This widespread, universal religious sense (we can hardly term it the sense of God) which, even among the darkest heathen, crops up amidst the corrupt and desolate debris of their systems, is certainly to be regarded as something in the nature of a testimony to Him, who, while “in times past suffering all nations to walk in their own ways, nevertheless left not himself without witness” in their hearts.
We must guard, however, against certain ideas on this subject now beginning to be spread abroad. It will be no digression, either, to examine them here, as they really underlie much of the reasoning of this part of the lectures under review. These ideas are not at all of the frankly materialist school already alluded to, however akin in some respects. They emanate rather from a conception of religion as that primeval instinct in man which materialists deny; but an idea, at the same time, which distorts that fact, as well as many others, to suit a classification of religions imagined to be scientific.
What is termed the science of Comparative Religion is one of those ideas of recent growth, which seem to believers of plain scriptural training to be quite as erroneous as their appearance is momentous. No doubt it is something imported from that quarter, which underlies the term “sense of God” in regular use in many quarters as a designation for the religious consciousness in heathendom. On that ground must be explained our quarrel with the phrase, which otherwise appears harmless enough. If what was meant by the “sense of God” were merely the dim consciousness of the existence of such an One in pagan hearts, all were well; but this is not at all SO. A great change has come over the minds of many in regard to the relation of Christianity to other religions of the world. Whereas formerly the faiths of the world were divided simply into true and false—Judaism, where partially, and Christianity, where fully, God had revealed the truth, and Paganism, wherein (certain admirable ideas and features notwithstanding,) men groveled in error and darkness—now, a more detailed or complicated classification is attempted. A full survey of the various systems of religions, ancient and modern alike, throughout the world is being conducted on strictly modern philosophic principles, with due attention also to what psychology can teach as to their origin and phenomena.
The comparison of Christianity with previously existing systems, at least with those in proximity to which Christianity first appeared, so as to suggest comparison, is no new thing. Its relation to Judaism was a question early raised, and clearly settled also, while the apostles themselves were yet on the scene. No small part of Paul’s particular mission was the setting free the new religion from the bonds of Jewish legalism; while a whole epistle, Hebrews, is given up to the elaboration of the comparison between the two systems. To another category altogether, however, belong the other religions and philosophies with which primitive Christianity came in contact, whether in Greece or Rome. Inspired Christian writings are comparatively reticent as to these, although some there are no doubt who read into New Testament scriptures the reiteration of their technical terms at least. For instance, that the language of the opening verses of John’s Gospel, with its use of the “Logos,” is reminiscent of the Greco-Oriental speculations of the Alexandrian Philo, or that moral terms in regular use among the Stoics make frequent appearance in Paul’s epistles, or again that the noteworthy resemblance between Paul and Seneca, which forms the matter of one of Lightfoot’s treatises, proves parallelism in their teachings.
Answer to all this was not at all difficult. For, if, as we believe, Christianity is the sole and sufficient answer to the deepest need of the human heart, that need which even pagan idolaters could not but feel, and which their philosophers could not meet but only falteringly express; if, as one has said, “Paganism brought nothing to Christianity but aspirations frustrated, and yearnings unsatisfied,” is it at all to be wondered at if God, in revealing that which alone could satisfy these yearnings, condescended to use, as far as He could, the terms in which these aspirations were expressed? As the late Editor of “Bible Treasury” has said, “The truth is that God in His grace, who knew the bewilderment of man’s mind, not dissipated but deepened by philosophy, etc., either anticipated or answered these unbelieving reveries by the revelation of the truth.... Christ, true God and perfect man, is the revelation of God, which sets aside the corrupt Gnostic, the self-complacent Stoic, and the dreaming Platonist. If inspiration employed their language, it was in pitiful condescension to impart the truth of God in Christ, which brings to naught their vain, self-righteous and false ideas.”
At Athens, it will be remembered, “the city wholly given to idolatry,” Paul saw an altar with the inscription, “To the unknown God,” and forthwith made opportune use of the incident. “Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” In a way these Athenians are a representative class. “In all things too superstitious,” “excessively reverent of divinities,” yet so little satisfied with those they had, that “to tell or hear of something newer” was their characteristic occupation, learned and philosophic as they were, they may be taken as eminently representative of what religious aspirations directed by human philosophy amounted to, or could achieve, in Paganism at its best. In what measure then was the true God conceived of, or any genuine knowledge of Him reflected, in anything within the compass of their elaborate system. The only element wherein the faintest reference to Him appears was that melancholy inscription seized on by the apostle— “To the unknown God.” God the Unknown, felt after, indeed, even by Athenian devotees of divinities many; God the Unknown, a sense of whose existence no worship of false deities could obliterate, no specious philosophy explain away; yea, even while under the charm of Greek eloquence at its best, “at the sound of cornet, flute and psaltery, and all kinds of music,” they bowed themselves at shrine erected, or image set up, in this city surrendered to idol-worship, God the Unknown at the long last they still find it necessary to admit at least into their Pantheon. Consciousness of Him cannot be quite shut out, nor drowned in clamor of idolatrous liturgy, whether Stoic pipe or Epicurean sackbut. But how humiliating the confession. “To the unknown God.” This then the final exemplification, the summing up of all that was best, most worthy, in heathen philosophers, Alexandrian, Epicurean, Stoic, Skeptic, or any other; for that was all, that vague ascription of the fag-end of their homage, “To the unknown God,” which out of the ruins of their idol worship even they could construct!
Take then that strangely significant altar inscription as the symbol of anything in the way of truth or knowledge of God classical paganism ever showed. Is there much to constitute it a formidable rival of, anything to entitle its being regarded as a valuable contributor to, Christian thought and doctrine? Why, rather, what have they in common? May we not see also in Paul’s use of the occasion, his reference to their abject confession, and to the obscure statement of one of “their own” poets, an apt illustration of what the Spirit of truth may have done in adopting, or adapting, the diction of their philosophy to serve His own ends in setting forth that which met their every question, and made foolish their every dream? As has been said, this answer to the suggestion of Christianity’s relation to the religions of the past prompts itself readily, and proves sufficient. And, really, the assertion sometimes made to-day that “Christianity was at first a mere development of Judaism, and that it was by combining with elements borrowed from the religions and the philosophies of the ancient pagan world that it assumed its final form” is best answered, as it has been answered, by the statement that, “Were we to see in Christianity only a synthesis of all the anterior religions, we should have in Christ only a composite idol enshrined in the last of the pagodas.”
But now we have a newer study of religions, from an entirely fresh and original standpoint. Conclusions similar to those appearing in the last quotation we no doubt find accepted in many cases under this novel method as well; but they are reached from a different direction, as the subject is approached in a rather different way. That is, the principle of differentiation between Christianity and other religions is sought in another and wider sphere. The comparison of Christian doctrine with the teachings of the older religions of which we have spoken would be regarded as only a partial application of the comparative method by adherents of the new school, and would have reserved for it the particular designation, “Comparative Theology,” the remaining portions of the field of survey being the “Psychology of Religion” and the “History of Religions.” Together forming a comprehensive scheme to be known as the “Science of Religions.” Now under this pretentious title they profess to “seek to study religion not merely in particular aspects and ways, but in its unity and entirety, with a view to its comprehension in its essence and all essential relations.” Two things we must expect, then, from such as affect to take such philosophic views of that which is a serious enough matter for men at large—their religion. These are, that any special claim as to Christianity must not be preferred at this early stage, it must go into the crucible with the rest, take its chance of emerging approved worthy of place, or of supreme place, in the illustrious society of the faiths of the world, when they are “unified and co-ordinated in a truly organic manner.” And at the same time we must expect, from those who propose to probe so deep into the origin of this peculiar compound feeling called religion, this “process of mind,” this inexhaustible field for psychological study, we must expect, let us remember, to hear much of man, his progress in ethical thought, and perception of the infinite, and very little of “the notion of a special revelation from God.”
The meaning and significance of this recent development may best be understood by reference to an instance of its exposition. Thus, at the great Anglican Church Congress of 1908, the report of the section which was devoted to this subject gives clear expression to the great divergence from the older ideas, the more modern conception being widely entertained. In fact, if the several contributors to the discussion were in any sense representative, it may almost be said that the Anglican Church’s imprimatur is assured to the new theory, so feeble was any protest, so meager was the statement of what Scripture gives as the truth about idolatry. In the opening deliberation of “Section B” the issue was well defined. “The Congress had to consider whether they preferred to remain on the old lines, holding that one religion was true, and all the rest false, or whether they sympathized with the efforts made in most of the Congress papers to relate other religions to that which Christians held to be specially revealed.” The general attitude of this important Congress was sufficiently manifested by such things as the continual, and in general depreciatory, reference to “the old ruthless doctrine which sharply separates Christianity from other religions”; as also it was by the constant claim “that now it is generally realized that much in Christianity belongs to the common stock of religion,” and that “we perceive the Spirit’s work in the higher aspirations of all races.”
Whereunto this will grow, or what sort of influence such conceptions of other religions are likely to exert on Christian missionary efforts and methods, may be matter of conjecture. One thing certain about them is their novelty. But the change of attitude was in fact categorically asserted on the same occasion. From an accredited account of the proceedings of the Congress which then appeared, take this— “As to the attitude which the church should adopt towards the non-Christian creeds and systems with which she finds herself in contact, the time has gone by when undiscriminating repudiation is indulged in.... and, while the last traces of this habit of mind have not yet entirely vanished, the change during recent years has been great and salutary.” Then, finally, “This attitude, conciliatory and adaptative, and not the implacable hostility of the Crusader or the Cromwellian trooper, was with satisfaction recognized as the predominant note in the discussion.” Such was the finding of the experts of the Pan-Anglican Congress!
Now what does Scripture teach as to the religions of the world? Perhaps the consideration of how, according to Scripture, they one and all originated and developed might prove enlightening to many, if no further, certainly at least as to the radical divergence between its account and these modern ideas on the subject. The chapter in Romans already alluded to will furnish an example of what is the invariable testimony of the word as to the origin of what it at least does not scruple to call idolatry. Rom. 1, after adducing creation’s testimony as “that which may be known of God,” proceeds in verses 21-25 to consider man’s treatment of such positive knowledge of God as he at one time undeniably possessed. “Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen.”
“Because that, knowing,” or, “having known,” “God.” This is a distinct advance upon nature’s witness, being that knowledge of God on man’s part, which may be termed traditional. He was thus positively known by men at as late a date as the day of Noah—if, indeed, it be not precisely to that memorable post-diluvian morning that reference is here made, when we find Noah and his family—all that was left of the human race upon the earth—surrounding their altar as worshippers of the one true God. Thus far at least have we to go back the stream of history ere we come upon the happy time when it could be said that men, as a class, “knew God.” In the absence of any later occasion when it was true, this may be the occasion referred to, if, as seems likely, a definite point in history is in the apostle’s mind.
(Continued from Vol. 7. P. 380)
(To be continued) LJ. T.]