Messianic prophecy vindicated, or, An explanation and defence of the ethical theory

Preface

The substance of these pages was read to the Committee of the Bay of Quinte Conference which met at Belleville, Ontario, on the seventeenth and eighteenth of last month. Since discussing the question with the Committee, I have compressed some parts of the address into a smaller compass, and expanded some other parts of it which seemed to need elucidation.

My object in publishing the address in the form of a book is twofold : first, to vindicate my teaching ; and secondly, to get it understood by the Church. Hence, in order to make it more readable, I have simplified the style of the discussion ; and, in order to make it more instructive, I have shown wherein the critical view of the subject differs from the traditional view.

The theory of Messianic prophecy which I present is called the Ethical Theory, because the word ethical has a broader meaning than either of the words moral and spiritual. Inasmuch as the poetic and historic principles, no less than the moral and spiritual principles, of the Old Testament are sometimes applied in the New Testament by Christ and his apostles, I think it preferable to use the more comprehensive term.

According to my lecture, of which this book gives

PREFACE.

an epitome, the testimony of prophecy to Jesus is that of truths rather than types, of principles rather than predictions. While the typical and predictive element in the Hebrew Scriptures must not be disregarded, it is the moral truths and spiritual principles in them that bear direct witness to him and find divine fulfilment in him.

With this explanation, I send the volume forth, believing that all who study it will acknowledge that my view heightens and dignifies the value of the Old Testament, by showing the inner spiritual harmony between the testimony of prophecy and the teaching of Christ.

G. C. Workman.

Toronto, May 26th, 1899.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED.

I. History Of The Case

There seems to be a misconception in some quarters as to the nature and purpose of this investigation. Since the meeting of this Committee was first announced in the Christian Guardian, three letters, expressing disapproval of it, have appeared in our Church paper. Rev. Dr. Shaw, of Montreal, demurs to the holding of an investigation ; Rev. Dr. Gardiner, of Belleville, challenges the action of my Conference ; Rev. J. E. Lanceley, of Toronto, laughs at the appointment of " this new court."

The first two ministers characterize the procedure proposed by the resolution of my Conference as " extrajudicial." With all respect to these honored brethren, I must say that they have either misread the resolution or misinterpreted its object. This is not a trial, but an investigation ; and a similar course of procedure is adopted by Synods or Conferences in every branch of the Christian Church. Within the past twelve months, Professor Beet, of Wesley College, London, and Professor McGiffert, of Union Theological Seminary, New York, have each had an examination of his teaching similar to that which the Committee now in session has been asked to make of mine. Hence this investigation is held, not to torture

G

MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED.

or to whitewash me, as Dr. Gardiner suggests, but to vindicate me, if I can show my teaching to be sound.

For nearly nine years I have been regarded by many people throughout our country as an unsound teacher. Owing to misconception and misrepresentation, I was first denounced as a heretic; and then, because of an attempt to remove me from the Theological Faculty of Victoria University, I was compelled seven years ago last January to resign my position as an instructor in Victoria College. Before tendering my resignation, I asked the members of the Board of Regents to have my views of Scripture examined by a committee of competent scholars, but they paid no attention to my request. From that time to this I have considered myself unfairly treated by those responsible for my enforced retirement from professorial work. The men who condemned me before hearing me, and who prejudiced the country against me before trying to understand me, should, it seems to me, have shown my views of Scripture to be false, or have given me an opportunity to prove them to be true.

At the annual meeting of the Board last May, as help was needed in the subjects of my department, an effort was made by the Chancellor and others to have me restored to my work ; but my reinstatement was opposed on the ground that the people of our Church object to my teaching, and that, if I were in the College, they would refuse to support the institution. The day on which the Board met, one of the Regents said to me that there ought to be an investigation ; and the same gentleman made a similar suggestion at the meeting, I believe. I reminded him that I had asked for one in my last communication to the Board, nearly seven years before. A few clays after this meeting was held, another Regent was prompted to write me a letter on the subject. " I have been think-

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

ing over your case since I returned home," he wrote, " and it begins to look to me as if you were at a point in this controversy where you ought to ask for an investigation. You were practically condemned without trial, or any proper or adequate investigation of your case; and the whole Methodist people were called on, through the Guardian, to place you among modern sceptics, and leave you there."

As the Regents still declined to do what I have thought they should have long since done, namely, give me my work or grant me an investigation, I then decided, on the advice of friends both on and off the Board, to appeal to my brethren in the Bay of Quinte Conference. At my own request, therefore, with a view of obtaining an impartial hearing of my case, the present Committee was appointed to investigate the questions that have been raised as to the character of my teaching.

Before taking up these questions, I purpose giving a short account of the events which led to my resignation, because the history of the controversy has an important bearing on the nature of the injustice which I have suffered for so many years. In presenting this brief sketch, I shall not impute motives, but simply state facts. The time has come when, in my judgment, the truth should be told and the facts should be known.

At the business meeting of the Theological Union of Victoria University, held in Cobourg, in connection with the closing exercises of the College, in May, 1889, a few weeks after my return from Germany, I was unexpectedly appointed to deliver the annual lecture at the close of the session the following year. Not being present at the time, I knew nothing of my appointment till after the meeting was over; but, having been away from the College and out of the country for several years, I regarded the act of my

MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED.

brethren as an expression of confidence and consideration, assuming that they desired me to prepare a critical lecture on some Old Testament theme. As they designated no subject, however, I was left to choose one myself.

Owing to the number of my engagements and the nature of my work that year, I had not time to commence the special preparation of my paper till about the middle of the following winter, or towards the beginning of the following spring; but, for months before I definitely decided what to discuss, I had been revolving in my mind a couple of appropriate subjects, namely, " Biblical Criticism " and " Messianic Prophecy. " Though each of these subjects was congenial to my thought, as well as suitable for the occasion, the latter gradually took possession of me, so that, as the winter wore away and the time to write drew near, I could not rid myself of the conviction that I ought to lecture on it ; and, notwithstanding all that I have suffered and lost in consequence, I have no more doubt that I was right in yielding to that conviction than I have that I was right in yielding to the conviction, when I was a student at College, that I ought to enter the ministry of the Methodist Church.

Several considerations influenced me in choosing this subject. In the first place, it was one of great significance in Biblical Theology ; in the second place, it was one of peculiar difficulty to Old Testament interpreters ; in the third place, it was one of special interest to Christian students ; in the fourth place, it was one to which I had given much thought and on which I had something important to say.

Here I wish to repeat what I told the members of the Toronto Conference just nine years ago, namely that my post-graduate course at a German university had nothing whatever to do with my view of Messianic prophecy, or with my treatment of the theme. For a

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

couple of years before going to study abroad, I taught Hebrew in Victoria College, and each year, when lecturing on the Psalms, I tried, as best I could, to show my students the historic meaning in each case ; so that, as a result of my previous reading, I went to Europe in the summer of 1884 with a deep interest in the question of Old Testament prophecy, and a strong desire to investigate it. During my residence in Germany, I never read a book or heard a lecture on the subject ; but, while attending Leipzig University, my critical study of the prophets, especially the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not only led me to examine the chief Messianic passages with considerable thoroughness and helped me to mature my view of their true teaching, but also convinced me that a new discussion of Messianic prophecy was greatly needed by the Christian Church.

In this connection, I wish to mention another fact. The first fall I was in Leipzig, as the students were assembling for the opening of the University, the leading workers connected with the American church in that city desired to form three adult classes for the study of the Bible each Sunday afternoon during the session ; and, having heard that I was there on leave of absence as an Old Testament instructor, they requested me to take the class for men. Because of the condition of my health that fall, I hesitated at first to accept the position, knowing that it meant the expenditure of not a little energy ; but they insisted so strongly on the duty of my undertaking the work that I yielded at length to their request. On meeting the members of the class, several of whom have since become College professors, I asked them what part of Scripture they would like me to study with them ; but they preferred to let me decide that matter myself. Then I suggested that we should take our lessons from the Book of Psalms, telling them that I was

MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED.

particularly fond of reading portions of it for devotional purposes, and that I thought we ought to study something that would quicken our spirits, as well as stimulate our intellects ; and, that we might have a plan in the selection of our lessons, I proposed that we should examine together the so-called Messianic Psalms, in order to see how far, or in what sense, they are really Messianic. So we began the examination of these Psalms in the autumn of 1884, and continued our studies till the summer of 1885. Thus, for a number of years previous to the writing of my lecture, I had been not only maturing, but also teaching, my view of Messianic prophecy both at home and abroad.

As the conviction that I ought to lecture on the subject deepened, knowing that the historic meaning of many passages is quite different from the traditional interpretation of them, I consulted with Chancellor Burwash and Rev. James Allen, M.A., who was then the pastor of the College church in Cobourg, as to the timeliness of such a lecture, telling them what I thought of doing, and asking them if they believed the Church was ready for a critical discussion of Old Testament prophecy. The discussion being one that concerned the scientific interpretation of the Scriptures, not the doctrinal teaching of the Church, they both advised me to prepare my paper, as they considered the subject most appropriate.

I mention this matter now, because some of my best friends have blamed me for giving such a lecture so soon after my return from Germany. I would have acted more wisely, they have said, if I had waited for a few years. Had I known that my paper would be misinterpreted and that I would be maligned for writing it, I would have waited for a while, of course ; but I never dreamed that I would be misjudged, or that my teaching would be misrepresented. I sup-

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

posed that my brethren would regard me as an honest man, and that they would read my essay with an open mind. I did nothing rash or inconsiderate. I chose my subject deliberately, I wrote my lecture prayerfully, I read my paper reverently, I revised it carefully, I published it modestly, in the firm belief that all who studied it would recognize the integrity of my purpose ; for I never did anything in my life with a purer desire to combat scepticism and to help the cause of Christ. Hence, having acted cautiously as a loyal Methodist, and conscientiously as an earnest Christian, I have never regretted what I did. It did not occur to me that I should be abused and vilified for trying to get the central subject of the Bible more perfectly understood ; so that, if I had it all again to do, with the light I then had, I would do it all again.

On the 12th of May, 1890, I delivered the lecture for the first time to an attentive audience in the Jackson Hall of the old Victoria College ; but, owing to a wrong meaning that was taken from it by certain persons present at the meeting, and to an imperfect report of it that was printed in the newspapers the next day, prejudice was created against me in the minds of many of my brethren. In the course of a few weeks, as our Conference was holding its sessions at Cobourg, I was startled one morning, on opening my Toronto paper, to find a resolution from the Guelph Conference, then meeting in Guelph, characterizing my views of Scripture as strongly rationalistic, accusing me of teaching that there is no Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament and that the prophets did not possess the gift of prophecy, except in the sense of foretelling present facts, and requesting the College authorities to take action in the matter, in order to protect our students from teaching that is contrary to the doctrinal standards of our Church.

On a question of privilege, I obtained permission, as soon as I could, to address the members of my Conference in regard to this strange resolution, telling them that its allegations were false and its representations ridiculous, assuring them that I had taught nothing un-Methodistic or unevangelical, and asking them if it was fair of my Western brethren to condemn a man before hearing him ; for, at that time, not a single member of the Conference that condemned me had, to my knowledge, heard my lecture. After listening to my address, the Conference adopted a kindly- worded resolution, expressing great satisfaction with my statement, deep regret at the action of the Guelph Conference, and full confidence in my integrity and evangelical orthodoxy.

The following Saturday I came, by the request of the local branch of the Theological Union, to repeat my lecture before the members of the Toronto Conference, which was then meeting in the Elm Street church ; but such was the prejudice that had been created by false rumors and misleading reports that, after I reached the church and the hour appointed for the lecture arrived, an attempt was made to keep it from being delivered, and a motion was carried, postponing its delivery for a couple of days ; so that, when I was permitted to give the lecture, the opposition was so great that I was frequently interrupted ; and, when I had finished reading it, some members of the Conference prevented the audience from giving me a vote of thanks. The report of that meeting, especially the account of the refusal of my brethren to allow me to receive a vote of thanks, produced a most unfavorable impression in the minds of Christian people in all parts of this country, an impression that has injured me in the estimation of many ever since.

That summer, after taking a short rest, I spent the time expanding my lecture and preparing it for the

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

press. I was not obliged to publish it at once, and I had a good excuse for delaying its publication, because of my lame arm and my infirm health ; but I knew that some members of the Theological Union desired to have it published as soon as possible, and I believed that a careful perusal of it would remove prejudice. So, assuming that it needed only to be understood to be appreciated, I went to work with an amanuensis, and got it ready for the October number of the Methodist Quarterly that fall. Then commenced a storm of criticism which was as unexpected as it was unpleasant, and which has continued in one quarter or another ever since.

In the first week of May, 1891, after twelve months of controversy, the Board of Regents met in Toronto to review the work of the session. At that meeting my case came up for consideration ; and, after much discussion, the Board directed the Secretary to request me by telegram to come to Toronto at once, as they wished me to explain some parts of my lecture. I came, as requested, and accompanied the Chancellor to the Board meeting the next morning, when the Chairman introduced me to the Regents, and read a long list of objectionable passages which they wished me to explain. I then addressed them for nearly three full hours, and not only explained every passage criticised, but also answered every question asked. After the meeting adjourned, official brethren came to thank me for my address, and even to compliment me on the character of my defence. Most of those who heard me admitted that they had misinterpreted my lecture, and seemed to be quite satisfied with my explanation ; so I expected no more embarrassment over the matter. I supposed that the governing body of the University would help me to allay the excitement that had been created, by correcting the false reports about my lecture that had been circulated

MESSIANIC PROPHECY VINDICATED.

during a year of controversy, but in this supposition I was terribly disappointed.

On the evening of that day, the Board met again for the purpose, amongst other things, of taking action in my case. As everything seemed to be satisfactory, I intended to return to Cobourg immediately ; but, at the request of the Chancellor, I decided to remain over till the morning, because he thought the Board might wish to question me still further on the subject. So I came to the Wesley Buildings, and waited in one of the offices till about ten o'clock, when, on the adjournment of the meeting, I learned, to my astonishment, that the Board had adopted a resolution to transfer me from the faculty of Theology to the faculty of Arts, and to commit my exegetical work to Chancellor Burwash. When this decision was made known to me, I could scarcely believe it. After the expressions of approval and appreciation which my explanation had elicited, such a resolution astounded me. I could not understand what they meant by resolving to transfer me from one faculty to another, when I was already a member of both faculties. So I told each of the Regents whom I met that I could not entertain the proposal for one moment, as it was a temporizing and stultifying arrangement.

As the Board was to meet again on the fifteenth of the next month, the day on which the corner-stone of the new Victoria College was laid in the Queen's Park, Toronto, I sent the Regents the following respectful letter : —

"Cobourg, June 12th, 1891.

" To the Board of Regents of Victoria U niversity :

" Gentlemen, — When, in deference to a courteous request from the Chancellor of the University, pursuant to a resolution by your honorable body, I met

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

the members assembled in Toronto, on the 8th of last month, for the purpose of giving them some needed information respecting my views on 'Messianic Prophecy,' I met them, as requested, in good faith, believing that the removal of certain misconceptions concerning the true character of my teaching was all that was expected or desired of me. Having carefully explained my treatment of the subject, and having thoroughly answered the objections urged against it by some who took exception to my discussion, I was assured by different members present at the meeting that my explanation was exceedingly satisfactory.

" After the assurances, direct as well as indirect, that I received respecting my defence, I was surprised to learn that evening that the Board had adopted a resolution proposing to transfer me from the faculty of Theology to the faculty of Arts. Having been a member of each faculty since the time that I received my appointment as a professor in the University, I find a difficulty in understanding the meaning of the resolution, as I cannot see how I can be transferred to a position which I already hold. If I had been officially informed in time of this peculiar proposal, I certainly should have promptly endeavored to prevent it from being either passed or published.

" Difficult as it is to understand the meaning of the resolution, it is, if possible, still more difficult for me to understand its purpose. So far as I am capable, though, of comprehending it, the proposal means not a mere transference from one faculty to another, but a complete removal from one faculty. The action of the Board, therefore, implies to me the one or the other of two things. Either it is a condemnation of my teaching, irrespective of its truth or falsity, without a due consideration of its object, or it is a condescension to a popular clamor, owing to unjustifiable prejudice, as a matter of expediency.

"If by this resolution the Board intended to condemn the subject-matter of my teaching, then in the interest of personal justice, as well as for the maintenance of that intellectual liberty without which the work of a University professor cannot be either efficiently or conscientiously performed, I would humbly claim the privilege of a full investigation of the question, and would also respectfully ask the members of the Board to suspend their judgment until I have had an opportunity of placing before the public a full and explicit exposition of the whole subject, a thing which I purpose doing at the earliest possible date. In that exposition I hope to be able to show that every fundamental truth has been not only sacredly conserved, but also more fully and richly illustrated by that which I believe I find in the facts of divinely inspired Scripture truth.

" If, on the other hand, the action of the Board is taken for the purpose of allaying popular prejudice, then I do not see how I can consistently with Christian principle or Christian honesty accept the position offered me. The work required of me in the faculty of Arts is of such a character that it cannot be properly or adequately taught without involving a consideration of the very questions which the proposal of the Board forbids me to discuss. In justice to myself, as well as to the truth, I cannot undertake to offer to my students the imperfect and incomplete instruction which the course contemplated by your resolution really implies. I must, therefore, earnestly request the Board to reconsider the resolution adopted at its previous meeting in reference to my status in the University. Biblical Criticism and Interpretation is my specialty. For post-graduate study in that department, I was granted leave of absence by your honorable body for nearly five consecutive years. To the work of my personal choice, as well as of my special

HISTORY OF THE CASfi.

qualification, I have not only devoted my energies, but also dedicated my life. In the performance of that work, I have always striven to investigate and expound truth in harmony with the mind of Christ, as well as in recognition of the divine character and the supreme authority of Scr ipture. In this way and with this spirit, I intend to prosecute the work of my department in the future.

" In conclusion, I cannot forbear expressing the reasonable hope that the Board will see its way to remove the disability, as well as the injustice, under which its recent resolution places me. Should this be the case, I scarcely need assure you, gentlemen, of my unqualified conviction that, by your sympathy and cooperation, I shall be able to remove entirely the painful misconceptions which have unfortunately been created in reference to my discussion of Messianic prophecy.

" Trusting that my hope will speedily be realized, " I am, Gentlemen,

" Yours very respectfully,

" G. C. Workman."

In reply to my letter, I received from the Secretary the following communication : —

" Cobourg, June 18th, 1891.

" Rev. Dr. Workman, Cobourg, Ont. :

" My dear Dr. Workman, — I enclose a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Regents in response to your communication which was laid before them. You will see that it virtually suspends for reconsideration the action taken at the May meeting, until you have an opportunity of placing before them and the public a statement and defence of your position.

" Verbally, I intimated that you might be able to do 2 this by the 1st of October ; and it is the understanding that about that date, should you be ready, they will be prepared to reconsider the entire question, when I hope a decision may be arrived at which will be satisfactory to both of us, and which will enable you to enter upon the work of next year, without any cloud which might interfere with your comfort in your work or your influence with your students. "Yours very sincerely,

"N. BURWASH,

" Secretary of Board."

The Resolution of the Regents reads as follows : —

" That the letter of Dr. Workman be received, and that the Secretary be instructed to reply that the Board will gladly receive any extended communication on the subject under investigation, and that when such communication is made they will be glad to consider with due care its bearing upon his future relation to the University."

This resolution I acknowledged in the following terms : —

"Cobourg, July 1st, 1891.

" To the Board of Regents of Victoria University :

"Gentlemen, — I desire to thank you very sincerely for the courteous resolution which was passed in reply to my recent letter to you, and which was forwarded to me at once by the Chancellor of the University.

" By or before the first of October, I hope to have my statement ready for presentation to you and to the public ; at which time I trust that your honorable body will be prepared to reconsider the question of my status in the University, as well as to remove the disability under which your previous resolution pro-

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

poses to place me, by arranging for me to enter upon the work of the approaching session unembarrassed by any restraint which would interfere either with the nature of my work in the lecture-room or with the character of my influence upon the students connected with my classes.

" I am, Gentlemen,

" Yours respectfully,

" G. C. Workman."

With this assurance of justice on the part of the Board, I felt encouraged ; and, after resting for a few weeks, I went to work at my " Sequel," and got it ready for the press about the beginning of October. When it was published, I ordered a copy of it to be sent to each member of the Board. As no meeting of the Board was announced when the time for opening the College drew near, I consulted with the Chancellor about my work, telling him that I could not lecture in either faculty until my case was settled. Having to go to Washington to attend the Ecumenical Council of Methodism immediately after the session commenced, he said to me before he started, " I have read your ' Sequel,' and I am perfectly satisfied, and I believe the Board will be." So I resumed my lectures, as usual, in the subjects of each faculty ; and, receiving no notice of a meeting of the Regents that fall, I continued my work to the end of the year, having one of the most delightful and satisfactory terms I ever had in the lecture-room.

The Board did not meet to consider my case till the 6th of January, 1892, when I presented, in person, the following communication : —