is the Lord." Faith, which Paul makes primary, with James is secondary, he sets "works" ahead of faith, and entitles those "vain men," who (with Paul) preached justification by faith. The Apocalypse also makes Jesus vehemently denounce those who (as Paul) approved of (sometimes) eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols; and the phrase, "those who say that they are apostles and are not," is (under all the circumstances) most reasonably interpreted as pointing at Paul. James moreover earnestly implores Christian teachers not to curse one another; on which we have a comment in Paul's curse on those who teach another gospel than his, and in his declaration that he wishes those (teachers from Jerusalem) who trouble the Galatians "were even cut off;" which suggests that if he could have struck them dead by miracle, or "delivered them to Satan," he would have done it. Thus, while we admit that at least the principal epistles called Paul's are genuine, and that, with the Epistle of James, they are the very earliest and truly valuable historical documents concerning the primitive Christianity, yet when the modern Evangelical appeals to "the New Testament," we have to ask: "To which school of early Christianity do you refer us for the truth? Do you dare to reject the authority of the Jerusalem church, as represented by James? Why expect of us more deference to Paul than that church showed him ?"

Another grave matter arises, in regard to the Fourth Gospel. On it, side by side with Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Evangelical creed is founded. Not that epistle only fails us, and Paul himself, but the Fourth Gospel can no longer be rested on as authentic, or as of the first century. It is not quoted by name earlier than the latter part of the second century: perhaps it is quoted by Justin Martyr in the middle of that century, but he does not impute the book (whatever it is that he quotes) to the Apostle John; and modern criticism seems to have established that the Fourth Gospel represents the advanced opinions of the movement party in the second century, and has no right to be regarded as authentic or historical. [This whole question is very fully discussed in Thomas Scott's English Life of Jesus.] Next, since neither Paul nor James alludes to miracles wrought by Jesus, even the first three gospels must probably have incorporated later fabulous accounts; and that they are not contemporary records, there is overwhelming evidence. Clearly, the appeal to the New Testament as decisive of the mind of Jesus is not at all an easy and certain procedure. Moreover, the question arises, Why did

Jesus leave us to guess and puzzle out what doctrine he came to teach? Could he have failed to give us authentic documents, had he foreseen at all the fatal mischiefs to follow from the neglect?

Upon all this heap of contrariety, improbability and uncertainty, follow direct attacks made by modern science. Evangelicism cannot cut itself adrift from the Old Testament. It wants the doctrine of the "Fall" from Genesis; it wants the promises to Abraham; it wants the kingship of David's family; it wants the Messianic prophecies; it insists on the quotations of the Old Testament Scriptures in the New, as testimony from Jesus himself and from the apostles to the inspired infallibility of the Old. The Bible (Old and New collectively) is the Protestant's Sacred Book. Yet there is no modern science which does not find gross error in it. Geology condemns its tale of creation and the universal deluge. Natural history laughs to scorn the feeding of all the animals for a whole year in an ark, and that by eight persons. The actual distribution of animals on the earth proves that they never proceeded from a single centre in Armenia. Chronology confutes the notes of time in the book of Genesis. Professors of languages cannot believe that men talked one language about four thousand years ago. Geography ridicules the four rivers of Eden. Physiology is aghast at the absurdity of demoniacal possessions,—a foolish mistake of the phenomena of epilepsy, mania, catalepsy, and other diseases; to omit many other topics. Astronomy cannot

admit that there is a "firmament" in heaven and waters above the firmament; that evening and morning existed earlier than the sun; that the sun stood still at the command of Joshua, or went back according to the word of Isaiah. History confutes as false many of the prophecies, and not least that of the coming of the Son of Man in heaven before the generation had passed whom Jesus addressed; historical fact shows that all the first Christians were under delusion as to this cardinal original gospel, which announced: "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; the Son of Man is at the door." History further traces that the doctrine of demons, the Devil, and Hell as a place of fiery torment, was learned by the Jews after the Babylonish captivity, from the "pagans" among whom they were mixed, during the era in which, by Jewish and Christian confession, prophecy was mute. These "pagan" monstrosities were sucked in with the mother's milk by Jesus and his disciples, and are now passed off upon us as of Christian and divine origin. Historical criticism detects

numberless incongruities, credulity, and even unveracity, in the historical books (so called) of the New Testament, and shows that the law attributed to Moses was unknown in Jerusalem before the days of Josiah. More formidable still, moral science reveals enormous error in the morality of both Hebrew and Christian books; although they are undoubtedly far superior to the contemporary national religions, which is the true cause why they superseded them. Eminently condemned by morality are those cardinal Evangelical doctrines-atonement by "blood," arbitrary favoritism, and the eternal hell. The doctrine of atonement, as noticed above, rests mainly on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which tries to base it on the Jewish law. Yet in that law there is no atonement for moral sins,—such as theft, violence, adultery, but only for ceremonial neglects. The great day of atonement was for the errors of the people; i. e., for ignorant omissions of ceremonial duty (agnoémata they are accurately styled in the Greek, Heb. ix. 7); so that the Jewish law is not to the purpose of the argument. Substitution of an innocent victim for a moral offender is an immorality not countenanced by the law of the Hebrews. Last, but not least, philosophy, -that is to say, cultivated thought,-finds it impossible to regard miracles, if miracles existed, as any fit proof of moral doctrine. Miracles, if wrought by a superior power, might be divine or might be devilish man, as a moral being, would have to judge of their communications, and never could rightly reverse or alter his moral beliefs at their bidding. An authoritative dictation of moral truth through the medium of physical miracle is therefore an idea perniciously absurd. It is not necessary to press the vast attestation of experience, that all pretence to miraculous intervention is delusive.

Surely it is high time for those who value certain spiritual influences of Evangelicism, to base the creed on some safer foundation than "the Bible." In so far as that school holds something true and noble, its real foundation is the inner nature of man. Let them appeal to that nature boldly, and they will save all that is precious. By continuing to rest on an authoritative Bible, which is nothing but a congeries of small books, differing widely in age, character, language, authenticity, historical truth, good sense, and moral worth, they do but expose the precious gold of their creed to be burned up with its hay and stubble.

ANCIENT SACRIFICE.

[1874.]

то 10 our modern intellects all killing of brute or man, for the pleasure of the Most High, seems so absurd, that perhaps we wonder how such a notion arose. Nor is the topic very simple. To compose the idea of Sacrifice, or Sacred Act, or Act of Faith (Auto da Fe), streams have flowed together from many sources.

A first primitive notion is this: that if for human food we take the life of some tame animal, which is in our power and under our protection, it befits to ask permission from the Author of Life. He gave that precious gift alike to sheep and oxen, as to man; therefore we must not slay lightly and causelessly, but only when we can ask his blessing on the deed. In the case of wild animals, the hurry and tumult of hunting did not permit formalities of slaughter. All that could be done beforehand, was to offer some preliminary prayer, that should sanctify the hunting.

But from the primary recognition of God as Lord and centre of life, other things followed. In some nations, the blood, as seat of life, was accounted sacred. It then might not be used for food, but was poured out religiously. Mystery being thus added to the blood, a wild and base fancy was liable to arise, that God, or some god, had pleasure in the blood. Again, the man who had skill in slaughtering easily added the religious character to his art, and nothing was more natural than to remunerate his services of butchery and prayer by a portion of the slain beast. Hereby the original Popa (or cook?) became identified with the Sacerdos ; and expected to feed his household by perquisites from the altar. Thus slaughter became a sacred act, performed by a priest when possible. It next became the interest of priesthood to urge sacrifice as a religious duty, that is, the sacrifice of such animals as were approved for human food. Moreover, vulgar fantasy conspired to give currency to the belief, that the god himself partook in the sacrifice, especially by its smell. On this the Greek poets are often explicit, and in Genesis we read, "Jehovah smelled a sweet savour," as denoting his acceptance of Noah's sacrifice (viii. 21.)

Human sacrifice undoubtedly had one of its sources in the fantastic picture of a future world, where the departed soul would need various human aids. In the grave of a chieftain were buried not only his armour and his weapons of war, but perhaps his war-horse too, slain to accompany him in the other world. This we know to have been a modern practice among North American Indians. But a great Scythian or Tartar emperor required nobler victims. In the world of spirits he must have, not a single warhorse, but a body-guard of mounted youths: these must be slain for his service; nay, according to Herodotus, to accompany a king of the Scythians (the Scolotai in Southern Russia) they ordinarily strangled one of his concubines, his cup-bearer, his cook, his groom, his page, his errand-bearer (or adjutant ?), and a stud of horses. We cannot doubt that the same fundamental ideas suggested the slaughters in Dahomey, on the death of a king. Cruel as we must deem these acts, they were not malignant, and did not imply peculiar atrocity in the agents. No life was regarded as of any value, if the convenience of the king required its sacrifice. As, at his command, a dutiful subject rushed into certain death against a formidable enemy, so to accompany a king in the other world was an ordinary duty of loyalty: nor had any one a conscience against killing innocent brethren for this purpose. Perhaps, if we could know it, the slain were considered blessed, and even thought themselves so. Those killed religiously in Thibet by the arrows of the boy called Buth, were accounted holy and peculiarly fortunate, according to the testimony of the Jesuit missionaries of 1661. Not very unlike is the moral complexion of a practice among the ancient Getæ, or Goths of the Danube. A belief in immortality did but make human life cheaper to them. Every fifth year they sent a messenger to their deity, Zalmolxis, to inform him of their needs, and the mode of dispatch was as follows:-He was tossed into the air, and received on the points of three spears. If he died forthwith, the god was accounted propitious; but if the victim or messenger continued alive, he was reviled as wicked, and another was sent in his place. These accounts show how easily, among men accustomed to slaughter in battle, poetical fantasy may lead straight to human sacrifice.

The phenomena known to us concerning the Greeks are rather peculiar. In their historical era, they utterly repudiated human sacrifice, yet they unanimously supposed it to have been practised by their ancestral heroes on various occasions; and their poets