UC-NRLF
B 3 M7S S7T
PROFESSOR HiRNACK
AND HIS
OXFORD CRITICS
T. BAILEY SAUNDERS
- !• *• V ' ! I'.
THE JAMES K. MOFFITT FUND.
-«r
/<^ LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
GIFT OF
JAMES KENNEDY MOFFITT
OF THE CLASS OF '£
Accession No.
Class No.
/^
^■a;^ft:-:;:.- e
l^i.
^-<^^*' ,.i':
' "" ■ '■■■ .'■\i-''\.-f,\'f.:i''
_. -_..^M.^''!.::
■r) ,. . „■■■■■■ ■■
PROFESSOR HARNACK
AND HIS
OXFORD CRITICS
Recently Published, SECOND EDITION, demy 8vo, cloth, 10/6!
half-leather; 12/6.
What is Christianity?
By ADOLF HARNACK,
Rector and Professor of Church History in the University, Berlin.
Translated by THOMAS BAILEY SAUNDERS.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE, PUBLISHERS, LONDON.
Works by Thomas Bailey Saunders
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?
THE QUEST OF FAITH : Being Notes on the Current
Philosophy of Religion,
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES
MACPHERSON.
THE MAXIMS AND REFLECTIONS OF
GOETHE, with Aphorisms on Science selected by
Huxley, and on Art by Leighton.
THE ESSAYS OF SCHOPENHAUER TRANS-
LATED.
1. The Wisdom of Life.
2. Counsels and Maxims.
3. Religion, a Dialogue and other Essays.
4. The Art of Literature.
5. Studies in Pessimism.
6. The Art of Controversy.
7. On Human Nature.
SCHOPENHAUER: A Lecture.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF MELANCHTHON
[Sliortfy.
PROFESSOR HARNACK
AND HIS
OXFORD CRITICS
BY
THOMAS BAILEY SAUNDERS
ff
WILLIAMS & NORGATE
M HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W.C.
AND 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD
1902
hi -.
mvfm
PREFACE
In publishing the following Essay, I may
be permitted to say that I had the honour
of delivering parts of it as a lecture to
the Socratie Society of the University
of Birmingham. My hope was that I
might thus assist, however humbly, a move-
ment for the foundation there, when further
endowments are provided, of a Faculty
of Theology ; believing as I do that the
study of this subject, if pursued in a
spirit not of dogmatism but of inquiry,
is one which none of our newer Univer-
sities can permanently afford to neglect.
T. B. S.
London, March 1902
109215
PROFESSOR HARNACK
AND HIS OXFORD CRITICS
When the learning of Oxford measures itself
against the learning of Berlin in any of the
intellectual encounters of our time, he must
be a dull man whose thoughts do not stray
for a moment from the actual question at
issue to the contrast which the opposing
forces present. What reflections are not
invited by the very coupling of the names !
It is impossible to contemplate these famous
Universities as they now flourish, or to
examine the work which they do for their
respective countries, without being tempted
to ask whether any academies of equal rank
8 Professor Harnack
and a similar range of study can ever have
offered so many points of difference in so
great a community of interest. They make
the same claim to the pursuit of truth.
They profess the same estimate of what is
valuable in knowledge. Yet in the type of
their activity, in their history, in the tradi-
tions that give form and influence to their
ideals, how far they are apart ! To say
that a distinction, whether of method or
of result, could be traced between them
throughout the whole circle of the sciences
would, of course, be absurd ; but the less
exact the science and the more the branch
of knowledge is composed of ideal and
imaginative elements, the greater is the
probability that some distinction would be
found to obtain. In all the studies — and
they are many — which do not yet, at least,
or do not in all respects, deserve to be
called scientific, nowhere is there a stranger
mingling of things new and old in such
and his Oxford Critics 9
unlike proportions. Nowhere is the finer
harvest of the mediaeval spirit so happily .
garnered as in the one, or the faults of
rationalism and the whole philosophy of
what has been called the age of enlighten-
ment so sanely corrected as in the other.
The very qualities, too, which they appear
to derive from their mere locality and
from outward circumstance are of a kind
to disclose and illustrate a profound diversity
of character. Who of us can deny that they
possess those qualities in abundance ; nay
more, that with those qualities they also
possess, in a special degree, the allied
infirmities ? A University in a small city,
remote from the business of the world, may
well have an atmosphere charged with
sublimer elements than are commonly found
in the strenuous life of a metropolis. The
atmosphere may be luminous and serene,
but it may not, perhaps, be inspiring of fresh
enterprise. Nor can anyone familiar with
lo Professor Harnack
the genius of these places escape the feeling
that, as the ancient courts and gardens, the
dim light and lingering music of the chapels,
induce emotions scarcely possible in the
monotonous severity of the German halls,
so opinion at Oxford is inevitably settled by
an undue acceptance of past ideas ; while
opinion at Berlin not less inevitably reaches
out to what is new and adventurous, even if
in the effort something seems to be lost that
mankind cannot willingly abandon.
Of the studies thus insensibly aflfected,
and forced, as it were, into different moulds
by the silent pressure of tradition and cir-
cumstance, the most conspicuous are those
which treat of the vast problem of religious
belief. That this should be so is in no way
surprising, for, where the emotional factors
of a problem are as essential a part of it as
the intellectual, the treatment will plainly
vary according as the one or the other
make the stronger appeal. We are all
and his Oxford Critics 1 1
conscious that, in some ill-defined way,
German theological scholarship does not ,
move on the same lines as its English
counterpart. Possibly the divergence may
be due to the simple circumstance that the
intellectual factors are more potent in
the one and the emotional in the other.
There is a popular impression among us
that the German inquirer is unresponsive
to the subtler promptings of the religious
spirit ; that he has an inadequate sense of
its mystery ; that he pays small attention
to the deep significance of religious insti-
tutions and the moral aspect of their con-
tinuity. He is said to be too destructive
in his criticism ; too ready to disprove the
authenticity of whatever he is reluctant to
accept ; too eager to suggest a natural ex-
planation of phenomena which, as we are
told, would lose their force and even their
meaning if they were so explained. On
the other hand, the English inquirer is said
12 Professor Harnack
to inquire too little ; to interpret the docu-
ments of liis creed not in the light of
research, nor with any allowance for the
psychological element in history, but with a
paramount regard for tradition ; and, if he
attempts any criticism at all, to ignore its
results by trying to blend them with the
very ideas which they destroy.
The popular impression is not in this case
wholly unsupported by the facts. Some of
the theologians who were prominent in
Germany in the middle of the last century
did, indeed, so treat the origins of Chris-
tianity as to give good ground for the charge
that they were neglecting certain vital ele-
ments of the subject and abandoning accepted
views on insufficient evidence. A similar
charge is often made against the most
capable of the theologians of the present
day, or, at least, against those who exercise
the widest influence ; and there can be no
doubt that the methods which many of
and his Oxford Critics 13
them adopt would still be denounced as
sacrilegious by the unthinking multitude,
and as shallow by those whose belief is
professedly superior to evidence and reason. -
That theology in England, as represented
officially in the Church and the Universities,
has until recent years been wholly deter-
mined by respect for tradition, and, apart
from the writings of Hatch and one or two
others, has been lacking in courage and
candour, will hardly be denied by anyone
who has taken the trouble to contrast what
has been done here with what has been
done abroad. It is instructive to remember
that Strauss's Leben Jesu appeared when
the Tracts for the Times were in course of
publication ; that during the very period
when the Germans were sifting the Christian
documents and arriving by patient effort,
by dauntless persistence, nay, even by a
large experience of failure and mistake, at
the modern science of Biblical criticism, the
14 Professor Harnack
English were mainly engaged in bringing v'
about an ecclesiastical revival, and in giving
fresh life to ancient forms and ceremonies.
There were, it is true, men prominent on
either side whose endeavours cannot be so
simply classified. x4.mong the English,
in particular, there was one, as remarkable
for his character as for his intellectual
attainments, who was not less profoundly
versed in the philosophy of belief than
learned in the history of the Church. But
in regard to the influence which the two
parties exercised, and the popular efiect
of their activities, the broad distinction
remains. One of them was labouring to •
show that certain dogmas were the outcome
of ideas that had either passed away or were
steadily declining. The other was proving ^
by its practice that, if the dogmas could no
longer be held intellectually in the sense in
which they once prevailed, they could at
least be retained emotionally by the aid of
and his Oxford Critics 15
symbolic acts and solemn ritual. Strauss
and Baur in Tiibingen were quickening a
critical movement which has carried on and
will some day complete the work of the
Reformation in Germany, while their con-
temporaries in Oxford, more especially
Newman, Pusey and Keble, were arousing
sympathies that have done much to
belittle the same work in England.
I
To Oxford the votaries of the Catholic
renascence still look in the main for the
support which learning and research can
afford them, and from this source, too,
they are presumably ready to accept some
guidance as to the attitude which they
ought to adopt towards the results of learn-
ing and research elsewhere. Tiibingen,
however, has given place to Berlin. The
University established in the capital of the
Empire enjoys, indeed, no monopoly of the
1 6 Professor Harnack
high character with which in the sphere of
theology German scholarship and German
criticism are everywhere invested. There
are men of mark in this sphere at Got-
tingen, at Halle, at Giessen, at Marburg,
at Erlangen, at Strassburg. But whether in
the number of its famous professors, or in
the importance of their work, or again in
sheer authority, Berlin is now supreme. It
is there that Professor Pfleiderer, Professor
Weiss, Professor Kaftan, and Freiherr von
Soden hold their chairs. It is there, above
all, that Professor Adolf Harnack, who won
a great reputation by his previous labours at
other Universities, occupies an unchallenged
position as the most influential theologian
in the Germany of to-day. His colleagues
are, indeed, distinguished scholars, who have
done admirable work ; who on some
questions, perhaps, have come to con-
clusions which are not the same as his : and
who, in any estimate of opinion at Berlin,
and his Oxford Critics 17
have hardly less claim to be considered.
But if there is one theologian there who is
typical of the general tendency, it is he.
Of his History of Dogma, which was "
hardly published in its entirety before it
became the standard treatise on the subject ;
of his History of Early Christian Litera-W'
ture, which has thrown light on a multitude
of obscure problems in the growth of
ecclesiastical thought ; of his many studies
and researches on special topics ; of his dis-
courses on great men and great movements ;
of a contribution to learning made, as it
were, by the way — his History of the
Prussian Academy — this is not the place
to speak. Such are the writings by which
Professor Harnack is known to all scholars
and critics as himself a scholar and critic of
the rarest kind. But he is much more. He
is a man who, in the best sense of that
much-abused word, is profoundly religious.
He can inspire enthusiasm not only for the
1 8 Professor Harnack
things of the mind but also for all that
ennobles human life and gives it a meaning.
He is an orator as well, and able to captivate
any audience, academic or popular. And
where, as in the present day, a large body
of intelligent opinion is becoming more
and more estranged from ecclesiasticism, the
spirit in which he treats of Christianity
makes the supreme appeal to all Tvho have
the interests of religion at heart. " The
theologians of every country," he observes,
" only half discharge their duties if they
think it enough to treat of the Gospel in
the recondite language of learning and bur}^
it in scholarly folios." There are few men^
however, who can wear their weight of
learning so lightly as he, and no place
where such vast knowledge is attractive to
so large a number of students as at Berlin.
These various qualities are very effec-
tively united in a book which during the
last two years has been the delight and
and his Oxford Critics 19
instruction of many thousands of readers in
Germany, and, by the title under which I
had the privilege of translating it, What is
Christianity ? is beginning to be appreciated
in England. Das Wesen des Christentums
is a series of sixteen lectures originally
delivered extempore to some six hundred
undergraduates, and attended not only by
students of theology, history, and literature,
but by young doctors and surgeons, lawyers
and candidates for official appointments.
The object of the lectures was to give a
plain statement of the Christian religion ;
to show what it was and what, in the course
of time and under external pressure, it has
become ; and to ascertain how far it bears
upon certain problems of life and civilisation.
Whether in any other University or by any
other professor an audience so large, so
miscellaneous, and representing so many
nationalities, could be secured for such a
theme, and could follow week by week
20 Professor Harnack
discourses which, although lucid and
brilliant, demanded close attention, may
well be doubted. In any case it is a re-
markable fact that amid surroundings likely
to afford many other attractions, and in an
atmosphere unfavourable to the traditional
faith, a series of lectures devoted to the
reality which keeps that faith alive should
have met with such unmistakable success.
Great, too, has been the effect which they
have produced elsewhere in Germany in
their permanent form. They have been
read with lively interest by men and women
of every degree of education, even if the
views which they embody have often been
warmly contested. Nor can we in England
fail to be moved by the knowledge that they
were a solace in her last days to that noble
and enlightened lady, the Empress Frederick.
Had these lectures been delivered at
Oxford they would not, apparently, have
been received with the same kind of apprecia-
and his Oxford Critics 21
tion, if an opinion may be formed from the
public judgment passed upon them l)y some
of the theologians of that University. Their
great merits, their value as a fine example
of historical exposition, their learning,
their eloquence, the earnest tone that per-
vades them, are not denied ; indeed, to deny
them at least this much distinction would
be impossible. But it is plain that they
arouse dislike ; that they are regarded with-/
suspicion ; that the views which they con-
tain are thought to be dano-erous. One of
the hostile critics goes so far as to confess
to a feeling of deep disappointment : he had
expected something different, and he de-
plores what he finds. Another, who admits
— as he well may — that the book in which
these lectures are embodied is a serious work,
and that the author is a really religious man,
roundly asserts that nevertheless in his
opinion it is likely to do more harm than
good. There are, I am glad to know, other
22 Professor Harnack
critics at Oxford who have read the book in
a more generous spirit ; who recognise not
only the religious temper but also the
courage and the love of truth which the
author displays ; who welcome so able an
attempt to take a natural and a reason-
able view of the Christian faith on the
basis of its history. But for the moment
they are silent. A judgment that is largely
unfavourable is alone expressed. If I take
Professor Sanday ^ as the chief exponent
of this opinion, and devote my remarks
mainly to him, I do so because he was not
only the first to publish his comments, but
has also been closely followed in what he
says by his colleagues. He is also an ac-
cepted representative of ecclesiastical scholar-
ship in this country, and his attitude de-
serves notice because it is characteristic of
^ An Excmiination of HarnacKs ' What is Christianity 'I?
By W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor and
Canon of Christ Church. A paper read before the
Tutors' Association on October 24, 1901.
and his Oxford Critics 23
that adopted by most of the theologians of
the Church of England towards German
theology, even where, as in many cases,
they profess themselves ready to acquiesce
in the best results of criticism.
How characteristic, for instance, is the
very first accusation that the Oxford scholar
brings against the book ! He is willing to
recognise its good qualities. He praises its
freshness, its breadth of view, and its genuine
enthusiasm. He admits, too, that in it the
questions at issue are well defined and
furnish a good opportunity for taking our
bearings. Yet when he proceeds to deal
with these great questions so far as they are
presented, he passes a solemn censure on the
answers that are given. He tells us that at
Berlin the critical movement is conceived as v
issuing in a process of ' reduction ' ; ^ and
accordingly we are asked to infer that what
is ofiered us is a reduced Christianity, a
1 Ibid,.^ p. 6.
24 Professor Harnack
Christianity consisting only of ideas, with
much omitted that has always been taken
to be essential. He tells us that to regard
Christianity thus ; to regard it as no more
than Christ's teaching and the immediate
effect produced on his first disciples, is to
draw the line at an arbitrary point, and
that, if we are adequately to appreciate any
conspicuous historical phenomenon, we must
not stop at its initiation.
Now, whatever may be thought of this
argument as a whole, there can be little
doubt that it is the outcome of a view
which is held firmly by many estimable
persons and very vaguely and ignorantly
by others ; the view, I mean, that the
critical movement is depriving religion of
something without which religion cannot
live. I shall endeavour to deal with the
argument on its merits. But, with regard
to the purpose to which it is here put, so
far as it is an attempt to discredit the con-
and his Oxford Critics 25
ception of Christianity entertained at Berlin,
or the use there made of the historical
method, it can be destroyed by simple
reference to what Professor Harnack himself
says ; and what he says is so plain as to defy
misunderstanding. He does, indeed, speak of
a process of ' reduction,' but not in the sense ^
attributed to him at Oxford. He speaks of
religion being brought back again to itself ;
beino- reduced to its essential factors.
" In the history of religions [he says], every
really important reformation is always, first and
foremost, a critical reditction to principles ; for in
the course of its historical development religion,
by adapting itself to circumstances, attracts to
itself much alien matter, and produces, in con-
junction with this, a number of hybrid and
apocryphal elements which it is necessarily com-
pelled to place under the protection of what is
sacred. If it is not to run wild from exuberance,
or be choked by its own dry leaves, the reformer
must come who purifies it and brings it back to
itself."!
' What is Christianity.^ p. 270. Here, as elsewhere, 1
quote from lay own translation.
26 Professor Harnack
What else, may I ask, is sound reform,
what else is scientific history, but just a
critical reduction to principles ? Yet how-
different is this process of bringing religion
back to its essential factors, of stripping it
of the accidental growths with which time
and circumstance inevitably encumber any
of the world's ideals, from the process of
diminution which Professor Sanday implies
when he speaks of a 'reduced' Christianity.
Were it not a reflection upon a University
to which I am proud to belong, I should be
tempted to suppose that he is unaware of
the ambiguity which lurks in the word
' reduction,' and that none of the tutors
to whom he addressed his criticisms had
sufficient courage to point out to him that ^
he was using this ambiguity to beg the ■
question at issue.
But let us pass at once to the funda-
mental issue. The question here raised is
whether in the case of Christianity any
and his Oxford Critics 27
critical reduction to principles be allowable
at all. If, with Professor Harnack, we
inquire what this religion is, what it was,
and what it has become ; if we try to
answer the question by employing, as he
says, " the methods of historical science and
the experience of life gained by studying
the actual course of history," ^ we must
surely be allowed, nay, we are compelled,
to go back to principles. Unless we are to
be forced into an undiscriminating accept-
ance of everything that in the march of the
centuries has called itself Christian, we must
endeavour to separate the kernel from the
husk. We must be the more strenuous in
this endeavour, the more eagerly we desire
to keep the kernel from perishing. The
Oxford scholar would not himself, I imagine,
dispute this view of the matter. He would
admit the necessity of sifting the histori-
cally true from the historically false in
1 Wliat is Christianity ? p. 7.
28 Professor Harnack
what passes now or has passed in
former ag-es as the Christian creed.
He allows, indeed, in so many words,
that all doctrine is relative to the age
in which it was drawn up ; and that, in
the doctrine of the Trinity, for example,
" the edges of the definition seem sharper
than is right." ^ The issue, therefore, is not
whether Christianity, as commonly under-
stood, cannot be reduced to its essential
factors, but in what those essential factors
consist ; in other words, how far the re-
duction is to extend.
This is a question in which all who ap-
preciate the influence of spiritual ideals
upon life are deeply concerned. In the last
resort it is the theological question in which /
Oxford and Berlin are alike interested. All
the more necessary is it, then, that each
of these universities, even if they represent
dift'erent tendencies of thought, should also
' An Examination, etc., p. 28.
and his Oxford Critics 29
be able to understand the other. Professor
Harnack's views are very plainly stated.
He nowhere conceives of Christianity as
though it consisted only of ideas or of
teaching. He nowhere declares that it is'
limited to what Christ said or the impression
which it made upon the first generation of i
Christ's disciples. He nowhere demands
that this or any other historical phenomenon
shall be appreciated only by its beginnings.
On the contrary, he conceives, he declares, X/'
he demands, the exact opposite ; and he
does so not casually, or in an obscure
passage of a late chapter, but in the
very forefront of his exposition and in
express terms. In premising that he will
keep to the purely historical theme,
what is the Christian religion ? he ex-
plains, in the most direct manner, the
method which he proposes to adopt.
"Where," he asks, "are we to look for
our materials ? "
30 Professor Harnack
"The answer [he says] seems to be simple and at
the same time exhaustive : Jesus Christ and his
Gospel. But however little doubt there may be
that this must form not only our point of departure
but also the matter with which our investigations
will mainly deal, it is equally certain that we
must not be content to exhibit the mere image of
Jesus Christ and the main features of his Gospel.
"We must not be content to stop there, because
every great and powerful personality reveals a
part of what it is only when seen in those whom
it influences. Nay, it may be said that the more
powerful the personality which a man possesses,
and the more he takes hold of the inner life of
others, the less can the sum total of what he is be
known only by what he himself says and does.
We must look at the reflection and the effects
which he produced in those whose leader and
master he became. That is why a complete
answer to the question, What is Christianity ? is
impossible so long as we are restricted to Jesus
Christ's teaching alone. We must include the,^'
first generation of his disciples as well — those who
ate and drank with him — and we must listen to
what they tell us of the effect which he had upon
their lives.
" But even this does not exhaust our materials.
If Christianity is an example of a great power,
and his Oxford Critics 31
valid not for one particular epoch alone ; if in and
througli it, not once only, but again and again,
great forces have been disengaged, we must include
all the later products of its spirit. It is not a
question of a ' doctrine ' being handed down by
uniform repetition or arbitrarily distorted ; it is a
question of a life,^ again and again kindled afresh,-
and now burning with a flame of its own. We
may also add that Christ himself and his apostles
were convinced that the religion which they were
planting would in the ages to come have a
greater destiny and a deeper meaning than it
possessed at the time of its institution ; they
trusted to its spirit leading from one point of*
light to another and developing higher forces.
. . . We cannot form any right estimate of the
Christian religion unless we take our stand upon
a comprehensive induction that shall cover all
the facts of its history." ^
And again, a few pages later : —
" We shall follow the leading changes which the
Christian idea has undergone in the course of
history, and try to recognise its chief types.
What is common to all the forms which it has
taken, corrected by reference to the Gospel,
and, conversely, the chief features of the Gospel,
1 Whxii is Christianity? pp. 10, 11.
32 Professor Harnack
corrected by reference to history, will, we may be
allowed to hope, bring iis to the kernel of the
matter." ^
These passages, which supply the keynote
to all that follows — the keynote that recurs
again and again in the development of the
theme — are amply sufficient of themselves
to rebut the suggestion that their author
takes too limited a view of Christianity.
And even if they were not sufficient, there
is the fact that one half of the volume in
which they occur deals with the Gospel in
the apostolic age, with Catholicism Greek
and Roman, and with Protestantism, to
smash and pulverize the statement that
this great phenomenon is appreciated only,
by its beginnings. The objection is urged,
however, that in spite of this explicit promise
the criterion actually employed is a mutilated
version of Jesus' teaching, and that that and
nothing else is what is meant by the Gospel.
That by the Gospel Professor Harnack
1 Ibid., p. 15.
and his Oxford Critics 33
means the lessons taught by what Jesus did
and said, and that iu his judgment the
Gospel is the criterion which we are to
apply to the whole Christian movement
throughout the ages, is quite true ; nor do I
know w^hat else any Oxford theologian could
mean by the Gospel, or what other criterion
he could prefer. The plain fact of the
matter is that those who complain of
Christianity being reduced by criticism arc
guilty of a confusion. They confound
Christianity as a conspicuous historical
phenomenon with the Gospel out of which
it grew ; with the ideas and the teaching
which it in part developed, in part dis-
torted, in part abandoned. How the Chris-
tian religion as represented in the Churches—
is related to the Gospel as disclosed by
the study of history — this, I take it, and
nothing else, is what Professor Harnack
has endeavoured to show.
But, we are told, in so doing fhe has
"3
34 Professor Harnack
' mutilated ' the Gospel ; he offers us a
portion of it and not the whole ; he gives
his own view of the leading points in
Christ's teaching, and asks us to accept this
in place of the Christianity which we know
and understand ; in place of the creed which
we have derived from " the sum total of
New Testament teaching as to the con-
tents of the religion which Christ came to
found." ^ Nor, we are assured, is he less
arbitrary in the treatment of the materials.
He admits that the impression which Christ
and his Gospel made upon the first generation
of his disciples is of the first importance,
but refuses to accept it all as authorita-
tive. He disparages the account given by'—
the fourth Evangelist. In his impatience of
dogma, he would have the Christian life
without any doctrine as to Christ's person.
In short, "he wants to have a Christianity-^
without a Christology."^
^ An Examination, etc., p. 6. " Ibid., p. 13
and his Oxford Critics 31
II
To charge an historian with mutilating
something which he is trying to reduce to
its essential factors is a controversial device
too common, perhaps, even amongst theo-
logians, to call for any special apology ; and
in this case, at all events, none is offered.
Yet there are more pleasing methods of
expressing disagreement. We must pro-
ceed, however, to examine the charge.
Professor Harnack declares that in answer-
ing the question. What is Christianity ?, he
will speak solely as an historian ; that he will
look for his materials not only to the
impression which the Gospel made upon the
earliest disciples, but also to all the later
products of its spirit, including the greater
meaning and deeper destiny which in
subsequent ages it came to possess. Now,
if historical study is to teach us anything
36 Professor Harnack
at all, it must do two things. In the first
place, it must aim at ascertaining what I
actually happened. This will not always
be the same as what subsequent ages
believed to have happened. Further, if its
lessons are to be of any value, it must
proceed by picking out what is essential
and discarding what is accidental. The
task is never free from difficulty. But in
the case in question it becomes absolutelj^-
impossible if at the outset we are met by
the demand that all the links connecting
the Gospel with the age in which it
appeared are to be preserved. None of the
great beliefs which we have received froni
the past could have survived if they had
been so treated. AVe are all agreed that
slavery to the letter is an intolerable burden,
and can we doubt that slavery to a particular
age may easily become something just as
bad ? What is plain, moreover, is that, as
Professor Harnack himself observes, those
and his Oxford Critics 37
who make a demand of this kind do not
think of making it seriously. They could
not do so if they tried, because they cannot
help feeling and judging as children of their
own time.
" The historian [he reminds us] whose business
and highest duty it is to determine what is of
permanent value, is of necessity required not to
cleave to words but to find out what is essential.
. . . There are only two possibiHties here : either
the Gospel is in all respects identical with the
earliest form of it, in which case it came with
its time and has departed with it ; or else it con-
tains something which, under differing historical
forms, is of permanent validity. The latter is
the true view. The history of the Church shows
us in its very commencement that ' primitive »*
Christianity' had to disappear in order that
' Christianity ' might remain ; and in the same
way in later ages one metamorphosis followed
upon another. From the beginning it was
a question of getting rid of formulas, correcting
expectations, altering ways of feeling, and this is
a process to which there is no end. But by the
very fact that our survey embraces the whole
course as well as the inception, we enhance
38 Professor Harnack
our standard of what is essential and of real
value." 1
The method thus assigned to the historian
seems to me, at least, not only the true but
also the sole method by which he can get
at the significance of the facts with which
he is dealing. Professor Sanday's admission
that all doctrine is relative — " relative in the
first instance to the age in which it was drawn
up, and relative at all times to the limita-
tions of our human faculties " ^ — is, in efi'ect,
an endorsement of this view. It recognises
that in tracing the whole Christian move-
ment the historian must be prepared to
discriminate between what is of transitory
and what is of permanent value. But if
this be so ; if a discrimination is to be
made ; if an enquiry into the extent and
character of the relativity of doctrine is to
be pressed, is the process to be applied only
to the history of the Church ? Is it not also
^ What is Christianity? pp. 13, 14.
^ An Examination, etc., p. 28.
and his Oxford Critics 39
to be applied to the development of the
Gospel ? Is ' the sum total,' in the Oxford
scholar's language — " the sum total of New
Testament teaching as to the contents of the
religion which Christ came to found " — not
to be sifted? Are the particulars of the
sum not to be examined, so that we may dis-
tinguish between those of them that are of
the first importance and those that are merely
illustrative ; those that find their source and
their support in the heart and the intelligence
of man in all ages, and those that belong to
the age in which they appeared and with
that age have passed away?
What is the attitude of the theologians
of the Church of England towards these
questions ? I confess that, notwithstanding
that they sometimes make a show of being
critical and of recognizing the necessity
for criticism, I cannot arrive at any clear >,
view of the opinion which most of them
hold about the New Testament. I cannot
40 Professor Harnack
discover that in referring to the many
historical problems which it presents they
show themselves willing to treat them
historically. Nor, taking Professor Sanday
for the moment as their representative,
can I discover that so far as he treats
these problems at all he throws anyv
light upon them. To me, at least, he
seems to be in the curious position that
where he agrees with Professor Harnack he
is open to the same censure as he passes
upon that scholar, and where he differs
from him he is inconsistent with himself.
For example : in the early part of his
Examination he announces, not once only
but again and again, that, but for what he
calls the ' disparagement ' of the fourth
Gospel and the lack of a definite theory as
to Christ's person, he is not out of sympathy
with the attitude which the Berlin theo-
logian adopts. He does not object to what
is said about the Synoptic writers. On the
and his Oxford Critics 41
treatment of the question of miracles, in-
cluding the whole subject of the Resurrection
and the hope of immortality bound up with
it, he offers no criticism that is not favour-
able/ The portion of the book which deals
with the Gospel proper in the sense in which
it is taken, that is to say, with Jesus' teach-
ing, he finds the best of the whole ; a dis-
covery of which I may at least say that it
ill accords with the charge of mutilation.
The entire interpretation of what Jesus
meant by the kingdom of God is, hev
ventures to think, exactly right. The
study of the circumstances and conditions
in which Christianity arose is put, he
asserts, in its proper place. The sketch
of the manner and method of Jesus'
teaching he pronounces to be ' specially
attractive.' So far, and with the excep-
tions noted, he is pleased to certify that
on most of the questions in debate
' An Examination, etc., p. 8.
42 Professor Harnack
Professor Harnack takes what he calls the
' right side.'
This expression of agreement cannot but
be welcome to those of us who, on the one
hand, are prepared to examine the Christian
documents historically, and, on the other,
seek the foundations of religion in some-
thing else than fable. Nay, if we consider
for a moment what this ' right side ' is, and
to what anyone who approves it is com-
mitted ; if we also consider what a lament-
able spectacle theology has often presented
in the past and in a large measure still
presents, we ought indeed to derive much
hope from the fact that an Oxford professor
of that branch of learning can approve
opinions of the kind without, so far as M^e
know, exciting the disapproval of his col-
leagues. For this ' right side ' involves
the position that the Synoptic Gospels,
although unique and not altogether useless
as sources of history, " were written not
a7id his Oxford Critics 43
with the simple object of giving the facts
as they were," but with a definite purpose,
which colours them throughout ; that the
miraculous element which they exhibit is
simply the reflection of phenomena hitherto
unexplained ; that " miracles do not
happen " ; ^ that, " if the Resurrection meant
nothing but that a deceased body of flesh
and blood came to life again, we should
make short work of this tradition " ; " that
a report that " the earth in its course stood
still, that a she-ass spoke, that a storm was
quieted bya word, we do not believe, and shall
never again believe " ; ^ that in the account
of Jesus' childhood " there is a mythical
touch" ; * that the introductory history which
two of the Gospels contain may be disre-
garded as untrustworthy ; that the " castings
out of demons " was by no means peculiar to
Christ, but, on the contrary, was a common
1 What is Christianity ? p. 20. - Ibid., p. 160.
^ Ibid., -p. 28. * Ibid., -p. 24.
44 Professor Harnack
phenomenon of liis age. We may, I say,
rejoice that these opinions should receive
some countenance from a learned dignitary
of the Church, and yet be at a complete
loss to reconcile them with the demand that
we are to accept the sum total of New
Testament teaching as to the contents of
the religion which Christ came to found,
and that we are to subscribe to the whole
of the impression which he and his Gospel
made upon the first generation of his
disciples as authoritative. As the Oxford
critic appears by his own account to sup-
port the view that the Synoptic Gospels do
not give the facts as they were, that miracles
do not happen, that there is a mythical
touch here and something that may be dis-
regarded there, he plainly does not himself
accept that sum total or himself subscribe
to the whole of that impression. He must
either admit as much, or else contend that
the matters in question are not essential
and his Oxford Critics 45
In other words, he, too, must distinguish
between what is essential and what is
accidental, between what is credible and
what is incredible. But in so doing he
must abandon much that millions of
Christians in all ages of the Church have
regarded as an integral part of the Christian
creed. Yet for making a similar distinction
he reproaches another scholar with mutila-
tion, as though a critical inquiry into
certain features of the Synoptic Gospels
were skilful if undertaken by Professor
Sauday and clumsy if conducted by Pro-
fessor Harnack. I do not believe that
posterity will assent to this view.
Ill
Let us be frank. What causes Professor
Sanday so much concern is not that a
critical method should be adopted, but that
it should be applied with consistency, with
46 Professor Harnack
courage, and with a resolute determination
to separate the kernel from the husk. No-
where is this concern so apparent as in his
brief allusions to the historical question of
the fourth Gospel and the doctrinal question
of Christ's person. That the theologian's
view of one of these questions will be closely
connected with his view of the other is
obvious, and accordingly we find that on
both questions the views that prevail at
Berlin are regarded with dismay.
What was there said as to the fourth
Gospel was that it does not emanate or
profess to emanate from the Apostle John,
and. cannot be taken as an historical
authority in the ordinary meaning of the
word :
" The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, J^
transposed events and put them in a strange
light, drew up the discourses himself, and illus-
trated great thoughts by imaginary situations.
Although, therefore, his work is not devoid of a
real, if scarcely recognisable, traditional element.
and his Oxford Critics 47
it can hardly make any claim to be considered an
authority for Jesus' history ; only little of what
he says can be accepted, and that little with
caution. On the other hand, it is an authority
of the first rank for answering the questions,
what vivid views of Jesus' person, what kind of
light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage ? " ^
The critic who denounces this lano^uage as
sweeping and unjust might be expected to
have a strong opinion of his own, and to be
able to support it by something more than
vague allusion. Yet if we try in the present
instance to discover the opinion which he
himself holds as to the origin and character
of the fourth Gospel, we shall find that, in
common with many other theologians who
want to be positive and cautious at the same
moment, he speaks with an uncertain voice ;
that when he ventures upon a plain declara-
tion he modifies it afterwards, or else weakens
its force by a concession, and then, perhaps,
withdraws half the concession by an obscure
1 What is Christianity ? |pp. 19, 20.
•/
48 Professor Harnack
qualification. He asserts that this Gospel
" does but develop features in the history
and personality of Christ to which the other
Gospels clearly point " ; ^ but he does not
specify, as he might have done in a few
words, what those features are, or where we
can see them unmistakably indicated in ad-
vance. Elsewhere he is less courageous : he
only goes so far as to say that it " does but
concentrate the light upon and so reveal data
that are latent in the Synoptics." ^ Between
developing features that are clearly fore-
shadowed and revealing data that are latent,
there is a difference ; and in the matter in
question the difference is surely important
enough to be elucidated by a serious studenf
of history. For if these apparently diverse
functions of the fourth Gospel are one and the
same ; if what is obvious may also be de-
scribed as hidden, criticism of the New Tes-
tament enters upon a phase too revolutionary
1 An Examination, etc., ]\ 7. - Ihid., p. 21.
and his Oxford Critics 49
to pass without a challenge. If, liowever,
they are not one and the same ; if the features
that are to be developed are to he distin-
Q^uished from the data that are latent, the
measure of this distinction and its bearing
upon the problem ought to be shown. In
any case what we want to have presented to
us are the actual passages in the Synoptic
writings which exhibit a patent or a latent
claim on Jesus' part, a claim in harmony \
with the whole spirit of his message and ,
admitted by his disciples, to be put in the
position in the Universe in which the fourth
Evangelist places him. Are there any
passages to this effect which, without the
slightest doubt or hesitation, can be pro-
nounced to be genuine or free from question ?
Even if such passages could be cited — for
example, Matth. xi. 27 — who of us is so
blind or so perverse as not to perceive that
they form a very slender basis for the over-
whelming structure which is sought to be
50 Professor Harnack
raised upon tliem ; or that, in point of mere
naked fact, the fourth Evangelist differs
from the other three in his whole attitude ;
or, again, that, Jew though he probably was,
he derived his theology not from Jesus but
from the mystic religion of the Greek world ?
Indeed, that such doubt and hesitation exist,
and must exist for anyone who will calmly
consider what these documents are and in
what circumstances they arose, Professor
Sauday does not, I think, fail to recognise.
" If," he says, " or so far as the fourth
Gospel does more than .... develop and
expand, on lines which I believe to be
historical, data .... present from the
first, .... I should be content to have
judgment suspended about it ; but in the
meantime I believe it to be substantially
verified by the unbroken tradition of primi-
tive Christendom."^ This is not the lan-
guage of certainty, and the critic who can so
^ An Examinatioji, etc., pp. 21, 22.
and his Oxford Critics 51
express himself is hardly justified in expend-
ing damnatory epithets upon a view for
which there is at least as much to be said,
and which is entirely honest and consistent.
Again, in re-afiirming the traditional
opinion as to the authorship of the fourth
Gospel, he is too familiar with the estab-
lished results of modern research not to
admit that the writer, whoever he may have
been, exhibited " a certain amount of free-
dom " in the handling of his materials. He
adds, however, by way of qualifying this
admission, that in his judgment the freedom
is often exaggerated. In what respect, I
ask, is this freedom exaggerated in the
present case ? Does he deny that there is
abundant proof of the statement to which
Professor Harnack commits himself, that
the wTiter of the fourth Gospel " transposed
events and put them in a strange light, drew
up the discourses himself and illustrated
great thoughts by imaginary situations ? "
52 Professor Harnack
In the speeches of John the Baptist, for
instance, or in the interview with Nicodemus,
or in the meaning attributed to many of
Jesus' utterances, does the Oxford scholar
doubt for a moment that the writer was
acting with something more than a limited
freedom, or that the purpose which this
freedom serves is not plainl}^ visible ? But
if he has no doubt in the matter — and what
scholar with any knowledge or iu sight can
harbour any doubt ? — how can he claim,
how can anyone claim, that the fourth
Gospel is to be accepted as an historical
authority in the ordinary meaning of the
word ? We cannot refuse to recognise that,
although containing some truth, this Gospel
is, as a record, obviously inaccurate and
distorted in its account of what Jesus said
and did ; however high a value it may
possess as a register of the views which came
to be entertained about his person two, or
possibly three, generations afterwards, or as
and his Oxford Critics 53
a statement, profound and imperishable, of
the essential mystery of religion. If ex-
amination of the Christian documents has
produced anything certain, this is certain ;
and no protest, whether emphatic or merely
half-hearted, can affect the position.
But we are solemnly warned that " the
most real objection to the fourth Gospel is
an objection to the supernatural generally."^
What this warning may mean, I confess
that I am at a loss to know. That it is so
expressed as to confound objection to the
received authorship of the Gospel with ob-
jection to the Christology of the Gospel is
plain. It may thus be only a rhetorical
flourish, a mingling of two issues which
must be decided on different grounds. It
may be intended to suggest to the Oxford
tutors that if any of them should dispute
the traditional view of the fourth Gospel he
would have no right, \\\ Professor Sanday's
i An Examination, etc., p. 7.
54 Professor Harnack
opinion, to call himself a Christian. It may
lay down that any reluctance to accept the
metaphysics in that document proves a
man to be insensible to the spiritual element
in life. It may mean all or any of these
things ; but, so far as I, at least, can see,
it is no answer to the statement that that
document "has little claim to be considered
an authority for Jesus' history." Yet of
this statement it is offered as the final and
conclusive criticism.
Surely it is a criticism which recoils upon
the critic. If the fourth Evangelist alone
gives us such an insight into what is called
the supernatural that the most real objection
to his testimony involves a complete denial
of that element, the circumstance must have
a direct bearing upon the testimony of the
other three. Does it diminish or, on the
contrary, does it increase their value as
trustworthy historians ? There can, I sub-
mit, be little hesitation as to the answer.
and his Oxford Critics 55
If in spite of their obvious prepossessions
they are in one respect much less affirma-
tive ; if they know little and certainly say
little about Christology ; if their writings
stand nearer in point of time to the events
which they relate and the personality which
they portray ; if, finally, we remember the
common tendency, wherever we have any
record at all, to exalt a great man and even '/
to deify him as he recedes into the past, we
cannot refuse to believe, if we are honest
with ourselves and with the facts, that the
first three Evangelists, by sheer comparison
with th^ fourth, are much the more trust-
worthy in their estimate of Jesus' message,
as he actually gave it, and that historical
truth is with them rather than with him.
We must remember that it is with the
historical question alone that we are dealing ;
and that, if the first three Evangelists make
less of this element which is regarded as so
essential to the credibility of the fourth, we.
c^6 Professor Harnack
too, as serious students of history, must also
make less of it.
But we have here passed to the supreme
question on which, as we are informed, the
German theology is most at fault. It lays no
stress on any doctrine as to Christ's person ;
nay, the demand for a definite belief on the
subject — such a belief, in fact, as ought to
be the distinguishing mark of a Christian
— is impatiently set aside. We are advised
that the first disciples were undoubtedly
in possession of a Christology ; that since
their day Christianity has always had a
Christological basis ; and that Christianity
is impossible without it.
The argument is one which is often urged
in ecclesiastical circles whenever the results
of the critical movement cannot be other-
wise impugned, although what definite
theory ought to be held, or what precise
belief ought to be professed, is not so often
explained. Indeed, in the present instance,
and his Oxford Critics 57
as we shall see, the only plain statement
advanced is virtually an approval of the
"\dew adopted by the German theologian.
But so far as the argument is an appeal to
history, a wrong use, as it seems to me, is
made of the appeal. The lesson which
history actually teaches is the contrary of
that which it is supposed to enforce. To
contend that a Christology is indispensable
to-day because the first disciples had one
is to put the necessity for a Christology
on a wrong basis. The contention suggests
that any modern theory that may be
formed must be in essence the same as theirs.
That this is to invite disaster, to imperil the
permanent element of the faith by binding-
it to the transitory, will be at once obvious
when we recollect that an essential part of
their theory about Jesus, and a belief every-
where accepted by them, was that, in a very
short time, he would visibly return in clouds
of glory and set up the Kingdom of God
58 Professor Harnack
upon earth. If there was any doctrine
about Christ's person which was held
firmly by the first disciples, it w^as this.
The same doctrine was held and expressed
by Paul, for the greater part of his mis- v
sionary career, together with other doctrines
which either by the mere lapse of years have
been proved to be erroneous or else have
been quietly abandoned. We are told that
the German theologian is little in earnest
in professing to go to the first Christians
for his definition of Christianity,^ because
he refuses to accept a correct theory about
Christ's person as the fundamental substance
of the Gospel — a theory which, as w^e know,
entered largely into Paul's theology. But
is his critic himself in earnest in appealing^/
to the views of the first disciples ? Does
he not himself overrule their unanimous
testimony on the subject of Christ's return
when it conflicts with the witness of history,
^ An Examination, etc., p. 18.
and his Oxford Critics 59
with the belief which he is himself com-
pelled to form ? I only note the fact that,
whether they like it or not, both he and his
antagonist are compelled to adopt a critical
attitude towards Christology, and that the
difference between them is one of coiirao:e
and consistenc3^
Nothing emerges more clearly from a
study of the Christian documents than that
the further we go back into primitive
Christianity the greater is the part of it
which consists in a vivid experience of the
Christian life. That this experience should
try to find expression in a doctrine, and
that the doctrine should reflect the thought
of the time, whether Hebrew or Greek, was
inevitable. But when we arrive at the
original Gospel preached by Jesus himself,
no such doctrine is found to form any part
of it. ^Ye may, nay, we must, recognise
that he had a mysterious sense of an inwardV
call and a hiojh mission ; that he had a
6o Professor Harnack
unique consciousness of a special relation ,y
with God which he could express by invok-
ing God as his Father. We may admit
that he claimed to be the promised Messiah
and was hailed as such, first by one and
then gradually by all of his immediate
disciples. But he embodied the promise
in a form in which most of its previous
interpretations were ignored, and the
vast majority of his contemporaries saw V
nothing but mockery and delusion. The
message which he gave to the world — the
message of salvation, of citizenship in
the kingdom of God — involved no dogma
as to his special relation with the
Being whose general Fatherhood he pro-
claimed. The individuals whom he singled
out for a personal tribute, the publican
in the temple, the widow with her mite,
the thief on the cross, knew nothing of ^
any Christology. As Professor Harnack
well says :
and his Oxford Critics 6i
" Jesus desired no other belief in his person and
no other attachment to it than is contained in
the keeping of his commandments. Even in the
fourth Gospel, in which Jesus' person seems to
be raised above the contents of the Gospel, the
idea is still clearly formulated : ' If ye love
me, keep my commandments.' He must himself
have found, during his labours, that some people
honoured, nay, even trusted him, without troubling,
themselves about the contents of his message. It
was to them that he addressed the reprimand :
' Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord,»«
shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven ; but he
that doeth the will of my Father.' To lay down
any ' doctrine ' about his person and his dignity
independently of the Gospel was, then, quite
outside his sphere of ideas. In the second place,
he described the Lord of heaven and earth as his
God and his Father ; as the Greater, and as Him
who is alone good. He is certain that everything
which he has and everything which he is to
accomphsh comes from this Father. He prays to
Him ; he subjects himself to His will ; he struggles
hard to find out what it is and to fulfil it. Aim,
strength, understanding, the issue and the hard
must, all come from the Father. This is what
the Gospels say, and it cannot be turned and
twisted. This feeling, praying, working, struggling
62 Professor Harnack
and siiffering individual is a man who in the face of
his God also associates himself with other men." ^
And again :
" The consciousness which he possessed of being
the Son of God is nothing but the practical con-
sequence of knowing God as the Father and as
his Father. Eightly understood, the name of
Son means nothing but the knowledge of God.
Here, however, two observations are to be made :
Jesus is convinced that he knows God in a sense*^
in which no one ever knew Him before, and he
knows that it is his vocation to communicate this
knowledge of God to others by word and by deed
— and with it the knowledge that men are God's
children. . . . How he came to the consciousness
of his power and to the consciousness of the
obligation and the mission which this power
carries with it, is his secret, and no psychology
will ever fathom it." ^
Once more :
" To contend that Jesus meant his whole message
to be taken provisionally, and everything in it to
receive a different interpretation after his death
and resurrection, nay, parts of it to be put aside
as of no account, is a desperate supposition. No !
his message is simpler than the churches would
1 What is Christianity ? pp. 125, 126. - Ibid., p. 128.
and his Oxford Critics 63
like to think it ; simpler, but for that very reason
sterner and endowed with a greater claim to
universality. A man cannot evade it by the sub-
terfuge of saying that as he can make nothing
of this ' Christology ' the message is not for him.
.... The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has tOr,
do ivith the Father only and not with the Son.
This is no paradox, nor, again, is it ' rationalism,'
but the simple expression of the actual fact as the
Evangelists give it." ^ . . .
Theologians affirm, what nobody, indeed,
denies, that the mind must inevitably form
some propositions about Christ, but they
usually go on to assert that only if these
propositions take a certain shape can Chris-
tianity be said to be propagated through
him. The suggestion, I presume, is that
only if they take the shape demanded by
the Catholic Church can Christianity be
said to be Christian. For this reason,
among others, they lay so much stress upon
the importance of the Church and of
Doctrine. For this reason, among others,
^ What is Christianity ? p. 143.
64 Professor Harnack
they are confident that, amid all the
changes of doctrine, the Church on the
whole has been guided aright. Yet if all
doctrine is admittedly relative to the age
in which it was drawn up ; if the Christo-
logical doctrine of the first disciples was
relative to their day and to the kind of
thought which then prevailed, its survival
must depend upon its capacity for being
adapted to the thought of later ages. That
the doctrine has, indeed, already undergone
some beneficial changes, Professor Sanday
and others would apparently concede.
Possibly of any rigid definition of it that
might be now given he would be ready to
say, as he says of the doctrine of thfe
Trinity, that " the edges of the definition
seem sharper than is right." How he
would himself define it, he does not here
state : although elsewhere ^ he describes four
^ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Dr. Hastings, s.v, "Je.sua
Christ/'
and his Oxford Critics 65
dififerent but admissible ways of dealing
with the problem, corresponding with the
attitude of different minds. A man, he
says, may accept the decision of the un-
divided Church as authoritative, or he may
prefer the simplicity of the picture drawn
in the Gospels, or else he may cherish the
metaphysical ideas of the age that followed,
or, finally, he may avoid the necessity and
the perplexities of criticism by relying on
individual and immediate experience. If
we ask which of these diff"erent attitudes
the Oxford critic adopts, the astonishing
answer, apparently, is that he adopts them
all. They seem, he says, " to put asunder
what ought rather to be combined " ; not-
withstanding the patent fact that they are
attitudes which, if not all mutually ex-
clusive, are at least, when held with any
firmness, logically irreconcilable. A man
cannot ultimately rely on his own feelings
and also at the same time accept external
5
66 Professor Harnack
authority as the criterion of truth, or look
to the Gospels as his guide and in the same
sense to the Council of Nicsea. In spite
of this attempt at a fusion of conflicting
thoughts and emotions, the elements of the
mixture are so plainly separable, so insoluble
one in the others, as to suggest that the
Christian who takes refuge in his own v
experience in order to avoid the perplexi-
ties of criticism is perhaps the wisest. In
any case, the effort to combine four differ-
ent ways of dealing with a problem betrays,
when it is not clearly successful, a certain
amount of versatility, not to say vacillation,
on the part of anyone who makes the
effort.
I find something of the same mental
quality in Professor Sanday's present criti-
cism. After first reproaching the author of
What is Christianity ? for wanting to dis-
pense with any doctrine as to Christ's person,
and then taking pains to show that never-
and his Oxford Critics 67
theless the language employed in that book
virtually assumes such a doctrine, he states
that Professor Harnack has penetrated to
the real object of all Christology in emphasiz-
ing the personal force at the centre of the
Gospel. In Jesus, says the Berlin theologian,
" the divine appeared in as pure a form as
it can appear on earth," and "it is not as a
mere factor that he is connected with the
Gospel ; he loas its personal realization and
its strength, and this he is felt to he still.
Fire is kindled only by fire ; personal life
only by personal forces." ^ This language,
says his reviewer, " expresses a deep and most
certain truth." But if, as he argues, the
object of all theories about Christ's person
is to make sure that the personal force at
the centre of the Gospel shall not be over-
looked, then on his own showing Professor
Harnack's conception of Christianity not
only admits a Christology, but gives it in
1 What is Christianity ? p. 145.
68 Professor Harnack
its most vital and essential form. A critic
who complains that a fundamental idea is
lacking and ends by finding it set out with
great discernment may, indeed, be ingenious
in his criticism, but can hardly claim to be
destructive.
The rest of Professor Sanday's observa-
tions support the conclusion — at which, as
I submit, no impartial judge can fail to
arrive — that, taken as a whole, they are
the outcome of ecclesiastical prepossession,
without doubt unconscious and perfectly
sincere, rather than of historical insight. I
do not allude to the difference of opinion
between him and Professor Harnack with
regard to the Gnostic movement, or the
dates to which the Creed, the Canon of the
New Testament, and the institution of
episcopacy, are to be assigned. These are
topics intimately bound up with the spread
of the Christian faith in the second century ;
drawing their interest partly from their great
and his Oxford C^'itics 69
importance, partly from the very difficulties
which beset them ; but, when all is said,
clearly more relevant to the doctrines,
ordinances, and government of the Church
as an institution than to the heart and
substance of religion itself. The attention
which he pays to them is characteristic of
his entire attitude, but not so characteristic
as his final protest against the disparagement
of Church, of Doctrine, and of Catholic
Worship, which the German account of
Christianity is alleged to contain. Here,
however, as elsewhere, the objections urged
are strangely suggestive of the views assailed.
The faults and shortcomingrs which Professor
Harnack mentions in the Church, Professor
Sanday does not deny. He pleads that
they should be amended, as Professor Har-
nack would also plead were his task to ex-
hort aud not to record. Both admit that
Doctrines are an historical necessity and
relative to their age, but Professor Sanday
70 Professor Harnack
seems to me at least to betray a tendency
to confuse these transitory forms with the
permanent truth which has in all ages sur-
vived them.
IV
That the criticism with which I have been
so far dealing represents the views not alone
of a distinguished professor but also of a
whole school of theology at Oxford is notori-
ous. They appear to be the views, as I
have already said, of the dominant party in
the Church of England, or rather of such
members of it as not content with only
holding and practising the Christian faith
also make some attempt to examine its
basis. 1 now pass to a brief consideration
of another criticism in which the attitude
adopted towards Professor Harnack's book
is virtually the same ; although the reasons
for adopting it are of a different and, as I
hope to prove, even less satisfactory kind.
and his Oxford Critics 71
They are set forth in the concluding pages
of a little work recently issued by the Dean
of Christ Church.^
The work possesses some interest in the
present connexion, because it seems to show
that in certain circumstances the results of
learning and research can produce almost
as little effect on those who hold high place
at Oxford as on the great mass of the clergy
everywhere. Among some of the latter the
endeavour to which I have previously alluded
— the endeavour to overcome these results
by trying to blend them with the very ideas
which thev destrov — is freelv made. The
Dean, however, takes a still more courageous
course : he makes no attempt at the blend-
ing process, and overcomes inconvenient
speculations by simply putting them aside.
He declines to enter what he calls the
' interminable labyrinth ' of theories as to
^ Historical Christianity the Religion of Human Life.
By Thomas B. Strong, D.D.
72 Professor Haruack
the origin of the Gospels, or to consider the
question whether these writings belong to
the second century or the first. He claims,
indeed, that the argument which he proposes
to unfold will gain in strength and import-
ance the further back their date can be put,
and he assumes — I think, somewhat hastily
— that in consequence of recent investi-
gations there is good ground for placing
the books of the New Testament mainly
wdthin the lifetime of the first of Christ's
followers. But the question of origin is one
which he does not raise ; in the position
which he adopts, it is, he imagines, relatively
immaterial. He starts, as he declares, from
the opposite end. He maintains that if the
discussion of Christianity be approached by
a frank acceptance of the Gospels " very
much as the}^ stand," the interest of any
theories as to their origin will be found to
be literary rather than historical. By way
of supporting this contention — and it ob-
and his Oxford Critics 73
viously needs all tlie support that it can
get — he bids us remember that the Gospels
have done their work mainly as a whole,
and that they were selected out of a number
of other writings because in the eyes of the
early Church they embodied a certain point
of view. Let us grant, he says, that as
they stand they may have been built up out
of fragments. If a consistent view of Christ
nevertheless emerges, it does not matter
how they arose : the view thus obtained
is historically true, because "the chances
of getting a consistent idea out of a patch-
work of fragments are very small indeed." ^
Such is the first position in Dr. Strong's
argument. If we ask what this clear and
consistent view is, we find that it is the
view that Christ was in a true sense God,
or, at least, co-eternal and co-equal with
God ; and that he is shown to have been so
by a series of historical events. The second
^ Ih'ul.^ p. (5.
74 Professor Harnack
position is that Christianity thus conceived,
Christianity resting not on ideas but on
facts, that is to say, on the facts as related
in the Gospels and as borne out by the
other books of the New Testament — the
Christianity, in a word, which is full}?"
expressed in the Nicene Creed, is the only
faith that will satisfy the religious needs of
men, A¥hatever else may be said about
this argument, one thing is plain : if the
first position cannot be maintained, the
second does not admit of beings defended.
A writer who proposes to treat Christianity
as an historical phenomenon and to appeal
to the reason and the intelligence of his
readers can scarcely hope to produce con-
viction unless he exhibits some, at least, of
the elementary qualities of an historian.
Those qualities I take to be candour,
impartiality, a knowledge of the general
circumstances of the period in question,
and a correct appreciation of the value of
and his Oxford Critics 75
evidence. Nor will he have much prospect
of success if he suspends the ordinary rules
of criticism in dealing with his subject.
Yet when we inquire into Dr. Strong's con-
ception of history and historical study as
applied to the rise and growth of Christianity.
we find ourselves confronted with demands
which he would not think of making in any
other connexion. We are asked to believe
that a series of highly technical statements
drawn up for a particular purpose at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 is an accurate
account of events which took place in and
near Jerusalem three centuries previously.
We are asked to believe that these state-
ments are substantially in strict accordance
with the story of Jesus and his work con-
tained in four documents collectively known
as the Gospels, but admittedly of uncertain
date, of doubtful authorship, of a composite
character, and bearing every indication of
having been put together, also for a particular
76 Professor Harnack
purpose, in an uncritical age. We are asked
to believe that a view which can with diffi-
culty be wrung from isolated passages in three
of them, and is expressed in mystical language
in the fourth, by common consent the latest
in point of time, is not only clear and con-
sistent but also true as a simple matter of
fact ; and is not only true in this sense,
but also superior to all other truth. We are
asked to believe that the view thus embedded
in these documents is alone accurate, because,
long after the events which they profess to
relate, they were picked out, again for a
particular purpose, from amongst a number
of other documents containing, as we are
told, quite different views. We are asked
to believe, finally, that the conception of
Christianity which thus emerges is historical ;
that is to say, that it rests on facts.
If the Dean of Christ Church elects to
think that in three out of the four Gospels
a certain view is clearly and consistently
and his Oxford Critics 77
presented which one of the learned Canons
of that Cathedral pronounces at one moment
to be only foreshadowed and at another to
be latent, and which he himself admits to
be incapable of being inferred from them,
he may, of course, do so. It is an opinion
which I do not share, and I am not alone
in beins: unable to share it. The results
which for the purpose of his argument Dr.
Strong puts aside — the results of inquiry into
the origin and historical value of the Gospels
— seem to me, at least, to dispose of it.
Nor can I discover that the results of learn-
ing- and research are such as to establish his
assumption that the date of these books as
they stand can be pushed back to a period
within the lifetime of the first of Christ's
followers. But even if their date could be
so fixed, the circumstance would not lend
clearness and consistency to a view w^hich
lacks these qualities. Nor, again, after the
considerations which I have adduced in the
78 Professor Harnack
previous pages do I imagine that any good
purpose would be served by following Dr.
Strong through his attempt to show, by a
large number of quotations, that this con-
ception of the permanent truth of Chris-
tianity is borne out by all the books of the
New Testament. I am concerned here only
with his criticism on Professor Harnack, and
only with the object of showing what it is
have I dealt with the general nature of his
argument.
Before passing, however, to that criticism,
I desire to draw attention to what he says,
or, rather, what he omits to say, about the
doctrine of the Resurrection, which, of all
the facts on which he declares Christianity
to rest, is surely the most important. He
himself, indeed, so describes it. He leaves
us to believe that in his opinion, whatever
may be its spiritual significance, it was an
historical fact, an event which took place at
a certain spot, at a given time, and was
and his Oxford Critics 79
sufficiently attested by trustworthy wit-
nesses. In the sense this Eesurrection is not
only a miracle, but the miracle of miracles. .
But he expressly states that he does not
propose to discuss the possibility of such
occurrences. They form an interesting
subject which has been advisedly omitted.
" It has been omitted because it is metaphysical,
and we are trying to clear up an historical
question. We want to see whether the Gospels
as they stand give rise to a consistent idea of
Christ that falls within the subsequent history
of the Church, And as the hterary question of
the origin of the Gospel has been put aside, so a
discussion of the metaphysical question of the
meaning and limits (if any) of the laws of Nature
would be equally out of place." ^
I confess to finding this an astonishing
declaration, and one which, unless its
language be employed in some unusual
sense, destroys the argument which Dr.
Strong is endeavouring to maintain. For
if the facts on which Christianity is said to
1 lUd., pp. 46, 47.
8o Professor Haruack
rest are historical ; if certain events, notably
an Incarnation and a Resurrection, occurred
in the domain of history, and possess the
unique significance which is attached to
them, they are miracles. If they are
miracles, they belong in their historical
aspect to the physical order, and in that
aspect have nothing metaphysical about
them. Hardly less astonishing is the
absolute silence in which, in his chapter
on " Christ and the Four Gospels," he
passes over the various accounts there given
of this alleged historical fact. xVgain and
apjain he mentions it as the crownino;
evidence for the truth of Christianity, and
yet he never once examines the evidenced
Surely it is a part of the Gospels as they
stand, and to the view in question the part
of them that is most vital and essential.
That to discuss it in the light of this view
would involve any historian in a labyrinth is,
of course, obvious ; but this is not a danger
and his Oxford Critics 8i
that ought to be evaded by anyone who
believes that religion is ultimately dependent
on external fact.
What, then, are the specific objections
here taken to Professor Harnack's con-
ception of Christianity ? Dr. Strong refers
to Das Wesen des CJiristentums, and quotes
some half a dozen passages from an English
version. He declares that the book repre-
sents the general opinion of the average
man in England, which is a greater compli-
ment to that individual than in my ex-
perience he deserves, or than I expected
him to receive from the Head of an
Oxford House. Because Professor Harnack
describes the Gospel as something so simple
as to be easily distinguishable from its con-
temporary integument by anyone who has
a fresh eye, he is said to be introducing " a
perilously subjective method." ^ His account
of Jesus' teaching as a conviction capable
^Historical Christianity, etc., p. 91.
82 Professor Harnack
of being presented under three heads, each
of them, however, containing the whole of
it in a single aspect, is pronounced to be
equally perilous because it is a mystical
and individualistic conception of the Gospel
w^hich is admittedly opposed to the teaching
of the Church from the first/ Moreover,
the conviction, says Dr. Strong — the con-
viction of the Fatherhood of God, of a
divine kingdom and of the higher righteous-
ness— was in the world already ; and unless
we regard Christ as offering valid evidence
and assurance, this conception of Christianity
is " a return to Natural Religion and puts
men back into the position of those who
aspired so unsuccessfully before Christ
came." ^ Finally, this whole conception is
condemned on the ground that it is attain-
able only by tearing the New Testament to
pieces and assuming that the whole history
of the Church has been a series of errors.
1 Historical Christianity, etc., p. 94. - p. 96.
and his Oxford Critics 83
To examine these objections in detail is,
I venture to think, unnecessary. They
involve a strange distortion of the singularly
full and luminous picture in which Professor
Harnack presents to us the rise, growth
and varied development of the Christian
religion ; of the reality which has at all
times underlain it ; of the true source of its
strength and its permanence ; and of the
way in which it meets the needs of human
life. If the Gospel be not something simple ;
if it cannot be distinguished by anyone
who has a fresh eye ; if it cannot be
stated except in the technical language
of theological dogma, and with the help
of lono--discredited ideas about nature
O
and the supernatural, about science and
history, and about the place which our
earth occupies in the universe, it cannot
live ; nay, it would have already perished.
What Christ taught was not, indeed, new.
What was new was the way in which he
84 P^^ofessor Harnack
taught it, the personal force with which he
transformed old truths, and gave them a
significance which they had never previously
possessed ; the power by which he became
and has remained the life of a new com-
munity. That and that alone is the
historical fact in Christianity which can
never be disputed, and which ought, there-
fore, to take precedence of all its other facts.
The assertion that this conception of it is
a return to the Natural Religion which
preceded it is one which seems, to me at
least, to argue a misapprehension of both.
And if the Gospel held its own amid all
the changes which the Christian community
underwent in its development into the
Catholic Church, that circumstance is only
another testimony to its undying power
in the midst of conditions that were not
always favourable. Nowhere in Professor
Harnack's pages is the whole work of the
Church assumed to have been a series of
and his Oxford Critics 85
errors. On the contrary, again and again
he shows, in language not less eloquent
than lucid, how in every age and in all
circumstances the G-ospel was the essential
and abiding element in its life.
History, I submit, as interpreted with
candour and intelligence, gives a plain reply
to Dr. Strong's contention, and proves that
the distinction between fact and idea which
he seeks to apply to Christianity cannot be
maintained in the sense which he adopts.
The distinction in any case is too sharply
drawn. But his whole argument collapses
if it can be shown that what he calls
historical Christianity is for the most part
not historical ; if the facts on which he tells
us that this religion rests are for the
most part not facts but the kind of ideas in
which all religions are commonly clothed ;
if the ideas on which he tells us that it does
not rest are for the most part the only
undoubted facts about it that we possess.
86 Professor Harnack
As the distinction between fact and idea
may be drawn too sharply, so also between
intellect and emotion. All religion must
be emotional in the sense that it must stir
the heart and move the feelings ; it would
not be real if it failed to be a vivid ex-
perience. But there is another kind of
emotion which consists in weak and vague
desire, in the lust of the eye and the ear,
in a spasmodic and superficial enthusiasm.
To regard a conception of Christianity which
endeavours to penetrate to its secret ; which
examines the conditions of the time in
which it arose ; which traces its growth and •
progress through the ages — to regard this
conception of it as emotional in the feeble
sense seems to me an unaccountable error.
Yet such, in the Dean's opinion, is the
religion which is presented in Professor
Harnack's pages. The description, as I
remarked at the outset, is more appropriate
to a faith which is ultimately founded on
and his Oxfoi'd Critics 87
the persuasion that certain miracles hap-
pened at a particular period in the history
of mankind, and, when that persuasion is
with difficulty maintained in the light of the
injunction to search the Scriptures, to prove
all things, to hold fast that which is good,
endeavours to establish it afresh by the
aid of ritual and ceremonious observance^
Surely of this kind of faith the reproach
was once for all uttered : Except ye see ,^
signs and ivonders, ye ivill not believe.
Here I might end, for the rest of the
criticisms directed against Professor Har-
nack's book at Oxford seem, as far as I can
gather, only to reiterate the arguments
which I have already described. But in
some cases the objections taken to it are
coupled with a frank admission that, what-
ever else it may do or leave undone, it
exhibits the elements of Christianity as
88 Pi'ofessor Harnack
conceived by Christ himself, and pleads with
timely force that by these elements Chris-
tianity is to be judged. One alone of these
criticisms has been brought to my notice
in any detail. Yet there, too, I find that
the German theologian is accused of paying
too little attention to the social life of the
Christian community, with its worship and
its corporate traditions ; in other words, to
the life and organisation of the Church.
He is apt, we are told, to forget the great
principle of development, and to think that
nothing that is not vital in Christianity is
of any importance at all.
These are objections taken by Dr. Hast-
ings Rashdall in a sermon preached in the
chapel of New College, and repeated else-
where. To some extent I have already
dealt with them, and I cannot now do more
than contrast them with what Professor
Harnack says as to the work done in and
for the Church by members of it in all
and his Oxford Critics 89
ages ; with the tribute, for instance, which
he pays to the monk in the past or the
deaconess in the present. Nor can I see
any ground for the charge that he has in
any way neglected the principle of develop-
ment. He would not be an historian had he
done so, and the whole of the latter part
of his book is the best answer that can be
given to any such assertion.
To conclude, then : we must remember
that in these Dasfes we have been consider-
ing the Christian religion in its historical
aspect only. If the views which I have
advanced are correct, it has been kept alive
for nineteen centuries not by any theory
about Christ's person, however useful such
a theory may have proved in periods of
storm and stress, nor yet by any of the
external forms in which that religion has
been from time to time embodied, however
necessary such forms may be, but ultimately
by what Jesus himself said and did and by
Qo Professor Harnack
the spirit of his work. But there is another
aspect, — in my opinion, at least, not less
important, — which may be called the philo-
sophical, and for which I have found no
place. Among the difficulties that might
have been raised is the question, How are
we to conceive of the divine in Christianity v
and in what sense can we speak of it as a
revelation ? We shall not, I submit, make
any approach to an answer to such a ques-
tion unless we recognise that it arises not in
regard to Religion only, but wherever we
seek to explain the possessions which the
great men of our race have wrung for us
from the unknown. Neither in Art nor in
Science can we give any account of the
mysterious power by which a fresh ideal is ,
presented or a new truth laid bare. We
cannot tell how the painter opens to us a
vision of beauty that seems to be out of
the reach of nature itself; from what
depths of consciousness the musician draws
and his Oxford Critics 91
his harmonies ; or by what method the
inquirer discovers the laws of the material
universe. All these efforts of the human
spirit seem to attain to some perception of
the divine, and to have a claim to be called
a revelation. They give us glimpses into
things of which we were ignorant, and into
possibilities which we had not perceived.
But if in the common uses of language we
speak of Eeligion alone as something which
is imparted to us from without and which
we could never have grasped of ourselves,
we do so because the individuals who
quicken our sense of it are so rare as to be
"unique in their kind. More than any of
these efforts it gives our life a meaning ; it
touches its deepest issues ; and it points
with still stronger conviction to the exist-
ence of that great Reality in which in the
last resort we put our trust.
(^"5 ^< A R >^
^ or THE
PRINTKD Bf^lSfLi^Wn^TOji^:**©., EDINBURGH.
" Professor Harnack's Great Book." —Expository Times.
Now ready. Second Edition.
Demy ^vo, cloth, \qs. bd. ; half-leather, 125. 6<f.
What is Christianity ?
By ADOLF HARNACK,
Professor of Church History in the University of Berlin.
Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders.
With a Special Preface to the Enghsh Edition by
the Author.
"Seldom has a treatise of the sort been at once so suggestive and so
stimulating. Seldom have the results of so much learning been brought to
bear on the religious problems which address themselves to the modem
mind." — Tlie Pilot.
"Thoroughly religious in tone, full of real and living interest in mankind,
and marked by signs of deep conviction as to the truth of Christianity in the
sense in which Dr. Harnack understands it." — Guardian.
"Since Strauss, now nearly seventy years ago, produced his Leben Jesu,
or to confine ourselves to England, since the appearance of Seeley's £cce
Homo, no book on the central theme of Christianity is likely to produce a
greater impression than this latest work by the illustrious German historian.
And this for two reasons. It is, in the first place, a deliverance on the very
essence of religion by one of the foremost living authorities, and, secondly, it
is, in its style and handling, addressed directly to the western mind Mr.
Bailey Saunders has done his work admirably. He has secured all Harnack's
pith and veri/e, and produced a volume which, apart from the supreme im-
portance of its subject-matter, is a piece of magnificent English prose." — "'
Christian World.
"The book is a great book, and cannot fail to exercise a deep and wide
influence. It exhibits an originality and insight, a mastery of the history of
ideas, a power of lucid, and often glowing, expression — the whole suffused
with the deepest piety — a combination of qualities as splendid as it is rare."
— Expository Times.
"And what does Professor Harnack mean by Christianity? He rightly
means the actual teaching of Jesus Christ. We are glad to recognise the
intense religious fervour, the glow of enthusiasm, in which he approaches
the subject. These academical discourses are in parts more like passionate
mission preaching; the eloquence carries one away." — The Church Times.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W.C.
NEW WORK IN ENGLISH OF
PROFESSOR HARNACK.
Just Published. Crown 8vo, cloth, ^j-.
MONASTICISM:
Its Ideals and History ;
AND THE
Confessions of St. Augustine.
TWO LECTURES
By ADOLF HARNACK.
Translated into English by E. E. Kellett, M.A,,
and F. H, Marseille, Ph.D., M.A.
"The lectures impart to these old subjects a new and vivid interest, which
cannot but win this faithful version many admiring readers." — Scotsman.
" The former of these essays is one of the most brilliant we have ever read.
.... In a word, no better ecclesiastical essay has been written than this."
— Church of England Pulpit.
"One might read all the ponderous volumes of Montalembert without
obtaining so clear a view of this immense subject as are offered in these
luminous pages The translation, we may add, is excellent, and gives
us Harnack in pure and vigorous English." — Christian World.
" The former of these lectures is a wonderfully lucid, interesting, and
suggestive review of the origin and history of Monasticism Every-
one who is in the least interested in the history of the Church should read
these lectures; like the author's 'What is Christianity?" they are striking
illustrations of the great gift of popular exposition possessed by one of the
most distinguished scholars of our time." — Week's Survey.
" Professor Harnack affords a brilliant example of the way in which a
profound scholar, who is a perfect master of his subject, may expound it to a
popular audience in fresh and vivid hues. In these two lectures he goes over
familiar ground, but with a keenness of insight and a breadth of treatment
that make it new." — Professor W. F. Adeney in the Examiner.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W^.C.
*' No work on Church History in recent times has had
the influence of Professor Harnack's ' History of
Dogma.' " — Times.
Seven vols, demy Zvo, cloth, ^^3, ij^s. bd. ; half-leather, £jt, js. 6d,
Each volume sold separately , cloth, 10s. 6d. ; half-leather, 125. bd.
A History of Dogma.
By ADOLF HARNACK.
Translated from the Third German Edition. Edited by the
late Rev. Professor A. B. Bruce, D.D.
" A book which is admitted to be one of the most important theological
works of the time." — Daily News.
" The first volume of this great 'History of Dogma' we reviewed some
time ago, and it gives us equal pleasure to call attention to this We
take our leave of this volume by once more calling the attention of our
readers to the admirable series of which it forms one of the most important
issues." — Quarterly Rcviciu.
The work is di\'ided up into divisions as follows : —
Introductory Division.
Division I. — The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma,
or the Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic Dogmatic
Theology, and the first Scientific Ecclesiastical System
of Doctrine.
Book I. — The Preparation.
Book II. — The Laying of the Foundation.
Division II. — The Development of Ecclesiastical
Dogma.
Book I. — The History of the Development of Dogma as the
Doctrine of the God-man on the basis of Natural
Theology.
Book II. — Expansion and RemodelHng of Dogma into a
Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and Means of Grace, on the
basis of the Church.
Book III. — The Threefold Issue of the History of Dogma.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W.C.
FROM WILLIAMS & NORGATE'S LIST
OF RECENT WORKS ON THEOLOGY.
Theological Translation Library (New Series).
Recently Published. Derny 8vo, cloth, t.os. 6d. ; Half-leather, xis. 6d.
Introduction to the Greek
New Testament.
By Professor E. NESTLE, of Maulbronn.
Translated from ihe Second Enlarged Edition by the Rev. Wm.
Edie, D.D., and Edited by Professor Allan Menzies,
D.D. With Final Corrections by the Author and Eleven
Reproductions of Texts.
" We have no living scholar more capable of accomplishing the fascinating
task of preparing a complete introduction on the new acknowledged
principles than Professor Nestle. This book will stand the most rigorous
scrutiny ; it will surpass the highest expectation." — Expository Times.
" Nothing could be better than Dr. Nestle's account of the materials which
New Textament textual criticism has to deal with." — Spectator.
Demy Svo, Cloth. 2 Vols, xos, 6d. each.
The Apostolic Age.
By Prof. CARL VON WEIZSACKER.
Translated by James Millar, D.D,
"Weizsacker is an authority of the very first rank. The present work
marks an epoch in New Testament Criticism. The English reader is
fortunate in having a masterpiece of this kind rendered accessible to him." —
Expository Times.
Demy 8vo, Cloth. 2 Vols. los. 6d. each.
A History of the Hebrews.
By R. KITTEL,
Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Breslau.
Translated by John Taylor, D.Lit, M.A., Hope W. Hogg,
B.D., and E. B. Spiers, D.D.
" It is a sober and earnest reconstruction, for which every earnest student
of the Old Testament should be grateful." — Christian World.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W.C.
Williams & Norgate's List of Recent Works on Theology
— continued.
Demy Zvo. One Vol. \os. bd.
The Communion of the
Christian with God
A Discussion in Agreement with the View of Luther.
By W, HERMANN,
Dr. Theol., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the University of Marburg.
Translated from the Second thoroughly Revised Edition, with Special
Annotations by the Author, by J. Sandys Stanvon, M.A.
" It will be seen from what has been said that this book is a very important
one The translation is also exceedingly well done." — Critical Review,
Recently Published. Demy 8vo, Cloth, bs. 6d.
AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE
Literature of the Old Testament.
With Chronological Tables for the History of the Israelites, and other
aids to the Explanation of the Old Testament.
By E. KAUTZSCH,
Professor of Theology at the University of Halle.
Reprinted from the " Supplements " to the translation of the
Old Testament edited by the Author.
Translated by John Taylor, D.Lit., M.A.
"Dr. Taylor has rendered a great service to the English readers by his
excellent translation of this important work." — British Weekly.
" I venture to give the strongest recommendation to an excellent work by
a German specialist, which gives in a brief compass the main results of
criticism according to the average opinion of scholars." — Rev. Prof. T. K.
Cheyne, in the C/ture/i Gazette.
Recently Published. Demy 8vo, Cloth. 4s. 6d.
Doctrine and Principles:^
Popular Lectures on Primary Questions.
By Rev. C. E. BEEBY, B.D.
Author of " Creed and Life."
"The tone of the book is excellent, and its learning praiseworthy." —
Expository Times.
"Without pretending to decide upon all the profound and delicate
questions at issue, we think that Mr. Beeby's work is a very able and
singularly manly contribution towards their progressive settlement
We hope these lectures will be widely read." — Daily Chronicle.
" While scholarly in tone the book is admirably simple in expression.' —
Bookman.
" Able and stimulating." — Outlook.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE,
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON, W.C.
FOURTEEN DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
290ct'55QB
OCT 2 0 msiu
22!'/!ar'57FC
REC'D Lt
fms 19?'
Tv^ftprruwr
jvm
HMfci
.r^^h'^
JAN 14 1963
^Xr^^
LD 21-100m-2,'55
(B139s22)476
General Library
University of California
Berkeley
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
C0DMT7117S
>921 "
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11