THE ETERNAL CHRIST
In the course of Christian history a good deal of time has been
occupied in the discussion of the metaphysical question of the complex
unity of the divine nature; and the result has been the doctrine of the
Trinity, a conception which, it has been claimed, at once satisfies and
transcends the operations of the human intellect. Most non-theological
modern minds are, however, somewhat suspicious of the doctrine of the
Trinity; it seems rather too speculative and too remote from ordinary
ways of thinking to possess much real value. But this is quite a
mistake. We cannot dispense with the doctrine of the Trinity, for it,
or something like it, is implied in the very structure of the mind. It
belongs to philosophy even more than to religion, and to the sphere of
ethics not less. I daresay even the man in the street knows, quite as
certainly as the man in the schools, that a metaphysical proposition
underlies the doing of every moral act, even though it may never be
expressed. All thinking starts with an assumption of some kind, and
without an assumption thought is impossible. This is just as true of
the strictest scientific processes as it is of deductive reasoning, and
indeed it is interesting to watch the way in which within recent years
idealistic philosophy and empirical science have joined hands. Does
physical science, then, imply the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes,
unquestionably it does, after a fashion, for it starts with an
assumption which takes it for granted. Perhaps this would be news to
Professor Ray Lankester, and such as he, but I think I could convince
them that I am right if I had them face to face. To use the mind at
all we have to assume this doctrine even though we may not actually
formulate it. Christianity did not invent it; it clarified and defined
it, but in principle it is as old as the exercise of human reason.
+The basal assumption of thought.+--After making a comprehensive
assertion of this kind I suppose I am bound to justify it, and I do not
shrink from the task. I say that all thinking starts with an
assumption of some kind, and exact thought requires that that
assumption shall be the simplest possible, the irreducible minimum
beneath which we cannot get. Now when we start thinking about
existence as a whole and ourselves in particular, we are compelled to
assume the infinite, the finite, and the activity of the former within
the latter. In other words we have to postulate God, the universe, and
God's operation within the universe. Look at these three conceptions
for a moment and it will be seen that every one of them implies the
rest; they are a Trinity in unity. The primordial being must be
infinite, for there cannot be a finite without something still beyond
it. We know, too, that to our experience the universe is finite; we
can measure, weigh, and analyse it--an impossible thing to do with an
infinite substance. And yet if we think of infinite and finite as two
entirely distinct and unrelated modes of existence, we find ourselves
in an impossible position, for the infinite must be that outside of
which nothing exists or can exist; so of course we are compelled to
think of the infinite as ever active within the finite, the source of
change and motion, the exhaustless power which makes possible the very
idea of development from simplicity to complexity. If the universe
were complete in itself, change would not occur, and a cosmic process,
evolutionary or otherwise, would be inconceivable. Here, then, we have
the basal factors of any true theology, philosophy, or science.
Readers of Haeckel's "Riddle of the Universe" will note that that
eminent materialist, who professes to do away with the very idea of
God, takes these factors for granted; and yet I suppose he would object
to being told that he believes in the doctrine of the Trinity. But he
does, for he begins by assuming infinite space filled to the farthest
with matter ponderable and imponderable, and forthwith proceeds to
weigh, measure, and divide the latter as though it were finite! Here
are two terms of the doctrine of the Trinity at once. We get the third
as soon as Professor Haeckel sets to work to explain the cosmic
process, for as he does so he is all the while taking for granted that
the infinite is pressing in and up through the finite, evolving beauty
and order, light and life.
+The moral basis of the doctrine.+--But it may be contended that these
bare bones of the doctrine of the Trinity are not the doctrine as it
enters into spiritual experience. I admit the fact while asserting
strongly that but for this framework of intellectual necessity the
doctrine would be unknown to faith and morals. It is sometimes stated
that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in order to account for
Jesus, but that is only incidentally true. Its framers took the
materials for it over from Greek thought, and even Greek thought
probably inherited it from an older civilisation still, if indeed there
were any necessity to inherit it. I contend that if we had never heard
of the doctrine in connection with Jesus, we should have to invent it
now in order to account for ourselves and the wondrous universe in
which we live.
Unquestionably, however, it is from the point of view of religion and
morals that the doctrine has most significance, and therefore has
become indissolubly associated with the personality of Jesus; and it is
easy to see how this has come about. Thinkers have always been
compelled to construe the universe in terms of the highest known to
man, namely, his own moral nature. It was natural, therefore, that
while they thought of the universe as an expression of God, they should
think of it as the expression of that side of His being which can only
be described as the ideal or archetypal manhood. The infinite being of
God is utterly incomprehensible to a finite mind, and in regard to it
the most devout saint is as much an agnostic as the most convinced
materialist. But we are justified in holding that whatever else He may
be God is essentially man, that is, He is the fount of humanity. There
must be one side, so to speak, of the infinitely complex being of God
in which humanity is eternally contained and which finds expression in
the finite universe. Humanity is not a vague term; we have already
seen something of what it is. We ought not to interpret it in terms of
the primeval savage, or even of average human nature to-day, but in
terms of what we have come to feel is its highest expression, and that
is Jesus. If we think therefore of the archetypal eternal divine Man,
the source and sustenance of the universe, and yet transcending the
universe, we cannot do better than think of Him in terms of Jesus;
Jesus is the fullest expression of that eternal divine Man on the field
of human history. Here, then, we have the first and second factors in
the doctrine of the Trinity morally and spiritually construed.
+The divine Man.+--The idea of a divine Man, the emanation of the
infinite, the soul of the universe, the source and goal of all
humanity, is ages older than Christian theology. It can be traced in
Babylonian religious literature, for instance, at a period older even
than the Old Testament. It played a not unimportant part in Greek
thought, and Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, works it out
in some detail in his religio-philosophic system, which aimed to
combine the wide outlook of Greek culture with the high seriousness of
Hebrew religion. It is a true, indeed an inevitable, conception, if we
hold anything like a consistent view of the immanence of God in His
universe. With what God have we to do except the God who is eternally
man? This aspect of the nature of God has been variously described in
the course of its history. It has been called the Word, the Son, and,
as we have seen, the second person in the Trinity. For various reasons
I prefer to call it--or rather Him--the eternal Christ. I do this
because, for one thing, the word "Christ" is a living word with a
clearly marked ethical content and a great religious value.
Originally, of course, it was but the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
Messiah, and meant the "anointed one," the person chosen for a special
divine work. But in the New Testament, especially the writings of St.
Paul, as well as all Christian history through, it is associated on the
one hand with the personality of Jesus, and, on the other, with the
fontal or ideal Man who contains and is expressed in all human kind.
According to the New Testament writers, Jesus was and is the Christ,
but in His earthly life His consciousness of the fact was limited.
But, as we have come forth from this fontal manhood, we too must be to
some extent expressions of this eternal Christ; and it is in virtue of
that fact that we stand related to Jesus, and that the personality of
Jesus has anything to do with us. Here is where the value of our
belief in the interaction of the higher and the lower self comes in.
Fundamentally our being is already one with that of the eternal Christ,
and faith in Jesus is faith in Him. Jesus is not one being and the
Christ another; the two are one, and Jesus seems to have known it
during His earthly ministry. He lived His life in such a way as to
reveal the very essence of the Christ nature. He is therefore central
for us, and we are complete in Him. Here is the goal of all moral
effort--Christ. Here, too, is the highest reach of the religious
ideal--Christ. "For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and
bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the
Father, and was manifested unto us."
+The Christ of St. Paul.+--I am persuaded that we have here the key to
the Christology of that great thinker and preacher, the apostle Paul.
It is this ideal or eternal Christ who is the object of his faith and
devotion. He even goes so far as to warn his readers not to dwell too
much upon the limited earthly Jesus, but upon His true being in the
eternal reality: "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh;
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
know we Him no more." He does not say, "To me to live is Jesus," but,
"To me to live is _Christ_." If ever there was a Christian who really
loved Jesus with passionate and whole-hearted devotion, it was the
apostle Paul, but he says almost nothing about the earthly ministry of
his Lord. He seems to have had a vivid impression as to what the
character of Jesus was really like, and he gave himself up to the
worship of this with all his heart; but he does not draw for us any of
the beautiful gospel pictures of the Jesus in the peasant's dress who
taught on the hillsides of Galilee, went about doing good, was a
welcome guest in the home at Bethany, lived a true human life, and died
a shameful death. Paul always thought of Him, and truly, as the Lord
who came down from heaven, but he does _not_ draw a sharp line of
distinction between Him and the rest of humanity. He calls Jesus "the
first-born among many brethren." He speaks of the summing up of all
things in Christ, and of the final consummation when God shall be all
in all. Here is the New Theology with a vengeance. Paul requires to
be rescued from the inadequate and distorting interpretations his
thought has received in the course of its history. He brought this
conception of the eternal Christ into Christianity from pre-Christian
thought, saw it ideally revealed in Jesus, and then bade mankind
respond to it and realise it to be the true explanation of our own
being. Sometimes he appears to deviate from this view, and to say
things inconsistent with it, but that we need not mind; he saw it, and
that is enough. It forms the foundation of his gospel.