Unquestionably it is no easy matter to assimilate so novel and striking a view as that of Schweitzer. To bring it into relation with the presuppositions of our religious view in general involves demolition and reconstruction—a labor heavy and grievous to the soul. The mind instinctively recoils from such a labour and is fain to protect itself by a general repudiation and denial. Moreover the Author has presented his view with a naked simplicity which, while it renders it easier to understand and more difficult to confute, makes it also, one must confess, more difficult to accept. We are not inclined to accept opinions in the face of a display of force, and as it were at the muzzle of a gun—even when the gun is loaded with logic. Practically we must first contrive to see how the opinions may be made acceptable. This task the Author has not unreasonably left to us,—although a careful study of his work will reveal many suggestions helpful to this end. [pg 038] The translator has read this little book not once but many times and through a course of years, with ever increasing appreciation of its worth—not only in view of its logical force but of its _acceptability._ On the other hand, many of us have felt that the liberal life of Jesus was becoming increasingly more _unacceptable._ Canon Sanday confesses_(_11_)_that he recoils from Schweitzer’s view chiefly on account of his “tendency to push things to extremes at the dictates of logical consistency.” It is _too_ “thoroughgoing.” It seems indeed as though the Author were inclined to press this word to an extreme, proposing to explain _all_ the words and acts of Jesus with reference to his eschatological outlook. But that is only a threat. What he _has_ done falls very far short of it, and it is upon _that_ we have to pass judgment. _That,_ in fact, is “thoroughgoing” enough to justify the term even if it went no further. The principle of “thorough” might very well apply to the construction of the history as a whole without implying that every trait of Jesus’ life and teaching was coloured by it and that he himself was so obsessed by a single idea that he was unable to see things as they are. [pg 039] This is precisely what the Gospels do not permit us to believe. It is manifest that Jesus had a peculiarly acute sensibility to his surroundings, whether it were nature or human society, and responded feelingly, spontaneously. His sense of right and wrong was so clearly intuitive that he could deal sovereignly with the Law. Schweitzer himself furnishes suggestions which tend to render even the word “Interimsethik” acceptable. Jesus’ moral teaching was oriented towards the coming Kingdom. It was “penance” in preparation for the Kingdom of God. But it was not for all this an arbitrary penance: like the ethics of the Prophets it was the prescription of righteousness. In one sense at least, it was not of merely transitory importance. From the