« AnteriorContinuar »
of the second century. The dates assigned them are being constantly changed, and almost always to make them earlier and thus more primitive. Every one of these changes increases the difficulty of the Protestant dilemma. One recalls Father Tyrell's consumate irony on this point: "No sooner was the Light of the World kindled than it was put under a bushel. The Pearl of Great Price fell into the dustheap of Catholicism, not without the wise permission of Providence, desirous to preserve it till the day when Germany should rediscover it and separate it from its useful but deplorable accretions. Thus between Christ and early Catholicism there is not a bridge but a chasm. Christianity did not cross the bridge; it fell into the chasm and remained there, stunned for nineteen centuries. The explanation of this sudden fall-more sudden because they have pushed Catholicism back to the threshold of the Apostolic age-is the crux of Liberal Protestant critics." (Christianity at the Cross-roads, pp. 40-41). It is this crux, in regard to the sacraments, and its gradual recognition by Protestant critics with which this paper deals. We are not concerned with the manner in which they seek to evade or solve the difficulty, but solely with the fact that there is a difficulty and that Protestants themselves admit it, albeit grudgingly.
"Sacramentalism," Father Tyrrell asserted, "is felt in S. Paul," and it is true that recent discussions of the sacraments in the New Testament are concerned chiefly with his Epistles. A typical and in some ways a notable contribution to the question is Dr. Wilhelm Heitmüller's little book, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. Since the war I find it hard to praise anything German, hence I shall quote Dr. Kirsopp Lake's estimate of Heitmüller's work as probably fairer and certainly weightier than my own. "This book," he says, "is so clear and so thorough that it has an importance out of all proportion to its size." (Earlier Epistles of S. Paul, p. 212.) Dr. Heitmüller is a Lutheran, and in his preface he says that since the Lutheran appeal is to Scripture it is important to ascertain just what is the Scriptural view of the sacraments. His purpose is to discover the sacramental teaching of the New Testament, particularly of S.
Paul. There follows a careful analysis of all passages in the Epistles which deal with Baptism and the Eucharist. The discussion of such crucial passages as Romans VI. and I. Corinthians 10-11 is exceedingly interesting, but too extensive and detailed to be repeated here. I can only give the result of the investigation, which is that for S. Paul Baptism and the Eucharist are not merely symbols or means to faith like the Gospel, but true sacraments with an efficacy which is ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis. S. Paul's teaching, in a word, Dr. Heitmüller discovers to be the teaching of the Catholic Church. This fact, of course, releases him from S. Paul. His sacramental teaching, Dr. Heitmüller thinks, is very different from the pure ethical teaching of Jesus and very like the mystery religions of his time. The sacraments are therefore a foreign element in Christianity. Luther first perceived this and made the Gospel of equal importance with the sacraments, but even Luther was not free from Catholic sacramental doctrine. It remains for modern Protestants to go on in the way he has pointed out, but going on will mean rejecting the sacramental teaching of S. Paul and the New Testament. It is the realization of this last fact that makes Dr. Heitmüller's book notable. His study has shown him that the sacraments are an integral part of the New Testament. He has determined to have done with the sacraments; therefore he will have done with the New Testament, or at least with those parts of it which deal with the sacraments. He is at least consistent and honest.
Dr. Heitmüller's conclusions are shared by many other scholars. There are some, of course, who still maintain that for S. Paul the sacraments are merely symbols or means to faith, but they are in the minority. Dr. Carl Clemen, who is one of them, admits that the great majority of modern authorities are against him-by which, of course, he means German authorities, for, being a German, he recognizes no other authority in heaven or earth. He names among others, and I repeat the list for what it is worth: Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Harnack, Wrede, Bousset, Julicher, and, of course, Heitmüller. (Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources, pp. 216,245.)
It is not only the Germans, however, who have discovered sacramental teaching in S. Paul. The same view is to be found in Dr. Maurice Goguel's book on the Eucharist, a work which one cannot but admire for its Gallic clarity of thought and expression, however one may disagree with its conclusions. Dr. Goguel finds in the history of the Eucharist from its institution to Justin Martyr an evolution, the stages of which he traces in his book. In this development S. Paul stands out as the first to express clearly the sacramental view. His Epistles, particularly I. Corinthinians, show that for S. Paul the Eucharist was a sacrament, an essential part of Christianity. Its position in the Pauline system, Dr. Goguel says, is as important as that of faith; indeed, the sacrament and faith are not two ideas but two aspects of the same idea, parts of a profound synthesis in S. Paul's thought. This is a remarkable admission from a Protestant critic.
Many English scholars agree in this estimate of S. Paul's sacramental teaching. Among them may be mentioned Dr. Kirsopp Lake, who, in his study of the Early Epistles of S. Paul, makes some statements which are startling, emanating as they do from so cautious a student. Of the teaching in Romans VI. and Galatians III. he says: "Baptism is here clearly indicated as effecting the union with Christ, and there is no reason for trying to minimize the force of this fact. Baptism is, for S. Paul and his readers universally and unquestioningly accepted as a 'mystery' or sacrament which works ex opere operato; and from the unhesitating manner in which S. Paul uses this fact as a basis for argument, as if it were a point on which Christian opinion did not vary, it would seem as though this sacramental teaching is central in the primitive Christianity to which the Roman Empire began to be converted So far, I do not feel that there is room for doubt; even though it is impossible to ignore that many critics of the highest standing among Protestant theologians would deny the soundness of the views enunciated, and maintain that primitive Christianity was not centrally sacramental. Such theologians believe that a purely symbolical and subjective doctrine of Baptism and other sacraments is not only desirable for the present day, but also true to primitive thought.
I incline to the view that this position has received its deathblow from the modern study of the history of religions; and the theologian of the present and future will be obliged to distinguish more clearly than his predecessors between the primitive origin and the permanent validity of the various factors of thought and practice which constitute historic Christianity." (Earlier Epistles of S. Paul, pp. 385, 389.) Of the Eucharistic teaching in I. Corinthinians 10-11 Dr. Lake says: "It is impossible to pretend to ignore the fact that much of the controversy between Catholic and Protestant theologians has found its centre in the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the latter have appealed to primitive Christianity to support their views. From their point of view the appeal fails: the Catholic doctrine is much more nearly primitive than the Protestant." This judgment is as gratifying as surprising, but Dr. Lake proceeds to qualify his tribute to Catholicism by two subtle and deadly sentences: "But the Catholic advocate in winning his case has proved still more: the type of doctrine which he defends is not only primitive, but pre-Christian. Or, to put the matter in terms of another controversy, Christianity has not borrowed from the Mystery Religions, because it was always, at least in Europe, a Mystery Religion itself." (Ib., p. 215.) To Lake's critical scrutiny, therefore, S. Paul stands forth a Catholic. He admits this again in a significant note: "I was much interested lately to hear the obiter dictum of one of the foremost representatives of the Dutch school to the effect that the Epistles were imbued with the Catholic spirit, and (it was implied), therefore, could not be primitive. The Dutch school represents a keen and independent criticism of the Protestant view that Catholic Christianity is a degenerate form of Primitive Christianity. It sees that the Epistles belong to Catholic Christianity, and agrees that they are, therefore, late. The true conclusion is that Catholic Christianity is, therefore, primitive." (Ib., pp. 424-5.)
Further proof of the general recognition of the Catholic nature of S. Paul's teaching concerning the sacraments is to be found in a series of articles which have appeared during the past year in the Expositor. The first, and perhaps the most remarkable, of these is by Professor H. T. Andrews on the Place of the Sac
raments in the Teaching of S. Paul. (November, 1916.) The article begins with a frank admission that modern Free Church theologians have ignored S. Paul's sacramental teaching. Recent criticism, however, is against them, and the attack is all the more significant because it has come from scholars who cannot be suspected of the slightest bias towards sacramentarianism. This, Professor Andrews realizes, is a serious problem for Free Church theology, which regards sacraments as merely symbolical. He therefore proceeds to examine the Epistles from this point of view. Concerning Baptism he concludes that "if the Epistles of S. Paul do not enunciate the ecclesiastical doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, they at any rate approximate very closely to it—with this difference, of course, that there is no need of real proof that Baptism was ever administered to infants in the Apostolic Age." One may pardon a Free Church theologian for the stubborn defence of the latter proposition in view of the surrender involved in the former. Concerning the Eucharist his conclusion is that "to S. Paul the bread and wine of the Eucharist are not merely emblems of the sacrifice that was once offered for the sins of the world; they are the vehicles by means of which the virtue of that sacrifice is appropriated by the participant.” Finally Professor Andrews decides that "the Sacramentarian interpretation of S. Paul has won a decisive victory, and the Symbolical school has been driven off the field." Two alternatives, he thinks, are left for the Free Churches: to revise their conception of the sacraments, and thereby perhaps (and this I think, is very significant, as showing Protestants' need of the sacraments) enrich their spiritual life, or to recognize the nonChristian elements in S. Paul. The dilemma is left unsolved. One feels that the writer, being a Christian, inclines toward the former alternative.
His articles called forth a reply, violent though somewhat impotent, from Professor A. T. Robertson (February, 1917). Professor Andrews, he asserts, has fallen into the vice of the historico-critical method and has read into S. Paul's language the ideas of Mithraists and of later sacramentarians. There are, to be sure, sacramental passages in the Epistles, but they must be interpreted in the light of S. Paul's real spirit. This