required of them, you must make some display of POWER. * In that case you seek to convince them, not that a precept is wise, or a doctrine is true, but that you, its enunciator, have a special right of dictation, drawing after it in the hearer a special duty of submission. Of course, those with whom the idea of miracles is inadmissible, do not ask for signs from heaven; not the less must they justify the countrymen of Jesus in requiring from him some credentials, when he claimed submission and used a dictatorial tone. If the nation believed miracles to be the marks of Messiah, and was in error, it belonged to Messiah to unteach them the error, and, as one aware of their folly, to take precautions lest miracles be imputed to him. Surely it was quite unjustifiable, to require submission from Priests and Pharisees, yet exhibit to them no credentials whatever of the mighty function with which he was invested. If words dropping from the mouth of Messiah were divine commands, which it was impious to dispute, nothing could supersede the public annunciation of his office, and the display of his credentials whatever they might be. No evasions are here endurable, on the ground of the political danger to be incurred, or the propriety of giving insufficient proof in order to try people's "faith." To say that political danger forbade, is to say that God sent Messiah insufficiently prepared for his work, and afraid to assume His functions publicly. As to trying "faith" by insufficient proof, nothing can be less rightful or more pernicious. If the proof adduced be of the right kind and appropriate, it cannot be excessive, but may be defective; and if defective, it is a cruel trap, as if designed to lead honesty astray. The only plausibility in this notion rises from confusion of truths which we ought to see by light from within, with truths which can only be established from without. No man can know by his inward faculties that a Messiah is promised from heaven, nor what will be the external marks of Messiah.

To accept lightly any one as Messiah was the height of imprudence, and certainly could not be commended as pious. Under such circumstances, to dissemble Messiahship, and work upon susceptible minds by giving them evidence necessarily imperfect, was conduct rather to be imputed to a devil, than to a prophet from God, if

* Men of science appeal to POWER as an argument why they should be believed, when want of leisure or talents forbid the mastering of their arguments: thus Astronomers appeal to their fore-knowledge of eclipses, and their power of finding the longitude by their tables; Electricians appeal to the telegraph, and so on.

done with serious intent. Those who defend it, plead that the evidence was moral, and did not need external proofs. If so, on the one hand full freedom of investigation was needed, not authority and brow-beating; on the other, this alledges external proof to be worse than superfluous,-to be in fact misleading; so that to plead for its "insufficiency" as a needful trial of faith is a gross error. If external evidence was wholly inappropriate, the producing of that which you concede to be insufficient does but tend to confuse and mislead the simple-hearted, and cause unbelief in the strong-headed. But if external evidence is admissible and appropriate at all for faith to rest upon, then it ought to be in quantity and quality sufficient to make the faith reasonable and firm. If only internal light is to the purpose of faith, and external evidence was not wanted for Messiah, then neither was an authoritative Messiah wanted at all; that is, a teacher to whom we should submit without conviction; then it was right to claim that Messiah would convince by argument and reply to questions; would invite question or opposition, not dictate and threaten; then we have to sweep away the greater part of the four Gospels as a false representation of Jesus. Whatever else may have been true, one thing is certainly false;that God sent a special messenger to teach authoritatively, and that the messenger thus sent forbade his disciples to publish his character and claims.

From narratives so disfigured by false representation, (as every one is obliged to confess them, who does not believe the miracles, and seeks to defend Jesus by remoulding the accounts of Him;) how can any one be blamed for despairing to arrive at accurate and sound knowledge concerning his character and teaching ? What right has any one to expect to recover lost history, or to think worse of his brother if he regard the effort to be waste time? Yet if I were to say, I seem to myself to know nothing of Jesus, I should speak untruly; for in the midst of the obscurity and the inconsistencies of the narratives, there are some things unvarying, many things very hard to invent, and others unlikely to be invented, yet easily admitting explanation, if we reason about Jesus as we do about every other public teacher or reformer. The details of doctrine are often untrustworthy, but the current, the broad tendencies, the style and tone of the teacher, seem to have made too strong an impression to be lost, though round them has been gathered a plentiful accretion of mistake and fable.

Now if we accept to the full the traditional Jewish belief of what Messiah was to be (which falls short of the dignity ascribed to him by Christians), it is incredible that after commencing his public functions he should remain ignorant of his being Messiah, or need confirmation from his disciples or from others. But if Jesus had little trust in learned Rabbis or traditional doctrine, he may have had a very vague and imperfect belief as to what Messiah was to be; and the idea that he himself was Messiah may not have at all occurred to him, until after he had experienced the zeal of the multitude, and was aware that a rumour was gone abroad among the people, that "a great prophet had arisen," and that some said he was the Messiah. Can any one study his character as that of a man, subject to all human limitations, and not see that the question, "Am I then possibly the Messiah?" if at all entertained, instantly became one of extreme interest and anxiety to Jesus himself? Indeed from the day that it fixed itself upon him for permanent rumination his character could not but lose its simplicity. Previously he thought only, What doctrine is true morality? What are the crying sins of the day? But now his own personality, his own possible dignity, became matters of inquiry; and the inquiry was a Biblical one. He was brought hereby on to the area of the learned commentator, who studies ancient books to find out what has been promised and predicted about a Messiah. An unlearned carpenter, however strong and clear-minded while dealing with a purely moral question, was liable to lose all his superiority and be hurtfully entangled when entering into literary interpretation. Wholly to get rid of traditional notions was impossible, yet enough of distrust would remain, to embarrass fixed belief and produce vacillation. Nothing is then more natural, than that the teacher should desire to know what was the general opinion concerning him, should be pleased when it confirmed his rising hopes, should be elated when Simon Peter declared him to be Messiah, and should bless his faith, even if not with the extravagance of giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; finally, should be displeased with himself and frightened at his own elation, and, in order to repair his error, should charge his disciples to tell no one that he was Messiah; not that he desired to keep the nation in ignorance, but because he was himself conscious of uncertainty. After this his conduct could not be straightforward and simple.

Such is the only reasonable interpretation which I have ever been able to see, of this perplexed and perplexing narrative,

Sum

which is not likely to have grown out of nothing. Jesus came into a false position from that day, and of necessity (as I think) his whole character must have changed for the worse. Thenceforth, the dogmatism which may have been a mere form of teaching, and involved arrogance chiefly in appearance, changed into systematic personal assumption. Some may doubt whether he began it so early, or ever carried it so far, as even the narrative of Matthew pretends; for as a caricaturist exaggerates every peculiarity of a face, making its prominences more prominent, so does tradition deal with the popular hero. I pretend not to know how much is exactly true; but it comes before me as certain fact, that the true temptation of Jesus was the whisper made to him, "Are not you possibly the Messiah?" and by it the legendary devil overcame him. That whisper has cost to Europe an infinite waste of mind and toil, no end of religious wars, cruelties, injustices, anathemas, controversies, without bringing any sure advance of religious truth to mankind. How much more convulsion of hearts and entanglement of intellects, how vast and violent political upturnings are inevitable, before European nations can now become able to learn that to think freely is a duty, and that religion is spiritual and rational, not magical and supernatural ?

ON THE

HISTORICAL DEPRAVATION

OF

CHRISTIANITY.

[1872.]

CHRISTIANITY is not the only religion which has undergone

depravation. Side by side with it Mohammedanism has developed its celibate fakirs and its traditions, directly or indirectly against the doctrine of the prophet. The Parsee religion has been corrupted by apathy, ignorance, and contact with Hindooism, and Parsee reformers look back to the earlier state for purer doctrine. Hindoos also alledge, and in important points have proved, that moral enormities in their creed and practice are a later depravation; insomuch that a school has arisen which appeals to the Vedas or ancient Scriptures against modern error. Finally, in the farthest east and north of India the Buddhist religion has undergone change, damaging additions, startling developments, which remind every one of Christianity. Its first preacher and eminent founder has been deified, an enormous apparatus of monks, nuns, and holy orders has grown up, with a materialistic worship utterly opposed to the spirituality of its origin.

There is a philosophy now abroad among the opponents of Christianity, which charges upon the religion whatever evil has been historically introduced in it. The main purpose of this tract is to consider under what form such charge is justified, and where it is unjust.

I.-But before entering on the general question, I wish to deal with a special accusation, which I perceive to be made very widely and persistently. I copy from a book which I just now opened at random :-"The tenets of every man's religious creed determine, more or less, the precepts of his morality. He whose creed includes salvation to its recipients and damnation to doubters and unbelievers, is of necessity a persecutor." This is part of a chapter with which I on the whole agree, while I strongly deprecate this mode of attack as unjust and untrue.

૨