Human nature is not altered by seating it in a professorial chair, even of theology. I have very little doubt that if, in the year 1859, the tenure of my office had depended upon my adherence to the doctrines of Cuvier, the objections to them set forth in the "Origin of Species" would have had a halo of gravity about them that, being free to teach what I pleased, I failed to discover. And, in making that statement, it does not appear to me that I am confessing that I should have been debarred by "selfish interests" from making candid inquiry, or that I should have been biassed by "sordid motives." I hope that even such a fragment of moral sense as may remain in an ecclesiastical "infidel" might have got me through the difficulty; but it would be unworthy to deny, or disguise, the fact that a very serious difficulty must have been created for me by the nature of my tenure. And let it be observed that the temptation, in my case, would have been far slighter than in that of a professor of theology; whatever biological doctrine I had repudiated, nobody I cared for would have thought the worse of me for so doing. No scientific journals would have howled me down, as the religious newspapers howled down my too honest friend, the late Bishop of Natal; nor would my colleagues of the Royal Society have turned their backs upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him.

I say these facts are obvious, and, that it is wholesome and needful that they should be stated. It is in the interests of theology, if it be a science, and it is in the interests of those teachers of theology who desire to be something better than counsel for creeds, that it should be taken to heart. The seeker after theological truth and that only, will no more suppose that I have insulted him, than the prisoner who works in fetters will try to pick a quarrel with me, if I suggest that he would get on better if the fetters were knocked off; unless indeed, as it is said does happen in the course of long captivities, that the victim at length ceases to feel the weight of his chains, or even takes to hugging them, as if they were honourable ornaments.

R. CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BREAD ST. HILL, E.C., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

* * * * *

[Footnote 1: The absence of any keel on the breast-bone and some other osteological peculiarities, observed by Professor Marsh, however, suggest that Hesperornis may be a modification of a less specialised group of birds than that to which these existing aquatic birds belong.]

[Footnote 2: A second specimen, discovered in 1877, and at present in the Berlin museum, shows an excellently preserved skull with teeth: and three digits, all terminated by claws, in the fore-limb. 1893.]

[Footnote 3: I use the word "type" because it is highly probable that many forms of Anchitherium-like and Hipparion-like animals existed in the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, just as many species of the horse tribe exist now; and it is highly improbable that the particular species of Anchitherium or Hipparion, which happen to have been discovered, should be precisely those which have formed part of the direct line of the horse's pedigree.]

[Footnote 4: Since this lecture was delivered, Professor Marsh has discovered a new genus of equine mammals (Eohippus) from the lowest Eocene deposits of the West, which corresponds very nearly to this description.—American Journal of Science, November, 1876.]

[Footnote 5: The Limits of Philosophical Inquiry, pp. 4 and 5.]

[Footnote 6: Hume's Essay, "Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy," in the Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding.—[Many critics of this passage seem to forget that the subject-matter of Ethics and AEsthetics consists of, matters of fact and existence.—1892.]]

[Footnote 7: Or, to speak more accurately, the physical state of which volition is the expression.—[1892.]]

[Footnote 8: Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture, The Times, 18th December, 1891.]

[Footnote 9: Declaration, Article 10.]

[Footnote 10: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret auctoritas.—Contra Epistolam Manichaei cap. v.]

[Footnote 11: Hasisadra's Adventure.]

[Footnote 12: The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature and Mr. Gladstone and Genesis.]

[Footnote 13: Agnosticism; The Value of Witness to the Miraculous; Agnosticism: a Rejoinder; Agnosticism and Christianity; The Keepers of the Herd of Swine; and Illustrations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Methods.]

[Footnote 14: I employ the words "Supernature" and "Supernatural" in their popular senses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term "Nature" covers the totality of that which is. The world of psychical phenomena appears to me to be as much part of "Nature" as the world of physical phenomena; and I am unable to perceive any justification for cutting the Universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural.]

[Footnote 15: My citations are made from Teulet's Einhardi omnia quae extant opera, Paris, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the author, a history of the text, with translations into French, and many valuable annotations.]

[Footnote 16: At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden.]

[Footnote 17: This took place in the year 826 A.D. The relics were brought from Rome and deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at Soissons.]

[Footnote 18: Now included in Western Switzerland.]

[Footnote 19: Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little below the embouchure of the Neckar.]

[Footnote 20: The present Michilstadt, thirty miles N.E. of Heidelberg.]

[Footnote 21: In the Middle Ages one of the most favourite accusations against witches was that they committed just these enormities.]

[Footnote 22: It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the deacon, whose pledges he qualifies as sponsiones incertae. But, to be sure, he wrote after events which fully justified scepticism.]

[Footnote 23: The words are scrinia sine clave, which seems to mean "having no key." But the circumstances forbid the idea of breaking open.]

[Footnote 24: Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the "vana ac superstitiosa praesumptio" of the poor woman's companions in trying to alleviate her sufferings with "herbs and frivolous incantations." Vain enough, no doubt, but the "mulierculae" might have returned the epithet "superstitious" with interest.]

[Footnote 25: Of course there is nothing new in this argument; but it does not grow weaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more instructive than that of Augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but those of the people about him.]

[Footnote 26: See 1 Cor. xii. 10-28; 2 Cor. vi. 12 Rom. xv, 19.]

[Footnote 27: A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Christian Experiences, &c., of George Fox. Ed. 1694, pp. 27, 28.]

[Footnote 28: See the Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester, October 1888, pp. 253, 254.]

[Footnote 29: In this place and in Illustrations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Methods, there are references to the late Archbishop of York which are of no importance to my main argument, and which I have expunged because I desire to obliterate the traces of a temporary misunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit, for whom I entertained a great liking and no less respect. I rejoice to think now of the (then) Bishop's cordial hail the first time we met after our little skirmish, "Well, is it to be peace or war?" I replied, "A little of both." But there was only peace when we parted, and ever after.]

[Footnote 30: 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 thought I knew M. Renan's works pretty well, but I have contrived to miss this "practical" (I wish Dr. Wace had defined the scope of that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr. Wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Renan's writings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if M. Renan were to retract and do penance in Notre-Dame to-morrow for any contributions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, could not be sensibly affected.]

[Footnote 31: See De Gobineau, Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'Asie Centrale; and the recently published work of Mr. E.G. Browne, The Episode of the Bab.]

[Footnote 32: Here, as always, the revised version is cited.]

[Footnote 33: Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to be taken au serieux or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New Testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also accepted as true therein? By what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the Law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true? If the story of the Fall is not the true record or an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the Creation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously legendary series.]

[Footnote 34: See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott's article on the Gospels in the Encyclopaedia Britannica; and the remarkable monograph by Professor Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unimpeachable.]

[Footnote 35: Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the Quarterly Review, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers.]

[Footnote 36: Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form. Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of "spirits" is admitted. Therefore "spirits" were the cause of the phenomena.

And the heads of the reply are always the same. Remember Goethe's aphorism: "Alles factische ist schon Theorie." Trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is abundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways. Therefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence as it stands, is suspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even that suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of probability.]

[Footnote 37: Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many years afterwards, when Dean Mansel's Bampton Lectures were published, it seemed to me I already knew all that this eminently agnostic thinker had to tell me.]

[Footnote 38: Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Edit. Hartenstein p. 256.]

[Footnote 39: Report of the Church Congress, Manchester, 1888, p. 252.]

[Footnote 40: I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he says that I allege that there "is no visible escape" from the supposition of an Ur-Marcus (p. 367). That a "theologian of repute should confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might imagine.]

[Footnote 41: Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of "copying" will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case stated in that most excellent little book, The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke (Macmillan, 1884). To those who have not passed through such painful experiences I may recommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the "Casket Letters" in my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, Maitland of Lethington. The second edition of Holtzmann's Lehrbuch, published in 1886, gives a remarkably fair and full account of the present results of criticism. At p. 366 he writes that the present burning question is whether the "relatively primitive narrative and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained in Matthew or in Mark. It is only on this point that properly-informed (sachkundige) critics differ," and he decides in favour of Mark.]

[Footnote 42: Holtzmann (Die synoptischen Evangelien 1863, p. 75), following Ewald, argues that the "Source A" (= the threefold tradition, more or less) contained something that answered to the "Sermon on the Plain" immediately after the words of our present "Mark," "And he cometh into a house" (iii 19). But what conceivable motive could "Mark" have for omitting it? Holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the "Sermon on the Mount" is a compilation, or as he calls it in his recently-published Lehrbuch (p. 372), "an artificial mosaic work."]

[Footnote 43: See Schuerer, Geschichte des juedischen Volkes, Zweiter Theil, p. 384.]

[Footnote 44: Spacious, because a young man could sit in it "on the right side" (xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare.]

[Footnote 45: King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing the resurrection of John the Baptist—"John, whom I beheaded, he is risen" (Mark vi. 16).]

[Footnote 46: I am very sorry for the interpolated "in," because citation ought to be accurate in small things as in great. But what difference it makes whether one "believes Jesus" or "believes in Jesus" much thought has not enabled me to discover. If you "believe him" you must believe him to be what he professed to be—that is "believe in him;" and if you "believe in him" you must necessarily "believe him."]

[Footnote 47: True for Justin: but there is a school of theological critics, who more or less question the historical reality of Paul, and the genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles.]

[Footnote 48: See Dial. cum Tryphone, Sec. 47 and Sec. 35. It is to be understood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order, as I have done.]

[Footnote 49: I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four cardinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered with. See note 47 above.]

[Footnote 50: Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act of the same character as that which he brands as "dissimulation" on the part of Peter in Antioch.]

[Footnote 51: All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years ago. See Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche (1850), p. 108.]

[Footnote 52: "If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, the first Christians can have been aware of no other essential differences from the Jews."—Zeller, Vortraege (1865), p. 26.]

[Footnote 53: Dr. Harnack, in the lately-published second edition of His Dogmengeschichte, says (p. 39), "Jesus Christ brought forward no new doctrine"; and again, (p. 65), "It is not difficult to set against every portion of the utterances of Jesus an observation which deprives him of originality." See also Zusatz 4, on the same page.]

[Footnote 54: I confess that, long ago, I once or twice made this mistake; even to the waste of a capital 'U.' 1893.]

[Footnote 55: "Let us maintain, before we have proved. This seeming paradox is the secret of happiness" (Dr. Newman: Tract 85, p. 85).]

[Footnote 56: Dr, Newman, Essay on Development, p. 357.]

[Footnote 57: It is by no means to be assumed that "spiritual" and "corporeal" are exact equivalents of "immaterial" and "material" in the minds of ancient speculators on these topics. The "spiritual body" of the risen dead (1 Cor. xv.) is not the "natural" "flesh and blood" body. Paul does not teach the resurrection of the body in the ordinary sense of the word "body"; a fact, often overlooked, but pregnant with many consequences.]

[Footnote 58: Tertullian (Apolog. adv. Gentes, cap. xxiii.) thus challenges the Roman authorities: let them bring a possessed person into the presence of a Christian before their tribunal; and if the demon does not confess himself to be such, on the order of the Christian, let the Christian be executed out of hand.]

[Footnote 59: See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the "accommodation" subterfuge already cited above, pp. 85 and 86.]

[Footnote 60: I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition appeared in 1870. Tract 85 of the Tracts for the Times should be read with this Essay. If I were called upon to compile a Primer of "Infidelity," I think I should save myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and from the Essay on Development by the same author.]

[Footnote 61: Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the Introduction to the Essay on Development, Dr. Newman can demand strict evidence in religious questions as sharply as any "infidel author"; and he can even profess to yield to its force (Essay on Miracles, 1870; note, p. 391).]

[Footnote 62: According to Dr. Newman, "This prayer [that of Bishop Alexander, who begged God to 'take Arius away'] is said to have been offered about 3 P.M. on the Saturday; that same evening Arius was in the great square of Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition" (p. clxx). The "infidel" Gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that "an option between poison and miracle" is presented by this case; and, it must be admitted, that, if the Bishop had been within the reach of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone hardly with him. Modern "Infidels," possessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with no less audacity, to suggest an "option between fire-damp and miracle" in seeking for the cause of the fiery outburst at Jerusalem.]

[Footnote 63: Compare Tract 85, p. 110; "I am persuaded that were men but consistent who oppose the Church doctrines as being unscriptural, they would vindicate the Jews for rejecting the Gospel."]

[Footnote 64: A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me soundly to task for venturing to doubt the historical and literal truth of the Gadarene story. The following passage in his letter is worth quotation: "Now to the materialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in spiritual verities, certainly this story of the Gadarene or Gergesene swine, presents insurmountable difficulties; it seems grotesque and nonsensical. To the experienced, trained, and cultivated Spiritualist this miracle is, as I am prepared to show, one of the most instructive, the most profoundly useful, and the most beneficent which Jesus ever wrought in the whole course of His pilgrimage of redemption on earth." Just so. And the first page of this same journal presents the following advertisement, among others of the same kidney:—

"TO WEALTHY SPIRITUALISTS.—A Lady Medium of tried power wishes to meet with an elderly gentleman who would be willing to give her a comfortable home and maintenance in Exchange for her Spiritualistic services, as her guides consider her health is too delicate for public sittings: London preferred.—Address 'Mary,' Office of Light."

Are we going back to the days of the Judges, when wealthy Micah set up his private ephod, teraphim, and Levite?]

[Footnote 65: Consider Tertullian's "sister" ("hodie apud nos"), who conversed with angels, saw and heard mysteries, knew men's thoughts, and prescribed medicine for their bodies (De Anima. cap. 9). Tertullian tells us that this woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its colour and shape. The "infidel" will probably be unable to refrain from insulting the memory of the ecstatic saint by the remark, that Tertullian's known views about the corporeality of the soul may have had something to do with the remarkable perceptive powers of the Montanist medium, in whose revelations of the spiritual world he took such profound interest.]

[Footnote 66: See the New York World for Sunday, 21st October, 1888; and the Report of the Stybert Commission Philadelphia, 1887.]

[Footnote 67: Dr. Newman's observation that the miraculous multiplication of the pieces of the true cross (with which "the whole world is filled," according to Cyril of Jerusalem; and of which some say there are enough extant to build a man-of-war) is no more wonderful than that of the loaves and fishes, is one that I do not see my way to contradict. See Essay on Miracles, 2d ed. p. 163.]

[Footnote 68: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by J.H. Newman, D.D., pp. 7 and 8. (1878.)]

[Footnote 69: Dr. Newman faces this question with his customary ability. "Now, I own, I am not at all solicitous to deny that this doctrine of an apostate Angel and his hosts was gained from Babylon: it might still be Divine nevertheless. God who made the prophet's ass speak, and thereby instructed the prophet, might instruct His Church by means of heathen Babylon" (Tract 85, p. 83). There seems to be no end to the apologetic burden that Balaam's ass can carry.]

[Footnote 70: Nineteenth Century, May 1889 (p. 701).]

[Footnote 71: I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M. Renan's labours, or intended to speak slightingly of them.]

THE END