¦:¦; .. :

•

; :

^;«->wmTi;p:t,~.

n',j i' // '('(/ f ' >/

THE

MYSTERY OF GOD.

A CONSIDERATION OF SOME INTELLECTUAL
HINDRANCES TO FAITH.

BY
T. VINCENT TYMMS.

' That they may know the Mystery of God, even Christ, in Whom are all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.' — Paul the Apostle.

SECOND EDITION.

NEW YORK:
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & CO.,
38, WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET.
1887.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

The alterations made in the present edition are few,
and, with two or three exceptions, are only slight
verbal emendations. Two or three sentences respect
ing Force, which appeared susceptible of a false inter
pretation, have been cancelled, and a few lines have been
added to the closing summary of Chapter VI. to avoid
the inconvenience of referring to a previous page. The
only change of importance is the addition of about five
pages on the subject of animal suffering (p. 134), which
will, I trust, strengthen the argument on the Mystery
of Evil by supplementing those general observations on
apparent defects in Nature which are retained as they
stood in the first edition. In supplying these para
graphs I revert to an original intention which was
abandoned through a fear of either encumbering the
argument with a discussion of inordinate length, or else
of causing misunderstanding by a too fragmentary
treatment of an enormous theme. Some more explicit
statement, however, of what the Bible teaches on this
matter seemed desirable, and is now offered to the
reader, though in a necessarily imperfect form. The
subject is little referred to except by those who question
the Creator's goodness, and few Christians seem to be

vi Preface to the Second Edition.
aware, that the Bible has a consistent doctrine concern
ing it. If any attempt has been made to define this
doctrine, or to gather into a connected form the state
ments and suggestions of Scripture, it has escaped
my notice. The moral difficulty is almost entirely
a modern experience, and is due to that deepened
sympathy with suffering which has been diffused by
Christianity in conjunction with a closer and more
scientific observation of animal life. It seems certain,
however, that the growing pressure of this difficulty
will constrain Christian teachers to consider it more
attentively, and we may anticipate that, as in many
similar cases before, the result of diligent inquiry will
be the discovery of rich treasures of light hidden in
the Bible — hidden only because man's eyes have not
been touched with the burning eye-salve of troubled
thought. This preface must not close without an acknowledg
ment of the generous way in which the first edition has
been received by reviewers of the most diversified
opinions. But while thanking public writers for their
unstinted commendations, I derive an even deeper
satisfaction from private assurances that in not a few
cases the great object of the work has been attained.
Such results not only repay the labour of writing, but
reflect a cheering light upon dark passages of mental
history without which this volume could never have
been written. Only one who has himself been tempted
to renounce faith, and leave the eternal morrow to
take thought for itself, can have full sympathy with
those who suffer from that malady of thought which is
so rife in modern days. In issuing a new edition my

Preface to the Second Edition. vii
earnest hope is that many whose faces I may never see
will find herein the touch of a friendly spirit, and some
encouragement to fight their doubts, and face the
spectres of the mind, until at length they find a
stronger faith. Human words at best are weak, yet
' Words are things ; and a small drop of ink
Falling like dew upon a thought . . .'
may aid another mind to think of Him who is never
far from any honest heart, and to trust the mystic
guidance of that Power which is with us
' In the night,
Which makes the darkness and the light,
And dwells not in the light alone.'
T. V. T.
Clapton, Nov. gth, 1886.

INTRODUCTION.

This book is an endeavour to consider the chief
intellectual hindrances to Christian Faith which are
prevalent in our day. From their independent titles,
the various chapters might appear to be self-contained
essays on separate subjects; but unless I have failed
in my design, it will be found that they are a con
secutive series of arguments, whereby a single and
continuous line of thought is advanced. It has been
my endeavour to dispose at the outset of the most
fundamental objections to Christianity, and thence to
ascend step by step, leaving no necessary foothold
unsecured, until at length objections which proceed
from Theists who are ' almost Christians ' are con
sidered. In dealing with anti-Christian and non-Christian
writers, I have striven to observe the golden rule.
If full justice has not been done to the form and spirit
of their arguments in the passages selected for quota
tion, or in the replies made, it has not been through.
any wish to disguise or evade their significance and
force. Difficulties flinched from or minimised for
temporary relief usually avenge themselves at some
future time by assuming more formidable shapes ; and

Introduction. ix
he who would help others towards the 'yea' of a well-
assured conviction must measure with them the full
force of every ' nay ' which obstructs their path.
In dealing with critical objections which, if disputed,
would involve minute and voluminous discussions, I
have borne in mind a secret whispered to me by a
distinguished Queen's Counsel, who said, ' I win my
cases by admissions.' A full review of Christian con
troversy would show that more damage has been done
to faith by indiscreet contentions for dubious and non
essential points than by any hostile attacks. The fate
of Christianity has frequently been staked by its advo
cates upon the defence of certain positions which have
eventually proved indefensible. Mindful of this error,
which has been several times repeated in our day, I
have not contended for all that I believe, but by making
occasional loans to the other side, have striven to show
that the Christian faith will not be injuriously affected
if many current controversies are ultimately decided in
a way that the majority of Christian advocates neither
desire nor expect. Apart from any other advantages
which this method may possess, it will, I trust, help
some to perceive that God's gift does not hang on
grammar, and that there is no valid reason why we
should postpone faith in the oracles of God until every
vexatious dispute about their literary vehicle has been
terminated. It does not fall within the design of this book to give
an exposition of Christian doctrines. Though adducing
reasons for regarding Christ as Divine, I offer no meta
physical theory of the Incarnation, and give no theo
logical opinions respecting the mode of His work as

x Introduction.
man's Redeemer. The subjects treated of are prior
to these great themes, and may with advantage be
separately discussed. They are subjects which cannot
be incessantly reopened by Christian preachers in their
ordinary addresses. Without sinking into mere dis-
puters with absent or silenced opponents, they must
generally treat as established truths the existence of
a Personal God, the possibility of Revelation, the
credibility under proper safeguards of human testi
mony to superhuman events, and the veracity in par
ticular of those documents which are the avowed basis
of their instructions. It is no secret, however, that on
all these points multitudes have been deeply affected
by the arguments, and especially by the tone, of much
contemporary literature, in which it is directly asserted
or tacitly implied that the foundations of the Christian
faith have been removed by modern advances in wisdom
and knowledge. Christians are freely charged with an
unworthy adhesion to their beliefs, not because reason
ably convinced of their soundness, but on account of
their ideal beauty, their consolatory tendency, and the
gratification they promise to the natural desires of
mankind for happiness and continued life. To a man
who prefers truth to the fairest of illusions, any un
certainty respecting the justice of these accusations
must be unspeakably painful. If the heart is to be
allowed free play for its affections, and its witness is
to be entertained without the fear of self-deception,
it is indispensable that clear convictions should be
obtained with regard to those elementary principles
which are so boldly challenged.
I do not imagine that the most prevalent hindrances

Introduction. xi
to faith are intellectual, or that in any individual they
are such exclusively. The purest natures who are
troubled with a strife between the intellect and the
heart will confess that they are not exempt from the
common struggles of humanity between conscience
and inclination. Those who are most truly alive to
the beauty of Christ and the sublimity of the destiny
to which He calls, will own that the conditions of
discipleship would severely try their spirits if no mental
uncertainties deterred. The life of faith is not a mere
assent of the intellect to certain propositions, and
it cannot therefore be produced by logic. But faith
must needs include some convictions which may be
put into propositions, and either be denied or affirmed
by the reason. The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews justly regards it as an axiom that ' he that
cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He
is a rewarder of them that seek after Him.' Therefore
a denial or a doubt of the several affirmations into
which this sentence may be resolved must preclude the
existence of faith in its higher and more spiritual form.
Moral hindrances can only be removed by moral suasion
or discipline. Spiritual hindrances can only be removed
by spiritual influences. But intellectual doubts which
relate to matters of historic fact, physical possibility,
or rational probability, can only be removed by appeals
to the understanding. When the mind has been con
vinced, a man may still be destitute of personal trust
in God, but a channel will be opened through which
appeals to his conscience and affections may afterwards
be made.
If the thoughts presented in this book should avail

xii Introduction.
to clear from any minds some intellectual hindrances
to faith, and should allay the misgivings of others who
believe, yet feel some tremors when heavy blows are
dealt against the deepest foundations of their creed,
I shall feel well rewarded. I should not regard any
work as wasted if it speeded one troubled thinker to
the place where Nicodemus stood when he said to
Jesus, ' Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come
from God, for no man can do those things which Thou
doest except God be with him ' ; or where Philip stood
on the night before the Crucifixion, saying, ' Lord,
show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.' Believing as
I do far more concerning Christ than is here written,
I am persuaded that all who accept Him as the ' faith
ful and true Witness ' concerning unseen and eternal
things will in due time come to know Him as the
revealed ' Mystery of God ' ; and regarding Him as
the Word, the Utterance of the Eternal Mind, will
confess that in Him there must needs be hidden for
our enlightenment 'all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge.'

CONTENTS.

Preface to second edition - v
Introduction - viii
I. Materialism - i
II. Pantheism - 36
III. Theism - 67
IV. The Straits of Theism without Revelation 97
V. The Mystery of Evil - 116
VI. The Miracle of Revelation 149
VII. The Oracles of God - - 181
Section I. — The Place of a Book in Revelation 183
II. — The Method and Spirit of Inquiry con
cerning the Bible - - 188
III. — Some Elementary Facts respecting the
Bible - 190
IV— The Unity of the Bible 192
V. — The alleged Verbal Infallibility of the
Bible - - 200
VI. — The General Credibility of the Bible 209
VII. — The Presence of Divine Elements in the
Bible - 227
„ VIII. — The Prevalence of Divine Elements in
the Bible - 248
VIII. The Person of Christ 262
IX. The Resurrection of Christ 292
X. The Life of Faith 327

' For life, with all it yields of joy and woe,
And hope and fear 
Is just our chance o' the prize of learning love,
How love might be, hath been indeed, and is ;
And that we hold thenceforth to the uttermost
Such prize despite the envy of the world,
And, having gained truth, keep truth : that is all.'
Robert Browning.
'And still the skies are opened as of old
To the entranced gaze, ay, nearer far
And brighter than of yore ; and Might is there,
And Infinite Purity is there, and high
Eternal Wisdom, and the calm clear face
Of Duty, and a higher, stronger Love
And Light in one, and a new, reverend Name,
Greater than any and combining all ;
And over all, veiled with a veil of cloud,
God set far off, too bright for mortal eyes'
Lewis Morris.

THE
MYSTERY OF GOD.
CHAPTER I.
MATERIALISM.
From the well at Sychar the voice of Christ has gone
out into all the earth, saying, ' God is a Spirit.' To
men who thirst * for the living God,' He declares that
He is a Father whose desire is towards His offspring,
and who seeks for their reverence and love. If these
things are so, there must be ' a spirit in man,' and
intercourse between the Divine Father and his human
children is possible. A life of faith in the Unseen God
thus becomes man's reasonable service, and religion in
the Christian sense must consist in the maintenance
of filial intercourse with the Father, and the loyal dis
charge of all those duties which paternal wisdom may.
assign, Materialism strikes at the root of these ideas by say
ing, ' There is no spirit. There is only one substance
known to us — viz., matter — and this is sufficient to
account for all the facts of human consciousness and
of the universe around. Thought and feeling are only
products of matter highly organized. God and im
mortality are dreams.' i

2 The Mystery of God.
In this dogmatic shape the creed has comparatively
few professors. Although positive in form, it involves
immense negations, from which cautious minds draw
back. It presents no allurement to the heart, and
affords no incentive to social duty. But although from
these causes its open champions are not numerous,
it practically underlies most of those anti-Christian
theories which are rife in our day. Various parties
which busy themselves with devices to render life bear
able and society possible without the recognition of
God, put other and more inviting names on their
banners, but their schemes are none the less based on
an assumption that materialism is true. The theory,
moreover, gives a philosophical expression to the un
reasoned opinions of multitudes who are indifferent to
all world-bettering plans and enthusiasms, and have
bidden farewell to all personal aspirations which look
beyond the narrow range of immediate interests and
desires. The theory is also important because many
who regard it with repugnance are disquieted by the
confident tone of its advocates, who say continually,
' Where is now your God ?' While the convic
tion, or even a strong suspicion, remains that
matter is all, God an illusion, and worship the
outpouring of emotion into nothingness, men have
no heart to study the historic evidences of Christianity,
or to consider the Person of Christ. On many grounds,
therefore, it becomes needful to so far examine the
Materialistic theory of the universe as to ascertain
whether it affords a reasonable and scientific basis for
a godless life.
In pursuing this inquiry, it will be useful to trace the

Materialism. 3
origin and growth of current theories, for by so doing
we shall not merely investigate abstract opinions, but
follow the lines of reasoning by which they have
been reached, and catch some glimpses of the men
who helped to form them, and were in part formed
by them. The advantage of such a course could
scarcely be better expressed than in the words of the
late Professor Ferrier relative to the general study of
the History of Philosophy : ' We shall find that we
are, in fact, studying the development of our own reason
in its most essential forms1, with this difference, that the
great problem which in our minds is worked out in a
hurried manner, and within contracted limits, is evolved
at leisure in the history of philosophy, and presented in
juster and more enlarged proportions. The history of
philosophy is, in fact, philosophy itself taking its time,
and seen through a magnifying-glass.'*
If we turn first of all to the Bible as our most
familiar treasury of ancient religious thought, we find
clear records of Materialism. The author of ' Eccle
siastes ' gives utterance to many gloomy notions, which
show that in his day there were Hebrews who held that
men were no better than the beasts. These passages
are so familiar, that it is needless to quote them here.
It should be observed, however, that the royal preacher
found Materialism a very gloomy creed, paralysing all
endeavours after righteousness, mingling wormwood
with every cup of pleasure, and throwing a cold shadow
over the beauty of nature and the whole course of
human life from birth to death. This despondency
will generally be found haunting the Materialist ; and
* Professor Farrier's Works, Vol. II., p. 2.1—2

4 The Mystery of God.
the rejection of morality, so conspicuous in parts of
' Ecclesiastes,' will be found the invariable outcome of
Materialistic belief as we trace it downwards to our
own day.
According to the statements of Mencius, a gross
system of Materialism, founded by Yang-Choo, was
widely spread over the Chinese empire about the close
of the fourth, or early in the third century before
Christ. Its author had the full courage of his convictions,
and advocated the freest indulgence of every appetite
as the only real enjoymeirt within man's reach.
0 Wherein people differ,' he wrote, ' is the matter of
life ; wherein they agree is death. While they are alive
we have the distinctions of intelligence and stupidity,
honorableness and meanness ; when they are dead we
have so much stinking rottenness, decaying away : —
this is the common lot. Yet intelligence and stupidity,
honorableness and meanness, are not in one's power,
neither is that condition of putridity, decay and utter
disappearance .... All are born and all die ; the in
telligent and the stupid, the honorable and the mean.
At ten years old some die. The virtuous and the sage
die ; the ruffian and the fool die also.' Because of
these things, he counselled men to renounce scruples
about propriety and righteousness as sheer folly;
seizing all possible pleasures with avidity, and enduring
inevitable evils with cynical contempt. 'Being once
Born, take your life as it comes and endure it; and
seeking to enjoy yourself as you desire, so await the
approach of death. When you are about to die, treat
the thing with indifference and endure it ; seeking to
accomplish your departure, so abandon yourself to

Materialism. 5
annihilation.' To show the nothingness of virtue and
praise, Yang-Choo related the lives of four sages
who encountered great hardships and afflictions, and
at last went down sorrowfully to the grave. ' Since
their death,' he observed, ' they have had a grand fame
that will last through myriads of ages. But that fame
is what no one who cares for what is real would choose.
Celebrate them ; they do not know it. Reward them ;
they do not know it. Their fame is no more to them
than to the trunk of a tree or a clod of earth.' In con
trast to these ' sages ' he described the careers of two
' villains,' who never made themselves ' bitter by the
thought of propriety and righteousness,' and came
brightly to death. ' During their life they had the joy
of gratifying their desires. Since their death they have
had the evil fame of folly and tyranny. But the reality
of enjoyment is what no fame can give. Reproach
them ; they do not know it. Praise them ; they do not
know it. Their ill fame is no more to them than to
the trunk of a tree, or to a clod of earth.' * Such a
theory presents no novel features, but deserves atten
tion because so similar to many others with which we
are familiar. Although an isolated Chinese philoso
pher, Yang-Choo seems in many places a mere echo of
the Hebrew preacher, and is chiefly remarkable for the
assumed gaiety with which he discusses the emptiness
of life which graver natures lament.
In India, it is said that only one — and that a some
what obscure — philosophy is Materialistic. It has,
* 'The Chinese Classics,' by Dr. James Legge, Vol. II., pp. 97,
98, 100.

6 The Mystery of God.
indeed, been well pointed out that the Hindoo mind
is too mystical and imaginative to find contentment in
a system so essentially prosaic.
The historic sources of modern European Materialism
have to be sought in Greece. In the seventh century
before Christ, Thales, the ' father of philosophy,' began
the long labour of searching after the cause and primary
element of all that is. He could not, like the multitude,
rest content with the ancient myths which Homer and
Hesiod had beautified, nor could he silence the questions
which arose in his own mind concerning the origin of
things. His conclusion was, that the only permanent
and real thing in the universe is water. Aristotle says
that probably he arrived at this opinion from observing
that the seeds of all things are moist, that all nourish
ment is moist, that heat is generated from moisture,
and that life is sustained by heat.* This, however
childish it may seem to modern ears, was a wonderful
effort of thought in his day, and was the germ of all
truly scientific observation. Cicero ascribes to Thales
a belief in an all-presiding and framing mind,t but
Aristotle was far more likely to be correct. After
Thales, Anaximander taught that matter was the be
ginning and end of all things, but he only qualified it
as indeterminate or chaotic substance. Then followed
Anaximenes, who fixed on air, and his pupil Diogenes
of Apollonia, who added that air is sensible and intel
ligent. Heraclitus is generally said to have contended
against these theories in favour of fire, but it is doubt-
'<¦ ' Metaphysics,' Book I., chap. iii.
t 'Nature of the Gods,' Book I., chap. x.

Materialism. 7
ful whether fire was anything more to him than an
emblem of ceaseless motion.
Democritus first propounded the famous atomic
theory which through many changes has survived until
our day. He taught that matter is eternal, and that it
consists of minute atoms so small as to be incapable of
division, and alike in every quality, though of various
shapes and sizes. Between these atoms he saw that
there must be space, or else they would not be divided.
Hence he said the universe consists of atoms and space,
or the ' full and the void.' All apparent differences of
objects are due to the shape of the atoms composing
them ; e.g., the atoms of water are round and smooth
and loosely grouped, those of iron are jagged and un
even. The soul of man he held to be only a body
within the body made of the most delicate atoms. To
explain the movement of atoms and their coming into
the forms we see in Nature, he affirmed that all is due
to law and necessity. Things come to be what they
are because they must. These atoms began by falling
through infinite space, and being of different shapes
and sizes, jostled one another, and so whirling about,
formed vortices, and thence worlds, in infinite numher,
and furthermore sea and land, plants, animals, and
men. It is interesting to observe in passing that about the
same time as Democritus founded the atomic school of
Materialism, another system of thought, destined to
fight against it for ages, was originated by Anaxagoras.
From the orderly arrangement of Nature, and from the
constitution of man, he inferred the existence of an all-
designing Mind or Reason. This was the historic

8 The Mystery of God.
germ of the so-called ' Argument from Design.' It is a
very simple train of reasoning, and one which must
have prevailed from the time when man first gazed on
Nature with an inquiring mind, although false and
absurd notions of finite deities hindered men from pur
suing a path which many now deem too obvious to be
overlooked. Thales and his school were needed to
plear men's minds of superstition before reason was
able to tread a path more childlike ages had found easy.
So negative criticism of popular opinions has often
done good service to the human mind and to the cause
of religious faith. Thales seemed to sweep away
religion for thoughtful Greeks, but he only cleared
away thickets of fable from the slopes of Mount
Olympus. Anaxagoras went up and saw in the mount
an infinite intelligence as God. To him men like
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle gave heed, and through
all generations his argument has done battle with
Materialistic creeds, and is confessed by men like J. S. Mill
to be the strongest plea for the existence of God which
man's intellect can frame or understand. Concerning
its author, the dictum of Aristotle is well worth quoting :
' Whoever affirmed mind, as in animals, so also in
Nature, to be the cause of the system of the world, and
of the entire harmony of it, the same appeared like a
man in his sober senses in comparison with the vain
theorists of the earlier ages.'*
After Democritus there arose the Sophists, a class of
professional teachers called into existence by the
wealth and mental activity of the age of Pericles.
They taught the arts of success in life in a Materialistic
* 'Metaphysics,' Book I., chap. iii.

Materialism. 9
sense, and insisted that true and false, good and evil,
have no existence except by convention. They were
extreme agnostics, denying man's power to know any
thing but his own sensations, and counselling their
pupils to let the atoms of Democritus and the Universal
Reason of Anaxagoras alone.
Against them Socrates expended the splendid energies
of his mind. He followed Anaxagoras in affirming
that thought underlies sense, and that the soul is more
than the body, and will survive its dissolution. He
insisted that man has a moral nature and a conscience.
That God is Eternal Mind and Justice, and Ruler over
all. There is a truth and a goodness for men to seek
and find. His disciple Plato and Aristotle followed,
each taking a different line of thought, but both oppos
ing with all their might the spread of Materialistic
Atheism. Their systems were great achievements,
and deserve the homage and gratitude of mankind.
But they were mixed up with many unavoidable errors
in physics, and lacked adaptation to ordinary men. In
spite of their endeavours, Greek thought became in
creasingly Materialistic, and before Christ came into
the world the atomic theory, revived by Epicurus, and
preached by Lucretius, had become the prevalent
opinion. Pilate's hopeless question, ' What is Truth ?'
is a type of the mental attitude which prevailed among
most cultivated men in his day.
Epicurus wrought out the practical inferences from
the Materialistic theory in an attractive shape. He
taught that pleasure is the great end of life, and that
wisdom lies in discovering and carrying out that
scheme of conduct which will conduce to the greatest

io The Mystery of God.
amount of pleasure for the longest time. The pursuit
of truth he deemed an idle waste of energy. The
theory of Democritus chiefly commended itself to him
because, with certain modifications, it left man freest
to please himself without disturbing fears of the gods.
His great distinction is, that he gave his name to a
system of life and thought as diametrically opposed to
that symbolised by the cross as the wit of man could
devise. The chief prophet and poet of Materialism was the
Roman Lucretius. He possessed a marvellous power
of clear statement, and his poem on 'The Nature of
Things ' is a most beautiful specimen of abstruse
reasoning clothed in a literary form. He was not,
strictly speaking, the author of the theories he pro
pounded and adorned, but they may be best discussed
in connection with his work, and may for brevity be
spoken of as his.
The chief aim which Lucretius set before himsel
was not the scientific elucidation of trut h for its own
sake, but the emancipation of mankind from the tyranny
of all painful and perturbing ideas. He saw that the
religious beliefs of his countrymen were a source of
neither solace nor courage, but rather of cowardly fears.
The gods of Greece and Rome did not deter their wor
shippers from crime, yet filled them with gloomy antici
pations of future torment. Whether he believed there
really were such beings is doubtful. He apostrophized
them freely in his poem, but this may have been simply
for embellishment or as a concession to popular super
stitions. Whether superhuman beings existed or not,
he affirmed and laboured to prove that they neither

Materialism.

n

produced the system of nature nor could destroy it, and
that after death man would simply be dissolved into
the atoms of which he was composed. Death, he
reasoned, need have no dreadfulness to those who,
when life fails, will simply, cease to be, or, as a modern
Lucretian puts it, will have melted, 'like streaks of
morning cloud,' ' into the infinite azure of the past.'
The first principles of Lucretius are these : ' That
nothing is ever divinely generated from nothing.'
' Nature resolves each thing into its own constituent
elements, and does not reduce anything to nothing.'
' Nature carries on her operations by imperceptible
particles.' ' These bodies which completely fill
space can neither be broken in pieces . . . nor
again can be decomposed.' 'The primary atoms are
solid and without void. They must of necessity be
eternal.' ' There is space intangible, empty, and
vacant. If this were not the case, things could by
no means be moved, for that which is the quality of
body, viz., to obstruct and to oppose, would be present
at all times, and would be exerted against all bodies.'
' This space is unbounded by extremities.' ' No third
nature, therefore, distinct in itself, besides vacant
space, can possibly be left undiscovered in the sum of
things ; no third kind of being which can at any time
fall under the notice of the senses, or which anyone
can find out by the exercise of his reason.' ' Whatso
ever other things are said to be, you will find them to
be either necessary adjuncts of these two things or
accidents of them.'*
So far as these principles go they are maintained
* Lucretius 'On the Nature of Things,' Book I.

12 The Mystery of God.
substantially by modern writers, who state the evolution
theory in a Materialistic form. They affirm these atoms
to exist, and discern in them ' the promise and potency
of all terrestrial life.' Professor Tyndall quotes with
approbation the words of Lucretius: 'Nature is seen
to do all things spontaneously of herself without the
meddling of the gods.'* This opinion will have to bear
closer criticism later on ; but it must be remarked here
that the existence of these atoms was only inferred by
Lucretius, and they still remain outside the range of
verified knowledge. They are the objects of faith to
the Materialist, for no man ever saw one. Sir W.
Thomson holds, in opposition to the atomic theory,
that the primary substance is a perfect fluid, which fills
all space without any void being left. He thinks that
atoms are only the rotating portions of this fluid ; and
this theory is sustained by some of the most exquisite
mathematical calculations and experiments in what is
called vortex motion. I offer no opinion on the merits
of these rival theories. A few generations hence, per
haps, the question will be settled. Meanwhile, let us
remember that the atomic theory is theory only and
not scientific knowledge. The Materialist can no
more show us an atom or a primary fluid than the
Theist can show us God. No man by his senses can
perceive the one or the other. All he can rightly say
of either is ' I believe.' The most dogmatic creeds
produced by Christendom are not so presumptuous as
to say, ' I know.' It were well if all professors of
science were as diffident, when their teachings are
carried beyond the limits of demonstration.
* ' Belfast Address,' p. 55.

Materialism. 1 3
Assuming the . existence of atoms strewn over in
finite space, Lucretius had still to show how they
came together, to make a beginning of organized
nature. Here he encountered the tremendous problem
of accounting for motion without a mover. He knew of
motion caused by one body striking on another; but
this left unanswered the question, 'What caused the
body to move?' Space could not do it, and he had
denied the existence of anything but void space and
atoms ; therefore he had to boldly say it was the
property of atoms to move. He knew the law of
gravitation in a loose kind of way — i.e., he knew that
all bodies fall by their own weight until sustained by
something solid. Therefore, like Democritus, he
.pictured the earliest state of things as a sort of infinite
cataract of atoms falling in infinite space. The ab
surdity of this from a modern point of view need
scarcely be stated. There is of course no up and no
down in space. ' Up ' to us simply means away from
our earthly centre of gravity, and ' down ' the reverse.
The only lines of up and down therefore with which we
are acquainted are not parallel lines, as Lucretius
supposed, but the radii of a circle running outwards in
every possible direction into space. Lucretius, how
ever, although unsuccessful, exhibits much ingenuity
in trying to get his atoms into motion and collision.
Democritus had said that, falling through a vacuum in
a straight line, the larger atoms went faster than the
small, and so collided, and went whirling round and
round until they mingled and formed worlds* But
Aristotle, with all his errors in physics, was able to
point out that in a perfect vacuum, which of course

14 The Mystery of God.
offers no resistance, large and small bodies would fall
at the same rate, and so would never touch. Lucretius
admitted this ; ' but,' said he, ' the atoms do not fall in
perfectly straight lines.' To meet the criticism of those
who said, ' This is contrary to observation,' he frankly
admitted that it was so, as far as heavy and visible
bodies are concerned, but denied that it was of neces
sity true of bodies so small as to be imperceptible.
' You may yourself see,' he observed, ' that heavy bodies
never turn aside without being turned.' ' But who is
there,' he inquired, ' that can see that atoms do not at
all turn themselves aside, even in the least, from the
straight direction of their course ?'*
This was the only escape he could devise. He first
invented an unreasonable idea, and then treated it as
fact. This notion, that atoms behave themselves when
out of human sight in a way which large bodies would
be ashamed to imitate when under observation, should
be very amusing to professors of the exact sciences. But
Lucretius is a warning in this, that assertions of ' what
is,' and what 'must be,' in regions that transcend ex
perience, are very dangerous things for Materialists to
indulge in, even in our day. It may indeed be well for
all of us to remember that while we have ancestors
whose random theories and rash assumptions we criti
cise, with now and then a little mirth, we shall also,
should the present order of nature continue a little
longer, have a posterity who in their turn will criticise
us. Another point of great interest and suggestiveness
in the Lucretian theory of motion demands a passing
* 'Lucretius,' Book II.

Materialism. 15
notice. Materialists to-day are all Necessitarians.
They are bound to deny free-will in man, because they
say that all his passions and thoughts are mere effects
of organized substance. The late W. K. Clifford said,
' A moving molecule of inorganic matter possesses a
small piece of mind stuff.' This is, of course, a mere
truism, from a Materialistic point of view, and hence it
follows by inexorable logic that you cannot have free
volition in man unless there be volition in the stuff of
which his mind is made. Lucretius was well aware
of this, and stated it as plainly as the English Professor.
But he did a fine stroke of business for his theory by
reversing the process pursued by so many of his
modern disciples. They say, in substance, ' There is no
free-will in atoms ; therefore there is none in organized
matter ; and as man is only organized matter, there is
no free-will in man.' But Lucretius said there is liberty
of action in man, ' by means of which we go whereso
ever inclination leads each of us.' ' Wherefore,' said
he, ' you must necessarily confess that the same is
the case in the seeds of matter . . . since we see that
nothing can be produced from nothing.' To most im
partial judges it will appear, that if either process be
more valid than the other, that of Lucretius is to be
preferred. He at any rate began by admitting the best
known facts in the universe, viz., those of our own con
sciousness, and thence reasoned up to the properties
of things beyond observation. Modern Materialists
begin with things we do not know, and thence proceed
to deny our knowledge of ourselves. It is also in
structive to observe that, unlike many moderns, he
saw and stated in this connection the absurdity of sup-

1 6 The Mystery of God.
posing that cause could follow cause in infinite succes
sion. It would far exceed the limits of this discussion to
describe the manner in which Lucretius traced out the
development of the present system of nature from his
free-will atoms. His' book is well worth reading, as a
work of the imagination, and also as containing some
thing more than the germ of modern physical theories.
In his observations upon the fear of death there are
thoughts which no man need be ashamed to ponder,
and by which many who have a little faith might be
rebuked. It is impossible for any generous heart not
to feel a strong measure of sympathy with this bold,
clear thinker, who followed the light of reason wher
ever its pale taper led. It is only just to remember the
debasing and fear-gendering superstitions which pre
vailed over the Roman world in his day ; how glimmer
ing and uncertain was the light shed on the Being of
God by such men as Socrates and Plato ; and the repul-
siveness and arrogance of spirit which characterized the
Jewish people, who alone inherited the sublime creed
of Abraham. No one who considers the surroundings
and opportunities of Lucretius will judge him as if he
had rejected such light as now shines from the teach
ings of Christianity. Lucretius had never heard the
words which tell of God as a Spirit and the Father of
our spirits, when he declared that atoms and void space
are the only things which exist. If, therefore, as Paul,
standing on Mars Hill, declared, God overlooked the
idolatry which men practised in ' times of ignorance/
He could not be less merciful to one who despised

Materialism. 1 7
idolatry, yet found not Him ' in whom we live and
move and have our being.'
For centuries the atomic theory passed out of sight.
The conflict between pagan superstition and pagan
scepticism gave place to a mightier battle, in which
Christianity assailed and grappled with them both.
Christian thinkers were able to ally their beliefs with
the idealism of Plato, and afterwards to employ the
logical method of Aristotle; but Materialism and
Christianity could not live together for an hour.
Through the middle ages there was but little fruitful
thinking. Philosophy and religion alike sank very low.
The dominant Church, departing from the spirit and
maxims of its founders, overlaid the ancient simplicity
of apostolic teachings and practice with semi-pagan
customs and immoralities. The very Popes and
Cardinals became undisguised infidels, and a practical
Materialism of the basest sort prevailed. The revolt
of the nations from Rome released the minds and
tongues of many, and unbelief as well as faith became
articulate. Still, the atomic theory of Lucretius found
no revival until the days of Gassendi and Hobbes, and
by them it was only held in a very modified fashion.
To call Hobbes a Materialist would be unfair, but his
writings unquestionably provided a philosophic weapon
for the hands of many who went beyond him after
wards. On the eve of the French Revolution Ma
terialism burst into power. Voltaire and Rousseau were
not, as is vulgarly supposed, Materialists ; but others
whose names need not detain us proclaimed, ' There
is no God in heaven, no soul in man's body, no future
existence.' Strange to say, while shrieking ' Liberty '
2

1 8 The Mystery of God.
as the first word of their revolutionary cry, these red
philosophers declared, 'There is no free-will.' All
readers of history know what terrible licentiousness
revelled under the name of Liberty, while defying
judgment under the plea of Necessity; what envy
and covetousness brought derision on the demand for
Equality, and what fiendish brutality mocked the asser
tion of Fraternity. To complete the paradox, it only
needed that Madness should crown itself as Wisdom,
and this, through the inspiration of Materialism, was
also done in the face of mankind. Vile women, flushed
with wine and passion, sat enthroned in the churches
of France to receive worship as the true symbols of
the goddess Reason, vice the God of Christianity de
posed. Under the reign of such a deity, the worshippers
became like unto the object of their devotion, and all
the sanctities of home and family were set at nought.
The chief effect of these excesses was to produce a
shuddering recoil from Materialistic principles, and
they found little philosophic expression in the gene
ration which ensued. But within the last half-century
advocates have sprung up throughout Europe who
have succeeded in forcing their views into a front
place. H. G. Atkinson and his distinguished disciple,
Harriet Martineau, led the van of modern English
Materialism ; and in their writings the system is boldly
enunciated, and its theological and ethical issues are
fearlessly discussed. Historically, it would be proper
to consider their doctrines in this place ; but it will be
preferable to postpone their notice, because the funda
mental principles they espoused cannot be satisfactorily
discussed apart from more recent speculations, and

Materialism. i g
also because it is advisable to keep the moral tendencies
of Materialism separate from its abstract truth or
falsity. We have now, therefore, to consider the
manner in which contemporary writers endeavour to
supply the defects and to rectify the errors which were
confessedly fatal to the atomic theory as propounded
by Lucretius.
We have seen how his idea of atoms falling through
space, whether in a straight or slanting direction,
appears absurd in the light of modern physics. No
scientific mind can endure the notion of invisible
particles behaving in a way which would be unlawful
for those that are visible. Neither can a sober philo
sopher impute free-will to these atoms, while regarding
them as the materials of the universe, in which law
reigns without variableness. How, then, are we now
invited to regard these atoms as coming together and
combining to form the things we see ?
Allowing the existence of atoms to be assumed for
the sake of argument, and also that they are the
ultimate forms of matter, it will be found that the
newest theory of motion amongst them involves quite
as much absurdity as that of Democritus or of
Lucretius. The law of gravitation, which upsets these
ancient assertions, is now relied upon to explain the
mystery in another fashion. This law, as now estab
lished, is, ' that every body attracts every other body
with a force proportional to their masses conjointly,
and to the square of their distances inversely.' Every
atom, therefore, it is reasoned, must be regarded as a
centre of gravity ; hence atoms would come together
of themselves. 2 — 2

20 The Mystery of God.
This is, no doubt, as obvious to some minds as the
free volitional action of atoms was to Lucretius, but
it is scarcely more satisfactory. If the atoms were
originally of equal size and equally distributed through
space, they would be equally attracted on every side,
and so would remain still for ever unless moved by
some external force. But the theory before us finds
force only in the atoms, and therefore has no external
source of motion to suggest. Shall we be asked to
believe, then, that these atoms are of different sizes,
or unequally distributed in space ? If so, we require
to be informed how these phenomena were produced.
If matter be a single substance, as the theory itself
insists, its divisibility must be uniform ; and if these
atoms are, as alleged, the smallest pieces into which
matter can be divided, they must all be of the same
size. If it could be proved that they vary in size and
shape, it would be evidence that they are, as J. C.
Maxwell said, ' manufactured articles,' and the atomic
theory is gone. The only remaining hypothesis is that,
being equal in size, they were never equally distributed.
But then we inquire, what caused the inequality ?
Clearly not the force of gravity, for that could only
get to work among equal masses as the result of their
unequal distances, and cannot be thought of as the
cause of its own antecedent conditions. Therefore,
according to the modern theory, we are still asked to
believe that invisible atoms conduct themselves when
out of human sight in a manner of which no visible body
is capable ; or else we must accept the absurdity, from
which even Lucretius shrank, of an infinite succession
of finite causes, cause following cause for ever.

Materialism.

21

These considerations alone, when duly apprehended,
are absolutely fatal to the atomic theory as an attempt
to account for the universe. But for the sake of clear
ness it may be desirable to present the same thought in
a different form.
Recent discussions have necessitated a distinction
between Force and Energy.* The two terms may
appear to many quite synonymous. There are, how
ever, two distinct ideas which need naming apart, and
these terms are now devoted to this purpose in scientific
terminology. Energy signifies the power of doing
work, in whatever that power may consist. Force is
strictly only a name for the rate at which some agent
possessed of energy does work. It is, as Professor Tait
puts it, no more a real entity than the bank rate oi
interest is actual money. If bodies move towards
one another, it is because some energy is at work to
set them moving, and force is the rate at which they
work. The question we are considering, then, must
be put anew in this form : * What is the energy which
moves all bodies in the manner stated by the law
of gravity ?' Is it resident in the atoms, or is it
external to them ? If it be not in them, the Materialist
° For a lucid exposition of the subject the reader is advised to
consult Professor Tait's ' Recent Advances in Physical Science,'
p. 338. Mr. Herbert Spencer, whose use of the word ' Force
Professor Tait criticises, has commented on the criticism in an
appendix to the fourth edition of his ' First Principles,' but he has
not answered the argument. Mr. Spencer will also be quoted to
show that, whether we agree with him or with Professor Tait, we
are inevitably brought to the same conclusion, viz., that the energy
or force known to us in nature is not the power which originates
motion or which can be thought of as persistent.

22 The Mystery of God.
has nowhere else to look, for it cannot be in empty
space. If it be in them, it must be either actual
(kinetic) or potential, and in order to answer our
question we must remember the difference between
these two things. Potential energy, as its name de
notes, never originates motion in any body. There
is potential energy in a stone carried up to the top of a
house and laid on the edge of the roof. But that stone
will never stir unless moved. Push it over, and its
potential energy will become actual, and in falling
down it will have a force which can be measured by
mathematical instruments to a nicety, and may be
roughly estimated by any passer-by on whose head it
falls. Potential energy is not the property of any body
as such, but is always due to some position in which
it has been placed by work done. The only difference
between a stone on a housetop which possesses potential
energy, and a stone on the pavement which does not,
is due to its position, and that position is due to the
antecedent fact that you have expended energy by
carrying it up against gravity, and that work is not lost,
but is stored up for future use. A push given to a
stone on the pavement moves it a few inches, and with
scarcely any force. A similar push administered to the
same stone when carried up to the roof will send it
down with immense force to do good or evil work
below. Clearly, then, potential energy never originated
motion, and can never exist except as the result of pre
vious movement. If, therefore, any energy be pos
sessed by atoms as such, it must be actual energy.
But here, again, physical science declares the thing im
possible. Such a thing as actual energy apart from

Materialism. 23
some previous work done is unknown and unthinkable.
The first law of motion is that ' Every body continues
in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight
line, except in so far as it is compelled by forces to
change that state ;' i.e., no visible body moves without
being moved. Matter cannot start itself, nor, if started,
can it stop itself, or turn itself aside. Clearly, then,
energy is not a property of matter as such, and cannot
be attributed to the primal atoms without an error as
gross as that of the ancient speculators. To say that
atoms originally came together because ' they are
centres of gravity is still to say that they behaved in
far-off eternities as matter never does when the moni
torial eye of science is upon its movements. The
future poet of this theory will, however, have a fine field
for his imagination, and will be able to clothe the hard
doctrine with romantic beauty by tracing the paternity
of all that is to the illicit love of two attractive atoms
which unlawfully came together. From this secret sin
of unwatched and ungovernable mites the world, with
all its marvels of order and all its joys and sorrows,
has proceeded. This was the true origin of evil, and
because matter is eternal there must be hidden some
where in the universe the first guilty pair, and as every
atom must possess a portion of ' mind-stuff,' it is to be
hoped they have long since repented of their transgres
sion ! Probably every devout Pessimist will pray that
when this feverish concourse and commotion they have
caused has sunk to rest, they may ' never do so again.'
This may justly be called nonsense, but it is none the
less a fair mythical presentation of the" current theory of
Materialism. It is a theory which, though seriously

24 The Mystery of God.
propounded by men of scientific professions, makes a
jest of gravity, and is well fitted in another sense to
disturb the gravity of the world. The energy known
to science never could have originated motion ; and if
the present laws of nature continue, all the energy
that is now active must of necessity sink down into a
potential state, and so the entire universe of matter fall
into a state of everlasting rest. Should it ever so come
to pass, all the energy which will remain in store will be
powerless to arouse itself and do any work. There is,
therefore, no way of accounting for a first motion, and
no hope of perpetuity for the existing order of nature,
apart from a self-sufficient and originative Power, un-
discoverable by physical methods, but which, whether
Knowable or Unknowable by other means, is a necessity
of thought.
Whatever errors Mr. Herbert Spencer may have fallen
into, whether in the judgment of science or theology,
he has clearly seen and proclaimed this fact ; nor can
this stage of our argument be more fitly concluded than
in his words : ' The force of which we assert persistence
is that Absolute Force of which we are indefinitely con
scious as the necessary correlate of the force we know.
By the Persistence of Force, we really mean the persist
ence of some Cause which transcends our knowledge
and conception. In asserting it, we assert an Uncon
ditioned Reality, without beginning or end.'* 'The
consciousness of an Inscrutable Power manifested to
us through all phenomena has been growing ever
clearer, and must eventually be freed from its imper
fections. The certainty that on the one hand such a
' First Principles,' p. 192 d (fourth edition).

o

Materialism.

25

Power exists, while on the other hand its nature tran
scends intuition and is beyond imagination, is the cer
tainty towards which all intelligence has from the first
been progressing. To this conclusion Science inevitably
arrives as it reaches its confines ; while to this conclusion
Religion is irresistibly driven by criticism. And, satis
fying as it does the demands of the most rigorous logic,
at the same time that it gives the religious sentiment
the widest possible sphere of action, it is the conclusion
we are bound to accept' without reserve or qualifica
tion.'* It need scarcely be explained that this passage may
be cordially approved without accepting Mr. Spencer's
views concerning the ' Great Unknowable.' In so far
as these are of a negative character and preclusive of
all hope of intercourse between the First Cause and
man, it will be necessary elsewhere to subject them to
Criticism. Our argument at present simply goes to
show that Materialism breaks down utterly as an
attempt to explain the existing order of nature. Here,
then, the whole subject might be dismissed, for if a
theory is unable to account for molecular motion, it can
account for nothing in this moving universe of things.
When it falls back on some mysterious but eternal
Power which Science cannot know, yet knows must be,
Materialism is gone, and the field is clear for Philosophy
and Religion to consider what may be known or reason
ably believed of this Power, and what our attitude of
mind should be in the presence of this Infinite Reality.
It will, however, be desirable to consider here what
0 ' First Principles,' p. 108.

26 The Mystery of God.
Materialism has to tell us concerning Life, and finally
to add a few words about its relation to Morality.
It is impossible to discuss the origin of Life without
dealing with the often battered words of Professors
Tyndall and Huxley. Neither of these gentlemen is a
professed Materialist, and it would be wrong to fasten
upon them any name or opinions they repudiate. It
would be idle, however, to ignore the fact that they
have stated the Materialistic argument more power
fully and popularly than any other writers of our time.
They are nevertheless entitled to receive fullest credit
for the reservations they have made. It does not appear
either wise or generous to pin them to conclusions which
plainly are not satisfactory to their own minds. The
next few paragraphs are not written to controvert any
of their statements or arguments. On the contrary,
we need ask no more convincing witnesses that matter,
as at present known to science (if indeed it be known),
does not contain life in itself, nor even ' the promise and
potency of life.'
When Professor Tyndall said at Belfast that he dis
cerned in matter such 'promise and potency,' he
expressly declared that this was not a scientific percep
tion. In the same sentence he candidly avowed that
in order to discern this wondrous virtue in matter, he
is compelled to ' cross the boundary of experimental
evidence.' His next paragraph opens thus : ' If you ask
me whether there exists the least evidence to prove that
any form of life can be developed out of matter without
demonstrable antecedent life, my reply is, that evidence
considered perfectly conclusive by many has been ad
duced.' But then he proceeds to indicate that in spite

Materialism. 27
of a strong desire to find a confirmation of his specula
tive belief, he, in common with other scientific observers,
rejects this evidence as ' vitiated by error.' His final
answer to the question quoted above is that these
inquirers after truth, himself included, do ' frankly
admit their inability to point to any satisfactory experi
mental proof that life can be developed save from
demonstrable antecedent life.' Professor Huxley's
evidence is to the same effect. In a celebrated article,
he says, ' If the hypothesis of evolution be true,
living matter must have arisen from not-living matter.'*
He does not conceal his wish to establish this hypo
thesis, and sometimes seems to speak as if • it were
already proved, but in the same article he confesses :
' There is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence
that abiogenesis does take place within the period dur
ing which the existence of life on the globe is recorded.'
While the prophets of physical science deliver them
selves of such statements as these, the notion of life
arising out of not -living matter must be regarded as a
defunct theory, or more truly as a theory of life which
has come into the world still-born. Science is ac
quainted with a time when life did not exist upon this
globe, and could not possibly have existed. The period
when it first appeared, lies not in a vague unknowable
eternity, but within ages which can be estimated if not
certainly computed ; yet with the most eager desire to
find the point of transition from lifelessness to life,
seekers return baffled by the contradictions of nature
to their hypothesis. Spontaneous generation is as
' Encyclo. Brit.,' ninth edition ; article, 'Biology.'

28 The Mystery of God.
much a dream as the elixir of life and the philosopher's
stone. This reference to Messrs. Huxley and Tyndall must
not close without recognising the candour of the ad
missions quoted from their writings. It would be
pleasant to think that they always wrote and spoke
with the diffidence that such immeasurable gaps in their
system might suggest, and many who admire their
scientific expositions would gladly trace somewhat more
of reluctance in their insistence on what is confessedly
only a theory, and in disparagement of a faith which
to millions is precious beyond price. Though not
Materialists, they have probably done more than any
men now living to make Materialists, and to disturb
faith in Him who is a Spirit. Comparatively few observe
the force of those occasional sentences which leave open
their own retreat into Pantheism, if not into Theism.
Fewer still read, or lay to heart, the words which have
now and then exhibited their scorn of thorough-going
Materialism, and at any rate, on the part of Professor
Tyndall, the weary longing of his spirit for some ' Rock
that is higher than ' we. While expressing these
regrets, and profoundly impressed as to the immense
responsibility which rests on these teachers, for the
undermining of faith in our generation, a Christian may
well feel some shame on account of the manner in
which they have been treated by numerous theologians,
and by many more who are not theologians, but have
taken upon them to speak bitterly for God. If Christian
faith be valid, the hand of One who healed the wound
made by an angry disciple in the garden of Gethsemane
is always busy repairing the injuries wrought by ignor-

Materialism. 29
ant zeal in His name, and a vast majority of Christians
in our day would pray to have it so. How much Pro
fessor Tyndall has suffered under the treatment he has
occasionally received, and yet how miserably Material
ism or any other godless theory fails to appease his
nature, will be seen in these words, which no right -
souled man can read without respectful sympathy :
' When standing in the spring time and looking upon
the sprouting foliage, the lilies of the field, and sharing
the general joy of opening life, I have often asked
myself whether there is no power, being, or thing, in
the universe, whose knowledge of that of which I am
so ignorant is greater than mine. I have said to myself,
Can it be possible that man's knowledge is the greatest
knowledge, that man's life is the highest life? My
friends, the profession of that Atheism with which I
am sometimes so lightly charged would, in my case, be
an impossible answer to this question : only slightly
preferable to that fierce and distorted Theism which
I have lately had reason to know still reigns rampant
in some minds, as the survival of a more ferocious
age.'* ' In connection with the charge of Atheism, I would
make one remark. Christian men are proved by their
writings to have their hours of weakness and of doubt,
as well as their hours of strength and conviction ; and
men like myself share, in their own way, these varia
tions of mood and tense. Were the religious views of
many of my assailants the only alternative ones, I do
not know how strong the claims of the doctrine of
0 Lecture on ' Crystals and Molecular Force,' appended to the
Belfast Address, pp. 81, 82. Delivered October, 1874.

30 The Mystery of God.
" Material Atheism " upon my allegiance might be.
Probably they would be very strong. But as it is, I
have noticed during years of self-observation that it is
not in hours of clearness and vigour that this doctrine
commends itself to my mind ; that in the hours of
stronger and healthier thought it ever dissolves and
disappears, as offering no solution of the mystery in
which we dwell and of which we form a part.'*
In the historical review of Materialism, the immoral
tendencies of the system were of necessity alluded to ;
but in discussing the theory these tendencies have not
been relied upon to prove it false. There are many
who would rather trust the dictates of their moral
nature than the conclusions of their reason, and a great
deal might be said in their favour. It has seemed
preferable to keep the abstract question, as far as
possible, separate from practical tendencies ; but it
must not be overlooked that the theory which on purely
evidential grounds has been found baseless, would, if
established, provide no basis for any sort of morality.
This has often been strenuously denied, but it has also
been sorrowfully admitted by some of its advocates,
and scornfully exulted in by others. That there may
be and are Materialists of exemplary character may be
cheerfully admitted. But it would be dangerous work
for them to challenge attention as representatives of
their theory. The moral tastes and habits of men are
governed far more by the quality of their early training
than by the theories— especially scientific theories-
adopted in later life. Those, moreover, who live in a
° ' Belfast Address,' Preface to fifth thousand, p. 36.

Materialism. 31
social atmosphere, and under pressure of opinions,
formed by centuries of Christian influence, are not to
be regarded as samples of the manhood Materialism
would produce if it prevailed in a nation for two or
three generations. When an Englishman migrates to
a sultry and insalubrious climate, he carries with him
an amount of physical energy which surprises the
natives. But, staying there and rearing up a family, he
has the pain of seeing his children conforming to the
native type, and a third generation will have but little
to boast of in the way of British vigour. It will be
wiser, then, and more satisfactory to all parties, to leave
personal characters undiscussed, except where history
may permit a fair induction of facts.
What have Materialists who have spoken out most
plainly said upon the question of morality? H. G.
Atkinson wrote : ' Knowledge . . sees good in evil and
the working of general laws for the general good, and
sees no more sin in a crooked disposition than in a
crooked stick in the water; or in a hump back or a
squint.'* Harriet Martineau, who accepted all At
kinson's teachings, observed : ' When we have finally
dismissed all notion of subjection to a superior law
less Will, all the perplexing notions of sin and respon
sibility .... the relief is like that of coming out of
a cave full of painted shadows under the free sky,
with the earth open round about us to the horizon '
(p. 219).
These are not isolated personal opinions, uncon
nected with a Materialistic theory of nature, but are
0 ' Letters on the Laws of Man's Nature and Development.'
By H. G. Atkinson and H. Martineau, p. 141.

32 The Mystery of God.
the irresistible conclusions to which it conducts. That
theory affirms, in Atkinson's words, ' that instinct,
passion, thought, are effects of organized substance '
(p. 6). ' Mind is the consequence of the material man,
its existence depending on the action of the brain '
(p. 16). ' For every effect there is a sufficient cause :
and all causes are material causes influenced by sur
rounding circumstances ; which is nothing more than
matter being influenced by matter.' ' Some men are
wolves by their nature and some are lambs; and it
is vain to talk of responsibility ' (p. 131). ' I am as
completely the result of my nature, and impelled to do
what I do, as the needle to point to the north, or the
puppet to move according as the string is pulled '
(p. 132). ' No man can make himself what he is not
any more than an eel could become a horse, or Lord
Brougham turn into a grasshopper' (p. 133). Ob
viously, then, both stick and temper become crooked
by the unavoidable action of molecular changes. Why,
then, should the temper be blamed and the stick not ?
What moral quality is there in either ? There is no
Materialist, however delicate in virtue and upright in
life, who can evade the inexorable logic of this argu
ment, as stated without compunction by Voght : ' It is
indeed true, free-will does not exist, neither does any
amenability or responsibility, such as morais and penal
justice, and heaven knows what else, would impose
upon us. At no moment are we our own masters,
any more than we can decree as to the secretions of
our kidneys. The organism cannot govern itself; it is
governed by the law of its material combination. It is
impossible to demonstrate the admissibility of punish-

Materialism. 33
ment, or to prove that there is any such thing as amen
ability or responsibility.' It needs no argument to show
that a system of thought, which logically issues in such
conclusions, is fatal to all ethics, and must in the long
run prove fatal to civil government as well as to private
virtue. There is no room for the word ' ought ' in a
Materialist's vocabulary. Our moral scruples are to
him an illusion from which it is the path of peace and
pleasantness to hasten his escape. Authority, divine
or human, becomes the most hateful anomaly in his
eyes. ' Hatred of God is the beginning of wisdom,'
affirmed one. ' Our enemy is God,' shrieked another.
If any Materialist draws back with loathing from these
revolting utterances, he is no doubt a better man, but
at the same time he is a worse logician. Happily there
are inconsistent Materialists, as unhappily there are
inconsistent Christians ; but the moral value of the two
systems may be summed up in a single sentence : The
more inconsistent a Materialist is, the better he be
comes as a man, a citizen, and a friend ; but the more
inconsistent a Christian is, the worse he becomes as a
man, and in all the relationships of life.
Such considerations as these are of no mean value.
They are a sort of reductio ad homndum, warning us to
think carefully and examine well every premise and
every term of the syllogism. At the same time, they
would not suffice to alter a single demonstrated fact, or
to invalidate a fully verified conclusion. If all that we
hold dear in virtue, and beautiful in holiness, be without
any basis in reason, and if there be no such thing as
moral obligation, then we must let our fair ideals go, or
at any rate hold them merely as preferential thoughts. 3

34 The Mystery of God.
There is, however, no occasion for this sacrifice of all
that renders life worth living. Materialism fails to
account for the facts of either motion or life, and the
world may await with calmness the supply of these
fundamental defects. Should they ever be supplied,
there are many things to be said which the present
limits of knowledge render superfluous. Many earnest
thinkers anticipate an eventual formation of a complete
and unbroken theory of Evolution. When that happens,
it needs no prophet to predict that it will not be stated,
or utterable in the terms of matter, nor exclude the
operations of the Divine or the human will.
With such facts and arguments and admissions
before our minds, it would be idle to discuss the higher
stages of evolution as if the truth of Materialism de
pended upon them. Against the theory of evolution
as representing an order of progress, no Christian need
have a word to utter ; but on the other hand, as a
theory of origins, it has not a word to say for itself.
It cannot account for motion, and it cannot account
for life, and it cannot tell you what is the real substance
or the primary form of matter, or even prove against
an Idealist that matter itself exists. Materialism as
an explanation of the universe is like a theory of archi
tecture which can tell you everything about a house
except who built it, what it is made of, and whether
the whole structure may not be a phantom of your
own brain. In exposing the emptiness of such a theory,
it may appear to some that very little has been accom
plished. In truth, however, a clear and definite con
viction that physical science has not explained, and
cannot hope to explain, the universe, is just what

Materialism.

35

thousands of educated and uneducated people in our
day lack. There is an undefined notion, widely spread,
that a Great First Cause is a sort of extra belief which
science is able to dispense with. Hearts which throb
in sympathy with the prayers and songs of ancient
Prophets and Apostles are tortured by insinuations
which are freely made that they are clinging for com
fort's sake to a faith which has no foundation in reason,
and is not in harmony with the verified knowledge of
our age. Let them once see that the intellect as well
as the heart demands, as Mr. Herbert Spencer says, a
' Cause which transcends our knowledge,' and that in
this ultimate truth ' Religion and Science coalesce,'
and then, released from the haunting dread of being
' too superstitious,' they will entertain whatever beliefs
may appear most reasonable concerning the nature,
character, and manward relations of this Great Power.
It is not assumed because Materialism fails to establish
its fundamental propositions that therefore the Chris
tian ideas of God are entitled to our credence. The
position regarded as established in this chapter is, that
the contradictions of Materialism are not founded on
a knowledge of facts incompatible with the first prin
ciples of Christianity. All that we know of the material
universe is consistent with the statement, ' By faith we
understand that the worlds have been framed by the
word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made
out of things which do appear ;' and also with the
teaching of Christ, that He who made the heavens
and the earth is the Father of a spiritual nature in
man, and has been pleased to afford us some know
ledge of Himself.
3—2

CHAPTER II.
PANTHEISM.
Pantheism, as the word itself imports, is a theory of
the universe which regards the whole of it as God.
We look out upon an innumerable multitude of objects,
celestial and terrestrial, which appear to be undergoing
a ceaseless process of movement and change; but
behind all differences and alterations our minds inquire
after some wondrous unity. Our thoughts cannot rest
in the many. The Materialist says ' All these pheno
mena are the outcome of one substance called Matter,'
and searches after unity by reducing the universe to an
infinite number of atoms. The Pantheist says, 'All
these phenomena are simply aspects or modifications
of one substance, which is God. God is the Infinite
All, and outside the all nothing can be ; therefore, all
that is is God.' Some Pantheists say matter does not
exist except as an idea of our minds. Others say the
material universe is God's body— the Infinite Soul
dwells in the visible system of Nature as man's soul
dwells in his body. A very fascinating notion this, and
one of which many are rather enamoured who have
never looked critically into the philosophy of Pantheism.
They suppose it to mean that God is a conscious,
thinking, and controlling Spirit, superior to all things,

Pantheism. *j
and impelling and guiding them by His power. But
this is not what the Pantheist means. His cardinal
doctrine is that God has no existence except in the
system of Nature, and therefore He is not conscious,
except and in so far as we and other conscious beings
are parts of God. The analogy of soul and body, then,
which some Pantheists employ, must not delude us
into a false definition of our subject. Whether matter
be admitted or denied, Pantheism asserts that every
thing and all things are God, and God has no existence
above or independent of what a Christian calls the
creation. Isaiah places in the mouth of ithe Creator of
the heaven and earth the words, ' I am the Lord, and
there is none else; there is no God beside Me. . . .'
But Pantheism makes the universe say, ' I am God,
and there is nothing else beside me.'
This fundamental position needs to be carefully
remembered, for without it there can be no clear
thought on the subject. It is one of the most marked
features of popular Pantheistic literature that it freely
ascribes the qualities we associate with personality to
what it calls God. It speaks of the All as full of love,
wisdom, goodness, and other attributes of conscious
beings. But let no one be deceived. This is not
Pantheism in its philosophic mantle, talking to students
in the porch ; it is Pantheism with a shepherd's reed
and a garland of laurels, reclining in green pastures
and pouring out the poetry of its feelings untrammelled
by critical severities of speech.
Adopting, as with Materialism, the historic method,
we may wisely gather our knowledge of the theory,
and form our estimate of its value, by reviewing its

38 The Mystery of God.
various expressions and results through the course of
ages. Until recent years the Hindoos were looked down upon
by Europe as a race of senseless idolaters. It is now
well known that the gross idolatry which prevails
throughout India is in some way connected with subtle
and most ancient systems of philosophy, and with an
extensive literature in languages long since passed out
of use. Our knowledge of this literature is chiefly due
to the labours cf Christian scholars, though partly to
a revived interest in their own sacred books which
the invasion of a new religion has stirred up among
natives of the learned caste. This knowledge, how
ever, is still very imperfect, and in dealing with Indian
religious thought, the inquirer has continually to deplore
the lack of clear historic and biographic details such
as are available in the study of Grecian philosophy.
It is believed by many that a pure Monotheism was
the primitive creed of India. Without expressing an
opinion on that point, we may start our review with
the religious condition exhibited in some of the older
Vedic hymns. This appears to be a very simple
worship of natural objects, such as the bright sky, the
sun and stars, the dawn of day, clouds, rivers, trees,
and indeed all the varied forms of external nature.
These objects became gradually associated in poetry
and popular belief with personalities mystically con
nected with them, just as the same process can be
traced in Greece and even among the Hebrews. This
veneration easily led to image-worship, and as the
feeling of awe is in human nature always blended with
feelings of guilt and fear, sacrificial rites and cruel

Pantheism. 39
customs inevitably arose. Polytheism, the worship 01
' the many ' as gods, never did and never could satisfy
earnest and profound thinkers. Such men incessantly
asked, ' How came these many gods into being ?'
' What relation do they bear to one another, and to the
world, past, present, and future ?'
Groping for a common cause and a bond of unity,
these early thinkers conceived that behind the many
gods there must be One, and by abstract reasonings
they concluded that this One Being must be the sub
stance of all that is. Then came this metaphysical
puzzle : If an Infinite Being exists, how can anything
else exist ? ' Something else ' means something move,
but there cannot be more than what is infinite ; ergo,
there is only One Being. We cannot be surprised at
this confusion of mind, for similar feats of reasoning
have been common, and are not unknown in modern
England. The puzzle is really a verbal one. There
may be many infinities of various kinds, none displacing
the others. Infinite time may co-exist with infinite
space. Mind, as conceived by most English thinkers,
does not displace matter in space. Infinite love does
not exclude infinite wisdom, nor does power exclude
goodness. Again, infinite substance may have many
attributes, and possess them without limitation of
degree. Those attributes may surely include power to
create worlds, which, because created, are not necessary
or self-existent, and might pass away and leave their
maker undiminished. Those attributes may also
include power to call into existence many conscious
beings capable of education and discipline. In fact, to
say there is an Infinite Being, but to deny it these

40 The Mystery of God.
powers, is to utter a contradiction; it is to imagine
what is finite and call it infinite. Having the sublime
Biblical idea of God in mind, we can probably see this
without much difficulty; but these ancient Hindoo
sages were unable by wisdom to find out God, and
they declared with confidence, ' All that is is one,' and
called this one Brahma.
But having found their Brahma, their Pan, their
absolute Being, what was to be done with the many ?
Not a few philosophers have disposed of an external
world to their own relief by declaring it only a vision
of the mind, and without objective existence. But this
leaves the thinker free to regard himself as real, and to
say, ' I think; therefore I am.' But such half-measures
did not satisfy the ' intellectual seriousness ' of these
Hindoos. If a single man could say, ' I am, but all
outside me is ideal, a mere phantasm of my own mind,'
that man must either be Brahma, or something more
than Brahma. But he could not be Brahma, for per
fect being can have no illusions. Therefore, either
Brahma must be denied, or the thinker must deny him
self. Their great difficulty lay in the fact of man's
self-consciousness. Each man looked out on the uni
verse and divided it into two parts, the ' I ' and the
' not I.' This, of course, is what we all do. It is not
vanity or folly which cuts up everything into two such
unequal parts ; it is a necessity of thought. The thinker
knows himself, or thinks that he does, and views all
other things and beings as objects outside. What then
could be done with this stubborn difficulty of countless
beings, each conscious of a separate existence ? They
dealt with it in a most drastic manner. The universe

Pantheism. 4 1
was purged of all but Brahma in a sentence, ' It is all
maya ' — i.e., illusion. Consciousness is an illusion, and
it is the illusory cause of that huge illusion called the
world. Brahma is not conscious of himself — does not
know himself as we seem to know ourselves. Nor
does he know anything outside himself, for there is
nothing outside but illusion. He has no qualities, and
no attributes, and can cause nothing, for nothing but
Brahma is. The ripe result of Hindoo wisdom, there
fore, was and is, ' No thing is but Nothing.' We are
but dreams of dreaming which no real person dreams.
We are nothing, and the sooner we cease to have the
horrible feeling of being something the better. The
sooner the illusion fades and we sink back into Brahma
or the eternal peace of Nothingness, the sooner we shall
escape the tormenting deceit called Life.
Then why did they not commit suicide? That is
precisely what they were anxious to do. Annihilation
is not to the philosophic Hindoo a penal substitute for
hell; it is his heaven, and the object of all his aspira
tion. But then the sages of old were wise enough to
confess suicide a very difficult thing. It may be easy
for an illusion called a man to put an imaginary knife
into his imaginary body ; but what would be the good of
that if it only changed the dream and he began to think
himself a tiger, a serpent, or a snail ? This was the
philosophic view of transmigration. They believed
that men had passed through countless cycles of
illusory existence, and that death, except to the pre
pared, would only fling them into a repetition of the
most horrible and prolonged experiences. It was this
which gave eternal Nothingness its charm. It was

42 The Mystery of God.
regarded as the sole escape from otherwise endless
dreams of filthy and miserable animal consciousness.
Only from the human stage of illusion could escape
be found into repose. Suicide, therefore, to the Hindoo,
took the form of subjecting self to a course of mortifi
cation and solitary meditation. To attain absorption
into Brahma, the mind must withdraw itself from all
interest in so-called outward things. All ordinary
desires must be quenched, all seeming existences must
be contemplated as vanities and lies. Thought must
become concentrated upon Brahma, and then in the
course of ages of ever deepening repose, conscious
ness of self will fade away into the perfect peace of
the only true Being, which is Brahma, or absolute
Nothing. This philosophic Pantheism was the seed of Bud
dhism, but the soil in which the new religion took root
and flourished was that of a gross Polytheism. Such a
frosty creed as Brahmanism had no charm for the
multitude, and never did or could become popular.
The origination of Buddhism is ascribed to an Indian
prince named Gotama. His life story is almost entirely
mythical. The time when he lived is uncertain, the
earliest date assigned for his birth being 620 B.C., and
the latest for his death 400 B.C. Somewhere between
these two extremes there is no sufficient reason to
doubt Gotama lived and did notable work. The
general belief among Buddhists now is that he was one
of the highest gods, and became incarnate to teach
mankind the way of peace. Monstrous legends are
current concerning his birth and after career, and these
vary in the different countries where the religion now

Pantheism. 43
prevails. Mr. Edwin Arnold has put some of them
into a pleasing English dress. His 'Light of Asia'
gives the story of Buddha as adorned in the course of
centuries with miraculous additions. It is also adapted
to English tastes by a tincture of Christian thought
and Biblical phraseology. So far as the main facts can
be sifted from what is fabulous, it would appear that
Gotama was reared with the utmost delicacy and care.
An indulgent father surrounded him with all the
luxuries the Orient could furnish, and strove to conceal
from his sight the miseries of real life. In a noble and
reflective nature this led to a tremendous reaction.
When the woes of his fellow-creatures burst upon his
unaccustomed sight, they produced a shock which is
never felt in so severe a form by those who grow up
from infancy in familiarity with the changes and
sorrows of existence. The horror produced by the
discovery of disease, old age and death led Gotama to
hate life, and to curse birth as the parent of all suc
ceeding evils. The love of wife and child became a
torture when he saw the shadow of sickness and death
spread over their beauty. From all his splendour and
ease he fled into solitude, and there through years of
terrible conflict with doubts and passions he passed into
a state of serene superiority to his lower nature, and
was filled with a blissful faith in the attainment of
eventual peace. The course of his own experience and
reflection taught him what appeared the only true rest
for man, viz., Nirvana, the repose of Unconsciousness,
and also the four-staged path by which that repose can
be reached. Filled with confidence in himself as
Buddha, the ' enlightened one,' Gotama returned to the

44 The Mystery of God.
society of men, and devoted his days to the instruc
tion of the people.
There has been much debate as to the precise idea
represented by the word Nirvana. Some say — and
their opinion seems now undeniably correct — that
Nirvana differs in no important respect from the
Brahma of the older creed. Others, of less authority,
and with manifestly deficient data, assert that it is
precisely what we understand by immortal life.
Among these latter must be mentioned Mr. Edwin
Arnold, whose views of Buddhism have probably been
more widely read in this country than any others.
We should not criticize a poem founded on myths for
not presenting strict history or exact philosophy ; but
unfortunately, Mr. Arnold claims in his preface to have
given a true account of the Buddhist doctrine of Nir
vana. He there informs us that he has a ' firm con
viction that a third of mankind would never have been
brought to believe in blank abstractions, or in Nothing
ness, as the issue and crown of Being.'* This convic
tion is probably shared by all who have thought upon
the subject ; but inasmuch as the popular Buddhism of
China, Ceylon, and Thibet is not supposed by any
scholar to represent the philosophic tenets of the
creed, Mr. Arnold might have perceived that the
acknowledged repugnance of mankind to abstractions
and Nothingness affords no criterion of what Nirvana
means to philosophic minds.
Professor Blackie, whose poetic fervour is so ad
mirable, devotes several eloquent pages to the task of
proving that Nirvana is the same conception as the
* ' The Light of Asia,' Preface, p. xv.

Pantheism. 45
' eternal Sabbath ' of a Christian's hope. ' It is in fact,'
he insists, ' our eternal life, and nothing else ;'* and then
proceeds to quote a few passages from Buddhist writ
ings to sustain his assertion. These passages are too
long for citation here ; but it is rather remarkable that
the word Nirvana does not occur in any one of them.
Buddhists believe in several stages of deepening calm
and peace . through which what we call the soul must
pass to reach Nirvana. These intermediate stages are
really the ultimate objects of desire to the multitude,
and it is with them that the bulk of their religious
poetry is concerned. It is idle, therefore, to quote
words as illustrative of the meaning of Nirvana, with
out its being shown that they really refer to this finality
of, being. It would be about as wise to accept a de
scription of Greenland as a scientific account of the
earth at the North Pole. But in addition to this
fallacy, Professor Blackie, though keenly alive to the
Western error of attaching a literal significance to
Oriental language, has been betrayed into this very
mistake while in the act of denouncing it. He has
taken such terms as ' life,' ' existence,' and ' the gate
of immortality' to mean what they would mean in
England, whereas they are often used by Eastern poets
and sages, whether Buddhists or Hindoos, in a mystical
sense, from which all notions of consciousness have
been utterly eliminated. As against these views, which
have been widely accepted in this country, and have
led many to confess themselves charmed with the sweet
' Light of Asia,' the testimony of Mr. Rhys Davids
appears to be conclusive : ' Buddhism does not
* ' The Philosophy of Atheism,' p. 148.

46 The Mystery of God.
acknowledge the existence of a soul as a thing distinct
from the parts and powers of man which are dissolved
at death, and the Nirvana of Buddhism is simply ex
tinction.'* Gotama chiefly departed from his predecessors in
India in his practical teachings respecting the right
path to Nirvana, or Brahma. Many of his instruc
tions are very beautiful, and display a profound know
ledge of human nature. His morality has been repre
sented as equal to Christ's, and his inculcation of self-
sacrifice as not at all inferior. When the spirit of his
doctrine is examined, however, it is found to be dia
metrically opposed to Christ's. The final aim, * eternal
Nothingness,' vitiated all the means to be adopted for
its attainment. He said men might escape their tor
menting sense of sin and dissatisfied desire, yet not as
Christ teaches, by receiving a richer, fuller life, but
through the extermination of all desire by a process
of emotional starvation. The inspiration of his teach
ing, therefore, is despair, not hope. He said, Fight self;
do the things you wish not to do ; render to others the
most repugnant and arduous services : but do it so that
you may cease more speedily to retain the slightest
clinging to life, so that you may most effectually stay
the illusion of individual consciousness. With a warm
colouring of Christian sentiment thrown over its cynical
and despondent spirit, combined with a judicious sup
pression of all that is inconvenient, the so-called ' Light
of Asia ' may be made to seem as pure as ' The Light of
the World.' If the one, however, be light, the other is
darkness, and the morality of Buddha is as unlike the
* 'Encyclo. Brit.,' ninth edition; article, 'Buddhism.'

Pantheism.

M

morality of Christ, as the Nothingness of Nirvana is
unlike the joyous life of the holy cities which in Christ's
teaching are the ' many mansions ' of our Heavenly
Father's House.
It may be well to repeat that the Buddhism here
criticised is not the popular Buddhism of China and
Ceylon, or of any existent people. The religion which
lives under this name is not a philosophic Pantheism,
but a gross Polytheism. People never want to become
Nothing, or to be lost in the ' Great All,' until they have
either thought themselves into a thicket of metaphysical
conundrums or sinned themselves into a sense of utter
and irretrievable ruin. What men long for all the
world over is a better life, and Buddhism has accom
modated itself to that craving. Gotama never wor
shipped any material idol or ideal god. The chief
sight in every Buddhist temple is now an image of the
great teacher himself. Chinamen and Cingalese look
forward, not to extinction, but simply to escape the
doom of going down again into the bestial state.
Short of Nirvana, therefore, the popular creed has
invented an endless host of happy gods, and the people
are encouraged to believe they may ascend to their
level and there abide, unless, indeed, when in that state
they should change their minds, and aspire to join the
elect in Nothingness. In China the religion has thriven
mainly through the invention of a goddess of Mercy,
who was just at the point of entering Nirvana, but
drew back out of pity for men, and consented to live
for their sakes. Hence its power has been not in its
Pantheistic theory of existence, which denies per
sonality, but in the presentation of tales about self-

48 The Mystery of God.
denying and loving persons who, like the mythic
Buddha, have surrendered their own blessedness to
save men from sin and woe. It is an amazing witness
to the fact that Pantheism is a denial of all that men
have most reason to believe about themselves, and a
refusal of all their natures yearn for now and here
after. It confirms the assertion of Christianity, that
the coming of a compassionate and self-sacrificing
Saviour from above is man's deepest need; and
Christian thinkers may cherish hopes that Gotama
and many- Buddhists have found that the true rest
for human spirits is not in endless sleep, but in a more
wakeful life, and that their passionate craving for love
and redemption has found a nobler answer than the
extinction of desire, even in the satisfaction of every
holy aspiration, by looking upon and resembling one
who is the image, not of Brahma, but Jehovah — not
the No-thing which is and is not, but the great ' I AM,'
the living and self-existent Cause and Maker and Re
deemer of men.
Pantheism first appears in Greek speculation in the
teachings of the Eleatic school, founded by Xeno-
phanes. His great aim was to disabuse men's minds
of ideas about the gods contained in the poems of
Homer and Hesiod. He declared, ' There is one
mightiest God among gods and men, like to mortals
in neither body nor mind. Men, however, imagine,'
said he, 'that the gods are born, are clothed in our
garments, and endowed with our form and figure.
But if oxen or lions had hands, and could paint and
fashion things as men do, they too would form the

Pantheism. ¦ 49
gods after their own similitude, horses making them
like horses, and oxen like oxen.'
It would appear from this extract that Xeriophanes
was not aware how much more commonly men had
shaped their gods like animals than like men. It was
a hard cut at Homeric theology, and one full of wise
suggestiveness for all time. As often quoted, however,
and paraphrased to discredit the idea of consciousness
and intelligence in the Supreme Being, it is a ludicrous
self-refutation. If oxen or lions had power to paint
and fashion things, and to conceive a god, they would
be what now they are not; viz., thinking beings like
man ; and their god would then be a conscious and
thinking being also, whatever they deemed his form.
Xenophanes, therefore, by this sarcastic argument,
fairly demolished idolatry : but at the same time he
unwittingly posited conscious intelligence as the essence
of the Deity under any form or apart from any fashion
or similitude whatever. Having got rid, as he thought,
of any sort of personality in God, he still believed in
the unity and reality of the universe, and, as Aristotle
beautifully says, 'looking wistfully upon the whole
heaven, he affirms that unity is God.'*
Having made this the basis of all thinking, the
Greek sage was caught in the same thicket as the
Hindoo ; for how could he account for the moving,
variable, and bewildering aspect of the world as com
prising many objects ? Having decided that all that
is is one, and that this one is permanent and un
changeable completeness of being, he had no room in
his philosophy for anything else ; accordingly, he was
* ' Metaphysics,' Book I., Chap. v. 4

50 The Mystery of God.
driven to say that the world, as we perceive it by the
senses, is unreal, and has no existence in and for itself,
but only for the human mind.
Parmenides followed in the same line, and Xeno
brought these ideas into complete agreement with
Brahmanism in all except terminology by explicitly
denying any sort of existence to the sensible world,
even as relative to the mind. His word Being equals
Brahma, and his ' not Being ' equals ' Maya ' — illusion,
and specifically the illusion of supposing, one's self to
have any Being. About the same time lived Heraclitus.
He is generally classed among the Materialists, but, as
already mentioned, he appears to have regarded fire
not as the primary substance but as a symbol for cease
less motion. Heraclitus saw that the immovable Being
of the Eleatics was no Being at all. It did not account
for the existence of the phenomena treated as illusions,
or for the existence of any finite beings to be deceived
by appearances. It failed to recognise that thought
is a process, and therefore involves movement and
variety as well as unity. Taking warning, then, from
the fatal mistake of beginning with an unchangeable
whole, which eternally excludes changeable parts and
changeable phenomena, he started with movement, and
said, 'There is no being, nothing really is, but all
things are in a ceaseless course of becoming.' Like
Xenophanes and his school, he distrusted the senses,
but for an opposite reason. They said : ' The senses
tell us that the universe is in endless flux and change,
but this is false, for Reason declares that the All
is everlasting sameness.' Heraclitus said : ' The
senses tell us the universe is permanent being, whereas

Pantheism. 5 1
Reason proves that it is not, but is always in a state of
transition, passing from what was to what is to be, but
ceasing to be what we say it is even while we speak.
It is all one, all God, eternally coming into existence,
but never remaining the same.'
This may seem nonsense to some minds, but there
was a marvellous force of reason and insight in this
thinker, and he has been followed by Hegel, whose
mysterious teachings are appropriately called a secret.
To get a glimpse of what this theory of eternal Becom
ing means, let me ask my reader a question : ' Do you
exist in the past, the present, or the future ?' You say,
of course, ' In the present.' But do you ? The time
that was still future when you began to read the above
question has become past — but then you are not in the
past ; the end of my present sentence is in the future
— and you are not in that. But no, that again is past!
While you take your metaphysical razor to cleave past
and future asunder they are blended together and are
gone. You are, and yet you are only becoming —
physically and mentally you are running out of one
condition into another, but are never stationary. So
it is with all things. The river is for ever running,
but the waters are never the same. The trees are
for ever growing, yet as ceaselessly they are changing
their substance and form. The stars are never for
one millionth part of a second in the same relative
positions in space. Light is for ever journeying, but
never pauses to be. The end of one state of being is
always passing into and becoming the commencement
of another. So Heraclitus escaped the inexorable
logic of the Hindoo and the Eleatic sages. He had
4-2

5 2 The Mystery of God.
found an ' All ' and a ' One ' which was also many,
a unity which was also diversity; and his daring
formula, ' everything is and is not,' when limited to
the visible universe, is one of the truest and most
useful deliverances that metaphysics ever produced.
It tends to harmonize the teachings of the reason
and of the senses, the observations of physical science,
and the abstract conclusions of the intellect. It is,
however, an inadequate theory of the universe. It
describes the process of the ages, but it cries aloud
for a beginning. It is an alphabet without an Alpha
or an Omega, a first or a last. It is motion without a
start, and without a goal, and it leaves unsolved the
problem, ' Whence comes the philosophic mind which
observes the ceaseless flow of the outward universe and
yet retains its sense of personal identity, and its con
viction of responsibility for things done in the past ?'
Behind the universe of change some everlasting Power
is a necessity of thought, and that Power must be a
very different sort of Being from the dead immovable
Nothingness from which Heraclitus scornfully turned
aside ; very different also from the Nothing which is
always tending to become something, but never attaining
to absolute Being, of Heraclitus and Hegel, his modern
child. The latest and most popular form which Pantheism
assumed among the Greeks was that taught by Zeno
of Cyprus, the founder of the Stoical philosophy. The
Stoics were very numerous, and consequently varied
greatly in their views, but held that there is a great
Reason or Soul of all things working in and through
matter, and having no existence apart from it. All

Pantheism. 23
things, including men, are parts of God, having
emanated by necessity from Him, and returning to
Him again by dissolution. There was, therefore, no
really independent life and no free will ; all was fixed
and inevitable. Like Buddha, therefore, they taught
that the wise man is he who detaches his mind from
the pleasures and ambitions of the vulgar, and holds
himself ready to escape from all miseries and misfor
tunes by death. Zeno, their founder, adorned his
doctrine by suicide, and this example was extensively
followed by his disciples, who thus showed how little
they had of stoicism in the now popular idea of that
word. Their morality, as Professor Seeley, himself a
Pantheist, says, was never much above ' suicide point.'
They were happier, however, than Buddhists, in this
— they were tormented with no fear of transmigration,
and, according to their theory, suicide was easy. In
stead of a weary process of striving to think about the
one which is nothing, and has no second, their road to
Nirvana was very brief. A warm bath with an opened
vein, a cup of hemlock or an inch of polished steel, gave
an end to all desire, and the wise man could thus at any
moment enter into rest.
It would be wearisome and useless to trace out the
many modifications of Pantheism which found a fleet
ing currency during the early and middle ages of
Christian history ; and without missing anything essen
tial to our theme, we may leap over a gulf of centuries
to Spinoza, who is generally regarded as the founder
of modern Pantheism. He is now known to have
copied largely from Bruno, who was burned at Rome
for heresy in 1600 a.d. There seems, however, little

54 The Mystery of God.
doubt that in his later days Bruno ceased to be in any
true sense a Pantheist. Spinoza may be allowed, there
fore, to give his name to doctrines derived in the main
from Bruno's earlier writings.
Spinoza fell into the same initial mistake as Xeno-
phanes and his school. Instead of beginning with the
observed order of nature and the human mind which
observes, and so reasoning up towards the unity it
is the business of philosophy to discover, he started
with a definition of God, and then had to make the
facts of the universe fit in with that arbitrary assump
tion. His fundamental position is that nothing exists
but the self-existent. Whatever can be thought of as
not being, has no being. Hence substance is one and
eternal. Anything created would not be self-existent ;
and as only the self-existent exists, nothing can have
been created, and the idea is an illusion. Everything
that exists is a part of God, who is infinite substance
constituted by an infinity of attributes. Everything is
but a mode of His attributes, which express the essence
of His substance. Hence there is no independent and
accountable life in man. There is no moral obligation,
no right and wrong, for all our thoughts and actions
are modes of God's activity. All our ideas of personal
responsibility and of a created universe are unreal.
Thus the modern Pantheist fails as utterly to account
for the things we want accounted for as the Hindoo,
the Buddhist, and the Greek. Having presumed to
tell us what substance is, and to call it God, he has no
room even for himself in his imaginary universe.
After Spinoza, Hegel, though unintentionally, has
done more than any modern thinker to diffuse Pan-

Pantheism. 55
theistic ideas. He was to Spinoza what Heraclitus
was to the Eleatics. He saw that Spinoza's self-
existent substance was no more an explanation of the
universe than Zeno's Being, and so revived the notion
of Becoming. He regarded Thought as the ultimate
reality (or God) which harmonized the two notions of
Being and Becoming. This is the true explanation
of his oft-repeated formula that Thought is the unity
of Being and non-Being. Universal history is the
necessary development of God in time. Natural objects
— worlds, men, animals, plants, minerals, vapours —
are all so many modes of Divine manifestation. The
goal towards which all things are tending is God
realizing Himself in finite existence, and especially in
man's moral consciousness.
We have now to look upon the latest developments
of Pantheism, and to see how it leads in Europe to
results not unlike those already seen in India. The
ripest and latest fruit of German Pantheism is Pes
simism ; and Pessimism is Buddhism stripped of
mythological ideas and clothed in European language.
Arthur Schopenhauer, the founder of Pessimism as a
reasoned system of thought, affirmed that Will is the
ultimate principle of all things, the one universal sub
stance. This Will is unconscious, but becomes conscious
through its very nature, which is to strive for life and
the consequent development of intellect. It can have
no peace until it becomes unconscious once more
through a renunciation of the will to live. This world
is a mockery, and is as bad a world as could be con
ceived, because it is just endurable. If it were a little
worse it would be better, because then men would no

56 The Mystery of God.
longer wish to live, and with their ceasing to desire
life, life would cease. He would recommend suicide,
but that is too strong an assertion of will to be wise.
The only real suicide is Buddha's self-denial — death by
the refusal to satisfy hunger of every sort. (The German,
however, presents a mournful contrast to the Indian
Pantheist in the manner of his actual life.) Progress
and human elevation are really curses, not blessings ;
for the more cultivated the mind, the more miserably
conscious men become.
With various modifications, a considerable school of
disciples now teach these doctrines. They earnestly
hope that the world will gradually reach a point of
misery when the whole human race will refuse to beget
children, or simultaneously put an end to themselves to
escape the snares of desire, and so the goal of uncon
sciousness — Nirvana — be reached. But lest this should
seem too consolatory a prospect, they all confess the
possibility, and some assert the certainty, that the
eternal substance, Will, will reassert itself, because
oblivious of its awful experience, and so the doleful
tragedy of the universe begin afresh.
But it may be urged, ' Surely there is no necessary
connection between Pantheism and these mournful con
clusions ! The theory is commonly associated with
men of refined and poetic spirit, of intensely reverent
and even saintly disposition.' I have no wish to over
look any of these facts ; but the men who answer to
this description are either not real Pantheists in theory,
or are devout and holy in spite of their creed, not be
cause of it. Whether we call the whole universe
Matter, or Spirit, or God, if it be all one substance,

Pantheism. 5 7
with no Being reigning over it and administering His
own Will as Law, there is no moral responsibility. If
we are all fragments of God, He cannot find fault with
us. We are of necessity what we are, and can be no
other. Our sense of choice and self-direction is a
mistake; we have no life of our own; we are but
modes of His being. When a so-called Pantheist
prays, he is praying to an unconscious whole, of which
he himself is a part. The offerer and receiver of prayer
are one. The worshipper and the object of worship
are confounded together. Self-reproach is absurd, re
pentance an illusion, sanctification a foolish attempt
to improve what is Eternal and unalterable, yea,
Divine. Some professed Pantheists worship Christ as the
fullest and best presentment of the Great All. But,
according to their theory, He is no more a manifestation
of God than Pilate was, or Judas Iscariot, or Barabbas,
or any poor vagrant wandering in our modern cities.
The repulsiveness of such a suggestion is the condem
nation of the theory ; but the theory itself is plain :
God is everything. All that is is God. Love and
gravitation, human hearts and tigers' hearts, and
things without heart, apostles, martyrs, saints, and
debauchees, are all modes of the One Being, and all
express, as Spinoza insists, some essence of His nature.
Storm, decay, disease, crime, all things, are flowing on
by unalterable and involuntary movement towards some
unimaginable future ; but the individual consciousness
is but a fleeting phase of the All, and will know nothing
of any glories to be revealed. We shall all, according
to this theory, be absorbed in the absolute unconscious-

58 The Mystery of God.
ness : Brahma is the goal of all Pantheistic thought,
and not a Father's House.
If further proof be demanded that these are irresist
ible corollaries of Pantheism, and that its real advo
cates know them to be so, however much disliked, it
may be found in Professor Seeley's book, called ' Na
tural Religion ;' the most noticeable attempt to teach
Pantheism as a religion in recent English literature.
Mr. Seeley so defines Nature as not only to include
God, but to constitute God. In his vocabulary, God
and Nature are interchangeable terms, although he
uses them in most fluctuating and contradictory senses.
He dismisses the personal God of Christianity, because
in his estimation ' personality involves mortality ' and
' a body.' He is aware that both Christians and
Atheists have insisted that Pantheism, by identifying
Nature with God, is resolvable into Atheism, but he
strives to evade this just criticism by defining Atheism
as the want of any ' Theory of the universe ' (p. 36).
If a man has a theory, and believes in ' any regularity
in the universe, to which a man must conform himself
under penalties ' (p. 27), he is a Theist ! If he believes
only in material laws, Mr. Seeley will not allow him to
be called an Atheist, although he may personally glory
in that designation. Of course, if such a definition of
Theism be admitted, the most dogmatic Atheist is a
more thoroughgoing Theist than a cautious Agnostic
who thinks there may perhaps be a God, but declines
to theorize ! Indeed, according to Mr. Seeley, Miss
Martineau was as firm and consistent a Theist as the
Apostle Paul, for she was quite as decided in her theory
of the universe. If the charge of Atheism can only be

Pantheism. eg
escaped by such reckless slaughter of language, Pan
theists are clearly Atheists in the hitherto received
sense of that word.
To find room in Pantheism for worship, Mr. Seeley
shows the same generosity to the word ' worship.' This
he defines as ' admiration,' sublimely ignoring the fact
that there are more religions of fear than of reverence
and adoration. So doing, he benevolently finds worship
in all art, however bad its moral tone, and even in a
voluptuary's pleasure in sensuous beauty (p. 95). How
ever fair and liberal this teaching may seem when
wrapped up in literary gauze and shone upon by the
footlights of fancy, it is unspeakably repulsive when
viewed in its naked ugliness and in the daylight of
calm criticism. From a writer capable of such offences
it would be a relief to pass at once ; but Mr. Seeley has
wide influence, and through his book must be placed
in the witness-box to prove against himself and his
school of thinkers the truth of what has been said
about the connection of Pantheism with immorality
and despair.
Take first the question of morality. We have what
we call a conscience. We are conscious of inward
strife between transient inclination and permanent
convictions of duty. We blame ourselves for one set
of actions, and are raised in self-respect by another.
Ages before men reasoned about the data of Ethics
and the evolution of moral judgments, the Hebrews
possessed a moral code which has never been surpassed,
and has proved itself salt and light to the world.
That moral code was founded on the principle that
man is subject to another and higher will : that over

60 The Mystery of God.
man, and so distinct from him as to be a Lawgiver,
King, and Judge, an Eternally Righteous and un
changeable God reigns. By this conviction men's lives
have been governed, and brought into a measure of
internal order and social harmony not otherwise
attained. But Pantheism sweeps away Lawgiver, King,
and Judge. We are all constituent portions of God,
and we act out the eternal laws of our being. Here,
then, is the crux. Can Pantheism escape this dis
solution of morals ? Mr. Seeley, with many evidences
of doubt and fear, attempts to show that it can. To
escape the charge of Atheism he invents, as already
seen, an Atheistic definition of Theism ; to evade the
charge of immoral tendencies he invents an immoral
definition of morality, and sends our consciences adrift
by sneering at ' conventional morality.' With a true
literary instinct, and with a full knowledge of an
English reader's preference for concrete facts, he stakes
his position on the lives of two men whom he calls
Pantheists. The men whom he honours with selection
for this high position are Goethe and Wordsworth, and
at great length he discusses their characters as men who
illustrate and adorn the moral tendencies of his creed.
This is how he writes of Goethe : ' As to the attacks
made upon him by the Pietists and the conventional
moralists, it might be easy to defend him in general by
denying that the religious mode of a given time and
place is to be identified with Christianity, or that
received proprieties are an infallible standard of
morality ' (p. 98). If this sentence only meant that the
German poet was impatient of Mrs. Grundy, we could
most of us endorse it ; but it is expressly meant to cover

Pantheism. 6 1
Goethe's impurity, unfaithfulness, and gross selfishness
in the treatment of women. After praising the poet's
industry and one or two other 'rare virtues,' Mr. Seeley
makes this admission : ' There remains the fact that
the idea of duty and self-sacrifice appears not to be
very sacred in his mind ; rather perhaps to be irritating,
embarrassing, odious to him.' Here, then, is a selected
model of Pantheistic morality, a man to whom the
idea of ' duty ' is ' odious ' !
Passing from Goethe to Wordsworth, Mr. Seeley
has no immoralities to confess. ' He may be called,'
he observes, ' the saint of the religion of Nature {i.e., of
Pantheism), on account of the unworldliness both of
his life and of his writings ' (p. 101). But here a pre
liminary question arises : Has Pantheism any right
to claim Wordsworth as its saint ? Space forbids a
critical examination of Wordsworth's religious views,
but it would be superfluous. Mr. Seeley is in the
witness-box ; let him bear testimony. After four pages
of eloquent and just eulogium of Wordsworth's cha
racter, he lets fall this admission : ' No doubt Words
worth's worship of the God in Nature was blended with
Christian ideas. A Christian faith in redemption and
reconciliation neutralized his sense of the evil which is
in the world, and preserved him from the Pessimism
which is the besetting difficulty of natural religion '
(p. 104). The saint of Pantheism therefore turns out
after all to be a Christian, while the poet to whom duty
was ' odious ' was an undoubted Pantheist. This is the
selected evidence that Pantheism is not unfavourable
to morality !
Let us now hear what this witness has to say about

62 The Mystery of God.
the terrible gloom of Pessimism which we have seen
gathering over the minds of Pantheists in India and
China, and Greece and Germany. The question stands
thus : ' Is Pessimism an accidental circumstance, or is
it the natural product of the theory?' Having toiled
through many chapters to prove that there is not, and
cannot be, a personal God reigning over all things, and
that the idea of his existence can be dispensed with,
without hurt to man's moral and religious character, or
to the well-being of society, the shadow of failure falls
darkly on his own spirit, and he writes words which
show how unable he is to rest in his own conclusions :
' When it is admitted that religion deals in the first
instance with the known and natural, then we may well
begin to doubt whether the known and natural can
suffice for human life. No sooner do we begin to think
so, than Pessimism raises its head' (p. 261); i.e., no
sooner do we begin to believe that science and art are
religion, because nature is God, known through science
and worshipped in art, than all light of hope fails, and
despondent gloom settles down upon the spirit. This
is surely a most remarkable admission on the part of
one who has written a book for the express purpose of
proving the reality and sufficiency of Natural Religion,
which is the admiration of Nature as God. But these
words are followed by many more in the same vein,
some of which may usefully be quoted here :
'The more our thoughts widen and deepen, as the
universe grows upon us, and we become accustomed to
boundless space and time, the more petrifying is the
contrast of our own insignificance, the more con
temptible become the pettiness, shortness, fragility of

Pantheism. 63
the individual life. A moral paralysis creeps over us.
For a while we comfort ourselves with the notion of
self-sacrifice ; we say, " What matter if I pass ? — let me
think of others!" But the other becomes contemptible
no less than the self: all human griefs alike seem little
worth assuaging ; human happiness too paltry at the
best to be worth increasing. The whole moral world
is reduced to a point ; the spiritual city, " the goal of
all the saints" dwindles to "the least of little stars;"
good and evil, right and wrong, become infinitesimal,
ephemeral matters, while eternity and infinity remain
attributes of that only which is outside the realm of
morality. Life becomes more intolerable the more we
know and discover, so long as everything widens and
deepens except our own duration, and that remains as
pitiful as ever. The affections die away in a world
where everything great and enduring is cold ; they die
of their own conscious feebleness and bootlessness.'
* Supernatural Religion met this want by connecting
Love and Righteousness with eternity. If it is shaken,
how shall its place be supplied? And what would
Natural Religion avail then ?'
' But still, if religion fails, it is only when human life
is proved to be worthless.'
It would be difficult to find in all literature a more
mournful specimen of conscious failure and despondency
than these words supply. Natural Religion, or Pan
theism, is of no avail to explain and justify, much less
to satisfy, the irrepressible sense of reality and responsi
bility which man possesses, or to place before him a
destiny commensurate with his unquenchable aspira
tions. It cannot avail to give strength to righteousness,

64 The Mystery of God.
or hope to endeavour, or to save the purest affections
from becoming the instruments of our most horrible
torture, when the grave hides the corruption of those
we have loved. Nirvana thus becomes the only refuge
and rest for those who have passed the few brief
years when bounding blood and the mirage of earthly
happiness exclude distressing thoughts about the world
wide facts of disease, calamity, cruelty, old age, and
death. The only consolation for the loss of Super
natural Religion the Pantheist has to offer is that
human life is proved by his own theory to be worthless.
Professor Seeley thus, in spite of all his promises and
assurances, brings his readers on the road to the same
black goal as the ancient Hindoo Sages, and as
Buddha, and Zeno, and the German Pessimists. So
the cold, dark night of discontent ever follows the
joyous day of nature-worship. The soul rejoices in the
light of the sun, and is lost in ecstasy as the western
sky burns into redness, and gleams into ever-changing
glories of purple and green and gold ; but these glories
are the beauties of fading light, they are the farewell
smiles of day. So passes the day-time of Pantheistic
worship, and the night cometh when no man can be
glad without a God beyond the setting sun; and in
that night where Nature fails us, and God is denied,
men do the deeds of darkness, and presently they learn
to praise ' the dead which are already dead more than
the living which are yet alive.' ' For the living know
that they shall die, but the dead know not anything.'
Voltaire once said that if there were no moral ruler
it would be necessary to invent one to keep the world
in order. The history of Materialism and Pantheism

Pantheism. 65
shows that he rightly judged the absolute impossibility
of any moral order without a Central and Supreme
Administrator of Justice, and a recognised basis of
moral obligation in His character and will. The
moral consequences of Atheism pertain to any theory
of the universe which excludes this Higher than man.
To call everything God is only playing with words.
Call the universe matter or mind, designate the
universal substance as fire, water, motion, thought,
mud, dust, or God, and it makes no practical dif
ference, for the phenomena are the same. If it be
only one thing, and so including ourselves, it is grind
ing out an evolution which no one directs or judges,
and which cannot be modified or controlled — all
notions of liberty are Maya. If there be no power
possessing the essential attributes of personality with
out those accidental limits which define each man ;
if there be no Father of our spirits, and we are
not so far separate from external nature as to be
capable of obedience and disobedience ; if there be
therefore no sin in what we call wrong, and so no
hope of correction, forgiveness, renewal of mind, and
sanctification from a Redeeming God ; if Nothingness
be the goal of our involuntary race, — then Buddha was
right and Jesus Christ was wrong. Then, too, the
German Pessimists are right, and so-called progress,
which raises the standard of endeavour, is an evil ; all
culture of the affections and the intellect is but an
increase of sorrow and illusion, and then, instead of
fighting the good fight of faith, to lay hold of eternal
life, it must be man's wisdom to fight the good fight
of mental and emotional suicide, and so hasten his
5

66 The Mystery of God.
passage into the Eternal Sleep that knows no
dreams. The only refuge from this inexorable conclusion — a
conclusion arrived at by the consistent Pantheists of
all ages and nations — is faith in God such as Abraham
cherished, and such as, in spite of inveterate tendencies
to fall back into Natural Religion, the Hebrew people
were disciplined to hand down as a heritage for the
world. That faith, purified, expanded, and adapted by
Christ to the moral, intellectual, and heartfelt needs of
mankind, is the only theory which recognises all the
sad and terrible facts of human history and external
nature, yet breathes into its recipients a spirit of power,
and love, and a courageous joy of hope. It is the only
system which teaches the abiding reality and sacred
worth of life, yet bids men sacrifice it cheerfully for the
sake of righteousness, because to lay down life in such
a cause is to gain life more abundantly. Of course, the
beauty and desirability of such a faith is no sure
evidence of its truth. Thus far we have only seen
the impotence of Materialistic or Pantheistic creeds to
satisfy the intellect, the heart, or the conscience of
men, and how defenceless they appear when the
weapons of criticism they have drawn against Chris
tianity are unsheathed against themselves. In future
pages the difficulties of faith in the God of the Bible
will be considered, and more positive reasons be ad
vanced for holding fast the confidence of so many
generations firm unto the end.

CHAPTER III.
THEISM.
The word Theism is really the same as Deism, but it
carries with it a different set of associations. Deism
(from the Latin word for God) was the chief form of
anti-Christian thought in the eighteenth century. It
was a theory which held the existence of a Personal
God as a conclusion of the natural reason, but re
pudiated alike the need for and the possibility of any
revelation beyond the works of Nature. The name
was thoroughly discredited by the issue of the ' Deistic
Controversy,' and no one now cares to fight under
that flag.. Under the term Theism (from the Greek
word for God) similar opinions are still held, but so
widely have circumstances changed, that these self-
styled Theists are now ranged on the side of Belief,
while infidelity has assumed more pronounced forms
of antagonism to all that is called God. In a future
chapter it will be necessary to examine the claims of
their religious system, and to expose the straits into
which they are driven when called upon to explain the
mysteries of God's moral government. Jews, Chris
tians, and Mohammedans, and indeed all who believe
in a personal God, are properly called Theists, and as
against Materialists and Pantheists have a common
5—2

68 The Mystery of God.
article of faith. They all agree that the universal order
is due to the will of a self-existent Being, who is pos
sessed of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness. In fact, with
the exception of a fev/ small communities and some
isolated thinkers, all Theists confess the God of Abra
ham as their God.
It may be advisable in this place to make a passing
reference to Mr. Matthew Arnold, who has laboured to
recommend the Bible to the ' intellectual earnestness '
of our day, by declaring the Hebrews' God to be an
impersonal energy. It is rather difficult to define this
writer's position. Dr. Hunt* claims him as a Pantheist.
But what sort of Pantheism is that which defines God
as ' the power not ourselves which makes for righteous
ness'? Mr. Arnold leaves room outside God, at any
rate, for ' Philistines,' and for an impersonal Satan, who
must of course signify in the Bible ' the power not our
selves which makes for ' unrighteousness. He must
therefore be more of a Parsee than a Pantheist, for his
system contains at least ourselves and two powers not
ourselves, the one evil, the other good. If he would
print a Bible, or, say, Isaiah, with his definition of the
Hebrew God given in extenso wherever the name of the
Deity occurs, it would be at least a literary curiosity, and
might do much to exhibit that old prophet's ' lucidity.'
Mr. Arnold is only peculiar in the zeal he displays for
purging the Bible of all that is distasteful to himself.
So far as he directly argues against a Personal God,
and against a miraculous revelation, his reasonings are
but a literary treatment of ideas more forcibly put by
other writers. Wherein he tries to show that the God
* ' Pantheism and Christianity,' p. 326.

Theism. 69
of the Bible is an impersonal energy, he must be left
to the reader's sense of humour, which is of more value
than either logic or metaphysics in detecting nonsense.
Whether a Personal God be credible or incredible, there
can be absolutely no .doubt that the Hebrew Scriptures
declare such a Being in the plainest words that man's
wit could put together. For thousands of years the
word ' God ' has been used to designate a Personal Ruler,
and Theists from the days of Abraham have refused to
acknowledge any image or imagination not possessed
of conscious Life. If writers choose to affix a different
meaning to the word, no one can prevent the incon
venience ; but at any rate this meaning is clear, and
in speaking of Theists, Theism, and God, the words
will be used in harmony with this definition.
Before proceeding to state the reasons which directly
teach that the universe owes its existence to a Personal
God, it will be advisable to define more precisely what
is meant by the term ' personal.' A great deal of be
wildering controversy has been caused by puerile con
ceptions of personality, and by deliberate attempts to
fasten on the idea sundry human limitations which are
utterly excluded from it in a Theist's mind. The words
in which Xenophanes satirized the elevation of man's
own image into an object of worship have already been
quoted. This satire has been repeated in endless forms,
and its general significance has been gathered up into
one dreadful word, ' anthropomorphic,' which every
anti-Theist feels it his duty to fling at the idea of a
Personal God.
There was some ground for the protests of Xeno
phanes and the Brahmans of India against the human

70 The Mystery of God.
monstrosities worshipped as Divine in their days.
These were not creators, even in theory, but only
creatures born in time and devoid of any attributes to
account for their own existence. But it has never yet
been shown that personality necessarily involves these
defects. Spinoza improved upon the sarcasm of
Xenophanes, about horses, lions, and oxen painting
gods in their own likeness, by saying that if a circle
could think, it would suppose the essence of deity to
be circularity. But this only goes to show that even a
circle, if it could think, would conceive of a thinking
God, only (perhaps) in a circular form. It illustrates
the extent to which we are dominated by the familiar
association of certain attributes with particular acci
dents of figure, but it also shows how easy it is to
conceive of the same attributes pertaining to a thinker
who may have any figure or no figure at all ; and it
also confirms the truth that only a thinking being can
imagine a God, much less be Divine. Similar mistakes
run through an immense amount of current literature.
' Personality involves a body and mortality,' affirms
the author of ' Natural Religion.' He does not attempt
to prove this, but, having acquainted himself with
all the persons in the universe, he assures us that
they all have bodies, and will die ! A fine illustration
this, of the new alliance between Literature and
Dogma !
Mr. Spencer denies the existence of a conscious God,
because consciousness ' is constituted of ideas and feel
ings caused by objects and occurrences,'* and therefore
cannot precede them. But who can explain what this
* Nineteenth Century, January, 1884.

Theism. 7 1
means ? ' Objects and occurrences ' cause ' ideas and
feelings,' and these ' constitute ' consciousness. Mr.
Spencer may be catechised by idealists as to what he
means by ' objects and occurrences ;' but, granting the
reality of these so-called external causes, we naturally
inquire, How do they produce ideas and feelings ? In
whom or in what are these ideas and feelings caused ?
Can ' objects and occurrences ' produce ' ideas and
feelings ' without an already existing mind to be
affected ? Can they cause ' ideas and feelings ' in a
vacuum, or in an organism which is unthinking until
mechanically acted upon by them ? Let the experiment
be tried on trees or dead bodies, and see what an
' object ' can effect by causing blows to ' occur.' But
as trees and dead bodies cannot enlighten us as to
their experiences, we will turn to our own. Am I, the
conscious self, nowhere until I receive ideas and feelings
from the outside ? Is not my existence as subject
postulated in the idea of certain objects affecting me ?
If not, it would be more correct, and far more explicit, to
say that ' objects and occurrences ' produce a conscious
mind, and not merely that they cause ' ideas and feel
ings.' This, however, would still leave on Mr. Spencer's
hands the question how objects can exist apart from
some subject to which they are related, and would open
the still more bewildering question how these ' objects
and occurrences ' became possessed of creative power.
When the imposing terms in which the dictum is ex
pressed are thus analyzed, no thought remains to be
discussed. One might as well talk about a telegraphic
operator, sitting in a room with instruments connecting
him with a hundred cities, as being constituted by the

72 The Mystery of God.
clicking of needles caused by electric currents, as talk
of a man's consciousness being ' constituted ' in the
way Mr. Spencer suggests. Object without subject is
a word without a meaning. There can be no sights
without a seer, no sounds without a hearer, and no
sensations can be stimulated except in a conscious
being. If there were ' objects and occurrences ' before
I existed as a conscious subject, they must by impli
cation have been related to some other subject. If
they existed before any finite consciousness had been
produced, it could only have been as related to the con
sciousness of an infinite Being. The argument, there
fore, by which Mr. Spencer would prove a conscious
God an impossibility, not merely fails, but lends
an unintended support to the position that the exist
ence of an Infinite Mind, who is a conscious Person,
is the necessary correlate to the thought of a world of
' objects and occurrences,' and shows that it would
be more philosophical, as well as more religious, to
say that the thoughts of His mind are the cause, and
not the effects of those ' objects and occurrences '
which make up the finite universe and its historic de
velopment. The fact that such a Being is not a metaphysical
absurdity may not prove that He exists. Some have
argued that it does, but few minds would thereby be
convinced. It may most reasonably be held to give a
strong evidence of probability, but even this may be
waived. What it does unquestionably show is that the
Theistic position cannot be put aside by saying that
the thoughts of many of the greatest men of all ages
have been unthinkable. The wav is therefore clear for

Theism. 73
a statement of what is really meant by a Personal God
in the discussion which ensues.
By a Personal God Theists mean a Living Being
who is not, like man, bounded by any bodily organism.
They hold that He does not depend therefore on a
system of telegraphic nerves as instruments of com
munication with the material universe, and yet He is
not unable to communicate therewith, having modes
which are as inscrutable as, though not more so than
is, the connection between a man's thought and the
movement of his tongue. They regard Him as un
created, but able to originate and frame an objective
universe : as absolute in Himself, but capable of
making and setting things and persons in relations
with Himself; whereas man can only discern the objects.
which are around him, and in the midst of which he is
placed. They believe that to some extent this God
is revealed in His works, yet is no more to be con
founded with them than an architect with his build
ings, or a father with his children. They hold that to
this God belongs the Eternal Power which science
declares must exist; the Wisdom which alone can
account for the order in which Power is seen to
operate, the Goodness without which infinite Power
would be an eternal curse, and the Spontaneity of
Volition without which power is only potentiality and
every other attribute must be sterile.
If these ideas be called ' anthropomorphic,' that
ponderous term may well be accepted by Theists as a
commendation rather than a reproach. If wisdom,
goodness and volition be eliminated from the idea of
God, nothing worth calling God is left. To say that

74 The Mystery of God.
He is not less, but more than a Personal Being, is
worse than idle, for it is equivalent to saying that He
is without attributes, and logically leads up to the
absurdity of the Hindoo Brahma. The attributes
ascribed by Theists to God are at least the highest our
minds are capable of conceiving. Man is not Divine,
but he is assuredly the noblest of things knowable to
science. It cannot be unwise, then, to search for God
in the direction indicated by a line drawn from the
lowest elements to the loftiest heights of known intel
ligence and power. The elements have no knowledge
or wisdom or self-direction. The waters cool and
cleanse us without being glad ; they engulph us without
being grieved. The winds fan us in summer without
kindness ; they sweep away harvests and vessels without
regret. Fire warms our homes in winter or burns a
martyr's body with equal indifference, and without
being aware of what is done. So machines work on
with the same precision, whether doing service or deal
ing death to mankind. The animals have scarcely any
power to discern the results of their acts. Among men,
savages are dull in intellect and contracted in sympathy,
but as mental and religious culture advances, man rises
in ability to understand his fellows, to wish for and
promote their welfare, to send forth his thoughts into
far-off lands, and to establish intercourse with foreign
races. He can acquire dominion over nature, and, by
skilled conformity, can command the laws to which the
elements are subject. He can conceive the idea of
unity and order reigning throughout a universe which
transcends his knowledge, and can rejoice in the hope
of attaining to some communion with beings of kindred

Theism. 75
though superior faculties. Shall we think it wise, then,
to go down again and liken God to blind forces and
undiscerning elements or abstractions ? Having climbed
the highest hill we know, shall we plunge down a pre
cipice to find the Most High ? Must we not still look
up in the same direction of our ascent, and say, as we
gaze into the pure blue of unmeasured heavens, ' He
looketh down upon these things. High as these heavens
are above the earth, so much are His thoughts better
than our thoughts, and His wisdom and goodness than
our own !' ?
To most minds such an idea commends itself with
self-evidencing power. History seems to show that
only moral reluctance or intellectual bewilderment ever
leads to its rejection when fairly presented for belief.
Professor Tyndall, whose words have previously been
quoted, is not alone in the confession that the theory
which would dispense with such a Being does not com
mend itself to the mind ' in hours of clearness and
vigour,' and that in the presence of stronger and
healthier thought it ever dissolves and disappears.'
J. S. Mill, whose anti-Theistic reasonings will be
criticised further on, was by no means convinced
by them himself; and if any reader should mistrust
his own judgment, let him be emboldened by the
knowledge that the arguments he is asked to pro
nounce unsound reveal the inward dialogue of a mind
resolutely set to face the darkest facts and most
forbidding problems, but are not the conclusions in
which he finally rested. Mill gave as the result of his
deliberation an admission which should prepare every
student of his essays for the discovery of many fallacies.

76 The Mystery of God.
' It must be allowed,' he observes, that in the present
state of our knowledge the adaptations in Nature afford
a large balance of probability in favour of creation by
intelligence.'* Such an avowal, from so cautious and,
by early training, so prejudiced a thinker, speaks
volumes, and probably rather understates the inward
persuasion of his mind. In this connection I may also
take an opportunity to quote a few words spoken by
David Hume which deserve to be carefully weighed
by all who are perplexed by his writings, and by the
writings of those scientific men who to-day repeat his
ideas, and honour him as the founder of their philo
sophy. At the time of his mother's death his excessive
grief was ascribed by a friend to his loss of all Christian
hopes, but he significantly replied : ' Though I throw
out my speculations to entertain the learned and meta
physical world, yet in other things I do not think so
differently from the rest of the world as you imagine. 't
A great number of arguments have been framed to
prove the existence of God, but only two will be ex
amined in this chapter : (i) That which maintains that
the universe is an effect for which no efficient First
Cause can be conceived except God ; (2) That which
maintains that the marks of order and adaptation
which abound in nature declare the existence of a
Designer. The argument which is drawn from man's
moral nature to prove the existence of a Moral Ruler
is reserved for separate consideration in connection
with the mystery of evil. For other important and
converging lines of evidence, the reader must be re-
* 'Three Essays on Religion,' p. 174.
X Burton's ' Life of Hume,' Vol. I., p. 244.

Theism. 77
ferred to works more exclusively devoted to this sub
ject. Theists sometimes lay it down as an axiom that
everything which exists must have had a cause ; and
thence draw the inference, ' therefore there must have
been a First Cause, i.e., God.' But such an argument
proves too much, as Atheists are not slow to see.
They rejoin, ' Then if God exists, He too must have
had a cause, and so on ad infinitum ; for a First Cause
contradicts the axiom laid down.' But the supposed
axiom is not an axiom at all, as Mill rightly observes.
It is not true that the human mind demands a cause
for everything. On the contrary, it can find no rest
until it discovers, or seems to discover, some self-
existent thing or Person sufficient to account for all
else that is. This discovery has been the main object
of philosophy from the time of Thales until now. We
only insist on asking for a cause when observing things
that have evidently had a beginning, and might con
ceivably never have come into existence. When wit
nessing a change in nature, we ask what has caused
it. But this only shows that we are irresistibly con
vinced that things do not alter or move unless some
thing is at work to alter them.
Hume's contention, that causation is only invariable
sequence, need not detain us. There is some ground
for supposing that he himself only regarded it as the
reductio ad absurdum of Locke's empiricism ; and Mill,
though sustaining it on abstract grounds, abandons it
as a profitless distinction. If valid, it would be more
fatal to science than to religion, because it would show
that every attempt to connect a movement in the

78 The Mystery of God.
physical world with its cause involves an act of
faith. We have already seen that Mr. H. Spencer recog
nises the existence of some ' Cause which transcends
our knowledge and conception,' and is itself ' without
beginning or end.' Mill makes the same admission,
but in a more guarded form, and advances various
considerations which greatly obscure the road to that
conclusion for his readers, and which, therefore, need
examination. He affirms, ' There is in Nature a per
manent element, and also a changeable : the changes are
always the effects of previous changes ; the permanent
existences, so far as we know, are not effects at all.'*
Notice well that expression, ' all changes are the results
of previous changes ;' i.e., every effect must have had
a cause, and yet every cause must have been an effect !
Here, then, he so defines causation as to involve an
infinite series of dependent and derived changes.
But, having given this definition, he cannot be
satisfied with it, and is well aware that the human
mind never can be content with what is as absurd
as the old Hindoo myth, that the world rests on an
elephant, the elephant stands on a tortoise, and the
tortoise stands on something else, and so on. In
the same sentence, however, the writer postulates ' a
permanent element in nature.' In so doing, he violates
his whole system of philosophy, but he cannot help
that. When asked what that permanent element is,
he can only reply, it is ' the specific elementary sub
stance or substances of which it consists and their
inherent properties.' Here, then, is a philosopher
* ' Three Essays on Religion,' p. 142.

Theism. 79
who protests we only know phenomena, going behind
the scenes to affirm that something really underlies
them, and that it is permanent, and has properties !
This, however, is not all we are said to know. ' These '
(substances, etc.) ' are not known to us as beginning to
exist ; within the range of human knowledge they had
no beginning, consequently no cause, though they them
selves are causes or con-causes of everything that takes
place.' Surely this is not very lucid ! In one para
graph we are told that ' changes are always the effects
of previous changes,' and then directly afterwards all
these changes are traced up to an unchanging 'per
manent element ' ! What would Mill have said about
a village preacher who ventured to talk like that ?
But perhaps Mill can tell us a little more about this
permanent element in nature. In the next paragraph
he slides the word ' material ' into use as an equivalent
for ' permanent existences ' or substances in nature.
It is an unpardonable sin in a logician, but let it
pass. In this paragraph he proceeds to ' analyze more
closely the nature of the causes of which mankind
have experience ' (p. 144). ' Whenever,' he writes, ' a
physical phenomenon is traced to its cause, that cause
when analyzed is found to be a certain quantity of
Force combined with certain collocations.' Let it be
carefully noticed that all observed causes are said to
consist of two things, ' force ' and ' collocation.' Now,
collocation means either the act of placing, or the state
of being placed, or placed with something else. All
causes, therefore, consist, according to Mill, of force
and substance, considered as divided in many parts,
and the' arrangement of these parts in space. Having

80 The Mystery of God.
thus- declared that all known causes contain these three
things, he proceeds to say : ' The last great generaliza
tion of science, the conservation of Force, teaches us
that the variety in the effects depends partly upon the
amount of the force, and partly upon the diversity of
the collocations. The force is essentially one and the
same, and there exists of it in nature a fixed quantity,
which (if the theory be true) is never increased or
diminished. Here, then, we find, even in the changes
of material nature, a permanent element, to all appear
ance the very one of which we were in quest. This it
is, apparently, to which, if to anything, we must assign
the character of First Cause — the cause of the material
universe' (p. 145).
Let us carefully analyze this piece of logic. All
causes known to us consist of at least three things ;
Force, substances (supposed by Mill to be material),
and the collocation of those substances ; yet somehow
out of this necessary trinity of causes we are asked,
without a word of explanation, to believe that one
alone — viz., Force — is the cause of the other two, and
so through them the sole cause of the material uni
verse ! Broadly viewed, this is very startling, and to
sceptical minds quite incredible. But let us do it the
homage of a closer inspection. Force, we are told, is
one and the same in amount in nature, yet the amount
of Force present in particular causations varies. If
this be so, we want to know why the amount varies ?
what causes it to vary ? Is it due to ' the diversity of
collocations ?' If so, we go on to ask, ' What causes
the diversity of collocations? Is it Force?' Yes, it
must be Force, for this is the First Cause. ' But we

Theism. 8 1
have already been told that only variable amounts of
Force can vary the collocations, and so ask again, what
causes the amounts to vary? Thus we get on to a
logical seesaw. Each end moves the other end, yet
neither can start of itself. Each cause is prior to the
other, and yet one is labelled First ! To account for
the material universe, Mill has, therefore, most con
clusively proved against himself that even if matter
and force are eternal, as he is pleased to assume, reason,
guided by experience, can find no rest until it discovers
a Power capable of so starting and adjusting Force as
to produce diversified collocations of matter.
The question to which we are now brought is this :
Have we any knowledge or experience of any sort of
power which may be thought to indicate the nature of
such an efficient First Cause ? The only thing at all'
answering to this requirement is the human will. Let
us see what help there is for us here.* Imagine the
case of a philosopher who, while gravely walking down
the street, feels a sudden sensation of pain in his head,
as if from a severe blow. Immediately after, he hears
a stone fall on the pavement at his feet, and sees it
roll away into the gutter. Even David Hume would
not hesitate to say, ' That stone struck me,' particularly
° I have not thought it necessary to trouble the reader with any
discussion of the freedom of the will. The argument in the text
does not depend for its validity on any theory as to the manner in
which volition is determined. Mill candidly admits, ' We have
nothing to do here with the freedom of the will Itself as a mental
phenomenon — with the vexata questio whether volition is self-de
termining or determined by causes. To the question now in hand
it is only the effects of volition that are relevant, not its origin '
(p. 149). 6

82 The Mystery of God.
if he found it stained with fresh warm blood like that
streaming from his own cranium. But then that stone
could not have come into that peculiar ' collocation '
with his head unless set in motion by some force. It
did not fall from the skies ; there is no cause up yonder
to account for its descent. But see ! there runs a boy
round the corner. ' He threw it!' cries a bystander.
The philosopher believes this witness, and goes in chase
of the culprit, mindless of any theory about free-will,
or molecular forces, or the value of human testimony.
Now, we can see that the said philosopher, when he
began to run, was provoked by a physical antecedent,
and yet the blow did not physically cause him to run.
There is a mystery in this which might detain us ; but
let us rather think of the boy, and ask how the stone
came flying. The boy's hand picked it up, whirled it
in the air, and imparted momentum to it. His hand
is a mechanical contrivance, which was moved by
sundry muscles, and they were governed by nerves,
and these were connected with the brain, and received
their impulsion from — what ? It is all mechanical up
to this point, just as the universe seems to be me
chanical until we get where Mill stranded us, crying out
for a first Master of the Forces. We can trace that
boy's nerves to cells in the brain, and out of those cells
there came, O ! mystery of mysteries ! an entirely new
train of physical sequences. But that cell is our
physical terminus. In that tiny chamber we are like
Pompey when he penetrated the Holy of Holies in the
Jewish temple, and said, ' These people have no God,'
because to his eyes it was vacant. Arrived at that cell,
we are like all modern philosophers when their thoughts

Theism. 83
pass behind the veil of the last visible phenomena of the
universe. Science, by killing the boy and lending a
microscope, can show us his brain-cells, but it can show
nothing to explain their peculiar function. We can
only return for further light into our own personal
consciousness, and so doing, no one will hesitate to
say, ' There must be in that boy a thinking mind, an
intelligent conscious life, which wills and uses his body
as an instrument ; just as I am conscious that I myself
am in my body, which is not me but mine, and which
I feel myself responsible for using wisely and kindly in
the world.' Our conclusion, therefore, is the same as
the philosopher's as he runs in chase. We are quite
sure that some waggish 'or spiteful thought led that
urchin to will ; and that imperceptible will — known to
him by consciousness, and known to us as an irresistible
inference from the facts of experience and observation
— that will directed the nerves, which stirred the
muscles, which moved the bony skeleton of the arm,
which sent the stone flying, and so caused that inert
bit of matter to do a philosopher an injury, which may
perhaps spoil the logic of an article on * science and
religion ' which he is preparing for some review next
month. It seems reasonable to suppose that we have now
discovered what we were in search of, namely, some
sort of power known to us by experience, which may
be thought to indicate the nature of an efficient First
Cause. What objections then can be urged against
the supposition ? Mill has only two demurs, and con
fesses that if these are answered the argument is
good.
6—2

84 The Mystery of God.
His first objection is, that Will as known to us does
not create Force, but only employs the force which
already exists in a latent or potential condition. We
can well afford to make the concession demanded.
Let it be granted then, that the human Will can only
use existing stores of Energy, or, keeping to Mill's
own language, of Force. That is precisely the power
we are inquiring after. Such a will would suffice to
give us those ' diversified collocations ' of matter, and
those various ' amounts ' of Force, which are required to
produce all the changes and events comprised in the
'cosmos, or order of the universe.' This is all the
present argument requires us to discover. Theorists
say, ' Give us Matter and Force, and we will explain
the universe.' We first of all reply that these stu
pendous gifts are not in our power to bestow. If any
man can find them, he is welcome to them, although at
present they are assumptions, not demonstrated exist
ences. For the sake of more clearly exposing the
weakness of their boast, however, we make these bold
mendicants a logical loan of ' Matter and Force,' and
say, ' Now explain the universe.' Thus generously
treated, it immediately transpires that they cannot get
their Force to stir their Matter, or their Matter, to col
locate itself without being stirred. Coming to their
aid, we say, 'Will could employ your Force, and
thereby adjust your Matter.' Clearly, then, it is as
ungrateful as it is unreasonable to reply, ' But Will can
only employ existing Force'! Mill's first objection,
therefore, is no objection at all, and unless the second
proves more real, the case, by his own admission, is
closed.

Theism. 85
The second objection is, that ' all the power that
Will possesses over phenomena is shared, as far as we
have the means of judging, by other and much more
powerful agents ' (p. 149). These other agents are said
to be ' chemical action ; for instance, electricity, heat,
the mere presence of a gravitating body.' There is at
least courage in this assertion. Did any chemist ever
find his materials develop spontaneous and eccentric
activities, such as we have seen emerging from a youth
of wilful disposition? Is he ever thwarted in his ex
periments by waggish and incalculable proceedings on
the part of his gases, so that he is driven to say
' There is some volitional sprite hidden in this retort,
and it is serving me tricks like a boy ?' Do electricians
ever find tokens of free agency in their batteries ? Do
astronomers tell us of vagaries or lack of gravity among
the stars ? Does a planet ever run for a change into
another solar system, or Jupiter, complaining pf being
cold, select an orbit nearer to the sun ? No ; all the
agents mentioned by Mill are well known to be mere
names for ascertained modes of motion, and they always
operate in a certain and undeviating order. Chemical,
electrical, and dynamical sciences are only possible
because these changes are regular and fixed. How,
then, can it be said that these agents share ' all the
power that Will possesses over phenomena'? Man's
will can tame and utilize these agents, although so
' much more powerful ' than himself. The chemist is
able to produce many startling effects which unguided
Force would never evolve. The electrician enables us
to converse with men through the Atlantic, and illu
mines cities and palaces, so that the night shines about

86 The Mystery of God.
us as the day. If Mill had waited for chemical agents
to produce ink of their own accord, or for electricity to
shape a pen, or for gravitating bodies to do the work of
the printing-press, that ' Essay on Theism ' would never
have been published. ' The power that the Will pos
sesses over phenomena is ' not ' shared, as far as we
have the means of judging,' by any other agents ; and
this branch of our discussion may fitly be closed by
the quotation of a few words with which Mill prefaced
the remarkable passage now criticised : ' If it be true
that Will can originate, not indeed Force, but the
transformation of Force from some other of its mani
festations into that of mechanical motion, and that
there is within human experience no other agency
capable of doing so, the argument for a Will as the
originator, though not of the universe, yet of the
cosmos, or order of the universe, remains unanswered '
(p. 148).
When the foundations are removed, it is superfluous,
generally speaking, to demolish the superstructure.
The remainder of Mill's ' Essay on Theism ' is vitiated
by the assumption that he has made good the positions
now shown to be untenable. If Will be proved the
only thinkable cause of motion and order in the cosmos,
it carries Mind with it, because volition is admitted to
be one of the three great mental phenomena, namely :
intelligence, emotion, and volition. There is no need
to cumber this discussion with any theory of what
'mind-stuff' is, but it may be desirable to criticise
Mill's argument to prove that a thinking mind might
originally have been produced by unconscious matter.
His sole reliance is on the analogy of Nature, which he

Theism. 87
declares abounds with facts to prove that ' causes can
give rise to products of a more precious or elevated
kind than themselves' (p. 152). If science can furnish
these facts we must consider their significance. But
where are they to be found ? Mill points to one very
wide class of phenomena, a class as wide indeed as the
animal and vegetable kingdoms together, and on this
he triumphantly rests his case, and esteems it won.
Consider attentively, then, his facts. ' How vastly
nobler and more precious, for instance, are the higher
vegetables and animals, than the soil and manure out
of which, and by which, and by the properties of which,
they are raised up !' (p. 152). It might 'be unkind to
ask what ' soil ' is made of, and to be very curious about
' manures ' ; but be it known, for the benefit of de
pressed agriculturists and bewildered cattle-breeders
in these hard times, that they only need 'soil and
manure' to produce the precious corn, fruit trees,
sheep, and oxen, which in their ignorance they have
been accustomed to propagate in a costly manner
from previous specimens of their respective kinds !
If our harassed fellow-citizens will take a note of this,
the farming interests will immediately revive, and
when privileged to see the plentiful products of this
economical process, we will with one accord admit that
not only are animals and vegetables, but that man's
mind also is the product of ' soil and manure,' and not
of a Living and Wise God.
So far, we have seen reasons for holding that a First
Cause is a necessity of thought, and that to account
for the facts of the universe that First Cause must
possess Power and Will. Our last thoughts lead us to

88 The Mystery of God.
a further proposition, viz., That the First Cause must
have been possessed of Wisdom. This brings us to
what is popularly known as the argument from Design
in Nature, but is more accurately stated as an argument
from marks of adaptation and order to a Designer.
This argument fell out of use for a time ; but Science
is every day supplying new illustrations of its cogency,
and even the language of Darwin has no meaning
unless Nature is the work of One who adapts means to
ends with foresight and wisdom.
To state this argument aright would require a survey
of the Universe. There is nothing unreasonable in
nature when sufficiently examined. All things have
their use, and many things are useful to other things in
the most remote parts of space, and through measure
less cycles of time. The gas-light which illumines our
houses and streets is due to the energy of the sun
millions of miles away, and millions of years ago. The
soil in which we sow our seeds is able to nourish them
because enriched through millenniums of apparently
wasted life and useless death. ' The heavens no longer
declare the glory of God,' exclaimed an Atheist, ' but
the glory of Hipparchus, Kepler and Newton.' Yet
unimaginable ages before man entered this little infant-
school we call our world, the stars were rushing in their
spheres, globe circling round globe, system whirling
round system with faultless truth, so that astronomical
days, and weeks, and years, made up of thousands like
our own, are marked with an exactitude no chrono
meters approach. Before a mathematician began to
calculate the universe was constructed on principles so
perfect that man's most marvellous science is merely

Theism. 89
their discovery ; and so complex that the skill of those
half-dozen men who stand alone in their mathematical
attainments is confessedly incompetent to resolve some
of the most elementary problems they present. Is
it conceivable then that no mind was engaged in the
production of this which only mind can contemplate
and admire ? Is it reasonable to suppose that we late
comers on this insignificant planet are the wisest beings
in the universe? Had these wonders never been
surveyed until men made telescopes ? Is there no one
mind to whom the general order is known in its unity
and vastness ? Great is the credulity of those who can
presume to say ' No ' to these questions.
It would greatly add to the interest and impressive
ness of the argument to consider some of the special
adaptations which abound in nature. The human eye
viewed in conjunction with the phenomena of light and
the great luminaries in the distant heavens might
furnish materials for volumes. Every organ in man's
body is a marvel that might repay a lifetime spent in
study. Every animal that exists is a mystery of skill,
and every plant that grows a sign and wonder. Our
object, however, would not be gained if we culled some
fascinating beauties of modern discovery, and said,
' Behold the marks of a Divine Artificer!' Presuming
that the reader is acquainted with such facts, our little
remaining space must be devoted to the more prosaic
task of answering some objections which are urged
against the Theistic inference.
It is objected by Mill to this argument that it proves
ihe Designer to be the Former, not the Creator of the
substance of the universe. The reply is obvious. It

90 The Mystery of God.
was not intended to prove more. The Theist, whether
Christian or not, is not called upon to deny the eternity
of matter. ' By faith we understand that the worlds
have been framed by the word of God, so that what is
seen hath not been made out of things that do appear '
(Heb. xi. 3). This is all that Theism is obliged to
assert, and all that Christians are called upon by their
Scriptures to believe.
Again, Mill urges that this argument does not prove
the Maker of the universe Infinite. Perhaps not. It
can only logically prove the Maker to be capable of
making the universe which has been made, and that is
all we want. If anyone can define and delimit the
universe, he may then proceed to delimit its Maker.
When the first work has been accomplished, we will,
if alive, discuss the second. Meanwhile our knowledge
of the universe is, as Carlisle said, something like the
knowledge of the ocean possessed by a minnow in his
native creek. The universe itself is infinite to our
minds, but given a Being capable of producing even
what is known, an attempt to set bounds to His Wisdom
and Power would scarcely be a mark of sagacity.
A third objection is more extraordinary. Mill affirms
that marks of Design are a proof of weakness in their
maker. He writes : ' It is not too much to say that
every indication of design in the cosmos is so much
evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer.
For what is meant by Design ? Contrivance : the
adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for
contrivance — the need of employing means — is a con
sequence of the limitation of power. Who would have
recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word

Theism. g i
was sufficient ? The very idea of means implies that
the means have an efficacy which the direct action of
the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they
are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not
use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could
only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power
of moving them by volition. But if the employment of
contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how
much more so is the careful and skilful choice of
contrivances ? Can any wisdom be shown in the use
of means, when the means have no efficacy but what
is given them by the will of him who employs them,
and when his will could have bestowed the same
efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and con
trivances are shown in overcoming difficulties, and
there is no room for them in a Being for whom no
difficulties exist' (p. 177).
It is somewhat difficult to criticise with seriousness
such ingenious trifling. No Theist supposes that God
resorted to the use of machinery for the production of
the universe, nor does the argument from the pheno
mena of adaptation suggest, much less imply, that He
did. The Scriptures state that all things were framed
by the word of God, and in this connection ' word' is a
picturesque synonym for will. ' He spake, and it was
done.' This is our theory. Now suppose that a man
were able to produce a steam-engine by merely willing
it to appear, would the presence in that machine of
* contrivances,' and the adaptation of its several parts
to one another, and of all together to some useful
purpose, be an indication that ' means' were employed
in its construction ? Or suppose that he were able

92 The Mystery of God.
to produce a human eye by the energy of his will,
would that indicate that he needed that eye as an
organ of sight ? If God had needed to contrive an
eye for Himself to see with, or a telescope to survey
His remote dominions, that would have proved Him
finite and defective, just as a need for spectacles
proves men. But then Theism says that eyes were
made because it pleased God to create seeing creatures
in correspondence with a glorious universe, which was
also created for them to behold and take pleasure
therein. The contrivances and the objects they sub
serve are alike a part of the design. Without such
adaptation of finite parts to finite uses there would
have been no universe. If Science should ever come
upon some store of ancient implements which were
evidently those used by the Creator in fashioning
the world, then it might be urged that God had to
employ machinery to effect His creative task. It is,
however, the absence of all such traces of a living
workman which renders so many sceptical about the
universe being ' God's handiwork.' They can see no
tools. They can see no hand to wield such things.
Hence they say, ' All things came of themselves.' If
God made the universe, as Theists believe, He certainly
did it without tools. If Mill's argument, therefore,
means anything, it means that creation is itself a sign
of weakness ! Such a plea may be left to itself.
Another objection to the argument from visible
adaptation to the existence of a designing mind has
been stated by Professor Huxley in a celebrated and
often-echoed passage, which occurs in his reply to
sundry criticisms on ' The Origin of Species.' ' It is

Theism. 93
singular,' he remarks, ' how differently one and the
same book will impress different minds. That which
struck the present writer on his first perusal of the
" Origin of Species " was the conviction that Teleology
as commonly understood had received its death-blow at
Mr. Darwin's hand. For the Teleological argument
runs thus t An organ or organism (a) is precisely fitted
to perform a function or purpose (b) ; therefore it was
specially constructed to perform that function. In
Paley's famous illustration, the adaptation of all the
parts of the watch to the function, or purpose, of show
ing the time, is held to be evidence that the watch was
specially contrived to that end, on the ground that the
only cause we know of competent to produce such an
effect as a watch which shall keep time is a contriving
intelligence adapting the means directly to that end.
Suppose, however, that anyone had been able to show
that the watch had not been made directly by any
person, but that it was the result of the modification
of another watch which kept time but poorly; and
that this, again, had proceeded from a structure which
could hardly be called a watch at all, seeing that it had
no figures on the dial, and the hands were rudimentary ;
and that going back and back in time we came at last
to a revolving barrel as the earliest traceable rudiment
of the whole fabric ; and imagine that it had been pos
sible to show that all these changes had resulted, first,
from a tendency of the structure to vary indefinitely,
and secondly, from something in the surrounding world
which helped all variations in the direction of an accu
rate time-keeper, and checked all those in other direc
tions; then it is obvious that the force of Paley's

94 The Mystery of God.
argument would be gone. For it would be demon
strated that an apparatus thoroughly well adapted to
a particular purpose might be the result of a method
of trial and error worked by unintelligent agents, as
well as of the direct application of the means appro
priate to that end by an intelligent agent. Now, it
appears to us that what we have here, for illustration's
sake, supposed to be done with the watch, is exactly
what the establishment of Darwin's theory will do for
the organic world.'*
It is indeed ' singular how differently one and the
same book will impress different minds ;' e.g., it is
rather remarkable how any acute person could read
the passage just quoted without being impressed with
its inconsequence. The extravagant exercise of that
most unscientific faculty, the imagination, carries its
own refutation in every line. We simply cannot con
ceive what we are asked to suppose ; and when a theory
requires for its illustration the invention of an un
thinkable process, it must be in a bad case. Paley's
argument is that, so far as our experience extends,
mechanical adaptations to useful ends are always the
product of thinking minds ; and this no one disputes.
Therefore, he reasons, we are constrained to believe
that Nature, which abounds in mechanism, must be the
work of a wise Designer. Professor Huxley's argument
is, that if something could be proved to have happened
that we know never did occur, and never can occur,
then we should have within our experience a parallel
to his theory of Nature. Which of these two argu
ments is the more philosophic needs no pointing out.
* ' Lay Sermons,' pp. 330, 331.

Theism. 95
But let us carry this argument another stage. Should
it ever be proved that the universe has grown out of
collocated molecules which possess the power and
potency thus revealed, it will only make the argument
from order and adaptation more cogent. It is a great
triumph of human skill to make a watch ; but still
thousands of men can do it. But how much more
wonderful would it be to contrive a watch which could
reproduce itself, and whose progeny would go on im
proving through many generations, until each watch
showed upon its dial-plate the time in every earthly
longitude and latitude, and the cycles of all the planets,
and presently of all the stars ! But if this were mar
vellous, how much more so to produce a ' revolving
barrel,' which by dint of much revolving could at last
evolve such a reproductive and ever-improving genera
tion of watches, and a host of other reproductive
machines as well ! Yet one stage more. How still
more marvellous — yes, how truly miraculous — it would
be to produce a material, which of itself could produce
a barrel, which could bring forth such a magnificent
series of effects ! What is the making of a watch, or
of a million different machines, in comparison with the
production of atoms of such potency as the evolution
theory postulates ? — such potency that, once collocated
and set in motion, not only watches, but watch-makers
and mathematicians, Paleys, Huxleys, Newtons, and
Shakespeares, spontaneously come forth !*
° Since writing the sbove, I have seen it stated that Professor
Huxley has admitted the fallacy of his illustration, and of the
argument it was elaborated to sustain. I have not met with his
actual words, but gladly append this note in confirmation of what
is written, and injustice to him. I have not omitted the quotation

96 The Mystery of God.
The propositions supported in this chapter may now
be summarised. That metaphysical objections to the
Theistic idea of a Personal God are not such as can
be sustained, and are for the most part gratuitous
assumption. That the so-called anthropomorphism
of Theism is, when rightly viewed, its commendation,
not its condemnation. That the facts of the universe
point unmistakably to a self-existent First Cause. That
the facts of consciousness and the observed order of
nature indicate that this First Cause must be possessed
of the attributes Wisdom and Volition, which can only
belong to a Living God. In order to test these pro
positions, we have reviewed the strongest arguments
advanced against them by the most honoured men who
have criticised the Theistic belief. If they emerge
from the ordeal unscathed by the powerful attacks to
which they have been subjected, it is tolerably evident
that the fire which is to burn up faith in the Living God
has not yet been kindled on the earth.
and its examination, however, because the passage is still read by
thousands who know nothing of the disclaimer, and also because
it represents a line of argument which has been extensively adopted
by many writers and speakers of less note. The fact that such
an argument should ever have appeared satisfactory to Mr. Huxley's
mind is surely a signal warning to admirers of his teachings.

CHAPTER IV.
THE STRAITS OF THEISM WITHOUT REVELATION.
We have now advanced to a point in our investigations
where believers in God begin to separate. Standing on
the verge of the unseen and eternal, they differ in their
mental attitude towards that which lies behind the veil,
and in their opinions as to the kind and degree of know
ledge which may be had of God. They agree in confess
ing that the Great First Cause cannot be perceived in
the same manner as phenomena, and also in affirming,
as against Agnostics, that some things may be known
respecting Him because clearly manifested in the effects
observable in Nature, and experienced in our conscious
life. But here their agreement terminates. Jews,
Christians, and Mohammedans go beyond this, and say
that God has spoken to men ' by divers portions and in
divers manners.' All three affirm that He thus com
municated a special knowledge of His mind and will
to the Patriarchs, and to Moses and the Prophets.
Christians add that this revelation culminated in the
person of Jesus Christ. Mohammedans, while deeming
Jesus a teacher sent from God, revere the Prophet of
Mecca as the bearer to mankind of the latest and most
precious disclosure of the Divine will. Beyond these
there are Theists who reject all alleged revelations, 7

98 The Mystery of God.
asserting, like the Deists before them, that whatever
is true in the three great monotheistic religions may be
ascertained and justified by the human reason working in
the light of Nature. They limit the action of God to an
original causation, insisting that any subsequent interpo
sition of His will would amount to a confession of defect
in the system created, or to a change of mind in the
Creator, which would imply defect in Himself. A
miracle means in their judgment the correction of a
fault in the thing constructed ; just as clocks only need
repair and regulation because their makers are unable to
endow them, like Nature, with powers of self-adjustment
and recuperation. They insist that the universe came
forth from the creative hand in germ, and has been
evolved without the need for being touched, modified, or
added to by its Author. Christianity they repudiate for
various reasons, but primarily because it is confessedly a
remedial scheme, and is thus supposed to impugn the
perfection of the Creator's work. They also contend
that any conceivable revelation would constitute a
breach of that continuity which natural science declares
is not only a law of Nature, but the law of all natural
laws, the ultimate basis of the very notion of law itself.
These views will not be endorsed in their entirety by
all who class themselves among Theists. Not a few
attempt to reconcile a belief in the constant activity of
God and His ceaseless communion with human souls,
with a denial of everything miraculous in revelation.
Some of these desire to be included among Christians
because revering Christ as the foremost among the
sons of men, the highest type of moral excellence, and
the most inspiring example we can select for imitation.

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 99
They love God as their Father and worship Him as
they think Christ inculcated. I have no wish to at
tenuate their creed by confounding them with the more
logical but less religious Theists just described. Whether
they occupy a tenable position will be considered here
after. But to whatever extent their ideas are fairly
resolvable into a denial of a Divine revelation to man
of truths not discoverable by the unaided reason, their
logical, if not their admitted, position is beset with
all the difficulties now to be advanced. The purpose
of this chapter, however, is not to discuss any objections
urged against revelation in general and Christianity in
particular, but to try as a previous question whether
Theism is able to justify its faith in an infinitely good
and wise God, while repudiating all professed com
munications from Him to mankind.
The statement of this question exhibits the extreme
inconvenience of using the word ' Theist ' to designate a
section, or several small sections of those who believe in
a Personal God. The great strife of our age is between
Theism and Atheism, and the former name cannot be
spared for the narrow purpose of a denominational title.
There is no other word which can replace it as a generic
term, seeing that Deism is historically wedded to Anti-
Christian opinions, and cannot now be revived in a
broader sense. With every wish therefore to show
courtesy, and to speak of men by the names they prefer,
it is impossible to do so in this case without causing
great confusion of thought. To prefix some qualifying
term such as ' Bare,' or ' Mere,' or ' Pure,' whenever
the word Theism is used in a restricted sense, is objec
tionable. Of these adjectives, which have all been used
7—2

too The Mystery of God.
for the purpose, the two former seem contemptuous,
while the last appears to admit that Christianity is only
an impure form of Theism. For the purposes of
brevity and clearness I shall therefore employ the term
Deism in this chapter to denote the theory under
review, reserving Theism for that wider use which in
cludes every form of belief in a Personal God.
No theory of the universe can hold its ground against
Atheistic Pessimism which fails to reconcile the preva
lence of pain and moral evil with the Creator's good
ness. Paul wrote, ' We know that the whole creation
groaneth,' and Atheists echo mockingly, ' The whole
creation groaneth.' Deism generally tries to minimise
the facts of human misery, and of Nature's travail, but,
however reduced, they remain an appalling spectacle.
Christians hold doctrines which propose a solution of
the problem, while Atheists say that no conceivable
explanation can be satisfactory. For a moment, there
fore, Atheists and Christians stand side by side, the
one party with derisive laughter, the other with sympa
thetic grief, to remark the straits into which the Deist
is driven when attempting to vindicate the ways of
God. Our attention must first be directed to the mystery
of pain. The more light we get from physical sources,
the wider we perceive to be the kingdom in which pain
has reigned. The earth's crust is one vast sepulchre
of perished animals, most of which endured and in
flicted pain. Man's own life from the birth-cry to the
death-throe is haunted by pain. Can this declare, or
even be reconciled with, the Creator's goodness ?
An impartial student of Nature may no doubt arrive

The Straits of Theism without Revelation, i o i
at Paley's conclusion, that there is a preponderance of
pleasure over pain ; but this dbes not account for so
vast a remainder in the other scale, nor does it explain
the obvious fact that it is most unequally distributed.
It may be observed that pain operates in various bene
ficial ways, and is not inflicted, as we might expect it
would be, by one who finds pleasure in the sight of
anguish. Pain seems to be a safeguard of all vital
organisms, warning of danger, and often enforcing a
cessation of self-destructive actions. So far as the
animals are concerned there are good reasons for
believing that they suffer immeasurably less than we
are apt to imagine. In many cases of apparent anguish,
sensation is probably suspended. Their pains, more
over, are only isolated sensations, and, therefore, not
comparable with those which man's moral and intel
lectual faculties connect with his past and future
history. It is also noticeable that as our nervous
system is constituted, pain is the inseparable con
comitant of pleasure, the very susceptibility to pleasant
sensations carrying with it the possibility of being
affected too strongly, or in unsuitable ways. Dr. Mauds-
ley seems also to think that pains are less easily
recalled than pleasures ;* but I fear this is a mistake.
Strictly speaking, no sensation can ever be recalled
without the recurrence of a physical cause. But to
whatever extent feelings can be remembered, most
people will think that painfulness neither aids nor
impedes their recollection. If, however, a Deist
thinks Dr. Maudsley's theory helps him a little, I shall
not strive to take away that very reed-like crutch. But,
3 ' The Physiology of Mind,' pp. 537-8.

102 The Mystery of God.
after all allowances have been made, what do these
mitigations prove ? They are to the Divine character,
as impugned by Pessimism, only what extenuating
circumstances are when pleaded in a criminal's defence.
They prove to most minds, though not to all, that the
world was not made by a malicious fiend ; but they
are not sufficient to show that pain is consistent with
the theory of creation by an all-powerful, all-wise, and
perfectly good God. The Deists of the last century
brought many objections against Christianity as incon
sistent with Divine benevolence, while insisting that
the light of Nature was clear and unmistakable.
Against that argument it was urged, with final and
absolutely conclusive force by Butler, that there was
no moral difficulty in the Christian revelation which
was not to be found also in the system of Nature. He
did not press that answer beyond the logical necessity
of the controversy then in hand, or he might have
proved those difficulties fatal to Deism. His book
left Deism and Christianity weighted with analogous
problems, and so, while closing one controversy, it
cleared the ground for the more fundamental debates
of our own time. Since his day the opinions of
scientific men have undergone a great revolution, and
the discoveries of geology have immensely added to
the array of facts to be explained. As a specimen of
the indictment which may be framed against that
system of Nature which Deism regarded as so perfect,
it may be well to quote a somewhat lengthy passage
from J. S. Mill :
' In sober truth, nearly all the things which men
are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 103
Nature's every-day performances. Killing, the most
criminal act recognised by human laws, Nature does
once to every being that lives ; and, in a large pro
portion of cases, after protracted tortures such as only
the greatest monsters whom we read of ever purposely
inflicted on their living fellow-creatures. . . . , .
Nature impales men, breaks them as if on the wheel,
casts them to be devoured by wild beasts, burns them
to death, crushes them with stones like the first
Christian martyr, starves them with hunger, freezes
them with cold, poisons them with the quick or slow
venom of her exhalations, and has hundreds of other
deaths in reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a
Nabis or a Domitian never surpassed. All this Nature
does with the most supercilious disregard both of
mercy and justice, emptying her shafts upon the best
and noblest indifferently with the meanest and worst ;
upon those who are engaged in the highest and
worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct conse
quence of the noblest acts, and, it might almost be
imagined, as a punishment for them. She mows down
those on whose existence hangs the well-being of a
whole people, perhaps the prospect of the human race
for generations to come, with as little compunction as
those whose death is a relief to themselves, or a blessing
to those under their noxious influence. Such are
Nature's dealings with life. Even when she does not
intend to kill, she inflicts the same tortures in apparent
wantonness  Next to taking life (equal to it
according to a high authority) is taking the means by
which we live ; and Nature does this, too, on the largest
scale and with the most callous indifference. A single

104 The Mystery of God.
hurricane destroys the hopes of a season ; a flight of
locusts, or an inundation, desolates a district ; a trifling
chemical change in an edible root starves a million of
people. The waves of the sea, like banditti, seize and
appropriate the wealth of the rich and the little all of
the poor, with the same accompaniments of stripping,
wounding, and killing as their human antitypes. Every
thing, in short, which the worst men commit against
life or property is perpetrated on a larger scale by
natural agents.'*
Again — ' Those who flatter themselves with the notion
of reading the purposes of the Creator in His works,
ought in consistency to have seen grounds for inferences
from which they have shrunk. If there are any marks
at all of special design in creation, one of the things
most evidently designed is that a large proportion of all
animals should pass their existence in tormenting and
devouring other animals. They have been lavishly
fitte'd out with the instruments necessary for that
purpose ; their strongest instincts impel them to it,
and many of them seem to have been constructed in
capable of supporting themselves by any other food.
If a tenth part of the pains which have been expended
in finding benevolent adaptations in all nature had been
employed in collecting evidence to blacken the character
of the Creator, what scope for comment would not
have been found in the entire existence of the lower
animals, divided, with scarcely an exception, into
devourers and devoured, and a prey to a thousand ills
from which they are denied the faculties necessary for
protecting themselves. If we are not obliged to believe
* ' Three Essays on Religion,' p. 28.

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 105
the animal creation to be the work of a demon, it is
because we need not suppose it to have been made by
a Being of infinite power' (p. 58).
This is a very terrible passage, and one which Mill
has been severely blamed for writing ; but from the
standpoint of a mere observer of physical facts it is
perfectly fair, and assuredly it is a passage no Theist
can be allowed to overlook. For my own part, I have
no wish to restrict the scope of what is called Natural
Theology, or to diminish the force of any argument for
the Divine benevolence ; but I confess that, without
appealing to the whole scheme of moral culture and
redemption which is inseparably identified with the
revelation of God in Christ, I can find no weapon with
which to repel Mill's attack. If pain and moral evil
were connected by uniform workings of natural law,
we might find refuge in that fact as an indication of
creative goodness. But then, as Mill shows, and as
the patriarch Job bewailed, that connection does not
visibly exist. Voltaire wished to maintain the good
ness of God while scoffing at Revelation, yet in his
Dialogue between two 'Worshippers of God' the
speakers differ only in the degree of their despondency.
One of them exclaims : ' The globe .... is a vast
field of carnage and infection. . . . Man is the most
miserable of all the animals together. . . . Take away
a few sages, and the herd of human beings is nothing
but a horrible assemblage of unfortunate criminals, and
the globe contains nothing but corpses. I tremble to
have to complain once more of the Being of beings,
while casting a careful gaze over this terrible picture. I
wish I had never been born.' The Dialogue closes

106 The Mystery of God.
with a confession from the more hopeful thinker that
' we are in a tempest,' and that if better days are to
come he knows not where or when to look for them.*
The light of Nature can never chase away this
mystery of pain, for the alleged light is itself the dark
ness to be relieved. If God has not revealed Himself
in a clearer and more satisfying way than Reason can
read in the facts of the visible world, the Divine
goodness must either be abandoned, or be clung to as
a mere preference of the mind, because the alternative
is too terrible to be entertained.
But the existence of physical pain is a small thing in
comparison with the existence of moral evil. It is
easy for a Deist to echo the Atheist's laugh at the
doctrine of man's fall from a state of innocency;
but having laughed his laugh, the facts are still on his
hands. Suppose the book of Genesis gone, and all
Paul's letters to be treated as waste-paper, that only
clears the ground for a more satisfactory explanation
of the phenomena. In full view of the wickedness
which festers visibly among the masses, and hides
behind the paint and tinsel of fashion in our most
civilized cities, it requires some hardihood to say, ' All
things are working out a perfect order and no Divine
rectification is required.'
The difficulty is not removed, as some suppose, by
appealing from man's character, which is bad, to man's
conscience, which discerns and condemns the badness.
This discord only brings us into the heart of the
mystery. Man is the highest of creatures on this
earth, yet he alone comes short of his proper glory.
c ' Complete Works,' Vol. VI., p. 714. (Paris Ed. 1837.)

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 107
He alone bears the marks of violating, instead of ful
filling, his own nature. He alone has any strife about
what to aim at, and what he may or may not do : and
he alone has any sense of guilt or apprehension of judg
ment. By a singular irony of fact, these feelings of self-
dissatisfaction on account of moral failure are most
intensely experienced where they seem least called for,
and most mournfully expressed by advanced and
reflective peoples, and by the most refined and elevated
individuals among them. These feelings of being out
of order, and somehow discrowned and thwarted in
self-rule, are the outpourings of prophets and saints,
philosophers and poets. It is only where either
morality or intelligence has sunk to a low ebb that
they are feebly entertained.
Whence come these sentiments ? What explanation
can be given of this schism in man's nature ? Why is
it that man's actual life is such a mockery of his inward
hopes and convictions, and so utterly unable to afford
him that contentment which reigns among the lower
animals ? Is all this the fulfilment of law, or the breach
of it ? Is it the orderly outworking of a perfect creation
which needs no correction, or is it the strife of a being
at variance with his Maker ?
Tracing the mischief back in thought, it becomes
evident that in any case there must have been a first
time when a human being said within himself, respecting
some contemplated act, ' I ought not to do this thing,'
and yet did it against that conviction. Whether the
story of Genesis be a literal history or a veiled account
of what took place in another form, the inward history
must have transpired. Whether man came up slowly

108 The Mystery of God.
from a bestial state to the human, or was made a man
at once by a new creation, is absolutely immaterial to
this argument. It made no difference to a Roman
criminal flung headlong from the Tarpeian Rock
whether he first toiled up the sloping ascent or was
carried to the summit by other hands. In either case
the fall was the same. So the process by which man
reached a state of moral reflectiveness would not alter
the practical effect of a first disobedience to the sense
of duty. Similarly, it makes no difference to the
problem immediately before us, whether man received
some oral command from a living Person clothed in a
visible form, or was only possessed of an inward light.
On any conceivable supposition there was a time when
man began to discern between evil and good, and when
he chose the evil through some illusory idea of finding
its fruit better than good. From that moment man
would know what it is to be ashamed. By that one act
of yielding to a transient desire against his reason, the
force of passion would be increased, and self-control
be diminished. From that 'first acting' of an un
approved thing, his mind would suffer ' the nature of
an insurrection,' and by that one act what the Bible
calls ' sin' came into the world. Let Materialists or
Deists call it what they please, the act by any other
name was just as bad, and being done, would bring
about the history we see. Keep all theological terms
out of sight. Dismiss 'original sin' to the limbo of
obsolete terms. Bring forward the scientific doctrine
of heredity, and the connection between the first and
all subsequent wrongdoing is plain. An exact science
will say that even physically man's body, the tenement

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 109
and implement of the will, must have been impaired.
Habits of nerve action would be originated, more or less
detrimental to the perfect sway of the will over its
organized instruments; and whenever and wherever
desire and conviction of duty might conflict, the effects
of every previous folly would be felt in a diminished
force of self-control.
So far we must all go — Atheist, Deist, and Christian
alike. Those who deny a Personal God are not called
upon to say anything about this primal error under its
moral aspect. For them it is simply an inevitable step
in the evolution of mankind. But a Deist cannot dis
miss the matter thus lightly. He has been accustomed
to flout the Bible as if Genesis had created its own
difficulties ; but now Atheists and Christians await his
interpretation of this mysterious stage of evolution.
We require to be told whether this was an incident
the Creator intended to take place or not. We ask
the Deist : ' Was man, in disobeying his own " I ought
not," doing what he was created to do, or was he dis
obeying the will of God ? Was it a part of the uni
versal harmony, or was it a jarring note of discord, a
breach of the order God designed ?' If he replies :
' God intended it, and made man so that he could not
help sinning,' then where is God's goodness ? In that
case the Creator is by admission the direct Author of
the moral confusion which entered into and still afflicts
the world.
But, repudiating this supposition, Deists will reply :
' No; God did not intend man to act against his sense
of duty. That sense of duty was the voice of God to
him, and it is so still.' This is their answer. It is the

no The Mystery of God.
only one they can make without denying man's moral
nature altogether. But having made it, what becomes
of their much-used argument against the Biblical idea
of the fall ? It is gone. They have admitted a first
act of disobedience to the voice or will of God, and
whatever the outer drapery of the story, the interior
fact is precisely the same. How can this tremendous
fact be said to reveal a Perfect God, whose creation
needs no remedial touch and no forth-putting of His
Personal Will ?
We may conduct these parties one more step
together. They must both admit that God foresaw
what would transpire when He brought man into being.
Whatever moral difficulties may be really or apparently
involved in that admission, they press on the Deist
with as much weight as on the Christian. The only
difference between them is that a Christian has a
sublime theory of redemption to offer, which at any rate
professes to reconcile God's foreknowledge of evil with
His wisdom, power, and goodness ; but the Deist has
no revelation to fall back upon. The perplexing facts
which demand to be explained are his only revelation of
God. He may affirm that the Christian scheme affords
no light ; and that is a contention which will have to
be considered. Meanwhile, he has to justify these ways
of God to those who protest : ' Either your Creative
Being could or could not have prevented evil in the
world. If He could have made a better world but did
not, He is not good ; if He did the best He could, then
He is not Almighty.'
What is a Deist to say to this dilemma ? He dare
not admit defect in God, and yet if, like Voltaire, he

The Straits of Theism without Revelation, in
insists that the Supreme Being must be perfect, but
allows that the light of Nature is too dim to enable the
eyes of Reason to read His ways aright, his position
is surrendered. By either admission all his boasted
evidences of the existence and perfect benevolence of
God are yielded to his opponents, and with them he is
bereft of all the weapons wherein he trusted to repel
the assertion of Christ, ' O righteous Father, the world
hath not known Thee,' and to silence the Atheist's
taunt, ' Where is now your God ?'
It must be confessed that a believer in God is in
severe straits when driven back into his own heart for
a vindication of the Divine character against the mighty
chorus of accusing voices which rise up from a groan
ing creation. If with nothing to sustain him but the
passionate cry, ' He must be good,' he can still hold fast
faith in God, I would encourage him to do so by all
means. I think that inner light is a true light, and one
a man does well to walk by if he can find no other. I
am persuaded that one who does so walk will be a better
man than if he yielded up his faith to the contradictions
of Nature and History. I have no wish to drive a Deist
into Atheism if he will not become a Christian ; but
he must not affirm that Nature reveals a Perfect God
simply because, when confronted with inexplicable facts,
he still feels in his soul that God is good.
The straits thus far pointed out are sufficiently severe,
but they do not represent the whole difficulty of the
Deistic position. Monotheism has a great history.
The idea of an almighty, wise, and good God is very
ancient, and has been handed down from sire to son
from the days of ' Father Abraham ' until now. Deism

1 1 2 The Mystery of God.
is the religion of the Patriarchs minus their faith in the
personal providence and manifestation of God. But
what an enormous deduction is thus made ! They
believed in God not merely as a First Cause of ideal
perfectness, but as a personal Friend, a living Shield,
and watchful Guide. Not by a cold intellectual
theory, but by the energy of this high faith their lives
were governed, and they attained to a dignity of
character and to a sublimity of religious thought and
language which have made them the most potent
teachers of mankind. If Deism, therefore, be correct,
we are confronted with this marvellous phenomenon.
These men were right against the world in affirming
the existence of One Almighty and good God, but
were all either impostors or self-deluded when they
said He had spoken to them by dream or oracle or
sign ! They were right in their conception of His
Being, but wrong concerning the display of His good
ness in His ways with men. All that made God a joy
to them and an object of personal trust and affection
was illusory ; all that has made their faith a power
over human hearts was fictitious, and those promises
in which they rejoiced concerning the future spread of
their faith among all nations — promises which are being
marvellously fulfilled in the religious history of mankind
— were mere vain conceits ! Surely when a theory
brings us into such straits as these, we may be
pardoned for adopting the words of Nicodemus : ' How
can these things be ?'
But these unsolved problems are not the worst.
Behind all that has been said there lies a grave moral
difficulty which touches the character of God. Let it

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 1 1 3
be imagined that some heroic theorist has dissipated
to his own satisfaction all the difficulties thus far pre
sented : he must still be prepared to vindicate the cha
racter of the God in whom Abraham, Moses, and the
Prophets trusted as their very present Helper, but who,
according to Deism, really made no response to their
appeals. An Almighty God must always have been
able to put forth power, and to shed some light and
joy upon His suppliants. But in what sense can this
Almighty Being be good if He created men with such
intense longings, and such abject needs as the history
of religion manifests, and yet withheld all rejoinder ?
This point will come before us under a somewhat dif
ferent form hereafter ; but the present chapter cannot
close without insisting that the God of Deism is not
good in the same sense as that for which the God of
Abraham has been worshipped for so many centuries.
The God who hears and answers the prayers of men,
and is their Refuge and Strength and very present Help
in trouble, is not morally the same Being as one who
sets them in a world like this, and then sits above the
circle of the earth, and leaves them to themselves while
ages multiply their sorrows and aggravate their diffi
culties and cares. The Deist's God is one who has
rigorously forborne to stretch forth the hand which made
and therefore could assist mankind, in spite of all the
cries and tears and agonizing longings for His mercy
which have filled the atmosphere of our globe from the
beginning. Like those granite sphinxes which have
looked down with changeless smile on the land of
Egypt for forty centuries — while cities have been built
and destroyed ; while temples have risen and been

1 1 4 The Mystery of God.
filled with generations of troubled worshippers ; while
sepulchres have multiplied, and hot sands blown from
the desert have covered ancient cornfields and broken
monuments of perished glory — so the God of Deism,
if that theory is true, has looked upon the earth while
empires have arisen and decayed ; while false religions
have grown and priesthoods have thriven, and while
deluded peoples have despoiled themselves of wealth,
and shed the blood of enemies, friends, and children
on reeking altars which attest the passion of their
hearts for God. Worst of all, this stony God looked
on unmoved while Abraham lived a glorious life by the
power of a faith that was false in all its most strengthen
ing and encouraging ideas ; while in supposed obedience
to His will a holy temple rose in Jerusalem with a
hidden mercy-seat, to which the purest human hearts
were drawn as an emblem of His own hidden activities
and responsiveness of grace ; while in the faith that He
was helping and directing them, men like Elijah, Isaiah,
and Jeremiah fought against the inroads of idolatry,
poured out their irony upon gods that had hands but
handled not, and were powerless to save ; and while
psalmists sounded notes of joyous praise to Himself as
a just God and a Saviour, which are still ringing round
the world in countless languages, making continents
and islands glad. Surely the God who could gaze
without response on men like these is not good in the
same sense as that for which they worshipped Him,
did exploits, and suffered martyrdom at the hands of
an unworthy world ! Such a God as this never was, and
never can be, an object of confidence and love. If the
existence of such a Being were once widely believed in,

The Straits of Theism without Revelation. 115
the prayers of the sons of men would be ended, praise
would die away into silence, contrition and thanks
giving would lapse into indifference, and indifference
would pass over into a sullen pessimism, which would
overcloud the world with despondency and envelop in
its gloom the very throne and character of God.
In the face of man's demand for a religion which
shall meet the varied needs of his complex nature,
Deism is found wanting. It cannot satisfy the intel
lect, or appease the conscience, or relieve the heart.
Between the ' no God ' of the Materialist and the God
of the Bible, who is believed to actually exercise loving
kindness, righteousness, and mercy in the earth, there
is no faith which can survive the fiery testing of the
coming age. In the great battle between these two
forces, all else is being swept from the field. The
gods that have not made the heavens and the earth
must, as an ancient prophet said, perish from beneath
the heavens and from off the face of the earth. To
wards this event the conquests of science and the
missions of the Christian Church are both contributing,
and their failure is altogether inconceivable. No less
surely may it be predicted that they will together pre
vail to dismiss from the thoughts and interest of man
kind a God who is supposed to dwell apart in lofty
disregard of human needs. When God has been driven
back behind the first emission of a creative germ, and
is held from thenceforth to have practised an eternal
policy of non-intervention in the business of His uni
verse, men will feel no contrition for neglecting Him
who is unknown except as the Absentee Creator, the
Great Neglecter of all His works.
8—2

CHAPTER V.
THE MYSTERY OF EVIL.
The indictment of Nature, framed by J. S. Mill, pre
sents the argument against God's goodness in a form
to which Theism, apart from Revelation, is unable to
make a satisfactory reply. We have now to see whether
Christianity, if otherwise credible, is equal to the task.
The issue raised may therefore be stated in the form of
these two questions : i. In what way does Christianity
profess to harmonize the presence of pain and moral
evil in the world with the Creator's Goodness ? 2. If
Christianity be on other grounds credible as a revelation
from God, does its solution of the mystery commend
itself as worthy of acceptance ?
Throughout the following discussion, I shall pur
posely omit all reference to Satanic influence. Certain
difficulties of a speculative kind are escaped by this
means, but none which really belong to the present
subject will be evaded. The alleged temptation of
man by a member of another race may account for
the introduction of evil into our world, but it in no way
explains how evil could begin among the creatures of a
Perfect Creator. It thus bears a relation to the Mystery
of Evil similar to that which Sir W. Thomson's ima-

The Mystery of Evil. wj
ginary meteoric stone bears to the Mystery of Life.
Unable to account for the first transition from non
living to living matter on our globe, Sir W, Thomson
suggested that possibly some living germs were brought
here on the broken fragment of a perished world. The
theory is ingenious, but it makes no contribution to
wards an understanding of how life began. It simply
gives up the riddle as unanswerable from earthly data,
and flings the inquirer into abysmal space and time to
ask among imaginary worlds for information denied him
where phenomena can be observed. If such an inci
dent were provable, it would possess unbounded inte
rest as a fact of history ; but for the purposes of biology
its value would be simply nothing.
So with regard to the origin of Evil. As a chapter
of cosmical history the alleged introduction of evil into
our world by a fallen angel is of unspeakable signifi
cance. \\ connects mankind with a vaster social order
under the government of God, but it leaves us still to
ask the same questions about the unknown race called
' angels ' as we now ask concerning men, and transfers
our quest to realms which are unsearchable. Nor is
this the only disadvantage. If non-human actors are
included in the case for- consideration, we are burdened
with many doubtful disputations which in no way
affect the issue. It then becomes necessary to inquire
whether the account in Genesis is to be read literally,
or whether the serpent and the trees of testing are
symbolic. If the serpent be identified with a personal
devil, curiosity is aroused about his mode of being, his
method of access to man's mind, the possibility of
his redemption, and the historic circumstances which

1 1 8 The Mystery of God.
brought him into social relations with man and
prompted him to compass the temptation.
With regard to most of these questions, we have
absolutely nothing but imagination for our guidance.
The Jews believed that Satan was a good angel, the
'brightest and best of the sons of the morning,'
and that as such he was sent to this world as the
ordained prince and minister of mankind. But they
say his jealousy was moved by the sight of Adam, and
his pride aggrieved by the command to serve this new
favourite of heaven. Hence the desire to ruin man was
his first insurrectionary thought against God.
Milton's version of how Satan came to earth is very
different, and morally, is far more perplexing. He
places the angelic fall in an age far anterior to man's,
and locates the event in heaven. According to his
poem, Satan was —
' Hurl'd headlong flaming from the ethereal sky,
With hideous ruin and combustion, down
To bottomless perdition  '
From hell the defeated rebel escaped, and, guided by
Chaos, traversed the gulf of Space, and landed as a
malignant invader on this globe, to revenge his expul
sion from bliss by marring God's new creation.
The moral features of these two speculations are ex
ceedingly different. But who can decide which version
is the truer, or whether either bears any near resem
blance to the facts ? For the purposes of this chapter,
however, we can afford to leave these dark themes
alone. Those who rely on the statement that man was
tempted by an alien foe, as a partial explanation of the
earthly mystery of iniquity, are bound to answer, if

The Mystery of Evil. 1 1 g
pressed, the deeper question, how the foreign tempter
became evil. If, however, we accept the task of show
ing how evil might come into existence under the reign
of a good Creator, and could be allowed to propagate
itself from life to life, without reflecting blame on Him,
we shall have gone to the heart of the mystery, and the
interpretation of Genesis may without prejudice be left
an open question, as it was left in a previous chapter.
The principles relied upon in the argument which fol
lows are such that, with a mere change of historic form,
they could be applied to any race bf moral beings, and
are equally valid whether man was first tempted by an
adversary or, without such instigation, was led away bj
his own desire and enticed.
At the outset of the discussion it will greatly assist
the reader to carefully observe and retain in mind a
much-neglected distinction between moral causes and
physical or mechanical causes.* Moral causes are the
reasons why things are done or made ; physical causes
are the forces or means by which they are made or
brought about. . For the physical cause of an effect, we
have always to search the past. Such a cause must
always be antecedent to its effect in time. , But moral
causes are to be sought in the 'afterwards.' They con
stitute the end or object for which a thing is done, irre
spective of the means employed Any intelligent being
using physical means to bring about a certain result, must
have in his mind some end which he proposes to gain.
He may or may not communicate his intention to others :
* I use the term ' moral ' rather than ' final ' because it is, for the
present discussion, more precisely antithetic to ' physical,' and also
because the word 'final' introduces some disputable ideas.

120 The Mystery of God.
but apart from such a revelation no one else can know
what is in his mind. If his purposes are left for others
to discover, they may form shrewd guesses while watch
ing the progress of his work, but are very likely to be
wrong in their surmises, and certainly will be wrong if
he, being much wiser than they, is aiming at something
outside their range of thought. It stands to reason,
therefore, that being thus in ignorance of the worker's
true purposes, these observers are not competent to
judge of his methods, and will be unable to consciously
assist in promoting his designs. This principle is so
important, and has so many applications, that an illus
tration or two may not be superfluous. The late Mr.
Babbage showed that a counting-machine could be
constructed which would go on uniformly for an
immense time, then vary, or go wrong, as we should
say, once, twice, or any number of times, at given
intervals, and then go on correctly as long as the
materials held together. Let it now be supposed that
a machine of this kind, made some years ago, has
been discovered in an old - curiosity shop, by a
mechanician who knows nothing of its maker's inten
tions. By him its general purpose as a counting-machine
would soon be ascertained, and we can imagine how
he would call his friends together and say to them,
This machine is a perfect counter. You will perceive
by the register that it has been counting without pause
for many years ; I have watched it myself for a long
time, and it never errs.' But suppose, that while these
words were falling from the exhibitor's lips a false
number should be indicated. What a break-down it
would seem ! What a defect, the company would agree,

The Mystery of Evil. 121
was thus betrayed ! But how instantly would this con
clusion be falsified if one of the company were to rise
up and declare, ' I have long been in search of .that
"machine. I have brought from my library a book
written by its maker, in which he states that it was
constructed to vary when it reached a certain number.
You may see for yourselves on this page that the num
ber specified agrees precisely with what has passed
before our eyes.' What a complete revulsion of feeling
and reversal of judgment would be produced by this
revelation of the maker's purpose ! When assured
that the variation was foreseen and provided for, the
apparent defect would be confessed a mark of wonder
ful precision, and the machine would be confessed a
more marvellous instrument than any one had imagined
before the arithmetical transgression occurred.
This counting-machine has often been used to show
that certain variations of natural order called ' miracles '
may be a part of that order if included in the Creator's
original design, as the Christian scheme affirms. It
might also be adduced to show the need for, and the
value of, a revelation of God's purposes, if men are to
understand His works. But I only cite it now for a
more limited purpose, viz., to show that an apparent
defect may possibly be a mark of perfect adaptation
to some special end, and whether that end or moral cause
be discoverable or undiscoverable, revealed or unre
vealed, nothing is a defect in an instrument which fits
it to fulfil its intended purpose.
Another illustration may further show how this
principle affects our present subject. In every text
book on Logic there are a number of fallacies as well as

122 The Mystery of God.
many sound syllogisms. There is at least one specimen
of every known form in which error can creep into our
reasonings. But what would Mill have thought about
some juvenile critic who was verdant enough to point
out these fallacies as proofs of their author's mental
incompetence ! If he had patience to explain, he would
say to his critic, ' My dear youth, I carefully made these
fallacies to teach you and other novices in the art of
thinking, what dangers await your minds directly you
begin to reason, and to prepare you to detect and
expose similar faults in writers who might otherwise
carry you captive into error.'
The application of these illustrations to our subject
must be obvious. A physical philosopher examining
the world, and testing it by the standard of utility, for
the purpose of providing comfort and pleasure, may
well say it is a bad world. But Christianity teaches us
to regard the physical world as a habitation adapted to
promote man's moral and intellectual discipline, rather
than his mere comfort and pleasure. The doctrine
of the Bible, from end to end, is that the creation was
made subject to vanity in subordination to vast purposes
of education and redemption. Unlike mere Deism, it
does not deny or ignore any of the facts which Mill
and others denounce, nor does it flinch from their dis
cussion. There is not a groan or a curse of modern
pessimism which is not a renewal of ancient murmurs
recorded in the Bible. The Bible is unique, however,
in pointing to man's discipline and God's purpose of sal
vation as explanations of the pain with which the whole
creation groans. Moral evil comes later in time than
physical pain and death ; yet it is assigned as the moral

The Mystery of Evil. 123
cause for their existence, just as death was the moral
cause for which the Egyptian Pharoahs began to build
their own monumental sepulchres, and even wrote the
first portions of their epitaphs, while still alive to gloat
over their vainglorious boasts. The explanation of
vast ages of physical growth and decay on our planet
can only be found in the preparation of the earth for
man. Physical science teaches us that we eat our
daily bread from materials stored up in the earth
millenniums ago, and that without these no labour of
herdsman or husbandman would be possible. Christi
anity preaches the higher, but harmonious doctrine,
that these ages were all preparatory to the training
of a mighty family in the love of goodness as better
than comfort, or pleasure, or life.
The general indication of this theory brings us at
once face to face with the question : Is the existence
of moral evil, under any circumstances and with any
purpose in view, compatible with the Divine goodness ?
Can man be evil, and man's Maker good ?
We may get some light at this stage by observing that
any reply which would cast reproach on God as our
Creator would, if valid, apply in a proportionate degree
to our human parents, and to ourselves, if we are parents
now, or ever venture to become such hereafter. I use this
not as a mere tu quoque argument which proves nothing,
but as a fair illustration or argument from analogy,
and also as a test of what our estimate of life under
present conditions actually is. Pessimists, as we have
seen, whether Asiatic or European, are consistent in
denouncing birth as the worst of evils, and parentage,
rather than murder or suicide, as the chiefest crime.

124 The Mystery of God.
But the common conscience of mankind does not
endorse this verdict. Job cursed the day on which he
was born, but this was in a moment of weakness. It
was, moreover, partly due to the fact that his own
children were dead ; and in all countries, and ages,
where that old-world poem has been read, men have
seen the dramatic propriety of associating Job's re
covery of health and faith with the birth of a second
family of sons and daughters, all of whom would have
to undergo trial in their turn. We do not put on
mourning when infants are born. We do not call our
neighbours to come and fast and weep with us on our
birthdays. These are usually glad festivals of mirth
and congratulation, until old age makes them sad, as
the last mile-stones on a journey towards the grave.
As a matter of fact we do not regard our parents as
enemies, nor should we deem it natural for our children
so to regard us. Yet our parents knew we should
suffer. They knew we should sin. They knew our
lives would be exposed to great perils and awful possi
bilities. Those of us who are parents foreknew the
same about our children, yet we should regard it as
shameful and unnatural if they failed to love us and
believe in our love for them.
It may be urged against this comparison, that human
parents are not blameworthy for introducing children
into the world, because they have no power to provide a
better abode or to create children of another order.
But to this a Pessimist would fairly reply that, inasmuch
as men are not obliged to have children, their respon
sibility remains, and that unless our present life be
better than non-existence, human parentage must be

The Mystery of Evil. 125
blamable. The argument from analogy therefore does
not answer a Pessimist ; but it shows that unless it can
be established that the Creator might have given us the
advantage of our present existence, without its now
attendant hardships and dangers, we can only impugn
His goodness by taking sides with those who condemn
human fatherhood and motherhood, and so contradict
the general instincts and judgments of mankind. The
argument is not supposed to be final or conclusive. It
opens out a question concerning God which does not
touch the case of men. But it has a distinct value
because it helps to define the issue to be decided ; and
if we succeed in proving that the moral difficulties of
our present state are those to which finite moral beings
are necessarily liable, it will suffice to condemn any
petulant outcry against the creation of man.
We have now to consider the question, ' Can we
think of the Almighty as able to create moral beings
who shall be incapable of sin ?' Mill thought the
only apology for such a creation as we know lay in
a denial of the Creator's omnipotence ; but there is no
need to resort to that hypothesis. We do not deny
God's omnipotence, by saying that He cannot produce
two contradictory and mutually exclusive things. Om
nipotence cannot create a world and yet leave it un
created. So Omnipotence cannot create a volitional
being and yet create him incapable of volitions. But
directly a volitional being comes into existence, that
renders every kind of conduct possible. If God dwelt
alone in the universe, there would be no possibility of
disobedience, or discord, or opposition. While only
plants and lower animals existed on this earth His will

126 The Mystery of God.
was not resisted. But directly a being stood on the
ground, with power to choose between alternative lines
of conduct, discord was possible. If man had been made
incapable of departing from God's will he would not have
been a moral creature any more than a star, or a tree,
or a steam-engine. A creature that can only act in one
way, and that the way assigned and enforced by his
maker's will, may be made to go through a beautiful
series of concerted movements, but then he is no more
worthy of blame or praise than the ivory pieces on a
chess-board when a game is lost or won. Such a being
could not even see the difference between good and evil,
and would remain as ignorant of the moral attributes
of God as are the beasts of the field. The very word
' moral ' connotes, not indeed the necessity or even the
certainty, but the possibility of what is called ' im
morality.' To attribute a lack of goodness to God,
therefore, for creating a race liable to sin, we must be
prepared to maintain that it is immoral to create a
moral being.
It would carry us too far aside to fully consider an
objection which may here arise in some minds, viz,,
that if only a free being is capable of goodness, then
either God cannot be free, or, as free, must be capable
of evil. This demur, like so many others, is a thing of
terms. If it be answered by the admission that God
is capable of evil, the words in their popular meaning
would be almost blasphemous : yet in a more rigorous
sense they would approach what most worshippers of
God would joyfully acknowledge to be a truth. God's
goodness cannot be thought of as protected by the
compulsion of any higher power than His own will, or

The Mystery of Evil. 127
by any force external to His own nature ; yet it may
still be conceived of as due to His own unchangeable
but nevertheless free choice. If that choice be an
unchangeable fixture of His will, the fixity is not a
mechanical immobility, but may be trusted in as eternal,
if on no other ground, yet certainly on this, that good
ness, though not identical with wisdom, is so inseparably
conjoined with it that evil implies folly. Evil, as we
see it among men, is more than foolishness ; but it is
always foolish, and is associated either immediately or
remotely with some false idea of what will prove to be
for man's welfare. Unless, therefore, we can think of
God as being deceived, we cannot conceive of Him as
changeable in His choice. His infinite wisdom and
knowledge must be impaired before He will alter a
moral judgment. If, as Christians believe, there are
already in another state of being ' saints made perfect,'
they must still be as free in heaven as they were on
earth. They are guaranteed against a renewed fall,
however, by the experience through which they have
been divinely led, and by the clear light for which that
experience prepared them ; a light into which, from its
purity, nothing ' which maketh a lie ' can enter. Their
knowledge and wisdom are still finite, and so error
might conceivably creep in, if not excluded by their
faith in the wisdom and love of God. This faith, which
has^ in Scripture language, been 'tried with fire,'
secures their glad adhesion to the Divine will through
out the new experiences which await them in their
future service ; and so it carries within itself a pledge
that they will be as changeless as their Lord. This
reference to the heavenly state is only introduced here

128 The Mystery of God.
as a hypothetic illustration of one manner in which
moral freedom is compatible with perseverance in a
choice which only a deceived mind can imaginably wish
to alter. It assists us, therefore, to see how the un-
changeableness of God's character may be consistent
with His moral freedom. By anticipation also it will
be found to strengthen the statements advanced further
on respecting the value of man's present moral disci
pline. Returning from the digression into which we were led
by the objection just discussed, it is submitted that the
considerations previously advanced relieve the Creator's
name from many rash and baseless imputations ; but the
difficulty still remains — that He foreknew that man's
creation would issue in the doing of evil. Some writers
have attempted to vindicate the goodness of God by
denying His perfect foreknowledge. They seem to think
that He would be less responsible for all that has
transpired on earth, if He had not been sure that the
experiment would take its present painful course. Such
a theory, however, only aggravates the difficulty. It
represents God as indulging in a tremendous experi
ment of which He could not foresee the issue : and
which, therefore, might have filled the universe with
hopeless anarchy and woe. If he could not foresee
the first sin as a fact, much less could he foresee a
satisfactory method of treating it, or a termination to
human misery which would redound to His own glory.
Such haphazard work would be in the highest degree
culpable, and would be as incompatible with wisdom
and righteousness as with perfect knowledge.
Instead of inventing a cover for our perplexity by

The Mystery of Evil. 129
saying that God created in the dark, we must admit
that, according to the teachings of Scripture, God
created in the light — foreseeing all the effects of His
work, and beholding the close of man's history as
plainly as the beginning. Christianity represents God
as having considered it good for man to be, good
for him to pass through all we now look back upon,
all we now experience, and all that still remains to
be done and suffered ; but it claims to set before us a
sequel to the history which was present to God's mind
before the world was framed — a sequel which will
amply recompense our race for all its struggles, and
turn the groaning of creation into an exultant halle
lujah to the Lord God who hath done all things well.
We have now to inquire into the nature of that
sequel to man's history, which is set before us in the
Scriptures as the moral cause of our creation and sub
jection to vanity and trial.
In one broad sentence, we may say that Righteous
ness is displayed as the ultimate aim of God in creating
man ; and this righteousness, though infinitely higher
than joy, is to have joy for its fruitage in heaven,
although its roots are nourished by the salts of earthly
pain and sorrow.
To appreciate this pure purpose which underlies all
the most gorgeous imagery of the Apocalypse, as well
as the didactic utterances of the prophets and apostles,
and of Christ, we need to observe the distinction be
tween innocence and righteousness. Innocence means
simply freedom from the positive guilt of doing evil.
It is a state consistent with ignorance, feebleness, and
9

130 The Mystery of God.
moral inactivity. Righteousness imports the actual
choice and practice of what is good. Innocence may
be a standing still, or a lying down, in infantile sub-
missiveness. Righteousness must be active, progressive
and assertive of fixed determinations of the will. It is
the actual going forward of a free moral agent along a
true straight line, swerving neither to the right hand
nor the left. A new-born babe or a newly created man
may therefore be innocent, but cannot conceivably be
righteous. The Scriptures never represent man as having fallen
from a state of righteousness but only from a state of
innocence. They represent the first pair as without
any perception of Good or Evil until a positive obliga
tion not to do some particular thing was impressed
upon their minds ; and so desire and curiosity were
excited, debate arose, and the difference between good
and evil was found by the miserable experience of
knowing they had done what they felt ought to have
been left undone. It would be difficult to imagine any
thing more childish and primitive than the conduct
narrated in Genesis, however the garniture of the tale
be interpreted. That story (as shown in a previous
chapter, p. 107) is as consistent with the evolution of
man's physical nature from lower animals as with an
entirely new creation from dust. The difficulties of
man's physical evolution are physical not moral ; they
are difficulties of science and its teachers, not of the
Bible and its expounders. The Bible version is not,
as many absurdly assume, that the whole earth was a
garden of Eden, or that man was created in Paradise.
The general state of the earth is depicted as one of

The Mystery of Evil. 131
natural untilled wildness, and from that outer wild, man
was taken and placed in a prepared garden to com
mence his experience as a moral being. Thence again,
after transgression, he was sent back to the unre
claimed land to work out his history, burdened with the
mournful memory. of folly, but cheered with a hope of
Divine aid and ultimate victory.
Passing over the intervening history, we must now
look on to the culminating visions of the Christian
scheme, that the two states may be compared. In
these visions we see man in a very different condition.
Even in allegory he is not represented as regaining
paradise, as if the starting post were also the goal of all
his course. Heaven is not depicted as a primitive
garden where naked creatures walk unconscious of
nakedness and in infantile innocence. It is a city
or social order, where the inhabitants are clothed, but
in garments which are white as snow, and pure as
joy, and which conceal no secret thoughts of shame.
In Eden there was no crown on Adam's brow, but
there are crowns of pure gold, i.e., of unalloyed honour,
in heaven. There may have been palm-trees in para
dise, but no branch waved -in Adam's hand, for he had
won no victory ; but every inhabitant of heaven carries
this Oriental emblem of triumph. There was music
in Eden — the music of singing birds and laughing
waters, and the rustling of leaves ; man's voice also
was no doubt passing sweet ; but there were no songs
of praise, no intelligent adorations of Divine glory
flung out into the air, no swelling harmonies of thanks
giving for goodness, no laudation of power and wisdom
and holiness made manifest by Divine action to the
9-2

132 The Mystery of God.
created mind. But heaven is described as full of over
flowing worship, and resounding with spontaneous
praise. In Eden we see man wandering in ignorant
wonder and laying the first childlike foundations of
intellectual work in the production of a spoken language
by giving names to the things he saw. God communes
with him in some simple way; but in all this he is
represented as coming down — coming down to man's
simplicity and inexperience ; and of His name or
nature Adam has but the vague idea of a Power higher
than himself — a Power he ought to obey, and yet may
possibly rival if he be bold. Of God's character, as
that is portrayed in the Name given to Moses, ' The
Lord, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow
to anger, and plenteous in mercy and truth' — and
as declared by Jesus, the ' Righteous Father' — Adam,
while ignorant of good and evil, could have no more
notion than a man born blind has of colour. To such a
novice the ideas we see growing in the Old Testament,
and matured in the New, were as incommunicable as the
doctrine of decimals or the law of gravitation to a new
born child. The moral reflections which Milton puts
into the lips of Adam and Eve before their fall may be
excused on the score of poetic license, but they consti
tute an absurd anachronism. They are as contrary to
Scripture and common sense as if he had made them
to discourse under their leafy canopy on the laws of epic
poetry, the advantages of republican institutions, the
liberty of the press, or the right of divorce. But in the
vision of heaven the people are all illuminated with
exalted views of the Divine nature. They know a
name of the Most High still unpronounceable in any

The Mystery of Evil. 133
human language. It is no more God coming down to
man, but man lifted up to God. Those worshippers
have become acquainted with Him in days of sorrow
and sin, and have learned by a thousand experiences
to confide in His wisdom, power, and love. They have
felt the misery of doubt and disobedience, and delibe
rately renounced the thought of doing better for them
selves than God is able or willing to do for them.
Their wills have not been extinguished or superseded,
but have been brought by an ample experience into an
eager and delightful agreement with the will of God.
Hence the vision is one of perfect order, and the reign
of that law of love which is the law of laws, the bond
of unity, and the pledge of continuity throughout the
universe for ever. It is a vision of triumph, in which
Creator and creation, Master and servants, Father and
children, Redeemer and redeemed, all joy and rejoice
together; a vision of love purged from impurity by
sacrifice, and of righteousness rendered incorruptible
by the fires of a Refiner who has made a suffering
world His crucible, that so the faith and love of the
sons of men, more precious than fine gold, may redound
at last unto his own praise and glory and honour.
It will scarcely be disputed that such a state as is
thus meagrely indicated, immeasurably transcends in
moral worth a condition of untried innocence. To fill
many mansions throughout space with such triumphant
and exalted hosts of deathless sons, must be regarded
as an object worthy of an omnipotent God. Men
may say it is a dream, but at any rate it is a magnificent
dream. It is a dream every well-wisher of his race must
at least desire that man may realize. If it be rejected,

134 'The Mystery of God.
. it must be rejected as too sublime, too sanguine, too
rapturous for verity. But, at any rate, it is what Christi
anity affirms shall come to pass ; and if it come to
pass, Paul will be acknowledged to have taken a sober
estimate of value when he reckoned that the sufferings
of this present age are not worthy to be compared
with the glory to be revealed.
It must not be concealed or overlooked, however, that,
in presenting this as the moral cause assigned by Christi
anity for man's creation, it needs to be supported against
some particular objections. It will be urged by some that
they would willingly regard such a consummation as an
adequate solution of the mystery of moral evil, if there
were no dark background of future torment — if it could
be shown that this bright future represents the future
condition of the race, and not merely of a small section
of it, and if further it were made plain that no easier
or directer road might have been laid down for its
attainment. With respect to the mystery of pain, it
may also be objected, that, although man's eventual
triumph would be an adequate solution in so far as he
bears pain for his own good ; yet the sufferings of the
lower animals are not so obviously accounted for by
this sequel to human history.
It is impossible to treat these vast themes adequately
in this connection. Interpreters of Scripture differ in
the conclusions they draw from its statements on these
matters, but there are a few broad principles which
are beyond fair dispute.
It will be convenient to deal first with the case of
animal pain. It has already been conceded to Theists
who reject Christianity that animals suffer far less than

The Mystery of Evil. 135
we are apt to imagine. They are unable to discuss
whether their life is worth living, and it is difficult for
us to understand their position. Probably, however,
their pleasures predominate over pain, and if they lack
our human joys they are also free from our human
sorrows, and from the agonies of moral warfare. But
granting all this, the question still remains, Why the
remainder of pain ? Are there, according to Christian
teachings, any purposes subserved by it of sufficient im
portance to justify its permission by a good Creator ?
A volume might be written on the relation of the
animals to man, and it would be easy to show that we
at any rate profit greatly by their sufferings. Science
has discovered that those innumerable creatures which
tenanted the earth before man have bequeathed incal
culable legacies to our race. It teaches that both by
their living activities and their decay in death they helped
to render this cooling fire-ball fit for human habitation,
adorning it with beauty and storing it with inexhausti
ble provisions for our use. It tells us that nothing now
exists in vain, but that every living thing in earth and
water plays some beneficial part in the commonwealth
of Nature.
The Scriptures throughout coincide with these teach
ings as to the subordination of animals to man's wel
fare ; but, taking a broader and profounder view of human
wellbeing, they connect these lower creatures with our
moral discipline and religious education. According to
the Bible the whole system of nature, animate and in
animate, is held together in one mysterious but insepa
rable bond of unity. The most vivid exhibition of this
principle is to be found in the magnificent imagery of

136 The Mystery of God.
Ezekiel i. There we see inanimate nature moving in
mystic harmony with the animate creation headed by
man. Both alike are surrounded with storm-clouds and
fire, symbolic of the mystery of evil ; while in the vault
above there is a vision of the King Eternal. His presence
seems most terrible, but His throne is surrounded by a
rainbow, suggestive of the truth that His tender mercies
are over all His works, and that when the storms of judg
ment and the fires of discipline have done their work, the
whole realm of Nature will rejoice before Him in right
eousness and peace. The whole teaching of the Bible is
consistent with this vision. Nothing suffers or rejoices
alone, or is permitted to have an isolated history. All
things are declared to be for our sakes, and to be work
ing together for the good of those who are being re
deemed. Even the ground was cursed for man's sake
— not in a fit of foolish and misdirected anger, as undis
cerning captiousness would read the statement in
Genesis, but because man needed the discipline of
labour; and, as Buckle, unconsciously becoming a
Christian apologist, has proved, would best have his
faults corrected, and his noblest powers called into
activity, by the stress of an arduous struggle to exist.
In the same manner animals are represented as existing
not merely or chiefly for themselves, but for man.
They are given to him for food and as helpers of
his toil. He is their lord, but has to contend
for dominion over them, and can only prevail by
courage and rectitude. They are frequently allowed
to scourge his vices, and yet often share his chastise
ment, as in famine, pestilence, and war. Their par
ticipation in man's fortunes was pathetically illustrated

The Mystery of Evil. 137
by their appointment as victims for the sacrificial
altar. Their subjection with man to the Divine will
and their unconscious hope in the Divine mercy were
represented in the Cherubim which overshadowed the
ark, as though peering into the mystery still hidden from
all created beings in heaven and on earth. Further
more, Philo did not exaggerate the functions of the
Jewish High Priest, but simply called attention to a
seldom-noticed truth when he observed that ' he offers
the prayers and thanksgivings, not only for very race
of men, but also on behalf of Nature in all her parts, —
earth, water, and fire ; for he regards the world as his
fatherland (as indeed it truly is), and is wont to in
tercede for it with its Ruler, imploring Him to impart
His own mild and merciful nature to His creation.'*
Passing over much that is profoundly interesting and
suggestive in the prophets, we find all these ancient
ideas and symbols supplemented in the teachings of
the New Testament concerning the person and purposes
of Christ. The doctrine of the incarnation affirms that
if God subjects His creatures to a mysterious fellow
ship of suffering, He does not stand aloof Himself. If
the Logos became flesh, as the Scriptures declare, He
thereby took upon Himself our nature in its affinity to
the lower animals. In His human sufferings, He became
a partaker of animal pain in its broadest sense, and on
the cross He tasted the bitterness of animal death as
truly as the countless beasts which had previously been
slain on Jewish altars. The darkness which surrounded
the cross included the twofold mystery of pain and moral
0 ' De Monarchia,' ii. 6, ii. p. 227. Quoted in the original by
Canon Wescott on 1 John ii. 2.

138 The Mystery of God.
evil, and whatever light of love and mercy streams out
from thence must needs have power to irradiate the lower
plains as well as the highest peaks of life. The cross
is a revelation of God's infinite sympathy with His
creatures, and it is impossible to draw a line which
shall cut off its significance from any sentient portion
of the world. Paul discerned and clearly expressed
this principle. He saw in the cross not only a revela
tion of Divine sympathy, but a sign and pledge of the
Divine power to deliver the whole creation from bond
age to vanity. According to him nature's pain, which
God in Christ descended to partake, is a prolonged
travail to bring forth the new creation. It is not an
expiring groan, not a long death-throe, but a coming to
birth, whereby the entire creation having suffered
together shall at last also rejoice together with the
Lord its maker, because 'the whole creation which
groaneth together until now' shall also 'be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God ' (Rom. viii. 21). Nor
was Paul alone in these anticipations. They are not
obscurely implied by another apostle when he speaks
of Christ as an abiding propitiation, not only for the sins
of men, but also for 'the whole cosmos.' They are also
clearly embodied in the symbolic vision of heaven in the
Apocalypse (Rev. iv.). In this scene the throne of
God, which Ezekiel saw above the clouds and storms of
tribulation, appears in perfect brightness, and sur
rounded with the forms of rejoicing worshippers to
whom the mystery of evil has become an open secret.
But these worshippers are not only human as repre
sented in the elders, for with them are figures which

The Mystery of Evil, 139
represent the ideal unity of animated Hfe, and these
join in giving glory to God and to the Lamb, who has
unsealed the books of God's strange ways, and unfolded
the uses of pain, and strife, and death, in bringing many
sons to glory. Furthermore, when these living creatures
offer praise, the elders are said to fall down and worship
Him that sitteth on the Throne, saying, ' Worthy art
Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the
honour and the power : for Thou didst create all things,
and because of Thy will they were, and were created.'
I am well aware that these thoughts are likely to
start some dark and difficult questions. They suggest,
but do not necessarily involve, the idea of a future life
for the lower animals. Butler long ago admitted that
several arguments which favour man's continued exist
ence after death tell quite as strongly in favour of
the inferior creatures, and many Christian thinkers
have gone beyond that admission. My present argu
ment, however, does not require a discussion of the
exegetical or philosophical problems involved in such
a view. This chapter is not concerned to prove the
credibility of Scripture doctrines in themselves, but
only to ask whether, if otherwise credible, they warrant
our faith in God's goodness ? I submit, therefore, that
the statements advanced show that the mystery of
animal suffering is not overlooked in the Bible : that
God is distinctly declared to have subjected these
creatures to whatever appears strange and hard in
their lot, for wise and benignant ends ; and that in
fellowship with redeemed humanity, ' all things that
have breath will yet ' praise the Lord. It is the dis
tinct teaching of Christianity that when man, crowned

140 The Mystery of God.
and glorified, magnifies Him who has translated him
out of darkness into light, he will offer no selfish
adoration, nor will he be forgetful of those humbler
races which shared his travail, but will find in a per
fected creation a perpetual incitement to proclaim the
goodness of Him by whom all things were made.
Turning now to the objections which relate to
man's future condition, it must be observed in
the first place that those notions of physical torture
which used to pass current as Scriptural are gross
perversions of Biblical metaphors. The combination
of such incompatible things as darkness, fire, and worms
proves this. Darkness cannot exist where flame is, and
where flame is worms are not. That there will be tri
bulation and agonizing remorse hereafter for those who
sin against light, is taught in Scripture : and if it were
not, man's conscience would say that it ought to be.
Multitudes go out of the world in such a moral condition
that God could not prevent them from suffering remorse
and shame, unless He obliterated memory and virtually
annihilated their souls. If Christianity had taught that
there is no judgment, and that the wicked and the
righteous will be immediately and equally happy after
death, it would have been inferior morally to some
heathen conceptions. Men would have scouted as
false and corrupting the idea that Nero, Caligula,
Philip of Spain, and cruel wretches who make a sport of
murder, should straightway be beatified together with
holy women and innocent children and with valiant
martyrs for righteousness' sake. The Roman Catholic
torture-pit is an invention of priests, who themselves used
the stake and the axe without remorse. But the Bible

The Mystery of Evil. 141
view of God is that although He has no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, and judgment is His ' strange
work,' yet that, as a righteous moral Governor, He will
presently divide the evil from the good, because their
commingling after death would mean a renewal of
nearly all that makes earthly society a peril and a
grief to well-meaning men. Strong terms are merci
fully used by Christ to declare the woful consequence
of resisting kindness, mercy, and moral help ; but
those terms are all of a highly figurative character, and
they describe not created torments, but the mental suf
ferings of those who bemoan their misused powers, lost
opportunities, and rejected overtures of love.
With regard to the numbers of those who attain to
glory, Christ was very reticent. When asked about it
He simply urged His questioners to strive to enter the
narrow door, lest they should be shut out of His king
dom as one generation of their fathers had been shut
out from the Promised Land, because too cowardly and
unbelieving to encounter their opponents. He reminded
them under many figures that salvation means victory,
and that victory means difficulty, but that ruin means
only self-surrender to defeat. Salvation means an entry
into life by a door through which men can only pass
one by one, because each man apart is accountable to
God for his life. But ruin means a careless yielding to
the surge of a pleasure-loving crowd.
This reticence of Christ's may well be accepted as an
example by His servants, and is one which the apostles
evidently followed. Language which seems to promise
a more convenient opportunity for repentance in the
next world to those who shirk its troubles now, must be

142 The Mystery of God.
adverse to the best interests of men, and is contrary to
the evident aim and spirit of the Scriptures. But the
Bible does not teach as a dogma that the truth and
love which were in Jesus Christ can never reach the
spirits which are imprisoned in the dungeons of their
sin. It was once asked of a learned theologian, who
taught that man's doom is fixed irrevocably at death :
' Supposing in some far age, when you have long en
joyed the Father's house, Christ were to bring in a
company of men from the outer darkness, could you look
up to Him and say, " Lord, this is contrary to the
words of the Bible we believed on earth"? Could you
sa}% " That book deceived me " ? ' And he answered
after a pause, ' No, I could not truly say that.' It
was asked again, ' Do you think that any man who
had been himself redeemed from evil by undeserved
goodness would ever play the part of the elder son in
the golden parable, if such prodigals were brought in
hereafter ?' Again he answered, ' No.' Still again
it was asked, ' Supposing, in some manner not revealed
because no part of any needed revelation upon earth,
God were to overcome His last rebellious creature, and
so were to fulfil the word of Paul and " reconcile all
things unto Himself," whether on earth or elsewhere,
should we not feel that this was a crowning glory and
delight, and a fulfilment of many starry hints studded
over Scripture?' Once more he replied, ' It would.'
If there are any students of the Scriptures in their
original tongues, who would refuse to make the same
admissions, they must be very few. It cannot be
denied that readers of the English version, whether
authorised or revised, may well think the language of

The Mystery of Evil. 143
Scripture stronger than it really is.* It is also evident
that Christ meant men to feel that by their treatment
of Himself and of His words they were for all practical
purposes of finite calculation making a permanent
decision. The stubbornness of the human will, more
over, and God's clear resolve not to abrogate its liberty,
and so destroy man's moral nature, render it supremely
presumptuous to say dogmatically that no soul of man
will fail of heaven at last. But, making all these allow
ances, it may safely be affirmed that the following
propositions, given substantially in Scriptural language,
represent the clear teachings of Christianity.
The love of God is for the world as a whole, and
includes His adversaries, just as He teaches us to love
our enemies and to do them good. The mediation of
Christ is for mankind as one, although its benefits are
appropriated individually. Its object is to unite all
severed peoples into one, and in one body to reconcile
them unto God. The desire of God is that all men
should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the
truth. The most inclusive and far-reaching words of
prophecy are those which say that God's purpose is to
gather together all things into one in Christ, and that
Christ is to reign as King until He has subdued all things
to Himself, and that then the kingdom shall be de-
0 For an impartial discussion of the word ' Eternal,' see ' The
Spirits in Prison,' by Dean Plumptre, p. 356. That the strongest
terms used in Scripture do not necessarily denote absolutely endless
duration may, however, be seen immediately by looking at the
revised translation of 2 Tim. i. 9, and Jude vi. The former passage
speaks of something which happened before times ' Eternal ' began ;
the latter assigns the day of judgment as the terminus of an ' ever
lasting ' imprisonment.

144 The Mystery of God.
livered up unto the Father, that God may be all
in all.*
If this statement of Scripture teaching be accepted .
as fair, and the vision it unfolds be deemed a worthy
moral cause of man's creation, it may still be objected:
Granting the magnificence and moral worth of the end
to be gained, could not man have been caused to reach
it by an easier and directer road ?
The answer to this question is emphatically ' No !'
Such a goal could not conceivably be reached by any
shorter path. Omnipotence could not create men with
the ripe results of moral conflict in their hearts and
minds prior to any actual experience. There are some
people who believe that the countless millions of fossils
which lie embedded in the earth's crust never were
living animals, but were created to simulate dead
species, just as they now appear. Such a monstrous
notion is plausible compared with the idea of creating
moral beings as ready-made victors in a heavenly state
of blessedness. God could create any number of golden
crowns and leafy palms and robes of spotless white ; but
if these were worn by creatures who had never fought
and conquered, never been tempted and delivered, the
heavenly city would have no more moral grandeur than
an exhibition of waxen kings and warriors. Nay, worse,
it would be a created fraud, an everlasting lie. The joy
and glory of the redeemed are conditioned by the fact that
they have truly been in and have come out of tribulation.
Again, not only is this process essential to the result,
* For a justification of the above statements, see, amongst other
passages, John ii. 16, 17 ; Matt. v. 43—48 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1—6, iv. 10 ;
Titus ii. 11— 14 ; Col. i. 19, 20 ; Eph. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 28.

The Mystery of Evil. 145
but it is a process which must manifestly be very gra
dual and protracted. When once man had started on
the experiment of living according to his own inclina
tions and desires, he was bound to exhaust every
plausible scheme of utility and pleasantness, just as
Christ indicates in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
The father in that parable might have locked his son,
as a prisoner, in his chamber, or have set his servants
to watch against his departure for abroad* like the
father of Gotama in the Buddhist myth. But what
would have been the effect of this repression ? Having
once formed the wish to go, that son could never be a
free and willing resident in his father's house until he
had tried the far country and been reduced to say of
his own accord, ' I will arise, and return.' So with
the human race. It would have destroyed the whole
condition of man's existence, and frustrated the final
result, if God had averted catastrophes by preventing
the complete outworking of any experiment, however
wearisome and disastrous, before man confessed it a
failure. But many of the schemes which have been
devised have required ages and generations to work
out. Dreams of social order and systems of thought
are not ripened and found faulty in a day ; and yet it
is only as one after another is tried and found wanting
that men are humbled to consider what professes to be
the counsel and commandment of God. Hence the
slow march of ages — wherein nations, religions, and
philosophies rise and decline — becomes indispensable
to the development of such a far-reaching purpose as
Christianity ascribes to God- Human experience must
needs include the mystery of lawlessness and suffering,
10

146 The Mystery of God.
until the race is brought to confess as one man, 'I
have sinned, and it profited me not.' ' Lo, I come to
do thy will, O God! With the iron pen of my ex
perience, Thou hast written Thy law in my mind, and
Thy loving-kindness has put it into my heart. From
henceforth it shall be my delight.'
The argument now nears its close. It only needs for
its completeness a final statement of what has been
implied all through, viz., That such a scheme of moral
glorification for man as Christianity unfolds necessitates
some of those alleged defects in Nature which are so often
arraigned as incompatible with the goodness of God.
If men are to find out for themselves the difference
between Good and Evil, it must be in a world which
admits of various consequences being attached to
different lines of conduct. The far country was a hard
place to live in, but for the younger son it was the
best possible place a father's love could have devised;
and the famine, if caused by the father, would have
been as great a proof of inexorable kindness as the
feast spread and the music called for at the coming
home ; even the swine, by their repulsive grossness,
assisted to drive the prodigal to arise from his
animalism, and seek a more rational and spiritual
life with his father. That parable contains in part
Christ's explanation of the mystery of pain and want
in His Father's world. If men are to learn such
lessons as Christianity says we need, there must be
suffering, or the nature of wrong will be concealed.
The innocent, also, must often suffer with the guilty,
or one of the worst natural consequences of sin, which
is to injure others, must be miraculously arrested, and

The Mystery of Evil. 147
so the exceeding bitterness of sin be hidden from man's
eyes. Virtue must have a preponderating advantage,
and must have many encouragements, or the moral
judgments of men will be obscured; but virtue must
often miss any outward regard or acknowledgment,
and must often endure injustice, in order that the
integrity of men may be tried. Mitigations of penalty,
pardons and restorations, must be accorded, or every
idea of amendment will be shut out, and despair be
come an everlasting prison-house for the race. Yet
some of the temporal results of sin must be allowed
to accrue even after, and in spite of, repentance, or
delay in forsaking sin will lose its penalty, and moral
warnings become like nursery bogies which, as children
soon find out, have no existence. If men are to be
lifted up out of evil, motives which they can appreciate
while still in a degraded state must be afforded ; and
yet, as they advance, other motives must come into
play which supersede the first, and shine them away
through the working of a noble shame: just as we
see in many Christian men, that the mere self-interested
desire to escape from punishment which stirs them at
the first is transformed, little by little, into a sublime
aspiration to share the service and sacrifice of Christ
for the good of all. In any case, man needs to have
the path of transgression made hard, and the path
of righteousness made steep, but not impossible; and
above all things he needs to have a hope set before him
to call out all his noblest powers in pursuit of the final
good which God is seeking to confer. The very pledge
and potency of success in such a design must consist in
the reconciliation of man to the sway and guidance of
10 — 2

148 The Mystery of God.
the Eternal Wisdom : and whatsoever God can do by
the discipline of pain and sorrow to bring men to receive
such mercies, such sympathies, and such succour as
are the burthen of the Gospel, and to induce them to
arise and seek the glory there held out to human hopes,
must be regarded as an evidence of Divine goodness.
The defects of the natural world, considered as an abode
furnished for man's temporal comfort and convenience,
are its perfections as a place of moral discipline; and,
unless falsehood be sublimer than truth, the cross of
Christ, followed by his exaltation to the throne, declares
not only the righteousness of God in forgiving wrong,
but also in permitting pain. The mystery of evil must
remain to those who disbelieve the Christian scheme.
But that mystery assuredly is solved for all who verily
believe that the men whose sufferings Christ partook
shall one day share His risen joy, and reign with Him
as kings of righteousness over the many cities of His
Father's realm. It is not pretended that any effort of
thought, or any word of revelation, can at once lift our
minds out of the obscurity which encompasses our
path. Clouds and darkness are round about us, and
the strongest faith cannot prematurely disperse the
clouds, or render the darkness while it lingers as cheer
ful as the light to our hearts; but the doctrines of
Christ are a light shining in the darkness, and they say
to all who receive them that the Mystery of Evil is like
the thick cloud into which Moses entered on Mount
Sinai — a darkness where God is, and a darkness from
which man will presently emerge with the lustre of a
Divine glory on his face.

CHAPTER VI.
THE MIRACLE OF REVELATION.
Revelation is not necessarily miraculous. The order
of nature reveals something of the mind which origin
ated it. As Keble sings :
' There is a book, who runs may read,
Which heavenly truth imparts,
The works of God above, below,
Within us and around,
Are pages in that book, to show
How God Himself is found.'
Science is a welcome pedagogue, teaching men to read
that great book which existed before man invented
writing, or had ' eyes to see ' the wondrous hiero
glyphics which abound in the heavens and on the earth.
Materialism sees no revelation in nature, for she says
that this great book has no author. Pantheism insists
that the book and its author are the same ; writer,
writing, and readers all absolutely one. Deism affirms
that God produced the book by creating a self-
composing apparatus. According to this theory the
Canon of Scripture was closed when creation was
finished ; and the Author never stoops to explain or
supplement it, although man has blundered for so

150 The Mystery of God.
many centuries in his attempts to decipher the letters,
and still finds that many pages are written in an
unknown language. Christianity declares that, in
addition to this book of nature, God has spoken unto
men ' by divers portions and in divers manners,' and
specially ' in His Son,' ' through whom also He made
the worlds ' (Heb. i. 1, 2). It is her belief that many
of these spoken words are recorded in the Bible, and
that in them we have light and truth on matters of
supreme importance, concerning which Nature is silent,
or her testimony too obscure for human hearts to
understand. In previous chapters we have seen how impossible
it is to read in nature a satisfying revelation of Divine
goodness in the creation and government of this world.
We have also seen that the Bible propounds a comple
mentary doctrine which, if credible on other grounds,
must be confessed not merely acceptable but sublime.
Our business now is to consider whether the doctrine
can reasonably be received as a Divine Revelation.
This discussion will extend itself over the remaining
chapters of this volume.
The scope of the present chapter corresponds to
that of Mill's Essay on Revelation : and although not
solely a criticism of that essay, its subject cannot be
better stated than by a quotation from his opening
paragraph : ' It would be beyond the purpose of this
Essay, to take into consideration the positive evidences
of the Christian, or any other belief, which claims to
be a revelation from Heaven. But such general con
siderations as are applicable not to a particular system,
but to Revelation generally, may properly find a place

The Miracle of Revelation. 151
here.'* It will be observed that the word ' Revelation '
is here used in the special sense which involves a
miracle, i.e., the direct action of the Divine Will inside
the realm of law ; and in this chapter it will be em
ployed in the same way.
Starting ' on the hypothesis of a God, who made
the world, and in making it had regard ... to the
happiness of His sentient creatures,' Mill allows the
possibility of a miracle on the ground that He who
was able to create the universe ' may well be thought to
have the power to modify it ' (pp. 215 and 232). He also
concedes over and above this abstract possibility that
' there is no antecedent improbability in the supposition
that His concern for their good would continue, and
that He might once or oftener give proof of it by com
municating to them some knowledge of Himself beyond
what they were able to make out by their unassisted
faculties, and some knowledge or precepts useful for
guiding them through the difficulties of life.' ' The
only question to be entertained, and which we cannot
dispense ourselves from entertaining, is that of evidence.
Can any evidence suffice to prove a Divine revelation ?
And of what nature, and what amount, must that
evidence be ?' (p. 215).
It is important at the outset to understand the
precise bearing of these questions. They do not merely
affect the credibility of certain groups of miracles
recorded in the Bible, but the possibility of any real
intercourse between man and God. Hume truly said,
'The raising of a house or a ship into the air is a
visible miracle. The raising of a feather, when the
* 'Essays on Religion,' p. 212.

152 The Mystery of God.
wind wants ever so little of a force requisite for that
purpose, is as real a miracle, though not so sensible
with regard to us.'* It matters not how minute the
occurrence : an event is a miracle if the usual physical
causation be absent, and an effect be produced inside
the order of nature by a Divine act. The smallest
answer to prayer is as truly excluded by the philosophic
arguments against miracles, if those arguments are
valid, as the raising of Lazarus or the stilling of the
tempest. Overlooking this fact, some Theists venture
to sling Atheistic stones at the miracles of Christianity,
while calling God their Father, continuing to pray,
and rejoicing in His spiritual presence, vainly imagining
that Christianity minus its miracles would be practically
the same religion, only more easily believed. Others
think to evade all philosophic and scientific difficulties
by praying only for things spiritual, leaving physical
benefits, e.g. the bread referred to in the Lord's
Prayer, to be asked for by unscientific persons. This
attempt, however, only excites ridicule among the
high priests of Materialism. The introduction of a
single reviving thought or purifying impulse direct
from God involves precisely the same usage of Divine
Will within the order of nature as the revelation of a
moral code to Moses on Mount Sinai. The least
influence brought to bear on a human mind from
outside, or above the order of natural sequences,
involves a modification of that order, and must be
attended with physical consequences. The mere
reception of a new emotion, or a quickened apprehen
sion, or an enlivened hope into the mind, induces an
* ' Essays,' Note K, Vol. II., p. 462.

The Miracle of Revelation. 153
instantaneous physical change. The altered counten
ance of one who prays, and in his prayer obtains relief
from shame or grief, indicates a countless number of
molecular changes ; and if it be a fact that God has
really responded to the man's cry, and sent a little
strength into his soul, a new force has eome into the
realm of natural order — a force which may work out
eventually into a revolution like that of Luther, and
change the custom of the world. It matters not, then,
how secret or spiritual the communion ; the argument
from physical continuity against a miraculous revelation
is gone when once the will of God has been confessed
to act directly on the mind of man. The least faith
in a prayer-answering God involves the same philo
sophic and scientific difficulties as the inspiration of a
prophet or the resurrection of Christ. When a single
act of Divine volition has been admitted, it can never
afterwards be contended that such volitions are im
possible, or on abstract grounds incredible.
The first argument claiming our attention is that of
David Hume, as advanced in his famous Essay to
prove that ' no evidence whatever could suffice to render
a miracle credible.'* He contended that a miracle is
contrary to the 'firm,' 'unalterable,' and 'uniform
experience ' of mankind ; that this ' experience is ' a
direct and full proof from the nature of the fact
against the existence of any miracle,' and that there
fore ' no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle.'
This argument was launched with high-sounding words
of self-congratulation by its author. ' I flatter myself,'
he wrote, ' that I have discovered an argument, ....
* 'Essays,' Vol. II., p. 109.

154 The Mystery of God.
which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an
everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,
and consequently will be useful as long as the world
endures.' Competent judges, including many who
sympathize with Hume's attitude towards Christianity,
have long' since perceived that his argument against
miracles is simply an ingenious begging of the whole
question. It is, however, still lauded and repeated as
if its soundness were above suspicion, and a few words
must be devoted to its examination.
A great fallacy which runs through the essay may
be detected in Hume's account of the manner in which
his argument was conceived. He states that it was
suggested to him by reading Tillotson's refutation of
the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation in the
Lord's supper. Tillotson argued that the evidence of
our senses is stronger than, and must be believed in
preference to, any testimony. But, said he, the
evidences of the Christian religion rest on testimony ;
consequently, inasmuch as the doctrine of the Real
Presence contradicts our senses, we ought not to
believe it, even if it be a doctrine of Christianity.
Hume has gained fame by simply extending this
argument to all the alleged miracles of the Bible.
But it is singular how so acute an intellect should
have failed to see that the reasoning which for Tillot
son's purpose was valid, was worthless for his own.
The minor premise, which is true respecting the dogma
of the Real Presence, in the Mass, is false respecting
the miracles of the Bible. The dogma of the Real
Presence does contradict our senses. The senses of
every human being who beholds the Mass performed

The Miracle of Revelation. 155
tell him that the bread and wine show no signs of
alteration — even a chemist can find no accident or
property removed or added. But the Roman Church
asserts that the bread and wine are annihilated, and
the real flesh and blood of Christ are there instead,
despite the evidences of touch, taste, smell, and sight,
and in defiance of chemical analysis. But what alleged
miracle of Scripture can be charged with contradicting
our senses or the senses of the original observers ?
Were the wedding-guests at Cana asked to believe
that they were drinking good wine while their senses
told them it was only spring water ? Was the widow
of Nain asked to believe that she had her son alive
again while his body lay stark and stiff on the bier ?
Did the disciples convulse Jerusalem by saying ' Jesus
has risen,' in spite of the production of His mangled
and decaying body by the rulers and priests ? Clearly
not. These miracles, as they are described to us, all
appealed to men's senses as witnesses of the phenomena;
and the difficulty felt by sceptics in regard to them is
the exact opposite of that which Tillotson urged so
successfully against the doctrine of the Mass. The
Christian witnesses say that certain marvellous
physical phenomena appeared to them which no
known physical causes could produce. The Romish
Church says, ' There are no physical phenomena to be
observed, but in spite of that a physical change has
taken place.'*
* A Roman Catholic may urge that if a miracle can be wrought
to produce exceptional phenomena, it can also be wrought to effect
a change of substance while the accidents remain. A variety of
points are raised by this contention which belong exclusively to
Protestant polemics. It may not, however, be superfluous to re-

156 The Mystery of God.
A second fallacy in Hume's essay is equally palpable.
He avers that miracles are contrary to experience.
But we inquire to whose experience are they con
trary ? To Mr. Hume's ? Yes ; but not therefore
to all mankind's. How then are we to know what
the experience of mankind has been ? Evidently
only by recorded testimony. But what portion of
mankind has left us any testimony on the subject at
all ? Certainly only a small portion, although the
individuals are numerous. Have, then, any of these
witnesses professed to have seen miracles ? Most
certainly, for that is how most of them were induced
to testify on the subject at all. Manifestly, therefore,
before we can affirm what the uniform experience of
mankind has been, we must consider the worth of this
testimony and decide whether it be good or bad. This
is the conclusion arrived at by Mill, who says that, ' All
the evidence alleged in favour of any miracle ought to
be reckoned as counter evidence in refutation of the
ground on which it is asserted that miracles ought to
be disbelieved. The question can only be stated fairly
as depending on a balance of evidence.'
Having reached this point, we might perhaps claim
mark that such a view presupposes the existence of miracles, and
can in no way affect the force of the argument against Hume. If
miracles are wrought upon substance without affecting accidents,
they lie outside the range of sense perceptions, and consequently of
human testimony. If believed in at all, they are the objects of a
faith which not only asks no support from the senses, but can
survive their contradiction. Hume's mistake was that he con
founded two radically different classes of alleged miracles, as pointed
out in the text. Not a sentence of what he writes respecting the
teachings of experience or the value of testimony has the slightest
relevance to miracles of an invisible order.

The Miracle of Revelation. 157
that the way is sufficiently cleared of a priori objections
for an unprejudiced discussion of the evidences relied
upon by Christianity. We have Mill's admissions, that,
(1) Given a Divine Creator, a miraculous revelation is
possible ; (2) if He cared at all for His creatures there
is no antecedent improbability against His making such
a communication; (3) the question is solely one of
evidence ; (4) this question cannot be closed by such
dogmatic assertions as Hume's. But notwithstanding
these admissions Mill seeks to find logical room for
two further contentions : (1) That the actual evidence
adduced in favour of alleged miracles having been
wrought is insufficient ; (2) that there is a vast pre
ponderance of probability against such a direct action
ever taking place.
It will be observed that the first of these contentions
raises a far larger issue than Mill announced in the
opening of his essay. It arraigns the whole of those.
' positive evidences of the Christian' religion which he
expressly excluded from treatment. Whether his ac
quaintance with Christian apologetics was sufficient to
qualify him for the task of discussing them may well be
doubted. As a matter of fact, however, he does not
discuss them in any of his essays. The value of these
particular evidences will hereafter be submitted to
examination, and the adverse opinions casually ex
pressed in his Essay on Theism will be dealt with as
more fully expressed and sustained by other writers.
Declining all excursions, therefore, beyond the boundaries
assigned for this chapter, we shall consider only his
remarks on the general worth of evidence in relation to
alleged Divine acts.

158 The Mystery of God.
His general position is ' that Divine interference with
nature could be proved if we had the same sort of
evidence for it which we have for human interferences'
(p. 228). Near the commencement of his essay, he
writes very distinctly on this point. 'Taking the
question from the very beginning, ' he observes, ' it is
evidently impossible to maintain that if a supernatural
fact really occurs, proof of its occurrence cannot be
accessible to the human faculties. The evidence of our
senses could prove this, as it can prove other things.
To put the most extreme case : suppose that I actually
saw and heard a Being, either of the human form or of
some form previously unknown to me, commanding a
world to exist, and a new world actually starting into
existence and commencing a movement through space,
at his command. There can be no doubt that this
evidence would convert the creation of worlds from a
speculation into a fact of experience' (p. 217). He antici
pates the sceptical objection that the appearance might
be no ' more than an hallucination' of his senses, but,
admitting the possibility that the senses may be de
ceived, he urges that there are various precautions
which may be taken, and draws the practical con
clusion : ' When the evidence, on which an opinion
rests, is equal to that upon which the whole conduct
and safety of our lives is founded, we need ask no
further. Objections which apply equally to all evidence
are valid against none. They only prove abstract
fallibility' (p. 218).
This passage is of great importance. It shows that
we are foolish to demand evidence of a surer kind than
our human faculties are capable of supplying. It admits

The Miracle of Revelation. 159
that the spectators of a superhuman event would be
justified in trusting to their own senses, and it leaves
the way open for a discussion of the question, whether
we are also justified in trusting to the testimony of
those who say, ' We have seen such events.' This is
precisely what Mill perceived, for his next paragraph
introduces the question of human testimony. In the
midst, however, of the discussion of this topic, the
trustworthiness of the senses is impugned in a re
markable passage which, to all but very subtle in
tellects, will appear a contradiction of the words given
above. The passage now to be quoted occurs directly after
the admission that a Divine interference with nature
could be proved if we had the same sort of evidence for
it which we have for human interferences. Its object
is to destroy the value of that admission by showing
that such evidence must always be lacking. 'When
the human will interferes to produce any physical
phenomenon, except the movements of the human body,
it does so by the employment of means : and is obliged
to employ such means as are by their own physical
properties sufficient to bring about the effect. Divine
interference, by hypothesis, proceeds in a different
manner from this : it produces its effect without means,
or with such as are in themselves insufficient ' (p. 228).
Therefore it is urged, ' Supposing even that the event,
supposed to be miraculous, does not reach us through
the uncertain medium of human testimony, but rests on
the direct evidence of our senses ; even then, so long
as there is no direct evidence of its production by a
Divine volition, like that we have for the production of

160 The Mystery of God.
bodily movements by human volitions ' (p. 229), so
long the hypothesis of Divine volitions is incredible.
This has been much admired as a piece of close and
powerful reasoning ; let us judge it for ourselves. Ob
serve, first of all, that to point the contrast between
Divine and human volitions it is affirmed that God
uses means, if He uses them at all, which are ' in then>
selves insufficient,' but man uses means which are ' by
their own physical properties sufficient.' But the ques
tion arises, Does man use means which are in themselves
sufficient to produce the effect ? Are any implements
employed by man to effect his purposes in external
nature ' sufficient by their own physical properties ' to
produce their desired effect, apart from the volition
which uses them ? If so, we should be glad to make
their acquaintance. Will a lancet open sore flesh unless
used by man ? or will a sail set itself to catch a sea-
breeze ? or a gun by its own ' physical properties '
direct and propel a shot ? The question of the suffi
ciency of means largely depends on the force of will and
the degree of wisdom possessed by the person who
employs them. With a common pen-knife some men
could carve a better model ship than others could make
with the best tools ever invented at their command.
The word ' sufficient,' as applied to means, is a purely
relative term, and it is relative not only to the effect
required, but also to the power and skill of the being
who employs the means. Therefore, if God can pro
duce effects by means which would be insufficient in
man's hands, it only shows that He is mightier and
wiser than man, but in no case, human or Divine, can
means be called insufficient, if they really suffice for the

The Miracle of Revelation. 161
production of the required effect, and in neither case
are the means used ' sufficient ' in themselves or ' by
their own physical properties.'
Observe again the singular distinction set up between
the movements of the human body by the will and the
production of any other physical phenomena. We are
invited to assume that in moving the body the will uses
no physical means, while in every other case it is com
pelled to employ them. But what are the facts ? In the
first place the will never uses any external physical means
or instruments except by and through some movements
of the body. When Mill wrote that sentence, he used
perhaps a quill ; but the said quill had first to be taken
hold of by a hand, and never formed a letter except as
guided by the writer's fingers. The blacksmith, per
spiring at his task of shaping iron' on the anvil, would
gladly use his ponderous hammer without the fatigue
of moving his arms. The seamstress, stitching garments
with aching eyes and trembling fingers, would most
thankfully ply her needle by a calm exertion of the will.
But, alas for toiling humanity ! the will has no power to
produce any physical effects, or to employ any physical
means, whether small or great, except through and by
the prior means of moving some portion of the body.
In spite of Mill's mysterious slip of thought, therefore,
we are driven inside man's body to discover how the
will operates. Here again we are compelled to point
out an inexcusable assumption of what is manifestly
incorrect. We are invited to believe that, in producing
movements of the body, the will employs no physical
means. To what extent is this true ? It is not true of
the hand, for no man, author or smith, can use his
n

1 62 The Mystery of God.
hand to wield an implement without setting in motion
a considerable amount of physical machinery. Let a
few nerves and muscles be cut in the arm, or a bone be
broken, or a joint dislocated, and the strongest will
can neither close]the empty fingers nor grasp a hammer
or a pen. Step by step we trace the machinery of the
body back to the brain cells. There at last, but only
there, we find physical phenomena produced by the
will without the use of any intermediate physical means.
Whatever the ultimate effect to be produced, whether
within the body or out of the body, whether to write a
book, steer a ship, build a tower, or only to snap the
fingers, the will operates in the same way. There is
absolutely no distinction, and the subtle argument
based upon the assumption that man's will operates
in two different ways is a logical castle in the air.
Having cleared our minds of this confusion, we are
free to take the value of Mill's admission, ' that divine
interference with nature could be proved if we had the
same sort of evidence for it which we have for human
interferences.' The case, therefore, stands thus. Apart
from testimony, we have two sorts of evidence for
human interferences :
I. We have the evidence of consciousness which each
man possesses that his own body is moved by an effort
of his will. This order of evidence never can be pro
ducible for a Divine act of volition. If at any time
God works a miracle, He alone can be conscious of
performing it. If myriads of men or angels were to
witness the creation of a new world in the manner
described by Mill, they would not have the same kind
of certitude that we have about our own volitions.

The Miracle of Revelation. 163
This, however, does not weaken the force of any
evidence for miracles, because the objection applies
with equal force to the evidence of the smallest human
action that can be witnessed.
II. Apart from the evidence of consciousness or
testimony, we have, also, for human interferences with
nature, the evidence of inference, and that more or less
' speculative inference.' We have ' direct perception '
of phenomena produced by the volition, but never of
the volition itself. If I see a man stabbed immediately
before me in broad daylight, I can only infer a human
volition. The evidence adduced in cases of wilful
murder is always inferential, even when it is not what
is called ' circumstantial.' My senses report to my
intellect the observed phenomena. Reflecting on these,
I am compelled to infer that they have a real cause,
and the only cause I can conceive is that the body I
see at work is moved by an invisible will like to that of
which I am conscious, but which no man can see in
me. This is the sole evidence I can obtain of any
human will interfering with nature. It is generally
accounted valid. The world passes on its way regard
ing it as sufficient. Men are hanged on the strength
of such evidence. Wars are waged, families dwell
together, and business is conducted in the faith of it.
To disregard it would involve an absolute cessation of
human intercourse, and drive us into the old Hindoo
jungle of calling the universe an illusion. Yet the
evidence for a Divine interference would be of a
similar order. If I beheld a new world created as
Mill describes, I should only have the evidence of my
senses for the outward phenomena and the super-
11 — 2

164 The Mystery of God.
human volition would be an 'inference.' If Mary
really stood by the grave of Lazarus and saw her dead
brother arise, her senses would render precisely the
same service as when she saw him buried a few days
before, and they would be neither more nor less trust
worthy in .the one case than the other. Any objection
against the evidence in this or similar instances on the
score of its being only ' inferential ' would apply to ' all
evidence' whatever. The justice of an inference must
in all cases be open to consideration. No one would
Contend that every conclusion to which an incautious
mind may leap is to be accepted as valid. But the
question now before us relates not to a concrete case
but to the qualities of evidence in general and in par
ticular to the value of an inference per se. In the case
supposed by Mill, he admits that the true inference
would be that a Divine volition had taken place, and
thus unwittingly allows the sufficiency of inference in
a conceivable case. If he saw a dead man raised from
the grave he would probably make the same admission.
The actual occurrence of either event would be an
object of direct perception, and the inference drawn
from it would be an act of the reason. It is insisted,
therefore, that the reason must be called upon to decide
in each particular case as to what inference is to be
drawn from observed facts, and no a priori objection can
hold good against any such conclusion merely because
it is an inference. Such an objection would force
us to doubt the existence of the world, the reality of
any action done for us by a mother or wife or child,
and so would reduce thought itself to a lying dream.
We fall back, therefore, again on Mill's twofold admis-

The Miracle of Revelation. 165
sion, that 'divine interference with nature could be
proved if we had the same sort of evidence for it which
we have for human interferences,' and, 'when the
evidence on which an opinion rests is equal to that
upon which the whole conduct and safety of our lives
is founded, we need ask no further. Objections which
apply equally to all evidence are valid against none.
They only prove abstract fallibility.'
We advance now to consider the value of human
testimony as evidence of a superhuman interference
with nature. Granting that we should be justified in
trusting our senses as already ascertained, it is obvious
that such evidence can seldom be available. The
world wants to know whether it is entitled to credit
the reports of ancient events, such as are recorded
in. the Bible. Here again it must be remarked
that the examination of particular testimonies is re
served. We have now to deal with the prior question
raised by scepticism. Can such testimony ever be
accepted ?
In estimating the value of testimony, it is necessary
to distinguish between the phenomena attested and
the inference drawn. Testimony, strictly speaking,
can never transcend the evidence of consciousness, or
of the senses. The senses, as we have seen, cannot
discern a volition, therefore no testimony can directly
prove one, unless it be given by the person who exer
cised his will. All we can ask of a witness is that he will
accurately report what he perceived. When this is
done, we are in a position to draw an inference our
selves. We may often have to repudiate an inference
as unsound, while accepting a statement of facts as

1 66 The Mystery of God.
true. Indeed, we not unfrequently use the facts
related by a writer to discredit his inferences.
Keeping this distinction in mind, it will appear that
human testimony is at least as trustworthy as the
evidence of our senses. In the present day, we have
learned to correct the evidence of our senses as to
matter of fact in countless instances by accepting the
testimony of other observers. We deny the witness '
of our eyes that the sun rises and sets, yet how many
of us have personally made the observations which
prove our eyes mistaken ? The facts of geology and
astronomy, and indeed of all the natural sciences, are
received for the greater part on testimony. Indeed,
the amount of knowledge obtained by any one man's
senses is infinitesimally small in comparison with what
he credits on the evidence of his fellows. If a sceptic
should contend that ' all men are liars,' he would be
obliged to base even that assertion on testimony.
Of course it has to be admitted that we may be
deceived by testimony as well as by the senses.
Our witnesses may have been under some illusion,
or they may have intentionally borne false witness.
But then we are entitled to transfer to this kind of
evidence what Mill so justly admitted about the
senses. There are well-known precautions which may
be taken to test the veracity and discretion of a wit
ness ; but in the majority of cases testimony, and not
the senses, is 'all that we have to trust to.' 'We
depend on ' it ' for the premises ' of our reasonings in
physical and historical science, and in all the relation
ships of life. Upon the strength of it justice is
administered, not by eye-witnesses of crime, but by

The Miracle of Revelation. 167
impartial judges, who are rightly trusted to sift the
evidence adduced. If the fallibility of testimony be
urged as an objection against the reception of evidence,
we may fall back, therefore, with confidence on the
* sound dictum already quoted twice. ' When the
evidence on which an opinion rests is equal to that
upon which the whole conduct and safety of our lives
is founded, we need ask no further. Objections which
apply equally to all evidence are valid against none.
They only prove abstract fallibility.' The testimony
of witnesses who profess to have seen occurrences
which can only be explained by inferring a Divine act
of volition, is of precisely the same order as that which
we have for human actions. The testimony which
would satisfy in the one case cannot on abstract
grounds be held insufficient in the other; while of
course the right or the duty of trying the soundness
of any inference from the phenomena must in all cases
remain. It may be conceded that our argument thus far is
logically valid ; and yet an impression remain that, as
practical persons, we ought to regard testimony for
extraordinary events with more caution than is con
sidered necessary in ordinary affairs. This is quite
just. If a man's life were in question, a counsel would
cross-examine witnesses with more severity than if the
issue at stake were a trifling sum of money. Where
the truth of a religion is concerned, therefore, no pains
can be too great, and no care excessive in weighing
the evidence before us. It is, however, quite as
important that this care should be taken before the
evidence is rejected as before it is accepted, for a

1 68 The Mystery of God.
hasty denial must be at least as evil as a rash
belief. Holding these views, I shall now ask the reader to
consider the weight of probability for and against
a Divine revelation before proceeding to examine the
case for Christianity.- Mill's admission that such a
revelation is not antecedently improbable has been
cited. In spite of that admission, however, he contends
that, judging from an observation of the Creator's
actual works and ways in nature, there is a great
preponderance of probability against such an event
taking place. ' Assuming,' he observes, ' as a fact the
existence and providence of God, the whole of our
observation of Nature proves to us by incontrovertible
evidence that the rule of His government is by means
of second causes ; that all facts, or at least all physical
facts, follow uniformly upon given physical conditions,
and never occur but when the appropriate collection of
physical conditions is realized. I limit this assertion
to physical facts, in order to leave the case of human
volition an open question : though, indeed, I need not
do so ; for if the human will is free, it has been left free
by the Creator, and is not controlled by Him either
through second causes or directly, so that, not being
governed, it is not a specimen of His mode of
government. Whatever He does govern, He governs
by second causes ' (p. 233).
Observe first of all the peculiar manner in which the
analogy of the human will is set aside. ' If the human
will is free, it has been left free by the Creator, and is
not controlled by Him.' So far we must yield our assent.
Taking the word ' controlled ' to mean — as of course it

The Miracle of Revelation. 169
was used to mean — coerced, the sentence is a mere plati
tude. But note how that word ' controlled ' slips out
and the word ' governed ' is introduced in a subsequent
clause, as if it meant the same thing. Not being
controlled it is not governed, and so is ' not a specimen
of his mode of government.' But why were these
words interchanged ? The word ' governed ' is far
wider than ' controlled,' and is consistent with the
reign of one free agent over other free agents, which
' controlled ' is not. Would the champion of political
liberty say that a nation is not governed unless it be
despotically controlled ? In a political treatise he
would have flayed an Imperialist author who dared to
confound such different terms. He would have asserted
indignantly that one of the clearest and best marks of
good government is that it does not withhold liberty.
In any country where he found personal freedom
established, he would regard that fact as one of the
most significant specimens of the prevailing mode of
government, and would contrast it with the absence of
freedom elsewhere. The governing of a free people is,
indeed, the greatest function of all moral rulers ; and
the ability to wisely guide other wills without crushing
them by fear or force is the mark of a heaven-born
governor of men. All analogy therefore teaches us to
say that the freedom of which we are conscious, and
which no metaphysical subtleties can eradicate, is
about the most important indication of God's method
of government which could be named, and it cannot
be cast out of our argument by such an unpardonable
substitution of the word ' govern ' in the conclusion of
a syllogism for the word 'controlled' in the premises.

170 The Mystery of God.
President Lincoln once observed in homely language
that it is not wise to * swop horses when crossing a
stream.' It is often found a great convenience, how
ever, to change terms in getting over a logical difficulty.
Keeping the human will in reserve for use whenever
needed, let us turn our attention to the argument as
limited to 'things physical.' Strictly speaking, it is
nothing but Hume's argument served up again under a
different colouring of words. 'The whole of our ob
servation of nature proves to us by incontrovertible
evidence that the rule of His government is by second
causes.' 'All physical facts follow uniformly upon given
physical conditions, and never occur otherwise.' What
is this but Hume's ' uniform experience,' renounced in
the previous paragraph as an unwarrantable assump
tion, but instantly reproduced? The question raised by
such language is properly one of fact, not of proba
bility; but we may judge from the close of the para
graph that Mill used the words ' the whole of our
observation' to mean the observations of modern men
of science and men of the world, and that he intended
to set the uniformity of their observations against the
testimony of any professed witnesses of miraculous
events. Protesting against such a lax use of words on
a subject so supremely demanding clear thought and
speech, it has still to be insisted that when the pronoun
'our' is thus limited to scientific observers and men of
the world, the statement is incorrect. Science, as we
have seen in previous chapters, is perfectly familiar
with physical facts which had no such antecedent
physical conditions as are generally observed to be
necessary. The total quantity of energy in the uni-

The Mirafle. of Revelation. 171
verse is declared to be perpetually the same, but to be
constantly tending towards lower forms of activity, and
so towards an ultimate condition of stable equilibrium.
There was a time when this energy was in a maximum
condition of activity. How then was that maximum
reached when the law of nature is for it to decline
towards a minimum and to become nil ? Mathematics
prove the facts, but natural laws, as at present known,
can give us no hint respecting the physical antece
dents of that maximum of kinetic energy. Coming
down to things less remote, the first particle of living
matter was a physical fact without the now invariable
antecedent condition of previous physical life. This
first bit of bioplasm must have proceeded from not-
living matter, either by creation or by evolution, but in
either case the now invariable physical antecedents were
confessedly not there. We are told that not more than
12,000,000 years ago the earth was too hot for animal
or vegetable life to exist upon it. According to any
theory of progress, what millions of physical facts must
have come into existence in that period without the
now usual antecedent conditions ! From whatever
point of nature we start in our observation, science
leads us up by inexorable steps to a point where the
so-called ' appropriate collection of physical conditions'
was demonstrably absent. The weight of scientific
observations therefore which Mill strove to put into the
balances against the probability of an event ever
happening without these conditions, falls from his hand,
and by a righteous retribution it drops into the other
scale. The most forcible argument ever framed against the

1 72 The Mystery of God.
probability of a miracle being wrought is that based on
the doctrine of continuity. It is insisted that any break
in the continuity of nature must tend to confound
man's mind, to confuse his calculations, and render un
certain the operation of those forces which, if variable,
would destroy confidence and security in action. For
example, if to save the life of a saint the law of gravita
tion were superseded, it is asked, How could we reckon
on that law in building or walking or for any other
purpose ? If the sun were stayed in its course, how
could astronomers ever again calculate the motions of
the solar system ? Would not all the ordinances of
time be disturbed, and the truth of all our knowledge
of past and future ages be rendered doubtful ?
This plea is very weighty, because it involves a moral
consideration. It deals with the world not merely as
a machine, and in the spirit of a mechanic, but in the
spirit of one who believes the universe the domain of a
God who is not only living, but true, and is faithful in
all His works. It is certainly incredible that He who
made us will ever do anything to undermine our trust
in the reign of law. He will never make the universe
speak an untruth to our intellects ; and we may lay it
down as an axiom that, should He ever exercise His
will in a direct manner, He will so do it as to promote
truth and confidence among His creatures, and not so
as to confound them.
But what does this mean, and to what conclusions
does it conduct ? Does it mean that God cannot
exercise His will without producing error in our
thoughts? Does it mean that, having set worlds in
motion, He must leave them to go on in monotonous

The Miracle of Revelation. 173
sameness for ever, lest His creatures should be per
plexed ? If that be so, the facts of the world do not
correspond to such an expectation. These facts scarcely
indicate that the Creator intended us to have no un
certainties about the physical conditions and environ
ment of life. It rather appears that uncertainty is the
law of our being ; so that literally we cannot tell what
a day or an hour may bring forth. Who can tell
whether to-morrow the earth may not open under his
feet and swallow down the city in which he dwells, or
fire descend from the clouds to consume his house,
or winds sweep away his ships, or disease cause his
calculations to fail and his plans to perish ? Even in
the matter of time, man never has had anything but
an approximate degree of accuracy, and calculations
on which life and property depend are frequently
baffled by inexplicable events. Whatever took place
when Israel fought against Amalek, it is certain that
since man began to watch the heavens, suns have been
stayed in their course, and some day, unless perchance
a miracle be wrought, all the measurements and calcu
lations of time in this solar system will assuredly come
to grief. Already the word 'day' means double the
duration that it did once on our globe. Every day we
live, the earth takes a little longer to revolve upon its
axis than it did the day before, and should it fall into
the sun, as many anticipate, all the time-tables of
Jupiter, and the other planets of our solar system (if
these still exist), will suddenly go wrong.
But is God, then, the author of confusion because of
these things ? Clearly not. They can only be held to
prove Him the Author of an order too vast and complex

174 The Mystery of God.
for man's mind to master. If from some • intellectual
altitude we could survey the events of ' eternal times '
in their relative proportions, as we see the events of
days and hours : if we could comprehend in our glance
the history of worlds as we now survey the growth and
decay of cities and families, all apparent exceptions
would no doubt fall into their places as parts of a
sublime order; and those events which are fitted to
baffle our intellects and confuse our calculations as
children of a few days, might be recognised as the
striking of the clock of ages, marking off measured
periods wherein millions of years are as one day, and
the life of. a world as a watch in the night. Of all this
I entertain no doubt ; but its true significance is that
the universe is not so constructed, and its operations
are not so restricted, as to be always clear and certain
to man's mind.
Things that are usual and ordinary to one who
measures epochs by ages, will appear breaches of order
when they happen within the observation of one who
measures time by minutes and months, and whose
memory stretches only over a few brief earthly years.
If we were acquainted with some millions of worlds, it
might appear that variations of method, such as we
call miraculous, occur at intervals in the educational
progress of innumerable races of moral beings, and that
they are parts of an invariable order for the universe,
although exceptional in the experience of each race
apart. But, whatever may be thought of this sup
position, it is surely idle, while we dwell in the midst
of so many mysteries and incalculable processes, to
contend that a few exceptional events, whether brought

The Miracle of Revelation. 175
about by natural laws or by direct Divine volitions,
would appreciably affect the certainty of our knowledge.
Especially must it be vain to allege that such events
would exercise an unfavourable influence on our sense
of security in doing work or taking rest, if we regard
them as Divine acts wrought for our moral and intel
lectual enlightenment, and to promote faith in the
personal care of Him who made the heavens and the
earth. These considerations are fitted, at least, to weaken
the force of the argument from continuity against the
probability of a miracle ; but that argument may be
turned round to show a high degree of probability,
almost the moral certainty, that the God who made
mankind will continue to exert His will directly in their
affairs. Jesus Christ proclaimed the sublimest law of
continuity when He said that the heavens and the
earth should pass away before one jot or one tittle of
God's will for moral beings should be annulled. And
again when He said, ' My Father worketh until now '
(John v. 17). These statements are not offered here as
authoritative revelations of fact. We are not entitled
to so employ them in this argument ; but the most
sceptical may bestow upon them the same respectful
attention as they would give to words spoken at a
meeting of the British Association. Considering them,
therefore, in this light, we have a marvellous doctrine
of continuity: a continuity of Divine activity which
never pauses and never varies in its purpose, whether
making worlds or causing them to perish ; a continuity
which is never broken by any treatment of the physical
universe, however remarkable, which subserves the

176 The Mystery of God.
discipline of moral beings, and so supports the ad
ministration of unchanging and unchangeable Moral
Laws. This is the only doctrine of continuity ever
propounded that covers all the universe in space, all
eternity in duration, and includes the moral history and
discipline of mankind. A miracle involves no breach,
even of physical continuity, if all events are thus viewed
as the outworking of Divine energy. Physical con
tinuity is preserved throughout the most erratic and
extraordinary actions of men, because man's will,
though not a physical cause, is a recognised and con
stant cause of physical changes. So if miracles are
understood to be the production of a Divine will which
is always at work, the mere variation of the phenomena,
or the order of phenomena, leaves continuity unim
paired. On the other hand, a marvellous breach of con
tinuity is involved in the theory that God worked as
the Creator by the forthputting of His will, but then
straightway ceased to work at all ! It admits that for
a certain time He was, actively engaged in operations
upon matter, producing molecules and setting them in
motion, and appointing the laws of their combination.
He was so minute in His care that He provided for
creatures man's microscopic instruments cannot dis
cover, and put these things— millions of which may
live in a drop of water — into endless relations with
suns and systems and with man's happiness and
welfare. Having done this, we are asked to believe
that He ceases to touch matter any more ! Is not this
a breach of continuity! It involves so complete a
change of character and of relation to the substance of

The Miracle of Revelation. 177
the cosmos, that the God of solicitude and care revealed
in creation is not the same Being as the God who holds
aloof for evermore !
When we come thus to apply the doctrine of con
tinuity to the ways and character of God, a multitude
of considerations arise.
Creation involves duties, just as parentage does, but
of a far more onerous and urgent kind. True, there is
no being higher than the Creator to enforce them by
penal sanctions. But the Highest must be one whose
nature spontaneously rejoices to do all, and far more
than all, that any inferior nature can recognise as right.
On such a point as this, not only the intellect but the
heart is entitled to be heard, and the verdict of our
hearts is clear. The mother who bears an infant is
not just to her child when she casts it on a doorstep to
struggle for existence, to perish or survive. What,
then, would be the character of One who made such a
being as man and then left him to struggle unaided on
this ' stony-hearted stepmother,' the earth ? Here is a
being with a will which can operate within the realm
of physical order. He can so obey natural laws as to
command nature with increasing kingliness ; he can
apply her forces to the most diabolical purposes ; he
can set forests on fire with two bits of stick ; he can
poison springs, and pollute rivers, and explode mines ;
he can torture animals, maim and lacerate his neigh
bours, and put an end to his own earthly existence.
All these things he can and will do ; but God, who has
produced this volitional being, is supposed to say,
' I will no more do My own will on earth' ! He has
worked to produce, but He will not work to put
12

1 78 The Mystery of God.
bounds to this creature's excesses, to overrule, to teach,
or to reconcile this rebellious and terrible being to
His wisdom and goodness. Such an abdication of
governing powers as is thus assumed would involve a
crime against Himself and against His creation. If
God were capable of such abandonment, there would
be an awful impeachment in Job's cry of reproach,
' Thine hands have framed me and fashioned me to
gether round about ; yet Thou dost destroy me ' (Job
x. 8). How much sublimer, and how much more con
sistent with continuity, is the faith which is breathed in
David's song, ' The Lord will perfect that which con-
cerneth me : Thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever ;
forsake not the works of Thine own hands ' (Ps.
cxxxviii. 8).
We may now take one other step, and see how
highly probable this renders it, that God, if always
working and sustaining all things by the same will
which made them, should at certain periods so exert
His will as to reveal both the fact that He really is at
work, and the spirit and purpose of all His ordinary
operations. We have agreed that theAuthor of Nature will not con
found our intellects. But, if God be always acting, does
not the appearance of unbroken uniformity in physical
Nature become a source of illusion and untruth to men ?
Tennyson sings : ' God fulfils Himself in many ways,
lest one good custom should corrupt the world.' Is
there not a profound suggestion here ? If there be
such a God as we have seen reason to believe, one long
custom might deceive the world into thinking there is
no Worker at all ! In spite of all the alleged miracles

The Miracle of Revelation. 179
of revelation, and the inexplicable events observed by
science, men do infer the non-existence or the non-
activity of God from the measure of uniformity they
perceive. Would it not tend to cure this confusion
of mind if God condescended to work a miracle of
self-revelation ? If continued life be the law for all
Human beings, would not a visible resurrection remove
a false inference drawn from the general uniformity
with which bodies remain in their graves ? — would it
not be corrective of some disastrously false calculations
based on the supposition that death makes an end of
all, and that there is no judgment to be looked for
hereafter? If kindness be the law of God's treat
ment of men, would not a few visible samples of
His mercy assist a true faith in danger of being con
founded by the prevalence of disease ? If active sym
pathy with man be the real condition of God's mind,
would not the revelation of such sympathy in a
personal form be the dissipation of a false impression
derived from the non-appearance of any superior Being
to care for the inhabitants of a mechanical world ?
If, in spite of all human sin and misery and appa
rent failure, God is working out a plan which will
bring in everlasting righteousness, would it not pro
mote that result, and remove an intellectual confusion
which is fitted to paralyze man's moral endeavours,
if God were to grant a special disclosure of His pur
pose, and were to afford, by works no human might
could perform, some illustration of His own power to
us-ward, and thus indirectly also some assurance that
the message was no cunningly-devised fable, but a true
word from Himself, and worthy of universal faith ?
12— 2

i So The Mystery of God.
Of course these are all advanced as suppositions, not
as dogmatic assertions. But this in no way lessens
their logical force for the purpose in hand. We started
in this chapter on the hypothesis of a beneficent
Creator, and have recorded Mill's admissions that on
this supposition it is neither impossible nor ante
cedently improbable that He will use His power to
enlighten His creatures and assist them in the diffi
culties of life ; and that the question whether He has
done so is solely one of evidence and cannot be disposed
of by Hume's summary method. Reserving for separate
discussion the particular evidences of the Christian
belief, we have examined the worth of evidence in
general, and have found that no objections can be sus
tained against the value of testimony in the case of an
alleged miracle which do not ' apply equally to all
evidence,' and that, therefore, none are valid. The
last difficulty raised by philosophy is an allegation of
improbability based upon an observation of the Creator's
usual ways. This improbability has disappeared under
examination, and we have seen on the contrary that
such a revelation as was not antecedently improbable is
highly probable, and morally necessary if the Creator's
goodness is to be sustained. It is submitted, therefore,
that a Christian who believes that God has spoken,
entertains a faith which can only be shaken by direct
evidence of untruth in the witnesses who have given
their testimony to the world, or by such credible
explanations of the phenomena they attest as shall
suffice to set aside the inference drawn by the witnesses
themselves, and accepted as reasonable by a large
portion of mankind.

CHAPTER VII.
THE ORACLES OF GOD.
For those who assent to the conclusions already
reached, some of the main difficulties which hinder
faith in the Bible as a treasury of Divine oracles are
removed, and libraries of hostile criticism are deprived
of their chief force. Many writers of high repute re
gard it as an axiom on which all criticisms must be
based, that narratives which imply the possession of
more than human knowledge, or the occurrence of
events above the normal course of nature, are either to
be explained away or denied.
Renan, in his ' Life of Jesus,' brushes the whole
question aside by asserting, ' That the gospels are in
part legendary, is evident, since they are full of miracles
and of the supernatural ' (p. 8). In his ' Apostles ' he
is equally dogmatic, declaring that ' it is an absolute
rule of criticism to deny a place in history to narratives
of miraculous circumstances' (p. 27). In the same auto
cratic spirit Strauss only devotes two or three pages to
the statement and vindication of the fundamental prin
ciples on which his work is based. His main contention
is that ' it is the problem of historical investigation,
not merely to discover what has really taken place, but
also the mode in which one thing has been caused by

1 82 The Mystery of God.
another. But History must renounce the latter most
honorable part of her problem the moment she is ready
to admit the existence of miracle, interrupting, as it
does, the causation of one thing by another.'* He will
hear no man's testimony, for, ' allowing the witnesses
the best character,' he declares 'it is absolutely im
possible to conceive a case in which the investigator of
history will not find it more probable, beyond all com
parison, that he has to deal with an untrue account
rather than with a miraculous act ' (p. 200). To justify
this attitude of invincible incredulity, he affirms that 'all
philosophical theories, in so far as they lay claim to
the name of philosophy, are agreed.' For Materialism
and Pantheism, he justly observes, such things as
miracles are impossible, because neither admits the
existence of a God above nature. With regard to
Theism, he concedes that : ' We might be almost in
clined to suppose that miracles would seem conceivable
and admissible to Theism with its personal God»
separate from the world. In fact, this theory has
popular forms which might also admit the possibility
of miracles ;' but he ventures on the remarkable asser
tion that, ' whenever it appears really as philosophy, it
has always shown itself irreconcilable with miracles'
(p. 198). Passing lightly over this point, he proceeds to
rest his case on Hume's argument, of which he says
that ' it carries with it such general conviction, that the
question may be regarded as having been by it virtually
settled' (p. 199). J. S. Mill was" scarcely a preacher of
' Popular Theism,' but we have seen his criticism of
Hume's argument, and his admission that on the
* ' New Life of Jesus,' Vol. I., p. 197.

The Oracles of God. 183
Theistic hypothesis a miraculous revelation is mani
festly possible, and not antecedently improbable. We
have also given reasons for an advance upon this
admission, and for concluding that such a revelation is
in the highest degree probable. We have also seen
that if otherwise credible, Christianity presents a
scheme of moral government which is well worthy of
acceptance. We are, therefore, free as rational beings
to acknowledge the presence of Divine oracles in the
Bible, if its utterances commend themselves as from
God. Section I. — The Place of a Book in Revelation.
At this stage it may be advisable to offer a few
thoughts on the fitness of a book to be an instrument
of Divine revelation.
Our observation of the Creator's usual methods, and
the special importance that seems to be attached to the
independent, industrious, and faithful employment of
man's powers, does not favour the expectation that
God, in making Himself known, will dispense with the
use of our mental faculties. What man can do for
himself, God evidently requires him to do. It is by
this labour he lives, and by this struggle to live that he
grows in wisdom and strength. God will scarcely work
miracles to show what can be found by seeking. As
our Teacher, He will surely adapt His methods to the
education, i.e., the drawing out, of our natural talents,
and will make our success as learners of truth to be
conditioned by this progress.
This principle, which, as distinct from its applica
tion, will scarcely be disputed, affects both the amount

184 The Mystery of God.
and the manner of the revelation we may expect to
receive. Whatever is necessary for man's education
over and above the things which are written in the
conscience or are discoverable by the reason, God may
be expected to impart. What these things are has
already been seen in outline while considering the
Christian scheme in relation to the Mystery of Evil.
Paul defines them very beautifully as 'the things
of God,' which none knoweth ' save the spirit of
God' (1 Cor. ii. 11). He institutes a comparison
between these ' things of God ' and ' the things of a
man,' which none knoweth ' save the spirit of the
man which is in him.' Apart from some revelation,
we know nothing of what is passing in the conscious
ness of our fellow-men. Their countenances manifest
a little, their works declare much more, but often these
are inscrutable, and are grievously misunderstood until
motives, intentions, and affections are explained by
words. Without these words our greatest under
takings would become as impracticable as the tower of
Babel, and social life would be impossible. If this be
true with regard to human relations, must it not also
be the case between men and God ? His works in
nature declare much of His mind, but history shows
how wofully men misread them, and we have seen how
even the wisest and best fail to gather from them a con
ception of God which can satisfy either the intellect or
the heart. We see a little of what God has done and
of what He is doing, but we cannot read the Why ;
and while ignorant of the purposes which lie hidden
in the Creator's mind, we are unable to appreciate His
methods, or to cheerfully submit to His discipline, much

The Oracles of God. 185
less to co-operate with Him in the execution of His
plans. Most reasonably, therefore, may we expect that
He who made man as a social and conversational being
will by some means speak to His creatures, and whisper
the great secret of His eternal counsel so far as to
render duty clear, and to bring those who hearken to
His voice into a trustful and reverent relationship with
Himself. As to the manner in which this communication will
probably be made, it is only possible in this place to
speak in the most general terms. In a world where
everything is done by ' little and little,' we could not
expect to have a complete revelation written in heaven
and sent down to this earth in its entirety, nor, as we
have recognised, could such a communication have
been understood. If God speaks to men it must be as
a father reveals knowledge to his children, giving them
' here a little and there a little,' as their mental powers
develop, as their advancing experience supplies them
with language and ideas, and as their growing needs
require. As to the vehicles for such communications,
we can conceive of many that might be employed, and
need not here discuss their nature. The question of
present importance is, Should we expect God to give
a separate and direct revelation of truth to each
individual, and so to each generation afresh ; or is it
more reasonable to suppose that truth, once introduced
into the realm of human knowledge, would be intrusted
to man's stewardship as the permanent property of
the race ? If we adopt the latter alternative as im
measurably the more reasonable hypothesis, the ques
tions arise, By what means can this knowledge be

1 86 The Mystery of God.
preserved ? How may it best be handed down through
time, and spread abroad over the nations ? How may
it best be guarded against the risks of forgetfulness,
perversion, and suppression ? How may it most suit
ably be kept so as to allow of additions being made
from time to time, and of eventual distribution among
all people, so that each may have at his command the
garnered wealth of ages ?
The answer which best satisfies all these questions is
supplied by our common experience. Knowledge may
be best preserved and diffused by putting it in writing.
There are only two methods that can be named.
Either oral tradition must be relied upon or there must
be written' documents. Unless a miracle of tongue-
tying be wrought on each recipient of knowledge,
tradition will be busy. But if this be the only mode of
transmission, what risks of extinction must be run !
And if these are overcome, what corruptions will ensue !
What lapses of memory, what softenings of unwelcome
doctrine, what misstatements of things imperfectly
understood, what additions of things deemed expedient
or desirable, will occur ! But written documents, if
not immaculate at first, or altogether incorruptible by
copyists, may, as we know, abide in substantially the
same form for centuries, and continually be available
as a standard whereby oral traditions may be tested,
and thus be ' profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction.' What mischief tradition
can work in a religious system may be seen in the
Romish Church of the Middle Ages. What services
written books can render is apparent in the Protestant
Reformation, which, by appealing to the original

The Oracles of God. 187
sources of information concerning the doctrines and
practices of the Primitive Church, set up what ap
peared in Europe like a new religion. This illus
tration is equally cogent whether Christianity be true
or false ; for there can be no dispute that those who
possess a copy of the Bible have at their command a
knowledge of the facts believed, the principles accepted,
and the practices adopted by the founders of this
religion. It would furthermore appear, frcm the principle laid
down, that a book containing divers communications
from God would be likely to contain much that might
be produced without a miracle. To be comprehensible,
such Divine oracles would require to be accompanied
by some account of the circumstances attending their
delivery ; and if we can learn a little about the men
who received them, and the part they played in history,
the value of their message will be enhanced. It must
also be unspeakably valuable to know how the Divine
messages were treated by men generally ; how it fared
with those who believed, and with those who denied or
rejected them. The thoughts of good men concerning
these oracles, and the accumulated witness of succes
sive generations to their wisdom, goodness and truth,
as tested by experience, would all be precious. The
varied forms into which the original truths might be
cast for practical purposes at different epochs ; the
laws formed upon them, the devotional literature to
which they gave rise ; the controversies they provoked ;
and the manner in which commandments were en
forced, promises fulfilled, obedience justified, and faith
rewarded — all these and many more subsidiary matters

1 88 The Mystery of God.
which no miracle would be needed to supply, might
worthily be incorporated in a divinely-provided book.
These human portions of it would all be revelations,
though not strictly speaking Divine revelations. Their
subject-matter and their authorship would alike be
earthly, although closely related to the Divine, and if
God inspired men to serve His purposes by their com
position — if, furthermore, He so appointed their order,
and so overruled their collection, as to furnish mankind
with a book which He deemed adequate for the preser
vation and diffusion of His oracles, as a series of pro
gressive revelations, and sufficient for all purposes
of religious instruction — then, notwithstanding many
human elements, it would be a God-given book, and
might more truly be called Divine than human. Thus,
although, as Mr. F. W. Newman discovered, history is
not religion, yet religion may have a history; and that
history may become invaluable as at once the illustra
tion, the commendation, and the verification of oracles
presented to us as having been spoken of old time unto
the fathers.
Section II. — The Method and Spirit of Inquiry concerning
the Bible.
Our business must now be to inquire whether we
have reasonable grounds for believing that the Bible is
thus a God-provided book. In prosecuting this inquiry
I propose to take up the volume without assuming
the correctness of any theory concerning it. Many
Christians object to this method as wanting in due
respect for what they unfalteringly affirm to be the
Word of God. They demand that the Bible shall be

The Oracles of God. 189
treated in an exceptional manner, not only by those
who are already convinced of its supernatural origin,
but also by those who are in the stage of inquiry. It
is, however, as unreasonable for a Christian to ask a
doubter to instantly assume that the Bible is Divine,
as for a sceptic to require him to assume that it is not.
Until a conclusion has been arrived at on adequate
grounds, the only wise course is to examine the Bible
with all attainable impartiality. If, as Christians be
lieve, there is a more than human wisdom in its lore,
the result of investigations thus conducted with an open
mind, or, as Paul might say, with an ' unveiled face,'
must be to make its unique glory more apparent.
But while we thus approach the Scriptures as in
quirers, I may be pardoned for insisting that even the
most sceptical should do so in a spirit of reverence.
On merely literary grounds they are entitled to our pro
foundest respect, because, as many irreligious men of
genius have confessed, they stand alone in the world for
originality and wealth of thought, for sublimity of dic
tion, and for splendour of imagination. None but cold or
careless minds can regard without veneration a volume
which has such a history as the Bible, even apart from
the history it contains. It is a spring at which nations
have been drinking for thousands of years. When we
read its pages, our eyes are fastened on words which
have thrilled the souls of millions, causing them often
to tremble while they hearkened to the reasonings of
Apostles and Prophets concerning righteousness, tem
perance, and judgment to come ; kindling repentance,
inspiring hopes, enthralling the reflective in hours of
meditation ; impelling peoples and individuals to heroic

190 The Mystery of God.
struggles and sublime sacrifices, comforting their hearts
in sorrow, and shedding Hght upon ' the way to [dusty
death.' As we ponder its thoughts, we learn the forces
by which many of the noblest lives have been inspired,
and the most triumphant departures out of life have
been sustained. To treat this book as a common thing
were to prove ourselves insensible to what is sanctified
by the purest and loftiest memories of our race, even
for those who hold it sacred in no higher sense. As
we uncover our heads at the portal of an ancient
temple, where myriads have bowed down, and where
the ashes of many sages and mighty men lie buried —
and as we do this without pausing to ask whether their
creed and our own agree — so, to take the very lowest
ground, it must become us to open with reverence a
volume which enshrines the most precious remains, the
spiritual relics, of many of the truest princes and chiefs
of mankind, and is hallowed by ancient association
with the worship of a multitude which no man can
number. Section III. — Some Elementary Facts respecting the Bible.
Approaching the Bible in this spirit, what do we
find ? A brief inspection ascertains that, although
bound as one volume, it is a collection of books written
by different authors at remote periods, and that it
comprises the most varied kinds of composition. Here
are histories, laws, dramas, lyrics, proverbs, biogra
phies, political manifestoes, moral discussions, public
and private letters, and visions of things to come, in
heaven and on earth.
The volume is divided into two main sections, called

The Oracles of God. 191
Old and New Testaments: the more ancient portion
having been composed for the most part in Hebrew,
and the newer part in Greek. Each book is cut
up into chapters and verses, but these are only a
modern device for convenient reference. The chapters
are also provided with brief headings of contents,
but of these all are modern, many imaginative, and
some grotesque. • Some of the books have no author's
name attached ; to others names have been prefixed
on probable or traditional grounds. In the margins
we find figures, some giving the supposed dates of
the events narrated in the text, and others the dates
of authorship. But these again are modern, and
form no part of the original documents. Pursuing our
inquiries about these dates, we find great differences of
opinion among good authorities, but that within
certain limits no controversy can be raised. The latest
book of the New Testament, viz. : the Gospel accord
ing to John, was, by universal consent, in existence in
the middle of the second century. The greater part
of the New Testament was in existence before the
destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70.
Regarding the Old Testament, we learn that its
contents had all been translated into Greek, and were
read in public throughout the Roman Empire, at least
a hundred and fifty years before Christ, the great
subject of the New Testament, was born. The oldest
traditions ascribe some of these writings in their
present form to Moses, who lived about B.C. 1500.
Some modern critics assign them to a much later date,
but it is agreed that they contain documents which
must have been in existence before the time of Moses.

192 The Mystery of God.
Without dispute, there are Psalms dating from over
1000 years B.C., and prophetic books ranging from
about 800 to 400 years B.C. We may therefore leave
an immense margin for debated questions, and say,
without risk of challenge, that the composition of the
Bible spreads over a period of more than a thousand
years ; a period as great as that which divides us to-day
from the kingship of Alfred the Great.
Section IV. — The Unity of the Bible.
Let us now inquire : Is there any real unity in these
books ? They are bound together as one work, and in
this form have been translated into more than two
hundred and fifty languages. Is this a mere freak of
fortune, or is it due to the perception of a vital con
nection between the many parts ?
In the first place, they have all been produced by
Hebrews, i.e. by men of one race. This alone would
not justify or account for their combination, but if they
are united in other respects, it becomes a most marvel
lous phenomenon, for no ingenuity could compile a
book, with any semblance of unity, out of any other
national literature, taking the compositions of thirty or
forty authors who wrote very nearly at the same time ;
much less if they wrote at distant intervals through a
period of a thousand years.
Furthermore, the binding together of these many
writings has not been effected by national pride, or
even by men of the Hebrew nationality. One small
section of the race, tinged with Gentile blood, broke
away from the main stock several centuries before
Christ, and only accepted the first five books. The

The Oracles of God. 193
Jews, as a people, have never received the New
Testament, which they view with detestation. Its
contents were really brought together, and added to
the Old Testament, by foreigners ; the canon being
discussed and settled by councils in which many nations
were represented. The Bible, therefore, is a national
literature, but its apparent unity has been perceived
and maintained by foreigners for nearly two thousand
years, and against the protest of the nation which
produced it. Clearly this also is a fact unique in the
literary history of the world.
What, then, are the chief elements of unity which men
have found by study, or felt instinctively to be present,
binding this library into one organic whole ?
These books are all one in their views of God. There
is progress in the clearness and fulness with which His
many attributes are displayed and His various relations
expounded, but the earliest ideas of God contain in
outline and suggest by implication all that follow.
From first to last He is the same self-existent, perfect
Being, who pities His creatures as a father pitieth his
children ; who chastens them, yet is slow to anger,
ready to forgive, pleased to hear their prayers, wishful
to encourage hopes of good things to come. There
are separate passages and incidents which many think
incompatible with this character, but all we have to
observe here is that these alleged inconsistencies are
not confined to the earlier books, as some writers
assume, and so do not affect its unity. The God who
sent fire to Sodom is the God whose terrible judgments
on nations and cities are announced by Christ, and
portrayed in the awful symbols of the Apocalypse. 13

194 The Mystery of God.
The God who suffered Israel to conquer Canaan when
the land had become intolerably wicked is the God
who threatened to send His Roman servants to destroy
Jerusalem, and cast the Jews forth from their ancient
heritage. This is a fair specimen of the way in which
the alleged defects of His ways discovered in the Old
Testament are recited and repeated in the New.
Goodness and severity, righteous mercy and merciful
chastisements, are marks of the Divine character, as
represented consistently in the Bible from age to age.
But not only do the Hebrew writers of the Bible
agree amongst themselves while opposing all the world
in their idea of God, but they are one in their mode
of putting Him before us. They never indulge in
philosophic discussions about His Being. Where men
like Socrates labour to prove and toil to confirm by
abstract doctrines of probability, they proclaim. They
speak as men having authority, and not as the scribes
of their own and the sages of other lands. The first
verse in the Bible does not even affirm the Divine
existence, but simply says, ' In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth,' and this quiet way
of telling a known fact pervades the books throughout.
These writers see and regret Atheism and all kinds
and degrees of scepticism, but they speak with strong
assurance as the intimates of God. They tell forth
His alleged mandates and promises, and deliver His
oracles with the accent of men who have come
straight from the King's presence. They all speak
with dignity as from above, and talk of the heavenly
realm with as much calm assurance as if it were their
native land.

The Oracles of God. 195
Another mark of unity and of singularity in the Bible
is the view of human nature which pervades it. All
through its pages man is represented as a sinner. He
is not only charged with doing wrong to his fellows,
but every wrong deed is regarded as a personal offence
against God. From first to last the Bible is true to
this doctrine. Some of its alleged moral defects are
simply marks of inexorable fidelity to this first principle.
It paints many portraits of good and great men, and
holds them up as in some respects model characters ;
but apart from its statements about Christ, it never
makes an exception to the verdict, 'There is none
righteous ; no, not one.' The choicest characters, such
as Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Peter, John and
Paul, are all depicted as men of like passions with Sur-
selves, and their gravest faults are written down,
without abatement or excuse, just as if the writers
were recording angels.
On the other hand, bad men are never depicted as
monstrosities. Their worst crimes are treated as
extreme symptoms of the great epidemic ; but the
wicked are no more vituperated as inhuman than the
best men are worshipped as ideal heroes or spotless
saints. None are so good as to need no repentance ;
but none are too bad to be forgiven if they repent.
The discussions of Paul on the inner strife of man dis
close a philosophy of human nature which, although
never previously expounded, is never violated by the
author of any one of the many histories, biographies,
laws, proverbs, prayers, hymns, and predictions which
are spread over the literature of previous centuries.
Another sign of unity in the Bible is the reamrkable
13—2

196 The Mystery of God.
manner in which the later writers deal with the earlier.
No author seems to have apprehended that he was
composing an integral part of a great volume ; and yet
something fresh is continually being added which
comes between the older and newer parts, not as one
lifeless stone is laid upon another stone in a building,
but as the new wood made by a living tree comes
between its earlier and later growths. Primitive pro
mises reappear in often varied forms, but unchanged in
substance. Laws become the burthen of confessional
psalms, and promises the inspiration of praise through
successive generations. The lives of elder worthies
adorn and vivify the words of counsel spoken to their
posterity. Historic judgments are used again and
again as warnings against familiar crimes. Prophet
quotes prophet and carries on the vision. Christ
quotes Moses and the prophets as witnesses to Him
self. Apostles quote the Old Testament at large, and
with freedom ; bring out unnoticed meanings in antique
words and rites, and show in clearest fashion the per
sistent purpose and changeless continuity of God's
method. This opens out another jmark of unity, on which
volumes might be written : viz., the development
traceable throughout the Bible and its teachings. The
unity of doctrine is not that of a monotonous and un
progressive sameness, but like the personal identity of
one who passes through childhood, youth, and matu
rity. The Name of God, as proclaimed to Moses,
could not possibly have been communicated to Adam
in his primitive childish innocence ; for the words in
which it is couched are such as derive their meaning

The Oracles of God. 197
from centuries of moral discipline ; and yet that Name
which describes His nature as ' full of compassion and
gracious, slow to anger, plenteous in mercy and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgressions and sin, and that will by no means
clear the guilty,' is a Name which implies all those
views of man's lapsed condition which are exhibited in
the records of primeval life. The Sermon on the
Mount could not have been spoken on Sinai ; or if
uttered would in great part have been meaningless.
Yet it is equally true that that discourse could not have
been uttered unless the law of Sinai had preceded it
and been long in use. Every careful reader may see
that Jesus was speaking to the slowly gathered experi
ence of ages ; and that, while clearing away many vain
traditions which, like moss overgrowing an ancient
inscription, had concealed the writings of Moses,
He was also bringing out a deeper meaning than the
great lawgiver had seen in his own precepts. The
spiritual doctrines of the New Testament are largely
conveyed in terms which were slowly created by ritual
worship in the temple and by the events of Hebrew
history. Some of the most beautiful and instructive
sayings of Christ are the transference to Himself of
Old Testament imagery ; e.g., where_ He likens Him
self to bread from heaven, His doctrine to running
water, His leadership to the light of the cloudy pillar,
His body to the temple, and His death to the uplifting
of the brazen serpent. The whole story of the Exodus
becomes a storehouse of metaphor and trope to depict
the soul's escape from bondage : its committal to
Christ as guide, captain, and provider; its manifold

198 The Mystery of God.
temptations ; its protracted journey through a land of
sense which affords no spiritual food ; and its' final entry
into the fatherland beyond the flood. These are only
a few typical specimens of the manner in which the
spiritual is developed out of the natural, and of the way
in which tales of tedious trial and discipline open like
flowers of unguessed beauty when the light of fuller
knowledge streams upon them in later books.
Out of many other marks of unity noted for use, only
one can now be stated, viz., that the books of the
Bible taken altogether present a coherent conception
of the past and prospective history of the human race
under the Divine government. The point here re
marked upon is not the sublimity of the scheme, nor
its ' adequacy to solve the mystery of evil ; but the
marvellous unity of the Bible, as a progressive unfold
ing of this magnificent ideal by different writers,
scattered over many centuries. It opens with a book
of origins, it closes with a book of destiny. The inter
mediate pages show the human race toiling and fight
ing through sins and doubts and fears, and until the
latest books are added, the enigma of life remains
unsolved. The Old Testament without the New, is like
an unfinished drama, or a half-told tale. It is as
clearly imperfect and in need of supplement as the
Pilgrim's Progress would have been if Bunyan had
only conducted Christian to the Valley of Humiliation
while describing him as bound for the Celestial City.
The Jews themselves confess their sacred volume
incomplete, and have waited nearly two thousand years
for a sequel less offensive to their tribal vanity than the
New Testament presents ; but other peoples see that.

The Oracles of God. 199
the very features of the New Testament which render
it most obnoxious to Jewish pride are its highest title
to acceptance with mankind. Christ, as depicted in
its pages, burst the ripe husk of Judaism ; the chosen
nation died that it might no more abide alone, but
rise up a nation of one mind and spirit, wherein earthly
divisions of country, tribe, and language shall be as
nought, and so become a universal kingdom, into
which all the kingdoms of this world rftay be gradually
absorbed under the spiritual monarchy of the Prince
of Peace. The Jews are opposed to this ideal, but the
world confesses, if not the truth, at least the logical
unity and dramatic grandeur of those visions of Patmos,
which gather up the symbols of the Old Testament
and link the sorrow of Eden, the midnight dream of
Abraham, and the dynastic hopes of David, with
the eternal joy of redeemed humanity before the
throne of Him who keepeth covenant and mercy for
ever. These marks of unity in a volume composed by so
many authors, living so far apart in time and under
such dissimilar conditions of political, literary and
social life, are very difficult phenomena to account for ;
and certainly never have been accounted for as yet, on
the supposition that no Higher Mind presided over the
work. Taken by themselves, they afford a body of
evidence which grows upon the mind in value the more
carefully it is considered, but their chief importance
can only be seen in conjunction with some other facts
which have yet to be established by the application to
the Scriptures of some further tests.

200 The Mystery of God.
Section V. — The alleged Verbal Infallibility of the Bible.
At this point two main courses are before us. We
may take the claims put forward by many Christian
advocates, and test the Bible by the standard of Divine
infallibility, or we may take the estimate of many
opponents, and try it by the standard of possible
human excellence. In the one case we ask, Is it all
Divine? and then the discovery of a few discrepancies
of statement, or other signs of human infirmity, will be
fatal to its character. In the other case we ask, Is it
all human ? and then the discovery of even a few
marks of superhuman knowledge and wisdom will
establish the fact that it contains at least some Oracles
of God. This second test involves also a subsidiary
question as to the general credibility of the Scriptures,
in so far as they treat of earthly things and are within
the province of human knowledge, and thus are capable
of comparison with other sources of information.
If we were compelled to confine ourselves to the
former of these tests, the case would soon be closed.
It is obvious that, whatever may be claimed on its
behalf, the Bible does not represent that all its own
contents are of the same value and authority, or that
every sentence is an oracle from God. It is only in
theory that this is ever misunderstood. The writers
often confess their own doubts and fears, and some
times their reluctance to be employed. They lay bare
their frequent faults and errors, and tell how these
were Divinely corrected. When the writers of the
New Testament quote from the Old Testament, they
seldom do so with literal exactness. Sometimes they

The Oracles of God. 201
cite the Hebrew, giving their own translation, sometimes
they use the Septuagint version, but often they give a
free rendering of the substance, and occasionally weld
together sentences or clauses from different authors.
Studying a book like Job, it is at once manifest that
the author never wished us to read it all as God's word.
It is full of contradictory views of Job's character, of
the causes of his calamities, and of the Divine method
of dealing with men. Vehement arguments and invec
tives are launched against one another by five different
men, and the whole discussion is concluded by a
general rebuke administered to the speakers by the
Almighty for their unwise talk. At the close we see
these five men offering sacrifices to God for the sins
they had committed in their speech ; clearly, therefore,
to quote as Divine oracles the utterances for which they
were reproved, and of which they thus repented, is to
do the most flagrant violence to the book. It is to
take for ' bread ' what the author has plainly labelled
' stone,' and for an ' egg ' what he has exhibited as a
* scorpion,' whereby Job was almost mortally stung.
The most cursory examination of various other books
will compel any untrammelled reader to recognise the
marks of human imperfection. Different accounts are
given of the words written at Sinai on the stone tables
of the law. Parallel histories in the Books of Kings
and Chronicles contain discrepancies of detail which no
ingenuity can reconcile. The four gospels combined
present a more lifelike and impressive image of Christ
than any one apart, but they transpose the order of
some events, connect the same words with different in
cidents, and even in relating the institution of the

202 The Mystery of God.
Lord's Supper give the words of Christ in slightly
varied forms. The student can find what Christ did
on this occasion, and what He meant by the service,
but sticklers for formulas cannot ascertain the exact
words that were employed.
Apart from these manifest departures from verbal
exactitude it is notorious that neither the Old Testa
ment nor the New is now possessed by the Christian
Church in precisely the original text. Thousands of
variations have been tabulated in the ancient manu
scripts. Nothing but a miracle of creation could now
furnish an infallible version, unless, indeed, the original
documents are somewhere treasured up for future use,
as the Jews say that their ark lies hidden in the un
known grave of Moses. Most emphatically, then, it
must be allowed that the claims advanced by some of
the most impassioned champions of the Bible cannot
be substantiated. Tried by the standard of verbal
infallibility, the Scriptures are found wanting, by all
who venture to use the same private judgment in
this case as is recommended to Roman Catholics with
respect to the claims of the Pope and to the doctrines
of the Church over which he presides.
It cannot, however, be conceded that the failure of
the Bible to bear this test proves that it does not con
tain oracles from God, or is at all damaging to its credit.
The detection of human errors and contradictions in
the official utterances of the Roman Pontiff is conclu
sive of the papal controversy, because his infallibility
has been authoritatively asserted by a General Council,
presided over by himself. The case of the Bible is
different. It nowhere claims to be infallible, and

The Oracles of God. 203
neither friend nor foe has ever shown that such an
attribute is an essential mark of a book of Divine in
struction, or even that it is a thinkable or possible
thing. Many considerations tend, on the contrary, to
show that such ideal faultlessness is antecedently im
probable, and indeed almost inconceivable. To secure
such a supernatural result in a work composed through
human agency, and in a form presentable to fallible
and ill-instructed senses, would involve far more
miracles than the boldest advocates of infallibility have
ever claimed, and far more than we can imagine a wise
God caring to perform. To produce such a volume it
would be necessary in the first instance for God to
create earthly languages whose signs should perfectly
represent heavenly ideas, and then, not only to dictate
every syllable to the first writers, but to mechanically
control them in the execution of their task, and in the
same way to govern every copyist, every translator, and
every expounder. If the actual acceptance of the exact
letter were indispensable, He would still further need
to guard miraculously each separate man, woman, and
child of all the millions to whom the Bible comes,
against mistakes of hearing, reading, quoting, recollect
ing and understanding. An infallible text, indeed, would
fail of its supposed design unless complemented with
infallible eyes, infallible tongues, infallible ears, and
infallible intellects among the children of men. Surely
no ' rational sceptic' will insist that the absence of such
a series of useless and unnatural prodigies precludes
the hope that God has made some communication of
thoughts and purposes to his inquiring creatures !
But the strongest objection on this point proceeds not

204 The Mystery of God.
from sceptics, but from Christians; and their difficulties,
which are rather practical than theoretical, must not
be left unnoticed. These difficulties arise from an un
alterable conviction that the fine gold of truth is stored
up for men in the Scriptures, coupled with a failure to
see how Divine truth can be commingled with the least
alloy of human error, if it is to be serviceable to man
kind. Myriads of Christian men and women have in
their own experience an evidence which nothing can
shake that the great doctrines of the Bible are true.
They testify that their faith has been verified by actual
experiments. They have acted on the belief that there
is a correspondence between themselves and an unseen
friend, and have not been disappointed. They are
more certain of this experimental evidence than of any
speculative opinions, and in such well-founded confi
dence every believer in Christ would encourage them to
continue. Nothing written in these pages, rightly un
derstood, can tend to weaken that faith : on the con
trary, the separation of faith, in Him of whom the
Bible bears witness, from an indefensible opinion about
the Bible, can scarcely fail to afford a sense of liberty
and strength not previously enjoyed.
The practical difficulty which disposes so many good
men to insist on the verbal infallibility of the Bible finds
expression in such questions as these : How can we
draw the line between the words of God which are in the
Bible, and the words of men which are mixed up with
them ? — If human defects and errors are once admitted,
who can tell whither that admission will lead ?— How
can readers take up the Book for guidance and instruc
tion with any confidence, unless it be all alike Divine ?

The Oracles of God. 205
It is much to be regretted that such objections as these
have been pressed by many prominent and honoured
teachers of Christianity. Their effect is in many re
spects lamentable. They offer an unintentional provo
cation to a scarcely candid treatment of the ' Word of
God.' They are intended to protect the teachings of
Scripture from destructive criticism ; but they no more
do this than a box of cedar will preserve gold from the
action of fire. On the one hand, opponents see the
manifest weakness of such appeals to fear, and attribute
to the thing defended the same weakness as they detect
in the materials of defence ; on the other hand, those
who have been taught that they must believe in the
verbal infallibility of the Bible or else reject it utterly,
are driven into a terrible dilemma when the facts
already admitted in these pages are forced upon their
notice. Unless their accepted teachers are wrong,
they must either renounce what appears the most
precious thing on earth, or close their eyes to sundry
features of it which can no more be denied than the
spots in the sun. A little patient boldness, however,
may suffice to neutralize this mischief, and to show
that the admission of human imperfections in the
Scriptures no more unfits them to be the joy and guide
of life than spots in the sun impair its claim to be the
light of the world we inhabit.
As a matter of fact, whatever theories Christian
people hold, they do distinguish between Divine and
human words when reading the Bible. A simple Scot
tish woman, who has been taught from infancy that it
is equally and alike Divine from Genesis to Revelation,
and who believes that doctrine so firmly that she would

2o6 The Mystery of God.
rather die than learn to doubt it, still finds that some
parts have a diviner power than others. In reading
Paul's epistles, she notices with intelligent respect that
in some places he speaks expressly as ' by the Lord,'
and at others, ' as a man ;' and she finds no difficulty
in valuing the former passages more highly than the
latter. When reading the gospels she has no diffi
culty in distinguishing between the words of Jesus
Christ and those of the Tempter in the wilderness, or
those of the Scribes and Pharisees, of Herod and
Pilate, and the common people. It never occurs to her,
when reading those gospels, to treat any but Christ's
words as if they were Divine oracles. If by a consistent
but preposterous application of her theory she were
blinded to these glaring differences, she would some
times be guided by Christ, sometimes by the opponents
He refutes, and sometimes by the disciples whose
crudities He corrects.
What is done instinctively and almost unconsciously,
in such obvious cases as these, needs to be done all
through the Bible ; and clear-eyed souls will seldom
find the process very hard. The professed oracles of
God are generally unmistakable. For the most part
they are introduced in ways no child need fail to under
stand. 'The word of the Lord came to me' — 'Thus
saith the Lord'— 'And God said'— these and similar
phrases abound. Sometimes the writer describes the
manner in which the message came — as by dream, or
vision, or angelic messengers. The Bible thus bears
upon its face the evidence that it is not only a record
of oracles received from God, but also an account of
the manner in which men received them, and of how

The Oracles of God. 207
the world treated these men and their messages. It is
avowedly the history not only of Divine commands and
promises, ,but of human faith and obedience in conflict
with human unbelief and disobedience. It preserves
not only the words of God's servants, but those of His
worst adversaries. It reports the delusive sophistries
and lies of Satan, the sneers of scoffers, the falsehoods
of impostors, the delusions of the superstitious, and the
doubts and inconsistencies of saints. It treasures up
for our study not only the thoughts which are declared
to have been in God's mind about man, but the
thoughts which have seethed in human breasts con
cerning God, and life and death, and things seen and
unseen. It sets before us the denials of Atheism and
the blasphemies of the wicked together with the con
fessions, entreaties, and thanksgivings of the holy. It
is this variety of contents which gives it universal
adaptation to man's needs. Men of all characters,
temperaments, and grades of culture find their natures
mirrored in these pages, and are presented with some
oracle given of old to meet whatever stage of experience
they have reached. It is not merely, therefore, that
the Bible is not lessened in value as a bbok of Divine
counsel by a frank recognition of these many human
elements, but its full use and value only becomes evident
when these are carefully observed. Any theory which
fails to account for them must necessarily tend to per
plex its readers. To derive instruction, correction,
and guidance from the Bible, we need to have our eyes
open and our hearts alert, in order to judge concerning
any sentence whether it be of men or God.
Those who have never read the Bible with a clear

208 The Mystery of God.
recognition of this duty will find by experiment that it
becomes a book of new glory and worth. How often
do Christians feel perplexed and morally shaken in
reading portions of the Bible because they find actions
related and sentiments expressed which, found in any
other book, they would condemn ! In the Psalms they
come continually upon passages which strike them pain
fully as revengeful and cruel. It is all supposed to be
God's word, however, and so the moral judgment is
suspended, and thereby enfeebled and confused.
Perhaps a notion is adopted that what was morally
right under the old dispensation has become wrong
under the new ; but by such a view God's changeless
character is impugned to save the honour of his word.
But if the Psalms are read as in part God's word to
man, and in part man's words uttered to God, or
poured out as meditations in His presence, the con
science is cleared for action, and finds a wondrous
field for moral and spiritual exercise. It cannot indeed
be pretended that the study of the Bible presents no
difficulties when the presence of human elements has
been confessed, but only that its most serious difficulties
are removed. It is full of difficulties. It is a book
which millions have studied for many years, and for
its exposition libraries have been written in many lan
guages ; yet still the greatest students feel themselves but
novices. But in all this the Bible is the counterpart of
Nature, which the proud, the indolent, and the rash
can never understand, and which even the most child
like, indefatigable, and careful students can only learn
by degrees, and by often reconsidering the conclusions
which once seemed final. But unless the words of

The Oracles of God. 209
Christ are false, there is a Guide and Teacher who
will aid the humble and sincere seeker after Truth.
Christ declared that if any man wills to do the will of
the Father, he shall know at least one thing concerning
any doctrine, viz., whether it be of man, or whether it
be of God. Should any ask how they can draw a line
between the thoughts of God and the thoughts of man
in independence of that condition, there is no answer
except this : They are asking for what the Scriptures
nowhere promise, and for a power which, if possessed,
would take away the moral discipline which their study
now affords.
Section VI. — The General Credibility of the Bible.
We pass now from the test of absolute infallibility
to try the Scriptures by a lower but more practical
standard. Logically, we might proceed at once to
inquire : Does the Bible contain any superhuman
elements ? without staying to discuss its general ex
cellence and credibility. Gold does not cease to be
gold, however inferior the substance in which it is
embedded; and so an oracle may be Divine, though
uttered by prophets or 'priests which have infirmity,'
and preserved in a volume made of earthly materials.
The man in Christ's parable, who parted with all his
possession to buy a field in which he had found a
buried treasure, did not stop to ask about the quality
of the soil. If a friend had turned up a spadeful of
poor earth and said ' This field is not worth buying,'
the man would still have persisted in his design. So,
if we can find a Divine message in the Bible, it must be
our wisdom to hold it as the most precious thing in
14

210 The Mystery of God.
the world, whatever surrounding imperfections may be
thrown up by critics before our eyes.
But while this is true theoretically, most men have
an irresistible feeling that God would not deposit His
truth in a book which abounded in fiction. False
statements about earthly things would destroy the
credit of writers who profess to convey heavenly com
munications. Legends presented as sober history
would diminish confidence in all moral teachings that
might be founded upon them, and we should be in
vincibly suspicious of the most strikingly fulfilled
predictions if they were associated with manifest dis
honesty in the narration of past or contemporaneous
events. Errors are human, and cleave to the highest
and purest human works. But we justly distinguish
between these inevitable traits of man's infirmity and
that untruthfulness or gross ignorance which disqualifies
for the task of writing history.
The general credibility of the Scriptures thus be
comes of great importance. We want to know that
the writers were honest and well-informed — men who,
in regard to the earthly side of their work, may be
trusted as we should desire to be trusted ourselves.
More than this would be superfluous, less than this
would be fatal to their usefulness. Let a man imagine
himself the recipient of a Divine oracle suited to the
England of to-day. Let him further imagine himself
sitting down to write this message in conjunction with
so much narration of English history, and so much
allusion to natural phenomena, public men, and foreign
affairs as would be requisite for the effective deliver
ance of his message. Let him conceive the degree of

The Oracles of God. 211
accuracy he would be likely to attain in his own part
of the work, if divinely inspired to undertake the task
and to put the substance of the oracle as God desired.
Let him further consider how he would wish to be
treated by his fellow-men afterwards ; how grieved and
indignant he would feel if his message were refused
because of some scarcely scientific expressions, or some
minor mistakes about names or dates, or the precise
order of subordinate events. Let him also consider
how complacently he would endure the closest literary.
criticism, if only his fidelity and general competence
were approved, and his Divine message reverently
entertained. Having gone through this exercise of
imagination, he will know fairly well how to measure
and appreciate the general credibility of the Scriptures.
The Bible has been assailed in recent tinies oh the
score of its alleged opposition to some conclusions of
physical science. So far as this attack is directed
against miracles as assumed to be incompatible with
the reign of natural law, it has been dealt with in the
preceding chapter. All that will be attempted here is
to estimate the importance of any unscientific expres
sions or views which may actually exist.
Few expositors now assert that the authors of
Scripture exhibit a perfect knowledge of Nature.
Among ancient writers they stand alone in their in
tense appreciation of the beauty and wisdom displayed
in what they contemplate as the works of God's hands.
The knowledge evinced by them is surprisingly minute
and varied, and in many respects has been strikingly
verified by the results of modern research. In some
cases their knowledge is utterly inexplicable ; e.g., the
14 — 2

212 The Mystery of God.
acquaintance with vast astronomical cycles implied in
certain prophetic announcements. It is obvious, also,
that the study of Nature was regarded by the Hebrews
as the mark of a religious spirit, and is directly en
couraged by many fervent admonitions. The descrip
tions of natural objects which abound in the Bible
have never been surpassed or even equalled, and the
sublime imagery drawn from natural scenes and events
with which the Bible teems has made it a storehouse
from which orators and poets have filled their minds
and enriched their noblest productions. If required
by our present argument, enough might be written
on these and kindred points to show that we are
largely indebted to the Bible for the modern spirit of
inquiry and of patient observation. But when all
this had been said and admitted, we should still be
confronted with a variety of real or alleged inac
curacies : e.g., it is now generally allowed that the
account of the creation in Genesis i. contains some
views which are not in strict accordance with the
teachings of modern science. The points of difference
now asserted are not so serious as those which have
been disposed of, but they are not to be ignored.
Only a few belated guardians of ill-chosen and generally
abandoned positions persist in affirming that the days
spoken of are periods of twenty-four hours. The
opinion of some ancient interpreters is now commonly
received on both sides of the controversy; viz., that
the events allotted to some of the ' days ' include pro
longed processes of change — as, e.g., the growth, seed-
bearing, and propagation of plants — and that therefore
the word ' day ' must, as in many other places, be

The Oracles of God. 213
understood to denote an age. Whether the order of
natural progress from the primitive chaos to the exist
ing cosmos precisely corresponded to the order of this
ancient description is still an open question. Scientific
knowledge is not yet complete, and what is called
science to-day may be as greatly modified by future
discoveries as the opinions of thirty years ago have
been by later researches and discussions. Biblical in
terpretation, also, is not finally determined. Know
ledge of Nature has hitherto been the best expositor
of Genesis, and has opened our eyes to see wonders
which formerly were concealed ; and until this expositor
has finished his work, we may be content to await the
results. While experts in two distinct, though now re
lated, branches of study are debating the harmony of
their respective conclusions, some of which upon both
sides are variable and tentative, it ill becomes us to
be dogmatic. The possible points of disagreement
between the final exegesis of Nature and of Genesis
are now fairly well known. Some of these points are
generally thought to be established ; but without in
dulging in any admissions or assertions, I propose to
ask, Whether the author of Genesis would be dis
credited and the value of the Bible be diminished if
these points of disagreement should be finally and in
disputably established ?
The only way of arriving at an answer to this
question is, first of all to ascertain what object he had
before him in writing. If he laboured to teach man
kind physical science, the admission destroys his claim
to retain a place among our instructors in this age,
however far he may have been in advance of his own.

214 The Mystery of God.
If he founded a religious doctrine, or an ethical prin
ciple, on a supposed physical fact which turns out to
be imaginary, his doctrine or principle is not thereby
proved untrue, but his authority as a teacher is for
feited. But when we examine the account of creation, it
speedily appears that the author of the first chapter of
Genesis had no theory in science to establish. His
one great aim was to teach a fundamental lesson of
religious faith. His grand doctrine is summed up by
the writer to the Hebrews : ' By faith we understand
that the worlds have been framed by the word of God,
so that what is seen hath not been made out of things
which do appear ' (Hebrews xi. 3). That is a faith
which lies at the back of all science. Physical search ¦
can neither prove nor disprove it. It has nothing
whatever to do with the method or duration of the
formative work. It asserts against Atheism that the
universe has a Divine Maker. Against Pantheism it
affirms that God and His works are not to be con
founded, nor to be distinguished merely as the whole
from its parts. Against Polytheism it declares that
the world has not many rulers, but One. What was
needed as an introduction to a book of instruction in
religion was not a miraculous description of facts which
are written for our discovery in the rocks and stars.
Men could well afford to wait for their knowledge of
things made until able to acquire it for themselves
and might wisely be left to find some of their highest
culture and purest enjoyments in its pursuit. The one
thing needful as a prelude to all revelation was an
oracle to declare that it was One Eternal God who

The Oracles of God. 215
created the heavens, and stretched them forth ; who
' spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out
of it ;' and 'that giveth breath to the people upon it, and
spirit to them that walk therein ' (Isaiah xiii. 5). This
is the grand purport and burden of the sublime Psalm
of Creation in Genesis. In a few sentences of unrivalled
beauty, it traces in outline the development of the earth
from chaos to form, and thence the introduction of
vegetable and animal life in an ascending scale, until at
last man appears upon the scene as the destined in
habitant for whom the spacious home was prepared,
and as the appointed lord over the entire domain.
Unless we believe this oracle, we cannot respond to
the invitation which runs through the Bible, to ' worship
and bow down,' and ' kneel before the Lord our Maker.'
If we accept it as true, no discoveries within the realm
of things made can shake our trust in God as the Author
and Master of things. All Atheistic inferences drawn
from physical knowledge, and all idolatrous tendencies
which are linked with physical ignorance, are directly
at variance with Genesis. But the actual knowledge
of Nature which has been gathered in our day may all
be read into the. lines of the ancient story, and should
deepen our admiration for its marvellous simplicity and
comprehensive truth.
If the Hebrew account of the creation be compared
with the Chaldean, which inculcates idolatry, and is
full of low morality and absurd fancies,* the religious
value of it for the ancient world will be vividly realized.
If it be compared with those modern works which
describe the evolution of the world in materialistic
* ' The Chaldean Account of Genesis,' by George Smith.

216 The Mystery of God.
terms, and to the exclusion of a Great First Cause, its
religious value for our own day will be apparent.
Having seen how absurd and incredible is the Material
istic hypothesis, we may also venture to retort the
charge of error upon its authors. The imperfections
of Genesis in matters of physical science are small as
the specks of dust which float in the sunbeams, but
which cast no visible shadow. The great sun shines
in upon us with unimpaired power and glory, in spite
of all these flecks. But purely mechanical theories of
how the world took form involve such monstrous
beliefs in physical impossibilities that their errors are
by comparison as huge as the moon in an eclipse.
By them the first principles of physical science are
darkened, while at the same time the Great Father
of Lights is hidden from the world, and a cold shadow
of Death is cast upon the souls of men.
Space forbids the further discussion of scientific
objections to the credibility of the Bible. If the
views already advanced commend themselves to the
reader, such discussions, however interesting, and for
many purposes valuable, will not here be requisite. If
the first oracle concerning God as the Creator be re
jected, the remainder of the Bible must go with it in
one mass as a book of religious instruction furnished by
God. If it be received as true, and its light be carried
as a lamp for the perusal of all subsequent pages, no
difficulty will be felt in passages which speak of Nature
in the current phraseology of the ages in which they were
written. Unless God meant to give a revelation of all
the chief sciences, He must generally allow His servants
to write in the ordinary manner of their time. It is

The Oracles of God. 217
scarcely necessary to point out how much worse than
superfluous such a premature revelation would have
been. To man's intellectual discipline it would have
been fatal, by excusing him the toils and pains of in
vestigation ; and yet at the same time its vastness
and- complexity would have interposed an enormous
obstacle to the study of religious knowledge.
The most decisive test of general credibility is that
supplied by History. Unsparing efforts have been
made in some quarters to prove the legendary charac
ter of the Scriptures ; and outside the circle of critical
students there is a wide-spread impression that this
attempt has been successful. Those who have been
taught that there are, and can be, no discrepancies in
the Bible, are naturally staggered when a few of these,
however unimportant, are pointed out, and are predis
posed to allow that the discovery is as fatal as both
assailants and defenders of the Bible have asserted.
The position already taken in this chapter makes room
for the frank admission of flaws wherever they can be
proved to exist : but experience shows that they are
rare; and advancing knowledge, which seems at first
to multiply their number, is steadily diminishing the
list. To illustrate what is meant by this statement,
and to show how much caution is needed in dealing
with assertions which are verbally discrepant or con
tradictory, a fact may be mentioned in connection with
Woolston, the celebrated Deist. It was commonly
believed about the time of his death, and has usually
been stated since, that Woolston died in prison ; but
Voltaire says, ' Nothing can be falser ; several of my
friends saw him since his prosecution, in his own house,

"2 1 8 The Mystery of God.
where he died at liberty.'* It would be difficult to find
a more direct and apparently irreconcilable conflict of
testimony ; but Dr. Cairns has discovered facts which
show that Voltaire was correct, and yet that the Abbe
Avocat, and others whom he charged with untruth,
were correct also. It appears that Woolston had not
been discharged from prison, but that he dwelt in his
own hired house, which was within the so-called
' liberty ' of the Old King's Bench in Southwark.t
This is a fair illustration of what has taken place in
many instances where Biblical statements have been
impugned, and indicates the sort of reconciliation that
a more detailed knowledge of ancient facts might pre
sumably establish where not yet ascertained. In
countless instances where hasty criticism finds an
apparent fault, further research beholds an excellency;
and where an unsympathetic reader pounces on a
blemish, loving insight discerns, and patient labour
verifies, exquisite harmonies and coincidences hidden
by verbal variations. An interesting volume has been
written on these ' Undesigned Coincidences ;' but the
cases therein noticed, though numerous, are few in
comparison with the multitude which might be
gathered. Those who are not discouraged by diffi
culties, commonly find that they provoke to the most
fruitful study, and open paths of pleasantest research.
This statement may not count for much as a positive
argument, but it is the common testimony of thousands
who spend the major part of life in such pursuits ; and
if weighed against some opposite assertions will be
found to turn the scale.
* ' Comments on Eminent Authors,' Letter IV.
i ' Unbelief in the EighteenuYCentury,' J. Cairns, p. 288.

The Oracles of God. 219
There are some marks of veracity which lie upon
the face of the Old Testament history. In ordinary
histories, written by patriots, and especially in those
of ancient date, the tone is boastful. Whatever can
minister to national pride is amplified and highly
coloured, but humiliations are either passed over in
silence or toned down. Victories and great achieve
ments are emblazoned, but defeats and blunders are
discreetly covered up. We turn to the Hebrew Scrip
tures, and all this is reversed. The men and women
they depict are all frail, faulty beings, like those we
see and know. Their battles are not all triumphs '>
their kings are not all regal, nor their soldiers all
heroic, nor their priests all holy, nor their prophets all
wise and true. Of their most famous and honoured
ancestors, the writers narrate incidents of the most
culpable character. Abraham is held up as a pattern
of faith and righteousness ; yet the world is told how,
through the presence of a passing fear, he condescended
to an act of the meanest kind. The favouritism of
Isaac, the fraud of Jacob, the idolatry of Aaron, the
anger of Moses, and the adultery of David, are all set
down with unshrinking fidelity. The crimes and follies
of the people are portrayed in darkest tints ; while
ignominious passages of national life, which pride
would have striven to bury in oblivion, are dwelt upon
at length. These traits are the marks of photography,
not of imaginative painting ; and they attest the
honesty and judicial severity with which Hebrew
history was written by Hebrew authors in the Bible.
It is impossible to account for these characteristics
by accusing the writers of unpatriotic feelings. They

220 The Mystery of God.
evidently loved their country, and were ready to sacri
fice themselves for its honour ; but were profoundly
convinced that the best lessons were to be learned from
the most painful experiences. Their common aim was
manifestly to uphold God's honour, and to show how
nothing but righteousness and fidelity to Him can
ultimately prosper. It was this aim which delivered
them from spurious patriotism, and preserved them
alike from conceited self obtrusion and from indulging
in any flatteries of the living, or the dead, the small or
great among their fellows.
But we • are not obliged to rest our faith in the
veracity of the Bible on such general grounds alone.
Within recent years new materials for the study of
ancient history have been obtained. Excavators have
removed the rubbish under which the remains of some
of the chief cities of antiquity lay buried, and so have
brought to light libraries which supply contemporary
records for comparison with various Scripture narra
tives. If the Bible had been filled with myths, what
a day of doom would have been ushered in when the
first spadeful of sand was thrown off the mounds of
Mesopotamia and Egypt ; and when scientific explorers
began to measure the caves, clear out the water-courses,
and lay bare the foundations of fallen buildings in
Palestine ! But what has been the result ? Simply to
bring out of the dust proof after proof, sign after sign,
that those Scriptures, which professedly contain the
oracles of God, are also faithful and true witnesses of
bygone ages of the world. The humiliating confessions
of the Hebrews are confirmed by many vaunting boasts
of their enemies, and the so-called legends of their

The Oracles of God. 221
earlier history are established beyond cavil to be sober
truth. Anything like a complete review of so vast a stretch
of history would be impossible here. Such a task,
however, is not needful for our purpose. The question
of credibility can be settled for all practical purposes
by a few specimen cases, just as the distribution of
certain deep strata can be determined with as much
practical certainty by a small number of borings, as if
square miles of superficial soil were removed. It may
safely be inferred that if the most ancient part of
Hebrew history is of a solid and trustworthy character,
the later portions will be the same. Myths do not
follow after, but precede the chronicles of sober fact.
If, therefore, the chief events which contributed to the
making of Israel as a nation are confirmed by foreign
records, the later history will assuredly not be less
veracious. These foreign records may be, and un
questionably are, far inferior to the more literary and
consecutive memorials of the Hebrews, but their
authenticity and genuineness cannot be questioned,
nor can the most suspicious mind imagine collusion
between their authors and the scribes of Israel.
The story of Lot's captivity, and his rescue by
Abraham (Gen. xiv.), has often been impugned on the
supposition of a manifestly improper reversal of the
relations between Babylon and Elam. The author of
the account in Genesis represents Chedorlaomer as the
head of the kings mentioned, whereas, according to a
long-standing belief of historians, Amraphel, King of
Shinar (Babylonia), must have held that position, if
any such alliance had existed. It is now ascertained

222 The Mystery of God.
that there was an early, and hitherto unsuspected, con
quest of Babylon by Elam ; that a powerful Elamite
dynasty ruled in Babylon, and that the names of the
kings of this Hne were the names of different gods
compounded with Chedor or Kudor (supposed to mean
servant), as in Chedorlaomer, ' the servant of Laomer
or Lagamer,' a Susianian god. On one of these re
covered inscriptions Asshur-bani-pal, the son of Esar
haddon, relates that in his eighteenth year (b.c 651),
he restored certain images of gods, which had been
carried to Susa 1635 years before by Kudor-Nakhunta,
King of Elam. In this case, the monument records an
old reverse in order to magnify a new success, and thus
incidentally preserves a date and some facts which
verify the historic setting of a most important incident
in Abraham's career.*
Another mark of accuracy in the story of Abraham
is obtained from the Egyptian monuments. From very
remote times the horse has been closely identified with
Egypt. Horses and chariots figure in the story of the
Exodus, and recur in many incidents and allusions;
yet, as often pointed out, in the list of presents made to
Abraham by Pharaoh (Gen. xii. 16), these animals are
conspicuously absent. Does not this betray the hand
of an inventor who was ignorant of the country ? Until
very lately criticism said ' Yes,' and the abundance of
horses which appear in pictorial representations of
royal gifts and tributary offerings on the walls of
Egyptian temples and tombs appeared to confirm the
objection. But it now transpires that, up to a date
somewhat later than can be fixed for Abraham's visit,
* ' Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies,' Vol. I., p. 161.

The Oracles of God. 223
horses were not introduced into Egypt, either for
military or domestic purposes. They were brought in
as trophies from an Eastern expedition during the
XVIIIth dynasty, as represented in the tomb of a war
rior named Pahir, at El-Kab, where there is a picture
of a pair of horses with a chariot, the horses and their
coachman bearing Semitic names.*
The story of Joseph has been freely treated as a
romantic legend quite at variance with the known
conditions of life in Egypt. The tale of a seven years'
famine, and especially the statement that grain was
stored up as a provision against scarcity in the Nile
Valley, has been ridiculed as incredible. But Egypto
logists have uncovered the tomb of a man named Baba,
who was governor of an Egyptian province in the time
of the Shepherd Kings, when Joseph also lived, and on
the wall of sacrifice in this tomb the following inscription
occurs : ' I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest
god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And now
when a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued out
corn to the city at each famine. 'f This memorial, which
has lain buried under sand for thousands of years,
establishes the double fact that there was an un
paralleled famine in the Nile country at the time stated
in Genesis, and that the people were kept alive by such
an unusual collection and storage of corn as is there
ascribed to Joseph's counsel. The epitaph is precisely
what one of the district rulers under Joseph would,
according to the boastful habit of his class, have
* See Brugsch, ' Egypt under the Pharaohs,' Vol. I., p. 295.
f Ibid., Vol. I., p. 263.

224 The Mystery of God.
placed on his tomb if he had carried out Joseph's
commands in his own particular province.
Many other features of the narrative in Genesis and
Exodus have received an equally remarkable verifica
tion. The title of Joseph's office, ' Adon,' is pure
Egyptian. The 'proper names mentioned are many of
them found on the monuments of the day. Dr. Brugsch
has shown that about Joseph's time a kind of Semitism
became fashionable among the ' golden youth ' of Egypt,
and was satirized by grave scribes, just as a similar
aping of foreign manners has often been ridiculed in
our own country.
It appears that between the time of Joseph and that
of the Exodus the Shepherd Kings were expelled and a
new dynasty founded. Rameses II. has been identified
with the Pharaoh of the Bondage, and monuments
prove that the cities he is said in Genesis to have em
ployed the Israelites to build were built by him at the
time stated, and by the labour of foreign slaves, driven
by taskmasters with whips in hand. The name of his
daughter, ' Meris,' is also found on the tombs, and
answers to a tradition preserved by Josephus. Close
to the battlefield of Tel-el-Kebir the agents of the
Egyptian Exploration Fund have recently uncovered
an ancient city bearing Pa-Tum, or Pithom, as its
religious, and Sukut, or Succoth, as its civil name.
This place is described in Exodus i. ii as one of the
treasure or store cities which the Israelites built, and
this description is verified in unmistakable ways. A
broken statue has been found bearing the inscription :
' Pames-Isis, the official of Tum of Succoth, prophet of
Hathor, and head of the storehouse.' The construction

The Oracles of God. 225
of the place also exhibits its character and purpose
beyond doubt. Except in one corner, where the ruins
of a temple remain, the entire area is occupied by
solidly-built store-chambers or cellars, having walls
about ten feet thick, but with no doors or windows,
and evidently intended to be filled and emptied from
the top. Perhaps the most remarkable discovery of all
is that the bricks used in their construction are found
to be of three qualities. The best are well made with
straw, the second in quality contain reeds (stubble), such
as the Israelites had to gather for themselves (Ex. i. 12),
and the worst are mere mud, as they would be when
the supply of reeds failed.* The cry of the enslaved
Hebrews seems thus to rise up anew out of the earth
after more than three thousand years of silence, and
the tale of their abject misery is told afresh in the very
works of their hands in the land from which they were
delivered. It seems vain to hope that further researches will
find any actual record of the Exodus. Unlike the
Hebrew historians, the Egyptians have preserved no
memorials of their own reverses and calamities.
Nevertheless, some indirect but unmistakable traces
of the event have been discovered. A monument now
in the Berlin Museum mentions the death of a son of
Mineptah II., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, but the
tombs of the period are silent about the king's own
death and the closing scenes of his reign. Other kings
of his nation ' sleep in glory, everyone in his own
house,' but he passed away under the shame of some
* E. Naville, ' The Store City of Pithom, and the Route of the
Exodus.' 15

226 The Mystery of God,
circumstance which pride would not narrate. Memo-'
rials of the immediately subsequent period, how
ever, distinctly reveal a time of confusion and national
depression. The great works of the architect in
building cities and temples were arrested, as would
inevitably be the case if large numbers of foreign
labourers were suddenly removed; no military expe
ditions took place for about forty years, and the
nation which just before had been full of vital energy
and pride was reduced to stagnation and feebleness.
As we descend in time and the history of Israel
touches other lands, the materials for its verification
become enormous. An attempt to compare the dis
coveries of modern explorers in Moab, Palestine,
Nineveh, Babylon, and Egypt, with the later history
of the Old Testament, would require volumes. Works
of this character have been prepared by writers
specially qualified for the task, and to these the reader
must be referred for any further pursuit of the inquiry.*
It is submitted with confidence that the facts already
adduced in confirmation of the earliest and most ex
traordinary portions of the history are abundantly
sufficient for our present object. Myths find no sub
stantiation through the spade of the excavator, and he
who reads the stories of Abraham, of Joseph, and of
Israel in Egypt as verified history will know himself on
firm ground when the nation enters the land in which
* See, in addition to those already cited, ' Egypt and Babylon,'
by Canon Rawlinson ; ' Light from the Ancient Monuments,' by
Professor Sayce ; ' The Memoirs of the Survey of Western Pales
tine,' edited by Professor E. H. Palmer and W. Besant ; and 'Heth
and Moab,' by C. R. Conder.

The Oracles of God. 227
it was found by Greeks and Romans, and whence its
children haVe notoriously been cast forth as exiles for
nearly two thousand years. The main events of the
wonderful history which follows on from the Exodus
are not disputed. The glories of David and Solomon,
the partition of the kingdom, the wars and captivities
of the two branches of the nation, the restoration of
Judah, the Greek and Roman conquests, and the rise
of the Christian religion before the destruction of Jeru
salem, are events as certain as the Roman and Norman
conquests of England.
For many reasons it would be convenient in this
place to examine the historic credibility of the New
Testament. It is impossible, however, to discuss that
subject without entering at the same time into many
deeper questions relative to Christ's Life and Resur
rection. The general considerations which have been
offered as to the credibility of Scripture apply to the
entire Bible, but the particular evidences of the truth
fulness of the gospels must stand over for treatment in
the two following chapters.
Section VII. — The Presence of Divine Elements in the
Bible.
We now proceed to apply our third test, by inquiring,
Does the Bible contain any elements which are mani
festly Divine ?
It is necessary at the outset to define the scope of
this investigation. We are not about to ask How much
of the Bible is Divine, but, Is any of it Divine ? Prior
to actual mining operations no surveyor can say how
much gold there is in a given region, or what proportion
15-2

228 The Mystery of God.
it bears to the common soil. These are points which
can only be decided by much digging. Practical
miners will only demand whether there is a reasonable
prospect of finding sufficient gold to repay the cost
of working. So with the Bible. If the views here
advocated are correct, it is a vast mine of wealth,
which discloses greater riches the more diligently it
is explored. But in commending it to the study of
others it is only needful to exhibit a few specimens of
the fine gold it contains. Any communication granted
by God for the guidance and help of man in his
journey from mystery to mystery, must be so un
speakably precious that even one Divine oracle would
richly compensate the most prolonged and arduous toil.
The things which Christians most prize as Divine are
those which in Paul's phrase can only be ' spiritually
discerned ;' but there are some elements which can be
subjected to the coarser tests of criticism. One of the
most definite of these is the knowledge of future events.
The predictive aspect of prophecy has in recent years
been less esteemed than the ethical, and for the general
purposes of instruction most justly ; but if it can be
shown that the Scriptures contain distinct prognosti
cations of events which have really taken place, and
that the events foretold were such as no human sagacity
could have foreseen as certain, or conjectured as pro
bable, then these predictions must have an evidential
force irrespective of their moral value or their spiritual
import. While endeavouring to show that such predictions
are to be found in the Bible, I shall not rely upon any
disputed dates of authorship. Without making any

The Oracles of God. 229
assertions or admissions therefore with respect to
various controverted matters, it will be submitted that
even if all the dates insisted upon by the most hostile
criticism be conceded, the Scriptures still exhibit not
merely an occasional power of forecast, or a few happy
anticipations, but a continuous and increasingly distinct
prescience of the general course of history, and of some
particular events by which that course has been unmis
takably determined.
I pass over what is known as the Protevangelium
(Gen. iii. 15) as an oracle which admits of varied
interpretations, and shall not dwell on the singular
ethnological forecast attributed to Noah (Gen. ix. 25),
although the political and moral relationships of the
main branches of the human family have answered to
the outline. Apart from later and more definite pre
dictions, these are not likely to secure conviction. If,
however, a student finds that they stand related to
subsequent predictions as faint glimpses of a distant
city swathed in morning mists are related to those
clearer views which are obtained as the traveller nears
its gates, he will not be blind to their significance as
indications that the human race was granted, even
from the earliest times, some hopeful intimations of
good things to come.
It has already been shown that the life of Abraham
is no mere legendary tale ; but if any reader should insist
that a true historic outline may have received sundry
mythical embellishments, the point may be reserved
as one to be decided by the investigation rather than
assumed at the outset. The lowest date for the docu
ments in Genesis may also be taken as a basis of

230 The Mystery of God.
discussion. The facts which still remain unquestioned
are quite inexplicable on natural grounds. It is in
any case certain that the oracles which are stated in
Genesis to have been given to Abraham were at a very
early time believed to be Divine by his descendants.
It is also certain that from him arose * an entirely
independent' monotheism, marked by the 'peculiar
name for the true God, El-Shaddai.'* It is furthermore
indisputable that faith in this ' God of Abraham,' and
in the promises attributed to Him, was a fashioning
power which did much to unite the families of Israel
into a separate nation ; that it has continued to hold
them apart from other peoples, in an unparalleled
manner, for more than 3,000 years, and has proved
itself an indissoluble bond throughout nearly 2,000
years not merely of exile, but of world-wide dispersion.
However these facts are to be explained, it is evident
that their early anticipation by Abraham's children
would be as remarkable as their announcement by
himself. If a veritable prediction can be traced back
to the popular beliefs of the Hebrews in an age long
anterior to its fulfilment, the precise date of the oracle
in which it was embodied is for evidential purposes
immaterial. If such a prediction be demonstrated,
criticism will have no interest in contesting the exact
time and circumstances of its original delivery.
It is not disputed that the conviction that Abraham
was called of God for great and world-wide purposes
arose by some means at a very early time. The only
question is as to whether this belief amounted to a
superhuman prescience. It must frankly be conceded
* Ewald, ' History of Israel,' Vol. I., p. 321.

The Oracles of God. 231
that a persuasion of the truth of Abraham's creed and
of its power to outlive all rival religions might spring up
naturally among his descendants. An expectation that
His posterity were eventually to become a numerous
and prosperous nation might also take form and acquire
strength as such a prospect became probable. But these
ideas do not fairly represent the scope of Abraham's oracle.
Without asking whether it predicted a personal Messiah,
it will suffice to observe that the oracle in its various
forms points not merely to the prosperity of a nation,
or to the spread of monotheism, but to Abraham's
posterity as the instrument by which God, who had
blessed him, would in time bless all nations.*
It- will doubtless be contended that even this latter
part of the expectation was so probable as to arise in a
natural way. But this contention will not bear analysis.
Of course, after a belief in the alleged promises to
Abraham had taken root, their fulfilment would appear
probable to all who believed them Divine ; but we have
to deal with the source of that belief, not with its re
sults. The question now requiring answer is whether
such a destiny as the Hebrews anticipated for their
race, and which. by some means found expression in
the oracle before us, was antecedently so probable as
to be naturally foreseen, and thence in course of time
become clothed in the form of a mythical covenant
between Abraham and God.
In answering this question we can afford to concede
far more than can be justly claimed for the sagacity of
the Hebrews. We may allow that they would very
* See Gen. xii. 2, 3 ; xviii. 18, 19 : xxii. 17, 18 ; xxvi. 2 — 5 ;
xxviii. 13, 15.

232

The Mystery of God.

early expect their sons to do much for the spread of
their monotheism. But we cannot admit that they
would naturally expect for their race a perpetual and
world-wide monopoly in this work ! Yet this is what
the oracle in Genesis foretells. If all nations were
to receive the blessing of a pure religion through
Abraham's posterity, no philosopher or prophet must
rise up in any other nation to forestall the work,
however long it might be delayed. But if, as some
Theists contend, monotheism is only a product of the
human reason, it was beyond all calculation probable
that some foreigners would attain a worthy Theism
independently of the Hebrews, and would do in other
parts of the world what the Patriarchs and their sons
were doing in their own sphere. When once the
religion of the Hebrews is regarded as ' mere natural
theology,' their expectations appear in the highest
degree presumptuous and improbable. These expecta
tions could only conceivably arise in the minds of men
who, in addition to a bare Theism, believed that God had
verily spoken to Abraham and intimated the choice of
his family, as the oracle declares. Moreover, if that
belief was false, the probability amounted to a moral
certainty, that events would expose its falsity, and that
time would prove the folly of all family and national
hopes based upon it, rather than conspire with fate to
accord them a complete fulfilment.
The question now arises, Have these hopes been
fulfilled ? and has the fulfilment been worked out on
such a scale, and with such unmistakable clearness, as
to prove the existence of a prediction ? The answer is
written large in history. Many of the most conspicuous

The Oracles of God. 233
facts which have been chronicled for thousands of years
exhibit a continuous and progressive fulfilment. In the
old world Moses was the mightiest teacher, and he was
a son of Abraham. After him came the long series
of Hebrew psalmists and prophets, whose teachings
were scattered by Jewish colonists and traders, by
public synagogues and by a Greek version of the Old
Testament, over the entire Roman empire. Chiefest
figure in the midst of the ages came Christ, a son of
Abraham. After Him, and preaching His message,
came the Apostles and their helpers, who ' turned the
world upside down,' and these also were Abraham's
seed, not only in faith but in the flesh. Mohammed, who
has spread an adulterated monotheism over a large
section of mankind, boasted of Abrahamic descent, and
confessedly imbibed his Theism from an imperfect
acquaintance with Jewish and Christian doctrines.
The book which has been, and still is, the most potent
influence in the modern world, was produced exclusively
by men of Abraham's race, and every Christian preacher
and missionary, every Christian parent and teacher,
takes that volume in hand as a text-book, and derives
all his views of God and eternity, and all his moral
counsels and spiritual persuasions, from its unrivalled
store. To place that book within the reach of the very
lowest of mankind not a few have spent, and many now
are spending, their lives, in creating written languages
for barbarous peoples; and there is to-day no speech
nor language of any importance under the sun where
the voices of Abraham's children are not heard declaring
the glory of the God he worshipped. We cannot say
that the fulfilment of the oracle is now absolutely com-

234 The Mystery of God.
plete; but then the world has not yet closed its his
tory. We can say, however, as regards the present,
that there is scarcely a nation in existence which has
not partially received Abraham's blessing; and as to
the future, we know enough of the world and its in
habitants to affirm that the religious teachers of Abra
ham's race are so completely in possession of the field,
that unless an original Theism should be discovered
among the unvisited tribes of Central Africa, or a prophet
should spring up untaught in the midst of some savage
people, like an oak growing spontaneously on an un
clothed coral reef, the entire Theism of the future
must be the fruitage of Abraham's seed. Such a
family monopoly in the tuition and leadership of
religion, maintained for thousands of years, and now
more manifest and irreversible than ever, was abso
lutely beyond any human foresight. It is a fact no
ingenuity can possibly explain away, and one which
surely warrants our belief that the author of the oracle
in Genesis was possessed of superhuman knowledge, and
that the events which have wrought out its age-enduring
accomplishment have been under the superintendence
of Him who declared them before they came to pass.
Working within this vast outline of religious progress
in its relation to the spiritual faith and fleshly family of
Abraham, the Hebrew Scriptures reiterate the funda
mental oracle in countless different forms. Whatever
conclusions may be accepted as to the dates of their
composition, or redaction, they show that the hopes of
Abraham's children were indestructible, surviving many
relapses of the nation into idolatry, and many calamities
which threatened it with extermination.

The Oracles of God. 235
As time elapsed, national expectations were concen
trated on the person of an individual servant of Jehovah.
The collective body of the nation was to be God's
servant; but with increasing distinctness it was antici
pated that Israel's grand work would be performed by
one transcendent leader. In the last century Collins
and his fellow Deists asserted that no traces of such an
expectation are discoverable until close to the time of
Christ; but the severity of more recent criticism has
finally disposed of their contention. Strauss takes his
stand on the monument which proclaims the victory of
Christianity over Collins and his school, and proposes
to explain the career pf Christ as a conscious imper
sonation of the Messiah so vividly portrayed in the
prophets and so eagerly awaited by the people in His
day. With various modifications, this is the general
attitude of educated unbelievers in our day.
The most ancient Jewish writings which comment
on the Old Testament mention no less than 456
passages which were regarded by the Rabbins as
Messianic ; and the compiler of this list* does not re
gard it as exhaustive. Limited space forbids a review
of so vast a series; but inasmuch as the prevalence of
such prophecies is now admitted, this is scarcely a dis
advantage. The only evidence requisite to prove their
superhuman character relates in a minor degree to the
precise intention of their writers, but mainly to the
legitimacy of their alleged fulfilment. In view of these
facts it will be sufficient for us to take one test case.
By universal consent the passage known as Isaiah liii.
* Edersheim, * Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' Vol. IL>
p. 707.

236 The Mystery of God.
is the most important and the one on which a decisive
issue may be raised.
The chapter opens with a lament over a state of
general incredulity respecting a ' servant of the Lord '
named in preceding verses, and then passes into a
description of his unique character and career.
The special features of this picture which require td
be combined in any scheme of interpretation and in any
legitimate fulfilment are :
1. The servant is God's arm, i.e., in some special
sense he is an instrument used by the Divine Will.
2. He appears upon the scene from some obscure
quarter, and grows up without manifesting to ordinary
eyes the credentials of a God-sent leader.
3. He is despised and rejected by the people, and
is regarded by them as under a Divine curse.
4. While thus despised by men, and apparently
abhorred of God, he is without sin.
5. While subjected to terrible sufferings, and at last
put to death, he utters no complaint.
6. His sufferings, though inflicted as penal by the
people, are of God's appointment, and are willingly
endured as the healing chastisement of other men's
sins.
~ 7. After he has poured out his soul in death as an
offering for sin, he is to prolong his days, and God's
appointed work, which seemed to fail, is to prosper in
his hands.
8. He is to be amply satisfied for all his travail by
the mystical bringing forth ofa numerous seed through
these birth-throes of death.
9. His future work will be of a priestly character in

The Oracles of God. 237
making intercession for transgressors and justifying
many. Up to the time of Christ this passage was regarded
by all Jews as Messianic ; but the exigencies of contro
versy with Christian apologists speedily led them to
seek a more convenient interpretation. By many of
their writers, and by a few others, it has been assumed
that the passage refers to Israel as a nation, and
describes its treatment by the Gentiles. Superficially
viewed this theory seems plausible, but it fails to
satisfy some of the most important conditions which
have been enumerated — conditions, it should be ob
served, in which no stress is laid on verbal niceties, but
in which the substance of the prophet's thought is pre
served, though differently expressed. In common with
all other prophecies, the second part of Isaiah denounces
the people of Israel as full of violence and guile. The
captivity is treated as a just punishment for wickedness,
and the return to Zion as an undeserved mercy. While
enduring judgment, the nation was anything but silent
and lamb-like. Moreover, the persons who despise
the Lord's servant while he bears their sins are cer
tainly Israelites, as is proved by the prophet's use of
plural pronouns in the first person in confessional
clauses, and by their description as ' my people,' an
expression which cannot be mistaken.
Those who would escape these fatal objections by
imiting the reference to the godly part of Israel are
scarcely happier in their attempt. Throughout the
Old Testament writings the loudest outpourings of con
fession proceed from the lips of the godliest men, and
in this chapter there is no excuse for limiting the cry,

238 The Mystery of God.
' All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned
every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all.' This language corresponds
to the rule by which the prophets identify themselves
with the nation in its collective unity, and as a sinful body
before God. It has also to be observed that the godly
portion appear to have suffered far less during the exile
than any others. Jeremiah was specially favoured by the
King of Babylon ; Daniel and his friends were exalted
to the highest posts in the kingdom ; Ezekiel was in a
position of honour ; and other notable names at once
suggest themselves to show that at this period the
godly were specially favoured rather than specially
afflicted by the Gentiles. Assuredly no prophet who
was embued with the spirit of his ancient faith would
be so destitute of the humility and unobtrusive meek
ness here lauded in ' the servant of God ' as to claim
for himself and his religious associates such a character,
such functions, and such a peculiar destiny as he here
describes. To obviate these further objections, some affirm that
the prophet meant to depict, not the actual Israel in
whole or part, but the ideal Israel. But in what sense
could an 'ideal Israel' be said to 'grow up before'
God ' as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry
ground,' and to have ' no form or comeliness' ? Such
a description is inapplicable to an ideal, whether con
sidered as resident in the mind of God or in the minds
of men. A Divine ideal can only be thought of as
a perfect image or mental' pattern of something after
wards to be produced ; but it is by definition a thing of
perfect beauty from the' beginning. Similarly a human

The Oracles of God. 239
ideal is always something high and beautiful in the
imaginations of real people, and is contemplated by
them as an object of aspiration. How, then, can this
' ideal Israel ' be ' despised and rejected of men,' and
' as one from whom men hide their face ' ? An ideal, if
it can be said to live at all, lives beyond the range of
sorrows and grinding burdens ; it is the real man who
suffers for sin and is afflicted for his own and his neigh
bours' crimes, while his ideal floats before his chastened
mind as a vision of what might have been his actual
estate. How, then, can an ideal Israel be conceived of
as bearing the griefs of the real, as wounded for their
transgressions and bruised for their iniquities? In
what mysterious sense can chastisement be laid on an
' ideal ' so that it shall mistakenly be deemed ' stricken
of God and afflicted ' as a punishment for its own sins ?
Similar questions will occur to every careful reader
clause by clause throughout the chapter. There is,
indeed, no way in which this matchless passage can be
sensibly construed except by taking the plural pro
nouns to denote the people of Israel, who confess their
wickedness and bemoan their blind injustice towards a
righteous friend who suffered for their sakes ; and
the singular pronouns to refer to the same individual
servant of God who endures contempt and death at
their hands, yet rises up from death to see of the
travail of his soul, to prolong his days, and be satisfied
in his seed.
The impossibility of avoiding this conclusion is now
generally confessed, and various individuals have been
proposed as specially answering to the picture of ' the
servant of the Lord.' Hezekiah, Josiah, Isaiah, Jere-

240 The Mystery of God.
miah, with others still more unsuitable, have been
named, but none have found acceptance. It seems
idle to controvert theories which simply catch at one
or two out of many particulars, and ignore the gran
deur of the outline and the most prominent features of
the figure painted by the prophet. These were all
great men, and far above the usual standard of good
ness ; but none were great or influential enough to
occupy so large a space in the prophet's mind, and
none were so righteous as to be lauded in such terms.
If, as we are so confidently assured, the passage was
written in the captivity, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Isaiah
had been long dead ; and had it been the prophet's
purpose to magnify them, it might have been done by
name. But what prophet could have been so infatuated
as to imagine that these departed worthies, who were
for the most part greatly honoured in life, were to have
such a post-mortem career as the last verses describe ?
With regard to Jeremiah, he no doubt endured great
afflictions at the hands of his countrymen ; but apart
from other disqualifications which he shared with the
best of Israelites, he would scarcely have inspired the
exquisite image of a lamb led in silence to the slaughter !
To identify the author of the ' Lamentations,' and of
those passionate protests which abound in his larger
book, with the subject of Isaiah liii., is indeed a literary
curiosity. Did the advocates of this theory never hear
of ' a Jeremiad ?'
In dismissing these theories as futile endeavours to
get rid of a distinctly predictive element, it is not said
that they contain no valuable thoughts, or that their
authors are blind to some of the deepest truths which

The Oracles of God. 241
underlie the chapter. It is not necessary to deny that
Israel as a nation has been a great sufferer on behalf of
the world, or that by her afflictions several precious
and purifying principles have been made plain to man
kind. On the contrary, all who have grasped the
Biblical conception of Israel's place in history, and
have considered how remarkably the actual facts cor
respond to this idea, will readily concede that, for the
world's good, God has laid on his chosen people a
tremendous burden.
Again, it need not be denied that the godly portion
of Israel suffered grievously through the sins of their
countrymen, nor that these sufferings were productive
of much good. There were many martyrs in Israel,
and in their degree they bore the iniquities of God's
people. To these men also it was given to apprehend
with superior clearness the mission of Abraham's
children and the costliness of the service to which they
were called. They saw that it demanded for its accom
plishment a rare degree of gentleness and meekness,
and a willingness to be persecuted and slain. There
was an ideal Israel floating before the minds of the
holiest men — as there is an ideal Church before the
thoughts of Christ's disciples now — a spiritual nation,
a glorious city such as never man upreared, and which
can only come to earth from above.
We may go a step further, and allow, or, if needful,
insist, that in all this the best men of Abraham's race
perceived the working of a Divine and therefore a
universal law. Every man and woman in the world
who bravely endures hardship for the sake of truth and
right ; every victim of injustice, and of that blind scorn

242 The Mystery of God.
which evil souls cherish for meekness and purity ; every
sympathetic heart which bleeds or breaks with grief on
account of a beloved but guilty country, or family, or
friend, does in some partial way fulfil this royal law
of sacrifice, and is in a measure God's servant, and
answers to some lineaments of the Messiah.
But the recognition of these truths still leaves the
chapter uninterpreted. The question which tortured
earnest servants of God in the times of the prophets
was, How could the destiny of Abraham's children be
fulfilled ? How might the glorious purpose for which
God was calling them to His service be accomplished ?
They felt themselves to be utterly incapable of the
appointed task. The nation had sometimes appeared
to be on the eve of a great epoch, but, as in the
days of Caleb, the people turned back from the very
borders of the land they had approached. Amid the
splendours of Solomon's reign there seemed to dawn a
day which promised to bring about those hopes of peace
and power which David sang of in his psalms. But
behind the material glory moral decay and national dis
ruption were at work, and history seemed for centuries
to be a mockery of those expectations. When a just
and devout king like Hezekiah began to flourish, and
the people were to some extent reformed, good men
were ready to ask, ' Art thou He that should come ?' but
events speedily answered for each man in turn, ' I am
not.' After each momentary disappointment prophetic
souls began to ' look for another,' and another ; each
waxing and waning of hope making plain some further
lesson respecting the conditions which must meet in the
God-sent servant who was to be the glory of Israel

The Oracles of God. 243
and a light for all nations. More and more clearly
it appeared that unbelief and disobedience were the
great impediments. The best kings and prophets failed,
because with all their zeal they were too truly partakers
of the general sin and infirmity to have sufficient
spiritual energy to cleanse the hearts of the people, or
lift them up to the level of their duty and privileges.
Centuries taught them to despair of any real accom
plishment of their God-appointed task without a leader
who should be divinely commissioned and endowed,
and in whom God would so truly be the worker, that his
advent would be God's visitation of His people. From
such a being indescribable blessings might be expected,
and from Jerusalem as his central seat and capital, light
and truth, judgment and mercy, must needs go forth
to transform the world. But with this sublime hope
there was also revealed a truth which the highest
prophets only grasped with troubled, trembling minds.
They were taught that even this predestined servant of
God would not achieve his purpose without a process
of suffering. He, too, must live under the great law of
sacrifice, and become himself its great, and in the perfect
sense its sole, fulfiller. In many places a mysterious
blending of shame and glory, rejection and attraction,
defeat and victory, death and endless life, perplexes the
reader of Hebrew prophecy, as it astonished the men
who wrote the visions. But nowhere is the com
mingling so manifestly centred in one person as in this
chapter liii. of Isaiah; and nowhere is the manner of the
sufferings and their true cause and nature, or the
ultimate secret of triumph by their means, so definitely
exhibited, and the order of events so vividly foretold.
16 — 2

244 The Mystery of God.
The servant of God was not to be a foreign visitor,
without relationship or resemblance to the prophets
and kings who came before and did some preliminary
work. He was to come and live under the same moral
and social laws as they, and to do his work under the
same conditions of affliction, ill-usage, and death. He
was not to be at once established as a heavenly guest,
but to grow up as 'a tender plant,' a lowly, sorrowful
man. But while outwardly an ordinary man, he was to
transcend his predecessors in every other respect. He
was to be righteous in life and pure in spirit, as none of
hem had been. His sufferings were to exceed theirs,
but he would never be weakened inwardly by the sense
of personal guilt, nor would the moral quality and
influence of his sufferings on others, and before God, be
impaired by the least transgression. As God subjected
him to this sacrificial endurance of Israel's iniquities, so
God would vindicate his character, deliver him from
death, and accord him a career of moral conquest,
wherein the destiny of Abraham's seed would be
fulfilled and many nations be purified from sin.
In considering the fulfilment of this prophecy, two
special features demand some comment. It has been
shown that the people for whom the servant of the
Lord was primarily to suffer death are unmistakably
Israelites ; but this does not forbid a widening of the
thought so as to include many Gentiles in the benefits
of His sufferings. The prophet's amazement and shame
are peculiarly excited by the fact that the Messiah
comes to His own, but His own receive Him not; yet he
most distinctly foretells that all the earth will eventually
share in the salvation to be wrought. Just before

The Qracles of God. 245
(Hi. 15), he has declared that this marred Son of man
shall 'sprinkle many nations ;' and elsewhere (xlix. 6)
he represents God as saying to Him : ' It is too light a
thing that Thou shouldest be My servant to raise up the
tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel :
I will also give Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that
Thou mayest be My Salvation unto the end of the
earth.' This language convincingly shows that Israel,
including the more godly remnant, was to be saved by
the Messiah, but that He was also to fulfil the promise
to Abraham by becoming a blessing to all nations.
To this conclusion the closing words of chapter liii.
correspond. The resuscitated servant is to bring
forth a seed which shall satisfy the travail of his soul.
This does not point to a physical posterity, but to a
spiritual family. The travail is of the ' soul,' and it is
on account of. sin. Hence the generation to arise must
be a multitude of men and women of like mind and
character, with himself, and their birth is the same
thing as their justification ' by his knowledge,' viewed
as the commencement of a new and holy life.
It is. not surprising that the Jews failed to discern the
full spiritual significance of this passage, and were
unable to construct a satisfactory scheme of interpreta
tion before Christ came. But, with the facts before our
eyes, it requires no straining of a single clause or term
to recognise its profound agreement with Christ's
teachings about the necessity of a new spiritual birth
for Jewish rulers and teachers in common with pub
licans, sinners, and Gentiles ; with all the doctrines of
the epistles which are developed from His speech ; and
with the facts of Christian life as a new type of character

246 The Mystery of God.
introduced into the world by Christ, and propagated
by means of that Gospel which conveys to mankind
the knowledge of what He said and did and suffered.
A second feature of the prophecy requiring notice is
the vividness with which details are wrought into a vast
outline sketch. In former times these details were
much insisted upon, but are now perhaps less consi
dered than they deserve. In a lightly-drawn portrait
an artist never attempts to give a minute facsimile of
every line and wrinkle, yet a satisfactory general effect
cannot be produced without some very precise delinea
tions of separate features. The evidence of skill in the
artist, and of the fact that he has drawn from nature,
will be found in the success with which these touches
are made to appear as portions of the first bold sketch,
and are freed from any traces of additional labour or
careful afterthought. When compared with the living
subject the general likeness will first be seen ; but point
by point a critic will observe how the most charac
teristic traits, and especially any unusual forms, have
been seized upon and reproduced. If this canon of
criticism be applied to the prophetic sketch of the
Messiah and His times as compared with the Person
and career of Christ, it will be found that while the
broad outline of the central figure answers to His
image, and its accessories to the effects He has pro
duced throughout vast ages ; yet the .same bold lines
which produce this general effect are exquisitely true to
many details which single Him out as an individual
from all the sons of men.
We do not exceed the admissions of contemporary
criticism when we affirm that the verisimilitude of the

The Oracles of God. 247
antique portrait to the Person and career of Jesus, as
He appears in the gospel narratives, has been esta
blished. Not a false stroke of the brush or an untrue
tint in the colouring can be detected. In the course of
eighteen hundred years countless authors of the most
diversified gifts, training, and opportunities have con
secrated their lives to the supreme task of showing
forth the excellencies of this holy sufferer, and yet with
all the materials at their command, and although many
of them have possessed consummate literary ability,
and not a few have displayed transcendent genius, no
one has produced a sermon or poem which is worthy
to be compared with the picture drawn by Isaiah or
' some great Unknown,' many centuries before Christ's
birth. There are, therefore, only two ways in which the in
ference drawn by Christians from this phenomenon
can be resisted. It may be contended that the gospel
narratives are not true ; or, accepting many of their
features, it may be alleged that Jesus studied the
Messianic part, and played it with amazing skill before
the world. Unless one of these grave charges can be
sustained, the conclusion is irresistible that in Isaiah liii.
we have a verified oracle of God.
The questions now stated will form the subject of the
two succeeding chapters. Pending their discussion,
our conclusion as to Messianic predictions can only be
provisional ; but nothing can alter the fact that the
oracle concerning Abraham's seed has been fulfilled, or
that it has been fulfilled instrumentally through Christ.
Whatever His actual character and nature, He was the
evening star of the old world and the morning star of

248 The Mystery of God.
the new. For ages such a mighty son of Isaac and
David was looked for, and good men said, ' He will
come,' but no prince or prophet said, ' I am the
Christ.' At last One stands up to say, ' I that speak
unto you am He.' And either by the will of a benig
nant God, or the working of a malignant and torment
ing fate, the nations have received their law from His
mouth, and every continent and island is vocal with
His praise as the Son of God. His countrymen, who
fulfilled their predicted part by despising and putting
Him to death, have endured the fate which also was
foretold in the loss of their country and the desolation
of that temple in which alone their priests could
minister and their sacrificial offerings be made. In the
midst of time the Person of Christ thus stands as one
who fulfilled the most mysterious expectations of
antiquity, and has become the foundation on which the
modern world has built its hopes. The questions at
issue about His Person are therefore very definite and
very narrow in their compass, yet they touch the
centre and core of the world's religious history. If
that centre be not a truth, history is one huge fraud, and
the spectre of Pessimism gibes at us in the darkness
into which our minds are plunged.
Section VIII. — The Prevalence of Divine Elements in the
Bible.
Before proceeding to put these Messianic predictions
to their final test by an examination of their asserted
fulfilment in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, some re
marks may be offered with regard to the prevalence of
Divine elements in Scripture. The foregoing predic-

The Oracles of God. 249
tions have been submitted as samples only of an exten
sive class ; but if these are fairly established, no diffi
culty can be felt respecting the vast series of prophecies
to which they stand related. Careful study may
question the soundness of much Rabbinical and
Christian exegesis, and may fail to find Messianic
allusions in some passages where they are commonly
supposed to exist. But when once convinced that the
Bible contains predictions which transcend human
foresight, the most cautious mind will approve a more
receptive standard of criticism than would otherwise
be tolerated, and will recognise what is more significant
than any separate oracle, viz., that the older Scriptures
are saturated with the thought of a future Prince and
Saviour, who would establish a kingdom of righteous
ness and piety in the whole earth.
Furthermore, it should be observed that, although
predictive oracles alone have been selected for the pur
poses of proof, the Divine elements in the Bible cannot
be limited to this one form. The existence of true
prophecy reflects a more than earthly lustre on the
teachings of which it forms an integral part, and en
joins upon all who confess its presence a profound re
spect for whatever statements or practical lessons may
be offered by its human organs. These men nowhere
describe themselves, or one another, as infallible in
their intellectual judgments or in moral character ; but
their selection to be the stewards of Divine oracles
for the benefit of mankind is a seal upon the truth of
their general pretensions, exalts them to a unique place
in our esteem, and justifies us in giving an amount of
credence to their words which would otherwise be

250 The Mystery of God.
superstitious. Many of their statements are utterly in
capable of proof or disproof; but if reasonably assured
that the speakers were called of God to be the religious
pioneers of our race, we shall not demand a positive
and independent corroboration of every utterance.
Being once convinced that they certainly received
some oracles from God, we shall not deem it wise or
right to suspect them of fraud or illusion when they
tell us of other communications, the divinity of which
cannot now be demonstrated.
It is often assumed that if it can be shown that a
given portion of the Bible might conceivably have been
produced by the ordinary use of man's faculties, it is
thereby proved to be a human production and nothing
more. Such an argument, however, will not bear ex
amination. Without forsaking the position that the
Creator is not likely to do for men what they are
competent to do for themselves, it is possible to name
certain conditions under which He might wisely com
municate some truths which were not necessarily
undiscoverable by the human intellect.
It is not impossible, nor, to those who regard God
as man's Ruler, should it seem improbable, that He
would deem it well to deliver oracles of a practical and
hortatory character, such as human moralists might
conceivably have formulated. This would not be doing
what man could do for himself. The decrees of an
emperor or the enactments of a Senate may contain
nothing in advance of what multitudes previously
thought and practised; but as laws they possess a
distinct character and function which could not belong
to them in any other form. So sundry moral precepts,

The Oracles of God. 251
said to have been given by the Creator, may be shown
to have their precise counterparts in sagacious maxims
framed by heathen philosophers, without any real
doubt being cast on their Divine publication. The
moral commandments of God would presumably cor
respond to the purest dictates of man's conscience and
to the wisest conclusions drawn from experience, but
if expressly delivered as divine injunctions, they would
impose peculiar obligations on their hearers. This re
mark has an important bearing on the laws known as
the Decalogue. Nearly all these commandments
(though assuredly not the first) are such as human
wisdom might have devised ; and similar precepts are
not unknown in heathen literature. But, in opposition
to a much reiterated argument, I would submit that
this fact does not disprove that such commands were
specially communicated to Moses from above, any more
than a Royal edict is proved to be spurious by its
agreement with popular opinion, or than meteoric
stones are proved to have an earthly origin when it is
discovered that the elements of which they are com
posed are such as abound in our own globe. The
teaching of the Apostle Paul on this matter is not that
the Jews alone were acquainted with the moral law,
but that they were placed under peculiar obligations
for its fulfilment by the clearness and authority with
which it was imparted to them through Moses ; and
that this special moral responsibility was imposed upon
them as chosen exemplars of God's treatment of dis
obedience, and as the stewards of a Divine revelation
of mercy and redemption.
If for such purposes God were to solemnly promul-

252 The Mystery of God.
gate laws which were already written in the conscience,
or were deducible from the facts of experience, lie would
certainly not be doing what man could do for himself.
When, moreover, it is remembered how universally
the teachings of conscience have been blurred by ill-
usage, and how wofully the lessons of experience have
been misread, it can scarcely be accounted superfluous
for Him to provide through an inspired lawgiver a clear
objective expression of His will, and to enforce its ob
servance upon His chosen servants with exemplary
sanctions for a season. It is not now asserted that
He did pursue this course, for such an assertion would
require to be supported by reasonings for which there
is no space. But it is contended that the Divine
origin of the moral laws ascribed to God in the Bible
cannot be disproved by a mere analysis of their contents.
Hence those who are convinced that God has really
spoken to men, are within the bounds of reason and
probability when they accept as Divine some things
which may not be demonstrably superhuman in their
nature. A further reason for accepting this conclusion may
be found in the fact that things which are really
or apparently within the present powers of human
reason may have altogether transcended those powers
at an earlier period of history. It is also quite possible
that man's existing capacity for religious thought is in
part a product of bygone revelations which he is now
requested to ignore. The teachings of analogy would
certainly encourage the belief that these possibilities
coincide with the actual facts of the case. An earthly
father reveals to his children many things which .in

The Oracles of God. 253
later life they might readily discover for themselves,
but which are none the less indispensable for their
earliest guidance. It will also be admitted that, apart
from these elementary revelations, the reason would
remain in an infantile and almost dormant condition,
and so come short of that ability which ultimately
seems to make it independent.
It might not be difficult to show that this principle
really does apply to the religious education of the race.
There are some beautiful and sublime ideas which
devout Theists, who deny revelation, seem to regard
as having risen up from the wells of consciousness
within them, or as the necessary conclusions of the in
tellect, but which have in fact been inherited through
a series of oral or written revelations from historic
sources indicated in the Bible. It is true, as Professor
Flint has ably proved against Sir John Lubbock,* that
no peoples have yet been discovered without some idea
of a Superior Power. But it is also true, and is capable
of historic proof, that no worthy ideas of God — none
which the Theists in question would care to identify
with their own, are known to have existed where the
influence of Hebrew monotheism was demonstrably or
even probably absent. Assuredly no Theist who has
been taught by his parents to cherish the scriptural
idea of God, or who has read the Bible, or any book in
which Biblical ideas are expressed, is entitled to say
that he has reached his present position by an indepen
dent process of reasoning. He might as well pretend
to have discovered for himself that the world is a globe,
and that it revolves around the sun because these pro-
* ' Anti-Theistic Theories,' Lecture VII.

254 The Mystery of God.
positions are now felt to be natural and certain conclu
sions of the intellect.
The arguments which are intended to establish the
sufficiency of human reason to account for worthy
Theistic ideas will be found, on examination, only to
prove that man is capable of receiving a revelation from
either his fellow-man or from God ; and that he is so
well able to appreciate the beauty and fitness of a great
truth when duly offered and reflected upon, that the
thing revealed may presently seem to be a necessary
conclusion of his intellect, if not an innate idea.
Whether man in his present state of culture would
be able to think out a satisfactory Theistic theory
is a problem we have no means of deciding. No
one can say what the residuum would be if the
minds, let us say of modern Englishmen, could be
swept clear of all the religious ideas they owe to some
kind of revelation ; and if all the spiritual yearnings,
moral sentiments, and social affections which have
been engendered or fostered by ' second-hand ' beliefs
were obliterated or proportionately reduced. What
sort of religion an Englishman in this plight would de
vise it is impossible to imagine, but we may fairly sup
pose that it would be very unlike the ' Rational Re
ligion ' of those Theists who walk in the light of Chris
tianity and declare their independence of its Sun !
What they can do, or what they think to be within their
present powers, is no criterion of what unaided reason
might accomplish. The question is whether, in those
early days to which Theism can historically be traced,
man could have achieved the task now deemed so easy.
Unless this question be answered in the affirmative,

The Oracles of God. 255
and that answer can be sustained by arguments and
evidences such as no one has yet propounded, the
probability remains that some truths which men now
feel competent to ascertain without a revelation were
formerly above man's powers, if they are not actually
so now. Hence, if some parts of the Bible are shown to
be Divine and others human, we are at least entitled to
affirm that our powers are not fine enough to discern a
complete line of demarcation between them, and that
very much more may be Divine than a believer can
prove. We can no more divide the one from the other
with precision than an individual can so analyse his
own thoughts as to separate the things he has dis
covered for himself from the things he received from
other minds in infancy and youth.
It may be well to call attention to what at first sight .
may seem a contradiction between these statements
and others made on p. 206. It should be noticed that
in the previous instance I was considering exclusively
the difficulties of Christians, and my endeavour was to
show that a believer in the Bible as a God-given book
can, for all practical purposes, discern between the
Divine and human in its contents. In this place I have
in view the criticisms of those to whom a ' Thus saith
the Lord ' has no weight. The question here is not
what a believer can find out for his own satisfaction,
and by methods which to faith are quite legitimate,
but what he can do in the way of proof for other
minds; and the object is to show that he is not ir
rational when, having found some oracles which mani
festly exhibit superhuman knowledge, he also reveres
as ' the Word of God ' many other utterances, the

256 The Mystery of God.
nature of which cannot be demonstrated in the same
way. One other reason for concluding that some things
may be Divine which are not demonstrably super
human has yet to be stated. Not only does the
power of discovering and expressing religious truth
vary in different ages of the world, and in different
stages of individual growth, but the power of perceiving
what has already been discovered and expressed varies
also. In no department of knowledge can any instructor
show us what our faculties have not been appropriately
or sufficiently exercised to discern. The most luminous
writer on mathematical science cannot demonstrate an
advanced theorem to one who is still struggling to cross
the pons asinoruin. It requires scholarship to discern
the highest marks of culture in an author or orator,
although the untutored may feel his superiority. The
multitude may admire a fine painting or statue, but
only artistic taste and technical knowledge can dis
criminate the more delicate marks of transcendent
genius. The finest poems may have wondrous charm
for immature and undisciplined minds, but only those
who have passed through manifold experiences of joy
and sorrow can recognise the mastery of a great poet
over the workings of human passion, or be filled with
' exquisite music ' when his words play with mystic
touch upon the highest chords of emotional thought.
If this be so in relation to the works of human learning
and art, a similar preparedness must be required for
the discernment of many things which appeal to man's
more spiritual faculties. Most men feel the beauty and

The Oracles of God. 257
moral power of the old Hebrew psalmists and prophets,
but only those who have undergone some agonizing
moral conflicts, and have lifted up 'lame hands of faith'
to seize the help of One who knows and pities, yet is
Holy, can read the deeper meanings of their language.
The men who most freely find in them the teachings of
God are they who have long striven to speak to Him
who is invisible, and have waited with humbled hearts
and troubled souls for answer. The evidence which
most intensely satisfies such natures can never be trans
ferred. They declare that while they read the Bible
its words become like eyes which read their thoughts,
and Hke lips which speak to their hearts with most
amazing power. Writers who have lain in foreign
graves for ages seem more familiar with their secret
things than are their most intimate companions, and
have so truly anticipated their deepest thoughts as to
provide a language for otherwise unutterable groanings
of remorse and prayer, and for yearnings of hope and
love and praise which had else been dumb. As they
close the book and arise to do its commandments,
they find themselves beset by the outward difficulties
and the inward infirmities of which it has forewarned
them. The more thoroughly they obey its harder say
ings, the deeper is their peace of mind, and the calmer
their assurance of fellowship with One ' that confirmeth
the word of His servant, and performeth the counsel of
His messengers.'
To men who thus put the Bible to the severest imagin
able test — the test of practical obedience in momentous
business — the book becomes more like a living Coun
sellor and Friend than a printed volume. Its words
17

258 The Mystery of God.
become more precious than their necessary food, be
cause the nourishment of pure affections, great pur
poses, high courage, and exalted hopes. In sorrow
they are fraught with consolation, and in joy with
sobering wisdom. In the hour of failure they whisper
thoughts of new and eternal possibilities; in victory
they preach humbleness ; in the midst of conflict they
are like the voice of a great commander calling to his
troops ; while to the wounded who lie prone upon the
battlefield their tones are tenderly compassionate, yet
full of healing mercy and reviving hope. To those who
have experienced these things, mere logical proofs of
superhuman knowledge in the Bible are irksome and
needless. To those who know of them only by report,
no exposition can convey such impressions as they
produce. It may be demurred by readers who lack such con
victions, that these private and incommunicable per
suasions have no logical place in this discussion. It is
freely conceded that they are not direct evidence of
Divine elements in the Bible ; they are expressly intro
duced as things 'which never can be proved ;' but they
have, notwithstanding, a distinct logical value. In dis
cussing the chemical or medicinal properties of a given
substance, investigators will not shut their eyes to any
effects which it is alleged to have produced. If those
who eat or drink of it, or apply it to their bodies
externally, profess themselves to be thereby pained or
comforted, science will not refuse to register their
experience. But if some analyst were to ridicule
their experience because of his inability to explain
it, or because, owing to some different conditions of

The Oracles of God. 259
health, he may feel no similar effects, the persons who
have made repeated experiments will be justly com
mended for abiding in their own beliefs, On the same
principle, the testimony of those who make the Bible
their chief study and their supreme guide will not be
passed over by a ' rational sceptic ' as uninstructive.
The intense conviction of Divine enlightenment, in-
vigoration, comfort, guidance, and moral constraint
which grows up in the minds of myriads of Christian
men and women is a phenomenon of unparalleled
character, and should command the respectful attention
of all who would study the mystery of human life in a
scientific spirit. It forbids hasty denials, and counsels
patient study of the facts in that childlike spirit which
Science and Faith unite to approve. It also powerfully
recommends such a practical experiment in the way of
life prescribed by the Bible as will correspond to those
physical tests whereby theories are verified in the
sphere of material things, Whatever value, however,
may be attached to the prevalence of such a con
viction by a too self-reliant criticism, those who have
attained it would be utterly irrational if they con
sented to renounce the accumulated teachings of expe
rience. At the close of Section II. it was observed that the
phenomena there indicated have never been accounted
for except on the supposition that a Higher Mind pre
sided over the production of the Bible, but that their
chief importance could only be seen in conjunction
with some other facts. We are now in a position to
take a somewhat wider view, although the force of
what is said at this stage will be immeasurably increased
17 — 2

260 The Mystery of God.
if the propositions which still await discussion are
established. When the actual presence of Divine oracles in the
Bible has been established to our satisfaction, the sur
prising unity of its collected books assumes a new
significance. The phenomena which have already
been exhibited seem in any case to indicate that the
authors of these books were inspired and supervised
by one Mind, which remained while they were changed,
and still taught them each their portion as they went
from birth to death, and passed in slow procession
down the ages. But when it is found that these
men, so widely sundered by gulfs of time and
seas of changing circumstance, were bound together
as fellow-workers, not only by those links which have
been reviewed, but by a mysterious power of antici
pation, that unity becomes unspeakably significant.
We have seen not only that the later writers of
Scripture quote and supplement the utterances of
their predecessors, but also that the earlier writers
foretell events which in part their successors describe
and attest as eye-witnesses, and in part repeat and
amplify as fellow-prophets century after century, and
in the face of the most terrible discouragements. We
have seen that, taken altogether, these authors furnish
not only, as formerly stated, a coherent conception of
the past and prospective history of the human race, but
also a true and vivid prediction of events which are still
being wrought out in world-wide transformations of
thought and life, and by the precise agency foretold.
The unity which thus includes the gradual unfolding of
such superhuman knowledge draws a circle of consecra-

The Oracles of God. 261
tion round the entire production which we call the Bible.
It does not require us to believe, nor does it even sug
gest, that its Divine contents have reached us without
bearing traces of the human channels through which
the communication comes ; but it surely warrants the
conclusion that the book as a whole is God's gift to
mankind ; that, with all its characteristics, it is what
He meant it to be ; and that wherein it may partake of
human limitations, this also is by His permission, and
because in His sight it is more useful so than otherwise.
The ascertained existence of heavenly treasure in an
'earthen vessel' does not exempt the vessel from
earthly conditions when it happens to be a book, any
more than in the estimation of the prophets and
apostles their abundant revelations made them infal
lible as men. But the presence of such a treasure in a
volume so remarkably prepared for its gradual impar-
tation, and subsequent preservation and dissemination,
may well be deemed to sanctify that book, and to
make it as a whole most truly sacred in the eyes of
men.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
So many vague and sweeping statements have been
made in recent years about the mythical character of
the gospels, that it may not be superfluous to show
how certain and definite is our knowledge of the main
facts of Christ's life, and how exclusively the more
scholarly assailants of the gospel narratives restrict
their attack to alleged supernatural elements*
Renan, in the introduction to his ' Life of Jesus,'
writes an eloquent paragraph in which he declares how
a residence in Palestine impressed him with the
intense and veracious realism of the gospel narratives.
'I have traversed,' he observes, 'in all directions, the
country of the gospels ; I have visited Jerusalem,
Hebron, and Samaria ; scarcely any important locality
of the history of Jesus has escaped me. All this
history, which at a distance seems to float in the
clouds of an unreal world, thus took a form, a solidity,
which astonished me. The striking agreement of the
texts with the places, the marvellous harmony of the
gospel ideal with the country which served it as a
framework, were like a revelation to me. I had before
my eyes a fifth gospel, torn, but still legible, and
henceforward, through the recitals of Matthew and

The Person of Christ. 26

j

Mark, in place of an abstract being, whose existence
might have been doubted, I saw living and moving an
admirable human figure; During the summer, having
to go up to Ghazir, in Lebanon, to take a little repose,
I fixed in rapid sketches the image which.had appeared
to me, and from them resulted this history.'*
Renan is not alone in feeling the matchless charm of
the picture drawn by the four evangelists, or the irre
sistible conviction that their portrait was painted from
real life. The peculiarity of his position is that he
should ask the world to receive a 'fifth gospel,'
written by a Parisian of the nineteenth century, as
more credible and trustworthy than either of those
written by Hebrews in the first, and written so
admirably as to make Christ live before his own
sceptical eyes with intense vividness in the very spot
where any marks of untruthfulness would have become
more apparent.
Such a statement from so prejudiced a quarter is not
without its value, but the historic quality of the gospels
is independent of any such admissions. The Jews them
selves have never disputed the life and death of Jesus,
or that He did many mighty works, and was crucified
when Pilate was governor of Jerusalem. Renan ac
cepts the celebrated passage in Josephus in which he
refers to Jesus : but as its genuineness has been im
pugned, it may be left unquoted. The opinions of
Jewish writers, however, have been freely expressed,
and the testimony of loving disciples is corroborated
by the witness of bitter foes. For centuries the
Rabbins continued to write of Christ with venomous
* 'Life of Jesus,' p. 31*

264 The Mystery of God.
hatred, and to ascribe His miracles to Satanic agency,
as the evangelists 'tell us their fathers did during His
lifetime. In the present day, at any rate in England,
a more Christlike treatment of the Jewish people seems
to have been answered by a kindlier and humbler
attitude on their part towards Christ. Many take
great interest in the gospels, and esteem the crucifixion
of Jesus a crime of crimson dye.
Besides the testimony of Jews, Latin authors may
be cited, who, as Pagans, offer a third and independent
body of evidence. Suetonius, referring to an Imperial
edict issued in the year a.d. 53, states that Claudius
'expelled the Jews from Rome' because 'constantly
raising disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.'
Tacitus, writing of Nero's persecution, enters more into
detail. Charged by the Roman people with the crime
of setting fire to the city, this infamous tyrant sought
to fasten the guilt of his own act upon Christians.
Concerning this Tacitus observes : ' Christus, the
founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal
by Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea, in the reign of
Tiberius ; but the pernicious superstition, repressed for
a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where
the mischievous sect arose, but through the city of
Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful
flow from all quarters as to a common receptacle, and
where they are encouraged. Accordingly, first those
were seized who confessed they were Christians ; next,
on their information, a vast multitude were convicted,
not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of
hating the human race. In their deaths they were
also made the subjects of sport, for they were covered

The Person of Christ. 265
with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by
dogs, or set fire to, and when day declined were used
as torches to illumine the darkness of night.'*
Commenting on this passage, Gibbon remarks : * The
most sceptical criticism is obliged to accept the truth
of this extraordinary fact, and the integrity of this
celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former is con
firmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius ....
the latter by the consent of the most ancient manu
scripts ; by the inimitable character of the style of
Tacitus ; by his reputation, which guarded the text
from the interpolations of pious fraud; and by the
purport of his narration, which accused the first
Christians of the most atrocious crimes without in
sinuating that they possessed any miraculous or even
magical powers above the rest of mankind.'t
It is needless to discuss here the baselessness of the
accusations repeated by Tacitus. The animus he dis
plays renders his evidence the more valuable in some
respects, and no one now imagines that the primitive
Christians were enemies to mankind, as he supposed.
This testimony might suffice for our purpose, but it
may be strengthened by the words of the younger
Pliny, in which he gives a more observant account of
the characters of the early followers of Christ.
In the earliest dawn of the second century, only
some seventy years after the death of Christ, this
Pliny, who was one of the most accomplished men of
his age, was a pro-consul in Asia Minor, and so became
responsible for the execution of certain repressive laws
* Tacitus, ' The Annals,' Book XV, Chap. xiv.
t Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall,' Vol. IL, Chap. xvi.

266 The Mystery of God.
issued by Trajan against Christians. In the course of
his work he was much perplexed by the number and
harmlessness of these people, and he wrote a letter to
the Emperor for advice. This letter (dated Nicomedia
A.U.C. 856), though often referred to, is seldom read.
It is well worthy of quotation as a whole, but only
portions can be given here :
' It is, Sire, a rule which I prescribe to myself, to
consult you upon all difficult occasions. For who can
better direct my doubts or instruct my ignorance ? I
have never been present at the resolutions taken con
cerning the Christians, therefore I know not for what
causes or to what degree our complaints may be carried
on against them  Are those who repent to be
pardoned ? Or is it to no purpose to renounce.
Christianity after having once professed it ? Must
they be punished for the name, although otherwise
innocent ? Or is the name itself so flagitious as to be
punishable ?' After describing his previous method of
investigation, he observes : ' Soon afterwards the
crime, as it often happens, by being pursued became
more diffusive. . . . .'
Describing certain accused persons who recanted,
he states :
' All these worshipped your image, and the images
of the gods ; and they even vented imprecations against
Christ : they affirmed that the sum total of their fault
or of their error consisted in their assembling upon a
certain stated day before it was light, to sing alter
nately among themselves hymns to Christ, as to a god :
binding themselves by oath not to be guilty of any
wickedness, not to steal, nor to rob, nor to commit

The Person of Christ. 267
adultery, nor to break their faith when plighted, nor to
deny the deposits in their hands whenever called upon
to restore them. These ceremonies performed, they
usually departed, and came together again to take a
repast, the meat of which Was innocent, and eaten pro
miscuously: but they had desisted from this custom
since my edict, wherein, by your commands, I had
prohibited all public assemblies.'
Respecting the more staunch professors, he re
lates :
' I thought it more necessary to try to gain the truth,
even by torture, from two women who were said to
officiate at their worship. But I could discover only
an obstinate kind of superstition carried to a great ex
cess. And therefore, postponing any resolution of my
own, I have waited the result of your judgment. To
me an affair of this sort seems worthy of your con
sideration, principally from the multitude involved in
the danger. For many persons of all ages, of all de
grees, and of both sexes, are already, and will be con
stantly, brought into danger by these accusations. Nor
is this superstitious contagion confined only to the
cities ; it spreads itself through the villages and the
country. As yet I think it may be stopped and cor
rected. It is very certain that the temples, which were
almost deserted, now begin to fill again, and the sacred
rites, which have been a long time neglected, are again
performed. The victims, which hitherto had few pur
chasers, are now sold everywhere. From hence we
may easily infer what numbers of people might be
reclaimed if there was a proper allowance made for
repentance.'

268 The Mystery of God.
To this epistle the Emperor replied in a letter which
has also been preserved, commending the pro-consul's
procedure, and assenting to his counsels of modera
tion.* Apart from any Christian records, it is therefore
certain on Jewish and Pagan evidence that Jesus
Christ lived at the time and place stated in the New
Testament. It is also certain that about seventy years
after His death His followers were so numerous
throughout the cities and country districts of Asia
Minor that the Pagan temples were almost deserted,
until persecution began to drive the people back to
their forsaken devotions. It is also clear from Pliny's
letter that Jesus was then worshipped as Divine, that
His disciples were accustomed to observe a simple meal
as a religious ordinance, and that they were notable
for their strict views of truth, chastity, and other moral
duties. We also know that so far from Pliny's expec
tation that these people could be put down proving
correct, they continued so to multiply, that two cen
turies later the Emperor Constantine saw it expedient
to profess himself a Christian as a means of attaching
to himself the strongest party in his empire.
We have now to examine the testimony of Christian
writers to their Master.
Of late years the most strenuous efforts have been
made to damage the credit of John's gospel. For a
time its composition late in the second century was
treated as an established fact ; but little by little the
date of its production has been carried back by hard,
critical warfare, until now not more than twenty years
* Pliny's ' Letters,' Book X., Epistles xcvii. and xcviii.

The Person of Christ. 269
remain in dispute between those who say John wrote
it at the close of the first century, and those who
labour to prove its post-apostolic origin. To avoid en
cumbering these pages with a long discussion of this
still debated point, the gospel of John will not be
quoted or relied upon as evidence. This abstention
from its use must not be regarded as an admission that
the genuineness of the gospel is fairly open to question.
The exclusion, however, of this fourth witness to
Christ from our discussion will not only avert a lengthy
review of the argument, but will incidentally disprove
the often reiterated charge that the Christian Church
can only vindicate her exalted faith in Jesus as the Son
of God by appealing to the discourses contained in
John.* With regard to the first three gospels the most
opposite and contradictory theories have been main
tained with dogmatic certainty by adepts in the 'higher
criticism.' Mark is now generally esteemed the earliest,
* For admirable reviews of the controversy the reader is referred
to Godet's 'Commentary on John' (Introduction), and to that of
Canon Westcott. As opinions expressed by men well known for
their free criticism of Scripture, the following extracts are not with
out weight. Matthew Arnold, in his ' God and the Bible ' (p. 22),
observes : ' Tried fairly, then, and without a preconceived theory
to warp our criticism, the fourth gospel comes out no fancy piece,
but a serious and invaluable document, full of incidents given by
tradition and genuine sayings of our Lord.' Ewald, in his ' History
of Israel ' (Vol. VI., p. 145, note), observes : ' Whoever considers
that the fourth gospel is a spurious work ascribed to John has not
learnt to distinguish between original and not original, old and new
books, and between books written in a simple inartificial style and
those written artificially in the name of a more famous author or
holy man. The fourth gospel does not bear a single trace of
having been written in another's name.1

270 The Mystery of God.
and his gospel is assigned to a date prior to the de
struction of Jerusalem. Luke, mainly because it con
tains an explicit reference to the Roman siege, is
assigned to a rather later date, somewhere about a.d. 80.
Matthew is thought to have been written earlier than
Luke, and probably before a.d. 70. As to the sources
from whence the Evangelists derived their information,
criticism is in a similar position to that of the Roman
Catholic Church when two rival Infallibilities asserted
their claims to the Papacy, Germans mostly believe
that all three followed a more ancient written gospel,
Most English writers affirm a common oral tradition,
or a triple tradition. The notion that these gospels
are late compilations, and may have been written in the
second century, is one which no well-qualified critic,
however antagonistic to Christianity, now entertains.
But these three documents which purport to tell the
life of Christ are not the earliest Christian testimony
now extant. Some of Paul's epistles are from fifteen
to twenty years older than either of them, and the
genuineness of the most important of his letters has never
been doubted. The Epistles addressed to the Romans,
the Galatians, and the Corinthians, are allowed on all
hands to be the actual writings of the Apostle Paul* and
to have been composed within a period of some twenty
to thirty years after the death of Christ. Now, it is
impossible to read these letters to Gentile and
European Churches without seeing that they take for
granted a familiar knowledge of Christ's life on the
part of their readers, and of just such a life as Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John portray. We know, therefore,
with historic certainty, that within twenty or thirty

The Person of Christ, 271
years of Christ's death His religion had escaped from
Jewish trammels, and had so far broken down the wall
of partition between Jew and Gentile as to form mixed
communities. Those epistles alone prove that within
that short space of time Paul, who was not one of the
original disciples, had been converted, had flung off his
Pharisaic prejudices, and had spent a number of years
in preaching the gospel as summarized by himself in
1 Corinthians xv. They prove that Paul believed, and
had convinced many Greeks, that a murdered Jew was
the Son of God, that He had been raised from the
grave, and exalted to heaven as a Prince and a Saviour,
and that He would come once more to judge- the world.
They show that the Lord's supper was observed pre
cisely as it is observed now, viz., as a memorial of
Christ's sufferings, as a pledge of fidelity to Him, as a
bond oflove amongst His followers, and as. a prophetic
sign of His return. They show that Christ was be
lieved by Paul to have wrought miracles, and also to
have given a select few, including himself, miraculous
powers. They show that the Apostle taught a doctrine
of the Holy Spirit in full harmony with those discourses
in John which are most assailed as the invention of a
later age, Romans viii. and 1 Corinthians xii. contain
all the most transcendental and so-called mystical
doctrines of Christ's spiritual indwelling in His disciples,
which John reports as having been spoken on the night
when Jesus was betrayed. Paul, as an independent
witness, therefore, carries back the most important and,
to hostile criticism, the most difficult elements of the
four gospels to a date close up to Christ's death,
It is very significant also that Paul had never been

272 The Mystery of God.
in Rome when he wrote to the church in that city. It
had not been founded by his preaching, and yet he
knows that its members have the same faith in Christ
as the Corinthians. He apologizes for not having
visited them long before, and declares that their high
Christian character was talked of throughout the
world. Another significant fact is that already at so
early a time Paul has occasion to complain that his
teachings have been misunderstood and perverted ;
that divisions have crept into the Churches ; and that
some members have shown the shallowness of their
sympathy with Christ by refusing to endure the restraints
of righteousness. These letters also show that the
Churches were beset from without by elaborate and
well-defined objections ; and these objections, when
analyzed, prove to have been directed against those
lofty claims on behalf of Christ which we are asked to
believe were the product of a later age. The argument
of the letter to the Romans proves that the authority
of Christ to supersede the statute law of Moses had
been long asserted by Christians, and bitterly re
sented by Jews. It shows that Christ's authority to
forgive sins and to say, ' Thy faith hath saved thee,'
was a familiar and fundamental doctrine, and that the
Jews denounced it as a sign of immorality and lawless
ness, just as the Evangelists ^say their countrymen
attacked it when Christ was alive. Some of the more
abstruse chapters are a logical vindication of Christ's
authority to take the kingdom from the Jews and give
it to other nations, as He Himself is described by the
Evangelists as announcing His intention in various
parables and discourses.

The Person of Christ. 273
These Pauline epistles show, therefore, that Christ's
claim to be the long-expected Messiah and to fulfil the
ancient Hebrew scriptures was no late invention, but
an original doctrine on which the gospel was based.
They carry back all the superhuman claims which the
Evangelists ascribe to Christ to a time immediately
following His death. In the superhuman elements of
these four authors, therefore, we have not to deal with
myths which took some forty or fifty years to mature.
They are elements which, whether true or false, are
traceable to the earliest apostolic preaching.
We have thus, on independent Jewish, Pagan, and
Christian authority, found that the main facts of
Christ's public ministry as a religious teacher, and His
crucifixion by Pilate, are solid verities, no more to be
doubted than the death of Socrates in his Athenian
prison, or the murder of Cassar in the Roman Senate ;
and we also know, before approaching the gospel nar
ratives, that by some means Christ produced precisely
such an impression concerning His goodness, wisdom,
dignity, and Divine Sonship as the Evangelists seek to
convey. This conclusion assigns definite limits to the
questions still to be discussed. Seeing that the main
outlines of Christ's life as told by the Evangelists are
proved to be historic, we have to ask whether the re
ported words and works of Christ have also been
honestly recorded ; if not, are the narratives enriched
with legendary . stories of miraculous works and in
vented words ; or, as some suppose, are the words
authentic, while only the miracles have been falsely
fitted into the true historic outline of His life ? Or,
yet again, were spurious miracles foisted upon the
18

274 The Mystery of God.
credulous Apostles by the wilful imposture of their
Master ?
With regard to most of the alleged words of Christ,
there is scarcely any dispute. It is confessed by all
men capable of judging that the sayings of Jesus are
so unique in their character, that to allege that men like
the Evangelists invented them, is to affirm a miracle.
Even Strauss did not impugn the reported sayings of
Jesus. Some of the discourses in John, and some of
the prophetic discourses in Luke, are dismissed as in
credible, but the genuineness of Christ's conversations
is not doubted by anyone whose views deserve atten
tion. Every thinker recognises that there must have
been something in Christ to fire men with enthusiasm,
to extort homage, and to purify character. Such moral
and intellectual effects as have notoriously been pro
duced do not start into existence uncaused, and those
who repudiate miracles are compelled to find in the
sublimity and moral excellence of Christ's teachings,
and in the fervour of His love for the poor, and sinful,
and sick, the necessary element of fact by which to
account for His influence over men. On this point
the views of Mill are worthy of notice. 'Whatever
else, he observes, ' may be taken away from us by
rational criticism, Christ is still left, a unique figure,
not more unlike all His precursors than all His followers,
even those who had the direct benefit of His personal
teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ, as ex
hibited in the gospels, is not historical, and that we
know not how much of what is admirable has been
superadded by the tradition of His followers. The
tradition of followers may have inserted all the miracles

The Person of Christ. 275
which He is reputed to have wrought. But who
among His disciples or among their proselytes was
capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or
of imagining the life and character revealed in the
gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee ; as
certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyn-
cracies were of a totally different sort ; still less the
early Christian writers, in whom nothing is more
evident than that the good that was in them was all
derived, as they always professed that it was derived,
from the higher source.'*
From such a quarter, this testimony to the inimitable
quality of Christ's words is of much value. Whether
the undoubted words can be separated from the dis
puted works of Christ, as Mill too easily assumed, has
now to be considered.
A careful examination of the narratives will discover
that the alleged miracles are so organically connected
with the words, that they can no more be removed so as
to leave a consistent human story, than the veins can
be taken out of a marble bust without destroying the
likeness, or than a surgeon can take out a patient's
bones, and leave his figure unimpaired. Many of the
most important sayings and conversations are started
by, and are concerned about, professed miracles. The
sudden fame of Christ is unaccountable except through
the rumours of alleged wonderful works. The commo
tion among the populace, the Pharisees, and priests and
rulers, was chiefly produced by Christ's deeds. His
fame as a healer of disease and restorer of bodily
* ' Essays on Religion,' p. 453. (The above quotation refers
only to the first three gospels.)
18—2

276 The Mystery of God.
wholeness was more influential with the multitude than
any ethical or spiritual tuition. These real or pre
tended works of His were clearly the basis of those
expectations which even the mythical and visionary
theories of the resurrection are obliged to attribute to
the disciples before Christ died. Hence Strauss admits
that immense numbers of miraculous cures must have
been ascribed to Christ by rumour. Many of these he
thinks were real cures, although produced by nervous
excitement. The author of ' Ecce Homo ' justly said
in his chapter on ' Christ's Credentials ': ' Waiving,
then, for the present the question whether miracles
were actually wrought, we may state a fact which is
fully capable of being established by ordinary evidence,
and which is actually established by evidence as ample
as any historical fact whatever, the fact, namely, that
Christ professed to work miracles. We may go farther,
and assert with confidence that Christ was believed by
His followers really to work miracles, and that it was
mainly on this account that they conceded to Him the
pre-eminent dignity and authority which He claimed.'*
Elsewhere this author writes more strongly : ' Nor can
it be doubted, by the present writer at least, that He
was believed in His lifetime, and not merely after His
death, to work miracles. All those circumstances
which have been represented as suspicious — His un
willingness to work miracles in certain cases, the
contempt He expressed for those whose faith depended
exclusively upon them— are strong evidence that the
miracles were, at least, no afterthoughts of the bio
graphers, for such circumstances were most unlikely to
* ' Ecce Homo,' p. 43.

The Person of Christ. 277
occur either in legend or falsification. The fact that
Christ appeared as a worker of miracles is the best
attested fact in His whole biography, both by the
absolute unanimity of all the witnesses, by the con
firmatory circumstances just mentioned, and by countless
other special confirmations not likely to be invented,
striking sayings inseparably connected with them, etc.,
in particular cases.' *
Renan, also, furnishes striking testimony to the same
effect. No man treats the reality of miracles with more
summary denial than he, yet he confesses that Jesus
undoubtedly did pretend to work them, and that the
stories of the synoptic gospels, though incredible now,
were really believed by the disciples before their Master
died. Thus the words and works of Christ are in
separably bound up together by the admissions of
men who were most anxious, and intellectually most
competent, to effect their separation, if it were at all
possible. This conclusion sets before us a most decisive issue.
When the alleged works of Christ and His admitted
words are thus proved inseparable, the moral character
of Christ is staked on the genuineness of the works.
If He claimed a more than human authority and
honour on the strength of superhuman powers as
evinced in miracles, His truthfulness and common
honesty depend on the reality of those powers. If the
works were spurious, Jesus was an impostor and a
blasphemer of God, as His enemies asserted. In that
case He deserved to die ; and of the three malefactors
who were crucified together, Jesus would have been
* ' Ecce Homo,' Preface to Fifth Edition, p. x.

278 The Mystery of God.
immeasurably the worst. If, on the contrary, the
works were real, then the claims were well founded,
and Jesus is rightly honoured by the Christian
Church. To evade this dilemma, it is sometimes asserted that
the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is purely human ;
and that only the Jesus of John claims to be divine.
A brief review of the manner in which the claims of
Christ are reported in the first three gospels will prove
the fallacy of this idea.
Mark thus records the impression left upon the
people by Christ's earliest teaching in the synagogue at
Capernaum : ' They were astonished at His teaching,
for He taught them as having authority, and not as the
Scribes' (Mark i. 22). In the Sermon on the Mount,
Christ said: 'Blessed are the meek' (Matthew v. 5).
But what sort of meekness did Jesus Himself possess,
if only human, while arrogating the right to pronounce
those beatitudes, and to supersede the teaching of ages,
including some portions of the Mosaic law ? Through
out the sermon there is a constant use of the pronoun
' I.' The speaker declares His will, and issues His
requirements with regal majesty, and as a king whose
dominions are as broad as the moral government of
God. After upbraiding the cities of Galilee, and de
claring that no man knew the Father save the Son, He
stretched forth His hands, and uttered those words
which have moved the hearts of all generations :
' Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and
learn of Me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart : and
ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is

The Person of Christ. 279
easy, and My burden is light' (Matthew xi. 28-30).
Never perhaps was Jesus less meek, if judged by a
human standard, than when uttering this marvellous
invitation. In His beatitudes He said : ' Blessed are they that
hunger and thirst after righteousness' (Matthew v. 6).
He viewed His best hearers as only seekers after
righteousness, but He never betrayed the least sign
of unsatisfied desire in Himself. He reproved, and
sometimes satirized, those who felt no need of repent
ance ; but He never, by word or sign, confessed the
consciousness of such a need Himself. He taught men
to pray for forgiveness, but He never asked to be for
given. Even on the cross He said, ' Father, forgive
them,' not ' Father, forgive Me.' Nor was this all.
He not only refrained from owning any need of
clemency, but He claimed to exercise the Divine pre
rogative of mercy by forgiving sin, and silenced the
Scribes, who called this assumption blasphemy, by
commanding a palsied man to arise and walk (Mark ii.
5-12). This same claim pervades all Christ's dealings
with notorious sinners as narrated throughout the
gospels. Again, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said :
'Judge not, that ye be not judged' (Matthew vii. 1);
yet He habitually did what He forbids men to attempt;
i.e., He went behind men's words and actions to deal
with what He professed to know was in their hearts.
Many of His conversations owe their entire character
to this professed power of discerning what no man
could know. Carrying forward this faculty into the
future, Jesus presented Himself as the future judge of

280 The Mystery of God.
mankind (Matthew vii. 21-23 ; xxv. 31-46 ; Mark xiv.
61, 62 ; Luke xxii. 69, etc.).
In dealing with His disciples, Christ rigorously re
pressed all attempts to assert, or even seek, superiority
over one another (Mark x. 35-45) • Yet when He placed
a little child in their midst as a pattern of true greatness,
He made it a pattern of childlike trust in Himself, and
said, ' Whoso shall receive one such little child in My
name receiveth Me: but whoso shall cause one of these
little ones that believe on Me to stumble, it is profitable
for him that a great millstone should be hanged about
his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the
sea' (Matthew xviii. 5, 6). He forbade His disciples to
be called masters, remarking that, 'Whosoever shall
exalt himself shall be humbled,' yet in the same breath
declared, ' One is your Master, even the Christ '
(Matthew xxiii. 10-12). He claimed for Himself that
He was ' Lord of the Sabbath' (Mark ii. 28 ; Luke vi.
5): and that He was 'greater than the temple,' which,
according to the Old Testament scriptures, was God's
peculiar dwelling, and the appointed meeting-place
between man and God (Matthew xii. 6). He exacted
the most unreserved obedience to Himself, the most
absolute devotion to His personal service, and the
most implicit faith in His word. He treated loyalty
to Himself as the evidence of a right state of heart
towards God, and assumed the right to promise
eternal life and honour to all who should suffer per
secution for His sake (Matthew v. n ; Luke xviii.
28-30, etc.). On one occasion a man came saying,
' Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit
eternal life?' and Jesus, to test his thought, said, ' Why

The Person of Christ. 281
callest thou Me good ? None is good save one, even God.'
This reply is sometimes quoted as a modest disclaimer
of goodness, or of more than human dignity ; but read
ing on, it becomes clear that Christ not only accepted
the word ' good,' but expressly and emphatically
accepted it as the earthly representative of God.
Leaving out the great command to love God with all
the heart and soul, He recited the moral precepts of
the law ; and when the man replied, ' Master, all these
have I observed from my youth,' Jesus answered : ' One
thing thou lackest : go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven :
and come, follow Me ' (Mark x. 17-22). Thus Christ
deliberately substituted loving consecration, to Himself
for the first law of Sinai, ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God.' What pretensions to Divinity can be quoted
from John more unmistakable than this ? Or, on the
supposition that Jesus was a mere man, what could be
more blasphemously presumptuous than this claim which
Mark preserves ?
If we were to quote all that can be found in the three
first Gospels savouring of superhuman self-assertion on
Christ's part, we should have to quote them almost
bodily. Whenever He speaks, He speaks as one
above His hearers. If, therefore, we read the Gospel
story without detecting these assumptions, it can only
be because they so marvellously accord with the per
sonal dignity of the Jesus the evangelists depict, that
we unconsciously and without offence accept from Him
words which, coming from any other lips, would
arouse the most intense indignation. The fact that so
many can read these narratives without noticing the

282 The Mystery of God.
extraordinary assumptions which pervade the words and
deeds of Christ is a singular testimony to the perfect
symmetry of the portrait. It shows that character,
speech, and actions are all upon the same grand scale,
harmonizing and blending with each other in faultless
proportion and truth. The reported deeds of Christ
would be glaring monstrosities but for the quiet sub
limity of His speech and the matchless beauty, of His
spirit. The words of Christ would jar upon our ears
as the strains of unparalleled arrogance, but for their
accompaniments of wondrous works and the irresistible
attraction of a meekness which is not falsified to our
hearts by the most exalted tones of authority.
But while the superhuman claims of Christ are often
overlooked, they cannot be denied when distinctly
pointed out. How, then, are they to be disposed of?
How is the difficulty they create dealt with by those
who recognise them, yet refuse to regard them as well-
founded ?
Strauss laboured hard to tone down the facts, but
substantially he confessed the difficulty, and tried to
evade it by ascribing to Jesus an enthusiastic state of
self-deception. According to him, Jesus set Himself
to carry out the Messianic programme found in the
prophets, and meeting with singular success at the
outset, came at length to believe Himself the Messiah ;
and so He and His disciples, and the populace, were all
carried away by an enthusiastic credulity to believe that
all their Messianic expectations were being fulfilled.
When Strauss came to apply this theory to the details,
it landed him in endless absurdities. As an explanation
of Christ's life, it is dead. Of such an enthusiasm, there

The Person of Christ. 283
are no traces. There never was narrated the life of a
calmer, more self-possessed being than Jesus. When
His disciples betray undue elation, He invariably re
presses it. When enthusiastic volunteers present them
selves, He bids them wait and count the cost. When
crowds become excited in His favour, He retreats to the
wilderness, or scatters them by hard sayings. His whole
public life was maintained in the face of scathing criti
cism, and under the fierce light of a watchfulness which
never lost an opportunity of obstructing His plans, or
of insulting His person, and ridiculing His pretensions.
His last days witnessed His most exalted claims and
sublimest confidence, together with shaken hearts and
doubtful minds in His disciples, and intensified scorn
and hatred in His enemies. From His baptism to His
death no trace of excitement, or fanaticism, or un
reasoning fervour can be discovered. The picture is
uniformly one of the Man who never suffered a moment's
illusion as to the true feelings and thoughts, whether of
friends or foes, or as to the certain issue of His own
career. But this is not the chief part of the answer. Even
if the facts were not so utterly against it, Strauss's
theory fails as an apology for Christ's moral character.
Enthusiasm may explain a delirious self-conceit in its
later stages ; but no man, unless a lunatic, ever came
to believe himself superhuman, except as the sequel to
a course of conscious self-flattery, and a despicable
acceptance of fulsome praise from those he stooped to
court. If a man is given up to believe such a lie about
himself, it can only be as a moral retribution for having,
firstof all, deceived others. Renan, inhis 'Life of Jesus,'

284 The Mystery of God.
clearly recognises this position. He borrows the idea
of enthusiastic self-deception, but he does not pretend
for a moment that this alters the moral conditions.
He takes the view of a ' Parisian man-of-the-world,'
whose conscience is as volatile as his imagination. He
admits that Christ laid claim to miraculous powers
and superhuman authority, but without a blush ap
plauds the boldness and genius of Christ's successful
imposture, as a mark of superiority to all the pitiful
scruples of feebler men, and elaborately traces the
process by which imposture develops into self-deceit.
These are his words : ' An absolute conviction, or
rather the enthusiasm, which freed Him from even the
possibility of doubt, shrouded all these boldnesses.
We little understand, with our cold and scrupulous
natures, how anyone can be so entirely possessed by the
idea of which He has made Himself the apostle. To
the deeply earnest races of the West, conviction means
sincerity to one's self. But sincerity to one's self has not
much meaning to Oriental peoples, little accustomed
to the subtleties of a critical spirit. Honesty and
imposture are words which, in our rigid consciences,
are opposed as two irreconcilable terms. In the East
they are connected by numberless subtle links and
windings .... The literal truth has little value to the
Oriental ; he sees everything through the medium of his
ideas, his interests, and his passions. History is im
possible, if we do not fully admit that there are many
standards of sincerity. All great things are done
through the people ; now we can only lead the people
by adapting ourselves to its ideas. The philosopher
who, knowing this, isolates and fortifies himself in his

The Person of Christ. 285
integrity, is highly praiseworthy. But he who takes
humanity with its illusions, and seeks to act with it
and upon it, cannot be blamed. ... It is easy for us,
who are so powerless, to call this falsehood, and, proud
of our timid honesty, to treat with contempt the heroes
who have accepted the battle of life under other con
ditions. When we have effected by our scruples what
they accomplished by their falsehoods, we shall have
the right to be severe upon them. At least, we must
make a marked distinction between societies like our
own, where everything takes place in the light of re
flection, and simple and credulous communities, in
which the beliefs that have governed ages have been
born. Nothing great has been established which does
not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is
the humanity which is willing to be deceived.'*
Of all the insults ever heaped on the head of Jesus,
this passage is one of the most atrocious. Such im
moral praises constitute a crown of thorns sharper
than those woven by the Roman soldiers. They are
more disgraceful than any spitting, and a robe of
honour more full of mockery than the purple imitation
of Csesar's. But the insult is not limited to Christ.
It is cast on all readers of Renan's book, because we
are invited to worship a deceiver, not merely in spite
of, but because of his deceit. In other parts of his
book Renan speaks of Jesus as the Man in whom ' was
condensed all that is good and elevated in our nature.'
' Let us,' he exclaims, ' place then the person of Jesus
at the highest summit of human greatness ' (p. 305), and
putting on his mantle of prophecy, he closes his fifth
* ' Life of Jesus,' p. 186.

286 The Mystery of God.
gospel by saying, ' Whatever may be the unexpected
phenomena of the future, Jesus will not be surpassed.
His worship will constantly renew its youth, the tale of
His life will cause ceaseless tears, His sufferings will
soften the best hearts : all the ages will proclaim that
among the sons of men there is none born who is
greater than Jesus.' But every uncorrupted mind will
affirm that, if Jesus was such a ' Jesuit ' as Renan
depicts, there have been many greater than He.
Millions of His disciples have been inspired, by what
they believed His spirit, to accept obscurity, odium, or
death, rather than pander to the populace, or to kings,
or priests, for the sake of influence, power, or place.
Jesus would have been a greater man had He never
left the bench in Nazareth, but had gone down to the
grave a truthful carpenter, than if He had really
emerged from that low estate to climb the world's
loftiest pedestal by guile. Happily the general con
science of mankind has not sunk so low as Renan
seems to imagine. If mankind should ever be per
suaded that Jesus did not fulfil at least this part of the
ancient Messianic ideal, ' He did no violence, neither
was any deceit in His mouth,' the last chapter of
Christian history will be swiftly closed, and some
mournful hand will write at the foot of each evangel,
' The praises of Jesus, the son of David, are ended.'
From the immoral eulogy of alleged immorality it is
positively refreshing to pass to Mr. Francis Newman's
treatment of the difficulty. Having rejected Christ's
claim to superhuman dignity and authority, and being
reluctantly brought to admit with Renan that these
pretensions were really made by Jesus, Mr. Newman

The Person of Christ. iZ'j
had the courage to denounce these pretensions as
immoral. The chapter in his ' Phases of Faith,'
entitled the ' Moral Perfection of Jesus,' has been called
' the very floor of Pandemonium,' because some Chris
tians have felt that no lower depth could be sounded.
According to a truer judgment, it is out of all com
parison less obnoxious than the passage quoted from
Renan. It does homage to eternal principles of
righteousness, and at least spares Christ the indignity
of being magnified as a brilliant sinner. It has also
the merit of complying with Christ's challenge to His
accusers in His earthly lifetime : ' Either make the tree
good and the fruit good, or make the tree corrupt and
its fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by its fruit.'
To form a just estimate of the painful chapter under
notice, it must be remembered that Mr. Newman wrote
it in compliance with repeated demands. He wrote it
most reluctantly, and called it an ' odious task.' His
friend, Dr. James Martineau, in particular challenged
him to show his data for holding, against the almost
universal judgment of good men, the moral imperfection
of Jesus. Dr. Martineau, like many Unitarians of the
past or expiring generation, intensely reveres Christ as
a faultless person, while regarding Him as liable to
error, and discrediting the gospel of John. But Mr.
Francis Newman, like Miss Martineau, saw clearly that
this position was untenable, and having renounced faith
in Christ's Divinity, was prepared to give his reasons
for passing by the Unitarian camp. Before beginning
his task, he explains that no so-called ' orthodox '
Christian need feel shocked at his charges, because the
defects to be cited are only defects on the supposition

288 The Mystery of God.
that Jesus was human. ' In fact,' he observes, ' the
same action or word in Jesus may be consistent or
inconsistent with moral perfection, according to the
previous assumptions concerning His person.* Work
ing on this well-defined foundation, he proceeds to
demonstrate from the synoptic gospels that Jesus
claimed to exercise superhuman authority, and both
demanded and received such honours, and obedience,
and devotion as are due only to the Divine Being.
Having displayed at length what he esteems the false
and arrogant assumptions of Jesus, he states as his
conclusion, ' that in consistency of goodness, Jesus fell
far below vast numbers of His unhonoured disciples.'
Granting that Jesus was only a man, there can be no
escape from this conclusion. The only logical or moral
objection which can then be urged against it, is that it
is far too feeble a verdict to follow so heavy an indict
ment. If Christ's assumptions were false, He was an
utterly bad man, and His severest condemnation would
be found in the purity of the moral sentiments He
preached to others, but systematically violated in His
own career. Unless His claims were valid His con
demnation was just, and His judges, instead of being
execrated by mankind, are blameless.
The dilemma to which we are thus reduced is one
which multitudes shrink from deciding. With an intel
lectual prepossession against the admission of miracles
or the recognition of a superhuman visitant to our
earth, they have also an unalterable sympathy with the
centurion who exclaimed, ' Surely this was a righteous
man.' It is apparent on every page that Mr. Newman's
* ' Phases of Faith,' p. 141.

The Person of Christ. 289
own heart was wrung by this inward conflict. His
mild conclusion that Jesus fell below many of His dis
ciples in ' consistency of goodness,' may have been
moderated in part by an honourable regard for the feel
ings of Christians ; but in writing it he was also
evidently restrained by an uneasy feeling akin to Pilate's,
when called upon to judge a man whose presence smote
him with a mystic awe. There is nothing rare in this
reluctant reverence for Christ. Since the armed men
fell back at His glance, in the garden of Gethsemane,
it has been a common thing for opponents to quail
under the spell of His unrivalled beauty and holiness.
In spite of all the difficulties of reconciling the good
ness of Jesus with any humanitarian theory of His
person, multitudes who will not worship Him as Lord
bow down before Him as the ' fairest of the sons of
men.' It is inconsistent ; it is absurd ; but it is irre
sistible, for the heart of man will not listen to any cold
pleadings of the intellect, and rises up against all accu
sations to confirm the verdict of his Roman judge : ' I
find in Him no fault at all.'
In studying the Messianic prophecy contained in
Isaiah liii., it was shown that there are only two ways
of resisting the conclusion that in that chapter we have
a verified oracle of God. It must either be shown that
the Gospel narratives are not true, or that Jesus im
personated the character of the expected Messiah with
an actor's skill. We are now in a position to say
that the first of these two methods is a failure. It
has been ascertained that the gospels contain a true
account of the career of Jesus Christ, and that they
set before us with unrivalled vigour and beauty a life-
19

290 The Mystery of God.
like picture of Him as He appeared to His enemies
and friends. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to
say with Renan and Newman that Christ was a de
ceiver of the people, we must allow that almost
all the special features of the prophetic portrait were
marvellously fulfilled in His person. The absolute
sinlessness of Christ as a spiritual fact could only be
demonstrated evidently by One who was acquainted
with all the. secrets of His heart from birth to death.
But He certainly betrayed no consciousness of sin,
and no fault has ever been found in Him which in the
faintest degree militates against His claims, because it
is only the making of these superhuman claims which
is alleged against Him. Millions have felt that the
character of Christ is the one pure and perfect thing
in human story, and those who have imitated Him
most assiduously have proved themselves to be the salt
and light of the earth. The purer His disciples become,
the more beauty they see in Him ; the more self-
denying they become, the more they. admire that pro
longed sacrifice which was consumed as by fire upon
the cross. If men do not discern the beauty of Christ,
and if, being once assured that the gospels are true,
they are not inwardly convinced that in Jesus of
Nazareth there was no guile, they are to be compas
sionated, but are no more to be reasoned with than are
men who lift up eyeless sockets towards the sun and
say, ' We see no light.'
Granting the guilelessness of Christ, there are only
two of the nine special features of the Messianic
picture previously enumerated (p. 236) which need
further remark. The renewed life of Jesus is reserved

The Person of Christ. 291
for consideration in the following chapter, and His
intercessory work must await the provings of another
state of existence. If Christ has prolonged His days,
and is still pleading for transgressors as He prayed for
them with His dying breath, that work is carried on
beyond the reach of human knowledge. Some things,
however, are indisputably certain. Within a few weeks
of His death Christ was declared to be alive again,
and He has since been believed in by an increasing
multitude as ' alive for evermore.' The thought of
Christ continuing in heaven that work of the Lord
which death seemed to close so disastrously has been
the strength and stay of innumerable hosts. Viewed
in relation to ancient prophecy, these earthly results
which have followed Christ's career are more marvel
lous and perplexing on the supposition that He did not
rise from the dead than the occurrence of His resur
rection would be as a central fact in the midst of such
mysterious phenomena. Around the grave of Christ
the most wonderful events of time are clustered ; and
our final task must be to ask whether the unique and
radiant Being whose body was laid in that unsullied
tomb was really holden of death, or whether, in this
Son of Man, man's last enemy was overcome.

19 — 2

CHAPTER IX.
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
The first attempt to account for the alleged Resurrec
tion of Christ, without admitting a miracle, was made
by Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher, who wrote in the
latter half of the second century. His theory was that
Jesus did not really die, but was laid in the grave in a
state of suspended animation. Logically, therefore, as
well as historically, this contention demands our earliest
consideration, because, unless there was a true death,
there can be no need to discuss those theories which
concede the decease but deny the revival of Jesus.
The most obvious objection to this notion is that it is
a pure fabrication, all the evidence upon the subject
which remains — Jewish, Pagan, and Christian — being
distinctly to the effect that Jesus was effectually put to
death. Roman executioners were well able to do their
work, and Jewish eyes would scarcely fail to see that it
was done. The few modern writers who support the
theory of Celsus, feebly urge that crucifixion was a slow
death, and cite vague rumours of wonderful recoveries
from the effects of long suspension. Josephus states
that he saw several men on crosses when Titus was
encamped against Jerusalem, and that he begged for
three of them to be taken down and spared. Titus

The Resurrection of Christ. 293
consented, and one of the trio was restored by medical
treatment. Hence it is suggested that one of three
may have survived on a more memorable occasion.
The story is by no means above suspicion; but the
inference to which it points is most unfavourable to
the notion it is quoted to sustain. It will be noticed
that, according to Josephus, the three men were taken
down while confessedly alive, and with enough vitality
to give him some hope that all might recover. Yet
only one recovered, and that after great care and medical
attention. But Jesus was officially declared dead when
removed from the cross. What then, by comparison,
was His chance of recovery? Again, one witness of
the resurrection says that Jesus was pierced after death
with a spear by a Roman soldier, and that ' straightway
there came out blood and water' (John xix. 34).* This
is ridiculed by Strauss and others, because they say
blood and water could not, under any circumstances,
have gushed out together. It is no doubt true that, in
ordinary cases, no blood would flow from a wound made
after the circulation had been stopped ; and it is also true
that only blood, and not blood and water, would gush
out from a wound inflicted while the circulation con
tinued. No satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon
recorded by John appears to have been published until
a very recent date. In 1805 Dr. Gruner propounded the
theory that Jesus was not quite dead until the spear-
* I quote here from John because his witness in this sentence is
held to be specially damaging to the case he would establish. If,
while removing the objection founded upon it, some incidental
strength is added to the witness of the other evangelists, it will not
be a departure from the intimation given on p. 269, because the death
of Christ is otherwise amply attested.

294 The Mystery of God.
wound was inflicted; but this failed to satisfy scientific
critics. In 1847 Dr. Stroud issued his work entitled
'A Physical Treatise on the Cause of the Death of
Christ,' in which he demonstrated that when death has
been caused by a rupture of the heart, a post-mortem
wound which pierces the pericardium will occasion a
considerable flow of water. His theory, though for
some years widely accepted, failed to account for the
flow of blood, and has latterly been rejected by many
eminent Christian writers on the subject. But quite
recently the Rev. S. Haughton, M.D., has published
the results of very careful investigations, in which he
supplies all that was lacking in the theory of Dr. Stroud.
He shows conclusively that crucifixion so affects the
action of the intercostal muscles as to induce in all
cases an abnormal lodgment of imperfectly oxidated
blood in the lungs; and hence that if the lungs of any
crucified person were pierced after death, there would
be a flow of dark fluid blood from the wound. If,
therefore, as there is every reason to believe, Christ's
death was immediately occasioned by a rupture of the
substance of the heart after suffering a few hours on
the cross, all the conditions must have been present
which are needed to account for the phenomenon re
corded; and a spear penetrating through the lungs
to the heart would produce first blood and then
water exactly as John asserts that he beheld at Cal
vary.* It is evident, on the face of John's narrative,
that he was quite aware that the phenomenon of blood
and water issuing from a dead body was mysterious.
He attests the fact, however, in the most deliberate and
* See the Church Quarterly Review, January, 1880.,

The Resurrection of Christ. 295
solemn manner, without any attempt to explain it.
The elucidation of this singular physical phenomenon
has, however, come at last, and incidentally removes
another difficulty from the history. It was always
regarded as strange that Christ's death should have
occurred in so unusually short a time ; but a ruptured
heart is the most probable cause of death that can be
suggested in view of His intense spiritual anguish, added
to His physical injuries ; and on the supposition that
this really was the case, the brevity of His sufferings,
and the unprecedented effect of the post-mortem wound,
are not only explained, but their conjunction in a nar
rative told by a man who knew nothing of their scientific
significance is one of those inimitable marks of true
description which put hostile criticism to shame.
There is, however, no need to put stress upon this
point. If Jesus did not die while still hanging on the
cross, it would have to be explained how He survived
the wrapping in linen and the entombment. If, con
trary to nature, He survived these experiences, we must
be informed how He escaped from the sepulchre. The
gardener, says one author, must have wanted to move
the stone for some purpose, and so liberated Jesus un
wittingly ! But supposing there were no Roman soldiers
on guard, and that Jesus was so fortunate as to survive
execution and burial, and to be thus released, other
difficulties would remain for explanation.
If the reappearances of Jesus were those of a man
recovered from His wounds, some persons must have
supplied Him with raiment, for He did not go about
in grave-clothes, and most assuredly those He had worn
before the execution were not buried by His side. If,

296 The Mystery of God.
after such fearful sufferings, He could dispense with
medical care, He certainly must have needed food and
some secure hiding-place ; and these not only for the
first few days, but for as long as He continued alive.
Modern advocates of this theory scorn to deal with
such troublesome matters as these, but they expect us
to regard it as an explanation of all the narratives of
reappearance in the gospels, and so of the disciples'
faith in Christ's real resurrection from the dead ; nor
do they esteem it incompatible with some faith in Him
on our part still. If the Christian Church, however,
were to found her preaching of Christ on such a theory,
the world would speedily denounce the tale as incon
sistent with the meanest views of Christ's morality.
Enthusiasm cannot account for such a ghastly series
of deceptions practised by Him on confiding friends
as this implies. It represents Jesus as concealing
Himself by the aid of some unknown accomplices,
while His chief disciples proclaim that He has as
cended to the throne of heaven ; and it leaves us to
imagine Him either committing suicide in a bath of
burning acid, like the veiled prophet sung of by Thomas
Moore, or else as dragging out a miserable existence in
obscurity, while a false gospel was spreading abroad.
We are required to believe, moreover, that all this was
done in the name of God, righteousness and truth, and
with a most sanctifying effect upon the world !
The mythical theory, which admits the death of
Jesus and assumes that belief in His appearances after
death was slowly developed in the course of many
years, may safely be passed over. Evidence has been
advanced to show that a risen and ascended Christ

The Resurrection of Christ. 297
was preached, believed in, and widely worshipped in
the world immediately after He disappeared from
human sight, and need not be repeated here. The
only theories which remain for consideration and
choice are two; viz., the visionary theory, and the
faith of the Christian Church that Jesus was raised
from the dead by the power of God.
In his second 'Life of Jesus,' Strauss, receding from
his original mythical theory, virtually adopted that
which treats the appearances of the risen Christ as
purely subjective phenomena, produced by the intense
love and earnest expectations and desires of the dis
ciples. He made, however, no serious attempt to show
how such visions could be explained, or to exhibit their
relation to admitted facts. Baur, allowing the phe
nomena to be indisputable, renounced all hope of ex
plaining them. Keim, the greatest German critic of
the negative school, also concedes the phenomena in
question, and scathingly exposes the failure of his pre
decessors to account for them, but leaves the task un
tried. Where he feared to tread it will require a hardy
spirit to make a new adventure. It is easy to wrap the
story in a cloud of vague language, and to assume all
that most requires to be proved. A little literary art
and a tone of confident superiority to such prosaic
matters as historic detail may carry an author plea
santly over the rocks of physical impossibility, and
over logical gulfs and seas of absurdity, without the
miraculous nature of his flight being observed by
generous readers. But before the visionary theory
can be reasonably accepted, some advocate must in
struct us how such visions as are related in the New

298 The Mystery of God.
Testament could conceivably have happened to such
men as the disciples ; and how the various moral,
mental, and physical difficulties which beset the hypo
thesis can be disposed of.
The only notable endeavour to achieve this task is
that which has made the name of Renan famous.
This writer is undoubtedly a man of great learning
and genius, and his works have been read wherever
Christian literature is known. It is incumbent upon
us, therefore, to submit his labours to a fair examina
tion. Renan depicts the disciples as without any
definite hope in their first sorrow of bereavement.
The words of their Master about His death and its
sequel were not yet understood, as they were after
wards led to interpret them by real or imaginary
events. But even on the first day Renan thinks they
did not renounce all hope, and he invents a plausible
train of thought which may have filled those Sabbath
hours, and quickly urged them to exclaim, ' He must
be living !' On that day, he says, ' they resuscitated
Jesus in their hearts by the intense love which they
bore Him. They decided that Jesus had not died.
. . . Only let a material fact, insignificant of itself,
allow the persuasion that His body is no longer here
below, and the dogma of the resurrection will be estab
lished for ever.'* It will be observed that the depend
ence of visions on physical facts of some kind is here
confessed. They may have no physical cause, but they
must have suitable physical occasions and conditions.
Accepting the priority of Mary Magdalene as authentic,
Renan follows her to the grave and assigns to her the
* ' The Apostles,' p. 45.

The Resurrection of Christ. 299
glory of accomplishing the resurrection. ' She bore on
that day during one hour all the work of the Christian
conscience ; her witness decided the faith of the future.'
When she arrived at the sepulchre the stone was not
in its place : ' the vault was open. The body was no
longer there.' With surprise and grief she runs to the
disciples. Peter and John come as narrated, see the
open grave, the linen cloths, and the head-napkin, and
return overwhelmed with grief.
Up to this point we are not introduced to anything
visionary. The changed position of the stone, and the
emptiness of the grave are physical realities, without
which the subsequent mental processes could not be
started. The reader will therefore bear in mind that
these vulgar materialistic features of the history will
require elucidation. Beholding the strange spectacle
thus presented, Mary lingers. ' Suddenly she hears a
light rustling behind her. There is a man standing.
At first she thinks it is the gardener,' and of him she
makes inquiry for the body. ' For the only answer,
she hears herself called by her name, " Mary !" It was
the voice that had so often thrilled her before. It was
the accent of Jesus. " O my Master !" she cries. She
is about to touch Him. . . . The light vision draws
back, and says to her, " Touch me not." Little by
little the shadow disappears. But the miracle of love
is accomplished. That which Cephas could not do,
Mary has done ; she has been able to draw life, sweet
and penetrating words, from the empty tomb. . . .
The resurrection has its first direct witness.' All the
subsequent visions are represented as the development
of this germ of faith in a phantom of Mary's brain.

300 The Mystery of God.
' The glory of the resurrection belongs, then, to Mary
Magdalene. After Jesus, it is Mary who has done
most for the foundation of Christianity. The shadow
created by the delicate sensibility of Magdalene hovers
still over the world. Queen and patroness of idealists,
Magdalene knew better than anyone how to affirm her
dream, and impose on everyone the holy vision of her
passionate soul. Her great womanly affirmation, " He
has arisen," has been the basis of the faith of
humanity.' Shall we now proceed to criticize this piece of work ?
Shall we ask how the grave became empty, and how
the cloths were folded so as to make room for this
bright, sunny morning madness ? This is the keystone
of the visionary arch which bridges the chasm between
the historic death of Jesus and the equally historic
faith in His risen life which speedily spread over Asia
and Europe. No one could suggest a more plausible
beginning for a series of visions than this, or a more
likely person to start them than Mary. But will it
bear examination ? Renan thinks not, for he imme
diately deprecates criticism by bursting into a sort of
hysterical denunciation of what he certainly has much
cause to dread. ' Away, impotent reason !' he exclaims.
' Apply no cold analysis to this chef-d' ceuvre of idealism
and of love. If wisdom refuses to console this poor
human race, betrayed by fate, let folly attempt the
enterprise. Where is the sage who has given to the
world so much joy as the possessed Mary Magdalene ?'
It is thought in some quarters that Christian faith is
accustomed to cry ' away ' to ' reason ' and to deprecate
' cold analysis,' but here we see that ' Rational Criti-

The Resurrection of Christ. 301
cism' has its realm of faith, and is not ashamed to
supplicate for such forbearance as it does not always
grant. Postponing our scrutiny of this 'chef-d'oeuvre of
idealism,' we may pass on to the evening when two
disciples set out on their journey to Emmaus. In spite
of the significant physical fact of an open grave, and
of all that the woman had said, Cleopas and his com
panion were ' full of sadness.' On the road an unknown
companion joined them. This mysterious being was
brought by fate upon the scene most opportunely, for
he knew how to quote the Scriptures, and suggest hopes
of Christ's revival to his disconsolate companions.
During the meal at Emmaus we are told that the two
disciples gave way to a sort of ' pleasurable sadness.'
Forgetting the stranger, who had become their guest,
they seem to see Jesus ' holding the bread, and then
breaking it and offering it to them.' During their
reverie — a reverie in which both were sunk as with one
mind — the stranger, either too kind to disturb their
delicious dream, or too offended at their absent-
mindedness to say ' Farewell,' slipped out unnoticed,
to continue his journey, and so, on waking up, they
agree that it must have been Jesus !
Returning to Jerusalem, these delighted visionaries
learned that Jesus had also shown Himself to Peter ;
and then came the crowning wonder. 'At these
decisive periods of time,' writes Renan, ' a current of
air, a creaking window, or a chance murmur, are suffi
cient to fix the belief of people for ages.' ' During a
moment of silence a slight breath passed over the face
of the assembly.' This was enough. Some declared

302 The Mystery of God.
they heard a voice saying ' Peace.' The rest soon
fancied the same, and all agreed that Jesus must be
present. Some said they saw marks of the nails and
the spear. ' Such were the incidents of the day which
has decided the lot of the human race. The opinion
that Jesus had arisen was thus irrevocably propounded.
The sect that was thought to have been extinguished
by the death of the Master, was, from henceforth,
assured of a wondrous future.' How Thomas was
satisfied we are not told, but are assured that a week
later he was convinced. Then we are led with much
poetic description to Galilee, where the disciples were
haunted by renewed visions, Peter one day thought
that he heard Jesus ask him thrice, ' Lovest thou Me ?'
and he ' imagined that he replied, Oh, yea, Lord !' and
that twice the apparition said ' Feed My sheep.' This
dream he told to John. ' One day, when following
their spiritual chiefs, the large band of faithful Galileans '
climbed a familiar mountain, and the whole assembly
(500 Paul says) ' imagined that they saw the Divine
spectre displayed in the clouds,' and all worshipped.
Renan, who has been there, declares that these Galilean
mountains inspire 'the idea of the immensity of the
world and the desire of conquering it.' Thus the
disciples on this occasion were so elated with mountain
air, that they thought Jesus inspired them to go and
overcome all nations in His name. This was the great
commission ! While these apparitions were frequent,
the disciples said Jesus tarried on the earth ; as they
became rare, they began to say, ' He is ascended into
heaven,' and this idea induced at length a vision, or a
legend of a vision, of the ascension from the Mount, of

The Resurrection of Christ. 303
Olives. Shortly afterwards a thunder-storm arose, and
was mistaken by the disciples for the gift of the Holy
Spirit. Such is Renan's much lauded synthesis of the origin
of Christianity. It is indeed a ' chef d'ceuvre of idealism.'
If Christian faith had been based on such romantic
inventions as these of the ' fifth gospel,' how eagerly
would the critical eagles have gathered together, and
what a feast they would have found !
The first question demanding our attention is this :
How are the physical facts which underlie this visionary
structure to be accounted for ? The grave was opened
and the body was gone before Mary's imagination was
inflamed. How came these things to pass ? Renan,
having filled the air with spiritual pageantry, naively
remarks : ' Scarcely have we thought, heretofore, to
propose a trifling question, but one which admits not
of easy solution. Whilst Jesus rose again in this real
manner, that is to say, in the hearts of those who loved
Him ; while the immovable conviction of the Apostles
was being formed and the faith of the world being pre
pared — in what place did the worms consume the
lifeless corpse which, on the Saturday evening, had
been deposited in the sepulchre ?' (p. 66). He mentions
several hypotheses, but only to dismiss them as incredi
ble ; and, finally, sees in the linen cloths, and in the
napkin carefully folded in a corner, the marks of a
woman's fingers, and so ascribes the disposal of the
body to Mary Magdalene. His touching picture of
Mary Magdalene musing in sorrow by the empty grave
seems to have been already forgotten, when this after
thought arose. When Renan wrote that pathetic

304 The Mystery of God.
passage he could not possibly have been thinking that
Mary had first of all stolen the body and folded the
clothes with artful tact. A body-snatcher would be
the last of all persons to have a vision, unless of a
terrifying and remorseful character. Nevertheless, to
this supposition Renan is driven, at length, as the least
improbable which his fertile brain can invent. He re
minds us that Mary had been, according to the parlance
of the age, ' possessed with seven devils.' ' The female
conscience,' he observes, ' when under the influence of
passionate love, is capable of the most extravagant
illusions. Often it is the abettor of its own dreams.
Let us,' he pleads, ' draw a veil over these mysteries,'
and then beclouds the theme by a number of obser
vations to the effect that all the most ' splendid marvels '
and all ' great faiths ' are the blossoming of some
'little deceit.' Thus Mary, whom, as a foundress
of the modern world, he ranks next to Jesus, is
praised like her Master for greatly daring to impose
upon mankind.
Poor Mary ! If this admirer's sullying praise were
true, her last state was indeed worse than the first.
The ' seven devils,' which were once cast out, must
have brought back seven times seven companions worse
than themselves, before she could think of showing
love to Jesus by giving His body to the worms in some
secret spot, while her sisters were coming with costly
spices for its embalmment, and by then feigning to
have seen Him alive, and firing the imaginations of
the disciples with her fraud.
The demands made upon our credulity, thus far, are
enough to stagger all who retain some respect for

The Resurrection of Christ. 305
reason and morality; but our ' cokd.Janalysis ' is not
finished. We want to know, not only how these
visionary appearances began, but why they were so
few, and how they so speedily and suddenly ceased.
Renan suggests that they lasted about a year, and
places the return of the disciples to Jerusalem as
' perhaps ' at the next Passover. The vision of the
ascension, and the thunderstorm on the day of Pente
cost, he assigns also to the year after Christ's death.
He has not a syllable of history, or even a legend, to
give colour to this supposition. It seems wildly im
probable that these men could have gone on fishing
and partaking the common village life of Galilee with
out making any stir or sign for twelve months, and that
then they should break out into enthusiasm and forsake
all to preach Christ. Such a ' perhaps ' is opposed to
all we know of human nature, and it is inconceivable
that so tardy a crusade should have stirred up such
a commotion in Jerusalem as the first preaching
undoubtedly produced. In any case, the fact to be
accounted for is, that we have no legend of any appear
ance of Christ to His disciples, or to any one of them,
after the fortieth day, and are only told of ten appear
ances in all. When imaginations are busy, and excited
brains are seeing apparitions, such tales multiply, as
Renan truly observes. Why, then, were they so sparse
in this alleged epidemic ? How remarkable, too, is the
fact that only three of these appearances were wit
nessed by individuals when alone ! Mary's brain
created the fiction of one interview with Jesus, yet she
never imagined or pretended to have a second. Peter
saw his Master only once by Himself. John, whose
20

306 The Mystery of God.
loving and fervent nature should have produced effects
second only to Mary's, had no such dream. The only
other intimate friend of Christ's for whom the conta
gion wrought so personal a favour was the stern ascetic
James — one of those brothers of Jesus who, previous
to His death, had not believed in Him, but who seems
to have been converted by what he saw, inasmuch
as he became a chief ' pillar ' of the primitive Church.
Thirty years later, John had visions in Patmos, but
these were distinctly described as such. Stephen also,
in the Sanhedrin, had a vision of Jesus in the opened
heavens ; and Saul of Tarsus states that he saw Jesus
in his journey to Damascus. But this exhausts the
' legends.' In spite of this sparsity of appearances
and their rapid cessation, the disciples went on preach
ing and teaching, and enduring persecution with un--
abated ardour, moderation of conduct, meekness and
purity of spirit, and with a commanding influence over
the most varied orders of men. Still more remarkable
for enthusiastic dreamers, these men always professed
to be living in intimate fellowship with Him whom they
had seen before, and hoped to see in heaven, but whom
they never expected to see again on earth, by day or
night, until they died. Such facts as these are abso
lutely incompatible with the mental conditions postu
lated by the visionary theory.
The case of the Apostle Paul now requires attention.
It might fairly be claimed that if the visionary theory
fails to account for the earlier appearances of Christ,
it is superfluous to discuss the last. The place occu
pied by Paul, however, is so unique, and the events
associated with his conversion are so fully related, that

The Resttrrection of Christ. 307,
they deserve a separate examination. If, in some re
spects, this should involve a retracing of ground already
covered, it will have the advantage of bringing the
principles involved into bolder prominence.
. The main facts of Paul's life are not in dispute. It
is known that at the time of his appearance on the
scene, the rulers of the Jews in Jerusalem were, owing
to peculiar political circumstances, possessed of eccle
siastical authority over their countrymen in Syria.
It is admitted that Paul actually started from the
capital armed with power to persecute Christians in
Damascus : that he entered that city a blinded man,
all his enmity to Christ extinguished ; and that instead
of carrying out his commission, he became a preacher
of the faith he had laboured to destroy. Trivial dif
ferences exist in the two accounts of this incident pre
served in the Acts of the Apostles, but they relate to
matters of no moment, and are not supposed by the
most hostile criticism to cast doubt on the general
facts related. Those who believe in verbal infallibility
are somewhat exercised to weld these minute details
into one harmonious and inclusive story ; but it suffices
for our purposes to observe that, according to both
accounts, Paul alone saw Jesus, and only he heard the
words which smote him to repentance. The sole ques
tion to be decided is, Was there a really objective
appearance of Christ to Paul, or can the known facts
of the case- be accounted for on natural grounds ?
Renan, whose explanations of the earlier phenomena
have been reviewed, displays an equal amount of bold
ness and ingenuity in reconstructing the Pauline history.
At the outset, he pictures Saul as full of remorse when
20 — 2

308 The Mystery of God.
drawing near to Damascus. After many years of re
flection, Paul declared that he had been actuated by a
sense of duty in all his anti-Christian activities ; but
Renan says it was not so, and we are left to decide
which of these two witnesses is the more credible,
He pictures him as liking those ' excellent sectarians,'
the Nazarenes, rather than breathing out threatenings
and slaughter, and as already being haunted by the
'sweet face ' of their Master. As he drew near the
city, he could not bear to go on. While in this state
of mind, material nature, ever kind to Christianity in
those primitive days, lent the aid of a thunderstorm.
The thunder smote the excited mind of Saul as the
voice of Jesus ; a flash of lightning blinded him ; a
delirious fever resulting from sunstroke seized him.
All this produced, as well it might, a high degree of
cerebral excitement ; and so the result of these com
bined circumstances was that Saul held an imaginary
talk with Jesus, became a converted man, and was
impressed with the idea that he was to convert many
nations ! Surely a very beautiful and sublime notion
to be produced even by such a rich variety of causa
tions ; but the most singular part of the story is that
Paul's delirious imagination proved prophetic of events
which have changed the current of the world's history!
But even here, coincidences did not cease. Paul was
a prey to blindness and delirium in the city to which
he was led, and so neither ate nor drank. ' It is easy
to imagine what passed,' says Renan, ' during this
crisis in that burning brain, maddened by violent
disease.' The only thing he names, however, is that
this maddened being heard of a disciple called Ananias,

The Resurrection of Christ. 309
and became convinced that at a touch from him he
would recover. Ananias, being told of this, came, and
saluting the enemy of his faith as ' brother Saul,' laid
his hand upon his head, and from that hour peace
returned to Paul's troubled soul. ' He believed him
self cured ; and as his ailment had been purely nervous,
he was so.' Prodigious ! Here is a man smitten with
delirious fever by sunstroke, and with eyes ' highly in
flamed ' and utterly blinded by a flash of lightning ;
yet his ailment was only ' nervous,' and at a touch of
kind hands he was made well ! Who that believes this
will doubt the miracles of Christ ?
To this abysmal depth of irrationalism we are asked
to descend in order to reach the miserable conviction
that this world is ' betrayed by fate,' and that Wisdom
has refused to console our sorrowful race. We are
asked to believe not only that this story, worthy of the
' Arabian Nights,' is true, but to accept all the conse
quences. Europe and America owe their religion to
this occurrence ! Those profound discussions of human
nature and divine government which enrich Paul's works
are the fruit of sunstroke acting on a remorseful mind !
That hymn of love which has not only charmed but
purified the affections of many nations was the outcome
of a heart which was cleansed and glorified into an
altar of living sacrifice by delirious dreams ! Those
writings which have been the admiration of myriads,
and which, next to the words of Christ, are still the
most potent forces in the formation of character and
opinion — all these things are traceable to a thunder
storm terrifying and striking with disease a man who
was persecuting a few excellent enthusiasts ! If any

310 The Mystery of God.
man seriously believes this, I know not what to say,
except that surely he also must have been smitten by
the sun !
By abjuring all attempts to reconstruct the history
in accordance with their hypothesis, many advocates
of the visionary theory think to escape the follies which
, the French Academician so gallantly labours to conceal
under the gold-leaf of a brilliant style. So abstaining,
they may justly plead that no single failure, or series of
failures, can be held to prove the absolute impossibility
of the task which they eschew. But while we refrain
from fastening the more absurd details of Renan's
romance on those who decline to be bound by his
inventions, it must none the less be insisted that the
.chief difficulties which he vainly strove to surmount
are, from their very nature, insurmountable, and that no
ingenuity, however great, will ever be able to reconcile
. the language and conduct of Paul with anything less
. than such an objective appearance of Christ as the
. Christian Church has always believed in as an historic
fact. One very remarkable expression has been much
dwelt upon as giving Paul's own sanction to a subjec
tive interpretation of his vision. In one of his letters
he writes : ' It was the good pleasure of God ... to
reveal His Son in me ' (Gal. i. 15, 16), and the context
shows beyond doubt that the phrase refers to the time
of his conversion. Strauss fastened on these words ' in
me ' as a proof that the Apostle deemed the whole
transaction an inward one. Renan discredits the in
terpretation, and renders the words ev i/iol, ' for me,'
instead of ' in me ;' but this suggestion cannot be main-

The Resurrection of Christ. 311
. tained against those who insist on the literal translation.
The visionary theory, however, is not helped by this
admission, unless it can be shown that Paul spoke of a
. subjective revelation to the exclusion of one which was
objective, or that he regarded the one as independent
of the other.
No Christian of any school would dispute the fact
that Paul believed in an inward and spiritual revelation
of Christ, or that, to his mind, this was of infinitely
greater importance than any external sight. The light
which dimmed the brightness of the noon-day sunshine
was not worthy to be compared with that which irra
diated his heart when God shined into it, ' to give the
Hght of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ ' (2 Cor. iv. 6). Paul had no desire to
discern his Lord again in a material form on earth.
He was ready to affirm, ' though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more'
(2 Cor. v. 16), and was content with the spiritual inter
course of prayer and worship, until in a glorified body
he might attain a new vision and know even as he was
known. But none of these things preclude the reality,
or lower the value of that sight which astonished and
blinded him as he walked. The much quoted words
which renounce the wish for physical perceptions of
Christ contain a distinct assertion that he had once
known Him after the flesh, and the revelation of Christ
' in ' Paul, being assigned to the date of his fleshly
interview, emphatically accords with the belief that the
natural was in some way a prelude to, or a medium of,
the spiritual. The mere spectacle of Jesus in a bodily
form could not flame into Paul's heart a true knowledge

312 The Mystery of God.
of His nature and mind. In answer to Peter's con
fession, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living
God,' Christ replied, ' Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-
Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but My Father which is in heaven ' (Matt. xvi. 17).
Yet Peter received not that spiritual revelation apart
from or in independence of the visible ' Man, Christ
Jesus,' with whom he walked and talked, and on
whose gracious face he gazed while making his
memorable confession. The subjective revelation was
in this case inseparably connected with the objective,
nor can we imagine how it could have been otherwise
conveyed. The inward illumination was a discovery
of things pertaining to Christ which lay behind the veil
of ' flesh and blood,' but the essential nature of the
discovery was, that behind that veil there truly dwelt
such an exalted Being as Peter's words describe. The
spiritual revelation was thus entirely concerned about
the objective personality of Christ ; and Paul's language
about his own experience answers precisely to this case.
The Son who was revealed ' in ' him was evidently in
Paul's judgment the Son who appeared to him by the
way, and the Son whom he straightway began to
preach, not as an ideal of his own, but as a crucified,
buried, and risen Being, who still lived, not merely in
spirit, but in a ' glorious body ' in heaven.
Another passage on which great stress is laid as
favouring a subjective interpretation of Paul's vision, is
that in which he speaks of various ' visions and revela
tions of the Lord ' (2 Cor. xii. 1). It cannot be affirmed
that these were all objective appearances of Christ, and
the general opinion is that some of them were not.

The Resurrection of Christ.

o1 o

'Why, then,' it is asked, 'should we single out the
earliest revelation as if it differed in nature from all
the rest ? Why should we not, at any rate, allow its
character to remain an open question on which differ
ences of opinion are to be tolerated ?'
The only way of replying to this appeal is to examine
Paul's utterances and see whether he leaves room for
any reasonable doubt. Concerning some of these
' visions and revelations ' we have no means of arriving
at any certain conclusion. Where the Apostle has only
made casual references, and omitted to define his own
convictions, it would be presumptuous for his readers
to dogmatise respecting the precise nature of the occur
rences ; nor can we profess to be wiser than he, when,
as is the case sometimes, he has left on record his
own ignorance and uncertainty. All that I care to
contend for is that he expresses no doubt of his own,
and that he does not leave room for the visionary
hypothesis in his narratives of what occurred at his
conversion. The most important vision of which he has given a
clear account is that described in 2 Cor. xii. This,
therefore, is the one which best admits of comparison
with the incidents of his conversion. Of this vision
Paul, writing fourteen years afterwards, speaks with
much reticence, with a singular sobriety of spirit, and
in carefully measured terms. He affirms that in some
way he was ' caught up into Paradise,' but whether ' in
the body or apart from the body,' he knew not, and that
he there saw and heard things which he was not allowed
to relate. He then states that a thorn in the flesh was
given him that he ' should not be exalted overmuch.'

314 The Mystery of God.
Setting these statements side by side with the accounts
of what took place on the road to Damascus, it will be
found that the two narratives abound in striking con
trasts. The earlier vision was not in ' paradise,' but on
earth. It occurred on a piece of common road travelled
by thousands of Paul's hearers and readers. There was
no uncertainty about his condition at the time. He
was not ' in Christ,' but was assuredly ' in the body,'
and was surrounded by a number of anti-Christian
companions, who were amazed by the light which
arrested their leader. The words of the Person who
talked with Paul are distinctly given, and His name
is mentioned in a way which precludes a mystical in
terpretation. He speaks of Himself not as ' the Christ,'
or 'the Lord,' or the 'Son of God,' but as 'Jesus';
and as if to lend a further touch of mundane realism,
the place of human residence is added, ' I am Jesus of
Nazareth, whom thou persecutest' (Acts xxii. 8).
These differences are so broad and obvious, that it
is a matter for surprise that any student of Paul's
writings could overlook them. They show that if we
distinguish between the two events, it is not in an
arbitrary spirit, but because the Apostle leaves no
option. His vague and even dubious language about
the vision in paradise permits uncertainty concerning
its character (although even that was manifestly some
thing more than a subjective vision in his own opinion) ;
but the clear, explicit, and material details of the earthly
appearance compel us to acknowledge that Paul de
scribes what he regarded as an event as truly historical
as the death of Stephen, and his own persecution of
the Church.

The Resurrection of Christ. 315
Unanswerable as the argument thus far appears, it
may be supported by other proofs which alone would
be sufficient. If we pass from the descriptions of these
events to the use made of them, it will become evident
that Paul singled out the first revelation of Jesus of
Nazareth, and consistently discriminated between it
and every subsequent experience. In the course of his
public ministry he was frequently impeded by men who
denied his apostleship, because, unlike the eleven, he
had not shared the companionship of Christ. It is
probable that many men of small spiritual discern
ment, but who had beheld Jesus in the days of His
flesh, went about the world boasting of. this privilege
as if it rendered them superior to Paul. But Paul's
rejoinder to his questioners was one which would have
been both absurd and fraudulent unless his own sight
of Christ had been of the same nature as that of which
these meb prated, and which the earlier Apostles en
joyed. ' Am I not an Apostle ?' he exclaims. ' Have
I not seen Jesus our Lord ?' (1 Cor. ix. 1). To sup
pose that when the Apostle wrote this challenge he was
only referring to such a spiritual vision of Christ as he
shared with all Christians in the world, is to impute to
him a depth of duplicity or a height of folly which no
reader of his works would ever credit. It is also to be
remarked that here also the earthly name ' Jesus ' is
used. In the same letter he recited his gospel ; viz., ' That
: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ;
and that He was buried ; and that He hath been raised
on the third day according to the Scriptures ; and that
He appeared to Cephas ; then to the twelve ; then He

316 The Mystery of God.
appeared to above five hundred brethren at once ; . . .
then He appeared to James ; then to all the Apostles ;
and last of all, as to one born out of due time, He
appeared to me also ' (i Cor. xv. 3-8). It will be ob
served that these several appearances are adduced not
as disclosures of spiritual truth, but as evidences of
historic fact. The persons named are cited as wit
nesses of objective realities without which the faith of
the Corinthians would be vain. A merely ' subjective
resurrection ' could scarcely have been assigned, and
thereby restricted as a single occurrence, to ' the third
day ;' nor could Paul have remarked concerning it
' last of all ... . He appeared to me also.' These
words ' last of all ' demonstrate that Paul esteemed the
incident on the road to Damascus the close of a limited
number of interviews between the risen Christ and a
few selected witnesses, of whom he claimed to be one.
Such a phrase never could have been used respecting
an inward and spiritual illumination like that which
Paul believed all his converts had received, and which
may be equally the privilege of men to-day or a thousand
years hence.
Even here the proof is not exhausted. In this same
chapter Paul founds upon the resurrection of Christ a
doctrine of resurrection for all believers. Not, be it
observed, as some theories would imply, a doctrine of
Christ's resurrection in the renewed lives of His dis
ciples, but the revival of those who, having died, have
been buried like seeds in the dust of the earth, but are
one day to be awakened and meet Christ in His mani
fested glory. The argument which Paul elaborated was
not to show the possibility of a mystical renewal of the

The Resurrection of Christ. 317
perfect life of Christ in Corinthian worshippers, but to
show the mystery of that change whereby the seed
which is sowed in weakness and corruption is to be
raised in power and incorruption. His view was that
imitators of Christ's self-sacrificing life are of all men
most miserable if there be no future career for those
who suffer for righteousness' sake on earth. He con
tends that apart from the bodily resurrection of Christ
men have no hope of such a sequel ; and he stakes his
own character, and the characters of all his fellow
Apostles, on the truth of their united testimony to that
historic fact. ' If Christ is preached that He hath
been raised from the dead, how say some among you
that there is no resurrection of the dead ? But if
there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ
been raised : and if Christ hath not been raised, then
is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea,
and we are found false witnesses of God ; because we
witnessed of God that He raised up Christ ; whom He
raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised '
(1 Cor. xv. 12-15).
In the face of such language it is idle to suppose
that genius will ever be able to reconcile Paul's words
and conduct with a ' subjective ' theory of his own
vision of Christ,
The only remaining theory of the Resurrection is
that which accepts the statements of the New Testa
ment in their natural historical sense ; viz., that Jesus,
who lived, died, and was buried, rose up from the
grave, and was thus declared to be the Son of God
with power.
• If the phenomena occurred in the ordinary course

318 The Mystery of God.
of nature, it must be possible to suggest some ex
planation of them which shall at least be conceivably
true. In the absence of any such explanation, and in
full view of the conspicuous failure of all the attempts
which have been made to provide one, the Christian
inference is entitled to claim our acceptance. All
the possibilities, probabilities, desirabilities, and moral
necessities which have been considered in previous
chapters converge to sustain this inference as reason
able, and to secure respect for the direct testimony
which, taken alone, establishes the phenomena beyond
dispute. Glancing back over the long series of objections to
the Christian faith which have been encountered, it
will be noticed that they are broadly divisible into two
main classes, philosophical and critical, and that the
writers who urge them may be separated with tolerable
distinctness into two corresponding groups. When this
partition is observed, a very remarkable and economical
division of labour becomes apparent. Philosophers de
volve the examination of Christian testimony upon
critical experts, and critics leave the more arduous
task of elaborating abstract arguments to philosophers,'
Thus, neither party accepts the responsibility of estab
lishing a complete case against Christianity. It would
be idle to complain of this natural and perhaps in
evitable arrangement, but it is highly important that
we should guard against some fallacious impressions
which it may easily produce. In the olden time a cer
tain city was assaulted at the same hour by two armies,
one operating on the western and the other on the
eastern side. Neither army was able to effect an en-

The ¦ Resurrection of Christ. 319
trance, but each summoned the city to surrender on
the ground that further resistance was useless, because
the assault on the other side had been successful.
Something similar to this has taken place in modern
controversy. The idea of collusion between two great
branches of literature is preposterous, and therefore
no one will suspect either philosophy or criticism of
an unprincipled ruse de guerre. Controversial allies
are not likely to be very severe judges of each other's
performances, and may be excused from moral blame
if they award to those friends a victory which exists
only in their own sanguine estimation. But however
accounted for, the facts are obvious. Philosophy con
fesses that on abstract grounds the Christian revelation
is not incredible, and that its claims can only be decided
by evidence ; yet it calls upon us to renounce faith
because criticism is said to have proved the evidences
insufficient. Criticism breaks down in its repeated
endeavours to destroy the Christian testimony, yet
still summons us to relinquish faith, because philosophy
has proved the things which it affirms to be natural
impossibilities.* Before commencing this chapter, the chief hindrances
raised by philosophy and criticism had been examined,
and for all who assented to the conclusions reached, the
resurrection of Christ, instead of appearing an impro
bability, was already so probable that it was almost a
necessity of thought. We have now found that the
outward phenomena of Christ's life, death, and resur-
* The justice of these statements may be seen by comparing
certain representative quotations, which will be found on pp. 156,
157, and 181—183.

o

20 The Mystery of God.

rection are beyond dispute. We have also seen that,
even when viewed by themselves, they can neither be
accounted for by illusion, nor by fraud, nor by the
two combined, even though supplemented by a sur
prising series of accidental coincidences such as Renan
so liberally invents. But these facts are not alone.
They stand related to those phenomena of Hebrew
literature which by themselves require us to regard the
Bible as a God-provided book. They are the centre
of a prolonged course of history stretching from Abra
ham to our own day, and spreading over an ever-
widening space, as the ancient oracle announced. A
life thus heralded and followed stands alone in the
midst of the ages, and is incomparable with any other
that can be named. Around the grave of Christ so
many marvels cluster, that if He did not rise from the
dead, the facts which then call for explanation are
quite as miraculous as His asserted resurrection, and,
because deprived of their only moral significance, they
are immeasurably more difficult to believe.
I submit, therefore, that the only two alternatives
now open to our choice are either to dismiss the whole
matter from our minds as a mystery upon which we
decline to bestow any further attention ; or to accept
the resurrection as a fact of history, and with it
Christ's superhuman claims, and the Bible of which
He is the central theme as a God-provided book, and
its teachings and counsels as the guide of life.
With respect to the first of these alternatives I shall
say but little. Every man must consider for himself
what is the true line of wisdom and duty, and I pre
sume not in this place to use any urgency. We should

The Resurrection of Christ. 321
not, however, conceal from ourselves the fact that to
turn away our thoughts from Christ involves a judg
ment that His claims are unworthy of respect. The
Gospel, which offers certain blessings in His name,
places Christ before each hearer as truly as He was
placed before Pilate, and no hand-washing can relieve
from responsibility those who find no fault in Him,
yet leave Him to the scorn and rejection of the
world. But whatever may be done by individuals, mankind
at large will not cease to think of Christ. By a re
sistless fascination He attracts the intensest interest
wherever He is preached, and, as a rule, neither those
who believe nor those who disbelieve can 'let Him
alone.' The future prospects of our race in this world
and of individual lives beyond the grave are so bound
up with the falsity or verity of His continued existence
and reign, that some elucidation of the facts is every
where demanded. The scheme of moral government
of which He is the centre, and of which the Bible is
the exponent, is the only one which harmonizes the
terrible facts of pain and moral evil with man's spiritual
aspirations, and with the goodness of the Creator. If
Christ be unworthy of man's faith, the hopes by which
the noblest leaders of humanity in ancient times were
inspired were vain. If Christ fails us, then Abraham's
faith was false, and his expectation of a conquering
seed, which survived through numberless generations,
was a baseless figment, and its marvellous accomplish
ment in history must be due to a combination of Fraud
and Fate in league together to deceive and tantalize
mankind by illusions so beautiful that they are only
21

322 The Mystery of God.
not Divine because not true. In this case the millions
who have been purified from wicked ways and thoughts
have been washed in a fountain of lying legends ; the
sacrifices whereby nations have been redeemed from
barbarism and debasing superstitions, and those martyr
doms by which the mind has been emancipated from
despotic bonds, have been inspired by belief in a vast
imposture ; the happy lives of quiet ministry and
patient endurance which teem behind the more ob
trusive show of worldly activities in Christian lands
are sustained by sanctifying and ennobling fictions ;
and the countless hosts who have died in the hope
of ' an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and
that fadeth not away ' have been like men dying in a
desert with a deceitful mirage glowing before their eyes.
If Christ be renounced, then all faith that God has given
oracles to men is absurd ; the entire scheme of re
demption which fills the Scriptures dies like a dream ;
man's fall from innocency remains a miserable fact,
and his return to the dust is still inevitable, but the
thought of rising again to sit on thrones of victory
ceases to be a tenable imagination. If all this be lost,
God's silence then denies His goodness. Without
evidence of goodness, His power must loom before our
thought as a dreadful attribute displayed in calamities,
disease, and death, rather than in words and acts of
mercy. Without goodness, His wisdom sinks down
to a mere mechanician's skill, and, lacking moral
quality, affords no theme for praise. From such a
silent and indifferent God the world might excusably
turn away ; and man's best hope would be the heaven
of Pessimism, where the wicked cease from troubling

The Resiirrection of Christ. 323
even to repent, and where the righteous are at rest
from their unsatisfied desire.
With such tremendous issues depending on the truth
or falsity of the Christian faith, the world will not dis
miss the claims of Christ from its attention. But I
am well aware that when the mind is driven by its own
operations into an apparently final dilemma, it does
not always choose the more reasonable opinion and
cordially embrace it. Still less do we feel disposed to
adopt a conclusion to which the reasonings of another
mind would conduct us. Where no contrary prejudice
is at work, and even where the wishes are distinctly
favourable, the very forms of logic seem to arouse
opposition or to awaken distrust. If, therefore, the
argument, up to this point, has been approved, and if
the reader has felt the dilemma now before us to be
the real and ultimate issue of religious thought, it by
no means follows that he will either cease to think
about Christ, which is almost an impossibility, or that
he will believe in Christ's superhuman claims and His
resurrection from the dead.
Against this belief there lies in thousands of minds
to-day a heavy weight of intellectual habit. The
theories and criticisms of unbelief may be disposed
of as inconclusive and unsound, but the feeling of
suspicion may remain. Deeper than all contrary
creeds, there is the fear of believing what is super
sensuous, and a distrust of any conclusion on which
many intellectual leaders look down as the marks of
defective education in science and philosophy, or as
the indications of a naturally feeble and credulous
mind. 21—2

324 The Mystery of God.
Such prepossessions as these are not the only oppo
sitions which the Christian faith has to encounter.
The Christian hope appeals to the purest and sublimest
yearnings of human nature, but it calls for the mortifi
cation of many cravings which are immensely strong.
It summons men to direct their energies towards a
remote and invisible goal, and thus involves a modera
tion of zeal in the pursuit of those earthly objects
which excite the passions, and sometimes requires their
entire relinquishment. The call of Christ is to a
throne of glory, but the glory is one not easily ob
tained. It is a glory of victory over the temptations
which assail men through the senses, and over many
prevalent fashions of thought, taste, and practice by
which those around are dominated. The rewards of
Christ, though described in figurative language, are
essentially moral and spiritual, and are such as do not
appeal to our hearts except in hours of moral wakeful
ness, and in times when the glamour with which earthly
things are invested by love, or ambition, or inferior
appetites, has been dissipated by a stern experience.
The recognition of Christ's claims is, therefore, mixed
up with many conflictive thoughts and inclinations, and
generally implies some readiness to deny self, and to
follow in the footsteps of One who was always com
passionate towards man's infirmities, and very merciful
to his unrighteousness, yet who asks great things of His
disciples, and leads them not seldom to a cross.
Such hindrances to faith as are thus imperfectly
suggested can never be removed by purely intellectual
methods. No force of reasoning can coerce those
spiritual conditions in which Christ is discerned as

The Resurrection of Christ. 325
the true Lord and Leader of the soul, without whose
guidance life is a journey which closes with a grave in
the wilderness. My aim has been to show that the
severest processes of thought conduct the man of cul
ture to the same standpoint for the contemplation of
Christ's spiritual claims as is occupied by the untutored
peasant or the simple child, and leave him free to yield
up his nature to the influences of Christ. If to any it
should seem that this is a poor termination to so'pro-
longed a process, that opinion should be reconsidered.
A religion which comes forth from God, and is designed
to deal with all men equally, must be one which places
the wise and the unwise on the same level, and puts
both classes to the same spiritual proof. If the wise
man has to travel over a hard and dangerous road
before he can stand in his maturity where he stood
in childhood, it is only because the mind, once started
on a course of independent thinking, can only return
with conscious honesty to bow before the Eternal
Teacher when it has sincerely found that this is its
true wisdom, and that elsewhere there exists no place
of mental rest. If the intellectual journey be thus
terminated, the thinker will not complain of his toil
nor regret the sufferings he has endured, neither will
he murmur because it brings him side by side with
those who have never felt the need of such far travels,
but have trusted to the seeing of their hearts. The
door which opens into a Father's house should be one
through which the least and lowliest can pass ; and if
high thinking were to bring men to a secret entrance,
hidden from the masses of mankind, it would reflect
upon the wisdom and goodness of Him whose special

326 The Mystery of God.
care should be bestowed upon those who most require
His aid. If Christ had thanked God that the secret
of the kingdom had been hidden from babes and
sucklings, but revealed to the wise and prudent, it
would have been a terrible impeachment of the Father.
If God be man's Father, a childlike spirit should be
the sole condition of His favour and blessing. All that
philosophy and criticism can do in the production of
this .spirit is to undo what they may have done towards
its destruction, and to leave the soul, untrammelled by
intellectual suspicions, to rejoice in any light that may
shine into it from a spiritual source. If Christ is to be
received into the heart, He must approve Himself as
worthy to be crowned the King of kings and Lord of
lords. Logic can only be the handmaid of our higher
faculties of insight, by showing that we are justified in
believing that the Scriptures give a true account of what
He was, and said, and did ; and that we do no violence
to reason, and contradict no verified knowledge, when,
standing in this conquered space, we say with the
fisherman of Galilee, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.'

CHAPTER X.
THE LIFE OF FAITH.
It is now proclaimed to the world that He who died
and rose again, and was seen a few times by chosen
witnesses, still lives in a glorified state, though no
more seen by mortal eyes. We are invited to believe
that His interest in the world has not diminished, and
that, apart from accidents of form and place, He is
' the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.' We are
offered no physical evidence of His presence, but
are assured that He is as truly acquainted with our
inmost needs and thoughts, and as truly accessible to
poor and contrite souls, as when He sat by the seashore,
or crossed the flowery hills of Galilee, or stood in
the courts of the temple in Jerusalem. We are urged
to put our lives under His direction ; to accept His
recorded life as our example ; His words as our counsel ;
His death as the inviolable pledge of God's eternal love,
and the declaration of His righteousness in the passing
by of sin ; and His resurrection as the sign of the
Divine will to confer on all who are united to Him by
inward loyalty and trust ' an inheritance incorruptible
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.' ' We walk
by faith, not by sight,' wrote Paul ; and all men every
where are counselled to be his followers in this, and to

328 The Mystery of God.
view life as a pilgrimage towards an unseen country
where Christ reigns, and where His servants shall see
His face and do Him service evermore.
It has often been supposed that faith is demanded
in Scripture in an arbitrary manner, and that there is
no natural or necessary reason why it should play so
important a part in the Christian religion. Reflection
will show, however, that without faith no intercourse
with another spiritual Being is possible, and no wise
direction of the energies is conceivable. Without a
measure of faith it is impossible to maintain inter
course even with our fellow men. Without faith,
business is arrested, commerce perishes, friendship
ceases, families are dissolved, society collapses, and fear
begets a reign of terrible suspicion, wherein every man's
hand is against his neighbour, and human life becomes
a burden too grievous to be borne. Faith is thus the
law of all intelligent and friendly intercourse, and is
indispensable in a religion which is to bind nations
into one brotherhood before the Great Father. It is
not merely because God is unseen that faith is thus
essential. It would not cease to be so if the heavenly
Potentate were visible as the sun at noonday, or if He
were to come down daily to talk with us in the cool
evening twilight, as He descended in the sacred idyl
of paradise.
But while faith is thus the only conceivable means
of fellowship with God, many shrink from its exercise ;
and I propose now to examine some of the reasons
assigned for this reluctance.
One of the most common motives for refusing to allow
faith any place in the scheme of life is the fear that, if the

The Life of Faith. 329
mind once suffers its convictions to overpass the limits
of knowledge which can be scientifically verified, no
safeguard remains against the admission of all pro
fessedly supernatural events. The world has teemed
with prodigies alleged to have been wrought by various
deities and demi-gods, and by the dead bones or living
hands of saints. To-day things which, if actually
accomplished, can be nothing less than miraculous,
are freely boasted of by the Roman Catholic Church,
and by various other sects and communities. Without
undergoing the toil of examining all these ancient
legends and modern marvels, most people dismiss them
as unworthy of attention. Multitudes of Christians,
who accept the miracles of the Bible, repudiate others
from an almost instinctive feeling that they are less
trustworthy, though without presuming or deigning to
say on what principle they draw a line of demarcation.
But logical minds are scarcely satisfied with this rather
facile process of selection. They want some definite
reasons to be assigned for so sharp" a distinction, and
often insist that no such reasons can be found. It is
urged that if we accept one group of supernatural
events as real, we are bound to admit at least the
abstract possibility of all being equally genuine ; and
then the rather awkward dilemma is pressed home —
' Either we must abandon our minds to the inroad of
every fabulous invention, or else we must take the
pains of investigating such vast masses of evidence as
would consume the major part of life, and respecting
which we are practically assured beforehand that not a
thousandth part, if any at all, would repay our toil.'
In reply to this argument, it must be conceded that

330 The Mystery of God.
the principles which have been relied upon to prove the
possibility of a Divine Revelation do forbid us to deny
the philosophic possibility of any alleged miracle being
genuine. Whatever may be the real or supposed
dangers of such an admission, we have no alternative
but to make it. The winking of a Madonna and the
liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius are no
more to be disproved on abstract grounds of physical
impossibility than the resurrection of Christ. All three
are impossible if there be no God, but to Him who
made, the heavens and the earth, none of them would
present any difficulty, if He saw fit to so exercise His
Will. But the perils involved in this admission are far
less than is commonly imagined. The ' History of
Human Error,' which Mr. Caxton meant to publish,
would have shown conclusively that no theoretic scepti
cism has availed to protect men from the extravagances
of superstition. Nothing, indeed, except the possession
of infinite wisdom and knowledge, could render man's
judgment perfectly secure against deception. But
rightly understood and applied, the principles already
considered constitute the most effective safeguard
which philosophy can furnish. The law of continuity
in the method of Divine Government, renders some
revelation a moral necessity ; but it is equally cogent
to convince us that supernatural events will be so
rare as not to interfere with faith in the reign of law,
i.e. in the regularity and order of the universe under
the sovereignty of an unchanging God. Such events
are necessary for the communication of some know
ledge of God and of His Will to men ; but whoever
believes in the Bible as a book of God's providing,

The Life of Faith. 331
in the sufficiency of Christ's moral teachings, the wisely
measured reticence of His statements concerning un
seen realms and future things, the wide-reaching signi
ficance of His miracles, the expedience of His going
away from sight, together with the rarity of His appear
ances to a few selected witnesses after the Resurrection
— whoever believes in these things will also strongly
feel the unlikelihood of any new miraculous revelation,
until Christ Himself shall come again.
But we are not left to mere probabilities in this
matter. The same principles which commend the
Christian revelation as credible, provide a preliminary
test which may be applied to all alleged miracles, and
it is one which suffices to dismiss almost all, whether
ancient or modern, as unworthy of serious considera
tion. Only for the greatest purposes can we suppose
that the Almighty will think it wise or needful to
interpose some exceptional act of will within the
ordinary course of nature. If, therefore, trivial, unin-
structive, or capricious miracles are physically possible,
they are morally impossible ; and we may ask, respect
ing any reported marvel, Is this event associated with
a truly great and godlike purpose ? That is a test
which may be applied without any expenditure of time
or labour. It requires no tedious sifting of evidence.
The mind can use it, and will instinctively do so, when
ever a tale is heard, or read, and its use will repel the
invasion of lying wonders more effectually than any
theoretic scepticism. The miracles related in Romanist
lives of primitive and mediaeval saints, and the modern
miracles asserted by priests and nuns, are so puerile,
so devoid of moral dignity and aim, so unfitted to add

332 The Mystery of God.
a single ray of light to our ideas of God, so well-fitted
to obscure true faith in Him and to contradict some of
the sublimest teachings of Scripture, that no one who
apprehends the spirit and doctrine of Christ will be
troubled to investigate their evidences. The whole
category of so-called spiritualistic phenomena, such as
table-turning, spirit-rapping, necromancy, etc., may be
thrust aside for similar reasons. They are so unutter
ably foolish, that if produced by spirits, they must
evidently be wrought by the ghosts of deceased lunatics
and imbeciles, and as such are unworthy of attention.
They are far less marvellous than the best tricks of
honest conjurers ; and thoughtful persons who believe
in the great God declared by Christ, and appreciate
the nature of that kingdom which He has established
on the earth, will view such phenomena with sorrowful
contempt. If students choose to investigate them for
scientific purposes, we may cordially wish them a
reward for their labours ; and if professional magicians
search them out in order to devise money-getting enter
tainments, no one need object. But when one effect of
supposed miracles is to bring notoriety and money to
certain nunneries and monasteries, or parish priests, or
to some strolling person of doubtful antecedents, the
more thoroughly we believe in the Christian revelation,
the more invulnerable we shall be to all such assaults
on our credulity, and the less disposed to regard them
as operations of the Spirit of God.
It is important to observe that this test is practi
cally the same as was recommended in ancient times
to the Hebrews, and afterwards to the Christian
Church. In the Book of Deuteronomy we find intima-

The Life of Faith. 333
tions of true prophets who were to be sent to the nation
in later days, and of one great prophet in particular.*
But with these intimations there were also clear warn
ings that false prophets and workers of deceitful wonders
would arise. The people would have great need, there
fore, of circumspection, and of some easily handled
touchstone which plain persons might apply. If they
were to receive as a Divine miracle every performance
they lacked ability to explain, they would be at the
mercy of each wandering trickster who had learned
the arts of oriental magic. Hence Moses, who had
looked behind the scenes of Egyptian craft, prepared
the people to try the teachers who might court their
allegiance. As one test of a professed prophet, he ad
monished them to watch the fulfilment or non-fulfilment
of his prediction (Deut. xviii. 22). But this test alone
was insufficient, because in some cases it would be
inapplicable, and in others might be positively mis
leading. Where a prediction related to events not
instantly impending, its first hearers might die before
the question of fulfilment could be answered; and as
the result could only be known after it had transpired,
such knowledge would always be obtained too late
when the prophet founded immediate advice upon his
prediction. It might also happen occasionally that a
lucky or shrewd impostor's prediction would come to
pass. Therefore a more stringent and immediate test
was supplied. If there arose in the midst of them a
prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he gave them a
* It makes no difference to the value of the passage as employed
in the text whether the authorship of Deuteronomy be assigned to
Moses or to some later writer.

334 The Mystery of God.
sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder came to
pass, whereof he spake; yet if the object of the sign
were to withdraw from faith in the God of their fathers,
or to induce a neglect of the moral law, they were not
to hearken to that prophet, but were to regard his sign
as a temptation to prove whether their hearts were
loyal (Deut. xiii. 1-5). Similarly Christ forewarns that
' false Christs and false prophets ' will arise, and show
' great signs and wonders ;' but His disciples are bidden
to believe them not, because He declares that any new
revelation of the true Lord from heaven will be broad
and world-wide as the light which shines from the east
unto the west (Matt. xxiv. 24-28), and therefore no more
to be mistaken than midnight fireworks can be mistaken
for the rising sun. At another time He counselled His
followers, when estimating the credibility of professed
prophets, to attach supreme importance to their per
sonal character and the moral quality of their teach
ings, saying, ' Beware of false prophets, which come
to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening
wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ?' (Matt. vii.
15= 16).
Similar passages might be quoted freely, but these
suffice. This moral test, when applied in concert with
the others named, clears the field of professed miracles
in a wholesale manner. The myths of ancient Rome
and Greece, and the tales which float about the cradles
of several latter-day religions, cannot bear their touch.
The legends of the Papacy, when subjected to them,
show their spuriousness, as do false diamonds when
held in flame. Nothing can be regarded as an act of

The Life of Faith. 335
Divine volition which would frustrate the will of God
in the most important of all respects, or break the
order of His moral government. God will not con
found our judgments ; and if we believe that in Christ
He has intervened to promote righteousness and truth,
we may stake our destiny on the refusal of any signs,
however inexplicable, which would obscure or degrade
that truth, or distract our hearts from singleness of
service. Another cause of reluctance to allow faith in a
Divine revelation any place in the scheme of life may
be found in mistaken ideas of the nature of Christian
faith, and of its true relation to knowledge which can
be scientifically verified. To multitudes in our day
faith is only a synonym for credulity. They look upon
a Christian as a man who accepts a number of proposi
tions without a well-founded assurance of their intrinsic
truth, and simply because he had been taught in child
hood that it was his duty to believe them, and to hold
them fast under penalties of future judgment.
It must be confessed that professedly Christian
bodies are mainly responsible for this prevalent mis
take. The Roman Catholic Church, which claims to
be the sole exponent of Christianity, maintains this
view of faith. She demands an unquestioning accept
ance of her dogmas, not because the private judgment
approves them as manifested truth, but because she
affirms them. Cardinal Newman answers those who
taunt him with believing the incredible doctrine of
Transubstantiation by confessing, 'I did not believe
the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty
in believing it as soon as I believed that the Roman

336 The Mystery of God.
Catholic Church was the oracle of God.' He also
observes, * From the time that I became a Catholic,
of course I have no further history of my religious
opinions to narrate.'*
The Church of Rome is not alone in this view of
faith. She is alone in the arrogance and consistency
with which she enforces it ; but some other Churches
present their creeds and insist upon their acceptance
rather than invite their examination. Hitherto a
common rule has been that if people have endorsed
these rigid statements of doctrine, they have been
treated as Christian believers, although devoid of any
zeal for God and righteousness ; while, on the other
hand, if men have dissented from these formulas,
whether as contrary in their judgment to sound reason
or to the verified facts of nature and history, or as
incorrect versions of the doctrine taught in Scripture,
they have been branded as heretics and deprived of
ecclesiastical privileges, even though they manifested
a staunch and exultant attachment to Christ and what
they understood to be His truth. Nothing, indeed, in
all Church history is more painfully beautiful than the
manner in which countless martyrs have been sustained
by faith in God, while denounced as infidels, and while
persecuted by those who were unworthy to call them
brethren. It is not surprising that many have derived their
conceptions of Christian faith from these notorious
facts : but it must be strenuously insisted that the
opinions so arrived at are not such as are inculcated in
the Scriptures. Turning for information to the Bible,
* J. H. Newman, ' Apologia pro Vita Sua.' pp. 373, 374.

The Life of Faith. 337
we find no sanction of an imperious dogmatism in any
of its books. Christ, indeed, spake ' with authority,
and not as the Scribes and Pharisees ;' but His ' autho
rity' was the natural tone of One who proclaimed
Himself a special messenger from heaven, and not
the accent of intellectual despotism. We do not ex
pect a traveller who alone has explored a continent or
discovered an island to speak as if we were entitled to
balance our notions against his knowledge ; nor would it
be appropriate for the commissioner of a great monarch
to address the people of a remote dependency with
bated breath and deferential mien, as if they were on
an equality with their ruler. If, therefore, Christ had
not spoken with authority, it would have been an evi
dent token that He was not really conscious of having
come from God. But it will be observed that if the
tone of Christ's speech proved that He Himself was free
from that slavish subjection to the yoke of tradition
which distinguished the professional teachers of Israel,
it no less clearly showed that He had none of their
arrogance towards the common people, and earnestly
desired to make His hearers free also. The Rabbins
were living phonographs mechanically repeating the
words of others who had gone before, and their original
contributions were seldom more than ingenious illus
trations of ancient doctrines or subtle discriminations
of legal points. But if they slavishly adhered to the
dicta of their respective schools, they gave no greater
liberty to their own auditors, and made little or no
appeal to the private judgments of their disciples. It
may be doubted whether a more dogmatic teaching
caste ever existed, or one more abjectly obeyed. But
22

338 The Mystery of God.
Christ, in breaking loose from conventional restraints
as a teacher, of necessity invited the people to assert
their own liberty at least to learn of whom they would.
Only by revolting from the domination of their esta
blished teachers could they accept the yoke and
burden of the new Master ; and one chief inducement
to make this choice was the singular blending in Christ
of meekness and lowliness of heart with that sublime
tone of personal authority which, mightier even than
the ' accent of conviction,' gave assurance that He
knew the things whereof He spoke.
Christ said little about the 'right bf private judg
ment,' but this was because He raised the question
into a higher region. He taught not merely that men
have a right to use their faculties independently in the
pursuit of truth, but that it is their duty so to do, and
that they are responsible to God for the due discharge
of this most primary obligation. We may even go
beyond this statement. He [assumed that men are not
only called upon to exercise their private judgment as
a duty, but that they are unable to avoid doing so,
however much they may dislike the task. The refusal
to consider what is presented as religious truth is itself
a momentous and decisive exercise of the reason ; and
the relinquishment of private judgment, whether in
deference to an order or Church, or to the power of
public opinion, is a serious dereliction of duty. Whether
the refusal be due to mental indolence, or to the fear of
consequences, or to that vague shrinking from respon
sibility which makes the decision of important ques
tions a thing of dread to so many — however brought
about, and however excused, it constitutes an act of

The Life of Faith. 339
private judgment of the most stupendous sort. There
is no more terrible exertion of the living energies than
the act of suicide ; so there is no more extreme usage
of free thought than that which resigns the right to
think. In agreement with these principles, Christ
called upon men to take heed how they heard His
words, and said that by those words they would be
judged. By refusing to hear His voice, they took upon
themselves the responsibility of treating Him as one
who had no claim on their allegiance, no fitness to be
the guide and leader of their lives ; and by remaining
under the tutorship of men who hated Him, they elected
to run the risks of refusing one who claimed to be the
Prophet for whom their fathers had waited for so many
centuries, and concerning whom it had been said of old,
' The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ;
unto Him ye shall hearken .... And it shall come to
pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words
which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of
him' (Deut. xviii. 15, 19).
What Christ demanded of all men everywhere, was
therefore distinctly an act of private judgment, and,
according to Him, character is most vividly exhibited
in the manner in which this demand is met. He called
upon men so far to assert their personal responsibility
as to sever themselves, if needs be, from father and
mother, and wife and children : and when the acknow
ledgment of Himself as the Messiah was visited with
that excommunication which reduced the outcast to
the level of a Samaritan dog, He still approved and
advised the sacrifice as one which ought to be made.
22 — 2

34° The Mystery of God.
This mode of appeal to the individual conscience and
reason, which prevails in all Christ's public and private
teachings, is no less characteristic of the Apostles.
When Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost, he
pressed for an individual change of mind, and, in one
very significant sentence, pointed out that the great
danger which beset his hearers was that of being sub
merged as personal units in the great flood of national
prejudice and antagonism to Christ. ' Save yourselves,'
cried he, 'from this crooked generation' (Acts ii. 40),
i.e., Let each man save himself by separating his
personal thought and conduct, and so his personal
destiny, from the common mass of Israel.
In all his preaching, Paul pursued the same course.
He said, ' Believe,' but always gave reasons why men
should believe. In addressing audiences of his own
countrymen, he reasoned with them out of those
Hebrew Scriptures which they already recognised as
Divine, and praised the Bereans as noble, because
candid and bold enough to search those ancient docu
ments afresh to see whether the things he affirmed
' were so or not.' When standing before philosophers
on Mars' Hill, he did not quote those Scriptures of
which they, as foreigners, were ignorant, or which they
were at any rate unprepared to regard as authoritative ;
but he reasoned with them on philosophic grounds, and
even quoted their own poets and teachers in confirma
tion of the truths he preached. Every missionary
sermon was an appeal to private judgment, and a
summons to each hearer to tear himself away from the
creeds and customs of his fathers, if the gospel com
mended itself to his conscience as true.

The Life of Faith, 341
Nothing is more obvious in the New Testament than
the constancy and boldness with which it thus addresses
man as a reasonable being. It probably contains as
many cautions against credulity as invitations to believe.
It courts inquiry. It deprecates thoughtlessness, neglect,
prejudice, pride, bigotry, irrational belief in idols, and
indolent subjection to presumptuous teachers or hoary
tradition. It tells men to try the spirits of pretended
apostles and prophets, and to test all things and cleave
only to what is found true and good. Unless, therefore,
we are prepared to repudiate the Author and first
preachers of Christianity as exponents of its first
principles, the Roman view of faith as a submission of
the mind to authority must be dismissed as an eccle
siastical invention.
Another view of faith which needs correction is that
which regards it as a mere intellectual assent to the
truth of certain propositions when sustained by adequate
proofs.. This is regarded by Rome as essentially the
Protestant doctrine, and by many Agnostics is discussed
as the only alternative which remains when authority
has been cast off. But assent to the truth of demon
strated propositions cannot properly be called faith.
It is conviction, but convictions are of different kinds.
The right solution of a mathematical problem secures
conviction, whenever it is understood, but this is rather
the reception of knowledge than the awakening of faith.
Faith only comes into play in relation to things beyond
sight, and has for its objects things which have not yet
been, or things which, by scientific methods, perhaps,
never can be proved.'
Protestants have often lost sight of this distinction,

34 2 The Mystery of God.
and with most disastrous results ; but in the Scriptures
it is never obscured. Faith is defined as 'the assurance
of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen,'
and the Bible is suffused with this idea from beginning
to end. The only faith to which moral value is ascribed,
is that personal trust in God which distinguished
Abraham, and was ' counted unto him for righteous
ness.' The biographical sketches which abound in the
Old Testament are all so written as to illustrate this
principle. When Paul was charged with subverting the
ancient religion of Israel by his doctrine of Faith, he was
able to quote Genesis to show that it was not new ; and
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits the
continuity of God's ways throughout all dispensations,
by calling over the muster-roll of ancient heroes who,
by faith in God, waxed strong and brave, and died in
peaceful expectation of things not seen. The laws of
Moses presupposed and called into exercise this faith
in God. The great burden of psalms and prophecies
was 'trust in the Lord.' Those proverbial sayings
which express the homelier thoughts of Hebrew sages
about life and duty, are steeped in the conviction that
faith in God is the beginning of wisdom and the in
dispensable condition of a happy and righteous course.
But while this trust in God as a Person must not be
confounded with a mere intellectual assent to certain
affirmations concerning Him, it is no less important to
observe that, without some assent, it can have no exist
ence. Endeavours have been made by some of the
choicest spirits of our time — and, in England, most
notably by the late Professor T. H. Green, of Oxford—
to emancipate Faith as a spiritual state from all de-

The Life of Faith. 343
pendence on historic beliefs. In so far as this may have
exhibited the profound difference between the two things,
and the infinitely higher value of the one than the other,
a great service has been rendered to religion. But two
things may be distinguishable in thought, and have
exceedingly different qualities and uses in fact, while
the lesser may be quite indispensable to the production
and existence of the greater. The roots, stem, branches
and leaves of a tree are distinguishable from each other,
and from the fruit, which is the crown of all ; but no
man hopes to cultivate grapes except upon a vine.
Similarly those spiritual states and those Christ-like
deeds which writers of this school esteem so highly,
are, according to their own admissions, scarcely to be
found at present, except in conjunction with those
historic beliefs which they seek to dispense with.
Therefore, judging from experience, they can only be
expected hereafter to flourish where men feel themselves
united to Christ as branches of the ' True Vine,' and
have faith in the Living Father as ' the Husbandman.'
The endeavour to retain the warmth and light of
spiritual Christianity by those who despair of over
coming the current scientific and philosophic objections
to a supernatural revelation, is one which no Christian
who understands the conflict of our age can view
without intensest sympathy. Its leaders are, for the
most part, men who have felt the force of that current
which sweeps some towards the Romish Church as a
haven of rest from intellectual strife and the sense of per
sonal responsibility, but who have no less been influenced
by that opposing stream whereby others are carried into
a cold Agnosticism. Though moved in turn by each

344 The Mystery of God.
of these strong floods, they anticipate with dismay the
bourne to which either would conduct. Recognising in
the Christian life the highest type of human character,
they cherish an intense desire to have Christ living again
in themselves, to be imbued with His spirit of holy love,
and to do those works which no man can do ' except
God be with him.' Hence they inquire, What can
hinder us from appropriating all the spiritual benefits of
Christianity while ceasing to concern ourselves about its
historic evidences ?
My reply to this question is that I know of no valid
objection to such an appropriation of these spiritual
benefits, provided that the historic evidences are not
left alone because suspected of unsoundness. If a
man be ignorant of the attacks upon these evidences
made by so many in our day, but is spiritually con
vinced of the truth of all he reads in his New Testa
ment, there is no reason why he should be asked
to suspend his faith until he has studied Christian
apologetics. Or, if a student has learned, through
much mental strife, to put more trust in his spiritual
discernments than in the results of logical processes
or critical research ; and if, on the strength of his
spiritual discernment of Christ, he is able to dismiss
from his mind all doubts respecting the historical form
in which the Eternal Life was manifested centuries
since in Judea, his position is one which I should not
care to disturb. But when it is proposed to treat as
immaterial the actual truth or falsity of such central
and essential facts as the superhuman works and claims
of Christ and His bodily resurrection, I most earnestly
deprecate the attempt. The spiritual discernment of

The Life of Faith. 345
spiritual things may fairly be deemed higher and more
trustworthy for religious purposes than any other kind
of knowledge. It may justly be allowed to secure our
assent to propositions which might otherwise be re
garded as inadequately proved ; and, as a matter of
experience, it no doubt does very often precede, and
largely contribute to induce, an intellectual acceptance
of the Christian evidences. But these admissions in
no degree sanction the supposition that spiritual faith
can be rationally entertained in defiance of a previous
intellectual dissent, and in conjunction with an admis
sion that science and philosophy have proved the most
important statement in the Gospels to be absolutely
incredible. It is true, as Hegel said, that ' religion must
contain nothing but religion : and as such it contains
only eternal spiritual truth.'* But it is also true, as
he himself acknowledged, that a certain historical form
is necessary. The idea must have the side of reality ;
and reality implies circumstantial surroundings in space
and time.f We may also yield our cordial assent to
his plea that we must not be misled by the fact of an
historical appearance into elevating the particulars of
that history to the rank of spiritual truths. The spiri
tual cannot be attested by the external.^ In this
•contention he laid down a canon by which Christian
advocates may judiciously be guided ; for it is only a
philosophic adaptation of Christ's words to Peter,
' Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.'
But when from this principle Hegel proceeds to
draw the inference, that the whole question of
* ' Philosophie der Religion ': G. W. F. Hegel (Vol. I., p. 152).
t Ibid., Vol. II., p. 236. % Ibid., Vol. II., p. 160.

346 The Mystery of God.
miracles need not trouble us, the conclusion must
be pronounced unjustifiable. If we are prepared to
regard the external as sufficiently attested by the
spiritual, we may leave the ordinary evidences of the
external unexamined. But if the historical form in
which the religion of Christ is presented to us be
deemed incredible, the spiritual idea cannot reasonably
be received as true. Hence, without contending that
faith must be preceded by historical investigations or
by arguments to prove a miraculous revelation possible,
I submit that whenever the Christian idea is touched
by denial or doubt on 'the side of reality,' that denial
or that doubt must be removed if spiritual faith is to
survive ; and this is more certainly necessary if this
faith is to have sufficient vital energy and convincing
power to propagate itself in other minds.
When men have fled from the noise and tumult of
controversial battle-fields, to sit at the feet of Christ
and learn of Him the secret of a pure and noble life, it
is an unwelcome task to call them back again. But if
they have fled from those fields as defeated men, while
we are convinced that a victory might be theirs if they
returned ; if we are assured that such a flight from
conflict, by men whose services are sorely needed, makes
the battle harder for those who remain ; and if, further
more, we are persuaded that a real defeat in the battle
thus abandoned must entail the separation of mankind
from the Christ they cleave to with so sincere but so
illogical an attachment, then we must not allow sym
pathy with their spiritual aspirations to silence our
expostulations. Not to take away from them 'the
better part,' but to make its choice a possible and

The Life of Faith. 347
reasonable thing for themselves and many more, we
must persist in the endeavour to show that the Christ
they admire is a truly historic Christ, and that His
resurrection from the dead is a fact against which
science and philosophy can bring no valid objection,
while its historic evidences are unshaken by criticism
and research.
A merely intellectual assent to these opinions is
incomparably inferior to a loyal and loving reception
of spiritual influence, but men will soon cease to sit at
the feet of Christ when the history of His life is pre
sented as a thing of divinest beauty, but of which wise
men doubt the truth. A loving delight in the beauty of
Christ's image is good, and may for a season do good,
although its main features are deemed fictitious, but it
is not faith in Him such as the Apostles avow and
inculcate. The endeavour to reproduce His life as a
painter seeks to actualize a subjective ideal, while
perpetually baffled by its loveliness, is a totally different
thing from the imitation of Him as an exemplar to
whom the Almighty God has destined us to be con
formed, and who Himself is offered as a pledge, as well
as a pattern, of what we shall one day attain. Paul
said, ' That life which I now Hve in the flesh I live in
faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved
me and gave Himself up for me'; but if the elements of
historic fact are eliminated from that confession, the
whole meaning dies out of the words. All the con
straint and inspiration of which Paul was conscious
were due to his sense of personal relationship with a
Christ who had proved His love in certain historic
deeds of sacrifice, and still lived to carry on the work

348 The Mystery of God.
•of a guiding Friend and Redeemer to its completion
in the heavenly world. Where this belief is exchanged
for denials or doubts of the facts alleged, the mighty
motive power of personal obligation perishes, and the
hope of ever being like Christ becomes indeed —
' The desire of the moth for the star,
Of the night for the morrow,
The devotion to something afar
From the sphere of our sorrow.'
When the nature and sphere of faith are thus under
stood, the ordinary objections which are preferred
;against the place it occupies in the Christian system
are found to refer to something else of which the Bible
knows nothing. It does not pretend to be scientific
knowledge, therefore Agnosticism has no contradiction
to offer without violating its own philosophy. Certain
individuals who call themselves Agnostics, but who
might most fittingly retain the more antiquated title
¦' Atheist,' are loud in their denials of what Christians
believe, but herein they presumptuously affect a know
ledge of the Unknowable. Wiser men have no sym
pathy with such negative dogmatism. Professor
Huxley, who claims ' a sort of patent right ' in the
word ' Agnostic,' and says ' It is my trade-mark,' wrote
a letter lately in which he reminded a certain rather
intrusive correspondent that ' true Agnosticism will not
forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding opera
tions in nature are more stupendous miracles than any
recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be
things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond
the intelligible universe, which " are not dreamt of in
¦our philosophy." ' J. S. Mill, after speaking of the

The Life of Faith. 349
moral sublimity and historic genuineness of the gospel
pictures of Jesus Christ, also adds ' that, to the con
ception of the rational sceptic, it remains a possibility
that Christ actually was what He supposed Himself to
be ... a man charged with a special, express and
unique commission from God to lead mankind to truth
and virtue.' Clearly, then, without violating its own
philosophy, Agnosticism can make no denials and no
assertions which are fatal to the Christian faith. When
man draws a line, and says, ' Here knowledge ceases,
but we know that something else exists,' he cannot
treat the unknown as non-existent. Still, thought
irresistibly goes on. The lines which run out from
each human centre of observation and inquiry do not
terminate abruptly where the horizon melts away into-
infinitude. According to their understanding of things
visible, men will inevitably form conceptions of the
Eternal Cause of All. Even those who most strenu
ously refuse to regard this Power as a legitimate object
of concern, or as a Being towards whom we can have
any relative duties, do thereby make an immense
assertion concerning the Unknown. In the face of
man's religious instincts and history, it is an enormous
assumption to affirm that we can have no relations
with an invisible Mind and Will. The philosophy
which says man cannot discover God or transcend the
knowledge of phenomena, should not pretend to say
that the Maker of man is unable to know our minds, or
unable to send into our world a ' knowable ' messenger,
such as Mill concedes Christ may have been. Rational
scepticism, therefore, is compelled by its own insistance
on the limits of possible knowledge to make room for

350 The Mystery of God.
such faith as Christianity enjoins. Probably one of
the most hopeful signs of the present day is the sub
sidence of that arrogant assumption of scientific
omniscience which is marked by the widespread
acceptance of the term Agnostic.
Again, the Biblical conception of faith is untouched
by assaults on dogma as inferior to conduct. Under
various forms these attacks have been launched against
Christianity, in the supposed interests ofmorality, from
the days of Paul's Judaizing opponents to those of
the Hellenic Matthew Arnold. Mr. Arnold must be
honoured for the zeal which he displays for righteous
ness ; but I fear that the Apostle Paul would say of his
modern exponent, as he said of his original opponents,
that his zeal is ' not according to knowledge.' Virtue
is better than dogma, beyond all question. But the
great practical problem is, How shall vicious men be
made virtuous ? How shall selfishness, out of which
legions of evil deeds proceed to devastate our social
fields, be cast out of human hearts ? How shall bitter
ness be made sweet, and darkness be turned into light ?
Neither literature nor dogma can do this. J. S. Mill
observed (in words already quoted) that ' it would not
be easy even for an unbeliever to find a better trans
lation of virtue from the abstract to the concrete than
to endeavour so to live that Christ would approve our
life.' When he wrote this he may possibly have for
gotten that a life devoid of active love for God would
never be approved by Christ, and that such a life of
unworldly zeal as he commends is far removed from
one of mere respect for social duties. But waiving
this criticism, and taking the passage to refer to human

The Life of Faith. 351
relations of justice and mercy, kindness, truth, purity,
gentleness, and love, it may serve to enforce a higher
truth. Let us take three representative men. Let the first
be a man who endorses Mill's idea, but is an unbeliever
in Christ — thinks Him a mere man who died and was
buried ages ago, and therefore can have no personal
relations with the present generation of men even as a
distant spectator. Let the second be a man who holds
his opinion about Christ in suspense. He is what Mill
calls a ' rational sceptic ' — not affirming or denying, but
allowing some mild hope of the truth of Christ's Divine
commission to tincture his thoughts. Let the third be
a man who verily believes that Jesus Christ still lives and
reigns, and watches over every human life with the
same care as He bestowed upon His followers on earth,
and that He is a Judge by whom God will try the
secrets of all hearts, making manifest the obscurest
characters, and vindicating those who are defamed and
wrongfully treated by their fellows. Which of these
three men will be the more likely to live as Christ
' would approve '? On whom will the thought of de
serving so pure an approbation be most animating?
Will it be the first, who is sure Christ is a mere dead
Worthy ? or the second, who is only half persuaded that
the tale has truth ? or the third, who in the darkest hours
of misjudgment can say like Paul, ' There is laid up for
me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, shall give to me at that day : and not
to me only, but also to all them that have loved His
appearing'? There can be but one answer to such a question,

35 2 The Mystery of God.
and it alone should be decisive ; but other considera
tions may be adduced to show how the Christian faith
operates in favour of morality.
Such faith helps to remove the most productive causes-
of evil. One of the most potent of these causes is a
feeling that men must look after their own interests,
because no one else can be trusted to do it for them.
They see others engrossed in selfish pursuits, while
they themselves are pushed and elbowed in the crowd,
often having to bear hardness, injustice, and neglect ;
and this first irritates the worst feelings, and then tends
to petrify the heart. But the thought of God's fatherly
care and love revealed in Christ is a new fountain of
love towards man, and one can learn to love his neigh
bour, and even his enemies, when convinced that the
Good Samaritan is a type of Him who reigns over all
the world.
Another potent cause of evil is hopelessness. Men
have done wrong, and sullied their own souls ; and if
they have tried to purify their own affections, and
create within themselves a spirit like that admired in
Jesus, they have wofully failed. How, then, can they
go on striving ? But faith in God revealed in Christ
is confidence in God's mercy to blot out the past ; it
is reliance on God's power to direct and uphold the
future walk ; and it is an assurance of God's purpose
to secure a final and eternal victory over sin. Ani
mated by this faith, the vilest characters and the most
abject and dejected spirits have, in innumerable in
stances, arisen to seek after righteousness, and have
attained a career of usefulness.
Nor does faith in Christ simply suffice to counteract

The Life of Faith. 353
these temptations to positive evil. It exalts the whole
idea of duty by connecting the work of each passing
hour with the interests of eternity, and by bringing
the powers of the world above and of the world to
come to reinforce the ordinary motives to rectitude.
In proportion as this faith is clear and strong, it evokes
a spirit not merely of justice but of sacrifice, and
reduces to a minimum the pressure of temptation to
eye-service towards others, and time-service towards
one's self. This faith fires men's souls with a true
enthusiasm for humanity. There is a small sect of
man-worshippers which claims a monopoly of this
virtue, declaring that the binding of religion to a
superhuman God has failed, and that its fruits have
only been ' dead-sea apples.' But history shows that
Christianity was the first to propound the initial idea
of humanity as one entity. For such a conception
pagan authors may be ransacked in vain; but the
Bible is full of it : its pages shine with an enthusiastic
glow of desire to see all nations welded into one king
dom, with one language, one sceptre, and one law.
Faith in Him who is said to have died to break down
all partitions, and reconcile mankind in one body to
God, has created a new order of men and women
devoted to the ministry of mankind. Irrespective of
nation and character, and in the face of hatred and
persecution, this enthusiasm is now planting cultivated
men as servants to savages in every quarter of the
globe where such races remain unreclaimed. The
author of the so-called ' Religion of Humanity ' wrote
a good many years ago : ' The noble missionaries of
our faith will find in Africa the greatest stimulus to
23

354 The Mystery of God.
exert their intellect, and the fairest field for their active
zeal. They will set themselves the task of spreading
among the simple African populations the Universal
religion. There will be no intermediate step, they
will not be required to pass through either Monotheism
or even Polytheism. That the success of the effort is
possible, is the consequence of the profound affinity
between Positivism and Fetishism.'*
Since these words were written, Christians have had
enthusiasm enough to explore the Dark Continent,
and thousands have been found ready to endure exile
and sickness, and to confront premature death, not
counting their lives dear unto themselves, for the sake
of telling Africans of Christ ; but no Positivist has to
my knowledge yet gone out either to elevate or to
worship humanity in that ' fairest field.'
Passing from these ethical aspects of our subject,
it is submitted that faith in God as a Father who
has made Himself known to His children commends
itself to us as the only thing which can promise
satisfaction to our hearts. ' He that trusteth in
his own heart ' to construct a scheme of the
universe is not wise. But when a faith like this is
founded on rational grounds, and is the direct con
tinuance into unseen regions of so many lines of
knowledge, the fact that it meets the finest feelings of
man's nature becomes a strong confirmation of its
soundness. Any theory of the universe which tramples
on the affections and aspirations of mankind, and offers
them dead matter and force when they cry for everlasting
love and life, is self-condemned. Even nature bids us
* Comte, 'The Catechism of the Positive Religion,' p. 365.

The Life of Faith. 355
refuse to regard our deepest yearnings as tantalizing
mockeries. Where intense desires are known to exist
among lower animals, it is invariably found that they
correspond to satisfactory objects. Inward impulses
lead some creatures to do things which have no mean
ing to themselves at the time, but which avail to make
provision for a future state of life. Various insects
even satisfy their instinctive desires by doing things
which propagate plants and flowers ; but in no case is
instinct a useless lie. How, then, shall we believe this
of human desires and hopes ? If man's heart — the
strongest, tenderest, most mysterious and sensitive of
all known things — be not an organized self-tormenting
machine, and the cruellest product of blind evolution
in the world, there is continuance and sequel for the
affections in a future life and a more than human love
in Him who made man's heart. There is logic, as
well as poetry, in the words of ' The Wanderer,' who
cries : ' And shall I find no Father ? Shall my being
Aspire in vain for ever, and always tend
To an impossible goal, which none shall reach, —
An aim without an end ?
' Or, shall I heed them when they bid me take
No care for aught but what my brain may prove ?
I, through whose inmost depths, from birth to death,
Strange heavenward-currents move ;
' Vague whispers, inspirations, memories,
Sanctities, yearnings, secret questionings,
And oft amid the fullest blaze of noon,
The rush of hidden wings ?
' Nay ; my soul spurns it ! Less it is to know
Than to have faith : not theirs who cast away
The mind God gave them, eager to adore
Idols of baser clay.
23—2

356 The Mystery of God.
' But theirs, who marking out the bounds of mind,
And where thought rules, content to understand,
Know that beyond its kingdom lies a dread
Immeasurable land.
' A land which is, though fainter than a cloud,
Full of sweet hopes and awful destinies :
A dim land, rising when the eye is clear
Across the trackless seas.'*
There is a time in many lives when the whole being
is absorbed and apparently satisfied in the love of
others at their side. But this time is brief. The in
tensity of such love is the measure of the pain it must
entail on the survivor. All the reverence and sanctity
of love for parents ; all the growing into oneness, and
the cleaving of soul to soul which hallow married life ;
and all the joy of being trusted by fair children, is as
the brief sunshine which burns to evening and cold night,
or as the flowering of plants which beautify the path
to those sleeping places where dark yews cast their
shadow, and lettered stones betray the impotence of
grief. But faith in Christ is faith in Him who said,
' Thy brother shall rise again.' ' I am the resurrection
and the life.' It is a faith which casts a soft light of
hope on ancient graves, and on the newest turf which
covers those we have lost. It preaches of high careers
for those cut off in their prime; and of a Divine
economy, which does not waste the disciplined ex
perience of venerable sires when they go to the grave
like sheaves of corn fully ripe, nor despise the im
maturity of tender babes when cut off like fragile
blossoms by cold vernal gales. It tells of all the
workers and watchers of old time gathered into one
* L. Morris, ' Songs of Two Worlds,' p. 84.

The Life of Faith. 357
rejoicing host with those who enter into their labours
and see the days they toiled and suffered to bring in.
When a man's heart is riven by some sudden stroke,
or dies down under the strain of a protracted grief ;
when his plans are thwarted — his friends untrue or
gone away ; when he feels the infirmities of his own
nature hindering action, and sin marring his best
deeds ; when in old age he looks out and beholds
dimness and a cloud, and at the thought of going forth
into unknown realms his native clinging to familiar
scenes grow strong; then this faith in the unseen God
made known in Christ unfolds the vision of a heritage
no enemy can wrest away, because the Lord who rules
throughout the universe has called him ' child.'
Finally, while faith, as we have seen, is indispensable
to any intelligent intercourse with God, and while the
Christian faith, rightly understood, is consistent with
any true philosophy, favourable to morality and satisfy
ing to the heart, it also commends itself as giving com
pleteness and grandeur to our intellectual conceptions
of the universe. It instructs us that man as a
spiritual being has relationship not only with the beasts
of these earthly fields, with the dust of this perishable
globe, and with the memories of buried ancestors, but
also with great thinkers and glorified servants who live
in other worlds. It opens our minds to regard those
orbs which move with measured harmony in space as
bound together by a common kingship, and an all-
embracing moral government, as well as by an all-
pervading physical order. By such vast and ennobling
thoughts it lifts the mind out of that insular egotism
and provincial narrowness which otherwise beset us as

358 The Mystery of God.
the tenants of a small and obscure world. This globe
which seems so vast to its inhabitants is not visible as
a speck of light from many stars which stud our mid
night sky. But faith in a common King and Father
who has deigned to visit us in Christ unites Our history
and destiny with those of every habitable sphere.
' Humble lives, to low thought, and low ; but linked to the thinker's
eye,
By a bond that is stronger than death, with the lights of the
farthest sky.'
Physical science can only regard other worlds as
lonely islands in an untravelled ocean of ether. But
faith in the moral order and federal unity of the cosmos
teaches us to view them as ' many mansions ' of one
great House, between which ceaseless correspondence
passes, and a holy commerce is maintained by ministers
of God who do His pleasure. It enables us to regard
the human race as one out of many tribes in the cosmic
Israel of God, all journeying towards one Holy Hill of
beatific vision, and all destined to worship in an Eternal
Temple which shall be a house of praise for all worlds,
when the Mystery of God now darkly working shall be
finished, ' according to the good tidings which He de
clared to His servants the prophets.'

Elliot Stock, Paternoster Row, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

08844 9898

::••¦.;•: '.-¦¦ ¦'.¦¦¦:-..¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
.. . .

¦ . • ¦ . ¦

- :. • ¦ ,. . .

¦¦¦.¦¦¦ ¦>' :
:: ,'.:;,-: ¦!>¦•'•¦.¦ ¦ ..,".:'