The Saviour in the newer light : a present day study of Jesus Christ

Front matter

the Gheologicns | \

PRINCETON, N. J.

BPa2O 1S RG SASS SS

Preface

THE diffidence which naturally I feel in addressing the public in regard to a subject so great, must yield to my desire to see generally known certain facts of supreme importance. And I trust that highly educated persons who may find many defects in this lttle book will not make the defects a reason for discrediting those very important facts which I am trying, to the best of my ability, to make known.

Tam addressing, however, not only highly educated persons, but also intelligent persons who may not have subjected themselves to instruction regarding the subject of my book; and I believe that many such may at first give it anything but approval, not on account of its defects but from other considerations. I do indeed value the approval and the sympathy of this class of people. And I ask them kindly not to assume a hostile attitude until they have carefully read at least the preface.

The origin of this book was in a much more lmited work to which I applied myself some years ago. It was in the work of trying to find some real history in the Fourth Gospel. I could not but recognise that, for the studious and reflective,

a al PREFACE.

the Fourth Gospel had been by modern criticism hurled down irrevocably from the high pedestal on which piety used to place it. And yet I joined with many in the belief that the correct view of it must be a middle one between the new and the old. I believed that there could be detected in it two constituents, a historical material and a doctrinal addition, and that the want of success on the part of those who had already tried to disjoin these was to be attributed to their having written too soon, and having accordingly tried to preserve as historical too much. On going on with that work I felt that its usefulness in this country would be greatly hindered by the fact that there has not yet been written in our language any satisfactory full account of Jesus as He lived on earth, from the point of view of modern thoughtfulness. That fact is the presupposition of my own attempt now, which is an attempt to give a modern account of Jesus, incorporating my former more limited work. It 1s a fact, so far as I have been able to ascertain, this want of a satisfactory modern account of Jesus. The magnificent work of Keim is, indeed, translated; but it is in six large volumes, too full and too weighty to be generally read. The work of Renan is much better known; but Renan’s book, attractive and most valuable as it is from its superb geographical descriptions and from its evident love of Jesus, is far from satisfactory. Not only is it justly condemned as wanting in reverence and in estimation of its sublime Subject—it has an even greater fault from the point of view of knowledge, it is exceedingly inaccurate. It was written too soon. Of British works I know of several of great value written in the lines of what is wanted; but all of them are very incomplete. Of the ‘Lives of Christ’ of the old-fashioned kind I wish, indeed, to say that I look up

PREFACE. Vil to their authors with great admiration of their erudition, and, in regard to the author of the best known of them amongst us, with grateful recognition of the fact that he has in other books and pamphlets written against superstition, and so helped to pave the way for that rational Theology which this book is meant to serve. But these books in no way meet the want to which I am referring. May I say of them respectfully that they also were written too soon? They do not give an account of Jesus as He must be viewed by modern thoughtfulness.

As regards the indebtedness of my own little work to the ereat scholars of Germany, I cannot myself say how far that may extend. Having been subjected to the thorough-going training of a Scotch University, I cannot distinguish how much I may owe to those pioneers of modern investigation. I may say, however, certainly, that some little knowledge of the German criticism of the Gospels is what has in great part awakened my understanding on the subject, but that, nevertheless, the main part of my work itself is original, and follows neither German leader nor German school. I wish to express my very decided indebtedness to several German scholars in particular, in whose works I have read, notably {after Keim) Holtzmann, Wittichen, Oscar Holtzmann, and very specially Pfleiderer, acute discriminator, initiator, rehgious enthusiast, and lucid imparter, whose venerable appearance lately among ourselves sounded the approach of triumphant days for Theology. Where I may be conscious of receiving an important idea from any of these or other scholars, I mention it in the margin. For the rest, I hope and believe that I am in no way guilty of plagiarism conscious or unconscious; but I acknowledge that the work vill PREFACE.

of the German critics, both of the advancing and of the retarding parties, has made my own little work possible.

And now it remains for me to do what I could not willingly publish my book without doing—namely, give one or two explanations to that class of people whom I have already alluded to, who are intelligent and interested in religious subjects, but are not familiar with the results of Biblical Criticism. Such people may, if they read the book, think at first sight that in it several important Christian doctrines are disregarded. I claim that in it all essentials of Christian doctrine are not only not disregarded, but the more securely built up. It is, indeed, in great measure my motive, as I publish what I believe to be true, that my doing so may help to re-establish and securely build up—not, indeed, any of those abominable superstitions which have perverted the Gospel, or good-news, of Jesus, into what has well been called a “gospel of damnation,” for from these the intelligent world is waking as from a nightmare, but—all those dear faiths in God and the hereafter to which our souls cling. To bring this out, however, more particularly in a preliminary way,

I must say a word or two on several different particular subjects :—

L

First, it may seem to some that what is called the Divinity of Christ and indeed, perhaps, the existence of the popularly believed-in “ Christ” are here disregarded, and that Jesus is presented as a merely human being. Let me say, then, that nothing could take away from us the existence of that Being popularly called “ Christ,” and that nothing could be further

PREFACE. 1X from the purpose of this book than to shake the belief in Him. The Eternal Divine Soul, to whom that name of “Christ” has been given—the Eternal Divine Soul, that enters into and sympathises with every human trouble, forces His existence upon our knowledge, and must still be called Redeemer as well as Father. And further, we cannot but think of Jesus when we think of this Being. When we try to have definite thoughts about the Eternal Divine Presence, we cannot but think of the character of Jesus, and say, There is what God is. So that Jesus and the Eternal God must be to us in a sense one and the same.

But on the other hand, i ws a fact that there was a man Jesus. It is ruinously fallacious—it is subversive of every hope of our religion having a healthful hold on the minds of intelligent men—to deny that Jesus was a man. “ Who is this?” was said among his contemporaries, who saw him with the eyes their Creator gave them. And they answered each other quite reverently, “ This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.” Furthermore, the Churches have really declared all through that Jesus wasa man. The way they have expressed this has been by saying that he had two natures, a Divine and.a human. And an interesting consideration is that the Churches have pronounced it just as much a heresy to deny his humanity as to deny his Divinity. Both heresies have been recognised and abjured from early Christian times. The one has been called first Arianism, then later Socinianism, then later still Unitarianism. ‘The other has also had its name, though few are familiar with it— namely, Docetism—that is, Seemingism, or the idea that Jesus only seemed to be a man. To any one, therefore, who may object to recognise Jesus’s humanity, and may try to injure x PREFACE.

the earnest teaching of those who do recoonise it by calling them by the name of “ Unitarian,” it can legitimately be replied, Are you quite sure that you may not yourself as justly be called a Docetist ? |

There is, however, recognised here, it is to be acknowledged, a slight change from the old-fashioned popular way of thinking about “Christ.” The change is this, that Jesus is here looked at not as zdentical with the Eternal Divine Soul, but as revealing the Eternal Divine Soul. This way of stating the truth is not at all new, indeed; and my book can claim no credit at all in regard to it. It is a way of stating the truth which took birth long ago, and has been growing up everywhere in Christendom for the last fifty years. It is, in fact, to be looked at as a discovery, just like any new discovery in any other branch of knowledge. This way of looking at the truth, then, is certainly presupposed and adhered toin my book. But this way of looking at the truth is not in disagreement with old Church teaching in its essence. It is a further elucidation of old Church teaching. The old Church teaching said Jesus was both God and man. Now that statement has no clear meaning for anybody; but multitudes have been content to accept it without understanding it, and have said that it is just a “mystery.” While, however, the conduct of these multitudes is all very well, surely now, when we attain to a way of understanding the position, it would be infatuated to say we refuse to understand it, and prefer the mystery. My book will, along with many thoughtful writings and voices of our time, endeavour to show that Jesus, through his character, has become and remains to us a splendid revelation of that Divine Soul that is near us all and calling us all to itself. How he has become so, I do

PREFACE. Xl not here inquire into. But to state the truth regarding him in this way is not inconsistent with old Church teaching. It is an improvement on old Church teaching. It is a further expression of what up to the time of our own century was expressed clumsily and most incompletely.

Ty

In the second place, some may think that the znspiration of the Bible is not here sufficiently regarded. JI would say to such, to begin with, that a slavish reading of the Bible is not of the spirit in which our Protestant Churches started. Luther, for example, subjected the books of the Bible to very free comparison according to the light of his time. And go we modern Protestants are only following the first Protestants if we read the Bible reverently indeed, but according to the light of our time. If Luther, still loyal to the Bible, could speak shghtingly of the first three gospels, and exalt the Fourth Gospel to be almost a Bible in itself, then thoughtful persons of modern times, still loyal to the Bible, may gently place the Fourth Gospel in the place which Truth and Reason assign to it. But further, our Scotch Church Standards, slavish as they are themselves, assert that the Bible can only be properly understood with the help of “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God.” Now that “inward illumination of the Spirit of God” is practically the same thing as the illumination of Reason—not as Reason may assert itself partially in any individual, but as it asserts itself in general movements in a period, leading communities to new points of view and to better understanding than may have before prevailed. And further, I would humbly claim

X11 PREFACE.

that one of the results of my work, along with the work of cleverer men in the same direction, will be both an increased estimation of the Bible and an increased love and reverence for the Bible. Looked at slavishly, the New Testament must, in these days of education, arouse distrust: in the mind of the most cursory reader. And are not many of our people, in the face of the glaring incongruities which literal reading of it brings before the intelligence, setting aside both itself and the religion which it represents as wanting in evidence? But looked at critically, the Bible becomes in time restored as a guide for the critical and thoughtful. In my own little work I have been again and again impressed and charmed by the real faithfulness, according with the views of their times, that prevails in the first three gospels, and even is strangely maintained in the fourth. Those who will cease worshipping the Bible as itself a deity, will come to hear all through it, and yet above it, the voice of the True God.

EEL

In the third place, some may be of opinion that all in the book may be quite true, but that it oughtn’t to have been written by a clergyman. If such an opinion be advanced, I can only decline to submit to it. From the submission to opinion of this kind, prevailing as I know it does, I demand, on behalf of the members of my profession and in the interests of religious faith, emancipation. It is indeed my great wish to see completely broken down the notion that a clergyman may not hold his appointment and yet speak out what may be learned in his own time in the

PREFACE. X1ll domain of religious truth. This little work will have feeble influence unless it is accompanied by other work in the same direction by the able clergymen of the country. Many of these feel themselves hampered by the kind of opinion of which I am now speaking. And would that I could help, in ever so small a way, to dislodge such opinion! The real duty of the minister of Jesus Christ is to bear witness to the truth. He is in a special position of advantage, both through his special study and through his daily work bringing before him a special set of facts, for knowing accurately what is the truth in relation to Theology. No outsider has quite his opportunities, and if he is to make himself an outsider, he will, humanly speaking, weaken his opportunities. He has been set, or has set himself, to learn the truth in regard to sacred things, and his duty to the people is to tell the truth in regard to sacred things. And on the other hand, what does the opinion feed on that interferes with this duty? It feeds on the notion that the minister of religion is bound in honesty not to go beyond the ancient Church formulas. But is that a solid notion ? I take my stand in regard to that question on these thoughts. Our clergymen in signing the Church formulas do not enter into a compact not to go beyond what they literally express. They sign adherence to them as a “confession,’—that is, as an expression,—which they understand to mean the same thing as signing adherence to the truths that they express; this is what our clergymen really do. And further, inasmuch as the formulas themselves decline to be authorities, but point away from themselves to the Bible, and further say plainly that God must be the interpreter of the Bible, the formulas themselves protect the

X1V PREFACE.

right of him who signs to appeal both from themselves and from the Bible to God. On the other hand, our clergymen, in being admitted as such, really take upon them obligations of a very different kind from any involved in the supposed compact not to go beyond the expression in the formulas. For one thing, they do virtually make a compact, which is a compact with the people; and the people’s real requirement of them is that they be open with them and tell them the truth in regard to sacred things. Besides this, they take upon them, as between themselves and their own consciences, the obligation to declare what they really believe to be the Divine message. It cannot be a right state of matters that the clergymen of a national Church, attaining new points of view through instruction and study, must either keep silence about these points of view or else resign their charges. Such a state of matters can only rest on the admission that the national Church is not broad enough to recognise all true views, and it would involve that many, in virtue of instruction and study, would have to desert their people, and withhold from them facts which they themselves believed to be of the highest importance. I appeal from having it admitted that this state of matters must prevail in regard to the ministry of the Church of Scotland.

In conclusion, I must deal with a reply which may be made to all that I have been saying—namely, this: Have not the most learned men “ answered” all these new views, and triumphantly demolished them? Do not believe that, earnest people. Many persons living in the time of the great Protestant Reformation thought similarly of the Protestant views. “The Papacy,” says Michelet in his life of Luther,

PREFACE. XV

“was far from suspecting its danger. Ever since the thirteenth century men had been disputing with it, had been railing against it, but apparently with no effect. The world, it imagined, had been quietly and permanently lulled to sleep by the dull and uniform clatter of the schools. It seemed as though scarcely anything new remained to be said about the matter.”! The Protestant views were alive, nevertheless, and in time spread victoriously. And so it must be with the main body of those views that are advanced with ever greater unanimity by Modern Criticism. These views may legitimately be called the newer Prod testant views; and neither can we “answer” them, nor would it be to our advantage to do so if we could. The ereat thing to. be desired is that we discriminate and gratefully receive all that is true in the new views, and put away those mistaken fancies that necessarily have mixed themselves with the truth in the emergence of the new views. Especially it is to be desired that we may attain the reverent point of view of modern criticism at its maturity, and avoid both the violence and one-sidedness of the earliest critics and the extravagances of some of the latest. Older men among us are apt to be prejudiced altogether against the new views, because they associate them with the cruel blows dealt by Strauss and others. Young men of reading, on the other hand, may be perplexed among the new views, because they know that there have now appeared books which deny almost all history in the gospels, and would steep the whole origin of our religion in darkness. Between these two extremes comes the Mature Life of Modern Biblical Criticism, which is reverent and reconstructive, and will

XV1 PREFACE.

assuredly make good its claim to be honoured as having achieved results unassailable.

Many among us, puzzled by the state of matters that has come to pass in regard to religion, are saying in effect, Go back to early Christianity—to the true “Catholic Church.” I think it is wiser to say, Go not to the past, but to the present, and listen to One ever present, who is caring for you, and will at times have no authority between you and Himself. It is hopeless to try and go back beyond the Roman Catholic Church to find a truer Catholic Church, because, if error prevailed in the middle ages, it also prevailed among the earliest Christians. And so I think the thoughtful thing to do is courteously to give the name of “Oathohe” to the ancient institution which has inherited it, and at the same time to give respect to all the bodies of earnest people that have separated from that institution because they believed that a Present God had other leading for them. But there is a going back that thought and research allow us; and in it I now ask the reverent reader to accompany me. It is the going back past Protestants, past Catholics, past early Fathers, and past Apostles, to Him whom we all call Lord, who in these late days is still the source of light and the centre for faith.

Kitmun, October 1895.

LV.

Contents

PART IL

BEFORE THE MINISTRY.

THE HIDDEN THIRTY YEARS .