Page images
PDF
EPUB

at Galilee, "Follow me," would he then have done so? It is little wonder that men turned to Christ when he fed them, and healed them, and answered their prayers; but this man turns to him at a time when Jesus either cannot or will not help himself, much less, apparently, help others. "If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us." That prayer goes unanswered, yet this man's faith brings him greater salvation than the other had thought of. It is easy to join the church. when others are joining, and all goes prosperously. If you want a real test of character, note the man who joins when things look dark. This man joined when the total active membership was less than a score of men and women, and these were almost discouraged. Did any man ever come to Christ with so great an exhibition of faith?

Again, we find in this seditionist's profession of faith, a wonderful insight into the nature of the kingdom of God. This man had not probably (though he may possibly have) heard John's preparatory preaching. He probably had not heard Christ's wonderful teachings, nor seen his mighty works. Yet he sees more of the nature of Christ's kingdom than all the apostles saw. The twelve could not understand, what this man understood, that for Christ to die was to enter into his kingdom. Nay, with all the memory of Christ's blessed words, the disciples three days later were talking over the resurrection, and confessed that all their hopes of the kingdom had vanished: though they had trusted that Christ were he that should redeem Israel. Foolish and slow of heart were they to believe, what this man understood and eagerly grasped, and so far as we know he was the first man in the world who came to Christ with an intelligent faith in this truth,—that for Christ to suffer these things was to enter into his glory.

3. And we are unable to understand this faith and insight, without supposing this man to have made good use of his opportunities as a Jew, to make him familiar with the

Scriptures and the temple worship; and to have possessed a heart made ready for the work of the Holy Spirit. "THE KING OF THE JEWS." So said Pilate's superscription; this man could read it, probably, in one or more of its renderings. The King of the Jews-the promised Messiah-what was more unlikely than that he should meet such a fate? But what had the prophets said? "He was despised and rejected of men; despised, and we esteemed him not. He was taken from prison and from judgment. He was numbered with the transgressors, and made his grave with the wicked. But he had done no violence, neither was any de

ceit found in his mouth. He poured out his soul unto death, and bare the sin of many. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Was not this a pen-picture of what he saw before him? Had not the prophet seen by inspiration what he saw with his eyes? And as he thought of the lamb brought to the slaughter, did not his mind revert to the temple-worship with its types of the coming Sin-bearer? And was not God's Holy Spirit present to whisper in his soul's ear, "Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" We do not know that his mind went through this process, but on what simpler and more reasonable hypothesis can we account for his marvelous understanding of the Messiah's kingdom than that of a familiarity with the Scriptures, brought home to him by the operation of the Holy Spirit? Wonderful faith! Wonderful insight! John and the women still loved Jesus and confessed him as their Teacher and Friend; he alone at this dark moment sees in the purple robe and thorny crown the insignia of Divine Royalty; he alone sees that the cross is the universal scepter

in the omnipotent hand of God, and owns the crucified and rejected one as his Lord and King.

This article has tried to show that this man who has passed into history as a thief was probably a worthy man. It is not claimed that the proof adduced is absolutely convincing; such proof could not be expected, nor is it necessary. It is enough if a reasonable doubt of his guilt can be shown; and so much we may claim, together with a presumption in favor of his having been, at least, a reputable Jewish citizen, and an earnest man. Beyond doubt bad men, sometimes giving their hearts to God in the last hours of life, are accepted by him, nor can there be reasonable objection to this passage being used by way of encouraging such men to turn to Christ in the last possible extremity. But it is time to end this man's being classed with those whose crimes have made their existence a libel on their Maker. The penitent insurrection ist was a better man than most of those who have derived comfort from his conversion. Rightly interpreted, the incident gives no encouragement to delay in seeking Christ, but shows how a sincere, impetuous, earnest, yet misguided man, convinced of his sin, truly repenting of it, found free forgiveness. "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." It was very little that he prayed for, a mere remembrance was all that he asked. How much more the Saviour gave him than he promised. "Remember me," nay much more, "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise!" Like him, confessing our sins and owning Jesus as our Saviour and Lord,we may make his prayer our own; and when at last we appear before our Lord, no longer upon the cross, but enthroned in the highest heavens, we may humbly hope for the same gracious look and blessed answer. A prayer more full of faith and humble, confiding affection has never been offered; an answer more glorious, more royal, more like our Lord, none can ever hope to receive.

ARTICLE VIII.

GREEK ELEMENTS IN MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.

BY EDWIN STUTELY CARR, A. M., D. B.

"Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll lectured at the Columbia Theater yesterday afternoon to an audience practically filling the theater. The title of the lecture was 'Which Way?' There are two ways, Mr. Ingersoll said. One way for living was the generally accepted way of Christians known as God's way; the other was Mr. Ingersoll's, which was rather different. To so live in this world as to merit life in heaven was the way Mr. Ingersoll pointed out to be vain, because he was not at all certain that such a place or condition as heaven existed, and he had no intention or desire to go there. The Ingersoll way was to live for this life alone and to make this earth heaven."--Record (Chicago), January 7, 1895.

COLONEL INGERSOLL is perhaps not aware of it, but this last statement expresses the central idea of the Greek tendency of modern thought.

Greek philosophy, as influential in our modern life, is represented mainly by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In these men we find the sunny-hearted Greek nature,-"never sick or sorry," on terms of glad and familiar intimacy with itself and the physical universe,―girding itself for the task of expressing the universe in terms of reason, intellect. Socrates' primary interest was moral, but his maxim "Know thyself" expresses his strongly intellectual bent, confirmed by his identification of virtue and knowledge. Plato, in his noble speculations, remains true in general to his master, Socrates, laying great stress on immortality,-an essential element in his system. With Aristotle, who gave the movement its final and permanently influential form, the intellectual interest is supreme. The heart is lost out of the universe. God is intel

lect, "thought of thought," but with no concern for men; there is no prayer, no immortality, except for the race or species. The Aristotelian heaven is that of George Eliot in the little poem which has been so much admired:

"O may I join the choir invisible

Of those immortal dead who live again
In minds made better by their presence:
. . . So to live is heaven."

And so Colonel Ingersoll is at one with Aristotle in advising to live for this world alone, and to make this earth heaven.

This Greek intellectualism usually finds expression in some form of the Logos doctrine. The Logos as a philosophical principle first appears with Heraclitus. Logos in Greek meant primarily a word, proposition, and secondarily the faculty of. the mind which is manifested in speech,-reason. Heraclitus indicates the principle of order in the world by Logos, after the analogy of reason as the ruling faculty of the mind. His Logos, however, is not self-conscious, but is identified in a pantheistic or materialistic way with the general world-process. The Platonic School, following Anaxagoras probably, designates the principle of reason in nature as Nous instead of Logos. In the Stoic School we find again Heraclitus' Logos, except that providential care for the world and mankind is ascribed to it. Here are apparent points of resemblance between Greek and Hebrew conceptions, of which Philo availed himself when he sought to reconcile the two. Later Jewish teachers held to the creation of the world by the divine Word or Wisdom, and that God acted on the world through subordinate agents,-angels, demons, etc. Philo therefore asserts that this series of subordinate powers, between God and the world, called by the Jews Word, Wisdom, Angels, etc., was what the Greeks had indistinctly in mind when they spoke of the Logos. This early attempt to reconcile the Hebrew religion with Greek thought is extremely suggestive, as forecasting the result of the modern attempt to harmonize Chris

« PreviousContinue »