THE POSTULATES OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS
We now proceed to define Christian Ethics and to investigate the
particular postulates, philosophical and theological, upon which it
rests.
Christian Ethics presupposes the Christian view of life as revealed in
Christ, and its definition must be in harmony with the Christian ideal.
The prime question of Christian Ethics is, How ought Christians to
order their lives? It is therefore the science of morals as
conditioned by Christian faith; and the problems it discusses are, the
nature, meaning and laws of the moral life as dominated by the supreme
good which has been revealed to the world in the Person and Teaching of
Christ. It is based upon an historical event, and presupposes a
particular development and consummation of the world.
I
_The Relation of Christian to Philosophical Ethics_.--Christian Ethics
is a branch of general Ethics. But it is something more; it is Ethics
in its richest and fullest expression--the interpretation of life which
corresponds to the supreme manifestation of the divine will. For if
the revelation of God in Christ is true, then that revelation is not
merely a factor, but the factor, which must dominate and colour man's
whole outlook and give an entirely new value to all his aims and
actions. In Christianity we are confronted with the motive-power of a
great Personality who has entered into the current of human history and
{23} given a new direction to the moral life of man. Man's life at its
highest can only be interpreted in the light of this supreme
revelation, and can only be accounted for as the creation of the
dynamic force of this unique Personality.
But while this truth gives to Christian Ethics its distinctive
character and pre-eminent worth it does not throw discredit upon
philosophical Ethics, nor indeed separate the two departments by any
hard and fast lines. They have much in common. A large domain of
conduct is covered by both. The so-called pagan virtues have their
value for Christian character and are in the line of Christian virtue.
Even in his natural state man is constituted for the moral life, and,
as St. Paul states, is not without some knowledge of right and wrong.
The moral attainments of the ancients are not to be regarded simply as
'splendid vices,' but as positive achievements of good. Duty may
differ in content, but it is of the same kind under any system. Purity
is purity and benevolence benevolence, whether manifested in a heathen
or a Christian. While, therefore, Christian Ethics takes its point of
departure from the special revelation of God and the unique disclosure
of man's possibilities in Christ, it gladly accepts and freely uses the
results of moral philosophy in so far as they throw light upon the
fundamental facts of human nature. As a system of morals Christianity
claims to be inclusive. It takes cognisance of all the data of
consciousness, and assumes as its own, from whatever quarter it may
come, all ascertained truth. The facts of man's natural history, the
conclusions from philosophy, the manifold lights afforded by previous
speculation--all are gathered up, sifted and tried by one
all-authoritative measure of truth--the mind of Christ. It completes
what is lacking in other systems in so far as their conclusions are
based upon an incomplete survey of facts. It deals, in short, with
personality in its highest ranges of moral power and spiritual
consciousness and seeks to interpret life by its greatest possibilities
and loftiest attainments as they are revealed in Christ.
But while Christian Ethics is at one with philosophic {24} Ethics in
postulating a natural capacity for spiritual life, it is differentiated
from all non-Christian systems by its distinctive belief in the
possibility of the re-creation of character. Speculative Ethics
prescribes only what ought ideally to be done or avoided. It takes no
account of the foes of the spiritual life; nor does it consider the
remedy by which character, once it is perverted or destroyed, can be
restored and transformed. Christian Ethics, on the other hand, is
concerned primarily with the question, By what power can a man achieve
the right and do the good? It is not enough to postulate the inherent
capacity of man. Experience of human nature shows that there are
hostile elements which too often frustrate his natural development.
Hence the practical problem which Christian Ethics has to face is, How
can the spiritual ideal be made a reality? It regards man as standing
in need of recovery, and it is forced to assume, that which
philosophical Ethics does not recognise, a divine power by which
character can be renewed. Christianity claims to be 'the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth.' Christian Ethics
therefore is based upon the twofold assumption that the ideal of
humanity has actually been revealed in Christ, and that in Him also is
the power by which man may realise this ideal.
II
_The relation of Christian Ethics to Dogmatics_.--Within the sphere of
theology proper the two main constituents of Christian teaching are
Dogmatics and Ethics, or Doctrines and Morals. Though it is convenient
to regard these separately they really form a whole, and are but two
aspects of one subject. It is difficult to define their limits, and to
say where Dogmatics ends and Ethics begins. The distinction is
sometimes expressed by saying that Dogmatics is a theoretic science,
whereas Ethics is practical. It is true that Ethics stands nearer to
everyday life and deals with matters of practical conduct, while
Dogmatics is concerned with beliefs and treats of their origin and
elucidation. {25} But, on the other hand, Ethics also takes cognisance
of beliefs as well as actions, and is interested in judgments not less
than achievements. There is a practical side of doctrine and there is
a theoretic side of morals. Even the most theoretic of sciences,
Metaphysics, though, as Novalis said, it bakes no bread, is not without
its direct bearing upon life. Dogmatic theology when divorced from
practical interest is in danger of becoming mere pedantry; and ethical
inquiry, if it has no dogmatic basis, loses scientific value and sinks
into a mere enumeration of duties. Nor is the common statement, that
Dogmatics shows what we should believe and Ethics what we ought to do,
an adequate one. Moral precepts are also objects of faith, and what we
should believe involves moral requirements and pre-supposes a moral
character. Schleiermacher has been charged with ignoring the
difference between the two disciplines, but with scant justice. For,
while he regards the two subjects as but different branches of
Christian theology, and insists upon their intimate connection, he does
not neglect their distinction. There has been a growing tendency to
accentuate the difference, and recent writers such as Jacoby, Haering
and Lemme, not to mention Martensen, Dorner and Wuttke, claim for
Ethics a separate and independent treatment. The ultimate connection
between Dogmatics and Ethics cannot be ignored without loss to both.
It tends only to confusion to speak as some do of 'a creedless
morality.' On the one hand, Ethics saves Dogmatics from evaporating
into unsubstantial speculation, and by affording the test of
workableness, keeps it upon the solid foundation of fact. On the other
hand, Dogmatics supplies to Ethics its formative principles and
normative standards, and preserves the moral life from degenerating
into the vagaries of fanaticism or the apathy of fatalism. But while
both sciences form complementary sides of theology and stand in
relations of mutual service, each deals with the human consciousness in
a different way. Dogmatics regards the Christian life from the
standpoint of divine dependence: Ethics regards it from the {26}
standpoint of human determination. Dogmatics deals with faith in
relation to God, as the receptive organ of grace: Ethics views faith
rather in relation to man, as a human activity or organ of conduct.
The one shows us how our adoption into the kingdom of God is the work
of divine love: the other shows how this knowledge of salvation
manifests itself in love to God and man, and must be worked out through
all the relationships of life.
III
We may define more particularly the relation of Ethics to Dogmatics by
enumerating briefly the doctrinal postulates or assumptions with which
Ethics starts.
1. Ethics assumes the Christian _idea of God_. God is for Ethics not
an impersonal force, nor even simply the creator of the universe as
philosophy might conceive Him.[1] Creative power is not of course
denied, but it is qualified by what theology calls the 'moral
attributes of God.' We do not ignore His omnipotence, but we look
beyond it, to 'the love that tops the power, the Christ in God.'[2] It
is not necessary here to sketch the Old Testament teaching with regard
to God. It is sufficient to state that the New Testament writers,
while not attempting to proclaim abstract doctrines, took over
generally the Hebrew conception of the Deity as a God who was at once
almighty, holy and righteous. The distinctive note which the New
Testament emphasises is the Personality of God, and personality
includes reason, will and love. The fact that we are His offspring, as
St. Paul argues, is the basis of our true conception of God's nature.
Through that which is highest in man we are enabled to discern
something of His character. But it is specially in and through Jesus
Christ that the distinctive character of the Divine Personality is
declared. Christ reveals Him as our Father, and everywhere the New
{27} Testament writers assume that men stand in the closest filial
relations to him. In the fundamental conception of divine Fatherhood
there are implicitly contained certain elements of ethical
significance.[3] Of these may be mentioned:
(1) _The Spiritual Perfection of God_.--The Christian doctrine of God
includes not only His personality, but His spiritual perfection. All
that is highest and best in life is attributed to God. What we regard
as having supreme moral worth is eternally realised in Him. It is this
fact that prescribes man's ideal and makes it binding. 'Be ye perfect
even as your Father in heaven is perfect,' says Christ. Because of
what God is, spiritual and moral excellence takes precedence of all
other aims which can be perceived and pursued by man. Morality is the
revelation of an ideal eternally existing in the divine mind. 'The
belief in God,' it has been said, 'is the logical pre-supposition of an
objective or absolute morality.'[4] The moral law, as the norm and
goal of our life, obtains its validity and obligation for us not
because it is an arbitrarily-given command, but because it is of the
very character of God.
(2) _The Sovereignty of God_.--Not only the spiritual perfection but
the moral sovereignty of God is pre-supposed. He is the supreme
excellence on whom all things depend, and in whom they find their
ultimate explanation. The world is not merely His creation, it is the
expression of His mind. He is not related to the universe as an artist
is related to his work, but rather as a personal being to his own
mental and moral activities.[5] He is immanent in all the phenomena of
nature and movements of life and thought; and in the order and purpose
of the world His character and will are manifested. The fact that the
meaning and order of things are not imposed from without, but
constitute their inner nature, reveals not only the completeness of His
{28} sovereignty, but the purpose of it. The highest end of God, as
moral and spiritual, is fulfilled by the constitution and education of
spiritual beings like Himself, and in laying down the conditions which
are necessary for their existence and perfecting. No definition of
divine sovereignty can exclude the idea of moral freedom and the
consequences bound up with it. Hence God must not only confer the gift
of individual liberty, but respect it throughout the whole course of
His dealings with man.
(3) _The Supremacy of Love_.--This is the highest and most distinctive
feature of the divine personality. It is the sum of all the others; as
well as the special characteristic of the Fatherhood of God as revealed
by Christ. 'God is love' is the crowning statement of the Gospel and
the fullest expression of the divine nature. The essential of all love
is self-giving; and the peculiarity of God's love is the communication
and imparting of Himself to His creatures. The love of God finds its
highest manifestation in the gift and sacrifice of His Son. He is the
supreme personality in history, revealing God in and to the world. In
the light of what Christ is we know what God is, and from His
revelation there flows a new and ever-deepening experience of the
divine Being.
2. Christian Ethics presupposes the _Christian doctrine of Sin_. It
is not the province of Ethics to discuss minutely the origin of evil or
propound a theory of sin. But it must see to it that the view it takes
is consistent with the truths of revelation and in harmony with the
facts of life. A false or inadequate conception of sin is as
detrimental to Ethics as it is to Dogmatics; and upon our doctrine of
evil depends very largely our interpretation of life in regard to its
difficulties and purposes, its trials and triumphs. In the meantime it
is enough to remark that considerable vagueness of idea and looseness
of expression exist concerning this subject.
While some regard sin simply as a _defect_ or shortcoming, a missing of
the mark, as the Greek word _hamartia_ implies, others treat it as a
_disease_, or infirmity of the flesh--a malady affecting the physical
constitution which may be {29} incurred by heredity or induced by
environment. In both cases it is regarded as a misfortune, rather than
a fault, or even as a fate from which the notion of guilt is absent.
While there is an element of truth in these representations, they are
defective in so far as they do not take sufficient account of the
personal and determinative factor in all sinful acts. The Christian
view, though not denying that physical weakness and the influence of
heredity and environment do, in many cases, affect conduct, affirms
that there is a personal element always present which these conditions
do not explain. Sin is not merely negative. It is something positive,
not so much an imperfection as a trespass. It is to be accounted for
not as an inherited or inherent malady, but as a self-chosen
perversity. It belongs to the spirit rather than to the body, and
though it has its seat in the heart and in the emotions, it has to do
principally with the will. 'Every man is tempted when he is drawn away
by his own lust and enticed. Then when lust has conceived it bringeth
forth sin.'[6] The essence of sin is selfishness. It is the
deliberate choice of self in preference to God--personal and wilful
rebellion against the known law of righteousness and truth. There are,
of course, degrees of wrongdoing and undoubtedly extenuating
circumstances which must be taken into account in estimating the
significance and enormity of guilt, but in the last resort Christian
Ethics is compelled to postulate the fact of sin, and to regard it as a
personal rebellion against the holy will of God, the deliberate choice
of self and the wilful perversion of the powers of man into instruments
of unrighteousness.
3. A third postulate, which is a corollary of the Christian view of
God and of sin, is the _Responsibility of Man_. Christian Ethics
treats every man as accountable for his thoughts and actions, and
therefore, as capable of choosing the good as revealed in Christ.
While not denying the sovereignty of God, nor minimising the mystery of
evil, Christianity firmly maintains the doctrine of human freedom. An
Ethic would be impossible if, on the one side, grace were absolutely
{30} irresistible; or, on the other, sin were unalterably necessitated.
Whatever be the doctrine we formulate on these subjects, Ethics demands
that what we call freedom be safeguarded. An interesting question
emerges at this point as to the possibility, apart from a knowledge of
Christ, of choosing the good. Difficult as this question is, and
though it was answered by Augustine and many of the early Fathers in
the negative, the modern, and probably the more just view, is that we
cannot hold mankind responsible unless we allow to all men the larger
freedom and judge them according to their light and opportunity. If
non-Christians are fated to do evil, then no guilt can be imputed.
History shows that a love of goodness has sometimes existed, and that
many isolated acts of purity and kindness have been done, among people
who have known nothing of the historical Christ. The New Testament
recognises degrees of depravity in nations and individuals, and a
measure of noble aspiration and honest endeavour in ordinary human
nature. St. Paul plainly assumes some knowledge and performance on the
part of the heathen, and though he denounces their immorality in
unsparing terms, he does not affirm that pagan society was so corrupt
that it had lost all knowledge of moral good.
IV
Before concluding this chapter some remarks regarding the authority and
method of Christian Ethics may be not inappropriate.
1. Christian Ethics is not directly concerned with critical questions
as to the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament writings.
It is sufficient for its purpose that these have been generally
received by the Church, and that they present in the Person of Christ
the highest embodiment of the law and spirit of the moral life. The
writings of the New Testament thus become ethically normative in virtue
of their direct reflection of the mind of Christ and their special
receptivity of His spirit. Their {31} authority, therefore, is
Christ's own authority, and has a value for us as His word is
reproduced by them. It does not detract from the validity of the New
Testament as the reflection of the spirit of Christ that there are
discernible in it distinct signs of development of doctrine, a manifest
growth in clearness and depth of insight and knowledge of the mind of
Jesus. Such evidences of advancement are specially noticeable in the
application of Christian principles to the practical problems of life,
such as the questions of slavery, marriage, work and property. St.
Paul does not disclaim the possibility of development, and he
associates himself with those who know in part and wait for fuller
light. In common with all Christians, Paul was doubtless conscious of
a growing enrichment in spiritual knowledge; and his later epistles
show that he had reached to clearer prospects of Christ and His
redemption, and had obtained a fuller grasp of the world-wide
significance of the Gospel than when he first began to preach.
One cannot forget that the battle of criticism is raging to-day around
the inner citadel--the very person and words of Jesus. If it can be
shown that the Gospels contain only very imperfect records of the
historical Jesus, and that very few sayings of our Lord can be
definitely pronounced genuine, then, indeed, we might have to give up
some of the particular passages upon which we have based our conception
of truth and duty, but nothing less than a wholesale denial of the
historical existence of Jesus[7] would demand of us a repudiation of
the Christian view of life. The ideals, motives, and sentiments--the
entire outlook and spirit of life which we associate with Christ--are
now a positive possession of the Christian consciousness. There is a
Christian view of the world, a Christian _Welt-Anschauung_, so living
and real in the heart of Christendom that even though we had no more
reliable basis than the 'Nine Foundation Pillars' which Schmiedel
condescends to leave us, we should not be wholly deprived of the
fundamental principles upon which the Christian life might be reared.
{32} If to these we add the list of 'doubly attested sayings' collected
by Burkitt,[8] which even some of the most negative critics have been
constrained to allow, we should at least have a starting-point for the
study of the teaching of Jesus. The most reputable scholars, however,
of Germany, America and Britain acknowledge that no reasonable doubt
can be cast upon the general substance and tone of the Synoptic
Gospels, compiled, as they were, from the ancient Gospel of Mark and
the source commonly called 'Q' (_i.e._ the lost common origin of the
non-Markian portions of Matthew and Luke). To these we should be
disposed to add the Fourth Gospel, which, though a less primary source,
undoubtedly records acts and sayings of our Lord attested by one, who
(whosoever he was) was in close touch with his Master's life, and had
drunk deeply of His spirit.
In the general tone and trend of these writings we find abundant
materials for what may be called the Ethics of Jesus. It is true, no
sharp line can be drawn between His religious and moral teaching. But,
taking Ethics in its general sense, as the discussion of the ideals,
virtues, duties of man, the relation of man to God and to his
fellow-men, it will at once be seen that a very large portion of
Christ's teaching is distinctly ethical. The facts of His own earthly
existence, all His great miracles, His parables, and above all, the
Sermon on the Mount, have an immediate bearing upon human conduct.
They all deal with character, and are chiefly illustrations and
enforcements of the divine ideal of life and of the value of man as a
child of God which He came to reveal. In the example of Jesus Himself
we have the best possible illustration of the translation of principles
into life. And in so far as we find our highest good embodied in Him,
He becomes for us, as J. S. Mill acknowledged, a kind of personified
conscience. No abstract statement of ethical principles can possibly
influence life so powerfully as the personal incarnation of these
principles; and if the greatest means to the true life is personal
association with the high and noble, then it need not seem strange {33}
that love and admiration for the person of Christ have as a matter of
fact proved the mightiest of historical motives to noble living.
However imperfectly we may know the person of Jesus, and however
fragmentary may be the record of His teaching, one great truth looms
out of the darkness--the peerlessness of His character and the
incomparableness of His ideal of life. He comes to us with a message
of Good, new to man, based on the great conviction of the Fatherhood of
God. The all-dominating faith that a genuine seeking love is at the
heart of the universe makes Jesus certain that the laws of the world
are the laws of a loving God--laws of life which must be studied,
welcomed, and heartily obeyed.
2. The Christian ideal, though given in Christ, has to be examined,
analysed, and applied by the very same faculties as are employed in
dealing with speculative problems. All science must be furnished with
facts, and its task generally is to shape its materials to definite
ends. The scientist does not invent. He does not create. He simply
_discovers_ what is already there: he only moulds into form what is
given. In like manner, the Christian moralist deals with the
revelation of life which has been granted to him partly in the human
consciousness, and partly through the sacred scriptures. The
scriptures, however, do not offer a systematic presentation of the life
of Christ, or a formal directory of moral conduct. The data are
supplied, but these data require to be interpreted and unified so as to
form a system of Ethics. The authority to which Christian Ethics
appeals is not an external oracle which imposes its dictates in a
mechanical way. It is an authority embodied in intelligible forms, and
appealing to the rational faculties of man. Christian Ethics, though
deduced from scripture, is not a cut and dry code of rules prescribed
by God which man must blindly obey. It has to be thought out, and
intelligently applied to all the circumstances of life. According to
the Protestant view, at least, Ethics is not a stereotyped compendium
of precepts which {34} the Church supplies to its members to save them
from thinking. Slavish imitation is wholly foreign to the genius of
the Gospel. Christ Himself appeals everywhere to the rational nature
of man, and His words are life and spirit only as they are intelligibly
apprehended and become by inner conviction the principles of action.
Authoritative, then, as the scriptures are, and containing as they do
the revelation of an unique historical fact, they do not present a
closed or final system of truth. Christ has yet many things to say
unto us, and the Holy Spirit is continually adding new facts to human
experience, and disclosing richer and fuller manifestations of God
through history and providence and the personal consciousness of man.
No progress in thought or life can indeed be made which is inconsistent
with, or foreign to, the fundamental facts which centre in Christ: and
we may be justly suspicious of all advancement in doctrine or morals
which does not flow from the initial truths of the Master's life and
teaching. But, just as progress has been made, both in the increase of
materials of knowledge and in regard to the clearer insight and
appreciation of the meaning of Christian truth, since the apostles'
age, so we may hope that, as the ages go on, we shall acquire a still
fuller conception of the kingdom of God and a richer apprehension of
the divine will. The task and method of Christian Ethics will be,
consequently, the intelligent interpretation and the gradual
application to human life and society, in all their relationships, of
the mind of Christ under the constant illumination and guidance of the
Divine Spirit.
[1] Cf. Dorner, _System der Christl. Ethik_, p. 48. See also Newman
Smyth, _Christian Ethics_, p. 44.
[2] Cf. Mackintosh, _Christian Ethics_, p. 11.
[3] Cf. Lidgett, _The Christian Religion_, pp. 106, 485 ff., where the
idea of God's nature is admirably developed.
[4] Rashdall, _The Theory of Good and Evil_, vol. ii. p. 212.
[5] Lidgett, _idem_. But see Bosanquet, _Principle of Indiv. and
Value_, p. 380 ff.
[6] James i. 13, 14.
[7] As, for example, that of Drew's _Christus Myth_.
[8] Cf. _Gospel History and its Transmission_.
{35}