{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40060/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40060","id":"gutenberg_40060","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40060","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Modernism (Christian theology)"],"text":"This E text uses UTF-8 (unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes,\nquotation marks and greek text [\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2] in this paragraph appear as\ngarbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts.\nFirst, make sure that your browser\u2019s \u201ccharacter set\u201d or \u201cfile encoding\u201d\nis set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.\n\n\n\n\n  The Christian Faith Under Modern Searchlights\n\n\n\n\n  _The L. P. Stone Lectures Delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary_\n\n\n  The Christian Faith Under Modern Searchlights\n\n  By WILLIAM HALLOCK JOHNSON, Ph. D., D.D. _Professor of Greek and New\n  Testament Literature in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania_\n\n  With an Introduction by FRANCIS LANDEY PATTON, D.D., LL.D. _President\n  Emeritus of Princeton Theological Seminary_\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n  NEW YORK CHICAGO TORONTO\n\n  Fleming H. Revell Company\n\n  LONDON AND EDINBURGH\n\n\n\n\n  Copyright, 1916, by FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY\n\n  New York: 158 Fifth Avenue\n  Chicago: 17 North Wabash Ave.\n  Toronto: 25 Richmond Street, W.\n  London: 21 Paternoster Square\n  Edinburgh: 100 Princes Street\n\n  _To_\n\n  _V. S. F._\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction\n\n\nIt was my good fortune to hear the lectures contained in this volume\nwhen they were given in the Miller Chapel of Princeton Theological\nSeminary. The high estimate I then formed of them has since been\nenhanced by the reading of the proof-sheets.\n\nProfessor Johnson is a well-trained student of philosophy and for some\nyears has been professionally engaged in the teaching of New Testament\ncriticism. He may therefore be trusted as a competent judge of the\nissues that are raised by anti-Christian thought in the two great fields\nof contemporary controversy.\n\nThe only view of Christianity worth contending for in any serious way is\nthat which regards it as a supernatural revelation. The author states\nhis own position in the first lecture. This position is antagonized by\nthose who hold a naturalistic or pantheistic view of the world and also\nby those who, whatever may be their philosophy, are using the weapons of\nhistorical criticism to discredit miraculous Christianity.\n\nI can imagine that there are two classes of Christians for whom these\nlectures will have only a moderate interest: those who are possessed of\na strong and aggressive faith and who are impatient of all discussion\nthat seems to carry with it the implication that their religious\nconvictions stand in need of any defense; and those who, by reason of\ntheir easy acquiescence in the conclusions of a minimizing theology,\nlook upon such discussions as having a tendency to divide the household\nof faith and to divert attention from the activities of the Church.\n\nThere is, however, I am confident, a large class of men in and out of\nthe Church who would welcome a clear statement of the case of\nChristianity in the light of current debate and to men of this class I\nhave great pleasure in commending the present volume.\n\nThe merit of these lectures consists largely in the fact that the author\ntakes a comprehensive survey of the latest phases of anti-Christian\nthought, that he has a firm hold upon the central and vital questions\ninvolved in the great debate, and that he does not allow himself to be\nhampered by dealing needlessly with side issues. He is keen and\npenetrating in his criticism of those who belittle the evidence in\nsupport of revealed religion, and generous, sometimes to a fault, in his\nappreciation of writers with whose dominant ideas he has but scant\nsympathy. Of his learning and logical acumen there is no doubt and his\nfairness in controversy is above reproach.\n\nAs the title of this volume suggests, we have no reason to fear that the\nChristian faith will suffer loss by reason of the fierce light of\ncriticism which now beats upon it. We must not undervalue learning nor\nshrink from a searching scrutiny of our beliefs. The truth of\nChristianity is not hard to discover when truth is sought through the\nmedium of normal vision. But our opponents must remember that when\ninquiry is entered upon amid the blinding mists of philosophic\npreconception and historic prejudice the best instruments of\ninvestigation will fail to overcome the condition of \"low visibility\"\nwhich confronts the seeker. The searchlight is of little use in a fog.\n\n    FRANCIS L. PATTON.\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\n\nA deep unsettlement of belief is characteristic of our age. We prize the\ndoubt that low kinds and simpler ages existed without; an interrogation\npoint is held to be the badge of mental superiority. While this\nunsettlement is to be deplored when it leads, as it does in so many\ncases, to the shipwreck of faith and even of morals, there is yet a\ncertain exhilaration in living in a critical age. The challenge to\nfaith, meeting us at every point, rouses from dogmatic slumber and dead\northodoxy. We realize that the faith which is to survive must be not\nsimply a traditional faith, but an intelligent faith, sending its roots\ndown deep into reason and experience, and blossoming upward in the\nflowers and fruits of character and of good works. As character receives\nits crown in the times of persecution, so perhaps faith may grow\nstrongest in an age of doubt: it was the doubter among the disciples who\nat last made the boldest confession of faith. A restless age may at last\nheed the invitation, \"Come unto Me; I will give you rest.\"\n\nThese lectures, delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary in February,\n1914, under the title of \"The Christian Faith in the Light of Modern\nKnowledge,\" have now been revised with the addition of new matter. They\nwere written in the conviction that what Christianity has most to fear\nis ignorance and prejudice and presupposition; that the Christian Faith,\nwith its motto, \"Come and see,\" welcomes the fullest investigation; and\nthat every advance in knowledge, whatever temporary perplexities it may\noccasion, will in the end reveal more fully the intrinsic excellence of\nthe Christian religion and establish more firmly its sovereign claim to\nbe from heaven and not from men.\n\n    W. H. J.\n\n    _Lincoln University, Pa._\n\n\n\n\nContents\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n  WHAT IS THE CHRISTIAN FAITH?\n\n  Need of a definition 15\n\n  I. The Christianity of the New Testament Writers 16\n     Their emphasis upon the Passion and Resurrection 16\n     Their emphasis upon the Person of Christ 20\n\n  II. Primitive Christianity and Pauline Christianity 21\n      Was Paul the Founder of Christianity? 21\n      Lines of connection between Paul and the Primitive Apostles 22\n\n  III. The Christianity of Jesus and of Paul 26\n       Harmony in their Ethical Teaching and in their blending\n         of Doctrine with Ethics 27\n       The Christological passage, Matthew xi. 25-30: its exegesis\n         and its alleged isolation 35\n       The Passion narrative in Mark: views of Bousset 41\n       Self-authenticating contrasts in the Character of Christ 43\n\n  IV. The Dilemma of Historical Criticism 44\n      Jesus as viewed by the Liberal and the Radical Schools 44\n      The Dilemma of Liberal Criticism 45\n      Lessening Significance of a merely human Jesus 49\n      Harnack and von Dobsch\u00fctz on the \"Double Gospel\" 53\n      The Essence of Christianity 54\n\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MODERN SCIENCE\n\n  The Darwinian Theory: inferences unfavourable and favourable to\n      religion 56\n  Evolution and the Copernican Revolution 60\n\n  I. The Method of Evolution: the biological discussion 61\n     State of opinion after fifty years of Darwinism 61\n     Laws of Variation and Heredity 62\n     Weismann's theory of Germinal Selection 63\n     Significance of the variety in opinions 65\n\n  II. The Meaning of Evolution: the philosophical discussion 66\n      1. Mechanism and Design 66\n      In the organic world in general; the fitness of the environment 67\n      In the organic world including man 70\n      2. Preformation and Epigenesis 73\n      Preformation and the infinite regress 74\n      The Origin of Life: various theories 75\n      The Origin of Man as viewed from different standpoints 78\n      The _Generatio \u00c6quivoca_ 80\n\n  III. Theism and Evolution 82\n       The causal demand 82\n       Theism and the ideas of Continuity and Progress 83\n       Religion and scientific advance 85\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  The Christian Faith and Psychology\n\n  The Psychology of Religion: its precursors and founders 89\n\n  I. The Psychology of Religious Experience: points emphasized\n        in the discussion 92\n     1. The normality of religion 92\n     2. The power of religion in the individual and in society 96\n     3. The need of salvation 100\n     4. The way of salvation 102\n\n  II. The Metaphysical Implicates of Religious Experience 105\n     1. The Physical Explanation: religion the result of bodily\n        conditions; religion and sex 106\n     2. The Psychological Explanation: religion and the subconscious 111\n     3. The Social Explanation: religion and society 114\n     4. The Theistic Infer enc 119\n        The Pragmatic Argument for Theism 119\n        The Mystical Argument: its strength and its weakness 120\n        The Evidence of Christian Experience 122\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND RECENT PHILOSOPHY\n\n  The philosophical situation at the opening of the century 125\n  Leading representatives of present day philosophy 127\n\n  I. Bergson and Creative Evolution 127\n       Creative Evolution a drama in three acts 128\n       Features of Bergson's system: the vital impulse 129\n       His rejection of Finalism: is it compatible with Theism? 132\n\n  II. Eucken and the Truth of Religion 137\n       His critique of Naturalism, of Pragmatism and of Absolutism 138\n       Universal Religion and Characteristic Religion 140\n       Eucken's relation to Christianity: \"Can we still be\n         Christians?\" 142\n       Bergson and Eucken as prophets of a new era 146\n\n  III. Ward and the Realm of Ends 146\n       His transition from Pluralism to Theism 147\n       His argument for Immortality 152\n       Pampsychism and Metempsychosis 153\n       Difficulties in the doctrine of Pampsychism 154\n\n  IV. Royce and the Problem of Christianity 155\n      Christianity as a Religion of Loyalty 157\n      \"What is vital in Christianity?\" 158\n      The Christian ideas of Sin and of Atonement or Grace 159\n      The Church as a source of salvation: its origin 161\n      Philosophical interest in Christianity and its significance 164\n\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n  THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND OTHER RELIGIONS\n\n  The Universal Mission of Christianity 165\n\n  I. Christianity and Ancient Religions 165\n       The resemblances and their significance 166\n       Clemen's \"religious-historical\" principles 168\n       1. The Virgin Birth and its alleged parallels 169\n       2. The worship of Christ and the worship of the\n          Emperor: origin of the \"Kyrios\" title 172\n       3. Paul and the Mystery Religions 177\n       Pauline doctrine of the Sacraments and of dying and\n          rising with Christ 180\n       The Pauline vocabulary: views of Reitzenstein 185\n       Why did Christianity conquer the Roman Empire? 192\n\n  II. Christianity and Modern Religions 193\n      The missionary propaganda 194\n      Dangers of compromise 195\n      The Christian _Plerosis_: the fulfillment of the great\n         religious ideas of the race 197\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n  THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM\n\n  The value and significance of Biblical Criticism 200\n  Relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament 201\n\n  I. The Pauline Epistles 203\n     The T\u00fcbingen view and later criticism 204\n     The Epistle to the Ephesians 204\n\n  II. The Acts of the Apostles 205\n      Evidences of trustworthiness 206\n      Harnack on the Lukan authorship 208\n      Harnack and Koch on the date 210\n      Did Luke use Josephus? 213\n\n  III. The Synoptic Problem 216\n       The Two-Document theory 217\n       Modifications of the theory by the assumption:\n         (1) of a larger dependence on oral tradition 219\n         (2) of the use of Q by Mark 220\n         (3) of different editions of Mark 220\n       \"Secondary elements\" in Mark 221\n       Bearing of Harnack's early dating of the Lukan writings 225\n       The inter-Synoptic differences 226\n\n  IV. The Johannine Problem 227\n      Evidence for Apostolic authorship 228\n      Rejection of Apostolic authorship on the assumption:\n         (1) that John never lived at Ephesus 230\n         (2) that there were two Johns at Ephesus 232\n      The partition theory 234\n      The internal evidence: style and contents of the Fourth Gospel 234\n      Relation to the Synoptic Gospels as supplementary,\n         explanatory and independent 236\n      Concluding remarks 242\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT IMPORTANT WORKS 244\n\n  INDEX 249\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\nWhat Is the Christian Faith?\n\nIf every rational discussion, as Cicero has said, should begin with a\ndefinition, it would be well at the outset to try to answer the question\nwhich forms the title of this lecture. Of the definitions which may be\ngiven of the Christian Faith two may be selected as typical: (1) it is\nthe faith in the providence and love of God which Jesus exercised and\nexemplified; or (2) it is the faith of which Jesus Himself is the\nobject. In the one case the essence of Christianity will be found in the\nsimple precepts of the Peasant-Prophet of Galilee, in the other in the\ndeveloped Christology of the Apostle Paul.\n\nIt is safe to say that the average Christian will not be satisfied with\neither of these definitions. He looks to Jesus, it is true, as his\nTeacher and Example, but he also trusts Him as his Redeemer and worships\nHim as his Lord. The real question at issue is whether original\nChristianity, the religion which Jesus taught, was thus inclusive of\ndoctrine as well as ethics. Does Christianity in its essence include\nChristology? The attempt to answer this question will not only introduce\nour general theme but will bring us into the heart of it. It will be\nconvenient to consider in order: I. The Christianity of the New\nTestament Writers; II. Primitive Christianity and Pauline Christianity;\nIII. The Christianity of Jesus and of Paul; and IV. The Dilemma of\nHistorical Criticism.\n\n\nI. THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS\n\nThe scientific study of the New Testament has brought clearly to light\nthe individual traits of the various writers, but has shown at the same\ntime the striking agreement of these writers in their fundamental\nconception of the Christian Faith. For those who set forth objectively\nthe words and ministry of Jesus as well as for those who deal more\nexplicitly with doctrinal interpretation, the centre of interest lies in\nthe Person, the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ. It may be well\nto illustrate this unity of standpoint, while the fact of it is so\ngenerally conceded that it needs no elaborate proof.\n\nIn the Apocalypse the sacrificial expression, \"the Lamb,\" occurs at\nleast twenty-eight times; and the central figure is that of the Lamb\nthat was slain but is now seated upon the throne. In the First Epistle\nof John, Jesus is described as the propitiation for sin (ii. 2; iv. 10),\nand as the Son of God throughout the book. In First Peter the readers\nare addressed as those who have been begotten again to a living hope by\nthe Resurrection (i. 3), and redeemed by the precious blood of Christ\n(i. 19). The Epistle to the Hebrews is saturated with the language of\nthe sacrificial ritual, and describes the priestly work of Christ who\ntasted death, put away sin, and ever lives in the heavenly sanctuary to\nmake intercession. The Christological element is of course very\nprominent in Paul's Epistles. According to the Book of Acts, the\nApostles preached Jesus and the Resurrection (iv. 2; xvii. 18, etc.).\nThe death of Christ, mentioned some thirteen times, the Resurrection,\nmentioned or implied twenty times, and the forgiveness of sins,\nmentioned in more or less close connection with these eight times,[1]\nwere the central themes of apostolic preaching, which included in the\ncase of Peter, an eye-witness, the teaching and mighty words of Jesus\n(ii. 22; x. 36-38).\n\n  1: See especially v. 30, 31; x. 39, 40, 43; xiii. 37-39.\n\nIn the Gospels it will be found that almost exactly one-third of the\ntextual material (in the Westcott and Hort edition about eighty out of\nthe two hundred and forty pages) is taken up with events connected with\nthe Passion and Resurrection, including the incidents and teachings of\nthe Passion week. In Luke the proportion is somewhat smaller (some\nsixteen out of seventy-three pages) than in the other Gospels; but that\nthe Passion is equally prominent in the mind of the writer is shown by\nthe fact that the shadow of it is projected back even to chapter ix.\n51, and that in Luke alone the \"exodus\" at Jerusalem is the theme of\nconversation in the Transfiguration scene (ix. 31). Even Mark, showing\nleast of all, it used to be said, the influence of later theological\nreflection, has been called a history of the Passion with an\nintroduction. As Harnack has said: \"The whole work of Mark is so\ndisposed and composed that death and resurrection appear as the aim of\nthe entire presentation.\"[2]\n\n  2: \"Aus Wissenschaft und Leben,\" II, 1911, p. 217.\n\nThe centre of interest for the Evangelists as well as for Paul and the\nauthor of Hebrews is Christ and Him crucified, the Passion and\nResurrection. It may be said, though, that the interest of the\nEvangelists is a biographical one, an interest in a beloved teacher or\nmartyred leader, comparable with that of Plato and Xenophon in the last\ndays and words of Socrates, and not a distinctly theological interest\nsuch as Paul felt in the death of Christ, as intimately connected with\nhis own experience of redemption from sin.\n\nOne answer to this is that the interest of the Evangelists is not merely\nin the death but in the resurrection of Jesus. It is worthy also of note\nthat the author of the Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of John has shown\nthat, to one New Testament writer at least, description and\ninterpretation were equally important. John's description of the death\nof Christ is as detailed and as objective as that of the other Gospel\nwriters; yet his interpretation of the Passion as a propitiation for sin\n(I John ii. 2; iv. 10) is the same as that of the Apostle Paul. While\nJohn places the words \"Lamb of God\" in the mouth of the Baptist (i. 29,\n36), and uses the expression, \"the blood of Jesus his Son who cleanses\nus from all sin\" (I John i. 7), he never, except possibly in a veiled\nway, places the language of sacrifice in the mouth of Jesus Himself.\nThere is no reason to doubt that the other Evangelists who record the\nthrice repeated prediction of the Crucifixion (see Mark viii. 31; ix.\n12; x. 33, and parallels) would, equally with John, be interested in its\ndoctrinal interpretation. Such an interpretation is in fact suggested by\nthe words of Jesus Himself. At the Last Supper, He brought His death\ninto connection with the forgiveness of sins, and when He spoke of it as\na \"ransom for many\"[3] used language which is naturally interpreted in a\nsacrificial sense. Luke, it is true, nowhere uses the word \"ransom,\" but\nthere is no reason to doubt that he shared the Pauline view of the death\nof Christ. This is clearly indicated by the expression, \"purchased with\nhis own blood,\" contained in one of the \"we-sections\" of Acts (xx. 28),\nand in fact by the words of the risen Jesus (Luke xxiv. 46, 47). As the\naltar was central in the Old Testament, so, from the standpoint of its\nwriters, is the Passion in the New Testament.\n\n  3: \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd [lytron anti poll\u00f4n]. Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28.\n\nIt is needless to show in detail that an exalted view of the person of\nChrist is with the New Testament writers connected with the central\nplace which they assign to His death and resurrection. Mark, whose\nChristology is thought to be least developed, may be taken as a single\nexample. In the opening scene of the ministry, as in the Transfiguration\nscene, the divine voice says: \"Thou art (this is) my beloved Son\" (i.\n11; ix. 7); and in the closing scene the centurion exclaims, \"Truly this\nman was the Son of God\" (or a son of God, Mark xv. 39). The climax of\nthe narrative is said to be the confession of Peter, \"Thou art the\nChrist\" (viii. 29); and Jesus alludes to Himself as \"the Son,\" above\nprophets and men and angels (xii. 6; xiii. 32). At the trial, in answer\nto the solemn question of the high priest, \"Art thou the Christ, the Son\nof the blessed?\" He said, \"I am\" (xiv. 61-62). Bousset admits that the\nthree first Gospels differ from the Fourth only in degree,[4] and in his\nlatest work he says that if the phrase \"Son of God\" (i. 1), omitted in\nmany manuscripts of Mark, is really an interpolation, it is a suitable\none as indicating the theme of the book.[5] Wrede even says the Gospel\nof Mark belongs in a sense to the history of dogma.[6]\n\n  4: \"Was Wissen Wir von Jesus?\" 1904, p. 54.\n\n  5: \"Kyrios Christos,\" 1913, p. 70, note 1, and p. 65.\n\n  6: See Schweitzer: \"Von Reimarus zu Wrede,\" p. 336; E. T., \"Quest of\n  the Historical Jesus,\" p. 337.\n\nFor the writers of the New Testament, leaving out for the present the\nquestion of sources, in spite of differences in time and place and race\nand circumstances, and by implication for the various circles of\nreaders, Jewish, Greek and Roman, whom they addressed, there was but one\nkind of Christianity, one gospel of the Kingdom and the Cross and the\nSon of God.\n\n\nII. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY AND PAULINE CHRISTIANITY\n\nIt is asserted that the striking unanimity of the New Testament writers\nin their view of Christianity is not due to the teaching of Jesus, but\nto the powerful influence of the Apostle Paul. The statement is made in\nmany quarters that not Jesus but Paul was the virtual founder of\nChristianity, so far as its central doctrines, its institutions, its\nworship of a divine Christ, and its world-wide propaganda are concerned.\nIn Paul, it is said, the gospel of a simple piety and a pure ethic, the\ngospel of Jesus, was so overlaid by the incrustations of dogma that its\ntrue nature was hidden until rediscovered by modern criticism; and it\nhad thus lost the simplicity that is in Christ. It was Paul himself,\nwhose missionary labours carried the gospel throughout Europe, that\nreally preached \"another gospel.\" As Schweitzer, following Kalthoff,\nsuggests with some irony, there was, under this supposition, \"an\nimmediate declension from and falsification of a pure original\nprinciple\" in Christianity, comparable only to the Fall in the moral\nhistory of mankind.[7]\n\n  7: \"Von Reimarus zu Wrede,\" p. 312; E. T., \"Quest, etc.,\" p. 314.\n\nThe teaching of the primitive apostles is sometimes declared to be an\nintermediate step between the gospel of Jesus and the doctrinal\nChristianity of Paul. It is desirable then to compare the Pauline\nteaching, first with the teaching of the other apostles and the\nJerusalem church, and then with the teaching of Jesus.\n\nWhen we examine the historical situation, the lines of connection\nbetween Paul and the primitive apostles and the Jerusalem church are so\nmany and so strong as practically to negative the supposition of a\nfundamental difference between them in their conception of the gospel.\n\n(1) If Luke had written the Fourth Gospel, the case would be different;\nbut Luke wrote (assuming his authorship of the Third Gospel and the\nActs)[8] the Gospel which contains the Sermon on the Mount and the\nparables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. When one remembers\nthat Luke was the intimate companion of Paul and his co-labourer in\nmissionary work before he wrote his Gospel, that he derived his material\nlargely from \"eye-witnesses of the word,\" and that afterwards he\nrecorded the teaching of both Peter and Paul in the Acts, it is clear\nthat Luke himself saw no essential difference between the Christianity\nof the primitive apostles and that of Paul, and it becomes improbable\nthat such a difference existed.\n\n  8: See Chapter VI.\n\n(2) Paul took with him on his missionary journeys Barnabas and Silas,\naccredited leaders and representatives of the primitive Jerusalem church\n(Acts xiii. 2f.; xv. 40). Paul's work for years was carried on under the\nsurveillance of these men, and Barnabas stood sponsor for Paul before\nthe Jerusalem authorities (Acts xv. 12). The close connection of these\ntwo men with both parties excludes the supposition of any radical\ndifference in their doctrines.\n\n(3) Paul's Christology was accepted by his Jewish-Christian opponents at\nJerusalem, and never questioned by them. Paul we know to have been\nbitterly assailed by a Pharisaic party in the Jerusalem church. They\ndogged his steps wherever he went; they impugned his orthodoxy from the\nMosaic standpoint; they called in question his apostleship and his\nsincerity. But it is significant that they never assailed as an\ninnovation the Christological views in which he is supposed to differ\nfrom them. \"Certain from James\" (Gal. ii. 12), in the bitter polemic\nover circumcision, never accused Paul, as they would have done if his\nviews were different in this respect, of a declension from Jewish\nmonotheism. Paul doubtless used the name current in Jerusalem when he\nspoke, in a context in which he puts Christ above men and above angels\nand on an equality with God as a source of grace, of \"James, the Lord's\nbrother\" (Gal. i. 3, 12, 19). He used the same titles as did those at\nJerusalem, and a difference in Christological dogma can only be made out\nby saying that the names are used in different senses.[9] This is to\nadmit that the difference discovered by modern critical acumen was so\nsmall as not to be recognized by either party at the time. In Paul's\ncontroversial encounter with Peter, in a context full of the\ncharacteristic Pauline ideas of Justification, of the Cross, of the\nindwelling Christ, and of Jesus as the Son of God, Paul appealed to the\nessential unity of their Christian faith and experience (Gal. ii.\n11-21).\n\n  9: So Wernle: \"Die Anf\u00e4nge unserer Religion,\" 2d ed., 1904, p. 177.\n  He says that Paul makes of Jesus \"an almost new creation,\" yet uses\n  the same titles as the other apostles.\n\n(4) Paul asserts the identity of his gospel with that of the primitive\napostles as well known to his readers. He preached the faith of which he\nonce made havoc (Gal. i. 23). His gospel of a crucified and risen\nChrist, he declares, was \"received,\" not invented (I Cor. xv. 3), was\nin accordance with Jewish Scriptures, and the inference is unavoidable\nthat it was held and taught in common by Peter and James, the Jerusalem\nleaders. Both Peter and Paul taught Jesus and the Resurrection (Acts ii.\n31; xiii. 34; xvii. 31); and as Harnack says, there is no reason to\ndoubt the representations of the first chapter of the Acts as to early\napostolic belief.[10]\n\n  10: \"Aus Wissenschaft und Leben,\" II, p. 217. He adds that \"herewith\n  is the problem (of a 'second gospel' in the New Testament) pushed\n  back in time from Paul to the earliest disciples of Jesus.\"\n\nThe Resurrection is emphasized alike in the speeches of Peter in Acts\nand in the First Epistle (I Peter i. 3; ii. 24; iii. 21). In Romans the\nResurrection is mentioned seven times (i. 4; iv. 25; vi. 4; vii. 4;\nviii. 34; x. 9; xiv. 9), and enters into the warp and woof of Paul's\nteaching. The thought of Paul is doubtless more systematic and\nconstructive, but it is unnatural to believe either that Paul had a\ndifferent view of the nature of the Resurrection, or that he drew\ndoctrinal inferences from it which the other apostles would not\naccept.[11] It is hard to see, moreover, how the theory that Paul's\nteaching was essentially different from that of the Jerusalem church,\nand the theory that Paul profoundly influenced all of the New Testament\nwriters can consistently be held at the same time.\n\n  11: If Paul taught not a bodily but a \"spiritual\" resurrection, as\n  some interpreters think that his language in I Cor. xv. 50 implies,\n  the emphasis upon the supernatural would be greater in the case of\n  the primitive church. In his \"Historical Evidence for the\n  Resurrection of Jesus Christ,\" 1907, Kirsopp Lake says that the\n  affirmation of an empty tomb was made by most early Christians, and\n  \"almost certainly by St. Paul\" (p. 242). He contends, however, that\n  the \"story of the empty tomb must be fought out on doctrinal, not on\n  historical or critical grounds\" (p. 253).\n\n\nIII. THE CHRISTIANITY OF JESUS AND OF PAUL\n\nA more serious question meets us when we come to the relation of Paul's\nteaching to that of Jesus Himself. Behind the writers of the New\nTestament and behind the teaching of the apostles, is there not in the\nauthentic words of Jesus as determined by criticism a simpler gospel of\nthe love of God and the duty of man, from which Christology and the\ndoctrines of the Cross are excluded? May we not \"lighten the distressed\nship of the gospel\" by casting overboard its cargo of doctrine? Harnack\nthinks that we may; and in his famous lectures on the \"Essence of\nChristianity\" has set forth the seeming anomaly of the gospel of Christ\nwith Christology omitted, a gospel which includes only the Father and\nnot the Son.\n\nThe essence of Christianity according to Paul would be contained in the\nstatements, \"While we were yet sinners Christ died for us\" (Rom. v. 8);\n\"God was in Christ reconciling the world\" (2 Cor. v. 19); \"He loved me\nand gave himself for me\" (Gal. ii. 20). Paul's gospel was the gospel of\nChrist and Him crucified. The essence of Christianity according to\nHarnack consists in the truths of the fatherly love of God and the value\nof the individual soul. It is indeed a gospel preached by Christ, but in\nthe content of its message is the Father only--not the Son.[12] The\ncontrast thus asserted suggests the need of a closer examination of the\nrelation of Jesus and Paul.\n\n  12: \"The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do with the\n  Father only and not with the Son.\" \"Das Wesen des Christentums,\" 1900,\n  p. 91; E. T., \"What is Christianity?\" p. 154.\n\nNothing is more striking in the comparison between Jesus and Paul than\nthe difference in their personality and yet the similarity in their\nethical teaching. Jesus was a Galilean, born in humble circumstances,\nbelonging to the peasant or working class, a stranger to the training of\nthe schools, a \"layman,\" and an Oriental in His mode of thought and\nexpression. Paul was a native of Tarsus, a Greek city which was noted as\nthe seat of a philosophical school; his father was a man of consequence,\na Roman citizen, who gave his son the best education that the Jewish\nschools could afford. He was a typical member of the proudest caste of a\nproud nation, proud of his race, of his learning, of his strictness in\nreligion and his zeal for the Law (Phil. iii. 6), trained in the\nrefinements of Rabbinical dialectic, but an Occidental in his method of\nthought. Yet in ethics Paul stands very near to Jesus. Both emphasized\nthe same virtues, and these the very virtues most foreign to Paul's\nearly Gr\u00e6co-Roman environment and his later Pharisaic prejudice. Where\nJesus said, \"Blessed are the poor in spirit,\" Paul, blameless in the\nlaw, said, \"Boasting is excluded. By grace are ye saved\" (Rom. iii. 27;\nEph. ii. 5). Where Jesus said, \"He that exalteth himself shall be\nhumbled\" (Luke xviii. 14), Paul, the Pharisee, said, \"In lowliness of\nmind let each esteem other better than themselves\" (Phil. ii. 3). Where\nJesus said, \"Love your enemies,\" Paul, the persecutor now the\npersecuted, repeated the command so foreign to the moral ideals of his\ntime (Rom. xii. 20). Both taught that in the command to love one's\nneighbour was a summary of the moral law (Rom. xiii. 10; Matt. xxii. 38,\n39).\n\nPaul's great ethical passages, such as Romans xii. and I Corinthians\nxiii., are but republications in Pauline language of the Sermon on the\nMount. In moral teaching Jesus and Paul are at one, although there can\nbe no doubt which was the originator of the Christian philosophy of\nlife. Jesus whose code was but the transcript of His character is the\noriginal; and Paul, conformed in thought and spirit to the image of\nJesus, was the echo.\n\nBut Paul's moral teaching was by no means merely an echo or reminiscence\nof the ethics of Jesus; it was organically connected with his own\ndoctrinal teaching. In Paul's letters there is usually an ethical\nsection, but this is preceded by a didactic or doctrinal section.\nDoctrine with him, in the words of Phillips Brooks, was the \"child of\nfaith and the mother of duty.\" Admittedly his doctrine is used to\nenforce and to inspire his ethics. A high Christology--\"Christ also\npleased not himself\" (Rom. xv. 3)--enforces the appeal not to please\noneself. The Incarnation is the supreme example of generosity to the\npoor, and the death upon the Cross of lowliness of mind and obedience (2\nCor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5-8). His own sacrifice for our sins grounds the\nplea for a life of unselfishness (2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Rom. xii. 1). We\nshould walk in love as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us (Eph. v.\n2); and should walk in newness of life, as Christ was raised from the\ndead by the glory of the Father (Rom. vi. 4). Doctrine with Paul and\nethics in its solemn sanctions and its inspiring motivation are\ninextricably intertwined. Paul's doctrine about the person of Christ and\nHis death and resurrection can be disentangled from his ethical teaching\nas little as it can from his experience. Certainly the doctrine was no\nalien or extraneous element in Paul's system, and certainly it\nstrengthened rather than weakened his ethical appeal.\n\nIs there a similar blending of ethics and doctrine in the teaching of\nJesus? For the gospel of Jesus in its purity we must, according to a\npopular school of criticism, go back of the Fourth Gospel to the\nSynoptics, and back of these to their sources, practically to Mark and\nto the source called Q (Quelle), or the Logia, representing the\nnon-Markan agreements of Matthew and Luke. Even in these sources, it is\noften maintained, caution must be used, and foreign elements must be\neliminated. Let us see, then, whether there is such a mingling of the\nethical and the Christological in the authentic teaching of Jesus as we\nhave noticed in that of Paul. The Sermon on the Mount, the words to the\ndisciples after the confession of Peter (Mark viii. 34-38), and the\nteaching on true greatness (Mark x. 42-45), may be taken as typical\nexamples of Jesus' ethical teaching. In these passages are not merely\ndisconnected maxims, but an ethical system, containing a profound and,\nas we may say, fully thought out philosophy of life, in which the\nreligious and ethical elements are organically united.\n\nThe Beatitudes begin with passive virtue, humility, meekness, longing\nfor righteousness; they pass on to the possession of righteousness and\npurity of heart; ascend to works of active benevolence; and culminate in\na character so positive and pronounced in goodness as to excite\nopposition from the forces of evil. At least one element in the\nconsciousness of Jesus as He spoke these words may be compared with the\nChristological standpoint of Paul. The impression which His teaching\nmade upon His hearers is summed up in the words: \"He taught them as one\nhaving authority\" (Matt. vii. 29). If we seek to analyze this authority,\nwe find it to be, first, the authority of perfect moral insight. A flaw\ndiscovered in the character of a teacher easily neutralizes the force of\nhis moral appeal. The ethic of Jesus is not merely a system of rules,\nbut the blending of a code which has guided human progress and a\ncharacter in which men have found their supreme ideal of moral\nexcellence. His sureness of touch, His clearness of moral insight, His\ntransparent beauty of character, betray a consciousness unique among\nmen. The verdict of mankind as they have studied the character of Jesus,\nand studied themselves in the light of it, is that that character is as\nmuch a miracle in the moral sphere,--that is, opposed to a uniform\nexperience--as is the birth from a virgin, for example, in the physical\nsphere. The consciousness of Jesus, at the very least, must have been\nprofoundly influenced by the fact, assuming it to be a fact, that He\nalone among the children of men did perfectly the will of the Father.\n\nThe authority of Jesus, again, was that of a lawgiver from whose words\nthere could be no appeal. His words superseded all previous legislation,\nin the sense of completing it, and all current interpretation. The\nimperial \"I say unto you\" implied the power, not simply of judicial\ninterpretation, but of repealing old laws and enacting new ones. Nor was\nHis teaching in His own conception of it a mere phase, albeit the\nhighest at the time, of moral development. His legislation was final,\nand never to be superseded; and obedience to it, or neglect of it, was\nto be the decisive factor in human welfare and destiny (Matt. vii.\n24-27).\n\nBut the authority of Jesus was not merely that of a lawgiver. He\ninaugurated the Kingdom whose coming He proclaimed and whose laws He\nformulated, and He is to be the final judge of the worthiness of its\nmembers. These members were not merely pious Jews in general or John's\ndisciples, but were His disciples. They were the light of the world\nbecause they were His disciples, and the crowning element in their\ncharacter was endurance of persecution for His sake (Matt. v. 11, \"for\nmy sake\"; Luke vi. 22, \"for the Son of man's sake\"). His teaching\ninstead of pointing away from Himself to God, in the spirit of the other\nwisest teachers of men, pointed to Himself as the One by whom fully and\nfinally God's will and purpose were to be made known. He plainly taught\nor clearly implied that men's relations to Himself as Teacher, Lord,\nLawgiver and Judge, were supremely important for human destiny (Matt.\nvii. 21-24).\n\nNo words in the ethical-religious message of Jesus are more striking in\nform and thought, and no others have more deeply impressed the minds of\nmen, than those in which He asserted that the value of the soul\noutweighs all earthly good: \"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain\nthe whole world and lose his own soul?\" These words, says Eucken, have\ngiven the soul a history. In the startling paradox in the context, \"He\nthat saveth his life shall lose it,\" we have the saying of Jesus most\noften repeated in the Gospels, occurring six times, and assigned to four\ndifferent occasions (Mark viii. 35; Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; Luke ix. 24;\nxvii. 33; John xii. 25).\n\nThe study of these sayings in their context (Mark viii. 34-38 and\nparallels) shows that the thought which was uppermost in the mind of\nJesus, and in fact dominated at this point the ethical teaching, was\nprecisely that of His own person and death and resurrection. His\nquestion to Peter, \"Whom say ye that I am?\" (Mark viii. 29) shows that\nHe was dissatisfied with the title of prophet given Him by others, and\nthat He would draw from the disciples a confession that they had come to\nhold a higher view of His mission. When Peter, according to the\naccounts in Mark and Matthew, refused to accept the prediction of His\ndeath, He showed that it was necessary for all His disciples to take up\nthe cross and follow Him. The goal of life is to be reached only by\nthose who follow Him in spirit in His death and resurrection, and\nconfess Him before men. The losing of the highest in life is for those\nwho are ashamed of Him in this generation. The destiny of men hinges\nupon their relation to Himself. The connection between the most\noft-repeated and self-authenticating maxims of Jesus and His own person,\ndeath, and resurrection is as clear and organic as the connection\nbetween the ethical and doctrinal, or Christological, teaching of Paul.\n\nIt remains to consider the passage (Mark x. 42-45; Matt. xx. 25-28) on\ntrue greatness and service. Here we have a characteristic teaching of\nJesus cutting athwart the ordinary opinion of mankind. But the maxim,\n\"Whosoever would become great among you,\" is connected with Himself as\nthe example of true greatness. He, the teacher and example of humility,\nrefers to Himself as the supreme illustration of true greatness. His\ndeath is the supreme expression of self-sacrifice for the good of\nothers, and in it by implication is the highest service done to\nman.[13] Ethics and doctrine about Himself and His death are as\ninextricably blended in this saying of Jesus as in Paul's statement,\n\"Though he was rich yet for your sakes became poor,\" or John's, \"He laid\ndown his life for us and we ought to lay down our lives for the\nbrethren\" (2 Cor. viii. 9; I John iii. 16). In His deepest ethical\nteaching Jesus points not away from Himself, as do other moral teachers.\nHis words in the Synoptics are not essentially different from those in\nJohn: \"If I your Lord and teacher have washed your feet, you ought also\nto wash one another's feet\" (xiii. 14).\n\n  13: Recent exegesis finds a Pauline meaning in the words whether it\n  refers them to Jesus or to the influence of Paul. Plummer\n  (\"Matthew,\" p. 280) says: \"'The Son of Man came' implies the\n  pre\u00ebxistence of the Son; it is not merely a synonym for being born.\"\n  (Cf. John xviii. 37.) In the use of the word \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd [lytron], Bacon\n  thinks that, \"here and in xiv. 24 Mark goes beyond Paul's careful\n  use of language\" (\"Beginnings of Gospel Story,\" p. 149). Bousset, on\n  the other hand, emphasizing \"the many,\" thinks that Paul was the\n  first to give the full reach to the thought. (_Op. cit._, p. 2.)\n  According to Wendling, in Mark x. 45, the fully developed Pauline\n  doctrine of the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 [apolytr\u00f4sis] (Rom. iii. 23 ff.) is\n  crystallized into an aphorism and put into the mouth of Jesus; \"The\n  Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, etc.\" (See Sanday's\n  \"Oxford Studies,\" p. 399.)\n\nThe Christology of Jesus finds expression in the familiar words in\nMatthew xi. 25-30 (Luke x. 21, 22): \"All things have been delivered unto\nme of my Father, etc.\" These words are often spoken of as the climax of\nHis self-revelation in the Synoptic Gospels, and modern criticism unites\nwith Christian devotion in recognizing their importance. The conviction\nis growing that the words, as they stand in all the Greek texts, cannot\nhave been the utterance of a merely human Jesus, the pattern of\ntruthfulness and the example of humility.\n\nA few examples will show the trend of recent interpretation. Plummer\nthinks that the self-revelation of Jesus in the expression, \"All things\nwere delivered unto Me, etc.,\" \"contains the whole of the Christology of\nthe Fourth Gospel;\"[14] and he believes that the aorist verb \"points\nback to a moment in eternity, and implies the pre\u00ebxistence of the\nMessiah.\"[15]\n\n  14: \"Commentary on St. Luke,\" 1900, p. 282.\n\n  15: \"Commentary on St. Matthew,\" 1910, p. 168.\n\nCritical acumen, says Lemme, may seek to empty the saying of its\ncontent, but \"there remains the exclusiveness of the mediatorial work of\nJesus for the totality of mankind, there remains the absolute uniqueness\nof His redemption, there remains His lonely elevation above the entire\nrealm of the human, there remains His unique fellowship of life with the\nFather, which enabled Him, and Him alone, to know God adequately, or,\nwhat is the same thing, to reveal the truth. We must take our choice:\nsuch an utterance is either the delirium of a reckless self-exaltation,\nor the appropriate testimony of a divine Being demanding unreserved\nfaith.\"[16]\n\n  16: \"Jesu Irrtumlosigkeit,\" 1907, pp. 7, 8.\n\nThe logion has been made the subject of an exhaustive monograph by\nSchumacher, who concludes that the reciprocal knowledge of the Father\nand the Son implies the consciousness of divine Sonship in a full\nmetaphysical sense.[17]\n\n  17: \"Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mat 11, 27 (Luc 10, 22),\"\n   1912, (\"Freiburger Theologische Studien,\" Heft. 6), pp. 202, 219, etc.\n\nIn his lectures on the \"Essence of Christianity,\" Harnack takes the text\nas it stands, but, ignoring the implications of reciprocal knowledge,\nsays: \"The consciousness he possessed of being the Son of God is,\ntherefore, nothing but the practical consequence of knowing God as the\nFather and as His Father. Rightly understood, the name of Son means\nnothing but the knowledge of God.\"[18] In his critique of Harnack, Loisy\nobjects to this interpretation as being \"artificial and\nsuperficial,\"[19] and says: \"Obviously the text indicates a\ntranscendental relationship, whence springs the lofty dignity of Christ,\nand not a psychological reality, which in regard to God is clearly\nimpossible. Father and Son are not here simply religious terms, but have\nalready become metaphysical theological expressions, and dogmatic\nspeculation has been able to take possession of them, without much\nmodification of their sense.\"[20] Loisy takes the meaning as\nfundamentally the same as John i. 18, and cannot accept it in the form\nwe have it as a genuine word of Jesus.[21]\n\n  18: \"Das Wesen des Christentums,\" p. 81; \"What is\n  Christianity?\" p. 138.\n\n  19: \"L'\u00c9vangile et L'\u00c9glise,\" 1904, p. 82; E. T., \"The Gospel and\n  the Church,\" p. 97.\n\n  20: \"L'\u00c9vangile et L'\u00c9glise,\" 1904, p. 78; E. T., p. 94.\n\n  21: \"L'\u00c9vangile et L'\u00c9glise,\" 1904, p. 80; E. T., pp. 96, 97.\n\nIn his \"Sayings of Jesus,\" Harnack omits from the text, on what seem to\nbe slender grounds, the first clause of the parallel, \"No one knoweth\nthe Son but the Father.\"[22] He candidly admits, however, that if the\ntext stands no fair exegesis can prevent a Christological reference. It\nmust mean \"a relationship of Father and Son which never had a beginning,\nbut remains ever the same.\" \"We cannot by any method of interpretation\nmake it much less metaphysical.\"[23]\n\n  22: Preferring the indirect evidence of the patristic quotations,\n  itself divided, to the direct evidence of the Greek manuscripts.\n\n  23: \"Spr\u00fcche und Reden Jesu,\" 1907, pp. 210, 211; E. T., \"The\n  Sayings of Jesus,\" 1908, p. 302.\n\nBousset, who in his \"Jesus\" (1904) accepted the utterance as spoken by\nJesus,[24] now sees in it the expression of a high Christology. He\nbelieves, against Harnack, that the expression, \"All things have been\ndelivered to me,\" refers to power, not simply to knowledge; and,\nretaining both clauses expressing reciprocal knowledge of the Father and\nthe Son, he finds in this \"majestic self-testimony\" in its present form\nthe work of the Church.[25]\n\n  24: \"Jesus,\" p. 89.\n\n  25: \"Kyrios Christos,\" 1913, pp. 58, 60, 62.\n\nWe may speak, then, of a consensus of opinion in the recent\ninterpretation of this saying of Jesus. When we remember that the\nverbal resemblance between Matthew xi. 25-27 and Luke x. 21, 22 is\nremarkably close, and that the saying thus belongs to the earliest\nstrata of Gospel tradition, that is, to the conjectural \"Q,\" it is\nsignificant that the minute examination to which it has been subjected\nhas convinced critics of different dogmatic standpoints that they can\nonly interpret it in a high Christological sense. It is agreed that the\nwords as they stand imply the pre\u00ebxistence of the Messiah, a relation\nwhich can properly be called \"metaphysical\" between the Father and the\nSon, and a unique relation to men as the only bearer of the full\nrevelation of God. The saying, often called an \"aerolite from the\nJohannine heavens\" (Hase), contains in a nutshell, if taken with verses\n28-30, the teaching of the fourteenth chapter of John, revealing Jesus\nin similar relation alike to God and to men, and as supplying all the\ndeepest needs of men. Sanday has even said that \"we might describe the\nteaching of the Fourth Gospel as a series of variations upon the one\ntheme which has its classical expression in a verse of the Synoptics.\n'All things have been delivered unto me, etc'\"[26]\n\n  26: \"Criticism of the New Testament,\" 1902, by various authors, pp.\n  16, 17.\n\nIt has been argued that the saying of Jesus, Johannine in style and\nsubstance, is so isolated in the Synoptic narrative that, in spite of\nits secure position in the sources, doubts of its genuineness must\narise. Bousset employs this argument, remarking that the thoughts of our\nlogion \"in the remaining Synoptic tradition are scarcely found at\nall.\"[27] It is noticeable, however, that the isolation is established\nonly by cutting away a large portion of the Synoptic material. The\nparable of the Vineyard, in which Jesus speaks of Himself as a beloved\nson, the heir (Mark xii. 6, 7), is objected to because \"never thus did\nJesus elsewhere in His parables force His person into the\nforeground.\"[28] The Markan saying in which Jesus distinguishes Himself,\nas Son, from men and angels (xiii. 32) is set aside;[29] the filial\nconsciousness implied in the repeated use by Jesus of the expressions,\n\"My Father,\" \"your Father,\" \"the Father,\" but never \"our Father,\" is\nattributed to later theological reflection,[30] and the narratives of\nthe divine voice at the Baptism and the Transfiguration are discredited.\nSimilarly the incidental claims which Jesus makes for Himself in\nforgiving sin, in speaking of Himself as the \"Bridegroom,\" the Physician\nwho came to cure the moral ills of men, and as Lord of the Sabbath, are\nall referred to secondary strata of tradition or to dogmatic overworking\nof the facts.[31]\n\n  27: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 61.\n\n  28: _Ibid._, p. 51.\n\n  29: _Ibid._, p. 52.\n\n  30: _Ibid._, p. 64.\n\n  31: _Ibid._, pp. 48, 49.\n\nSo drastic is the process by which Bousset attempts to reduce the\nconsciousness of Jesus to a purely human level that he even rejects the\nmajor part of the narrative of the Trial and Crucifixion. Whatever\ndifferences there may be in detail, there is no room for doubt that the\ncharge upon which Jesus was put to death is correctly given by John. \"We\nhave a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the\nSon of God\" (John xix. 7). We may believe that the result would have\nbeen different if for one moment He had disclaimed divine prerogatives,\nand said, \"I am of thy brethren the prophets: worship God.\"\n\nIf it be denied that Jesus made these claims before and at His trial,\nthe cause of His death is unknown. This is admitted by Bousset, who\nrejects the whole account of the trial, including the question of\nPilate, \"Art thou the King of the Jews?\" (Mark xv. 2), and the title on\nthe cross, retaining only the accusation that He said \"I will destroy\nthis temple\" (Mark xiv. 58; xv. 29). Apart from this concrete\naccusation, not in itself sufficient, because not blasphemy \"in the\nstrict juristic sense of the word,\" it is admitted that \"we cannot say\nany more with exactness why Jesus was condemned by Pilate.\"[32] In the\nanswer of Jesus to the high priest, telling of the Son of Man \"sitting\nat the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven,\" it\nis said that \"we hear directly the Christian confession, 'seated on the\nright hand of God, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the\ndead.'\"[33] It is to be noted that these passages, implying in Bousset's\nopinion the substitution of the \"day\" of Jesus for the Old Testament\n\"day of Jahweh,\"[34] and implying the metaphysics of the creeds, are to\nbe found in Mark, not in John, and in the narrative of the trial of\nJesus, not in that of His resurrection.\n\n  32: \"Kyrios Christos,\" pp. 54 note, 56.\n\n  33: _Ibid._, p. 55.\n\n  34: _Ibid._, p. 12.\n\nThe \"isolation\" of the great passage in Matthew and Luke, as to its\nessential content, is thus made out only by a thoroughgoing process of\nelimination running through the whole story of the Gospels. Every page\nof the Gospels testifies, in fact, to Jesus' consciousness of a unique\nrelation to God and to men; and an examination of His teaching in\nwhatever part or whatever context confirms the judgment of von Dobsch\u00fctz\nthat \"Jesus implicitly stands everywhere in the centre of His gospel.\nThe 'I am He,' which is recognized as the leading motive of the Fourth\nGospel, runs through all His words also in the Synoptics.\"[35] The\nself-revelation of Jesus and the great invitation of Matthew xi. 25-30\nmay be the climax of Synoptic teaching as to the relation of Jesus\nalike to the Father and to mankind (unless the words of the risen\nChrist, Matt. xxviii. 18-20, are so regarded), but the passage is no\nalien or intrusive element in its context. If it is the high point of\nSynoptic teaching, it is the capstone of a pyramid firmly and broadly\nsupported by the whole Synoptic narrative.\n\n  35: \"Gibt es ein doppeltes Evangelium in N. T.?\" _Theol. Studien u.\n  Kritiken_, 85 (1912), p. 350.\n\nCarlyle has said that the greatness of a character is measured by the\ncontrasts it exhibits. The words of Jesus we have been studying, taken\nin their entirety and in their context, show the contrasts between\nknowledge and humility, between power and humility, and, when the woes\non the cities are contrasted with the invitation, \"Come unto me,\"\nbetween sternness and tenderness. When Socrates was told by the oracle\nthat he was the wisest of men, he was in perplexity for a time, but\nfinally decided that he was wise because he recognized his own\nignorance. In His knowledge of the Father and in the mystery of His own\nperson, Jesus places Himself on an equality with God. Yet this knowledge\ndid not \"puff up.\" There was no need with Jesus as with Peter for the\nmoment of spiritual insight to be followed by a rebuke for presumption;\nnor did He need like Paul, because of the greatness of the revelation,\nto have the thorn in the flesh lest He be exalted above measure. These\ncontrasts, not found in any other historical character, are a\nself-authenticating feature of the words of Jesus. All of His actions,\nin fact, and all of His attitudes towards men, whether they were friends\nor foes, and all His words, whether of compassion, forgiveness, warning\nor indignation, were those of a \"Prince and a Saviour,\" a Prince in\nmajesty and power and a Saviour in pity. Both deeds and words showed\nthat union of qualities which it would be impossible to invent, \"the\nself-assertion of the great example of humility.\"\n\n\nIV. THE DILEMMA OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM\n\nAn indirect evidence of transcendent elements in the consciousness of\nJesus, and of the essential harmony between His teaching and that of\nPaul, is furnished by the increasingly skeptical tendency of liberal\ncriticism and the complete skepticism in which that criticism has\nculminated. We must discount, say the extreme Liberal critics in effect,\nthe Ascension and Resurrection narratives, because they were written\nunder the belief that Jesus was the exalted Son of God. We must discount\nthe Passion narrative because dominated by the belief that Jesus was and\nclaimed to be the Messiah; we must discount the miracles, and must take\nfrom the Gospel page everything that indicates that Jesus claimed divine\nprerogatives, or Messianic honours, or used titles such as \"the Christ,\"\n\"the Son of God,\" \"Lord,\" or even \"the Son of Man,\" because these betray\nthe dogmatic views of the Church. But why not go further with the\n\"mythical\" school and discount the whole narrative because written under\nthe prepossession that Jesus was an historical character? If the faith\nof the Church--\"the enemy of history\"--has been able to create those\nfeatures in the portrait of Christ which have been regarded as\nsignificant for religion during the ages of Christendom, why cannot its\ncreative activity have extended to the historical foundation? Why could\nit not have created its portrait of Jesus out of nothing, or at least\nout of the social strivings and religious needs and practices of a\nsyncretic age?\n\nThe mythical hypothesis, it is clear, is not a mere eccentricity of\ncriticism. It is more than an effort of youthful audacity in scholarship\nstriving to gain public attention. It is the natural, if not the\ninevitable, outcome of the direction in which criticism, discarding more\nand more of the Gospel narrative, and deserting more and more, it may be\nsaid, the sure ground of historical evidence, has been moving. The\nmethod of a progressive reduction of the sources and elimination of\nunacceptable material has been only pushed by the Radicals to an\nextreme. The Radicals, avowedly basing themselves on the Liberals,\ncontend that the latter have stopped at an untenable half-way position.\nThus Drews says that since the days of Strauss doubts of the historical\nexistence of Jesus have never been lulled to rest;[36] and Reinach,\navoiding Drews' extreme, yet declares that \"it is contrary to every\nsound method to compose, as Renan did, a life of Jesus, eliminating the\nmarvellous elements of the Gospel story. It is no more possible to make\nreal history with myths than to make bread with the pollen of\nflowers.\"[37] It was thought that an irreducible minimum had been\nreached in Schmiedel's famous nine \"foundation-pillars\" for a scientific\nlife of Christ,[38] but even these are shattered by the modern critical\nartillery.[39]\n\n  36: \"The Christ-Myth,\" p. 7.\n\n  37: \"Orpheus\" (E. T.), p. 231.\n\n  38: Encycl. Bibl., art., \"Gospels,\" sec. 139.\n\n  39: Bousset, _op. cit._, will not admit that we have the actual\n  words of Jesus in Mark xiii. 32 (p. 52), in Matt. xi. 5 (p. 71, note\n  3), in Matt. xii. 32 (p. 9), in Mark xv. 34 (p. 87), or in viii.\n  14-20 (p. 82).\n\nWhen Schmiedel finds the bed-rock of historical truth in a few\nexpressions or incidents which run counter to the general intention of\nthe Gospel writers, it is open to W. B. Smith to base an elaborate\nargument upon a single phrase or even word \"the things concerning\nJesus,\" or \"the Jesus,\" Acts xviii. 25; xxviii. 21, etc., in favour of a\npre-Christian Jesus-cult.[40] And when Bousset with the Gospels before\nhim confesses that we cannot know certainly why Jesus was put to death,\nit is open for Frazer and Reinach to transform the Crucifixion into a\nsort of Haman-and-Mordecai play;[41] or even for J. M. Robertson,\ncriticizing Frazer, to say that the capital error of the latter is in\nthe postulate that Jesus existed at all.[42] It must be confessed that\nthere is a facile descent from the \"reduced Christianity\" of the extreme\nLiberals to the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the Radicals, and that the\ndifference between them is often one of degree rather than of principle.\nThe astringents used to remove the brilliant colours of miracle and\ntranscendence have proved so strong as to destroy the portrait they were\nintended to restore. By proposing the dilemma, A miraculous Christ or a\nmythical Christ, the Radicals have shown the difficulty of drawing the\npicture of an historical Jesus from which the transcendent elements have\nbeen removed. It should be noticed further that the \"historical\" Jesus\nwho is left has a diminishing importance for religion, and even for\nethics. When Jesus is reduced to the level of mere humanity, that\nhumanity is apt to be of an inferior order. He accepts the title and\nr\u00f4le of Messiah unwillingly, as a burden and under compulsion from His\nfollowers, or under the strong delusion that, defeated in His earthly\nmission, He would immediately come in glory. In either case there is an\nelement of weakness, whether intellectual or moral, in His character; He\ncannot be the supreme example and moral leader of humanity. Or else,\nrelieved of the Messianic burden in the imagination of the critic, He\nbecomes a \"warrior for the truth,\"[43] a sort of Galilean Socrates, the\nwisest and best of men, but with no clear outlines in His personality\nand no distinctive traits in His message.\n\n  40: \"Der Vorchristliche Jesus,\" 1906, Chapter I.\n\n  41: \"Golden Bough,\" 2d ed. (1900), III, pp. 187 ff.; \"Orpheus\" (E.\n  T.), pp. 229 ff. It is interesting to note that Frazer's section on\n  the death of Christ has in the third edition, 1910-1914, been placed\n  in an appendix, with the remark: \"The hypothesis which it sets forth\n  has not been confirmed by subsequent research and is admittedly in a\n  high degree speculative and uncertain.\" (Part VI, \"The Scapegoat,\"\n  p. 412, note 1.)\n\n  42: \"Pagan Christs,\" 1903, pp. 138, 139.\n\n  43: Bousset, _op. cit._, p. 90.\n\nWhether the Founder of the Christian religion be pictured as \"merely a\npious preacher of morality in the sense of present day liberalism,\"[44]\nor a \"psychopathic anomaly,\" obsessed with the idea that He was the\nMessiah, the picture is not convincing to the historian any more than it\nis consoling to the Christian. In neither picture can the Christ of the\nGospels or the Christ of Christian experience be recognized. Matters are\nnot mended when extremes meet, and Jesus is pictured as at once the\nsunny and serene Galilean pietist, and the rapt ecstatic obsessed by the\nthought of His own immediate and glorious return--a deluded enthusiast\nwho saw life steadily and saw it whole. If the representation is not\nthat of a moral or mental weakling, below the level of the normal in\nclearness of outlook upon life or in sincerity and decision of\ncharacter, we are left with a largely imaginary figure, from which most\nof the concrete features have been removed. We do not know what manner\nof man He was, nor, it must be acknowledged, does it matter very much\nfor religion whether He was at all; for with the increasing vagueness in\nthe historical portrait of Jesus, there comes inevitably a weakening of\nHis influence as a teacher whether of religion or morals.\n\n  44: Drews, _op. cit._, p. 15.\n\nHis gospel, in the first place, was never intended to become universal,\nsince the Gentile mission is attributed to the influence of later\necclesiastical ideas. But is not the content of Jesus' religious\nteaching, the Fatherhood of God and the value of the soul, unaffected by\nany views which are held as to His Person? Tendencies are observable in\nmodern thought which are not reassuring upon this point; and, in fact,\nthe history of thought shows that theism, apart from the support of\nChristian doctrine, is apt to pass into a pantheistic mysticism or a\nsemi-deistic naturalism. The Fatherhood of God may be regarded as too\nanthropomorphic a conception, and a semi-pantheistic \"all-Father\" may be\nsubstituted for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Strauss,\nwhile he is the classical example, is not alone in this passage from\nLiberal Christianity to a more complete skepticism which gives up\ntheistic belief. It is not surprising that in certain circles the\nexpression \"Christian pantheism\" is now heard, and that a sympathetic\nattitude towards pantheism should be shown by the Liberal critic. Thus\nJ. Weiss says: \"Pantheism may, indeed, have its limitations and defects,\nyet, without doubt, it lies very near to our time, inspired as it is by\nboth scientific and artistic ideas. Why should we not recognize this\nform of religious life alongside of other forms, in case it finds vital\nexpression in emotion and action?\"[45]\n\n  45: \"Significance of Paul for Modern Christianity,\" _American\n  Journal of Theology_, July, 1913, p. 358.\n\nOn the other hand, the theistic content of Jesus' teaching is\nimmeasurably strengthened when enforced by His divine authority, and\nread in the light of His Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. As Drews\nremarks: \"The chief obstacle to a monistic religion and attitude is the\nbelief irreconcilable with reason or history, in the historical reality\nof a 'unique,' ideal, and unsurpassable redeemer.\"[46] Certainly the\nassurance that God is a loving Father and that we are His children, said\nto be the essence of Christianity, is wonderfully safeguarded and\nbuttressed by the doctrines, or facts, of an Incarnate, Crucified, and\nRisen Christ.\n\n  46: \"The Christ-Myth,\" p. 300.\n\nWhatever happens to the Christian doctrines and the Christian history,\nmany will declare that the ethical teaching of Jesus will remain, and\nwill continue to exercise its empire over the lives of men. But such an\ninference finds little support in present conditions. An aggressive\nmilitarism maintains that each nation should be free to develop its own\nreligious ideas, and chides Strauss with half-way measures in holding to\nChristian ethics while discarding Christian doctrines and miracles. A\nmilitant feminism which objects to the marriage service, and a militant\nsocialism which sees in the family the main support of the right of\nprivate property, will not, if they have their way, leave the marriage\nrelation unaffected. Jesus taught, we are reminded, in a pre-scientific\nand a pre-Darwinian age. His teaching, in fact, whatever its\nacknowledged excellence and importance, was but a phase, and that not\nthe final phase, of moral evolution. His teaching, as many hold, was\nonly an _Interimsethik_, not intended to be the norm for all men and all\ntime. There is no assurance that even the character of Christ will\nremain undimmed in splendour, and undiminished in power of appeal, for\nthere is no evidence for sinlessness, except evidence which is rejected\non the ground of exaggeration or idealization in the case of miracles,\nand other claims implying the supernatural. Christian ethics doubtless\nmakes an appeal of its own, but apart from the support of Christology\nits supremacy is by no means assured. If we go back to the moral\nteaching or to the example of Jesus alone, there will be no teaching\nwith authority, no divine Teacher who is the Truth, and no regenerative\npower of the Spirit behind the teaching. The power of Christ's example\nlies in the union of humility and authority. \"Take Christ's difference\nfrom us out of Christianity and His identity with us loses all its\nglorious power.\" If their Lord and Master washes the disciples' feet,\nthe example comes with the force of a divine command: \"Ye ought also to\nwash one another's feet.\" It is not merely a beautiful act to be admired\n(or perhaps by some to be despised); it is a divine imperative to be\nobeyed.\n\nThe strongest argument for a doctrinal Christianity is not the indirect\none to be found in the lessening significance of a merely\nhuman-historical Jesus, and the tendency of His figure to become dim\nupon the field of history, and of His voice to die away as an echo over\nthe Judean hills. It is rather to be found in the positive evidence of\nthe Christian documents, in the testimony of Christian experience, and\nin the broader effects of a doctrinal Christianity in the course of the\ncenturies.\n\nThe statements of Harnack in his later essays show the inadequacy of a\ngospel which does not include in its content the Person of the Redeemer.\n\"Only God is the Redeemer--and yet Christendom calls Jesus of Nazareth\nits Redeemer. How is this contradiction to be solved?\"[47] It is a fact\nthat He is the inner possession of His own. \"But that which lies behind\nthis fact, which is expressed in the confession 'Christ liveth in me,'\nthe persuasion of the eternal life of Christ, of His power and glory,\nthat is a secret of the faith which mocks all explanation.\"[48] When\nthere is such a contradiction between experience and theory, it will be\nnatural to question the adequacy of a theory which finds no\ninterpretation for the deepest experiences of religion. Harnack, indeed,\ngoes far towards admitting the harmony between the gospel of Jesus and\nthat of Paul when he says: \"The 'first' gospel contains the truth, the\n'second' [Paul's gospel of redemption] the way, and both together the\nlife.\"[49]\n\n  47: \"Aus Wissenschaft und Leben,\" II, p. 87.\n\n  48: _Ibid._, p. 91.\n\n  49: _Ibid._, p. 224.\n\nThere is in essence but one gospel, differently presented by Jesus and\nPaul, whose focal point in the teaching of both is Christ and Him\ncrucified. The differences, as shown by von Dobsch\u00fctz in a notable\nessay, explain themselves naturally from the situation. In John and Paul\nthere is only expansion and repetition of what was contained implicitly\nin the words of Jesus in the Synoptists. The later time was not\ncreative, but only selected and developed; its message was an echo, not\na new utterance. In the teaching of Paul as compared with that of Jesus\nthere are three points of difference: (1) the person of Jesus is much\nmore strongly emphasized; (2) His death and resurrection appear as basal\nredemptive acts; and (3) everything is brought into connection with\nredemption from sin. All three of these differences are explained by the\nhistorical situation. Jesus Himself had brought them to God, and His\nresurrection had brought them out of their despair and strengthened\ntheir faith and given them courage for preaching. As to the differences,\ntwo considerations should be borne in mind: \"That the gospel should be\ndifferently set forth before the death of Jesus than it was after that\nevent is not to be wondered at; and, secondly, it is also natural that\nthe standpoint and exposition of the recipients of grace should be\ndifferent from the attitude of One who was free from sin, and knew that\nHe was sent to bring man to God.\"[50]\n\n  50: \"Gibt es ein doppeltes Evangelium in N. T.?\" _Theol. Studien u.\n  Kritiken_, 85 (1912), pp. 362, 363.\n\nIn the future as in the past, we may believe, doctrinal Christianity,\nthat is a Christianity broad enough to include the teaching and example,\nand the person and passion and resurrection of Christ, will be for men\nand nations the power of God unto salvation. If the essence of a thing\nis shown in its activity, the essence of Christianity cannot be\nseparated from its doctrinal content. Certainly it was Christianity in a\ndoctrinal form that inspired the greatest achievements of the Christian\nChurch in the course of her history. It was doctrinal Christianity that\nloosed the bonds of Jewish legalism, inspired the missionary enterprise\nof the primitive and the modern church, raised the standard of the\nReformation, laid the foundations of modern democracy, and guided the\nsanest and bravest attempts at social reform.\n\nOur argument has been that the primitive gospel which began to be\npreached by the Lord was a doctrinal gospel, a gospel of the Kingdom,\nthe Cross and the Son of God, that no other message can be found with\nany distinctness within or beneath the Gospel records, and that this has\nbeen at the basis of Christian experience and of the life of the\nChristian Church. The gospel of the grace of God is the gospel of the\nglory of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nThe Christian Faith and Modern Science\n\nA discussion of the present relations between science and the Christian\nFaith must be very largely a discussion of the theory of evolution. Our\nage has been called evolution-mad; we can scarcely speak or even think\nexcept in biological terms and under biological categories. The\nevolution theory has influenced every department of thought and even the\nscience of thought itself, and it is often assumed that everything\npre-Darwinian must be thrown to the intellectual scrap-heap.\n\nHalf a century ago the time was ripe for a new generalization in science\nwhich should include the organic world. Newton had extended the reign of\nmechanism in space, and Lyell, by substituting the uniformitarian for\nthe catastrophic theory of the formation of the earth's crust, had\neffected the same extension in time. Men's minds had become familiar\nwith the thought of immense reaches of space and of vast periods of\ntime, and with the idea in both spheres of the reign of natural law\ninstead of immediate divine intervention. The Darwinian hypothesis of\nNatural Selection came as the culmination of this movement of a\nprogressive substitution of a natural for a supernatural explanation of\nthings. The motions of planets and heavenly bodies, the formation of the\nstrata of the earth's crust, and now the kingdom of organic life were\nbrought within the domain of natural and general law.\n\nIt is not necessary to describe in detail the ferment in religious\nthought which followed the publication of the \"Origin of Species,\" 1859;\nbut we may notice briefly the extreme inferences which were drawn\nunfavourable to religion, and then the inevitable reaction. On the one\nhand there were loud claims at first that the death-knell of religion\nhad been sounded. A cause other than creation had been discovered for\nthe origin of species and by analogy for other origins formerly assigned\nto the Creator. Chance, not only blind but apparently cruel, was\nenthroned in the place of design in the production of the various forms\nof life. The higher was evolved from the lower, but in a way that gave\nto the higher the quality of the lower. Man was no longer the child of\nGod, not even the prodigal child. He was the progeny of the brute and\nshared his destiny. The obligation to be moral, or even decent, had no\nhigher sanction than the fierce struggle for existence. Theism was\nderived from animal-or ancestor-worship, and had no higher authority or\ncredibility. Man, no longer made in the divine image, could lay no\nclaim to a divine inheritance; not fallen, but rising out of his brute\ninheritance, he had no need for the divine mercy.\n\nRenan in France, Haeckel in Germany, and Grant Allen in England agreed\nthat religion was doomed.[51] Religious beliefs, according to the last\nnamed, were destined \"to be entirely discredited as grotesque, fungoid\ngrowths which had clustered around the thread of primitive\nancestor-worship.\" Renan inferred as one result of Darwinism the gradual\ndying out of religion; while the fundamental postulates of religion,\nGod, Freedom and Immortality, were, according to Haeckel, all given the\n_coup de grace_. The life of man, entangled by descent with lower orders\nof being, seemed divorced from the wisdom and purpose of God, and an\nall-engulfing mechanism threatened to swallow up the hopes and\naspirations of mankind. The situation illustrated the statement of\nEmerson: \"The very hopes of man, the thoughts of his heart, the religion\nof nations, the manners and morals of mankind, are all at the mercy of a\nnew generalization.\"\n\n  51: See Benjamin Kidd in article, \"Darwinism,\" in \"Hastings'\n  Dictionary of Religion and Ethics,\" Vol. IV, p. 404.\n\nFrom this extreme position there was an inevitable reaction. Evolution\nwas seen to present a face not so unfavourable to religion. Origin and\ndestiny were two questions; the higher might be evolved from the lower,\nbut not in such a way as to deprive the higher of its proper quality. If\nnature and man were so closely related, our idea of the worth of nature\ncould be exalted without depriving man of his dignity. \"A man's a man\nfor a' that,\" whether sprung from the dust of the earth, as had been\nalways held, or derived from organic material below him. An orthodox\nevolutionist developed a new and powerful argument for immortality; if\nman had gone so far, why not farther? The meaning of the whole\nevolutionary process, of the long travail of nature, was obviously, if\nit had a meaning (and why deny this to our intellectual confusion?), the\nproduction of man with his endowments, aspirations and hopes. Descent\nmay become ascent, and the meaning of evolution may well be the\ndevelopment of freedom, and immortality but evolution at the end of its\njourney. A new and grander teleology was discernible in nature, not seen\nin the details of its products so much as in the great tendencies and\nlines of its development and the outworking of its laws. Most impressive\nof all, it was found that devout Christians, like Charles Kingsley,\ncould become evolutionists without losing their faith; and that\nevolutionists like Romanes (who had spoken, during his eclipse of faith,\nof the evolutionary theory as a deluge, \"uprooting our most cherished\nhopes, engulfing our most precious creed, and burying our highest life\nin mindless destruction\"[52]) could become Christians, or regain their\nfaith, without affecting their scientific views.\n\n  52: \"A Candid Examination of Theism,\" p. 51.\n\nWith all the problems which evolution has set for religious thought, it\nshould be noticed that it has distinctly relieved the pressure of one\ndifficulty which has been felt, though now much less acutely than\nformerly, since the time of Copernicus. In the words of Aubrey De Vere:\n\n    This sphere is not God's ocean, but one drop\n    Showered from its spray. Came God from heaven for that?\n\nLife, and life upon the earth, is the centre of attention in the thought\nof the day. With the physicist who sees the promise and potency of all\nterrestrial life in the primitive star-dust, with the biologist who\nspeaks of the fitness of the environment to sustain life, or with the\nphilosopher who sees in the vital impulse the most important thing in\nthe history of the universe, the viewpoint is necessarily biocentric.\nYet it has been pointed out that the sum of organized matter \"is but an\natom in the mass of the solar system, it occupies but a moment in its\nduration; it has hardly a place in space; it is but a temporary film on\none of the smaller planets. It can exist only in a very small part of\nthe scale of temperatures through which the spheres pass from their\nfirst to their last state. Set against the visible universe it is as\nnear to nothing as we can well conceive anything to be.\"[53] A\ndistinguished evolutionist has developed an argument to prove that the\nearth alone in the solar system or elsewhere fulfills the conditions of\nthe existence of any high form of life.[54] It is not necessary to\nestimate the value of Wallace's argument in order to emphasize, from an\nevolutionary point of view, the importance of life and of man in the\nuniverse. If the standpoint of science to-day is frankly biocentric, in\nspite of the insignificant bulk of organized matter, religious thought\nneed not be accused of provincialism because it is anthropocentric in\nits interest.\n\n  53: N. S. Shaler: \"The Individual,\" 1910, p. 103.\n\n  54: A. R. Wallace: \"Man's Place in the Universe.\"\n\nIn studying a little more closely the religious bearings of evolution,\nit will be convenient to notice, I. The Method of Evolution, or the\nbiological discussion; II. The Meaning of Evolution, or the\nphilosophical discussion; and III. Theism and Evolution, or the more\ndirectly religious aspects of the theory.\n\n\nI. THE METHOD OF EVOLUTION\n\nWhile there is general agreement among biologists that species have been\nderived from one another by natural causes, there is a wide diversity of\nopinion as to the method by which this result has been brought about.\nDarwin's theory of natural selection has a struggle for existence of its\nown, a fight for life with other evolutionary theories. Emphatic\nprotests are made from the side of experimental biology (de Vries), of\npaleontology (Osborn), and of philosophical evolution (Bergson) against\nthe Darwinian hypothesis that the selection of minute fortuitous\nvariations can account for the rise of new species or explain the great\nlines of development. It is only necessary to read the two volumes\npublished in England and America[55] in honour of the hundredth\nanniversary of Darwin's birth and the fiftieth anniversary of the\npublication of the \"Origin of Species\" to see that scientific opinion\nupon the question of the method of evolution is widely divided.\n\n  55: \"Darwin and Modern Science,\" Cambridge, 1909; \"Fifty Years of\n  Darwinism,\" New York, 1909.\n\nIn Biblical language, the question of the hour in biology is, Who (or\nwhat) made thee to differ? \"It is the question,\" in the words of C. H.\nEigenmann, \"of how the straight line of exact hereditary repetition may\nbe caused to swerve in a definite direction to reach an adaptive point.\nThis is the question of the present generation, perhaps of the entire\ntwentieth century.\"[56]\n\n  56: \"Fifty Years of Darwinism,\" p. 191.\n\nThe Newton of biology, who will discover the laws of variation and\nheredity, has not, it is safe to say, yet appeared. Variation in a\ndefinite direction in virtue of an internal tendency in the organism\n(N\u00e4geli); variation in response to the specific stimulus of the\nenvironment (Eimer); variation due, at least in animals, to the\nconscious effort of the individual (Lamarck); variation inciting a\ncorresponding strengthening of parts of the individual organism, until\ntime should be given for hereditary strengthening of these parts\n(organic selection as taught by Baldwin, Osborn and Lloyd Morgan);\nvariation due to the preservation and accumulation of minute\nfluctuations by natural selection (Darwinism in its usual form);\nvariation from unknown causes suddenly and discontinuously (the\nmutationism of de Vries); variation due to a mystical vital impulse in\norganic life as a whole (the creative evolution of Bergson):--no one of\nthese views, if we take scientific opinion as a whole, can be said to\nhave torn aside the veil behind which nature carries on her creative\nworks.\n\nThe most notable attempt to supplement and strengthen the theory of\nnatural selection has been made by Weismann in his theory of Germinal\nSelection. In Weismann's hypothesis, which has furnished in a sense the\nphilosophical basis for the popular Eugenics movement, the struggle for\nexistence is transferred to a struggle among the constituents of the\ngerm-plasm. The minute invisible \"determinants\" of the germ-plasm, which\ngive rise to the variations in the organ, or cell, which they determine,\nare unequally nourished by the nutritive stream. A determinant at first\nfavoured by chance may at length gain strength actively to nourish\nitself to the detriment of its fellow-determinants, and thus attain a\npermanent upward movement. With Weismann the fluctuations within the\ngerm-plasm \"are the real root of all hereditary variations, and the\npreliminary condition for the occurrence of the Darwin-Wallace factor of\nselection.\" The struggle for existence, or the struggle for possession\nof the mate in sexual selection, practically goes back to \"the struggle\nbetween the determinants within the germ-plasm\"[57] for food and space.\n\n  57: \"Darwin and Modern Science\": \"The Selection Theory,\" p.49.\n\nLet us see how this theory of determinants will apply to the famous case\nof the antlers of the elk or stag. The antlers would increase in size,\nin this case, only because the determinants, corresponding in the\ngerm-plasm to the antlers in the adult organism, attracted nourishment\nto themselves, and withdrew it to a certain extent from their fellows.\nInstead, therefore, of a corresponding strengthening in the whole\nanterior half of the animal, which Weismann admits would be\nnecessary,[58] we should have, with the increased weight of the antlers,\na decrease in weight and strength of other parts of the body. The\nproblem, instead of being solved, seems to be involved in deeper\nmystery, and there will be hesitation in accepting the statement that\n\"thus in our time the great riddle has been solved--the riddle of the\norigin of what is suited to its purpose without the co\u00f6peration of\npurposive forces.\"[59] T. H. Morgan thinks it unfortunate that Weismann\nshould seek to supply the deficiencies of Darwin's theory by new\nspeculative matter skilfully removed from the field of verification.[60]\n\n  58: \"Darwin and Modern Science\": \"The Selection Theory,\" p. 32.\n\n  59: \"The Evolution Theory,\" II, p. 391.\n\n  60: \"Evolution and Adaptation,\" pp. 165 f.\n\nBiologists are generally agreed in holding the doctrine of \"descent with\nmodifications,\" but there is no agreement as to the method by which\nvariations in species are brought about. Bateson even declares that\n\"evolutionary orthodoxy developed too fast,\" and that \"the time is not\nripe for the discussion of the origin of species.\"[61] S. Herbert\nconcludes: \"In short, while natural selection can be looked upon as the\nefficient cause of the progress of evolutionary lines, their first\nbeginnings must still be attributed to a still 'unknown factor in\nevolution.'\"[62]\n\n  61: \"Darwin and Modern Science,\" pp. 99, 101.\n\n  62: \"First Principles of Evolution,\" 1913, p. 224.\n\nThe neo-Darwinian who sees in the accumulation of minute chance\nvariations a sufficient explanation of the origin of species, cannot be\nsaid to hold the field in such a way as to call for the unquestioning\nacceptance of his views by the lay public; far less need the more remote\nphilosophical inferences sometimes drawn from his premises be accepted\nwithout challenge as the teaching of science. While the central mystery,\nin the opinion of leading biologists, remains unsolved in the biological\nfield, evolution or natural selection should be used with caution as the\nsolvent of all the problems of the universe. The masterkey should\nfirst unlock the doors nearer home.\n\n\nII. THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION\n\nThe more philosophical discussion of the Meaning of Evolution includes\nin its scope the questions of mechanism and design and of preformation\nand epigenesis.\n\n1. Is the doctrine of evolution a foe to design, or does evolution make\nmore teleology than it destroys? Let us assume for the present the\nneo-Darwinian position, and ask whether design can be excluded, first\nfrom the organic world without man, and then from the organic world\nincluding man. The whole system of things so ordered that through the\noperation of the laws of variability, struggle for existence,\ninheritance, elimination and selection, there should be worked out the\nmyriad forms of life in ever increasing complexity, calls more loudly\nfor the postulate of intelligence than do the special contrivances and\nadaptations in nature when viewed from the standpoint of their separate\norigin. If Paley's watch calls for a watchmaker, a system or arrangement\nof nature which has been likened, not to a simple watch, but rather to a\nwatch (or a sundial) which makes all other watches, and these watches of\na constantly improved quality and increased complexity, cannot\npermanently be regarded in any other than a teleological light. If the\nwhole process should prove to be mechanical, the evidence for design is\nseen even more strikingly in the complex machinery itself than in the\nproduct.\n\nHuxley says that \"there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the\ndoctrine of evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental\nproposition of evolution.\"[63] When A. R. Wallace at first argued that\nmany of the characteristic human qualities were not due to natural\nselection, because of no value in the struggle for existence,[64] his\nview incurred the ridicule of his critics, who interpreted it to mean\nthat \"our brains are made by God and our lungs by natural selection.\"\nAfter forty years of reflection, Wallace now takes a broader view of the\nplace of purpose in evolution, and says: \"I now uphold the doctrine that\nnot man alone, but the whole World of Life, in almost all its varied\nmanifestations, leads us to the same conclusion--that to afford any\nrational explanation of its phenomena, we require to postulate the\ncontinuous action and guidance of higher intelligences; and further,\nthat these have probably been working towards a single end, the\ndevelopment of intellectual, moral, and spiritual beings.\"[65] A\ndistinguished biologist has said that \"to believe that all the countless\nmyriads of centres of co\u00f6peration and co\u00f6rdination which have been\nrequired for this cosmos could have been originated and maintained by\nunintelligent force acting fortuitously makes an immensely greater\nstrain upon faith than the alternative hypothesis.\"[66]\n\n  63: \"Darwiniana,\" p. 110.\n\n  64: \"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection,\" 1870.\n\n  65: \"The World of Life,\" 1911, pp. 340 f.\n\n  66: A. Macalister, M. D., F. R. S., in _Expositor_, Vol. ix.,\n  1910, p. 5.\n\nThe teleological argument has shown of late unusual vitality, and its\nrenewed support has come, singularly enough, from the evolutionary\nquarter. Thus L. J. Henderson, inquiring into the biological\nsignificance of the properties of matter, concludes that \"the process of\ncosmic (inorganic) evolution is indissolubly linked with the fundamental\ncharacteristics of the organism; that logically, in some obscure manner,\ncosmic and biological evolution are one.\"[67] The biologist, he thinks,\n\"may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as\nbiocentric.\"[68] Wallace, in his \"World of Life,\" draws the inference\nwhich Henderson suggests but, as a scientist, feels that he cannot\nadopt: \"The remote but more fundamental cause [of the living world],\nwhich has been comparatively little attended to, is the existence of a\nspecial group of elements possessing such exceptional and altogether\nextraordinary properties as to render _possible_ the existence of\nvegetable and animal life-forms.\" These elements are like the fuel, iron\nand water in a steam-engine. \"We may presume that the Mind which first\ncaused these elements to exist, and built them up into such marvellous\nliving, moving, self-supporting, and self-reproducing structures, must\nbe many million times greater than those which conceived and executed\nthe modern steam-engine.\"[69]\n\n  67: \"The Fitness of the Environment,\" 1913, pp. 278 f.\n\n  68: _Ibid._, p. 312.\n\n  69: \"The World of Life,\" p. 416.\n\nIt does not appear, then, that biological evolution at all necessitates\nthe acceptance of a mechanical view of the universe from which the\naction of purpose is excluded. Protests against such a view have, in\nfact, been coming of late from the scientific philosophers and the\nphilosophical scientists. Bergson, a type of the former, insists that\nspontaneity, movement, indeterminateness are the differentia of life.\nAmong the scientists, Ostwald thinks that an absolutely determined world\nis not the real world, but an ideal world;[70] and Sir O. Lodge speaks\nof the theory that everything in the world is mechanically determined\nas a \"modern superstition.\"[71] How is the southward flight of the bird\nand its return in the spring to its own nest, or the journey of an eel\nthousands of miles up an inland river and its return thence to spawn in\nthe deep waters of the ocean, to be explained as the result of purely\nmechanical causes? Driesch insists that the chemical-physical processes\n\"do not constitute life, they are _used_ by life.\"[72]\n\n  70: \"Natural Philosophy,\" p. 50.\n\n  71: _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1911, p. 704.\n\n  72: See J. A. Thomson, _ibid._, p. 116.\n\nThe mechanical interpretation of things, however useful for some\npurposes it may be, appears increasingly thin and ghostly as we advance\ninto the realms of life, consciousness and freedom. It becomes a\ncaricature of reality. It is not merely a colourless photograph as over\nagainst a portrait--everything reduced to black and white; but it is\nlike an X-ray photograph of a living man, a mere skeleton without flesh\nand blood. Mechanism is independent of time, but time is, in a sense, of\nthe essence of the organism. The mechanical movement can be reversed,\nwhile life processes are irreversible.\n\nThe life and career of a great scientist such as Pasteur, it has been\nsaid, is a more impressive evidence of design than any adduced by Paley\nand the Bridgwater treatises.[73] Man has been called \"Nature's rebel,\"\nand the endowments of man and his achievements in controlling nature and\nunderstanding nature are a disturbing element in any theory which would\nexclude the operation of intelligence from the course of evolution.\nRomanes tells us: \"When I wrote the preceding treatise [\"The Candid\nExamination\"], I did not sufficiently appreciate the immense importance\nof _human_ nature, as distinguished from physical nature, in an inquiry\ntouching Theism.\"[74]\n\n  73: S. Paget: \"Another Device,\" p. 101.\n\n  74: \"Thoughts on Religion,\" p. 164.\n\nThe drama of evolution as unfolded by science inevitably suggests that\nin the fortunes and life of humanity is to be heard the _motif_ of\nnature's music, unless indeed all is chaos and discord. The diapason\nends full in man, or rather begins in man and the history of his life\nupon the earth. It may still be believed--because of evolution avowedly,\nor in spite of evolution--that man is a happy or an unhappy accident, a\nsport, a monstrosity, the miscarriage of an ape, a _faux pas_ of nature,\nthe strangest event in a purposeless series; or man may be regarded,\nwith much to support such an interpretation, as the intended goal of\nevolution, giving significance, rationality and purpose to the whole\nhistory. However slow and gradual the steps by which man has been\nproduced, and however mechanical in one aspect the process, it may be\ninsisted that a mechanism so perfect as to produce the varied forms of\norganic life, culminating in man, with his mental and moral endowments,\nis as strong evidence as could be produced of purpose as the ultimate\nand only explanation of the mechanism.\n\nCertainly the difficulty of evolving the fit from the fortuitous becomes\naccentuated when man is included within the series. Man, a purposive and\nmoral being, sees in himself and the structure of his mind and the\nexperience of his life the crowning evidence of the action of purpose.\nIf the cause must be adequate to produce the effect, man cannot regard\nhimself as the product of an accidental or mechanical process from whose\ninception and operation the action of intelligence is excluded. In a\nword, a purposive being cannot have been the result of a purposeless\nprocess.\n\nIt is significant that those who have interpreted evolution to the\nmasses have quite uniformly done so in terms of progress. But progress\nis a teleological conception. In a world where atoms shift unceasingly,\nbut without the guidance of intelligence or will, there may be change\nbut there will be no progress; for one arrangement of atoms will be as\nhigh in the scale of values as another. Evolutionists who, as\nevolutionists, are inspired with an ideal of human progress must in some\nsense be finalists. If the history of the world and of man presents any\nreal progress, it can only be because it is in so far an expression of\npurpose.\n\n2. It is an example of what Cardinal Newman called the development of\ndoctrine that the theory of Evolution has come to mean, in popular\nregard, quite the opposite of what it meant etymologically or in the\nmind of its early advocates. Evolution means the unfolding of what was\nenfolded, either in primordial living germs or, to go still further\nback, in the primitive star-dust. Whatever is in the product must be\nread back into the elements from which it emerged, and a complete\nknowledge of these elements and their properties would thus disclose\npotencies for the production, under suitable conditions, of the\ncompleted development.\n\nA glance, almost at random, at current literature in which the\nconception of evolution is employed in philosophical and theological\ndiscussion, shows that the theory has suffered a sea-change. It has now\ncome to mean, to many who use it freely, not the unfolding of the\nimplicit, but the production or appearance of something essentially new,\na creative synthesis or epigenesis. Bergson, James Ward, Baron von H\u00fcgel\nand Loisy are among those who use the term in this sense. Thus the last\nnamed writer says: \"That which constitutes man as a human being is that\nwhich he possesses more than the beasts, and not that which he\npossesses in common with them. From the fact that humanity proceeds\nfrom animality, it does not follow that it is explained and defined\naltogether by animality, otherwise evolution must be denied.\"[75]\n\n  75: \"Histoire des Religions,\" 1911, pp. 61 f.\n\nThis modification of meaning is important when the doctrine of evolution\nis extended downward into the inorganic sphere. Since species are\nderived from one another, it used to be argued, life must be derived\nfrom the lifeless; and it is obvious that if this process is pursued it\nwill lead to an infinite regress. We go back from the civilized to the\nsavage, from the conscious to the unconscious, from the organic to the\ninorganic, till finally the evolution of the atom becomes the problem of\nproblems. We go back in an infinite regress, approaching the ideal\nlimit: In the beginning, nothing. The goal would seem to be the\nevolution of primitive matter out of nothing, as Alfred Noyes has\nsuggested in his poem, \"The Origin of Life\":\n\n    In the beginning?--Slowly grope we back\n          Along the narrowing track,\n    Back to the deserts of the world's pale prime,\n          The mire, the clay, the slime;\n    And then ... what then? Surely to something less;\n          Back, back, to Nothingness!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    Will you have courage, then, to bow the head,\n          And say, when all is said--\n    \"Out of this Nothingness arose our thought!\n          This blank abysmal Nought\n    Woke, and brought forth that lighted city street,\n          Those towers, that armoured fleet\"?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    Will you have courage, then, to front that law\n          (From which your sophists draw\n    Their only right to flout one human creed)\n          That nothing can proceed--\n    Not even thought, not even love--from less\n          Than its own nothingness?\n    The law is yours! But dare you waive your pride,\n          And kneel where you denied?\n    The law is yours! Dare you rekindle, then,\n          One faith for faithless men,\n    And say you found, on that dark road you trod,\n          In the beginning--God?\n\nThe principle of continuity urges the evolutionist to extend his theory\ndownward into the inorganic world and upward into the sphere of the\nmoral and the spiritual. At the crucial points of the origin of life and\nof the human race, the advocate of preformation has greater difficulty\nthan the supporter of epigenesis or creative evolution, which is a sort\nof _rapprochement_ between evolutionism and creationism. Let us see how\nthe case stands at present as regards the origin of life and the origin\nof man.\n\nLife may be generated any day in the laboratory, but as yet this has\nnot been done.[76] In fact so great are the difficulties that Arrhenius\nthinks that there was no beginning of life, life being eternal and\npersisting, in spite of acknowledged scientific difficulties in the\nconception, amid the vicissitudes of cosmic changes and flights through\ninterstellar space.[77] Weismann does not think that a living germ could\nbe conveyed in the crevices of meteorites to our planet, because \"it\ncould neither endure the excessive cold nor the absolute desiccation to\nwhich it would be exposed in cosmic space, which contains absolutely no\nwater. This could not be endured even for a few days, much less for\nimmeasurable periods of time.\"[78]\n\n  76: Jacques Loeb says that \"whoever claims to have succeeded in\n  making living matter from inanimate will have to prove that he has\n  succeeded in producing nuclein material which acts as a ferment for\n  its own synthesis and thus reproduces itself. Nobody has thus far\n  succeeded in this, although nothing warrants us in taking it for\n  granted that this task is beyond the power of science.\"--\"Darwin and\n  Modern Science,\" p. 270.\n\n  77: \"Worlds in the Making,\" 1908, Chapter VIII.\n\n  78: \"The Evolution Theory,\" II, p. 365.\n\nLord Kelvin will not go as far as Arrhenius, but believes that a\nmeteorite brought the first living germs to this planet. K. Pearson\nthinks that under favourable conditions in the remote past life arose,\nbut arose only once, out of the non-living.[79] The bridge was so\nslender that it was crossed but once under imaginary conditions not\ncontrollable by experiment; and as a unique event even in imaginary\nhistory it cannot be said to be subject to any general law. It is\nquestionable, in fact, whether in scientific merit the hypothesis is\nsuperior to that of special creation.\n\n  79: \"Grammar of Science,\" one volume edition, pp. 410 ff.\n\nDr. Sch\u00e4fer sees this and points it out very clearly in his Presidential\nAddress.[80] A scientific account of the origin of life must refer it to\ncauses operating to-day; so, instead of Arrhenius' eternity of life, or\nof Pearson's spontaneous production of life but once under inaccessible\nconditions, or Lord Kelvin's meteoric conveyance of life, he believes\nthat life is constantly being produced, and has always been produced,\nfrom certain colloidal substances which he describes. But what has\nbecome of all this life, constantly generated? He admits there is trace\nof only one paleontological series. While assuming that it is the nature\nof life to evolve, he admits that there is no evidence accessible to the\nsenses or discerned as yet by the most delicate instruments for the\nexistence of these countless beginnings of life. The real question then\nconcerns not this kind of life, which eye hath not seen, but the origin\nof the life which we know, and whose marvellous development evolution\ntraces. Ostwald thinks that \"it is undecided whether originally there\nwere one or several forms from which the present forms sprang, nor is\nit known how life first made its appearance on earth. So long as the\nvarious assumptions with regard to this question have not led to\ndecisive, actually demonstrable differences in the results, a discussion\nof it is fruitless, and therefore unscientific.\"[81]\n\n  80: _Science_, September 6, 1912, pp. 294 ff.\n\n  81: \"Natural Philosophy,\" p. 175.\n\nA comparison has often been drawn between the birth of the individual\nand that of the race. Theologians have discussed the question whether\nthe child in his spiritual nature is to be referred to a special act of\ncreative power, or whether all of his endowments are derived from his\nparents.\n\nTo the poet the birth of the child suggests the presence of forces other\nthan those of the seen and temporal. The new life is \"out of the deep,\nfrom the true world, within the world we see.\" Its roots are in another\ndimension of being than that of nature or the world of time and sense.\nIn moments of insight, \"though inland far we be, our souls have sight of\nthat immortal sea which brought us hither.\"\n\nAgain to the philosopher there is in the individual something\nindescribable, unique, not to be compressed within the compass of any\ngeneral law, something in each individual which his ancestry or\nantecedents will not explain nor his environment produce.[82]\n\n  82: See Royce: \"The World and the Individual,\" II, p. 325.\n\nSays a distinguished professor of biology[83]: \"Familiarity with\ndevelopment does not remove the real mystery which lies back of it. The\ndevelopment of a human being, of a personality, from a germ cell seems\nto me the climax of all wonders, greater even than that involved in the\nevolution of a species or the making of a world.\" He remarks that \"if\npersonality is determined by heredity alone, all teaching, preaching,\ngovernment, is useless.\" The only hope for the race, he says, is in\neugenics--always supposing that enough freedom is left to carry out its\nprogram.\n\n  83: E. G. Conklin: \"Heredity and Responsibility,\" in _Science_,\n  January 10, 1913.\n\nIf the birth of the individual and the full story of his origin is thus\nenveloped in mystery for theologian, poet, philosopher and even\nscientist, it is not to be expected that the problem of the origin of\nthe human race can be solved by a neat formula. Here the mystery of the\nbirth of the individual from parents of the same species is intensified\nmany fold. Here the problems of mind and body, of their genetic and\nmetaphysical relations to each other, and of the ultimate relation of\nthe spirit world to each, press for solution before there can be any\nfull and final answer to the question of the origin of man. Is it any\nwonder that the single occurrence upon which was based the birth of all\nfuture generations which have peopled the earth should be thought to\ninvolve more than can be included in any scientific hypothesis?[84]\n\n  84: \"No other animal types,\" says Wallace, \"make the slightest\n  approach to any of these high faculties [such as are seen in man] or\n  show any indication of the possibility of their development. In very\n  many directions they have reached a limit of organic perfection\n  beyond which there is no apparent scope for further advancement.\n  Such perfect types we see in the dog, the horse, the cat-tribe, the\n  deer and the antelopes, the elephants, the beaver and the greater\n  apes; while many others have become extinct because they were so\n  highly specialized as to be incapable of adaptation to new\n  conditions. All these are probably about equal in their mental\n  faculties, and there is no indication that any of them are or have\n  been progressing towards man's elevation, or that such progression,\n  either physically or mentally, is possible.\"--\"Man's Place in the\n  Universe,\" 3d (popular) ed., pp. 328, 329.\n\nWhen we seek to interpret these critical points in the history of the\nworld, such as the origin of life and of man, two roads are open before\nus. We may emphasize, with the advocates of preformation, the principle\nof continuity alone; and, explaining the higher by the lower, we may go\nback as Mr. Noyes would carry us, back on the dwindling track,\nexplaining civilization by savagery, the non-moral by the moral, the\nconscious by the unconscious, the living by the non-living. In this\nprocess, it has been often pointed out, there lurks a sort of _generatio\n\u00e6quivoca_; primitive star-dust is endowed with the attributes of life,\nof consciousness, and even of purpose and morality. Thus J. A. Thomson\nsays that \"if we see any good reason for believing in the erstwhile\norigin of the living from the not-living, we give a greater continuity\nto the course of events, and we must again read something into the\ncommon denominator of science--Matter, Energy, and the Ether. We have\nalready read into this Wonder and Mystery, Harmony and Order, and we\nmust now read into it--Progress and, from a philosophical standpoint,\nPurpose.\"[85]\n\n  85: \"The Bible of Nature,\" pp. 131, 132.\n\nThe objection will be made that to regard the primitive atoms or cells\nas practically self-preserving, self-repairing and self-improving, the\nfountain of all life, of all consciousness and morality and\ncivilization, is to endow these entities with attributes that are\nmanifestly inappropriate.\n\nSeeing the difficulties of a theory of evolution based upon the\nprinciple of continuity alone, we may emphasize, with many popular\ninterpreters, not so much this principle of continuity, as that of\nprogress. Evolution would then mean not a mere shifting of the elements,\na redistribution of matter and motion, but a creative synthesis, an\nepigenesis. It will then mean, not \"There is nothing new under the sun,\"\nbut rather, \"What next?\" The descent of man will no longer suggest the\ninference that as the progeny of the brute man must share his destiny,\nbut rather the thought that \"it doth not yet appear what we shall be.\"\n\nBut how to explain the new element which has arisen, not out of, but\nalongside of, the others? We would not be content to say, \"Now the\ninorganic elements incapable of producing life; and now, presto! living\nmatter;\" for this after all would be a break in continuity not\nexplained, and would lead once more to a sort of creation _ex nihilo_.\nThe necessities of the case seem to call for some new conception which\nshall unite the two great principles of continuity and progress.\n\n\nIII. THEISM AND EVOLUTION\n\nWe have reached the point where it can be seen that evolution, when\nelevated from a biological hypothesis into a theory of the universe, is\nin need of the theistic postulate in order to make it workable. Theism,\nin fact, offers a twofold advantage to the evolution theory. It\nsatisfies the causal demand, and it furnishes the means of combining the\ntwo ideas of continuity and progress which have impressed themselves so\ndeeply upon the mind of our generation.\n\nIn the first place it satisfies the causal demand. If evolution is but\nthe unfolding of the implicit, as the preformation view would have it,\nan explanation is naturally sought for the marvellous properties of the\noriginal star-dust, or mind-stuff, or the primordial living germ. The\nmore mechanical the interpretation of the course of things becomes, the\nmore insistent, again, will be the questions, Who made the mechanism?\nWho drives the mechanism? Even from the standpoint of epigenesis, the\nappearance of an entirely new element, which by hypothesis is not merely\nimplicit in the previous state of things, must be referred to some\nadequate cause or ground. Evolution, in any of its forms, is the name of\na method rather than of a cause; and \"logic compels the evolutionist to\nassume a force that was not evolved, but which existed before evolution\nbegan.\"[86]\n\n  86: F. H. Headley, \"Problems of Evolution,\" p. 155.\n\nIf we interpret the power behind evolution in a theistic sense, and\nbelieve that God is immanent in nature and in the life of man, we are\nnot absolved from the task of tracing as far as possible the natural\nhistory of life and mind, but we may view that history from a standpoint\nfrom which both origin and progressive development become intelligible.\nNo scientific hypothesis is able in itself to carry us all the way from\n\"concentrating nebul\u00e6 to the thoughts of poets.\" A theory of the\nuniverse which shall do justice to the conceptions both of continuity\nand progress can best be framed with the aid of the category of purpose.\n\nThe continuity is preserved in the unity of the developing plan, no\nstage of which is sudden or abrupt, but is related \"filially\" to the\nstage and the stages which preceded. The relation between two stages is\nnot like that between the two members of an equation, a relation of\nexact equivalence between the evolved and the involved. There is a\nreally new element in the later stage if there is a real progress. But\nthe new factor comes not in dramatic or spectacular fashion; it comes\nwithout observation, and comes not to destroy but to fulfill.\n\nIf the evolution theory is to cover the whole history of the world and\nof man, it must be hospitable to the ideas both of continuity and\nprogress. An interpretation of evolution so framed would be opposed,\nindeed, to the conception of a Creator touching the world only with His\nfinger-tips, and exhausting His creative power in its initial exercise.\nIt would be opposed to materialistic monism, as well as to an idealistic\nor pantheistic monism which would reduce the evolutionary and historic\nprocess to mere appearance. Evolution in its theistic construction sees\nin the lower orders of existence and in the earlier stages of life the\npromise, but not the potency, of the higher. It assumes the existence of\na power immanent in the universe and adequate to account for the\nappearance of new forces. It can interpret alike the continuity of the\nevolutionary process, and the appearance once for all in the\nirreversible moments of progress of new forms and forces of life. It\nadmits the possibility of the appearance of new spiritual forces in the\ncourse of history, and opens a vista of illimitable progress.\n\nNo one was more certain than Huxley, when speaking of the relation of\nman to the lower animals, that \"whether _from_ them or not, he is\nassuredly not _of_ them.\"[87] Man's peculiar endowments, his sense of\nlaw and beauty, his spiritual capacities and aspirations, all of these,\nif laws of analogy and causation are to hold, point to a different\ndimension of being from that of nature below him. If \"man still bears in\nhis bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin,\"[88] he bears\nin the framework of his mind and moral nature the indelible stamp of his\nspiritual origin. His spiritual endowments can find their explanation\nonly in a spiritual world. They have arisen, not from the lair of the\nwild beast, but rather from the bosom of God. No ascertained fact of\nscience, nor any legitimate or necessary inference from any such fact,\nforbids the affirmation of faith, \"It is He that hath made us,\" and \"we\nare His people.\"\n\n  87: \"Man's Place in Nature,\" p. 87.\n\n  88: \"Descent of Man,\" p. 619.\n\nWith each advance of science the thoughts of men are disturbed. The\ndiscoveries of Copernicus and Galileo seemed to destroy the foundations\nof the Christian, or even the theistic, view of the world; but the\nastronomer to-day can see anew God's glory in the heavens and more\nimpressive evidence of His greatness and majesty. When Newton's laws of\nmotion displaced the idea that the planets were conveyed about their\norbits by angelic beings, it was feared that atheism was the logical\ninference. But Newton himself remained a devout theist, and even\nVoltaire, his admirer, was ready\n\n    \"To follow Newton in that boundless road,\n    Where nature's lost, and ev'rything but God.\"\n\nSo when evolution, through the genius of Darwin, came into popular\ndiscussion and acceptance, it was feared that chance had been enthroned\nin the universe, and that religion was destined to extinction. But in\nthe progress of the evolution theory, as its advocates have split into\nvarious camps, the sense of the mystery in the origins and laws of the\norganic world has deepened, and many can see in nature the evidence of a\ndiviner wisdom than before.\n\nDr. Sch\u00e4fer in his presidential address before the British Association,\nin 1912, spoke in one sense of the continuity of life, giving to it what\nseemed like a mechanical or materialistic interpretation. The following\npresidential address, by Sir Oliver Lodge, spoke of the continuity of\nlife in another sense, a continuation of life after death; and argued\nthat mechanism is inadequate to explain the facts of life, and asserted\nthat \"genuine religion has its roots deep down in the heart of humanity,\nand in the reality of things.\" At each stage of advance in science,\nsays a recent writer, \"this joyful overestimate of the possibilities of\nmechanism becomes a marked feature of contemporary thought. As each\npiece of knowledge becomes assimilated, it is seen that the old problems\nare in their essence unaltered; the poet, the seer and the mystic again\ncome to their own, and, in new language, and from a higher ground of\nvantage, proclaim their message to mankind.\"[89]\n\n  89: \"Science and the Human Mind,\" by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.\n  Whetham, 1912, pp. 218, 219.\n\nThe horizons of mystery are not at the confines of telescopic vision, or\nat the far boundaries of the material universe, but are in the objects\nwhich are most familiar, in the meanest flower that blows, in the\nminutest seed and in the smallest atom. As the poet finds in the flower\nthoughts too deep for tears, so the scientist sees in it problems too\nvast and far-reaching for human comprehension. He can see in the very\natom minute solar systems, and in electricity a mystery lying at the\nvery heart of material things.\n\nIt is the paradox of science that the more the world is understood, the\ndeeper does the mystery of its existence become. With the enlarging\nboundaries of knowledge there is a growing appreciation of mysteries\nperhaps insoluble which lie beyond. Science, in fact, only deals with\nthe connections of things, and the processes by which they came to be\nwhat they are, but not with the ultimate origins and the final ends. The\ndeeper study of nature will lead men, we may believe, in the future as\nit has done in the past, to the reverent attitude of a Kepler, a Newton,\na Clerk-Maxwell, and a Lord Kelvin. They will see in the bird's feather\nand the butterfly's wing, in the constitution of the cell and the atom,\nin the stellar universe and the mind of man, evidences of creative Power\nand Purpose; and, turning from the study of nature, will exclaim, \"How\nwonderful are Thy works; in wisdom hast Thou made them all!\"\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nThe Christian Faith and Psychology\n\nThe Psychology of Religion as a branch of scientific study was \"made in\nAmerica,\" and is not yet twenty years old. Its virtual founder and\npopularizer was William James, who furnished the introduction to\nStarbuck's \"Psychology of Religion\" (1900) and published his \"Varieties\nof Religious Experience,\" the quarry in which all subsequent writers\nhave mined, in 1903. An earlier American philosopher, Jonathan Edwards,\ngained the right to be called the precursor of the science by his\ntreatise on the Religious Emotions. Of Edwards, named with Emerson and\nJames as one of three representative American philosophers, Royce has\nsaid that \"he actually rediscovered some of the world's profoundest\nideas regarding God and humanity simply by reading for himself the\nmeaning of his own religious experiences.\"[90]\n\n  90 \"William James and Other Essays,\" p. 4.\n\nThe way for a scientific study of religious experience had been prepared\nby the development of modern psychology and by the growing popular\ninterest in religious phenomena. We recall the wide-spread interest in\nDrummond's \"Natural Law in the Spiritual World,\" dealing with personal\nreligion, and in Kidd's \"Social Evolution,\" which dealt with the place\nof religion on the broader field of human progress. The popularity of\nmonographs on mysticism, such as those by W. R. Inge and Miss A.\nUnderhill, and of lives of the saints, such as Paul Sabatier's \"Life of\nFrancis of Assisi\" and McCabe's \"Life of Augustine,\" showed by the\npersonality of their authors and the wide circle of their readers that\nreligious experiences, especially if they be profound and unusual, are\nmatters of deep human interest even to those not closely connected with\nthe churches. The saints have been taken from the church historians, and\nmade to live before us as men of like passions with ourselves. For many\nmonths recently a religious novel, \"The Inside of the Cup,\" held its\nplace as the \"best seller.\"\n\nSince the pioneer work of Starbuck, Coe[91] and James, the literature of\nthe subject, largely by American writers, has grown apace. Established\nin the college course, the psychology of religion has threatened to\ndisturb vested rights even in the theological schools. Conversion and\nsanctification, once regarded as themes for the theological cloister,\nthe revival service or the closet of devotion, have become familiar\ntopics of the text-books and commonplaces of the lecture room.\n\n  91: \"The Spiritual Life,\" 1900.\n\nWill this study of religion from the psychological standpoint prove to\nbe an ally to the Christian Faith, or will it put new weapons into the\nhands of its enemies? It may be too early for a positive answer, but the\nadvertising value of the new movement cannot be denied, and several\nspecific entries at least may be made on the credit side of the ledger.\nThe materials for religious psychology have been drawn mainly from\nChristian biography and Christian experience. Impressive stories of\nconversion, gathered from the ages of Christendom and from the work of\ncity and foreign missions, have strengthened the argument from Christian\nexperience. Taken from religious biographies and devotional books and\nmissionary annals and modern questionnaires, the testimony of the saints\nof all ages has been marshalled as they have told what the Lord has done\nfor their souls. The very fact that it has been worth while to write\npsychologies of religion is in itself significant. \"Christianity,\" says\nEucken, \"has been the first to give the soul a history; in comparison\nwith the interest of the soul, it has reduced all events in the outer\nworld to mere incidentals, according to the words of Jesus: 'What shall\nit profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul.'\"[92]\n\n  92: \"K\u00f6nnen wir noch Christen sein?\" 1911, p. 10; \"Can We Still Be\n  Christians?\" p. 9.\n\nSeparating as far as possible the descriptive from the metaphysical\naspects of our subject, we may consider I. The Psychology of Religious\nExperience; and II. The Metaphysical Implicates of Religious Experience.\nUnder the first head we shall find that the study of religious\nexperience has been favourable to the Christian Faith in at least four\nrespects.\n\n\nI. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE\n\nI. The scientific study of religion shows that religion belongs to the\nessence rather than the accidents of human nature. Man is the praying,\nthe believing, and the hoping-to-survive animal. It is not the office of\npsychology to prove the existence of God, but it may show that belief in\nHis existence is natural to man, and is favoured by natural selection.\nIt may show that religious experiences have, in the words of James,\n\"enormous biological worth,\"[93] and that, to quote again the same\nwriter, \"the strenuous type of character will on the battle-field of\nhuman history always outwear the easy-going type, and religion will\ndrive irreligion to the wall.\"[94]\n\n  93: \"Varieties of Religious Experience,\" p. 509.\n\n  94: \"The Will to Believe,\" p. 213.\n\nOne evidence of the normality of religious faith is the vacuum or sense\nof loss which continues to be felt in the life of those who have lost\nit. If we need God, as Augustine says, in order that the soul may live,\nit is natural that there should be a feeling of spiritual starvation\nwithout God. The two classical instances of this \"aching void the world\ncan never fill\" are those of two well-known scientists, one writing in\nthe eclipse, apparently permanent, of his faith, and the other after its\nrestoration. Says W. K. Clifford: \"Whether or no it be reasonable and\nsatisfying to the conscience, it cannot be doubted that theistic belief\nis a comfort and a solace to those who hold it, and that the loss of it\nis a very painful loss.... We have seen the spring sun shine out of an\nempty heaven, to light up a soulless earth; we have felt with utter\nloneliness that the Great Companion is dead. Our children, it may be\nhoped, will know that sorrow only by the reflex light of a wondering\ncompassion.\"[95] It is a sad consolation that children will be spared the\nloss, because they have not known the joy, of religious faith.\n\n  95: \"Lectures and Essays,\" 2d ed., p. 389.\n\nRomanes, during the eclipse of his faith, found that success,\nintellectual distraction, reputation and artistic pleasure were \"all\ntaken together and well sweetened to taste ... but as high confectionery\nto a starving man.\" He adds: \"I take it then as unquestionably true that\nthis whole negative side of the subject proves a vacuum in the soul of\nman which nothing can fill save faith in God.\"[96] Such modern instances\nshow the normality of religion, and are an impressive commentary upon\nthe words of the Psalmist, \"My soul is athirst for God,\" and upon those\nof Augustine, \"Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.\"\n\n  96: \"Thoughts on Religion,\" 2d ed., pp. 161, 162.\n\nThe normality of religion is further shown in the instinctive turning of\nthe soul to God, or to some higher power, in times of crisis and danger.\nThe religious consciousness is best interrogated, not in times of\nmechanical routine or worldly preoccupation, but in those moments when\nwe seem to ourselves to be most religious, in moments of clearest\ninsight, or of deepest emotion, or of some crisis in action. The story\nof one of the survivors of the _Titanic_ disaster is in point:\n\n\"The second thing that stands out prominently in the emotions produced\nby the disaster is that in moments of urgent need men and women turn for\nhelp to something entirely outside themselves.... To those men standing\non the top deck with the boats all lowered, and still more when the\nboats had all left, there came the realization that human resources were\nexhausted and human avenues of escape closed. With it came the appeal to\nwhatever consciousness each had of a Power that had created the\nuniverse. After all, some Power had made the brilliant stars above ...\nhad made each one of the passengers with ability to think and act, with\nthe best proof, after all, of being created--knowledge of their own\nexistence; and now, if at any time, was the time to appeal to that\nPower. When the boats had left and it was seen the ship was going down\nrapidly, men stood in groups on the deck engaged in prayer, and later,\nas some of them lay on the overturned collapsible boat, they repeated\ntogether over and over again the Lord's Prayer.... And this was not\nbecause it was a habit.... It must have been because each one ... saw\nlaid bare his utter dependence on something that had made him and given\nhim power to think.... Men do practical things in times like that: they\nwould not waste a moment on mere words if those words were not an\nexpression of the most intensely real conviction of which they were\ncapable. Again, like the feeling of heroism, this appeal is innate and\nintuitive, and it certainly has its foundation on a knowledge--largely\nconcealed, no doubt--of immortality. I think this must be obvious: there\ncould be no other explanation of such a general sinking of all the\nemotions of the human mind expressed in a thousand different ways by a\nthousand different people in favour of this single appeal.\"[97]\n\n  97: \"The Loss of the _SS. Titanic_: Its Story and Its Lessons,\" by\n  Lawrence Beasley, B. A. (Cantab.), Scholar of Gonville and Caius\n  College, one of the survivors. Boston, 1912.\n\nThe instinctive place and biological value of religion in human life,\nthe restlessness and hunger of the soul without religion, show that it\nis not an excrescence upon human nature. The exclamation of a recent\nwriter seems justified: \"The age of scientific materialism is past....\nThe religious instinct has been adjudged normal.\"[98]\n\n  98: J. B. Carter: \"The Religious Life of Ancient Rome,\" p. 95.\n\n2. The study of religious experience has shown the power of religion\n(and certainly for the most part its power for good) in the life of the\nindividual and of society. The psychologists have thrust upon our\nattention with unmistakable emphasis the _fact_ of conversion, however\nthey may theorize about the fact. The recorded experiences of saints,\nreformers and missionaries, the testimony collected by the\nquestionnaires and the cases of conversion described in such books as\nBegbie's \"Twice-Born Men\" have shown beyond a peradventure that men\n_can_ be born again. It only remains for the church to say, \"Ye _must_\nbe born again.\"\n\nThe records show that men who are the slaves of appetite and vice, too\ndegraded to be reached by appeals to pride or to prudence, can by the\ngospel be restored to hope and self-respect and to lives of singular\nusefulness. As Begbie says: \"There is no medicine, no Act of Parliament,\nno moral treatise, and no invention of philanthropy, which can\ntransform a man radically bad into a man radically good.... Science\ndespairs of these people, pronounces them 'hopeless' and 'incurable.'\nPoliticians find themselves at the end of their resources. Philanthropy\nbegins to wonder whether its charity could not be turned into a more\nfertile channel. The law speaks of 'criminal classes.' It is only\nreligion that is not in despair about this mass of profitless evil\ndragging at the heels of progress--the religion which still believes in\nmiracle.\"[99]\n\n  99: \"Twice-Born Men,\" 1909, pp. 18f.\n\nThe psychologists have emphasized not only the facts of conversion but\nthe variety in its mode. It has been pointed out that \"conversion for\nmales is a more violent incident than for females, and more sudden.\"[100]\nUhlhorn has observed that it is characteristic of a period of conflict\n\"that sudden conversions are more frequent then than at other times,\nthat the marvel inherent in every conversion becomes more evident, and,\nso to speak, more palpable.\"[101] A child brought up under strong\nreligious influences will not have the intense struggles which are\nnatural when a hardened criminal or a scoffing unbeliever is converted.\nCount Zinzendorf raised serious misgivings in the minds of the Moravians\nwhen he insisted that he \"could not tell the day when he first decided\nfor Christ, and had no knowledge of a time when he did not love\nHim.\"[102] The mother of Edmund Gosse, a woman singularly devoted in her\nlabours by tongue and pen to the cause of evangelical religion, wrote in\nher thirtieth year: \"I cannot recollect the time I did not love\nreligion. If I must date my conversion from my first wish and trial to\nbe holy, I may go back to infancy; if I am to postpone it till after my\nlast willful sin, it is scarcely yet begun.\"[103]\n\n  100: Starbuck: \"Psychology of Religion,\" p. 95.\n\n  101: \"Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,\" p. 168.\n\n  102: See Stevens: \"Psychology of the Christian Soul,\" pp. 159, 160.\n\n  103: \"Father and Son,\" by Edmund Gosse, 1907, p. 3.\n\nIt would be equally one-sided to insist that all conversions must be of\nthe sudden or cataclysmic type, and to ignore the tremendous\nsignificance of some sudden and dramatic experiences of conversion. Paul\nand Augustine are cases in point, and it will scarcely do to dismiss\nthem with the remark that \"Paul was probably a neurotic, and that\nAugustine was a sensualist with a highly developed nervous\ntemperament.\"[104] The true nature of conversion may best be seen, as\nJames suggests, in those experiences which are exaggerated and\nintense.[105]\n\n  104: Ames: \"The Psychology of Religious Experience,\" p. 265.\n\n  105: \"Varieties,\" p. 45.\n\nConversions of the sudden and dramatic type have, as a matter of fact,\nexerted the most far-reaching influence in history. The secular\nhistorian is apt nowadays to magnify the influence of Paul upon the\nlife of Europe, but the church historian must add that Paul, as apostle\nor theologian or missionary, cannot be understood apart from the\nexperience at Damascus. Augustine's conversion inspired his thought and\ndetermined his theology. Of Luther, whose conversion may not have been\nof quite so dramatic a type, a recent writer says: \"Indeed, the\nReformation in Germany was the spiritual biography of Luther writ large,\na spiritual experience materialized in institutions and intellectualized\nin confessions.\"[106]\n\n  106: H. H. Walker: _Harvard Theological Review_, April, 1913, p. 179.\n\nThe psychologists unite with the historians in describing the broad\nobjective effects of religion upon the field of history. Christianity in\nits Pauline form presented, in the West, a successful obstacle to the\nflood of Eastern thought and culture. When the structure of the Roman\nEmpire was crumbling, it was Christianity in its Roman organization that\nresisted the disintegrating influences of the barbarian invasion. It was\nChristianity in its Calvinistic form that became \"the seed-plot of\nmodern democracy.\" \"No student of American history,\" says a writer on\nthe psychology of religion, \"can fail to recognize the immense value of\nreligion as a factor in our national development, keeping us in some\nmeasure true to the ideals of our fathers.... The fact that our moral\nconceptions have at all stood the strain of this rapid material\ndevelopment, and that political and social corruption and decay in\nAmerica to-day are not hopeless and irremediable as they were in Rome\nduring the last century of the Republic, is due, I believe, chiefly to\nthe vitality of religion among us as a factor effectively conservative\nof our socially recognized values.\"[107]\n\n  107: W. K. Wright: \"A Psychological Definition of Religion,\"\n  _American Journal of Theology_, July, 1912, p. 406.\n\n3. At a time when the sense of sin is declining, it is interesting to\nfind the psychologists pressing upon our attention the facts of the\ndisorder, the wrongness, the uneasiness, or frankly the need of\nsalvation, of human kind. It would be out of place for the psychologist,\nas such, to dogmatize upon the subject of original sin, but in his\nanalysis of human nature he cannot overlook the fact of moral discord, a\nfact often politely ignored in the text-books on ethics. Thus when James\nspeaks unreservedly and autobiographically, he confesses that \"we all\nneed mercy.\" The morally athletic attitude tends to break down at last\neven in the most stalwart; and, in the condition of moral helplessness,\n\"all our morality appears as a plaster hiding a sore it can never cure,\nand all our well-doing as the hollowest substitute for that well-being\nthat our lives ought to be grounded in, but alas! are not.\"[108] The\nessential fact of religion, for Royce, is man's quest for salvation;\nand the central and essential postulate which he considers in his recent\nlectures, \"is the postulate that man needs to be saved.\"[109]\n\n  108: \"Varieties,\" p. 47.\n\n  109: \"Sources of Religious Insight,\" 1912, pp. 8 f.\n\nA distinction is sometimes drawn between a \"once-born\" and a\n\"twice-born\" type of religious experience, but the distinction is not\nabsolute. We have already noticed that those who can trace no abrupt\nchange in their experience, nor tell the day or even the year of their\nconversion, may be zealous in evangelistic labour, and emphatic in their\ninsistence upon the need of regeneration. A well-known example of the\nonce-born type of religion is the late Edward Everett Hale, whose words\nare often quoted: \"I observe, with profound regret, the religious\nstruggles which come into many biographies, as if almost essential to\nthe formation of a hero. I ought to speak of these, to say that any man\nhas an advantage, not to be estimated, who is born, as I was, into a\nfamily where the religion is simple and rational; etc.\"[110] And yet Dr.\nHale's son, brought up in such an atmosphere, has himself described in\nthe public press an experience under revival preaching which belongs to\nthe \"twice-born\" type.[111]\n\n  110: Quoted in Starbuck, pp. 305 f.\n\n  111: See _The Literary Digest_, February 10, 1906, p. 210.\n\nThe secrets of every heart are not revealed to the psychologist, and we\nshould not expect of him the deepest insight into the sinfulness of\nsin; but in emphasizing man's sense of need, of incompleteness, of\nrestlessness and of disharmony, psychology has done much to confirm, if\nit cannot of itself affirm, the Scriptural statement that \"all have\nsinned.\"\n\n4. Is man saved by faith or by works, by faith or by character? As\nbetween the evangelical and the legal schemes of salvation, the answer\nof religious psychology is emphatically in favour of the former.\nPsychologists of all schools unite in insisting that those who pass from\nrestlessness and impotence to peace and fullness of life do so in\nwonderful accord with the Scriptural method of salvation by faith. The\nwitnesses may be called, even though to a tedious degree one witness\nonly confirms the testimony of another.\n\nWe are advised by Jastrow that it is \"necessary for the life that we\nlive that we should frequently permit the focus of our concerns and of\nour struggles to fade away, and allow the surgings from below to assert\nthemselves.\"[112] James remarks that \"there is a state of mind known to\nreligious men, but to no others, in which the will to assert ourselves\nand hold our own has been displaced by a willingness to close our mouths\nand be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God.... The time for\ntension in our souls is over, and that of happy relaxation, of calm\ndeep breathing, of an eternal present, with no discordant future to be\nanxious about, has arrived.\"[113]\n\n  112: \"The Subconscious,\" 1906, p. 543.\n\n  113: \"Varieties,\" p. 47.\n\nStarbuck emphasizes the surrender of the will in conversion even when\nthe will has been consciously exercised. \"We are confronted with the\nparadox ... that in the same persons who strive towards the higher life,\nself-surrender is often necessary before the sense of assurance comes.\nThe personal will must be given up. In many cases relief persistently\nrefuses to come until the person ceases to resist, or to make an effort\nin the direction he desires to go.\"[114] He adds that \"faith is the next\nstep after self-surrender, or even the accompaniment of it.... Then\nfaith comes in, which means that the soul is in a receptive attitude....\nOne throws oneself completely on the world-will, so that one may become\na 'receiver of its truth and an organ of its activity.'\"[115]\n\n  114: \"Psychology of Religion,\" pp. 113, 114.\n\n  115: _Ibid._, p. 117.\n\nRoyce remarks that our religious need is supreme, and \"is accompanied\nwith the perfectly well-warranted assurance that we cannot attain the\ngoal unless we can get into some sort of communion with a real life\ninfinitely richer than our own.... The religious ideal grows out of the\nvision of a spiritual freedom and peace which are not naturally\nours.\"[116] \"The little will of the conscious and limited individual,\"\nsays J. B. Pratt, \"must simply give up before the deeper will of the\nlarger personality, stretching out from the conscious centre no one\nknows how far, can take control.\"[117]\n\n  116: \"Sources of Religious Insight,\" pp. 53, 54.\n\n  117: \"Psychology of Religious Belief,\" 1907, p. 161.\n\nIt is clear that the evangelical scheme of salvation, \"Heaven's easy,\nartless, unencumber'd plan,\" has found strong and unexpected support\nfrom the modern study of religious experience. The impressive\ntestimonies above, if translated into Pauline language, mean that\nsalvation is by faith and not by works of the law. The examples from\nwhich the generalizations are made are taken mostly from orthodox\ncircles, but even those who are but loosely attached to Christianity in\nits usual forms are saved in the same way. Thus James says of the\nmind-curers that \"they have demonstrated that a form of regeneration by\nrelaxing, by letting go, psychologically indistinguishable from the\nLutheran justification by faith and the Wesleyan acceptance of free\ngrace, is within the reach of persons who have no conviction of sin and\ncare nothing for the Lutheran theology.\"[118] The theologian might\ncontend that Christianity is a sort of \"sleeping partner\" in these\nschemes, and that they contain the mustard seed of faith sufficient to\nsave; but, however this may be, the fact remains that the mind-cure\nschemes teach a form of salvation by faith, not by works.\n\n  118: \"Varieties,\" p. 111.\n\nThe strain of attention and constant anxiety, involved in the effort to\nkeep the law and save oneself, leads to exhaustion and despair. The\nstruggle is hopeless, the psychologist would say, because the nervous\ncentres become exhausted. Man cannot, however zealous for the law, by\nconscious activity and moral struggle attain inward peace. Salvation by\nworks is psychologically as well as theologically impossible.\n\n\nII. METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE\n\nThe students of religious experience are to a remarkable degree in\nagreement with one another and with the teachings of evangelical\nChristianity in their view of the place and power of religion in human\nlife, and of the need of salvation and the way of salvation.\nDisagreements arise when they seek no longer to describe religious\nexperience but to interpret that experience. Our authorities, in\ntechnical language, agree very largely when they study the phenomenology\nof religion, but differ widely as to its metaphysical implicates.\n\nIt may properly be asked whether the psychology of religion, while\ndealing with the deep things of man, is competent to reveal the deep\nthings of God. Should the psychologist venture to draw any inferences\nin the metaphysical sphere? Strictly speaking he is studying only\nsubjective phenomena, and the self-imposed limitations of his subject\nshould forbid him from launching into metaphysical speculation. If he\ncannot, as a psychologist, call his soul his own, much less can he infer\nthat God exists or that Christianity is true. He must remain, perforce,\nin the outer courts of the temple, and cannot enter the inner shrine.\n\nAs a matter of fact no writer on the psychology of religious experience\nreally confines himself within strictly empirical limits. Metaphysical\ninferences are in fact drawn, or very plainly suggested, and the\nimportant question becomes what inferences of this nature, whether\npositive or negative, are proper and legitimate. Religious experience is\nat any rate not self-explanatory, but points to something beyond itself,\nwhether that something be merely a disordered nervous system, or a\nnatural impulse such as that of sex, or a department of consciousness\noutside of the normal, or a Great Beyond, whether conceived as Humanity\nor as the living God. We may consider then, (1) the physical explanation\nof religion, including the sexual; (2) the psychological explanation;\n(3) the social explanation; and (4) the theological explanation.\n\n1. Lowest in the scale is the view of religion which regards it as the\nresult of abnormal physical or psychophysical conditions. This theory\nis the expression of a robust secularism, which can quote the proverb,\n\"When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be,\" and would\nprescribe a dose of physic (as his friends did for George Fox) for those\nin distress on account of their sins. \"For the modern materialist, as\nfor the ancient Manichee, sin is a question of physiology; moral\ndepravity only a manifestation of corporeal disorder.\"[119] Religion and\ncrime, in this view, both depart from the line of normal existence, and\nare pathological phenomena. But if religion is a disease, it afflicts\nmen in all sorts of physical and mental states, and is practically a\nuniversal disease, taking the world at large.\n\n  119: Robert Law: \"The Tests of Life,\" p. 131.\n\nAkin to this pathological explanation of religion is that which sees in\nit either a natural expression, or else a perversion, of the sexual\ninstinct. \"In a certain sense the religious life is an irradiation of\nthe reproductive instinct,\"[120] says Starbuck; and G. S. Hall says that\n\"in its most fundamental aspect, conversion is a natural, normal,\nuniversal, and necessary process at the stage when life pivots over from\nan autocentric to a heterocentric basis.\"[121] This view is popular with\nthose who would give a naturalistic account of the religious life,\nespecially of conversion.\n\n  120: \"Psychology of Religion,\" p. 401.\n\n  121: \"Adolescence,\" Vol. II, p. 301.\n\nIn assuming a close connection between human and divine love, the\nmystics and the materialists join hands. With both the sexual is\ntransmuted into the spiritual. Plato made the transition in his\n\"Ph\u00e6drus,\" comparing divine with human love and even with the latter in\na degraded form. The sexual passion and the passion for purity both\nalike stir human nature to its depths, and the love of God and the love\nof woman are somehow akin. Religion in all ages has made free use of the\nimagery of love and marriage. The close connection has been emphasized\nby the statistics which show that the period between twelve and twenty\nyears is pre\u00ebminently the age of conversion.\n\nOn the other hand, the relations between the sexual and the religious\nlife are so various that it does not seem possible to place them in the\nsimple relation of cause and effect. In ancient religions there were\nexamples of phallic worship and the mutilation of priests, of temple\nprostitutes and vestal virgins. Polygamy and celibacy have both alike\nbeen enjoined in the name of religion. The imagery of the bride and the\nbridegroom has been freely used by the mystics, but it is employed as\nwell by those who are thought to oppose religion.[122] It is true that in\nChristian circles the curve of conversion rises suddenly and is at its\nheight during the adolescent period; but again the facts are not so\nclear as to warrant the inference that conversion is an effect of the\ndevelopment of the sexual life. The adolescent period is the time also\nof the awakening of the intellectual and \u00e6sthetic faculties, of the\nfeeling of responsibility and the stirring of ambition. Unless all of\nthese are irradiations of the sexual impulse, it cannot be said that the\nreligious awakening, coming within this period, must be so regarded. The\nadolescent period is one of peculiar religious susceptibility, but in\npart this may be due to the influence of social pressure, brought to\nbear very strongly at this period by parents and teachers. Again, the\nexceptions on both sides are too many. Adolescents, even those under\nreligious influences, are not always converted; indeed this period is\none of peculiar susceptibility to doubt. It is notorious that this is\nthe time when the Sunday-school and the church are apt to lose their\nhold on the boys, and the questionnaires show juvenile atheism as well\nas juvenile piety. Sex development cannot well be the cause both of\nreligion and irreligion.\n\n  122: In an appreciation of the late John Davidson, it is said that\n  \"an obsession by sexual metaphors was his imaginative besetting\n  sin.\"--A. S. Mories, in _Westminster Review_, July, 1913, p. 81.\n\nWhile conversions are most frequent in the adolescent period, they occur\nboth before and after it, as the statistics show. The notable\nconversions which have been most far-reaching in their effects, such as\nthose of Paul, Augustine, and Luther, have occurred after adolescence.\nConversion with Augustine meant the repression of sex desires and a\ncelibate life, while in the case of Luther it meant freedom to marry.\nJames observes that \"the effects are infinitely wider than the alleged\ncauses, and for the most part opposite in nature.\"[123] Paul's conversion\nand that of multitudes after him have no suggestion of a sexual element,\nand it is notable that men are apt to become increasingly occupied with\nreligion in advancing age as the sexual impulse wanes.\n\n  123: \"Varieties,\" p. 11, note.\n\nThe adolescent theory of conversion has, indeed, a lesson for Christian\nparents and teachers. They should urge upon boys and girls decision and\npublic identification with the church during this period; but it would\nbe a loss to religion if religious teachers should forget the profound\npsychology of the motto: \"Give me a child for his first seven years, and\nyou can have him for the rest of his life.\" As Stevens says: \"We cannot\nwait till adolescence is reached before we win the soul for God. That\nwould be fatally late. The boy must know that the highest is the highest\nwhen he sees it, and must have been prepared to love it.\"[124] The\nprofound emotional disturbance of puberty is not regeneration in the\nChristian sense, while at that time the conditions for it may be\npeculiarly favourable.\n\n  124: \"Psychology of the Christian Soul,\" p. 173.\n\n2. Midway between those explanations of religion which refer it to a\nphysical and to a supernatural cause is the psychological theory\nadvocated by James, that the special seat or source of the religious\nlife is in the Subconscious. While the \"subliminal\" and the\n\"subconscious\" are newcomers in psychology, they have already played a\nconsiderable r\u00f4le in religious discussion, and have been used in\nillustration and even in reconstruction of theological doctrine.\nMultiple personality illustrates the Trinity; the subconscious is made,\nas in Sanday's \"Christologies Ancient and Modern,\" the sphere of the\ndivine nature of Christ; and psychical research is looked to by some as\na hopeful reinforcement or scientific demonstration of the doctrine of a\nfuture life.\n\nThe subconscious is used in a rather loose way by popular and even by\nscientific writers. James regards it as \"nowadays a well-accredited\npsychological entity,\"[125] while Pratt refers to the use that is made of\nit as \"rather questionable psychology.\"[126] Some of its possible and\nlegitimate meanings are: (_a_) Those hereditary dispositions which,\nunknown to the man himself, largely shape his actions; or (_b_) the\npsychophysical machinery of habitualized action. As Jastrow says: \"We\nrise upon steps of our habitualized selves, grown familiar to their\ntask.\"[127] The subconscious again (_c_) may mean that subliminal\nactivity of the mind which, when the conscious strain of effort and\nattention has been unsuccessful, often, as it seems, does the work for\none, recalling the forgotten name, solving the problem, or even creating\na new product such as a finished song or poem.\n\n  125: \"Varieties,\" p. 511.\n\n  126: _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1911, p. 231.\n\n  127: \"The Subconscious,\" p. 433.\n\nLastly (_d_) the subconscious may refer to that more occult sphere to\nwhich belong the phenomena of hypnotism, automatism, multiple\npersonality, and perhaps telepathy, in virtue of which the subject\nperforms actions or has ideas to which his ordinary consciousness gives\nno clew. The subconscious in any or all of these senses is at least the\ndwelling place of mystery. Starbuck admits that \"what happens below the\nthreshold of consciousness must, in the nature of the case, evade\nanalysis.\"[128] It is a mysterious region of shadows, a twilight zone in\nwhich the divine and human may meet. It may be in itself the source of\nthe religious life, or at least the channel through which revelation and\nredemptive influence may come.\n\n  128: \"Psychology of Religion,\" p. 107.\n\nIn James' exposition the subconscious part of a man is the higher part;\nand man is conscious that this higher part of himself \"is co-terminous\nand continuous with a MORE of the same quality, which is operative in\nthe universe outside of him.\"[129] What is this more? Our point of\ncontact with it is the subconscious self; and without asking for the\nfarther limits of the \"More,\" and \"disregarding the over-beliefs,\" \"we\nhave in the fact that the conscious person is continuous with a wider\nself through which saving experiences come, a positive content of\nreligious experience, which, it seems to me, is literally and\nobjectively true as far as it goes.\"[130]\n\n  129: \"Varieties,\" p. 508.\n\n  130: _Ibid._, p. 515.\n\nJames' theory of the subconscious as the organ of religion can appeal to\nmany undoubted facts, but if it means, as the tendency of his exposition\nindicates, that the subconscious as the organ of religion has superior\nmoral worth to the life of full consciousness, it may be insisted that\nthe subliminal sphere is the source of evil as well as of good. The\nsubconscious may be identified with the flesh as well as with the\nspirit. If the subconscious, to use Pauline language, is the medium of\nhigher spiritual influences, it is also the seat of the \"old Adam,\" of\n\"sin that dwelleth in me.\" In this region is to be found the source\nalike of the unexpected heroisms and weaknesses of men, of Peter's\ncourage before the Council and of his cowardice before the serving maid.\nHereditary and habitualized dispositions and tendencies are like the\nsubmerged part of an iceberg, and the winds of conscious resolution and\neffort are often powerless against the sweep of the hidden current\nbeneath.\n\nIt may be admitted that \"if the grace of God miraculously operates, it\nprobably operates through the subliminal door,\"[131] but it should be\nremembered that in this region of the subliminal there are \"dragons\" as\nwell as seraphim. Hypnotic influences may be therapeutic or they may be\nbaleful, and in the region of the subconscious, it is hinted, insane\ndelusions and psychopathic obsessions may find their source.[132] The\nsubconscious is a battle-field rather than itself a source of help, and\nit cannot be said that the subconscious man of the shadows, if he exists\nin any of the r\u00f4les assigned to him, is any better or more religious\nthan the man who has his being in the full sunlight of conscious\nactivity. The psychological explanation of religion, like the\npathological and the sexual, really proves too much. From all these\nalleged sources of religious life, not only saving influences but\ndestructive influences flow. Royce's criticism is that \"the new\ndoctrine, viewed in one aspect, seems to leave religion in the\ncomparatively trivial position of a play with whimsical powers--a prey\nto endless psychological caprices.\"[133]\n\n  131: \"Varieties,\" p. 270.\n\n  132: _Ibid._, p. 235.\n\n  133: \"William James and Other Essays,\" p. 23.\n\n3. Another theory of religion, now popular, seeks its explanation not in\nany bodily condition or stage of growth, nor in any special department\nof the mental life, but in the social relationships of men. Religion\nbecomes a recognition of social values, \"a consciousness of the highest\nsocial values,\"[134] and is practically to be identified with patriotism,\naltruism and the vision of the future of society. \"To-day,\" says Leuba,\n\"most men and women derive whatever strength they may have to maintain\ntheir integrity and to devote themselves to the public good from their\nrespect and love for their family, their friends, their business\nassociates, and the state, and from their desire for the respect and\nlove of men, much more than from any religious conviction. It is no\nlonger the consciousness of God, but the consciousness of Man that is\nthe power making for righteousness.\"[135] No metaphysical assumptions\nneed be made by this view of religion except that of the existence of a\nworld of one's fellow-men, a postulate which seems necessary even to a\nfunctional psychology.\n\n  134: Ames: \"Psychology of Religious Experiences,\" p. viii.\n\n  135: \"A Psychological Study of Religion,\" p. 311.\n\nHowever much in harmony with the spirit of the age, the social\nexplanation of religion is one-sided and is inadequate to the depth and\nmassiveness and infinite perspective of religious experience. Religion\nis a triangle with God, the self and one's brother at its three angles.\n\n(_a_) The Social theory of religion gives no adequate recognition of\nthe worth either of the individual or of society. The deepest message of\nreligion is that the soul is worth something to God. Man, in spite of\nhis social obligations, is not made simply for his brother. \"We die\nalone,\" Pascal says, and there is a sense in which we live alone. As a\nwriter on the psychology of the New Testament says: \"The self, according\nto the New Testament, is not merely a social self developing in a\ncommunity of other finite selves; it is a divine self realizing its\nideal powers of service, and fulfilling its destiny only in a fellowship\nwith the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.\"[136] Unless Humanity is\nendowed with the attributes of Deity, as it almost seems to be in the\nPositivist ritual, the estimate of society is also lowered when men are\nviewed as having relations and obligations only to one another. As James\nWard has pointed out, Humanity can only have the significance and\nsacredness of the individuals from whom it is abstracted, and if these\nhave no permanent or enduring worth, no more has Humanity.[137]\n\n  136: M. S. Fletcher: \"The Psychology of the New Testament,\" p. 245.\n\n  137: \"The Realm of Ends,\" p. 387.\n\n(_b_) The humanitarian view narrows too much the horizons of religion.\nIt would exclude from religion the sense of infinite dependence, and of\ndevotion to and communion with a personal higher Power. A religion of\nhumanity merely will seem superficial to the mood which cries out, \"My\nsoul is athirst for God,\" or \"I seek _Thee_ in order that my soul may\nlive.\" If the religion of the anchorite was one-sided, so equally is\nthat of the humanitarian.[138] Neither sin nor righteousness can be\ninterpreted in exclusively social terms, unless the conception of the\ncommunity be so enlarged as to include the Great Companion and the Great\nDemander. The social theory, again, has no apparent place for the\nreligion of solitude which finds God in nature. A New England writer\nsays of Mount Ranier:\n\n  138: The hermit saints, from this modern standpoint, would not\n  deserve to be called religious at all, as witness this remark of\n  Ames: \"If religion is participation in the ideal values of the\n  social consciousness, then those who do not share in this\n  consciousness are non-religious.\"--\"Psychology of Religious\n  Experiences,\" p. 356.\n\n\"I saw the mountain three years ago: Would that it might ever be my lot\nto see it again! I love to dream of its glory, and its vast whiteness is\na moral force in my life.\" \"Climb the mountains,\" says one of the best\nknown of American mountaineers, John Muir, \"and get their good tidings.\nNature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The\nwinds will blow their freshness into you, and the storms their energy,\nwhile care will drop off like autumn leaves.\"[139]\n\n  139: See J. H. Williams: \"The Mountain That Was 'God,'\" pp. 40, 113.\n\n(_c_) The religion of humanity must look outside itself for its highest\ninspiration for social service and for the norm of social progress. It\nwas Christianity that created the atmosphere in which \"the enthusiasm of\nhumanity\" and zeal for social service could flourish. Christianity has\nemphasized the value of the individual, and the sacredness of family\nrelationships and the brother-hood of the children of the one Father.\nWithout divine love as its pattern and inspiration human love would lose\nin comprehension and in intensity.\n\nSociety in its progress has ever waited for the signal to be given by\nsome prophet from the deserts, or some seer who has brought from the\nmount of vision the pattern of a better social order. Those who see in\nsocial service the essence of religion are faced with the paradox that\nthe wisest and most beneficent social influences have flowed from those\nexperiences in which the individual turned his back on society and\nflaunted its ideals. A declaration of independence of society seems\nneeded before there can be the most effective social service. By an\nunsocial act Abraham left his country and his kindred and his father's\nhouse, and yet in him all the families of the earth have been blessed;\nthrough Paul's unsocial act in deserting the traditions of his fathers,\nthe course of Western civilization has been profoundly influenced;\nGeorge Fox's unsocial act in depriving his town of the services of a\nuseful tradesman, and making for himself a suit of leather, has been\ncalled by an acute observer, Carlyle, doubtless by an over-emphasis, the\ngreatest event of modern history. Religion, in fact, first asserts\nitself as something over and above all social relations before its\nsocial mission can be performed.\n\n4. The interpretation of religious experience by the psychologists has\nnot always been favourable to theistic or Christian belief, but the\nfailure of other explanations, if established, will lead us to seek a\nmore adequate one by referring to a Reality transcending human\nexperience and social relationships. The study of religious psychology\nhas, in fact, furnished a broad basis from which a metaphysical or\ntheistic inference can be drawn. Such an inference, cumulative in its\neffect, may be drawn from the universality of religious belief, from the\nimperativeness of social obligations implying a supersocial sanction,\nand from the regenerative effects of religion to an adequate cause. \"God\nis real since He produces real effects.\"[140] But the study of religious\nexperience has not only strengthened the older theistic arguments, but\nhas in effect formulated two new arguments, the pragmatic and the\nmystical.\n\n  140: \"Varieties,\" p. 517.\n\nThe Pragmatic Argument for theism has been stated by James in the spirit\nof his later philosophy. Taking religions as including creeds and\nfaith-states, James says that without regard to their truth \"we are\nobliged, on account of their extraordinary influence on action and\nendurance, to class them amongst the most important biological functions\nof mankind.\"[141] The pragmatic argument would then run: \"The uses of\nreligion, its uses to the individual who has it, and the uses of the\nindividual himself to the world, are the best arguments that truth is in\nit.\"[142] There is a satisfaction, a fullness of life, an energy and an\nexpansiveness flowing from religion which are not enjoyed apart from it,\nand its usefulness, from this standpoint, is a guarantee of its truth.\nIt is merely to state this argument in the more familiar terms of cause\nand effect to say as James does elsewhere that \"work is actually done\nupon our finite personalities, for we are turned into new men, and\nconsequences in the way of conduct follow in the natural world upon our\nregenerative change.\"[143] God is real since He produces real effects.\n\n  141: \"Varieties,\" p. 506.\n\n  142: _Ibid._, p. 459.\n\n  143: _Ibid._, p. 516.\n\nThe Mystical Argument for theism is based on the claim that in religious\nexperience there is a more immediate certainty of the presence of God\nand a stronger assurance of His existence than can be gained from purely\nintellectual processes. This evidence, it is clear, may be of the\nstrongest possible kind to the mystic himself, but may seem to be weak\nor even negligible to the outsider, since the experience in the nature\nof the case is private and incommunicable. Before the mystical claim is\nappraised we must distinguish further the various kinds of mysticism. We\nmust distinguish between the absorption of the Buddhist with his passion\nfor annihilation, and the Christian's delight in the Lord; and between a\nmysticism which means identity of substance and the deification of man,\nand a moral mysticism which realizes at once that God is infinitely near\nin His grace but infinitely far in His holiness.\n\nIt is fair to ask whether the assurance of the presence of God enjoyed\nby many Christians in all ages, according to their testimony, is\nimmediate or inferred knowledge, and whether it should be called\nknowledge or faith. The answer of the mystic might be that there is a\n\"felt indubitable certainty of experience\" which is not dependent on the\nsolution of epistemological problems. Otherwise we could not be sure of\nour own existence or of that of our fellows until we had specialized in\nthe theory of knowledge and solved the problem, which has haunted modern\nphilosophy, of the knowledge of other selves. If it be objected again\nthat a subjective experience cannot ground an inference to an objective,\nand much less to a supernatural, cause,[144] it may be said that the\nexperience itself, if correctly reported, is supernatural in character.\nWhether it be Paul's \"peace that passes understanding,\" or Peter's \"joy\nunspeakable and full of glory,\" or Edwards' \"inward sweet delight in God\nand divine things,\" or a modern scientist's consciousness of the\npresence of God, said to be \"as strong and real to me as that of any\nbodily presence,\"[145] it is of such a character that no other inference\nthan that to a supernatural cause can properly be drawn. The mystical\nargument is not based like the other arguments of natural theology upon\nthe regular course of things, but upon what claims to be a new\nsupernatural experience, a new life with new capacities and powers, and\nnew emotions and insights.\n\n  144: See H\u00f6ffding: \"Philosophy of Religion,\" p. 99.\n\n  145: \"A Scientist's Confession of Faith,\" by E. L. Gregory, 1898, p.21.\n\nIt must be noticed, in conclusion, that the evidence which the\npsychologists have so industriously collected, showing that religion is\ngood for the individual and for society, has been taken almost\nexclusively from the circle of Christian influences. We might paraphrase\nJames' pragmatic argument and say that Christianity is true because it\nis good for the individual and for society. His argument from cause\nmight also be applied to Christianity, for the mystical experiences\nadduced are in great measure not merely those of communion with God but\nof communion with God in and through Christ. By no analysis in fact, as\nD. W. Forrest says, is the Christian \"able to distinguish his communion\nwith the Father from his communion with Christ. They are blended as\nconsciously real in one indivisible experience.\"[146] The testimony of\nChristian experience is to a Power and a Presence which the Christian\nfeels only as he hears and accepts the gospel message and looks to\nChrist for forgiveness, guidance, and help. \"A man who is converted, in\nthe New Testament sense, is one who has surrendered to a force\nimmeasurably greater than anything he has of himself; one who has\nawakened to the overwhelming consciousness of a spiritual world brought\nto a focus before him in the Person of Jesus Christ.\"[147] The Christian\nbelieves that he receives grace from the Father and the Son. \"When Jesus\ndeals with us and works within us, He does what only God can do. All\nChristian experience is nothing if it is not this.\"[148]\n\n  146: \"The Christ of History and of Experience,\" p. 166.\n\n  147: H. Wheeler Robinson: \"The Christian Doctrine of Man,\" 1911,\n  p. 322.\n\n  148: P. C. Simpson: \"The Fact of Christ,\" pp. 130, 131.\n\nAfter all the secret of the Lord, known to Christians in the catacombs\nat Rome as they sang, \"Jesu, Amor Meus,\" known to medieval Christians as\nthey sang \"Jesu, Dulcis Memoria,\" and known equally to modern Christians\nwho sing \"Jesus, Lover of My Soul,\" is with them that fear Him. It has\nbeen well said that Christianity must be known from the inside, if it\nis to be known at its full worth. In the nature of the case the evidence\nof Christian experience is not demonstrative to an outsider. It can come\nto him only in the way of an appeal: \"Come and see; taste and see that\nthe Lord is good.\"\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND RECENT PHILOSOPHY\n\nThe two systems of philosophy which were dominant at the turn of the\ncentury were unfriendly to theistic and Christian belief. Naturalism on\nthe one hand and Absolutism on the other could find no place for a\npositive faith in God, freedom and immortality. The opening years of the\ncentury witnessed a revolt against these two systems; and the leading\ncharacteristic of twentieth century thought, over against an agnostic\nnaturalism and a pantheistic or impersonal absolutism, has been its\nreaffirmation of spiritual values. There has been a new emphasis upon\nthe rights of personality, as against the enmeshing and enchaining\nforces of nature on the one hand and an all-engulfing Absolute on the\nother.\n\nPhilosophical readers will remember the moral tonic of James' collection\nof essays, \"The Will to Believe\" (1902), with its picturesque style, its\noriginality of standpoint and its moral enthusiasm. Here was a\nphilosopher of medical training and of unquestioned scientific standing,\nand yet with the insight and earnestness of a prophet, making a valiant\ndefense of spiritual realities, of human freedom, and the rights of the\nvolitional and moral sides of our nature. As an evolutionist he\ncontended that \"the strenuous type of character will on the battle-field\nof human history always outwear the easy-going type, and religion will\ndrive irreligion to the wall.\"[149] And as a psychologist he found that\ntheism appealed to every energy of our active nature and released the\nsprings of every emotion, and held that \"infra-theistic conceptions,\nmaterialism and agnosticism, are irrational because they are inadequate\nstimuli to man's practical nature.\"[150]\n\n  149: \"The Will to Believe,\" p. 213.\n\n  150: _Ibid._, p. 134.\n\nReaders who had been breathing the stifling air of naturalism, so fatal\nto spiritual aspiration, or the too rarified atmosphere of absolutism\nwith its \"transcendence\" of personality and moral distinctions, will\nremember also the sense of satisfaction and relief with which they read\nthat other volume of protest, from the other side of the water,\n\"Personal Idealism\" (1902). It was refreshing to find that there was a\nbody of brilliant young thinkers, alive to the scientific atmosphere of\nthe time, and trained in the philosophic orthodoxy of the English\nschools, and yet boldly asserting the rights of personality in God and\nman.\n\nThis twofold protest against a denial, from whatever side, of the rights\nof personality was organized into the movement we call Pragmatism,\nunder the leadership of William James, ably assisted by F. C. S.\nSchiller in Oxford and John Dewey in this country.[151] It is not to be\nwondered at if this reaction went too far, as the pendulum swung from\nthe extreme of Being to that of Becoming. We find Pragmatism, reacting\nagainst monism, whether materialistic or idealistic, going over to\npluralism; from the extreme of a \"block universe\" in which time is\nnothing passing to the other extreme of a \"strung-along universe\" in\nwhich time is everything; from pantheism going over to a vaguely\nindicated polytheism; from an absolute truth and an absolute Being\nsitting in smiling repose above the strife of time to a \"God in the\ndirt\" and a truth that could be made, or unmade, perhaps too easily.\n\n  151: For fuller discussion of this movement, the writer may refer to\n  his article, \"Pragmatism, Humanism and Religion,\" in the _Princeton\n  Theological Review_, October, 1908.\n\nOur discussion will be more concrete if we select leading\nrepresentatives from the four nations most addicted to philosophy, and\nexamine their attitude towards the Christian Faith and towards its\ntheistic foundations.\n\n\nI. BERGSON AND CREATIVE EVOLUTION\n\nIn close relation to the pragmatic movement, and set forth with a\nwonderful magic of style, is the philosophy of Henri Bergson which\nfinds its mature expression in his \"Creative Evolution.\" It is a\nremarkable testimony to the wealth of suggestion and many-sidedness of\nBergson's philosophy that its support has been claimed by a number of\nmovements of diverse aim. Modernists in theology, syndicalists in the\nsphere of social agitation, and even, it is said, cubists in art, appeal\nto Bergson for philosophical support; and affinities have been pointed\nout between his _\u00e9lan vital_ and Schopenhauer's will-to-live, Von\nHartmann's philosophy of the unconscious, and Nietzsche's aggressive\nindividualism. We must ask whether his _\u00e9lan vital_ can be baptized, and\nhis \"Creative Evolution\" be made the basis for a spiritual philosophy.\n\nIt will be useful to notice some features of Bergson's system before\nattempting to estimate its bearings upon religious problems. The story\nof evolution as Bergson describes it, certainly in an engaging manner,\nis a drama in three acts. The _\u00e9lan vital_, or otherwise consciousness,\nis the hero, but is imprisoned by matter (the villain), and is striving\nblindly for release. In the first act, the vital impulse tunnels its way\nthrough the opposing element of matter into the vegetable world. The\nresult is only the lethargy and immobility of vegetable forms, and is so\nfar a failure. The next act finds consciousness working its way into the\nanimal world and attaining mobility and becoming in so far free from the\nentanglements of matter; but here again there is partial failure.\nConsciousness is arrested at the stage of instinct, and, resting content\nwith a response to the environment which is patterned after the\nmechanical action of matter, fails to attain freedom. In the third act,\n\"by a tremendous leap,\" consciousness, in spite of the efforts of matter\nto drag it down to the plane of mechanism, reaches at last spontaneity\nand freedom in man. The drama reaches its _d\u00e9nouement_ in man and his\nability not only to move in response to environment, but to control the\nenvironment. It is intimated that there may be a sequel, in which life\npursues its career in another stage of existence.\n\n1. It is evident at a glance that the view of evolution here set forth\nin barest outline offers many points of contrast to what has been\naccepted as evolutionary orthodoxy. The history of life with both Darwin\nand Bergson is a struggle: but with Darwin it is a struggle for\nexistence, with Bergson a struggle for freedom, for efficiency, for\ncomplexity. With Darwin there is a struggle of living beings with one\nanother, conceived after the analogy of economic competition; with\nBergson there is a struggle of life against matter and necessity. The\nstruggle for existence, in a sense, has been moralized. It is a struggle\nfor the existence and higher life of consciousness.\n\n2. Creative evolution is not materialistic evolution, for life is not a\ndevelopment from matter but is an upward tendency opposing the downward\ncurrent of matter. The increasing complexity of living forms is not the\nresult of the movements of matter, or of chemical-physical laws, but of\nan opposition, successful in a unique degree in men, to the imprisoning\nand entangling forces of matter.\n\n3. The later stages in evolution, while connected with the earlier in\ncontinuity of development, may contain elements that are essentially\nnew. A living being is \"a reservoir of indetermination and\nunforeseeability.\"[152] The new species cannot be explained, except by an\nillegitimate process of thought, by what is presented in the old. The\nappearance of a new species is something as new as the composition of a\nsymphony of Beethoven. Man, then, in his powers and destinies is not to\nbe judged by his likeness to the brutes, but by what he possesses over\nand above the qualities of animal life, by those achievements and\nendowments to which animals have failed to attain. Since man, and man\nalone, has come so far, and in him alone consciousness has broken the\nchains of mechanical necessity, \"we shall have no repugnance in\nadmitting that in man, though perhaps in man alone, consciousness\npursues its path beyond this earthly life.\"[153]\n\n  152: \"Life and Consciousness,\" _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1911, p. 34.\n\n  153: _Ibid._, p. 43.\n\n4. Creative evolution is the antithesis of mechanical evolution. Bergson\nprotests that the conception of mechanism as applied to life is\ninadequate, because (1) it is artificial, growing out of our habits of\ncontrolling matter. It is an instrument of the intelligence, not giving\nus an insight into life, which we must gain rather in intuition, the\nhigher faculty in Bergson's system. A mechanical representation of\nnature is always a \"representation necessarily artificial and\nsymbolic.\"[154] (2) Mechanical conceptions are inapplicable to living\nbeings, because of the irreversibility of the movements of living forms;\nand (3) the mechanical theory is negatived by the facts of the\npsychophysical connection. \"The hypothesis of an equivalence between the\npsychical state and the cerebral state implies a veritable absurdity, as\nwe tried to prove in a former work.\"[155] No mechanical theory and no\ntheory of accidental variations, whether insensible or abrupt, can\naccount for the production of so complex an organ as the eye.[156]\n\n  154: \"L'\u00c9volution Cr\u00e9atrice,\" 7th ed., 1911, p. iv.; E. T.,\n  \"Creative Evolution,\" 1911, p. xii.\n\n  155: _Ibid._, p. 384; E. T., p. 355.\n\n  156: _Ibid._, pp. 82 ff.; E. T., pp. 75 ff.\n\nHis critique of other theories prepares the way for Bergson's own view\nthat the forms of living beings are due to an original vital impulsion,\nnot in the single organism, but in life as a whole, seeking, without\nforesight of the result, to overcome the downward tendency of matter.\n\nBergson's suggested _via media_ between creationism and evolutionism,\nhis rejection of a theory of chance variations, and his vigorous polemic\nagainst mechanism, all seem to prepare the way for a spiritualistic\nphilosophy. It is true that the land of the spirit has not yet been\nexplored, but Bergson, as one writer expresses it, has at least thrown a\nbridge across the chasm between the material and the spiritual. While\nhis \"Creative Evolution\" has been placed upon the Index, we must\nremember that he himself claims that this work and those that preceded\nit have resulted in the conceptions of liberty, of spirit and of\ncreation. \"From all this,\" as he says, \"we derive a clear idea of a free\nand creating God, producing matter and life at once, whose creative\neffort is continued, in a vital direction, by the evolution of species\nand the construction of human personalities.\"[157]\n\n  157: See Edouard Le Roy: \"The New Philosophy of Henri Bergson,\" E.\n  T., pp. 224 f.\n\nThe point in Bergson's system which seems least in harmony with theistic\nbelief is his criticism and rejection of finalism. Bergson fears that\nthe temporal series will be swallowed up in the \"dark backward and abysm\nof time,\" or rather of eternity. The finalism of a foreseen end means\nwith him fatalism, fixity, with no play for freedom, and a reality in\ntime only of a secondary order. Again, in opposition to finalism he\nurges the variety of living forms. Could the end of all the varied\nhistory be merely the production of man? This cannot be proved, because\neverywhere we see in nature contingency and variety, and apparent\ncross-purposes if purpose at all. There is no single line of evolution\nleading up to man. Some fossil forms from remote periods show exactly\nthe same structure as living forms to-day. Further, the vital impulse\nstriving towards freedom meets with obstacles, and failure and arrest\nare manifest in the lethargy of vegetables and the mechanical reflexes\nof animals, if these are viewed with reference to the assumed end of the\ncreation of man. The only finalism which Bergson will admit is that of a\npush towards freedom in virtue of an original vital impulse, blindly and\noften vainly seeking to overcome the movement of matter towards\nnecessity. It is a _vis a tergo_ happening at last to issue, without any\nforesight of the result, in the appearance of man.\n\nIt is not clear, however, that Bergson has been able to dispose of\nfinalism, or to find some conception between it and the theory of chance\nwhich he rejects. The disc of a talking machine, to one not familiar\nwith it, with its spiral lines broken in a haphazard way, would seem to\nexclude purpose; but when it is properly adjusted the voice of a Melba\nor a Caruso can be heard. So there may be some standpoint from which the\nbewildering variety of nature will reveal some unitary purpose. It may\nbe, to use the figure of the artist, that the purpose is not solely the\nproduction of man, but that the variety and beauty of the natural world\nis an expression of the joy of the Creative Artist in his work. The\npurpose may be more comprehensive, and the fact that all natural history\ndoes not plainly lead to the production of man is not in itself a proof\nthat man was not the intended consummation of the process.\n\nIt is noteworthy that Bergson, a master in the use of illustration,\ncannot find any exact illustration of the kind of evolution he wishes to\ndescribe. He compares the course of evolution to a road, leading to a\ncity, but hastens to add that, for evolution, the end of the road is not\nseen.[158] He says again that \"if one wished to express himself in terms\nof finality, it must be said that consciousness ... has sought an issue\nin the double direction of instinct and intelligence. It has not found\nit in instinct and it has not obtained it upon the side of intelligence,\nexcept by a sudden leap from animal to man. So that, in the last\nanalysis, man would be the _raison d' \u00eatre_ of the entire organization\nof life upon our planet.\"[159] He adds again, however, that this would\nbe but a manner of speaking, and that there is nothing in reality but a\ncertain current of existence and an antagonistic current, whence all the\nevolution of life. Once more it will be asked, how is this sudden leap,\nso tremendous in its consequences, to be conceived? Is it a leap in the\ndark, like the leap of a fish from the water into a rowboat? Is man thus\nonly a happy accident? Or must we see in the vital impulse, or behind\nit, some real instrumentality of guidance? If the original current of\nlife is wholly blind and purposeless, it would arrive nowhere, or else\nits arrival at humanity would be as much the result of chance as if it\nwere due to a fortuitous collocation of atoms.\n\n  158: \"L'\u00c9volution Cr\u00e9atrice,\" p. 112; E. T., p. 102.\n\n  159: _Ibid._, pp. 200 f.; E. T., pp. 184 f.\n\nBut let us return to Bergson's favourite and beautiful figure of the\nartist. The effort to objectify the ideal, and to put it in concrete\nform in words or upon canvas, is said to be precious though painful. It\nis precious and more precious than the work it results in, \"because,\nthanks to it, we have drawn from ourselves not only all there was there,\nbut more than was there: we have raised ourselves above ourselves.\"[160]\n\n  160: _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1911, p. 41.\n\nIs the Divine Artist subject to this kind of evolution? In moments of\ncreative activity does He thus avail Himself of a \"plus-power\" in the\nuniverse, to use Emerson's expression, and does He thus, like the human\nartist, raise Himself above Himself? If so, we must think of God as\naltogether such a one as we are, rather than as the source and ground of\nbeing and the life and light of men. Such a deity is rather to be\nidentified with the stream of life than with the Ultimate lying behind\nboth life and matter. The Divine Artist, so conceived, would lack the\nclearness of human prevision of ends, and would be of a relatively lower\norder of endowment. The striving of the vital impulse without foresight\nof an end is of an infra-human rather than a super-human kind; for even\na \"complete and perfect humanity,\" Bergson says, \"would be that in which\nthese two forms of conscious activity [intuition and intelligence]\nattain their full development.\"[161]\n\n  161: \"L'\u00c9volution Cr\u00e9atrice,\" p. 289; E. T., p. 267.\n\nA recent critic has said that while Bergson has removed the mechanical\nobstacles to liberty he has not discovered the spiritual conditions\nrequisite for it, and that \"he has, most unintentionally, brought us\nback, in this anti-Finalism, to that Naturalism which he has so\nsuccessfully resisted when it masqueraded as a sheer Mechanism.\"[162]\nThere can be no doubt that the spirit of his philosophy is one of\nprogress, and that the tendency of his thought is spiritualistic; his\n_\u00e9lan vital_ is an _\u00e9lan en avant_, and his God (if one be admitted in\nhis system) is a God of hope. But the questions will still arise\nwhether the vital impulse means for society a destructive radicalism or\na constructive renewal; whether, in its ethical aspect, it means a\nwill-to-live no matter what happens to any one else, or a\nwill-to-live-better; and whether it will eventually be transformed into\na pessimistic resignation or transmuted into spiritual aspiration.\n\n  162: F. von H\u00fcgel: \"Eternal Life,\" p. 301.\n\nIn the religious aspect of his philosophy, Bergson stands at the parting\nof the ways. He must associate with creation not merely an impulse\nvaguely psychical, but the personal attributes of will, intelligence and\npurpose, and so advance towards theism; or else he must be content to\nrest in naturalism, albeit of a glorified type.\n\n\nII. EUCKEN AND THE TRUTH OF RELIGION\n\nSince the death of William James, the brightest stars in the\nphilosophical firmament have been Henri Bergson of Paris and Rudolf\nEucken of Jena. One reason for the popularity of both is that the centre\nof interest in their best-known works is not in epistemology. They do\nnot approach the problem of existence as beholders, merely asking how\nthey can see, and whether what they see is real, but their standpoint is\nthat of intimate, vital human experience. Both writers place themselves\nin the stream of life, and find that the moments of deepest insight into\nreality are those of creative activity in art or other constructions of\nthe mind, or else, with Eucken, of moral achievement and victory.\n\nEucken has been called the German Emerson, and his message to his time\nis that of a seer rather than of a systematizer. He is the prophet of a\nspiritual life, protesting against materialism and secularism, and\nvindicating the sovereign rights of the spiritual aspects of existence.\nIn the term \"Activism,\" which he applies to his philosophy, he intimates\nthat there must be an activity of the soul upon its material and social\nenvironment, before the insights of philosophy and the achievements of\nart and the experiences of religion can be attained. There must be an\nassertion by the soul of its own spiritual nature. The conviction that\nman is not merely the product of nature, but in his spiritual life is\nindependent and supreme, is not the result of a revelation to a passive\nrecipient. It is an achievement, a venture of faith, a self-assertion of\nthe soul in the face of hostile forces which would confine it within the\ntrivial and the phenomenal.\n\nEucken's relation to Christianity will appear if we notice briefly (1)\nhis critique of other philosophical theories; (2) his own constructive\ntheory of religion; and (3) his answer to the question, Can we still be\nChristians?\n\n1. As an exponent of the \"monistic trinity\" of the Good, the Beautiful,\nand the True, Eucken is brought into comparison with his famous\ncolleague, Haeckel, with whose \"brand-new monism\" he has little\nsympathy. Against Naturalism, Eucken holds that the life of man in its\nideal constructions such as science, art, morality and religion, cannot\nbe explained from below, but only from the Higher in him and above him.\nFrom the material supplied to it by nature the soul, out of its own\nactivity, builds the more stately mansions of science, philosophy, art,\nsocial organization and religion. \"A consistent naturalism,\" he\ncontends, \"is not able to permit science of any kind. Science is\nconstructed through the activity of the human mind alone.\"[163]\n\n  163: \"Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,\" 3d ed., 1912, p. 36;\n  E. T., \"The Truth of Religion,\" 1913, p. 52.\n\nAgainst Pragmatism, with which Eucken's Activism has some superficial\nresemblance, he argues for the \"independent character of reality over\nagainst our experience of it.\" He believes that our deepest nature can\nbe called into action only by the recognition of an Ought, which has an\nexistence and value of its own, regardless of the opinions of any group\nof individuals or of the whole human race. \"When the good of the\nindividual and of humanity becomes the highest aim and the guiding\nprinciple, truth sinks to the level of a merely utilitarian opinion....\nTruth can exist only as an end in itself. 'Instrumental' truth is no\ntruth at all.\"[164]\n\n  164: \"Main Currents of Modern Thought,\" p. 78.\n\nThe method of the intellectualist as well as of the voluntarist is\ninadequate to reach the truth of religion. Religion should be a fact of\nthe whole man, and of his own decision, and it should recognize by a\nunique experience, which cannot be called exclusively feeling or thought\nor will, an encompassing and basal whole. Thought \"left simply to its\nown resources would never be able to get beyond empty forms and highly\nabstract conceptions.\"[165] No merely intellectual form of religion is\nable to overcome doubt. Thus \"the transformation of the Spiritual Life\ninto an impersonal thought-process destroys it to its very foundation.\"\n\n  165: \"Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,\" p. 121; E. T., \"The\n  Truth of Religion,\" p. 176.\n\n2. This effort, already in part described, to assert an independent\nspiritual world over against a natural world, this recognition of\nover-individual standards and of an absolute, self-subsistent Spiritual\nLife (_Geistesleben_), is called Universal Religion. The term Godhead to\nindicate this conception is in some ways preferable to that of God. A\nhigher stage of religion is indicated by Eucken's term Characteristic\nReligion, by which is meant a deeper insight into the divine, a more\npersonal experience of the divine energy of Spiritual Life. Universal\nReligion, it may be said, is the demand or the feeling after God; while\nCharacteristic Religion is the supply or the finding of God. In the\neffort to conform to the over-individual standards and to attain harmony\nwith the divine, there is an inevitable sense of weakness and failure.\nIt becomes evident that man's own energy cannot save him from inner\ndiscord. \"If a rescue is possible, Divine power and grace must do the\nwork. That such power and grace really accomplish this, is the\nfundamental conviction of religion.\"[166] There originates a mutual\nintercourse with the soul and God as between an I and a Thou; and\n\"consequently, there culminates here a movement away from the colourless\nconception of the Godhead to that of a living and personal God.\"[167]\n\n  166: \"Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,\" p. 295; E. T., p. 425.\n\n  167: _Ibid._, p. 299; E. T., p. 430.\n\nEucken's teaching has been called a philosophical restatement of\nChristianity. He reiterates in philosophical language the theological\ndoctrines of sin, of the new birth, of divine grace, and of the\nsupremacy of Christian love. His argument for immortality is the\nreligious argument: \"The Infinite Power and Love that has grounded a new\nspontaneous nature in man, over against a dark and hostile world, will\nconserve such a new nature and its spiritual nucleus, and shelter it\nagainst all perils and assaults, so that life as the bearer of life\neternal can never be wholly lost in the stream of time.\"[168]\n\n  168: _\"Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,\"_ p. 303; E. T., pp. 435 f.\n\n3. From our exposition thus far it would seem unnecessary to ask the\nquestion, Can we still be Christians? and we are not surprised that\nEucken's answer is, \"We not only can but must be Christians.\"[169] A\ncloser examination of his teaching shows that this question, and even\nthe previous question, Can we still be theists? may naturally be raised.\nIt is true that Eucken recoils from pantheism as lessening the energy of\nlife,[170] and declares that the transcendence of the Divine must be\nasserted; but on the other hand we are warned that \"the notion of the\npersonal is here only a symbol for something transcending all\nconceptions and words.\"[171] It is too emotional and anthropomorphic.\nEucken will not declare unqualified allegiance either to pantheism, to\ntheism in its usual form or to agnosticism. In the Spiritual Life the\nopposition of monism and dualism, and apparently of the personal and the\nimpersonal, are transcended. The overcoming of opposites in a way\nimpossible for reason is precisely the office and prerogative of\nreligion. It is to be noticed in his account of spiritual life that\nprayer, \"the core of religion,\" is singularly absent; and in his\nexposition of Christianity he gives no prominence to the Fatherhood of\nGod, central as that conception was in the teaching of Jesus.\n\n  169: \"K\u00f6nnen wir noch Christen sein?\" 1911, p. 236; E. T., \"Can\n  We Still Be Christians?\" p. 218.\n\n  170: _Ibid._, p. 154; E. T., p. 143.\n\n  171: _Ibid._, p. 129; E. T., p. 120.\n\nWith the doctrine of personality thus loosely held, it is no wonder that\nthere are many elements in Christianity as usually understood which are\nuncongenial to Eucken's mode of thought. We cannot, he says, confine the\nunion of God and man to one unique instance, and we must demand an\nimmediate relationship between God and man throughout the whole breadth\nof the Spiritual Life; nor can we make the expression of divine love and\ngrace dependent upon its one expression in Jesus Christ.[172] One time\ncannot set the standard for all time,[173] nor one historical person,\nabsolutely, for all persons. The denial of sensible miracle, he allows,\ncuts deep into historical Christianity, but such a denial is\nnecessary.[174] To affirm miracle is to make the spiritual too dependent\non the sensible, and such a central miracle as the Resurrection \"would\nmean an overthrow of the total order of nature, as this has been set\nforth through the work of modern investigation.\"[175]\n\n  172: \"K\u00f6nnen wir noch Christen sein?\" p. 186; E. T., p. 172.\n\n  173: _Ibid._, p. 28; E. T., p. 27.\n\n  174: _Ibid._, p. 167; E. T., p. 155.\n\n  175: \"Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,\" p. 370; E. T., p. 527.\n\nHowever great the figure of Jesus may be, His greatness must be confined\nto the realm of humanity. \"If Jesus, therefore, is not God, if Christ\nis not the second Person in the Trinity, then He is man; not a man like\nany average man among us, but still man. We can, then, revere Him as a\nleader, a hero, a martyr; but we cannot directly bind ourselves to Him\nor root ourselves in Him (_bei ihm festlegen_); we cannot submit to Him\nunconditionally. Still less can we make Him the object of a cult. To do\nso would be nothing less than an intolerable deification of a human\nbeing.\"[176]\n\n  176: \"K\u00f6nnen wir noch Christen sein?\" p. 37; E. T., pp. 34 f.\n\nWhat of those, we may ask, who in religious experience find themselves\n\"rooted and grounded\" in Christ? Eucken's readers cannot expect relief\nfrom this quarter, for religious experience, he holds, is too subjective\nand human to ground an inference to the nature of Spiritual Life.[177] It\nis evident that Eucken has cut deep into Christianity alike on its\nhistorical, its doctrinal and its experiential sides. He distinguishes\nbetween form and substance, but acknowledges that \"religion has lost\nunspeakably much through the upheaval of the old form\";[178] and that\nthis must somehow be made good. We might, without violence in the\ncomparison, imagine the case of a Mohammedan who, trained in modern\nmodes of thought but clinging to old associations, asked himself the\nquestion, Can we still be Mohammedans? \"Yes,\" he might reply, \"but we\nmust retain only the essence or soul of Mohammedanism--its monotheism.\nThe historical body or existential form of Mohammedanism, namely, that\nMohammed was the prophet of God and that the Koran is a revelation from\nheaven, must be given up. And even when we speak of the unity and\npersonality of God, we must remember that we are employing symbol and\nmetaphor.\"\n\n  177: Eucken's neglect of the experiential standpoint is a common\n  complaint among his critics. See M. Booth: \"R. Eucken: His\n  Philosophy and Influence,\" p. 199.\n\n  178: \"The Truth of Religion,\" p. 577. The German, p. 404, is\n  less emphatic.\n\nEucken presents the remarkable phenomenon of a man whose thought is\nsaturated with Christian influence, who appreciates the moral power and\nsplendour of Christianity and its regenerative effects in history, and\nyet is unable to reconcile its distinctive features with the fundamental\nconcepts of his philosophy. He shows the close connection of the\nquestions, What think ye of Christ? and, What think ye of God? and that\nassured belief in the personality of God and in His incarnation in a\nPerson belong together. \"No one cometh to the Father but by me.\" That a\nChristianity such as Eucken preaches, removed from supports in history,\nin authoritative doctrine, in religious experience, perhaps even in a\nrational theism, can retain its moral power and act as a spiritual lever\nfor the elevation either of the masses or the classes, remains to be\nproved.\n\nOur twentieth century philosophers are the prophets of a new age.\nBergson's teaching opens before each individual and before humanity new\npossibilities of achievement, as, in obedience to the vital impulse, the\narmy of humanity rushes on \"in an overwhelming charge, able to beat down\nevery resistance and clear the most formidable obstacles, perhaps even\ndeath.\"[179] Eucken, with the more serious burden of a moral message, has\nproclaimed with voice and pen the gospel of a new spiritual life and a\nnew spiritual world. Do not these twentieth century prophets re\u00ebcho in a\ncertain sense, each in his own language, the message which was heard\namong the Galilean hills in an age from which the centuries are\nmeasured, \"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand\"?\n\n  179: \"L'\u00c9volution Cr\u00e9atrice,\" p. 294; E. T., p. 271.\n\n\nIII. WARD AND THE REALM OF ENDS\n\nOur English speaking philosophers, in the more usual fashion, base their\nreligious philosophy upon a theory of knowledge. It is noticeable,\nhowever, that both James Ward and Josiah Royce, while belonging to the\nidealistic tradition coming down from Kant and Hegel, show the influence\nof a revolt from that tradition. Ward begins with the many, with\npluralism, while he ends with the one; and Royce declares himself an\nadvocate of Absolute Pragmatism.\n\nThe great services of Ward to religious philosophy in his \"Realm of\nEnds\" are, first, his transition from pluralism to theism, and, second,\nhis demonstration anew of the strength of the philosophical argument for\nimmortality.\n\n1. His theistic argument in a nutshell is this, that while there is no\nroad from the One to the Many, there is an open road from the Many to\nthe One, with sign-posts upon the way. We must start with pluralism,\nsays Ward, because no reason can be given why the One, in whatever way\nconceived, should become the Many. Why should the homogeneous become\nheterogeneous, or the indeterminate determinate, or why should the\nabsolute become split up into finite spirits? A creation out of nothing\ncannot, for Ward, solve the problem, for his conception of creation is\nthat of \"intellective intuition,\" in which God as subject is necessary\nto the existence of the world as object, but the world, from this\nstandpoint, is equally necessary to God.\n\nThere is no way of passing, then, from an absolute One to the Many, from\nsingularism to pluralism. We must start with Babel and achieve, if we\ncan, \"one language and one speech.\" In its modern form Pluralism is a\nrevolt alike from nineteenth century Absolutism, which was the dominant\nschool in Germany and England, and from the Naturalism brought to the\nfore by the advance of scientific research, and interpreting mind in\nterms of nature. Pluralism has been called a means of escape alike from\n\"Naturalism's desert and the barren summit of the Absolute.\" The ancient\npluralism took the form of atomism, but the concourse of atoms may\naccount for rigidity and uniformity but not for spontaneity. The modern\ntype of pluralism, starting at the level of self-consciousness, posits a\nmultitude of monads or individuals acting towards self-conservation and\nself-realization, and can, it is believed, do full justice alike to law\nand contingency, to spontaneity and fixity. The pluralist, operating on\nthe principle of continuity, assumes that there are conscious\nindividuals or monads in various degrees lower than man down to the\nminimal point of complete unconsciousness; and higher consciousnesses\nthan man up to a being who may be called in a sense supreme, but is\nnever more than one of the many, not inclusive of them, and, however\nexalted, is never more than _primus inter pares_.\n\nThe modern pluralist as described by Ward is a \"pampsychist\"; he\nbelieves that all existence is soul-like. There is a multiplicity of\nsoul-like beings of various grades of development, some dominating, some\nserving, \"conative and cognitive individuals bent on self-conservation\nand seeking the good.\"[180] All existence is soul-like, although, in what\nwe call inorganic matter, these cognitive and conative monads have\nbeen largely \"denatured\" and reduced to the semblance of mechanism and\nroutine. They have become \"finished and finite clods, untroubled by a\nspark.\"\n\n  180: \"The Realm of Ends,\" 1911, p. 223.\n\nThe pluralist assumes at the outset a multiplicity of soul-like beings;\nbut he cannot explain satisfactorily their inter-action, or their action\ntowards a common end. If, indeed, a pluralistic standpoint were\nhopelessly infected with contradictions, as the Eleatics might hold,\nthen \"the way to theism would be hopelessly barred; for from pluralism\nspeculation really always has and always must begin.\"[181] Pluralism\nbegins with the many and ends with the many. But did it really begin at\nthe beginning, and does it really reach the end? Pluralism, Ward\ninsists, \"points both theoretically and practically [and both forward\nand backward] beyond itself.\"[182]\n\n  181: \"The Realm of Ends,\" p. 224.\n\n  182: _Ibid._, p. 436.\n\nFollowing Ward in his transition from pluralism to theism, we notice:\n(1) The pluralist stops with \"the totality of a Many in their\ninter-action regarded as the ultimate reality.\" But this position \"is\nincomplete and unsatisfying. A plurality of beings primarily independent\nas regards their existence and yet always mutually acting and reacting\nupon each other, an ontological plurality that is somehow a cosmological\nunity, seems clearly to suggest some ground beyond itself. The idea of\nGod presents itself to meet this lack.\" But this idea of God would be\nmeaningless \"unless God were regarded as transcending the Many; so there\ncan be no talk of God as merely _primus inter pares_.\"[183] There can be\nno democratic idea of God, for by its very nature the idea of God\nimplies something unique and incomparable and sovereign. The existence\nof the Many then looks back to the existence of the One as ground or\ncreator.\n\n  183: \"The Realm of Ends,\" p. 241.\n\nThe pluralistic view, then, does not, apart from theism, make a unified\nworld; a pluralistic universe is in fact a contradiction in terms. Such\na unifying conception as theism affords answers to the subject in\nrelation to the manifold objects of experience; in fact it is doubtful\nif an absolute pluralism is a possible conception since we never know of\nthe Many apart from the One. Theism, again, in its doctrine of a\ndominant monad and a supreme world spirit, is in agreement with the\ngeneralizations of science. All theories of the derivation of finite\nspirits, whether evolutionist, creationist, or traducian, agree in\nderiving the Many from the One.\n\n(2) The co\u00f6peration of the Many also points in the direction of the One\nif, as is generally assumed, this co\u00f6peration is towards any common\ngoal. The co\u00f6peration, it may be said, is due to chance, a fortuitous\nconcourse of purposes; but if there is a tendency to one end, the\nquestion is inevitable, Why should the Many tend towards one end unless\nthey had in the One their source? Theism is reached as the alternative\nof supposing that the inter-actions of the Many are a mere welter of\nhappenings without meaning or purpose. Evolution and history show an\nincrease of complexity and co\u00f6peration, and if all things work together\nit is natural to believe that all things work together for good. \"The\nGod who knows all loves all,\" and only the immanence of God in the world\nas defined by theism can give assurance that the pluralist's ideal will\nbe fulfilled.[184] Apart from theistic belief there would be no reason to\nexpect progress on the whole, for \"a world entering upon a fresh\nevolution cannot start where it left off and may even begin in less\nfavourable conditions than before.\" \"In a word, without such spiritual\ncontinuity as theism alone seems able to ensure, it looks as if a\npluralistic world were condemned to a Sisyphean task. _Per aspera ad\nastra_ may be its motto, but _facilis descensus Averno_ seems to be its\nfate.\"[185]\n\n  184: \"The Realm of Ends,\" pp. 229 f.\n\n  185: _Ibid._, pp. 214 f.\n\nFurther (3) theism enriches and enhances the pluralist's ideal by all\nthe ineffable blessedness that the presence of God must yield. To sum\nup: \"The theoretical demand for the ground of the world, then, as well\nas the practical demand for the good of the world, is met by the idea\nof God.\"[186] As related to the Many the One is the \"ultimate source of\ntheir being and ultimate end of their ends.\"[187]\n\n  186: \"The Realm of Ends,\" p. 423.\n\n  187: _Ibid._, p. 442.\n\n2. While Ward is a Platonist alike in his belief in immortality and in\nconnecting that belief with the doctrines of the pre\u00ebxistence and\ntransmigration of souls, his general argument for a future life follows\nthe more usual lines. It is based upon both rational and moral grounds\nand expressed with unusual beauty and power.\n\nMan's native capacities and pre\u00ebminently the moral law within him point\nfar beyond any ability he has in the present life, and it is to be\nassumed, with Kant, that \"no organ, no faculty, no impulse, in short\nnothing superfluous or disproportionate to its use, and therefore\naimless, is to be met with.\"[188] Against a continuance of life there are\nno valid objections to be raised. We cannot prove a negative, and the\nburden of proof rests with those who deny its possibility. The\nimmortality of influence or of the race cannot be substituted for\npersonal immortality. If humanity or society is an end in itself, \"then\nthe persons who constitute it must share in this end.\"[189] \"The\nwearisome procession of generation after generation of mortals in\npursuit of an _ignis fatuus_, all hoping, all working for what none\nattain, might divert a Mephistopheles but would certainly not be a\nrealm of ends.\"[190]\n\n  188: \"The Realm of Ends,\", p. 411.\n\n  189: _Ibid._, p. 389.\n\n  190: _Ibid._, p. 428.\n\nThe moral arguments for a future life are bound up with an estimate of\nthe worth of human personality, but are ultimately rational as well. If\ndeath ends all, not only are we of all creatures most miserable, but God\nalso, if in this case He exists, is mocked, and the world whose highest\nideals are not and cannot be fulfilled is without ultimate meaning. We\nhave then the dilemma: \"Either the world is not rational or man does not\nstand alone and this life is not all. But it cannot be rational to\nconclude that the world is not rational, least of all when an\nalternative is open to us that leaves room for its rationality--the\nalternative of postulating God and a future life.\"[191]\n\n  191: \"The Realm of Ends,\", pp. 409 f.\n\nA belief in transmigration is with Ward organically connected with his\npluralism and pampsychism. For the pluralist \"all the individuals there\nare have existed from the first and will continue to exist\nindefinitely\";[192] and it follows that \"'metempsychosis' in some form\nseems an unavoidable corollary of thoroughgoing pampsychism, so long as\nwe look broadly at the facts of life as a whole.\"[193] The same doctrine\nthat \"all the individuals there are have existed from the first\"\naffects, it should be noticed, the quality of Ward's theism. God is not\ntranscendent in time, for we cannot conceive God without the world. He\nis not transcendent as being in His existence independent of the world,\nfor a God who is not a creator is an abstraction.[194] Again He is not\ntranscendent in the sense that He can now exercise creative power, for\nthere can be no new creation since the beginning.\n\n  192: \"The Realm of Ends,\", p. 204.\n\n  193: _Ibid._, p. 213.\n\n  194: _Ibid._, p. 245.\n\nBefore pampsychism, with its \"unavoidable corollary\" of metempsychosis,\nis adopted this theory itself should be subjected to a closer\nexamination. While pampsychism has undoubted advantages as a\nphilosophical theory, it has serious difficulties as well. It appears to\nhave but slight relation to the progress of science in any of its lines.\nThe whole scheme of evolution, from the inorganic through the vegetable\nto animal and man, is seriously modified. The movement is from\nconsciousness to what is called matter, but consciousness seems to have\nsuffered a sort of a \"fall\"; for in the geologic and astronomic ages\nbefore the introduction of life consciousness was at any rate reduced to\nthe vanishing point. What, then, of the reality of those processes which\ngeology and astronomy describe? Their reality as more than an imaginary\nprelude to human or animal life is open to question. The physiologist,\nmoreover, will contend that there is no evidence of the presence of\nconsciousness except in connection with a nervous system, or will at\nmost admit a kind of diffused consciousness in all organic matter. The\nastronomer, finally, will think it strange to be told that while \"we\ncannot, of course, affirm that a star or a meteor or a cluster of\nparticles is an individual,\" we must as pluralists believe \"that the\nreal beings these phenomena imply have some spontaneity and some\ninitiative.\"[195]\n\n  195: \"The Realm of Ends,\" p. 455.\n\nBoth pampsychism and mechanism may be accused of pushing the principle\nof continuity too far. It is an error to reduce all objects and all\nactivities, all thinking beings and all objects of our thought, to\nmechanism and its products and by-products, thus explaining away the\npeculiar nature of man as a conative and cognitive being. But it is\nequally an error in the other direction, it may be contended, to reduce\nall of reality, by an exaggeration of anthropomorphism and a return\nthough in a refined form to the method of primitive animism, to the\nanalogy of social intercourse.\n\nIt is hazardous to stake the interests of theism upon a technical theory\nof knowledge such as that upon which pampsychism is based. One may\ngratefully appreciate the cogency and value of Ward's theistic argument\nin its general aspects without being convinced that the doctrine of\npampsychism is the only, or indeed the firmest, basis upon which\ntheistic belief can be reared.\n\n\nIV. ROYCE AND THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nOur American philosopher, Josiah Royce, has always been occupied with\nthe religious aspects of philosophy, but has of late shown a special\ninterest in the philosophical interpretation of the doctrines of the\nChristian Faith. His mature views are expressed in his essay on \"What is\nVital in Christianity?\" in his volume, \"William James and Other Essays\"\n(1911), and in his Lowell lectures, \"The Problem of Christianity\"\n(1913).\n\nRoyce believes that if there is to be a philosophy of religion at all,\nsuch a philosophy must include in its task \"the office of a positive and\nof a deeply sympathetic interpretation of the spirit of Christianity,\nand must be just to the fact that the Christian religion is, thus far at\nleast, man's most impressive vision of salvation, and his principal\nglimpse of the homeland of the spirit.\"[196]\n\n  196: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 11.\n\nIn Christianity Royce finds a religion of loyalty, defined as \"the\npractically devoted love of an individual for a community.\" Christianity\nis in its essence \"the most typical, and so far in human history, the\nmost highly developed religion of loyalty;\"[197] and it was in Pauline\nChristianity that the Christian ideas of the community, the lost state\nof the individual and of atonement or grace first received their full\nstatement, though not their complete formulation. Paul's addition to the\ndoctrine of love, thought by himself to be inspired by the Spirit of the\nAscended Lord, consisted in his placing love to the church side by side\nwith love to God and to one's neighbour. \"Christian love, as Paul\nconceived it, takes on the form of Loyalty. This is Paul's simple but\nvast transformation of Christian love.\"[198]\n\n  197: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, pp. xvii. f.\n\n  198: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 98.\n\nThe reduction of what is vital in Christianity to the so-called pure\ngospel of Christ, as recorded in the body of the presumably authentic\nsayings and parables, is to Royce profoundly unsatisfactory. \"If He had\nso viewed the matter, the Messianic tragedy in which His life-work\nculminated would have been needless and unintelligible.\"[199] What is\nmost vital in Christianity \"is contained in whatever is essential and\npermanent about the doctrines of the incarnation and atonement.\"[200]\n\n  199: \"William James and Other Essays,\" pp. 140 f.\n\n  200: _Ibid._, p. 155.\n\nIn these respects Royce shows his sympathy with traditional Christianity\nas over against the standpoint of modern liberalism. He protests in\neffect, in the first place, against a \"reduced\" Christianity based upon\nthe Synoptic teaching of Jesus alone, and upon this teaching only after\nalleged Johannine and Pauline elements have been cut out. Secondly, he\nfinds that Christianity includes doctrine as well as ethics. And, third,\nhe finds in Paul's teaching not a perversion of the gospel, but a\ndeveloped statement of the central ideas of Christianity.\n\nUnlike many philosophers, Royce takes an austere view of the misery and\ntragedy of sin, as \"grave with the gravity of life, and stern only as\nthe call of life, to any awakened mind, ought to be stern.\"[201] The\nsinner cannot save himself. By his own deed he has banished himself to\nthe hell of the irrevocable. If there is to be atonement which shall\nreconcile the traitor to his own deed and the community to the act of\ntreachery against it, an atonement stated in purely human terms, it must\nbe an \"objective\" atonement, not merely one of moral influence upon the\ntraitor. It must be by some creative deed of loving ingenuity by which\nthe world is made better than it would have been had the treason never\nbeen done. Thus the family of Jacob was reunited in peculiarly tender\nties after the reconciliation. \"Through Joseph's work all is made better\nthan it would have been had there been no treason at all.\"[202]\n\n  201: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 120.\n\n  202: _Ibid._, I, p. 370.\n\nIn his purely human and untheological treatment of sin and grace,\nRoyce's thought has professedly moved within the limits of social\nrelationships. Sin is an act of broken faith or disloyalty to the\ncommunity. The sinner is restored from his estate of misery by the\nsaving grace of the community.[203] \"'Atonement' and 'Divine Grace' may\nbe considered as if they were expressions of the purely human process\nwhereby the community seeks and saves, through its suffering servants\nand its Spirit, that which is lost.\"[204]\n\n  203: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 390.\n\n  204: _Ibid._, I, p. xxxviii.\n\nWhile Royce's exposition of sin and grace is full of suggestion and\ninsight, it is more philosophical than Biblical. Thus at important\npoints the contrast between Paul and Royce's interpretation of Paul is\nvery striking. Royce hints at the divinity of the community, while Paul\nasserts the divinity of Christ. Royce says, Be loyal to the community,\nwhile Paul would say primarily, Believe in Christ and be loyal to Him.\n\"Loyalty to the personal Christ,\" says a reviewer of Royce's work, \"has\nbeen (and surely is) even a more vital element in Christianity than\nloyalty to the community.\"[205] Royce would say that by the grace of the\ncommunity we are saved; while with Paul the Saviour is personal and it\nwas the vision of Christ, not of the community, that transformed his\nlife.\n\n  205: H. Rashdall in _Mind_, N. S. 91 (July, 1914), p. 411.\n\nAgain it is not easy to read the doctrine of the beloved community and\nof the community as the source of grace into the words or the spirit of\nthe teaching of Jesus. The attempt, however, is made. In the parable of\nthe Prodigal Son, the voice of the father, who is \"for the moment simply\nthe incarnation of the spirit of this community,\"[206] is said to be the\nvoice of the family, welcoming the wanderer; and the joy of the father\nis the joy of the family in his return. If this be so the father should\nhave said, \"The family fellowship is restored,\" instead of saying, \"This\nmy son was dead and is alive again.\"\n\n  206: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 353.\n\nEven Royce's Old Testament illustration from the story of Joseph, where\nwe find a grievous betrayal and then a deed which leaves the community,\nin this case the family, richer in love and more united in heart than if\nthe deed of betrayal had not been done, does not support Royce's\nprinciple that the ideal community is the saviour and the source of\natoning grace. The story to be illustrative should have been reversed;\nJoseph should have been the betrayer and destroyer of the family life,\nand then the brethren unitedly by their love and ingenuity should have\nwon him back.\n\nHow then does the loyal community which is to be the source of grace\noriginate? Royce admits that it can only be by \"some miracle of\ngrace,\"[207] and the problem becomes acute when we consider the origin of\nthe historical community of the Christian Church. The usual view is that\nhere a miracle of grace has happened in the person of Jesus, the author\nand finisher of loyalty, but in that case there could be no such\n\"simplification of the problems of Christology,\"[208] as Royce desires.\nWho, then, was the founder of the Christian Community? It was not Paul,\nfor he found a community already in existence. It was not the human\nJesus, though He gave the signal, for we cannot say that, speaking of\nJesus as an individual man, we know that He explicitly intended to found\nthe Christian Church.[209] It was not the divine Christ, for \"the human\nsource of all later Christologies must be found in the early Christian\ncommunity itself.\"[210] We must in fact renounce our quest for the origin\nof the Christian Church, for its foundation depended \"upon motives which\nwe cannot fathom by means of any soundings that our historical materials\nor our knowledge of social psychology permit us to make.\"[211] Such\nrecourse to a convenient agnosticism, however rhetorically it may be\nexpressed, does not bring us out of the circle, that the church founded\nitself, and in that case, as a source of grace, saves itself. The modern\nman, under Royce's guidance, is relieved from the problems of\nChristology only to find that those of ecclesiology are equally\npressing.\n\n  207: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 185.\n\n  208: _Ibid._, I, p. xxiii.\n\n  209: _Ibid._, I, p. 418.\n\n  210: _Ibid._, I, p. 415.\n\n  211: _Ibid._, I, p. 419.\n\nThe conception of the community is obviously fruitful alike in its\nethical and its theological implications, and Royce's discussion of it,\nso elevated in its tone, will doubtless be for the \"strengthening of\nhearts\" as he desires. But inferences foreign to Christian thought are\ndrawn when it is suggested that \"Man the community may prove to be\nGod,\"[212] and that in \"this essentially social universe\" the community\nis \"the Absolute.\"[213] This is the voice of Hegel rather than that of\nPaul.\n\n  212: \"The Problem of Christianity,\" I, p. 409.\n\n  213: _Ibid._, II, p. 296.\n\nIn an essay on Browning's theism Royce has remarked: \"To say God is Love\nis, then, the same as to say that God is, or has been, or will be\nincarnate, perhaps once, perhaps--for so Browning's always monistic\nintuitions about the relation of God and the world always suggest to\nhim--perhaps always, perhaps in all our life, perhaps in all men.\"[214]\nThe doctrine of the incarnation is thus acknowledged to be vital not\nonly for Christianity but for theism as well. \"The fact of the\nIncarnation,\" as Westcott has said, \"gives reality to that moral\nconception of God as active Love without which Theism becomes a\nformula.\"[215] But the meaning of incarnation and its support of theistic\nbelief is weakened in proportion as it is interpreted not in an\nhistorical sense but as an incarnation \"perhaps always, perhaps in all\nmen.\"\n\n  214: _The New World_, Vol. V, 1896, p. 416.\n\n  215: \"The Epistles of John,\" p. 75.\n\nIn his emphasis upon the incarnation and atonement, Royce has shown a\nprofound appreciation of what is vital in Christianity, but his\ndiscussion shows also that these doctrines themselves, in being removed\nfrom their historic setting and adapted to the requirements of a\nphilosophical theory, may easily lose what is for religion their most\nvital elements.\n\nEach of our four philosophers has performed an important service for\nreligious thought. Bergson has made an effective protest against\nmaterialism. Eucken has asserted the reality of the spiritual world.\nWard has strengthened the philosophical foundations of belief in God and\nimmortality. Royce has found in the distinctive ideas of Christianity\nthe crown of religious philosophy.\n\nThe deeper thought of our age, judged by its leading exponents, has been\nworking towards Christianity and not in the opposite direction. It has\nbroken away from materialism with its denial of a spiritual world. It\nhas broken away from an idealism which denies personality in God and\nman. It has been strongly attracted to Christianity, and influenced in\nits intellectual constructions by the teaching of Christ and of the\nApostles. It is at one with Christianity in its ethical standpoint and\nemphasis. The Cross is no longer foolishness to the Greek, when leaders\nof philosophic thought find in Christianity their brightest glimpse into\nthe homeland of the spirit, the source of their deepest insights into\ntruth, the inspiration of their most fruitful activity and the key to\nthe solution of their profoundest problems.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nThe Christian Faith and Other Religions\n\nFour universals were contained in the last commands of the Risen Christ:\n\"All authority has been given unto me. Go, disciple all the nations,\nteaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I\nam with you all the days.\" If the marching orders of the Church were to\nbe obeyed, the Christian Faith must be brought into contact and into\nconflict not only with Judaism but with all the ethnic faiths. If its\nprogram is to be carried out successfully, Christianity must supersede\nall other religions. In this lecture we must consider the relation of\nChristianity to ancient religions, or those prevalent in the Roman\nEmpire at the time of its founding, and then its relation to modern\nreligions.\n\n\nI. CHRISTIANITY AND ANCIENT RELIGIONS\n\nThat the religion of the cross, which started in a despised and\npersecuted sect among a people without intellectual or military\nprestige, should in three centuries become the state religion of the\nRoman Empire, is often spoken of as the miracle of history. The early\nmissionary could not appeal to military force or to an obviously\nsuperior type of civilization, and the wonder is not that Christianity\nconquered the Roman world but that it ever secured a foothold at all.\nThe familiar argument has been: \"We can account for the progress of\nChristianity, against obstacles and without outward aids, only upon the\nassumption that a divine power was working within.\"\n\nSince the rise of the \"religious-historical school\" in Germany some\ndozen years ago, the question of Christianity's relation to contemporary\nreligions has come up in a new form, and has been brought into the\nforeground of theological discussion. The victory of early Christianity,\nit is asserted, is due to the fact that Paul not merely presented it to\nthe Romans in a juridical form, but that he preached the myth or mystery\nof a dying and rising Saviour to the myth loving Greeks; and it is even\nsaid that the New Testament portrait of Christ, whatever historical\nreality lies behind it, is in fact a sort of glorified composite\nphotograph made out of the elements of a Jewish Messiah, a Greek Apollo\nor Adonis and an Egyptian Osiris. The claim is made by the more extreme\nmembers of the \"religious-historical school\" that every feature of\nChristianity that was supposed to be original, and indeed practically\nthe whole Gospel narrative, can be parallelled closely or remotely in\nPersian, Hindu, Syrian, Egyptian or Greek religious literature, or in\nthe Old Testament and the teaching of the philosophers.\n\nThe reasons for Christianity's triumph over other religions may be still\nto seek, but its claim to supernatural authority is called in question\nby the recent movement in scholarship which has taken as its motto, The\nstudy of the Christian Faith in the light of the history of religions.\n\"It would be strange indeed,\" a writer has remarked, \"if such parallels\ndid not raise new questionings in the place of old certainties. If the\naccounts of miraculous births and resurrections are plainly fabulous\nwhen we meet with them in other faiths, are they necessarily historical\nwhen they occur in the Christian Scriptures? At any rate we feel that\nstringent evidence will be required to prove them so.\"[216]\n\n  216: J. Warschauer: _American Journal of Theology_, July, 1912,\n  p. 336.\n\nWhen we study the relation between early Christianity and the religions\nof the time it is clear that some established principles are needed to\ncontrol the comparison. When it is discovered, for instance, that\nConfucius had seventy-two disciples and an inner circle of ten \"select\nones,\" and that he spoke the Golden Rule in a negative form, does it\nfollow that the Gospel accounts of the choice of the twelve and of the\nseventy were borrowed from Confucius? Clemen's formulation of the\nprinciples that must govern the comparison will be generally accepted:\n\n(1) \"A religious-historical explanation is impossible if it leads to\nuntenable consequences or proceeds from untenable presuppositions. (2)\nThe sense of the New Testament passage, as well as the contents of the\nnon-Jewish idea, must first be fully ascertained. (3) We ought never to\nassume that ideas of an advanced religion have been altogether borrowed,\nuntil we have done our best to discover any germs of them in the native\nreligious literature. (4) The non-Jewish idea that is brought in as an\nexplanation must really in some degree correspond to the Christian one.\n(5) This element must have been already in existence: an idea that is\nsubsequent in its emergence cannot, of course, have given rise to one\npreviously existent. (6) It must be shown in regard to any foreign idea\nthat it was really in a position to influence Christianity, or Judaism\nbefore it, and how.\"[217] To these might be added that the possibility of\ncoincidence must not be overlooked.\n\n  217: \"Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources,\" 1913,\n  pp. 17, 18. Principle (3) is quoted from Cheyne.\n\nWith these principles, most of them self-evident, in our minds, let us\nglance at the topics of immediate interest in our present field: (1)\nThe Virgin Birth and its parallels; (2) the worship of Christ and the\nEmperor-cult; and (3) Christianity and the Mystery Religions.\n\n1. In its relation to the stories of current mythology, the Virgin Birth\nwas a subject of active discussion in the time of the fathers. The\npatristic apologists make two points in referring to the mythological\nparallels. On the one hand, the similarity of the Gospel story in its\nsupernatural element to the stories prevalent at the time is appealed to\nin order to commend it to the acceptance of the Greeks. Thus Justin\nsays: \"We propound nothing different from what you believe regarding\nthose whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.\"[218] Similarly Origen says: \"There\nis no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks with a\nview to showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to\nmiraculous narratives of this kind.\"[219] On the other hand, the\ndifference between the Christian and the heathen stories is appealed to\nas proof of the moral and historical superiority of the Gospel\nnarratives. Justin says that the Virgin conceived \"not by intercourse\nbut by power;\"[220] and Origen, referring to a tradition about the birth\nof Plato, says that such stories are \"veritable fables.\"[221]\n\n  218: \"Apol.,\" I, 21.\n\n  219: \"Contra Cels.,\" I, 37.\n\n  220: \"Apol.,\" I, 33.\n\n  221: \"Contra Cels.,\" I, 37.\n\nThe notion is popular to-day that stories of the birth of a god or a\nhero from a virgin are common in non-Christian religions, and the remark\nis heard that the Virgin Birth of Jesus would be credible were it not\nfor these parallels. A closer examination shows, however, that while\nsupernatural births were the common property of most ancient religions,\nthe Virgin Birth was a distinctive and spontaneous feature of\nChristianity. Thus Clemen remarks that \"what we find in Indian thought\n(at any rate in earlier times) is not a Virgin Birth in the proper sense\nof that term, but only a miraculous birth, and one of quite a different\ntype from the birth of Jesus.\"[222] Alluding to the fact that Buddhism was\nso entirely outside the western range of vision as to be noticed very\nmeagrely in the Greek and Roman literature, Clemen says that \"if there\nare similarities that cannot be accidental between this later Buddhistic\nliterature and the New Testament, the question would arise whether the\nformer could not be dependent upon the latter,\"[223] since Christianity\npenetrated early to India.\n\n  222: \"Primitive Christianity,\" pp. 294, 295. Clemen would himself\n  trace the idea of the Virgin Birth to a passage in Philo (\"De.\n  Cher.\" 13 f.) in which the wives of the Patriarchs represent virtues\n  (p. 297).\n\n  223: _Ibid._, p. 37.\n\nClemen quotes Franckh to the effect that \"none of these personages that\nplay the part of a mother-goddess is thought of as a virgin. It is only\nin the course of time that Ishtar is everywhere put in the place of the\nearlier mother-goddesses.... As mother-goddess, Ishtar has no male god\nwho permanently corresponds to her. This is the reason why she is\nvaguely spoken of as the 'virgin' Ishtar. But it must be emphatically\nasserted that here the idea of virginity undergoes a vague\ndeflection.\"[224]\n\n  224: \"Primitive Christianity,\" p. 292.\n\nOf the parallels adduced, only two are clearly cases of birth from a\nvirgin: Simon Magus (_Clem. Recog._ II, 14) and a certain Terebinthus\n(_Acta Archelai et Manetis_, c. 52), both of whom claimed to be born\nfrom a virgin; but, as Gr\u00fctzmacher remarks, these stories arose under\nChristian influences and are found in post-Christian writings so that\nthey are not the root but the product of the Gospel narratives;[225] and\nE. Petersen admits that in these cases there may be a simple taking over\nof the supernatural birth of Jesus.[226]\n\n  225: \"Die Jungfrauengeburt,\" 1906, p. 31.\n\n  226: \"Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes,\" 1909, p. 41.\n\nIn the Gr\u00e6co-Roman myths there is always some fleshly or sensible\nmedium. Both the essential difference in the Gospel narratives, and the\nlack of any proved avenue of influence leading to these narratives, with\ntheir strongly Jewish colouring, from heathen sources, makes the theory\nof derivation from these sources most improbable.\n\n2. The famous Priene inscription, dated about the year 9 B. C., has\nshown that the titles given to the Emperor Augustus were strikingly\nsimilar to those addressed by Christians to Christ. The day of the\nEmperor's birth was of great significance for the human race; he is\ncalled Saviour of men, he is to abolish war and bring general happiness;\nand the inscription declares that \"the birthday of the god was for the\nworld the beginning of tidings of joy on his account.\"[227] Both\nreligions again, the worship of Christ and the Emperor-cult, were\nuniversal religions, the essential difference being that the former\nexcluded, while the latter tolerated, other forms of worship. Did the\nChristian Church derive its worship of Christ as Lord, or even such\ntitles as \"Saviour\" and \"Lord,\" from the Emperor-worship of the time?\n\n  227: See Deissmann: \"Light from the Ancient East,\" p. 371.\n\nThe deification of a king was by no means an unfamiliar thing in the\nancient and especially in the oriental world. The kings of Egypt are\nsaid to have worshipped themselves. To the offer of Alexander the Great\nto rebuild the burnt temple of Diana at Ephesus, the shrewd reply of the\npriests, not wishing to offend either Persia or Greece, was that it was\nnot fitting for one deity to build the temple of another. The ascription\nof divine honours to the Emperor was a victory of eastern influences\nover Roman thought. Emperor worship was (1) a compliment to the ruler;\n(2) a kind of personification of the genius of the Empire, as perhaps in\nthe case of the Mikado to-day; and (3) a convenient neutral religion,\nsince no existing cult could be universal, binding all peoples together\nin a necessary religious bond. While not taken very seriously by the\nastute rulers themselves, it may also have been to many minds \"an actual\nbreaking out of religious longing,\" such as seems to be expressed in\nVergil's \"Fourth Eclogue,\" for a heaven-sent deliverer and saviour.\n\nTo Jews and Christians alike, however, the idea of the worship of the\nEmperor was in the highest degree abhorrent. This is shown by the fierce\nopposition to the setting up of the statue of Caligula in the Temple, by\nthe refusal of the early Christians to worship the genius of the C\u00e6sars\nunder pain of death, and by the parallel accounts in the Acts and\nJosephus of the death of Herod, both Jewish and Christian authors\ndescribing his sudden death as a judgment upon his impiety in accepting\ndivine honours. With Paul the \"setting himself forth as God\" was a mark\nof the man of sin (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4). It is then improbable in the\nhighest degree that an idea so repellent alike to Jewish and Christian\nthought could have been in any way responsible for the worship of Christ\nas divine.\n\nBut was it not possible that such titles as \"Lord\" and \"Saviour\" should\non Gentile soil have been unconsciously taken over by the Christians,\nsuggested to them by the growing use of these terms as addressed to the\nEmperor and their free ascription to heathen deities? This position has\nbeen defended by Bousset, who says that \"it was in the air that the\nfirst Hellenistic Christian community should give to its cult-hero the\ntitle Kyrios (Lord).\"[228] Even this theory of an unconscious verbal\ninfluence exerted on Gentile soil is full of difficulty. To maintain\nthat the title \"Lord\" originated in the Gentile-Christian church it is\nnecessary, of course, to discard the evidence of all the documents, the\nGospels, the Acts and the Epistles. It must be denied that Jesus called\nHimself Lord, or that the title was given Him in the Jerusalem church.\nDoubt must be thrown upon the whole record of the apostolic days in the\nActs; and the evidence, in Paul's allusion to \"James, the Lord's\nbrother\" (Gal. i. 19), of the use of the title in the Jerusalem church\nmust be ignored.\n\n  228: \"Kyrios Christos,\" 1913, p. 119.\n\nBousset's theory is that Paul did not originate the title but found it\nalready in use by the Gentile church. But there is no evidence that at\nthe time of Paul's conversion there was any church on Gentile soil that\nwas not composed, in the main, of former Jews and of Jews who had come\nfrom Jerusalem. When it is said that \"between Paul and the primitive\nchurch of Palestine stand the Hellenistic churches in Antioch, Damascus,\nTarsus,\"[229] it must be remembered that the church at Damascus was\ncomposed primarily of Jerusalem Christians who were persecuted to\nforeign cities; that the church at Antioch was founded by those from\nJudea, and grew under the leadership of Barnabas, a priest and leader of\nthe Jerusalem church (Acts xi. 19 f.; Gal. ii. 1, 12); and that there is\nno evidence that there were any Christians at Tarsus until the time of\nPaul's visit (Acts ix. 30; Gal. i. 21). It is hard to see how there can\nbe any question of an entirely new title spontaneously arising from the\nheathen environment, and free from the influence of the church at\nJerusalem.\n\n  229: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 92.\n\nIf it be asked how Jews could dare to apply the name Kyrios, \"the holy\ncult-name of the Old Testament Jahwe,\" to Jesus, the answer is suggested\nby Bousset himself when he says: \"Therein lay a piece of monotheistic\nfeeling: God alone should be prayed to and worshipped. This powerful\nreligious feeling, free from all reflection, has once and again in the\nhistory of Christological dogma asserted itself.\"[230] The essence of the\nmatter is that Christian converts both Jewish and Gentile called upon\nthe name of the Lord, and worshipped Him; but it is evident that Jesus\nwas first worshipped on Jewish soil as King of Israel, and Lord in the\nsense made familiar in the Old Testament (Rom. x. 9-13; Acts ii. 17,\n21), before He was worshipped on Gentile soil as King of Kings and Lord\nof Lords.\n\n  230: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 302.\n\nAside from all else it is highly improbable that in the time of Paul's\nconversion the use of the title Lord (Kyrios, Dominus) as applied to the\nEmperor was so wide-spread as to have exercised any appreciable\ninfluence upon Christianity. \"It would after all,\" Bousset himself\nacknowledges, \"in spite of all analogies in substance and words, be an\nerroneous and over-hasty inference, were we to bring the Christian\nKyrios-cult and its origin into immediate connection with the cult of\nthe C\u00e6sars. In the time and in the regions in which the Kyrios-Jesus\ncult arose, the worship of the ruler scarcely as yet had possessed so\ndominating a r\u00f4le that the worship of Jesus as Lord must be regarded as\nhaving arisen in conscious opposition to it.\"[231]\n\n  231: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 113.\n\nThe conscious opposition no doubt came later, as Deissmann has\nsuggested, when the cult of the Christ went forth into the Roman world\nand endeavoured to reserve for itself words which had just been\ntransferred to the deified emperors, or had been invented for that\nworship. \"Thus there arises,\" he says, \"a polemical parallelism between\nthe cult of the emperor and the cult of Christ, which makes itself felt\nwhere ancient words derived by Christianity from the treasury of the\nSeptuagint and the Gospels happen to coincide with solemn concepts of\nthe Imperial cult which sounded the same or similar.\"[232] It was\ninevitable that, as Paul preached Jesus Christ as Lord, the contrast\nbetween the Christian worship and the worship of the C\u00e6sars should\nsuggest itself, together with their irreconcilable antagonism. This\n\"polemical parallelism\" is probably expressed in such titles as \"our\nonly Master and Lord\" (Jude 4), \"Every tongue shall confess that Jesus\nChrist is Lord\" (Phil. ii. 11), and \"King of Kings and Lord of Lords\"\n(Rev. xix. 16).\n\n  232: \"Light from the Ancient East,\" p. 346.\n\n3. The relation of Paul to the Mystery Religions of his time is a topic\nwhich has of late been actively discussed. A thesis now widely\nmaintained has been expressed by Loisy in an epigrammatic form: \"The\nmystery of Paul's conversion is his conversion to the mysteries.\" To\ndiscuss the question in all its bearings, one would need a general\nacquaintance with classical literature, a special knowledge of religious\nconditions in the early Roman Empire, and, most important of all, a\nfirst-hand exegetical knowledge of Paul's epistles.\n\nA marked feature of the age in which the Apostle lived was a merging of\ndeities, and the practice of oriental cults side by side with the\nofficial Roman religion and the worship of the C\u00e6sar. This syncretism\nwas promoted by the tolerance of an official religious indifferentism,\nand by a pantheistic philosophy which was hospitable to the worship of a\nmultiplicity of deities as aspects of the One and the All. At a time\nwhen the Orontes was pouring its waters into the Tiber, the mysteries of\nthe oriental religions were actively propagated in the West and\ncoalesced with the mysteries practiced among the Greeks.\n\nIn spite of the labours of philologists and arch\u00e6ologists, our knowledge\nof the ritual of the various mysteries and even of the ideas symbolized\nis comparatively slight. It can still be said with Cumont that, \"shut\nout from the sanctuary like profane outsiders, we hear only the\nindistinct echo of the sacred songs and not even in imagination can we\nattend the celebration of the mysteries.\"[233]\n\n  233: \"Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain,\" 2d ed.,\n  1909, p. 17; E. T., \"The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism,\"\n  1911, p. 11.\n\nThe moral effect of the mystery cults is also a matter of some doubt.\nPlato, as we know (_Ph\u00e6do_, 69 D, 81 A), had a high opinion of the Greek\nmysteries; but the cruel and sensual rites of the oriental religions\nscandalized the Latin writers as well as the Christian apologists. Even\nCumont, who thinks that the mystery cults were superior in their\nreligious appeal and influence to the cold, prosaic and austere Roman\nreligion, admits that by the adoption of the mysteries \"barbarous, cruel\nand obscene practices were undoubtedly spread.\"[234] It is evident that\nthe oriental religions became spiritualized in course of time, and that\nthe various deities at least of Egypt and of Syria came to be conceived,\nin accordance with the dominant philosophy, in a henotheistic or\npantheistic way. Uhlhorn thinks that oriental worship \"with all its\ndistortions was more profound, and contained unconscious presages of the\nDeity who has indeed in birth and death descended to redeem us.\"[235]\n\n  234: \"Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain,\" 2d ed., p.\n  308; E. T., p. 208.\n\n  235: \"Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,\" p. 33.\n\nWhen Paul preached \"the mystery of God which is Christ\" (Col. ii. 2), he\nincorporated into Christianity, it is said, in adapting it to the\nGentile world, features which were common to the mystery brotherhoods of\nthe day, and virtually transformed it into a mystery religion. Pauline\nChristianity, say the extreme advocates of this view, adopted its\nvocabulary, its missionary methods, its philosophical and religious\nideas, its sacraments and symbolism, its mystical experiences and even\nits organization, from the compound of oriental mysticism and Greek\nphilosophy which was popular in the cities which Paul visited.\n\nThe points in dispute will appear if we glance at the Pauline doctrine\nof the sacraments, and of dying and rising with Christ, and then at the\nPauline vocabulary.\n\nThat the ritual of the mysteries had something in common with the\nChristian sacraments is shown by the fact that the charge of borrowing\nwas made from both sides in early times. The Christian writers accuse\nthe heathen priests of a blasphemous parody of the Christian sacraments\ninspired by the spirit of lies, and the priests retorted that the\nsacraments were a plagiarism from the mysteries. Cumont believes that\nboth were much mistaken.\n\nThe material for comparison is somewhat meagre because baptism is not\nprominent in Paul's epistles. He never mentions his own baptism, and,\naside from I Corinthians i., in which he says that he was not sent to\nbaptize, he uses the verb in but four passages (I Cor. x. 2; xii. 13;\nxv. 29; Gal. iii. 27); the noun in two (Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 12); and\nboth verb and noun in one passage (Rom. vi. 3-4). In the mysteries there\nwere lustrations with salt water, water of the Nile and sacred water,\nbut little is known of the exact significance of the rituals. Kennedy is\nnot persuaded that it meant regeneration.[236] There was no baptizing \"in\nthe name of\" the gods.\n\n  236: \"St. Paul and the Mystery Religions,\" 1913, pp. 229 ff.\n\nOn the other hand we know little of any sacrificial meal in the\nmysteries corresponding to the Eucharist. Reitzenstein observes that\nunless a happy chance sheds more light upon the use and meaning of the\nmystery-meals common in most cults, a comparison with the sacraments\nremains only \"a play with possibilities.\"[237] Clemen thinks that both\nthe institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus and its continued\nobservance are fully explained without bringing in foreign\ninfluences.[238]\n\n  237: \"Die Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen,\" 1910, p. 51.\n\n  238: \"Primitive Christianity,\" p. 242.\n\nIt is probable that the mystery cults exerted an influence upon the\nlater development of sacramental doctrine, but this is aside from our\nquestion. Thus Wendt would place the influence of the mystery religions\nupon the Christian sacraments in the post-Pauline age, and thinks that\n\"to Acts we owe the undoubtedly correct tradition that these Christian\nrites go back to a date preceding the Hellenistic mission of Paul, and\nmust be sought for in the very earliest practice of the Apostolic\ncommunity.\"[239] Hatch also believes that between apostolic and\npost-apostolic times the sacraments were modified in important respects\nunder the influence of the mysteries. \"The primitive 'see here is water,\nwhat doth hinder me to be baptized?' passed into a ritual which at\nevery turn recalls the ritual of the mysteries.\"[240]\n\n  239: \"Historical Trustworthiness of the Book of Acts,\" _Hibbert\n  Journal_, October, 1913, pp. 146, 147.\n\n  240: \"Hibbert Lectures,\" 1888, p. 299.\n\nThose who push back the influence of the mysteries upon the sacraments\nto the teaching of Paul himself are compelled to interpret the Apostle's\nlanguage, contrary, we believe, to the best exegetical tradition, in a\nphysical or what is called an _ex opere operato_ sense. It is\nsignificant that when the sacraments are so interpreted they appear to\nbe a foreign element in Paul's system. \"It is no wonder that\ninterpreters like Heitm\u00fcller and Weinel, who attribute a magical view of\nthe sacraments to Paul, are concerned to point out that his\nsacramentalism is a sort of erratic boulder in his system as a\nwhole.\"[241] We are reminded of Clemen's principle that the sense of the\nNew Testament passage should be fully ascertained before dependence is\nassumed.\n\n  241: Kennedy: \"St. Paul and the Mystery Religions,\" p. 283.\n\nWhen von Dobsch\u00fctz says that \"the unique sacramental conception of the\nEarly Church, which has no analogy in the history of religion because it\nbelongs essentially to the Christian religion, has its origin solely in\nChristian faith and Christian experience,\"[242] the same may be said of\nPaul's doctrine of dying and rising again with Christ. When Paul says\n\"buried with him in baptism\" (Rom. vi. 4 and Col. ii. 12), he speaks of\nno pantheistic or magical union with the deity such as seemed to\ndominate the thought of the mysteries, so far as their meaning can be\nascertained. In both contexts Paul immediately goes on to exhortation.\n\"Let not sin reign\" (Rom. vi. 12), \"Seek the things above; mortify your\nmembers\" (Col. iii. 1-5). It should further be noticed that the passage\nmost relied upon to prove Paul's borrowing from the mysteries (Rom. vi.)\nwas addressed to a church which Paul did not found, composed of both\nJewish and Gentile Christians. The doctrine in question was not put\nforth as a novelty, but is assumed to be known to them: \"Are ye\nignorant, etc.?\" (Rom. vi. 3).\n\n  242: Kennedy: \"St. Paul and the Mystery Religions,\" quoted, p. 279.\n\nPaul's doctrine of dying and rising with Christ is ethical rather than\n\"metaphysical\" or magical or sacramental. It is surprising to find how\nlittle sacramental it is. With no allusion to his own baptism or to the\nLord's Supper he says, \"I have been crucified with Christ. The world is\ncrucified to me and I to the world\" (Gal. ii. 20; vi. 14). \"Christ died\nfor all, therefore all died\" (2 Cor. v. 14). \"To know Christ, to be\nfound in him, to be transformed into his death\" (Phil. iii. 8 f.). His\ndoctrine is based upon a personal experience of grace, and this is\nassociated with the Cross rather than with the sacraments. The bond\nwhich mediated his union with Christ in His death was faith. It was\nthrough faith that the Spirit is to be received (Gal. iii. 14), and\neven when he says, \"Christ liveth in me,\" he adds, \"I live in the faith\nof the Son of God\" (Gal. ii. 20, and see Eph. iii. 17). He would gain\nChrist that he might have \"the righteousness of God through faith\"\n(Phil. iii. 9). The Cross and not the sacraments was central alike in\nthe Apostle's experience and in his doctrine of dying and rising with\nChrist, and the bond of union between him and Christ was faith. There\nwas no mystical absorption of personality as in the Hermetic prayers:\n\"Thou art I, and I am thou.\"\n\nFinally the Pauline mystery was distinguished from the heathen mysteries\nby its connection with an historical Person. In the Pauline mystery, it\nhas been said, the divine appeared in a \"concrete and comprehensible\nguise,\" and \"this connection of a religious principle with a Person who\nhad walked upon earth and suffered death was a phenomenon of singular\npower and originality.\"[243] There is a world of difference between the\nnature-myths, underlying the mysteries, of the annually dying and rising\nvegetation gods, without historical reality, and promising to the\ninitiated release from transitoriness and mortality, and the record of\nChrist who died for our sins, and who being raised from the dead dieth\nno more. To say that Paul not only conformed the Lord's Supper to the\nheathen mysteries, but invented it in imitation of the mysteries, is to\naccuse him of deliberate misstatement; for in a passage of unusual\nsolemnity (I Cor. xi. 23 ff.), he says that he received it of the Lord,\nand relates the circumstances of the institution of the Supper by Jesus\nHimself.\n\n  243: Bousset: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 148.\n\nThe argument from vocabulary is relied upon by Reitzenstein to prove the\ninfluence of heathen ideas upon the thought of the Apostle. It is his\ntheory that Paul spent the two years of inner disturbance, in part at\nleast, in the study of Hellenistic religion and philosophy, and that\nthis influence helped him in the construction of a new religion. In\nsubstance Reitzenstein's argument is that Paul shows the use of\ntechnical religious terms found in the Hermetic writings, especially in\nthe \"Poimandres\"; and that the \"Poimandres\" is to be dated earlier than\nthe \"Shepherd\" of Hermas; and that the conceptions it embodies were\ncurrent in the Roman Empire, and in a literary form, in the time of\nPaul. The argument is twofold, first, that the Hermetic writings were\ncurrent in the time of Paul, and, second, that Paul shows their\ninfluence in his vocabulary. As the date of the \"Poimandres,\" the most\nimportant of the Hermetic writings, is in dispute, the latter point may\nbe considered first.\n\nIn the Pauline vocabulary Reitzenstein believes that we have \"an\nabsolutely certain proof of the immediate influence of Hellenism upon\nthe Apostle, and at the same time a measure of its strength.\"[244] \"Only\nwhen the existence and meaning of a religious literature in Hellenism is\nassured and the sort of linguistic dependence is seen to depend on\nliterary mediation is the opportunity of an explanation afforded.\"[245]\nMany words thought to be characteristically Pauline are said to have\nbeen technical terms in the popular mystery cults of the day, before the\nApostle adopted them as the expression of his own religious teaching.\n\n  244: \"Die Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen,\" p. 58. (Afterward\n  referred to for convenience as \"H. M. R.\")\n\n  245: \"H. M. R.,\" p. 209.\n\nWithout attempting to follow the argument in detail, we may observe\n(_a_) that Paul uses many of these terms in a different sense from that\nof the Hermetic literature. Compare, for example, Paul's use of familiar\nwords such as \"salvation,\" \"glory,\" \"grace,\" with that of the Magic\nPapyri. In \"Hermes-Prayer I,\" the petition is for \"health, salvation,\nprosperity, glory, victory, power, loveliness.\"[246] So in \"Prayer II,\"\n\"Give me grace, food, victory, good luck, loveliness, etc.\"[247] Again in\n\"Hermes-Prayer III,\" we read, \"Save me always from drugs and deceit, and\nall witchcraft and evil tongues and all trouble, from all hate both of\nGods and men. Give me grace and victory and business and success; for\nThou art I, and I am Thou.... I am thy image.\"[248] In these prayers from\nthe later Hermes-Thot religion, the Pauline terms are evidently used in\na worldly sense, contrasting strongly with their use by Paul.\n\n  246: Reitzenstein: \"Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-\u00e4gyptischen\n  und fr\u00fchchristlichen Literatur,\" 1904, p. 18.\n\n  247: _Ibid._, p. 20.\n\n  248: Reitzenstein: \"Poimandres,\" p. 21.\n\n(_b_) Much of the technical phraseology common to Paul and the Hermetic\nliterature is current in the Old Testament; and with the language of the\nOld Testament we know that Paul's mind was saturated. Clemen's maxim\nshould be observed, and we should seek the source of an idea (or word)\nin the native religion before going farther afield. Thus before Paul's\ndoctrine of the Spirit is assigned with confidence to Hellenistic\nsources, the use of the term Spirit both in the Old Testament and in\npre-Pauline Christianity should be studied. Paul quotes the passage from\nJoel which promises the outpouring of the Spirit (Rom. x. 13 f.; see\nActs ii. 21). He brings the Spirit into connection with the blessing of\nAbraham (Gal. iii. 14). The Spirit is also mentioned in the introduction\nto the ministry of Jesus alike by Mark and by the non-Markan source. A\nsufficient and natural explanation of Paul's doctrine of the Spirit is\nto be found in the Old Testament, in Evangelical tradition and in the\nexperience of the church at Pentecost, and in his own experience. When\nPaul speaks of \"the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, 'Abba, Father'\"\n(Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6), we have to do not with remote literary\ninfluences nor with the dry bones of any technical theology, Hebraic or\nHermetic, but with the heart-throb of personal experience.\n\nReitzenstein believes that the Pauline vocabulary is best explained by\nthe Hellenistic parallels, but he recognizes that the parallelism with\nthe Old Testament should be considered. Thus while he thinks that he has\nshown parallels for all the Pauline uses of the word _pneuma_, he says\n\"whether with equal ease all may be explained from the Hebraic use of\n_ruach_ and _nephesh_ or the use of _pneuma_ in the Septuagint the\ntheologian must decide.\"[249] Harnack, with some irony, advises\nReitzenstein and his school to gain a clearer knowledge of Paul the Jew\nand Paul the Christian before they take account of secondary elements\nwhich he borrowed from the Greek mysteries. A conscious acceptance, he\nthinks, of such elements is out of the question.[250]\n\n  249: \"H. M. R.,\" p. 140.\n\n  250: \"Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels,\" p. 61 n.\n  Kennedy believes that the vocabulary of Paul is to be explained from\n  the Old Testament, while much of it was current among the mystery\n  brotherhoods (_Op. cit._, p. 198). Bousset acknowledges that Paul's\n  terminology may perhaps in part be derived from the Old Testament,\n  which would be the most natural source of his use of _pneuma_\n  instead of _nous_ to describe the spiritual part of man, and of the\n  opposition in words between _pneuma_ and _sarx_ (_Op. cit._, p. 141,\n  note 2). Clemen (\"Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das\n  \u00e4lteste Christentums,\" 1913, p. 61) says that \"looked at broadly,\n  Paul remains in verbal and much more in actual relationships\n  untouched by the mystery religions.\"\n\nIf the Hermetic writings are to be dated later than the time of Paul,\nthen the question of literary influence is reversed. Similarity in words\nwill then be due to coincidence or to the prevalence of a common\nreligious vocabulary, or else, as has recently been said, \"if it is\nnecessary to suppose literary connection, the artificial literary\ncomposition of 'Poimandres' makes it more probable that the borrowing\nwas on that side.\"[251] The question hinges upon the date of the\n\"Poimandres,\" which it has been usual, at least since the middle of the\nseventeenth century, to assign to the age of Porphyry. Hermes has been\nregarded as \"a convenient pseudonym to place at the head of the numerous\nsyncretic writings in which it was sought to combine Neo-Platonic\nphilosophy, Philonic Judaism and cabalistic theosophy, and so provide\nthe world with some acceptable substitute for Christianity.\"[252]\n\n  251: J. M. Creed: \"The Hermetic Writings,\" _Journal of Theological\n  Studies_, July, 1914, p. 529.\n\n  252: Art. \"Hermes Trismegistus,\" Encycl. Britt., 10th ed. For a\n  history of the evolution of opinion, see G. R. S. Mead:\n  \"Thrice-Greatest Hermes,\" 1906, Vol. I, pp. 17 ff.\n\nBy a brilliant _tour de force_ and with great learning Reitzenstein has\nsought to reverse this relationship, and to show that the original form\nof these writings, or at least the fixed religious ideas, vocabulary and\nritual which they presuppose, antedated Pauline Christianity and\nprofoundly influenced the writings of Paul and of John. He argues that\nthe \"Shepherd\" of Hermas is dependent upon the \"Poimandres,\" relying\nmainly upon two points: the similarity between the two writings in their\nintroductions, and the fact that in the \"Shepherd\" the divine messenger\nappears on a mountain, Arcadia, which was the alleged birthplace of\nHermes and a centre of the Hermes cult. The significant points of the\nintroduction may thus be shown:\n\n\n      \"POIMANDRES\"                     \"SHEPHERD\" OF HERMAS\n   2. And I do say: \"Who art        Revelation 5. As I prayed in\n   thou?\" He saith: \"I am           the house, and sat on the couch,\n   Man-Shepherd, Mind of all        there entered a man glorious in\n   master-hood; I know what thou    his visage in the garb of a\n   desirest and I'm with thee       shepherd, and with a wallet on his\n   everywhere.\"                     shoulders, and a staff in his\n                                    hand. And he saluted me,\n   3.                               and I saluted him in return. And he\n                                    immediately sat down by my side,\n                                    and he saith unto me, \"I was sent\n                                    by the most holy angel, that I\n                                    might dwell with thee the\n                                    remaining days of thy life.\"\n\n   4. E'n with these words His       \"I,\" saith he, \"am the shepherd,\n   aspect changed, and              unto whom thou wast delivered.\"\n   straightway, in the twinkling    While he was speaking,\n   of an eye, all things were       his form was changed, and I\n   opened to me, and I see a        recognized him as being the same,\n   Vision limitless, etc.           to whom I was delivered.[253]\n\n\n  253: For the Greek text of both passages see \"Poimandres,\" pp. 11,\n  12; and for the translation see Mead: _Op. cit._, ii, pp. 3, 4, and\n  Lightfoot: \"Apostolic Fathers,\" p. 421.\n\nThe decisive thing in the comparison is said to be not the change of\nform nor the assurance that the revealing spirit would always be with\nthe prophet, \"but that he revealed himself, to the heathen as the\nShepherd of men (_Menschenhirten_), to the Christian as the Shepherd of\nthis man.\"[254] The comparison leads Reitzenstein to the twofold\nconclusion that the \"Shepherd\" of Hermas has taken over awkwardly a type\nforeign to Christian revelation literature, and that \"the Christian\nborrowed that description of the shepherd from an originally fuller\ntext.\"[255]\n\n  254: \"Poimandres,\" p. 12.\n\n  255: _Ibid._, pp. 13, 32.\n\nThe argument for borrowing is obviously weakened by the admission that\nHermas did not borrow from the extant \"Poimandres\" but from an assumed\nearlier form of the text; and, further, it is by no means clear why the\nfigure of the shepherd, familiar in the Old Testament and in the Gospel\nparables, should be a foreign type in Christian literature. Nor is the\ncase materially strengthened by the argument that a later mention of a\nmountain in Arcadia, in the \"Shepherd,\" implies an acquaintance with the\n\"Poimandres\" where no mention of Arcadia, but simply of descent from a\nmountain, is made. It is admitted that the leading up upon a mountain is\na current form of Christian literature, but it is said that \"the exact\nchoice of Arcadia is more than surprising, since the author lived in\nRome, and besides saw his visions at Rome or Cum\u00e6.\"[256]\n\n  256: \"Poimandres,\" p. 33.\n\nIt seems unnecessary to guess with Zahn that \"Arikia\" should be read\ninstead of \"Arkadia,\" or to assume that Hermas was a native of Arcadia,\nor had a book of travels in his hands, or that he was thinking of Hermes\nor the Hermetic writings. The literary tradition connecting Arcadia with\nshepherds and with pastoral poetry was in itself enough, as Vergil's\n\"Eclogues\" may suggest. It is admitted that Hermas was a literary man\neven if \"a man of the people,\" and what more natural place for a\nshepherd to appear, if it was to be upon a mountain, than a mountain in\nArcadia? Shepherds have suggested Arcadia from the time of Vergil to\nthat of Sir Philip Sydney, and Vergil, in breaking away from the Sicily\nof Theocritus, was quite probably following a tradition already\nestablished at Rome.\n\nAn historian of Roman religion, W. Warde Fowler, says of Christianity as\npreached by Paul that \"the plant, though grown in a soil which had borne\nother crops, was wholly new in structure and vital principle. I say this\ndeliberately, after spending so many years on the study of the religion\nof the Romans, and making myself acquainted in some measure with the\nreligions of other peoples. The love of Christ is the entirely new power\nthat has come into the world; not merely as a new type of morality, but\nas 'a Divine influence transfiguring human nature in a universal love.'\nThe passion of St. Paul's appeal lies in the consecration of every\ndetail of it by reference to the life and death of the Master.\"[257]\n\n  257: \"The Religious Experience of the Roman People,\" 1911, pp. 466,\n  467.\n\nThe gospel which conquered the Roman Empire was no syncretic product\ngrowing from Gr\u00e6co-Roman soil, no _m\u00e9lange_ of oriental religions and\nGreek philosophy, no cunningly devised fable or myth for the myth-loving\nGreeks. No explanation of the character of Pauline Christianity, or of\nits victory over its rivals in the ancient world, can ignore the\nstatements of Paul himself: \"When the fulness of time was come, God sent\nforth his Son; he revealed his Son in me, that I might preach him among\nthe Gentiles\" (Gal. iv. 4; i. 16).\n\n\nII. CHRISTIANITY AND MODERN RELIGIONS\n\nThe relation of Christianity to modern religions is a matter of\npractical rather than theoretical interest. After the brilliant\nvictories of the early missionary age, the activity of the church in\nspreading the gospel among the non-Christian peoples was for many\ncenturies remitted, and it is only practically within the last one\nhundred years that the Christian Faith has been brought into actual\ncontact, through the work of its missionaries, with the non-Christian\nreligions.\n\nThrough its missionary propaganda Christianity has shown its genuineness\nand its devotion to the commands of its Founder; and so far as it has\nproved its ability to meet the religious needs and quicken the religious\nand intellectual life of diverse nationalities, it has supplied a\npractical demonstration of its divine origin and authority. The\nmissionaries have supplied the church with a pattern of apostolic zeal,\nand have kept burning the fire of a passionate love and devotion for\ntheir Master. A British statesman has said that the unselfish\nimperialism of its missionary propaganda has been the crowning glory of\nthe Anglo-Saxon race.\n\nWhile the unceasing struggle of Christianity against worldliness, greed,\nindifference and unbelief still continues, it may be said that\nChristianity has to-day no rival as a claimant to be the universal\nreligion. It alone can stand the white light of modern science, and it\nalone can stand the test of those moral ideals which have been largely\ncreated by itself. It is absolutely certain that none of the present\nethnic religions can compete with Christianity in its contest for world\nsupremacy.\n\nThe great danger to Christianity to-day, from the side of other\nreligions, is not that of persecution or the hostility of the state. The\ndanger lies in the temptation to compromise. Let Christianity, it is\nsaid, lay aside its assumption of divine and exclusive authority and of\ninfinite superiority to all other religions, and let it make in its\nethics some concessions to the weakness of human nature, and the path to\nworld-conquest will be open.\n\nNever was the temptation to compromise, with Judaism on the one hand and\nheathenism on the other, stronger than it was in the early ages of the\nChristian Church. If Christianity had compromised in the time of Jesus\nand Paul, persecution would have ceased and the scandal of the cross\nwould have been removed. If early Christianity had compromised with\nheathenism, and had not waged unrelenting warfare upon idolatry, it\ncould have escaped the united hostility of the state and of the other\nreligions and philosophies; on the other hand, if Christianity had come\nto terms with Judaism or Paganism, while it might perhaps be known\nhistorically as an obscure Jewish sect, or as a ripple upon the wave of\noriental religious influence upon the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world, it would never\nhave been the mighty spiritual power that it has been in human society.\n\nIt is a mistake to-day to think that for Christianity the way of\nconquest is the way of compromise, and that Christianity can become a\nworld religion, superseding all others, by laying aside its distinctive\nfeatures and its exalted and exclusive claims. It would, indeed, be a\nmistake to import our doctrinal systems in all their controversial\ndetails into the heathen world, and the mystical oriental mind may\neasily clothe Christianity, itself an oriental religion, in new and more\nbeautiful forms; but it would be, if possible, a greater mistake to\nattempt to substitute ethics or natural religion for doctrinal\nChristianity.\n\nThe rock of Islam will not yield to the preaching of a merely human and\nprophetic Jesus; nor will the preaching of the Fatherhood of God and the\nBrotherhood of man--the same message which the Swamis and Babists, with\na more pantheistic content to their message, preach in England and\nAmerica--be effective to overthrow the hoary superstitions of India and\nthe caste system with its hold upon every fibre of human nature.\n\nA prominent educator and leader of thought has recently complained that\nChristianity as usually preached in foreign lands is unsuitable to the\noriental mind. On the other hand, he chides the members of his own\nreligious communion because they, \"with magnificent ideals, with\nglorious concepts, with the truth of Christ in all its purity and\nsimplicity, sit in smug content offering the world of missions, in the\nhour of its hunger, only the dry bones of criticism of those who\nalready serve.\"[258] But every practical movement, enlisting great masses\nof men and demanding tremendous sacrifice for its accomplishment, must\nhave a rational basis. A humanitarian impulse is not sufficient to carry\nthrough to a conclusion so vast and world-embracing a plan as is\ncontemplated by Christian Missions. The impulse however strong and noble\nwill evaporate, unless based upon and fed by a theory of what the\nChristian religion is, of what it offers to men, of man's need of it,\nand of the obligation of Christians to carry it to the non-Christian\nnations. The history of missions has shown that no mere feeling of\nbenevolence or desire to better social and economic conditions, but the\ncommand of Christ, love for Christ and gratitude to Christ has led the\narmy of missionaries to endure separation, hardship, persecution and\ndeath.\n\n  258: Dr. Charles W. Eliot as reported in the press.\n\nLowell has said that every new edition of an Elizabethan dramatist \"is\nbut the putting of another witness into the box to prove the\ninaccessibility of Shakespeare's standpoint as poet and artist.\" Every\ncomparison of Christianity with other religions, ancient and modern,\nbrings its own superiority into stronger relief. In Jesus Christ and in\nHim alone have been fulfilled the great religious ideas of the race. In\nHim as prophet God's word is perfectly spoken, and He is the example\nwho leads in the way of His own precepts. In Him are fulfilled the ideas\nof sacrifice and priesthood; He is the great High Priest, separate from\nsinners in His holiness, but near them in His compassion and mercy. He\nhas put away sin and put away sacrifice by the offering of Himself once\nfor all, and has destroyed the whole sacrificial system of Jews and\nGentiles. He is the fulfillment of the idea of incarnation, of God\ncoming to man and of the Most High visiting the children of men, for\ntheir rescue from all danger and the supply of all their needs.\n\nIn other religious and philosophical systems there have been golden\nmaxims for the conduct of life, wonderful insights into truth and\nvisions of beauty, and evidences of the reaching out of the human soul\nafter God; but Christianity is the only religion of which the\nenlightened reason and conscience of the world can say that it is from\nheaven and not from men. In no other religion has there been a long\nperiod of centuries of preparation in the religious education of a\npeople to be the recipients and the messengers, in the fullness of time,\nof the final revelation. In no other religion is there found a teaching\nso profound, and yet so simple and self-evidencing, upon the great\nthemes of human interest, God, Immortality and Duty. From no other has\ngone forth an influence so beneficent and transforming in human\nhistory. In no other has there been a Calvary and an Easter Day, the\ngreat historic facts upon which the hopes of the world rest, and in no\nother has the undiscovered country been transformed into \"the Father's\nhouse.\"\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nThe Christian Faith and Biblical Criticism\n\nWe are living at a time when territory formerly deemed sacred is being\ntraversed by hosts of forbidding aspect under the banners of natural\nscience, of philosophy, and of the psychology and history of religion.\nThe greatest foe of all, it has been thought by some, has arisen within\nthe household of faith in the form of Biblical Criticism.\n\nAn eloquent American preacher, Dr. Richard S. Storrs, has said that when\nLuther translated the Bible into the vernacular, \"the peasant's roof was\nlifted to a level with the stars.\" Into every home whose inmates could\nread there came, with the Bible in their own tongue, the message of\ndivine love and redemption. With the freedom to read the Bible came also\nthe freedom to study the Bible, to judge by its standard the doctrines\nand usages of the church, to compare Scripture with Scripture, and even\nto bring Scripture itself with its credentials before the bar of reason.\nWhatever the extremes into which criticism may have run in an age in\nwhich the Cartesian principle of doubt is applied to every received\nopinion, the rights of Biblical Criticism must be conceded as a legacy\nof the Reformation.\n\nAbout the works of Homer, of Plato, of Dante and of Shakespeare there\nhas gathered a mass of material in the way of commentary and discussion,\nbut it is safe to say that in recent years the literary output in all of\nthese departments of study taken together is small in comparison with\nthat which centres around the Bible. The Biblical critic has helped to\nattract to the Bible the intellectual interest of our age, as well as to\nmake it the storm-centre of theological controversy. He has made it a\nprincipal object of scholarly as well as devotional interest, has thrown\na flood of light upon its pages from history, arch\u00e6ology, philology and\ncomparative religion, and has challenged the devout Bible reader to a\nmore intelligent, minute and painstaking examination of the fundamental\ndocuments of his faith.\n\nThe specialization of the age has assigned the Old Testament and the New\nTestament to different departments of study, and the problems of each\nmust be independently investigated. It is evident, though, that the\nfortunes of the Old Testament and the New are closely bound up together.\nThe same principles of criticism are likely to be applied to both, and\nwhether we begin with naturalism or supernaturalism in the Old Testament\nwe shall probably end with it in the New Testament. In both Testaments\nBabylonian influence may be traced, and the twelve apostles may follow\nthe twelve patriarchs into the limbo of myth. If no supernatural process\nof redemption, in the way of history, prophecy or revelation, can be\ndiscovered in the Old Testament, it is unlikely that any will be\ndiscovered at all. The Fourth Gospel as well as the Pentateuch has been\nanalyzed into documents, and the same great historical transposition is\nseen in both Testaments; Jewish monotheism is said to have begun with\nAmos instead of with Abraham, and Christianity in its distinctive\nfeatures with Paul instead of with Jesus.\n\nThe present state of discussion in the Old Testament field indicates, to\none not a specialist in this department, that positions which have been\nregarded as assured are not yet settled beyond question. The literary\nanalysis is ingenious and plausible, but, as is shown in Orr's \"Problem\nof the Old Testament,\" the argument is balanced. To offset the literary\nanalysis and the rearrangement of the history in accordance with an\nevolutionary scheme, there are certain considerations from history,\narch\u00e6ology, and common reason. No such analysis has been ventured in the\ncase of modern documents that are confessedly composite, and in the case\nof Homer, the nearest classical parallel, there is the same uncertainty\nin the results.\n\nPurely literary considerations, as Ramsay has remarked, yield before\nother more objective and historical data, and the literary theories are\nadjusted to meet the new situation.[259] The temporary popularity in the\nNew Testament field of the Baur-T\u00fcbingen theories, based on Hegelian\nprinciples of development, and then their general abandonment, suggest\nthe need of caution before we accept any concensus of criticism, based\nupon literary and philosophical grounds alone, as the last word upon the\nsubject. Our special concern in this lecture is with the problems of the\nNew Testament, and we may consider briefly, I. The Pauline Epistles, II.\nThe Acts, III. The Synoptic Problem, and IV. The Johannine Problem.\n\n  259: \"Luke the Physician,\" p. 262.\n\n\nI. THE PAULINE EPISTLES\n\nIt is frequently said that the figure of the Apostle Paul stands out\nagainst the background of history in bolder relief and with individual\nfeatures more strongly marked than does any other character in\nantiquity. Not only has his public career been narrated by one who was\napparently his friend and companion in labours, but he has left a large\ncollection of letters, full of profound teaching upon religion and\nethics, and abounding in autobiographic details and in intimate\nrevelations of character.\n\nThe school of Baur recognized as genuine only the four central epistles,\nRomans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians, making in bulk about\nthree-fifths of the writings, exclusive of Hebrews, which have been\nassigned to Paul. The tendency of criticism since the time of Baur has\nbeen steadily in the direction of the acceptance of other epistles as\nPauline. Colossians, Philippians and I Thessalonians have now been added\nto the list of the generally accepted writings, and it is only the\nfringe of Paul's writings that can be said to be still in dispute. Of\nthese \"anti-legomena,\" 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and the Pastorals, it\nis noticeable that two of them are rejected largely on the ground that\nthey resemble so closely in ideas and vocabulary the admittedly Pauline\nletters of I Thessalonians and Colossians, while a Pauline nucleus is\noften acknowledged in the Pastorals by those who do not assign the\nepistles as a whole to Paul.\n\nStudents of Ephesians, moreover, are coming to hear in it more and more\nclearly, if we mistake not, the voice of the Apostle and the expression\nof his mature Christian experience, and of that doctrine of the church\nin which Royce sees the essence of Paulinism. A. C. Headlam says that it\nis the careful study of a book that will often solve the question of its\norigin, and remarks: \"To me Ephesians is Pauline through and through,\nand more even than Romans represents the deepest thought of the\nApostle.\"[260] The important fact is that, when all the disputed epistles\nare excluded, the progress of criticism has placed beyond reasonable\ndoubt the great body of the Apostle's teaching and the bulk of his\nwritings. The practical question now at issue, as Ramsay has observed,\nis not, \"What did Paul write?\" but \"What did Paul teach?\"[261]\n\n  260: \"St. Paul and Christianity,\" 1913, p. viii.\n\n  261: _Contemporary Review_, August, 1913, p. 198.\n\nIn Paul's acknowledged writings we have a solid basis in fact from which\nto estimate the Gospel narratives and the Acts. The epistles of Paul\ncarry us back into the circle of the earlier apostles and of the\nJerusalem church, and throw light upon various events and aspects of the\nlife, character, words, death, and resurrection of Christ.\n\n\nII. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES\n\nThe book of Acts, while secondary in interest to the Gospels, occupies a\ncentral place in New Testament criticism. It is the bridge between the\nAscension and the time thirty years later when Nero persecuted \"a great\nmultitude called Christians at Rome.\" It covers the period in which\ndoctrinal evolution took place. Through its authorship it bridges the\ngap between the Gospels and the Pauline church among the Gentiles.\n\nThe course of the history in the early chapters of Acts is so different\nfrom that which the imagination of a later age would have pictured, that\nit bears upon its face the marks of early origin and of trustworthiness.\nTo a later writer, without contact with the actors, and writing after\nthe destruction of the Temple and the final breach of the Christians\nwith the Jews and the assured success of the Gentile mission, it would\nseem exceedingly improbable (1) that the apostolic company should have\ncontinued to worship in the Temple; (2) that they should at first have\nfound favour with the people; and (3) that they should have remained in\nJerusalem with no apparent intention of leaving until scattered by\npersecution; and perhaps (4) that the Sadducees should have been the\nfirst to start the persecution. The recorded history, improbable to a\nlater age, bears upon its face the stamp of truth. The imagination of a\npost-Pauline writer would have given us, we may be sure, a very\ndifferent picture of church history. It would scarcely have conceived of\nthe primitive Christology of Peter's speeches, the use of the term,\n\"child,\" or \"servant\" of God (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 [pais]) in place of the Pauline term,\n\"Son of God\" (\u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 [huios]), yet with the same attitude, shared by\nChristians of earlier and later time, of adoration, worship and love.\n\nThe presumption in favour of credibility is strengthened by the author's\nfull and detailed treatment of persons and places. \"A man who would\nventure to introduce ninety-five persons and a hundred and three places\ninto a history of his own times must have been pretty sure of his\nground. The majority of these persons were still living when he wrote;\ninto every one of these places his volume shortly penetrated.... The\ncorrectness of his geography upholds the truth of his history.\"[262]\n\n  262: Arthur Wright: \"Some New Testament Problems,\" pp. 88, 89.\n\nA great many of the statements of the Acts can be checked by comparison\nwith Paul's epistles, as has been shown by Paley's \"Hor\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6,\" and\nmore recently, for the first part of the Acts, by Harnack. In case of\napparent conflict, it has been said, \"we are confronted by the task of\nreconciling the differences between two first-century documents, each of\nwhich has, admittedly, very powerful claims.\"[263] More than half of the\nActs is taken up with the labours of the Apostle Paul, and yet the Acts\ndoes not mention or show knowledge of his epistles. This fact, used by\nsome to throw doubt upon the genuineness of the epistles, may be an\nindication of the early date of the Acts, and of so close a relationship\nbetween the author and the Apostle that the evidence of letters would be\nunnecessary.\n\n  263: Dawson Walker: \"The Gift of Tongues,\" 1906, p. 181.\n\nImportant alike in its bearing upon the questions of credibility and\nauthorship, is the evidence of the so-called \"we-sections.\" A _prima\nfacie_ case is made out that the author of the Acts was an eye-witness\nof some of the scenes it records, and a companion in travel of the\nApostle Paul. This evidence has of late been greatly strengthened by\nlinguistic investigation. While critical attempts are still made to\ndivide the Acts into documents, the \"we-sections\" (xvi. 10-17; xx. 5-15;\nxxi. 1-18; xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16), as Sir J. Hawkins says, show an\n\"immense balance of internal and linguistic evidence in favour of the\nview that the original writer of these sections was the same person as\nthe main author of the Acts and of the Third Gospel.\"[264]\n\n  264: \"Hor\u00e6 Synoptic\u00e6,\" 2d ed., 1909, p. 188.\n\nNo living writers have done more to stimulate interest in the book of\nActs than have Sir W. M. Ramsay and Harnack, and the writings of both\nhave materially strengthened the case alike for its Lukan authorship,\nand, in the main, for its historical accuracy. Ramsay, starting, as he\nsays, from the standpoint of the T\u00fcbingen school, \"with the confident\nassumption that the book was fabricated in the middle of the second\ncentury, and studying it to see what light it could throw on the state\nof society in Asia Minor, was gradually driven to the conclusion that it\nmust have been written in the first century and with admirable\nknowledge.\"[265]\n\n  265: \"Pauline Studies,\" p. 199.\n\nHarnack's defense, in his four monographs,[266] of the Lukan authorship,\nintegrity, historical reliability (where the supernatural is not in\nquestion) and early date of the Acts is the most outstanding and\nsignificant achievement of the age in New Testament criticism. Harnack's\nwork has been so thorough and convincing that it may be said to have\ncarried the theological world by storm. At least his powerful argument\nfor Lukan authorship does not appear to have been successfully met. The\nattempt to turn its flank by asserting that the Paul of Acts, in making\na vow, shaving his head and entering into the Temple, was not the\ndefender of Gentile liberty who wrote Galatians, and so that the author\nof the Acts was not the companion of Paul, is met by Harnack in the\nfourth of his monographs. Paul, he declares, not only was a Jew, but\nremained so, whether consistently or not. Harnack thinks that Paul\nshrank back from taking the last logical step,[267] but that in this the\nauthor of the Acts represents the relation of Paul to Judaism precisely\nas do his letters.[268] Stanton well remarks that the difficulty of\naccounting for alleged discrepancies between the Acts and the Epistles\nis equal or greater on the supposition that the author wrote 100 A. D.,\nor later, than if the author was the companion of Paul.[269] The very\nfact, for example, that Luke says that Paul worshipped in the Temple is\nan indication that we have here no conception of a later age to which\nsuch an act would have seemed unnatural.\n\n  266: \"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einl. in das N. T.\": I. \"Lukas der Arzt,\" 1906;\n  II. \"Spr\u00fcche und Reden Jesu,\" 1907; III. \"Die Apostelgeschichte,\"\n  1908; IV. \"Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur\n  Abfassungszeit des Synoptischen Evangelien,\" 1911. For convenience\n  these will be alluded to as I, II, III, and IV, in connection with\n  the English translation.\n\n  267: IV, p. 35; \"Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels,\" p. 49.\n\n  268: _Ibid._, p. 62; E. T., p. 88.\n\n  269: \"The Gospels as Historical Documents,\" Pt. II, 1909, p. 242.\n\nIn his \"Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels\" (IV), Harnack\nreverses his former opinion and strongly defends a date for the Acts\nwithin the lifetime of Paul and before the end of his trial at Rome.\nReviewing his former arguments for a later date, he finds them\ninconclusive, and thinks that the earlier date is required by the abrupt\nclose of the Acts. Minor considerations favouring an early date are (1)\nthe titles for Christ in the early chapters, and for Christians, and the\ndescription of the Jews as \"the people of God\"; (2) the fact that the\nJews are the persecutors and not the persecuted; (3) the absence of any\nindication of the use of Paul's letters such as would be expected in a\nlater writer; (4) the use of the \"first day of the week,\" instead of the\n\"Lord's Day,\" and of the names of Jewish feasts, in which Luke stands\nwith Paul against later writers. And (5) even the prediction, Acts xx.\n25, which looks primarily to Jerusalem, not Rome, would not have been\nwritten, if the second imprisonment be accepted, after its apparent\nfalsification by I Timothy i. 3 and 2 Timothy i. 18. H. Koch develops\nthese arguments independently,[270] and it can no longer be said that the\nearly dating of the Acts is \"a pre-critical theory which rests on\nsentimental or subjective grounds.\"[271]\n\n  270: \"Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes,\" 1911.\n\n  271: J. Moffatt: \"Historical New Testament,\" p. 414, note 4. It is\n  noticeable that Moffatt now favours the Lukan authorship, \"put\n  practically beyond doubt by the exhaustive researches of Hawkins and\n  Harnack\" (\"Introduction to New Testament,\" p. 295), while advocating\n  a date later than Josephus' \"Antiquities\" (pp. 29 f.).\n\nWhy should the author follow so carefully the fortunes of the Apostle on\nhis voyage to Rome, and describe so fully the initial stages of his\ntrial, and yet leave the reader in doubt concerning its outcome?\nCommentators have been puzzled by the seemingly inordinate space which\nLuke devotes to the details of the voyage and shipwreck. Sometimes it is\nsaid that the voyage marks the final rejection of the Jewish people; or\nin the description is seen a literary device intended to intensify the\nsuspense of the reader; or allegorical interpretations are resorted to\nby those who think that Luke would not thus descend from the level of\nthe philosophical historian to that of the novelist.\n\nIn the minute description of the voyage and shipwreck, Koch sees\nevidence that the writer's experiences as Paul's companion on the\nvoyage were still fresh in his mind. The details would scarcely have\nbeen remembered and recorded so vividly after twenty-five years. Even if\na journal had been kept, it is still strange that the minuti\u00e6 of the\nstory should have been retained in the perspective of the finished\nhistory. \"The author still stands under the fresh impression of the\nwonderful divine guidance through which Paul, in spite of all dangers\nand hindrances, reached his long sought goal.\" \"What interest would a\nreader of later times have in details such as that on an Alexandrian\nship precisely two hundred and seventy-six men were found?\" In the\nseventh or eighth decade more important contemporary events would have\nstood in the foreground of interest.[272] A striking parallelism has been\nobserved between the Third Gospel and the Acts, while, supposing Paul's\ndeath to have occurred, it is urged that Luke has missed \"the\nfinest--the most essential--point of the whole comparison, the death of\nPaul.\"[273]\n\n  272: H. Koch: \"Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes,\"\n  pp. 61, 62.\n\n  273: D. Walker: \"The Gift of Tongues,\" p. 228.\n\nThe assumed intention of the author to write a third treatise does not\nhelp the matter much. It is absurd, Ramsay admits, to relate the earlier\nstages of the trial at great length, \"and wholly omit the final result\nwhich gives them intelligibility and purpose\"; but his conclusion is\nthat \"it therefore follows that a sequel was contemplated by the\nauthor,\" a sequel which the \"first\" (pr\u00f4tos) of Acts i. 1 implies, if\nLuke \"wrote as correct Greek as Paul wrote.\"[274] But the intention of\nwriting a sequel does not explain the failure to mention the outcome of\nthe trial. Luke would have no motive like the writer of a continued\nstory for keeping the reader in suspense, and the simple addition of the\nwords \"until his release or acquittal\" would have relieved the suspense,\nand given \"intelligibility and purpose\" to the detailed description of\nthe earlier stages of the trial. The account of the Ascension is not\nomitted from Luke's Gospel although given in greater detail in the Acts.\nThere is nothing un-philosophical in the abrupt ending of a history\nwhich brings the record down to the date of writing.\n\n  274: \"Paul the Traveller,\" pp. 307-309. The use of \"first\" (\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4os\n  [pr\u00f4tos]) is not decisive, for it is used where there are but two\n  objects in the comparison in Acts xii. 10 (and see vii. 12), Hebrews\n  ix. 8 and 15, Apoc. xx. 5, and even I Corinthians xv. 47.\n\nThe leading argument against an early date for the Acts is drawn from\nthe possible use by Luke of the writings of Josephus, and the crux of\nthe question is in the words put into the mouth of Gamaliel (Acts v. 36,\n37). The coincidence of the names of Theudas and Judas of Galilee (Acts\nv. 36, 37; Antiq. xx. v. 1 and 2) is striking and, if the two men named\nTheudas be identified and Josephus is correct, Luke is guilty of an\nanachronism in putting an allusion to him into the mouth of Gamaliel;\nfor the Theudas of Josephus falls in the time of Fadus who was\nprocurator under Claudius, about 45 A. D. The following points deserve\nto be noticed:\n\n(1) Luke had from Paul, whether or not Paul was present at the meeting\nof the Sanhedrin, the best means of knowing what Gamaliel, his teacher\nand the spokesman of the Pharisaic party, actually said. (2) The\nassumption that Luke was quoting Josephus is in itself very difficult\nwhen we compare the passages. Luke speaks of about four hundred under\nTheudas while Josephus mentions a great part of the people; Luke speaks\nof Judas while Josephus speaks of the sons of Judas. To quote thus\nloosely from his assumed authority and then to commit the further\nblunder of making Gamaliel allude to an event which occurred at least a\ndozen years later is, while possible, strangely out of keeping with\nLuke's proved care and accuracy in most of his historical allusions. The\ndifficulty is acknowledged by those who make Luke dependent on Josephus.\nWhy did Luke diverge from a correct narrative if he had one before him?\nWriters who affirm (Holtzmann) and those who deny (Sch\u00fcrer) the\ndependence on Josephus practically agree that if Luke had read Josephus\nhe had forgotten him. (3) In the narrative of the death of Herod (Acts\nxii. 20 f.; Antiq. xix. viii. 2), where the two authors most obviously\ncome together, both are plainly describing the same event, and yet seem\nto be quite independent both in the use of words and in the details of\nthe description. (4) The cumulative evidence of an early date for Luke\nweighs heavily in the scale against the hypothesis of dependence upon\nthe \"Antiquities\" written about 93 or 94 A. D.\n\nThe question of date cannot be said to be absolutely settled, but the\ntendency of criticism as illustrated by Harnack is to the acceptance of\nan early date, as well as to that of the Lukan authorship of the entire\nbook. It is difficult to see how Harnack, with his present defense of a\ndate before Paul's release from prison, can consistently maintain his\nskepticism where the supernatural events recorded in the Acts are\nconcerned. It is idle to say that his \"revolution in chronology\" has no\neffect upon the question of reliability. It is an established principle\nof historical method that the nearer a tradition is to the event it\nprofesses to describe, the more likely it is to be trustworthy. The\nresources of Harnack's learning have been used in support of the\nreliability of Luke in his geographical and chronological\nreferences,[275] and his treatment of persons and reports of their\nspeeches.[276] He has shown that Luke was in touch with the leaders of\nthe Jerusalem church, and that his statements are abundantly confirmed\nby the writings of Paul. If Luke wrote within the lifetime of Paul, the\nActs was published while the main actors were still living, and, by\ninference, it recorded events as Peter and Barnabas and Apollos and\nPhilip and Mark thought that they happened. If further, as Harnack\nargues, it was written during Paul's imprisonment there seems no room\nfor doubt that it was written under the eye and with the full\nendorsement of its principal actor, and that we have thus the implicit\nguarantee not only of Luke but of Paul also for the accuracy of its\nrecord.\n\n  275: III, p. 97; \"Acts of the Apostles,\" p. 112.\n\n  276: _Ibid._, pp. 101 ff.; E. T., pp. 117 ff.\n\n\nIII. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM\n\nIt has been said that the two most important questions for religion are\nthose of the rational foundations of theism and of the trustworthiness\nof the Four Gospels.[277] The Gospel records have always been regarded as\nthe citadel of the Christian Faith. Not only do they contain the record\nof works of power and words of grace, and of a transcendent Personality,\nbut they have always been considered to have been themselves\nsupernatural in origin and character. They have been regarded as \"a\nhouse not made with hands\" (Robertson Nicoll), \"a miracle of the Holy\nGhost\" (Stier), \"the heaven-drawn picture of Christ, the living Word.\"\nThe criticism of the past century, in its quest for the historical\nJesus, has taken a very different attitude towards the Evangelical\nrecords. By many critics they have been regarded as a patchwork of\ntraditions, a work of pious but credulous men, whose idealization and\nexaggeration, in the supposed interest of faith, it is necessary to\ndiscount in order to reach the bed-rock of historical fact.\n\n  277: Dr. Francis L. Patton, in an address.\n\nThe literary relation of the Synoptic Gospels to one another has\nfurnished to the New Testament student a problem of great intricacy and\nsingular fascination. Its importance for our present purpose is in its\nbearing upon the trustworthiness of our canonical Gospels. The school of\nBaur, under the influence of the Hegelian dialectic, saw in Matthew, the\nJewish Gospel, the thesis; in Luke, the Gentile Gospel, the antithesis;\nand lastly in Mark, the neutral Gospel, the synthesis or last term of\nthe development. Criticism since the time of Baur has, with much\nunanimity, seen in Mark not the latest but the first of the Gospels, and\nhas made Matthew and Luke dependent upon Mark.\n\nThe theory which has for some years held the field is the so-called\n\"two-document\" theory. According to this Matthew and Luke, usually\nregarded as independent of each other, are both dependent, for much of\ntheir narrative portion and for the framework of their history, upon\nMark, and, for the non-Markan discourse material which they have in\ncommon, upon a collection of the sayings of Jesus, formerly designated\nas \"the Logia\" but now usually called by the letter \"Q.\" The importance\nof the Synoptic Problem, for our present purpose, is in its historical\nrather than its literary features. Assuming the priority of Mark, and\nassuming that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon him alone in those\nparts of their narratives which have Markan parallels, it is clear that\nwe must regard all deviations made by the other Synoptists from the\nMarkan narrative as of only secondary value. Variations from Mark, if\nMark be the sole source, whether these consist of additions, omissions\nor modifications in the narrative, obviously add nothing to our\nknowledge of the facts, but simply represent changes which the later\nwriters have made in their source from subjective reasons. It is\nimportant, then, to ask whether, in the present state of opinion upon\nthe inter-Synoptic relations, there is reason to believe that Matthew\nand Luke are following Mark as their sole authority for the narratives\nwhich have Markan parallels.\n\nThere is now a quite general recognition of the fact that the literary\nproblem presented by the Synoptic Gospels is exceedingly intricate, and\nthat the \"two-document\" hypothesis in its simplicity has not solved all\nthe difficulties. It is recognized that it must be modified in one of\nthree directions.\n\n(1) There may be said to be a growing appreciation of the part which\noral transmission has played in the composition of the Gospels. This is\nshown for example in the volume of Oxford \"Studies in the Synoptic\nProblem\" (1911),[278] and by the statement of Sir John Hawkins, who, in\nthe second edition of his \"Hor\u00e6 Synoptic\u00e6\" (1909), expresses the strong\nopinion \"that at least the Second and Third Evangelists had provided\nthemselves with written documents as their main sources, but that they\noften omitted to refer closely to them, partly because of the physical\ndifficulties which there must have been in consulting manuscripts, and\npartly because of the oral knowledge of the life and sayings of Jesus\nChrist which they had previously acquired as learners and used as\nteachers, and upon which therefore it would be natural for them to fall\nback very frequently.\"[279] It is natural to suppose, with Schmiedel,\nthat oral tradition continued for a considerable time after the first\ndocuments were written.[280]\n\n  278: Compare the statement of J. V. Bartlett: \"I am not convinced\n  that there ever was a written 'book of discourses' that has\n  perished\" (p. 360).\n\n  279: \"Hor\u00e6 Synoptic\u00e6,\" 2d ed., p. 217.\n\n  280: Art. \"Gospels,\" Encycl. Bib., vol. ii. col. 1846.\n\n(2) A considerable number of scholars, finding that Mark condenses his\naccount of such incidents as the Baptism and Temptation of Jesus and the\ndiscourse concerning Beelzebub, and that Matthew and Luke are parallel\nin matter which they add at these points to the Markan account, have\nconcluded that Mark must have used Q, the assumed source of the\nMatthew-Luke agreements. A moderate statement is that of Dr. Sanday: \"I\ndo not think that Q was used by Mark regularly and systematically, as\nthe later Evangelists use his own narrative; but he must have known of\nits existence, and reminiscences of it seem to have clung to him and\nfrom time to time made their way into his text.\" [281]\n\n  281: \"Studies in the Synoptic Problem,\" pp. xvi, xvii.\n\n(3) Another group of scholars, basing their view on the agreement of\nMatthew and Luke against Mark in matter with Markan parallels, and on\nthe difficulty of accounting for some omissions from Mark in the later\nEvangelists (such as the omission in Luke, where it would be most\nappropriate, of the story about the Syro-Phoenician woman), have framed a\ntheory of different recensions in Mark, one being used by Matthew, a\ndifferent one by Luke, and a final recension, whether the work of the\nEvangelist himself or of an editor, representing our canonical Mark.\nThis theory in different forms has been advocated by Stanton in his\n\"Gospels as Historical Documents,\" Part II (1909), and more recently by\nHoldsworth in his \"Gospel Origins\" (1913). When the two-document theory\nis held in this form, the priority of Mark belongs only to the assumed\nearlier editions, for whose extent and contents there is no objective\nevidence except the assumed dependence, while our canonical Mark is\nlater than either Matthew or Luke.\n\nThere is a growing tendency to find secondary elements in Mark as well\nas in Matthew or Luke. Hawkins, it will be recalled, gives a list of\npassages in Mark \"which may have been omitted or altered (by the other\nEvangelists) as being liable to be misunderstood, or to give offense, or\nto suggest difficulties.\"[282] Of the passages which seem (a) to limit\nthe power of Jesus, or (b) to be otherwise derogatory to, or unworthy of\nHim, the more noteworthy of the twenty-two instances given by Hawkins\nare as follows: under (a),\n\n  282: \"Hor\u00e6 Synoptic\u00e6,\" 2d ed., pp. 117 f.\n\n1. Mark i. 32-34, \"He healed many that were sick.\" Matthew viii. 16, \"He\nhealed all\"; cf. Luke iv. 40, \"Every one of them.\"\n\n3. Mark vi. 5, \"He could there do no mighty work, save etc.\" Matthew\nxiii. 58, \"He did not many mighty works there because of their\nunbelief.\"\n\nUnder (b),\n\n2. Mark i. 12, \"The Spirit driveth him forth.\" Matthew and Luke use\nwords meaning to \"lead.\"\n\n4. Mark iii. 21, \"They said he is beside himself.\" This is omitted by\nMatthew and Luke.\n\n10. Mark x. 17, 18, \"Good Master\" and \"Why callest thou me good?\" appear\nin Matthew xix. 16, 17 (R. V.) as \"Master\" and \"Why askest thou me\nconcerning that which is good?\" Luke follows Mark.\n\nOver against these passages may be placed others where the change, if\nany, and whether made unconsciously or for reasons of style or with\nconscious tendency, would seem to be in the other direction.\n\n1. In the Parable of the Vineyard, Matthew xxi. 37, \"My son.\" Luke xx.\n13, \"My beloved son.\" Mark xii. 6, \"He had yet one, a beloved son.\"\n\n2. Matthew x. 42, \"A cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple.\"\nCompare Mark ix. 41, \"In name because ye are of Christ.\"\n\n3. Luke xxiii. 47, \"Certainly this was a righteous man.\" Mark xv. 39,\n\"Truly this man was the Son of God,\" or \"a son of God.\" Matthew xxvii.\n54 follows Mark.\n\n4. (According to Bousset) Mark's abbreviation of Q in iii. 27 makes it\nappear that it was Jesus who bound the strong man, instead of God.[283]\n\n  283: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 49.\n\n5. Matthew xiii. 55, \"Is not this the carpenter's son?\" Compare Luke iv.\n22, \"Is not this Joseph's son?\" Mark vi. 3, \"Is not this the carpenter,\nthe son of Mary?\" Belief in the Virgin Birth is perhaps safeguarded by\nMark.\n\n6. Mark x. 45, \"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, etc.\"\nHere Bousset sees a dogmatic working over of Luke xxii. 27, \"I am among\nyou as one that serves.\"[284] Matthew xx. 28 follows Mark.\n\n  284: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 9, note 1.\n\nSo far as tendency to Christological heightening is concerned, critics\nof the school of Bousset are now especially severe against Mark. It\nappears that \"Luke's Gospel in the Passion history has preserved a\nseries of primary traditions over against Mark.\"[285] Holdsworth finds a\nnumber of secondary elements, mostly stylistic, in Mark where the three\nGospels have a common narrative. Among these are the vivid touches of\nthe second Gospel, considered to be \"distinctly secondary features,\" the\nfuller descriptions in many instances, and the use of the noun \"gospel\"\nnot found at all in Luke although the verb is used, and not found in\nMatthew in its absolute sense.[286]\n\n  285: \"Kyrios Christos,\" p. 44.\n\n  286: \"Gospel Origins,\" pp. 118 f.\n\nTaking, then, the present state of opinion as to the relation of our\nMark to the other Gospels, we see that while in general the \"priority of\nMark\" is in some sense defended, yet the relation between any given\npassage in Matthew or Luke and its parallel in Mark may be variously\nconstrued. When Matthew, for example, deviates from Mark, this\nmodification according to current theories may arise (1) from the first\nEvangelist's fancy or his dogmatic tendency, and will in either case be\nhistorically worthless. It may arise (2) from reliable oral tradition,\nand in this case be as worthy of credence as the Markan source. It may\nbe derived (3) from the source Q, but may be for some reason omitted by\nMark, whose knowledge of Q is assumed. The deviation in Matthew may (4)\nhave been found in a proto- or deutero-Mark, but have been omitted in his\nfinal edition. The difference in this case between Matthew and Mark is\nno greater than that between two editions of the same work.\n\nThe point to be emphasized is that, in the present state of opinion upon\nthe Synoptic problem, the difference of one Evangelist from another does\nnot in itself invalidate the testimony of either. The Synoptic problem,\nwhile primarily a literary problem, is indeed \"fraught with momentous\nissues which the Church, and not scientific criticism only, is concerned\nto face\";[287] but in the present state of the discussion, the fact that\nMatthew adds to or modifies the narrative of Mark does not necessarily\nplace the Matthean modification upon a lower plane of credibility than\nthe Markan statement. The Matthean modification may be an exact copy of\nan earlier edition of Mark, or may be derived from one of Mark's\nsources, Q, or may be taken from that stream of oral tradition coming\nfrom \"eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,\" which Luke in his\npreface evidently regarded as the touchstone of historical truth,\nwhatever his use of written sources.\n\n  287: H. L. Jackson, in \"Cambridge Biblical Essays,\" 1909, p. 432.\n\nPassing over the vexed question of Q, we may observe that the acceptance\nof Harnack's early dating of the Acts and Luke would further complicate\nthe two-document theory. He agrees that Luke was written before the\nActs, and the Acts before Paul's trial at Rome was decided; further that\nMark is one of the sources of Luke, and that Mark was written at Rome.\n\"Tradition asserts no veto against the hypothesis that Luke, when he met\nMark in the company of Paul the prisoner, was permitted by him to peruse\na written record of the Gospel history which was essentially identical\nwith the Gospel of Mark given to the Church at a later time.\" Perhaps,\nhe intimates, \"Luke was not yet acquainted with Mark's final revision,\nwhich, as we can quite well imagine, Mark undertook while in Rome.\"[288]\nThe priority of Mark, under this supposition, is left hanging by a\nslender thread. It is highly probable that Luke gathered the material\nfor his work (and a great part of it was certainly independent of Mark)\nwhile in Palestine, and if he did not see Mark's Gospel, or a rough\ndraft of it, until he was in Rome, it is improbable that the Markan\ndocument was his primary and principal source, as the two-document\ntheory asserts.\n\n  288: IV, p. 93; \"Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels,\"\n  p. 133.\n\nWhatever the literary foundation of the two-document theory, it cannot\nbe said to have led to any very important historical results. Those who\nregard the portrait of Jesus in Mark as historical see in the portrayal\nof Matthew and Luke only a difference in the _nuances_ of the narrative.\nOn the other hand, those who cannot accept the picture drawn by the\nFirst and the Third Evangelists are equally unable to accept that given\nto us by Mark. The criticism of the sources, in its usual form, has not\nrevealed to us a Jesus who is more historical than the Jesus of any of\nthe Synoptists; and it is necessary to pursue the quest in the more\nproblematical region of \"sources of sources.\" In this process Mark is\nfound to be as little historical as the other Synoptic Gospels, or even\nas the Gospel of John.\n\nThe \"dissonances of the Evangelists\" appear to be left practically where\nthey were before the present movement in Synoptic criticism began. They\nremain what they always have been when one Gospel is compared with\nanother, and are neither softened nor made more acute by any certain\nresults which have been reached in the study of the Synoptic problem.\nSome, no doubt, may say that the discrepancies are so great that the\nSynoptic Gospels cannot be accepted as historical records; while others\nwill say, as does a devout commentator on the Acts, that \"such is the\nnaturalness of Holy Scripture that it seems as though it were\nindifferent about a superficial consistency. So it ever is with truth:\nits harmony is often veiled and hidden; while falsehood sometimes\nbetrays itself, to a practised ear, by a studied and ostentatious\nuniformity.\"[289] Others again will appeal to the writers on historical\nmethod, such as Langlois and Seignobos: \"The natural tendency is to\nthink that the closer the agreement is, the greater is its demonstrative\npower; we ought, on the contrary, to adopt as a rule the paradox that an\nagreement proves more when it is confined to a small number of\ncircumstances. It is at such points of coincidence between diverging\nstatements that we are to look for scientifically established historical\nfacts.\"[290] The inter-Synoptic differences are certainly, in general, no\ngreater than those which a single author allowed himself in the accounts\nof the same incident, as is shown in Luke's threefold account of the\nconversion of the Apostle Paul.\n\n  289: C. J. Vaughan: \"The Church of the First Days,\" p. 547.\n\n  290: \"Introduction to the Study of History,\" pp. 201, 202.\n\n\nIV. THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM\n\nIt is scarcely surprising that the mystery which surrounds the most\nmysterious Personality in history should communicate itself to the\nrecords which tell of His life, and even to the authors of these\nrecords. If the Synoptic problem is a \"well,\" as Goethe said, the\nproblem presented by the \"spiritual Gospel\" usually assigned to the\nApostle John is equally fascinating and difficult. The mystery of the\nMaster has in part enveloped the disciple whom Jesus loved.\n\nThe questions of the authorship and the historicity of the Fourth Gospel\nare closely bound together. If the Gospel is a theological romance\nintended to give currency to the conceptions of the Alexandrian\nphilosophy, it is clear that its authorship cannot be ascribed to one of\nthe disciples of Jesus. On the other hand, if it was written by one of\nthe Apostolic band, it must certainly, whether reliable or not in its\ndetails, contain a wealth of historical reminiscence which will enrich\nour knowledge of the personality, the words and the deeds of Christ.\n\nIt is an interesting fact that a strong defense of the Apostolic\nauthorship of the Gospel has been made, in the present generation and in\nthe one which preceded it, by writers whose theological position would\nincline them to an opposite conclusion.[291] The strength of the evidence\nfor Johannine authorship lies in the testimony which it receives from\nall parts of the early church, whether divisions be made on geographical\nor theological lines, and in the links of connection which bind the\nwitnesses to the alleged scene of John's labours and to the Apostle\nhimself.\n\n  291: Ezra Abbot, 1880 (see \"The Fourth Gospel,\" by Abbot, Peabody\n  and Lightfoot, 1891) and James Drummond: \"Character and Authorship\n  of the Fourth Gospel,\" 1904.\n\nIf it be objected that John, as a Galilean fisherman and an unlettered\nman, could not have produced a work so profound in thought and so\npolished in Greek composition, the objection may be compared with that\nwhich is raised against the authorship of the plays which go under the\nname of Shakespeare. Andrew Lang remarks with irony upon the surprising\nbelief that \"a young man from a little country town, and later an actor,\ncould possibly possess Shakespeare's vast treasures of general\ninformation, or Latin enough to have read the Roman classics.\"[292]\n\n  292: \"A New Theory of Shakespeare,\" _Independent_, December 22, 1910,\n  p. 1373.\n\nThe external evidence for Johannine authorship is strong and, with the\nexception of the obscure sect of the \"Alogi,\"[293] is uniform. It is\n\"sufficient,\" and there can be little doubt that it would be efficient\nin producing general belief except for the theological interests\ninvolved. Objections to the Apostolic authorship from the side of the\nexternal evidence are based (1) upon supposed indications that John was\nmartyred with James at Jerusalem and never lived in Ephesus at all, and\n(2) upon the statement of Papias, interpreted to mean that two men by\nthe name of John lived in Ephesus. (1) The evidence upon the first point\nis confessedly late and confused. It is contained in the statements of\nGeorgios Hamartolos, a ninth-century writer, and in the so-called \"De\nBoor Fragment,\" purporting to contain an extract from a fifth-century\nwriter, Philip of Side. The former says that Nerva, \"having recalled\nJohn from the island, dismissed him to live in Ephesus. Then, being the\nonly survivor of the twelve disciples, and having composed the Gospel\naccording to him, he has been deemed worthy of martyrdom. For Papias,\nthe Bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of him, says in the\nsecond book of the 'Oracles of the Lord,' that he was slain by the Jews,\nhaving, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the prediction of\nChrist concerning him, and his own confession and assent in regard to\nthis.\" He adds that the learned Origen, in his commentary on Matthew,\n\"affirms that John \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd [memartyr\u00eaken] (has borne witness, or\nsuffered martyrdom), intimating that he had learned this from the\nsuccessors of the Apostles.\"[294] But Origen, in his comment on Matthew\nxx. 23, says that \"the king of the Romans, as tradition teaches,\ncondemned John, witnessing for the truth, to the island of Patmos.\" If\nGeorgios Hamartolos thus incorrectly refers to Origen as a witness to\nthe martyrdom of John, less weight attaches to his professed\nreproduction of the statement of Papias.\n\n  293: Epiphanius: \"Haer.,\" li.\n\n  294: See F. W. Worsley: \"The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists,\" 1909,\n  pp. 174 f.\n\nThe \"De Boor Fragment\" contains the statement that \"Papias, in the\nsecond book, says that John the Divine and James his brother were slain\nby the Jews.\"[295] This supports the statement of the ninth-century\nwriter in regard to the second book of Papias, but the evidence, whether\nfor the martyrdom of John by the Jews, or for the fact that John was put\nto death at the same time with his brother James, as is sometimes\ninferred, is exceedingly slight. Paul (Gal. ii. 9) speaks of John at a\ntime usually identified with the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.),\nalthough Ramsay would identify it with Acts xi. 30, thus placing it\nimmediately before the death of James (Acts xii. 2). The statement of\nGeorgios that John lived in Ephesus at the time of Nerva also negatives\nthis supposition. Of the slightly attested view that John was martyred\nat an early date, Dr. Dawson Walker remarks: \"It is difficult to think\nthat this latter hypothesis would have met with so great favour if it\nhad not been such an effective instrument in excluding St. John from any\npossibility of being the writer of the Fourth Gospel.\"[296] The\nstatements that John was put to death by the Jews may possibly be an\ninference from the prophecy, \"The cup that I drink ye shall drink, etc.\"\n(Mark x. 39).\n\n  295: \"Texte und Untersuchungen,\" v. 2, p. 170.\n\n  296: \"Present Day Criticism,\" _Expositor_, March, 1912, p. 251. For\n  the statement of a Syriac calendar (411 A.D.) commemorating \"John\n  and James the Apostles at Jerusalem\" as martyrs on 27th December,\n  see Allen and Grensted: \"Introduction to the Books of the New\n  Testament,\" 1913, p. 94.\n\n(2) A mediating theory, based upon the well-known statement of\nPapias[297] in which a \"presbyter\" John may, with much probability, be\ndistinguished from the Apostle of that name, does not deny the influence\nof the Apostle upon the construction of the Fourth Gospel, while its\nultimate authorship is assigned to the \"presbyter\" John. The hypothesis\nof the two Johns rests upon the statement of Papias' fragment as\ninterpreted by Eusebius; but Eusebius, while suggesting that the\n\"presbyter\" might have written the Apocalypse, indicates no doubt of the\nApostolic authorship of the Gospel and the First Epistle. The\npossibility that there were two Johns, who were both in some sense\ndisciples of the Lord (as Papias describes the \"presbyter\"), who both\nlived in Asia Minor, and who were both more or less concerned in the\nwriting of the Fourth Gospel, cannot be denied. But it is also possible\nthat Papias has been misinterpreted, and that, when he described the\n\"presbyter\" John, the disciple of the Lord, he had only the Apostle John\nin mind. In this case we should be freed from the necessity, involved in\nthe theory of authorship we are considering, of supposing that the\nApostle had a mysterious _alter ego_ of the same name, who was with him\nalike in Palestine and in Asia Minor, shared in a degree his authority\nand published the substance of his teaching, and so completely merged\nhis personality in that of the Apostle that in the Gospel record no\ntrace of a separate \"presbyter\" can be found, and there is no mention of\nthe name of either John.\n\n  297: Eusebius: \"Hist. Eccl.,\" iii. 39. \"What was said ... by John or\n  Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and\n  the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.\" The argument\n  for two Johns is based upon the fact that the name is mentioned\n  twice and that different tenses are used.\n\nThe First Epistle, supposed to be a sort of supplement to the Gospel, is\nof importance in its bearing upon the question of authorship. As a\nrecent writer says: \"The persistent note of authority which is\noverheard, rather than heard, in the Epistles is the more impressive\nbecause it is only implied. St. John assumes that his authority is\nunquestioned and unquestionable by those Asians who are loyal to the\nChristian tradition. When we compare his letters with those of his\nyounger contemporaries, we conclude that it was unquestionably because\nhe was an Apostle.\"[298]\n\n  298: Rev. H. J. Bardsley: \"The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to\n  the Authorship of 'St. John,'\" _Journal of Theological Studies_,\n  Vol. XIV, No. 56, July, 1913, p. 491.\n\nAnother mediating position, adopted by those who do not accept the full\nApostolic authorship, is found in a theory of partition, which assigns a\nportion of the Gospel to the Apostle. The artistic unity of the Gospel\nand the qualities of style which distinguish it from other writings\npresent a grave difficulty to any theory of partition. As a sort of\nhalf-way house it will scarcely be permanently tenable. Of Spitta's\nanalysis, which assigns a part of the Gospel to the Apostle, it has been\nobjected by a critic of more radical sympathies that such an admission\nplaces him outside the limits of scientific criticism.[299]\n\n  299: C. A. Bernoulli, in appendix to Overbeck's \"Johannesevangelium,\"\n  1911, pp. 504, 505.\n\nThe stronghold of the evidence alike for and against the Johannine\nauthorship is to be found in the facts of the Gospel itself. On the one\nhand a powerful argument, such as that which has been developed by\nLightfoot and Westcott, can be drawn to show that the author of the\nGospel must have been a Jew, a Jew of Palestine, a disciple of Jesus,\none of the inner circle of disciples, and in fact none other than the\n\"beloved disciple\" himself. The internal facts of the Gospel are used in\na different way by others to show that the Fourth Gospel differs so\nradically in scene, in the style of its discourses, and indeed in its\nentire portrait of Jesus, that it cannot be accepted as historical, or\nas the work of one of the disciples.\n\nThe difference in scene between the Galilean Gospels and the Jerusalem\nGospel presents no great difficulty, but the crux of the problem is in\nthe difference in style and subject matter. The Jesus of the Synoptics\ncannot, it is said, have spoken in the style of the discourses in John.\nBefore this judgment can be accepted without qualification, several\npoints deserve to be noticed. The difference in style is in part\naccounted for by the difference in subject matter and in the character\nof the audience. There are out-croppings of the Johannine style in the\nSynoptics, especially where the subject of discourse is similar. The\npassage, Matthew xi. 25-30, which, as we have seen, contains the\nessential teachings found in John xiv., is a notable illustration. The\nJerusalem audience again was different from the Galilean audience. If it\nbe said that when the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel speaks in Galilee (John\nvi.) He uses the same mystical style as when He speaks in Jerusalem, it\nshould at least be considered that the discourse in Capernaum is not\ngiven as a sample of the usual synagogue preaching of Jesus. The scene\nclearly marks a crisis in the ministry, a crisis indicated in the other\nGospels by the northern journey for retirement which immediately\nfollowed, but made more intelligible by the supposition that the\nCapernaum discourse was practically a clearer revelation to the Galilean\naudience of the consciousness of Jesus and the spiritual character of\nHis work. When we recall that such expressions, familiar to John, as\n_Logos_, Lamb of God, propitiation for sin, are never placed by John in\nthe mouth of Jesus, we have strong negative evidence that the discourses\nof Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are not the free composition of the author\nhimself.\n\nAfter all, the question of the style of the Fourth Gospel is not so\nimportant as that of its contents. Does it draw an essentially different\npicture of Jesus from that of the Synoptic writers, or does it help us\nto fill out and to interpret the Synoptic portrait? Two considerations\nof a general nature should be kept in mind. Ordinary readers of the\nGospels in all ages have seen no lack of unity in the composite portrait\nof the four Gospels; and recent criticism has shown that even to the\nsharp sighted modern critic the harmony is so great that one who rejects\nthe historical character of John's Gospel will also reject the Second\nGospel, which was written from the standpoint that Jesus is the Son of\nGod (so Bousset), and is to be distinguished from the Fourth Gospel in\ndegree (_graduel_) rather than in essence. The aim of Mark, and there is\nno reason to doubt that he reaches his aim, is in fact the same as that\nof John, so far as concerns his desire that his readers may believe that\nJesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John xx. 31).\n\nIf what the Synoptic Gospels say is true as to the words and the works\nand the claims and the consciousness of Jesus, then we should expect\nsome such supplement as we find in John. We should expect either more or\nless than we find in the Synoptic Gospels. When we read of the Divine\nVoice at the baptism and the transfiguration, we ask, What did Jesus\nHimself conceive His relation to God to be? The full answer is in John.\nWhen we read, \"Where two or three are gathered together in my name,\nthere am I in the midst of them\" (Matt. xviii. 20), we should expect\nfuller teaching on the relation of Jesus to the disciples. This we have\nin the last discourses in John. When we read in the Synoptists accounts\nof the teaching and the mighty works, we turn to John for the full\ndescription of the Teacher and Lord, and of the mighty Worker\nmanifesting His glory. The Synoptic Gospels tell us of the authority of\nJesus and of His office of judgment and of His founding a Church. In\nJohn we see the ground of His authority in His relation to God and in\nHis mystical relation to the disciples. In the Synoptists we have the\nLast Supper and general prophecies of the future and commands for the\nguidance of the Church. We should expect some more intimate and personal\nrevelation of His relation to the disciples, such as is furnished by the\nJohannine picture of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and in the words,\n\"Woman, behold thy son\" (John xix. 26, 27); and in the intimate\ndiscourse of John xiv.-xvi. When we read, once more, that Jesus often\nretired for prayer, but in the Synoptic Gospels have the record of only\none or two of His petitions: \"Remove this cup from me.... Thy will be\ndone\" (see Luke xxii. 42 and compare xxii. 32), we expect some such\nenrichment of our knowledge of the prayer-life of Jesus as is contained\nin John xvii.\n\nThe historical character of the Fourth Gospel is shown alike by the\nlight which it throws upon the course of events in the public ministry\nand by the more subtle resemblances between John and the Synoptists, so\ndifferent in emphasis and shading that John's account cannot well have\nbeen due to Synoptic tradition, and yet so much in agreement as to give\nconfidence that the same course of events underlies both accounts. If we\nlook at the outward course of events under the guidance of writers such\nas Askwith[300] or A. E. Brooks,[301] we see that John's picture of the\nearliest disciples in Judea may throw light upon the narrative of the\ncall of the four (Mark i. 16 f.). The crisis in the ministry, indicated\nrather than explained in the Markan narrative, is more intelligible in\nthe light of John vi. The hosannas of the Triumphal Entry into\nJerusalem, as well as the settled determination of the rulers to put\nJesus to death, can be better understood with the help of John's\nstatements about Lazarus (see John xii. 9-11); and the accusation of the\nwitnesses, \"We heard him say I will destroy this temple\" (Mark xiv. 58),\nand the weeping of Jesus over Jerusalem (Matt, xxiii. 37) are again more\nintelligible in view of the Johannine statements about the temple of His\nbody (John ii. 20, 21), and the accounts of His frequent visits to\nJerusalem.\n\n  300: \"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel,\" 1910. From the\n  Synoptists, he says, we do not learn of disciples of the Baptist\n  becoming disciples of Jesus. \"But if the work of the Baptist was\n  what the Synoptists declare it to have been, namely, to prepare the\n  way for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that this work,\n  faithfully carried out, could have failed of this result--to supply\n  disciples for Him\" (p. 59).\n\n  301: \"Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel,\" in \"Cambridge Biblical\n  Essays.\" The best explanation of the silence of the Synoptists upon\n  the raising of Lazarus is still that given by Holdsworth, \"Gospel\n  Origins,\" p. 126: \"Every missionary knows that to mention the names\n  of converts in published accounts of their work among a people\n  hostile to Christianity is fraught with peril to those who are\n  mentioned.... The difficult question of the appearance in the Fourth\n  Gospel of the raising of Lazarus finds its best explanation in an\n  application of this rule.... Although the Synoptists record the\n  saying of Christ that the name of the woman who broke the bottle of\n  spikenard ... should be mentioned [or rather her deed] wherever the\n  Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never mentioned by them.\" Long\n  afterwards John mentions Mary's name.\n\nRelationships of a more subtle kind may be found when John is compared\nwith the Synoptic Gospels. (1) The relation of Jesus to His mother is\nthe same in both. Compare Luke ii. 49, \"Knew ye not that I must be in\nthe things of my Father\"; and John ii. 4, \"Woman, what have I to do\nwith thee?\" The relation with His brethren is also the same, their right\nto influence Him not being admitted. (2) The causes of opposition are\ndifferently described, but are the same in principle. In both Mark ii.\nand John v., the charges against Him are those of blasphemy and Sabbath\nbreaking, and in both cases are made in connection with the miracle of\nhealing. His defense of His action in healing on the Sabbath day is the\nsame in principle but different in detail. In both there is an _\u00e0\nfortiori_ argument: \"How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!\"\n(Matt. xii. 12); \"If a man receive circumcision on the Sabbath ... are\nye wroth with me because I made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath?\"\n(John vii. 23). In both cases His action is defended by reference to His\nunique position, in the one case in His relation to God, \"My Father\nworketh hitherto\" (John v. 17); and in the other case in His relation to\nmen, \"The Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath\" (Mark ii. 28). (3) The\nrelation of Jesus to various classes of people as described by John is\nremarkably different in detail, but wonderfully similar in essence, when\ncompared with the Synoptic record. In each with entire difference of\nscene and circumstance He meets with a woman that was a sinner, but the\nessentials of penitence and the public expression of gratitude are\nsimilar in both (Luke vii. 37 f.; John iv. 7 f.). No narratives could be\nmore independent of each other than those of the conversation with\nNicodemus in John iii., and with the rich young ruler in Mark x., yet in\nboth cases the attitude of Jesus towards an influential and upright and\nreligious man was the same. In spite of difference in language also, the\nwords to Nicodemus, \"Ye must be born again\" (John iii. 7), do not differ\nin their radical demands from the words addressed to the ruler, \"One\nthing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast and come, follow me\"\n(Mark x. 21).\n\nThe comparison might be continued indefinitely, but only to show that\nthe picture of Jesus and of His relation to the Father, and to His\ndisciples, to publicans and sinners, to the Pharisees, to women, and to\nthe human race as Saviour and Judge, is so different in John that it\ncannot be due merely to the influence of the Synoptic tradition, and yet\nso identical in substance that it cannot possibly, with any regard for\nliterary probabilities, have been the free invention of the writer.\n\nIt is generally agreed that the writer of the Fourth Gospel took for\ngranted in his readers an acquaintance with the narrative or the\ntradition of the Synoptic Gospels. He would not have written unless he\nhad some new light to throw upon the figure of Jesus, or some deeper\ninsight into His personality and work. The photograph and the portrait\nmay not perhaps agree in their mechanical measurements, but to one who\nknows the subject the portrait may reproduce the original as faithfully,\nand even more adequately, than does the photograph. Each is useful for\nits own purpose, but both together are needed to give us the body and\nthe soul, the exact features and the expression, the total impression of\nthe personality.\n\nThe criticism of the Gospels has thrown the figure of Jesus into strong\nrelief, not only against the background of His time, but against the\nbackground of humanity in general. In its recent developments, it has\nleft us practically with the choice between the Christ of the four\nGospels or a shadowy figure to be found in none of them. The true\nhistorical Jesus that criticism has brought before us is clad in the\ncoarse garments of Galilee, but with the glory of the only-begotten of\nthe Father, full of grace and truth.\n\nThe searchlight of modern knowledge is the fierce light that beats upon\nthe throne. As nature and the human soul and the relationships of\nthought and the phenomena of religion and the book of revelation are\nmore fully studied, the majesty and beauty of the central Figure in\nhistory is more clearly revealed. Each age sees a new glory in Jesus\nChrist. \"It is one of the evidences of the moral greatness of Jesus,\"\nsays Peabody, \"that each period in Christian history, each social or\npolitical change, has brought to view some new aspect of His character\nand given Him a new claim to reverence.\" The modern age sees in Him and\nin His Cross of love and sacrifice the guide and inspiration of its\nethical and social advance. It sees in Him and in His Cross the\nsolution, so far as ultimate solution may be possible, of its deepest\nintellectual problems. It sees in Him not merely a Guide and a Revealer,\nbut a Redeemer from sin and the Giver of Eternal Life.\n\n\n\n\nBibliography of Recent Important Works\n\n\n_For Chapter I_\n\n  HARNACK, A. Das Wesen des Christentums, 1900, 2d ed., 1908;\n     What is Christianity? 1901, 2d ed., 1910. Spr\u00fcche und Reden\n     Jesu, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908.\n\n     Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, 2 vols., 1911.\n\n  LOISY, A. L'\u00c9vangile et l'\u00c9glise, 3d ed., 1904; The Church and\n     the Gospel, 1903.\n\n  BOUSSET, W. Was wissen wir von Jesus? 1904.\n\n     Kyrios Christos; Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den\n     Anf\u00e4ngen des Christentums his Iren\u00e6us, 1913.\n\n  SCHUMACHER, H. Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mat 11, 27 (Luc\n     10, 22), 1912 (Freiburger Theologische Studien, Heft 6).\n\n  SCHWEITZER, A. Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906; The Quest of the\n     Historical Jesus, 1910.\n\n  DREWS, A. Die Christusmythe, 4th ed., 1911; The Christ-Myth,\n     3d ed., 1910.\n\n  WARFIELD, B. B. The Lord of Glory, 1907; and recent articles in\n     theological reviews.\n\n  THORBURN, T. J. Jesus the Christ: Historical or Mythical? 1912.\n\n\n_For Chapter II_\n\n  Darwin and Modern Science. Edited by A. C. Seward, 1909.\n     Anniversary Volume by Various Authors.\n\n  Fifty Years of Darwinism, 1909. Anniversary Volume by Various\n     Authors.\n\n  WEISMANN, A. The Evolution Theory, 2 vols., 1904.\n\n  WALLACE, A. R. The World of Life, 1911. Man's Place in the\n     Universe, 3d ed., 1905.\n\n  MORGAN, T. H. Evolution and Adaptation, 1908.\n\n  HENDERSON, L. J. The Fitness of the Environment, 1913.\n\n  THOMSON, J. A. The Bible of Nature, 1908.\n\n  MERX, J. T. History of European Thought in the Nineteenth\n     Century. Vol. II, 1903.\n\n  HERBERT, S. First Principles of Evolution, 1913.\n\n\n_For Chapter III_\n\n  JAMES, W. Varieties of Religious Experience, 1903. The Will to\n     Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 1902.\n\n  STARBUCK, E. D. The Psychology of Religion, 1900.\n\n  AMES, E. C. The Psychology of Religious Experience, 1910.\n\n  LEUBA, J. H. A Psychological Study of Religion, 1912.\n\n  PRATT, J. B. The Psychology of Religious Belief, 1907.\n\n  STEVENS, GEORGE. The Psychology of the Christian Soul, 1911.\n\n  ROYCE, J. The Sources of Religious Insight, 1912.\n\n  BEGBIE, H. Twice-Born Men, 1909.\n\n  JASTROW, JOSEPH. The Subconscious, 1906.\n\n  COE, GEORGE A. The Religion of a Mature Mind, 1902.\n\n  HALL, G. STANLEY. Adolescence, 1904.\n\n\n_For Chapter IV_\n\n  BERGSON, HENRI. L'\u00c9volution Cr\u00e9atrice, 7th ed., 1911; Creative\n     Evolution, 1911.\n\n  LEROY, EDOUARD. The New Philosophy of Henri Bergson, 1913.\n\n  EUCKEN, RUDOLF. Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion, 3d ed., 1912;\n     The Truth of Religion, 2d Eng. from 3d German ed., 1913.\n\n     K\u00f6nnen wir noch Christen sein? 1911; Can We Still Be\n     Christians? 1914.\n\n  JONES, W. TUDOR. An Interpretation of Rudolf Eucken's\n     Philosophy, 1912.\n\n  HERMANN, E. Eucken and Bergson: Their Significance for\n     Christian Thought, 1912.\n\n  GIBSON, W. R. BOYCE. Rudolf Eucken's Philosophy of Life, 3d\n     ed., 1912.\n\n  WARD, JAMES. The Realm of Ends, 1911.\n\n  ROYCE, JOSIAH. William James and Other Essays, 1911.\n\n     The Problem of Christianity, 2 vols., 1913.\n\n\n_For Chapter V_\n\n  CLEMEN, CARL. Religionsgeschichtliche Erkl\u00e4rung des Neuen\n     Testaments, 1909; Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish\n     Sources, 1912.\n\n     Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das \u00e4lteste\n     Christentum, 1913.\n\n  REITZENSTEIN, R. Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-\u00e4gyptischen\n     und fr\u00fchchristlichen Literatur, 1904. Die Hellenistische\n     Mysterienreligionen, 1910.\n\n  CUMONT, F. Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain,\n     2d ed., 1909; The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, 1911.\n\n  KENNEDY, H. A. A. St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 1913.\n\n  MEAD, G. R. S. Thrice Greatest Hermes, 3 vols., 1906.\n\n  FOWLER, W. WARDE. The Religious Experience of the Roman People,\n     1911.\n\n  MACKENZIE, W. D. The Final Faith, 1910.\n\n  MARETT, R. R. The Threshold of Religion, 1914.\n\n  Religionsgeschtliche Volksb\u00fccher, begun in 1904.\n\n\n_For Chapter VI_\n\n  ORR, JAMES. The Problem of the Old Testament, 1906.\n\n  HARNACK, A. Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: I.\n     Lukas der Arzt, 1906 (Luke the Physician, 1907); II. Spr\u00fcche\n     und Reden Jesu, 1907 (The Sayings of Jesus, 1908); III. Die\n     Apostelgeschichte, 1908 (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909); IV.\n     Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur\n     Abfassungszeit der Synoptischen Evangelien, 1911 (The Date of\n     the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911).\n\n  RAMSAY, SIR W. M. Pauline and Other Studies in Early Church\n     History, 1906.\n\n  KOCH, HEINRICH. Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen\n     Geschichtswerkes, 1911.\n\n  SANDAY, W. (ED.). Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 1911. The\n     Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905.\n\n  STANTON, VINCENT H. The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part\n     II, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909.\n\n  HOLDSWORTH, W. W. Gospel Origins: A Study in the Synoptic\n     Problem, 1913.\n\n  HAWKINS, SIR JOHN C. Hor\u00e6 Synoptic\u00e6, 2d ed., 1909.\n\n  MOFFATT, JAMES. An Introduction to the Literature of the New\n     Testament, 1911.\n\n  ALLEN, W. C. and GRENSTED, L. W. Introduction to the Books of\n     the New Testament, 1913.\n\n  DRUMMOND, JAMES. An Inquiry Into the Character and Authorship\n     of the Fourth Gospel, 1904.\n\n  BACON, BENJAMIN W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate,\n     1910.\n\n  WORSLEY, F. W. The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists, 1909.\n\n  SCHAEFER, ALOYS. Enileitung in das Neue Testament, 1913.\n\n\n\n\nIndex\n\n\n    Abbot, Ezra, 228\n\n    Absolute, the, 125, 127, 147, 162\n\n    Activism, 138, 139\n\n    Acts of the Apostles, credibility of, 206-210, 215-216;\n      authorship of, 209;\n      date of, 210-215\n\n    Adolescence and conversion, 107-110\n\n    Adonis, 166\n\n    Allen, Grant, 58\n\n    Allen and Grensted, 232\n\n    Ames, E. C., 115, 117\n\n    Arrhenius, S. A., 76\n\n    Askwith, E. H., 238\n\n    Atonement, 157-160\n\n    Augustine, 93, 94, 98-99, 110\n\n\n    Bacon, B. W., 35\n\n    Baldwin, J. M., 63\n\n    Bardsley, H. J., 233\n\n    Bartlett, J. V., 219\n\n    Bateson, W., 65\n\n    Baur, F. C., 203, 204, 217\n\n    Begbie, H., 96\n\n    Bergson, H., 62, 63, 69, 73, 127-137, 146, 163\n\n    Bernoulli, C. A., 234\n\n    Booth, M., 144\n\n    Bousset, W., 20, 35, 38, 40-42, 46, 48, 174-176, 184, 188, 222, 223\n\n    Brooks, A. E., 238\n\n    Brooks, Phillips, 29\n\n    Browning, R., 162\n\n    Buddhism, 170\n\n\n    Carlyle, T., 43, 119\n\n    Carter, J. B., 96\n\n    Cheyne, T. K., 168\n\n    Christian experience, 53, 144;\n      evidence of, 122-124\n\n    Christianity, essence of, 15, 26, 27, 54;\n      of the New Testament writers, 16-21;\n      primitive and Pauline, 21-26;\n      of Jesus and Paul, 26-34;\n      doctrinal, 52, 54-55, 157-158;\n      Eucken's relation to, 142-145;\n      what is vital in, 156-158;\n      and ancient religions, 165-193;\n      and modern religions, 193-197\n\n    Christology, 161, 162, 175;\n      of Paul, 15, 23;\n      of Mark, 20, 223, 236;\n      of Jesus, 35-44;\n      and ethics, 28-35\n\n    Clemen, C., 168, 170, 181, 187, 189\n\n    Clifford, W. K., 93\n\n    Coe, G. A., 90\n\n    Confucius, 167-168\n\n    Conklin, E. A., 79\n\n    Conversion, 96-99, 107-110, 123\n\n    Copernicus, 60, 85\n\n    Creed, J. M., 189\n\n    Cumont, F., 178, 180\n\n\n    Darwin, C., 56, 85, 129\n\n    Darwinism, see Evolution\n\n    DeBoor fragment, 231\n\n    Deissmann, A., 172, 176\n\n    Dewey, J., 127\n\n    Dobsch\u00fctz, E. von, 42, 53-54, 182\n\n    Drews, A., 45, 46, 48, 50\n\n    Driesch, H. A. E., 70\n\n    Drummond, Henry, 89\n\n    Drummond, James, 228\n\n\n    Edwards, Jonathan, 89, 122\n\n    Eigenmann, C. H., 62\n\n    Eimer, G. H. J., 63\n\n    _\u00c9lan vital_, see Vital impulse\n\n    Eliot, C. W., 197\n\n    Emerson, R. W., 58, 89\n\n    Emperor, worship of, 172-177\n\n    Environment, fitness of, 60, 68-69\n\n    Ephesians, epistle to, 204\n\n    Epigenesis, 73-75, 81, 83\n\n    Epiphanius, 229\n\n    Ethics, of Jesus and Paul, 27-35;\n      Christian, 51\n\n    Eucken, R., 33, 91, 137-146, 163\n\n    Eusebius, 232\n\n    Evolution, 56;\n      as unfavourable to religion, 57-58;\n      as favourable to religion, 59-60;\n      and the Copernican theory, 60-61;\n      method of, 61-66;\n      meaning of, 66-82;\n      and design, 66-73;\n      and theism, 82-85;\n      creative, 127-136\n\n\n    Faith, salvation by, 102, 104\n\n    Finalism, 132-134\n\n    Fletcher, M. S., 116\n\n    Forrest, D. W., 122\n\n    Fowler, W. Warde, 192\n\n    Fox, George, 107, 118\n\n    Franckh, 170\n\n    Frazer, J. G., 46\n\n\n    Georgios Hamartolos, 230, 231\n\n    Goethe, 228\n\n    Gospel, the double, 25, 53-54\n\n    Grace, 159-161\n\n    Gregory, E. L., 122\n\n    Gr\u00fctzmacher, R. H., 171\n\n\n    Haeckel, E., 58, 139\n\n    Hale, E. E., 101\n\n    Hall, G. S., 107\n\n    Harnack, A. von, 18, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 52, 53,\n        188, 207-211, 215, 216, 225\n\n    Hartmann, E. von, 128\n\n    Hase, K. A., 39\n\n    Hatch, E., 183\n\n    Hawkins, Sir J. C., 208, 211, 219, 221\n\n    Headlam, A. C., 204\n\n    Headley, F. H., 83\n\n    Hegel, 146-162\n\n    Heitm\u00fcller, W., 182\n\n    Henderson, L. J., 68, 69\n\n    Herbert, S., 65\n\n    Heredity, 61\n\n    Hermas, Shepherd of, 185, 190-192\n\n    Hermes, 189-192\n\n    Hermetic literature, 185-188, 189\n\n    H\u00f6ffding, H., 121\n\n    Holdsworth, W. W., 221, 223, 238\n\n    Holtzmann, H. J., 214\n\n    H\u00fcgel, Baron F. von, 73\n\n    Huxley, T. H., 67, 85\n\n\n    Immortality, 59, 129, 130, 141, 152-154\n\n    Incarnation, 157, 162-163\n\n    Inge, W. R., 90\n\n    Intellectualism, 140\n\n    Ishtar, 171\n\n\n    Jackson, H. L., 224\n\n    James, William, 89, 90, 92, 100, 102, 104,\n      111-114, 119-120, 122, 125, 137\n\n    Jastrow, J., 102, 111\n\n    Jesus Christ, passion, 16-20, 41-42;\n      resurrection, 16-18, 25, 143;\n      person, 20;\n      authority, 31-32;\n      character, 31, 43-44, 51;\n      liberal view of, 44-49, 143-144;\n      mythical view of, 45-47\n\n    John, Gospel of, 227-242;\n      authorship of, 228-229;\n      external evidence, 229-233;\n      internal evidence, 234-238;\n      historical value, 238-242\n\n    Josephus, 211, 213-215\n\n    Justin, 170\n\n\n    Kalthoff, A., 22\n\n    Kant, 146, 152\n\n    Kelvin, Lord, 76\n\n    Kennedy, H. A. A., 180, 182, 188\n\n    Kidd, B., 58, 90\n\n    Kingsley, Charles, 59\n\n    Koch, H., 211-212\n\n    Kyrios-title, 174-177\n\n\n    Lake, K., 25\n\n    Lamarck, 63\n\n    Lang, A., 229\n\n    Langlois and Seignobos, 227\n\n    Law, R., 107\n\n    Lemme, L., 36\n\n    LeRoy, E., 132\n\n    Leuba, J. H., 115\n\n    Lightfoot, Bishop J. B., 190, 228, 234\n\n    Lodge, Sir O., 69, 86\n\n    Loeb, J., 76\n\n    Logia, see Q\n\n    Loisy, A., 37, 73, 177\n\n    Lowell, J. R., 197\n\n    Loyalty, religion of, 156-158\n\n    Luther, 99, 110\n\n    Lyell, Sir Charles, 56\n\n\n    Macalister, A., 68\n\n    Mark (Gospel), priority of, 217, 223, 225;\n      use of Q, 220;\n      different editions of, 220;\n      secondary elements in, 221-223\n\n    Materialism, 96, 126, 163\n\n    Mead, G. R. S., 189, 190\n\n    Mechanism, 66, 68-69, 72, 83, 131\n\n    Messiah, 44, 47-48\n\n    Metempsychosis, 152-155\n\n    Missions, Christian, 193-197\n\n    Moffatt, J., 211\n\n    Mohammedanism, 144-145, 196\n\n    Morgan, C. Lloyd, 63\n\n    Morgan, T. H., 65\n\n    Mystery religions, 177-186, 189\n\n    Mysticism, 120-122\n\n\n    N\u00e4geli, K. W., 63\n\n    Naturalism, 125, 136, 137, 139\n\n    Neo-Platonism, 189\n\n    Newman, Cardinal, 73\n\n    Newton, 56, 86\n\n    Nicoll, Sir W. Robertson, 216\n\n    Nietzsche, F., 128\n\n    Noyes, Alfred, 74, 80\n\n\n    Origen, 169, 230\n\n    Origin, of life, 75-78;\n      of man, 78-79\n\n    Orr, J., 202\n\n    Osborn, H. F., 62, 63\n\n    Osiris, 167\n\n    Ostwald, W., 69, 77\n\n    Overbeck, F., 234\n\n\n    Paley, W., 67, 207\n\n    Pampsychism, 153-155\n\n    Pantheism, 50, 84, 121, 142, 178\n\n    Papias, 231, 232, 233, 234\n\n    Patton, Francis L., 216\n\n    Paul, founder of Christianity, 21;\n      and the primitive apostles, 22-26;\n      and Jesus, 26-35;\n      conversion of, 98-99, 110, 227\n\n    Pauline Epistles, 203-205\n\n    Peabody, F. G., 242\n\n    Pearson, K., 76\n\n    Petersen, E., 171\n\n    Philip of Side, 230\n\n    Philo, 170, 189\n\n    Plato, 108, 169, 178\n\n    Plummer, A., 34, 36\n\n    Pluralism, 128, 146-153\n\n    Poimandres, 185-187, 189-192\n\n    Pragmatism, 119-120, 122, 127, 139, 146\n\n    Pratt, J. B., 104, 111\n\n    Preformation, 73, 80, 82\n\n    Priene inscription, 172\n\n    Psychology of religion, its founders, 89;\n      an aid to Christian faith, 91\n\n\n    Q (Quelle), 30, 218, 219, 220, 225\n\n\n    Ramsay, Sir W. M., 202, 205-208, 212-213, 231\n\n    Ransom, 19, 35\n\n    Rashdall, H., 159\n\n    Reinach, S., 46\n\n    Reitzenstein, R., 181, 185-191\n\n    Religion, normality of, 86, 92-96;\n      power of, 96-100;\n      and disease, 106, 107;\n      and sex, 107-110;\n      and the subconscious, 111-114;\n      and society, 115-119;\n      universal, 140;\n      characteristic, 140-141\n\n    Religious experience, its physchology, 92, 105;\n     its metaphysical implicates, 105, 106, 115, 119-122\n\n    Renan, E., 46, 58\n\n    Robertson, J. M., 47\n\n    Robinson, H. W., 123\n\n    Romanes, G. J., 59, 71, 93\n\n    Royce, J., 78, 89, 100, 103, 114, 146, 156-163\n\n\n    Sacraments, 180-182, 184-185\n\n    Salvation, need of, 100-102;\n      way of, 102-105\n\n    Sanday, W., 35, 39, 111, 220\n\n    Sch\u00e4fer, Sir E. A., 77, 86\n\n    Schiller, F. C. S., 127\n\n    Schmiedel, P. W., 46, 219\n\n    Schopenhauer, 128\n\n    Sch\u00fcrer, E., 214\n\n    Schumacher, H., 37\n\n    Schweitzer, A., 21, 22\n\n    Selection, natural, 57, 63;\n      germinal, 63\n\n    Shaler, N. S., 61\n\n    Simpson, P. C., 123\n\n    Sin, 100, 102, 158-159\n\n    Smith, W. B., 46\n\n    Socrates, 43\n\n    Spiritual life, 140, 142-144\n\n    Spitta, F., 234\n\n    Stanton, V. H., 209\n\n    Starbuck, E. D., 89, 90, 97, 101, 103, 107, 112\n\n    Stevens, G., 98, 110\n\n    Stier, 217\n\n    Storrs, R. S., 200\n\n    Strauss, D. F., 45, 49\n\n    Subconscious, 111-114\n\n    Synoptic problem, 216-227\n\n\n    Teleology, 66-68\n\n    Theism, 50, 126, 137, 141, 147-150, 153, 155\n\n    Thomson, J. A., 70, 80\n\n    _Titanic_ disaster, 94-95\n\n    T\u00fcbingen school, see Baur\n\n\n    Uhlhorn, G., 97, 179\n\n    Underhill, A., 90\n\n\n    Variation, laws of, 62-63\n\n    Vaughan, C. J., 227\n\n    Vergil, Eclogues of, 173, 192\n\n    Virgin Birth, 170-173\n\n    Vital impulse, 60, 63, 128-129, 131, 133, 136-137\n\n    Voltaire, 86\n\n    Vries, de, 62, 63\n\n\n    Walker, Dawson, 207, 212, 231\n\n    Walker, H. H., 99\n\n    Wallace, A. R., 61, 67, 69, 80\n\n    Ward, James, 73, 116, 146-155, 163\n\n    Warschauer, J., 167\n\n    Weinel, H., 182\n\n    Weismann, A., 63-65, 76\n\n    Weiss, J., 50\n\n    Wendling, E., 35\n\n    Wendt, H. H., 181\n\n    Wernle, P., 24\n\n    Westcott, Bishop B. F., 162, 234\n\n    Whetham, W. C. D. and C. D., 87\n\n    Worsley, F. W., 230\n\n    Wrede, W., 20\n\n    Wright, A., 207\n\n    Wright, W. K., 100\n\n\n    Zahn, T., 192\n\n    Zinzendorf, Count, 97\n\n\n\n\n_Printed in the United States of America_\n\n\n\n\nSERMONS--LECTURES--ADDRESSES\n\n\n_JAMES L. GORDON, D.D._\n\nAll's Love Yet All's Law\n\n12mo, cloth, net $1.25.\n\n\"Discloses the secret of Dr. Gordon's eloquence--fresh, and intimate\npresentations of truth which always keep close to reality. Dr. Gordon\nalso seems to have the world's literature at his command. A few of the\ntitles will give an idea of the scope of his preaching. 'The Law of\nTruth: The Science of Universal Relationships'; 'The Law of Inspiration:\nThe Vitalizing Power of Truth'; 'The Law of Vibration'; 'The Law of\nBeauty: The Spiritualizing Power of Thought'; The Soul's Guarantee of\nImmortality.\"--_Christian Work._\n\n\n_BISHOP FRANCIS J. McCONNELL_ _Cole Lectures_\n\nPersonal Christianity\n\nInstruments and Ends in the Kingdom of God. 12mo, cloth, net $1.25.\n\nThe latest volume of the famous \"Cole Lectures\" delivered at Vanderbilt\nUniversity. The subjects are: I. The Personal in Christianity. II. The\nInstrumental in Christianity. III. The Mastery of World-Views. IV. The\nInvigoration of Morality. V. The Control of Social Advance. VI. \"Every\nKindred, and People, and Tongue.\"\n\n\n_NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS, D.D._\n\nLectures and Orations by Henry Ward Beecher\n\nCollected by Newell Dwight Hillis. 12mo, net $1.20.\n\nIt is fitting that one who is noted for the grace, finish and eloquence\nof his own addresses should choose those of his predecessor which he\ndeems worthy to be preserved in a bound volume as the most desirable,\nthe most characteristic and the most dynamic utterances of America's\ngreatest pulpit orator.\n\n\n_W. L. WATKINSON, D.D._\n\nThe Moral Paradoxes of St. Paul\n\n12mo, cloth, net $1.00.\n\n\"These sermons are marked, even to greater degree than is usual\nwith their talented preacher, by clearness, force and illustrative\naptness. He penetrates unerringly to the heart of Paul's paradoxical\nsettings forth of great truths, and illumines them with pointed\ncomment and telling illustration. The sermons while thoroughly\npractical are garbed in striking and eloquent sentences, terse,\nnervous, attention-compelling.\"--_Christian World._\n\n\n_LEN G. BROUGHTON, D.D._\n\nThe Prodigal and Others\n\n12mo, cloth, net $1.00.\n\n\"The discourses are vital, bright, interesting and helpful. It makes a\npreacher feel like preaching once more on this exhaustless parable, and\nwill prove helpful to all young people--and older ones, too. Dr.\nBroughton does not hesitate to make his utterances striking and\nentertaining by the introduction of numerous appropriate and homely\nstories and illustrations. He reaches the heart.\"--_Review and\nExpositor._\n\n\n\n\nBIBLE STUDY, DEVOTIONAL, Etc.\n\n\n_A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D._\n\nStudies in the New Testament\n\nA Handbook for Bible Classes in Sunday Schools, for Teacher Training\nWork, for use in Secondary Schools and Colleges. 12mo, cloth, net 50c.\n\n     _In it are no references to books of any kind outside the\n     Bible._ With the help of the maps and a New Testament one can\n     study this work _with no other books in hand_.\n\n\n_REV. JOSEPH T. GIBSON, D.D._\n\n=Jesus Christ=: The Unique Revealer of God\n\n8vo, cloth, $1.50.\n\n     The author has sought to see, and aid others in seeing Jesus\n     Christ as He is presented in the Scriptures. He has compiled a\n     \"Life\" neither critical nor iconoclastic, but designed for\n     those who regard the Word of God as being not only the\n     infalliable guide to faith and duty, but the authentic\n     chronicle of the earthly life of our Lord. Dr. Gibson has\n     harmonized the Gospels and from them constructed a graphic\n     narrative which, contrives, to re-limn an old picture with\n     freshness and charm.\n\n\n_REV. GEO. H. YOUNG, M.A._, _Ass't. Prof. Rhetoric and Public Speaking,\nColgate University_\n\nThe Illustrative Teachings of Jesus\n\nThe Parables, Similies and Metaphors of Christ. 12mo, cloth, net $1.00.\n\n     \"A most readable and practical treatment of the methods of the\n     Master for the general Bible student and Christian worker. A\n     valuable contribution to one's conception of Jesus as the\n     'Teacher come from God,' and revealing in life, content of\n     instruction and method of presentation the will of the\n     Father.\"--_Review and Expositor._\n\n\n_W. BEATTY JENNINGS, D.D._\n\nThe Social Teachings of Christ Jesus\n\nA Manual for Bible Classes, Christian Associations, Social Study Groups,\netc. 16mo, cloth, net 50c.\n\n     In a series of twenty studies, the teachings of Jesus are\n     applied to specific social sins and needs of to-day, such as\n     poverty, pleasure, war, the drink traffic, etc., and shown to\n     be the sure and only solution of the problems of society.\n\n\n_ROBERT FREEMAN_\n\nThe Hour of Prayer\n\nHelps to Devotion When Absent from Church. 12mo, cloth, net 75c.\n\n     \"A volume of reverent purpose designed especially for those who\n     wish some form of Sunday observance, or who, by stress of\n     circumstances, are prevented from attending services in the\n     churches. To shut-ins, mothers with young children, nurses and\n     others who are unable to attend public worship, the book will\n     particularly appeal.\"--_Buffalo Express._\n\n\n\n\nTranscribers Note: P 156 Home-land changed to homeland\n                   P 12  The Theistic Infer enc changed to\n                         The Theistic Inference","title":"The Christian Faith Under Modern Searchlights","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":57828}