« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
is attained through suffering and voluntary sacrifice. “ The doctrine of evolution coincides with the doctrine of the old faith in holding that the perfect man must be a man of sorrows." The other chapters deal with Evolution in relation to Special Creation, the Origin of Life, the Primitive Man, the Second Adam, the Work of the Spirit, Divine Communion, and Immortality.
The Psalmist and the Scientist is engaged with the same problem of reconciliation as the previous work. The design is to inquire “ whether the religious sentiment of the past has been superannuated or rendered obsolete by the modern conception of nature." Dr. Matheson takes the Book of Psalms as the “repository of the religious sentiment in its largest and most comprehensive form "; and without involving himself in any questions as to its origin and inspiration, he endeavours to show that the convictions and hopes it expresses not only belong to the eternal and unchangeable things of the heart, but represent realities, and offer no “anachronism to the intellect."
For example, the Psalmist says: “Thou openest Thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing." In other words, where there are definite desires there is a provision for their satisfaction. Science admits this law of correspondence. To each organism is given its suitable environment. The Psalmist further exclaims : “ As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O God.” All serious thinkers admit the existence of this desire after God. Is there, then, no provision for its satisfaction? Is there a universal instinct to which no reality corresponds? “ Shall the religious instinct of the human soul be the one unsatisfied desire, the one hunger of man for which there has been provided no food, the one thirst for which there has been supplied no water?" Is such an anomaly reasonable? The conclusion that man's spiritual wants are not mocked by illusions is not evaded by the objection that the religious sentiment is not a distinct or separate power, but made up of several feelings, such as fear, dependence, wonder. Even if this were true, it would be no ground of objection; for those other powers and faculties of the mind which manifestly do receive satisfaction are not in their origin single and independent. Nor again is there any force in the objection that there are useless organs in the world. For these organs did once fulfil a useful purpose, and were once in harmony with their environment; and if there were any force in the objection, it would, at least, involve the absurdity that the religious sentiment once served a true purpose, and received a proper environment, although its utility has now disappeared. In that case we must substitute the idea of degeneration for progress. The last point in the argument of this chapter is that the only satisfaction for the human spirit is the living God, and that if any one insists on calling God Nature, he must “ use the word in no partial or limited sense,” it must be living Nature, i.e., Nature with all the powers and attributes of God.
As another illustration of Dr. Matheson's argument I will take the chapter on “The Psalmist's View of Sin." The scientist says that the secret of unhappiness is found in some defect in the harmony of the organism with its environment; but this in the speech of religion is known as sin. Sin is defined as "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.” Sin is, therefore, an unnatural condition. The Psalmist cried : “ Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." The common view is that regeneration from sin is “something which lifts a man into the region of the transcendental and supernatural.” The view of the Psalmist is that the state of sin is itself something opposed to the course of nature, and that the act of regeneration, so far from being a transference into the supernatural, is in reality a restoration into the order of the universe. In like manner, if modern science brings to the interpretation of sin the great law of heredity, so does the Psalmist. He says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”. The evil that works in him can be traced back into the lives of his ancestors; it has been transmitted to him in the ordinary course of nature. But if the Psalmist recognizes the fact of heredity, so does the scientist recognize the fact of guilt. He cannot shake it off. “He pities himself because he is a prey to consumption; he blames himself because he has been guilty of sin." Why is this? To explain it, Dr. Matheson falls back on the philosophy of Kant. must be a portion of man's nature which, though in the world, is not of the world. The law which says 'thou shalt,' thou shalt not,' cannot be given by the same being who is already disobeying it. It tells us we are free, but in this world we are not free. Our freedom is only an idea, only a thought, only an aspiration ; is it to be also only an illusion ? It must be so if this life be all. To redeem it from illusion, to account for the fact of its existence at all, we are bound to postulate the existence of a higher life within the soula life to which the soul once belonged, and to which the soul shall yet return.” 1 This explanation Dr. Matheson contends is in harmony with the teaching of the Psalmist, and is the only one that can make consistent the consciousness and action of the scientist. Among other subjects dealt with in this powerful and eloquent book are the Psalmist's view of the Origin of Life, of Human Insignificance, of the Principle of Survival : his argument for God, and his Optimism.
Landmarks of New Testament Morality is a work in which Dr. Matheson carries on his work of reconciliation in another direction. Here he takes up the subject of Christian ethics, and shows how Christianity reveals itself as the one absolute religion through its power to reconcile and absorb all other systems. “It gives expression in one voice to all those instincts of the heart which the old world had expressed in many voices— in various forms and diverse parts.' It has the Brahmanical sense of mysticism, the Buddhist feeling of present depression, the Parsee conviction of sin, the Confucian hope of a coming kingdom of glory. It appropriates the theocratic spirit of Judæa, the æsthetic spirit of Greece, the legal spirit of Rome, the philosophic spirit of India, and it appropriates them because it claims to have been their originator—the light which in the past had lighted every The book covers a wide range of thought and speculation, and closes with the conviction that around the moral ideal of Christianity the theology of the future will crystallize.
1 P. 282.
Spiritual Development of St. Paul. Dr. Matheson's latest book is one into the teaching of which I cannot now enter. He tells us that its writing engaged him at intervals for nearly two years, and that a good many more were occupied in thinking it out. In reading it I felt much perplexity at the strangeness of view, I marvelled at the subtilty of thought, and I was delighted with the many nuggets of gold unearthed. Like all Dr. Matheson's teaching, it will not secure unanimous and unqualified assent.
I cannot close this brief paper without referring to the true-hearted faith which breathes through all his writings, and especially in those little books which thousands who have not the time or inclination to read his theological works yet prize as precious companions of the devout life. Moments on the Mount, Voices of the Spirit, My Aspirations, and lastly his volume of Sacred Songs are read and loved for their beautiful spirit in thousands of homes where a refined and earnest piety is cultivated.
In writing of one whom I so much revere and admire as a great man and great spiritual teacher, I have not stopped at every point to indicate where I was not prepared to follow him, but have preferred to attempt some slight picture of the man, and to indicate some of the directions in which he is a leader in our midst, and a reconciler among contending schools of thought. To accept all his views is not possible to thoughtful men, and the last to desire it would be Dr. Matheson himself. His teaching awakens opposition and admiration; it wins followers, and sends some away hostile. But, better still, it sets men thinking; it fills them with a new courage and hopefulness; it compels them to recognize the grandeur of life, and of life's deepest problems. It stirs up a new interest in all that is most worthy and beautiful. Few have come into contact with Dr. Matheson himself or his writings without feeling that he has placed them under lasting obligation; and that the bright, genuine, devout spirit that lives in the man, and breathes through all his teaching, is worthy of all reverence and emulation. There is just one more word which must be spoken. It would be ungenerous to conclude this paper without paying a tribute of respect and admiration to the beautiful devotion of Miss Matheson to her brother. Through all these long years of quiet reading and study she has with noble self-sacrifice shared all his cares and interests, ever by his side, ever helping him in his work, and ever seeking to smooth his path and brighten his life.
1 P. 2.
OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Rev. H, C. LEONARD, M.A. The question raised by the Rev. J. M. Ludlow in the Homiletic Review, and referred to in THE THINKER (p. 194), when closely examined, does not seem to have much bearing on the theories of inspiration. In regard to the facts concerning the quotations from Deuteronomy, in the narrative of the Temptation, Mr. Ludlow might have made his case still stronger. The second of these quotations, as we read it in Matthew, is taken from the Septuagint, as well as the first and third, as shown by the first word of it. As to the substitution of the word “ worship” for “fear" in the third quotation, it is true that the received text of the Septuagint has “fear” in accordance with the Hebrew, but the reading “ worship" is found, in the place, in one manuscript of the Septuagint, and in several patristic quotations from it, and the Greek editor of the first Gospel probably read it in his copy. But Mr. Ludlow gets off the track when he says that “our Lord generally followed the Septuagint translation." There is no evidence that He ever spoke or read, or heard read, a word of Greek, or indeed a word of Hebrew, properly so called.
The Scriptures read in the Palestinian synagogues were certainly "Targums,” i.e., versions in the Aramaic language, which was not a
daughter language” to the Hebrew, but rather a sister language. We may, therefore, gather with more probability the actual words spoken by our Lord from the “ Targum of Palestine," and there it is interesting to notice that the words “worship” and “fear” are both found (“ fear the Lord your God, and worship before Him”), also, in the version of the first of the quoted passages we read, " By all that is created by the Word of the Lord (Memra da Yeha) doth man live.” This, also, is highly interesting, because it shows us how “ word " came into the passage. It came evidently through the reverent substitution of “the Word of the Lord” for “the Lord,” which is characteristic of the Targums.
The difficulty arises from non-recognition of the fact that what we call Hebrew, i.e., the classic Hebrew of the Old Testament, was, in the New Testament times, a dead language. It was a matter of course that the evangelists, who give us a Greek version of our Lord's words, should give the Scripture quotations made by Him from the Greek Scriptures which they themselves used. Moreover, it is highly probable, perhaps we should say certain, that none of the writers of the Epistles, except St. Paul, were acquainted with Hebrew. They "ignored the Hebrew text and followed the Septuagint" simply because it was the one course open to them. No theory of inspiration, verbal or otherwise, can be attributed to them on this ground, any more than we can assign any to an English divine who should habitually quote from the English version.
If we could interrogate the New Testament writers on the point, it is quite possible that we might find them believing that the Septuagint version was itself verbally inspired. This was certainly the common belief a little
later. It was beld by Justin Martyr, who says that he had himself seen the ruins of the seventy huts used by the Septuagint translators at Alexandria, by Irenæus, Augustine, and others. A similar belief is entertained by Catholics concerning the Latin Vulgate, and by some Protestants concerning the English Authorized Version.
A real difficulty for the advocates of verbal inspiration is to be found in the freedom which the seventy translators allowed themselves in translating the Hebrew. They often acted, indeed, on the maxim afterwards recorded in the Talmud, “ a literal translator is a liar.”
THE BOOK CRITIC.
THE FOURTH GOSPEL: EVIDENCES EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL OF
ITS JOHANNEAN AUTHORSHIP. By EZRA ABBOT, D.D., ANDREW P. PEABODY, D.D., and J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., Bishop of Durham. London :
Hodder & Stoughton. This work in proof of the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel is edited by Dr. Peabody, of Harvard College, and comprises three essays, which, with the exception of the short one by Professor Peabody, have been previously published. Dr. Ezra Abbot treats of the external evidences, whilst Dr. Peabody and Bishop Lightfoot treat of the internal evidences in favour of the Johannean authorship, so that these three essays combined afford a complete view of the whole subject. It is a remarkable fact that Dr. Abbot and Dr. Peabody both belong to the Unitarian denomination, not, however, regarding Jesus Christ as a mere man, as the Socinians, but as some supernatural being, as the Arians. This fact we consider enhances the value of their testimony, rendering it unprejudiced, and not the result of any preconceived opinions, as the Fourth Gospel appears to most readers to be antagonistic to the views of the Arians, and to contain a distinct assertion of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.
The subject discussed is of great importance. The Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been for several years the great question of New Testament criticism. Critics of eminence in this country, and especially in Germany, have arranged themselves on opposite sides. And yet, comparatively speaking, it is a recent question. Until the commencement of the present century there was an absolute unanimity of opinion. Christians of all shades of opinion acknowledged John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Even the Marcionites and the Arians, to whose opinions this Gospel appeared opposed, do not appear to have called in question its genuineness. It was only objected to by the Alogi, an obscure sect of the second century, whose very name is doubtful, as the designation Alogi appears to have been given them by Epiphanius on account of its double meaning as " deniers of the Word” and “the irrational ones." The question was not distinctly mooted until the days of Strauss and Baur. And now, after much controversy, there are symptoms that it is approaching its solution. Recent discoveries of ancient writings have removed many objections formerly insisted on, and all that is required is additional light to remove other objections still waiting their solution.
The first essay by the late Dr. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College, was read before the Ministers' Institute at its public meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, in
NO. IV.-VOL. II.-THE THINKER.