{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26035/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26035","id":"gutenberg_26035","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26035","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Corinthians, 2nd, XI, 3 -- Sermons","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons, English -- 19th century"],"text":"Produced by Gerard Arthus and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was\nproduced from scanned images of public domain material\nfrom the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND THEOLOGY\n\nA SERMON FOR THE TIMES\n\n\nPREACHED IN THE\n\nPARISH CHURCH OF CRATHIE, 5TH SEPTEMBER\n\nAND IN THE\n\nCOLLEGE CHURCH, ST ANDREWS\n\nBY\n\nJOHN TULLOCH, D.D.\n\nPRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, ST MARY'S COLLEGE, IN THE\nUNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS, AND ONE OF HER MAJESTY'S\nCHAPLAINS IN ORDINARY IN SCOTLAND\n\n\nSECOND EDITION\n\n\nWILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS\nEDINBURGH AND LONDON\nMDCCCLXXV\n\n\n\n\n_WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR._\n\n\nI.\n\nHISTORY OF RATIONAL THEOLOGY\n\nAND\n\nCHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLAND\n\nIN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.\n\nSecond Edition, 2 vols. 8vo, L1, 8s.\n\n    Edinburgh Review.\n\n    The pleasure with which Principal Tulloch explores this\n    comparatively unknown field communicates itself to his readers,\n    and the academic groves of Oxford and Cambridge are invested\n    with the freshness of a new glory.\n\n\n    Athenaeum.\n\n    It is rich in pregnant and suggestive thought.\n\n\n    Saturday Review.\n\n    Here we must take our respectful leave of this large-minded,\n    lively, and thoughtful work, which deserves to the full the\n    acceptance it cannot fail to receive.\n\n\n    Spectator.\n\n    Every thoughtful and liberal Englishman who reads these volumes\n    will feel that Principal Tulloch has laid him under obligations\n    in writing them.\n\n\n    British Quarterly Review.\n\n    Ample scholarship, well-disciplined powers, catholic sympathies,\n    and a masculine eloquence, give it a high place among modern\n    contributions to theological science.\n\n\n    Nonconformist.\n\n    From his lively portraits they will learn to know some of the\n    finest spirits England has produced; while from his able and\n    comprehensive summaries of the works they left behind them, any\n    reader of quick intelligence may acquaint himself with their\n    leading thoughts.\n\n\nII.\n\nTHEISM:\n\nTHE WITNESS OF REASON AND NATURE TO AN ALL-WISE AND BENEFICENT\nCREATOR.\n\nOctavo, 10s. 6d.\n\n    Christian Remembrancer.\n\n    Dr Tulloch's Essay, in its masterly statement of the real nature\n    and difficulties of the subject, its logical exactness in\n    distinguishing the illustrative from the suggestive, its lucid\n    arrangement of the argument, its simplicity of expression, is\n    quite unequalled by any work we have seen on the subject.\n\nWILLIAM BLACKWOOD & SONS, EDINBURGH AND LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND THEOLOGY.\n\n2 Cor. xi. 3.--\"The simplicity that is in Christ.\"\n\n\nThere is much talk in the present time of the difficulties of\nreligion. And no doubt there is a sense in which religion is always\ndifficult. It is hard to be truly religious--to be humble, good, pure,\nand just; to be full of faith, hope, and charity, so that our conduct\nmay be seen to be like that of Christ, and our light to shine before\nmen. But when men speak so much nowadays of the difficulties of\nreligion, they chiefly mean intellectual and not practical\ndifficulties. Religion is identified with the tenets of a Church\nsystem, or of a theological system; and it is felt that modern\ncriticism has assailed these tenets in many vulnerable points, and\nmade it no longer easy for the open and well-informed mind to believe\nthings that were formerly held, or professed to be held, without\nhesitation. Discussions and doubts which were once confined to a\nlimited circle when they were heard of at all, have penetrated the\nmodern mind through many avenues, and affected the whole tone of\nsocial intelligence. This is not to be denied. For good or for evil\nsuch a result has come about; and we live in times of unquiet\nthought, which form a real and painful trial to many minds. It is not\nmy intention at present to deplore or to criticise this modern\ntendency, but rather to point out how it may be accepted, and yet\nreligion in the highest sense saved to us, if not without struggle\n(for that is always impossible in the nature of religion), yet without\nthat intellectual conflict for which many minds are entirely unfitted,\nand which can never be said in itself to help religion in any minds.\n\nThe words which I have taken as my text seem to me to suggest a train\nof thought having an immediate bearing on this subject. St Paul has\nbeen speaking of himself in the passage from which the text is taken.\nHe has been commending himself--a task which is never congenial to\nhim. But his opponents in the Corinthian Church had forced this upon\nhim; and now he asks that he may be borne with a little in \"his\nfolly.\" He is pleased to speak of his conduct in this way, with that\ntouch of humorous irony not unfamiliar to him when writing under some\nexcitement. He pleads with his old converts for so much indulgence,\nbecause he is \"jealous over them with a godly jealousy.\" He had won\nthem to the Lord. \"I have espoused you,\" he says, \"to one husband,\nthat I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.\" This had been\nhis unselfish work. He had sought nothing for himself, but all for\nChrist. That they should belong to Christ--as the bride to the\nbridegroom--was his jealous anxiety. But others had come in betwixt\nthem and him--nay, betwixt them and Christ, as he believed--and\nsought to seduce and corrupt their minds by divers doctrines. \"I fear,\nlest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,\nso your minds should be corrupted from _the simplicity that is in\nChrist_.\"\n\nWhat the special corruptions from Christian simplicity were with which\nthe minds of St Paul's Corinthian converts were assailed, it is not\nnecessary for us now to inquire. Their special dangers are not likely\nto be ours. What concerns us is the fact, that both St Paul and\nChrist--his Master and ours--thought of religion as something simple.\nAttachment to Christ was a simple personal reality, illustrated by the\ntie which binds the bride, as a chaste virgin, to the bridegroom. It\nwas not an ingenuity, nor a subtilty, nor a ceremony. It involved no\nspeculation or argument. Its essence was personal and emotional, and\nnot intellectual. The true analogy of religion, in short, is that of\nsimple affection and trust. Subtilty may, in itself, be good or evil.\nIt may be applied for a religious no less than for an irreligious\npurpose, as implied in the text. But it is something entirely\ndifferent from the \"simplicity that is in Christ.\"\n\nIt is not to be supposed that religion is or can be ever rightly\ndissociated from intelligence. An intelligent perception of our own\nhigher wants, and of a higher power of love that can alone supply\nthese wants, is of its very nature. There must be knowledge in all\nreligion--knowledge of ourselves, and knowledge of the Divine. It was\nthe knowledge of God in Christ communicated by St Paul that had made\nthe Corinthians Christians. But the knowledge that is essential to\nreligion is a simple knowledge like that which the loved has of the\nperson who loves--the bride of the bridegroom, the child of the\nparent. It springs from the personal and spiritual, and not from the\ncognitive or critical side of our being; from the heart, and not from\nthe head. Not merely so; but if the heart or spiritual sphere be\nreally awakened in us--if there be a true stirring of life here, and a\ntrue seeking towards the light--the essence and strength of a true\nreligion may be ours, although we are unable to answer many questions\nthat may be asked, or to solve even the difficulties raised by our own\nintellect.\n\nThe text, in short, suggests that there is a religious sphere,\ndistinct and intelligible by itself, which is not to be confounded\nwith the sphere of theology or science. This is the sphere in which\nChrist worked, and in which St Paul also, although not so exclusively,\nworked after Him. This is the special sphere of Christianity, or at\nleast of the Christianity of Christ.\n\nAnd it is this, as it appears to us, important distinction to which we\nnow propose to direct your attention. Let us try to explain in what\nrespects the religion of Christ is really apart from those\nintellectual and dogmatic difficulties with which it has been so much\nmixed up.\n\n\nI. It is so, first of all, in the comparatively simple order of facts\nwith which it deals. Nothing can be simpler or more comprehensive than\nour Lord's teaching. He knew what was in man. He knew, moreover, what\nwas in God towards man as a living power of love, who had sent Him\nforth \"to seek and save the lost;\" and beyond these great facts, of a\nfallen life to be restored, and of a higher life of divine love and\nsacrifice, willing and able to restore and purify this fallen life,\nour Lord seldom traversed. Unceasingly He proclaimed the reality of a\nspiritual life in man, however obscured by sin, and the reality of a\ndivine life above him, which had never forsaken him nor left him to\nperish in his sin. He held forth the need of man, and the grace and\nsacrifice of God on behalf of man. And within this double order of\nspiritual facts His teaching may be said to circulate. He dealt, in\nother words, with the great ideas of God and the soul, which can alone\nlive in Him, however it may have sunk away from Him. These were to Him\nthe realities of all life and all religion. There are those, I know,\nin our day, to whom these ideas are mere assumptions--\"dogmas of a\ntremendous kind,\" to assume which is to assume everything. But with\nthis order of thought we have in the meantime nothing to do. The\nquestions of materialism are outside of Christianity altogether. They\nwere nothing to Christ, whose whole thought moved in a higher sphere\nof personal love, embracing this lower world. The spiritual life was\nto Him the life of reality and fact; and so it is to all who live in\nHim and know in Him. The soul and God are, if you will, dogmas to\nscience. They cannot well be anything else to a vision which is\noutside of them, and cannot from their very nature ever reach them.\nBut within the religious sphere they are primary experiences, original\nand simple data from which all others come. And our present argument\nis, that Christ dealt almost exclusively with these broad and simple\nelements of religion, and that He believed the life of religion to\nrest within them. He spoke to men and women as having souls to be\nsaved; and He spoke of Himself and of God as able and willing to save\nthem. This was the \"simplicity\" that was in Him.\n\nEverywhere in the Gospels this simplicity is obvious. Our Lord came\nforth from no school. There is no traditional scheme of thought lying\nbehind his words which must be mastered before these words are\nunderstood. But out of the fulness of His own spiritual nature He\nspoke to the spiritual natures around Him, broken, helpless, and\nworsted in the conflict with evil as He saw them. \"The Spirit of the\nLord is upon me,\" He said at the opening of His Galilean ministry,\n\"because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal\nthe broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and\nrecovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are\nbruised.\"[1] These were the great realities that confronted Him in\nlife; and His mission was to restore the divine powers of humanity\nthus everywhere impoverished, wounded, and enslaved. He healed the\nsick and cured the maimed by His simple word. He forgave sins. He\nspoke of good news to the miserable. All who had erred and gone out of\nthe way--who had fallen under the burthen, or been seduced by the\ntemptations, of life--He invited to a recovered home of righteousness\nand peace. He welcomed the prodigal, rescued the Magdalene, took the\nthief with Him to Paradise. And all this He did by His simple word of\ngrace: \"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I\nwill give you rest.\"[2] \"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good\ngifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in\nheaven give good things to them that ask Him!\"[3]\n\nThis was the Christianity of Christ. This is the Gospel. It is the\nessence of all religion--that we feel ourselves in special need or\ndistress, and that we own a Divine Power willing to give us what we\nneed, and to save us from our distress. Other questions outside of\nthis primary range of spiritual experience may be important. They are\nnot vital. What is the soul? What is the divine nature? What is the\nChurch? In what way and by what means does divine grace operate? What\nis the true meaning of Scripture, and the character of its inspiration\nand authority? Whence has man sprung, and what is the character of the\nfuture before him? These are all questions of the greatest interest;\nbut they are questions of theology and not of religion. I do not say\nthat they have no bearing upon religion. On the contrary, they have a\nsignificant bearing upon it. And your religion and my religion will be\nmodified and coloured by the answers we give or find to them. We\ncannot separate the life and character of any man from his opinions.\nIt is nevertheless true that our religious life, or the force of\ndivine inspiration and peace within us, do not depend upon the answers\nwe are able to give to such questions.\n\nIt is the function of theology, as of other sciences, to ask\nquestions, whether it can answer them or not. The task of the\ntheologian is a most important one--whether or not it be, as has been\nlately said,[4] \"the noblest of all the tasks which it is given to the\nhuman mind to pursue.\" None but a sciolist will depreciate such a\ntask; and none but a sceptic will doubt the value of the conclusions\nwhich may be thus reached. But all this is quite consistent with our\nposition. The welfare of the soul is not involved in such matters as I\nhave mentioned. A man is not good or bad, spiritual or unspiritual,\naccording to the view he takes of them. Men may differ widely\nregarding them, and not only be equally honest, but equally sharers of\nthe mind of Christ. And this is peculiarly the case with many\nquestions of the present day, such as the antiquity of man, the age\nand genesis of the earth, the origin and authority of the several\nbooks of Scripture. Not one of these questions, first of all, can be\nanswered without an amount of special knowledge which few possess; and\nsecondly, the answer to all of them must be sought in the line of\npure scientific and literary inquiry. Mere authority, if we could find\nany such authority, would be of no avail to settle any of them. Modern\ntheology must work them out by the fair weapons of knowledge and\nresearch, with no eye but an eye to the truth. Within this sphere\nthere is no light but the dry light of knowledge.\n\nBut are our spiritual wants to wait the solution of such questions? Am\nI less a sinner, or less weary with the burden of my own weakness and\nfolly? Is Christ less a Saviour? Is there less strength and peace in\nHim whatever be the answer given to such questions? Because I cannot\nbe sure whether the Pentateuch was written, as long supposed, by\nMoses--or whether the fourth Gospel comes as it stands from the\nbeloved apostle--am I less in need of the divine teaching which both\nthese Scriptures contain? Surely not. That I am a spiritual being, and\nhave spiritual needs craving to be satisfied, and that God is a\nspiritual power above me, of whom Christ is the revelation, are facts\nwhich I may know or may not know, quite irrespective of such matters.\nThe one class of facts are intellectual and literary. The other are\nspiritual if they exist at all. If I ever know them, I can only know\nthem through my own spiritual experience; but if I know them--if I\nrealise myself as a sinner and in darkness, and Christ as my Saviour\nand the light of my life--I have within me all the genuine forces of\nreligious strength and peace. I may not have all the faith of the\nChurch. I may have many doubts, and may come far short of the\ncatholic dogma. But faith is a progressive insight, and dogma is a\nvariable factor. No sane man nowadays has the faith of the\nmedievalist. No modern Christian can think in many respects as the\nChristians of the seventeenth century, or of the twelfth century, or\nof the fourth century. No primitive Christian would have fully\nunderstood Athanasius in his contest against the world. It was very\neasy at one time to chant the Athanasian hymn--it is easy for some\nstill; but very hard for others. Are the latter worse or better\nChristians on this account? Think, brethren, of St Peter and St Andrew\ntaken from their boats; of St Matthew as he sat at the receipt of\ncustom; of the good Samaritan; the devout centurion; of curious\nZaccheus; of the repentant prodigal; of St James, as he wrote that a\nman is \"justified by works, and not by faith only;\"[5] of Apollos,\n\"mighty in the Scriptures,\" who \"was instructed in the way of the\nLord; and being fervent in the spirit, spake and taught diligently the\nthings of the Lord,\" and yet who only knew \"the baptism of John;\"[6]\nof the disciples at Ephesus who had \"not so much as heard whether\nthere be any Holy Ghost;\"[7] think of all the poor and simple ones who\nhave gone to heaven with Christ in their hearts, \"the hope of glory,\"\nand yet who have never known with accuracy any Christian dogma\nwhatever,--and you can hardly doubt how distinct are the spheres of\nreligion and of theology, and how far better than all theological\ndefinitions is the \"honest and good heart,\" which, \"having heard the\nWord, keeps it, and brings forth fruit with patience.\"[8]\n\n\nII. But religion differs from theology, not only in the comparatively\nsimple and universal order of the facts with which it deals, but also\nbecause the facts are so much more verifiable in the one case than in\nthe other. They can so much more easily be found out to be true or\nnot. It has been sought of late, in a well-known quarter, to bring all\nreligion to this test--and the test is not an unfair one if\nlegitimately applied. But it is not legitimate to test spiritual facts\nsimply as we test natural facts; such facts, for example, as that fire\nburns, or that a stone thrown from the hand falls to the ground. The\npresumption of all supernatural religion is that there is a spiritual\nor supernatural sphere, as real and true as the natural sphere in\nwhich we continually live and move; and the facts which belong to this\nsphere must be tested within it. Morality and moral conditions may be\nso far verified from without. If we do wrong we shall finally find\nourselves in the wrong; and that there is a \"Power not ourselves which\nmakes for righteousness\" and which will not allow us to rest in wrong.\nThis constantly verified experience of a kingdom of righteousness is a\nvaluable basis of morality. But religion could not live or nourish\nitself within such limits. It must rest, not merely on certain facts\nof divine order, but on such personal relations as are ever uppermost\nin the mind of St Paul, and are so clearly before him in this very\npassage. Moreover, the higher experience which reveals to us a Power\nof righteousness in the world, no less reveals to us the living\npersonal character of this Power. Shut out conscience as a true source\nof knowledge, and the very idea of righteousness will disappear with\nit--there will be nothing to fall back upon but the combinations of\nintelligence, and such religion as may be got therefrom; admit\nconscience, and its verifying force transcends a mere order or\nimpersonal power of righteousness. It places us in front of a living\nSpirit who not only governs us righteously and makes us feel our\nwrong-doing, but who is continually educating us and raising us to His\nown likeness of love and blessedness. We realise not merely that there\nis a law of good in the world, but a Holy Will that loves good and\nhates evil, and against whom all our sins are offences in the sense of\nthe Psalmist: \"Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this\nevil in Thy sight.\"\n\nSo much as this, we say, may be realised--this consciousness of sin on\nthe one hand, and of a living Righteousness and Love far more powerful\nthan our sins, and able to save us from them. These roots of religion\nare deeply planted in human nature. They answer to its highest\nexperiences. The purest and noblest natures in whom all the impulses\nof a comprehensive humanity have been strongest, have felt and owned\nthem. The missionary preacher, wherever he has gone--to the rude\ntribes of Africa, or the cultured representatives of an ancient\ncivilisation--has appealed to them, and found a verifying response to\nhis preaching. St Paul, whether he spoke to Jew, or Greek, or Roman,\nfound the same voices of religious experience echoing to his call--the\nsame burden of sin lying on human hearts--the same cry from their\ndepths, \"What must I do to be saved?\" It is not necessary to maintain\nthat these elements of the Christian religion are verifiable in every\nexperience. It is enough to say that there is that in the Gospel which\naddresses all hearts in which spiritual thoughtfulness and life have\nnot entirely died out. It lays hold of the common heart. It melts with\na strange power the highest minds. Look over a vast audience; travel\nto distant lands; communicate with your fellow-creatures\nanywhere,--and you feel that you can reach them, and for the most part\ntouch them, by the story of the Gospel--by the fact of a Father in\nheaven, and a Saviour sent from heaven, \"that whosoever believeth in\nHim should not perish, but have eternal life.\"[9] Beneath all\ndifferences of condition, of intellect, of culture, there is a common\nsoul which the Gospel reaches, and which nothing else in the same\nmanner reaches.\n\nNow, in contrast to all this, the contents of any special theology\ncommend themselves to a comparatively few minds. And such hold as\nthey have over these minds is for the most part traditionary and\nauthoritative, not rational or intelligent. There can be no vital\nexperience of theological definitions, and no verification of them,\nexcept in the few minds who have really examined them, and brought\nthem into the light of their own intelligence. This must always be\nthe work of a few--of what are called schools of thought, here and\nthere. It is only the judgment of the learned or thoughtful\ntheologian that is really of any value on a theological question.\nOthers may assent or dissent. He alone knows the conditions of the\nquestion and its possible solution. Of all the absurdities that have\ncome from the confusion of religion and theology, none is more absurd\nor more general than the idea that one opinion on a theological\nquestion--any more than on a question of natural science--is as good\nas another. The opinion of the ignorant, of the unthoughtful, of the\nundisciplined in Christian learning, is simply of no value whatever\nwhere the question involves--as it may be said every theological\nquestion involves--knowledge, thought, and scholarship. The mere\nnecessity of such qualities for working the theological sphere, and\nturning it to any account, places it quite apart from the religious\nsphere. The one belongs to the common life of humanity, the other to\nthe school of the prophets. The one is for you and for me, and for\nall human beings; the other is for the expert--the theologian--who\nhas weighed difficulties and who understands them, if he has not\nsolved them.\n\n\nIII. But again, religion differs from theology in the comparative\nuniformity of its results. The ideal of religion is almost everywhere\nthe same. \"To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with God.\"[10]\n\"Pure religion\" (or pure religious service) \"and undefiled, before God\nand the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their\naffliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.\"[11] Where\nis it not always the true, even if not the prevalent type of religion,\nto be good and pure, and to approve the things that are excellent?\n\"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever\nthings are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are\nlovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue,\nand if there be any praise, think on these things\" and do them, says\nthe apostle,[12] \"and the God of peace shall be with you.\" Christians\ndiffer like others in intellect, disposition, and temperament. They\ndiffer also so far, but never in the same degree, in spiritual\ncondition and character. To be a Christian is in all cases to be saved\nfrom guilt, to be sustained by faith, to be cleansed by divine\ninspiration, to depart from iniquity. There may be, and must be, very\nvarying degrees of faith, hope, and charity; but no Christian can be\nhard in heart, or impure in mind, or selfish in character. With much\nto make us humble in the history of the Christian Church, and many\nfaults to deplore in the most conspicuous Christian men, the same\ntypes of divine excellences yet meet us everywhere as we look along\nthe line of the Christian centuries--the heroism of a St Paul, an\nIgnatius, an Origen, an Athanasius, a Bernard, a Luther, a Calvin, a\nChalmers, a Livingstone; the tender and devout affectionateness of a\nMary, a Perpetua, a Monica; the enduring patience and self-denial of\nan Elizabeth of Hungary, a Mrs Hutcheson, a Mrs Fry; the beautiful\nholiness of a St John, a St Francis, a Fenelon, a Herbert, a Leighton.\nUnder the most various influences, and the most diverse types of\ndoctrine, the same fruits of the Spirit constantly appear--\"Love, joy,\npeace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,\ntemperance.\"[13]\n\nAll this sameness in diversity disappears when we turn to theology.\nThe differences in this case are radical. They are not diversities of\ngifts with the same spirit, but fundamental antagonisms of thought. As\nsome men are said to be born Platonists, and some Aristotelians, so\nsome are born Augustinians, and some Pelagians or Arminians. These\nnames have been strangely identified with true or false views of\nChristianity. What they really denote is diverse modes of Christian\nthinking, diverse tendencies of the Christian intellect, which repeat\nthemselves by a law of nature. It is no more possible to make men\nthink alike in theology than in anything else where the facts are\ncomplicated and the conclusions necessarily fallible. The history of\ntheology is a history of \"variations;\" not indeed, as some have\nmaintained, without an inner principle of movement, but with a\nconstant repetition of oppositions underlying its necessary\ndevelopment. The same, contrasts continually appear throughout its\ncourse, and seem never to wear themselves out. From the beginning\nthere has always been the broader and the narrower type of thought--a\nSt Paul and St John, as well as a St Peter and St James; the doctrine\nwhich leans to the works, and the doctrine which leans to grace; the\nmilder and the severer interpretations of human nature and of the\ndivine dealings with it--a Clement of Alexandria, an Origen and a\nChrysostom, as well as a Tertullian, an Augustine, and a Cyril of\nAlexandria, an Erasmus no less than a Luther, a Castalio as well as a\nCalvin, a Frederick Robertson as well as a John Newman. Look at these\nmen and many others equally significant on the spiritual side as they\nlook to God, or as they work for men, how much do they resemble one\nanother! The same divine life stirs in them all. Who will undertake to\nsettle which is the truer Christian? But look at them on the\nintellectual side and they are hopelessly disunited. They lead rival\nforces in the march of Christian thought--forces which may yet find a\npoint of conciliation, and which may not be so widely opposed as they\nseem, but whose present attitude is one of obvious hostility. Men may\nmeet in common worship and in common work, and find themselves at one.\nThe same faith may breathe in their prayers, and the same love fire\ntheir hearts. But men who think can never be at one in their thoughts\non the great subjects of the Christian revelation. They may own the\nsame Lord, and recognise and reverence the same types of Christian\ncharacter, but they will differ so soon as they begin to define their\nnotions of the Divine, and draw conclusions from the researches either\nof ancient or of modern theology. Of all the false dreams that have\never haunted humanity, none is more false than the dream of catholic\nunity in this sense. It vanishes in the very effort to grasp it, and\nthe old fissures appear within the most carefully compacted structures\nof dogma.\n\nReligion, therefore, is not to be confounded with theology, with\nschemes of Christian thought--nor, for that part of the matter, with\nschemes of Christian order. It is not to be found in any set of\nopinions or in any special ritual of worship. The difficulties of\nmodern theology, the theories of modern science (when they are really\nscientific and do not go beyond ascertained facts and their laws),\nhave little or nothing to do with religion. Let the age of the earth\nbe what it may (we shall be very grateful to the British Association,\nor any other association, when it has settled for us how old the earth\nis, and how long man has been upon the face of it); let man spring in\nhis physical system from some lower phase of life; let the Bible be\nresolved into its constituent sources by the power of modern analysis,\nand our views of it greatly change, as indeed they are rapidly\nchanging,--all this does not change or destroy in one iota the\nspiritual life that throbs at the heart of humanity, and that\nwitnesses to a Spiritual Life above. No science, truly so-called, can\never touch this or destroy it, for the simple reason that its work is\noutside the spiritual or religious sphere altogether. Scientific\npresumption may suggest the delusiveness of this sphere, just as in\nformer times religious presumption sought to restrain the inquiries of\nscience. It may, when it becomes ribald with a fanaticism far worse\nthan any fanaticism of religion, assail and ridicule the hopes which,\namidst much weakness, have made men noble for more than eighteen\nChristian centuries. But science has no voice beyond its own province.\nThe weakest and the simplest soul, strong in the consciousness of the\ndivine within and above it, may withstand its most powerful assaults.\nThe shadows of doubt may cover us, and we may see no light. The\ndifficulties of modern speculation may overwhelm us, and we may find\nno issue from them. If we wait till we have solved these difficulties\nand cleared away the darkness, we may wait for ever. If your religion\nis made to depend upon such matters, then I do not know what to say to\nyou in a time like this. I cannot counsel you to shut your minds\nagainst any knowledge. I have no ready answers to your questions, no\nshort and easy method with modern scepticism. Inquiry must have its\ncourse in theology as in everything else. It is fatal to intelligence\nto talk of an infallible Church, and of all free thought in reference\nto religion as deadly rationalism to be shunned. Not to be rational in\nreligion as in everything else is simply to be foolish, and to throw\nyourself into the arms of the first authority that is able to hold\nyou. In this as in other respects you must \"work out your own\nsalvation with fear and trembling,\" remembering that it is \"God which\nworketh in you.\" You must examine your own hearts; you must try\nyourselves whether there be in you the roots of the divine life. If\nyou do not find sin in your hearts and Christ also there as the\nSaviour from sin, then you will find Him nowhere. But if you find Him\nthere, Christ within you as He was within St. Paul,--your\nrighteousness, your life, your strength in weakness, your light in\ndarkness, the \"hope of glory\" within you, as He was all this to the\nthoughtful and much-tried apostle,--then you will accept difficulties\nand doubts, and even the despairing darkness of some intellectual\nmoments, when the very foundations seem to give way--as you accept\nother trials; and looking humbly for higher light, you will patiently\nwait for it, until the day dawn and the shadows flee away.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Luke, iv. 18.\n\n[2] Matthew, xi. 28.\n\n[3] Matthew, vii. 11.\n\n[4] Mr Gladstone, 'Contemporary Review,' July, p. 194.\n\n[5] James, ii. 24.\n\n[6] Acts, xviii. 24, 25.\n\n[7] Acts, xix. 2.\n\n[8] Luke, viii. 15.\n\n[9] John, iii. 15.\n\n[10] Micah, vi. 8.\n\n[11] James, i. 27.\n\n[12] Philippians, iv. 8, 9.\n\n[13] Galatians, v. 22, 23.\n\n\nPRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS.","title":"Religion and Theology: A Sermon for the Times: Preached in the Parish Church of Crathie, fifth September and in the College Church, St Andrews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5651}