No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
In a recent number of The Harvard Theological Review, Professor Douglas Clyde Macintosh of the Yale Divinity School outlines in a very interesting manner the religious system to which he gives his adherence. For “substance of doctrine” (to use a form of speech formerly quite familiar at New Haven) this religious system does not differ markedly from what is usually taught in the circles of the so-called “Liberal Theology.” Professor Macintosh has, however, his own way of construing and phrasing the common “Liberal” teaching; and his own way of construing and phrasing it presents a number of features which invite comment. It is tempting to turn aside to enumerate some of these, and perhaps to offer some remarks upon them. As we must make a selection, however, it seems best to confine ourselves to what appears on the face of it to be the most remarkable thing in Professor Macintosh's representations. This is his disposition to retain for his religious system the historical name of Christianity, although it utterly repudiates the cross of Christ, and in fact feels itself (in case of need) quite able to get along without even the person of Christ. A “new Christianity,” he is willing, to be sure, to allow that it is—a “new Christianity for which the world is waiting”; and as such he is perhaps something more than willing to separate it from what he varyingly speaks of as “the older Christianity,” “actual Christianity,” “historic Christianity,” “actual, historical Christianity.” He strenuously claims for it, nevertheless, the right to call itself by the name of “Christianity.”
1 VII, 1 (January 1914), pp. 16–46.
2 P. 18. Cf. p. 35, where this judgment is repeated: “being irrational, it cannot be of the essence of Christianity”; not being “rigidly moral,” “it must be pronounced essentially unchristian.”
3 Die Norm des echten Christentums, 1893, p. 3; cf. p. 23.
4 System der christlichen Lehre, I, 1906, pp. 23–24; cf. pp. 3 ff., 42 ff.
5 John Dewey, Studies in Logical Theory, p. x.
6 F. C. S. Schiller, Studies in Humanism, p. 463.
7 The Principles of Psychology, 1908, II, p. 333; Text-Book of Psychology, 1892. p. 357.
8 Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe,3 1910, p. 1774.
9 Metaphysics, 1882, pp. 59–60.
10 The Intuitions of the Mind,2 1869, p. 152.
11 The Principles of Psychology, 1898, I, pp. 332 ff.
12 Cf. Pragmatism, 1907, p. 107.
13 Pragmatism, pp. 251 ff.
14 Humanism (1903),2 1912, p. 225.
15 Studies in Humanism, p. 459.
16 The echoes of Rudolf Eucken's language may be noted, but we do not stop to advert to the matter.
17 L'Évangile et l'Église,3 1904, p. ix: “The definition of Christianity according to Harnack—is it that of a historian or only that of a theologian who takes in history what suits his theology? The theory which is expounded in the lectures on The Essence of Christianity is the same as that which dominates the learned History of Dogmas which the same author has published. But has he really deduced it from history, or has he rather only interpreted history according to the theory?”
18 Loisy, p. v, justly calls the Wesen des Christentums, “a profession of personal faith in the form of a historical sketch.”
19 Die Christliche Welt, xvii (1903), 19, p. 444.
20 Das Wesen des Christentums, 1900, 56–60 thousand, 1901, Lect. 1. E. T., What is Christianity? 1901, pp. 7, 8, 10, 11, 15.
21 As cited, p. 486 f.
22 Cf. Sanday's, W. remarks, An Examination of Harnack's What is Christianity? 1901, pp. 16 ff.: “And yet in spite of these explicit promises, the criterion that Harnack really proposes throughout his book is his own mutilated version of the teaching of Jesus.”Google Scholar
23 As cited, pp. xiv ff.
24 As cited, p. 11.
25 As cited, p. xxvi.
26 As cited, pp. xxix, xxx.
27 Cf. Troeltsch, as cited, p. 445.
28 McCosh, as cited, p. 152.
29 As cited, p. xv: “If common traits have been conserved and developed from the origin until our day in the Church, these are the traits which constitute the essence of Christianity. At least the historian cannot recognize any others; he has no right to apply any other method than that which he applies to any other religion.”
30 Six articles entitled “Was heist ‘Wesen des Christentums,’” published in Die Christliche Welt, xvii (1903), Nos. 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29. These articles have been reprinted in Troeltsch's Gesammelte Schriften, II, 1913, pp. 386–451, but we cite from the articles.
31 P. 483.
32 P. 484.
33 P. 534.
34 P. 535.
35 P. 578–9.
36 P. 580.
37 P. 581.
38 P. 581.
39 P. 651.
40 P. 654.
41 P. 682.
42 P. 682–3.
43 Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu für den Glauben, 1911; cf. Harvard Theological Review, V, 4 (October 1912), p. 459.
44 Ibid. Troeltsch speaks of the change which Christianity has passed through in the hands of those who think with him as a “transformation.”
45 Article, “Christianity and the Historical Christ,” in The New World, VI, xxi (March 1897), p. 10.
46 Liberal Christianity, E. T. 1903, p. xi; cf. p. 200: “The profession of faith of Liberal Protestantism or of Liberal Christianity—for these two names are interchangeable—is wholly summed up in the single precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself.” It does not trouble itself, however, as to who or what this God is which its ‘single precept’ requires it to love” (pp. 64, 76, 120, 194).
47 Discours sur l'Évolution des Dogmes, pp. 21–22; cf. the comment on it by H. Bois, De la Connaissance Religieuse, 1894, pp. 35 ff. Also Jean Réville, Liberal Christianity, E. T. pp. 61 ff.: “You may hold doctrines most dissimilar and even irreconcilable concerning the essence of God and God's government of the world, and yet be equally good and faithful disciples of Christ.”
48 Caird employs the phrase, not directly of the cry Back to Christ! but illustratively of the parallel cry, Back to Kant!
49 P. 579.
50 On this Christ-mysticism, cf. also J. Réville, as cited, p. 123.
51 Cf. W. Wrede, Paul (1905), E. T. 1907, p. 179 ff.: “It follows then conclusively from all this that Paul is to be regarded as the second founder of Christianity … for Paul it demonstrably was who first … introduced into Christianity the ideas whose influence on its history up to the present time has been deepest and most farreaching. … This second founder of Christianity has even, compared with the first, exercised beyond all doubt the stronger—not the better—influence. … Through long stretches of church history … he has thrust the greater person whom he meant only to serve utterly into the background.” Cf. p. 165 f.: “The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul, if it is used to denote a historical relation. … He stands much further away from Jesus than Jesus Himself stands from the noblest figures of Jewish piety.”
52 Harnack, Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, II, 1911, p. 216.
53 Address on “The Significance of the Personality of Jesus Christ for Belief,” printed in the Proceedings and Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Free Christianity and Religious Progress, 1911, p. 209.
54 Cf. von Dobschütz, E., TSK, 85 (1912), p. 364: “Paul calls his preaching gospel, the gospel; in conflict with the Judaisers, he vigorously denies that there is any other gospel (Gal. 1 6, 2 Cor. 11 4); another gospel exists just as little as there exists another Christ.” But Wrede (as cited, p. 166) does not hesitate to say there was another Christ: “The being whose disciple and apostle he wished to be was not actually the historical man, Jesus, but another.” This contention indeed lies at the very root of the theory expressed by the phrase “the double gospel” in the New Testament.Google Scholar
55 Wrede can only say in a footnote (p. 112, E. T. p. 168), that “it requires a very literal interpretation of Paul's words to make out that what was delivered to him includes ‘died for our sins’”—a remark which is very naturally cited by von Dobschütz (p. 342, note) with a subaudition of derision.
56 Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 85 (1912), Heft 3.
57 G. Kittel, Jesus bei Paulus, pp. 366–402. By a drastic criticism of the text followed up by an artificial exegesis, Kittel manages to deprive Paul of everything which would markedly separate him from the “Liberal” Jesus.
58 E. von Dobschütz, Gibt es ein doppeltes Evangelium in Neuen Testament? pp. 331–336. Von Dobschütz's thesis is that “the contrast between Jesus and Paul, as it has been set forth by the newer theology, especially since the publication of the Volksbücher of Bousset and Wrede, is possible only when the Gospel of Jesus has been greatly reduced and, on the other side, the traits of the preaching of Paul which lead away from the Gospel of Jesus are strongly emphasized in a one-sided manner” (p. 346).
59 Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, II, 1911, pp. 211–224 (E. T. in the Proceedings and Papers of the Congress, 1911, pp. 97–107).
60 Therefore von Dobschütz (p. 364) notes: “I must accordingly, however, repel also Harnack's formula of the ‘double gospel’ which is found in the New Testament, however much I approve of its purpose to bring the apostolic preaching again to its rights. I think that Paul and the others would have one and all protested against it; they were not conscious of any difference and would have acknowledged none.”
61 P. 216 (E. T. p. 101).
62 P. 218 (E. T. p. 103).
63 What is Christianity? p. 156.
64 P. 160.
65 Pp. 156 ff.
66 P. 158.
67 P. 157 (German ed. p. 99).
68 Pp. 352 ff. Harnack is inclined to deny to Jesus the saying recorded in Mk. 10 45, Matt. 20 28, especially its last clause (Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 1912, xxii, p. 9); of von Dobschütz's three passages, he would allow therefore only one (Mk. 14 24) to be direct evidence of Jesus' teaching.
69 Compare the discussion of the matter in The Princeton Theological Review, XI, 2 (April 1913), pp. 259 ff.
70 Die Anfänge unserer Religion,2 1904, p. 58.
71 A very pleasantly written exposition of Jesus' relation to “the double gospel” may be found in Lic. theol. Martin Schulze's brochure, Das Wesen des Christentums, 1897.
72 We permit ourselves merely to refer here to the treatment of these by James Denney, The Death of Christ,3 1903, pp. 11–60. Burton's, E. D. attempt to make “to give His life a ransom for many” mean to give His life, not His death (Biblical Ideas of Atonement, 1909, pp. 113 ff.) surely requires no refutation.Google Scholar
73 Cf. what says, Paul Feine, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1910, pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar
74 Paul, pp. 177 f.
75 Essay III. in the volume, James, William and Other Essays on the Philosophy of Life, 1911.Google Scholar
76 P. 120.
77 If Wrede be thought a mere extremist, let the words of Paul Wernle (Anfänge,2 1904, p. 112; E. T. I. p. 158 f.) be considered.
78 As cited, p. 681.
79 As cited, p. 148.