that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and
circumstance between the miracles of Scripture and of Church
history; but this is by no means the case (p. lv) ...
specimens are not wanting in the history of the Church, of
miracles as awful in their character and as momentous in
their effects as those which are recorded in Scripture. The
fire interrupting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, and
the death of Arius, are instances, in Ecclesiastical
history, of such solemn events. On the other hand, difficult
instances in the Scripture history are such as these: the
serpent in Eden, the Ark, Jacob's vision for the
multiplication of his cattle, the speaking of Balaam's ass,
the axe swimming at Elisha's word, the miracle on the swine,
and various instances of prayers or prophecies, in which, as
in that of Noah's blessing and curse, words which seem the
result of private feeling are expressly or virtually
ascribed to a Divine suggestion (p. lvi).
Who is to gainsay our ecclesiastical authority here? "Infidel authors"
might be accused of a wish to ridicule the Scripture miracles by
putting them on a level with the remarkable story about the fire which
stopped the rebuilding of the Temple, or that about the death of
Arius--but Dr. Newman is above suspicion. The pity is that his list of
what he delicately terms "difficult" instances is so short. Why omit
the manufacture of Eve out of Adam's rib, on the strict historical
accuracy of which the chief argument of the defenders of an iniquitous
portion of our present law depends? Why leave out the account of the
"Bene Elohim" and their gallantries, on which a large part of the
worst practices of the mediæval inquisitors into witchcraft was based?
Why forget the angel who wrestled with Jacob, and, as the account
suggests, somewhat over-stepped the bounds of fair play, at the end of
the struggle? Surely, we must agree with Dr. Newman that, if all these
camels have gone down, it savours of affectation to strain at such
gnats as the sudden ailment of Arius in the midst of his deadly, if
prayerful,[91] enemies; and the fiery explosion which stopped the
Julian building operations. Though the _words_ of the "Conclusion" of
the "Essay on Miracles" may, perhaps, be quoted against me, I may
express my satisfaction at finding myself in substantial accordance
with a theologian above all suspicion of heterodoxy. With all my
heart, I can declare my belief that there is just as good reason for
believing in the miraculous slaying of the man who fell short of the
Athanasian power of affirming contradictories, with respect to the
nature of the Godhead, as there is for believing in the stories of the
serpent and the ark told in Genesis, the speaking of Balaam's ass in
Numbers, or the floating of the axe, at Elisha's order, in the second
book of Kings.
* * * * *
It is one of the peculiarities of a really sound argument that it is
susceptible of the fullest development; and that it sometimes leads to
conclusions unexpected by those who employ it. To my mind, it is
impossible to refuse to follow Dr. Newman when he extends his
reasoning, from the miracles of the patristic and mediæval ages
backward in time, as far as miracles are recorded. But, if the rules
of logic are valid, I feel compelled to extend the argument forwards
to the alleged Roman miracles of the present day, which Dr. Newman
might not have admitted, but which Cardinal Newman may hardly reject.
Beyond question, there is as good, or perhaps better, evidence for the
miracles worked by our Lady of Lourdes, as there is for the floating
of Elisha's axe, or the speaking of Balaam's ass. But we must go still
further; there is a modern system of thaumaturgy and demonology which
is just as well certified as the ancient.[92] Veracious, excellent,
sometimes learned and acute persons, even philosophers of no mean
pretensions, testify to the "levitation" of bodies much heavier than
Elisha's axe; to the existence of "spirits" who, to the mere tactile
sense, have been indistinguishable from flesh and blood; and,
occasionally, have wrested with all the vigour of Jacob's opponent;
yet, further, to the speech, in the language of raps, of spiritual
beings, whose discourses, in point of coherence and value, are far
inferior to that of Balaam's humble but sagacious steed. I have not
the smallest doubt that, if these were persecuting times, there is
many a worthy "spiritualist" who would cheerfully go to the stake in
support of his pneumatological faith; and furnish evidence, after
Paley's own heart, in proof of the truth of his doctrines. Not a few
modern divines, doubtless struck by the impossibility of refusing the
spiritualist evidence, if the ecclesiastical evidence is accepted, and
deprived of any _à priori_ objection by their implicit belief in
Christian Demonology, show themselves ready to take poor Sludge
seriously, and to believe that he is possessed by other devils than
those of need, greed, and vainglory.
Under these circumstances, it was to be expected, though it is none
the less interesting to note the fact, that the arguments of the
latest school of "spiritualists" present a wonderful family likeness
to those which adorn the subtle disquisitions of the advocate of
ecclesiastical miracles of forty years ago. It is unfortunate for the
"spiritualists" that, over and over again, celebrated and trusted
media, who really, in some respects, call to mind the Montanist[93]
and gnostic seers of the second century, are either proved in courts
of law to be fraudulent impostors; or, in sheer weariness, as it would
seem, of the honest dupes who swear by them, spontaneously confess
their long-continued iniquities, as the Fox women did the other day
in New York.[94] But, whenever a catastrophe of this kind takes place,
the believers are no wise dismayed by it. They freely admit that not
only the media, but the spirits whom they summon, are sadly apt to
lose sight of the elementary principles of right and wrong; and they
triumphantly ask: How does the occurrence of occasional impostures
disprove the genuine manifestations (that is to say, all those which
have not yet been proved to be impostures or delusions)? And, in this,
they unconsciously plagiarise from the churchman, who just as freely
admits that many ecclesiastical miracles may have been forged; and
asks, with calm contempt, not only of legal proofs, but of
common-sense probability, Why does it follow that none are to be
supposed genuine? I must say, however, that the spiritualists, so far
as I know, do not venture to outrage right reason so boldly as the
ecclesiastics. They do not sneer at "evidence"; nor repudiate the
requirement of legal proofs. In fact, there can be no doubt that the
spiritualists produce better evidence for their manifestations than
can be shown either for the miraculous death of Arius, or for the
Invention of the Cross.[95]
From the "levitation" of the axe at one end of a period of near three
thousand years to the "levitation" of Sludge & Co. at the other end,
there is a complete continuity of the miraculous, with every gradation,
from the childish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a
caprice to the illustration of sublime truth. There is no drawing a
line in the series that might be set out of plausibly attested cases
of spiritual intervention. If one is true, all may be true; if one is
false, all may be false.
* * * * *
This is, to my mind, the inevitable result of that method of reasoning
which is applied to the confutation of Protestantism, with so much
success, by one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever
championed Ecclesiasticism--and one cannot put his claims to acuteness
and subtlety higher.
... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If
ever there were a safe truth it is this.... "To be deep in
history is to cease to be a Protestant."[96]
I have not a shadow of doubt that these anti-Protestant epigrams are
profoundly true. But I have as little that, in the same sense, the
"Christianity of history is not" Romanism; and that to be deeper in
history is to cease to be a Romanist. The reasons which compel my
doubts about the compatibility of the Roman doctrine, or any other
form of Catholicism, with history, arise out of exactly the same line
of argument as that adopted by Dr. Newman in the famous essay which I
have just cited. If, with one hand, Dr. Newman has destroyed
Protestantism, he has annihilated Romanism with the other; and the
total result of his ambidextral efforts is to shake Christianity to
its foundations. Nor was any one better aware that this must be the
inevitable result of his arguments--if the world should refuse to
accept Roman doctrines and Roman miracles--than the writer of Tract
85.
Dr. Newman made his choice and passed over to the Roman Church half a
century ago. Some of those who were essentially in harmony with his
views preceded, and many followed him. But many remained; and, as the
quondam Puseyite and present Ritualistic party, they are continuing
that work of sapping and mining the Protestantism of the Anglican
Church which he and his friends so ably commenced. At the present
time, they have no little claim to be considered victorious all along
the line. I am old enough to recollect the small beginnings of the
Tractarian party; and I am amazed when I consider the present position
of their heirs. Their little leaven has leavened if not the whole,
yet a very large lump of the Anglican Church; which is now pretty much
of a preparatory school for Papistry. So that it really behoves
Englishmen (who, as I have been informed by high authority, are all
legally, members of the State Church, if they profess to belong to no
other sect) to wake up to what that powerful organization is about,
and whither it is tending. On this point, the writings of Dr. Newman,
while he still remained within the Anglican fold, are a vast store of
the best and the most authoritative information. His doctrines on
Ecclesiastical miracles and on Development are the corner-stones of
the Tractarian fabric. He believed that his arguments led either
Romeward, or to what ecclesiastics call "Infidelity," and I call
Agnosticism. I believe that he was quite right in this conviction; but
while he chooses the one alternative, I choose the other; as he
rejects Protestantism on the ground of its incompatibility with
history, so, _a fortiori_, I conceive that Romanism ought to be
rejected; and that an impartial consideration of the evidence must
refuse the authority of Jesus to anything more than the Nazarenism of
James and Peter and John. And let it not be supposed that this is a
mere "infidel" perversion of the facts. No one has more openly and
clearly admitted the possibility that they may be fairly interpreted
in this way than Dr. Newman. If, he says, there are texts which seem
to show that Jesus contemplated the evangelisation of the heathen:
... Did not the Apostles hear our Lord? and what was _their_
impression from what they heard? Is it not certain that the
Apostles did not gather this truth from His teaching? (Tract
85, p. 63).
He said, "Preach the Gospel to every creature." These words
_need_ have only meant "Bring all men to Christianity
through Judaism." Make them Jews, that they may enjoy
Christ's privileges, which are lodged in Judaism; teach them
those rites and ceremonies, circumcision and the like, which
hitherto have been dead ordinances, and now are living; and
so the Apostles seem to have understood them (_ibid_. p.
65).
So far as Nazarenism differentiated itself from contemporary orthodox
Judaism, it seems to have tended towards a revival of the ethical and
religious spirit of the prophetic age, accompanied by the belief in
Jesus as the Messiah, and by various accretions which had grown round
Judaism subsequently to the exile. To these belong the doctrines of
the Resurrection, of the Last Judgment, of Heaven and Hell; of the
hierarchy of good angels; of Satan and the hierarchy of evil spirits.
And there is very strong ground for believing that all these
doctrines, at least in the shapes in which they were held by the
post-exilic Jews, were derived from Persian and Babylonian[97]
sources, and are essentially of heathen origin.
How far Jesus positively sanctioned all these indrainings of
circumjacent Paganism into Judaism; how far any one has a right to
declare, that the refusal to accept one or other of these doctrines,
as ascertained verities, comes to the same thing as contradicting
Jesus, it appears to me not easy to say. But it is hardly less
difficult to conceive that he could have distinctly negatived any of
them; and, more especially, that demonology which has been accepted by
the Christian Churches, in every age and under all their mutual
antagonisms. But, I repeat my conviction that, whether Jesus
sanctioned the demonology of his time and nation or not, it is doomed.
The future of Christianity, as a dogmatic system and apart from the
old Israelitish ethics which it has appropriated and developed, lies
in the answer which mankind will eventually give to the question,
whether they are prepared to believe such stories as the Gadarene and
the pneumatological hypotheses which go with it, or not. My belief is
they will decline to do anything of the sort, whenever and wherever
their minds have been disciplined by science. And that discipline
must, and will, at once follow and lead the footsteps of advancing
civilisation.
The preceding pages were written before I became acquainted with the
contents of the May number of the "Nineteenth Century," wherein I
discover many things which are decidedly not to my advantage. It would
appear that "evasion" is my chief resource, "incapacity for strict
argument" and "rottenness of ratiocination" my main mental
characteristics, and that it is "barely credible" that a statement
which I profess to make of my own knowledge is true. All which things
I notice, merely to illustrate the great truth, forced on me by long
experience, that it is only from those who enjoy the blessing of a
firm hold of the Christian faith that such manifestations of meekness,
patience, and charity are to be expected.
I had imagined that no one who had read my preceding papers, could
entertain a doubt as to my position in respect of the main issue, as
it has been stated and restated by my opponent:
an Agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to
God must not only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted
teaching, but must deny the reality of the spiritual
convictions in which He lived.[98]
That is said to be "the simple question which is at issue between us,"
and the three testimonies to that teaching and those convictions
selected are the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Story
of the Passion.
My answer, reduced to its briefest form, has been: In the first
place, the evidence is such that the exact nature of the teachings and
the convictions of Jesus is extremely uncertain; so that what
ecclesiastics are pleased to call a denial of them may be nothing of
the kind. And, in the second place, if Jesus taught the demonological
system involved in the Gadarene story--if a belief in that system
formed a part of the spiritual convictions in which he lived and
died--then I, for my part, unhesitatingly refuse belief in that
teaching, and deny the reality of those spiritual convictions. And I
go further and add, that, exactly in so far as it can be proved that
Jesus sanctioned the essentially pagan demonological theories current
among the Jews of his age, exactly in so far, for me, will his
authority in any matter touching the spiritual world be weakened.
With respect to the first half of my answer, I have pointed out that
the Sermon on the Mount, as given in the first Gospel, is, in the
opinion of the best critics, a "mosaic work" of materials derived from
different sources, and I do not understand that this statement is
challenged. The only other Gospel--the third--which contains something
like it, makes, not only the discourse, but the circumstances under
which it was delivered, very different. Now, it is one thing to say
that there was something real at the bottom of the two discourses--which
is quite possible; and another to affirm that we have any right to
say what that something was, or to fix upon any particular phrase and
declare it to be a genuine utterance. Those who pursue theology as a
science, and bring to the study an adequate knowledge of the ways of
ancient historians, will find no difficulty in providing illustrations
of my meaning. I may supply one which has come within range of my own
limited vision.
In Josephus's "History of the Wars of the Jews" (chap, xix.), that
writer reports a speech which he says Herod made at the opening of a
war with the Arabians. It is in the first person, and would naturally
be supposed by the reader to be intended for a true version of what
Herod said. In the "Antiquities," written some seventeen years later,
the same writer gives another report, also in the first person, of
Herod's speech on the same occasion. This second oration is twice as
long as the first and, though the general tenor of the two speeches is
pretty much the same, there is hardly any verbal identity, and a good
deal of matter is introduced into the one, which is absent from the
other. Josephus prides himself on his accuracy; people whose fathers
might have heard Herod's oration were his contemporaries; and yet his
historical sense is so curiously undeveloped that he can, quite
innocently, perpetrate an obvious literary fabrication; for one of the
two accounts must be incorrect. Now, if I am asked whether I believe
that Herod made some particular statement on this occasion; whether,
for example, he uttered the pious aphorism, "Where God is, there is
both multitude and courage," which is given in the "Antiquities," but
not in the "Wars," I am compelled to say I do not know. One of the two
reports must be erroneous, possibly both are: at any rate, I cannot
tell how much of either is true. And, if some fervent admirer of the
Idumean should build up a theory of Herod's piety upon Josephus's
evidence that he propounded the aphorism, it is a "mere evasion" to
say, in reply, that the evidence that he did utter it is worthless?
It appears again that, adopting the tactics of Conachar when brought
face to face with Hal o' the Wynd, I have been trying to get my
simple-minded adversary to follow me on a wild-goose chase through the
early history of Christianity, in the hope of escaping impending
defeat on the main issue. But I may be permitted to point out that
there is an alternative hypothesis which equally fits the facts; and
that, after all, there may have been method in the madness of my
supposed panic.
For suppose it to be established that Gentile Christianity was a
totally different thing from the Nazarenism of Jesus and his immediate
disciples; suppose it to be demonstrable that, as early as the sixth
decade of our era at least, there were violent divergencies of opinion
among the followers of Jesus; suppose it to be hardly doubtful that
the Gospels and the Acts took their present shapes under the influence
of those divergencies; suppose that their authors, and those through
whose hands they passed, had notions of historical veracity not more
eccentric than those which Josephus occasionally displays: surely the
chances that the Gospels are altogether trustworthy records of the
teachings of Jesus become very slender. And, since the whole of the
case of the other side is based on the supposition that they are
accurate records (especially of speeches, about which ancient
historians are so curiously loose), I really do venture to submit that
this part of my argument bears very seriously on the main issue; and,
as ratiocination, is sound to the core.
Again, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of Jesus on the
Cross, it appears that I could have had no other motive than the
dictates of my native evasiveness. An ecclesiastical dignitary may
have respectable reasons for declining a fencing match "in sight of
Gethsemane and Calvary"; but an ecclesiastical "Infidel"! Never. It is
obviously impossible that in the belief that "the greater includes the
less," I, having declared the Gospel evidence in general, as to the
sayings of Jesus, to be of questionable value, thought it needless to
select for illustration of my views, those particular instances which
were likely to be most offensive to persons of another way of
thinking. But any supposition that may have been entertained that the
old familiar tones of the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to
engage in such needless discussion had better be renounced. I shall do
nothing of the kind. Let it suffice that I ask my readers to turn to
the twenty-third chapter of Luke (revised version), verse thirty-four,
and he will find in the margin
Some ancient authorities omit: And Jesus said "Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do."
So that, even as late as the fourth century, there were ancient
authorities, indeed some of the most ancient and weightiest, who
either did not know of this utterance, so often quoted as
characteristic of Jesus, or did not believe it had been uttered.
Many years ago, I received an anonymous letter, which abused me
heartily for my want of moral courage in not speaking out. I thought
that one of the oddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring.
But I am not sure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the
article with which I am dealing with accusations of evasion, may not
seem odder to those who consider that the main strength of the answers
with which I have been favoured (in this review and elsewhere) is
devoted not to anything in the text of my first paper, but to a note
which occurs at p. 212. In this I say:
Dr. Wace tells us: "It may be asked how far we can rely on
the accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these
subjects." And he seems to think the question appropriately
answered by the assertion that it "ought to be regarded as
settled by M. Renan's practical surrender of the adverse
case."
I requested Dr. Wace to point out the passages of M. Renan's works in
which, as he affirms, this "practical surrender" (not merely as to the
age and authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their
historical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. Now
let us consider the parts of Dr. Wace's citation from Renan which are
relevant to the issue:--
The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as
the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of
the Acts seems to be a companion of St. Paul--a character
which accords completely with St. Luke. I know that more
than one objection may be opposed to this reasoning: but one
thing, at all events, is beyond doubt, namely, that the
author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is a man who
belonged to the second apostolic generation; and this
suffices for our purpose.
This is a curious "practical surrender of the adverse case." M. Renan
thinks that there is no doubt that the author of the third Gospel is
the author of the Acts--a conclusion in which I suppose critics
generally agree. He goes on to remark that this person _seems_ to be a
companion of St. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of St. Paul.
Then, somewhat needlessly, M. Renan points out that there is more than
one objection to jumping, from such data as these, to the conclusion
that "Luke" is the writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan
is content to reduce that which is "beyond doubt" to the fact that the
author of the two books is a man of the second apostolic generation.
Well, it seems to me that I could agree with all that M. Renan
considers "beyond doubt" here, without surrendering anything, either
"practically" or theoretically.
Dr. Wace ("Nineteenth Century," March, p. 363) states that he derives
the above citation from the preface to the 15th edition of the "Vie de
Jésus." My copy of "Les Évangiles," dated 1877, contains a list of
Renan's "Oeuvres Complètes," at the head of which I find "Vie de
Jésus," 15^e édition. It is, therefore, a later work than the edition
of the "Vie de Jésus" which Dr. Wace quotes. Now "Les Évangiles," as
its name implies, treats fully of the questions respecting the date
and authorship of the Gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to
use M. Renan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to give a
fair account of his views in their full significance, would, I think,
refer to the later source.
If this course had been taken, Dr. Wace might have found some as
decided expressions of opinion, in favour of Luke's authorship of the
third Gospel, as he has discovered in "The Apostles." I mention this
circumstance, because I desire to point out that, taking even the
strongest of Renan's statements, I am still at a loss to see how it
justifies that large-sounding phrase, "practical surrender of the
adverse case." For, on p. 438 of "Les Évangiles," Renan speaks of the
way in which Luke's "excellent intentions" have led him to torture
history in the Acts; he declares Luke to be the founder of that
"eternal fiction which is called ecclesiastical history"; and, on the
preceding page, he talks of the "myth" of the Ascension--with its
"_mise en scène voulue_." At p. 435, I find "Luc, ou l'auteur quel
qu'il soit du troisième Évangile"; at p. 280, the accounts of the
Passion, the death and the resurrection of Jesus, are said to be "peu
historiques"; at p. 283, "La valeur historique du troisième Évangile
est sûrement moindre que celles des deux premiers." A Pyrrhic sort of
victory for orthodoxy, this "surrender"! And, all the while, the
scientific student of theology knows that, the more reason there may
be to believe that Luke was the companion of Paul, the more doubtful
becomes his credibility if he really wrote the Acts. For, in that
case, he could not fail to have been acquainted with Paul's account of
the Jerusalem conference and he must have consciously misrepresented
it.
We may next turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation
("Nineteenth Century," p. 365) touching the first Gospel:--
St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the
discourses. Here are the "oracles"--the very notes taken
while the memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and
definite.
M. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence
of a collection of "logia," having a different origin from the text in
which they are embedded, in Matthew. "Notes" are somewhat suggestive
of a shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for M.
Renan assumes that these "notes" were taken, not at the time of the
delivery of the "logia" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the
memory of them was living and definite; so that, in this very
citation, M. Renan leaves open the question of the general historical
value of the first Gospel; while it is obvious that the accuracy of
"Notes" taken, not at the time of delivery, but from memory, is a
matter about which more than one opinion may be fairly held. Moreover,
Renan expressly calls attention to the difficulty of distinguishing
the authentic "logia" from later additions of the same kind ("Les
Évangiles," p. 201). The fact is, there is no contradiction here to
that opinion about the first Gospel which is expressed in "Les
Évangiles" (p. 175).
The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence
of that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He
completes it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of
those long discourses which gave their chief value to the
Hebrew Gospels; then by adding traditions of a more modern
formation, results of successive developments of the legend,
and to which the Christian consciousness already attached
infinite value.
M. Renan goes on to suggest that besides "Mark," "pseudo-Matthew"
used an Aramaic version of the Gospel, originally set forth in that
dialect. Finally, as to the second Gospel ("Nineteenth Century," p.
365):--
He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond
doubt, from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict
with the supposition that this eye-witness ... was the
Apostle Peter himself, as Papias has it.