made a name for itself more in Europe and America than in India. While
it has done something to encourage education and to teach modern
science, it has used the knowledge thus given as an instrument in
defending superstition. The immoralities of Krishna are discussed and
palliated in Mrs. Besant's Magazine for the instruction of young
students. Charms, incantations, astrology, idolatry, caste, are all
woven into the system, for the sake of propitiating the Indian mind, so
that its influence is hostile to Christianity and to missions. Idols are
to be worshiped because they are "centers of magnetism." In England Mrs.
Besant predicts a second advent of Christ. But in India this becomes a
new avatar of Krishna. In spite of her stout denunciation of
child-marriages and her inculcation of modern science, her propaganda
has not been so much a reform of Indian religion, as it has been a
hindrance to reform. Hindu devotees indeed have eulogized her for what
they call her successful opposition to the proselyting efforts of
Christian missionaries.
And yet, even the Theosophical Society, with all its absurdities of
levitation and the astral body, has been compelled to bear some witness
to Jesus Christ. He is "the light that lighteth every man," and he has
given even to this system some elements of truth. We do not hesitate to
recognize the truth that Buddha and Confucius, taught, and to regard it
as a ray of Christ's light shed forth before the rising of the sun. And
it is our privilege to conclude our list of Hindu reformers with the
name of Justice Renade, who recognized in Christ the source of all
former revelations of God.
Justice Renade, in his social reform movement of the last fifty years,
has carried the spirit of philanthropy into practice, more fully than
did Vivekananda or Mrs. Besant, and without any of their fantastic
self-exaltation. Renade recognized the elements of truth in both the
Hindu and Moslem systems, and he saw in Christianity the influence
destined to unite them. He would not throw away the old, but he would
utilize it while he added the new. And with this acknowledgment that "he
who is not against us is on our side," we may well close our sketch of
reformers before the reformation. We sum up the lessons of history when
we recognize in Hinduism the two great ideas of divine immanence and
incarnation, in Mohammedanism the two equally essential truths of divine
transcendence and personality. And we see the absolute dependence of
India upon Christianity for its true Reformation. India needs the
missionary more than she needs the schoolmaster. Let us pray that she
may have a religious revival that shall turn the intellectual awakening
into moral channels. That religious revival will furnish a center of
unity in Christ, the one and only Revealer of God; not in a Hindu
philosophy, nor in a Moslem Koran, but in a living Person, present with
all his people, the soul of their soul and the life, and imparting to
them his own Spirit of love and brotherhood. In Christ alone can India's
renaissance become a complete reformation.
XV
MISSIONS AND SCRIPTURE
The world of scholars has recently been startled by the pretended
discovery that the "Great Commission," "Go ye therefore, and make
disciples of all the nations," is not an utterance of Jesus himself, but
only one attributed to him by some enthusiastic follower of his in a
later time. This pretended discovery is on a par with the earlier one
that there never was such a person as Jesus at all, but that his
personality is simply a myth that gradually grew up in the minds of some
Jewish fanatics who sought a fulfilment of Messianic prophecy. We might
treat these perverse and subversive conclusions as only curious
instances of a wrong method of criticism. But they filter down from the
scholars to the masses of Christian believers and weaken their faith. It
becomes a duty to deal with the method which leads to such results, and
threatens to destroy all our missionary zeal. Hence I proceed to test
the value of the method itself, even though it is commonly called "the
historical method" by those who adopt it. If we can bear a somewhat
roundabout way of treating the subject, we shall gain a new and valuable
light upon our missionary theory and practice.
To prevent misunderstanding, however, I must premise that it is the
historical method as frequently employed, and not the historical method
as it ought to be, to which I offer my objections. My criticism is
directed against the historical method, only when it assumes to be the
exclusive means of attaining truth, follows the methods of physical
science, and ignores the far more important material for religious use
which is furnished by intuition and revelation. The phrase "historical
method" has come to imply much that does not properly belong to it. I
criticize only its frequent exclusiveness and exaggeration. And I do
this, as I think, in the interest of true science.
There are two methods of reasoning possible, in this case or in any
other case, and there are only two--I mean the deductive, and the
inductive. I make no mention of argument from analogy, for that proceeds
upon a deductive basis, presuming that there is a designed order in the
world which makes analogy possible. The deductive method argues from the
universal to the particular, from the higher to the lower, from God to
man. The inductive method, on the other hand, argues from the particular
to the universal, from the lower to the higher, from man to God. Both of
these methods are correct when each is taken in connection with the
other. Much depends, however, upon the question which is taken first.
Shall we begin with the particular, leaving out for the time all thought
of the universal? There is danger that induction will come to be
regarded as itself sufficient to lead us into the truth. This is a
serious error, for correct induction presupposes deduction, and
therefore deduction should be the guiding principle and safeguard of
induction. If this is forgotten, induction may go fearfully astray.
To make my meaning still more plain, let me say that in our
investigations we need a comprehensive method, a method that will look
at facts from more than one point of view. A truly historical method
will look at facts from above, as well as from each side, and so the
deductive process may be popularly described as vertical. The historical
method falsely so called errs in confining its view to what can be seen
immediately around it, and so its process is exclusively horizontal.
Deduction begins vertically, and makes that which comes from above to be
its guide and standard in all inductive work. Induction begins
horizontally, and tends to become self-sufficient, until all light from
above seems untrustworthy and useless. For example, take the study of
nature. If one begins, inductively and horizontally, with mere physical
and material order, instead of beginning, deductively and vertically,
with man's higher powers of conscience and will, he will end by finding
only impersonal force in the universe, and by practically deifying it,
as the Hindus deified Brahma. Begin rightly, and, with due care in the
application of the deductive principle, he will come to right
conclusions. There are certain truths which cannot be reached by
induction. They are known by intuition, long before induction begins.
The most fundamental of these truths is the truth of God's existence. A
Power above us, which has moral perfection, and which claims our
obedience, is revealed to every man by conscience. Begin with this
knowledge, and to the obedient spirit the physical world seems ablaze
with evidences of wisdom and love; the regularities of nature are
recognized as God's methods of ordinary operation; evolution is only
his usual plan of growth and progress; in other words, God's
transcendence is manifest as well as his immanence, his personality as
well as his revelation in the forces of the universe.
Man is a theist, before he becomes a Christian. Theism is a universal
intuition, ready to assert itself in practice wherever it is not
prevented by an evil will from its normal manifestation. But, because
man is in an abnormal condition, this normal action of his powers can be
restored only by the Holy Spirit. "When he is come," says our Lord, "he
will convince the world of sin, because they believe not on me," and "of
righteousness, because I go unto the Father." Only when the prodigal
repented, did he "come to himself," and begin to act normally. Under the
influence of the Spirit, God's holiness reveals to man his sin, and
God's love leads him to the feet of Jesus. This is the first step in
Christian experience. To put my doctrine unmistakably and in a nutshell,
deduction from the existence of God normally precedes and insures the
acceptance of Christ. The sinner comes to have personal knowledge of One
who has atoned, and therefore can forgive. But to him who has accepted
Christ, his Lord is more than a historical Redeemer, he is a present
Saviour from both the penalty and the power of sin. Without this
personal knowledge of Christ, we might think of him as only one of many
human examples or teachers, like Confucius or Buddha. Now, he is nothing
less than God manifest in the flesh, omnipresent, omniscient,
omnipotent, whom having seen we have seen the Father.
But there is a second step in Christian experience, which I wish also to
describe in a nutshell and to define as unmistakably as I described and
defined the first. I claim that deduction from the existence of Christ
normally precedes and insures the acceptance of Scripture. Our Lord
himself has said, "My sheep hear my voice." The Christian recognizes in
Scripture the voice of Christ. No change in his experience is more
marked and wonderful than the change in his estimate of the Bible. A
little time ago, Scripture was commonplace and unmeaning. Now it speaks
to him with a living voice such words of instruction and comfort, of
warning and promise, that his soul is filled alternately with sorrow and
with joy. He wonders that he never saw these things before. He perceives
for the first time that he has been in an abnormal condition of mind,
and that condition has been due to his own perversity of will. But now
the prodigal has "come to himself." Only the Holy Spirit could have made
possible this new and normal exercise of his powers. The change is not
in the Scripture, it is in himself. He has come in contact with a word
of God that "liveth and abideth." He sees in it the divine workmanship.
He can no longer regard Scripture as merely the work of man; it is also
the work of the same Spirit who has transformed him, namely, the eternal
Christ. Christ is the author and inspirer of Scripture, even though
imperfect human agents have been employed to communicate his revelation.
In spite of the rudeness and diversity of the instruments, there
breathes through them all a certain divine melody and harmony. While the
inductive and horizontal method would give us only finite and earthly
truth, the deductive and vertical can give us truth that is infinite and
eternal. The indispensable condition of success in the interpretation of
Scripture is therefore a hearty belief that the Bible is Christ's
revelation of God, and not merely a series of gropings after truth on
the part of men. Deduction will give us truth from above, whereas
induction will give us only scattered facts on the horizontal plane.
I am convinced that the so-called "historical method" of Scripture
interpretation, as it is usually employed, fails to secure correct
results, because it proceeds wholly by induction, leaving out of its
account the knowledge of Christ which comes to the Christian in his
personal experience. I do not regard such a "historical method" as
really historical; I deny that it discovers the original meaning of the
documents; I claim that, when made the sole avenue of approach to truth,
it leads to false views of doctrine. It assumes at the outset that what
rules in the realm of physics rules also in the moral and religious
realm. But the Christian has learned that Christ is the supreme source
of truth. By a process of either conscious or unconscious deduction he
recognizes in Scripture the utterance of Christ. He must begin his
investigations with one of two assumptions: Is the Bible only man's
word? or, Is it also Christ's word? Is it a mere product of human
intelligence? or, Is it also the product of a divine intelligence, who
indeed uses human and imperfect means of communication, but who
nevertheless at sundry times and in divers manners has brought to the
world the knowledge of salvation?
I claim that we should begin by assuming that the Bible is a revelation
of Christ. This assertion is justified, as I have already intimated, by
our Christian experience. That experience has given us a knowledge of
the heart, more valuable in religious things than any mere knowledge of
the intellect. Doctor Tholuck, in an address to his students at his
fiftieth anniversary, said that God's greatest gift to him had been the
knowledge of sin. Without that conviction of sin which the Spirit of
Christ can work in the human heart, there can be no proper understanding
of Scripture, for Scripture is a revelation to sinners. The opening of
the heart to receive Christ, and the new sense of his pardoning grace
and power, give to the converted man the key to the interpretation of
Scripture, for "the mystery of the gospel," the central secret of
Christianity, is "Christ in you, the hope of glory." He whom the Holy
Spirit has first led to the knowledge of sin, and has then led to the
acceptance of Christ, is prepared to enter into the meaning of
Scripture, and no other man can understand it.
This was the way in which Paul came to understand Scripture. It was not
by criticism of the documents, but by receiving Christ, that "the light
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ"
entered into his soul. He knew himself to be the chief of sinners. He
knew Christ as his manifested God and Saviour. He applied to Christ all
that the Old Testament had revealed with regard to the dealings of God
with his chosen people. The light that shone upon him on the way to
Damascus was the Shekinah that led Israel in the pillar of cloud by day
and of fire by night, that dwelt over the mercy-seat in the tabernacle
and in the temple, and that thundered and lightened from Sinai in the
giving of the Law. "The Rock that followed them" in the wilderness, and
gave water to the thirsty, "that Rock was Christ." And so Paul came to
know Jesus Christ as preexistent and omnipresent, as Redeemer of the
whole world, Gentile as well as Jew; and Christ's Cross became the
embodiment and symbol of God's amazing sorrow for human sin, and of his
sacrifice for its cure. All Paul's later conclusions were developments
and expressions of his initial knowledge of Christ. It was a deductive
and not an inductive process, by which he arrived at his theology.
Lest any Christian should say that the deductive method is impracticable
to him, for the reason that he has had no such revelation of Christ to
start from as that which was given to Paul, Scripture reports to us the
very different experience of another apostle. I refer to Peter. Peter
shows us how, by this same deductive method, an experience which at its
beginning is very small, may in the end become very great. Peter goes to
the banks of Jordan, a sinner, seeking pardon for his sin. John the
Baptist points him to Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away
the sin of the world." Peter knows nothing of Jesus' deity, nor of his
atonement. But, by an instinct which is the best of logic, he is drawn
to Jesus, as the one who can satisfy his needs. He becomes a Christian,
that is, a follower of Jesus. His experience is a sort of caterpillar;
it can creep, but it cannot soar. Yet all the elements of growth are in
it. Peter begins to analyze it. What right has he to surrender himself,
body and soul, to a man like himself? The answer is: Jesus is more than
man. At Cæsarea Philippi, Peter cries, "Thou art the Christ, the son of
the living God." On the day of Pentecost, he preaches Christ as the
Saviour exalted to God's right hand. And finally, in his Epistles, he
declares the preexistence of Christ, and the fact of Christ's utterances
through the prophets as far back in time as the days of Noah. If our
higher critics only adopted Peter's method, analyzed their own
experience, following on to know their Lord and meantime willing to do
his will, they too, like Peter, in spite of small beginnings, would
learn of Jesus' doctrine, would emerge from the caterpillar state, would
be soaring instead of creeping, and would end by gladly confessing that
he who met them on the way in their first experience was none other than
the omnipresent Christ, whom Paul describes as God manifest in the
flesh, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. They
would also learn, with Peter, that Scripture is the work and word of the
preexistent Christ.
Because this experience of sin and of Christ is knowledge, it is
material for science, for science is only unified knowledge. I do not
deny that it is knowledge peculiar to the Christian. The princes of
physics and literature and government have not known it. It is not the
wisdom of this world, but it is better, even the very wisdom of God. I
glory in Christian theology, as the science that will last, when all
systems of merely physical science have passed away. For the man who has
been saved by Christ has knowledge of him who is Creator, Upholder, and
Life of all. I do not hesitate to say that the only safe interpreter of
physical nature is the true Christian, for it is Christ "in whom all
things consist." The true Christian is the only safe interpreter of
history, for it is Christ who "upholds all things by the word of his
power." And so, the true Christian is the only safe interpreter of
Scripture, for it is Christ whose Spirit in the prophets "testified
beforehand of his sufferings, and of the glories that should follow
them." In him who is the Lord of all "are all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge hidden." Only when one is joined to Christ, can he
understand the evolutionary process through which Christ has led the
human race, or understand the Bible which constitutes the historical
record of that process. With the Psalmist we may say, "In thy light
shall we see light."
As Christ is the central object of knowledge in Christian experience, it
follows that Christians recognize him as the primary author of
Scripture. They find him speaking to them in the Bible, as in no other
book. It becomes to them the word of God, given by divine inspiration,
and able to make them wise unto salvation. From the deity and supremacy
of Christ they proceed to faith in the unity, the sufficiency, and the
authority of Scripture, and this determines their method of
investigation. From the person of Christ to the word of Christ is a
process often unconscious, but one better than any process of formal
logic. Knowing their divine Saviour, they know the divinity of his word.
His presence in human history and in the hearts of the righteous has
given _unity_ to his continuous revelation. The Scripture "cannot be
broken," or interpreted as a promiscuous congeries of separate bits; for
a divine intelligence and life throb through the whole collection. Like
railway coupons, its texts are "not good if detached." We must interpret
each text by its context, each part by the whole, the preparation of
salvation by the fulfilment, and all the diverse contents by him who
weaves all together, even Christ, the end of the law, to whom all the
preliminaries point. This method gives room for the most thorough
investigation of the times and ways of revelation, for recognizing the
imperfection of beginnings and the variety of the product. The Bible is
a gradually accumulated literature, Hebraic in form, but universal in
spirit. The preexistent Christ has made all this literature one, by the
influence in the sacred writers of his omnipresent Spirit. If the
"historical method" would begin with this postulate of a unifying
Christ, its method would be more safe and its results more sure.
Faith in an eternal and omnipresent Christ guarantees also the
_sufficiency_ of Scripture. Here, however, there is an obvious
limitation. Scripture is not sufficient for all the kinds and purposes
of human science. It will not tell us the configuration of the hinder
side of the moon, nor reveal the future uses of electricity. It is not
with such things that Scripture deals. But in religious matters, such as
our relation to God and salvation, it is sufficient as a rule of faith
and practice. We may find in it all needful models and helps in the
divine life, as well as all needful directions about the way to begin
it. The church of Christ has always found in the Bible a safe guide for
her polity and conduct, and civil government has prospered when the
principles of Scripture were followed by the powers that ruled the
State. Because the Christian believes the Bible to be the product of men
inspired by Christ, he can send it out by the million copies as equal to
the moral and spiritual needs of the world.
And because Christ is, through his imperfect agents, the real author of
Scripture, we believe in its absolute _authority_. When rightly
interpreted, however. It will never do to treat poetry as if it were
prose, or drama as if it were history, or allegory as if it were fact.
Christ can use, and he has used, all the common methods of literary
composition, and he expects us to use common sense in dealing with them.
But out of the whole can be evolved a consistent doctrine and an
authoritative law. The one and only way of salvation is plainly that of
faith in God's provision of pardon and life in Christ. In spite of many
divergences, the great body of Christians throughout the ages have
agreed in their recognition of the personality and the deity of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; of the incarnation and the
atonement of Christ; of his resurrection and his lordship; of his
omnipresence with his people even to the end of the world. They have
expressed this agreement in the Apostles' Creed and in the hymnology of
the church. But the great body of instructed Christians also believe in
Christ as the Revealer of God in nature and in history; as "the Light
that lighteth every man" in conscience and tradition; and as the
righteous Judge who accepts in every nation those who fear God and work
righteousness, casting themselves as sinners upon the divine mercy even
though they do not yet know that this divine mercy is only another name
for Christ. The Bible, as a whole and when rightly interpreted, is
absolute authority, because it is the word of Christ; and Christ holds
each of us, as individuals, to the duty and the privilege of
interpreting the Bible for himself.