Phases of Faith | Page 9

Paulinæ," and realized the whole
life of Paul as never before. This book greatly enlarged my mind as to
the resources of historical criticism. Previously, my sole idea of
criticism was that of the direct discernment of style; but I now began to
understand what powerful argument rose out of combinations: and the
very complete establishment which this work gives to the narrative

concerning Paul in the latter half of the "Acts," appeared to me to
reflect critical honour[3] on the whole New Testament. In the epistles
of this great apostle, notwithstanding their argumentative difficulties, I
found a moral reality and a depth of wisdom perpetually growing upon
me with acquaintance: in contrast to which I was conscious that I made
no progress in understanding the four gospels. Their first impression
had been their strongest: and their difficulties remained as fixed blocks
in my way. Was this possibly because Paul is a reasoner, (I asked)?
hence, with the cultivation of my understanding, I have entered more
easily into the heart of his views:--while Christ enunciates divine truth
dogmatically; consequently insight is needed to understand him? On
the contrary, however, it seemed to me, that the doctrinal difficulties of
the gospels depend chiefly either on obscure metaphor or on apparent
incoherence: and I timidly asked a friend, whether the dislocation of
the discourses of Christ by the narrators may not be one reason why
they are often obscure: for on comparing Luke with Matthew, it
appears that we cannot deny occasional dislocation. If at this period a
German divinity professor had been lecturing at Oxford, or German
books had been accessible to me, it might have saved me long
peregrinations of body and mind.
About this time I had also begun to think that the old writers called
Fathers deserved but a small fraction of the reverence which is
awarded to them. I had been strongly urged to read Chrysostom's work
on the Priesthood, by one who regarded it as a suitable preparation for
Holy Orders; and I did read it. But I not only thought it inflated, and
without moral depth, but what was far worse, I encountered in it an
elaborate defence of falsehood in the cause of the Church, and
generally of deceit in any good cause.[4] I rose from the treatise in
disgust, and for the first time sympathized with Gibbon; and augured
that if he had spoken with moral indignation, instead of pompous
sarcasm, against the frauds of the ancient "Fathers," his blows would
have fallen far more heavily on Christianity itself.
I also, with much effort and no profit, read the Apostolic Fathers. Of
these, Clement alone seemed to me respectable, and even he to write
only what I could myself have written, with Paul and Peter to serve as a
model. But for Barnabas and Hermas I felt a contempt so profound, that
I could hardly believe them genuine. On the whole, this reading greatly

exalted my sense of the unapproachable greatness[5] of the New
Testament. The moral chasm between it and the very earliest Christian
writers seemed to me so vast, as only to be accounted for by the
doctrine in which all spiritual men (as I thought) unhesitatingly
agreed,--that the New Testament was dictated by the immediate action
of the Holy Spirit. The infatuation of those, who, after this, rested on
_the Councils_, was to me unintelligible. Thus the Bible in its
simplicity became only the more all-ruling to my judgment, because I
could find no Articles, no Church Decrees, and no apostolic individual,
whose rule over my understanding or conscience I could bear. Such
may be conveniently regarded as the first period of my Creed.
[Footnote 1: It was not until many years later that I became aware, that
unbiased ecclesiastical historians, as Neander and others, while
approving of the practice of Infant Baptism, freely concede that it is not
apostolic. Let this fact be my defence against critics, who snarl at me
for having dared, at that age, to come to any conclusion on such a
subject. But, in fact, the subscriptions compel young men to it.]
[Footnote 2: I remember reading about that time a sentence in one of
his Epistles, in which this same Cyprian, the earliest mouthpiece of
"proud prelacy," claims for the populace supreme right of deposing an
unworthy bishop. I quote the words from memory, and do not know the
reference. "Pleba summam habet potentatem episcopos seu dignos
eligendi seu indignos detrudendi."]
[Footnote 3: A critic absurdly complains that I do not account for this.
Account for what? I still hold the authenticity of nearly all the Pauline
epistles, and that the Pauline Acts are compiled from some valuable
source, from chap. xiii. onward; but it was gratuitous to infer that this
could accredit the four gospels.]