1 t' I"
, f

r t

I \

I

LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE

)

THB RECONSTRUCTIO
OF BELIHF

BELIEF IN CHRIST

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

BELIEF l
GOD
(Reconst,u
tion 01 Belief-I).
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOH
.
THE SERMON ON THE MOU
T.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIAXS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE RO
IA
S. 2 Vols.
THE I
CARNATION OF THE SO
OF GOD
(Bampton Lectures for 189I).
THE BODY OF CHRIST.
DISSERTATIO
S O
SUBJECT:; COX:-1ECTED
WITH THE I
CARXATIOX
THE NEW THEOLOGY A
D THE OLD
RELIGION.
THE MISSIO
OF THE CHURCH.
ORDERS AND UNITY.
SPIRITUAL EFFICIEr-;CY.
THE PER
fANENT CREED A
D THE
CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SIN.
THE QUESTIOX OF DIVORCE.
Edited by
LUX
IU:-1DI. A series cf Studies in the Religion
of the Incarnation. By Various Writers.

ALL RlvHT
H.cSI:l
V Ll)

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF

BELIEF IN CHRIST

-
O.3>
Ci foG 0 1z,

BY CI-IARLES GORE, D.D.
o
RO
. D.D. ED:5. AXD DURHA)I, BON. D.C.L. OXFORD, BON. LL.D. CA){BRrDG

AND RlRl\UXGHÁJT, BON. FELLOW OF BALLIOL AKD TR
ITY COLLEGI::
,
OXrORD, AKD FELLOW OF RINO'S COLLEGE, LO
DON

97530

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, ,\r.
1922

LIßR4f
.RY ST. \\ARY'S COLLEGE

-,
-

*'
\

Printed in Oreal Brilain b,
Hazell, Wal80n 4: Vine-y, Ld., London and .dyk&lrury.

PREFACE

1. THIS volulne is, again, an appeal to n1cn to think
for thelnselves, and to think freely. It does not
concern itself ,vith any question of orthodoxy, that
is of ecclesiastical authority. Such questions are
deferred to the next yolulne, ,vhich ,vill concern the
Church, ,vhere they ,vill be 'v holly in place. But
in this volun1e they are quite olnitted.
It is not that I am under the illusion that n1Y
O'Vl1 beliefs, or those of other Inen, orthodox or
unorthodox, with very fe,v exceptions, have been
actually reached purely or 111ainly by an argumenta-
tive process. They have been the result of a complex
of movements ,vithin the soul, and of influences fron}
,vithout it, "Thich are largely emotional, 1110ral and
social, and not in the narro,ver sense intellectual.
But if the resultant belief or theory is to be described
as rational, that Inust 111ean that it can account for
the relevant experience in its ,videst sense, and the
facts of nature and history, better than any othcr
theory; and the best ,yay to test the ability of any
theory to do this is not mainly by attacking other
theories, but by approaching the facts constructiyely
and critically and seeing ,vhat theory appears to
elnerge out of their free consideration.
Accordingly this volume is an attempt to take a
critical estimate of all the evidence ,vhich concenlS
the person of Christ, and to sho,v that the belief
about Hin1 ,vhich really gro""s out of the evidence,
taken all together, and ,vhich best accounts for all
v

vi

BEI,IEF IX CIIRIST

the facts, is just the traditional belief in the incarna-
tion of the eternal Son of God. I seeln to see the
intellectual" of my generation, and of the generation

belo,," me, as, for the m05t part., the victims of a
delusion. \Yhat is called" free thought" is really
thought enslayed to a negative doglna, ".hich is not
really valid; viz. that the sort of redenlptivc action
of a personal God, ,vhich the Bible professes to record.
cannot really have occul'red. If the inhibition of
this negative dogn1a is renloyed-if the enquirer is
again really opcn-mil1ded-then I belicve that free
enquiry win be found to estnb]j
h ,,-hat i<; substan-
tially the traditional helief. That is the thesis of
this yolume. .A.nd, as I
ay, it iC:) a ch31lenge to
111en to think for then1sclvcs.
2. The argluncnt of this volumc docs not begin 3t
the beginning. It presuppose" the conclusion of the
first volume on Belief in God. Eycry year of my
life n1akes me more firmly convinced that all th(\
questions ,vhich concern the person of Christ arc
really secondary to the question ,yhether the teaching
about God, ,vhich ,vas the message of the Hebre,v
prophets and of Jesus Christ and His apostles, i

true-,vhether it rests upon a real self-disclosure of
God to men. I have 110t of course in this volume
repeated the arguments ,vhich convince me that so
it is. They constitute the <;ubstance of Iny first
volume. But I should like to call the attention of
my readers to the ad111irable article on "Theism"
by Dr. A. E. Taylor in IIastings' Encyclopædia
o.f Religion and Ethics, and particularly to its con-
elusion. "In the present generation,.' he says,
"thc issues seem to be clearing. l
l1Ïlosophers arc
certainly tending, though not ,vithout exception, to
range then1selves in t".o camps. Those to ,,,honl
the business of philosophy seeIns to consi
t mainly,
if not exclusively, in providing a logical ba
i" and a

PREF..:\.CE

vii

nlcthodoIogy for exact c;cience appear to be identify-
ing thenlselves with the doctrine of logical pluralism
and taking up a definitely atheistic attitude ,vhich
involves the denial of the objectivity of judgment<;
of value; those on the other hand ,vho are con-
vinced that the business of philosophy is to make
life, as ,veIl as science, intelligible, and consequently
find themselves obliged to maintain the validity of
those categories of ",vorth apart frOll1 which life ",,,"ould
have no significance, are, in the main, declared
Theists." This is, I believe, true. But I ,,"ould add
that philosophy, though it can, ,vorking by itself.

ubstantiate Theism, cannot substantiate the equi-
yalent of the Biblical idea of God ,vithout the
postulate of a positive self-revelation of God. Nor
can it sho,v the idea of a self-revealing God to be
untenable. .A.nd that God has in fact so revealed
Himself, especially through the prophets of Israel and
Jesus Christ, seems to me to be established by the
1110st cogent reasons. Also the conviction that God
had so done is so nlanifestly the ground on which
Jesus stood, and on ,vhich His Church has always

tood, that I find it very difficult to understand ho,,"
any of those who reject this foundation, and depre-
cate the very idea of a positive revelation, can
suppose that the fabric of Christianity ,,"ouId remain
standing.
It is quite true that there were elelnents in Baby-
Jonian, Persian and Greek thought ,vhich the J e,vs
had assimilated before our Lord's tiInc, and that
they ,vere the richer for the assÏ1nilation. And it is
true also that Christianity, ,vhich is the flo,ver of
Judaism, assimilated more from Hellenism than the
Jews had previously done; and that it 111ust learn
in like 11lanner to assimilate hnportant elements froln
Indian and Chinese and Japanese thought and art
and religion. But this ,vas done of old, and n1ust

VJlJ

BELIEF I
CHRIST

still be done, so as to leave as the main constructive
element in the fabric the specific belief in God which
came from Israel. On this Christianity ,vas built and
must stand. This is the assumption of this volume
,vhich I did my best to prove in its predecessor.
But if I live long enough to accomplish my design
I should wish to come back upon the argument of
. .
the first volulne and consIder at length some of the
criticisms made upon it.
I have done my best to make the argument in this
YOIUnle intelligible to those of my readers ,vho are
not used to books of biblical criticism, by putting
into footnotes and appended notes, which they can
omit, some of the nlorc detailed critical enquiries.
Perhaps I ought to apologize for the frequency
with ,vhich, at certain points in this book, I have
referred to other ,vritings of mine. But where I had
nothing ne,v to say of much importance, it seemed
better to refer to ,vhat I had ,vritten elsc,vhere than
to increase the bulk of this book by repeating it.
C. G.

St. Luke's Day, 1922.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

THE JE'VISH BACKGROU
D

PAGE
1

CHAPTER II

TIlE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES . 34

CHAPTER III

TilE FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH AND OF
ST. PAUL 70

CII.A.PTER IV

ST. JOHN AND THE REST OF THE NEW
TESTA:\IENT . 106

CIIAPTER V

TilE ApOCALYPTIC TEACHING OF JESUS. 136

CHAPTER VI

Is THE DOCTRINE OF THE I
CARNATION
TRUE? . 162
ix

x

COXTENTS

CH.A.PTER VII

PAGa

THE DEFINITIONS O:F TIlE COUXCILS COX-
CER
IXG THE PERSON OF CHRIST 196

CI-L.\PTER ''PIlI

THE Il\lPLIED DOCTRIXE OF THE IIOLY
TRINITY 231

CIIAPTER IX

SIN AND THE FALL

236

CIli\PTER X

THE .A.TONE
IENT .

280

CII.A.PTER XI

SU:\1:\IARY AND COXCLUSIOK .

306

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

322

INDEX OF NAl\IES

327

BELIEF IN CHRIST

CHAPTER I

THE JE'VISH BACKGROUND

T'VICE in the Gospels Jesus is represented as asking
a question bearing upon His own person. The first
occasion was at the opening of "That ,ve Juay call
the second stage of llis mission, ,vhen an intense
opposition centring in the religious leaders of Israel,
the scribes and Pharisees, had declared itself openly
in Galilee, and the faith of His first eager disciples
'vas beginning to be deeply tested. l Then it ,vas
that, a,vay from the centres of the life of Israel,
almost as a fugitive, in the neighbourhood of a city
beyond the Jordan, ,,'hose very nanle-Caesarea
Philippi-,vould strike upon J e,vish ears as repul-
sively alien, He pressed upon His disciples the direct
question: "'Vho do yc say that I an1 ? " lIe had
asked thenl first ,vhat people in general ,vere saying
about Hinl, and that question ,vas easily ans,vered.
I t ,vas generally believed that He ,vas sonleone
extraordinary, of prophetic character and di vine
C0l1llllissioll. 2 But Inore than such vague ans"'crs is
1 l\Iark iii 0, 22, vü 1-18, viiI 11, 15. The great question i8
recorded in viii 27 fi.
t \Vhat exactly was meant by saying He was John the Baptidt.,
or Elijah, or one of the prophets is not easy to define. It lllust be
remembered that the
Iessianic king, the relnote descendant of
David, is, as in Jar. xxx 9, Ezek. xxxiv 24, Is. Iv 4, caned 8ÌInply
DtLvid; in like manner a successor of John the Baptist or of Elijah
Inight be eHlled simply by his name. People might say-Here we
have John the Baptist. or-Here we have Elijah, over again.
1

2

THE JE\VISH BACKGROUXD

expected of the disciples. The question is again
pressed honle: "'Vho do ye say that I am?"
And Peter commits himself to the great confession:
" Thou art the Christ."
Once again on the eve of the Passion Jesus is
represented as asking-not the disciples, but the
Pharisees 1_" 'Vhat think ye of the Christ? Whose
son is He ?" It ,vas a question not directly about
His own person, but about their idea of " Him ,vho
,vas to come." But in the minds of the disciples,
,vho believed Him to be the Christ, it must have
sounded as a question about Himself. And both
these questions asked by our Lord imply that His
person presented a problem ,vhich must be raised
and solved. And it is characteristic of our Lord's
generally undogmatic method as a teacher that He
insists that the answer should be found as a judgment
of men's o,vn minds under the teaching of God,
rather than by any explicit pronouncement from His
o"rn lips.
As ,ve kno,v in history, the ans""er of the first
disciples, "rho became the Church of Jesus Christ,
was given gradually or in stages. First it ,vas that
Jesus is the Christ. Then that Jesus is Lord.
Finally that Jesus, the Christ, is the pre-existent
Son of God, Himself very God, ,,"ho for us men
and for our salvation ,vas made flesh. This final
answer ,vas formulated in Creeds and protected by
dogmatic decisions, and becamp the central point
of the Christian faith.
To-day ,,,,hen the questions of our Lord are quoted
-" "Tho do ye say that I am ?" "'Yhat think
ye of Christ? "-,vhat is generally intended is to
ask ,,,,hether the fan1iliar doctrine of the Church
1 As represent.ed in
Iatt. xxii 41. In l\Iark xii 35 the ques-
tion is asked of the people, in view of the teaching of the scribes,
"How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David!" So in
Luke xx 41. I have retained the more familiar forn1 of the question
as the difference is irrelevant.

'YIIERE \YE START

3

concerning the person of Jesus gives the true ans,ver
to these questions. In our day it is ,videly questioned
and sometimes scornfully repudiated; or it is sug-
gested that the precise answer to be given to these
questions does not seriously matter, if only ,ve are
agreed in following the example of the life of Jesus.
But the ,vorld cannot settle do,vn to regard Jesus
as nothing more than the best of men or the greatest
of spiritual teachers. l\lost men feel that there is
something mysterious and unique about His person.
N or does it seem possible to leave the great question
unanswered. It obtrudes itself upon us and demands
an ans,ver. And if we cannot be content to receive
passively the dogmatic teaching of the Church, but
feel the necessity of opening afresh the question
for ourselves, certainly it is not our Lord ,vho ,,,ill
condemn us. He certainly ,,",ould have men think
for themselves, and reach a personal conviction
,vhich they can feel to be ,vrought into their souls
by God's own Spirit.
The purpose of this volume, then, is to make the
enquiry about Christ's person afresh, ,vith a mind
as open as possible to all sources of evidence, and
,vith a resolute determination to go ",vhither the
argument leads." But I shall take for granted the
conclusions reached in the volume which preceded
this on Belief in God. That is to say that I shall
take for granted not only that there is a God in some
sense, but that He has really disclosed Himself to men,
especially in a historical process through the prophets
of Israel and through Jesus of Nazareth, ,vho, ,vhat-
ever else He was, ,vas "a prophet n1ighty in ,vord
and in deed" in the succession of the prophets of
Israel. Thus the God in whom we start by believing
is indeed the one supreme Spirit ,vho is present and
active everywhere in the ,vorld, but He is also
beyond the world and above it, subsisting in the
fulness of personal consciousness and 'v ill before

t

l'HE JE\YISH n..:\CI{GROU
ì)

the world "
a
: a\vful in holiness and perfect in good-
ness, po\ycr, and ,visdom: the absolute Creator of
all that is, and the Father and Judge of all rational
spirits. :For the ju
tification of this faith I lllust
refer back to the reasonings of my first volunle.
'Vhen I say that it ,viII here be taken for granted,
I mean that anyone ,yho is to read this volunle
synIpathetically and judge of it fairly, lllust be pre-
pared at least to accept it as a provisional hypothesis
,vith the consequences ,vhich the preceding volume
indicated. lIe lllust not have his mind closed by
3 dogmatic prejudice against that kind of redenlp-
tive action of a personal God to which the Bible
,,'itnesses, or against such special acts of God as ,ve
call Iniraculous. He lntist be prepared to follo\v along
t he lines of the gro,vth of the apostolic faith and to
seck ,vith an open lllind to appreciate its grounds.
In standing upon this platform to start ,vith, 'YC
have this advantage, that we start ,vhere the first
ùisciples-,ve lllay say \vith all reverence \vhere
Jesus HÏInself-started. For the Gospels make it
quite evident that Jesus took for granted the God
of Israel and the religion of Israel,1 even "rhile He
deepened the thought of God and emancipated the
rcligion frolll its Pharisaic fetters. Professor Bethune
Baker has recently said "I kno\v almost nothing

1bout God's character apart from Jesus." 2 This is
a not unfanlÎliar position, but it is to me anlazing.
Something surely of an inlportant kind about the
c-haracter of God had become apparent to dcep-
thinking Inen, like Zoroaster and Aeschylus and
I)lato, all the ,,"orid over, and Dr. Bethune Baker
is surely the last lllan to ,,
ish to ignore these verdicts
of the llatural conscience. "r e o,ve a great debt of
gratitude to Baron Friedrich von Ilügel, ,yho is
ahyays bidding us keep in 111illd that it "a
not
1 See Belief in God, pp. 94-5.
2 'l'he _'tJodern Churchman, Sept. 19:?1, p. 301.

'fI-IE JE'YISII DOCTltIKE OF GOD j
only along the line of Israel that nIankin? had gained
real kno,vledge of God. But ,vhat IS frolll our
present point of vic,v nIuch lllore important is that
,,' the Jesus of history " ,,
ould assuredly have utterly
repudiated the supposition that He ,vas to teach
nIen their first serious lessons about God's character.
He certainly assumed that His hearers kne,v a great
deal about it-all, in fact, that the prophets had
told lllen, for ,vhom the character of God ""as the
nlain theIne of their mis<;ion.
I "ill counter Dr. Bethune Baker's statement ,,"ith
another,! ,vhich, if some,,"hat exaggerated in the
other direction, is far nearer the truth than his:
,. In ""hat ,vay did the teaching of Jesus differ frOBl
that of IIis contenlporaries? Not-and the nature
of nluch 11l0dern ,vriting renders it desirable to em-
phasize the negative-not by teaching anything
about God essentially ne,," to J e,vish ears. The God
of Jesus is the God of the Je,vs, about ,vhom He
says nothing ,vhich canllot be paralleled in Jewish
literature." I think this is an exaggeration. The
teaching of Jesus about the character of God, as
the Father of each individual soul ,vhose love goes
out to seek and save the lost-the God in ,vhose
eyes each individual soul is of identical and absolute
,-alue-the Father represented in the Parable of
the Prodigal Son-is surely fresh teaching. Certainly
our Lord set the character of God in a quite ne,v light
in Iuanifold ,vays. Certainly also His teaching was no
borro,ved or Iuerelytraditional teaching. He said" No
Ulan kno,veth the Father save the Son, and he to
,vhomsoever the Son ,villeth to reveal him." But the
God and Father of ,vhom He constantly spoke "
as
the Jehovah of the J e,,"ish prophets and Psaln1Ísts. 2

1 From Drs. Foakes Jackson and I(irsopp Lake, The Beginnings
of Chri8tianity (
Iaclnillan, 1920), vol. i. p. 288.
a The only word ascribed to our Lord which appears at first sight
to be a repudiation of His Jewish forerwmers is John :x 8: "All
2

G

THE JE'VISII llACI{GROUND

There ,vas, in fact, no "\vavering in the early Church
as to the continuity and identity of their faith with
the old J e"\vish faith about God. "Then St. Paul
quotes "the Scriptures," though it be a predominantly
Gentile Church to which he is "\vriting, he means
the books of the Hebre"\v canon. 'Vhen he says
"'Vhatsoever things "\vere written beforehand '\vere
'
ritten for our learning, that through patience and
comfort of the Scriptures ,ve might have hope," or
that "every Scripture, inspired of God, is also
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
may be complete, furnished completely unto every
good \vork," 1 it is the Hebre,v scriptures exclusively
that he is thinking of. Indeed, both in St. Paul's and
St. Peter's Epistles and in St. James and in the Act5
and in the Epistle to the Hebrc,,"s the constant
assumption is that the Christian Church was the old
J e,v"Ísh Church, the Church of the prophets, reformed
and reinspired. This alone accounts for the fact that
the earliest Church put in the foremost place among
-its appeals the argument from prophecy.
Thus it came about that the Bible of the Jews
became the Bible of the Christian Church before the
Ne,v Testament books ,vere ,vritten. It is indeed
astonishing ho,v ,vholeheartedly the Gentile ,vorld,

that came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did
not hear them." But to interpret this single word as a repudiation
of hloses and the prophets and John the Baptist would be in gJaring
contradiction to the Gospels generally and to the Fourth Gospel
in particular. See i 7-8, 17, 31, 45, ii 16, iii 10, iv 22,
v 46-7, vii 22-3, viii 56, xii 14-16, 39-41, xix 28, 36, 37.
The mind of the writer of the Gospel is such that he could not have
ascribed to our Lord any repudiation of the ancient prophets.
To interpret this startling saying we must refer back to Jer. xxiii
1-4, and Ezek. xxxiv 1-16, concerning the shepherds (rulers)
of Israel who maltreat and negJect the flock, with whom our Lord
associates the present rulers of Israel, the Pharisees and Sadducees
who are set to harass and persecute His disciples, the sheep who hear
His \"oice.
1 Rom. xv 4, 2 Tim. iii 16-17.

THE OI-AD TESTAl\IEKT IN THE CHURCH 7
which came very speedily to constitute the vast
majority of the Christian society, accepted the Old
Testament. There were, no doubt, rebels against
such acceptance in the second century, of whom
the famous heresiarch l\larcion ,vas the most im-
portant. He would have discarded the Old Testa-
ment and all that belonged to it as the ,vork not of
the Supreme Being, but of another lower God, the
creator (demiurge) of the material world. He ,vould
have had the Church preach a Jesus ,vho revealed a
supreme and hitherto unkno,vn God, and a Jesus ,vho
had not even a real body of material flesh, such as
must have been a creation of the dishonoured
demiurge of the Old Testament. There are moderns,
amongst whom is Dr. Harnack,! ,vho have very deep
sympathy with l\Iarcion, at least in his attempt to
discard the Old Testament out of the Canon. But
the Church teachers ,vould have nothing to do with
his revolutionary proposal. They clung to the Old
Testament. They sa,v clearly enough that to reject
the Old Testament ,vould be to reject the Jesus of
history who stood without hesitation upon that
platform.
This is all the more noticeable because some at
least of the teachers of the early Church did not,
like those of the mediaeval Church or the Churches
of the Reformation, rate the Old Testament too high.
These Fathers acknowledged frankly that its in-
stitutions of ,yorship were of heathen origin and its
morals to start with on a barbaric level. 2 But
they ,vere full of the principle of God's gradual
,vorking in the education of mankind. He justifies
Himself, they said, by the results. Only by a large
toleration of what ,vas un,vorthy in a half-barbarous

1 See Harnack, Dus Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Leipzig,
1921), pp. 248 fl. See also an interesting review of the book by
Lowther Clark in Theology, vol. iii. no. 17.
It Cf. Lux Mundi, pp. 240-2 and Pref. p. xxii.

8

THE JE'VISII B.ACKGROU1'.ìJ

group of tribes, only by a divine patience and
gradualness, could He have educated theln up to
the level of the teaching first of the prophets
and then of Jesus. Even St. Augustine, ,,'ho is
in a measure responsible for the over-estinlate of
the Old Testament, says that \ve wrong the Ne,v
Testament if \ve put the Old on a level ,,"ith it. l
Nevertheless all the Fathers saw that the religion
of Jesus Christ is the outcome of a historical process,
and its roots are fixed in Israel. The Old Testament
and the Ne\v cohere inseparably. St. Paul is quite
right in saying that as an apostle of Jesus Christ
there has been no change in the object of his "
orship.
It is still" the God of our fathers" whom he serves
with a pure conscience, 2 and the \vhole Christian
Church, though in the Inain Gentile in origin, in be-
lieving in Jesus, knew they \",ere accepting as the true
God the God of Abrahanl, l\Ioses, and the prophets.
It was the conviction that the self-revelation of
God given through the Hebre\v prophets \vas true and
real that made the Christian Church, \
thell it ,vent
out into the ,vorld of the Roman empire, intensely
and deliberately combative not Inerely for Borne belief
in God, but for the specific belief inherited from Israel
and consummated in Christ. 3 And this had t,vo very
important results-first, that it made inlpossible for
the teachers of the Christian Church the "deifica-
tion " of their l\Iaster.

I
As we have seen, the question for the Christian
Church becanle very soon-Is this Jesus, ,vho is
clearly divine in sonle sense, really God? And that
is the question \vhich interests us to-day. And the
ans\ver we give depends for its meaning on ,vhat ,ve
1 Aug. de Gcst. Pelayo 15.
:I Acts xxii 14, xxiv 14; 2 Tim. i 3.
3 See Belief in God, pp. 108 i., 129 ft., 150 fi.

THE GOD OF THE PHILOSOPHERS 9
understand by God. The ,vorld into ,vhich the
Church ,vent out used the tern1 God in a very loose
and comprehensive sense. There ,vere Gods many.
The heavenly bodies ,vere unanimously believed
to be Gods, and very formidable Gods too, for
they dOlninated the ,vorld, like remorseless fates.!
Further, there were deified men in abundance-
such as the old hero IIeracles, or ancient founders,
like Romulus, or the recent founders of the Empire,
Julius and Augustus, or philosophers ,vho had
brought Inen the truth. Even the Epicureans
regularly called their founder Epicurus a God. And
the philosophers ,vho believed in a sense in the unity
of God fOlmd no difficultv in this ,vide use of the
term God. For to thenl," according to the current
Stoicism, God ,vas reason, and reason was God-the
reason in all things and the reason in men. Men,
therefore, were portions of God in respect of their
reason. God and man ".ere of one substance. The
more rational a person was the more he became god. 2
There is a curious passage quoted by Origen from
some contemporary ".riter on the Stoic use of ,yords
,yho defines a "god" in its 1110St general sense as
" an immortal, rational being; in ,vhich sense every
rational soul is a god." Others, he says, add to
the definition that a god must be pure spirit, in
,yhich case human souls ,viII only become gods when
their souls leave their bodies. Others only make
the l
equirement of moral goodness. "So that every
seemly soul is already a god;' even while it is still
1 See Edwyn Bevan, Helleni
..,n and Chnstianity (George .Allen
& "Gnwin, 1921), p. 78: "It was from Babylon that the fear of
the stars and et5pecially of the seven [the Sun and
Ioon and the
Five Planets] had spread through the Roman Empire. It became
an obsession. This earth, the sphere of their tyranny, took on a.
sinister and dreadful aspect."
a See Bevan, Stoic8 and Seep! .(08, p. 41. The Stoic poet ßlanilius
is quoted as saying" Quis possit . .. Et reperire deum, nisi
qui pars ipse deorum est?" Cf. ArnOll, Le dé8ir de Dietl, dans la
philosophie de Pktin (Paris, 1921), p. 145, note 4.

10

THE JE'VISH BACKGROU
-rn

in the body. Others confine the term god to beings
"who have some control in the ,vorld in respect of
its administration, like the sun and the moon. In
a different sense the ,vord is applied to the supreme
administrator. And above all they call god the being
immorta] and uncreated, the supreme king, which
is the universe." 1 The great philosopher Plotin us
in the third century insisted that the root and source
of all things is in unity-in the One. But this did
not hinder him from recognizing gods in the sun
and the stars and the gods of popular tradition.
With hin1 also the term God" n'est pas du tout un
terme réservé," 2 and this because reason and God
are the same thing. And thus, because godhead
was comparatively a vulgar thing, Plotinus very
seldom calls his Supreme Being, the One, by the
nanle God. Rather, as he is above reason, so he
is something above God.
Obviously from this-the Hellenic-point of vie,v,
it ,vould have been easy and inevitable to deify
Jesus or to call Him a god. How should one
so excellent in power and goodness not be a god ?
I shall have occasion shortly to discuss the position
of the German, "Tilhelm Bousset, and his school,
who contend that in the early Hellenistic churches
it was in fact this pagan spirit ,vhich came to be
dominant and led to the conception of Jesus as God.

1 This passage is in the Prologue to Origen on the Psalms; see
Lommatzsch, tom. xi. 351; cf. Harnack, Rist. of Dogma (Engl.
trans.), vol. i. p. 119 n., and Inge, Christian ltlysticism, App. Ill.
There is no doubt that this Hellenic use of the term God in a very
wide sense affected some Christian writers, as, e.g., when Clement
of Alexandria speaks of the soul of man by a true knowledge
and righteousness "practising to be god" (J.LEÀET9. EwaL 6EÖS,
Strom. vi. chap. xiv. sect. 113); and Greek Fathers sometirrJ.es
speak of Christians, in Christ, "being made god" (6E01rOlEÎo-6aL).
Such language is derived from the common Hellenic use, but it is
not properly Christian. On the whole matter of Hellenic beliefs,
Jules Lebreton's Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité (Paris, 1919),
chap. i., may be very profitably consulted.
I Arnou, op. cit. pp. 108, 124 f.

JE\VISH 1\IONOTHEIS
I

II

But, even according to this school of critics, this
supposed assimilation of the beliefs and ,vorship of
the Church to the model of the religions about them
was not possible on the soil of Palestine or in the
first J e,vish circles of the Church. For these first
disciples the idea of a man being raised to divine
honours ,vas son1ething impossible to entertain. No
doubt the religion of Israel had gro,vn upon the
common soil of Semitic religions, and the terminology
of polytheism slightly taints the Old Testament at
its earliest levels. l But this taint had long cen-
turies ago been scrupulously purged away. Only
One could be called God or worshipped by any Jew,
lIe whom St. Paul in true J e,vish spirit calls "the
blessed and only potentate, the King of kings and
Lord of lords, ,vho only hath immortality, d,velling
in the light unapproachable, whom no man hath
seen nor can see." 2 Greeks might identify God and
man, but to an Israelite there ,vas no distinction
so deep and impassable as the distinction of thc
Creator from all His creatures, even the highest.
Nor was it at all ,vithin the compass of the con-
temporary Jewish imagination that God should mani-
fest IIimself in human form. Doubtless there had
been in old days theophanies. God, they read in
the Scriptures, had manifested Himself, as it ap-
peared, even in human form to men. But these
were momentary epiphanies; they had long ceased;
and the later theology had explained them away.
There ,vas no tendency of thought among the Jews
of the time after the Captivity.such as ,vould have
led naturally to,vards an idea of incarnation.

II
The dominant thought of the Greek ,vorld, when
Christianity callIe into it, ,vas pantheistic and
1 See appended note A, p. 28. :I 1 Tim. vi 15-16.

12 THE JE'YISH B_\CKGROr
D
polytheistic, but earlier, as in Aristotle, and later,
as in Plotinus, there ,vas a philosophical monotheisn1
,,,hich believed in the existence of one God absolutely
separated from 111undane and hUlllan affairs, ,vho
could take no intere5t in man, and could influence
the ,vorld only as an object of desire or intellectual
contemplation. No,v the religion of the Je,vs ,vas
a 1l10notheisn1, but totally differcnt from this religion
of the philosophers. The one God of the Hebre,vs,
Jehovah, \vas thought of as intensely concerned in
the \vorld and in n1ankind, as constantly active both
in nature and in nlan. .A.ud He had nladc lHan in
Ilis o\vn iUlage and likeness, so that the activities
and en10tions of the human n1ind had thcir source
and counterpart in IIinl.
That admirable Anglican n1ystic of the seventeenth
century, Thomas Treherne, vividly contrast
the
heathen deities \"ho U ,vanted nothing" ,yith "the
Lord God of Israel, the living and true God," ,vho
"from all eternity ,vanted like a God. lIe ".anted
the comnlunication of the divine essence, and persons
to enjoy it. lIe ".anted ,,,orlds, He ,vanted spec-
tators, He \vanted joys, He ,,,anted treasures." 1
It ,vas because of this divine "".ant H of an en-
larging fello,yship in the divine life and activity that
He had created rational spirits and had appointed
lllCll as His vicegerents in the ".orld to " have dOlninion
over the ,yorks of His hands." 2 But on the "idest
scale God had been disappointed in lnan. Rebellion
on his part had baffled God.s purpose. Xcvertheless,
God had not abandoned IIis good nlind to,vards man,
but had proceeded to carry it out by a 111ethod of
election.
Again and again God is represented as choosing,
and making covenant ,,,ith, sonle selected group to
be the agents of His universal purpo
e. So it ,vas
1 See T. Treherne, Centuries oJ 1l1editations {Dobell, 1905}, p. 29.
2 Gen. i 28, Ps. viii 5-8.

BELIEF I
DI\TIXE PGRPOSE 13
,vith the fan1ily of Noah, ,vith Abrahan1, ,vith Isaac,
,vith Israel under
Ioses, ,yith the rel11nant of Israel
\vho returned, purged and faithful, from the Cap..
tivity. And all this selective method of God, choosing
a small group out of the ,vhole of mankind to be His
instruments, for all its apparent narro,vness, had
ahvays a universal purpose, as is declared in the call
of Abraham: "" In thy seed shall all the families of
the earth be blessed." This is '\v here Israel stands
distinctive an10ng the nations of the earth I-in
their intense belief in an energetic divine purpose,
of ,vhich only their o,vn nation is the selected
instrunlent, but which through their nation is to
becolne the heritage of all the ,yorld, and ,vhich at
the last, in spite of all the ,,,ilfulness of man, is
certainly to take full effect. Because God is God,
at the last shall be the Day of the Lord, '\vhen God
shall come into His o,vn in the ",;hole creation.
Thus it is that Israel ,vas the parent of v.-hat the
Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce proclailns to be
the only true history, the history "\'" hich is also
philosophy, ,vhich sees the past as alive in the
present and pressing on to,vards a goal and con-
summation in the future. 2
The Greeks and Romans never discarded their old
legend of a Golden Age in some remote past follo,ved
by a gradual decline age after age, so that they are
ah110st totally without the sense of a progressive
purpose in the v{orld; and if their in1agination
\vanders beyond the present ,yorld -order they con..
ceive, nlore after the lllanner of the Easterns, of
innulnerable cycles of tÎ1ne, each characterized by
gradual deterioration and ending in final catastrophe,
vrithout any divine purpose running through the ages

1 See, however, Kote B at the end of this chapter on the idea of
divine purpose in the teaching of Zoroaster.
2 See Benedetto Croce, Teoria e storia dell.a storiographia (Bari,
1917), pp. 186-92: and see Belief -in God, p. 132, note 1.

14

THE JE'VISH B..\CI{GROUND

as a whole and moving on to its consummation. l
Of this conception of divine purpose running through
all things and destined to final effectiveness in spite
of all failures and catastrophes by the way-for
,vhich the rebellion of free spirits is responsible-
a divine purpose ,vith which it is man's highest
joy to co-operate-of this infinitely fruitful belief in
a divine purpose of progress the religion of Israel is
the effective source.

III
This expectation of a kingdom of God 2 to come
is as fully important an element in the Jewish back-
ground of Jesus as the belief in the one only God,
the righteous Lord, the Creator of heaven and earth.
And it is necessary for us to get as clear a picture
in our Ininds as possible of the great expectation,
as it had been formed in earlier days, and as it ,vas
held at the time of our Lord's birth, education, and
ministry. Let us d,vell first on some central and
classical expression of the hope from early times.
Here is one ,,"hich is common to Isaiah and 1\licah 3 :
" And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in

1 See Bevan, Hellenism and Ohristianity, pp. 180 fl.: "In
some form or other this idea, that the present is vastly inferior
to an ideal past, seems to have been general in classical antiquity.
In the philosophic schools naturally un attempt was made to get
a more far-reaching view of the universe, and here the notion was
elaborated of the process of things being a cyclic movement, in
which history repeated itself over and over again without any end. n
. . . "Decline within each period and the periods endlessly repeat-
ing themselves in an unvarying round. n The whole chapter should
be read.
: The actual phrase" the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of
heaven," as something to be established in the future, does not
appear to occur earlier than the Gospels (see Foakes Jackson and
Lake's Beginnings of Ohristianity, vol. i. pp. 269-70). But the idea
is constant in the prophets and the phrase also, or something like
it, in the sense of the divine sovereignty, e.g. Fs. cxlv 12-13.
3 Is. ii 2-4, :Micah iv 1-3.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ISRAEL 15

the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above
the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many
peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to
the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of
Jacob; and he ,viII teach us of his ,vays, and we 'will
,a;alk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the
la w (or 'instruction '), and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem. And he shall judge bet,veen the nations,
and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall beat
their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up s,vord against
nation, neither shall they learn ,var any more."

This great vision, and many like it, will be found to
involve certain distinguishable elements.
(1) The idea of the spiritual sovereignty and uni-
versality of the religion of Israel-so that all nations
must seek the ,vord of the Lord fron1 Israel as its com-
missioned dispenser. This idea finds vivid expression
again and again in passages which are amongst the
loftiest in the Old Testan1ent, as when Isaiah sees
Egypt and Assyria linked ,vith one another in one re-
ligion through Israel as its medium 1; or the Second
Isaiah sees faithful Israel, now purified, reinstated,
and reunited, set "for a covenant of the people,
for a light of the Gentiles" 2; or Zechariah sees
"ten n1en, out of all the languages of the nations,
taking hold of the skirt of him that is a Je,v, saying,
\Ve will go ,vith you, for ,ve have heard that God is
,vith you" 3; or
Ialachi discerns a catholic church
as already in being-" fron1 the rising of the sun
even unto the going do,vn of the saIne my name
great among the heathen; and in every place incense
offered unto n1Y name, and a pure offering" -1; or
a late prophet sees J erusalen1 as the scene of a
divine banquet for all nations "of fat things full
of marro,v, of ,vines on the lees ,yell refined," and of

1 Is. xix 23-5.
8 Zech. viii 23.

2 Is. xlii 6.
I Malachi i 11.

16 THE JE\VISH B.>\'CI\:GROUND
a radiant life of kno,,"ledge, immortality and joy 1 ;
or finally 'v here the Psalmist sees the men of all
nations calling Zion their nlother. 2 It is a fall
from this high level ,,"hen the final vindication
of Israel appears as merely their victory over the
heathen.
(2) But, secondly this glorious vision is only
possible if all the horrible tyrannies, the monstrous
fabrics of pride, insolence, cruelty and lust, which
vex the groaning earth, have been crushed and
annihilated, either by the nlanifest hand of God
\vorking through whatever external agency He may
choose, or by the strengthening of Israel and its
king. Thus a great part of the ,vritings of the
prophets is occupied with the "doonls" upon
l\ssyria, Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, and the rest. But
so corrupt and false to its trust is Israel itself,
God's chosen instrument, that it too must fall under
scathing judgment, only never, like the other ,vorld
powers, 3 to the point of its uttcr destruction. Israel
suffers only thereby to be purged, and, though it
be but as a faithful remnant, to pursue its course.
People sometimes ask what element of inspiration
there is in the Book of Esther, and ,vhy it is in the
Canon. I should be disposed to ans""er that no,vhere
is the sense of the indestructibility of Israel, even
under circumstances of extremest peril, coupled ,vith
the responsibility of all individual Israelites for the
nlaintenance of their faith and loyalty, expressed
more vividly than in the ,vords of l\Iordecai to Esther,
the J e,vish ,vife of a Persian king-" ThinI
not ,vith
thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house,
nlore than all the Je',,"s. For if thou altogether
1 Is. xxv 6-8.
IPS. lxxxvii 5. So the Greek Bible rendered it: "Zion is our
mother."
3 Only in Jeremiah is the idea of a restoration appended also
to the dooms upon the nations, or some of them: see Jer. xlvi 26,
xlviii 47, xlix 6, 39. But see also xxx 11.

THE
IESSIAKIC KI
GDO:\I 17
hold est thy peace at this time, then shall relief and
deliverance arise to the Je,ys from another place;
but thou and thy father's house shall perish; and ,vho
knoweth \vhether thou art not come to the kingdo111
for such a time as this? " 1
(3) In the prophecies ,vhich secured the strongest
hold on the imagination of the people, the divine
instrument of the sovereignty of Israel is to be
an anointed king of the house -of David, "the
Christ" (anointed one) as he alone came in later
days to be 'called. This became the national hope
-the raising up by the hand of God of the righteous
king of David's line, ,vho is to administer the divine
righteousness on earth ,,,,ith a resistless power and
finally in perfect peace-to ,vhom God stands so
close that he is to be called His Son 2 and to bear
His name upon him, "Immanuel, God ,vith us,"
" l\Iighty God, Everlasting Father." 3
The prophets generally see the glorious l\Iessianic
day looming in the immediate future just behind their
present troubles and sufferings, 4 just as they see the
purging judgment over the ,vhole world behind each
particular judgn1ent on each nation \vhich sets itself in
turn against God and His people. 5 These immediate
expectations are never realized. Nevertheless, their
failure does not destroy the confident expectation.
As God is God, so at last it must be. Even when the

1 Esther iv 13-14.. :t Ps. ii 7 and (?) 12, lxxxix 26-7.
3 Is. vii 14, ix 6. The Jews seem never to have interpreted
these names as meaning that the King was himself to be God.
It was the name of God that was to be upon him; cf.
Iicah v 4.
We must always distinguish the original sense of the prophecies
from that which t.he Christian teachers saw in them. But it is, of
course, quite credible that the sense later assigned to them may
have lain in the intention of the inspiring Spirit. In some cases
I should find it difficult to doubt this.
f See especially Is. vii 10-17 and :l\Iica,h v 5; cf. the expectation
concerning Zerubbabel in Haggai, and the expectation of Jewish
sovereignty in Daniel immediately after the downfall of Antiochus
Epiphanes.
fi See later, pp. 139 fl.

LI ::'''
O y 51 l

V' S COL I E
......
\i""\. . .ii.....i'\. I L

18 THE JE\YISII B.\CI(GROUKD
figure of the sovereign king of David's line is absent,
the vision of the kingdom remains. And before our
Lord's time, though the hope of the \vorld-sovereignty
of Israel never looked so remote as under Roman
supremacy, the figure of the victorious king of David's
line is again brought into prominence. In the_
"Psalnls of Solonlon "-a Pharisaic ,york of some
fifty years before our Lord's day-the expected
kingdom has again its centre in the \vonderful and
all-powerful king, \vho is there first apparently called
" the Lord Christ." 1
(4) The vision of the days of the
Iessiah, or of
the good time to come, ,,
hich fornled so large a part
of the prophetic message, vague as it remained in
its details, had some other definite features \vhich
must be noted as forming part of the Je\vish back-
ground of the !\ e,v Testament. Israel, restored,
converted and supreme, is to be granted by God
a new and everlasting CO"L'enant \vhich shall renew
the old covenant made with David and augnlent its

piritual richness. 2 It is to be acconlpanied by an
outpouring of the divine Spirit " upon all flesh," 3 and
by a resurrect'ion of righteous Israelites, who have
died before the da,vning of the great day, to partici-
pate in its blessings. 4 "T e cannot understand the
Ne,," Testament unless \ve remember that the coming
of the glorious kingdom, or reign of God and His
Anointed, ,vas to be accompanied by the inauguration
1 Ps. Sol. xvii 36 : "They are all holy and their king is Christ
the Lord" (XpUTTÒS Kúpws), or it may be translated U an anointed
Lord." But in Lam. iv 20 the Hebrew text "The Lord's anointed"
appears in the Greek Bible as XPU1TÒS Kúpws.
3 Jer. xxxii 40, I 5, Ezech. xvi 60, Is. Iv 3, lix 21.
a See Ezech. xi 19, xxxvi 24 ft., xxxvii 14, xxxix 29, Is.
xxxii 15, xliv 3, lix 21, Zech. xii 10, Joel ii 28-29. The centre
of this effusion of the Holy Spirit of God is the ?tlessiah himself
(Is. xi 1, 2), or "the Servant of Jehovah" (xlii 1, lxi 1). But
the :r.-Iessiah does not appear in G.T. prophecy as himself destined
to give the Spirit to his new people.
t Is. xxvi 19, Dan. xii 2. (Here also is the resurrection of the
unfaithful to shame and contempt.)

THE "ONE LIKE _\ SOX OF :\L\X" 19
of a N e,v Covenant, the effusion of the divine Spirit

and the Resurrection of the Dead.!
(5) This was the hope of Israel, vague in detail,
but fairly definite in general outline, ,vhich "
e find
in possession as soon as ,ve approach the Gospels

in its more spiritual form in the hopes of the humble
and pious folk among whom our Lord ,vas born,
and in a fiercer secular form in the zealous nationalism
of the popular heart. IIo,v Jesus both accepted and
transn1uted this hope it "rill be in part our business
to consider.
But there is one feature of this hope, to ,vhich
'\ye shall have to give n10re detailed consideration
,,,,hen we corne to speak of the much discussed sub-
ject of our Lord's apocalyptic teaching,2 but ,vhich
"
e must not omit no\v. 'Ve shall find our Lord
speaking of Himself as "the Son of 1\lan " who is
to come at the last on the clouds of heaven, ,vith
the holy angels, in great po,ver and glory, to judge
the ,,,,orld and gather together His elect. 3 No,,"
there is one only passage in the Old Testament-
a passage ,vhich had clearly been given great import-
ance-to 'v hich this language refers. I t is the vision
of Daniel. 4
And behold there can1e ,,,,ith the clouds of heayen
one like unto a son of man, and he can1e eyen to the
Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.
And there ,vas given hin1 dominion and glory and a
kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should
serve hiIn: his dominion is an everlasting dominion
,vhich shall not pass a,vay, and his kingdom that \vhich
shall not be destroyed.

1 I say nothing here of the figure of the Servant of Jehovah, who
redeems Israel by the sacrifice of his life, in Is. Iii, liii, which seems
to have taken no hold on the imagination of Israel before our Lord's
time.
3 Cap. V. p. 137.
8 See
Iark xiii 26-27 and xiv 62.
t Dan. vü. 13-27.

20 THE JE'YISII B.\.CI{:GROUND
In this vision the being in the form of a son of lnan
stands not for the Christ but for the people of
I
rael-the " people of the saints of the most high, -,
just as the four animal forms who come out of the
sea 1 represent the empires of Babylon, Media, Persia
and Greece. They are all merely symbolic figures.
\Vhat the ,vriter is contemplating under these figures
is the establishment, in the place of the Empire of
the Seleucid succcs<:)ors of Alexander the Great, 110'V
represented by the persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes,
of the people of Israel in triumph upon the earth.
It is the old l\Iessianic hope ,vithout mention of the
)Iessiah.
In the past it ,vas thought that our Lord ,Yas
sinlply referring back to this vision, interpreting the
figure like to a son of man of the Christ, instead of
the whole people of Israel; just as He interpreted
the Suffering Servant of Jehovah as the Christ,
,vhereas originally he had stood for the whole people,
or the whole of the faithful renlnant. But recent
study has brought into lnuch pronlinence the later
-Jewish Apocalypses, and amongst them, most con-
spicuously, the Book of Enoch and the part of that
composite book ,vhich is called the Similitudes,
,vhich is held to date fron1 the first century before
Christ. And in these Sin1Ílitudes a unique represen-
tation is found. The ÍInagery of the Book of Daniel
is revived in a ne'v sensc. A celestial being, called
the Elect One, in the form of a son of nIan, and
called also "the Son of l\Ian," 2 ,vho has existed in
heaven from the beginning, is sunlffioned forth by
" the Lord of Spirits" (that is the name of God in
these Similitudes) to sit upon His throne and execute
IIis judglnent upon the sinful ,,,"orid. He is t\vice

1 Verse 3.
:I The passages, however, which call him the Elect One and those
which call him the Son of l\Ian are held by the experts to have
belonged originally to different documents.

THE .APOCAL YPSES

21

called " the .A.nointed," 1 but otherwise suggests in
no loespect the Christ of Jewish tradition, the anointed
KinO" of David's line. He is a heavenly being,
neither God nor properly man, but man-like. But
the language used by our Lord about the coming of
the Son of
Ian in judgment so much more closely
represents the idea of these Similitudes than the
idea of Daniel that it is difficult to doubt that our
Lord had it in mind. \Ve remember that the Epistle
of Jude, one of " the brethren of the Lord," is full
of reminiscences of the Book of Enoch, and there
is no reason ,vhy our Lord should not have been
acquainted ,vith it. 2 Only if so, as we shall see, He
sets its imagery on a wholly new background in
applying it to Himself.
'Ve shall have to return to this subject 'v hen ,ve
are examining our Lord's language. But it is neces-
sary, in describing the Jewish hope, to say something
about these Jewish Apocalypses ,vhich have lately
been engaging so much attention. 3
1 In c. xlviii 10 and Iii 4. But see Beginnings of Christianity,
p. 371. Note also that in Ixxi 14, as it stands, Enoch himself is
said to be constituted the Son of
Ian. Dr. Charles, however,
would alter the text. On the very ambiguous nature of the
document see appended note, p. 30.
:I I am assuming what I see no good reason to doubt, that the
author of the Epistle of Jude WM really one of our Lord's family,
probably a half-brother.
3 For a general account of the Apocalyptic literature we may
go to Dr. Charles, Between tM Old and New Testaments ('VillianlS
& Norgate, "Home University Library"), or to Lagrange, op. cit.,
or to Drs. Foakes Jackson and Lake, op. cU., pp. 126 following.
Dr. Charles is an expert and, like most experts, is over-enthu-
siastic on his special subject and, I think, greatly exaggerates
its importance. And an American writer; Dr. Simkh, ovitch not
a theologian by profession but an economist, who has published
an exceedingly interesting essay, Tawards the Understanding oj
Jesus (:\Iacmillan, New York, 1921), expresses feelings about these
apocalypses which many of us will be found to share: "In the
apocalyptic and e:3chatological lit
rature of the time the world
was to come to an end. But what really did come to an end in
that literature was the last shred of thinking capacity and common
s
ntje.': He wOlùd perhaps admit that 2 Esdras is a partial
excephono
3

22 THE JE'YISII BA.CI(GROUXD
This not very attractive type of literature ,vas
quite Unlul0\Vll to our learned men of old, except
in the case of the Apocalypse of Ezra, ,vhich ,ve
find in our "Apocrypha" as the Second Book of
Esdras. These apocalypses bclong to the centurics
immediately before or after the birth of our Lord.
They ,vere soon discarded by J e,ys and Christians
alike, but found fayour for a time in some quarters,
and many of them survive in translations into many
languages, indicating thcir former popularity. They
are ,\"'ritten as in the persons of ancient seers-Adam,
Enoch, Noah, the sons of Jacob, l\loses, Ezra-
recording visions of the mysteries of nature and
creation, and of the angels and of the future destinies
of the \yorld, the day of judgment, and heavcn and
hell. 1 And one of their chief characteristics may be
said to be that, instead of this "
orld being the scene
of the kingdom of God (as in the Old Testament),
this ,,,"orld is represented, at least in many of theIn,
as ,vholly passing a,vay and another ,yorld, the ,vorld
of hea,ren and hell, as taking its place.
In the prophets and psalms ,ve have a great deal
of language about nature, \vhich represents it as
violently moved in sympathy ,vith God's acts of
judglnent and mercy, and in terror at His cOIning.
"The hills Inelted like ,vax at the presence of the
Lord." "All the host of heaven shall be dissolved
and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll."
" The sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and
the moon shall not cause her light to shine." " The
mountains and the hills shall break forth before you
into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap
their hands." "Te shall have to come back upon this
sort of language, ,vhere ,ve find the like to it being
1 They seem, in their spectùative interest in the mysteries of
nature and the unseen world, and their elaborate doctrine of angels
and in their "other world " hopes, to exhibit an influence alien
to Israel. 'Ve may perhaps find in Persia the source of this
inBuencfJ.

THE BOOK OF E!\OCH 23
used by our Lord and His disciples. It is difficult
to say ho'v far it is consciously metaphorical. Cer-
tainly in the later days of prophecy the prophets
contemplated a physical catastrophe on the vastest
scale accompanying the divine judgments on the
,vorld and the ushering in of the divine kingdom.
The old heaven and the old earth yield to a ne,v
heaven and a ne,v earth. But the new heaven and
the ne,v earth al,vays, on examination, appear to
be the old heaven and the old earth purified and
rene"
ed, ,vith Jerusalem still at the centre and the
nations of the ,vorld doing her homage. l
But this ,vas not the case in the later Apocalypses.
There, says Dr. Harnack,2 "the expectations for the
future become more and more transcendent; they
are shifted increasingly to the realm of the super-
natural and the supramundane; something quite
ne"
comes do,vn from heaven to earth, and the ne,v
course on ,vhich the ,vorld enters severs it from the
old; nay this earth, transfigured as it ,viII be, is no
longer the final goal,. the idea of an absolute bliss
arises twhose abode can only be heaven itself." So
also Dr. Charles ,vrites: "The hope of an eternal
l\lessianic kingdom on the present earth, ,vhich had
been taught by the Old Testament prophets and
cherished by every Israelite, was then abandoned.
The earth had come to be regarded as ,vholly unfit
for the manifestation of the kingdom." 3
I cannot but think that in recent literature the
importance of these Apocalypses has been immensely
1 See Is. xxiv 23 (apparently a late prophecy incorporated in
Isaiah), and Is. lxvi 19-24 and Joel ii 32, hi 16. So it is, as we
shall see, in the New Testament..
I JJ'hat is Christianity? (Eng. Trans., 'Villiams & Norgate), p. 137.
3 Between the Old JV o-rld and the J),T ew, p. 119. If Dr. Charles
means by "then," at the date c. 100 B.C., when the new style of
apocalypse begins, then the statement is not, I think, true. The
old hope survived in full operation into N.T. times-see The Psalm8
of Solomon and the N.T. But it is true within a certain range of
feeling or thought represented in these apocalypses.

24 1"HE JE\YISH B
\CI{GROUKD
exaggerated. For cxanlple, ,ve are constantly told
that the established belief of the Jews and of the
IJharisees in particular, and therefore of St. Paul
in his Pharisaic days, included the belicf in a
Iessiah
pre-existing in the heavens, after the manner of the
,.. elect one" of the Book of Enoch. This I believe
to be so exaggerated an estimate as to be positively
untrue, and I have -dealt \vith this at some length
in a note appended to this chapter. What I \voulù
5eek to do here is to point out that the heavenly
being of Enoch, though he lnay be called the anointed
,Jne, is a substitute for the Christ of Je\vish tradition
and quite different in idea. \Vhen the Jewish iùea
of a l\lessianic kingdom of perfection in this \vorld
was abandoned by the apocalyptic \\Titers in favour
of another ,vorld \vholly different fron1 this, the
tradition of the )Icssianic kingdom to come becanlc
an awk\vard encumbrance ,vhich could not be fitted
into their scheme. They either left it out altogether
(like the author of our Similitudes of Enoch) and let
the day of judgnlent and the other \vorld succeed at
once to the confusions of this ,vorld, or they inter-
posed the
Iessianic kingdoln, with or ,vithout the
personal
Iessiah, as a tenlporary preparation for,
or foretaste of, the real heaven to come, l to be
succeeded in its turn by conflict and confusion.
Fronl their point of vie\v the
Iessiah and his kingdolll
upon earth ,vere not ,""anted. 'Vhat they 'v anted
,vas the other ,vorld. And the so-called
Ies
iah of
the Book of Enoch, ,vho is the divine instrument of
judgment and the harbinger of the ,vorld to come, is a
substitute for the human king of the family of David
,vho ,vas to inaugurate the kingdoIIl of God in this
\vorld. The t\""O ideas belong to difíel.ent orders of
thought. XO\V, no doubt, the l\Icssiallic hope ,,,hen

1 Thi'3 is the fir
t fonll of the idea of the Inillennium, which we
bDÙ in the Revelation of St. John.

THE OLD l\IESSIAXIC HOPE 25
our Lord came into the ,vorld ,vas full of confusions.
Nevertheless nothing is more certain than that ,vhat
was in possession, and ren1ained in possession, ,vas
the oId orthodox Jewish tradition of a king of David
s
line ,vho ,vas to restore the kingdom to Israel and to
make Israel the centre of a ,vorld-,vide kingdom of
God. Ho,v our Lord dealt ,vith this expectation,
and ,vhat use He made of the apocalyptic idea on a
ne,v basis, ,ye shall see in due course. But all the
evidence sho,vs that the old J e,vish tradition, as it
appears in the "Psalms of Solomon," and not th

apocalyptic vision, possessed the ground in the N c,\?
Testament times. This is the :I\lessianic hope of the
circle of humble, pious folk among ,vhonl our Lord
,vas born. This is the basis of the preaching of
John the Baptist, as it is represented in the Gospels.
,vho expects and finds the Christ as a man among
men on earth. All the anxious questioning of the
J c,vs expressed in the Gospels concerning the origin
of the Christ, and ,vhat is to be expected of Him, is
on the same basis. God was "to restore again the
kingdom to Israel" through an anointed king of
David's line. Like the influence of the Essencs,
,,"hich hardly appears in the N e,v Testament, so the
influence of the apocalypses doubtless existed in a
certain circle-a circle, we suspect, fron1 ,,- hich our
Lord ,vas not wholly alien-but it ,yas by no mean

dominant or common. This the evidence seems to
indicate quite unmistakably.!
On this basis I may quite briefly indicate the stand-
points of the different parties among the Je''''s ,vith
,vhose names the Gospels make us familiar-the
Sadducees, the Herodians, the Pharisees; and I mUßt

1 See :hiatt. ii 4-6, Luke i 32-3, 54-5, 76-9, ii 11, 26, 34, 38.
For the preaching of John the Baptist see p. 45. For later indi-
cations see :Matt. xii 23, xxii 41 ft., xxiv 5, 24, xxvii 42, :Mark
x 47, xi 10, Luke iv 41 ft., ix 20, Acts i 6; cf. John i 41,
45-9, iv 25, vi 15, vii 41-2.

26

TIlE JE'YISH B..\CI{GROU
J)

add, though thc nanle is only once luentioned, the
Zcalots.!
The Sadducecs are Dl0St favourably represcnted
in the Book of Ecclcsiasticus, ,vhich appears to bclong
to their tradition. In the N e,v 'festalncnt their
chief representativcs are the high pricstly family of
Annas, a thoroughly ,vorldly group, occupied ,vith
the interests of their position, and dcternlined, above
all things, to keep on good terlns ,vith Ronle, so as
to retain ,vhatcver relative independence and govern-
ing authority "
erc still allo,ved to them. They
probably ,vere totally ,vithout thc ?tlessianic expecta-
tion, and, indecd, it is not any,vhere suggested in
Ecclesiasticus.
'fhe IIerodians ,,"ere no doubt equally alien to it.
They "
ere thc adhercnts of a sClui-Je,vish dynasty
'v hose consistent policy had been, ,vhile Inaintaining
the J c,vish rcligion, at least in forln, and giving it a
nlagnificent shrinc in the nc'v ten1ple at Jerusalcnl,
to favour the absorption of Israel in the general
,vorld of the llonlan Enlpirc. 2
But the I)harisees, as Josephus says, "had the
llltIltitude on their sidc." Thcy ,vere the real leaders
of religion. Not that thcy ,vere advocates of armed
resistance to n.onlc. They sa,v the hopelessness of
this, and in fact they had apparently joined in the
petition, offered to Augustus soon after our Lord's
birth, that J udaea Inight be Inade a ROlnan province.
They anticipated, no doubt, less interference ,,,ith
true religion under a religiously indifferent Ron1an

1 The point of view of these parties, in relation to our Lord's
teaching, is admirably characterized in Professor Vladimir
Simkhovitch's Towards the Understanding of J e8'U8 (Macmillan,
New York, 1921)-a most interesting study; also in Stephen
Liberty's Political Relations of Christ's J.f-inÏ8try (:Milford, 1916).
That one of the apostles is called the Zealot indicates, what other
evidence indicates, that the party was already in existence, as
assuredly its spirit was. Of the Essenes, 8B they do not crOBS our
path in the N.T., I say nothing.
2 Simkhovitch, op. cit. pp. 15-17.

POPULAR NATIONALISl\I

27

governor than under an Herodian prince bent on
secularizing J udaisn1. But they held passionately to
the hope of the l\Iessiah. \tVe probably interpret
them best if ,ve represent then1 as believing that the
chosen people, by the strict observance of the la,v
and the tradition of the elders, ,vould merit and
obtain such favour of God as that He would bare
His arnl and "
ork the great redemption by His o,vn
omnipotence.
But this acquiescence in foreign sovereignty did
not satisfy the people as a \vhole. Since the days
of the l\Iaccabean revolt, under the Greek and the
Roman yoke alike, J udaea seethed ,vith nationalisn1,
and the Zealots were the extremists in this move-
n1ent. For them the hope of the l\Iessiah meant the
hope of a king ,vho ,vould lead them in revolt against
the Roman supremacy, and, by the po,ver of God
assisting hin1, do as the l\Iaccabees had done of old,
only on a very IDUC'h grander scale-that is, 'v in
liberty for Israel, and even world sovereignty. It is
impossible to read the pages of the Jewish historian
Josephus, \vithout seeing ,vhat a seething mass of
nationalism Judaea ,vas in our Lord's lifetime, and
ho\v the l\lessianic hope presented itself to the heart
of the people. l

I hope enough has been said to enable any reader
\vho has an ordinary acquaintance ,vith the Old
Testament to realize the extreme importance of
beginning the study of Christ on the background
1 See Simkhovitch, Ope cit., pp. 27 f.: "The religion of their fore-
fathers became [to the Jewish people at large] the unfurled banner
of a nation at bay. . . . From now on, whether in passive resist-
ance or in open rebellion, the only Lord and 1t:1aster they recognised
WaB the Lord of Host.s . . . with whom they were in covenant,
and who must send the great Deliverer to save His people in their
hour of need." Cf. p. 30 and p. 48: "The loud nationalist call
to rebellion, the fervid hope for a 1\Iessiah, God's anointed leader
and the redeemer of Israel, stirred the deepest emotions."

28 THE JE\VISH B

CKGROUKD
of the traditional Jewish faith and hope. This
is equally important for what it excludes-that is,
the possibility of our Lord's first disciples" deifying"
their honoured l\Iaster in the way Greeks "rou]d have
done, because their minds ,vere full of the" jealousy"
of the One God the Creator; and for ,vhat it in-
volves-that is the eager expectation of divine re-
demption, ,vhich, at the period ,vhen Jesus ,vas born,
,yas especially acute and ,,
hich ran upon the tradi-
tional lines of the prophetic forecast of the l\Ies<5iah
and his kingdom on earth.

KOTE A
Traces of Polytheis11l in the Old Testalnent
As is ,veIl kno'\
n, the common Hebre,,- "
ord for
God is a plural "elohim." But this is interpreted by
A. B. Davidson (The Theol. of the O.T., p. 100) and
Driver (Genesis, pp. 402 ff.) as a plural of majesty rather
than as a relic of polytheisn1. N evert.heless, ,ve find
phrases in the O.T. which suggest that there ,,-ere other
Gods besides Jehovah-phrases which ,,,ould not haY

been used in the later days of Israel: and the same
111USt be said of the use of elohim, for judges and rulers
(Psalm lxxxii 6), or for the dead (1 Sanl. xxviii 13),
or perhaps for angels (Psalm viii 5). Such uses are
probably derived from a tradition older than strict
n1onotheism. But all this laxer use of the title God
had been rendered impossible by the teaching of the
Prophets. Only One could be called God or ,vorshipped.
Of course the use of Psalm lxxxii (" I have said ye
are Gods ") ascribed to Jesus in John x 34 is interesting.
It ll1ight suggest that our Lord ,yished to encourage
somet hing like the extended IIelIenic use of the term
God. But a single phrase in a single Gospel must not be
interpreted so as to be quite out of harmony ,vith the
general teaching of our Lord. This particular passage
is, I think, one of those in ,,
hich (granted its genuineness)
our Lord asks questions solely to force men to think out
their o,vn n1caning ,,-ithout cony-eying any positiyc

TIlE TE;.-\CIIIXG OF ZOROA\STER 29
teaching at all. lIe Inean
. " Ho". can you object to
n1Y calling myself the Son of God, ,vhen you yourselycs
are bound to recognize that in the Psabns judges are
evcn called Gods in SOlne sense? There is here plainly
50me sort of cOlnn1unication of divine authority to n1en
such as you should recognize also in me." I shall have
occasion later (pp. 186 f.) to point out that it ,vas part of
the n1cthod of our Lord to test n1en's sincerity and
consistency by questions ,vhich cannot be taken 35
suggesting 3ny positiye teaching on His part, e.g. l\Iark
x 18 and xii 35-37.

KOTE B
The ldea of Divine Purpose in the Teaching of Zoroaster
Quite independently of Israel, the Persian or Iranian
race, under the prophetic guidance of Zoroaster, ,,-hose
date is quite uncertain but ,vho ,,-as assuredly areal
man and a great prophetic soul, "-as taught to see thi

,,"orld as the scene of a divine purpose one day to triumph.
''''hether Zoroaster ".as an ultimate dualist appears to
be uncertain. But certainly he sa\v this \vorld, and the
la rger universe, as the scene of a conflict bet,veen a good
spirit and a bad. But the good spirit is to triumph.
" Deliverers" or "saviours" are sent to help forward
his victory. And t he call to all men is to exercise their
free will by co-operating ,yith the good god and IIis
instnlments, and so "make the ,yorld advance." The
cnd-" the last turning of the creation in its course "-
is certain. The scene of history is to close in a day of
judgment, beyond ,vhich is a perpetual heaven for the
righteous (" the best mental state "), a perpetual hell
(" the ,vorst life") for" the liars." or those ,vho have
follo,ved the
alse spirit, and perhaps a middle region
for" those ,vhose false things and good things balance."
This prin1itive ethical gospel of Zoroaster became much
overlaid and buried in rubbish; and thus it contrasts
,,'ith the Je,vish faith in having been on the \vhole in-
effectual over any ,vide area: see Dr. Sydney Cave's
I ntrod. to the Study oj' some Living Religions of the East
(Duck,,"orth, 1921-a very useful study), pp. 64 ff.;

ßO

THE JE'VISII n.ACKGROUND

f. Höífding's Philosophy of Religion (Eng. trans.,

Iacmillan, 1906), p. 53, and Bevan's Helleni.sm and
Christianity, p. 187, ,vhere, howcver, the statenlent that
Zoroaster looked for one Saviour in the fulness of time
to destroy evil does not seem to be bornc out by the
earliest authorities. It is certainly not to be found in
the deeply interesting Gathas (Sacred Books of the East,
vol. xxxi.).
In the recent ,york of Eòuard
{eyer, Ursprullg und
A.nfãnge des ChristenthulJlS, vol. ii., a very iInportant place
is assigned to Persian beliefs-the beliefs en1anating from
Zoroaster-in influencing the later religion of Israel.
In particular the ,vhole idea of the ",vorld to come"
as a ,vorId quite diíIerent froln the present ,vorld-a
,vorId of heaven and hen ,vhich begins ,vhen this ,vorld has
vanished-such as appcars in Inany of the later Jc,vish
Apocalypses, is supposed to be due to Persian influ-
.ences, and also the dcyclopcd angelology and doctrine of
Satan.

NOTE C
The Belief in the Pre-exÙ,.ting Son of Jlan
It is the fashion to-day to speak as if the Je,vs, and
.especially the Pharisees, of our Lord's day belicyed in
the
Iessiah as the Son of ?tlan, already existing in the
heaven from the beginning of tÏIue and destined to be
Ilw,nifested in God's good tÎIne. So Dr. Rashdall 1 (quoting
\Veiss): "'Vrede and Brüchner have conclusively sho,vn
that Paul before his conversion held the belief, as a
Pharisee, that the 1.lessiah existe,-l fron1 all eternity ,vith
Cod in heaven." Thus, "as an apostle of Christ, he
thought of Jesus as the 1tlessiah and therefore. . . a
heavcnly being ,vho existed ,vith the J1'ather before His
manifestation on earth." So Dr. Stanton 2: The pre-

xistence of Jesus "was inevitably suggested by the
identification of Jesus ,vith the heavenly Son of l\lan."
:So also Dr. Harris, Creeds or No Creeds (
I urra y,
1922): "It is one of the most assured results of recent
1 ldea oj ....{ton
m,ent, pp. 127-9.
:a The Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. iii.

THE PRE-EXISTENT SON OF
I.AN 81
Synoptic criticism (liberal as \vell as orthodox) that the
title Son of Man implies pre-existence, and that not
merely impersonal or ideal pre-existence, but actual and
personal pre-existence in a state of divine glory and
majesty with the Father in heaven" (see pp. 220, 264,
367). But ,ve must confront these scholars \vith Dal-
man,1 than \vhom, I suppose, there is no greater authority
on Jewish nlatters: U Judaism has never kno\vn any-
thing of a pre-existence peculiar to the
Iessiah, ante-
cedent to his birth as a hUl1lan being." U The dominance
of the idea in any J e,vish circle \vhatever cannot seriously
be upheld." U The common opinion that Paul simply
adopted his designation of Christ as 'the last Adan1' and
, the second n1an ' frOin the Rabbinic theology is erroneous,
for their theology kne,v nothing of such a comparison
bet\veen Adan1 and the
Iessiah." Nor did it kno\v any-
thing of a pre-existent ideal man. Dalman seen1S to me
to prove his case.
(1) In documents ,vhich can reasonably be held to be
pre-Christian there is nothing to suggest a pre-existing
Son of ?tlan or pre-existing
Iessiah except the Silnilitudes
of Enoch, of \vhich ,ve are just going to speak, and in
post-Christian Judaism only the U Ezra ...-\pocalypse"
(see 2 Esdras vii 28, xii 32, xiii 26-52, xiv 9), 2 and
nothing else till \ve come to a seventh- or eighth-century
docun1ent, and later to mediaeval nlysticisn1. The only
pre-Christian ground of the idea, then, appears to be
the Similitudes of Enoch.
(2) But \ve must be very careful in quoting this docu-
Inent. 'Vhat ,ve have to do \vith is a translation in
Ethiopic fron1 a Greek translation of the original. Our
existing version is confessedly greatly interpolated.
1\loreover, it has passed through Christian hands.
...\gain, the critics rightly discern, underlying our existing
:Ethiopic text, two dOCUl1lents, fronl ,vhich the relevant
passages are quoted-one of v;hich (...
) speaks of a
celestial figure ,vhich is called "the Elect One," and
another different document (B) \vhich speaks of" another
1 W c;rds oj J esU8, pp. 128-32, 248, 252.
I See Dr. Box's The Ez.ra Apocalypse (Pitman, 1912). The date
of tJle whole book is c. A.D. 120. Some of the passages referred to
belong to an older document, c. A.D. 90.

32 TIlE JE\YISII BACI
GROU1\"D

being ,,-hose countenance had the appearance of a n1an,"
and ,vha is after,vards called "that Son of l\Ian" or
"the Son of
Ian." 1 Both documents appear to have
as
igned to the celestial figure the saIne functions, though
pre-existence is only asserted of "the Son of 1tlan." 2
No,v it seen1S to be probable that the docun1ent (A) iç;
original and the document (B) interpolated either by a
.Je,v ,vho sought to divert the title Son of 1.lan, derived
froln the Book of Daniel, from the Christian human-born
Christ, or (less probably) by a Christian from a somewhat
different motive. See Lagrange Le 1I1essianisme chez
les Juifs (Paris: Lecoffre, 1D09)-a careful and ex-
haustive examination. On the general idea of pre-
existence see pp. 43 If.; on the SÙnilituMs, pp. 87 f.
Furthcr, ,,-e nlust notice that the Similitudes as they
stand give a confused impres
ion. The" Son of Man,"
or Elect One, is a celestial quasi-angelic being who is
properly neither God nor man and is never destined for
Inunan birth and life. He is rather a substitute for the
1\Iessiah than the 2\Iessiah (see Beginnings of Christi-
anity, by Foakes Jackson and I
irsopp Lake, p. 871).
But in one passage (lxxi 14), ,vhich is supported by
another interpolated passage (Ix 10) and by the" Book
of the Secrets of Enoch" (see Lagrange, p. 97) Enoch him-
self is represented as that Son of 1\lan. (See Beginnings,
p. 371. Dr. Charles ,vould alter the text.)
(3) Dr. Charles' theory that the ,vicked ' l{ings ' and
'n1ighty n1en' of the SÜnilitudes, ,vhom the Elect is to
overthrow, are the later
Iaccabean princes is surely con-
tradicted by the plain statement that they are idolaters.
" Thcir faith is in the gods ,vhich they have made ,vith
their hands" (xlyi 7). His suggested parallels from the
Psah11
of Solon10n are not parallels. There the

Iaccabean rulers are described as ,vorse than the heathen
(P

. Sol. i 8, viii 14, xvii 16) but not as idolaters. The
fact that in the Similitudes the adversaries are described
a
heathen seems to lea,.e us ,vithout any certain evidence
of date except ,vhat is found in the traces of the
Sinlilitudes in the Gospels.

1 See Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 64-5-
a Charles, op. cit. p. 63.

TIlE PRE-EXISTEN1' SON OF :\L\N 33
(4) All, then, that I think it is at all safe to aSSUlne
is that the pre-Christian author of the Similitudes of the
Book of Enoch borrowed from Daniel the idea of a
celestial figure "like unto a Son of l\Ian "-regarded it
as an individual and not a mere image of the sacred
nation-called the individual "the elect one," and
represented him (still ,vith Daniel) as coming on the
clouds of heaven to "the Lord of Spirits" (as he calls
God) and being appointed by God to sit on His throne
and judge the ,vorld and u
her in the ,,"orId to conlee
This celestial being was, of course, conceived as pre-
existing, and the idea ,vould have been kno,vn to what-
ever circle of persons was familiar ,vith the Silnilitudes.
But the circle does not appear to have been a large one.
.A.s I have shown, it ,vas the old-fashioned idea of the
}Iessiah, who was to be the Son of David and to restore
the kingdom to Israel on earth, \vhich is assulned to
prevail in the Gospels and early chapters of Acts, and
none other. And it is (I think) quite certain that in
our Lord's day" the Son of l\lan" ,vas not recognized
(before He adopted the name) as a title of the
Iessiah.
Also there does not appear to be in the Ne\v Testament
any recognition whatever of a pre-existing ...11an or
celestial being in human form (see belo,v, pp. 7611. 2,87 f.,
115, 813).

CHAPTER II

THE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

UPON the basis of the Je,v's belief in God, and his
vivid, though confused, expectation of His coming
and His kingdom, our task lies no,," ,,,ith a ccrtain
group of J c'vs, the first disciples of Jesus. \Ye
have to examine the gradual gro,vth of their faith
in their l\Iaster, first as the promised l\Iessiah, then
as the Lord of all, then as the incarnate Son of God;
and our object ,viII be to enquire whether this faith,
as it reaches expression in St. Paul and the Epistle
to the Hebre,vs and St. John, ""as in such sense
inevitable, or required by the facts of the case, as
that it can be pronounced the only legitimate inter-
pretation of the person of Jesus, valid for us to-day
as for them of old.

I
This is a profoundly interesting study of the gro".th
of a conviction in a gradually expanding group:
but it is also a difficult study because every step of
our progress ,viII be oyer ground ,vhich has been
the subject of acute controversy-controversy ,vhich
is still as far as possible from any general settlement
in the ,vorld of Biblical criticism; and my readcrs
must be patient ,,"ith me if I proceed very carefully.
As has been eXplained 1 in the volume ,vhich pre-
ceded this, the mass of the critical ,york ,yhich has
1 Belief in God, pp. 215 fl.
34

PROF. HA.RN.ACI{

35

been poured from the European press, and the most
famous of the attempted reconstructions of "the
Jesus of history," have been produced upon the
basis of an assumption that the miraculous and
generally the supernatural-that is the coming of
God into the ,yorld of man and nature in a ne,,,,
sense ,vith a directly redemptive purpose, ac...
companied ,vith special acts calculated to mark
that purpose-cannot really have occurred, or, at
any rate, is not rationally credible. As has been
sho\vn, to start from such an intellectual assumption
involves very violent treatment of our documents,
the Gospels, ,vhich are full of the miraculous and
of the faith in a special activity of God for the re-
demption of mankind. Thus it leaves the fabric
of the evangelical narrative in so shattered and pre-
carious a condition (as anyone can see for himself)
that each critic ,vho aims at reconstruction can
select and reject amongst the materials that remain
almost at ,vine This is ,vhat accounts for the
amazing differences in the resultant "Jesus of
History" ,vhich is offered us by different schools
of critics.
(1) To-day there are three such schools ,vhich
excite the most interest. There is first the Liberal
Protestant School, of ,vhich Professor Harnack may
be taken as the outstanding representative. In his
famous lectures on "The Essence of Christianity" 1
Jesus appears as a simple and gracious figure indeed,
preaching an ethical gospel, inspired by the con-
viction of the Fatherhood of G.od, the infinite and
equal \vorth of every human soul, the duty and joy
of self-sacrifice and brotherliness, and the in\vard-
ness of true religion or the kingdom of God. " In
the combination of these ideas-God the Father,
providence, the position of men as God's children,
1 In the English translation, What is Christianity? <,Vïlliams
and N orgate); in the original, Das If csen des Ohristen/hums.

36 TIlE BELIE}'
OF 'fIlE
FInST DISCIPLES
the infinite value of the hUlnan soul-the 'v hole
gospel is expl'cssed." 1 The ,york of the gracious
teacher \\Yas accompanied 1:y a Iuarvellous po,ver of
healing ("" by suggestion" as ,ve should no,v say),
,vhich is represented in an exaggerated form in the
Gospels as they stand, Inixed ,vith nature n1iraclcc;;
,vhieh, of course, it is taken for granted cannot
really have occurred. 2 But the "lniracles," of
,vhatever sort they ,vere, and the clain1 of Jesus to
be the Christ (,vhich in SOlne sense is admitted),
,vith everything that would involve superhun1an
quality in Him, are passed over by I-Iarnack very
Jightly. IIis ethical teaching and influence ,vas
the thing. that Inattered. The subsequent belief
of the disciples in IIis corporal resurrection frolll
the dead, and their expectation of His cOIning in
glory, and the later introduction of a doctrine of
Incarnation, ,vith a Inetapbysic of Christ's person
and of the Trinity in God, and the theory of a visible
church ,vith sacraments and priesthood-all these
elelnents of Christianity are treated as regrettable
necessities, due in part to the pressure first of the
Je,vish and then of the Hellenic environment, and
in part to the exigences of an elementary organiza-
tion struggling to nlaintain itself. They ,vere the
husk necessary for the tin1e to the preservation of
the kernel. They aloe for the lnost part quite alien
to the spirit and intention of Jesus, and their sole
justification lies in the extent to ,vhich they enabled
the one thing necessary-the essential ethical spirit
of Jesus-to n1aintain itself and again and again to
be re\Yived. But the Christ of Pauline and J ohannine
theology, and eyen the Christ of the Acts, stands
already at a great distance frOln the J eSU5 of
history.

lOp. eil. p. 70; cf. p. 79: "The thought that he who loses his
life ::ïhall save it . . . effects a tl'an:;mutation of values."
J See pp. 27-31.

D11. SCH\VEITZER 37
(2) In violent contrast to the Jesus of the Liberal
Protestant School, ,vhich has many representatives
in this country, stands the Jesus of the .A.pocalyptic
school represented by Schweitzer and Loisy, which
also has had great influence on not a fe,v English
,vriters. 1
All the startling "apocalyptic" features of the
Gospels ,vhich Harnack sought to elin1inate or
reduce in significance, are by these writers brought
to the front in their reconstruction of the original
history, and n1ade to occupy almost the whole
ground. Jesus is represented as what ,ve cannot
but call an enthusiastic fanatic, who believed him-
self to be destined to be nlanifested immediately
frolll heaven as the Christ or the Son of l\Ian (of the
Book of Enoch) to judge the present ,vorld and in-
augurate the next world.
Schweitzer and his school make it a chief point
of their contention that " the Christ" of the Gospels
is not an earthly person, but one to be manifested
in glory from heaven, according to the picture in
the Similitudes of Enoch. Therefore our Lord on
earth ,vas not the Christ, but only believed Himself
to be destined to become the Christ on the Day of
Judglnent. Incidentally I would note 2 that this is
flatly contrary to the evidence of the Gospels. There,
whatever the Christ is after,vards to become, He is
represented as first of all an earthly person, born
of the seed of David.
\Vhen Jesus first sent out the Twelve, He expected
1 The best book by which to judge of Schweitzer's view is the
second part of his treatise on U The Lord's Supper" (Das Abend-
nwhl). This second part has been translated 88 The Mystery of the
Kingdom oj God; The Sec.ret oj Jeaus' Mess-iahship and Passion,
by 'Valter Lowrie, and published in New York (Dodd,
lead & Co.,
1914). It is most illuminating. In his larger and later work,
published in English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Black,
1910), his theory is constantly referred to and assumed. But its
grounds are not continuously given as in the earlier book.
II See below, p. 76 n. I.
4

88 THE BELIEF O:F THE }"'IRST DISCIPLES
His coming as Christ to occur before their mis
ion
to the cities of Israel ".as completed, that is ,,-ithin
a fc,v ,,"eeks. 1 As a result of His disappointment
in this expectation, and by reflecting on the death
of John the Baptist and on the figure of the Servant
of Jehovah in Isaiah liii, He came to the conviction
that IIis o,vn sacrificial death was necessary to
bring tht:? day of Resurrection and the coming of
the Christ in glory, and so gave Hitnself to death.
He died upon the cross ,,-ith the cry of desolation
on IIis lips, and left His disciples ovcr,,,"helmcd ,yith
the consciousness of failure. But their rcviving
faith, feeding upon " visions" of Jesus as risen and
glorified, built the fabric of the belief of thc earliest
Church in the heavenly Christ immediatcly to appear
in glory, ,vhich again ""as gradually transmuted
into the Christ of later Christian belief. By this
apocalyptic school of interpreters Christ's ethical
teaching is even ludicrously minimized. He had,
according to them, no thought of founding or re-
founding a Church to live a ne,v kind of ethical
life in this ,yorld. He ""as a man possessed ,,-ith
one idea, the idea of the immediate end of the ,yorld
and of Himself as the instrument of the divine
judgnlcnt; and this idea rendered a1] this ,,"orld and
its concerns a matter of little moment, as indeed
the life of the world ,vas almost over. All that is to
be done is to repent and to detach oneself absolutely
from all ,vorldly ties, so as to bc free to be admitted
into the ,vorld to come ,,
hich is imlnediately
imminent. 2
From this Jesus the Christ of the Church is indeed
very far rcmoyed. It ""as only in fact by I-lis ceasing
to be rClncmbcred as historically lIe '\
as, that lIe
could be serviceable for the gcnerations to come.

1 This is baaed on ì\Iatt. x 23, on which see below, p. 152 n.
2 This is what is meant by describing Christ's moral t
8.ching as
merely" int.erims-ethik."

DRS. nOUSSET A
ì) L..
KE

3!)

(3) There is a third school, for so it must be ranked,
which is best represented by Bousset in Germany
and Kirsopp Lake in England. 1 In this school the
Jesus of history is a very dim figure indeed. l
ittle
or no originality of preaching about God or human
life is ascribed to Him. He preached a "message
of the kingdom of God and the duty of fellowship
in righteousness and love and mercy and forgive-
ness," 2 a message also of obedience to God and the
pre-eminence of spiritual values, largely presented in
parables. lie died a loyal martyr to his ,vitncss for
real righteousness against the selfish conservatism
and religiosity of the Pharisees, the "
orldly hostility
of the Sadducees, and the violent ideals of popular
leaders of nationalism. But all the supernatural
features of the Gospels, and almost all the apoca-
1yptic claim, is to be ascribed to the first Jerusalem
community of disciples, and not to Christ. 3
The account ,vhich Bousset gives of the belief of
this community is very similar to that given by
Schweitzer, but it is ascribed, as I say, to the com-
munitv and not to Jesus. This is the first trans-
'"
formation-that by ,vhich the historical Jesus
becomes the apocalyptic Christ. The second trans-
formation is still more important. It occurred in
the Hellenistic churches such as Antioch, Tarsus
and Damascus. There the Pagan religious v.
orld
,vas largely occupied ,vith "mystery cults "-that
is religious societies, ,vhich ,vorshipped hero-gods-
Dionysus or Hermes or Serapis, or Cybele and Attis,
or Osiris and Isis-by ,vhose patronage they believed
1 The cent.ral work of this Bchool is Kyrio8 Christ.()s (8 hist.ory of
the faith in Christ from the beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus),
by "\Vilhelm Bousset., Göttingen, 1921. The school is best repre-
sented in England by Dr. Kirsopp Lake, Landmarks of Eat"ly
Christianity, and the larger work, Th
Beginnings of Ghri.-
tianity,
in which he collaborates with Dr. Foakes Jackson.
I Bousset, op. cit. p. 74.
3 P. 37: "Hier nicht der historische Jesus spricht, Bondem die
Gemeinde, die ihren Glauben an den l\lenschensohn verkündet."

10 THI
BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
themsel ves to be about to be translated fron1 the
miseries and bondage of material life and death
into imtnortality and bliss. These mystery religions,
about ,vhich I shall have more to say, were" sacra-
mental "-that is to say, participation in the blessings
of the redemption offered by them ,vas to be secured
by undergoing certain ceremonies of initiation and
subsequent fcllo,vship in a community of initiated
persons, ,vho held some secrets of mystical kno,vledge
not comn1unicated to the outer ,vorid. i\nd they
had emancipated themselves froIn thcir originål
national or local boundaries, and become, as ""e
may say, ,vorld religions. In these mystery religions
the hero-God, ,,,,ho ,vas the object of ,vorship, "as
called "Lord." In the Christian communities,
then, of the Hellenistic ".orld Jesus also began to be
called "Lord"; and this title, for the majority of
the Gentile converts, carried ,vith it all the associa-
tions of their former cults. Even before St. Paul
came to the front in these Gentile churches, they
,yere already in part assimilated to these Pagan

ocieties. But it ,vas St. Paul's genius which, on
a basis of the old J e,vish monotheism and apoca-
lyptic beliefs, developed a doctrine of Jesus the Lord,
the author of individual and present salvation "in
Christ" or " in the Spirit," mediated by sacramental
actions and in a sacra men tal fello,,"ship, for any
Ulan of any race, ,vhereby the old Jewish and the
ne,,. Hellenic ideas of religion ""ere brought together
in one systenl; and this ,vas the basis on ,vhich
\vhat ,ve kllO'V a5 the theology and sacramental
systelll of the Catholic church ,vas founded. Sub-
stantially the saIne principles later found similar
expression in the theology of the unkno,vn thinker
whom the Church called St. John. This ""as the

econd great transfofluation by which the Christ
of St. Paul and of "St. John," ,,"hich is almost the
Christ of the Catholic Church, takes the place of

THE GOSPELS

41

the apocalyptic Christ, and becomes still further
removed from the Jesus of history.
The educated Englishman to-day '\vho is inter.
csted in religion is fairly familiar '\vith the Liberal
Protestant conception of Jesus, and ,vith the con..
ception of the Apocalyptic school. But the theory
of the school of Bousset is still strange to him.
Ho,vever we shall hear n10re of it. lV' e are being
frequently ,yarned by grave voices that this is the
11105t important of the theories ,vith ,vhich orthodoxy
or traditional Christianity is confronted. I shall,
of course, have to return to it, and to the others
just described. But for the present I leave them.
The method ,vhich I propose to follow is first of all
positive not negative. Confessedly all these theories
involve leaving out and repudiating as unhistorical
large elements in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts
as they stand. Ko,v I am making no claim for
complete freedom from error in the Gospels. But
I have sought to establish 1 their claim to be regarded
as serious history compiled by competent men, which
must not be violently dealt \vith; and I have given
ll1Y reasons at some length for refusing to regard the
strictly miraculous and supernatural elements in the
Gospel narratives as incredible on a p1'iori grounds. 2
I do not propose to go over this ground again; but
perhaps I had better briefly restate the position with
regard to the Gospels and Acts '\vhich it ,vas sought
to establish in the first volume and which is to be
taken for granted in this.
The position is (1) that the second of our Go
pels
,yas really "
ritten by John l\lark, who from his
youth up had lived in his mother's house at Jerusalem,
at the very centre of the apostolic fello"rship, and
had been afterwards the companion of his cousin
Barnabas and of St. Paul, and n10re particularly,

1 See Belief in God, chaps. viii. and xi.
a Belief in God, chaps. ix. and x.

42 THE BELIE
F OJ1-" THE :FIRST DISCIPLES
according to an early and trustworthy tradition,
of St. Peter, 'v hose customary teaching about the
things said and done by Christ he set himself to
reproduce as faithfully as possible; (2) that the
third Gospel, which is based upon
Iark's nlaterial,
and also upon another document containing matter
comn1on to the third Gospel with the first, which i"
commonly called Q, as well as upon information
from other " first-hand" sources, ,vas really ,vritten
by the physician Luke, the companion of St. Paul,
\1f'ho has explained his motive and his method in a
luminous preface to his Gospel, ,,'hich its contents
amply vindicate; and (3) that the Acts is part of
the same vt"ork as the Gospel, by the same author,
who had the fullest opportunities of obtaining trust-
worthy information about the beginnings of the
Christian Church. It follo,,'s that these books
ought to be taken, provisionally but in all serious-
ness, as credible historical documents, unless indeed
they should pI"OVe themselves otherlvise.
I propose then that we should build the structure
of our argument in the main upon the Gospels of
St.
fark and St. I..uke and upon the Acts, and upon
the other books of the Ne,v Testament which are
not involved in serious controversy, letting nothing of
importance rest upon the unsupported testimony of the
first Gospel and using the fourth only as subsidiary.1
But I ,vould call my readers' attention to the
fact that to-day controversy is not so much con-
cerned as formerly ,vith the authenticity and date
of documents. Thus perhaps the most important
recent German ,,'ork on "Christian origins" is that
of Eduard
Ieyer, the distinguished author of the
immense IIistory of Antiqu.ity (Geschichte des Alter-
Ihu'In8). lIe COUles to his task 2 therefore on the basis
1 But see below, Chapter IV., pp. 107 f.
I The Ursprung und Anfänge des Christenthums, 1921, in two
vohunes, awaiting a third.

JOII
TIlE B.-\PTIST

43

of very \vide kno\vledge and a high general authority
as a historian. He talks ,vith some impatience
of modern criticism as unreasonable, nleaning, I
suppose, specially nlodern Ne,v Testament cl'iticism. 1
He ascribes the third Gospel and the Acts to Luke 2
and the second Gospel to
Iark, the "interpreter"
(Dohnetscher) of Peter, according to the tradition,3
and recognizes the ,vork of
Iatthe\v behind our
first Gospel. If he has in fact to give his readers
a conception of Jesus \videly different from that of
the Evangelists, it is not because they were not in
a position to knO\V the facts, but because he cannot
apparently conccive of the supernatural as being
really historical. 4 It is just this assumption that
I desire ,ve should not take ,vith us to our study
of the Evangelists. but should approach theln ,vith
an open nlind and give thcm a chance to tell their
story as to those \vho have ears to hear.

II
All the Gospels put the activity of Jesus upon
the imluediate background of the preaching of the
great prophet ,vho deeply stirred J e\vish society,
John the Baptist. Josephus, the J ewi
h historian,
gives some account of him as a good man and a
preacher of righteousness, ,vho used baptism as
his instrument for gathering the follo\vers of
righteousness together; and tells us that because
of the grcat excitclllcnt \vhich he caused al110ng the

1 E.g. vol. i. p. 314: "How that (i.e. that the autJlor of the
Fourth Gospel i,núnded to represent himself as being John the son
of Zebedee) can have been called in question is one of the many
things which remain uninwlligible to me in the positions of modern
criticism. "
I See p. 51. 3 P. 159.
C See, for example, hid account of the La;3t Supper, pp. 174 ff..,
and of the saying of :\fatt. xi 25 fl., p. 291.

4t THE BELIEF OF TIlE FIRST DISCIPLES
people and the persuasive po,vcr over them ,vhich
he sho,,"ed, Herod put him to death for fear he should
cause sonle rebellion; and he thought it better to
act betimes and put him out of the ,yay rather than
to repent at leisure for having done nothing. l In
all the Gospels he is presented to us, not only as a
preacher of righteousness, who revived the nlemorics
of the old prophets by the tren1cndous force of his
denunciations and encouragements, but also as one
,,"ho "ras conscious of a definite mission to proclaim the
in1mediate advent of the I(ingdom of God, to herald
the Christ who ,vas to come, and "to Inake ready
a people prepared for the Lord." 2
There are matters of detail concerning the Bapti
t
on ,vhich the Gospels appear to disagree, but on the
chief points which alone concern our present enquiry
we may feel sure.
(1) The spirit of ancient prophecy revived in John
in the sense especially that for hinl the cOluing of
the I(ingdon1 ,vas as far as possible from being sonlC-
thing ,\"hich the nation, as it ,vas, could afford to
,velcome. Their eager nationalism "as not enough.
God ,vho ,vas to visit them in the coming of Ilis
1 Antiq. xviii. 52. Josephus' particular phrases are obscure,
though the general sense is plain. The editors of the Beginnings oj
Ohristi.anity, pp. 101 fl., put a definite meaning on Josephus which.
I think. Mr. Creed (J.T.S., Oct,. 1921, p. 59) luUi shown to be
mistaken.
. The motive assigned to Herod for J ohn'8 imprisonment is not
necessarily exclusive of the mot.ive assigned by the Gospels. His
motives may well have been mixed. It has boon poinwd out
(Belief Ï1ï God, p. 206) that Josephus, writing always to conciliat-e
Roman opinion, observes a discreet silence about Christianity;
and his silence about any relation of John to Jesus should not be
allowed to disoredit the Gospel account.
S The phrase, " the kingdom of heaven is at hand," occurs only
in St. l\latthew iii 2; but the same message is implied in all the
other Gospels. Schweitzer tries to persuade us that he believed
himself sent to prepare for-not t.he Christ, but Elijah, who was
to precede Christ. But" the mightier than I, the latchet of "hose

hoes I am unworthy to stoop down and unloose," who" shall
baptize you with tM Holy Ghost It (blark i 7, 8). can be none othel
than the Christ.

THE \VITl\ESS OF THE BAPTIST 45
Christ ,vould take no account of their descent fron1
Abraham. lIe demanded a holy people; and
sinners in Zion, ho,,
eYer alert their national zeal,
had as good cause as in the days of Isaiah to tremble
at the approach of the day of God as before devouring
fire and everlasting burnings. A fundamental
change of mind ,yas needed, and John's baptism
,vas the symbol of adnlission to a ne"
Israel-a
" people prepared for the Lord."
(2) It is the testÏ1nony of all the Gospels that
John not only announced the immediate coming of
the Kingdom and the Christ, but recognized Jesus,
on the occasion of His coming to his baptisn1, as
" the greater one" ,vho ,vas to come. The meagre-
ness of lV!ark's narrative, till he reaches (at ver. 14)
the Galilean ministry, suggests that only at that
point did his special information begin. \Vhat
precedes is a bare summary of ,vhat everyone kne,v.
But his brief narrative implies that, though the
vision of the opening heaven and the descending
Spirit ,vas for Jesus only, the divine voice ,vas for
John also-,vhether heard ,vith his out,vard ear
or only in his in,yard spirit, like the ,yord of the
Lord by the old prophets, ,ve need not enquire-
and it proclaimed Jesus the Son of God, by ,vhich
\vas then understood, I think, neither more nor less
than the Christ. This information n1ust have been
conveyed, '\ve should suppose, by John himself to
some of the first disciples; and St. Peter in the
A.cts represents the cOlupanionship of the apostles
,vith one another and ,vith the Lord Jesus as
"beginning fronl the baptism of John." 1 There
are differences in detail among the Gospels, 2 but
there is a common ,vitness ,y hich ,ve have no reason
for hesitating to accept.
But ,,
ith the narrative of the Galilean nlillistrv
of Jesus, ,ve get upon the ground of chief irnportanc
.
1 Acts i 21-2. I See appended note p. 68.

4-tJ TIlE BELIEF O:F TIlE FIRST DISCIPLES

III

If we arc to ùo our best to judge of the iInpression
produced by Jesus upon the first group of His
disciples, and especially upon those ,vho canIe closest
to Him and ,vhon1 He chose to be "the Twelve,"
we should read, at one sitting, ,\yith as fresh and free
a 11lind as possible" ignoring difficulties of detail, the
Gospel of St. ?\Iark do,vn to the beginning of the
Passion narrative, and then, again at one sitting, the
Gospel of St. Luke froln the beginning of the Ininistry
do,vn to the Passion, and thcn at least the Sernlon on
the Mount and the Parables in St. 1\latthe,v. lVhat
follows represents my often-rene,ved impression of
such readings, of the justice of ".hich my readers
must judge.
To speak in the nlost gcncral tcrlns, I subluit that
whatever previous idea
Inay have bcen in the minds
()f these disciples concerning the purpose of God for
Israel, and concerning His kingdom and the Christ
,vho ,vas to come, ,vcre quite over,vhelmed by a
new influence or impression ,vhich thre,v everything
else into the background-the over,vhelming Ï1n-
pression of the person of J esus-" t he Son of
Ian,"
<>r " the 1tlan," as He called Himself.
I do not think it is possible to doubt (I) that the
evangelists intend to convey the Î1npression that
.J esus, habitually fron1 the bcginning of IIis nIinistry,
called Himself the Son of
Ian.l
(2) That lIe really so called I-linlself. Seeing that,
except on one occasion, ,vhel1 Stephen, at the mOlnent
()f his martyrdom, calls Jesus the Son of
Ian, ,vith
()bvious reference to IIis o,vn "yords before the San-
hedrin (Mark xiv 62), the first Christians, according

1 See Begii1.nin!J8, pp. 374-7: "The opinion of the wri
rs of
the Gospels is thns clear that Jesus used the phra.se; that he
used it of Himse1f." U The '\\-rikrs understand Jesus to refer to
Himself." So also Bousset, Kyri()8 Christos, pp. 5 fi.

THE SON OF
L\:S

47

to the evidence, did not use this title of their Lord
at all, or in addressing Him, it seems the extreme of
perversity to maintain that the attribution of the
title to Jesus is due to the early community, 1 and
that He probably did not in fact use the title as a
designation of Himself.
(3) That, "yhereas after Peter's confession of His
1tlessiahship, the title acquires in the n10uth of Jesus
a quite distinctive l\Iessianic significance, it "ras as
first used by Him plainly not intended or understood
in a
tessianic sense at all. For ,ve are repeatedly
told that Jesus was refusing to make any public
claim to be the ?!essiah. The Aramaic ",'ord, trans-
lated Son of
Ian, would apparently have meant
simply" the man." Its use by Jesus may be com-
pared to its frequent use in the case of Ezechiel as
the name by which the divine voice called him.
There it signifies that he is a man, and also a man
singled out for a special vocation. 2 So also in Ps.
viü 4 it represents mankind viewed, as ,ve may say,
in the ideal. I suppose ,vhen our Lord first so called
Himself, quite without reference to 1tlessianic dis-
tinction or glory,3 He nleant His hearers to think of
Him as " the man" in some specially representative
sense, though I should shrink fron1 such a modern-
sounding phrase as " the ideal mall."
The Jews ,vere distinguished by profound rever-
ence for their teachers, who ,vere primarily teachers
of religion, and those ,vho heard Jesus came very
speedily to regard Him as a great teacher sent from
God. They ,vere impressed at starting by the novelty
of His teaching. "What is this? " nlen cried out.
" A new teaching! "4 Already they had heard ,vhat
seemed a new teaching from John the Baptist. If in

1 So Bousset and Kirsopp Lake.
2 See Ezech. ii 1, iii 1, and constantly.
3 AB in ?tlark ü 10, 28, Luke vii 34, ix 58, x1j 10 (all from Q).
t
{a.rk i 27.

48 TILE BELIEF O:F THE FIRST DISCIPLES
substance it ,vas the teaching of the ancient prophets
revived, yct, at least by contrast to ,vhat many
generations of the people had received fronl their
official guides, or by comparison ,,
ith popular ideas
about the Christ ,vho ,vas to come and the kingdoln
of God, it ""as very nc,v teaching ,,"hich they heard
from John. And doubtlcss thcy "
ere prepared for
the like from Jesus. But ,vhat they heard-for in-
stance in the sermon given by St. Luke, or the longer
ycrsion, the" Sermon on the l\lount " in St. 1tIatthew,
or the teaching about the merely relative obligation
of the Sabbath, or about the ne,v ,vine ,vhich could
not be put into old bottlcs, or about sin having its
scat only in the heart-the great saying of which
St.
[ark 1 says that it " cleansed all meats," or again
our Lord's estimate of the absolute ,vorth of every
hun1an soul-all this no doubt struck in their hearts
a profounder and richer note of novelty than any-
thing said by John the Daptist. 2
l\loreovcr, '\"e are bound to believe that some of
the disciples at least 'v ere Ï111pressed sufficiently to
be able to treasure the ,vords of Jesus-doubtless in
lnany cases the often-repeated words-and to repro-
duce thcm accurately, "\rith even sharp precision.
'Ihis ,vas in the J e,vish schools the quite normal
faculty of the pupils of any teacher. 3 "Y c may be
prepared to maintain against all comers that the
reports in the Synoptic Gospels of the ,vords of Jesus
bear, ,yith not much exception, the quite unmistak-
able stamp of genuineness. This, I think, must be
the verdict of the literary sense. N evert.heless, it
is also quite apparent that the disciples had very

1 St.
Iark vü 19.
! There are admirable modern account.s of the ethical teaching
of our Lord, amongst which I still think Ecce Homo pre-eminent.
But in this book I am concerned only with the estimat.e of our
Lord's person and restrain mysolf from the consideration of Ria
teaching.
I See Belief in God, pp. HH-2.

.

THE I
IPRESSION OF TI-IE PERSON "t!)
little intelligent perception, during our Lord's human
lifetime, of His meaning. They 'w'ere capable of \vhat
we cannot but call stupid n1isunderstandings. They
were even astonishingly dense, unimaginative, and
unsyn1pathetic. It ,vould be quite untrue, ,ve feel
as ,ve read, to interpret the influence of Jesus upon
them as the influence of His teaching upon receptive
pupils. It really ,vas not in the main the substance
of His teaching that ,vas gradually making then1
new men. Unmistakably it ,vas the commanding
authority of His person and their unbounded faith
in Jlim. 1
Critics of the orthodox tradition are al\vays re-
proving the theologians for having overstated th

prolninence of the person, and the personal claim,
of Jesus. "To lay down any , doctrine' about his
person and his dignity, independently of the Gospel,
,vas quite outside his sphere of ideas." 2 "He does
not talk about himself." 3 The measure of truth in
such statements "we shall have to consider later. But
let there be no n1istake. The dominant influence of
Jesus upon the disciples did not lie in anything that
He taught them, whether about Himself or about God
or about the kingdom of God, but in "The !vlan "
Hin1self-in the impression of over,vhehning authority,
certainly supernatural and" of God," resident in Him.
It is this that constrains then1 at the beginning to
leave all and follo,v Hin1. It is authority ,vhich
expresses itself in His ,vorks of healing, especially.,
but not only, the healing of the possessed. The
sense of it is vividly presented to us in the case of
1 Simkhovitch, op. cit. p. 78, has a very good passage about the
difference in powerful movements which stir mankind between
faith in ideas and understanding of ideas: "Do not think for the
J:noment that it is understanding of the ideas which moves n1an-
kind; it is their faith in the ideas." 'Vith the disciples it was not
even yet faith in the ideas of Jesus. It was simply a bewildered
confidence in Him..
I Harnack, IVhat is Christianity? p. 129.
3 Begin'l1.il1g8 oj GhriBtianity, p. 288.

I 1:::,",
1\ r""\ l C

'- nv'c rn
I

50 TIlE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
one who was neither a disciple nor a Jew-the
Roman centurion ,,,,ho had been paying attention
to Jesus, and had gained the conviction that lIe
occupied in nature a position comparable to his own
in the army. No doubt, that is to say, He was
"under authority"-the authority of God; but
within the sphere of His activity He could do as He
willed ,vith nature, as the centurion could ,vith his
subordinates. "\Yith authority He commands," and
it obeys Him. lIe speaks, and it is done.! So again
it is that the ruler of the synagogue faUs at His feet-
full of belief in His po,ver. 2 That is the impression.
His authority in ,yorking ,vhat ,ve call miracles and
,vhat the Gospels call " po""ers " is paralleled by His
moral authority. He taught as He ,vorked, " as one
having authority" of a divine kind in IIimself. So
as "the
Ian " He claims to forgive the sins of the
paralytic and, to prove His right to do so, He heals
his disease. And in teaching He does not generally,
though He does at times, refer beyond Himself-
"This is the ,yord of the Lord," or "Thus saith
Scripture." Even in revising the divinely-given law
of Sinai, it was enough to say" But I say unto you."
l\Iany moderns seem quite to underestimate or
almost to ignore this over,vhelming impression of
authority. The disciples are being led to believe
that in the physical ,vorld, though He ,,,,ill do nothing
to help Himself, He can do anything to help th05(\
in need, or themselves, His companions. Such was
doubtless the impression of His feeding of the five
thousand out of so miserably inadequate a supply, or
rescuing the disciples suddenly, when they roused IIim
out of sleep in the storm at sea. They ,vere growing
to believe that He ,vould be equal to all the emer-
gencies ,vhich might occur. And in the moral sphere
His ,vord was enough. They could not question it.
And though He did not seem to kno,v everything, yet
1
Iatt. viii 5-13, Luke vii 1-10. I: 1tinrk v 22.

IllS Il\II)LIED CL,"-\Il\1

5J

He had a strange po,ver of reading men's hearts; and
at times lIe spoke as if He ,vere the final judge of
men, not only in vie, v of their public acts but of thcir
secret lives. In certain of the parables this assump-
tion that He is the final judge is plain.l But it is
implied else,vhcre. '\Ve think of such a saying as
" l\Iany shall come to me in that day . . . then ,yilt
I protest unto then}, I never knew you." 2 Here what
is implied, both in St. l\latthew and St. Luke's
version, is that nothing matters to a man at last
except the judgment of Jesus on him, and that this
judgmen t goes to the heart of the reality and cannot
be nlÏsled by appearances or professions. So else-
,vhere ,ve hear that to deny Him and be ashamed of
Him here in this ,vorld means to be disowned by
Him at last, and that that is the final disaster. 3 He
is the ultimate judge.
There are three other kindred features in the im-
pression ,vhich our Lord plainly made on Bis disciples
which ,ve shall note. He spoke as being infallible.
He was indeed as far as possible from being a dog-
matic teacher who loved to teach men a secret lore
ex cathedra. There ,vas nothing about Him of this
tone. And He did not shrink from telling the
disciples of something ,vhich ,vas not ,vithin His
knowledge. But ,vhatever He did teach, He taught
as if it were certainly true, and (unlike the prophets
viho delivered a message frolD God) as if the fountain
1 So most dramatically in 1\la tt. xxv 19. I know that St.
:Matthew seems at times to heighten the lrlessie.nio oolouring of ou:.'
Lord's sayings. But I a.gree with Sandal (Phð Lilð of Ohrist in
Recent Research, p. 128, not-e 1) that it is "' wanton 'to doubt thig.
parable. See also the Tares, 1\latt. xüi 41, and t,he Talent8,
Luke xix 11 and :Matt. xxv 14. Dr. Ra.shdall, Oon8CÏC'n.u and Ohristr
p. 48! sooks to substantiate the doubt whet.her our Lord ever spoke
of Himself as the actual judge. But the witness that He did is.
not only St. l\Iatthew's.
2 1\latt. vü 22; cf. Luke xill 24 fr., which is vivid and clear in
ita implication.
3 Mark viii 38, Luke ix 26, ],\18 tt. X 33; cf. Luke xxi 36 "T

stand before the Son of Man."

j2 THE BELIEF OF TIlE FlltST DISCIPLES
of truth was in IIimself. " No .lllan kllo,veth the
Father save the Son and he to ,vholnc;oever the Son
willeth to reveal IIÏ1n." "Heayen and earth shall
pass a,vay, but IUY ,,,,ords shall not pass away."
Secondly, there ,vas not in His language the lea
t
trace of a sense of sinfulness, or even possible un-
,vorthiness, such as has possessed at all times prophet

and seers. Finally, there was an exclusiveness about
His claim 011 Inen, as if lIe ,vere not mcrely one of
the representatives of God but in some profoluld
sense the only one. lIe appears, indeed, to delegate
to the T,velve and the Seventy authority to teach
and to heal diseases, but this is in His nallle or in
uttcr dependence on Hill1. In I-linlself He seems to
brook no rival. "Come unto me," He says, "and
I ,vill give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and
learn of me." "He that loveth father or mother
Inore than me, is not ,vorthy of Inc." "Follo,v llle
and let the dead bury their o,vn dead." This sort
of language seems to brcathe nothing less than the
divine jealousy over human souls.
N o'v all this time questions ,vere pending in the
minds of the di
ciples as to ,vho He ,vas. There ,vas
SOine secret, sonlC nlystery, about IIis person.
The report of the divine voice at the baptisln, the
story of the telnptation in the ,vilderness '\vhich
Jesus must at some tinle have comn1unicated to
then1, the strange cries of the dcmoniacs "Thou
art the Son of God-the holy one of God," and their
horror of Hhn as of some. a,vful po,ver, and also
certain solemn and hardly intelligible ,vords of I-lis
o,vn, made them conscious of a Inystery. There
,vere nanles, "Son of l\Ian," "Son of God," "Chri
t, H
,vhich ,,,,ere in their ears and ,,,"ould have to be ex-
plained. But ,vhile all this process of questioning
,vas going on, something deeper ,vas happening.
Beyollq. all possibility of question, and secmingly by
IIis o,vn delibel"ate intention, Jesus, so far as they

.AUT DEUS AUT HO
IO NON BONUS 58
yielded their faith to Him, ,vas taking the place of
God, or in modern phrase gaining "the values of
God," for their souls. Not all the values of God.
They did not, I suppose, at that time dream of Him
as the creator of the world and the ruler of the course
of nature. No doubt they thought of Him as ,vholly
under God. But within the sphere of their personal
lives, He had been growing to have to them the
values of God, as the object of their absolute faith,
their infallible refuge and informer and protector
and guide.
This seems to me quite an irresistible impression.
There is an old saying of unknown origin-either
Jesus Christ ,vas God or He was not a good man-
,vhich critics sometimes treat with great derision. I
do not think it can be so derided. There is more
in it than they seenl to recognize. How could men
be in the constant conlpanionship of the Jesus of
the Synoptic Gospels-such as we have been seeking
to describe Him, surely without exaggeration-
without coming to be in the attitude towards Him
,vhich is only legitimate towards God? And was
He not deliberately encouraging, and bringing about
this attitude to\vards Himself in their souls? Did
He not exhibit the sort of exclusive claim which
suggests nothing else but the "jealousy" of God ?
And is it not the supreme sin of pride or arrogance
for any man, even a commissioned prophet, to allow
hin1self to assume this exclusive position? l\Iust
not every conlmissioned servant be always crying
"Send, 0 Lord, by whom thou .wilt send! Thou
hast many messengers and all of them subject to
error and weakness, I most of all " ? The implica-
tion of infallible, exclusive authority which seems
to inhere in the ,vords and tone of Jesus does
seem to me to express, if not the jealousy of God,
then some such quality as lies at the heart of all
spiritual tyranny and false sacerdotalism.
5

51 THE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

IV
"T e have no,,- to consider the question of the
person of Jesus from another point of vie\v, that is,
of the titles by ,vhieh lIe \vas called or by \vhieh He
called IIinlself. I have argued that if \ve regard
the Synoptic Gospels as giving us good history, \VC
must also regard it as certain that John the Baptist
pointed to Jesus as the Christ lr ho ""as to COIne, and
did so on the ground, in part at least, of the divine
voice heard by himself at the baptisnl of Jesus pro-
claiming HÎIu "the beloved Son in \vhom God ,vas
,veIl pleased." The record of the baptism as given
in the Gospels ,,,"ould have conle, \ve should suppose,
from John. "Thether" the voice," either on this
occasion or at the Transfiguration, ,vas one \vhich
an indifferent by-stander ,,"ould have heard with
his ears, or ,,,"hether it came, like "the \vord of the
Lord" to the prophets, only to the spiritual hearing,
,ve need not discuss, any more than the question
\vhether the narrative of the temptation, '\vhieh I
suppose our Lord related to the T,velve, is
intended as an allegoric expression of events \yhich
happened only in Christ's consciousness or as a
record of out,vard events.! In either case it is
certain that Jesus 'vas believed by Himself and by
John to have been divinely certified at His baptisnl
as the Son of God and the tenlptation of Jesus in-
volved His consciousness that He was SO. 2 SO
1 Though, for myself, I can feel no doubt (with Origen) that the
former is the true interpretation; see Epistles of St. John, pp. 236-7.
:4 I see no sign whatever in the Gospels of any advance in our
Lord's estimate of His own person. This idea, which is constantly
asserted, as if it were to be taken for granted, mayor may not be
open to theological objection, but the question need not be raised.
There is no evidence. And whether the word of God at the
baptism, "In thee I have been well pleased" (
ù
&K1](J"a), refers
to the past of the human life of Jesus or to the" eternal past" or to
the Ohrist as prefigured in prophecy, it certainly does not support
the idea that the moment of baptism made any difference to His
Sonship. The" \Vestern " reading of St. Luke iii 22, "Thou art

THE SO
OF GOD

55

says the only story ""e have of His childhood-the
scene in the Tenlple ,vhen He ,vas t,velve years old-
"lVist ye not that I must be about my Father's
business," or "in my Father's house." It follows
that those ,vho received the testimony of John and
Jesus believed Him to be truly, in some sense, the
Son of God, and ,vhen they heard the demoniacs
so hailing Him and heard Jesus seeking to silence
them, they must have felt that there ,vas mystery
attaching to this title; but on the ,vhole, they
probably simply identified it in meaning l\"ith the
Christ, the king of David's line in whom God's
promises to Israel ,vere to be fulfilled, neither more
nor less. It ,vould not appear that till St. Paul
comes on the scene the Church generally realized
its true significance.! It is true that there is no
evidence of the title Son of God being used in the
later J e,vish literature of the Christ, but it "as
t,vice used of the Son of David or of David in the
Psalms 2 and of the righteous man in the Book of
'Visdom, 3 and the evidence appears to be conclusive
that the disciples took it as meaning no nlore than
the Christ. 4

my beloved son; on this day have I begotten thee," is surely due
to a reminiscence of Ps. ii 7.
1 See later, pp. 78 ff.
:I Ps. ii (which is treated as :Messianic in the Psalms of Solomon)
verses 7 and (perha.ps) 12, and lxxxix 26-7. See Dalman's Words
oj Jesus (Eng. trans.), pp. 268 ff.
3 Wisdom ii 16, 18.
.. So it appears to have been understood when the demoniacs
hailed Him by the title U Son of God," in 1\Iark iii II, v 7; cf.
:l\Iatt. viii 29, Luke viii 28: "He suffered r..ot the devils to speak
because they knew him "--i.e. knew Him as Christ; cf. Luke
iv 41, where, aft.er the exclamation U Thou art the Son of God,"
is the explanation U They knew that he was the Christ." So at
the trial, 1\latt. xxvi 63, and parallels in l\lark and Luke; and
when our Lord is mocked upon the Cross (see 1\latt. xxvii 40-3 ;

f. Mark xv 32). St. :Matthew seems to represent the disciples as
Identifying U Son of God" with Christ in the confession of Pet6r
xvi 15. The same appears to be the representation of John i 49:
The " King of Israel " is the s
ynonym for " the Son of God."

j6 THE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

This, ho,vever, is by no means true of the scnse
in which our Lord used it of IIin1sclf. The great
passage, " No one kno,veth the Son save the Father:
neither cloth any kno,v the Father save the Son,"
,vhich occurs in both St. l\latthew and St. Luke,
and ,vith its \vonderful context is authentic beyond
reasonable dispute, asserts a relationship of lnutual
kno,vledge bet,veen Father and Son ,vhich suggests
son1ething essential and eternal.! So the phrase
" Of that day or that hour kno,veth no one, not even
the angels in heaven, neither the Son," 2 ,vhich again
must surely be authentic, because no later bcliever
"\vould have attributed such liInitation of kno,vledge
to the Christ, sugge
ts at least a super-angelic ::,on-
ship. Once n10re in the parable of the husbandmen
Jesus distinguishes Himself as the only Son sharply
from all the other Inessengers of God. 3 As I have
said, it ,vould not appear as if these utterances n1ade
Inuch impression at the tÏ1ne. The thoughts of the

1 )'Iatt. xi 27, Luke x 22. See Dalman, pp. 283, 285: "But
in thi8 case of mutual understanding, its thoroughness [i.e.
the thoroughness of mutual knowledge] and absolute infallibility
are assumed. He who stands in so uniquely close a relation to
God ig the only possible mediator of the kind, and also at the same
time the absolutely reliable revealer of the whole wealth of the
divine Dlysteries." . . . "The passages appear to in1ply that Jesus
had shown no cognizance of any beginning in this relationship.
It seeIns to be an innate property of His personality." See also
Harnack, Sayings of Jesus (Eng. trans., 'Villiams and Norgate),
p. 302. "A formal likeness of Father and Son, who are distin-
guished only by
he different names, and a relationship of Father
and Son which never had a beginning, but remains ever the same,"
is here expressed. This is unacceptable to Harnack and, quite
arbitrarily, he oluits part of the text. Other WTiters nlake the whole
passage the work of a later Jewish Christian prophet, basing himself
on Ecclus. Ii 1, 23, 26, 27. But tlris Bort of criticism can dissolve
any evidence. I shall recur to the passage later (see pp. 89 f, 109 f).
We notice that our Lord never speaks to the disciples of "our
Father,U except in giving them for their use the Lord's Prayer.
He speakB of "your Father," or U the Father," 8l1d of "nlY
Father. u This appéars with express emphasis in John xx 17.
But it is apparent also in the Synoptists.
2 :Mt1tt. xiii 32 and :l\Iatt. xxiv 3ß (R.V.).
3
Iark xii 6; albO lIatthew and Luke.

THE CHRIST 57
disciples ,vere confined to the question, Is he the
Christ? But they have survived among our Lord's
most indisputable ,yords, and they seem to me to
bear beyond question the sense of a sonship unique,
superhuman and essential. There is not really much
difference bet\veen ,vhat they involye and ,yhat is
taught in the discourses of St. John.
It is profoundly characteristic of what I have
called our Lord's undogmatic method that He should
have uttered these solemn sayings-l\"hich seem
to open out such momentous glimpses into the
mystery of His personality-but, as it ,vere, in-
cidentally or by implication only, and left them
as germs to fertilize later in men's minds. So with
regard to His being the Christ, though in that case
there were many suggestions from ,vithout, He chose
that the conviction of His messiahship should mature
in their o,vn minds and become a confession of their
o,vn lips, not something dictated to them by Him.
Thus, under circumstances of deepening anxiety,
and in or near a city the very name of which-
Caesarea Philippi-spoke of alien and foreign in-
fluences repugnant to the heart of every Jew, He
asked them the question, "\Vho do men say that
I an1 ? " and then pressed home upon them the more
searching question, "But who do ye say that I
an1? " and Peter replied ,vith the great confession,
" Thou art the Christ." It ,vas a decisive moment,
and it strikes us as most natural that our Lord
should have signalized the greatness of the moment
by meeting the confession with the solemn and
rich benediction which Matthe,v alone records:
H Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for this is
not anything thou hast learnt by human influence.
It is a real disclosure made by my heavenly Father
in thy soul. It is a conviction wrought in thee
by God."
Henceforth, though the world is not at present to

58 THE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
know it, the secret that Jesus is the Christ is an open
secret in the apostolic company, and Jesus proceeds
at once to build upon it in the ,yay most calculated to
test them and terrify them. "From that tÍ1ne began
Jesus to sho,,,, unto His disciples, how that he Inust
go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed
and the third day be raised up." This prophecy
is made "openly" and repeated again and again. 1
The ideas suggested were profoundly contrary
to the vague and elastic, but ahvays glorious and
radiant, ideas of the l\Iessianic king ,vhich the Jews,
and the disciples amongst theIn, entertained. They
had all along had cause for anxiety as to whether
the crowds dra,vn by the "powers" and by the
words of their l\Iaster ,vere the prelude to His real
triumph. It ,vas quite plain that there ,vas a wide
interval bet,vecn ,velcon1Ïng His vlords and ,vonderful
benefits and really obeying fronl the heart His search-
ing doctrine. Of the latter there ,vas no sign on any
large scale. And the leaders of the nation appeared
to be all against Him. Nevertheless there had been
something radiant and triumphant about their earlier
experiences ,vith Him in Galilee. Nothing less is
implied in the description ,vhich Jesus gave of His
company, in explanation of their having no special
fasts of their o,vn, such as the Pharisees had, and
John's disciples. He conlpared them to a happy
band of friends round a bridegroom in the moment of
his joy and triunlph. No doubt He struck the note
of loss and sorro,v to come-" The days ,viII come
,vhen the bridegroom shall be taken a,vay from
them "-but the present scenery is painted in radiant
colours. It might be a fitting prelude for the glorious
days of the 1\Iessiah. But anxiety had deepened;
and no,v, just ,vhen they had given full expression
to their faith that He verily ,vas the Christ, He let
1 :Mark viii 31, ix 12, 31, x 33-4.

THE SUFFERIKG SERVANT

59

the blow fall upon them in all its ,veight, and drove
it down upon them again and again. The way of
the Christ was to be the ,vay of the Cross, the way of
failure and death. And Peter's impulsive protest
brought upon him the sternest rebuke "Get thee
behind me, Satan! "
\Ve cannot doubt that this profound change in the
idea of the Christ ,vas effected by our Lord's identi-
fying IIimself, the Son of l\Ian, with the Suffering
Servant of Jehovah in the later Isaiah. In these
'\vonderful chapters (Is. xl on,vard) "the servant of
Jehovah " is first Israel in general (xli 8 f.), and then
apparently the select remnant of the people, ,vho
alone are the true Israel (xlix 1-3), through 'VhODl
alone the purpose of God can realize itself. But
though no doubt the prophet begins by using "the
Servant" as a personification of the nation or group
,vi thin the nation, yet he appears to be carried away
as he contenlplates the Servant to think of him as a
real person ,vho is by his obedience and his unde-
served sufferings and death to ,vin the redenlption
of "the many." \Ve feel this already in earlier
passages,! but the impression becomes over,vhelming
in the fanliliar passage (lii 13 and liii), ,vhich sounds
to us for the most part, as ,ve hear it, as simply the
history of the passion of Jesus ,vritten beforehand.
I will present the passage in Dr. Driver's careful
analysis 2 :
The preface in cap. Iii 13-15 describes "the ideal
servant's exaltation after an antecedent period of humilia-
tion and distress." Then this is developed in cap. liii.
The first part (I-D) presents "three several stages in
the ideal Servant's hun1Ïliation: the persons speaking
are the Israelites, represented as at length perceiving
the truth to ,vhich they had before been blind, and
1 E.g. I 4-10.
2 Isa.z,ah, his Life and_Times (Nisbet), pp. 152-5, very slightly
abbreviated.

60 THE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

reviewing the period of their incredulity. First, in spite
of the prophetic report, or message, pointing to hhn,
fe\v or none, they say, an10ngst his nation recognized
hitn: he had no out\",ard grace, or beauty of form,
attracting attention; he gre\y up in their n1idst like S0l11e
ll1ean or lo\vly shrub, struggling to maintain itself in
an arid soil: men despised hin1, and even held aloof
from him in aversion. In truth, ho\vever," [so they pro-
ceed to confess], they themselves were the occasion of
his distressed appearance: f' he \vas bearing the conse-
quences of our sins, although we in our blindness in1agined
him to be stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted"-
i.e. smitten, as by a divine judgment, for some heinous
offence-" \vhereas, in fact, it \vas \ve \vho had gone
astray, and the penalty, instead of recoiling upon us,
lighted in its entirety upon him. So far from being
guilty himself, he bore the guilt of others and relieved
them of its penal consequences. Though he suffered
,villingly, and made no ans\ver to his accusers, he 'vas
still oppressed: first imprisoned by an unjust sentence,
h
was afterwards led a\vay to execution, not one among
his contemporaries considering that he \vas thus cut off,
not for his own sins, but for those of the people. In
spite of the innocence of his life, his death \vas that of
a malefactor and his end inglorious."
[The final paragraph, ho\vever, reverses the character
of the scene and introduces the promise for the future.]
" It \vas Jehovah's pleasure thus to bruise hin1: but out
of death ,viII spring a new life: after his soul has been
made a guilt offering, he ,,
iII live again, enjoy long life,
and be rewarded ,vith the satisfaction of seeing God's
,,,,ork, or 'pleasure' prosper in his hand. Possessed of
an intimate 'kno\vledge' of the dealings and purposes
of God, he ,,,,ill' justify the many,' \vhilst his final re\vard
for having submitted to the death of a transgressor ,viII
be that he ,viII be ranked as a conqueror and honoured
among the great ones of the earth: inasmuch as ' he bore
the sins of the many and made intercession for the trans-
gressors.' "
This astonishing vision of the prophet appears to
have made little or no permanent impression on the

THE CHRIST I\IUST SUFFER

61

imagination of Israel. I Its idea of kingship quite
escaped then1. They never identified the glorious

Iessiah ,vith the Suffering Servant. This ",vas the
,york of Jesus. Some nlodcrn critics have ventured
to doubt ,vhether Jesus sho,vs the influence of this
prophecy. But, I think, quite unreasonably. Two
points seem to prove it :-(1) that our Lord plainly
regards the sufferings of the Christ and His death
as necessary because prefigured in Scripture. 2 "Ho,v
is it \vritten of the Son of l\fan ?" "The Son of
l\fan goeth as it is ,vritten of Hin1." "How, then,
should the Sí'riptures be fulfilled, that thus it must
be ?" And the same intense conviction of prophecy
and fulfilment appears in the earliest Church, 3 and
it appears from the beginning associated ,vith the
figure of the ,.. servant of Jehovah." 4 Indeed it
could hardìy have been other,vise, for, though th

Old Testan1ent may provide types and suggestions
of the idea of a suffering Christ, it contains nothing
which can be compared ,vith Isaiah liii in vividness
and impressiveness.
(2) Our Lord seelns plainly to identify Himself
"ith "the Servant," \vhen He quotes from the
" Servant" section of Isaiah to interpret His mission
at Nazareth,5 and St. Luke also represents Him

1 It left apparent traces on certain psalms and on the books of
Job and bfa.ccabees (see below, pp. 28,3 f), but it never became recog-
nized for its importance in the Jewish tradit.ion. In the Targul"tl,
on Is. llii, which has recently been translated by the Rev. R. B.
Aytoun (see J.T.S., Jan. 1922, pp. 179-80), the Servant is int-er-
preted of the l\Iessiah, but, by a violent perversion of the sense of
the pas3age, all the marks of ignominy and shame are diverted from
him upon his people and his adversaries. . This is a most curious
document.
S l\Iark ix 12, cf.
Iiltt. xxvi 24, 54, 56, Luke xviii 31, xxiv
25-7, 46.
3 1 Cor. xv' 3, Acts ii 23, xvii 2-3, xxvi 22-3, 1 Peter i 10-11.
· See Acts iii 13 "His servant Jesus," and 26, and iv 27, 30
U Thy holy servant J esns." So Philip expounds to the e1ll1uch,
viii 31 fl. So 1 Peter ii 21 fl. and ?\fatt.. viii 17.
(I Luke iv 18, from Is. lxi. Driver is surely right. in representing
theBe words a.q put in the mouth of the Servant.

62 l"IIE BELIEF OF TIlE FIRST DISCIPLES
as quoting of Ilis 0\\ n cnd the ,vords concerning the
Servant, U He ,vas reckoncd ,vith transgressors." 1
But pcrhaps more convincing in their originality
are the two passages in St. 1tIark ,,'here our
Lord speaks of Hinlself as to gi ve I-lis life a
" ransom for many," and of the cup, at the Last
Supper, as "this is Iny blood of the covenant ,vhich
is shed .for 'tnany." 2 I t does not seenl to Ine to be
doubtful that this "for many," t,vice repeated, is a
reference to Isaiah liii. "}Iy righteous servant shall
justify many." "lIe bare the sin of 'many." 3 This
is all the Inore noticeable because the significance
of the precise ,vord does not seem to have been
perceived, so that it has vanished from the versions
of St. Luke and St. Paul.
Our Lord then, who ,vas plainly set radically to
revise the conception of the Christ, and 'v ho, though
He did not disclain1 His Davidic descent, yet ,vas
nlanifestly anxious not to ernphasize it,
deeply
involved as it ,vas in ideas of tClllporal sovereignty,
sought to effect His purpose by identifying the
Christ, as no one had done before IIim, 5 with the
Suffering Servant, and that by associating both '''lith
thc' title He had chosen for IIin1self-the Son of
Man or the
{an. Henceforth the l\Ian, the Christ,
and the Suffering Servant are the same person. And
one In ore step had to be taken to complete our
Lord's profoundly ne,v doctrine of the Christ, and
that ,vas, as the sequel to suffering and death, to

1 Luke xxii 37.
2
Iark x 45, xiv 24 ; so also in St. :Matthew, cf. Heb. ix 28, Rom.
v 15.
3 Is. liii 11, 12. In the LXX the word 7roÀ^oîs, 7roÀÀotJs, 7rOÀÀwv
recurs three tilnes. Also as one reads the LXX of Is. liii 12-
'7raf*
&81J
:s edva'Tov-it is difficult to doubt that this phrase pro-
moted the constant use of this verb in connection with our Lord's
betrayal and surrender to death.
· On our Lord's Daviclio descent as a real fact, see Dalman,
cpo cit. pp. 316 ft.
6 Unless, indeed, J olm the Bapt.ist: see John i 29.

THE SO
OF
L\X I
GLORY 63
introduce in a ne,v form, ,vhat ,vas already suggested
in Isaiah liii, the idea of resurrection and glory. In
a new form-for He identified the Christ ,vith the
figure of glorified manhood in the visions of Daniel.
The passage has been already quoted and its
original sense explained. It is an Ï1nage of the
people of God, by the side of the world -empires
imaged in the four great beasts-" .A.nd I saw in the
night visions, and behold there canle ,vith the clouds
of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came
even to the Ancient of Days. . .. And there was
given him dOlninion and glory and a kingdom, that
all the people, nations and languages should serve
hin1 ; his dominion is an everlasting donlinion, VtThich
shall not pass a,vay, and his kingdom that which
shall not be destroyed." No,v, I have already
eXplained how probably before our Lord's time, in
the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, this figure of
the chosen people ,vas converted into the figure of
a heavenly being, "The Elect One," pre-existing in
the heavens, ,vho at the end of the "Torld was to
be manifested in glory as the agent of divine judg-
ment, seated on the very throne of God. This
being, first described as in countenance like a man
and possibly called "The Son of :\Ian," 1 is the
-, .A.nointed One," and, as one nlay say, is a sub-

titute for the old prophetic l\Iessiah. This is a
truer expression than to say He is identified ,,"ith the

Iessiah, for lIe has no connection with any earthly
son of David in the imagination of the Apocalyptic
\vriter. No,v I have insisted that it must be
regarded as certain that "The Son of )Ian" was
lWt a term ,vhich for the cro,vd or the disciples
carried ,vith it
Iessianic associations ",?hen our
Lord first used it. It ,vas our Lord ,vho first for
theln identified the Son of )lan both ,vith the
Suffering Ser\
ant and l\'ith the Christ, the Son of
1 For doubts on this subject see above, p. 31.

G4 TIlE BELIEF OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
Da.vid. But I think it is most probable that the
Book of Enoch had already interpreted the human
figure in Daniel as being-not an image of the nation,
but a mysterious person, ,vho is to be manifested in the
clouds as God's vice-gerent in judgment at the end
of the ,vorld, and had given this interpretation of
Daniel such currency that our Lord can use it as a
n1eans of extending the meaning of II is o,vn title,
thc Son of l\Ian, and giving to the conception of the
Christ its ne,v 111caning. 1
'Ve had bettcr have before us the Pharisee's con-
ception of the Christ to come and the Apocalyptic
conception of the Son of l\Ian, that "Te may see
ho,v our Lord both fused and remodelled them.
We take the Psalms of Solomon, dating from a
Pharisaic source about a generation before our
Lord's birth, and in the 17th Psalm ,ve find this
account of the Christ:

"Behold, 0 Lord, and raise up unto thcln their king,
the Son of David, at the time ,vhich thou sawest,
o God, that he may reign over Israel, thy servant,
and gird him \vith strength that he may shatter
unrighteous rulers. Purge Jerusalem from nations that
trample her down to destruction. . . . He will not
suffer unrighteousness to lodge any n10re in the midst
of his people; nor shall there dw'ell \vith them any man
that k.no,veth ,,
ickedness; for he shall know them,
that they are all sons of their God. and he shall distribute
then1 in their tribes upon the earth, ond no sojourner or
foreigner shall sojourn any more among them." 2

This is the old prophetic vision, only ,,"ithout any
of the ,vide hope ,vhich is found in many of the old
prophets for all the nations of the earth. There is
in this Psalm nothing but destruction for the heathen.

1 It must be remembered that on all showing the Jewish Messianic
ideas were confused and vague. Our Lord seems first to have given
them spiritual coherence.
I Psalms of Solomon, xvii 23-5, 29-31.

THE BOOI{ OF EXOCH

65

And the nlethod of the Christ- I{ing is to be the
method of the ruthless conqueror. 'Ve have seen
already how utterly our Lord repudiated any such
conception of the office of the Christ, and both pro-
foundly spiritualized and universalized the concep-
tion of the Kingdom. lIe ,vent back to the noblest
form of the ancient vision, and far beyond it.
Then let us take the Apocalyptic conception of
the Elect One from the SÜnilitudes of Enoch, based
nlanifestly on the vision of the Book of Daniel.
" .A,lld there I sa\v one ,yho had a head of days, and
His head \vas \vhite like ,vool, and ,vith Hinl ,vas another
being \v hose countenance had the appearance of a man,
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy
angels. And I asked the angel \vho \vent \vith me and
showed nle all the hidden things, concerning that Son of
}fan, who he ,vas, and ,,-hence he \vas, and ,vhy he went
\vith the Head of Days. And he answered and said
unto me: This is the Son of l\Ian ,vho hath righteous-
ness, \vith 'VhOlll d\velleth righteousness, and \vho re-
vealeth all the treasures of that ,vhich is hidden. . . .
.And this Son of l\lan ,vhonl thou hast seen . . . shall
loosen the loins of the strong and break the teeth of the
sinners . . . and darkness shall be their dwelling, and
,vorm5 shall be their bed. . . because they do not
extol the name of the Lord of spirits." "At that hour
the Son of l\Ian ,vas nailled in the presence of the Lord
of Spirits, and his name before the Head of Days. . . .
He shall be the
taff to the righteous ,vhereon to stay
theillseives and not fall, and he shall be the light of the
Gentiles, and the hope of those ,vho are troubled in
heart. . . . .A.nd he hath been chosen and hidden before
Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore."
" And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of
judgment ,vas given unto the Son of l\Ian, and he caused
the sinners to pass a,vay and be destroyed from off the
face of the earth, and those ,vho have led the ,vorld
a::)tray." 1
1 The Book of Enoch (Dr. Charles's translation), xlvi, xlviii
2, 4, 6, IJJx 27.

66 THE BELIEF OF TILE FIRST DISCIPLES

If this, as sccn1S probable, is really a writing
whieh dates before the time of our Lord, and the
passages just quoted are not, as a ,,
hole, Christian
interpolations,! ,vhieh again seems probable, we need
not doubt that this interpretation of Daniel's, "one
like unto a son of man," ,vho came ,vith the clouds
of heaven and ,vas brought near to the Ancient of
Days and given universal and everlasting don1Ínion
and glory and a kingdom,2 ,vas kno\vn to our Lord
and used by IIinl. But He transforlned completely
the ,,
hole basis of the conception of the "Elect
One," ,vho in Enoch is a purely celestial figure,
angelic rather than hUlllan. In our Lord's use of
the figure, he is first of all the nlan born of a "
omal1
and living the hUlnan life anlong His fello,ys; then
the suffering" Servant of Jehovah," ,yho "rins re-
demption for the n1any by the sacriftce of His life;
and so only passes to resurrection and glory and
t he awful dignity of the judge of the ,vorld. I t is
on this Lasis that the note of resurrection and glory
and po\ver is sounded in the ears of the disciples,
side by side ,,"ith the note of suffering. " The third
day he shall rise again." And they are to " see the
Son of
Ian coming in the glory of His Father "\vith
the holy angels." 3
This, then, is the conclusion of our enquiry. The
conception of the J\Iessiah ,vhich Jesus caused to
grow in the minds of the disciples ,vas profoundly
original in the sense that it took up all the elenlents
of ancient prophecy and recent interpretation, and

1 See Dalman, op. cit. p. 243: "A Christian interpolator should
above all things have made it clear in some way that the Son of
l\fan coming in judgment was Jesus of Nazareth. But the Son of
l\Ian in this case appears never to have been upon earth, far less
to have passed through the state of death." See, however, above
p. 31, for the title Son of 1\Ian.
t Dan. vii 13-14.
3 Mark viii 31, :38, xiv 62. On the eschatological teaching of our
Lord and the question of its relation to realit.y see at length
pp. 135 fi.

THE l\IESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS 67

combined them in a ,,-hole in His own person-in
a ,vholc ,vhich, ,vhile it realized their best spirit,
,vas quite ren10te from the expectations of His
contemporaries. According to Jesus' teaching, the
l\Iessiahship had its basis in His humble and patient
manhood, and it was to have its centre in His
rejection and suffering and crucifixion, and its
vindication in His resurrection and in the mission
of His Spirit (for the resurrection of the dead and
the effusion of the Spirit ,vere, as ,ve have seen,
elements in the ancient prophecies of the l\lessianic
days), and it ,vas to find its consuIDInation in His
Lordship in heaven and in His coming to judge the
quick and :dead.
But in spite of the special help given to them in
the vision of the Transfiguration, the disciples had
at present no ears for the note of glory beyond
humiliation and through it. They could only attend
to the announcements of utter shame and rejection
and death. Kot only did He speak to them of His
own death, but of the death of their national hopes.
He told them quite plainly that Jerusalem ,vas
doomed,1 and that their city and temple ,,'ould be
destroyed; and He bade thenl accept this utter
seeming failure, both of Him, their l\laster, and of
all that their patriotic hearts held dear, as some-
thing inevitable and necessary for the kingdoln to
come. 2 It ,vas too much for theln. It stirred in
their n1Ïnds a despondency and repulsion ,vhich
overcame even their loyalty and their faith in Hiln.
There is hardly any tragedy in history ,vhich
moves us lnore than the failure of the disciples.
But it ,vas a temporary tragedy. Their failure
became an elenlent in their strength and po,ver.
Their faith in Jesus lived again, and took form and
glory after their recovery, and in the next chapter
1 On this soo below, pp. 146 ff.
J Luke xxi 28.

tJ8 THE BELIEF OF TIlE FIRST DISCIPLES

,vc shall trace its course. \Vhat ,ve have done so
far is to recognize that, quite apart from their ideas
about the person of Jesus their l\Iaster, ,vhich were
no doubt vague and uncertain, quite apart even
frOBl the ne'v conception of the Christ ,vhich Jesus
had planted in their reluctant souls to bear fruit
after their tenlporary failure, there ,vas another and
deeper iInpression ,vhich they could not
hake off.
They had been keeping cOinpany ,vith one ,vho,
deliberately as it seemed, had COine to occupy
towards their souls a place of authority ,vhich is
practically God's place. He had come to have for thcln
the values of God. "Ve can conceive nothing further
frOln the method of Jesus than that He should
have startled and shocked their consciences by pro-
claiming HiIuself as God. But He had done some-
thing ,vhich in the long run \vould make any other
estimate of Him hardly possible.

NOTE (to p. 45)
On the Relation of John the Baptist to Jesus
\Ve need not d,vell upon the slnall differences of detail
hct,veen the first three evangelists in their accounts of
the circumstances of the baptism of Jesus and His recog-
nition by John as the Christ. But the Fourth Gospel
Jnakes a great deal of John's testiInony to Jesus as the
Son of God, by 'which he appears to lllean sinlply thc
Christ (see i 8, 26, 32-5, iii 22-30, v 33, x
1). John
is also there rcpre
ented as calling Him" the Lamb of
God \vhich taketh a,vay the sins of the ,vorld," thus
identifying HÏIn with the Suffering Servant of Jehovah of
Is. liii; and it alone records, ,vhat is very interesting,
that some five of the apostles. had been previously
disciples of John and had been directed by John to Jesus,
and had in some sense become His disci pIes then and
there, and had ackno,vledged IIim for the Christ (John
i 35-51), and had had some profound experiences of
IIim before the end of John's lllinistry and their call

JOlIN THE B
\PTIST AND CHRIST 69
to be " fishers of men" (John ii and iii 22). I do not
think all this is at all impossible. As Dr. Holland points
out,1 their early confession that Jesus was the Christ,
or " the Son of God, the J{ing of Israel," ,vas an echo of
the popular Je,vish hope ,vhich their subsequent experi-
ence obliterated, so that they had to rediscover His
l\lessiahship in a quite new sense. Nor do I see any-
thing improbable in John having, perhaps first anlong
the J e\vs, identified the Suffering Servant ,vith the Christ.
I think \ve have in these additions to the story of the
SYlloptists genuine memories. See Burney, Aramaic
Origin oJ"the Fourth Gospel, pp. 104 H.
It is \vorth noticing that the record of the divine voice
at the baptism is given by all the Synoptists as " This is
my beloved son in ,vholn I was" or " I have been ,veIl
pleased." This makes it plain that none of them regard
the Sonship as dating from the baptism, though I think
that to the consciousness of John (but not to that of
Jesus), as to the rest of the Je\vs, the term at that time
Ineant no more and no less than the Christ. This idea
of the Christ nlust have come from Ps. ii 7 and
lxxxix 26.
.As a result of his preaching and baptisln " the disciples
of John" appear to have constituted a distinctive
fraternity, ,vhom John bound together by special rules.
He taught thenl to pray and to observe special fasts,
and" on some points of ceremonial he may have had
tenets of his own" (see Luke xi It v 33, John iii 15;
cf. .Acts xviii 25, xix 3-4; and see Latham's Pastor
Pastorunl, p. 155). But it does not appear clearly in the
Acts ho,v Dluch they understood" concerning Jesus..'
1 In The Phil080pÞy oj Faith and thfJ Fo-urth Gospel (Murray, 1921),
pp. 172 f.

lj

.. CHAPTER III

THE FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH AND OF ST. PALL
IT \vould seem that all the effort of Jesus ,vas directcd,
in the lattcr part of His ministry, to the training of
the T\yelve, and especially to the preparation of
their minds to ,vclcome the principle of sacrifice, and
withstand thc shock of the Cross. 1 Crucifixion in
the Roman provinces ,vas an exceedingly comn10n
punishn1ent. The spectacle of men bearing the cross-
beam to their place of punishment ,yould have been
familiar enough. But to the heart of the J e,yish
nation it must have been the symbol of subjection
and ignominy. And to the natural heart of the
disciples the course ,vhich Jesus, ,vhom they had
confessed to be the Christ, had, as it appeared, so
deliberately chosen, seenlcd doubtless an intolerable
betrayal. There "ras, indeed, at the last hour one
moment of seeming triumph; for Jesus, ,,,110 ,vas so
reluctant to figure as the Son of Dayid, because of
the false associations of royalty iInplicd in the title,
accepted it from the blind beggar Bartimaeu
on His
way to J erusalen1, and later consented to be hailed
as King by a mixed cro,vd, in a momentary fit of
1 Cruoifixion was the ordinary Roman punishment for persons
Bupposed to be dangerous to the Empire, see Hastings' Dict. oj
tM Bible, i, p. 528. After the death of Herod the Great Josephus
(B.J. ii v 3) tells us that Varus crucified 2000 rioters at one
time, cf. ii xii 6, xiii 2, xiv 9; also (v xi 1) that, at the destruction
of Jerusalem, the crucifixions inflicted by Titus were so constant
a.nd numerous that there was neither room for the crosses nor
wood to make them.

70

THE TR..-\GEDY OF THE CROSS 71
enthusiasm, at His entry into Jerusalem.! And if
the cleansing of the temple occurred immediately
after"
ards,2 that ,vas another triunlph, ,,"hich ,yould
have raised the spirits of the disciples. It ,vould have
seemed for the moment as if He was no,v going to
assert I-lis power. But this brief elevation of spirits
was follo\ved by the warnings of immediate betrayal
and death, and it became plain that not all that
Jesus could do had availed at all to inspire into the
disciples' minds the acceptance of the Cross.
There is no tragedy in history 1110re moving than
the rejection of Christ-all the more that it was not
due to any extraordinary l\rickedness in the Je,vs
or the Romans, but to the ordinary motives of men.
In the Sadducean family of Annas it was due to
the selfish determination to uphold by all means
their own precarious position of authority, dignity
and ,vealth, under the Roman sovereignty, and to
suppress eyery movement that 111ight make the
Romans jealous; in the Pharisees, to their refusal!,
at the bidding of one ,vho ,vas in their eyes the merest
layman, to ackno\vledge profound 111istakes, and to
think over again from the beginning ,vhat ,,'as the
meaning of the religion of ,vhich they ,vere the
orthodox representatives; in the mass of the people
to their ,vorldly preoccupation of lllind and their
stubborn nationalism, ,vhich made them entertain
,vild hopes, and blinded them to the spiritual" ,yay"
of redemption which Jesus presented to them; in
Pilate, to the refusal to do what very few Roman
governors ,vould have dreamed of doing-to prefer
abstract justice, in the case of an impotent individual,
to the apparent interests of the Empire and himself.
1 I cannot but think that St. John's explanation of the fit of
enthusiasm by the excitement due to the raising of Lazarus (xii
9-19) is the only explanation of it which makes it at the moment
intelligible. In the Synoptists taken alone it appears unaccountable.
:I St. John, however, puts it at the beginning of the ministry.
I think it is not improba.ble that it occurred twice.

72 FAITH OF TIlE FIRST CI-IURCII
Such refusals and obsessions are an around us every
day. They constitute the common atnlosphere of
society, certainly in our own time as HIuch as of
old. The mind of the ecclesiastical authorities, as
exhibited in Church history to,vards " unauthorized"
prophets, constantly recalls the Pharisees. The atti-
tude of politicians and men of business and governing
classes to,vards nloral principles constantly recalls
the Sadducees and Pilate. The attitude of popular
movenlentc; constantly recalls " the common people"
of Jerusalem and Galilee. It is the tragedy of human
life from the point of vie,v of the believer in God. God
comes unto His o,vn and IIis o,vn receive Him not.
And if the nIost tragic feature in the whole situa-
tion is the failure of the T,velve-if we can hardly
bear to read the story of Peter's denial-yet ""e must
not be scornful. The doctrine which they "Fere
required to embrace ,vas a very ne'v one...-contrary
always to flesh and blood, but to none so contrary
as to the J e,vs. I t is not easy to realize the depth
of the requirell1ent ,vhich our Lord made upon His
disciples' hearts and minds ,vhen He bade them not
only contenlplate His o,vn seenIing failure and death,
but also anticipate the dooln ,vhich lIe so solenlnly
pronounced upon their nation and city and tenlple,
and be prepared to witness its accomplishment even
with joy, as the necessary prelude of the kingdom of
God. l No one, J e,v or Gentile, can kno,v his o,vn mind
or the n1Înd of Dlen and ,vonlen in general ,vithout
recognizing that the real strain on faith is the spectacle
of the present seenling ,veakness of God and of good,
which no prospect of future reversal seenlS able to
counterbalance. Truly God" delivers His strength
into captivity and His glory into the enenIies' hands." 2

1 Luke xxi 28-31.
IPS. lxxviii 61 (Bible version). The reference is to the capture
of the Ark of God. Our Prayer Book version, "their power . . .
and the-ir beauty," is a mistake.

THE RECO"
ERY OF THE T\YEL \TE 73

I
But a few \veeks after the crucifixion and en-
t.ombment of Jesus, the company of "the brethren,"
nUlnbering one hundred and t\venty persons, and
centering upon the T\velve, are presented to us in the
beginning of the Acts in a wholly different franle of
ll1ind. They are no,,," radiant and confident, and are
prepared to face an even ,vorld-\vide n1Ïssion, appar-
ently of a n10st desperate kind, and to challenge the
,vorld, \vith a clear understanding at least of the
ground of their nlission. I have contended in the
volume \vhich preceded this, 1 that nothing can satis-
factorily account for their sudden, complete and
corporate change of mind, except a certain series of
facts, sonle of ,vhich are recorded in detail by the
Evangelists, and ,vhich are sun1marized at an earlier
date by St. Paul 2-that is the finding of the tomb
of Jesus empty on the third day, and His repeated
appearances after,vards, ,,,,ith a humanity strangely
changed in physical condition, but still the same-
\vhich had assured them, beyond possibility of mis-
take, of His actual resurrection from the dead. On
the fortieth day after the Resurrection St. Luke
records that these appearances came to an end ,vith
the Ascension, 3 ,vhich after another ten days ,vas
follo,ved by the promised effusion of the IIoly Spirit.
I do not propose to go again over the ground of the
1 Belief in God, pp. 262 fI.
t Edward :;'Ueyer, Ursprul1g, pp. 11-12, writes: "The bodily
resurrection of Jesus and His numerous appearances before the
disciples belong to the oldest traditions and those that were earliest
fixed in a definite formula. Paul received this formula after his
conversion in his period of instruction (Lehrzeit), and reproduced
it in 1 Cor. xv. . . . That Paul says · Kephas' not 'Peter'
is a. proof that the formula. . . was originally composed in
Aramaic."
3 There seems to me to be no adequate ground for the assumption
of )Ieyer (op. eil., vol. i. pp. 40 ff.) that the narrative of the Ascension
is an intßrpolation.

7 4 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH

" evidences" of these events having actually occurred.
\Vithout in any way blinding ourselves to difficulties
or discrepancies of detail between our authorities-
such as occur in all original testimonies by ordinary
people, unless they have been artificially rectified-J
do not think that it is possible either to reject them
or to call them doubtful. It seems to me psycho-
logically certain t
at such a rapid, sin1ultaneous con-
version of such uninlaginative men as ,ve know the
'fwelve to have been from the state ofmÎnd as described
in the Gospels, both before and after the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ, to the state of mind described in the
beginning of the Acts, could not have occurred except
by the impact of indisput.able facts of experience,
such as those to which they attributed their newly-
,von convictions.
Nor do I propose to recur to the question of the
Lucan authorship and trust,vorthiness of the Acts
of the Apostles. Sonle critics hold that in the
earlier chapters (i-xii) St. Luke is dependent upon
Aran1aic docun1ents. Dr. Burkitt has recently
suggested that St. l\lark's narrative may originally
have extended over the period covered by them. l
We can leave these questions aside as doubtful.
What we are not justified in doubting is that, in
his intercourse "\\'ith Philip the Evangelist and
)Inason, the "original" disciple, and some of the
,vomen of the apostolic company, and no doubt
others at Caesarea and at Jerusalem, and ,vith John
::\fark in Rome during St. Paul's imprisonment
there-John !\Iarh. ,vho had P!obably lived through
1 Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (Constable, 1922), p. 79.
"It may be well to remind ourselves that we do not know how far
the narrative (of l\Iark) extended over the ground covered by
St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles. The first half of the work ends
with the Dame of ' John who was surnamed
Iark,' and it is plausible
to suppose it may have been in the work of 1tlark that the third
Evangelist came across the life-like episode of Rhoda." Certainly.
how
'\.er, Papias' description of ::\Iark's record does not suggest
this larger scope.

THE BEGIXXING OF THE ACTS 75
all those early days in his n10ther's house at Jerusalen1
\vhere the apostolic company assen1bled-Luke had
excellent opportunities for kno",'ing the facts ,,,ith
sufficient accuracy to enable him to \vrite tl'Ust-
,yorthy history. In Rackham's Acts ,ve have a
very careful and thoughtful study of these early
chapters. To my mind, one of the n10st convincing
assurances of their trustworthiness lies in the exact
account given of the nature of the early belief in
Jesus. St. Luke published his record at least not
earlier than St. Paul's release frolll his first captivity.
lIe had been St. Paul's trusted con1panion all through
the period ,,
hen he \vas \vriting his epistles. He
lnust have been quite fan1Ïliar ,vith St. Paul's full
doctrine of Christ, and of justification and salvation
in the Church ,vhich is His Body. I do not indeed
see any signs that St. Luke assin1Ïlated St. Paul's
theology very deeply-he ".as a historian \\yith a
vivid perception of the beauties of n10ral character,
rather than a theologian, ,ve should suppose; but
he gives us touches of Paul's theology in the speeches
in the latter part of the Acts. As ,ve shall see, it is
St. Paul ,vho first in the record of the Acts calls
Jesus the Son of God 1; it is St. Paul ,vho talks
about justification by faith, as distinguished fron1
"
orks of the la,v 2; it is St. Paul ,vho talks about
"the Church of God ,vhieh he purchased ,vith
his o\vn blood." 3 The eircun1stances of these
5pceches, as the ...-\.cts records them, do not give
1l1uch opportunity for the characteristic Pauline
theology. They consist of St. Paul's first approaches
to Je\vish and Gentile hearers, and of his apologia p10
,-:ita sua to the Je,vs and to the Church. But SOlne
of his characteristic phrases are there. 'Vhereas
1 Acts ix 20, cf. xiii 32. It is singular that in the Acts as a
\\ hole thero is actually no mention of God as Father except in
Acts) 4, 7 (the words of the risen Jesus) and Acts ii 33, where
Peter refers to this promise.
z xiii 39. 3 XX 2S!

II

76 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCII
in the earlier part of the Acts they are quite absent.
This is very noticeable. It indicates that St. Luk

had good authorities for the early speeches he
records and did not Yfrite at randOlTI; thus ,ve can
approach the first part of the Acts "Tith reasonable
confidence to see ho"r it represents the primitive
belief.
Thc disciples, as represented especially by their
leader St. Peter, are set before us as sin1ply fillçd
\vith the thoughts forced upon them by the
Resurrection and later by the effusion of the Holy
Spirit. The central thought is that of the Lo}'dship
of Jesus the Christ. Though God certified I-lis
mission "by mighty "
orks and ,yondcrs and signs
\vhich God did by hin1 in the midst of Israel," yet
Israel had crucified and slain Him bv the hands of
the Romans. But no\v God had ,,:indicated Him
by the Resurrection and exalted Him by His right
hand and to His right hand; and it ,,-as He ,,-ho
had poured forth the promised gift of the Holy
Spirit, ,vhich He received from the Father. " There-
fore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that
God made him both Lord and Christ,! this Jesus
,vhom ye crucified."
So far as appears in the Act.s, Peter raised no ques-
tion concerning the divine Sonship or pre-existence of
Jesus. 2 He is content throughout, as in his discourse
in the house of Cornelius, to speak of lInn as the
man "Jesus of Nazareth, anointed ,yith the Holy
Ghost and \vith power, V.-l10 ,vent about doing good,
and healing all that \vere oppressed ,vith the devil;
for God ,vas ,vith him." But no,v, risen and exalted

1 Acts Ü 22-36. This must not be taken to Ï1nply that he waR
not the Christ when on earth. It was as the Christ that He suffered,
iv 10.
! 'Ye should notice that the glorified Christ is the man J est1S of
Na.zareth who had lived and died on earth. There are no signs a.t
all of the pre-existent heavenl:r man-like being of the Similitudes of
Enoch.

THE LORDSIIIP OF JESUS

77

to heaven, He is "Lord of all " and "ordained of
God to be the judge of quick and dead." It is in
Ilis name, and through belicf in Hin1, that nlen
lnust reccive ren1Ìssion of sins and the gift of the
Holy Ghost. 1 It is in IIis name that miracles of
power are done. 2 There is indeed salvation in none
other: for neither is there any other name under
.;
heaven that is given among men, \vherein ,ve must
be saved. 3 He is "the Prince" or "the Prince
of life," and the" Saviour." His is "the Name." 4
This is their summary creed-"-Jesus is the Christ-
Jesus is Lord. The "one name of salvation is the
name of Jesus. Beholding Him in the moment of
martyrdom, standing as Son of l\Ian on the right
hand of God, Stephen addresses to Him the prayer-
" Lord Jesus, receive DIY spirit," and probably the
,vords follo,,
ing, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge," just as Jesus on the cross had addressed
the Father, "Father. into thy hands I comn1end
my spirit," " Father, forgive then1." Before Pentc-
cost, 'v hen the disciple ,,
ho ,vas to fill up the place
of Judas had to be chosen, they had prayed and said
" Thou, Lord, ,,
hich kno"
est the hearts of all nlCll,
sho,v of these t,vo the one 'Vh01l1 thou hast chosen,
to take the place in this ministry and apostleship," and
it is probable 5 that the Lord Jesus just mentioned
is in that place also being appealed to, to make a
fresh choice in order to fill the vacancy in the number
of the twelve ,vhon1 He had chosen ,,,hen on earth.
It should be noted that "to call on the name of
Jesus," that is to invoke HÌ1n in prayer, is spoken
of (cap. ix 14, 21) as the characteri
tic habit of the
disciples.
Further it \yas " in the name of the Lord Jesus"
1 Acts x 36-43. Z Acts iii 16.
3 Act-s iv 12. 4 Acts iii 15, v 31, 41, ix 14-16.
6 Acts i 21-4. The consideration to the contrary is that the
single Greek word for' that knoweth the hearts' (Kap
la")'VwO"Ta) I
used of God) i.e. the Father, in xv 8.

78 F.
ITH OF TIlE FIRST CIIURCII
that men ,\yere baptized 1; and, if ,ve accept the
account of 'v hat occurrcd at the Last Supper as
St. Paul declares himself to have "received" it
.and as the Synoptists relate it, ,ve must belieyc
that ,vhen the disciples 111ct for "the breaking of
the bread" 2 they celebrated, according to thcir
Lord's institution, the sacralnent of His body and
blood, and in that solcn1n l'ite ackno\vledged that
He ,vho had given IIis body and blood in sacrifice
for them upon the Cross, and 'v ho ,\\yas no\v alive
at the right hand of God, was also an10ngst them on
earth, ,vhere they ,vere gathered together in His
nan1C, to be thcir spiritual food, and to bind them
together in one. Such a rite and such an accom-
panying bclief seenl to inlply a conception of
Christ's person beyond ,vhat, to judge from the
record of Acts, they \vere at present explicitly enter-
taining or proclaiming. 3
\Vhat then was "the faith in Jesus" or "in IIis
N anle" of the first Christian comlnunity, intellec-
tually considered? It ,vas not, ,ve should judge, an
explicit faith in His deity, but faith in Hin1 as Lord."
" Jesus is Christ and Lord" and" lIe has sent do\vn
upon us His Holy Spirit" was their sumn1ary creed.
Hut to believe in the universal Lordship of Jesus,
and His enthronenlent at God's right hand-to be-
lieve that He is to judge the quick and dead-that

1 Acts viii 16. 1 have not cited the text platt. xxviii 19),
.H baptizing then1 in the nalne of th
Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost," because, on purely critical principles, it is difficult
to be sure of it.s being really a word of Christ on earth; nor do I
discuss the question of baptism only in the name of Jesus. The
..vhole body of sacran1ental questions, with the question of the
Church and its authority, is deferred to the next vohune.
I Acte ii 42.
3 On the doubts constantly being raised whether Jesus really
in fact instituted any sacrament of His body and blood for future
.observance by His Church, see appended note A, p. 99.
'1 must not, of course, pass over the position of the critics who
.constantly inform us that it is in St. Paul that we first find the
.affirmation that Jesus is Lord. See appended note B, p. 102.

HO\V \Y..\S IT TO El\J)?

79

fronl Him the Spirit of God is received and in His
name sins are forgiven in baptism and ,vonders
done--that Ilis nalne is the one name of salvation
given to all nlcn under heaven-that He is to be
called upon in prayer-that He is present in U the
breaking of the bread" to be the spiritual food of
IIis disciples-all this taken together nleans certainly
that He had for then1 "the values of God. " Not
indeed all the" values" of God, for they \\.ould not yet
have thought of Him, as far as \ve can see, as the
Creator or sustainer of the \vorld. But" ith regard
to all that concerned their spiritual relations to God,
Jesus held to\vards them such a position as a mere
Ulan, ho\vever highly endo\ved, could not have held.
IIo\v was this to be accounted for? It ,vas an
ambiguous monlent. One can imagine an intelligent
Greek, ,,-ho kne\v the severity of the J e\vish Dlono-
theism, and ,vas accustomed to constrast it \yit.h the
lax ascription of deity to eminent things or persons
in the Hellenic or Roman world, \vatching the Chris-
tians in Jerusalem with interest, and taking note
that these Je\ys "yere apparently abandoning ,\'hat
he had ahvays regarded as thcir chief religious
stronghold-their stubborn belief in one only God
and their stubborn refusal to worship any other
being. 'Yhat ,vas to be the end of it ?

II
It ,vas not to end in any ,veakening of :\Iono-
theis111. Anlong the fiercest of their J e,vish enemies
was one who, converted to faith in Jesus, ,vas to sho,v
them ho\v to conciliate their old faith in the One
God ,vith their ne\vly born faith in the Lordship of
Jesus.
I do not think it is an accident that St. Paul is
said by St. Luke, at the first 11lOlnent after his

80 FA.ITII OF TIlE FIRST CHURCH

conversion to have proclaimed "Jesus that he is the
Son of God." 1 Nor is it ,vithout serious meaning
that St. Paul describes his o,vn conversion as the
revelat.ion ,vithin him of Jesus as "God's son"-
"to reveal his Son in nle that I might preach hiIn
among the Gentiles." 2 That ,vas the term, so
solenlnly used by Jesus of IIimself, in ,vhieh St.
Paul sa,v the secret of His person. No doubt fronl
the date of his conversion his soul ,vent out in
passionate faith to,vard Jesus as the glorified Christ
and as the Lord. But he ,vas, ,vhat no one of the
earlier apostles had been, a man ,vho had received the
highest training of the J e,vish schools "at the feet
of" the renu\vned Rabbi Gamaliel, and ,ve should
judge from his Epistles that he ,vas not only a J e,vish
theologian but also had imbibed at his native city
of Tarsus something of the philosophical spirit for
,,
hich it ,vas fanlous. He could not be content to
,yorship Jesus as Lord ,vithout understanding ,vhy
such ,vorship could be given IIim, and ho,v it was
to be reconciled ,vith the strict faith in one only
God, one only object of ,yorship, ,vhich retained his
,vhole-hearted loyalty to the end.
He had the opportunity after his conversion of
thinking out his position. .t\fter his first "act of
reparation" at I)ama
cus ,vhen, ,,
ith all possible
courage and at the greate&t risk, he proclainled his
nc,v faith" that Jesus is the Son of God" and" con-
founded the J e,vs that. d,vcll at Dalnascus, proving
that this is the Christ," he ,vas hurried secretly out
of the city and passed probably some)' ears in Arabia.
Then, three years after his conversion, he paid a brief
visit to J erusalen1, ,yherc again " he preached bûldly
in the nanlC of the Lord,
, but again ,yas in risk of

1 It n1l1st be renlcmbered that Act.s viii 37 (the only previous
nlCllÌion of "t.he Son of G0d" in our old version of Act;:;) i:;
prohnbly not part of the true text.
I Gal. i 16; cf. ii 20.

TIlE INTERVENTION O

P.AUL 81
his life from the hostility of the Jews, and ,vas sent
off to his old home, Tarsus, out of harm's ,vay, and
J11Ust have been there perhaps some seven years.
But we hear little or nothing of any evangelistic
'work there.! It is probable that his sojourn both ill
Arabia and in Tarsus ,vas on the '\vhole a time of
retirement and thought. From thc time ,vhen
Barnabas fetched hinl to Antioch, his life TIlust havt'
been one of ceaseless strain. But before that he had
had time to think out the meaning of his ne,v faith,
of ,vhich he had already, at Damascus and especially
at J erusalen1, received "the tradition," 2 and he had
found in the doctrine of the divine sonship the way
of reconciliation bet,veen his old
Ionotheisnl and
his new bclief in the Lordship of Jesus. 3
But before ,ve enquire into the sources of St.
Paul's doctrine of Christ's person, ,ve must have it
clcarly before our mind, and ,ve should take notice
that the ,yay in '\vhich it is referred to in his epistles
seCIns to sho,v conclusively that, in its main lines..
it must have fOrll1cd part of his first preaching
1 He speaks (Gal. i 21) of going" into the region of Syria and
Cilicia," and of the Christians in J udaea hearing "that he that
once persecuted them now preached the faith of which he once
made havoc." 'Ve hear of "brethren in Syria and Cilicia.," and
at the beginning of the second missionary journey" he went through
Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches" (Acts xv 23, 41).
But if these churches were of his fOtmdation we should have been
likely to bear something of t.hem. And we hear nothing.
I He tells us himself that he received the tradition concerning
the Resurrection (I Cor. xv 1-3) and concerning the institution
of the Eucharist (probably there was more that he does not
mention). Galatians i 17, ii 6 must be read in the light of these
disclosures.
3 I am glad to see that Eduard :Meyer, Ursprung, vol. ii, p. 348,
recognizes the importance, not only of "the tradition" which
St. Paul received in Damascus and Jerusalem, but also of the
long period of subsequent reflection before he began his mission
work: a L'1 der langen Zeit, die er nach seiner Bekehnmg in
Damascus und Tarsus zubrachte, Inuss er über die neue Erkenntnis
gegrübelt haben, die ihm aufgegangen war, bis er mit seiner
Anschauungen in reinen war und sie sich in seiner Weise Iogisch
zurecht gelegt hatte, 80 class er alsdann dio :Missionstätigkeit
beginnen konn tee ),

LIBRARY ST. t\ARY'S COLLEGE

82 F.AITII OF THE FIRST CIIURCIJ
when founding his churches, for it is not introduced
anY"
h('re in his ,vritings as if it ,vere a ne,v
thing.
He is full of the familiar thought of the Lordship
of Christ, and indeed occasionally the Lord (Jehovah)
and the I.Jord (Christ) are unmistakably identified-
that is, Old Testament language about the former
is applied to the latter. 1 But St. Paul has-what
the Church b6Íore him apparently had not-an
explanation. Christ can be thus treated as divine
Lord, or identified ,vith Jehovah, because before
He ,vas sent into the ,yorld He ,vas ,vith the Father
as His Son-" his o,vn son" (Rom. viii 8), "the son
of his love" (Co!. i 18). The glorified Christ can
be the very "image of God" 2 because, at the be-
ginning of things, as Son of the Father, He had been
God's "image "-the expression of the invisible
God. 3 Through IIim, the Son, has God done
whatever in the process of creation He has done.
He is "the heir of all creation" -" through him
are all things "-" in him ,vere all things created,
in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and
things invisible, ,vhether thrones or dominions or
principalities or po,vers; all things have been created
through him, and unto him (he is their end); and
he is (or 'he exists') before all things, and in him
all things have their coherence." He is not only
the creator of all that is, but also the continuous,
immanent principle of order in the universe. 4 It
is He ,vho was supplying the need of the Israelites
in the ,vilderness as "the rock that followed

1 See Romans x 9-15 (Joel ii 32); 2 ThesB. i 9 (Is. ii 10, 19,
21); 1 Cor. ii 16 (Is. xl 13, lxx); 1 Cor. x 21 (l\Ial. i 7, 12).
This identification has been described as "not proven" in any
ca.se in the N.T. But it seems to me be)7ond dispute. See Sanday
and Hea.dlam on Rom. x.
2 2 Cor. iv 4. 8 Col. i 15.
& See 1 Cor. viii 6; Col. i 15-17. Nothing can betwr Lightfoot's
notes on this passage.

HIS DOCTRIXE OF CHRIST

83

them." 1 lIe it ""as ,vho "when the fulness of the
time was come" ,vas sent forth " born of a woman,
born under the la,v," "in the likeness of the flesh
of sin," but "knowing no sin," 2 as man to redeem
mankind, ,vhether J e,vs or Gentiles, ,vho ,vill believe
on HÍ1n. He ,vas, as man on earth, their example,
and their propitiation before God, and now He is
continuously from heaven the source of their ne,v
life by His spirit. For that divine Sonship which
,vas veiled during His mortal life and in His death,
,vas declared again unmistakablr in His resurrec-
tion 3; and thereupon, being exalted to the heavenly
places, He communicates His own Spirit, which is
the Spirit of God, to the Church, which is His body,
and to all its members, so that" in Him" they may
live as sons in His sonship, and by Him be rene,ved
into His image, and remaining in Him,4 whether
they live or die, may be prepared to meet Him ,,,,hen
lIe comes in glory, being already associated with
Him in the life of God.
This is St. Paul's doctrine of Christ in summarv.
I think Dr. Allan l\lenzies (commenting on 2 Cor. iv
Lj.) is right in saying "It was difficult for them
(Je,vs) to take in ho,v one ,vho had been a man on
the earth could be [a] God, and if this was not
accepted, all the other Pauline doctrines rema.ined
incredible, a tangle of paradoxes and indiscretions.
'fhe verse sho,,,"s very clearly ho\".. the 'v hole of Paul's
thought hinged on his doctrine of Christ's divinity."
St. Paul is not a scientific ,vriter ,vho exhibits
his thought accurately and consecutively stated.
If he had been this, he ,,,"Quid have saved the

1 1 Cor. x 4. In this connection I am inclined to believe that
the A.V. of verse 9 gives the right reading: "Neither let us tempt
Christ, as some of them also tempted."
Z See Rom. viii 3, Gal. iv 4, 2 Cor. v 21.
3 Rom. i 3-4.
I "In the Lord," or "in Christ," or "in Christ Jesus," or "in
the Lord Jesus."

84 F AITII OF TIlE }1
IRST CHURCI-I
controversial and critical '\vorld a great deal of
trouble, but he ,vould not have been St. Paul. He
does, ho\vever, incidentally give us ,vhat it i<;
hardly an exaggeration to call a careful theory of
the Ineaning of the Incarnation in the Epistle to
the Philippians, though the theory as given is only
incidental to an ethical exhortation. His theme
is humility, and his example of hUlnility is Christ,
not only ,vithil1.. the compass of IIis human life but
before that-in the act of taking humanity. For
"pre-existing in the characteristics [or nature]
of God, he set no store on equality ,vith God, but
emptied himself, taking the characteristics [or
nature] of a servant, and being made in the likeness
of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he
humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto
death, yea, the death of the cross. \Vherefore also
God highly exalted him, and besto,ved upon him
the name which is above every name; that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven and things on earth and things under the
earth, and that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Chribt is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 1
1 Phil. ii 5-11. This is one of the passages in the N.T. which
have been obscured by excessively minute scrutiny. I do not
think anything can better Lightfoot's commentary. Some people
are disposed to dispute that" emptied himself" or "annulled him.
Beli" is meant as a desC'ription of the act of the Incarnation at
aU. They would apparently translate "he emptied himself,
having taken," i.e. He first took human nature and then humbled
Himself. But "emptied himself" here is surely paranel to
"beggared himself" or "made hjmself poor" in 2 Cor. viii 9.
Both phrases describe an act of abandonment by our Lord of the
state belonging to His divine nature which was involved in becoming
man. "Emptied himself" is therefore to be dir:;tinguished from
the "humbled himsf'lf" which follows in Phil. ii 7, and which
describes His conduct after He becalne mall. See l\Ienzies on
2 Cor. viii 9. "\Vith the phrase 'ohose povert.y , [or' made hiInself
poor '] we may compare 'he emptied himself' (Phil. ii), which
refers not to the act of Jesus as a man, but to the great act of
humiliation He performed when He gave up His existence in the
form of God, and took on Himself the form of a servant."
The word translated I' characteristics" {or "nature," which I

HIS CO-ORDIN.ATION \VITH GOD 85
This being St. Paul's doctrine of a real incarnation
of the Son of God, ,vho pre-existed in the essential
characteristics or nature of God, ,ve ask "\vhether
St. Paul believes Hhn to have been, and calls Hhn
,vithout qualification, God. What everywhere con-
fronts us in St. Paul's letters is that he attributes
to Hinl-al,vays in definite subordination to God,
the Father I-all the characteristic functions of
God; the creation of all things in the universe and
the maintenance of creation, as we have seen; the
providence ,vhich directs the accidents of life; the
" grace" that redeems men and holds them "in
Christ" or "in the Lord" as the sphere in 'v hich
they live; the final judgment ,vhich is unerringly
to assess each human life; the crowning of the re-
deemed with glory and the consummation of the
'v hole creation. 2 In the ,vhole range of divine
activities there appears to be no district in which

think is a better word) is literally " form "; but the English word
M misleading. The original word describes the "permanent
characteristics" or "kind" or "manner of being" of anything.
See Lightfoot in loco and Trench, Synonyms, pp. 247ft. So the
"form of the servant" describes the permanent characteristics
or "nature" of manhood-with probable reference to the" servant
of Jehovah "in Second Isaiah. The words" likeness" and" fashion"
which follow affinn that the Son of God. not only took the real
nature but also the outward appearance and condition of manhood.
The Son not only became really man, but ordinary man, like other
men to look at, and like other men in all the changing conditions
of life.
1 Alike in (a) His cosmic activities, and (b) in His redemptive
, activities the Son is subordinate to the Father; see for (a)
1 Cor. viii 6, Col. i 15, and for (b) Gal. iv 4, Co1. i 19, 1 Cor. xi 3.
It is not necessary to multiply quotations. And the essential
subordination of the Son to the Father, as recipient to Bource,
has always been the Catholic doctrine. See \Vestcott on
John xiv 28. In 1 Cor. xv 28 St. Paul speaks of the ultimate
order, when the work of the mediatorial Kingdom of Christ is fully
accomplished, and all resistance and rebellion is over for ever, and
in that ultimate order the Son is subordinate to the Father.
2 It is not necessary to multiply quotations, but see Col. i 14-18,
1 Thess. iii 11, 2 Cor. xiii 14, and Gal. i 3, 2 Cor. v 17, 2 Cor.
'Y 10, ROIn. vi 23, 2 Thess. ii 14, Phil. iii 21, Ü 10, Eph.
1 10.
7

86 FAITlI OF TIlE FIRST CHURCH
God, that is the Father, is not associated ,vith His
Son, nor is it in St. Paul's mind apparently con-
ceivable that the honour paid to the Son, the Lord
Jesus, throughout the ,,
hole created universe, should
be any derogation from or should be distinguishable
from the honour paid to the Father, or that there
should be anything given to the Father in the ,yay
of homage by His creatures which is ,vithheld from
the Son. On the ,vhole the instinct of monotheism
(and no doubt the pressing necessity to maintain
the language of monotheism in churches of Gentile
origin) leads St. Paul generally to speak of the Father
alone as God and of the Son as Lord: "For us
there is one God, the Father, of 'v horn are all things,
and ,ve unto hiln; and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things, and ,ve through him"
(1 Cor. viii 6); but so completely is the Son repre-
sented as sharing in the divine life and activity that
it is, I think, wilful to question the ascription to
the Christ, who ,vas born of J e,vish stock "as con-
cerning the flcsh," of the ,yords-,vhich seem so
plainly to suggest the antithesis of the glory of
Christ to IIis humiliation-" 'v ho is over all, God
blessed for ever" 1 or to question the phrase in
St. Paul's speech at l\liletus to the Ephesian elders,
" the Church of God ,vhich he purchased ,vith his o,vn
blood, " or "the blood 'v hich is his o,vn." 2 \Ve
should conclude, then, that as St. Paul constantly
associates the Lord (Jesus) in all the strictly divine
activity and glory, so occasionally he calls Him
God.
\Ve kno,v that St. Paul ,vould have attributed

1 Rom. ix 5. See Sanday and Headlam in loco
I Acts xx 28. In this phrase I think with Rackham God means
the Father, but the blood of Christ is called "his own." In
Titus ii 13, however, I think Parry, following Hort, is probably
right in treating the words "Jesus Christ" as in apposition to
"the glory of our great God and Saviour." Christ, that is, is
" the glory of God" (see below, pp. 128 ff).

THE SOURCES OF ST. PAUL'S DOCTRIKE 87
his doctrine of Christ to direct divine inspiration.!
Just as our Lord ,vould have St. Peter assured
that his confession of His l\Iessiahship was due to
nothing lo,ver than divine revelation, so would St.
Paul have felt and clainled for his fuller conviction
about Christ's person. But in neither case can
divine revelation be taken to exclude human and
external influences. Whence, then, ,ve ask, did St.
Paul derive, not his conviction, but the materials
through which this conviction expressed itself?
It has been comnlonly suggested by those ,vho
are absorbed in the ne,v study of "apocalyptic"
that St. Paul's idea of the pre-existent Christ is
derived from the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch
or from sÍlnilar sources ,vhich have perished. But
this suggestion ought to be abandoned. The figure
in the Similitudes is that of a quasi-angelic being in
human fornl, ,vho is being preserved in the secret
treasury of God to be manifested only at the end of
the world to carry out the Divine judgment and to
usher in the ,vorld to come. If in the original docu-
ment he is called" the son of man" (,vhich I hold
to be very doubtful), yet in no real sense has he ever
been luan, nor ever ,viII be-that is, not in the sense
of sharing the nature or experience, physical and
spiritual, of the sons of men. It is a fundamentally
" docetic " figure-that of these Similitudes-neither
in any real sense divine nor in any real sense human.
I St. Paul shows, I think, not the slightest trace of such
a presentation. He never speaks of the "Son of
, l\Ian" ; and the pre-existent" Son of God" of St. Paul
is divine, subsisting in the " form" of God, and not
yet in any sense human; but at a definite moment in
time, by a definite human birth of a ,voman, He be-
came man. It was not that He appeared merely in
human guise, but that He really became man, in the
solidity of human flesh and reality of human character,
1 Gal. i 12, 15, 16.

88 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH

and as man lived, and ,vas crucified and died, and ,vas
buried, and rose again and was glorified, and is
" to come." 1 Nor is there any reason to think that
St. Paul was influenced by Philo's hazy conception
of the ideal man ,vho exists alnong the ideas of the
eternal ,,"orld,2 nor by any ancient n1yth of an eternal
man. There is no trace in St. Paul of any " eternal
man" at all. The only phrase pleaded on behalf
of such a suggestion is the phrase "the second man
is from heaven." In its context, I think, this phrase
can only describe the con1ing of Christ in glory, not
His first appearance on earth. 3 l'he Apostle is
answering the question "with ,vhat manner of body
do they [the dead] come," that is, at the resurrection
day. And he answers that they ,viII come in a
spiritual body, like to Christ ,vho has now become
'" life-giving spirit," and ,viII come as the "second
Inan from heaven." St. Paul ,vas, in fact, not
enunciating any old theory ,,"hich he might be
supposed to have learned as a Pharisee, but some-
thing ,vhich the resurrection of Christ (and his vision
of the risen Christ) had taught him for thelfirst
tin1e. 4
To recur, then, to the question ,vhence St. Paul
derived the material for this conception of Christ:
I think the ans,ver must be in the first place that

1 See for St. Paul's doctrine Phil. ii 6-10, Gal. iv 4. This
verse in Galatians with Rom. i 3 implies the reality of His human
flesh; when St. Paul talks of His character as obedient, meek and
gentle, he implies His full spiritual humanity. As He had the
" form " of God, so He took the "form," that is, the real nature,
of man. St. Paul was not confronted with any docetism. But
there is no reason to think he would have made any terms with it.
Christ in glory is still human and His " body of glory" is the pattern
of the body of glory which we are an destined to enjoy, Phil. iii 2l.
On 2 Cor. v 16, u Christ after the flesh," see appended Note C, p. 105.
: See Lebreton, Origine8, p. 216.
s 1 Cor. xv 47. See Robertson and Plumm0r, in loco (Internat.
Crit. Comm.). Also Dalman, op. cit., pp. 251 f.
& On what has just been said, I must refer back for confirmation
to the Note on pp. 30 fl.

THE 'VORDS OF CHRIST

89

he ,vas much better acquainted than some people
appear to suppose ,vith the l\'"ords of Christ. We
DIUSt recognize, as has been already argued, that
St. Paul, after his conversion, received " a tradition"
"rhich in certain respects ,vas already formulated.
I think this tradition probably included a record of
the sayings of Christ. But \yhether this be so or
no, ,ve are bound to ackno,vledge that St. Paul
had in his mind, if not in his hand, some record
of the ,vords of Christ, and assumes that the converts
kne\v it also-for four tÏ1nes he refers to a particular
" 'YOI'd of the Lord" as of final and decisive authority.!
I think also St. Paul's ethical teaching shows un-
Inistakable and close familiarity with Christ's teach-
ing. His estimate of the la,v of love, and his descrip-
tion of love, and of "the fruits of the spirit," and
his appeal to " the meekness and gentleness of Christ,"
and to His example of humility, will, if we meditate
on them, convince us of this. 2 In the same way I
think the remarkable phrase which occurs five times
in St. Paul's epistles, " The Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ," sand \vhich is used side by side with phrases
such as "our Father" or "the Father," means
that St. Paul knew how it had been our Lord's
habit to speak to His disciples-never of "our
Father," 4 but of " your Father," and" my Father."
"The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" then, as
St. Paul uses it, means Him whom Jesus Christ
used constantly to speak of as " my Father." And if
he knew ho,v .Jesus spoke of God as His Father,
he must have known that He spoke of Himself as
the Son. Thus I have gro"Tn to feel convinced

1 1 Cor. vii 10, ix 14, 1 Thess. iv 15, Act.s xx 35. In the last
two cases the "words of the Lord" have not been otherwise
preserved. In the first two they have. See also I Tim. vi 3.
:& So Dr. Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement, pp. 106 fi.
, Rom. xv 6, 2 Cor. i 3, xi 31, Eph. i 3, Co!. i 3.
.. U Our Father" (in the Lord's Prayer) is only put into the
lips of the disciples!

90 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHUIlCH
that St. Paul nlust have had in his mind, and very
possibly in ,vritten form before his eyes, such ,vords
as "I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, that thou didst hide these things from the
wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto
babes; yea, Father, for so it ,vas well pleasing in
thy sight.! All things have been delivered unto
me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son,
save the Father: neither doth any know the Father
save the Son, and he to ,vhomsoever the Son willeth
to reveal him," and" Of that day and that hour
kno,veth no one, not even the angels of heaven,
neither the Son," and again the parable of the
IIusbandmen, suggesting so sharp a distinction be-
t\veen the servants of God (the prophets) and the
only Son. Though, as I have said, the note of the
divine sonship of Christ was absent apparently from
the first Apostolic preaching, it is very difficult
to doubt that there ,vas thought and talk about such
menlorable sayings as these in their bearing on the
Inystery of Christ's person. And St. Paul ,vas more
quick than others to catch their full meaning.
l\Ioreover it is plain that St. Paul's doctrine of
the pre-existence of the Son, before the ,vorid ,vas,
and IIis co-operation with the Father in all His
,yorks, and IIis incarnation in the fulness of tinle,
did not in any \vay shock or surprise the Church.
There Vlere, we kno,v, aspects and elements in
St. Paul's teaching 'v hich excited alarn1 and caused
dissension. This is much more evident in St. Paul's
o\vn Epistles than in the Acts. But there is no such
note of emphasis on his teaching about the person
of Christ as to suggest that it. was surprising by
its novelty or calculated to raise antagonisln. It is
taken for granted as an accepted truth. And this
could not have been the case if the idea of Jesus

1 I suspect that 1 Cor. i 18 fl. is reminiscent of the context of
these words:
'I thank thee, Father," etc.

CHRIST'S LORDSHIP IN N.
TURE 91

as Son of God, in a unique and pre-eminent sense,
had not been in the tradition of the first Jerusalem
Church, though for the time it appears to have
been almost ignored, while attention \vas wholly
concentrated upon His
Iessiahship and Lordship.
Those who believe, as I do, that the author of the
Fourth Gospel gives us real memorials of Jesus,
and is no other than John the son of Zebedee, will
remember that he was at Jerusalem at least during
the earlier stages of St. Paul's career as an Apostle,
and that St. Paul had converse \vith him as one of
the" pillars." It is universally assumed that St. Paul
influenced the author of the J ohannine writings.
I cannot help thinking it is possible that St. John
may have communicated sOlnething to St. Paul.
I should not, of course, ,vish to lay any stress on
this possibility. But I do "'ish to lay stress on
the fact that St. Paul's doctrine of the Son of God
seems to have caused no surprise or opposition;
and this could hardly have been the case unless it had
been already present in germ in the tradition of the
Church, though it was not apparently much in evi-
dence, ,vhile the \vhole attention of the Church was
preoccupied ,vith sOlnething else.
There is nothing in the Synoptists which very
directly suggests the association of the Son in the
activities of creation or of nature, though there is
one saying in the Fourth Gospel ,vhich probably does
suggest it 1 : "
Iy Father \vorketh hitherto and
I ,vork." But as soon 3 s ever the idea of the Son,
as associated ,vith the Father in His eternal life,
had presented itself to St. Paul's mind, it would
probably have clothed itself in the associations of the
\Yisdonl of God as that is presented in the Book of
Proverbs and especially in the JV isdo'ln of Solomon,
with 'v hich St. Paul in the Ron1ans
ho'vs himself
,veIl acquainted. 2
1 John v 17-20. ! See Sanday and Headlam, p. 51.

92 F.'\ITII OF THE FIRST CHURCH
The divine "\Visdom" in these books is not
conceived of as really a person, but it is strikingly
personified. It is represented as if it had separate
existence as God's effulgence or self-expression, before
ever the "orld ,vas; and (perhaps in Proverbs,
certainly in the Book of "Tisdom) as His agent in
creation and in IIis self-revelation to men. 1\luch
of the language that St. Paul uses about the activity
of the Son in tbe creation and sustentation of the
,vorld is paralleled in this literature. "The J
ord
possessed me (or' formed me') as the beginning of
his ,vay, before his '\vorks of old. I ,vas set up from
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
,vas. . . . Then I ,vas by him as a ll1aster ,vork-
man (?);
and I ,vas daily his delight, rejoicing
al\yays before him; rejoicing in his habitable earth;
and my delight ,vas ,vith the sons of men." 1 And
in the Book of 'Visdon1, "Tisdom is called "the
artificer of all things . . . "1 T ea she pervadeth and
penetrateth all things. . . . She is an effulgence
from everlasting light; and an unspotted mirror of
the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
And she, being one, hath power to do aU things;
and remaining in herself, renc,veth all things: and
from generation to generation passing into holy
souls, she maketh nlen friends of God and prophets."
" She l'eacheth from one end of the ,vorld to the other
with full strength, and ordercth all things graciously."
And Solomon prays, "Give me ,visdom, her that
sitteth by thee on thy throne; . . . send her forth
from thy holy heaven, and from the throne of thy
glory bid her come." 2
There can be no doubt that at least the Book of
"Tisdom exhibits the influence of Greek philosophy.
The intellectual ,yorld, under the influence of
Platonists and Stoics, "'as full of the conception of
a divine Reason, immanent in the universe as its
1 Prov. viii 22-30. : ""lsd. vii 22 to ix 18.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE \YISDOl\I 93
order and la,v, and the source of the reason of Inan.
St. Paul's o\vn city Tarsus, ,vhere he ,vas brought up,
and to ,vhich he returned for a good many years
after his conversion, was pre-eminently a philosophic
city.1 I do not suppose that St. Paul ,vas a member
of any of the philosophic schools. But I think it
is impossible he can have been ignorant of the
philosophical ideas which constituted the comn1on
intellectual atmosphere of educated men in his o,vn
city. And when "
e read such phrases as "in him
(the Son) all things consist" or " in him ,ve live and
lnove and have our being,". ,ve cannot dissociate
such an idea of an imnlanent God frOD1 the influences
of current philosophy, or doubt that in St. Paul's
mind this current conception of a pervading reason
helped him to frame his conception of the activities
of the Son of God in nature.
Nevertheless the influence of philosophy, or even
of the Book of \Visdom, on St. Paul must not be
exaggerated. St. Paul's attitude towards philosophy
is not sympathetic or at all trustful. He delivers his
solemn affirmations about Christ ,vholly as a reve]a-
tion of God. As I have said, I believe him to have
found in Christ's own words the source of his doctrine
of His divine sonship, He may have found there
also a foundation for his doctrine of the co-operation
of the Son ,vith the Father in the creation and main-
tenance of nature. But as regards both doctrines,
or, to speak more properly, both parts of the same
doctrine, ,ve shall note that the authors of the Epistle
to the Hebrevls and the Fourth Gospel are entirely
at one ,vith St. Paul. They all use the same language

1 See Strabo, xiv 5, 13: U The zeal of its inhabitants for philo-
sophy and general culture is such that they have surpassed even
Athens and Alexandria and all other cities where schools of
philosophy can be mentioned. And its pre-eminence in this
respect is so great, because there the students are all townspeople
and foreign students do not readily settle there." Strobo was an
older contemporary of St. Paul.

94 F.AITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH
about the functions of the Son in nature. They
reflect, no doubt, the language of the later Je,,'ish
theology about the 'Yisdom or \V ord of God. But
the principle of such language is a fundamental
principle of Old Testament religion. It is the refusal
to separate the spiritual from the material, or God's
,york in men's souls from His ,vork in nature. It
,vould have seemed self-evident to a Jew that if the
Son is the organ of God's revelation and communica-
tion of IIimself to men's souls, He must also and
equally be the organ of 'His ,york in creating and
-ordering nature. And in this principle "Te must

urely see a real inspiration of the Spirit of truth.

III
Next, the Epistle to the Hebre,vs must claim our
attention. Nothing can bring more clearly before
our minds the novelty of literary criticism considered
as a science than the fact that for so many centuries
this Epistle should have been held to be by St.
Paul. For though the ultimate theology is closely
similar to St. Paul's, the tone of thought, as well
as the phraseology 1 and style, is characteristically
different. "Tho 'v rote this Epistle ,ve do not kno,v,
but ,ve are, I think, safe in saying that it was ,vritten
for J e,vs and before, but not much before, the
destruction of Jerusalem, and that it was written
by one 'v hose thought suggests Alexandria as his
spiritual honle.

1 Thus God is scarcely called the cc Father"; the idea of our
being "in Christ Jesus " or "in the Lord " is absent; the doctrine
of the Spirit is very slightly touched. There is (strangely) no
assertion of the universalism of the Gospel. The antitheses" law"
and "grace," "faith" and "works," "flesh" and "spirit" are
not to be found. It is not certain that the author was acquainted
with Philo's writings, but he certainly breathed in their atmosphere.
For instance, for him heaven is the world of spiritual and intel-
lectual realities and earth the world of shadows and images. People
who say that for the early Christians heaven was definitely a place
above our heads seem to forget the Epistle to the Hebrews.

TIlE EPISTLE TO THE HEBRE'VS 95
It has one don1Înant purpose, that is to present
to thoughtful J e,vish converts, ,vho were in danger
of relapsing, the essential superiority of Christianity
to the religion of the Old Testament and its finality,
on the ground of its providing for men, through
Christ, perfect and unhindered approach to God.
That is to say, in other ,vords, that its subject is the
high-priesthood of Christ. But though this special
doctrine of the Epistle is a fascinating subject, we
are not at present directly concerned ,vith it. What
we are concerned ,vith is simply the author's doctrine
of the person of Christ, and this we shall find is
almost identical with St. Paul's.
" Jesus," then, (for the writer most often used
this purely human name,) had not the beginning of
His personal existence when He took flesh. Before
all creation He was the effulgence of God's glory and
the very Îlnage of His substance. l These phrases
suggest coeternity ,vith God, but not directly person-
ality. But they are coupled ,vith the personal
words "the son" and the "heir of all thin g s".
, ,
and (as ,vith St. Paul) it is the Son through whom
God made the ,vorlds, and it is He ,vho bears along
or upholds all things by the utterance of His po,ver.
As Son of the Father He builds the house of ,vhich
1tloses is the servant. 2 Again, as ,vith St. Paul,
all IIis activity in redemption is seen upon the back-
ground of His functions in the ,vhole of nature. lIe
is "God's Son, ,vhonl he appointed heir of an things,
through ,vhom also he nlade the worlds; ".ho,
being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image
of his substance, and upholding all things by the
word of his po,ver, ,vhen he had made purification
of sins, sat do,vn on the right hand of the majesty
on high." 3 But though there is thus unnlÎstakable
continuity of personal being and action between
these different "mon1ents" of the Son's life, yet
1 i 2-4.
iii 1-6. 8 i 2-4.

II

96 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCII
there is no idea of any eternal manhood. He becan1e
nlan at a part.icular date. Thus Hc ,vho had been
so much above the angels ,"Vas "made a little lo'\ver
than the angels." 1 "He partook of flesh and
blood." 2 "He taketh hold of the seed of Abra-
ham." 3 "He sprang out of Judah." 4 And great
emphasis is laid on the reality of His manhood in
spirit as ,veIl as flesh. " He ,vas in all points tempted
like as 've are, yet ,vithout sin." 5 "In that he
himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to

uccour them that are ten1pted." 6 "'Vho in the
days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and suppli-
cations ,vith strong crying and tears unto him that
,vas able to save hin1 from death, and having been
heard for his godly fear, though he ,vas a Son, yet
learned obedience by the things that he suffered;
and having been made perfect, he became unto all
them that obey him the author of eternal salvation." 7
His priesthood for men depends upon the reality
of IIis manhood and hunlan development: and it
is in the perfection of His manhood that "he sat
do,vn on the right hand of God." 8
Thus as He is properly divine, so He is properly
human: but His personality is divine throughout
-He is the eternal Son. That in which He offers
Hin1self is "eternal spirit." 9 \Vhether, in the
quotation from Ps. xlV,10 He is called" God" is not
certain; but the ,vords of Ps. cii, ,vhich describe
the activity of the Lord (Jehovah) and His un-
changeableness and eternity, are certainly ascribed
to Jesus,ll and apparently to Him is ascribed" the
glory for ever and ever." 12 Certainly in this Epistle
there is the full doctrine of the Incarnation, quite
explicit.

1 ii 9.
6 iv 15.
· ix 14.
11 i 10.

! ii 14. 3 ii 16. I vii 14.
6 ii 18. 7 v 7-9. 8 x 12.
10 i 8. Westcott translates" God is thy throne."
l! xiii 21.

THE HEBRE\VS AND PHILO 97
But before leaving this Epistle I should ,vish to
emphasize its relative independence not only side
by side ,vith St. Paul's Epistles, but also side by side
I with Philo.
No doubt the author's intellectual equipment
and outlook are those of Alexandrian Judaism, but
the special value of his testimony to the doctrine
of the Incarnation lies in this-that whereas the
ideology of Philo and of other like J e,vish thinkers
would have come naturally to him, as a matter of
fact his Christianity-his faith in Jesus-had given
to all the current of ideas represent.ed by Philo a
wholly changed basis and tendency. He believed
in the man Jesus: he clung ,vith intense conviction
and appreciation to His human sufferings of body
and mind. The object on ,vhich his mind rested was,
not an idea, but a person of flesh and blood, ,vho has
lived and struggled and suffered among the ordinary
children of men. It is this strongly held historical
basis of his faith ,vhich so deeply differentiates it
from the ideology of Philo. It is not that he has
transmuted the faith of the first disciples into some-
thing different by the use of Alexandrian ideas. It
is that the first faith in Jesus, the actual historical
person, accepted as what He declared Himself to be,
the Son of God, has found in the Alexandrian tradi-
tion of Judaism ideas and tern1S in which it can
express itself. This is to say that, by the side of St.
Pau], the writer to the Hebrews stands ,vith a very
substantial originality, and with a very independent
grasp upon the facts concerning Jesus; but, by the
side of Philo, he stands on a different basis, and is
travelling by a different road to a different goal.
I "rill leave to another chapter the rest of the
New Testament books. But I feel that ,ve have
already traversed together-I and IllY readers-
the most ÌInportant and the most difficult part of
our road. 'The task on which ,ve set out ,vas to

98 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH
follow along the process by which the faith in Jesus
of the first disciples developed into a clear belief
in His person.
'Y'e ,vatched how, unconsciously, the overmaster-
ing sense of authority resident itnd active in Him
brought thelll into an attitude to,vards Him which
cannot be other,vise described than that He came to
have for them" the values of God." \V'e saw too
that Jesus Himself seems to have deliberately minis-
tered to this result. Then we ,vatched their failure of
faith over the scandal of the cross and their recovery
in the light of the Resurrection. Again ,ve saw ho,v
thcir crucified l\Iastcr, now raised to be the Lord of
all at God's right hand, comes to have, in even fuller
sense than before, the values of God for them. We
cannot doubt that there must have been deep ques-
tioning in their souls and probably in their conver-
sation as to the secret of His person and how the Man
could be thus exalted to the place of God. But we
catch no word about the divine Sonship in their public
preaching. It is St. Paul '\vho, as far as our records
go, first appears to have brought the idea of the Son-
ship, grounded so securely in Christ's o,vn language,
to explain the divine exaltation of the ?tlan and to
give the Church the formula for its creed; but ,ve
have seen that the Church and its teachers, ns
far as St. Paul's Epistles and other documents of
the New Testament l enable us to judge, appear to
have accepted this doctrine about eternal Sonship
and incarnation without controversy or demurrer.
'" e have seen the same doctrine a fe,,, years after
St. Paul's death unhesitatingly affirmed in the
Epistle of a man equal to St. Paul in intellectual
equipment, though independent of him in training
and in the character of his mind. "That ,ye have
still to ask ourselves is ,vhether this process in the
disciples' nlinds, so far as we have followed it, is
1 See below on the Epistles of Peter, James and Jude, pp. 127 ft.

THE INSTITUTIO:N OF THE EUCHARIST 99
for us really imaginable unless \ve suppose that the
leading under ,vhich they ,vere nloving forward \vas
the leading of God, and the conviction about Jesus
to \vhich they were led \vas the truth. But to that
question \ve shall return, ,vhen we have considered
the other documents of the Ne\v Testament.

NOTE A
On the doubts raised whether Jesus in fact instituted the
Sacrament of His Body and Bloodfor the observance of
His Church.
Bousset and the critics of his school maintain that
the sacramental ideas and rites of St. Paul-in particular
those connected with the Eucharist-\vere not derived
from Jesus or from the early Jerusalem church, but had
their origin in the Hellenistic churches of Syria, \vhere
sacramentali<;m was developed among the Christians
under the influence of the Pagan mystery religions ,vith
\vhich they had been familiar before their conversion.
'Vhat St. Paul did '\-vas, '\vith the help of a vision, recorded
in I Cor. xi 28 fi., to formulate and give consistency to
the sacramental principle on the basis of the Jew's belief
in God and the ne\yly-"'
on belief in Jesus as " the Lord"
and as "the Spirit." This theory nlust ,vait for fuller
consideration till the next volun1e. But before Bousset
\vrote, and more \videly than his influence has spread, it
has been the custom (see luge's Outspoken Essays (1919),
pp. 227 f. and 249) among many critics to 111aintain
that Jesus instituted no sacraments as He founded no
church. Doubtless He celebrated a fraternal meal ,vith
His disciples before His Passion, which had a spiritual
significance, as He was probably_ accustomed to do.
But He instituted no rite for any future church, such as
is implied in the ,vords "Do this in ren1embrance of
me " (1 Cor. xi 24, 25). The suggestion of these critics
is that ,vhen St. Paul speaks of himself as having
"received from the Lord" and "delivered to you"
(1 Cor. xi 23) the account of the institution of such
a rite at the Last Supper, with the solemn injunction

100 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH

" Do this in remen1brance of n1e," he means that he had
receiyed it in a vision frorn Jesus. This vision did not
correspond at all closely to the historical reality, but
its teaching and the practice based upon it spread rapidly
through the churches. So that ,,'hen the Synoptic Gospels
were \vritten it had become the accepted institution in
all the churches and \vas related in the Gospels as history.
This theory seems to me to be in n1anifold \vays
arbitrary and improbable. For (1) St. Paul speaks also of
ha ving "received " and "delivered " the record of the
Resurrection in 1 Cor. xv 2-4, and no one can reasonably
doubt that he is there referring to tbe tradition of the
Church (see verse 11). It is obvious, therefore, to inter-
pret his \vords about the" tradition" of the Eucharist
in the sallIe sense (see Dr. Anderson Scott in Calnbridge
Biblical Essays, p. 337). It ,vas "fronl the Lord" as
its source, though through the Church, that St. Paul
received it.
(2) If he had received it in a vision surely its form ,vould
have been different. It would hardly have come as an
historical record. See Stanton, The Gospels as Historical
DOCU11'lents, vol. iii. pp. 278 ff.: "A passage earlier in
the Epistle, \"here the apostle is interpreting [the sacra-
ment] \vill suggest that Jesus [in the yision of Paul]
might have said' The bread \vhich ye break is a com-
Inunion in my body-the cup \vhich ye partake is a
communion in nIY blood.'" Nothing can read less like
a vision than St. Paul's actual narrative. l Or if such a
vision had been seen or imagined by St. Paul, \vhich
did not correspond to the facts as they had been hitherto
received or to the practice of the churches already
1 Eduard
Ieyer, Ursprung, vol. i. p. 175, is very emphatic that
the account of the Last Supper, as St. Paul gives it, "belonged
to the oldest element of the tradition, as Paul had received it in
Damascus." It was as "a sharply formulated tradition" (fest
formulierte Tradition) that he produced it. "He received the
tradition of the institution of the Last Supper in the SaIne sense
, from the Lord' as he received the Gospel as a. whole. . . . In fact
his information came naturally fronl the three years of his period
of instruction in Damascus, which was completed through his
intercourse with Peter and James in Jerusalem. Therefore it
cannot be plausibly suggested that he here (i.e. in 1 Cor. xi)
offers a special tradition about the Lord's
upper differing from
the general tradition."

THE IKSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST 101
csmblished, is it likely that such a vision would have
altered the practice of all the churches, including the
Jewish churches, for ,,,horn the first Gospel ,vas ,vritten ?
This seems very improbable.
(3) Curiously enough the critics are driven to seek
the account of the original institution w"hich has been
least deeply affected by St. Paul's vision in the Gospel
of his companion St. Luke, according to the shorter
reading of his Gospel, found in some 'Vestern authorities,
which leaves out all the ,vords after" this is my body"
--do\vn to "poured out for you." I cannot but agree
with Dr. Salmon that the ,vords should not be omitted
(see Dr. Salmon's The HU'lnan Element in the Gospels
[Murray], pp. 492 f.). I think ,ve can only suppose that
their omission, like the omission of verse 17 in other
authorities, is due to a desire not to duplicate the giving
of a cup. It is utterly improbable that St. Luke meant
to reject both St. l\lark's account and St. Paul's belief
and practice, 'with ,vhich he must have been ,veIl
acquainted.
(4) Dr. Rashdall's pages on the Last Supper (The Idea
of Atonement, pp. 31 ff.) are ,vritten to dispose of the
idea that "a certain expiatory value ,vas attached by
our Lord Hin1self to His approaching death" in the
phrases "This is my body [which is given for you],"
"This is n1Y blood of the covenant ,vhich is shed for
1l1any [for the remission of sins]." \Vith the subject of
the atonement \ve shall have to deal later on. But as
far as the accounts of the Eucharist are concerned
Dr. Rashdall's pages seem to me to represent that type
of "criticism" ,vhich is least ,vorthy of the name-
the type of criticism ,vhich is resolved at all costs to
eliminate ,vhat it does not ,vant to accept. It is quite
certain that the ,vords in St. !\Iark, St. l\tlatthew, St.
Paul, and St. Luke (longer text) all alike postulate a
Christ ,vho believed Himself to be" inauguratin ct a ne,v
covenant, according to the prophecies that so it should
be; and to be inaugurating it by sacrifice-by His blood
-as the first covenant at Sinai had been inaugurated.
And as it had been declared that the servant of Jehovah
,vould, by " pouring out his soul unto death" as a guilt
offering, redeern " n1any," so St. l\lark and St. l\Iatthew,
8

102 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCH

by the use of the words "for many," convey to us the
thought that Jesus kne"w He ,vas so doing.
(5) Some critics-influenced by Sch,veitzer-suppose
the words of St. l\Iatthe\v, " I will not drink henceforth
of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it
ne\v with you in my Father's kingdom," intimate that
our Lord expected the immediate coming of the End
and IIis union \vith His disciples at the heavenly feast
of the Kingdom. III part they make this the ground
for disbelieving that Jesus instituted any sacrament for
constant observance in IIis Church. He had no thought
for an intennediate period. But St. l\Iark, on ,,'holn
St. 1rlatthew is based, and St. Luke omit the ,vords
" with you." \Vithout these ,vords the saying has no
suggestion of any immediate rene,val of fello,yship ,vith
His disciples. They only intinlate that this is IIis last
meal on earth, and that the ne\v ,vine. of the Kingdom
lies Ünmediately before Himself. And ,,,here t}H

emphasis has to be laid on the particular ,vords, we
Inust prefer St. l\Iark and St. Luke in agreement to
St. Matthe,v's version. But of the eschatology of our
Lord
.e treat later in this YOIUlne.

NOTE B
On the question 'whether the First Church ill
Jerusalem called Jesus Lord
\Ve must not, of course, ignore the position taken by
critics of the school of Bousset, and others, that the
term "the Lord" (KVpWÇ) for Jesus ,vas due to the
Hellenistic Christian churches at Antioch, Damascus,
Tarsus, and the like, \"ho passed through a rapid assimila-
tion to the Pagan mystery religions, even before St. Paul
began his public ministry. 'fhese Pagan adherents of
Inystery religions addressed their patron gods or god-
desses as Lord or Lady-Lord Hermes, Lord Serapis,
Lady Cybele, etc. Thus Bousset holds that the title
(or its equivalent in Aramaic) 'vas not used in the early
Jerusalem community, but ,vas first used in these
Hellenistic churches. 1
1 BOU3set, Kyrios Ohristos, pp. 77 fl.; cf. Glover, COl1flid oj
Religions, p. 356.

JESUS IS LORD

103

On the other hand, let us hear Dalman 1: "At first
the title, used in speaking to or of Jesus, was no more
than the respectful designation of the Teacher on the
part of His disciples. As soon as Jesus had entered
into His state of kingly majesty, it became among His
followers an ackno\vledgment of sovereignty; and ,,,hen
they addressed Him as the Son of God [\vhich apparently
,yas not commonly done in the days before St. Paul],
then' our Lord,' as applied to Jesus, ,vas not \videly
separated from the same designation for God. But it
must be remembered that the Aramaic-speaking Jews
did not, save exceptionally, designate God as ' Lord,' so
that in the Hebraist section of the J e\vish Christians
the expression 'Our Lord' ,vas used in reference to
Jesus only, and would be quite free from ambiguity."
The question is this, then- \Yas the title l\laran or
Lord used of Jesus by the early J erusalen1 community
in a sense betokening sovereignty C'Lord of all ")-in
a sense which, among Greek Christians of a fe,v years
later, easily merged into the sense of the same ,vord as
applied to God (Jehovah), but which at present ,yould
not have been precisely so used in Jerusalem?
St. Luke plainly implies that it ,vas, ,vith the title
" Christ," used by them as their special term for the
exalted Jesus.! See Acts i 21, (?) 24, ii 36, (iv 33,
v 14), vii 59, (?) 60, viii 16, ix (1), 10, 13, 15, 17, (29),
(42), x 36, xi 8, 17, 20, (21), 23, (24).
There seems to me no kind of reason to doubt this,
especially as St. Luke appears to be careful to avoid
the title Son of God, till he comes to St. Paul. He
seems to imply that the one title ,vas, and the other
was not, in use.
There are t,yO other indications looking in the same
direction.
(1) First, that even in the thoroughly Greek church
of Corinth St. Paul assumes fan1iliarity ,vith the in-
vocation "l\laranatha," "Come, 0 our Lord!" in
Aralnaic, \vhich means clearly that it had an Aramaic
1 See Dalman's Words of Jesus, p. 327.
I I have put in brackets ( ) the occasions where the word is
used by St. Luke in his own person and not ascribed specially to
BOrne speaker ot.her than himself.

104 FAITH OF THE FIRST CHURCII

orIgIn. (The same Aramaic phrase occurs in the
Didachè, which is a document (I think) quite inde-
pendent of St. Paul.) Rousset admits the force of this
as an argument that the title " Lord" goes back to the
original Aramaic-speaking church at Jerusalem, but
pleads that it is not ilnpossible "that the 1\laranatha
formula had its origin, not on the ground of the original
Palestinian church, but in the bilingual region of thé
Hellenistic cOlnmunities of Antioch, Damascus, and
Tarsus itself." 1 No doubt it is possible: for we know
little or nothing of these comnlunities and their manner
of speech. But the probability surely is that the
Hellenistic Christian comnlunities there talked Greek.
Even in Jerusalem the names of the men chosen to
minister to the Hellenists are all Greek names. .And
Bousset is surely mistaken in saying that St. Paul's
" tradition" goes back to these Syrian communities
only, and not to Jerusalem. 'Vhere St. Paul talks about
the tradition concerning the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv 8),
there he certainly means the tradition which he had
received from the earlier apostles-i.e. at Jerusalem-
for he ranks himself ,vith them as "the last" and
irregular apostle, and adds, "Therefore, whether it were
I or they, so we preach." The tradition ,vhich he
received ,vas therefore theirs before he came on the
scene. It came from Jerusalem. Again, in Rom. xv 19
St. Paul speaks of Jerusalem as his starting point.
(2) St. Paul was of course conscious that there were
U Gods many and Lords n1any," but certainly nothing
in his use of " Lord" as a title for Jesus Christ suggests
affinities ,vith the heathen. It was, according to
St. Luke, used ,vith special reference to the dignity of
the ascended Christ and His future coming. The phrase
"
Iaranatha," "Come, 0 our Lord," also sugge::;ts that.
St. Paul in his (probably earliest) Epistle to the Thes-
salonians constantly uses it with this suggestion: the
day of the Lord, the coming of the Lord, etc., see
I Thess. ii 19, iii 13, iv 15, 16, 17, v 2; 2 Thess. i 7,
ii 1, 8, 14. But this is a distinctively Jewish idea. And
1 P. 84. It is noteworthy that Bousset confesses U Schwieriger
ist es eine Alterbestimmung für das V orkommen des griecruachen
Ifyriostitels in Syrien und seiner Umgebung zu gewinnen."

CHRIST A
-wrER THE FLESH 105

his characteristic phrase lv KVpL<t2 suggests something
quite alien to the heathen cults.
On the whole, Bousset's position is singularly ill
founded.

NOTE C
On the phrase of St. Paul, " Chris-t a.fter the flesh."
It is difficult to feel sure \vhat exactly St. Paul means
by the ,vords of 2 Cor. v 16 : " Wherefore \ve henceforth
kno\v no man after the flesh: even though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him no
more." He is speaking, in a measure, generally of the
alnbassadors for Christ, not only of himself. That is
(in part) the force of the plural" we." He is describing
ho\v the appreciation of the love of Christ involves for
then1 death to their selfish selves, and to all the narrow.
ness of natural affections. "To know men after the
flesh" is to appraise them according to the standards
of class, or race, or disposition. To" kno\v Christ after
the flesh" would be to appreciate Him as a Jew' would
naturaHy appreciate Hinl, as the heaven-sent ?\Iessenger
who is to exalt the Jewish race and minister to Jewish
pride. St. Paul had felt this pride in Christ, but before
he recognized Jesus as the Christ. 'Vhat he seems to
nlcan is that all such narro\v and partial prejudices have
been abolished by the expulsive power of a love which
is spiritual and universal. It is difficult, I ackno\vledge,
to feel quite certain of St. Paul's meaning. But certainly
he does not mean by " kno-wing Christ after the flesh,"
kno\ving HÌ1n as having becolne really and fully human
in body as \vell as soul. That he could never repudiate.
See Dr. l\lenzies' commentary in loe.

CHAPTER IV

ST. .JOHN AXD THE REST OF THE NEW TESTA'\IENT

I

TIlE doctrine of the divine Sonship and incarnation
of Jesus Christ is given quite unmistakably in St.
Paul's F
pistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews, but
it is given incidentally and by implication. But in
St. John's Gospel, read in the light of the prologue
and the conclusion,1 it is given explicitly and directly;
and the main, though l).ot the only, object of the
writing of the Gospel appears to be to affirm the
doctrine ,vith all the authority ,vhich the personal
testinlony of the author can give it.
I call this Gospel St. John's, and on the ,vhole I
believe it to give us at first hand the mature testi-
Inony of the son of Zebedee. But the vádespread
denial or doubt of his being the author, or the direct
author, of the Fourth Gospel, and the consequent
uncertainty about the authority to be attached to it,
have seemed to make it wiser to build the structure
of our argument independently of it in the first
instance. So ".e have built it especially upon St.
l\lark and St. Luke, and upon the Acts, and upon St.
Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But having
done this ,ve can supplement our argument ,vith an
appeal to St. John.

1 John i 1-18 and John xx 30. Chap. xxi is evidently an
appendix, by the same author, I believe, as the rest of the book,
with an addition (verses 24, 25) by his companions.
106

DIl. STANTON AND OTHERS 107
Dr. Stanton has recently, in a very careful study
of the Fourth Gospel, given us a theory of wbat
one nlay call '
lllcdiate Johannine authorship."
The actual author ,vas, he supposes, a younger man
than the Apostle, ,vho had gone to Asia perhaps
earlier than he, but had there become intimately
associated with him, and who also had independent
memories of his o,vn-" ,vho could remember having
sometimes himself seen or heard Jesus, and who
felt himself possessed of a knowledge, which vtas
at least almost immediate, of the divine revelation
Inade in the Lord, by intimate association ,vith His
personal disciples very soon after His departure." 1
I cannot be satisfied with this theory. It seems
to me impossible to harmonize with the impression
made by the Fourth Gospel. I cannot doubt that it
at least claims to be in its whole bulk-and the same
applies to the First Epistle-a personal testimony,

1 Stanton, 'I'M Gospels all Hisrorical Witnesses, Part iii
(Canlbridge, 1920), p. 281.
Since this chapter was written, I have noted that Ed. :Meyer,
Urs-prung, i p. 312, treats as ridiculous any doubts that the author
of the Fourth Gospel inwnded to represent himself as "the disciple
whom Jesus loved n and as John the son of Zebedee. U This
W8B the mask he assumed. U He cannot understand how modern
critics can have brought themselves to doubt this. Also he is
confident that the author's conception of the Logos is derived from
Palestinian Jewish sources (the "J.!emra" doctrine), and not from
Greek philosophy, or Philo, though he may have known of the
current Greek philosophical term (p. 318). I have also read Dr.
Burney's Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922), who
is (of course) insistent on its Palestinian origin, pp. 37 fl. In his
opinion the author must have been an eyewitness of the events
he describes-really "the disciple whom Jesus loved": but he
identifies him as "John the presbyter" and not the apostle. He
thinks that he must have been a Jew of Jerusalem, belonging to
the priestly circle, and well trained in the Rabbinical schools, and
that he wrote the Gospel in Aramaic, probably at Antioch soon
after A.D. 75, before he took up his residence at Ephesus. I am
not without hopes that the essentially Palestinian, and not Hellen.
istic, origin and character of the Gospel, and its high value as an
historical witness both to the events of our Lord's life and to His
teaching, may soon come to be regarded as an "assured result"
of critical enquiry!

108 ST. JOlIN .A
D THE REST
so personal that it must be first-hand, and I see
no sufficient reason to doubt that the claim is true.
But Dr. Stanton's study at least sho,vs very cogent
reasons for believing that both the narrative of the
Fourth Gospel and the discourses rest upon a real
apostolic experience, and I hope that critical students
will heed his arguments. l
Thus he seems to me to sho,v convincingly that
the prologue to the Gospel, though of course it
stands first, is not by any means the governing
factor in the ,vhole book. 2 On the contrary, in the
bulk of the book, after the prologue, there is no
allusion to the doctrine of the (personal) 'Vord of
God which is the characteristic feature of the prologue,
and" the word of God" is given, as in the First
Epistle, only its normal meaning of the divine
111Cssage. 3 Jesus there appears only under those
titles which He certainly used of Hin1self-the
Son of l\lan and the Son of God-or the title which
. ,vas certainly ascribed to Him ,vith I-lis express
sanction-the Christ. The substance of the book,
,vhich is of a narrative character, must, Dr. Stanton
argues, be taken to represent the real experience
(and the conviction based upon the experience)
of an apostle or apostolic group, ,vhich ,vas shared
by or comn1unicated to the mind of the author,
supposed to be a different person. To put this
experience on record ""as his primary object. Only
at the last moment, so to speak, before he ,vrotc
his "gospel" did the current idea of the Logos
(the divine ,,,. ord or Rea50n or Po,ver always active

lOp. cit., chap. vi, p. 209.
I Pp. lû6 ft. This argument is substantially also Harnack's,
soo p. 107. See also D. C. Somervill, A Shcrt History of OUT Re.
liyi-on (G. Bell & Son), p. Ill: "A kind of preface or prologup,
whioh may also be regarded as an epilogue or summing up of. the
whole matter."
a See John v 38, x 3.3, xv 25, xvii Ü, 14, 17. This is also the
sense of H the word" in 1 John i 2.

ST. JOHN A
ì) TIlE S\
OPTISTS 109
in the universe) suggest itself to the author as a
suitable term to express the nature and functions
of the Son. So he formulates his dogmatic prologue
\vith the help of the new term with which both
his Jewish training and his Asiatic experience had
made him familiar. Thus the idea of the prologue
must be thought of as having presented itself to
his mind only after the narrative and ideas of thp
body of the Gospel ,vere already formed and fixed,
and, Dr. Stanton would say, after the First Epistle
had been written. Further, the bulk of the Gospel
must represent matter which had already become
familiar in the oral instruction given to the congrega-
tions of Asiatic Christians
1
Dr. Stanton also indicates with admirable precision
ho,v closely akin the idea of the divine sonship of
Jesus, as presented in the Fourth Gospel, is to what.
is found already in the foundation documents of
the Synoptic Gospels 2_to the conception of divine
sonship implied in the narrative of the Temptation
and presented in great sayings of our Lord which
have been already exan1Ïned; and how the ideas
of St. John vi about Christ, as through His flesh
and blood the spiritual food of the world, are really
implied in the language ,yhich He is recorded to
have used, in the Synoptic Gospels and by St. Paul,
at the Last Supper. On such grounds Dr. Stanton
argues that the idea of the divine sonship of Jesus
presented in the body of the Gospel must be accepted
1 See pp. 50, 282.
I Pp. 267 fl. Cpo Harnack, The Sayings of J e8U8, p. 302: "If
the first evangelist himself wrote the passage [St. :Matt. xi 25-7]
a.s we read it, then even with the most cautious interpretation of
the passage, his own Christology approached very nearly to that
of the J ohannine writings in one of the most important points."
In view of the fact that the saying occurs in substantially identical
fonn in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and must therefore have so
occurred in Q, we should substitute for Harnack's opening words
something of this kind-" If, as we cannot doubt, the first recorder
of our Lord's words, whose written record lies behind all our present
Gospels, wrot.e the pa68age as we read it,U etc.

110 ST. JOH
AXD THE REST

as resting on genuine utterances of Christ, and he
sho,vs the reasonableness of believing that, if such
utterances ,,,"ere really made as the Synoptists record,
they ,vere nlore frequently and more emphatically
Inade than there appears. "It is improbable that
such sayings could have been spoken, and yet have
stood alone in the intercourse of Jesus ,vith His
disciples. Even in order that they might be rendered
intelligible, and be duly impressed upon their minds,
they ,vould need to be repeated." Dr. Stanton
also argues afresh ,,,"ith great force how ,veIl the
Synoptic narrative can be fitted into the frame-
,york of the story of the Fourth Gospel, and I should
add how 11luch on the whole it gains thereby in
intelligibility.
I have ,vritten so much by way of preface because
"Titers are apt to assume that, if they reject the
direct authorship of St. John the son of Zebedee,
they can dispose of the ,vhole Gospcl as a ,,,"ork of
pious iInagination. I do not agree that the direct
authorship can be rejected. But ,vhat I think is a
prejudice against the authorship of St. John is still
a very strong prejudice, and it seems to me very
important that the ,vorld which especially claims
to be critical should remember that it has still to
reckon váth the Fourth Gospel, both as to its incidents
and its teaching, as making an historical claim which
cannot be ignored, and rcpresenting a tradition quite
independent of St. Paul.
I ahvays find myself impressed by the fact that
this Gospel four times calls attention to occasions
,,,,hen the disciples failed to apprehend at the tin1e
the llleaning of sonlC ,vord of Jesus, and only after-
,yards in retrospect perceived ,vhat it had really
been, l and also calls attention to our Lord's having
promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit, ,vhOl1l
they \vere to receive after His departure, \yould so
1 John ii 22, viii 27, x 6, xii 16.

THE DIVINE SOXSHIP IN ST. JOHN 111
act within their minds as not only to interpret ,vhat
they remembered of His ,vords, but also to bring out
of their " subconscious selves" what had been
forgotten or ignored.! That such should have been
their experience seems to me to be thoroughly in
accordance with human nature. 2 Thus I am disposed
to believe that the record of our Lord's words con-
tained in the common matter of St.
fatthew and
St. Luke represents the first memory of what He had
said, more or less exactly as He said it, but the
Fourth Gospel gives us what had been a gradually
growing recollection in the mind of St. John and
probably of others, viz. that the sayings of our Lord
about His divine sonship had been more frequent
and more emphatic than the earliest record had
implied.
Here in the Fourth Gospel, then, St. John, pre-
supposing the Synoptic record, supplements it with
incidents and discourses especially intended to bear
on the point of divine sonship.3 Thus, apart from
the comments of the Evangelist, so far as they can
be kept distinct from the words of Christ, we have
a discourse of Christ (cap. v) in which He asserts
1 xiv 26, cf. xiii 7.
J D. C. Somervill, Ope cit., p. 106, quotes from
Ir. Bruce Glasier's
memoir of William 111orris, written twenty-five years after his
dea.th, the following: "I have found that my memory is, on many
occasions, subject to what sooms to be a sort of 'illumination' or
'inspiration.' Thus when I have fixed my mind on one, say, of
the incidents recalled in these chapters, the scene has begun to
unfold itself, perhaps slowly at first, but afterwards rapidly and
clearly.
Iedita.ting upon it for a time, I have lifted my pen and
begun to write. Then to my surprise the conversations, long
buried or hidden somewhere in my memory, have come back to
me sOlnetimes with the greatest fulness, word for word, as we say.
Nay, not only the words, but the tones, the pauses and the gestures
of the speaker." J\-Iy own belief is that in the Fourth Gospel the
memory of incidents and things seen is precise and clear cut. But
the memory of words, though true in its ultimate substance, has
become in its form transmuted and sometimes enlarged by medita.
tion. In almost all cases, however, clear-cut sayings of our Lord
which are original and verbally genuine can be discerned.
a Soo xx 31.

112

ST. JOHN A
1) THE REST

at once, as always, His subordination to the Father,
but also His constant association with Him in His
,yorks, in such general sense as, perhaps, suggests
His co-operation ,vith the Father even in the processes
of nature. "l\Iy Father "
orketh hitherto, and I
work" (v 17-18). The co-operation actually asserted
(verses 19-29) is something quite transcending the
human level, though He ,vho so works is called
"Son of l\:Ian." That is to say, there is asserted
a divine sonship belonging to the Son of
Ian under
human conditions, ,vhich yet can only belong to the
man, because He had come into His manhood out
of a pre-existence in God. 1 This is affirmed again
and again in the next chapter (vi 38, 41, ti2), as
also that He is to return, in His manhood, to the
heaven ,vhence He came. Again in the discourse
of chapter viii this pre-existent sonship is affirmed
and identified \vith the eternal existence of God
(verse 58). Again the Son and the Father are
declared to be one thing (x 80) and, as has been
explained above, 2 I do not think the apparent
n1Ïnimizing of this claim (verses 33-36), when the
Jews rightly understood it as a claim of Godhead,
can be taken at its face value. The aln10st startling
incompatibility of the minimizing explanation of

1 There are two assertions by our Lord that U the Father" i8
" greater" than He (x 29, xiv 28). It has been long a matter
of controversy in the Church (see 'Vestcott'8 note) whether this
superior" greatness" of the Father to the Son refers to the God-
head of the Son or to His manhood. It seems to me that the words
-80 far like the words of our Lord recorded in St. Mark and St.
1\Iatthew, asserting the Son's ignorance of the day and hour of the
I "end of the world "--are spoken by the Son in His manhood
and with direct reference to His present human state, but that
it is not an adequate explanation of them to say that they describe
Him as "inferior to the Father as touching His manhood." For
t.hey refer not to His manhood merely (which, according to the
teaching of the Church, had no separate personal exist
nce) but
to Himself. They 800m to me to describe an inferiority which
the incarnation of the Son has (so to spealt) intensified, but whioh
depends upon and postulates an eternal subordination.
:800 pp. 28 f.

THE LAST DISCOURSES

118

IIis divine sonship vvith the general argument of
the Gospel does indeed give us a guarantee that the
Evangelist would not have preserved the ,vords
unless he had felt sure that they ,vere really spoken
by our Lord; but I think they must be interpreted,
not as minimizing His meaning, but as intended to
force the Jews to consider that, according to their
authoritative Scriptures, something much less than
Godhead would justify a claim of divine sonship
in some sense. They could not, therefore, dispose
of His inconvenient claim upon them merely by
repudiating its full ÏInplication. l\lore than this
kind of meaning cannot be attached to this strange
and isolated passage consistently with the constant
tenor of the Gospel as a whole.
In the last discourses immediately before His
passion our Lord is constantly represented as one
who was conscious of having in one sense come
from God-but without thereby leaving God, for
He was still abiding in the Father and the Father
in Him, and to see Him is to see the Father-and
as being immediately to return to God to resume
an interrupted glory and to fulfil the purpose of
His mission by the bestowal of the Spirit, whom
the Father is to send in His name and at His hands. l
We shall have to return upon these last discourses
about the Holy Spirit. All that ,ve need now to
do is to assure ourselves that in them, as in the rest
of the Gospel, \vhat ,ve are presented with, in our
Lord's words, is an indisputable and constantly
reiterated assertion on His part of divine sonship.
This is primarily an assertion of what He was then
and there in His manhood; but. it is also frequently
and plainly implied that He has been through the
ages the Son with the Father, dependent upon Him
for His very life, but also belonging essentially to
the divine being; that He came into the ,yorld
1 xi... 16, 26, xv 26, xvi 7.

LI
R

n\
....

5T I
1\ !\.. -rc COLLE #li E
· ùì' :ai'.;J I II

114 ST. JOHN Al\'"D THE REST
voluntarily in fulfilment of a divine mission of re-
demption-to accept death at the hands of men for
their salvation-and that He was about to resume
an interrupted glory on His return to heaven as
Son of l\lan, carrying thither His manhood to become
through the Spirit, ,vhom He is to send do,vn from
the Father upon His chosen body, the fountain head
of a ne,v life.
Now I do not say that the author of the Fourth
Gospel ,vas unacquainted ,vith St. Paul. That can
hardly have been the case. But I say that all this
body of teaching appears to have gro,yn quite inde-
pendently of St. Paul. It has its o,vn independent
phraseology and characte rist ic ideas, notably the
dominant ideas of " light" and " life" and " truth,"
of the conflict of belief and unbelief, of j ud g!llent
perpewally being enacted, and of eternal life already
e.l1joy d. And it must be held to rest upon the
foundation of a real tradition of the ,yords of Jesus
in the churches of Asia and in the school of St.
John; for myself I go farther, and believe it records
both the real memory and the deep meditation of
St. John as given us by himself. And I do not
see any point at ,vhich the record of the Fourth
Gospel-apart from the prologue, ,vhich has still
to be considered-suggests the influence of the
current Logos-philosophy of the Hellenistic world.
"fhere is really nothing needed to account for it
but the Old Testament and the actual life and
teaching of Christ.
The outcome of this experience upon the author
has been to generate an idea of Christ as to the nature
of ,vhich he leaves us in no doubt. He believed
that Christ, the Son of l\ian, ,vas the eternal Son of
God, who is very God. He identifies Him ,vith the
Jehovah of the Old Testament, for he speaks of
Isaiah as ha ving seen His (Christ's) "glory" ,y hen

in his vision in the temple, he sa,v the form of Jehovah

ST. JOII
'S PROLOGUE

115

sitting upon His throne 1; and he represents the
penitent Thomas as calling the risen Jesus "my
Lord and my God." Also he plainly believes the
eternal Son of God to have come or been sent by
God into the ,vorld as man-the Son of Man. But
there docs not seem to me to be any trace of a belief
in a pre-existent man or Son of l\lan. It was the
pre-existent Son of God who was sent into the world
(iii 16-18) as Son of l\'Ian, and who after His death
and resurrection carried that manhood into heaven 2
in pursuance of a divine purpose of redemption.
'fhis alone gives a fair interpretation of the language
of the Gospel as a whole. The author's n1ind is
preoccupied with making it evident that Jesus ,vas
really the Son of God. But he leaves us in no doubt
as to the reality of His manhood, both bodily and
spiritua1. 3
All this belief of " St. John" concerning Jesus
gre\v, I believe with Dr. Stanton, on the ground of
a real historical tradition or (I should say) of a real
memory, and in substance antedates the prologue.
It is with this belief already in his mind that, ,vhen
he came to give his Gospel ,vritten form, he found in the
1 See Burney, op. cit., p. 37.
I In vi 62 our Lord is represented as anticipating His ascension:
" What and if ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was
before." In iii 13 I think we must suppose that we have a re-
flection of the Evangelist and not a word of Christ. The ascension
has plainly already occurred. The sense in which "the Son of
man came down from heaven" is defined by the verses which
follow. It is in the sense that "God sent his Son" (verses 16'
and 17) and His "only begotten Son" (verse 18) into the world
to save the world and that He came to save the world as man, the
Son of 1\-Ian.
3 No doubt the reality of our Lord's manhood physica11y is
what he sees represented symbolically in the blood from His pierced
side, xix 34-5. Cf. I John v 6; see my Exposition of St. John' 8
EpÏ8tles, in we.; see John iv 6 and xix 28 for His being tired and
thirsty. Dr. Burkitt (The Gospel History and its Transmission,.
p. 233) has the courage to say that "In no early Christian document
is the real humanity of Jesus so emphasized as in the Fourth
Gospel." The reality of His human spirit and human sympath
r
a ppears in xi 33-8 xii 27, xiii 1, etc.

116 ST. JOHN AND THE REST
current idea of the Logos (the word or reason of God)
the best vehicle for expressing his doctrine in a concise
and dogmatic shape, such as ,,?ould arrest the imagi-
nation and conciliate the sympathies of the ,,-orld for
which he was writing. For his world ,vas plainly
one deeply liable at the moment to be diverted by
the rising tide of "Gnostic" speculation from the
belicf in the Incarnation, or (what is the same thing)
the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. It appears
indeed very vividly in St. John's Epistles that his
,,,"orld was a troubled world-a ,,,"orld full of move-
ments calculated to mislead and destroy this funda-
mental faith.! And all these movements would
recognize in the term "the Logos" one of their
key,vords or favourite thoughts.
For the Hellenistic world ,vas possessed with the
idea of a La,v or Force or l\Iind moulding and goV'ern-
ing the universe. This "
as the God immanent in
the world, "in whon1 we live and move and have
our being," of which the mind or spirit in each man
"ras a minute portion. This current belief ,,-as of
Stoic origin. Obviously, like the modern more or
less pantheistic utterances of Shelley and Goethe and
\V ords,vorth (in his earlier phase), this philosophy
responds to a ,videsprcad demand of the human spirit
that it shall be able to see God in all things and
to feel its o,vn kinship ,vith the divine. Before St.
John's days it had taken many different forms and
moyed in many different directions. Thus a Jew of
Alexandria before our Lord's time, in the Book of

1 The signs of trouble are apparent in 1 John i 18-26, iv 1-6,
v 6-10; 2 John 7-11. The precise nature of this hostile move-
ment I have sought to describe in Epistles of St. John, pp. 109 fl.,
165 fl., 170 f., 191 fl. It denied St. John's central faith, viz. that
in the man Jesus the highest and lowest had become one--that
the man Jesus was really and personally the Son of God come in
the flesh, and it denied this by separating the man Jesus from the
divine Christ, who was represented only as coming down upon the
Inan at His baptism out of the heavenly regions and leaving Him
before His passion.

THE IDEA OF THE LOGOS 117
I Wisdom, had assimilated this Hellenistic belief in a
I divine energy and law and spirit, immanent in the
I world, and had identified it with the Wisdom of God.
As we have already seen,1 in this beautiful little book
Wisdom appears as something more than a mere
personification of a divine quality. It is a living
being, as well as a pervasive force throughout the
,vhole universe. It is a spirit expressive of the inner
being of God, and it is the revealer of God in nature
and to Inan through His saints and prophets. Here
we have an intermediate being presented to us-inter-
mediate between the supreme and inaccessible God
and the material world. And it is a very active
power, which later on in the book, under the name of
the "\tV ord of God, is described as leaping do,vn from
the divine throne to work His miracles of judgment
upon Egypt, "a stern warrior into the midst of the
doomed land." 2
Later Philo, the Jew of Alexandria, elaborated this
conception of an intermediate being, ,vhether ,ve are
to call it person or no, who as the divine Logos is
not only the immanent reason and law of the ,vorld,
but also the active instrument of God and the re-
vealer of His mysterious being. This idea of an
intermediate being between the high and inaccessible
God and the material,vorld became exceedingly popular
in all sorts of forms. But outside the influence of
the Jewish religion it is almost al,vays associated
with the notion of matter as essentially evil, so that
the snprelne God could not be conceived of as either
responsible for creating it, or enduring to come in
immediate contact with it. Nor ,vas the human
imagination generally content ,vith one divine or
semi-divine intermediate being. The world teemed
with beliefs in Inysterious "po,vers" or "Gods, "
,vho in various ways represented a divine activitV'
for man's enlightenment and salvation. These PO\VC!:s
1 Above, p. 92. ! 'Visd. :xviii 13.
9 -

118 S'f. JOIIX AXD TIlE RES1'
,\'ere identified ,vith the Gods of old popular beliefs
-for example ,,,ith the old nature spirits who died
in the decay of autumn and lived again in the rebirth
of spring. These no,v reappear as Saviour Gods,
,vho ,vill rcdee111 111en fronl the endless flux and
Inisery of 11lateriallife and bring them by a new birth,
sYIubolically represented, into the security of the
heavenly life beyond death. An thc:sc kinds of
beliefs--", hcthcr in the Logos as in1manent nlind or
spirit of thc univer
e, or in the Logos as an intcr-
nlediate being bet,veen thp supremc God and the
material ,vorld, or in diyinc persons, 'Vaguely con-
ceiyed, through ,yhom, by mysteries of initiation
and sacramental participation, men can- be sayed
froln the miseries and fluctuations of material life and
brought into the upper ,vorld of light and eternity
-,,,,ere already at ,york in the Hellenistic ".orld,
that is the ,vorld of mixed Oriental and Greek culture,
\vhen Christianity came into it. Obviously, this
class of beliefs provided a condition in the souls of
Inen, or a spiritual atmosphere, favourable to the

pread of any religion of redeluption or salvation,
like the Christian religion. Obviously also,
'ith
its innumerable internlediate bcing5, or its one
Logos neither really God nor really man, and ,,,,ith
its alnlost universal belief in matter as so evil a
thing that the high God could not directly touch it
or be responsible for it, this ,vholc class of beliefs
,vas calculated, in its Illany 1l1ovelucntß, to peryert
fundamentally the Christian tradition.
This St. John sees very vividly. Thus in the Pro-
logue to his Gospel he accepts the tcnn Logos, which
has both its Hellenistic nleanings such as Vie have
been describing, and also its properly J c\\;sh meaning,
,yhich we are very familiar \"ith in the Old Testa-
nlent-" the word of God" bv which He created
th
,,"arId and proceeds forth t
goV"enl His people
through His prophets, and to chastise the rebcllioub

TIlE PROLOGUE P.\RAPIIIL\SED 119
\vith His judgments. He seems to say to the Jewish
,vorld-" All that you have believed about God Wi
proceeding forth by His word to create and govern
nature, and to revcallIimself to man by His prophets,
belongs to Jesus, and in IIim is consummated."
And to the Hellenistic \vorld-" All that you have
imagined of a divine activity in the \vorld and a
divine spirit, all that you have dreamed of a divine
mediator or mediators betwecn the highest and
the lowest, and of mysteries of salvation, here have
their justification and fulfilment, and also their
correction. "
Now I will attempt to paraphrase the prologue so as
to bring out its general meaning,1 referring from time
to time to sayings in the Gospel which illustrate it.
At the beginning, before the world was, you must
think of God as having already with Him His Word.,
the expression of Himself, God \vith God; and the
whole world of created things ,vithout exception was
brought into being through this Word. Nor must
you think of the 'V ord as a mere quality of God, but
as a person with God, in whom is life in its fulness.
[As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He
given to the Son to have life in Himself.] Thus as
all the life in creation is from Him, so specially is
the life of men. To them as rational beings life
is giyen in their reason and conscience as light-
that is as illumination and guidance, as a "way" to
be chosen and follo"\\red. So the light is given to
all men. But men have loved darkness rather than
light. They have followed their ov.
desires and
fancies instead of the divine leading. That is what
we see in the world at large. The light is shining in
the darkness and the darkness has not admitted it. 2
So it was vlhen John the Baptist came, who was

1 'Vhere the reading is disputed, or the punotuat.ion. I 8lmply
take what 800mB to me the better reading or stopping.
I Or" nevertheless the darkness has never overw helmed t.halight."

120 ST. JOHN A
ì) THE REST
not indeed the Light, but v,"as a witness to the Light,
calling men to faith in Another. And all the time
that Other, the \V ord ,vho is the True Light, lighten-
ing every Ulan \vho con1CS into the ,vorld, ,vas conling,
.and at last He cwne. The ,vorld to ",hich lIe came
\vas His O"'Il, as He ,vas the creator of it, but it
\yould not recognize Him. He came thither as to
Ifis o'\\.n possession, but n1en-His own-refused to
receive HiIn. That is, most men refused, but there
..
were sonle ,vho ,velcomed Him, and they received
fronl Hinl the title to sonship of God, as all 111en
receive it who believe on Him as He has disclosed
fIimsclf. This sonship is given by a new birth, not by
the methods of natural birth. It proceeds not from
lnixture of human seeds, nor from carnal desire,
nor frolll the ,vill of a man, but purely from the will
of God. l And all this coming of God into the v
"orld
to enlighten and to regenerate those who would receive
HiIn reached its fulfilment thus-the Word becanle
flesh. Our creator and illun1Ïnator took our nature
and tabernacled among us, as the glory of God taber-
nacled among the people of Israel 2; and 've IIis

1 As will be seen, the phrases used, "not from bloods (i.e. the
mingling of human f!eeds) nor carnal desire, nor the will of a man
(8. husband)," describe exactly the negative conditions of the
human birth of Jesus of 6 virgin mother. l\Iany of the early Fathers
in fact had the singular, not the plural, in their text of St. John.
1 They read it U who was bonl." Some modern scholars, including
Dr. Inge and Dr. Burney, accept this as the original reading. I do
not think this is probable. But I think it is certain (with Dr.
()hase, Zahn and others) that the passage describes our new birth
to divine sOllship aft.er the pattern picture of His birth who alone
is in the fullest sense Son of God: so that the reader is reminded
of 8 begetting and birth
hich took place without carnal impulse
or the act of any man.
I In this phrase-" the IVord was made flesh and taberna.clcd
t\lnong us, and we beheld His glo-ry" -St. John has bI'ought
together three characteristic Jewish ideas, which the Aramaic
,Targulns lead us to believe were already in current use: }'Iernra (the
\V ord of God, constantly used to express God in action), Shekinta
or (Hebrew) Shekinal. (the tabernacle or abiding-place of God

t1nong His people, as above the cherubim in the Holy of Holies,
and on dpecial occasions besides), and Yekara (the glory "hich

ST. JOlIN'S DOCTRINE JEWISH 121
,,,,it.ncsses who speak to you beheld His glory, be-
holding God in Him, as men see a father in his only
son, full of the divine favour and truth. Here '''a5
one greater than John the Baptist and prior to
hiIn, as he himself bore \vitness: here '\vas one who
could do and give ,vhat l\Ioses could not do or give.
Fo!" the vision of God has been ahvays unattain-
able to men: but here God only-begotten, the
Son, \vhose place is in the bosom of the Father.
hath interpreted Him [as He said, "lIe that hath
seen lne hath seen the Father "].
It is after this preface in which" the '\vriter plainly
announces the full and ultimate conclusion of belief

to \vhich he has come," 1 that he begins his story.
There is one point on '\vhich I ought to make D1Y
nleaning clear before leaving St.. John.
It has been for long a matter of ceaseless discus-
sion whether St. J obn's term the Logos is derived
from the IIebre,v and Palestinian tradition or from
the lIellenistic ,vorld of thought. I cannot but believe
that in St. John's o,vn mind its origin and mean-
ing are fundamentally Palestinian and Jewish. I do
not deny that he chooses the term as one familial"
to the Hellenists.. That I have already said. I do
not suppose he had ever read Philo or any Stoic
philosophel'. But the idea and the ,vord U Logos "
were in the atmosphere of the Asiatic churches and
St. John-with great discernment as it appearcd-
sees in it the best word to interpret to his generation
the idea of the Son of God and His relation to the
world both before and in the Incarnation. N everthe-
less his o,vn mind accepts and
ses the term rather

under the cloudy veil shows itself in flashes). See below, p. 128,
and cf. Burney, pp. 35 fÌ. .
1 See Dr. H. S. Holland, Tha Philosophy oj Faith and the Fourlh
Goapel, p. 262. I was delighted to read in Dr. Armitage Robinson'a
rooent lecture on the Fourth Gospel, given in MuncheBt-er Cathedral,
an enthusi88tic appreciation of the vaIu.. of Dr. Holland's inter-
pretation of
h6 Fourth Gospel.

122

T. JOIIX
\i\,]) TIlE IlEST

in the IIebreVr? than in the Greek sense. Kot exclu-
bively, but on the ,vhole and first of all, the tenn in
Greek meant Reason: \\"hile in the Old Testament
the 'Vord of God meant not rcason at all, but the
utterance of the ,viII of God, or the expression of
IIis mind. So as applied by St. John to the Son
it mcans at bottom nIuch vihat St. Paul meant by
calling IIim God's U inlage," and the author of the
Epistle to the IIcbrc,vs by calling HÌIn U the expres-
sion of his substance."
In the Targums, or Aranlaic interpretations of the
IIebre\v Scriptures, U the 'V'ord (l\Iemra) of God" is
constantly used ,vhcre the IIebre\v speaks sinIply of
God. 1 The u'Vord of God" is aln10st U God in
action." In this sense, as has been already men-
tioned, U the 'V ord of God " occurs in t he Book of
\Visdom,2 and in a closely allied sense" the "Tisdon}
uf Goù." Dr. Renùel Harris 8 has shown ho\v
closely the phrases of St. John's prologue are modelled
upon the description of the activity of the divine
\YisdoDl in tlJ{' 1300k of )>royerbs and, still more,
in the Book of \Yisdom. St. John '\\.as probably
Rcquainted v:ith the Targunls, ,yhich were already
a

uming fixed form, and ,vith Proverbs and Wisdon1.
So it ,vas frOlll Jc,vish sources that he derived the
ternl which he chose to express the scope and Dlean-
iug of the Incarnation. But ,ve cannot doubt
that it
familiar use in the Ilellenic ,yorld, of \vhich
he cannot have been ignorant, partly determined
his choice. In the generation after St. John it ,\.as
chiefly in its llellenic sense that the phrase came
to be understood. But it ,vas not so in St. John's
n1Înd, nor did his Gospel gro,v on any I-Iellenie soil. t
1 See the pC1.8sages quoted by Burney, op. cit. p. 38.
I 'ViBd. xviii 15, see above, p. 117.
3 See his Prol()gue to St. John's Gospel, Carob., 1917.
· For the argument of Reitzenstein, who would trace the whole
intellectual and mystical substance of the Fourth Gospel to a Hellen-
ietjc (Graeco.EgyptiRn) Bource, see appended now at the end of
t.be chapter, p. 1:J3.

..ill OPT IO:S IS:\I

123

II
\Ve have passed in review the Synoptic Gospels,
the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul and that to the
Hebrews, and the Gospel of St. John. In these

pistles and in the Fourth Gospel we have found
a clearly e.xpressed doctrine of Jesus Christ as an
eternal and divine person, the Son of God, the divine
agent in the creation and maintenance of all that
cxi
ts, who at the last was incarnate for man'8
redemption in Jesus Christ. \Ve have found the
grounds of this doctrine in the Synoptic Gospels.

othing else can explain the impression made by
.Jesus upon the disciples and His own language
about Hi5 divine sonship. In the first part of the
Acts, however, before the appearance of St. Paul
upon the scene, \ye seem to find a situation in which
.Jesus, as the exalted and glorified Christ, is indeed
treated as divine and worshipped as divine, but in
,vhich no question of pre-existence or divine sonship
seems to be entertained. This situation is often
represented as if the first disciples regarded Christ
as strictly only a human person who, as Christ, had
been exalted to divine honours on the throne of
(jod, or deified. This is ,vhat is called the " adop-
tionist" theory of Christ's divinity. It played its
part as a heresy alnong J e,vish Christians in the
second century under the name of Ebionism, and
it ,vas the clearly defined doctrine of Paul of Samo-
sata in the third. But it is quite misleading so to
describe the state of n1ind of the first Christians
in Jerusalem. Ebionism, or Paul of Samosata's
doctrine, \vas a clearly held theory. On the other
hand, the Jerusalem church appears to have existed
for some years ,vithout any theory, simply because
their minds were absorbed in the sense of the glorified
Christ, the Lord of all, at the right hand of God,
and of the Spirit whom He had given them. Their

124 ST. JOHN AI\
THE REST
creed ,vas, "Jesus is Christ and Lord. lIe h3S
given us the Spirit." But \vhen, after a fe\v years,
the converted Saul felt at once the pressing need of
a theory of Christ's person, and found this need
sati')fied in Christ's o\vn language about His sonship
to God, and so proclaimed the doctrine of the In-
ca,rnation, his words excited no dismay or dispute.
Universally, as far as we kno\v, the churches accepted
his position. This means that, though hitherto
they had not felt the pressure of the need for an
explanation of thcir \vorship of the glorified Christ,
yet, \vhen oncc it ,vas felt, they found it not in
adoptionism but in the theory of the Incarnation;
and they found the ,varrant of this doctrine in Christ's
o,vn language. I cannot help thinking that in the
memory and mind of some at least of the apostolic
company this explanation must have been ferment-
ing under the surface of their public ,vitness before
St. Paul appeared; otherwise his teaching 'YYpould
have excited more comment. The celebration of
the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, as well
as the memory of some of Hi8 words, must, one
,,",ould think, inevitably have led to such thoughts.
\Vhat remains for us to do is to examine the rest of
the documents of the New Testament, those especialJy
which appear to be most independent of St. Paul, to
see whether " adoptionism " is to be found in them,
and first of all the most non-Pauline of all the books,
the greatest expression of the spirit of J e,vish apo-
calypse, the" Revelation of John the Divine."
(a) The Revelation.
There is no more thrilling book in the literature
of the world than the Apocalypse of J obn. It is
this quite independently of the question who John
the Seer is, \vhether the "Son of Thunder," the
apostle, or the supposed "Presbyter John," or
whether the visions belong to an earlier or later date

'l'IIE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE ,APOCAl.YPSE 12:;
in the first century-problems which ,ve need not dis-
cuss. I And it is also the most Judaic book in the N e\y
Testament, beyond all question. The God ,vho there
confronts us in all His n1ajesty and aU His tren1endous
activity of judgment, is the God of the Old Testament
in His most fearful aspects. There are touches of
tenderness, but they are rare. If this book is really'
\vritten by the author of the Fourth Gospel and
the First Epistle of John, then ,ve must suppose
t.hat the acute crisis of persecution forced the Apostle
to concentrate his mind for the time on that part
of the truth about God which the Son of Thunder
had never forgotten, but ,yhich bad been pressed
into the background by the fresher revelation of
di ,rine, self-sacrificing love. N o,v the tremendous
God of Justice--God the almighty and God the
avenger-occupies the 'v hole stage. But ,yith one
startling difference. The One God of this uncom-
promising Jewish monotheism has a partner on His
throne. It is no'\v "the throne of God and of the
I..amb," and the adoration of the whole world is
directed to,vards His partner as to Him. There
can be no question that Jesus, "the Lamb as it had
been slain," is on the throne of God and treated a5J
God. .L'\nd there can be no doubt that this exalta-
tion of the Lan1b to divine functions and honours
is eXplained on the principle of luerit. It is thel
l
eward of IIis supreme self-sacrifice. 2 All this l
sugge&ts the "Adoptionist" Cbristology sometimes ,
ascribed to the Apocalypse. But we are pulled
np short at the idea of such an ascription. Is it
conceivable that in a book so intensely Jewish
another should be equalled to God? Has God, the
God of Israel, forgotten llis ancient "jealousy"?
1 Of course Burney's theory of the Aramaio original of the Gospel
enables him easily to assign Gospel and Apocalypse to the samEt
person-the presbyt.er John-for the Grook of t;he Gospel is not
hiB Greek, but a translation.
S See Rev. v.

126 s'r. JOlIN AND TIlE REST
'.fhere is, we notice, twice in the book, when John
....vould ",vorship" an angelic Inessenger, a &tern
-repudiation on his part of the homage ,vhich only
tGod must receive. 1 'VeIl then, we are bound to be,
as I say, pulled up S1101't at the proposed intrusion
into the heart of Judaism of an idea so alien to it.
We look again at the language of the Apocalypse.
Certainly there is no theory of Christ's person there.
But there are t,vo points which are enlightening.
(1) That the great phrase (in part taken fronl
Isaiah), ,vhich is here heard frOIn the lips of God
to signify IIis activity from the beginning of time
to the end of it-" the Alpha and the Omega, the
first and the last "-is also heard from the lips of
Christ. 2 This means unmistakably that the associa-
tion of Christ in the activity of God had no beginning
in time. No doubt it was only in ti1ne that lIe -y,as
glorified as God in IIis manhood. But "That rendered
that possible ,vas His co-existence and co-ordination
\vith God from the beginning.
(2) Such also is the lesson of the figure whose
!lanle is called the "Tord of God. 3 This surely is
an intensely J e\vish phrase. U The 'V ord " here is
l1ot, I think, us
d as in the prologue to the Gospel.
But it indicates something intensely active and
energetic. It relninds us of the startling sin1Ïle
in the Book of 'Visdom, already referred to nlore
than once, where the 'Vord of God is figured as a
I.varrior leaping oIf I-lis divine throne to rush in a
tnOnlcnt to execute divinc justice. It is the activity
of God personified, as lie has sho,vn Himself in the
governlnent of the world. But we cannot question
that the figure on the horse in the Apocalypse is
'Christ, 4 and this also Incans that the seer of the
.A.pocalypse identified Jesus the Christ ,"yith the
1 xix 10, xxii 9, and contrast i 17.
. Soo i 8, xxi 6, on the lips of God, cf. Is. xli 4, xliii 10, xliv 6.
On the lips of Christ, i 17, ii 8, xxii 13.
3 xix 11-16. · See Swete's and Charles' notes on the passage.

TIIE EPISTLE OF J..>\MES 127
divine warrior of the Old Testament, that is with
God the world ruler. Decisively then, we must
say that the theology of the Apocalypse is not
adoptionist. The person who is Jesus existed
from the beginning with God and in God.

(b) The Epistle of J a flUS
\Yhen we pass to the Epistle of James we pass
to another deeply Judaic docunlent. And it is, as
concerns both its origin and its date, a rather mysteri-
ous document, though, on the whole, I think we may
still assign it t.o U the Lord's brother," and date it
accordingly before he was executed (as Josephus tells
us) in Jerusalem, under Annas the Younger, the
Jewish High Priest, in A.D. 62. As to its spiritual
and moral value, it speaks for itself as plainly as
any document of the New Testament. It is full of
the spirit of the Sernlon on the
Iount, and no less
clearly of the spirit of the ancient prophets and the
\Yisdoln literature. Theologically there is very little
in it that is specifically Christian as distinct from
what is Jewisb. It is severe]y monotheist. l There
is also plainly no trace of St. Paul's influence, and
the ,vriter appears to combat, not St. Paul's doctrine
of justification, as ,vritten in his Epistles, but some
perverted version of it. 2 His luain interest is, I
think, rightly interpreted by Hort. It is in the
ideal fOI" man disclosed by the ,vord of God at his
creation, to ,vhich his conscience bears ,vitness, and
v.hich it is God's present purpose that he should
recover. "Grace," St. Jan1es ,vould say, "is not
contrary to nature, but the res
oration of nature."
As to the person of Christ, with which alone ,ve
are here concerned, there are three indications of
St. James's n1ind. (1) In his initial greeting to his
1 ii 19, iv 12.
· FundamentalIy St. Jmnes' doctrine of justification is easily
hftl'lnonized with St. Paul's.

128 ST. JOHN A},"]) TIlE REST
.J ('wish renders he couples the Lord Jesus Christ
,vith God as lIe ,vhose servant or slave he is; and the
nlorc we think of this fan1Ïliar phrase the n10re fully
it seems to involye the deity of Jesus, ,vhcn it is
\1sed by a faithful Jew; for it means that he can
surrender himself as ,vholly to Jesus as to God, and
that, in fact, the one surrender involves the other.
(2) At the end of the Epistle he speaks in one group
of connected sentences of the U coming (parousia.) of
t he Lord" (twice), of U the name of the Lord " in
,vhich the prophets spoke; and of U the end of the
Lord," that is, His final dealings with Job.! No,..
the first phrase must refer to the Lord Jesus 2 and
the <;econd and third to the Lord Jehovah. But
no one could use the same name thrice in such inti-
mate connection without practical identification of
the Lordship referred to in each case. (3) There is
a very interesting phrase "yhich may be paraphrased
thus I: ")fy brethren, can you, while you keep
showing respect of persons, really hold the faith of
(or' in ') our Lord Jesu! Christ, the Glory?" Let
ns examine the phrase.
The Jews spoke much of the glory of Jehovah.
And in the latter days of Israel's religion, when the
dread prevailed of speaking of Jehovah at all, or of
connecting IIim closely with earthly things, they
often-in the Aramaic, which had taken the place of
the old Hebre,v-spoke of His JVord ßIemra], or
Hi9 Glory [Y ekara], or His abiding [Shekintah or
Shckinah], for rev
rence sake, instead of speaking
of Himself. So ""e find it in the Aramaic interpre-
tations of the Hebrew Scripture, which are called
Targums, and ,vhich ""ere no doubt, if still un,vritten,
yet in familiar use in our Lord's day. "The tern1
[Shekinah)," says Dr. BOX,4 "together with 'the

J v 7-11. I So directly after (v 14) must U the name of the Lord. n
I ii I, following Hort.
Hastings' Did. of Chris' and the Gospels, .!.t'. Shekinah.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

129

Glory' and 'the 'V ord,' is used in the Targums as
an indirect expression in place of God. It denot

God '8 visible presence and glorious manifestation,
which dwells among men, the localized presence of
the Deity. . . . The visible Shekinah, though distinct
from the glory, is associated in the closest way with
it. It was conceived of as the centre or source
from which the glory radiated." \Ve understand the
idea, if we think of the words "the glory of the Lord
appeared in the cloud" or-the constantly repeated
phrase-" the Lord of Hosts which dwelleth bet
"een
(or 'sitteth upon') the cherubim," or "the glor)r
of the Lord filled the house" (Solomon's temple), or
the phrase of the son of Sirach concerning Ezekiel's
vision: "the vision of glory, ,vhich God showed
him upon the chariot of the cherubÍ1n." 1 This
thought often explains uses of " glory" in the New
Testament, as ,vhen "the glory" is reckoned by
St. Paul among the privileges of Israel,s or Stephen
speaks of "the God of the glory," 3 or the Epistle
to the Hebre\vs of "the cherubim of glory." It
refers to the manifested or localized presence of God.
Thus either " the Shekinah " or " the Glory" would
be for a Christian J e,v a natural expression for our
Lord, conceived of as the visible manifestation of
God among men. Thus ,,,,hen St. John says "The
TV o
d was made flesh and tabernacled an long us,
and we beheld his glory," he seems, as has already
been suggested, to be using all three current J e\\
ish
expressions (l\lemra, Shekinah, Yekara) for the
Incarnate. And ,,,hen St. Peter speaks of "the

pirit of the Glory and the spirit of God," he seems to
Le using

the Glory" as a uaUle of Chri&t. 4 i\lld

1 Exod. xvi 10, xxv 22, Numb. vii 89, 1 Sam. iv 4, 2 Sam. vi 2,
1 Kings viii 11, Ecclus. xlix 8.
:I Rom. ix 4. I Acts vii 2.
I 1 Pet. iv 14; cf. 1 Cor. ii 8. Hort and Parry are pru,sibh"
l'ight in rendering Tit. ii 13 "The manifestation of the Glory òf
our great God tiud Sa\
iour, thAt 13 Jesus Christ."

130 ST. JOHN .\.KD TII

ItEST
I think Dr. Hort n1ust be right in so interpreting
it here in St. James. He calls the Lord Jesus Christ
the Glory, i.e. the visible manifestation of God
among men; and he would shame those whom
he is addressing out of sho\ving undue respect for
\vealthy persons by reminding theln that" the Glory"
d\velt an10ng men in the guise of a poor Inan. On
the whole, then, though James is almost wholly
ethical in his interests and not theological, I think
he indicates that, had he been bound to exprcbs
himself, it would have been in the phraseology of
St. Paul or St. John. The presence of his Epistle in
t.he Ne\v Testament may be said to justify a Christi-
anity that is almost purely ethical in its interests,
but not an adoptionist Christology.
The Epistle of Jude, "the brother of James," is
again deeply Jewish, though the Judaism is of a
more apocalyptic type, and it is also predonlÎnantly
ethical. "The faith once for all delivered to the
saints" for which he pleaded must have been a
faith ",'hich laid its stress on morals. But he seems
to show much more affinity than James Vt?ith St..
Paul's language. "But ye beloved, building up
yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the
Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God

looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
unto eternal life" is very Pauline phraseology.
And "our only PrIaster and Lord, Jesus Christ," is
hardly compatible with any lovier Christology than
his.

(c) The First Epistle oj Peter
This Epistle must be taken on strong external
evidence as authentic, and on the internal evidence
as written by Peter from Rome, ,vhich he calls
Babylon, no doubt very shortly before his martyrdom.
It is a beautiful and gracious document, a real
treasure-house of ethical and spiritual teaching,

TIlE EPISTLE OF PETER

18)

vcr) strongly rcn1inisccnt of the Gospels and ver

closely akin to St. Paul's ethical teaching. In fact
the Epistle bears such unmistakable suggestions of
the influence of the Epistles to the ROfi1ans and the
Ephesians, that 've do not expect to find in it an)
different theology. -'t. Petcr is plainly at one \vith
St" Paul.
l'he Epistle is ,vritten to n1cn and '\-Olnen-
obviously Gentiles in the Inain---,vho have been
rcdeemed by God's infinite mercy out of a corrupt
'YO rid and a n10st evil tradition into "the brother-
hood "-the elect body, the only true Israel, royal
and sacerdotal. This brotherhood is no,v exposed
to obloquy and persecution and is to expect the
hand of judgnIent more and nlorc severely; but i

is to bear it joyfully and charitably, looking for'
;ard
to the radiant glory in store for them, when the risen
and ascended Lord Jesus Christ is revealed. lIe is
no,v at the right hand of God, above all angels and
spiritual powers, unseen but the object of theiy
exultant faith. But He is to come. He i5 at hand
to accomplish the judgment of God and the gIor)
of His people. Thus the n13in stress, as in St.
Peter's preaching in the Acts, is on the Lordship oi l
Jesus at the right hand of God and on His coming.
l'his passionate faith in Him and expectation of His
coming is the basis of an intensely other-\yorldly out...
look, but it is the basis none the less of a conception
of a social life to be lived in this \yorld \vhich is to
conI pel the attention of those \vho are without the
elect body. Besides the emphasis laid on the Coming
in Glory there is strong emphasis on the present
redemption from the evil ,vorld and atonen1ent ".ith
God '-lhich has been "Tought by Christ through.
His vicarious sacrifice and blood-shedding.! \Yc
notice the phrase" through Christ," \\yhich implies
Hi
mediatorship, 2 and the phrase "in Christ," So
1 i 1S-21, ii 21 fl., iii 16. I ii ú, iv II. ---îii 16, \" 10, 1
.

132 Sl'. JOlIN ..\ND THE REST
which hCl'e, a4) in St. Paul, implies His universal
f)piritual presence. Again the Lordship of Jesus has
phrases applied to it from the Old Testament (" The
Lord is gracious," "sanctify Christ as Lord in your
hearts ") which ,vcre written of Jehovah, the Lord
()f hosts. l Once nlore it is probable that in the
phrase "the spirit of the glory and the spirit of
.God" (iv 14.) Chrif;t is described as "the Glory,"
that is the lnanifcsted presence of God-the phrase
,vhich ,ve have just considered in connection ".ith
St. James.
When the que
tion is asked ,vhcthcr Peter indicates
the pre-existence of Christ, I think the an s".Cl' is
that he seClllS to indicate it, 'v hen he calls the spirit
in the old prophets "the Spirit of Christ," and also
when he is talking about the death of Christ and
the condition and activity of IIis disembodied spirit.
St. l)cter speaks very clearly of the (human) spirit
of Jesus as separated from the body in death, and
of its activity in the unseen ,vorId; and he seenlS to
speak of Christ-the person-as something distinct
from the hlunan spirit in \vhich He ,vas acting.
He ,vent among the dead, '\\"ithout His hun1an body,
in respect of \vhich He ,vas dead, but in His hUDlan

pirit, ,vhich ,vas quickened to a ne,v life. 2
On the 'v hole I think this Epistle indicates a
mind predominantly ethical and practical and not
theological. But also a mind ,vhich ,vas at one ,,"jth
the theology of St. Paul in its main lincs.

The conclusion ,vhich ,ve are bound to reach is
-that in St. Paul's Epistlc
and in the Epistle to the
IIcbrc,ys and in St. John ,ve get a definite and ex-

1 iii 13,(see Is. viii 12-13) and ii 3 (see Ps. xxxiv 8).
a iii 18-19. This is a point made by Dr. Chase (see Hastings'
Dict. oj the Bible, iii 793). But I cannot agree with him that i II
.
locs llot becm to imply a pre. existent Christ.

SU:\I
L\RY OF NE'V TESTA]IEST 133
plicit theology of the Person of Christ as the divine
Son incarnate. The different ,vriters have each
of them his o\vn point of vie\v, but on the ,vhole
their theology is identical. There are other docu-
ments of the New Testament \vhich, taken by them-
selves, give us no clear theology of Christ's person,
but there is nothing in the New Testament which
indicates a rival theology to St. Paul's, or what "'"as
later called an adoptionist Christology. Such a
Christology did appear in the second century in
the Jewish Ebionites and later in Paul of Samosata.
But it must be held to represent a falling a\vay fron1
the standpoint \vhich is either energetically main-
tained or implied in all the documents of the N e\v
Testament. 'Ve cannot read the Epistle to the
Hebrews-which represents to us among a group
of J e\vish Christians a "longing, lingering look
behind," and a movement back to the old Judaism
-without feeling that a half-instructed J e\vish
Christianity must have existed fairly cOIDlnonly,
and most probably would have existed in Palestine,
\vhich would be very liable to relapse. Accordingly,
it is no surprise to find that a generation later than
the N e\v Testament times such a relapse has occurred,
and that, outside the main streams of Christian life,
there are Christians \vho hold Christ for a mere man,
assumed by God. But \ve do not find that position
in the N e\v Test2ment.

NOTE TO P. 122
Our studious friends, \vhose intellectual hon1e is ".ith
the German critics, have lately been murmuring in our
ea.rs the naI?1e of t
e Strassburg scholar and philologist,
RIchard ReitzensteIn, as of one whose theories supply
a ne\v and po,verful explanation of the real oriO'in of
Christian ideas and especially of "Johannine" ideas.
Reitzenstein 1 does in effect suO'O'est that the source of t he
öb
1 Richard Reitzenstein's Po-imandres (Leipzig, 1904).
10

13-t

ST. JOH
AXD TIlE REST

characteristic Johannine ideas and of much else in the
X e,v Testanlcnt is to be found in the earlicst docun1ents
of the Hernletic literature, ,vhieh he dates from thc
first century of our era. The IIermetic literature he
regards as. representing a religious cOlnn1unity ,vhich
had its source in the identification of IIermes ,vith the
Logos as the re'.ealcr of divine \visdonl, and ,,'ith the
Egyptian god Thot, ,.enera ted as the founder of Egyptian
,visdoln. IIitherto the Hcnnetic books-the revelations
of I-Iermes Trisn1cgistus-have been regarded as an ex-
ample of Graeco-E
yptian syncreti
ll1, \"ith Je\vish and
Christian elements at ,york in it, belonging to the third
century, and presupposing the influence of N eo-l>latollisln;
and Reitzenstein appears to have failed in his attempt to
sho,v cause to date any part of the literature in the first
century. His grounds for assigning it this earlier date
have been subjected by the Iloll1an Catholic scholar,
E. I
rebs (Der Logos als [leiland,
-'reiburg im llreisgau,
1010) to a very searching and careful exan1ination, and
he has sho,vn thenl to be highly precarious and irllprob-
able (op. eit.., pp. 133 ff.; cf. :Ed. :\Ieyer, Ur
prllllg, ii pp.
56-7). This is the opinion of nlost of the scholars who
have examined the matter. ...\nd the ,vhole conception of
a ".ide-sprcading IIern1etic sect or con1munity appears
to be groundless. On the other hand I
rebs has again
excellently laid hare the purely .Je\vish roots of the
ideas of the F'ourth Gospel. As I have already said, in
cxalnining the attenlpt to find a IIellenistic origin for
the faith in Jesus as Lord, and for the institution of
the sacralnent of thc Lord's Body and J3100d,1 I do not
think anything really lies at the root of the doctrine of
the Ne,v Testament except the tradition of the Old
Testament and the nc\v experience \vhich came to the
disciples of Jesus in His teaching and person, His life
and de3 th and resurrection, and the n1ission of the Spirit.
.AIl the !\e,v Testament gre,v fron1 the Je,vish root and
this experience of Jesus, including the Gospel of Paul
and the Gospel of John.
But ,,,,hen you conlC to the second stagc, to t.he
pread
of the Catholic Church, I think the ne,v criticism which
calls our attention to Hellenistic syncretism, and sets the
1 See appended notes to cap. iii.

THE TIIEORY. OF REITZEXSTEIN 135

Gnostic movement on its ,vider background, has much to
teach us. 'Vith Christian origins Hellenism has very
little to do. But the atmosphere of the mystery religions
and of Hellenistic theosophy, ,vith its yearning for divine
fellowship and spiritual light and kno,vledge and salva-
tion and a ne\v birth, and its love of sacramental sym-
bolisDl and felIo,,'ship, has a good deal to do with the
diffusion of the Christian Church. It both provided its
opportunity and constituted in part its peril; and 'we
shall have to return upon the modern theory of the in-
fluence of the Hellenistic theosophy and the mystery
religions, when ,ve are dealing ,,,ith the theory of the
Church and the sacraments in the next volume.

CIIAPTER V

TIlE APOCALYPTIC TEACHIXG OF JESUS

-

I T is undeniable that the apocalyptic expectation
forIned a large element in the faith of the first
Church, and that it ,vas, on the low'est estimate, a
considerable feature in the teaching of Jesus. By
the apocalyptic expectation ,ve mean the expecta-
tion that Jesus, the Christ, ,vho had been crucified
and no,v ,vas risen and exalted to heaven, ,vas'" to
come in glory" to "restore all things" and "to
judge the quick and the dead." 1 The Church has
long been accustonled to call this "the second
coming": and it is so referred to once or t,vice in
the Ne,v Testament. 2 But almost ahvays it is called
simply" the coming" or " the presence" of Christ. 3
This is the ,vord common to St. l\Iatthe,v, St. James,
St. Paul, and St. John. The birth, the ministry,
t.he passion, the resurrection, the effusion of the
Spirit-all these are indeed represented as 1110-
nlents or stages in His coming. But all these are
vie,yed as incomplete. Then and then only ,vilJ
He in an adequate sense have come, ,vhen He comes
into His o,vn, or God comes into His o,vn in IIim,
in fully n1anifested glory, so that" every eye shall
see him," and every adverse po,ver shall have been
put under His feet. This is the old fundamental
J e,vish hope of the "day of the Lord." And this
1 Acts iii 21, x 42, xvii 31. :a Heb. ix 28; cf. i 6.
B 7rapovcrLa. See ::Matt. xxiv 3, 27, 37, 39, James v 7-8, 1 Thess.
iI 19, iii 13, iv 15, etc., 1 John ii 28.
136

THE JE'YS' SEXSE OF DI'''I
E PURPOSE 137
had, as \ve have seen, 3. very rea) and undeniable
place in our Lord's o\vn mind and teaching. No I
one therefore can think seriously about belief in
Christ ,vithout funy facing this belief in the future
coming of Christ in glory. But recently it has COllIe
to be \videly and confidently stated and believed
that Jesus Himself anticipated and procJain1ed IIis
Ï1nllzediate coming as the glorified Christ, ,vithin
the lifetime of IIis o\vn generation, and ,vas in this
(as in some other respects) deluded, or the victim
of current ideas ,vhich \vere in fact illusions 1; and
there has been a great deal of discussion of the bearing
of these delusions of the mind of Christ upon the
theology of His person. But \ve had better, first
of all, see ,vhether there is sufficient reason to attribute
delusions to Him; and ,ve can only effectively do
this if \ve have in view the J e,vish expectation,
l\Iessianic and Apocalyptic, as it ""as before our
Lord came, and take careful note of the ,yay in which
He both accepted it and also fundamentally altered
its character. Then only can \ve estÌInate the justice
\vith which delusion or mistake is attributed to Him
a c; regards "the end" and the in1n1ediacy of the
end.
The Jews, as \ve have already seen, 2 "ere con-
spicuous among the nations of the earth for their
belief (i) in a divine purpose in the \vhole ,vorld,
\vhich was to be progressively realized and finally
consummated, and (ii) in their o\vn race as the divinely
chosen instrument of this uniyersal purpose, as it
,vas said to
L\.braham, "In thy seed shall all the
1 This however is of course not a merely recent difficuIt.y for faith.
I remember Professor Henry Sidgwick,' shortly before his death in
1900, telling me that it had been a main reason with him for
renouncing orthodoxy forty years before.
Other cases of presumed error in the mind and teaching of Jesus
Christ-as regards the existence and activity of Satan and devils,
and as regards the literary character of tht:' Old Testament books-
are dea.lt with below (pp. 189 fl.).
:a See above, pp. 13 fl.

138 TIlE APOCALYPTIC TE
\CHING OF JESUS
families of the earth be blessed." This is the root
of the
Iessianic hope as the prophets of Israel
announced it; and it takes shape in the following
forms and features of the hope, ,vhich have been
already discussed and will here only be alluded to :
1. That the religion of Israel is finally to win
universal sovereignty and universal recognition.
"The mountain of the Lord's house shall be estab-
lished in the top of the mountains and all nations
shall flow unto it. . .. Out of Zion shall go forth
the law and the ,vord of the Lord from Jerusalem." 1
2. That Israel is the elect vehicle of this true
religion, and that the anointed king of the family of
David, who is to bear the divine nanle, and to fulfil
the predestined glory of Israel, is to be the instrunlent
of this divine supremacy, this l{ingdom of God. 2
8. That this l{ingdom to come is to be accom-
panied with, or be based upon, anew, more spiritual,
and everlasting covenant bet"
cen God and His
restored people,3 and the nations of the "
orld recon-
ciled to Israel.
4. That also it is to be accompanied ,,
ith an
effusion of the Spirit of God, not only upon the
anointed king, but upon the whole people-upon
all flesh. 4
5. That also it must involve a resurrection from
the dead of faithful Israelites ,,
ho have died, that
they too lnay participate in the I{ingdom; and
this belief in the resurrection of faithful Israelites
becomes a belief in a resurrection generally of all,
good or evil alike, to glory or shame. 5
6. This sovereignty of God requires for its estab-
lishment the infliction of the judgment of God upon

1 See above, pp. 15 f. t See above, pp. 16-17.
S See above, p. 18.
, Ie. xi init. and Joel ii 28-9. In Is. xlii and lxi the Spirit is
poured upon" The Servant," who begins by being the faithful
remnant of the people but seems to become an individual.
Ii Is. xxvi 4
Dan. xii 2.

THE D..\ Y OF THE LORD

ISO

every insolent and godless po\ver in turn. The
prophets are full of "oracles of Jehovah" upon
Assyria, upon Egypt, upon Babylon, upon Edom,
upon Tyre, upon "the nations" generally. The
prophets announce like judgments upon apostate
and rebellious Israel and Judah; but on the \vhole
\vith a marked difference. The judgments upon
the nations are final and irreversible. 1 The judg-
ment on Israel is, on the other hand, ahvays figured
as a severe and just discipline, out of which at least
a faithful remnant is to emerge to fulfil the destiny
of the chosen people.
7. These particular judglnents or dooms on par-
ticular nations are again and again thro\vn upon
the background of tremendous cosmic catastrophes.
Thus the doom on Babylon (Is. xiii 10-13) has this
background: "The stars of heaven and the con
stellation,;; thereof shall not give their light; the
sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the
nloon shall not cause her light to shine. . . . I ,viII
make the heavens to tremble and the earth shall be
shaken out of her place, in the ,vrath of the Lord
of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." Or
again the doom on Edom (Is. xxxiv 4-5) is thus
accompanied: "And all the host of heaven shall be
dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled a\vay as
a scroll: and all their host shall fade a\vay, as the
leaf fadeth from off the vine, and as a fading leaf
from off the fig-tree. For my s\vord hath drunk
its fill in heayen: behold it shall come do,vn upon
Edom . . . to judgment." I have chosen these
t\\ 0 quotations because our Lord so precisely repeats
the language of these t,vo passages in His doonl
upon Jerusalem.
\Vhat did Isaiah mean by such language? \Ve
know' that the J e\vish seers and poets often repre-
sent nature as expressing sympathy, even violently,
1 Except in Jeremiah; see above, p. 16 D. 3.

140 THE APOCAL \.-PTIC TE...t\CHING OF JESUS
,vith the redemptive acts of God. "\Vhy hop ye so,
ye high hills?" " The hills melted like ,vax at the
presence of the Lord." "The mountains and the
hills shall break forth before you into singing, and
all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."
This is a kind of metaphor ,vhich we find in poets
of many nations. It is akin to ,vhat Ruskin called
the "pathetic fallacy." It is interesting to learn
that mediaeval Je,vs in Spain commemorated thus
the death of a certain Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, on l\Iay 12,
1103: "This day ,vas a calamity: it ,,,,as a day of
misfortune and oppression, a day of darkness and
gloom, a day of cloud and mist, a day ,vhen the
heavens and their luminaries ,vere obscured, ""hen
they were clothed ,vith sackcloth. The stars put
on mourning; th
hills bo\ved; all Israel ,vas
terrified." And another epitaph on Rabbi Jona
from the next century runs: "Son of Sion, before
this stone weep for the sun buried beneath the
dust of the earth; the firmament was clothed ,,,,ith
darkness, the constellations were ashamed: the
moon blushed; on the day ,vhen the glory and
crown of the La,," ,vas buried." 1 Here ,ve have,
no doubt, nothing but conscious metaphor. All
that is really meant is that t\VO Rabbis died deeply
regretted, and that nature must have sympathized
,vith the sorro,v of the Jews.
But though such expressions as Isaiah uses may be
conscious metaphors, they are not mere metaphors.
They mean at least that in the prophet's vision the
physical ,vorld served the moral purpose of God,
I and might at any moment be expected to express it.
And in the latter days of prophecy, ,vhen the triumph
of Israel over the nations seemed more and more
impossible by natural means, apocalyptic seers
more and more clearly anticipate cosmic catastrophe
1 See Lagrange, Le Messianisme chtz lea JuiJs (Paris, 1909),
pp. 49-50.

THE LATER APOC
\LYPSES 141
wrought by God in His on1nipotence to end the
present ,,,"orld order, and usher in "a ne,y heaven
and a ne,v ea.rth."
So ,ve get the idea of an "end of the ,,,"orld"
follo,ved by a " ,,,"orld to come," in the later literature.
But in all the books of the Old Testament, and indeed
in the N e,v Testament, it appears to be al,vays
in some sense this ,,"orld ,vhich emerges, renovated
through cataclysm, as the sphere of the l{ingdom
of God. 1 Only in some of the later uncanonical
Apocalypses, ,vhich seern in this respect to exhibit
influences from Persia, this ,,""orld seems to be ,,""holly
obliterated at the last day or ,vholly left behind,
and an altogether "other" ,yorld takes its place.
"The earth ho,vever purged and purified is no
fitting scene for an eternal kingdom. . . . God'8
habitation and that of the blessed must be built
not of things earthly and corruptible, but of things
heavenly and incorruptible." 2 But enough has

1 This will be obvious to anyone who will read Is. xxiv-seemingl)"
a late prophecy incorporated in Isaiah where, after" the earth is
utterly broken, the earth is clean dissolvE"d," etc., it still appears
that !\Iount Zion and Jerusalem stand as the centre of the divine
kingdom. So it is again in Joel ii after the cataclysm of v
rses
30, 31 (see verse 32 and iii 1 and 16-21). So in Daniel vii 13
the sovereignty of the" one like unto a son of man who came
with the clouds of heaven" and 'Was given universal dominion by
the" Ancient of Days "-which is interpreted immediately as the
rule of the saints of the
Iost High, that is of fait.hful Israel-
is still, like the previous sovereignties of the" great beasts," that
is the godless powers which it supplants, a sovereignty on this
earth (see verses 21-7).
And if the matter is frankly considered we must admit that the
expectation of the New Testament is still that of a return of Christ
to earth, a heavenly kingdom to come on earth-though it be a
new heaven and a new earth-a new Jerusalem which is to come
down from heaven BS God's final dwellir..g-place among men (see,
e.g., Acts iii 20-21; 1 Thess. iv 16; Rom. viii 20-22). In 2 Pet-er
iii the day of judgment by fire is conceived of on the analogy of
the earlier judgment by water: both judgments Bre represenÍ.()d
as destroying an old world and bringing a new one into existence-
whioh is still only the old one purged and renewed. So also in thø
Revelation.
I Charles, Between the Old and J!.."Yew Testaments, pp. 56-7.

142 THE ..\POCALYPTIC TE.ACIII
G OF JESUS
been said about this already. """here this is so,
the l\lcssianic I{ingdoI11, in the old J c,vish sense,
becomes very difIicult to adjust to this" other ,yorld."
It is either ignorcd altogether or becomes a rather
Incaningless temporary prelude to the Last Day.
The influence of these latcr Apocalypses has of
recent years been Inuch exaggerated. \Ve have
already had occasion to argue that all the literature
of the New Testaulcnt tends to sho,v that in
our Lord's day the hope of the
Iessiah and IIis
]{ingdom ,vas on the lines of the old prophetic hope
of the King of David's linc, ,vllo should restore the
kingdom to Israel, 'v hethel' this hope ,vas Inore

piritually cOllceived, as it is represcnted in the open-
ing chapters of St. Luke's Gospel, or ,vas entertained
on nationalist and Inilitarist lines as by the mass
of the people. 'Vhcn John the Baptist preached
the I{ingdom and the Chri
t as at hand, he sought
to spiritualize the people's conception of what "\\yas
con1Ïng, as being something so holy and a,vful as
that only a ne,v Israel, changed and purified in
heart, could ßlcct it; but this ,vas only to rene,v
the warnings of the old prophets. 'fhcre is nothing
in John the Baptist's teaching to suggest the later
..\pocalypses. 1
\Vhat we have no,v to discover is the sense in
,vh.kh Christ both accepted and also transforlned
the I
Iessianic teaching.
To go back, then, to the headings under ,,'hich
\ve summarized the J e,vish hop(\ and to deal very
briefly ,vith the earlier ones, (I) it nlust be grantcd
that our Lord, while accepting the limitation of
IIis o,vn mission on earth to His o,vn people, pro-
claimed a Gospel of the Kingdom ,vhich, having its
roots in the J e,vish religion (for " salvation is
of the Jews" 2), is no,v to become ,vorld-"yide.
1
fA.tt. iii 10-12 suggests no n10re than
Ial. iii 2, 3, iv 1.
2 John iv. 22. But the idea underlies all the Gospel:::;.

IllS !.IESSI.\XIC CL.\I:\I

143

The sayings "The gospel must first be preached
unto all nations," "\Vherever the gospel shall
be preached throughout the \,.hole \vorld," 1 the
authenticity of ,vhich cannot reasonably be doubted,
are enough to sho'v this. And at the beginning
of His mission, in the account of the Temptations,
it is evident that the last temptation 2 ,yould have
no meaning except as addressed to one \vho in some
sense ,vas contenlplating ,vorld-\vide dOlninion.
(2) It does not seCln to have been disputed that
our Lord could rightly claim to be of the family of
David, as being the reputed son of Joseph, and He
certainly acknowledged Himself to be the Christ;
but it is plain that, in taking the title of " the Son
of 1\Ian " and identifying it with the Suílcring Scryant
of Jehovah, and criticizing for its inadequacy the
current notion of the Christ as the son of David, He
\vas turning His back in the most marked ,yay on
the l\lessianic hope, both as it ,vas held in nationalist
circles and as held among the Pharisees. He accepted,
but He transfornled in meaning, the l\lessiah's
kingdom, so as to lnake it, in the nlost disconcerting
sense, a kingdom not of this "yorld. ·
(3) He solemnly, at the Last Supper at least,
proclaimed the :Sc,v Covenant as establi
hed in
IIis blood. S
(4) As He declared Himself anointed and possessed
by the Spirit,4 so He led his disciples to expect I-lis
effusion upon then}, at sonle definite lllonlent after
I-lis departure, and the coming of the Spirit on the
Day of Pentecost ,vas at once identified as in some
sense the con ling of the Day of the Lord. 5

1 ::\Iark xiii 10, xiv 9. I
Iatt. iv 8. S See above, p. 101.
t See Luke iv I, 18, 21. There is very little teaching about the
Holy Spirit ascribed to our Lord in the Synoptists. But St. Luke
is explicit in xxiv 49 and Acts i 5, 8. And it is, I think, impossible
to doubt, in view of the belief of the first disciples, that teaching
like that of John xiv to xvi must have been given by Ifim
i Acts ii 17-18.

144 THE .APOCAL\-PTIC TEACIIIKG OF JESUS
(5) Our Lord is represented in all the Gospels as
constantly foretelling not His death only but also
Ilis resurrection: and the resurrection of the dead
,,-as, as we have seen, to he one of the signs that the
l{ingdom ,vas conle.!
Here then let us pause a moment. If it be agreed,
as I think it should be, that our Lord, ,vhile He
accepted the l\lessianic expectation, profoundly
spiritualized it, declaring the "l{ingdom of God"
to be a kingdom of righteous men, such as must
have its roots in the ".ills and hearts of men, and needs
to be spiritually discerned, and is in actual process
of establishment 2; and if further He took three
recognized notes of the Kingdon1, the Ke,v Covenant
of God ''lith His people, and the Resurrection of the
D. d, and the effusion of the Spirit, and led His
disciples to expect the realization of these notes
in the immediate future-that is in His o,vn death
and the immediately foIlo,ving events-if this be
so, then there "
as certainly a sense in which He
vie,ved the I{ingdom as coming imn1ediately. Thus
,vhen we find Him saying ",r erily I say unto you,
There be some here of them that stand by, ,vhich
shall in no "rise taste of death till they see the J{ing-
don1 of God come ,vi th po,ver," 3 and again, before
I-lis J e,vish judges, "Henceforth (not ' hereafter' as
in our old Bible, but' henceforth ') ye shall see the

1 St.. Paul, in Rom. i 4, speaks of Christ's resurrection as "the
resurrection of dead men "-i.e. it was the firstfruits and assurance
of the general resurrection. There are several indications in the
N.T. of this point of view.
I See
Iark vii 15 ff., Luke xvii 20, 21, John iii 3.
8 ::\Iark ix I, Luke ix 27, where the words "come with power"
are omitted. In l\Iatt. xvi 28 it stands "till they see the Son of
l\lan coming in his kingdom." There was a tendency in St. :Matthew
to put all these prophecies in the form most suggestive of a visible
coming of the glorified Christ. But where the reports differ in
d
tail, one thing is quite certain-we cannot be sure of the very
words of Christ on the particular occasion.

THE I{IXGDO
I TO CO)IE

1.J:;)

Son of luan sitting on the right hand of po,ver, and
coming on the clouds of heaven" 1 (as in the vision
of Daniel), ,ve shall be disposed to find the fulfilnlcnt
of these prophecies in the early chapters of thc Acts.
There ,ve are given a picture of the little comn1unity
of disciples absorbed in the sense of their Lord as
already exalted by God's right hand and to God's
right hand, and as acting upon them and through
them ,vith po,ver from heaven, though there ""as a
further coming to be expected. And so impressed
"\vere " the brethren" ,vith the divine po,ver ,yorking
through the apostles that they regarded them,
even in their o,vn cOlnmunity, as a class apart.
" Of the rest durst no man join himself to them:
ho,vbeit the (Je,vish) people magnified them." 2
rrhe disciples would have felt that they already saw
the T,velve, according to Christ's promise, "sitting
on thrones judging the t,velve tribes of Israel." :1

1 Here
Iark gives only "Y e shall see" (xiv 62). But both
IIatt. xxvi 64 and Luke xxii 69 give us the" henceforth" (à1l"
p'Tt
or à1l"ò 'TOV JlVJI). In St. Luke the words are "From henceforth
shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power
of God." But whatever the exact words, our Lord is recalling
the vision in Daniel vii of one "like unto a Son of man coming
with the clouds of heaven."
I do not think there is any need to suppose our Lord in these
places to be citing the Book of Enoch. Daniel vii 13 satisfies all
the requirements of the quotations. There is an excellent paper of
the late Dr. :\loorhouse, Bishop of
Ianchester, entitled Did OUT Lord
J eSU8 Christ share the Popular Opinions of the Jews on Eschatology 'i
(which he circulated but, as far as I know, did not publish), in
which he answers his question in the negative, or in the sense that
He "transmuted U the popular Apocalyptic. He says, and, I
think, in the main, truly: "There is good reason to believe that
our Lord invariably took his apocalyptic imagery, not from the
later apocryphal writings, but from the books of the canonical
prophecies." But I have argued above that our Lord's language
assumes that the figure in Daniel had been already recognized as
an individual person such as can be identified with the l\IeS:)iah,
and this identification probably came from Enoch.
J Acts v 12. See Rackham in loco
I See Luke xxii 30.

1-16 THE APOCALYPTIC TE.-\CIII
{; OF JESUS
Already the c0111munity of believers in Jesus as the
Christ ,vas the real Israel, and the Apostles \vere its
princes, and Christ ,vas not only reigning in glory
in heaven but ,vas so manifested on earth in judg-
ments and ,vonderful \vorks.
(6) But ,ve have still to consider the two last
headings (6 and 7) of the l\lessianic expectations, and
first that of judgment on the hostile, godless po\vers.
Our Lord, then, certainly, like the old prophets, pro-
nounces a dooln on a hostile po,ver, but in this case
the hostile po\ver is the chosen people itself, ,vho in
their rejection of the Christ have sho,yu thcnlselves
the enen1ies of Goù.
This is plainly the 111eaning of the parable of the
vineyard 1 ,vhich appears in all three Synoptic
Gospels. 'The sin of Israel has been conSu111mated
in the rejection of the Son of God, and God will
come in judgment to destroy these unfaithful agents
(I suppose the J e\vish rulers in particular), and give
His spiritual possession in charge to others-doubt-
less the "little flock" to ,vhonl Jesus said "It is
your Father's good pleasure to give you the king-
dom." 2 The same doom is recorded to have been
pronounced ,vith passionate anguish at the end of
the ,voes upon the scribes and Pharisees in
St.
Iatthe'v. "0 J erusalenl, J erusale111 . . .
Behold your house is left unto you desolate," 3 and,
in St. Luke, with bitter tears when Jesus beheld
the city and ,vept over it. 4 St. Paul, we notice,
entertained no doubt that the d00111 on Jerusalem
was irreversiblc-" \vrath is come upon them to
the uttermost." 5
But, of course, the 1110st detailed judg111ent on
Jerusalem is in \vhat is called our Lord's apocalyptic

1 Mark xii 9. I Luke xii 32.
a l\latt.. xxiii 37-8. It is possible tha.t verso 39 was pronounced
before the entry into Jerusalem.
I Luke xix 41 fl. G 1 Thes3. ii 15-16.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUS1\LEl\1 147
discourse given in St. l\lark xiii, l and the parallel
passage in the other Gospels. There we read ho\y
our Lord had His attention called by one of His
disciples to the magnificence of the temple buildings

and makes it the opportunity for denouncing upon
thelTI speedy and complete ruin. Then when the
inner circle of disciples asks Him ,vhen this is to
happen and ,vhat sign is to presage the disaster,2
our Lord describes a tin1c of spiritual confusion,
political unrest, and physical calamity, which is
to be expected before the judgment falls. 3 And
lIe ,varns the apostles that they are to find not
only the J e\vish rulers but the \yorld po\vers arrayed
against them in their task of preaching the Gospel
unto all the nations, and that they are to be objects
of universal hatred, and to be subjected to the
severest strain. Then, when they see an a" ful
profanation of the Holy Place occurring, such as
is obscurely described in the Book of Daniel, the
disciples who are in Judaea are to escape from the
dooIned city at once, \vithout a moment's delay,
and flee to the mountains. A scene of unparalleled
horror is to be expected from which they shall barely
escape, and the physical horrors shall be made more
1 The critics have largely accepted the view that 8. cOIlBiderable
part of the discourse (verses 7-8, 12, 14. 17-22, 24-7, 30) was
not pronounced by our Lord but was a "litt.le apocalypse" due
to some prophet near the time of the destruction of J erusalem-
about A.D. G6-and is the" oracle tt which Eusebius (H.E. iii 5,
apparently on the authority of Hegesippus) declaree to have warned
the ChristiallB of Jerusalem to escape and remove to Pella, a citv
of Peraea. I do not see sufficient reasons for adopting this vie
.
The "oracle" referred to by Eusebius may have been simply a
warning that now was the Inoment to act on the Lord's admonition.
given to a few disciples privat.ely nearly forty years before, and
carefuIl;y treasured in writing by the Jerusalem Church as its 8eCrE.'t..
This would account for St.
Iark here using a. written document

ae he seems to do (see verse 14)
I In ?tlatthew the question is made to eoncern both the destruction
and (as a separate event) the end of the world. St. l\Iatthew t.end

generally to heighten the apocalyptic colouring of our Lord's dis-
cours
s. \Ve cannot doubt that St. :Mark rightly records theic
questIOn. S Appended note, p. IGO..

LI f\ RY 51 j;
,RY'5 COLlEGE

148 TIlE ..<\POCAL1"rpTIC TE..t\.CIIIXG OF JESUS
trying by the seductions of false Christs and false
prophets (verses 5-23). There are to follo,v "in
those days, after that tribulation," portents in the
heavens described in the ,yords of Isaiah-darkened
sun and 11100n, falling stars, shaken heavens, and also
-,vhat has no counterpart in Isaiah-the coming
of the Son of l\Ian in po,ver and glory, accompanied
,vith angels ,vhorIl He will send to gather together
IIis scattered people from all quarters of the ,vorld
(verses 24-7). Then ,ve are taken back to the tinle
of preparation, and the disciples are ,yarned of the
certainty of the doom, and that this generation
shall see it accomplished (verses 30-81). Then, in
,vhat appears to be sudden contrast, we hear of a
certain day and hour (" that day" and" that hour ")
,vhich is veiled in complete uncertainty, of ,vhich
even the Son has no kno,yledge; and the discourse
as it stands ends ,yith a ,yarning to theIn, couched
in a parable, that, though their Lord after
IIis departure should seem to delay His return,
they are al,vays to ,vatch, for it ,viII be sudden,
,v hen it comes, and they kl1O'V not when to expect
it (32-7).
The lnain purpose of this discourse-apart fronl
its ,varnings of the spiritual trials ,yhich our Lord's
apostles are to expect-is to declare explicitly and
,vith imaginative 1 detail, such as ,,"e are familiar
,vith in the "judgnlents" of the old prophets, the
certain doonl upon Jerusalem to be accomplished
before "this generation had passed a\vay." This
,vas a definite prophecy, and it ,vas fulfilled in A.D. 70,
amidst unimaginable horrors.
(7) But this doom upon J erusaiein is thro,vn, after
the manner of the ancient prophets, and in the
1 The details appear to be details of the picture, as presented
to their imagination, rather than detailed prophecy of circum-
stances. Thus the Christians of Jerusalem did not "flee to the
mountains," but over the Jordan and just across it to Pella, opposite
iJouthern Galilee.

THE EJ\D OF THE 'YORLD 149
,,'orùs of Isaiah, upon a background of cosnlic por-
tents-darkened sun and moon, falling stars, shaken
heavens, heralding the conting of the Son of ?Ian as
described in the vision of Daniel, but no,v as conling
to earth to fulfil ,,,hat had ahvays been associated
in prophecy vâth the l\Iessianic kingdom-that is,
the gathering of the true Israelites from all the
quarters of the globe. 1 And there are other passages
in which our Lord is recorded to have spoken of the
coming of the Christ in glory to ,vind up the present
world history in scathing judgment and abundant
blessing, in phrases which are based upon Daniel's
vision but assunle that the figure of "one like to
a son of llian " has been already identified with the
Christ,2 and the final Day of Judgment a fan1Ïliar
prospect. The distinctive scenery of the day of
judgment is more prominent in St. l\Iatthe,v's
accounts of our Lord.s discourses than in those of
the other Evangelists. But it is not, I think, possible
to doubt that our Lord did not merely describe the
destruction of J erusalelIl in terms of celestial portents,
after the Inanner of Isaiah, but did thro,v this
judgnlent upon the background of the great and
uniyersal Day of Judgn1ent ,,
ith the glorified Christ

or judge, thus adopting the latter apocaJyptic
Imagery.
In ,,,hat scnc;e, ,ye ask? "... ell, it seenlS to me
that any believer in the God of the prophets and
of our Lord nlust believe with them in a Day of
God, as bringing the present age, or human history,
to its clin1ax. God, for all His long_tolerance of
hUBlan ".ilfulness and arrogance, must one day
conlC into His O\Vll in llis ,vhole creation, and every-
thing 111U5t be seen in its true light as ,vhat it is
1 Dent. xxx 3, Jer. xxiii 3, xxxii 37, Ezek. xxxiv 13, et.c.
:I ßuch passaged are
ratt. xiii 40-41, the conclusion of the
parable of the Tares, :\Iat-t.. xvi 27, 1,Iark viii 38, Luke ix 26,
:\Iatt. xxv 31 ft., Luke xii 40 and 46, xix 15, John v 28. The first
Church was plainly full of this expectation.
11

f

150 TIlE APOCAL \
PTIC TE..\CIIING O
F JESUS
really ,vorth. That is the "day of judgment" in
its essence. And no believer in Christ can doubt
that this final disclosure of things as they really
are will be the manifested victory of Christ. His
judgment on men and things will be shown to be
the final judgment and the judgment of God. And
this Day, like all the preparatory and partial" days
of judgment," ,vill speak the divine doom on all
corrupt civilizations and godless and inhuman forms
of power and institutions of cruelty and lust, and
on all rebels against God and right, only now
not partially and 10caIJy, but universally, in tbe
whole created ,vorld. 'Ve cannot, it seems to n1e,
hold any conception of progress ,vhich is con-
sistent with the facts of experience, ,vithout recog-
nizing that the divine purpose of progress ,yorks
through cataclysms as ,veIl as gradually, and that the
final coming of the Kingdom (if such an expectation
is entertained) must involve a cataclysm also on
the vastest scale. It seems to me quite certain
that our Lord enforces this doctrine, and that
lIe clothed this moral certainty in the trenlendous
inlagery of the rending clouds, and the descending
form, and the throne and the angels, and the
judgment spoken on every soul. Certainly our
Lord was ready enough to use imagery, and knew
well enough how to distinguish symbolism from
literal language. I cannot doubt that His picture
of the Last Day is the clothing of an awful reality
in symbolic forms. Only. let us agree that our
Lord, in this solemn imagery, did affirm that hunlan
history would reach its climax in ,vhat ,vould be
at once the coming of the J{ingdom in full glory
and the final Day of Judgment, and threw upon
this background the imnlediate judgment on
Jerusalem.
But now ,ve come back to the question mentioned
at starting this enquiry-did our Lord declare that

THE COMING OF THE Eþ'1J) 151
the Last Day ,yould follow immediately on the Fall
of Jerusalem, and did He in this respect show IIim-
self to be under the influence of a current apocalyptic
expectation, and in fact mistaken?
There ,vas certainly, I think, mistake some",'here.
St. l\latthe,v with his" immediately" (xxiv 29) must
be interpreted as meaning that the great day would
follo\v the destruction of Jerusalem as a separate
event without any considerable interval. And, in
the sense intended, this certainly did not occur.
But St. l\:1ark's ,vords are vaguer, "in those days,
after that tribulation" (xiii 24), and St. Luke
suggests an interval of indefinite length: "Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times
of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (xxi 24). Plainly we
cannot rely upon having the precise words of Christ,
and ,ve seem to detect contrary tendencies in St.
l\Iatthe\v and St. Luke-in St.
Iatthew to accentuate
everything apocalyptic in our Lord's words, and in
St. Luke to minimize. If \ve are to form a sound
judgment we must look at the general tenour of our
Lord's teaching as a whole, and not lay
tress upon
single phrases in one Gospel.
I would say then that the extreme apocalyptic
estimate of Christ formed (for example) by Schweitzer
must certainly be rejected. He represents the
Christ of current Judaism as simply the Heavenly
Figure of Daniel and Enoch. He would have us be-
lieve that there ,vas no question of our Lord while
on earth being the Christ already. It ,vas simply
that He believed Himself, and was believed by
others, to be destined to be the Christ from heaven.
But that estin1ate alike of. current Jewish belief
and of the special belief concerning Jesus is, as has
already been sho\vn, quite contrary to the evidence.
Holding this mistaken or very one-sided idea of
the l\Iessianic expectation, Sch\veitzer maintains
that our Lord, when He first sent out the Twelve

152 THE .\POC
t\LYPTIC TEACHIXG OF JESUS
expected to CODle as Christ in the clouds of heaven
(without dying) before their brief mission ,yas ended,!
and that lIe had no idea of promoting any Kingdonl
of God in the ,vorld or establishing <,vhat is the
same thing) any ne,v way or order of life anl011g
men. All IIis rapt attention ,vas on the Last Day
and the other ,yorld, as to come within the next
fe,v ,veeks. \Vhen lIe ,vas disappointed about this,
His disappointn1ent, and the
Tarning of the execution
of John the Baptist, taught HÎ1n to think that II e
should offer Hiulself for death and that His sacri-
ficial death would certainly move God to bring the
kingdom from heaven at once.
All this picture of our Lord is surely violently
one-sided and distorted. Our Lord assuredly pro-
claimed a kingdom of God, characterized by a nc,v
vision of God and a ne,v conception of righteousness,
which in one sense ,vas already in being-a kingdoln
of God established in the hearts of men-already
'\vithin men or DUlong thenl. 2 Again, He certainly
spoke of the grov
.th of the kingdom under the figure
of the growth of a plant and the diffusion of leaven;
and again, as a nlÎxed society on earth, ,vhich only
1 This is founded on :Matt. x 23: "But when they persecute
you in the oity, flee unto the next: for verily I Bay unto ;you, Ye
shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of nlan
be come." But the whole of this section in St. Matthew, verses
16-23, appears to be antedated. It belongs properly to the pI'(\para-
tion by Christ of the apostles for their experiences after He was
gone from tham. (See blark xiü 9-13, and Luke xxi 12-19.) The
particular words quo too , which do not appear in St. :Mark or St.
Luke, probably in their original context meant" Never stay nny.
where to press t.he Gospel on those who do not want it. There
will always be unevangelized places to be given their chance before
the Gospel is preached in the whole world and the end comes."
I think we must conclude that St. Matthew, in adapting the wOl'ds
to a much earlier situation-a preliminary mission of the Tweh-e
exclusively to Jews-has given t.hem a. misleading appearallce.
At any ra
, what8ver the words may be held to mean, it is an
unreasonable thing to accentuate a solitary and unsupported saying
so as to give to Jesus an appearance of being such a fanatic as is
quite out of character with the general tone of His teaching.

Luke xvii 20; cf. :\Iatt. xi 12, xiii '4-6.

ST. LUlill A
î) ST. JOHK

153

at the final day could be completely purified.! lIe
certainly prepared His "little flock" to becon1e the
Ne,v Israel, and therefore (in some sense) the kingdom
of God on earth. 2 Again, He certainly spoke of a
preaching of the Gospel of th
kingdom throughout
the "Thole world,s and He must have kno\vn, lIe ,vho
""as supremely sane, that this must be an affair of
a long tÏ1ne. l\foreover, He speaks again and again
of the strain upon courage and faith involved in
,vaiting while God seems to do nothing-this under
the figur
of the man of property who l
ft the ad-
ministration of his property to oth
rs and ""ent
a,vay "for a long time," and in other sinlÍlar
parables 4; and He asked the startling question:
" 'Vhen the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith
on the earth? " 6.-or ,,,,ill the strain have been too
uluch for it ? It is plain that St. Jjuke is aware of a
tendency to misrepresent our Lord (as he thinks) as
having prophesied an immediate end, and desires to
correct it. 6
Also we cannot ignore the teaching of the Fourth
Gospel. The final cOIning is there, and in the First
Epistle of St. John, still the object of expectation.'
But the writer also plainly thinks it his business to
relnind the Church that the apocalyptic expecta-
tion ,vas not the whole of our LOl'd's teaching, nor
(in his eyes) its most important element. Christ
also prepared for the establishment of His kingdon1
here and now in the world, by the sending of His
Spirit, ,vhich ""as also His o'\vn return by the Spirit.
Thus, on the ,vhole, ,ve seem to me to have every
1 :Mark iv 30, :Matt. xiii 33, 47-50, 52.
I That is to say, He refounded the Church. But this is reserved
for argument in the next volume. 3 It-Iark xiii 10, xiv 9.
C :Matt. xxv 19; cf. Luke xix 12, " into a far country."
(j Luke xviii 8.
6 Luke xix 12. "Because they supposed that the Kingdom of
God was immediately to appear."
7 John v 28-9, vi 39, 40, 54 (" the last day"), xi 24, xii 48, xxi
22-3; 1 John ii 28, iii 2, 2 John 7.

154 THE .APOC.-\L YPTIC TE.\CIIING OF JESUS
reason to believe that our Lord's teaching about
the coming of the kingdolll was much more com-
plex and many-sided than the apocalyptic school
acknowledges. lIe accepted, but lIe transmuted,
the apocalyptic hope. He prophesied an illlmcdiate
cOIning by the Spirit. lIe prophesied a speedy
coming in judgment on Jerusalem. He also thre,v
this "doom" upon the background of a final coming
or Day of Judgment. No doubt the first disciples
expected this final day inlmediately, and the ex-
pectation has coloured the report of our Lord's
\yords in St. r.Iatthew and perhaps SOlllcwhat in
St.
Iark also. But it is in both these Gospels that
"re read the indisputably authentic ,vords of Christ:
"Of that day and that hour knoweth no one, not
the angels ,vhich are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father." This certainly means that our Lord
had not-at least in IIis lllortal statc-a map of
the future spread before IIim. 'Ve should take
these ,vords in connection ,vith those recorded of
our Lord by 8t. Luke, before His ascension, in
ans,yer to a question of the disciples, ,yhich shows
them still clinging to the old J e,vish hope in its
fallacious forn1: "Dost thou at this time restore
the kingdom to Israel? "-" He said unto them,
It is not for you to kno,v tinles or seasons ,vhich
the Father hath set ,,,ithin his o,vn authority." 1
These last t,yO sayings mean, I think, unmistakably
that our Lord gave no teaching at all upon the time
of the end. lIe left it ,vholly vague and indefinite.
Thus, we must, on revie,ving the ,vhole evidence,
give a negative answer to the question ,vhether our
LOl'd ,vas mistaken about the time of the end. I
think ,ve have seen cogent reasons for saying that
our Lord refused to give any teaching on the subject,
and declared it not to be ,vithin the scope of His
kno,vledge, as lIe then ,vas. There ,vas mist3kc--
1 Act-s i 6, 7.

ST. P.'\UI..'S EXPECT.-\TION 15j
but it was on the part of the disciples, and not of our
Lord; and ,ve have, I think, to admit that it has
somewhat discoloured some expressions, especially in
the first of the Synoptic Gospels, but not sufficiently
to prevent our correcting the discolouring out of
the total impression left us.
I think, also, that this answer to the question is
the one suggested by the attitude of the disciples,
especially St. Paul, in the matter. Plainly he at
first shared the expectation of the end ,vithin his
own lifetime, 1 and plainly also he gre,v out of it 2_
not out of the expectation, but out of its immediacy
-simply by the gro,vth of his experience and re-
flection, and without any shock. It would appear
as if the expectation ,vas to him not an "article
of faith" and not something for which he had a
,vord of Christ. Other,vise there would have been
the sense of shock. And St. Paul's attitude is
reflected in that of the whole Church. J erusalen1
fell-by wholly natural n1eans, but according to
the prophecy of Jesus: yet "the end" did not
come. Then ,ye find the seer of the Apocalypse
making another prophecy. The hostile po,ver is
llO'V not the apostate Israel but the Roman Empire
turned persecutor; and the seer pronounces upon
it the dOOln of God, and again thro,vs that doonl
upon the background of the End. The Church, we
gather, like St. Paul, had experienced no shock in
seeing that the Day of God did not "immediately"
follo,v, as they had expected, the doom on Jerusalem.
They prepared to see another doom on another
hostile po,ver, persecuting Rome, and again to thro,v
it upon the background of the final and universal
judgment.
This represents the attitude l\,.hich our Lord "\\rould
have His disciples take. Because they believe in
God, they must take it for granted that in no
1 1 Thess. iv 14, 1 Cor. xv 51. Z Phil. i 23, 2 Tim. iv 6.

156 THE AP'OC.AL"\
PTIC TI

.ACIIII\G OF JESUS
department can evil be lfinally victorious. The end
is certain and is t.o be eagerly expected. God nlust
COlne into His own. That is " the day of the Lord,"
or " day of judgment." In the ",yorld's history there
are In3UY days of judgment. Over long periods in-
deed God seems to do nothing and the ".orld-po,ycr
to have it all its o,vn way. But there are also days
\vhen the ,vorld-po,ver seems to be cracking and
dissolving, and then it falls. God has bared His
arnl. Sooner or later the judgm
nt of God falls
" naturally" on every institution ,yhich ignores,
persistently and defiantly, t}H
law of righteousness.
"\Vheresoever the carctlse is, there will the eagles
be gathered together." Thus we haye many" last
days," 1 or U days of extrelnity," follO',vcd by " days of
the Lord." But all these days of the Lord, of which
the Bible record is fillI, are the prelude of something
final and universal
ihe Day-after which God is
to be all in all. Of the date of thil> we kno'\y, and
are to know, nothing, and of its character and manner
of cOIning we hear only in apocalyptic iInagery and
synlbolism, as a reflection in a nlirror. or in a riddle.
Only we know it is certain to conle, and as ""e belong
already to the kingdom of God "
e nlo
t passionately
and ea.gerly der:;ire to see it fully consumnlated.

It is from such a point of view as this that, though
it is going somevdlat out of our ,yay, ,ve can attempt
a brief answer to the question ,vhich is continually
being raised afresh, whether Christianity is a religion
of this world or an other-worldly religion..-,vhether
Christians are to labour for the gradual upbuilding
of the city of God on earth by the transformation
both of individual characters and human institu-

1 I think Weet.cott (on 1 John ii Ii), and Hort (on 1 Peter i 5),
find Parry (on 2 Tim. iii 1) are right in distinguishing "tlæ lust
day U from U laet days" nnd "a last hour." "There is clearly 8
distinction to be drawn, according as the art,icle ia used or not."

THIS \VORLD OR THE !\
XT? 157
tions
or ,yhether th
y are to look forward to the
destruction of this ,,
icked ,vorld and all that belongs
to it, and the perfecting of man's hopes in a quite-
different ,,,"orld called heaven?
The problen1 is generally stated in some,vhat mis-
leading terms-as an alternative-but there can be
no question that for a very long period of tÎ1ne
popular religion has contented itself in the n1ain
with the latter expectation: and that the apathy
of religious people in the face of social injustice
-all that has given point to the charge that
"religion has been the opium of the poor "-has
been due in great measure to the hold that this
idea has had on the religious imagination. But I
think that any frank consideration of the Ne,v
Testament will lead us to the conclusion that the
New Testament, as well as the Old, is on the other
side. l There the aim is that the kingdom of God
should come "on earth as it is in heaven." 2 The
end is al,vays pictured as the Return of Christ in
glory and triumph from heaven to
arth \vith the
angels and saints-all the treasures of heaven to be
fused ,vith a purged and renewed earth: it is the
redelnption of "the whole creation": it is the
New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven
to be God's dwelling-place upon the "new earth"
and under the " ne\v heaven": it is "the kingdoDl
of the world " made "the kingdom of the Lord and
of his Christ." "1 e ,viII not concern ourselves ,,'ith

1 See above, p. 141 n. 1, with references. I find in Hastings' Diet.
e/ Ùz.e Bible, art. U Heaven": "In the N.T. the heaven which is
to be our final home and the goal of our hope is a heaven that is
above this world and beyond time, not only superterrestrial, but
8upramundane, the transcendent heaven which is brought to light
in the Gospel" (p. 323). This seems to me a quite remarkably
perverted Btat
ment.
I It would be an immense gain if Christians in general could be
brought to realize that in the Lord's Prayer the words" in earth as it
is in heaven" refer to all three previous clauses, and if the Lord's
Prayer were printed and recited so as to make this evident.

158 THE .
POC.\L YPTIC TEACHING OF JESUS
the question of the meaning to be attached to the
preliminary millennium of the Apocalypse. But there
can be no question, I think, that the ultimate king-
dom is in the New Testament, on the whole, figured
not only as including this world, purged by scathing
judgment, but in some sense as centring upon it.
Let us allow as fully as possible that all the language
about the last things is highly figurative: never-
theless it is intended to impress and affect our
imagination, and it makes the greatest possible dif-
ference if our imagination becomes rightly coloured-
if what we come to anticipate with assurance is
not our being carried a,vay to some other remote
world, but the victory of God in the creation and
world that ,ve know.
And not only is this the truth about the end of
the ,vorld, but it is also true that the Church-
which is the old Israel renewed and refounded by
Christ-is, or is the representative of, the kingdolll
of God on earth here and now, albeit not yet per-
fected, l the kingdom ,vhich is "righteousness, peace,
and joy in the Holy Spirit." So the ethics of the Ne,v
Testament are predominantly social ethics -the ethics
of brotherhood; its discipline is primarily moral
discipline. The aim of the Church is to show here
and no,v the true hUlnan fellolvship realized in Christ.
It is bound to make ,var, in the name of Christ, on
all injustice as nluch as on all impurity. It must
take all hUlnan life for its province. It must de-
velop its philosophy, its art, its principles of social
economy. It exists in the ,,'"orld, but not of the
,yorld, and that means that it must vigorously and
combatively maintain the true principles of human
brotherhood and human life against" the lusts of the
flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"
-that is, against the social aims and practices of
the selfish, avaricious, and lustful world. This seems
1 " Non adhuc regnat hoc regnum," St. Augustine says.

THIS \YORLD A
J) THE NEXT 159
to n1e indisputable. The only question ,vhich renlains
to ans,ver is whether the idea of a gradually and
progressively realized kingdom of God in this .w.orld
-a Church gradually appropriating the ,vorld, and
consequently a world progressing towards perfection
-is to oust the apocalyptic idea of a Christ manifested
in cataclysm and judgment at the end-whether the
two conceptions are mutually exclusive. 1tlany of
our Christian socialists appear to think so, and among
the radical reconstructors of the Gospel men as unlike
one another as Harnack and Schweitzer take it for
granted that the apocalyptic hope is gone beyond
l'ccall and for good.
But I think \ve Blust not accept as mutuaHy
exclusive alternatives the idea of a progressive
l'ealization of the kingdom here and now and the
apocalyptic hope. Both seem to me to find their
place in the teaching and mind of Christ; and both
seenl to me to be equally warranted by experience
and needed for the equipment of human souls all
do\vn the generations. 'Ve are to labour for the
establishment of the kingdom of God in the l1anle of
Christ and in the power of His Spirit here and now.
But neither Christ nor experience warrants us in
believing that ,ve are to see the extinction of the
po,ver of evil ,,"ithin the present ,vorld order. Pro-
gress, as we recognize to-day, is an exceedingly
fitful and chequered process. There is no security
against the collapse of civilizations and Churches.
The po,vers of evil do not seem to be worn out or to
be weakened-only to take ne,v shapes. No,,"', as
of old, there appears to be the most fearful ,vaste
of the best human efforts. It seems to me that
Jesus Christ ,vould prepare us for all this by the
apocalyptic, other-,vorldly hope. lIe would have us
believe that no good effort for the cause of truth
and righteousness ,vill ever really be lost. Their
"works follo,v ,vith" the suffering servants ,vho

160 TIlE .\POC,ALYPTIC TEACIIING OF JESUS
seen1 to die defeated, but "in the Lord." "Tith
theln (or in them) the fruits of 'v hat they have thought
and done and suffered are gathered into the treasury
of God in the heavenly ,yorld unseen, and one day
V{C shall see them ,vith our eyes. 'Y' e shall see the
fruit of all true human effort integrated in the perfect
fello,,"ship, ,vhen Christ comes again-,vhen the City
of God descends. But we are not led to expect the
City of God as the culmination of a gradually pro-
gressive movement to perfection. The present ,vorld
order ".ill ahyays present the aspect of a 1110re or less
desperate struggle. It is on the other side of Arma-
geddon that the City of God ,vill appear. And that
final battle ,viII be ""on, as it seems, by the pure act
of God, and the N e,v Jerusalem ,vill appear fron1
heaycn, so that ,ve cannot imagine that ,ve have
fashioned it.
This is Inetaphorical teaching or symbolism, no
doubt: but only in metaphor or syn1bol can 'YC
envisage the truth about the future. And the
apocalyptic nlctaphors, ,vhich possess the hearts of
n1en in days of seeming moral disaster, correspond,
\,,"c may be persuaded, with spiritual realities.

NOTE TO P. 147.
44n Illustration fro1J
Taci.tlj

It is instructive to read, in con
ection with lIark xiii
7-13, Tacitus' introduction to his Histories, in ,vhich
he is to describe the events of A.D. 68-70, and anlong
t
thelu the Je,vish 'Var and the capture of Jerusalenl,
frolH the point of view of the ROlnan Elnpire: "The
story I no,v commence is rich in vicissitudes, grim \vith
".arfare, torn by civil strife, a tale of horror eyen during
times of peace. It tells of four emperors slain by the
s,vord, three several civil ,vars, an even larger nUlllber of
foreign ,vars, and son1e that ,vere both at once. . . . No\y,
too, Italy ,va') smitten \vith new disasters, or disasters
\vhicb it had not ,vitnessed for a long period of years.

FROM TACITUS

161

To\vns along the rich coast of Canlpania were submerged
or buried. The city was devastated by fires, ancient
ten1ples were destroyed, and the Capitol itself was fired
by Roman hands. Sacred rites ,,,ere profaned, and
there were adulteries in high places. The sea s,varmed
\vith exiles, and the cliffs were red ,vith blood. \V orse
horrors reigned in the city. . . . Slaves ,vere bribed
against their n1asters, freedmen against their patrons,
and if a man had no enemies he ,vas ruined by his
friends. . . ." Then, after describing some better
features of the life of the time, he continues: "Besides
these manifold disasters to mankind there were portents
in the sky and on the earth, and the warnings of thunder-
bolts, a prenlonition of good and of evil, some doubtfuJ,
some obvious. Indeed, never has it been proved by
such terrible disasters to Rome or such clear evidence
tha t the Gods were concerned not with our safety but
with vengeance on our sins."

CHAPTER VI

..

IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION TRUE?
THUS far we have been pursuing a purely historical
method. Thus, after duly taking into account the dis-
tinctivcly Je\vish background of beliefs and expecta-
tions in which the faith in Jesus had its origin (cap. i)

,,"e occupied ourselves in tracing the gro\vth of the
idea of His person as it appears in the New Testament.
\Ve began from the first undefined belief of the
T\velve, \vhich the scandal of the Cross temporarily
overthrew (cap. ii) but \vhich revived under the ex-
perience of the Resurrection and the coming of the
Spirit and took shape in the enthusiastic conviction
of the original Church in Jerusalem that Jesus was
truly the glorified Christ, the Lord of all, the object
of \vorship, appointed to be the final judge of quick
and dead.
This passionate faith, which might have seemed
to be moving in the direction of the deification of
the man Jesus, was interpreted to the Church itself
by Saul of Tarsus-the scourge of the Church who
""as converted to become its glory-in the light of
the title which in momentous uttcrances Jesus had
used to describe Himself-the title of the Son of God.
Not the deification of a man, but the Incarnation of
the pre-existing Son, St. Paul declared to be the
interpretation of His person. And though no teacher
of the Church before St. Paul can be shown to have
given it expression, yet it appears that the whole
162

ST. PAUL'S FUNCTION

163

apostolic group and all the young churches welcomed
the interpretation as the truth, quite without con-
troversy. They must have felt that St. Paul "
as
only giving clear utterance to ,vhat the language
of Jesus implied about Himself, and what alone
could explain or justify the unreserved faith they
reposed in Him. The same doctrine of Christ's
person is expressed from a rather different point of
view by the Alexandrian author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews (cap. iii).
We saw that the Fourth Gospel gives this doctrine of
incarnation its fullest and most deliberate expression,
and makes the most decided claim to find in the
language of Jesus Himself its indisputable justifica-
tion; and it was pointed out how strong the grounds
are for believing that the Fourth Gospel presents
us with a real historical tradition supplementary to
the earlier Gospels. Finally we examined the language
of the seer of the Apocalypse, and of James, and of
Jude, and of Peter, and, though they do not plainly
state any theory of Christ's person, ""e found it almost
impossible to believe that they could have been
satisfied with anything short of the Incarnation
doctrine, in view of the indications of their faith
which they give us.
There is, we saw, no rival adoptionist theory-no
doctrine that is of a man adopted into the Godhead
(apotheosis)-to be found in the New Testament,
whether previously to St. Paul's activity or after his
appearance on the scene. 'Vhat had happened ,vas
that the years immediately succeeding the death and
resurrection of Jesus saw the Church concentrated
upon the worship of the glorified Christ and Lord, and
treating Him as having" the values of God" for them,
without apparently finding it necessary to form or
proclaim any theory of His person. When St. Paul
,vas given to the Church to do this service for t.hem,
they appear to have accepted his interpretation

16Jø IS THE DOCTRINE TRUE
unanÏ1nously. It must have been already at ".ork,
\ve feel, under the burface in the apostolic company,
though it docs not find expression in the Act
.
Later, in Je\vish Ebionism and in Paul of Samosata's
Adoptionislll, we are given positive theories-rivals
of the Incarnation doctrine-as that Jesus \vas an
inspired man and no more, or a man assun1ed into
the Godhead on account of his excellence-but these
\vere certainly deteriorations from the level of the
\vhole New Testalnent, even from the unformulated
belief of the first Jerusalem Church. Indeed it is
Îlnpossible to read the Epistle to the Hebrc\vs \vith-
out feeling that the \vriter's mind is full of the fear
that any clinging to antiquated Jewish rites and
cerelllonies, on the part of those who have once con-
fessed Jesus, \vill involve a lapse, not only morally
but intellectually, from their first faith. And thii
is what actually occurred, if not to the group overseas
to ,,.hom the Epistle to the Hebre,vs was apparently
addressed, yet certainly in Palestine and nearer
hOlue (cap. iT).
After this 'Yt"'e devoted special attention to the
apocalyptic element in the New Testament-the
expectation of the future coming of the Christ in
glory-and endeavoured to see it in its relation to
the whole l\lcssianic idea; and we saw that there are
no adequate
rounds for the often repeated asser-
t ion that Jesus HÍ1nself entertained the delusion of
the inuuediate coming of the end of the world (cap. v).
\Ve shall have to pursue the course of the faith
to its formulation in the creeds of the Church and
the decisions of the Councils. But \ve had better
pause here. The theologians of the later Church
are unaninlous in declaring that they ,vere not
originating anything, but defending and defining the
faith of the N e,v Testament-the faith of the apostles.
'rhis, no doubt, n1ay be disputed and nlust be ex-
amined. But I think ,ve shall find that they ,vere

llI\r.\L THEORIES

16J

justified in their contention in the sense that ,vhere
,ve pass off the ground of the New Testament "'"e
leave behind us, already accomplished, the funda-
Inentally creative work in Christian theology.
But, ,vhether this be wholly true or no, there is
at any rate enough truth in it to justify us in pausing
at this point to ask ,vhether the doctrine of the
incarnation of the Son of God, as ,ve find it in St.
Paul and the Epistle to the Hebre,vs and St. John,
is really the only legitimate ,yay of thinking of and
accounting for the historical person-J esus of
Nazareth.

I

At the beginning of our inquiry1 I described certain
rival interpretations of IIis person \vhich at present
are largely in occupation of the intellectual field,
and ,vhich are associated especially with the names
of Harnack, Schweitzer, and Bousset. It is common
to the maintainers of all these rival interpretations I
that they approach the Gospels ,vith what I think
,ve Inust call a dogmatic prejudice. On general philo-
sophical and historical grounds they peremptorily
refuse to admit the credibility of miracles, so far as
these go beyond healings of the sick effected by
suggestion, and apparently quite as peremptorily they
refuse to entertain, as even an hypothesis to be
fairly considered, the traditional conception of Jesus
as the incarnation of a divine person. At all costs
the Christ of history must for them be found non-
Iniraculous and (however much inspired by the
Spirit of God) purely a human person.
I ha ve laboured (in the volun1e preceding this)
to convince my readers that these presuppositions are
un,varranted-that ,ve can approach the Gospels
open -minded. I also insisted that any treatment of
1 Seo above, pp. 35 ft.

12

166 IS TIlE DOCTRIKE TRUE

the Gospels ,vhich refuses the strictly miraculous
ic; forced to eliminate so much out of the foundation
documents as to discredit them deeply as historical
records. The narrative has to be re,vritten from the
point of view of each ne,v critic, accentuating this
and leaving out that, as his particular judgment
dictates. The proof that this is so lies in the extra-
ordinary differences bet,veen the various critical re-
constructions of the historical Jesus, notably between
the three to ,vhich I specially called attention. My
ans,ver, therefore, to those "critical" estimates I
have attempted to give in this ,vay-I have urged
the high claim of our foundation Gospel documents
and the Acts of the Apostles to take rank as credible
history. I have begged my readers to approach
the study of these documents ,vith an open mind.
Taking them, not as exempt from error, but as good
history, and seeking to give an impartial attention
to all the elements of thc narrative, I have sought
ito trace the gro,vth of the belief in Christ's person
as it is represented in these narratives and as it
reaches its coherent expression in the Epistles. The
picture of the development of a belief ,,
hich such
impartial study discloses is to my mind very con-
Y'Ïncing. The facts as they are recorded account for
the developing belief, and the belief interprets the
facts. It alone can interpret the facts as a whole.
In proof of this I must go back to Harnack and
Sch,veitzer.
Harnack admirably describes the ethical teaching
of Christ, but there are three elements in our funda-
l11ental records which he perforce refuses to admit
as historical, not on critical but on a priori grounds:
the claim of a divine Sonship which, as it stands
(both in St.
Iark and Q), Harnack admits to be
superhuman; the tremendous apocalyptic claim,
,vhich he minimizes towards vanishing-point; and
the miracles, especially the real Resurrection. That is

HARNACI('S ESTIMATE

167

to say that out of four elements in our foundation
Gosp
ls, which are all equally and obtrusively present,
Harnack chooses one and fashions his picture out
of it alone, with the result that the Jesus of history,
as he represents Him, seems altogether inadequate to
account for the results ,vhich have flo,ved forth from
Him. Jesus, the ethical and spiritual prophet, was
a fact of history, but it appears that there ,vas much
there besides.
I would advise anyone to read Harnack's account
of the faith in Jesus of the apostolic band imme-
diately after His death 1 and, without stopping to
criticize it in detail, ask himself whether it does not
require the actual fact of the Resurrection, and what
follo,ved, to account for it. The picture in the
Gospels and Acts is lifelike and unmistakable. A
hesitating, vacillating company who deserted their
1\laster in the hour of His seeming failure and death
are, after a brief interval, transformed into a radiant,
confident band who can face the world with un-
flinching courage. The change is accounted for by
certain facts-the fact of the Resurrection, made
evident by the repeated appearances of the risen
Lord, and His ascension to the right hand of God
and His mission of the Spirit. Harnack himself
dates St. Paul's conversion, herein differing from
most authorities, as early as a year after our Lord's
death. He does not question that the record which
St. Paul gives us of His resurrection on the third
day and His subsequent appearances 2 was what he
received from "the primitive community." It was
a record of a succession of solid and distinct events.
But in Harnack's estimate these supposed events
,vere the projection upon the outward ,vorld of their
own vivid imagination. Their state of mind pro-
duced the supposed events, not real events their state
of mind. They felt that Jesus had really, as He said,
1 Lecture IX of What is Ohristianity f I 1 Cor. xv.

168 IS THE DOCTRIXE TRUE
died for them. They felt that He must have sur-
vived death, and that God must vindicate Him.
Their 1\lessianic beliefs in vested Him with supreme
Lordship. And all this, though in reality their faith
had failed them under the scandal of the Cross, and
God had not vindicated Jesus by any outward event,
and He did not come in glory as they expected.
Granted the primitive faith, solidly grounded on
the experiences recorded in the last chapters of the
Gospels and the opening chapters of the Acts, the
Ch urch can start on its course, as we see it, in the
enthusiasm of conviction. But it was the facts
,vhich created the conviction. And apart from the
impact of indisputable facts, the moral transformation
of the apostles and the triumphant certitude of the
Acts are quite unaccountable. Also, I cannot believe
that St. Paul's doctrine of the divine Son incarnate
,vould ever have received the unquestioned accept-
ance which the evidence shows it received, if it had
not been grounded beyond question on the Lord's
own witness to Himself.
It is almost comic to pass from Harnack to
Sch,veitzer, for what is all in all to the one is nothing
to the other. For Schweitzer Jesus is hardly an
ethical teacher at all. He is an apocalyptic seer
of what ,ve cannot but call a fanatical type. lIe is
that and almost nothing else. He created a flaming
expectation in the first Jerusalem Church of His
speedy coming in the clouds of heaven. Again ,ve
note, as with Harnack, that there is nothing admitted
to have occurred ,vhich accounts for the trans-
formation of the character of the T,,
elve fronl
utter despondency to confident enthusiasm. But in
Harnack's account the first Christians have at least
a task before them. There is an ethical gospel-
a gospel of divine Fatherhood and human brother-
hood-to be preached, and a life to be realized on
earth by the community of believers. Christianity

OTHER ESTThIATES 169
is "the Way." But according to Schweitzer they
appear to have nothing to do-no divine legacy left
them, except the expectation of the Christ coming
in the clouds to judge the world, ,vhich ,vas not
realized. The Christ who has been so potent a
factor in human history, ,vho has given to men so
ne,y a sense of the worth, here and now, of human per-
sonality and human life, has, according to Sch\veitzer,
hardly anything to do with Jesus as in fact He was.
He again, like Harnack, only more one-sidedly, has
fastened upon one element in the record-the apoca-
lyptic-and has sought to fashion out of it the
complete picture, again with the result that the
supposed Jesus cannot supply any intelligible ex-
planation of the Church ,vhich ,vas called by His
name.
In Bousset's and Kirsopp Lake's estimate of
history there is even less in the historical Jesus than
IIarnack or Schweitzer finds there. There is even
less any adequate historical cause of the great effect.
On the showing of these very radical critics the
Catholic Church owes comparatively little to Hin1
except His prophetic teaching about God and the
example of His noble life and self-sacrificing death.
Now, is it not the most effective argument against
all these three schools of interpreters to sho,v that
there is a picture of Jesus of Nazareth, which is
formed by taking our records seriously as historical
documents, which takes in what each of thcse groups
of interpreters wishes to emphasize, but by taking
in also what they severally or all together repudiate
(though without any critical ground for their re-
pudiation) can combine all the elements in one
strangely compelling and convincing whole, which
Inoreover is obviously adequate-as no one of these
partial or one-sided estimates of the "Jesus of
History" is-to explain the effects ,vhich are summed
up in the religion of the New Testament?

170

IS TIlE DOCTRIKE TRUE

II

Certainly it is easier to examine the views of the
critics whom we have been considering than those
of our English Modernists. The German and
French scholars at any rate express their viel\s as
lucidly as possible, and show us quite clearly what
they n1ean and "\vhither they are moving. But
the greater number of our English Modernists do
not give us this intellectual satisfaction.
The Report of their Conference at Cambridge in
the summer of 1921, on Christ and the Creeds,l
seemed to me to be more markedly characterized
by strong statements of what the speakers do not
believe than by clear exposition of what they do.
It was unfortunate also that the question, what is the
best intellectual expression which ""'e can find for
the truth about Christ, was crossed and confused
by a quite different issue-what is the intellectual
obligation involved in the honest recitation of the
Creeds. These t"\vo issues had better be kept quite
distinct, and ,vith the latter we are not concerned
in this book. It was also apparent that the speakers
at the conference were men holding very different
views. Nevertheless the Report made certain things
evident.

r-"
(1) The l'.lodernist movement as a whole is not,
as Dr. Sanday used to try to persuade us to believe,
a movement which "\vould be satisfied with eliminating
from the Christian creed the affirmation of certain
miracles, leaving the ideas about God and the
Incarnation untouched. It is a movement '\\"hich
as a ,vhole demands a trenchant rehandling of our
doctrine of God and of the person of Christ. It is
a clear gain to recognize this. The really root
l_R-eport in Modern Ohurchman, Sept. 1921.

THE ENGLISH MODERNISTS 171
question is the question of ,vhat sort is the God in
,vhom we believe. l
(2) Some of those who took part in the conference
" differ" (as one of them says) "from the Chalce-
doni an Fathers by holding that the substances of
deity and hun1snity are not two but one. Perfect
humanity is deity under human conditions." 2 I
have already sought to nlake it evident that such an
idea as this ,vas familiar enough in the Greek vt'orld,
but is quite contrary to the fundamental Hebrew
doctrine of God the Creator, always essentially and
fundamentally distinct from all His creatures, ,vhich
our Lord and IIis apo
tles take for granted. s That
Inen are portions of God in respect of their reason
or spirit-that God would not be con1plete without
man--that a man by becoming good and realizing
himself as a rational being would become God or
a god-are familiar propositions in certain types of
Hellenisnl and (except the last) in certain types of
Inodcrn philosophy. But they are flatly contrary to
the root conceptions on which our religion was based.
The first matter (intellectually speaking) on which we
have to make up our n1Înds is "rhether the Hebrew
conception of God, which is the foundation of the
Christian religion, is valid -i.e. due to a real self-
disclosure of God through the IIebrc,v prophets and
Jesus Christ. 'Ve only lose time by trying to evade
t his question. In the volume which preceded this
I have sought carefully to examine it, and to give the
reasons 'v hich seem to me to justify the belief in a
positive self-disclosure of God on which the Christian
Gospel is based.
1 This is admirably enlphasized in an årticle by the Rev. Richard
Hanson, "Anglica.nism and :Modern Problems," Church Quarterly
April 1922. '
2 Report, pp. 196-8. Again, p. 293. The idea thus expressed,
"They treat God and nlan as two distinct, real existences (sub-
st.ances) each with its own special characteristics," is repudiated as
unsatisfactory.
8 See above, p. 5; and Belief in God, chaps. v and vi.

172

IS THE DOCTRINE TRUE

(3) Others in the Conference repudiated very
emphatically the conception ,vhich ,ve find so
decidedly expressed in St. Paul and St. John of a
divine person, pre-existing, ",vho in the fulness of
time became man for our salvation. l Language is
used ,vhich suggests the ancient idea of Adoptionisnl
-the idea of a perfectly good man and singularly
inspired prophet l'aised to divine honours and
identified ,vith God. No,v I associate myself ,vhoHy
,vith a renlark made by Dr. I(irsopp Lake 2:
" Adoptionism seelns to Ine to have no part or lot
in any intelligent nlodern theology, though it is
unfortunately often promulgated, especially in pulpits
which are regarded as liberal. ""7' e cannot believe
that at any time a human being, in consequence
of his virtue, becanle God, ",vhich he ,vas not before,
or that any human being ,viII ever do so. No doct.rinf'
of Christology, and no doctrine of salvation, ,,'hich
is Adoptionist in essence, can eyer conlC to terms
"rith modern thought." I do not think there is
any doubt that we have in our day to choose ulti-
lnately bet,veen the incarnation doctrine of St.
Paul and St. John and the Creeds and, on the other
hand, the conception of Christ as the best, or one
of the best, and most inspired of men, ,,,,ho left to
men the heritage of the grandest teaching about
the fatherhood of God, and the possibilities of
humanity, and the purest example of love and
sacrifice, and ,vho, after His death, ,yas deified only
in the imagination of His disciples. But I cannot
square the record of Jesus, as it stands, ,vith buch
incontestable evidence of reality, in the Gospels, or
the record of the impression ,vhich He made on His
disciples, with any Inerely humanitarian estimate
of Him. The bedrock of the Catholic conviction
about Jesus is in these earliest records. But on this
1 Report, pp. 287, 288, 276 f.
8 Landmarks in Early Christianity, pp. 131-2.

TIlE FU
DAl\IENTAL ISSUE 173
I have alrcady said ,vhat seenlS to me the certain
truth 1; and I can only ask my readers to concentrate
on this point all their powers of spiritual appre-
hension, ,vith the sincere desire to reach a decision.
Before I take leave of them, I shall ask them to
estimate the iInportance for human life ,vhich is
involved in that decision. 2 But all that I ask for
no,v is a frank and conscientious exercise of the
responsibility of judgment on the facts of the case.
Dr. Bethune Baker at the Cambridge Conference
spoke of men being "hypnotized by orthodox pre-
suppositions." I seem to see more intelligent people
to-day who are hypnotized by unorthodox pre-
suppositions. However, there is no question at
present of orthodoxy or unorthodoxy. These ,vords
imply an ecclesiastical authority, and no question
of ecclesiastical authority has been raised at all.
I have been trying to proceed simply as an individual
doing his best to form a true judgment in view of
all the facts. That seems to be for many minds
to.-day the first necessity. And I ask for a like
frankness on the part of my readerb.

III
But there is no doubt that the Ne,y Testament
doctrine of the person of Christ, while it has inspired
and still inspires the faith of millions, also rouses
a sense of antagonism in a great many minds-an
antagonism of a kind ,vhich is peculiar to our time.
They feel what can perhaps best be expressed by
saying that the doctrine in - effect dehumanizes
Christ, even if in theory and formally it safeguards
IIis manhood. This Christ, they say, ,,,horn you
dc&cribc as sinless, and ,vho certainly, if the pages
1 See above, p. 46 ft.
:I See below, pp. 314 ft.

174

IS TIlE DOCTRINE TRUE

of the Gospels can be taken to give an undistorted
picture of IIinl, appears as never betraying any
sense of error, Inora! ,veakness, or insufficiency-this
Christ nloreover whom you describe as personally
the eternal Son of God nlanifested in human flesh,
and at no mOlnent therefore merely man-makes
no appeal to us. His example is of no use to us.
"That ""e need for our hclp and encouragement is a
lllan ,vho is only a man and has no resources but
. .
such as are common to men, and no exemptions from
human frailties. Only such a Christ could encourage
us to believe that ,ve can become as he was.
,V ords like these are often used with deep sincerity
and real passion. "Then like ,vords "'''ere used to
Augustine many centuries ago, he pressed his Pelagian
antagonist ,vith the inquiry whether he meant that
he vianted a Christ ,\'ho starts precisely from the
COlllmon human level of sinfulness; and ,vhcther,
therefore, he would not, if he were logical, find the
lnost encouraging Christ to be one who had to start
\vith the most evilly disposed nature to tame, and
the most unruly lusts and passions to subdue. l
This is a very shrewd question which the objector
would not have found it easy to answer. In fact,
if it is merely a question of an encouraging example,
the most valuable example for each of us would appear
to be the person who starts most completely on
his o,vn level. But it is impossible to read the
Gospels and not feel that Jesus Christ did not appeal
to men primarily or chiefly as an example they
1 Augustine, c. Julian. o-p. imperfect. iv. cc. 4:8.67. These are very
interesting chapters. See c. 49: U Christus . . . sicut in virtute
omnium hominum maxim us , ita esse in came libidinoaissimua
debuit"; and c. 52: U Sic es amator egregiua castitatis ut
tibi castlOr videatur qui concubitus illicitos cupit, sed ut non
perpretret, suae cupiditati resistit." Again Christ, a.ccording to
Julian, should be represented as saying, "Estote ergo casti, quia.,
ut vobis ad me imitandum obstacula excuaationÏ8 auferrem"
libininosior vobis nasci volui, et tamen m
-imam libidineID meam
conceasos fines nunquam transire permisi."

CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE 175
could follo,v. They felt Him to be in some for-
midable sense above them-teaching and working
with a quite extraordinary authority-drawing them
with a tremendous claim as from above-claiming,
controlling, saving, judging. About this there can
be no question, if the Gospels are in an y sense
historical. And it is no use fashioning a Christ
of our own fancy.
\Ve must not, of course, minimize the reality and
value of His human example. Certainly, as St.
Peter says, He left us an example that '\"e should
follow in His steps. This cannot be too strongly
or constantly insisted upon, and we will come back
to it. But first of all let us think out the nleaning
of this plea for an example on our own level. Let
us realize the limitations of mere example. The
mere example of one individual man upon his fellows
tells most when men are living close together under
similar conditions-as alnongst the crew of a ship,
or the soldiers of a regiment, or the boys of a school,
or the members of a profession. Anything which
suggests difference of conditions ,veakens the force
of mere exalnple and speedily annihilates it. The
example of a respectable clergyman's temperance
has no effect upon a man living in an uncomfort-
able cottage with no refuge but the public-house.
Difference of race, again, or remoteness of time,
almost at once destroys the force of example. An
Englislunan is not commonly much impressed by
the hardness of ancient Spartans or the asceticism
of Indian fakirs. Once again the strong sense of
what ,ve call genius in another, in propol
tion to the
feeling of uniqueness ,vhich it arouses in us, destroys
the appeal of his example. In all these ways, it must
be ackno"\vledged, the mere example of a Christ who
lived neal'ly two thousand years ago in remote
Syria, under conditions utterly unlike ours-one,
moreover, who ,vas on all sho"ring a supreme moral

176

IS THE DOCTRINE TRU.

genius-vtould have little effect on us to-day, and
indeed ,vould hardly have survived in the mC1110ry
of Inen but as a remote legend.
In fact, if you look to the men of supreme moral
and religious influence in our race, you find that
this influence has depended upon their po,ver of
perpetuating thelTISelves in some sort of institution
or systen1 of teaching and discipline. The Buddha
perpetuated himself in "the way" which he taught
-the ,vay of escape into the ultimate Nirvana out
of the endless and ,veary succession of existences;
and the success of his method for those ".ho accept
his premiss-that life is an evil to be escaped from-
has been made evident down the generations in
constant exan1ples. \Vhat we have to take note of
in the case of our Lord is the actual manner in ,vhicb
his example and teaching ""ere in fact perpetuated,
and ,ve shall be astonished, and perhaps at first
irritated, to find ho,v in fact it ,vas the belief in Him
as a person essentially superhulnan and divine ,vhich
alone enabled His influence to beconle pern1anently
powerful.
As a teacher, living as man an10ng n1en, it ap-
peared that neither His teaching nor I-lis example
,vas effective ,vith His first disciples. He ,vas alto-
gether too high for them-too unworldly. They
failed under the strain lIe laid upon them and de-
serted Him. \Vhat recovered them ""as t.heir hardly
'\"on faith in IIis resurrection, which convinced them
of IIis supernatural Sonship, and their consciousness
of the divine Spirit-I-Iis Father's Spirit and His
o\vn-received as a distinctive gift at a 111emorable
Inoment. Thereby they realized Christ as their
living Lord ,vho from heaven was inspiring, guiding,
governing and enriching them with an in,vard life; in
virtue of ,vhich His outward example, their memory
of ,vhich is recorded in the Gospels, became some-
thing quite different from the mere exanlple of a

CHRIST IN US

177

departed hero. The example living in their memory
was the pattern of humanity, or "the ,,"ay," in
accordance ,vith which He was moulding them fronl
heaven by His Spirit. It was only" in Christ" that
they could folIo, v Christ. But it was only because
He ,vas something more than man-something in
respect of which they \vould have felt it madness to
equal themselves ,vith Him-that He could be living
in them and they in Him-that He could thus have
access to their inlnost souls, and ren1ake them, and
" dwell in their hearts by faith."
And this has been true for all successive generations
of Christians. The example of Christ has been of
supreme importance. He called Himself the Son of
l\-Ian, or the
ran. That pattern of glorious man-
hood-glorious in all its relations, Godward and man-
ward, and not least in its matchless self-control-
has appealed to men in each successive generation
as presenting an ideal before which all cynicism is
put to flight. Here is the man whose life is alto-
gether worthy of fullest admiration. If He is the
real man, there remains no manner of doubt in our
hearts that the life of a man, even under extremest
conditions of failure and suffering, is altogether worth
liying. But in its supreme perfection it would seem
to us, as it seemed to the first disciples, an example
of despair. It postulates for life forces and po,vers
\vhich ,ye seem to lack. And, in fact, He appears
in the Gospels as claiming a mastery over other
Inen's lives which it is not for a mere man to claim.
But He did not end by setting an example. He
died, but He is still alive. That is the point of
the Christian belief. It concerns "one Jesus who
,vas dead, whom Paul," and all Christians since, have
" affirmed to be alive. " Yes, alive in the heavens-
the same Son of God who came do,vn from heaven
to redeem our nature from ,vithin by Himself taking
it, and exaltin
it into the glory of God; and ,vho

178 IS THE DOCTRIXE TRUE
thus alive in the heavens is alive in us also by His
Spirit, moulding us in,vardly into the pattern of the
life He sho,ved us outwardly in "
ord and work.
'-rhere is no possibility of question that this is the
way in ,vhich Christ's example has in fact appealed
to men in the succession of generations. They have
studied " the life," "the ,vay," in the pages of th

Gospel, as described in His "
ords and as lived in
His conduct, and also as reflected in countless saint&
who '\vcre His trùe disciplcs; and ho,vever lo,v the
level at which they may have started to become His
disciples and to imitate Him, ho,vever degraded and
polluted they have felt their manhood to be, they
have not despaired because they believed in Him,
not only as their pattern of manhood, but as their
Redeemer, in ,vhose name they ""ere set free from all
the guilt of the past and ,vere granted that incom-
parable blessing, the forgiveness of their sins-that
is, the opportunity constantly renewed of a fresh
start free from all the guilt and burden of the past-
and also that ,vithout ,vhich example and absolution
would have been alike useless-the gift of the Spirit.
the Spirit of His Father and His own Spirit, poured
into them out of His heavenly manhood to purge them
and strengthen them and renew them in,vardly after
the pattern which in His human life He had shown
them out,vardly. No one can doubt that that has
been the way in which Christ has exerted His in-
fluence and made His example effective do'\vn the
centuries like the example of no other man. This
sort of influence has a sort of analogy in the influence
of other men over their fello,vs. But in His case
there has been an "influence" or U inflo,ving" of
Him into all those who have accepted IIim as their
l\laster which has been quite distinctive. Of no mere
man could it be said that he could thus gain effective
entry into the very centre of the personalities of all
other filen, so as to renew them from the roots of

THE GIFT OF TIlE SPIRIT 179
their being by his spirit, and make them "in
him" ne,v men. 'fhat is a recreative act ,vhich,
in the full sense in which it has been experienced
from the first, can be assigned to none other than
Him" in ,vhom we live and move and are."
Unless I am very much mistaken, there is singu-
larly prevalent to-day, especially in the English-
speaking ,vorld, what is, I am persuaded, at the
bottom an irrational pride-the sort of pride ,vhich
is rooted in a wholly false vie,v of human independ-
encc-,vhich is only ,villing to accept a doctl'ine of
incarnation if it be understood as the incarnation of
God in humanity at large, of which the incarnation
in Christ is only what I may call the foremost speci-
men. According to this presentation, I am to see in
Christ what I have it in me to become. He demon-
strates the power of the divine Spirit in humanity
in a sense which, ,vithout Him, I should never per-
haps have suspected, but \vhich, once instructed by
Him, I can realize in myself ,vithout needing from
Ilim anything but the light of His example. He
says to us, in effect, " You can all be Christs like
me, if you ,vill." But this is the most astonishingly
unhistorical representation. I do not mean merely
that the matter is not so represented in the New
Testament, but that it has not so been realized in
Christian experience.
However, the highest type of Christian experience
may be found in the New Testament. And what
we find there does, to a degree ,vhich startles us,
negate the manner of thinking and speaking which
I have just tried to describe.
In the Ne,v Testament there is scarcely a hint to
be found of a universal gift of the Spirit of God to
men because they are men.! There is suggested a
. 1 James iv 5 is, of course, very difficult. If it means" He [God]
Jealously longs for the spirit which He [at our original creation,
when He breathed into our nostrils the breath of life] caused to

180

IS TIlE DOCTHJNE TRUE

universal pre
ence to all n1en of the divine Light
,vhich is the \V ord of God,! but the Spirit, ,vho makes
the light effectual, is, as a matter of fact, represented
as given only through the Risen Christ to those ,,,,ho
believe in I-lim, and as a gift communicated at a
definable mon1ent. Let us confine ourselves to the
historical or literary facts for the present. I am
not saying that the Ne,v T
stament excludes the
idea that the Holy Spirit is in such sense "the
giver of life," as that ,vherever life is, and especially
\vherever rational and moral life is, lIe Hin1self must
be. This is indeed suggested in the Old Testament.
There God's spirit or breath is in all things and
inspires the natural gifts of all men, as \\.cll as the
special endo""1l1ents of the prophets. As the Book
of \Visdom says, "the spirit of the Lord filleth the
,vorld." And I think the orthodox Christian theology
of the Holy Trinity makes such an assu111ption in-
evitable. Thus ,ve are not to agree '\",ith Origcn,
,vho would seemingly have actually limited the
activity of the Holy spirit within the circle of " the
saints," or the believing Church. It is not for us
so to limit God's activity. The Spirit, like the ,,,,ind
,vhich represents Him, "bloweth where it listeth."
Nevertheless, from end to end of the New Testament
the gift of the Spirit is only contemplated first as
given to John the Baptist, the prophet who is to
prepare for Christ,2 then as especially the agent
in the conception of Christ, 8 then as in1parted to
Christ for the fulfilment of His mission,4 and, finally,
as to be expected fron1 Him and as actually poured
out by Him upon those who believe in Him. Thus
in the Gospels men are expected to see in Christ the
action of the Holy Spirit, and it is blasphemy against
dwell in us," as Dr. Hort interprets, then there is no reference here
to anyt.hing but the spirit of man, which is distinct from the Spirit
of God.
I John i 9. :I Luke i 15, also ii 25 fl. to Simeon.
S J.luke j 35. · 1tlark i 10.

THE SPIRIT MEDIATED BY CHRIST 1
1
the Spirit to attribute His ,vorks to the evil one.
.A.nd the disciples are to expect the Spirit as a future
endo,vment which they have not yet received. This,
of course, is in a very marked way the teaching
of the Fourth Gospel: "The Spirit was not yet
(given), because Jesus was not yet glorified." 1 "My
Father will give you another helper in my name," or
" I ,vill send him unto you." 2 But it is equally the
teaching of St. Luke at the beginning of the Acts.
There the disciples are anxiously to await a gift
,vhich they have not yet received, and the gift is
}'epresented as communicated in an objective form
under memorable conditions on the day of Pentecost.
After"yards, also, the gift appears as given in an
objective manner in baptism and the laying on
of hands. 3 The disciples of John the Baptist
at Ephesus need to be instructed about the gift
of the Holy Ghost and to receive Him in due
Dlanner. 4
Even the saintly Roman soldier Cornelius, with the
pious group around him, though his prayers and alms
have already gained him acceptance ,vith God, and
though God makes evident by a visible manifestation
that He has given him His Spirit, must receive at
least the outward form of baptism. 5 So important I
it is to make it evident that the New Israel only,
the Church of Jesus Christ, is the home or sphere
of the Spirit. I suppose that if you had asked a
New Testament disciple ,vhat it is to be a Christian,
he would have given one of two replies-either that
a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is Lord
or that he is one who has "received the Spirit"
of God. St. Paul uses the phrase as equivalent to
being a Christian. "Received ye the Spirit," he
asks, "by the ,yorks of the la,v or by the hearing
of faith?" It is not possible to state too strongly

1 John vii 39.
3 Acta viii 17-18.
13

t John xiv 16, xv 26.
<< xix 1-6. ð Acts x 24-<4:7.

182

IS THE DOCTRIXE TRUE

that the Spirit is, in the N e,," Testament, regarded
as possessing the Church, and as not to be expected
or looked for except as received from Christ and
,vithin the membership of His society.
Let us then sum the matter up. Thank God the
1'; c'v Testan1ent sets no limit to the activity of the
divine Spirit. Nay, it may truly be said that it is
blasphemy against the Spirit to deny His activity
w"herever \ve see active goodness among men. But it
is true that the 1\ e,v Testament deliberately concen-
trates our attention upon the ne\v gift of the Spirit
as given in Christ and through Christ. It tells us
that all that ,ve see in the man Christ is to be nlade
conlmon to all nlen of good ,viII-but it adds U in
Christ" and" through Christ." It addresses man-
kind as needing to be redeemed, and the effective
evidence of such reden1ption is found in the gift
of the Spirit communicated to them as a newly-
given gift from Christ. 'Ve are all to be anointed by
the same Spirit ,vhich possessed Him-we are aU
(if you "rill) to be ClIrists-but it is not as individuals
in our o,vn right. 'fhat right ,ve are left to suppose
\ve have lost and can only recover in Christ. l It is
idle to dispute that this is the message of the Bible.
'rhus there is truly to be an incarnation of God in
humanity, but it is in the Ke,v Hunlanity, through
Christ, by deliberate faith and conscious incorpora-
tion into His society. That is the message declared
and covenanted and open. 'Yhat lies in the secret
counsels of God for humanity beyond the area of
this message, or ,vhere the message has been mi
-
understood because misdelivered, is not part of the
message, though it may be part of the hope of the
human heart ,vhich has been taught in Christ that
God is justice and love, and that there is no lin1Ît to
II is love.

1 John i 12, "As many as received him, to them ga.ve he the
right to become children of God."

SUPPOSED FAULTS IX CHRIST 183
Then to wind all this up. I think no one '\\'ho
considers how the Catholic Church has blurred the
full message of Christ's humanity and His human
example-of which ,ve shall have sad occasion to
speak-can be any,vay surprised if such unfaithful-
ness has led to violent reactions of feeling against
the Church and the message of the Church. But
after all, ,vhat we ,vant to kno,v is the truth about
the Christian message: and also ,ve make an eager
appeal to the specifically Christian experience. Of
the Christian message then as the Ne'\v Testament
expounds it and as Christian experience over the
centuries has on the ,,-hole confirmed it, I say this
,vithout hesitation: that it does not proclaim a
Christ whose human example ,,"ould have sufficed
for us: or a Christ who is only a specimen of the
forces of manhood which ""e all already carry within
ourselves. It proclaims Christ the Man indeed,
but the man whom ""e need as our saviour as well as
our exan1ple-whom ,ve need to make us new men,
through faith in Him and by the receiving of His
Spirit, in such a way as is inconceivable unless He
is all along something much more than man. So
that the very features of the Person which seem
to remove His example furthest from us appear at
the last as the very conditions of its being brought
close to us in permanently effective po,ver.

IV
There is another kind of objection to the idea or
doctrine of Christ as really the manifestation of God
in manhood, on the ground of doubts about His
moral perfection. I am sure, for instance, that there
are a good many honest people who feel that our
Lord's tremendous denunciations of the scribes and
Pharisees 1 are indiscriminating and violent-that
1 Matt. xxü, Mark xii 38-40, Luk6 xx 45-7.

184

IS TIlE DOCTRINE TRUE

they would indeed be in the spirit of the Old Testa-
luent, but that, if Christ really uttered them, they
were not worthy of Him.
Again, the " cursing of the barren fig-tree," taken
as it stands in 1\lark, is described as expressing a
spirit of sudden anger, unreasoning and revengeful;
so that the critics, ,yho are very skilful in getting
rid of ,vhat they do not like, very comn10nly seek to
exclude it as a historical incident from the narrative,
and represent it as a parable misunderstood. I do
not think they are successful. For it stands a very
vividly described incident in St. l\Iark's narrative,
,vith details ,vhich seem singularly precise and con-
vincing.! It is true that St. l\lark's explanatory
phrase, "for the time of figs ,,,as not yet," appears
to be misleading. "That our Lord was apparently
expecting to feed upon "ras the green knops (the
"green figs" of Cant. ii 13) ,vhich appear on the
fig-tree before the leaves, and without ,vhich any
leafy fig-tree will, of coursc, be barren for the year.
These green knops arc, we are informed, still
commonly eaten in Palestine. Not finding any,
our Lord discerned in the fig-tree the type of an
out,vard sho,,, of life (the leaves) which is in fact
unfruitful, and He pronounced a solelnn doom on
this deceitful sho,v. It seems to n1e a miracle of
judgment very penetrating in its significance. I do
not feel the least inclined either to doubt the fact
or to apologize for it.
As to the denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees,
they may perhaps have been directed, not against
all the scribes and Pharisees, but against a certain
class or section of then1. But if the Gospels and
St. Paul represent the historical situation ,vith any
fidelity, these rigid maintainers of J e,vish orthodoxy
and tradition were as a class deeply corrupted by
formalism, self-righteousness, hypocrisy and seIf-
I Mark xi 12 ft., 20 fi.

CHRIST'S SE'.ERE JUDGr.IENTS 185
seeking. 1 Our Lord does not appear anywhere to
have denounced the principle of ecclesiastical
authority or ceremonial observance-to this question
we will come back in the next volume-but, if '\ve
consider what the characteristic vices of ecclesiastical
authority have been in many ages ,,-hen the Church
was seemingly po,verful, and the a,vful hindrance
to the spiritual influence of Christ's religion '\vhich
these characteristic vices of ecclesiastics have proved
themselves to be, '\ve shall surely feel that the l\Iaster
of human life, who discerned so deeply its tendencies
and dangers, had good cause to utter even the
tremendous denunciations 'v hich are ascribed to
Him of pride and selfishness parading itself in the
guise of religion. Again I cannot apologize or
explain away. I know indeed that there is a spirit
in our age which ,vould like to eliminate out of its
conception of God the ,vhole element of fiery indig-
nation, ,vhether against false religion or any othel'
kind of sin. "I believe," writes one of our
modernists, "that we shall come to see that it is
precisely those contemporary ideas of thc ,vrath of
God and His ultimate avenging activity as destroy-
ing Judge, ,vhich are the unauthentic elements in
the teaching ascribed to Jesus." 2 Language like
this, I confess, makes TIle shiver. I feel sure in my
conscience that if God is really as the prophets
disclose Him, and sin is essentially what the Bible
represents it as being-and the deepest spiritual
experience of Christendom has given its assent to
the representation-the '\vrath of God against sin
and the awfulness of final judgment remain a quite
essential and permanent element of "the truth as
it is in Jesus." Thus I read our Lord's tremendous
" dooms" '\vith awe and terror indeed, but not

1 See Rom. ii 17-23, and, besides the passages in the note on
p. 183, Luke xvi 14.
I Dr. Emmet in the Modern Churchman, p. 221.

186

IS THE DOCTRINE TRUE

with any expectation that the enlightened con-
science of men will ever have cause to wish them
away. Without them the picture of Jesus would
fail altogether to represent the 'v hole truth about
God.
It is, of course, sometimes pleaded that we have
no right to claim for our Lord moral perfection in
the fullest sense-that in fact lie disclaimed such
goodness ,vhen He said to the young man "\Vhy
callest thou me good? None is good save one,
even God." 1 But it is, I think, certainly a n1istake
so to interpret His words. In the Gospels generally
our Lord seems to present Himself to His disciples
as an infallible guide and teacher and pattern.
There is not in all our Lord's ,vords (other than the
words in question) the slightest sign of the conscious-
ness of sin or of the fear of going ,vrong. Certainly
He cannot have disclaimed goodness, even in the
highest sense, with any kind of consistency. And
the saying in question admits of a very natural and
suggest.ve interpretation. This young man came in
a spirit that ,vas both self-complacent and flatter-
ing. Doubtless he both \vanted to make himself
agreeable and to receive commendation. It was a
cheap thing to say "Good l\laster," and our Lord
pulls him up. " Young man, think what goodness
means when you call me good." I do not think
our I....ord either disclaims goodness, nor, on the other
hand, that He lneans, as SOlne orthodox com-
mentators have suggested, that He is good because
He is God. I think He sÏ1nply means that the
goodness the young man is in search of is to be
found in God only, and he is not to give flattering
titles to men.
There are at least three occasions where our
Lord appears in the Gospels as simply challenging
1 St. Mark x 18 and Luke xviii 18. St.
Iatthew seems to
tone the saying down (xix 17).

HE DOES KOT DISCLAIl\1 GOODNESS 187
men to think before they speak-not to make glib
statements, or use convenient arguments ,vhich
intellectual or moral consistency ought to make
them shrink from. Thus He confronts the glib
and constant statement of the scribes, that the
Christ ,vas to be the son of David 1 ,vith the language
of the psalm, held to be David's, "There he appears
to address the future Christ as Lord, and He asks
how David could call His future son his "Lord."
I do not think it is at all necessary to suppose that
Christ v{as here n1aking any pronouncement on the
authorship of the psalm. He was simply pressing
the scribes ,vith the duty of thinking before they
spoke-l-Iis meaning being that their account of
t he Christ was inadequate in the light of their own
Scriptures. So in the same ,yay ,ve should interpret
the strange passage, referred to earlier, in St. J ohn,

where our Lord, so contrary to His general teach-
ing in this Gospel-,vhich is quite unmistakable--
appears to minimize the meaning of the title "Son
of God." He seems to have meant that, at least in
some sense, IIis opponents must recognize its legiti-
macy in the case of anyone who represents in any
way the authority of God. In all these cases
mistaken conclusions have been dra,vn from the
,vords of Jesus-as that He did not claim goodness,
or that He diso,vned sonship to David, or that He
Ineant little by calling Himself Son of God. These
conclusions are shown to be mistaken by the general
sense of His teaching. 'Vhat He ,vas doing in these
cases was to insist on men's thinking before they
spoke-thinking ,vhether a convenient argument or
lightly uttered ,vord ,vas not. really incompatible
,vith ,vhat intellectual consistency or moral serious-
ness would force them to ackno,vledge. And this
is surely a very important lesson.
But ,ve return to our main thesis. It is indeed
1
Iark xii 35. :I John x 36. See above, pp. 5-6.

188 IS THE DOCTRINE TRUE
the case that \ve could hardly believe the doctrine of
the Incarnation, if \ve saw evidence of hasty passion
and moral in1perfection in Jesus, or if He appeared
to have confessed to being deficient in goodness.
But such evidences and confessions are not really
to be found. 'fhe character of Jesus, as the Gospels
describe IIim, remains in the moral region supreme
and perfect-so impressive, I think, in its majesty,
that it hushes in our minds the first suggestions of
criticism. ..

v

Finally '\ve have the suggestion to consider, that
Je
us sho\ved Himself in certain respects unmistak-
ably deluded-the victim of current errors. \Vithout
asking what kind of belief concerning Jesus would
be compatible \vith the acceptance of such a sug-
gestion, let us first of all consider carefully and
frankly the facts of the case.
\Ve are bound to recognize in Jesus a real limita-
tion of knowledge. He Himself-in a saying \vhich
cannot be supposed to have been invented for Him,
but which is assuredly authentic-declared Himself
ignorant of the day and hour of the end of the world.
lIe had no map of the future spread before His eyes.
He, the Son of God-at least in I-lis mortal life-
,vas limited in knowledge and knew His limitation.
Thus there is no sign whatever that lIe transcended
the knowledge of natural things common to His
Palestinian contemporaries. Also, there is no pre-
tension of knowledge on any such subject. There
is in His teaching none of the "science falsely so-
called," which abounds in the contemporary apoca-
lypses. He cannot be said to have given any teaching
at all on any subject except on the great spiritual
subjects. And on these He seems to speak ,vith a
sense of full authority amounting to infallibility.

HIS SUPPOSED DELUSIONS lSg
I cannot resist that impression. " Verily, I say'
unto you." That is enough.!
But there are certain points on which our Lord
is commonly supposed to have given positive teaching
,vhich was in fact erroneous.
1. He is supposed to have proclaimed His o,yn
immediate conling in glory and the end of "this
,vorld." I have dealt \vith this point at length. 2
'fhe conclusion \v hich the facts seenl to me to ,varrant
is that our Lord expressly disclainled kno,vledge of
the time and season of the end, and expressly ,yarned
IIis disciples against supposing that, God intended
such kno,vledge for them, though His disciples, or
borne of thenl, misunderstood Him. There is no
real warrant for ascribing delusion to our Lord's
mind on the subject. Under this head no more
will be said here.
2. He is perceived to have shared the current
belief in devils and diabolic possession; and this,
it is taken for granted, was no more than a super-
&tition \vhich we have outgro\vn.
No,v I am not disposed to deny that in this matter
also there may have been occasional misunder-
standings on the part of His disciples. As I read
the account of the healing of the Gadarene, or
Gerasine, demoniac in St. l\Iark (:l\Iark v 1-17), it
suggests itself some,vhat readily that the supposed
permission given by Jesus for the entry of the
,,' legion" of demons into the s,vine may have been
ë1. misinterpretation on the part of the disciples.
i\nd sometimes, ,vhen our Lord is speaking of evil
spirits, He undoubtedly uses metaphorical
anguage.3
Hut I think it is quite certain that He did believe
in evil and in good spirits, and in their activity
among men; and not only did He believe this, but

1 On our Lord's use of U Amen," see Dalman, Words of Jesus,
pp. 226 ft. .
· Chap. V. :I E.g
Luke xi 24-7.

190 IS TIlE DOCTRINE TRUE
He made it a quite distinct element in His teaching.
He ,vould have I-lis disciples look out upon the world
as a scene in which the conflict of good and evil
is not merely carried on among fllen. Behind the
activities of bad men He sees an awful invisible
agency organizing and maintaining a kingdom of
evil and enslaving the souls of men. "An cnenlY
hath done this "-an evil ,viII or army of wills, set
to tlnvart the good purpose of God. l And in various
,videspread kinds of disease lIe recognized evil
'>pirits as pos8cS6ing men and wonlen, and constantly
dealt with theln accordingly.
But have ,ve the right to class all this as delusions
which ,ve have outgrown? Certainly, as to the
existence of 6pirits and their activity among men
there has been a very ,videsprcad assent given by
the conscience of men, and of men of the profoundest
spiritual insight. The testimony of such a n18n
ItS Frederick Denison Maurice is very impressive. 2
I do not think our knowledge authorizes any denial
of it. I t seems to me that not only the I}Crsol1nl
experience of individual souls but the spectacle of
the organization and eontinuity of evil influences in
the world, suggests the truth of the explanation
which our Lord certainly adopted as His o"yn. And
as to the reality of diabolic possession, I have been
again and again deeply inlpressed by the testÏ1nony
of missionaries in non-Christian countries, that they
are not able to doubt it. u It nlay or may not
exist in England," they say, U but it certainly
exists in India or China or .A Crica. "
On the whole-in vie,v of the deep mystery of
evil in the world-I fail to see ,vhat right Incn have
to treat the belief in evil spirits and thcir activity,

1 See )Iark iii 22-30; Luke xi 17-2t3 (the obvious metaphors
do not conceal the also obvious inwntion of teaching truth) j Matt.
xiii 28; Luke][ 18, xiii 16, xxii 31, et.c.
I See my St. JQhn':J Epi$tle.., rp. 1-4.5 fl.

HIS TEACHING .ABOUT THE O. T. 191
or the belief in good spirits or angels, as error and
delusion, or as childish fancy which the mature
mind outgro,vs. But one point must be kept steadily
in vie\v. The whole world in our Lord's time, and
Palestine not less than other districts, was weighed
down by the terror of evil spirits, just as a great
part of the world is to-day. Jesus no doubt affirmed
that they really existed and were the cause of
nunlberless moral and physical evils. But He would
not suffer men to remain in dread of them. His
\vhole teaching was of redemption. If men would
trust God, they could be free-free fronl the fear
of evil spirits and from the fear of death. And He
w.as COIne to lead thenl to this liberty. As He is
recorded to have said to the Seventy: "I beheld
Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Behold,
I have given you authority to tread upon serpents
and scorpions, and over all the po,ver of the enemy:
and nothing shall in any ,vise hurt you." 1 No
doubt it ,vas this sense of victory over the po,vers
of evil among Christians ,vhich, as much as anything,
promoted the spread of the Church. The character-
istic of Christians should not be their belief in the
activity of evil spirits, but their belief that they
are impotent against the Redeemer of men.
S. There is lastly the assertion to be considered
that our Lord gave positive teaching about the Old
Testalnent ,vhich identifies Him with traditional
ideas about that literature ,vhich modern critical
science has shown to be untrue. I think this is an
exaggeration. On the ,vhole our Lord's teaching
about the Old Testament is most remarkable for its
profound spiritual truth. No doubt, as He spoke
of the sun rising, so He spoke of the Books of
the I.lR'\v ac; by
Ioses and the Psalter as by David,
and dre,v lessons from the narratives ,vithout any
question being rai
ed of their historical character.
1 Luke x 18-19.

192 IS TIlE DOCTRINE TRUE
It ,,,"ould haye been impossible to do other\vise, if
lIe was freely to use human language intelligible
to the people of Galilee or the Rabbis of Jerusalem.
I should suppose that He did not kno,v ".bat the
progress of critical science has made fairly evident
to us, but I should suppose also that there ,vas in
IIis own consciousness n great distinction clearly
present bet\veen ,vhat He did kno\v-the spiritual
content of IIis message-and an the popular assump-
tions of kno\vledge on matters ,vhich were not within
His scope. On matters not 'v it hin the scope of His
tnission, He appears as giv ing no positive teaching
at all.
'fhe only occasion on ,vhich it seems to n1e that
it can be plausibly pleaded that He laid stress upon
a question of authorship or literary character in
books of the Bible ,vas in His argun1cnt about Ps. cx.
On that occasion the verbal difference bet,ycen the
narratives of the three Evangelists makes it evident
that we cannot rely on having the precise ,yords of
Christ. On the other hand His purpose is quite
plain. It is not, as some moderns ,,,ould have us
believe, to repudiate the Davidic descent of the
Christ, but to make it plain that the Scribes,
if they ""ere true to their accepted principles, would
not be able to speak as if the Christ was to be the
Son of David and nothing more. They must recog-
nize Him as David's Lord as well as David's Son.
I think it is quite enough for the fair interpretation
of the passage to represent our I..ord as confronting
the Scribes \vith the requirements of their own lore,
,vithout laying any stress on it Himself. I have
already pointed out that this sort of argumentum
ad hominem appears to have been characteristic of
our Lord. I should like to repeat that I believe
there must have been in IIis o\vn consciousness
a vast region of common assumptions which He was
content to take for granted ,,'ithout confusing them

REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS 193
,vith the things ,vhich He knew. 1 Thus as concerns
the arO'ument about Ps. cx, I do not think ,vc are
b
compelled either to force lnen in the name of Jesus
to accept a theory of authorship which seems to us
very inlprobable, or to declare Christ mistaken.
It belonged to a region of kno,vledge in which lIe
kne,v that He had no commission, and in \vhieh
knowledge beyond that of His contenlporarics
\vould, in fact, not have helped but hindered His
mISSIon.
As to the bearing of our Lord's limited hUlnnn
kno,vledge on the theory of the Incarnation, nlorc
will be said in the next chapter. Here I \vant only
to draw a distinction, \vhich I think the facts \varrant,
between limitation of knowledge \vhieh must be
ackno\vledged in IIim and anything \vhich can be
called delusion or the teaching of error, of which I
cannot see the traces.
I kno\v there are nlany good men who ,,"ould say
that we can believe that our Lord ,vas really the
victim of certain current delusions and taught in
accordance with these delusions, \vithout affecting
our faith in the reality of the Incarnation as St. Paul
and St. John believed it. Here I admit I stunlblc.
But I need not pursue the question, because I dis-
pute the premiss. I see no positive delusion or error
in the teaching of Jesus. The truth of what He can
fairly be said to have taught seems to me to stand
secure, in spite of all the developments of science and
changes of hunlan circumstance.
I have been seeking in this chapter only to show
what seems to me the essential ,veakness and one-
sidedness of each of the various humanitarian
estimates of Christ, and to obviate the objections
which are made against the doctrine of His person
as St. Paul and St. John present it to us. There is
1 On the limitations of our Lord's knowledge within the sphere
of His mortal life 88 man, Bee below, pp. 225 fi.

194 IS THE DOCTRIKE TRUE
al ways, however, something unsntisfactory about the
result of saying no to a string of objections. Each
answer may seem in turn fairly satisfactory, but
there remains the sense that there is or may be
"something in them." And, in fact, on a subject
so great and mysterious as the person of Christ, it
is absurd to suppose that everything ,vill be clear.
I have done my best ,vith each of the objections in
turn, and I am not ,vithout hope that the answer
in each case wiil be felt to be stronger than the
objection. But it is quite certain that it is not
by any such negative process that any real con-
viction ,vill be won. The real conviction luust come
from the study of the positive picture in the Gospels.
It must be the gradually growing assurance that
this picture is not one ,vhich can be due to human
invention or imagination. It must over,vhelm us
,vith the sense of its truth, and with the sense that
only the doctrine of the Incarnation can really
interpret it or account for it. And to,vard this
sort of conviction the removal of objections and the
consideration of particular literary problems only
make a very partial contribution. '.fhe conviction
itself n1ust be of the sort suggested by Jesus Himself
,vhen He said of Peter's first conviction of His
IVlessiahship: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father ",
hich is in heaven,"
and of the sort which St. Paul meant when he said,
"No man can say Jesus is Lord but in the Holy
Spirit. "
Certainly it is not the case that our deepest and
most important convictions are those ,vhich involve
least difficulty, or those against which fewest ob-
jections can be plausibly urged. Certainly also, as
concerns the faith in Christ's person, the Evangelists
do not, on the "Thole, give us the impression that they
sought to remove difficulties for faith out of their
records. On the whole they give us the impression

THE GROUND OF CONVICTION 195
of candour and naïveté in a high degree. It is not
pleaded therefore that there are no difficulties about
the traditional faith in ChrL,>>t. What is pleaded i

that, if all the facts are frankly faced, the only con
ception "\\yhich adequately accounUi for them is the
conception ",-hich the first Church was led to form-
the conception of the incarnation of the Son of God
-the doctrine of " the Word made flesh."

LI"
Y ST. It RY'S COllEG

CHAPTER '711

THE DEFINITION
OF THE COUNCILS CONCERNI
G
THE PERSON OF CHRIST

\VE have been carefully revie,ving the Nc,v Testa-
nlent, and ,ve have seen good reason for reaching
the conclusion that only the conception of Jesus
..is the eternal Son of God incarnate is adequate to
account for the facts of the case-that is especially
the spiritual authority claimed and exercised by
Him, ,vhich so plainly passes the limits of legithnate
human influence, and His o,vn occasional utterances
about Himself; or, to vie"\v the 111atter fronl the
side of the disciples, the a,vestruck devotion passing
into ,vorship "\vhich they experienced, and ,vhich
they expressed after the Resurrection by calling
their l\laster " the Lord" in a sense ,vhich certainly
involves divine sovereignty. And "\ve noted ho"\v
carefully this conception of the Lord's person ,va

expressed by St. Paul and St. John and in the
Epistle to the Hebre,vs upon the background of,
and consistently "\vith, the traditional monotheisnl
of the J e"\vs, and how it ,vas apparently accepted
throughout the apostolic churches lvithout con-
troversy or demur-ho,v it is implied in the Ne\v
'festament ,vritings 'v here it i
not explicit.

I

Ierely considered as literary documents-the
earliest ,vhich renlain to us concerning the origin
196

THE N. T. IN THE CHURCH 197
of Christianity-the books of the New Testament,
or almost all of them, stand by themselves in
importance. They alone represent the creative
period of the Christian Church, in the sense that
all the later literature represents an attitude of
conscious dependence upon a message already
delivered. .Thus (1) we know practically nothing
about our Lord except what we find in the New
Testaluent. i\mong the few sayings ascribed to
IIim ,vhich are preserved outside the New Testament
only one has any bearing upon the question of His
person-that ,vhich occurs among His sayings in a
papyrus discovered not long ago on the site of
Oxyrhynchus in Egypt 1: U Where one is alone.,
so am I with him. Raise the stone and there you
,vill find me; cleave the wood and there am I too.",
This, if it were a genuine saying, ,vould seem to
ascribe to our Lord Himself a declaration of His
universal presence in nature. But he ,yould indeed
be bold who ,vould assert its genuineness. As
Dr. Burkitt says, these brief sayings seem to repre-
sent an early Egyptian amalgamation of Hellenistic
and Christian ideas. And the apocryphal" Gospels"
,vhich remain to us serve no purpose at all except to
show how poor a thing the early Christian imagina-
tion proved to be when it sought to invent further
accounts of our Lord's infancy or childhood, or of His
appearances after His resurrection. Again (2) there
is no other record of the first life of the Christian
Church except St. Luke's in the Acts. (3) As to the
Epistles, it ,vould be impossible to make a brief
statement about the signs of tbeir early diffusion
and influence ,vhich would be suflìciently accurate.
Certainly some of St. Paul's most characteristic
ideas as concerning justification by faith and the
relation of Grace to Law did not deeply influence
the early Church. Plainly they had not understood
1 See Grenfell and Hunt, Logia lesou (1897), p. 12.

14

198 DEFIXITIONS OF COUXCILS
him. But as far as the conception of Christ's person
is concerncd, thc doctrine of the incarnation of the
pre-existcnt divine Son in Jesus the Christ is the
acceptcd tradition behind the earliest sub-apostolic
,vriters-Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, IIermas and
the Apologists. l It holds the field beforc thc Christinn
Church had any Nc,v Testament.
'fhis is ,vhat the ordinary Christian has not grasped.
'fhe earliest Christian Church had a collection of
IIoly Scriptures; but it ,vas silnply the Old Testa-
IHent canon. It is n1arvellous ,vith ,vhat unanÌInitv
the Gentiles, ,vho ycry soon s,vallo,ved up the Jewisll
clement in the Church, accepted the Je\vish founda-
tion and the J e,vish Scripturcs. It ,vas long before
t hey collected thcir apostolic ,vritings into a canoll.
'fhe history of this formation of a canon is obscure,
as very much is obscure in the earlicst Christian
history. But by the middle of the second century
the four Gospels were practically canonized, and
doubtless from very early days the apostolic Epistles
""ere read in the churches to '\\"hich they ,vere addressed,
and began to pass from church to church. Ho,v-
ever, for the first hundred years of the Church's
existence it had no Bible-no standard of reference
-except the Old TestaJnent and "the tradition "-
that is, the teaching first given in each local church
by its apostolic founder, fortified by the constant
intercourse bct,veen the different churches. \Ve
have already seen that the ,vriters of the Epistles
can take for granted a certain " tradition" as kno,vn
to those they ""rote to; and from 'v hat they take
for granted ,ve can more or less gather the content
ef the tradition in the different churches. 2
So equipped, then, thc young churches started on
their career in a ,vorld singularly ,veIl adapted to

1 See appended note at the end of the chapter, p. 228, on Hemu
s,
the Didache, etc.
· 8ee Belief in God, pp. 207 fi.

THE HELLENISTIC \YORLD 19D
puzzle and be,vilder them. For the IIellenistic ,vorld
of the Roman Empire was in a state of intellectual
ferment. It ,vas not a day of great philosophers

but it ,vas a day ,vhen intellectual interest was keen.
l\len were widely seeking some doctrine of the
" whence" and the "\vhither" -some doctrine of
ho\v the world ,vhich seems so evil was D1ade and is
governed-and how the hapless soul of man is to
escape from the changes and chances of this mortal
life into some region of calm and security and
immortality. And the cities were full of teachers
and lecturers-who had each of them a "gnosis,"
a "knowledge" or theory of his own, \\"hich ,vas
either divulged to all ,vho would come and listen,
or reserved as a secret for the initiates into this or
that "mystery-cult." Christianity spread rapidly
because of its moral attractiveness, and especially
probably because of its practical spirit of brother-
hood. And there ,vere multitudes of "gnostics"
\vho were ready enough to adopt the Christian ideas
and sacred names, and adjust them to their cosmic
theories. So the Christian churches found them-
selves in a bewildering ,vorld of specuJation and
of fusion bet,veen different systems and traditions,
and they ,vere forced to clear up their ideas and to
kno,v their own mind. ?vIoreover, though Christianity
had qualities which made it popular, it had others
,vhich rendered it profoundly unpopular. It ,vas
suspected of being a secret society, disloyal to the
Emperor and the Empire. It was thus always
subject to persecution, because it was supposed to
encourage the dangerous elements in society. And
the darkest stories ,vere told about its nocturnal
gatherings and secret orgies. So, not only was it
driven by its inner necessities to obtain a clear
account of its own doctrine, it was also driven to
explain itself to those outside, and to seek to remove
the suspicions of the authorities. This is the origin

200 DEFINITIONS OF COU
CILS
of the "Apologies," and it is the apologists of the
second century ,vho made the first àttcnlpt to present,
in terIns acceptable and intelligible to the outside
,vorld, an explanation of Christianity as a doctrine
and as a ,yay of life.
Of these apologists let us take Justin ßlartyr as
an exanlple. lIe had found his ,yay to Christianity
through disappointment ,vith the various philo-
sophies. But he retained his philosopher's dress,
and ,,"ould still prèsent the doctrine in ,,,hich he had
found satisfaction so as to be intelligible and accept-
able in the ,vorld that he had left. lIe made great
play ,vith the Logos-doctrine, that is the doctrine
of the divine reason and energy immanent in the
universe, ,vhich, as ,ve have seen, ,vas the popular
idea of the day, and one ,vhich Christianity could
use in its own sense. But he is not by any means
a sure-footed theologian, and he falls into modes
of expression ,vhich he had nluch better not have
used, and ,yhich the Church after him had to re-
pudiate-as 'v hen he talked of the "Tord or Son of
God as a "" second God." 1 So it ,vas ,vith the pious
but sonle,vhat stupid prophet HernIas, of Ronle.
He too lueans well and gives fervent exhortations
to his fellow Christians through the nledium of his
visions. But again he is not at all a clear thinker,
and his phraseology is loose. But all the ,vhile the
Christian churches in the different cities ,vere closely
knit together and intensely conscious of unity.
Thus as ,ve survey the early period ,ve seem to see
the Church as a ,vhole standing before the ,vorld,
,vith grand moral steadfastness and an intense sense
of practical security in its tradition of religious
bclief and practice, but subjected to an intellectual
cross-questioning of a very puzzling kind. "Till you
admit this? Do you believe that? Will you
accept this suggestion? "ViII you accommodate
1 See below, p. 242.

?tIISTAKES OF EARLY \VRITERS 201
yourself to that popular theory? And the Church
lllade many mistakes in its haste, and corrected
them somewhat painfully at its leisure. Only
gradually and hardly did it fashion its terminology,
chiefly by the help of certain men ,,,,ho relatively
deserve the title of great men: Irenaeus,l ,vhose
int.ellectual perceptions ,,,,ere very sure; Tertullian,
the African, ,vho ,vas much more brilliant and also
much more rhetorical and one-sided; and Origen
of Alexandria, ,vho, in spite of certain very precarious
speculations and excursions into the unkno,vable,
,vas the greatest of all.
K ow it is obvious that this process cannot be
described in detail in one chapter in a small volunle.
I propose to make only one or t,vo general observa-
tions before ,ve approach the age ,vhen the Church,
in formal councils, gave certain dogmatic definitions
of its doctrine of the person of Christ, to which ,ve
Inust pay more precise attention.
The chief intellectual difficulties of the Church
\vere (1) ,vith regard to the doctrine of the Trinity-
that is especially the relation of the Son, conceived
of as an eternal and divine person, to God the Father
and to the Holy Spirit. It ,vas in this region that
it found the greatest difficulty in fixing its termin-
I See on IrenaeuB Belief in God, p. 47. Dr. Rashdall has
strangely accused him of what later was called ApollinarianisID
(see Jesus Human and Divine, p. 13). But Irenaeus gives us an
account of our Lord's temptations, according to which the divine
'Vord left the man or the manhood in Jesus to struggle and suffer
unaided in those dark hours. éf:U7rEp j'àp -1}JI liJl(JpCAJ7roS, ïJla 1rElp&'u(JV,
oún.,s leal ÀÓj'os rJla ðo{au(Jp. 1}uvX&.(OJI'TOS p.
JI TOV ÀÓj'ov 'JI Tcê 7rHp&'(Eu(Jal,
etc. (iii 19, 3). The phraseology may be easily criticized. But it
certainly quite clearly means that Irenaeus thought of Christ as
having a properly human mind and will in which to be tempted
and struggle. Again, he says: "He struggled and overcame: He
was man fighting for His fathers, and by His obedience paying the
debt of their disobedience. . .." And in order to fight the human
fight fully "He passed through every age, from infancy to man-
hood, restoring to each communion with God" (iii 18, 6, 7). He
was what He seemed-really man (ii 22). See my Dissertatwns,
pp. 108 ft. I cannot think what caused Dr. Rashdpll to make such
a state!HBnt.

:!02 DEFINITIONS OF COUNCILS
ology: (2) in maintaining its hold on the real
humanity of Christ. The Hellenistic world was
,;till possessed with the sense that the source of
"piritual contamination for souls lay in the body
and the material world, and that the redemption
of the soul lay in its exemption from matter. And
following on this conception of matter as evil was
a. horror of the idea of any real incarnation of God.

rhe Church coule! not remain uninfluenced by this
tendency. 'rhus ,ve have a 'v hole series of attempts-
Docetism and all the varieties of Gnosticism-to
explain away the reality of Christ's physical man-
- hood; and nIl such atten1pts appear to have met
,vith a great deal of sympathy and success. Ter-
tullian, looking back on the history of Gnosticism
at the beginning of the third century, can speak
of the dismal experience \vhich the Church had
passed through of seeing "one and another, the
most faithful, the ,visest, the most experienced in
the Church, going over to the "'Tong side." 1 Mean-
while there was comparatively little difficulty in
maintaining the originally divine nature or deity
of Christ. 'The popular instinct was all on this side.
'rhe ablest opponent of this fundamental article
of faith ,vas a brilliant but n10rally disagreeable
Inan-Paul, the bishop of Samosata, the favourite
and courtier of Zenobia, the Queen of Palmyra.
IIis doctrine is broadly the same as one we are
Inade familiar ,vith to-day-that the person Jesus
did not exist till He ,vas born of l\fary; that the
divine \V ord or 'Visdom (conceived of as a quality
or aspect of God and not as a person) dwelt in hinl
as it dwells in other men, but in a unique degree,
so as gradually to deify him, till from having been
a man he became God. The support "rhich Zenobia
gave her favourite made it very difficult for the
local episcopate to secure his deposition. But as
1 de praescf'. 3

THE CL.:\I
I OF THE COUNCILS 203
soon as Zenobia was defeated by the Emperor
.A.urelian his strength was gone. It would seem
that he had no popular support in the Church,
t hough he became indirectly the parent of an in-
tellectual school of ,vhich Arianism "
as the fruit.
This very rough sketch must suffice to bring us
to the period of the Councils. The reason why we
must consider their dogmatic definitions is not because
t hey represent the action of ecclesia5.tical authority,
for ,vith that at present \ve are not concerned, but
because, vie"red historically, the teaching about the
person of Christ \vhich \ve get in the N e\v Testament,
and ,\rhich \\re find fron1 the first as the tradition
of the Church, seenlS here to reach its intellectual
expression, or at least its technical fonnulation.
That at least ,vas the claim made for these formulas
-that they represented no new doctrine and no
addition to the doctrine of the Bible and the tradition
of the Church, but ,,,,ere simply its expression in an
articulate form ,vith a vie,v to defending it against
the inva,l)ion of proposed interpretations of Christ
\\
hich would have fundamentally destroyed the
Church tradition in its real meaning. The question
for us is ,\
hcthcr this is really so, or \vhether, on the
other hand, the definitions are enculllbrances ,vhich
the faith of the Ne,v Testament ,vould have done
better to dispense ,vith, or ,vhich, even if they wel'c
once necessary, are no,v certainly to be regarded as
antiquated expressions of the faith in terms of a
philosophy ,vhich has been long outgrown, and for
\vhich we can surely find better substitutes in thp
language of modern thought, retaining the ancient
forn1ulas only as historical records. This is a very
insistent question to-day; and though we are not
yet in a position to pay regard to the question of
ecclesiastical authority, ,ve can discuss these fonnulas
very profitably on their merits.

2041 DEFINITIOKS OF COUXCILS

II

The first occasion for an ecclesiastical dogn1a ,,-as
found in the heresy of Arius. lIe ,vas a clever and
influential parish priest of Alexandria ,,-ho ,vas one
of the numerous pupils of a falnous teacher, Lucian
of Antioch, a martyr in the Diocletian persecution
(
bout 811), and also the parent of an l\ntiochene
school of teachers, some of ,vhom it is fair to call
rationalists. Arius' theory of the person of our Lord
\\"as a complex one, l but it is mainly ,,'ith one startling
feature in it that the Church concerned itself. He
affirlned that Christ ,vas indeed the incal'nation of
a pre-existent being, the 'Y ord or Son, ,vho \\"as
" divine.' in a popular sense and could be called
God and ,,'orshipped, but ,,"ho ,vas not really of the
nature of God the Creator. He ,vas a creature ,yho
had a beginning from the divine 'v ill, and ,vas the
created luediunl through ,,,,horn God made other
creatures. Arius, like the rest of the Church, held
fast to the old dop.trine of God the Creator derived
from the prophets of Israel. lIe was not a pantheist.
- lIe recognized that there can be no confusion bet,vecn
th
Creator and the creature. Christ in His original
nature Inust be either one or the other. He Inust
(;ome fronl one side or other of the line ,'" hich sepa-
rates the creatiye nature from the created. And
he quite definitely put Christ on the side of the
creatures. He ,vas not of the nature of God, but He
canIe into existence by His 'v ill. Thus to account
for His exalted and quasi-divine character and posi-
tion, he ,,,"ould haye had the Church regard Hinl
as sOlnething like a demigod or created God in His
first being, and as a divinized hero in the hun1an
1 It is carefully described by Harnack, Hist. of Dogma (Eug.
trans.), vol. iv, cap. i, and by Robertson in his admirable Intro-
duction to the translation of Athanasius in Niccne and Post 1\Tü;en

Fath('rs (Parkers, Oxford, 1892).

AG.\INST ARIUS

205

guise ,rhich he after,vards assumed. He seems to
have been a thorough intellectualist in love ,vith
his o,vn theory, and to have thro,vn hinlself zealously
and successfully into the task of propagating it.
Doubtless he saw in it a bridge by ,vhich the non-
Christian intellectual ,,,"orid could be persuaded to
accept Christ and worship Christ \vithout abandoning
its o\vn familiar categories.
This is ,vhat the Church sa"r from another point
of vie,v-that Arianism ,vas a bold attelnpt to assi-
rnilate ,vithin the Christian Church the pagan idea
of a demigod. Arius' first opponent was his bishop,
Alexander; and it ,vas the commotion stirred by
Alexander's resistance to Arius ,vhich alarmed the
:Eanperor Constantine-persuaded that this ,vas Inerely
a question of ,,'ords, and anxious above all things to
pron10te the peace of the Church in ,vhich he had
recently learned to see the hope of the empire. This
led him to try the expedient of summoning a General
Council, ,vhich should represent the bishops of all
the Christian churches of the empire, to settle the
nlatter. Tbe COllnci n1et Ì1 3 . K. .r ea and
condemned Arius almost unanimously, and, as an ex-
pedient to make the condemnation effective, modified
an existing baptismal creed, especially by intro-
ducing into it the ,vord H o1noousios, "of one sub-
stance ,yith the Father"; ,vhich henceforth became
the test "
ord of orthodoxy, being selected, \ve ob-
serve, because of its exclusive power, because though
i\rians ,vould accept a ,vord ,vhich sounded very
like it-Hnn
oiousio8 (of like substance ,vith the
Father)-they siInply could not say that :Father and
Son were of the sa1ne substance or reality.
This choice of a word-and that a vtord not found
in Scripture-to exclude from the Christian Church a
group of men believed to be in error, but in a highly
metaphysical region, when the word ,vhich they \vere
prepared to accept diffel'ed froin the 'YOI'd selected

206 DEFINITIONS O:F COUKCILS
only in a single letter, is ß proceeding naturally
repulsive to moderate men at all tirnes, and especially
to the modern Englishman. Nevertheless, we must
confess that it was necessary. To tolerate the
Arians was to tolerate both the pagan conception
of a created God or demigod, and also the conception
of a deified hero: that is to say, the Church, in
I tolerating them, would havc turned its back on the
foundation of its religion-its belief inherited from
the prophets of Israel that there ,vas only one God,
and there could be none other than He, and that
none but He might be adored as God. It is only to
say the same thing in other words to say that, if
the Christian Church had not been in fundalnental
error for nearly three hundred years in ,vorshipping
Jesus the Christ as its Lord and calling Him God,
that must be because He canlC originally from the
other side of that unfathomable gulf ,vhich dividc

the self-existent God the Creator from all IIis crea-
tures, even the highest-because He belongs to the
only eternal reality, the being of God. 'The long-
persecuted Church Vlas just being called to aSSUffit:
the rôle of the established religion of the empire. It
,vas about to enter upon the tremendous charge of
guiding the half-converted tribes ,vho ,vere beginning
to pour over it and were destined so soon to over-
,vhehn it. It is very easy to see that if it had
consented, however reluctantly, to tolerate ,vhat
...\rianism asked it to tolerate, polytheism, both philo-
sophical and popular, both civilized and barbarous,
\vould have effected its lodgment securely within
the Church. The Church did not, in fact, keep itc;
doctrine ,vholly free from deleterious matter derived
from paganism. Far from it. But if it had done
what the I\rians asked of it, its belief in one only
God, one only object of ,vorship, ,vould have been
submerged in the flood of pagan polytheism.
I ,vill venture to quote once more the remarkable

ATHANAS IUS

207

acknowlcdgn1cnt on the part of Thomas Carlyle
,vhich
"roude relates 1: "He made one remark
which is worth recording. In earlier years he had
spoken contemptuously of the Athanasian contro-
versy-of the Christian 'Ylorld torn in pieces over a
diphthong; and he ,vould ring the changes in broad
Annandale on the Ilomoousion and the Homoi-
ou-sian. He no,v told me that he perceived Chris-
tianity itself to have been at stake. If the Arians had
won, it ,vould have dwindled a,vay to a legend."
The speedily won decision of the Council of Nicaea
proved to be a surprise rather than a victory. O,ving
to a variety of political and other causes, for n10re
than fifty years of bewildering controversy, the fate
of its momentous decision hung in the balance. So
far as the controversy ,vas really theological at all,
it wa
a struggle of religious faith holding on to a
tra.dition and a revelation, against an ingenious in-
tellectual theory, supported by a closely knit coterie
of scholars of the school of Lucian, and aided by a
n1a8S of lucre conservatism ,vhich was only reluctant
to accept the ne,v ,vord H o-moou.s.ion. Athanasius,
,,"ho ,vas the champion of orthodoxy from the time
of the Council, ,vhen he ,vas still a deacon, till the day
of his death, makes the real nature of the struggle
constantly evident. In his first ,vritings, ,vhen he
was a very young man, he had shown himself fas-
cinated by the current philosophy of the Logos-
the divinity Íluluanent in the ,vorld-and had inter-
preted the Incarnation in the light of it. 2 But

1 Carl)rle's Life in Londen, 1Ï 462. See also the similar judgment
ill Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, iv 43: ".Had the Arian doctrine
gained the victory, it would in all probability have completely
ruined Christianity," etc.
! Dr. Rashdall, in Jesus Human and Divine (Melrose, 1922), p. 14,
reproduces an earlie.r pa
er in which, with astonishing emphasis,
he ac?use.d At

naSlus (hke Irenaeus, see above, p. 201) of being
Apollinanan: It cannot be too strongly asserted that Athanasiu8
was an Apollinarian." In a note to the republished paper, in con-
sequence of protests, he modifies his statement thus: "In his

208

DEFINITIOXS OF COUKCILS

through all the long years of conflict his philosophical
interests are almost ,vholly s,vallo,vcd up in his
passionate but also deliberate and rational zeal for
Christianity as a religion resting on a person who
ca.n be ,vholly believed in and ,vorshipped as the
Redeemer because He is really God as ,veIl as man 1
-a religion, moreover, which is essentially the same
religion as had its beginnings in the Old Testament,
the religion of the one God, "ho is not less truly one
because He has come nearer to us in His incarnate
Son, and ,ve have recognized a distinction as of
persons in the one divine being. Athanasius argues
elaborately and persistently, but never as a philo-
sopher contending for his theory, always as one
put in charge of a revelation and a tradition, always
,vith his eye fixed upon the strictly religious interests
and loyalties. It is a great n1Ïstake to speak as if

earlier days. n Wñat should we think of ail historian of to-da,
,.
who should speak of Mr. Gladstone in retrospect as U a st.renuous
Tory," or of a distinguished bishop, still alive, as U a pugnacious
High Churchman," and then explain that he was referring to his
hot
"outh 7 Dr. Rashdall then says that in the Orati01l8 there is
"no trace of any distinct recognition of a human soul in Jesus,"
Rnd that his later distinct repudiations of Apollinariani8m were
"formal" and U that it may be doubted how far this admission
really affected his general way of thinking."
The truth behind all this is that the circumstances of current
controversy and the tone of the Alexandrian atmosphere both alike
tended towards a one-sided emphasis on the Godhead of Christ, 8S
compared with the manhood. But Athanasius was on his guard.
I have quoted in my Dissertations, pp. 122-6, many passages
from the Orati01M dealing with our Lord's assertion that He did not
know (!\Iark xiii 32) and similar texts. Athanasius' f'xplnnation
of the texts may be regarded as more or as less satisfactory. But,
at any rate, they make it quite evident that he recognized in our
Lord's manhood, or U flesh," a human mind which must be in
itself limited and susceptible of progress and liable to ignorance.
This is plain through the whole course of his controversial life, as
well as in his later utterances when Apollinarinnism was specifically
in question. No doubt Athanasius WRS always reluctant to give
np old friends on account of their excesses, whether Apollinarius
or
larcellus. But he was himseJf preeisely 1lot Apollinarian.
1 Harnack and Robertson give us excellent accounts of
Athanasius' doctrine, and Dr. Bright (Church of the Fathers) is
ncomparable in his vivid f'stimat{' of Athana.sins ns a p
rson.

l\GJ\INST ,APOLLINARIUS 209
the outlook of the Church in the matter was mainly
philosophical. All that the Church did ,vas to choose
the best available term to express the truth that
Christ ,vas God, and that there could not be any
being conceived of or ,vorshipped as God except
the one God ,vithout abandoning the foundation of
the revelation on ,vhich the Church rested. Certainly
Athanasius against Al'ius stands for permanent and
practical religion against an intellectual theory ,vhich
in fact turned out to be a very transitory phase of
philosophy indeed.

III

But before the death of ,A.thanasius the balance of I
interest had shifted fronl one aspect of the person
of the Redeemer to the other-from His Godhead
to His manhood. A hundred years earlier Origen
had prefaced his most speculative book-on The
Principles of Things-by pointing out that there ,vas
a Christian tradition which it ,vas the first business
of the Church to hand do,vn, and that (among other
necessary points) it proclainled a Christ ,vho ,vas
both eternally and pernlanently God and also, by
His incarnation, really man. In the traditional
religion of the mass of the Christian people it was in
dncient days ahvays rather the belief in I-lis manhood
that ,vas in peril than that in His Godhead. But
the Church's duty ,vas al,vays to be true to the double
idea or double fact and, in spite of one-sided ten-
dencies, it fulfilled this duty. This is illustrated by
the history of the Councils. One of the most zealous
of the Athanasians and one of the ablest, Apollinarius
I of Laodicea, in his zeal to maintain the moral per-
fection and ilumutability of Christ, enlbraced the
notion that in Christ the divine reason and ,viII took
the place of the changeable hunlan ,vill and fallible
human reason. So that the Inanhood of Christ

210 DEFINITIOKS OF COUNCILS
which lie took at the Incarnation ,vas not a full and
complete manhood, but a manifestation of the divine
reason veiling itself and expressing itself in a human
flesh and animal soul, or principle of life. l This
idea, ,vhich ought indeed to startle anyone ,vho has
read the Gospels, including the account of the tempta-
tion and of the agony in Gethsemane, Apollinarius
made more plausible apparently by the idea that in
the divine Word lies the eternal archetype of all
created things, 2 and in particular of human nature,
,vhich ,vas made in the inlage of God-so that the
eternal \Vord can even be spoken of as the archetypal
or eternal man, and ,ye may suppose that lIe ,vas
ahyays destined to act as man in a human body.
But there is a good deal of uncertainty about the date
and the nature of this refinement.
It must be confessed that zeal for the full nlcaning
of the manhood of Christ ,vas not a very conspicuous
characteristic of Greek theologians. Nevertheless,
,,'hen thus challenged by Apollinarius the Church
,vas true to itself. The Council of Constantinople--
the history of ,vhieh is very obscure in many respects
-certainly follo,ved the lead of an earlier Council
at Alexandria and condemned the Apollinarians, but
,vithout any special definition. \Yhen the Council
,vas later reckoned for ecumenical, this 3 ,vas what
it ,vas chiefly credited ,,,ith-that it had affirmed
that the Church must proelainl a Christ ,vho ,vas not
only truly God but also perfectly and completely
man, ,vith all the complenlent of properly human
faculties, spiritual as ,vell as physical. Once again

1 He adopted the psychological theory which would describe
man as made up of body, soul, and spirit.
I The Fathers mostly read John i 3, 4 as U \Vithout him [the
'Vord] was not anything made. That \\hich hath been made was
[eternally] life in him."
3 As also that it gave complet.ed expression to the doctrine of the
Trinity by bringing the Holy Spirit as well as the Son tmder the
term Homoou-8ios.

AG
\I
ST NESTORIUS 211
the Church had behaved, not as 8. group of philo...
sophers or psychologists seeking to frame a satis-
fying theory of Christ"s person, but as the trustees
for a religion rooted in historical facts, bound to
the full reality of Christ the man.
'fo-day it is not necessary to argue the case against
...\.pollinarius. All our modern Lives of Christ, and
books about Christ, give the fullest interpretation
to IIis manhood and call attention to the over...
\vhelming evidence ,vhich the Gospels give us of the
human spirit-reason and will and feeling-in Jesus.
Present-day enthusiasm is all for the full manhood. I
'fhe question with us is only ,yhether this reality of l
IIis manhood is consistent \vith personal Godhead.
In ancient days, ho\vever, Apollinarius and His
followers found much more popular sympathy than
those ,vho ,yere accused of denying the personal
Godhead of Christ.

IV
'fhen once Inore the balance shifts. There ""as a
school of theologians, already alluded to, who had
their centre at Antioch and did honour to Lucian
as their n1aster, amongst 'Yr horn the nlost famous
names ,,,,ere those of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore
of l\lopsuestia. They ""ere scholars ,vith ,,,,horn
lllodern EngIishmen would have natural sympathy.
'fheir zeal ,vas for a critical and historical interpre-
tation of the sacred books, and for the reality of
t he manhood of Christ. In strenuous opposition
to the tendencies of Alexandria, _ and especially of
.Apollinarius, they emphasized the freedom of Christ's
human "Till and the reality of His human gro,vth
and human limitations in mind as well as body,
even to the point of po
tulating for I-lim, as it seemed,
I an independent human personality, at any rate to
I
tart ,,"ith. The" connection" bet,vecn the divine

212 DEFINITIONS OF COUXCILS
\Vord or Son and the hunlan person of Jesus, the
adopted Son, ,vas, in their- estimation, so close as
to inyolve actual identification of the man J csus
,vith the Son of God. But this ,vas apparently
a gradual process and ,vas the re,vard of a con-
tinuaBy fuller moral perfection. Fundamentally and
originally the man Jesus ,vas a separate person frolH
the eternal Son.
One of the disciples of this school, N estol'ius,
a fiery and pugnacious character, became Bishop
of Constantinople in A.D. 428. His" chaplain,"
Anastaslus, took an early opportunity vehemently
to repudiate the term theotokos ,vhich it ,vas cus-
tomary to apply to the Blcssed Virgin l\lary, signi-
fying precisely that her infant Son ,vas personally
God. "Let no one," he cried, " call1\Iary Theotokos :
for l\Iary ,vas but a ,voman; and it is impossible that
God should be born of a ,voman." Nestorius threw
himself into the defence of the Antiochene doctrine in
special antagonism to the influences from Alexandria,
,vhere the great Cyril ,vas archbishop. In particular,
he ,vas said to have cornmitted himself to the assertion
that" the child of two or three months old I cannot
call God." At once a tunlult arose in the Church,
and controversy ,vas fierce. Fe\v things in the
history of the Church have probably harmed it more
than the bitterness and uncharitableness of its con-
troví'fsialists. N estorius ,vas bitter. But ,vhat has
nlostly harm'2d the Church was the bitterness of its
protagoni
t Cyril. .\ nd there is no question that the
theology he poured forth was distinctly one-sided
and ill calculated to satisfy the reasonable scruples
of the Antiochenes. But ,vith these matters we arc
not here concerned. Nor are ,ve really concerned
,vith the question whether, after all, N estorius ulti-
nlately meant to deny ,vhat the Church ,"as at pain

to affirm. There is no,v ground for believing that,
had he lived a fc,v years longer, he might have been

THEOTOI{OS

213

satisfied to accept the decision of the Council of
Chalcedon in 451, in ,vhich he could have recognized
the safeguarding of ,vhat he valued. 1
But the obscurity of many of the details of the
controversy, and the painfully uncharitable tone of
it, ,vhich leaves a most disagreeable hnpression on
our minds, cannot be allo,ved to obscure the real
importance of the issue. The Creed of Nicaea
affirmed that it ,vas the eternal Son of God, Hitnself
very God, ,vho for us men and for our salvation had
come do\vn and taken flesh of l\Iary and been born
and suffered for us. And long before Kicaea that
,vas the passionate faith of the Church. It "
as
really God, the eternal Son, ,,
ho ""as bQl'n of
lary,
and ,vho lived and died under conditions of a real
humanity. And this continuity of personality ,yas
the very thing \vhich N estorius seelned to deny.
Thus once more a Council, reckoned as ecumenical,
,vas held at Ephesus in 431, and N estorius ,yas
violently condemned and the title Theotokos, ßS
applied to the mother of Jesus-that is, strictly,
"the bearer of God "-,vas made obligatory for
acceptance by the officers and teachers of the Church.
And I do not think it can be doubted that here again
the Church, in refusing to admit that Jesus ,yas

separate person from the Son of God, and affirnlÌng,
on the contrary, that it ,yas the san1e person-the
\V ord or Son-,vho ""as eternally in the being of
God and through ,vhom all things ,vere made, ".ho
was born as a baby of l\lary and lived and died upon
the Cross-in affirming this and denying its contrary
the Church ,vas certainly only reaffirming the doctrine
of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle to the
Hebre,vs.

1 On the subtle and difficult question what Diodore, Theodore,
and Nestorius actually and precisely meant to affirm and deny,
I would refer to the very just summary, as it seems to me, given by
Dr. I(idcl in his just published History of the Church, vol. iii, chaps.
xi and xii.
I'>

214 DI
FINITIOXS OF COUNCILS
The spiritual importance of the question at issue
may be made more apparent by four considerations.
(1) The _ sum anù substance of Christian redemp-
tion lies in the real union of Christians ,,
ith Jesus,
the man ,vho lived and ,vorked and suffered on
earth and no,v reigns in heaven. And the point is
that in being made one ,yith Him-baptized into
Him and receiving into ourselves IIis very life, His
flesh and blood-.-,ve are really made one, not ,vith
any created or intermediate person, but ,vith God
Himself. And it is only because He is verily and
personally God that His manhood can have imparted
to it this capacity for universal participation and
assimilation. St. Cyril is al,vays recurring to this
po in t.
(2) Christians from the beginning, and notably
St. Paul, have insisted upon the pre-eminence and
uniqueness of the self-sacrifice of Christ. No,v,
judged by an objective standard, the measure of
Christ's self-sacrifice ,vithin the limits of His mortal
life cannot be said to be greater, at any rate, than
that of multitudes of martyrs. But it is not ,vithin
these limits that the uniqueness of Christ's self-
sacrifice is found. It lies in the region of His pre-
existent life. It consists in this, that one ,vho
existed in the glory of God consented to abandon
this to us inconceivable glory of life, in order to
accept the conditions and lin1Ïtations and sufferings
of real manhood. This act of self-sacrifice is strictly
unique, and it is so only because the person ,yho
sacrifices Himself is very God-not closely united to
God but personally God. His acts are strictly God's
acts and His love God's love.
(3) Herein lies also the clue to the finality of the
Christ. Intellectually considered, nothing is more
essential to a full faith in Christ than this recognition
of His essential finality-to ,vhich "
e shall have to
recur later on. This means that He is not only the

THE PRINCIPLE AT STAI{E 215
greatest prophet and the most conspicuous saint
and the noblest leader of humanity ,,-ho has ever
lived; for if that ,yere all, obviously "'"e could
" look for another" as great as He, possibly greater
than He. And if Jesus be, as at the last analysis
N estorianism ahvays asserts, a human person, one
among millions of human persons, ,,
hom the divine
\V' ord united to Himself and even (finally) absorbed
into Himself, there is no reason in the nature of
things why the process should not be repeated. It
is, in fact, only the highest example of ,vhat occurs
in its measure in every good man. There may be
another Christ, even conceivably a higher and more
enlightened one. There is no real ground for
asserting the finality of the Christ, unless He be
personally God in manhood. Then, and then only,
must He be essentially and necessarily final. For
there can be no disclosure of God in manhood or
of manhood in God even conceivable ,vhich should
be completer or fuller (at least under the conditions
of this ,vorld) than is given us in Him "Tho is the
\V ord made flesh. Nor in the nature of things can
there be another such. There can be no other such
person as the only-begotten Son of God.
(4) This, too, is important-the "N estorian "
conception is exceedingly difficult to grasp with
precision. It is deeply evasive intellectually con-
sidered, and appears to pass from one form to another.
But the Creed of the Church is a creed for common
men, and must be able to express itself, in those
points for ,vhich it claims popular acceptance, in
broad affirmations-broad as ,yell as true. The
orthodox creed-that for us men and for our salva-
tion very God, the Son of God, consented to come
do,vn from the bosom of the Father to become man
and for us to die-has this broad intelligibility.
But freed from refinements and reduced to a like
broad intelligibility, it is impossible to doubt that
the teaching.. of Kestorius "Tould have inevitably

216 DEFI
ITIOXS OF COUKCILS
taken shape in the proclalnation of Jesus as the
deificd man,! ,vhich from every point of yiew ,,
ould
have been a disaster.

V
Once lnore, and for the last time, the balance
shifts. It is no,v an old Constantinopolitan monk
called Eutyches, ,vho affirmed that though God-
head and manhood ,vere separate before the Incar-
nation, yet in Jesus the manhood ,,,"as in some
sense absorbed and s,vallo,ved up in the Godhead.
There ,vas a ,videspread tendency towards this sort
of "lllonophysitisnl "-this doctrine of the absorp-
tion of the manhood in the Godhead-and the
Eastern Church might easily haye overbalanced on
that side. But the \V cst, in the person of the great
Leo, Bishop of Rome, put its ,veight on the other
side, and at Chalcedon, in 451, the last of the great
definitions was lnade ,,'hich affirlllcd that the man-
hood remained in Christ, not only complete, but
pennanently unconfused-that as Christ ,vas con-
substantial ,vith God according to His Godhead, so
He became and remained consubstantial ".ith us
according to His manhood. So the doctrine ,vas
· fixed that in Christ incarnate there is one person
and that divine, but t,vo natures, divine and human,
the one original and the other voluntarily assumed
by incarnation but permanent and di
tinct. This
-the Chalccdonian-may be considered in principle
the final definition of the Church. If a century later
the Church had occasion to affirn1 that in Christ ,vas
the reality of a hUlnan tfill, and the ,,,hole rational
activity of manhood, that ,vas only a reaftìrnlation-

1 If .N estorianism among Syrians and Assyrians has not taken
any such shape it is, I think, because their so-called Nestorianism
is really not Nestorianism at aU, but in part simply a difficulty of
language and in part lo
ralty to a persecuted leader.

AGAINST EUTYCHES

217

important enough in itself-of ,vhat was really
secured in principle by the definitions ,,-hich excluded
Apollinarianisnl and Eutychianisn1.

'TJ
"r e need pursue the history of ecclesiastical dogma
no further. In this yolun1e ,ve are in no "vay con-
cerned ,vith any question of the autho1"ity ,yhich
these decrees have as dogmas of the Church. The
,,'"hole idea of Church authority ,viII be ignored till
\ve reach the subject of the Church in the next
volume. At present ,ve are simply taking these
decrees as important facts in the historical develop-
Inent of the doctrine of the person of Christ. And
,ve cannot fail to be conscious that they have at
different periods, and especially to-day, been the
subject of ,videspread criticism in intellectual circles,
often violently and conten1ptuously expressed,
especially at their culn1Ïnating point in the fornlula
of Chalcedon \vhich demands our acceptance of the
conception of Christ as throughout, from eternity to
eternity, one and the same diyine person, ,vho
nevel,theless, as incarnate and made man, subsists
in t,vo distinct natures, divine and hun1an. Now,
(1) the" nature" includes the ,viII and the conscious-
ness; and ,ve are here (the critics tell us) postulating
in the human Christ t,vo ,yills and conseiousnesses,
lying (so to speak) side by side in the same person-
a very hnpossible conception-,vhereas in the Gospels
,vhat 've are \vitnesses of is one person, Jesus the
Christ, ,vith one ,,,ill and con
ciousness, the con-
sciousness and ,,,ill of a Son, in presence of another
"rill and consciousness, that of His Father ,vho is
in heaven; and there is no suggestion of a dualism
of ,vilIs or consciousnesses in His O'Vll person.
(2) The identity of the divine personality through-
out seenlS to involve the idea of Christ's manhood

218 DEFINITIONS OF COUNCILS

as "impersonal." So the theologians have con-
stantly called it. But it is a ,vholly unacceptable
idea. It is precisely in Jesus, "the Son of )Ian,"
that \ve seem to see all the characteristics of human
personality at their highest.
Now it must be ackno\vledged that these are
very in1portant criticisms ,vhich, as ,ve hear them,
strike honle ,vith a po,verful sense of truth. And
there is another of a different kind ,vhich urges
that the Councils ,vere in their definitions, by the
use of such ,vords as "substance," "person,"
" nature," tying the Christian religion to a tern-
porary phase of philosophy ,vhich is past and gone,
and from \vhich it had better no,v shake itself
free.
I ,vould seek to give these criticisms, ,vhat they
clearly deserve, the most candid consideration,
,vhich shall be quite free, that is, shall at present
quite ignore the questions of the ecclesiastical
authority claimed for these decisions.
1. The only true and historical ,yay of regard-
ing these dognlatic decisions is to regard thern as
primarily negative. Their motive ,vas not any
.. positively felt need of interpreting or defining the
faith as a thing good in itself, but simply the
pressing necessity for excluding certain very power-
fully supported intellectual theories which were
at work and ,vhich \vere calculated to undermine
the traditions of faith \vorship and practice \vhich
the Church ,vas set to maintain -,vhat it called
"the tradition." It must be admitted that the
love of intellectual definition for its o,vn sake took
possession to a dangerous extent of the Church
both in East and 'Vest. But these "intellectual
exercises ' , have not crystallized as disci plinary
decrees. It is important to notice that Athanasius,
and the Fathers generally, take a very restricted
vie,v of the legitÌlnate functions of the Church with

TIlE FUKCTION OF THE CHURCH 219
regard to Christian doctrine. Athanasius contrasts
it ,vith its functions in respect of discipline. In this
latter region it claims to issue directions on its o,vn
authority. Thus the Council of Kicaea ,vith regard
to the Easter festival said simply that "it seemed
good (ËSO
E) " to the bishops to give such and such
directions. But ,vith regard to doctrine it is much
more modest. "\Yïth reference to the faith they
,vrote-not ' such and such things ,vere determined,'
but 'thus the Catholic Church believes.' And they
added imnlediately the statement of their faith,
to sho,v that their judgment \vas not ne\v but
apostolic, and that \vhat they ,vrote ,vas not any
discovery of theirs, but ,vas "'hat the apostles
taught." 1 And, as a nlatter of fact, St. Athanasius
in his almost endless argumentations hardly ever
refers to the decision of the Council, but prefers to
conduct all his argument in the region of scripture
and the necessities of practical religion and reason.
And in this he is not singular. It is so ,vith almost
all the Fathers. A dogmatic deci sion ,vas for them
certainly a regrettable necessity, only justifiable
under extreme need.
2. But I think that, for reasons already given,
,ve are bound to admit that in the case of each of
the four great councils the decision at ,vhich it
arrived to exclude certain lines of teaching or pro-
posed explanations of the person of Christ ,vas a
necessary decision-really necessary if the faith of
the New. Testament ,vas to be Inail1tained. As I
have said, to admit as tolerable the Arian explanation
of Christ as in effect a demi-god, and thus to re-
pudiate the \vhole basis of strict monotheisnl, ,vhich
inspires both Old and Ne,v Testaments, ,,,ould have
ruined Christianity, by assimilating it to insurgent
Paganism. It ,vas just as necessary, if the faith
of St. Paul and St. John ,vas to be maintained,
1 De Synodis, c. 5.

220 DEFI
ITIOXS OF COUNCILS
decisi vely to exclude any teaching ,vhich funda-
mentally distingui
hed the person of Jesus fronl the
per
on of the Son of God, and thereby con vCl'ted
" incarnation" into "ind\yelling," and substantially
assimilated Christ to prophets and saints. In the
other direction it ,vas certainly as necessary to ex-
clude the ideas ,vhich ,vould haye rendercd Christ's
Inanhood fundalnentally unreal, especially in respect
of just those regions of Inind and "rill and spirit in
\vhich nlan is distinctively lnan. It ,vas, in fact,
in vie,,,,, of the ecclesiastical tendencies of the day,
a miracle of grace that the Church took so firm a
stand against Apollinarius and the l\lonophysites,
though it is precisely this that involved it in the
postulate of the two natures to ,vhich \ye
han return
directly. I see no reason to doubt that if St. Paul
and St. John could have had the situation eXplained
to them, they ,yould have accepted the necessity
for the definitions.
3. Though, as I have said, "re constantly read
highly critical and even contemptuous estimates of
the terminology of the Councils, I do not see that
they could have found at the time better ,yords in
"rhich to embody their decisions, nor haye I ever
seen any better modern terms suggested. In fact
the critics do not generally suggest that the ,york
,va5 badly done for its tinle, but they suggest that
the Councils used (as they \vere bound to use) the
philosophical categories and terms of their day, and
that these categories and terms have been outgro,vn.
But it is very necessary to protest that the Church
,vas not professing to act philosophically. It chose
the terln "of one substance" to exclude the idea
that Christ ,vas not really God and then to e:::clude
the idea that He "
as not really Ulan. As the Church
used the terln it ,vas acting ,vith practical statesman-
ship and discl'Ünination, rather than \vith philo-
sophical accuracy: for it is plain that "unity of

THE CHOICE OF TERl\IS

221

substance" is used in rather different senses ,vhen
it is applied to describe (1) the relation of Christ to
the Father and (2) His relation to His fello,v men.
Its aim ,vas practical. So again it ,vas practical
necessity ,vhich led to its doing the ,vorld a great
service-that is, selecting an old "
ord ,vhich hitherto
had meant no more than" substance" (i.e. hypostasis)
and stamping it ,vith the distinctive lneaning of
" person," an idea for ,,,hich hitherto Greek and
Latin philosophy had had no term. Once more,
if it "
as, as I think it ".as, essential that the Church
should maintain that the Creator and IIis creatures
-God and man-belong to kinds of reality ,vhich
are essentially different, I do not see that it could
have chosen a better ,yord to use than "nature, "
,vhen it affirmed in Christ's one person t,yO
" natures," the one original and the other acquired.
I do not see then ho,y the ,yay in ,vhich the Church
did its defensive or self-protective ,york, so far as
the choice of its terminology is concerned, could
have been bettered. Nor do I see ho\v the
terminology in question could be bettered to-day,
so long as it is granted that the idea to be expressed
is that of the incarnation in a real and full manhood
of one 'v ho belonged to the eternal being of God, as
a Son \vith His Father. On the contrary it has
always appeared to me fairly evident that \vhat
the critics want is not better terms to express the
same idea, but the substitution of a different idea
-either the substitution of what is fundamentally
the pantheistic conception of God, according to
which God and lnan are parts of the one substance,
in place of the essentially different Biblical idea
of God the Creator distinct from His creatures,
or the substitution of the idea of a God-ind\velt
man for that of the incarnate God.
Of course, I kno,y that there is a philosophy ,vhich
deprecates the ,vhole idea of the existence of real

222 DEFIXITIONS OF COUKCILS
objects or things having distinctive qualities or
natures, created by God and in a measure really
kno\vable by us, and of persons nlade in the image
of God, and therefore having a different nature
from nlere things and animals, and of God as the
only self-subsistent and self-complete being, the
Creator of all that is. \Yhat this philosophy suggests
to us as the ultimate reality is (to use Lord Balfour's
language) "an identity ,vherein all differences
vanish, or a unity \\
hich includes, but does not
transcend, the differences \vhich it someho\v holds
in solution." But this sort of philosophy is not
the only Idealislu. And it has to reckon \vith the
sort of Realism \vhich the common sense of man-
kind as ,veIl as the theology of the Bible postulates.
r\nd granted the sort of Realism ,vhich believes in
rea] objects having distinctive natures, and in real
persons, and in a real God the Creator, I do not think
the terminology of the councils can be easily bettered.
4. But the bcst things can be most lanlcntably
abused; and it is manifest in history that the
Greek genius, \vhich exercised itself rightfully \vithin
the Christian Church in defining and protecting
the fundamental faith of Christendom, became
enamoured of its o\vn intellectualism and to a
lamentable extent distorted the true character and
estimate of the Christian religion. For the Christian
religion is a \vay of life-" the ,vay" \vas the first
name for the Church. This" way" involves and
depends upon a certain self-disclosure of God and
certain ideas about the destiny and capacity of man
and his sin and need of redemption. Thus it requires
a Creed, and it is idle to regret the necessity. It
must perforce have formulated and defended the
intellectual principles on \vhich its \yay of life
depends. But it ought ahvays to have presented
itself to mankind first of all as a \yay of life. \Yhile
in fact, under the dominant influence of Greek

IISUSE OF THE DOGl\L-\S

223

intellectualism, the interest in the intellectual pro-
positions and formulas became the forenlost interest,
and the Church presented itself to the world, not as
a society called to live a life, but as a society main-
taining a very elaborate system of doctrines, th
propagation of which was its chief business. This
is the impression ,ve get in history of the later Greek
Church, though the impression made by its mystics
and saints must not be forgotten. And a similar
intellectualisn1 may be charged against the 'Yestern
schoolmen, even though Erasmus and his friends
did not by any means judge them fairly.
Under such conditions the misuse made of the
definitions of the Church is of this kind. They ought
to have been regarded as simply ,yarning men off
certain misleading and one-sided lines of logical
development, leaving them to get their positive
picture of Christ from the Gospels, and their positive
theory from the books of the Ne,v Testament. That,
as ,ve have seen, ,vas the real intention of Athanasius
and others of the Fathers. They talk very little
about the definitions. All their argument-good
and bad-is upon the ground of Scripture and
occasionally of tradition.. and of the meaning of the

acraments and the requirements of the spiritual
life. But another tendency is also apparent and
in effect prevails. The dogmatic decisions become
premises to argue from, and Christ is represented
not as He ,vas, but as, it ,vas thought, He nlust
have been. Thus, because it is laid do,vn that there
are to be recognized in Christ the t,vo distinct
natures, divine and human, wh.at it is not unfair
to call a fancy picture of Christ is dra ,vn, as acting
no,v in one nature and no,v in another, no'v as God
and no,v as man, ,vhich does not really correspond
to the picture in the Gospel. ...<\gain, it comes to be
argued that because He ,vas God, therefore lIe must
have been continuously omniscient, and such a plain

224 DEFIKITIONS OF COUKCILS
staten1ent as " Of that day and that hour kno,veth
no one, no, not the Son," is eXplained a".ay to mean
that lIe did not choose to reveal ,vhat lIe really
knc,v. "The trut 1 1 ," as Theodoret grÍlnly obseryed,
"tells a lie." Later all that belongs to hUlnan
limitations-mental gro,vth, anxiety, faith, hope,
even prayer in the real sense-is excluded from His
consciousness as inconsistent ,vith Hi
Godhead.
The intellectual dogn1as, instead of serving their
original and legitÜnate purpose, haye become the
premises from ,,,hich conclusions are dra,vn as to
,vhat the Incarnate 111Ust have been, ,vhich practically
obscure the picture in the Gospels. So ,ve feel it
to be ,vith the later scholastic theologians. The
reality of our Lord's humanity, so far as the life of
IIis soul ,vas concerned, becomes ahnost obliterated. l
Or again, because the dogmatic decision against
Nestorius laid it do,vn that there ,vas one continuous
personality and that divine, the phrase becomes
current that the humanity of Christ ,vas "im-
personal," 2 ,vhercas in the Gospels we feel that
""C have 3 picture of the Son of l\lan intensely in..
dividual and unmistakably personal in His manhood.
5. But the abuse of a thing does not provc that
it has no use. The definitions of the Councils ,vere
no doubt 111isused, but ,ve have seen reason to believe
that they ,,"ere necessary, and that the lines of
thought ,vhich they ,vere intended to exclude ,vere
really destructive of the foundations of the Chl'istian
faith. The best ,vay to test their legitimacy is to
inquire ,vhether, accepting them as limits to our
thinking, ,ve arc able to accept at its full value and
fairly interpret the picture ,vhich the Gospels present
to us of the Son of 1\Ian. As ,ve have seen, it is not
the picture of a mere man ,vith a lllerely hUl11an
consciousness or a merely prophetic claim. It cannot

1 See on all this nlY Dissertatiom. pp. 154 fi.
· I quite recognize the truth which the phrase is meant to convey
(see below, p. 227). It is not used in the formula of Chalcedon.

THE SELF-El\IPTYI
G

225

be so interpreted in anyone of the Gospels. Only
the incarnation doctrine of St. Paul and St. J Ohl1
can really interpret it. On the other hand, the
divine person in the Gospels is certainly presented
to us as gro,ving in ,visdom, as being tempted, as
asking questions, apparently for inforlnation, as
praying, as over,vhelmed ,vith anxiety, as asking
upon the Cross the great question of the perplexed
and disn1ayed all the ,vorld over, and finally, as,
at least in one respect, asserting His ignorance.
And, negatively, He never sho,vs any sign of tran-
scending the kno,vledge of natural things possible
to His age, country, and condition. Ho,v can these
facts be reconciled with His personal Godhead ?
I see no help in solving this question so great
as is supplied by t"ro phrases in ,vhich St. Paul
characterizes the act of the Son of God in taking
our manhood 1_" he beggared himself" (or "made
himself poor "), and "he emptied himself" or
" annulled himself." St. Paul, in using these words,
is not thinking of any particular aspect of the human
life of Jesus, such as the limitation of His kno,v-
ledge; but he regards the Incarnation in itself as
having involved in some sense the abandonment
of "riches" "rhich belonged to the previous divine
state of the Son. It is when we look at the facts in
the Gospel that '\ve are led to ,velcon1e St. Paul's
,vords as giving us the clue to what we see there.
The divine Son in becoming man must, ,\,ye conclude,
have accepted, yoluntarily and deliberately, the
limitations involved in really living as man-even
3 s sinless and perfect man-in feeling as a man,
thinking as a man, striving as a man, being anxious
and tried as a man. Jesus does not indeed appear
in the Gospels as unconscious of His diyine nature.
He kno,vs He is Son of the Father. He" remembers"
ho,v He came from God and ,vould go back to God.
But He appears none the less as accepting the
1 2 Cor. viii 9, Phil. ii 7.

226 DEFINITIOKS OF COU1\CILS
limitations of manhood. And St. Paul, I say, gives
us the hint ,vhich directs our vision. This "
as no
failure of po,ver. God is love, and love is sympathy
and self-sacrifice. The Incarnation is the supreme
act of self-sacrificing synlpathy, by ,vhich one ,vhose
nature is divine ,vas enabled to entcr into human
experience. lIe en1ptied Himself of divine preroga-
tives so far as ,vas involved in really becoming nlan,
and gro,ving, feeling, thinking and suffering as man.
No doubt such a conception raises questions to
,vhich ,ve can find no full ans,ver. Thus-Is the
self-emptying to be conceived of as a continual
refusal to exercise the free divine consciousness 'v hich
He possessed, or as something once for all involved
in the original act by ,vhich He entered into the
limiting conditions of manhood? And I think if
,ve are ,vise ,ve shall not attempt to ans,vcr the
question. 'Ye have not the kno,vledge of the inner
life of Jesus ,yhich ,yould make an ans,ver possible.
Or again, ,,'e are asked ho,y ,ve relate this " limited"
condition of the Son as incarnate ,vith His exercise
of all the cosn1ic functions of the eternal 'Y ord-
,yhat the N e,v 'Testalnent calls "the sustaining" or
" bearing along of all things" or the holding all the
universe of things together-and again I think
,ve had better give no ans,ver. All that appears
evident is that it ,vas the eternal Son ,vho ,vas
manifested in human nature as Jesus of Nazareth,
and that within the spheTc and lindt of II is mOl.tal
life He appears as restricted by human conditions;
and ,ve thankfully accept this supreme example of
humility and self-sacrifice, ,vithout attempting to
relate it to ,vhat lies outside our possibilities of
kno,yledge. 1 "r e do ,yell to be agnostics, if ,ye put
our agnosticism in the right place.

1 I have endeavoured to enter at greater length into this question
in Dissertations, ii, where I have also given full quotations from
the Fathers.

THE SELF-LIl\IITATION OF GOD 227

Now the recognition that the Incarnation involved
this limitation in the exercise of divine faculties,
within its sphe1"e, is quite consistent ,vith the terms
of the ecclesiastical definitions. 'Ve are bound to
recognize the nature of God and the nature of l\Ian
as both belonging throughout to the person of the
Christ, and as in their essence distinct. Only that
po,ver of self-limitation and self-adaptation in God
,vhich ,ve have already recognized as in a measure
involved in creation, and especially in the creation
of free spirits, 1 ,ve should here, in Jesus Christ,
recognize again as brought to bear with a fresh
intensity to make the Incarnation really possible,
spiritually as well as physically. Just as ,ve believe
that no,v in the heavenly places Christ is still truly
man, but that the manhood is all radiant ,vith God-
head: so in His earthly state ,ve should believe
that Christ was really God and so knew Himself,
but that Godhead ,,-as submitting itself to the
limitations of manhood. As St. Cyril puts it: "He
suffered the limits of humanity to prevail in IIis
case." 2
But we must surely repudiate that mode of speech
which prevailed at the time of Chalcedon and later,
"Thereby the life of Christ on earth ,vas represented as
containing two consciousnesses and t"..o 'v ills, so to
speak, juxtaposited in distinction the one from the
other, so that He thought and spoke and acted no\v
as God and no,v as man. "Ve should repudiate this,
because we feel that the Gospels present us ,vith
one who is, and kno,vs Himself to be, ahva ys and
in all things the Son of God, but ,vho is throughout
existing, acting, and speaking under the conditions
and limitations of manhood.
Also ,ve should deprecate the unguarded use of a
phrase \vhich became current among theologians-
"Te mean the phrase ,vhich describes Christ's man-
I See Belief in God, pp. 115-17. 2 Di88ert., p. 146.

I " (,.,. A
V'C nil r,.p

228 DEFIXITIOXS OF COUNCILS

hood as "impersonal." All that this really means
is that the manhood had no separate personality.
There ,vas only one person-the eternal ""'ord-
,vho exists eternally in God, ,vho ,vas active in the
'v hole universe, and ,vho at last ,vas incarnate in
Jesus Christ. But ,vhen He took the Inanhood,
complete in all hUlllan faculties and activities, He
bccan1e to it the centre of personality. He made it
personal. Thus the humanity of Jesus in the
Gospels has nothing of abstract universality about
it. It is no mere veil of the Godhead. It is, indeed,
intensely individual. And if man, in distinction
from all other creatures, ,vas originally made in the
divine image and likeness, ,ve can understand ho,v
the divine person can become the ego or subject
of the manhood in Jesus ,vithout its thereby ceasing
to be human. l
I do not then think that the Chalcedonian fornlula,
summarizing the decisions of the Councils, requires
revision in itself; but if ,ve ,vould justify it, we must
recognize very fl'ankly that the purpose of the dogmas
,vas negative-to exclude certain fundamentally
Inisleading interpretations of the person of Christ-
and ,ve must insist that for our positive conception
of the person of Jesus ,ve need constantly to study
,vith unembarrassed eyes the picture in the Gospels
and the doctrine of the Epistles.

X OTE A, see p. 198
(1) "The Shepherd:' of llennas.
(2) The "Didache."
(3) The U Odes of Sololfton."
(1) "The Shepherd" of lIennas.-Undue attention
has, I think, so far as his theology is concerned, been
given to this interesting prophet of the early Roman
Church. He is interesting as a prophet-interesting on
1 See further appended note B, p. 230.

/
IIER
l.c\S AND DIDACHE

229

account of his visions, ,vhich he and others believed to
be inspired, and on account of the enthusiasm which
he thre,v into the message from God given him to
deliver. His importance lies in the ethical region. He
sho\vs that the Church, or that part of the Church
\vhich accepted him as a prophet, still clearly viewed
the Christian religion as "the \vay." Its main interest
\YßS moral. The theological background of Hermas'
visions ,vas not a pparentIy scrutinized. If \ve do
scrutinize it, it must be confessed that his theology is
confused and confusing. He certainly believed in the
incarnation of the Son of God, 'Yho "\vas older than
any creature," through \vhom all things \vere made and
in whom they are sustained. He is thus certainly no
Ebionite or humanitarian in his estimate of Christ.
But he is very confusing in the language he uses about
the Holy Spirit and holy spirits, and about the relation
of the Son and the Spirit, "'horn he sometimes seems
to identify, and he may be accused of" Apollinarian"
language about the flesh of Christ. I think the best
account of hin1 is still Dorner's. But the fact is he \va

no theologian, and his careless language is such as
Dlust almost inevitably have occurred before the day

,,-hen doctrine \vas forn1ulated.
(2) The teaching of the Tv.:elve Apostles still appears to
nle to be a yery early and very Judaic document \vhich
Jllust represent SOlne group of Christian comnlunities
quite outside the main strean1S of Christian influence,
,vho must, nloreover, have lost contact \yith the main
strealns early, and remained uninfluenced by the ideac;
of St. Paul and St. John. Its ethical teaching is not
like that of St. James. It barely deserves to be called
Christian. The document does not supply any clear
indication of a doctrine of Christ's person. But it
includes the direction to baptize "in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," which
implies the doctrine of the Son as a divine person.
(3) The" Odes of Solonton."-The beautiful nlysticisn1
of these odes, ,vhich Dr. Rendel Harris discovered and
publ
shed some fou.rteen years ago (Cambridge Press),
ImplIes (see especIally Ode 41) a quasi-Johannine
doctrine of Christ (see p. 76).
]6

2:10

THE PER SOX OF CHRIST

(4) Af) has been already renlarked, the Ebio.nites, i.e.
that obscure section of Judaistic Christians \vho definitely
rejected the doctrine of Christ as a divine person
incarnate, represent a later deterioration. They cannot
be quoted as if they represented the belief of St. James:
see Ilort, J udaistic Christianity, p. 200; and B. I.
Kidd, llistory of th
Christian Chztrch (Oxford, 1922),
i. pp. 85-103.

NOTE B, see p. 228
The Tenn "Enhypostasia"
\Y c should be very grateful to Dr. H.
1. Relton for
his most suggestive and excellent Stu.dy in Christo logy,
and to Dr. IIeadlam for his preface to that study.
Dr. Relton has done good service in seeking to familiarize
Uf) \vith the term enhypostasia, to \vhich Leontius of
Byzantium sought to give currency, to express the idea
that the nlanhood of Jesus found its personality in the
personality of the Son of God. Leontius holds a very
important place in the sixth century as resisting the
current tendency to monophysitism, even inside the
ùrthodo
church. I have tried to bring this out in
Dissertations, iii (see quotation, p. 277, and references in
index under the heading Leontius).
Iay I venture,
however, to deprecate the atten1pt of Dr. ReIton to
revive the idea of Apollinariu,; that \ve are to ascribe
an eternal humanity to the 'V ord, before His incarnation.
I suppose that there is some deep sense in ,vhich it must
be true that all created things have their eternal counter-
part in the 'Y ord, and hunlanity amongst them. But
this applies to all created things. And \ve do well not
to be "\vise above that ,vhich is ,vritten." There is
nothing in Scripture suggesting an eternal manhood in
God-nothing at least that is not more adequately
represented by the idea that man pre-eminently was
made in the divine inlage. And this is enough to
explain ho\v God could take our manhood.

CHAPTER \TIII

THE IMPLIED DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY

I
IT has already become apparent that the Christian
faith in Jesus as the Son of God or ""'ord of God
incarnate involves a belief that the being of God is
not so " simple" as the Jews, ,vith their less intimate
kno,vledge of God, had supposed. He is still the
" one Lord and His name one "; but this unity is
found to contain a distinction within itself-first
of all the distinction of Father and Son, which had
not been made evident at first. l God had, so to
speak, come nearer to men in Jesus Christ, to redeem
them, and more of His inner being had shown itself
to the discerning minds of men in the process. It
is very importanL to take_note that belief in the
Holy '
rrinity ,vas n ot the result of any philosophical
or speculative movement among the Christians.
There have been in the ,vorld speculative philo-
sophies ,,'hich have arrived at some sort of Trini-
tarian belief. Thus we read of an Indian Trinity-
Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva--and of a Trinity in the
later Greek (N eo- Platonist) philosophy-l he One,
1 '\"hatever anticipations of Trinitarian doctrine have been
discovered by Christian theologians in the Old Testament were
certainly not apparent to the Jews. I have already had occasion
to speak of the development in later Jewish thought of the
"wisdom It or "word" of God, as alive and operative in naturfl,
in terms almost suggestive of distinct personality. But this
suggestion never became explicit among them.
231

282 DOCTRL""E OF THE HOLY TRINITY
Reason, and Soul. The former of these doctrines of
Trinity was an intellectual attempt to const.ruct a
bridge between the Absolute One and the many
gods of popular belief, and also an attempt to
harmonize hostile cults 1; and the latter ,vas the
result of a purely philosophical attempt to analyse
existence into its elenlents. But the Christians,
without any philosophical intention at all, and ,vith-
out any speculative interest, found themselves
believing in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as a result
of their experiences as the disciples of Jesus. The
name of God had become for them "the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
As a consequence of the way in ,vhich they came so
to believe, it follows that the doctrine at first pre-
sented no intellectual difficulty to their minds: for
in fact mankind experiences no intellectual diffi-
culty in believing anything which comes to it as
experienced fact, though the intellectual analysis of
it may prove it to be as mysterious as possible, and
the explanation of it whoHy baffling. So it appears
to be at present ,vith the ultimate elements ,vith
which physics deals, and indeed generally with the
ultimates of every science. 2 The difficulty of ex-
planation and analysis does not carry with it any
difficulty in believing that the facts are so and so.
So it ,vas at last ,vith the Christians, "yhen the need
of explaining themselves became urgent, Rnd their
speculative interest was awakened. They found the
idea of the Trinity most mysterious, and its formu-
lation in ,yords most difficult and always finally
1 See De 18
Iazelière, Evolution de Civili8aticn I ndienlle, ii 72 :
U De fait la trimurti n'est pas Is conception de troUJ hypostases,
mais Is. réconciliation de trois cultes hostiles."
f I This is what Huxley means by protesting that he was not 80
foolish as to reject Christianity because it is mysterious. " The
mysteries of the Church are child's play compared with the m
.8teries
of Nature. The doctrine of the Trinity is not more puzzling than
the necessary antinomies of physical a:speculation " (see my Bampton
Lætures, lect. ii, note 15, pp. 246-7).

HO'V THE BELIE
' AROSE 233
somewhat unsatisfactory; but, before they made
any attempt to understand or to formulate, they
would have said that in their experience of Jesus
and His Spirit the true God had unmistakably
revealed Himself to them and laid hold upon them
in a novel ,yay. So that, as I say, they found
themselves believing in Father and Son and Spirit;
and the subsequent difficulty they found in ex-
plaining to themselves or to others the mystery
involved in their belief did not disturb their faith
in the fact.
Ho,v the belief came about ,ve can easily under-
stand. They came to believe in Jesus as being the
Son of God. And reflecting on ""hat His own words
about Himself implied, and also on what ,vas implied
in His divine sovereignty as Lord of all, they
recognized in Him, as ""e have seen, one who had
come into the world from the Father and ,vho
belonged to His being, as Son ,vith a Father. Then
again they ,vere led to expect from Jesus, the
Christ, the outpouring of the Spirit of God. And a
fe, v days after He had finally left them, the Holy
Spirit actually came, taking them as it ,vere by
storm, and possessing their souls with an almost
intoxicating force. And the Spirit dealt with them
like a person controlling them, and guiding them,
in the most unmistakable ways. So we see in the
Acts and Epistles ho,v the thought of God was
lTIodified by their experiences, and the Name of
God became to them the threefold Name of the
Father and of the Son, or Lord Jesus Christ, and
of the Holy Ghost. It is very interesting to watch
ho,v the very complex and difficult idea of Trinity
in Unity passes into their experience, and ,ve will
seek to follow the process in some detail. But the
result is manifest prior to any reflection upon the
intellectual problem ,vhich it presents. You see
what had happened ,vhen St. Paul prays that "the

284 DOCTRIXE O
., TIlE IIOL Y TRINITY
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
llnd the fello,vship of the Holy Spirit may be ,vith
you all "; or ,vhcn he ,vrites about the" same Spirit"
"\\
ho pours out the lnanifold gifts in ,,-hich the Church
rejoices, and the" sanle Lord" ,vho presides over its
111anifold ministrations, or the "saIne God" ,,,hose
presence is felt in all its various activities; or ,,-hen,
enumerating the grounds of Christian unity, he
makes mention of the one Spirit, one Lord, one
God and Father of all!; or ,vhen St. Peter ,vrites
to the Christians of Asia as those who feel upon
them a di vine election according to the predes-
tinating choice of God the Father, in sanctification
of the Spirit, unto obedience to Jesus Christ and
purification through His blood 2; or when St. Jude
bids Christians to build themselves up in their most
holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keeping them-
selves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 3 In all these cases the name
" God" is reserved for the
-'ather. It was only
slowly that the Son and the Spirit came to be freely
called God, though both St. Paul C and St. John do
-so call the Lord Jesus. The reason for this reserve
".as, no doubt, that the instinct of monotheism was
against such a use, and nothing ,vas more important
than to preserve the monotheistic standing ground
of the Old Testament against the surging Paganism
around. But there ic; no question that the gracious
activities of the Son and the Spirit among men were,
to their believing minds, prop
rly activities of God.
'rhus, ,vhether it be the case, as St. Matthew's Gospel
relates, that our Lord actually named the Threefold
Name to the disciples before His departure, or
,vhether, as so many critics suggest, it was rather
that the Palestinian editor of the first Gospel ,vas
so familiar with the formula as to attribute it to

1 2 Oar. xiii 13, I Cor. xii 4-6, Eph. iv 4-5. i 1 Pet. i 2.
3 Juåe 20-21. ' See above" p. 86.

HO'V EXPRESSED IN N. T. 285
our Lord, we understand ho,," inevitable it ",.as that
the Name of God should have come to be so named;
and when, to,vard the end of the first century,
Clement of Rome ,vishes to repeat the solemn
affirmation of the old prophets" as the Lord liveth,"
we understand ho,v natural it was that it should
take the threefold form-" as God liveth, and the
Lord Jesus Christ liveth
and the Holy Spirit." 1
That is what" the living God" had come to mean.

II

Now we must examine more in detail how the
distinctions in the being of God emerge.
(1) The three distinguishable Persons.-That the
Son of God, as He ,vas on earth, was a person
distinguishable from IIis Father is evident. He
spoke of His own intimate fello,vship váth the
Father as person with person. 'Ve have traced the
steps by which the first disciples ,vere led to the
conviction that this fello\vship of Son with Father
was superhuman and belonged to God's being before
the world was-that is to His eternal being. 2 We
have seen no reason to doubt that St. Paul occasion-
ally calls the Lord Jesus by the title God, and
St. John evidently does so. This is the ne,v thought
of God-that the Father ,vas never ,vithout His Son,
or God never ,vithout His Image or 'Vord-sub-
ordinate to the Father as lIe ,vho receives to IIim
who gives, but belonging to His Being. So far the
1 Clem., ad Cor. Iviii 2. I do not cite 1 John v 8-the text of
the three heavenly witnesses-because, of course, it is not authentic.
We may be thankful that Roman Catholic scholars are now sHowed
to acknowledge this.
I Dr. Rashdall says (Je
Human and Dit-'ine, p. 50) that St. John
does not call the pre-existing "\Y ord "Son," but surely he does in
John i 18 (if the right reading is "God only begotten," it carries
the same meaning); cf. iii 17. Also Jesus asserts that His Self-
He who now speaks as man-was pre-existent (viii 58, x 36, xvi 28
xvii [))! '

236 DOCTRINE OF TIlE IIOL Y TRIXITY
New Testament plainly in1plies a distinction of
persons in the Godhead.
Again the Christ, ,vho is the Son, ,vas to besto,v the
Spirit, in ,vhom He Himself lived. In the Synoptists
our Lord very seldom is represented as speaking
about the Spirit. Once He seelns to speak of the
Spirit, ,,
ho d,vells in I-lim and in ,vhosc power He
acts, as a person who can be blasphemed, and again
He promises that He shall d,vell in His disciples
and inspire them to speak l'ight ,vords.! But ,ve
have noticed that the intensity of the belief of the
earliest Church in the Spirit ,,
ould suggest that our
Lord must have spoken more on this subject than
the Synoptists \vould suggest, and certainly in the
fourth Gospel there is much more. There certainly
our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as of a distinct
person, "another paraclete" or helper, who is to
take His o\vn place. In these last discourses,
though the Greek noun for Spirit is neuter, He is
al\vays referred to by the masculine adjective" He." 2
lie is described in decidedly personal language as
guide, interpreter, remembrancer, ,vitncss and judge,
convicting the \vorld.
Thus it does not surprise us to find the earliest
Church in Jerusalem and in its further extension
speaking of the Holy Ghost as of a person possessing
the Church. To lie to the Chul'ch, as Ananias and
Sapphira did, is to "tempt" the IIoly Ghost and
to "lie" to HÍ1n, that is to God. lIe is a person
being" resisted" by the Jews. He gives directions,
spe
king in the heart of individuals, to do or not
to do this or that, to go h e or there. He" carries
ofi" Philip the Evangelist. He is joined to the
apostles and elders at the Council in Jerusalem in
1
Iark iii 29, xiii 11. But in the Old Testament once at least
the Spirit of God is momentarily distinguished from the Father,
as sending the Righteous Servant, "The Lord God hath Bent me
and hiB Spirit" (Is. xlviii 16).
I John xiv 26, xv 26, xvi 8.

TIlE SPIRIT DISTINCT FROl\1 CIIRIST 231
giving their decision. He directs the appointment
of particular missionaries and appoints presbyter-
bishops.! From time to time the Lord Jesus appears
to Stephen and to St. Paul, or speaks to the latter, 2
but such appearances or messages appear to be
thought of as quite distinguishable from the ordi-
llQ,ry guidance given by the Spirit: that is to say,
" the Spirit of Jesus " is not confused with the Lord
Jesus.
So in St. Paul's Epistles the Holy Spirit is spoken
of as a person. He intercedes with groanings for
the Church, as dwelling at its heart, and the Father
recognizes His mind, because He intercedes accept-
ably. He bears ,vitness ,vithin the heart of the
Christian to his human spirit. He can be grieved
and disappointed. 3 Constantly in St. Paul He is
spoken of as "the Spirit" or "the Spirit of God"
or " the Spirit of Christ," so as to be plainly distin-
guished from Christ, though in one passage Christ
in His glorified manhood is spoken of by St. Paul as
having become "quickening spirit," 4 and once " the
Lord" and "the Spirit" appear to be identified.
This passage, and the various uses of "spirit" in
the New Testament, are examined else,vhere in some
detai1. 5 But for the present I ,,,,ill content myself
,vith a protest. To say, as "the critics" are so
fond of doing, without more ado, that St. Paul
" identifies" the glorified Christ and the Spirit, on
the strength of one phrase,6 ,y hile in some thirty
passages he distinguishes then1, is unreasonable and
as far as can be from the spirit of legitimate criticism.
St. Paul is not a writer ,vho is precise in his use of

1 See Acts v 3, 4, 9, vii 51, viii 29, 39, xiii 2, xv 28, xvi 7, xx 28.
I Acts vii 55, ix 41, xviii 9, xxiii 11.
I Rom. viii 16, 26, 27, Eph. iv 30, 1 Thes. v 19.
I 1 Cor. xv 45.
II 2 Cor. iii 17. See a.ppended note, p. 253.
, And even here, according to the :rrISS., he also speaks of " the
Spirit of the Lord," thus drawing a. distinction.

288 DOCTnI
E OF TIlE HOLY TRINITY
terms. But he is a ,vriter ,vho, without such tech-
nical precision, has a remarkable power of making
his meaning clear on the ,vhole. He uses U spirit"
in a great variety of senses. But on the whole he
leaves no doubt in our mind that he thinks of the
Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church as a self-conscious
and ,villing agent, distinguishable from the Father
or God and from the glorified Christ. There is "one
God and Father," and "one Lord," and "one
Spirit." That is the total impression.
Thus I think ,ve shall give a true account of the
doctrine of the Bible as a whole about the Holy
Spirit if ,ve say that in the Old Testament the Holy
Spirit of God expresses the activity of God in the
,vorld, and especially His activity in " inspiring" ex-
ceptional men and most conspicuously the prophets;
and that He is promised as the special endowment
of the future
Iessiah and of the "servant of
Jehovah," and thereafter as the endowment of all
lnen in the
Iessianic kingdom. But in all this there
,vas very little tendency to speak of the Spirit as a
person distinguishable from God. In the New Testa-
ment, ho,vever, this tendency becomes very marked.
The Spirit is still the active energy of God. But
there is a. very marked tendency to think of Him,
lodged as He is in the heart of the Church and in the
heart of the individual Christian, as a person-a
self-conscious subject-distinguishable from God and
from Christ, the Lord or the Son of God, who sends
Him.
On the ,vhole I hold it as unquestionable that the
Church at the end of the Apostolic Age is found
believing, as a result of its experience of Jesus and
I-lis Spirit, in three distinguishable agents: (1) God,
,vhonl they no,v kno,v as the Father; (2) Jesus, the
Christ and Lord, whom they believe in as the Son
or 'Vord of the Father, who for their sakes had been
made man, and in that manhood glorified and

THE THREE 1tIUTUALL Y IKCLUSIVE 239
spiritualized had gone into heaven and had sent
down upon the Church (3) the Holy Spirit, His
own Spirit and the Father's, to be their helper,
strengthener, guide, and intercessor; and their
thought of the one God includes that of the three
" persons."
(2) Their mutual inclusiveness.-But so far we have
given but a very one-sided account of the theology
of the Ne\v Testament. It is true that they believe
in one God the Father, and one Lord the Son, and
one Spirit of the Father and the Son, each conceived
of as divine and personally distinct. But this sug-
gests three Gods, and that is not by any means the
total picture. So close a unity is suggested that
each involves the others. This impression is conveyed
quite without the appearance of conscious intention,
but very subtly, both in St. Paul and in St. John.
In St. Paul the Holy Spirit possesses the Church
and its melnbers, so that the Church as a whole and
the body of each member of the Church is His temple
(1 Cor. iii 16, 17, and vi 19). But the presence of the
Holy Spirit, that and nothing else, implies and
carries \vith it the presence of Christ. He treats the
Spirit d,velling in us, or our having the Spirit, as
equivalent to Christ d\velling in us (Rom. viii 9, 10).
And the Spirit (or Christ) d\velling in us implies or
involves God d,velling in us (1 Cor. iii 16, 17). Each
involves the others. So again it is the Spirit that
binds the body, which Christians are, into one, and
diffuses in it His manifold gifts. Therefore it is the
body of Christ-even Christ Himself-and He also
is described, not only as the head of the body, but the
all-pervading source of its life and unity (1 Cor.
xii 11-13 and Eph. iv 15-16), and the" fullness of
Christ" into \vhich it grows is also called the" fullness
of God" (Eph. iv 13, iii 19). Though the Three are
spoken of as personally distinct, each by His presence
and actions involves the presence and action of all.

240 DOCTRINE OF THE IIOL Y TRINITY

rhe three are one. So in St. John the promised
coming of the Spirit involves Christ's coming: "I
will come unto you." The" other paraclete " is to
be no substitute for His absence but the security for
His presence. And as He abides in the Father, and
the Father in Him, so His coming "'in be the Father's
coming: ""\tV e will come unto you" (St. John xiv
16-23). So in creation and the sustentation of nature,
Christ is the agent-through Him are all things, and
in Him all things consist. For that very reason all
things arc " through " God as well as from Him and
unto Him (Ronl. xi 86). This subtle thought appears
constantly. The three are by no means separate
persons. There is, it seems, in the three but one
being, one mind, one activity.
The common idea of human persons attributes to
them a mutual exclusiveness. They have been de-
scribed as "impermeable." This iInpression, ho,,,-
ever, is largely derived from the separatedness of
human bodies. "\tVhen we get to the spiritual self of
a man, we find that personality is radically social
and deeply permeable.! Nevertheless, the inlpression
given us of the mutual interpenetration of the divine
Three suggests a unity to ,vhich the closest conceivable
fellowship of human persons could not approach.
It would seem as if the Father can do nothing except
through the Son or "\tV ord and by the Spirit, and the
Son nothing except from the Ï1npulse of the Father
and in the Spirit, and the Spirit nothing except fronl
the Father and the Son, bringing them ,vith Him in
His action. 2

1 See especially Canon Richmond's Essay on Personality as a
Philosophical Principle (Edwin Arnold, 1900)-8 very valuable
book which has never received sufficient attention.
I It is to be noted, however, as I have mentioned before, that
barely a word is said in the N.T., as far as I can ascertain, of the
activity of the Spirit in nature or in the conscience of men in general,
or anywhere at all except inside the Church. The gift of the Spirit
is represented as poured out upon Christ a.nd, through Him, upon

THE FORr.IULATION OF DOCTRINE 241
All this has a more absorbing interest because it
appears so unintentionally. It all emerges in the
process of man's redemption (save so far as cosn1Ïc
functions are also ascribed to the Son ).1 But it
would seem as if, in the process of redemption, ,ye
necessarily get some glimpse into the eternal being
of God. This appearance of a trinity in unity-
as Father and Son and Spirit co-operate in the 'work
of redeeming man-suggests necessarily ,vhat God
is in Himself. The secret of His being is, as it ,,-ere,
in a measure, overheard. The Church, throlJgh its
experience of redemption by Father, Son, and Spirit,
found itself believing in a trinity of divine persons
and (none the less) in the unity of God.

III
It was with this equipment of faith that the Church
,vent out into the ,vorld which \ve have already
described as full of inteHectual curiosity and the love
of abstract discussion, as 'well as full of a deep sense
of spiritual need, which prepared it to welcome any
real or pretended revelation from the unseen world.
It was required to explain its faith to the outside
\vorld, and it found the necessity equally urgent to
His Church. " The Spirit was not yet" till Christ poured it out,
and, except in the channel of the Church, not a word is said suggest.
ing His activity. This silence surely does not mean that the Spirit
is not the "giver of life" wherever life is. And we are surely
right to argue that where the fruits of the Spirit in human goodness
appear, there is the activity of the Spirit. But it is very notable
that, while the Word of God is said to be the Light which lightens
every man, nothing of the sort is suggested about the Spirit. Our
attention is solely directed to His action in the Church-so far as the
New Testament is concerned.
1 It is worth noting that we can know nothing (save by very fallible
conjecture or reaaoning) about the inner relations of the being of
God except what is reflected in the original experience of the
Church. Thus the ground for belief in the eternal procession of
the Spirit from the Father through the Son lies simply in the fact
that He did so "proceed" when He was poured out upon the
Church.

242 DOCTRINE OF TIlE HOLY TRINITY
explain itself to itself. And the stimulus to explana-
tion lay chiefly in various suggestions or theories which
lllight be more or less plausible, but 'v hich the Church
felt \vould undermine its faith and its tradition, or were
contrary to Scripture-" Scripture" meaning fir6t the
Old Testament books and then, as the Gospels and
St. Paul's Epistles and the other books of the New
'festament ,vere gradually "canonized," the New
Testament books also.
As has been already explained in connection with
t he doctrine of the person of Christ, the Church
teachers made many mista.kes. The U prophet"
llermas in the Roman Church ,vas ,videly believed
in as a real prophet ,vho received symbolic visions
,yhich really came from God; and his moral message
,vas full of edification; but he had no instinct for
theology, and his utterances, so far as they concern
the doctrine of God, are confused and confusing. l
So also some of the apologists, in their attempts to
expound the Christian faith in terms of current
philosophy, use expressions ,,, hich ,vere afterwards
repudiated by the Church, as when they seem to
represent the divine Reason as an eternal quality
in God ,vhich became the personal "Tord or Son only
,vhen proceeding forth from God in the act of crea-
tion. 2 Inasmuch as the individual teachers were
certainly not infallible, mistakes were inevitable.
But St. Paul and St. John, ,vhen they look back to
the beginning before the ,vorld ,vas, suggest to us
no such idea, but the thought of one who in that
eternity already was thc Son and the \Vord of God,
,vith God as His offspring, but distinct from Him.

1 He seems to confuse the Holy Spirit with the eternal spiritual
being of our Lord; and Justin Martyr's teaching about the Holy
Spirit is unsatisfactory, as judged either by Scriptural or later Church
standards (see Dr. Armitage Robinson, The" Apostolic Preoching "
oj St. Irena
u8, S.P.C.K.; and Swete, The Holy Spirit in tM A71citnl
Church, pp. 25-39).
I See Dr. Kidd, BiBt. oj the Ohurch, i 359-71.

THE DIFFICULTY OF EXPRESS lOX 243
"He (the Son) is before all things." "In the
beginning was the \Vord, and the 'Vord ,vas with
God, and the Word ,vas God." 1
On the whole the difficulty proved to be to avoid,
on the one hand, language which suggested Tritheism
--i .e. the belicf in three Gods rather than one, or
one God who was the source of t,vo others, the Son
and the Spirit, or ,vho ,vas the source of one other
(the Son) and an influence called the Holy Spirit-
and, on the other hand, to avoid ,vhat came to be
called Sabellianism, or l\lodalism, ,vhich sought to
describe Son and Spirit as only aspects, phases, or
manifestations of the one God and not distinctive
persons. On the whole, the danger ,vas greater in
the Tritheistic direction than in the Sabellian, for
the Church was keenly alive at least to the distinctive
being of the Son ,vho ,vas incarnate. One difficulty
was that, to start with, there ,vas no ,yord current
in Greek or Latin to express" person." You could,.
of course, describe a human person by calling him
a man, or a spirit by calling him an angel or demon
or God, and you could talk of mind or soul, but for
a person as such-,vhether God, or angel, or man-
there was no current ,vord. It \vas, in fact, the
Christian sense of the value of personality ,vhich
disclosed the need of such a "'"ord. Origen, in de-
scribing the "tradition" of the Churches derived
from the apostles, ,vhich all Christians are bound
to hold, describes it as a belief in the one God, the
Creator of all that is, and the author of the Old
Testament as well as the Ne,v, ,vho before all creation
,vas the Father of Him, the Son, through ,vhom all
things were made, and ,,,ho in these last days, empty-
ing Himself, was incarnate and \vas made man, by
a birth of the Virgin and of the Holy Spirit, being
and continuing to be God: and in the Holy Spirit
as associated in honour and dignity ,vith the Fathel
1 Co!. i 17, John i 1.

244 DOCTRINE OF TIlE IIOL Y TRINITY
and the Son. 1 This account of tradition manifestly
leaves open questions, especially about the Holy
Spirit, which Origen ,vould have men solve by dili-
gent investigation of the Holy Scriptures. Finally,
ho,vever, it was decided that the Three must be
regarded as "of one substance," that is to say, as
belonging to the one eternal being of God, and that
each must be distinguished as eternally a person-
the ,vords chosen to designate" person "-that is, the
conscious subject-being the Greek word, "hypostasis,"
,vhich hitherto had been used in the general sense
of substance, and the Latin "
ord " persona," which,
meaning first the actor's mask, and then his U part"
or the character which he represented, and then the
part ,vhich anyone is called to play in life, was already
trembling on the verge of meaning ,vhat we mean by
a person. The Fathers are profuse in their apologies
for the inadequacy of these terms. ]\Ian has no
celestial language, but God has revealed Hinlself so
distinctly that ,ve must find the best ,vords ,ve can
to describe and guard the revealed reality. After 3.
time, of course, as always happens ,vhen a new
terminology is adopted, people got used to the terms,
and the apologies are not so much heard. The
\ ChUrCh doctrine is that God subsists as three persons
in one substance or reality. "Deus Pater, Deus
Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres
dii: sed uuus est Deus." But it ,vas again and
again affirmed that the term "person " is not used
of God in exactly the same sense as it is used of
human persons. The Three are one in a fuller sense
than could be true of three human individuals.
Harnack and others have laid great stress upon
certain differences of a metaphysical kind ,vhich
appear to distinguish the way of thinking about the
Trinity ,vhich ,ve find in the great Greek teachers
(Origen and, later, the Cappadocians, Basil and the
1 De Princip., i 4.

ST. AUGUSTINE

245

Gregories) and Latins like Tertullian, from ,vhat
we find in Athanasius at Alexandria and Augustine
in the "Vest. The truth is that the former teachers
begin, on the ,vhole, from the thought of the different
persons, and then seek to give intellectual expression
to their unity, ,vhile Athanasius and, especially,
Augustine, begin from the unity, and then ,vithin the
unity are at pains to be true to the distinctions also.
There is a difference; and doubtless it ,vould have
become considerable if these Church teachers had
been merely philosophers pursuing abstract truth.
But they had, all of them, behind them the faith
of the Church in the one God the Father, and the
eternal Son who was incarnate in Jesus Christ, and
the Holy Spirit who had inspired and guided in
such and such ways the people of God, and who
could only be described as "persons," and ,vho yet
belonged to the being of the one God. Granted this,
their metaphysical differences, in the extremely rare-
fied air in which a discussion of the eternal being,
whom \ve kno,v only in part and discern only in a
dim reflection, must necessarily proceed, are not, to
most of us, of much importance, and easily admit of
being exaggerated. 1
Amongst us, however, Dr. Rashdall has been
constantly appealing to the teaching of Augustine
and later of St. Thomas Aquinas as if they did not
really maintain the distinct and eternal personality
of Father, Son, and Spirit, but 'v ere content to
believe in one God in whom" Father," "Son," and
" Spirit" are names only for qualities or activities
,vithin the one divine mind and being. \\Thich are
not distinguishable persons at all. 2 No,v it is quite
I true of St. Augustine that, deriving his philosophy
from N eo- Platonism, partly through the mediulTI of
1 See Tixéront, H.istoire des dogmes (Lecoffre, Paris); vol. ii
gives a very fair aC'count of these differences (pp. 67 ff. and 261 ff.).
I Rashdall, ,Jesus, Human and Divine, pp. 24 f., 61 f., 67.
17

246 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY
Victorinus Afer, he is jealous above all things for
the maintenance of the unity of God. And the
human analogy which he loves best as pointing
up\vards to the divine being is the analogy of the
distinct functions in the single human person-the
fundamental Self (mind or men10ry) \vith its expres-
sion in Thou,ghf (or \vord), and then again in JVill
(or love); and it is quite true that this analogy of
itself \vould not suggest three persons in the God-
I head. It is a manner of thinking the issue of which
would be Unitarian, no doubt.
Thus if Dr. llashdall had said that St. Augustine
(and later St. Thomas) uses an analogy \vhich sug-
gests something much less than three persons, he
\vould have said no more than the truth. St.
Augustine himself is careful to point this out and
correct the impression. 1 For St. Augustine's faith
and doctrine is as far as possible from resting on this
analogy or on any argument. It rests in the revela-
tion of God contained in Scripture and taught by
the Church. And there is no doubt how St. Augustine
conceives this revelation, and what his doctrine is.
It is familiar to us in the Qu,icu11que vzÛt. It is the
doctrine of one God in three "persons" -for we
must use the term person for lack of a better name.
The divine being is one-one substance, one mind,
one \vill. But this divine being exists in three per-
sons, each of \vhom is \vhole God, in each of whom
the divine mind and all the divine attributes exist
personally . You may, of course, say that St.
Augustine's doctrine is not intelligible, or you may
say that his favourite analogy 2 does not tend to prove
his doctrine. But there is no sense in appealing to
Augustine as if he did not hold that each of the

1 E pist. clxix. 6.
2 He also uses an analogy which suggests distinction of persons-
the analogy of the Lover and the Loved. Then he tries unsuccess-
fully to make" Love " suggest a third person (De Trin. viii 14).

ST. THOMAS OF AQUINO

247

three persons, of Himself, is \v hole God, or as if he
would tolerate any kind of " reduced" Trinitarianism.!
So it is ,vith St. Thomas Aquinas. He, too,
begins from the divine unity. He, too, like Augustine,
derives his philosophy of God partly through N eo-
platonist channels-the medium being the unknown
thinker ,vho wrote under the name of Dionysius,
the Athenian disciple of St. Paul, and who was
uncritically taken throughout the middle ages to
be really that apostolic man. Thus, like Augustine,
he seeks to represent to himself the distinctions in
the Godhead after the manner of internal relations
within a single thinking and willing subject. No
doubt this manner of thinking taken by itself would
lead to a Unitarian conception of God. But Thomas,
no more than Augustine, contemplates the possi-
bility of such a conclusion. He knows that the
Christian doctrine of God was not the product of
human reasoning, but of divine revelation. He
knows that human reasonings could never sub-
stantiate the doctrine of the Trinity, though they
may be able to approve it, and cannot disprove it.
He himself receives the doctrine of the Bible and
the Church without a shadow of question. In article
after article of his Summa he asserts, like Augustine,
that the Divine being subsists in three eternal and
co-equal persons. The relationships in God are not
qualities but persons. Godhead is in essence one
and indivisible, but each of the persons in \vhom it
subsists is a distinct person (alius) from the others. 2

, 1" Tantus est solus Pater, vel solus Filius, vel solus Spiritus
Sanctus, quantus est simw Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus n
(De Trin. vi 9).
2 Summa TheoZ. pars la, quo xxxi, art. 2: "Personaliter alius
Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus." "Cum nomen alius,
masculiné acceptum, non nisi distinctionem suppositi in natura
[a distinction of subject in nature] significet, Filius alius a Patre
convenienter dicitur." "Neque tamen dicimus unicum Deurn,
, quia pluribus Deitas est communis." "Pater est aliu8 a Filio,
sed non al'iud. Et e converso dicimus quod aunt unum sed non

248 DOCTRI
E OF THE HOLY TRINITY
It requires indeed a philosophical microscope to
distinguish in final outcome the doctrine of the
Cappadocians ,vho begin with the Three from the
doctrine of Augustine and Aquinas ,vho begin from
the One. Both with the like emphasis believe in
the one God in three persons.
But I am not \vriting in the main for those ,vho
can move freely in the high air of metaphysical
speculation. Probably lnost of us entertain \vhat
seems to us a ,veIl-grounded scepticism as to the
po,vers of the abstract reason. But we very earnestly
seek to kno'v whether-apart from subtle differences
-the traditional Christian doctrine of one God as
existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit,
is for us believable. It is to this question that I
must address myself, without raising any question
of ecclesiastical authority.
I think the experience of the disciples must be,
in some sense, repeated in us. I have already called
attention to the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity
is clearly there-implicit certainly, and in great
measure explicit-in the New Testament, especially
in St. Paul and in St. John. It emerged simply
in the process of believing in Christ as the Son of
God incarnate and in the realized activity of the
IIoly Spirit-the Spirit of God received from the
ascended Christ. I do not think my readers can
question this. To believe in Christ, as the first
Christians came to believe in Hin1, involves us
necessarily in the thought of God as not a solitary
monad. There in the ultimate being is Father
and Son-God and His 'Vord or self-expression.
There already is the distinction of persons. Perhaps
,ve should have been disposed to think of the Spirit
unus." Cf. quo xxx, art. I: "Cum in divinis sint plures res
subsistentes in divina natura, plures quoque personas ibi esse
necesse est." Cf. quo xxix, art. 4: "Hoc nomen persona dicitur
ad se, non ad aIterum; quia significat relationem, non per modum
relationis, sed per modum substantiae quae est hypostasis."

THE RELIEF OF THE INTELLECT 249
as only the influence or activity of God in the souls
of men. But we must acknowledge that this will
not account for the language of the New Testament
or the language of Christ, if \ve believe that He really
uttered the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, which
it is very hard to ascribe to any lower speaker.
Certainly the first Christians felt themselves in their
relations \vith the Holy Spirit as in contact with a
person, and so spoke of Him. And if we are con-
strained to admit distinctions or mutual relation-
ships in God, it seems absurd to originate a hitherto
unheard -of doctrine of Duality for the originally
Trinitarian belief, when plainly we have no ne\v facts
to go upon. Let us see then whether this doctrine
of the Trin ity commends itself to our reason.
I think we shall probably agree with Huxley that
the foundations of things are always mysterious
and the doctrine of the Trinity not more mysterious
than the ultimate principles of physics or biology.
To feel that a belief is rational we must feel-not
that we could demonstrate it a priori-but that it
is grounded in experience and that it interprets
experience. It was a true saying of Dr. Hort,
who was certainly one of the greatest men of the
last generation, that the evidence for the truth of
the Christian revelation is shown, not so much in
any light which it receives, as in the light it gives. 1
What commends the doctrine of the Trinity is the .
light it thro,vs on some otherwise dark problems.
1. It alone enables us to think of God as in Him-
self" the living God" apart from and independently
of creation. We have seen at an earlier stage of our
argument that the "unassisted" speculative reason
of man arrives, ,vith sufficient assurance, at a belief
in God, ,
...ho is the "Wisdom and Spirit of the
Universe "-that is at what is called the Higher
Pantheism; but that it does not seem to carry us
1 See The Way, the Truth, and the Life (
Iacmillan), p. II.

250 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY
,vith any security to a belief in a God prior to and
independent of the "Torld. God appears to be as
dependent upon the "Torld for self-expression as
the world is on Him. He realizes Himself in the
,vorld. Perhaps He only attains self-consciousness
in the self-consciousness of mcn. \rYe also sa,v plainly
enough that from a religious point of vic,v such a
conception falls wholly short of ,vhat men-"rhat
most men-neeq. The religion of the prophets of
Israel and of our Lord gave a profound stimulus
to human life just because it represented God as a
person, perfect and complete in Himself, having the
characteristics of a person, ,visdom, justice and love
in a supreme sense; having a ,yill and purpose for
men, ,vho ,vel'e made in His image, but alive in
Himself before ever the ,vorld ,vas, the Creator of
all that is and the judge of all rational beings. We
satisfied ourselves that ,ve must accept the message
of the prophets and of our Lord as a genuine self-
disclosure of God. But ,ve find ourselves in-
tellectually paralysed when ,ve try to give any
meaning to this idea of one self-existent being,
alive in Himself ,vith the fullness of life before the
world was. For life, as far as we can see, involves
relationship, and rational or moral life the relationship
of persons. How can ,ve think of an eternal will
,vithout an eternal effect or product of this will, or
of an eternal consciousness ,vithout an object of
this consciousness adequate to itself, or of an eternal
love ,vithout an eternal object of love? '
ro say
that God finds Himself first in nature is disastrous
for religion. But how can He live and love alone?
Now, as we have seen, the idea of the Trinity was
not evolved in response to any such intellectual
questionings. No difficulty appears to ha ve been
felt by the Jews or first disciples in believing in God
who is one only person. But they found them-
selves, in the ,vay,ve have described, as a consequence

GOD ETERNALLY ALIVE

251

of their experience of Christ and of the Spirit, be-
lieving in a trinity of persons in the one God. A
glimpse into God's eternal life seems thus to have
been given to men. And the relief to the intellect is
O'reat. No,v we can see ho,v God can be alive ,vith

the fullest life we can conceive of-\vill and reason
and love-because His o,vn being involves in itself
a relationship of persons. In the eternity ,vhich
,ve cannot \vith our finite intellects conceive He
was productive, and found His object of kno,vledge
and object of love in His eternal Word or Son and
in the Holy Spirit. As I have said, this apparent
necessity of thought carries us much more completely
to the conviction of some l'elationship of persons
than to the specific conception of Trinity. Perhaps
it does not surprise us that ,ve do not find our rational
po,vers go far enough to discover God as He is. \Ve
shall be content to accept God's self-disclosure as it
has been given. But the intellectual relief is great
when \ve find ourself authorized to think of the very
being of God as a lllovement of life in which the
Father is eternally expressing Himself and kno,ving
and being kno,vn, loving and being loved, in the
Son and the Spirit. There is at once the fuHness of
life in God, for the one eternal being is a fello,yship
of persons, one with an intense unity, but alive ,vith
the movement of a perfect life. I could not have
discovered the Trinity. But it is only the dis-
closure of it which enables me to think about God
,vith any satisfaction as alive and personal in Himself.
2. I am quite able to see that the higher I go up
in the scale of creation the more complex does the
living organism become. The nature of man is
the most complex unity in the world knolvn to us.
If I seek to rise to the source and penetrate to the
ground of all life, and find this source and ground
to be a living God perfect in Himself, the up,vard
soaring train of thought leads me to postulate that

252 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRIXITY
this Eternal Being must be something quite different
from a monotonous unity. \Vhen I admit the dis-
closure of Trinity-that is multiplicity in unity-
it is only ,vhat I should expect in the perfect and
absolute being. And I can dinlly conceive how there
in the eternal \V ord and the Spirit was the counter-
part, under conditions of eternity and perfection,
of all that \vealth of life ,vhich is gradually evolved
on a lower plane in the process of creation.
3. Again, only \vhen I am a believer in the Trinity
do I seem to lose the sense of bc\vilderment \vhich
the old thinkcrs of Greece experienced in bringing
the One, the Unchangeable and the Eternal, into any
relation to a world of which the very being lies in
movement and change. The moving ,vorld and the
unchanging, immobile God seemed not merely to
belong to different grades of being, but to be in no
possible relation to one another. Does not creation
involve movement? Does not God move in the
moving world \vhich He sustains in being, and live
in its life '! But no\v I am delivered from all this
horrible imagination of a God \\'ho is absolute im-
mobility.
For God is eternally alive-eternally
moving out into self-expression. lIe has the \vhole
movement of absolute life within IIimself. Thus
to create and to begin to live and act on the lower
plane of gradual and progressive creation is no
unnatural thought to associate \vith a God who
eternally is life in Himself, because there is in Him
what is dimly descried as the eternal generation of
the Son and the procession of the Spirit.!
4. Finally, is it not a delight to believe that the
ultimate reality is not monotonous unity, but a
unity which contains in itself a fellowship of persons
-one ,vith a unity ,vhich can never be realized

1 This idea is developed by Victorinus Afer, whose importance
in his influence on Augustine has not had enough made of it (see
art in Dict. of Ok. Biography).

REASON AND REVELATION 253

among human persons, but which at the same tim
assures us that personality and personal life essentially
involves fello\yship? In man personality emerges
out of fello\vship and always involves fellowship.
The idea of personality as primarily individual and
fundamentally selfish \ve have learnt to be false.
It is only in fello\vship we begin to realize ourselves,
and the more widely we expand into fello,vship the
more \ve realize ourselves. And it is ,vith delight
that ,ve see the ground of this la,v in the Supreme.
For there the eternal being is fellowship. There
is no priority in Hiln of unity to n1ultiplicity, and
no priority of multiplicity to unity. The Eternal
is one in many and many in one-one God, Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost.
" If reason," says Lotze, " is not of itself capable
of finding the highest truth, but on the contrary
stands in need of a revelation, still reason must be
able to understand the revealed truth, at least so
far as to recognize in it the satisfying and convincing
conclusion of those up,vard soaring trains of thought
which reason itself began, led by its own needs,
but ,vas not able to bring to an end." 1
Is not this a good description of ho,v reason stands
towards revelation in this matter of the doctrine of
the l'rinity ?

NOTE.
On the New Testament 'Uses of" spirit," and especially on
2 Cor. i-ii 17; see above, p. 237.
"Spirit" is used in a variety of connected senses in
the N"e\v Testament, not ahvays easily distinguishable:
(1) Of God (John iv 24, " God is Spirit ") to express His
utter freedoIn from conditions of place or form. As
pure spirit He seeks only spirituaJ \vorshippers. (2) Of
created spirits, good and bad. In almost all cases such
1 Lotze, 111 icrocosmus (Eng. trans.), ii 660.

254 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY

spirits are spoken of as persons, but in one or two places
" spirit" is used in a sense not unlike ours \vhen \ve speak
of the spirit of the age (see my St. John's Epistles, pp.
168-9). (3) Of the human spirit, markedly distinguished
from the flesh and from the Spirit of God, see especially
1 Cor. ii 11, 2 Cor. vii 1. (/1.) Of the \vhole manhood of
Christ, as spiritualized and glorified in heaven. See John
vi 63, "The things that I have been speaking to you of
-n1Y flesh and blood-are to be thought of as the flesh
and blood of the ascended Christ, and therefore as spirit
anù life, not unprofitable flesh." Burney, I am glad to
see, supports me in this rendering, Aramaic Origin of the
Fourth Gospel, p. 109. So in 1 Cor. xv 45, St. Paul
says, "The last .\dam became life-giying spirit" (5)
Of the Holy Spirit of God \vhich d\velt pre-en1inently in
our Lord, and after Hie; ascension is given as His o\vn
Spirit no less than His Father's, to the Church.
No\v the question is \vhether St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii 17,
"The Lord is the Spirit," ident
fies Christ the Lord in
heaven ,vith the Holy Spirit, contrary, as I have said, to
his constant custom of distinguishing them. I think it
is very difficult to suppose this. And the passage seems
to me to suggest a quite different interpretation. Accord-
iug to the 1\ISS., it runs (ver. 16): "But \vhensoever
the children of Israel shall turn to the Lord [referring
to Ex. xxxiv 3-t] the veil is taken a\vay. No\v the
Lord is the Spirit: and ,vhere the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is liberty." IIere the sudden transition
from the Lord \vho is the Spirit to the Spirit of the
Lord, follo,ved by another transition in the next
verse back again to "the Lord the Spirit" seems
to me to be so a,vk\vard as to make eminently probable
the minute emendation 1 of the text proposed by Dr.
Hort and Dr. Chase, according to ,vhich \ve should read,
"Whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is
taken a,vay. No,v the Lord is the Spirit, and where
the Spirit is Lord, there is liberty. And \ve all
. . . reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being trans-
formed . . . as from the Lord the Spirit." I-Iere St.

1 An emendation which only involves the change of v into JI
ICVPtOv into ICVptOJ/). Dr. Chase, however, prefers ICVpLEVEL.

THE l\IEANING OF 2 COR. III 17 255
Paul no doubt in some sense calls the Spirit the Lord.
But I have come to be convinced that it is in this sense:
" The Lord to \vhom Israel must turn is the Spirit [i.e.
the Holy Spirit no\v given to the true Israel in the Chris-
tian Church]. Only where that Spirit is Lord is real
liberty, and it is in the po\ver of this Spirit-Lord that
\ve Christians are being transformed." It is true that
St. Paul does not else\vhere call the Spirit Lord, but I
think he is led to do so here by the suggestion of the
narrative in Exodus: and it appears to me that there is no
violence or improbability involved in this supposition, viz.
that as St. Paul constantly calls the Father the Lord,
and Jesus Christ the Lord, so once he should have called
the Holy Spirit the Lord-for obviously He is Lord in
Christian souls in the same sense as the Father and as
Jesus. This seems to n1e much more intelligible than
that St. Paul should confuse Christ and the Spirit by
saying "The Lord Jesus is the Spirit" \vhile he else-
\vhere so clearly and constantly distinguishes them. It
is quite intelligible that St. Paul should once call Christ
in His glorified n1anhood " quickening spirit," as having
become \vholly spiritual and the source of life to His
Church, but surely not that he should call Him "the
[Holy] Spirit" \vith the definite article, contrary to his
constant_practice.

CHAPTER IX

SIN AND THE FALL

'VE are no,v occupied in considering certain ideas
and doctrines ,vhich are involved or implied in the
New Testalnent doctrine of Christ. And one of
the 1110st obvious of these is the idea and doctrine
of the sinfulness of h urnanity. For among the most
familiar of the titles of Christ is that of the Redeemer
or the Saviour-who "shall save His people from
their sins "-and that of the Reconciler, who by
making a tonement or propitiation reconciles us
to God, and that of the Second Adam ,,
ho in-
augurates a new humanity regenerated and renewed
in Him. These titles rnean that mankind are in a
state of unnatural bondage to sin or to the po,ver
of evil, and need to have their freedom restored to
them by the act of God; and that they are alienated
fronl God and their true good and need to have a
new status of sonship conferred on them by the
grace of God; and that they belong to a race under
condemnation and need incorporation upon a new
stock. I suppose no one ,vould be disposed to
question that the Bible as a ,vhole vie,ys 111en as
being to start with in this unnatural condition, and
as needing to be saved from it, and as unable to save
themselves. This assumption is stated in a striking
form by St. John when he says that" if ,ve say ,ve
have not sinned, we rnake God a liar." For, as
'Vestcott interprets the phrase, " all the communica-
tions of God to men presuppose that the normal
256

THE O. T. VIE'V OF l\tIANKIND 257
relations of earth and heaven have been interrupted.
To deny this is not to question God's truth in one
particular point, but to question it altogether."

I
This is the point then. The Bible is the record
of a Gospel of redemption. I t is a proclamation
of good tidings from God. It holds out to man
the highest and most glorious possibilities in Christ
Jesus. But it does so on the assumption that in
humanity as it stands there is something radically
perverted, in vie,,, of which it needs for its salvation
something quite different from 111ere example or
encouragement to make the best of itself-it needs
fundamental reconstruction by Him who originally
created it.
I have just said that it will hardly be doubted
that this is the Biblical assumption, but we had
better examine the assumption a little, and especially
we had better examine our Lord's estimate of His
brother men.
This estimate, like everything else in our Lord's
teaching, is given on the Old Testament background.
The Old Testament is full of the picture of mankind
within and ,vithout the chosen people as a wicked
world, in which God is profoundly disappointed
and ,vhich lies under His just and inevitable ,,,rath.
On this dark background there is the radiant picture
of the righteous who "walk with God"; but, as
the sense of the individual spiritual life develops,
even the righteous man appears as sinful and con-
fessing his sinfulness. "There is no man that
sinneth not." 1 The record of God's dealings ,vith
His saints, l\loses, Aaron, and Samuel, is that they
are not only "heard" but also "forgiven" and
1 1 Kings viii 46; cf. Eccl. vii 20, Job iv. 17 (R.V. marg.),
xiv 4, xv 14-16.

258

SIN AND THE FALL

" punished." 1 Isaiah confesses his own sinfulness
as ,veIl as his people's. "I am a man of unclean
lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
lips." 2 The penitent psalmist ackno,vledges sin
as inherent in his nature even before his birth.
"Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin hath
my mother conceived me." 3 This is the tone of
the Old Testament. Thus ,,,hen John the Baptist
summons Israel to prepare for the con1ing of the Christ
it is by a call to repentance-a fundamental change
of mind-and by a baptism for the remission of
sins,4 and that is represented as the substance of
the first preaching of Jesus. 5
There is no doubt that our Lord is very far from
representing human nature as lIe found it as wholly
corrupt. He sho,ved a vivid appreciation of what
we should call natural goodness, ,vhich He found
in those ,vholn the Je,vs regarded as outcasts at
least as much as ,vithin the chosen people. He
values "the cup of cold ,vater" and every act of
natural kindness. He welcomes men who show a
right disposition of mind as "not far from the
kingdom of God. " Also He is extraordinarily
gracious to the outcasts. The "publicans and
harlots" of society are assured of ready forgiveness.
He came, He said, not to call the righteous but
sinners. But there is a tendency to nlÍsrepresent
our Lord's graciousness. T,vo things are specially
noti .eabl in 11' Lord's te.aching about sin. (1) He
dissociated it ,vholly from physical and ceren10nial
associations and placed its seat firmly and only in
the heart of man. 6 And (2) His main emphasis
is on the sins of "the righteous," that is, of those
who ,vere so regarded and so regarded themselves.
Sins of violence and lust ,vere, of course, regarded
as sins and stamped with reprobation in respectable

1 Ps. xcix 8.
· Mark i 4.

2 Is. vi 5.
6 l\Iark i 15.

3 Ps. Ii 5.
6 l\Iark vii 20-3.

OUR LORD'S ESTIl\IATE

259

Jewish society. But Jesus ,vas at pains to bring
to light the even deeper sinfulness of spiritual sins,
such as were quite consistent ,vith socia] respec-
tability and involved no ceremonial pollution-
hypocrisy or self-righteousness, avarice, pride, con-
tempt, hatred, spiritual blindness and prejudice,
and above all unmercifulness and the neglect of
active goodness. "Inasmuch as ye did it not unto
one of the least of these my brethren . . . depart
from me." Such sins of the spirit He represents
as even more dangerous than disreputable sins.
" The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom
of God before you." 1
\Vhen our Lord announced the joy of heaven as
lying more in the reclamation of the lost than in
the righteousness of " the ninety and nine righteous
persons ,vho need no repentance," 2 He was speaking
to the Pharisees and scribes ,vho murmured at His
receiving sinners and eating with theIne They are
represented in the character of the elder brother
in the parable of the prodigal son, and of the
righteous Pharisee in the story of the devotions of
the Pharisee and the publican. Thus it is im-
possible to deny an ironical note in this allusion to
" righteousness." It was exactly this righteousness
,vhich He came to expose as " a whited sepulchre."
On the ,vhole it must be ackno,vledged that ,vhile
our Lord infinitely deepened the sense of God's
willingness to forgive, and refused to regard the
outcasts as "hopeless cases," He also deepened and
broadened the sense of sin. He appears to assume
its universality. Thus it is noticeable that, speak-
ing to His ne,v flock in the Sermon on the l\Iount
and reminding them of the natural goodness of men
in their love of their children, He says: "If ye
then being evil know how to give good gifts," etc.
He compares men to Satan's "goods" held in
1 Matt. xxi 31. I Luke xv 7 ; see verse 2.

260

SIN AND THE FALL

bondage by the "strong n1an" and ,vaiting for the
stronger to deliver them. 1 He claims of rnen the
moral equivalent of self-mutilation 2 as the price
to be paid to get rid of sinful inclination; and
nothing can exceed the simplicity ,vith which He
speaks of hell, with its awful anguish, as the in-
evitable penalty of tolerated sin, whether sins of
omission or of commission. 'rhus it is quite natural
that, ,vhen our Lord has in vie,v the kingdom of God
which lIe is ina
gurating, lIe should declare that
none can be fit for it ,vithout a fundalnentally fresh
start. " Verily I say unto you, except ye turn and
becolne as little children, ye shall in no wise enter
into the kingdom of heaven." 3 And this funda-
mental turning appears to be inseparable from
discipleship to Himself, which means a very thorough
faith in Him as the divinely comn1Ïssioned Redeemer.
This is apparent in the Synoptists. And it is pro-
foundly expressed in the Gospel of St. John. There
our Lord is represented as holding Himself aloof
from men's first enthusiasln for Him. " Jesus did
not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all
men, and because he needed not that anyone should
bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew
,vhat was in n1an." 4 He knew to start with that
sad secret of human untrustworthiness, ,vhich in
slo\v and embittering experience has in countless
cases and in every age turned philanthropists into
cynics and made ,vise men mad. Therefore He
demands of men a deep reconstruction. "Except
a man be born ane\v, he cannot see the kingdom of
God, " "Except a man be born of ,vater and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 5
Certainly this is the spirit in which the first Church

1 :Matt. xii 29, Luke xi 21. This applies not only to the .0 pos.
sessed," see verses 23-6.
2 l\Iark ix 43-9, :M:att. v 27-30, xviii K
3 l\latt. xvüi 2. 4 John ii 24. I) John iii 3, 5.

THE N. T. ESTIl\IATE OF MAN 261
in Jerusalem understood its message. It was no
announcement to men of a glory ,vhich was already
theirs, if only they would open their eyes to discern
their true nature. Enlightenment was not enough.
They needed to embrace by faith a "salvation,"
now first offered them--offered in a ne,v "name"
,vhich ,vas the only name of salvation--and the gate-
,yay to this salvation was baptism, which conveyed
to them ,vhat they could not other,vise receive, the
forgiveness of their sins, and prepared them for the
ne,v gift of the Spirit.! Even the saintly Gentile
soldier Cornelius, though the effective appeal of his
"prayers and alms" to the ear of God is fully recog-
nized, and though God in merciful manner gives
the Holy Spirit to him and his company, is not
thereby dispensed from the entrance into the Church
by baptism. Like everybody else he needs the new
standing ground " in the name," and the forgiveness
of his sins. 2
I do not think the New Testament can be accused
of any pretension to expound the secrets of divine
justice for the satisfaction of our intellect. It does
,vhat is much better. It assures us of the character
of God and thus enables us to feel quite confident
that He will deal in justice and love ,vith every
hUlnan soul He has created. But it exists to record ,
a Gospel-a salvation for men, publicly proclaimed,
and divinely covenanted; and this Gospel is based
on an assumption that ,vhat humanity needs is
something other than development or enlighten-
ment. It needs fundamental reconstruction-a
fresh start, a ne,v birth, forgiveness and renewal,-
and of all this there is only one source-the Prince
of the Ne,v Life, the Saviour, the Redeemer Jesus
Christ: and this fresh start is offered, so to speak,
objectively, as membership in the new community,
1 Acts ii 38-40, iii 19-26, viii 14 fl., xix 4-6.
2 Acts x 43, 47.

18

262

SIN AKD TIlE FALL

to those ,vho seek this great deliverance as SInners
\vho need to be saved.
I do not think I need pursue the enquiry through
the N e,v Testament. Everyone recognizes in St.
Paul the strongest and most vehement maintainer
of the corruption of the "natural" man and his
need of redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.
\Ve ,viII come back to St. Paul directly in connection
,vith the idea of the Fall. I ,vould only say in
passing that I think he has been too exclusively
judged from the early chapters of the Romans.
And even in that Epistle he contemplates " Gentiles
who have no la,v" and yet "do by nature the
things of the law "-who "by patience in well-
doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,"
and ,vho find ,,,hat they seek, ,vhether Je,vs or
Gentiles: and he speaks of men of old who "had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans-
gression." 1 Else,vhere he bids the Christians look
for and appreciate (apparently in the world at large)
a standard of truth, honour, justice, purity, and
virtue. 2 I do not think St. Paul would have been
blind to goodness of character wherever found, or
would have doubted its aceeptableness to God.
He is not a systematic theorizer, blind to ,,,hat
does not seem to square \vith his theory. He is
stating a general impression of the Gentile ,vorld;
and if he paints it in lurid colours, he seems to think
that those he ,vrites to ,viII not find the language
too strong. 3 Similar language is used by St. Peter
to Gentile Christians in sin1ilar circunlstanees: and
St. James' estimate of hunlan nature as it is found
among the J e,vs is not less severe.

1 Rom. ii 7, 10, 14, v 14. 2 Phil. iv 8.
a The Ephesian Stoic, who about the middle of the first century
wrote "letters" under the assumed name of IIeracleitus, speaks
quite as severely of Ephesian society. See my Ephesians, p. 253.

THE l\10DERN ESTIMATE

263

II

The kind of estimate of human nature which we
find in the New Testament, both in its optimism
and its pessimism-that is, its glorious estimate of
what humanity is intended by God to be and is
capable of be{'oming, and its dark estimate of ,vhat
it has in fact, by rebellion against God, made itself
to be-was not out of harmony either with the
general sentiment in the period of the Roman
Empire when Christianity first spread, or with
the general sentiment of the middle ages. In both
periods it was natural to men to feel that the world
was a very evil world, that nothing that men could
do for themselves would make it better, and that
they must look for redemption to God and a spiritual
,vorld above. But ,vhat characterized the early
Renaissance, and what reasserted itself 1 in the spirit
of industrialism and in modern movements as a
whole, at least before the Great War, was a sense
of human po,ver-the power of man to redeem him-
self by his own initiative, especially by the instrument
of kno,vledge in general and the science of nature
in particular, ,vhich was at his disposal and which
he could manipulate in the cause of his own advance-
ment. This is the gospel of the Kingdom of Man.
And this gospel has seemed beyond question to
make the language of the Bible sound out of date-
as if it disparaged the " God in man" which is the
only kind of God congenial to this modern spirit.
It is not that the modern estimate of human
nature as it is, or as it has actually been found in
experience hitherto, is higher than the old orthodox
estimate-apart from some mediaeval and Calvinistic
exaggerations. Rousseau and Byron and Shelley

1 Reasserted itself, I mean, against Lutheranism and Calvinism,
which crossed and half-extinguished the spirit of the Renaissance.

I I"". Þ f"'I ').

"'r' C A
\.1' I"
. . _
_

264

SIN AND THE FALL

are as emphatic as the writers in the Bible that
"our life is a false nature -'Tis not in the harmony
of things." And no\v-a-days \ve hear no more
of Rousseau's idealizing of natural or primitive
man. He is involved in the same condemnation
\vith civilized man. All around us to-day a cynically
low estimate of man seems to prevail in ordinary
literature-a low estimate of his capacity to restrain
his lusts, or to maintain unselfishness, honesty and
truthfulness in industrial life or in politics or in the
la \v courts; and the spirit of idealism is fluctuating
and \veak. 'Vhat seems to be lacking, \vhere the
characteristically modern spirit, in anyone of its
many forms, prevails, is the readiness to welcome
the idea of redemption as the gift of God, or the self-
revelation of God which is incidental to redemption.
\Ve seem to want a God who is so fully to bc identified
,vith ourselves that either He must take us as \ve are,
and not judge us or condemn us for our sins, or else
(in the case of the more enthusiastic and rcfol'ming
spirits) that \ve can find Him sufficiently in our own
enlightenment and our o\vn strivings after progress.
But, after all, \ve are not in very good spirits about
progress and world-redemption. There are a great
many people, even among agnostics, who are feeling
that there is something in the old language about
the need of a return to God. \Vhat is greatly to
be desired in ordinary men is the courageous de-
termination to think for themselves. They have
been led captive by the prophets of the modern
spirit so as to take it for granted that the Bible
religion is antiquated. Now, of course, the
traditional religion had become encrusted \vith
antiquated ideas in stagnant ages. And an age
which is an age of real and progressive science justly
demands of religion correspondence with science
rightly so called. But when the Inatter in hand is
the interpretation of human life, which science has

SHAKESPEARE'S ESTIMATE 265
not hitherto shown any profound power to interpret
or to redeem, it is surely not too much to ask people
to reconsider frankly for themselves whether their
o,vn reason warrants them in rejecting the estimate
of human life and its needs ,vhich is undoubtedly
Christ's, and the offer of divine redemption which
He makes. And it is certain that the optimism of
Christianity, its glorious appreciation of human capa-
bility and destiny, is bound up ,vith its pessimism
-with its profound sense that mankind has set
itself by its o,vn sin on the ,vrong road and needs
redeeming by God, who alone can redeem it as He
first made it, and can give it the light and stimulus
and direction by which alone it can recover itself
and realize itself afresh.!
When I hear contemptuous rejections of the
Biblical estimate of man as he is, as if it were dis-
honouring to human dignity, I often think of the
man who of all the characteristic spirits of the
Renaissance had the profoundest genius as an
interpreter of man-our own great Shakespeare.
No one ever had deeper interest in humanity or a
higher estimate of man's capacity.
"'Vhat a piece of ,york is a man! how noble in reason r
ho\v infinite in faculty! in form and moving ho\v express
and admirable! in action ho\v like an angel r in appre-
hension ho\v like a god r the beauty of the \vorld r the
paragon of animals ! "
Noone moreover ever contemplated humanity
with less of the spirit of the prophet and the reformer.
He was a typical man of th
Renaissance. He
stood utterly and marvellously aloof from the keen

1 I find these suggestive words quoted from Dr. Joh. Weiss,
DaB Urchristenthum, p. 188: "Strange as these things have become
to us, we cannot too earnestly make ourselves familiar with the
thought that the old Christianity understood the new life not
merely as a new mode of thought and moral conduct, but as a.
wonderful equipment with new powers, the work of God."

266

SIN AKD THE FALL

and bitter religious controversies of his time. He
seems to kno,v and care nothing about them. He
,vould approach mankind, with all his unmatched
genius for understanding and representing it, purely
and simply as the spectator-,villing to be fascinated
and delighted ,vith humanity as he found it, "good
and bad together." But, so approaching mankind,
one fact about human life appears to arrest him
and absorb him and terrify him-the fact that
men are not free, as they ,yould boast themselves-
that they are enslaved by passion and obsessed by
delusion. This note becomes conspicuous first per-
haps in the some,vhat morbid atmosphere of the
Sonnets-in the marvellous 129th Sonnet about lust,
where he exclaims-
" The expense of spirit in a ,vaste of shame
Is lust in action."

Then its violence and deceitfulness and its miserable
issue is described ,vith intense realization, and the
sonnet ends :
" All this the ,vorld ,yell knO\VS; yet none kno,vs ,veIl
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell."
In the great tragedies this seems to become the
one theme-the obsession of men. It may be by
lust, or by vanity, or by ambition, or by jealousy,
or by pride and the contempt of common men;
it may be by the paralysis of too much thinking;
but in all cases what is presented to us is the same
spectacle of a man obsessed. All the ,vorld can
see it except he himself. But he, obsessed, is also
blinded, and so blinded is driven for,vard by an
inevitable fate to his doom, and only by the violence
of the tragedy can the stage of human life be set
free again for life to go on its way. This spirit of
the tragedies seems to possess Shakespeare. One
of our best recent interpreters of Shakespeare-

THE N. T. THEORY 267
\Valter Raleigh I-speaks as if even that mighty
mind nearly lost its balance in gazing into the awful
gulf. And he seems to have recovered himself in
his last period-that of the Romances-by refusing
to think any more about it. In one of his last
utterances, in ,vhich the man himself seems to speak
through Prospero's lips, he gives up human life as I
a riddle ,vithout an answer, a dream ,vhich has no
eternal significance. Certainly he never sho,vs any
signs of becoming interested in the faith in divine
redemption. But ,vhen I hear people reject St.
Paul's estimate of human life as a piece of " nlorbid
pathology," I think of Shakespeare and ,vhat he
seems to have seen in his marvellous mirror.
For myself I make my profession. I have tried
honestly and freely to kno,v myself and to study
human life all around me and in the record of history;
and I kno,v no interpretation of human life ,vhich is
adequate both to the rays of glory which I see there
and the encompassing gloom, except the estimate
of the Bible. l\Ian is made to be a king, but he is
"a discro,vned king": and no one can put him
again on the ,yay of honour except his God ,vho
made him and would redeem him.

III

The Christian idea of sin was not developed as
a philosophy by reflection, but appeared as part of
a teaching about God and man ,vhich claimed to
be a divine message given that men might kno,v how
to live. Nevertheless it involv
s a philosophy in
that it places the seat of sin in the will and finds
its essence in disobedience or violation of a la,v known
to be divine. So the Bible looks out upon a dis-
ordered and miserable world and finds the secret
of the disorder and misery simply in the refusal
1 See his Shakespeare in "English Men of Letters," pp. 210-12.

268

SIN AND THE F.ALL

I
I
I
I

of God by men and other free spirits dimly seen In
the background.
So the nature of sin is vividly represented in the
marvellous story of the fall of Adam and Eve, \\yhich
dates, ,ve should remember, before any of the
prophets \vhose \vritings remain to us. So it is in
the La\v and the Prophets and the Psalms. So it is
finally defined at the end of the New Testament
period in the First Epistle of St. John in the phrase
"Sin is lawlessness "-the Greek "yords implying that
the two terms are convertible-that there is no sin
,vhich is not the breach of la,v by a rebel will, and
nothing else in the \vorld which breaks the I a,,? of its
being except sin (1 John iii 4). It is this doctrine
\vhich gives its peculiar hopefulness to the Bible, in
spite of its stern vie,v of actual conditions. For
there is nothing as God made it ,vhich is not good
and meant to serve a good end. There is no evil
substance. The grossest sins are but the misuse of
faculties good in themselves. And ho"Tever much
evil habits may have engrained vice into our nature,
let but the ,vill be again replaced in love to God and
obedience to His will and the \vhole nature can be
recovered. That is the radical meaning of St. Paul's
doctrine of justification by faith; for faith as he
uses it means the surrender of our being to God in
Christ; and \vhen that is gained God can work
freely upon us to accept and to renew. "All things
,york together for good to them that love God."
Thus the world, if it \vere converted to God, would
again become a paradise. And at the last issue all evil
wills are to be either converted or subdued, and God
is to come into His o\vn again in His ,vhole creation.
This Biblical idea of sin may be put in contrast
with three other explanation 0 it which challenged
the Church at its beginning and still challenge it.
(1) In the Hellenistic ,vorld in \vhich Christianity
spread, the prevalent tendency ,vas to find the secret

RIVAL THEORIES

269

and source of sin in the flesh or in the material world.
The spark of the divine, which is the soul of man,
is imprisoned at present in the body with its corrupt-
ing passions and influences, and is subjected to the
mysterious tyranny of the material ,vorld. What it
must hope for is to be released from the body and
delivered from the material world, and so be free to
resume its place in the pure being of God. And there
were a hundred mysteries and doctrines which offered
to secure to the initiated soul emancipation at last
and passage into the divine. But Christianity stoutly
resisted this tendency to fix the blame of sin in the
wrong place. To believe that matter is evil and the
source of sin-,vhether as the creation of an evil or
inferior God, or as something eternally existing and
intractable-is to despair of the world and of our
present life in the body.1 And the Christian's deter-
Inination to plant and promote the kingdom of God
in the world and to consecrate to God every element
in nature, including his own body, depends on the
belief that there is nothing bad in the v. orid but a
bad will, and that man's body as well as his soul,
and the whole material creation, are the subjects of
divine redemption.
2. It is opposed also to the more modern in-
terpretation of sin, ,vhich came into fashion with
the dominance of the idea of development, as im-
perfection which is gradually being outgro,vn. It
is "the tiger and the ape" still surviving in man,
which are gradually being subdued to the spiritual

1 The belief that the material is the evil accounts for the way in
which the Gnostic movements, where this doctrine prevailed, swung
between an extreme asceticism and an extreme license. To believe in
matter as evil begets the desire to be as free from its bondage as
possible-that is the source of oriental asceticism. But after all
we cannot be free from the body. To eat and drink, in whatever
moderation, is as bodily an action as drunkenness. So arises the
idea that all bodily acts belong simply to the temporary envelope
of the soul and are morally indifferent. And hence the rebound
into license.

270

SIN AND THE FALL

or rational purpose. The history of man is the
history of a gradual-if slow and interrupted-
progress to,vards perfection. There is, of course,
an important element of truth in this conception.
Certainly there is a great deal of evil ,vhich is ignor-
ance and imperfection, which gradual enlightenment
can cure and which itself affords the stimulus to
progress. If we try to think of a comparatively
sinless ,vorld and ,vhat its development might have
been, we should imagine it as gradually outgrowing
its childish ignorance and youthful mistakes-as
gradually gaining control, and passing on to per-
fection in the maturity of its powers. But this is
precisely to leave out the very thing ,vhich sin is.
Sin is the refusal of allegiance to God and rebellion
against the la,v of our true being. It is the selfish-
ness which places our being and its efforts upon a
false centre and so disorders our whole world. And
sin, rightly so defined, shows not the slightest trace
of being outgrown in the process of civilization.
There is sin as much in modern London as in ancient
Britain, though the sin is of a more or less different
kind. Advanced civilization certainly presents a
parody of the divine intention for man as much as
barbarous societies. Progress no doubt represents
the divine purpose, but the reason why progress
has been so broken, so fragmentary, and so liable
to reversals and catastrophes lies just in the thwart-
ing, disturbing, destructive po,ver of sin, from which
neither education nor refinement of itself has the
power to redeem. Perhaps to-day the kind of opti-
mistic delusion that I have been describing is one
into which we are less liable to be betrayed than our
fathers or grandfathers.
3. The Christian doctrine of sin is rooted in the
conception of mankind as really free and responsible,
and has its roots cut by the doctrine of determinism.
According to this latter doctrine, all that has

THE DOCTRINE OF DETERMINISM 271
occurred in general or in detail has been at the
last analysis inevitable. There is strictly nothing
that need not and ought not to have been. The
doctrine is so alien to fundamental human instincts
that while it abounds in the schools of philosophy,
it does not adventure itself much into the ways of
common life. It could not, in fact, really apply
itself to life without moral disaster. To believe
that I am and always have been and ahvays must
be inevitably determined to do \vhat I have done
or shall do, would, beyond all question, as it appears
to me, destroy the springs of moral action. I have
endeavoured, in the previous volume, both strictly
to limit the sphere of human freedom and to main-
tain its reality,1 and I will not recur to the subject
here. I should like, however, to record a remark
which I t\vice heard made by the late l\faster of
Balliol, Dr. Jowett, \vhich seems to me to be true.
He noted that theologians like Augustine, and
(strictly speaking) St. Thomas, and Calvin appeared
to be able to maintain an ultimate and absolute
determination of human actions by God, as a sort
of remote mystery of religion, \vithout its interfering
with the practical moral appeal of Christianity.
But he observed that it would not be so with modern
scientific determinism. That is no remote mystery
hidden in the inaccessible depths of the divine being
and incomprehensible by men. It claims to be a
requirement of science, its action is in the field of
observed experience, and its effect is wholly in-
telligible. It is to make all our sense of responsi-
bility and personal guilt-all that is really meant
by the sense of sin-an illusion and to establish the
conviction that we cannot help being just what \ve
are. I am thankful to believe that science is

1 But I will call attention to what seems to me an admirable
article in the Hibbert Journal for J u1y 1922, by Captain H. V.
Knox, entitled 18 Determinism rational P

272

SIN AND THE FALL

becoming much more conscious of its limitations
and lnay retreat fronl this truly irrational position.

IV

There is one difficulty presented by the Christian
doctrine of sin 'v hich, since the principle of evolution
entered into control of our imagination, has appeared
and still appears as most formidable-I mean the
doctrine of the Fall. Christianity has not been
content ,vith asserting that men in general or
universally have proved themselves individually
sinners. It has attributed to humanity an organic
unity, by descent from a common origin-our first
parents, Adam and Eve-and has, in part at least,
accounted for the prevalence of sin by attributing
the disordering of human nature or its partial cor-
ruption to the inherited effects of their fall, as it is
described in Genesis.! There is hardly any allusion
1 I am here only dealing with the doctrine of sin incidentally as
involved in the doctrine of Christ's person. Thus (1) I am giving
the go-by to all the questions raised about the exact nature and
effect of the Fall-whether positive or negative: and to the Augus-
tinian and Calvinistic exaggerations: and to the Protestant con-
ception of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity; though
I may remark in passing that I do not think any doctrine of imputa-
tion can be legitimately attached to St. Paul except in the sense
that God sees things not as they are but as they are becoming.
This is the real way to see things. Thus faith is imputed as the
righteousness it is not yet, because faith does, in fact, contain
in itself the whole root or principle of righteousness, by retrans-
ferring our nature to the allegiance of God in Christ; and Christ's
righteousness may be said to be imputed to us, though St. Paul
does not say so, because as His members we are in Him and on the
way to become more and more interpenetrated by Him. Non
quales sumU8 sed quales futuri sumus Deus nos amat.
(2) I am giving the go-by to many interesting questions con-
nected with the Hebrew story of Paradise and the Fall, and its
influence in later times. In this connection Ezek. xxviii, which
suggests a different idea of paradise from Gen. iii, is very inter-
esting. Also it is interesting that in the later apocalypses it would
appear that that unique fragment of un assimilated mythology,
Gen. vi 1-8, was exercising more influence than Gen. iii. But
I am only concerned here with the idea of the Fall and of its conse-
quences in general outline.

THE STORY IN GENESIS

273

in the other canonical books of the Old Testament to
this primaeval fall, and though it became a subject
of interest in the later Jewish schools and ,ve see
the fruit of this in the books \ve call " apocryphal,"
yet the 4 ideas there presented are confused and con-
tradictory; and there is nothing about the fall of
Adam in the Ne\v Testament except in two
famous passages of St. Paul's Epistles. But these
two famous passages have exercised an enormous
influence on theology, so that a modern Roman
Catholic ,vriter on dogmatics says, hardly \vith
exaggeration, that" the \vhole dogmatic system of
the Church revolves upon the t\""O poles of sin and
redemption, the old humanity and the new, Adam
and Christ."
The contradiction bet\veen the religious tradition
and the scientific conception as popularly stated
took this form-that the Bible taught that mankind
"began at the top" and fell from his high estate
into continually deepening degradation from ,vhich
only "the elect" are redeemed by the act of God,
\vhile science teaches that mankind began at the
bottom in a brutish condition, hardly differentiated
from the apes, and has gradually climbed upward
by his own efforts through the period of some half
a million years during \vhich something ,vhich can
be identified as our race appears to have been on
the earth. Here is a startling contradiction indeed.
But the statement requires serious revision. It
,vas only the imagination of theologians in a very
unscientific age, and especially in England the in-
fluence of l\Iilton, "\\Thich begat the idea of Adam and
Eve as created in the full-blo\vn glory of intellect
and virtue. Genesis does not in any ,yay suggest
it. It suggests for Adam and Eve something like
the complete ignorance, as ,vell as the innocence,
of childhood. All the beginnings of the arts appear
after the fall, and in the line of Cain's descendants.

274 SIN .\ND THE FALL
And the story of Genesis iii makes almost no im-
pression on the rest of the Old Testament, ,vhich
is throughout the story of a divine purpose for man
pursuing its gradual ,vay to its goal, but constantly
th,yarted and baffled by human sin. This is the
impression ,vhich the early Christian teachers
received. They answered the question whether
man ,vas created perfect in the negative. "He ,vas
not created perfect, but only in a condition to attain
or receive perfection." 1 So ,ve may restate the
position thus: "The Bible teaches that man ,vas
created free to correspond with a good purpose of
God for him: and his advance to,vards the realiza-
tion of his heritage of sovereignty in the ,\\yorld might
have been inconceivably more glorious and un-
impeded than it has been but for his constantly
rene,yed and perpetuated disloyalty to God and
disobedience to the la,v of his being. It is to this
that his misery is due. And as he ,vas made for
constant dependence upon God, so he cannot hope
to rescue himself out of his bondage, but only to be
rescued by God ,vhen he "Till return to Him in
penitence and surrender." No,v I am not a,vare
that such a revised statement brings us into any
collision ,vith science. lVe must not speak as if
science could bring human origins into the clear
light. The emergence of the distinctively human
faculties, and the place and the manner of such
emergence, are still involved in impenetrable
obscurity.
But this at least seems to some of us to be certain
-and to make a great difference between us and
our grandfathers-that ,ve have ceased to be able
to treat the story in Genesis as history at all. \Ve
see there neither a record preserved in human

1 So Clement and, in effect, Irenaeus. The Fathers also knew
that death was a law of the world before man; and that man was
created mortal by nature.

THE OLD ADAM

275

tradition, nor a revealed history of what happened
at the beginning. \Ve are not disposed to think
that mankind began in a single pair sharply differ-
entiated from the lo,,"er animals. 'Ve find it very
difficult to form any mental conception of ho,v things
happened "in the beginning." \Ve are inclined
to think that about the beginnings and endings of
the ,,'orld and of mankind-about things which lie
outside the possibility of experience or investiga-
tion by us-we can be taught only in parables or
symbols. So we are ready to attach the highest
value to the early chapters of the book of Genesis,
taking the stories they contain as symbols, not
history. \Ve see in them the clearest traces of
divine inspiration. 'Ve see there true ideas about
God and His mind-about the world and man's
relation ;to the ,,,"orld and his relation to God, about
the origin and nature of sin and its consequences,
and about God's dealings ,,,ith man both in judgment
and mercy-all so vividly expressed that a child can
understand them and the imagination of mankind
can never get rid of them.
But, granted all this, ,ve need to ask ourselves
whether the language of St. Paul about the effect
of the sin of Adam in letting loose the forces of death,
and constituting mankind sinful, can still be used by
us; and ,,"hether generally the idea of the Fall and the
antithesis of the Old ...\dam and the N e,v has still
really for us the equivalent of its old meaning.
I think so in this sense.
1. Sin-i.e. disobedience to God and the la,v of
our being
essentially and ahvays is a fall. In-
directly it may be through sin that ,ve make dis-
coveries about ourselves and the world. So sin
may be a condition of progress. But not a necessary
condition. "... e could have gained the fruit of the
, tree of kno,vledge ,vithout sin, for sin is ahvays a
perversion and a loss. It puts us in a ,vrong relation

276

SIN AND THE FALL

to ourselves and to our fellows and to God. Every-
where, in all its forms, and in every case sin is law-
lessness and therefore is a fall. \Ve are fallen by
our iniquity. Thus Adam and Eve stand for every
n1an and ,voman, and the story of their fall is the
true story of humanity and of "'hat has been its
ruin in every individual case. And over against the
Old Adam, ,,,hich is sinful humanity, stands the Last
Adam, ,vhich is the sinless humanity. Thus in Jesus
Christ I see humanity both restored to its true basis
and its true relations, and not only restored but per-
fected in God. .L\.nd I apprehend the true character
of my redemption only ,vhen I grasp it as a radical
transference of my fundamental allegiance, and so
of my ,vhole being, from the stock of the Old Adam
to that of the Ne,v.
2. I do not think ,ve shal] be driven to accept a
merely individual account of sin. I do not think
that more accurate science will make us hesitate to
say with the Psalmist, " In sin hath my mother con-
ceived me." lVhatever science ultimately teaches as
to the "monophyletic" or "polyphyletic" origin
of mankind, I think it ,viII continue to authorize us
to regard mankind as constituting one race ". hich
can be dealt ,vith, ,vhether barbarous or civilized,
as having certain fundamentally identical spiritual
capacities-that is, intelligence (as distinct from in-
stinct), the nloral conscience, and some measure of
moral freedom, capacity in some measure for en-
larging fellowship and progress, and capacity for God.
It appears to me that anthropology and the science
of religions ,york on the basis of the assumption that
humanity of all periods and in all countries is one
race, and continually tend to justify the assumption.
Further, it seems to me that psychology tends to
emphasize what is the Christian tradition that a
man's soul, or self, is not purely individual. He is an
individual ,vith the responsibilities of an individual,

THE LAST ADAM

277

and progress to,vards the ideal will deepen and in-
tensify his individuality. But that mysterious and
elusive thing he calls himself carries within it elements
and qualities which are inherited and not personal,
and ,vhich make him the representative of something
much wider and much older than his individual self
-of his family, his race, nay of humanity as a
,vhole. In his unconscious mind he carries (so it
appears) instincts and menlories ,vhich are racial
and not personal. If this is so, it ,vould be very bold
to deny that there may be, or must be, some in-
heritance of sin, in its ,veakening and perverting
effect upon the spiritual nature, in those roots of
our being ,vhich lie belo,v the beginnings of personal
consciousness. l

In this book I am only concerned to justify a
certain attitude towards man, as fallen and needing
to be redeemed, \vhich appears to be inseparable
from the appeal of Christianity-,vhich appears to
have been the attitude of Christ lIiIPself. This
appeal takes shape in St. Paul's language ,,,hieh bids
us die to the Old l\Ianhood that ,ve nlay live in the
New. It treats us as belonging to an old manhood-
the Old Adam-,vhich is corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts, and ,vould have us regenerated or
grafted upon a new stock-the sinless humanity of
the Second l\Ian. It ,vould have us believe that by
natural inheritance our old nlanhood came to us

..,.

1 I think it is important to note that "original sin " is a fault
or defect or disorder in our inherited nature, which admits of more
or less. One man's nature is more disordered to start with than
another's. And the fault or defect can be diminished by self.
restraint or deepened by indulgence. Also, it is important to notice
that there is nothing in the New Testament which justifies our
using the worà "guilt" of this inherited taint. No doubt it

isqualifìes us as it stands for the fellowship of God; but nothing
IS guilty except the action of a rebellious will. The defect of
nature in itself is an appeal to the divine compassion to redeem us,
not an occasion of His wrath against the individual personally.
19

278

SIN AND THE FALL

more or less weakened and impaired by Adam's sin,
but that it admits of being restored and rene,ved in
Christ. No doubt St. Paul believed in Adam as a
person and ,ve cannot easily do so. Nevertheless,
I think that there is very little or nothing in St. Paul's
language 'v hich will not hold good for us if we take
the Old Adam, not as an historical person, but as
the symbol of our race as it has made itself by sin, to
,vhich by our birth and natural tradition we belong.
And there is no force in the strange argument that if
the First Adam is symbolical, so may be the Second.
'Ve are driven to treat the first as symbolical because
,ve cannot penetrate the mists of ages. But the
Christ stands in the light of history. \Ye know that
He understands our nature, and ,ve believe He has
the ,vill and the po,ver to redeem it.
In the volume which preceded this I have dealt
,vith the New Testament accounts of the Birth of
Jesus as from a '7irgin and therefore miraculous.
I have there endeavoured to make it plain that
this history was not the product of any theological
demand. It sho,vs in both its forms-both in St.

Iatthe'v and St. Luke-the signs of a date far
earlier than any such theological or Christological
development as ,vould have made the demand effec.
tive. I have given ,vhat seem to me sufficient
reasons for trusting the story; and I can only refer
my readers back to what ,vas said there. But I have
also pointed out that already in the Fourth Gospel,
,vhere the story in the Synoptists is no doubt assumed
as familiar, Christ's birth of a virgin appears to be
referred to as lying behind and interpreting our new
birth. St. John, that is, here as else,vhere, assumes
,vhat is in substance St. Paul's doctrine of the Second
Adam; and he suggests that the miraculous con.
ditions of the birth ,vere appropriate or necessary
for the incarnate person ,vho is to be fount of the
new sonship. I cannot but repeat here that what

THE BIRTH OF A VIRGIN 279
St. John suggests and the Church has emphasized
does appear to me to hold good, viz. that anyone
who grasps the contrast between the sinless Christ
and the sinful world-the world in which the greatest
saints are the most conscious of their sinfulness-
and ,vho accepts Christ as the Second Adam, the
ne,v creation in ,vhic.h our manhood is rene,ved, so
far from finding a difficulty in the Virgin Birth of
Jesus ,vill ,velcome it as in the highest degree accept-
able and congruous in His case, if not rationally
necessary.1
1 For all this see Belie! in God, pp. 274-82, and Dissertations,
pp. 63 fl. See also in this volume, p. 120, and note 1, for St. John's
reference (in cap. i. 13) to the Virgin Birth as the basis of our
regenera tion.

CHAPTER X

.

THE ATONE)IE
T

THE idea of atonement made by our Lord for man
in the sacrifice of the cross is so prominent an element
in the faith of the New Testament and of the ,vhole
Christian Church, that it cannot be ignored in any
cOlnprehensive treatment of the faith in His person.
It has found a ,veleome as ,vide and deep as possible
in hun1an hearts all do,vn the ages; but it has also
presented peculiar difficulty to the intellect. 'Vhat
is attempted in this chapter is simply to fix attention
upon the central idea of the Atonement, as the Ne,v
Testament presents it to us upon the background of
the Old, and to rid it of certain misunderstandings
,vhich have been allo\ved to pervert it. Then I
should ,vish to leave my readers ,vith the feeling-
This, at least, is part of the faith in Christ to ,vhich
my heart and my reason respond. 1

I

Let us seek to clear the air by certain prelinlinary
considerations.
1. It is plain that the redemption of man through
Jesus Christ, ,vhich the N e,v Testament has for its
theme, is a complex process ,vhieh admits of being
regarded in various aspects or from different angles.
1 It must be remarked that while the Church did in fact define
the doctrine of the person of Christ, it left the doctrine of atonement
qui te undefined.

280

THE l\IEANING OF SUPERSTITION 281
Hence there are marked differences in the points of
view of the different books. But they all agree
among themselves and ,vith the books of the Old
Testament in one point: that ultimately redemption
can mean one thing only-the actual restoration of
men into the moral likeness of God. The kingdom
of God, ,vhich is the theme alike of the Old Testament
and of the Nc,v, is to be a perfected fello,,"ship of man
with God and of man with man; and there can be
no fello,vship of man ,vith God "except they be
agreed "-that is, except they be of the same mind
or character; and there can be no fellov
"ship of
man ,vith man unless they come together in obedience
to God and correspondence ,vith His purposes.
l\Ien are prone to superstition; and the best
definition of superstition is religion ,vhich is non-
moral. And there has been a great deal of su per-
stition not only in the religions of the ,vorld generally,
but also among the Je,vs and in Christendom, both
Catholic and Protestant. "Therever men have
attributed some kind of po,ver to racial privilege,
or to orthodox belief, or to sacraments or charms,
or to the prayers of intercessors, which can in any
sort of ,yay be a substitute for actual conversion
of will-for ceasing to do evil and learning to do
,veIl; ,vherever men have proclain1ed or believed in
Christ's atonement, or His righteousness" imputed
to us," as if it could be made available for us ,vithout
our being personally changed from evil to good-
there is superstition; and the teaching of the prophets
and of Christ is on no point more emphatic than
in condemnation of this sort of superstition. No
expedient or device can exist fOj bringing us into
the favour of God except by our becoming actually
godlike. "In the rich pharmacopoeia of heaven,
there can exist none such." To be and to remain
unlike God in character must exclude us from the
fello,vship of God, ho,vever correct our beliefs and

282

THE ATONE
IE
T

elaborate our ritual acts; and, conversely, the Bible
as a ,vhole encourages us to believe that there is
no external or accidental barrier, ,vhether in the
,yay of intellectual error or hereditary ignorance,
,vhich can ultimately exclude from God and His
kingdom any man \vho is really a man of good ,vill.
Heaven is nothing else but the home of the godlike;
and hell is nothing else but the state of those ,vho
have made themsel.ves, by their o,vn faults, radically
incompatible \vith God. There is no substitute for a
. good ,vill, and no compensation for a bad one. Thus
,vhatever place vicarious atonelnent, made for us
by our Redeemer, may hold in the scheme of the
Bible, ,ve nlust expect it to conform to this funda-
nlental demand for real, personal righteousness.
2. "
Iy song," says the Psalmist, "shall be of
mercy and judgnlent." Such is the theme of the
Old Testament and of the Ne\v-God's inevitable
,vrath on the hard and impenitent heart, and His
abounding mercy on the repentant. God is for-
giving, as being both ,,
illing and able to efface
sins ho\vever heinous. "Though your sins be as
scarlet, they shall be ,vhite as sno,v; and though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as \vool."
But only repentance-that is the change of heart and
,viII-can change the face of God to\vards us. ""T ash
you, make you clean; put a\vay the evil of your
doings from before nline eyes; cease to do evil;
learn to do ,veIl; seek judgment, relieve the
oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the ,vido,v."
Such is the constant theme of the prophetic message.
And it is the theme of our Lord's teaching also.
\Ve find Him asserting the forgivingness of God
towards the penitent in the most moving language,
both parabolic and sinlple. It is as expressing the
Father's mind that He came" to seek and save that
\vhich was lost." And ,ve note the stress He lays
on the necessity of a changed heart. That is the

THE IDEA OF REDEl\IPTION 283
only evidence that a man is really forgiven. So
the unthankful servant in the parable 1 finds that
his acquittal, though it had been formal and valid,
is invalidated by his showing himself still quite
hard-hearted. And on the other hand the woman
that was a sinner proves that she has been forgiven
by the generosity of her devotion to Christ. 2 Where
such love is, forgiveness must have already been
given. Here we have the teaching of the prophets
intensified. God certainly needs no propitiation to
make Him willing to forgive; and nothing is
needed by the individual to secure his forgiveness
by God but the contrite heart which responds to
His love.
S. .A.11 this teaching about God \ve are surely
meant to apply to the relations of God to all men
individually, in whatever ignorance of God they
nlay have been nurtured, for it expresses funda-
mental principles of His being. Nevertheless, the
constant assumption of the Bible from Genesis to
Revelation is that men need something besides
true ideas about God. They need an activity of
divine po\ver to rescue them from a hopeless con-
dition into which rebeHion against God has plunged
them, and this activity of God is what is called
redemption. The Bible is a history of divine re-
demption, and it is only in the process of redemption
that the disclosure of the real character of God is
made. As has been shown in the previous chapter,
no one can understand the Bible, Old Testament or
Ne\v, whose imagination is not filled with this con-
ception of man as needing to be not enlightened
only but redeemed.
And further this method of divine redemption,
though its ultimate aim is univerðal, proceeds
through the election of one people, Israel, to be the
redeemed people; and ,vhen in the New Testament
1 Matt. xviii 21-35. a Luke vii 47.

284

THE ATONE
IENT

the Church or people of God is freed from all national
restrictions, nevertheless it is the society, and not
barely. he individual, \vhich is both the subject and
the illstruinent of divine redemption. The method
of divine redemption is corporate. No doubt this
is to trench upon the topic of the Church, with \vhich
we are not concerned in this volume. Nevertheless,
it is in its nlost general sense hardly open to doubt;
and it must in SOlne sort be here taken for granted
because the idea of atonement has its roots through-
out in this corporate method of redemption.
4. This is indisputably so in the Old Testament.
God made a covenant \vith the people of Israel as a
\vhole, and the covenant ,vas inaugurated and per-
petuated in sacrifice, the sacrifices of bulls and goats,
as being in some sense representatives of the people
or substitutes for the men ,vho offered them. The
sacrificial systenl expressed their allegiance as a
people to God and His la\v, and the fear ,vherewith
they \",ere to fear Him. The customs of sacrifice
date from a time \vhen the people had no under-
standing of the moral character of God, and the
early prophets appear simply to deride them as
"
orthless. But later, through the teaching of the
unkno,vn prophet of Deuteronomy and the mission
of Ezekiel, the spirit of prophecy and the la \v of
the sacrifices ,vere conciliated. Thereafter the sacrifi-
cial system is made to express Israel's constant need
of \valking \vith a\ve before the face of the righteous
God and Inaking constant atonement for its corporate
and individual sins; not for its high-handed sins of
rebellion and defiance of God, for ,vhich the sacrifices
did not avail,! but for its sins of carelessness and
ignorance. Of course the consciousness never left
the deeper minds in Israel that "the blood of bulls
and of goats" could not really "take a\",ay sin."
Nevertheless, the temple \vorship nourished in the
1 See Epistles of St. John, pp. 209 fie

CHRIST'S TEACHING OF ATONEMENT 285
heart of Israel a deep sense of its constant need of
propitiation. There is no question of this. 'Vhat
is questioned is whether this ,vhole system was not
by Christ ignored and abolished as meaningless-
whether in His eyes it pointed on to anything which
He was to fulfil and not to abolish.
5. Our Lord ,vould appear to have said nothing
about the temple sacrifices. He denounces the
Pharisaic tradition as a misuse of authority and a
perversion of religion. But He said not a word
against the sacrificial system. Presumably He ac-
cepted it as a divine institution though imperfect.
But He positively attached Himself to something
in the Old Testament-the prophecy of the Righteous
Servant-,v hich gave a ,vholly different idea of
vicarious sacrifice and propitiation on behalf of the
nation. The Righteous Servant in Is. liii is repre-
sented as inaugurating the new Israel of the Restora-
tion by the vicarious sacrifice of himself.l He in
his innocence bearing the sins of the people offers
his life as a guilt-offering to God. And God accepts
the offering-the offering of the one for" the many."
The righteous victim of unrighteousness becomes
the effective intercessor for" the many" ; and they,
for his sake forgiven and by his kno,vledge and
instruction made righteous, constitute the restored
Israel. He sees in them the travail of his soul and
is satisfied.
This moving picture of vicarious sacrifice appears
to have made strangely little impression upon the
Jater literature of Israel. But we perhaps have a
reflection of it-though it suggests a lower conception
of God-in the heroic self-oblation of the l\laccabean
martyr to expiate the ,vrath of God upon his nation.
His six brothers have been martyred in the persecu-
tion of Antiochus, in presence of the tyrant and of
their mother, ,vho stands by and exhorts them to
1 See above, pp. 59 fl.

286

THE .
TONE
IENT

constancy. Then the youngest, who has seen all
his brothers tortured and killed, makes his brave
profession, before he follo,vs them: "These our
brethren, having endured a short pain that bringeth
everlasting life, have no,," died under God's covenant;
but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive
in just measure the penalties of thine arrogancy.
But I, as my brethren, give up both body and soul
for the la,vs of our fathers, calling upon God that
He may speedily become gracious to our nation;
and that thou alnidst trials and plagues mayest con-
fess that He alone is God; and that in me and my
brethren the ,vrath of the Almighty may be stayed,
1vhich hath been justly brought upon our ,vhole
race." 1
"Yhether \ve have here a reflection of the thought
of the later Isaiah or no, ,ve cannot, ,vithout a quite
arbitrary rejection of ,veIl-authenticated texts, doubt
that our Lord identifies Himself ,vith the Righteous
Servant, 2 and this means that He sees Himself as the
inaugurator of the Ne,v Israel, and knows that by His
voluntary death, on behalf of the people, He is to
make propitiation for their sins. Both the crucial
texts are, as has been said, stamped ,vith the mark
of their origin by the expression " for many." The
first (:
Iark x 45, ::\Iatt. xx 28) is the phrase "The
Son of man canle . . . to give his life a ranSOln for
many." The actual ".ords used only lay stress upon
the price of His life ,vhich He must pay to set llis
people free. The idea of an orfering for sin lnade to
God lies in the prophecy referred to rather than in the

1 2 :Macc. vii 36-8. In 4 l\{acc. vi 28-9 (an Alexandrian book)
the martyr Eleazer is represented as praying "Be propitious to
thy race, being satisfied by our punishment for them. 1t.lake my
blood an expiation (Ka8åptTLoJl), and my life (
VX1]JI) a substitute
(àJl'Tí
vxo,,) for theirs." And the author concludes (xvii 22)
tha.t "through the blood of these pious men and their propitiatory
death, the divine providence saved Israel."
I See above, p. 61, where the point is argued.

TIlE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT 287
\vords taken by themselves. 1 The other passage, at
the Last Supper, is much more explicit: "This is my
blood of the covenant, ,vhich is shed for many," 2 or
" This cup is the new covenant in my blood." 3 These
phrases suggest unmistakably a reference not only to
the sacrificial death of the Righteous Servant "for
many," but also to the sacrifices of animal victims
which inaugurated the covenant of Sinai, "Behold
the blood of the covenant." 4 This is our Lord's
only reference to the animal sacrifices of the Old
Covenant; and He declares that the New Covenant
is to be inaugurated also in blood.-the blood of His
own self-sacrifice, by ,vhich the many are to be given
their new standing-ground before God. In winning
this new standing for His people, He, \ve should
gather, is their vicarious representative. He is acting
for them, \vithout any co-operation on their part.
There is here no contradiction of the teaching, so
often given by our Lord, of the free forgiveness of
sins by the Father wherever He sees a penitent
heart. But it supplements it. God is still to deal
,vith men, not as isolated individuals, but as a people.
It is the new Israel \vhich is being inaugurated, and
1 The figure of the "ransom," by suggesting the thought of ð
bandit or tyrant who held the prisoners, became the basis of the
strange theory, common in early and mediaeval days, of a trans.
action between Christ and the devil, in which the devil, by putting
Christ to death, took more than his" rights" of the Sinless One,
and so had no further claim on men. But we can never rightly
press either a metaphor or a parable beyond the special point of
comparison-in this case the greatness of the price needed to set
men free. It was by a similar misuse of a metaphor that
"propitiation" was Inade to suggest that God's mind towards
man needed to be changed, on which see below, p. 295.
:& Mark xiv 24. St. Matthew adds (xxvi 28) "unto remission
of sins."
8 This is the phrase used in the earliest account of the Last
Supper which St. Paul received "from the Lord," doubtless
through the older apostles.
· Exod. xxiv 8. In other passages of the New Testament the
sacrifice of Christ is regarded as fulfilling the Passover, the Day of
Atonement, and the Sin Offering (see Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
p. 92).

288

THE ATO
E::\IENT

the new Israel must be inaugurated in sacrifice-not
now the sacrifice of animal victims of \vhich God had
no need, but the self-sacrifice of the l\Ian, ,vhich
kno\vs no limits and goes even to offering His life-
blood. That is the basis of the New Covenant.
6. If \ve are to trust the Fourth Gospel, \ve n1ust
believe that John the Baptist had anticipated this
function of the Christ ,vhen he called Him "the
Lamb of God ,vhich taketh a\vay (removeth by
expiating) the sins of the ""orld." But ,vhether or
no " the critic" can bring himself to trust the Fourth
Gospel at this point, he must ackno,vledge that the
expiation ,vrought by the self-sacrificing death of
Christ is taken for granted in the \vhole of the Kew
Testanlent \vhich looks back upon Him. It is taken
for granted in the first Jerusalem Church, as appears
when St. Philip interprets of Jesus the sacrificial
language of Is. liii. It is implied ,,,,hen baptism" in
the name of" Jesus or " by calling on IIis name"
appears as the condition of the forgiveness of sins;
for this n1eans that His merit alone avails for re-
mission 1; and this belief pervades the N e,v Testa-
ment. It is in popular estimation specially attri-
buted to St. Paul. But it \vas already in "the
tradition" as St. Paul received it at his conversion. 2
He places it, no doubt, in a special light, but that
is all. On this special light, ho\vever, in "rhich St.
Paul vie,vs the doctrine of _\tonement ,,"e must say
a \vord.
7. St. Paul, then, especially in the Epistle to the
Galatians, is occupied ,vith the claim of the J udaizers
,vho \vould have insisted on the perpetual obligation
upon Christians of the Je,vish Law, as represented by
the rite of circumcision. And still in the Epistle to

1 Acts ii 38, viii 16, 32-5, x 43, 46.
I 1 Cor. :xv 3, "That which also I received, that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptmes." See Dr. Rashdall, The Idea
of Atonement in Ohristian Theology; quoted below, p. 303.

ST. PAUL'S TE
>\.CHING 289
the Romans their clainl occupies the foreground. As
against such a claim he represents the Jewish La,v as
a tenlporary expedient to convict the Jews of sin
and to prepare them for Christ. This conviction of
sin he presses to the full. The J e,vs, no less than the
Gentiles, find themselves involved in sin and unable
to endure the trenlendous judgment of God. They
need to be saved. They cannot save themselves.
God must save them. And that is what He has done
in Christ. It is a salvation full and perfect that God
has provided for men in Christ, and ,vhich the apostles
are sent into the ,vorld to proclaim, and it is ,vholly
the ,york of God in Christ, an act of divine grace and
good favour which man has not merited, and to the
accomplishment of which he contributes nothing.
On the whole, St. Paul never leaves us in any doubt
that the salvation ,vhich is offered us of God's free
bounty is nothing else than real deliverance from the
po,ver of sin into actual goodness or moral freedom,
by the full co-operation of all our powers ,vith the
purpose of God. But in the beginning of the Epistle
to the Romans, ,vhich Protestantism has unduly
isolated from the whole of St. Paul, he presses to
the full-even to the point of letting it appear
arbitrary - the initial stage of the divine "plan
of redemption" -that is, the ne,y status-the ac-
quittal (" justification ") or forgiveness of sins-won
for us by the "propitiation" of Christ. 'Yholly
without any regard to our merits or our demerits,
,vholly out of the bounty of His free grace, ,vithout
any co-operation of ours, God has provided in Him
who is the Head of the N e,v Race, the Second Adam,
Jesus Christ, a " making amends" îor all the guilty
past. His unqualified sacrifice of IIimself-unto
death and the shedding of His blood-is accepted as
something ,vhich sets free the love of God to flo,v
out in the full stream of redemptive bounty. Let a
man, J e,v or Gentile, only believe-that is, let him -

L l'.\
fV ST.

<<QY'( nil r,.,.

290

THE ATONE?\IEKT

surrender himself to God in Christ and accept His
grace, in utter humility and the response of faith to
love-and he is acquitted, "'holly ,vithout regard
to the magnitude and multitude of his sins. He
is given a fresh start, a fresh status in Christ-of
which baptism is the instrument-to live the new
life of sonship to God and brotherhood in the com-
munity of the redeemed, the Church.
On St. Paul's special teaching about the Atonement
I must make t,vo remarks.
(1) St. Paul least of all men admits of being judged
by single texts. He does not guard himself in argu-
ment. He must be judged on the ".hole. And so
judged, there is no possibility of questioning that
St. Paul meant by faith a moral response and not
merely an intellectual acceptance. It is self-sur-
render; it is the response of ,vill to love; it is love
inchoate. He explicitly says (\vithin a year of ,vriting
the Epistle to the Romans) that faith which does not
involve love is worthless. l He al\vays assumes that
faith involves baptism, and baptism is entrance into
the new life. He never contemplates belief ,vithout
discipleship. 2 This becomes over,vhelmingly clear in
the epistles of the captivity. But it is clear from the
time \vhen he "Tote to the Thessalonians. Only in
his Epistle to the Romans, he is detern1ined to make
men see their o,vn ,vorthlessness apart from God-
that their only hope is in Him and His unmerited
grace--and that the salvation ,von for them ,vas,
in its initial stage, an act done ,vholly ,vithout their
co-operation and f01 4 them.
(2) The reason suggested by St. Paul, quite inci-
dentally, ,vhy God should have needed such a
" propitiation" before He could let the proclama-
1 1 Cor. xiii 2; cf. Gal. v 6.
I I think Dr. Rashdall, op. cit. p. 116, is justified in saying that
cc at bottom the Catholic theory of justification finds more support
in St. Paul, and is far nearer his real thought, than the Protestant
theory in its strict traditional form."

THE TEACHING OF THE 'VHOLE N. T. 291
tion of His free-flowing grace go forth among man-
kind, is apparentlyl that it ,vas necessary to safe-
guard the reality of the divine righteousness at the
moment ,vhen it ,vas sho,ving itself as mercy. This
is secured if the act \vhich is the instrument and
occasion of divine acquittal is an act ,vhich placards
before men's eyes the a,vful price by ,vhich their
redemption was bought. But we ,vill return upon
this suggestion. 2
8. It is remarkable that, though St. Paul won
an undisputed victory over the J udaizers, yet his
special arguments in the Galatians and the Romans
about the relation of la,,,"" to grace, and about justi-
fication by faith, produced little impression upon
the Church as a ,vhole. Part of this argument ,vas
taken up in a perverted form by l\larcion; much
of it again by St. Augustine. But it did not generally
colour the theology of the Church. On the other
hand, the doctrine of atonement ,yon by the self-
sacrifice of Christ, or the shedding of His blood,
is equally present as a central point of faith in almost
all the books of the Ne,v Testament,3 and in the
Church as a ,vhole.
It is the recurrent theme of the First Epistle of
Peter that that ,vhich "redeemed" the Church ,vas
a ranson1 of infinite value-" precious blood, as of
a lamb ,vithout blemish and \vithout spot, even the
blood of Christ" (1 Pet. i 18, 19)-" because Christ
suffered for you" (ii 21)-" bare our sins in his
1 Rom. iii 25-6.
I On special phrases of St. Paul, see appended note B, p. 304.
B It does not happen to be mentioned in the very brief Epistle
of Jude, nor in the Epistle of St. James, which is purely ethical.
But even here I think Dr. Hort is probably right in translating
St. James v 6 (cf. iv 4) U Ye condemned, ye murdered, the Righteous
One. Is He not become your adversary ?" If so, "the Righteous
One" is probably a reference to Is. liii; cf. Acts iv 13-14, U Jesus
his servant, the holy and righteous one," whom" ye killed." And
this would probably indicate that the idea of Atonement through
the Righteous Servant's death lay in the background of James's
mind.

292 THE ATOKEl\IENT
body upon the tree" (ii 2-:t)-" suffered for sins
once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might
bring us to God" (iii 18).
Again the point of vie\v of the great Alexandrian
teacher ,vho ,vrote the Epistle to the Hebre,vs is
that of the High Priesthood of Christ. For, pre-
existing as the Son of God, He took our nature,
soul and body, that in our nature, but ,vith more
than hUlnan po, reI', even in eternal spirit, He might
offer to God the perfect sacrifice for sins, even IIim-
self-the sacrifice of perfect obedience consummated
in the shedding of His blood-and so enter into the
heavenly places to be our High Priest, our effectual
intercessor, and to "cleanse our consciences from
dead ,yorks to serve the living God." Here again
the 'v hole status of the Church is made to depend
upon the sacrifice of the cross.
Again in the Apocalypse the same dominant idea
reappears in the ne,v song of the redeemed ,\\Thich
the heavenly beings sing to "the Lamb standing
ac; it had been slain in the midst of the throne."
"Thou ,vast slain and didst purchase unto God
"Tith thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and
people and nation, and rnadest them to be unto our
God a kingdom and priests." II ere again it is to
the sacrifice of the cross that the status of Christians
as a body is attributed. And finally in St. John's
Gospel, though very little is said about atonement,
yet Jesus must die for the people of God before He
can save it and enlarge it (xi 51, 52), and in the
First Epistle, "fIe is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only, but also for the "rhole ,vorld "
(1 John ii 2; cf. iv 10). It appears to have been
a subject, like the final" coming" of Jesus, ,vhich
St. John thought ,vas sufficiently falniliar in the
common tradition of the Church, so that he could
lay his emphasis ,vhere it "Tas more needed. But
he plainly took it for granted.

THEORIES OF ATONE
IENT 298

II

This book is not a treatise on the Atonement,
and it \vould lengthen it unduly if I \vere to attempt
to revie,v the history of the doctrine in the Christian
Church. The most learned recent analysis of this
history ,vhich \ve have is Dr. Rashdall's. He is
quite right in calling attention to the extent to
\vhich the moral appeal of the death of Christ is
emphasized by the Fathers and schoolmen, and to
which the aspect of atonement in the \york of Christ
is, by some theologians, merged in the general doctrine
of the Incarnation and its effects. But he labours
in vain, as it seems to me, to dislodge from its position
in the Christian tradition the belief "rhich, as we
have seen, is so prominent and indisputable through-
out the N e\v Testament-that, prior to all appropria-
tion by men, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit,
of the fruits of the Incarnation, there had been on
the part of Christ, as the Redeemer of men and
the Inaugurator of the N e\v :I\lanhood, a sacrifice
offered to the Father, a sacrifice of obedience unto
the shedding of His blood, in virtue of which God
,vas enabled freely to justify, or acquit, those ,vho
belong to Him, and to give them a ne,v standing
ground as sons of God and members of Christ.
Everything in the Ne,v Testament appears to depend
on this initial sacrifice of atonement, reconciliation,
and propitiation. -
I do not, as I have said, propose to follow the
various theories ,vhich by Origen and Leo, by Abelard,
by Anselm, by the Calvinists, by Dale and Denney,
by l\lcLeod Campbell and :I\loberly, have been elabo-
rated to explain the Atonement and account for its
necessity. But in no district of theology is the
contrast so marked bet,veen the hesitating and
critical attitude displayed towards these intellectual
20

294

THE ATONEl\IEKT

theories of atonement ,vhich individual scholars
,have striven to formulate, and the whole-hearted
acceptance of the fact by the great body of the
faithful in all ages. Every,vhere \vhere Christianity
has spread animal sacrifices, and indeed everything
'v hich men had been accustomed to call sacrifices,
have ceased, because in becoming Christians men
have learned about the one, full, perfect and sufficient
sacrifice, \vhich renders all others needless and gives
to the idea of saèrifice a ne,v meaning. The popular
appeal made by the Eucharist or
Iass in Catholic
Christendom is more than half to be accounted for
by the fact that there, by universal ackno,vledgment,
is presented to God, as covering all our approach to
Him, the one availing sacrifice. It is a quite modern
hymn ,vhich bids us pray:
" .A.nd no"
, 0 Father! mindful of the love
That bought us, once for all, on Calvary's tree,
And having ,vith us Him that pleads above,
'Ve here present, "
e here spread forth to Thee
That only offering perfect in Thine eyes,
The one true, pure, immortal sacrifice."

It is a modern hymn, but it expresses in language
at once devout and accurate ,,,hat the heart of the
,vorshipping Church throughout the ,vorld has
believed and ,velcomed ,vith adoring love: and the
,vhole purport of the hymn-singing of Protestant
Christendom, and the ,vhole strength of the appeal
of revivalist preaching, has \vitnessed to the un-
dying po,ver of the doctrine of the Atonement. It
is hard to believe that anything not grounded in
truth could have made such an appeal and received
such a ,vorld-wide ,velcome. 'Ve isolate ourselves
from the "general heart of man" if ,ve ignore its
power or deny its necessity. The instinct which
,velcomes it has its roots in Hebrew Scriptures,
but it has its roots also in the various theologies

NEEDLESS SCANDALS

295

of almost every non -Christian tradition. The beliefs
may be crude or barbaric, 1 just as the later theories
of atonement in the Christian Church may be morally
or intellectually unsatisfying; but it is almost im-
possible to believe that God is at work in all the
,videspread instincts of men ,vithout also feeling that
the instinct ,vhich has led men to seek in sacrifice
atonement ,vith God is a divine instinct, 'v hich
Christianity Inust have expressed and satisfied if it
was to be ,vhat it claims to be-the religion for all
mankind.
".Vhat I propose to do is to consider the chief
moral and intellectual scandals ,vhich have been
found in our time in the doctrine of the Atonement
as commonly preached, to see ,vhether they really
belong to its essence, or to its scriptural presenta-
tion: and then to consider whether ,,"e can find such
a rationale of the doctrine as shall make it ,velcome
to our intellects as well as our hearts.
1. First, then, let us recognize that any pre-
sentations of the doctrine which suggest any difference
of mind or disposition to,vards men bet,veen the
Father and the Son-,vhich represent the Father
as Justice demanding punishment for sin and the
Son as l\iercy, pleading ,vith Justice and satisfying
it by offering itself as an innocent victim in place
of the guilty-are radically unscriptural. In the
New Testament, quite constantly, the mind of the
Father is declared to be towards men purely good
-the mind of love-and the cost of the sacrifice is
represented as the Father's no less than the Son's.
"God so loved the ,vorld that he gave his only-

1 The story of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia to Artemis, to procure
good sailing for the Greek fleet, is taken as the type of the belief
in sacrifice at its worst, but it is interesting to see how Euripides
(in the Iphigeneia in Aulis) half moralizes the story by making
Iphigeneia offer herself voluntarily for the cause of Greece, and by
making Artemis save her and carry her to Tauris, substituting for
her an animal victim, as in the Bible story.

296

THE ATOXEl\IENT

begotten Son" 1_" spared not his o,vn Son, but
delivered him up for us all." 2 'Yherever ,ve find
the necessity for the sacrificial death to lie, ,ve must
utterly refuse to find it in anything in the Father's
mind making Him un,villing to forgive, or distin-
guishing in any way His n1ind in the matter fronl
Christ's. The essential wrath of God over sin is
Christ's as much as the Father's, and the pardoning
mercy the Father's as much as Christ's. It is a
great step to get this fully and utterly recognized.
It emancipates the Christian doctrine from the most
revolting aspect of propitiatory sacrifice, as it is
found all the ,vorld over and in the earlier stages
of the Old Testament. And there is no doubt that
the New Testament excludes it.
2. Secondly, ,,"e need to distinguish the ideas of
vicarious sacrifice and vicarious unishmen t 3 ; and
I think ,ve- shall find that ,ye Càn repudiate the
second ,,, hile ,ve ,vel come the first. "r e can do this
by appealing to the facts. All that came upon
Christ in the way of suffering came simply from His
life of obedience and sympathy. He never sought
pain,4 as if to ,,"itness pain ,vould please the Father,
or taught men to seek pain, except so far as service
and self-discipline involve it. All that He suffered
came simply out of His obedience to His Father's
mission, and of His speaking the truth and rebuking
sin; out of llis standing stoutly against ,vickedness
in high places, and out of His boundless syn1pathy
with men. This constituted His mission. "He
rode out because of the word of truth and meekness
and righteousness." And as the world ,vas, it
brought Him to His death. There is not anything
here ,vhich suggests any "punishment" devised
1 John iii 16; cf. 1 John iv 10, "Herein is love. . . that. . .
God. . . sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
! Rom. viii 32.
8 See RashdaII, op. cit. pp. 98-9, 151.

Except in the minor form of the voluntary fast in the wilderness.

NO VICARIOUS PUNISH:\IENT 297
by the Father for the Son. All that is said of the
Father is that He did not interfere to spare His son
-that He let sin take its course, and show its real
nature in this supreme example. The Father, in
the divine providence that governs the "\vorld, made
our sins-and the sins ,vhich crucified Christ were
the normal sins of men-light upon Him, in exactly
the same sense as all the world over the sins of men
are vicariously borne by their victims-the sins of
parents by their children, of children by their parents,
of rulers by their people, and of people by their
pastors. The Father simply sent the Son into the
"\vorId, and under the normal action of its moral laws,
and did not interfere.
There ,vas a horrible story of that unhappy boy
Ed"\vard VI having a ,vhipping companion attached
to him; and ,vhen the young king did ,vrong the
child - companion ,vas said to be vicariously, and
doubtless very un,villingly, whipped. And divines
were so misguided as to quote this outrageous instance
of substituted punishment as an illustration of the
Atonement. It fails as an illustration in t"\vo ways.
The sacrifice of Christ ,vas voluntary: it ,vas self
sacrifice: and there ,vas no kind of " punishment"
devised for Christ except ,,,,hat ,vas involved in His
doing right-in His obedience and His sympathy.
On the other hand there is a punishment for
sinners, and it is of t"\vo kinds. There is the eternal
punishment-that is, the alienation from God ,vhich
sin involves and ,vhich has eternal consequences, and
this Christ never bore. There is not the slightest
trace of sin -consciousness in Christ; nor, as far
as I can see-be it spoken ,vith all reverence to
Dr. l\loberly-any trace of what can be called
vicarious penitence. The Agony in the Garden has
been viewed as if it were a shrinking from the ex-
perience of the Father's "\vrath upon the sins of men
with which Christ was to be identified. But this is

298

TIlE ATONEl\IE:KT

simply groundless imagination. Neither the Agony
in the Garden nor the great question upon the Cross
appears to suggest any consciousness on our Lord's
part of being identified ,vith human sin. Purely and
simply they suggest the agony of a righteous soul-
conscious as neither Job nor the Psalmist could be
of perfect innocence-finding itself, in a ,,'orld ,vhich
it kno,vs to be God's ,,'orld, exposed to ignominy,
failure, outrage, and death, ,vhile God remains silent
and does nothing. That Christ should have asked
the great question-c'l\Iy God, my God, why didst
thou forsake me ? "-and received no ans,ver is, for
all ,vho feel the like trial in ,,"hatever degree, a cause
of profoundest thankfulness. But I cannot see any
reason for believing that He experienced in His
spirit the sense of the Father's alienation from the
SInner.
This spiritual and eternal penalty of sin is gone
at once as soon as the sin is gone out of the soul.
And, as far as ,ve can see, Christ not being a sinner
did not bear it. There is another penalty of sin-
the temporal punishment ,vhich ,vrongdoing brings
,vith it. and from this, as far as ,ve can see, Christ
does not deliver us. Our absolution does not
necessarily or usually ,vard off from us any of the
natural consequences of our repented sins. Only
it gives us the right spirit in which to bear them,
and it turns them into healing penances. To be
I absolved is not to be let off. "Heard, forgiven,
punished" ,vas the record of God's dealings ,vith
His saints under the Old Covenant, and it is the
record of His dealings ,,"ith us under the N e,v. 1
Thus, as far as I can discern, there is in the case
of Christ nothing ,vhich can be called vicarious
punishment, nothing which was inflicted upon Christ
instead of us. The doom on unrepented sin remains
and the healing chastisement for repented sin remains.
I Pa. xcix 8.

CHRIST FOR US AND IN US 299
Christ's sacrifice purchased for us forgiveness-that
is all we are told-in the sense that it enabled the
flood of the Father's mercy to flow freely in the
channels of the New Covenant. \Vhy such a sacrifice
should have been needful for such an end to be
attained we shall consider directly.
8. Lastly it has been an abundant source of scandal I
that the Atonement-" Christ for us," acting in our
stead-has been isolated from "Christ in us," re-
ne\ving and recreating our characters. It is notice-
able ho,v, in St. Paul's teaching, faith in Christ,
our atonement, merges itself, even in the Epistle to
the Ronlans, and much more in his later Epistles,
in the faith which appropriates and lives in His life.
" Christ for us "-our sacrifice of reconciliation-gives
us our fresh start, but it is but the prelude to
U Christ in us." Our absolution is simply what gives
us our admission into the new life. "I ,vill run the
way of thy commandments, when thou hast set my
heart at liberty." Again and again in the K ew
Testament the effect of the atoning sacrifice is stated
in terms of actual righteousness, because this is its
only purpose. "Ho,v much more shall the blood of
Christ, who through eternal spirit offered himself
\vithout spot to God, cleanse your consciences from
dead works to serve the living God?" 'Vhat you were
redeemed from" with the precious blood. . . of Christ"
,"vas "your vain manner of life handed down from
your fathers." "Thou wast slain and didst purchase
to God by thy blood men of every tribe, etc.,
and madest thenl to be unto our God a kingdom and
priests; and they reign upon the earth." (The con-
secrated life is the end and effect of atonement.)
"His own self bare our sins in his body on the tree,
that ,ve having died unto sins, might live unto right-
eousness." This is the language and purport of the
whole New Testament.
There are, in fact, three relations in which our Lord

300

THE ATONEl\IENT

stands to us in the New Testament. There is Christ
in front of 'liS, ,vho sets before us the standard of the
ne\v life-in \vhom ,ve see the true meaning of man-
hood. That is to kindle our desire. Then there is
Christ for us-our propitiation or atonement-
,vinning for us, at the price of His blood -shedding,
freedom from all the guilt and bondage of the
past, the assurance of free forgiveness and the fresh
start. Then there is Christ in us-our new life by
the Spirit, moulding us in,vardly into His likeness,
and conforming us to His character. And the three
are one. Each is unintelligible \vithout the others.
The redeeming ,vork of Christ lies in all together.
\Ve nlay dwell no,,,, on one and no\v on the other,
but we can never really isolate one from the others
without altogether distorting the meaning even of
the one.

III

'Ve have been at pains, by reviewing the N e\v Testa..
ment, to understand how central and essential to
the Gospel it announces is the conception of the
Atonement with God ,,",on for us by the sacrifice of
Christ. And \ve have laboured to disencun1ber the
idea of His Atonement of scandals ,,
hich have been
suffered needlessly to disfigure it. Now let us con-
template it in its legitimate outline, and see whether
it commends itself to our conscience and our reason.
Christ stands as the Inaugurator of the New l\Ian-
hood, perfect and complete in the midst of our sin-
stained and ,veakened race. He sets the perfect
standard of human life while He is on earth, so that
none henceforth can doubt what perfect manhood
means, and from the heavenly places to \vhich He
has passed He supplies the po,ver of the Spirit that
men may have wisdom and strength to live the good

THE CENTRAL 1tIEANING 801
life according to His example. But between the
example and the outpouring of the Spirit there stands
intermediate another mode of action on our behalf.
As the New l\Ian, on behalf of all those who shall
gi ve themselves to His allegiance, He offers to the
Father a great act of reparation -the sacrifice of
obedience consummated in blood and agony upon the
cross. Over against all our selfishness, our impurity,
our dishonouring of God, He makes that great act
of reparation; and in virtue of it the Father bestows
upon all those who, by faith and incorporation,
are united to Him a new standing ground in His
presence, and the gift of free forgiveness ever renew-
able, so that their past sins are no longer reckoned
against them, the guilt and the burden of them is
gone, and they can run the ,yay of God's conlmand-
ments unimpeded, seeing He has set their hearts
at liberty.
Even here in this sacrificial action we must not
isolate Christ from II is people. To present ourselves
to God, in soul and body, as a free-,vill offering is our
reasonable service, and it is the law of humanity
that sacrifice is vicarious as ,veIl as individual.
We suffer for one another and redeem one another
by suffering. St. Paul dares to speak of " filling up
in his flesh that ,vhich is lacking in the sufferings of
Christ for his body's sake, ,vhich is the church."
And the N e,v Testanlent constantly speaks of the
Cross as our example as well as our propitiation.
Nevertheless, as in all that concerns the relation of
Christ to His people, that which in us is dependent
and imitative, in Him is original and creative. His
sacrifice ,von for His new humanity a boon to ,vhich
they contributed nothing, ,vhich they must receive
from Him or in His name simply and solely by faith,
the boon of being forgiven; and over all their im-
perfect strivings and sacrifices that one full perfect
and sufficient sacrifice abides-perpetually pleaded

802

THE ATONE
IENT

-to give adequacy to what is imperfect and expiate
""hat is sinful.
Christ ,ve believe ,vas one in nature ,,,ith the
Father. His self-sacrificing love is God's love.
"Thy thcn ,ve ask should God have needed this
expiation? \Vhy should not free forgiveness have
simply been announced as a ,yord of God? Or, to
put it otherwise, if obedience, under the conditions of
the sinfui ,vorld, involved death, and all that Christ
gave ,vas obedience even to the point of dying at the
hands of men, ,vhy should it have assigned to it this
propitiatory or expiatory value? So far as ,ve can
find an ans,ver to this question at all, ,ve can find
it perhaps best on this line-,ve can reflect ho,v our
thought of God ,vould have suffered, if the great act
of reparation had not been made by our Representa-
tive, acting on our behalf, doing fOT us 'v hat we could
not do for ourselves. "T e should have been ,vithout
that sense, ,vhich nothing has conveyed to the con-
science of men like the sacrifice of the Cross, of the
outrage ,vhich sin is upon the maj esty of God, as
measured by the price which it cost to redeem us.
The gift of free forgiveness, the freedon1 of a fresh
start, ,vas not simply given us by God, but bought
for us at a great price. This, I suppose, lies at the
heart of that rather obscure phrase of St. Paul's-
which is the only passage in the Ne,v Testament
,vhich even suggests the need of an explanation of
the Atonement-,vherc he contrasts "the passing
over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of
God " ,vith the great act, at the crisis of redemption,
,vhen God " set forth Christ Jesus" upon the great
stage of the world " as a propitiation taking effect in
his bloodshedding, to be made available for us by
faith, for the exhibition of his righteousness at the
present season that he n1ight be just (righteous) and
the justifier (or acquitter) of him that hath faith in
Jesus." Divine righteousness can now show itself

DR. R.ASHD.ALL'S "IDEA OF ATONEl\IENT" 308
freely as mercy, because man, in Christ Jesus, has on
the great scene of the world made the perfect act of
reparation and borne the uttermost witness to the
sovereignty of God by obedience unto death.
Is there not an immense difference bet\veen the
effect upon men's minds of a mere announcement
of free forgiveness and the effect upon them of a
covenant of free forgiveness bought at so tremendous
a price as the death of the Son of God? The reason
for the fearful price being paid to "rin forgiveness
seems to be found rightly by St. Paul in the neces..
sity for guarding the revelation of the divine mercy
from all associations of easy-going indulgence or in..
difference to sin. It ,vas guarded by the Sacrifice;
and it ,vas God Himself "rho paid the price.

NOTE A
Dr. Rashdall's " Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology"
This is a most learned and instructive ,vork, for \vhich
every studf'nt must be grateful. But it seems to me, in
some very Í1nportant respects, extraordinarily arbitrary.
Thus Dr. Rashdall rightly notes (p. 75 ff.) that the
doctrine of the ...
tonement wrought by Christ's sacrifice
is not due to St. Paul. "That vie,v is rendered abso..
lutely impossible by a single sentence in one of the
practically undisputed Epistles of St. Paul himself,
, I delivered unto you . . . that which also I received,
ho\v that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures.' The belief that in some sense Christ died
for sin-in order that sin might be forgiven and ren10ved
-,yas thus quite certainly part of what St. Paul received.
It ,vas already an article of the Church's traditional
creed ,vhen the apostle of the Gentiles was baptized
into it." Cf. also p. 104: "That God had forgiven
sins through Christ, and pre-eminently through His
death, ,vas common ground between himself (St. Paul)
and his opponents. It 'was part of the common faith
of the Church." But (very arbitrarily, I think) Dr.

804 THE A TO:NEl\IENT
Rashdall is disposed to deny that the tradition ,vas
due to our Lord's o,vn teaching. He thinks that the
idea "resulted frOln the reflection of the Church in the
interval \vhich elapsed bet\veen the Crucifixion and
St. Paul's conversion-\vhich cannot have been more
than a very fe\v years" (p. 76). It \vas accepted
"simply and solely on authority" (pp. 80, 82)-the
authority of the Old Testament scripture. " They found
it, as they thought, distinctly foretold that He should
do so (die that sins might be forgiven), in books ,vhich
they regarded as in the most litera) and plenary sense
inspired ,vriting. In that fact I believe we can discover
the historical origin of the atonement doctrine" (p. 78).
But there is no passage which ,vould have suggested
the doctrine at all obviously except Is. liii; and that
our Lord identified Himself ,vith the Suffering Servant
of this passage seems to me to be manifest (see above,
p. 61). And the t\VO great \vords of our Lord about
the sacrificial value of His death, \vhich are referred to
above, both are grounded on this passage. 1'his alone
accounts for the undisputed position of the Atonement
doctrine from the first.
I think that one great omission '\vhich is conspicuous in
Dr. Rashdall's conception of Christ is-what is involved
in His being the Christ-that He came to inaugurate
the ne,v Israel, and that lIe acts accordingly as the
represcnta tive before God of the Church of the believers
in Him \vhich is yet to be-\vhich by His death and
resurrection and the coming of the Spirit He is to bring
into effective being, and \vhich is to be the old Church
reformed on a ne,v basis, on the basis of a ne,v covenant
by sacrifice.

NOTE B
Two phrases of St. Paul which have been needlessly
rnis'interpreted (see p. 291).
(a) 2 Cor. v 21, "Him who knew' no sin, he made
to be sin on our behalf." I believe that "sin" here
is the equivalent of "for sin" in Rom. viii B (" an
offering for sin," R.V.). In the LXX, following the

TWO PHRASES OF ST. PAUL 305

Hebrew, the same ,vord stands for sin and sin-offering
(áp.apTía, translating chattath). Thus Lev. iv 21, "It
[the bullock] is the sin, i.e. the sin-offering, of the
assembly" ; 24, " It [the goat] is a sin" ; 29, " He shall
lay his hand upon the head of the sin"; vi 25, "This
is the la-w of the sin," i.e. sin -offering; viii 14, "The
bullock is the sin" ; cf. Hosea iv 8, "They feed on the
sin." St. Paul means, I think, simply that" God made
him ,vho kne,v no sin to be the sin-offering on our
behalf. "
(b) Gal. iii 18, "Having become a curse for us."
The argument is-Those who struggle in their o'wn
strength under the law end under condemnation or a
curse. There is a better ,yay-not of saving ourselves,
but of being saved. Fruitful faith in Jesus can do \vhat
fruitless struggle cannot. He brought us out from
under the curse by His self-sacrifice. He ,vas made a
curse for us, i.e. treated as a malefactor, that 'we might
not have to be treated as malefactors. \Ve note that
St. Paul is quoting a text of the Old Testament, Deut.
xxi 23, ",'hich is "Cursed of God is everyone that
hangeth upon a tree [gibbet]," but he leaves out the
words "of God." It ,vas the world, not God, ,vhich
treated Christ as a malefactor.

CIIAPTER XI

.

SU1\-IMARY AND CONCLUSION

TUERE are, no doubt, other ideas and principles
\vhich the doctrine of the Incarnation implies, and
\vhich might fall to be considered here. Thus the
affirmation of the Jf' ord made Flesh involves, as
against all the tendencies of Hellenism, the dignity
of matter and of the material '\vorld, ,vhich indeed
is implied alike in the Christian idea of creation, of
sin, of the Incarnation, of the Church and the
sacraments, of the resurrection of the body and
the redenlption of the ,vhole creation. But ,ve ,viII
defer the consideration of this principlc until the
sacraments and the resurrection of the body have
been discussed in the next volume. Again, '\YC have
found ourselves close up against the question of
Authority as involved in the idea of a divine
message or revelation, but that again shall be
deferred for discussion in connection ,,
ith the
Church. Once more '\ve shall probably have been
led already to feel the coherence of the various
elements of the traditional faith ,vhich centres in
Christ, and this solidarity of "the articles of the
faith" has over against it in our days a like
solidarity in the sequence of ideas which are grouped
as "
Iodernism." A certain philosophy appears to
lie behind each sequence of ideas. But again we
shall be able to bring this out more effectively '\vhen
the '\vhole cycle of rival ideas has been passed in
306

THE FIRST FAITH OF THE DISCIPLES 807
review. So at this point we will summarize our
argument and draw it to a conclusion.
Starting from the J e\vish background, \vhence the
first disciples started in the company of Jesus-the
background of the distinctively J e,vish belief in
God and the expectation of the 1tlessiah and his king-
dom I-we observed ho,v profoundly Jesus trans..
formed the J e\vish expectation, as His contemporaries
held it, even \vhile He accepted the title of 1tlessiah
-turning His back on political and nationalist
ideals, and building up, out of the materials of
prophecy, one profoundly unified and spiritual con-
ception of the Christ, manifested, suffering, dying,
rising, glorified, and to come in judgment. And \ve
noted ho,v, quite apart from any question of names
and titles, by the unexampled spiritual authority
which He "\vielded, He absorbed the attention, the
faith, the devotion of His disciples, so that lIe came
to be as God to their souls. This is the feature in
the Gospel story ,vhich overwhelms us as ,ve read
it. But contrary to this deepening attraction of
His person, and pulling in the opposite direction,
there was the horror of the impending Cross, and
the overthro,v ,vhich it involved of all that had been
associated \vith the Christ and his triumph. 2 "r e
,vatched the tragedy of the disciples' failure under
the strain of these contending feelings, and then
their recovery under the experience of the Resurrec-
tion and the Ascension and the effusion of the Spirit.
But still ,ve noted that all their faith centred on
the risen and glorified Lord, the n1an \vhom they
had kno,vn, full of the Spirit and power, \vhom they
had deserted, ,vhom they had seen crucified, no,v
exalted to the throne of God, ,vho had sent thence
upon them the Holy Spirit. It would have seemed as
if they ,vere on their ,yay to deify their human
Iaster
after the Greek manner. But that could not be.

1 Cap. i.

J Cap. ii.

808 SUl\I
IARY AND CONCLUSION
In the providence of God it was the bitterest of
their opponents who was to interpret to them the
meaning of their faith. This Saul-in the days
,vhen, as he said, he ,vas "thinking váth himself
that he ought to do many things contrary to the
name of Jesus of N azarcth," 1 and ,vas "punishing
his disciples ofttimes in every city and compelling
them to blaspheme "-must have kno,vn a good
deal about J esu
. Doubtless he learned more after
his conversion, at Damascus and Jerusalem, about
"the tradition" of the Christian society. But he
was certainly convinced that it was nothing less
than the action of God in his own soul that had
"revealed his Son" in him; and this-the Divine
Sonship-becomes the keynote of his teaching about
Jesus. The man born of the seed of David
according to the flesh, ,vho after living and dying
as man had been exalted to the divine glory and
to the supreme Lordship-before He ,vas born of a
,yoman to His human condition, aye.. before ever
the ,vorld ,vas, was the proper Son of God, a Son
,vith His Father, through ,vhom all things ,vere
made and in ,vhom all things have their consistency.
This is the doctrine of the Incarnation. And we
noted that this doctrine, ,vhich interprets the person
and glory of the ascended Jesus upon the background
of Je,vish monotheism as the coming of God's
o\vn Son in the flesh, and not the deification of a
man, seems to have been ,vithout controversy
accepted throughout the churches. 2 There is, as
we sa,v, no Adoptionism, properly so called, to be
found in the Ne,v Testament. And \ve discovered
in the Synoptic records of Jesus several solemn
sayings which are most certainly original and ,vhich
can only be interpreted in the sense of a trans-
cendental, superhuman Sonship. They do not differ
in real implication from the more emphatic utter-
1 Acts xxvi. 9. 2 Cap. iii.

THE DOCTRIKE OF INCARNATION 309
ances about pre-existent Sonship ascribed to Jesus
in the Fourth Gospel. That Jesus so spoke must
have been on record in the tradition of the Church,
though thf
force of His ,vords had not been generally
realized till St. Paul brought it home to the other
apostles in its full force. So only can ,ve account
for his doctrine of Incarnation coming so easily into
general acceptance.
\Ve analyzed the substantially identical doctrine of
the Incarnation of the Son or " Word" of God in
St. Paul, in the author of the Epistle to the Hebre,vs,
and in St. John. Besides the ,yords of Jesus Himself,
,ve found the materials for the conception of these
first expositors of the person of our Lord in the
Je,vish phrases "the \Vord," and" the \Yisdom,"
and" the .Lt\biding Place" of God-phrases expressive
of God as He manifests Himself in nature or amongst
His people-much more obviously than in any
purely Hellenistic sources. But it is to be re-
membered that Hellenism had already influenced
the J e,vish tradition, especially at Alexandria, as
in the Book of \Visdom; and the Epistle to the
Hebrew"S at least is an Alexandrian book. 1
If the Hellenistic influence on Christian orIgIns
has been much eX.1ggerated by one school of critics,
so by another school of critics has the influence of
the later Je,vish .A.pocalypses. This ,vas our con-
clusion ,vhen ,ve examined the eschatological and
apocalyptic teaching of Jesus and noted its complex
character and originality. That our Lord was an
apocalyptic seer there is no doubt, but He profoundly
transmuted the apocalyptic tradition in adopting
it. On the whole, He approximates far more closely
in teaching to the prophets than to the later ,vriters
of Apocalypses. In particular, ,ve sa,v no good
reason for supposing that He prophesied the im..
mediate con1ing of the end of the "Torld. On the
21 1 Cap. iv.

310 SUl\I:\I.ARY .Ai\J) COXCLUSION
contrary, He appears to have declared explicitly
that He had no map of the future spread before
His eyes. l
Having thus revie\yed the thought of the :r\ew
Testament about Christ, we contrasted its doctrine,
,vhich is the traditional doctrine, about His person
,vith the most striking and distinctiye modern vie\vs,
all of a humanitarian and rationalistic type, 'which
have claimed the name of critical reconstructions,
and found them not truly critical, in that they are
strangely arbitrary in ,vhat they accept and ,,,hat
they reject, and even violently contrary in their
results. \Ve sa,v reason to claim that the traditional
faith-modified, in vie,v of really critical require-
ments, but substantially unchanged-is alone able
to account for the facts as a ,vhole, the facts of the
Gospel story and the convictions of the first disciples,
by '\vhich alone the origin of the Christian Church
can be explained. And ,ve considered the most
important types of objection ,vhich are made to the
traditional doctrine. 2
Then ,ve studied the later development of the
doctrine of Christ's person in outline, and came to
the conclusion that the decisions of the Councils,
,vhich fixed the doctrine in dogmatic lin1its, ,,,ere
all of them necessary and justified in their negative
aspects, considered as excluding types of teaching
fundamentally destructive of the Christian faith;
but that t.hey ,vere open to great abuse ,,,hen they
,vere made the positive basis on 'v hich a picture of
a Christ was erected, in some points strangely unlike
the picture in the Gospels. \Ve felt the need of
insisting that, ,,,,hile the decrees \\yere necessary as
hedges or safeguards of the fundamental faith of
the Ne,y Testament, they should be understood to
direct us to the Christ of the Gospels as giving us
t he positive image, and to the apostolic "Titers
1 Cap. v. :I Cap. vi.

OTHER DOCTRINES INVOLVED 811
as giving us the positive interpretation, of His
person. l
Then we proceeded to consider the main ideas
and doctrines ,vhich the Incarnation doctrine of
the N e,v Testament is found to involve; and first
the doctrine of the trinity of "persons" in the
unity of God, the sense of which gradually became
distinct in the process of experience which the Gospels
record, by "rhich the Name of God became to the
disciples the Kame of the :Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; and we took note of the
profound assistance '\vhich the reason finds in this
conception of the one divine being as not a
monotonous unit, but containing within Himself
relationships ,vhich human language at least can
only describe as a fello,,'ship of persons. 2
Next we examined the presupposition of all the
Biblical accounts of Redemption, viz. that man is
universally sinful and that, in order to realize the
end of his being in fello,,'ship ,vith God and fcllo,,,-
ship amongst men, he needs something much more
than enlightenment. He needs such a fundamental
recreation and rene,val as involves the direct action
of the God ,vho made him. He lnust be saved.
He cannot save himself. And we exanlined in
outline the meaning of the doctrine of "original
(or racial) sin," and found it justified or rather
required by the essentially corporate and racial
basis of human personality. 3
Finally we found the idea of .Atonement or Pro-
pitiation made by Christ before God, on behalf of
the Ne,v Humanity which He came to inaugurate,
to be an idea ,vhich the ,vriters of the N e,v 1'estament
and the Church from the beginning assumed for
true. 'Ve found that it clearly depends upon Christ's
own testimony. "Te endeavoured to rid it of scandals
in which, in the current tradition of the Church,

1 Cap. vii.

J Cap. viii.

I Cap. ix.

312 SU1\I::\lL\.RY A
ï) COXCLUSIOX
it has become too plentifully involved; and thus
purged, and presented in its original outline, we
found it free fron1 the n10ral objections \vhich have
been urged against it, and deeply responsive to the
moral reason, \vhich demands reparation to evoke
and justify forgiveness; and \ve sa\v that its in-
tellectual justification is inseparable from that
estinlate of Christ's person ,vhich sees in Him the
representative head of a new hUlnanity, ,vho can
act for His " members." 1

II
In all this process of observing and thinking we
have found no justification for certain opinions
,vhich are commonly held and propounded as critical,
viz. (1) that the theology of St. Paul and St. John,
,vhich is ,vith little difference the theology of the
Catholic Church, oyerlays and obscures the naive
theology, if so it is to be caned, of the historical
Jesus. In any case you cannot get behind the
apostolic \vitness. The Epistles are, as a \vhole,
some,vhat older than the Gospels as "Te have them,
and the earliest Gospel records grc\v up in the heart
of the Church ,vhich the Acts and the Epistles dis-
close to us. But also in these earliest records ,ve
discern a person \v ho cannot be reduced to merely
human proportions. The picture of Him, ,vhich
,ve feel compelled to take for history and not for
invention, is the picture of the superhuman Son of
God. It justifies and requires the theology of St. Paul
and St. John.
(2) "T e have seen no justification for asserting
any determining influence of Hellenistic ideas upon
the origins of Christianity, upon the Christianity
of the New Testament. It is true that it had a
much greater and deeper influence upon its develop-
ment, ,vhich ,ve shall have to consider in connection
1 Cap. x.

CURRENT l\IISTAKES

813

with the sacramental system of the Church. But
it had little influence on its origins, save in so far as
it had already influenced Alexandrian Judaism in
such a way as the Book of "Tisdom represents. Like
Christianity, so Judaism sho,ved a marked po,ver
at different periods to assin1Ìlate foreign elements-
from Babylonia and Persia and Greece-and to in-
corporate theln into its o,vn proper tradition in a
discriminating spirit ,vhich never suffered the
essential character of its o,vn doctrine to be impaired
or obscured. These elements had come to belong
to Judaism before Christ ,vas born. They belong
to His background. But they ,vere not consider-
able. It is substantially only the religion of the
prophets and the person and teaching of Jesus
\vhich provide the materials of New Testament
Christianity.
(3) Nor have \ve found justification for the ex-
aggerated importance \vhich a good many distin-
guished teachers ascribe to the J e\vish apocalypses,
and especially to the Similitudes of the Book of
Enoch. \'Ve found no trace in the New Testament
of the idea of the Pre-existing Son of lJlan, \",ho is
neither properly divine nor properly human. I sup-
p05C no one believes that such a being ever really
existed. He is purely mythical; and it is astonish-
ing ho,v large an influence even SOlne orthodox
theologians seem to allo,v to this mythical figure,
without recognizing that the superstructure of ortho-
dox theology is imnlensely \veakened if myth enters
so largely into its foundations. But in fact the
conception does not really appear in the N e,v Testa-
ment. It is gratuitous to imagine it. 1
1 The only sentence which really at first sight suggests it is
John v 27, "He gave him authority to execute judgment, because
he is the Son of .i\Ian." This sounds like the Similitudes of Enoch.
But it is impossible to ascribe the idea of a pre-existing Son oj ]rIal),
to John. He explains his theology in his preface, and it appears
constantly in his Gospel, and there is no room for it. It is the
\V ord or Son of God who pre exists.

814 SUl\ll\IARY AND CONCLUSION

III
Not indeed in Ne\v Testament times, but in the
succeeding ages of the Church, especially ,vhen intel-
lectuallife has been keen, the doctrine of the person
of Christ has been the centre of bitter controversy,
and this controversy has undoubtedly distracted the
attention of the Church from ,vhat ought ahvays
to be its main interest-the follo,ving "the ,vay,"
the living the life, the maintenance of the moral, social
,vitness. The religion of Christ, as He taught it,
was to be, first of all, the ,vay. The ,yay ,vas a
hard ,yay, and made a tremendous claim for sacrifice
upon the heart and ,vill of men. But for the men
of good will it does not appear that our Lord intended
the doctrinal claim to prove difficult. "If any luaB
willeth to do God's ,vill, he shall kno\v of the teaching,
whether it be of God." 1 But the gravest scandal
,vhich Church history presents to many of the best
men is that again and again in East and \Vest,
among Catholics and Protestants, they see a rigid,
controversial, and often merciless insistence on
doctrinal orthodoxy, coupled ,vith manifest laxity of
moral discipline. The situation in the Church has
thus constantly presented features precisely contra-
dictory to the apparent intention of Christ-that
is to say, a concentration of interest on precise
orthodoxy, coupled \vith a great readiness to "make
it easy" in moral matters for those ,vho are prepared
to submit to the doctrinal authority of the Church,
and to conform to its required p
actice. This, I
cannot doubt, is the gravest of all the causes of
scandal in the Church, and I cannot minimize it
or apologize for it. 2
] John vii 17.
I I would venture to refer to my "Essex Hall Lecture,"
Ohristianity applied to the Life oj Jt.len and Nations, given by me in
1920, and published by the Lindsey Press, 5 Essex Street, Strand,
London, W.O.

THEOLOGY DISPARAGED

315

But ,vhen, in order to remove this scandal, men
disparage theology they make a fundamental mis-
take. Ho,vever many inconsistencies may be found
in all ages bet\veen men'8 lives and their professed
beliefs, there can be no question that, in the long
run, how men behave \vill depend upon ,vhat they
really believe about God and human nature and
destiny; and in particular that the Christian" way"
depends for its motives and supports upon a specific
doctrine about God and His love and IIis purposes
for man, that is the doctrine of the Incarnation.
"Herein is love, not that ,ve loved God, but that
he loved us, and sent his Son. " No one ,vho has
followed ,vith any degree of sympathy the argument
of this book \vill doubt that St. Paul and St. John
\vere fight in perceiving that the Gospel requires
theological controversy, \vhere necessary to defend
a certain original and final doctrine on which it
depends. "Though we, or an angel from heaven,
should preach unto you any gospel other than that
\vhich we preached unto you, let him be anathema."
"'Vhosoever goeth on\vard and abideth not in the
teaching of Christ, hath not God." 1 l\ly last words
in this volume shall be an attempt to set in a clear
light the importance of maintaining (though never
by methods of force) the doctrine about Christ of
St. Paul and St. John.
I think the word ,vhich best sums up the importance
of this Incarnation octrine is fil ality 0 niqucnes ..
Let me quote the thoughtful language of Ed,vyn
Bevan 2 :
"The great dividing line, it appears to me, is that
\vhich marks off all those \vho hold that the relation of
Jesus to God-ho\vever they describe or formulate it-
is of such a kind that it could not be repeated in any
other individual-that to speak, in fact, of its being
repeated in any other individual is a contradiction in
1 Gal. i 8-9, 2 John 9. 2 Hellenism and Christ-ianity, p. 271.

I
316 Sillll\IARY AND COXCLUSION I
terms, since any individual standing in that relation to I
God ,vould be Jesus, and that Jesus, in virtue of this
relation, has the sanle absolute claim upon all men's
,vorship and loyalty as belongs to God. i\ persuasion
of this sort of uniqueness attaching to Jesus seems to
me the essential characteristic of ,,,hat has actuaHy in
the field of hUlnan history been Chrbtianity."
N O\V it is to me evident that nothing but the
doctrine of "th \V orù made flesh" -the doctrine of
the Nicene Creed-can interpret or justify this unique-
ness and finality ascribed to Christ. Dr. Kirsopp
Lake has set before us the opposite estinlate of the
teaching of Jesus in human history, as contributory
but as essentially neither final nor complete.! Dr.
Lake is regarded as an "extremist." But nlY
contention is, that no " mediating" doctrine, nothing
except the full doctrine of the Nicene Creed, ,vhich is
substantially identical ,vith St. Paul's and St. J ohu's,
can either explain or justify the ascription to Jesus
of finality and uniqueness in the strict sense. 'Yhat
I mean is this: if that doctrine is true, there is
finality. No disclosure of God to man, such as is
possi ble in this ,vorld, can be even concei ved fuller
or cOlnpleter than is given in Him ,vho is God in-
carnate-the \'T ord made flesh. He that hath seen
Him hath seen the Father. And no relation of man
to God can be even conceived closer than in Him
in 'VhOlll the l\Ianhood is taken into God. }1-'rom
Him, so conceived, proceeds necessarily the final
and universal religion, for ,vhatever elelnents of
truth are found in the religions of the ,vorld, and
,vhatever excellencies in n10ral ideal, here, in Christ,
is necessarily something 1110re conlplete. And ,ye
cannot '" look for another" Christ. There can be
no other. That person, Jesus of Nazareth, is on
the throne of the universe.

1 See the conclusion of his Landmarks in the His/or!! oj Early
Christianity.

THE FINALITY OF CI-IRIST 317
On the other hand, no doctrine of Christ, less than
this, can justify the claim of finality. If Jesus ,vas
a man ,vho began Ilis existence as a person when
He was born of l\lary-ho\vever close the union ,vith
God into ,vhich He was taken, ho\vever full the
inspiration of the Spirit granted to Him-there can
be no reason in the nature of things \vhy another
man, in a latcr agc or in another country, and be-
longing to another tradition, should not be in the
same relation to God and equally or n10re fully
inspired. No form of adoptionist or N estorian or
generally humanitarian teaching can claim finality
for its Christ.
It must be remembered that religion is a thing
for common men. The refinements of the Antiochene
school ,vhich lay behind Nestorianism ,vere very
subtle; but N estorianism as vulgarly understood
was thcir inevitable outcome. Comn10n men can
understand the doctrine of the Incarnation, and
they can understand the doctrine of an inspired
man. But I do not think it is open to question that
so far as they came to hold the latter doctrine,
though they might accept Christ as the best and
most fully inspired man who has hitherto appeared
among n1en, they would neither ,vorship Him nor
think Him the final revelation, nor l-lis nan1e the
one name, nor His religion the religion for all man-
kind. I cannot conceive how this can be doubted.
Of course there are those \vho ,vould say that
the acceptance of the category of evolution in all
departments of life, and in the regions of human
religion and morality, renders the very idea of
a final religion revealed t\VO thousand years ago,
and never to be antiquated, quite unacceptable.
But I suppose that this objection is based upon a
misconception about evolution which we are out-
gro\ving. Evolution is as cOlllpatible ,vith retro-
gression as with progress, as ,ve ,vere warned by

318 SU
I:\IARY AND CONCLUSION
Huxley long ago. It must accommodate itse]f to
the facts. The facts of human history suggest
nothing less than necessary or uniform progress.
In the particular region of the history of religion
this is especially the case. The highest level in the
religion of Persia ,vas attained in the teaching of
Zoroaster, three thousand years ago. The highest
level in Buddhisnl is indisputably the level of
Siddartha Gotama. It \vould remain true, even if
Christ \vere a nlere man, that though in that ca
e,
no doubt, some successor might attain a higher level
than He, yet in fact He still remained the highest
ideal. And these considerations sutfice, I think,
to prevent our rejecting the idea of the incarna-
tion of God in Christ, once for all, as if it could be
repudiated in the name of evolution.
But there is another consideration perhaps more
satisfactory. It is that though Christ is final-
though He is on the throne of the \\'orld and His
judgment the final judgment-though St. John can
rightly claim of Christians that any "advance"
,vhich takes a Christian teacher outside or a\vay from
the "doctrine of Christ" is self-condemncd-yct
that Christ and the doctrine of Christ is so rich and
manifold that it ,viII take all races and all ages and
all sorts of individual characters to realize all that it
involves. That is an idea suggested to us by both
St. Paul and St. John; By St. Paul ,vhen he bids us
see the ,vhole development of the Church catholic
as the sphere in which Christ is to be gradually ful-
filled: by St. John \vhen he recalls to us that the
function of the Spirit is to lead the Church into " all
the truth. " No doubt this is an often misinterpreted
text. It needs to be coupled ,vith the t".o neigh-
bouring texts ,vhere our Lord speaks to the di
ciplcs
of the Holy Spirit as "to bring all things to your
remembrance ,vhatsoever I have said unto you"
and "to glorify me: for he shall take of mine and

THE ASCENSION

819

shall declare it unto you." The function of the Spirit
is to interpret Christ and not to supersede Him.
Nevertheless there is so much to be brought out and
interpreted that we are constantly feeling we have
only made a beginning of understanding Him, and
that as Jew and Greek and Roman and French-
man and Englishman and German have contributed,
so ,viII Indian and Chinese and Japanese. It ,viII
take all mankind to understand Him in whom d,vells
all the fulness of God bodily.
The ascension of Jesus is the symbol of His
finality. He passed to the throne of the world. He
is to come to judge the quick and dead. His judg-
ment on all men and things is to be the final judgment.
But the Ascension, though it is in this sense the great
end and there can be no higher summit, yet in
another most manifest sense is a fresh beginning.
It is but the establishment upon His secure throne
of I-lim ,vho is to be the source of redemption for all
men: ,vho by His Spirit is to ,york throughout the
world of men until all men have heard His Gospel in
effective po,ver and. the kingdoms of the ,vorld can
become the kingdoms of God and of His Christ.
So understood Christianity is indeed the religion
of development or unfolding-the gradual unfolding
of all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge which
are in Christ.

NOTE ON THE ASCENSION.

There is an idea current that the articles of the Creed,
"He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God; from thence He shall come to judge the
quick and the dead" depended upon the old Ptolemaic
astronomy \vhich rendered possible a belief in a heaven
above our heads; and that the disappearance of this
theory has invalidated this group of beliefs connected

820 SU!tIl\IARY AND COXCLUSIO

\vith the Ascension. The same is said to be true of the
belief in the descent into hell. Thus Dr. Glazebrook
says: "The clauses have no literal meaning except for
those \vho regard the earth as a fixed centre of creation,
\vith a hoIIo,v space underneath for IIades and a solid
vault overhead." And Dr. Streeter, "The Ascension
implies the belicf that heaven is a dcfinite region locally
fixed above the solid bo,vl of the skies."
But it is a mistake to suppose that all intelligent
Christians of the e rly ages held such ideas. Plato had
taught the intelligent ,vorld of the Greco-Roman Elnpire
by his myths to accept the principle that about
"the other ,vorid " or other \vorlds ,ve can be taught
for the n10st part only in figure or allegory. 'fhis idea
,vas \videly diffused and Alexandrian Juùaism gave it
additional vogue. There is no doubt that ideas about
heaven and hell such as Dr. Glazebrook and Dr. Streeter
refer to did prevail in the ,vorld of the first centuries,
outside the Church and inside it. But it is not the case
that they ,vere universal. I doubt ,vhether St. Paul held
any such ideas. 'Yhen he speaks of Christians being
now' ,vith Christ "in the heavenlies" or heavenly
sphere,l he cannot have been thinking of it as a defined
locality. lVhen he speaks of " being caught up into the
third heavcn " I suspect he kne,v quite ,veIl that he ,vas
speaking in a figure, as one ,vho sees but a blurred re-
flection in a mirror, or apprehends but in a riddle. 2 Nor
is it the least probable that ,vhen the author of the
Epistle to the Hebre,vs speaks of our Lord as having
passed through the heavens into the true tabernacle 3
he \vas forgetting ,,-hat he had learned from his .Alex-
andrian teachers, that earthly things are only" figures"
or "shado\vs" of eternal realities. 4 No one ,vould be
disposed to ascribe materialistic ideas of heaven to
Clement and Origen. But it is more surprising to find
Jerome, " hen he is interpreting "foolish speaking"
(on Eph. iii 5), 5 giving it as an example of such nonsense
that Christians dare to say" that heayen is curved like
1 Eph. i 3, ii 6. ! 1 Cor. xiii 12.
8 iv 14, viii 2. · ix 23, x 1.
6 P.L. xxvi 519 f. Dr. Harris, Oreeds or no Oreeds, called my
attention to this quotation.

THE ASCENSION

321

an arch, and that a throne is placed in heaven, and that
God sits upon it, and that, as if He ,vere a commander or
judge, the angels stand round to obey His commands and
to be sent on different missions." Plainly for Jerome
the truth and meaning of the Ascension did not depend
upon such" nonsense."
Again the Fathers are n1any of them at pains to ex-
plain that" He sitteth at the right hand of God" ,vas
certainly figurative, seeing that God has no right hand.
Lastly as regards Hades, ,vhether it holds sonle special
position, as a part of or in relation to the earth, there
,vas a good deal of discussion in many circles and among
Christians in early times. There again it is hard to
believe that \vhen St. Paul speaks of the dead as " sleep-
ing in Jesus" he ,vas thinking of a pit underground.
There is a long and interesting discussion of the matter
in Gregory of Nyssa's de Anirna et Resurrectione, 'where he
seems to follo\v Posidonius the Platonizing Stoic; and
he reaches the conclusion "that the soul, being im-
material, is under no necessity to be detained in certain
portions of nature." Hades he explains to mean "the
invisible" (-rò ànð(ç), and "to go to Hades" the transla-
tion of the soul into the inyisible.
I am not disputing the wide prevalence of nlerely
physical conceptions of heaven and hell such as Coperni-
can astronomy nlust have utterly overthro\vn. I anl
only pleading that, even when no one doubted the
Ptolemaic astronomy, intelligent Christians did not fail
to see that heaven and hell ,vere not spatial terms.
I have in Belief in God (pp. 272-273) spoken about the
Ascension of Christ as a physical fact which the apostles
sa,v, and of its spiritual significance, quite irrespective
of changes in our conception of the structure of the uni-
verse; and (pp. 180-182) I have endeavoured to sho,v
ho\v iHogical and unreasonable it is to argue that because
in the case of what lies outside possible huntan experience
,ve nlust be taught by sYlnbols, therefore \ve can apply
the sanIe synlbolic interpretation to events, such as the
miracles connected ,vith our Lord's person, which are
stated to have occurred within huntan experience and
ha ve all their significance from ha ving so actually
occu rred.

"\.

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

CHAPTER I. The Jewish BacJ."ground. The great question,
pp. 1-3. \Yhere \ve start. The Jewish background,
8-4; taken for granted by Jesus and His disciples, 4-8.
In1portance of this, because of (I) the Je,vish doctrine
of God and its consequences, 8-11. (II) the expecta-
tion of the I{ingdom of God, 11-14. (III) the features
of the l\lessianic expectation: (1) the universality of
Israel's religion, 15-16; (2) the doom of the world
powers, 10-17; (3) the I{ing l\Iessiah, 17-]8; (4) the
New Covenant, the effusion of the Spirit and the Resurrec-
tion of the dead, 18-19; (5) Daniel's vision of the
1. one
like a son of man" developed in the Book of Enoch, ] 9-21.
The apocalyptic literature, 22-3; its lin1ited influence,
24-5. The Jewish parties in our Lord's time, 25-7.
Notes.-A. Traces of polytheism in D.T., 28-9.
B. The teaching of Zoroaster, 29-30. C. The belief
in the pre-existing Son of Man, 30-3.

CHAPTER II. The Belief of the First Disciple. Its gradual
development: (I) as interpreted by (I) I-Iarnack,
pp. 35-6; (2) Sch,,'eitzer, 37-8; (3) Bousset and Kirsopp
Lake, 39-41; their common assunlption, 41; the
trustworthiness of Synoptic Gospels and Acts, 41-3.
(II) The preparation in John the Baptist, 43-6. (III)
The impression on the disciples of the GaJilæan ministry:
the title Son of l\Ian, 46-7; the impression of authority
in word and work, 47-52; Aut dells aut homo 110n bonus,
52-3. (IV) The titles of Jesus: The Son of God, 54-7 ;
The Christ, 57-9; The Suffering Servant, 59-62; The
glorified Son of l\lan, 63-6. The failure of the disciples,
66-8.
N"ote on John the Baptist and Jesus, 68-9.
822

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

823

CHAPTER III. The Faith of the First Chu'rch The meaning
of the Cross, pp. 70-2. (I) The recovery of the disC'iples'
faith requires the actual resurrection, 73-4; the trust-
worthiness of the Acts, 74-6; the nature of the earliest
faith in Jesus as Lord, 76-8. 'Yas it to end in a doctrine
of" deification"? 78-9. (II) The influence of S1. Paul:
the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son, 79-84; His
cosmic functions; His Godhead implied or asserted,
85-6; sources of the doctrine, 86-90; accepted by the
other apostles, 90-1; the idea of the divine 'Yisdom,
92-4. (III) The Epistle to the Hebrews and its doctrine
of Christ, 94-7; in agreement with St. Paul, 97-9.
Notes.-A. On the institution by Christ of the sacra-
ment of His body and blood, 99-102. B. On the question
whether the title Lord for Jesus was in use in the first
church in Jerusalem, 102-5. C. St. Paul's phrase,
" Christ after the flesh," 105.

CHAPTER IV. St. John and the Rest of the New Testament.
(I) Recent work on the Fourth Gospel-Stanton, l\Ieyer,
Burney: The use to be made of the Gospel, pp. 107-11 ;
its doctrine of Christ's person, 111-15; the sources of
the doctrine; the historical memory; the position of
the Prologue; the Logos idea in Hellenism and its
influence 31nong the Jews; St. John's use of it, 115-19 ;
analysis of the prologue, 119-22. (II) The rest of the
N.T.: No positive "adoptionist" doctrine, 123-4;
the Revelation, 124-7; The Epistle of James, 127-30;
1 Peter, 130-2; Conclusion, 133.
Note on Reitzenstein's theory, 133-5.

CHAPTER V. The Apocalyptic Teaching of Jesus. The Messi-
anic expectation summarized, pp. 136-9. The cosmic
catastrophe in the prophets, 139-41; in the later apoca-
lypses, 141-2. The acceptance of the prophecies by
Jesus, 142-4. His teaching about the future coming
as immediate, 144-6. The doom upon Jerusalem,
146-8; thrown upon the background of cosmic catas-
trophe, 148-9. The Last Day reaJly proclaimed, 150;
but nothing said about times or seasons; the mistake of
the disciples; the twofold character of Christ's teaching

824

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

a bout the I{ingdom; His profession of ignorance, 149-
55; the attitude of S1. Paul and of the seer of the
Apocalypse, 155-6. Is the Gospel of the IGngdom for
this world or the next ? 15
GO.
Note.-An illustration from Tacitus, 160-1.

CnAPTER VI. 18 the Doctrine of the Incarnation true? Summary
of argument hitherto, pp. 162-4. (I) The positions of
Harnack, Schweitzer, and Bousset arbitrary and one-sided,
165-9; the true n1ethod of reply, 169. (II) The English
:\Iodernists, 170-3. (III) The objection that we are
dehumanizing Christ and making IIis exanlple unreal
considered, 173-9; the idea of an incarnation of God
in humanity ,vith Christ for foremost specin1en, 179-82 ;
conclusion, 182-183. (IV) Alleged moral defects in
Christ, 184-6; His supposed disclain1er of goodness,
186-8. (V) IIis alleged errors as to (1) the end of the
world, 188-9; (2) the activities of devils, 189-91; (3)
the books of the G.T., 191-3. Sunlmary, 193-5.

CHAPTER V'II. The Definitions of the Councils concerning the
Person of Christ. (I) Their relation to the books of the
N .T., pp. 196-8; the perilous position of the early
Church and the mistakes of its teachers, 198-203. (II)
The definition against Arius; the teaching of Athanasius,
204-9. (III) The definition against Apollinarius, 209-11.
(IV) Against Nestorius, 211-13; its importance, 214-6.
(V) Against Eutyches and the l\Ionophysites, 216-7.
The result at Chalcedon criticized, 217-8. Considera-
tions: (1) The dogmas negative, 218-9; but (2)
necessary, 219-20; and (3) in themselves unexception-
able, 220-2; but (4) abused in effect; real hlllnanity
of Christ obscurerl, 222-4; (5) the true use of them-
the picture in the Gospels and the theory in S1. Paul;
the "self-emptying." Legitimate agnosticism, 224-6;
the juxtaposition of two consciousnesses in Christ
deprecated, 227; the meaning of an " inlpersonal nlan-
hood," 227-8.
Note.-A. On the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, etc.,
228-30. B. On the phrase Enllyposlasia, 230.

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

825

CHAPTER VIII. The Implied Doet'rine of the Holy Trinity.
(I) An outcome of the Christian experience, pp. 231-5.
(II) (1) The three distinguishable persons, 235-9; (2)
their mutual inclusiveness, 239-41. (III) The implied
doctrine difficult to furmulate ; mistakes of early teachers;
final outcome, 2
il-4; supposed differences; Dr. Rashdall
on S1. Augustine and St. Thomas, 244-7. The rational
value of the doctrine for us, 248-53.
Note on the N.T. uses of Spirit and St. Paul's supposed
identification of Christ and the Spirit, 253-5.

CHAPTER IX. Sin and the .Fall. Implied in the N.T., pp.
256-7. (I) The O.T. doctrine; Christ's teaching; the
rest of the N.T.
257-62. (II) The modern estimate
of man, 263-7. (III) The Bible theory finds the seat
of sin in the will. Rival theories: (1) the source of sin
in the body; (2) sin equated with imperfection; (3) the
doctrine of determinism, 267-72. (IV) The Fall of l\Ian ;
supposed antagonism with science; restatement; St.
Paul's doctrine of the Old Adam and the New l\Ian,
272-5; still tenable in substance; inherited sinfulness,
275-7; the coherence of the Virgin Birth of Christ with
the conception of the Fall, 277-9.

CHAPTER X. The Atonement. (I) Prelhninary considerations :
(1) no redemption except by being made actually god-
like, pp. 280-2; (2) God's willingness to forgive on no
other condition than repentance, 282-3; (3) the need
of atonement involved in the corporate method of re-
demption, 283-4; (4) so in the O.T., 284-5 ; (5) in our
LOl'd's teaching, 285-8; (6) in the Acts; (7) in St.
Paul, 288-91; (8) in the rest of the N.T., 291-2. (II)
The appeal of the doctrine, 293
5; scandals obviated,
295-300. (III) The central idea of Reparation by the
Representa tive l\-Ian as the ground of the gospel of
forgiveness, 300-3.
Notes.-ti.. On Dr. Rashdall's Idea of Atonement,
303-3041. B. On two misinterpreted phrases of St. Paul,
30-:L-5.
22

326

TABLE OF SUBJECTS

CHAPTER XI. Summary and Conclusion. (I) Summary,
306-12. (II) Certain "critical" opinions not sub-
stantiated, 312-13. (III) Theology must not be dis-
paraged; the central question the Finality of Christ;
not compatible with any estimate of IIis person except
the traditional one, 314-7. Finality and evolution;
the meaning of the Ascension, 317-9; the Ascension
and Copernican astronomy, 319-21.

-

INDEX OF NAMES

Abelard, 293
Acts (or the Apostles), 6, 42, 73-
75, 77, 123, 236-7, 261, 288
Æschylus, 4
Alexander (Bp. of Alex.), 205
Alexander (the Great), 20
Alfasi (Rabbi Isaac), 140
Anastasius, 212
Anselm. 293
Antiochus Epiphanes, 17 n., 20
Apollinarius (of Laodicea), 209-
211, 230
Aquinas (St. Thomas), 245, 247
Aristotle, 12
Arius, 204-209
Arnou (Dr. René), 9 D., 10 n.
Athanasius (St.), 207-209, 219,
223, 245
Au
stinA (St.), 8, 158 D., 174,
245, 246, 291
Aurelian (Emp.), 203
Aytoun (Rev. R. B.), 61 n.

Baker (Prof. Bethune), 4, 5, 173
Balfour (Lord), 222
Barnabas (Ep. of), 198
Bevan (Edwyn), 9 n., 14 n., 30,
315
Bousset (Wilhelm), 10, 39, 46 n.,
47 n., 99, 102 n., 104-, 165, 169
Box (Dr.), 31 n., 128
Brahma, 231
Bright (Dr.), 208 n.
Buddha (The), 176, 318
Burkitt (Dr.), 74, 115 n., 197
Burney (Dr.), 69, 107 n., 115 n.,
120 n., 121 n., 122 n., 125 n.,
254
Byron (Lord), 263

Calvin (John), 293
CampbeJI (lVIcLeod), 293
Carlyle (Thomas), 207
Cave (Dr. Sydney), 29
Charles (Dr.), 21 n., 23, 32, 65 D.,
141 n.
Chase (Dr.), 120 n., 132 n., 254
Clark (Lowther), 7 n.
Clempnt (Alex.). 10, 274 n., 320
Clement (of Rome), 198, 235
Constantine, 205
Creed (.J. 1\1.), 44 n.
Croce (Benedetto), 13
Cyril (St.), 212, 214, 227

Dale (Dr.), 293
Dalman (G.), 31, 55 n., 56 n.,
62 n., 66 n., 88 n., 103, 189 n.
Daniel (Book of), 19, 20, 32, 63,
65, 141 n., 145, 147, 149
Davidson (Dr. A. B.), 28
De La Mazelière, 232 D.
Denney (Dr.), 293
Diodore (of Tarsus), 211
Dionysius (Pseudo-) 247
Driver (Dr.), 28, 59, 61 D.

Edward VI (King), 297
Eleazer (the lVlart.yr), 286 D.
Emmet (Dr.), 185 n.
Enoch (Similitudes of the Book
of), 20, 21, 24, 31-33, 37, 63,
65, 87, 313
EpiC'urus, 9
Erasmus, 223
Essenes (the), 25, 26 n.
Esther (Book of), 16, 17 n.
Euripides, 295
327

3
8

IKDEX OF NAl\IES

Eusebius, 147 n.
Eutyches, 216
Gamaliel, 80
Glazebrook (Dr.), 320
Glover (T. R.), 102 n.
Goethe, 116
Gregory (of Nyssa), 32]
Hanson (Rev. Richard), 171 n.
Harnack (Adolph), 7. 10 n., 23,
35, 49 n., 56 n., 1091,)., 159,
165, IG6-lG8, 204 n., 20711.,
208 n., 244
HHlTi
(Dr. Charles), 30, 320 n.
Harris (Dr. J. Rendel), 122, 229
Headlam (Dr.), 82 n., 86 n.,
91 n., 230, 287 n.
Hebrews (Epistle to the), 6, 94-
97, 133, 164, 292. 309
Heracleitus (Pseudo-), 262 n.
Hermas, 198, 200, 228, 242
Hermes (Tl'ismegistus), 134
Herodians (the), 25, 26
Höffding (Dr. IC), 30
Holland (Dr. II. S.). G!}, 121 n.
Hort (Dr.), 86 n., 128 n., 129 n.,
130, 156 n., 180 n., 239, 249,
254, 291 n.
Hiigel (Baron Friedrich von), 4
Huxley (Prof.), 232 n., 249, 318

Ignatius, 198
Inge (Dean), 10 n., 99, 120 n.
Irenaf'us, 274 n.
Isaiah, 14, 15, 17 n., 59, 139, 141
Jackson (Dr Foakos), 5 n., 14 n.,
21 n., 32, 39 n., 44 n., 46 n.
James (St.), 6, 127-130, 179 n.,
262, 291 n.
Jerome, 320
John (St.), 6 n., 40, 68, 71 n., 91,
106-122, 143 n., 155, IG3, 181,
194, 235, 240, 254, 2GO, 278,
288, 292, 312, 315, 318
John the Baptist (St.), 1 n., 25,
43, 47, 54, 68, 119, 142, 152,
180, 258, 288
John (the Presb),ter), 107 n., 124
Jona (RabbI), 140
Josephus, 26,43,4-1 D., 70 n., 127

Jowett (Benjamin), 271
Jude (St.), 21, 130, 234, 291 n.
Justin (Mart.), 200, 242 n.

J{idd (Dr.), 2]3 n., 230, 242 n.
Knox (Capt. H. V.), 271 n.
Krebs (E), 134

I IÆgrange (Père), 21 n., 32, 140n.
Lake (Dr. Kirsopp), 5 n., 14 n.,
21 n., 32, 39, 44n., 4Gn., 47n.,
169, 172, 316
Lathan} (Dr.), G9
Lebreton (Jules), 10 n., 88 n.
Leo (Rp.), 216, 293
Leontius (Byzant.), 230
Liberty (Stephen), 2G n.
Lightfoot (Dr.), 82 n., 84 n., 85 n.
Loisy, 37
Lotze, 253
Lowrie ('Valter), 37 n.
Lucian (of Antioch), 204, 211
Luke (St.), 42, 43, 4G, 61, 73-75,
103, 145 n., 151, 154, 181, 278

Ianilius, 9 n.

Iarcion, 7, 291
1\lark (St.), 41, 43, 45, 46, 62,
74, 151, 154, 184, 189

Iatthew (St..), 43, 4G, 57, 144,
149, 151, I.j2 n., 154, 234, 278

Iaurice (If. D.), 190

Ienzies (Dr. Allan), 83, 84 n., 105

Ieyer (Eduard), 30, 42, 73 n.,
81 n., 100 n., 107 n., 134
:Milton (John), 273
1\lnason, 74

lober1y (Dr.), 293, 297

Ioorhouse (Dr.), 145 n.
:\Iorris ('Yilliam), III 11.

Nestorius (Bp.), 212-2] 6, 224

Origen, 9, 10 n., 54 n., 201, 209,
243, 244, 293, 320

Puvias, 74 n.
Pa
ry (Dr.), 86 n., 129 n., 156 n.
Paul (St.), G, 8, 11, 24, 40, 55,
73, 75, 78-94, 98-101, 104,
105, 1 ]4, 144, 155, IG2, 167,

I
DEX OF N..\ì\IES

181, 194, 197, 225, 233, 237,
239, 262, 268, 273, 278, 288-
291, 299, 301-305, 308, 312,
315, 318
Paul (of Samosata), 123, 133,
164, 202
Peter (St.), 2,6,42,45, 57,59, 72,
76,130-132,175,234,262,291
Pharisees (the), 25, 26
Philip (St.), 74, 236, 288
Philo, 88, 97, 117
Plato, 4, 320
Piotinus, 10, 12
Posidonius, 321
Prophets (of Israel), 14-25, 138-
142
Proverbs (Book of), 91, 122
Psalms (the), 22, 55
Psalms of Solomon, 18, 25, 32,
64

Q, 42, 109 n., 166

Rackham (R. B.), 75, 86 n.,
145 n. .
Raleigh (Walter), 267
Rashdall (Dr.), 30, 51 n., 89 n.,
101, 201 n., 207 n., 208 n.,
235 n., 245 n., 246, 288 n.,
290 n., 293, 296 n., 303, 304
Reitzenstein (Richard), 122 n.,
133
Relton (Dr. H. M.), 230
Revelation (of St. John the
Divine), 124-127, 292
Richmond (Canon), 240 n.
Robertson (Bp.), 88 n., 204 n.,
208 n.
Robinson (Dr. Armitage), 121 n.,
242 n.
Romans (Epistle to the), 289
Rousseau (J. J .), 263
Ruskin (J.), 140

329

Sacred Books oj the East, 30
Sadducees (the), 25, 26
Salmon (Dr.), 101
Sanday (Dr.), 51 n., 82, 86 n.t
91 n., 170, 287 n.
Schweitzer (Alb.), 37, 39, 44 n.,
102, 151, 159, 165, 168
Scott (Dr. Anderson), 100
Shakespeare (William), 265-267
Shelley (P. B.), 116, 263
I Sidgwick (Prof. Henry), 137 n.
Simkhovitch (Prof. Vladimir),
21 n., 26 n., 27 n., 49
Somervill (D. C.). 108 n., III n.
Stanton (Dr.), 30, 100, 107-] 10,
115
-Stephen (St.), 77
Strabo, 93 n.
Streeter (Dr.), 320
Swete (Dr.), 126 n., 242 n.

Tacitus, 160
TertuUian, 201, 245
Theodore (of l\Iopsuetia), 211
Theodoret, 224
Tixéront (Père), 245 n.
Treherne (Thomas), 12
Trench, 85 n.

Victorinus (Afer), 346, 252 n.

'Veiss (Dr. John), 265 n.
"Vestcott (Dr.), 85 n., 96 n.,
112 n., 156 n., 256
Wisdom (Book of), 55, 91, 9
,
116, 122, 126, 180, 309, 313
Wordsworth (William), 116

Zahn, 120 n.
Zealots (the), 26, 27
Zenobia (Queen of Palmyra),
202
Zoro
ster, 4, 13 n., 29, 318

Recent Theological Books
BELIEF IN GOD
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, 1. By
CHARLES GORE, D.D., Hon. Fellow of Trinity Col1ege, Ox-
ford; former]y Bishop of Oxford. 7th Impression. 7s. 6d. net.
, It remains that Dr. Gore is unquestionably the leading figure in the Church
of England to-day. A study of his work to-day will be of the greatest
value . . . He helps us to see things as they really are.'-Chu.rch Times.

CREEDS OR NO CREEDS?
A CRrrICAL EXA
IINATION OF THE BASIS OF

IODERNISl\L By the Rev. CHARLES HARRIS, D.D.
With Forewords by the Right Rev. Lord Bishop of Lichfield
and the 'Varden of \Vadham College, Oxford. I5s. net.
, A vast amount of learning is given most readable expression. Dr. Harris's
versatility is almost incredible.' - Guardian.

THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
ESSAYS FOR THE USE OF PARENTS AND
TEACHERS, 'VRITTEN AT THE INSTANCE OF
THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY. By VARIOUS
AUTHORS. Edited, with an Introduction, by the Rev.
C. F. NOLLOTH, 1'I.A. 7s. 6d. net.
I Few books so adequately fulfil their professed design as does this. We
cannot see how the thing could be better done-and they are written by men
of ample scholarship . . . We feel that no word of recommendation could be
too strong.'-Sunday School Chronicle.

FAITH, BELIEF, AND PROOF
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE SCIENCE OF NATURAL
THEOLOGY. By the Rev. J. H. BEIBITZ. \Vith an
Introduction by the Rt. Rev. BISHOP GORE, D.D. 6s. net.
'It is an admirable summary of the arguments in favour of Theism. The
author knows his subject, writes clearly and with great fairness. . . a book
which will assuredly help mallY searchers for truth to discover the eternal
realities for which they are looking.' -Church Family Newspaper.

LONDON: JOHN MURRAY

Recent Theolo
ical Books

SIR ISAAC NE'VTON'S DANIEL AND
THE APOCALYPSE
'VITH A STUDY OF 1'HE NA 1'URE & CAUSE OF UN-
BELIEF. By Sir \YILLIAM \YHITLA, 1L D., !\I.A. I5s. net.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF JESUS
CHRIST
By the Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D. This volume is an
attempt to study the life of Christ in relation to !\fodern
Criticism and our knowledge of the social, political and
intellectual surroundings of the time. [Ready Early 1923.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT
By the Rev. J. E. SYMES, !\I.A., sometÜne Principal of
University College, Nottinghan1; author of 'Broad Church,'
etc. 185. net.
, It is the sanest and most readable introduction to the New Testam
nt that
has appeared since Dr. Salmon published his lectures. Those who master its
contents will be abreast of the best conclusions of modern scholarship.'-
Record.

CANON BARNETT:
HIS LIFE, \YORI(, AND FRIENDS. B}' his \VIFE.
Complete in One Volume. \Vith I ó Illustrations. Cheaper
and Unabridged Edition. 6s. net. A1so in 2 V ols. 28s. net.
, It is the record of the life-work not of one but of two who laboured as one,
"ith a rare unity of soul and mind.'-Chtlrcn Tt:mes.

THE CHURCH IN MADRAS
BEING THE IIISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL
AND MISSIONARY ACTION OF THE EAST INDIA
CO:\lPANY IN THE PRESIDENCY OF 1iADRAS.
By the Rev. FRANK PENNY. Vol. 111-1835-1860. \Vith
Illustrations. 2 IS. net.
This volume completes the story of the Fast India Company's ecclesiastical
affairs, and obliges a complete change of opinion as to the ecclesiastical
policy and action of the Company.
PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED-Vol. I, 17th and 18th Centuries. \Vith IlJustra-
tions. 105. 6d. net. V 01. II, 1805-1835. \Vith Illustrations. 105. 6d. net.

LONDON: JOHN MURRAY

STANDARD WORKS FROM MR. JOHN
MURRAY'S THEOLOGIC
.\.L LIST

DUCHESNE, Monsignor I
.,
De l'Académie Française,. Hon. D.Litt. Oxford, and Litt.D. Cambridge.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. From its
Foundation to the End of the Fifth Century. Rendered into English
from the Fourth Edition.
YOLo I. To End of Third Century. Demy 8vo, I2S. net.
VOL. II. The Fourth Century. Demy 8vo, 15s. net.
VOL. III. The Fifth Century. Demy 8vo, 21S. net.
ERNLE, Lord (R. E. Prothero).
THE PSALlV1S IN HUMAN LIFE. Enlarged Edition. Large
Crown 8vo, 6s. net. New Pocket Edition. 2S. 6d. net.
FOX, Se1ina Fitzherbert. M.D., B.S.
A CHAIN OF PRAYER ACROSS THE AGES. Forty Centuries
of Prayer-20oo R.C. to A.D. 1920. Arranged for Daily Use, with Index
of Subjects and Authors. 5s. net.
HARRIS, Rev. Charles. D.O.,
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Llandaff.
PRO FIDE. A Defence of Natural and Revealed RelÌ!:;ion. A Text-
book of
lodern Apologetics for Students and Others. Second Edition.
10S. 6d. net.

HEAD LAM, the Rev. A. C., M.A., D.D.,

Regíu
Professor of Divinity in the Univer
ity of Oxford.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN
REUNION. The Bampton Lectures, 1920. 2nd Edition, with a New
Preface. 12S. net.
INGR, the Very Rev. Wil1iam Ralph. D.D..
Dean of St. Pattl"s.
TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN RELIGION. Six Lectul@S
delivered at Cambridge to Undergraduates in the Lent Term, '[906.
65. net.
STUDIES OF ENGLISH MYSTICS. The St. l\Iargaret's Lectures.
Fourth Series, 1905. 7s. 6d. net.
JULIAN, the Rev. John, D.D.,
Late Vicar of Topcliffe, Prebendary of Fenton, Canon of York.
A DICTIONARY OF HYMNOLOGY. Setting forth the Origin
and History of Christian Hymns of all Ages and Nations. Second
Edition with New Supplement. 325. net.
, The student of hymnology will find the work, as it always has been,
a rare mine of information.'- WestmÍ1-zster Gazette.

LONDON: JOHN MURRAY

STANDARD WORKS FROM MR. JOHN
MURRAY'S THEOLOGICAL LIST

l\IENZIES. the Rev. A11an. D.D.,

Late Professor of Biblical Criticism" University oj St. Andrews.
HISTORY OF RELIGION. A Skdch of Primitive Beliefs and
Practices, and of the Origin and Character of the Great Systems. Third
Edition. 6s. net.

MURRAY'S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN
BIOGRAPHY AND l
ITERATURE,

To the end of the Si>..th Century, with an account of the Principal Sects
and Heresies. Edited by the Yery Kev. Ih:r-;RY \V ACE, D.D., and the
Rev. \YM. C. PIERCY. Complete in one Volume. 25s. net.

l\IURRA Y'S ILL USTRA TED BIBLE DIf::TIONARY.

Combining ,Modern Research with Ancient Faith. Editor: The Hev.
\YILLIAM C. PIERCY,
I.A In One Volume. Special Features:
I. A Volume of 1,000 pages. 2. Profusely Illustrated. 3. Special
attention has been paid to Bibliography. 4. Signed Articles by Leading
Scholars. 21S. net.

STURGE, M. Carta,
Moral Science Tripos (Cambridge).
THE TRUTH AND ERROR OF CHRISTIAN SCIEt\CE. A
New and Cheap Edition (Fourth Impression). 6s. net.

'\VESTCOTT, the Right Rev. B. F., D.D., D.C.L.,
Late Bishop of Durham.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. \Vith Notes and
Introduction. 12s. net.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. The Greek Text
Revised, with a Revised Enghsh Versiun. 2 vols. 28s. net.

'VOLSELEY.LEWIS. 1\'1.
THE SEVENFOLD GIFTS.
Candidates for Confirmation.

Instructions and Prayers for the use of
3s. 6d. net.

The foregoing books are selected fr01ll 1111". l1lurray's LIst of Theological
Littrature. This comPlete List 'Will be sent, post free, on apPlication to:-
JOHN MURRAY, 50a Albemarle Street, LONDON, W.t

CATALOGUE OF
THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

ALLEN, the Venble. Willoughby C., M.A.,
Archdeacon oj Blackburn.
THE CHRISTIAN HOPE. Addresses, Sermons, and Popular
Lectures. Crown 8vo, 5S. net.

ARNOLD, Matthew.
LITERATURE AND DOGMA An Essay towards a better
apprehension of the Bible. Crown 8vo, 3s.6d. net.
COD AND THE BIBLE. A sequel to "Literature and
Dogma." Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.
ST. PAUL AND PROTESTANTISM. \Vith Other Essays.
Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.
LAST E5SA YS ON CHURCH AND RELIGION. Crown
8vo, 3S. 6d. net.

BEECHING, the Very Rev. H. C., M.A., D.Litt.,
Late Dean of ]I.
orwich.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. Six
Lectures given in \\ estminster Abbey. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net.
THE APOSTLES. CREED. Six Lectures delivered in West.
minster Abbey. Large Crown 8 v o, 3s. 6d. net.

BENSON, the late Rev. Robert Hugh.
HUGH: MEMOIRS OF A BROTHER. By A. C. BENSON.
With Illustrations. Large Cro\\n 8vo, 9S. net.

BIBLE COMl\1ENTARY.
A COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE. Explanatory
and Critical. with a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and
Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by :F. C. COOK, 1\1. A.,
late Canon of Exeter.
THE OLD TEST AMENT. 6 vob. :Medium 8vo.
Vol. I, 30s. net. V 01. II, 20S. net. V 01. Ill, 16s. net. Vol.
IV, 24s. net. Vol. V, 20S. net. Vol. VI, 25s. net.
THE NE\V TESTAMEr\T. 4 vols. Medium 8vo. Vol. I, 18s.
net. Vol. II, 20s. net. Vol. III, 28s. net. Vol. IV, 28s. net.

THE APOCRYPHA. By various writers. Edited by the Rev. If.
'Vace, D. D., Dean of Canterbury. 2 vols. :Medium 8vo, 50S. net.
STUDENT'S COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE.
Abridged from the above \Vork. Edited by JOHN !\I. FULLER,

I.A., Vicar of Bexley, and Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
King's College, London. 6 vols. Crown 8vo, 7s.6d. net each.
* * * A rrangements have bun made with the booksellers enab/in

tlzem to offrr special terms for the above two works complete.

BICI(ERSTETH, the Right Rev. Edward, D.D.,
Late Bishop of South okyo, Japan.
OUR HERITAGE IN THE CHURCH. Papers \Vritten for
Divinity Stmlcnts in Japan. \Yith a Preface by the late Right
Rev. B. F. \VESTCOTT. D.D. Large Crown 8vo, 55. net.
LIFE AND LETTERS OF EDWARD BICKERSTETH,
late Bishop of South Tokyo. \Vith
Iap and Illustrations. Cheap
Edition. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. net. Also an Ed., Demy 8vo, IDS. 6d. net.

BOYD-CARPENTER, the Right Rev. William, D.D.,
Late BiRhop of Ripon.
A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENG.
LAND, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. \Vith Illus-
trations. Cheap Edition. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
BROOKE, Rev. Stopford A.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE REV. STOPFORD
A. BROOKE. By LAWRENCE PEARSALL JACKS,
I.A., Hon.
LL.D., D.D., Principal of :\[anchester College, Oxford. \Vith
Portraits. 2 vols. Large Post 8vo, 15s. net.
BURKITT, F. Crawford,
Lecturer in Pa1
ography in the Univer
ity of Cambridgf.
EARLY EASTERN CHRISTIANITY. St.
Iargaret's Lec-
tures, 1904, on the Syriac-speaking Church. \\1ith Illustrations.
Large Crown 8\"0, 75. 6d. net.
CAILLARD, Miss E. 1\1.
A LIVING CHRISTIANITY. Cro'vn 8vo, Jr. 6d. net.
Ci\RNEGIE, the Rev. W. H.,
Canon of fV'estminster.
CHURCHMANSHIP AND CHARACTER. Three Years'
Teachin
in Birmingham Cathedral. Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
PERSONAL RELIGION AND POLITICS. Crown 8vo J
6s. net.

CLARKE, Sir Edward, the Right Hon., P.C.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. The Authorised Version Cor-
rected. The Text prepared by Sir Edward Clarke. Demy 8vo, 5s. net.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. The Authorised Version
Amen(led. The Text prepared by Sir Edward Clarke. Demy
8\'0, 3s. 6d. net.
THE BOOK OF PSALMS. The Prayer Book Version
Corrected. The Text prepared by Sir Edward Clarke. F'cap.
8vo, 2S. 6d. net.
CLARKE, the Rev. J. Langton, D.D.
THE ETERNAL SA VIOUR.JUDGE. Fresh Light and
Comfort from the Holy Scriptures. \Vith an Introduction by the
Rev. J. R. ILLINGWORTH, D.D. Demy 8vo, 4s. net. Simplified
Edition, Crown 8vo, 2S. net.

COHU, the Rev. J. R., M.A.
Rector of .Aston Clinton, Bucks.
THE BIBLE AN l) MODERN THOUGHT. Demy8vo,16s.net.
COLLINS, the Right Rev. 'Villiam Edward, D.D.,
Late Bishop of Gibraltar
HOURS OF INSIGHT and other Sermons. Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
CONTENTIO VERITATIS.
CONTENTIO VERIT A TIS. Essays in Constructh'e Theology.
By SIX OXFORD TUTORS: the Rev. H. Rashdall, D.Litt., the
Very Rev. 'V. R. Inge, the Rev. H. L. \\ïld, the Rev. C. F.
Burney, the Rev. 'V. C. Allen, the Rev. A. J. Carlyle. A Re-
vised Edition. Demy 8vo, 6s. net.

CUNNINGHAl\f, the Venble. W., D.D., F.B.A.,

Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and .Archdeacon of Ely.
CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS. The Substance of the
Lowell Lectures delivered at Boston,
lass., 1914. Demy 8vo,6s. net.
EFFICIENCY IN THE CHURCH OF E
GLAND. Some
Remarks Occasioned by the Report of the Archbishops' Com-
mittee on Church Finance. Crown 8vo, 3S. 6d. net.

DANNA TT, 'Villiam,
Of Great JValtham.
THE FAITH OF A FARMER. Extracts from his Diary,
edited, with an Introduction, by J. G. l\lo!'\ Tl\10REN CY, :M.A.,
LL.B. Crown 8vo, 5s. net.

DEARMER, the Rev. Percy, D.D.
PATRIOTISM AND FELLO\VSHIP. Crown 8vo, 25. 6d. net.
DIFFICUL1'IES IN CHRISTIANITY.

I
I
I
I

A Letter to a Layman. In Paper Covers. Demy 8vo, Is. net.
DIGBY, Mother Mabel.
MOTHER MABEL DIGBY, 1835-1911, Superior General of
the Society of the Sacred Ileart. By ANt-. E POLLEN. \Vith a
Preface oy Cardinal BOD Rt'E. Fourth Impression. \Vith Illustra-
tions. Demy 8vo, 165. net.

DUCHESNE, l\lonsignor L.,

De Z..Âcodémie F1'ançaise; Hon. D.Lilt. Oxford, and Litt.D.
Cambridge.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. From its
Foundation to the End of the Fifth Century. Rendered into
English from the Fourth Edition.
VOL. I. To End of Third Century. Demy 8\Po, 12S. net.
VOL. I I. Demy 8\'0, 12S. net.
ERNLE, Lord.
THE PSALMS IN HUMAN LIFE. Enlarged Edition.
Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net. New Pocket Edition. 2S. 6d. net.

EYRE, Douglas-Edited by,
Of Lincoln's Inn, BarriRter-at-Law
REFOR1\1 IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. A Re-
vised Edition of" Essays in Aid of the Reform of the Church."
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.

FA \VKES, Rev. Alfred, M.A.,
Vicar of A shby St. Ledgers.
STUDIES IN !\-10DERNISM. Demy 8vo, 10S. 6d. net.
THE THINGS THAT ARE CÆSAR'S. Thoughts on Church
Reform. In Paper Covers. Demy 8vo, IS. net.
CHURCH A
D STATE IN ENGLAND. \Vith a Preface
by the BISHOP OF HEREFORD. In Paper Covers. Demy 8vo, IS. net.
FLYNN, the Rev. John Stephen, M.A.,
Ron. Canon of Truro
THE INFLUENCE OF PURITANISM ON THE POLITI..
CAL AND RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE ENGLISH.
Deroy 8vo, 125. net.

FOX, Selina Fitzherbert, M.D., B.S.
A CHAIN OF PRAYER ACROSS THE AGES. Forty
Centuries (If Prayer-2ooo B.c. to A.D. 1920. Arranged for Daily
Use, \\ith Index of Subjects and Authors. F'cap 8vo, 5s. net.

FRERE, the Rev. W. H., D.D.,

Of the Community of the Resurrection.
ENGLISH CHURCH WAYS. Described to Russian Friends
in Four Lectures delivered at St. Petersburg in l\Iarch 19 1 4.
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF LITURGICAL REFORM. A
Contribution towards the Revision of the Book of Common
Prayer. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.

GLAZEBROOK, M. G., D.D.,

Canon of Ely
THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT. A Reply to the Bishop of
Ely's Criticisms on "The Faith of a l\lodern Chun.:hman."
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.

GORE, the Right Rev. Charles, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,
Honorary Fellow 01 Trinity College, Oxford,. formerlll Bishop of
Oxford.
THE BODY OF CHRIST. An Inquiry into the Institution
and Doctrine of the Holy Communion. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
ORDERS AND UNITY. The case for I the episcopate con-
sidered as a necessary and divinely given link of continuity and
cohesion in the Church universal.' Crown 8\0, 5s. net.
THE NEW THEOLOGY AND THE OLD RELIGION.
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH. Four Lectures de-
livered in the Cathedral of St. Asaph. Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD. Bampton
Lectures for 1891. Large Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
DISSERTATIONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED \VITH
THE INCARNATION. Large Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
THE PERMANENT CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN
IDEA OF SIN. T\\o Sermons Pleached before the University
of Oxford. Large Crown 8\"0, paper covers, 6d. net.

SPI
IT.l!A
EFFICI
NCY. The Primary Charge delivered
at his VIsitation to the Clergy and Churchwardens of his Diocese
of Birmingham, October 1904. Demy 8vo, paper covers, IS. net.
THE QUESTION OF DI VORCE . Crown 8vo, IS. net.
Simple Expositions of Portions of the New Testament
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
Crown 8vo, 5s. net each
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Paper covers, Is. 6d. net.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 2 vols.
.
GORE, the Right Rev. Charles-Edited by.
LUX MUNDI. A Series of Studies in the Reli
ion of the
Incarnation. Crown 8""0, 6s. net.
GREEN, the Rev. E. Tyrrell,
St. Da'Vid's Colleoe. Lampeter.
THE EUCHARIST. Devotional Addresses on its Chief Aspects.
Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
I-IARDWICH, the Rev. J. M., M.A., aod
..4s
istant Master at RuObll School.
COSTLEY-WHITE, the Rev. H., l\'I.A.,
Head7naster 01 Liverpool College.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY In Five Periods. Crown
8vo, 3S. 6d. each Volume.
lIARRIS, Rev. Charles, D.D.,
Examinin{J Chaplain to the Bishop of Llandaß.
PRO FIDE. A Defence of Natural and Revealed Religion. A
Textbook of .Modern Apologetics for Students and Others.
Second Edition. Large Crown 8vo, 10S. 6d. net.
HEADLAM, the Rev. A. C., l\tI.A., D.D.,
1l
giu8 Prof
ssor of Divinity in the University of Oxford.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN
REUNION. The Bampton Lectures, 1920. 2nd Edition, with a
New Preface. Demy 8vo, I2S. net.
HISTORY, AUTHORITY, AND THEOLOGY. Lar
e
Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Being
the Moorhouse Lectures for 1914, delivered in St. Paurs Cathedral,
Melbourne. Large Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
THE REVENUES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Crown 8vo, 2S. 6d. net.

230.3
G660rb

97530

Gore, Charles

230.3
G6torb
Gore, Charles
Belief in Christ

97530

j

..
...