VI.

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN AND

AMERICA.

BY THE REV. A. S. WEBER, D.D.

LITERALISM IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CHRIST'S PRECEPTS.

One of the questions that has recently been engaging the attention of English writers, is, whether or not the precepts of Christ ought to be literally interpreted. In the course of a series of sermons* on "The Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ," the Rev. Dr. Alexander Mackennal, a preacher of recognized ability and extended influence, made some animadversions on religious conditions as seen by him the world around. Never, he thinks, were the examples of high Christian devotedness so numerous as to-day. Never were so many giving themselves up, in unceasing effort, to bring men and women to the joy of faith in Christ and holy living. Yet, on the other hand, never was there more painful uncertainty as to the results of such labors. Never more anxiety about getting money for the various enterprises of the churches, and for giving efficiency to Christian workers.

The responsibility, for this deplorable disparity between activities and results, and for this feverish anxiety about material resources for religious effort, to his mind, is easily discoverable. Christians of every name lack confidence in the sufficiency of spiritual motive and power. There is a general want of faith in the method and example of Jesus, which shows itself in disinclination and refusal to take as literally applicable, many of the primarily important precepts of the Saviour. The watchwords of the hour, to be heard on *Published by James Clarke & Co., London, 1906.

all sides, are "Christ and civilization," "Christ and money,' "Christ and men," "Christ and a navy "-and allegiance of this nature, the eternal King will not acknowledge and own. Christ, he insists, looks for a literal interpretation of and obedience to his precepts in national, church, and individual life. Instead of hearing this accentuated, as it should be especially by ministers of the Gospel, "we are hearing," he observes, "strange words from Christian teachers; words which jar painfully on our best spiritual sensibilities; and which if we listen to them, will slowly but surely, destroy all our faith. We are warned against a literal obedience to the Sermon on the Mount; this, we have been told more than once, would upturn the foundations of society, and render the further progress of the gospel impossible."

To the same effect are the arguments and conclusions in our day of many others. Like Tolstoy, disgusted with the inconsistencies of those around professing themselves to be Christians, or dissatisfied with personal religious attainments and character, they turn once more to Christ's words and are led by them to exclaim: "Here is the secret of my disgust or dissatisfaction! Neither I nor others are literally enough obedient to the instructions of him who has revealed the true ideal of human life. Christians are not what they ought to be. Because they fail to interpret literally in life the 'hard sayings' of Jesus, Christianity is spurious, degenerate, and pitifully impotent." The spirit of such advocates of literalism is to be respected. It reveals character that is earnest, robust, courageous. Its morality is immeasurably in advance of the languid, hectic pretense of those who by word of mouth declare their approbation and acceptance of Christian principle, but show in the practical conduct of their lives no sort of sincere attempt to realize that principle.

But whilst this must be acknowledged, are we not compelled on the other hand, to side with those who consider the views of such literalists ill-founded and misleading? It is the testimony of not a few distinguished men that we must do so.

In his criticism of the Russian enthusiast for the literal obedience, Matthew Arnold, it may be recalled, said that Christianity cannot be packed into any set of commandments. It is a mistake, and may lead to much error, to exhibit any series of maxims, even those of the Sermon on the Mount, as the ultimate sum and formula into which Christianity may be run up. The most important and fruitful utterances of Jesus are not things which can be drawn up as a table of stark and stiff external commands; they are things which have most soul in them." In substance the contentions recently made by Loisy against the views of a German theologian from whose theological principles he dissents, covered the same ground. Those who have read John Henry Newman's famous lecture on "Preaching the Gospel" will remember his pertinent observations on this subject. "Principles are great truths or laws," he says, "which embody in them the character of a system, enable us to estimate it, and indirectly guide us in practice." The word "indirectly," it need hardly be pointed out, is here advisedly chosen, to show that the guidance of principles, such as Christ for instance, propounded, does not lie in the literal understanding or application of them, but rather in the preservation of the spirit and essence with which they are charged. Newman considered it a matter of great importance for preachers of the gospel to bear this in mind, and those who are at present engaged in giving official expository instruction as to the meaning and content of Christian precepts, may likewise profit by carefully weighing the force and wisdom of his counsel.

In a series of rich and able articles, called forth by the inquiries of people perplexed over current views in conflict on this question, and published in one of the leading religious journals of London, several competent scholars of recognized authority in biblical interpretation, have lately expressed their convictions and stated the grounds on which they base those convictions. With remarkable unanimity they support the opinion that many of Christ's precepts can be rightly inter

preted and applied only by the indirect method, and equally striking is the agreement of the reasons they assign for making this method necessary. Perhaps it may not be out of place here to make a somewhat more than passing reference at this time to their informing discussion. They instance certain particular commandments of Jesus, and show in what undesirable consequences a literal obedience would necessarily issue. Marcus Dods, whose eminently helpful work in New Testament interpretation has won for him a wide reputation, and made his name an authority throughout Christendom, refers for example to the general precept "resist not evil" which has created probably more difficulty for devout minds than any other. Are we expected to heed it literally? Let his own words be given in answer: "Certainly Christ meant thereby to warn us against vindictiveness. It is directly and explicitly opposed to the lex talionis, ' an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' In some respects, therefore, it is one of the most characteristic injunctions, signalizing as it does, the transition from a bare, rigid, and inhuman legalism, to an era of forgiveness and love. And it is amazing how much ground this reasonable view of human relations has already gained, -a gain which gives good promise that the improvement in individual relations will be followed by the amelioration of those that are national, and that war will be superseded by friendliness and reason. At the same time, however, it is evident that the injunction cannot be accepted as absolute law, valid in all circumstances. Resistance to evil is, of

course, one of the first duties. Our Lord himself lived one long campaign against evil. Without compunction he drove evil spirits out of their unlawful possession. He violently drove out of the Temple those who were profaning it. Submission to personal wrong is one thing; allowance of evil is another. Our Lord expects us to bring a grain of common sense, and the liberty of the spirit to the interpretation of his commands." He does not look for a literalistic use to be made of the principles he has laid down for men's guidance.

The

The distinguished author of the latest History of the Reformation, a second contributor to the series of papers we are noticing, is equally distinct in his emphasis of this conception of truth. "To read the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount as if they were the statutory injunctions of an act of Parliament that had beer brought to the required precision by carefully considered amendments, is infallibly to go astray. They are not statutory injunctions at all; they are jets of flame. They are not meant to save us from the trouble of thinking, but to kindle in us the most intense and vivid thought. Consider, 'take no thought for your life,' and 'lay not up treasures for yourselves on the earth.' first tests the life of the poor, the second that of the rich,— both with equal severity, but neither, by whether or not they are literally heeded. Literalism is out of the question. We must think, we must look to the future, we must insure ourselves and those dependent on us as we can. But we should do it as those who are insuring with providence, not as many men, both rich and poor do,-as though we were insuring against providence. We are not to allow ourselves to forget the Fatherly providence of God and our dependence on it. We are to make the kingdom and righteousness of God our primary concern, and the recognition of our absolute dependence on him, the beginning of our religion. That is the key to the secret of the commandments of Jesus, and not a bald literalism in the interpretation of them."

Similarly pertinent and decisive are his reflections also on 'give to every one that asketh thee.' Would not a literal fulfillment of this command put one in diametrical opposition to Christ's law of love elsewhere enjoined on his followers? "Does not love warn us against thoughtless, indiscriminating giving to everyone that comes along begging? Does it not compel us to refuse giving, perhaps as often as to give? Literalism here would not only bring speedy self-impoverishment; it would pauperize others by relieving them of parental responsibilities, encourage them to shirk work, and turn loafers