crucified Messiah, and served to demon- 
 strate the fact of his resurrection. But into the con- 
 version of Paul there entered something more than 
 the giving up of disbelief in the divine mission of 
 Jesus. That, in itself considered, might not have 
 carried with it any great spiritual change. In the 
 seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans the veil 
 is drawn aside, and we have glimpses of the course 
 of his inner life. Without doubt he speaks of his own 
 personal experience, although he speaks as in this 
 matter consciously the representative of human na- 
 ture. He shows how the attempt to get inward peace 
 by the method of law had collapsed. The seeking for 
 righteousness on this path had brought him to utter 
 despair, to a sense of helplessness. At the outset, 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 105 
 
 as we may suppose, in his younger days, he was 
 " alive." His natural feelings and desires were in 
 full activity, with no painful consciousness of wrong. 
 But " the law came." There came a time when the 
 holy ideal of duty to God and man rose before him 
 in the rigor of its perfection. Then he " died." His 
 peace of mind was gone. The conflict between the 
 desires on the one side and the restraints of law on 
 the other produced a schism in the soul. A distress- 
 ing battle raged within, in which the better nature 
 was felt to be powerless, felt to be a slave panting for 
 liberty, but struggling in vain to free itself. To what 
 extent this feeling of condemnation and of bondage 
 was experienced by him when he was on the way to 
 Damascus, — whether this consciousness of guilt and 
 of weakness was not greatly intensified in the days 
 that immediately followed, — he does not tell us, 
 and we have no means of knowing. But this moral 
 conflict it was that prepared him to welcome the gos- 
 pel of deliverance. There was a better way to attain 
 to righteousness ; namely, a free pardon from God, 
 and a new life in the spirit, — a heart-fellowship, 
 a grateful feeling, a filial relation which made obe- 
 dience easy. He learned by experience that a legal 
 system had in it no life-giving power. It could only 
 condemn. It could only make one aware of his need 
 of help from some other quarter. When it had done 
 this work, it had fulfilled its office, and was superseded 
 by those forces of spiritual aid and healing which are 
 contained in the gospel of grace. 
 
106 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 Now what must be the effect of this experience on 
 Paul's view of the Old Testament legal system, in- 
 cluding the ceremonial features ? He could look on 
 that system only as something preparatory and pro- 
 visional. It was like the ancient pedagogue, whose 
 business it was to lead boys to school and leave them 
 there. Law and grace, the old dispensation and the 
 new, appeared to him in the sharpest contrast. In 
 his philosophy of religion, ceremonial prescriptions, 
 as means of salvation, were " beggarly elements ; " 
 that is, rudiments which had had their day. The 
 other Apostles, the original disciples, had not passed 
 through a like spiritual crisis. They had been led on, 
 step by step, in the company of Jesus, into a full sym- 
 pathy with him and trust in him as a Saviour. They 
 knew that, believing in him and following him with 
 a loyal spirit, they were forgiven and saved. In com- 
 mon with Paul, they held with one accord that recon- 
 ciliation was through Christ, and that the humility of 
 the publican in the parable was the temper of mind 
 alone becoming a sinful man. The gradualness of 
 their religious progress, the absence of a momentary, 
 decisive turning-point, prevented them from seeing at 
 once, and from seeing so distinctly, that relation of 
 the new to the old, of gospel to law, which Paul's ex- 
 perience made as clear to him as sunlight. Their 
 minds were open, they were ready to be guided by 
 the Spirit, and they were thus guided ; but so far as 
 human instrumentality is concerned, it was Paul who 
 led the way. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 107 
 
 What effect on his mind had these new perceptions, 
 the outcome of a living experience ? They could have 
 no other effect than to level the barriers of race and 
 nationality. Where were now the privileges on which 
 the Jew plumed himself? Sin was a characteristic 
 equally of Jew and Gentile. The same divine law 
 which through Moses and the prophets had been re- 
 vealed to the Jew had been written on the heart of 
 the Gentile. Both rested under the same condemna- 
 tion. It was not on the Gentiles exclusively, it was 
 on "the world," that the burden of guilt rested. And 
 what could circumcision, lustrations, the sacrifice of 
 animals, do to deliver any from the double yoke of 
 self-accusation and evil habit ? There was only one 
 means of deliverance, one remedy for heathen and 
 Hebrew alike. It was the Christ, and faith in him. 
 Moreover, Paul had seen the Christ on a heavenly 
 throne. His kingdom was evidently not a temporal 
 one, having its seat in the city of David. Even when 
 he should come again, the kingdom was not to have 
 this earthly character. The Apostle no longer knew 
 Christ " after the flesh," as belonging to one nation, 
 and leading here among men a human life. He says, 
 " Our citizenship is in heaven " (Phil. iii. 20). There 
 Christ is, and there, for this reason, is the centre of 
 our polity. There is the seat of authority in the 
 commonwealth in which we are citizens. When the 
 Lord comes, the " body of our humiliation" — the 
 mortal body, borne down by persecution, privation, 
 suffering — is to be assimilated to his glorified body, 
 
108 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 to that heavenly mode of being that belongs to him. 
 Paul's conception of the kingdom is changed. His 
 idea of it is wholly different from that of those who 
 had not shaken off the associations of a political 
 theocracy, with Jerusalem for its capital and with 
 the temple on Mount Zion for the place of resort for 
 all nations. When we consider the birth and edu- 
 cation and earlier characteristics of this Pharisee, 
 this inquisitor, thirsting for the blood of heretics, how 
 astonishing is the declaration, " There is no distinc- 
 tion between Jew and Greek " (Rom. x. 12) ! Few 
 more remarkable utterances ever fell from human 
 lips. Yet the reason which is connected with it ex- 
 plains all : " For the same Lord is Lord of all, and 
 is rich unto all that call upon him." There was but 
 one Lord, and there was not less mercy in his heart 
 for the heathen than for the Hebrew. In a religion 
 that is spiritual, where there is but one Lord, and 
 salvation is a free gift from him, there " cannot be 
 Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, bar- 
 barian, Scythian, bondman, freeman : but Christ is 
 all, and in all." 
 
 We pause for a moment to point out a profoundly 
 interesting parallel between Paul's conception of the 
 death of Christ as bringing Jew and Gentile together, 
 and certain most instructive and pathetic words of 
 Jesus. At the last Passover, we read in John's Gos- 
 pel, certain " Greeks," — who were not Jews, but 
 heathen, probably proselytes of the gate, — who had 
 come up to the festival to worship, came to Philip, 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 109 
 
 one of the twelve, and expressed their wish to see 
 Jesus (John xii. 20, seq.~). Philip reported this to 
 Andrew, and then both carried the request to the 
 Master. It is one of those circumstantial accounts 
 which in its manner, not to speak of its contents, 
 shows the truthfulness of the Gospel narrative. 
 When the two Disciples delivered their message, Jesus 
 exclaimed : " The hour is come, that the Son of man 
 should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, 
 it abideth by itself alone ; but if it die, it beareth 
 much fruit." The visit of the Greeks, heathen, prose- 
 lytes of the gate, and their request, was a suggestion 
 to Jesus that the time had come for him to die, and 
 thus to open the door for the wide extension and 
 growth of his kingdom beyond the limits of Judaism. 
 That very idea of the significance of his death is in- 
 timated which is clearly brought out by the Apostle 
 Paul. 
 
 The first sign of a disposition to break through the 
 wall that fenced off the Gentiles appears in the liber- 
 ality of tone which was manifested by Stephen. It 
 drew on him the charge of having threatened with 
 destruction the whole Mosaic system of worship. His 
 death dispersed the Church and sent abroad many 
 to engage in missionary work. Philip, one of the 
 deacons, preached with success in Samaria, and the 
 Samaritan converts were recognized by the Apostles. 
 The Samaritans, however, were among the circum- 
 
110 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 cised ; but the Ethiopian chamberlain, the eunuch, 
 was only a proselyte of the gate, if he was even that. 
 It required supernatural communications to Peter to 
 induce him to receive the Roman centurion Cornelius 
 and others with him, as disciples, and to sit at the 
 same table with them. But Peter, when he returned 
 to Jerusalem, was taken to task for his proceeding. 
 When he told his tale, the accusers were quieted, and 
 there was joy over this accession of Gentile believers. 
 The illiberal spirit was quelled, but only for a time. 
 It was not at Jerusalem, but at Antioch that the 
 catholic interpretation of the Gospel first gained a 
 foothold. There some of the dispersed disciples, 
 Hellenists, or foreign Jewish converts, preached the 
 new faith to the heathen. There in that great city, 
 which was one of the three principal cities of the 
 Roman Empire, Rome and Alexandria being the other 
 two, the message of the Gospel met with a quick 
 response in heathen souls that found in it satisfaction 
 for their spiritual hunger. Barnabas, himself a for- 
 eign-born Jew, a native of Cyprus, was sent by the 
 Jerusalem church to look after this new movement. 
 
 For a number of years after Paul's conversion he 
 is almost lost to our knowledge. There was a so- 
 journ in Arabia; and then, after the lapse of three 
 years, a return to Damascus. From there he was 
 soon obliged to flee. Then followed a visit to Jeru- 
 salem to see Peter, with whom he spent fourteen 
 days. After this visit he went into " the regions of 
 Syria and Cilicia." The churches in Judsea had not 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. Ill 
 
 met him, but had only heard that he who had been 
 a violent enemy of their cause, had now become a 
 preacher of the faith which he had persecuted. Later, 
 he is found at Tarsus, and thence he is brought by 
 Barnabas, who needed his help, to Antioch. They 
 " taught much people " there, and there the disciples 
 were first called " Christians." There is a coinci- 
 dence between the ceasing to be a Jewish sect and 
 the acquisition of the new name by which believers 
 in Jesus were thenceforward to be designated. Up 
 to this time they had been called "Nazarenes," "Gali- 
 leans," or " Ebionites." Paul and Barnabas, accord- 
 ing to Luke, were sent upon the occasion of a famine 
 in Judaea with contributions to the Jewish Christians 
 there ; but as Paul makes no allusion to his being 
 there on this errand, it is probable that by some 
 accident he was hindered from accomplishing it. 
 
 So vigorous was the Antioch church that it sent 
 missionaries into Asia Minor. On the return to 
 Antioch of Paul and Barnabas from their missionary 
 journey, they found the church in a ferment. Men 
 from Judaea had arrived and had raised a disturbance 
 by warning the disciples that they must conform to 
 the Jewish law and be circumcised, or give up the 
 hope of salvation. There was discussion and debate 
 between Paul and his companion on one side, and the 
 Judaean visitors on the other. Finally it was resolved 
 that the two Antioch leaders should depart at the 
 head of a deputation to confer with the Jerusalem 
 church on this all-important subject of dispute. In 
 
112 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 that church there had been an addition of members 
 from the Pharisaic sect who were opposed to con- 
 ceding liberty to the Gentile converts in this contro- 
 verted matter. The rapid growth of the Antioch 
 church, the multiplying of heathen converts, might 
 naturally awaken anxiety and give rise to misgivings 
 among many who had given way under the peculiar 
 circumstances in the case of Cornelius. It was not 
 now a question about a few individuals. Here was 
 an organized church, on the basis of absolute freedom 
 from " the law," and engaged in a successful work 
 of propagandism. What was to become of the dis- 
 tinctive privilege of the Jew ? Was the new king- 
 dom to abolish the old cultus ? Was it to be composed 
 largely, and perhaps predominantly, of uncircumcised 
 heathen ? The turn of events brought up afresh a 
 question of vital moment. Paul, on his side, had a 
 full sense of the importance of the crisis. He re- 
 solved to meet it in the frankest and most direct 
 manner. He would go to Jerusalem, and meet the 
 Apostles and the church there face to face. He 
 went up, he tells us, by "revelation," — by divine 
 sanction ; but he went, as Luke states, with the 
 sanction of the Antioch church and as their com- 
 missioner. Fourteen years had elapsed since his 
 visit to Peter ; seventeen years had passed since his 
 conversion. 
 
 We are brought to the memorable occurrences of 
 which we have accounts in the fifteenth chapter of 
 Acts and the second chapter of Galatians. At Jeru- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 113 
 
 saleni the demand was made of Paul that Titus, a 
 Greek convert who accompanied him, should be cir- 
 cumcised. Here was a practical test that would de- 
 cide the point in dispute. This demand the Apostle 
 met with a resolute denial. That there was a pres- 
 sure upon him which it was not an easy thing to 
 withstand, is evident from his language. At that 
 supreme moment he did not flinch. The intense 
 agitation which the recollection of the crisis stirred 
 within him is betrayed in his language ; it causes 
 him in referring to it, as Lightfoot remarks, to make 
 shipwreck of grammar. We can well believe that his 
 voice trembled as he dictated the passage to his aman- 
 uensis. Did the other Apostles join in this request, 
 so repugnant to his views and feelings ? We are not 
 justified by anything that he says in inferring that 
 they did. Still it would appear that Paul was left to 
 stand alone, with no outspoken sympathy from any 
 quarter. It is not improbable that even the Apostles 
 at that moment, under the circumstances, recom- 
 mended him to yield, and to make the required con- 
 cession. But he felt that the principle was at stake. 
 The very meaning of the Gospel, the breadth of its 
 grace, the liberty of the Gentile, hung on a pivot. The 
 Apostle took a stand like that which Luther took at 
 Worms ; but with a difference. But for Paul there 
 would have been no Luther, — unless, indeed, it should 
 have pleased God to raise up in the room of Paul an- 
 other equally clear-sighted expositor of the truth and 
 intrepid leader in the church. There was another dif- 
 
 8 
 
114 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 ference. There were numerous friends at Worms to 
 sympathize with Luther's position. Paul was alone. 
 
 Paul and Barnabas took the precaution to have a 
 private conference with the leading persons in the 
 Jerusalem church before they should meet its mem- 
 bers as a body. Paul laid before the select company 
 the substance of his preaching, the Gospel as he 
 understood it, in order that his career as a mission- 
 ary might not be interfered with by a division among 
 the Apostles themselves, and an opposition to him, 
 the fruit of misconception. The other Apostles were 
 told not only what Paul and Barnabas had preached, 
 but also the result of their preaching, — how that 
 among the heathen Paul had been as successful as 
 Peter had been among the Jews. No further per- 
 suasion was needful. Peter, James, and John had 
 nothing to add to Paul's teaching by way of cor- 
 rection or amendment. On the contrary, they ex- 
 tended to the Antioch leaders the right hand of 
 fellowship, with the understanding that their work 
 was to be among the heathen, while their own work 
 should continue to be among the circumcised. There 
 was a cordial fellowship, as was implied in the en- 
 gagement of Paul to collect alms from the Gentile 
 converts for the poor disciples of the mother-church. 
 The danger of a rupture was now over. It was set- 
 tled that the heathen were not to be driven to become 
 Jews in order to be Christians. But it remained for 
 the Apostle of liberty to meet the Jerusalem church 
 as a body. Our knowledge of this public gathering 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 115 
 
 we owe to Luke. At the meeting the recruits from 
 the Pharisaic sect renewed their demand. Peter op- 
 posed it in a characteristic address, wherein he re- 
 ferred to what had occurred in relation to Cornelius. 
 James spoke the final word, quoting, as he naturally 
 would, passages from the prophets. He gave his 
 voice in behalf of catholicity, but recommended that 
 the heathen converts should be enjoined to abstain 
 from certain practices which were especially obnoxious 
 to men of Jewish birth, who had been trained to ob- 
 serve the laws of Moses and were to continue to do 
 so. These articles of peace clashed with no prin- 
 ciple which Paul valued. They included nothing 
 that could fairly be called a modification of his teach- 
 ing. They probably put in a definite form what was 
 already a custom of the Gentile converts. They are 
 based on the injunctions, imposed alike on Israelites 
 and strangers among them, which are set forth in 
 the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of Leviticus*, 
 and included the usages which were practised by 
 proselytes of the gate. The agreement of the Jeru- 
 salem conference, therefore, was not a compromise 
 or concession to Jewish prejudices. It served to 
 keep the peace among the disciples in Syria and 
 Cilicia, to whom it was addressed. At a later day, 
 when Gentile churches were independently established 
 and in remoter places, the Apostle does not feel him- 
 self bound to refer to this pastoral letter of the Jeru- 
 salem conference. In writing to the Corinthians he 
 considers the question of " meat offered to idols " on 
 
116 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 its own merits, — just as he calls for gifts of money 
 for the Jerusalem Christians without referring to the 
 stipulation that he should make a collection for their 
 benefit. Yet he teaches nothing at variance with 
 the essential purport of the instructions given to the 
 Gentile converts. We may be sure that James would 
 have been content with nothing less than these " ne- 
 cessary things," and that Paul would not have con- 
 sented to go farther in the path of concession. To 
 the fact of their harmony and satisfaction with one 
 another Paul himself testifies. That he did not go 
 to the extreme attributed to him by Baur and his 
 fellow-critics is clear enough from the Apostle's ex- 
 press recognition of the " gospel of the circumci- 
 sion " as having been committed to Peter, and of the 
 divine blessing which had been accorded to Peter 
 in his work (Gal. ii. 8). 
 
 Ecclesiastical settlements were not then more cer- 
 tain to be final than in later times. It was under- 
 stood on all hands that the Gentiles were to be left 
 unmolested. But it was expected that Jewish Chris- 
 tians, whoever they were, should continue to conform 
 to the old observances. To this Paul felt no objec- 
 tion. What he refused to do was to impose an obli- 
 gation of this sort on the heathen ; he would not 
 allow it a place among the terms of salvation. If 
 in the consultation of the Apostles at Jerusalem his 
 own work had been approved by Peter, he in turn 
 had approved Peter's work as the Apostle of "the 
 circumcision." It was enough for him that the legal 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 117 
 
 observances were not made the foundation of the 
 Disciples' hope in Christ. As regards outward things, 
 he was no revolutionist. He let the Jewish national 
 usages remain as they were ; he willingly conformed 
 to them himself. Not needlessly to offend Jews, he 
 caused Timothy, whose mother was a Jew, to be cir- 
 cumcised. But still there were points which the 
 Jerusalem conference left undetermined. So the con- 
 troversy was reopened at Antioch in relation to one 
 of these unsettled points. The Jewish and heathen 
 converts there mingled together freely, and sat down 
 at a common table. Peter, as well as Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, had no scruples of conscience respecting this 
 kind of free intercourse. But at length certain per- V 
 
 sons came from James. We are sure that they were 
 persons of influence, for when they objected to this 
 liberality on the part of Jewish Christians, not only 
 Barnabas, but even Peter, deferred to them, and 
 " drew back and separated " themselves. The rest 
 of the Jewish Christians followed them. Here there 
 was suddenly drawn a new line of division between 
 the two classes of Christians. Once more Paul had 
 to stand by himself. He sharply and publicly re- 
 buked Peter for timidity and unfaithfulness to prin- 
 ciple. He, a Jew, had been living as a Gentile 
 himself, and now he was trying, so far as his example 
 went, to bring the Gentiles to live as if they were 
 Jews. The authors of this trouble came from James. 
 It is not safe to conclude that they came expressly 
 on this errand. Yet it may be that the liberal course 
 
118 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 taken by Peter was the occasion of their mission. It 
 is, on the whole, probable that their view of the sub- 
 ject was one in which James participated. He had 
 given to Paul and Barnabas, in all sincerity, the right 
 hand of fellowship. It does not follow that he ex- 
 pected the old restrictions as to eating with the 
 Gentiles, and their social relations in general, to be 
 swept away. It is likely that he did not interpret 
 the Jerusalem arrangement in so broad a way as 
 Paul construed it. A church made up as at Antioch, 
 of Gentiles and Jews together, presented a case which 
 in the conference had not been definitely consid- 
 ered. The tradition about James as it was given 
 by Hegesippus, the Jewish Christian historian, in the 
 middle of the second century, represents him as an 
 ascetic, observing the Nazarite rule, strict in all his 
 ways, frequently resorting alone to the temple, " pray- 
 ing for the forgiveness of the people until his knees 
 grew hard and thin." We see him, on the occasion 
 of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, receiving the Apostle 
 to the Gentiles with fraternal cordiality, to be sure, 
 yet advising him to make a further manifestation of 
 his respect for the ritual by taking on himself a vow, 
 which involved the shaving of the head. The motive 
 of James's counsel is thus explained in his own 
 language : " That ... all may know . . . that thou 
 thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law" 
 (Acts xxi. 24). The occurrence shows how strenu- 
 ous James was for the keeping up of the Mosaic cere- 
 monies by the Jewish Christians, and how anxious 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 119 
 
 he was that Paul should do something to efface a 
 prevailing impression that he had tried to induce 
 Jews to discard them. 
 
 The spirit of James is clearly disclosed in the Epis- 
 tle which bears his name. It was included in the 
 ancient Syriac canon, and as it was addressed to Jew- 
 ish Christians outside of Palestine, it was not improb- 
 ably intended to be read primarily by Syrian disciples. 
 The law, in the spiritual import given to it by Jesus, 
 is prominent in the writer's esteem. We observe in 
 the Epistle not a few echoes of the teaching of Christ. 
 The practical tone, averse to all theory and theologic 
 disputation, is obvious. Its doctrine is not contradic- 
 tory to that of Paul, but moves in a different line. 
 As Jesus had taught, it is said that men are to be 
 judged by their works. There is a verbal contrast 
 with sayings of Paul ; for example, in the definite 
 assertion that Abraham was justified by works. 
 Whether or not we are to conclude that the author 
 had in mind a current use and misuse of Pauline 
 phraseology, depends on the date to which James's 
 Epistle is to be assigned. Some would place it too 
 early to admit of any reference to Pauline theology. 
 There is much in the peculiarities of the Epistle — as 
 in the application of the name " synagogue " to the 
 meeting-place of Christians — to favor the supposi- 
 tion of a very early date. Could it be shown that it 
 was written by James at a later point of time, the 
 opinion that it refers to Pauline language would be 
 more probable. 
 
120 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 What was the immediate outcome of the renewed 
 controversy at Antioch, the Apostle in his letter to 
 the Galatians does not inform us. Taken up with his 
 theme, — salvation by faith alone, — he drops the con- 
 sideration of personal matters. About seven years 
 after the apostolic conference at Jerusalem and the 
 subsequent rebuke of Peter, we find Paul writing an 
 epistle to the Christians at Rome. During this in- 
 terval he had been pursued with animosity by the 
 Judaizing faction, of whose malignity he repeatedly 
 complains. Nowhere does he imply that the other 
 Apostles are in sympathy with these enemies of him- 
 self and of the Gospel. On the contrary, his refer- 
 ences to the other Apostles imply the opposite. Yet 
 the reports which the Judaizers set afloat concerning 
 him, to which a reference has just been made, might 
 easily excite a certain degree of alarm and uneasi- 
 ness even among the apostolic leaders who had ex- 
 tended to him the right hand of fellowship. We 
 must bear in mind that the disturbance at Antioch 
 had followed. Whether the separation of Paul from 
 Barnabas, the immediate occasion of which had refer- 
 ence to Mark, had any connection with that incident, 
 we are not informed. At all events, when Paul writes 
 to the Romans, he is looking forward to another visit 
 to Jerusalem, not without some anxiety about the re- 
 ception that will be accorded to him. He asks for 
 the prayers of the Roman brethren not only that he 
 may be delivered from the hostility of the unbelieving 
 Jews in that city, but also that his " ministration " 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 121 
 
 might be acceptable to the " saints " there. There 
 was some apprehension in his mind lest the collection 
 which he had been making for the poor in the Jeru- 
 salem church might be unwelcome (Rom. xv. 31), 
 gathered as it was from churches composed of heathen 
 converts, and while the accusation of being hostile to 
 the observance of the Mosaic rites by anybody was 
 circulated against him. His kind and fraternal re- 
 ception by James and his associates dispelled this 
 apprehension. The mob of Jews that assailed him, 
 notwithstanding the precautions taken to appease 
 their wrath, showed the hatred which had been accu- 
 mulating against him in the course of the missionary 
 campaigns in which he had spent the later eventful 
 years. 
 
 The Apostle now passed into the custody of Roman 
 officers. At the end of about two years he was con- 
 veyed to Rome. After the lapse of another equal 
 interval, he appears to have been set free for a time. 
 Once more a captive, it was in the closing part of 
 Nero's reign, the period of the tyrant's unbridled 
 cruelty, and in the year 66 or 67, that he fell under 
 the sword of the executioner. If the name of James 
 is not an interpolation in a passage of Josephus, 
 James perished in the interval between the death of 
 the procurator Festus and the arrival of his successor, 
 or in the year 62. As to the main fact that James 
 was stoned to death, the traditions agree. It is evi- 
 dent that the animosity of the Jews even against the 
 most conservative — if the term may be allowed — of 
 
122 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the followers of Jesus was growing fierce. The lines 
 between the adherents of orthodox Judaism and the 
 believers in the Nazarene were more and more sharply 
 drawn. At length, in the year 66, the great insurrec- 
 tion against Rome burst out. In the blaze of the 
 popular fanaticism there was no safety for Christians 
 within the walls of Jerusalem. The church there was 
 broken up. When the epoch of the mortal struggle of 
 Judaism with Roman power was fast approaching, the 
 Jewish Christians must necessarily find that the mid- 
 dle position which, in a certain sense, they had held, 
 was no longer tenable. There were circumstances 
 which might tempt them to give up their faith in 
 Jesus, and to find their comfort exclusively in the old 
 system in which they had been bred, and whose cere- 
 monies they still observed. They had hoped for the 
 conversion of their countrymen, but that hope grew 
 more and more faint. They had hoped for the re- 
 appearance of the ascended Messiah, but where was 
 the promise of his coming ? Patriotic instincts might 
 naturally awake to a new life, and sympathy with the 
 national enthusiasm, impelling to a revolt against 
 foreign domination, might find a lodgment even 
 in Christian hearts. There stands in the canon an 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the authorship of 
 which opinion has been divided from ancient times. 
 At the present day there are few scholars who attri- 
 bute it to Paul. Some, with Luther, ascribe it to 
 Apollos ; others to Luke, or to Barnabas. Whoever 
 the writer was, it is certain that it was addressed to 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 123. 
 
 Jewish Christians. The purpose of the author, more- 
 over, is clear. He sees a danger and he is striving to 
 ward it off. He seeks to deter Jewish believers from 
 lapsing from their faith and returning to Judaism. 
 He is anxious to show them that they have in the 
 Gospel a treasure infinitely more precious than any- 
 thing offered them in the old ritual, and that the 
 ordinances and ceremonies of the ancient covenant 
 are but types of blessed and enduring realities brought 
 to them through Christ. To go back to the old 
 sacrificial system is to give up the substance for the 
 shadow. 
 
 If there was a retrograde movement, a reactionary 
 tendency in some minds at this critical era, when the 
 fate of the Jewish state and the Jewish religion hung 
 in the balance, the same circumstances would engen- 
 der in another class an opposite feeling. They would 
 cling to the Christian faith with redoubled ardor and 
 firmness. The tie that still held them to the old cere- 
 monies would be loosened. The rejection of the Mes- 
 siah by the Jewish people, and the persistent rejection 
 of him, with the attendant fact of the astonishing 
 spread of the new faith among the Gentiles, must 
 have tended to open the eyes of many to a more just 
 and liberal interpretation of the purpose of God. A 
 fatal blow was dealt at Jewish Christianity by Divine 
 Providence, — the same Providence which had been 
 the teacher from the beginning, removing, step by 
 step, prejudice and misconception. No doubt there 
 were those with whom the legions of Titus were more 
 
124 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 effective than persuasion and argument. The " logic 
 of events " could not be disputed. Many Jewish 
 Christians must have seen in the ruins of the Temple 
 a sign of the passing away of the ancient system of 
 worship. When the Jewish rites were wholly for- 
 bidden in Jerusalem, and it was converted by Hadrian 
 into a heathen city (a. d. 135), the lesson was taught 
 afresh with an irresistible emphasis. 
 
 It was probably about the time of the beginning of 
 the Jewish war, and after the death of the Apostle 
 Paul, that there was a migration of a number of Jew- 
 ish Christians to Asia Minor. Among them were the 
 two Apostles Andrew and Philip, and among them 
 also was the Apostle John. John took up his abode 
 at Ephesus. Traditions of his life and teaching and 
 traces of his influence remained in all that region. 
 There, in his serene old age, he wrote his Gospel and 
 Epistles. From one of his pupils, the martyr Poly- 
 carp, Irenaeus in his youth heard personal reminis- 
 cences of the Beloved Disciple. It is the same 
 Apostle who, long before, had given to the Apostle to 
 the Gentiles " the right hand of fellowship." After 
 all these years, after the providential occurrences 
 which had swept away the hope of the conversion of 
 the Jews as a body, it would be strange indeed if no 
 further advance had been made in catholicity of per- 
 ception. The sayings of Jesus, which indicate the 
 spiritual and universal nature of the Gospel, are pres- 
 ent in John's recollection. He remembered that 
 Jesus had said that the worship of the Father was not 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 125 
 
 to be confined to Mount Gerizim or to Jerusalem. 
 Christianity was now set free from Judaism, and in 
 the second century Judaic Christianity survived only 
 in sects beyond the borders of the church. 
 
 To revert for a moment to the causes which brought 
 on this result, the historical events to which refer- 
 ence has been made have an important place. The 
 subjugation of the Jews by Hadrian, and the exclu- 
 sion of their worship from the Holy City, were of 
 especial consequence. An essential condition, on 
 which the result depended, was the multiplying of 
 churches made up of Gentile converts. The rapid 
 spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world, and the 
 comparative fewness of its Jewish adherents, excited 
 surprise even in the lifetime of Paul. It was to him 
 a mysterious fact, a fact that called for explanation. 
 His heart is wrung when he thinks of the situation 
 in which his " kinsmen according to the flesh " are 
 left. That they should not be included within the 
 fold of the Messiah ! Through the ninth, the tenth, 
 and the eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans he wrestles with the problem. He rests in no 
 single solution, but passes from one to another. The 
 blessing of God has never been bestowed strictly ac- 
 cording to the law of heredity ; God's sovereign will 
 has decided on whom it should descend ; it is im- 
 pious to call in question his right to determine the 
 lot of his creatures. Then there is always a rem- 
 nant of Israelites who are not cut off from the bless- 
 ing. Moreover, if the rest lose it, the fault is theirs ; 
 
126 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 they do not seek it by faith. Finally, their rejection 
 is only temporary ; when the Gentiles have flowed 
 in, their emulation will be kindled, their turn will 
 come ; " and so all Israel shall be saved." Thus in 
 these fervid passages, passing from one suggestion to 
 another, the Apostle pours out his soul, rent with 
 anguish by the spectacle of the people of Israel, whose 
 are the promises, turning their back on the Christ. 
 Theologians have too often erred in losing sight of 
 the historical situation which so deeply moved the 
 Apostle, and in fixing their attention on only a frac- 
 tion of his utterances. But the point which concerns 
 us here is the effect of the influx of the Gentiles, and 
 of the comparatively small accession of Jewish con- 
 verts, in determining the character of the Church and 
 in moulding its institution. The catholic character 
 of early Christianity was in no small measure the re- 
 sult of these circumstances. But underlying all other 
 agencies was the leavening influence of the teaching 
 of Jesus. The catholic elements of that teaching pro- 
 duced their legitimate effect. They were the warrant 
 for the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. They leavened 
 the spirit of the Apostle John. It was Jesus and the 
 teaching of Jesus that liberated Christianity from the 
 entanglements of Judaism. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REVELATION AND FAITH. 
 
 The term " Revelation " is commonly used to de- 
 note religious truth supernaturally communicated, 
 as distinguished from the knowledge of God obtained 
 by natural means. In this use of terms revealed 
 religion stands in contrast with natural religion. But 
 all our knowledge of God, through whatever medium 
 derived, is from one ultimate source. That source is 
 a revelation, or disclosure, which God makes of him- 
 self. And all truth respecting things divine and 
 supernatural is apprehended by faith. Faith is the 
 word descriptive of the mind's reception of it. Hence, 
 in speaking of faith, and illustrating its nature, we 
 may fitly take into view the fundamental truths of 
 natural theology as well as Christianity. 
 
 It is often said, and the same thing is more often 
 insinuated, that faith is something independent of evi- 
 dence. It is looked upon as belief for which no rea- 
 sons — that is to say, no valid reasons — are to be 
 assigned. The individual himself, such is the impli- 
 cation, may perhaps be fully persuaded, but nothing 
 that he can say constitutes an adequate ground of 
 conviction for other minds than his own. 
 
128 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 One occasion of this impression is the failure to 
 distinguish between the sources and the proofs of 
 religion. The genesis of religion as a fact of expe- 
 rience is one thing ; the proofs of its reasonableness 
 and the vindication of faith against scepticism are 
 another. The genesis of religion is primarily from 
 within, and not from without. As Aristotle styled 
 man a political animal, it may be affirmed with even 
 more emphasis that man is a religious being. Re- 
 ligion is not something foreign to his nature, imported 
 into it from the external world, inculcated as a piece 
 of information by his elders ; nor is it, in its origin, 
 an inference from the marks of design stamped upon 
 things about him. The roots of religion are not in 
 any process of the understanding. The idea that 
 religious faith is a delusion of the imagination, a 
 superstition engendered by dreams or by the fancied 
 sight of ghosts of the dead, is disproved by history 
 and philosophy. Religion is too deeply embedded in 
 human nature, it is too powerful a factor in the his- 
 tory of mankind, to be accounted for by any of these 
 superficial conjectures. Faith in the Being above us, 
 the Author of our being, springs out of the sense of 
 dependence and the feeling of obligation and of law, 
 — law felt as the manifested will of another, even the 
 infinite Spirit in whom we live, — and it is born of 
 that yearning for a higher fellowship with him which 
 alone can fill the soul with peace and joy. This 
 primal revelation of God in the soul is the fountain- 
 head of religion. However vague this impression 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 129 
 
 may be in the beginning, however obscure the percep- 
 tion, and however dim it is rendered by the absorbing 
 quest for earthly pleasure, it is the light of all our 
 seeing. There is a nisus in the souls of men, — a 
 tendency " to seek God, if haply they might feel after 
 him and find him." This implied recognition of the 
 existence of God is that from which — as John Calvin, 
 in unison with the most profound philosophers of all 
 ages, expresses it — "the propensity to religion pro- 
 ceeds." Here is the germ of our distinct and defined 
 religious convictions. The latent anticipations of our 
 nature are met and matched by the manifestation of 
 God in the material world, in history, or the provi- 
 dential succession of events, and in Christ. These 
 manifestations constitute the objective proofs of reli- 
 gion. They are real proofs. Drawn out into explicit 
 statements, they constitute the arguments for Christian 
 theism. It is true that no constraining efficacy belongs 
 to them. But the same is to be said of all reasoning 
 that is not strictly demonstrative. No other inter- 
 pretation of the phenomena is so satisfactory to the 
 unbiassed reason of thoughtful inquirers. At the same 
 time, another interpretation of the phenomena is al- 
 ways possible. Here it is that the primal disclosure of 
 God in consciousness, the native " propensity to reli- 
 gion," when it is not dulled or stifled, avails to banish 
 doubt. Let it be noticed, also, that this very religious 
 constitution, by which we are inwardly drawn to God, 
 correlated as it is to objective manifestations, consti- 
 tutes an argument for the verity to which it points. 
 
130 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 The great church historian Neander, whose living 
 experience of religion opened to his mind its true 
 philosophy, has these noble words respecting Socrates : 
 " Socrates stands at the head of those men of supreme 
 distinction in the world's history who, in the times 
 when faith in anything divine and in objective truth 
 has been shaken and shattered by the sophistry of an 
 understanding that disintegrates all things, and the 
 power of an all-embracing spirit of denial, have led 
 men back into the depths of their soul, which is akin 
 to God, and have caused them to find in the im- 
 mediate consciousness of the true and the divine an 
 assurance lifted above all doubts. From the specu- 
 lative questions, in answering which the spirit ever 
 anew tires itself out, he turned their glance within 
 upon their own moral nature. From the external 
 world he called the spirit back to its own inner being, 
 that it might there find its whereabout and learn to 
 be at home. It is the weighty ' know thyself ' which 
 the oracle at Delphi praised as the characteristic 
 merit of Socrates. The great impulse that went forth 
 from him worked on for centuries, and in later times 
 was continually renewed by the agency of men who 
 carried down his spirit to after ages ; and this in- 
 fluence it was which directed attention to that in 
 man which is immediately related to God and to the 
 moral element in the human soul, as well as from 
 this, as the starting-point, to the religious." What 
 sceptical minds need in this age, as in every other, 
 is to remember that man has a soul as well as an 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 131 
 
 understanding. Conscience, sensibility, affection, as- 
 piration are a deep and indestructible part of human 
 nature. As there is a soul, there is a life of the soul. 
 There are presages and inchoate beliefs native to 
 human beings, existing by their own right, entitled 
 to respect, needing, it may be, light and direction, 
 but too sacred to be ignored. To surrender them is 
 to fling away that which is most precious in man. 
 In the depths of the spirit religion has its birth. It 
 is a flame kindled in the soul by its Divine Author. 
 
 Keeping in mind that the grounds of faith are in 
 the connection of the subjective and objective mani- 
 festations of God, each throwing light upon the other 
 and each serving to corroborate the other, we may 
 glance at certain leading proofs of theism which thus 
 address us from without. 
 
 Nature is pervaded by an intellectual element. 
 That nature is intelligible, is the prime assumption 
 in all study of natural phenomena. As Professor 
 Huxley truly remarks, at the beginning of a recent 
 essay on the progress of science in the last half cen- 
 tury, the object of science " is the discovery of the 
 rational order which pervades the universe.' , This 
 affinity of nature with our own minds, this mind in 
 nature, implies an intelligent Author of nature. It is 
 possible to conclude otherwise, but not reasonable or 
 natural. 
 
 Materialistic atheism must begin with the impossi- 
 ble task of resolving the human mind into a machine, 
 and identifying consciousness and thought with the 
 
132 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 molecular movements of the brain. It must build a 
 bridge which can never be built. The doctrine of the 
 conservation of energy affords no help in this direc- 
 tion. Clerk Maxwell, one of its most authoritative 
 expounders, says : " There is action and reaction 
 between body and soul, but it is not of a kind in which 
 energy passes from one to the other, — as when a 
 man pulls a trigger, it is the gunpowder that projects 
 the bullet, or when a pointsman shunts a train, it is 
 the rails that bear the thrust. . . . The conservation 
 of energy, when applied to living beings, leads to the 
 conclusion that the soul of an animal is not, like the 
 mainspring of a watch, the motive power of the body, 
 but that its function is rather that of a steersman of 
 a vessel, — not to produce, but to regulate and direct, 
 the animal powers." 
 
 No modern discoveries have weakened the force of 
 the argument of design, which in all ages has im- 
 pressed alike the philosopher and the peasant. Evo- 
 lution is a method, not a cause. It does nothing to 
 account for the origin of things or the energy exerted 
 in all progressive development. " It is plain," says 
 Mr. Sully, " that every doctrine of evolution must 
 assume some definite initial arrangement, which is 
 supposed to contain the possibilities of the order 
 which we find to be evolved, and no other possi- 
 bility." Until that initial arrangement, involving all 
 that issues out of it, is accounted for, not a step is 
 taken towards explaining the world. The outcome 
 of all the past history of Nature is undeniably an 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 133 
 
 orderly system, — a cosmos. To introduce an ele- 
 ment of " chance " in the succession of steps leading 
 to it is a philosophical absurdity. Such a meaning- 
 less notion might seem to be countenanced in the 
 terms used to describe the promiscuous variation 
 which was a part of Mr. Darwin's theory. But even 
 Mr. Darwin had no thought of denying that there are 
 laws of variability. " Our ignorance," he says, " of 
 the laws of variation is profound." This of course 
 implies that there are such laws. The constitution 
 of the being that varies is an essential factor, and 
 with Mr. Darwin the prime factor, in producing the 
 variations which constitute the materials on which 
 the so-called selective agency of nature acts. But 
 according to many evolutionists, like Asa Gray, va- 
 riation moves along definite lines, and its range is 
 limited. If this were not the fact, as the physio- 
 logist Dr. W. B. Carpenter cogently argues, the 
 chances to be overcome in building up an organized 
 species are infinite. " On the hypothesis of ' natu- 
 ral selection ' among aimless variations," says Dr. 
 Carpenter, " I think that it could be shown that the 
 probability is infinitely small that the progressive 
 modifications required in the structure of each indi- 
 vidual organ to convert a reptile into a bird could 
 have taken place without disturbing the required har- 
 mony in their combined action ; nothing but inten- 
 tional variations being competent to bring such a 
 result." The proof of this pre-arrangement is fur- 
 nished "by the orderly sequence of variations fol- 
 
134 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 lowing definite lines of advance. The evidence of 
 final causes is not impaired. ' We simply,' to use the 
 language of Whe well, 'transfer the notion of design 
 and end from the region of facts to that of laws ; ' 
 that is, from the particular cases to the general plan. 
 In this general plan the production of man is com- 
 prehended. In him, the final product, the meaning 
 and aim of the entire scheme of creation are fully 
 discovered." 
 
 There are naturalists, among them Mr. Wallace, 
 who are in more full accord with Darwin's particular 
 view, and ascribe more to " natural selection." Gen- 
 erally speaking, even these are not so rash as to un- 
 dertake to rule out teleology, and to explain the 
 phenomena of vegetable and animal life on a mechan- 
 ical theory which excludes design. How inadequate 
 t}.e mechanical view is, regarded as an explanation 
 of nature, has been demonstrated by Lotze and other 
 philosophers, who are not in the least averse to the 
 doctrine of a genetic relation of animal species to one 
 another, or even to a wider extension of evolutionary 
 theory. It is easy for naturalists to become absorbed 
 in the search after the links of causal connection 
 which bind together the phenomena of nature. There 
 is an extreme, the antipode of that false use of the 
 idea of final causes which stifled inductive investiga- 
 tion and against which Bacon protested. But even 
 to naturalists of the present day, who are chargeable 
 with this error, the teleological aspect of nature, the 
 design that runs through all, will at times come home 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 135 
 
 with an irresistible force of impression. Darwin is 
 himself an example. The Duke of Argyll, speaking 
 of the phenomena of nature, which " our mind recog- 
 nizes as mental," writes as follows : — 
 
 " I have the best reason to know that Darwin himself 
 was very far from being insensible to the evidence of this 
 truth. In the year preceding his death he did me the 
 honor to call upon me in London ; and in the course of 
 our conversation I said to him that to me it seemed 
 wholly impossible to separate many of the adjustments 
 which he had so laboriously traced and described, to any 
 other agency than that of mind. His reply was one 
 which has left an ineffaceable impression upon me, not 
 from its words only, but from the tone and manner in 
 which it was given. ; Well,' he said, ' that impression 
 has often come upon me with overpowering force. But 
 then, at other times, it all seems — ; ' and then he passed 
 his hands across his eyes, as if to indicate the passing of 
 a vision out of sight." 
 
 The admission of a First Cause — that is, of a Cause 
 which is not itself an effect — is unavoidable, unless 
 the principle of causation is to be utterly discredited. 
 The Agnostic theory of an " Unknowable " is self- 
 destructive. To ascribe to the Infinite Being power, 
 is open to whatever objection is imagined to lie 
 against the ascription to that Being of intelligence. 
 It is assumed that there is a revelation of power: 
 because of this revelation the existence of that being: 
 is assumed. But the revelation of intelligence is 
 every whit as clear. 
 
 How shall we be assured of the moral attributes 
 
136 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of God, of bis holiness and love ? We are in a world 
 that abounds in suffering. How shall this be recon- 
 ciled with benevolence in the Creator ? Much weight 
 is to be given to the consideration of the effects flow- 
 ing of necessity from a system of general laws, not- 
 withstanding the advantages of such a system. The 
 suggestions relative to the occasions and beneficent 
 offices of pain and death, which are presented by such 
 writers as James Martineau, in his recent work, " A 
 Study of Religion," are helpful. Especially is the 
 fact of moral evil to be taken into the account when 
 a solution is sought for the problem of physical evil, 
 its concomitant and so often its consequence. Let it 
 be freely granted, however, that no explanations that 
 man can devise avail to clear up altogether the mys- 
 tery of evil. It is only a small part of the system of 
 things that falls under our observation in the present 
 stage of our being. It is not by an inductive argu- 
 ment, by showing a preponderance of good over evil 
 in the arrangements of nature, that the mind is set 
 at rest. There is no need of an argument of this 
 kind. There is need of faith, but that faith is ra- 
 tional. We find in our own moral constitution a 
 direct and full attestation of the goodness of God. 
 Our moral constitution is affirmed, by a class of evo- 
 lutionists, to be a gradual growth from a foundation 
 of animal instincts. Let this speculation go for what 
 it may be worth. The same theory is advanced re- 
 specting the human intellect. Yet the intellect is 
 assumed to be an organ of knowledge. There is no 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. J 37 
 
 avoiding this conclusion, else all science, evolution- 
 ary science included, is a castle in the air. If the 
 intellect is entitled to trust, so equally is the moral 
 nature. Are the righteousness and goodness of God 
 called in question on the ground of perplexing facts 
 observed in the structure and course of the world ? 
 Where do we get the qualifications for raising such 
 inquiries or rendering an answer to them ? It must 
 be from ideals of character which we find within our- 
 selves, and from the supreme place accorded to the 
 moral law which is written on the heart. But whence 
 come these moral ideals ? Who enthroned the law of 
 righteousness in the heart ? Who inscribed on the 
 tablets of the soul the assertion of the inviolable au- 
 thority of right and the absolute worth of love as a 
 motive of action ? In a word, our moral constitution 
 is itself given us of God, and if it be not the reflection 
 of his character, it is, for aught we can say, a false 
 light ; in which case all the verdicts resting upon it, 
 with all the queries of scepticism as to the goodness 
 of God, may be illusive. The arraignment of the 
 character of God on the ground of alleged imper- 
 fections in nature or of seemingly harsh and unjust 
 occurrences in the course of events, is therefore sui- 
 cidal. The revelation of God's character is in our 
 moral constitution. The voice within us, which is 
 uttered in the sacred impulse of duty and in the law 
 of love, is his voice. There we learn what he ap- 
 proves, what he requires, what he rewards. When 
 this proposition is denied, we lose our footing; we 
 
138 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 cut away the ground for trust in our own capacity for 
 moral criticism. 
 
 Man has not one originating cause, and the world 
 another. The existence and supreme authority of 
 conscience imply that in the on-going of the world 
 righteousness holds sway. If there is a moral pur- 
 pose underlying the course of things, then a righteous 
 Being is at the helm. What confusion worse than 
 chaos in the idea that while man himself is bound to 
 be actuated by a moral purpose, the universe in which 
 he is to act his part exists for no moral end, and that 
 through the course of things no moral purpose runs ! 
 
 Even Kant, who bases our conviction as to the fun- 
 damental truths of religion on moral grounds, and 
 asserts for it, not a strictly logical, but a moral cer- 
 tainty, nevertheless declares this conviction to be in- 
 evitable where there exist right moral dispositions. 
 " The only caution to be observed," he says, " is 
 that this faith of the intellect (Vernunftglaube) is 
 founded on the assumption of moral tempers." If 
 one were utterly indifferent to moral laws, even then 
 the conclusion " would still be supported indeed by 
 strong arguments from analogy, but not by such as an 
 obstinate sceptical bent might not overcome." 
 
 It is not my object in these remarks to draw out in 
 full the proofs of the existence and the moral attri- 
 butes of God. It is rather to illustrate the relation in 
 which these proofs stand to those perceptions, in- 
 choate and spontaneous in the experiences of the soul, 
 which are the ultimate subjective source of religion, 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 139 
 
 and on which the living appreciation of the revelation 
 of God in external nature is contingent. Let it be 
 observed, moreover, that these native spiritual experi- 
 ences of dependence, of obligation and accountable- 
 ness, of hunger for fellowship with the Infinite One, 
 wherein religion takes its rise and has its root, are 
 themselves to be counted as proofs of the reality of 
 the object implied in them. They are significant of 
 the end for which man was made. They presuppose 
 God. 
 
 It is true that all our knowledge rests ultimately on 
 an act of faith which finds no warrant in any process 
 of reasoning. We cannot climb to this trust on the 
 steps of a syllogism. We are obliged to start with a 
 confidence in the veracity of our intellectual faculties ; 
 and this we have to assume persistently in the whole 
 work of acquiring knowledge. Without this assump- 
 tion we can no more infer anything or know anything 
 than a bird can fly in a vacuum. All science reposes 
 on this faith in our own minds, which implies and in- 
 cludes faith in the Author of the mind. This primi- 
 tive faith in ourselves is moral in its nature. So of 
 all that truth which is justly called self-evident. No 
 arguments are to be adduced for it. In every process 
 of reasoning it is presupposed. We can prove noth- 
 ing except on the basis of propositions that admit of 
 no proof. But if we leave out of account the domain 
 of self-evident truth, which is ground common to both 
 religion and science, religious beliefs, as far as they 
 are sound, are based on adequate evidence. It may 
 
140 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION, 
 
 be well, however, to explain somewhat more definitely 
 what is denoted by faith, — to say enough, at least, to 
 guard against certain misconceptions. At the open- 
 ing of one of the noblest passages in the New Testa- 
 ment, faith is defined as " the substance of things 
 hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." A more 
 correct rendering of the verse would be : " The firm 
 assurance of things hoped for, the being convinced of 
 things not seen," — that is, of their reality. Faith 
 makes real to the mind objects of hope, things in the 
 future ; it makes real also things not cognizable by the 
 senses. It takes these things out of a kind of dream- 
 land ; and, further, it gives to them a substantial be- 
 ing, so that they exercise a due control in the shaping 
 of conduct. 
 
 It is superfluous to remark that faith creates noth- 
 ing, makes nothing different from what it is already. 
 This is evident of that sort of faith which is exercised 
 in relation to mundane affairs. I believe in the virtue 
 of a medicine ; but if my faith is well founded, the 
 virtue is in the medicine quite independently of any 
 idea or feeling of mine in regard to it. I believe in a 
 physician ; but my belief does not give him the knowl- 
 edge and the tact in which I confide. He is just the 
 same — just as competent, or incompetent, as the case 
 may be — whether I trust in him or not. Or take 
 for an illustration the faith of a discoverer. Columbus 
 believed that he could reach a continent by sailing 
 westward on a path which Europeans had never taken. 
 His faith urged him onward week after week and 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 141 
 
 month after month, never turning his prow, regard- 
 less of the discontent of his men, until faith was 
 rewarded by sight. He descried at last the green 
 shores and heard the singing of the birds. The poet 
 Schiller, indeed, referring to the ardor of his faith, 
 says that had Columbus not found a continent, he 
 would have created one. In truth, if he had not 
 found the land — had there been no real object an- 
 swering to his belief — his faith would have been 
 merely a fancy. 
 
 It is equally obvious that nothing is added to the 
 sum of religious truth by believing in it; nothing is 
 subtracted by indifference or disbelief. As well might 
 one think of creating or destroying the visible uni- 
 verse by opening or shutting the organ of vision. 
 When a person comes to believe in God, he adds not 
 a single quality to the nature of that Being with whom 
 " is no variableness or shadow of turning ; " he sim- 
 ply discerns that which he had failed to see before. 
 He finds God. No one imagines that the prodigal 
 son created his father by returning to him. The 
 forsaken father was always there, waiting for him. 
 Faith in the Gospel is simply the practical acknowl- 
 edgment of a fact. The Apostle Paul reminds his 
 readers that they have not to climb into heaven and 
 bring Christ down, or to descend into the grave and 
 bring him up. He has already lived among men, and 
 he has risen. The victory of Jesus Christ over sin 
 and over death is a finished achievement. Faith is 
 that recognition of the fact which carries in it appro- 
 
142 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 priate fruits in feeling and conduct. No one has 
 understood better what faith is than Martin Luther, 
 himself a great believer. " By faith," says he, " man 
 sees into the heart of God. . . . God is the God of 
 the humble, the miserable, the afflicted, the oppressed, 
 and the desperate, and of those that are brought 
 even to nothing ; and his nature is to exalt the hum- 
 ble, to feed the hungry, to give sight to the blind, 
 to comfort the miserable, the afflicted, the bruised, 
 the broken-hearted, to justify sinners, to quicken the 
 dead, and to save the very desperate and damned. 
 For he is an almighty creator, and maketh all things 
 of nothing." 
 
 Luther was not wrong in considering that the one 
 essential thing in religion is faith ; for without faith 
 there is no real approach to God, — and what is re- 
 ligion but converse or communion with God ? Re- 
 ligion is a relation of person to person. The reveries 
 of Pantheism are not religion in the proper sense of 
 the word. He that cometh to God must believe that 
 he is, and that he is the rewarder of those who seek 
 after him. To speak to a being in whose existence 
 one has no belief is little short of lunacy. To pour 
 out gratitude or to address a petition to something 
 held to be void of consciousness, incapable of hearing, 
 is to bid farewell to common-sense. So of the char- 
 acter of God ; it has no practical influence on a 
 man's thoughts or conduct except as he believes in it. 
 Luther, moreover, was right, and only followed the 
 Scriptures when he insisted that the source of all 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 113 
 
 wrong-doing* as well as of irreligion is the lack of 
 faith. If men believed in God and in a hereafter as 
 truly and as vividly as they believe in the reality of 
 material things around them, temptations would be 
 stripped of their power, sinful pleasure would have 
 no chance as a rival of the higher good. Men sin be- 
 cause they mistake shadow for substance, and sub- 
 stance for shadow. They deify creatures of God, 
 believing in them with an idolatrous faith. Not see- 
 ing them in contrast with an equally clear view of 
 things of imperishable value, they magnify their worth. 
 They are drawn to them by an irresistible attraction, 
 because they are cut off from the influence of the 
 counter-force. They seek to slake the thirst of the 
 spirit for the moment, striving to forget that " he that 
 drinketh of this water shall thirst again." 
 
 We started with the thesis that the truths of re- 
 ligion rest upon good and sufficient evidence. Com- 
 paring these truths with well-grounded beliefs of a 
 different species where the things believed are with- 
 in the circle of every-day life, we shall find that the 
 first difference is in the kind of proofs represented, 
 not in the comparative degree of weight that belongs 
 to them in the two cases. As regards religious truth 
 the proofs are not experimental. We cannot apply 
 to them the tests of the measuring-rod and the cru- 
 cible, and other criteria of a tangible kind, which 
 appeal to the senses. The evidence is, to say the 
 least, equally weighty, but is not of the same sort. 
 Among recent theological writers no one has set 
 
144 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 forth this not unfamiliar distinction with more force 
 and originality than Mozley. Even in astronomy, 
 not only is the reasoning in great part of a demon- 
 strative kind, being mathematical in its nature, but 
 it has the advantage of being verified by the observed 
 fulfilment of prediction. The eclipse draws a cur- 
 tain over the disk of the sun at the very moment 
 set down in the almanac. The comet makes its 
 appearance, fulfilling with absolute punctuality a 
 prophecy recorded centuries before. It may be 
 doubted whether astronomical truth — truth so amaz- 
 ing and almost bewildering in its nature — would gain 
 the assent of the common mind, were it not veri- 
 fied to everybody in this visible and astonishing way. 
 Now, the only thing in religion analogous to these 
 external tests is the miracle, — including prophecy, 
 which is one form of miracle. The miracle is a sign, 
 a kind of experimental proof, an appeal to the senses 
 as an aid to faith. Jesus wrought miracles only 
 where there was already a germinant faith. He said 
 to Thomas, " Blessed are they that have not seen, 
 and yet have believed." Jesus manifested himself 
 to the senses of the doubting disciple, and that dis- 
 ciple believed. It is a higher thing to believe when 
 there is nothing but testimony, and when the internal 
 probability of the fact is thrown into the scale and 
 avails to carry the mind's assent. 
 
 It is therefore an error, either undesigned or in- 
 tentional, of sceptical writers to describe faith as 
 an arbitrary, groundless acceptance of doctrines in 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 145 
 
 behalf of which no proof is possible. This is to con- 
 found faith and credulity. It makes religion the 
 equivalent of superstition. Montaigne in his Essays, 
 in his genial way of avoiding whatever might give 
 offence or raise a dispute, affords an example of this 
 practice of relegating faith to a province quite apart 
 from reason. The open rejection of religious truth 
 is avoided by this urbane method of remanding the 
 creed to a department where it is presumptuous for 
 plain mortals to intrude. Hume in his Essays, 
 Gibbon in his History, following a common practice 
 of free-thinkers in the last century, in an ironical or 
 sarcastic vein, not unfrequently refer to faith as some- 
 thing too sacred to rest on proof. Thus religious 
 beliefs are made to hang in mid-air, without any 
 support. But the foundation of these beliefs is no 
 less solid for the reason that empirical tests are not 
 applicable to them. The data on which they rest 
 are real, and the inferences from the data are fairly 
 drawn. 
 
 The first peculiarity of the truth accepted by faith 
 is, then, the absence of the external or experimental 
 sort of proof in confirmation of it. In addition to 
 this peculiarity, the truths of religion, while they 
 are of the character just described, summon the mind 
 to a forth-putting of energy in an extraordinary de- 
 gree. An exertion of will is requisite. Take the 
 fundamental truth of religion, the existence of a 
 personal God. The proofs of the being of God are 
 
 so strong that they would suffice to produce con- 
 
 10 
 
146 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 viction in every reasonable mind if the proposition 
 were not one so amazing in its nature. To accept 
 it and rest in it requires a certain energy of trust. 
 " This principle of trust," says Mozley, " is faith, — 
 the same principle by which we repose in a witness 
 of good character who informs us of a marvellous 
 occurrence — so marvellous that the trust in his tes- 
 timony has to be sustained by a certain effort of the 
 reasonable will." The timidity of reason has to be 
 overcome by a courageous exercise of will. In ap- 
 propriating or making our own the things of faith, 
 there is a venture to be made on the ground of the 
 evidence without the stimulus and support of an ap- 
 peal to the senses. In matters of the highest mo- 
 ment which affect our destiny, we have to go upon 
 trust, — a reasonable trust, to be sure, yet requiring 
 to be maintained even in the face of impressions 
 seemingly adverse to it, which come in through the 
 senses. Now, unless the phenomena which are the 
 reasonable ground of faith, and which pertain on 
 the one side to our moral and spiritual experience, 
 are vividly apprehended, the soul will be too timid 
 to make the venture. The stake is too great, the 
 issue too momentous. We are called upon to take 
 a leap in the dark, without seeing what our feet are 
 to touch. There is proof enough, but there is a 
 seeming conflict with the senses. The elements of 
 uncertainty are at once exaggerated. Courage gives 
 way. Many people are afraid in the dark, out of 
 doors and in their own homes, even when they know 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 147 
 
 that there is no rational ground for apprehension. 
 Infidelity is a species of cowardice. 
 
 In a charming passage of the Phsedo, Socrates, 
 after much wise talk about the future life, says : " To 
 affirm positively that all is exactly as I have described, 
 would not befit a man of sense. But since the soul 
 is evidently immortal, that this or something like it 
 is true of our souls and their future habitations, — 
 this I think it does befit him to believe, and it is 
 worth risking his faith upon, for the risk is a glori- 
 ous one indeed." And then later, when Crito in- 
 quires, " ' How do you wish us to bury you V ' Just 
 as you please,' he answered, ' if you only get hold 
 of me and do not let me escape you.' And quietly 
 laughing, and glancing at us, he said : ' I cannot per- 
 suade Crito, my friends, that this Socrates who is 
 now talking with you and laying down each one of 
 these propositions is my very self ; for his mind is 
 full of the thought that I am he whom he is to see 
 in a little while as a corpse ; and so he asks how he 
 shall bury me.' " 
 
 The eleventh chapter of Hebrews enumerates a 
 list of heroes of faith, — Abraham, Moses, and the 
 others. Their faith nerved them to risk everything 
 without fear as to the result. It was not an irrational 
 confidence. Had it been a groundless trust, their 
 bravery would have been mere foolhardiness. Their 
 distinction was that they had the energy to act upon 
 an expectation which, though reasonable in its char- 
 acter, ran counter to all the appearances. Not with- 
 
148 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 out truth has it been said of heroism in general, that 
 it partakes of a supernatural quality. 
 
 A number of years ago I read an account of a 
 visit made by the Prince of Wales in company with 
 an eminent man of science to a great iron foundry. 
 They stood together by a stream of molten iron flow- 
 ing slowly out of the smelting furnace. " Do you 
 believe in science?" said his companion to the Prince. 
 " I do," was the reply. " Then thrust your moistened 
 finger into that stream." The Prince at once divided 
 the stream with his finger, and the finger was not 
 harmed. Whether this particular incident occurred 
 or not, the same thing is not infrequently done by 
 workmen in foundries. On the instant of the con- 
 tact of the hand with the fiery liquid there ensues 
 what the scientific men call " the spheroidal state." 
 The sudden evaporation is somehow attended by a 
 repellency that perfectly shields the flesh for the 
 moment from contact with the burning substance 
 through which it passes. A learned professor has 
 related to me that having had occasion to refer in 
 a popular lecture to the principle of the " spheroidal 
 state," and to explain how a stream of molten iron 
 could be thus parted by the naked hand with im- 
 punity, a lad among his hearers informed him that 
 his father, a workman in a foundry near by, had 
 often done it. The lecturer repaired to the place, 
 and the workman repeated the experiment in his 
 presence ; but in reply to an inquiry, informed him 
 that the other workmen were afraid to do it. The 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 149 
 
 professor to whom I refer has more than once cut 
 with his finger the glowing stream as it flowed out 
 in a slow current from the heated furnace. 
 
 We may suppose a person to understand the princi- 
 ple of the " spheroidal state," and how it is that the 
 hand, with only the ordinary amount of natural 
 moisture upon it, can be safely passed through such 
 a current. Nevertheless, he might shrink from mak- 
 ing the experiment. The sight of the molten liquid 
 might induce a recoil which his faith in the principle 
 would not suffice to overcome. Even in the case to 
 which I have referred, the workmen who saw one of 
 their companions try the experiment again and again, 
 were kept back by a certain timidity from following 
 his example. An unwonted energy, an unwonted 
 boldness, are requisite to neutralize the impression 
 made on the mind through the senses, let reason say 
 what it will. 
 
 It follows that there are grades of faith. We read 
 in the Gospel of Mark that a father who had brought 
 his poor diseased child to Christ, " said with tears, 
 ' Lord, I believe ; help thou mine unbelief.' " The 
 Evangelist Luke records the fact that the Disciples 
 of Jesus came to him with the prayer, " Increase our 
 faith." The petition implies that there is a diffi- 
 culty in believing. Many Christian disciples of later 
 times have found it to be so, both in respect to that 
 general faith in Gccl's presence, power, and love 
 which the Apostles then had specially in mind, and 
 in respect to trust in the revelation of his mercy 
 
150 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 through Christ. Where there is intellectual assent, 
 another element must be mixed with it to constitute 
 faith , Why do we not feel that God is near us and 
 with us ; that not a sparrow falls to the ground with- 
 out him ; that he really pities and cares for us ; that 
 he will provide for us ; that he loves us even when he 
 makes us suffer ; that he can make all things which 
 occur to work together for our good ; that nations, 
 like individuals, are in his hand ? Why do we not 
 feel that if we are stripped of all earthly good, he can 
 more than make up the loss to us ; that in his favor 
 there is life in the highest sense, — true joy ? In a 
 word, why is not God more real to us ? How near 
 is the Power on which we depend for life and breath 
 and all things ! How narrow, after all, is the space 
 that is open to the action of our wills ! Its bounda- 
 ries are close upon us, and on every side is God ! 
 The place and time of our birth, our personal charac- 
 teristics, the outward circumstances of our life, the 
 results of our plans and endeavors, the length of our 
 days, all — save the limited effects left contingent 
 upon our choice — are determined by God. Man pro- 
 poses, but God disposes. He is without us, ordering 
 the course of events. He is within, speaking through 
 conscience. He hems us in on every side, and con- 
 fronts us at every turn. Why should he be to us as 
 if he were not ? 
 
 No doubt the considerations already brought for- 
 ward may suggest a partial answer to the question. 
 We live in a world of sense, and the world of sense 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 151 
 
 abides with us early and late. We live in the midst 
 of things seen and temporal. The material aspect of 
 human existence is constantly before us. On every 
 hand is the appalling spectacle of human decay and 
 death. The generations come and go, carried away 
 " as by a flood." After all. however, this explanation 
 of the dulness of faith appears inadequate. It does 
 not go to the root. We believe in a thousand things 
 that we do not see. The past history of the world I 
 did not myself witness. I believe in the existence of 
 a million stars which I have never beheld. But 
 these, it may be said, are in their own nature visible. 
 But heat is invisible ; the force of gravity is invisible. 
 Yet we believe in these. We believe that the men 
 and women about us have souls, although we have 
 never seen them, nor are they capable of being seen ; 
 for — 
 
 " We are spirits clad in veils, 
 
 Man by man was never seen ; 
 
 All our deep communing fails 
 
 To remove the shadowy screen." 
 
 Why should the visible scene around us intercept the 
 view of God instead of manifesting him ? When we 
 look within, when in a truthful spirit we inquire 
 before the bar of our own judgment in what spirit we 
 have lived, and when we contemplate mankind ear- 
 nestly in their present condition and their past 
 history, we have to confess that human nature is 
 afflicted with a malady, which yet is not properly 
 called a malady, since men accuse themselves and 
 
152 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 blame themselves on account of it and on account of 
 the multiform types of wrong-doing that spring out 
 of it, as fruits from a tree. We may leave it, if we 
 choose, to philosophers and to theologians to discuss 
 the origin of sin, how it spread, and the grounds of 
 personal responsibility for it. Of the fact of sin there 
 can be no question. In one of Professor Huxley's 
 recent excursions into the field of theology he drops 
 for a moment from his usually confident and almost 
 elated mood into a more pensive strain. I quote the 
 paragraph, printing however, two or three words in 
 a type that will call to them special attention : — 
 
 " I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as 
 that of the evolution of humanity as it is set forth in the 
 annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric 
 ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin 
 strong upon him. He is a brute only more intelligent 
 than the other brutes ; a blind prey to impulses which as 
 often as not lead him to destruction ; a victim to endless 
 illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a 
 burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and 
 battle. He retains a degree of physical comfort, and 
 develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such 
 favorable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia and of 
 Egypt, and then, for thousands and thousands of years, 
 struggles with varying fortunes, attended by infinite 
 wickedness, bloodshed, and misery, to maintain himself 
 at this point against the greed and the ambition of his 
 fellow-men. He makes a point of killing and otherwise 
 persecuting all those who first try to get him to move on ; 
 and when he has moved on a step, foolishly confers post- 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 153 
 
 mortem deification on his victims. He exactly repeats 
 the process with all who want to step yet farther. And 
 the best men of the best epochs are simply those who 
 make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins." 
 
 How much truth there is in this vivid picture of 
 the past of mankind is plain to all thoughtful persons. 
 What is worthy of note is that along with what is said 
 of the " evolution of humanity," and notwithstanding 
 the apparent sanction given to that unproved type of 
 evolutionary theory which makes man at the start 
 nothing but an intelligent brute, there is still a per- 
 ception that his career is something more than a 
 chapter in natural history ; that is, moral history 
 is not completely metamorphosed into natural history. 
 There has been " infinite wickedness." Nay, more ; 
 the most that can be claimed for the " best " of men 
 is that they " commit the fewest sins." Has the 
 brilliant naturalist ever pondered what is involved in 
 these unquestioned facts ? Has he ever grasped them 
 in their full purport, and sought to understand what 
 they presuppose respecting the race of mankind ? Is 
 he wise enough to be sure that the solution of them 
 in the Scriptures, and the Christian explanation of 
 the radical source of the " bloodshed and misery," the 
 k - greed and ambition," the " endless illusions " on 
 which he dwells so pathetically, is not after all the 
 most philosophical and satisfactory of all solutions ? 
 Grant that sin, in its origin and diffusion, and the 
 union of individual responsibility and guilt with a 
 common moral depravity coextensive with the race, 
 
134: NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 involves mystery. May it not be, as Coleridge has 
 said, the one mystery that makes all things else clear ? 
 Grant that even when sin is perceived to be the root 
 of misery, it is hard fully to explain the slowness of 
 the divine process of recovery and redemption, yet 
 the gravest difficulty is taken out of the way ; a dark 
 shadow is removed from the character of God and his 
 administration. 
 
 The paragraph which I have quoted from Professor 
 Huxley recalls a striking passage from the pen of a 
 most gifted man, but a man quite different in the 
 cast of his thoughts from the distinguished natural- 
 ist. The passage which follows is extracted from the 
 " Apologia " of John Henry Newman. After speak- 
 ing of the certainty which he has of the being of God, 
 on the ground of the inward testimonies of heart and 
 conscience, he adds : — 
 
 "Were it not for this voice, speaking so clearly in 
 my conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist or a 
 pantheist or a polytheist when I looked into the world. I 
 am speaking for myself only, and I am far from denying 
 the real force of the arguments in proof of a God, drawn 
 from the general facts of human society ; but these do 
 not warm me or enlighten me ; they do not take away 
 the- winter of my desolation, or make the buds unfold 
 and the leaves grow within me, and my moral being re- 
 joice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the 
 prophet's scroll, full of ' lamentations and mourning 
 and woe.' 
 
 " To consider the world in its length and breadth, the 
 many races of man, their starts, their fortunes, their 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 155 
 
 mutual alienations, their conflicts ; . . . the greatness 
 and littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short 
 duration, the curtain hung over his futurity ; the disap- 
 pointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of 
 evil, physical pain, moral anguish, the prevalence and 
 intensity of sin, the pervading idolatries ; the dreary, 
 hopeless irreligion, that condition of the whole race so 
 perfectly yet exactly described in the Apostle's words 
 (' having no hope, and without God in the world '), — all 
 this is a vision to dizzy and appall, and inflicts upon the 
 mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is abso- 
 lutely beyond human solution. 
 
 "What shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason- 
 bewildering fact? . . . Did I see a boy of good make 
 and mind, with the tokens on him of a refined nature, 
 cast upon the world without provision, unable to say 
 whence he came, his birthplace, his family connections, 
 I should conclude that there was some mystery connected 
 with his history, and that he was one of whom, from one 
 cause or other, his parents were ashamed. . . . And so 
 I argue about the world ; if there be a God, since there 
 is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible 
 aboriginal calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes 
 of its Creator. This is a fact, — a fact as true as the 
 fact of its existence ; and thus the doctrine of what is 
 theologically called original sin becomes to me almost 
 as certain as that the world exists, and as the existence 
 of God." 
 
 I have not quoted the whole of these impressive 
 paragraphs of Newman, but I have quoted enough to 
 show the points of strong resemblance between this 
 description of the feelings excited by a calm survey 
 
156 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of men and their history, and that given in the cita- 
 tion from Professor Huxley. If Newman inserts in 
 the dark catalogue " the prevalence and intensity of 
 sin," the phrase is equivalent to the "infinite wicked- 
 ness," the contemplation of which saddens the mind 
 of Huxley. But the difference is that the theologian 
 does not suffer that most terrible fact of evil, involv- 
 ing guilt, which exhibits itself everywhere in human 
 history, — a fact in its very nature abnormal; the 
 abnormal character of which cannot be denied with- 
 out a denial of the fact itself, — to be lightly passed 
 by. He sees in it, in the universality of transgres- 
 sion, proof that in some inscrutable way the race has 
 made shipwreck of itself. There is a source — how- 
 ever incapable it may be of full explication — of this 
 corruption, which, be it never forgotten, is not physi- 
 cal, but is moral and culpable. There must be a fons 
 et origo malorum. Writers of the class of Professor 
 Huxley can see and acknowledge the " infinite wick- 
 edness " of the world, and designate it by its right 
 name. They can see that the only merit of " the best 
 men of the best epochs " is that they " commit the 
 fewest sins." They call them " sins," and distinguish 
 them from " blunders." They confess with pain that 
 immoralities and crimes make up a great part of the 
 annals of mankind. Theorizing about "the evolu- 
 tion of humanity " has to reconcile itself, somehow or 
 other, with human responsibility and with the appal- 
 ling moral depravity which has spread over the race. 
 It is seen clearly enough that to seek to turn, by any 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 157 
 
 hocus-pocus of speculation, whether physical or meta- 
 physical, evil into good, to transmute sin into some- 
 thing not base or blameworthy, is to undertake to 
 paralyze conscience and to undermine the moral basis 
 of society. So here remains the awful fact of sin, 
 and of a common sin, or of sin that is common. 
 Here is the fact which Professor Huxley terms the 
 " infinite ivickedness" that is and has been in the world 
 since men began to exist in it. Here is the reason 
 why Professor Huxley, and every other man who hon- 
 estly goes through an act of self-judgment, is obliged 
 to bow his head like the publican in the parable. 
 
 Sin being an undeniable fact, and being in its na- 
 ture an element of disorder, that our perception of 
 God and of things, spiritual should be to a certain 
 degree darkened by the perversion of the will in its 
 inmost inclination, by the " infinite wickedness " 
 which Professor Huxley deplores, and of which he 
 truly says that the "best men of the best epochs" 
 partake, is what might naturally be expected. 
 
 Light is thus thrown on the psychology of doubt 
 and disbelief. We have to take account of the fact 
 that we have fallen into a habit of mind discordant 
 with our nature, — that better nature which is affili- 
 ated to God; and one effect of this perversion is to 
 obscure the discernment of things supernatural. The 
 life of self which we lead, and which Christ under- 
 took to destroy ; the habit of living to the world 
 and of placing our chief good, and seeking the sat- 
 isfaction of the spirit, within the bounds of created 
 
158 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 nature, — is the radical source of unbelief. We have 
 not liked to retain God in our knowledge. Herschel 
 remarks of the cosmic system as revealed by astron- 
 omy that it is directly opposed to the ordinary con- 
 ception of men. To them the earth is the centre ; 
 the sun moves in a circle around it ; the starry heav- 
 ens are a canopy stretched over it. Science contra- 
 dicts and upsets this natural view of things. But not 
 more than the truth of religion subverts that habit 
 of thought in which the soul is self-centred and the 
 world is looked upon as tributary to its gratification. 
 It is a dictum of common-sense, as well as a word of 
 the Lord, that the heart will be where its treasure is. 
 Can it be considered strange that the course of our 
 mental life — the currents of thought and feeling — 
 should be adjusted to the natural order within which, 
 exclusively, our affections find their chosen objects, 
 and above which our desires and aspirations do not 
 rise ? The laws of association by which the process 
 of our thoughts is determined, keep the attention 
 upon the object of the heart's love. As to all that 
 lies beyond, the vividness of our ideas, and event- 
 ually even our beliefs, are subject to the same in- 
 fluence. The perceptions that engender faith are 
 wanting. The sense of dependence, humility in the 
 room of self-assertion, the craving for something 
 higher than earthly good, the sharp rebukes of con- 
 science, are absent. Faith is a plant that cannot 
 spring up in so barren a soil. One might as well 
 hope to impart science to one void of curiosity and 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 159 
 
 without any true sense of the value of knowledge. 
 Receptivity of one kind or another is the door of 
 access for all higher good. 
 
 If there be such a hindrance to the exercise of faith 
 in general, a peculiar obstacle interferes with trust in 
 the revelation of the love of God in the religion of the 
 Gospel. In this branch of the discussion it is perti- 
 nent to refer to the well-known phenomena of Chris- 
 tian experience. There is an abundance of testimony, 
 in the history of the Church and in Christian biog- 
 raphy, to sustain the remarks which are to follow. 
 To facts of this nature the class whom Newman 
 somewhere denominates " mere men of letters " may 
 think it beneath them to attend. Not so will judge 
 wise and candid students of human nature, be their 
 creed what it may. 
 
 It often happens that when the habit of worldliness 
 is partially broken up, and self-reproach is awakened, 
 the feeling of unworthiness makes it hard to look 
 upon God in any other light than that of a judge. 
 Like Luther in his earlier days, we are inclined to 
 think of Christ as having come into the world to con- 
 demn rather than to save. He seems to be a second 
 Moses, only tenfold more rigid and austere than the 
 first. We read the Sermon on the Mount, and find 
 no difficult v in belie vino- what he savs of the ria;or of 
 the law, the ideal of obligation, — penetrating to the 
 inmost thought of the heart, — finding in unrighteous 
 anger the seed-principle of murder. We believe all 
 this ; but we do not so easily believe in the assurance 
 
160 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 that he is meek and lowly in heart, that " the bruised 
 reed he will not break." The invitation to come unto 
 him and find rest is heard with a kind of distrust. 
 There is a common saying that it is hard to forgive 
 those whom we have injured. Certainly we are apt 
 to imagine them to feel unkindly towards us. A 
 sense of ill-desert banishes men from God the more 
 effectually because they know it to be a true and 
 right feeling, and know that if they condemn their 
 sin God condemns it even more. Such is the effect 
 of the moral ideal brought within the pale of con- 
 sciousness. But the law reveals man to himself ; it 
 does not reveal God to man save partially and in one 
 relation. He is more than law and justice and holi- 
 ness. There is a mercifulness deeper than all. He 
 loves his enemies ; and we are exhorted in the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount to copy his example by doing good 
 to those who treat us ill. " God commendeth his love 
 to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died 
 for us." Yet, notwithstanding this manifestation of 
 the love of God, and of his willingness to forgive the 
 ill-deserving, the sense of guilt and of shame at the 
 lives we have led may hinder us from believing in 
 him. The Prodigal Son, when he resolved to go back 
 to his father, only thought to apply for the place of a 
 servant. " Make me as one of thy hired servants," — 
 that should be his prayer. That was the extent of his 
 hope. But when, weary, foot-sore, and famished, he 
 caught sight of his father, hastening to meet him, and 
 saw that his heart was full of love and pity, he forgot 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 161 
 
 this part of his intended petition. He did not beg to 
 be made a servant. All his dread was dispelled. 
 
 Now that we have glanced at the principal hin- 
 drances in the way of believing, it will not be wan- 
 dering from our subject to inquire by what means 
 faith may be increased. 
 
 Not by the mere exercise of the understanding, — 
 the inquisitive and reasoning faculty. The under- 
 standing, it has been all along implied, has its rights 
 in matters of religion. We cannot be required to 
 believe anything in conflict with the dictates of sound 
 reason. But when men talk of reason and of a sup- 
 posed conflict between Christianity and reason, it is 
 important to inquire what precisely is signified by the 
 term. Whose reason is meant ? Is it the reason of 
 an immature mind ? Is it reason warped by preju- 
 dice, heated by passion, or blinded by conceit and 
 self -admiration ? A conflict between reason as thus 
 described and the Christian system is of no significance 
 in opposition to the latter. When we speak of the 
 accordance of Christianity with reason, we mean 
 the reason of a right-minded man whose intellectual 
 vision is purified. We mean reason regenerated. The 
 Christian cause need not shrink from answering to a 
 tribunal thus qualified for passing judgment. In the 
 case of an historical religion like Christianity, we have 
 a right to examine the testimony to the facts offered 
 to our credence. To attribute all sorts of doubt and 
 questioning to an evil heart is quite unwarrantable. 
 To condemn dissent from the tenets or interpretations 
 
 11 
 
162 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of a particular sect or school, as if it were infallible, 
 is arrogant. At the same time our convictions of 
 religious truth do not take their rise in the under- 
 standing. Define it as you will, there is such a thing 
 as spiritual discernment. A quickened receptivity 
 develops an insight analogous to higher perceptions 
 in the province of Poetry and Art. There are truths 
 which shine in their own light. They impress the 
 soul directly with the evidence of their reality. They 
 will sometimes flash on the mind after long waiting 
 and fruitless groping in the dark. Christ did not say : 
 Blessed are men of genius ; blessed are those who 
 have the ability and leisure for investigation ; blessed 
 are the keen logicians. But he said : " Blessed are 
 the poor in spirit ;" " Blessed are the pure in heart ;" 
 " Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after right- 
 eousness." He took a little child and placed him in 
 the midst of his Disciples, as an example of the hu- 
 mility required for admission into his kingdom. His 
 first followers were not distinguished for their intel- 
 lectual powers. They were unlearned men. It is 
 found — in these days not infrequently — that men 
 eminent for their intellectual powers and acquire- 
 ments are unbelievers. Numerous examples, to be 
 sure, of faith on the part of men equally eminent — 
 men like Kepler, Leibnitz, Newton, Faraday — are 
 not wanting. But apart from striking examples of 
 the power of Christianity to convince the most power- 
 ful minds, no Christian believer has any occasion to 
 be disquieted for the reason that men excelling in 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 163 
 
 science or scholarship stand aloof from the Gospel, or 
 even if they profess atheism. If the secret of un- 
 belief, or its inmost source, be the alienation of the 
 heart from God, what is there in mere intellectual 
 culture to furnish a remedy ? A man may not be 
 cured of a moral distemper by getting knowledge, any 
 more than by getting fame or getting money. 
 
 Two things are to be borne in mind. In the first 
 place, there is abundant evidence that an awakening 
 of conscience, or a quickening of moral sensibility in 
 any form, will often dissipate doubt, and create an 
 inward assurance in another way than by the solving 
 of intellectual problems. It is frequently seen, also, 
 that the understanding, even when its path is made 
 smooth, its difficulties cleared up, its hard questions 
 answered, does not engender faith. A negative work 
 is accomplished, but perhaps nothing more. The 
 bark is all ready to move on the waters, the sails are 
 spread, but there is no breeze to fill them. To break 
 through the bonds of nature, and lay hold of the 
 supernatural, — that all our reasonings do not lend 
 us the power to do. Fetters have been shaken off 
 which held us to the earth, but no wings have been 
 given on which to soar aloft. Light has come, but 
 not life. 
 
 Logic alone cannot develop faith ; but more is to 
 be hoped from that kind of thoughtfulness which 
 tends to detach the heart from earthly good. He who 
 learns how insufficient the world is for the soul, will 
 be prepared to turn to something higher. For this 
 
164 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 reason, in a multitude of instances, trouble has proved 
 to be a school of faith. One who has trusted in riches, 
 but who is despoiled of them and reduced to poverty, 
 looks about for something more substantial to rest 
 upon. One who has made a god of reputation, but 
 becomes, either with or without his fault, unpopular 
 and odious, or obscure and forgotten, is naturally 
 prompted to seek for a good more satisfying and more 
 lasting than the breath of human praise. How many 
 have learned more of God in one hour of bitter sor- 
 row, when bereaved of those who made a part of their 
 life, than they had learned in years of study ! They 
 open the Bible, and meet there messages from the 
 Unseen which before had fallen on listless ears. 
 Bowed down with grief, they hear the sweet and 
 majestic words, " He hath sent me to bind up the 
 broken-hearted ! '* When the light goes out on the 
 hearthstone, when nothing meets the eye but tokens 
 left behind by those gone from us, no more to return, 
 then perchance we lift our eyes from the darkened 
 earth, and lo ! like the patriarch of old, we see the 
 heavens radiant with stars not seen in the glare of 
 day. Out of anguish that seemed unbearable, out of 
 paroxysms of grief, out of the long hours of dull pain, 
 are plucked fruits precious enough to outweigh the 
 suffering which they cost. The soul is brought a 
 little nearer to God. Saints there have been who 
 have welcomed pain. Pascal prayed : " If the world 
 rilled up the affections of my heart while I was in 
 bodily vigor, let that vigor be laid low if my spiritual 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 165 
 
 good require it ! . . . Dispose of me altogether as 
 thou shalt see best ! Replenish or impoverish me 
 as thou wilt ! But conform my will to thine ; and 
 enable me, in an humble and entire submission, and 
 a holy confidence, to wait thy providential guidance, 
 and to acquiesce in thy gracious disposal ! " 
 
 It is sometimes made a reproach to religion that 
 it is the refuge of the weak, the disappointed, the 
 desponding. But the question is whether the realities 
 of existence are not more truly discerned from the 
 point of view gained by such, — whether the mental 
 vision is not clearer. 
 
 Not long after the death of his wife, Thomas 
 Carlyle wrote to his friend, Erskine of Linlathen, as 
 follows : — 
 
 " ' Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy 
 name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done,' — what else 
 can we say ? The other night, in my sleepless tossings 
 about, which were growing more and more miserable, 
 these words, that brief and grand prayer, came strangely 
 into my mind, with an altogether new emphasis, as if 
 written and shining for me in mild pure splendor on the 
 black bosom of the night there ; when I, as it were, read 
 them, word by word, with a sudden check to my imper- 
 fect wanderings, with a sudden softness of composure 
 that was most unexpected. Not perhaps for thirty or 
 forty years had I ever formally repeated that prayer ; 
 nay, I never felt before how intensely the voice of man's 
 soul it is, — the inmost aspiration of all that is high and 
 pious in poor human nature ; right worthy to be recom- 
 mended with an, ' After this manner pray ye.' " 
 
166 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 How did Carlyle come to see what he had never 
 seen before, and to feel what he had never before felt ? 
 Have the teachers of the Church in all ages been so 
 far astray when, following Christ and the Apostles, 
 they have talked of blindness of mind and of spirit- 
 ual light ? 
 
 Another effective mode of promoting faith is obe 
 dience, even if, owing to the dulness of the organ of 
 hearing, one hears bat faintly the voice of him who 
 commands. With obedience there begins a rectifica- 
 tion of the will, and a quickening of the power of 
 discernment will follow. We are then steering by the 
 right star, albeit we dimly perceive it. No man has 
 any assurance that he will discover religious truth 
 unless he has first made up his mind to live by it- 
 It is ordained that we shall feel our way in religion. 
 Tiie truth of religion is bread for the hungry ; we 
 must " taste and see " that the Lord is good. Even 
 more important is it to bear in mind that the gates 
 of light are shut to him who is not bent upon 
 walking in the light. " He that will [or rather, 
 willeth to] do my will shall know of the doctrine 
 whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my- 
 self." Here, not thinking, but doing, is made the 
 road to knowledge. 
 
 Another means of increasing faith is the contempla- 
 tion of Christ. Wherever men are to be lifted above 
 the ordinary plane of character and achievement, 
 there is need of the inspiration of personal leadership. 
 The history of every nation's deliverance from peril 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 167 
 
 or from degradation illustrates this truth. The high- 
 est of all illustrations is afforded in Christianity. 
 Christ came to draw men out of the life of unbelief 
 into a fellowship with himself, — a fellowship in his 
 own spiritual life of communion with the Father. 
 Here on earth he himself lived by faith. We are in- 
 vited to look to him as the Author and Finisher of 
 our faith. The word here rendered " Author " is the 
 same as that which stands for " Captain " where he 
 is called "the Captain of our salvation," and means 
 both example and forerunner. He is the " Author," 
 or forerunner, in faith, since by looking forward to the 
 joy set before him, he endured the cross, despising 
 the shame. His victory on the cross was by faith, — 
 a faith which he would fain impart to us. He replied 
 to the Tempter that man does not live by bread alone, 
 but by every word of God. He thanked the Father 
 for choosing humble men to be his disciples, because 
 it seemed good in the Father's sight. Faith upheld 
 him in the garden when he said : " Nevertheless, not 
 as I will, but as thou wilt ; " and on the cross when 
 he said : " Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." 
 He is the vine ; we are the branches. By looking to 
 him, we become partakers of his inward life, — the life 
 of faith, as well as of holiness and peace. If his com- 
 munion with God was a real thing and not a mockery 
 and a delusion, then all that is presupposed in that 
 communion is also real. He inspires with faith by 
 his own example. 
 
 The last and principal means of deepening faith, to 
 
168 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 be adverted to, is prayer. The Disciples came to 
 Jesus with the supplication : " Increase our faith." 
 Mere thinking and striving will not avail. Christ 
 thanked the Father for the faith of the Disciples 
 because it was the Father who had hidden these 
 things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them 
 unto babes. Of Peter's fervent avowal of faith in 
 him as the Son of God he said : " Flesh and blood 
 have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which 
 is in heaven." Whoever seeks to enliven his own 
 faith, or the faith of others in whom he is interested, 
 finds out by experiment that thought and argument 
 and entreaty do not suffice. Light must come from 
 the Source of light. Nothing is left but to resort 
 directly to God, — 
 
 " No help but prayer, — 
 A breath that fleets beyond this iron world 
 And touches him that made it." 
 
 And here there is a well-founded assurance that 
 none apply to God in vain. There is one prayer that 
 may be offered with an absolute certainty that the 
 very thing sought for will be granted. With respect 
 to everything else, in our limited knowledge of what 
 is best for us, we have to connect with each petition 
 an acknowledgment of submission to the divine will 
 and wisdom. We implore God to give, but to with- 
 hold, should it seem to him best. But to the prayer 
 for the enlightening Spirit of God no proviso need be 
 appended. The doctrine of a divine influence even 
 
REVELATION AND FAITH. 169 
 
 the most enlightened heathen have found no diffi- 
 culty in accepting. It is declared, without qualifica- 
 tion, in the Scriptures that God is willing to give 
 his Spirit to them who ask. We can apply to him, 
 if there be in us faith enough to go to him at all, 
 confident that we shall receive the very thing that 
 we desire for ourselves. He can open the eyes of 
 the blind. He can touch the soul with his own mys- 
 terious, life-giving Spirit, and quicken it to a per- 
 ception of realities now dim and shadowy. He is 
 willing to do that. " Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, 
 and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto 
 you." Whoever is baffled by mysteries that he can- 
 not unravel, and confused by problems that he cannot 
 solve, can approach God as a child, and ask the Father 
 to teach him. 
 
 Poor Hartley Coleridge wrote these lines, out of a 
 heart surcharged with suffering : — - 
 
 " Be not ashamed to pray : to pray is right. 
 Pray, if thou canst, with hope ; but ever pray, 
 Though hope be weak, or sick with long delay. 
 Pray in the darkness, if there be no light. 
 
 Pray to be perfect, though material leaven 
 Forbid the spirit so on earth to be. 
 
 But if for any wish thou darest not pray, 
 Then pray to God to cast that wish away." 
 
 The truly great poets are the profoundest preachers. 
 These are words of Tennyson : — 
 
170 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 " More things are wrought by prayer 
 Than this world dreams of. Wherefore let thy voice 
 Rise like a fountain for me night and day. 
 For what are men better than sheep or goats 
 That nourish a blind life within the brain, 
 If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer 
 Both for themselves and those who call them friend ? " 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ESSAYS. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ESSAYS. 
 
 I. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE 
 OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 It is well known that of the four documents which 
 constitute the authorities for the life of Jesus, the 
 first three Gospels, which are called the Synoptics, 
 belong- together in a group, and that the Fourth Gos- 
 pel, having marked peculiarities in distinction from 
 them, stands by itself. 
 
 It is a familiar fact to all who have looked atten- 
 tively at the Synoptics that they contain a good deal 
 of matter in common. Beyond what is comprised in 
 all three, there is also a" portion of material that each 
 couple in the three pairs of Synoptical writings share, 
 and more or less matter besides, that each author pre- 
 sents exclusively. In the matter which is common 
 to the three or to either two, the language employed 
 is to a large extent identical, although at the same 
 time there are not wanting dissimilarities in words 
 as well as in the details of the narrative. The rela- 
 
174 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 tion of the three documents to one another suggests 
 questions as to their origin which are not less im- 
 portant than curious. The three writers must have 
 drawn from a common source or sources. Were these 
 sources, or the main source, oral tradition, or tradi- 
 tion previously existing in a written form? Were the 
 three authors dependent upon one another ; and if so, 
 which were the borrowers ? Where does the relative 
 priority belong ? 
 
 It was long the prevalent opinion that Mark is the 
 youngest, and is little more than an abridgment of 
 Matthew and Luke. One of the last defenders of this 
 theory was Bleek, a scholar of great learning and 
 ability, and of eminent candor. It was a plausible 
 view. Here is one of the parallelisms which he 
 adduces : — 
 
 " And when even was come." — Matt. viii. 16. 
 
 " And at even when the sun was set." — Mark i. 32. 
 
 " And when the sun was setting." — Luke iv. 40. 
 
 In the original, the words quoted above from Mat- 
 thew, and the first clause of Mark — "and at even" 
 — are precisely the same ; and the expression in Luke 
 (except that it is in the participial form) is identi- 
 cal with the second phrase in Mark. At the first 
 glance it would seem that Mark had combined the 
 two statements. Nevertheless a further comparison 
 of the Gospels makes it clear that this is not the fact. 
 In the judgment of almost all scholars at present, 
 Mark is the independent narrator. Either Matthew 
 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 175 
 
 and Luke draw what they contain of " the triple tra- 
 dition " directly from him, or from a source on which 
 the three are in common dependent. That the first of 
 these suppositions is the correct one, is at present the 
 conclusion of most of the ablest critics. We have to 
 guard, however, against fallacious inferences from the 
 phenomena just described. There are such inferences 
 in the Article by Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Gos- 
 pels, in the " Encyclopedia Britannica." He speaks of 
 " the triple tradition " as if it were the original, or the 
 one specially, if not exclusively, trustworthy tradition. 
 His erroneous implications are well exposed by Dr. 
 Salmon in his " Introduction to the New Testament." 
 " It is obvious that the phrases ' triple tradition,' 'two- 
 fold tradition,' express phenomena as they appear to 
 us, not things as they are in themselves. You would 
 feel that a man knew very little of astronomy if he 
 spoke of the full moon and the half moon and the new 
 moon in such a way as to lead one to think that he 
 took these for three distinct heavenly bodies, and not 
 for the same body differently illuminated. . . . When 
 one of our authorities fails, we must not assume with- 
 out examination that the two remaining ones are now 
 deriving their narrative from some new source." The 
 matter which two of the Evangelists alone present, or 
 even one alone, may be from a source as old as that 
 at the basis of Mark's narrative. If Mark was writ- 
 ten first, as is now the prevalent view, the other Evan- 
 gelists may have taken up the matter which was thus 
 at hand, and connected with it, from sources equally 
 
176 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 trustworthy and equally old with the sources of Mark, 
 their additional narratives. The story of the cruci- 
 fixion as told by Luke is independent of that as told 
 by Matthew and Mark. Here the " double tradition" 
 is of just the same value as if it had been " triple ; " 
 and the accounts given by Luke are not shown to 
 emanate from later authorities, on account of his 
 independence of the two other Evangelists. 
 
 There is no reason to distrust the early uncontra- 
 dicted tradition, which is first on record from Papias, 
 Bishop of Hierapolis, that the author of the Second 
 Gospel was Mark, — the same who was at one time a 
 companion of Paul in his journeys, — who set down 
 accounts of the life of the Lord which he had heard 
 from the lips of Peter. 
 
 The same Papias, a contemporary of the martyr 
 Polycarp (who died at a very advanced age in 155 
 or 156), says that Matthew wrote his book in He- 
 brew, — meaning Aramaic, the dialect then spoken 
 in Palestine. With this statement the early eccle- 
 siastical writers concur. That such was the fact, 
 is believed by most critical scholars now; although 
 there are some who still think that Matthew wrote 
 in Greek. But there is a more important question in 
 relation to the First Gospel. Did Matthew's Writing, 
 whether it were originally in Aramaic or in Greek, 
 comprise all the contents of the present Gospel ? Or 
 is the narrative portion, in distinction from the dis- 
 courses of Jesus, a supplement incorporated with Mat- 
 thew's Writing by another hand ? If it is to be held 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 177 
 
 that Matthew's Writing was enlarged by another, do 
 the additions embrace the whole, or only a part, of 
 the narrative matter ? That the Gospel in its pres- 
 ent form has taken up additions of this character, 
 is pretty generally conceded. English critics such 
 as Dr. Westcott hold that in the transference of the 
 Hebrew Gospel into the Greek, some additions were 
 made by the Disciple, whoever he was, who gave out 
 the Writing in its existing form. The prevalent 
 view of the German critics since Schleiermacher is 
 that Matthew's Writing consisted of the discourses 
 merely, and that the rest of the Gospel was drawn 
 from other sources, principally from Mark. Papias, to 
 whose early testimony we must recur, says that Mat- 
 thew wrote down, the Logia of the Lord. By Login 
 — which may be translated Oracles — the critics to 
 whom I refer understand " discourses," or teachings. 
 This conclusion they affirm with decidely more pos- 
 itiveness than the philological evidence warrants. 
 This will appear to the candid student who will ex- 
 amine what Bleek has written on the point, and es- 
 pecially Bishop Lightfoot's discussion in his chapter 
 on Papias. 1 Papias had in his hands the Greek Gos- 
 pel as it now stands. This is a sure inference from 
 the date when he wrote. But his own language im- 
 plies that the use of the Hebrew Matthew was a thing 
 of the past. Matthew, he says, wrote the Oracles 
 in Hebrew, " and each one interpreted them as he 
 could." The verb here is an aorist, and implies a 
 
 1 Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 172 seq. 
 12 
 
178 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 bygone state of things, a necessity for translating that 
 no longer existed. If Papias knew that the Greek 
 Gospel was an expansion, to a material extent, of the 
 Hebrew Gospel, would he not have made mention of 
 the fact ? And if he had mentioned it, would Euse- 
 bius, in this case, where he is interested to explain 
 the origin of Matthew's Gospel, have been silent re- 
 specting it ? On the whole, it must be conceded that 
 on philological grounds the restricted sense of Logia 
 in the statement of Papias is not yet fully made out 
 by the critics. But when we examine the First Gos- 
 pel itself, the current of evidence as to its composite 
 character runs the other way. We find that the 
 teachings of Jesus are not set down with that meas- 
 ure of chronological sequence which would have been 
 expected from one of the Twelve in case he were aim- 
 ing to produce a consecutive account of the Lord's 
 ministry. The discourses are massed and grouped. 
 And when the narrative portion of the Gospel is 
 looked at, we encounter special difficulties attaching 
 to the supposition of immediate Apostolic authorship. 
 Not to multiply details, the meagre account of the 
 Resurrection at the close is, to say the least, not 
 what would be expected from one of the Twelve. 
 But the dependence of a considerable portion of the 
 narrative matter in Matthew upon Mark, it is con- 
 tended by the critics, settles the question. Accord- 
 ing to the modified hypothesis of Weiss, the Logia 
 of Matthew did contain, here and there, historical 
 notices. This supposition will account for occasional 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 179 
 
 instances of priority in Matthew's historical state- 
 ments, as compared with Mark, and also explain cer- 
 tain other peculiarities in Mark, who is supposed to 
 have had the Logia in his hands. 
 
 Turning to the Third Gospel, we find at the begin- 
 ning the assurance of the author, which it is unreas- 
 onable to question, that he has made careful inquiries 
 and brought together the information furnished him 
 by eye-witnesses. This was partly oral, and partly in 
 earlier written narratives. Traces of a written doc- 
 ument are seen in the Hebraized diction of the first 
 chapters, relating to the birth and infancy of Jesus. 
 Tt is generally conceded that Mark's Gospel was one 
 of the sources to which Luke resorted. Weiss is one 
 of those who are confident that the Logia of Matthew 
 was also used by Luke, and Meyer was of opinion that 
 even the completed Matthew was occasionally con- 
 sulted. This last opinion is disputed by Weiss ; and 
 Weiss's own conclusion that the Logia was in Luke's 
 hands, in the form in which the editor of the Greek 
 Matthew took it up, or even that it was in his hands 
 in any form, cannot be considered as yet established. 
 The unity of the Third Gospel and of the Acts in style, 
 demonstrates the identity of authorship. No satisfac- 
 tory explanation of the passages in Acts where the 
 first person plural is used — the " we-passages " — has 
 been given, except that which makes them the pro- 
 duct of the author's own pen, thus indicating that 
 he was a fellow-traveller with the Apostle Paul. It 
 
180 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 is now proved to the satisfaction of all scholars that 
 Marcion's Luke was an abridgment of the canonical 
 Gospel, and not the basis of it. This latter theory, 
 which was defended by the author of " Supernatural 
 Religion," is quietly retracted in the preface to his 
 later edition. Thus we have external proof, early in 
 the second century, of the acceptance and established 
 authority of the canonical Gospel of Luke among the 
 churches. 
 
 We are not without the means of determining 
 within narrow limits the date of the Synoptical Gos- 
 pels. The indications that they were written at about 
 the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, are 
 unmistakable. At any considerably later date, the ap- 
 parent conjunction of the fall of the city and of the 
 temple with the Parousia would have been avoided or 
 explained. We observe in Matthew, in the midst of 
 the predictive discourse of Jesus, a parenthesis which 
 it is more natural to suppose was thrown in by the 
 author of the Gospel (Matt. xxiv. 15) : " When there- 
 fore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was 
 spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the 
 holy place (let him that readeth understand)," etc. 
 The last clause would appear to imply that the event 
 referred to as a sign was imminent, or not far in the 
 future. Everything favors the conclusion that the 
 Gospel in the existing form appeared after the be- 
 ginning of the mortal struggle of the Romans with 
 the Jews, or between a. d. 65 and 70. Mark's Gospel 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 181 
 
 was still earlier. The language of the passages rela- 
 tive to the Parousia, in Luke, is consistent with the 
 supposition that he wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, 
 but not with the supposition that it was long after. 
 
 The circumstance that Mark's Gospel is thought to 
 have been one of the principal sources of the narra- 
 tive matter in Matthew and in Luke, is fallaciously 
 used to lessen comparatively the credit of these two 
 authorities. Mark is cited by not a few as " the old- 
 est authority," and the contents of his Gospel as " the 
 earliest tradition," — only the Logia of Matthew be- 
 ing older. But there is nothing to oblige us to sup- 
 pose that the narrative matter in Luke (for example), 
 which Mark does not contain, is from any " later " 
 source than Mark's narrative. The long passage 
 which belongs to Luke exclusively, from chapter ix. 
 51 to chapter xviii. 14, embraces materials as trust- 
 worthy and as " early " (if we look at the sources 
 whence Luke derived them), as the accounts given by 
 Mark. We know that Mark omitted the greater part 
 of the sayings of Jesus which were in the Logia of 
 Matthew. There is no doubt that he omitted to gather 
 up a great deal besides, which another inquirer, like 
 Luke, might have ascertained from " eye-witnesses 
 and ministers of the word." To reject historical 
 accounts, therefore, merely because they fire not com- 
 prised in an historical sketch as brief as that of 
 Mark, is quite without warrant. An instance of the 
 error to which I advert is the hypothesis of those 
 German critics who hold that Jesus did not distinctly 
 
182 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 profess to be the Messiah until the conversation with 
 the Disciples at Caesarea Philippi (Mark viii. 27 seq.). 
 This theory is thought to be supported by the doubt 
 implied in the message of John the Baptist to Jesus. 
 But the awakening of a question of this sort in John's 
 mind is easily explained by the mere fact that there 
 had been no such demonstration on the part of Jesus as 
 John, with the ideas of the coming kingdom that still 
 lingered in his mind, had looked for. It is a priori in 
 the highest degree improbable that the Disciples at- 
 tached themselves to Jesus, followed him about so 
 long, and it may be added, heard how, as Mark him- 
 self relates, he was addressed by demoniacs as the 
 Christ, and yet had no definite impression as to who 
 he really was, and neither asked questions nor received 
 answers on this point, so interesting and momentous 
 as they must have felt it to be. The confession of 
 Peter, and the warm expression of approbation by 
 Jesus that followed, are accounted for when it is re- 
 membered that the course taken by him, so diverse 
 from the popular idea of the Messiah, occasioned que- 
 ries and debates as to whether he could be the Prom- 
 ised One himself, and that Peter, despite any seeming 
 evidence to the contrary, was inwardly convinced, and 
 broke out in a fervent confession of faith. If we 
 connect with the account of the conversation with the 
 Disciples at Caesarea Philippi, John's explanation of 
 the confession of Peter as having its occasion in the 
 falling away of numerous Galilean followers (John 
 vi. 66), we shall find a more full explanation of the 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 183 
 
 reason for the question which Jesus, according to the 
 Synoptics, addressed to the Twelve. The people were 
 beginning to think that he was some other than the 
 Messiah. The hypothesis that Jesus was perform- 
 ing miracles and teaching incognito, even as regards 
 his family of Disciples, is with difficulty reconcilable 
 with the circumstances of his baptism, that epochal 
 transaction, even if it be imagined that nothing then 
 occurred except what Mark records. But there are 
 no sound historical reasons to dissuade us from re- 
 lying on the supplementary accounts of the other 
 Synoptics. 
 
 The Synoptical Gospels are confined in the main 
 to the Galilean ministry of Jesus. The Apostles 
 took up their abode at Jerusalem. There was the 
 seat and centre of their earliest instructions. What 
 had occurred in Jerusalem and the neighborhood, 
 what belonged to the Judsean events in the life of 
 Jesus, was familiar there, and could be easily learned 
 by new converts. It was respecting the Galilean 
 ministry that curiosity would especially need to be 
 satisfied. Everything that we know on the subject 
 points to the conclusion that the earliest tradition to 
 be collected and crystallized related to this branch 
 of the Saviour's public work. The Synoptics give us 
 the Galilean tradition as it was formed and shaped at 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 We have .now to consider the state of the discus- 
 sion concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
184 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 It is a significant fact that the position taken by 
 Baur, the leader, in recent times, of the assault upon 
 its genuineness, has now, in two essential particulars, 
 been generally given up. He placed, and it was 
 necessary to his general scheme of historical and 
 doctrinal development that he should place, the date 
 of the Gospel as late as 160. How untenable this 
 proposition is, those who sympathize with Baur's opin- 
 ion that John was not the author, have united with 
 their opponents in affirming. Whoever its author 
 was, it must have been in use early in the second cen- 
 tury. The opponents of its genuineness admit that 
 130 is the latest date that can be assigned for its com- 
 position. Baur maintained that the Gospel is a fiction 
 in which the author was so absorbed in certain reli- 
 gious ideas that he wove about them a garb of narra- 
 tive, hardly conscious that he was framing a romance. 
 Now, it is conceded that the Gospel includes tradi- 
 tional materials respecting Jesus of real historical 
 value. It is admitted that the book contains details 
 which spring from personal recollection and acquaint- 
 ance with the facts, and with respect to which there 
 is no conceivable theological motive for their inser- 
 tion. Why, to take a single example, should it be 
 said (John i. 44), " Now, Philip was from Bethsaida" ? 
 It is a favorite theory that the Fourth Gospel was 
 composed by a disciple or disciples of the Apostle 
 John, and includes more or less information actually 
 derived from him. It is plain that Baur's conception 
 of the nature of the work is shattered bv these new 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 185 
 
 hypotheses respecting it. Whether the new ground 
 is more tenable than the old, may be a question ; but 
 there is no doubt that the ground at present taken 
 by the negative criticism is new. 
 
 The German critics have handled this disputed 
 question with unsurpassed learning and ability. But 
 they have too frequently failed to do justice to the 
 external evidence for the Johannine authorship. To 
 the majority of English scholars this defect in many 
 of the German discussions is patent. The attempt of 
 Keim, Holtzmann, and others to make it out that the 
 Apostle John never lived in Asia Minor, is an ex- 
 ample of this weakness as regards the estimate of 
 the historical proofs. Because Irenasus thought that 
 Papias was a disciple of John the Apostle, when pos- 
 sibly he was not, although he was a disciple of John 
 the Presbyter, it is inferred that Irenseus was talk- 
 ing at cross purposes with his teacher, Polycarp, and 
 imagined that he was giving reminiscences of the 
 Apostle, when it was really the other John, the Pres- 
 byter, to whom Poly carp's narratives related ! The 
 difference is, as Weizsacker observes, that Irenseus 
 was a personal acquaintance of Polycarp, but not of 
 Papias. Of course there is an accumulation of proofs 
 that John lived and died at Ephesus, Schiirer has 
 shown a more judicial spirit in his remark on the 
 notion of Keim : " For this assumption there appears 
 to me to be no ground." But even Schiirer, a 
 scholar to whom we generally look for sound judg- 
 ments, in his recent Essay on " The Present State of 
 
186 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the Johannine Controversy " (from which the last 
 quotation is taken), remarks : " But even though 
 Irenaeus did hear Poly carp relate [what he had 
 known] of the Apostle John, this is still no testi- 
 mony for the Johannine origin of the Gospel." Mat- 
 thew Arnold claims for the English mind a superior 
 capacity for weighing evidence, — a quality which he 
 attributes to long familiarity with the law of evidence 
 in the English system of jurisprudence. ' It has been 
 suggested that the law of evidence itself is not less 
 a product than a cause of this judicial instinct. It 
 would seem that there is some ground for this ob- 
 servation of Arnold. It is a fact that Irenaeus in his 
 early youth was acquainted with Poly carp. When 
 Poly carp died (in 155 or 156), Irenaeus was a full- 
 grown man. That he should say what he does of 
 the four canonical Gospels as the four pillars of 
 the Church, the foundation of the faith, having for 
 their authors the two Apostles and the two com- 
 panions of the Apostles, and yet that Polycarp knew 
 nothing of one of these Gospels, the fourth, or did 
 not consider it to be the work of the Apostle John, 
 is incredible.' What was formerly without reason 
 denied concerning Justin Martyr is now commonly 
 admitted by the German critics. Hilgenfeld is among 
 those who concede that Justin was acquainted with 
 the Fourth Gospel. Yet even Schiirer expresses 
 doubt as to whether it was one of the Apostolic 
 " Memoirs," which are Justin's chief authorities. On 
 this point the argument of Professor Norton, the 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 187 
 
 substance of which is presented in Professor Ezra 
 Abbot's admirable Essay on the " External Evidence 
 for John's Gospel," is quite convincing. The " Me- 
 moirs " of Justin are designated by him just as they 
 are designated by Irenseus. They were composed by 
 Apostles and their companions. They were read on 
 Sunday in the churches in city and country. Irenaeus 
 was in the vigor of life when Justin wrote. Yet we 
 are invited to believe that the books referred to by 
 Irenaeus as the established authorities are not the 
 same as those described by Justin in almost identi- 
 cal terms, and said by him to be publicly recognized 
 and used. It may be added that the pretension 
 that the Johannine passages in Justin were from the 
 " Gospel of the Hebrews " or some other apocryphal 
 source, is thoroughly confuted in Professor Abbot's 
 Essay. 
 
 In speaking of the external proofs of the Johannine 
 authorship, it is worth while to notice how many 
 recent discoveries there have been to add to their 
 force. It was confidently declared that the Pseudo- 
 Clementine Homilies contained no citations from the 
 Fourth Gospel. The concluding portion of that work 
 was discovered, and in it were found passages which 
 are unquestionably from John. The lost work of 
 Hippolytus, the Refutation of all Heresies, was discov- 
 ered, and the use of the Fourth Gospel by one of the 
 earliest of the Gnostic leaders, Basilides, was proved. 
 That it is Basilides himself who is represented in 
 Hippolytus as quoting and interpreting passages in 
 
188 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 John, has been convincingly shown by many writers, 
 and among them by Matthew Arnold. It was stoutly 
 contended that Tatian's Diatessaron was not com- 
 pounded of the Four Gospels. The work and an 
 ancient commentary upon it are brought to light, and 
 the Diatessaron is found to begin with the opening 
 verse of John. It turns out to be the work which the 
 defenders of the genuineness of the Gospel had af- 
 firmed it to be. Even the Didache, or the Teaching 
 of the Twelve Apostles, when it is discovered, is seen 
 to contain, in the prayers to be said in connection 
 with the Eucharist, echoes from the closing chapters 
 of John. 
 
 In all antiquity there is no lisp of contradiction, 
 no instance of a doubt of the genuineness of the 
 Fourth Gospel, except in the case of the so-called 
 Alogi. The exception is unimportant. They are 
 indirect witnesses against themselves, since they attri- 
 buted the Gospel to Cerinthus, a contemporary of the 
 Apostle, and thus bear witness to the early date of the 
 work, and by implication to its established, undisputed 
 authority. Irenaeus tells us what the opinions of 
 Cerinthus were. He held that Jesus was not born 
 of a virgin, and that after his baptism Christ de- 
 scended upon him, entering into a temporary union 
 with him. That is to say, Cerinthus held the Gnostic 
 opinion that Jesus is not the Christ (Adv. Hasr., I. 
 xxvi. 1). Irenasus assures us that the Apostle John 
 aimed to overthrow the error of Cerinthus (Adv. 
 Haer., III. xi. 1). Opening the Gospel, we find the 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 189 
 
 motive of the author thus avowed : " that ye may be- 
 lieve that Jesus is the Christ." We find that in the 
 Epistle of John this truth is declared to be the crite- 
 rion of a genuine Christianity. Thus the testimony 
 of Irenseus as to the intent of the Apostle corresponds 
 with the purpose of the writer of the Gospel and the 
 Epistle. That Cerinthus wrote the Gospel, was an 
 absurd hypothesis. It is evident from the paragraph 
 in Irenaeus respecting the Alogi that they were moved 
 to their scepticism, not by the existence of any tradi- 
 tion counter to the established belief, nor at the out- 
 set by critical difficulties, but by a doctrinal prejudice. 
 Irenaeus gives them bat a brief notice, — which indi- 
 cates clearly that they had little importance in his 
 eyes, and had not the slightest influence on his con- 
 victions respecting the subject. There is no proof 
 that they were more than a few in number. They 
 had no name, and did not attain to the dignity of a 
 sect. Harnack has shown that if we may trust 
 Epiphanius on this point, they coupled a rejection of 
 the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, with their aver- 
 sion to the doctrine of the Paraclete. But I cannot 
 think that any importance is to be attached to their 
 opinion respecting the Fourth Gospel. Hippolytus 
 probably opposed them in his lost work on the Gospel 
 of John and the Apocalypse. But Theodotus, what- 
 ever connection he may have had with the Alogi, is 
 proved not to have rejected John's Gospel. Those 
 who shared in the temporary aversion to the Apoca- 
 lypse, and doubted or denied its Apostolic author- 
 
190 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 ship, Caius (if he was one of them), Dionysius, and 
 all the rest, accepted the Fourth Gospel as the work 
 of John. The dissent of the handful of Alogi at 
 Thyatira — some of whom, it is not unlikely, made 
 their way to Rome — when the motives of that dis- 
 sent and the other circumstances are taken into ac- 
 count, seems only to emphasize the unanimity with 
 which the churches and theologians, East and West, 
 recognized the Apostolic authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 That this Gospel should have been acknowledged by 
 the orthodox and by the Gnostics alike, from the 
 beginning to the end of the great controversy that 
 agitated the Church in the second century, is a mar- 
 vel indeed, provided it be assumed that it had no 
 Apostolic paternity, but was a work of unknown 
 authorship. The marvel is magnified when it is re- 
 membered how unique this Gospel is in its structure 
 and contents, and how strikingly it deviates from the 
 previous established conception of the Lord's history 
 as it stood on the long familiar pages of the Synop- 
 tical narratives. Who would have the capacity to 
 compose such a Gospel ? What Christian disciple 
 would desire to invent such a narrative ? Who would 
 dare to do it among the churches where John's name 
 and teaching were well remembered ? If they were 
 not well remembered, the appearance of such a work, 
 late and on a sudden, would be the more startling, 
 and the difficulty of securing for it a hospitable recep- 
 tion would, if possible, be enhanced. On the whole, 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 191 
 
 the candid student must acknowledge that as far as 
 external proofs of genuineness are concerned, the 
 Fourth Gospel is fully up to the level of the other 
 three. A like attestation in behalf of any of the 
 principal works in classical literature, if it could be 
 obtained, would be considered absolutely decisive. 
 
 In connection with the internal evidence respecting 
 the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the main point, 
 of course, is the credibility of its contents. Since the 
 extreme ground taken by Baur was abandoned, vari- 
 ous positions have been assumed by such as do not 
 hold that John wrote the work. Some, as Weisse 
 and Schenkel, have accepted the discourses as genu- 
 ine, but have considered the narrative matter as more 
 or less unhistorical. Others, like Renan, have taken 
 the reverse position, holding to the history as largely 
 veracious, but rejecting the discourses. It has be- 
 come more and more clear to candid critics, be their 
 conclusion on the principal question what it may, that 
 the author of the Gospel was not unfamiliar with the 
 events in the life of Jesus, and that he supplies his- 
 torical facts which are not found in the Synoptics. 
 It is often admitted that a Juclcean ministry, such 
 as they do not record, is not in itself improbable. 
 This must be supposed if any satisfactory explana- 
 tion is to be given of the language of Christ in his 
 lament over Jerusalem, which is set down in the 
 Synoptics, " How often would I have gathered thee," 
 etc. Schiirer holds that as to the elate of the Last 
 Supper, we are not authorized by the evidence to 
 
192 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 decide against the Fourth Evangelist. The opinion 
 based on one interpretation of Mark's Gospel, that 
 Jesus did not for a long time disclose himself to his 
 Disciples as the Messiah, has been considered on a 
 previous page. Here it may be observed that the 
 account in John of the attraction of disciples of the 
 Baptist to Jesus, and of this beginning of his work, 
 accords with the probabilities in the case. The par- 
 ticularity of the narrative in John, and its graphic 
 character, are a powerful argument in its favor (John 
 i. 35-43). We are told how John the Baptist directed 
 the attention of two of his disciples to Jesus, how 
 Jesus turned and saw them following him, what was 
 said between them, even what was the hour of the 
 day. This is either a true record of the Apostle 
 John's first acquaintance with Jesus, or somebody's 
 invention. Such a preliminary acquaintance of Jesus 
 with the Disciples explains the seeming abruptness of 
 his call to them, in Galilee, to forsake their employ- 
 ments and to follow him, and their immediate com- 
 pliance with his request. 
 
 The diversity in the type of teaching in the Fourth 
 Gospel from that in the Synoptics coexists with 
 striking points of sympathy and coincidence. The 
 passage (in Matt. xi. 27 seq.~) : " No one knoweth 
 the Son but the Father," etc., is thoroughly in the 
 spirit of the discourses in John. If it be but a sin- 
 gle passage, yet its peculiarity is so distinct as to 
 inspire the feeling that there must have been other 
 teaching in the same vein. There are passages in the 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 193 
 
 discourses in John which occur incidentally, and at- 
 test the truthfulness of the record. The words at 
 the end of the fourteenth chapter, " Arise, let us go 
 hence," yield no intelligible meaning unless they are 
 supposed to have been actually spoken by Jesus as 
 he was about to depart from the table. Either he 
 remained for a time, carried away by his interest in 
 his theme, or what follows was uttered on the way 
 towards the Garden. 
 
 The linguistic character of the Fourth Gospel is 
 altogether peculiar. The Greek is not like that 
 of other Greek authors. This language was not 
 the writer's vernacular; it was an acquired tongue. 
 The writer was a Hebrew by birth, and in the judg- 
 ment of so high an authority on this subject as 
 Ewald, was a Palestinian Hebrew. After saying 
 that the author of the Gospel, in the plan of his 
 book and in the way of carrying it out, most evi- 
 dently shows himself to be like a veritable old Hebrew 
 writer of the higher type, Ewald adds : — 
 
 "It is quite worthy of notice that the Greek language 
 of the author carries in it the clearest and strongest marks 
 of a genuine Hebrew who was born in the Holy Land, 
 and in that society grew up without speaking Greek, and 
 who even in the midst of the Greek garb which he learned 
 to wrap about him, still keeps the whole spirit and breath 
 of his mother- tongue, and by it has no scruples in letting 
 himself be guided. The Greek language of our Gospel, 
 to be sure, has not so strong a Hebrew color as that of 
 the older Gospels ; it has taken up many genuine Greek 
 traits. But in its real spirit and tone, no style could be 
 
 13 
 
194 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 more genuinely Hebrew than our author's. Since he, 
 nevertheless, even in his linguistic peculiarity, has not 
 cast aside his characteristically creative power and move- 
 ment, there has originated with him a Greek which is 
 peculiar, and has nothing like it elsewhere even among 
 writings which are tinged with the Hebrew. Only the 
 time, the biographical facts, and all the characteristics 
 of the Apostle John can explain the originality of this 
 Greek style." * 
 
 Ewald goes on to vindicate these statements by 
 special illustrative arguments. 2 
 
 It is thought by some that the author of this 
 Gospel was imbued with the philosophy of Philo. 
 Yet others, of whom Weiss is one, think it quite 
 possible to account for the phenomena on which this 
 opinion is based, without even assuming on the au- 
 thor's part any acquaintance with Alexandrian opin- 
 ions. Certain it is that the fundamental doctrine of 
 the Gospel, the doctrine of the incarnation of the 
 Logos, is absolutely at variance with the tenets of 
 the Alexandrian school. It must be remembered 
 that a principal source of the conceptions and terms 
 which characterize the theology of Philo was the 
 later books of the Old Testament and the still later 
 
 1 Die Johanneischen Schriften, i. 44, 
 
 2 That the Greek of the Fourth Gospel is not that of an Hellen- 
 istic Jew, and how characteristic peculiarities of the Hebrew per- 
 vade the book, are illustrated by the late Bishop Lightfoot in his 
 Lecture on the Internal Evidence for the Johannine Authorship, 
 which is published in "The Expositor" for January, February, 
 and March, 1890. 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 195 
 
 writings of the Apocrypha. If speculations about 
 the Logos, or Word, were " in the air" at the time 
 when John taught at Ephesus, whether the impulse 
 to such discussions proceeded from the school of 
 Philo or not, it was quite natural that the Apostle 
 should take up the term, both to correct incidentally 
 false ideas associated with it, and to make it the 
 vehicle for expressing the true doctrine of Christ 
 as the incarnate Revealer of God, which he had 
 learned from his intercourse with Jesus himself. 
 One of the leading arguments — one of those ad- 
 duced by Schurer — adverse to the Johannine au- 
 thorship is the general way in which the author 
 refers to the Jewish religion, and his liberal tone 
 and teaching as regards the privileges and position 
 of the Gentiles in the Church. Now that the theory 
 of the Tubingen school that there was an antago- 
 nism of the " pillar Apostles " to Paul and to his 
 liberal course in laying no yoke of ordinances on 
 the Gentile converts, has broken down and been 
 pretty generally given up, the objection to which we 
 here advert has lost much of its force. The Apostle 
 Paul, as early as when he wrote his Epistle to the 
 Galatians, could speak of "the Jews' religion" (i. 13, 
 14). Near the close of the century, decades of years 
 after the temple had been laid in ruins, and after 
 John had lived so long in the midst of Gentile 
 churches, what difficulty is there in supposing him 
 to have attained to a clear consciousness of the 
 universal intent and spirit of the Gospel, and to 
 
196 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 a full appreciation of the purport of this part of 
 the Master's teaching ? 
 
 It is not to be denied that the Fourth Gospel 
 is tinged throughout with the subjective peculiarity 
 of the author. It is all — narrative and discourses 
 — bathed in his spirit. The style is the same from 
 beginning to end. The influence of the subjective 
 element may be overstated. This, as I cannot but 
 think, has been done by Weiss in his instructive 
 and interesting " Life of Jesus." But that a sub- 
 jective element is there, and has its influence, an 
 attentive study of the Gospel leaves no room to 
 doubt. 
 
 Why not, then, it may be asked, solve the problem 
 and get rid of all perplexities at one stroke, by 
 assuming, as many at present are inclined to assume, 
 that the Gospel was composed by a disciple, or by 
 disciples, of the Apostle John, on the basis of recol- 
 lections of his teachings ? There are several strong 
 objections in the way of this theory. In the first 
 place, the writer claims to be an eye-witness. This 
 is asserted at the beginning (i. 14) ; it is re-affirmed 
 at the outset of the First Epistle, which is undeniably 
 from the same pen. Secondly, we have the attesta- 
 tion of the Disciples at the end of the book ; and 
 this attestation declares that the witness to what 
 is recorded in it " wrote these things " (John xxi. 
 24). Thirdly, the omission of the author of the 
 Gospel to give his name, and the avoiding of any 
 mention of the name of the Apostle John — the 
 
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GOSPELS. 197 
 
 pains taken to avoid it — are capable of no satisfactory 
 explanation except one ; namely, that John himself, 
 in a spirit of modesty, chooses thus to veil himself. 
 If his Disciples were the writers, why all this deli- 
 cacy and resort to circumlocution ? Fourthly, the 
 Gospel is an outpouring of personal experience. The 
 book is a unit. It was composed, as Neander said, 
 " at one cast." The conception of it as a conglomer- 
 ate made of pieces picked up from the Synoptics or 
 other sources, hardly deserves consideration. It is 
 born, and not made, and is warm with the pulses 
 of life. The point is that the book is a profession 
 of faith, and, more than this, a fervent, loving rela- 
 tion of the way in which faith arose and established 
 itself in the author's heart, through personal inter- 
 course and contact with Jesus. These considerations 
 appear to present insuperable difficulties in the way 
 of the theory that not John himself, but his followers 
 or associates, wrote the Gospel. 
 
II. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE 
 GOSPEL HISTORIES. 
 
 What the true character of the Gospels is, and how 
 to study them, may be illustrated by looking atten- 
 tively at certain passages in them and comparing these 
 passages with one another. It is assumed that the 
 reader approaches the inquiry without any disposition 
 to find discrepancies, and, on the other hand, with 
 no preconceived theory which forbids them to bo ad- 
 mitted, in case they appear to exist. That is to 
 say, we take up the narratives just as we should the 
 writings of other historians or biographers whose 
 intention to relate facts we have no occasion to 
 distrust. 
 
 Let the first example be the accounts given of the 
 baptism of Jesus. This is an event which John does 
 not directly record. He quotes, however, a reference 
 to it which was made by John the Baptist. That the 
 Baptist refers to that event, there is no reason to 
 doubt, notwithstanding that Baur and some others 
 have imagined that the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 did not design his hearers to infer that Jesus was 
 baptized by the Forerunner : — 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 199 
 
 Matt. iii. 13-17. 
 
 (13) Then cometh 
 Jesus from Galilee 
 to the Jordan unto 
 John, to he baptized 
 of him. (14) But 
 John would have 
 hindered him, say- 
 ing, I have need to be 
 baptized of thee, and 
 comest thou to me ? 
 (15) But Jesus an- 
 swering said unto 
 him, Suffer it now: 
 for thus it becometh 
 us to fulfil all righ- 
 teousness. (16) Then 
 he suffer eth him. 
 And Jesus, when he 
 was baptized, went 
 up straightway from 
 the water: and lo, 
 the heavens were 
 opened unto him, 
 and he saw the 
 Spirit of God de- 
 scending as a dove, 
 and coming upon 
 him; (17) and lo, a 
 voice out of the 
 heavens, saying, 
 This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased. 
 
 Mark i. 9-11. 
 
 (9) And it came to 
 pass in those days, 
 that Jesus came 
 from Nazareth of 
 Galilee, and was 
 baptized of John in 
 the Jordan. (10) And 
 straightway coming 
 up out of the water, 
 he saw the heavens 
 rent asunder, and 
 the Spirit as a dove 
 descending upon 
 him: (11) and a voice 
 came out of the 
 heavens, Thou art 
 my beloved Son, in 
 thee I am well 
 pleased. 
 
 Luke iii. 21-23. 
 
 (21) Now it came 
 to pass, when all the 
 people were bap- 
 tized, that, Jesus 
 also having been 
 baptized, and pray- 
 ing, the heaven was 
 opened, (22) and the 
 Holy Ghost descend- 
 ed in a bodily form, 
 as a dove, upon him, 
 and a voice came out 
 of heaven, Thou art 
 my beloved Son; in 
 thee I am well 
 pleased. 
 
 John i. 19-34. 
 
 (31) And I knew 
 him not; but that 
 he should be made 
 manifest to Israel, 
 for this cause came 
 I baptizing with 
 water. (32) And 
 John bare witness, 
 saying, I have be- 
 held the spirit de- 
 scending as a d >ve 
 out of heaven; and 
 it abode upon him. 
 
 (33) and I knew him 
 not : but he that sent 
 me to baptize with 
 water, he said unto 
 me, Upon whomso- 
 ever thou shalt see 
 the Spirit descend- 
 ing, and abiding 
 upon him, the same 
 is he that baptizeth 
 with the Holy Spirit. 
 
 (34) And I have seen, 
 and have borne wit- 
 ness that this is the 
 Son of God. 
 
 The circumstance that John at first shrunk from 
 baptizing Jesus, is recorded by Matthew alone. Such 
 critics as Strauss and Keim find a contradiction here 
 with the statement in the Fourth Gospel, " I knew 
 him not," etc. But this does not exclude a personal 
 acquaintance with Jesus, and perhaps a surmise that 
 he was the Promised One. " I knew him not," in 
 John's narrative, means ' recognized him not as the 
 Messiah.' But the words spoken, as given in Mark 
 and Luke, are addressed directly to Jesus : " Thou 
 art," etc. In Matthew, he is in the third person: 
 
200 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION'. 
 
 u This is my beloved Son," etc. Here is a disagree- 
 ment. No doubt each evangelist meant to give the 
 words in the exact form. The accounts on which 
 they depended varied. In the Fourth Gospel, the 
 manifestation is for John's instruction. The same 
 interpretation is suggested by the form of words in 
 Matthew. In Mark it is said that "he" — that is, 
 Jesus — " saw the heavens rent asunder," etc. But 
 neither Mark's account nor Luke's is in the least in- 
 consistent with the supposition that John, as well as 
 Jesus, observed the miraculous phenomena. Keim, 
 usually disposed to rule out the miraculous facts in 
 the Gospels, finds in the solemn and momentous 
 transaction between the Prophet and Jesus on the 
 bank of the Jordan, something truly supernatural. 
 
 The discrepancy in the record of the words spoken 
 from heaven at the baptism of Jesus has many par- 
 allels in the Gospel histories. A familiar instance is 
 that of the inscription on the cross : — 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 37. Mark xv. 26. Luke xxiii. 38. John xix. 19. 
 
 And they set up And the super- And there was (19) And Pilate 
 
 over his head his scription of his ac- also a superscription wrote a title also, 
 
 accusation written, cusation was writ- over him, this is and put it on the 
 
 this is jesus the ten over, the king the king of the cross. And there 
 
 KING OF THE JEWS. OF THE JEWS. JEWS. Was Written, JESUS 
 
 OF NAZARETH, THE 
 KING OF THE JEWS. 
 
 In the Authorized Version, Luke is made to say that 
 the superscription was " in letters of Greek and Latin 
 and Hebrew." These words, which were probably in- 
 serted in the text of Luke from John's Gospel, are 
 left out in the Revised Version. The variations in 
 the form of the inscription are seen at a glance. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 201 
 
 They point to different sources of information. One 
 harmonistic suggestion is that the inscription was not 
 the same in the three languages. This of course is 
 possible, but not probable. 
 
 Another familiar example of discrepancies, trifling 
 in their nature, is in the accounts of the sending out 
 of the Twelve : — 
 
 Matt x. 10. Mark vi. 8. Luke ix. 3, 4. 
 
 Get you no gold, nor (8) And he charged them (3) And he said unto them, 
 silver, nor brass in your that they should take noth- Take nothing for your jour- 
 purses ; (10) no wallet lor ing for their journey, save ney, neither staff, nor wal- 
 your journey, neither two a staff only ; no bread, no let, nor bread, nor money ; 
 coats, nor shoes, nor staff: wallet, no money in their (4) neither have two coats, 
 for the labourer is worthy purse ; but to go shod with 
 of his food. sandals : and, said he, put 
 not on two coats. 
 
 Mark describes the Disciples as going forth with 
 nothing in their hands but a pilgrim's staff. In Mat- 
 thew and Luke, they are to take not even a staff. 
 The idea in all is that they are to go out unprovided, 
 and to depend wholly on charity. 
 
 Our next illustration is drawn from the accounts of 
 the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and Luke. It 
 is often doubted whether in Luke (vi. 20-49) we 
 have not another discourse distinct from that given in 
 Matthew. But the identity of the two discourses is 
 proved by the similarity of the contents. Both end 
 with the parable of the house built on a rock. The 
 identity is proved also by the chronological land- 
 mark, the healing of the Centurion's servant, which 
 immediately follows in both Evangelists. That we 
 have two accounts of one and the same discourse is 
 the accepted view of the great majority of critics. It 
 
202 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 is true that Matthew associates with the Sermon on 
 the Mount passages from teaching of Jesus which be- 
 longs chronologically in other connections. Much of 
 it is placed elsewhere in Luke ; in some instances in 
 conjunction with circumstances evidently more ap- 
 propriate. This is true, for example, of the Lord's 
 Prayer. The particular theme of Jesus in Matthew 
 (vi. 5 seq.) is not prayer in general, but hypocrisy 
 in prayer. But in Luke we are told that on a cer- 
 tain occasion he was praying, and one of his Dis- 
 ciples made the request : " Teach us to pray, even as 
 John taught his disciples." Thereupon Jesus gave 
 them the Lord's Prayer. The request would be 
 strange if this prayer had been given before. In case 
 it had been given before, Jesus in his answer would 
 most likely have reminded them of it. 
 
 In comparing the two reports of the discourse of 
 Jesus, the first inquiry relates to the place and the 
 audience. Luke says that it came to pass u in these 
 days " — he has apparently no means of fixing the 
 time more definitely — " that Jesus went out into 
 the mountain to pray." He continued in prayer 
 through the night. In the morning he called " his 
 disciples," — those who accepted his teaching. The 
 fact is thus stated by Mark (iii. 13) : "He goeth 
 into the mountain and calleth unto him whom he 
 himself would." Then follows, according to Luke, 
 (and Mark also) the choice of the Twelve. Then 
 Jesus descended, Luke proceeds to say, and stood on 
 " a level place." By " the mountain " in Mark we 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 203 
 
 may understand the mountainous country over the 
 Lake of G-ennesaret, since the Evangelist had just 
 spoken of the seaside, and explained that on account 
 of the throng Jesus had been obliged to address them 
 from a boat. But as Luke has made no mention of 
 the seaside, and as he tells us that Jesus " came 
 down" from the mountain, he may perhaps, have 
 meant by this term a high point, or summit. There 
 is no reason, therefore, why we may not suppose the 
 " level place " to have been a plateau to which Jesus 
 descended from a higher elevation. With him, on the 
 broad level, were not only the Twelve, but also, 
 Luke adds, a " multitude of his disciples," and a 
 " great number of people " besides. Jesus, directing 
 his attention to his Disciples, began his address. 
 Turning now from Luke to Matthew, we find no men- 
 tion of the choice, or setting apart, of the Twelve ; 
 but later in the Gospel, such an act of Jesus is as- 
 sumed to have taken place. Prior to the record of 
 the Sermon on the Mount we have in Matthew only 
 an account of the selection of four as followers : Peter 
 and Andrew, James and John (Matt. iv. 18-23). As 
 an introduction to the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 
 acquaints us with the fact that, drawn by his teach- 
 ing and his miracles, there followed him great multi- 
 tudes (iv. 25). " Seeing the multitudes, he went 
 up into the mountain. And when he had sat down, 
 his disciples came unto him." We should infer at 
 the first glance that it was to escape the throng and 
 to be with " the disciples " apart, that he chose to 
 
204 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 retire to the mountain. But it is obvious from the 
 discourse which follows that his audience was com- 
 posed not only of Disciples in the broader sense, 
 but of many others besides. When he finished, " the 
 multitudes were astonished at his teaching." With 
 Tholuck we may imagine that near to him were gath- 
 ered his believing adherents, while the outer circle 
 was made up of a more miscellaneous throng. 
 
 When we look at the two reports of this discourse, 
 or at the portion of it which Luke presents when com- 
 pared with the corresponding portion in Matthew, 
 some striking diversities at once appear. 
 
 Matt. v. 2-6. Luke vi. 20-22, 25, 26. 
 
 (2) And he opened his mouth (20) And he lifted up his eyes 
 and taught them, saying, on his disciples, and said, Blessed 
 
 (3) Blessed are the poor in are ye poor: for yours is the king- 
 spirit : for theirs is the kingdom dom of God. (21) Blessed are ye 
 of heaven. that hunger now: for ye shall be 
 
 (4) Blessed are they that mourn: filled. Blessed are ye that weep 
 for they shall be comforted. now : for ye shall laugh. 
 
 (5) Blessed are the meek : for 
 
 they shall inherit the earth. But woe unto you that are rich! 
 
 (6) Blessed are they that hun- for ye have received your consola- 
 ger and thirst after righteousness: tion. (25) Woe unto you , ye that 
 for they shall be filled. are full now ! for ye shall hunger. 
 
 Woe unto you, ye that laugh now ! 
 for ye shall mourn and weep. 
 
 In Matthew the class specified who are to be blessed 
 are those who have a sense of spiritual need, and who 
 are afflicted with hunger of soul, with a longing to be 
 righteous. In Luke, it is those who are poor and 
 lack food, in the literal sense of the words. The 
 meaning in Luke is made clear by the added woes, 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 205 
 
 which are wanting in Matthew : " Woe unto you that 
 are rich," etc. We may defer for the moment the 
 question what sense consonant with the general 
 teaching of Christ may be attached to the expressions 
 in Luke. We have first to inquire what Jesus really 
 said. It is evident that we have to decide between 
 the report in Matthew and that in Luke. Jesus could 
 not have made those diverse utterances in the same 
 breath. Some expositors, of whom Godet is one, still 
 think that Luke is here the more exact. They ima- 
 gine Jesus to have looked on the gathering before 
 him, made up of the poor, whose outward condition 
 had caused them to feel a poverty of spirit and a 
 spiritual need. He pronounced them blessed even in 
 their destitution and on account of it. This yields 
 a not unacceptable meaning to the words in Luke, 
 and a meaning consistent with the spirit of Christ's 
 teaching elsewhere. Yet there are decisive grounds 
 for the conclusion that the form of the Beatitudes as 
 we find it in Matthew is the correct one. This is 
 the conclusion of the majority of the more judicious 
 critics, including Meyer and Weiss. The opposite 
 view is maintained by Pfleiderer and Holtzmann, but 
 has been confuted by no one more satisfactorily 
 than by Weizsacker. The discourse in Matthew has 
 a distinct subject. It presents the new law — the 
 Christian ideal of righteousness — in contrast with 
 more external and lower standards such as had 
 existed in the past and such as made up the moral 
 code of Pharisaism. It thus begins with the tempers 
 
206 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVEL ATIOX. 
 
 of heart which qualify one for the blessings of the 
 new kingdom. The discourse in Luke bears marks 
 of having been drawn from a less complete, fragmen- 
 tary report or record of it. At the sixth verse it is 
 said : " But I say unto you which hear, Love your 
 enemies," etc. Here is the adversative " but," without 
 what precedes it in Matthew : " Ye have heard that 
 it was said," etc. Verses 39 and 40, relating to blind 
 guides and to the disciple not being above his Master, 
 are brought in, breaking the connection of thought. 
 The first of these sayings is found in Matthew xv. 14, 
 and the second in Matthew x. 24, — each in an ap- 
 propriate setting. The transition (Luke vi. 46, 47) 
 to the parable of the house built on the rock, will be 
 felt to be quite abrupt when it is compared with the 
 way in which Matthew's report leads up to this 
 parable. 
 
 The Church in all ages has not erred in taking the 
 Sermon on the Mount as it stands in Matthew — 
 apart from the additional teachings grouped with it 
 — as the Magna Charta of the Messiah's community. 
 It is the law given, to quote Ewald's language, from 
 " the new Sinai." 
 
 How shall we account for the variations in Luke ? 
 That Luke had in his hands the Logia of the Apostle 
 Matthew, and himself changed the form of the Beati- 
 tudes, is a gratuitous and unsupported assumption. 
 It is claimed that Luke favored an Ebionite opinion 
 that looked on the possession of property as a sin. 
 But his writings contain no proof of this imputation. 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 207 
 
 If Zaccheus gave one half of his wealth to the poor, 
 one half he was allowed without censure to retain. It 
 was the difference in character between Dives and 
 Lazarus, and not the unlikeness in their earthly con- 
 dition, that determined the lot of each at the end 
 of life. There is no Ebionitism in the Beatitudes 
 as they are given in Luke, since, as Weiss remarks, 
 " the poor are the believing disciples of Jesus, and as 
 such are blessed." The real purport of them is in 
 essential consonance with various recorded, and not 
 unlikely with many unrecorded, utterances of Jesus. 
 No doubt Luke followed an authority less full and 
 correct than the Logia of Matthew. Probably it was 
 the same Logia in an abridged and altered form, or, 
 if not the Logia, some other written record in which 
 teachings of Christ were brought together. In a 
 number of passages in Luke it is evident that his 
 source of information respecting the words of Christ 
 is not on a level with that at the basis of Matthew. 
 The following is the Lord's Prayer as it is found in 
 the two authors respectively : — 
 
 Matt. vi. 9-13. Luke xi. 2-4. 
 
 (9) After this manner therefore (2) And he said unto them, 
 pray ye : Our Father which art in When ye pray, say, Father, Hal- 
 heaven, Hallowed be thy name, lowed be thy name. Thy king- 
 (10) Thy kingdom come. Thy dom come. (3) Give us day by 
 will be done, as in heaven, so on day our daily bread. (4) And for- 
 earth. (11) Give us this day our give us our sins; for we ourselves 
 daily bread. (12) And forgive us also forgive every one that is in- 
 our debts, as we also have forgiven debted to us. And bring us not 
 our debtors. (13) And bring us into temptation, 
 not into temptation, but deliver us 
 from the evil one. 
 
208 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 The translation from Luke above is from the cor- 
 rected Greek text. In the text at the basis of the 
 Authorized Version are words and clauses which had 
 been introduced into it from Matthew. It is not 
 to be supposed that Luke erased anything from the 
 Lord's Prayer as it stood in the source from which he 
 derived it. The reasons for giving the preference to 
 the form in Matthew as the most authentic are of the 
 same tenor as those already assigned in reference 
 to the Beatitudes. Hence we conclude that Luke in 
 this instance likewise was guided by an authority 
 distinct and less exact. 
 
 In conjunction with the record of the Sermon 
 on the Mount both Matthew and Luke narrate the 
 miracle wrought in answer to the request of the 
 Centurion. 
 
 Matt. viii. 5-13. 
 
 (5) And when he was entered 
 into Capernaum, there came unto 
 him a centurion, beseeching him, 
 and saying, (6) Lord, my servant 
 lieth in the house sick of the palsy, 
 grievously tormented. (7) And 
 he saith unto him, I will come 
 and heal him. (8) And the cen- 
 turion answered and said, Lord, I 
 am not worthy that thou shouldest 
 come under ray roof: but only say 
 the word, and my servant shall be 
 healed. (9) For I also am a man 
 under authority, having under my- 
 self soldiers: and I say to this one, 
 Go, and he goeth ; and to another, 
 
 Luke vii. 2-10. 
 
 (2) And a certain centurion's 
 servant, who was dear unto him, 
 was sick, and at the point of death. 
 
 (3) And when he heard concerning 
 Jesus, he sent unto him elders 
 of the Jews, asking him that he 
 would come and save his servant. 
 
 (4) And they, when they came 
 to Jesus, besought him earnestty, 
 saying, He is worthy that thou 
 shouldest do this for him : (5) for 
 he loveth our nation, and himself 
 built us our synagogue. (6) And 
 Jesus went with them. And when 
 he was now not far from the house, 
 the centurion sent friends to him, 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 209 
 
 Come, and he cometh ; and to my 
 servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 
 (10) And when Jesus heard it, he 
 marvelled, and said to them that 
 followed, Verily I say unto you, I 
 have not found so great faith, no, 
 not in Israel. (11) And I say 
 unto you, that many shall come 
 from the east and the west, and 
 shall sit down with Abraham, and 
 Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom 
 of heaven: (12) but the sons of the 
 kingdom shall be cast forth into 
 the outer darkness : there shall be 
 the weeping and gnashing of teeth. 
 (13) And Jesus said unto the cen- 
 turion, Go thy way; as thou hast 
 believed, so be it done unto thee. 
 And the servant was healed in 
 that hour. 
 
 saying unto him, Lord, trouble 
 not thyself: for I am not worthy 
 that thou shouldest come under 
 my roof: (7) wherefore neither 
 thought I myself worthy to corne 
 unto thee : but say the word, 
 and my servant shall be healed. 
 
 (8) For I also am a man set under 
 authority, having under myself 
 soldiers: and I say to this one, 
 Go, and he goeth; and to another, 
 Come, and he cometh; and to my 
 servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 
 
 (9) And when Jesus heard these 
 things, he marvelled at him, and 
 turned and said unto the multi- 
 tude that followed him, I say unto 
 you, I have not found so great 
 faith, no, not in Israel. (10) And 
 they that were sent, returning 
 to the house, found the servant 
 whole. 
 
 In Matthew, it is the Centurion in person, and 
 he alone, who applies to Jesus. In Luke, it is first 
 the Jewish elders who come in the Centurion's behalf, 
 and then, later, his friends. It was they who, return- 
 ing to the house, found the servant whole. Luke's 
 account is more fresh, and has an air of originality 
 as if it were derived from an immediate source. In 
 the tradition at the basis of Matthew's account the 
 occurrence had been thrown into a briefer form, and 
 altered in the process of shortening it. By some 
 scholars, ancient and modern, the healing of the 
 nobleman's son (John iv. 46-53) has been thought 
 to be identical with the miracle wrought for the 
 Centurion. It is thus spoken of by Irenasus. Such 
 
 14 
 
210 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 is now the opinion of Neander, Weiss, and others. 
 But the diversity in the circumstances renders this 
 conclusion questionable. The characteristic feature 
 of the Centurion's saying, that Jesus had no need 
 to come to the house, does not appear in John's 
 narration, which reads as follows : — 
 
 There was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. 
 (47) When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, 
 he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and 
 heal his son; for he was at the point of death. (48) Jesus therefore 
 said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise 
 believe. (49) The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my 
 child die. (50) Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. 
 The man believed the word that Jesus spake unto him, and he went 
 his way. (51) And as he was now going down, his servants met him, 
 saying, that his son lived. (52) So he inquired of them the hour 
 when he began to amend. They said therefore unto him, Yesterday 
 at the seventh hour the fever left him. (53) So the father knew that 
 it was at that hour in which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth : 
 and himself believed, and his whole house. 
 
 All critical students of the New Testament are 
 aware of an apparent or real discrepancy betAveen 
 the Synoptical Gospels and the Gospel of John 
 respecting the date of the Last Supper. The Synop- 
 tical Gospels, with one accord, place it at the usual 
 time of the Passover meal, — the evening of the 
 14th Nisan, or, according to the Jewish reckon- 
 ing, the beginning of the 15th Nisan. Mark says : 
 " On the first day of unleavened bread, when they 
 sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, 
 Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that 
 thou mayest eat the passover ? " In this designa- 
 tion of time the three Gospels agree. But John 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 211 
 
 (xiii. 1) begins his account of the last meal taken 
 by Christ with his Disciples, with the words : u Now 
 before the feast of the passover," — words which 
 must be connected with the principal statement 
 that follows, " he loved them to the end." This 
 statement, many critics allege, is to guard against 
 the idea that it was the Passover meal, and to 
 indicate that it was a repast on the previous day. 
 The phrases, " during supper " (not the Supper), 
 and " riseth from supper," soon occur (verses 2, 4). 
 After a time, in the course of the meal, Judas 
 retired from the room. Some thought that he had 
 been directed to make provision " for the feast," — 
 where the article occurs (verse 29). In John xix. 
 14, the day of the crucifixion is called " the prep- 
 aration of the passover," — as if it were the morning 
 before. Saturday is styled (xix. 31) "a high day," 
 which would be natural if it were at once the Sabbath 
 and the Passover. Finally, on Friday morning the 
 Jews would not enter the palace of Pilate, " that 
 they might not be defiled, but might eat the pass- 
 over." Other explanations, more or less plausible, 
 are suggested for several of the preceding passages. 
 This reference to a fear of defilement, with the reason 
 assigned, it is certainly very difficult, if it be possible, 
 to account for, in case the Passover supper had al- 
 ready been eaten. It is the conclusion, therefore, 
 of a large number of eminent critics of every school 
 of theology that, according to John, the repast of 
 Jesus with his Disciples was on the evening before 
 
212 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the Passover meal ; that is, that the Thursday even- 
 ing of that week was the 13th, or, according to 
 the Jewish reckoning, the 14th of Nisan. Among 
 these critics are Neander, Bleek, Meyer, Weiss, Elli- 
 cott, Westcott. Canon Westcott, in his Commentary 
 on John, says of the acts and discourses which 
 begin with John xiii. : " All these took place ' before 
 the feast,' that is, on the evening (the commence- 
 ment) of Nisan 13th ; and in these last scenes 
 before the Passover, at which the Jewish type found 
 its perfect fulfilment, the love of the Lord was 
 revealed in its highest form." Westcott remarks 
 on the 29th verse : " These words show that the 
 meal cannot have been the Passover. Moreover, 
 if it had been, Judas would not have left while 
 the meal was as yet unfinished." Critics who adopt 
 this opinion find even in the first three Gospels 
 incidental corroboration of it, in the passages which 
 indicate that the day of crucifixion was a day when 
 labor and intercourse were going on as usual (Matt, 
 xxvii. 59 seq. ; Mark xv. 21, 42, 46 ; Luke xxiii. 
 26, 54, 56~). Simon, who bore the cross, was coming 
 in from " the country," — apparently from labor in 
 the field. Occupations are referred to which it is 
 hardly probable would be allowed on a day so solemn 
 as the first day of the Passover. 
 
 On the supposition that John is correctly inter- 
 preted by the scholars to whom reference has just 
 been made, — and it must be admitted that their 
 view is coming to prevail, — there is a discrepancy 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 213 
 
 between John and the Synoptists. We have then 
 to conclude that John purposely rectifies a mistake 
 which had made its way into the Galilean tradition. 
 Such a mistake is less surprising if it be supposed 
 that this portion of the narrative in the Greek Mat- 
 thew, as well as in Luke, was drawn from Mark, 
 or that all three authors here represent one source. 
 It was understood by all that the crucifixion took 
 place in conjunction with the Passover, when the 
 multitudes were gathered for the festival. The Last 
 Supper took on to some extent, by anticipation, the 
 character of the Paschal Supper, as appears in the 
 accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. 
 
 An interesting illustration of the character of the 
 Gospel histories is presented in the accounts given 
 of the interviews of Jesus with his Disciples after 
 his resurrection. It is impossible to dovetail strictly 
 these narratives with one another ; but their peculiari- 
 ties are just those which add credibility to the main 
 facts. We turn first to the oldest of the Gospel 
 narratives. The last twelve verses in Mark are 
 not a part of the original text. This passage con- 
 tains extracts from Luke and from John, and was 
 composed, it appears probable, to fill out the seem- 
 ingly incomplete narrative of Mark. At the outset 
 the reader should be reminded that all the Gospels 
 record the visit to the sepulchre made by women 
 near the dawn of the third dav. 
 
214 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 1. Mark xvi. 1-2. Luke xxiv. 1, 10. John xx. I. 
 
 Now late on the (1) And when the (1) And on the Now on the first 
 sabbath day, as it sabbath was past, sabbath they rested day of the week 
 began to dawn to- Mary Magdalene, according to the cometh Mary Mag- 
 ward the first day of and Mary the mother commandment. But dalene early, while 
 theweek.cameMary of James, and Sa- on the first day of it was yet dark, unto 
 Magdalene and the lome, bought spices, the week, at early the tomb, and seeth 
 other Mary to see that they might dawn, they came the stone taken 
 the sepulchre. come and anoint unto the tomb, away from the tomb, 
 
 him. (2) And very bringing the spices 
 early on the first day which they had pre- 
 of the week, they pared, 
 come to the tomb 
 
 when the sun was (10) Now they 
 risen. were Mary Magda- 
 
 lene, and Joanna, 
 and M ary the mother 
 of James: and the 
 other women with 
 them told these 
 things unto the 
 apostles. 
 
 In Mark (xiv. 27, 28) we find the words of Jesus : 
 " All ye shall be offended : for it is written, I will 
 smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered 
 abroad. Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go be- 
 fore you into Galilee." And the same Evangelist 
 states that the angel in the sepulchre said to the 
 women : " Go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth 
 before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as 
 he said unto you." Here (with only the addition of 
 a single verse relating to the women, which will soon 
 be noticed) Mark breaks off his account. Possibly 
 he intended to pursue it in a distinct writing ; but 
 on this point we have no information. The conclud- 
 ing statement of Mark is that the women, frightened, 
 fled from the tomb, and that " they said nothing to 
 any one ; for they were afraid." Something occurred ; 
 but here the curtain drops on the narrative. Luke 
 relates that the women " told these things to the 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 215 
 
 eleven and to all the rest." Matthew says (xxviii. 8) 
 that the women departed quickly from the tomb with 
 fear and great joy, and ran to bring his Disciples 
 word. They met Jesus, who gave them this mes- 
 sage : " Go tell my brethren that they depart into 
 Galilee, and there shall they see me ; " and then 
 (verse 16) it is said that the eleven Disciples went 
 into Galilee " unto the mountain where Jesus had 
 appointed them." There they met him. With re- 
 gard to all occurrences of a very startling nature, 
 testimony is almost sure to vary. Often there are 
 circumstances which, if known, might serve to re- 
 move apparent discrepancies. But it is also true 
 that real inconsistencies are apt to be found among 
 the different witnesses, and especially in the reports 
 that spread abroad from them. While, therefore, the 
 suggestions of harmonists are in some cases of value, 
 it is better frankly to recognize that such inconsis- 
 tencies exist than to resort to artificial methods of 
 conciliation. Just now the principal thing to be re- 
 marked is that from Mark and Matthew alone we 
 should know nothing of interviews with the risen 
 Jesus — except the notice in Matthew of his meeting 
 the women — in Jerusalem. The scene is shifted at 
 once to Galilee. But if the opinion now coming to 
 prevail among scholars is correct, that the narrative 
 portion of our Greek Matthew is borrowed largely 
 from Mark, with something in the way of supple- 
 ment from other sources, the difficulty is confined 
 to this one Evangelist, himself not an Apostle, who 
 
216 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 presents, especially in this part of his writing, a 
 summary, rapid and abbreviated, and whose ac- 
 counts in general cover the events of which Galilee 
 was the theatre. If it be granted that one tradi- 
 tion placed the interviews — at least the first of 
 them — in Galilee, and that this tradition is found 
 in Mark, the evidence from other sources is ample 
 and convincing that it was in Jerusalem that the 
 risen Jesus first met the Apostles. The theory of 
 Weizsacker, therefore, that in Mark we have the 
 earliest tradition, and that our other accounts are 
 a growth upon it, is untenable. This evidence we 
 have now briefly to notice. It consists mainly of 
 the testimony of the Apostle Paul in connection 
 with Luke's narrative and the narrative in John's 
 Gospel. 
 
 Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians in 
 57 or 58. His conversion was in 34 or 35, a little 
 more than twenty years before, and his first visit to 
 Jerusalem, when he stayed a fortnight with Peter, 
 was in 37 or 38. He had had ample means of in- 
 tercourse with the other Apostles and many immedi- 
 ate disciples of Jesus. In considering what he has 
 to say in respect to the fact of the resurrection of 
 Jesus, we must remember the stress which he laid 
 on this fact as the corner-stone of the Christian's 
 creed. He enumerates a succession of interviews of 
 the risen Jesus with the Apostles. There is no rea- 
 son to suppose that he intended to present an ex- 
 haustive list of these interviews with the Apostles, 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 217 
 
 much less with the Disciples generally. The passage 
 to be quoted is in 1 Cor. xv. 3-8. 
 
 (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, 
 how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; and 
 that he was buried; (4) and that he hath been raised on the third 
 day according to the scriptures ; (5) and that he appeared to Cephas; 
 then to the twelve ; (6) then he appeared to above five hundred breth- 
 ren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are 
 fallen asleep ; (7) then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; 
 (8) and last of all, as unto one born out of due time, he appeared to 
 me also. 
 
 That these manifestations of Jesus (with the possi- 
 ble exception of the appearance to the five hundred) 
 were at Jerusalem, and that this was the understand- 
 ing of Paul, is settled by a recurrence to the Third 
 Gospel. Its author had consulted " eye-witnesses " 
 (i. l),and endeavored "to trace all things accurately 
 from the first." Moreover, he stood in close relations 
 to the Apostle Paul in the later period of his min- 
 istry. The first manifestation of Jesus, in the series 
 as given by Paul, was to Peter : " he appeared unto 
 Cephas." Now in Luke (xxiv. 34), when Cleopas and 
 his fellow-disciple, on Sunday, after meeting Jesus on 
 their walk to Emmaus, came back to Jerusalen to tell 
 the Eleven, who were gathered together, other Disci- 
 ples being with them, what had occurred, they were 
 met with the exclamation, "The Lord is risen indeed, 
 and hath appeared to Simon." " And as they spoke 
 these things, he [Jesus] himself stood in the midst 
 of them." There is no effort here to give prominence 
 to the appearance to Peter; no details are given. 
 The circumstance is introduced in this indirect way. 
 
218 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 Before, Luke had said (verses 11, 12) that the re- 
 port of the women on coming from the sepulchre had 
 struck the Apostles as idle talk. Peter, however, 
 had gone and looked into the tomb, and had " de- 
 parted to his home, wondering at that which had 
 come to pass." 
 
 Of this visit of Peter to the sepulchre, and how he 
 was accompanied by John, we have a clear and 
 graphic account in the Fourth Gospel (John xx. 
 1-10). 
 
 (1) Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, 
 while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away 
 from the tomb. (2) She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon 
 Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto 
 them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know 
 not where they have laid him. (3) Peter therefore went forth, and the 
 other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. (4) And they ran 
 both together : and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to 
 the tomb ; (5) and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths 
 lying; yet entered he not in. (6) Simon Peter therefore also cometh, 
 following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen 
 cloths lying, (7) and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying 
 with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. (8) Then 
 entered in therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the 
 tomb, and he saw and believed. (9) For as yet they knew not the 
 scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (10) So the disciples 
 went away again unto their own home. 
 
 Those who believe that we have here, and in the 
 passages which follow, what the Apostle John wrote, 
 will not doubt that the first manifestations of Jesus, 
 whatever idea is entertained of the nature of them, 
 were at Jerusalem. In the twenty-first chapter of 
 the Fourth Gospel, which is an appendix, but prob- 
 ably from the writer of the preceding chapters, we 
 
CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 219 
 
 have a record of the appearance of Jesus to the 
 Disciples in Galilee. But even those who question 
 the apostolic authorship of this Gospel, and attribute 
 it to a Disciple of John, cannot consistently doubt 
 that enough of its contents was derived from John 
 himself to assure us that Jerusalem was the place 
 of the first manifestations of the risen Christ to the 
 Apostles. We know that they did not forsake Jeru- 
 salem at the crucifixion. All accounts concur in 
 regard to the fact that they were there on the third 
 day. It is beyond all question that it was on the 
 third day that the first appearance of Jesus, take 
 what view of it one will, occurred. That the subse- 
 quent appearances to which the Apostle Paul refers, 
 most or all of them, were likewise at Jerusalem, is 
 established by an impartial examination and com- 
 parison of all the evidence on the subject. 
 
 Sceptical criticism will have to give up the theory 
 of " the growth of a legend " of the resurrection 
 from insignificant beginnings. If the Third and the 
 Fourth Gospels were not in the way, it would be 
 absolutely disproved by the umimpeached testimony 
 of the Apostle Paul. The fact is incontrovertible, 
 nor is it questioned, that the Apostles believed in the 
 reality of the Lord's re-appearance and intercourse 
 with them on successive occasions, beginning with 
 the memorable " third day," — believed in it with an 
 unmovable faith, a faith which derision and obloquy, 
 persecution and death, availed not in the least to dis- 
 turb. It is not designed here to examine at length 
 
220 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the " vision theory," which, it is alleged, serves to 
 account for the belief of the Apostles that Jesus had 
 risen from the tomb, and for their testimony on this 
 subject. The purpose here has not been to vindicate 
 the character of the proofs furnished by them, but to 
 show that they gave this testimony. 1 
 
 1 For a consideration of the " vision hypothesis " and a more 
 extended discussion of the various topics falling under the head 
 of Christian Evidences, I must refer the reader to my work on 
 " The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief " (Charles Scrib- 
 ner's Sons, 1883). 
 
III. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS ON THE TIME 
 OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 
 
 The Jews distinguished between the present Age, 
 or Period, and the Age, or Period, to come, — thus 
 dividing the world's history into two parts. The 
 first section is the pre-Messianic, the second is the 
 post-Messianic, era. In the New Testament, " this 
 World " and " the World to come " are the designation 
 of these respective eras. Sometimes the division line 
 was placed by the Jews at the beginning of the Mes- 
 sianic time, and sometimes at its close, at the Judg- 
 ment. This last view was the more common in the 
 later Jewish theology. In the New Testament, the 
 coming Era, " the World to come," is introduced by 
 the Second Advent of Christ to Judgment. In the 
 current Jewish theology there was no room for a 
 second Advent. The rejection of Christ, his death 
 and his resurrection, are the presupposition of the 
 Christian conceptions on this subject. The work of 
 the Messiah was left unfinished. The basis of the 
 New Testament doctrine is the intimations or more 
 explicit words of Christ, before and after his death 
 and resurrection. The Second Advent is represented 
 as the transition-point, the termination of the present 
 
222 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 order of things. The Coming of the Lord is con- 
 ceived of as a definite event, to occur at a point of 
 time in the future. It is called the "Parousia." The 
 term Parousia, in connection with this subject and as 
 related to Christ, always denotes his Second Advent 
 in the character of Judge, and the introduction of 
 his kingdom in its full victory and dominion. 
 
 1. There runs through the New Testament the 
 expectation that the Parousia, as thus defined, is 
 near. It is variously described as a coming " in his 
 glory," a coming " in the glory of his Father," a com- 
 ing " in his kingdom," a coming " with his angels," 
 as the " revelation " or " manifestation " of the Son 
 of Man, etc. It is spoken of as the " day " of the Lord 
 (Luke xvii. 24), as " that day " (Luke xxi. 24), as 
 " the end of the world," or, as Luke xxiv. 3 is ren- 
 dered in the margin of the Revised Version, " the 
 consummation of the Age," — the existing period and 
 present order of things. These descriptive phrases, 
 or many of them, are found in the contemporary 
 Jewish theology. 
 
 " The day of the Lord " is a conception familiar to 
 the Old Testament Prophets. Jehovah would surely 
 come to deliver his people from oppression and trou- 
 ble. He would come, in his character as sovereign 
 of the world, to make his power and mercy known. 
 The day of the Lord would bring blessings to Israel, 
 and discomfiture and ruin to Israel's enemies. But 
 in Israel there would be a sifting, a judgment, a 
 parting of the righteous from the unfaithful The 
 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 223 
 
 heathen nations would be overtaken with retribu- 
 tion. They would be subjugated, and would serve 
 Judah. Then again it was prophesied that they 
 would be won over, recovered from idolatry, unite with 
 Jehovah's people in his worship. Then would ensue 
 an era of universal righteousness and peace. The 
 precise complexion of the predictions varied witli the 
 state of the times and the situation of the prophet. 
 In depicting the sublimity and terror of " the day of 
 the Lord," the boldest poetic imagery was employed. 
 The earth would be shaken, the heavens would be 
 convulsed, the light of the stars and of the sun would 
 be blotted out. For example, Isaiah (ch. xiii.) thus 
 speaks of the day of the Lord which is to destroy 
 Babylon, and in like manner (ch. xxiv.) dwells on 
 the destruction that is to overtake Jerusalem. But 
 in both passages it is not a single mighty city alone, 
 but the world, on which the judgments of the Lord 
 are to descend. Joel, one of the last of the Prophets, 
 speaks thus (ch. ii.) : " The sun shall be turned into 
 darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great 
 and terrible day of the Lord come." In Jerusalem 
 a remnant is to escape. The nations shall be as- 
 sembled and judged. " The sun and moon are 
 darkened, and the stars withdraAV their shining." 
 After that, Judah and Jerusalem are to be filled with 
 holiness and prosperity. The references in the 
 Prophets to the wonders in nature in connection 
 with " the day of the Lord " cannot be regarded as 
 being, in the intention of the Prophets, simply the 
 
224 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 language of poetic description. According as the 
 visions of prophecy became more definite, it was 
 understood that the great deliverance and judgment 
 were to be effected through the agency of the Mes- 
 siah. Hope, alternating more or less with fear, 
 centred in the expected coining of the Christ. 
 
 In the New Testament, under whatever terms the 
 Parousia — the Coming of the ascended Christ — 
 is referred to, the implication is that it is near at 
 hand. In the first three Gospels it is said that " this 
 generation shall not pass away " before it will occur. 
 The phrase translated " this generation " denotes in 
 the New Testament, like the corresponding English 
 phrase, the average length of human life. With the 
 Greeks it signified a third of a century. In Mat- 
 thew, after the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, 
 with its attendant miseries, we read that " immedi- 
 ately " after the tribulation of those days will occur 
 the Advent of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven 
 (Matt. xxiv. 29). Luke speaks of the avenging of 
 the elect, when the Son of Man " cometh," as to 
 occur " speedily" (Luke xviii. 8, 9). In John's Gos- 
 pel we see that the expectation among " the breth- 
 ren " was that John would live until the Eeturn of 
 Christ (John i. 21-23). In the First Epistle of John 
 (ii. 18) it is inferred, from the appearance of Anti- 
 christs, that "it is the last hour," — which appears 
 from the context to mean the same as " the last 
 day " in his Gospel ; that is, the Advent. Paul re- 
 peatedly adverts to the Second Coming as near. In 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 225 
 
 the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (iv. 16, 17, and 
 the following chapter) he speaks of it in such a way 
 that the Thessalonian Christians were thrown into 
 a commotion. In his Second Epistle he seeks to 
 calm the excitement. They are not to think that 
 " the day of the Lord is now present " (ii. 2) ; some- 
 thing is to precede it. Yet there is still the intima- 
 tion that the Advent is not far off; for the Apostle 
 explains that " the mystery of lawlessness doth al- 
 ready work ; " the precursor of the Advent is already 
 beginning to be manifest. In one of his latest 
 Epistles — the Epistles to the Thessalonians are the 
 earliest — the Apostle says: " The Lord is at hand" 
 (Phil. iv. 5). On this passage Bishop Lightfoot 
 remarks : " The nearness of the Lord's advent is 
 assigned as a reason for patient forbearance. So 
 similarly in St. James v. 8 [" for the coming of the 
 Lord is at hand"]. The expression, 6 Kvpios iyyv? 
 [" the Lord is at hand "], is the Apostle's watchword. 
 In 1 Cor. xvi. 22, an Aramaic equivalent is given, 
 Mapav a6d [Mar an atlia ; in the margin of the Re- 
 vised Version, " The Lord cometh "] ; whence we may 
 infer that it was a familiar form of mutual recog- 
 nition and warning in the early Church. Compare 
 Barnabas, § 21. . . . See also Luke xxi. 31 ; 1 Peter 
 iv. 7." "The end of all things is at hand," is the lan- 
 guage of Peter. The same Apostle sees in the occur- 
 rences at Pentecost what Joel had foretold was to 
 precede " the day of the Lord," " that great and 
 notable day " (Acts ii. 20). " Ye see the day draw- 
 
 15 
 
226 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 ing nigh," writes the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (x. 25). " For yet a very little while," he 
 adds, — quoting Isaiah, as rendered in the Septuagint, 
 " He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." 
 Jude reminds his readers, with respect to the revilers 
 and scoffers about them, of what the Apostles had 
 said, that u in the last time " — that is, in the closing 
 days of the ante-Messianic era — "there shall be 
 mockers." 1 These quotations suffice to show what 
 
 1 Either the author of 2 Peter made use of Jude, or Jude made 
 use of 2 Peter. The priority probably belongs to Jude. The 
 Apostolic authorship of 2 Peter is extensively questioned in the 
 modern, as it was in the ancient Church. This question need not 
 be examined here. When it was written, there were mockers who 
 scoffed at the expectation of the Parousia (iii. 3 seq.). " Where," 
 they said, "is the promise of his coming ?" what has come of it ? 
 The writer answers, first, that "one day is with the Lord as a 
 thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." That is to 
 say, " distinctions of long and short time are nothing in the sight 
 of God; delay is a purely human conception." And secondly, 
 the writer accounts for the postponing of the Parousia by the 
 " long-suffering " of God, who is not willing that any should 
 perish. 
 
 The authorship of the Book of Revelation is now, as it was in 
 the third and fourth centuries and at the period of the Reforma- 
 tion, a controverted question. On many points, how to interpret 
 it, is now, as of old, unsettled. On the particular topic before us, 
 it cannot be denied that the imminence of the Parousia appears 
 to be indicated. The Revelation relates "to things shortly to 
 come to pass" (i. 1). " The time" — is it not the time of the 
 Parousia ? — "is at hand " (i. 3 ; xxii. 10). Immediately follow- 
 ing a reference to " the hour of trial" to come upon "the whole 
 world," and just before the reference to the New Jerusalem, are 
 the words, "I come quickly." This expression is three times 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 227 
 
 was the expectation, as to the time of the Advent, in 
 the minds of the New Testament writers. 
 
 Among the other passages which bear on this sub- 
 ject, there are some to the interpretation of which a 
 degree of doubt may be attached. The attention of 
 the reader is invited to the following citations from 
 the First Gospel : — 
 
 Matt. x. 23. Matt. xvi. 27, 28. Matt. xxiv. 13, 14. 
 
 But when they perse- (27) For the Son of man (13) But he that endu- 
 
 cute you in this city, flee shall come in the glory of reth to the end, the same 
 
 into the next: for verily I his Father with his angels ; shall be saved. (14) And 
 
 say unto you, ye shall not and then shall he render this gospel of the kingdom 
 
 have gone through the unto every man according shall be preached in the 
 
 cities of Israel, till the Son to his deeds. (28) Verily whole world for a testimony 
 
 of man be come. I say unto you, There be unto all the nations ; and 
 
 some of them that stand then shall the end come. 
 
 here, which shall in no wise 
 
 taste of death, till they see 
 
 the Son of man coming in 
 
 his kingdom. 
 
 repeated in the last chapter (xxii. 7, 12, 20). In the first of 
 these instances, the words, "And behold, I come quickly," stand in 
 the closest connection with another reference to " the things that 
 must shortly come to pass," — the contents of the revelation made 
 by the angel. Among the commentators, two explanations are 
 frequent. By one school it is said that God's mode of reckon- 
 ing time does not accord with man's ; that is, the interval before 
 the Parousia is short to him, but long to us. By the other school, 
 among whom Moses Stuart is included, "the things shortly 
 to come to pass" embrace most of the events depicted in the 
 book, but not the Parousia. The beginning of the fulfilment of 
 the prophecies was near. The difficulty with the first view is 
 that language is designed to be understood by those to whom it 
 is addressed; otherwise it conveys no idea to them. The diffi- 
 culty with the second view is that the Parousia, although it was 
 only one of the events foretold, was yet the most grand and 
 important of them all. 
 
228 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 The first of the foregoing passages is from the 
 instructions of Jesus to the Apostles when lie sent 
 them forth on their preliminary mission. Matthew, 
 in accordance with his custom of grouping together 
 utterances of Jesus on a particular theme, lias appar- 
 ently gathered into this discourse of the Master sav- 
 ings which formed a part of their final commission. 
 But what does the Coming here signify ? It was to 
 be, it would appear, a means of deliverance for the 
 Apostles from further peril. The Lord would come 
 before they should have gone through the Jewish 
 cities, and thus no places would be left for them to 
 flee to. But the second passage appears to presup- 
 pose a longer interval before the coming is to occur. 
 Some of the bystanders, but only a fraction of them, 
 would live to see it. In the third passage the inter- 
 val would seem to be still longer. The Gospel is first 
 to be preached everywhere. Meyer and Weiss are 
 among the exegetes who consider that in all these 
 passages it is requisite to understand a reference to 
 the Parousia. They hold that in each case the con- 
 text makes this reference clear, and excludes every 
 other. All three passages, as these critics judge, 
 imply the belief that the Parousia was near, but dis- 
 close also the varying expectation as to the length 
 of the interval that was to elapse before it should 
 occur. But there are scholars whose opinion is en- 
 titled to respect, of whom Neander is one, who are 
 inclined to give a more figurative interpretation to 
 the first of the three passages. They would make it 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 229 
 
 a promise of the increase of the power of Christ 
 and of the spread of his kingdom. The destruction 
 of Jerusalem was too far in the future to be the 
 event referred to in the prediction. So there are 
 still left critics who are of opinion that the closing 
 verses in both the second and third of the passages 
 quoted above may refer to something else than the 
 Parousia. The differences of judgment in regard to 
 the sense of these particular passages, and of others 
 that might be named, do not disturb the general con- 
 clusion which has been propounded above, — that the 
 New Testament writers look forward to the Parousia 
 as an event in the near future. 
 
 How are we to account for this expectation of the 
 Apostles and other New Testament writers that the 
 Lord would soon appear in visible majesty ? What 
 led them to look for the Parousia at so early a day ? 
 To answer the question it is requisite to attend to 
 the Prophetic Discourse recorded in the twenty-fourth 
 of Matthew and in the other Synoptics. In that dis- 
 course the Second Advent stands in close connection 
 chronologically with the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 (1) There is the explanation founded on what is 
 called "'the perspective of prophecy." This theory 
 is thus described by Bengel : " Prophecy is like the 
 picture of some region, which in the foreground sets 
 down distinctly roofs and paths and bridges, but 
 in the background crowds together valleys and moun- 
 tains of wide extent." That this character belongs 
 
230 XATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 to prophecies in the Old Testament — to those, for 
 example, which associate the Messianic era with the 
 restoration of Israel from captivity — is true. This 
 is owing to the limits of prophetic vision in the an- 
 cient inspired seers. Bat in the case of Christ, as 
 Neander remarks, we can admit no such mingling 
 of two events, no error through which the truth, re- 
 vealing itself to his spirit, was confused or clouded. 
 This conclusion is based not only on our belief in 
 Christ's superiority to the Prophets, but also, as will 
 be pointed out later, on exegetical grounds, on his 
 actual recorded teaching in reference to the pros- 
 pects of his kingdom. We cannot, with Bengel, take 
 the " immediately " (verse 29) as an equivalent of 
 "next in order." If we could, there would remain 
 the other chronological statements, — " this genera- 
 tion shall not pass away," etc. ; " there be some 
 standing here," etc. 
 
 (2) There are certain critics, sincere believers in 
 supernatural Christianity, who do not hesitate to say 
 that Jesus actually predicted that the Second Coming 
 was to occur within this limit of time. Weiss is one 
 of these. He labors to show that such a prediction 
 is no ground for the imputation of error to Christ. 
 He argues that the postponement of the fulfilment 
 of a prophecy is always possible in the divine admin- 
 istration ; that there are biblical examples of it. He 
 affirms, in short, that all prophecies, especially of 
 judgment and punishment, are conditional ; that is, 
 that they are made with a tacit proviso. 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 231 
 
 A like opinion is cautiously suggested by Dean 
 Plumptre in Ellicott's " New Testament Commen- 
 tary for English Readers." In his notes on Matt. x. 
 23 and xxiv. 29, Dean Plumptre says : — 
 
 " It will be enough humbly to express my own persona- 
 conviction that what seems the boldest solution is also 
 the truest and most reverential. The human thoughts 
 of the Son of Man may not have travelled in this matter 
 to the farthest bounds of the mysterious horizon. . . . 
 There is that in God which answers to the modification 
 of a purpose in man, and now postpones, now hastens, 
 the unfolding of his plan. . . . He [Christ], as truly 
 man, and as having, therefore, vouchsafed to accept the 
 limitations of knowledge incident to man's nature, speaks 
 of the two events as poets and prophets speak of the far- 
 off future." 
 
 Dean Plumptre adds that the thoughts of the 
 Apostles and their immediate disciples were mainly 
 moulded on this prediction ; and in his comment on 
 Matt. xxiv. 36, he speaks of " their assumption that 
 the Son of Man had definitely fixed the time of his 
 appearing," and " their consequent forgetfulness of 
 the ' long-suffering ' which might extend a day into 
 a thousand years (2 Peter iii. 3, 8)." 
 
 The objection to conceiving of Jesus as subject to 
 the limitations of the Old Testament Prophets in fore- 
 casting the future, has already been stated. It is 
 true that prophecies of judgment are not irrevocable 
 Sometimes it is distinctly said that they are con- 
 ditional, even when they have been uttered in the 
 
232 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 most unqualified terms. The Prophet Joel proclaims 
 " the day of the Lord " as " nigh at hand," and de- 
 scribes it in all its terror. But he goes on to say 
 that the threatening may not be fulfilled. Let the 
 people forsake their sins. God is gracious. "Who 
 knoweth whether he will not turn and repent ? " 
 (Joel ii. 1, 13, 14.) But in the case of the predic- 
 tion of the Second Advent in the Synoptical Gospels 
 the parallel fails, on account of the explicit character 
 of the chronological statements which are connected 
 with it. At this point Weiss encounters a difficulty 
 which his observations do not avail to remove. 
 
 (3) Dean Mansel, in " The Speaker's Commentary," 
 has adopted an opinion, that was broached by Luther, 
 that the destruction of Jerusalem and the final ad- 
 vent to Judgment were by Christ himself mingled 
 together from beginning to end of the Prophetic 
 Discourse. That is to say, Christ purposely dis- 
 cussed both these events in the same breath, using 
 language applicable to both alike. As both events, 
 the end of the temple and the end of the world, 
 were coupled in the question of the Disciples, so 
 they were indiscriminately treated in the answer. 
 This is certainly an unexampled method of teach- 
 ing. The interpretation, when the attempt is made 
 to carry it through the Discourse, appears artificial 
 and confused. 
 
 (4) Most candid scholars at present prefer the 
 hypothesis that the reports of the Lord's Discourse — 
 which, it must be remembered, are translations of it 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 233 
 
 into Greek, and in an abridged form — are tinged by 
 a subjective anticipation of the Disciples, the result of 
 their own thoughts and yearnings with regard to a 
 point left indefinite in the Lord's prophetic teaching, 
 the design of which was to afford glimpses of grand 
 turning-points in the development of his kingdom. 
 " If Christ," says Neander, " pointed forward to the 
 great effective forces or steps involved in his com- 
 ing in the world's history, his victorious self-reve- 
 lation, bringing in his kingdom, he meant thereby 
 in part his triumph in the fall of the previous sensu- 
 ous form of the theocracy, and in the more free and 
 mighty spread of this kingdom, to be secured by it, 
 and in part his last coming for the consummation of 
 his kingdom. He had in view the judgment of the 
 degenerate theocracy, and that final judgment, — the 
 one being the first more free and mighty development 
 of the kingdom of God, the other its final consumma- 
 tion ; both being regarded by him as events corres- 
 ponding one to the other, — just as in general, in the 
 great epochs in the world's history, God reveals him- 
 self, sitting in judgment on a creation ripe for its 
 downfall, and calling a new creation into being. Of 
 this character are the critical and creative epochs of 
 the world's history, having relation one to another ; 
 while collectively they prefigure that epoch when the 
 judgment is completed, and with it the creation of 
 the divine kingdom. ... It is easy to understand 
 how it might happen that in apprehending and re- 
 producing such discourses of Jesus, from the stand- 
 
234 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 point of the hearers, the successive epochs or stages 
 which Christ exhibited in a certain correspondence 
 with one another, and which, although he did not des- 
 ignate measures of time, he kept more apart, should 
 become mingled with one another." Weiss himself 
 is compelled to concede such a dislocation in the case 
 of Matt. xxiv. 35. We have seen, and it is generally 
 conceded, that in the Logia of Matthew there are clear 
 examples of a grouping together of utterances of 
 Jesus on separate occasions. The Sermon on the 
 Mount is an illustration. That the Synoptical reports 
 of the Prophetic Discourse should exhibit traces of 
 the feeling, spontaneous in its origin, that the Re- 
 turn of Christ was to be soon, is a plausible suppo- 
 sition. We cannot be sure, from anything recorded 
 in the Gospels, that Jesus spoke explicitly of the 
 fall of Jerusalem as a " coming " on his part. But 
 this term was used by him not always in reference 
 to the same event. In the fourteenth chapter of 
 John, in the third verse, it is held by both Meyer 
 and Weiss that the " Coming " of which Jesus speaks 
 is the Parousia, while in the eighteenth verse, the 
 " Coming " of which mention is made is held by 
 Meyer to refer to the mission of the Comforter, or 
 Paraclete, — by Weiss to the Resurrection; and Weiss 
 concedes that in the twenty- third verse the " Com- 
 ing " refers to the spiritual communion into which 
 he was to enter with the Disciples. Here, then, in 
 a single chapter of John the " Coming " of Jesus 
 is applied to three distinct manifestations of himself. 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 235 
 
 In two places in the Book of Revelation (ii. 5, 15) 
 there is mention of a coming of Christ to a specific 
 act of judgment, distinguished from the final assize. 
 
 Besides the passages just referred to, there are the 
 words addressed by Jesus to the High Priest : — 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 64. Luke xxii. 69. 
 
 Henceforth ye shall see the Son But from henceforth shall the 
 
 of man sitting at the right hand Son of man be seated at the right 
 
 of power, and coming on the clouds hand of the power of God. 
 of heaven. 
 
 The "henceforth" in Matthew (air apri), and the 
 "from henceforth" in Luke {airb rod vvv), signify 
 " from this time onward." They probably both stand 
 for the same Aramaic expression, — the expression 
 used by Jesus. They refer to the continuous mani- 
 festation of the power of Christ in the advance of his 
 cause and kingdom. As the passage stands in Mat- 
 thew, the " Coming" is part and parcel of this gradual 
 manifestation. So Meyer interprets it. Weiss would 
 limit the " henceforth " to the first clause ; but there 
 is nothing in the construction of the sentence to war- 
 rant the restriction. The High Priest was to see — 
 was to have unmistakable evidence — that Christ 
 was bearing rule, was regnant above. Whether the 
 reader agrees with Meyer or with Weiss on the speci- 
 fic point where they differ here, it is clear that Christ 
 referred to his " Coming," not attaching a uniform 
 sense to the term. Hence it was easy for slight 
 changes in the collocation of his prophetic words to 
 creep into the tradition. The Apostles understood, 
 
236 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION". 
 
 and they were right in understanding, that Revela- 
 tion had reached its fulness, that the next grand 
 epoch was to be the Parousia, that they were living, 
 in this sense, in the last times. It was natural for 
 them to think that the final coming of the Lord 
 would not loug be delayed. 
 
 2. That Jesus himself did not assert that his Sec- 
 ond Coining would take place in immediate conjunc- 
 tion with the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, or 
 in the lifetime of the generation then in being, is not 
 an a priori conclusion : it may be established on exe- 
 geticai grounds. He declared that he did not himself 
 know when it would occur. " But of that day and 
 hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, 
 neither the Son, but the Father only " (Matt. xxiw 36). 
 Of course it is possible to interpret " day and hour" 
 with strict literalness. Under this interpretation, the 
 passage would prove nothing to our purpose. But at 
 another time, after the Resurrection, when he was 
 asked if he was at once to restore the kingdom to 
 Israel, he answered that the question related to a 
 secret of the Almighty : " It is not for you to know 
 times or seasons, which the Father hath set within 
 his own authority " (Acts i. 7). They were to carry 
 their testimony, he added, " unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth." Here we see the eagerness of the 
 Disciples for the consummation of the kingdom, side 
 by side with the assurance of Christ that the date 
 when their hopes would be realized was an unknown, 
 unrevealed fact in the divine administration. It was 
 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 237 
 
 affirmed by him that certain marked events, such 
 as would require much time, would precede " the 
 end." The Gospel was to be preached to " the whole 
 world, for a testimony unto all the nations " (Matt, 
 xxiv. 14). But the force of this proof in the case is 
 weakened by the conceptions of the world enter- 
 tained, at least by the Apostles, and by the language 
 used respecting the promulgation of the Gospel. 
 Paul writes to the Colossians that the Gospel had 
 been " preached in all creation under heaven " (Col. 
 i. 23). There are, however, distinct and satisfactory 
 proofs, which are afforded by the Evangelists them- 
 selves, that Jesus looked forward to the continuance 
 of the present order of things after the fall of Jerusa- 
 lem and the Jewish State, and to a slow and gradual 
 operation of the Gospel in the world of mankind. 
 One of these decisive proofs is the parable of the 
 vineyard (Matt. xxi. 33-44). There it is said that 
 the vineyard will be taken from the husbandmen who 
 have charge of it, and will be " let out to other hus- 
 bandmen, which shall render unto him [unto the lord 
 of the vineyard] the fruits in their seasons." Then 
 it is added plainly : " The kingdom of God shall be 
 taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation 
 bringing forth the fruits thereof." This can signify 
 nothing else than a Gentile ascendency to succeed that 
 of the Jews in the matter of religion, and the continu- 
 ance of the former. The parables of the leaven and 
 of the grain of mustard-seed point without ambiguity 
 to the long-continued and progressive influence of the 
 
238 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 Gospel among mankind. The same impression is 
 made by the parable of the sower and by the parable 
 of the farmer who plants his seed and leaves it in the 
 ground, " to spring up and grow, lie knoweth not 
 how, . . . first the blade, then the ear, then the full 
 corn in the ear" (Mark iv. 26-29). A like impres- 
 sion is made by the simile of the corn of wheat fall- 
 ing into the earth, dying, and bearing much fruit, 
 which was uttered by Christ when Greeks sought an 
 interview with him (John xii. 24). In John's Gos- 
 pel much more prominence is given to the spiritual 
 Coming of Christ than to the Parousia. But where 
 the Parousia is distinctly referred to, — as in vi. 39 
 seq., 44, 54, — it is not implied that those who were 
 then living would survive to witness it. It is said 
 of every one who believes on the Son : " I will raise 
 him up at the last day." No mention is made of the 
 fall of Jerusalem as a sign and immediate precursor 
 of the Advent of Christ to fulfil this promise. Nor 
 is there any such mention in the Epistles. 
 
 The ethical teaching of Christ evidently presup- 
 poses that the earth is to continue to be the abode 
 of his followers. This implication runs through the 
 precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. They have 
 to do with the social relations of man to man in the 
 earthly life. The supposition of a speedy termination 
 of the existing order of things is entirely out of keep- 
 ing with their character and tone. The reality and 
 power of evil in men's hearts is clearly discerned, 
 the antagonism which Christianity will infallibly pro- 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 239 
 
 voke is depicted in strong colors, and at the same 
 time the way is pointed out in which evil is to be 
 overcome in the world, and men are to be moved to 
 recognize the Heavenly Father by observing the spirit 
 and conduct of his children. 
 
 3. The Apostles in their expectation of the speedy 
 advent of the Lord express a personal hope, and 
 not an inspired prediction. We have seen that the 
 time of the Parousia was not a subject of Revelation. 
 This truth they record. There are no precepts which 
 are given by them as by divine authority which de- 
 pend on this expectation. There is a remarkable 
 passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians which 
 it is pertinent here to notice (1 Cor. vii. 25 seq.'). 
 The Apostle Paul recommends the Corinthians who 
 are single not to marry. His reason is "the present 
 distress," by which he means, to quote the language 
 of Ellicott, " the precursory woes and calamities as- 
 sociated with the Lord's coming." For this recom- 
 mendation, as he says, he has " no commandment of 
 the Lord." Jesus had left no precept to this effect, 
 — a remark which shows that in all probability Paul 
 had written accounts of the Saviour's teaching. The 
 Apostle simply gives his advice. Among the recent 
 commentators, the most satisfactory exposition of the 
 whole passage is that given by Heinrici, and the 
 similar view of Ellicott. Says the latter: "'I give 
 my opinion or advice.' . . . See 2 Cor. viii. 10. . . . 
 It seems scarcely to amount here to 'judgment,' but, 
 in accordance with the tenor of the whole passage, 
 
240 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 to point to the ' opinion ' which the Apostle had 
 formed on the whole difficult subject" — as is indi- 
 cated in the next verse, "'I think, therefore/ etc. — 
 which now, not so much in his office as Apostle as 
 in his general position, ... he states as his counsel 
 or advice." He gives it as one who was enabled 
 by the mercy of God to be trusty. In the closing 
 verse of the chapter, — "I think that I also have the 
 spirit," — "there is nothing," to quote Ellicott again, 
 " of a rebukeful tone towards any who might doubt 
 the Apostle's words ; "... it implies, however. " in 
 its very reserve the grave claim to attention which 
 the counsel demanded." But it was still counsel, 
 and not injunction. There were occasions when 
 the Apostle asserted the authority of his office, and 
 claimed for his precepts, as inspired, obedience. 
 Here no such claim is put forth. There is neither 
 a precept transmitted from Christ, nor is there a 
 requirement dictated by the Spirit. Where the mo- 
 tive is partly, to say the least, the expectation of 
 the Parousia, instead of an official command, we have 
 an expression of personal judgment, as from a trust- 
 worthy and spiritually enlightened man. When Paul 
 in another place (1 Thess. iv. 15) professes to speak 
 " by the word of the Lord " respecting the Parousia, 
 this reference to divine authority cannot fairly be 
 taken to cover more than the general truth that 
 when the Lord comes, they who have died will share 
 in the blessing with those who will then be in the 
 land of the living. Although the phraseology indi- 
 
PREDICTIONS OF THE SECOND ADVENT. 241 
 
 cates his feeling that he was to be of the latter class, 
 this forms no essential element in the doctrine that 
 is expressed. 
 
 The Apostles were authorized and inspired teachers 
 of the Gospel. They were appointed and qualified to 
 present expositions of Christianity that should be 
 normal in the Church. Beyond the external proofs 
 of the authority given them, their inspiration is 
 evinced alike in the quality of their writings and of 
 their spoken utterances ; for it was the men them- 
 selves who were inspired. At the same time it is 
 quite possible for an incorrect and exaggerated idea 
 of their function to be entertained. Divine attributes 
 were not imparted to them. They were not omni- 
 scient. As to the invisible world, for example, an 
 Apostle said, u We " — not you, but we — " see through 
 a glass darkly." Glimpses of things lying in the future 
 were accorded them. But, like prophecy in general, 
 revelations of the future were in their form figurative 
 and fragmentary. Hence the difficulty which is found 
 by candid and thorough students of the New Testa- 
 ment writings in forming a coherent and systematic 
 view on matters included under the head of Eschato- 
 logy. If these are prolific topics of controversy, it is 
 partly from the character of the data from which 
 conclusions are to be deduced. It was the office of 
 the Apostles to plant the Church and to train the 
 Church in its infancy ; but Church history was not 
 disclosed to them in advance. It was not given to 
 
 10 
 

 242 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 them, except in a limited measure, to forecast the 
 future. There were illuminated points, patches of 
 light cast down from above. Beyond these, their 
 personal anticipations might stray, for they were 
 but men ; but time alone could verify or nullify 
 their personal hopes or fears. The Church for sev- 
 eral centuries found it hard to believe in a possible 
 victory for Christ without his miraculous, visible 
 presence ; but as Christianity moved onward in the 
 Roman Empire from conquest to conquest, there 
 sprang up a new faith and hope. 
 
IV. 
 
 THE THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 
 
 That Matthew Arnold was a master of the literary 
 art will not be disputed. Of this fact the attraction 
 which he was able to impart to his discussions of re- 
 ligious topics is one proof. He deserves credit for a 
 sincere desire to rescue the Bible from the neglect 
 and even contempt with which it is often treated in 
 these days, especially by the uneducated class. There 
 is an important basis of truth in the general affirma- 
 tion, on which Arnold is never tired of insisting, 
 that " the language of the Bible is fluid, passing, and 
 literary, not rigid, fixed, and scientific." Poetry is 
 not to be interpreted as if it were prose. Fervent 
 discourses are not to be expounded as if they were 
 exact and methodical treatises. Among Arnold's 
 critical observations on the Scriptures not a little is 
 said that is highly suggestive, and to a discrimina- 
 ting reader helpful. He is not a profound scholar 
 in this department, and for this reason not unfre- 
 quently just misses the truth. On the other hand, 
 he is not a superficial or ill-informed writer, even 
 on matters pertaining to New Testament criticism. 
 Among the exceptions of a general nature to be 
 
244 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 taken to his ways of thought, there is to be reck- 
 oned his overweening regard for the Zeitgeist, or 
 "Time-Spirit," as he well renders the German phrase. 
 It misbecomes a student of the past to pay a slavish 
 reverence to this impersonal divinity. There are too 
 many examples of a wrong path taken by "the Spirit 
 of the Age." Too often the "Time-Spirit" has been 
 turned into devious ways, and been either lost in error, 
 or caught in the snare of a half-truth. Who would 
 maintain now that the spirit of the Renaissance, in 
 the things of religion, in some of the principal seats 
 of that great intellectual movement, was the spirit of 
 wisdom ? The " Time-Spirit " was never more self- 
 assured, never more full of disdain for all who ques- 
 tioned its authority, than in the eighteenth century, 
 in the period when a shallow. deistic philosophy was 
 prevalent. Yet Arnold in his remarks on Bishop 
 Butler, even when he has just conceded that Butler 
 routed his adversaries and vanquished the fashiona- 
 ble infidelity of that day, still cannot forego the 
 use of his slightly monotonous appeals to the "Time- 
 Spirit," in answer to some of Butler's postulates. 
 In the earlier part of this century the "Time-Spirit" 
 in Germany found in the older and now exploded 
 naturalistic Rationalism, springing from the Kantian 
 school, the acme of possible attainment in the sphere 
 of religion. The past warns us to remember still the 
 counsel of the Apostle to " hold fast " — not that 
 which is new — but " that which is good." 
 
 Arnold wished to find " for the Bible a basis in 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 245 
 
 something which can be verified." The corner-stone 
 of his system, if system it is to be called, is a con- 
 ception of God which he not only regards as true, 
 and evidently so, but even identifies with the biblical 
 idea respecting this fundamental point. His theory 
 may be termed an unscientific Pantheism ; or per- 
 haps, inasmuch as he does not profess to exhaust 
 the conception of the Deity by his definition, an 
 Agnostic Pantheism. In " Literature and Dogma," 
 with much, although it can scarcely be said with 
 wearisome, iteration he explains that the equivalent 
 of God is " the Power, not ourselves, that makes for 
 righteousness." One would suppose that we have 
 here a distinct expression of what, not lettered per- 
 sons alone, but the world at large as well, mean by 
 " cause," and designate by this name. But no ! our 
 author warns us that such notions belong to " meta- 
 physics," and were quite foreign to the simple Israel- 
 ites. Moreover, we ourselves run off into speculation 
 the moment we talk of them. There is a Power, a 
 Power exerting itself, or being exerted, a Power ex- 
 erting itself for a particular end, or producing a 
 definite effect ; yet it must not be denominated a 
 "cause." Most people, whether simple or not, would 
 be moved to ask what more precise description of 
 cause and causal agency could be given than is in- 
 volved in this favorite phrase of Arnold. In his 
 second work, " God and the Bible," he makes an 
 elaborate effort to explain his remarkable definition 
 of God, and the Israelites' conception of him, and 
 
246 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 to rule out the idea that under the " Power, not our- 
 selves," there is included the notion of a being. In 
 this latter work we are told that we must not think 
 of "the Power that makes for righteousness" as in- 
 hering in a subject, — this is a misconception; it is 
 anthropomorphic. Is all that is meant, then, that 
 righteousness is observed, or is believed, to be fol- 
 lowed by blessedness ? Is there nothing but the 
 bare fact of a succession of consequent to antece- 
 dent, after the manner of Hume's theory of causa- 
 tion ? More than this is intended. There is an 
 " operation " which yields this result. Things are 
 so constituted that the supposed effect is produced. 
 It is a " law of nature " like the law of gravitation. 
 It is a " stream of tendency." When we speak, and 
 when the Israelites spoke, of the " Power that makes 
 for righteousness " as " eternal," all that is really 
 meant is that righteousness always was and always 
 will be attended with blessing. Arnold does not 
 seem to be aware that in trying to fence off the 
 conception of being as connected with the " Power, 
 not ourselves," he does not succeed in escaping from 
 what he styles " metaphysics." There is an " oper- 
 ation " left; there is a a perceived energy." The 
 doctrine is simply this : that the world — things col- 
 lectively taken — is such that a certain result, namely, 
 blessedness, is sure to be worked out by the practice 
 of righteousness. It falls short of being a dogmatic 
 Pantheism by the added statement that we cannot 
 " pretend to know the origin and composition of the 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 247 
 
 Power," etc. ; we cannot say that it is a person or 
 thing. In one place Arnold professes that he will 
 not deny that " the Power "is "a conscious intelli- 
 gence." But ordinarily he treats the conception that 
 his " Power " is intelligent as pure anthropomor- 
 phism. If it be this, why admit it even as a possi- 
 bility ? If Arnold had pondered the subject more 
 deeply, if he had carefully studied such a work, for 
 example, as Lotze's " Mikrokosmus," he might have 
 learned that the idea of personality, when connected 
 with the conception of God, involves no philosophi- 
 cal difficulty. If by anthropomorphism is meant the 
 limiting of God, or making him finite, no such conse- 
 quence follows from personality. 
 
 It is interesting to inquire what becomes of devo- 
 tion, of what men have always meant by prayer and 
 communion with God, when God is made to be noth- 
 ing more than a law of things, " a stream of tend- 
 ency." In a foot-note Arnold gives the following 
 answer : "All good and fruitful prayer, however 
 men may describe it, is at bottom nothing else than 
 an energy of aspiration towards the Eternal, not 
 ourselves, that makes for righteousness, — of aspira- 
 tion towards it and co-operation with it." The 
 Eternal, it must be remembered, which is referred 
 to by the use of the pronoun it, signifies no being, — 
 this is expressly disclaimed. " It," " the Eternal," 
 is the fact that " righteousness was salvation," and 
 will " go on being salvation." " It," " the Eternal," 
 is the experienced and expected conjunction of these 
 
248 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 two things. What aspiration towards " it," and co- 
 operation with " it " denote, and with what propriety 
 either of these or both together can be taken to sig- 
 nify prayer, in particular the supplication which has 
 always been held to be the prime essential in prayer, 
 we are left to conjecture. 
 
 Considering the tendencies « of the time in the di- 
 rection of Pantheistic thought, it is not a matter 
 for surprise that Arnold should bring forward the 
 notion of an impersonal divinity. There is, however, 
 some reason for astonishment that he should pre- 
 sent his conception as the kernel of the Israelites' 
 faith, the living God of whom the Prophets spoke, 
 and in praise of whose perfection the Psalms were 
 composed. He admits, to be sure, that the Hebrews 
 personified, and could not but personify, " the Stream 
 of tendency." Surely it is nothing short of an amaz- 
 ing error to regard the personal qualities which the 
 Hebrews attached to God as an accidental and sep- 
 arable element in their faith. Take away the person- 
 ality of God, and what basis would have remained 
 for that living communion with him, that joy in him, 
 which formed, the life and soul of the Hebrew reli- 
 gion? Substitute the vague abstractions which make 
 up this Pantheistic definition of deity for the desig- 
 nations of God in the Prophets and the Psalms, and 
 the frigidity and almost ludicrous emptiness that re- 
 main, fairly exhibit the Hebrew religion as it would 
 have been, if its essential contents had accorded 
 with our author's idea of it. Not even an intuition 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 249 
 
 is allowed them of this imaginary divinity, the con- 
 nection of righteousness with happiness, but their 
 knowledge of " it " is described as empirical ; it is 
 something found out by experience. " From all they 
 could themselves make out, and from all that their 
 fathers had told them," they arrived at the conclu- 
 sion that righteousness was the way to happiness. 
 The truth is, that in the Hebrew mind righteous- 
 ness was infinitely more than a perceived condition 
 of being happy. It was a requirement from with- 
 out, from the Holy One. Their delight was in him. 
 When they failed in righteousness, as fail they did, 
 the only hope of happiness was through contrition 
 and pardon from God. 
 
 Having subtracted from religion and theology the 
 fundamental truth of a personal God, it is interesting 
 to inquire what account Arnold gives of the substance 
 of Christianity. It would not be candid to deny that 
 he presents certain thoughts and suggestions of spir- 
 itual value, and certain felicitous phrases respecting 
 Christ which easily take lodgment in the memory. 
 The sum of his doctrine is contained in his often- 
 repeated statement of the "method" and the "secret" 
 of Jesus, and the spirit or tone of his teaching. The 
 method is that of " inwardness," — " Cleanse the in- 
 side of the cup." So far there is nothing novel and 
 nothing to be disputed in our author's exposition. 
 The secret is self-renouncement, — " He that will 
 save his life, shall lose it." The element in which 
 the method and spirit are worked is mildness, or 
 
250 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 what is expressively termed " sweet reasonableness." 
 There was, it is well said, a " winning felicity " 
 and a " balance," free from all fanaticism and ex- 
 travagance. The trouble with this description of 
 Christ and his teaching is that it contains a most 
 incomplete account of the " secret " of Jesus. All 
 that Jesus says of the Father in heaven, of the rela- 
 tion of the human soul to him, of the joy of personal 
 trust in him, of his unsleeping care of his children, 
 is left out. The Divine Father himself is left out. 
 Will it be soberly pretended that all this is no es- 
 sential part of the doctrine of Jesus ? Will it be 
 pretended that in his conception of the inward life 
 of the soul, this conscious relation to the Father had 
 no vital place ? What did the prayers of Jesus him- 
 self signify ? What did he mean when, being alone 
 as regards human sympathy, he said that he was not 
 alone because the Father was with him ? What did 
 he mean when he said at the moment of death, 
 " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit " ? 
 If self-renouncement is the whole secret, how does 
 the religion of Jesus differ from Buddhism ? We 
 are not surprised to hear Arnold say that it does 
 not. Buddhism, he tells us, has not only the sense 
 for righteousness, it has even the "secret of Jesus." 
 But it employs the secret ill, it is added, because 
 it lacks the method, " the sweet reasonableness, the 
 unerring balance." The central, substantial prin- 
 ciple, the " secret," is declared to be in both sys- 
 tems the same. The real distinction between them, 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 251 
 
 the radical distinction and source of differences, 
 Arnold omits to point out. It lies in the Pantheistic 
 root of the Buddhistic ethics, in contrast with the 
 doctrine of the living, personal God and Father, 
 Avhich is involved in all the teaching of Jesus, and per- 
 vades Christianity as a religious and ethical system. 
 Seeking to avoid this truth, and to put in its place 
 a vague Pantheistic philosophy, Arnold is obliged to 
 content himself with a maimed and mutilated repre- 
 sentation of the essentials of the doctrine of Jesus. 
 He falls into the same sort of error which he charges 
 on Buddhism. He omits from the teaching of Christ, 
 and his ideal of self-renouncement and the unworldly 
 temper, the truth expressed in such sayings as this : 
 " Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need 
 of all these things." 
 
 That Arnold should discard the New Testament 
 miracles altogether, is the necessary consequence of 
 his repudiation of Christian theism. If nature and 
 the course of nature are not traced back to the will 
 of a Creator and Sustainer of all things, there is no 
 room left for the supernatural either in the realm of 
 matter or in that of spirit. As far as Arnold deigns 
 to argue the question, his principal point is that we 
 are able to see how the stories of miracles arise and 
 grow up. For this reason they lose their hold on 
 our faith. It is true that we can see how many mi- 
 raculous stories have grown up. The same thing, 
 however, is true of an endless amount of non-miracu- 
 lous narrative. The Bible miracles, it is asserted. 
 
252 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 cannot stand as long as they are admitted to form 
 a class by themselves. The assumption here is that 
 in the Christian religion there is nothing distinctive, 
 nothing unique, nothing to awaken or to warrant the 
 expectation that a power will be exerted superior to 
 nature. Arnold well defines his position on this 
 subject when he says that if we had accounts of the 
 ministry of Christ which wc knew to have come from 
 the immediate Disciples, we should not have in them 
 a whit less of the miraculous than the canonical 
 Gospels contain. Are we to conclude, then, that it 
 was impossible for Jesus, in case he really healed the 
 blind and the lame, as the Gospels record, to have 
 furnished any credible evidence that he did it, — any 
 evidence to be relied on in after times, or affording 
 ground for reasonable belief in the facts even to those 
 who were with him when they occurred ? What idea 
 of Jesus Christ himself is implied in the proposition 
 that the family of followers whom he associated with 
 himself, whom he personally taught and trained, were 
 utterly disqualified from giving substantially trust- 
 worthy testimony concerning what with their own 
 eyes they saw him do ? 
 
 In his comments on the Gospels, Arnold shows him- 
 self quite capable of discerning the weak side of the 
 criticisms of Baur and the Tubingen school. He does 
 not succeed, however, in avoiding erroneous and mis- 
 leading statements on matters of fact, not to speak of 
 fallacious theories. An instance of the former is his 
 misinterpretation of Papias, the earliest of the author- 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 253 
 
 ities who give an account of the origin of the Gospels 
 of Matthew and Mark. He speaks of the preference 
 on the part of Papias " for oral relations " in com- 
 parison with Scriptures. The truth is, as Bishop 
 Lightfoot has conclusively shown, that the work of 
 Papias was a commentary on written records, and 
 that the oral relations which he valued consisted of 
 anecdotes illustrative of his exegesis, his statements 
 relative to Matthew and Mark being one example of 
 them. The collection of New Testament writings into 
 the form of the canon as it has come down to us, was 
 gradual. But there can be no doubt that Papias made 
 use of authoritative Scriptures of apostolic authorship ; 
 nor is there the least reason, from his silence respect- 
 ing Luke and John, or from the silence of Eusebius 
 in his references to Papias, to infer that these last 
 authors were not among them. 
 
 Arnold more than once affirms with emphasis that 
 the record of the life and words of Jesus when we 
 first get it "has passed through at least half a cen- 
 tury, or more, of oral tradition." This statement is 
 contrary to the truth. Critics of highest authority, 
 non-orthodox as well as orthodox, agree that the Gos- 
 pel of Mark was written a number of years before the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Matthew 
 in its present form soon followed, and the Gospel of 
 Luke soon after the date of Matthew. But there were 
 written records prior to the composition of the Synop- 
 tics, which were superseded by them. Of this there 
 is proof from Luke's own statement, besides other 
 
254 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 evidence. Moreover, the fact should not be sup- 
 pressed that the oral tradition very early, in the 
 presence of the Apostles and in their teaching, so 
 far acquired a definite form as to insure it against 
 perversion. That tradition is embodied in the Synop- 
 tical Gospels. 
 
 Arnold makes it clear that the Fourth Gospel is no 
 such theological romance as Baur attempted to make 
 it out to be. He dismisses with little respect the 
 notion that John did not live at Ephesus. But his 
 own hypothesis is open to weighty objection. His 
 theory is that the materials of the Gospel are largely 
 from communications made by the Apostle John him- 
 self, and that these were issued, under the auspices of 
 the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, by an editor. The 
 tradition, says Arnold, " speaks of a revision of what 
 the Apostle John produced." This is what the tradi- 
 tion does not do. The statement of Arnold is founded 
 on what is said in that ancient document, the Mura- 
 torian canon; but the Latin word (recognoscentibus) 
 which he takes to mean " revise," is properly rendered 
 " certify," or " authenticate." The legend has noth- 
 ing to say of any "revision" by the fellow-disciples of 
 John. A certificate or testimony, such as the Latin 
 term above mentioned might denote, is appended to 
 the Gospel (John xxi. 24), where it is explicitly as- 
 serted that John " wrote " the contents of the book. 
 There is then no such tradition respecting a " revi- 
 sion" of "notes" of communications made by John, 
 as Arnold assumes to exist. The theory is a pure 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 255 
 
 conjecture, without a scintilla of historical evidence 
 to support it. 
 
 Looking at the Fourth Gospel "from within," Ar- 
 nold has too discerning an eye not to recognize " its 
 unity of tone, its flowingness and connectedness." 
 Yet he would have us believe that the author pieced 
 together his Johannine notes in a very mechanical 
 style. He applies his theory to account for the words, 
 " Arise, let us go hence," which occur at the end of 
 the fourteenth chapter. There was a transition to be 
 made to a fresh set of notes. These words were put 
 in between the end of one set and the beginning of 
 another. But why ? " They were traditional words 
 of Jesus, as we see from the ' Rise, let us be going,' 
 of St. Matthew ; and the composer of the Fourth Gos- 
 pel thought that they would come in serviceably at 
 this point." The reader will probably judge that this 
 is no explanation at all. An expression, it is implied, 
 is picked up and inserted in the midst of utterances 
 of Jesus to which it has no conceivable relation. 
 And this is done by a writer whose work is char- 
 acterized by " flowingness and connectedness " ! If 
 the words were actually spoken by Jesus at the 
 point in his discourse where they are placed, all is 
 clear. Without a supposition of this sort, they are 
 meaningless. 
 
 When Arnold speaks of the " flowingness " of the 
 Fourth Gospel, he suggests a quality of it which his 
 theory of its authorship fails adequately to take ac- 
 count of. Included in this " flowingness," at the bot- 
 
256 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 torn of it, we might add, and pervading the whole 
 Gospel, is that element of personal experience on the 
 part of the author to which reference has been made 
 on a preceding page. If it is the Apostle John him- 
 self, pouring out of his own soul the personal affec- 
 tion and reverence for Christ, in which the work is 
 steeped, then the autobiographic character of the Gos- 
 pel is explained. But how shall we account for it 
 if the book emanates from a Greek editor, patching 
 together scattered notes ? 
 
 The contrast is striking between the light humor 
 of Matthew Arnold's prose writings and the gloom of 
 his poetry. In the poems, which are so admirable in 
 their way, one may not doubt that his inmost feel- 
 ing finds expression. There pervades them a tone 
 of sadness, — a sadness without remedy and without 
 solace. Faith gone, the fountains of joy are dry. 
 And yet he sees that the millions — 
 
 "Have such need of joy ! 
 And joy whose grounds are true ! 
 And joy that should all hearts employ, 
 As when the past was new ! " 
 
 The want of the world is — 
 
 " One mighty wave of thought and joy lifting mankind amain." 
 
 But the poet sees no ground of hope. He has 
 no counsel to give to mortals, in their unquench- 
 able yearning for bliss, but to " moderate desire," 
 to be content with what a few days on earth may 
 yield. 
 
THE THEOLOGY OF MATTHEW ARNOLD. 257 
 
 " Fools ! that so often here 
 Happiness mocked our prayer, 
 I think might make us fear 
 A like event elsewhere ! 
 Make us, not fly to dreams, but moderate desire ! " 
 
 That is to say, putting the poet's idea into plain prose, 
 our disappointments here should convince us that the 
 deepest hopes of humanity are illusive. A thoughtful 
 writer has contrasted this faithless vein with the 
 spirit of Browning in his " Cleon," where it is argued 
 that because " life 's inadequate to joy," there must 
 be a life beyond to meet nature's demand. Cleon, 
 heathen though he is, dares imagine some future 
 state, — 
 
 " Unlimited in capability 
 For joy, as this is in desire for joy, — 
 To seek which joy, hunger forces us." 
 
 And this makes him lament that Zeus has made no 
 revelation to verify the irrepressible thought. A les- 
 son may be read in Tennyson the reverse of the 
 despairing inference of Arnold : — 
 
 " My own dim life should teach me this, 
 That life shall live for evermore, 
 Else earth is darkness at the core, 
 And dust and ashes all that is ; 
 
 " This round of green, this orb of flame, 
 Fantastic beauty ; such as lurks 
 In some wild poet, when he works 
 Without a conscience or an aim." 
 
 Ill the mournful strain of Arnold's verse it is some- 
 thing to find that the sufficiency of the Christian faith, 
 
 17 
 
258 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 when that faith is possible, to purify the soul and to 
 fill it with gladness, is confessed with enthusiasm. Of 
 the time when Christianity was young, he sings, — 
 
 " Oh, had I lived in that great day, 
 How had its glory new, 
 Filled earth and heaven, and caught away 
 My ravished spirit too ! " 
 
 The loss of faith is the loss of cheer. This is one 
 sign that the health of the soul is gone. If the pessi- 
 mistic temper does not ensue, it is owing to an arrest 
 of the natural tendency of the unbelieving or agnostic 
 state of mind. But desolation of spirit, even if it reach 
 the limit of despair, will not of necessity open the 
 way to faith. It may not bring with it any lowering 
 of self-estimation, much less the humility which de- 
 plores the presence and power of evil in the soul, and 
 sighs for deliverance. " They that are whole need not 
 a physician, but they that are sick." 
 
PROFESSOR HUXLEY'S COMMENTS ON THE 
 GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 
 
 No one approaches the investigation of the Gospel 
 histories without prior beliefs, or inclinations to be- 
 lieve, of one kind or another, respecting God, and 
 the nature and destiny of man. It is impossible 
 that one's impressions relative to the trustworthiness 
 of the Gospel histories should not vary more or 
 less with the ideas and expectations which he brings 
 to this field of inquiry. His creed as to matters 
 of natural religion, be that creed positive or nega- 
 tive or indeterminate, will inevitably and by the 
 force of logic have its influence on his estimate 
 of those narratives. Professor Huxley is no excep- 
 tion to this rule. In his little book on Hume, in 
 his " Lay Sermons," in his controversial papers 
 against Professor Wace, he has expressed himself 
 too clearly to leave us in any doubt in reference 
 to his philosophical opinions. He has explained 
 how he came to invent the term " Agnostic," which 
 describes his position. If the name is new, the main 
 thing denoted by it is expressed by the Apostle Paul 
 when he says of the world, that it " knew not God ; " 
 
260 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 although the Agnosticism to which the Apostle re- 
 ferred commonly had a stock of beliefs of its own 
 in regard to the world unseen, — therein differing 
 from the Agnosticism of which Professor Huxley 
 has the distinction of being the godfather. 
 
 Professor Huxley thinks that what we call the 
 mind is a collection or series of sensations stand- 
 ing in certain relations to each other, and that 
 this is all we know about it. That there is a think- 
 ing agent, such as men generally suppose to exist 
 when they use the word J, there is no proof. Their 
 conviction is not an intuition ; it is not a rational 
 postulate ; it is nought except a bare hypothesis 
 which there is no ground for affirming as a fact. 
 There is a uniformity of succession in the sensations 
 which constitute the soul, as far as we know any- 
 thing of it or have any reason to assert anything 
 of it ; but there is no freedom of choice, in the 
 sense that the circumstances, internal and external, 
 being the same, any different determination of the 
 will from that which actually takes place, is possi- 
 ble. On this view of things, how there can be a ra- 
 tional basis for responsibility, or for the obligations 
 of morality, is a natural inquiry, but an inquiry with 
 which just now we are not concerned. " What we 
 call the operations of the mind," says Professor 
 Huxley, " are functions of the brain, and the ma- 
 terials of consciousness are products of cerebral 
 activity." But the brain, like everything else that 
 is alive, is developed from protoplasm, the primitive 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 261 
 
 form of living matter. Professor Huxley avows that 
 we have no explanation of the way in which life 
 may have originated from inorganic matter, but he 
 indicates no doubt that it had this origin. The 
 reader would naturally say that we have here a 
 scheme of bald materialism. But Professor Huxley 
 resents this imputation. He insists that we have 
 no knowledge of anything but the heap of sensations, 
 impressions, feelings, — or by whatever name they 
 may be called. There may be a real something 
 without, which is the cause of all our impressions. 
 In that case, sensations are the symbols of that un- 
 known something. This conclusion Professor Hux- 
 ley favors, although he is at pains to declare that 
 idealism is unassailable by any means of disproof 
 within the limits of positive knowledge. There is 
 the inconvenience, it may be added, which attaches 
 to this last alternative, that it really involves the 
 giving up by the idealist of belief in anybody, as 
 well as anything, outside of himself. It involves 
 the doctrine which metaphysicians style solipsism. 
 But the " something " of which the brain is a product 
 is unintelligent ; and when the brain dissolves, there 
 is nothing to prove that the phenomena of intelli- 
 gence continue. There is no proof that the soul, 
 that is, the series of sensations, does not come to 
 an end. What is the nature and value of the dif- 
 ference between the " transfigured realism " of the 
 Agnostics and old-fashioned materialism, the reader 
 may be left to determine for himself. The existence 
 
262 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of a personal God is another of the propositions 
 which are incapable of being established. "In re- 
 spect to the existence and attributes of the soul, 
 as of those .of the Deity," says Professor Huxley, 
 " logic is powerless and reason silent." As regards 
 the attributes of God, — justice, benevolence, and the 
 like, — he indicates no dissent from the "searching 
 critical negation " of Hume. If there be a God, 
 he thinks it demonstrable that God must be " the 
 cause of all evil as well as all good," — a conclusion 
 which would follow, to be sure, from the tenet that 
 man is not a personal agent, freely originating his 
 voluntary actions, but is no proper adjunct of the 
 opposite doctrine. 
 
 In his book on Hume, Professor Huxley refers to 
 the doctrines and arguments of Bishop Butler. " The 
 solid sense of Butler," he says, " left the Deism of 
 the Freethinkers not a leg to stand upon." But 
 Hume, he intimates, has been successful where they 
 failed. Hume does not concede what the Deists 
 admitted. In the passage which Professor Huxley 
 cites from Hume's " Inquiry," there is no denial of a 
 supreme governor or of divine providence. Hume's 
 position, or the idea which he puts into the mouth 
 of the Epicurean, is that although experience shows 
 that a virtuous course of life is attended with happi- 
 ness, and a vicious course of life with misery, yet 
 this experience affords not the least ground for ex- 
 pecting consequences of a like kind after life is over. 
 " Every argument," says Hume, " deduced from 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 263 
 
 causes to effects, must of necessity be a gross sophism, 
 since it is impossible for you to know anything of 
 the cause but what you have antecedently not in- 
 ferred, but described to the full, in the effect." This 
 sweeping statement rests on the baldest empiricism. 
 By parity of reasoning, if we cannot go an inch be- 
 yond what we have seen, we should have to say of 
 a man who in a long course of conduct had acted 
 justly, that we cannot infer in him the existence of 
 an established disposition to conform to the dictates 
 of justice in the future. However, Hume illogically 
 admits that an expectation of this character is valid as 
 far as " the ordinary course of events is concerned." 
 His real ground, although it is not openly stated, is 
 that we have no proof of a future state of being ; and 
 if he does not reject the belief in a supreme gover- 
 nor, and in divine providence as active in the present 
 world, his silence on this point springs merely from 
 civility or reserve. But it is only necessary to step 
 out of the prison of a narrow empricism to find in 
 the allotments of justice here, evidence enough to 
 show that there is a just God, and thus to warrant 
 the presumption, if not to justify the full belief, that 
 there is a future life and a completion there of a 
 system begun here, but not carried to completion. 
 It is true that Butler's arguments in the " Analogy " 
 are aimed at Deism, and not at Atheism, or Scepti- 
 cism as to the essentials of natural religion. But it 
 is also true that his arguments go farther and effect 
 more than he directlv intended. This he himself 
 
264 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 sees and asserts. Whoever will candidly read his 
 chapters on Natural Government and Moral Govern- 
 ment will find in them evidence which points to the 
 conclusion that there is a God, that he is just, and 
 that there is a probability of a continuance of the 
 system of rewards and punishments in a life beyond 
 this. 
 
 Any one who saw the Cologne Cathedral as it was 
 fifty years ago, half built and with a crane in the 
 unfinished tower, would have had no doubt as to the 
 plan of the structure or the design that had existed 
 to realize it, sooner or later. What would have been 
 said of an onlooker who should have denied that 
 there was any evidence of a thought or an intention 
 in the contriver of the edifice to do anything more 
 than could then and there be seen ? 
 
 It is obvious to discerning students of philosophy 
 that the Agnostic theory is destructive of knowledge, 
 if knowledge be anything but a consciousness of 
 present sensations, including the present sensations 
 which fall under the head of memory. All the inves- 
 tigations and reasonings of science proceed on the 
 foundation of axioms, — call them intuitions, rational 
 postulates, or by any other title. But these, according 
 to Agnostics, denote simply a certain stage at which 
 the process of evolution has arrived. What is to 
 hinder them from vanishing, or resolving themselves 
 into another set of axioms, with the forward move- 
 ment of this unresting process ? What then will 
 
HUXLEY OX THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 265 
 
 become of the doctrines of Agnosticism itself ? It 
 is plain that on this philosophy, all knowledge of 
 realities, as distinct from transitory impressions, is 
 a house built on the sand. All science is reduced 
 to Schein, — mere semblance. 
 
 But it is not designed here to enter into a scrutiny 
 of Agnosticism. Nor is it an object to hold up 
 Professor Huxley as an adherent of obnoxious ideas 
 in matters pertaining to natural theology, — ideas, 
 however, it might be said, which have a degree of 
 popularity. He has a right to his own opinions 
 on these topics, and certainly is not to be denied 
 the privilege of publishing them. The point here 
 made is, that one who must necessarily have so 
 little sympathy with the phenomena of the religious 
 life, — by whom so much that, to an earnest theist, 
 is the deepest reality, is unavoidably regarded as il- 
 lusion, — will inevitably look upon the New Testa- 
 ment writings, even upon the historic records form- 
 ing a part of them, from a point of view extremely 
 prejudicial to any claims they may have to credence. 
 An inhabitant of the frozen North who had convinced 
 himself, after an examination of the subject deemed 
 by himself sufficient, that there are no proofs of the 
 existence of any land south of Hudson's Bay, and 
 that all pretensions to the contrary are on a level 
 with opinions on " lunar politics," could not be ex- 
 pected to give a sympathetic consideration to accounts 
 of the scenery and life of the tropics. He would 
 point an informant, with a smile of incredulity, to 
 
266 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the stunted vegetation and fields of ice about him. 
 They make up his world. How can one give credit 
 to the supernatural elements in Christianity, who 
 finds no proof of the reality of anything super- 
 natural, — to whom God, freedom, and immortality 
 are unverifiable creations of fancy ? 
 
 The New Testament from beginning to end has a 
 great deal to say on the subject of belief and dis- 
 belief. It will not be denied that many of the ut- 
 terances of Jesus directly relate to this theme. Nor 
 can it fairly be questioned that among them are 
 distinct declarations to the effect that belief in God, 
 and certain aspirations and tempers of feeling con- 
 genial with it, are indispensable conditions of faith 
 in himself and in his divine commission to represent 
 the Father and to teach with authority. Christ did 
 not fail to take account of the fact that many dis- 
 believed in him, many of " the wise and understand- 
 ing ; " he looked this fact full in the face, but he 
 was at no loss to explain the secret of such disbe- 
 lief, its real origin and source. This circumstance 
 is adapted to excite reflection. It does not excuse 
 us, however, from a candid consideration of what- 
 ever objections can be alleged against the credibility 
 of the Gospel narratives. 
 
 To Professor Huxley the Christ of history is 
 shrouded in mist. Vain are his efforts to define to 
 himself " the grand figure of Jesus as it lies in the 
 primary strata of Christian literature." Shall he think 
 of him as kindly and peaceful in his look and man- 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 267 
 
 ner, as a frowning judge, or as a bleeding ascetic, — 
 as the Christ of the Second, or of the Fourth Gospel ? 
 He cannot tell. To him the elements that are to 
 contribute to the image are confused and inconsis- 
 tent. This is very remarkable when it is remembered 
 that there is no personage in history of whom a more 
 vivid and consistent idea is found in the minds of 
 millions of human beings of every grade of culture, 
 and when it is remembered that this conception is 
 drawn from the view of him as he is presented in the 
 four Gospels. The Jesus who uttered the Beatitudes, 
 took little children in his arms, rebuked the ambition 
 and rivalry of his Disciples, denounced the hollowness 
 and selfishness of Pharisaic teachers, laid his hands on 
 the blind and palsied and healed them, wept with the 
 sisters at Bethany, leaned on the breast of John at 
 the Supper, turned and looked upon Peter and moved 
 him to shed tears of penitence, — of whom is there 
 an image so distinct, so harmonious, stamped on the 
 minds of so many men and women and children ? The 
 portraiture of Jesus in the Gospels, with its unique 
 character, its marvellous, yet natural mingling of 
 human traits with miraculous powers and supernatu- 
 ral authority, is itself a sufficient witness to its own 
 faithfulness to the original. Criticism may raise 
 difficulties about details in the narratives, but the 
 picture that is painted by the Evangelists is too life- 
 like for the truth of it to be questioned. It cannot be 
 the product of invention. These humble narrators 
 could never have produced an ideal portrait so full 
 
268 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 of naturalness, and yet so exalted in its beauty and 
 perfection. 
 
 Professor Huxley, in his controversy witli Professor 
 Wace, made the mistake of assuming that what was 
 said by Baur, Zeller, Volkmar, and other writers of 
 the Tubingen school thirty or forty years ago, corres- 
 ponds with the opinions and theories of their succes- 
 sors in the line of liberal criticism in Germany. He 
 was apparently not aware of the fact that many of 
 the fundamental tenets of his authorities have been 
 pretty generally abandoned by German scholars on 
 all sides. When he dogmatically styles the Fourth 
 Gospel " a theosophic romance of the first order," he 
 is not aware that this hypothesis of Baur has few 
 left, of any party, to do it reverence. What he has 
 to say respecting the authorship and date of the 
 Gospels has been demonstrated by Professor Wace to 
 be entirely discordant with the published opinions of 
 critics whom Professor Huxley had himself pronounced 
 to be authorities worthy of the highest respect. A 
 few words may here be added by way of comment 
 on his observations relative to the integrity of the 
 Gospels. He asserts that there is no proof that " any 
 one of the Gospels existed, in the state in which we 
 find it in the Authorized Version of the Bible, before 
 the second century ; or, in other words, sixty or 
 seventy years after the events recorded." From the 
 probable insertion of the last twelve verses of Mark 
 in a portion of the early manuscripts of that Gospel, 
 and of a fraction of the eighth chapter of John in 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 269 
 
 certain manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel, he draws 
 the conclusion that there is a general uncertainty as 
 to what the Evangelists really wrote. Such state- 
 ments and reasonings are loose and misleading. Of 
 the strength of the external evidence for the substan- 
 tially correct transmission of the Gospels, any one 
 may convince himself who will examine Professor 
 Norton's work on the Genuineness of the Gospels, — 
 the production of a Unitarian scholar who has never 
 been charged with a want of critical impartiality. 
 Ancient copyists, like modern printers, were liable to 
 make mistakes. But the multiplying, at a very early 
 day, of copies of the Gospels, which are represented 
 in the later manuscripts, together with early transla- 
 tions and with numberless quotations in the ancient 
 ecclesiastical writers, afford us means of textual 
 criticism such as we possess in reference to no other 
 writings of antiquity. The state of the facts con- 
 cerning the two instances of probable interpolation 
 to which Professor Huxley refers, instead of pro- 
 moting, helps to disperse, the haze of uncertainty 
 which he seeks to cast over the text of the Gospels. 
 With regard to the closing verses of Mark, of which 
 Jerome says that " nearly all the Greek texts omit 
 them," their early insertion in a few manuscripts was 
 no doubt owing to the peculiar abruptness with which 
 that Gospel closed, and does not in the least imply 
 a prevailing disposition to falsify or to deal care- 
 lessly with the works which were so precious to the 
 early Christians. Professor Huxley quotes a part of 
 
270 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 the marginal note in the Revised Version, attached 
 to the story of the woman taken in adultery. The 
 note reads thus : " Most of the ancient authorities 
 omit John vii. 53 — viii. 11. Those which contain 
 it vary much from each other." Of this interpolation 
 Weiss observes : " It is a tradition which corresponds 
 perfectly to the tone of the Synoptics. Rightly un- 
 derstood, it carries in itself decisive internal marks 
 of truth, and no evidence of later invention." It was 
 not unlikely a part of the oral tradition, which, being 
 with good reason credited, was inserted by some one 
 in his copy of John's Gospel. The point to be re- 
 marked is that in both the important cases of inter- 
 polation, as also in the passage relative to the three 
 witnesses (1 John v. 7), — which is omitted in the 
 Revised Version, — and so in the numerous, compara- 
 tively unimportant, instances of textual variation, we 
 are possessed of exceptionally satisfactory means of 
 deciding how the original stood. Whoever will ac- 
 quaint himself with the character of the evidence for 
 the genuineness of the works of classical literature 
 which have been handed down to us, and will com- 
 pare this evidence with the external proofs of the 
 authenticity of the Gospels, will cease to be troubled 
 by observations of the character of those quoted above 
 from Professor Huxley. 
 
 Professor Wace, in his controversy with Professor 
 Huxley, wisely declined to be diverted from the real 
 issues involved in their debate by entering into a dis- 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 271 
 
 cussion of the narrative in the Synoptical Gospels of 
 the Gadarene demoniac, — as Professor Wace remarks, 
 " one of the most difficult and mysterious narratives 
 in the New Testament." In undertaking to impeach 
 the credibility of the Evangelists, Professor Huxley 
 found it expedient to select a narrative which has 
 been acknowledged to involve certain peculiar diffi- 
 culties. Yet if the intention was to invalidate the 
 proof of miracles, the choice was not altogether 
 fortunate. That Jesus somehow effected the cure of 
 persons called " demoniacs," is a part of the evan- 
 gelical history which is denied by few, if any, of the 
 sceptical critics of the present day. It is admitted to 
 be a portion of that history which must be accepted 
 as authentic. Critics of this class may charge ex- 
 aggeration upon the narratives, but even they do not 
 question that beneath them is a groundwork of his- 
 torical fact. These cures are in some cases connected 
 inseparably with things said by Jesus which are un- 
 questionably authentic. Moreover, be the source of 
 the disorders referred to what it may, there is no rea- 
 sonable escape from the conviction that the maladies 
 of those who were cured by the word of Jesus were 
 more intense and aggravated than any of the dis- 
 orders which may have been temporarily relieved by 
 the juggling methods of exorcism in vogue among the 
 Jews. Had it been otherwise, there would have been 
 no occasion for trumping up the charge against him 
 that he was in league witli Beelzebub, and cast out 
 demons by his aid. Jesus met this accusation by the 
 
272 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 ad hominem argument, " By whom do your sons cast 
 them out ? " To this he added that a kingdom 
 divided against itself could not stand : the Devil 
 would not be fighting against himself : a strong man 
 must be bound before his house can be entered and 
 he be spoiled of his goods. Whatever opinion may 
 be entertained concerning the nature of the disorders 
 in question, that miraculous power was exerted by 
 Jesus in curing them, and that his adversaries could 
 not resort for an explanation of this power to any 
 precedents within their own knowledge, are facts 
 which it is unreasonable to dispute. 
 
 None of the narratives of this class is better attested 
 and commended to credence by internal marks of 
 verity than the account of the Gadarene demoniac. It 
 is true that in Matthew two demoniacs are spoken of. 
 If this be anything more than a seeming discrepancy, 
 its presence does not affect in the least the credibility 
 of the principal circumstances of an occurrence which 
 all the Synoptics record. Since Dr. Thomson identi- 
 fied the place with Kersa, or Gersa, on the eastern 
 shore of the lake, opposite Capernaum, no difficulties 
 of consequence remain in respect to the locality which 
 is assigned to the event by the several Evangelists. 
 A madman, who had taken for his abode one of the 
 holes in the rocky hillside which were used for tombs 
 by the Jews, came out to meet Jesus. In the graphic 
 narrative of Mark, and in that of Luke also, his wild 
 and savage ways are vividly described, — his violence 
 as shown in his breaking the fetters that bound him, 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 273 
 
 and in tearing off his clothes, in his outcries by night 
 and by day, and his gashing his flesh with sharp 
 stones. He was restored to sanity by Jesus, and was 
 found, after an interval, sitting at his feet, " clothed 
 and in his right mind." It has been sometimes con- 
 jectured that the plunging of the herd of swine down 
 the precipice into the lake might have been an addi- 
 tion to the authentic facts, and not a part of the 
 account as originally given by the Apostles. But 
 even this incident is corroborated by the context. It 
 was the report from those who had kept the swine 
 that brought to the spot the people from the neighbor- 
 ing city, who were struck with fear, and by whom 
 Jesus was besought to return to, the western side of 
 the lake. Moreover, the answer which is recorded 
 by the Evangelists to the question of Jesus, " What 
 is thy name ? " and the other signs of a distracted con- 
 sciousness which were manifest in the maniac's words 
 and acts, are of a character to confirm the story as 
 told by Mark and Luke, — a story which, there is no 
 reason to doubt, emanated from eye-witnesses. As to 
 the other inquiries which arise in connection with 
 this class of narratives, it is not proposed here to 
 enter into an investigation of the subject of demonia- 
 cal possession. Let it suffice to indicate briefly three 
 main views of the matter, each of which has secured 
 for itself more or less approval among considerate 
 Christian scholars. 
 
 The first is the theory of " accommodation," — that 
 Jesus entered into the " fixed idea " of the sufferers 
 
 18 
 
274 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 that they were possessed by evil spirits, as a means 
 of delivering them from an ingrained but delusive 
 impression, and of thus effecting their cure. There 
 are serious difficulties in the way of this theory. 
 One of them is the circumstance that Christ when 
 he was alone with his Disciples said nothing to cor- 
 rect the popular belief in which they shared, and 
 bade them when they went out on their mission " to 
 cast out devils " as well as to heal the sick. Never- 
 theless, the theory of accommodation has been adopted 
 by scholars conspicuous for ability and candor. One 
 of them was Nathaniel Lardner, a Unitarian in his 
 theology, and eminent for his fairness as well as 
 thoroughness in historical inquiries. Another is 
 Meyer, a German scholar of marked independence 
 and uprightness, who has had no superior in re- 
 cent times as a commentator on the New Testament 
 writings. 1 The accusation of dishonesty brought 
 against adherents of this opinion is harsh and 
 unfounded. 
 
 The second view on the subject is that presented 
 
 1 Meyer's principal arguments are the absence of references 
 to demoniacal possession in the Old Testament ; the fact that 
 so-called demoniacs were cured by exorcists ; that no clear cases 
 of possession occur at present ; that there is no notice of demonia- 
 cal possession in John's Gospel, although the overcoming of Satan 
 is there made a part of the Messiah's work, and Satan is said to 
 enter into a man's mind and take control there (John ii. 27) ; 
 and that the so-called demoniacs are not, as would be expected, of 
 a diabolic temper and filled with malignant feelings towards Christ. 
 (See Weiss's Meyer, on Matt. iv. 24.) 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 275 
 
 by Neander and others, who hold to a certain meas- 
 ure of accommodation on the part of Jesus to de- 
 lusive impressions of the victims of these disorders. 
 Their idea is that the agency of a personal Evil 
 Spirit, the ruling spirit in a kingdom of evil, was 
 truly and really concerned in the fearful maladies 
 to which Jesus mercifully administered relief. The 
 description which Neander gives in his " Life of 
 Jesus " — and the same may be said of observations 
 of Trench in his work on the Miracles — of the confu- 
 sion, distraction of spirit, and mental distress, which 
 prevailed in so extraordinary a degree, at the critical 
 epoch when the Saviour appeared, is highly instruc- 
 tive and suggestive. It is the idea of Neander that 
 Jesus had no wish to cast discredit, but was con- 
 cerned to avoid casting discredit, on the essential 
 truth underlying the notions, superstitious though 
 they might be in form, of the wretched sufferers 
 whom he was bent on healing morally as well as 
 physically. It is generally implied in the narratives 
 that there was moral evil at the root of the disordered 
 condition of the demoniacs. This, however, can 
 scarcely be presupposed in the case of the epileptic 
 who had been a sufferer in this way " from a child " 
 (Mark ix. 22). 
 
 The third opinion is that which accepts as liter- 
 ally true, or as substantially so, the ideas of the suf- 
 ferers themselves respecting the inhabitation of evil 
 spirits. This opinion Professor Huxley professes 
 himself unable absolutely to disprove on grounds 
 
276 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 lying within the compass of the sciences in which lie 
 is an adept. This he says even in reference to all 
 the particulars of the Gadarene narratives. He can- 
 not deny ex cathedra their possible truth. He brings 
 forward, to be sure, the common objection that de- 
 moniacal possession does not occur at present. To 
 this an opponent would answer that in this declar- 
 ation he asserts more than he knows ; moreover, that 
 the laws which determine the movements of super- 
 human evil beings are beyond our ken ; that their 
 influence and operations on the earth and among 
 men may not be the same at one epoch as at another ; 
 and that if it be true, to recur to the figure employed 
 by Christ himself, that the house was entered and 
 " the strong man" bound, the agency of evil spirits in 
 certain forms of mischievous activity may be crippled 
 and checked. If it is once admitted that there exist 
 superhuman beings of evil disposition and intent, — 
 and the proposition is one which he must be a bold man 
 who ventures to deny, — the narratives in the Gospels, 
 when literally taken, offer no offence to reason. The 
 possibility of one mind falling into a strange thraldom 
 under another, is believed to be illustrated in the facts 
 of hypnotism. 
 
 But Professor Huxley avers that he should not 
 believe in this inhabitation of evil spirits, even if it 
 were demonstrated that Jesus Christ had taught it 
 as a fact. He would not claim, however, that an 
 argument of any cogency, in the case supposed, is 
 to be drawn from his personal incredulity. These 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 277 
 
 are questions which are not to be determined by 
 a count of heads. Other men, not inferior to him- 
 self in acuteness and grasp of intellect, and in readi- 
 ness to follow in their judgments the dictates of 
 reason, are of an opposite mind. Here is Richard 
 Rothe, a philosopher of the largest powers, unfettered 
 by any doctrinal bias, revered by all schools of thought 
 in Germany for his golden candor, who argues at 
 length in his Dogmatik for the literal acceptance of 
 what Professor Huxley styles " the Gadarene story." 
 He maintains the utter unreasonableness of the theory 
 that beyond the limit of the human beings now living 
 on the earth, whose moral tempers are depraved, there 
 are no intelligent creatures who delight even more in 
 evil ; and he asserts the equal unreasonableness of 
 maintaining that the range of their motions and ac- 
 tivities is so restricted by police regulations that they 
 are cut off from doing mischief here among men. It 
 is fair to remind those who are disposed to attach to 
 the personal incredulity of Professor Huxley an un- 
 due weight, that his professions of unbelief are car- 
 ried much farther than they might feel inclined to 
 follow him. He does not believe — it is not said that 
 he denies, but he does not believe — that there is a 
 Supreme Being who is personal or self-conscious ; he 
 does not believe that consciousness exists apart from 
 the brain, and that mental action of man survives 
 death. The personality of God, and the personality 
 of man, and the continuance of man's conscious life 
 after he ceases to breathe, are propositions not 
 
278 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 included in the list of his affirmative beliefs. It is too 
 much to expect that his aversion to admitting that 
 superhuman spiritual beings exist and may produce 
 effects such as are ascribed to them in the New Testa- 
 ment, according to the more common interpretation 
 of its narratives, should be capable of being overcome 
 by a declaration of the fact, were it known to come 
 from Christ himself. But to those who do not share 
 in this antecedent incredulity, who hold that we must 
 depend for our knowledge of the subject almost ex- 
 clusively upon Revelation, and who believe, on what 
 they deem good and sufficient grounds, that Jesus 
 taught only what he knew, — to those, his authority will 
 be decisive. They may not be clear, they may differ 
 among themselves as to what he professed to teach in 
 relation to this subject; but to that teaching, when its 
 purport and limit are settled, they will consider them- 
 selves rationally obliged to give credence. They will 
 be apt to find themselves, not weakened, but confirmed 
 in their confidence in him as a religious teacher, by 
 the improbability that he who could thus bring back 
 sanity, and with it moral health and peace, to a furi- 
 ous maniac, could have cherished a mistaken idea 
 respecting the character of the disorder. 
 
 Professor Huxley endeavors to show by an example 
 that the* proof of mediaeval miracles, such of them 
 as no Protestant believes in, is just as strong as 
 the proof of the miracles recorded in the Gospels. 
 He even thinks that the evidence is stronger in the 
 former case than in the latter. This ground of 
 
HUXLEY OX THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 279 
 
 debate has been well trodden. Long ago Douglas, 
 in his " Criterion," set forth clearly and forcibly the 
 difference between the common run of ecclesiastical 
 miracles, as to the evidence that exists in support of 
 them, and the miracles of Christianity. Mozley, in 
 his Bampton Lectures, has presented a learned and 
 cogent argument on the same topic. Even Cardinal 
 Newman, in writings at a former day, has impres- 
 sively exhibited the superior force of the proofs for 
 the miracles of Scripture, in comparison with those 
 adduced for miracles elsewhere related. The ques- 
 tion is one which calls for the exercise of historical 
 tact and judgment, and no degree of skill or amount 
 of acquirements in natural science avail to supply 
 this indispensable faculty. Niebuhr, with a mind 
 naturally sceptical, saw at once a deep peculiarity in 
 the Gospel narratives, which distinguishes them from 
 the mass of legendary tales from which we instinc- 
 tively turn away with incredulity. The " fundamen- 
 tal fact of miracles" in the life of Jesus was, in 
 Niebuhr's estimation, lifted above all doubt. The 
 " whole history of Jesus " he perceived to be true and 
 real, " even if were not related with literal exactness 
 in a single point." The parallelism between the 
 character of the testimony for the Gospel miracles, 
 and the proof of the legends of the saints, is super- 
 ficial. The moment one strikes below the surface, 
 essential differences appear, and structures raised by 
 such authors as Renan on the basis of an opposite 
 theory are seen to be built on no solid foundation. 
 
280 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 To give more effect to his confident affirmations on 
 this subject, Professor Huxley takes up the story 
 related by Eginhard, or Einhard, the biographer of 
 Charlemagne, of the translation from Italy of the 
 relics of the martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus. Egin- 
 hard in his later days had contracted with a Roman 
 deacon, Deusdona, to deliver to him the relics of these 
 two saints, to be deposited in his own church at Oden- 
 wald, whither Eginhard had retired to spend the re- 
 mainder of his life. Professor Huxley draws out the 
 details of the transaction, but sums up the facts as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Deusdona turns out to be a swindler, and has no 
 relics. Thereupon Egiuhard's agent, after due fasting 
 and prayer, breaks open the tombs and helps himself. 
 
 " Eginhard discovers, by the self-betrayal of his brother 
 abbot, Hilcloin, that portions of his relics have been 
 stolen and conveyed to the latter. With much ado he 
 succeeds in getting them back. 
 
 " Hildoin's agent, Hunus, in delivering these stolen 
 goods to him, at first declared they were the relics of St. 
 Tiburtius, which Hildoin desired him to obtain ; but 
 afterward invented a story of their being the product of 
 a theft, which the providential drowsiness of his com- 
 panions enabled him to perpetrate from the relics which 
 Hildoin well knew were the property of his friend. 
 
 " Lunison, on the contrary, swears that all this story is 
 false, and that he himself was bribed by Hunus to allow 
 him to steal what he pleased from the property confided 
 to his own and his brother's care by their guest Ratleig. 
 And the honest notary himself seems to have no hesita- 
 
HUXLEY ON THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 281 
 
 tion about lying and stealing to any extent, where the 
 acquisition of relics is the object in view. 
 
 " For a parallel to these transactions one must read 
 a police report of the doings of a ' long firm ' or of a set 
 of horse-coupers ; yet Eginhard seems to be aware of 
 nothing, but that he has been rather badly used by his 
 friend Hildoin and the ' nequissimus nebul'o ' Hunus. . . . 
 
 "To a man like Eginhard, the mere satisfaction of 
 the religious sentiment was obviously a powerful attrac- 
 tion. But, more than this, the possession of such a 
 treasure was an immense practical advantage. If the 
 saints were duly flattered and worshipped, there was no 
 telling what benefits might result from their interposition 
 on your behalf. For physical evils, access to the shrine 
 was like the grant of the use of a universal pill and 
 ointment manufactory ; and pilgrimages thereto might 
 suffice to cleanse the performers from any amount of 
 sin." [Eginhard, in a letter, complained of the inatten- 
 tion which the martyrs had paid to his vows. His faith 
 in their intercessions had been " utterly disappointed."] 
 
 " We may admit, then, without impeachment of Egin- 
 hard's sincerity or of his honor under all ordinary cir- 
 cumstances, that when piety, self-interest, the glory of 
 the Church in general, and that of the church at Seligen- 
 stadt in particular, all pulled one way, even the worka- 
 day principles of morality were disregarded, and a for- 
 tiori, anything like proper investigation of the reality 
 of the alleged miracles was thrown to the winds. 
 
 " And if this was the condition of mind of such a man as 
 Eginhard, what is it not legitimate to suppose may have 
 been that of Deacon Deusdona, Lunison, Hunus, and 
 company, thieves and cheats by their own confession ; 
 or of the probably hysterical nun ; or of the professional 
 
282 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 beggars, for whose incapacity to walk and straighten 
 themselves there is no guarantee but their own? Who is 
 to make sure that the exorcist of the demon Wiggo was 
 not just such another priest as Hunus ; and is it not at 
 least possible, when Eginhard's servants dreamed night 
 after night in such a curiously coincident fashion that 
 a careful inquirer might have fouud they were very 
 anxious to please their master ? " 
 
 On Professor Huxley's own showing, what is the 
 mental and moral state of the agents in this trans- 
 action, of Eginhard as well as of the rest ? What is 
 the atmosphere in which they live ? Will it be seri- 
 ously maintained that as concerns the qualifications 
 for giving truthful testimony, they are on a level with 
 the Apostles and their companions ? It is assumed 
 here, despite assertions made to the contrary, that 
 the contents of the Gospels present with substan- 
 tial correctness the testimony of the immediate Dis- 
 ciples of Jesus. Had they no advantage in respect 
 to that sobriety of mind which enables one to per- 
 ceive the truth and to state what he knows, above 
 the persons who figure in Eginhard's account ? To 
 objections quite similar to those which Professor Hux- 
 ley brings forward, Bishop Butler, in his grave, truth- 
 loving manner, thus replies : — 
 
 " Over against all these objections is to be set the im- 
 portance of Christianity, as what must have engaged the 
 attention of its first converts, so as to have rendered 
 them less liable to be deceived from carelessness than 
 they would in common matters ; and likewise the strong 
 
HUXLEY OX THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 283 
 
 obligations to veracity which their religion laid them un- 
 der; so that the first and most obvious presumption is that 
 they could not be deceived themselves, nor would deceive 
 others. And this presumption, in this degree, is peculiar 
 to the testimony we have been considering." 
 
 In the case of the Apostles was there no ethical 
 training, no restraint upon tendencies to indulge in 
 fancies at variance with reality, in a daily associa- 
 tion with Jesus Christ ? It is possible here to set 
 down only in the briefest manner some of the differ- 
 ences in the situation of the first Disciples as com- 
 pared with the framers of mediaeval legends. The 
 miracles of Jesus had an essential part in originating 
 the Disciples' faith in him. They served to neutralize 
 the disappointment which his refusal to take the role 
 of a political Messiah, and his sufferings and death, 
 occasioned. The alleged ecclesiastical miracles were 
 in accord with a faith already established and assured 
 beyond the intrusion of doubt. This is a difference of 
 vital moment. The testimony of the Apostles was 
 given in the face of incredulous Sadducees. The 
 witnesses were ridiculed and maltreated on account 
 of it. They were to be, and they were, brought before 
 magistrates to answer to the charge of heresy. There 
 was no room and there was no time, as any one who 
 looks at the circumstances of the first Disciples ought 
 to see, for devout dreams and the invention of roman- 
 ces in conformity with an ideal of their own devising. 
 If the Disciples were " characterized by a prolific " 
 fancy and an unchastened credulity such as were 
 
284 NATURE AND METHOD OF REVELATION. 
 
 active in giving birth to the legends of the saints, why 
 were no miracles ascribed to John the Baptist ? Why 
 did they not ascribe miracles to Jesus during the first 
 thirty years of his life ? These are among the ques- 
 tions which admit of but one fair answer. They had 
 the conscientious feeling which belongs to witnesses 
 who have a sacred obligation to fulfil. 
 
 There are two pre-requisites for a just appreciation 
 of the Gospel histories. The one is something like 
 an adequate consciousness of those profound needs of 
 the soul to which the salvation of Christ ministers. 
 " Blessed are the poor in spirit : for theirs is the 
 kingdom of heaven." The other is something like 
 an adequate perception of the " overwhelming great- 
 ness " of Christ. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbot, Ezra, 187. 
 
 Abbott, Edwin A., on the Synoptical 
 Gospels, 175. 
 
 Abraham, 14; his place in history, 28. 
 
 Acts, the Book of, by a companion 
 of Paul, 179. 
 
 Agnosticism, self-destructive, 135 ; 
 origin of the term, 259 ; its rela- 
 tion to materialism, 260; destruc- 
 tive of science, 264. 
 
 Alogi, their view of John's Gospel, 
 188. 
 
 Amos, the Prophet, 27. 
 
 Andrew, the Apostle^ 109. 
 
 Antioch, the church of, 110, 111. 
 
 Apostles, their sense of the need and 
 value of testimony, 35 seq. ; doc- 
 trine of Atonement developed by 
 them, 85; their growth in knowl- 
 edge, 84, 86 ; their inspiration, 241 ; 
 their character as witnesses, 283. 
 
 Aratus, 95. 
 
 Argyll, the Duke of, 135. 
 
 Aristotle, 100, 128. 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, xii; on Basilides, 
 188 ; on the style of the Scriptures, 
 243; on the ''Time-Spirit," 244; 
 his conception of God, 245 seq. ; 
 on prayer, 247; on the Hebrew 
 religion, 248 ; on the teaching 
 of Jesus, 249 ; on Buddhism and 
 Christianity, 250; on New Testa- 
 ment miracles, 251 seq. ; on Baur 
 and the Tubingen school, 252; on 
 
 Papias, 253; on the date and char- 
 acter of the Gospels, 253; on the 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 
 254 seq. ; sadness of his poems, 
 256. 
 
 Atonement, references of Christ to 
 it, 85 ; a doctrine developed by the 
 Apostles, 85. 
 
 Augustine, 102. 
 
 Bacon, Francis, 134. 
 
 Bancroft, George, 21. 
 
 Barnabas, 114. 
 
 Basilides, 187. 
 
 Baur, F. C, his view of John's Gos- 
 pel, 184; his theories obsolescent, 
 viii, ix. 
 
 Bengel, on the perspective of pro- 
 phecy, 229. 
 
 Bible, increasing interest in its study, 
 v; its relation to the kingdom of 
 God, vi; progress in the knowl- 
 edge of it, vii ; the Protestant view 
 of it, 1 ; variety of its contents, 3 ; 
 on the date and authorship of its 
 books, 4; bond of unity in it, 5; 
 compared with secular writings, 
 7; Coleridge on its spirit, 8; dif- 
 ferences of character in its books, 
 
 8 ; difficulties in interpreting it, 
 
 9 ; Roman Catholic objection to 
 its use, 9; was it intended for a 
 manual, 10; its relation to the reli- 
 
286 
 
 JNDEX. 
 
 gion at the basis of it, 10; what led 
 to the composition of its books, 12 
 seq. ; its relation to the kingdom 
 of God, 15, 21 ; Matthew Arnold on 
 its style, 243. 
 
 Bleek, Friedrich, 212; on the Synop- 
 tics, 174. 
 
 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 43. 
 
 Bradford, William, 22. 
 
 Browning, Robert, 257. 
 
 Bushnell, Horace, on the miracles of 
 Jesus, 38, 
 
 Butler, Bishop: Matthew Arnold on, 
 244; Huxley on, 262; on the Apos- 
 tles as witnesses, 282. 
 
 Cesarea Philippi, conversation at, 
 
 182. 
 Caius, 190. 
 Carlyle, Thomas, on the Lord's 
 
 Prayer, 165. 
 Carpenter, W. B., on evolution, 133. 
 Cerinthus, his relation to the Apostle 
 
 John, 188. 
 Chillingworth, William, 1, 2, 9. 
 Cleanthes, 95. 
 Cleopas, 217. 
 
 Coleridge, Hartley, on prayer, 169. 
 Coleridge, S. T., on the Bible, 8, 154. 
 Columbus, Christopher, 140'. 
 Council, or Apostolic conference, at 
 
 Jerusalem, 111 seq. 
 Cyrus, 61. 
 
 Daniel the prophet, 69, 180. 
 
 Dante, 50. 
 
 Darwin, Charles, on variability, 133 ; 
 on design in Nature, 135. 
 
 David the king, 59. 
 
 Deism, in the eighteenth century, xi. 
 
 Demoniacal possession, 27ir seq. ; the 
 Gadarene demoniac, 272; explained 
 by "accommodation," 273, by par- 
 tial accommodation, 274 ; literal 
 view of, 275. 
 
 Didache, the, 188. 
 
 Dillmann, 30. 
 
 Dionysius, of Alexandria, 190. 
 
 Divorce, Mosaic law on, 79; the 
 
 teaching of Christ respecting, 80. 
 Douglas on ecclesiastical miracles, 
 
 279. 
 
 Edwards, Jonathan, viii, 14. 
 
 Eginhard, 280. 
 
 Ellicott, 212; on 1 Cor. vii. 25 seq., 
 239. 
 
 "Elsmere, Robert," x, 38. 
 
 Emerson, R. W., xii. 
 
 Epictetus, 7, 99. 
 
 Epiphanius, on the Alogi, 189. 
 
 Erskine, Thomas, 165. 
 
 Ethics, progressive character of, 73 
 seq. ; growth of the spirit of love 
 in, 75 seq. : imperfect moral ideas 
 in, 78. 
 
 Euripides, 95. 
 
 Eusebius, 178. 
 
 Evil, Scriptural doctrine of its rela- 
 tion to Divine agency, 56 seq. 
 
 EAvald, on the style of John's Gospel, 
 193, 206. 
 
 Ezekiel the Prophet, 69. 
 
 Faith, its sources within, 128 seq ; 
 all knowledge grounded on, 139; 
 creates nothing, 140 ; adds nothing 
 to truth, 141 ; the one essential in 
 religion, 142; character of the evi- 
 dence for, 143 seq. ; energy of will 
 required in, 145 seq. ; different 
 grades of, 149; sources of its 
 weakness, 150; weakened by sin, 
 151 seq., 157 ; hindered by self- 
 reproach, 159; how promoted, 161 
 seq. : not by the inquisitive fac- 
 ulty, 161, but by moral thought- 
 fulness, 163, by the experience of 
 trouble, 164, by obedience, 166, 
 by contemplating Christ, 166, by 
 
INDEX. 
 
 287 
 
 prayer, 167 seq. ; the conditions of 
 Christian. 266. 
 
 Faraday, Michael, 162. 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin, 14. 
 
 Future life, the Old Testament re- 
 specting it, 66 seq. 
 
 Gamaliel, his spirit, 95. 
 
 Genesis, its opening chapters, 30 seq. 
 
 Gibbon, Edward, 145. 
 
 God, evidences of his being, 129 
 seq. ; from the rationality of na- 
 ture, 131, from the argument of 
 design, 132 seq. ; evidence of his 
 moral attributes, 136 seq. 
 
 Godet. 205. 
 
 Gospel, the Fourth, its date, 34: its 
 authorship, 183 seq. ; Baur's view- 
 as to its date, 184 ; witness of 
 Irenaeus to, 185; known to Poly- 
 carp, 183 ; one of the memoirs of 
 Justin, 186 ; new proofs of its 
 genuineness, 187; its rejection by 
 the ALogi, 178 : acknowledged by 
 the orthodox and the Gnostics, 
 190; on the day of the Last Sup- 
 per, 191; its relation to the Syn- 
 optics, 192 ; its linguistic character, 
 193; its relation to Alexandrian 
 philosophy, 194; its liberal tone 
 as to the Gentiles, 195 ; subjective 
 element in it, 196 ; not written by 
 a disciple of John, 196; Matthew 
 Arnold on its authorship, 254 seq., 
 on its style, 255 : Baur's theory 
 of its character, 268. 
 
 Gospels, discrepancies in them, 42 
 seq. ; Matthew Arnold on their 
 origin, 253 ; integrity of them, 
 269. 
 
 Gospels, Synoptic, their relation to 
 one another. 173 seq. ; their date, 
 180; their relation to the Galilean 
 ministry of Christ. 183. 
 
 Gray. Asa. on variability, 133. 
 
 Green, T. H., x. 
 
 Harxack, A., on the Tubingen 
 school, ix ; on the Alogi, 189. 
 
 Heberthe Kenite, 75. 
 
 Hebrews, their historic function, 16; 
 Matthew Arnold on their religion, 
 218. 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to the, 52; its de- 
 sign, 122; its authorship, 122. 
 
 Hea:esippus, on the Apostle James, 
 118. 
 
 Heine, xii. 
 
 Heinrici, 239. 
 
 Hilgenfeld, 186. 
 
 Hippolytus, 187 ; on the Alogi, 189. 
 
 Holtzmann, x ; 185, 205. 
 
 Homer, 50. 
 
 Hume, David, 145, 246 ; on the sup- 
 position of a future life, 262. 
 
 Hutchinson, Thomas, 22. 
 
 Huxley, T. H., ix ; on the object 
 of science, 131; on the misery of 
 mankind, 152 ; on the nature of 
 the soul, 260 ; on. the existence 
 of the Deity, 262 ; on Bishop But- 
 ler's arguments, 262 ; his scepticism 
 in regard to the Gospels, 265; on 
 the New Testament portraiture of 
 Jesus, 266; on the Fourth Gospel, 
 268; ou the integrity of the Gos- 
 pels, 268 ; on demoniacal posses- 
 sion, 271 seq. ; on the possibility 
 of demoniacal possession, 275; on 
 mediaeval and Gospel miracles^ 
 278 seq. 
 
 Inspiration, as concerned in the 
 
 Gospels, 41 seq. 
 Irenseus. on John's Gospel, 185. 
 Isaiah, 8, 14. 
 
 J a el, 75. 
 
 James, the Apostle, at the Council 
 at Jerusalem, 114; his relations to 
 Paul, 118 ; his Epistle, 119 ; his 
 death, 121. 
 
288 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Jephthah, 53. 
 
 Jeremiah, 17. 
 
 Jerome, 98, 269. 
 
 Jesus, the founder of a kingdom, 17 ; 
 recent lives of, 23; contemporary 
 evidence respecting him, 33; his 
 miracles, 37 ; his growth in knowl- 
 edge, 81 seq. ; his teaching on the 
 Atonement, 85 ; undermined the 
 ceremonial law, 89 seq. ; exer- 
 cised faith, 167 ; when known as 
 Messiah by the Disciples, 182; 
 the accounts of his baptism, 198; 
 the inscription on his cross, 200; 
 his preliminary mission of the 
 Twelve, 201; the Sermon on the 
 Mount, 201 ; his healing of the 
 centurion's son, 208 seq. ; the ac- 
 counts of his resurrection, 213 ; 
 Matthew Arnold on the "secret" 
 of, 250 ; on the conditions of faith, 
 266; vivid portraiture of him in 
 the Gospels, 269. 
 
 Jethro, 53. 
 
 Job, Book of, 63; on death and the 
 future state, 68. 
 
 John the Apostle, 8, 34; his spirit- 
 ual progress, 86 ; in Asia Minor, 
 124, 185. 
 
 John the Baptist, 11, 17; his doubt 
 respecting the Christ, 182. 
 
 Jonah, 53. 
 
 Jonah, Book of, 59. 
 
 Judas of Galilee, 97. 
 
 Justification, the Apostle Paul's doc- 
 trine of, 105. 
 
 Justin Martyr, his witness to John's 
 Gospel, 186. 
 
 Kant, Emmanuel, xi, 68; on the 
 being of God, 138, 
 
 Keim, T., 185^199. 
 
 Kepler, 162. 
 
 Kingdom of God, its nature and 
 reality, 15 seq. ; office of Jesus in 
 relation to it, 17 ; how it is to 
 
 "come," 18; theories concerning 
 it, 19 ; its relation to human so- 
 ciety, 19 ; its relation to the 
 Scriptures, 21 ; obscurity of its 
 beginnings, 24 seq. 
 Koran, character of it, 5. 
 
 Lakdnek, Nathaniel, on demoni- 
 acal possession, 274. 
 
 Laud, William, 1. 
 
 Leibnitz, 102. 
 
 Lightfoot, J. B., 113; on the login 
 of Matthew, 177 ; on the Greek of 
 the Fourth Gospel, 194: on the 
 expectation of the Parousia, 225 ; 
 on Papias, 253. 
 
 Lotze, R. H., 134. 
 
 Luke, 35, 36. 
 
 Luke, his Gospel, its beginning, 12; 
 its relation to Matthew, 179; writ- 
 ten by the author of the Acts, 179. 
 
 Luther, Martin, 113; on faith, 142; 
 his early conception of God, 159. 
 
 Mansel, H. L., xii; on Christ's pro- 
 phetic discourse, 232. 
 
 Marcion, 7; his Gospel, 180. 
 
 Marcus Aurelius, 7, 99. 
 
 Mark, 35 ; his separation from Paul, 
 120. 
 
 Mark, the Gospel of, its relative 
 age, 175. 
 
 Martineau, James, 136. 
 
 Mather, Cotton, 22. 
 
 Matthew, the Gospel of, testimony 
 of Papias concerning it, 176 seq. ,• 
 its dependence on Mark, 178. 
 
 Maurice, F. D., on miracles, 39. 
 
 Maxwell, Clerk, on the conservation 
 of energy, 132. 
 
 Menander, 95. 
 
 Messiah, progress of prophecy re- 
 specting the, 71 seq. 
 
 Mever, 205, 220, 228, 234, 235, 274. 
 
 Milton, John, xi, 50, 95. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 289 
 
 Miracles, design of the Christian, 
 38 seq. ; objections to their credi- 
 bility, 39 : Matthew Arnold on the, 
 251 ; mediaeval, 278 seq. 
 
 Mohammed, 5. 
 
 Mohammedanism, how related to the 
 Koran, 5. 
 
 Monotheism, Hebrew, 52 seq. 
 
 Montaigne, on faith, 145. 
 
 Moses, his work and influence, 25 seq. 
 
 Mozley, J. B., on the grounds of 
 faith, 144, 146; on ecclesiastical 
 miracles, 279. 
 
 Naaman, 53. 
 
 Nazarite rule, 118. 
 
 Neander, on Socrates, 130; on John's 
 Gospel, 197, 210, 212; on Christ's 
 prophetic teaching, 233; on de- 
 moniacal possession, 275. 
 
 Nero, 98, 121. 
 
 Newman, John Henry, on the es- 
 trangement of mankind from God, 
 154; on ecclesiastical miracles, 279. 
 
 New Testament, progress of doctrine 
 in, 80. See " Bible." 
 
 Newton, Isaac, 162. 
 
 Niebuhr, on the Gospel history, 279. 
 
 Norton, Andrews, 186; on the Gos- 
 pels, 269. 
 
 Old Testament, its early part, 25, 
 30; the prophetical writings, 26: 
 its relation to the N. T. revelation. 
 51 seq. See " Revelation." 
 
 Palfret, J. G., 21. 
 
 Pantheism, its influence, xi; in the 
 
 writings of Matthew Arnold, 245 
 
 seq. 
 Papias, on the authorship of Mark 
 
 and of Matthew, 176, 252; on the 
 
 login of Matthew, 177. 
 Parousia, in the Jewish theology, 
 
 221, its meaning in the N. T.. 
 
 221; how described in the N. T., 
 222; how described in the 0. T., 
 222; spoken of in the N. T. as 
 near, 224 seq.; how to explain this 
 expectation, 229: by the "perspec- 
 tive of prophecy," 229, by the 
 limits of Christ's knowledge, 230, 
 by the purposed mingling of two 
 events (Mansel, Luther), 232, by 
 a subjective anticipation of the 
 Apostles, 232; not predicted as 
 near by Jesus, 236 seq. ; the 
 Apostles' expectation of the, 239. 
 
 Pascal, Blaise, his prayer, 164. 
 
 Paul the Apostle, 8, 14, 36; his 
 agency in setting free the Church, 
 87; sources of his knowledge of 
 Christ, 93 ; origin of his liberality, 
 94 seq,; his culture, 95 seq. ; his 
 intolerance before his conversion, 
 97; his coincidences with Stoic 
 teaching, 97 seq.; his conversion, 
 100; relation of his experience to 
 his theology, 104 seq.; his visit to 
 Peter, 110; at the conference in 
 Jerusalem, 111 seq. ; his rebuke of 
 Peter, 117; his last visit to Jeru- 
 salem, 118; his imprisonments and 
 death, 121 ; on the rejection of the 
 Gospel by the Jews, 125; on faith, 
 141 ; his expectation of the Par- 
 ousia, 239. 
 
 Pentateuch, debates about its author- 
 ship, 25. 
 
 Pessimism, an effect of the loss of 
 faith, 258. 
 
 Peter the Apostle, 36; and Corne- 
 lius, 110; at the council at Jerusa- 
 lem, 114; rebuked by Paul, 117; 
 his confession of faith, 168, 182. 
 
 PfTeiderer, O., 205. 
 
 Philip the Apostle, 109. 
 
 Philo, 194. 
 
 Pilate, 65. 
 
 Plato, 7. 
 
 Plumptre, -E. H., on Christ's pro- 
 phetic discourse, 232. 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Polycarp, acquainted with John's 
 
 Gospel, 185. 
 Prophets, O. T., character of their 
 
 teaching, 26 seq. ; presuppose the 
 
 work of Moses, 28. 
 
 Renan, 50, 191. 
 
 Resurrection, references to it in the 
 O. T., 69. 
 
 Resurrection of Christ, the several 
 accounts of it, 213 seq. ; testimony 
 of Paul concerning it, 224 seq. 
 
 Reuss, 25. 
 
 Revelation, in what sense gradual, 
 47 seq.; nevertheless supernatu- 
 ral, 48; illustrations of its gradual- 
 ness, 50: law and gospel, 51; the 
 conception of God, 52; distinction 
 of matter and spirit, 55; Provi- 
 dence of God, 56; the mercy of 
 God, 59; rewards and penalties, 
 61; on death and the future life, 
 65 seq. ; on the idea of sacrifice, 
 70 seq.; in the conception of the 
 Messiah, 71; in ethical doctrine, 
 72 seq. ; in the ideals of ethical 
 worth, 74 seq. ; as to the spirit of 
 love and forgiveness, 74 seq. ; as 
 to the treatment of moral evils, 
 78 seq. ; in the New Testament 
 period, 80 seq. ; though the Holy 
 Spirit, 84; significance of the 
 term, 127. 
 
 Rome, the Church of, its view of the 
 Bible, 2. 
 
 Rothe, Richard, on demoniacal pos- 
 session, 277. 
 
 Sacrifices, their significance, 70; 
 
 progress of doctrine concerning, 
 
 70. 
 Salmon, G., 175. 
 Samuel the Prophet, 66. 
 Schenkel, 191. 
 Schiller,' 141. 
 
 Schleiermacher, F., on the Gospel of 
 Matthew, 177. 
 
 Schultz, Hermann, 26. 
 
 Schiirer, E., 185, 186 ; on the date of 
 the Last Supper, 191. 
 
 Seneca, in relation to Paul, 98. 
 
 Sermon on the Mount, the, in Mat- 
 thew and in Luke, 201 seq. ; sources 
 of Luke's variations in the, 206; 
 presupposes the permanence of so- 
 ciety on earth, 238. 
 
 Shakspeare, 50. 
 
 Sheol, how conceived of in the O. T., 
 67. 
 
 Sin, its power and prevalence, 153 
 seq. ; darkens the mind, 157; the 
 source of self-seeking, 157. 
 
 Socrates, the character of his influ- 
 ence, 130; on his own death, 147. 
 
 Solomon, 53. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, his philosophy, xii. 
 
 Spinoza, xi, xiii. 
 
 Stanhope, Earl, 43. 
 
 Stephen, the protomartyr, 14, 102. 
 
 Stoicism, acquaintance of Paul with, 
 98. 
 
 Strauss, D. F., x., 199. 
 
 Stuart, Moses, 127. 
 
 Sully, James, on evolution, 132. 
 
 Supper, the Last, on what da} r , 210 
 seq. 
 
 Tatian, his Diatessaron, 188. 
 Tennyson, Alfred, 168, 170, 257. 
 Theism, Christian, comprehensive, xi. 
 Theodotus, accepted John's Gospel, 
 
 189. 
 Theudas, 97. 
 
 Thomas the Apostle, 144. 
 Thomson, W. M., 272. 
 Tradition, limits of its value, 33. 
 Trench, 275. 
 
 Vedas, their character, 5. 
 Vol k mar, 268. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 291 
 
 Wace, Henry, 268, 271. 
 
 Wallace, A. K., on natural selection, 
 134. 
 
 Wellhausen, on the rise of mono- 
 theism in Israel, 54. 
 
 Weiss, 178, 205, 210, 212, 228, 232, 
 234, 235 ; on the conversion of 
 Paul, 103 ; on the origin of the 
 Logos idea in John, 194; on the sub- 
 jective element in John's Gospel, 
 196; on John vii. 53-viii. 11, 270. 
 
 Weisse, 191. 
 
 Weizsacker, 185; on the Sermon on 
 
 the Mount, 205; on the accounts 
 of the Resurrection, 216. 
 
 Wellington, Duke of, 43. 
 
 Westcott, B. F., on the Gospel of 
 Matthew, 177; on the day of the 
 Last Supper, 212. 
 
 Whewell, William, on design in Na- 
 ture, 134. 
 
 Winthrop, John, 22. 
 
 Woolsey, Theodore D., 60. 
 
 Zeller, E., 268. 
 

* 
 
 I ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 III 
 
 021 062 879 4