Page images
PDF
EPUB

bable a one. Thirdly, Jesus is said to have spoken harshly' to his mother, asking her what they had in common, and telling her that "his hour (for working miracles) was not yet come," when he knew that it was come. Fourthly, in spite of this rebuff, Mary is represented as still expecting a miracle, and this particular one, and as making preparation for it: "She saith to the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it ;" and accordingly Jesus immediately began to give orders to them. Fifthly, the superior quality of the wine, and the enormous quantity produced (135 gallons, or, in our language, above 43 dozen 2) are obviously fabulous. And those who are familiar with the apocryphal gospels will have no difficulty in recognising the close consanguinity between the whole narrative and the stories of miracles with which they abound. It is perfectly hopeless, as well as mischievous, to endeavour to retain it as a portion of authentic history.

1 All attempts at explanation have failed to remove this character from the expression : γύναι τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί.

2 See the calculation in Hennell, and in Strauss, ii. 432. The μετρητής is supposed to correspond to the Hebrew bath, which was equal to 14 Roman amphora, or 8.7 gallons; the whole quantity would therefore be from 104 to 156 gallons.

CHAPTER XI.

RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM.

THE conclusion at which we have arrived in the foregoing chapters is of vital moment, and deserves to be fully developed. When duly wrought out it will be found the means of extricating Religion from Orthodoxy-of rescuing Christianity from Calvinism. We have seen that the Gospels, while they give a fair and faithful outline of Christ's character and teaching the Synoptical gospels at least-fill up that outline with much that is not authentic ;-that many of the statements therein related are not historical, but mystical or legendary; and that much of the language ascribed to Jesus was never uttered by him, but originated either with the Evangelists themselves, or more frequently in the traditional stores from which they drew their materials. We cannot, indeed, say in all cases, nor even in most cases, with certainty-in many we cannot even pronounce with any very strong probability-that such and such particular expressions or discourses are, or are not the genuine utterances of Christ. With respect to some, we can say with confidence, that they are not from him; with respect to others, we can say with almost equal confidence, that they are his actual words;--but with regard to the majority of passages, this certainty is not attainable. But as we know that much did not proceed from Jesus-that much is unhistorical and ungenuine-we are entitled to conclude—we are even forced, by the very instinct of our reasoning faculty, to conclude that the unhistorical and ungenuine passages are those in which Jesus is represented as speaking and acting in a manner unconformable to his character as other

wise delineated, irreconcilable with the tenour of his teaching as elsewhere described, and at variance with those grand philosophic and spiritual truths which have commanded the assent of all disciplined and comprehensive minds, and which could not have escaped an intellect so just, wide, penetrating, and profound, as that of our great Teacher.

Most reflecting minds rise from a perusal of the gospel history with a clear, broad, vivid conception of the character and mission of Christ, notwithstanding the many passages at which they have stumbled, and which they have feltperhaps with needless alarm and self-reproach-to be incongruous and unharmonizing with the great whole. The question naturally arises, Did these incongruities and inconsistencies really exist in Christ himself? or, are they the result of the imperfect and unhistorical condition in which his biography has been transmitted to us? The answer, it seems to us, ought to be this:-We cannot prove, it is true, that some of these unsuitabilities did not exist in Christ himself, but we have shown that many of them belong to the history, not to the subject of the history, and it is only fair, therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, to conclude that the others also are due to the same origin.

Now the peculiar, startling, perplexing, revolting, and contradictory doctrines of modern orthodoxy-so far as they have originated from or are justified by the Gospels at all-have originated from, or are justified by, not the general tenour of Christ's character and preaching, but those single, unharmonizing, discrepant texts of which we have been speaking. Doctrines, which unsophisticated men feel to be horrible and monstrous, and which those who hold them most devotedly, secretly admit to be fearful and perplexing, are founded on particular passages which contradict the generality of Christ's teaching, but which, being attributed to him by the evangelists, have been regarded as endowed with an authority which it would be profane and dangerous to resist. In showing, therefore, that several of these passages did not emanate from Christ, and that in all probability none of them did, we conceive that we shall have rendered a vast service to the cause of true religion, and to those numerous individuals in whose tortured minds sense and conscience have long struggled for the

mastery. We will elucidate this matter by a few specifications.'

One of the most untenable, unphilosophical, uncharitable doctrines of the orthodox creed-one most peculiarly stamped with the impress of the bad passions of humanity-is, that belief (by which is generally signified belief in Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, a Teacher sent down from Heaven on a special mission to redeem mankind) is essential, and the one thing essential, to Salvation. The source of this doctrine must doubtless be sought for in that intolerance of opposition unhappily so common among men, and in that tendency to ascribe bad motives to those who arrive at different conclusions from themselves, which prevails so generally among the unchastened minds of Theologians. But it cannot be denied that the gospels contain many texts which clearly affirm and fully justify a doctrine so untenable and harsh. Let us turn to a few of these, and inquire into the degree of authenticity to which they are probably entitled.

The most specific assertion of the tenet in question, couched in that positive, terse, sententious, damnatory language so dear to orthodox divines, is found in the spurious portion of the gospel of Mark (c. xvi. 162), and is there by the writer, whoever he was, unscrupulously put into the mouth of Jesus after his resurrection. In the synoptical gospels may be found a few texts which may be wrested to support the doctrine, but there are none which teach it. But when we come to the fourth gospel we find several passages similar to that in Mark," proclaiming Salvation to believers, and damnation, or something approaching it, to unbelievers, but all in the peculiar style and spirit of the Author of the first Epistle of John, which abounds in denunciations precisely similar (but directed, it is remarkable,

It is true that many of the doctrines in question had not a scriptural origin at all, but an ecclesiastical one; and, when originated, were defended by texts from the epistles, rather than the gospels. The authority of the epistles we shall consider in a subsequent chapter, but if in the meantime we can show that those doctrines have no foundation in the language of Christ, the chief obstacle to the renunciation of them is removed.

2 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," a passage which, were it not happily spurious, would suffice to "damn" the book which contains it.

3 John iii. 16, 18, 36; v. 24; vi. 29, 40, 47; xi. 25, 26; xx. 31.

41 John ii. 19, 22, 23; iv. 2, 3, 6, 15; v. 1, 5, 10, 12, 13.

apparently against heretics, not against infidels, against those who believe amiss, not against those who do not believe at all)-all, too, redolent of the temper of that Apostle who wished to call down fire from heaven on an unbelieving village, and who was rebuked by Jesus for the savage and presumptuous suggestion.

In the last chapter we have shown that the style of these passages is of a nature to point to John, and not to Jesus, as their author, and that the spirit of them is entirely hostile and incompatible with the language of Jesus in other parts more obviously faithful. It appears, therefore, that the passages confirmatory of the doctrine in question are found exclusively in a portion of the synoptists which is certainly spurious, and in portions of the fourth gospel which are almost certainly unhistorical; and that they are contradicted by other passages in all the gospels. It only remains to show that as the doctrine is at variance with the spirit of the mild and benevolent Jesus, so it is too obviously unsound not to have been recognised as such by one whose profound and splendid genius was informed and enlightened by so pure a heart.

In the first place, Christ must have known that the same doctrine will be presented in a very different manner, and with very different degrees of evidence for its truth, by different preachers; so much so that to resist the arguments of one preacher would imply either dulness of comprehension or obstinate and wilful blindness, while to yield to the arguments of his colleague would imply weakness of understanding or instability of purpose. The same doctrine may be presented and defended by one preacher so clearly, rationally, and forcibly that all sensible men (idiosyncracies apart) must accept it, and by another preacher so feebly, corruptly, and confusedly, that all sensible men must reject it. The rejection of the Christianity preached by Luther, and of the Christianity preached by Tetzel-of the Christianity preached by Loyola and Dunstan, and of the Christianity preached by Oberlin and Pascal-cannot have been worthy of the same condemnation. Few Protestants, and no Catholics, will deny that Christianity has been so presented to men as to make it a simple affair both of sense and virtue to reject it. To represent, therefore, the reception of a doctrine as a matter of merit, or its rejection as a matter

« PreviousContinue »