CHAPTER VIII._Phases of Faith; Or, Passages from the History of My Creed

ON BIGOTRY AND PROGRESS.

If any Christian reader has been patient enough to follow me thus far,

I now claim that he will judge my argument and me, as before the

bar of God, and not by the conventional standards of the Christian

churches.

Morality and Truth are principles in human nature both older and more

widespread than Christianity or the Bible: and neither Jesus nor James

nor John nor Paul could have addressed or did address men in any

other tone, than that of claiming to be themselves judged by some

pre-existing standard of moral truth, and by the inward powers of the

hearer. Does the reader deny this? or, admitting it, does he think it

impious to accept their challenge? Does he say that we are to love and

embrace Christianity, without trying to ascertain whether it be true

or false? If he say, Yes,--such a man has no love or care for Truth,

and is but by accident a Christian. He would have remained a faithful

heathen, had he been born in heathenism, though Moses, Elijah and

Christ preached a higher truth to him. Such a man is condemned by his

own confession, and I here address him no longer.

But if Faith is a spiritual and personal thing, if Belief given at

random to mere high pretensions is an immorality, if Truth is not

to be quite trampled down, nor Conscience to be wholly palsied in

us,--then what, I ask, was I to do, when I saw that the genealogy in

the first chapter of Matthew is an erroneous copy of that in the Old

Testament? and that the writer has not only copied wrong, but also

counted wrong, so, as to mistake eighteen for fourteen? Can any man,

who glories in the name of Christian, lay his hand on his heart, and

say, it was my duty to blind my eyes to the fact, and think of it no

further? Many, alas, I know, would have whispered this to me; but if

any one were to proclaim it, the universal conscience of mankind would

call him impudent.

If however this first step was right, was a second step wrong? When I

further discerned that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke were

at variance, utterly irreconcilable,--and both moreover nugatory,

because they are genealogies of Joseph, who is denied to be the father

of Jesus,--on what ground of righteousness, which I could approve to

God and my conscience, could I shut my eyes to this second fact?

When forced, against all my prepossessions, to admit that the two

first chapters of Matthew and the two first chapters of Luke are

mutually destructive,[1] would it have been faithfulness to the God of

Truth, or a self-willed love of my own prejudices, if I had said, "I

will not inquire further, for fear it should unsettle my faith?" The

reader's conscience will witness to me, that, on the contrary, I was

bound to say, what I did say: "I _must_ inquire further in order that

I may plant the foundations of my faith more deeply on the rock of

Truth."'

Having discovered, that not all that is within the canon of the

Scripture is infallibly correct, and that the human understanding is

competent to arraign and convict at least some kinds of error therein

contained;--where was I to stop? and if I am guilty, where did my

guilt begin? The further I inquired, the more errors crowded upon me,

in History, in Chronology, in Geography, in Physiology, in Geology.[2]

Did it _then_ at last become a duty to close my eyes to the painful

light? and if I had done so, ought I to have flattered myself that

I was one of those, who being of the truth, come to the lights that

their deeds may be reproved?

Moreover, when I had clearly perceived, that since all evidence for

Christianity must involve _moral_ considerations, to undervalue

the moral faculties of mankind is to make Christian evidence an

impossibility and to propagate universal scepticism;--was I then so to

distrust the common conscience, as to believe that the Spirit of God

pronounced Jael blessed, for perfidiously murdering her husband's

trusting friend? Does any Protestant reader feel disgust and horror,

at the sophistical defences set up for the massacre of St. Bartholomew

and other atrocities of the wicked Church of Rome? Let him stop his

mouth, and hide his face, if he dares to justify the foul crime of

Jael.

Or when I was thus forced to admit, that the Old Testament praised

immorality, as well as enunciated error; and found nevertheless in

the writers of the New Testament no indication that they were aware

of either; but that, on the contrary, "the Scripture" (as the book was

vaguely called) is habitually identified with the infallible "word

of God;"--was it wrong in me to suspect that the writers of the New

Testament were themselves open to mistake?

When I farther found, that Luke not only claims no infallibility and

no inspiration, but distinctly assigns human sources as his means of

knowledge;--when the same Luke had already been discovered to be

in irreconcilable variance with Matthew concerning the infancy of

Jesus;--was I sinful in feeling that I had no longer any guarantee

against _other_ possible error in these writers? or ought I to have

persisted in obtruding on the two evangelists on infallibility of

which Luke shows himself unconscious, which Matthew nowhere claims,

and which I had demonstrative proof that they did not both possess? A

thorough-going Bibliolater will have to impeach me as a sinner on this

count.

After Luke and Matthew stood before me as human writers, liable to and

convicted of human error, was there any reason why I should look on

Mark as more sacred? And having perceived all three to participate in

the common superstition, derived from Babylon and the East, traceable

in history to its human source, existing still in Turkey and

Abyssinia,--the superstition which mistakes mania, epilepsy, and other

forms of disease, for possession by devils;--should I have shown love

of truth, or obstinacy in error, had I refused to judge freely of

these three writers, as of any others who tell similar marvels? or

was it my duty to resolve, at any rate and against evidence, to acquit

them of the charge of superstition and misrepresentation?

I will not trouble the reader with any further queries. If he has

justified me in his conscience thus far, he will justify my proceeding

to abandon myself to the results of inquiry. He will feel, that the

Will cannot, may not, dare not dictate, whereto the inquiries of the

Understanding shall lead; and that to allege that it _ought_, is

to plant the root of Insincerity, Falsehood, Bigotry, Cruelty, and

universal Rottenness of Soul.

The vice of Bigotry has been so indiscriminately imputed to the

religious, that they seem apt to forget that it is a real sin;--a sin

which in Christendom has been and is of all sins most fruitful, most

poisonous: nay, grief of griefs! it infects many of the purest and

most lovely hearts, which want strength of understanding, or are

entangled by a sham theology, with its false facts and fraudulent

canons. But upon all who mourn for the miseries which Bigotry has

perpetrated from the day when Christians first learned to curse; upon

all who groan over the persecutions and wars stirred up by Romanism;

upon all who blush at the overbearing conduct of Protestants in their

successive moments of brief authority,--a sacred duty rests in this

nineteenth century of protesting against Bigotry, not from a love of

ease, but from a spirit of earnest justice.

Like the first Christians, they must become _confessors_ of the Truth;

not obtrusively, boastfully, dogmatically, or harshly; but, "speaking

the truth in love," not be ashamed to avow, if they do not believe all

that others profess, and that they abhor the unrighteous principle of

judging men by an authoritative creed. The evil of Bigotry which has

been most observed, is its untameable injustice, which converted the

law of love into licensed murder or gratuitous hatred. But I believe

a worse evil still has been, the intense reaction of the human mind

against Religion for Bigotry's sake. To the millions of Europe,

bigotry has been a confutation of all pious feeling. So unlovely has

religion been made by it,

Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans,

that now, as 2000 years ago, men are lapsing into Atheism or

Pantheism; and a totally new "dispensation" is wanted to retrieve the

lost reputation of Piety.

Two opposite errors are committed by those who discern that the

pretensions of the national religious systems are overstrained and

unjustifiable. One class of persons inveighs warmly, bitterly, rudely

against the bigotry of Christians; and know not how deep and holy

affections and principles, in spite of narrowness, are cherished in

the bosom of the Christian society. Hence their invective is harsh and

unsympathizing; and appears so essentially unjust and so ignorant,

as to exasperate and increase the very bigotry which it attacks. An

opposite class know well, and value highly, the moral influences of

Christianity, and from an intense dread of harming or losing these,

do not dare plainly and publicly to avow their own convictions. Great

numbers of English laymen are entirely assured, that the Old Testament

abounds with error, and that the New is not always unimpeachable:

yet they only whisper this; and in the hearing of a clergyman, who is

bound by Articles and whom it is indecent to refute, keep a respectful

silence. As for ministers of religion, these, being called perpetually

into a practical application of the received doctrine of their church,

are of all men least able to inquire into any fundamental errors in

that doctrine. Eminent persons among them will nevertheless aim after

and attain a purer truth than that which they find established:

but such a case must always be rare and exceptive. Only by disusing

ministerial service can any one give fair play to doubts concerning

the wisdom and truth of that which he is solemnly ministering: hence

that friend of Arnold's was wise in this world, who advised him

to take a curacy in order to settle his doubts concerning the

Trinity.--Nowhere from any body of priests, clergy, or ministers, as

an Order, is religious progress to be anticipated, until intellectual

creeds are destroyed. A greater responsibility therefore is laid upon

laymen, to be faithful and bold in avowing their convictions.

Yet it is not from the practical ministers of religion, that the great

opposition to religious reform proceeds. The "secular clergy" (as the

Romanists oddly call them) were seldom so bigoted as the "regulars."

So with us, those who minister to men in their moral trials have

for the most part a deeper moral spirit, and are less apt to place

religion in systems of propositions. The _robur legionum_ of bigotry,

I believe, is found,--first, in non-parochial clergy, and next in the

anonymous writers for religious journals and "conservative" newspapers;

who too generally[3] adopt a style of which they would be ashamed,

if the names of the writers were attached; who often seem desirous to

make it clear that it is their trade to carp, insult, or slander;

who assume a tone of omniscience, at the very moment when they show

narrowness of heart and judgment. To such writing those who desire

to promote earnest Thought and tranquil Progress ought anxiously to

testify their deep repugnance. A large part of this slander and insult

is prompted by a base pandering to the (real or imagined) taste of the

public, and will abate when it visibly ceases to be gainful.

* * * * *

The law of God's moral universe, as known to us, is that of Progress.

We trace it from old barbarism to the methodized Egyptian idolatry;

to the more flexible Polytheism of Syria and Greece; the poetical

Pantheism of philosophers, and the moral monotheism of a few sages.

So in Palestine and in the Bible itself we see, first of all, the

image-worship of Jacob's family, then the incipient elevation of

Jehovah above all other Gods by Moses, the practical establishment

of the worship of Jehovah alone by Samuel, the rise of spiritual

sentiment under David and the Psalmists, the more magnificent views

of Hezekiah's prophets, finally in the Babylonish captivity the new

tenderness assumed by that second Isaiah and the later Psalmists. But

ceremonialism more and more encrusted the restored nation; and Jesus

was needed to spur and stab the conscience of his contemporaries,

and recal them to more spiritual perceptions; to proclaim a coming

"kingdom of heaven," in which should be gathered all the children of

God that were scattered abroad; where the law of love should reign,

and no one should dictate to another. Alas! that this great movement

had its admixture of human imperfection. After this, Steven the

protomartyr, and Paul once him persecutor, had to expose the emptiness

of all external santifications, and free the world from the law of

Moses. _Up_ to this point all Christians approve of progress; but _at_

this point they want to arrest it.

The arguments of those who resist Progress are always the same,

whether it be Pagans against Hebrews, Jews against Christians,

Romanists against Protestants, or modern Christians against the

advocates of a higher spiritualism. Each established system

assures its votaries, that now at length they have attained a final

perfection: that their foundations are irremovable: progress _up_ to

that position was a duty, _beyond_ it is a sin. Each displaces its

predecessor by superior goodness, but then each fights against his

successor by odium, contempt, exclusions and (when possible) by

violences. Each advances mankind one step, and forbids them to take a

second. Yet if it be admitted that in the earlier movement the party

of progress was always right, confidence that the case is now reversed

is not easy to justify.

Every persecuting church has numbered among its members thousands

of pious people, so grateful for its services, or so attached to its

truth, as to think those impious who desire something purer and more

perfect. Herein we may discern, that every nation and class is

liable to the peculiar illusion of overesteeming the sanctity of its

ancestral creed. It is as much our duty to beware of this illusion, as

of any other. All know how easily our patriotism may degenerate into

an unjust repugnance to foreigners, and that the more intense it is,

the greater the need of antagonistic principles. So also, the real

excellencies of our religion may only so much the more rivet us in

a wrong aversion to those who do not acknowledge its authority or

perfection.

It is probable that Jesus desired a state of things in which all who

worship God spiritually should have an acknowledged and conscious

union. It is clear that Paul longed above all things to overthrow

the "wall of partition" which separated two families of sincere

worshippers. Yet we now see stronger and higher walls of partition

than ever, between the children of the same God,--with a new law of

the letter, more entangling to the conscience, and more depressing to

the mental energies, than any outward service of the Levitical law.

The cause of all this is to be found in _the claim of Messiahship for

Jesus._ This gave a premium to crooked logic, in order to prove that

the prophecies meant what they did not mean and could not mean. This

perverted men's notions of right and wrong, by imparting factitious

value to a literary and historical proposition, "Jesus is the

Messiah," as though that were or could be religion. This gave merit

to credulity, and led pious men to extol it as a brave and noble deed,

when any one overpowered the scruples of good sense, and scolded them

down as the wisdom of this world, which is hostile to God. This put

the Christian church into an essentially false position, by excluding

from it in the first century all the men of most powerful and

cultivated understanding among the Greeks and Romans. This taught

Christians to boast of the hostility of the wise and prudent, and

in every controversy ensured that the party which had the merit of

mortifying reason most signally should be victorious. Hence, the

downward career of the Church into base superstition was determined

and inevitable from her very birth; nor was any improvement possible,

until a reconciliation should be effected between Christianity and the

cultivated reason which it had slighted and insulted.

Such reconciliation commenced, I believe, from the tenth century, when

the Latin moralists began to be studied as a part of a theological

course. It was continued with still greater results when Greek

literature became accessible to churchmen. Afterwards, the physics

of Galileo and of Newton began not only to undermine numerous

superstitions, but to give to men a confidence in the reality of

abstract truth, and in our power to attain it in other domains than

that of geometrical demonstration. This, together with the philosophy

of Locke, was taken up into Christian thought, and Political

Toleration was the first fruit. Beyond that point, English religion

has hardly gone. For in spite of all that has since been done in

Germany for the true and accurate _exposition_ of the Bible, and for

the scientific establishment of the history of its component books,

we still remain deplorably ignorant here of these subjects. In

consequence, English Christians do not know that they are unjust and

utterly unreasonable, in expecting thoughtful men to abide by the

creed of their ancestors. Nor, indeed, is there any more stereotyped

and approved calumny, than the declaration so often emphatically

enunciated from the pulpit, that _unbelief in the Christian miracles

is the fruit of a wicked heart and of a soul enslaved to sin_. Thus

do estimable and well-meaning men, deceived and deceiving one another,

utter base slander in open church, where it is indecorous to reply

to them,--and think that they are bravely delivering a religions

testimony.

No difficulty is encountered, so long as the _inward_ and the

_outward_ rule of religion agree,--by whatever names men call

them,--the Spirit and the Word--or Reason and the Church,--or

Conscience and Authority. None need settle which of the two rules is

the greater, so long as the results coincide: in fact, there is no

controversy, no struggle, and also probably no progress. A child

cannot guess whether father or mother has the higher authority,

until discordant commands are given; but then commences the painful

necessity of disobeying one in order to obey the other. So, also, the

great and fundamental controversies of religion arise, only when a

discrepancy is detected between the inward and the outward rule: and

then, there are only two possible solutions. If the Spirit within us

and the Bible (or Church) without us are at variance, _we must either

follow the inward and disregard the outward law; else we must renounce

the inward law and obey the outward_. The Romanist bids us to obey

the Church and crush our inward judgment: the Spiritualist, on the

contrary, follows his inward law, and, when necessary, defies Church,

Bible, or any other authority. The orthodox Protestant is better

and truer than the Romanist, because the Protestant is not like the

latter, consistent in error, but often goes right: still he _is_

inconsistent as to this point. Against the Spiritualist he uses

Romanist principles, telling him that he ought to submit his "proud

reason" and accept the "Word of God" as infallible, even though it

appear to him to contain errors. But against the Romanist the same

disputant avows Spiritualist principles, declaring that since "the

Church" appears to him to be erroneous, he dares not to accept it as

infallible. What with the Romanist he before called "proud reason,"

he now designates as Conscience, Understanding, and perhaps the Holy

Spirit. He refused to allow the right of the Spiritualist to urge,

that _the Bible_ contains contradictions and immoralities, and

therefore cannot be received; but he claims a full right to urge

that _the Church_ has justified contradictions and immoralities, and

therefore is not to be submitted to. The perception that this

position is inconsistent, and, to him who discerns the inconsistency,

dishonest, is every year driving Protestants to Rome. And _in

principle_ there are only two possible religions: the Personal and the

Corporate; the Spiritual and the External. I do not mean to say that

in Romanism there is nothing but what is Corporate and External; for

that is impossible to human nature: but that this is what the theory

of their argument demands; and their doctrine of Implicit[4] (or

Virtual) Faith entirely supersedes intellectual perception as well as

intellectual conviction. The theory of each church is the force which

determines to what centre the whole shall gravitate. However men may

talk of spirituality, yet let them once enact that the freedom of

individuals shall be absorbed in a corporate conscience, and you

find that the narrowest heart and meanest intellect sets the rule of

conduct for the whole body.

It has been often observed how the controversies of the Trinity and

Incarnation depended on the niceties of the Greek tongue. I do not

know whether it has ever been inquired, what confusion of thought

was shed over Gentile Christianity, from its very origin, by the

imperfection of the New Testament Greek. The single Greek[5] word

[Greek: pistis] needs probably three translations into our far more

accurate tongue,--viz., Belief, Trust, Faith; but especially Belief

and Faith have important contrasts. Belief is purely intellectual;

Faith is properly spiritual. Hence the endless controversy about

Justification by [Greek: pistis], which has so vexed Christians; hence

the slander cast on _unbelievers_ or _misbelievers_ (when they can

no longer be burned or exiled), as though they were _faithless_ and

_infidels_.

But nothing of this ought to be allowed to blind us to the truly

spiritual and holy developments of historical Christianity,--much

less, make us revert to the old Paganism or Pantheism which it

supplanted.--The great doctrine on which all practical religion

depends,--the doctrine which nursed the infancy and youth of human

nature,--is, "the sympathy of God with the perfection of individual

man." Among Pagans this was so marred by the imperfect characters

ascribed to the Gods, and the dishonourable fables told concerning

them, that the philosophers who undertook to prune religion too

generally cut away the root, by alleging[6] that God was mere

Intellect and wholly destitute of Affections. But happily among the

Hebrews the purity of God's character was vindicated; and with the

growth of conscience in the highest minds of the nation the ideal

image of God shone brighter and brighter. The doctrine of his Sympathy

was never lost, and from the Jews it passed into the Christian church.

This doctrine, applied to that part of man which is divine, is the

wellspring of Repentance and Humility, of Thankfulness, Love, and Joy.

It reproves and it comforts; it stimulates and animates. This it is

which led the Psalmist to cry, "Whom have I in heaven but Thee? there

is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee." This has satisfied

prophets, apostles, and martyrs with God as their Portion. This has

been passed from heart to heart for full three thousand years, and has

produced bands of countless saints. Let us not cut off our sympathies

from those, who have learnt to sympathize with God; nor be blind

to that spiritual good which they have; even if it be, more or less

sensibly, tinged with intellectual error. In fact, none but God knows,

how many Christian hearts are really pure from bigotry. I cannot

refuse to add my testimony, such as it is, to the effect, that _the

majority is always truehearted_. As one tyrant, with a small band of

unscrupulous tools, manages to use the energies of a whole nation of

kind and well-meaning people for cruel purposes, so the bigoted few,

who work out an evil theory with consistency, often succeed in using

the masses of simpleminded Christians as their tools for oppression.

Let us not think more harshly than is necessary of the anathematizing

churches. Those who curse us with their lips, often love us in their

hearts. A very deep fountain of tenderness can mingle with their

bigotry itself: and with tens of thousands, the evil belief is a dead

form, the spiritual love is a living reality. Whether Christians

like it or not, we must needs look to Historians, to Linguists, to

Physiologists, to Philosophers, and generally, to men of cultivated

understanding, to gain help in all those subjects which are

preposterously called _Theology_: but for devotional aids, for pious

meditations, for inspiring hymns, for purifying and glowing thoughts,

we have still to wait upon that succession of kindling souls, among

whom may be named with special honour David and Isaiah, Jesus and

Paul, Augustine, A Kempis, Fenelon, Leighton, Baxter, Doddridge,

Watts, the two Wesleys, and Channing.

Religion was created by the inward instincts of the soul: it had

afterwards to be pruned and chastened by the sceptical understanding.

For its perfection, the co-operation of these two parts of man is

essential. While religious persons dread critical and searching

thought, and critics despise instinctive religion, each side remains

imperfect and curtailed.

It is a complaint often made by religious historians, that no church

can sustain its spirituality unimpaired through two generations, and

that in the third a total irreligion is apt to supervene. Sometimes

indeed the transitions are abrupt, from an age of piety to an age of

dissoluteness. The liability to such lamentable revulsions is plainly

due to some insufficiency in the religion to meet all the wants of

human nature. To scold at that nature is puerile, and implies an

ignorance of the task which religion undertakes. To lay the fault

on the sovereign will of God, who has "withheld his grace" from the

grandchildren of the pious, might be called blasphemy, if we were

disposed to speak harshly. The fault lies undoubtedly in the fact,

that Practical Devoutness and Free Thought stand apart in unnatural

schism. But surely the age is ripe for something better;--for

a religion which stall combine the tenderness, humility, and

disinterestedness, that are the glory of the purest Christianity,

with that activity of intellect, untiring pursuit of truth, and strict

adherence to impartial principle, which the schools of modern science

embody. When a spiritual church has its senses exercised to discern

good and evil, judges of right and wrong by an inward power, proves

all things and holds fast that which is good, fears no truth, but

rejoices in being corrected, intellectually as well as morally,--it

will not be liable to be "carried to and fro" by shifting winds of

doctrine. It will indeed have movement, namely, a steady _onward_ one,

as the schools of science have had, since they left off to dogmatize,

and approached God's world as learners; but it will lay aside disputes

of words, eternal vacillations, mutual illwill and dread of new light,

and will be able without hypocrisy to proclaim "peace on earth and

goodwill towards men," even towards those who reject its beliefs and

sentiments concerning "God and his glory."

NOTE ON PAGE 168.

The author of the "Eclipse of Faith," in his Defence (p. 168),

referring to my reply in p. 101 above, says:--"In this very paragraph

Mr. Newman shows that I have _not_ misrepresented him, nor is it

true that I overlooked his novel hypothesis. He says that 'Gibbon is

exhibiting and developing the deep-seated causes of the _spread_ of

Christianity before Constantine,'--which Mr. Newman says had _not_

spread. On the contrary; he assumes that the Christians were 'a small

fraction,' and thus _does_ dismiss in two sentences, I might have said

three words, what Gibbon had strained every nerve in his celebrated

chapter to account for."

Observe his phrase, "On the contrary." It is impossible to say more

plainly, that Gibbon represents the spread of Christianity before

Constantine to have been very great, and then laboured in vain to

account for that spread; and that I, _arbitrarily setting aside

Gibbon's fact as to the magnitude of the "spread_," cut the knot which

he could not untie.

But the fact, as between Gibbon and me, is flatly the reverse.

I advance nothing novel as to the numbers of the Christians, no

hypothesis of my own, no assumption. I have merely adopted Gibbon's

own historical estimate, that (judging, as he does judge, by the

examples of Rome and Antioch), the Christians before the rise of

Constantine were but a small fraction of the population. Indeed, he

says, not above _one-twentieth_ part; on which I laid no stress.

It may be that Gibbon is here in error. I shall willingly withdraw any

historical argument, if shown that I have unawares rested on a false

basis. In balancing counter statements and reasons from diverse

sources, different minds come to different statistical conclusions.

Dean Milman ("Hist. of Christianity," vol. ii. p. 341) when

deliberately weighing opposite opinions, says cautiously, that "Gibbon

is perhaps inclined to underrate" the number of the Christians. He

adds: "M. Beugnot agrees much with Gibbon, and I should conceive, with

regard to the West, is clearly right."

I beg the reader to observe, that I have _not_ represented the

numerical strength of the Christians in Constantine's army to be

great. Why my opponent should ridicule my use of the phrase _Christian

regiments_, I am too dull to understand. ("Who would not think,"

says he, "that it was one of Constantine's _aide-de-camps_ that was

speaking?") It may be that I am wrong in using the plural noun, and

that there was only _one_ such regiment,--that which carried the

Labarum, or standard of the cross (Gibbon, ch. 20), to which so much

efficacy was attributed in the war against Licinius. I have no time at

present, nor any need for further inquiries on such matters. It is

to the devotion and organization of the Christians, not to their

proportionate numbers, that I attributed weight. If (as Milman says)

Gibbon and Beugnot are "clearly right" as regards _the West_--_i.e._,

as regards all that vast district which became the area of modern

European Christendom, I see nothing in my argument which requires

modification.

But why did Christianity, while opposed by the ruling powers, spread

"_in the East?_" In the very chapter from which I have quoted, Dean

Milman justifies me in saying, that to this question I may simply

reply, "I do not know," without impairing my present argument. (I

myself find no difficulty in it whatever; but I protest against the

assumption, that I am bound to believe a religion preternatural,

unless I con account for its origin and diffusion to the satisfaction

of its adherents.) Dean Milman, vol. ii. pp. 322-340, gives a full

account of the Manichæan religion, and its rapid and great spread in

spate of violent persecution. MANI, the founder, represented himself

as "a man invested with a divine mission." His doctrines are described

by Milman as wild and mystical metaphysics, combining elements of

thought from Magianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. "His

worship was simple, without altar, temple, images, or any imposing

ceremonial. Pure and simple prayer was their only form of adoration."

They talked much of "Christ" as a heavenly principle, but "did not

believe in his birth or death. Prayers and Hymns addressed to the

source of light, exhortations to subdue the dark and sensuous element

within, and the study of the marvellous book of Mani, constituted

their devotion. Their manners were austere and ascetic; they

tolerated, but only tolerated, marriage, and that only among the

inferior orders. The theatre, the banquet, and even the bath, they

severely proscribed. Their diet was of fruits and herbs; they shrank

with abhorrence from animal food." Mani met with fierce hostility from

West and East alike; and at last was entrapped by the Persian king

Baharam, and "was flayed alive. His skin, stuffed with straw, was

placed over the gate of the city of Shahpoor."

Such a death was as cruel and as ignominious as that of crucifixion;

yet his doctrines "expired not with their author. In the East and in

the West they spread with the utmost rapidity.... The extent of

its success may be calculated by the implacable hostility of other

religions to the doctrines of Mani; _the causes of that success are

more difficult to conjecture_."

Every reason, which, as far as I know, has ever been given, why it

should be hard for early Christianity to spread, avail equally as

reasons against the spread of Manichæism. The state of the East, which

admitted the latter without miracle, admitted the former also.

It nevertheless is pertinent to add, that the recent history of

Mormonism, compared with that of Christianity and of Manichæism,

may suggest that the martyr-death of the founder of a religion is a

positive aid to its after-success.

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

[Footnote 2: My "Eclectic" reviewer (who is among the least orthodox

and the least uncandid) hence deduces, that I have confounded the two

questions, "Does the Bible contain errors in human science?" and, "Is

its purely spiritual teaching true?" It is quite wonderful to me, how

educated men can so totally overlook what I have so plainly and so

often written. This very passage might show the contrary, if he had

but quoted the whole paragraph, instead of the middle sentence only.