{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29054/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29054","id":"gutenberg_29054","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29054","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Unitarianism"],"text":"Orthodoxy:\n\n                          Its Truths And Errors\n\n                                    By\n\n                           James Freeman Clarke\n\n\u201cSoleo enim in allena castra transire, non tanquam transfuga, sed tanquam\n                   explorator.\u201d\u2014SENECA, _Epistol\u00e6_, 2.\n\n  \u201cFiat lux. Cupio refelli, ubi aberrarim; nihil majus, nihil aliud quam\n            veritatem efflagito.\u201d\u2014THOMAS BURNET, _Arch. Phil._\n\n                           Fourteenth Edition.\n\n                                 Boston:\n\n                     American Unitarian Association.\n\n                                  1880.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface.\nChapter I. Introduction.\n   \u00a7 1. Object and Character of this Book.\n   \u00a7 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward.\n   \u00a7 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief.\n   \u00a7 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections.\n   \u00a7 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections.\n   \u00a7 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all.\n   \u00a7 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found.\n   \u00a7 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions.\n   \u00a7 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great Doctrinal Systems.\n   \u00a7 10. Importance of this Distinction.\n   \u00a7 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England.\nChapter II. The Principle And Idea Of Orthodoxy Stated And Examined.\n   \u00a7 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined.\n   \u00a7 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy.\n   \u00a7 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority.\n   \u00a7 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful.\n   \u00a7 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads to Rome.\n   \u00a7 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument.\n   \u00a7 7. The three Tendencies in the Church.\n   \u00a7 8. The Party of Works.\n   \u00a7 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity.\n   \u00a7 10. The Faith Party in Religion.\n   \u00a7 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea.\n   \u00a7 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle.\n   \u00a7 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion.\nChapter III. The Orthodox Idea Of Natural And Revealed Religion; Or,\nNaturalism And Supernaturalism.\n   \u00a7 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural.\n   \u00a7 2. The Creation Supernatural.\n   \u00a7 3. The Question stated.\n   \u00a7 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic\n   Creations.\n   \u00a7 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom.\n   \u00a7 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of Law.\n   \u00a7 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events.\n   \u00a7 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism.\n   \u00a7 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.\n   \u00a7 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism\u2014Gulf between\n   Christianity and all other Religions.\n   \u00a7 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural by\n   being made hostile to the Nature of Man.\nChapter IV. Truths And Errors As Regards Miracles.\n   \u00a7 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles.\n   \u00a7 2. The Definition of a Miracle.\n   \u00a7 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible.\n   \u00a7 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles.\n   \u00a7 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity.\n   \u00a7 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as Historic\n   Facts.\n   \u00a7 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History.\n   \u00a7 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections.\n   \u00a7 9. Final Result of this Examination.\nChapter V. Orthodox Idea Of The Inspiration And Authority Of The Bible.\n   \u00a7 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the Bible.\n   \u00a7 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of Mankind.\n   \u00a7 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration.\n   \u00a7 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration.\n   \u00a7 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration.\n   \u00a7 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament\n   Scriptures.\n   \u00a7 7. Authority of the Scriptures.\n   \u00a7 8. The Christian Prepossession.\n   \u00a7 9. Conclusion.\nChapter VI. Orthodox Idea Of Sin, As Depravity And As Guilt.\n   \u00a7 1. The Question stated.\n   \u00a7 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, Natural\n   Depravity, Total Depravity, Inability.\n   \u00a7 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or\n   otherwise.\n   \u00a7 4. Sin as Disease.\n   \u00a7 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. Their Truth\n   and Error.\n   \u00a7 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21.\n   \u00a7 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability.\n   \u00a7 8. Proof Texts.\n   \u00a7 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.\n   \u00a7 10. Ability and Inability.\n   \u00a7 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability.\n   \u00a7 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning Human\n   Sinfulness.\nChapter VII. Conversion And Regeneration.\n   \u00a7 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man can be\n   found.\n   \u00a7 2. Crisis and Development.\n   \u00a7 3. Nature of the Change.\n   \u00a7 4. Its Reality and Importance.\n   \u00a7 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox Difficulty.\n   \u00a7 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration.\n   \u00a7 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not two.\n   \u00a7 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration.\n   \u00a7 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church.\n   \u00a7 10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and be converted; that\n   is, to make it his Purpose to obey God in all Things.\n   \u00a7 11. Regeneration is God\u2019s Work in the Soul. Examination of the\n   Classical Passage, or conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus.\n   \u00a7 12. Evidences of Regeneration.\nChapter VIII. The Orthodox Idea Of The Son Of God.\n   \u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated.\n   \u00a7 2. This Doctrine gradually developed.\n   \u00a7 3. Unitarian Objections.\n   \u00a7 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement.\n   \u00a7 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism.\nChapter IX. Justification By Faith.\n   \u00a7 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete.\n   \u00a7 2. Its Meaning and Importance.\n   \u00a7 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience.\n   \u00a7 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul.\n   \u00a7 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness.\n   \u00a7 6. Method in Christianity.\n   \u00a7 7. Result.\n   \u00a7 8. Its History in the Church.\n   \u00a7 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification\n   by Faith.\n   \u00a7 10. Errors of Liberal Christians.\nChapter X. Orthodox Idea Of The Atonement.\n   \u00a7 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement.\n   \u00a7 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture.\n   \u00a7 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages.\n   \u00a7 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language of the New\n   Testament.\n   \u00a7 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement\u2014warlike, legal, and\n   governmental.\n   \u00a7 7. Impression made by Christ\u2019s Death on the Minds of his Disciples.\n   First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n   \u00a7 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education.\n   \u00a7 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some Satisfaction in\n   order to our Forgiveness.\n   \u00a7 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God.\n   \u00a7 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal.\n   \u00a7 12. This Law illustrated from History\u2014in the Death of Socrates, Joan\n   of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln.\n   \u00a7 13. Dr. Bushnell\u2019s View of the Atonement.\n   \u00a7 14. Results of this Discussion.\nChapter XI. Calling, Election, And Reprobation.\n   \u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom.\n   \u00a7 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination.\n   \u00a7 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven hereafter.\n   How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a Chosen People.\n   \u00a7 6. How other Nations were elected and called.\n   \u00a7 7. How different Denominations are elected.\n   \u00a7 8. How Individuals are elected.\n   \u00a7 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ.\n   \u00a7 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election.\nChapter XII. Immortality And The Resurrection.\n   \u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the Instinctive\n   Consciousness, and Scripture.\n   \u00a7 3. The Three Principal Views of Death\u2014the Pagan, Jewish, and\n   Christian.\n   \u00a7 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not endless Future\n   Existence, but present Spiritual Life.\n   \u00a7 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and not a\n   Rising again.\n   \u00a7 6. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testament, not a\n   Rising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into a higher Body.\nChapter XIII. Christ\u2019s Coming, Usually Called The \u201cSecond Coming,\u201d And\nChrist The Judge Of The World.\n   \u00a7 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly outward, not\n   local, nor material.\n   \u00a7 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture.\n   \u00a7 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ?\n   \u00a7 4. Examination of the Account of Christ\u2019s Coming given by Jesus in\n   Matthew (chapters 24-26).\n   \u00a7 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different Times.\n   \u00a7 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the Talents, to\n   Christ\u2019s Coming.\n   \u00a7 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, in Matt.\n   ch. 25, to his Coming.\n   \u00a7 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World.\n   \u00a7 9. When Christ\u2019s Judgment takes Place.\n   \u00a7 10. Paul\u2019s View of the Judgment by Christ.\n   \u00a7 11. Final Result.\nChapter XIV. Eternal Punishment, Annihilation, Universal Restoration.\n   \u00a7 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent\n   hereafter.\n   \u00a7 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by the Orthodox at\n   the Present Time.\n   \u00a7 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, in Regard\n   to this Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God.\n   \u00a7 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love of God.\n   \u00a7 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting\n   Punishment.\n   \u00a7 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture.\n   \u00a7 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment.\n   \u00a7 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation.\n   \u00a7 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration.\nChapter XV. The Christian Church.\n   \u00a7 1. The Question stated.\n   \u00a7 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church\u2014Roman Catholic and High Church.\n   \u00a7 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church.\n   \u00a7 4. Christ\u2019s Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven.\n   \u00a7 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church.\n   \u00a7 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed.\n   \u00a7 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was.\n   \u00a7 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is.\n   \u00a7 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be.\n   \u00a7 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be.\nChapter XVI. The Trinity.\n   \u00a7 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 2. History of the Doctrine.\n   \u00a7 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity.\n   \u00a7 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of Things.\n   \u00a7 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture.\n   \u00a7 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood.\nAppendix. Critical Notices.\n   \u00a7 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer and\n   Henry L. Mansel.\n   \u00a7 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen.\n   \u00a7 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor Shedd.\n   \u00a7 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah Adams and Dr.\n   J. P. Thompson.\n   \u00a7 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe Protestant Reformation has its Principle and its Method. Its Principle\nis Salvation by Faith, not by Sacraments. Its Method is Private Judgment,\nnot Church Authority. But private judgment generates authority; authority,\nfirst legitimate, that of knowledge, grows into the illegitimate authority\nof prescription, calling itself Orthodoxy. Then Private Judgment comes\nforth again to criticise and reform. It thus becomes the duty of each\nindividual to judge the Church; and out of innumerable individual\njudgments the insight of the Church is kept living and progressive. We\ncontribute one such private judgment; not, we trust, in conceit, but in\nthe hope of provoking other minds to further examinations.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Object and Character of this Book.\n\n\nThe peculiarity of the book now offered to the religious public by the\ngovernment of the American Unitarian Association, is this\u2014that it is an\nhonest attempt to find and state the truth contained in the doctrines of\ntheir opponents. It is, perhaps, something new for an association\nestablished to defend certain theological opinions, and baptized with a\nspecial theological name, to publish a work intended to do justice to\nhostile theories. The too usual course of each sect has been, through all\nits organs, to attack, denounce, undervalue, and vilify the positions\ntaken by its antagonists. This has been considered as only an honest zeal\nfor truth. The consequence has been, that no department of literature has\nbeen so unchristian in its tone and temper as that of sectarian\ncontroversy. Political journals heap abuse on their opponents, in the\ninterest of their party. But though more noisy than the theological\npartisans, they are by no means so cold, hard, or unrelenting. Party\nspirit, compared with sectarian spirit, seems rather mild.(1)\n\nIt is true that theologians do not now use in controversy the epithets\nwhich were formerly universal. We have grown more civil in our language\nthan were our fathers. It is also true that we often meet with theological\ndiscussions conducted in a spirit of justice towards one\u2019s opponents.(2)\nBut to say, \u201cFas est ab hoste _doceri_,\u201d is a step as yet beyond the\nability of most controversialists. To admit that your antagonist may have\nseen some truth not visible to yourself, and to read his work in this\nsense,\u2014in order to learn, and not merely to confute,\u2014is not yet common.\n\nThis we are about to undertake in the present treatise. We stand in the\nUnitarian position, but shall endeavor to see if there be not some truths\nin Orthodoxy which Unitarians have not yet adequately recognized. To use\nthe language of our motto\u2014we come \u201cnot as deserters, but as explorers\u201d\ninto the camp of Orthodoxy. We are satisfied with our Unitarian position,\nas a stand-point from which to survey that of others. And especially are\nwe grateful to it, since it encourages us by all its traditions, by all\nits ideas and principles, to look _after_ as well as before\u2014to see if\nthere be no truth behind us which we have dropped in our hasty advance, as\nwell as truth beyond us to which we have not yet attained.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward.\n\n\nSuch a study as this may be undertaken in the interest of true progress,\nas well as that of honest inquiry. For what so frequently checks progress,\ncauses its advocates to falter, and produces what we call a reaction\ntowards the old doctrines, as something shallow in the reform itself?\nChristians have relapsed into Judaism, Protestants into Romanism,\nUnitarians into Orthodoxy\u2014because something true and good in the old\nsystem had dropped out of the new, and attracted the converts back to\ntheir old home. All true progress is expressed in the saying of Jesus, \u201cI\nhave not come to destroy, but to fulfil.\u201d The old system cannot pass away\nuntil all its truths are _fulfilled_, by being taken up into the new\nsystem in a higher form. Judaism will not pass away till it is fulfilled\nin Christianity\u2014the Roman Catholic Church will not pass away till it is\nfulfilled in Protestantism\u2014Orthodoxy will not pass away till it is\nfulfilled by Rational Christianity. Judaism continues as a standing\nprotest, on behalf of the unity of God, against Trinitarianism.\n\nAnd yet we believe that, in the religious progress of the race,\nChristianity is an advance on Judaism, Protestant Christianity an advance\non Roman Catholic Christianity, and Liberal and Rational Christianity an\nadvance on Church Orthodoxy. But all such advances are subject to reaction\nand relapse. Reaction differs from relapse in this, that it is an\noscillation, not a fall. Reaction is the backward swing of the wave, which\nwill presently return, going farther forward than before. Relapse is the\nfall of the tide, which leaves the ships aground, and the beach uncovered.\nReaction is going back to recover some substantial truth, left behind in a\ntoo hasty advance. Relapse is falling back into the old forms, an entire\napostasy from the higher stand-point to the lower, from want of strength\nto maintain one\u2019s self in the advance.\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews deserves especial study by those who desire to\nunderstand the philosophy of intellectual and spiritual progress. It was\nwritten to counteract a tendency among the Jewish Christians to relapse\ninto Judaism. These Christians missed the antiquity, the ceremony, the\nauthority of the old ritual. Their state of mind resembled that of the\nextreme High Church party in the Church of England, who are usually called\nPuseyites. They were not apostates or renegades, but backsliders. They\nwere always lamenting the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism, in the\nabsence of a priesthood, festival, sacrifices. It hardly seemed to them a\nchurch at all. The Galatians, to whom Paul wrote, had actually gone over\nand accepted Jewish Christianity in the place of Christianity in its\nsimplicity and purity. The Hebrews had not gone over, but were looking\nthat way. Therefore the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews endeavors to\nshow them that all which was really good in the Jewish priesthood, temple,\nritual, was represented in Christianity in a higher form. It had been\nfulfilled in the New Covenant. Nothing real and good can pass away till it\nis fulfilled in something better. Thus the Roman Catholic Church stands,\nas a constant proof that Protestant Christianity yet lacks some important\nChristian element which Romanism possesses. Orthodoxy, confuted, as we\nsuppose, over and over again, by the most logical arguments, stands firm,\nand goes forward.\n\nLet us, then, re\u00ebxamine the positions of our antagonists\u2014not now merely in\norder to find the weak places in their line of battle, but to discover the\nstrong ones. Let us see if there be any essential, substantial truth in\nthis venerable system, to which we have as yet not done justice. If there\nbe, justice and progress will both be served by finding and declaring it.\n\nWe ask, What are the substantial truths, and what the formal errors, of\nOrthodoxy? But what do we mean by these terms?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief.\n\n\nBy Orthodoxy in general is meant the right system of belief. This is the\ndictionary definition. But as the world and the Church differ as to\n_which_ is the right system of belief\u2014as there are a vast multitude of\nsystems\u2014and as all sects and parties, and all men, believe the system they\nthemselves hold to be the right belief\u2014Orthodoxy, in this sense of right\nbelief, means nothing. In this sense there are as many orthodoxies as\nthere are believers, for no two men, even in the same Church, think\nexactly alike. Unless, therefore, we have some _further_ test, by which to\nfind out _which_ orthodoxy, among all these orthodoxies, is the true\northodoxy\u2014we accomplish little by giving to any one system that name.\n\nHere, for instance, in New England, we have a system of belief which goes\nby the name of Orthodoxy; which, however, is considered very heterodox\n_out_ of New England. The man who is thought sound by Andover is\nconsidered very unsound by Princeton. The General Assembly of the\nPresbyterian Church, in 1837, cut off four synods, containing some forty\nthousand members, because they were supposed not to be sound in doctrinal\nbelief. But these excommunicated synods formed a New School Presbyterian\nChurch, having its own orthodoxy. Andover considers itself more orthodox\nthan Cambridge; but the New School Presbyterians think themselves more\northodox than Andover\u2014the Old School Presbyterians think themselves more\northodox than the New School. But the most orthodox Protestant is called a\nheretic by the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics, again, are called\nheretics by the Greek Church. So that orthodoxy, in this sense, seems an\nimpossible thing\u2014something which, if it exists, can never be certainly\nascertained.\n\nWhenever a body of believers assumes the name of Orthodox, intending\nthereby that they are right, and their opponents wrong, they evidently\nassume the very point in dispute. They commit the fallacy called in logic\na _petitio principii_. They beg the question, instead of discussing it.\nThey put will in the place of reason. They say, in the very title page of\ntheir book, in the first step of their argument, that their book is\nsatisfactory and their argument conclusive. It would be more modest to\nwait till the discussion is concluded before they proceed thus to state\nwhat the conclusion is. This is an arrogance like that which the Church of\nRome commits, in calling itself Catholic or Universal, while excluding\nmore than half of Christendom from its communion.(3)\n\nA political party does not offer such an affront to its opponents. It may\nname itself Democratic, Republican, Federal; it may call itself the\nConservative party, or that of Reform. By these titles it indicates its\nleading idea\u2014it signifies that it bears the standard of reform, or that it\nstands by the old institutions of the country. But no political party ever\ntakes a name signifying that it is all right and its opponents all wrong.\nThis assumption was left to religious sects, and to those who consider\nhumility the foundation of all the virtues.\n\nThe term \u201cEvangelical\u201d is, perhaps, not as objectionable as Orthodox,\nthough it carries with it a similar slur on those of other beliefs. It\nsays, \u201cWe are they who believe the gospel of Christ; those who differ from\nus do not believe it.\u201d It is like the assumption by some of the\nCorinthians of the exclusive name of Christians. \u201cWe are of Christ,\u201d said\nthey\u2014meaning that the followers of Paul and Apollos were not so.\n\nProbably the better part of those who take the name of Orthodox, or\nEvangelical, intend no such arrogance. All they want is some word by which\nto distinguish themselves from Unitarians, Universalists, &c. They might\nsay, \u201cWe have as good a right to complain of your calling yourselves\n\u2018Rational Christians\u2019 or \u2018Liberal Christians\u2019\u2014assuming thereby that others\nare not rational or liberal. You mean no such assumption, perhaps; neither\ndo we when we call ourselves \u2018Orthodox\u2019 or \u2018Evangelical.\u2019 When we can find\nanother term, better than these, by which to express the difference\nbetween us, we will use it. We do not intend by using these words to\nforeclose argument or to beg the question. We do not mean by Orthodoxy,\nright belief; but only a certain well-known form of doctrine.\u201d\n\nThis is all well. Yet not quite well\u2014since we have had occasion to notice\nthe surprise and disgust felt by those who had called themselves \u201cThe\nOrthodox,\u201d in finding themselves in a community where others had assumed\nthat title, and refused to them any share in it. Therefore it is well to\nemphasize the declaration that Orthodoxy in the sense of \u201cright belief\u201d is\nan unmeaning expression, signifying nothing.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections.\n\n\nThe majority, in any particular place, is apt to call itself orthodox, and\nto call its opponents heretics. But the majority in one place may be the\nminority in another. The majority in Massachusetts is the minority in\nVirginia. The majority in England is the minority in Rome or\nConstantinople. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of all England,\ngave Mr. Carzon a letter of introduction to the Patriarch of\nConstantinople, the head of the Greek Church. But the Patriarch had never\nheard of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and inquired, \u201cWho is he?\u201d\n\nNevertheless, it is a very common argument that such and such a doctrine,\nbeing held by the great majority of Christians, must necessarily be true.\nThus it is said that since the great majority of Christians believe the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, that doctrine must be true. \u201cIs it possible,\u201d it\nis said, \u201cthat the great majority of Christian believers should be now,\nand have been so long, left in error on such a fundamental doctrine as\nthis?\u201d Even so intelligent a man as Dr. Huntington seems to have been\ngreatly influenced by this argument in becoming a Trinitarian. The same\nargument has carried many Protestants into the Roman Catholic Church. And,\nno doubt, there is a truth in the argument\u2014a truth, indeed, which is\nimplied all through the present work\u2014that doctrines thus held by great\nmultitudes during long periods cannot be wholly false. But it by no means\nproves them to be wholly true. Otherwise, truth would change as the\nmajorities change. In one century the Arians had the majority; and\nArianism, therefore, in that century would have been true. Moreover, most\nof those who adhere to a doctrine have not examined it, and do not have\nany defined opinion concerning it. They accept it, as it is taught them,\nwithout reflection. And again, most truths are, at first, in a minority of\none. Christianity, in the first century, was in a very small minority.\nProtestantism, in the time of Luther, was all in the brain and heart of\none man. To assume, therefore, that Orthodoxy, or the true belief, is that\nof the majority, is to forbid all progress, to denounce all new truth, and\nto resist the revelation and inspiration of God, until it has conquered\nfor itself the support of the majority of mankind. According to this\nprinciple, as Christianity is still in a minority as compared with\npaganism, we ought all to become followers of Boodh. Such a view cannot\nbear a moment\u2019s serious examination. Every prophet, sage, martyr, and\nheroic champion of truth has spent his life and won the admiration and\ngrateful love of the world by opposing the majority in behalf of some\nneglected or unpopular truth.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections.\n\n\nSome people think that Orthodoxy means the _oldest_ doctrine, and that if\nthey can only find out what doctrine was believed by the Church in the\nfirst century, they shall have the true orthodox doctrine. But the early\nChurch held some opinions which all now believe to be false. They\nbelieved, for instance, that Jesus was to return visibly, in that age, and\nset up his church in person, and reign in the world in outward form\u2014a\nthing which did not take place. They therefore believed in the early\nchurch something which was not true\u2014consequently what _they_ believed\ncannot be a certain test of Orthodoxy.\n\nThe High Church party in the Church of England, in defending themselves\nagainst the Roman Catholic argument from antiquity, have appealed to a\nhigher antiquity, and established themselves on the supposed faith of the\nfirst three centuries. But Isaac Taylor, in his \u201cAncient Christianity,\u201d\nhas sufficiently shown that during no period in those early centuries was\nanything like modern orthodoxy satisfactorily established.(4) The Church\ndoctrine was developed gradually during a long period of debate and\ncontroversy. The Christology of the Church was elaborated amid the fierce\nconflicts of Arians and Athanasians, Monothelites and Monophysites,\nNestorians and Eutychians. The anthropology of the Church was hammered and\nbeaten into shape by the powerful arm of Augustine and his successors, on\nthe anvils of the fifth century, amid the fiery disputes of Pelagians,\nSemi-Pelagians, and their opponents.\n\nMany doctrines generally believed in the early church are universally\nrejected now. The doctrine of chiliasm, or the millennial reign of Christ\non earth; the doctrine of the under world, or Hades, where all souls went\nafter death; the doctrine of the atonement made by Christ to the\ndevil,\u2014such were some of the prevailing views held in the early ages of\nthe Church. The oldest doctrine is not certainly the truest; or, as\nTheodore Parker once said to a priest in Rome, who told him that the\nprimacy of Peter was asserted in the second century, \u201cA lie is no better\nbecause it is an old one.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all.\n\n\nBut, it may be said, if Orthodoxy does not mean the absolutely right\nsystem of belief, nor the system held by the majority, nor the oldest\ndoctrine of the Church, it may, nevertheless, mean the _essential_ truths\nheld in all Christian Churches, in all ages and times; in short, according\nto the ancient formula\u2014that which has been believed always, by all\npersons, and everywhere\u2014\u201c_quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique_.\u201d\n\nIn this sense no one would object to Orthodoxy. Only make your Catholicity\nlarge enough to include every one, and who would not be a Catholic? But\nthis famous definition, if it be strictly taken, seems as much too large\nas the others are too narrow. If you only admit to be orthodox what all\nChristian persons have believed, then the Trinity ceases to be orthodox;\nfor many, in all ages, have disbelieved it. Eternal punishment is not\northodox, for that, too, has often been denied in the Church. Sacraments\nare not orthodox, for the Quakers have rejected them. The resurrection is\nnot orthodox, for there were some Christians in the Church at Corinth who\nsaid there was no resurrection of the dead.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found.\n\n\nAny attempt, therefore, rigidly to define Orthodoxy, destroys it. Regarded\nas a precise statement, in a fixed or definite form, it is an\nimpossibility. There is no such thing, and never has been. No creed ever\nmade satisfied even the majority. How, indeed, can any statement\nproceeding from the human brain be an adequate and permanent expression of\neternal truth? Even the apostle says, \u201cI know in part, and I prophesy in\npart, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part\nshall be done away.\u201d The apostle declares that his sight of truth is only\npartial, and that everything partial is imperfect, and that everything\nimperfect must pass away; so that our present knowledge of truth is\ntransient. \u201cWhether there be knowledge, it shall pass away.\u201d If the\napostle Paul declared that he had not the power of making a perfect and\npermanent statement of truth, how can we believe that any one else can\never do it?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions.\n\n\nIf, therefore, every doctrinal statement is changeable and changing; if\nthe history of opinions shows the rise and fall of creeds,\u2014one after the\nother becoming dominant, and then passing away; if no formula has ever\ngained the universal assent of Christendom; if the oldest creeds contained\nerrors now universally rejected,\u2014what then remains as Orthodoxy? We\nanswer, no one statement, but something underlying all statements\u2014no one\nsystem of theology, but certain convictions, perhaps, pervading all the\nruling systems. Man\u2019s mind, capable of insight, sees with the inward eye\nthe same great spiritual realities, just as with his outward eye he sees\nthe same landscape, sky, ocean. According to the purity and force of his\ninsight, and the depth of his experience, he sees the same truth. There is\none truth, but many ways of stating it\u2014one spirit, but many forms.\n\n\n    \u201cThe one remains, the many change and pass;\n    Heaven\u2019s light forever shines, earth\u2019s shadows fly.\u201d\n\n\nAre there any such great convictions underlying and informing all the\ncreeds? I think there are. I think, for example, it has always been\nbelieved in the Church that in some sense man is a sinner, and in some\nsense Christ is a Saviour from sin; that Christianity is in some way a\nsupernatural revelation of the divine will and love; that Scripture is\nsomehow an inspired book, and has authority over our belief and life; that\nthere is a Church, composed of disciples of Jesus, whose work in the world\nis to aid him in saving the lost and helping the fallen and wretched; that\nsomehow man needs to be changed from his natural state into a higher\nstate, and to begin a new life, in order to see God; that there is such a\nthing as heaven, and such a thing as hell; that those who love God and man\nbelong to heaven, and that the selfish and sensual belong to hell. These\nideas have been the essential ideas of the Church, and constitute the\nessence of its Orthodoxy.\n\nOrthodoxy, then, is not any definite creed, or statement of truth. It is\nnot of the letter, but of the spirit. The letter kills. Consequently those\nwho cling to the letter of Orthodoxy kill its spirit. The greatest enemy\nof Orthodoxy is dead Orthodoxy. The old statements retained after their\nlife is gone,\u2014the old phrases made Shibboleths by which truth is to be\nforever tested,\u2014these gradually make the whole system seem false to the\nadvancing intellect of the human race. Then heresies come up, just as\nprovidential, and just as necessary, as Orthodoxy, to compel the Church to\nmake restatements of the eternal truth. Heresies, in this sense, are as\ntrue as Orthodoxy, and make part, indeed, of a higher Orthodoxy.\n\nBy Orthodoxy, therefore, we do not mean the opinions held by any\nparticular denomination in New England or elsewhere. We do not mean the\nopinions of New England Calvinists or of Southern Presbyterians; not the\ncreed of Andover, of New Haven, or of Princeton: but we mean that great\nsystem of belief which gradually took form in the Christian Church, in the\ncourse of centuries, as its standard theology. The pivotal points of this\nsystem are sin and salvation. In it man appears as a sinner, and Christ as\na Saviour. Man is saved by an inward change of heart, resulting in an\noutward change of life, and produced by the sight of the two facts of sin\nand salvation. The sight of his sin and its consequences leads him to\nrepentance; the sight of salvation leads him to faith, hope, and love; and\nthe sight of both results in regeneration, or a new life. This system also\nasserts the divinity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the divine\ndecrees, the plenary inspiration of Scripture, eternal punishment, and\neternal life.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great Doctrinal Systems.\n\n\nWithin the last twenty-five years, a new department of theological\nliterature has arisen in Germany, which treats of the history of\ndoctrines. The object of this is to trace the doctrinal opinions held in\nthe Church in all ages. By this course of study, two facts are\napparent\u2014first, that the same great views have been substantially held by\nthe majority of Christians in all ages; and, secondly, that the forms of\ndoctrine have been very different. The truths themselves have been\nreceived by Christians, as their strength, their hope, and their joy, in\nall time; but the formal statement of these truths has been wrought out\ndifferently by individual intellects. The universal body of Christians has\ntaken care of Christian truth; while the Church Fathers, or doctors, have\nheld in their hands the task of defining it doctrinally for the intellect.\n\nBy substantial truth we mean this\u2014that in all the great systems of opinion\nwhich have had a deep hold on the human mind, over broad spaces and\nthrough long periods, there is something suited to man\u2019s nature, and\ncorresponding with the facts of the case. The mind of man was made for\ntruth, and not for error. Error is transient: truth only is permanent. Men\ndo not love error for its own sake, but for the sake of something with\nwhich it is connected. After a while, errors are eliminated, and the\nsubstance retained. The great, universal, abiding convictions of men must,\ntherefore, contain truth. If it were not so, we might well despair; for,\nif the mind of the race could fall into unmixed error, the only remedy by\nwhich the heart can be cured, and the life redeemed from evil, would be\ntaken away. But it is not so. God has made the mind for truth, as he has\nadapted the taste to its appropriate food. In the main, and in the long\nrun, what men believe _is the truth_; and all catholic beliefs are valid\nbeliefs. Opinions held by all men, everywhere and at all times, must be\nsubstantially true.\n\nBut error certainly exists, and always has existed. If the human mind is\nmade for truth, how does it fall into error? There never has been any\nimportant question upon which men have not taken two sides; and, where\nthey take two sides, one side must be in error. Sometimes these two\nparties are equally balanced, and that for long periods. With which has\nthe truth been? Is God always with the majority? If so, we must at once\nrenounce our Unitarian belief for the Trinity, as an immense majority of\nvotes are given in its favor. But, then, we must also renounce\nProtestantism; for Protestantism has only eighty or ninety millions\nagainst a hundred and forty millions who are Catholics. And, still\nfurther, we must renounce Christianity in favor of Heathenism; since all\nthe different Christian sects and churches united make up but three\nhundred millions, while the Buddhists alone probably exceed that number.\nMoreover, truth is always in a minority at first,\u2014usually in a minority of\none; and, if men ought to wait until it has a majority on its side before\nthey accept it, it never will have a majority on its side.\n\nThese objections lead us to the only possible answer, which consists in\ndistinguishing between the substance and the form. When we assert that all\ncreeds, widely held and long retained, have truth, we mean substantial\ntruth. We do not mean that they are true in their formal statement, which\nmay be an erroneous statement, but that they are true as to their\ncontents. The substance of the belief is the fact inwardly beheld by the\nmind; the form is the verbal statement which the mind makes of what it has\nseen. It has seen something real; but, when it attempts to describe what\nit has seen, it may easily commit errors. Thus there may be, in the same\ncreed, substantial truth and formal error; and all great and\nwidely-extended beliefs, as we assert, must contain substantial truth and\nformal error. Without substantial truth, there would be nothing in them to\nfeed the mind, and they would not be retained; and, if they were not more\nor less erroneous in form, it would imply infallibility on the part of\nthose who give them their form.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Importance of this Distinction.\n\n\nThis distinction is one of immense importance; because, being properly\napprehended, it would, by destroying dogmatism, destroy bigotry also.\nDogmatism consists in assuming that the essence of truth lies in its\nformal statement. Correctly assuming that the life of the soul comes from\nthe sight of truth, it falsely infers that the essence of truth is in the\nverbal formula. Consequently, this formula must necessarily seem of\nsupreme importance, and the very salvation of the soul to depend on\nholding the correct opinion. With this conviction, one _must and ought_ to\nbe bigoted; he ought to cling to the minutest syllable of his creed as the\ndrowning man clings to the floating plank. Holding this view, we cannot\nblame men for being bigoted: it is their duty to be bigoted. But, when the\ndistinction is recognized, they will cling to the substance, knowing that\nthe vital truth lies there. It is the sight of the fact which is the\nsource of our life, and not the statement which we make, in words, as to\nwhat we have seen. Then the sight becomes the thing of immense importance;\nthe creed in which it is expressed, of comparative unimportance.\n\nThis distinction would tend to bring the Church to a true unity\u2014the unity\nof the spirit. All would strive for the same insight, all tolerate variety\nof expression. Instead of assenting outwardly to the same creed, every man\nought, in fact, to make his own creed; and there should be as many\ndifferent creeds as there are different men. Nor should my creed of to-day\nbe the same as that of yesterday; for, instead of resting on a past\nexperience, I should continually endeavor to obtain new sights of the one\nunchangeable truth. Seeing more of it to-day than I did yesterday, my\nyesterday\u2019s creed would seem inadequate, and I should wish to make a new\none.\n\nSubstantial truth means the truth which we see\u2014the inward sight, the\nradical experience. Formal truth is the verbal statement, and consists in\naccuracy of expression. And so of error. Substantial error means error in\nregard to the substance, and is necessarily inadequacy of inward\nexperience. Strictly speaking, there cannot be substantial error; for\nerror, in regard to the substance of truth, is purely negative. It is\nnot-seeing. It is failing to perceive the truth, either from want of\nopportunity, weakness of vision, or neglect in looking. But formal error\nis not merely defect: it may also be mistake. We may misstate the truth,\nand say what is radically false. From this source come contradictions;\nand, where two statements are contradictory, both cannot be true.\nFalsehood, therefore, originates with the statement. The errors of insight\nare merely defects; but the errors of statement may be positive\nfalsehoods.\n\nThis leads us to take a special view of theological controversies. In all\ngreat controversies, in the conflicts of ages, where the good and wise\nhave stood opposed to each other, century after century, it is probable\nthat there are truth and error on both sides.\n\nEach side may hold some truth which the other has not seen. There is,\ntherefore, also substantial error on both sides; for each may have failed\nto see some phase of truth which the other has recognized. But there may\nbe formal error, or error of statement, even where there is substantial\ntruth; for the truth may be overstated, or understated, or misstated, and\na false expression given to a true observation.\n\nWhat, then, is the duty of those who stand opposed to each other in these\ncontroversies\u2014of Catholics and Protestants, Christians and Deists,\nOrthodox and Unitarians? They have plainly a twofold duty to themselves as\nwell as to their opponents. They ought to increase their insight, and to\nimprove their statements; to deepen and widen their hold of the substance;\nto correct and improve their expression of the form. The first is the work\nof religion; the second, that of theology.\n\nThe first is infinitely the most important, because the life of the soul\ndepends on the sight of truth. This is its food, without which it will\nstarve and die. But it is also important that it should improve its\ntheology, because a correct theology is a help to insight, and a ground of\nmental communion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England.\n\n\nThe Liberal party in New England have carried on a theological controversy\nfor some forty years with the Orthodox. This controversy was inevitable.\nCalvinism had neglected important truths which the human soul needed, and\nwithout which it would starve. Unitarianism came to assert and vindicate\nthose truths. At first, it was inevitable that the statements on either\nside should be narrow and mutually exclusive. But, as a battle goes on,\nthe position of the opposing armies changes. The points of attack and\ndefence alter. Old positions are abandoned, and new ones occupied. Seldom\ndoes it happen to either army to sleep on the field of battle. Nor has it\nso happened to us. Neither the Unitarians nor the Trinitarians have gained\na complete victory: each has taken some important position, and yielded\nsome other. We have a book called \u201cConcessions of Trinitarians:\u201d another\nmight be written containing the \u201cConcessions of Unitarians.\u201d Neither side\nhas conceded, or ought to concede, any real truth of experience or of\nstatement; but it is honorable to each to concede its own partial and\ninadequate statements.\n\nWe intend, in this volume, to endeavor, from our own point of view, to\ngain what sight we can of the radical, vital truth underlying each great\nOrthodox doctrine. At the same time, we shall freely criticise the forms,\nespecially the more recent ones, in which Orthodox doctrines have been\nstated.\n\nWe assume, at the outset, that each doctrine _does_ cover some truth of\nexperience, some real solid fact, which is as important to us as to our\nopponents. We assume, that, though the doctrines may be false, there may\nbe an experience behind them which is true. We have satisfied ourselves of\nthe formal error of their statements. We consider it impossible for a\nsound Unitarian intellect to accept the Orthodox theology as a whole,\nwithout being untrue to itself; but there is no reason why we should not\nbreak this shell of doctrine, and find the vital truths which it contains.\nAnd if it be said, \u201cWho made you a judge or a divider on these subjects?\u201d\nwe reply, that only by contributions from all quarters can a final\njudgment be reached. Meantime, it is the right and duty of every serious\nthinker to add his own opinion to the common stock; willing to be refuted\nwhen wrong,\u2014glad, if right, to be helpful in any degree towards the\nultimate result.\n\nThis is the object of the present work, which, though written by a\nUnitarian, and from a Unitarian stand-point, and though published by the\nAmerican Unitarian Association, will, we trust, be sufficiently\nunsectarian.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE PRINCIPLE AND IDEA OF ORTHODOXY STATED AND EXAMINED.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined.\n\n\nThe principle of Orthodoxy is, that there is one true system of Christian\ndoctrine, and that all others are false; that this system can be, and has\nbeen, so stated in words as to distinguish it from all the false systems\nor heresies; and that this true system of doctrine is the one which is now\nheld, and always has been held, by the majority of Christians; and,\nfinally, that the belief of this system is, as a rule, essential to\nsalvation\u2014so that those who may be saved, while not accepting it, will be\nsaved (if at all) by way of exception, and not according to rule.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy.\n\n\nThe principle of Orthodoxy seems to have arisen, and to have maintained\nitself in the Church, in some such way as this. Jesus Christ, it is\nassumed, came to save the soul from sin and evil. He saves the soul by the\nword of truth. In order that this truth shall become saving truth, it must\nbe believed, and so strongly believed as to have a practical influence on\nlife and action. We are therefore saved by believing the truth taught by\nChrist. But in order to be believed, it must be expressed in some definite\nstatement, or in what we call Christian doctrine. But truth is one, and\ntherefore the doctrine which expresses it must also be one.\n\nTherefore there must be one system of Christian doctrine, containing in\nitself the substance of Christian truth, and constituting the object of\nChristian faith. This system, though it may vary in its unessential parts,\nmust in its essence be unchangeable. In proportion as any system of belief\nvaries from it, such system is heterodox and dangerous, while this system\nalone is orthodox and safe.\n\nAnother form of this argument would be as follows: Christ came to _reveal_\nsomething to men. If revealed, it must be made known. If made known, it\nmust be capable of being so expressed that there can be no reasonable\ndoubt concerning it. Otherwise, Christianity would not be a revelation.\nBut if expressed so as to enter the human mind, it must be expressed in\nhuman language. A verbal revelation, therefore, is essential for the\npurposes of Christianity. Such a revelation is nothing else than a system\nof doctrine, or that which can be systematized into doctrine. And this\nsystem must be one and the same from age to age, or it is not a permanent\ndivine revelation, but only a transient human seeking for such a\nrevelation.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority.\n\n\nThe natural test of Orthodoxy is assumed to be the belief of the majority\nof Christians; for if Christianity be a revelation of truth, its essential\ncontents must be easy to apprehend, and when apprehended, they must be\ngenerally accepted. The revelations of God in nature are seen and accepted\nby the human intellect, and so become matters of science. Orthodox science\nis that which the great majority of scientific men have accepted as such;\nand Orthodox _Christianity_, in like manner, must be that which the\nmajority of Christian believers accept as such. Hence it is taken for\ngranted, as regards Orthodox doctrine, that it meets the test, \u201c_Quod\nsemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful.\n\n\nBut if the essential truth of Christianity be thus plain, those who do not\nreceive it must be either stupid or wilful. Its rejection argues a want of\nintellect or a bad heart. Heretics, therefore, ought logically to become\nto the Orthodox objects either of contempt or hatred. If they cannot see\nwhat is so plain, they must be intellectually imbecile. If they will not\nsee it, they must be morally depraved. Therefore intelligent people who\naccept and teach heresies ought to be considered wicked people by logical\nOrthodox minds. Moreover, they are the most dangerous persons in the\ncommunity, because, by denying that truth by which the soul is to be\nsaved, they endanger not merely the temporal, but also the eternal,\nwelfare of those whom they seduce. And if we have a right to abate a\nnuisance which only interferes with the earthly comfort and peace of\nsociety, how much more one which attacks its spiritual peace and eternal\nwelfare! Have not the majority a right to protect themselves, their\nchildren, and society from that which they not merely believe, but know,\nto be evil? For Orthodoxy assumes to be not merely opinion, but knowledge.\nHence Orthodoxy legitimates persecution.(5) Persecution is only the\njudicious repression of criminal attempts to pervert and injure society.\nMoreover, Orthodoxy, according to its principle, ought to discourage\ninquiry in relation to its own fundamental principles. For why continue to\ndiscuss and debate about that which is known? Progress consists in\nadvancing from the known to the unknown. The unknown, and not the known,\nis the proper subject for inquiry. The system of Orthodoxy, therefore,\naccording to its own principle, should be withdrawn from further\nexamination. Intellectual advance requires us to take for granted\nsomething\u2014to forget that which is behind in order to press forward to that\nwhich is before. The doctrines of Orthodoxy therefore, when once\nestablished, should afterwards be assumed, and need not be proved. We do\nnot call a scientific man a bigot because he refuses to discuss\nfundamental principles. If Orthodoxy be science, why accuse it of bigotry\nwhen it follows the same course?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads to Rome.\n\n\nIf Orthodoxy consists in a statement of opinions the belief of which is\nessential to salvation, the question arises, Are _all_ these opinions\nessential, or only a part? It is generally admitted that the great system\ncalled Orthodoxy contains some things not essential to salvation. How\nshall these be distinguished? Moreover, some variation of statement is\njudged allowable. No Orthodox creed is assumed to be inspired as to its\nlanguage. The same essential truth may be expressed in different terms.\nHow, then, are we to define the limits of expression so as to know what\nerror of opinion is venial, and what vital? Orthodoxy assures us that our\nsalvation depends on accepting its statements. In which particular form,\nthen, must we accept them? In so important a matter as this, where\nsalvation is assumed to depend on accepting the right form of doctrine,\none surely ought to be able to know which the right form is. Now, the rule\nof Orthodoxy, as given above, is, that nothing is Orthodox, as essential\ndoctrine, which has not been believed \u201calways, everywhere, and by all.\u201d\nBut this raises an historical question, and one of no little difficulty.\nFor since heresies have always existed, and some one has always been found\nsomewhere to deny the most essential doctrines of Orthodoxy, the question\nis somewhat intricate who these \u201call\u201d are who have never disbelieved the\nOrthodox system. It is plain that the majority of Christians have neither\ntime nor ability for these investigations. The historical inquiry must be\nconducted for them by others. And here seems to come in the law of Church\nauthority as against private judgment. And so the principle of Orthodoxy,\ncarried out to its legitimate results, appears to land us at last in the\nRoman Catholic Church, to set aside the right of private judgment, and to\njustify intolerance and the forcible suppression of heresy. But as these\nresults are not accepted by those who yet accept the principles of\nOrthodoxy, it is necessary to see if there is a fallacy anywhere in our\ncourse of thought, and at what precise point the fallacy has come in.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument.\n\n\nThe fallacy in all this argument lies here\u2014that faith is confounded with\nbelief; knowledge with opinion; the sight of truth with its intellectual\nstatement in the form of doctrine. Undoubtedly there is only one faith,\nbut there may be many ways of stating it in the form of opinion. Moreover,\nno man, no church, no age, sees the whole of truth. Truth is multilateral,\nbut men\u2019s minds are unilateral. They are mirrors which reflect, and that\nimperfectly, the side of the object which is towards them. Therefore even\nknowledge in any finite mind is partial, consequently imperfect; and\nconsequently needs other knowledge to complete it.\n\nThis, apparently, is what the apostle Paul means (1 Cor. 13:8-12) in his\nstatement concerning the relation between knowledge and love. Knowledge\n(Gnosis) \u201cshall pass away.\u201d The word here used is elsewhere translated by\n\u201cdestroyed,\u201d \u201cbrought to nought,\u201d \u201cabolished,\u201d \u201cmade of none effect.\u201d\n\u201cKnowledge\u201d here probably refers to definite and systematic statements of\nreal insights. It is something more than opinion, but something less than\nfaith. Faith abides, but knowledge passes away. Faith abides, because it\nis a positive sight of truth. It is an experience of the soul, by which it\nopens itself in trust, and becomes receptive of spiritual influence.\nFaith, therefore, remains, and its results are permanent in the soul. They\nmake the substance of our knowledge as regards the spiritual world. This\nsubstance becomes a part of the soul itself, and constitutes a basis of\nself-consciousness as real as is its experience of the external world. But\n_Gnosis_ is this faith, translated by the intellect into systematic form.\nSuch systems embody real experience, and are necessary for mental and\nmoral progress. They are the bodies of thought. But all bodies must die,\nsooner or later; and so all systems of knowledge must pass away. The body,\nat first, helps the growth of thought, helps the growth of the soul; but\nafterwards it hinders it. The new wine must be put into new bottles.\nTherefore the apostle Paul, the great teacher of doctrinal theology in the\nChristian Church, distinctly recognizes here, that every system of\ndoctrine, no matter how much truth it contains, is partial, and therefore\ntransient. He makes no exception in favor even of inspired statements\u2014he\ndoes not except his own. All bodies must die; all forms are fugitive;\nnothing continues but the substance of knowledge, which is faith; the\ninward sight of God\u2019s goodness producing that endless expectation which is\ncalled hope; and the large spiritual communion with God and his creatures,\nhere called Agape, or love. The apostle speaks in the first person when he\nsays that knowledge passes away\u2014\u201c_We_ know in part, and _we_ prophesy [or\nteach] in part.\u201d He speaks for himself and his fellow-apostles.\n\nWe see, therefore, that the great master and head of Orthodoxy in the\nChurch has himself declared every form of Orthodoxy to be transient.\n\nWe conclude, therefore, that the apostle Paul, in this famous passage,\noverturns the whole principle of verbal Orthodoxy. He takes away its\nfoundation. Not denying the reality and permanence of religious\nexperience, not denying the saving power of truth, he declares that no\nexpressed system of truth is permanent. The basis of doctrinal Orthodoxy\nis the assumption that its own particular form of belief is essential to\nsalvation. But the apostle declares that _all_ forms are transient, and,\ntherefore, _none_ essential. All statement is a limitation, and the moment\nthat we make a definition, we say something which is incomplete. When Paul\nsays, \u201cWe know in part,\u201d he says the same thing which is said by Kant, by\nSir William Hamilton, by Auguste Comte, by Mr. Mansell, and most modern\nthinkers, when they declare the relativity of knowledge. All thinking is\nlimitation. \u201cTo think,\u201d says Sir William Hamilton, \u201cis to condition.\u201d We\nonly know a thing, says this school, by its being different from something\nelse. The school of Kant declares all knowledge to be phenomenal, and that\nall phenomenal knowledge consists of two parts\u2014the part given by the\nthing, and the part added by the mind. Herbert Spencer (in \u201cFirst\nPrinciples\u201d) insists on the certainty of the existence of things in\nthemselves, but also on their absolute and eternal unknowableness.\nAccording to John Stuart Mill, the same view of the unknowableness of\nNoumena is taken by M. Auguste Comte.\n\nThese modern philosophers, it will be seen, go much farther than Paul, and\nlay down positions which inaugurate a universal scepticism. According to\nthem there is nothing certain and nothing fixed. Mr. Mansell virtually\nteaches us that we cannot know anything of God, duty, or immortality; and\nthat faith means, taking for granted on some outward authority. To use a\nstriking expression of President James Walker, \u201cWe are not to believe, but\nto make believe.\u201d That is, we are not to believe with our intellect, but\nwith our will. Or, in other words, we are to believe not what is true, but\nwhat is expedient. This he calls regulative truth, as opposed to\nspeculative truth.\n\nBut this is by no means the doctrine of the apostle Paul. He teaches the\ncertainty of substantive knowledge, but the fallibility of formal\nknowledge. He thus avoids the two extremes of dogmatism on the one side,\nand scepticism on the other. The substance of Gnosis, which is the sight\nof truth, is a reality, and, like all that is real, has its root in God,\nand shares his eternity. The form of Gnosis is subjective, relative, and\ntransient. Everything which is seen is temporal; only that which is not\nseen is eternal. All that takes outward, visible form, comes under the law\nof change; the roots of our knowledge, fixed in God, are unchangeable.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. The three Tendencies in the Church.\n\n\nThe human soul, a unit, indivisible, and without parts, nevertheless acts\nin three directions\u2014of will, affection, intellect. These are\ndistinguishable, though not divisible. Every one knows the difference\nbetween an _act_; an _emotion_ of anger, pity, sorrow, love; and a process\nof logic, or an intellectual argument. These are the three primary states\nof the mind, evidently distinct. It is impossible to mistake either for\nthe other. I may direct my mind towards action, towards thought, or\ntowards emotion. The first of these, action, is the most within my own\npower, depends chiefly on myself, lies nearest the will. _Will_ passes\ninstantaneously into action. I will to lift my arm, and it is done. On the\nother hand, feeling or emotion lies the farthest from this centre of will,\ndepends least of all on my own choice, and in it I am most passive. But\nthe sphere of intellect is intermediate. I am more free when I think than\nwhen I feel; less free than when I act. In the domain of will, I act upon\nexternal things; in the domain of feeling, I am acted upon by external\nthings; in the domain of intellect, I neither act nor am acted upon, but I\n_see_ them. In all thinking, in proportion as it is pure thought, both\nwill and emotion are excluded. We are neither actors nor sufferers, but\nspectators. Things seen pass into our life through the intellect, and\nbecome sources of emotion and action. Love of truth causes us to desire to\nknow it; this desire leads us to put our mind in the presence of truth,\nbut when there, the functions of emotion and will cease, and all we have\nto do is to look.\n\nNow, there have always been in the Church three parties, or at least three\ntendencies, in regard to the basis of religion. One of these makes the\nbasis of the religious life to consist in thought, one posits it in\nfeeling, the third in action. With one, the intellect must take the\ninitiative; with the second, the heart; with the third, the will, or power\nof determination. The three parties in the Church, based on these three\ntendencies, may be characterized as the Orthodoxists, the Emotionalists,\nand the party of Works. The first says, \u201cWe are saved by faith;\u201d the\nsecond says, \u201cWe are saved by love;\u201d the third says, \u201cWe are saved by\nobedience.\u201d The first assumes that the sight of truth must take the lead\nin all Christian experience; the second believes that love for goodness is\nthe true basis in religion; the third maintains that the first thing to be\ndone, in order to become a religious man, is to obey the law of duty. It\nis evidently very important to decide which of these answers is the true\none. What are we to do first, if we wish to become Christian men or women?\nAre we to study, read, reflect, in order to know the truth? Are we to go\nto church and listen to sermons, join Bible classes and study the\nScriptures, read compends of doctrine and books of Christian evidence? Or\nare we to seek for emotion, to pray for a change of heart, to put\nourselves under exciting influences, to go where a revival is in progress,\nto attend protracted meetings, to be influenced through sympathy till we\nare filled full of emotions of anxiety, fear, remorse, followed by\nemotions of hope, trust, gratitude, pardon, peace, joy? Or are we to do\nneither of these things, but to begin by obedience, trying to _do_ right\nin order to _be_ right, beginning by the performance of the humblest\nduties, the nearest duties, letting fidelity in the least open the way to\nmore? Shall we _know_ the truth in order to love it and do it? Or shall we\n_love_ the truth in order to see it and do it? Or shall we _do_ right in\norder to know it and love it?\n\nLarge numbers in the Church have followed each of these three methods, and\nmade each the basis of its action. One has said, \u201cWe are saved by works;\u201d\na second, \u201cWe are saved by faith;\u201d a third, \u201cWe are saved by love.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Party of Works.\n\n\nTwo tendencies have joined in teaching salvation by works, or, more\nstrictly, in teaching _the initiative of the will in religion_. These are\nthe Church-tendency and the Moral-tendency in Christianity. The Church\nparty in Christianity teaches that the first duty towards a child is to\nmake it a member of the Christian Church by baptism, and that the first\nduty of every baptized person is to obey the commands of the Church. The\nChurch thus becomes a school, in which baptized persons are educated as\nChristians. The Church of Rome, and the High Church party in the Church of\nEngland and in the Episcopal Church of the United States, teach this\ndoctrine of salvation by works. This system by no means dispenses with\nChristian belief or Christian feeling, but makes them both subordinate.\nThe Church says to its faithful, We do not require you to believe or to\nfeel, but to obey. If we said, \u201cBelieve,\u201d or \u201cFeel,\u201d you might justly\nreply, \u201cWe cannot believe or feel when we choose, and you have therefore\nno right to ask us to do so.\u201d Therefore the Church only demands obedience,\nwhich it is in the power of all to render. It, indeed, requires an assent\nto its creed, and forbids heresy. But this only means, \u201cReceive the creed\nas true until you are able to see _how_ it is true.\u201d The Church also\ninsists greatly on love, and its saints have been filled with the highest\nraptures of piety. But it never _requires_ feeling. It says, \u201cUse the\nmeans we put into your hands, and feeling will come. Pray, as we command\nyou to do, whether you feel deeply or not. Feeling will come by and by.\u201d\nDiscipline, therefore, and not illumination, has been the method of the\nChurch of Rome, and is also the method of all other Churches, so far as\nthey are ecclesiastical Churches. All such Churches teach that by a\nfaithful conformity to their ritual, methods, sacraments, services,\ndiscipline, the Christian life will surely come. The one thing needful and\nprimary with them all is obedience, and the result of obedience is\nknowledge and love.\n\nEssentially the same view is taken by the Ethical party, or Moralists, in\nChristianity. Their statement, also, of the foundation of religion is,\nthat it lies in obedience. They differ only from the Church party as\nregards the authority to be obeyed. With them it is not the Church, but\nthe Moral Law, as made known to men in revelation, or in the natural\ninstincts of conscience. The foundation of all goodness and religion is\nright doing. This leads to right thinking and right feeling; or, when it\ndoes not lead to these, it is still sufficient, and is satisfactory to\nGod. \u201cWhat doth the Lord require of thee,\u201d say they, \u201cbut to do justly,\nand love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God?\u201d At this point the extremes\nmeet, and the Roman Catholic Church, or the extreme right, offers its hand\nto the Liberal Christians, or the extreme left. This is the point of\ncontact between the two, which sometimes, also, becomes a bridge by which\nproselytes pass either way, from one to the other. But the practical\nquestion is, Is this answer sound? _Does_ the will lead the way in\nreligion? Is obedience the first step to be taken at every point of the\nway? Is the initiative in the religious life always an action? Are we\nsaved by works?\n\nThe objection to this view is, that a religious action, without a\nreligious thought and a religious affection behind it, is not in any sense\nreligious. It has in it nothing of the essence of religion. Religion,\nregarded merely as obedience to God, implies the knowledge of God. We must\nknow God in order to obey him; we must know God in order to love him.\nKnowledge, therefore, must precede obedience, and not the contrary.\nOtherwise obedience is an empty form, having no religious character.\nUnless we see the truth and justice of obedience, we are only yielding to\nhuman persuasion, to human authority, and not to the authority of God. It\nmay be well, or it may be ill, to yield to such human authority; but there\nis no religion in it, or only a religion of dead works.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity.\n\n\nThere are those, and always have been those, who have placed the substance\nof religion in love, in which they have, perhaps, not been mistaken. But\nthey have often taken another step, by degrading love into mere emotion.\nThey have considered that feeling was the basis of religion; not thought,\nnor action. They too have texts to quote in support of their view. They\nsay that \u201cwith the _heart_ men believe unto righteousness;\u201d that we must\n\u201cbe rooted and grounded in _love_;\u201d that the _first_ commandment is to\n\u201c_love_ God with all the heart.\u201d As with them religious emotion\nconstitutes the essence of religion, they make use of all means of\nproducing it, and especially the excitement which comes from sympathy. The\nMethodist Church has, perhaps, gone farther than any other towards making\nthis a principle. This great and noble body has done its vast work for\nChristianity by making prominent the love-principle in all its operations.\nIf the Church party stands at one extreme, Methodism, in all its forms,\nstands at the other. The Roman Catholic Church sums up all the\ninspirations of the past, collects in its large _repertoire_ all ancient\nliturgies, all saintly lives, all sacred customs, and so brings an\nimposing authority, a reverend antiquity, made up of the best history of\nman. Methodism drops the past, and finds God in the present\u2014in present\ninspirations, in the newly-converted soul, born out of darkness into\nlight, by the immediate coming of the Spirit of God. According to the\nCatholic Church the Christian life commences with an outward act,\u2014that of\nbaptism,\u2014and is carried on by outward sacraments; according to Methodism,\nthe Christian life begins with an inward emotional experience,\u2014the\nspiritual new birth,\u2014and is carried on by successive emotions of\npenitence, faith, hope, joy, and pious devotion. According to Catholicism,\nthe one thing needful is the outward sacramental union with the Church;\naccording to Methodism, the one thing needful is the inward emotional\nunion with the Holy Spirit.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. The Faith Party in Religion.\n\n\nIf Churchism and Moralism place the essence of Christianity in action, and\nEmotionalism puts it in feeling, Orthodoxy places it in something\nintellectual, which it calls faith. All the sects of Christendom do,\nindeed, place faith at the root of the Christian life; but some make it\nessentially an intellectual act, others essentially affectionate, and\nothers an act of will. Orthodoxy makes it, in substance, a sight of faith,\nor an act of looking at spiritual realities. Sometimes it is called a\nrealizing sense of spiritual things. But, at all events, the sight of\ntruth is considered the beginning and root of religion by the Orthodox\nparty in the Church. We are saved by the word of truth; and the Saviour\nhimself is called \u201cthe Word,\u201d\u2014belief in whom constitutes eternal life.\nRationally, it is argued that the essential difference between the\nChristian and the unbeliever, or the unchristian, must lie in seeing\nChrist or not seeing him. The first step in the religious life always\nconsists in looking at the truth.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea.\n\n\nAdmitting, then, what all these systems and parties in the Church unite in\nasserting,\u2014that an act of faith is always at the foundation of every\nChristian state and of all Christian experience,\u2014we ask, Which is the most\nessential element in faith\u2014will, intellect, or affection? Is an act of\nfaith chiefly an act of the will, a determination, or is it a loving\ndesire, or a state of knowledge, a looking at truth? Suppose we call it a\nstate of love, for this reason, that in order to be good, the first thing\nrequisite is to wish to be good. A longing for goodness, it may be said,\nmust precede everything else. But what makes us long for goodness, if we\n_do_ desire it? What shall produce that longing, if it does not exist? The\nonly answer must be, The sight of truth. The sight of God\u2019s holiness and\nof God\u2019s tenderness, the sight of law and gospel, whatever shows us the\nbeauty of goodness and the meanness of sin, must come first to awaken this\ndesire. Or suppose it be said that the essential thing in faith is the\nactive element, because it is submitting to God\u2019s law, trusting in his\nhelp, coming to the truth, opening the heart to the Holy Spirit,\u2014all of\nwhich are determinations of the will. We must reply, True; but these\ndeterminations will never be taken unless we first _see_ the will of God\nto which we submit, see the salvation of God on which we lean, know that\nthere is a truth to which we may come, know that there is a Holy Spirit,\nin order to ask for it.\n\nSo that, on the whole, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in making the\nsight of truth the beginning of the Christian life, and the beginning of\nevery Christian state, act, or experience. All human goodness is the\nreflection of God\u2019s goodness; it all has its source in the sight of a\ndivine holiness, truth, beauty. This is the fundamental idea of Orthodoxy,\nand in this Orthodoxy is right.\n\nIt is no answer to this to say that man has an instinctive longing for\ngoodness, which causes him to feel after God before he finds him. For what\nare these instincts themselves, as soon as they begin to act, but the\nvoice of God speaking in the soul, showing it some glimpses of a divine\ntruth? The longing in the soul must be aroused by the sight or knowledge\nof something better than that which one has or is. Consequently, we say\nagain, that the sight of truth is that which saves the soul, and first\ncreates in it a better life.\n\nIf we make Christianity to be essentially obedience, we make of it, at\nlast, an oppressive form. If we consider it as essentially an emotional\nexperience, we destroy its moral character; for emotion is both passive\nand blind, while the definition of morality is the freely choosing what we\nsee to be right. Ecclesiasticism and Emotionalism both tend to demoralize\nChristianity. They remove from it the element of moral freedom in the\ninterest either of Church authority or of mystical piety. Then\nChristianity must come anew, in the form of truth, to purify the air, and\nrenew the moral life of society.\n\nProtestantism arose in this way, to salt the corrupting Church.\nEcclesiasticism, in its well-meant efforts at training men, by a complete\ndiscipline, to a perfect virtue, had suppressed the individual love of\ntruth to such an extent, that religion had become a mere surface, without\nsubstance. Jesuitism abolished the distinction between things right and\nwrong in themselves, and made right to consist solely in the intention;\nthat is, made it wholly subjective. The Lutheran reformation was the\nrevival of the intellect in regard to religion\u2014the demand for conviction\ninstead of assent; for the sight of God in place of obedience to the\nChurch. It repeated, with an emphasis adapted to the needs of the\nsixteenth century, the words of Jesus, \u201cThis is life eternal, to _know_\nthee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.\u201d In these\nwords is the sufficient defence of Protestantism. It was the cry of the\nsoul to _know_ God, and not merely to assent to what the Church taught\nconcerning him; it was the longing to _know_ Christ, and not to repeat by\nrote the creeds of the first centuries, and the definitions of medi\u00e6val\ndoctors in regard to him. In a subsequent chapter we shall consider the\ntruth and error in the Protestant principle of justification by faith. Our\npurpose here is to show that the truth in Orthodoxy is identical with the\ntruth in Protestantism. Both place, as the root of all religion, an\nindividual personal sight of God and truth. To this, freedom of thought is\nan essential means. Right thinking involves free thinking. If to know the\ntruth makes us free, freedom, again, is the condition of knowing the\ntruth. Protestantism and Orthodoxy have often attempted to limit the\napplication of this principle. Protestants, as well as Catholics, have\npersecuted heretics. But while Catholics, in doing this, have been\nfaithful to their own idea, and have therefore made of persecution a\nsystem, Protestants have been vacillating and undecided persecutors. They\nhave been drawn in opposite directions by antagonist principles.\nFundamentally, Protestantism, as such, claims for all the rights of\nprivate judgment, and is, therefore, in its whole stress and influence,\nopposed to persecution, and in favor of religious liberty. It has\nconquered the Catholic Church on this point so far as to compel it to\nrenounce the practice of persecution, if it has not relinquished the\ntheory. During three centuries Protestantism has been, more and more,\nemancipating the human mind\u2014making it the duty, and consequently the\nright, of every human being to see truth for himself. It has been drawn\ninto inconsistencies by its belief in the saving power of certain\ndoctrines, and the supreme importance of believing them. On one hand it\nhas claimed, with a trumpet voice, the freedom of conscience and opinion\nfor all, and then has cried out against those who freely came to opinions\ndiffering from its own.\n\nBut, notwithstanding these inconsistencies, Protestantism has steadily\ngiven freedom of spirit to mankind. And with the awakened and emancipated\nintellect all the elements of progress have shown themselves in Protestant\nlands. In 1517, when Luther nailed his theses to the church door, Italy,\nSpain, and Portugal were far in advance of Northern Europe in\ncivilization. In commerce, art, and literature, Italy was the queen of\nEurope. In military force, extent of possessions, and unbounded wealth,\nSpain was the leading power of the world. The Portuguese mariners had\nransacked every sea, and discovered new continents and islands in every\nzone. How insignificant, in comparison with these great nations, were\nEngland, Holland, and Germany! But England, Holland, and Germany became\nProtestant; Italy, Spain, and Portugal remained Catholic; while France and\nAustria adopted a half-way Catholicism.\n\nThe result has been, in the course of three centuries, a complete reversal\nof the position. The last have become first, and the first last. What now\nhas become of the terrible power of Spain, the enterprise of Portugal, the\nart and literature of Italy? When the element of Protestantism was crushed\nout of these nations by the Inquisition, the principle of national\nprogress was also destroyed. But the northern powers who accepted the\nLutheran reform received with it the germs of progress. Holland, Denmark,\nNorway, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, England, and Scotland, have, by a steady\nprogress in civilization, wealth, knowledge, and morality, conclusively\ndemonstrated the impulse of progress contained in the Protestant idea.\n\nSo far, therefore, as this great experiment, continued during three\nhundred years, can prove anything, it proves the truth of the central idea\nof Protestantism and Orthodoxy, namely, that saving faith is essentially\nnot emotional nor volitional, but intellectual.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle.\n\n\nWe are well aware of the reply which might be made, from the stand-point\nof Ecclesiasticism, to the historical argument just given. The Roman\nCatholic might answer thus: \u201cWe admit that the tree must be known by its\nfruits; but the tree of true Christianity is known by bearing the fruits\nof Christianity, not those of worldly civilization. Suppose that England\nis to-day richer than Italy, more powerful than Spain; is she _better_?\nAre there more piety and more morality in Protestant than in Catholic\ncountries? In which communities do you find the most humility, simplicity,\nreligious faith, reverence for religious institutions, fear of God? In\nwhich do you find most of sympathy, kindliness, good will from man to man?\nThe fierce civilization of Protestantism is hard, cold, and cruel. It\ntramples under its feet the weak. It accumulates wealth and power; but are\nthese Christianity? Is London or Rome the best model of a Christian city?\nIs it London, with its terrible contrasts of enormous wealth and naked\nwant, its proud aristocracy and brutalized mob, its empty churches and\nilluminated gin-shops? or is it not rather Rome, poorer in material wealth\nand luxury, but rich in grace\u2014Rome, with its odor of sanctity about it;\nits numerous churches, on which art has lavished her resources to make\nthem worthy to be the temples of God\u2014Rome, with its priests and monks; its\nreligious houses, the centres of the great religious orders, whose\nmissions have been known in the four quarters of the earth? Protestant\ncountries may have a higher worldly civilization, more education and\nintelligence, more manufactures and commerce; but Catholic countries have\nmore humility and reverence, a more habitual piety, more gentle manners.\nIf Protestants have more _knowledge_, Catholics have more _love_.\u201d\n\nAnd we, though Protestants of the Protestants, must admit that there is\nsome truth in this. The discipline of Romanism has repressed some amount\nof evil which the liberty of Protestant lands has allowed to appear. But\nrepressed evil is none the less evil, and often works a greater inward\ncorruption than when it is allowed to show itself as it is. We may also\nadmit that while in Protestantism there is more of TRUTH, and all the\nvirtues which go therewith,\u2014such as honesty, manliness, self-respect,\nconscientiousness,\u2014in Catholic countries there is more of LOVE, and all\nthe virtues which follow it,\u2014as kindly, genial manners, ready sympathy\nwith suffering, a spirit of dependence and trust. Still, this does not\nprove that there is more real Christianity among Catholics; for love which\ndoes not grow out of the sight of truth is not genuine nor healthy. Its\nlife is weak. Protestant Christianity is an immature fruit, harsh because\nnot quite ripe. Catholic Christianity is a fruit over-ripe, and so rotten.\n\nTherefore we still contend that Protestantism and Orthodoxy are right in\nmaking the free and independent sight of truth the root of all religion.\nBut the mistake of Orthodoxy has been in confounding truth with\ndoctrine\u2014the sight of the thing with the theory about that sight. From\nhence come the hardness and coldness of Orthodoxy. Pure thought is always\ncold, and ought to be. The sight of spiritual things is truth and love in\none; but when we begin to reflect on that sight, the love drops out, and\nthe truth becomes cold.\n\nThe defect of the Orthodox principle, therefore, is the confusion of truth\nwith belief. Out of this mistake come dogmatism, bigotry, and all their\nnatural consequences. It is therefore well, before going farther, to\nexplain more fully this distinction and its importance.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion.\n\n\nReligion originates at every moment, from looking at truth. Now, there are\nfour kinds of looking; _faith_, which is intuitive looking; _knowledge_,\nwhich is the intuition itself looked at by reflection, and so brought to\nconsciousness; third, _belief_, which arranges the products of knowledge\nin systematic form, and makes them congruous with each other; and lastly\ncomes _opinion_, which does not deal at all with things, but only with\nthoughts about things. By faith we see God; by knowledge we become\nconscious that we see God; by belief we arrange in order what we see; and\nby opinion we feel and grope among our thoughts, seeking what we may find\nof his works and ways. Every act of faith brings us into the presence of\nGod himself, and makes us partakers of the divine nature. Thus faith is\nstrictly and literally the substance of things hoped for, or the substance\nof hope.(6) Substance here has its etymological sense, and is the same\nword in Greek and English, meaning basis, foundation, support, or\nsubstruction. It is the inward experience by which we come in contact with\ninvisible things, as perception is the experience by which we come in\ncontact with visible things.\n\nThese steps of intellectual activity may be called by other names than\nthese. What we (with Jacobi) call faith,(7) may be denominated \u201cintuition\u201d\n(with the transcendentalists), reason (with Coleridge), God-consciousness\n(with Schleiermacher), or anschauungs-verm\u00f6gen (with Schelling and\nothers). But, by whatever name we call this power, we say there _is_ a\npower in man by which he can see spiritual facts, as with his earthly\nsenses he can perceive sensible facts. If he has no such power, he is\nincapable of knowing God, but can only have an opinion that there is a\nGod. But if he can know God, this knowledge rests on something back of\nreasoning or reflection; it must rest on an intuition or spiritual\nperception. And this, for our present purpose, we call faith. By means of\nit we know the spiritual world, just as we know the material world through\nsight, touch, and hearing. The senses are the organs by which we perceive\nmaterial things; intuition, or faith, the organ by which we perceive\nspiritual things. He who denies the existence of such a power in man,\nfalls necessarily into dogmatism on the one hand, or rationalism on the\nother. But as these words also take a very different sense on different\nlips, we explain ourselves by saying that he puts either a theory or an\ninference in the place of God. If orthodox, he puts a theory; if\nsceptical, an inference. Mr. Mansell does the first, Herbert Spencer the\nother. Neither of them believes that we can _know_ God\u2019s existence. So\ndogmatism and scepticism join hands. All the consequences described in the\nbeginning of this chapter follow as a matter of course when an opinion or\ntheory is put in the place of truth. Then come the inflexible narrowness\nof bigotry, the hot zeal of the persecutor, the sectarian strife which has\ntorn the Church in twain. The remedy and prevention for these are to\nrecognize that the basis of religion is in faith, in a living sight of\nGod, the soul, duty, immortality, which are always and forever the same.\n\nThe best definitions of faith, by theologians of all schools, include the\nnotion of insight, will, and affection. It is an act of the soul by which\nit looks at truth. But this act implies a desire to see and know the\ntruth. Now, such an act as this lies at the root of all our knowledge,\nboth of the material and spiritual world. How do I know the outward world?\nThe passive exercise of sensation would never give such knowledge. The\nsights which enter the passive eye, the sounds which fill the passive ear,\nthe feelings which affect the passive sense, give no real knowledge of\noutward things. That comes, not from sensation merely, but from sensation\nchanged into experience by a voluntary activity. We must not only see, but\n_look_; not only hear, but _listen_; not only feel, but _touch_, in order\nto know. _Life_, therefore, the constant synthesis of these three\nelements,\u2014life which, in every act, at once thinks, feels, and does,\u2014alone\ngives us knowledge. Divorce _thought_ from affection and will, and let it\nact by itself, and it does not give knowledge; it only gives belief or\nopinion. Knowledge comes only from experience\u2014and experience means\ncommunion. Communion with Nature by thought, desire, and action gives us\nthe knowledge of Nature; communion with God by thought, desire, and act,\ngives us the knowledge of God. The organ by which we commune with God is\nfaith; it includes the desire of knowing God, and the act of looking to\nhim in order to know him.\n\nKNOWLEDGE of God, of immortality, and of spiritual things does not come\nfrom any process of reasoning on the one hand, nor from any single\nintuition of reason. Just so we do not know the material world by a\nprocess of reasoning on the one hand, or any single sensible perception on\nthe other. _All knowledge comes from life_; or, as the apostle John\nexpresses it, \u201cLife is the light of man.\u201d We become acquainted with\noutward nature by living processes\u2014by repeated acts of sight, hearing,\ntouch, taste. So we become acquainted with the spiritual world by repeated\nspiritual acts; by repeated processes of faith; by continued steps of\ndevotion, submission, obedience, trust, love, prayer. In this way we come\nto _know_ God just as certainly, and just in the same way, as we know\nthings visible or things audible.\n\nBut knowledge is not belief. Knowledge is the rooted conviction of the\nreality of certain facts or persons, derived from communing with those\nfacts or persons. Belief is the intellectual assent to a proposition\u2014a\nproposition formed by analytic and synthetic methods. We analyze our\nnotion concerning any subject, and then arrange the results of this\nanalysis in order, and deduce from them a proposition, a law. This we call\nour belief, or creed, concerning it. The substance of this belief is given\nus in life; the form of it comes from thinking or reasoning. But it is\nevident that such a belief differs in each individual according to his\nexperience, and according to his habits of reasoning, and even according\nto his facility in expression. Moreover, knowledge and belief differ also\nin this, that knowledge places us in the presence of the reality, belief\nonly in the presence of a proposition concerning it.\n\nThus John and James are friends. John _knows_ James through a long\nintercourse. He is just as certain in regard to the essential character of\nJames as he is about his own. But if he tries to express this knowledge of\nJames in the form of belief, he may evidently express it badly. He may\nfail from a defective analysis, or from imperfect powers of language.\n\nOn the other hand John may not know James at all. He may never have seen\nhim. But he has heard about him from a mutual friend, in whose judgment he\ntrusts, or from several persons, and so he has formed a very decided\nbelief in regard to James. He has a creed about him, though he has never\nknown him.\n\nIn the same way those who _know_ God truly and well, by the experience of\nobedience and prayer, may have a very erroneous belief concerning him.\nThose who do not know him at all, by any personal experience, may have a\nvery correct belief concerning him. But which saves the soul? Which\ngoverns the life? Which affects the heart? Evidently not the belief, but\nthe knowledge.\n\nWe are not saved by any belief whatsoever concerning God or Christ,\nconcerning sin or salvation, concerning duty or destiny. Belief brings us\ninto contact with the images of things, not the things themselves. Belief\nhas no saving power. But knowledge has. \u201cThis is life eternal, to KNOW\nthee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.\u201d\n\nIt is therefore a great mistake when Orthodoxy or Rationalism reverses the\naxiom of John, and instead of saying, \u201cLife is the light of man,\u201d tells us\nthat \u201cLight is the life of man.\u201d Knowledge comes from life. Belief comes\nfrom knowledge, and not the contrary.\n\nThe PRINCIPLE of Orthodoxy, as stated at the commencement of this chapter\n(in \u00a7 1), is, that there is one true system of Christian doctrine, and\nthat all others are false. The IDEA of Orthodoxy, as stated in \u00a7 10 of\nthis chapter, is, that the soul is saved by the sight of truth. The idea\nof Orthodoxy is true\u2014its principle is false. The sight of truth\u2014that is,\nof the great spiritual realities\u2014saves us, for only by that sight are we\nlifted above our feeble and imperfect selves, and enabled to partake of\nthe nature of God. But while truth is ever one and the same, doctrine\nvaries from age to age, varies from man to man. Each man\u2019s statement is\nlimited by his position, his mode of thought, his power of speech. Nor can\nany council, assembly, conference, synod escape from similar limitations.\n\nLet the distinction be once clearly recognized between truth as seen and\ntruth as stated,\u2014between knowledge and belief,\u2014and we see the end of\ndogmatism, bigotry, intolerance, and superstition. We shall then see that\nreligion is one thing and theology quite another, and that the test and\nevidence of a sound religious experience are not what a man says, but what\nhe is. The sight of truth remains, as always, the source of our moral and\nspiritual life, but this sight of truth must pass into knowledge, by means\nof life, in order to renew the soul. FAITH, or the act by which the soul,\ndesirous of good, puts itself in the presence of truth, is always the\nbeginning of each spiritual state. KNOWLEDGE, born of this faith, through\nrepeated acts of conscience, love, obedience, prayer, is the next step,\nand that which fixes the truth in the soul. BELIEF comes afterwards,\nresulting from the knowledge thus obtained, analyzed, and arranged by the\nsystematizing intellect. And theory, or opinion, goes forward, like the\nskirmishers before an army, examining the route and opening the way, but\nincapable of resisting any attack, or holding permanently any position.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION; OR,\nNATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural.\n\n\nOrthodox Christianity claims that Christianity is a supernatural\nrevelation, consisting of truths revealed by God, not according to the\nmethod of nature, but outside of it. But not merely the orthodox, the\nheterodox too, Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, Swedenborgians, all\nhold to Christianity as a supernatural faith. What do they mean by this,\nand why do they insist on it so strongly? This is our first question, and\nthe next will be, \u201cWhat do those who hold to naturalism mean by _it_, and\nwhy do they insist on their view?\u201d\n\nThe distinction between the two seems to be this: The naturalists in\ntheology assert that God comes to man through nature, and nature _only_;\nthe supernaturalist declares that God comes to man, not only through\nnature, but also by other methods outside of nature, or above nature.\nThere is no question between them as to natural religion. Both admit that;\nsupernaturalists believe all that naturalists believe, only they believe\nsomething more.\n\nBut how is _nature_ to be defined? What is meant by nature? Various\ndefinitions are given; but we wish for one now which shall really express\nthe issue taken in this controversy. So we may define nature as law. All\nthe nexus or web of existing substances and forces which are under law\nbelong to nature. All that happens outside of these laws is either\npreternatural, unnatural, subternatural, or supernatural. If it is\nsomething _outside of law_, but _not violating_ it, _nor coming_ from a\nhigher source, we call it _preter_natural; like magic, ghosts, sorcery,\nfairies, genii, and the like. What _violates_ law is _un_natural. What is\nso low down that it lies below law, as chaos before creation; or nebulous\nmatter not yet beginning to obey the law of gravitation; or intelligences,\nlike Mephistopheles or Satan, who have sunk so low in sin as to have lost\nthe perception of right and wrong, is _subternatural_, _below_ nature.\nWhat belongs to a religion above the laws of time and space, above the\nfinite, is supernatural.\n\nThus brutes, and men like brutes, who are below the moral law, are\n_subter_natural as regards that law. We do not call it a sin in a tiger to\nkill a man, for he is _below_ law as regards sin. He is _below_ the moral\nlaw. Again, we can conceive of angels so high up as to be above the moral\nlaw, in part of its domain, not capable either of common virtue or of\ncommon sin, according to _our_ standards of morality, though perhaps under\nsome higher code of ethics. They are supernatural beings as regards _that_\nlaw\u2014the moral law of this world. As regards some parts of the moral law,\nthere are, no doubt, multitudes of human beings above it even in this\nworld. There are many persons quite incapable of swearing, lying,\nstealing, getting drunk, flying into a passion, and to whom, therefore, it\nis no virtue to avoid these vices. They are simply _above_ that part of\nthe moral law. They are _super_natural beings as respects that part of\nhuman character.\n\nAfter these illustrations, we can see what is meant by _supernaturalism_.\nIf there is anything in this world which comes from above the world, and\nnot from the existing laws of being, _that_ is supernatural.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Creation Supernatural.\n\n\nIn this sense, all but atheists must admit the supernatural. If, for\nexample, you admit the _creation of the world_ by God, that was a\nsupernatural act; _that_ did not come from the existing laws of the world,\nbecause it created those laws. All the order and beauty of the world, its\nvariety and harmony, its infinite adaptation of part to part, and each to\nall,\u2014these existed in God\u2019s mind before they existed in nature. They were\nsupernatural, as ideas, before they appeared in nature as facts. And if,\nas most geologists suppose, the crust of the earth denotes a long series\nof creations, successive epochs, at the close of each of which new forms\nof vegetable and animal life appeared, then each of these was a new\ncreation; that is, a new supernatural act of the Almighty.\n\nThe physical world, therefore, shows a power above itself. The natural\ntestifies to the supernatural, the all to the over-all. The existing web\nof laws gives evidence of MIND, outside of itself, above itself, arranging\nand governing it.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Question stated.\n\n\nThis being granted, the question between naturalism and supernaturalism\nis, whether this superintending mind, which came from above the world into\nit by acts of creation, when the world was made, has or has not come into\nit subsequently. We have a series of creations down to the time that man\narrived on the earth. When _he_ came, he was a supernatural being, and his\ncoming a supernatural event. Unless we assume that he was developed, by\nexisting laws, out of some ape, gorilla, or chimpanzee, his coming was\nsupernatural. Now, did supernatural events cease then, and since that time\nhas the world gone on of itself? or have there been subsequent incursions\nfrom a higher sphere\u2014a new influx from above, from time to time, adding\nsomething new to nature? Naturalism says no; supernaturalism says yes.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic Creations.\n\n\nThe supernaturalist says, God comes to us in both ways\u2014through nature;\nthat is, through the order of things already established; and also by new\ncreative impulses, coming in, from time to time, from above. He contends\nthat such a new creative impulse came into the world through Jesus Christ,\nadding a new substance and new forms to those already existing\u2014a new life\nnot before in the world, proceeding according to new laws. This new\ncreation, as the Scriptures themselves term it, is Christianity. This is\nalso said to be in analogy with the course of events. For, if there has\nbeen a series of creations before, bringing animals into the world, and\nhigher forms of physical life,\u2014if these have been created by new\nsupernatural impulses coming in at intervals of hundreds of thousands of\nyears,\u2014why deny that another impulse may have come in four thousand years,\nor forty thousand years, after man was created, to add a new form of\nspiritual life to society?\n\nIn the world, as it was at first, there was not a living plant or animal;\nafter thousands of years, or millions of years, there came into the broad\nseas of the lower Silurian epoch, some of the lowest kinds of animals and\nseaweeds, a few trilobites and mollusks, but no plants save fucoids. Next\ncame, after a long time, a few cartilaginous fishes and corals. A long\ntime passed\u2014thousands of years rolled by: then came real fishes and land\nplants in what is called the Devonian period, or the old red sandstone.\nAfter a great while came the period to which belongs all the coal\nformation; and in that carboniferous epoch first appears a whole vegetable\nworld of trees and plants, to the number of nine hundred and thirty-four\nspecies. Some insects arrived at this time, as beetles, crickets, and\ncockroaches, which are, therefore, much more venerable than man. More\nthousands of years go by: then the earth receives a new creation in the\nform of gigantic frogs, enormous reptiles, and strange fishes. But as yet\nno mammal has come\u2014not a bird nor a quadruped has been seen on the earth.\nThen, after another long period, these appear, in what is called the\n_tertiary_ period; until, at last, some remains of man are found, in the\ndiluvium, or gravel. Geology thus, once thought to be atheistic, gives its\ntestimony to a long series of supernatural facts; that is, to the\nsuccessive creation, after long intervals, of entirely new genera and\nspecies of vegetables and animals. As you turn these great stone leaves of\nthat majestic manuscript roll written by God\u2019s hand, which we call the\nearth, you and he has been writing new things on each page, new facts and\nlaws, not on any former leaf. New types of life, not prepared for by any\nprevious one,\u2014by no slow evolution, but by a sudden step,\u2014break in. On the\nprevious rocky page is to be found not one of their species, genus, order,\nor even class, to point back to any possible progenitor. So that the globe\nitself says, from these eternal monuments of rock, \u201cBehold the history of\nsupernatural events written on me.\u201d Each creation is higher than the last:\nfinally man is created. But still from above, from outside the world, the\ncreative life is ready to be poured in. Only the next creation is to be\nmoral and spiritual, not physical. No new physical forms are now added,\nbut a new moral life is poured into man, making _him_ a new creation of\nGod. \u201cFor if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature.\u201d The analogy was\nso striking, that the apostles noticed it, and constantly speak of Christ\nas the medium of a new creation.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom.\n\n\nBut there is another example of the supernatural element in the world. Dr.\nBushnell, in his book called \u201cNature and the Supernatural,\u201d contends that\nman is capable of supernatural acts; that, in fact, every really _free_\nact is, and must be, a supernatural act. To those who hold the doctrine of\nnecessity, this is, of course, no argument. But they who believe, in the\ntestimony of their own consciousness, that they are free beings; who feel\nthat they are not dragged helplessly by the strongest motive, but can\nresist it or yield to it; who, therefore, feel themselves responsible for\nwhat they do, or omit to do, they can see that in a real sense they create\nnew influences. Their actions are not results of previous causes, but are\nnew causes, not before in the world. Some supernatural power dwells in\nman\u2019s will just as far as it is made free by reason and choice. Man stands\nbetween good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, with the power of\nchoosing either one or the other. If he chooses one, he sends a power into\nsociety, life, humanity, to help it forward; if the other, he sends in a\npower to hold it back. This power is not from man\u2019s nature, but from\nsomething in him outside his nature. When he acts from habit, impulse,\npassion, and not from choice, he is simply a natural being; when he acts\nfrom choice, he is not a natural being, but either a _super_natural or a\n_subter_natural being, according as he chooses good or evil. When he\nchooses good, he rises above the natural man into the sphere of angels;\nwhen he chooses evil, he sinks below the natural man into the sphere of\nbrutes or demons.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of Law.\n\n\nNow, says the supernaturalist, if we have all this evidence to show that\nGod not only acts through nature, by carrying on existing forces and laws,\nbut also has repeatedly come into nature with new creations, not there\nbefore,\u2014and if even man himself has a certain limited but strictly\nsupernatural power, so as to be able to stand outside of the nexus of law,\nand act upon it,\u2014why deny, as incredible, that God should have made a new\nmoral creation in Christianity? should have created a new class, order,\ngenus, and species of spiritual beings, not represented before by any\nexisting congeners? And why question that what we call miracles\u2014that is,\nphysical interferences with natural laws\u2014should have attended this sudden\ninflux of spiritual life? We do not claim, says the judicious\nsupernaturalist (like Dr. Bushnell, for example), that miracles are\nsuspensions or violations of natural laws; but that they are the natural\nmodification of the agency of such laws by a new and powerful influence.\nOf this, too, there is ample analogy in nature. The mineral kingdom, for\nexample, is passively subject to mechanical and chemical laws, which are\nresisted and modified by plants and animals. A stone obeys passively the\nlaw of gravitation; a plant resists it, rises into the air in opposition\nto it. Such a proceeding on the part of a plant must seem to a stone a\npure miracle. If a piece of granite should write a book of theology, it\nwould probably say that the plant, in growing up, had violated or\nsuspended a law of nature. But it has not. The force of gravitation has\nworked on according to its own law; it has been dragging the plant\ndownward all the time, only the vital power in the plant has overcome its\nforce, and modified the result. And, again, a tree, seeing a dog run to\nand fro, might call that a miracle. The tree, unable to move from its\nplace, could not conceive of the possibility of voluntary motion. But no\nlaw of nature is violated; only a higher power comes in\u2014the power of\nanimal life.\n\nTo a dog, again, the proceedings of a _man_ are strictly miraculous. To\nplant corn, reap it, thresh it, grind it, and bake bread out of it, is\nexactly as much a miracle to the dog, as the multiplication of loaves, or\nturning water into wine, by Christ, is a miracle to us. But no law of\nnature was violated in either case. Reason in the one case, some\nprofounder spiritual power in the other, may have modified the usual\noperation of law, and produced these results.\n\nThe Orthodox supernaturalist therefore contends that the supernatural is a\nconstant element of life. Higher natures are all supernatural to lower\nnatures, but natural in themselves, because obedient to the laws of their\nown nature. Nature, without this supernatural element, is only a machine,\nof which God, standing outside, turns the handle. This is a low conception\nboth of nature and of God. As Goethe says, in one of his immortal lyrics,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cNot so, outside, doth the Creator linger,\n    Nor let the all of things run round his finger,\n    But moves its centre, not its outer rim;\n    Comes down to nature, draws it up to him;\n    Moving within, inspiring from above,\n    With currents ever new of light and love.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events.\n\n\nAnd besides all this, says the supernaturalist, we have continued and\nconstant evidences, in all history and in all human experience, of the\nexistence of this supernatural element. Only a small minority of mankind\nhave ever doubted it; and those are men so immersed in physical science,\nor so hampered by some logical manacles, or so steeped in purely worldly\naffairs, as to be incapable of seeing the supernatural facts which are\nrecurrent evermore. Christianity itself has been an uninterrupted series\nof supernatural events. The physical miracles of Christ are nothing to the\nspiritual miracles which Christianity is always working. Bad men are made\ngood, weak men strong, cowardly men brave, ignorant and foolish men wise,\nby a supernatural influence given in answer to prayer, poured down into\nhearts and minds which open themselves to receive it. The conversion of a\nbad man by the power of Christianity is a miracle. The power of faith,\nhope, love, which every Christian has experienced, coming into him, not\nthrough any operation of his nature, but simply poured into his soul from\nsome higher sphere,\u2014this makes all argument unnecessary to one who has had\never so little Christian experience.\n\nThis is the substance of Orthodox supernaturalism; and this seems to me to\nbe its truth, separated from its errors.\n\nThe naturalism of the present time we conceive to be partly directed\nagainst a false supernaturalism, and partly to be a mistake arising from a\ntoo exclusive attention to the _order_ of the universe, as expressed in\n_law_.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism.\n\n\nSupernaturalism has generally disregarded God in nature, and only sees him\nin revelation. It has allowed a sort of natural religion, but only in the\nway of an argument to prove the existence of God by what he did a long\ntime ago. But it has not gone habitually to nature to _see_ God there,\nincarnate in sun, moon, and stars; incorporate in spring, summer, autumn,\nand winter; in day and night; in the human soul, reason, love, will. God\nhas been all around us, never far from us; but theology has only been\nwilling to see him in Jewish history, in sacred books, or on Sundays in\nchurch. Let us see him there all we can, but see him also in every\nrippling brook, in every tender flower, in all beauty, all sublimity, all\narrangement and adaptation of this world. No wonder that naturalism should\ncome to do what the Church has left undone\u2014to find its God and Father in\nthis great and wonderful world which he has made for us. The creed says,\n\u201cGod the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;\u201d that is, God the\n_Creator_, seen in Nature and Providence; God the _Redeemer_, seen in\nChristianity; and God the _Sanctifier_, seen in every righteous and holy\nsoul. But the Church has neglected its own creed, and omitted _God the\nCreator_, often also God the Sanctifier, and has only seen God in\n_Christianity_, in its history, its Church, its doctrines, its\nceremonies.(8) Against this, naturalism comes as a great and needed\nprotest, and calls us to see God also in nature and life.\n\nThen the Church has been too apt to teach a miraculous revelation, in\nwhich the miracles are violations of law. But as God is confessedly the\nauthor of law, it has made the Deity violate his own laws; that is, has\nmade him inconsistent, arbitrary, irregular, and wilful. Deep in the human\nmind God has himself rooted a firm faith in the immutability of law; so\nthat when miracles are thus defined, naturalism justly objects to them.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.\n\n\nBut between true naturalism and true supernaturalism we do not think there\nneed be any war. We know that there are many men so rooted in their faith\nin nature, that they cannot see anything outside of it, or beyond it. To\nthem God is law, and law only. Even creation is repugnant to them, because\nthey see that creation is really a supernatural thing. Hence come the\ntheories of development; the \u201cVestiges of Creation;\u201d the nebular\nhypothesis; the Darwinian theory of formation of species by natural\nselection; the notion of man coming out of an ape; pantheistic notions of\na God so immersed in nature as to be not its intelligent guide, but only\nits unconscious soul; the whole universe proceeding according to an order\nwhich is just as much above God\u2019s knowledge as above ours. Now, the best\ngeologists assure us that there is no evidence in support of the\ntransmutation of species. Mr. Darwin\u2019s theory of the formation of species\nby natural selection is this: In the struggle for life, the strongest and\nbest adapted animal lives, the rest die. This animal transmits to its\noffspring its own superior qualities; so a higher animal is gradually\ndeveloped. For example, the giraffe was not made by God with a long neck\nin order that it might browse on the leaves of high trees. But when leaves\nwere scarce, the animal who happened to have a neck a little longer than\nthe rest was able to get leaves. So he lived, and the rest died. His\nchildren had longer necks by the law of hereditary transmission. So, in\nthe course of ages, animals were gradually found with very long necks.\nThus the walrus has a curved horn growing downwards from his lower jaw, by\nwhich he climbs on to the floating ice. We must not suppose, however, that\nGod gave him the tusk for that purpose; but the walrus, or seal, who\nhappened to have a little horny bone under his chin, could climb on the\nice and get his food more easily, and so he lived, while the rest died;\nand his descendants in the course of a few hundreds of thousands of years\ncame, by repeating this process, to have horns, and so this species of\nphoca arrived.\n\nIt is certainly possible to believe this theory. But in believing it we\nhave to suppose two things; first, a happy accident, and then a law of\ntransmission of hereditary qualities. Now, the theory substitutes this law\nof transmission and these happy accidents for the creative design. Is\nanything gained thereby? The domain of law is extended a little. But\nextend it as much as you will, you must at last come to something above\nlaw. Suppose these laws by which walrus and giraffe came, were all in the\noriginal nebula, so that no Creator has been needed since, and nothing\nsupernatural\u2014nature has done it all since. But who put the laws there to\nbegin with? You have to take the supernatural at last, or else suppose an\naccident to begin with. Accidentally, all these wonderful laws happened to\nbe in a particular nebula. He who shrinks from this supposition accepts\nthe supernatural, all at once, at the beginning, instead of the\nsupernatural all the way along, \u201cWhat does he gain by it?\u201d He gains merely\nthis, that he puts the Creator out of sight; or rather, puts himself out\nof sight of the Creator. He worships the great god _Development_ instead.\n\nEqually satisfactory to the intellect, to say the least, and much more\nsatisfactory to the best human instincts, is the view of God which sees\nhim coming evermore into nature from above nature. This view says, \u201cGod is\nnot only order, but also freedom. He is not only law, but also love. He is\nin the world as law and order, but he is above the world as thought and\nlove; as Providence, as the heavenly Father. He comes to us to meet our\nexigencies, to inspire our doubting hearts, to lift us into life and\nlight. He does not set a grand machine going, and then look on and see it\nwork; but he is in the world, and with us always. The supernatural dwells\nby the side of the natural. Just as a wise and good father has rules and\nlaws by which to govern his children\u2014rewarding and punishing them as they\nobey or disobey; but besides that, does a thousand things for them, taking\nthe initiative himself; so God governs us by law, but also often takes the\ninitiative, giving us what we never asked for, and knew nothing of.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism\u2014Gulf between Christianity\nand all other Religions.\n\n\nOrthodoxy has erred, as it would seem, in placing too great a gulf between\nChristianity and all other religions. Christianity is sufficiently\ndistinguished from all other religions by being regarded as the perfect,\nand therefore universal, religion of mankind. It is to all preceding\nreligions what man is to all previous races. These are separated from man\nby various indelible characters; yet they are his fellow-creatures,\nproceeding from the same creative mind, according to one creative plan. So\nthe previous religions of our race\u2014Fetichism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, the\nreligion of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of Egypt, of Scandinavia, of Judea,\nof Greece and Rome\u2014are distinguished from Christianity by indelible\ncharacters; but they, too, proceeded from the same creative mind,\naccording to one creative plan. Christianity should regard these humanely,\nas its fellow-creatures. The other animals prepared man\u2019s way on the\nearth, and since man\u2019s arrival we have seen no subsequent creation. So the\nethnic religions prepared the way for Christianity, and since Christianity\ncame no new religion has appeared; for Mohammedanism is only a _m\u00e9lange_\ndrawn from the Old and New Testaments, and may therefore be considered as\nan outlying Christian sect. So, too, the gigantic abstractions of\nGnosticism were hybrid systems, formed of the union between Oriental\nthought and Christian life. The analogy may be traced still farther. Man\nis the only animal who possesses the whole earth. Every other race has its\nhabitat in some geographical centre, from which it may emigrate, indeed,\nto some extent, but where only it thrives. To man, only, the whole earth\nbelongs. So the primitive religions are all _ethnic_; that is, religions\nof races. The religion of Confucius belongs to China, that of Brahmanism\nto India, that of Zoroaster to the Persians; the religion of Egypt is only\nfor the Egyptians. Exceptions to this law (like that of Buddhism, for\nexample) are only apparent. The rule is invariable. Christianity alone is\na cosmic or universal religion. It only has passed the boundaries of race,\nso inflexible to all other religions. Born a Semitic religion, it soon\ntook possession of the Indo-European races, converting Romans, Greeks,\nTeutons, Kelts, and Sclaves. It finds the African mind docile to its\ninfluence. Its missionaries have made believers from among the races of\nAmerica, India, China, and the Pacific Islands. It is evidently destined\nto be the religion of humanity.\n\nBut, if so, why should it be put into antagonism with the religions which\npreceded it? These are also creations of God, not the work of man.\nTheologians have found multitudes of types of Christ in Jewish books and\nJewish history. But they might also find types of Christianity in the\nso-called heathen religions. For as coming events cast their shadows\nbefore, so coming revelations are seen beforehand in shadowy preludes and\nhomologons. The lofty spiritualism of the Brahmanical books, the moral\ndevotion of the Zendavesta, the law of the soul\u2019s progress in\nBuddhism,\u2014these are all types of what was to appear in a greater fulness\nand higher development in Christianity. First the natural, afterwards that\nwhich is spiritual. But these foregleams of Christian truth, irradiating\nthe night-side of history, are all touching proofs that God never leaves\nhimself without a witness in the world or in human hearts.\n\nInstead, therefore, of placing an impassable gulf between Christianity and\nother human religions, we should consider these are preparations and\nstepping-stones to something higher. Nor will they pass away until\nChristianity has purified itself from the errors which still cling to it.\nJudaism was not to pass till it was fulfilled in Christianity; and neither\nwill the other religions of the world pass away till they also are\nfulfilled in Christianity.\n\nNow, the common teaching in our churches and religious books and\nnewspapers tends to depreciate all natural religion in the interest of\nrevealed religion. It is commonly said that the light of nature helps us a\nvery little way in the knowledge of God. \u201cLook at the heathen,\u201d it is\nsaid; \u201csee their religious ignorance, their awful superstitions, their\ndegrading worship of idols, and their subjection to priestcraft. This is\nyour boasted light of nature, and these are its results\u2014the Fetichism of\nAfrica, the devil-worship of the North American Indians, the cannibalism\nof the Feejee Islands, the human sacrifices of Mexico and of the ancient\nPh\u0153nicia.\u201d \u201cThen,\u201d it is continued, \u201clook at the observations of the\nwisest intellects apart from revelation! How little they knew with\ncertainty! Their views of the Deity varied from pantheism to idolatry;\ntheir views of immortality were wholly vague and indistinct; their ideas\nof duty confused and false.\u201d\n\nTo which we might reply, \u201cIs not the same thing true among Christians? Are\nthere no superstitions among them? Were not witches hanged and burned\nduring sixteen centuries in Christendom? If the heathen are ignorant, what\nmultitudes in Catholic countries also do not read the Bible! How many are\nthere even in Protestant churches who can give a reason for their belief?\nIf the heathen worship degrades mankind because it is a superstition, with\nfear for its motive, how large a part of Christian preaching consists also\nof an appeal to terror! Is not the fear of everlasting torment in hell the\nmotive power of much which is called Christianity? Consider Catholics\neating their God: is that the worship of the Father in spirit and truth?\nThink of the religious wars, of the religious persecutions: did natural\nreligion ever do anything as bad as this? We cry out against Nero, who\ncovered Christians with pitch, and burned them as torches in the\namphitheatre. But how many were thus tortured? Perhaps ten, perhaps\ntwenty, or let us say a hundred. But, according to Llorente, the Holy\nOffice of the Inquisition, in Spain, burned alive, under Torquemada, 8800:\nunder Deza, 1669; under Ximenes, 2536; in all, from 1483 to 1498,\u2014that is,\nin fifteen years,\u2014it burned alive 31,912 persons for heresy, and subjected\nto rigorous pains and penalties 291,450 persons.\u201d\n\nIt is not right to judge of any doctrine by the corrupt practices which\nhave taken place under it, unless it can be shown that these are its\nlegitimate fruits. We maintain that Christianity is not fairly responsible\nfor these persecutions; but let us make the same allowance for the\nreligions which prepared its way.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural by being\nmade hostile to the Nature of Man.\n\n\nIf the nature of man be regarded as wholly evil, then Christianity is not\nmerely a supernatural religion, but an unnatural one. This has been very\ncommonly taught. Man\u2019s nature has been declared so totally corrupt and\nalien from all good, as to be radically opposite to the love of God and\nman. Christianity, therefore, comes, not to help him attain that which he\nis seeking after, but to change his whole purpose and aim\u2014to give him a\nwholly new nature. This is the result of the doctrine of total depravity,\nso long taught in the Church as Orthodoxy. It has taught that all natural\ntendencies and desires in man were wholly evil, and to be rooted out. It\nhas thus made Christianity unattractive, and has driven men away from it.\nBut of this it is not necessary to speak here, as we shall discuss this\ndoctrine and its influence hereafter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. TRUTHS AND ERRORS AS REGARDS MIRACLES.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles.\n\n\nIn considering the truth and error in the Orthodox doctrine concerning\nmiracles, we must, _first_, find out what this doctrine is; _secondly_,\nsee what objections have been urged against it; and so, lastly, we may\ncome to some conclusion as to where the truth or the error lies. There\nare, however, four distinct questions in regard to miracles, each of which\nmay be considered separately. There is the philosophic question, or\ndefinition of a miracle, which asks, What is a miracle? Then there is the\nhistorical question, which asks, Did such facts actually occur? Next is\nthe theological question, What are the value and weight of these facts in\ndetermining our Christian belief? And lastly comes the religious question,\nWhat are the spiritual meaning of miracles, and their influence on the\nheart and life?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Definition of a Miracle.\n\n\nAs the creeds give no authoritative definition of a miracle, we must\nexamine individual statements, in order to get the Orthodox idea.\n\nTo answer the question, _What is a miracle?_ is not as easy as it would\nseem, as will appear from considering the different definitions given by\ndifferent authorities, taking first those of the dictionary.\n\n\n    JOHNSON. \u201c_Miracle._ A wonder\u2014something above human power. (In\n    theology.) An effect above human or natural power, performed in\n    attestation of some truth.\u201d\n\n    WEBSTER. \u201c_Miracle._ (In theology.) An event or effect contrary to\n    the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation\n    from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event.\u201d\n\n    ROBINSON\u2019S BIBLE DICTIONARY. \u201c_Miracle._ A sign, wonder, prodigy.\n    These terms are commonly used in Scripture to denote an action,\n    event, or effect, superior (or contrary) to the general and\n    established laws of nature. And they are given, not only to true\n    miracles, wrought by saints or prophets sent by God, but also to\n    the false miracles of impostors, and to wonders wrought by the\n    wicked, by false prophets or by devils.\u201d After giving examples of\n    this from the Scriptures, Robinson adds, \u201cMiracles and prodigies,\n    therefore, are not always sure signs of the sanctity of those who\n    perform them, nor proofs of the truth of the doctrine they\n    deliver, nor certain testimonies of their divine mission.\u201d\n\n    AMERICAN ENCYCLOP\u0152DIA. _Miracle._ \u201cIt is usually defined to be a\n    deviation from the course of nature. But this definition seems to\n    omit one of the elements of a miracle, viz., that it is an event\n    produced by the interposition of an intelligent power for moral\n    purposes; for, otherwise, we must consider every strange\n    phenomenon, which our knowledge will not permit us to explain, as\n    a miraculous event. A revelation is itself a miracle. If one\n    claims to be a teacher from God, he asserts a miraculous\n    communication with God; this communication, however, cannot be\n    visible, and visible miracles may therefore be necessary to give\n    credibility to his pretensions. The use, then, of a miraculous\n    interposition in changing the usual course of nature is to prove\n    the moral government of God, and to explain the character of it.\u201d\n\n    THEODORE PARKER. \u201cA miracle is one of three things.\n\n    \u201c1. It is a transgression of all law which God has made; or,\n\n    \u201c2. A transgression of all known laws, or obedience to a law which\n    we may yet discover; or,\n\n    \u201c3. A transgression of all law known or knowable by man, but yet\n    in conformity with some law out of our reach.\u201d\n\n    He says that a miracle, according to the first definition, is\n    impossible; according to the second it is no miracle at all; but\n    that there is no antecedent objection to a miracle according to\n    the third hypothesis.\n\n    PASCAL. \u201cA miracle is an effect which exceeds the natural force of\n    the means employed to bring it about.\u201d\n\n    HUME. \u201cA miracle is a violation of a law of nature.\u201d\n\n    DR. THOMAS BROWN. \u201cA miracle is as little contrary to any law of\n    nature as any other phenomenon. It is only an extraordinary event,\n    the result of extraordinary circumstances; an effect that\n    indicates a power of a higher order than those we are accustomed\n    to trace in phenomena more familiar to us, but whose existence\n    only the atheist denies. It is a new consequent of a new\n    antecedent.\u201d\n\n    HORNE\u2019S INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. \u201cA miracle defined is\n    an effect or event _different from the established constitution or\n    course of things_, or a _sign obvious to the senses that God has\n    interposed this power to control the established powers of nature_\n    (commonly termed the laws of nature), which effect or sign is\n    wrought either by _the immediate act_, or by the assistance, or by\n    the permission, _of God_, and accompanied with a _previous notice_\n    or _declaration_ that it is performed according to the purpose and\n    by the power of God, _for the proof or evidence_ of some\n    particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority or divine\n    mission of some particular person.\u201d\u2014Vol. I. p. 203.\n\n    \u201cSince, as we already have had occasion to observe, the proper\n    effect of a miracle is _clearly_ to mark the divine interposition,\n    it must therefore have characters proper to indicate such\n    interposition; and these _criteria_ are six in number.\n\n    \u201c1. It is required, then, in the first place, that a fact or event\n    which is stated to be miraculous should have an important end,\n    worthy of its author.\n\n    \u201c2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed.\n\n    \u201c3. It must be sensible (that is, obvious to the senses) and easy\n    to be observed; in other words, the fact or event must be such\n    that the senses of mankind can clearly and fully judge of it.\n\n    \u201c4. It must be independent of second causes.\n\n    \u201c5. Not only public monuments must be kept up, but some outward\n    actions must be constantly performed in memory of the fact thus\n    publicly wrought.\n\n    \u201c6. And such monuments must be set up, and such actions and\n    observances be instituted, at the very time when those events took\n    place, and afterwards be continued without interruption.\u201d\u2014Vol. I.\n    p. 214 and 215.\n\n\nFrom these examples we may see what different definitions have been given\nof miracles, and that the definition is not so easy a thing as one might\nat first suppose. All depends on the point of view which we take. If we\nlook only at the outward fact, a miracle is a wonderful event, a portent,\nsomething out of the common course of nature, and unparalleled in common\nhuman experience. But if we look at it as regards the character of him who\nworks the miracle, it then becomes a supernatural work, or a preternatural\nwork, having a divine or a demoniac origin.\n\nBut, on the whole, the Orthodox doctrine of a miracle seems to be\nthis\u2014that it is a wonderful work, contrary to the laws of nature, wrought\nby the direct agency of God, in proof of the divine commission of him by\nwhom it is done. The two essential points of the definition are, that a\nmiracle is _contrary to the laws of nature_; and that it is _the only\nlogical proof of the divine authority of the miracle-worker_. We call this\nthe orthodox definition, although we must admit that no one in modern\ntimes has presented this view more forcibly and decidedly than the\nUnitarian Andrews Norton, and though many Orthodox men have taken a\ndifferent view.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible.\n\n\nThe four explanations of the miracles of the New Testament (to which we\nnow confine ourselves) are these:\u2014\n\nI. _The Natural Explanation._\u2014According to this, the miraculous facts of\nthe New Testament are to be explained as resulting from natural causes.\nThey are on the plane of our common human life. They are such events as\nmight easily happen anywhere at the present time. Christ himself was but a\nnatural genius of a high order. His miracles were merely the natural\nresults of his intellect and strength of will, or they were mistakes on\nthe part of the observers and narrators, or myths which have grown up\nsubsequently in the Church. Great ingenuity has been used in attempting to\nshow how each miracle may be explained so as to be nothing very\nextraordinary, after all. But these explanations are often very forced.\nSome events which are at first sight seemingly miraculous, are often\nexplained as natural events by the majority of commentators. Thus the\naccount of the angel who went down into the pool and troubled the water is\nusually interpreted as a natural phenomenon, and no real miracle. Modern\ntravellers have noticed that this pool of Bethesda is an intermittent\nspring, which may have possessed medicinal qualities.\n\nThe old-fashioned naturalism, however, has mostly gone by. Its\nexplanations were too forced and unnatural to continue long. The more\ncommon account at present is that which assumes that the narrators were\nmistaken in the stories which they have given us. Mr. Parker thinks that\nthere is not sufficient evidence of the miracles. If there were more he\nwould believe them. He gives no explanation of their origin farther than\nthis. But Strauss attempts an explanation based upon an unconscious action\nof the fancy and feelings on the part of the New Testament writers,\ncausing them to create these incidents out of some trifling basis of fact\nor of history. Renan follows in the same general direction.\n\nII. _The Unnatural Explanation._\u2014A miracle is a violation or a suspension\nof a law of nature.\n\nThis, until recently, has been the favorite view of miracles among\ntheologians, and is the view of miracles against which the arguments of\nthose who reject them have been chiefly directed.\n\nThe arguments in favor of this view are these:\u2014\n\n1. The miracles of the New Testament _seem_ to be violations of laws of\nnature. For example: the turning water into wine; healing by a word or\ntouch; stilling the tempest; feeding five thousand; walking on the sea;\ntransfiguration; raising of Lazarus; Christ\u2019s own resurrection. The law of\ngravitation seems to have been suspended when he walked on the sea, &c.\n\n2. Miracles are appealed to by Christ and his apostles in proof that God\nwas with him. But, unless these miracles had suspended the laws of nature,\nthey would not be proofs of this.\n\nThese are the two principal reasons for this view of miracles.\n\n_Objections._\u2014On the other hand, it is objected,\u2014\n\n1. That apparent violations may not be real violations of the laws of\nnature. Examples: The Arab emir in \u201cThe Talisman\u201d who was told that water\nsometimes became solid, so as to support a man on horseback; a steamboat\nsailing against wind and current; the telegraph; the daguerrotype. In all\nsuch cases the laws of nature are not violated or suspended, but new\npowers come in.\n\n2. Christ appeals to the moral character of his miracles, and not merely\nto their supernatural character. They are miracles of benevolence.\n\n3. If the proof of Christ\u2019s mission depends on this view of miracles, it\ncan never be proved. We can never be sure that the event is a violation of\na law of nature.\n\n4. On this view the sceptic\u2019s objections to miracles are unanswerable.\n\nSo says Dr. Thomas Brown, in an article reprinted by Dr. Noyes, of\nCambridge, in the \u201cTheological Essays\u201d published by the American Unitarian\nAssociation. He admits the principle of Hume\u2019s Essay on Miracles, but says\nthat his error lies in the false definition of the miracle as a violation\nof the laws of nature. False, because,\u2014\n\n(_a._) On the principle of continued uniformity of sequence our whole\nbelief of causation, and consequently of the divine Being, is founded.\n\n(_b._) Gives an air of inconsistency, and almost of absurdity, to a\nmiracle.\n\n(_c._) Laws of nature are not violated when a new antecedent is followed\nby a new consequent, but when, the antecedent being exactly the same, a\ndifferent consequent is the result.\n\n(_d._) No testimony could prove such a miracle. Suppose testimony so\nstrong that its falsehood would be an absolute miracle; then we should\nhave to believe, in either case, that a law of nature has been violated.\nNo ground of preference between them.\n\n5. A miracle may be supernatural, or above nature, without being\nunnatural, or against nature.\n\n6. The greatest church teachers have maintained that miracles were not\nagainst law or without law, but above common law. Hahn, after mentioning\nthe view of a miracle as a suspension of law, and calling it one neither\nscriptural nor conceivable, proceeds to quote Augustine and other writers,\nwho held that miracles were by no means opposed to law.(9)\n\nIII. _The Preternatural View of Miracles._\u2014This view admits the reality of\nthe phenomena, but explains them as resulting from mysterious forces,\nwhich are neither divine on the one hand, nor human on the other, but\nwhich are outside of nature. This is the demoniacal view, or that which\nsupposes that evil spirits, departed souls, or spirits neither good nor\nbad, surround the earth, and can be reached by magic, witchcraft, sorcery,\nmagnetism, or what is now called Spiritualism. This theory supposes that\nthe works of Jesus were performed by the aid of spiritual beings. The\nobjections to this view are,\u2014\n\n1. If it is supposed, as it was by the Jews, that Jesus had the aid of\nevil spirits, the sufficient answer is, that his works were _good_ works.\n\n2. If it is argued that he performed his miracles by the aid of departed\nspirits who were good spirits, the answer is, that he himself never took\nthis view, but always declared, \u201cMy Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth\nthe works.\u201d Moreover, the whole character of the miracles of Jesus differs\nnot only from everything ever done by magnetism or spiritualism, but from\neverything ever claimed to be done.\n\nIV. _The Supernatural View of Miracles._\u2014This view asserts that the\nmiracles were performed by higher forces, which came into this world from\na higher world than this. It asserts that besides the forces which are at\nwork regularly in the world, there are other forces outside of the world,\nwhich may from time to time come into it. We call them higher forces not\nonly because they are more powerful than the forces before at work in the\nworld, by overcoming which they produce the extraordinary outward\nphenomena, but because they always tend to elevate the world nearer to\nGod. They are thus proved to come from a world which is nearer to God than\nthis. The reasons in support of this view are, as before suggested.\u2014\n\n1. Geology teaches it. The rocks show not only an original creation of the\nworld, but successive creations of vegetable and animal life.\n\n2. The creation of the world teaches it. Creation was a miracle in this\nsense of the word.\n\n3. There seems to be in the constitution of man a faculty provided for\nrecognizing the supernatural element. Phrenologists call it the organ of\nmarvellousness. Such a faculty would argue the existence of an appropriate\nobject on which it might be exercised.\n\n4. The whole life and character of Jesus were supernatural and miraculous\nin this sense. They cannot be satisfactorily explained as the result of\nanything existing in the world before.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles.\n\n\nIn attempting to discover the truths and errors contained in these\nstatements it is a great satisfaction to feel that our faith in Christ and\nChristianity is not depending on them. If we believed with those who\nconsider miracles the only or the principal proof of Christianity, we\ncould hardly hope to be candid and just in examining the arguments of\nthose who deny the marvellous facts of the New Testament. There is no\ndoubt that the number of religious and Christian men who have relinquished\nall belief in the marvellous part of the Bible has largely increased\nwithin a few years. At the present time there is a strong tendency to\ndisbelieve and deny all miracles as incredible and impossible. Renan, in\nhis \u201cLife of Jesus,\u201d says, \u201cMiracles never happen except among people\ndisposed to believe them. We banish miracles from history in the name of a\nconstant experience. No miracle has, as yet, been proved.\u201d Renan adds,\nthat \u201cif a commission of men of science should decide that a man had been\nraised from the dead he would believe it.\u201d \u201cTill then,\u201d he says, \u201cit is\nthe duty of the historian not to admit a supernatural fact, but to find,\nif he can, what part credulity and imposition have had in it.\u201d\nAccordingly, Renan writes his \u201cLife of Jesus\u201d in this sense, discarding\nmost of the miracles, or explaining them away, and trying to put together\ninto some kind of shape the fragments which remain. But Renan does not go\nfar enough to satisfy some others. Gerritt Smith, for example, in a recent\nlecture which he has published, called \u201cBe Natural,\u201d says, \u201cJesus neither\nperformed nor attempted to perform miracles. His wisdom and sincerity\nforbid the supposition. Am I an unbeliever in the historical Jesus because\nI hold him innocent of the absurdities which superstition and folly tax\nhim with? No more than I should disbelieve in Shakespeare, by denying that\nhe walked on the Avon, or changed its waters into wine. M. Renan ought to\nhave made no account of these stories of miracles. He should have dropped\nthem entirely, as did Rammohun Roy in his Hindoo translation of the New\nTestament. Let the credulous feed on these creations of superstition, but\nlet men of sense turn away from them.\u201d\n\nThe reason why so many intelligent men find it impossible to believe the\nmiracles of the New Testament, while they find it very easy to believe the\nreligious and moral teaching of Jesus is partly due to the spirit of the\nage. The intellect of this age is more and more scientific. Now, science\nis the knowledge of facts and laws. A miracle is opposed to all usual\nobservation of facts, and is often called by theologians a violation of\nthe laws of nature. It is not therefore strange that men imbued with the\nspirit of science should dislike the notion of miracles.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity.\n\n\nNow, we should have little objection, on purely theological grounds, to\ngive up the miracles of the New Testament. Theologians have built up the\nproof of Christianity on miracles. They have declared them the chief\nevidence of Christianity. They have said, \u201cA miracle is a violation of a\nlaw of nature. Now, no one but God can violate a law of nature. If Jesus\nviolated a law of nature, it proved that God was with him. But that he did\nso we know from the New Testament. That it tells the truth we know,\nbecause it was written, by eye-witnesses, who could not have been\nmistaken, because they saw the miracles with their own eyes, and were not\nliars, because they laid down their lives in testimony of the truth of\nwhat they asserted.\u201d Therefore, it is argued, \u201cChrist worked miracles;\ntherefore he had God\u2019s help and power; therefore he has God\u2019s authority to\nteach the religion of the New Testament.\u201d\n\nNow, for those who hold this view of Christianity, if they renounce\nmiracles, it is evident that the foundation of faith is gone. No wonder,\ntherefore, that they bitterly oppose all attacks of miracles. In defending\nmiracles, they are fighting for their lives.\n\nBut we need not hold this view of the foundation of Christianity.\nChristianity does not rest necessarily on the physical miracles of Christ,\nbut on his moral miracles, which no one has ever doubted, or can doubt.\nChristianity proceeded from Jesus, and was transmitted by him, not as a\nphilosophy, but as a power, a life, which renewed the old world, and\ncreated a new dispensation. This is the great miracle. We do not really\nbelieve Christianity on the ground of miracles, but we believe miracles on\nthe ground of Christianity.\n\nLet us explain this. If miracles had been asserted to be wrought by God in\norder to prove the truth of a doctrine irrational, self-contradictory,\nodious to the conscience and to the heart,\u2014to prove, for example, the\njustice of the Spanish Inquisition, the lawfulness of slavery, or that God\nloves some of his children and hates the rest,\u2014then all the outward\nevidence in the world would not have convinced us that God had taught such\na doctrine and confirmed it by miracles. If we had seen with our own eyes\na dead man raised to life, or if M. Renan\u2019s committee of scientific men\nhad testified that they had seen it, we should either say they were\ndeceived, or we should say, with the Jews, \u201cIt is done by some devilish\npower, not by a divine power. It is not supernatural, it is\npreternatural.\u201d But Christianity itself is the great miracle of human\nhistory. It is more marvellous than raising a dead man, for it was the\n_resurrection of a dead world_\u2014of a dead humanity. Read Gibbon. He is an\ninfidel writer, but he is a perfect historian. He shows you Christianity,\nas a living force, coming into history, pouring a tide of life into the\ndecaying civilization of Rome, overflowing upon the German tribes, and\nchanging their whole character, so as to make out of those savage warriors\nmerciful and reverential soldiers, who knew how to pardon and how to\nspare. Now, there seems something quite as supernatural in this as in the\ncoming of new trees and plants into the world in the carboniferous epoch,\nor the coming in of mammalia, a hundred thousand years or so after. It\nseems as if God came near the world, and touched it in Jesus Christ; for\nthe power of one man was wholly inadequate to such results as followed his\ncoming. I believe Christianity a divine religion, a religion from God,\nbecause it lifts the soul nearer to God\u2014because it has lifted mankind\nnearer to God, and enabled men to believe God a friend\u2014not a tyrant, not a\nstern king\u2014but a father. Christianity is divine, because its truth and\nlove are divine\u2014because it purifies, consoles, and elevates human hearts;\nbecause the life of Jesus is, by the testimony of such men as Theodore\nParker, Rousseau, and Renan, infinitely superior to all other lives ever\nlived in this world. Now, believing in Christianity and Christ on such\ngrounds, we may look with much more deference and respect upon the stories\nof miracles which are intertwined in his life. We should not attend to\nthem at all if we found them told about only common men; but told about\nJesus, we are led to examine them more critically, and ask whether it is,\nor is not, possible for them to have been, in the main, real facts.\n\nThe Orthodox doctrine has been, and still is, that Christianity rests on\nmiracles. Our view is, that miracles rest on Christianity. But we close\nthis section with extracts from Luther, Channing, Trench, and Walker, to\nshow that the view for which we contend is not without able supporters in\nall parts of the Church.\n\nMartin Luther says,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cPeople cry it up as a great miracle, that Christ made the blind\n    see, the deaf hear, and the lepers clean; and it is true such\n    works are miraculous signs; but Christ regards his influence on\n    the soul as far more important than that on the body; for as the\n    soul excels the body, so do the miracles wrought on the former\n    excel those wrought on the latter....\n\n    \u201cThe miracles which Christ wrought on the body are small and\n    almost childish, compared with the high and true miracles which he\n    constantly performs in the Christian world by his divine, almighty\n    power; for instance, that Christianity is preserved on the earth;\n    that the word of God and faith in him can yet hold out; yea, that\n    a Christian can survive on earth against the devil and all his\n    angels; also against so many tyrants and factions; yea, against\n    our own flesh and blood. The fact that the gospel remains and\n    improves the human heart,\u2014this is indeed to cast out the devil,\n    and tread on serpents, and speak with tongues; for those visible\n    miracles were merely signs for the ignorant, unbelieving crowd,\n    and for those who were yet to be brought in; but for us, who know\n    and believe, what need is there of them? For the heathen, indeed,\n    Christ must needs give external signs, which they could see and\n    take hold of; but Christians must needs have far higher signs,\n    compared with which the former are earthly. It was necessary to\n    bring over the ignorant with external miracles, and to throw out\n    such apples and pears to them as children; but we, on the\n    contrary, should boast of the great miracles which Christ daily\n    performs in his church.\u201d\n\n\nIn the \u201cChristian Examiner,\u201d Dr. James Walker says,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cChristianity embodies a collection of moral and vital truths, and\n    _these truths_, apart from _all history_ or philosophy, constitute\n    Christianity itself. Instead, therefore, of perplexing and\n    confounding the young with what are called the evidences of\n    Christianity, give them Christianity itself. Begin by giving them\n    Christianity itself, as exhibited in the life and character of the\n    Lord Jesus, as illustrated by his simple, beautiful and touching\n    parables, and as it breathes through all his discourses. They will\n    _feel it to be true_. Depend upon it, paradoxical as it may sound,\n    children will be much more likely to believe Christianity without\n    what are called the evidences, than with them; and the remark\n    applies to some who are not children.\n\n    \u201cWhy talk to one about the argument from prophecy, or the argument\n    from miracles, when these are the very points, and the only\n    points, on which his mind, from some peculiarity in its original\n    constitution, or from limited information, chiefly labors. Give\n    him Christianity itself, by which we mean the body of moral and\n    vital truths which constitute Christianity. Observe it when you\n    will, you will find that the doubts and difficulties suggested by\n    children relate almost exclusively to the _history_ of\n    Christianity, or to what are called the _external_ evidences of\n    Christianity, and not to the _truth_ of Christianity itself. Give\n    them Christianity itself: for if they believe in that, it is\n    enough. Nothing can be more injudicious than to persist in urging\n    the argument from miracles on a mind, that, from any cause, has\n    thus become indifferent, and perhaps impatient of it. How idle to\n    think to convince a person of Christianity by miracles, when it is\n    these very miracles, and not Christianity, that he doubts! The\n    instances, we suspect, are not rare, even of adults, who are\n    _first converted to Christianity itself_, and afterwards, through\n    the moral and spiritual change which Christianity induces, are\n    brought to believe entirely and devoutly in its _miraculous origin\n    and history_.\u201d\n\n\nDr. Channing says,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThere is another evidence of Christianity still more _internal_\n    than any on which I have yet dwelt; an evidence to be _felt_\n    rather than described, but not less _real_ because founded on\n    feeling. I refer to that conviction of the divine original of our\n    religion which springs up and continually gains strength in those\n    who apply it habitually to their tempers and lives, and who imbibe\n    its spirit and hopes. In such men there is a consciousness of the\n    adaptation of Christianity to their noblest faculties; a\n    consciousness of its exalting and consoling influences, of its\n    power to confer the true happiness of human nature, to give that\n    peace which the world cannot give; which assures them that it is\n    not of earthly origin, but a ray from the everlasting Light, a\n    stream from the fountain of heavenly Wisdom and Love. This is the\n    evidence which sustains the faith of thousands, who never read and\n    cannot understand the learned books of Christian apologists, who\n    want, perhaps, words to explain the ground of their belief, but\n    whose faith is of adamantine firmness, who hold the gospel with a\n    conviction more intimate and unwavering than mere arguments ever\n    produced.\u201d\n\n\nAnd here is an extract from another writer:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cDoubtless Christ\u2019s spiritual glory is in itself as\n    distinguishing, and as plainly showing his divinity, as his\n    outward glory, and a great deal more; for his spiritual glory is\n    that wherein his divinity consists, and the outward glory of his\n    transfiguration showed him to be divine only as it was a\n    remarkable image or representation of that spiritual glory.\n    Doubtless, therefore, he that has had a clear sight of the\n    spiritual glory of Christ may say, \u2018I have not followed cunningly\n    devised fables, but have been an eye-witness of his majesty,\u2019 upon\n    as good grounds as the apostle, when he had respect to the outward\n    glory of Christ that he had seen. A true sense of the divine\n    excellency of the things of God\u2019s Word doth more directly and\n    immediately convince of the truth of them; and that because the\n    excellency of these things is so superlative. There is a beauty in\n    them that is so divine and godlike, that is greatly and evidently\n    distinguishing of them from things merely human, or that men are\n    the authors and inventors of,\u2014a glory that is so high and great,\n    that when clearly seen, commands assent to their divinity and\n    reality. The evidence which they who are spiritually enlightened\n    have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of\n    intuition and immediate evidence. They believe the doctrines of\n    God\u2019s Word to be divine, because they see divinity in them. That\n    is, they see a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently\n    distinguishing glory in them; such a glory as, if clearly seen,\n    does not leave room to doubt of their being of God, and not of\n    men.\u201d\n\n\nTrench, also, denies that the miracle can have absolute authority, since\nSatanic powers may work evil too. This convinces us, he says, that\nmiracles cannot be appealed to in proof of the doctrine or of the divine\nmission of him who brings it to pass. The doctrine must first commend\nitself to the conscience as being good; then the miracle shows it to be a\nnew word from God. But when the mind and conscience reject the doctrine,\nthe miracle must be rejected too. The great act of faith is to believe, in\ndespite of all miracles, what God has revealed to the soul of the holy and\nthe true; not to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven\nshould bring it. Instead of compelling assent, miracles are _then_ rather\nwarnings to us that we keep aloof; for they tell us not merely that lies\nare here, but that he who utters them is an instrument of Satan.\n\nFalse miracles, or lying wonders, are distinguished from the true, not by\nthe intellect, but by the moral sense, which finds in them something\nimmoral, or ostentatious, or futile, leading to nothing. Origen says the\nmiracles of Moses issued in a Jewish polity; those of our Lord in a\nChristian Church. But what fruits have the miracles of Apollonius or\n\u00c6sculapius to show?\n\nThe miracles of Christ are redemptive. Modern writers of evidences make a\ndangerous omission when they fail to say that the doctrine is to try the\nmiracle, as well as the miracle to seal the doctrine. To teach men to\nbelieve in Christ on no other grounds than his wonderful works is to pave\nthe way of Antichrist. Those books of Christian evidences are utterly\nmaimed and imperfect, fraught with the most perilous consequences, which\nreverence in the miracle only its power.(10)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as Historic\nFacts.\n\n\nThe first thing we notice about the miracles of Jesus is, that they are\nintertwined inextricably with the whole narrative. It is almost impossible\nto disentangle them, and to leave any solid historic residuum. There is a\nstory in Goethe of a statue of iron and silver, with veins of gold. The\nflames licked out the gold veins of the colossus, and it remained standing\na little while; but when at last the tenderest filaments had been licked\nout, the image crashed together, and fell in a shapeless, miserable heap.\nSo when the tongue of criticism shall have eaten out the supernatural\nelements of the gospel narrative, the heroic figure will fall, as it has\nalready in Renan\u2019s construction, into an amorphous mass of unhistoric\nrubbish.\n\nThen we see that most of these miracles are miracles of healing, which\nhave their analogues in many similar events scattered through history.\nMany such facts might be collected to show that there is in man a latent\npower of overcoming disease, in himself and others, by a great exertion of\nwill. If in common men there is such a power, latent, and as yet\nundeveloped, why should it be an unnatural thing that one so full of a\nsuperhuman life as Jesus should be raised to a position where, by his very\nword or touch, he could cure disease, and that even at a distance?\n\nWe see such wonderful discoveries made every day of latent powers in\nnature, and secrets hidden till now from all men, that we do not know\nwhere to put limits to the possibility of the wonderful. To go into a\ntelegraphic office in Boston, and speak to a man in New York or\nWashington, and have an answer in five minutes; to have your portrait\npainted in a moment by the rays of the sun,\u2014such things as these would\nhave seemed miracles to us a few years ago. To be able to tell what metals\nthere are in the sun\u2019s atmosphere, and what not there; to say, \u201cIn the\natmosphere of the sun there is silver, but not gold; there are iron, and\nantimony, and lead, and aluminum, but no copper nor zinc,\u201d\u2014does not this\nseem incredible? But we know that we _can_ now tell just that.\n\nWhen we read the Gospels, we find everything in them so simple, so\nunpretending, so little of an attempt at making out a consistent story,\nsuch a harmony in the character of the works attributed to Jesus (with one\nor two exceptions), that we are irresistibly inclined to say, \u201cThese\nstories must be simple facts. Delusion never spoke in this tone,\u2014so clear,\nso luminous,\u2014in language so honest and sincere.\u201d\n\nI do not deny that some mistakes or misapprehensions may have crept into\nthe records. Occasionally we can see signs of something being mistaken for\na miracle which was really not one. For example, the finding of a piece of\nmoney in the fish\u2019s mouth may have been the mistake of a proverbial\nexpression, common among fishermen, and used by Matthew in his original\nHebrew Gospel, but which the Greek translator, ignorant of the popular\nphrase, considered to be meant for a miracle.\n\nThe most natural supposition is, that a wonderful power dwelt in Jesus,\nwhich enabled him to heal the sick, cure the insane, and sometimes even\nbring back life to the dead. What do we know about death? The last breath\nhas been drawn. The heart has ceased to beat, the lungs to move. We say,\n\u201cHe is dead.\u201d But people have lain two or three days in this state,\ndeclared dead by the physicians, and then have come to life again by\nnatural causes. A drowned man has all the marks of death; but after lying\nin this state half an hour, he is brought to life again. What, then, might\nnot have been done by that supernatural power of life which, as history\nshows, dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History.\n\n\nIt may very properly be asked whether miracles have occurred since the\nBible record was closed; and if not, why not. Since we have regarded the\nmiracles of the New Testament as no violations of law, but the coming in\nof higher laws or forces than those usually at work in the world, why may\nthey not have taken place in our own time? If Christ\u2019s miracles differ\nonly from other miracles in being higher and more perfect, what are the\nmiracles of a lower class? Can we point out any events belonging to the\nsame class of phenomena which have happened during the last thousand\nyears?\n\nIn reply to this question, we will proceed to mention certain phenomena\nwhich seem to belong to the same order as the works of Jesus. The\n_distinction_ between the miracles of Christ and all those portents will\nbe pointed out hereafter.\n\nIn the \u201cAtlantic Monthly\u201d for February and March, 1864, there appeared an\naccount (written, we believe, by R. Dale Owen), of the Convulsionists of\nSt. M\u00e9dard. The facts therein stated _seem_ to contradict all the known\nlaws of physiology. The lower side of miracles, namely, their apparent\nviolation of physical laws, here appears as fully developed and as fully\nattested as the most careful sceptic could desire. If, therefore, any one\nobjects to believing the miracles of Jesus on the ground that they _seem_\nto be violations of physical laws, we ask what they mean to do with these\nfacts, so extraordinary, and yet so fully attested. If believed, there is\nno reason, based on the abnormal character of Christ\u2019s works, for\nrejecting those. But if disbelieved, it can be done only by setting aside\nall the ordinary rules of evidence, and all the laws of belief, in favor\nof a negative prepossession of a purely empirical character. Phenomena\nsomewhat similar to these have occurred elsewhere, among Protestants as\nwell as Catholics, during periods of great religious excitement. The\nbeginnings of most religious systems\u2014Methodism, Quakerism, &c.\u2014have\nstories like these of supernatural influences. They have usually been\ndisbelieved because their friends have claimed too much: they have claimed\nthat such phenomena were divine attestations to the truth of the doctrine\npreached. What _is_ proved by them is the simple fact that the soul of man\nis capable, under high excitement, of suspending, or rather overcoming,\nall common physiological laws. We have seen similar results follow often\nfrom such causes, only in ordinary ways. A sick person is made well in a\nmoment by some moral influence; a weak and sickly mother will nurse a sick\nchild, night after night, without rest or sleep, and keep well, where a\nstrong man would break down. Mesmerism brings forward multitudes of like\nfacts. There are, for example, the well-attested facts concerning the\ntransfer of the senses: that people under the influence of animal\nmagnetism can read with their forehead, the pit of their stomach, or the\nback of their head. We have seen a weak boy, some thirteen years old, when\nmagnetized, lift a chair with three heavy men standing on it.\nClairvoyance, or seeing things at a distance, though not so well proved,\nis confirmed by a vast number of facts. We come, then, to our final\nstatement concerning miracles, which is this:\u2014\n\nI. There is in man a power, as yet undeveloped, and only occasionally seen\nin exceptional conditions, of overcoming the common laws of nature by\nforce of will; and this is sometimes voluntary, and sometimes involuntary.\n\nII. This phenomenon takes these forms:\u2014\n\nA. _Power of the soul over the body (a.) to resist pain_, as in the case\nof martyrs, who are burned alive without any appearance of suffering;\n_(b.) to resist physical injury_, as in the case of the Convulsionists;\n_(c.) to dispense with the usual service of the senses_, as in the case of\nthe girl at Worcester Insane Asylum, Massachusetts, under the care of Dr.\nWoodward, who could read a book in a perfectly dark room and with bandaged\neyes; _(d.) to give a preternatural energy and strength to the body_.\n\nB. _Preternatural knowledge_\u2014such cases as that narrated by Dr. Bushnell,\nof Yonnt, in California; or _knowledge through dreams_, waking\npresentiments; cases of _foresight_, or prophecy; of _insight_, or\nknowledge of what is passing in other minds; of _clairvoyance_, or\nknowledge of what is happening at a distance, of which multitudes of facts\nare narrated in such books as the \u201cSeeress of Provorst,\u201d Mrs. Crowe\u2019s\n\u201cNight Side of Nature,\u201d Robert Dale Owen\u2019s \u201cFootfalls from the Boundary of\nthe Unseen World,\u201d which, after being sifted by a fair criticism, will\nleave a large residuum of irresolvable facts.\n\nC. Higher than these is a preternatural elevation of the whole character,\nas in such cases as that of JOAN OF ARC, where a young girl, ignorant, a\npeasant, destitute of all common means of influencing any one, by the\nsimple power of faith, because she believed herself inspired and\ncommissioned, succeeded in gaining the command of the armies of France,\nand then of achieving a series of victories, equal, on the whole, as mere\nmilitary exploits, to those of the first captains of the world.\n\nIn all these cases we see manifestations of a power in the soul over\nnature, body, men, and the laws of time and space. So we say, _secondly_,\u2014\n\nIII. This power was possessed in the highest degree known in this world by\nJesus of Nazareth, and it differed in him from these other cases in these\npoints:\u2014\n\n1. It was always voluntary in its exercise, never involuntary. He was not\npossessed by it, he possessed it. He used it just when and where he chose\nto use it. It was always at his command; he never appears to have tried to\nwork a miracle, and failed. So,\u2014\n\n2. It was in him constant, and not occasional. In other cases where the\nmiraculous element appears, it seems to come and go; but to Jesus the\nspirit was not given by measure. He had it always.\n\n3. This power in him was total, and not partial. It was therefore\nharmonious\u2014in harmony with all his other qualities. He had power over\ndiseases of the body, and also those of the soul. He knew what was in man,\nand what was in nature\u2014in the present, and in the future. There was\nnothing ecstatic, enthusiastic, nothing of excitement, about him; but\neverything denoted a fulness, a PLEROMA, of this spiritual life.\n\n4. The exercise of this power in Christ was always eminently moral, never\nwilful. The one or two seeming exceptions, as, for example, the cursing\nthe fig tree, and the causing the evil spirits to go into the swine, ought\nto be explained in harmony with the vast majority of his actions, which\nalways are guided by love, and justice, and a holy sense of what is true\nand good.\n\n5thly, and lastly. The miracle power of Jesus reached a higher point of\ndevelopment than in any one else. The raising of the dead to life, and the\nmysterious power over nature indicated by the turning of water into wine,\nby the miracle of the loaves and fishes, calming the storm, if facts, are\nfacts unparalleled in any other biography, but seem possible, however\nunintelligible, when considered as emanating from such a masterly and\ncommanding spirit as that of Jesus.\n\nAnd this finally brings us to the miracle of the resurrection, concerning\nwhich we will first quote from an article in a late number of the\n\u201cWestminster Review,\u201d to show the most recent ideas of the critical and\nnegative school on this point.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections.\n\n\nIn an article in the \u201cWestminster Review,\u201d in \u201cThe Life of Christ, by\nStrauss,\u201d occurs the following passage:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cFor of the two alternatives open to free inquiry, that if Jesus\n    died he never reappeared, or if he reappeared he never died,\n    Strauss considers the former not only preferable, but the only\n    tenable one; for he cannot persuade himself that a feeble\n    sufferer, who at first had scarcely strength to leave the tomb,\n    and in the end succumbed to death, could have contrived to inspire\n    his followers with the conviction that he was the Prince of life,\n    the Conqueror of the grave. Strauss thus admits that faith in the\n    supernatural revival of the buried Nazarene was undoubtedly the\n    profession of the Christian Church, the unconditional antecedent\n    without which Christianity could have had no existence. If, then,\n    we refuse to assume the resurrection to be an historical fact, we\n    have to explain the origin of the Church\u2019s belief in it. The\n    solution which satisfies Strauss, and which seems to us also an\n    adequate interpretation of the problem, is dependent on the two\n    following positions: 1. The appearance of Jesus was literally an\n    appearance, an hallucination, a psychological phenomenon. 2. It\n    was also a sort of practical fallacy of confusion, a case of\n    mistaken identity.\n\n    \u201cBut it will be said that this natural solution of the problem\n    implies a foregone conclusion\u2014the rejection of the Orthodox or\n    supernatural solution. Of course it does; and accordingly Strauss\n    has been accused of dogmatical or unphilosophical assumption. But\n    the rejection of the theological solution is not the result of\n    ignorant prejudice, but of enlightened investigation.\n    Anti-supernaturalism is the final irreversible sentence of\n    scientific philosophy, and the real dogmatist and hypothesis-maker\n    is the theologian. That the world is governed by uniform laws is\n    the first article in the creed of science, and to disbelieve\n    whatever is at variance with those uniform laws, whatever\n    contradicts a complete induction, is an imperative, intellectual\n    duty. A particular miracle is credible to him alone who already\n    believes in supernatural agency. Its credibility rests on an\n    assumption\u2014the existence of such agency. But our most\n    comprehensive scientific experience has detected no such agency.\n    There is no miracle in nature; there is no evidence of any\n    miracle-working energy in nature; there is no fact in nature to\n    justify the expectation of miracle. Rightly has it been said by an\n    English _savant_ and divine, that testimony is a second-hand\n    assurance, a blind guide, that can avail nothing against reason;\n    and that to have any evidence of a Deity working miracles, we must\n    go out of nature and beyond reason.\n\n    \u201cStrauss\u2019s prepossession, therefore, is justifiable. It is the\n    prepossession of the rational theist, who does not believe in a\n    God who changes his mind and improves with practice\u2014the prentice\n    maker of the world; it is the prepossession of the pantheist, in\n    whose theory of the perfect government of an immanent God, miracle\n    is an extravagance and absurdity; it is the prepossession of the\n    philosophical naturalist, whose experience of the operations of\n    nature recognizes no extra-mundane interventionalism.\u201d\n\n\nWe have quoted this passage as containing the most distinct statement of\nan extreme anti-supernaturalism. Admitting the death of Jesus as a fact,\nit denies his resurrection as a fact, and that on doctrinal and theoretic\ngrounds. Declaring anti-supernaturalism to be the final irreversible\nsentence of scientific philosophy, it assumes supernaturalism to be a\ndenial that the world is governed by uniform laws. It assumes the\nresurrection of Christ to be at variance with those uniform laws. It\ndenies the existence of any supernatural agency in the affairs of this\nworld. It denies that there ever has been a miracle in nature, or any\nextra-mundane intervention in the history of nature or man.\n\nThis is what claims to be science, at the present time. We deny that it is\nscience, and assert it to be pure dogmatism and theory, contradicted by\nnumerous facts. It is pure theory to assume the resurrection of Jesus to\nbe a violation of law. It is pure theory to define a miracle to be\nsomething opposed to law. It is pure theory to assume that the miraculous\nfacts ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels must have been, if they occurred,\nviolations of law. It is an assumption, contradicted by geology, that\nthere is nothing in the experience of the naturalist of the operations of\nnature to show any extra-mundane intervention.\n\nWe have admitted, indeed, that these same assumptions have been made by\nOrthodox theology. Orthodox theologians have also assumed the miracles of\nChrist to be violations of the laws of nature. But some of the most\ndistinguished theologians, in all ages of the Church, have not so defined\nthem. And there is no reason why the man of science should deny the\npossibility of fact because an unscientific explanation has been given of\nthat fact by others. This writer virtually says, \u201cI will not believe that\nChrist appeared after his death, on any amount of testimony, because some\npersons have defined such appearances as being opposed to the laws of\nnature.\u201d It is certainly true that we cannot fully believe in the reality\nof any phenomenon which seems to us to be a violation of law. It is also\ntrue that the reported facts concerning the appearances of Jesus _seem_\nlike a violation of law. But the scientific course is neither to deny the\nfacts, nor to explain them away, but to study them, in order to see\nwhether, after all, they may not lead us to some new laws, before unknown.\n\nThe resurrection of Jesus deserves this study, since, according to the\nconfession of science itself, the Christian Church rests upon that belief.\nStrauss admits that Christianity could not have existed without it. But,\nhastily assuming that the real appearance of Jesus himself would be a\nviolation of a law of nature, he supposes this immense fact of Christendom\nto rest on an hallucination and a case of mistaken identity.\n\nBut perhaps, after all, the resurrection may have been an example of a\nuniversal law. Like other miracles, which are sporadic instances, in this\nworld, of laws which may be the nature of other worlds, so the\nresurrection may have been as natural an event as any other in the life of\nJesus. Perhaps it is a law of nature that all souls shall become\ndisengaged from the earthly body on the third day after death. Perhaps\nthey all rise in a spiritual body, substantial and real, but not usually\nperceptible by the senses. Perhaps, in the case of Jesus, that same\nsuperior command of miraculous force, which appeared during his life,\nenabled him to show himself easily and freely whenever he would. What\nbecame of the earthly body we do not know; it may have been removed by the\npriests or soldiers to prevent the disciples from getting possession of\nit. The body in which Christ appeared differed evidently from the earthly\nbody in various ways. It came and went mysteriously; it was sometimes\nrecognized, and sometimes not; and it ascended into the spiritual world\ninstead of passing again to death and the grave. Perhaps, therefore, it\nmay be a universal law that souls rise out of the material body into a\nhigher state, clothed in another body, substantial and real, but not\nmaterial. The essence of the resurrection is this: Resurrection is not\ncoming to life again with the same body, but ascent into a higher life\nwith a new body.\n\nIt may be said that all this is only a _perhaps_. Very well; it _is_ only\na _perhaps_, but that is all we want in order to refute the logic of the\narticle just quoted. The scientific sceptic says, \u201cI will not believe that\nJesus was really seen after death, because that would be a violation of a\nlaw of nature.\u201d We reply, \u201cNo, not necessarily. It might _perhaps_ have\nbeen thus and so.\u201d That will do; for if we can show that it is not\n_necessarily_ a violation of a law of nature, we wholly remove the\nobjection.\n\nBut we may go farther, and assert that such a supposition as we have made\nnot only accords with the story in the Gospels, but also with the whole\nspirit of Christianity, and with all the analogies of nature. The\nresurrection of Jesus, so regarded, becomes the most _natural_ thing in\nthe world. If souls live after death, as even natural instinct teaches,\nthey live somewhere. As by the analogy of nature we see an ascending scale\nof bodily existence up to man, whose body is superior to that of all other\nanimals, because fitted for the very highest uses, so if man is to live\nhereafter and elsewhere, and not in this earthly body, analogy would\nanticipate that he should live in a body still, but in a higher form. If\nJesus, therefore, rose in this higher body, and appeared to his disciples,\nit was to lift them above fear of death by showing that this corruptible\nmust put on incorruption. So his resurrection was not merely coming to\nlife again in the same body, but rising up into a higher body and a higher\nstate, to show us how we are to be, to give us a glimpse of the hereafter,\nto bridge over the gulf between this life and that to come.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Final Result of this Examination.\n\n\nWe have thus examined, as thoroughly as our limited space will allow, the\nquestions at issue, on the subject of miracles, between the old Orthodox\nand recent heterodox views; and the result to which we have arrived may be\nthus stated:\u2014\n\n1. We may believe, on the testimony of history, that through Jesus of\nNazareth there entered the world a great impulse of creative moral life,\nwhich has been, and is now, renewing society. This new impulse of life may\nbe regarded as miraculous or supernatural.\n\n2. We may believe, though perhaps less strongly, but still decidedly, that\nduring the stay of Jesus on earth many extraordinary phenomena took place,\nsuch as the sudden healing of the sick, the raising of the dead to life, a\ndisplay of miraculous insight and foresight, or knowledge of the present\nand the future, and some influence over organic and material life, and\nover the lifeless forces of nature. The precise limits of this we do not\nknow, and need not pretend to define. We need not think it essential to\nfix the boundary. It may be interesting as speculation, but it is not\nimportant as religion.\n\n3. For, in the third place, we may say that these miracles of Jesus have\nvery little direct bearing on our _religion_. As they illustrate his\ncharacter, they are valuable, and also as they help us to believe that the\nlaws of nature are not stiff and rigid, like the movement of a machine,\nbut that there is force above force, a vortex of living powers, in the\nuniverse, rising higher and higher towards the fountain of all force and\nlife in God. All portents and wonders are useful, as they shake us out of\nthe mechanical view of things, and show that even the outward, sensible\nworld is full of spiritual power.\n\n4. We may also believe the miracles of Jesus to be _natural_ in this\nsense\u2014that under the same conditions they could have been done by others,\nand that they are probably prophetic of a time in which they _shall_ be\ndone by others. Looked at as mere _signs_ or _portents_, he himself\ndiscouraged any attention being paid to them. Looked at as logical proofs\nto convince an unbeliever, he never brought them forward. His object in\nmiracles, as stated by Mr. Furness, was simply to express his character.\nSome, indeed, were symbolical, as the cursing of the fig tree. It is the\ncustom in the East for teachers to speak in symbolic language.\n\nMiracles were at first believed, on low grounds, as violations of law by a\nGod outside of the world. Now they are disbelieved on scientific grounds.\nThey may possibly be believed again on grounds of philosophy and historic\nevidence, not as portents, not as violations of law, not as the basis of a\nlogical argument, but as the natural effluence and outcome of a soul like\nthat of Jesus, into which a supernatural influx of light and life had\ndescended. They are not more wonderful than nature; they are not _so_\nwonderful as the change of heart by which a bad man becomes a good man.\nBut they will find their proper place as evidence how plastic the lower\nlaws are to the influence of a higher life.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the Bible.\n\n\nThe subject of this chapter is the Orthodox idea concerning the\ninspiration and authority of the Bible. We shall consider the conflict of\nopinion between those who believe in the full inspiration of every word of\nScripture, and those who treat it like a common book, and endeavor to see\nhow far we ought to believe a fact or a doctrine, because it is asserted,\nor seems to be asserted, by some writer in the Bible.\n\nSuch questions are certainly of great importance to us all at the present\ntime, when opinions on these subjects are unsettled, and few people know\nexactly what to believe. Especially in regard to the Old Testament, not\nmany persons have any distinct notions. They do not know what is its\ninspiration or its authority; they do not know whether they are to believe\nthe account of the creation and of the deluge in the book of Genesis, in\nopposition to the geologists, or believe the geologists, in opposition to\nGenesis. Certainly it is desirable, if we can, to have some clear and\ndistinct opinions on these points.\n\nAnd, first, in regard to Inspiration: there are three main and leading\nviews of the inspiration of the Bible. There cannot be a fourth. There may\nbe modifications of these, but nothing essentially different. These three\nviews are,\u2014\n\n(_a._) _Plenary Inspiration._\u2014That is, that everything in the Bible is the\nword of God. All the canonical books are inspired by God, so as to make\nthem infallible guides to faith and practice. Every word which really\nbelongs to these books is God\u2019s truth, and to be received without question\nas truth, no matter how much it may seem opposed to reason, to the facts\nof nature, to common sense, and common morality.\n\nThis is _the Orthodox theory_ even at the present time. Any variation from\nthis is considered a deviation into heresy. No doubt, in practice it _is_\ndeviated from, by very Orthodox people; but all Protestant sects, claiming\nto be Orthodox, profess to hold to the plenary inspiration of the Bible.\n\n(_b._) _The Rationalist or Naturalistic View of the Bible._\u2014The Bible is\nnot inspired at all, or at least in no way differing from any other book.\nIts authors were inspired, perhaps, just as Homer, or Thucydides, or\nCicero were inspired, but not differently. It has no _authority_,\ntherefore, over any other book, and is just as liable to be in error as\nany other. If you should bind in one volume the histories of Herodotus,\nTacitus, Gibbon, and Mr. Bancroft, the poems of Horace, Hafiz, and Dante,\nand the letters of Cicero and Horace Walpole, this collection would have\nto the Naturalist just as much authority as the Bible.\n\n(_c._) The _mediatorial_ view of the Bible, or the view which _mediates_\nbetween the others. This view endeavors to _reconcile_ the others, by\naccepting the truths in each, and eliminating their errors or defects.\n\nTo this third division of opinions belong those of a large class, who are\nnot prepared to accept either the first or the second. They cannot believe\nevery word in the Bible to be the word of God, for they find things in it\ncontradicting the evidence of history and the intuitions of reason, and\nalso contradicting other teachings of the same book. They cannot see why,\nas Christians, they should believe everything in the Jewish Scriptures. As\nChristians, they go to the New Testament as a main source of faith and\npractice, but do not see why they should go to the Old Testament for\nChristian truth. On the other hand, they cannot look upon the Bible as a\ncommon book. They remember that it has been a light to the world for\nthousands of years, that it has been the means of awakening the human\nintellect and heart, of reforming society, and purifying life. Even in the\nOld Testament they find the noblest truth and the tenderest piety. The\nBible has been the litany, prayer-book, inspirer, comforter of nations and\ncenturies. They cannot and would not emancipate themselves from the\ntraditions in which they were born, nor cut off history behind them. The\nChristian Church is their mother; she has taught them out of this book to\nknow God, and out of this book to pray to him, and they cannot regard it\nwithout a certain prepossession.\n\nTo this third class I myself belong. I would not be unjust to the past or\nto the future. I would be loyal to truth, and not shut my eyes to what God\nreveals which is new; and I would not be unfaithful to what has already\nbeen taught me, or ungrateful for the love which has taught the world by\nthe mouths of past prophets and apostles.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of Mankind.\n\n\nLet us then see, first, what the problem before us is; and this can\nperhaps be best understood by means of an example.\n\nThe common opinion among Christians is, that the world was made four\nthousand and four years before Christ, and that all mankind are descended\nfrom Adam and Eve. These opinions are derived from the book of Genesis,\nwhich tells us that after God had made the world and other things in five\ndays, on the sixth day he made man in his own image; and that, when the\nfirst man, Adam, was a hundred and thirty years old, he had a son, named\nSeth; and from Seth, according to Genesis, are descended, by a genealogy\ngiven in the fifth chapter of Genesis, Noah and his sons; and the ages\nbeing given from Adam down to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, the age\nof the world and the age of the human race have been computed.\n\nAs long as there was no reason for supposing any different period for the\nantiquity of the world, these numbers were quietly accepted. But various\nnew facts have been noticed, and new sciences have arisen, within the past\nfifty years, which have thrown doubt upon this chronology. In the first\nplace the great science of geology has examined the rocky leaves which\nenvelop the surface of the earth, and has found written upon them proofs\nof an immense antiquity. It is found that the earth, instead of being\ncreated four thousand years ago, must have existed for myriads of years,\nin order to have given time for the changes which have taken place in its\nstructure. This evidence was long doubted and resisted by theologians, as\nthey supposed in the interest of Scripture; but the evidence was too\nstrong to be denied, and no intelligent theologian, however Orthodox, now\nbelieves the world to have been made in six days, or to have been created\nonly six thousand years ago. With some, the six days stand for immense\nperiods of time; with others, the whole story is considered a vision, or a\nsymbolical account of geological events; but no one takes it literally.\nThis result has come from the overwhelming amount of evidence for the\nantiquity of the earth, derived mainly from the fossil rocks. Of these\nfossiliferous rocks there are over thirty distinct strata, lying\nsuperimposed, in a regular series, each filled with the remains of\ndistinct varieties of animals or of plants. These rocks must each have\nbeen an immense period of time in being formed, for the shells which they\ncontain, although very delicate, are unbroken, and could only be slowly\ndeposited in the quiet depths of a great ocean. There are also evidences\nthat after those strata were formed, violent and sudden upheavals took\nplace, throwing them into new positions, then slow uprisings of the bottom\nof the sea, or slow subsidings of the land. At one time the northern parts\nof Europe and America were covered with ice. Great glaciers extended over\nthe whole of Switzerland, and icebergs floated from the mountains of\nBerkshire in Massachusetts upon a sea which filled the valley of the\nConnecticut River, dropping erratic blocks of stone, taken from those\nmountains, in straight lines, parallel with each other, half way across\nthe valley, where they still lie. Similar icebergs floated from Snowdon,\nin Wales, and Ben Lomond, in Scotland, over the submerged islands of Great\nBritain. At one time the whole surface of the earth, instead of being\ncovered with icy glaciers, was filled with a hot, damp atmosphere, laden\nwith carbonic gas, which no creature could breathe, but in which grew\ngreat forests of a strange tropical vegetation. Then came another period,\nin which all these forests were submerged and buried, and at last turned\ninto coal. Long after this hot period had passed, and long after the cold,\nglacial period, which followed it, had departed, came a time when the\nelephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus covered the whole of\nEurope, and the mammoth roamed in North America. Such facts as these,\nincontestably established by the amplest evidence, have made it impossible\nfor any reasonable man to believe that the earth was made in six days, or\nthat it was made only six thousand years ago.\n\nBut this question being thus disposed of, other questions arise in their\nturn. Are all mankind descended from one pair, or from many? Has the human\nrace existed on the earth only six thousand years, or during a longer\nperiod? Was the deluge of Noah a real event? and if so, was it universal\nor partial? Did the sun stand still at the command of Joshua? or is that\nonly a poetic image taken from an ancient book of poems\u2014the book of\nJasher? Is there any truth in the story of the passage of the Red Sea by\nthe Israelites? of the passage of the Jordan? of the walls of Jericho\nfalling when the trumpets were blown? of the story of Samson? If we once\nbegin to doubt and disbelieve the accounts in the Bible, where shall we\nstop? What rule shall we have by which to distinguish the true from the\nfalse? Is it safe to begin to question and deny? Is it not safer to accept\nthe whole book as the word of God, and to let everything in it stand\nunexamined?\n\nNo! \u201cIt is never safe,\u201d said Luther, \u201cto do anything against the truth!\u201d\nTruth alone is safe; and his soul only is safe who loves and honors truth\nmore than human approbation\u2014more than ease, comfort, or life. It is not\nsafe to pretend to believe what we do not. And in this instance, half of\nthe infidelity of the age and country has come from the teaching that\neverything in the Bible is the word of God. Sincere men have been\ndisgusted when told they must believe things contrary to their common\nsense and reason.\n\nAnother question, which is now being investigated, is the age of\nmankind\u2014the antiquity of the human race. The Bible gives the list of\ngenerations from Adam to Abraham; and the length of each, and other data,\ngiven in Scripture, make six thousand years for the life of man on this\nearth. Greek history only goes back some twenty-three hundred years; the\nEgyptian monuments go back fifteen hundred or two thousand years\nearlier\u2014to 2000 B.C., or 3000 B.C. The \u201cVedas,\u201d in India, may have been\nwritten 1500 B.C.; the \u201cKings,\u201d in China, before that. But recently we\nhave been carried back to a yet earlier period,\u2014to a time when man existed\non the earth, before any written monument or sculptured stone which now\nexists. _Two_ different sources have been discovered within a few\nyears,\u2014one of them by philology, the other by geology.\n\nIt has been found that the languages spoken by Europeans, in their airy\nsounds, are more permanent monuments than granite or enduring brass.\nStamped on these light, imponderable words are marks of a gray antiquity\ngoing back to times before Herodotus, before Moses and the book of\nGenesis, before the Vedas in India, before the Zendavesta in Persia. It\nhas been proved, first, that nearly all the languages of Europe belong to\none linguistic family, and therefore that those who speak them were\noriginally of one race. These different languages\u2014seven sister languages,\ndaughters of a language now wholly gone\u2014are the Sanscrit or ancient\nHindoo, the Zend or ancient Persian, the Greek, the Latin, the Keltic, the\nGerman, and the Slavic languages. By a comparison of these, it has been\nfound that originally there lived, east of the Caspian, a race of\nshepherds and hunters, calling themselves _Aryan_; that one branch\ndescended into India at least five thousand years ago, and drove out the\naboriginal inhabitants, a second branch went into Persia, a third into\nItaly, a fourth into Greece, a fifth vast immigration filled Northern\nEurope with the Kelts, a sixth with Scandinavians and Germans, and a\nseventh with the Slaves. But long ago as this immigration was,\u2014before all\nhistory,\u2014it found aboriginal inhabitants everywhere, whose descendants\nremain. The Lapps and Finns in Northern, Europe, the Basques in Spain, and\nMagyars in Hungary, are probably descended from this earlier European\nrace. It is difficult to suppose mankind only six thousand years old, when\nwe find such great movements taking place four or five thousand years ago.\n\nBut now come the geologists, and tell us that they find evidence of three\ndifferent races existing in Europe in three distinct periods of\ncivilization, some of which probably preceded the immigration of these\nIndo-European races. These three belong to what they call the Stone, the\nBronze, and the Iron Age. In the gravel and drift, from ten to twenty feet\nbelow the surface, along with the bones of the elephant and the\nrhinoceros, and other animals long since extinct, are found hundreds of\nflint instruments, axes, arrow-heads, and tools, indicating that men lived\nin Europe in great numbers, contemporaries with these extinct animals. If\nthis should be proved, we should then be brought to admit, with respect to\nthe antiquity of man, what we have already admitted with regard to the\nantiquity of the world, that the account in Genesis is not to be\nunderstood as theologians have hitherto taught; that is, that we must not\ngo to Genesis, but to philology and geology, for our knowledge of the most\nancient history.\n\nIn this case, then, it will be evident that the old notion of a literal\ninspiration cannot be maintained. God certainly did not inspire men to\nteach anything about the creation which was adapted to mislead and deceive\nmen for two thousand years. We shall be obliged to say, then, that Moses\nwas not inspired to teach geology or history; that what he taught on these\nsubjects he taught from such sources as were available to him, and that he\nwas liable to error.\n\nThe old Orthodox theory of plenary inspiration has received very damaging\nblows from such scientific researches as these which we have been\ndescribing. The letter of the Bible seems, in such cases, to be at war\nwith the facts of nature.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration.\n\n\nWhy, then, should the Orthodox doctrine be so stoutly maintained? What are\nthe reasons used in its defence? What its arguments? What is its basis? On\nwhat does it rest? Do the writers of the Bible say that they were inspired\nby God to write these books? Not at all. Do they claim infallibility?\nNowhere. Do they lay down any doctrine of plenary, verbal, literal\ninspiration? No. We do not even know who wrote many of these books. We do\nnot know who collected them, or why just these books were put into the\ncollection, and no others. The Orthodox theory rests on few facts, but is\nmainly an assumption. It seemed necessary that there should be _authority_\nsomewhere; and when Protestants rejected the authority of the Church, they\ntook the Bible in its place. The doctrine of inspiration, therefore, was\nadopted as a basis for the authority of the Bible.\n\nThe principal reason given by those who believe in the plenary inspiration\nof the Bible, for holding to this doctrine, is the necessity of _some_\nauthority. The argument is this: Unless every part of the Bible is\nbelieved to be fully inspired, some part of it may be believed to be\nerroneous; and if we admit error in any part, the Bible loses its\nauthority, and we do not know what to believe. The doctrine of literal and\nplenary inspiration rests, therefore, in the last analysis, on no basis of\nfact, but on a purely _a priori_ argument. Let us therefore examine this\nargument, and see what is its force.\n\nRevelation, it is said, is a communication of truth with authority. It is\ntruth shown to us by God, not truth reasoned out by man. Its value is,\nthat we can rely upon it entirely, live by it, die by it, without doubt or\nhesitation. We do not want speculation, opinion, probability; we want\ncertainty; otherwise religion ceases to be a power, and becomes a mere\nintellectual amusement.\n\nThe only religion, it is added, which is of any real value, is that which\ncarries with it this authority. The outward world, with its influences and\nits temptations, is so strong, that we shall be swept away by it unless we\ncan oppose to it some inward conviction as solid and real. Amid the\ntemptations of the senses, the allurements of pleasure, the deceitfulness\nof riches, will it enable a man to hold fast to honesty, temperance,\npurity, generosity\u2014to believe that in all probability these things are\nright, and that there is something to be said in favor of the opinion that\nGod approves of them?\n\nWill it help him, to think that unless the writer of the Gospel is\nmistaken, or his words mistranslated, Christ may have said that goodness\nleads to heaven, and sin to hell? No. We need authority in order to have\ncertainty; and we need certainty in our convictions in order that they\nshould influence us deeply and permanently.\n\nThis is the chief argument in favor of the plenary inspiration(11) of the\nBible. We see it amounts to this\u2014that it is very desirable, for practical\npurposes, that we should believe everything in the Bible to be true.(12)\n\nIn reply to this, we ought first to say, that the question in all these\ncases is not, What is desirable? but, What is true? We should begin by\ninvestigating the facts. We should ask, Does the Bible anywhere say of\nitself that it is inspired in this sense? Do any of the writers of the\nBible declare themselves to be thus inspired, so that all that they say is\nabsolutely true in every particular? Does Christ say that those who are to\nwrite the Gospels or the Epistles of the New Testament shall be thus\nguarded against every possible error? Or is there any evidence in the\nbooks themselves that the writers were thus protected? Do they never\ncontradict each other or themselves? Do they never contradict facts of\nnature or facts of history?\n\nNow, to all these questions, we are obliged to say, No. The Bible claims\nno such absolute inspiration for itself. It says that \u201choly men of old\nspake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,\u201d but it does not say that the\nHoly Spirit made them infallible. It says, \u201cAll Scripture is given by\ninspiration, and is profitable for doctrine,\u201d but it does not say what are\nthe limits of Scripture; and to be profitable or useful for doctrine is\nsurely not the same thing as to have infallible authority over belief.\nBesides, if those who wrote certain Scriptures were infallibly inspired,\nthose who collected the present books of the Old and New Testament, and\nmade our canon, were _not_ so inspired. Those who transcribed their\nautographic manuscripts were not inspired. The manuscripts of the Gospels\nand Epistles, written by their authors, have long since perished. There\nwere no autograph collectors in ancient times. There was no such reverence\nthen paid to the letter of religion, to cause the original manuscript of\nan apostle to be kept in a church as a sacred relic. We have plenty of\npieces of wood claiming to be parts of the true cross, but not a\nmanuscript claiming to be the original writing of an apostle. The earliest\nmanuscript goes only to the fourth century, and that contains the Epistle\nof Barnabas. If, then, the writers of the New Testament were inspired,\nthose who collected their writings were not inspired, and may have left\nout the right books, and put in the wrong ones. Those who copied their\nmanuscripts were not inspired, and may have left out the right words, and\nput in wrong ones. Those who translated their manuscripts were not\ninspired, and may have made mistakes in their translating. So that, after\nall, the plenary inspiration of the apostles does not bestow that\ninfallibility upon our English Bible which this theory demands in order to\ngive it authority.\n\nAnd yet we admit the importance of having some authority. Truth which does\nnot come with authority is _not_ truth; it is only speculation; it cannot\ninfluence life. Revelation and philosophy differ in this, that philosophy\ntells us what men think about God, revelation what God thinks about men.\nRevelation is the drawing aside of the veil which hides God, duty,\nimmortality. It does not give us speculations about them, but shows us the\nthings themselves.\n\nIf, therefore, we can show that the Bible can be authority _without being_\nplenarily inspired, very possibly Orthodoxy would no longer cling to this\ndoctrine with such remarkable tenacity. This point of authority we shall\nconsider in another section of this chapter, and so we will say no more\nabout it now. We shall try to show, then, that the Bible may be, and is\nauthority, without being inspired as regards every page and word, and that\ninspiration is one thing and infallibility another. At present we desire\nto see the truth there is in the Orthodox doctrine of inspiration.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration.\n\n\nThere is a foundation for inspiration in human nature, a capacity for\ninspiration which all possess. Were it not so, Christian inspiration would\nbe something unnatural, and not in the order of providence. Moreover, we\ncommonly speak of the inspiration of the poet, the painter, the inventor,\nthe man of genius. The man of genius is he who has more of this capacity\nfor inspiration than other men. But all men have it in a greater or a less\ndegree. All men have their hours or moments of inspiration. By these\nexperiences of their own, they understand the larger inspirations of\ngenius. If we distribute the thoughts we possess according to their\nsource, we shall find that we have obtained them all, either _from other\npersons_, or by means of _mental effort_, or by _inspiration_. The largest\npart of our thoughts and opinions we have taken in ready made, and\nreproduced them just as we received them. We suppose ourselves thinking,\nwhen we utter them, but we are only remembering. A much smaller proportion\nof our thoughts we have obtained reflectively, by personal efforts of the\nactive intellect. Another part are those which have come to us in some\nhappy moments, when the inner eye was unclouded, and when we seem to see\nat a glance truth and beauty. These inspired moments give us the most\nsolid knowledge we have. They are mental experiences, which are the master\nlights of all our being. They give direction and unity to all our other\nthoughts and opinions. They constitute mental originality. The peculiarity\nof inspiration, in this general sense, does not lie in the subjects of the\nthoughts, but in the manner of their coming. Ideas and thoughts of very\ndifferent kinds may all be inspired thoughts. The poet, the artist, have\ntheir inspirations. But the scholar, the thinker, has his also. The man\nwho invents a machine often has the idea come to him by an inspiration.\nThe man who discovers a continent has seen it in idea before he sees it in\nreality. If Shakespeare was an inspired man, so was Newton, so was\nColumbus, so was Lord Bacon, so was Faust when he discovered printing,\nWatt when he improved the steam engine, and Daguerre when he found out\nphotographic pictures; for, in all great discoveries and inventions, and\nin small ones too, the original idea is an inspiration, though it has to\nbe worked out mechanically by hard thinking.\n\nIt will be seen, then, what we understand by inspiration, in this general\nsense. It is a mental sight, corresponding as nearly as anything can to\nphysical sight. It seems, in the inspired moment, as if we looked into\nanother world, and saw new truths and facts there. We do not bring them up\nout of our memory; we see them in all their own fresh life and reality. We\ndo not think them out by an effort of the will; we stand still and see\nthem. All that our will has to do with it is negative rather than\npositive. It is to keep off disturbing influences of memory and sense, to\nhold the mind still, attentive, receptive, and ready. If we believe in\nthese inspirations, we can thus prepare the way for them, but nothing\nmore. We can wait and look, till the vision is presented, and then we\nshall see it; but this is all. The man of genius is he who believes in\nthese inspirations, and so looks for them. _What_ he shall see will depend\non what he looks for. The man whose taste is in the world of imagination\nlooks for forms of poetic or artistic beauty, and so sees these. Every man\nlooks for that which he is most interested in, whether he be metaphysician\nor mechanic. The world of ideal beauty and truth, which overhangs ours,\nhas a thousand portals, and we can pass in through one or another, and see\nthat which suits our various tastes and desires. Memory, reflection, and\nsight,\u2014these are the three sources of our thoughts. The inspired man is a\nseer\u2014he has insight and foresight; and these objects of mental sight are\nto him more real and certain than any others. But he is unable to prove\ntheir reality or justify them to the sceptic. And hence his fate is often\nthat of Cassandra,\u2014to be a true prophet, but not to be believed, until by\nand by the strength of his own conviction wins its way, and produces faith\nin others.\n\nThere are, therefore, two principal intellectual states of the mind\u2014the\none receptive, the other plastic; the one by which it takes in truth, the\nother by which it works it up into shape. By the one it obtains the\nsubstance of thought, by the other the form of thought. The one may be\ncalled the perceptive state, the other the reflective state. Thus, too, we\nsee that the perceptive faculty may be exercised in two directions,\noutwardly and inwardly. It is the same intellectual faculty which, through\nthe senses, looks at and perceives the outward material universe, and\nthrough the mind itself, the inward world of thought. It is this power of\nlooking inward which gives us all that we call inspiration. We have, thus,\noutsight and insight.\n\nThere is, then, a _universal inspiration_, on which the special\ninspiration of the Old and New Testament rests. There are inspired men and\nuninspired men. There are inspired writings and uninspired writings. There\nis a general inspiration, out of which the particular inspiration of Bible\nwriters grew. Universal inspiration is a genus, of which this is a\nspecies. We cannot understand the inspiration of the writers of the Bible\ntill we understand this universal inspiration on which it rests. We can\nbest explain the special inspiration of Scripture by first knowing the\ngeneral inspirations of mankind.\n\nMr. Emerson, in one of his poems, called the \u201cProblem,\u201d describes this\nuniversal inspiration. He describes Phidias as being inspired to make his\nJupiter, as well as the prophets to write their burdens. He says the\narchitect that made St. Peter\u2019s was guided by some divine instinct in his\nheart\u2014he wrought in a sad sincerity. He says we cannot tell how such\nbuildings as the Parthenon and St. Peter\u2019s were built, any more than how\nthe bird builds its nest; they were formed by a natural architecture; they\ngrew as the grass grows; they came out of thought\u2019s interior sphere, just\nas the pine tree adds a myriad of new leaves to its old arms every year.\n\n\n    \u201cThe passive master lent his hand\n    To the vast soul that o\u2019er him planned;\n    And the same power that reared the shrine\n    Bestrode the tribes that knelt within.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration.\n\n\nHaving thus spoken of inspiration in general, we proceed to speak of\nChristian inspiration in particular.\n\nChristian inspiration is the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart. It is\nthat influence which came to the apostles, and to all Christians after\nJesus had left the earth, to unite them inwardly with Christ, and to show\nthem the true Christ. It is that of which Paul speaks, when he says, It\npleased God to reveal his Son in me. All Christians were baptized with the\nHoly Ghost; had the spirit of Christ dwelling in them; were led by the\nspirit of God; received the spirit of adoption, which bore witness that\nthey were the sons of God; which helped their infirmities; helped them to\npray; enabled them to mortify the deeds of the body, and produced many\ngifts and graces. It is quite certain that all Christians were expected to\npartake of this Christian inspiration. This enabled them inwardly to see\nand know Christ\u2014the true Christ. And only thus could they become truly\nhis.\n\nNow, the Christian inspiration, so necessary at first, is equally\nnecessary now, for its object is, as it was then, to turn nominal\nChristians into living Christians; to turn historical Christianity into\nvital Christianity; to enable those who already know Christ after the\nflesh, also to know him after the spirit. What is it which we need for\ncomfort, improvement, usefulness? We need a living, practical faith in\nGod\u2019s truth and love. We need to see it as we now see the outward world.\nWe believe in the inevitable retribution of God\u2019s laws. We need to see\nthis; to see that selfishness is death, and generosity life; to see that\nhumility is exaltation, and that pride is abasement. Having seen law, we\nneed also to see grace, the reality of forgiveness, the reality of a\nFather\u2019s love. We need to see immortality and eternity, while we are yet\nsurrounded with the world of sense and time; to see that the two worlds\nare not two, but one, all temporal things having their roots in spiritual\nthings. This is what we need for comfort, for no hardship would seem hard\nwhile we were thus looking at the things which are eternal, and knowing\nthat every light affliction works out an eternal weight of glory. This is\nwhat we need for improvement. For no efforts at improvement can accomplish\nthat which this inward inspiration can do. It is a tide which bears us on.\nIt takes from us the weight of years. It is the sap which rises into every\nbranch, penetrates every twig, swells the buds, expands the leaves, opens\nthe blossoms, ripens the fruit, and causes universal growth. And it is\nwhat we need for usefulness. For how mechanical and lifeless are efforts\nat usefulness which proceed merely from the sense of duty! How blessed are\nthose which proceed from a heart filled with love and peace!\n\nChristian inspiration, then, reveals inwardly the spirit of Christ, and so\ngives us a new heart, and makes of us new creatures. It is the most\nessential and vital part of Christianity, yet it is that part of\nChristianity which is the least known and prized. How many dogmatists\nthere are fighting for doctrines; how many ceremonialists earnest about\nforms; how many conscientious Christians trying hard to do their\nduties;\u2014to one spiritual Christian, whose Christianity consists in living\nin the spirit, that he may walk in the spirit!\n\nOne reason for this seems to be the prevalence of false views concerning\nthe nature of Christian inspiration. It has been regarded as wholly\ndifferent in its laws from other inspiration, as an arbitrary influence\nwithout laws or conditions. Now, in fact, the inspiration of the\nChristian, while it differs in its subject from that of the poet, rests on\nthe same mental faculty, and has analogous conditions. The condition of\nthe poet\u2019s inspiration is, that loving the outward beauty of the natural\nworld, and faithfully studying its truth, he should then hold himself\nready, in strong desire, to see, inwardly, ideal truth and ideal beauty.\nAnd so the Christian, believing in the outward Christ, and loving him,\nholds himself expectant of an inward revelation of that same Jesus in his\nglorified and higher influence. All inspiration has its conditions and\nlaws. The poet\u2019s eye, in its fine frenzy, must look from heaven to earth,\nand from earth to heaven. His inward inspiration is in strict accordance\nwith his outward occupation and his outward fidelity. Every man is\ninwardly inspired, according to the nature of his outward work.\nShakespeare cannot discover America, nor Columbus write Hamlet. And it is\nonly he who believes in Christ, and so endeavors to obey and serve him,\nwho receives an inward sight of his essential spirit. Christian\ninspiration is not arbitrary, is not unnatural, is not limited. It is the\nlife of Christ, flowing steadily and constantly into all hearts which are\nprepared for it, which long for it, and which hold themselves ready to\nreceive it.\n\nWe are thus prepared to state more distinctly the difference between\ninspiration in general and Christian inspiration in particular.\n\n(_a._) These two inspirations _resemble_ each other in resulting from the\nexercise of the same mental faculties, since the state of mind in both\ncases is not that of reflection, but perception; and the perception is\ninward perception. Newton fixes his mind steadily upon the confused\nmathematical thought within till it becomes clear. Milton fixes his mind\nupon the inward image of ideal truth and beauty till it grows so distinct\nthat he can put it into corresponding words. Columbus meditates upon the\nthought of a Western Continent till it seems so plain to him that he is\nready to set sail for it. And so Paul and John look steadily at the Christ\nformed within them till they see clearly what is Christ\u2019s thought\nconcerning every question, every subject.\n\n(_b._) The two inspirations also are alike in this, that the truth seen is\nin both cases, as to its substance, given to us by God. For the truths\nseen by Newton, Milton, Descartes, and Columbus were not inventions of\ntheirs, but divine realities shown to them by God.\n\n(_c._) In both cases the form of the truth seen comes from the exercise of\nthe human faculties of each individual upon the substance thus given. For\nPaul and John, no less than Newton and Milton, worked up in their own\nminds the truth seen. This is evident from the fact, that, while their\nwritings agree in contents and substance with each other, they differ from\neach other in form and style. Each writer of the New Testament has his own\ndistinctly marked style, not only of expression, but also of thought.\n\n(_d._) They are alike also in combining truth of substance with\nfallibility of statement. The substance of every inspired man\u2019s thought is\ntruth, because it is the reality shown to him by God. The form in which he\nexpresses it varies more or less from this truth, because that comes from\nthe exercise of his own finite faculties. Newton and Milton looked at\nGod\u2019s truths, and uttered them as well as they were able. So did Paul and\nJohn. That these last were liable to err in matters of statement appears\nfrom the fact that they did err in some matters, as, for example, in\nregard to the speedy coming of Christ.\n\nThese being the resemblances between natural and supernatural inspiration,\nwhat are _differences_?\n\n(_a._) The first difference is in the _kind of truths seen_. The truths\nseen by Newton and Milton belong to the natural world, those seen by Paul\nand John to the supernatural world. The substance of the inspiration in\nthe one case is nature, in the other case it is Christ. Intercourse with\nnature had fed the minds of Newton and Milton with the truth, forming the\nmaterial upon which their inspiration could work. Intercourse with Christ,\nin the flesh and in the spirit, had filled the minds of Paul and John with\nthe material on which their inspiration could be exercised. Christ had\ncome to them outwardly and inwardly, and this was the substance of their\ninspiration.\n\n(_b._) The inspiration of Newton and Milton implies genius; that is, a\nspecial faculty in each individual. This possession of genius, or special\nfaculty, is a condition _sine qua non_, of natural inspiration. It is\nsolitary, it is individual. But the inspiration of the writers of the New\nTestament does not imply genius. Of the eight writers of the New\nTestament, only one, viz., Paul, appears to have been a man of natural\ngenius. He was great by endowment, the others were made great by their\ninspiration. In the one case the uncommon man finds wonderful things in\nthe common world; in the other case the uncommon world shows wonderful\nthings to the common man.\n\n(_c._) Natural and supernatural inspiration differ also in their occasion.\nA miraculous event, namely, the coming of Christ inwardly to their souls\non the day of Pentecost, was the occasion of the apostolic inspiration.\nThis coming of the Holy Ghost was the second of the two supernatural\nevents of Christianity, of which the other was the birth of Christ. The\nmiraculous events in the life of Jesus may have been the natural results\nof the coming of such a being into the world. The miracles of Christ\u2019s\nlife, including his resurrection, may have been natural to a supernatural\nbeing. They are the evidence of a break in the series of causation in the\noutward world. In like manner the inward coming of Christ to the hearts of\nhis disciples in what is called the influence of the Holy Spirit, is\nanother supernatural event, the natural result of which is the founding of\nthe Church, the writing of the New Testament, and the newly created life\nin individual souls.\n\nThese two inspirations, therefore, differ in their substance, source, and\nmethod. The substance of one consists of truths of the natural order, the\nother of the supernatural order. The source of one is the world of nature,\nthe source of the other is the inward Christ. And the method of the one is\nthat of individual genius, which is solitary, while the method of the\nother is that of love or communion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament\nScriptures.\n\n\nWe now pass on to ask, What is the inspiration of the New Testament, or of\nits writers?\n\nThe writers of the New Testament had no different inspiration from that of\nall other Christians. We nowhere hear of any one receiving an inspiration\nto enable him to write a Gospel or an Epistle. They distinctly repel the\nidea of any such special or distinct inspiration. \u201cBy one spirit we have\nall been baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one\nspirit.\u201d Gifts are different, but the spirit is one and the same in all.\nBut even among these diversities of gifts, nothing is said of any gift for\nwriting Gospels or Epistles. Probably, therefore, the inspiration by which\nthese were written was precisely the same as that by which they preached\nto the Gentiles or taught in the Church. It was an inward sight of Christ,\nan inward sight of his truth and love, which enabled them to speak and\nwrite with authority\u2014the authority of those who saw what they said, and\nknew it to be true. \u201cWe speak what we know, and testify what we have\nseen.\u201d Hence it is that we find in their writings so much substance, so\nmuch comprehensiveness, so much insight. They are in constant communion\nwith an invisible world of truth. They describe what is before their eyes.\n\nA book given by inspiration is not a book made perfect by miracle, but a\nbook, the writer of which was in a state open to influences from a higher\nsphere. All books which the human race has accepted as inspired\u2014Vedas,\nKoran, Zendavesta\u2014are sacred scriptures; all that _lasts_ is inspired.\nPerpetuity, not infallibility, is the sign of inspiration.\n\n\n    \u201cThe word unto the prophet spoken\n    Was writ on tables yet unbroken;\n    The word by seers or sibyls told\n    In groves of oak or fanes of gold\n    Still floats upon the morning wind,\n    Still whispers to the willing mind.\n    One accent of the Holy Ghost\n    The heedless world has never lost.\u201d\n\n\nThe famous proof-text on this subject is that in the Second Epistle of\nPaul to Timothy: \u201cAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is\nprofitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in\nrighteousness.\u201d To what Scripture did Paul refer? Some say to the Jewish\nScripture. Some say to the Jewish and Christian writings. But the\nChristian writings were not then all written, and were not collected into\nwhat we call the New Testament. The apostle does not limit himself to\nthese. He says, \u201c_All_ Scripture is inspired\u201d\u2014not merely Jewish or\nChristian Scripture, but all sacred writing. All the writings of every age\nwhich are looked upon as Scripture, which men from age to age reverence\nand honor as such, were _not_ of man\u2019s invention, not of man\u2019s device, but\ncame from some irrepressible influence acting on the soul from within. The\npoet before quoted says truly,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cOut from the heart of nature rolled\n    The burdens of the Bible old.\n    The litanies of nations came,\n    Like the volcano\u2019s tongue of flame,\n    Up from the burning cone below,\n    The canticles of love and woe.\n    The hand that rounded Peter\u2019s dome,\n    And groined the aisles of Christian Rome,\n    Wrought in a sad sincerity.\n    Himself from God he could not free;\n    He builded better than he knew;\n    The conscious stone to beauty grew.\u201d\n\n\nThere is a truth in this\u2014a profound truth. The Bible is not an exceptional\nbook in this, that it has no parallels in nature to its method of\nproduction. It is true that Phidias was inspired to make his statue and to\nbuild the Parthenon.\n\n\n    \u201cSuch and so grew those holy piles,\n    While love and terror laid the tiles.\n    Earth proudly wears the Parthenon\n    As the best gem upon her zone,\n    And morning opes in haste her lids\n    To gaze upon the Pyramids;\n    O\u2019er England\u2019s abbeys bends the sky\n    As on its friends with kindred eye;\n    For out of thought\u2019s interior sphere\n    These wonders rose to upper air.\u201d\n\n\nWhen Mr. Emerson and Theodore Parker compare in this way the Bible with\nthe Vedas or the Parthenon, we often feel that it degrades the Bible, and\ntakes away its special sanctity. But this is not necessarily the case.\nThere may be a wide gulf between the inspiration of the Bible and that of\nthe Vedas, or of Homer or Plato; and yet they may all belong to the same\nclass of works. There is a wide gulf between _man_ and the highest of the\ninferior animals; and yet we put man into the class MAMMALIA, along with\noxen, whales, and cats, and into the same Order with apes and bats. We do\nnot think that man is degraded by being thus classified. He occupies a\ndistinct species in this order and class. So the New Testament and Old\nTestament constitute two distinct species, of which they are the sole\nrepresentatives of one genus of inspired books; but that _genus_ belongs\nto the same _order_ as the Vedas, Edda, Zendavesta, and Koran, and that\norder belongs to the same _class_ as the poems of Homer and Dante, the\narchitecture of the Parthenon and the Strasburg Minster, the discovery of\nAmerica by Columbus, and of the law of gravitation by Newton.\n\nThe _class_ of works which we call inspired comprehends, as we have before\nsaid, all which come to man by a certain influx into his soul\u2014not by\nlooking out of himself, but by looking into himself. Sometimes we go and\nsearch and find thoughts; sometimes thoughts come and find us. \u201cThey flash\nupon our inner eye;\u201d they haunt us, and pursue us, and take possession of\nus. So Columbus was haunted by the idea of a continent in the west; so\nNewton was haunted by his discovery long before he made it; so the\n\u201cParadise Lost\u201d pursued Milton long before it was written. Every really\ngreat work must have in it more or less of this element which we call\ninspiration.\n\nBut while the great works of genius belong to the class of inspired works,\nwe make a distinct order out of the great religious works which have been\nthe sacred Scriptures of races of men. They evidently came from a higher\ninspiration than the works of science and the works of art. They have\nruled men\u2019s souls for thousands of years. These, then, we place in an\n_Order_ by themselves, and it is no discredit to the Bible to be ranked\nwith the works of Confucius, which have kept the Chinese orderly,\npeaceful, industrious, and happy for almost twenty-six centuries.\n\nBut still, among these sacred books the Bible may be said to constitute a\ndistinct _genus_, because it differs from all the rest in two ways\u2014in\nteaching the holiness of God and the unity of God. The writer has been a\ncareful reader of all these sacred books for twenty years; he has read\nthem with respect; in no captious spirit; wishing to find in them all the\ntruth he could. He has found in them much truth\u2014much in accordance with\nChristianity. But he sees a wide difference between them all and the\nBible. They are all _profitable_ for doctrine, for reproof, for\ninstruction; but they are not Holy Scriptures in the sense in which we\nascribe that word to the Bible. The Old Testament, though having in it\nmany harsh and hard features, belonging to the Jewish mind, has strains\nwhich rise into a higher region than anything in the Vedas or the\nZendavesta. The Proverbs of Solomon are about on a level with the books of\nConfucius. But nowhere in all these Ethnic Scriptures are strains like\nsome of the Psalms\u2014like passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The laws of Menu\nare low compared with the Pentateuch.\n\nBut if the Old and New Testament make a genus by themselves, they divide\nagain into two species. There is a specific difference between the New\nTestament and the Old. The New Testament inspiration is of a far deeper,\nhigher, and broader character than the other. In fact, we ought, perhaps,\nto make a special order by itself from the New Testament writings. They\nare so full of life, light, and love\u2014they are so strong yet so tender\u2014so\npure yet so free! They have no cant of piety, no formalism, but breathe\nthroughout a heavenly atmosphere. Their inspiration is of the highest kind\nof all.\n\nBut what is this Holy Spirit? What does it teach? Scientific truth? No.\nScientific truth has been taught the world by other channels. Bacon and\nNewton, La Place and Cuvier, Linn\u00e6us and De Candolle, have been inspired\nto teach science. Their knowledge came, not only by observation, not only\nby study, but by patiently opening their minds to receive impressions from\nabove. Were the writers of the Bible inspired to teach history? We think\nnot. There are histories of the Jews in the Bible, and they are likely to\nbe as authentic, as histories, as are those of Herodotus and Livy, and\nother painstaking and sincere historians. But the special inspiration of\nthe Bible does not appear in the historic books.\n\nBut are not _all_ parts of the Bible equally inspired by this Holy Spirit?\nBy no means. We can easily see that they are not. It is evident that there\nis nothing spiritually edifying in a large part of the history of the Old\nTestament\u2014the account of Samson, the story of Gideon, large parts of the\nbooks of Judges and Chronicles, the Song of Solomon, the book of Esther.\nThe book of Ecclesiastes is full, throughout, of a dark and terrible\nscepticism. Now, all these books are valuable, exceedingly so, as history,\nbut not as proceeding from the Holy Spirit.\n\nBut it may be said, \u201cIf the history of the Bible is not inspired, it may\nbe erroneous.\u201d Certainly it may. We have seen that the account of creation\nin the book of Genesis is probably erroneous. It contains one great faith,\nluminous throughout\u2014namely, that there is one God, Creator of all worlds\nand of mankind. But as to the _order_ of creation,\u2014the six days, the\ngarden of Eden,\u2014all we can say is, that there may be some way by which\nMoses could, in vision, have seen these things, represented in picture, as\nthey happened long before. There may be such a kind of unveiling of the\npast before the inner eye of the soul. We do not deny it, for it is not\nwise to deny where we know nothing. But we can assert that Christianity\ndoes not require us to believe those chapters of Genesis to contain\nhistoric truth. It may be allegorical truth. It may be a parable,\nrepresenting how every little child comes into an Eden of innocence, and\nis tempted by that wily serpent, the sophistical understanding, and is\nbetrayed by desire, his Eve, and goes out of his garden of childhood,\nwhere all life proceeds spontaneously and by impulse, into a world of work\nand labor. If it be such an allegory as that, it teaches us quite as much\nas if it were history.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Authority of the Scriptures.\n\n\nWe have seen that the Bible, though inspired, is not infallible. But, it\nis said, unless the Bible is infallible it has no authority. This we deny.\nInspiration is not infallibility, but inspiration _is_ authority. The\ninspired man is always an authority. Phidias and Michael Angelo are\nauthorities in sculpture; Titian and Rafaelle are authorities in painting;\nMozart and Beethoven in music; and Paul, John, Peter, in religion.\n\nAuthority without infallibility is the problem before us. It is evident\nthat authority is desirable; it is equally evident that infallibility is\nimpossible. Can there, therefore, be the one without the other? Can God\nreveal himself to man through a fallible medium? Can the writers of the\nNew Testament be so inspired as to be able to communicate truth, and yet\nso inspired as not to be infallible? To all these questions we answer,\n_Yes_; and will try to show it to be so.\n\nSuppose that you are going through a forest in company with others. You\nhave lost your way. No one knows which way to go; dangers are around\nyou\u2014dangers from cold, hunger, wild beasts, enemies. If you go the wrong\nway, you may all perish; if you go the right way, you will reach your\ndestination and be safe. Under these circumstances, one of the party\nclimbs a tree, and when he has reached the top he cries out with joy, \u201cI\nsee the way we ought to go. We must go to the right. I see the ocean in\nthat direction, and the spires of the city to which we are bound.\u201d You all\nimmediately go the way that he directs. He has become an authority to you.\nYou follow his guidance implicitly, and put your lives into his hands,\ndepending upon the truth of what he says. Why? Because he has been where\nyou have not been, and has seen what you have not seen, and you believe\nhim honest and true. He has no motive to deceive you. This is his\nauthority.\n\nBut is it equivalent to infallibility? By no means. No one supposes him to\nbe infallible. If, after following his direction for a while, you see no\nsigns to show that you are in the right way, you begin to think that he\nmay have been mistaken, and some one else climbs a tree to verify his\njudgment, or to correct it. But if, instead, signs begin to appear to show\nthat you are in the right way, your faith in your guide is confirmed, and\nhis authority is practically increased.\n\nWhat gives a man authority as a guide, teacher, counsellor, is not our\nbelief in his infallibility, but our belief in his knowledge; if we\nbelieve that he knows something we do not know, he becomes thereby an\nauthority to us. If he has been where we have not been, and seen what we\nhave not seen, he is an authority. A man who has just come from Europe or\nfrom California, who has been in the midst of a great battle, who has\nstudied a subject which others have not studied, and made himself familiar\nwith it, such a man is an authority to others. Observe men listening to\nhim. All defer to him while he is speaking on this subject. He may be much\nmore ignorant than they are in regard to other things, but, if he has had\nsuperior opportunities in regard to this subject, he is an authority. Yet\nthey do not believe him infallible; for if, in the course of his\nconversation, he says anything which seems contradictory, incredible,\nabsurd, they begin to withdraw their confidence, and may withdraw it\nwholly. But if, on the other hand, what he says is clear, consistent,\nsolid with information, his authority is increased continually, and his\nbearers defer to him more and more.\n\nNow, the authority of the writers of the New Testament is exactly of this\nkind. The authority of inspiration everywhere is of this kind. An inspired\nman is one who is believed to have been where we have not been, and to\nhave seen what we have not seen.\n\nIn Cooper\u2019s novels there is a character whom he calls Leatherstocking,\nfamiliar with the woods, knowing all their signs, acquainted with the\nhabits of bird, beast, and Indian. He guides the travellers through the\nwilderness, and, by his superior knowledge, saves them from the Indian\nambush and the pursuing savage. They commit themselves implicitly to his\nguidance, trust their lives to him. Why? Because they confide in his\nknowledge of woodcraft and in his fidelity. As regards all matters\npertaining to the forest, he is an authority; their teacher if they want\ninformation, their guide if they are ignorant of the way, their saviour in\nimminent peril from savage beasts and savage men. He is an authority to\nthem, a perfect authority; for they confide in him entirely, without a\nshade of doubt. But no one thinks him infallible, nor supposes it\nnecessary to believe him infallible, in order to trust him entirely.\n\nJust so a ship on a lee shore, in the midst of a driving storm, throws up\nsignal rockets or fires a gun for a pilot. A white sail emerges from the\nmist; it is the pilot-boat. A man climbs on board, and the captain gives\nto him the command of the ship. All his orders are obeyed implicitly. The\nship, laden with a precious cargo and hundreds of lives, is confided to a\nrough-looking man whom no one ever saw before, who is to guide them\nthrough a narrow channel, where to vary a few fathoms to the right or left\nwill be utter destruction. The pilot is invested with absolute authority\nas regards bringing the vessel into port.\n\nWhen Columbus came back from his first voyage, and reported the discovery\nof America, was he not an _authority_? Did not men throng around him, to\nhear of what he had seen and done? Yet who believed him infallible. He who\nhas been where I have not been, and seen what I have not seen, is an\n_authority_ to me. If I believe him honest, and no impostor, then I learn\nfrom him, and depend on his testimony. Now, the writers of the New\nTestament have been where we have not been. They have ascended heights,\nand sounded depths in the spiritual world unknown to us. So they are\nauthorities to us, provided we have enough of their spirit in us to enable\nus to see and know their inspiration. For, unless I have some musical\nspirit in me, I cannot discern the inspiration of Mozart; unless I have\nsome mathematical spirit in me, I cannot discern the mathematical\ninspiration of Newton and Kepler. So the natural man (the man who has\nnothing in him corresponding to the Christian inspiration) cannot discern\nthe things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, for they\nare spiritually discerned or judged. He lives in external things, as babes\ndo. The authority of the Spirit in the Bible is that it awakens and\nappeals to whatever spiritual element exists in our soul, and compels it\nto feel and admit its truth.\n\nJesus, it is said, in giving the Sermon on the Mount, taught as one having\nauthority, and not as the Scribes. What was his authority, then? Not\nofficial authority, for he was not yet known to be the Christ, hardly yet\nknown to be a prophet. Not merely the _authority_ coming from an imposing\nmanner; not an authoritative air, or tone, or manner, certainly. That was\nprecisely the tone and manner which the Scribes _did_ have in _their_\nteaching. But the authority is in the Sermon itself. Its truths are so\nwonderfully distinct and self-evident, they carry conviction with them.\nJesus sees so plainly all that he says\u2014there is no hesitation, no\nobscurity, no perhapses in his language. He is like one describing what is\nbefore his eyes, what he knows to be true because he sees it while he is\nsaying it. It is, in short, the authority which always attends knowledge.\nHe who knows anything, and can speak with certainty, carries conviction\nwith him, though we do not suppose him to be infallible, nor is it thought\nnecessary to believe him so, in order to give to him this authority.\n\nBy such examples, we see that in earthly matters of the very highest\nimportance we ascribe authority without supposing infallibility. Now, if\nwe analyze the source of this authority, we shall find that it comes,\nfirst, from the testimony of others, and, secondly, from our own\nexperience. Leatherstocking comes recommended to the travellers as a\nskilful and faithful guide, and they trust him, at first, on the simple\nground of that recommendation. But they do not trust him entirely or fully\non that ground. They watch him while they trust him,\u2014perhaps we ought\nrather to say, they _try_ him, than that they _trust_ him. But, after they\nhave tried him day by day, week by week, and find him always skilful,\nalways faithful, they come to place a more and more implicit trust in his\nguidance; he becomes more and more an authority.\n\nSo the pilot comes at first recommended only by his office. His office\nimplies the testimony of those who ought to know that he is able to guide\nthe vessel into the harbor. But if, besides this, there is some one on\nboard who knows his ability and fidelity by previous experience, and says,\n\u201cWe are all safe now; this is the famous John Smith or William Brown, the\nbest pilot in the harbor,\u201d then everybody is ready to trust him more\nentirely.\n\nKnowledge and fidelity, _not_ infallibility, these make a man an authority\nto others in things pertaining to this life\u2014knowledge and fidelity,\nevidenced to us, first by the testimony of others, and secondly by our own\nexperience. Testimony leads us to _try_ a man and trust him partially,\ntrust him, but watch him. Add to this our own experience of his knowledge\nand fidelity, and we trust him wholly.\n\nThere are two worlds of knowledge\u2014outward and inward. Knowledge of the\noutward world comes to us through the senses, by observation; knowledge of\nthe inward world comes to us through the consciousness, by insight or\ninspiration. Every man\u2019s knowledge has come to him by both of these\nmethods. The soul has a perceptive power with which it can look either\nway. It looks outward through the senses, and perceives an external world;\nit looks inward through the consciousness, and perceives an internal\nworld. It looks outward, and perceives forms, hears sounds, becomes\nacquainted with external nature. It looks inward, and becomes acquainted\nwith justice, holiness, love, freedom, duty, sin, immortality, the\ninfinite, the eternal, God.\n\nBut just as it depends on various conditions as to what a man shall see\nthrough the senses in time and space, so it depends on other conditions as\nto what a man shall see beyond time and space in the spiritual world. The\nconditions in the first instance are, good perceptive organs, a genius for\nobservation, educated powers for observation, knowledge of what to\nobserve, and finally opportunities for observation, or being able to go\nwhere the things are which are to be seen. A blind man standing in front\nof the Parthenon would be no authority to us as to its architecture;\nneither would the most sharp-sighted person who should happen in be in\nAmerica, instead of Greece. So an Indian, with the finest perceptive\nfaculty, and standing directly in front of this majestic temple, would\ngive a very poor account of it, from want of previous knowledge. He, only,\nwould be an authority to us in regard to such a building, who should\ncombine with good perceptive organs, and some knowledge of the subject, an\nopportunity for looking at it.\n\nWhen we speak of inspiration, we mean, in regard to the inward world,\nexactly the same thing. We mean that a man has his spiritual organs in a\nhealthy condition, that he has some knowledge of spiritual things, and\nthat he has been placed by divine Providence where he is able to see them.\nSome men are lifted into a world of spiritual perception, when they see\nthings not seen by other men. They become prophets, apostles, lawgivers to\nthe human race. They are invested with authority. Men believe what they\nsay, and do what they command, and put their souls into their hands, just\nas they trust their bodies to the guide of the pilot.\n\nThese are the inspired men\u2014the men to whom revelations have been made.\nThey have authority, because they have been where we have not been, and\nseen what we have not seen. But they have not infallibility, because, as\nthe apostle says, they have this treasure in earthen vessels. This divine\nknowledge is contained in a finite, and therefore fallible mind. But we\nsee by means of our former illustrations that to grant their fallibility\ndoes not detract at all from their authority.\n\nAnd again, their authority is certified to us exactly as in the other\ninstances. They come recommended by external testimony, and on the\nstrength of that testimony we confide in them and try them. If we find\nthat they are not able to teach us, they cease to be authorities to us.\nBut if we find that they are full of truth, they become our guides and\nteachers, and their authority is more and more confirmed; that they are\ngood and true guides, is evidenced by their being able to guide us. They\nlead us into deeper depths of truth and love. They become the teachers of\ntheir race. The centuries which pass add more and more weight to their\nauthority. They inspire us, therefore they are themselves inspired. It is\nno more necessary, after this, to prove their inspiration, in the sense\nwhich I have given, than to prove that the sun shines.\n\nOne remarkable illustration of this process, by which the test of\nScripture, as inspired, is that it should be profitable for doctrine,\nreproof, and instruction, is to be found in the Epistle of Barnabas.\nBarnabas introduced Paul to the apostles at Jerusalem, and is called, in\nthe book of Acts, a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost. He was sent on a\nmission to Antioch by the apostles; afterwards was specially pointed out\nby the Holy Ghost to go with Paul on his mission. (Acts 13:2.) He is\nstyled a prophet in this place, and we read that the Holy Spirit said,\n\u201cSeparate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.\u201d\n\nDuring this mission Barnabas seems to have been the more important of the\ntwo, for at Lystra the people called _him_ Jupiter, and Paul Mercury.\nBarnabas and Paul appeared before the first council at Jerusalem; and the\napostles, in their letter, say, \u201cOur beloved Barnabas, and a man that has\nhazarded his life for the name of the Lord Jesus.\u201d Now, this Barnabas,\ncalled an apostle in the book of Acts, companion of Paul, sent on a\nmission by the Holy Spirit, and commended by the apostles at Jerusalem,\nwas believed by the early Church to have written an Epistle. It is quoted\nas his, seven times by Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, three\ntimes by Origen, and by other writers.\n\nAccordingly, it was originally included in the New Testament, and for\nnearly four hundred years made a part of it. The oldest manuscript of the\nNew Testament in the world, supposed to have been written in the fourth\ncentury, contains the Epistle of Barnabas; and one reason for believing\nthe manuscript so old, is that it _does_ contain it. This manuscript was\nfound by the celebrated German critic Tischendorf, in 1859, in the convent\nof St. Catharine, at Mount Sinai. Why, then, is not this Epistle of\nBarnabas printed in our New Testament? Whoever reads it will easily see\nthe reason. It is because it does not deserve to be there; it does not\nhave the marks of a high inspiration; it is made up in a great degree of\nquotations from the Old Testament, of imitations of St. Paul, and of\nallegories. It evidently dropped out of the Bible by its own weight. It\nhad every opportunity offered it to become a part of sacred Scripture; but\nbeing tried by Paul\u2019s test, it was found not to be profitable for\ndoctrine, reproof, or anything else, and so the copyists saved their time,\nlabor, and vellum by leaving it out. It was received on testimony, and\ndiscarded after experience. It had authority at first, because of its\nsupposed author; it lost it afterwards, by means of its empty self.\n\nThis, then, is the authority of the writers of the Bible. It is the\nauthority of inspired men\u2014men who have been into spiritual regions where\nmost men have not gone, and seen what most men have not seen. It is not\ninfallibility. They are capable of mistakes and error. Their being in the\nBible is only so far a proof that they are inspired, as it gives the\ntestimony of the Church that it has found the proofs of inspiration in\ntheir writings. The Christian community has followed the apostolic\ndirection, and tried the spirits whether they were of God or not, and has\ncome to the conclusion that these New Testament writers have the marks of\ninspiration. For you will observe that the present code of the New\nTestament was gradually formed, and that not by the votes of councils or\nthe decisions of bishops, but by the feelings of the Christian community.\nAn inward instinct, and no external authority, presided over the\ncollection of the Scriptures, gradually dropping out some books (like\nBarnabas, Hermas, and the Revelation of Peter), and taking in others.\n\nSo the Christian Church says to us, of the New Testament, \u201cHere is a book\nconcerning which we testify that the writings in it are profitable for\ndoctrine; that its writers have superior knowledge in regard to spiritual\nthings; that they are inspired men, who have been taken up into a region\nwhere most men have never gone, and seen what most men have never seen,\nand therefore _know_ more than most of us about spiritual truth.\u201d\n\nBut you may say, \u201cIf inspiration gives _knowledge_, and these writers are\ninspired, then they do more than believe or think what they say about God,\nduty, and immortality. They _know_; and if they _know_, does not that mean\nthat they are infallible?\u201d No, knowledge is not infallibility. It is true\nthat inspiration gives knowledge, while speculation only gives opinion.\nThis is the reason why inspired men speak with authority, and philosophers\nwithout it. But knowledge, though it gives authority, does not give\ninfallibility.\n\nA Frenchman _knows_ the French language; still he may make mistakes in\nspeaking it. The man from California knows that country, but he may be\nmistaken about it. Thus, if these writers are not infallible, they may\nmake mistakes; and if so, how are we to distinguish between their truth\nand their error? This is a fair question: let us try to answer it.\n\nLet us return to our former comparison of travellers and their guide. How\nare you to distinguish between your guide\u2019s knowledge and his errors?\n\nProbably, when your guide begins to be uncertain as to the way, he will\nshow his uncertainty in his behavior. He will become doubtful, hesitating,\nundecided; he will, by and by, supposing him honest, begin to express his\nuncertainty, and say, \u201cI am not quite sure of this path.\u201d\n\nIt is just so with inspired writers. While their inspiration runs in a\nfull tide, they speak confidently; they are distinct in their statements.\n\nAgain, if your guide begins to speak of things outside of his province, he\ndoes not carry much authority. If Leatherstocking discusses Shakespeare,\nor the pilot begins to talk about politics, his opinions carry no weight\nexcept what is inherent to them.\n\nSo when the writers of the Bible, leaving themes of religion and morals,\ndescribe natural objects, as the leviathan or behemoth, we give no more\ncredit to their descriptions than we should to those of any other writer\nof their day.\n\nA question would arise here whether history was a subject of inspiration\nor not; that is, whether an inspired writer, when he comes to speak of\nhistoric facts, has any more authority than another. There may be some way\nby which past events might be presented by inspiration to the mind of one\ncaught up by the spirit into another world. But the writers of the Old and\nNew Testament are careless about dates and numbers, and do not seem to be\nmade accurate by any special gift. I should, therefore, incline to the\nopinion that the historic books of the Bible have no authority except that\nof their reasonableness and conformity to what we might believe on other\ngrounds. As fragments of history, coming from so remote a past, they are\ninvaluable, when we treat them as simple, honest records of what was then\nbelieved or known.\n\nTake, for instance, the story of the deluge, and compare it with similar\nstories in other mythologies. We find it so corroborated by these, that we\nmay believe that there is a basis of reality in it.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Christian Prepossession.\n\n\nIt is a great thing to read a book with expectation instead of distrust.\nExpectation opens the mind to light, and makes it easy to see. Distrust\ncloses it. If I have read Shakespeare till I feel sure of his poetic\ninspiration, then I read with expectation all he writes; I am looking for\ntruth and beauty, and so I find it. If I had never read Shakespeare, nor\nheard of him, and Hamlet were put into my hand, I should probably be\ndispleased with something or other, and throw it aside, and so lose the\ndeepness and loveliness of that wonderful creation. How much we find in\nthe words of Jesus and Paul, because we read them with expectation and\nhope! because we read them always looking for what is deep and high!\n\nNevertheless many persons recommend a contrary course. They say that we\nought to forget all that has been told us about the Book, and read it as\nif we had never seen it before. But this method is neither practicable nor\ndesirable. It is impossible to look at the Bible as though it were an\nunknown book; impossible to forget that it is the text book of\nChristianity; regarded as sacred by millions of our fellow-men; the source\nof spiritual and moral life to the world for the last fifteen hundred\nyears; that our parents and friends have found in it strength for duty,\ncomfort in trial, hope in the hour of death. You might as well tell the\nchild who begins to study geography to forget that he lives in America, or\nwhen he studies the history of the United States, to forget that it is the\nhistory of his own land. Nor would it be desirable to study the New\nTestament thus. For it is this grand belief concerning it which makes us\ndesire to study it at all. Were it not for this belief it might be\noccasionally read by a student in the interest of science, but never by\nthe mass of the community. Faith in its divine origin and divine purpose,\ncauses it to be read in families, schools, churches, to be used as a\nmanual of prayer in the closet, and to grow familiar in every home. The\nBook is surrounded by a traditional halo of wonder, reverence, and hope,\nand this gives us motive and power with which to read it. If a cold\ncriticism, a sceptical spirit, shall ever succeed in causing the New\nTestament to be regarded as a common book, on the natural plane of human\nthought, full of errors and imperfections, inspired only as Plato is\ninspired, then it will be read as Plato is read, that is, by one man in a\nmillion. It is not desirable to lose the reverence which causes us to\nexpect extraordinary truth and good in certain books, men, and\ninstitutions; for so we lose the best motive power of the soul; so life\nbecomes tame, the day empty, and events unmeaning.\n\nIt is, therefore, perfectly right for the Church to surround Christ and\nChristianity with this divine aureola of reverence and wonder, not\nexaggerating it, but neither understating it. For this wonder and\nreverence, when legitimate, is a great treasure of spiritual life,\nanimating and elevating, which the Church possesses in order that it may\ncommunicate it. It is continually proclaiming its good news; constantly\nasserting that through Christ God has given it a divine peace; that in\nChrist there is a marvellous truth and beauty; and that the Gospels and\nEpistles, which contain his life and truth, have a strange power of\nraising us above ourselves, and bringing us into communion with an eternal\nworld. When this is said, not by rote, or as a mere form, but from sincere\nconviction, the spirit of faith creates faith, and faith is the great\nmotive which leads to action.\n\nAs it is the duty of the Church to excite our interest in the New\nTestament, by declaring its own love and respect for it, so it is right\nfor the student of the New Testament to give a certain preliminary weight\nto this testimony of the Church in commencing his study. This is what we\ncall the Christian prepossession. And it regards the New Testament exactly\nas when a friend whose judgment we respect earnestly recommends to us some\nbook which he has read, and which has done him good. He recommends it to\nus as a good book, and he recommends it with enthusiasm. His enthusiasm\nproduces in us a desire to become acquainted with the book, and a certain\nhope that we shall find in it what our friend has found. This hope leads\non towards fruition, and is one of its conditions. It ought not,\ntherefore, to be relinquished; but neither should it lead us to accept\nblindly everything which we are told. We must look with our own eyes,\nthink with our own mind, feel with our own heart.\n\nTo wish to come to the study of the Bible without prepossession in its\nfavor is, therefore, a foolish wish; for, without prepossession in its\nfavor, we should have little motive for studying it at all. It is our\nfaith in the Bible that leads us to read it; and faith here, as\neverywhere, is the motive power which reason has only to guide and\nrestrain. Faith is the brave steed which carries us forward, full of fire\nand full of pride. Reason is the bridle by which he is guided, supported,\nand restrained. There is a story of a thief so skilful that he could steal\na man\u2019s horse from under him without his knowing it, and so leave him\nholding the bridle in his hand, and supposing himself to be still on\nhorseback. So are those deceived who think to live by reason without\nfaith. The motive power of their life has been taken away from them, and\nthey do not know it; they suppose that they can ride with a bridle and\nsaddle, without a horse.\n\nTo read the New Testament to any purpose, we must, therefore, read with\nthe faith that there is some great good to be got from it. But what is the\ntrue foundation of this faith? Is it legitimate, or is it an illusion? The\nbasis of this faith is to be found in the fact that the Bible has done so\nmuch, and is doing so much, for the world\u2014a fact which cannot be stated\nbetter than in these words of one who is not commonly supposed to have too\nhigh a reverence for the Bible:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThis collection of books has taken such a hold on the world as no\n    other. The literature of Greece, which goes up like incense from\n    that land of temples and heroic deeds, has not half the influence\n    of this book from a nation alike despised in ancient and modern\n    times. It is read of a Sabbath in all the ten thousand pulpits of\n    our land. In all the temples of Christendom is its voice lifted up\n    week by week. The sun never sets on its gleaming page. It goes\n    equally to the cottage of the plain man and the palace of the\n    king. It is woven into the literature of the scholar, and colors\n    the talk of the street. The bark of the merchant cannot sail the\n    sea without it, no ship of war go to the conflict but the Bible is\n    there. It enters men\u2019s closets; mingles in all the grief and\n    cheerfulness of life. The affianced maiden prays God in Scripture\n    for strength in her new duties; men are married by Scripture. The\n    Bible attends them in their sickness; when the fever of the world\n    is on them. The aching head finds a softer pillow when the Bible\n    lies underneath. The mariner, escaping from shipwreck, clutches\n    this first of his treasures, and keeps it sacred to God. It goes\n    with the pedler in his crowded pack; cheers him at eventide, when\n    he sits down dusty and fatigued; brightens the freshness of his\n    morning face. It blesses us when we are born; gives names to half\n    Christendom; rejoices with us; has sympathy for our mourning;\n    tempers our grief to finer issues. It is the better part of our\n    sermons. It lifts man above himself; our best of uttered prayers\n    are in its storied speech, wherewith our fathers and the\n    patriarchs prayed. The timid man, about awaking from this dream of\n    life, looks through the glass of Scripture, and his eye grows\n    bright; he does not fear to stand alone, to tread the way unknown\n    and distant, to take the death-angel by the hand, and bid farewell\n    to wife, and babes, and home. Men rest on this their dearest\n    hopes. It tells them of God, and of his blessed Son; of earthly\n    duties and of heavenly rest. Foolish men find it the source of\n    Plato\u2019s wisdom, and the science of Newton, and the art of Raphael.\n    Men who believe nothing else that is spiritual believe the Bible\n    all through; without this they would not confess, say they, even\n    that there was a God.\u201d\u2014_Theodore Parker, Discourse of Religion._\n\n\nA book which exercises this great influence over our fellow-men ought to\nbe approached with reverence. It is for the same reason that we approach\nwith faith and expectation the writings of Shakespeare and Milton. We read\nthem expecting to find in them great truths, and this expectation enables\nus to find them. \u201cSeek and ye shall find\u201d is the law. How often we should\nhave been disappointed and dissatisfied with such books, and have thrown\nthem aside impatiently, had we not remembered the great universal\ntestimony to their surpassing excellence!\n\nThis Christian prepossession is, however, only a general confidence that\nthere is something exceedingly good in the New Testament; that it is a\nbook containing in some way a divine revelation, in some way or other\ninspired, in some way likely to be a great help and comfort to our\nspiritual nature, and the best guide we can have for this life and towards\nthe next. It is an expectation of all this, an expectation based on the\ntestimony of mankind. So far it is a reasonable expectation. So far it is\nright and just to entertain it. It is the natural inheritance to which we\nwere born, by being born Christians. To throw it away, or to try to throw\nit away, would be as though one should try to throw away the habits of\ncivilization which he inherits by being born in a civilized community, and\ntry to go back and start as a savage. It is neither more futile nor more\nfoolish in the one case than in the other.\n\nBut, though this Christian prepossession is a perfectly legitimate one\nwith which to begin, it is not a legitimate one in which to remain. It is\nour business, by the free action of our intellect, to change this general\nand vague expectation into a distinct opinion of one kind or another.\nProtestantism allows us to take our faith in the Bible from the Church,\nbut not to take from the Church our opinions about the Bible. Faith may,\nand ought to be, received, but opinions are to be formed. An opinion or\nbelief received from another man is his opinion, and not ours.\n\nWith regard to any other book this would be self-evident. For example,\nsuppose that I have never read the play of Hamlet. I hear it universally\nspoken of as one of the greatest works of the human intellect. That\nnaturally and properly creates in my mind the expectation of finding it\nso. It produces the general belief that it is a great work of genius. But\nsuppose that, besides this general expectation, I should also accept from\nmy neighbors their particular opinions concerning the play. I hear them\nsay that it is more philosophical, but less dramatic, than Macbeth; that\nthe character of Hamlet is overcharged with intellect, and the like. If,\nnow, I adopt and repeat these opinions, without having read the play, it\nis evident that I am only a parrot or an echo. It is evident that they are\nnot _my_ opinions at all, and that they indeed interfere with my having\nany opinions. Fifty thousand echoes of a voice leave us only one voice and\nfifty thousand echoes.\n\nThis distinction between faith and opinion, which we have already spoken\nof, is of the utmost practical importance. We may add here that, for want\nof it, intellectual people try to go to the study of the Bible without\nfaith in the Bible, and religious people think they must accept all their\nopinions from others, and take them in ready made. It is not absolutely\nessential to have opinions; but if we do have them, they ought to be our\nown. Faith must be received, opinions must be formed.\n\nAll persons, therefore, ought to form opinions for themselves about the\nNew Testament. They may bring to the work a faith in the New Testament, as\nbeing in some sense or other a revelation, as being written in some way or\nother by inspired men, as being somehow or other a holy book, the\nlegitimate source of spiritual life, moral goodness, and inward peace.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Conclusion.\n\n\nIf the views given in this chapter are reasonable, we shall conclude that\nOrthodoxy is right in maintaining the supreme excellence and value of the\nChristian Scriptures, but wrong in claiming for them infallible accuracy.\nIt is right in saying that they are written by inspired men, but wrong in\nconsidering this inspiration a guarantee against all possible error or\nmistake. It is right in calling the Bible \u201cThe Holy Scripture,\u201d but wrong\nin denying to the scriptures of other religious some divine influx and\nsome religious life. It is right in asking that the Bible be read with\nfaith and expectation; wrong in demanding for it unreasoning, uncritical\nsubmission. Let reverence for its spirit and criticism of its letter go\nhand in hand; for reverence and criticism, faith and reason, docility to\ngreat masters and freedom in seeking for ourselves, are antagonist,\nindeed, but not contradictory. They are not hostile, but helpful, though\nacting in opposite directions\u2014like the opposition of the thumb and fingers\nin the human hand, which makes of it such a wonderful servant of the\nthought. They belong to the group of sisterly powers which the Creator has\nplaced in the human soul\u2014varied, complex, like and unlike.\n\n\n                      \u201cFacies non omnibus una,\n    Nec diversa tamen, qualis decet esse sororum.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. ORTHODOX IDEA OF SIN, AS DEPRAVITY AND AS GUILT.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Question stated.\n\n\nWe now approach the orthodoxy of Orthodoxy\u2014the system of sin and\nredemption, which constitutes its most essential character. The questions\nhitherto treated\u2014the natural and supernatural, miracles, the\nScriptures\u2014belong to universal religion. On these points heretics and the\nOrthodox may agree. But the essence of heresy, in the eyes of an Orthodox\nman, is to vary from the standards of belief in regard to sin and\nsalvation.\n\nWe commence with the subject of human sinfulness; in other words, with the\ncharacter of man in relation to Orthodoxy. The theology of the East asked,\n\u201cWhat is God?\u201d and entered on its course from the specially theological\nside. It began with ontology, and proceeded to psychology. In this,\nOriental theology followed in the path of Oriental philosophy. But\nOccidental theology, originating strictly with Augustine, followed the\npractical and experimental method of European thought, and, instead of\nasking, \u201cWhat is God?\u201d asked, instead, \u201cWhat is man?\u201d\n\nWe begin, therefore, with the great question, \u201cWhat is man?\u201d This is the\nradical question in practical, experimental theology, as the question,\n\u201cWhat is God?\u201d is the radical question in speculative theology. But we are\nnow concerned in the theology of experience and of life. We are seeking\nfor human wants. Knowing what man is, we can next ask what he needs.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, Natural Depravity,\nTotal Depravity, Inability.\n\n\nOrthodoxy answers the question, \u201cWhat is man?\u201d by saying, \u201cMan is a\nsinner;\u201d and this answer has these four moments:\u2014\n\n1. Man was created at first righteous and good.\n\n2. Man fell, in and with Adam, and became a sinner.\n\n3. All now born are born totally corrupt and evil;\u2014\n\n4. And are utterly disabled to all good, so as not to have the power of\nrepenting, or even of wishing to repent.\n\nThese four ideas are,\u2014\n\nFirst, that of THE FALL, or INHERITED EVIL.\n\nSecond, of NATURAL DEPRAVITY.\n\nThird, of TOTAL DEPRAVITY.\n\nFourth, of INABILITY.\n\nThese points are fully stated in the following passage from the\n\u201cAssembly\u2019s Confession of Faith,\u201d chap. 6:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and\n    temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This\n    their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel,\n    to permit; having purposed to order it to his own glory.\n\n    \u201c2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and\n    communion with God; and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled\n    in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.\n\n    \u201c3. They being the root of all mankind, the _guilt_ of this sin\n    was IMPUTED, and the same _death in sin, and corrupted nature_,\n    CONVEYED, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary\n    generation.\n\n    \u201c4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly\n    indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly\n    inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.\n\n    \u201c5. This corruption of nature during this life doth remain in\n    those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ,\n    pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions\n    thereof are truly and properly sin.\n\n    \u201c6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of\n    the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own\n    nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to\n    the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to\n    death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal.\u201d(13)\n\n\nWe assume the \u201cAssembly\u2019s Catechism\u201d as almost _the_ standard of\nOrthodoxy. It was prepared with the concurrence of the best minds in\nEngland, in an age when theological discussion had sharpened all wits in\nthat direction. Thoroughly Calvinistic, it is also a wonderfully clear and\nprecise statement of Calvinism. Framed after long controversies, it had\nthe advantage of all the distinctions which are made only during\ncontroversy. It is a fortress made defensible at all points, because it\nhas been attacked so often that all its weak places have been seen and\nmarked. It is a masterpiece of statement.\n\nNow, it is very easy, and what has often been done, _to stand on the\noutside_ and show the actual error and logical absurdity of this creed; to\nshow that men are not by nature totally depraved, and that, if they were,\nthis would not be guilt; that, if they have no power to repent, they are\nnot to blame for not repenting; and that God, as a God of justice even (to\nsay nothing of mercy, of love, of a heavenly Father), cannot condemn and\npunish us for a depraved nature inherited from Adam.\n\nIt is easy to say all this. But it has often been said; and with what\nresult? Unitarians have been, by such arguments, confirmed in their\nUnitarianism; but the Orthodox have not, by such arguments, been convinced\nof the falsity of their creed. Let us see, then, if we cannot find some\ntruth in this system,\u2014some vital, experimental truth,\u2014for the sake of\nwhich the Orthodox cling to these immense and incredible inconsistencies.\nLet us take an _inside_ view of Orthodoxy, and see why, being\nunreasonable, it yet commends itself to so many minds of the highest order\nof reason.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or otherwise.\n\n\nLet us begin with the substance of Orthodoxy (neglecting, at present, its\nform), and say, in general, that it regards human nature as being in an\nabnormal or diseased condition. The first thing to be done with man,\naccording to Calvinism, is to cure him. Many systems, differing from each\nother in name, agree in this\u2014that they do not believe in any such diseased\ncondition of man. According to them, he is not to be cured, but to be\neducated. The Church is not a hospital, but an academy. Man needs, mainly,\ninstruction. His purposes, in the main, are right; but he errs as to what\nhe has to do. What he requires is precept and example.\n\nAs Orthodoxy believes man to be diseased, its object is twofold, and the\ntruths which it employs are of two kinds. First, it seeks to convince man\nthat he really has a dangerous disease; and then to convince him, that, by\nusing the right means, he can be cured. It therefore constantly dwells\nupon two classes of truths: first, those which reveal man\u2019s sinfulness and\nhis ruined condition; and, secondly, those which reveal the plan of saving\nhim from this condition\u2014a plan which has been devised by the Almighty, and\nwhich is accomplished in Christianity. Orthodoxy dwells upon sin and\nsalvation: these are its two pivotal doctrines.\n\nOn the other hand, all the systems which may be associated under the term\n\u201cLiberal Christianity\u201d regard man, not as in a state of disease, and\nneeding medicine, but as in a state of health, needing diet, exercise, and\nfavorable circumstances, in order that he may grow up a well-developed\nindividual. It regards sin, not as a radical disease with which all are\nborn, but as a temporary malady to which all are liable. It does not,\ntherefore, mainly dwell on sin and salvation, but on duty and improvement.\nMan\u2019s nature it regards, not as radically evil, but as radically good; and\neven as divine, because made by God.\n\nHere, then, in the doctrine of evil, lies the essential distinction\nbetween the two great schools of thought which have divided the Church.\nWhat is evil? and how is it to be regarded? This is, perhaps, the most\nradical question in Christian theology. Is evil positive, or only\nnegative? Is it a reality, or only a form? What is it? Whence comes it?\nUntil these questions are exhaustively discussed, there is little hope of\nunion in theology.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Sin as Disease.\n\n\nWe regard Orthodoxy as substantially right in its views of sin as being a\ndeep and radical disease. Our Saviour says, \u201cI came not to call the\nrighteous, but sinners, to repentance.\u201d \u201cThe Son of man came to seek and\nto save that which is lost.\u201d\n\nBut the question recurs, Is there only one kind of sin,\u2014namely, voluntary\nand conscious transgression of God\u2019s law, originating with the individual\nhimself, and in the moment of committing it, by means of his free will,\nwhich is its only seat? or is there sin which is a tendency in man\u2019s\nnature, something permanent, involuntary, of which he is not conscious,\nand which has its seat not merely in the will, but in the desires and\naffections. To this question Liberal Christianity has commonly said, \u201cNo,\u201d\nand Orthodoxy has said, \u201cYes.\u201d\n\nAnd on this point I concur with Orthodoxy. Besides the sin which consists\nin free choice, and which is essentially transient, there is also the sin\nwhich consists in wrong desire, and which is essentially permanent,\nbecause it is a habit of the mind. If it were not so, there could be no\nsuch thing as a bad character, and no such thing as a vicious habit.\n\nIf we attempt to analyze evil, we shall find that it may be conveniently\ndistributed into these divisions:\u2014\n\n1. PHYSICAL EVIL.\n\n(_a._) Pain.\n(_b._) Weakness.\n(_c._) Physical disease.\n\n2. INTELLECTUAL OR MENTAL EVIL.\n\n(_a._) Ignorance.\n(_b._) Error, or mistake.\n(_c._) Sophism, or falsehood.\n\n3. MORAL EVIL. DISOBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW.\n\n(_a._) Ignorant and accidental, or transgression.\n(_b._) Habitual disobedience, or vice.\n(_c._) Wilful violation of human law; crime.\n(_d._) Diseased moral state, as selfishness, bad temper, &c.\n\n4. SPIRITUAL EVIL.\n\n(_a._) Wilful alienation from God, or perverse choice.\n(_b._) Spiritual inability.\n\nNow, we see that in all these divisions of evil,\u2014physical, intellectual,\nmoral, and spiritual,\u2014it is found in the two forms of active and passive\nevil. In the latter form it is disease, and independent of the will.\n\nReturning, then, to the Orthodox view of evil, which it is our business to\nexamine, we find already that it has the advantage of the Liberal theology\nin recognizing this passive side of evil, which we may call _disease_. It\nis true that Orthodoxy has not yet succeeded in coming to any clearness on\nthis question, and has not yet any firm, intellectual hold of the main\npoints of its argument. Examples of this confusion are quite common. Not\nto go back to the Calvinistic and Arminian controversies, which were but a\nrevival of the Augustinian and Pelagian dispute; not to recur even to the\nHopkinsian and Edwardian discussions,\u2014we have only to refer to the\ndifferences between new and old school theology in the Presbyterian\nChurch; to the trial of Dr. Beecher; to the book of his son Edward; to the\ndivergence of Andover from New Haven, and Princeton from Andover.\nUnsettled, because superficial, views of evil are at the roots of all\nthese controversies.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. Their Truth and\nError.\n\n\nThe first point of the doctrine of evil regards the Fall, including the\ndoctrine of depravity.\n\nModern French philosophers have dwelt much on what they call the\nsolidarity of the human race. By this they mean that two individuals are\nnot independent of each other, like two trees standing side by side, but\nlike two buds on the same tree or bough. There is a common life-sap\nflowing through them all. Let the life of the tree be attacked\nanywhere,\u2014in its roots, its trunk, its limbs,\u2014and all these individual\nbuds feel it. Yet each bud has also a life of its own, and develops its\nown stalk, leaves, blossom, fruit. It can be taken from its own tree, and\nput into another tree, and grow. So it is with separate men grafted into\nthe great tree of mankind. No one lives to himself, nor dies to himself.\nIf one suffers, all suffer. The life of mankind, becoming diseased, pours\ndisease into all individual men.\n\nNow, is there not something in this doctrine to which our instincts\nassent? Do not we feel it true that we inherit not our own life merely,\nbut that of our race? and is not this the essential truth in the doctrine\nof the fall?\n\nIt is true that we fell in Adam. It is also true that we fell in every act\nof sin, in every weakness and folly, of any subsequent child of Adam. We\nare all drawn downward by every sin; we are lifted upward, too, by every\nact of heroic virtue, not by example only, but also by that mysterious\ninfluence, that subtile contagion, finer than anything visible,\nponderable, or tangible,\u2014that effluence from eye, voice, tone, manner,\nwhich, according to the character which is behind, communicates an impulse\nof faith and courage, or an impulse of cowardice and untruth; which may be\ntransmitted onward, forward, on every side, like the widening circles in a\ndisturbed lake,\u2014circles which meet and cross each other without\ndisturbance, and whose influence may be strictly illimitable and infinite.\n\nNo doubt, sin began with the historical Adam\u2014the first man who lived. \u201cBy\none man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.\u201d But still more true\nis it that we fell in the typical Adam\u2014Adam who stands for innocent,\nignorant human nature before temptation; truest of all, that we _fall_ in\nAdam, because we are, each of us, at first an Adam.\n\nWe are all in the garden; we are at first placed in paradise; and each has\nin himself all the four _dramatis person\u00e6_\u2014Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the\nVoice of God. Adam is the will, the power of choice, the masculine\nelement, in man; Eve is the affection, the desire, the feminine element,\nin man; the Voice of God is the higher reason in the soul, through which\ninfinite truth commands,\u2014i.e., the higher law; and the Serpent, the lower\nreason in the soul, the cunning element, the sophistical understanding,\nwhich can put evil for good, and good for evil. The garden is our early\ninnocence, where there is no struggle, no remorse, no anxiety; where\ngoodness is not labor, but impulse. But, when we go out of the garden, we\nenter a life of trial, till we reach the higher paradise, the kingdom of\nheaven; and then joy and duty become one again. Then\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cLove is an unerring light,\n    And joy its own security.\u201d\n\n\nFrom paradise, through the world, to heaven; from Egypt, through the\nwilderness, to Canaan; from innocence, through temptation, sin,\nrepentance, faith, to regeneration,\u2014such is the progress of man.\n\nTo me, the belief that I fell in Adam is not an opinion fraught only with\nsadness. This tide of life which comes pouring through me comes from ten\nthousand ancestors. All _their_ sorrows and joys, temptations and\nstruggles, sins and virtues, have helped to make it what it is. I am a\nmember of a great body. I am willing to be so\u2014to bear the fortunes and\nmisfortunes of my race.\n\nIt is true that I find evil tendencies in me, which I did not cause; but I\nknow, that, for whatever part I am not the cause, I am not accountable.\nFor this part of my life I do not dread the wrath, but rather claim the\npity, of my God. My nature I find to be diseased\u2014not well; needing cure,\nand not merely food and exercise. I can, therefore, the more easily\nbelieve that God has sent me a physician, and that I shall be cured by\nhim. I can believe in a future emancipation from these tendencies to\nvanity, sensuality, indolence, anger, wilfulness, impatience,\nobstinacy\u2014tendencies which are, in me, not crime, but disease; and I can\nsee how to say with Paul, \u201cNow, then, it is no more _I_ that do it, but\nSIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME.\u201d\n\nIf, now, we return to the consideration of the Orthodox doctrine of the\nfall, as set forth by the Westminster Assembly, we shall find it to be\nhalf true and half false. It states _truly_ (chap. 6, \u00a7 1) that our first\nparents sinned, and also (\u00a7 2) that by this sin they fell from their\noriginal righteousness; for this only means that the first conscious act\nof disobedience by man produced alienation from God, and degeneracy of\nnature. This was no arbitrary punishment, but the natural consequence. The\ncreed also says _truly_ (\u00a7 3) that this corrupted nature was conveyed to\nall their posterity; for this only means, that, by the laws of descent,\ngood and evil qualities are transmitted; which all wise observers of human\nnature knew to be the fact. It is also _true_ (\u00a7 5) that this corrupt\nnature does remain (to some extent at least), even in the regenerate, in\nthis life.\n\nSo far, so true. Sin, as disease, began with the first man, in his first\nsin, and has been transmitted, by physical, moral, and spiritual\ninfluences, from him to us all.\n\nBut now we find complicated with these truths other statements, which we\nmust need regard as falsehoods. Tried either by reason or Scripture, they\nare palpably untrue, and are very dangerous errors.\n\nThe first error of Orthodoxy is in declaring transmitted or inherited evil\nto be total. It declares that our first parents \u201cwere _wholly_ defiled in\nall faculties and parts of soul and body,\u201d and that _we_, in consequence,\n\u201care utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and\nwholly inclined to all evil.\u201d This statement is indefensible. But we shall\nconsider this in another section on \u201cTotal Depravity,\u201d and only allude to\nit now in passing.\n\nAnother error, however, and a very important one, is to attribute the\n_guilt_ of Adam and Eve to their descendants. This is the famous doctrine\nof _imputation_, which is now rejected by all the leading schools of\nmodern Orthodoxy. That we can be _guilty_ of Adam\u2019s sin, either by\nimputation or in any other way, seems too absurd and immoral a statement\nto be now received.\n\nBut though many intelligent Orthodox teachers and believers do now reject\nthe imputation of Adam\u2019s sin, they admit what is just as false and just as\nimmoral a doctrine. They make us _guilty_ for that part of sin which is\n_depravity_, as well as for that which is _wilful_.\n\nWhatever, either of moral good or moral evil, proceeds from our nature,\nand not from our will, has no character of merit or demerit. The reason is\nevident, and is stated by the apostle Paul. We are only guilty for what we\ndo ourselves, we are only meritorious for what we do ourselves: but what\nour nature does, we do not do. \u201cNow, then, it is no more _I_ that do it,\nbut sin that dwelleth in me.\u201d\n\nProfessor Shedd, late of Andover, some years ago published a very able\nessay in the \u201cChristian Review,\u201d the title of which was, \u201cSin a Nature,\nand that Nature Guilt.\u201d This title is a sufficient refutation of the\nessay. A man could not utter a more palpable contradiction, if he said,\n\u201cThe sun solid, and that solid fluid,\u201d or, \u201cThe earth black, and that\nblack white.\u201d(14)\n\nThere are two kinds of moral good and two kinds of moral evil, which are\nessentially different. The two kinds of moral good may be named _moral\nvirtue_ and _moral beauty_; the two kinds of moral evil may be named\n_guilt_ and _depravity_. Now, so far as goodness proceeds from a beautiful\nnature, it is not virtuous, and so far as sin proceeds from a depraved\nnature, it is not guilty. We can conceive of an angelic nature with no\ncapacity of virtue, because incapable of guilt.\n\nWe can also conceive of a nature so depraved as to be incapable of guilt,\nbecause incapable of virtue.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21.\n\n\nThe famous passage in Paul (Rom. 5:12-21), which is the direct scriptural\nfoundation claimed for the doctrine of Adam\u2019s fall producing guilt in his\nposterity, is in reality a support of our view. The only other passage (1\nCor. 15:22) where Adam is referred to, declares that we all _die_ in him,\nbut by no means asserts that we _sin_ in him.\n\nThe passage referred to runs thus (Rom. 5:12-18):\u2014\n\nVerse 12: \u201cAs by one man sin entered into the world,\u201d\u2014\n\n(Paul here refers to the fact that sin BEGAN with the first man.)\n\n\u201cAnd death by sin;\u201d\u2014\n\n(By means of the sin of one man, _death_ entered.)\n\n\u201cAnd so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.\u201d\n\n(Rather \u201cdeath _came upon_ all men, _because_ all have sinned.\u201d The\nVulgate has here _in quo_, \u201cin whom;\u201d that is, in Adam. So Augustine. But\neven those who, like Olshausen, contend for Augustine\u2019s views, admit that\n\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1ff7 here is a conjunction, equivalent to _because_, and not a relative.)\n\nThe next five verses (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) constitute a parenthesis, and\nrefer to an objection which is not stated. Some one might say, \u201cHow could\nall sin, from Adam to Moses, when there was no law till Moses? and you,\nPaul, have said (Rom. 4:15), that \u2018where there is no law there is no\ntransgression.\u2019 \u201d\n\nPaul replies that \u201csin is not _imputed_ without law;\u201d that is, as I think\nevident, it is not regarded as _guilt_. A man who sins ignorantly is not\n_guilty_; but he _suffers_ the consequences of his sin, which are\ndepravity of his nature, or moral death. \u201cSin is not imputed,\u201d says Paul;\n\u201cbut death reigns.\u201d Those who do not sin \u201cafter the similitude of Adam\u2019s\ntransgression,\u201d\u2014that is, who do not violate a positive\ncommand,\u2014nevertheless are depraved morally, and are dead spiritually. The\nHottentots and Fejee Islanders violate no positive law given them by God,\nand consequently are not guilty of that; but because they violate (even\nignorantly) the laws of their moral nature, they are depraved morally.\n\nWe see, then, that Paul distinctly recognizes the distinction made above\nbetween _sin as guilt_ and _sin as depravity_.\n\nHe distinguishes between sin as sinfulness, or unconscious transgression\n(\u1f21 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1), and sin as conscious transgression of a known command\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\n\nThe consequence of the first is death, or moral and spiritual depravity;\nthe consequence of the second is condemnation, or a sense of guilt.\n\nSinfulness, bringing with it depravity (the general demoralization of\nhuman nature), began with Adam. All became involved in sinfulness, and\nconsequently all partook of the depravity which belongs to it as its\nwages.\n\nIt should, however, be observed that it is not the purpose of Paul to\nteach anything about Adam. His intention is to teach something about\nChrist. He refers to Adam\u2019s case as something they all are acquainted\nwith; he compares Christ\u2019s case with it both by contrast and resemblance.\nBut his object is not to instruct us about Adam, but about Christ. He uses\nAdam as an example to enforce his doctrine about Christ. Through Christ,\ngoodness and happiness were to come into the world. He illustrated this\nfact, and made it appear probable, by the fact which they already\nknew\u2014that through Adam sin and death had entered the world. If it seemed\nstrange, in an age in which men were so disunited, that one man should be\nthe medium of communicating goodness to the whole human race, they might\nremember that Adam also had been the medium of introducing sin to the\nwhole human race. If the Jews wondered that Christ should bring salvation\nto those who were not under the law, they might remember that Adam had\nbrought death to those not under the law, and who did not sin as he did.\nIf they doubted how Christ\u2019s goodness could help to make men righteous,\nthey might remember that in some way Adam\u2019s transgression had helped to\nmake men sinners. Yet, after all, the main fact which he states is in the\ntwelfth verse, chapter five\u2014\u201cthat by one man sin _entered into_ the world,\nand death by sin.\u201d This amounts to saying that sin _began_ with Adam. Then\nhe adds, in the same verse, \u201cthat death has passed upon all men, _because\nall have sinned_.\u201d He therefore distinctly declares that every man is\npunished for his own sin, and not for the sin of Adam.\n\nIn the other passage (1 Cor. 15:22), Paul says, \u201cAs in Adam all die, even\nso, in Christ, shall all be made alive.\u201d He does not say here, either that\n\u201call sinned in Adam,\u201d or that \u201call fell in Adam,\u201d or that \u201call died in\nAdam.\u201d It is the present tense, \u201call die in Adam.\u201d\n\nWhat he means by this, he explains himself afterwards. He tells us that as\n\u201csouls\u201d descended from Adam, we are liable to death; as spirits quickened\nby Christ, we are filled with spiritual and immortal life.\n\nIn the forty-fourth verse he gives the explanation. The body \u201cis _sown_ a\nnatural body\u201d (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd)\u2014literally a soul-body, a body vitalized by\nthe soul. \u201cIt is raised a spiritual body\u201d\u2014literally spirit-body (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd), a body vitalized by the spirit. \u201cThere is a soul-body, and\nthere in a spirit-body.\u201d \u201cAnd so it is written, The first man, Adam, was\nmade a living soul\u201d (which is a quotation from Genesis 2:7\u2014\u201cand man became\na living soul\u201d), \u201cbut the last Adam,\u201d says Paul (meaning Christ), \u201cbecame\na life-making spirit.\u201d But, continues Paul, the soul-man (psychical man)\ncomes first; the spiritual-man afterwards, according to a regular order.\n\u201cThe first man is of the earth, earthy; the second is the Lord from\nheaven.\u201d And then he adds,\u2014and this is the key to the whole passage,\u2014\u201c_As\nwe have borne the __ image of the earthy_, we shall also bear the image of\n_the heavenly_.\u201d The doctrine, then, is plainly this: that we have two\nnatures\u2014a soul-nature, which we derive from Adam, and share with all\nmankind, which nature is liable to weakness, sin, and death; and a\nspirit-nature, which we derive from God, which Christ comes to quicken and\nvitalize, and the life of which constitutes our true immortality.\n\nThe apostle Paul, therefore, does not by any means teach Calvinism. The\nCatechism says that \u201cour first parents being the root of all mankind, the\nguilt of their sin was imputed to all their posterity.\u201d But Paul says, \u201cSo\ndeath passed upon all men, because all have sinned.\u201d The Catechism says\nthat \u201cthis same death in sin, and corrupted nature, being conveyed to\ntheir posterity, makes us utterly indisposed and opposite to all good,\u201d\nand that \u201cfrom this original corruption do proceed all actual\ntransgressions.\u201d\n\nBut if this is so, there has been no such thing in the world as guilt\nsince Adam fell. If all actual transgressions proceed from original\ncorruption, and original corruption comes from the first transgression of\nAdam, it logically follows that there has been but one sin committed in\nthe world since it was made, namely, the sin of Adam. All other sins have\nbeen pure misfortunes; his alone was guilt. His transgression alone came\nfrom a free choice; all others have come from an involuntary necessity of\nnature.\n\nNothing can be more certain from reason and Scripture than this\u2014that\ntransgressions which come from a corrupt nature are just so far done in\nus, and not done by us. This the apostle distinctly affirms when he says\n(7:17), \u201cNow, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in\nme.\u201d No man is responsible for disease, when he has not brought that\ndisease on himself, but inherited it from his ancestors. The disease may\nmake him very odious, very disagreeable, but cannot make him blamable.\nTherefore, when Calvin says that hereditary depravity \u201crenders us\nobnoxious to the divine wrath,\u201d he utters an absurdity. This confusion of\nideas runs through all Orthodox statements on the subject, and the only\ncure is, that we should learn how to make this distinction between natural\nevil and moral evil, or the evil which proceeds from a corrupt nature and\nthe evil which comes from a free will.\n\nIf we were to sum up the doctrine of the apostle Paul on this subject, it\nwould be thus:\u2014\n\n1. The first man, Adam, consisted, as we all consist, of nature and will.\nHis nature consisted of innocent tendencies and appetites. None were\nexcessive; all were well balanced. His nature inclined him no more to evil\nthan to good, but each faculty was in proper poise. The first sin,\ntherefore, could not have been a gross one; it was a simple transgression;\nbut its effect was to introduce what the apostle calls _death_; that is, a\ndiseased or corrupt nature. The process is this: With the first conscious\nand free transgression there arises a sense of guilt. This sense of guilt\nleads the soul away from God. Adam and Eve hide in the garden. Every act\nof sin tends to create a habit, and so destroys the moral equipoise. There\nhence arises a tendency _towards_ evil, and _from_ good; and this is\ncalled death, because it takes us away from God, who is the source of\nlife.\n\n2. A tendency towards evil is thus introduced into the world by the\ntransgression of the first man. His descendants are now born with a nature\nwhich is not in equipoise, but which leans more towards evil than towards\ngood. Their will remains free as before; but they cannot perform the same\namount of good as before. These corrupt tendencies tempt to greater sin\nthan the pure tendencies did, and, whenever yielded to, bring a greater\namount of moral evil into the race.\n\n3. Things, therefore, are thus growing worse continually; for every new\nact of sin makes it easier to sin again. And this tendency to death, or\nestrangement from God, must go on increasing, unless some antagonist\nprinciple can be communicated to the race. This is actually done by Jesus\nChrist. The principle of life which Christ introduces consists in\nreconciliation to God. Sin separates us from God, and therefore tends to\ndeath. Christ reconciles us to God, and so gives life. The way in which\nChrist reconciles us to God is by manifesting God\u2019s pardoning and saving\nlove to the sinful soul. In his own life, but especially by his death, he\ncommunicates this pardoning love, and so produces the atonement. This is\nthe central, Pauline view of the relation of Adam and Christ to the race.\nAdam introduces death into the world: Christ introduces life. He does not\nspeak at all of _imputation_, or transfer of guilt; but he speaks of an\n_actual communication_ of death and life. Adam and Christ both stand in\nactual, and not merely ideal, connection with the whole race of man. Adam\nis a living soul; Christ, a life-giving spirit. By inheritance, we receive\na depraved life of the soul from Adam; by communion, we receive an eternal\nor spiritual life from Christ. And, in regard to both of these acts, the\nnotion of blame or merit is entirely excluded. We are not to blame for our\ninherited depravity derived from Adam. We deserve no credit for the\nsalvation which comes to us from Christ. The compensation for the\nmisfortune of inherited evil is the free gift of divine goodness in Jesus.\n\nWe have thus considered the truth and the error contained in the Orthodox\ndoctrine of the fall. The truth of it is in its assertion of a depravity\nof nature, to which we are liable in consequence of ancestral sins: the\nerror is in imputing guilt to us in consequence of them.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability.\n\n\nIn speaking of the fall of man, we necessarily anticipated somewhat the\ndoctrine of total depravity. Still, we must say something further on this\ndoctrine, because it is so important in the Church system: it is, indeed,\nat its foundation. Those who accept, in its strictness, the doctrine of\ntotal depravity cannot avoid any point of the severest Calvinism.\nSchleiermacher has shown, in his \u201cEssay on Election,\u201d that this latter\ndoctrine necessarily follows the doctrine of total depravity; for, if man\nis wholly depraved, he has no power to do anything for his own conversion;\ntherefore God must do it. And if some are converted, and not others, it\nmust be because God chooses to convert some, and does not choose to\nconvert others.\n\nLet us look, then, at what Orthodoxy says of the _extent_ of human\ndepravity. In all the principal creeds, this is stated to be unlimited.\nMan\u2019s sin is total and entire. There is nothing good in him. The\nWestminster Confession and the Confession of the New England\nCongregational churches describe him as \u201cdead in sin, and wholly defiled\nin all the faculties and parts of soul and body.\u201d Other creeds use similar\nlanguage.\n\nIn considering this theory, we are struck at first by the circumstance,\nthat the Bible gives it very little support. The Bible continually speaks\nof man as a sinner; but there are very few texts which can, without\nstraining, be made to _seem_ to teach that he is totally depraved. Let us\nexamine a few of them.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Proof Texts.\n\n\n1. A text often cited is Genesis 6:5,\u2014the reason given for destroying the\nhuman race, in the time of Noah, by the deluge: \u201cAnd God saw that the\nwickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of\nthe thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.\u201d But this seems to be\na description of the state of the world at that particular time, not of\nits character in all ages. It is not a description of man\u2019s natural\ncondition, but of an extremely degenerate condition. If the state of the\nworld here described was its natural state, it would rather be a reason\nfor not having created the race at first; or, if it was a reason for\ndestroying it, it would, at best, seem to be as strong a one against\ncreating it again. If a man plants a tree in his garden, whose nature he\nknows is to produce a certain kind of fruit, it would seem hardly a good\nreason for cutting it down, that it produced that kind of fruit: certainly\nit would not be a good reason for cutting it down, and planting another of\nprecisely the same kind in its place. The reason why the race of men was\ndestroyed was, that it had _degenerated_. But there were some good even\nthen; for in the ninth verse we are told that \u201cNoah was a just man, and\nperfect in his generation, and walked with God.\u201d\n\n2. There is another passage, in the fourteenth Psalm which is quoted by\nPaul in Rom. 3: \u201cThere is none righteous; no, not one: there is none that\nunderstandeth, none that seeketh after God. They have all gone out of the\nway, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good;\nno, not one. There is no fear of God before their eyes.\u201d\n\nThis passage is relied on to prove total depravity. But we may reply,\nthat\u2014\n\nThis also is a degenerate condition, not a natural one. It was a condition\ninto which men had fallen, not one in which they were born. \u201cThey have all\n_gone_ out of the way; they are together _become_ unprofitable.\u201d It does\nnot, therefore, apply to men _universally_, but to men in those particular\ntimes.\n\nIt was not true of _all_, even at that particular time. It was not true of\nDavid himself, that he did not seek after God, or have the fear of God\nbefore his eyes; or else other passages in the same book are not true, in\nwhich he says the contrary. \u201cO God! early will I seek thee: my soul\nthirsteth for thee; my flesh longeth for thee.\u201d He also frequently speaks\nof and to those who fear the Lord, and says, \u201cI am a companion to all\nthose that fear thee.\u201d\n\nThe \u201call\u201d is not to be taken strictly. It means people generally at that\ntime. Just so it is said, \u201cThere went out to him Jerusalem and _all_\nJudea, and _all_ the region round about Jordan;\u201d which does not imply that\n_no one_ staid at home.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d it may be said, \u201cdoes not Paul teach that this is to be taken\nuniversally, when he quotes it, and adds, \u2018Now we know that what the law\nsaith, it saith to those under the law, that every mouth be stopped, and\nall the world guilty before God\u2019 \u201d? We think he means to say, that, as\nthis is said to Jews, it proves that _Jews_, as well as Gentiles, are very\nguilty. He is addressing the Jews, who boasted of their knowledge of the\nlaw. Chap. 2: \u201cBehold, thou art called a Jew,\u201d &c.\n\n3. Jer. 17:9. \u201cThe heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately\nwicked.\u201d\n\nIf we suppose that we are to take this as an unlimited expression, and not\nmerely a strong declaration of the wickedness of the Jews, it still does\nnot prove total depravity of the nature, but merely that of the\naffections, or \u201cthe heart.\u201d Man\u2019s nature has other things besides desire:\nit has conscience, reason, and will; and it does not follow that these are\nalso depraved.\n\n4. Rom. 8:7. \u201cThe carnal mind is enmity against God.\u201d\n\nThis does not intend that the mind of man, in its _natural_ state, is\nenmity, but in its _carnal_ state; that is, when subject to fleshly\ndesires. Nearly the same phrase is used in the verse before, and is\ntranslated, \u201cTo be carnally minded is death.\u201d\n\n5. There is one famous passage, however, which seems to say that God is\nangry with us on account of our nature. This is a passage very much\nquoted, and we hear it so often that it seems as if the Bible was full of\nsuch texts. It is in Eph. 2:3. \u201cWe were by nature _children of wrath_,\neven as others.\u201d This is quoted to prove that God is angry with men for\ntheir natures, and hates them for being born evil\u2014just as we may hate a\nsnake, a scorpion, or spider, for its nature. But, as it happens, the very\nnext verses show that this is impossible, unless God can be hating one of\nhis creatures and loving it at the very same moment.\n\nFor, in the next verse Paul says that God loved us with a great love _when\nwe were dead in trespasses and sins_, and children _of wrath_. It is\ntherefore evident that \u201c_children of wrath_\u201d must mean something else. It\nmay mean that men outside of Christianity\u2014Jews and Gentiles\u2014were afraid of\nGod; living under a constant sense of his displeasure; that God seemed to\nthem a terrible being, always disposed to punish them with severity. This\nwas the fact. Jews and Gentiles were afraid of their gods, before Christ\ncame, and so were \u201cchildren of wrath.\u201d Or it may mean that men are exposed\nto the consequences of sin; for, in Scripture language,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cGod\u2019s wrathful said to be, when he doth do\n    That _without wrath_ which wrath doth force us to.\u201d\n\n\nMoreover, \u201cnature,\u201d in Scripture usage, does not necessarily mean, \u201cas\nhuman beings.\u201d It often intends external position, origin, and race. So\n(in Gal. 2:15) we read, \u201cJews by nature;\u201d and so (in Rom. 2:27)\n\u201cuncircumcision, which is by nature.\u201d\n\nThe same word is used twice in James 3:7, and is translated _kind_. \u201cEvery\n_kind_ of beasts, birds, serpents, things in the sea, is tamed of\nman-_kind_:\u201d literally, \u201cthe whole animal _race_ is tamed by the human\n_race_.\u201d\n\nIf \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 here meant \u201cconstitutional depravity,\u201d the same word in Rom. 2:14\nmust mean _constitutional goodness_, where we are told that some \u201cdo _by\nnature_ the things contained in the law.\u201d So, too, we read of the olive\ntree, wild by nature, in Rom. 11:24.\n\n\u201cBy nature,\u201d here, plainly means the original condition, not the original\nconstitution. Just so we say that wild animals are in a state of nature,\nand call savages the children of nature.\n\nThese five texts are the strongest in the Bible to support the doctrine of\ntotal depravity, and, as such, are constantly quoted. They have very\nlittle weight, and not one of them is from the words of Jesus.\n\nOn the other hand, there are many passages which seem to declare that\nthere is something good in man in his unconverted or natural state, and\nthat even in that state he may turn towards the light, and struggle\nagainst evil.\n\nJohn 3:20, 21. \u201cEvery one that doeth truth cometh to the light.\u201d\n\nMatt. 26:41. \u201c... The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.\u201d\n\nRom. 2:24. \u201cGentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things\ncontained in the law, and show the work of that law which is written in\nthe heart.\u201d\n\nActs 10:35. \u201cIn every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh\nrighteousness, is accepted of him.\u201d\n\nBut the passage most strikingly and thoroughly opposed to the doctrine of\ntotal depravity, is the description, in the seventh chapter of Romans, of\nthe conflict between the law in the members and the law of the mind. Paul,\nspeaking evidently from his own experience in his unconverted state,\ndescribes the condition of one morally depraved, who is trying to do\nright, but is prevented by evil habits which have become a part of\nhimself. He describes this as moral death, but _not_ guilt. He says, \u201cIt\nis no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.\u201d He describes\nhimself as morally impotent\u2014_wishing_ to do right, but unable to do it. He\nsays _he delights in the law of God after the inner man_. The inmost is\nright, but outside of that are evil habits, in the body, which drag down\nthe soul and enslave it. Paul therefore distinctly says that a man in such\na condition is not himself a sinner, because he does not commit the sin.\nThus he makes clear and strong the distinction we referred to above,\nbetween depravity and guilt\u2014between _natural evil_ and _moral evil_.\n\nPaul teaches that man is not totally depraved, but that even in the carnal\nman there is a good principle, only that it is conquered by the evil. If\nthe mind delights in the law of God, and the will to do right is present\nwith us, we evidently are not _totally_ depraved; but the total depravity,\nif anywhere, is in the flesh only, as Paul plainly says: \u201cI know that in\nme (that is, in _my flesh_) dwelleth no good thing;\u201d that is, the\ndepravity is physical, not moral. But physical depravity is not guilt, but\nonly disease.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.\n\n\nNevertheless there is a sense in which man may be said to be often totally\nsinful; but this is only in a total alienation of the will from God. It is\nnot a total depravity, but a total alienation. There is a natural\ndepravity, but it is not total. But the choice may be totally perverted,\nwhen it chooses darkness instead of light, evil instead of good.\n\nLet us see what there is of this in man.\n\nThe gospel of Christ, as we understand it, undertakes to effect an entire\nchange, a radical reformation, in human character. It proposes to reform\nthe life by changing the heart, by giving new aims, new affections, new\naspirations, new objects of love and pursuit. Jesus does not endeavor to\nalter and improve, a little here and a little there, on the outside of the\ncharacter, to improve a little our modes of action in this and the other\nparticular; but he alters the conduct and character by altering the\nfundamental ideas, and inspiring an inward life. This wonderful change,\nwhich takes place in the profoundest depth of our nature, under the\ninfluence of the Gospel,\u2014this great event of life, which forms the\nturning-point of our being and history,\u2014is called in the New Testament\n\u201cthe new birth,\u201d \u201cregeneration,\u201d \u201cto be born again,\u201d \u201cconversion,\u201d \u201ca new\ncreation,\u201d \u201cto be born of God,\u201d \u201cto be baptized with the Holy Ghost and\nwith fire,\u201d \u201cto put off the old man,\u201d \u201cto have Christ formed within us.\u201d\nIt is a very superficial view which explains away the meaning of all these\nprofound expressions, and supposes that they only signify a little outward\nimprovement and reformation. We need just such a change as is here\ndescribed\u2014a radical one, not a superficial one. All need it. Those who are\nthe most pure in heart and most blameless in character (spotless children,\nas they seem to us, of a heavenly world) feel their own need of this\nchange no less than do the profligate and openly vicious. Parents and\nfriends say, \u201cWe have no fault to find with them.\u201d They do not say they\nhave no fault to find with themselves. They feel they have all kinds of\nfault to find with themselves, and nothing is so painful to them as this\ncommendation. They say, \u201cOutwardly we may seem innocent, but we feel an\ninward want that weighs on our heart like a frost.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis is a true saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus\ncame into the world to save sinners.\u201d It is because we are sinners that we\nneed to experience this great change. We do not wish to exaggerate the\namount of human sinfulness. Theologians have carried their attacks on\nhuman nature quite too far, and the result has often been that men have\nlooked on sin as a sort of theological matter, which has nothing to do\nwith actual life. They have cheerfully admitted that they were totally\ndepraved by nature, and could not think or will a good thing, and then\nhave thought no worse of themselves than before. We know that there is\nsomething good in man, something which God loves, some pure aspiration\neven in the natural heart, some throbs of generosity, some warnings of\nconscience, some pure love, some courageous virtue, in the humblest, the\nmost depraved, the most abandoned. There are some flowers of sweetest\nperfume which spring up in the uncultivated soil of the natural heart on\nwhich God and his angels smile, for the seeds of those flowers God himself\nplanted. We have seen harebells, graceful and lovely as the sweetest\ngreenhouse plant, growing out of a sand-heap; and we have seen some\ndisinterested, generous benevolence in the mind of a hardened profligate.\nIt is not, therefore, because there is nothing good in man that he needs a\nchange of heart, but because he is destitute of a deep-rooted and living\ngoodness till this change has taken place.\n\nLook at the _actual sins_ of men. The majority of men, in a civilized\ncommunity like ours, do not commit great crimes, or fall into flagrant\nvices, because they have little to attract them to such a course, and much\nto deter them from it. They are aiming at those objects which they need\nthe countenance, aid, and good opinion of their fellow-men to obtain, to\nbe glaringly vicious would make it impossible. Also, there is a certain\namount of conscience which restrains them\u2014the influence of good education\nand good habits which preserves a certain uprightness and purity of\ncharacter. But is it a deep principle? If so, why do the vast majority of\nmen allow themselves in many small violations of the same laws which they\nwould not break on a large scale? They would not steal; yet they commit\nevery day some slight acts not perfectly honest; they take advantage of\nothers in little things. They would not lie; yet they exaggerate, and\nconceal part of the truth, and color their statements to produce an\neffect. They would not kill; but they are willing to injure one who has\ninterfered with their interests. With these tendencies and feelings, why\nwould they not, under different influences, commit greater crimes? How\noften do we feel, in talking with the criminal and abandoned, that, in\ntheir circumstances and with their temptations, we might have been as bad\nas they!\n\nDoes not all this show that there is a deep and hidden fountain of evil\nwithin our hearts which is restrained by external influences, by checks\nand barriers with which God has kindly surrounded us? and if these were\ntaken away, it would break out into something far worse than now appears.\nHow much there is of evil under the smooth surface of refined society! How\nmany thoughts of sin pass to and fro in the heart while the countenance\nseems pure and calm! Who ever looked into the interior depths of our most\nmoral community, and saw all the secret sins and pollutions which are\nhidden there? Every now and then there occurs in the midst of the most\nrefined classes some startling revelation of long-concealed wickedness\nwhich makes men look each other in the face and draw a long breath, as\nthough they should say, \u201cWhich of us will next fall?\u201d So in the midst of a\nfruitful country, of lakes, and valleys, and vine-clad hills, the earth\nwill sometimes open, and a river of melted lava pour forth, desolating all\naround. We hear of this with wonder, and do not think that right beneath\nour own feet, a few miles down, under these smooth fields and gentle\nplains, that same fiery ocean is rolling its red billows. God has laid his\nhand upon our heart, and restrains its lawless passions as he restrains\nthe tornadoes, and earthquakes, and volcanic fires; else they might easily\nhurry us to swift destruction.\n\nStill, if this were all, no radical change might be necessary. It might be\nenough that by effort, and self-discipline, and direction of the thoughts,\nwe gradually overcome our evil habits and tendencies; but when we resolve\nto do so, and make the effort, we meet with an unexpected resistance. \u201cThe\nspirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.\u201d \u201cI find a law in my members\nwarring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the\nlaw of sin in my members.\u201d The Church has long asserted the doctrine of an\nhereditary depravity; and we have seen that there is more truth in it than\nwe have sometimes supposed. It is not total, but it is real. Besides the\nsins of our own committing, there are the sins which our ancestors have\ncommitted, which have made themselves part of our bone and flesh. We are\nnot exactly balanced in our natural state; there is a preponderating\ntendency towards evil in one or another direction.\n\nThis forms too fearful an alliance with circumstances, the moment they\nbecome powerful to draw us away from good. A friend of ours, some years\nsince, was making a trip up the Lakes, late in the season. As they entered\nLake Huron from the River St. Clair in the noble steamer, the skies were\nserene, and she ploughed her way on towards the north, so that by night\nthe land had sunk almost out of sight. But then the wind began to freshen,\nthe sea rose, and as the night advanced, and the wind blew harder and\nharder, the boat strained and staggered along, occasionally struck hard by\na heavier sea, till at last one of her wheels was carried away, and the\nfires were put out by the water. How long and anxious was that night! How\nmany prayed then who never prayed before! When morning came, the boat was\nfound to be drifting before the wind and waves, directly upon a rocky\nshore on the south-east side of the lake. There was no help in man; but a\ngracious Providence all at once caused the storm to lull, so that a fire\ncould be built, and with one wheel the boat got into a harbor. Man seems a\npowerful being when he is surrounded by favorable circumstances, and is\ngoing with a fair wind and fair weather; but let the wind change, and his\nweakness becomes apparent. He who just now breasted the tide, is now\ndrifting helplessly before it.\n\nBut there is a difficulty far worse than any we have mentioned. We might\nconquer the sin which most easily besets us, we might conquer our inherent\nevil tendencies, and outgrow them, if we really wished to do so; but the\ndeepest of all evils is a want of love for God and for goodness. We know\nthat we ought to love and obey God; but our heart is alienated from him.\nThe great mass of men are living away from God. They are not conscious of\nhis presence, though they know that he is near to them. Though they know\nthat his eye is upon them, it does not restrain them from sin. Though they\nknow that their heavenly Father and best Friend is close at hand, how\nseldom do they pray! how seldom look up with gratitude for all their\nmercies and joys! This shows a terrible estrangement of soul from God. The\nveil is on their _hearts_, not on their minds.\n\nThe question is sometimes asked, \u201cwhether sin is a positive or merely a\nnegative evil.\u201d Now, whatever may be the case with other kinds of sin,\nthis alienation of the heart seems to us a very positive evil; for it is\nan antagonism, and resistance of goodness. If the supreme goodness of God\ndoes not attract us, does not excite our affection, does not irresistibly\ndraw us to him, then it repels us; it makes the thought of his presence a\nrestraint and burden; it makes us wish to go away from God. The goodness\nof God is so very positive a thing, that we cannot be indifferent to it;\nwe cannot be neutral in regard to it. If we do not love it, it is\ndisagreeable, and we are uncomfortable in the thought of it. Swedenborg\nrelates that certain wicked persons were allowed to enter heaven on a\ncertain occasion; but they immediately became almost lifeless, and, from\nthe torment and pain in their head and body, prostrated themselves on the\nground, and writhed like worms; but, being taken and carried into hell,\nbecame comparatively comfortable. What can be more terrible than the idea\nthus conveyed of our aversion to goodness, which makes heaven intolerable,\nand the presence of God insufferable torture! Can anything express, more\nthan this, the need of a change of heart?\n\nJesus, we think, asserts a similar view when he says, \u201cHe that is not with\nme is against me.\u201d \u201cNo man can serve two masters; for he will either love\nthe first and hate the last, or love the last and hate the first.\u201d He will\nnot be indifferent to either, if their characters and commands are of an\nopposite kind.\n\nWe do not mean to say that we _hate_ God; but we mean that there is\nsomething within us, while our hearts are not wholly his, which makes it\nunpleasant and burdensome to think of God and pray to him. We feel a\ncertain repugnance to a familiar and happy intercourse with our heavenly\nFather. Our prayers, if we pray, are formal and cold; our hearts are hard,\nand their affections do not flow easily upward.\n\nNow, if there be such a thing as a change of heart, which will make it a\npleasure to pray, a joy to think of God; which will make it natural to us\nto approach him, and dwell on the thought of his goodness; which will\nenable us to see him in the majesty and sweetness of nature, in the rise\nof empires or the death of an infant, in the coming of Christ, and in\nevery good thought which swells in our souls,\u2014then it is evident that this\nis what we need. Let us dig deep, and build our house upon a rock.\n\nWe shall see in another section that there is such a change of heart as we\nhave described. Jesus saves sinners by taking away the heart of stone, and\ngiving a heart of flesh. He saw the whole depth and extent of the disease\nwhich he came to cure. There are some preachers who do not know how great\nan evil sin is, and would not know what to do for a penitent and anxious\nsoul which really saw the greatness of its needs. Thus, when George Fox\nwent to the rector of his church to ask advice for the distress of his\nsoul, he was told to amuse himself and divert his mind. But Jesus saw all\nthe extent of sin, and yet was ready to encourage and help the sinner. He\nknew that his remedy was equal to the emergency. The gospel of Christ can\ngive to us love to God and love to man; can soften our hearts in humility,\ncan enable us to fight with and conquer even the hereditary evil of our\norganization; can ultimately redeem us from all evil. This is the\ndepravity we are to conquer; not of nature, but of will, and aim, and\npurpose.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Ability and Inability.\n\n\nOne of the pivotal points in the Orthodox theory of evil is that of _moral\ninability_. Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity seems to be taught for\nthe sake of this. Total depravity resolves itself, in the mind of the\nOrthodox teacher, into total inability, and means that man, unable to do\nright by any power in himself, must throw himself wholly and absolutely on\nthe divine grace. The secret motive of the whole Orthodox doctrine of evil\nis to lead through a sense of sin to humility, and at last to dependence.\nOrthodoxy here becomes intelligible, so soon as we perceive that its\npurpose is not speculative, but practical. As religion consists so greatly\nin the sentiment of dependence, it is a leading purpose in the Orthodox\nsystem to produce this sense of dependence. That group of\ngraces\u2014reverence, humility, submission, trust, prayer\u2014which lend such an\nineffable charm to the moral nature, which purify and refine it to its\ninmost depths,\u2014these spring almost wholly from the sense of dependence on\na higher and better being than ourselves. These being absent, the\nelevating principle is wanting; the man cannot rise above himself. There\nmay be truth, courage, conscience, purity, but they are all stoical and\nself-relying. It is only he who relies on a higher power, clings to a\nhigher being, and draws his moral life from above, who can ascend. He who\nhumbles himself, and he only, shall be exalted. But humility does not\nconsist in looking down, but in looking up. It does not come from looking\nat our own meanness, but at something higher and better than ourselves.\nThe sense of sin is only elevating when connected with the sight of a\nhigher beauty and holiness.\n\nIt is, therefore, in order to produce a conviction of absolute dependence\nthat Orthodoxy urges so strongly the doctrines of total depravity and\ntotal inability. A man will not pray, says the Orthodox system, till he\nfeels himself helpless. He will not seek a Saviour so long as he hopes to\nsave himself. He must see that he can do nothing more for himself; and\nthen, for the first time, he exercises a real faith in God, and casts\nhimself on the divine mercy.\n\nReasoning in this way, consciously or unconsciously, Orthodoxy has built\nup its doctrine of human inability, which we will proceed to state,\u2014first,\nhowever, indicating the scriptural view of this subject.\n\nScripture teaches that man is able to choose the right, but not always\nable to perform it. He is free in his spirit, but bound by circumstances\nof position, and by bodily organization. He is free to choose, but not\nfree to do. His freedom is in effort, not necessarily in accomplishment.\nHe can always try; he cannot always effect what he tries.\n\nThus Jesus says (Matt. 26:41), \u201cWatch and pray, that ye enter not into\ntemptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.\u201d And so\nPaul says, in the passage on this subject before referred to (Rom. 7:18),\n\u201cTo will is present with me, but how to perform that which I will, I find\nnot.\u201d\n\nWithout attempting here to enter into the tormented question of fate and\nfreedom, of necessity so irrefragably demonstrated by the logic of Edwards\nand others,\u2014of free-will perpetually reasserted by the intuitive reason in\nthe soul,\u2014we may say this: Whether there be such a thing as metaphysical\nfreedom or not, there is such a thing as moral freedom. In proportion as\nman sinks into the domain of nature, he is bound by irresistible laws. In\nproportion as he rises into the sphere of reason, justice, truth, love, he\nis emancipated, and can direct his own course. \u201cYe shall know the truth,\nand the truth shall make you free.\u201d \u201cIf the Son, therefore, shall make you\nfree, ye shall be free indeed.\u201d (John 8:32, 36.) \u201cStand fast in the\nliberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.\u201d (Gal. 5:1.) It is therefore\ntrue that only as we direct our course by eternal laws, we rise above the\ncontrolling influence of habit, prejudice, public opinion, inherited and\noriginal tendencies of the blood and brain. According to Paul (Rom.\n6:16-22), man must be either the servant of sin or the servant of God. He\nmust serve, willingly or unwillingly. He must be the degraded slave of\ndesire and selfishness, or the willing, loyal subject of truth and right.\nParadoxically enough, however, he only feels free in these two cases. For\nin these two states he is doing what he chooses to do. When he is blindly\nand willingly following his lower instincts he feels free. When he is\nrationally and freely choosing right, and doing it, he also feels free.\nBut when half way between these two states, when his conscience is pulling\none way and his desires drawing him the other, when he is choosing right\nand doing wrong, he feels himself a slave.\n\nThere are therefore these three conditions of the will, corresponding to\nthe Pauline division of man into spirit, soul, and body (1 Tim. 5:23)\u2014a\nview of man which was held throughout antiquity. The carnal man (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2)\nis one in whom the earthly appetites are supreme, and the soul, (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7) and\nspirit (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1) subordinate. The natural man (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, 1 Cor.\n2:14) is one in whom the soul, or central principle, the finite will, is\nsupreme. The spiritual man (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, 1 Cor. 2:15) is he in whom the\ninfinite principle, the sense of eternal truth and right, is supreme. In\nthe first condition\u2014that of the carnal man\u2014one is the slave of sin, but\nwithout knowing it, because there is no wish to become anything different.\nIn the second state\u2014that of the natural man (or psychical man)\u2014the soul\nchooses the good, but is drawn down by the evil. The law of the mind is\nwarring against the law of the members, and the man is torn asunder by\nthis conflict. He tries to do right, and does wrong. He now first feels\nhimself a slave; yet he is in reality _less_ a slave than before, for now\nhe is endeavoring to escape. His _will_ is emancipated, though his habits\nof conduct, his habits of thought, his habits of feeling, still bind him\nfast. In the third condition, that of the spiritual man, he has broken\nthese chains. He not only wills to do right, but does it. His body shares\nin the new life of his soul. He now is made free by the truth and the\nspirit from the service of evil, and shares in \u201cthe glorious liberty of\nthe children of God.\u201d\n\nIn all these conditions the human being has some freedom, but differing in\ndegree in each. In the lowest state he has freedom of action, for he does\nwhat he wishes to do; but he has not freedom of choice, for he does not\nchoose at all. He acts not by intelligent choice, but by blind instinct,\nhabit or custom. In the middle state he has freedom of choice, but not of\naction. He chooses the good, but performs the evil. This is the condition\ndescribed by Ovid, and other profane writers, before Paul described it in\nthe seventh chapter of Romans.(15) But in the highest state\u2014a spiritual\ncondition\u2014he has both freedoms; he can both choose and perform. The carnal\nman seems to be free, but is most thoroughly enslaved of all. The\npsychical man seems to himself to be enslaved, but has begun to be free.\nThe spiritual man both seems to be free and is so. The apparent freedom of\nthe carnal man differs from the real freedom of the spiritual man in\nthis\u2014the spiritual man could do wrong if he chose to do so, but chooses to\ndo right. But the carnal man could not do right if he should choose. A\ngood man, if he chose to do so, might lie, and steal, and drink, and be\nprofane; but a bad man could not, by choosing, become temperate, pure,\ntruthful, and honest.\n\nScripture and experience give, therefore, the same account of human\nability and inability. In the lowest state man is the servant of sense,\nand can neither will nor do right. In the higher condition he can will,\nbut cannot perform; for his ideal aim is above his actual power. In the\nhighest, or regenerate, state he can both will and do. Body, as well as\nsoul, serve the spirit.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nThese are the truths which lie at the basis of the Orthodox doctrine of\ninability. But Orthodoxy, in its desire to awaken a sense of dependence,\nhas pushed them to an unreasonable extreme. It asserts that man, in his\nnatural state, before he is regenerated, has _no_ power to will or to do\nright. It is evident, however, that all men have power to will and to do\n_many_ right things. Even in the lowest condition, a man wills and does\nmuch that is right. Though the governing principle be the lowest one, he\ncan yet perform many good actions. In the second condition also, the\npsychical man, though not able _always_ to do right, _often_ succeeds in\ndoing so. And in this state the apostle declares that _he_ does not do the\nevil, but \u201csin that dwells in him.\u201d So long as his _purpose_ is right, he\nis right.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability.\n\n\nLet us see what Orthodoxy says of the inability of the unregenerate man.\nThe Assembly\u2019s Confession declares (chap. 6, \u00a7 4), that by our corrupt\nnature \u201cwe are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all\ngood, and wholly inclined to all evil.\u201d In chap. 9, \u00a7 3, it says that\n\u201cman, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of\nwill to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.\u201d\n\nThis seems plain enough. It would justify the charge made by Dr. Cox, that\nthere are those who teach that \u201ca man has no ability to do his duty,\u201d(16)\nand \u201cthat, where the means of grace are abundantly vouchsafed, a man can\ndo nothing for, but can only counteract, his own salvation.\u201d It would also\nseem to lay a fit foundation for that kind of Calvinistic preaching which,\naccording to Professor Finney, of Oberlin (see \u201cRevival Lectures\u201d),\nvirtually amounts to saying,\n\n\n    \u201cYou can, and you can\u2019t;\n    You shall, and you shan\u2019t;\n    You will, and you won\u2019t;\n    You\u2019ll be damned if you don\u2019t.\u201d\n\n\nThese charges, it must be noticed, are brought against Calvinism, not by\nus, but by Presbyterian divines, themselves holding to this same\nWestminster Confession.\n\nBut let us look at some of the expositions given to this doctrine of\ninability by modern Orthodox authorities.\n\n(_a._) _The Old School Presbyterians._\u2014As stated by one of their own\nnumber (Professor Atwater, of Princeton College, Bibliotheca Sacra,\nJanuary, 1864), they hold an inability \u201cmoral, sinful, and real,\u201d\n\u201cirremovable by the sinner\u2019s own power.\u201d He sets aside the objection that\nwe are not bound to do what we are unable to do, by saying that this\napplies to actions only, not to sinful dispositions. He illustrates this\nby saying that an irrepressible disposition to slander would be only so\nmuch more culpable. But in this he is evidently wrong. Such a habit has\nbecome a disease, and the unfortunate victim is no longer accountable for\nwhat he does.\n\n(_b._) _The New School Presbyterians._\u2014(Rev. George Duffield, in\nBibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.) Although Dr. Duffield objects to the\nlanguage of the Old School Presbyterians in denying \u201cfree agency,\u201d and\nregarding man \u201cas destitute of ability as a block of marble,\u201d he yet\ndeclares that the New School, as well as the Old, believe that in the\nunconverted state \u201cman can do nothing morally good.\u201d Still, he adds, men\ncan accept the offers of salvation made by Jesus Christ. But he positively\ndenies that \u201cman, in his natural state, independent of the gospel and\nSpirit of Christ, has ability _perfectly_ to obey _all_ the commandments\nof God.\u201d We suppose that most persons would agree with him in this\nstatement.\n\n(_c._) _The Old School in New England Theology._\u2014(Bibliotheca Sacra,\nApril, 1863. Article by Professor Lawrence, East Windsor, Connecticut.)\nThis writer contends that human inability is moral, and not natural\u2014a\ndistinction much dwelt upon by the Hopkinsians, but rejected by the Old\nSchool Presbyterians. This system differs from the Arminian or Methodist\nview in insisting that man has power enough to sin, though not enough to\nobey.\n\n(_d._) _Hopkinsianism._\u2014(Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.) The Hopkinsians\nprofess to contend for free agency, in order to save responsibility. They\nadopt the ideas of Edwards on free agency. But freedom, with them,\nconsists only in choice. Whatever we choose, we choose freely. The carnal\nman is as free in choosing evil as the spiritual man in choosing good. All\nreal freedom in this system disappears in a juggle of words.\n\nThe result of this examination will show that the great body of the\nOrthodox, of all schools, continues to deny any real ability in the\nunregenerate man to do the will of God. They do not _say_ that \u201cman has no\npower to do his duty,\u201d but that is the impression left by their teaching.\nThe distinction between natural and moral inability is insufficient; for\nit is as absurd to say that a man is unable not to sin, when you only mean\nthat he chooses to sin, as it would he to say, when invited to eat your\ndinner, \u201cI am unable to eat,\u201d meaning only that you were unwilling.\nBesides, if inability is moral, it is in the will, and not in the nature,\nand so is not natural depravity at all. It is also making God unjust to\nteach that he considers us guilty for a misfortune. If we derive a\ncorrupted nature from Adam, that is our misfortune, and not our fault, and\nGod owes us not anger, but pity. Instead of punishing us, he should\ncompensate us for this disaster.\n\nTherefore the unreason, the want of logic, and the absence of any just\nview of God, appear, more or less, throughout these statements. For where\nthere is no ability, there can be no guilt. Just as soon as man ceases to\nhave the power to do right, he ceases to have the power to do wrong.\nInability and guilt, which are connected by all these creeds, logically\nexclude each other. If our nature is incapable of doing good, then it is\nincapable of committing sin. One or the other must be given up. Keep which\nyou will, but you cannot keep both. We may be totally depraved by our\nnature; but then we cease to be sinners, and cease to be guilty. Or we may\nbe going wholly wrong, and so be sinful, but then we have the power of\ngoing right.\n\nThis is the inconsistency in almost all Orthodox systems. By dwelling so\nmuch on human weakness, they destroy at last the sense of responsibility.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning Human\nSinfulness.\n\n\nIn the article in the Bibliotheca Sacra before referred to (April, 1863),\nby Edward A. Lawrence, D. D., Professor at East Windsor, Connecticut, on\n\u201cThe Old School in New England Theology,\u201d the writer gives the following\naccount of the doctrines of this body concerning sin:\u2014\n\n\u201cGod created man a holy being. He was not merely innocent, as not having\ncommitted sin, not merely pure, as not inheriting any derived evil, but\nwas positively holy in his very being.\u201d This, we suppose, must mean that\nhe was inclined by nature to do right, rather than wrong. It was as\nnatural for him to love God as for a fish to swim or a bird to fly.\nNothing less than this, certainly, would deserve to be called \u201choliness of\nbeing.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe first man,\u201d says Professor Lawrence, \u201cwas the federal head of this\nrace, representatively and by covenant, as no other father has been or can\nbe with his children.\u201d This is illustrated by the fact of a legal\ncorporation, whose members are responsible in law for the actions of their\nagent.\n\nProfessor Lawrence explains the belief of the Old School in the imputation\nof Adam\u2019s sin thus: It was not the personal guilt of Adam which was\nimputed to his descendants, but \u201ccertain disastrous consequences.\u201d They,\nas well as he, became \u201csubject to temporal and eternal death.\u201d The next\nconsequence of Adam\u2019s sin we must give in Professor Lawrence\u2019s own\nlanguage, in order not to misrepresent him. \u201cThe first evil disposition\nwhich led to the evil choice was not only confirmed in him as an\nindividual, but also as a quality of human nature, and it reappears,\nsuccessively, in each one of them.\u201d Imputation, therefore, means not the\ntransfer of guilt, but of a corrupt nature. \u201cIt is not a sin to be born\nsinful; but the sin with which men are born is nevertheless sinful.\u201d Then\nfollows this statement: \u201cWe are strictly guilty only for our own sin; but\nthe sinfulness with which we are born is as really ours as if it\noriginated in our own act.\u201d\n\nThis, again, is explained by defining guilt as liability to punishment on\naccount of the acts of another, \u201cas when the members of a corporation\nsuffer from the ill management of its agent.\u201d This he calls corporate\nguilt.\n\nThe Old School doctrine, according to this writer, concerning sin, makes\nit a state rather than an act. It is not merely the act of disobedience,\nbut the wrong bias of the will, out of which the act proceeds. He thinks\nit wrong to call \u201csin a nature,\u201d for neither the substance of the soul,\nnor its faculties, are sinful. The depravity of nature is not choice, so\nmuch as tendency which leads to choice. It is hereditary, being\ntransmitted from father to son.\n\nThe old theology, therefore, predicates sinfulness of human nature;\naffirms sin to be a wrong state or bias of will; considers it to be\nhereditary; regards new-born infants as depraved, but thinks that those of\nthem who die in infancy, before actual transgression, are renewed and\nsaved by the blood of Christ; and considers temporal death as a part of\nthe penalty of sin.\n\nUpon this statement of the Old School doctrine, the following criticisms\nnaturally occur:\u2014\n\nFirst. If original righteousness was holiness of nature, and not mere\ninnocence; if it was a positive tendency to good, and not merely a state\nof indifference between good and evil; then, we ask, What produced the\nfall? What motive led to the commission of the first sin? If the nature of\nthe first man was holy, there was nothing in it which could lead him to\nsin, and any external temptation addressed to such a nature must fall\npowerless before it. It would be like trying to tempt a fish to fly in the\nair, or like tempting a bird to go into the water. Even if the first man\ncould have been induced by any deception or external influence to commit a\nwrong act, this would not be sinful, because there would be no sinful\nmotive behind it. A wrong act proceeding from a holy nature is either an\nimpossibility or a mere innocent mistake. Our first criticism, therefore,\non the Old School doctrine of sin, is, that it makes Adam\u2019s fall an\nimpossibility.\n\nSecond. As regards Adam\u2019s federal headship and the illustration of a\ncorporation, we say, that the members of a corporation are not considered\nguilty in consequence of the acts of their agent, although they may suffer\nin consequence of these acts. If he commits forgery they may lose money\nthereby, but no one would think of calling them forgers. The sin of a\nparent may be visited upon his children to the third or fourth generation,\nbut in their case it is neither punishment nor guilt, but only misfortune.\nWhen Professor Lawrence, therefore, says, that \u201cwe are guilty for the\nsinfulness with which we are born, because it is really ours,\u201d he utters a\nmoral absurdity, and strikes at the root of all moral distinctions. He\nsays, \u201cThe sinfulness with which we are born is really ours;\u201d but in what\nsense ours? Only as any congenital disease may be called _ours_. If a man\nis born with a tendency to consumption, blindness, lameness, he may say,\n\u201cmy lameness, my near-sightedness.\u201d But no one would suppose that he meant\nthereby to hold himself responsible for them, or to consider himself\nguilty because of them. It is absurd to speak of \u201ccorporate guilt.\u201d The\ncorporate guilt, for example, of the stockholders of a bank, because of\nthe crime of an absconding teller!\n\nThe natural objection to this illustration of a corporation is, that those\nwho enter into a corporation do it by a free act, and make themselves\nvoluntarily responsible. But _we_ did not consent that Adam should be our\nagent. We did not agree that if Adam should commit a single act of\ndisobedience we should be born totally depraved, and liable to everlasting\ntorments in consequence. Professor Lawrence replies, that it would have\nbeen impossible for God to ask our consent, and therefore, apparently he\nsupposes that God took for granted that we would consent. This seems to be\nno answer to the objection. If it was impossible for God to obtain our\nconsent, before we were born, to incur this awful danger, he was not\ncompelled to expose us to it. It is an insult to the justice of the\nAlmighty to assume that he could have done so.\n\nThird. Professor Lawrence does not think it correct to say that \u201csin is a\nnature.\u201d But why not, if it be a universal and constant element, an\noriginal and permanent state of the soul? To say that human nature is\nsinful, but deny that sin is a nature, seems to be making a distinction\nwithout a difference. It is a disposition to sin born with the child. Now,\nsay what we will, such a disposition to sin thus born with us is not guilt\nbut misfortune. A just God will not hold us responsible for it, but will\nhold himself responsible to help us out of it. As a faithful Creator, he\nis bound to do so, and will do so.\n\nIt is common for theologians to deny all such assertions as these last.\nThey hold it irreverent to say that God owes anything to his creatures.\nThey accumulate responsibility upon man, but deny responsibility to God.\nBut in doing this they take from the Almighty all moral character.\nCalvinism, especially, makes of the Deity infinite power and infinite\nwill. But no blasphemy is worse than that which, though with the best\nintentions, virtually destroys the moral character of the Almighty,\nreducing him to an infinite will: that is, making of him an infinite\ntyrant. For the essence of tyranny is the union of power and will in a\nruler, who recognizes no obligations towards his subjects.\n\nThe book of Job seems to have been written partly to refute this sort of\nCalvinism. The friends of Job were Calvinists in this sense. The sum of\ntheir argument was that, since God was all-powerful, therefore whatever he\ndid must be right; and, since he punished Job, Job must be a sinner, and\nought to confess his sin whether he saw it or not. This has been, in all\nages, the substance of Calvinism\u2014Jewish Calvinism, Mohammedan Calvinism,\nChristian Calvinism. It declares that we are bound to submit to God, not\nbecause he is good, but because he is powerful. But the answer of Job to\nhis friends is a rebuke to the same spirit wherever shown. He asks them\n\u201cif they will speak with unfairness for God,\u201d and \u201cspeak deceitfully for\nhim,\u201d and \u201caccept his person.\u201d He declares that if he could find God he\nwould go before his throne and defend his own cause. \u201cWould he contend\nwith me with his mighty power? No! he would have regard unto me.\u201d\n\nThis is the sin of Calvinism, that it \u201caccepts the person of the\nAlmighty,\u201d assuming that he has a right to do as he pleases with his\ncreatures, and that they have no rights which he is bound to respect,\nexcept that of being punished. Thus it destroys the moral character of the\nAlmighty.\n\nFourth. Professor Lawrence says, \u201cIt is the general belief of the Old\nSchool that those who die in infancy before actual transgression, are\nrenewed and saved by the blood of Christ.\u201d\n\nThe power of infancy is wonderful. It can even break down the logic of\nCalvinism. Wordsworth was right in calling the infant\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cMighty prophet! Seer blest!\n    On whom those truths do rest\n    Which we are toiling all our lives to find.\u201d\n\n\nEvery kind of theology, however savage and bitter it may be against adult\nsinners, sending them into an eternal hell without the least hesitation or\nremorse, hesitates and stammers when it comes to speak of little children.\nEven the idolatrous Jews, sacrificing their children to Moloch in the\nvalley of Hinnom, beat drums to drown their cries, which they could not\nbear to hear. Both schools of theology, Old and New, hasten to say that\ninfants are not to be damned. But _why_ not, if they are born with a\ndepraved nature, and die without being converted? Both the great schools\nof Presbyterian theology hold to the doctrine of the Assembly\u2019s Catechism,\nwhich declares (chap. 6, \u00a7 6), that \u201cevery sin, both original and actual,\nbeing a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,\ndoth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound\nover to the wrath of God.\u201d Therefore the infant who dies before he has\nexercised repentance and faith in Christ, is under the wrath of God.\nOrthodoxy does not allow of repentance in the other life: how, then, can\ninfants be saved according to Orthodoxy? Professor Lawrence can only\nreply, that it is _a general belief_ that they will be saved. The\nCatechism declares, less decidedly, that \u201celect infants\u201d will be saved.\nDr. Whedon (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1862), on behalf of the Methodists,\nsays, \u201cThat the dying infant is saved, and saved by the atonement, all\nagree.\u201d But _how_ he is saved, or what reason they have to think him\nsaved, except their wish to believe it, no one can tell. Death, in fact,\nbecomes to the infant a saving sacrament. As long as he lives he is\nbelieved unregenerate and unconverted. As soon as he dies he is considered\nready for heaven. But he cannot be ready for heaven until he is\nregenerate; and after death there is no such thing as obtaining a new\nheart, and no opportunity for repentance. Logically, therefore, the infant\nis converted by the mere act of dying. We presume that no Orthodox\ntheologians would assert this; and yet we really do not see how they can\navoid the conclusion.\n\nBut why is it any worse for children to be damned in consequence of Adam\u2019s\nsin than for adults to be damned? Orthodoxy assures us that in consequence\nof Adam\u2019s sin we are born depraved. Dr. Duffield, stating and defending\nthe doctrines of the New School Presbyterian Church (Bibliotheca Sacra,\nJuly, 1863), says that Adam subjected his posterity to such a loss that\nthey are born without any righteousness, are exposed to the consequences\nof his transgression, and all become sinners as soon as they are capable\nof it. He quotes with approbation from a protest of the New School\nminority, in the General Assembly of 1837 (which he calls a document of\ngreat historic value), an assertion that \u201cby reason of the sin of Adam,\nthe race are treated as if they had sinned;\u201d and from another document of\nthe same school which says, that \u201cwe are all born with a tendency to sin,\nwhich makes it morally certain that we shall do so.\u201d Now, we do not see\nwhy it is any worse to send infants to hell because of this depraved\nnature, than to send grown persons there who have sinned in consequence of\npossessing such a depraved nature. If it be said that adults have had an\nopportunity to repent, and have not accepted it, we reply, that to the\nmass of mankind no such opportunity is offered; that, where it is offered,\nno one has the power to accept it, except he be one of the elect; and that\nat all events, since infants are sure to be saved, and a very large\nproportion of adults are very likely to be lost, _death in infancy is the\nmost desirable thing possible_. According to this doctrine, child-murder\nbecomes almost a virtue.\n\nThe radical difficulty in all these theories consists in refusing to apply\nto God the same rules of justice which we apply to man. To do so implies\nno irreverence, but the highest reverence. There is nothing more honorable\nto the Almighty than to believe him to be actuated by the same great\nprinciples of right which he has written in our conscience and heart.\nThose laws of eternal justice, so deeply engraven on the fleshly tables of\nthe heart, are a revelation of the character of God himself. If we think\nto honor him by rejecting these intuitions of the reason, and by\nsubstituting for this divine idea of a God of justice that of a being of\narbitrary will, who is under no obligations to his creatures, we deeply\ndishonor the Almighty and fatally injure our own character. From this\nperverted view of God comes a cynical view of man. When we make _will_\nsupreme in God, we legitimate all tyranny and contempt from man to man.\nThen comes the state of things described by Shakespeare:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cForce should be right, or, rather, right and wrong\n    (Between whose endless jar justice resides)\n    Should lose their names, and so should justice too.\n    Then everything includes itself in power,\n    Power into will, will into appetite;\n    And appetite, a universal wolf,\n    So doubly seconded with will and power,\n    Must make perforce a universal prey,\n    And, last, eat up himself.\u201d\n\n            _Shakespeare_, Troilus and Cressida.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. CONVERSION AND REGENERATION.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man can be found.\n\n\nOrthodoxy knows only two states in which man can be found. Man is either\nin the natural state, and then he is totally depraved; or he is in the\nsupernatural state, in which the chain of sin has been broken. He is\neither impenitent or penitent, either unregenerated or regenerate,\nunconverted or converted, a sinner or a saint.\n\nThere is no gradation, no shading off, no twilight between this midnight\ngloom and midday splendor. To the common eye, and in the judgment of their\nfriends and neighbors, the people who enter a church seem of all degrees\nof goodness; and every one has good and bad qualities mixed up together in\nhis character. But, as the Orthodox minister looks at them from the\npulpit, they instantly fall into two classes, and become \u201cmy impenitent\nhearers,\u201d and \u201cmy penitent hearers.\u201d\n\nMoreover, it is assumed that the distinction between these two classes is\nso marked and plain, that it can be recognized by any one who will.\nOrthodox people inquire, \u201c_Is he pious?_\u201d just as they would ask, \u201c_Is he\nmarried?_\u201d\n\nAgain, the change from one state to the other is assumed to be so distinct\nand marked, that he who runs can read. One may say to another, \u201c_Where\nwere you converted?_\u201d just as they may say, \u201c_Where did you go to\ncollege?_\u201d \u201cWhere were you born?\u201d said an English bishop to Summerfield,\nthe Methodist preacher. \u201cIn Dublin and Liverpool,\u201d he answered. \u201cWere you\nborn in _two_ places?\u201d said the bishop. \u201c \u2018Art thou a master in Israel,\nand knowest not these things?\u2019 \u201d replied Summerfield.\n\nOn the other hand, it is quite common among Liberal Christians to doubt\nthe reality, or deny the importance, of such changes altogether. With them\nthe Christian life consists, not in change, but in progress. In the\nChristian source, Orthodoxy lays the main stress on the commencement;\nLiberal Christianity, on the progress. The one wishes you to begin the\njourney, without seeming to care whether you go forward: the other urges\nyou to go forward, without inquiring whether you have begun to go.\nAccording to one, Christianity is nothing but a CRISIS; according to the\nother, nothing but a DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Crisis and Development.\n\n\nIs there any truth in this Orthodox view of man? anything essential,\nsubstantial, vital? And is there any formal error? If there is, what is\nit? Is Christianity crisis or development, or both?\n\nCommon sense and the analogies of common life must answer, \u201cBoth.\u201d If\nChristianity is a life, it must begin with a birth; if a journey, it\ncannot be taken except we set out; if an education, we must determine to\ncommence the education; if labor in God\u2019s vineyard, we must go into the\nvineyard, and begin. There are only two classes\u2014those who are alive, and\nthose who are not alive; those who are taking the journey, and those who\nhave not yet set out; those who are studying, and those who have not yet\nbegun to study; those who are at work for God, and those who are standing\nidle. The distinction into two classes seems, therefore, substantial and\nreal. It does not follow, to be sure, that these two classes can be\ndistinguished so easily by the eye of man; but they certainly can be by\nthe eye of God. Nor does this primary distinction interfere with other\ndistinctions and many degrees of difference\u2014greater or less differences\nand degrees of progress, usefulness, goodness. Nor does it follow that\nthose who are now on the right side may not change again to the wrong, and\nagain to the right. There may be conversion, and _re_-conversion; but\nthat, at any moment, every person must be either endeavoring to do right,\nor not so endeavoring, is evident. This view is confirmed by the New\nTestament: \u201cNo man can serve two masters.\u201d\n\nThat in the religious life there should be both crisis and development,\naccords with the analogies of nature. The seed lies in the ground in a\ndormant state, perhaps for a long period. After a time comes a crisis;\nthrills of life vibrate through it; the germ is stirred; it sends its\nroots downward; its stalk pierces the mould, moving upward into light and\nair. After this great change, there comes a period of progress and\ndevelopment. The plant grows; its roots multiply; its stalk ascends, and\ndivides into leaves. Then there comes a second crisis. The plant blossoms.\nIn the course of a few hours, after weeks of growth, the bud bursts into\nbeautiful petals, surrounding the delicate stamens and precious pistil.\nThen there comes a second long period of slow development. The petals\nfall, and the fruit slowly swells through many weeks of growth. At last\nthere comes a day when the fruit is ripe. Yesterday it was not ripe;\nto-day it is. This is the third crisis. And so, in human life, long\nperiods of development terminate in critical hours\u2014the seeds of another\nlong growth. So it is in other things; so also in religion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Nature of the Change.\n\n\nThe next position of Orthodoxy is, that man, in the second or regenerate\nstate, is a new creature. It asserts the change to be entire and radical,\nand the difference immense. Not only the whole direction of the life is\nchanged, but the motive power is different, and the spirit different.\nInstead of ambition, there is content; in the place of sensitive vanity,\nthere comes humility; instead of anxiety, trust in God. The burden of sin\nis taken away; the sense of our unworthiness no longer torments us: for\nGod has forgiven our sins. Duty no longer seems arduous and difficult; for\nthere is joy in doing anything for the sake of God. The law is written in\nthe heart. We are born into a new life, the principle of which is faith.\n\u201cThe life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God.\u201d\nThis faith enables us to see God as he is, not as a stern King, or a\ndistant Power, or an abstract Law, but as a Friend, Father, watchful\nProvidence, surrounding Love, inflowing Life; Source from which we are\nalways coming, and towards which we are always tending. This life of faith\nmakes all things new. Old things have passed away, and the outward world\nis fresh as on the first morning of creation. Our inward and outward life\nare both new. We have new convictions, new affections, new aims, new\nhopes, new joys. Nature is new, life is new, the Bible is new, the future\nworld is new. Such and so great is the change which Orthodoxy assumes as\nthe result of conversion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Its Reality and Importance.\n\n\nAnd the experience of the whole Church, the biographies of the saints in\nevery denomination, assure us of the substantial truth of this\ndescription. Even in churches which are not Orthodox,\u2014churches like our\nown, which insist more upon development than upon crisis,\u2014observation\nverifies this description. Even those who do not expect such a change, nor\nbelieve in it, often come to it unexpectedly. In the course of each one\u2019s\nexperience as a Christian minister, though he may never have insisted on\nthe importance of sudden changes, and though he may be no revival\npreacher, he must have known numerous instances of those who seem to have\npassed from death to life in the course of a day or an hour. And is not\nthis change, either sudden or gradual, that which makes Christianity a\ngospel? It is the good news, not of a future and distant heaven, but of a\npresent heaven,\u2014a heaven not outward, but inward; a present salvation from\nthe power of sin; a present relief from the sense of guilt; a present joy\nand peace in believing; happiness in serving God; sympathy and good-will\nto man, instead of envy and uncharitableness; peace with God, with man,\nwith ourselves, with our condition and circumstances.\n\nThat such a state is possible for every human being who desires it, is the\ngood news which Christ brings; and the experience of ten thousand times\nten thousand grateful hearts declares that it is a reality.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox Difficulty.\n\n\nBut now comes a difficulty in the Orthodox statement. Orthodoxy declares\nthat this regenerate state is the result of faith, not of works; and that\nfaith is the gift of God; and herein Orthodoxy follows the Scripture. Yet\nOrthodoxy calls upon us to repent and be converted, that our sins may be\nblotted out; and herein likewise Orthodoxy follows the Scripture. Is,\nthen, conversion an experience, or is it an action? Is it something God\ngives, or something which he commands? Is it a duty to be done, or a gift\nto be received? Is it submission to his will, or joy in his love? a new\nlife of obedience, or a new heart of faith? If it is submission, then we\ncan all change our hearts at once, and make ourselves love God and love\nman. But who can love by an effort of the will? Yet, if the new life is a\ngift, then we have no power to procure it, and can only wait till God sees\nfit to send it; and how, then, can we be called upon to be converted?\n\nHere is a difficulty which it seems to us Orthodoxy does not solve; and\nyet we think that a solution is to be found in a very simple distinction,\nwhich, like all other true and real distinctions, throws light on many\nother difficulties.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration.\n\n\nThe distinction of which we speak is between repentance or conversion on\nthe one side, and regeneration or a new life on the other side. Repentance\nor conversion consists in renouncing all sin, and resolving to forsake it;\nin turning to God, with the purpose of submitting to his will and obeying\nhis law. This conversion or repentance is an act proceeding from the will,\nand in obedience to the conscience. This is what God commands, and what we\ncan and ought to do. Every conscientious person, every person who is\nendeavoring to do right and is ready to act up to his light, is a\nconverted person. Every one who hates his sins, resists temptation,\nwatches and prays against it, is a penitent person. This is the great,\nbroad distinction between man and man. This divides all men into two\nclasses\u2014those who, in their will and purpose, are for God, truth, and\nright; and those who, because they are not _for_ God, are really _against_\nhim.\n\nBut, besides this broad distinction, there is another secondary\ndistinction\u2014a distinction among those who are conscientiously endeavoring\nto do God\u2019s will. Among the _converted_ there are two classes\u2014the\nregenerate and the unregenerate. A man may be converted, and not be\nregenerate; for a man may repent of his sin and turn towards God, and yet\nnot have the life of love and joy which we have described.\n\nHe is under law, not under grace. He is struggling to do right, but is not\nborne forward on a joyful tide-wave of love.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not two.\n\n\nIf this be so, we may divide men into three classes, and not into two. The\nfirst class is of those who are neither converted nor regenerate; the\nsecond, who are converted, but not regenerate; the third, who are\nconverted, and also regenerate. The first are like the prodigal in the\nparable,\u2014living without God; the second, like the hired servants in the\nsame story,\u2014serving God for wages; the third are sons, serving from love,\never with their Father, and all that he has is theirs. The motive of the\nfirst class is selfish will, selfish pleasure; the motive of the second is\nduty; that of the third, love. The first are without law, the second under\nlaw, the third under grace. And so we might multiply distinctions. But is\nit not clear to common observation, that this threefold classification\nmeets the facts of life better than the other? There are three degrees of\ncharacter. There is the worldly man, who is just as good or bad as society\naround him leads him to be; whose virtues result merely from a happy\norganization, or fortunate influences, but who has no principle of\ngoodness, no purpose of righteousness, no serious aim in life. Then there\nis the conscientious man, who means to live, and does live, by a standard\nof morality; who has a serious aim, but who is not yet deeply and joyfully\nreligious; whose religion, at any rate, is hard work, not confiding,\nchild-like faith. And then there is the Christian believer, who has begun\nto live from faith; who begins to feel a higher life pouring into his\nheart from on high; who has help and strength from above. From his heart\nthe burden has been lifted, and he has become again as a little child. He\nknows how to pray the prayer of faith. He may not be so very much better\nthan the other in outward character; but he has the principle within him\nwhich will make all things new, sooner or later.\n\nThe New Testament confirms this view of a threefold division. We saw, in\nour last chapter, that the apostle Paul, who considers human nature to\nconsist of three elements,\u2014spirit, soul, and body,\u2014divides mankind into\nthe carnal man, the natural (psychical or soulish) man, and the spiritual\nman. The carnal man is he in whom the bodily instincts and appetites are\nsupreme. \u201cHe is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.\u201d The\nnatural man is he in whom the _soul_ is supreme: he is neither carnal on\none side, nor spiritual on the other. \u201cHe cannot receive the things of the\nSpirit of God;\u201d yet he is not in opposition and hostility to them, like\nthe carnal man, whose mind is enmity against God.\n\nStill more plainly does the apostle indicate the distinction when speaking\nof those who are without law, those who are under law, and those who are\nfree from law and above it. The first state he describes in such words as\nthese: \u201cI was alive without the law once\u201d\u2014the glad, natural life and\nfreedom before conscience is developed. But conscience does awake in all:\n\u201cThe commandment came, sin revived, and I died.\u201d When man sees that he\nought to serve God, yet continues to serve the flesh and the world, he is\nspoken of as dead in sin; for all the principle of progress ceases. But if\nhe does endeavor to do right, then Paul speaks of him as _under law_, and\non his way to a higher state. That higher state he speaks of as being\n\u201cdelivered from the law, to serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness\nof letter.\u201d\n\nThus we see that all religious experiences coincide. The experience of the\napostle Paul is exactly the same, in its essentials, with that of every\nsoul, however humble, that begins and goes forward in the Christian life.\n\nIf this distinction between conversion and regeneration be correct, it\nremoves the difficulty in the Orthodox statement.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration.\n\n\nConversion is an act, regeneration an experience. \u201cTurn ye, turn ye; for\nwhy will ye die?\u201d is the command of the Old Testament. \u201cRepent, and be\nconverted, that your sins may be blotted out;\u201d \u201cRepent, and be baptized,\nand ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,\u201d is the command of the\nNew Testament. It is a duty to repent; but to become regenerate is not a\nduty: _that_ is a gift, to be received afterwards. God commands\nconversion: he bestows regeneration. Submission is an act of our own:\nfaith is the gift of God. A change of outward life and conduct we can\naccomplish ourselves; at least, we can endeavor to accomplish it; but the\nchange of heart God himself will bestow.\n\nConversion, a turning round, is necessarily instantaneous: it is a change.\nBut regeneration, or reception of divine Love, is a state, not sudden, but\npassing by gradations into a deeper and deeper life of faith and joy.\n\nSo, too, conversion may be repeated: we may often find that we have again\nturned round, and are going the wrong way. But the inflow of life, when\nbegun, cannot be begun again. When God has touched the heart with his\nlove, it is forever lifted by that divine experience beyond the region of\nmere law. We can never forget it. These are the:\n\n\n          \u201cTruths which wake\n          To perish never;\n    Which neither listlessness nor mad endeavor,\n          Nor man nor boy,\n    Nor aught that is at enmity with joy,\n    Can utterly abolish or destroy.\u201d\n\n\nAnd herein lies the basis of the truth in the doctrine of the\n\u201cperseverance of saints.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church.\n\n\nWe cannot but think the attitude of Orthodoxy towards this part of\nChristianity to be singularly unsatisfactory and inefficient. The work of\nthe Church, all admit, is to convert the world to God, and so save it from\nthe power and evil of sin. But if this is a work which the Church has to\ndo, it ought surely to have some fixed method or rule by which to act. It\nshould not be a matter of accident whether it can do its work or not. It\nshould not be in doubt, every day, as to the success to come from its\nefforts. If its work is to make men Christians, it ought to know how to do\nit, be able to do it, and know when it is done. Such is the case with all\nother work. If a man is to build a house, he does not bring together his\nmaterials, hire his carpenters and masons, and, when all are on the\nground, sit down with them, and wait for some emotion or interior change\nby which they will be enabled to go on and do their work. If we are\nmechanics, merchants, lawyers, physicians, teachers, we do not wait for a\nrevival before we can properly fulfil our engagements. It is only in the\nwork of converting the world to God\u2014the greatest and most important of\nall\u2014that such a strange system is adopted. We are told to put ourselves in\nthe proper place, namely, the Church; collect our materials, that is, the\nmeans of grace; and then we are to wait until, somehow or other, we may be\nable _to get religion_. Religion is made a spasm, a struggle, an agony\u2014not\na regular work, not a steady growth. Everything about it is uncertain and\ntentative. No one knows when he will become a Christian, but hopes, some\ntime or other, that he shall be made one. The common thought, produced by\nthe common Orthodox system of preaching, was expressed once in a public\nmeeting by Henry Clay. \u201cI am not,\u201d he said, \u201ca Christian. I am sorry I am\nnot. I wish I were. I hope that, some day, I shall be.\u201d He did not mean by\nthis to say that he was an unbeliever; but he had adopted the helpless,\npassive system by which he was taught that he had nothing to do but wait\ntill some great change should take place in his soul.\n\nOut of this way of thought comes the revival system, which is a curious\nblending of machinery and expectation, of adroit and careful management\nwith reliance on some great inspiration. Crisis and development are to be\nexpected, no doubt; but we do not set a trap to catch the Spring. It is\nours to plant and to water, but it is God\u2019s to give the increase. That,\ntherefore, should be left to him.\n\nThe revival system is Arminianism grafted on Calvinism. It is an attempt\nto unite the belief that man is wholly passive in conversion, and is not\nable to prepare himself thereunto, with the opposite doctrine that by a\nuse of means he can become a Christian. It is an attempt to unite the\nCalvinistic article that God, when he chooses, calls those he has\npredestined to eternal life, with the attempt to make him choose our time\nand way. Such a system, disjointed at its centre, must necessarily work\nbadly, and result in an alternation of feverish heats and aguish chills.\nTo carry on the work of the Church by revivals is as unreasonable as it\nwould be to carry on a school, or a cotton factory, by a revival\nsystem\u2014alternations of violent study and work, followed by relapses into\nindolence and sloth.\n\nThe Church of Rome has a great advantage over Protestant Orthodoxy in this\nrespect. It, too, admits revivals, and has its periods of extraordinary\nattention to religion. But there is this great difference. It does not\ndepend on them for creating Christianity in the soul; it uses them only\nfor increasing its warmth and power. In the Roman Church every baptized\nperson is a Christian so long as he does not continue in mortal sin, but\nby the regular use of the sacraments preserves his Christian life. The\nessential work of the Church is done by its regular methods\u2014by baptism,\nconfession, and its ritual service. In the Church of Rome, all connected\nwith it are Christians, and in the way of salvation. In Protestant\nOrthodox churches, if any of those born and brought up in it are\nChristians, it is, so far as they are concerned, a happy accident.\n\nAll this shows something wrong in the common theory of conversion. Every\none in a Christian community who desires to be a Christian ought to be\nable to become one. Christianity is a gospel, because it opens the kingdom\nof heaven to all. The call of the Church at the beginning was to _follow\nChrist_. Any one who was willing to follow Christ was baptized at once,\nand became a Christian. No one waited till he should experience some\nremarkable interior change, or some influence of the Holy Ghost. The\npromise at first was, that whosoever became a Christian _should_ receive\nthe Holy Ghost afterwards. Spiritual influences were not the condition of\nChristianity, but the result of Christianity.\n\nOne bad consequence of the Orthodox idea is discouragement on the one\nside, and spiritual pride on the other. Those who are not converted are\ndiscouraged, and deprived of the comforts of Christian faith. Those who\nthink they have been converted are satisfied with this past experience,\nand believe themselves Christians on the strength of it. Because some\nspiritual commotion took place in their souls at a certain time and place,\nthey consider themselves children of God and heirs of his favor, though in\ntheir daily lives they may show little proof of practical Christianity.\nAnd the result of this, again, is a professed distrust, by the majority of\nsensible men, of such conversions. Men of the world do not find that\nprofessed Christians are better than themselves. Often, indeed, church\nmembers are not so just, honest, manly, or truthful as those who make no\nclaim to religion. And the reason is simply this\u2014that they have been\ntaught to believe that the essence of Christianity does not consist in\nrighteousness, but in certain religious experiences.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and be converted; that is,\nto make it his Purpose to obey God in all Things.\n\n\nAs far as man is concerned, repentance is the one thing needful. But by\nrepentance we do not mean sorrow or contrition, but simply turning round\nwhenever we are going wrong, and beginning at once to go right. This is\nsomething in every man\u2019s power, and this makes him a Christian; this gives\nhim a claim to all the promises and hopes of the gospel here and\nhereafter. It would seem that there need be no doubt as to the nature of\nrepentance while the parable of the prodigal son stands in the Bible. That\ndivine story gives us the whole theory of repentance and\nregeneration\u2014repentance being that which comes from man, regeneration that\nwhich is given by God. When the prodigal son was aware of his sin and\nsorrow, and said, \u201cI will arise, and go to my father;\u201d and when he arose,\nand went to his father, and confessed his sin and need, then he had\nrepented. It was simply going to his father with the purpose of obedience.\nAnd when the father received him, not with reproach, but with pardon and\njoy, then he was born again, introduced into a new life, into the peace,\nand love, and freedom of his own home.\n\n\u201cOne thing is needful,\u201d said Jesus; that is, to sit at the feet of the\nMaster, to follow him, to become his disciple. That is all we have to do;\nthen we are safe. We can trust God to do his part if we do ours. He will\ngive us his Holy Spirit; he will give us a new heart; he will put his\npeace and strength into our souls. It is not necessary to be anxious, or\nto be inspecting our feelings to see if we are feeling right. All such\nintrospection is unnecessary if we have faith in God and his promises. We\nare Christians just as long as we are obeying God and following Christ.\nWhen we find ourselves disobedient, selfish, going wrong, then the one\nthing needful is to repent and be converted. We are to come back to our\nduty.\n\nThe general impression in Orthodox churches, resulting from the preaching,\nis, that not much is gained by doing one\u2019s duty unless one is regenerate.\nDoing our duty does not make us Christians, does not save the soul; so,\nwhy be particular in doing more than others, or being better than others?\nOrthodox congregations believe in the new life, but not in obedience as\nits necessary antecedent.\n\nUnitarians, on the other hand, believe in obedience, but have little faith\nin a higher life as attainable here. Hence a Unitarian congregation\nusually consists of intelligent, virtuous, well-meaning people, but\ndestitute of enthusiasm, and with little confidence in the new birth or\nreligious life.\n\nUnitarians believe in obedience as the one thing needful; and in this they\nare right. But they are wrong in not expecting the influences which God is\nalways ready to give, which change the heart, and fill it with a peace\npassing understanding, which make duties easy, which fill life with joy,\nand take the sting from death. The Orthodox believe in all these higher\nemotions and states of the soul, but unfortunately do not believe in\nobedience as the one thing needful. They think that some emotional\ntransaction in the soul is the one thing needful.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. Regeneration is God\u2019s Work in the Soul. Examination of the Classical\nPassage, or conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus.\n\n\nIn the third chapter of John we have the conversation which has been made\nthe basis of the doctrine of the new birth.\n\nIn this conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus we have the old argument,\nwhich is always being renewed, between the letter and the spirit, between\nknowledge and insight, between routine and genius, ceremony and\ninspiration, the past and the future, the goodness of habit and the\nholiness born out of the living vision of good. In fact this little\ndialogue may be considered as a renewal, on a higher plane, of the picture\ngiven us by Luke of the boy Jesus in the temple talking with the doctors.\n\nThe common doctrine of the Orthodox churches about this chapter is, that\nJesus teaches here that no man can be a Christian or a good man unless he\npasses through some mysterious experience, usually sudden, of which he\nmust be conscious, which gives him a certain definite series of very deep\nfeelings. First, he must feel very deeply that he is a sinner; then that\nhe cannot by any effort of his own become different; thirdly, that, unless\nGod makes him different, he never can be saved; and, lastly, he must feel\nthat God will change his heart, and save him. Having passed through this\nkind of experience, it is assumed that he is \u201cborn again;\u201d that he is a\nChristian; that he is a new creature; that he has a new heart; that if he\ndies now he will go to heaven; whereas, if he had died before, he would\nhave gone to hell. It is also Orthodox to believe that a man can do\nnothing himself to produce this change of heart, or facilitate it.\n\nA very interesting book was published not long ago, written by Miss\nCatherine Beecher, in which she describes the sufferings caused in her own\nexperience by this theory of regeneration. Her father fully believed in\nit, and thought it necessary to carry all his children through it somehow\nor other. Their conversions, to be sure, were not all quite in rule;\nespecially that of Henry seems to have been a little abnormal, if we may\ntrust an account given by himself in an article on the dissolution of the\nBowdoin Street Church and congregation, Boston, of which his father was\nthe first minister. The description is so suggestive that we will quote\nthe passage:\u2014\n\n\u201cIf somebody will look in the old records of Hanover Street Church about\n1829, they will find a name there of a boy about fifteen years old, who\nwas brought into the Church on a sympathetic wave, and who well remembers\nhow cold and almost paralyzed he felt while the committee questioned him\nabout his \u2018hope\u2019 and \u2018evidences,\u2019 which upon review amounted to this\u2014that\nthe son of such a father ought to be a good and pious boy. Being\ntender-hearted and quick to respond to moral sympathy, he had been caught\nand inflamed in a school excitement, but was just getting over it when\nsummoned to Boston to join the church! On the morning of _the_ day, he\nwent to church without seeing anything he looked at. He heard his name\ncalled from the pulpit among many others, and trembled; rose up with every\nemotion petrified; counted the spots on the carpet; looked piteously up at\nthe cornice; heard the fans creak in the pews near him; felt thankful to a\nfly that lit on his face, as if something familiar at last had come to\nbreak an awful trance; heard faintly a reading of the articles of faith;\nwondered whether he should be struck dead for not feeling more\u2014whether he\nshould go to hell for touching the bread and wine that he did not dare to\ntake nor to refuse; spent the morning service uncertain whether dreaming,\nor out of the body, or in a trance; and at last walked home crying, and\nwishing he knew what, now that he was a Christian, he should do, and how\nhe was to do it. Ah, well; there is a world of things in children\u2019s minds\nthat grown-up people do not imagine, though they, too, once were young!\u201d\n\nNow, if his state of mind, thus described, had been at that time exposed\nand told, it would not have been thought a very sound Orthodox experience.\nBut in reality the boy was at that very time as good a Christian for a boy\nas he is now for a man. But Miss Beecher, in the book referred to, tells\nus that when one of her other brothers was striving in prayer for this\nchange of heart, with groans and struggles, the house was like a tomb. The\npoor young man was in his chamber alone, and his groans and cries were\nheard through the whole house. All the other members of the family staid\nin their own rooms in silence, until at last, by some natural reaction of\nfeeling, there came a sense of rest and peace to his mind, which they\nbelieved to be the new birth. She also describes the way in which Dr.\nPayson, of Portland, tortured his little daughter, three years old, by a\ntorture as well meant, as conscientious, and more terrible than that of\nthe Holy Inquisition. He told his little daughter that she hated God; that\nshe must have a change of heart, but that she could not get it for\nherself; and that even her prayers, until she was converted, were only\nmaking her worse. The poor little girl denied that she hated God; she said\nshe was sure she loved him. Then the misguided father brought up all her\nlittle childish faults as a proof that she hated God; for if she loved him\nshe would never do wrong. And so, from three years of age till she was\nthirteen, this poor, infatuated parent tormented this little child by\nkeeping her on this spiritual rack\u2014all because of a false view of the\npassages concerning regeneration in the Bible. And when we think of the\ntwenty thousand pulpits which to-day are teaching in this country this\nsame sort of belief, it is evident that it is our duty to see what the\nMaster really meant to teach us by this passage.\n\nNicodemus is the type of a class of men common in all times. We have seen\nNicodemus very often. He is a good man whose goodness has no life in it.\nHis goodness is a sort of an automaton\u2014all machinery and no soul. He is so\nthoroughly right in all he does; everything about him is so proper; he is\nso perfectly _en r\u00e8gle_ in his own eyes,\u2014that we sometimes wish that he\nmight be betrayed into some impropriety, commit some not too great folly,\nhave some _escapade_ of rash enthusiasm. You respect him so much, you\nwonder why you do not love him more. It is because he is not open to\ninfluence. His goodness is so rigid, his opinions so declared, his\ncharacter so pronounced, that there is no crack anywhere by which God or\nman can reach him. He has a whole armor of opinions all round him, and you\ncannot get through it. He has narrowed himself, and shut himself in, so\nthat he feels no influence of sympathy coming from the wide ocean of\nhumanity around, no influence of love from the deep heaven of God above.\nHe is a sort of good rhinoceros, with a skin so thick that nothing can\npierce it.\n\nNicodemus was such a man, and he came to Jesus with all his opinions cut\nand dried, ready for an argument. He begins in a very formal and precise\nway. \u201cRabbi, we know thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do\nthese miracles that thou doest except God be with him.\u201d He observes all\nproprieties; he calls Jesus Doctor,\u2014\u201cRabbi,\u201d\u2014but takes good care _not_ to\ncall him Christ. He gives his reason for thinking Jesus a teacher come\nfrom God, namely, his miracles. Not his holiness, not his inspiration, not\nhis supreme sweetness, not that he is a channel through which God\u2019s\ntenderness runs down into our hearts. No; he sees no such spiritual proof\nas this, but a merely logical one, expressed almost in the form of a\nsyllogism. Major proposition\u2014\u201cNo man can work miracles without God\u2019s\nhelp.\u201d Minor proposition\u2014\u201cJesus works miracles.\u201d Conclusion\u2014\u201cTherefore\nJesus has God\u2019s help.\u201d\n\nNow, what does Jesus reply? Evidently much of the conversation has been\nomitted. We have only the substance of it here. \u201cYou believe in the\nkingdom of heaven, Nicodemus.\u201d \u201cCertainly.\u201d \u201cHow do you expect to know it\nwhen you see it?\u201d \u201cBy some great outward signs; something which shall\nshake heaven and earth; the Messiah coming in the sky, with angels.\u201d\n\u201cNicodemus, you cannot even see the kingdom when it is here, if you look\nfor it so; you must be born again yourself; you must be changed, and\nbecome as a little child, in order to enter the kingdom.\u201d We remember that\nPeter, who was probably not half as good as Nicodemus, an impulsive soul,\nwas nevertheless enough of a little child, in openness of heart, to see\nthat this was the kingdom of heaven,\u2014this teaching and life of Jesus,\u2014and\nthat Jesus was the Messiah.\n\nBut Nicodemus says, \u201cNo. A Gentile, a heathen, ought, no doubt, to begin\nat the beginning, give up all his old opinions, and be born of water by\nbeing baptized. He should begin by a recantation. I suppose that is what\nyou mean by being born again. But _I_ ought not, for I am a Jew, grown up\nin the true knowledge of God, learned from Moses and the prophets. So I\nneed not begin _my_ life again.\u201d\n\nJesus then replies, \u201cThe form is nothing. You must be born not only of\nwater, but of the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. You need\nnot only to wash off all your old opinions and conduct, as the Gentiles\nmust do; but also you must be made a little child by laying your heart\nopen to God\u2019s Spirit, and letting it lead your thoughts into new ways,\nyour heart into new love, and your life into new action. You must be\nwilling to follow me, not by night only, but in the day. If they turn you\nout of the Sanhedrim, you must not mind that; you must find your happiness\nin getting good and doing good; receiving God\u2019s love into your soul, and\nletting it go out again. You must give yourself up to this divine\ninfluence.\u201d\n\nThen Nicodemus says, \u201c_How_ can these things be?\u201d He wishes to see the\nway, to have it all marked out; to have a creed with all its articles of\nbelief fixed; a programme of what he is to do arranged. The spirit he does\nnot quite understand. Give it to him in the letter, and he can do it. He\nwants a map of the operations of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\u201cAre you a teacher of Israel, and do not know this?\u201d replies Jesus. \u201cThe\nwhole Old Testament is full of this inspiration; full of the Spirit of God\ncoming and going, in a thousand ways, and not by any special rule or\nmethod; going as the wind comes and goes in the sky, we do not know whence\nor how.\u201d It is well that some things cannot be arranged beforehand\u2014well\nthat no almanac can tell if the wind to-morrow is to be east or west,\nnorth or south.\n\nI sit in the sweet autumn woods. I see the squirrel leap from branch to\nbranch. I hear the woodpecker tapping the trunk with sagacious beak,\nwatching when the sound shall indicate that a worm has hidden himself\nbelow the bark. All else is calm and still. I look up and see the white\nclouds drifting through the deep ocean of blue above. Then there comes a\nsudden shiver through the tree-tops, a sprinkling of dry leaves on the\ngrass, a whisper, a rush of air; and now every tree is swinging its\nbranches in the breeze.\n\nSo is every one that is born of the Spirit! God comes to us all in these\nuncalculated, incalculable ways. He moves our conscience by the light of\nloyalty and fidelity in another soul. There comes through all the land a\nfresh breeze of justice and right, and all at once we feel that we ought\nto lead better lives, more manly, more true. There comes a revival of\nhonesty, as well as of piety. Yesterday you did not care for it; now you\ndo. God\u2019s holy air of truth and right is sweeping through the land. We all\narise and say, \u201cNo matter what our fathers consented to; no matter what we\nhave consented to in past times; we will have no more compromises with\nevil and sin, no more concessions to tyranny and cruelty.\u201d When this\nspirit comes to a nation, or to a community, it is as much a revival sent\nby God, as the reformation of Luther, or the reformation of Wesley.\n\nJesus means to teach us here that the Spirit of God comes in a great many\ndifferent ways, comes unexpected and unforeseen, comes unapparent as the\ninvisible air. So came the reformation of Luther. Luther did not mean to\nmake a reformation, or to build a new Church.(17)\n\nAll recollect the story of the Quaker, George Fox, how he went from Church\nto Church, and got no good, and at last opened his soul to God, and was\nled by the Spirit into new and strange thoughts and purposes, and became a\nreformer, and founder of a denomination, unintentionally. And so the\nQuaker movement came\u2014the most radical reform which ever sprang up in the\nChristian Church. It abolished the ministry and sacraments, baptism, and\nthe Lord\u2019s supper. It reformed the theology of Christendom, putting the\ninner light above the written words. It reformed life, opposing war,\noaths, slavery, and fashion. And as it came, so is it passing away, having\ndone its work. As the breeze dies softly, and the leaves cease to glitter\nin the sunlight, and the red leaf on the top-most twig, far up in the sky,\nleaves off its airy dance, and at last hangs motionless, so the wild air\nwhich stirred in the depths of all hearts dies away in silence, and old\nopinions and old customs resume their places, yet all purified and\nchanged. Only those which were so wholly dead that the wind blew them\nentirely away, are gone forever.\n\nSo are the changes which come in human hearts, we know not whence or how.\nIt is a great mistake in the Church to have a stereotyped experience, to\nwhich all must conform. Procrustes only lopped the limbs to suit the\nmeasure of his bed; but these rules and moulds for the spiritual life, cut\ndown the new man, who is made by God\u2019s Spirit, to the earthly standard of\nsome narrow stunted experience of other times. This it is \u201cto grieve the\nSpirit,\u201d and to \u201cquench the Spirit.\u201d For God\u2019s Spirit goes everywhere, and\nwhere it goes it produces the best evidence of Christianity in sweet,\nholy, Christian lives. It is the wind which blows where it will, which\ndoes not run on a railroad through the sky, or stop at any particular\nstations in the clouds, or go by any time-table. God\u2019s Spirit comes and\ngoes not according to any rules of ours. The publicans and sinners have\nit, and show it, sometimes, instead of the Scribes and Pharisees. For so\nthe apostle declares that there are \u201cdifferences of operation, but the\nsame Spirit.\u201d\n\nSometimes you see a hard man, a man of the world, who has been fighting\nhis way through life, till he has come to rely wholly on himself, and\nfeels like some of those rocky reefs which stand out in the sea on our New\nEngland coast, and have borne the onset of a thousand storms. Yet at last\nhe is softened. We see it, we feel it. There is a strange softness in his\ntone, a gentleness in his manner, a suspicion of moisture in his eye. The\ngood God has been moving in his heart; perhaps it was by some trial or\ndisappointment, or the loss of some curly-headed darling, who went up to\nheaven, and left the doors open behind, so that the joyful music which\nwelcomed her came down to his ears and touched his soul.\n\nWhen men see that, they say, \u201cWell, there is something in religion, after\nall, if it can touch such a heart as his.\u201d\n\nSometimes we see a Christian who is at first all conscience, all work.\nReligion means to him, doing his duty. He intends to be a Christian, and\nwishes others to be so. But it is a piece of hard work. His Christianity\nreminds one of the poor woman who thought it \u201ca chore to live.\u201d But after\na while, we see a change\u2014very gradual, but still very certain. He is\nbeginning to get acquainted with the gospel side of Christianity. He\nlearns to forgive himself his own sins, and so he can forgive others. His\nface begins to reflect more and more of heaven. It is the change which\ncomes to the grapes in October. Perhaps you have some Catawba grapes on\nthe south side of your house, and they grow very nicely all through the\nsummer. They are good, large grapes well formed, good clusters, but very\nsour. But by and by there comes the final change; the juice grows sweet\nwithin the berry. There is but a very little difference in its appearance,\nbut a very great change _within_.\n\nWhen we see this alteration in a man, we say, \u201cThere is surely something\nin Christianity to produce such a change. Why, what a very sweet Christian\nhe has grown to be!\u201d It took all the summer and part of the fall to do the\nwork; but no matter. God is not in a hurry. Some fruit ripens sooner, and\nsome later; that is all.\n\nI looked up from my table as I wrote these words, and saw from my window a\ntulip tree and a maple, each dressed in its royal robes of beauty\u2014the gift\nof the declining year; the green leaves of the one touched with gold, and\nthe other with its crimson and scarlet glories. They were full of\nsunlight, and made the whole landscape glad and gay. No Tyrian loom could\nrival the purple splendors and deep crimson of these trees. Why does God\ngive all this varied beauty to the October woods, so that Solomon in all\nhis glory was not arrayed like one of these oaks or maples? Is not this\nalso to touch our hearts with a sense of his love? An autumn ride is also\na means of grace; quite as much so, perhaps, as a tract or sermon. If we\nsee God in nature, then nature may also be the source of a new birth to\nus.\n\n\n    \u201cOne impulse from the autumn wood\n      May teach us more of man,\n    Of moral evil and of good,\n      Than all the sages can.\u201d\n\n\nWhat I understand Jesus, then, to teach in this passage, is, that we must\nbecome as little children, in order to see heavenly things; that, like\nnew-born babes, we must receive meekly the milk of the word of God; that\nspiritual influences are all around us, invisible\u2014incalculable: that not\nby the regular outward means of religion alone, but by a thousand other\nways, God comes to us. He means that we should believe in the presence and\nnearness of God\u2019s Spirit always; that we should open our hearts and minds\nto be led by it into truth and love. He meant the very opposite of what he\nhas been made to mean. He did not mean that all souls must pass through\none and the same religions experience, but that, as the wind blows a\nthousand ways, so God\u2019s Spirit comes to the heart by a thousand ways. So\ncoming, it makes the hard heart tender, the rude will gentle, the selfish\nsoul generous, gives the reckless a new sense of responsibility. Jesus\nmeans that we should not be discouraged because we find it hard to correct\nour faults, or to enter into God\u2019s love. God\u2019s Spirit comes to us when we\ncannot go to find it. God\u2019s love comes into our hearts when we long for\nit, look for it, wait for it.\n\nLook up, then, poor trembling heart; look up, and see God near. Look up,\nhard heart, and feel the soft showers of divine grace coming down to make\neverything tender. Look up, and be made new creatures, become as little\nchildren, be born anew, every day, into a fresh inspiration, faith, and\nhope; and so enter every day the kingdom of heaven!\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12. Evidences of Regeneration.\n\n\nThe common Orthodox method is to require and expect evidence of the\nChristian change. As we have already said, a Christian is expected to know\nand to be able to tell when, where, and under what circumstances he\nentered into the new life.\n\nBut, perhaps, the preliminary question is, Ought we to have, and can we\nhave, any evidence at all of the new life? And to this question many reply\nin the negative, and with very good reason.\n\nThe new life is a hidden life; a \u201clife hid with Christ in God.\u201d Its\nessence is love, and love is an inward sentiment, not an outward act.\nConviction demands utterance; actions speak louder than words; but love is\naccustomed to hide itself away in the heart, and to be known only to its\nobject, and that indirectly. _Evidences of love!_ What should we think of\nasking of young people coming to be married, the evidences that they loved\neach other; obliging them to give an account of their experience; to say\nwhen, where, and how they began first to care for each other; and then, if\nthe evidence was satisfactory, allowing them to be married! Why, then, ask\nof the soul wishing to be united with God and Christ in a Christian\ncovenant, to tear open the folded bud of this tender affection, analyze it\nmetaphysically, measure it mathematically, and cross-examine it as a\nwitness suspected of falsehood is questioned by lawyers before a jury?\n\nWhat do we know of this new life? what can we tell of it? Almost always it\ncomes to us gradually and unconsciously. It is veiled in shadows, misty\nlights, and neutral tints. The second life comes like the first. The child\nis born, and knows not of the awful change from not being to being\u2014the\nimmense event of passage from unconscious existence to conscious life. For\nconsciousness dawns slowly, imperceptibly. The infant is long immersed in\noutward things. Years pass before it becomes aware of the fact that it\nexists, before it begins to look in and see itself in the mirror of\nreflection. So, probably, will it also be, when we pass from this life\ninto the next. We shall, perhaps, awaken very gradually, in the future\nlife, to the knowledge that we are in another state. As the little child\nbecomes quite at home in this world before he thinks to ask how he came\nhere, so probably in the other world we shall become quite at home with\nthe angels, before we shall begin to say, \u201cI am in heaven.\u201d\n\nAll the births of time partake of this quality. They do not reflect on\nthemselves, are not surprised at themselves, but come as a matter of\ncourse. Years after, when the early heat of the new life has grown cold,\nthe historians and biographers arrive to examine it in the crucible of\ntheir painful analysis, and to tell us how wonderful it is.\n\nHow can any man _prove that he is alive_? Why _should_ he prove it? Let\nhis life show itself, but not try to prove itself. Let its light shine,\nand those who see its good and joy will glorify the Father in heaven who\nhas sent it.\n\nThe mistake here, as before, is in confounding conversion and\nregeneration.\n\nIncluding in the terms \u201cconversion\u201d and \u201crepentance\u201d the whole activity of\nthe will, the religious purpose, the aim of life, it is, no doubt, of the\nutmost importance to see, continually, what it is. \u201cKnow thyself\u201d is a\nheaven-descended maxim, if we understand by it that we are to watch\nourselves always, and see whither we are going. We need continually to\nknow the direction of our life, whether it is _to_ God or _from_ him;\nwhether it is upward or downward; whether we are following truth, and\njustice, and love, or following our own selfish desires and will. In this\nsense self-examination is both possible and necessary.\n\nWhen the great ocean steamer is in the midst of the mighty Atlantic, it is\nnecessary to watch continually its direction, and keep it always heading\nthe right way. Day and night, therefore, the man stands sleepless at the\nhelm, his eye always turning from the compass to the ship\u2019s head, with\nunfailing vigilance. But it is not thought necessary to inspect the\ninterior of the boilers, or to examine the quality of the fire. If steam\nenough is made, and the wheels revolve, that is enough.\n\nThe new life into which we enter by the new birth has this one\ncharacter\u2014that it gives us for a motive, not fear, but hope; not law, but\nlove; not constraint, but joy. Prayer is not a duty, but the spontaneous\nimpulse of the child, to seek and find its father. Work is not drudgery\nbut satisfaction, when the motive is to serve the great cause of Christ.\nThe only real evidence, therefore, that we are born of God, is, that we\nhave the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, and peace. The tree is known by\nits fruits, and these are the appropriate fruits of the new life. When we\nfind them, let us gladly receive them; but if we do not find them, let us\nat least be glad that if not yet new-born, we are, nevertheless,\nconverted; if not sons, at least servants. We have the one thing needful\nwhen we have the right purpose; sooner or later, we shall also have the\nhappy life. When we do right, we sow to the Spirit, and we shall, in due\nseason, reap life everlasting.\n\nAs regards the evidence of the new life, too much stress, we think, has\nbeen laid on outward profession, ceremonies, religious language, religious\nacts. Because a man professes religion, it is no evidence that he is\nreligious. Because he partakes of the Lord\u2019s supper, or prays openly, or\nspeaks in the habitual religious language of his sect, it is no evidence\nof his religious life. Many persons are quite comforted if one who has led\nan immoral life says on his death-bed that he \u201ctrusts in the atoning blood\nof Christ.\u201d But this may be a mere word.\n\nAll ceremonies and prayers are means, but none of them are evidence, of a\nstate. The only evidences are the fruits of the Spirit. \u201cThe tree is known\nby its fruits.\u201d \u201cThe fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace,\nlong-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.\u201d\n\nLet us remember that though a man may be converted, and not as yet be\nregenerate, he cannot be regenerate unless he is converted; that is, there\ncan be no true piety, no love, no faith, no spiritual religion, except\nthere be a sincere and determined purpose of righteousness beneath it.\nThere may be true morality without piety, but there cannot be a true piety\nwithout a true morality. The law must precede the gospel.\nConscientiousness must go before love, to prepare its way. \u201cThat is not\nfirst which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and _afterwards_ that\nwhich is spiritual.\u201d\n\nThe _first_ question, therefore, to ask ourselves, is not, \u201cDo I love\nGod?\u201d but, \u201cDo I obey God?\u201d Every man\u2019s own soul, if sincere, can answer\nthat question. \u201cIf our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.\u201d\n\u201cIf our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God.\u201d\n\nBut if we are obeying God, then let us believe in a higher life which God\nhas to bestow, and believing, seek for it. It is not earned, it is not a\nreward, it is not by works; but it is very nigh and close at hand; it is\nready to be given to those who believe in it and look for it.\n\nSo, if the question be asked, \u201cIs man active or passive in this process?\u201d\nthe answer is, that he is active in conversion, receptive in regeneration.\n\nSo in regard to faith and works. \u201cWe are justified by faith;\u201d but\njustification is the sense of God\u2019s forgiving love which is received into\nan open heart. Justification is not salvation; it is only a step in that\ndirection, and a preparation for it.\n\nAnd now we ask, \u201cWhy is it, if this new life is a gift, do not all good\nmen receive it?\u201d The answer is, \u201cThere are conditions. All good men do not\nbelieve in it. Some believe that duty is every thing; that Christianity\nconsists _wholly_ in obedience. They know nothing higher, and therefore\nseek for nothing higher. Regeneration they hear of, but think it something\nmystical, miraculous, unnatural, and, to say the truth, not very\nattractive. If they believed in a life of love and trust, a life free from\nthe burden of anxiety, they would surely desire it.\u201d\n\nThose also who believe in it do not always believe it is for themselves.\nThey think it not meant for common people in the midst of common life, but\nfor some special saintship. They do not believe in this divine life\nflowing into every heart and soul, high and low, wise and ignorant, be it\nonly sincere, honest, and believing.\n\nYet it is like the life of nature, which in the abounding spring-time\ncomes down from the skies, and flows not only into the majestic tree,\nswelling at once its myriad buds, but also into every seed, and root, and\nweed, awakening them all.\n\nThis is what we need for peace, for real progress, for present comfort,\nfor future joy.\n\nIt is communion with God, it is receiving his love, it is accepting his\nforgiveness, and living day by day as his beloved children.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE SON OF GOD.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated.\n\n\nHaving considered the Orthodox idea of man in his natural state, and of\nman in his supernatural state, we next pass to consider the Orthodox idea\nof Christ\u2019s person and of Christ\u2019s work. In this chapter we shall consider\nthe Orthodox view of the person of Christ, and ask what is its substantial\ntruth, and what its formal error.\n\nThe Orthodox opinion concerning Christ is thus stated in the Assembly\u2019s\nConfession of Faith: \u201cThe Son of God, the second person in the Trinity,\nbeing very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father,\ndid, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man\u2019s nature, with\nall the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without\nsin; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures\u2014the Godhead and the\nManhood\u2014were inseparably joined together in one person, which person is\nvery God and very Man.\u201d\n\nChrist, therefore, was perfectly God and perfectly man. The formula is,\n\u201c_two natures, but one person_.\u201d The Orthodox doctrine is not of God\ndwelling in a human body as its soul (which seems to be the view of\nSwedenborg), but it is of God united with a human soul and body as one\nperson or one consciousness.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. This Doctrine gradually developed.\n\n\nThis idea of Christ, as we know, was gradually formed in the Christian\nChurch, and did not become Orthodox until after many struggles. First came\nthe question whether the Deity of Christ was equal or subordinate to that\nof the Father. Hardly had the Orthodox doctrine triumphed over that of\nsubordination, against those who denied the equal Deity, than it was\nobliged to turn round and contend against those on the other side, who\ndenied the humanity of Christ altogether. The Ebionites considered Jesus\nas a mere man. Theodotus, in the year 200, taught the same, with Artemon\nand Praxeas. In the next century the Arians and Sabellians opposed\nOrthodoxy from opposite sides,\u2014the one confounding the persons of the\nGodhead, and the other dividing the substance. So for several centuries\nthe pendulum of opinion swung from one side to the other before it rested\nin the golden mean of Orthodoxy.\n\nThe Nestorians separated the two natures of Christ, and maintained that\nhis Divinity consisted only in the indwelling of God. But scarcely had\nNestorius been banished for separating the two natures than Eutyches\nplunged into heresy on the other side, by confounding them together. This\nwas the Monophysite heresy; and no sooner was this overthrown, and it was\ndecided to be wrong to say that Christ had only one nature, than others\nbegan to contend that he had only one will. These were the Monothelites.\nBut through all these controversies, the main doctrine of Orthodoxy\ncontinues to shine out luminous and distinct, asserting that Christ\ncombines the fulness of Deity and the fulness of Humanity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Unitarian Objections.\n\n\nAs this view of the Deity of Christ has been stated, it seems, in its\ndoctrinal form, contradictory to Scripture as well as to reason. That the\ninfinite God, who fills the universe, and sustains it; present in the\nsmallest insect; present in the most distant nebula, whose light just\narriving at our eye has been a million of years on its journey,\u2014that this\ninfinite Being should have been born in Palestine, seems to confute itself\nby its very statement. Who took care of the universe when God was an\ninfant in the arms of the Virgin Mary? Jesus was born, and died; but God\ncannot be born, and cannot die. Jesus suffered from hunger, fatigue, and\npain; but God cannot suffer. Jesus was seen by human eyes, and touched by\nhuman hands; but no man hath seen God at any time. Jesus had a finite\nbody; but God is Spirit. Jesus was tempted; but God cannot be tempted with\nevil. Jesus prayed; but God cannot pray. Jesus said, \u201cMy Father is greater\nthan I;\u201d but God has no one greater than himself. Jesus said, \u201cI can of\nmine own self do nothing;\u201d but God can of his own self do everything.\nJesus said \u201cthat he came down from heaven not to do his own will;\u201d but God\nalways does his own will. Jesus said that there were some things he did\nnot know; but God knows everything. He declared that all power was _given_\nto him in heaven and earth; but God\u2019s power cannot be given to him.\nScripture, therefore, as well as common sense, seems to deny the Orthodox\ndoctrine of the Deity of Christ.\n\nThe common Trinitarian answer to these texts is, that Christ is speaking\nin his human nature when he asserts these limitations. But this answer, as\nDr. Bushnell has well shown, is no answer; for, as he says, \u201cit not only\ndoes an affront to the plain language of Scripture, but virtually denies\nany real unity between the human and the divine.\u201d Jesus does not say, \u201cAll\npower in heaven and earth is given _to my human nature_,\u201d but \u201cto _me_;\u201d\nand when the Trinitarian himself declares that in Christ, with two\nnatures, there is but _one person_, the question is concerning that one\nperson, whether _that_ is finite or infinite, absolute or dependent,\nomniscient or not so, omnipresent or not so, omnipotent or not so. The\nquestion does not concern his nature, but himself. The one person must be\neither finite or infinite: it cannot be both.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine.\n\n\nBut now we ask, What substantial truth underlies this formal error? What\ntruth of life underlies this error of doctrine? Let us remember how empty\nthe world was of God at the time of Christ\u2019s coming. The wisest men could\nspeak thus with Pliny: \u201cAll religion is the offspring of necessity,\nweakness, and fear. What God is,\u2014if in truth he be anything distinct from\nthe world,\u2014it is beyond the power of man\u2019s understanding to know.\u201d All\nintelligent men agreed that if God existed he could not possibly take any\ninterest in the affairs of the world or of individuals. Phariseeism on the\none hand, and Sadduceeism on the other,\u2014a religion hardened into forms,\nand an empty scepticism, cold and dead,\u2014divided the world between them.\nBut men cannot live without God, and be satisfied. They were feeling after\nhim, if haply they might find him, who is not far from any one of us.\n\nThen Christ came; and in all that he said and did, he spoke from the\nknowledge of God; he acted from the life of God. Here was one, then, at\nlast, to whom God was not an opinion, but a reality; through whose life\nflowed the life of God in a steady current. We see that all sincere souls\nwho came near Jesus received from him the same sight of God which he\npossessed; for faith in a living and present God is so congenial to the\nnature of man, that it carries conviction with it wherever it is not a\nmere opinion, but a state of the soul.\n\nThose, therefore, who could find God nowhere else, found him in Christ.\nThose who saw _him_, saw the Father. As when through a window we behold\nthe heavens, as when in a mirror we see an image of the sun, we do not\nspeak of the window or the mirror, but say that we see the sun and the\nheavens, so those who looked at Christ said that they saw God.\n\nThe apostle said that God was in Christ; and this was wholly true.\nChristians afterwards said that Christ was God; and they thought they were\nonly saying the same thing. They said that Christ had a divine nature as\nwell as a human nature; and in this also there was no essential falsehood,\nfor when we speak of our nature, we intend merely by it those elements of\ncharacter which are original and permanent, which are not acquired, do not\nalter, and are never lost. God dwelt in the soul of Christ thus\nconstantly, thus permanently. The Word thus \u201cbecame flesh, and dwelt among\nus.\u201d The word of the Lord _came_ to the prophets, but it _dwelt_ in\nChrist. He and his Father were one. The vital truth of all this was that\nmen were now able to see God manifested in man as a living, present\nreality. \u201c_Here_,\u201d they said, \u201cis God. We have found God. He is in Christ.\nWe can see him there.\u201d\n\nIs it any wonder that men should have called Jesus God? that they should\ncall him so still? In him truly \u201cdwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily;\u201d\nand this indwelling Spirit expressed itself in what he said and what he\ndid. When Jesus speaks, it is as if God speaks. When Jesus does anything,\nit is as if we saw God do it. It becomes to us an expression of the divine\ncharacter. When Jesus says to the sinner, \u201cGo and sin no more,\u201d we see in\nthis a manifestation not merely of his own compassion, but of God\u2019s\nforgiving love; and when he dies, although God cannot die, yet he dies\naccording to the divine will, and thus expresses God\u2019s willingness to\nsuffer for the redemption of the world.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement.\n\n\nWhen we look at Christ\u2019s Divinity from this point of view, the distinction\nbetween the Trinitarian and Unitarian seems almost to disappear. Still the\nquestion remains, Is it right to call him God? The distinction remains\nbetween saying, \u201cGod was in Christ,\u201d and saying, \u201cChrist was God.\u201d In\nshort, was the _person_ of Christ human or divine? We agree with the\nOrthodox in saying that Christ had two natures\u2014a divine nature and a human\nnature. We also maintain with them that he had one person. But the\nquestion comes, Was that one person divine or human, finite or infinite,\ndependent or absolute? The consciousness of the one person is a single\nconsciousness. Christ could not at the same time have been conscious of\nknowing all things and of not knowing all things, of having all power and\nof not having it, of depending on God for all things and of not depending\nfor anything. One of two things alone is possible. Either Christ was God\nunited with a human soul, or he was a human soul united with God. When\nChrist uses the personal pronoun \u201cI,\u201d he must mean by that \u201c_I_\u201d either\nthe finite man or the infinite God. I believe the Unitarian is right in\nsaying that this personal pronoun \u201cI\u201d always refers to the finite being\nand consciousness, and not to the infinite Being. For example: \u201c_I am not\nalone, but I and the Father that sent me._\u201d \u201c_I proceeded forth and came\nfrom God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me._\u201d God cannot proceed\nfrom God; God cannot send God. Again: \u201cIf I honor myself, my honor is\nnothing; it is my Father that honoreth me.\u201d This cannot mean, \u201cIf God\nhonors God, his honor is nothing; but it is God that honors him.\u201d It must\nmean that the human being, Christ, receives his honor from the divine\nBeing. This view\u2014that the person of Christ is human, but is intimately\nunited and in perfect union with the indwelling God\u2014makes all Scripture\nintelligible. Any other view is either unintelligible or contradictory.\nThis view of the divine nature of Christ united with the human person, of\nGod dwelling in the flesh, does not confound the mind like the common\nTrinitarian view, and yet has a value for the heart of paramount\nimportance. If Christ is really a man like ourselves, made in all respects\nlike his brethren, and yet is thus at one with God, thus full of God, it\nshows us that sin and separation from God are accidental things, and not\nanything necessary. If Jesus is truly a man, he redeems and exalts\nhumanity. What he has been is a type of what all men may be. Thus the\napostle Paul speaks when he says that all things were created in Christ,\nwho is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he might go\nbefore us, or be our leader in all things; which is a much higher view\nthan the common understanding of the passage, which merely supposes him to\nhave been God\u2019s instrument in creating the physical universe. He is the\nimage of the invisible God\u2014the first-born of the whole creation. This\ncreation is the new creation\u2014that which is intended in Revelation (3:14),\nwhere Christ is spoken of as the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the\nBeginning of the creation of God, and that which Paul means when he says\nthat in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is worth\nanything, \u201cbut the new creation.\u201d\n\nAll such passages refer, as it seems to us, not to a past natural\ncreation, but to a supernatural creation\u2014a creation of life eternal,\nwhich, beginning in Christ, is to embrace the whole of humanity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism.\n\n\nAnd we cannot but think this doctrine far truer, as well as more Orthodox,\nthan the Arianism which so long struggled in the Church for supremacy.\nThat view which supposed that Christ was neither truly man nor truly God,\nbut some high, pre\u00ebxisting being between the two, appears to us to be the\nfalsest and most unsatisfactory of all the doctrines concerning Christ\u2019s\nperson. It separates him more entirely from our sympathies than either of\nthe others. It destroys both his divinity and his humanity, and, by giving\nus something intermediate, gives us really nothing. It makes his apparent\nhuman life a delusion, his temptation unreal, his human sympathies and\nsorrows deceptive. We think, therefore, that the Church was right in\nrejecting the Arian doctrine.\n\nWe think it was also right in rejecting the Humanitarian doctrine, or that\nof mere Naturalism. Christ was something more than mere man,\u2014something\nmore than Moses and Elijah,\u2014something more than a man of great religious\ngenius. The peculiarity of Christ was, that he was chosen by God\u2019s wisdom,\nand prepared by God\u2019s providence, to be the typical man of the race,\u2014the\nGod-man, in whom the divine Spirit and human soul become one in a perfect\nunion. He was, perhaps, placed, by an exceptional birth, where the first\nAdam stood,\u2014rescued from inherited depravity, made in the image of God.\nThen the Spirit was given him without measure. The word of God _dwelt_ in\nhim, and did not merely come to him as a transient influence for a special\npurpose. Add to this a freely chosen aim of life, and a fidelity which was\nalways about his Father\u2019s business, and aiming to finish the work which\nwas given him to do, and we have a being in whom we can see either a\nmanifestation of God or a manifestation of man. The Spirit in Christ was\none with God; the soul and body were human.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete.\n\n\nThat portion of the New Testament which speaks so earnestly of\njustification by faith is by many supposed to have become obsolete for all\nuseful purposes at the present time. The doctrine that \u201cwe are justified\nby faith, and not by works,\u201d it is supposed, was intended for the benefit\nof the Jews alone, and to amount to this\u2014that admittance to the privileges\nof the gospel is to be obtained, not by practising the ceremonies and\nexternal ritual of the Jewish law, but by a simple belief in Jesus Christ.\nAccordingly, as no one nowadays endeavors to become a Christian by\npractising the Jewish ceremonies, we suppose that there is no present need\nof this doctrine; and when we come upon it in the Scripture, we turn over\nthe pages in search of something more practical and profitable. As, in the\nbook of Acts, we read, that, \u201cwhen Paul was about to open his mouth,\nGallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked\nlewdness, O Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; but if it be a\nquestion of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be\nno judge of such matters,\u201d so we, when Paul is about to open his mouth to\nspeak to us of this doctrine, think it a mere question of words and names,\nand of the Jewish law, and interrupt him to ask him for something\n_practical_. If he has anything to say to us of wrong-doing or wicked\nconduct, it would be reasonable to hear him; but we will be no judge of\nsuch matters as this.\n\nThere are also many persons, who, while they can understand the Gospels\nand enjoy them, find it difficult to understand and enjoy the writings of\nthe apostle Paul. Among these writings, the most difficult is the Epistle\nto the Romans, and especially that part of it which treats of this\ndoctrine of justification by faith. Anything which can be done to remove\nthis difficulty will do good; for the writings of Paul are so intimately\nconnected with the rest of the New Testament, that it is not easy to\nreject them, and yet to believe the rest. It can be done, no doubt; but it\nis done with difficulty. It is as if one part of the foundation of the\nhouse had given way: perhaps the house will not fall; but it has become\nunsafe. It is as if a part of the wall of a city had been battered down:\nthe breach may be defensible from within; but it is also practicable from\nwithout. At all events, we miss the satisfaction of a complete faith,\nperfect and entire, round and full.\n\nBesides, may there not be something important for us to know in this part\nof the New Testament? Are we quite sure we do not need these very\ndoctrines, and that they will do us good?\n\nWe have said that it is sometimes thought that the questions discussed by\nPaul were only Jewish questions,\u2014not human questions; that they belonged\nonly to that time, not to all time. But, though the form which they\nassumed was temporary and local, there is reason to believe that the\nsubstance of the question is one belonging to human nature in every age;\nthat it is the question of the spirit and the letter, the substance and\nthe form, the root and the branches, the inside of religion and the\noutside. While contending against a particular Jewish error, the apostle\nunfolded principles by which similar errors may be opposed and refuted in\nevery age.\n\nAt all events, it is a matter of fact, that there seldom has been in the\nChurch any great religious movement which has not immediately gone back to\nthe apostle Paul, and planted itself on his doctrine of justification by\nfaith. This was the watchword of Luther, and the soul of the reformation.\nLuther and his companions armed themselves with this doctrine to contend\nagainst the great power of the Papacy and the Romish Church.\n\nLet us, then, endeavor to see what we can of the truth there may be in\nthis doctrine.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Its Meaning and Importance.\n\n\nAnd, first, let us see what the doctrine does not mean, and what it does\nmean.\n\nTo be justified by faith does not mean that we are to be saved by our\nopinions. To say that a man can be saved by holding certain opinions,\ninstead of certain other opinions, is to say what is contradicted by all\nexperience; for experience shows us that there are good men holding every\nvariety of opinion, and bad men holding every variety of opinion. But God\nsaves men by making them good: therefore men are not saved by their\nopinions. Let us suppose that men are to be saved by the opinion that\nJesus is the Christ: then we ought to find that all men holding that\nopinion are on the way of salvation; that is, are becoming good men. But\nthis is far from being the case. In fact, the connection between mere\nopinion of any kind, and goodness, is very distant and indirect. No doubt,\nin the long run, opinion affects character; but it is only in the long run\nthat it does so. And, at all events, the doctrine of the New Testament is\nvery distinct and decided, that men may hold very sound opinions, and yet\nnot be in the way of salvation. The Scribes and Pharisees held very sound\nopinions; and Jesus told his disciples to do whatever they said, but not\nto imitate their works; for their doctrine was much better than their\nlives.\n\nNor does the apostle mean to say that one can be saved without morality.\nHe certainly does not mean to undervalue goodness; for, in that case, he\nwould contradict his own teachings, which uniformly declare, as all the\nrest of the Bible declares, that without holiness no man can see the Lord.\nIt is certainly a very superficial view which is satisfied with supposing\nthat an earnest man, as the apostle certainly was, devoting his life, as\nhe certainly did, to the teaching of Christianity, with such a grand\nintellect as he certainly possessed, could assert with so much energy a\ndoctrine plainly contradicting common sense, daily observation, the plain\nteachings of Jesus, and his own uniform doctrine elsewhere.\n\nSome persons have a short method of getting over the difficulty by saying\nthat Paul did not himself know what he meant. They assume that he was\ntalking at random. It would be about as wise, when we open Newton\u2019s\n\u201cPrincipia,\u201d and cannot understand it, to say that Newton was talking at\nrandom; or, when we cannot understand Plato or some other profound\nmetaphysician, to declare directly that he did not himself know what he\nwas talking about. No doubt, this is the shortest and easiest way of\ngetting out of such difficulties, but perhaps not the most modest, nor the\nmost wise.\n\nWhen an earnest man, a profound man, a man in the highest degree\npractical, a man who has done the greatest work for Christianity which has\nbeen done since its foundation, sums up his doctrine in a comprehensive\nmaxim like this, it is, perhaps, wise to admit, at once, that he had a\nmeaning, and probably an important one.\n\n\u201cNo doubt he _had_ a meaning,\u201d it may be said; \u201cbut has he any meaning\n_now_? His formula meant something for the Jews; but does it mean anything\nfor us? Is not this merely a Jewish question, with which we have nothing\nto do?\u201d\n\nThis is another easy way of getting over difficulties. In reading the New\nTestament, when we come to a place where we are stopped by something which\nlooks deep and is dark, we are often told, \u201cThat darkness is not depth: it\nis the shadow of a Jewish error which lies across the path.\u201d\n\nHave we not often felt dissatisfied, when, approaching some great saying\nof Christ and his apostles from which we hoped to gain new insight, we\nhave been told, \u201cThat has nothing to do with _us_. The Jews had such and\nsuch an opinion, and this was meant to show them their mistake\u201d? So the\ngreat and earnest words of the Bible, which we thought to be full of\nspirit and life, are found to be only fossil remains of old opinions, of\nopinions long since passed away\u2014good for nothing but to be put into the\nmuseums of antiquaries, and paraded by scholastic pedants.\n\nBut, after all, take it on the lowest ground, were not the Jews men? Did\nthey not, as a race, represent some element, common, in a less degree, to\nthe rest of mankind? and therefore is there not in each of us something of\nthat Jewish element? Are not we also sometimes Jews, therefore liable to\nJewish errors, and needing to have them corrected? The Jews did not live\nin vain: their struggles, errors, hopes, were for the benefit of humanity.\nWe were to learn something by their mistakes, and to be taught something\nby their experience.\n\nAnother way of treating such a passage is to translate it into some\ntrivial, insignificant commonplace. Thus, we are told, our doctrine only\nmeans that \u201c_God does not approve a man merely for going through a routine\nof outward, formal ceremonies, but for a thoroughly religious life._\u201d This\nexplanation assumes that the apostle is here talking to simpletons, and\nthat what he says is no more worth listening to by us than the prattle of\na nurse to her infant.\n\nThere are, therefore, four ways of explaining this passage, none of which\nare satisfactory. These are, that Paul,\u2014\n\n1. Was teaching a self-evident absurdity;\n\n2. Was teaching a self-evident truism;\n\n3. Was teaching nothing, and only talking at random;\n\n4. Was correcting a Jewish error, which only the Jews ever had, or are\never likely to have.\n\nIf these views are not satisfactory to us, the simplest way would seem to\nbe, first, to endeavor to understand precisely what the Jewish error was,\nand then to see if there is anything like it in ourselves, and if there be\nanything which we can learn from this old argument which will be, not old,\nbut new for our time and for all time, because a part of the tendencies of\nman. Let us translate these old terms\u2014_justification_, _faith_,\n_works_\u2014into their modern equivalents, and see what they mean for us at\nthe present time.\n\nWe have shown that we may be mistaken in supposing this Orthodox doctrine\nof justification to be of merely local and temporary interest, having no\npermanent value. It is not likely that a man like Paul, of so large, so\ndeep, so philosophic a mind, should have devoted himself so earnestly, and\nreturned so fondly, to a theme involving no universal and eternal\nprinciples, whose interest was to perish with the hour. It is not probable\nthat, in this small volume of writings of the new covenant,\u2014this precious\ngift of God to the world in all ages and in every nation,\u2014so large a\nportion should be devoted to a wholly temporary argument; and, more than\nall, it is a most remarkable fact, that whenever there arises a man\nuniting a deeper spirit of piety with a larger sense of liberty than other\nmen,\u2014a man commissioned by God to give a new religious impulse to his age,\nand to help Christianity to shake itself free from the cumbrous mass of\nhuman forms and traditions which have crushed it, and to go forth in its\nnative grace and loveliness again,\u2014some profound instinct should always\nlead him to this doctrine as to a weapon effectual for pulling down the\nstrongholds of bigotry, scepticism, and spiritual death. Sir James\nMackintosh somewhere says, that the great movement which shook Christendom\nto its centre, and did more to change and reform society than the\npolitical revolutions and wars of a thousand years, originated with an\nobscure Augustinian monk preaching the doctrine of justification by faith.\nThis acute Scotchman saw, what all must see who read Luther\u2019s writings\nwith any attention, that it was no accident, no temporal interest, which\nled him to lay such stress on this doctrine. It was the soul of his\npreaching, the essence of his doctrine, the secret of his strength, the\nlife of his life. And so, when Wesley and the early Methodists were called\nupon to pour new religious life into the English Church, they fell back on\nthis doctrine\u2014this ancient sword of the Spirit. And so we may believe that\nit has a value for all ages; that it did not relate merely to Jewish\nusages, but is a principle of vital and everlasting application.\n\nNo doubt that if by faith we understand intellectual belief, or the assent\nto opinions, and if by works we understand true obedience, and by\njustification final salvation or actual goodness, there can scarcely be a\ngreater absurdity than to say that a man is justified by faith, and not by\nworks. To say that goodness, in the sight of God, consists in receiving\ncertain opinions, rather than in true obedience, is a most unscriptural\nand irrational doctrine.\n\nBut none of the great reformers of whom I have spoken, and no profound\ntheologians of any sect or school, have ever held the doctrines of\njustification by faith in this way. Neither Luther nor Wesley ever made\nfaith synonymous with intellectual belief or opinion. \u201cWhat is faith?\u201d\nsaid Wesley. \u201cNot an opinion, nor any number of opinions put together, be\nthey ever so true. A string of opinions is no more Christian faith than a\nstring of beads is Christian holiness. It is not an assent to any opinion,\nor any number of opinions. A man may assent to three or three and twenty\ncreeds, he may assent to all the Old and New Testament, and yet have no\nChristian faith at all.\u201d\n\nBut what is the true doctrine of justification by faith, as taught in the\nScriptures, and as inspiring these great reformers? This is naturally our\nnext inquiry.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience.\n\n\nThere is nothing in the nature of man more paradoxical than conscience. It\nis that which lifts him to God; and yet it is that which makes him capable\nof sin, and without which he could not be a sinner. It gives him the sense\nof right, but at the same time makes him conscious of wrong. It makes him\ncapable of duty, but thereby also capable of disobedience. It shows us\nwhat we ought to do, without giving us the least strength wherewith to do\nit. It condemns us for not doing right, even when we have no power to do\nanything but what is wrong. It shows us a great ideal of goodness to which\nwe ought to aspire, and discourages us by the very loftiness of the\nstandard. It tells us in the same breath that we are sinners, and that we\nought to be angels. It seems at the same time to elevate and degrade us.\nIt elevates us by giving a great object to life, and making it serious and\nearnest; but it degrades us by making us constantly ashamed of ourselves,\nand keeping us in a perpetual state of humiliation. Now, one of the chief\npeculiarities of the conscience is, that beyond a certain point, the more\nwe try to obey it, the less satisfaction we have. We know that this is not\nthe usual theory. We are commonly told that the conscientious man is\nalways contented and happy,\u2014satisfied with himself, and at peace with God.\nBut facts contradict this theory. The conscientious man is apt to be very\nmuch dissatisfied with himself,\u2014much, more so than the man whose\nconscience is torpid and indifferent. There is comfort in faithful work;\nno doubt there is great content in the steady performance of regular\nduties; but here conscience is subordinate to work. It is _work_ which\ngives contentment; but CONSCIENCE, when thoroughly roused by the strong\nmeat of a divine law, is the source of much self-dissatisfaction. How can\nit be otherwise? It shows us that we ought to _love God and love man with\nall our heart, soul, mind, strength_. Which of us does it? Do you? Do I?\nHow large a part of our life have we given to the service of God? how\nlarge a part to the service of our neighbor? How often do we thank God for\nhis goodness? How often do we pray to him? how often _think_ of him? If we\ndo not think of him, of course we do not love him.\n\nLove makes us very thoughtful of another\u2019s wishes. When people love each\nother, they joy in thinking of each other; they treasure souvenirs of each\nother; they like to make each other presents of things they think will\nplease; they steal an hour from daily cares or nightly rest to write\nletters to each other. Our heavenly Father\u2019s arms are around us all\nday,\u2014his infinite bounty blessing us, his careful providence making for us\nhome, friends, all; yet we do not think of him, or wish to do anything to\nplease him.\n\nConscience tells us that our heart is hard and cold to our best Friend;\nand that is by no means a pleasant piece of information.\n\nMoreover, it is evident that this condition of self-dissatisfaction is not\na good one. _Self-reproach may be a wholesome medicine, but it is a bad\nfood._ We cannot do our work while we are finding fault with ourselves.\nThe man whose conscience is always tormenting him is in a morbid state. He\nis a spiritually sick man,\u2014sick of too much medicine. What must be done?\nHe is always looking at his sins, and that disqualifies him for doing his\nduties. What shall he do?\n\nThis question in its Jewish form is stated thus: HOW SHALL HE BE JUSTIFIED\nBEFORE GOD? If God can excuse him, he can excuse himself. How, then, can\nhe know that God looks at him not as a sinner, but as a just man, so that\nhe can look on himself not as a sinner, but as a just man? This is the\nproblem. What are its solutions?\n\nIn the Jewish mind, the Jewish law had brought the conscience into an\nextremely irritable state. The same effect, in a less degree, is produced\nby the Catholic confessional.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul.\n\n\nNow, the consequences of sin are these: First, every act of sin brings\nafter it natural evil consequences. It weakens the strength of the soul,\nit darkens the spiritual eye, it hardens the heart, it adds a new link to\nthe chain of evil habit. By a result as inevitable as the law of\ngravitation, every act of sin pollutes, darkens, weakens the spiritual\nprinciple in man. \u201cHe who sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap\ncorruption.\u201d We may call these results the _external_ consequences of sin,\nbecause they change our spiritual relation and position in God\u2019s external\nuniverse. But there is another more awful and as inevitable consequence of\nsin. It alienates us from God himself. It turns our face from the Source\nof life and love. It makes us at war with him. It fills us with the sense\nof his displeasure, and burdens us with the consciousness of guilt. To\nescape the dreadful sense of his anger, we hide ourselves from him, as\nAdam did. It is a law of the human mind that we dread the sight of any one\nwhom we have wronged, because it condemns us. Perhaps he may be perfectly\nwilling to forgive us; perhaps he does not even know that we have wronged\nhim; but we cannot bear to see him, notwithstanding. It was a profound\nfeeling of this law which led an ancient historian to say, \u201cHe hated him\nbecause he had injured him.\u201d Thus an active conscience, if it does not\nmake a man better, will make him worse: to escape its torture he will\nplunge into new crimes. Some of the darkest crimes which stain the page of\nhistory may be traced to this source,\u2014to the operation of a conscience\nstrong enough to produce the sense of guilt, but not strong enough to\nproduce the determination to reform. It is related that when the mother of\nCharles IX. of France and his uncles were urging the young king to consent\nto the execution of some of the principal Protestants to whom he was\nstrongly attached, after a long resistance, when he at last gave way, it\nwas with these remarkable words: \u201cI consent, then, but only on one\ncondition,\u2014that you do not leave a Huguenot in France to reproach me with\nit.\u201d(18) And hence the Bartholomew Massacre, which its authors had\nintended before only to include a few individuals. So sin takes occasion\nby the law, and the commandment ordained for life becomes death.\n\nThe same principle operates with respect to God. We have broken his law.\nWe feel that he must be displeased with us; we therefore hide ourselves\nfrom him, turn away from him, avoid the thought of him, are alienated from\nhim. This is the greatest evil of sin, and this we may call the inward\nconsequence of sin, because it affects our inward relation to God rather\nthan our outward relation to the universe.\n\nAnd now, how are we to be reconciled to God? How are we to be freed from\nthis sense of guilt which falls on us in his presence, and makes us fear\nand shun him?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness.\n\n\nThere are two ways in which, when we have injured our brother, and so have\nbecome estranged from him, we may become reconciled again, and freed from\na sense of shame in his presence. One is by endeavoring to atone for the\nevil we have done by acts of kindness, by expressions of penitence. So at\nlast we may feel that we have done him far more good than evil; and though\nhe may not forgive us or be reconciled to _us_, we, on our part, may feel\nfreed from any shame in his presence, and be reconciled to _him_. The\nother way is by _his_ coming to _us_, and _proving_ to us, by his conduct\nand words, that he is not estranged from us by our bad conduct; that he\nloves us as ever. So he will overcome our evil by his good, and reconcile\nus to him.\n\nThe pagan nations in all ages and lands have taken the first way of being\nreconciled to God. Oppressed by a guilty fear of their terrible idols,\nthey have brought as gifts to their altars what they had most valuable;\nthey have hung their gold, their jewels, in the temple; they have slain\ntheir cattle on the shrine. Still unable to pacify their trembling hearts,\nthey have gone farther, and sought to prove the sincerity at least of\ntheir repentance by self-inflicted tortures, and by giving even their\nchildren\u2019s lives to the bloody power whom they worshipped. Hence\nsacrifices: they originated in the very same feeling which induces a man\nto give a present to one whom he has wronged, to appease him.\n\nPagan religions are founded, therefore, wholly on the first mode of\nreconciliation. The offending party comes to him whom he has injured, and\ndoes something to pacify him. But these religions never brought peace to\nthe heart of the worshipper. After the wretched mother had dropped her\ninfant into the burning arms of Moloch, she still had no evidence that his\nwrath was turned away.\n\nIn the religion of Moses, the first mode of reconciliation was united with\nthe second. Pitying the weakness of man, the law allowed him to bring his\nsacrifice of birds or beasts or the fruits of the soil, and place it on\nGod\u2019s altar as an expiation and atoning offering for his sin; and then,\nthe suppliant, having faith in the permanent presence of God in the holy\nof holies, was received again to favor and assured of pardon. The Jew, who\nhad broken any of the laws of Jehovah, knew exactly what to do in order to\nbe reconciled to his national God and King. God had pointed out the way\nwhich he would accept. By certain acts of sacrifice and restitution, the\nJew became once more worthy of living under the protecting care of\nJehovah.\n\nThis mode of reconciliation under the law was far superior to that in\npagan religions. It gave temporary peace to the conscience, though not\npermanent. It prevented the sinner from going farther from God, though it\ndid not unite him with God in unbroken union. It kept the conscience\nawake, and prevented it from being hardened. It was a schoolmaster to\nbring the Jews to Christ. It was a preparation for a more excellent way.\nIn the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer declares that the law was but\nthe shadow of that which was to come; that it could not, \u201cby the\nsacrifices offered year by year, make the comers thereunto perfect; for\nthen would they have ceased to have been offered, because the worshippers,\nonce purged, would have had no more conscience of sin.\u201d The sacrifice made\nno revelation of God\u2019s character and love, planted no root of piety in the\nheart: it relieved the conscience only for this once, only with respect to\nthis one sin; and there its influence ended. And therefore was a new\ncovenant necessary, and promised by the prophets, and looked forward to by\nholy men, when they should be reconciled not by works, but by faith.\n\nWe have seen that there are two modes by which alienation may be removed:\nfirst, by the offending party doing something to atone for his offence;\nsecond, by the injured one showing that he has forgiven the offence, and\nis ready to be reconciled without an atonement. The first mode is the way\nof reconciliation in pagan religions; the first and second are united in\nthe Jewish religion; the second is the mode in the Christian religion.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Method in Christianity.\n\n\nIn Christianity, in the gospel of grace, God offers pardon freely to those\nwho are willing to accept it. He is ready now to receive those who are\nready to come to him. It is only necessary to believe this in order to be\nreconciled. We are, therefore, reconciled by faith.\n\nBut we are said to be reconciled by the death and blood of Christ. How is\nthis? We have seen the source of our alienation: it lay not in God, but in\nourselves. God had not gone away from _us_; we went away from him. He had\nnot ceased to love us; but by a terrible reaction from our sinfulness, we\nhad ceased to believe in his love. \u201cGod\u2019s hand,\u201d says the prophet (Isa.\n59:2), \u201cis not shortened, that he cannot save, nor is _his_ ear grown\ndull, that he cannot hear; but _your_ iniquities have separated you from\nyour God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, that he doth not\nhear.\u201d By an immutable law of our mind, God\u2019s wrath abides on us, and we\ncannot believe in his love. Here is the source of our alienation. Now,\nmerely to be told that God is merciful does not wholly help the matter.\nTrue, we say, He _is_ merciful, but not to _us_; we have sinned too long\nand deeply. Something must be done, then, to _convince_ us that God is\nready to forgive and receive us freely. The death of Christ is the fact\nwhich produces this conviction. The death of Christ, therefore, is not\nmerely an _emblem_ of God\u2019s love, but an _act_ of God\u2019s love. It draws us\nto him. It changes our hearts. It melts our doubt, our distrust. It\nreveals to us our Father\u2019s love. The blood of Christ makes those who were\nafar off nigh. This all experience teaches as a _matter of fact_. It is\nthe cross of Christ, borne by the simple missionary, preached by the\ndevout Moravian, which, amid the ice of Greenland or beneath the burning\nsun of the tropic, reconciles the sinner to God.\n\nAnd if one asks _how_ the death of Christ does this, we will briefly\nindicate what we believe to be the way in which it operates. We look at\nChrist, and see the brightness of God\u2019s glory and express image of his\nperson. We see a holiness pure and perfect, a character infinitely\nbeautiful and lovely. We see how dear and near such a one must have been\nto God; and we hear God say, \u201cThis is my beloved Son, in whom I am well\npleased;\u201d and we hear him say of God, \u201cMy Father has not left me alone;\nfor I do _always_ the things which please him.\u201d\n\nAnd now we look at the world, and see it \u201clying in wickedness;\u201d we see men\ntrampling on God\u2019s law, polluting his image, cruelly oppressing each\nother, and boldly defying and mocking at the Almighty. What does he then?\nFor the sake of these miserable, weak, and wretched sinners, who seem\nscarcely worth the saving, he sends his holy child among them; he sends\nthis pure being to have his heart rent with the sight and knowledge of\nhuman sin; he sends him to be cruelly and shamefully killed by a death of\nagony, in order that _we_, sinful and miserable, may be reconciled. We\nsay, in the view of all this, \u201cHe who spared not his own Son, but\ndelivered him up for us, how shall he not _with_ him freely give us all\nthings?\u201d We say, \u201cGod commended his love towards us, in that, while we\nwere sinners, Christ died for us.\u201d \u201cHerein is love; not that we loved God,\nbut that he loved us.\u201d Christ, \u201cbeing lifted up, draws all men unto him.\u201d\nThus, in the midst of the gloom of that horrible scene on Calvary, when\nthe power of darkness was at its height,\u2014that crisis of the world, when\nhuman sin stood at the flood,\u2014the heavens were opened, and a new ray of\ndivine love poured into the world.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Result.\n\n\nLet us sum up, then, the doctrine of justification by faith, as we have\nnow explained it.\n\n1. JUSTIFICATION is not the doing away with all the consequences of sin,\nbut only the consequence which consists in present alienation from God. It\nis objectively, as a divine act, what _forgiveness_ is subjectively, as a\nhuman experience. It relates to _present_ acceptance with God; it is not\nthe cancelling of the results of our past sins on the character, nor is it\nthe hope of future salvation. It relates to the _present_.\n\nThe following passages show that justification is equivalent to\nreconciliation or forgiveness. Rom. 5:8-10: \u201cBut God commendeth his love\ntoward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much\nmore then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath\nthrough him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by\nthe death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by\nhis life.\u201d Rom. 4:6-8: \u201cDavid also describeth the blessedness of the man\nunto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying, Blessed are\nthey whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is\nthe man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.\u201d\n\n2. FAITH is not mere intellectual belief or opinion; nor is it mere\nfeeling, nor a mystical emotion in which we are wholly passive; but a\nsentiment, in which belief, feeling, and determination are blended\ntogether. The belief is that Christ is the Son of God; the feeling is\ntrust and joy in the love of God seen in him; and the determination is to\nrely on him as a Mediator and Saviour.\n\nThat faith is not a mere intellectual belief, but involves also a feeling\nof trust, appears from such passages as these: \u201cIf thou believe in thy\nheart;\u201d \u201cAn evil _heart_ of unbelief.\u201d\n\nThat faith is not a mere emotion, in which we are wholly passive, appears\nfrom such cases as those where men are exhorted to believe, as a thing in\ntheir own power.\n\n3. WORKS, in this doctrine, include every effort to reconcile God by\noffering him anything in expiation of our sin, whether sacrifices,\nsacraments, the assent to creeds, the struggle after feelings and\nexperiences, or reformation of character.\n\nAnd the whole doctrine of justification by faith may be thus expressed:\u2014\n\nIf you are burdened with a sense of unworthiness and guilt; if something\nseems to separate your heart from God; if you want confidence to come to\nhim boldly in prayer,\u2014do not try to remove this difficulty by any effort\nto do something different, or become something different; but simply look\nat Jesus in his sufferings and death, and see your heavenly Father calling\nyou to him _now_ to be forgiven. Go at once to God through Christ. Repose\non that love that will cleanse you, that will save you; and nevermore\ndoubt, even in your darkest hour, that your Father is ready to hear, to\nforgive, and bless you.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Its History in the Church.\n\n\nWe have seen the origin, nature, and value of this doctrine. Let us now\nlook at its history.\n\nThe apostolic Church was founded on the simple doctrine of faith in\nChrist. It was not founded on any theory or speculation _about_ Christ, or\nabout his plan of salvation, but on _Christ himself_ as the Saviour. All\nthat the first Christians professed was faith in Jesus as the Son of God.\nThey had been reconciled to God by him; they were at peace with God; they\nwere washed in the blood of the Lamb; and they were happy. A deep and\nwonderful joy brooded over the early church. A hurricane of persecution\nand war raged around them: within the Church, all was security and peace.\nHow beautiful are the expressions by which the apostles describe the\nserenity and joy of the Church! \u201cThey ate their meat in gladness and\nsingleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.\u201d\nNew converts \u201cgladly received the word, and were baptized\u201d by thousands,\nin the face of the bitterest persecution. \u201cThe multitude of them that\nbelieved were of one heart and one soul; neither said any of them, that\naught of the things that he possessed was his own.\u201d Whence came all this\npeace and union in the early Church? Was it because they had attained to\nsuch clear views of truth, and all held the same opinions? So far from it,\nsome had not heard that there was a Holy Ghost; others did not believe in\na resurrection of the dead; and many thought the whole Jewish ritual\nessential to salvation. Was it that they had become suddenly pure in\nheart, and holy in life, and freed from sin? So far from it, we find the\napostles exhorting them against very great vices,\u2014against murder, theft,\nand licentiousness,\u2014and condemning them for having practised gross\nimmoralities. It came from the simplicity of their faith. They looked to\nJesus, and their faces were lightened. They _saw_ the love of God in him;\nthey felt it in their hearts; they reposed on it undoubtingly. In\nquietness and confidence was their strength. O, happy days! in which men\u2019s\nminds had not yet been harassed by thousands of vain controversies and\nempty verbal disputes; by questions, and strifes of words; by most\nprofound theological discussions, ending in nothing but weariness; but\nwere satisfied, that, if men would go to Christ, they would find truth. O,\nhappy time! in which men had not learned to dissect their own hearts, and\npry curiously into their feelings, and torture themselves by anxious\nefforts to _feel_ right, and tormenting doubts as to whether their inward\nexperiences were as they ought to be, but believed that all good feelings\nwould come in their own time out of Christian faith. O, happy, golden\nhour! when love, and joy, and duty were all one; when men did not\nprescribe for themselves and others a task-work, an outward routine of\nduties; but had confidence, that, if they lived in the Spirit, they would\nalso walk in the Spirit.\n\nThat hour of simple, child-like faith passed away. Its decay appeared in a\nreturn to the old mode of justification. Instead of simply relying on what\nGod had done, men must do something themselves to atone for their sins;\nthey must do penance, and have priests, and sacraments, and masses, and\ncountless ceremonies to come between them and God; they must pile up a\ncumbrous fabric of religious and moral works, by which to climb up to God;\nuntil, at last, though the doctrine of justification by faith was never\ngiven up, it was made of none effect by the rubbish of human ceremonies\nheaped before it. And then came Luther, armed with the old doctrine, to\nsweep these all away, and call men back to the simple faith in the\nSaviour. The pure word of faith went forth through all lands, conquering\nand to conquer.\n\nBut there is a continual tendency to fall back again from faith upon\nworks. Ever as the life of religion weakens, ever as the strength of holy\nconfidence decays, men betake themselves to some outward forms or efforts.\nWhen they cease to lean on the love of God, they begin to lean on\nsacraments and ceremonies, on opinions and doctrines, on feelings and\nexperiences, on morality and works of duty. Ever, as the cold winter of\nworldliness and sin causes the stream of holy faith to shrink back into\nits channel, the ice of forms accumulates along its shores; and then, as\nthe inevitable consequence and sign of the decay of faith, we find the\nChurch becoming anxious and troubled, confidence giving way to anxiety,\ncheerfulness to gloom, hope to fear. Everything terrifies the unbelieving\nChurch; new opinions terrify it; new measures terrify it. It has ashes\ninstead of beauty, mourning for joy, the spirit of heaviness instead of\nthe garment of praise.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification by\nFaith.\n\n\nWe have said that there is a constant tendency to fall back from faith to\nworks of some kind or other. The important question comes, How is it with\nus _now_? Does this tendency show itself in our present churches? And the\nanswer we am compelled to make is, that _it does_, certainly to some\nextent, and in all the churches. Orthodox churches have fallen away, more\nor less, from the doctrine of justification by faith. They have fallen\nback from the central point of Christianity, faith in Jesus, in different\ndirections, and seek to be justified by a law,\u2014some upon a law of belief,\nand others on a law of emotion.\n\nDo not understand us as saying that any of the churches have denied, or\nthat they do not constantly teach, the doctrine of justification by faith.\nThis is not the point. The Romish Church never denied, nor ceased to\nteach, this doctrine; but she virtually abolished it, and made it of none\neffect by teaching other things also. Is not this, to some degree, the\ncase now?\n\nAre there not many Orthodox Christians, at the present time, who seek to\nmake their peace with God, not by relying on Jesus himself, but on some\ntheory with respect to his nature or person; not on his death, but on some\nspeculation _about_ his death,\u2014some theory, scheme, or plan? Is it not the\nidea of many, that they are to be brought to God, not by faith in Jesus\nand his death, but by assenting to the correct doctrine about it? and\naccordingly they anxiously labor, and make it a WORK, to believe in the\ntrue theory, in order that they may be brought to God. We do not say that\ncorrect opinions on these points are unimportant; but we say that the\nfaith in Christ which justifies us does not come from believing right\nopinions, but that right opinions come from the justifying faith. Are\nreligious teachers now willing to do as Paul did, and say simply,\n\u201c_Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ_\u201d? or do they not rather find it\nnecessary to say, \u201cBelieve this, that, and the other thing, about Jesus\nChrist\u201d?\n\nAnd again: is it not thought by Orthodox people, that, in order to be\njustified and have peace with God through Jesus Christ, it is necessary\nthat a person should experience certain feelings, beginning with a sense\nof guilt, a fear of punishment, and passing into a state of hope and\nassurance? And, accordingly, men make it a WORK, and labor, to have these\nfeelings in the precise order and manner, and, until they can experience\nthese feelings, believe that they can have no access to God. As before, we\ndo not mean that these feelings are unimportant, but only that we should\nnot try to work ourselves up into certain feelings in order to be just\nbefore God. It is faith in Jesus which is the _source_, not the _result_,\nof piety as well as of holiness. It is faith in God\u2019s love to us which\nenables us to love him. The sense of pardon produces both the feeling of\ngratitude and of unworthiness. God does not forgive us because we have had\nthe right feelings, but that we may have them. Those love much to whom\nmuch is forgiven; but to whom little is forgiven, the same love little.\n\nWere we ever struck with the remarkable contrast between the conversions\nto God in the apostolic time and those which we hear of now? How much more\n_simple_ they were! A man is riding in a chariot, reading his Bible, and\ntrying in vain to comprehend it. An apostle comes, and explains to him the\nprophecy, and applies it to Jesus. Presently they come to water, and he\nsays, \u201cSee, here is water;\u201d he is baptized, and goes on his way rejoicing.\nWe fear there are not many churches now who would receive that Ethiopian\nas a member, if he could give no further account of his religious\nexperience than is recorded in the book of Acts.\n\nBut is it not, we say again, remarkable, that not only in this case, but\nin all the cases of conversion recorded and described in the Acts, there\nshould be nothing of the descriptions which we read every week in our\nreligious newspapers? In the case of the three thousand baptized on the\nday of Pentecost, we only read that they were cut to the heart; said,\n\u201cWhat shall we do?\u201d were told to repent and be baptized; joyfully received\nthe word, and were baptized. Even the remarkable conversion of Paul was\nnothing like what we now have. How is this\u2014that now we are not willing to\ntrust to a simple act of faith in Jesus Christ, and in turning to God; but\nwe have a scale and rule of religious experience\u2014a work which all must go\nthrough in order to be justified?\n\nAnd what is the result of thus substituting for justification by faith,\njustification by belief in opinions, and by processes of feeling? Look at\nthe churches where this has been carried farthest, and see the result.\nReligion becomes gloomy, anxious, and austere; it ceases to breathe\ncheerfulness and joy around; the gentler graces die before it; fear treads\nfast in the footsteps of hope; a stiff formality introduces cant in the\nplace of what is natural and artless; the heart is stretched on a rack of\nself-torturing doubts and anxieties. The biographies and private journals\nof many eminent saints show us how little happiness they had in their\nreligion,\u2014how they were tortured by spiritual doubts, perplexities, and\nanxieties. The reason is, that they rely on their _own_ feelings, instead\nof relying on Christ.\n\nAnd with the reliance placed on theory and opinion vanishes the union of\nthe Church. There are five sects in this country, all holding to the\nAssembly\u2019s Catechism\u2014a large and minute compendium of opinions,\u2014and yet\nwhich often do not allow each other to commune at the Lord\u2019s table. The\nNew School Presbyterians might permit the others to commune with _them_,\nbut are themselves excluded. The Old School Presbyterians would commune\nwith all but the New, but are not permitted. Nay, the Associate Reformed,\nthe Covenanters, and the Seceders carry it so far as to discipline and\nexcommunicate their members for what is called _occasional hearing_; i.e.,\nattending worship at other churches than their own. There was in the State\nof Indiana an Old School preacher, and president of a college, who refused\nto allow a Unitarian to give a literary address which the students had\nasked him to give, and which he had gone to deliver, and, in defending\nhimself for this, called him a \u201cpublic propagator of infidelity;\u201d and\nwithin a mile or two of his college there was a society of Seceders, or\nCovenanters, holding, like himself, the Assembly\u2019s Confession, who would\nexcommunicate any of their members who should go to hear him preach.\n\nThere is, then, a tendency among the Orthodox to rely on their own opinion\nand their own feelings, rather than on Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Errors of Liberal Christians.\n\n\nLiberal Christians have fallen into error of a different sort. They seek\nto be justified, not by opinion nor by feeling, but by action; by works of\nrighteousness, honesty, charity; by the faithful performance of social\nduties; by an active obedience to the law of God. Looking at the\nScriptures, and seeing in how many places we are plainly taught that we\nare to work out our own salvation; to be rewarded and punished according\nto our active goodness; to be judged by our works,\u2014they say that a man is\nforgiven when he has corrected his fault, and not before; that repentance\nand reformation are the only means of atonement with God; that, if we wish\nto be forgiven, we must reform our conduct and change our character.\nAccordingly, they lay great stress on DUTY, and are continually exhorting\nmen to the performance of their duties in order to be forgiven.\n\nBut there is a mistake here also, which arises from confounding two very\ndifferent things; namely, justification and final salvation. We have seen\nthat the consequences of sin are twofold\u2014external and internal. The inward\nconsequence of sin is separation from God; the external is the weakening\nand debasing of the soul. The first consequence is removed by faith; the\nsecond, by obedience. Every act of sin pollutes, darkens, and ruins the\nsoul; every act of obedience strengthens, elevates, and saves it.\nObedience, persevered in to the end, insures the salvation of the soul.\nBut, in order that we may obey, we must first be justified; for what is to\ngive us the strength and the heart to obey, except the pardoning love of\nGod? It is this sense of reconciliation,\u2014it is this spirit of adoption,\nwhereby we cry, \u201cAbba, Father,\u201d\u2014which gives us the power to obey. We do\nnot obey God to be forgiven; but we are forgiven that we may obey. Have we\nread the Gospels, and have we forgotten all the instances in which Jesus\nsaid, \u201cThy sins are forgiven thee,\u201d before there had been any change of\nconduct, or reform of character? and have we forgotten the memorable\npassage in which he explains to the captious Pharisee why he does this\n(Luke 7:36-50),\u2014on the principle that the one to whom the most is forgiven\nwill love the most?\n\nTo point out to men their duties, and tell them to do them, does not\nenable them to do them; but the sight of God\u2019s love in Jesus Christ _does_\ncreate in them new strength. That true follower of Jesus, the first of our\nMinisters at Large, Dr. Tuckerman, did not say to the poor victim of sin,\nthat when he reformed his conduct, he would be his friend. No: like his\nMaster, he showed himself his friend while he was yet a sinner, and so\ngave him hope and courage to break away from his sin. He has left on\nrecord one of the most touching instances of the power of love to melt\ndown the impenitent heart, in the case of a convict whom he persisted in\nvisiting, though he was perfectly hardened, and filled with bitterness and\nrage. He persisted in patient attempts to soften his heart, till he\nsucceeded, by the irresistible power of love, in making him humble as a\nlittle child. Suppose he had sent him word, that if he repented, and\nshowed the proper spirit, he would come and visit him. He had not so\nlearned God or Christ. He knew that he must overcome evil with good.\nExactly so does God overcome our evil with good.\n\nTo tell men to do their duties that they may be forgiven, is to tell them\nto do what they have no power to do. A confident reliance on God\u2019s love,\nand steadfast communion with him, are the only source of real improvement.\nWhen we feel these, we are one with God; when we can go to him\nconfidently, as children to a father; when we can betake ourselves to his\nlove in every emergency of life,\u2014we have a source of real strength, and\ngrowth, and improvement within us. But, without this feeling of peace with\nGod, the effort to do our duties only harasses and irritates our\nconscience: it produces weariness of heart, a constant feeling of\nunworthiness and failure, a constant sense of obligations and\nresponsibilities which we do not and cannot fulfil. Duty is a weary task,\na heavy burden; and our life is crushed down by constant anxiety and care.\nBut if we begin right, and come to God first, and lean on his love, and\nrely on his promise, then we are filled with hope and joyful assurance,\nand failure does not dismay us, for we say, \u201cGod\u2019s truth is pledged for\nour success; and if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by\nthe death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by\nhis life.\u201d\n\nIt may be objected that it is dangerous to religion to admit that we can\nbe justified before we have believed certain important doctrines or\nexperienced certain peculiar feelings. It may also be objected, on the\nother hand, that it is dangerous to morality to suppose that pardon can\nprecede reformation. But the more we read the Scriptures, the more we look\ninto our own heart, and the more we become acquainted with our fellow-men,\nthe deeper is our conviction, that there is but one source of true piety\nand sound morality\u2014a heart reconciled to God, and at peace with him. We do\nnot undervalue correct belief, deep feeling, or active obedience; but we\nplace them where they belong. They are the fruit of the tree, not the root\nof the tree. The root and source and beginning of all piety and holiness\nis simple faith in God through Christ. We must ask ourselves, therefore,\nfirst of all, \u201cAre we reconciled to God, or are we not? Are we living in\nfilial communion with him, or living without him in the world?\u201d If\nunreconciled, we must not think to work ourselves up into a degree of\ngoodness or pious feeling without God. There is no strength where there is\nno confidence, where there is nothing to lean on, where there is\nhollowness within. We ought to come at once to God. We ought to lift our\nhearts to him, not saying, \u201cWho shall go up to heaven for us, to bring him\nto us? Who shall go over the sea for us?\u201d For his word is very nigh, in\nour mouth and heart.\n\nThe above discussion will show what we consider to be the truths, and what\nthe errors, in the Orthodox view of justification by faith.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement.\n\n\nThe subject of this chapter is the Orthodox doctrine of the work of\nChrist, and especially of the atonement.\n\nNo doctrine of Orthodoxy is more difficult to state to the satisfaction of\nthe Orthodox than this. The reason is, that there is no doctrine\nconcerning which the Orthodox differ so much among themselves. There is no\ndifficulty in stating the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; for this is\nthe same, or nearly the same, in the symbols of all the Orthodox sects.\nThe Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is essentially the same with\nthat of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal Churches. But\nnot so with the doctrine of Christ\u2019s reconciling and atoning work. This\nhas taken every form in past history, and is altogether unsettled at the\npresent time. Usually, many views are mingled together in modern\nOrthodoxy; and while all Orthodox teachers use the same language, speaking\nof the death of Christ as \u201catonement,\u201d \u201cexpiation,\u201d \u201cvicarious sacrifice,\u201d\n\u201csin-offering,\u201d \u201csubstitution,\u201d \u201csatisfaction,\u201d yet they connect with\nthese words very different ideas. Such is the testimony of an eminent\nOrthodox divine, who speaks thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere is a general concurrence in the words _vicarious_, _expiation_,\n_offering_, _substitute_, and the like, but no agreement as to the manner\nin which they are to get their meaning. Sometimes the analogy of criminal\nlaw is taken; and then our sins are spoken of as being transferred to\nChrist, or he as having accepted them to bear their penalty. Sometimes the\ncivil or commercial law furnishes the analogy; and then, our sins being\ntaken as a debt, Christ offers himself as a ransom for us. Or the analogy\nof the ceremonial law is accepted; and then Christ is set forth as a\npropitiatory or expiatory offering to obtain remission of sins for us.\nRegarding Christ as suffering for us in one or another of these Scripture\nforms or figures taken as the literal dogmatic truth, we have as many\ndistinct theories. Then, again, different as these figures are from each\nother, they will yet be used interchangeably, all in the sense of one or\nanother of them. And then, again, to double the confusion yet once more,\nwe have two sets of representations produced under each, accordingly as\nChrist is conceived to offer himself to Jehovah\u2019s justice, or as Jehovah\nis conceived himself to prepare the offering out of his own mercy.\n\n\u201cOn the whole, I know of no definite and fixed point on which the Orthodox\nview, so called, may be said to hang, unless it be this, viz., that Christ\nsuffers evil as evil, or in direct and simple substitution for evil that\nwas to be suffered by us; so that God accepts one evil in place of the\nother, and, being satisfied in this manner, is able to justify or pardon.\n\n\u201cAs to the measure of this evil, there are different opinions. Calvin\nmaintained the truly horrible doctrine, that Christ descended into hell\nwhen crucified, and suffered the pains of the damned for three days. A\nvery great number of the Christian teachers, even at this day, maintain\nthat Christ suffered exactly as much pain as all the redeemed would have\nsuffered under the penalties of eternal justice. But this penal view of\nChrist\u2019s death has been gradually giving way, till now, under its most\nmodern, most mitigated, and least objectionable form, he is only said to\nhave suffered under a law of _expression_.\n\n\u201cThus God would have expressed a certain abhorrence of sin by the\npunishment of the world. Christ now suffers only as much pain as will\nexpress the same amount of abhorrence. And considering the dignity of the\nSufferer, and his relations to the Father, there was no need of suffering\nthe same, or even any proximate amount of pain, to make an expression of\nabhorrence to sin, that is, of justice, equal to that produced by the\nliteral punishment of the race. Still, it will be seen to be a part of\nthis more mitigated view, that Christ suffers evil as evil; which evil\nsuffered is accepted as a compensative expression of God\u2019s indignation\nagainst sin. Accordingly, in the agony of Gethsemane, and when the Saviour\nexclaims in his passion, \u2018My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u2019 it\nwill be taken for literal truth, that the frown of God, or divine justice,\nrested on his soul.\n\n\u201cIt will probably be right, then, to distribute the views of those who are\naccepted now as Orthodox teachers, into two classes\u2014one who consider the\ndeath of Christ as availing by what it _is_; the other, by force of what\nit _expresses_; the former holding it as a literal substitution of evil\nendured for evil that was to be endured; the latter holding it as an\nexpression of abhorrence to sin, made, through the suffering of one, in\nplace of the same expression that was to be made by the suffering of many.\n\n\u201cAs regards the former class of representations, we may say,\ncomprehensively, that they are capable, one and all, of no light in which\nthey do not even offend some right moral sentiment of our being. Indeed,\nthey raise up moral objections with such marvellous fecundity, that we can\nhardly state them as fast as they occur to us.\u201d(19)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine.\n\n\nBut, notwithstanding the fact that there is such confusion in the minds of\nthe Orthodox about this doctrine, there is, nevertheless, no doctrine the\nbelief in which is regarded as so important. With respect to other\ndoctrines,\u2014the Trinity, for example,\u2014dogmatic Christianity declares our\nsalvation to depend upon our belief of it; but in regard to the atonement,\nit goes farther, and makes our salvation depend on using the phraseology\nof the doctrine. Other doctrines will save us, on the condition of\nbelieving them; this, on the condition of using the language. If a man\nshall lead a life of purity and goodness, but expresses doubts concerning\nthis doctrine, his Orthodox friends will have scarcely any hope of his\nsalvation; but if the most depraved criminal, after a life steeped in\nwickedness, shall merely say on his death-bed, that he hopes \u201cto be saved\nby the atoning blood of Christ,\u201d he is thought immediately to be on the\nfair way to heaven. No matter how good a man is, if he does not accept the\nOrthodox language on this point, his friends _fear_ for him: no matter how\nbad he is, if he does accept it, they _hope_ for him. There is a sort of\nmagical power attributed to the very words. They are almost supposed to\nact like a talisman or a charm.\n\nNow, while we reject all such superstitious views of the power of mere\nwords, while we reject all false meaning and all no meaning, it is proper\nto think that there may be some substantial truth in these Orthodox\nopinions concerning the atonement. Let us endeavor to find what this vital\ntruth really is, and why this doctrine is so dear to the heart of\nOrthodoxy.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture.\n\n\nConsider the stress laid on the sufferings of Jesus in the New Testament.\nNotice what our Saviour says himself: \u201cThis is my blood of the New\nCovenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.\u201d \u201cThe bread\nthat I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the\nworld.\u201d \u201cFor as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so\nmust the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should\nnot perish, but have eternal life.\u201d \u201cI am the good shepherd: the good\nshepherd giveth his life for the sheep.\u201d\n\nConsider, again, what is said on this subject in the Epistles. \u201cJesus\nChrist, whom God hath set forth as a mercy seat through faith in his\nblood.\u201d \u201cWhen we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of\nhis Son.\u201d \u201cHe died for our sins.\u201d \u201cHe is sacrificed for us.\u201d \u201cHe gave\nhimself for our sins.\u201d \u201cWe have redemption through his blood, even the\nforgiveness of sin.\u201d \u201cHaving made peace through the blood of his cross.\u201d\n\u201cHe gave himself a ransom for all.\u201d \u201cHe washed us from our sins through\nhis blood.\u201d \u201cBy whose stripes we are healed.\u201d \u201cThough he were a Son, yet\nlearned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made\nperfect, became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey\nhim.\u201d Again: \u201cBut we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the\nangels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he,\nby the grace of God, should taste death for every man. For it became him,\nfor whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons\nunto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through\nsufferings.\u201d \u201cWherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto\nhis brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in\nthings pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the\npeople. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to\nsuccor them that are tempted.\u201d\n\nThese are some of the passages which connect the sufferings of Jesus\nChrist with sin on the one hand, and salvation on the other.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages.\n\n\nThere is a difficulty, however, in understanding the meaning and feeling\nthe force of such texts as these. This difficulty consists in the fact\nthat these passages are constantly quoted as proof texts. From our\nchildhood up we have heard them brought forward to prove the truth of some\nparticular doctrine or theory of atonement, and when we read these verses,\nwe immediately associate them with some doctrine which we like or dislike.\nOur feelings and prejudices are involved in interpreting the passage one\nway or the other, so that we are unable to look at it fairly. In order to\novercome this difficulty, we must make this obvious distinction. We must\ndistinguish between the statement of a fact and the theory concerning it.\nThe fact which the Bible states is simply this\u2014that the sins of man were\nthe occasion of Christ\u2019s death, and that by his death he saves us from our\nsin. This is the fact which the Scriptures assert. The way in which he\nsaves us is a matter of theory. Why it was that human sin made it\nnecessary for Christ to die, how it is that his death reconciles us to\nGod,\u2014this belongs to the theory.\n\nNow, while the Scriptures say a great deal about the fact that Christ\u2019s\nsufferings save us from our sins, they say very little as regards the way\nin which they save us from our sins.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language of the New\nTestament.\n\n\nThe Scriptures state the fact; the theologians have supplied the\nexplanations. Innumerable have been the theories devised by theology to\nshow in what way the sufferings of Christ have availed for the salvation\nof men\u2014theories of imputation, theories of substitution, theories of\nsatisfaction. He was punished in our place; he paid our debt; he was our\nfederal head and representative; he satisfied the justice of God; he\nappeased the wrath of God. But especially are the figures and metaphors of\nthe New Testament pressed into the service of theology, and made the basis\nof grave theories. Thus are metaphors turned into metaphysics, and\nrhetoric changed to logic. The images of the New Testament were naturally\ntaken from familiar objects and transactions, especially from war, from\nslavery, and from the Jewish ritual. Sin is our enemy, who has conquered\nus in battle, and made us his prisoners. Christ redeems us from this\ncaptivity, and pays our ransom. Sin is a cruel master, and we are his\nslaves. He is about to torture us with the rod. Christ comes and takes our\npunishment on himself. He bears our stripes. According to the Jewish\nritual the paschal feast was a commemoration of God\u2019s mercy. It was to the\nJews what Thanksgiving Day is to the people of New England. So the\nChristians said Christ is our Passover. In the Jewish ritual God was\nbelieved to manifest himself over the mercy seat in the inner sanctuary of\nthe temple. The Christians said, Christ is our mercy seat. All this was\nnatural; but these images have been turned into elaborate theories by the\ntheologians who have argued that Christ\u2019s death was a literal ransom, a\nliteral mercy seat, and a literal passover.\n\nThese theories have mostly passed by. The common Orthodox theory in New\nEngland now is much more reasonable, but unfortunately much less\nscriptural. It is founded on the analogy of human government. God is\ncompared to a wise and kind ruler, who governs by law, and who wishes to\npardon the penitent criminal, but fears that if he does so, he will impair\nthe respect felt for his law, and therefore thinks it necessary to do\nsomething to show the evil of disobedience before he can pardon. Christ is\nwilling to die in order to make this impression on the minds of men. And\nthis he accordingly does. But unfortunately, as we said, there is nothing\nin the Scripture, not even a metaphorical expression, to support this\ntheory. The apostles did not have recourse for their figures and images to\nsuch usage of government, and that for the simple reason that no such\nusage or necessity then existed. The governments were all despotic, and no\ndespot, wishing to pardon, had any difficulty on the ground that the\nsanctity of his laws might be impaired.\n\nWar, slavery, and the Jewish ritual, and household usages existed. Their\nimages were taken from these. They spoke of ransom, of stripes, of the\npassover, and the mercy seat, of washing and healing, but not of\ngovernments and laws.\n\nSin is our conqueror, and Christ redeems us. Sin is a slavery, and Christ\nransoms us. Sin is defilement, and Christ washes us. Sin is a disease, and\nChrist heals us. All this occurs again and again, but nothing occurs about\nconstitutional governments, or conflicts between the claims of justice and\nmercy.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement\u2014warlike, legal, and\ngovernmental.\n\n\nThree principal views on this subject have prevailed in the Christian\nChurch as Orthodox. The first may be called the _warlike_ view of Christ\u2019s\nwork, the second may be called the _legal_ view, and the third the\n_governmental_ view. The first was the prevailing Orthodox view from the\nearliest times till the middle ages, and is based on the idea of a\nconflict or war between Christ and the Devil for the soul of man. The\nDevil had gained possession of the human race in consequence of its sin.\nThe right of the Devil over men was fully admitted. Augustine considered\nit as the right of property, Leo the Great as the right of a conqueror.\nChrist gave his own life to the Devil as a ransom, which was adequate to\nredeem the whole race. This theory rested on the literal interpretation of\nthe words \u201cransom\u201d and \u201credemption.\u201d If Christ\u2019s death was a _ransom_, if\nhe came \u201cto give his life a ransom for many,\u201d the question naturally\narose, \u201c_From_ whose power were men redeemed, and to whom was the ransom\npaid?\u201d Certainly, men were not redeemed from the power of God. The ransom\ncould not have been paid to God, but to some enemy who held us as his\nprisoners. The only possible answer, therefore, is, that the ransom was\npaid to the Devil. The Devil was the cruel tyrant who had enslaved us. He\nhad a right to do so; for we had become his slaves through our sin. But he\nhad no right over Christ, for Christ had committed no sin; so that the\ndeath of Christ was a free offering to the Devil to redeem the race.\nAccording to this view, therefore, the atonement was made to the Devil.\n\nBut in the middle ages another view of the atonement became Orthodox,\nfounded not upon the idea of a ransom, but on that of a _debt_. According\nto this view the divine law requires that the debt which man owes to God,\nwhich is perfect obedience, shall be paid, either by himself or by some\none else. Anselm, the founder of this theory, defined sin \u201cas not giving\nto God his due.\u201d Man cannot pay this debt himself, and therefore Christ\npays it for him. This is the legal view of the atonement, or perhaps we\nmight rather call it the commercial view.\n\nBut this theory, after having endured as Orthodox for some five hundred\nyears, gave place to a third, based not on the idea of a ransom or of a\ndebt, but of a state necessity. It would not do for God, as a moral\nGovernor, to forgive sin, unless by some great example an impression could\nbe made of the evil of sin. This impression is produced by the death of\nChrist, who therefore died not to atone for past sin, but to prevent\nfuture sin, or, in other words, to make a moral impression on the human\nmind. This is the popular theory of the atonement held by the Orthodox at\nthe present time. But it is very much mixed up with the others. The\ndifferent views held by modern Orthodoxy range all the way from the old\nCalvinism of Princeton, through the various shades of New England\ntheology, to the latest form expressed by Dr. Horace Bushnell in his\nrecent work on \u201cVicarious Sacrifice.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Impression made by Christ\u2019s Death on the Minds of his Disciples.\nFirst Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\n\nThe sufferings of Jesus produced a wonderful impression on the minds of\nhis disciples. This impression was compounded of astonishment, tenderness,\nand gratitude. That a man so divine in character, in wisdom, in a command\nover nature, should submit willingly to such labor, ignominy, and anguish,\nwas a wonder to them. But there was a mystery of sorrow beneath the\nvisible sorrow, a pain within the pain, a depth of grief felt not for\nhimself, but for others, an anguish on account of the sin of the world,\nwhich especially awed and touched them. Christ plunged into the midst of\nsin to save souls, as a hero rushes into the midst of burning flames to\nsave lives. No man like Jesus had ever felt such anguish and horror at the\nsight of sin; but instead of flying from it, he came into the midst of it\nto save the sinner. This was the secret of his agony, the bitterness of\nhis cup. Martyrs at the stake are borne up by their own triumphant\nself-approval. But Jesus, in his anguish, did not think of his own\ntriumph, but the sin and sorrow of those who afflicted him. \u201cDaughters of\nJerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children.\u201d\n\u201cFather, forgive them; they know not what they do.\u201d This is the secret of\nChrist\u2019s anguish\u2014this infinite horror of sin joined to an infinite love\nfor the sinner.\n\nThrough this depth of sorrow there came to the minds of the apostles a\nrevelation of the evil of sin and the infinite compassion of God, which\nproduced penitence, hope, and love. The dying Christ reconciled them to\nGod. This they felt and declared; they did not attempt to explain how, but\nby images and metaphors drawn from all familiar objects, they declared\nthat Christ\u2019s sorrows more than his glory, his patience rather than his\npower, his death more than his life, had withdrawn their hearts from sin,\nand given them peace with God.\n\nOne writer alone in the New Testament attempts an explanation of this\ninfluence. It is only an attempt, a mere hint, the germ of a theology: it\nis found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.(20)\n\nAccording to these passages Christ suffered,\u20141. To learn obedience; 2.\nThat he might thus become perfect; 3. By an entire cultivation of his\nsympathies with the tempted; 4. So as to become to them the author of\neternal salvation by reconciling them to God.\n\nThis, we may observe, so far as it goes, is really a theory of atonement,\nand not a mere statement of the fact. Moreover, it seems to us to contain\nthe germ of a far nobler and deeper theory than any in which the Church\nhas hitherto believed. It is more human, more rational, connected more\nwith real experience and the solid facts of life.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education.\n\n\nThe sufferings of Christ were necessary for his own perfection, and\nsuffering in some form or other is necessary for all perfection. It is\noften said that suffering in this world is casual, an accidental thing,\narising from human mistakes, and that the time will come in which man will\ngrow up into perfection without suffering. A perpetual sunlight is thought\nto be the best condition for the human plant. Pain and want stunt its\ngrowth, winter storms arrest its development; and so it is supposed that\nif we can get rid of this element of suffering, human beings will soon\nbecome all they ought to be. But the poet speaks more wisely who says,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cTo each their sufferings: all are men\n    Condemned alike to groan;\n    The feeling for another\u2019s woe,\n    The unfeeling for his own.\u201d\n\n\nFor suppose that we could remove from the world all outward evil\u2014get rid\nof sickness, pain, poverty, death. Would not the worst part of evil still\nremain? Would not discontent, selfishness, envy, wilfulness, cruelty,\nself-indulgence continue? All these exist\u2014perhaps exist most\nfrequently\u2014where there is the least of outward evil; and the outward evil\nis the bitter medicine which comes by and by as a cure.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some Satisfaction in order\nto our Forgiveness.\n\n\nThe central idea of the atonement is, that Christ has done something which\nenables God to forgive us our sin; and the reason why this doctrine of\natonement seems so precious is, that we feel that there is a real\ndifficulty in the way of forgiveness,\u2014as if something else were necessary\nbesides repentance,\u2014as if some compensation or reparation should be made\nsomehow to the offended law of God, or to the aggrieved holiness of God.\nWe do not say that this feeling is a true feeling: that question we must\nconsider afterwards. But it is, at any rate, a natural feeling, whether it\nbe founded on our knowledge of God or our ignorance of God. It is hard to\nbelieve that a _man_ whom we have injured will forgive us that injury\nmerely because we ask him to do so, and are sorry for what we have done.\nWe feel that we must make some reparation before he can or ought to\nforgive us. Unquestionably, the conscience is the source of this feeling.\nIt led Zaccheus to say, \u201cIf I have done any man wrong, I restore him\nfour-fold.\u201d A full reparation for an injury, accompanied with sorrow for\nhaving done it, the expression of which sorrow is confession, satisfies\nthe conscience. Having done this, we feel that we have a right to be\nforgiven.\n\nBut it is very seldom that such full reparation can be made. The\nconsequences of our wrong acts cannot usually be removed or effaced.\nWrong-doing is like the gate of hell\u2014easy to open, but difficult, if not\nimpossible, to close again. \u201cShe opened, _but to shut_ excelled her\npower.\u201d Instead of reparation, therefore, the conscience substitutes\nretribution\u2014either reparation or the penalty; and the natural form of the\npenalty is an equivalent. Natural justice says, \u201cAn eye for an eye, a\ntooth for a tooth.\u201d This the conscience thinks right; this is justice. All\nless than this is mercy; all more than this is revenge.\n\nWe think that if we analyze the feeling which the conscience gives us\nconcerning the consequences of wrong-doing, it is this: First, conscience\ndemands reparation to the injured party; second, it demands punishment as\na satisfaction to be made to the law of right, and this suffering to be\naccepted as just by the guilty party; and thirdly, it declares that guilt\nshould produce an alienation or separation between the guilty party and\nthose who are not guilty.\n\nTo illustrate all this, let us suppose a case. A man, hitherto respected\nand trusted by society commits some great breach of trust, and robs the\ncommunity. What does the conscience in such a case demand? First, that he\nshould give up his property, and make, if he can, full restitution;\nsecond, that he should endure some suffering\u2014that he should not continue\nto enjoy, as before, all his accustomed privileges; and third, that he\nshould not retain his standing in society, and receive, as before, the\ncountenance and esteem of honorable persons. Conscience requires that he\nshould make atonement to those he has injured by restitution; to the law\nof right, which he has offended, by suffering some punishment; and to\nhonorable men by keeping out of their way.\n\nThis, which the conscience teaches of an injury done to man, it also\nteaches of an injury done to God. The offence against man is _a crime_;\nthe offence against God is _a sin_. For a crime, the conscience requires\nrestitution, punishment with confession, and alienation from the good,\nwhich is shame. For a sin, the conscience requires, in like manner,\nrestitution, punishment, and alienation. It merely transfers to God\u2019s\njustice the ideas of atonement which human justice has given to it.\n\nBut God\u2019s justice is not like man\u2019s. The ideas of atonement so abstracted\nare essentially false; and to convince us of their falsehood is one of the\nobjects of Christ\u2019s death. It is to show us that God does _not_ demand\nthis full restitution, does _not_ intend to inflict this punishment, and\nis _not_ alienated from the penitent sinner. The death of Christ has done\nthis.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God.\n\n\nAs a matter of fact, the death of Christ has enabled men to come to God.\n\u201cThey who were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.\u201d As a matter\nof fact, it has lifted men above the fear of God into the love of God. And\nthis must be a divine work. Not the mere death of the human being could\nhave done this; but the God who dwelt in him has uttered his tender love,\nhis forgiving grace, from the cross. \u201cGod was in Christ, reconciling the\nworld unto himself.\u201d The death of Christ is an expression of God\u2019s free\ngrace. If we regard Christ, in his life and character, as a manifestation\nof God\u2019s will, then his pathetic and tender death reveals to us that God\nloves us even when we are sinners, before reparation or repentance; \u201cfor,\nwhile we were sinners, Christ died for us.\u201d\n\nThere is, however, a difficulty in _believing_ that we can be forgiven.\nThis difficulty is in the conscience; and,\u2014\n\n(_a._) To say _there is no difficulty_, will not remove it.\n\n(_b._) To say that _repentance and good works_ are enough, will not remove\nit.\n\n(_c._) To say that _God is merciful_, will not remove it; for the\ndifficulty lies in the _conscience_, which declares that every sin is,\u2014\n\n1. An injury done to God.\n\n2. An injury to the moral universe; inasmuch as it is an example of evil,\nand a defiance of right.\n\n3. An injury to ourselves, by putting us away from God, the source of\nlife, and alienating us from him.\n\nNow, it is true that the New Testament says, \u201cRepent, and be converted,\nand your sins shall be blotted out;\u201d \u201cBelieve, and be saved.\u201d It is true\nthat if we will believe ourselves forgiven, we shall be forgiven. But how\ncan we believe it, when the inward voice of conscience is always saying\nthat God ought not to forgive us without some reparation made for the\ninjury done to himself, to the universe, and to ourselves?\n\nWe need something to believe in\u2014some manifestation, some object. Something\nwe need done by God to assure us that he is in earnest in desiring us to\ncome and be reconciled to him.\n\nNow, the _sufferings and death_ of Christ seem to be this object: they\nenable us to believe in forgiveness, and so to be forgiven; they meet the\ndifficulty of the conscience, and relieve it of its threefold\nembarrassment. For, in regard to the injury done to God, Christ\u2019s\nsufferings are substitution, or vicarious suffering. I do not say\nvicarious _punishment_. The innocent cannot be _punished_ in the place of\nthe guilty; but he can suffer, and constantly _does_ suffer, in the place\nof the guilty. These two laws are announced in the Old Testament: \u201cThe\nsoul that sinneth, it shall die;\u201d \u201cThe wickedness of parents shall be on\nthe children.\u201d If a man is alone, he must bear _all_ the consequences of\nhis sins; but if he have friends and children, they will relieve him of\nsome by their self-sacrificing kindness: their _sufferings_ take the place\nof his _punishment_. How often a wife does this!\u2014interposing her\nsufferings between her husband\u2019s sins and their penalty. And what a\nprofound impression is made by it of the evil of sin! It torments innocent\nwomen and children; it shipwrecks the peace of a family. What an effect is\nproduced on the man himself! What a reproach and tender rebuke to him is\nthis! The sufferings of Christ are _substituted_ in this way for ours,\naccording to this law; and this divine substitution is continued in the\nsacrifices of Christians. Missionaries and martyrs, by their zeal,\npatience, and generosity, carry out the sacrifice of Christ. This is God\nin Christ working in us and in the Church, and working for sinners.\n\nThen, as to the _injury to the world_ by the contempt sin does to the law,\nthe sufferings of Christ are _satisfaction_: they satisfy the divine law;\nthey make an impression of the importance of the law. But here, again, it\nis not merely Christ alone who does it, but God in Christ, and Christ in\nthe Church, who honor the divine law by the respect produced for it. They\nbring us to repentance; they make us feel the sinfulness of sin; show us\nthe misery it causes to those who love us,\u2014how it pains God, pains Christ,\npains the good, and pains our friends. So we feel it, and show it by true\npenitence, and so honor the law. The law is _satisfied_ when the\nsufferings of Christ and his followers, caused by sin, lead men to abhor\nsin, and love righteousness.\n\nAs to the injury which _sin does to a man himself_ by separating him from\nGod\u2019s love, and making him at enmity with God, and God\u2019s wrath on him, the\nsufferings of Christ are _reconciliation_. \u201cGod was in Christ, reconciling\nthe world to himself.\u201d Why was God alienated from man? Because he is holy.\nHow can an unholy person be at one with a holy God? The answer is this:\nGod comes into his heart by Christ, to form Christ within him, and to make\nhim holy as Christ was holy. He sees that when united with Christ his\nsinfulness is killed in its roots, and a seed of perfect purity is planted\nin his soul; and so God is able to be at one with him through his union\nwith Christ: \u201cI in them, and thou in me, that we may be perfectly at one.\u201d\nA love for Christ in the heart forms Christ within us. He is our life, our\nmotive power, our aim; and so he casts out the root of our sin, and brings\nus to God.\n\nThus we see that, even though we should reject all the Orthodox theories\nabout atonement, we may accept the fact. We can believe that God in Christ\n_does_ reconcile the world to himself,\u2014_does_ create a sense of pardoned\nsin,\u2014_does_ remove the weight of transgression,\u2014_does_ take away the\nobstacle in our conscience,\u2014_does_ help us into a living faith, hope,\npeace, and joy.\n\nMoreover, Christ is really a sacrifice for sin\u2014a real and true\nsin-offering. For what were the sin-offerings under the law? How did they\nremove sin? Not by themselves (it was impossible for the blood of bulls\nand goats to remove sin), but because they were an appointment of God, and\nso showed God\u2019s disposition. They showed that his holiness was displeased\nwith evil; they showed that he loved the sinner, and wished to make him\nholy. So the death of Christ is a true sacrifice in exactly the same way,\nbut in a higher degree, convincing us of the evil of sin and the love of\nGod.\n\nThe experience of the whole Church teaches the power of this faith to\ncreate in our souls a new life of love. Seeing God coming to us in Christ\nto reconcile us to himself, and freely forgiving our sins, removes from\nour hearts doubt, anxiety, and the burden of hard responsibility, and\nfills the soul with a deep peace and joy in believing. So felt the apostle\nPeter when the Master forgave him his denial. From the fountain of that\nforgiveness flowed forth a river of devotion. So felt Paul when forgiven\nby Jesus; so felt Augustine, so Ambrose, so Luther, so Wesley: because\nthey had been forgiven much, they loved much; for to whom little is\nforgiven, the same loveth little.\n\nThe practical conclusion is, that it is less important to speculate as to\nthe _how_, than to endeavor to see the fact. What we need is faith in\nGod\u2019s pardoning, redeeming, saving love in Christ Jesus\u2014faith that our\nsins are blotted out; that we can come at once to our Father; that we can\ncome boldly to the throne of grace; that the infinite Father looks at us\nwith love when we are a great way off, and says, \u201cThis my son was dead,\nand is alive again; was lost, and is found.\u201d\n\nWe may therefore, when we are conscious of going wrong and of doing wrong,\ninstead of trying to reform ourselves alone by our own strength, go first\nto God, and be forgiven through faith in the great sacrifice of Christ:\n\u201cWhen God hath set forth to be a propitiation (or mercy seat), through\nfaith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins\nthat are past, through the forbearance of God, that he might be just, and\nthe justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal.\n\n\nOrthodoxy, in all its theories concerning the influence of the death of\nJesus, has supposed his case exceptional and his work peculiar. It would\nbe very shocking to most Orthodox minds to suppose that the same law of\nvicarious sacrifice applies to others; that the sufferings and death of\nthe good, in all ages, have helped to atone for evil; have enabled sinners\nto obtain pardon. But such, we believe, is the fact.\n\nJesus Christ came, providentially, as the typical and perfect man\u2014the one\nwho was sent by God, in his providence, to illustrate what humanity is to\nbe and to do. If this is so, then Christ did essentially nothing but that\nwhich is finally to be done by _all_, in some degree, or some way. He is a\nchannel, a mediator, through whom God\u2019s life flows into ours; but then he\nmakes us also mediators, by whom _his_ life shall flow to others. He is\nthe image of God; but every true Christian is, again, the image of Christ.\nFor what Christ did, and was, was no afterthought, no exception, but a\npart of the plan of the universe. He was \u201cforeordained before the\nfoundation of the world, but manifest in these last times.\u201d He was the\n\u201cLamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.\u201d That is, his\ncoming, his character, his death, his resurrection, his miracles, were all\na part of a divine law. And all God\u2019s laws are the same \u201cyesterday,\nto-day, and forever.\u201d\n\nIf this were not so, we could not understand Christ, nor sympathize with\nhim. His life would be, not only supernatural, which it is, but unnatural,\nwhich it is not. His miracles would be, not what they truly are,\u2014God\u2019s\nhigher life flowing into nature, and the Spirit overcoming the material\nresistance of things,\u2014but they would be magical; they would be like\nsorcery and enchantment\u2014violations of the course of events.\n\nAll of Christ\u2019s life, then, is typical of our future lives, in this world\nor in some other world. It would be easy to prove this out of Scripture.\nEverything asserted of Christ is, somewhere and in some way, asserted also\nof his disciples, and of all Christians. Is he said to be one with God? \u201cI\nand my Father are one.\u201d They also are said to be one with God: \u201cThat they\nall may be one, as we are one; I in them, and thou in me. As thou, Father,\nart in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.\u201d\n\nWas Christ said to know all things? It is also said of his disciples, \u201cYe\nhave an unction from the Holy Ghost, and know all things.\u201d\n\nDid Christ work miracles? He says to his disciples, \u201cGreater works than\nthese shall ye do?\u201d\n\nDid God give to Christ glory which he had before the world was? He himself\nsays of his disciples, \u201cThe glory thou gavest me I have given them.\u201d\n\nDid Christ rise from the dead into a higher life? We shall do the same.\n\u201cAs we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image\nof the heavenly.\u201d\n\nChrist, in his high and perfect life, may be regarded as a prophecy of\nwhat man is to become: we may look on him as a revelation of the higher\nlaws of human nature, as a type of all humanity.\n\nAs regards his atoning death, his reconciling sufferings, the same thing\nis true. As he died for man, so must we die for each other. Thus says the\napostle John: \u201cHerein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved\nus, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God\nso loved us, we ought also to love one another.\u201d And again, \u201cBecause he\nlaid down his life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for the\nbrethren.\u201d\n\nAnd Paul, after having spoken of \u201cChrist\u2019s having made peace by the blood\nof the cross,\u201d says of himself that he rejoices in his own sufferings for\ntheir sake\u2014rejoices to \u201cfill up that which is behind of the afflictions of\nChrist;\u201d that is, make up any deficiency in Christ\u2019s sufferings for them.\n\u201cChrist\u2019s sufferings,\u201d he says elsewhere, \u201cabound in us,\u201d his disciples.\n\u201cWe are partakers of his sufferings,\u201d says the apostle Peter. If he\nthought Christ\u2019s sufferings entirely different in their nature and meaning\nfrom all other sufferings, he would scarcely have said that he \u201cpartook\u201d\nof them.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12. This Law illustrated from History\u2014in the Death of Socrates, Joan of\nArc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln.\n\n\nThe death of Jesus, therefore, manifested in a higher degree the same law\nwhich is illustrated in the deaths of all good and great souls, martyrs to\na principle, or to an idea. In proportion to the greatness and\nuniversality of the idea, and the greatness and holiness of the martyr, is\nthe impression profound. We will give a few instances of this from\nhistory, to see that the death of Jesus was not something wholly outside\nof law, wholly exceptional, but the highest example of the great effect\nproduced by one who walks straight into death for a great idea.\n\nThe first instance we take shall be that of Socrates. When we think of\nSocrates, we think of his death. He, like Jesus, spent the time before his\ndeath conversing with his friends concerning the highest themes. He talked\nof immortality through the long summer day. He showed the superiority of\nthe soul to the body in which it dwelt; and he had lost all fear of dying.\nHe had silenced what Plato calls \u201cthe child within us, who trembles before\ndeath.\u201d In fact, the whole tone of his defence before the judges shows\nthat he did not care to save his life. The verdict of guilty was\npronounced by a majority of five or six, in a vote of five hundred and\nfifty-seven dicasts. He made no preparation for his defence, and said that\na blameless life was the best defence. When he came to speak before those\nwhose vote was to decide on his life or death, his speech seems a sort of\nconfidential clearing of his breast of all his opinions. He declares he\nhas been the greatest benefactor of Athens. He tells them they ought not\nto be offended at the resolute tone of his defence, since it would be\nunmanly for him to beg and plead for life; for his duty was to instruct\nthem, but not to supplicate. It was strange that so small a majority was\ncast against him after such a speech. Then the custom required him to say\nhimself what punishment he should suffer. His accuser had called for\ndeath. If he had named something less severe, as exile, fine,\nimprisonment, no doubt his life had been saved. Instead, he said, \u201cI\npropose that I be rewarded as a public benefactor, by being supported at\nthe public expense, as a teacher of the people. Still, as my friends wish\nme to name a fine, I will say thirty _min\u00e6_.\u201d They took this as an insult,\nand sentenced him to death. Then he spent his hours in those immortal\nconversations which will be remembered when all the rest of the glory and\nbeauty of Greek literature and art has passed away. Every moment of his\nlast hours has been carefully recorded; and the death of Socrates gave a\npower to his life, and his life an influence to his death, which placed\nhim among the names which will never perish from human memory and\ngratitude.\n\nThere is another name, which comes out of the darkness and cruelty of the\nmiddle ages, with a sweet, serene, and noble beauty\u2014a pure life glorified\nby a death of martyrdom. I mean that of Joan of Arc\u2014the Maid of Orleans.\nOn her trial, the readiness and beauty of her answers astonished her\nprejudiced judges. The poor girl, only nineteen years old, a prisoner in\nchains, before these doctors and lawyers, showed as much courage as on the\nfield of battle.\n\nThey asked why she let the people kiss her feet and garments. She\nanswered, \u201cThe poor people came to me because I did them no wrong, and\nhelped them when I could.\u201d \u201cWas it well to attack Paris on Our Lady\u2019s\nday?\u201d \u201cIt is well to keep the festivals of Our Lady always.\u201d \u201cDo your\nsaints love the English?\u201d \u201cThey love what God loves, and hate what he\nhates.\u201d \u201cDoes God hate the English?\u201d \u201cAs to his love or hate for their\nsouls I know nothing; but I know he will drive them from France.\u201d \u201cCan you\ntell whether you will escape death?\u201d \u201cThat I leave in God\u2019s hands.\u201d When\nshe went to death, her purity and truth had so touched men\u2019s hearts that a\ngreat tide of remorse and pity began to swell up against her persecutors.\nA priest, who had played the part of Judas, and betrayed her, repented\nlike Judas, and flung himself down before her, accusing himself of his\ntreachery. The soldiers who stood by were melted. They said, \u201cWe have\nburned a saint.\u201d The executioner declared that God would never forgive\nhim. From the day of her death, all men began to believe in her holiness\nand truth.\n\nCome down to the end of the same century, and take another instance in\nSavonarola, the Florentine friar\u2014the man who was at once the patriot,\nleading the minds of the people of Florence to republican institutions;\nthe reformer, seeking to root out the abuses of the Church; and the\nprophetic teacher, preacher, religious inspirer. He also climbed to the\nheight of his glory on his funeral pile. As Athens was glorified by the\ndeath of Socrates, as the Maid of Orleans has been a vision of beauty in\nthe square of Rouen, so the place in Florence where Savonarola was\nmurdered, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, is memorable as the scene of\nvirtue triumphing over its enemies and over evil, when it seemed to be\nconquered. That day, also, will never be forgotten, when he and his two\ncompanions walked through the furious rabble to their death, calm as if to\na marriage feast. Savonarola was so absorbed in the thought of the life to\ncome, says his biographer, that he appeared already to have left the\nearth. He was put to death by the order of Alexander Sixth, the worst pope\nand worst man of modern times; but in twenty years Rafaelle was painting\nthe monk\u2019s portrait on the walls of the Vatican by order of another pope.\n\nSo it is that death glorifies life. If John Brown had escaped from his\nprison, and gone to Canada, what would have been his influence? He would\nonly have been remembered as a crazy fanatic. But now there remains in all\nminds the picture of the old man going quietly and peacefully to die,\nkissing the little negro child on the way, looking up at the surrounding\nhills, and admiring the beauty of the scenery. Death set its seal on his\nlife, and so his soul became the leader of the armies of the Union, going\nbefore them to victory.\n\nAnd how much, also, was Abraham Lincoln glorified by his martyr death! How\nhe rose at once into a great figure in history\u2014a monumental form before\nwhich enmity was silenced! All men forgot their hostility, their\ncriticisms, their sneers\u2014forgot that they had ever done anything but honor\nhim. The assassin, who thought to revenge the wrongs of the southern\nslaveholders on Lincoln, gave to him a lasting niche in the temple of\nfame.\n\nNow, we are not by any means _comparing_ the work of these persons with\nthat of our great Master, Jesus Christ. Such is not our object. We are\nonly pointing out the law by which a person who has devoted himself to a\ngreat cause, when he comes to die in its service, gives to that cause an\nimmense help, and seems to sanctify and glorify the cause and himself.\nThere is a mystery about it which we do not fully understand,\u2014which is not\naccounted for by saying that death proves a man\u2019s sincerity, and makes him\na more competent witness, or that death conciliates his enemies, and puts\nan end to personal dislike. No; there is something more than this. When\nmen live for a cause outside of themselves, when they labor for public\nobjects, they are not _seen_ while they live. Those whose interests are\ninterfered with by their action, misrepresent them, and surround them with\na cloud of suspicion, jealousy, and slander. When they go to death for\ntheir cause, all these slanderous voices are hushed, and they emerge from\nthis cloud of prejudice, and are seen as they are. They are glorified then\nin their cause, and their cause is glorified in them. The cause for which\nSocrates lived was the education of the people of Athens to truth and\njustice. All the Sophists were his enemies. Aristophanes ridiculed him as\nno other reformer has ever been ridiculed, holding him up, by his\ninimitable wit, to the scorn of the crowded theatre. When he died, and\ndied in the faith, all this ended. Socrates and his great cause of justice\nrose at once, and drew all men to them. So Savonarola, who lived only with\nthe purpose of helping on the triumph of pure religion in the Church, and\npure liberty in the state, was mocked and abused in his life; but his\ndeath made him an undying power, and being dead, he spoke across the rapid\nyears to Martin Luther and the reformers who came after. John Brown lived\nand died for universal freedom; Abraham Lincoln lived and died for the\nexistence and deliverance of the nation. Of them, exactly as of Christ, we\nmay say that when they died the hour came for them to be glorified. They\ndied, and they rose again. The resurrection, in these instances, came\nclose after the crucifixion; not seen in their cases, as is that of Jesus,\nby the visible eye, but essentially the same thing inwardly as his. They\nand their cause went _up_, instead of going down, by their death. When\nthey were lifted up, they drew all men to them. In all such deaths, also,\nthere is a certain atoning, reconciling influence. Death brings together,\nin harmony, conflicting interests; it silences hatreds, and breaks down\nmany a partition wall of separation.(21)\n\nThe difference between Christ\u2019s death and all of these is, that Christ\nlived and died not merely for popular education, for patriotism, for\nphilanthropy, but to be the power of God for the salvation of the world;\nto found a universal religion of love to God and man; to reveal God as a\nFather, not a King; to show man to man as brother. But the effect of his\ndeath, as in all these other cases, was simply to glorify his life and his\ncause. The same law worked in his case and in theirs, only on a higher\nplane, and for a vastly greater object.\n\nWe may observe that most of the passages concerning the effect of Christ\u2019s\ndeath are from the apostle Paul. They are written thirty years after that\ndeath by one who probably had never seen him, at least never knew him. But\nPaul had seen the actual effect of the death of Jesus on the minds and\nhearts of the people. It was a reconciling effect; it did away with their\nhatred to his religion, and enabled them to see it, and be led by it to\nGod. It made \u201cthose who were afar off, nigh.\u201d It made peace between man\nand God,\u2014between man and man. When Jesus died, men\u2019s eyes seemed at once\nto open, and they saw for the first time the beauty and holiness of his\nlife. His death, therefore, did what his life had not done. We, misled by\na false theology, imagine Paul to be speaking of some transcendental\ntransaction in the spiritual world by which the death of Jesus acted on\nGod\u2019s mind to make him placable; whereas, in truth, he is speaking of the\nsimple historic fact that the death of Christ did draw men to his\nreligion, and so to God; did, therefore, bring them to see God\u2019s forgiving\nlove; did unite them with each other. So Paul says that he \u201cis not ashamed\nof the cross of Christ,\u201d\u2014not ashamed of the fact that Christ was hanged as\na malefactor, since that very death was the power of God to bring man to\nsalvation. It made men just, and kind, and true, and so was the power of\nGod.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 13. Dr. Bushnell\u2019s View of the Atonement.\n\n\nIn his book, lately published, Dr. Bushnell teaches that the vicarious\nsacrifice of Jesus consists in his sympathy with sinners. He suffers with\nthem and for them, as a friend suffers for a friend, or a mother for a\nchild,\u2014in the same way, and in no exceptional or uncommon way. He did not\ndie officially, but naturally. He did not come here to die, but he died\nbecause he was here.\n\nWe are persuaded that this is the right view. We are sure that one day we\nshall all see that Christ\u2019s sufferings and death, and their influence, are\nas simple, as natural, as wholly in accordance with human nature, as that\nof any other saint or martyr; that the difference is of degree, not of\nkind; and Christ will go before the world, its great Redeemer and Leader,\nall the more certainly because one of us,\u2014educated, as we are, by trial\nand sorrow; tempted as we are, but without sin; crying out, as we do, from\nthe depths of our despair, \u201cMy God! why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d and\nrising, as we do, through death to a higher life, through sorrow to a\ncompleter joy, through the pains of earth to the glories of heaven. \u201cFor\nit became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in\nbringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation\nperfect through suffering; wherefore in all things it behooved him to be\nmade like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful High Priest; for\nin that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able also to succor\nthose who are tempted. For we have not a High Priest who cannot be touched\nwith the feeling of our infirmities, BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED AS WE\nARE, yet without sin; who can have compassion on the ignorant, as he also\nhimself is compassed with infirmity, and though a Son, yet learned\nobedience by the things he suffered.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 14. Results of this Discussion.\n\n\nThe Orthodox doctrine of the atonement contains a fact and a theory which\nought to be carefully discriminated. _The fact_ asserted by Orthodoxy is,\nthat Jesus Christ has done something by means of which we obtain God\u2019s\nforgiveness for our sins. _The theory_ attempts to explain what is the\ndifficulty in the way of our forgiveness, and how Christ removes it. Thus\nOrthodoxy attempts to answer three questions: \u201cWhat?\u201d \u201cWhy?\u201d and \u201cHow?\u201d\nThe first of these regards the fact. \u201c_What_ has Christ done?\u201d And the\nanswer is, that he has brought to man forgiveness of sin. The second and\nthird questions regard the theory. \u201c_Why_ was it necessary for Christ to\ndo and suffer what he did?\u201d and, \u201c_How_ did he accomplish his work?\u201d\n\nNow, as concerns the matter of fact, Orthodoxy is in full accordance with\nthe Scriptures, which everywhere teach that through Christ we have\nredemption, through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins. But the\nScriptures are perfectly silent concerning the theory. They do not tell us\n_why_ it was necessary for Jesus to die, nor _how_ his death procured\nforgiveness. The only exception is, as we have seen, in the statement, in\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews, that the sufferings of Christ were necessary\nto make him perfect, and to enable him to be touched with a feeling of our\ninfirmities.\n\nOf the three theories which in turn have been regarded as Orthodox in the\nChurch, two have completely broken down, and the third rests on such an\ninsecure foundation that we may be very sure that it will follow the\nothers as soon as any better one comes to take its place. The warlike\ntheory and the legal theory of the atonement have gone to their place, and\nare no more believed by men. The governmental theory must soon follow.\n\nNevertheless, in each of these three theories there is one constant\nelement. And it is due to Orthodoxy to state it. This element is, that the\nnecessity of the death of Christ lay in the divine attribute of justice.\nAccording to the first theory, Christ died to satisfy what was due by God\nto the Devil; according to the second, he died to satisfy what was due by\nGod to himself; according to the third, he died to satisfy what was due by\nGod to the moral universe. Divine justice, in the first theory, owed a\nransom to the Devil, which Christ paid; in the second, it owed a debt to\nthe divine honor, which Christ paid; in the third, it owed protection to\nthe universe from the danger of evil example.\n\nThe difficulty to be removed before God can forgive sin, lay, according to\nall of these theories, in the divine justice. Christ died to reconcile\njustice and mercy, so as to make justice merciful, and mercy just.\n\nBut, in opposition to this view, the Unitarian argument is so formidable\nas to seem quite unanswerable. On grounds of reason, the Unitarian\nmaintains that there can be no such conflict among the divine attributes,\nwaiting till an event should occur in human history by which they should\nbe reconciled. That God\u2019s justice and mercy should have been in a state of\nantagonism down to A.M. 4034, when Jesus died, is an incredible\nsupposition. No event taking place in time and space can be the condition\n_sine qu\u00e2 non_ of divine perfection. And any struggle or conflict like\nthat supposed implies imperfection.\n\nMoreover, the Unitarian truly maintains that the Orthodox theory that men\ncannot be forgiven on the simple condition of repentance, is wholly\nunscriptural. The Scriptures plainly teach that forgiveness follows\nrepentance. In the classic passage of the Old Testament (Ezek. 18:20-32),\nthe Jews were taught, unequivocally, that the death which is the wages of\nsin, is always removed by the simple act of repentance. If the modern\ndoctrine of Orthodoxy be true, that in order to be saved it is necessary\nnot only to repent, but also to believe in the atoning sacrifice, the Jews\nwere fatally misled by this teaching of the prophet.\n\nAnd so in the New Testament, the parable of the prodigal son teaches us\nplainly that when we repent and return to God, we shall be received, and\nthat without any reference to belief in the atonement.\n\nMoreover, the Unitarians are fully justified in saying that the New\nTestament nowhere asserts that the primary and immediate influence of the\ndeath of Jesus is upon the divine attributes. In every instance Christ is\nsaid to reconcile us to God, never to reconcile God to us. (See Rom. 5:10,\n11; 11:15. 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, 20. Eph. 2:13, 16. Coloss. 1:20, 21. 1 Peter\n3:18.) It is we \u201cwho were afar off, and have been made nigh, by the blood\nof Christ.\u201d It is _we_, \u201cwho, when we were enemies, were reconciled to God\nby the death of his Son;\u201d not God, who was afar off, who has been brought\nnigh to us; not God, who has been reconciled to us. It is \u201c_we_, who have\nreceived the atonement.\u201d Christ has suffered for sins, \u201cto bring _us_ to\nGod,\u201d not to bring God to us. All this is plain, positive, and\nunequivocal.\n\nAnd yet, notwithstanding that the Old and New Testaments declare the\nforgiveness of sin to the penitent, we nevertheless find a difficulty in\nbelieving it. It seems as if God _ought_ not to forgive us our sins on so\nsimple a condition. And it is on this very feeling that the whole Orthodox\ntheory of the atonement rests.\n\nThe explanation of this is, that man is obliged to understand God by\nhimself. Since man was made in the image of God, he can know God only by\nunderstanding the moral and spiritual laws of his own soul. Now, in\nhimself, he finds the constant antagonism of truth and love, justice and\nmercy, conscience and desire. From this essential original antagonism of\ntruth and love spring all the moral conflicts which make cases of\nconscience. Whenever we see before us a divided duty, on being analyzed,\nit resolves itself into this conflict between truth and love. We\nnaturally, and almost necessarily, transfer this same conflict to the mind\nof God. Whenever we wish to forgive an offender, but feel as if we ought\nnot to do so, we teach ourselves to regard God as feeling the same\ndifficulty. Conscience tells us that we are not fit to be forgiven, that\nit would be wrong for God to forgive us. Orthodoxy plants itself on this\ninstinct, and elaborates its various theories, which men accept for a time\nas a sufficient explanation of their difficulty, and then reject when\ntheir inconsistencies appear. The deep-lying difficulty is the sense of\nour want of holiness, and the instinctive feeling of the eternal mutual\nrepulsion of good and evil. Since God is good, and we are evil, how can he\nforgive us? If forgiveness merely meant the remitting of penalty, it might\nbe done after sufficient expiation. If forgiveness meant laying aside of\nanger, we can well believe that God cannot retain wrath against his\nchildren. But forgiveness means communion, the mutual love of father and\nchild, the being always in the presence of God. And for this, even after\nwe have repented, and are endeavoring to do right, we do not feel\nourselves qualified.\n\nThis is the real difficulty. Christ did not die to pay a debt to God, or\nto appease his wrath, but \u201cto bring us to God,\u201d and to put the Spirit into\nour heart by which we can say, \u201cAbba, Father!\u201d The atonement is made to\nthe divine justice\u2014but not to distributive justice, which rewards and\npunishes, but to divine justice in its highest form, as holiness. And this\nconsists in making us fit to appear before God, notwithstanding our\nsinfulness, because we have received a principle of holiness which will\nultimately cast out all our sin. When we have faith in Christ, we have\nChrist formed within us, the hope of glory. God, looking on us, sees us\nnot as we are now, but as we shall be when we are changed into that same\nimage from glory to greater glory.\n\nThis suggests the theory which may replace the rest, and reconcile all\nthose who believe in Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer of men. Christ\nsaves us by pouring into us his own life, which is love. When Christian\nlove is formed within us, it has killed the roots of sin in the soul, and\nfitted us to be forgiven, and to enter the presence of God.\n\nIn conclusion, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in maintaining that\nJesus has by his sufferings and death brought forgiveness to mankind\u2014not\nby propitiating God or appeasing his anger, not by paying our debt or\nremoving a difficulty in the divine mind, but by helping us to see that\nthe love of God is able to lift us out of our sin, and present us spotless\nin the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. The way in which his\ndeath produces this result is the sympathy with human sinfulness and\nsorrow, which finds in it its highest expression. Those whom men cannot\nforgive, and who cannot forgive themselves, see that God, speaking through\nthe sufferings of Jesus, is able to forgive them. So the love of God\nbrings them to repentance, and those who were afar off are made nigh by\nthe blood of Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. CALLING, ELECTION, AND REPROBATION.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine.\n\n\nThe Assembly\u2019s Catechism, with its usual frankness, states this doctrine\nthus:\u2014(chap. 3).\n\nI. \u201cGod, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his\nown will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever cometh to pass, yet so\nthat neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will\nof the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken\naway, but rather established.\n\nII. \u201cAlthough God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all\nsupposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw\nit as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.\n\nIII. \u201cBy the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men\nand angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others\nforeordained to everlasting death.\n\nIV. \u201cThese angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are\nparticularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and\ndefinite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.\n\nV. \u201cThose of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the\nfoundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable\npurpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen\nin Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love,\nwithout any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of\nthem, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving\nhim thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.\n\nVI. \u201cAs God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the\neternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means\nthereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are\nredeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his\nSpirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept\nby his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed\nby Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved,\nbut the elect only.\n\nVII. \u201cThe rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable\ncounsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he\npleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass\nby, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise\nof his glorious justice.\u201d\n\nThis statement is contained in the creed of more than three thousand\nchurches in the United States. So far as it is believed by those who\nprofess it, it conveys the idea of a God who is pure will\u2014a God, in short,\nwho does as he pleases, saving some of his creatures and damning others,\nwithout reason or justice. He does not reward virtue nor punish sin, but\nscatters the joys of heaven and the torments of hell out of a mere\ncaprice, as an Eastern despot gives a man a purse of gold, or inflicts the\nbastinado, without reason, simply to gratify his sense of power. The\nessential character of such a Being is arbitrary will, and this creed of\nCalvinism places an infinite caprice on the throne of the universe,\ninstead of the Being whom the Gospels call \u201cOur Father.\u201d\n\nLet us see how far this view of God is mitigated by modern explanations.\n\nThe Old School Presbyterianism, or Princeton Orthodoxy, accepts it in its\nentireness. They simply deny the consequences supposed to be drawn from\nit. They deny that it makes God the author of sin, or that sinful\ndispositions are created by God. They deny that this doctrine interferes\nwith freedom of will in man. But they are obliged to admit that, according\nto their creed, God decrees things which he forbids; for, \u201cinasmuch as\nmany things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he foreordains all\nthings, it must be that in these cases he purposes one thing and commands\nanother.\u201d(22) In other words, God sends his prophets, and apostles, and\nSon, to command men to do justly and love mercy, when he has already\ndetermined that they shall commit sin. This school rejects the Arminian\ndoctrine that God\u2019s decree is founded on his foreknowledge, and asserts\nthat his foreknowledge is based on his decree.\n\nThe Old School in New England do not go quite so far as Princeton. They\nsay, decidedly, that God foreordains sin only by permitting it. Still,\nthey reject, as stoutly as their sterner _confr\u00e8res_, the Arminian view,\nand insist that God\u2019s decrees are not based on his foreknowledge.(23)\n\nAccording to Dr. Duffield, of Detroit, the New School Presbyterians escape\nthe pinch of this conflict by taking refuge in their ignorance. They are\nnot \u201cUltra-Calvinists,\u201d and they are not \u201cArminians,\u201d and especially they\n\u201cdo not wish to be wise above what is written.\u201d(24) Dr. D. asserts that\nthe Old School makes the decree in election to be wholly arbitrary, while\nthe New School believes that it has a reason, though one wholly unknown.\nBut the Hopkinsians(25) say that \u201cthe sovereignty of God belongs to him as\nthe Supreme Disposer, and consists in his perfect right and perfect\nability to do us he pleases.\u201d Of course, having made the will of God\nwholly arbitrary, they proceed to deny that it is arbitrary, or that\nwilfulness in God can possibly be wilful. But all this is using \u201cwords of\nwind for the Almighty,\u201d and \u201caccepting his person.\u201d\n\nMethodism, on the contrary, denies that God foreordains whatsoever comes\nto pass, holding foreordination to be a causative act.(26) It also denies\nthat man is guilty for inherited sin, or is any way responsible for his\ndepraved nature. He only becomes responsible when he begins to act freely.\nHe may suffer for inherited evil, but cannot justly be punished for it.\nThus Methodism avoids the rude injustice of the Calvinistic system. And\nyet, as Schleiermacher has shown,(27) if it accepts total depravity, it\nmust also consistently accept the Calvinistic doctrine of election. For if\nman is totally depraved, he cannot take a single step towards his own\nsalvation. God must, in every case, take the initiative, and begin the\nconversion of each man who is converted. Therefore, if we ask why one man\nis converted, and another not, the only answer possible is this\u2014that God\nchose to convert one, and not the other. Schleiermacher accepts and\ndefends the doctrine of election, but by connecting it with that of\nuniversal restoration, which reduces it to the statement that God saves\nall, but in a certain order, which order is determined by himself, without\nregard to any foresight of merit or demerit in man.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine.\n\n\nThe principal passages relied upon for the doctrine of absolute decrees\nare found in Rom. 8:30, and 9:8-24. In these passages, Paul is, no doubt,\nspeaking of an unconditional election. In the first, he declares that the\ngift of Christianity to those who received it was no accident. God had\nknown them long ago as individuals, known them before they were born,\nknown the character they were to have. He had foreordained them to become\nChristians, to be made into the likeness of Christ. He had called them to\nbe Christians by his providence; he had forgiven them their sins; he had\nglorified them, filling them with the glory of the new life of faith and\nlove. In the other passage, Paul shows the Jews that God selects races and\nfamilies, not according to any merit of theirs, but for reasons of his\nown, to do his work. Ishmael as well as Isaac was a child of Abraham, but\nIsaac was selected. Esau as well as Jacob was a child of Isaac, but Jacob\nwas selected. It is no merit of the man which causes him to be chosen, no\nfault which causes him to be rejected, but that one is made for the work,\nand the other not. One is influenced to obey and serve; one is allowed to\nresist God\u2019s will; and yet both of them\u2014he who obeys and he who\nresists\u2014serve the divine purpose. The Jewish Christians, therefore, may\nbelieve that their nation, in resisting Christ, is blindly serving the\nprovidential designs of God, and making way for the Gentiles to come in;\nand then, the Gentiles, in turn, will help _them_ to come in, \u201cand so all\nIsrael shall be saved.\u201d But in neither of these passages is any reference\nto final salvation or damnation. All that is spoken of is the predestined\nand divinely arranged order, the providential method, in which gifts are\nbestowed and opportunities offered. In fact, in Rom. 11:28, election is\nformally opposed to the gospel. As regards the GOSPEL, or the reception of\nChristianity, the Jews are _enemies_; that is, are left out of the circle\nof God\u2019s gifts, in order that the Gentiles may come in. But as regards the\nELECTION, they are still the chosen people, inheriting all the qualities,\npowers, position, which their fathers had before them, since God never\ntakes back his gifts.(28) So also in Ephesians 1:5, 11, Paul says that we,\nChristians, have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world,\nand predestined to be adopted as children, and obtained an inheritance in\nChristianity. But neither here is anything intended concerning final\nsalvation. It all refers to their having received the gift of Christian\nfaith, in the plan of God, by a wise providence of his, and not by\naccident. So also, in Timothy (2 Tim. 1:9), Paul says that God hath saved\nus out of the world, and called us to be Christians, not because of any\nmerit of ours, but simply according to a gracious purpose which he always\nhad, that the Gentiles should come into his kingdom with the Jews. In none\nof these passages is any final doom or destiny hereafter intended: _all of\nthem_ refer to the gift of Christianity in this world. The apostle softens\nthe exultation of the Gentiles, and consoles the sorrow of the Jewish\nChristians, by telling them that the acceptance of the Gentiles and\nrejection of the majority of the Jews is part of a great plan of\nProvidence, which will finally redound to the good of both.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom.\n\n\nIn order that God shall be the Ruler of the world, and its providence, he\nmust know the course of events, and determine them. In order that man\nshall be responsible, and a moral being, he must be free to choose, at\nevery moment, between right and wrong, good and evil. In part of his\nnature and life, man is a creature of destiny; in part, he is the creator\nof destiny. Every man\u2019s character is the result of three\nfactors\u2014organization, education, and freedom. The character he has now has\ncome to him, partly from the organization with which he was born, partly\nfrom the influences by which he has been educated, and partly from what he\nhas done or omitted to do at every moment of his life. Now, the two first\nof these factors are out of his power. A man born in Africa, or descended\nfrom Chinese parents, cannot, by any choice or effort, become what a man\nborn of French or German parents may become. A man born among the Turks or\nArabs, and educated by the circumstances surrounding him there, _must_ be\na wholly different man from one born in New England. Man\u2019s freedom,\ntherefore, may be likened to the power of the helmsman to direct a vessel.\nHe cannot determine what sort of a vessel he shall be in, nor what sort of\nweather or currents shall come: all he can do at any moment is to steer it\nto the right or left. If, now, in steering, he guides himself by a compass\nturning to a fixed point, and by a chart giving the true position of\ncontinents and islands, then this power enables him, in spite of storms\nand calms, to take the vessel round the world, to the harbor he seeks. But\nif he has no chart and compass, but steers as he chooses from moment to\nmoment, he goes nowhere. His vessel will then drift before the steady\nwinds and constant currents. So is human freedom a great power when it\nguides itself by eternal truths and fixed laws. But if it does not, then\nit is not freedom, but only wilfulness, and it accomplishes nothing. Man\u2019s\nfreedom is thus surrounded by divine providence. God determines the\noriginal organization of every human being; God determines the\ncircumstances which educate him; and God has fixed the laws by which he\nmust guide himself in order to become really free. He cannot therefore\nresist the divine will, except temporarily. He can postpone the _time_\nwhen God\u2019s kingdom shall come, and his will be done; but that is all.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination.\n\n\nBefore Augustine, all the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church taught the\nconcurrence of free will and grace in human conversion. They taught that\nman must begin the work, and that God would aid him. God and man must work\ntogether.\n\nThen came the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. The latter,\nbeing at Rome, heard this sentence read from the writings of the former:\n\u201c_Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis_\u201d\u2014Give what thou commandest, and command\nwhat thou willest. Pelagius objected to this formula. He said, \u201cSince man\nought to be without sin, he can be without sin.\u201d \u201cThere is,\u201d said he, \u201cin\nman, a \u2018_Can Do_,\u2019 a \u2018_Will Do_,\u2019 and a \u2018_Do_.\u2019 \u201d The first is from God;\nin the others God and man unite.\n\nAugustine objected that God worked in us both to will and to do. He had\nfirst taught that God sends motives which we can obey or resist; but he\nsaw that if God works in us to will, he must also conquer our resistance,\nand work the power by which we consent.\n\nBut to this Pelagius replied, \u201cThen there is no freedom in man.\u201d\n\nAugustine answered, \u201cGod does not move us as we move a stone, but\nrationally; he makes us _will_ what is good, and does not force us against\nour will. He frees the will from its proclivity to evil, by \u2018preparing\ngrace,\u2019 and determines it to good by \u2018effecting grace.\u2019 That some do not\nyield to this, is not because of their greater resistance, but because God\ndoes not choose to conquer their resistance.\u201d\n\nThis is the point where grace passes into predestination.\n\nThe Old Church had maintained that God predestined to life those whom he\n_foresaw_ would repent and obey him. His foreknowledge did not cause this\nto happen, but he foreknew it because it would happen. It did not take\nplace because he foresaw it, but he foresaw it because it would take\nplace.\n\nElection, according to the early Fathers, was nothing arbitrary. It\ndepended on man to be saved or lost. So taught Justin Martyr, Origen,\nBasil, Hilary.\n\nBasil said, \u201cGod hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart by his judgments, which were\nsent to show how hard it was, because he saw he would not repent.\u201d\n\nOrigen adds, \u201cLike a wise physician, God did not cure Pharaoh too soon,\nfor fear of a relapse. He let him drink the cup of sin to the bottom in\nthis life, so as to cure him more thoroughly hereafter.\u201d\n\nPelagius (and Augustine at first) took the same view. They said that God\nforesees and permits evil, and decrees the consequence of it.\n\nAugustine said, \u201cGod has chosen some men in Christ, not because he foresaw\nthey would be good, but because he determined to make them so.\u201d The reason\nof this choice, therefore, lay not in man, but in God\u2019s arbitrary will.\n\nPelagius said, \u201cThis is fatalism, under the name of grace, and is saying\nthat God accepts the persons of men.\u201d\n\nAugustine answered, \u201cAll men in Adam are in ruin. God saves some of them.\nIf he let _all_ die, we could not blame him: how much less for saving\nsome!\u201d\n\nBut why does he _not_ save all? The answer is,\u2014\n\nBecause the elect see in the fate of the non-elect what they have escaped,\nand God\u2019s justice is revealed with his goodness.\n\nNone of the elect perish, though they may die unbaptized, and be ever so\nbad in their lives; but they will be all converted before they die.\n\nThe non-elect may be often better men than the elect; but they will not be\nsaved.\n\nThe only place where Augustine allows freedom is in Adam, who might have\nturned either way.\n\nSemi-Pelagianism consists essentially in saying, \u201cMan begins the work; God\naids him.\u201d\n\nAugustine\u2019s view was carried out afterwards thus: \u201cIf God does all, it is\nno use to preach, exhort, or read Scripture, or use any means of grace.\u201d\n\nAugustine had said that reprobation was not a decree to sin, but to\npunishment.\n\nBut Gottschalk, his follower, said it was a decree to _sin_. The Church\nrejected this statement, and softened the doctrine. Thomas Aquinas revived\nit again.\n\nLuther and Calvin both maintained that there is no good in man after the\nfall. Flacius said that original sin is the substance of human nature, and\nhuman nature now bears the image of the devil.\n\nLuther made freedom of the will to consist in doing evil with pleasure,\nand not by constraint.\n\nCalvin denied that there is any free will. \u201cWhy give it such a lofty\ntitle?\u201d he said. He seemed to think that all the power left to men is so\nmuch taken from God.\n\nWhen God says, \u201cDo this and live,\u201d it is, says Luther, merely irony on his\npart, as though he had said, \u201cSee if you can do it! Try it.\u201d\n\nLuther actually taught that God\u2019s will in revealed Scripture was, that all\nshould be saved, but his real and secret will was, that _not all_ should\nbe saved.\n\nMelancthon said, \u201cMan has no power by himself to do right; but when grace\nis offered, he can receive it or reject it.\u201d\n\nCalvin went beyond Augustine. He taught that,\u2014\n\n1. The decree of predestination was not merely a decree to punishment, but\nto sin. He rejects with scorn the distinction between permitting and\ncausing, between foreknowledge and predestination. He says it is improper\nto have God\u2019s decree waiting on men\u2019s choice.\n\n2. He taught that Adam\u2019s sin was decreed by God. The Infralapsarian taught\nthat God foresaw that Adam would sin, and so decreed some men to life, and\nothers to death. The Supralapsarian taught that God determined to reveal\nhis majesty, and mercy, and justice. He created men, and made them\nmiserable to show his mercy, and made them sinful to show his justice.\n\n3. If men complain that God has so created them, Calvin answers, God has\nthe same right that the potter has over the clay. If they complain that\nGod has chosen some, and not others, to life, he replies, that so oxen,\nhorses, and sheep might complain that they were not men.\n\n4. God causes the sin which he forbids. This is not a contradiction in\nhim, for his nature is different from ours.\n\nGod created all for his own glory, and sinners to glorify his justice.\n\nFinally, Calvin himself admits that this is \u201ca horrible decree.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven hereafter.\nHow Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a Chosen People.\n\n\nThis _reductio ad absurdum_ disproves the common idea of election. If a\nman were elected by God to heaven, and so could not help going to heaven,\nit would not be worth his while to give diligence to make his calling and\nelection sure. It is sure already, without any diligence.\n\nThe common Orthodox idea of election is, therefore, a false one. God does\nnot elect, or choose us, for passive enjoyment, but for active duty. He\nelects us to opportunities. He elects, or, as we may say, selects, us for\ncertain special work, gives us certain special privileges, and holds us to\nan accountability for the use of them.\n\nIn the parable of the talents, God elected, or selected, one man to the\npossession of five talents, another to the possession of two, and another\none. Each was elected; but each was elected to opportunities, and each to\na different opportunity; but they all had to give diligence to make their\ncalling and election sure.\n\nThe word \u201celect\u201d was first applied to the Jews. They were an elect or\nchosen people. They were selected from among all nations for a great duty\nand opportunity. They were taught the _unity of God_ and his _holiness_.\nThey were a city set on a hill, a light shining in the darkness of the\nworld, to proclaim these truths. That was their opportunity. It was not\nhappiness, or heaven, or even goodness, that they were chosen for, but\nWORK. As long as they continued to do this work, they continued to be\nGod\u2019s chosen or selected people. But when they hardened into the bigotry\nof Phariseeism, and froze into the scepticism of Sadduceeism, when they\nceased to do the work, then they ceased to be the elect people. While they\nwere diligent to make their election sure, they were the elect, but no\nlonger.\n\nGod selected Jacob and rejected Esau. \u201cJacob have I loved, and Esau have I\nhated.\u201d But how did God love Jacob? He loved him by giving him\nopportunity. And why? Not because he was better than Esau, but because he\nwas different. Jacob was selected to be father of the chosen people\nbecause he had the qualities required for his work. Esau was wild,\nreckless, martial. Jacob was industrious, money-making, fond of small\ntrade; pastoral, rather than warlike; tenacious of his ideas even to\nobstinacy. These were the qualities required in a people who were so few\nthat if they had been warlike they would have been swept from the earth.\nThey never fought for the pleasure of fighting, but only when they could\nnot help it, or when a political necessity compelled it. Though surrounded\nby nations much more powerful than themselves,\u2014the Assyrians on the\nnorth-east at Nineveh, the Egyptians on the south-west, the Babylonians on\nthe east, the Tyrians on the west, and the Greeks on the north-west,\u2014they\nsaw the fall of all these great nations and empires, but they continued.\nMany waves of war swept over their Syrian hills, and left them still\nthere, peaceful, industrious, worshipping Jehovah in their sacred city,\noffering no motive for conquest, too poor to tempt invasion, too far from\nthe sea to grow rich by commerce, like the Ph\u0153nicians. Their obscurity,\npoverty, and unheroic qualities were their salvation, and these they\nderived apparently from Jacob, their ancestor.\n\nThus we see that the Jews were a chosen people, and we see what they were\nchosen for, and also that they were chosen not because of superior virtue,\nbut for superior capacity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. How other Nations were elected and called.\n\n\nOther nations were chosen, too, for other purposes. The Greeks also were a\nchosen people\u2014chosen to develop the idea of beauty, as the Jews that of\nreligion. Their mission was beauty in art and in literature. It was no\naccident that they came as they did from confluent races, flowing together\nfrom India and Ph\u0153nicia, and settling in that sweet climate and romantic\nland, where the lovely \u00c6gean, tossing its soft blue waters on the\nresounding shore, tempted them to navigation, and awakened their intellect\nby the sight of many lands. There they did their work. They made their\ncalling and election sure. Greek architecture\u2014one birth of beauty after\nanother\u2014was born. Athens was crowned with marvellous temples, whose\nexquisite proportions amaze and charm us to-day\u2014inimitable creations of\nbeauty. Homer came, and then epic poetry was born. \u00c6schylus and tragedy\ncame; Pindar and the lyric song; Theophrastus and pastoral music; Anacreon\nand the strain which bears his special name. And so Phidias and his\ncompanions created sculpture, Herodotus history, Demosthenes oratory,\nPlato and Aristotle philosophy, Zeuxis painting, and Pericles\nstatesmanship. This was their election, and they made it sure.\n\nThe Romans also had their chosen work. They were elected to develop the\nidea of LAW. A prosaic people, but filled with notions of justice, they\ndeveloped jurisprudence. To show that a nation can be governed not by\ndespotic will, nor by popular will, but by law,\u2014this was the office of\nRome. As long as it did this work it prospered; when it ceased to do it,\nit fell. All other races, no doubt, have their special calling too. Some\nmake it sure; others seem to fail of making it sure, and so disappear.\nThus the election of the Jews shows a principle of God\u2019s government, and\nis not an exceptional case.\n\nThat which is true of nations and races is also true of religions and of\nChristian denominations. All Christians are a chosen people. They are\nchosen for the work of teaching to the human race the great doctrines of\nthe fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Other religions were\nsent to men too. Mohammed had his mission\u2014to convert the idolatrous Arabs\nto Monotheism. The religions of Asia were intended to prepare the way for\nChristianity by teaching the elementary ideas of religion and morality.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. How different Denominations are elected.\n\n\nEvery great denomination, and small ones, too, are chosen to unfold some\none Christian idea. The Catholic Church was chosen to carry forward the\ngreat central idea of unity\u2014one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But the\nCatholic Church is not catholic enough: it has turned itself into a sect\nby excluding those who could not accept all its statements and methods,\nthough they accepted Christ. The Jewish Church committed the same mistake.\nWhen it became narrow, bigoted, exclusive, it left its first love; it then\nceased to enlarge itself, and was obliged to disappear. The Jewish\nreligion, and all positive religions, are like vases in which a plant is\ngrowing. While the plants are young, they hold them easily; but as the\nplants grow, the vases, incapable of expansion, are shivered by the\nenlarging roots. So that, unless the Roman Catholic Church can be\nliberalized and enlarged, it must break to pieces.\n\nWhatever is said of Jews as the chosen and elect people is intended to\nshow us a principle which must be applied to others. It is a principle\nvery visible in their case, but not confined to them. It is the law of\ndivine Providence. By what we see of its working in their case, we are\nable to see it in other cases, where it is less distinct and less\napparent.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. How Individuals are elected.\n\n\nAnd now let us apply the doctrine of election to individuals. When one is\nelected he is always elected to some special opportunity, which he can\nimprove or not, and for which he is held accountable.\n\nWhen God sends into the world a great and original genius, like Columbus,\nSir Isaac Newton, Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michael Angelo, Franklin,\nWashington, Byron, Napoleon, it is very plain that they are sent, provided\nwith certain qualities, to do a certain work. It is evident that God meant\nColumbus to discover America, and Dante to write a poem. If Columbus had\ntried to write the \u201cInferno,\u201d and Dante had devoted himself to inventing a\nsteam-engine, if Franklin had written sonnets and pastorals, and Isaac\nNewton had gone into trade, if Washington had composed symphonies, and\nBeethoven had travelled to discover the source of the Nile, they would not\nhave made their calling and election sure. But such men (with an\noccasional exception, like that of Napoleon and Byron) were all faithful\nto their own inspiration, and each chose to abide in the calling in which\nhe was called; and so each did the work God gave him to do in the world.\nNapoleon and Byron did their work only partially, for they allowed their\negotism to blind them, so as to lose sight of their mission after a while.\nGod sent Napoleon to bind together and organize the institutions of a new\ntime\u2014to organize liberty. He did it for a season, and then sought,\negotistically, only to build up himself and his dynasty; then his work\ncame to a sudden end. For it is vanity and egotism which make us fail. We\nwish for some calling finer or nobler than the calling God gives us; so we\ncome to nothing.\n\nIn these great and shining examples we are taught how God elects men, how\nhe elects all men, and how he elects all to work. These are not the\nexceptional cases, as we are apt to suppose, but they are the\nillustrations of a universal rule.\n\nEvery human being has his own gift and opportunity from God; some after\nthis fashion, and others after that. If faithful, he can see what it is.\nIf his eye is single, his whole body is full of light. If he is true to\nthe light within his soul, it grows more and more clear to him what God\nwants him to do. Not every man\u2019s business is to do great works in the\nworld; but every one is sent to do something and to be something\u2014something\nwhich shall bring him nearer to God\u2014something which shall make him more\nuseful to man. At first he is confused; he cannot tell what his calling\nis. But each day, if he be faithful to each day\u2019s call, causes the whole\ncalling of his life to become more luminous and clear. So we see that\nconscientious and faithful people, as they continue to live, grow more and\nmore into specialty of work, and have more and more of a special place and\nduty. Thus we see that all God\u2019s callings are special, and none vague or\ngeneral. \u201cEvery man has his proper gift from the Lord; one after this\nfashion, and another after that.\u201d Perhaps it is not a shining gift, it\nwill not make him famous, but it is always a good one\u2014always useful and\nnoble. If we follow God\u2019s leadings, we shall always come out right. \u201cLet\nevery man,\u201d says the apostle, \u201cabide in the calling in which he is\ncalled.\u201d Let him not be impatient of his own gift, nor covetous of\nanother\u2019s; let him not be uneasy in his place, nor straining for something\nbeyond his reach. But if faithful every day to his own gift, he may be\nsure that it will grow at last into something truly good, satisfactory,\nand sufficient.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ.\n\n\nPerhaps we can now better understand how Christ was \u201cthe chosen one of\nGod.\u201d If Columbus was chosen and sent to discover a world, if Dante was\nsent to be a great poet, if Mozart, Rafaelle, had each his mission, can we\ndoubt that Jesus also was specially selected and endowed for the work\nwhich he has actually done, to be the leader of the human race in religion\nand goodness\u2014to lead it up to God? Yet those who will admit the mission in\nall other cases, question it in his case. But what was true in them was\nmuch more so in him. He was conscious from the first that he was selected.\n\u201cWist ye not that I must be about my Father\u2019s business?\u201d \u201cTo this end I\nwas born, that I might bear witness to the truth.\u201d \u201cGod sent not his Son\ninto the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through him,\nmight be saved.\u201d \u201cFor this cause came I to this hour.\u201d \u201cI have finished\nthe work given me to do.\u201d\n\nJesus, by his nature and organization, by his education, by the very time\nof his birth, by the inspiration and influence of the Holy Spirit, was\nelected and called. And he fulfilled his part perfectly; and so, the two\nconditions being met, he became Saviour of the world, and perpetual Ruler\nof the moral and spiritual nature of man.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election.\n\n\nBut it is not merely great men, and men of genius, who are thus\nprovidentially chosen and sent. _Every_ man is chosen for something, and\nthat something not vague and general, but special and distinct.\n\nYou go into some country village of New England. You find there some plain\nfarmer, of no great education, perhaps, but endowed with admirable insight\nand sagacity, and of a kind and benevolent nature. He has come to be the\ncounsellor and adviser of the whole community. He has no title; he is not\neven a \u201csquire.\u201d He has no office; he is not even a justice of the peace.\nBut he fulfils the mission of peace-maker and of sagacious counsellor. He\nis judge without a seat on the bench; he is spiritual guide without being\ncalled \u201creverend;\u201d he is the stay, the centre, the most essential person\nin the place. He has had an evident calling from God, not from man, and he\nhas made it sure by his diligence and fidelity in his work.\n\nAnd perhaps in the same village is a woman, poor, old, and uneducated. But\nshe, too, has a calling from God. She is always sent for in the hour of\ntrial. If any accident happens, she is there. Her sagacity and experience\nhelp her to do what is needed. She has no medical diploma, but she is the\ngood physician of the place. God gave to her native sagacity, gave to her\nbenevolence, gave her acute observation and a good memory, and she has\nmade her election sure by her own fidelity.\n\nSome persons are called to love and teach little children: that is _their_\nwork. They are happy with children, and children are happy with them. Some\nare called to sympathize; their natures overflow with sympathy; they enter\nreadily into all trials and into the troubles of every soul, and they pour\noil and wine into the wounds of the heart. God called them to be his good\nSamaritans, and they hear the call and obey.\n\n\u201cA place for everything, and everything in its place,\u201d says the prudent\nhousekeeper. \u201cA place for every man, and every man in his place,\u201d says the\ndivine Housekeeper, who has so many mansions in his house, and whose Son\nsaid he went to prepare a place for us there in the other world\u2014a working\nplace, probably, and a sphere of labor there as here. But in this world,\ntoo, what a delight it is to see any one in his right place!\n\nThere are different ways in which God calls us, and different kinds of\ncallings. But every calling of God is good and noble. He calls us to work;\nhe calls us to Christian goodness; he calls us to heavenly joy, to glory,\nhonor, and immortality. These are the three great callings of\nman\u2014Christian work first, Christian goodness next, Christian glory last.\nSince God made every one of us, he made every one of us for something; he\nhas appointed a destiny for each one, and he calls us to it. If we do not\nhear the gentle call, the whisper of his grace, he calls us by trial, by\ndisaster, by disappointment. He chastens us for our profit. He prunes our\ntoo luxuriant branches that we may bring forth more fruit.\n\nSo this doctrine of election, in its other form, as usually taught by\nOrthodoxy, so harsh and terrible,\u2014\u201c_horrible decretum_,\u201d\u2014so dishonorable\nto God, so destructive to morality, so palsying to effort, grows lovely\nand encouraging when looked at aright.\n\nAs one grows old, and looks back over his past life, he sees the working\nof this divine decree\u2014working where he concurred with it, working where he\nresisted it. He sees more and more clearly what his election was, and how\nhe has fulfilled it, how far failed. He sees himself as a youth, fiery and\nardent, striving for one thing, educated by God for another. He sees how\nhe was partly led and partly driven into his true work; how he has been\nmade an instrument by God for good he never dreamed of to God\u2019s other\nchildren. He says, \u201cIt is no doing of mine. It is the Lord\u2019s doing. He\nchose me for it before the foundation of the world. I builded better than\nI knew. I have failed in a thousand plans of my own, but I have ignorantly\nfulfilled God\u2019s plans. I am like Saul, the son of Kish, who went out to\nseek his father\u2019s asses, and found a kingdom. I am like Schiller\u2019s\nexplorer, who went to sea with a thousand vessels, and came to shore saved\nin a single boat, yet having in that boat the best result of the whole\nvoyage.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Orthodox Doctrine.\n\n\nThe Orthodox doctrine of the future life is thus stated in the Assembly\u2019s\nCatechism, chapter 32:\u2014\n\n\u201cI. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption;\nbut their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an immortal\nsubsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the\nrighteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the\nhighest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory,\nwaiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the\nwicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter\ndarkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two\nplaces for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledged\nnone.\n\n\u201cII. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be\nchanged; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and\nnone other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again\nwith their souls forever.\n\n\u201cIII. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to\ndishonor; the bodies of the just by his Spirit unto honor, and be made\nconformable to his own glorious body.\u201d\n\nThe views here given may be considered, on the whole, the Orthodox notions\non this subject, although Orthodoxy is by no means rigorous on these\npoints. Considerable diversity of opinion is here allowed. The nature of\nthe life between death and the resurrection, and the nature of the\nresurrection body, are differently apprehended, without any discredit to\nthe Orthodoxy of the belief. But, on the whole, we may say that the\nOrthodox views on these topics include the following heads:\u2014\n\n1. Man consists of soul and body.\n\n2. The soul of man is naturally immortal.\n\n3. The only satisfactory proof of this immortality is the resurrection of\nChrist.\n\n4. Christ\u2019s resurrection consisted in his return to earth in the same body\nas that with which he died, though glorified.\n\n5. Our resurrection will consist in our taking again the same bodies which\nwe have now, glorified if we are Christians, but degraded if we are not.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nOn the other hand, those views which incline towards rationalism and\nspiritualism agree in part with these statements, and in part differ;\nthus:\u2014\n\n1. They usually agree with Orthodoxy in believing man to consist of soul\nand body.\n\n2. They also agree in believing the soul of man naturally immortal.\n\n3. They differ from Orthodoxy in thinking the proof of immortality to be\nfound in human consciousness, not at all in the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nWe will therefore examine these two points of immortality and the\nresurrection, to see what the true doctrine of Scripture is concerning\nthem.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the Instinctive\nConsciousness, and Scripture.\n\n\nThe first class of proofs usually adduced for immortality are the rational\nproofs, which are such as these:\u2014\n\nTHE METAPHYSICAL PROOF.\u2014This is based on the distinction of soul and body.\nThe existence of the soul is proved exactly as we prove the existence of\nthe body. If we can prove the one, we can equally prove the other. If any\none asks, How do we know there is such a thing as body? we reply that we\nknow it by the senses; we can touch, taste, smell, and see it. But to this\nthe answer is, that the senses only give us sensations, and that these\nsensations are in the mind, not out of it. We have a sensation of\nresistance, of color, of perfume, and the like; but how do we know that\nthere is anything outside of the mind corresponding to them? The answer to\nthis is, that by a necessary law of the reason, when we have a sensation,\nwe _infer_ some external substance from which it proceeds. We look at a\nbook, for example. We have a sensation of shape and color; we infer\nsomething outside of our mind from which it proceeds. In other words, we\nperceive qualities and infer substance. This inference is a spontaneous\nand inevitable act of the mind. Now, we are conscious of another group of\nfeelings which are not sensations, which do not come from without, but\nfrom within. These are mental and moral. But they, too, are qualities;\nand, as in the other case, perceiving qualities, we infer a substance in\nwhich they inhere. This latter substance we name soul, and we know it\nexactly as we know body. It is known by us as a simple substance, having\npersonal unity. The personality, the \u201cI,\u201d is a fundamental idea. Now, as\nsoon as we perceive the existence of soul, it becomes evident that soul\n_cannot_ die. It may be annihilated, but it cannot die. For what is\n_death_ when applied to the body? Dissolution or separation of the parts,\nbut not destruction of the simple elements. Death is decomposition of\nthese elements, and their resolution into new combinations. Now, the soul,\nbeing known by us as a simple substance, is incapable of dissolution.\n\nThis is the metaphysical proof of immortality. Then comes the TELEOLOGIC\nproof, or that from final causes. Man\u2019s end is not reached in this life.\nWe see everything in this world made for an end. The body is made for an\nend, and attains it, and then decays and is dissolved. The soul, with all\nits great powers, goes on and on, but the body dies before the soul is\never perfected. Every human life is like an unfinished tale in a magazine,\nwith \u201cto be continued\u201d written at its close, to show that it is not yet\nended.\n\nAnd besides these proofs of immortality, there is the THEOLOGICAL proof,\nfounded on the attributes of God; and the MORAL proof, based on the\nconflict between conscience and self-love; and the ANALOGICAL proof, based\non the law of progress in nature; and the COSMIC proof, founded on the\nrelation of the soul to the universe; and the HISTORIC proof, resting on\nthe universal belief in immortality; and lastly, the PSYCHOLOGIC proof, or\nthe instinct of life in man, which carries with it its own evidence of\ncontinuity.\n\nBut after all these proofs have been considered, the final result is\nprobability. Only the last gives more, and this acts not as an argument,\nbut as conviction. And the strength of this conviction depends on the\nstrength in any individual of this instinct. Some have more of the\ninstinct of life, others less.(29) Those who have much are easily\nconvinced by these various arguments. But those who have less, feel as\nCicero did after reading the Ph\u00e6do of Plato.(30)\n\nThis instinct of life appears not only to be different from the fear of\ndeath, but its exact opposite. When we have most of the one, we have the\nleast of the other. Any great excitement lifts us temporarily above the\nfear of death by giving us more life. So a man will plunge into the sea,\nand risk his own life to save that of another. So whole armies go to die\ncheerfully in the great rage of battle. But this instinct receives a\npermanent strength by all that elevates the soul. All greatness of aim,\nall devotion to duty, all generous love, take away the fear of death by\nadding to the quantum of life in the soul.(31)\n\nIf it be asked what the Scriptures teach concerning immortality, it must\nbe admitted that they have not much to say. They speak of life and of\neternal life; but this, as we shall discover, is quite another thing from\ncontinued existence. It refers to the quality and quantity of being, and\nnot merely to its duration.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Three Principal Views of Death\u2014the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian.\n\n\nThere are three principal views of death\u2014the Pagan view, the Jewish view,\nand the Christian view.\n\nPAGANISM, in all its various forms, is chiefly distinguished by its\ntransferring to the other life the tastes, feelings, habits of this life.\nThe other world is this one, shaded off and toned down. It is gray in its\nhue, wanting the color of this world; and is really inferior to it, and\nonly its pale reflection. To the gods of Olympus the doings of men are\nmatters of chief interest. Tartarus and the Elysian Fields are occupied by\nlymphatic ghosts, misty spectres, unsubstantial and unoccupied. When a\nliving man enters, like Ulysses, \u00c6neas, or Dante, they throng around him,\ndelighted to have something in which they can take a real interest.\n\u201cBetter be a plough-boy on earth than a king among the ghosts.\u201d This\nexpresses the Pagan idea of the other world. This world is more _real_\nthan the other, to the Pagan.\n\nJUDAISM, in its view of hereafter, is much more positive. It began with no\nidea of a hereafter. Nothing is taught concerning a future life by Moses,\nand little is to be found concerning it even in the prophets. The\nexplanation is simple. Men hard at work in the present do not think much\nof the future; and the work of the Jews was to be servants of Jehovah and\ndoers of his law here. However, all men must think a little of the region\nbeyond death. When the Jews thought of it, they projected their LAW upon\nits blank spaces. It was a place where Jehovah would vindicate his\nlaw\u2014where the just should be happy, the unjust miserable. The perplexity\nwhich tormented Job, David, and Elijah\u2014namely, that bad men should succeed\nin this world and good men fail\u2014was to find its solution there. Judgment\nwas the Jewish idea of hereafter\u2014a judgment to come. \u201cI have a hope toward\nGod, as they themselves also allow,\u201d said Paul, speaking of the Pharisees,\n\u201cthat there shall be a resurrection of the dead, of the just, and also of\nthe unjust.\u201d\n\nThe CHRISTIAN view of death is, that it is abolished\u2014it has ceased to be\nanything. The New Testament distinctly says, \u201cwho has _abolished_ death,\nand brought life and immortality to light.\u201d(32) Death, to a Christian, is\nbut a point on the line of advancing being; a door through which we pass;\na momentary sleep between two days. In the same sense the Saviour says,\n\u201cHe that liveth and believeth on me shall never die.\u201d\n\nSo also he spoke of Lazarus as being only asleep, and said of the daughter\nof Jairus, \u201cShe is not dead, but sleepeth.\u201d\n\nCertainly Jesus could not have spoken of death in this way if he regarded\nit as the awful and solemn thing which most believers consider it. If it\nis the moment that decides our eternal destiny, which shuts the gate of\nprobation, which terminates for the sinner all opportunity of repentance\nand conversion, for the saint all danger of relapse and fall,\u2014then death\nis surely something, and something of the most immense importance.\n\nBut Christ has really destroyed death both in the Pagan and in the Jewish\nfeeling concerning it. He destroys the Pagan idea of death as a plunge\ndownward from something into nothing, a descent into non-entity or\nhalf-entity, a diminution of our being, a passage from the substantial to\nthe shadowy and unreal.\n\nFor, according to Christianity, we do not descend in death; we ascend into\nmore of reality, into higher life. Death is a passage onward and upward.\n\nThe proof of this we find in the Christian doctrine of the RESURRECTION.\n\nThe meaning of the resurrection of Christ is not, as has been often\nsupposed, that after death he came to life _again_, but that at death he\nrose; that his death was rising up, ascent. This we shall show in a future\nsection of this chapter.\n\nOne power of Christ\u2019s resurrection was to abolish the _fear of death_. It\nbrought life and immortality to _light_. It showed men their immortality.\n\nThe fear of death is natural to all men, but it is easily removed. The\nsmallest and lowest power of the resurrection is shown in removing it.\n\nThe fear of death is natural. It consists in this\u2014that we are, in a great\npart of our nature, immersed in the finite and perishing. \u201cWhen we look at\nthe things which are seen,\u201d which \u201care temporal,\u201d we have an inward\nfeeling of instability\u2014nothing substantial. Therefore it is said, \u201cIn Adam\nall die,\u201d for the Adam, the first man in all of us, is the animal soul.\n\u201cThe first man is of the earth, earthy.\u201d The law of our life is, that it\ncomes from our love. When we love the finite, our life is finite. But\nbesides the finite element in man, the animal soul, or Adam, is the\nspiritual element, or Christ, the life flowing from things unseen, but\neternal.\n\nChrist has abolished death. There is now to the Christian no such thing as\ndeath, in the common sense of the term. The only death is the sense of\ndeath, the fear of death, which insnares and enslaves. Jesus delivers us\nfrom this by inspiring us with faith. We rise with him when we look with\nhim at the things unseen. Faith in eternal things brings into the soul a\nsense of eternity. Death is only a sleep: outward death is the sleep of\nthe bodily life; inward death is the sleep of the higher life. We awake\nand rise from the dead when Christ gives us life; and when he, who is our\nlife, shall appear, we shall also appear with him.\n\nThe philosopher Lessing says, \u201cThus was Christ the first _practical_\nteacher of the immortality of the soul. For it is one thing to conjecture,\nto wish, to hope for, to believe in immortality as a philosophical\nspeculation\u2014another thing to arrange all our plans and purposes, all our\ninward and our outward life, in accordance to it.\u201d\n\nJesus also destroys the Jewish idea of death, as a passage from a world\nwhere the good suffer and the bad triumph, to a world where this state of\nthings is reversed. The kingdom of heaven, with him, begins here, in this\nworld. Judgment is here as well as hereafter. The Jew lived, and all\nJudaizing Christians live, under a fearful looking for of judgment after\ndeath. The Christian sees that judgment is always taking place; that\nChrist is always judging the world; that God\u2019s moral laws and their\nretributions are not kept in a state of suspense till we die\u2014that they\noperate now daily. The Christian knows that heaven and hell are both here,\nand he expects to find them hereafter, because he finds them here. He\nbelieves in law, but not in law only. He believes in something higher than\nlaw, namely, love\u2014the love of a present, helpful Father, of a friend near\nat hand, of an inspiration from on high, of a God who forgives all sins\nwhen they are repented of, and saves all who trust in him. He is not under\nlaw, but under grace.\n\nWhen he looks forward to the other world, it is not as to a place where he\ngoes to be sentenced by a stern and absolute judge, but where judgment and\nmercy go hand in hand, where law remains, but is fulfilled by love.\n\nThis is what Paul means when he says, \u201cThe sting of death is sin, and the\nstrength of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who hath given us the\nvictory through our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\nThe only real death is the fear of death\u2014the Pagan fear of death, which is\na dread of loss, change, degradation of being, to follow the dissolution\nof the body; and the Jewish fear of death, which is a fearful looking for\nof judgment, and the sting of which is sin. Christ abolishes both of these\nfears in every believing heart. He abolishes them in two ways\u2014by the life\nand the resurrection. He is both resurrection and life: by inspiring us\nwith spiritual or eternal life, he abolishes all fear of dissolution; and\nby showing us that he has ascended into a higher state by his\nresurrection, he gives us the belief that death is not going down, but\ngoing up. For, though \u201cit doth not yet appear what we shall be, yet we\nknow this, that when _he_ shall appear, we shall be like him.\u201d\n\nBut, unfortunately, Christians are still subject to the fear of death.\nThis fear has been aggravated by the current teaching in pulpits\nprofessedly Christian. The fear of that \u201csomething after death\u201d has been\nmade use of to palsy the will; and conscience, as instructed by Christian\nteachers, has made cowards of us all; so that few persons can really say,\n\u201cThanks be to God, who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\u201d\n\nIt is very certain that the Pagan view of death and the Jewish view of\ndeath still linger in the Church, and are encouraged by Christian\nteachers. Death is made terrible by false doctrine and false teaching in\nthe Church. Christ has _not_ abolished death to the majority of\nChristians. Christians are almost as much afraid of death as the\nheathen\u2014sometimes more so.\n\nActual Christianity is a very different thing from ideal Christianity.\nIdeal Christianity is Christianity as seen and lived by Jesus; the gospel\nwhich he saw and spoke; the word of God made flesh in him. But actual\nChristianity is an amalgam; a portion of real Christianity mixed with a\nportion of the belief and habits of feeling existing in men\u2019s minds before\nthey became Christians. The Jews took a large quantity of Judaism into\nChristianity; the Pagans a large quantity of Paganism. The Christian\nChurch from the very beginning Judaized and Paganized. Paul contended\nagainst its Judaism on the one hand and its Paganism on the other. But\nJudaism and Paganism have always stuck to the Christian Church. She has\nnever risen above them wholly to this day. They mingle with all her\ndoctrines, ceremonies, and habits of life. The Romish Church has more of\nthe Pagan element, the Protestant more of the Jewish. The mediatorial\nsystem of Rome is essentially Pagan. Its ascending series of deacons,\nsub-deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, and\npope in the Church below; and beatified and sanctified spirits, angels,\nand archangels in the Church above; its processions, pilgrimages, dresses,\nits monastic institutions, its rosaries, relics, daily sacrifice, votive\nofferings\u2014everything peculiar to the Roman Church, existed before,\nsomewhere, in Paganism. So Protestantism has taken from the Jews its\nSabbath, its idea of God as King and Judge, its exclusion from God\u2019s favor\nof all but the elect, its view of the divine sovereignty, its doctrine of\npredestination, day of judgment, resurrection of the body, material heaven\nand material hell.\n\nI do not mean to say that there is no truth in these things. There is,\nbecause there is some truth in Paganism and in Judaism. We are all Pagans\nand Jews before we become Christians. The Jewish and Pagan element is in\nevery human soul, and in all _constants_ in man there is truth. But the\nPagan and Jewish truths are but stepping-stones to the higher Christian\ntruth. The law and Paganism are school-masters to bring us to Christ. The\nevil is, that Christianity has not been kept supreme; it has often been\nsunk and lost in the earlier elements. As the foolish Galatians were\nbewitched, and relapsed from the gospel to the law,\u2014turning again to weak\nand beggarly elements, desiring to be in bondage to them again, going back\nto their minority under tutors and governors,\u2014so the Church has been\nrelapsing, going back to weak and beggarly elements, not keeping\nChristianity supreme in thought, heart, and life, but letting Paganism or\nJudaism get the upper hand.\n\nSo it has been in regard to this subject. We Paganize and Judaize in our\nview of death. We re\u00ebstablish again what Christ has abolished. We make\ndeath something where Christ made it nothing. It is made the great duty of\nlife to \u201cprepare for death.\u201d No such duty is pointed out in the New\nTestament. Our duty is to prepare every day _to live_; then, when we die,\nwe shall be taken care of by God. We can safely leave the other world and\nits interests to Him who has shown himself so capable of taking care of us\nhere.\n\nThe gloom of death has been heightened by artificial means. Mourning\ndresses, solemn faces, funeral addresses, the grave,\u2014all have had an\nunnatural depth of awe added to the natural sense of bereavement. The\nOrthodox Church has deliberately and systematically Paganized and Judaized\nin what it has said and done about death. Its object has been always to\nmake use of the great lever of fear of a hereafter in order to enforce\nChristian belief and action. Hence Death has been made the king of\nterrors, the close of probation, the beginning of judgment, the awful\nentrance to the final decision of an endless doom. All this is wholly\nunchristian, unknown to apostolic times, a relapse towards Paganism. It is\nutterly opposed to the great declaration that \u201cCHRIST HAS ABOLISHED DEATH,\nAND BROUGHT LIFE AND IMMORTALITY TO LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL.\u201d\n\nWhat is called faith in immortality, therefore, is of two kinds: it is an\ninstinct, and it is a belief. In the New Testament these are plainly\ndistinguished. In the passage just quoted, it is said that Jesus \u201cbrought\nlife AND immortality to light.\u201d Jesus himself says, \u201cI am the resurrection\nAND the life.\u201d \u201cHe that believeth in me hath eternal life abiding in him,\nAND I will raise him up at the last day.\u201d\n\nLife is a matter of consciousness. It is a present possession, something\nabiding in us now.\n\nImmortality, or the resurrection, is an object of intellectual belief. It\nis something future. We _feel_ life; we believe in the resurrection.\n\nWe will pass on, in the next sections, to consider each of these.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not endless Future\nExistence, but present Spiritual Life.\n\n\nIt is only necessary carefully to examine the passages in the New\nTestament where the phrase \u201ceternal life\u201d (\u03b6\u03c9\u03ae \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) occurs, to see\nthat it does not refer to the duration, but to the quality, of existence.\n_Temporal life_ is that life of the soul which through the body is subject\nto the vicissitudes of time. _Eternal_ (or everlasting) _life_ is that\nlife of the spirit which is independent of change, and is apart from\nduration. God\u2019s being was regarded by the Semitic races as outside of time\nand space, as a perpetual Now, without before or after. (\u201cI am the _I\nAm_.\u201d Exod. 3:14.) Man, made in the image of God, becomes a \u201cpartaker of\nthe divine nature\u201d (2 Peter 2:4) by the gift of eternal life.\n\nThat \u201ceternal life\u201d is not an endless temporal existence appears,\u2014\n\n(_a._) From the passages in which it is spoken of as something to be\nobtained by one\u2019s own efforts, as (Matt. 19:16) when the young man asks of\nJesus what good thing he shall do that he may have eternal life, and Jesus\nreplies that he must keep the commandments, give his possessions to the\npoor, and come and follow him. Certainly that was not the method to obtain\nan endless existence, but it was the true preparation for receiving\nspiritual good. So Jesus tells Peter (Mark 10:30) that those who make\nsacrifices for the sake of truth shall receive temporal rewards \u201cin this\ntime;\u201d and \u201cin the coming age eternal life\u201d (\u201c\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u201d). The coming age is the age of the Messiah, when the gift of the\nHoly Ghost should be bestowed.\n\n(_b._) Passages in which eternal life is spoken of as a present\npossession, not a future expectation. (John 3:36.) \u201cHe that believeth on\nthe Son _hath_ (\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9) eternal life.\u201d So John 6:47, 54, &c.\n\n(_c._) Passages in which eternal life is defined expressly as a state of\nthe soul. (John 17:3.) \u201cThis is life eternal, that they may know thee the\nonly true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,\u201d &c.\n\nSo (Gal. 6:8) it is represented as the natural result of \u201csowing to the\nSpirit;\u201d (Rom. 2:7) of \u201cpatient continuance in well-doing;\u201d as \u201cthe gift\nof God\u201d (Rom. 6:23); as something which we \u201clay hold of\u201d (1 Tim. 6:12,\n19).\n\nThis view of \u201ceternal life\u201d is taken by all the best critics. Professor\nHovey thus sums up their testimony:\u2014(33)\n\n\n    \u201cOn a certain occasion, Christ pronounced it necessary for the Son\n    of Man to be lifted up, \u2018that whosoever believeth in him should\n    not perish, but _have eternal life_\u2019 (John 3:15)\u2014\u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n    \u0396\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, says Meyer, who is, perhaps, the best commentator on\n    the New Testament, of modern times, \u2018signifies the eternal\n    Messianic life, which, however, the believer already\n    possesses\u2014\u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3\u2014in this \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd, that is, in the temporal development\n    of that moral and blessed life which is independent of death, and\n    which will culminate in perfection and glory at the coming of\n    Christ.\u2019 And L\u00fccke, whose commentary on the Gospel of John is one\n    of the most thorough and attractive in the German language, says\n    that the \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which is the exact opposite of \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n    (destruction), or \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (death), is the sum of Messianic\n    blessedness. It is plain, we think, that the life here spoken of\n    as the present possession of every believer in Christ is more than\n    endless existence; it is life in the fullest and highest sense of\n    the word, the free, holy, and blessed action of the whole man,\n    that is to say, the proper, normal living of a rational and moral\n    being. The germ, the principle of this life, exists in the heart\n    of every believer; it is a present possession. \u2018Whosoever,\u2019 says\n    Christ, \u2018drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never\n    thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a\n    fountain\u2014\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u2014of water, springing up into everlasting life.\u2019 (John\n    4:14.) In another place our Saviour utters these words: \u2018He that\n    heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, _hath eternal\n    life_, and shall not come into condemnation, _but has passed from\n    death into life_\u2019 (John 5:24)\u2014\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n    \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd. Here, again, the believer is said to _have_ eternal life,\n    even now; for he has passed from death into life. _Ingens saltus_,\n    remarks Bengel, with his customary brevity and graphic power. We\n    translate a part of L\u00fccke\u2019s ample and instructive note on this\n    important verse.\n\n    \u201c \u2018The words, \u201cHas passed from death into life\u201d determine that\n    \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 (_hath_) must be taken as a strict present. For the verb\n    \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (_has passed_) affirms that the transition from death\n    into life took place with the hearing and believing. Only if an\n    impossible thought were thus expressed, could we consent, as in a\n    case of extreme necessity, to understand the present \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 and the\n    present perfect \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd as futures. And then we should be\n    compelled to say that John had expressed himself very strangely.\n    But if a higher kind of life, a resurrection process prior to\n    bodily death, is represented by \u201chath,\u201d and \u201chath passed,\u201d then\n    \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 and \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 are not to be understood of a life commencing\n    after bodily death, but of the true and eternal Messianic life or\n    salvation, beginning even here. This life does not, to be sure,\n    exclude natural death, but neither does it first begin after this\n    death. (Cf. 5:40.) Even so \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 cannot be understood of bodily,\n    but only of spiritual death, of lying in the darkness of the\n    world. This interpretation would be justified here, even if\n    \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 elsewhere in the New Testament denoted uniformly nothing\n    but bodily death. But the metaphorical idea of death stands out\n    clearly in 1 John 3:14; 5:16, 17; John 8:51, 52; 2 Cor. 2:16;\n    7:10. Similar, also, is the use of the words \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (Rom. 7:4;\n    8:13), and \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Matt. 8:22; Eph. 5:14;\n    Heb. 6:1; Col. 3:5; Gal. 2:19).\u2019\n\n    \u201cWith the passage now examined may be compared a statement of the\n    apostle John to the same effect, namely: \u2018We know that we have\n    passed from death into life, because we love the brethren; he that\n    loveth not abideth in death.\u2019 (1 John 3:14.) This language,\n    explained with a due regard to the preceding context, speaks,\n    evidently, of spiritual death and life, of a passing from one\n    moral condition into another and opposite one. To say that this\n    new moral condition and blessed state is to endure and improve\n    forever, may doubtless be to utter an important truth, but one\n    which does not conflict in the slightest degree with its present\n    existence. It begins in this life; it continues forever and ever.\n\n    \u201cAgain: we find our Saviour saying, \u2018He that believeth on me hath\n    everlasting life;\u2019 \u2018Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and\n    drink his blood, ye have no life in you;\u2019 and, \u2018The words that I\n    speak unto you are spirit, and are life.\u2019 (John 6:47, 53, 63.) By\n    these verses we are taught once more, that the Greek terms which\n    denote life and death, living and dying, were applied by Christ to\n    opposite moral states of the soul. For, observe, (1.) he more than\n    intimates that his words, his doctrines, are the source of present\n    life to those who receive them, and that, by eating his flesh and\n    drinking his blood, he signifies a reception of his words, and so\n    of himself as the Lamb of God. And, (2.) he declares that one who\n    believes _has_ eternal life; that one who eats of the true bread\n    shall not die, but shall live forever; and that one who does not\n    eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man _hath not\n    life_ in himself.\n\n    \u201cIs it not plain that the words _life_ and _death_, as well as the\n    words _bread_, _flesh_, and _blood_, _eating_ and _drinking_, are\n    here used in a spiritual sense? Is it not plain that Jesus here\n    speaks of something in the believer\u2019s soul which is nourished by\n    Christian truth, and which is at the same time called _life_? But\n    it is the function of truth to quicken thought and feeling, to\n    determine the modes of conscious life, the character or moral\n    condition of the human soul; and hence the rejection of it may\n    involve the utter want of certain spiritual _qualities_ and\n    blessed _emotions_, but not the want of personal existence. In\n    still another place we read, \u2018Jesus said unto her, I am the\n    resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were\n    dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me\n    shall never die.\u2019 (John 11:25, 26.) Christ here affirms that every\n    believer is exempted from death. And it matters not for our\n    present purpose whether the word \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd, translated in our version\n    \u2018liveth,\u2019 refers in this passage to physical or to moral life. If\n    it refers to physical life, then our Saviour pronounces the\n    Christian to be already, in time, delivered from the power of\n    death, and in possession of a true and immortal life. But if it\n    refers to moral life, Christ declares that whoever possesses this\n    life, whether in the body or out of the body, is delivered from\n    the power of death; that is, his union with God and delight in\n    him, which alone constitute the normal living of the soul, shall\n    never be interrupted: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u2014_he shall never\n    die_....\n\n    \u201c \u2018And this is life eternal,\u2019 says the Great Teacher, \u2018that they\n    should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou\n    hast sent.\u2019 (John 17:3.) The best ancient and modern interpreters\n    hold this verse to be a definition by Christ himself of the\n    expression \u2018life eternal,\u2019 so often used by him, according to the\n    record of John. De Wette says, \u2018_And this is_ (therein consists)\n    _the life eternal_; not, this is the means of the eternal life;\n    for the vital knowledge of God and Christ is itself the eternal\n    life, which begins even here, and penetrates the whole life of the\n    human spirit.\u2019 Meyer translates thus: \u2018_Therein consists the\n    eternal life_,\u2019 and says, \u2018This knowledge, willed of God, is the\n    \u201ceternal life,\u201d inasmuch as it is the essential subjective\n    principle of the latter, its enduring, eternally unfolding germ\n    and fountain, both now, in the temporal development of the eternal\n    life, and hereafter, when the kingdom is set up, in which faith,\n    hope, and charity abide, whose essence is that knowledge.\u2019(34) The\n    same view, substantially, is presented by Olshausen, L\u00fccke,\n    Bengel, Alford, and many others.\u201d\n\n\nEternal life is the gift of God to the soul through Jesus Christ. It is\nGod\u2019s life communicated to man\u2014the life of God in the soul of man. This is\ndistinctly stated in the First Epistle of John (chap. 1:1), as the life\nwhich was from the beginning, the eternal life which was with the Father,\nbut is manifested to us, giving us fellowship with the Father and with his\nSon.\n\nThe root of this eternal life is in every human being. It is what we call\n\u201cthe spirit\u201d in man, as distinguished from the soul and body. It is the\nside of each person which touches the infinite and eternal.\n\nFichte, the most spiritual of German philosophers, says, \u201cLove is life.\nWhere I love, I live. What I love, I live from that.\u201d(35) When we love\nearthly things, our life is earthly, that is, temporal; when we love the\ntrue, the right, the good, our life is spiritual and eternal. Then we have\neternal life abiding in us. Then all fear of death departs. The great gift\nof God through Christ was to make the right and true also lovely, so that\nloving them, we could draw our life from them. When God becomes lovely to\nus, by being shown to us as Jesus shows him, then by loving God we live\nfrom God, and so have eternal life abiding in us.\n\nThe natural instinct of immortality is the spirit, or sense of the\ninfinite and eternal. But it needs to be re\u00ebnforced by the influence of\nChristian conviction, hope, and experience, in order completely to conquer\nthe sense of death. It is not by logical arguments in proof of a future\nexistence that immortality becomes clear to us, but by living an immortal\nlife. Dr. Channing says truly, \u201cImmortality must begin here.\u201d And so Hase\n(Dogmatic, \u00a7 92) says, \u201cAny proof which should demonstrate, with\nmathematical certainty, to the understanding, or to the senses, the\nblessings or terrors of our future immortality, would destroy morality in\nits very roots. The belief in immortality is therefore at first only a\nwish, and a belief on the authority of others; but the more that any one\nassures to himself his spiritual life by his own free efforts and a pure\nlove for goodness, the more certain also does eternity become, not merely\nas something future, but as something already begun.\u201d(36)\n\nWhenever Jesus is said to give eternal life, or to be the life of the\nworld; whenever the apostles declare Christ to be their life, or say that\nas in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive; when Paul says,\n\u201cThe law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the\nlaw of sin and death;\u201d \u201cto be spiritually minded is life and peace;\u201d \u201cthe\nlife of Jesus is manifested in our dying (mortal) flesh;\u201d when John says,\n\u201cHe that hath the Son hath life;\u201d when in Revelation we read of the book\nof life, and water of life, and tree of life,\u2014the meaning is always the\nsame. It refers to the spiritual vitality added to the soul by the\ninfluence of Jesus, who communicates God\u2019s love, and so enables us to LOVE\nGod, instead of merely fearing him or obeying him. Love casts out all\nfear, the fear of death included. He who looks at the things unseen and\neternal, partakes of their eternal nature, and though his outward human\nnature perishes, his inward spiritual nature is renewed day by day.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and not a Rising\nagain.\n\n\nOne part of the Christian doctrine of immortality is conveyed in the term\n\u201ceternal life;\u201d the other part in the other term, usually associated with\nit\u2014\u201cthe resurrection.\u201d The common Orthodox doctrine of the resurrection,\nis that the dead shall rise with the same bodies as those laid in earth;\nand this identity is usually made to consist in identity of matter, though\nPaul expressly says, \u201cThou sowest _not_ that body that shall be.\u201d On the\nother hand, many liberal thinkers of the Spiritual School deny any\nresurrection, and think the whole doctrine of the resurrection a Jewish\nerror, believing in a purely spiritual existence hereafter. Others, like\nSwedenborg, teach that the soul hereafter dwells in a body, though of a\nmore refined and sublimated character; and in this we think they approach\nmore nearly the teaching of the New Testament.\n\nIt is a remarkable fact that the Greek words indicating the rising of men\nshould have been translated, in our English Bible, by terms signifying\nsomething wholly different, and conveying another sense than that in the\noriginal. It is equally extraordinary that this change of meaning should\nseldom or never be alluded to by theological writers.\n\nThese words, translated \u201cresurrection,\u201d \u201crise again,\u201d and the like, all\nhave, in the Greek, the sense of rising UP, not of rising AGAIN. They\nsignify not return, but ascent; not coming back to this life, but going\nforward to a higher. The difference in meaning is apparent and very\nimportant. It is one thing to say, that at death we go down into Hades, or\ninto dissolution, and at the resurrection we come back to conscious\nexistence, or to the same life we had before, and quite a different thing\nto say that what we call death is _nothing_; but that we rise _up_, and go\nforward when we seem to die. This last is the doctrine of the New\nTestament, though the former is the one usually believed to be taught in\nit.\n\nThe immense stress laid, in the New Testament, on the resurrection of\nJesus is by no means explained by supposing that after his death he came\nto life again, and so proved that there is a life after death. What he\nshowed his disciples was, that death was not going down, but going up; not\ndescent into the grave, or Hades, but ascent to a higher world. This is\nthe evident sense of such passages as these. We have not room to go over\nall the passages which should be noticed in a critical examination, but\nselect a few of the most prominent.\n\n1. \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, commonly translated \u201cresurrection,\u201d or \u201crising again,\u201d but\nwhich literally means \u201crising up.\u201d (So Bretschneider, \u201cLexicon Man. in\nlib. Nov. Test.\u201d defines it as \u201cresurrectio, _rectius_ surrectio.\u201d)(37)\n\nThis word occurs forty-two times in the New Testament. In _none_ of them\n(unless there be a single exception, which we shall presently consider)\ndoes it necessarily mean _a rising again_, or coming back to the same\nlevel of life as before. In a large number of instances the word _can\nonly_ mean a _rising up_, or ascent to a higher state. Of these cases we\nwill cite a few examples.\n\nTen of the passages in which the word \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 occurs, are in the account\nby the Synoptics of the discussion between Jesus and the Sadducees\nconcerning the case of the woman married to seven brothers. After stating\nthe case, they say, \u201cTherefore, _in the resurrection_, whose wife of them\nis she?\u201d It is plain that the word \u201cresurrection\u201d here is equivalent to\n\u201cthe future state,\u201d and cannot be limited to a return to life. This\nbecomes more apparent in the answer of Jesus, as given, somewhat varied,\nby the three Synoptics: \u201cIn the resurrection they neither marry nor are\ngiven in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.\u201d (Matt. 22:30.)\nMark, instead of \u201cthe resurrection,\u201d has the corresponding verb, \u201cwhen\nthey shall rise from the dead.\u201d This certainly means, not rising again,\nbut rising up, ascending to a higher state. And Luke adds another element,\nshowing that the \u201cresurrection\u201d is a state to which all may not attain,\nbut which is dependent on character; evidently therefore a higher state.\n\u201cThey which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given\nin marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the\nangels\u201d (or rather \u201care like the angels\u201d) \u201cand are children of God, being\n_children of the resurrection_.\u201d (Luke 20:35, 36.) This last phrase,\n\u201cchildren of the resurrection,\u201d is very significant, and intends a\ncharacter corresponding to this higher state. There seems, indeed, to be a\ncontradiction between this passage, which makes the resurrection\nconditional, and those which declare it universal. (See John 5:29, and 1\nCor. ch. 15.) But perhaps the reconciliation can be found in the apostolic\nstatement (1 Cor. 15:23) \u201cevery one in his order.\u201d All shall ascend into\nthe higher state, called \u201cthe resurrection,\u201d but only as they become\nprepared for it. All are not now prepared to hear the voice of the Son of\nman (or of divine truth), which shall causes them to rise to the\nresurrection of life and of judgment; but, in due season, all shall come\nforth from their graves, and hear it.\n\nAnother passage in which this word occurs is in Luke 2:34, where Simon\nsays, \u201cThis child is set for the fall and _rising again_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) of\nmany in Israel.\u201d A moral fall and rising are here evident; and only if the\nreduplication be dropped, and we read \u201cfor the fall and the rising up,\u201d do\nwe get the true idea. It is not meant that Jesus comes to degrade us\nmorally, and then lift us up again morally. Rather it means that he comes\nto test the state of the hearts of men: some cannot bear the test, and\nfall before it; others, better prepared, rise higher. Here, also,\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 means rising up, and not rising again.\n\nThe most remarkable use of this word, however, is in that famous passage\nwhere the common meaning is wholly unintelligible, in the story of\nLazarus. (John 11:24, 25.) Jesus says, \u201cI am the resurrection and the\nlife.\u201d If resurrection means coming back to life after death, in what\nsense can Jesus be \u201cthe resurrection and the life\u201d? Then Jesus said that\nhe was \u201cthe coming back to life,\u201d which is unintelligible. But if the\nresurrection means the ascent to a higher state, then Jesus declares that\nhe is the way of _ascent to a higher state_, just as he says elsewhere, \u201cI\nam the way;\u201d \u201cI am the door.\u201d It is the power of Christ within the soul,\nthe power of his spirit of faith, hope, and love, which enables us to go\nforward and upward. Christ is not the principle of resuscitation to an\nearthly existence, or a merely human immortality. He does not bring us to\nlife again, but he lifts us up. So he adds, \u201cHe who believeth in me,\nthough he were dead, yet shall he live.\u201d Not, shall come to life again;\nno, but, shall rise out of death into life, ascend into a higher condition\nof being. Then he adds that to one who has faith in him, who has adopted\nhis ideas, there is no longer any such thing as death. Death has\ndisappeared\u2014is abolished. \u201cHe who liveth and believeth in me shall never\ndie.\u201d\n\nBut, it may be objected, if spiritual death and life are here spoken\nof,\u2014if the passage means that he who believeth in Christ shall have inward\nreligious spiritual life, a heavenly and celestial life,\u2014then how could\nthat comfort Martha, or apply to her case, who was mourning, not the\nspiritual, but the natural, death of her brother?\n\nChrist is essentially a manifestation of the truth and love of God. To\nbelieve in him is therefore to believe in God\u2019s truth and love. But belief\nin this fills the soul with life. And the soul full of life cannot die.\nWhat seems death is only change, and a change from a lower to a higher\nstate, therefore rising up, or resurrection. Christ, then, the love and\ntruth of God in the soul, is the life and the resurrection. He fills the\nsoul with that life which causes it to rise with every change, to go up\nand on evermore to a higher state. That which seems death is nothing; the\nonly real death is the immersion of the soul in sense and evil, the\nturning away from truth and God.\n\nNow, Martha believed, as most of us believe, in a _future_ resurrection.\nShe believed that, after lying a long time in the grave, one would come\nout of it at last, on a great day of judgment, and somehow the soul and\nbody be reunited. She believed this, for it was the general belief of the\nJews in her day. It is the general belief of Christians now. The majority\nof Christians have not got very far beyond that. They talk of the\nresurrection, as though it were merely the return of the soul into the old\nbody; and when you comfort them over their dead by saying, \u201cYour dead will\nrise,\u201d reply, \u201cI know it\u2014at the resurrection, at the last day.\u201d But Jesus\ntells Martha, and all the Martha Christians of the present time, that he\n_is_ the resurrection and the life. Your brother is not to sleep in the\ndust till the last day, and then rise. He does not die at all. He rises\nwith Christ here, and in whatever other world. His nature is to go _up_,\nnot down, when he is Christianized. Now or then, to-day or at the last\nday, if he has the living faith of a son of God, he will be raised by that\nChrist within him, who is his life.\n\nThis, it seems to us, is the only adequate explanation of this passage,\nand shows conclusively that resurrection must mean, in this place, a\nrising up to a higher existence, and not a mere return to this life.\n\nIt appears, from 1 Cor. ch. 15, that there were some in the Christian\nchurch who said there was no resurrection of the dead (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd,)\nor that it was past already. (2 Tim. 2:18.) These Christians did not deny\nthe doctrine of immortality, or a future life. It is difficult to imagine\nthe motive which could induce any one, in those days, to join the\nChristian church, if he denied a future life. Probably, therefore, they\nassumed that the only real resurrection takes place in the soul when we\nrise with Christ. They said, \u201cIf we are to rise into a higher life after\nthis, _how_ shall we rise, and with what bodies?\u201d (1 Cor. 15:35.) They\nprofessed to believe in a simple immortality of the soul, but not an\nascent of the personal being, soul and body together, to the presence of\nGod. They did not question a future life, but a higher life to which soul\nand body should go up together.\n\nTo these doubting Christians, who could not gather strength to believe in\nsuch a great progress as this, Paul says that if man does not rise, if it\nis contrary to his nature to rise, then Jesus, being a man, has not risen,\nbut gone down to Hades with other souls. Then he is not _above_ us, with\nGod, sending down strength and inspiration from our work. This faith of\nours, which has been our great support, is an illusion. We have all been\ndeceived\u2014deceived in preaching forgiveness of sins through Christ from\nGod; deceived in preaching a higher life above us, into which Christ has\ngone, and where he is waiting to receive us. But we have not been\ndeceived\u2014Christ _has_ risen, and risen as the first fruits of humanity. He\nleads the way up, and in proportion as we share his life, we also have in\nourselves the principle of ascent, and shall go up too. He goes first;\nthen all who are like him follow and finally, in due order, all mankind.\nDeath and Hades have been conquered by this new influx of life in Christ.\nInstead of remaining pale ghosts, naked souls, we shall rise into a\nfuller, richer, larger life, of soul and body.\n\nThere is one passage, however, where there seems a difficulty in\nconsidering \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or resurrection, as implying an ascent of\ncondition. It is in John 5:28, 29. Our common translation reads thus: \u201cThe\nhour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice\n(that is, the voice of the Son of man), and shall come forth, they that\nhave done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil\nunto the resurrection of damnation.\u201d At first sight it certainly seems\nthat the \u201cresurrection of damnation\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) could hardly be\nconsidered a higher state. All depends, however, on the meaning of the\nword, here translated \u201cdamnation.\u201d The word, in the Greek, is the genitive\nof \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Now, by turning to the Concordance, we find that this word\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 occurs some forty-eight times in the New Testament. In these\nplaces,\u2014\n\nIt is translated 3 times by \u201cdamnation.\u201d\nIt is translated 2 times by \u201ccondemnation.\u201d\nIt is translated 2 times by \u201caccusation.\u201d\nIt is translated 41 times by \u201cjudgment.\u201d\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that our translators considered _judgment_ to be\nthe primary and usual meaning of the word. Why, then, did they not\ntranslate it here, \u201crising to judgment,\u201d or \u201cresurrection of judgment\u201d? It\nmust have been because they believed either that (1.) \u201cjudgment\u201d would\nmake no sense here; (2.) that \u201cdamnation\u201d would make better sense; or,\n(3.) that \u201cdamnation\u201d was more in accordance with the analogy of faith.\nBut we can decide these points for ourselves. \u201cJudgment\u201d is the better\nword here, for it accords with the doctrine of the New Testament, that in\nproportion as man goes wrong, he dulls his moral sense, and needs a\nrevelation of truth to show him what he is. A true man, who has lived\naccording to the truth here, has judged himself, and will not need to be\njudged hereafter. (1 Cor. 11:31.) He rises into the resurrection of life.\nBut those who follow falsehood here, need to see the truth; and they rise\ninto the resurrection of judgment. The truth judges and condemns them. But\nthis is really an ascent to them also. It is going up higher, to see the\ntruth, even when it condemns them. This passage, then, is no exception to\nthe principle that wherever \u201cresurrection\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) occurs in the New\nTestament, it implies going up into a higher state.\n\nAll the other places where the word occurs either evidently have this\nmeaning, or can bear it as easily as the other. Thus (Luke 14:14), \u201cThou\nshalt be recompensed in the higher state of the just.\u201d (20:27), the\nSadducees \u201cdeny a higher state.\u201d (Acts 1:21), \u201che is to be a witness with\nus of the ascended state of Jesus.\u201d (Acts 4:2), \u201cpreached, through Jesus,\nthe higher state of the dead.\u201d (17:18), \u201cpreached to them Jesus and the\nhigher state.\u201d (20:23), that Christ \u201cshould be the first to rise into the\nhigher state.\u201d (Lazarus and others had returned to life again before\nJesus, so that in this sense he was _not_ the first fruits.) (Rom. 6:5),\n\u201cplanted in the likeness of his resurrection.\u201d This can only mean as\nChrist passed through the grave into a higher state, so we pass through\nbaptism into a higher state.\n\nThe only text which presents any real difficulty is Heb. 11:35,\ntranslated, \u201cwomen received their dead raised to life again,\u201d literally,\n\u201cwomen received from the resurrection their dead\u201d (\u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2), which\nmay refer to a return to this life, as in the case of the child of the\nwidow of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:17), and of the Shunamite (2 Kings 4:17).(38)\nBut in the same verse, the other and \u201cbetter\u201d resurrection is spoken of,\nfor the sake of which these martyrs refused to return to this life. The\ncase referred to is probably that of the record of the seven brothers put\nto death by Antiochus (2 Macc. 7:9), who refused life offered on condition\nof eating swine\u2019s flesh, and said, when dying, \u201cThe King of the world\nshall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2), literally, \u201cto an eternal renewal\nof our life.\u201d(39) This verse shows, therefore, that though \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 may\nmean a return to this life, yet that the other sense of a higher life is\nexpressly contrasted with it, even here.\n\nOur conclusion, therefore, with regard to this term \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, is, that\nits meaning, in New Testament usage, is not \u201crising again,\u201d but \u201crising\nup,\u201d or \u201cascent.\u201d\n\n2. \u1f08\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9. This word is the root of the former. It is used one hundred\nand twelve times in the New Testament. It is translated with _again_ (as,\n\u201che must rise again from the dead\u201d) fifteen times. It is translated\nthirty-six times \u201crise up\u201d or \u201craise _up_\u201d (as, \u201cI will raise him up at\nthe last day\u201d), and ninety-six times without the \u201cagain.\u201d It is rendered\n\u201che _arose_,\u201d \u201cshall _rise_,\u201d \u201cstood up,\u201d \u201craise up,\u201d \u201carise,\u201d and in\nsimilar ways.\n\n3. \u1f18\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9. This word is also frequently used in relation to the\nresurrection, and is translated \u201cto awaken,\u201d \u201carouse,\u201d \u201canimate,\u201d\n\u201crevive.\u201d The natural and usual meaning is ascent to a higher state, and\nnot merely a \u201crising again.\u201d\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nFrom these considerations we see that the primitive and central meaning of\nthe terms used to express the resurrection is that of ASCENT. It is GOING\nUP. This is the essential Christian idea. But it soon became implicated\nwith the Pagan idea of immortality, or continued existence of the soul,\nand the Jewish idea of a bodily resurrection at the last day. But though\nthere is a truth in each of these beliefs, the Christian doctrine is\nneither one nor the other. The gospel _assumes_, but does not teach, a\ncontinued existence of the soul. Since the greater includes the less, in\nteaching that the MAN rises at death into a higher life, it necessarily\nimplies that he continues to live. And in teaching that he is to exist as\nman, with soul and body, in a higher condition of development, it teaches\nnecessarily the bodily resurrection of the Jews. Christ, who came \u201cnot to\ndestroy, but to fulfil,\u201d FULFILS both Pagan and Jewish ideas of the future\nstate in this doctrine of an ASCENSION at death.\n\nThe principal points of the teaching of Jesus concerning the life which\nfollows the dissolution of the body are these: _First._ As against the\nSadducees, he argues that the dead are living (Matt. 22:31, and the\nparallel passages), from the simple fact that God calls them _his_. If God\nthinks of them as _his_, that is enough. His thinking of them makes them\nalive. No one can perish while God is thinking of him with love. Such an\nargument, carrying no weight to the mere understanding, is convincing in\nproportion as one is filled with a spiritual conception of God.\n_Secondly._ Jesus abolishes death by teaching that there is no such thing\nto the soul which shares his ideas concerning God and the universe. This\nis implied in the phrases, \u201cHe that liveth and believeth in me shall never\ndie.\u201d (John 11:26.) \u201cHe that believeth on me hath everlasting life.\u201d (John\n6:47.) \u201cI am the living bread, whereof if a man eat, he shall live\nforever.\u201d (John 6:51.) \u201cWhoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath\neternal life.\u201d (John 6:54.) \u201cIf a man keep my saying, he shall never see\ndeath.\u201d Here, \u201ceating Christ\u2019s flesh, and drinking his blood,\u201d is plainly\nequivalent to \u201ckeeping his saying,\u201d and \u201cbelieving on him.\u201d As \u201cfood which\nwe eat and drink changes itself so as to become a part of our own body by\nassimilation,\u201d so Christ intends that his truth shall not be merely taken\ninto the memory, and reproduced in words, but shall be taken into the\nlife, and reproduced in character. _Thirdly._ He teaches that as feeding\non his truth changes our natural life into spiritual life, and lifts\ntemporal existence into eternal being, so it will also place us outwardly\nin a higher state and higher relations, to which state he applies the\nfamiliar term the \u201cresurrection\u201d or \u201cascent,\u201d the \u201cgoing up.\u201d \u201cI will\nraise him up at the last day.\u201d The \u201clast day,\u201d in Jewish and New Testament\nusage, means the Messianic times, as appears from such passages as Acts\n2:17, where the term is used of the day of Pentecost; Heb. 1:2, \u201chath in\nthese last days spoken unto us by his Son;\u201d 1 John 2:18, \u201cLittle children,\nit is the last time.\u201d Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to the\nFather (John 14:15), in whose house are many mansions, where he is to\nprepare a place for his disciples. (John 14:2.)\n\nThat \u201cresurrection\u201d was understood to mean a present higher state, and not\na future return to life, appears also from its use by the apostles.\nChristians are spoken of as having already \u201crisen with Christ\u201d (Col. 3:1);\n\u201crisen with him in baptism\u201d (Col. 3:1); walking \u201cin the likeness of his\nresurrection\u201d (Rom. 6:5). And, no doubt, it was by making this idea of a\npresent resurrection too exclusive, that some Christians maintained that\nit was wholly a present resurrection, and not at all future\u2014that \u201cit was\npast already.\u201d\n\nThis Christian faith in \u201cresurrection\u201d as ascent to a higher condition of\nbeing at death is practically borne witness to by such common expressions\nconcerning departed friends as these: \u201cHe has gone to a better world;\u201d \u201cHe\nis in a higher world than this;\u201d \u201cWe ought not to grieve for him\u2014he is\nbetter off than he was.\u201d The practical sense of Christendom has taken this\nfaith from the Gospels, though the Creeds do not authorize it. The Creeds\nteach that the souls of the good either sleep till a future resurrection,\nor are absorbed into God until then, while the souls of the impenitent\ndescend to a lower sphere. Christ teaches that at death _all_ rise to a\nhigher state\u2014of life and love to the loving, or judgment by the sight of\ntruth to the selfish; but _higher_ to all. Paul declares that \u201cas in Adam\nALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive,\u201d making the rise\nequivalent in extent to the fall.\n\nThe great change in the faith of the apostles, in consequence of the\nresurrection or ascent of Christ, was this: They before believed that at\ndeath all went to Hades, to the gloomy underworld of shadows, there to\nremain till the final resurrection. But the belief that Christ, instead of\ngoing down, had gone up, and had assured them that all who had faith in\nhim had the principle of ascent in their souls, and were already\nspiritually risen,\u2014this took the victory from Hades and the sting from\ndeath.\n\nTo Christians, at least, Hades is no more anything; all who have a living\nfaith rise with Christ; and sooner or later, each in his order, _all_\nshall rise. This was the \u201cpower of the resurrection\u201d of Jesus to destroy\nthe fear of death, to enable them \u201cto attain\u201d _now_ \u201cto the resurrection\nof the dead\u201d (Phil. 3:10), teaching that \u201cif the Spirit of Him who raised\nup Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus from the dead\nshall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.\u201d\n\u201cFor it is Christ that died, _yea, rather, that is risen_, who is even at\nthe right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.\u201d It was,\ntherefore, the duty of all Christians, since they were risen in Christ,\n\u201cto seek the things which are above.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testament, not a\nRising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into a higher Body.\n\n\nIt is remarkable that those who profess to believe in the literal\ninspiration of the New Testament should nevertheless very generally teach\nthat the future body is _materially_ the same as this. We often hear\nlabored arguments to show how the identical chemical particles which\ncompose the body at death may be re-collected from all quarters at the\nresurrection. Yet the only place where any account is given of the future\nbody, declares explicitly that it is different from the present, just as\nthe stalk which comes out of the ground differs from the seed planted. \u201cWe\nsow _not_ the body which shall be, but bare grain, and God giveth it a\nbody as pleaseth him.\u201d\n\nMany persons, however, take an opposite view, and have no belief in any\nfuture bodily existence. They speak much more frequently of the\n_immortality of the soul_. But the resurrection of the body is\nunquestionably a doctrine of the New Testament, while the immortality of\nthe soul is not. The New Testament knows nothing of a purely spiritual\nexistence hereafter, nothing of an abstract disembodied immortality. The\nreaction from materialism to idealism has caused us now to undervalue\nbodily existence. So it did among the Corinthians to whom Paul wrote, \u201cHow\nsay some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?\u201d These\nCorinthians were not Sadducees, nor Epicureans. There is no evidence that\nthese sects had any influence on the Christian Church. They did not deny a\n_future existence_, but they denied a rising up and a _future bodily\nexistence_. They believed, like us, in an immortality of the soul, denying\nthe possibility (probably on philosophical grounds) of the resurrection of\nthe body. So Paul proceeds, in the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians, first\nto prove the fact, and then to explain the nature of a bodily\nresurrection.\n\nLet us consider, first, what is meant by a resurrection of the body.\n\nThis word _resurrection_ tends to mislead us by suggesting the rising from\nthe grave of the material body there deposited; and accordingly we have\nthe theory which makes the future body the mere revival of the same\nparticles of matter composing the present body. But the Greek word, as we\nhave fully shown, means not merely rising out of the grave, but rising to\na higher state of existence. The _anastasis_ of the body is its elevation\nand spiritualizalion. By the resurrection of the body, we mean that in the\nfuture life of man, he shall not exist in the same material and fleshly\nenvelope as now, nor yet as a purely disembodied spirit. The true doctrine\navoids both extremes\u2014the extreme of pure idealism on the one hand, and of\npure materialism on the other. It asserts three things: first, that we\nhave a real body hereafter; second, that this will be identical with our\n_true_ body now; third, that it will be this true body in a higher state\nof development than at present, a spiritual instead of a natural body.\n\nFirst, it will be a real body. A real body is an organization with which\nthe soul is connected, and by means of which it comes into connection with\nthe material universe, and under the laws of space and time. This\norganization may be more or less refined and subtle; it may not come under\nthe cognizance of our present senses; but if it is an organization by\nmeans of which we may commune with the physical universe, it is\nessentially a _body_.\n\nAgain, the future body is identical with the present true body of man. For\nwhat is our _true body_? Not the particles of flesh and blood, but the\nprinciple of its organization. The identity of our body does not consist\nin the identity of its material particles, for these come and go, are in\nconstant flux, and are wholly changed, it is said, every seven years. But,\nnotwithstanding this change, the body of the man is the same with that of\nthe child. The same features, figure, temperament, morbid and passional\ntendencies, are reproduced year after year. These flying particles,\ngathered from earth and air, are manufactured into brain, bone, blood,\naccording to an unvarying law, and then given back again to air and earth.\nThere is, therefore, a hidden mysterious principle of organization working\non during the whole seventy years of our earthly existence, which makes\nthe body of the infant and the child identical with that of the man and\nthe old man. This is the true body; and this, extricated at death from its\npresent envelope, and clothed upon with a higher spiritual and immortal\nform, will constitute the future body.\n\nBut again, it will be a _higher development of the body_. Paul plainly\nteaches this. He uses the analogy of the seed, showing that the future\nbody is related to this; and differenced from this, as the plant is\nrelated to the seed, and yet different from it. \u201cThou sowest _not_ that\nbody _that shall be_, but bare grain.\u201d You do not sow the stalk, but the\nkernel; you do not sow the oak, but the acorn. Yet the oak is contained\npotentially in the acorn, and so the future body is contained potentially\nin the present. The condition of the germination of the acorn is its\ndissolution; then the germ is able to separate itself from the rest of the\nseed, and start forward in a new career of development. In like manner the\nspiritual body cannot be developed until the present organization is\ndissolved.\n\nPaul goes on to say that \u201cthere is a natural body and there is a\nspiritual.\u201d This body is the natural body; the future will be the\nspiritual. Two things may be implied in this distinction. As by the\nnatural body we come into communion with the natural world, the world of\nphenomena, so by the spiritual we commune with the spiritual world, the\nworld of essential being and cause. _Here_ and _now_ we see things through\na glass, darkly, _then_ face to face. _Here_ we look at things on the\noutside only; but how often a longing seizes us to know the essences, to\npenetrate to their interior life! That longing is an instinctive prophecy\nof its own fulfilment hereafter. The spiritual body must also _manifest\nthe spirit_ hereafter, as the natural or soul body now manifests the soul.\nFor while the present body expresses adequately enough present wishes and\nemotions, it fails of expressing the spiritual emotions, and fails of\nbeing a true servant of the higher life.\n\nThis, then, constitutes the future body. First, it is an organization\nconnecting us with the outward universe of space and time. Second, it is\nidentical with the present true body. Third, it is a development and\nadvance of this into a higher organization. Let us now inquire what are\nthe evidences and proofs of _this future body_. How do we know, or why do\nwe think, that we shall have any such body?\n\nThe first proof of a future bodily existence is its reasonableness. There\nis a law of gradation in the universe by which the seed unfolds gradually\ninto the stalk, the bud into the flower, the flower into the fruit. We see\na gradual progress of vegetable life into animal, and a gradual transition\nfrom the lower forms of animal existence to the higher. The transition is\nso gradual that it is very difficult to say where vegetables end and where\nanimals begin. Radiated animals ascend towards the mollusks, the mollusks\ntowards the articulata, the articulata towards the vertebrata. And through\nthis last class we see a steady ascent from one form of organization to\nanother; from fishes to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from birds to\nmammalia, until by steady rise we reach the human body, in delicacy,\nbeauty, and faculty the crown of all. Why should we suppose this the end\nof bodily existence? Why not rather that this is to pass into a still more\nnoble and beautiful type of organization? After this gradual development,\nwhy suppose the enormous change to a purely spiritual existence? Is it not\nmore reasonable to suppose, instead, a higher order of bodily life?\n\nIf we may look at the question for a moment from a metaphysical point of\nview, we shall find it hard to comprehend the possibility of personal\nexistence hereafter apart from bodily organization. Everything which is,\nmust be either somewhere, or everywhere, or nowhere; that is, it must be\npresent in some particular point of space, or omnipresent through all\nspace, or wholly out of space. But to be wholly out of space is to lose\nthat which distinguishes one thing from another, for all distinctions\nwhich we can conceive of are distinctions in space and time. To be\neverywhere is to be omnipresent, which is an attribute belonging to God\nand not to finite being, and would imply absorption into the divine\nnature. Therefore personal existence is existence somewhere in space, but\nlocality in space is an attribute of body, not of spirit, and implies\nbodily existence.\n\nMoreover, shall we suppose that after death we are to have no more\ncommunion with the material universe, no more knowledge of this vast order\nand beauty, which is a perpetual manifestation of God, the garment which\nhe wears, one of his grand methods of revelation? These myriads of suns\nand worlds, these constellations of stars peopling space, this city of God\nfull of wonder and infinite variety, are they to be nothing to us after\nthe few years of mortal life are over? We cannot believe it. If, then, we\nare still to perceive the material universe, the faculties by which we\nperceive it will be more intense bodily faculties. If spiritual things are\nspiritually discerned, bodily things are discerned in a bodily manner.\n\nSuch considerations as these show that a future bodily existence is\nreasonable; but the proof of it must come, if at all, either from\nrevelation or experience. Let us see, then, what bearing the resurrection\nof Jesus has upon this question.\n\nAccording to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form. This\nbody resembled his former one, so as to be recognized by his disciples; it\nhad the marks of the spear and nails; it could be touched, and was capable\nof eating food. In all these respects it seems exactly the same body he\nhad before. This, too, is confirmed by the fact that he came from the tomb\nwhere his body had been placed, and that this had disappeared. But, on the\nother hand, many peculiarities indicate a difference; such as his not\nbeing recognized at once by Mary in the garden, nor by the disciples\nduring the whole walk to Emmaus; his appearing and disappearing suddenly;\nhis coming through the closed doors. Again, if the body of Jesus was\nexactly like that which he had before death, it is evident that he would\nhave to lay it aside again before ascending into the spiritual world, for\nflesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But if he was to lay it\naside again, this would be equivalent to dying a second time, which would\ndestroy the whole meaning and value of his resurrection, making it nothing\nbut a mere revival, or coming to life again, like that of a person who has\nbeen apparently drowned. Such a revival would have produced no results,\nand the faith of the Church which has come from the resurrection of Jesus\nwould never have taken place.\n\nAccordingly, we must conclude that Jesus rose with a higher spiritual\nbody. And this gives to the ascension its meaning. For otherwise, the\nascension would be only a disappearance; whereas, in this view, the\ndisciples saw him pass away in the shape and form he was to continue to\nwear in the other world. Then the gulf was bridged over, in their minds,\nand they had looked into heaven.\n\nThis was what the resurrection of Jesus did for the apostles. It changed\ndoubt and despair into faith and hope; changed theoretical belief into\npractical assurance; imparted that commanding energy of conviction and\nutterance which only comes from life. Animated thus themselves, they were\nenabled to animate others. And so the resurrection of Christ was the\nresurrection of Christianity, the resurrection of a Christian faith and\nhope infinitely deeper and stronger than had before existed in the minds\nof the disciples.\n\nWe do not like the usual method of regarding the resurrection of Jesus as\na great exceptional event, and an astounding violation of the laws of\nnature. Its power seems rather to have consisted in this, that it was a\nglorious confirmation of those everlasting laws announced by Jesus\u2014laws\nboundless as the universe. The very essence of the gospel is the\ndeclaration that good is not only better than evil, which we all knew\nbefore, but stronger than evil, which we weakly doubt.\n\nThe gospel assures us that love is stronger than hatred, peace than war,\nholiness than evil, truth than error. It is the marriage of the goodness\nof motive and the goodness of attainment; goodness in the soul and\ngoodness in outward life; heaven hereafter and heaven here. It asserts\nthat the good man is always in reality successful; that he who humbles\nhimself _is_ exalted, he who forgives _is_ forgiven, he who gives to\nothers receives again himself, he who hungers after righteousness is\nfilled. This was the faith which Christ expressed, in which and out of\nwhich he lived and acted; it was this faith which made him Christ the\nKing, King of human minds and hearts. Was it then all false? Did his death\nprove it so? Was that the end, the earthly end, of his efforts for man?\nWere truth and love struck down then by the power of darkness? That was\nthe question which his resurrection answered; it showed him passing\nthrough death to higher life, through an apparent overthrow to a real\ntriumph; it gave one visible illustration to laws usually invisible in\ntheir operation, and set God\u2019s seal to their truth. Through that death\nwhich seemed the destruction of all hope, Jesus went up to be the Christ,\nthe King.\n\nIn this point of view we see the value and importance of the resurrection\nof Jesus, and why Easter Sunday should be the chief festival of\nChristianity. It was the great triumph of life over death, of good over\nevil. It was the apt symbol and illustration of the whole gospel.\n\nIf, then, the resurrection of Christ means that Christ ascended through\ndeath to a higher state; if our resurrection means that we pass up through\ndeath, and not down; not into the grave, but into a condition of higher\nlife; if the resurrection of the body does not mean the raising again out\nof the earth the material particles deposited there, but the soul clothing\nitself with a higher and more perfect organization; if it is, then, the\nraising of the body to a more perfect condition of development,\u2014then is\nthere not good reason why such stress should be laid upon this great fact?\n\nAll the proof rests on the historic fact of the resurrection. Was Christ\nseen in this higher spiritual and bodily state, or was he not? If he was,\nthen we have a fact of history and experience to rely upon to show us that\nthe future life involves an ascent both spiritual and bodily. And this is\nthe reason why such stress has been laid on the resurrection.\n\nThis raising of man, through the power of Christ\u2019s life, to a higher\nstate, is not a mere matter of speculation, then, not an opinion, not\nsomething pleasant to think of and hope for, but it is a fundamental fact\nof Christian faith. Because Christ has arisen and passed up, we must all\narise and pass up, too, with him. He is the first fruits of those who\nsleep. In proportion as the Spirit of Christ is in us, in that proportion\nis the power in us which shall carry us upward towards him. He wishes that\nthose who believe in him shall be where he is. We shall belong to him and\nto his higher world, not arbitrarily, but naturally; not by any positive\ndecree of God, but by the nature of things.\n\nThe essential fact in the resurrection is, that Christ rose, through\ndeath, to a higher state. The essential doctrine of the resurrection is,\nthat death is the transition from a lower to a higher condition in all who\nhave the life which makes them capable of it.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. CHRIST\u2019S COMING, USUALLY CALLED THE \u201cSECOND COMING,\u201d AND\nCHRIST THE JUDGE OF THE WORLD.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly outward, not\nlocal, nor material.\n\n\nIt is a curious fact that, in direct contradiction to Christ\u2019s own\nexplanations concerning his coming, this should frequently be considered\nby the Orthodox, (1.) as wholly future; (2.) as wholly outward; (3.) as\nlocal; (4.) as bodily and material.\n\nIt cannot be wholly future, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken in saying\nof the signs of his coming, \u201cThis generation shall not pass away until all\nthese things be fulfilled.\u201d (Mark 13:30.)\n\nNor can it be wholly outward, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken when he\ndeclared of the signs of his coming, \u201cThe kingdom of God cometh not with\nobservation\u201d (Luke 17:20); \u201cThe kingdom of God is within you \u201d (Luke\n17:21); \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world\u201d (John 18:36). See also Mark\n4:26,27, and Matt. 13:33, where his kingdom is compared with seed\nsprouting and leaven working secretly.\n\nNor is Christ\u2019s coming local, that is, in a certain place, for if it were,\nJesus was mistaken in telling his disciples not to believe those who said,\n\u201cLo, here!\u201d or \u201cLo, there!\u201d not to go into the desert when men say,\n\u201cBehold, he is there,\u201d and not to believe those who declare that he is\nhidden somewhere in the city, for that the coming of the Son of man should\nbe like that of the lightning, which shines all round the sky, and seems\nto be everywhere at once. (Matt. 24:26.)\n\nAnd if not local, neither can it be a bodily coming; for all bodily coming\nmust be in some one place. Since, therefore, Jesus distinctly denies that\nhis coming is to be \u201chere\u201d or \u201cthere,\u201d\u2014that is, local,\u2014it must be a\nspiritual coming, a coming in spirit and in power. All the material images\nconnected with it\u2014the clouds, the trumpet, &c.\u2014are to be considered\nsymbolical. The \u201cclouds of heaven\u201d may symbolize spiritual movements and\ninfluences; the \u201ctrumpet,\u201d the awakening power of new truth.(40)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture.\n\n\nIt is also a remarkable fact that only one coming of Christ is mentioned\nin the New Testament. Orthodoxy speaks continually of Christ\u2019s _second_\ncoming, but without any warrant. It assumes that the manifestation of\nJesus in the flesh was his first coming as the Christ, and that\nconsequently the predictions (in Matt. ch. 24, and the parallels) _must_\nrefer to a second coming. Hence the phrase \u201csecond coming\u201d has been\nintroduced, and naturalized in theology. But, in truth, the life of Jesus\non earth was not regarded as his coming as the Messiah.(41) What the\ndisciples expected was his manifestation or investiture as the Messiah,\nwhich evidently had not taken place at the time of their conversation. And\nthis was to be, not \u201cat the end of the world,\u201d but _at the end of the\nage_. They, like other Jews, divided time into two periods, \u201cthe present\nage,\u201d or times previous to the Messiah, and \u201cthe coming age,\u201d or times of\nthe Messiah\u2019s reign. When, therefore, Jesus was with them, only teaching\nand healing, they did not at all consider him _to have come_ as the\nMessiah. But when he spoke of the destruction of the Temple, as _that_\nindicated the end of the existing economy, they understood it to be\nsynchronous with his coming as the Christ. So they said, \u201cWhat shall be\nthe sign of thy COMING, and of the END OF THE AGE?\u201d And so through the\nEpistles, when the \u201ccoming of Christ\u201d is spoken of, is meant his\nmanifestation in the world as the Messiah. This was a single event, to\ntake place once, not to be repeated. Such a thing as \u201cChrist\u2019s _second_\ncoming\u201d is unknown to the Scriptures.(42)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ?\n\n\nIt is often said that the apostles themselves were mistaken in expecting a\nspeedy coming of Christ. No doubt they did expect his speedy coming, and\nwith reason; for he himself had told them that the existing generation\nshould not pass away till all those things were fulfilled. Therefore they\nwere justified in looking for a near coming of Jesus as the Christ. We\nadmit that they expected his speedy coming; but we think they were not\nmistaken, for he did come. He came, though not perhaps in the manner they\nanticipated. Possibly they interpreted too literally what he said\nconcerning his coming.\n\nFor though Christ spoke so much in symbols and parables, literal people\ntook him literally. And so they do still. When he said that except men ate\nhis flesh and drank his blood they could not be his, the literalists said,\n\u201c_How_ can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d And so many persons still\nthink that somehow Christ\u2019s actual body is to be eaten in the Lord\u2019s\nsupper. So, when he said that the Son of man should be seen \u201ccoming in the\nclouds of heaven with power and great glory, and send his angels with the\nsound of a trumpet, and gather his elect from the four winds,\u201d they took\nit literally. His apostles, even, may have supposed that he was to be seen\nup in the air in physical form,(43) and that a material trumpet was to be\nblown. But all this was the flesh, the garb of his thought. The spirit of\nhis thought only is of value; the flesh profits nothing. The apostles were\nwrong in supposing\u2014if they did suppose it\u2014that Christ was to come in their\nday in the air, in an outward physical fashion, with an outward noise,\nmaking a great demonstration to the senses of sight and hearing. Christ\nnever came so, and he never will come so. The only coming of Christ\npossible is spiritual coming, for Christ is spirit. He did come,\ntherefore, in the days of the apostles, in the great access of faith and\npower in their own souls, and in the souls of those whom they converted.\nHe came in power and great glory, when his truth came to human minds, and\nhis love to human hearts. He sent his angels then, and gathered his elect\nfrom the four quarters of the heavens. When Paul was converted, Christ\ncame to him; when the negro chamberlain of the Queen of Ethiopia was\nconverted, Christ came to him; when the people of Ephesus and Corinth,\nPhilippi and Rome, were converted, Christ came to them. The trumpet\nsounded, but it was in their souls that it sounded; the angels summoned\nthe elect, but these angels were the convictions sent into their reason,\nand the longings awakened in their hearts.\n\nMaterialists and Literalists are always the same. The apostles soon rose\nout of their literalism, and soon spoke of Christ as being revealed\n_within_ them, not outside of them; dwelling, not in the air, but in their\nhearts. But literalists, down to this day, have always imagined the coming\nof Christ to be to the senses, rather than to the soul. They do not see\nthat a great noise in the air is not so glorious a thing as a voice heard\nin the depths of the heart, and a great outward conflagration somehow\nseems to them more imposing than the burning up of falsehood and sin in\nthe world. So we are always hearing people predict that Christ is to come\nin 1846, or 1856, or 1866, meaning thereby that they expect some great\noutward event then, visible to eyes and ears. \u201cFools, and slow of heart,\u201d\nnot to see that the only possible coming of Him who is spirit and love is\na coming in the soul, and that he has come, and is coming, and is to come\nmore and more abundantly, from day to day. So they read about the heavens\nand earth being burned up, and of a new heavens and earth; and they\nimagine that the sky is somehow to be burned with material fire, and the\nsurface of the earth to sink into the flaming abyss beneath us. But if\nthis should happen, _that_ would have nothing to do with the coming of\nChrist. The heavens and earth which he consumes with the breath of his\nmouth, and destroys with the brightness of his coming, are the religions\nand moralities, the institutions and works, of men. And the new heavens\nand new earth which take their place are the higher, nobler, purer\nreligions and moralities which flow out of the Spirit of Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Examination of the Account of Christ\u2019s Coming given by Jesus in\nMatthew (chapters 24-26).\n\n\nA great difficulty in regard to the coming of Christ is to combine in one\nview the different notions given in Scripture concerning it. Many of these\nideas indicate that the coming of Christ took place at the destruction of\nJerusalem, as, for example, the description of wars, destruction of the\nTemple, and especially the declaration that \u201cthis generation shall not\npass away till all these things be fulfilled.\u201d On the other hand, the\ncoming of Christ is expressly connected, in our translation, with \u201cthe end\nof the world,\u201d and with the general judgment. Hence a difficulty in\ninterpreting these passages, some persons thinking that the coming of\nChrist took place at the destruction of Jerusalem; others thinking that it\nis yet to take place at the end of the world; others, again, maintaining\ntwo or more comings of Christ; and others spiritualizing the whole of it,\nand making it mean the spread of the spirit of Christianity.\n\nLet us, therefore, examine the passage in which Christ\u2019s coming is spoken\nof, and endeavor to find its natural and obvious meaning, and so see how\nfar the common Orthodox conception is correct.\n\nThe subject is not unimportant. Several chapters in the Gospel of Matthew\n(24-26) are devoted to the description of this event. All of the Epistles\ncontain frequent allusions to it. The apostles unquestionably expected\nChrist\u2019s coming in their day, and they had a right to do so, inasmuch as\nJesus himself had distinctly said that their generation would not pass\naway till all was fulfilled. And in the main fact they were not mistaken,\nhowever they may have been deceived, as we have before said, in taking too\noutward a view of the attending circumstances. For if Christ\u2019s coming did\nnot take place in their day, not only were they themselves mistaken on a\nmost important point, but Jesus was mistaken likewise.\n\nSome of the other points in the description of this event are these:\nChrist\u2019s coming was to be like that of the thief in the night\u2014that is, it\nwas to be unexpected, and to take men unprepared. It was to be preceded by\nwars, commotions, and misery in every form; preceded also by the preaching\nof the truth in many lands. It was to be as difficult to locate Christ at\nhis coming, as to fix the lightning, which comes out of the east and\nshines to the west. It was to be attended with great spiritual darkness,\neven in the minds of the wise and good. The sun, and moon, and stars of\nthe moral world were to be darkened, and the powers of the heavens to be\nshaken; and of ten virgins, all going together to meet the bridegroom,\nhalf would be found spiritually asleep when he came. Christ\u2019s coming would\nbe especially judgment and punishment. He would part the sheep from the\ngoats. He would consume with the brightness of his coming the man of sin.\nSuch are some of the traits with which the coming of Jesus is described by\nhimself and by his apostles. How are these to be reconciled with the\nfacts, and what was his coming?\n\nThe best way to get at the facts is to begin at the beginning, and ask\n_what the disciples meant_ when they asked for the signs of Christ\u2019s\ncoming. They were sitting with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, looking\nacross the valley between, at the Temple. They saw and admired the\ngorgeous magnificence of this vast edifice towering before them, white\nwith marble and yellow with gold, against the deep blue sky of that sunny\nland, and as they admired it, Jesus told them that every stone of that\ndivine structure should be cast down. And then they asked, \u201c_When_ shall\nthese things be? and what shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end\nof the world?\u201d What was the connection, in their minds, between the three\nevents? Why should they have at once inferred that the destruction of the\nTemple was to take place at the coming of Christ, and that the coming of\nChrist was to take place at the end of the world? There was no connection\nat all, according to the common notions on this subject. If the coming of\nChrist was to be a great outward manifestation in the sky, to take place\nlong after his death, after the lapse of thousands of years, and at the\ndestruction of the visible universe, what had that to do with the Jewish\nTemple? or, indeed, what had that to do with any of their ideas concerning\ntheir Master? But the notion in their minds, when they asked the question,\nwas something very different; not the present Christian idea, but the\nusual Jewish idea. They spoke as Jews, out of the notions of their day.\nChrist answered what was in their minds, not what is in ours. If we wish\nto know what he meant, we must place ourselves on their stand-point, look\nout of their eyes, and listen with their ears.\n\nThe coming of Christ had a very distinct meaning to the Jewish mind. It\nmeant the manifestation of the Messiah, _as such_. It meant his coming to\nreign as king. It meant his manifestation in Judea, in Jerusalem, as the\ngreat Son of David, and the submission of the Jews, and Gentiles with\nthem, to his authority. The disciples of Jesus, believing him to be the\nChrist, believed that he was to come as such. He had come as Prophet, as\nTeacher, as a worker of beneficent miracles, but he had not yet come as\nChrist, as King. They were not asking about any second coming after his\ndeath and resurrection, for they did not believe that he was to die. They\nwere asking for his present triumphant manifestation and investiture as\nthe Messiah.\n\nNor were they asking\u2014as our translators make them ask\u2014for \u201cthe end of the\nworld.\u201d But they were asking for the _end of the age_\u2014that is, of the\nfirst age. We have said that the Jews divided all time into two great\nperiods; one the age preceding the Messiah, the other the age of the\nMessiah. The first was called this age, or the present age; the other the\ncoming age. The end of the first period and beginning of the second were\ncalled the ends of the age; as where Paul says, \u201cThese are written for our\nadmonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come;\u201d and where he says\nthat Christ has \u201cnow once appeared in the end of the world to put away\nsin.\u201d These were the ideas of the Jews, as we know from history. When,\ntherefore, Christ spoke of the overthrow of the Temple, they inferred that\nhe was speaking of the beginning of the Messianic age; since the Temple\nwould not be overthrown while the Jewish theocratic and Levitical\ngovernment continued. Now, as the Jewish age did come to an end at the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and Christianity, as the universal religion,\ntook the place of Judaism in the education of the human race, this really\nwas the coming of the Messiah and the end of the age.\n\nWe understand, therefore, Christ to have been really speaking of his\ncoming, as an event soon to take place, and which did soon take place,\nwhen, at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians were\nscattered through the world, and Christianity took its place as a\nuniversal religion.(44) If this exhausted the meaning of the idea, it\nwould be of very little interest to us. But the contents of the passage\nare more rich and full; and, like most of Christ\u2019s sayings, besides its\npresent and immediate application, it has more universal and far-reaching\nmeanings. The principles of Christianity which were manifested then,\ncontinue to be manifested in other forms to-day. Jesus said on one\noccasion, \u201cThe hour is coming, and now is, when all that are in their\ngraves shall hear the voice of the Son of man.\u201d And on another occasion,\n\u201cThe hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship\nthe Father.\u201d The hour had come in its first manifestation, but was to come\nagain in other and richer manifestations of the same principle. So Christ\nhimself came as King at the taking of Jerusalem, but has come since, again\nand again, more plainly and fully, in other triumphs of his truth, in\nother manifestations of his power. We believe that the coming of Christ\ntook place at the destruction of Jerusalem. We believe that it has taken\nplace since, in other historical events. We believe that it is to take\nplace more fully hereafter, in this life and in the other life.\n\nLet us look and consider how this may be.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different Times.\n\n\nAs we look back through the eighteen centuries of Christian history, we\ncan observe many events which may now be seen to have been each a coming\nof Christ. When, at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Mosaic theocracy\nwent down before the iron power of Rome, amid those scenes of horror the\nfirmest believers in Christ might have feared only evil. It seemed to be\nthe overthrow of everything most sacred\u2014the triumph of Paganism over the\nworship of Jehovah. Yet what was the result? Jesus then ceased to be the\nJewish Messiah, and began to reign over all nations as the world-teacher,\nthe Son of God, the prophet for mankind. Since then, more and more, the\nworld has gone to him as to its great Master. This, therefore, was a\ncoming of Christ.\n\nLook again. The early centuries are disgraced with theological wars.\nFierce conflicts are carried on about the Trinity, and the rank of Jesus\nin the universe. All regard for the pure, divine truth of Christianity\nseems forgotten in the fury of these controversies. Yet, nevertheless,\namid all the absurdity and contradiction, one truth emerges, everywhere\nrecognized\u2014that in Jesus was something divine; that God was more fully\nmanifest in him than elsewhere; that he is the moral image of the Infinite\nOne. This is another coming of Christ. He comes now not merely as a\nprophet, but as the revealer of divine love and truth, in his own\ncharacter. The theological doctrines, in which this truth has been\nwrapped, are the husks and shells which the world will throw away. But\nthroughout Christendom the idea of God is derived from the character of\nJesus, and in this way Jesus has come to rule the hearts of men as their\ndivine King.\n\nOther centuries passed by, and we find new and strange ideas taking\npossession of men\u2019s minds. A horror of life, a dread of the sins of the\nworld, drive men into the desert, to live as hermits and anchorites.\nThousands and tens of thousands of monks withdrew from the world into the\nwilderness. All Christianity appeared to be changing into a new form of\nheathenish, self-inflicted torture. Its blessed humanity, its genial\ninfluences on social life, seemed to be fast disappearing. Nevertheless,\nout of all this error one truth emerged, one Christian idea was\ndeveloped\u2014that of self-discipline and self-culture. And in the development\nof this idea Christ came to reign _over the individual soul_ as its\nMaster, Guide, and Redeemer from all sin.\n\nAfter this arose the Papacy. The Church, as a powerful institution, became\nambitious to rule the state and the world. A spiritual despotism appeared,\nsurrounding itself with earthly splendor, grasping the sword of earthly\npower, and the farthest removed from the humble and gentle spirit of its\nMaster. It would tolerate no opposition to its will, in high places or\nlow. It hurled its thunders at the head of kings, and sent crusading\narmies to persecute and torture the peasants of the Piedmont valleys.\nNothing could seem more full of the spirit of Antichrist than this\nspiritual despotism embodied in the Papacy. And yet, even through this\nevil there was developed a truth\u2014that there was something in the world\nhigher than kings, greater than the state. Papacy, with all its evils, was\na standing proof, in an age of brute force, of the supremacy of mind over\nmatter. So that, even here, the pride and selfishness of the priests and\nthe popes have been overruled, in the providence of God, to give\nascendency to a Christian idea, and to cause Christ to come as the King of\nthe world.\n\nConsider another important event in the history of Europe: the conversion\nof the barbarous tribes to Christianity. When the nations of the north\npoured from the forests of Germany and the deserts of Scandinavia over the\nRoman empire,\u2014when Goths and Vandals, Franks, Lombards, and Normans,\nquenched the light of civilization and brought the dark ages over\nEurope,\u2014how terrible seemed the gloom, and how hopeless the prospects, of\nthe human race! But we now see the result in modern civilization. We see\nall these different nations subdued by the power of Christianity, and a\nnew unity, a higher harmony, as the result. We see the great idea of the\nunity of the race, the harmony of nations, resulting from all this\ndarkness and misery. So Christ has come again as the Prince of Peace,\nbreaking down the partition walls, and proclaiming a brotherhood of man.\n\nLet us look at one more event of history\u2014the Lutheran Reformation. What\nevils attended it! What wars came out of it! How has the impulse to\nfreedom given by Luther degenerated into licentiousness, run out in\ninfidelity and unbelief! And yet, when we consider the ideas of personal\nresponsibility and individual independence which have been born of\nit,\u2014when we consider what an impulse it has given to thought, to free\ninquiry, to earnest investigation of truth, all the results of this\nfruitful principle,\u2014we cannot doubt that this also was a coming of Jesus,\nthe unfolding of a new and higher power in Christianity.\n\nThus has Christ come from age to age, and in the midst of apparent\nfailure, increasing error, growing unbelief, and all forms of human\nwickedness, has acquired new power over the human mind. At the present day\nhe is more the King of the world than ever. When he seems to go, then he\ncomes. When iniquity most abounds, then he is nearest. When love grows\ncold in the hearts of his disciples, then a new impulse of faith is about\nto be given. When false prophets rise up and deceive many, then new\nchampions of the truth are near at hand. Christ comes amid wars and\npersecutions. He comes unexpectedly, like the thief in the night; comes\nwithout observation; and while men say, \u201cLo, here!\u201d and \u201cLo, there!\u201d the\nkingdom of heaven is in the midst of them. He is not to be found in the\ndesert, nor in the secret chambers; neither in public nor private; located\nneither in this nor that particular place; incarnate neither in this nor\nthat particular person. But Christ comes like the lightning, seen over the\nwhole heaven at once, in a new spirit pervading all parts of life, all\nparts of society.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the Talents, to\nChrist\u2019s Coming.\n\n\nWe now see what is meant by the parable of the foolish and wise virgins,\nand of the talents, which follows it. We see their application to this\ndescription of Christ\u2019s coming. If the coming of Christ be thus\nunexpected, he will not be recognized by the sleeping servant, nor by\nthose who beat their fellow-servants. Slothful Christians who make no\neffort to improve, persecuting Christians who spend their time in\ndenouncing heretics, and saying, \u201cMy Lord delayeth his coming,\u201d never\nunderstand the signs of the times, nor recognize any new influx of divine\nlight in the world. At each new coming of Christ those who have been\nfaithful are rewarded by more light. To those who have, shall be given,\nand the faithless lose what they had before. From him who hath not, shall\nbe taken away even what he seems to have. The capacity of seeing Christ\nwhen he comes, of recognizing him in any new manifestation of truth,\ndepends on his previous fidelity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, in Matt. ch.\n25, to his Coming.\n\n\nBut what is meant by the judgment described in the 25th chapter of\nMatthew, commencing, \u201cWhen the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all\nthe angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and\nbefore him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one\nfrom another, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats.\u201d This\nstands in such close connection with what goes before, that many refer\nthis also to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the moral meaning is so\nprominent, that others apply it entirely to the final judgment in the\nfuture life. The difficulties on both sides disappear if we reflect that\nthe principles which govern this life and the next are identical\u2014that\nwhether Christ came at Jerusalem, comes to-day, or comes in the future\nlife, the laws of Christian retribution are the same. Wherever Christ\njudges men, the sheep go to the right, and the goats to the left. The\ngenerous, humane, and disinterested hear always the words, \u201cCome, ye\nblessed of my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the\nfoundation of the world.\u201d The judgment in this world, it may be, is only\nheard in the depths of the soul. It may be that no other mortal knows of\nit. Still it is the voice of Christ which speaks. Still it is the real\nkingdom which they inherit. The judgment in the future life, may be or may\nnot be, before assembled multitudes whom no man can number, and the\nkingdom then inherited may be one shared with the angels, and extending\nover worlds. Still the sentence is the same in both cases. The judgment of\nChrist is one in all worlds. It was, and is, and shall be. Jesus Christ is\nthe same yesterday, to-day, and forever.\n\nIt may be said, this is to make the coming of Christ merely figurative\u2014the\ncoming of ideas and principles only; only the coming of his religion; and\nthis is but an invisible abstraction. We reply, that according to our\nview, Christianity cannot be conceived of as an abstraction, apart from\nthe person of Jesus, nor can his religion come unless he comes with it.\nJesus is with us always, in the world always, and none the less really,\nbecause invisibly. It is no figure of speech to say that Christ is with\nhis Church, and with his truth; that where it goes, he goes; that when he\ncomes, it comes. It may even be that his presence will not always be an\ninvisible one. It may be that what we now believe, we shall one day see\nand know. But then those only will recognize their Master\u2019s presence who\nare awake and watching for him. To the others it will seem a mere illusion\nor enthusiasm.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World.\n\n\nIn some places Jesus says that he is made Judge of mankind, and in other\nplaces denies that he is to judge any one. Take, for example, the\nfollowing passages, selected because they seem to contradict each other.\nThey are all in the Gospel of John, and therefore the contradiction is not\nin the different limitations or special misconceptions of the different\nevangelists. The passages are, John 3:17; 9:39; 5:22; 8:15; 12:47. The\nfirst is as follows: \u201cFor God sent not his Son into the world to condemn\nthe world, but that the world through him might be saved.\u201d The word here\ntranslated \u201c_condemn_\u201d is precisely the same as that which elsewhere is\ntranslated \u201c_judge_.\u201d Consequently we should here read that God sent\nChrist into the world, not to judge the world, but to save it. But the\nnext text referred to (John 9:39) is one in which Jesus says, \u201cFor\njudgment have I come into the world, that they which see not may see, and\nthat they which see might be made blind.\u201d Again (in John 5:22) it is said,\nthat \u201cthe Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the\nSon.\u201d But in the following passage (John 8:15) Jesus says, \u201cYe judge after\nthe flesh. I judge no man.\u201d And in the last text he repeats the same idea.\n\u201cAnd if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came\nnot to judge the world, but to save the world.\u201d We have, therefore, in\nthese passages, this apparent contradiction\u2014that the Saviour seems in some\nplaces to declare that he is to judge the world, and in others that he is\nnot to judge the world. We therefore shall do well to inquire how these\nare to be understood, and in what way at all they are to be reconciled\nwith each other, and with the common Orthodox doctrine concerning\njudgment.\n\nAnd here we may remark, in passing, that there are many such seeming\ncontradictions as these in the New Testament, and that to the student of\nthe Gospels, who is a sincere seeker of truth, they are very precious and\nvaluable. Such a one is always glad at finding statements in the New\nTestament which thus appear opposed to each other; for he knows, by\nexperience, that they are the very passages from which he may learn the\nmost, and where he will be likely to find some hitherto unnoticed truth\nconcerning Christ or his gospel. Such truth, however, will not be found if\nhe attempts to remove the contradiction by any artificial, hasty, or\nforced process. If his object is merely to find proof-texts in support of\nthe doctrines he already believes, such paradoxes will afford him nothing\nbut barren difficulties, and a sphere for the exercise of sophistry and\nmisplaced ingenuity. But if he can bear to admit his ignorance, and is\nwilling to examine these difficulties in order to correct his own errors,\nenlarge his own views, and learn something really new, he will often find\nhere the clew to deeper insight and to a larger knowledge.\n\nWhat, then, is the explanation of these passages? In what way is Christ to\n_judge_? How is it that he has come into this world for _judgment_? and\nhow has the Father committed _all judgment_ unto the Son? and how,\nnevertheless, can be say, \u201c_I judge no man; for I came not to judge the\nworld_\u201d?\n\nChrist\u2019s coming was simply to do good; to make men better; to save them\nfrom their sins; to reveal pardon; to offer salvation; to manifest God\u2019s\nlove. \u201cThe law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus\nChrist.\u201d It is the law, and not the gospel, which judges and condemns the\nevil-doer. The law given by Moses, or the law given in the conscience, in\nthe reason, in the nature of things, written on the face of nature,\nwritten in the soul of man,\u2014this law has not been made more strict by the\ncoming of Christ. Men were bound before, by the law of nature and the law\nof Moses, to love God with all their heart, and their neighbor as\nthemselves; and they are not bound to do more now. They were bound by\nnature and reason to obey their conscience, to do the best they could\nalways, and they are not bound to do any more now. The whole influence of\nthe gospel is a bountiful and gracious one, intended and adapted to make\nit easier to do right, to add new motives to virtue. Christ is no strict,\nsevere judge, deciding by the letter of the law, bound by his office to\nshow no favor or compassion, but the sinner\u2019s advocate and friend. And\nhence it may truly be said that he came not to judge the world, but to\nsave the world.\n\nNevertheless, it is also true that the greatest blessings and the best\ngifts of God are also judgments. They test the character. They show what\nit is. According to the state of mind and heart in which a man is, so does\nhe receive, or reject, or neglect the offered good. If he loves light, he\ncomes to the light. If he loves darkness, he goes away. If his deeds are\ngood, he gratefully receives any revelation which brings him nearer to\nGod. If his deeds are evil, he rejects such revelation, avoids it,\ndislikes the thought of it. So it necessarily is that the best and kindest\nof men who wishes only to do good to all, nevertheless, by his very\npresence and his offers of good, judges and condemns the wicked. But what\nare the judgment and the sentence? Simply this\u2014that light has come into\nthe world, and that they have chosen darkness rather than light, because\ntheir deeds are evil. Therefore it was necessarily the case that the\ncoming of Jesus into the world was a judgment, and that though he\neverywhere went with the purpose of saving and blessing men, yet that he\nnecessarily was also a judge. The thoughts of many hearts were revealed by\nhis presence. The pure in heart came to him in humility, penitence, and\nfaith. The proud in heart, the self-willed, the self-righteous, turned\naway from him, and so judged themselves unworthy of receiving his truth.\nThe Galilean peasants, the common people, heard him gladly. The Scribes\nand Pharisees murmured against him and rejected him. This was really a\njudgment on both: the sheep went to the right hand, and the goats to the\nleft. Thus it is a law of human nature that all high truth by its coming\njudges men, and shows by its influence upon them what is their real state.\nAnd in this way, as Christ\u2019s truth was the highest of all, so he was, and\nis, a judge in the highest sense. But this is not quite all. The coming of\nsuch truth not only shows the good and evil which are in men, but it\ndevelops them, brings them out, increases the good, increases also the\nevil. It is necessarily so; it cannot be otherwise. When good comes to us,\nif it does not make us better, it makes us worse. Truth and goodness are\nlike the magnet. They have two poles. They attract and they repel. Thus it\nwas written that the coming of Jesus would be for the fall or the rising\nof many. Thus he said, \u201cFor judgment I have come into the world, that\nthose which see not may see, and that those who see may be made blind.\u201d\nPeter was made better, Judas was made worse, by being in the company of\nChrist. His coming was not only judgment, but also reward and punishment.\nHe came to the fishermen of Galilee: they were pure in heart, they were\nlovers of truth and goodness, and his coming transformed them into\napostles, saints, and martyrs. He came to the Scribes and Pharisees: they\nwere not pure in heart. They were proud of their position, their\ninfluence, their piety, and his coming transformed them into murderers.\n\nWe are now prepared to decide what is meant by Jesus in saying that he\ncame to judge the world, and yet that he came not to judge, but to save.\nIt was not the purpose of his mission to judge. The direct object of his\ncoming was not to judge, but to save; but indirectly, and as a matter of\nnecessity, one of the consequences of his coming was, that men were judged\nby the word which he spoke, by the truth which he manifested, by the\nholiness of his life, by the bliss which he offered, and which they\nrejected. And yet it was true that he did not judge them, and that he did\nnot mean to judge them. They were already judged by their own choice and\ndetermination. Therefore he says, \u201cHe who believeth not on me is judged\nalready, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son\nof God.\u201d It was not the will of Christ, but the truth itself, which\npronounced the sentence upon him. \u201cThe word that I have spoken, the same\nshall judge him at the last day.\u201d And thus it is said, that God is the\nJudge of all, and yet again, that the Father judgeth no man, but hath\ncommitted all judgment unto the Son, and hath given him authority to\nexecute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. The explanation is,\nthat men are judged by the truth. But this truth is not abstract, but the\ntruth embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. God does not come into\nthe world himself to show men their sins, but he embodies his truth and\nholiness in the life of his Son, and so judges the world.\n\nIn giving this explanation, we have looked steadily at the essential thing\nin judgment. We have regarded the substance, not the form. If we think of\njudgment as something outward, the judge seated on his throne, the\ncriminal standing before him, and a formal sentence pronounced, of\nacquittal or condemnation, we confess that we should find it difficult to\nreconcile these different passages of Scripture, some of which declare\nthat Christ is to be the judge, and others that he is not to be. But what\nis the essential thing in judgment? It is that justice shall be done, and\nthat truth and right shall be vindicated; that the good shall be rewarded,\nand the wicked punished; that virtue and truth shall be seen and\nrecognized in the consciences of men for what they are. This is the\nessential thing. _How_ this is done, whether in an open tribunal, before\nthe assembled universe, or in the secret places of every man\u2019s soul,\nbelongs not to the essence, but to the form, and is comparatively\nunimportant.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. When Christ\u2019s Judgment takes Place.\n\n\nNevertheless, there is a more important question to be answered in\nrelation to the _time_ of judgment. When is the judgment? For it may be\nthought, from what we have said, that we consider judgment as taking place\nonly in this world. But such is not the fact. Christ\u2019s judgments take\nplace at Christ\u2019s coming, whether here or hereafter. Whenever Christ\ncomes, he comes to judge. His first coming, in Judea, was a judgment; and\nhe said, \u201c_Now_ is the judgment of the world.\u201d His coming judged all those\nwho were near him; revealed the state of their minds and hearts; showed\nthem what they were. Wherever he went, men arranged themselves at once\naccording to their real characters, and the thoughts of many hearts were\nrevealed.\n\nIt is true that people at that day did not understand that they were thus\ncondemning themselves. They did not know that the awful judgment of God\nwas being pronounced upon them; that they were standing before his bar in\nthe presence of angels. They did not know that the day of judgment had\ncome, and that they were giving an account of every idle word even then.\nBut so it was. When they scoffed at Jesus and said, \u201cHe is a gluttonous\nman and a wine-bibber,\u201d they may have forgotten their words almost before\nthey left their mouths. But there they stand, recorded against them\nforever\u2014an everlasting proof of their blindness of mind and their hardness\nof heart. When the penitent woman brought the ointment and anointed the\nfeet of Jesus, and bathed them with her tears, little did she think that\nit was her day of judgment also, and that the approving sentence of her\nact would be read by angels in heaven and countless myriads on earth. None\nof them knew that it was a judgment then; but it was so.\n\nBut was that the only judgment? No; for whenever Jesus comes, he comes to\njudge; and since that, his first coming, he has come again and again to\nindividuals and to the world, and every coming has been a new judgment on\nthe state of the human mind and heart. It has therefore been well said,\nthat the history of the world is the judgment of the world. And it is\nalways true that this judgment is not understood when it is pronounced,\nbut is seen and recognized afterwards. It is so with individuals; it is so\nwith communities. Who is there who, in looking back over his past life,\ndoes not witness many an hour in which the truth has come to him, and he\nrefused to admit it, and so sentenced himself to receive a lie? in which\nhe has had opportunities of improvement, opportunities of doing good, and\nhas refused to accept them, and so the talent has been taken from him and\ngiven to another. This is the judgment\u2014that light has come into the world,\nand we have chosen darkness. At the time we did not know it: blinded by\nprejudice, heated by passion, we rushed recklessly on. But sooner or later\ncomes the calm hour of recollection, and we see ourselves as we are.\n\nBut is this judgment which takes place in this world the only one? It is\nunreasonable to think so. There are, in fact, two extreme views on this\nsubject. The views of those who say that all judgment is in this life, and\nthe views of those who say that no judgment is in this life. The New\nTestament teaches that we are judged here, and that we are also judged\nhereafter. The coming of Christ is here, and also hereafter; and the\njudgment which commenced with his first coming will not be completed till\nall of us stand before the judgment seat to give an account of the deeds\ndone in the body, whether they be good or evil. \u201cIt is appointed unto men\nonce to die, but after this the judgment.\u201d There is a judgment in this\nlife, and another to come. But those will be best prepared for that future\njudgment who understand the present judgment. Here is an example of the\nnature of the judgments which take place in this world.\n\nIn the year 1633, an old man was brought before the Court of the\nInquisition, consisting of seven cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church,\nto hear a sentence and to pronounce a recantation. The crime he had\ncommitted was the publication of a book in the form of a dialogue,\nmaintaining that the sun stood still, and that the earth moved; which\nproposition these holy cardinals pronounced to be absurd, false in\nphilosophy, and formally heretical, seeing that it was expressly contrary\nto Holy Scripture. Whereupon they call upon him to abjure, execrate, and\ndetest these errors and heresies; prohibiting his book and condemning him\nto confinement, with the penance of reciting once a week, for three years,\nthe seven penitential psalms. And thereupon, this man, Galileo Galilei, of\nthe age of seventy, on his knees, with his hands on the Gospels, abjures\nhis opinion.\n\nThese seven cardinals thought that they were pronouncing sentence on\nGalileo and on the Copernican system. But, in reality, they pronounced\nsentence on themselves and their own church. They put it upon record\nforever, that the Roman Catholic Church, claiming to be infallible in\nmatters of faith, had, by its highest judicature, declared the Copernican\nsystem a heresy, and thus declared its own claim to infallibility a lie.\nThis was the condemnation\u2014that light had come into the world, and they\nchose darkness rather than light.\n\nSo it is whenever a new truth comes into the world: it attracts the\nfree-minded, the lovers of truth; it repels those bound by interest or\npassion. Those who believe, with Solomon, that a living dog is better than\na dead lion, leave behind them the past, and with open eyes go forward,\nleaving the dead to bury the dead. Those who change the maxim, and love a\ndead dog more than a living lion, turn their backs to the east and to the\nrising sun, and hug their much-loved errors to their hearts. So the truth\nstands in their midst, awful in its beauty, and judges them\u2014sending away\nits foes, drawing its friends to its embrace.\n\nBut it is not in abstract truth, whether of science or theology, that\nChrist comes to us now. It is in the truth in its concrete shape, embodied\nin the reforms which overthrow evil, in the great moral improvements which\ndo away with the sin and woe of the world. Every new cause of this sort\nparts the sheep from the goats, and causes the thoughts of many hearts to\nbe revealed. We do not mean to assert that all who sympathize with any\nparticular reformatory measures, or any particular reformatory party, are\non the side of Christ, and all who disapprove these measures, or this\nparty, are against him. Such an assertion would be the sign of the\nnarrowest bigotry or the most foolish ignorance of human nature. But we\nmean to say, that when any great human and moral movement comes to rouse\nmen\u2019s minds to a great evil\u2014such as the evil of _war_, _slavery_,\n_intemperance_, _licentiousness_, _popular ignorance_, _pauperism_,\n_infidelity_, it is impossible for good men not to take an interest in it,\nand in their own way to aid it. If men neglect and ridicule such\nmovements, find fault with all that is done, and do nothing themselves,\nthey show thereby that they do not care so much for their brother\u2019s\nhappiness as for their own ease and comfort. In this way it becomes true\nthat\n\n\n    \u201cSome great cause, God\u2019s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or\n                blight,\n    Parts the goats upon the left hand, parts the sheep upon the\n                right,\n    And the choice goes by forever \u2019twixt that darkness and the\n                light.\u201d\n\n\nWe read in the book of Acts, that after Paul and Barnabas had preached the\ngospel to the Jews in Antioch, the Gentiles were interested also, and\ngreat multitudes came together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews\nsaw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and contradicted Paul and\nblasphemed. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, \u201cIt was necessary\nthat the word of God should be first preached to you; but since you put it\nfrom you, and _judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life_, lo, we turn to\nthe Gentiles.\u201d A hard judgment for a man to pronounce on himself\u2014that he\nis not worthy of eternal life!\n\nBut do we not often all do the same? Christ comes to us in the form of a\nnew truth, which will correct our errors and enlarge our hearts. But\nloving our own little creed better than the truth, we reject it without\nexamination, and so judge ourselves unworthy of the light, strength, and\npeace it might bestow. Christ comes again in some opportunity of\nusefulness to our neighbor. But loving our own selfish ease, we excuse\nourselves, and so judge ourselves unworthy of the happiness we should\nenjoy in doing the kind action. He comes in some deep conviction, calling\nus to a new life. We feel that we ought to leave our frivolity, and live\nfor God and eternity\u2014live for what is real and permanent. But we stifle\nthese convictions, and go back to our old lives, and so judge that we are\nnot worthy to become the friends and fellow-workers of Jesus, and\ncompanions of the pure and good. The great feast is ready, and the\ninvitation is sent to us, and we, with one consent, begin to make excuse.\nDo we think that in that moment we are standing before the judgment seat\nof God, and pronouncing sentence on ourselves? It is our own heart that\ncondemns us, and God, and Christ, and the everlasting truth of things must\nconfirm the sentence.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Paul\u2019s View of the Judgment by Christ.\n\n\nWhat were the views of the apostle Paul concerning a future judgment? One\nof the passages is in Romans. (2:5-16.) In this passage Paul describes a\nday, or time, when God should judge and bring to light the secrets of the\nhuman heart. He refers probably to the coming of Christ, as described in\nthe twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Christ\u2019s coming is represented as\n\u201cthat day\u201d the \u201cday of judgment,\u201d as, \u201cit shall be more tolerable for\nSodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment.\u201d It was not, we have seen, as\nis commonly supposed, only a judgment in the other world after death, but\nalso a judgment in this world. It was not when we should go to Christ in\nthe other world, but when Christ should come to us in this world. It is\nspoken of as a particular day, or time, and, no doubt, it was thought at\nfirst by Paul, as by the other apostles, that the coming of Christ was to\nbe sudden and outward\u2014an imposing visible transaction. But, gradually,\nPaul\u2019s views on this subject changed, under the influence of a growing\nspiritual insight. At first he interprets literally what Jesus says of his\ncoming. But afterwards, in his later Epistles to the Ephesians and\nColossians, he ceases to dwell on the outward coming, and speaks of the\ninward revelation of Christ in the heart\u2014speaks of our now sitting in\nheavenly places with Christ. We may, therefore, suppose that the apostle\nbelieved the essence of the judgment to be in this\u2014that either in this\nworld or the next, or both, there shall be a revelation of God\u2019s truth to\nthe soul, so that every soul shall see itself as God sees it\u2014see its own\nevil or good, and so be rewarded or punished by that sight. This idea is\ngiven by Jesus himself, in his description of the judgment which was to\ntake place before that generation passed away\u2014a judgment in which the Son\nof man should be seated on the throne of his glory, with all his angels,\nand all nations be collected before him. The judgment consists in showing\nto the good, that when they did anything good to man, they did it to\nChrist and God; and in showing to the bad, that when they refused anything\nto their poor brethren in want, they refused it to Christ and God. The\njudgment is therefore making known to each man his own real character. The\nconsequence of that revelation is, that some men immediately go into\nspiritual happiness, and others into spiritual suffering.\n\nThis is the substance of the Christian doctrine of judgment, as taught in\nthe New Testament. All else is accessory, and belongs to the rhetoric\u2014is\npart of the _mise en sc\u00e8ne_; but there are two points in the views of the\napostle concerning judgment, which deserve further notice. The first is in\n1 Cor. 6:2, where he says, \u201cKnow ye not that the saints shall judge the\nworld?\u201d and (verse 3), \u201cKnow ye not that we shall judge angels?\u201d He speaks\nof this as of something which they already knew, or at any rate could\nknow; something like an axiom, as when he says (verse 9), \u201cKnow ye not\nthat the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?\u201d or (verse 19),\n\u201cKnow ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?\u201d This notion\nis based on the idea of the unity of Christ and his disciples. Christians\nare joint heirs with Christ. Whatever Christ inherits, they receive and\nshare with him. If he judges the world, and judges angels, they do the\nsame with him, because they share his spirit of insight. Paul thinks the\nessence of Christianity to be so profound, that even the angels, desiring\nto look into it, may not have seen it. Therefore Christians, to whose\nheart God has revealed it by his Spirit, may be able to set the angels\nright in some matters. But this does away with the notion of a literal day\nof judgment; for we can hardly imagine Christians to be assembled together\nand seated on a throne by the side of Christ, in order to judge the world.\nSome millions of Christians seated on a local throne as judges, with\nmillions of men and angels standing before them, is an impossible picture.\n\nThe other point is the passage in 1 Cor. 11:31: \u201cIf we would judge\nourselves, we should not be judged.\u201d Here a principle seems to be laid\ndown\u2014that just so far as we apply God\u2019s truth to our own hearts and\nconsciences, we do not need to have it applied by God. And this\ncorresponds with the account of the judgment to which we have before\nreferred, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Those who are there\ncalled up for judgment, and who stand before the throne, are not Jews or\nChristians, but Gentiles (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7). The holy angels are with Christ in his\nglory. The heathen appear before him; those who have been doing good\nwithout knowing it are received by him into his kingdom, as those who have\nbeen blessed by his Father. They are Christians, it appears, without\nknowing it. They inherit the kingdom, from which the original heirs who\nhave been wicked and slothful servants, and who have buried their talent\nin the napkin, are excluded. Christians who have judged themselves, and\napplied Christianity by their own lives, are not to be judged at the\ncoming of Christ, but only those who have been doing right or wrong\nignorantly.(45)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11. Final Result.\n\n\nThe course of our investigations in the present chapter has brought us to\nthis result. Orthodoxy is right in expecting the coming of Christ in this\nworld, but wrong in supposing it wholly future and wholly outward. It is\nright in making it a _personal_ coming, and not merely the coming of his\ntruth apart from him, but wrong in conceiving of this personal coming, as\nmaterial to the senses, instead of spiritual to the soul. It is right in\nexpecting a judgment, but wrong in placing it only in the other world. It\nis right in supposing that all mankind, the converted, the unconverted,\nand the heathen, are to be judged by Christian truth, but wrong in\nsupposing that this judgment must occur in one place or at one time.\nFinally, in this, as in regard to many other doctrines, Orthodoxy fails by\nneglecting the great saying of Jesus, \u201cTHE SPIRIT QUICKENETH, THE FLESH\nPROFITETH NOTHING,\u201d and the similar statement of Paul, \u201cTHE LETTER\nKILLETH.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ANNIHILATION, UNIVERSAL RESTORATION.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent hereafter.\n\n\nThe different views concerning the future state, held by the Christian\nChurch, may be thus classified; arranging them, exhaustively, under eight\ndivisions:\u2014\n\nI. The Roman Catholic Church makes three conditions hereafter; viz.,\u2014\n\n1. Everlasting joy.\n2. Everlasting suffering.\n3. Temporal sorrow in purgatory.\n\nII. The Orthodox Protestant Church makes two conditions hereafter; viz.,\u2014\n\n1. Unmixed and everlasting joy.\n2. Unmixed and everlasting suffering.\n\nIII. The Old School Universalists make one condition hereafter; viz.,\u2014\n\n1. Eternal joy.\n\nIV. New School Universalists and Restorationists make two conditions\nhereafter; viz.,\u2014\n\n1. Eternal joy.\n2. Temporal and finite suffering.\n\nV. Unitarians make an indefinite number of conditions hereafter, according\nto the various characters and moral states of men.\n\nVI. The Swedenborgians make an indefinite but limited number of heavens\nand hells, suited to the varieties of character, but having a supernatural\norigin.\n\nVII. The Spiritualists make the other world like this world, with no\nessential differences, making it a continuation of the natural life.\n\nVIII. The Annihilationists believe that the finally impenitent will perish\nwholly, and come to nothing.\n\nThis statement includes all, or nearly all, of the views held in the\nChristian Church concerning the condition of departed souls in the other\nworld. We do not propose to examine them all at the present time; but we\nshall examine at some length three of them.\n\nEternal punishment, annihilation, and universal restoration are the three\nprincipal views taken in the Church of the condition hereafter of those\nwho die impenitent, and in a state of hostility to God. The wicked may\nhereafter be reformed, may be annihilated, or may be kept in a state of\npermanent punishment. One of these views is held by the Universalists;\nanother by Orthodoxy; the third is now adopted by those who are\ndissatisfied with the horrors of Orthodoxy, but not yet ready to accept\nthe Optimism of the Universalist hope. We will consider these, beginning\nwith the Orthodox doctrine of everlasting punishment. We wish we could say\nthat this doctrine was not fully and decidedly Orthodox. But it is quite\nas much so as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, or the atonement. No one\nis allowed to have any doubts or questions concerning it. It seems to be\nbelieved that the whole system of Orthodoxy would be endangered, if this\nterror was not held to its bosom with an unfaltering grasp.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by the Orthodox at\nthe Present Time.\n\n\nWhat is this doctrine, as it is taught at the present day in all Orthodox\nchurches, and as it stands in all Orthodox creeds? It is, that the moment\nof death decides, and decides forever, the destiny of man; that those who\ndie impenitent, unbelieving, and unconverted are forever lost, without the\npossibility of return; that those thus lost are to suffer forever and\never, without end, the most grievous torments in soul and body. These\ntorments consist in banishment from the presence of God, and positive\nsufferings, in addition thereto, of an awful kind. Precisely what they\nare, it is not, perhaps, necessary for an Orthodox man to believe. There\nis no Orthodox definition which is authoritative on that point; and\nconsiderable range, therefore, is allowable. The suffering may be that of\nliteral fire, or it may not. It may be physical suffering, or the pangs of\nconscience, the absence of love, and the sense of emptiness. On these\npoints there is some liberty of opinion, doubtless. But we presume that it\nwould not be Orthodox to admit a preponderance, in hell, of good over\nevil; or to admit, with Swedenborg, the existence of pleasure there, even\nthough it be only a diabolical and sinful pleasure. The doctrine of\nOrthodoxy certainly is, that evil predominates over good, and pain over\npleasure, in the condition of the damned; so that there existence is a\ncurse, and not a blessing. Especially is hope shut out: there is no hope\nof return, no possibility of escape, no chance of repentance, even at the\nend of myriads of years. The man who is condemned to imprisonment for\nlife, in solitary confinement, is in an unfortunate condition; but he has\nhope,\u2014hope of escape, hope of pardon,\u2014sure hope, at all events, of\ndeliverance, one day, by death, from his condition, and a change to\nsomething better, or at least to something different. But, in the Orthodox\nopinion, there is no such alleviation as this to the sufferings of the\nfuture state.\n\nIt is usual, we know, for many Orthodox preachers to intensify in\ndescription the sufferings of the future state, and to task their\nimagination for multiplied pictures of horror; and we shall presently give\nsome examples to show how far this is carried. We have no doubt that there\nare many Orthodox men who are as much shocked by these gross descriptions\nas those are who deny everlasting punishment. But are they not themselves\nreally responsible for them? Those who admit the principle that God can\ntorment his children forever, in the other life, for sins committed in\nthis, have accepted the principle, from which _any_ view of the Deity,\nhowever shocking, may very legitimately proceed.\n\nBut let us, for the present, only assume that Orthodoxy asserts a\npreponderance of evil over good in the other world, and that this\npreponderance is to be continued without end\u2014forever. Let us see what this\nmeans.\n\nIt means that the suffering to be endured hereafter by each individual\nsoul, as a punishment for sins committed in this world, will infinitely\nexceed in amount all the suffering borne on the surface of the earth, by\nits total population, from the creation of Adam to the destruction of the\nworld. Each lost soul will suffer not only more, but infinitely more, than\nall the accumulated sufferings of the human race throughout all time. We\nshudder as we read the account of the sufferings from hydrophobia, or the\nburning alive of a slave at the South, or the tortures inflicted by the\nHoly Inquisition, or the horrors of a field of battle, or the cruelties\ninflicted by savages upon their victims; but all of these, added together,\nare finite, and the sufferings of a single soul hereafter are infinite.\nThat is to say, all the pain and evil of this world, resulting from all\nhuman sin, through all time, is infinitely small and insignificant when\ncompared with the punishment endured by a single soul hereafter for his\nshare of that sin. And all this is inflicted by God; and he is a God of\nlove.\n\nThere are some doctrines, the statement of which is their refutation.\nThis, we think, is one of them.\n\nBut it must also be considered, that this doctrine, which throws such\ndarkness over the future, also sends down a rayless night over the\npresent. It refutes every theodicy; it nullifies every solution of evil.\nThe consolation for the sufferings of this world is, that the fashion of\nthis world passes away, and that there is a better world to come. The\nexplanation of the evils of this life is, that they are finite, and that\nthey are, therefore, to be swallowed up and to disappear in an infinite\ngood. The Christian finds relief, in considering the sufferings of this\nworld, by regarding them as the means of a greater ultimate joy; by\nlooking forward to the time when all tears shall be wiped away; and by a\nfirm faith that love is stronger than selfishness, good stronger than\nevil. But the doctrine of eternal punishment gives us, in the condition of\na single lost soul, a greater amount of evil hereafter than all the evil,\nwhich is to be thus explained, here; and the myriads of lost souls, each\nof which is to suffer infinitely more than all the sufferings of the\npresent world, present us with a problem, in the future, so appalling,\nthat the problem of present evil, vast as it is, becomes insignificant by\nits side.\n\nWe are tormented with evil here. We seek a solution of the problem: we\nfind it in the limited, finite, and ancillary nature of evil. But that\nsolution is wholly taken away when we are told that evil is infinite and\neternal.\n\nIt seems to us impossible to hold the common doctrine on this subject,\nwithout having the gospel view of the divine character essentially shaken;\nit is not possible to regard Him as a being in whom love is the essential\nattribute. If this is so, as we shall presently undertake to prove, it\nbecomes a matter of vital importance that the doctrine should be disproved\nand rejected. It is not enough that it should be quietly laid aside: it is\ndue to the truth that it should be distinctly and fully confuted. For this\ndoctrine, if it be false, is deeply dishonorable to God: it takes away his\nhighest glory; it substitutes fear of him, in the place of love, in the\nhuman heart; it neutralizes the peculiar power of the gospel; it degrades\nthe quality of Christian piety, and poisons religion in its fountain.\n\nThe Orthodox doctrine of future punishment is, then, exceedingly simple.\nThere is to be a judgment in the last day, universal and final. All\nmankind are to be collected before the judgment seat of Christ, and there\nto be divided into two classes,\u2014one on the right hand, and the other on\nthe left. These are to go upward, to heaven, to be eternally happy; those\ndownward, to hell, to be eternally miserable. There are no degrees of\nsuffering; for the torments of hell are infinite in degree, as well as\neverlasting in duration. Usually the suffering is made intensively as well\nas extensively infinite. Sometimes degrees are allowed in suffering. No\nallowance is made for ignorance, or want of opportunity; for inherited\nevil, or evil resulting from force of circumstances. The purest and best\nof men, who does not believe the precise Orthodox theory concerning the\nTrinity, sits in hell side by side with Zingis Khan, who murdered in cold\nblood hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, marking his\nbloody route by pyramids of skulls. The unbaptized child, who goes to hell\nbecause of the original sin derived from Adam, is exposed to God\u2019s wrath\nno less than Pope Alexander VI, who outraged every law of God and man, and\nwho, says Machiavelli, \u201cwas followed to the tomb by the holy feet of his\nthree dear companions\u2014Luxury, Simony, and Cruelty.\u201d(46)\n\nThis is the doctrine which every denomination and sect in Christendom,\nexcept the Unitarians and Universalists, maintain as essential to\nOrthodoxy. It is but a year or two since twenty-one bishops of the\nProtestant Episcopal Church issued a declaration of their belief that this\ndoctrine is maintained, without reserve or qualification, by the Church of\nEngland. Only recently an ecclesiastical council of Congregationalists\nrefused the fellowship of the churches to a gentleman elected as its\npastor by the Third Congregational Church in Portland, Maine. In the\nreport of the result, the council says that it believes the candidate to\nbe generally sound in his belief, and exemplary in his Christian spirit,\nand heartily extends to him its Christian sympathy. But it declines to\ninstall him as pastor, because it \u201cunderstands him as saying, that he does\nnot know but there may be another state of probation and offer of\nsalvation, after death, for all to whom Christ is not personally preached;\nand that, whilst believing in a future retribution, he says that the\neverlasting punishment of the wicked may be an extinction of the wicked by\nannihilation.\u201d So that a mere doubt on this subject is considered a\nsufficient reason, by the most advanced and liberal of the whole Orthodox\nbody at the present day, for refusing church fellowship.\n\nThe American Tract Society floods the land with loose leaves, all\nappealing to the fear of an eternal hell. We have one before us now,\ncalled \u201cAre you insured?\u201d which represents Christianity as a contrivance\nfor escaping from everlasting torment, as a spiritual insurance office,\nwhere one must \u201ctake out a policy,\u201d and so escape everlasting fire.(47)\n\nThere is no theological journal, bearing the Orthodox name, which is more\nrational and liberal than the \u201cNew York Independent.\u201d But in its issue of\nJanuary 5, 1860, it speaks of future endless misery thus, saying that\nthere is a \u201cvast amount and weight of evidence to the point\u2014evidence\nenough to prove it, if provable; all nature, all law, all revelation\nuttering the doctrine, so that it is an amazing stretch and energy of\nunbelief not to believe it, implying a moral state and position that will\nnot believe it on any testimony, however clearly and unqualifiedly, even\nto the exhaustion of the capabilities of language, God himself may declare\nand affirm it.\u201d\n\nThere is evidently an energetic attempt made in some quarters to revive\nthe decaying belief in the doctrine of everlasting punishment in the\nfuture state, as a penalty for the sins of this. Dr. Thompson, of New\nYork, has published a work to this end, called \u201cLove and Penalty.\u201d Dr. J.\nP. Thompson, the author of this book, is considered the leader of New\nHaven theology\u2014the Elisha on whose shoulders the mantle of Dr. Taylor, of\nNew Haven, has fallen. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, has labored in the\nsame field, exerting himself to prove this doctrine in various tracts and\nother works. Professor Hovey, of the Baptist Seminary of Newton, has\npublished a little book on the same subject.\n\nIt is probably thought dangerous by these gentlemen to relax at all the\nterrors of futurity. And, no doubt, if all those who have been restrained\nfrom evil by fear of eternal punishment were to lose that belief suddenly,\nthe consequences, at first, would be sometimes bad. If you have exerted\nyour whole force in producing fear of hell, instead of fear of sin, then,\nthe terror of hell being taken away, men might rush at first into license.\nBut the dread of a future hell is by no means so efficacious a motive as\nis often thought. We become hardened to everything, and neither the\nclergyman nor his parish eat any less heartily of their Sunday dinner, nor\nsleep any less soundly on Sunday night, in consequence of the terrible\ndescriptions of eternal torments contained in the morning\u2019s sermon.(48)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, in Regard to\nthis Doctrine.\n\n\nBeside the practical motive for maintaining this doctrine, which we have\nintimated, there are also scriptural and philosophical reasons. Scripture\nand reason both do, in fact, seem to teach opposite doctrines on this\nsubject. There are passages in the New Testament which appear to teach\nnever-ending suffering, and others which appear to teach a final,\nuniversal restoration. It is written, \u201cThese shall go away into eternal\npunishment;\u201d but it is also written, that Christ \u201cshall reign till all\nthings are subdued unto him;\u201d when \u201cthe Son also himself shall be subject\nto Him who did put all things under him, that God may be all in all.\u201d As\nthe same word is used to express the way in which all enemies are to be\nsubject to Christ, and the way in which Christ himself is to be subject to\nGod, it follows that the enemies, when subjected, shall be friends. It is\nsaid that the wicked shall be punished \u201cwith everlasting destruction from\nthe presence of God;\u201d but it is also said that \u201cin the dispensation of the\nfulness of times, God will gather in one all things in Christ, both which\nare in heaven and on earth;\u201d and \u201cthat at the name of Jesus every knee\nshould bow, in heaven, in earth, and under the earth; and that every\ntongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the\nFather.\u201d It is said of the wicked, that \u201ctheir worm never dies, and their\nfire is not quenched;\u201d but it is also said that \u201cit pleased the Father,\nhaving made peace through the blood of the cross, by Christ to reconcile\nall things unto himself, whether they be things in earth or things in\nheaven.\u201d So that Scripture, at first sight, seems to teach both eternal\npunishment and universal restoration.\n\nThere is a similar contradiction on this subject, if considered in the\nlight of pure reason. When looked at from the divine attributes, the\nunavoidable conclusion seems to be, that all men must be finally saved.\nFor God is infinitely benevolent, and therefore must wish to save all; is\ninfinitely wise, and therefore must know how to save all; is infinitely\npowerful, and therefore must be able to overcome all difficulties in the\nway of saving all: hence all must be saved. But, on the other hand, when\nwe consider the subject from the position of man\u2019s nature, an opposite\nconclusion seems to follow. For man, being free, is able to choose either\nevil or good at any moment; and, as long as he continues to be essentially\nman, he must retain this freedom; and therefore, at any period of his\nfuture existence, however remote, he may prefer evil to good\u2014that is, may\nprefer hell to heaven. But God will not compel him to be good against his\nwill (for unwilling goodness is not goodness); and therefore it follows\nthat there is no point of time in the infinite future of which we can\ncertainly say that then all men will be saved.\n\nOf course these seeming contradictions of Scripture and antinomies of\nreason are not real contradictions. God does not contradict himself either\nin revelation or in reason. Whether we can reconcile such antagonisms\n_now_, or not, we know that they will be reconciled. Meantime, it is our\nduty to disbelieve whatever is dishonorable to God, or opposed to the\ncharacter ascribed to him by Jesus Christ. Christ has taught us to regard\nGod as our Father. It is our duty to refuse credence to any doctrine\nconcerning him which is plainly opposed to this character. If I have\nformed my opinion of my friend\u2019s character from a large experience, I\nought to refuse to believe, even on good evidence, anything opposed to it.\nWhat is faith in man, or in God, good for, that is unable to resist evil\nreports concerning them? If I am told that my friend has become a thief or\na swindler, and he who tells me says, \u201cI know that it is so\u2014here is the\nevidence,\u201d I reply, \u201cI do not care for your evidence. I know that it is\nimpossible.\u201d So, if all the churches in the world, Catholic and\nProtestant, tell me that Jesus teaches everlasting punishment inflicted by\nGod for the sins of this life, and produce chapter and verse in support of\ntheir statement, I reply, \u201cIf I have learned anything about God from the\nteachings of Jesus, it is that your assertion is impossible. About the\nmeaning of these passages you may be mistaken, for the letter killeth; but\nI cannot be mistaken in regard to the fatherly character of the Almighty.\u201d\n\nThese contradictions we shall consider in a paper printed in the Appendix\n(an examination of Dr. Neheimiah Adams\u2019s tract on the \u201cReasonableness of\nEverlasting Punishment\u201d). At present we will only say that we should hold\nit less dishonorable to God to deny his existence than to believe this\ndoctrine concerning him. We think that in the last day it will appear that\nthe atheist has done less to dishonor the name of God than those who\npersistently teach this view. For what says Lord Bacon? (Essays, XVII. Of\nSuperstition.) \u201cIt were better to have no opinion of God at all than such\nan opinion as is unworthy of him; for the one is unbelief, the other is\ncontumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity.\nPlutarch saith well to that purpose. \u2018Surely,\u2019 saith he, \u2018I had rather a\ngreat deal men should say there were no such man at all as Plutarch, than\nthat they should say there was one Plutarch that would eat his children as\nsoon as they were born,\u2019 as the poets speak of Saturn. And as the\ncontumely is greater towards God, so is the danger greater towards men.\u201d\n\nThe doctrine of everlasting punishment, being essentially a heathen and\nnot a Christian doctrine, cannot do any Christian good to any one. It is\nthe want of faith in the Church which makes it afraid of giving it up. The\nChristian Church has not faith enough to believe in the power of truth and\nlove. It still thinks that men must be frightened into goodness, or driven\ninto it. Fear is a becoming and useful motive no less than hope; but fear\nof what? Not fear of God; but fear of sin, fear of ourselves, fear of\ntemptation. To be afraid of God never did any one any good. These\ndoctrines drive men away from God; or, if they drive them _to_ God, drive\nthem as slaves, as sycophants, as servants, not as sons. We are saved by\nbecoming _the sons of God_; but you cannot drive a man into sonship by\nterror. You may make him profess religion, and go through ceremonies, and\nhave an outward form of service; but you cannot make him love God by means\nof fear.\n\nBut good men teach these things, no doubt. Men far better than most of us\nbelieve them and teach them. It always has been so. The best men have\nalways been the chief supporters of bad doctrines. A good man, humble and\nmodest, is apt to shrink from doubting or opposing what the Church has\ntaught. He accepts it, and teaches it too. When God wants a reformer, he\ndoes not take one of these good, modest, humble men. He does not take a\nsaint. He takes a man who has ever so much will, a little obstinacy, and a\ngreat love of fighting; and he makes the wrath of such a man to serve him.\n\nNeither St. Teresa nor F\u00e9n\u00e9lon could have reformed the Catholic Church. It\ntook rough old Martin Luther and hard-hearted John Calvin to do it. The\nfirst Universalists, the Abolitionists, all reformers, are necessarily men\nof that sort. They are rude debaters, not standing on ceremony or\npoliteness. They are hard-headed logicians, going straight to their point,\ncareless of elegances and proprieties. They are God\u2019s pioneers, rough\nbackwoodsmen, hewing their way with the axe through the wilderness. After\nthem shall come the peaceful farmer, with plough and spade, to turn the\nland into wheat fields, orchards, and gardens.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God.\n\n\nIt is certain that the doctrine of eternal punishment, in the common form,\ncan only be maintained by giving up some of the infinite attributes of the\nAlmighty. If punishment is to exist without end; if hell is always to\nco-exist with heaven; if certain beings are to be continued forever in\nexistence merely as sinful sufferers,\u2014then, it is clear, God is not\nomnipotent. He shares his throne forever with Satan. Satan and God divide\nbetween them the universe. God reigns in heaven, Satan in hell. God\ndesires that all shall be saved; but this desire is absolutely and forever\ndefeated by a fate greater than Deity. Law divorced from love\u2014that is,\nnature in its old Pagan aspect\u2014is higher than God. God is not the Almighty\nto any one who really believes eternal punishment. God is not the\nSovereign of the universe, but only of a part of it. The doctrine of\neternal punishment, in its common form, does, therefore, virtually\ndethrone God.(49)\n\nIt is, in fact, impossible to conceive of an eternal hell co-existing with\nan eternal heaven, without also seeing that it limits eternally the divine\nOmnipotence; for the omnipotence of God is in carrying out his will to\nhave all men saved by becoming holy. Unless God\u2019s laws are obeyed, God is\nnot obeyed; and he is not sovereign if not obeyed. Hell is a condition of\nthings hostile to God\u2019s will: it is a permanent and successful rebellion\nof a part of the universe. It is no answer to say, that it is shut up, and\nrestrained, and made to suffer; for it is _not_ conquered. God has\nconquered sin only when he has reduced it to obedience. Hell is no more\nsubject to God than the Confederate States, during the rebellion, were\nsubject to the United States government. They were shut up by a blockade;\nthey were restrained by great armies and navies; they were made to suffer;\nbut they were _not_ reduced to submission and obedience.\n\nNor is it any answer to say, that the existence of sin and suffering\nhereafter no more limits God\u2019s omnipotence than their existence here and\nnow limits his omnipotence. For the question is of ETERNAL suffering.\nTemporal suffering hereafter, we grant, is no objection to the divine\nOmnipotence. Limited and finite evil, in this world or the other, is no\nphilosophical difficulty; and for this reason\u2014that finite evil, when\ncompared with infinite good, becomes logically and mathematically _no_\nevil. The finite disappears in relation to the infinite. All the\nsufferings and sins of earth, through all ages, are strictly nothing when\nviewed in the light of the eternal joy and holiness which are to result\nfrom them. This is a postulate of pure reason. Make evil finite, and good\ninfinite,\u2014make evil temporal, and good eternal,\u2014and evil ceases to be\nanything. But make evil eternal, as is done by this doctrine, and then we\nhave Manicheism\u2014an infinite dualism\u2014on the throne of the universe.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love of God.\n\n\nThis doctrine is a relapse on Paganism, and derived from it. It has\nnothing to do with Christianity, except to corrupt it. No man was ever\nmade better by believing it: multitudes have been made worse. It\nattributes to our heavenly Father conduct that, if done by the worst of\nmen, would add a shade of increased wickedness to their character. It\nassumes that God has made intelligent creatures with the intention of\ntormenting some of them forever. It assumes that those who are thus\ncreated, exposed to this awful risk, are to be thus tormented, unless they\nhappen to pass through what is called an Orthodox conversion in this short\nearthly life. God keeps them alive forever in order to torture them\nforever.\n\nThe barbarity of this opinion exceeds all power of language to express. We\nare accustomed to mourn over the anguish and misery that are in this\nworld. The problem of earthly evil has been a burden and anxiety to good\nmen in all times, a great question for thinkers in all ages. The only\nsatisfactory solution is, that it is temporary and educational; that it is\nto pass away, and, in passing, to create a higher joy and goodness than\ncould otherwise have come. But the doctrine of everlasting punishment not\nonly annuls this explanation, and makes it impossible to explain earthly\nevil, but adds to it a tenfold greater mystery. The fatherly character of\nGod disappears in Pagan darkness, in view of this horrid doctrine; for the\neverlasting suffering of one human being contains in itself more evil than\nthe accumulated sufferings of all mankind from the creation of the world\nto the end of it. Add together all the sicknesses, bereavements,\ndisappointments, of all mankind; all the wars, famines, pestilences, that\nhave tormented humanity; add to these all the mental and moral pangs\nproduced by selfishness and sin in all ages, and all that are to be to the\nend of time,\u2014and these all combined are logically and mathematically\n_nothing_, compared with the sufferings of one human being destined to be\neverlastingly punished. For all temporal sufferings added together are\nfinite; but this is infinite.\n\nNow, the being who could inflict such torture as this is _not_ the God and\nFather of our Lord Jesus Christ. There may be some deity of cruelty, some\nincarnation of wrath and despotism, in the Hindoo Pantheon, capable of\nsuch terrific wickedness. It is no answer to say that God inflicts\nsuffering now in this world, and therefore he may inflict everlasting\nsuffering in the other; for those are all finite; that is infinite.\n_Finite_ suffering may result in greater good, may be an education to\ngood; but _everlasting_ suffering cannot. The finite and infinite cannot\nbe compared together. There is no analogy between them.\n\nThe God of the New Testament is our Father. If he inflicts suffering, it\nis for our good; \u201cnot for his pleasure, but for our profit, that we may be\npartakers of his holiness.\u201d All earthly suffering finds this solution, and\naccords with the fatherly character of God in this point of view. Much, no\ndoubt, cannot be now fully understood. We do not _see how_ it tends to\ngood; but all suffering _that ends_ MAY end in good. Suffering that does\nnot end CANNOT end in good.\n\nIf human beings are everlastingly punished, it must either be that they go\non sinning forever, and cannot repent, lose all power of repentance, and\nso cease to be moral agents, or else that they retain the power of\nrepenting, and therefore _may_ repent. In the first case, God continues to\npunish forever those who have ceased to sin, because their freedom and\nmoral power have ceased; or else he punishes forever those who have\nrepented, and _so_ ceased sinning. In either case, God must punish\neverlastingly those who have ceased to be sinners; which is incredible.\n\nIf God is a Father, he is at least _as good_ as the best earthly father.\nNow, what father or mother would ever consent to place a child in a\nsituation where there was even a chance of its running such an awful risk?\nGod has _created_ us with these liabilities to sin; he has (according to\nOrthodoxy) chosen and determined that we shall be born wholly prone to\nevil, and sure to fall into eternal and unending ruin, unless he saves us\nby a special act of grace. \u201cWhat man among you, being a father,\u201d would do\nso? Custom dulls our sense to these horrors. Let us therefore imagine a\ncase far less terrible. Suppose that a number of parents should establish\na school, to which to send their children. Suppose they should arrange a\ncode of laws for the school of such a stringent character that all the\nchildren are sure to break it. Under the school are vaults containing\ninstruments of torture. For each offence against the laws of the school\n(offences which the children cannot fail to commit) they are to be\npunished by imprisonment for life in these cells, with daily torture, from\nracks, thumb-screws, and the like. A few of them are to be selected from\nthe rest, not for any merit of their own, but by an arbitrary decree of\nthe parents, and are to be rewarded (not for their superior good conduct,\nbut according to the caprice of the parents) with every luxury and\nprivilege. Among these privileges is included that of taking a daily walk\nthrough the cells, and witnessing the horrible sufferings of their\nbrothers and companions, and hearing their shrieks of anguish, and\npraising the JUSTICE of their parents in thus punishing some and rewarding\nthe rest.\n\nBut this, you may say, is not a parallel case. No, we grant it is not, for\nwhat are these torments to that of a never-ending futurity? They are all\nas nothing. Therefore every such comparison must utterly fail of doing\njustice to the diabolic cruelty ascribed to the Almighty by this Orthodox\ndoctrine.\n\n\u201cBut what right,\u201d says the Orthodox defender of this doctrine, \u201chave we to\nreason in this way concerning the divine proceedings, by the analogy of\nearthly parents? What right have we to compare God\u2019s doings with those of\na human father?\u201d _No_ right, perhaps, as philosophers; but as Christians\nwe have not only the right to do it, but it is our duty to do so. Jesus\nhas himself taught us to use this analogy, in order to acquire confidence\nin God\u2019s ways, and to assure ourselves that God cannot fail of acting as\nwe should expect a good and wise earthly parent to act. \u201cWhat man is there\nof _you_, whom, if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he\nask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If _ye_ then, being evil, know how\nto give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father,\nwhich is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?\u201d (Matt.\n7:9-11.) Jesus authorizes and commands us to reason from the parental\nnature in man to that in God. Instead of simply assuring us of it, on the\nground of his own authority to teach us; instead of saying, \u201cBelieve this,\nbecause I say it,\u201d he says, \u201cBelieve it, because it accords with your own\nconvictions and with human nature.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment.\n\n\nThe reasons for the late efforts to support this terrific doctrine are\nprobably to be found in a widespread and increasing disbelief concerning\nit, pervading the churches nominally Orthodox. This has come from the\ngrowing intelligence and progressive movements of thought in the Christian\nChurch. The evidences of this belief are numerous and increasing. Those\nwho reject the Orthodox view are a numerous body, but divided into several\nparties. There are the old-fashioned Universalists, a valiant race,\u2014men of\nwar from their youth,\u2014who, under the lead of such men as Hosea Ballou and\nThomas Whittemore, have spent their lives in fighting the doctrine of\neverlasting punishment. Very naturally, perhaps, they went to the opposite\nextreme of opinion, and denied all future suffering. But this view has, we\nthink, ceased to be the prevailing one among the Universalists. The\ndoctrine of ultimate restoration has very generally taken its place. This\ndoctrine also prevails widely in other denominations; not only among the\nliberal bodies, like the Unitarians, but also among Methodists,\nPresbyterians, and Congregationalists. It has widely spread, as is well\nknown, in Germany. It was held by Schleiermacher, the father of modern\nGerman theology. It tinges the writings of such Orthodox men as Tholuck,\nHahn, and Olshausen. Others profess to believe in everlasting punishment,\nbut make it a merely negative consequence of lost time and opportunity:\none will be always worse off hereafter in consequence of the neglect of\nduty. Others follow Swedenborg, and make the sufferings of hell rather\nagreeable than otherwise to those who bear them.\n\nVarious ineffectual attempts have indeed been made, in all ages of the\nChurch, to soften the austerity of this doctrine. From the days of Origen,\nthese merciful doctors(50) have always been trying to soften this austere\ndogma, but ineffectually; for the dread of an eternal hell has been one of\nthe chief motives which the Church has used in converting men from sin to\nholiness. Any suggestion of the possibility of future restoration would,\nit is feared, cut the sinews of effective preaching. For the baptized who\nare not fit for heaven the Roman Catholic Church has established, indeed,\na temporary hell, with torments of an inferior sort; for bad Catholics\nthere is purgatory, with the hope of ultimate escape from it; but for the\nunbaptized heathen, for heretics, and for excommunicated persons, there is\nnothing but eternal punishment.\n\nMany, in all ages, have made the everlasting continuance of punishment not\nabsolute, but _hypothetical_\u2014depending on the question, \u201cWill the sinner\ncontinue forever to sin?\u201d(51) Others have made future punishment\n_relatively_ everlasting; that is, because even the repentant sinner will\nbe always just so far behind the position he would have had if he had not\nsinned. This, however, is taking a material view of progress, as though it\nwas limited, like the going of a horse, to so many miles a day.\n\nMany of the early fathers, and some of the medi\u00e6val doctors, took milder\nviews of the future sufferings of the impenitent or unconverted.\nProceeding from the idea of freedom, as indestructible in the human soul,\nOrigen declared that, no matter how low any moral being has fallen, a way\nto return is always open to him. Even the devil may, in time, regain the\nhighest position in the angelic hierarchy.(52) No doubt Origen admitted\nthe need of external conditions for this restoration; but he said, God is\nable to heal the damage done to any part of his works.(53) He will restore\nall things to their origin, uniting the end and the beginning, and so\nbecoming indeed the Alpha and Omega. This may require long processes,\nthrough many ages.(54) Since Jesus speaks of a sin which cannot be\nforgiven in this age (\u1f00\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd) nor the next, it follows, says Origen, that\nthere is a series of ages, or worlds, through which we pass, and many of\nthese ages of ages (s\u00e6cula s\u00e6culorum) must pass away before all bad men\nand angels shall have returned to their original state. Quoting the\npassage, \u201cThe last enemy that shall be destroyed,\u201d he says that he shall\nnot be destroyed as to his substance, but as to his enmity. His being was\nmade by God, and cannot perish; his hostile will proceeded from himself,\nand shall be destroyed.\n\nMr. Brownson (or rather a writer in Brownson\u2019s \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d July,\n1863) takes another way of softening the terrors of hell. With him too,\nhell is an everlasting state; but he maintains that the Roman Church has\nnot made it an article of faith to believe that there is any positive\nsuffering therein. If you believe in an eternal hell, that is enough; you\nare not precluded from softening its horrors to any extent you can. Thus\nhe maintains that the great Augustine allows hell to be only a negative\nstate\u2014only the absence of the exquisite beatitude of heaven. This writer\n(who is said by the editor to be a learned Catholic priest) asserts that\nthere is a growing repugnance to the popular doctrine upon eternal\npunishment among the most intelligent of the Catholic laity, and this\nreluctance is the chief obstacle to the reception of the faith by a large\nclass of non-Catholics. He attempts to meet this state of mind by showing\nthat neither the doctrine of St. Augustine nor that of the Catholic Church\nsupports this popular view, but allows a much milder one. He proceeds to\nmake these points:\u2014\n\n1. St. Augustine nowhere teaches that human nature is intrinsically evil,\nbut he invariably teaches that it is substantially good. (\u201cOmnis natura in\nquantum natura est bona est.\u201d \u201cOmnis substantia aut Deus est aut ex Deo.\u201d\nDe Lib. Arbit.) Therefore it follows that the very notion of _total_\ndepravity is impossible. St. Augustine distinctly says that \u201cthe very\nunclean spirit himself is good, inasmuch as he is a spirit, but evil\ninasmuch as he is unclean.\u201d Hence, not even the nature of the devil\nhimself is evil. So St. Thomas (\u201cDiabolus, in quantum habet esse, est\nbonus\u201d), \u201cthe devil, so far as he _is_, is good.\u201d\n\n2. St. Augustine teaches in explicit terms that existence is a good even\nto angels and men who are eternally bound by the consequences of evil.\n\n3. Eternal death, according to St. Augustine, is a subsidence into a lower\nform of life, a privation of the highest vital influx from God in order to\neverlasting life, or supreme beatitude, but not of all vital influx in\norder to an endless existence, which is a partial and incomplete\nparticipation in good. These sinful souls, therefore, fulfil in a measure\nthe end of their creation, and have a place and a function in harmony with\nthe general order of the cosmos. There is no trace, in this view of\nAugustine, that God hates a portion of his creatures with an absolute,\ninfinite, and eternal hatred, and is hated by them in return. The original\nact of creative love is an enduring and eternal act, in which even Satan\nis included. \u201cTheir nature still remains essentially good, and far\nsuperior in excellence and beauty to material light, which is the highest\ncorporeal substance.\u201d\n\n4. Hell, therefore (Infernus), is simply a lower state of inchoate and\nimperfect being, \u201cof saints nipped in the bud.\u201d Infant damnation is only a\ngentle sadness\u2014\u201clevis tristitia.\u201d All positive suffering in hell is\nprobably temporal, and therefore must at last cease. The lost souls will\nenjoy there quite as much as they can do here, _minus_ the temporal\nsufferings of this life. They continue _natural_ beings, and therefore can\nenjoy all natural joy; and that which they lose, being the \u201cbeatific\nvision,\u201d of which they have no conception, is a loss of which they are\nwholly unconscious.\n\nSwedenborg maintains, in the same way, the everlasting character of the\npunishment of those who have passed the final judgment, but admits many\npalliations to its sufferings. He teaches that delight is the universal\nsubstance of heaven, and also of hell, and that evil spirits are in the\ndelight of evil, as good spirits in that of good. An evil spirit would be\nas unhappy in heaven as a good one would be in hell.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture.\n\n\nBut what, then, is the vital truth in the doctrine of eternal punishment?\nChrist says, \u201cThese shall go away into eternal punishment.\u201d(55) What is\nthis \u201ceternal punishment\u201d? It is commonly supposed to mean the same thing\nas punishment which shall never end, or punishment continued through all\ntime. But this is to misunderstand both the philosophical and scriptural\nmeaning of the word \u201ceternal.\u201d Eternal punishments are the opposite of\ntemporal punishments: they have nothing to do with time at all; they are\npunishments outside of time. To attempt to realize eternity by adding up\nany number of myriads of years of time, is necessarily a failure; for time\nand eternity are different things. You might as well attempt to produce\nthought or love, by adding up millions of miles of distance, as, by adding\nup millions of years of time, to get any idea of eternity. Eternal life,\nin the language of Scripture, has nothing to do with the future or the\npast. It is a present life in the soul, awakened within by the knowledge\nof God and Christ. \u201cThis _is_ life eternal, to know thee, the only true\nGod, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.\u201d \u201cEternal life and eternal\ndeath both come from the knowledge of God and of Christ.\u201d To one it is a\nsavor of life, to another of death. Eternal punishment and eternal life\nare the punishments and the rewards of eternity, distinguished from those\nof time, and having their root in the knowledge of God which comes through\nChrist. Eternal life and eternal punishment both commence here, from the\njudgments which takes place now: but the last judgment, or the judgment of\nthe last day, is that which will take place hereafter, when the soul shall\nhave a full knowledge of itself and of God; see its whole life as it\nreally is; have all self-deceptions taken away, all disguises removed, and\nknow itself as it is known. God\u2019s love, when revealed, attracts and\nrepels. Like all real force, it is a polar force. The one pole is its\nattractive power over those who are in a truth-loving state; the other\npole is its repelling power to those who are in a truth-hating state. Love\nattracts the truthful, and repels the wilful. Eternal punishment, then, is\nthe repugnance to God of the soul which is inwardly selfish in its\nwill,\u2014loving itself more than truth and right. It is the sense of\nindignation and wrath, alienation and poverty, which rests on it while in\nthis condition. It is the outer darkness; it is the far country; it is the\nfamine, which comes as a holy and blessed evil, sent to save, by bringing\nto repentance, the prodigal child, who has not yet \u201ccome to himself.\u201d\n\nFrom this knowledge of God and of itself, therefore,\u2014from this judgment of\nthe last day,\u2014will flow eternal life to the one class, and eternal\npunishment or suffering to the other. Those who have been conscientious\nand generous; who have endeavored faithfully to live for truth and right;\nwho have made sacrifices, and not boasted of them; who have clothed the\nnaked and fed the hungry, making the world better and happier by their\npresence,\u2014will hear the Saviour say, \u201cCome, ye blessed of my Father,\ninherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for\nI was hungry, and ye gave me meat.\u201d Perhaps they have never even heard the\nname of Christ; perhaps they were the Buddhists of Burmah, of whom Mr.\nMalcom speaks, who brought food to him, though a stranger to them. \u201cI was\nscarcely seated,\u201d says he, \u201cwhen a woman brought a nice mat for me to lie\non; another, cool water; and a man went and picked me a half dozen fine\noranges. None sought or expected the least reward, but disappeared, and\nleft me to my repose.\u201d Or perhaps they will be the poor black women in\nAfrica, who took such kind care of Mungo Park, singing, \u201cLet us pity the\nwhite man: he has no mother to bring him milk, no wife to grind him corn.\u201d\nThe reward of their fidelity will be the gift of a greater power of\ngoodness, coming from a knowledge of God and Christ. They were helping\nChrist, though they did not know him. They will say, \u201cLord, when saw we\nthee an hungered?\u201d These Gentiles, without the law, who do by nature the\nthings contained in the law, will come to know Christ, and receive a\nspiritual life\u2014life flowing from that knowledge. On the other hand, those\nwho have not endeavored to do what they knew to be right will receive from\nthe same knowledge of God and Christ a spiritual or eternal punishment.\nPerhaps they have received some of it already in this world; but a deeper\nknowledge of the truth will bring a keener self-reproach. The worm that\nnever dies is this gnawing(56) tooth of conscience. The fire which is not\nquenched is the heart still selfish, turned to evil, joined with a\nconscience which sees the good. For man, as long as he is man, cannot get\naway from himself. He may sophisticate himself with falsehoods, put his\nconscience to sleep, and imagine that he has escaped all the penalties of\nevil; but he cannot escape from himself. The longer and deeper the sleep\nof conscience, the more terrible its final awakening.\n\nEternal punishment, therefore, is the punishment which comes to man from\nhis spiritual nature; from that side of man which connects him with\neternity, in contradistinction from temporal punishment, which is that\nwhich comes from his temporal nature and the temporal world. Through the\nbody he receives temporal pleasure or pain from the world of time and\nspace; through the spirit he receives spiritual joy or sorrow from the\nworld of eternity and infinity.\n\nThus intimately are judgment and retribution connected. There is nothing\narbitrary about rewards or punishments. They follow naturally and\nnecessarily from the revelation of divine and eternal truth. Sooner or\nlater, the everlasting distinctions between right and wrong, good and\nevil, make themselves seen and known. The distinctions between right and\nwrong _are_ eternal.\n\nThe idea of duration is not connected with eternal punishment or eternal\nlife; for the idea of duration belongs to time, and not to eternity. Human\nlaw sentences men, for crime, to be punished by imprisonment for six\nmonths, three years, ten years, or for life; but in God\u2019s world there is\nnot, and cannot be, any relation between a man\u2019s guilt and the precise\ntime he is to suffer. He must suffer while he is guilty, be the time\nlonger or shorter. When he ceases to be guilty, he must cease to suffer.\nHe therefore fixes the _duration_ of his suffering himself: that makes no\npart of the divine sentence. If he judges himself unworthy of eternal life\nduring five, ten, one hundred, or ten thousand million years, that is for\nhimself to say. God will never save him against his will; and God can\nwait. The sphere of time belongs to man\u2019s freedom; that of eternity, to\nthe freedom of God.\n\nAnd this reconciles the philosophic difficulty. Man, being _free_, can\npostpone his submission and obedience _indefinitely_; but, being finite,\ncannot postpone it _infinitely_. At any point of time, he may still\nresolve to resist the influx of eternal life, and continue in the sphere\nof death: but eternity surrounds time, and infolds it; and in eternity\nGod\u2019s purposes will be realized, and every knee bow, of things in heaven,\nand in earth, and under the earth. Universal harmony must prevail at last.\n\n\u201cEternal\u201d and \u201ceverlasting\u201d are two wholly different ideas. We fully\nbelieve in eternal punishment, but not in everlasting punishment. Eternal\nlife is spiritual life: eternal suffering is spiritual suffering.\n\nThe whole of antiquity recognizes this distinction; and the Bible is\nsaturated with it. When Jesus says, \u201cHe who believes in me has _eternal\nlife_ abiding in him,\u201d there is nothing about duration intended in that.\nWhen he says, \u201cThis is _life eternal_, to know thee the only true God,\u201d\nthere is nothing about duration implied. It is the quality of the life\nwhich is conveyed\u2014spiritual life, life flowing from the sight of God and\nChrist.\n\nWe believe in eternal punishment; but, because it is eternal, therefore it\nis not everlasting. Eternal suffering, flowing from the sight of the\neternal truth and love of God, is real suffering, because it involves the\nsight of sin, the consciousness of failure, the deep conviction of what we\nought to do and have not done; but all this leads to repentance and\nsalvation. When the Lord turned and looked on Peter, Peter went into\neternal suffering. He saw his own guilt and the infinite goodness of his\nMaster at the same time. The one produced penitence; the other, hope. But,\nwhen Judas hanged himself, he did _not_ go into eternal punishment, but\ninto temporal. He saw his own baseness and his own folly; but he did not\nsee God\u2019s love. If he had seen God\u2019s love and Christ\u2019s pardoning mercy,\ntogether with his sin, he would not have hanged himself; but, like Peter,\nhe would have repented, and gone forth to preach the gospel.\n\nWhen we see God\u2019s truth and love, we go into eternal life or into eternal\nsuffering, according to the direction of our lives and hearts. If we are\nfollowing Christ, and trying to do right,\u2014if we are not selfish, but\ngenerous,\u2014then the sight of God\u2019s love and truth in Christ leads us\ndirectly into spiritual joy; but if we are selfish, and seeking only our\nown good, if we are indifferent to the rights of our fellow-men, then we\ngo into eternal or spiritual suffering.\n\nThe force of eternal punishment, therefore, is not in the statement that\nit is never to end; nor in any description, however vivid, of outward\nphysical torments. Such descriptions produce excitement, agitation,\nterror. But this is not _conviction_. The doctrine, not being in harmony\nwith the attributes of God or the nature of man, can never be sincerely or\nprofoundly believed. It is inwardly opposed by every Christian conviction\nin the human soul; for it is not Christian, but Pagan. It is a relapse\ninto Paganism, an importation of Pagan terrors into Christianity. It\ndegrades every soul that teaches it, or that accepts it, in the same way\nthat idolatry degrades it. It puts a veil between the soul and the true\nGod.\n\nBut the true Christian doctrine of eternal punishment is, that the soul\nwhich sins shall eternally suffer; that there is an eternal distinction\nbetween truth and falsehood, good and evil; that spiritual distinctions\nare positive and real; and that evil is not a mere negative thing,\nimplying a little less of good, but positive, being the state of a soul\nwhich is repelled, not attracted, by the divine goodness; which keeps away\nfrom God, as the shadow keeps on the side of the globe which is away from\nthe sun.\n\nAgain: eternal suffering is the suffering of eternity, as distinguished\nfrom temporal suffering, which has its root in time. This is something\nwhich comes from within, while temporal suffering comes from without. Till\nman is reconciled to God by obedience and love, he has the sentence of\ndeath in himself. This suffering is not arbitrary, but fixed in the nature\nof things. As a sinner, man must be eternally separated inwardly from God,\nand therefore from bliss. His hell is within him, not without. And it is\nalso here, as well as hereafter, since eternity is here, no less than\ntime.\n\nIn this view of eternal punishment, there is an important truth\u2014truth\nessential to the just spiritual growth of man. It is needed to resist the\ntendency to make light of sin. It is needed to oppose the view which makes\nevil, as well as good, a natural growth, and teaches that all men are on\ntheir way upward, and will ultimately fall into heaven by some specific\nlevity. It is needed to remind us that we must choose whom we will serve,\nand that, consciously or unconsciously, we are at all moments tending\neither upward or downward\u2014either towards God or away from him.\n\nThis is the great truth which is often lost sight of by Liberal\nChristianity, and by that easy optimism which declares that \u201cwhatever is,\nis right;\u201d but darkly taught, because dimly seen, by Orthodoxy. Pagan in\nits form, there is often an essentially Christian idea communicated by the\nOrthodox pulpit. The Pagan form may be neglected and disbelieved: the\nChristian impression may remain. It tightens the nerves of the soul, as a\ncold bath invigorates the body made languid by too much warmth and ease.\nYet, as long as the Pagan form remains, the interior truth is shorn of its\nfull power. Let us pray that the truth, divested of its dark errors, may\nat last be recognized by the Christian Church. For very often the words of\na great writer and thinker (who also was an earnest opponent of the\nOrthodox form of this doctrine) recur to us in these studies: \u201cFew see the\nthings themselves, but only the forms of things, in the mirror of\nreflection, as images. But we shall at last see the things themselves face\nto face, as it is said, and without a veil, if it please God, in part\nbefore the close of this present life, more fully in the life to\ncome.\u201d(57)\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment.\n\n\nTo what we have said of judgment by Christ, in the previous chapter, we\nadd here some further thoughts in regard to its connection with\npunishment. Orthodoxy makes this connection arbitrary and outward. For\nsuch sins, it says, God has appointed such a punishment; and the object of\njudgment is to glorify God, by showing how exact he is in finding out\nevery sinner, and fulfilling his every threat against evil. But, according\nto a better view, which alone can commend itself to minds of any large\nrange\u2014future judgment is simply the act by which God shows to a man the\ntruth concerning himself, so that he can see it.\n\nA deaf and dumb child being asked, \u201cWhat is judgment?\u201d replied, \u201cJudgment\nis to see ourselves as we are, and to see God as he is.\u201d This is the\nessential thing in judgment; and in this sense Christ is declared \u201cto be\nthe judge of the quick and the dead;\u201d that is, he judges us in this world,\nand will judge us in the other world. His judgments are not external,\nsentencing us to external punishments; but they are internal, causing us\nto judge ourselves. He shows us what we are. Whenever he comes, he comes\nto judgment, separating the good from the evil, testing the state of the\nheart, causing men to go to the right or the left. His coming always makes\nan issue which cannot be avoided; calls upon us to decide which course we\nshall take, what thing we shall do, what master we will serve. When Christ\nfirst came, he came for judgment, that the thoughts of many hearts might\nbe revealed,\u2014revealed to themselves and to others. Wherever he came, men\nimmediately were divided into two classes,\u2014becoming his disciples, or\nbecoming his opponents. No longer was any compromise possible between\ntruth and error, between right and wrong. They were obliged to choose\nwhich to serve; and they chose according to the inward tendency of their\nhearts. They whose hearts were right, chose the right: they whose hearts\nwere wrong, chose the wrong.\n\nChrist is thus the Judge of the living as well as the dead. Often in our\nlives he comes to us thus to be our Judge. Every time he calls upon us to\ndo anything for him, he judges the state of our heart. Every time he\noffers an opportunity to the world of improvement or progress, he judges\nthe world.\n\nWhen he was on trial before Caiaphas and before Pilate, they were on\ntrial, and not he. When they sentenced him, they condemned themselves.\nDuring the whole of those dark hours, when Christ was buffeted, spit upon,\ncrowned with thorns, to the eyes of angels he was seen to be sitting on\nthe throne of his glory. Caiaphas and the Jewish priests, Pontius Pilate\nand the Roman soldiers, Judas Iscariot, the Jewish people, each in turn\nreceived their sentence, and passed to the left hand. And so ever since,\nwhenever any great opportunity has been given to the world to decide\nbetween right and wrong, the world has pronounced judgment on itself; has\ngone to the right hand with the sheep, or to the left hand with the goats.\nWhen Paul offered Christianity to the Jews, and they rejected it, he said\n\u201cit was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to\nyou; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of\neternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.\u201d So it always is. God does not\njudge us, nor Christ; but we judge ourselves. For this reason Jesus says,\n\u201cIf any man hear me, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to\njudge the world.\u201d And again he says, \u201cThe word which I have spoken, the\nsame shall judge him at the last day.\u201d And yet again, \u201cThis is the\njudgment, that light has come into the world, and that men have chosen\ndarkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.\u201d\n\nThe account of judgment (in the 25th chapter of Matthew) at Christ\u2019s\ncoming we considered in the last chapter. It will, however, bear a little\nfurther examination. There are _three_ different judgments indicated in\nthe three parables of the virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats.\nThe first is the judgment of opportunity, the second of work, the third of\nknowledge. In the first and second we judge ourselves, in the last we are\njudged. These two occur in time, the other in eternity. The first two are\nthe judgments which take place at Christ\u2019s coming here; the third is the\njudgment of \u201cthe last day.\u201d The first takes place whenever we are \u201ccalled\u201d\nby a new opportunity; the second comes in all retribution; the third by\nthe inward revelation of God\u2019s truth, showing men what they are, and what\nGod is. The wise and foolish virgins represent those _who are invited to\nreceive Christianity_; the servants with the talents, believers who have\nreceived it in different degrees; and the nations (heathen, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7)(58)\nthose (in Christendom or outside of it) to whom Christianity has never\ncome.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation.\n\n\nThis view of the final results of moral evil, as destroying personal\nexistence, is hardly an Orthodox doctrine, though quasi-Orthodox. It is\nthe refuge of that class of minds which are unable to accept universal\nrestoration on the one side, or everlasting punishment on the other. To\nthem a large number of human beings seem \u201ctoo good for banning, and too\nbad for blessing,\u201d and in their opinion will be suffered quietly to drop\nout of conscious existence. The analogies of nature, in which out of many\nseeds and many eggs produced, only a few attain to the condition of plants\nand animals, tend to confirm this view. The state of human character here\nappears also to favor it, since multitudes pass out of this world in an\nundeveloped condition, seeming wholly to have failed of the end of their\nbeing. The chief scriptural argument in favor of the doctrine is found in\nthe assumption that \u201clife through Christ\u201d is equivalent to continued\nconscious existence, and that \u201cdeath\u201d as the punishment of sin, is\nequivalent to annihilation. We have so fully discussed the meaning of\nthese terms in the previous chapter, that it is not desirable to argue\nthis point here. We agree with the Orthodox view, and differ from that of\nthe annihilationists on this point. The God of the gospel is the Father of\nall his children\u2014of the weakest, feeblest, and most sinful. If he is the\nGod of _all_, then he is \u201cthe God, not of the dead, but of the living, for\nall live to him.\u201d Indian tribes and heathen nations may be willing that\nthe sickly infants, and those worn with age, should perish; they may\nexpose female infants, thinking them not worth bringing up; but Christian\nnations establish schools and hospitals for the deaf and dumb, the insane,\nthe inebriates, the idiotic. If we, then, being evil, know how to care for\nthe weak, undeveloped, and vegetative natures, how much more shall their\nFather in heaven care for them! The doctrine of annihilation rests\nfundamentally on a Pagan view of God.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration.\n\n\nThis opinion has its roots, we think, in the gospel. It has prevailed in\nthe church from the earliest times, having been held, as we have seen, by\nOrigen, and a great number of eminent church fathers and doctors. What\nmore Christian word has come to us from the earliest centuries than the\ncry out of the heart of the great Alexandrian teacher, \u201cMy Saviour, even\nnow, mourns for my sins. My Saviour cannot be happy while I remain in my\niniquity. He does not wish to drink the cup of joy alone in the kingdom of\nGod; he is waiting till we shall come and join him there.\u201d(59)\n\nOur object in this chapter is to consider the Orthodox view, and we shall\nnot, therefore, enter into any extensive argument concerning universal\nsalvation. We will only here indicate the general scriptural evidence in\nits support. The alternative to the Orthodox view of everlasting\npunishment is not, as we have shown, necessarily Universalism. It may be\nannihilation, or it may be, under the name of eternal punishment, a\nnegative evil, being the privation of the highest kind of happiness.\nStill, it seems proper to suggest, if only very briefly, some reasons\ngiven by Universalists for their belief.\n\nIn the Epistles of Paul there are five or six passages, which appear to\nteach, or to imply, an ultimate restoration of salvation of all moral\nbeings. Among them are these:\u2014\n\n1. Eph. 1:9, 10. \u201cHaving made known to us the mystery of his will,\naccording to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, that in\nthe dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one\nall things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth,\neven in him.\u201d\n\nThe apostle is speaking of the \u201criches of God\u2019s grace,\u201d wherein \u201che hath\n_abounded_ toward us,\u201d and gives as the proof this revelation made in\nChrist of a great mystery\u2014that \u201cin the dispensation [economy] of the\nfulness of times\u201d he might bring into one (under one head) \u201call things in\nheaven and on earth.\u201d The idea of the passage seems evidently to be that\nin the economy, or order, of the divine plan, which extends through\nindefinite periods of time, all things shall be united under one head in\nChrist. But if brought under one head (as the Greek word signifies), then\nall become Christians, all \u201cin heaven and earth.\u201d This would seem to be a\nvery plain statement of a universal restoration.\n\nAs such, Olshausen, one of the most Orthodox of commentators, regards it.\nHe rejects all the explanations offered by the advocates of everlasting\npunishment as unsatisfactory. \u201cIt cannot be disputed,\u201d he says, \u201cthat in\nit the restoration of all things seems to be again favored\u2014a view which\nPaul in general, as has already been remarked (on Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor.\n15:24; Gal. 3:22) says more to support than the other writers of the New\nTestament.\u201d Olshausen declares the interpretations which suppose a merely\nexternal subjection of the world to Christ to be entirely inadequate, and\nhave left unresolved the principal difficulty, which is, \u201chow Paul could\nsay that all have a share in redemption, if he held the common view that\nthe numberless hosts of angels who fell, along with the far greatest part\nof mankind (Matt. 7:13, 14) are eternally damned, and thus shut out from\nthe harmony of the universe.\u201d The defenders of universal restoration, says\nOlshausen, \u201cunderstand the harmony of the universe seriously, in its\nliteral meaning, and seem, according to that, to be here in the right.\u201d\n\n2. Phil. 2:9, 10. \u201cWherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a\nname which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee\nshould bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the\nearth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to\nthe glory of God the Father.\u201d Here we have \u201c_things under the earth_\u201d\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) added to \u201cthings in heaven and on earth.\u201d This word only\noccurs here in the New Testament, but is by Bretschneider (Lex. Man.)\ntranslated \u201csubterranean\u201d or \u201cinfernal,\u201d and applied to the inhabitants of\nHades, with a reference to Origen, who uses the word in relation to the\ndemons. De Wette applies the language to angels, living men, and the dead.\nAt all events, it appears to include all moral beings, and to declare that\nthe whole human race shall bow to Christ, and accept him as Master. But\nthis cannot mean a merely outward submission, for such a forced and\nreluctant homage would bring little honor to God, nor be worth such\nadmiration on the part of the apostle. It must therefore mean that all\nmen, not only all who now live, but all who have lived, shall finally\nbecome Christians and enter into the glory of God.\n\n3. Col. 1:20. \u201cAnd, having made peace by the blood of the cross, by him to\nreconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in\nearth or things in heaven.\u201d Here a new feature is added to the statement\nby the word \u201creconcile,\u201d which evidently expresses the entire conversion\nof the heart, and therefore of human beings, to the law of Christ.\n\n4. 1 Cor. 15:22. \u201cAs in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive.\u201d The \u201call\u201d must be as extensive on one side as the other. Now,\nwhether the death in Adam be physical or moral, whether it mean the\ndissolution of the earthly body, or the loss of innocence by sin, it\ncertainly includes _all_ human beings, in the fullest sense. All men die,\nand all men sin. It would therefore seem that the other \u201call\u201d must be\nquite as comprehensive. It must include all human beings. All men shall\n\u201cbe made alive in Christ.\u201d But this cannot mean a mere physical\nimmortality, or an immortality in misery; for one cannot be said to be\n\u201calive in Christ\u201d who is suffering endless torment. To be \u201calive in\nChrist\u201d means to be spiritually alive, for \u201che that hath the Son hath\nlife.\u201d\n\n5. 1 Cor. 24:28. In this passage Paul declares that _all_ enemies shall be\nsubject to Christ. But this, again, cannot mean a forced submission, for\nthat is in no sense being subject to Christ. _Christ\u2019s_ subjects are\nwilling subjects. It therefore must mean that, finally, all human beings\nshall become Christian in conviction and in heart.\n\nThese five texts from the apostle Paul seem to us very plain and\nconclusive as to his opinions. But perhaps the strongest evidence in proof\nof a universal restoration is to be found in Christ\u2019s own parable of the\nprodigal son. For in this the genuine spirit and purpose of the gospel is\nshown to be that God _never_ loses his fatherly love for his rebellious\nand lost children. On the contrary, his heart yearns towards them with a\nmore earnest affection than towards the holy and good. The prodigal son\nrepresents those who are \u201cdead in sin.\u201d (Luke 15:24-32.) The parable\nteaches that God loves them all the while they are away, and that \u201cthere\nis more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and\nnine just persons who need no repentance.\u201d Now, if God loves the sinners\nthus whose bodies are yet alive, does he cease to love them when the\nbodily change takes place which we call death? Does his nature change\nthen? And if not, does it ever change? After millions of years, if they\nhave been lost and dead so long, has his love become weary of waiting, or\ndoes \u201chis mercy endure forever\u201d?\n\nTo us it seems clear, that if the parable of the prodigal son is to be\ntaken as a true statement of the feeling of God towards every sinner, that\nevery sinner must at last be brought back by the mighty power of this\nredeeming love. The power of the human will to resist God is indeed\nindefinite; but the power of love is infinite. Sooner or later, then, in\nthe economy of the ages, all sinners must come back, in penitence and\nshame, to their Father\u2019s house, saying, \u201cMake us as thy hired servants.\u201d\nIf so, if universal restoration does not mean primarily restoration to\noutward happiness, but to inward obedience, it seems to us that the\ndoctrine may be so stated as to be a new motive for _present_ repentance\nand obedience. May we not say to the sinner, You may resist God to-day,\nto-morrow, for a million years; but, sooner or later, you _must_ return,\nobey, repent, and submit? God will spare no means to bring you. His love\nto you requires him to use all methods, all terrors, all suffering. The\n\u201cworm that never dies,\u201d the \u201cfire that is never quenched,\u201d the \u201couter\ndarkness,\u201d\u2014these are all blessed means, in the providence of the Almighty,\nto bring the sinner back to a sense of his evil state. In the other world,\nas in this world, God will \u201cchasten us, not for his pleasure, but for our\nprofit, that we may be partakers of his holiness.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Question stated.\n\n\nOne of the most interesting questions of the present time, in practical\ntheology, concerns the nature, authority, organization, functions, and\nfuture of the Christian Church. The interest in this subject has recently\nmuch revived, in consequence of a reaction towards the Roman Catholic or\nHigh Church view. This has appeared in the tendency among Protestants to\njoin the Catholic Church as the only true and saving Church of Christ. The\nsame tendency has taken into the Church of England, and into the Episcopal\nChurch of the United States, those who were not ready to go as far as\nRome. It is therefore important and useful to ask, What is the truth and\nwhat the error in the different views concerning the Church? These differ\nvery widely. The Roman Catholics declare that theirs is the only true\nChurch, and that out of it is no salvation. Many Protestants reply that\nthe Roman Catholic Church is Antichrist, and the only true Churches are\nthose which hold the Evangelical or Orthodox creed. The Swedenborgians say\nthat the Old Church came to an end in 1758, and that since then the New\nChurch has taken its place. Finally, a considerable number of persons\nmaintain that all these churches are worse than useless, and that it is\nthe duty of Christians to come out, and be separate from them all. They do\nnot believe in the need of any church, but would substitute for it\nsocieties for special purposes,\u2014lyceums and literary clubs for purposes of\nmental instruction; temperance societies, peace societies, and other\nassociations for moral purposes; and Odd-Fellows associations, Masonic\nassociations, and clubs for social purposes.\n\nThe question then is, Is a Christian Church needed for the permanent wants\nof man? Was such a Church established by Christ? If so, which Church is\nit? And what is to be its future character and mode of organization?\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to discuss here the abstract question\u2014Is a church\nan essential want of man, so as to be needed by him forever? It is enough\nto show that a church is needed now, and will be, for a long time to come.\nEvery religion has had its church. No sooner does a new idea arise, than\nit is incorporated in some outward union. The new wine is put into new\nbottles. Confucius has his church, Mohammed has his church; even Mormonism\nand Spiritualism have established their churches. The Christian Church\narose immediately after the ascension of Jesus; it came as a matter of\nnecessity, born not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It has\ncontinued ever since, in ever-varying forms, but one undying body. Other\ninstitutions have risen and passed away. The Roman empire has disappeared.\nThe barbarous nations overflowed Europe, and then were civilized,\nChristianized, and absorbed into the Christian Church. Protestantism\nseparated from Romanism, but _the Church_ remained in both. Other sects,\nPresbyterian, Independent, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, Swedenborgian,\nUnitarian, Universalist, separated from the main Protestant body, but each\ntook with it the church; each has its own church. Even the Quakers, the\nmost unchurched apparently of any, who renounced the visible ministry, and\nthe visible sacraments, made themselves presently into the most compact\nchurch of all. So the word continues evermore to be made flesh. So all\nspirit presently becomes incarnate in body. The body is outward and\nvisible; the spirit inward and invisible. Both are necessary to the life,\ngrowth, and active influence of the gospel. Without the spirit of\nChristianity, the body would be good for nothing; it would be only a\ncorpse. Without the body of Christianity, the spirit would be\ncomparatively inactive; it would be only a ghost. A body without spirit\ncorrupts and is offensive; a spirit without body is inoperative and\nalarming. Through body alone the spirit can act; through spirit alone the\nbody can live.\n\nWithout asking, therefore, for any other authority for the Church, than\nits adaptation to human wants, we may safely say, that it is a great\nmistake to suppose we can dispense with churches. You cannot overthrow the\nchurches, not the weakest of them, by any agency you can use; for all came\nup to meet and supply a want of the human soul. They are built on that\nrock. What will you put in their place? A lyceum? A debating society? A\nreform club? What are you to say to the souls of men, hungering and\nthirsting for God? What to the sinner, borne down by the mighty weight of\ntransgression? What to the dying man, who knows not how to prepare to meet\nhis God? We need the Church of Christ\u2014the Church whose great aim it is,\nand always has been, to renew and regenerate the soul from its foundation,\nto lay the axe at the root of the tree of evil, and the very sound of\nwhose bell, rolling its waves of music over the sleeping hills on the\nSabbath morning, is worth more to the soul than a thousand lyceums and\ndebating societies.\n\nNo; the Church is not to be destroyed; it is to be renewed with a deeper\nand fuller life. We want a better Church, no doubt\u2014one more free in its\nthought, more active in its charity, with more of brotherhood in it. We\nwant an apostolic Church, fitted to the needs of the nineteenth century.\nThe theological preaching which satisfied our parents is not what we wish\nnow. We need Christianity applied to life\u2014the life of the individual and\nof the state. A better Church, no doubt, is needed; but we want the\nchurches _fulfilled_, not destroyed.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church\u2014Roman Catholic and High Church.\n\n\nAdmitting, then, the permanency of the Christian Church, we next ask,\n\u201cWhat is its true form?\u201d or, \u201cWhich is the true Church?\u201d or, again, to\nstate it in another way, \u201cIs the form of the Church permanent, or only its\nsubstance? Is _any_ union for Christian purposes, for worship and work, a\nChurch, or must it be found in some particular organic form?\u201d To this\nquestion Romanism and High Church Episcopacy reply, \u201cIt must.\u201d The rest of\nProtestantism answers, \u201cNo.\u201d Romanism says\u2014Jesus established an essential\nform for his Church, as well as an essential substance. The true Church is\nan organization as well defined as any corporation for secular purposes.\nIt has the monopoly of saving souls, a patent right of communicating\nspiritual life, which cannot lawfully be infringed by any other\ncorporation. This right was originally bestowed on St. Peter, and has been\ntransmitted by him to his successors, bishops of Rome. The proof is in the\noriginal deed of gift, \u201cThou art Peter,\u201d &c., and in the regularity of the\nsuccession of subsequent bishops.\n\n\u201cAccording to the Catholic dogma,\u201d says Guericke,(60) \u201cthe Church is an\noutward community, by which all communion with Christ is conditioned and\nmediated. This outward community is the true Church, with the signs of\nunity, universality, apostolicity, and holiness, and is both the only\ninfallible Church, and only one which can save the soul.\u201d This Church,\naccording to Bellarmine, is a wholly visible and outward association; as\nmuch so as the kingdom of France or republic of Venice.(61) According to\nMoehler,(62) the Church \u201cis the visible community of believers, founded by\nChrist, in which, by means of an enduring apostleship, &c., the works\nwrought by him during his earthly life are continued to the end of the\nworld.\u201d The Roman Catholic idea is of a visible Church only, and not of a\nChurch at once visible and invisible, which is the Protestant notion. It\nis composed of good and bad, while the Protestant notion makes the true\nChurch consist only of the regenerate.(63)\n\nThe chief refutation of this claim of the Romish Church is to be found in\nthe very vastness of its assumption. Assuming itself to be the only true\nChurch, and the only one founded by Christ, we of course require full and\nexact evidence in proof of its assertion. It must prove, (1.) That Jesus\nfounded an outward Church of this kind; (2.) That he made Peter its head;\n(3.) That he gave Peter power to continue his authority to his successors;\n(4.) That the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter; (5.) That this\nsuccession has been perfect and uninterrupted; (6.) That the Roman\nCatholic Church _is_ infallible, and has never committed any mistake; (7.)\nThat it _is_ Catholic, and includes all true Christians; (8.) That it _is_\nat one with itself, having never known divisions; (9.) That it _is_ the\nonly holy Church, bearing the fruits of Christian character in a quality\nand quantity which no other Church can rival. If any one of these nine\npropositions fail, the whole claim of Rome falls prostrate. But they _all_\nfail, not one being susceptible of proof. It cannot be made to appear that\nJesus ever intended to found a Church having such a monopoly of salvation;\nnor that the apostle Peter was ever placed at its head, with supreme\nauthority;(64) nor, if he had this authority, that he ever was bishop of\nRome; nor, if he were, that he transmitted his authority to his\nsuccessors; nor, if he did, that the bishops of Rome are his successors;\nnor, if they are, that the succession has been unbroken; nor that the\nchurch has been actually infallible; nor that it includes all true\nChristians; nor that it has been free from schisms; nor that it has always\nbeen so pure and holy as to show that Romanism is eminently Christian, and\nProtestantism not so. The chain of proof, therefore, which, if one link\nparted, would be a broken chain, is broken at _every_ link, and cannot\ncarry conviction to any unbiassed mind.\n\nIn a little work lately published in France by the Protestant Pastor, Mr.\nBost,(65) the author gives as a reason for not being a Catholic, that\nwhile the Church calls on us to submit to its authority, it cannot tell\nwhere the authority resides.(66) The Ultramontanes place it in the person\nof the pope; but the Gallicans have never admitted this idea, and place\nthe supreme authority in a universal council.\n\nBesides, what sort of infallibility is that which has tolerated the\nInquisition, applauded the St. Bartholomew massacre, preached crusades\nagainst the heretics in France, massacred the Protestants in Holland,\nburned ten thousands at the stake in Spain? If it be said that Protestants\nalso have persecuted, we reply, that they did it _against_ their own\nprinciples, but that the Catholics persecuted in accordance with theirs;\nand that the Church which claims exclusive infallibility and holiness has\nno right to excuse itself _because it has done no worse_ than those which\nit denounces as being in error and sin.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church.\n\n\nProtestantism does not claim for its Church exclusive holiness or\ninfallibility. It defines the Church to be \u201ca congregation of faithful\nmen, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly\nadministered.\u201d(67) Why, then, the reaction towards Romanism? It is partly\nowing to the passive element in man\u2014the wish to be governed, the weariness\nof independent thought, which led Wordsworth to say,\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cMe this unchartered freedom tires,\u201d\u2014\n\n\nand which, in \u201cVan Artevelde,\u201d declares that,\u2014\n\n\n    Thought is tired of wandering through the world,\n      And homeward fancy runs its bark ashore,\u2014\n\n\nand partly because the Protestant Churches are often less active and\ndiligent in the practical part of Christian work than the Roman Catholic\nChurches. Instead of a manly Protestantism, they give us a diluted\nCatholicism. They insist on a creed which has neither antiquity nor\nauthority to recommend it, on sacraments that are no real sacraments, but\nonly symbols, and on a ritual which has neither the beauty nor variety of\nthe Roman worship.\n\nWhat does the Protestant Church propose to itself as its end? To produce\nan abstract piety, instead of a concrete piety\u2014not a piety embodied in\nlife and conduct, but taking only the form of an inward experience. If the\nchurches should set themselves the work of feeding the hungry and clothing\nthe naked, of removing the vices and crimes of men, of helping the\noutcasts and visiting the prisoners, they would have a more living piety\ngrowing out of this active charity. Their prayer meetings would be much\nmore vigorous when they prayed in order to work, than when they pray in\norder to pray. Men should not be admitted into the Church because they are\npious, but in order to become pious by doing Christian work. By loving,\npractically, the brother they have seen, they would come to love God, whom\nthey have not seen.\n\nAgain: the Protestant Church feebly imitates the aristocracy of the Romish\nChurch. In order to conquer Romanism, we must go on and leave it behind,\nseeking something better, and finding some more excellent way. Now, the\nsin of Romanism is its aristocracy; Protestantism ought, then, to give us,\nin its Church, a Christian democracy. But it keeps up the pernicious\ndistinction between clergy and laity, making the clergy a separate class,\nand so justifying Milton\u2019s complaint that the \u201cPresbyter is only the old\npriest written large.\u201d It makes a distinction between men and women in the\nChurch, not encouraging the latter to speak or to vote. It makes a\ndistinction between the rich and poor, selling its pews to those who can\nbuy them, and leaving those who are unable to do so outside of the\nsanctuary. It makes a distinction between Orthodox and heretics, excluding\nthe latter, instead of inviting them in where their errors might be\ncorrected. And finally, it makes an unchristian distinction between good\npeople and bad people; for while Jesus, its Master, made himself the\nfriend of publicans and sinners, the Church too often turns to them the\ncold shoulder, and leaves them to be cured by the law, and not the gospel.\n\nThe following saying of a saint of the desert, Abbot Agatho, is reported\nby Dr. Newman, who tells it as something wise and good. It seems to us to\nillustrate, with much _na\u00efvet\u00e9_, the tendency of both Catholic and\nProtestant Orthodoxy, to put right opinion above right conduct.\n\n\u201cIt was heard by some that Abbot Agatho possessed the gift of\ndiscrimination. Therefore, to make trial of his temper, they said to him,\n\u2018We are told that you are sensual and haughty.\u2019 He answered, \u2018That is just\nit.\u2019 They said again, \u2018Are you not that Agatho who has such a foul\ntongue?\u2019 He answered, \u2018I am he.\u2019 Then they said, \u2018Are not you Agatho _the\nheretic_?\u2019 He made answer, \u2018No.\u2019 Then they asked him why he had been\npatient of so much, but would not put up with this last. He answered, \u2018By\nthose I was but casting on me evil; but by this I should be severing me\nfrom God.\u2019 \u201d\n\nAccording, therefore, to Agatho and Dr. Newman, the tongue \u201cwhich is set\non fire of hell,\u201d does not separate us from God, but an error of opinion\ndoes. Pride, \u201cwhich comes before a fall,\u201d and sensuality, which makes of a\nman a beast, do not come between the soul and God so much as an honest\nerror of opinion.\n\nThe Protestant Church fails to overcome the Catholic Church only by being\ntoo much like the latter. With Protestant ideas, we have semi-Catholic\nChurches. We claim as our fundamental principle the right of private\njudgment, and then denounce and exclude those who differ from us. We claim\nthat the soul is not to be saved by monkish seclusion, by going away from\nthe world; and yet we do not preach and carry out in our church-action the\npurpose of saving the bodies of men as well as their souls. When the\nProtestant Church work gets more into harmony with Protestant ideas, we\nshall then see fewer relapses into Romanism.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Christ\u2019s Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven.\n\n\nThe Roman Catholics having made the visible Church, or outward Christian\ncommunity, the central idea of Christianity, and having changed this into\na close corporation of priests, it was natural, perhaps, that Protestants\nshould go too far in another direction. Accordingly, the central idea in\nProtestantism is not the Church, but the salvation of the soul; not\nsocial, but personal religion; not the Christian community, but personal\ndevelopment; not the kingdom of heaven here, but heaven in a future life.\nYet it is true, and has been shown lately with great power,(68) that the\ndirect and immediate object of Jesus was to establish a community of\nbelievers. This was implied in his being the Christ,\u2014for the Christ was to\nbe the head of the kingdom of heaven,\u2014and the kingdom of heaven was to be\nan earthly and human institution. Jesus took the idea of the kingdom of\nGod, as it was announced by the prophets; purified, developed, deepened,\nand widened it; and it resulted in his varied descriptions of the \u201ckingdom\nof heaven,\u201d This phrase, in the mouth of Jesus, expresses essentially what\nwe mean by \u201cthe Church.\u201d This will appear more plainly if we sum up the\nprincipal meanings of the phrase \u201ckingdom of God\u201d in the New Testament. It\nis,\u2014\n\n1. _Something near at hand._\n\nMark 1:15. \u201cThe kingdom of God is at hand.\u201d Luke 9:27. \u201cThere are some\nstanding here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of\nGod.\u201d Mark 9:1. \u201cThere be some of them which stand here which shall not\ntaste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.\u201d\n\n2. _It was already beginning._\n\nLuke 17:20. \u201cAnd when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of\nGod should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not\nwith observation, neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, Lo, there! for\nbehold, the kingdom of God is within (or \u2018among\u2019) you.\u201d\n\n3. _It was not of this world._\n\nJohn 18:36. Jesus said, \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world.\u201d\n\n4. _But was to be in this world._\n\nMatt. 6:10. \u201cThy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in\nheaven.\u201d\n\n5. _In some respects it was to be an outward and visible kingdom, or an\noutward institution._\n\nParable of the grain of mustard-seed. Matt. 13:31, 32.\n\n6. _It would contain good and bad._\n\nParable of the net. Matt. 13:47.\n\n7. _It would belong to Christ._\n\nCol. 1:13. \u201cHath translated us into the kingdom of his Son.\u201d Luke 22:30.\n\u201cYe shall eat and drink in my kingdom.\u201d John 18:36. \u201cMy kingdom is not of\nthis world.\u201d Matt. 16:28. \u201cShall see the Son of man coming in his\nkingdom.\u201d\n\n8. _It would be finally given up to God._\n\n1 Cor. 15:24. \u201cThen the end; when he shall have delivered up the kingdom\nto God, even the Father,\u201d &c.\n\n9. _It is a spiritual kingdom._\n\nRom. 14:17. \u201cFor the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but\nrighteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\n10. _Flesh and blood cannot inherit it._\n\n1 Cor. 15:50. \u201cFlesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither\ndoth corruption inherit incorruption.\u201d\n\n11. _The conditions of admission are spiritual._\n\nJohn 3:3. \u201cExcept a man be born again,\u201d &c. Matt. 5:3. \u201cBlessed are the\npoor in spirit,\u201d &c. 1 Cor. 6:9. \u201cThe unrighteous shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God.\u201d See Gal. 5:21. Eph. 5:5.\n\n12. _The kingdom was to be established by the Son of man at his coming._\n\nMatt. 24:30; 25:1. \u201cThey shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of\nheaven,\u201d &c. \u201cThen shall the kingdom of heaven be likened.\u201d(69)\n\nChrist, therefore, had in his mind, as the direct object of his coming, to\ncause God\u2019s kingdom to come, and his will to be done on earth as in\nheaven. It was not his direct purpose to teach the truth in abstract\nforms, like the philosophers; nor to make atonement by his death for human\nsins; nor to set an example of a holy life; nor to make a revelation of\nGod and immortality; nor to communicate new life to the world. These he\ndid; but they came as a part of the kingdom of heaven. They were included\nin this great idea. His kingdom was a kingdom of _truth_, in which his\n_word_ was to be the judge. He was to reconcile the world to God by his\ndeath. He was to show what man was made to be and could become. He was to\nreveal God as a Father to his human children. He was to set in motion a\ntide of new spiritual life. But the METHOD by which all this was to be\ndone was the method of a community of disciples and brethren, who should\nbe his apostles and missionaries. They were to be an outward, visible\nassociation with the symbols of baptism and the supper. They were also to\nbe an influence in the world, a current of religious life. We find that\nsuch was the result. We see the disciples embodied and united in a visible\ncommunity, which spread through all the Roman empire, which soon had its\nteachers, officers, its meetings, its worship, its sacred books, its\nsacred days. But we find also the larger and deeper current of life, which\nconstitutes the invisible Church, flowing, like a great river, down\nthrough the centuries. All Christians in all Christian lands drink from\nthis stream, and all their ideas of God, man, duty, immortality, are\ncolored and tinged by it. We read the Bible by the light of the\nconvictions we absorbed at our mother\u2019s knee in our infancy. We carry on\nour churches in the power of the holy traditions which have become a part\nof our nature. There is a Christian consciousness which grows up in every\nchild who is born in Christendom, and is the best part of his nature. This\nmakes him a member of the invisible Church before he outwardly becomes a\nmember of the visible Christian community.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church.\n\n\nThere are two parables of Christ which apply to the Church visible and\ninvisible. The Church Visible is the Church of the Mustard-seed; the\nChurch Invisible is the Church of the Leaven. The former is an\norganization, the latter an _influence_; the one is body, and the other\nspirit. The Visible Church is limited by certain boundaries; defined by\nits worship, creeds, officers, assemblies, forms. It has its holy days,\nholy places, holy men, holy books. But the Invisible Church is not limited\nby any such boundaries; it exists wherever goodness exists. The Church of\nthe Leaven is to be found inside and outside of Orthodoxy; inside and\noutside of professing Christianity; among Jews, Mohammedans, Heathen;\namong Deists and unbelievers of all sorts, who build better than they\nknow. For says Jesus, \u201cThe wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the\nsound thereof.... So is every one who is born of the Spirit.\u201d A locomotive\nmust run on a track, a wagon on a road. But there is no track laid through\nthe sky for the south wind; there is no time-table to determine the\nstarting and arriving of the soft breeze which comes from the far\nprairies, laden with the sweet fragrance of ten thousand flowers.\n\n\u201cSo is every one who is born of the Spirit.\u201d Get out your Catechism, my\nOrthodox friend; establish, dear Methodist brother, your experience to\ndetermine whether one is converted or no. Settle for yourself, excellent\nformalist, the signs of the true Church, out of which there is no\nsalvation; and when you have got all your fences arranged, and your gates\nbuilt to your satisfaction, you are obliged to throw them all down with\nyour own hands, to let THE CHURCH OF THE LEAVEN pass through. \u201cNobody can\nbe saved,\u201d says Dogmatic Christianity, \u201cwho does not believe in the\nTrinity and the Atonement.\u201d \u201cNobody can be saved,\u201d says Sentimental\nChristianity, \u201cwho has not had a conscious change of heart.\u201d \u201c Nobody can\nbe saved,\u201d says Formal Christianity, \u201cwho is out of the true Church and\nits sacraments.\u201d Here are the three fences of the Church of the\nMustard-seed. But see! here comes an innumerable multitude of little\nchildren, who have never believed in Trinity or Atonement; have never been\nbaptized at all; have never been converted. Yet neither Dogmatist,\nSentimentalist, nor Formalist dares to exclude them from heaven. Logic\nsteps aside; good feeling opens the three gates; and the little ones all\nwalk quietly to the good Shepherd, who says, \u201cLet them come to me, and\nforbid them not;\u201d gathering the lambs in his arms, carrying them in his\nbosom, and tenderly leading them in the green pastures beside the still\nwaters.\n\nThe little children must be allowed to go through; consistency requires\nthem to be damned; but consistency must take care of itself; so much the\nworse for consistency. But who comes next? Here are all the heathen, who\nhave not heard of Christ. Must they be damned? According to the creeds,\nyes; but modern Orthodoxy has its doubts; its heart has grown tender.\nSomehow or other we think that we shall have to let them pass, before a\ngreat while. Then here are all the people whom we have known and loved.\nThey did not believe as they should. They were never converted, so far as\nwe know; they were not members of any Church, true or false. But we loved\nthem. Cannot the three fences be put aside again, just to let these\nfriends of ours pass by. What kind-hearted Orthodox man or woman was ever\nwanting in an excuse for letting his heretical friends into heaven. \u201cHe\nchanged his views very essentially before he died. He used very Orthodox\nlanguage, to my certain knowledge. He said he relied on the merits of\nChrist; or, at least, he said he believed in Christ.\u201d And so all the good\nand kind dead people must follow all the little children, and pass the\ntriple fence. They do not belong to the Church of the Mustard-seed; but\nthey belong to the Church of the Leaven. These fences are like the flaming\nwall in Tasso; they seem impassable, but as soon as one comes up to them\nthey are found to be nothing. Blessed be God that common sense is stronger\nthan logic; that humanity is stronger than forms; and that large, kind\nChristian hearts are more than a match for the somewhat narrow Christian\nhead.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed.\n\n\nThis is not the spirit, but the body; not the life, but the organization\nof that life. There is no doubt that we need a Church visible as well as a\nChurch invisible; need a body as well as a soul; and it is a very\nimportant question what sort of a body we shall have. Soul, no doubt, is\ninfinitely more important than body; still we do not wish our body to be\nlame, blind, or dyspeptic. Because soul is better than body, we do not\nlike rheumatism or neuralgia. Our visible Church, the body of Christ, is\nsometimes a little dyspeptic, and goes about looking very gloomy and\nmiserable, when it ought to be as gay as a lark. Sometimes also it seems\nto be rheumatic; at any rate, it cannot go and attend to its work. It is\nvery subject to fever and ague; plenty of meetings to-day, all alive with\nzeal and heat, but to-morrow it is cold and shivering. It has its\npulmonary disease too; its lungs are not strong enough to speak when it\nought; to cry out for truth and right in the day of trial. And as we find\nthat hygienics are better than therapeutics for physical diseases, so,\nperhaps, it will be better for us to prevent the diseases of the Church by\nwise arrangements, which shall give it air, exercise, and a wholesome\ndiet, than to cure it, when sick, by the usual medicine of rebuke,\nreproof, and ascetic mortification.\n\nThe visible Church may be looked at in four points of view. We may\nconsider it as,\u2014\n\n      1. The Primitive Church, or Church as it was.\n      2. The Church Actual, or Church as it is.\n      3. The Ideal Church, or Church as it ought to be.\n      4. The Possible Church, or Church as it can be.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was.\n\n\nIf we study the nature, organization, and character of the primitive\nChristian Church, as it appears in the book of Acts and in the Epistles,\nwe recognize easily the warm, loving life which was in its spring time,\nwhen all buds were swelling, and all flowers opening. It was far from\nbeing a perfect Church. It had many errors, and included many vices. Some\npersons in the Church did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. (1\nCor. 15:12.) Some disciples had not heard there was a Holy Ghost. (Acts\n19:2.) Some even became intoxicated at the Lord\u2019s Supper. (1 Cor. 11:21,\n\u1f41\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9). Some Christians had to be told not to steal (Eph. 4:28);\nnor to lie, (Col. 3:9); nor to commit other immoralities. Peter (supposed\nto be the infallible head of the Church) was rebuked by Paul for\ndissimulation. Paul and Barnabas could not get along together, but\nquarrelled, and had to separate. Part of the Church Judaized, and\ndenounced Paul as a false apostle. Another part Paganized, and carried\nPauline liberty into license. And yet, though there was so little of\ncompleted Christian character, there was a great amount of spiritual life\nin the apostolic Church. They are styled saints, but never was anything\nless saintly than the state of things in the beginning. But they were\nlooking the right way, and going in the right direction. They were full of\nfaith, zeal, enthusiasm, and inspiration; so they had in themselves the\npromise and expectation of saintship, if not its reality.\n\nDirectly after the ascension of Christ, and the wonderful experiences of\nthe day of Pentecost, we find the Christian community in active operation.\nIts organization was as yet very indefinite; that was to come by degrees.\n\nIt was a Church without a creed; its only creed was a declaration of faith\nin Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. It was a Church without a bishop,\nor a single head of any kind; for Peter, James, and John seem all three to\nhave possessed an equal influence in it, and that influence was derived\nfrom their character. Paul tells us expressly, in the Epistle to the\nGalatians, that when he went up to Jerusalem, long after his conversion,\nPeter, James, and John \u201cseemed to be pillars\u201d there. No mention is made\nanywhere in the book of Acts of a single bishop presiding over the Church\nat Jerusalem, or over any other Church. And as to the Romish Church, which\nclaims to be the oldest Church, and the mother of all the rest, it was not\nyet founded at all, when the Church at Jerusalem was established. Nor was\nthe Church at Rome as old as the Churches at Antioch, at Lystra, at\nIconium, and elsewhere, for Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in all these\nchurches, as we are expressly told in Acts 14th; and in Acts 15:7 we find\nPeter still at Jerusalem. If there was any church at Rome, Peter was not\nits bishop; then either it was a church without a bishop, or Peter was not\nits first bishop.\n\nWe find also that as the apostolic Church had no creed and no bishop,\nneither had it any fixed or settled forms. Its forms and usages grew up\nnaturally, according as convenience required. Thus (Acts 6:1-5) we find\nthat the apostles recommended the disciples to choose seven persons to\nattend to the distribution of charity. \u201cA murmuring arose\u201d because the\nGreek widows were neglected\u2014neglected, probably, because not so well known\nas the others. This shows that there were no fixed, established forms;\neven the order of deacons was originated to meet an occasion.\n\nThat they had no form of service, no fixed Liturgy, in the apostolic\nChurch, appears from 1 Cor. 14:26. \u201cHow is it, brethren, when ye come\ntogether, every one of you hath a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a\nrevelation, an interpretation? Let the prophets speak, two or three, and\nthe others judge, and if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by,\nlet the first hold his peace. You may all prophesy one by one, that all\nmay learn, and all be comforted.\u201d Now, it is very evident no fixed or\nformal service could have been established in the churches when he\nrecommended this.\n\nBut though the apostolic Church had neither bishop, nor creed, nor fixed\nforms, nor a fixed body of officers, it had something better\u2014it had faith\nin God, and mutual love. \u201cThe multitude of them that believed were of one\nheart and one soul; neither said any man that aught that he possessed was\nhis own, but they had all things common.\u201d We do not find an absolute\ncommunity of property established by a law of the Church, as in the\nmonastic orders, or as in the school of Pythagoras, and some modern\ncommunities, as that of St. Simon; for Peter says to Ananias, of his\nproperty, \u201cWhile it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold,\nwas it not in thine own power?\u201d But though their property was in their own\npower, they did not call it their own, or consider it so; it belonged to\nGod: they were only stewards, and they readily brought it, and gave it to\nthe use of the Church.\n\nThe apostolic Church was a home of peace and joy. Whatever tribulations\nthey might have in the world, when they met together they met Christ, and\nate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. They were in an\natmosphere of love and freedom. We hear of no rules, no laws, no\nconstraining forms; but all were led by the Spirit of God. Even in their\npublic service, as we have seen, though Paul recommended a greater order,\nit was not based on authority, but on the sense of propriety of each\nindividual, because God was not the God of confusion, but of peace.\n\nSuch was the original Church, as described in the Acts and Epistles. It\nsprang up because it was wanted, and Christ foresaw that it would be. It\nwas founded not on an arbitrary command, but on the needs of human nature.\nMan is not a solitary, but a social being. He needs society in his labors\nand in his joys; society in study, society in relaxation. Even in the\nhighest act of his life,\u2014in the act of prayer, in communion with God; in\nthat act, called by an ancient Platonist \u201cthe flight of one alone to the\nonly One,\u201d\u2014even then he cannot be alone. In the union of man with man in\nany natural and true relation, his thought becomes more clear, his will\nmore firm, his devotion more profound, his affections more enlarged. The\nbroader and deeper the basis of the union, the more it blesses and helps\nhim. A friendship based upon the knowledge and love of the same God, what\ncan be better for us than this?\n\nThus we see that the apostolic Church was a home for Christ\u2019s family\n(Matt. 12:49); a school for his disciples; a fraternity of brethren. For\ndiscipline, it had officers, but no clergy, nor priesthood, for all were\npriests, and all took part in the services. (1 Peter 2:5; Rom. 1:6; 1 Cor.\n14:26.) Its only creed was a belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of\nGod. (Acts 8:37; 16:31. 1 John 4:15; 5:5, 10. Rom. 10:9.) The unity of the\nChurch was not the unity of opinion, nor the unity of ceremonies, but the\nbond of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3), and the central unities of faith, not of\ndoctrine (Eph. 4:5.) The object of the Church service was not merely to\npartake the Lord\u2019s Supper together, nor to maintain public worship, nor to\ndefend and propagate a creed, nor to call men into an outward\norganization, nor to gather pious people together, and keep them safe as\nin an ark, but to _do good_ and _get good_\u2014to grow up in all things into\nHim who is the Head. And the condition of membership was to wish to be\nsaved from sin, and to have faith in Christ that he could save them; it\nwas to hunger and thirst after righteousness.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is.\n\n\nNow, if we turn from the Church as it was to the Church as it is,\u2014from the\napostolic Church to those around us,\u2014we see a difference. Instead of the\nfreedom and union which were in the early Church, we find in the Roman\nCatholic communion union, but no freedom; in the Protestant Churches\nfreedom, but no union. In both we find the Church built on the ministry,\ninstead of the ministry on the Church; the priests everything, the people\nnothing; fixed forms, instead of a free movement; dead creeds, instead of\na living faith. The spirit of worldliness has entered the churches, and\nthey try to serve God and Mammon; God on Sunday, and Mammon on the week\ndays. The members of the churches are more devout and more religious, but\nnot more moral or more humane, than many who are out of their body. And\nbecause they do not love man whom they have seen, they find it hard to\nlove God, whom they have not seen. Their want of humanity destroys their\npiety.\n\nA vast amount of good is done by the churches, even in their present\nstate; but when we think of what they might do, it seems nothing. Yet it\nis _not_ nothing. Could we know the good done by the mere sound of the\nchurch bells on Sunday, by the quiet assembling of peaceful multitudes in\ntheir different churches; could we measure the amount of awe and reverence\nwhich falls over every mind, restraining the reckless, checking many a\nhalf-formed purpose of evil, rousing purer associations and memories,\ncalling up reminiscences of innocent childhood in the depraved heart of\nman; could we know how many souls are roused to a better life, made to\nrealize their immortal nature, reminded of a judgment to come; could we\nsee how many souls, on every Sabbath, in our thousands of churches, are\nturned from sin to God, how many sorrowing hearts are consoled by the\nsweet promises of the gospel; could we see, as God sees and the angels\nsee, all this,\u2014we should feel that the churches, in their greatest\nfeebleness, are yet the instruments of an incalculable good. But when we\nlook at what _is_ to be done, what _ought_ to be done, what _could_ be\ndone by them, their present state seems most forlorn.\n\nIt is one of the most difficult of our duties not to despise an imperfect\ngood, and yet not to be satisfied with it.\n\nOne of the greatest evils of our churches is, that they are churches of\nthe clergy, not of the people. Our clergy are generally pure-minded,\nwell-intentioned men, less selfish and worldly than most men; but they are\nnot equal to the demands of their position. We take a young man, send him\nto college, then to a theological school, where he studies his Greek very\nfaithfully, and learns to write sermons. He comes out, twenty-two years\nold, a pleasing speaker, and is immediately settled and ordained over a\nlarge long-established church. As he rises in the pulpit and looks down on\nhis congregation, one would think he would despair. What can he say to\nthem? He knows nothing of human nature, of its struggles and sins, its\ntemptations in the shop and the street. Men do not curse at him, nor try\nto cheat him, nor entice him into bar-rooms, oyster-cellars,\nbilliard-rooms, and theatres. He cannot speak to men of their vices, their\nstony and hard hearts, their utter unbelief, their crying selfishness, for\nhe knows nothing of it. He must speak of sin in the abstract, not of sin\nin the concrete. If he did, what could he say? What weapons has he? The\nsword of the Spirit is in his hands, but he has not tried it; he has no\nconfidence in it. The awful truths of the Bible, which smite the stoutest\nsinner to the earth, these he might utter, if he dared; but he knows not\nhow. And yet he is the teacher of these gray-headed men, and their only\nteacher. Had he gone out as Jesus sent his disciples, without purse or\nshoes or two coats, and preached the gospel for ten years by the way-side,\nin cottages, in school-houses, living hard, sleeping on the floor, seeing\nmen and women everywhere without disguise, and taking no thought\nbeforehand what to say, but leaning on God for his inspiration,\u2014then might\nhe have learned how to say something weighty even to a great congregation.\nOr if this poor boy were surrounded by a living active church, helping him\nby advice, going with him into the house of sorrow, the haunt of sin,\nkneeling with him by the sick couch and death-bed, and adding to his small\nexperience the whole variety and richness of theirs,\u2014then might he be a\nman of God, thoroughly furnished for every work.\n\nIf there were Judaism and Paganism in the early Church, they still, no\ndoubt, linger in our churches to-day. The Church Judaizes in this\u2014that it\nstill puts forms above life. For example, the Roman Catholic Church\nteaches that if you take a child, and put water upon him, repeating the\nbaptismal formula, and with the _intention_ of baptizing him, the child\nbecomes in that moment regenerate. If he had died the moment before, he\nwould have been damned forever in eternal torments; if he dies the moment\nafter, he will go to eternal bliss in heaven. Now, if an earthly parent\nshould cover his child\u2019s body with camphene, and then set it on fire,\nbecause somebody had not baptized it, we should say he was a very cruel\nparent. But this conduct is attributed to the good God by the Roman\nCatholic doctrine. Moreover, when an outward form is made thus essential,\nwhen everlasting salvation or damnation depends on it, it behooves us to\nknow what it is. Baptism consists of three parts\u2014the water, the formula,\nand the intention of the baptizer. But as to the water, we may ask, _How\nmuch_ is essential? Is it essential that there be enough to entirely\nimmerse the body? The Catholic Church replies, \u201c_No_.\u201d Is the aqueous\nvapor always present in the air enough? It answers, \u201cNo, _that_ is _not_\nenough.\u201d At what precise point, then, between these two, does _enough_\nbegin, does baptism take place, and the child cease to be a child of\nperdition, and become an heir of salvation? The Roman Catholic Church,\nbeing obliged to answer this question, has answered it thus: There is no\nbaptism until water enough to _run_ is put on the child. A drop which will\nnot _run_, does not baptize him; a drop which will run, baptizes him. The\ndifference, then, between these two drops, is the difference to the child\nbetween eternal damnation and eternal salvation.(70)\n\nHow does this sound by the side of the declaration of the apostle Paul\u2014\u201cHe\nis not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision outward in the\nflesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the\nheart\u201d? Judaism, if anything, was an outward institution; Christianity, if\nanything, is an inward life. And yet that which the apostle Paul said of\nJudaism we hardly to-day would venture to say of Christianity. \u201cHe is not\na Christian who is one outwardly, neither is Christianity in outward\nbelief, profession, or aspect; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly.\u201d\n\u201cO, no!\u201d we say, \u201cthere must be a distinction. A man who does not believe\nin the miracles, for example, may be a good man, but you must not call him\na Christian.\u201d But he who follows Christ, we think, is a Christian. And as\nChrist walks before mankind on the divine road of goodness, truth, love,\npurity, he who walks on that road _cannot help being a follower_ of\nChrist, whatever he may call himself.\n\nHow the Church Judaizes about the Sabbath\u2014pretending, first, that there\n_is a Sabbath_ in Christianity, and teaching people that there is a sort\nof piety in calling Sunday _the Sabbath_, and next putting this ritual\nobservance, this abstinence from labor and amusement, on a level with\nmoral duties! When men tithe mint, they are apt to forget justice and\nmercy. If Jesus were to return, after all these centuries, and were only\nto do and say just what he did and said about the Sabbath when he was here\nbefore, there are many pious Protestants who would think him rather lax in\nhis religious principles. How long he has been with us, and yet we have\nnot known him!\n\nAn American Protestant bishop once forbade a clergyman of his church to\nofficiate again, because this clergyman had invited a Methodist minister\nto assist him in the administration of the sacrament. This is backsliding\na good way from the position of Him who said, \u201cForbid him not: he that is\nnot against us is with us.\u201d And again: \u201cWhosoever wishes to do the will of\nGod, the same is my mother, my sister, and my brother.\u201d Dear Master! is\n_thy_ Church so broad as to include all who desire to do the will of God,\nand are _our_ churches so narrow that they cannot hold any but those who\nagree with us in our little notions about ceremony and form? Hast thou\nbeen so long time with us, and yet have we not known thee?\n\nThe Church Actual is a timid Church. It is afraid of truth, and afraid of\nlove. Its creed is full of mysteries too solemn and sacred to be examined.\nThey are the sealed book of the prophet, which is given to the learned\nclergy, and to the unlearned laity; and the answer of the unlearned laity\nis, \u201cWe are not learned.\u201d And the answer of the learned clergy is, \u201cIt is\nsealed. It is a mystery. We must not even try to understand it.\u201d The\nActual Church is not fond of a free examination of its tenets, but rather\nrepresses it by the flaming terrors of perdition impending over honest\nerror.\n\nThe Church Actual sticks in the letter. How it idolizes the Bible! But\nwhen you ask, _What?_ you find it is rather the letter of the Bible than\nits manly, generous, humane, and holy spirit. It babbles of verbal\ninspiration and literal inspiration, which are phrases as absurd as it\nwould be to say \u201cbodily spirit.\u201d Question the inspiration of the letter,\nand a thousand voices cry, \u201cYou are cutting away the very foundations of\nour faith. If we cannot believe every letter of the Bible to be from God,\nwe have nothing to hold by.\u201d But the apostle Paul thought somewhat\ndifferently, when he said, \u201cWho hath also made us able ministers of the\nNew Testament, _not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter\nkilleth, but the spirit giveth life_.\u201d\n\nThe American Bible Society appointed a committee of learned persons to\nrevise the present translation of the Bible\u2014not to make a new translation\nby any means, but merely to correct palpable blunders of the press,\npalpable errors in the headings of chapters, or universally admitted\nmistakes of the translators. The learned men did their work. It was\nexamined, printed\u2014about to be published. But an outcry was made, that the\nBible Society, in taking away these few errors of the press, was taking\naway _our_ Bible. The Christian public, in the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury, has been so instructed, that when a few errors in the letter of\nthe outward word are corrected, it cries out, \u201cThey have taken away my\nLord, and I know not where they have laid him.\u201d\n\nThe Church Actual is sectarian. Every church is trying to swell its\nnumbers at the expense of its neighbors. We do not think that a Christian\nChurch should be constructed on the principle of a mouse-trap, which it is\neasy enough to get into, but hard to get out of. We do not think it right\nthat young persons, in the glow of their piety, should be drawn into a\nchurch, without being told that if they should change their views on any\nimportant point, they cannot leave it except by being excommunicated\npublicly. But there are churches in New England which have many very easy\nand agreeable entrances, but only two exits\u2014very difficult and\ndisagreeable. If one wishes to leave, he is dismissed with a letter\ndirected to some other church of the same creed, and not till he has\njoined some such church, and a certificate is sent back to that effect, is\nhe released from his obligations. The Church is therefore like a city on a\nhill, with a palisade fence all round, with openings by which one can get\nin, but not out; and having only two outlets\u2014one by a gate kept carefully\nlocked, and the other over a steep wall, fifty feet high. You have your\nchoice of three things: 1. Stay where you are; 2. Go through the gate into\nanother palisaded enclosure; 3. Be pitched down the Tarpeian rock of\nexcommunication.(71)\n\nThus we see that the Church Actual differs much, and often for the worse,\nfrom the Church Primitive. It is not now a home or a fraternity, for its\nmembers often do not know each other by sight. It is not a school of\ndisciples, for it is thought necessary to take your whole creed at once,\nready made, and not learn it by degrees. The worship is too often by the\nminister and choir, the people being only spectators. Instead of the\nsimple original faith in Jesus as the Christ, the people are taught long\nand complicated creeds. Instead of a unity of conviction, seeing the same\nthings, there is only a unity of expression, _saying_ the same things.\nInstead of seeking to save the outcasts, infidels, vicious; churches are\nbuilt and occupied by Christians themselves, as though Christ came to call\nonly the righteous to repentance. There may be, in our great cities, a\nchurch to every two thousand persons; but every seat in every church is\nbought and occupied by the respectable and comfortable classes. The gospel\nis preached, but no longer to the poor. There is something wrong in all\nthis.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be.\n\n\nThe Church Ideal is full of life, power, love, freedom. It is a teaching\nChurch; calling men out of darkness into marvellous light, throwing light\non all the mysteries of human existence. It takes the little child and\nteaches it concerning its duty and destiny. It organizes schools through\nevery Christian nation, so that all Christian children shall be taught of\nGod, and that great shall be their peace. It teaches systematically and\nthoroughly all classes of society; so that all, from least to the\ngreatest, know the Lord. It organizes missions to all heathen lands, and\nits missionaries are so true, noble, kind, so reflect the life of Jesus in\ntheir own, that the heathen come flying like clouds, and like flocks of\ndoves, to the windows of the holy home. The dusky, and swarming races of\nHindostan, the mild and studious Chinamen, come flowing to Christ, as the\nlong undulating clouds of pigeons darken along the October sky in our\nwestern forests. The ideal Church is a loving Church. It loves men out of\ntheir sins. It seeks the poor and forlorn, the hard-hearted and\nimpenitent, and by unwearied patience soothes their harsh spirit. Enter\nits gates, and you find yourself in an atmosphere of affection. The strong\nbear the infirmities of the weak. Each seeks the lowest place for himself.\nThey love to wash the disciples\u2019 feet.\n\nThe Ideal Church is an active Church. All the members work together for\nthe building up of the body; some after this fashion, others after that.\n\u201cSo the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which\nevery joint supplieth,\u201d is built up in love. Is there any ruinous vice,\nany corroding sin, any festering moral disease in the land? The Ideal\nChurch searches for its root, and finds its cure. It takes the intemperate\nman by the hand, and will not let him go till he abstains. It penetrates\ninto every haunt of sin and pollution, and brings forth the half-ruined\nchild, triumphantly leads out the corrupt woman, and places them in new\nhomes. The Ideal Church does not dispute about doctrines or dogmas. It\nsays to each, \u201cTo your Master you shall stand or fall, not to me.\u201d\n\nTherefore the Ideal Church is an earthly heaven. There is in it a warm,\nserene, sunny atmosphere; a sky without clouds; the society of love, the\nsolitude of meditation, the inaccessible mountain tops of prayer; the\nlow-lying, quiet valleys, where the wicked cease from troubling, and the\nweary are at rest.\n\nBut where is the Ideal Church? We have seen that it is not in the past,\nwhere many look for it. The golden age of the Church, the Paradisiacal\nstate of Christianity, is not behind us. Was the Ideal Church that which\npersecuted Paul for renouncing Judaism? Was it any of the Churches\ndescribed by John in the book of Revelation? that of Ephesus, which had\n\u201cleft its first love\u201d? that of Pergamos, which contained heretical\nteachers? that of Thyatira, which communed with Jezebel and the depths of\nSatan? that of Sardis, which had \u201ca name to live, and was dead\u201d? or that\nof Laodicea, which was lukewarm?\n\nWas that an Ideal Church where Paul was obliged to write to Titus that a\nbishop must not be a striker, nor given to wine, nor to filthy lucre? and\nto advise Timothy to avoid \u201cprofane and vain babbling\u201d?\n\nThere was more life in it than in the Church now; a great struggling, but\nundeveloped power of life, heaving and tossing the Church, as with\nsubterranean fire\u2014smoke and flame bursting forth together; a great power\nof life, but little chance of doctrine as yet; little harmony of action;\nlittle in accordance with our ideas of decency and order. It was the\nspring time, and as in the spring there is a great power of life in\nnature, swelling all buds, pushing all shoots, unfolding leaves,\u2014but all\nthings still bare; few flowers, no fruit,\u2014so it was in the Primitive\nChurch. It was not Ideal. The Ideal Church is before us, not behind us; it\nis to come.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be.\n\n\nIs any Church possible but the Actual? We think there is. We think that a\nChurch may be something more and better than any we have now. Without\nreaching the ideal standard we can yet do something.\n\nWe think it possible for a Church to be united on a basis of study and\naction rather than on that of attainment. Instead of having it consist of\nthose who have formed opinions, let it consist of those who wish to form\nthem. Instead of having it consist of those who have been converted, and\nwho believe themselves pious, let it consist of those who wish to be\nconverted, and who desire to be pious. Instead of having it consist of\ngood people, let us invite in the bad people who desire to be good. Do you\nsend your children to school because they are learned, and not rather\nbecause they are ignorant? Why should we not become disciples of Christ\nbecause of our ignorance, rather than our knowledge.\n\nWe think it possible to have a Church, and even a denomination, organized,\nnot on a creed, but on a purpose of working together. Suppose that the\ncondition of membership was the desire and intention of getting good and\ndoing good. The members of a church are not those who unite in order to\npartake the Lord\u2019s Supper, but to do the Lord\u2019s work. The Lord\u2019s Supper is\ntheir refreshment after working. They come together sometimes to remember\nhis love, and to get strength from him. Let them sit together, express\ntheir desires, confess their faults, say what they have been trying to do,\nwhere they have failed, where succeeded, and so encourage each other to\nrun with diligence the race set before them.\n\nWe therefore think it possible for a Church to be built on Christ himself,\nand not on a minister. The Church might even do without a sermon; the\nmembers might pray together and sing together, when they had no minister,\nand be a true family of Christian men and women, brothers and sisters in\nthe Lord. The lowest view of a Christian Church is that which makes it a\nbody of pew-holders; the next lowest, that which makes them an audience\nmet to hear a sermon; the next lowest, a mere congregation or assembly of\nworshippers; a little higher is that of a body of communicants, bound\ntogether by the desire of knowing Christ; but highest of all is that which\nregards a Church as the body of Christ. Such a Church is to learn of him,\nand to do his will; it is his eyes, to look on all things with a Christian\nvision; his hands, by which he shall still touch and heal the wretched;\nhis feet, to go through the world, to search out its evils and sins; his\nmouth, through which he shall speak words of divinest help and\nencouragement. \u201cThe body of Christ, and members one of another.\u201d The body\nof Christ; always active, always progressing, always advancing; advancing\ninto a deeper and better knowledge of his will, into a purer love of his\nkingdom, into a further and divine life of union with him; the body fitly\njoined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, making\nincrease of the body to the building of itself up in love.\n\nIt is possible to have a Church which shall be ready to teach and preach\nthe gospel, not to a few pew-holders only, but to the whole community.\nEvery child born in New England is taught the elements of secular\nknowledge without money and without price. Are the waters of earthly\nknowledge, then, so much more essential to the safety of the state than\nthe waters of life, that we cannot risk the chance of leaving any child\nuninstructed in reading and writing, but may leave him untaught in the\ngospel? It would seem to be possible, since we have free schools, to have\nalso free Churches, and so really to have, what we profess to maintain,\n_Public Worship_! There is no such thing now as public worship. The\nchurches are not public places\u2014each belongs to a private corporation of\npew-holders.\n\nIt is possible to have a Church which shall consider it its duty to obey\nits Master\u2019s first command, and \u201cpreach the gospel to every creature.\u201d Its\nmission shall be to go out into the highways and the hedges, to seek and\nsave the lost. It will regard the world as its field, and the whole\ncommunity as its sphere of labor\u2014the whole community, according to its\nneeds, to be taught, helped, comforted, and cured by the gospel.\n\nIt is possible to have a Church which shall be united, not on ceremonies,\nnor on a creed, but on study and labor, on loving and doing. The condition\nof admission should be the purpose to get good and do good. They should\nenter this school to learn, and not because they were already learned; to\nbecome good, and not because they were already so.\n\nIt is possible to have a Church which shall make it its purpose to educate\nthe whole man\u2014spirit, soul, and body; and not merely the spirit; to\npresent the human being to God perfect and entire, wanting nothing.\n\nIt is possible to have a Church which shall combine union and freedom. The\nRoman Church, aiming at union, and neglecting freedom, has a union which\nis no real union; which is an outward shell of conformity, without inward\nunity of heart and thought. The Protestant Church, desiring freedom and\nneglecting union, has a freedom which is not really freedom, being only\nthe outward liberty of tolerated opinions, but one in which free thought\nis discouraged, and honest difference of opinion disallowed. Only by\ncombining in a living whole such antagonist needs, can either of these be\nfully secured. Union without freedom is not union; freedom without union,\nnot freedom. There is no harmony in the juxtaposition of similar notes,\nbut in the concord of dissimilar ones. Difference without discord, variety\nin harmony, the unity of the spirit with diversity of the letter,\ndifference of operation, but the same Lord, many members, but one\nbody,\u2014this is very desirable, and wholly possible.\n\nThe day is coming in which our dogmatic Churches, formal Churches,\nsentimentally pious Churches, and professedly liberal Churches, shall be\nall taken up into something higher and better. The very discontent which\nprevails everywhere announces it. It is the working of the leaven\u2014mind\nagitating the mass. In Protestant countries there is a tendency to Rome;\nbut in Roman Catholic countries an equal or greater tendency to\nProtestantism. Orthodoxy tends to Liberal Christianity. Liberal\nChristianity tends to Orthodoxy. Each longs for its opposite, its\nsupplement, its counterpart. It is a movement towards a larger liberty and\na deeper life.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. THE TRINITY.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine.\n\n\n\u201cThe fundamental formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by\nthe Church,\u201d says Twesten,(72) \u201cis, that in one divine essence or nature\nthere are three persons, distinguished from each other by certain\ncharacteristics, and indivisibly participating in that one nature.\u201d The\n\u201cAugsburg Confession,\u201d says, in like manner, \u201cthree persons in one\nessence.\u201d(73) So the \u201cGallic Confession,\u201d and other Church Confessions,\nwhich say almost the same thing in the same words.(74)\n\nThe explanations given to these phrases vary indefinitely. Nitzsch (System\nd. Christ. Lehre, \u00a7 80) says, \u201cWe stand related in such a way, with all\nour Christian experience (Gewerdensein und Werden), to the one, eternal,\ndivine essence, who is love, that in the Son we adore love as mediating\nand speaking, in the spirit as fellowship and life, in the Father as\nsource and origin.\u201d Schleiermacher considers this doctrine as not any\nimmediate expression of the Christian consciousness, and declares that\n\u201cour communion with Christ might be just the same if we knew nothing at\nall of this transcendent mystery.\u201d Hase says,(75) \u201cThis Church dogma\nalways has floated between Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Sabellianism,\nasserting the premises of all three, and denying their conclusions only by\nmaintaining the opposite.\u201d\n\nAll sorts of illustrations have been used from the earliest times\u2014such as\nfountain, brook, river; root, stalk, branch; memory, understanding,\nwill;(76) soul, reason, sense;(77) three persons in grammar, the teacher,\nthe person spoken to, and that spoken of.(78) Some mystics argued the\nnecessity of three persons in the Deity for the sake of a divine society\nand mutual love.(79) Lessing argues that \u201cGod from eternity must have\ncontemplated that which is most perfect, but that is himself; but to\ncontemplate with God, is to create; God\u2019s thought of himself, therefore,\nmust be a being, but a divine being, that is, God, the Son God; but these\ntwo, God the thinker and God the thought, are in perfect divine harmony,\nand this harmony is the Spirit.\u201d(80) Leibnitz also considers the Trinity\nas illustrated best by the process of reflection in the human mind.\nStrauss objects to this class of definitions, that they are two elements\nunited in a third, while the Church doctrine requires three united in a\nfourth.\n\nThe Church doctrine concerning the Trinity appears most fully developed in\nits Orthodox form in what is called the Creed of St. Athanasius. It was\nnot written by him, but by some one in the fifth or sixth century.\n\n1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things must take care to keep the\nCatholic faith:\n\n2. Which except one keeps it entire and inviolate, he shall without doubt\nperish everlastingly.\n\n3. But the Catholic faith is this: that we adore one God in Trinity, and\nthe Trinity in Unity;\n\n4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.\n\n5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another\nof the Holy Spirit.\n\n6. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is one, the glory\nequal, the majesty equal.\n\n7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.\n\n8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit\nuncreated.\n\n9. The Father immeasurable,(81) the Son immeasurable, and the Holy Spirit\nimmeasurable.\n\n10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.\n\n11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.\n\n12. And so there are not _three_ uncreated, nor _three_ immeasurable, but\n_one_ uncreated, and _one_ immeasurable.\n\n13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy\nSpirit is omnipotent.\n\n14. And yet there are not _three_ omnipotents, but one omnipotent.\n\n15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.\n\n16. And yet there are not _three_ Gods, but _one_ God.\n\n17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.\n\n18. And yet there are not _three_ Lords, but _one_ Lord.\n\n19. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess of each one,\nthat each person(82) is God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic\nreligion from saying three Gods or three Lords.\n\n20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten.\n\n21. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor created, _but\nbegotten_.\n\n22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father; not created, nor\nbegotten, but _proceeding_.\n\n23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three; one Son, and not three;\none Holy Spirit, and not three.\n\n24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none greater or\nless, but all three Persons are coeternal and coequal.\n\n25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity\nin Unity.\n\n26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus of the Trinity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. History of the Doctrine.\n\n\nIn the Christian Church, the history of this doctrine is interesting and\nimportant. Some sort of Triad, or Trinity, existed in very early times,\nalthough the Orthodox form was not established until later.\n\nAt first, the prevailing doctrine is that of subordination; that is, that\nthe Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father. But, as the Son and the\nSpirit were also called divine, those who thought thus were accused of\nbelieving in three Gods.(83) Some then said, that the Father was alone\ndivine; and these were called Monarchians. Others, wishing to retain the\ndivinity of the Son and Spirit, and yet to believe in one God, said that\nthe _divinity_ in the Father, in the Son, and in the Spirit, was\nessentially the same, but that the divinity of the Father was the fountain\nfrom which that of the Son and Spirit was derived. This was fixed as\nOrthodox at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and was the beginning of\nOrthodoxy in the Church. It was a middle course between Scylla and\nCharybdis, which were represented on the one side by Arius, who maintained\nthat the Son was created out of nothing; and by Sabellius on the other\nhand, who maintained that the Son was only a mode, manifestation, or name\nof God; God being called the Father, as Creator of the world; called Son,\nas Redeemer of the world; and Spirit, as Sanctifier of the world. The\nCouncil of Nice declared that the Son was not a manifestation of God, as\nSabellius said, nor a creation by God, as Arius said, but a derivation\nfrom God.(84) Just as the essence of the fountain flows into the stream\nderived from it, so the essence of the Father flows into the Son, who is\nderived from him. Here, then, we have the three formulas of the early\nChurch\u2014that of Arius, who says, \u201cThe Son was created by the Father, and is\ninferior to him;\u201d that of Sabellius, who says, \u201cThe Father, Son, and\nSpirit, are manifestations of God, and the same essence;\u201d and Orthodoxy,\nas the Council of Nice, trying to stand between them, and saying, \u201cThe Son\nis derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with him.\u201d\n\nThe Church, ever since, has been like a ship beating against head winds\nbetween opposing shores. It has stood on one tack to avoid Arianism or\nTritheism, till it finds itself running into Sabellianism; then it goes\nabout, and stands away till it comes near Arianism or Tritheism again.\nUnitarianism is on both sides: on one side in the form of one God, with a\nthreefold manifestation of himself; on the other side in the form of a\nSupreme God, with the Son and Spirit subordinate. It has always been very\nhard to be Orthodox; for, to do so, one must distinguish the Persons, and\nyet not divide the substance, of the Deity. In keeping the three Persons\ndistinctly separate, there was great danger of making three distinct Gods.\nOn the other hand, if one tried to make the Unity distinct, there was\ndanger that the Persons would grow shadowy, and disappear.\n\nThe heaviest charge against the Church doctrine of the Trinity is, that,\ndriven to despair by these difficulties, it has at last made Orthodoxy\nconsist, not in any sound belief, but only in sound phrases. It is not\nbelieving anything, but saying something, which now makes a man Orthodox.\nIf you will only use the _word_ \u201cTrinity\u201d in any sense, if you will only\ncall Christ God in any sense, you are Orthodox.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity.\n\n\nThe errors in the popular view concerning the Trinity, as it is at present\nheld, appear to be these:\u2014\n\n1. _The Trinity is held as a mere dogma_, or form of words, not as a\nreality. It is held in the letter, not in the spirit. There is no power in\nit, nor life in it; and it is in no sense an object of faith to those who\naccept it. They do not believe it, but rather believe that they ought to\nbelieve it. There are certain texts in Scripture which seem to assert it,\ncertain elaborate arguments which appear convincing and irrefutable. On\nthe strength of these texts and these arguments, they believe that they\nought to believe it. But it is a matter of conscience, not of heart; of\nlogic, not of life; of law, not of love. It is not held as a Christian\ndoctrine ought to be held, with the heart; but only philosophically, with\nthe head. If it should cease to be preached for a few years in Orthodox\npulpits, it would cease to be believed; it would drop out of the faith, or\nrather out of the creed, of the community. Unitarianism has extended\nitself, without being preached, from the simple reading of the Bible. But\nTrinitarianism cannot be trusted to its own power. It has no hold on the\nheart. Here, in Massachusetts, the ministers left off preaching the\nTrinity, and the consequence was, that the people became Unitarian.\nUnitarianism in New England was not diffused by preaching: it came of\nitself, as soon as the clergy left off preaching the Trinity. This shows\nhow worthless, empty, and soulless the doctrine was and is. Instead of\nthis formal doctrine, we want something vital.\n\n2. _Another objection to the present form of the Trinity is, that it is\nnot only scholastic, or purely intellectual, but that it is also\nnegative._ It is not even a positive doctrine. It is often charged against\nUnitarianism, that it is a mere negation; and, in one sense, the charge is\nwell founded. Unitarianism is a negation, so far as it is a mere piece of\nreasoning against Orthodoxy; but, as asserting the divine Unity, it is\nvery positive, But the doctrine of the Trinity _is_ a mere negation, as it\nis usually held; because it is an empty form of denial. It only can be\ndefined or expressed negatively. The three Persons are not substances, on\nthe one hand; nor qualities, on the other hand. It is not Sabellianism,\nnor is it Arianism. Every term connected with the Trinity has been\nselected, not to express a truth, but to avoid an error. The term \u201cone\nessence\u201d was chosen in order to exclude Arianism; the term \u201cthree\nPersons,\u201d or subsistences, was chosen in order to avoid Sabellianism.\n\nBecause the doctrine is thus a negation, it has failed of its chief use.\nIt has become exclusive; whereas, when stated truly, as a positive truth,\nit would become inclusive. Rightly stated, it would bind together all true\nreligion in one harmonious whole, comprehending in its universal sweep\neverything true in natural religion, everything true in reason, and\nuniting them in vital union, without discord and without confusion. Every\nmanifestation which God has made of himself in nature, in Christ, and in\nthe human soul, would be accepted and vitally recognized by Christianity,\nwhich comes, not to destroy, but to fulfil. The doctrine of the Trinity\nwould be the highest form of reconciliation or atonement,\u2014reconciling all\nvarieties in one great harmony; reconciling the natural and supernatural,\nlaw and grace, time and eternity, fate and freedom.\n\nBut, before illustrating this, we must consider further some of the\nobjections to the common form of the doctrine.\n\n3. _It is also charged against the doctrine of the Trinity, __\u201c__that it\nis a contradiction in terms, and therefore essentially incredible.__\u201d_ To\nthis it is replied, that it would be a contradiction if God were called\nThree _in the same sense_ in which he is called One; but not otherwise.\nThe answer is perfectly satisfactory; and we therefore proceed to ask, In\nwhat sense is he called Three, and in what sense is he called One? The\nanswer is, The Unity is of essence, or substance: the Trinity is of\npersons. This answer, again, is satisfactory, provided we know what is\nmeant by these two terms. But the difficulty is to know what is meant by\nthe word \u201cperson.\u201d We are expressly informed, that this term is not used\nin its usual sense; for, if it were, it would divide the essence, and\nthree Persons would be the same as three Gods. On the other hand, we are\ntold that it means more than the three characters or manifestations. Here\nlies the difficulty, and the whole of the rational difficulty, in the\ndoctrine of the Trinity. It is all on the side of the Triad. When we ask,\nWhat do you mean by \u201cthe three\u201d? there can be given but three answers,\u2014two\nof them distinct, and one indistinct. These answers are, (1.) We mean\nthree somethings, which we cannot define; (2.) We mean three Persons, like\nPeter, James, and John; (3.) We mean three manifestations, characters, or\nmodes of being. Let us consider these three answers.\n\n(_a._) \u201cThe three Persons are three somethings, which cannot be defined.\nIt is a mystery. It is above reason. There is mystery in everything, and\nthere must be mystery in the Deity.\u201d So Augustine said, long ago, \u201cWe say\nthree Persons, not because we have anything to say, but because we want to\nsay something.\u201d(85) But if one uses the phrase \u201cthree Persons,\u201d and\nrefuses to define it positively, merely defining it negatively, saying,\n\u201cIt does not mean this, and it does not mean that, and I don\u2019t know what\nit does mean,\u201d he avoids, it is true, the difficulties, and escapes the\nobjections; but he does it by giving up the article of faith. No one can\ndeny that there _may be_ three unknown distinctions in the divine nature;\nbut no one can be asked to believe in them, till he is told what they are.\nTo say, therefore, that the Trinity is a mystery, is to abandon it as an\narticle of faith, and make of it only a subject of speculation. We avoid\nthe contradiction; but we do it by relinquishing the doctrine.\n\nThis fact is not sufficiently considered by Trinitarians. They first\ndemand of us to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and, when pressed to\nstate distinctly the doctrine, retire into the protection of mystery, and\ndecline giving any distinct account of it. Now, no human being ever denied\nthe existence of mysteries connected with God, and nature, and all life.\nTo assure us, therefore, that such mysteries exist, is slightly\nsuperfluous. But, on the other hand, no human being ever _believed_, or\ncould _believe_, a mystery, any more than he could see anything invisible\nor hear anything inaudible. To believe a doctrine, the first condition is,\nthat all its terms shall be distinct and intelligible.\n\n(_b._) The second answer to the question is, \u201cWe mean, by Persons, three\nPersons, like Peter, James, and John.\u201d According to this answer, the\n_Trinity_ remains, but the _Unity_ disappears. This answer leaves the\nPersons distinct, but the Unity indistinct. The Persons are not\nconfounded; but the essence is divided. The Tri-personality is maintained,\nbut at the expense of the Unity. In fact, this answer gives us Tritheism,\nor three Gods, whose unity is only an entire _agreement_ of feeling and\naction. But this answer we may set aside as unorthodox, no less than\nunscriptural.\n\n(_c._) Having thus disposed of each other possible answer, there remains\nonly that which makes of the three Persons three revelations or\nmanifestations of God, or representations of God. This answer avoids all\nthe difficulties. It avoids that of _contradiction_; as we do not say that\nGod is one in the same sense in which he is three, but in a different\nsense. It avoids the objection of _obscurity_; for it is a distinct\nstatement. It avoids the objection of Tritheism; for it leaves the Unity\nuntouched. Moreover, it is a real Trinity, and not merely nominal. The\nFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not merely three different names\nfor the same thing, but they indicate three different revelations, three\ndifferent views which God has given of his character, which, taken\ntogether, constitute the total divine representation. It remains,\ntherefore, simply to ask, Is this view _a true one_? Is there any\nfoundation for it in Scripture, in reason, and in Christian consciousness,\nthe three sources of our knowledge of the truth?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of Things.\n\n\nWe repeat, that this view is an Orthodox view of the Trinity, according to\nthe teaching of the greatest fathers of the Church. If we suppose that the\nDeity has made, and is evermore making, three distinct and independent\nrevelations of himself,\u2014each revelation giving a different view of the\ndivine Being, each revelation showing God to man under a different\naspect,\u2014then each of these is a personal manifestation. Each reveals God\nas a Person. If we see God, for example, in nature, we see him not merely\nas a power, a supreme cause, but also a living Person, who creates\nevermore out of a fulness of divine wisdom and love. God in nature is,\nthen, a Person. Again: if God reveals himself in Christ, it is not as\nabstract truth or as doctrinal statement. But we see God himself, the\npersonal God, the Father and Friend, the redeeming grace, the God who\nloved us before the foundation of the world, approaching us in Christ to\nreconcile us and save us. It is a God who \u201cso loved the world\u201d that we see\nin Christ, therefore, a Person. And so the Spirit, which speaks in the\nhuman conscience and human heart, is not a mere influence, or rapture, or\nmovement, but is one who communes with us; one who talks with us; one who\ncomforts us; one who hears and answers us; therefore a Person.\n\nIf, then, there is no antecedent objection to this form of the Trinity as\na threefold manifestation of the divine Being, we have only to ask, Is it\n_true_ as a matter of fact? Has such a threefold manifestation of God\nactually taken place? We reply, that it is so. According to Scripture,\nobservation, and experience, we find such to be the fact. Scripture shows\nus God, the Father, as the source of all being, the fountain and end of\nall things; from whom all things have come, and to whom all things tend.\nAs the Creator, he reveals himself in nature and providence (as the\napostle Paul declares), \u201cbeing understood by the things that are made,\u201d\nand \u201cnot leaving himself without a witness.\u201d\n\nSupreme power, wisdom, and goodness are manifested in nature as unchanging\nlaw, as perfect order. But God is seen in Christ again as Redeemer, as\nmeeting the exigencies arising from the freedom of the creature by what we\ncall miracle; not contrary to nature, but different from nature, showing\nhimself as the Friend and Helper of the soul. As the essence of the first\nrevelation of God is the sight of his goodness, and wisdom, and power,\ndisplayed in law, so the essence of the second revelation is of the same\nessential Being displaying himself as love. In the first revelation, he is\nthe universal Parent; in the second, he is the personal Friend. But there\nis a third revelation which God makes of himself,\u2014within the soul as life.\nThe same power, wisdom, and goodness which we see displayed externally in\noutward nature, we find manifested internally in the soul itself, as its\nnatural and its spiritual life. That which is displayed outwardly as power\nis manifested within the soul as cause; that which is manifested outwardly\nas wisdom is revealed inwardly as reason; and that which is manifested\noutwardly as goodness is manifested inwardly as conscience, or the law of\nright.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture.\n\n\nThe Scriptures also speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. When\nthey speak of the Father, they usually mean God as the Supreme Being.\nMatt. 11:25: \u201cJesus said, I thank thee, _O Father_, Lord of heaven and\nearth.\u201d As omniscient: \u201cOf that day knoweth no man, nor the angels, nor\nthe Son, but _the Father_ only.\u201d As omnipotent: \u201cAbba, _Father_, all\nthings are possible to thee.\u201d As having life in himself, and as spirit:\n\u201cThey shall worship _the Father_ in spirit and in truth.\u201d As the source of\nall power, life, and authority of the Son: \u201cI came forth _of the Father_;\u201d\n\u201c_the Father_, which hath sent me;\u201d \u201cthe works which _the Father_ hath\ngiven me to do.\u201d The apostle Paul says, \u201cTo us there is but _one God, the\nFather_;\u201d and calls him \u201cthe God of our Lord Jesus;\u201d also \u201cthe one God\n_and Father_ of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.\u201d\nThe great order of the universe depends on him: \u201cHe has put the times and\nthe seasons in his own power.\u201d Christ will at last \u201cdeliver up the kingdom\nto God, _the Father_.\u201d By Christ, \u201cwe have access in one spirit _to the\nFather_.\u201d \u201cAll things were delivered\u201d to Christ \u201cof _his Father_,\u201d whose\nwill Christ always sought. Thus is _the Father_ spoken of in the New\nTestament as the Source from which all things have proceeded, and the End\nto whom all things tend.\n\n_The Son_ (or Son of God) is spoken of in the New Testament as distinct\nfrom the Father, but intimately united with him. The Father gives power;\nthe Son receives it. The Father gives light; the Son receives it. The Son\ndoes nothing but what he seeth the Father do. \u201cThe Father hath sent me,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cand I live by the Father.\u201d \u201cI am not alone; but I, and the\nFather who sent me.\u201d \u201cThe Son is in the Father, and the Father in him.\u201d\n\u201cNo man cometh to the Father but by\u201d him. He shows the Father to the\nworld. The Father is glorified in the Son. He is in the bosom of the\nFather. The Father sent him to be the Saviour of the world. \u201cHe that hath\nthe Son hath life;\u201d \u201cAnd in him is everlasting life.\u201d\n\n_The Holy Spirit_, which came after Jesus left the world (also called the\nHoly Ghost and the Spirit of God), is an inward revelation of God and of\nChrist. It teaches all things, comforts, convinces. It is a spirit of\nlife, lifts one above the flesh, makes one feel that he is a Son of God,\ncommunicates a variety of gifts, produces unity in the Church, sanctifies,\nsheds the love of God into the heart, and renews the soul. The New\nTestament speaks of joy in the Holy Ghost, power of the Holy Ghost, and\ncommunion of the Holy Ghost.\n\nAccording to the New Testament, the Father would seem to be the Source of\nall things, the Creator, the Fountain of being and of life. The Son is\nspoken of as the manifestation of that Being in Jesus Christ; and the Holy\nGhost is spoken of as a spiritual influence, proceeding from the Father\nand the Son, dwelling in the hearts of believers, as the source of their\nlife,\u2014the idea of God seen in causation, in reason, and in conscience, as\nmaking the very life of the soul itself.\n\nThere are these three revelations of God, and we know of no others. They\nare distinct from each other in form, but the same in essence. They are\nnot merely three names for the same thing; but they are real personal\nmanifestations of God, real subsistences, since he is personally present\nin all of them. This view avoids all heresies, since it neither \u201cdivides\nthe substance\u201d nor \u201cconfounds the persons.\u201d And these are really the two\nheresies, which are the most common and the most to be avoided. We think\nit can be easily shown that these are the great practical dangers to be\navoided. To \u201cdivide the substance\u201d is so to separate the revelations of\nGod as to make them contradict or oppose each other: to \u201cconfound the\npersons\u201d is not to recognize each as an independent source of truth to the\nsoul.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood.\n\n\nThere is, therefore, an essential truth hidden in the idea of the Trinity.\nWhile the Church doctrine, in every form which it has hitherto taken, has\nfailed to satisfy the human intellect, the Christian heart has clung to\nthe substance contained in them all. Let us endeavor to see what is the\npractical value of this doctrine, for the sake of which its errors of\nstatement have been pardoned. What does it say to the Christian\nconsciousness?\n\nThe Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine of\nTri-personality, that God is _immanent_ in nature, in Christ, and in the\nsoul. It teaches that God is not _outside_ of the world, making it as an\nartisan makes a machine; nor _outside_ of Christ, sending him, and giving\nto him miraculous powers; nor outside of the soul, touching it _ab extra_\nfrom time to time with unnatural influences, revolutionizing and\noverturning it; but that he is personally present in each and all. So\nthat, when we study the mysteries and laws of nature, we are drawing near\nto God himself, and looking into his face. When we see Christ, we see God,\nwho is in Christ; and when we look into the solemn intuitions of our soul,\nthe monitions of conscience, and the influences which draw our heart to\ngoodness, we are meeting and communing with God.\n\nMoreover, the Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine of _One\nSubstance_ (the Homoousion), that these three revelations, though\ndistinct, are essentially at one; that nature cannot contradict\nrevelation; that revelation cannot contradict nature; and that the\nintuitions of the soul cannot be in conflict with either. Hence it teaches\nthat the Naturalist need not fear revelation; nor the Christian believer,\nnatural Theism. Since it is one and the same God who dwells in nature, in\nChrist, and in the soul, all his revelations must be in harmony with each\nother. To suppose otherwise is to \u201cdivide the substance\u201d of the Trinity.\n\nAnd again: the Trinity, rightly understood, asserts the distinctness of\nthese three personal revelations. It is the same God who speaks in each;\nbut he says something new each time. He reveals a new form of his being.\nHe shows us, not the same order and aspect of truth in each manifestation,\nbut wholly different aspects.\n\nAnd yet again: as the doctrine teaches that the Son is begotten of the\nFather, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, it thereby shows\nhow the revelation in nature prepares for the revelation in Christ, and\nboth for the revelation in the soul.\n\nThe error of \u201cdividing the substance\u201d is perhaps the most common. The man\nwho sees God in nature, sees him only there: therefore God loses to him\nthat personal character which seems especially to be seen through Christ;\nfor God, as a person, comes to us most in Christ, and then is recognized\nalso in nature and the soul as a personal being. So, without Christ,\nnatural religion is cold: it wants love; it wants life. But, on the other\nhand, the Christian believer who avoids seeing God in nature, and who\nfinds him only in his Bible, loses the sense of law or order, of\nharmonious growth, and becomes literal, dogmatic, and narrow. And so, too,\nthe mystic, believing only in God\u2019s revelation through the soul, and not\ngoing to nature or to Christ, becomes withdrawn from life, and has a\nmorbid and ghastly religion, and, having no test by which to judge his\ninward revelations, may become the prey of all fantasies and all evil\nspirits, lying spirits, foul spirits, and cruel spirits.\n\nSuch errors come from \u201cdividing the substance;\u201d and they are only too\ncommon. So that, when the true doctrine of Trinity in Unity is\napprehended, the most beneficial results may be expected to flow into the\nlife of the Church. No longer believed as a dead formula, no longer held\nin the letter which killeth, no longer accepted outwardly as a dogma or\nauthority, but seen, felt, and realized in the daily activity of the\nintellect and heart, the whole Church will recover its lost union, sects\nwill disappear, and the old feud between science and religion forever\ncease. Science will become religious, and religion scientific. Science, no\nlonger cold and dead, but filled through and through with the life of God,\nwill reach its hand to Christianity. Piety, no longer an outlaw from\nnature, no longer exiled from life into churches and monasteries, will\ninform and animate all parts of human daily action. Christianity, no\nlonger narrow, Jewish, bigoted, formal, but animated by the great liberty\nof a common life, will march onward to conquer all forms of error and evil\nin the omnipotence of universal and harmonious truth.\n\nNatural religion, Christianity, and spiritual piety, being thus\nharmonized, nature will be more warm, Christ more human, and the divine\ninfluences in the soul more uniform and constant. Nature will be full of\nGod, with a sense of his presence penetrating it everywhere. Christianity\nwill become more natural, and all its great facts assume the proportion of\nlaws, universal as the universe itself. Divine influences will cease to be\nspasmodic and irregular, and become calm, serene, and pure, an indwelling\nlife of God in the soul.\n\nA simple Unity, as held by the Jews and Mohammedans, and by some Christian\nUnitarians, may be a bald Unity and an empty Unity. Then it shows us one\nGod, but God withdrawn from nature, from Christ, from the soul; not\nimmanent in any, but outside of them. It leaves nature godless; leaves\nChrist _merely_ human; leaves the soul a machine to be moved by an\nexternal impulse, not an inward inspiration.(86)\n\nWe conclude, finally, that no doctrine of Orthodoxy is so false in its\nform, and so true in its substance, as this. There is none so untenable as\ndogma, but none so indispensable as experience and life. The Trinity,\ntruly received, would harmonize science, faith, and vital piety. The\nTrinity, as it now stands in the belief of Christendom, at once confuses\nthe mind, and leaves it empty. It feeds us with chaff, with empty phrases\nand forms, with no real inflowing convictions. It seems to lie like a\nvessel on the shore, of no use where it is, yet difficult to remove and\nget afloat; but when the tide rises, and the vessel floats, it will be\nable to bear to and fro the knowledge of mankind, and unite various\nconvictions in living harmony. It is there for something. It is\nprovidentially allowed to remain in the creeds of the Church for\nsomething. It has in itself the seed of a grand future; and, though\nutterly false and empty as it is taught and defended, it is kept by the\ndeeper instinct of the Christian consciousness, like the Christ in his\ntomb, waiting for the resurrection.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. CRITICAL NOTICES.\n\n\nIn this Appendix we shall add a brief critical examination of certain\nrecent works on points connected with our previous subjects. These\ncriticisms will complete the discussion in these various directions, so\nfar as space will allow here. The largest part of what follows has been\nprinted already, either in the \u201cChristian Examiner,\u201d or in the \u201cMonthly\nJournal of the American Unitarian Association.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer and Henry\nL. Mansel.\n\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer, in his book called \u201cFirst Principles,\u201d lays down the\ndoctrine of theological nescience, as the final result of religious\ninquiry. In his chapter on \u201cUltimate Religious Ideas\u201d he argues thus: The\nreligious problem is, Whence comes the universe? In answer to this\nquestion only three statements are possible. It is self-existent. It was\nself-created. It was created by external agency. Now, none of these, says\nSpencer, is tenable. For, (1.) Self-existence means simply an existence\nwithout a beginning, and it is not possible to conceive of this. The\nconception of infinite past time is an impossibility. (2.) Self-creation\nis Pantheism. We can conceive, somewhat, of self-evolution, but not of a\npotential universe passing into an actual one. (3.) The theistic\nhypothesis is equally inconceivable. For this is to suppose the world made\nas a workman makes a piece of furniture. We can conceive of this last,\nbecause the workman has the material given; he only adds form to the\nsubstance. To produce matter out of nothing is the real difficulty. No\nsimile enables us to conceive of this production of matter out of nothing.\nAgain, says Spencer, space is something, the non-existence of which is\ninconceivable; hence the creation of space is inconceivable. And lastly,\nsays Spencer, if God created the universe, the question returns, Whence\ncame God? The same three answers recur. God was self-existent, or he was\nself-created, or he was created _ab extra_. The last theory is useless.\nFor it leads to an endless series of potential existences. So the theist\nreturns to self-existence; which, however, says Spencer, is as\ninconceivable as a self-existent universe, involving the inconceivable\nidea of unlimited duration.\n\nNevertheless, continues Spencer, we are compelled to regard phenomena as\neffects of some cause. We must believe in a cause of that cause, till we\nreach a _first cause_. The First Cause must be infinite and absolute. He\nthen follows Mansel in showing the contradiction between the two ideas.\n\nBut total negation is not the result,\u2014only nescience. Atheism, Pantheism,\nand Theism agree in one belief, namely, that of a problem to be solved. An\nunknown God is the highest result of theology and of philosophy. \u201cIf\nreligion and science are to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation\nmust be their deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts\u2014that the\npower which the universe manifests is utterly inscrutable.\u201d\n\nThus Mr. Spencer proposes to take back human thought eighteen centuries,\nand ignoring the conquests of Christian faith in civilization, theology,\nand morals, carries us to Athens, in the time of Paul, to worship at the\naltar of an unknown God. He makes a solitude in the soul, and calls it\npeace. He makes peace between religion and science, by commanding the\nfirst to surrender at discretion to the other. Science knows nothing of\nGod; therefore theology must know nothing of God. But not so. Let each\nimpart to the other that which it possesses, and which the other lacks.\nLet science enlarge theology with the idea of law, and theology inform\nscience with the idea of a living God.\n\nIt is not difficult to detect the fallacies in this argument of Spencer\nfor religious nescience. His notion of conception is that of a purely\nsensible image. He assumes that we have no knowledge but sensible\nknowledge, and then easily infers that we do not know God. We can\nconceive, he says, of a rock on which we are standing, but not of the\nwhole earth. No great magnitudes, he declares, can be conceived. The\nconception of infinite time is, therefore, an impossibility.\n\nBut it is clear to any one, not bound hand and foot by the assumptions of\nsensationalism, that it is just as easy to conceive of the whole globe of\nearth, as of the piece of it which we see. We cannot have _a visual image_\nof the whole earth, indeed, but the mental conception of the globe is as\ndistinct as that of the stone we throw from our hand. And so far from the\nconception of infinite duration being an impossibility, not to conceive of\ntime and space as infinite is the impossibility. It is impossible to\nimagine or conceive of the beginning of time, or the commencement of\nspace.\n\nLooking at his trilemma concerning the universe, namely, that it was\neither, (1.) Self-existent, (2.) Self-created, or, (3.) Created by an\nexternal power, we say,\u2014\n\n1. The real objection to a self-existent universe, is not that we cannot\nconceive of existence without beginning. Nothing is easier than to\nconceive of an everlasting, unchanging universe, without beginning or end.\nIt is not existence, but change, that suggests cause. Phenomena, events,\nrequire us to believe in some power which produces them. Now, the events\nwhich take place in the universe suggest an intelligent, absolute, and\ncentral cause, that is, a cause combining supreme wisdom, power, and\ngoodness. A self-existent universe is not inconceivable, but it is\nincredible.\n\n2. Self-creation, he objects, is Pantheism. But this is no reason for\ndenying it, since Pantheism may, for all we see at this stage of the\nargument, be the true explanation of the universe. The real objection to\nthe hypothesis of a self-created universe (or of a self-created God), is\nthat it involves the contradiction of something which exists and which\ndoes not exist at the same moment; at the moment of self-creation, the\nuniverse must exist in order to create, but must be non-existent in order\nto be created. A self-created universe, then, is not incredible because it\ninvolves Pantheism, but because it involves a contradiction.\n\n3. He objects to the Theistic hypothesis, that we cannot conceive of the\nproduction of matter (more strictly, of substance) out of nothing. He adds\nthat no simile can enable us to imagine it.\n\nBut I can produce, out of nothing, something visible, tangible, and\naudible. There is no motion and no sound. I move my arm by the power of\nwill, and I produce both sound and motion. The motion of a body in space\nis a material phenomenon; for whatever is perceived by the senses is\nmaterial. We do then constantly perceive material phenomena created out of\nnothing, by human will.\n\nHis argument against the Theist, that space could not have been created by\nGod, since its non-existence is inconceivable, is much more plausible. But\nsuppose we grant that space, supposed to be a real existence, was not\ncreated in time. Does it follow from that, that it does not proceed from\nGod? Not being an event in time, it does not require a cause; but being\nconceived of as a reality, it may have eternally proceeded from the divine\nwill, and so not be independent of the Creator.\n\nAnd as regards his trilemma concerning Deity, that also fails in the\nfailure of his thesis that eternal duration is inconceivable. His argument\nagainst the self-existent Deity, only rests on that assumption which we\nhave shown to be untenable.\n\nBut Mr. Spencer, who is not a theologian, is at this point re\u00ebnforced by\nMr. Mansel, on whose former work, \u201cThe Limits of Religious Thought,\u201d we\nproceed to offer some criticism. This also is an argument for nescience in\ntheology, in the presumed interests of revelation. Mr. Martineau has ably\nshown the weakness and the dangerous tendency of this whole argument of\nMansel, in an article to which we earnestly refer our readers.\n\nThe work of Mr. Mansel is a desperate attempt to save Orthodox doctrines\nfrom the objections of reason, not by replying to those objections and\npointing out their fallacy, but by showing that similar objections can be\nbrought against all religious belief. For example, when reason objects to\nthe Trinity, that it is a contradiction, Mr. Mansel does not attempt to\nshow that it is _not_ a contradiction, but argues that our belief in God\nis another contradiction of the same kind. His inference therefore is,\nthat as we believe in God, notwithstanding the contradiction, we ought to\nbelieve in the Trinity also, notwithstanding the contradiction. If we\nbelieve one, we may believe both.\n\nBut this is a dangerous argument; since it is evident that one might\nreply, that there remains another alternative; which is, to believe\n_neither_. If Mr. Mansel succeeds in convincing his readers, the result\nmay be a belief in the Trinity, or it may be a disbelief in God\naltogether; one of two things\u2014either a return to Orthodoxy, or a departure\nfrom all religion. Either they will renounce reason in order to retain\nreligion, or they will renounce religion in order to retain reason.\n\nAt the very best, also, the help which this argument offers us is to be\npaid for somewhat dearly. It proposes to save Orthodoxy by giving up the\nuse of reason in religion. Mr. Mansel would say, \u201cby giving up the\nunlimited use of reason;\u201d but, as we shall presently see, this comes very\nmuch to the same thing at last.\n\nWhat, then, is the nature of Mr. Mansel\u2019s argument? It is an argument\nfounded upon Sir William Hamilton\u2019s philosophy of the Unconditioned. Now,\nthis has been generally considered the weak side of Hamilton\u2019s system.\nAccording to him, the unconditioned is inconceivable: in other words, of\nthe Absolute and Infinite we have no conception at all. But this denies to\nman the power of conceiving of God, and so leads directly to Atheism. This\ncharge has already been brought against Hamilton\u2019s philosophy, in various\nquarters; for example, in the \u201cNorth British Review \u201d for May, 1835. But\nwe will not here attempt any examination of Hamilton\u2019s theory, but confine\nourselves to Mr. Mansel.\n\nThe argument of Mansel is this (p. 75): \u201cTo conceive the Deity as he is,\nwe must conceive him as First Cause, as Absolute, and as Infinite. By the\nFirst Cause is meant that which produces all things, and is itself\nproduced of none; by the Absolute is meant that which exists in and by\nitself, having no necessary relation to any other being; by the Infinite\nis meant that which is free from all possible limitation.\u201d\n\nHaving thus defined the Deity as the First Cause, the Absolute, and the\nInfinite, Mansel goes on to show that these ideas are mutually\ncontradictory and destructive. A First Cause necessarily supposes effects,\nand therefore cannot be absolute: nor can the Infinite be a person; for\npersonality is a limitation. By a course of such arguments as these,\nMansel endeavors to show that the reason is as incapable of conceiving God\nas it is of conceiving the Trinity, the Atonement, or any other Orthodox\ndoctrine; and since we do not renounce our belief in God because of these\ncontradictions, neither ought we, because of similar contradictions, to\nrenounce our belief in the Trinity.\n\nSuch is the substance of Mansel\u2019s statement, though the arguments by which\nit is proved are varied with great ingenuity and to great extent. This\ncourse of thought is by no means original, either with Mr. Mansel or Sir\nWilliam Hamilton. A far greater thinker than either of them (Immanuel\nKant) had long before shown the logical contradictions of the\nunderstanding in what he called the Antinomies of the pure reason. But the\nimportant question is, If the reason contradicts itself thus in its\nconception of Deity, how are we to obtain a ground for our belief in God?\nMansel answers, \u201cThrough revelation; that is, through the direct\ndeclarations of Scripture.\u201d This he calls faith. We are to believe in a\npersonal God on the ground of a Bible confirmed by miracles.\n\nThis result is so strange, that it may well seem incredible. Yet we cannot\nthink that we have misrepresented the tendency of the argument; though, of\ncourse, we have given no ideas of the acuteness and flexibility of the\nreasoning, the extent of the knowledge, and mastery of logic, in this\nwork. That such a position should be taken by a religious man, in the\nsupposed interest of Christianity, is sufficiently strange; for it seems\nto us equally untenable in its grounds, unfounded in its statements, empty\nof insight, destructive in its results. We will add, very briefly, a few\nof the criticisms which occur to us.\n\nThe first thing which strikes us in the argument is, that everywhere it\ndeals with words rather than with things. The whole object of the\ndiscussion concerns the meaning of terms, and it deals throughout with the\nrelation of words to other words. It is an acute philological argument. We\nfeel ourselves to be arguing about forms, and not about substances. Now,\nsuch arguments may confuse, but they cannot convince. We do not know,\nperhaps, what to say in reply; but we remain unsatisfied. One not used to\nlogic may listen to an argument which shall conclusively prove that white\nis black; that nothing is greater than something; that a man who jumps\nfrom the top of the house can never reach the ground; but, though the\nthing is proved, he is not convinced. So, when Mr. Mansel proves to us\nthat we cannot conceive of a Being who is at the same time Infinite and\nPersonal, we are unable, perhaps, to reply to the argument; but we know it\nto be false, since we actually have the two conceptions in our mind.\n\nWe _do_ conceive of the Deity as an infinite personality. Of what use to\ntell us that we _cannot_ have an idea, when we know that we _do_ have it?\n\nMansel tells us that we cannot think the idea of the Infinite and\nAbsolute. He says (p. 110), \u201cThe Absolute and the Infinite are thus, like\nthe Inconceivable and Imperceptible, names indicating, not an object of\nthought or of consciousness at all, but the mere absence of the conditions\nunder which consciousness is possible.\u201d\n\nBut, then, they are only words, with no meaning attached; and, if so, how\ncan we argue about them at all? All argument must cease when we come to an\nunmeaning phrase; therefore the existence of Mr. Mansel\u2019s argument proves\nthe falsehood of his assertion. Since he argues about the Infinite, it is\nevident that he has the idea of the Infinite in his mind.\n\nMr. Mansel agrees in principle wholly with the Atheists; for the Atheists\ndo not say that God does not exist, or that God cannot exist, but that we\ncannot know that he exists. So says Mr. Holyoake, a leading modern\nAtheist. This is what Mansel also asserts, only he goes farther than they,\ncontending that the very idea of God is impossible to the human reason. It\nis true that he believes in God on grounds of revelation, which the\nAtheists do not; but he agrees with them in setting aside all natural and\nreasonable knowledge of Deity.\n\nBut how is it possible to obtain an idea of God from revelation, if we are\nbefore destitute of such an idea? When Paul preached to the Athenians, he\naddressed them as having already a true, though an imperfect, idea of God.\n\u201cWhom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.\u201d But, if\nthey had not already an idea of God, how could he have given them such an\nidea? Suppose that he works a miracle, and says, \u201cThis miracle proves that\nGod has sent me to teach you.\u201d But, by the supposition, they know nothing\nabout God; consequently, they have nothing by which to test the truth of a\nrevelation professing to come from him. Neither miracles, nor the nature\nof the truth taught, nor the character of the teacher, avail anything as\nevidence of a revelation from a Being of whom we know nothing. Without a\nprevious knowledge of God, only immediate revelation is possible.\n\nMr. Mansel, therefore, is one who, without a foundation, builds a house on\nthe sand. He attempts to erect faith in God after taking away the\nfoundation of reason. The apostles built revealed religion upon natural\nreligion, revealed theology upon natural theology, according to the rule,\n\u201cThat is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;\nafterward that which is spiritual.\u201d Christ said, \u201cYe believe in God:\nbelieve also in me.\u201d Mr. Mansel reverses all this, and makes Christ say,\n\u201cYe believe in me: believe also in God.\u201d\n\nBut, even if it were possible to ascend to belief in God through belief in\nChrist, we must ask, Is not belief thought? If the mind cannot _think_ the\nInfinite, how can it believe the Infinite? Must we not apprehend a\nproposition before we can believe it? Does not the conception of a thing\nlogically precede the belief of it? If it is impossible to apprehend the\nAbsolute, if this is only an empty name, how is it possible to believe in\nthe Absolute on grounds of revelation, or on any other grounds? A miracle\ncannot communicate to the mind an idea which is beyond its power of\nconception.\n\nMr. Mansel declares that our religious knowledge is _regulative_, but not\n_speculative_.\n\nHe lays great stress on this distinction: by which he means that we have\nideas of the Deity sufficient to guide our practice, but not to satisfy\nour intellect; which tell us, not what God is in himself, but how he\n_wills_ that we should think of him. According to this view, all\nrevelation is overturned, just as all natural religion has been previously\noverturned. Revelation does not reveal God on this theory. We have no\nknowledge of God in the gospel, any more than we had in nature. Instead of\nknowledge, we have only law. But this seems to despoil Christianity of its\nvital force. Christ says, \u201cThis is life eternal, to _know_ thee, the only\ntrue God.\u201d But Mr. Mansel tells us that such knowledge of God is\nimpossible. Therefore, instead of the gospel, he gives us the law; for it\nis certain that his _regulative_ truths are simply moral precepts,\naddressed to the will, not to the intellect; capable of being obeyed, but\nnot of being understood.\n\nThe radical error of Mansel seems to be this,\u2014that his mind works only in\nthe logical region belonging to the understanding, and is ignorant of\nthose higher truths which are beheld by the reason. He has tried to find\nGod by logical processes, and, of course, has failed. He therefore\nconcludes that God cannot be known by the intellect. He has fully\ndemonstrated that God cannot be comprehended by the logical understanding;\nand in this he has done a good work. But he has not shown that God cannot\nbe known by the intuitive reason. The understanding comprehends: the\nreason apprehends. The understanding perceives the form: reason takes\nholds of the substance. The understanding sees how things are related to\neach other: the reason sees how things are in themselves. The\nunderstanding cannot, therefore, see the infinite and absolute; cannot\napprehend substance or cause; knows nothing of the eternal. But the reason\nis as certain of cause as of effect; knows eternity as really as it knows\ntime; it is as sure of the existence of spirit as it is of matter; and\nsees the infinite to be as real as the finite. Therefore, though we cannot\ncomprehend God by logic, we can apprehend him by reason. We can be as sure\nof his being as we are of our own, and we are not obliged to explain away\nall those profound scriptures which teach us that the object and end of\nour being is to know God.\n\nSince, therefore, Mr. Mansel\u2019s argument, with all its acuteness, learning,\nand honesty, tends directly to Atheism; since, by overturning the\nfoundation of Christianity, it overturns Christianity itself; since it\nsubstitutes mere moral laws in place of the vital forces of the gospel,\u2014it\nis no wonder that its positions have been rejected with much unanimity by\nthe most eminent Orthodox scholars. Its defence of Orthodoxy costs too\nmuch. Leading thinkers of very different schools\u2014for example, Mr.\nBrownson, the Roman Catholic, in his \u201cQuarterly Review;\u201d Professor Hickok,\nthe Presbyterian, in the \u201cBibliotheca Sacra;\u201d and Mr. Maurice, of the\nChurch of England, in an able pamphlet\u2014have opposed with great force the\narguments and conclusions of this volume. It is true that some Orthodox\ndivines consider that Mr. Mansel has _demonstrated_ that the human\nconsciousness is unequal to the speculative conception of a Being at once\nabsolute, infinite, and personal, and seem gladly to have the aid of this\nbook in defending the Trinity. But the more distinguished and experienced\nthinkers mentioned above are cautious of accepting the help of so\ndangerous an ally.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen.\n\n\nFollowing the declaration of the apostle Paul, that \u201cthe letter killeth,\u201d\nwe have, in the text of this volume, set aside all the theories of the\nBible which assume its absolute and literal infallibility. But within a\nfew years, a work in defence of this doctrine has been published abroad,\nby an excellent man, M. Gaussen, of Geneva, and translated and republished\nin America by Rev. Dr. Kirk, of Boston. Such a work, coming from such\nsources, deserves some examination. We shall, therefore, show the course\nof argument followed in this book, and the reasons which lead us to\nconsider its conclusions unsound, and its reasoning inadequate.\n\nInspiration, as defined by Gaussen, is \u201cthat inexplicable power which the\ndivine Spirit formerly exercised over the authors of the Holy Scriptures,\nto guide them even in the employment of the words they were to use, and to\npreserve them from all error, as well as from every omission.\n\n\u201cWe aim,\u201d says he, \u201cto establish, by the word of God, that the Scriptures\nare from God\u2014that all the Scriptures are from God\u2014and that every part of\nthe Scripture is from God.\u201d\n\nLet us consider the arguments in support of this kind of inspiration, and\nthe objections to them.\n\n_Argument I. Plenary Inspiration is necessary, that we may know with\ncertainty what we ought to believe._\n\nGreat stress is laid upon this supposed _necessity_, both by Gaussen and\nKirk.\n\n\u201cThe book so written,\u201d say they, \u201cis the Word of God, and binds the\nconscience of the world; and nothing else does so bind it, even though it\nwere the writings of Paul and Peter.\n\n\u201cWith the Infidel, whether he be Christian in name or otherwise, the sharp\nsword of a perfect inspiration will be found, at last, indispensable. If\nthe ground is conceded to him that there is a single passage in the Bible\nthat is not divine, then we are disarmed; for he will be sure to apply\nthis privilege to the very passages which most fully oppose his pride,\npassion, and error. How is the conscience of a wicked race to be bound\ndown by a chain, one link of which is weak?\u201d\n\n_Reply to Argument I._\u2014It is no way to prove a theory _true_ to assume its\n_necessity_. The only legitimate proof of a theory is by an induction of\nfacts. This method of beginning by a supposed necessity, this looking\nfirst at consequences, has always been fruitful of false and empty\ntheories. The great advance in modern science has come from substituting\nthe inductive for the ideological method. Find what the facts say, and the\nconsequences will take care of themselves. An argument from consequences\nis usually only an appeal to prejudices.\n\nAgain: This argument is fatal to the arguments drawn from the Scriptures\nthemselves. In arguing from the Scripture to prove that every passage is\ndivine, we have, of course, no right to assume that every passage is\ndivine, for that is the very thing to be proved. Then the texts which we\nquote to prove our position may themselves not be divine, and if we grant\nthat, \u201cwe are disarmed.\u201d For, according to this argument, nothing can be\nproved conclusively from Scripture except we believe in plenary\ninspiration\u2014then plenary inspiration itself cannot be proved from\nScripture. But Gaussen admits that this doctrine can be proved \u201conly by\nthe Scriptures;\u201d therefore (according to this argument) it cannot be\nproved at all.\n\nIf, therefore, the doctrine of plenary inspiration is necessary \u201cto bind\nthe conscience of the world,\u201d it is a doctrine incapable of proof. If, on\nthe other hand, it can be proved, it is then clearly not necessary \u201cto\nbind the conscience of the world.\u201d\n\nBut again. This theory of plenary inspiration does _not_ bind the\nconsciences of men. If men are naturally disposed (as Messrs. Gaussen and\nKirk maintain) to deny and disbelieve the doctrines and statements of the\nBible, they have ample opportunity of doing so, notwithstanding their\nbelief in this theory. For, after admitting that the words of Scripture,\njust as they stand, are perfectly true and given by God, the question\ncomes, What do they mean? For instance, I wish, we will suppose, to deny\nthe doctrine of the Deity of Christ. Now, you quote to me the text Rom.\n9:5. \u201cOf whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God,\nblessed forever,\u201d\u2014which is the strongest text in the Bible in support of\nthat doctrine. Now, though I believe in the doctrine of plenary\ninspiration, I am not obliged to accept this passage as proof of the Deity\nof Christ. For I can, 1. Assert that the verse is an interpolation; 2.\nAssert that it is wrongly pointed; 3. Assert that it is mistranslated; 4.\nAssert that Christ is called God in an inferior sense, as God over the\nChurch. And, as a matter of fact, these are the arguments always used,\neven by those who deny the doctrine of a plenary inspiration. They seldom\nor never accuse the writer of a mistake, but always rely on a supposed\nmistranslation, or misinterpretation, in order to avoid the force of a\npassage. Hence, also, we find believers in this doctrine of plenary\ninspiration, differing in opinion on a thousand matters, and with no\nprobability of ever coming to an agreement.\n\n_Argument II. Several Passages of the New Testament plainly teach the\nDoctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible._\n\nThe passages quoted by Gaussen, and mainly relied upon, are 2 Tim. 3:16.\n\u201cAll Scripture is given by inspiration,\u201d &c.; 2 Peter 1:27, \u201cHoly men of\nGod spake as they were moved,\u201d &c. Besides these, he refers to many\npassages in the Old and New Testaments, but his chief stress is laid on\nthese.\n\n_Reply to Argument II._\u2014It is well known that both these passages refer\nonly to the Old Testament Scriptures. It is well known that the first may\nbe translated so as to read, \u201cAll Scripture, given by inspiration, is\nprofitable,\u201d &c. But it is reply enough to both these passages, to say,\nthat neither of them indicates what kind of inspiration is intended. They\nassert an inspiration, which we also maintain. But they do _not_ assert a\nverbal inspiration, nor one which makes the Scriptures _infallible_, but\nsimply one which makes them _profitable_.\n\nThe stress laid on the passage 2 Tim. 3:16, \u201cAll Scripture,\u201d &c., is\nitself an argument against the theory of plenary inspiration. The most\nwhich can be made of this text, by _any_ punctuation or translation, is,\nthat all the Scripture is written by inspired men. What was the degree or\nkind of their inspiration, is not in the least indicated. It might have\nbeen verbal, it might have been the inspiration of suggestion, or of\nsuperintendence, or the general inspiration of all Christians.\n\nGaussen\u2019s only argument on this point is, \u201cthat it is the _writing_ which\nis said to be inspired, and writing must be in words; hence the\ninspiration must be verbal.\u201d To this we must reply, that inspired writing\ncan only mean what is written by inspired men. The writing itself cannot\nbe inspired. This argument is too flimsy to be dwelt upon.\n\nBut further still. There is another argument which lies against every\nattempt to prove plenary inspiration out of the Scripture. _Every such\nattempt is necessarily reasoning in a circle._ Gaussen and Kirk have\nlabored earnestly to reply to this argument, but in vain. The answer they\nmake is, \u201cWe are not reasoning with Infidels, but with Christians. We\naddress men who respect the Scriptures, and who admit their truth. The\nScriptures are inspired, we affirm, because, being authentic and true,\nthey declare themselves inspired; and the Scriptures are plenarily\ninspired, because, being inspired, they say that they are so totally, and\nwithout any exception.\u201d\n\nBut we answer Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk thus: \u201cYou are indeed reasoning\nwith Christians, not with Deists; but you are reasoning with Christians\nwho do not believe that _every passage_ of Scripture is infallibly\ninspired. To prove your doctrine from any particular passages or verbal\nexpressions, you must prove that those particular passages and expressions\nare not themselves errors. You yourselves assert that this cannot be done,\nexcept we believe these passages to be infallibly inspired. Therefore you\nmust assume infallible inspiration in order to prove infallible\ninspiration. In other words, you beg the question instead of arguing it.\u201d\n\nIn this vicious circle the advocates of a verbal inspiration of\ninfallibility are necessarily imprisoned whenever they attempt to argue\nfrom the words of Scripture. They contend that one must believe their\ntheory in order to be sure that any passage is absolutely true, and then\nthey quote passages to prove their theory, as if they were absolutely\ntrue.\n\n_Argument III. The theory of plenary inspiration is simple, precise,\nintelligible, and easy to be applied._\n\nWe admit this to be true. It has this merit in common with the opposite\ntheory of no inspiration. Both are simple, precise, and very easy of\napplication. But simplicity is not always a sign of truth. The facts of\nnature and life are more apt to be complex than simple. Theories\ndistinguished by their simplicity most commonly ignore or omit a part of\nthe facts. Simplistic theories are generally one-sided and partial.\nMaterialism, Atheism, Idealism, Fatalism, are all very simple theories,\nand explain all difficulties with a marvellous rapidity. This makes them,\nat first, attractive to the intellect, which always loves clear and\ndistinct views; but afterwards, when it is seen that they obtain clearness\nby means of shallowness they are found unsatisfactory.\n\n_Argument IV. The quotations from the Old Testament, by Jesus and his\napostles, show that they regarded its language as infallibly inspired._\n\nThis argument, upon which great stress is laid, both by Prof. Gaussen and\nDr. Kirk, though plausible at first sight, becomes wholly untenable on\nexamination.\n\nThus, in the temptation of Jesus, in his reply to the tempter, he says,\n\u201cThou shalt not live by bread alone;\u201d the whole force of the argument\ndepending on the single word _alone_.\n\nReplying to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, \u201cHave ye\nnot read that God says, I _am_ the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of\nJacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.\u201d Then the whole\nstress of the argument rests on the use of the verb in the present tense,\n\u201c_I am_.\u201d\n\nArguing with the Pharisees, \u201cHow did David, by the Spirit, call him\n_Lord_, saying, The Lord said to my Lord,\u201d &c.? Here the argument depends\non the use of the single word _Lord_.\n\nMany more instances could be produced of the same kind; and Gaussen\ncontends, that when Jesus and his apostles thus rest their argument on the\nforce of a single word of the Old Testament, they must have believed that\nthe very words were given by inspiration. For otherwise the writers might\nnot have chosen the right word to express their thought in each particular\ncase. And unless the Jews had also believed in the verbal inspiration of\ntheir Scriptures, they would have replied that these particular words\nmight have been errors.\n\n_Reply to this Argument._\u2014Plausible as this argument may seem, it turns\nout to be wholly empty and worthless. Whenever any writer is admitted to\nbe an authority, then his words become authoritative, and arguments are\nnecessarily based on single words and expressions. In all such cases, we\nassume that he chose the best words by which to convey his thought, and\nyet we do not ascribe to him any inspiration or infallibility.\n\nThus, go into our courts of law, and you will hear the language of the\nUnited States constitution, of the acts of legislature, of previous\ndecisions of the courts, argued from, word by word. Counsel argue by the\nhour upon the force and weight of single words in the authorities. Judges\nin their charges instruct the jury to determine the life and death of the\ncriminal according to the letter of the law. And this they do necessarily,\naccording to the rule, \u201c_Cum recedit a litera, judex transit in\nlegislatorem_.\u201d But will any one maintain that the counsel and court\nbelieve that the legislature was infallibly inspired to choose the very\nlanguage which would convey their meaning?\n\nIn this very argument for plenary inspiration, Gaussen and his associates\nrest their argument on the single word \u201call,\u201d in the text, \u201cAll Scripture\nis given by inspiration,\u201d &c. Yet, say they, we are not assuming that this\ntext is plenarily inspired, for that, we admit, would be begging the\nquestion. If, then, Mr. Gaussen can argue from the force of the single\nword _all_, without assuming the doctrine of plenary inspiration, why\ncould not Jesus and his apostles argue from single words, without assuming\nthe doctrine of plenary inspiration?\n\nThere is, however, a passage in Paul (Gal. 3:16), in which the apostle\nquotes a text from the Old Testament, and lays the whole stress of his\nargument on two letters. \u201cHe says not, \u2018And to seeds\u2019 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, as of\nmany, but as of one, \u2018And to thy seed\u2019 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\u201d According to Gaussen\u2019s\nargument, Paul must have believed in the inspiration of the letters. But\nGaussen is careful not to adduce this instance, which seems at first so\nmuch in his favor. For, in fact, both in Hebrew and Greek, as in English,\n\u201cseed\u201d is a collective noun, and does mean _many_ in the singular. The\nargument of Paul, therefore, falls through; and it is evident that he is\nno example to be imitated here, in laying stress on one or two letters.\nMost modern interpreters admit that he made a mistake; and so, among the\nancients, did Jerome, who nevertheless, said the argument \u201cwas good enough\nfor the foolish Galatians.\u201d\n\nHaving thus replied, very briefly, but we believe sufficiently, to the\nmain arguments in support of this theory, we say, in conclusion, that it\ncannot be true, for the following reasons, which we simply state, and do\nnot now attempt to unfold.\n\n1. The New Testament writers nowhere claim to be infallibly inspired to\nwrite. If they had been infallibly inspired to write the Gospels and\nEpistles, they certainly ought to have announced this important fact.\nInstead of which Luke gives as his reason for writing, not that God\ninspired him to write, but that \u201cinasmuch as others have taken in hand\u201d to\nwrite, it seemed good to him also to do the same, and that for the benefit\nof Theophilus. John and Paul assert the truth of what they say, but not on\naccount of their being inspired to write, but because they are disciples\nand apostles.\n\n2. The differences in the accounts of the same transactions show that\ntheir inspiration was not verbal.\n\nThese differences appear on every page of any Harmony of the New\nTestament. They are numerous but unimportant; they go to prove the truth\nof the narrative, and give probability to the main Gospel statements. But\nthey utterly disprove the theory of plenary inspiration.\n\n3. Paul declares that some things which he says are \u201cof the Lord,\u201d other\nthings \u201cof himself;\u201d that in regard to some things he was inspired, in\nregard to others, not.\n\n4. Every writer in the New Testament has a style of his own, and there is\nno appearance of his being merely an amanuensis.\n\n5. While the New Testament writers lay no claim to any such inspiration as\nthis theory assumes, they do claim for themselves and for all other\nChristians another kind of inspiration, which is sufficient for all the\nfacts, and which gives them ample authority over our faith and life, and\nmakes them independent sources of Christian truth.\n\nThis view we have already sufficiently considered in our chapter on\ninspiration.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor Shedd.\n\n\nIn the \u201cChristian Review\u201d for 1852 appeared an article of great power,\nwritten by a gentleman who has since become eminent as a thinker and\nwriter\u2014Professor W. G. T. Shedd. The title of the article was calculated\nto attract attention, as a bold attempt to defend an extreme position of\nCalvinism\u2014\u201cSin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt.\u201d The article was so\nrational and clear that we consider it as being even now the best\nstatement extant of this thorough-going Calvinism, and therefore devote a\nfew pages here to its examination.(87)\n\nAfter some introductory remarks, which it is not necessary to notice, the\nwriter lays down his first position, that sin is a nature. His statement\nis, that we all sin necessarily and continually in consequence of _our\nnature_, i.e., the character born with us, original and innate.\n\nThe proofs of this position are, 1. The language of St. Paul (Eph. 2:3),\n\u201cWe were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.\u201d 2. That we are\ncompelled by the laws of our mind to refer volitions to a nature, as\nqualities to a substance. We cannot stop in the outward act of sin, but by\na mental instinct look inward to the particular volition from which the\nsin came. Nor can the mind stop with this particular volition. There is a\nsteady and uniform state of character, which particular volitions cannot\nexplain. The instinct of reason causes us to look back for one common\nprinciple and source, which shall give unity to the subject; and, having\nattained a view both central and simple, it is satisfied. As our mind\ncompels us to refer all properties to a substance in which they inhere, so\nit compels us to refer all similar volitions to a simple nature. When we\nsee exercises of the soul, we as instinctively refer them to a nature in\nthat soul, as we refer the properties of a body to the substance of that\nbody. 3. Christian experience proves that sin is a nature. The Christian,\nespecially as his experience deepens, is troubled, not so much by his\nseparate sinful actions and volitions, as by the sinful nature which they\nindicate, and out of which they spring. We are compelled to believe, as we\nlook inward, that there is a principle of evil within us, below those\nseparate transgressions of which we are conscious. There is a diseased\ncondition of the soul, which these transgressions, indicate. There are\nsecret faults from which we pray to be cleansed. 4. The history of\nChristian doctrine shows that the Church has in all ages believed in a\nsinful nature, as distinguished from conscious transgressions.\n\nThese are the proofs of the first position, that sin is a nature. We have\nstated them concisely, but with sufficient distinctness and completeness.\nLet us now examine their validity.\n\nThe first argument is the text in Ephesians, \u201cWe were by nature children\nof wrath,\u201d \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. The word \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the writer contends,\n\u201calways denotes something original and innate, in contradistinction to\nsomething acquired by practice or habit.\u201d This text, we know, is the\nproof-text of original sin, and is considered by many commentators as\nteaching that man\u2019s nature is wholly corrupt. But plainly this is going\ntoo far. Granting the full meaning claimed for the word \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the text\nonly asserts that there is something in man\u2019s nature which exposes him to\nthe divine displeasure by being the source of sin. It does not assert the\ncorruption of the whole nature, nor preclude the supposition that we are\nborn with tendencies to good, no less than to evil. That we are so, the\nwriter is bound by his own statement to admit; for if this Greek word\n\u201calways denotes something original and innate,\u201d it denotes this in Rom.\n2:14,(88) which declares that the Gentiles \u201cdo by nature the things\ncontained in the law.\u201d According to this passage in Romans, if there be\nsuch a thing as natural depravity, it is not total; and if there be such a\nthing as total depravity, it is not natural. Those who wish to maintain\nboth doctrines can only do it by admitting two different kinds of\nsinfulness in man, one of which is natural, but not total; the other\ntotal, but not natural\u2014a distinction which we esteem a sound one.\nAccording to this passage in Rom 2:14, we must understand \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 as\nreferring to the good side of man\u2019s nature, and the same word in Eph. 2:3\nas referring to the corrupt side of man\u2019s moral nature. The first refers\nto the \u201claw of the mind;\u201d the second, to the other \u201claw in the members\u201d\n(Rom. 7:23). But there is another passage (Gal. 2:15), which asserts that\nthe Jews by nature are not sinners, like the heathen. Now, as we can\nhardly suppose that the original instincts and innate tendencies of the\nJewish child were radically good from birth, and essentially different\nfrom those of the heathen, and as such a supposition would contradict the\nwhole argument of Paul in Rom. ch. 2, it is evident that \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Gal.\n2:15 does not denote something original and innate. The meaning of this\nverse probably is, that the Jew from birth up, and by the mere fact of\nbeing born a Jew, came under the influences of a religious education,\nwhich preserved him from many forms of heathen depravity. The word,\ntherefore, means in that passage, not a Jew by nature, but a Jew by birth;\nand, if so, we are at liberty, if we choose, to ascribe the same meaning\nto the word in Ephesians, and to understand the text to teach that we were\nby birth placed under circumstances which tended necessarily to deprave\nthe character.\n\nThis passage, therefore, quoted by the writer, does not teach entire\ndepravity by nature, but a partial depravity, either found in the\nhereditary tendencies and instincts, or acquired by means of the evil\ncircumstances surrounding the child from his birth.\n\nThe second argument of the writer is, that the laws of mind compel us to\nrefer sinful volitions to a sinful nature, as they compel us to refer\nqualities to a substance.\n\nWe admit that, where we see uniform and constant habits of action, we are\ncompelled to refer these to a permanent character or state of being. If a\nman once in his life becomes intoxicated, we do not infer any habit of\nintemperance, or any vicious tendency; but if he is habitually\nintemperate, we are compelled, as the writer justly asserts, to look\nbeneath the separate single actions for one common principle and source.\nBut in assuming that this source is a nature brought with us into the\nworld, the writer seems to us to jump to a conclusion. It may be an\nacquired character, not an original nature. It may be an induced state of\ndisease either of body or mind, a depravity which has commenced this side\nof childhood. We know that there are acquired habits both of mind and of\nbody; otherwise, not only would it be impossible for a man to grow worse,\nbut it would also be impossible for him to grow better, and there would be\nan end to all improvement and progress. Such an acquired character\nintroduces unity into the subject of investigation, as completely as does\nan original nature, and therefore satisfies all the wants of the mind.\n\nA precisely similar answer may be made to the writer\u2019s third argument,\ndrawn from Christian experience. He is perfectly right, we think, in\nsaying that the Christian is troubled, not merely, nor chiefly, by the\nrecollection of single acts and volitions of evil, but in the evidence\nwhich they seem to give of a sinful state of mind and heart. He is right\nin considering any theory of moral evil shallow and inadequate which only\ntakes into account sinful actions and sinful volitions. What earnest man,\nwho has seriously set about correcting a fault, or improving his\ncharacter, but has been obliged to say, \u201cTo will is present with me; but\nhow to perform that which I will, I find not\u201d? Every earnest effort shows\nus more plainly how deep the roots of evil run below the surface. We find\na _law_ in the members warring against the law of the mind, and bringing\nus into captivity to the law of sin. This is the description which Paul\ngives of it. It is a _law_; that is, something regular, constant,\npermanent\u2014a steady stress, a bias towards evil. The apostle, however,\ndiffers from the writer in placing this law, not in the will, but in the\nmembers; and also in stating that there is another law,\u2014that of the\nmind,\u2014which has a tendency towards good. In the unregenerate we understand\nhim to teach that the law of evil is the stronger, and holds the man, the\npersonal will, captive. In the regenerate, the reverse is the case. Nor\ndoes Paul teach that this sinful tendency is guilt. It is not \u201cO _guilty_\nman that I am!\u201d but \u201cO _wretched_ man that I am!\u201d\n\nNow, while we agree with the writer in rejecting as superficial and\ninadequate any theory of evil, whether emanating from our own denomination\nor from any other, which does not recognize this evil state or tendency\nlying below the volitions, we differ from him in that we think it not\nalways a nature, but a character. He has not proved, nor begun to prove,\nthat this dark ground of evil in man is always innate or original. It may\nor may not be; but the argument from Christian experience shows nothing of\nthe sort.\n\nThe writer\u2019s fourth and remaining argument is, that the Church has, in all\nages, believed in a sinful nature, as distinguished from conscious\ntransgressions. If this were so, we admit that it should have weight in\nthe inquiry; but we deny the fact so far, at least, as the sinful nature\nis concerned.(89)\n\nThe writer proceeds thus: \u201cAssuming, then, that the fact of a sinful\nnature has been established, we pass to the second statement of St. Paul,\nthat man is by nature a child of wrath. We pass from his statement that\nsin, in its ultimate form, is a nature, to his statement that this nature\nis guilt.\u201d If we have done justice to the writer\u2019s arguments,\u2014and it has\nbeen our object to state them fairly, though briefly,\u2014we submit that the\nfact of a sinful nature has not been established by them. He has shown\nthat in man there is a tendency to evil running below the conscious,\ndistinct volitions\u2014that there is a permanent character, good or evil,\nwhich manifests itself, and becomes first apparent to ourselves, or to\nothers, in these separate, spiritual exercises or actions. But that this\nstress either to good or evil, this law either of the mind or members, is\noriginal and inborn, is yet to be proved. Let us then consider the second\npoint, namely, whether this character or nature, whichever it may be, is\nalso guilt.\n\nAs the writer\u2019s first argument to prove a sinful nature was drawn from the\nGreek word \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, so his first argument to prove that nature guilt is\nderived from the Greek word \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae in the same passage. \u201cThe apostle\nteaches,\u201d he says, \u201cthat sinful man is a child of wrath. Now, none but a\nguilty being can be the object of the righteous and holy displeasure of\nGod.\u201d But this word, translated _wrath_, is confessedly used in other\nsenses besides that of the divine anger or displeasure. It may mean the\nsufferings or punishments which come as the result of sin, in which sense\nit is used in Matt. 3:7, \u201cWho hath warned you to flee from the wrath to\ncome?\u201d and other places. This word is used in the passage just quoted for\nsome future evil; in John 3:36, for a present evil\u2014\u201cThe wrath of God\nabides on him;\u201d and in 1 Thess. 2:16, for a past evil\u2014\u201cFor the wrath is\ncome [lit. _has_ come] on them to the uttermost.\u201d It may mean the\nsubjective feeling of guilt; the sense that we deserve the divine\ndispleasure, which is removed by the assurance of forgiveness. It may mean\nthe state of alienation from God, which results by a law of the conscience\nfrom this sense of guilt\u2014an alienation removed by the divine act by which\nGod reconciles the sinner to himself. And the radical meaning, from which\nthese secondary meanings flow, may be the essential antagonism existing\nbetween the holy nature of God and all evil. But whatever it means, it\ncannot intend anything like human anger. In the divine wrath there is\nneither selfishness nor passion; and it must consist with an infinite love\ntowards its object. The word, therefore, as used in Eph. 2:3, does not\nconvey the idea of guilt, _a vi terminis_. It may mean as well, that this\nsinful tendency in man, manifesting itself in sinful actions, produces a\nstate of estrangement or alienation between man and God. How far this is a\nguilty alienation, and how far it is evil and sorrowful, is not to be\nlearned from the term itself.\n\nBut the main proof of the writer in support of his second position is\nfound in the assertion, that this sinful tendency in man, out of which\nevil acts continually flow, is not a tendency of the physical nature, but\nof the will itself. He distinguishes the will proper from the mere faculty\nof single choices, and considers it to be a deeper power lying at the very\ncentre of the soul, which determines the whole man with reference to some\ngreat and unlimited end of living. It is, in fact, the man himself\u2014the\nperson. For man, he asserts, is not essentially intellect or feeling; but\nis essentially and at bottom a will, a self-determining creature. \u201cHis\nother faculties of knowing and feeling are grafted into this stock and\nroot; and hence he is responsible from centre to circumference.\u201d He then\naffirms the will, thus defined, to be the responsible and guilty author of\nthe sinful nature; being nothing more nor less than its constant and total\ndetermination to self as the ultimate end of living. This voluntary power,\nwhich is the man himself, has turned away from God and directed itself to\nself as an ultimate end; and this state of the will is the sinful nature\nof man.\n\nWe have no disposition to quarrel with the psychology of this statement.\nWe admit man to be essentially will, in the sense here described. He is\nessentially activity; an activity limited externally, by special\norganization and circumstances,\u2014limited internally, by quantity of force,\nand knowledge.\n\nNor, again, do we deny that in the unregenerate state the will of man is\ndirected to self rather than to God as its ultimate end; and that this is\nguilt, and in a certain sense total guilt. No man can serve two masters.\nIf he is obedient to one, he is necessarily disobedient to the other. This\ndisobedience may, or may not, appear in act; but it is there in state. He\nwhose ultimate end is self-gratification is always ready to sacrifice the\nwill of God to his own. He whose ultimate end is God is always ready to\nsacrifice his own will. In this sense, the unregenerate man may be said to\nbe wholly sinful; and he who is born of God, not to commit sin.\n\nThus much we grant; and the admission is a large one. But we must now\nobject to the writer, that this is but one side of the question; and that\nhe has omitted to see the other side. The sources of evil are not so\nsimple as he seems to suppose; for man is a very complex being, and the\nworld in which he lives is a very complex world. We therefore would\ninquire,\u2014\n\nWhat proof have we that this guilty direction of the will is a _nature_,\nin the sense claimed, i.e., something innate or original? Why may not the\nwill have been turned gradually in this direction as we grow up, by\nenticements of pleasure; and why might not the will, in like manner, by\nmeans of wise culture, have been gradually directed to God?\n\nAgain: what proof have we that we are so wholly _unconscious_ of this\ndirection of the will, as our author contends? That a great many of the\nacts of the will are unconscious acts, like the separate movements of the\nfinger in a skilful pianist, or lifting of the feet in walking, we admit;\nand we are not responsible for these separate acts, but for the _preceding\nchoice_, by means of which we determine to play the tune, or walk the\nmile. In like manner, the direction of the soul to self rather than to God\nmay be moral evil; but is not moral guilt, until we become conscious of\nit, in a greater or less degree. Then, when partially or wholly awakened\nto the evil direction of the soul, if we allow ourselves to neglect this\ndiscovery, to turn away from the fact and forget it, on that conscious act\npresses the whole burden of guilt, and not on the unconscious volitions\nwhich may result from it. We say, therefore, in opposition to the writer,\nthat though there may be depravity without consciousness of the depraved\nstate, there cannot be guilt without consciousness of the evil choice, or,\nas the apostle says, \u201cSin is not imputed where there is no law.\u201d\n\nAgain: we totally dissent from the statement that this deep-lying will in\nman is unable to obey the commands, \u201cTurn ye, turn ye from your evil way,\nfor why will ye die?\u201d\u2014\u201cRepent and be converted, that your sins may be\nblotted out,\u201d\u2014\u201cMake you a new heart and a new spirit,\u201d\u2014\u201cChoose you this\nday whom you will serve,\u201d\u2014\u201cBelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.\u201d\nThe writer says, that \u201csuch a power as this, including so much, and\nrunning so deep, which is a determination of the whole soul, cannot, from\nthe very nature of the case, be such a facile and easily managed power as\nthat by which we resolve to do some particular thing in every-day life.\u201d\nTrue: not _so_ easily managed; but can it not be managed at all? It may\nrequire _more_ self-examination to understand what the direction of the\nwill is, and more concentration of thought and will, and more leaning on\nGod\u2019s help; but _with_ all these are we able or not able to turn to God?\nHe says, the great main tendency of the will to self and sin as an\nultimate end, though having a free and criminal origin, \u201cis not to be\nreversed so easily.\u201d True, again; but why not _less_ easily? The writer\nspeaks of the sinful will as a \u201ctotal determination of itself to self;\u201d\nand asks \u201chow the power that is to reverse all this process can possibly\ncome out of the will thus shut up, and entirely swallowed in the process.\nHow is the process to destroy itself?\u201d But what! Has man become _a\nprocess_? He is essentially will, but is this will blind mechanism? Has it\nnot, according to our author\u2019s own theory, intelligence, conscience,\naffection, rooted into it? The moment that the writer begins to speak of\nthe will, as unable to change its direction, he is compelled to conceive\nof it materially and mechanically, and not as the moral, responsible soul.\nHe says, \u201cThe human will becomes a current that becomes unmanageable\nsimply because of its own momentum.\u201d And therefore, again, he is obliged\nto conceive of the whole voluntary power as lost, and lost before man was\nborn; and he reduces all our real freedom to the original act of the will\nprevious to birth, which took place when we were present in Adam\u2019s soul,\nand committed the first transgression with him.\n\nThis is plainly the denial of all human freedom since the fall of Adam. We\nbring into the world, according to the writer, a will wholly and\ninevitably bent to evil. We have no consciousness of this tendency, and if\nwe were conscious of it we have no power to change it; but we yet are\nresponsible for it, and guilty because of it, inasmuch as we began this\nstate ourselves when all our souls were mystically present in the soul of\nAdam. Of this theory, we merely say now, that, if it be true, man is not\n_now_ guilty of any sin which he commits in his mortal life; for he is not\nnow a free being. He is only responsible for the sin which he freely\ncommitted in Adam. He is no more responsible when we suppose his sin to\nproceed from his will, than when we suppose it to proceed from a depraved\nsensuous nature, or from involuntary ignorance, for he is no more free in\nthe one case than in the other. He may be an infinitely depraved and\ninfinitely miserable being, but he can in no true sense be called a\n_guilty_ being. Again we say, if this theory be true, it is an awful\ntheory, and one which we cannot possibly reconcile with the justice or\ngoodness, and still less with the fatherly character, of God. That God\nshould so have constituted human nature that all the millions of the human\nrace should have had this fatal opportunity of destroying themselves\nutterly, by one simultaneous act, in Adam, is, to say the least, an\n_awful_ theory to propound concerning our heavenly Father. We might put\nChrist\u2019s argument to any man not hardened by theological study, as it\nseems to us, with irresistible force. \u201cWhat man is there among _you_,\nBEING A FATHER,\u201d who could do anything of this sort? But we know too well\nthat all such appeals fall harmless from the sevenfold shield of a\nsystematized theology.\n\nTherefore we will only say further, concerning this theory, that, as being\n_apparently_ in direct conflict with the divine attributes as taught in\nthe New Testament; as making man a mere process deprived of real freedom;\nas proving man not guilty for any sin committed in this life; and as\nthereby deadening the sense of responsibility, and showing that we cannot\npossibly obey the command, \u201cRepent and turn to God,\u201d\u2014this theory of a sin\ncommitted in Adam _ought to have the amplest proof_ before we believe it.\nWe admit that it may be true, though opposed to all our ideas of God, man,\nand duty. But being thus opposed, it ought to be sustained by the most\nunanswerable arguments. If Jesus and his apostles have told us so plainly,\nwe will believe it if we can. How is it, then? Not a word on the subject\nin the four Gospels. Not a text from the lips of Jesus which can be\npretended to lay down any such theory. He does not even mention the name\nof Adam once in the Gospels, nor allude to him, except when speaking of\nmarriage. This theory rests, not on anything contained in the Gospels,\nbook of Acts, or Epistles of Peter, James, or John, but on two texts in\ntwo Epistles of Paul (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22). In the latter passage Paul\nsays not a word of Adam\u2019s sin, but only of his death,\u2014the whole chapter\ntreating, not of sin, but of death and the resurrection. This passage,\ntherefore, can hardly be considered a plain statement of the theory. The\nother, in Romans, is confessedly so far from plain, that it is difficult\nto make it agree with any theory; but the most evident meaning, to one who\nhas no theory to support, is, that sin began with Adam, and the\nconsequences of sin, which are moral and physical evil, began also with\nhim; and as he thus set in motion a series of evil tendencies which we\nfind in our organization, and which Paul elsewhere calls the law of the\nmembers, and a series of evil circumstances which we find around us in the\nworld, both of which are the occasion of sin, we may trace back to him the\ncommencement of human disobedience. If the passage teaches anything more\nthan this, it certainly does not teach it plainly or explicitly.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah Adams and Dr. J.\nP. Thompson.\n\n\nTwo defences of this dreadful doctrine have appeared within a few\nyears\u2014one by Rev. Nehemiah Adams, D. D. (chiefly known by his many and\ndetermined pleas for slavery), and the other by Dr. Thompson of New York.\n\nWe will first examine Dr. Adams\u2019s tract on \u201cThe Reasonableness of Eternal\nFuture Punishment.\u201d\n\nWe have these three objections to it:\u2014\n\nI. It, throughout, denies the sovereignty of God.\n\nII. It is, throughout, a system of naturalism.\n\nIII. It, throughout, ignores the central truth of the gospel.\n\nIt is our business to substantiate these assertions by sufficient proof.\n\n1. The view taken in his tract, of God, cannot be true, because it\nconflicts with his supreme and sovereign deity.\n\nOf course, this is to dethrone God. God, if not sovereign, is not God. Any\nview which disturbs, however remotely, the supremacy of the Deity, must be\na relapse towards Pagan idolatry. We charge this tendency on the whole\ntenor of this tract. We affirm that it seriously impairs that confidence\nand strength which can only come from reliance on Omnipotence, and remands\nus to the terrors and narrowness of Polytheism: not consciously, of\ncourse, or intentionally, but by the logic of its ideas and the tendency\nof its argument.\n\nAccording to Dr. Adams\u2019s view of the world, it is a scene of conflict\nbetween God and the Devil. The prize contended for is the souls of men.\nGod wishes to save them: the Devil wishes to damn them. By immense\nefforts,\u2014by the unparalleled sacrifice of himself on the cross,\u2014God\nsucceeds in saving a portion of this race, whom the Devil had plunged into\nfearful and desperate sin. As for the rest, He can do nothing with them,\nbut must go away and leave them; escaping with the saved to some other\nregion, where the sin and misery of the rest may be lost sight of.\n\nThe only divine supremacy which Dr. Adams admits is that of force. God is,\non the whole, _stronger_ than the Devil; so that He can prevent him from\ncarrying his ravages beyond certain limits. God can \u201chem in and overrule\u201d\nthe power of sin; but he cannot conquer it. He has no complete power over\nthe heart and will of men to become supreme there; but he has power over\ntheir conduct, and can restrain that within certain limits.\n\nGod\u2019s sovereignty, according to Dr. Adams, is only like that of a human\ngovernment, and that, again, a weak one. A human government is strong when\nit is able to dispense with standing armies, with an omnipresent police,\nwith prisons and dungeons: it is weak when its authority is only\nmaintained by these. In the first case, it rests on the love of the\npeople; in the other case, only on force.\n\nNow, according to Dr. Adam\u2019s tract, God\u2019s sovereignty is essentially one\nof force. He is not sovereign by overcoming sin through his own holiness,\nbut only by restraining its outbreaks by externally applied force. So far\nfrom conquering sin, he is represented as giving up all hope of conquering\nit. He has tried everything in his power, and has failed. He can do\nnothing more. Dr. Adams speaks of God\u2019s \u201chaving expended upon us all which\nthe gospel of his grace includes,\u201d and of \u201cthe failure of that which is\nthe brightness of his glory.\u201d Now, Dr. Adams says, \u201cWhat God will probably\ndo is, to go away and leave us,\u201d God says, according to the idea of this\ntract, \u201cI will place all of you, who sin, in a world by yourselves, from\nwhich I and my friends will forever withdraw.\u201d In substance, He gives up,\nand acknowledges himself defeated. He is beaten by sin, which is more\npowerful than his gospel. Sin compels the Deity to compromise; to take\nsome souls, and to leave others; to divide the universe,\u2014love reigning in\none part of it, hatred and wickedness in another.\n\n2. The second objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment, as\ntaught in these works, is, that it is a system of pure materialism. It is\nnaturalism, as opposed to supernaturalism. All its arguments from\nScripture interpret Scripture according to its letter, and not according\nto its spirit. While much stress is laid on the word \u201ceternal,\u201d no real\neternity is believed in, or even conceived of. The fundamental law of\nreligious knowledge\u2014namely, that a man must be born of the Spirit in order\nto see the kingdom of God, and that spiritual things must be spiritually\ndiscerned\u2014is wholly lost sight of. The spiritual world, with its bliss and\nits woe, is supposed to be a continuation of the natural world, instead of\nbeing its exact opposite. The same conditions of space and time are\nsupposed to prevail there as here. Hell is regarded by Dr. Adams as a\nlarge place, located in some remote part of the universe, where the\nsufferings and blasphemies of damned souls and devils will not disturb the\nsentimental happiness of himself and his pious companions. Eternity he\nregards as an enormous and quite inconceivable accumulation of time,\ninstead of being the very negation of time. An unlimited quantity of days,\nmonths, and years, is his notion of eternity.\n\nIn like manner, all the arguments by which the school to which he belongs\nmaintains this doctrine, are drawn from relations which exist in this\nworld. Great use is made of the analogies of human government. It is said\nthat it would not be safe for the Deity to forgive sins on the simple\ncondition of repentance, without an atonement, because it would not be\nsafe for human governments to do so. The government of God is made wholly\nsimilar to the imperfect and ignorant governments of men. When we say that\nGod, as described in the New Testament, is not a Being to inflict\neverlasting suffering hereafter, we are told that he inflicts suffering\nhere; as though there were no essential distinction between the finite and\nthe infinite, the temporal and the eternal. When we argue that God would\nnot suspend the eternal destiny of a soul upon the conduct and the\ndetermination of a brief earthly life, we have instances given us of great\nrisks to which we are exposed, and great evils which we may incur, in this\nworld; as though there were no difference between a partial loss and total\ndestruction. When we say that the justice of God will not permit him to\npunish everlastingly those who, like the heathen, have never known Christ,\nwe have instances given of those who have ignorantly burned themselves or\nhave fallen down precipices. In all such examples, these reasoners\noverlook the essential distinction between the finite and the infinite.\nThey forget that all finite evil can be made the means of a greater\nultimate good, but that infinite evil cannot.\n\nIt is a curious fact, that those who are most Orthodox fall most easily\ninto a very hard and dry naturalism. God is to them a king sitting on a\nthrone in some far heaven outside of the world, not a spirit pervading it\nand sustaining it. He governs men from without by offering them rewards\nand threatening them with punishments, not by inward inspirations and\ninfluence. He teaches them from without by an outward Christ, an outward\nBible, outward preachers, pulpits, creeds, Sabbaths, and churches; not by\nChrist formed within us, not by epistles and gospels written on the\nfleshly tables of the heart. The day of judgment is a particular time,\nwhen God shall sit on his throne, and all appear before him; not the\nperpetual spiritual sentence pronounced in each human soul by the divine\nlaw. And so heaven is a place where there is to be some singing of psalms,\nand such amusements as are here considered proper in Orthodox families;\nhell, another place, where souls are shut up, to suffer from physical\nfire, or at least from some external infliction. The doctrine taught by\nthe Saviour in the first twelve verses of his first sermon, that the\nhumble, the generous, the merciful, are already blessed, and have heaven\nnow, does not appear to be at all comprehended. That heaven and hell are\nin this world already; that truth, love, and use are its essence, whilst\nfalsehood and selfishness are the essence of hell,\u2014these, though\nrudimental facts of Christianity, are commonly considered mere mysticism.\nBut those who do not see all this have not seen the kingdom of heaven, and\nmust be born again, into a new world of spiritual ideas, in order to see\nit.\n\n3. The third and principal argument against the doctrine of everlasting\npunishment is, that it is _inconsistent with the divine love to his\ncreatures_. It is impossible for God to manifest love to a human being by\ninflicting everlasting torment upon him. It cannot do him good, because,\naccording to this theory, the period of probation is past, and he has no\npower now to repent. As far, therefore, as the man himself is concerned,\nit is gratuitous suffering\u2014torment inflicted without any purpose. It\ncannot be said that God has any love for the soul which he is treating in\nthis way. He has cast it off. To that soul, nevermore, throughout the ages\nof an everlasting existence, shall God appear as a friend, but always as\nan enemy.\n\nWe sometimes hear of a father who disinherits a child in consequence of\nsome act of disobedience. In one of the most touching tragedies in the\nEnglish language, a father refuses to forgive his daughter who had married\ncontrary to his wishes. He leaves her to starve, and refuses to forgive\nher or to see her. No one approves of this conduct in the parent. But\nevery Orthodox man, who believes in everlasting punishment, attributes an\ninfinitely greater cruelty to God; infinitely greater, because the\nobstinacy of the human parent endures only during a short life, but the\nseverity of God endures forever.\n\nThe force of this objection is such, that Dr. Adams has felt obliged to\nadd to his tract on \u201cEverlasting Punishment\u201d another tract upon the text,\n\u201cGod is love,\u201d endeavoring to show a consistency between the two. But he\ndoes this by substituting something else in the place of the last. It is\ncurious enough, that a master in Israel should have written a tract upon\nthe \u201clove\u201d of God, and should have substituted \u201cbenevolence\u201d instead of\nit. In other words, instead of that fatherly love to every individual\nwhich is the essential fact revealed in the gospel, he gives us a general\ngood-will towards the human race. Such a general benevolence he finds not\ninconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting punishment; for, if love be\nonly general good-will, then, the greatest good of the greatest number\nbeing the object, there is nothing to complain of if a few are sacrificed\nfor the sake of the rest. It is not, to be sure, easy to see how those who\nhave safely reached glory, and are in no danger of relapse, can be\nbenefited by the knowledge that their old neighbors and friends are in\nhell; but there may be some benefit which is not apparent. By quietly\nsubstituting, therefore, the idea of benevolence in the place of love, the\ndifficulty may be evaded, which otherwise is unanswerable.\n\nBut what an entire confusion of ideas is this, which substitutes a general\nbenevolence for a personal affection, good-will towards the race for love\nto the individual! It is, in fact, abolishing the idea of Father, and\nsubstituting that of Ruler. The kind ruler, actuated by benevolence,\ndesires the good of all his subjects; but he does not love them as\nindividuals. But the father loves the child with a wholly different\nfeeling. The tie is personal, not general. It is one of mutual knowledge\nand mutual dependence. We cannot love one whom we do not know; but we can\nexercise benevolence towards him very easily. Benevolence depends wholly\non the character of the benevolent person; but love is drawn out by the\nobject loved. I do not love my child because I am benevolent, but because\nit is my child. The infant draws forth a host of feelings, before unknown,\nin the mother\u2019s heart. She does not love her infant because she is a\nbenevolent woman, but because the infant excites her love. A man is\nbenevolent towards the sufferers in Kansas, whom he has never seen; but he\ndoes not love them. He loves his wife, but is not benevolent towards her.\nBenevolence and love, therefore, are not only essentially different in\ntheir nature, origin, and manifestations, but so different as often to\nexclude each other.\n\nNow, it has always been seen that God is benevolent. This is taught by\nnatural religion. We see it in all the arrangements of divine Providence.\nThe infinitely varied provisions for the good of his creatures, the myriad\nadaptations by which their wants are met, are ample evidence of this. But\nChristianity comes to teach us something else,\u2014to teach us that God is our\nFather, and so to see in him benevolence swallowed up in love. God does\nnot love his children because he is benevolent, but because they are his\nchildren. He does not love them for the sake of others, but for their own\nsake. His love does not depend upon their being good, pious, or Christian;\nit depends only upon the fact that they are his children. This is the\ndoctrine of the prodigal son; in which wonderful parable it is more\ndistinctly stated than in any other part of the New Testament. The\ndoctrine there taught, that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner\nwho repents than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance,\nis somewhat different from that other doctrine, that the redeemed in\nheaven look down with joy upon the sufferings of the damned below. This\nparable teaches that God has a personal, fatherly love towards the\nimpenitent sinner who has gone away from him into a far country. The\nfather\u2019s joy when his child returned is the evidence of the love which had\ncontinued in his heart while his child was absent from him.\n\nThis being the character ascribed by Christ to the Deity, we assert that\nit is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting punishment as\ntaught in the pamphlet before us. There are, it is true, many widely\ndifferent doctrines to which the term \u201ceternal punishment\u201d is applied.\nSome of these may not be inconsistent with the love of God. Let us give\nsome instances.\n\nSome, by eternal punishment, intend the punishments of eternity, as\ndistinguished from those of time. They mean spiritual punishment, as\ndistinguished from temporal punishment. They mean the sufferings which\nhave their root in the sight of eternal things, as distinguished from\nthose which originate in the sense of earthly things\u2014sufferings which come\nto us from within, and not from without. \u201cEternal,\u201d in this sense,\ndescribes the quality, and not the quantity, of the suffering; and in this\nsense eternal punishment is not inconsistent with the divine love. But\nthis is not the sense which Dr. Adams intends.\n\nSome mean by endless punishment, that, as long as men continue to sin,\nthey will continue to suffer; that sin is eternally suffering. But this is\nnot the sense which Dr. Adams intends.\n\nAnd some say that they believe in eternal punishment; meaning thereby,\nthat the consequences of sin are everlasting,\u2014either positively, by\nleaving forever some remorseful sorrow in the mind, or negatively, by\nleaving men forever lower down in the scale of excellence and happiness\nthan they would otherwise be. But this is not what Dr. Adams means by it.\n\nAnd some men believe in eternal punishment in the sense of a dark\nbackground to the universe, which will always continue, a shadow as\npermanent as light,\u2014necessary for the full perfection and beauty of an\ninfinite divine creation. Into this shadow man may forever plunge; out of\nit he may forever emerge: and it will always continue so to be. But this\nis not the view taken by Dr. Adams.\n\nThe view which Dr. Adams takes is of endless punishment inflicted as a\nconsequence of temporal sin committed in this life. There will be no\nopportunity to repent hereafter, no pardon offered. There is nothing done\nby God, after this life, to save men. The heathen who have never heard of\nChrist, unconverted infants, those who have been brought up in the midst\nof evil, and heretics who do not accept the theory of Calvin concerning\nChristianity, are to be tormented forever in the other world. This view he\nthinks not only scriptural, but reasonable. It corresponds nearly to the\nhuman penalty of imprisonment for life; except that, instead of a few\nyears of earthly life, it is a never-ending existence; and, instead of\nsimple imprisonment, it is imprisonment with torture added.\n\nWe are accustomed to complain of the \u201chorrors of the Inquisition;\u201d but\nwherein do they differ in principle from the doctrine of Dr. Adams? The\ninquisitors tortured men for heresy; Dr. Adams thinks that God will do the\nsame. The power of the Inquisition, however, was limited, on the\nprinciple, _Dolor, si dura, brevis; si longa, levis_. But not so with\neverlasting punishment.\n\nThat this view is absolutely inconsistent with the fatherly love of God to\nevery soul, is apparent. It would be impossible for a father to torment\nhis child forever in consequence of temporal sin. No earthly parent could\nbe found cruel enough to inflict a million years of torture upon his child\nfor each sin committed by him; but a million years for every sinful action\nwould be but a trifling penalty compared with everlasting punishment.\n\nAs it is absolutely impossible to defend this doctrine on the ground of\nthe fatherly love of God, it is defended by Dr. Adams and his companions\non other grounds, namely, of the divine benevolence, and the duty of God\nas a governor. The argument is this: If God was dethroned, all sorts of\nevil would ensue. But sin is always endeavoring to dethrone God; therefore\nit is his duty to use the most strenuous measures to prevent this result.\nThese strenuous measures consist in the highest rewards offered to\nobedience, and the severest punishments threatened to disobedience. But no\npunishment is so severe as everlasting punishment; therefore the\nbenevolence of God requires him to threaten it; and, if threatened, his\ntruth requires him to inflict it. This is the sort of argument by which\nthe doctrine is defended. Its fallacies are manifest. It is based on a\nsort of Manicheism, making evil a hostile power in the universe, which\nthreatens the supremacy of God. It makes God in danger of outward\noverthrow in consequence of the external assaults of sin. But we have\nalways supposed that the essence of sin was the state of the heart, and\nthe evil of sin to consist in the estrangement of the heart from God, and\nnot in any danger that Omnipotence would be dethroned by it. Besides,\nthough the fear of future punishment may restrain the outward act, it\ncannot change the heart, and cannot, therefore, remove the real evil of\nsin. Here is the fallacy of this whole argument.\n\nAnother weak point in the argument for everlasting punishment regards its\nproof, that all opportunity for repentance is confined to this life. Only\ntwo or three texts are quoted in proof of this very important position.\nOne is taken from the book of Ecclesiastes, and declares, that, \u201cin the\nplace where the tree falleth, there it shall be;\u201d of which there is no\nevidence that it has any relation to the subject; or, if it has, that it\ncarries the least authority with it. Another passage asserts that \u201cthere\nis no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither\nthou goest.\u201d But this would prove too much; for it would prove that there\nwas no knowledge in the other life. Another passage, quoted by Dr. Adams\nfrom the book of Revelation, says, \u201cLet him that is unjust be unjust\nstill;\u201d from which it is inferred that men have no opportunity hereafter\nfor repentance. But, as this is said to those who are in _this_ world\nwaiting for the coming of Christ, it also proves too much, if taken\nliterally; since it would declare that men cannot repent even in this\nworld. Such is the extremely slight foundation on which this essential\npart of the doctrine is made to rest. Never was there so weak a support\nfor so important a position.\n\nThe arguments from reason, by which our writer supports this part of his\ndoctrine, are all taken from the plane of the lowest naturalism. He thinks\nit reasonable that the Almighty should suspend the everlasting destiny of\nhis creatures upon what they do or omit doing in this life, because men,\nin earthly transactions, adopt a similar principle. A railroad train is\nadvertised to start at a certain hour. If we are there a minute too late,\nwe lose our opportunity of going on an important journey. We think this\nreasonable; why, then, argues Dr. Adams, should we think it unreasonable\nfor God to make us lose our chance throughout eternity if we do not take\nthe opportunity during life? God has given us full notice, he says, of his\nintention; we have been duly notified; and, after due notice, it is\nthought reasonable, in earthly business transactions, for people to run\ntheir chance. A man may commit a crime in a minute, for which he is\nsentenced to imprisonment for life or to capital punishment. We think this\nreasonable; why should we think it unreasonable that God should send men\nto an everlasting hell in consequence of sin committed in a short\nlifetime?\n\nAll these arguments are fallacious, because they apply to the infinite,\nconditions belonging wholly to the finite; because they transfer to Him,\nwhose ways are not as our ways, and whose thoughts are not as our\nthoughts, the poor necessities of human ignorance and weakness. To those\nwho reason thus, the Almighty may say, \u201cThou thoughtest me altogether such\na one as thou thyself.\u201d It is because man is weak and ignorant that he is\nobliged to live under these limitations. If we were able to do\ndifferently, we should not make such severe consequences flow from human\nignorance and weakness. We do such things, not because we think them\nabsolutely just and good, but because we cannot help it. To argue that,\nbecause it is reasonable for human weakness to do something which it\ncannot help, it is reasonable for divine Omnipotence to do an infinitely\nmore injurious thing of the same kind, is to fly in the face of all logic\nand reason.\n\nMen make a rule, that, if I am not at the station when the train starts, I\nshall lose my trip for that day. Yes; but suppose the rule should be,\nthat, if I arrived a moment too late, I should be crucified. Suppose a\nfather should give full notice to his children, that, whenever any of them\nmispronounced a word, he should be burned alive. But it is easier,\naccording to Dr. Adams\u2019s theory, for a child never to make a mistake, than\nnot to commit the sins for which it is to be punished with everlasting\ntorment. \u201cWhat man among you is there, being a father,\u201d who would cause\nhis children to come into the world exposed to such fearful risks; who\nwould allow them to be born with constitutions tending inevitably to sin,\nthe inevitable consequence of which, after a few short years of life, is\nnever-ending torment, the only possible escape from which is salvation\nthrough a Being of whom the majority never heard, according to a system\nwhich the majority cannot believe, and by a process, which, except by a\nspecial help, none of them are able to accomplish? We should say, that we\nwould not have children under these conditions. It were better that such\nchildren had never been born. If we then, being evil, would not subject\nour children to such risk, how much less would our Father in heaven do\nanything of the kind!\n\nThe reply to such arguments, by those whom Thomas Burnet calls the\n\u201cunmerciful doctors\u201d and \u201cferocious theologians,\u201d is always the same.\nBecause finite evil exists, and is not inconsistent with the divine plan,\ntherefore infinite evil may also exist, and not be inconsistent with the\ndivine plan. Because one may suffer for a time in this world, therefore he\nmay be compelled to suffer forever in the other world. It is assumed that\nthere is no essential distinction between time and eternity, between\nfinite and infinite evil. Here is the immense fallacy of the argument. The\ndifference is simply this: All finite _suffering_, however great, is as\nnothing when compared with everlasting happiness afterwards; but all\nfinite _happiness_, however great, is as nothing when compared with\neverlasting suffering afterwards. If we deny, therefore, the doctrine of\neverlasting suffering, evil virtually disappears from the universe; if we\naccept it, good virtually disappears, as far as the sufferers are\nconcerned. If all evil is finite, the goodness of God can be fully\njustified; but, if to any one it is infinite, no such theodicy is\npossible.\n\nThis is the fatal objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment. It\nclouds the face of the heavenly Father with impenetrable gloom. It takes\naway the best consolations of the gospel. When Jesus tells us to forgive\nour enemies, that we may be like our heavenly Father, who sends his\nblessings upon the evil and the good, this doctrine adds, that God\u2019s\ncharacter is thus forgiving only in this world; but that, in the other\nworld, he will torment his enemies forever in hopeless suffering. When we\nseek consolation amid the griefs and separations of this world by looking\nto a better world, where all tears will be wiped away, we have presented\nto us instead this awful vision of unmitigated horror. Instead of finite\nevil being swallowed up into infinite good, it darkens down into infinite\nwoe.\n\nDr. Adams quotes Thomas Burnet, Master of the Charter-house, as a striking\ninstance of one, who, though he denied or doubted this doctrine, admitted,\nnevertheless, that the Scriptures were probably against him. He quotes him\ncorrectly as saying, \u201cHuman nature shrinks from the very name of eternal\npunishment; yet the Scriptures seem to hold the other side.\u201d Though Dr.\nAdams gives the Latin, and refers to the page of the book, let us hope,\nfor his own sake, that he quotes it at second-hand; which, as he twice\nmisspells the name, is not unlikely; for Dr. Burnet, so far from admitting\nthat the Scriptures are \u201cprobably against him,\u201d concludes, after an\nexamination of the leading passages, that they prove nothing certainly as\nto the eternal duration of future punishment. He quotes the passage in\nwhich the Jewish servant is said to become a slave _forever_,\u2014meaning till\nthe year of jubilee; in which circumcision is called an _everlasting\ncovenant_,\u2014meaning that it shall be abolished by the same divine\nauthority; in which the land of Canaan was given for an _everlasting\npossession_ to Abraham and his seed, from which they have long since been\nexpelled; &c. Dr. Burnet does, indeed, say that the Scriptures _seem_ to\nfavor the doctrine he opposes; but he then goes on to show that such is\nnot the case. He also \u201cawakens antiquity,\u201d and calls to his aid the\nmerciful doctors of the early church (Justin Martyr, Jerome, the\nGregories, &c.) to support his hope in a merely limited future suffering.\n\nWe will now consider the meaning of some of the texts usually adduced in\nsupport of this doctrine. Of these texts, there are some six or seven only\nupon which much stress is laid; and of these the principal ones are as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n1. Matt. 18:8, \u201cHaving two eyes, two hands,\u201d &c., \u201cto be cast into hell\nfire,\u201d or \u201cinto everlasting fire\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)\u2014(\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2).\n\n2. Matt. 25:46, \u201cThese shall go away into everlasting (eternal)\npunishment, but the righteous into life eternal \u201d(\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). The same adjective is used in both places here, in the Greek;\nbut our translators have seen fit to render it \u201ceverlasting\u201d in the first\nplace, and \u201ceternal\u201d in the second. There is no authority for such a\ndifferent translation. The word \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, translated \u201cpunishment,\u201d occurs\nin one other place in the New Testament: this is (1 John 4:18), \u201cPerfect\nlove casteth out fear, because fear hath torment.\u201d In this last instance,\nit is evident that the idea of punishment is not found, but only that of\nsuffering. In the LXX. (Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7) it is translated\n\u201cstumbling-block,\u201d and means, says Schleusner (Lexicon in LXX.), \u201call that\nis the source of misfortune or suffering.\u201d Donnegan gives as its meaning,\n\u201cthe act of clipping or pruning; _generally_, restriction, restraint,\nreproof, check, chastisement; _lit. and met._, punishment.\u201d\n\nThe true translation of the passage, then, is,\u2014\n\n\u201cThese shall go away into the sufferings or punishments of eternity; and\nthe righteous, into the life of eternity.\u201d\n\nThe simple, direct, and natural meaning, therefore, of this passage is,\nthat, besides temporal joy and suffering, there are eternal joy and\nsuffering: besides the joys and sufferings which have their root in time\nand in temporal things, there are joys and sufferings which have their\nroot in eternity and in eternal things. In the twenty-fifth chapter of\nMatthew, the sufferings of eternity are described as following directly\nupon judgment, and as being its natural consequence. The judgment on each\nsoul consists, according to this passage, in showing it its real\ncharacter. Both the good and the bad are represented as needing such a\njudgment as this. Until the judgment takes place, men are described as\nbeing ignorant of the true nature of their own past conduct. They do not\nknow their own good or their own evil: they do not understand themselves\nas they really are. They have done good and bad actions, but have not\nunderstood the value of those actions. They have not seen, that in every\ndeed of charity, in every act of humble benevolence, they were helping\nChrist and his cause. They have not understood, that, by every selfish and\ncruel deed, they were injuring their Master. But the judgment reveals all\nthis to them, and lifts them immediately out of temporal joy or pain into\neternal joy or pain. They rise out of temporal things into eternal things,\nand the new insight is to them a source of spiritual joy or spiritual\nsuffering.\n\nIn some instances, if \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 were translated \u201ceverlasting\u201d or\n\u201cnever-ending,\u201d it would make such palpable nonsense, that our translators\nhave been obliged to give it an entirely different rendering. Thus (2 Tim.\n1:9; Tit. 1:2) we have the phrase \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; which would be,\nliterally, \u201cbefore eternity,\u201d or \u201cbefore everlasting time began,\u201d\naccording to the common rendering. They have, therefore, translated it\n\u201cbefore the world began.\u201d In the same way (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 10:11), they\nare obliged to change their usual rendering, or they would have to say,\n\u201cSo shall it be at the end of forever;\u201d or, \u201cThe ends of eternity have\narrived.\u201d\n\nMark 9:43-50, it is said that the \u201cworm does not die\u201d in Gehenna, and \u201cthe\nfire is not quenched.\u201d This, therefore, is thought to teach the doctrine\nof never-ending punishment hereafter; but this was a proverbial\nexpression, taken from the book of Isaiah.\n\nChap. 66:24, the prophet says, that, in the times of the Messiah, all men\nshall come, and worship in the presence of Jehovah; and shall then go out,\nand look upon the dead bodies of the men who had transgressed against the\nLord; \u201cfor their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched;\nand they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.\u201d Our Saviour, therefore, is\nnot making an original doctrinal statement, but he is quoting from Isaiah.\nNow, the passage in Isaiah refers, not to punishment of the soul\nhereafter, but to the destruction of the bodies of transgressors in the\nvalley of Hinnom. The fire and the worms in that valley were not\neverlasting in any strict sense. When Isaiah says, \u201cTheir worm shall not\ndie, nor their fire be quenched,\u201d he expresses merely the utter\ndestruction which would fall upon them. The fire and the worms of the\nvalley of Hinnom have long since disappeared; but, while the fire lasted,\nit was the emblem, to the Jews, of the destruction which was to fall upon\nthose who resisted the will of Jehovah. But it is not to be supposed that\nthe idea of eternity, which is not in the original image, should be added\nin the figure. The fire and the worms were to last in the valley of Hinnom\nas long as there were idolaters to be punished for their idolatry; and so\nthe spiritual suffering consequent upon sin lasts as long as sin lasts.\nSin is perpetual misery; conscience is a worm which never dies; bad\npassions are a fire which is never extinguished. This is the simple and\nnatural meaning of this passage.\n\n3. Matt. 26:24. In this passage, as it stands in our translation, Jesus\nsays concerning Judas, \u201cWoe to that man by whom the Son of man is\nbetrayed! It were good for that man if he had never been born.\u201d (Mark\n14:21.) The argument is, that, if it were good for Judas not to have been\nborn, it must be impossible that he should ever repent and be saved;\nbecause, if he should ever be saved, and his punishment should cease\n(though at ever so remote a period), it would be better for him to have\nbeen born than not to have been born; since there would remain an eternity\nof happiness to be enjoyed afterwards. And if this be true of Judas, it\nmay be also true of others.\n\nBut, in reply to this argument, we say,\u2014\n\n1. The translation is doubtful. The literal translation is, \u201cWoe to that\nman by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for him if that\nman had never been born.\u201d This is the literal rendering of the Greek; and\nthe apparent meaning seems to be, \u201cthat it had been good for the Son of\nman if Judas had not been born.\u201d Jesus seems to say that it is a great woe\nto him, a great sorrow, to be betrayed by one of his own friends, by a\nmember of his own household. It would have been good for Jesus, if this\ntraitor, who was to wound his heart so deeply, had never existed.\n\n2. But, retaining our present translation, the natural application of it\nis to this life. It means simply this: The earthly life of this man is an\nentire failure. His life is wholly thrown away. He had better never have\nbeen in the world, than to stand, as he will to all time, a monument of\nthe basest treachery. The idea of the future life does not come it at all\nhere.\n\nOn the whole, one must feel, in reading these books and tracts, that such\nwriters are more to be pitied than to be blamed. Confined in the\nstrait-jacket of an austere theology; steeped to the lips in Calvinism;\nworking painfully all his life in sectarian harness; with an angry heaven\nover his head, and a ruined earth about his feet; his friends and\nneighbors dropping into hell by thousands every year; never having had any\nreal sight of the blessed face of Jesus; having for them no hope full of\nimmortality, but, instead thereof, a tenor full of damnation,\u2014even a\nkindly nature and an affectionate heart must suffer, be dwarfed and\ncrippled.\n\nIt is not an agreeable task to refute such errors; but believing them\nequally destructive, in their tendency, to piety and morality,\u2014corrupting\nthe Christian life at its centre, and weakening its chief source of\npower,\u2014we feel it a duty not to be avoided. Advancing age does not make us\nconservative in regard to such doctrines. The longer we live, the more we\nsee of their evil tendency. When young, we shrank from attacking them,\nfearing lest they might contain some truth beyond the range of our limited\nexperience. But, having come to see wherein the essence of Christian truth\nlies in all varieties of pious experience, we know that this doctrine is\nan excrescence, weakening always the vital power of the gospel. It rests\non custom, on cowardice, on the fear of change, not on any positive\ninsight or substantial knowledge. But, as Tertullian declared of another\ndoctrine defended by precedent, \u201cChrist did not say, \u2018I am the Custom,\u2019\nbut, \u2018I am the Truth.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThe time will come in which the Christian Church will look back upon its\npast belief in this doctrine as it looks back now on its former universal\nbelief in the duty of persecution, the primacy of the pope, or the\natonement made by Christ to Satan. It will regard it with the horror with\nwhich it now regards its former universal conviction, that God was pleased\nwhen his children burned each other alive for difference of opinion. We\nnow shudder when we hear of \u201cAN ACT OF FAITH,\u201d consisting in burning at\nthe stake ten or twenty Jews and Protestants. Our children will shudder\nwith a still more inward grief that we could make it _an act of faith_ to\nbelieve that GOD burns millions of his own children in unquenchable fire\nforever because they deny Calvin\u2019s view of the atonement, or the Church\ndefinition of the Trinity, or because of any possible amount of sin\ncommitted in this world.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nWe now proceed to add some remarks upon a recent work by Dr. Thompson of\nNew York, a zealous and favorite disciple of the late Dr. Taylor of New\nHaven. This book, the title of which is, \u201cLove and Penalty,\u201d consists of\nnine lectures delivered in the Broadway Tabernacle.\n\nWith the contents of some of the chapters we have nothing to do. All the\narguments for retribution, derived from the nature of God, the nature of\nman, the course of Providence, the demerit of sin, have for their object\nto prove what all Christians fully believe. Unitarians and Universalists,\nTheodore Parker and R. W. Emerson, teach retribution, present and future,\nwith a force which leaves little need of additional arguments from\nOrthodoxy. They teach a perfect and inevitable retribution, proceeding\nboth from the truth and goodness of God, by means of which every man reaps\nas he sows. Orthodoxy, they complain, teaches no such full and perfect\nretribution. All that part of this volume, therefore, which is intended to\nshow the probability of retribution, is wasted, so far as any opposers are\nconcerned. In this part of his book, Dr. Thompson fights as one who beats\nthe air. He is very zealous to disprove that which no one asserts, to\nprove that which no one denies, and to show the folly of a position which\nno one assumes.\n\nThe confusion referred to runs through the whole book; and perhaps there\nis no better illustration than this volume presents of that logical\nfallacy which is called \u201cthe irrelevant conclusion.\u201d This fallacy consists\nin proving one thing, and making men think you have proved another. Dr.\nThompson\u2019s hearers saw that he proved future retribution, and thought that\nhe proved eternal punishment. We do not suppose that he intended to\nsophisticate them: the difficulty seems rather to be, that he has\nsophisticated himself. The _ignoratio elenchi_ is in his own mind. He\nthinks, because he sees penalty, that he has seen vengeance; that, because\nhe has established retribution, he has demonstrated everlasting\npunishment.\n\nA reasoner has, no doubt, a perfect right to try to prove two distinct and\nindependent propositions; but he must keep them distinct and independent,\nand not pretend to be proving one when he is proving the other. He has\nalso a perfect right, if he desires to establish one proposition, to prove\nanother, as the first step towards it; but he has no right to assume or\nimply that he has made out one of his points, when he has only shown the\nprobability of the other.\n\nNow, our author (p. 19) declares that he has one object; viz., to show the\ntruth of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. He says, \u201cIt will be the\naim of this series of lectures to show that _the doctrine of the eternal\npunishment of the wicked is in entire harmony with the paternal character\nof God_.\u201d He then proceeds to give the substance of his argument, under\neight heads. Six of these only prove future retribution, and only two of\nthem have any direct bearing upon the main question. Yet, through all of\nthem, there runs a quiet assumption, that they are bearing directly on the\nmain question. This is the radical sophism of the whole volume. We may see\nthis more plainly by analyzing some of his chapters.\n\nHis first position is this, in Lecture I.: \u201cOur own nature, which is\nappealed to as refusing to recognize the attribute of punitive justice in\na God of love, in fact demands this attribute, as essential to the moral\nperfection of the Deity\u2014an attribute without which he could not command\nthe confidence and homage of his intelligent creatures.\u201d\n\nBefore attempting to demonstrate any theorem, it is important to define\nits terms. An accurate definition at first of what we wish to prove would\noften make a long discussion unnecessary. What is meant by the \u201c_attribute\nof punitive justice_\u201d? Does it mean that God\u2019s nature is such that he\ncauses happiness to flow from goodness, and suffering from wickedness, in\nthe constitution of the universe? If this is meant, Dr. Thompson will find\nno one to oppose him; for all this can take place in perfect accordance\nwith divine love to the sinner himself. What he _needs_ is suffering: this\nis the way by which he is to be cured of that sin which is a greater evil\nthan suffering. Or does the author mean, by \u201cpunitive justice,\u201d some\nattribute of the divine nature which finds pleasure in punishing the\nsinner, without regard to any good which is to come from it, either to him\nor to any one else? Apparently, this last is what he means; for he goes on\nto quote from Pagan authorities and Pagan religions, to show that\nconscience in man requires that the wicked should be punished, without any\nregard to any good to result from it. But these authorities only show,\nthat, in the one-sided action of man\u2019s nature, the sense of justice acts\nindependently of love. What Dr. Thompson has undertaken to show is, that\nit can act in God in harmony with love. In man, conscience produces hatred\nof sin, without regard to the good of the sinner; but the divine\nconscience acts in no such one-sided way. \u201cMercy and truth meet together;\nrighteousness and peace kiss each other.\u201d The law is vindicated and the\nsinner benefited at the same moment.\n\nThe atonement of Christ, objectively considered, consisted exactly in\nthis, that he showed a perfect reconciliation, in his own life, of God\u2019s\nhatred to sin, and love to the sinner. No one was ever so averse from sin,\nno one was ever so in sympathy with the sinner, as Jesus. The power of his\nlife, death, and higher life, lay in this union of holiness and love. This\nwas the objective atonement in Christ, and in this he was God manifest in\nthe flesh. He who has seen him has seen the Father. The Christianized\nconscience, following Christ, pities the sinner, while it abhors the sin.\nChristian legislation lays aside the vindictive tendencies of natural law,\nand seeks at the same time to destroy evil, to protect society, and to\nreform the criminal. From this gospel view our author remands us to\nPaganism, and to the dicta of the natural conscience in unregenerate man.\nThese testimonies only show, that conscience, in its unregenerate state,\ndemands that the sinner be punished, and does not care whether that\npunishment does him good or harm, makes him better or worse. But\nconscience, when Christianized, does care: it wishes to save the sinner,\nwhile it punishes the sin. As far as the natural conscience goes, it\nspeaks truly in saying that evil should follow sin. But why it should\nfollow it, and what shall be the result, it does not say. That was left to\nChrist to reveal.\n\nDr. Thompson himself bears witness, unconsciously, to the truth of this\ndistinction. Along with his testimonies from the Heathen conscience, he\ngives us two testimonies from the Christian conscience. The one is his own\nfeelings on seeing a woman carried to the Tombs. He says he felt sympathy\nfor her, and would fain have saved her from that shame, while he wished\nher crime to be punished. The other is the testimony of Dr. Bushnell, that\nthe \u201cnecessary reason\u201d why wicked people, remaining wicked, should not be\nin heaven, is, that it would destroy the happiness of heaven. These two\nChristians, therefore, have consciences which do not testify to punishment\nproceeding from naked, arbitrary, and vindictive law, such as the Pagan\nconscience accepts, but punishment having a reasonable end, a benevolent\npurpose, and accompanied with sympathy for the sinner.\n\nAnother position of Dr. Thompson is, however, so extraordinary, that it\nneeds more consideration. His fifth proposition is this: \u201c_The high and\nsacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in Christ\ntowards those who love him, and not a general Fatherhood of indiscriminate\nlove and blessing for the race._\u201d\n\nA certain want of logical clearness in our author\u2019s mind appears in the\nvery statement of this proposition. He joins together a positive and a\nnegative, which have no antithetical relation. We entirely agree with him,\nthat the Fatherhood of God is _not_ one of _indiscriminate_ love and\nblessing for the race; but we utterly reject the proposition, that the\nFatherhood which Christ reveals is only one towards those who love him.\nThe apostle John tells us that \u201cwe love him because he first loved us.\u201d\nAnd again: \u201cHerein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us,\nand sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.\u201d The doctrine of the\napostle is exactly opposite to that of Dr. Thompson. The modern divine\nteaches that God only loves those who first love him; but the ancient\ndivine teaches that only by God\u2019s loving us first do we come to love him.\nNor is this doctrine peculiar to John. It is a fundamental truth of the\nNew Testament, that God\u2019s fatherly love, manifested to the soul, creates\nan answering love, and that nothing else can create it. Jesus said of the\nwoman, \u201cShe loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth\nlittle.\u201d God\u2019s forgiving love comes first, and creates a grateful love in\nreturn. And again we read (John 3:16), \u201cGod so loved the world, that he\ngave his only-begotten Son.\u201d He therefore loved the world while it was\nstill alienated from him. And again we are told by the Saviour (Matt.\n5:44) to \u201clove our enemies, that we may be the children of our Father in\nheaven,\u201d who loves his enemies.\n\nPossibly our friend may say, \u201cYes, God loves the sinner; but he does not\nlove him with a _fatherly_ love, but only with a general love.\u201d Perhaps a\ncopy of the New Testament may be used in the Tabernacle Church, New York,\nwhich does not contain the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Only on some such\nsupposition can we account for this assertion of Dr. Thompson, that \u201cthe\nhigh and sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in\nChrist towards those who love him.\u201d Is that \u201c_high and sacred Fatherhood\nof God_\u201d revealed anywhere more fully and plainly than in this parable?\nand does it not teach expressly that the father loved the son, while he\nwas absent, as a son? Is not his joy at the return of his son the evidence\nof that love which clung to him while he was away? Even after the son\nreturned, he had not begun to love his father as a son: he did not think\nhe had any right to do so. He did not expect that his father would love\nhim again: he only expected to be as a servant. It is evidently, then,\nutterly false to say that God\u2019s Fatherhood, revealed in the gospel, is\nonly a Fatherhood towards those who love him: it is a Fatherhood to those\nwho hate him and to those who fear him. His love creates theirs, and is\nnot created by it. Such a doctrine as this of Dr. Thompson, if generally\nbelieved, would sap the foundations of Christian life, and turn the gospel\nof reconciling grace into a cold system of retribution.\n\nAs a proof of this melancholy opinion,\u2014an opinion which takes the life out\nof the gospel,\u2014the author relies chiefly on that passage in which Jesus\nsays to the Jews that they were of their father the devil. (John 8:44.)\nFrom this he argues that they had no right to regard God as Father, and\nthat no one has that right except pious believers in Christ. But was not\nGod at that very moment their Father, in the same way that the father of\nthe prodigal son was his father while he was yet in the far country? The\nprodigal son could not see his father\u2019s love: while absent from him, he\ncould not tell how much his father loved him. Only when he returned, and\ncame back to his father\u2019s house, could he behold that blessed countenance\nand feel that pardoning love. But none the less did his father love him\nduring all that absence; none the less did he desire his return.\n\nWhen Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, \u201cYe are of your father the\ndevil,\u201d was he describing God\u2019s state of mind, or their state of mind? Did\nhe mean that God was alienated from them, or that they were alienated from\nGod? He evidently meant to say that they were in a _devilish_ state of\nmind; that in their character and feelings they partook of the spirit of\nthe devil, and not of the spirit of God. He was describing their position\nin relation to God, not God\u2019s position in relation to them. The text,\ntherefore, appears to have no direct bearing on the subject. It teaches,\nindeed, that they could have no truly filial feeling towards God; but it\ndoes not show that he might not have a truly parental feeling towards\nthem. If they could not truly say, \u201cAbba, Father,\u201d he could say, \u201cMy son,\ngive me thy heart.\u201d\n\nWe dwell on this because our author seems to us to have assumed a position\ninjurious, if not fatal, to the most vital force of the gospel. That which\nsubdues and converts the heart, and makes all things new in the soul, is\nnot to be told, that God will be our Father when we love him, but that he\nis our Father now. \u201cHerein is love; not that we loved God, but that he\nloved us.\u201d \u201cGod commends his love toward us, that, _while we were\nsinners_, Christ died for us.\u201d But why multiply quotations to prove that\nwhich is written on the face of the gospel, and to which all Christian\nexperience bears testimony? It is God\u2019s love to us, descending in Christ,\nwhile we are estranged and far off, which draws up our affection to him:\nit is not our love which takes the initiative, and draws his down.\n\nThe sixth position argues future retribution from the demerit of sin, and\nasserts that \u201cno punishment equal to the demerit of sin is, or can be,\ninflicted in the present life.\u201d\n\nThe boldness of this proposition is only equalled by the poverty of the\nreasoning by which it is supported. To assert that it is not in the power\nof God adequately to punish sin in this world, is to profess a knowledge\nof the resources of Omnipotence, and an acquaintance with the deserts of\nman, which it seems to us presumptuous to claim. On this point it is not\nnecessary to enlarge. An _a priori_ argument to prove that God cannot\npunish sin in this life as much as it deserves to be punished, can carry\nconviction to no mind which possesses any intellectual humility.\n\nThe seventh position declares that \u201cthere is no conceivable mode and no\nrevealed promise by which the Fatherhood of God can make one, dying in\nimpenitence and unbelief, holy and blessed in the future world.\u201d\n\nThis is, of course, the very key-stone of the argument in support of the\ndoctrine of everlasting punishment. The burden of proof rests upon those\nwho assert that doctrine. It is not enough that Scripture does not\nexpressly declare that there is an opportunity in the other life for\nrepentance and pardon; for Scripture is dealing with us in this life, and\nhas no occasion to say much of the opportunities of the other. Those who\nwish to prove that there is no opportunity hereafter must show some text\nwhich expressly declares it. No such text is produced, and there is no\nsuch text in the Bible. If Jesus had said, \u201cYou must repent in this life,\nfor after death there will be no opportunity;\u201d or, \u201cAt death, man\u2019s\nspiritual condition is finally determined;\u201d or, \u201cAfter this life, man\ncannot turn from evil to good,\u201d\u2014we should have some distinct proof of the\ndoctrine. But now we have none.\n\nThe Parable of Dives and Lazarus is referred to more than once by our\nauthor in support of his position. It is sufficient to say in regard to\nthis, that the most Orthodox commentators, provided they are scholars,\nexpressly deny that this refers to the doctrine of everlasting punishment.\nOlshausen, for instance, says, \u201cRightly to understand the whole\ndelineation, we must, above all, keep clearly in view, that it is not\neverlasting salvation or condemnation which is here described, but the\nmiddle state of departed souls, between death and the resurrection.\u201d \u201cIn\nour parable, there is no possible reference to the everlasting\ncondemnation of the rich man, inasmuch as the germ of love, and of faith\nin love, is clearly expressed in his words.\u201d The word translated \u201chell\u201d in\nthis parable is not Gehenna, but Hades.\n\nOur author says, and says justly, that we can form no opinion as to\nanother probation hereafter from _a priori_ reasoning, but that the\nquestion must be answered only from Scripture. Having said this, he\nimmediately proceeds to argue it, _a priori_, stating that there are only\nthree conceivable modes by which those dying impenitent can be saved; and\nthen tries to show that neither is possible. After this, he quotes a few\npassages bearing only indirectly, and by inference, upon the question. The\nParable of the Ten Virgins is one of these, because in it it is said, \u201cThe\ndoor is shut;\u201d and, \u201cDepart! I know you not.\u201d With regard to this parable,\nalso, Olshausen says that \u201cthe words \u2018I know you not\u2019 cannot denote\neternal condemnation;\u201d that the foolish virgins were \u201csaved, but not\nsanctified;\u201d and that the parable does not distinguish between the\npenitent and the impenitent, but between the penitent believers who watch\nand those who do not watch.\n\nOf course, we have not been able to notice all the arguments of this book,\nor all the texts referred to; but we have perhaps said enough to show that\nits positions are not all tenable, and that its arguments are not\nabsolutely unanswerable. This book of Dr. Thompson, though able, cannot be\ncalled conclusive.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D.\n\n\nThe last section of this Appendix shall be devoted to an examination and\ncriticism of Dr. Huntington\u2019s sermon, printed some time since, in defence\nof the Trinity. The course of our argument will be as follows. We shall\ngive the reasons which have induced Unitarians to reject the Church\ndoctrine of the Trinity; also examining Dr. Huntington\u2019s positions and\narguments in its support.\n\nThe principal reasons, then, for rejecting the Church doctrine of the\nTrinity, as assigned by Unitarians, are these:\u2014\n\n1. That it is nowhere taught in the New Testament.\n\n2. That every statement of the Trinity, which has ever been made, has been\neither, (1.) Self-contradictory; (2.) Unintelligible; (3.) Tritheistic;\nor, (4.) Unitarian, in the form of Sabellianism, or of Arianism.\n\n3. That the arguments for it are inadequate.\n\n4. That the arguments against it are overwhelming.\n\n5. That the good ascribed to it does not belong to it, but to the truths\nwhich underlie it.\n\n6. That great evils to the Church come from it.\n\n7. That it is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith.\n\n8. That we can trace its gradual historic formation in the Christian\nChurch.\n\n9. That it is opposed to a belief in the real divinity of Christ, and to a\nbelief in his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the\nChurch in the divine humanity of Christ Jesus the Lord.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\nProceeding, then, to an examination of these reasons, we say,\u2014\n\nI. The Church doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the New\nTestament.\n\nTo prove this, as it is a negative proposition, would require us to go\nthrough the whole New Testament. But we are saved this necessity by the\nfact that we have a statement on this point from one of Dr. Huntington\u2019s\nown witnesses, and one on whom he mainly relies. He brings forward\nNeander, the great Church historian, as a believer in the Trinity (p.\n361), and again (p. 378), by an error which he has since candidly\nadmitted, quotes him as saying, \u201cIt is the fundamental article of the\nChristian faith,\u201d\u2014which is just what he denies in the following passage.\nWe call Neander to the stand, however, _now_, to have his unimpeachable\ntestimony as a Trinitarian (and a Trinitarian claimed by Dr. Huntington\nwith pride) to the fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere\nstated in the New Testament. This is what Neander says of the Trinity, in\nthe first volume of his great work on Church History (p. 572, Torrey\u2019s\ntranslation):\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cWe now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken in its\n    connection with the proper and fundamental essence of\n    Christianity, or with the doctrine of redemption, finds its\n    ultimate completion\u2014_the doctrine of the Trinity_. This doctrine\n    does not strictly belong to the fundamental articles of the\n    Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evident from the fact,\n    that it _is expressly held forth in no one particular passage of\n    the New Testament_; for the only one in which it is done, the\n    passage relating to the three that, bear record (1 John 5:7), is\n    undoubtedly spurious, and in its ungenuine shape, testifies to the\n    fact, how foreign such a collocation is from the style of the New\n    Testament Scriptures. We find in the New Testament no other\n    fundamental article than that of which the apostle Paul says, that\n    other foundation can no man lay than that is laid\u2014the annunciation\n    of Jesus as the Messiah.\u201d\n\n\nWith this authority we might be content. But Dr. Huntington differs from\nNeander in thinking that Jesus has himself stated the doctrine of the\nTrinity, and stated it clearly and fully, in the baptismal formula. (Matt.\n28:19.) He says that this is \u201ca clear and full declaration of the\nfundamental article of Christian belief.\u201d He says, \u201cNow, if ever, Christ\nwill distinctly proclaim the doctrine of Christendom;\u201d and he then\ndeclares that Christ, in this passage, told his Church to baptize \u201cin the\nTriune name.\u201d(90)\n\nNot in the Tri_une_ name, certainly. This is an assumption of our friend.\nHe may think that this is implied; that this is to be inferred; that this\nis what Christ meant; but certainly it is not what Christ said. Christ\ngives us here _three_ objects of baptism, no doubt; but he does not say\nthat they are one. How far this baptismal formula is \u201ca clear and full\ndeclaration\u201d of the doctrine of the Trinity will appear thus. The doctrine\nof the Trinity declares,\u2014\n\n1. That the Father is God.\n\n2. That the Son is God.\n\n3. That the Holy Ghost is God.\n\n4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, like the Father and the Son.\n\n5. That these three persons constitute one God.\n\nOf these five propositions, all of which are essential to the doctrine of\nthe Trinity, _not one is stated in the baptismal formula_. Christ here\nsays _nothing_ about the deity of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost;\n_nothing_ about the personality of either of them; and _nothing_ about\ntheir unity: It is difficult to conceive, therefore, how Dr. Huntington\ncan bring himself to call this a command to baptize in the Triune name.\n\nDr. Huntington adds, \u201cOur faith is summoned to the three persons, of the\none God.\u201d But nothing is said of three _persons_; nothing is said of their\nbeing one God.\n\nHe says, \u201cNo hint is given that there is any difference of nature,\ndignity, duration, power, or glory, between them.\u201d\n\nWe admit it, but also say, that no hint is given of any _equality_ of\nnature, dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them. Which way, then,\nis the argument? Christ does not state, on the one hand, that the three\nare unequal or different: he does not state, on the other hand, that they\nare equal and the same. The inference of proof from this fact seems to us\nto be this: If the apostles, when Christ spoke to them, were already full\nbelievers in the church doctrine of the Trinity, the fact that Christ did\nnot deny it would be an argument in its favor; but if the apostles were,\nat that time, wholly ignorant of the Trinity, then the fact, that he did\nnot assert it distinctly, at least shows that he did not mean to teach it\nat that time. That inference appears to us a very modest one. But Dr.\nHuntington will admit that they did not know the doctrine; for he tells us\nthat it was the purpose of Christ to teach it to them at that time. To\nwhich we can only reply, If he meant to teach the doctrine, why did he not\nteach it?\n\nThat the _word_ TRINITY is not to be found in the New Testament, and that\nit was invented by Tertullian, is a matter of little consequence; but that\nthe doctrine itself should be nowhere stated in the New Testament we\nconceive to be a matter of very great consequence. We have seen that Dr.\nHuntington\u2019s attempt to show that it _is_ stated in the baptismal formula\nis a failure. If not stated there, we presume that he will not maintain\nthat it is stated anywhere. We therefore agree with Neander in saying,\nthat, whether the doctrine be true or not, it is not taught distinctly in\nthe New Testament. If taught at all, it is only taught inferentially; that\nis, it is a matter of reasoning, not a matter of faith. It is metaphysics:\nit is not religion.\n\nII. The second reason why Unitarians reject the Church doctrine of the\nTrinity is this:\u2014\n\nThat every statement of the Trinity has proved, on examination, to be\neither, (1.) A contradiction in terms; or, (2.) Unintelligible; or, (3.)\nTritheistic; or, (4.) Unitarianism under a Trinitarian form.\n\nLet us examine this objection. What is the general statement of the\nTrinity, as made by the Orthodox Church, Catholic and Protestant?\nFortunately, this question is easily answered.\n\nOrthodoxy has been consistent since the middle ages in its general\nstatement, however much it may have varied in its explanations of what it\nmeant by that statement.\n\nThe doctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds of the churches,\nis this:\u2014\n\nThere is in the nature of God three persons,\u2014the Father, the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost,\u2014and these three are one being. They are the same in substance,\nequal in power and glory. Each of these three persons is very God,\ninfinite in all attributes; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.\n\nAccording to the general doctrine of Orthodoxy, the unity of God is in\nbeing, essence, and substance; that is, God is one being, God is one\nessence, God is one substance. The threefold division stops short of the\nbeing of God: it does not penetrate to his essential nature: it does not\ndivide his substance.\n\nWhat, then, is the Trinity? It is a Trinity of persons.\n\nBut what is meant by \u201cperson,\u201d as used in this doctrine? According to the\ncommon and familiar use of the word at the present time, three persons are\nthree beings. Personality expresses the most individual existence\nimaginable. If, therefore, the word \u201cperson\u201d is to be taken according to\nthe common use of the phrase, the doctrine of the Trinity would be\nevidently a contradiction in terms. It would be equivalent to saying, God\nis one being, but God is three beings; which again would be equivalent to\nsaying that one is three.\n\nNow, Trinitarians generally are too acute and clear-sighted to fall into\nsuch a palpable contradiction as this. It is a common accusation against\nthem, that they believe one to be three, and three one; but this charge\nis, in most cases, unjust. This would be only true in case they affirmed\nthat God is three in the same way in which he is one; but they do not\nusually say this. They declare that he is one being,\u2014not three beings.\nThey declare that the threefold distinction relates to personality, not to\nbeing, and that they use the word \u201cperson,\u201d not in the common sense, but\nin a peculiar sense, to express, as well as they can, a distinction,\nwhich, from the poverty of language, no word can be found to express\nexactly. Thus St. Augustine confessed, long ago, \u201cWe say that there are\nthree persons, not in order to say anything, but in order not to be wholly\nsilent.\u201d _Non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ut ne taceretur._ And so\nArchbishop Whately, in the notes to his Logic, regrets that the word\n\u201cperson\u201d should ever have been used by our divines; and says, \u201cIf\n_hypostasis_, or any other completely foreign word, had been used instead,\nno idea at all would have been conveyed, except that of the explanation\ngiven; and thus the danger, at least, of being misled by a word, would\nhave been avoided.\u201d\n\n(1.) _The Unintelligible Statement._\n\nThe Trinitarian thus avoids asking us to believe a contradiction; but, in\navoiding this, he runs upon another rock\u2014that, namely, of not asking us to\nbelieve anything at all; for if \u201cperson\u201d here does _not_ mean what it\ncommonly means, and if it be impossible, from the poverty of language, to\ndefine precisely the idea which is intended by it, we are then asked to\nbelieve a proposition which Trinitarians themselves are unable to express.\nBut a proposition which is not expressed is no proposition. A proposition,\nany important term of which is unintelligible, is wholly unintelligible.\n\nTo make this matter clear, let us put it into a conversational form. We\nwill suppose that two persons meet together,\u2014one a Unitarian, the other a\nTrinitarian.\n\n_Trinitarian._ You do not believe the Trinity? Then you cannot be saved.\nNo one can be saved who denies the Trinity. It is a vital and fundamental\ndoctrine.\n\n_Unitarian._ Tell me what it is, and I will see if I can believe it. What\nis the Trinity?\n\n_Trin._ God exists as one being, but three persons.\n\n_Unit._ What do you mean by \u201cperson\u201d? Do you mean a person like Peter,\nJames, or John?\n\n_Trin._ No; we use \u201cperson\u201d from the poverty of language. We do not mean\nthat.\n\n_Unit._ What, then, do you mean by it?\n\n_Trin._ It is a mystery. We cannot understand it precisely.\n\n_Unit._ I have no objection to the doctrine being mysterious; I believe a\ngreat many things which are mysterious; but I don\u2019t want the _language_ to\nbe mysterious. You might as well use a Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Chinese\nword, and ask me to believe that there are three _hypostases_ or three\n_prosopa_ in Deity, if you do not tell me what you mean by the word\n\u201cperson.\u201d\n\n_Trin._ It is a great mystery. It is a matter of _faith_, not of\n_reasoning_. You must believe it, and not speculate about it.\n\n_Unit._ Believe _it_? Believe _what_? I am waiting for you to tell me what\nI am to believe. I am ready to exercise my faith; but you are tasking, not\nmy faith, but my knowledge of language. I suppose that you do not wish me\nto believe _words_, but thoughts. I wish to look through the word, and see\nwhat thought lies behind it.\n\nNow, it seems to us that this is a very fair demand of the Unitarian. To\nask us to believe a proposition, any important term of which is\nunintelligible, is precisely equivalent to asking us to believe no\nproposition at all. Let us listen to Paul: \u201cEven things without life,\ngiving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the\nsounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For, if the trumpet\ngive an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise\nye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall\nit be known what is spoken? _for ye shall speak into the air_.... For, if\nI know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a\nbarbarian; and he that speaketh, a barbarian unto me.\u201d\n\nIt is of no use to talk about mystery in order to excuse ourselves for not\nusing intelligible language. That which is _mysterious_ is one thing; that\nwhich is _unintelligible_ is quite another thing. We may understand what a\nmystery is, though we cannot comprehend _how_ it is; but that which is\nunintelligible we neither comprehend nor understand at all. We neither\nknow _how_ it is, nor _what_ it is. Thus, for example, the fact of God\u2019s\nforeknowledge and man\u2019s freedom is a mystery. I cannot comprehend how God\ncan foreknow what I am to do to-morrow, and yet I be free to do it or not\nto do it. I cannot comprehend how Jesus should be delivered to death by\nthe determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, and yet the Jews have\nbeen free agents in crucifying him and accountable for it. These things\nare mysteries; but they are not unintelligible as doctrines. I see what is\nmeant by them. There is no obscurity in the assertion that God foreknows\neverything, nor in the other assertion that man is a free agent. I can see\nclearly what is implied _in both statements_, although my mind cannot\ngrasp both, and bring them together, and show the way in which they may be\nreconciled. So, too, infinity is a mystery. We cannot comprehend it. Our\nmind cannot go round it, grasp it, sustain it. Our thought sinks baffled\nbefore the attempt to penetrate to the depth of such a wonderful idea. But\nwe understand well enough what is meant by infinity. There is nothing\nobscure in _the statement_ of the fact, that the universe is unbounded. So\nthe way in which a flower grows from its seed is mysterious. We cannot\ncomprehend how the wonderful principle of life can be wrapped up in those\nlittle folds, and how it can cause the root to strike downward, and the\nairy stalk to spring lightly upward, and the leaves to unfold, and, last\nof all, the bright, consummate flower to open its many-colored eye. But\ncertainly we can understand very well _the statement_ that a flower grows,\nthough we do not comprehend how it grows.\n\nDo not, then, tell us, when you have announced a doctrine, the language of\nwhich is unintelligible, that you have told us a mystery. You have done no\nsuch thing. Your proposition is not mysterious: it is unintelligible. It\nis not a mystery: it is only a mystification.\n\n(2.) _The Tritheistic Statement._\n\nLeaving, then, this ground of mystery, and attempting to define move\nclearly what he means by three persons and one substance, the Trinitarian\noften sinks the Unity in the Triplicity, and so runs ashore upon\nTritheism. This happens when he explains the term \u201cperson\u201d as implying\nindependent existence; in which case the Unity is changed into Union. Then\nwe have really three Gods: the FATHER, who devises the plan of redemption;\nthe SON, who goes forth to execute it; and the HOLY SPIRIT, who sanctifies\nbelievers. If there are these three distinct beings, they can be called\none God only as they are one in will, in aim, in purpose,\u2014only as they\nagree perfectly on all points. The Unity of God, then, becomes only a\nunity of agreement, not a unity of being. This is evidently not the Unity\nwhich is taught in the Bible, where Jesus declares that the _first of all\nthe commandments is_, \u201cHear, O Israel! the Lord our God is ONE Lord.\u201d\n\nMoreover, against such a Trinity as this there are insuperable objections,\nfrom grounds of reason as well as of Scripture. For God is the Supreme\nBeing, the Most High; and how can there be _three_ Supreme Beings, three\nMost High Gods? Again: God is the First Cause; but if the Father, the Son,\nand the Holy Ghost are each God, and all equal in power and majesty, and\nhave each an independent existence, then there are three first causes;\nwhich is evidently impossible. Again: one of the attributes of God is his\nindependent or absolute existence. A being who depends on another cannot\nbe the Supreme God. The Father, Son, and Spirit, therefore, cannot depend\non each other; for each, by depending on another, would cease to be the\nindependent God. But, if they do not depend on each other, then each\nceases to be God, who is the First Cause; for that being is not the First\nCause who has two other beings independent of him. Other arguments of the\nsame kind might be adduced to show that there cannot be three necessary\nbeings. In fact, all the arguments from reason, which go to prove the\nUnity of God, prove a unity of nature, not of agreement.\n\n\u201cBut why argue against Tritheism?\u201d you may say. \u201cAre any Tritheists?\u201d Yes:\nmany Trinitarians are in reality Tritheists, by their own account of\nthemselves. There are many who make the _Unity_ of God a mere unity of\nagreement, and talk about the society in the Godhead, and the\n_intercourse_ between the Father, Son, and Spirit.(91)\n\nOpposed to this kind of Trinity is another view, in which the Unity is\npreserved, but the Trinity lost. According to this view, God is one Being,\nwho reveals himself in three ways,\u2014as Father, as Son, as Spirit,\u2014or\nsustains three relations, or manifests himself in three modes of\noperation. The Trinity here becomes a nominal thing, and is, in reality,\nonly Unitarianism with an Orthodox name. This kind of Trinity also is very\nprevalent, and is the one really maintained by men of high standing in the\nOrthodox Church, both in Europe and America. According to this view, the\nword \u201cperson\u201d in the doctrine of the Trinity means the same as the\ncorresponding word in Greek and Latin formerly meant; namely, the outward\ncharacter, not the inward individuality. Thus Cicero says, \u201cI, being one,\nsustain three persons or characters; my own, that of my client, and that\nof the judge\u201d\u2014_Ego unus, sustineo tres personas_.\n\nThis view of the Trinity is commonly called Modalism, or Sabellianism, and\nis also widely held by those who call themselves Trinitarians. It is, in\nfact, only Unitarianism under a Trinitarian name.(92)\n\n(3.) _The Subordination View._\n\nAvoiding these two extremes, and yet wishing to retain a distinct idea of\nUnity and Tri-personality, the Trinitarian is necessarily driven upon a\nthird view, in which the Father is the only really Supreme and Independent\nBeing, the Son and the Holy Spirit subordinate and dependent.\n\nThis view, which is called the subordination scheme, or Arianism, is\nUnitarianism again in another form; and this view also is entertained by\nmany who still retain the name of \u201cTrinitarians.\u201d According to this view,\nthe Son and the Holy Ghost are really God, but are so by a derived\ndivinity. God the Father communicates his divinity to the Son and the Holy\nGhost. This is the view really taken in the Nicene Creed, though adopted\nin opposition to the Arians, and was the doctrine of the earliest Church\nFathers before the Arian controversy began. In the Nicene Creed, we read\nthat the Son is \u201cGod of (\u1f10\u03ba) God, Light of (\u1f10\u03ba) Light, true God of true\nGod;\u201d the \u201c_of_\u201d here being the same as \u201cfrom,\u201d and denoting origin and\nderivation.\n\nThis doctrine seems, in reality, to have less in its favor than either of\nthe others. By calling the Son and Holy Spirit God, it contrives to make\nthree distinct Gods, and so is Tritheism; and yet, by making them\ndependent on the Father, it becomes Unitarianism again. Thus, singularly\nenough, this attempt at making a compromise between Unity and Trinity\nloses both Unity and Trinity; for it makes three Gods, and so loses the\nUnity; and yet it makes Christ not \u201cGod over all,\u201d not the Supreme Being,\nand so loses the Trinity.\n\nBetween these different views, between Tritheism, Sabellianism, and\nArianism, the Orthodox Trinity has always swung to and fro,\u2014inclining more\nto one or to the other according to the state of controversy in any\nparticular age. When the Arian or Tritheistic views were proclaimed and\ndefended, the Orthodoxy of the Church swung over towards Sabellianism,\nmaking the Unity strong and solid; and the Trinity became a thin mode or\nan airy abstraction. When Sabellianism, thus encouraged, came openly\nforward, and defended its system and won adherents, then Church Orthodoxy\nwould hasten to set up barriers on that side, and would fall back upon\nTritheistic ground, making the Threefold Personality a profound and real\ndistinction, penetrating the very nature of Deity, and changing the Unity\nof Being into a mere Unity of Will or agreement. We will venture to say,\nthat there has never yet been a definition of the Trinity which has not\nbeen either Tritheistic or Modalistic; and Church Orthodoxy has always\nstood either on Tritheistic or on Sabellian ground. In other words, the\nOrthodox Trinity of any age, when searched to the bottom, has proved to be\nUnitarianism, after all\u2014Unitarianism in the Tritheistic or in the\nSabellian disguise; for the Tritheism of three coequal, independent, and\nabsolute Gods, is too much opposed both to reason and Scripture to be able\never to maintain itself openly as a theology for any length of time.\n\nThe analogies which are used to explain the Trinity are all either\nSabellian or Tritheistic. Nature has been searched in all ages for these\nanalogies, by which to make the Trinity plain; but none have ever been\nfound which did not make the Trinity either Sabellianism or Tritheism.\nThey are either three parts of the substance, or else three qualities or\nmodes of the substance.\n\nThus we have instances in which the three are made the three parts of one\nbeing, or substance; as in _man_,\u2014spirit, soul, body; thought, affection,\nwill; head, heart, hand.\n\nOne Being with three distinct faculties is Tritheism: one Being acting in\nthree directions is Sabellianism.\n\nTime is past, present, and future. Syllogism has its major, minor, and\nconclusion. There are other like analogies.\n\nSt. Patrick took for his illustration the three leaves of trefoil, or\nclover. Others have imagined the Trinity like a triangle; or they have\nreferred to the three qualities of space,\u2014height, breadth, width; or of\nfire,\u2014form, light, and heat; or of a noun, which has its masculine,\nfeminine, and neuter; or of a government, consisting of king, lords, and\ncommons; or of executive, legislative, and judiciary.\n\nThis survey of Church Trinity shows that it is either one in which,\u2014\n\n1. The persons are not defined; or an unintelligible Trinity.\n\n2. Or which defines person and Unity in the usual sense; or a\ncontradictory Trinity.\n\n3. Or which defines person as usual, and the Unity as only Union; or\nTritheism.\n\n4. Or which defines person as only manifestation; or Sabellianism.\n\nThese four are all the views ever hitherto given, and are all untenable.\nWe might stop here, and say that the Trinity is utterly unsupported. There\nis no need of going to the Scripture to see if it is taught there; for we\nhave, as yet, nothing to look for in Scripture.\n\nThe Trinitarian\u2019s difficulty appears to be in defining person. But\npossibly he may say, \u201cI cannot, indeed, give a positive idea of person;\nbut I can give a _negative_ one. I cannot say what it _is_; but I can say\nwhat it is _not_. It is _not_ a mere _mode_ on the one hand; and not\n_being_, on the other. We must neither confound the persons nor divide the\nsubstance.\u201d\n\nWe will, then, go further, and say, as Trinitarians have never yet defined\nperson, without making it either a mode or a being, so they never can\ndefine it otherwise. There is no third between being and mode. They _must_\neither confound the persons or divide the substance.\n\nAgain: that which differences one person in the Deity from another must be\neither a perfection or an imperfection. There is nothing between these.\nBut it cannot be an imperfection; for no imperfection exists in God: and\nit cannot be a perfection; for then the other two persons would want a\ndivine perfection, and would be imperfect.\n\nIII. The arguments in support of the Trinity are wholly inadequate. Since,\naccording to Neander, the Trinity is not stated in the New Testament, it\nfollows that it is a doctrine of _inference_ only; that is, a piece of\nhuman reasoning. Now, we have, no doubt, a perfect right to infer\ndoctrines from Scripture which are not stated there; but, as Protestants,\nwe have no right to make these inferences fundamental, or essential to the\nreligious life. They may, indeed, be metaphysically essential; that is,\nessential to a well-arranged system; but they are not morally essential;\nthat is, not essential to the moral and spiritual life of the soul.\n\nBut this is just what Dr. Huntington attempts to do. He tries to show that\nthere is a doctrine essential to the life, peace, and progress of man,\nwhich the New Testament has omitted to state; which is neither distinctly\nstated by our Saviour nor by any of his apostles; which has been left to\nbe inferred, and inferred by the mere processes of unaided human reason.\n\nWhat arguments does he allege for this?\n\nHis first and principal argument is the _universal belief of the Christian\nChurch in the doctrine of the Trinity_.\n\nOn this Dr. Huntington lays great stress. He says,\u2014\n\n\u201cTruth is not determined by majorities; and yet it would be contrary to\nthe laws of our constitution not to be affected by a testimony so vast,\nuniform, and sacred as that which is rendered by the common belief of\nChristian history and the Christian countries to the truth of the Trinity.\nThere is something extremely painful, not to say irreverent, towards the\nProvidence which has watched and led the true Christian Israel, in\npresuming that a tenet so emphatically and gladly received in all the ages\nand regions of Christendom, as almost literally to meet the terms of the\ntest of Vincentius,\u2014believed always, everywhere, and by all,\u2014is unfounded\nin revelation and truth. Such a conclusion puts an aspect of uncertainty\nover the mind of the Church, scarcely consistent with any tolerable\nconfidence in that great promise of the Master, that he would be with his\nown all days.\u201d (p. 359.)\n\nTo which we answer,\u2014\n\n(1.) That, according to Dr. Bushnell (Dr. Huntington\u2019s own witness), there\nnever has been, nor is now, any such belief in the doctrine of the Trinity\nas he asserts. The largest part of the Church have always \u201cdivided the\nsubstance\u201d of the deity, and another large portion have \u201cconfounded the\npersons;\u201d and so the majority of the Church, while holding the word\n\u201cTrinity,\u201d have never believed in the Triunity at all.\n\nDr. Huntington summons Dr. Bushnell as a witness to the practical value of\nthe Trinity; and we may suppose something such an examination as this to\ntake place:\u2014\n\n_Dr. Huntington._ Tell us, Dr. Bushnell, what instances you know of\npersons who have been converted or deeply blessed by the holy doctrine of\nthe Trinity.\n\n_Dr. Bushnell._ I have known of \u201ca great cloud of witnesses,\u201d \u201cliving\nmyriads,\u201d \u201cwho have been raised to a participation of God in the faith of\nthis adorable mystery,\u201d (Huntington, p. 413.)\n\n_Dr. H._ Mention some of them.\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cFrancis Junius,\u201d \u201ctwo centuries and a half ago,\u201d\u2014a professor \u201cat\nHeidelberg (Leyden?), testified that he was, in fact, converted from\natheism by the Christian Trinity;\u201d also \u201cthe mild and sober Howe;\u201d \u201cJeremy\nTaylor;\u201d also \u201cthe Marquis de Rentz;\u201d \u201cEdwards,\u201d and \u201cLady Maxwell.\u201d\n(Huntington, p. 414.)\n\n_Unitarian._ Say, Dr. Bushnell, whether, in your opinion, the majority of\nChristians really believe in the Church doctrine of the Trinity.\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cA very large portion of the Christian teachers, together with\nthe general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three living persons in\nthe interior nature of God.\u201d (Bushnell: \u201cGod in Christ,\u201d p. 130.)\n\n_Unit._ Is that scriptural or Orthodox?\n\n_Dr. B._ No. It is only \u201ca social Unity.\u201d It is \u201ca celestial\nTritheocracy.\u201d It \u201cboldly renounces Orthodoxy at the point opposite to\nUnitarianism.\u201d (Bushnell: \u201cGod in Christ,\u201d p. 131.)\n\n_Unit._ Do I understand you to be now speaking of the properly Orthodox\nministers and churches generally?\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cOur properly Orthodox teachers and churches, while professing\nthree persons, also retain the verbal profession of one person. They\nsuppose themselves really to hold that God is one person; and yet they\nmost certainly do not: they only confuse their understanding, and call\ntheir confusion faith. This I affirm on the ground of sufficient evidence;\npartly because it cannot be otherwise, and partly because it visibly is\nnot.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 131.)\n\n_Unit._ Do you believe, Dr. Bushnell, that spiritual good can come from\nsuch a belief in the Trinity as you describe to be \u201cundoubtedly\u201d that of\n\u201cthe general mass of disciples\u201d?\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cMournful evidence will be found that a confused and painfully\nbewildered state is often produced by it. They are practically at work in\ntheir thoughts to choose between the three, sometimes actually and\ndecidedly preferring one to another; doubting how to adjust their mind in\nworship; uncertain, after, which of the three to obey; turning away,\npossibly, from one with a feeling of dread that might well be called\naversion; devoting themselves to another, as the Romanist to his patron\nsaint. This, in fact, is Polytheism, and not the clear, simple love of\nGod. There is true love in it, doubtless; but the comfort of love is not\nhere. The mind is involved in a dismal confusion, which we cannot think of\nwithout the sincerest pity. No soul can truly rest in God, when God is in\ntwo or three, and these in such a sense that a choice between them must be\ncontinually suggested.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 134.)\n\n_Unit._ This state of mind is undoubtedly that of the general mass of the\ndisciples?\n\n_Dr. B._ It is. (_Ibid._ p. 130.)\n\n_Unit._ Are there others, calling themselves Trinitarians, who hold\nessentially the Unitarian doctrine?\n\n_Dr. B._ Yes. \u201cIt is a somewhat curious fact in theology that the class of\nteachers who protest over the word \u2018person,\u2019 declaring that they mean only\na _threefold distinction_, cannot show that there is really a hair\u2019s\nbreadth of difference between their doctrine and the doctrine asserted by\nmany of the later Unitarians. They may teach or preach in a very different\nmanner; they probably do: but the theoretic contents of their opinion\ncannot be distinguished. Thus they say that there is a certain divine\nperson in the man Jesus Christ; but that, when they use the term \u2018person,\u2019\nthey mean, not a person, but a certain indefinite and indefinable\ndistinction. The later Unitarians, meantime, are found asserting that God\nis present in Christ in a mysterious and peculiar communication of his\nbeing; so that he is the living embodiment and express image of God. If,\nnow, the question be raised, \u2018Wherein does the indefinable _distinction_\nof one differ from the mysterious and peculiar _communication_ of the\nother?\u2019 or \u2018How does it appear that there is any difference?\u2019 there is no\nliving man, I am quite sure, who can invent an answer.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 135.)\n\n_Unit._ Is it not true that both of these views are sometimes held\nalternately by Trinitarians?\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cProbably there is a degree of alternation, or inclining from one\nside to the other, in this view of Trinity, as the mind struggles, now to\nembrace one, and now the other, of two incompatible notions. Some persons\nare more habitually inclined to hold the three; a very much smaller\nnumber, to hold the one.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 134.)\n\n_Unit._ But can they not hold the Unity with this Trinity?\n\n_Dr. B._ \u201cNo man can assert three persons, meaning three consciousnesses,\nwills, and understandings, and still have any intelligent meaning in his\nmind, when he asserts that they are yet one person. For, as he now uses\nthe term, the very idea of a person is that of an essential,\nincommunicable monad, bounded by consciousness, and vitalized by\nself-active will; which being true, he might as well profess to hold that\nthree units are yet one unit. When he does it, his words will, of\nnecessity, be only substitutes for sense.\u201d (_Ibid._ p. 131.)\n\n(2.) But suppose that the belief of the Church in the Trinity was as\nuniversal as Dr. Huntington asserts and Dr. Bushnell denies, what would be\nits value? His argument proves too much. If it proves the Trinity to be\ntrue, it proves, _a fortiori_, the Roman Catholic Church to be the true\nChurch, and Protestantism to be an error; for Martin Luther, at one time,\nwas the only Protestant in the world. Suppose that a Roman priest had come\nto him then. He might have addressed him thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt is certainly an impressive testimony to the truth of the Church of\nRome, that the Christian world have been so generally agreed in it. Truth\nis not determined by majorities; and yet it would be contrary to the laws\nof our constitution not to be affected by a testimony so vast, uniform,\nand sacred as that which is rendered by the common belief of Christian\nhistory and the Christian centuries to the doctrines and practices of the\nRoman Catholic Church. We travel abroad, through these converted lands,\nover the round world. We enter, at the call of the Sabbath morning light,\nthe place of assembled worshippers; let it be the newly planted\nconventicle on the edge of the Western forest, or the missionary station\nat the extremity of the Eastern continent; let it be the collection of\nNorthern mountaineers, or of the dwellers in Southern valleys; let it be\nin the plain village meeting-house, or in the magnificent cathedrals of\nthe old cities; let it be the crowded congregation of the metropolis, or\nthe \u2018two or three\u2019 that meet in faith in upper chambers, in log-huts or\nunder palm-trees; let it be regenerate bands gathered to pray in the\nislands of the ocean, or thankful circles of believers confessing their\ndependence and beseeching pardon on ships\u2019 decks, in the midst of the\nocean. So we pass over the outstretched countries of both hemispheres; and\nit is well nigh certain\u2014so certain that the rare and scattered exceptions\ndrop out of the broad and general conclusion\u2014that the lowly petitions, the\nfervent supplications, the hearty confessions, the eager thanksgivings, or\nthe grand peals of choral adoration, which our ears will hear, will be\nuttered according to the grand ritual of the Church of Rome. This is the\nvoice of the unhesitating praise that embraces and hallows the globe.\u201d\n\nWhat would Luther have replied to that? He would have said, \u201cTruth must\nhave a beginning. It is always, at first, in a minority. The gate of it is\nstrait, the path to it narrow, and few find it. All reforms are, at the\nbeginning, in the hands of a small number. If God and truth are on our\nside, what do we care for your multitudes?\u201d We can make the same answer\nnow.\n\nDr. Huntington proceeds to give his own creed in regard to the Trinity,\u2014to\nstate his own belief.\n\nGod, in himself, he declares, we cannot know at all. We know him only, in\nhis revelation. \u201cOut of that ineffable and veiled Godhead\u2014the groundwork,\nif we may say so, of all divine manifestation; a theocracy\u2014there emerge to\nus, in revelation, the three whom we rightly call persons\u2014Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost.\u201d\n\nWe can only conceive of God, he says, in action; and in action we behold\nhim as three. But action and revelation take place in time. The Trinity,\ntherefore, according to Dr. Huntington, is only known to us in temporal\nmanifestation: whether it exists in eternity or not, we cannot tell. And\nyet, in the next sentence, he goes on to say that \u201cthe Son is eternally\nbegotten of the Father,\u201d and \u201cthe Holy Ghost proceeds out of the Father,\n_not in time_;\u201d which is the very thing he had a moment before professed\nto know nothing about. It is very difficult, therefore, to tell precisely\nwhat his view is. With regard to the incarnation of the Son, he is still\nmore obscure. He says that \u201cChrist comes forth out of the Godhead as the\nSon;\u201d that he \u201cleaves the glory he had with the Father;\u201d that, while he is\non earth, the Father alone represents the unseen personality of the\nGodhead, and that therefore the Son appears to be dependent on him, and\nsubmissive; that temporarily, while the Son is in the world, he remains\nignorant of what the Father knows, and says that his Father is greater\nthan he. \u201cHe lessens himself to dependency for the sake of mediation.\u201d\n\u201cAll this we might expect.\u201d This he calls an \u201cinstrumental inequality\nbetween Son and Father:\u201d it \u201cis wrought into the biblical language,\nremains in all our devotional habit, and ought to remain there.\u201d\n\nIn other words, Dr. Huntington believes that the Infinite God became less\nthan infinite in the incarnation. The common explanation of those\npassages, where Christ says, for example, \u201cMy Father is greater than I,\u201d\ndoes not satisfy him. He is not satisfied that Jesus said it \u201cin his human\nnature.\u201d No. It was the divine nature which said it; and it was really GOD\nTHE SON, who did not know the day nor the hour of his own coming. He lost\na part of his omniscience. He ceased to be perfect in all his attributes.\nWe should say, then, that he ceased to be God; but Dr. Huntington\nmaintains that he was God, nevertheless; but God less than omnipotent,\u2014God\nless than omniscient; God the Son, so distinct from the Father as to be\nignorant of what the Father knew, and unable to perform what the Father\ncould do.\n\nDr. Huntington (p. 366) ascribes it to \u201ccondescension\u201d in Christ, to say\nthat \u201cof that day and hour knoweth not the Son.\u201d \u201c_It is condescension\nindeed!_\u201d says he. But this word \u201ccondescension\u201d does not well apply here.\nOne does not condescend to be ignorant of what he knows: still less does a\ntruthful person condescend _to say_ he is ignorant of what he knows. We\nmay wisely condescend to help the feeble, and sympathize with the lowly,\nbut hardly to be ignorant with them, or to pretend to be ignorant. It is a\nbadly chosen word, and seems to show the vacillation of the writer\u2019s\nthought.\n\nIV. The arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are unanswerable.\n\nWe infer that they are unanswerable from the fact that they are not\nanswered. It is to be presumed that Dr. Huntington, having been for so\nmany years a preacher of Unitarian doctrine, is acquainted with our\narguments. It is a remarkable fact that, in this sermon, he has nowhere\nattempted to reply to them. He has passed them wholly by. You would not\nknow, from reading the discourse, that he had ever been a Unitarian, or\nhad ever heard of the Unitarian objections to the Trinity; still less that\nhe had himself preached against it. Unitarians, for instance, have said,\nthat _if the Trinity be true, and if it be so important to the welfare of\nthe soul as is contended, it would be somewhere plainly taught in the New\nTestament_. Does Dr. Huntington answer this argument? No; he answers the\nargument from the _word_ \u201cTrinity\u201d not being in the Bible, and his answer\nis sufficient; but he does not answer the argument from the fact, that the\ndoctrine itself is not anywhere distinctly taught, and that none of the\nterms which have been found essential to any Orthodox statement of the\ndoctrine are to be met with in the New Testament.(93)\n\nNor does Dr. Huntington anywhere fairly meet the Unitarian argument from\nthe impossibility of stating the doctrine in intelligible language. He\ntells us, with his usual eloquence, what we have often enough been taught\nbefore, that there are many things which we do not understand, and that we\nmust believe many facts the _mode_ of which is unintelligible. But when we\nsay, \u201cCan we believe _a doctrine_ or proposition which cannot be\ndistinctly stated?\u201d He has no answer. The Trinity is _a doctrine_, and\nmust therefore be distinctly stated in order to be believed. It has not\nbeen distinctly stated,(94) and therefore cannot be believed. To this\nobjection Dr. Huntington has no reply; and we may conclude that it is an\nunanswerable objection.\n\nDr. Huntington uses an unnecessary phrase about those who object to\nmystery. He calls the objection \u201cshallow self-illusion,\u201d and proceeds with\nthe usual declaration, that all of life is mysterious. Can he have been a\nUnitarian preacher for twenty years, and not have known that Unitarians\nobject to mystery only when it is used by Trinitarians as a cover for\nobscurity and vagueness of statement?\n\nYou ask us to believe a precise statement, viz., that \u201cthere are three\n_persons_ in the Godhead.\u201d We say, \u201cWhat do you mean by \u2018person\u2019?\u201d The\nTrinitarian answers, \u201cIt is a mystery.\u201d We say, \u201cWe cannot believe it,\nthen.\u201d The Trinitarian replies, \u201cWhy, all is a mystery. How the grass\ngrows is a mystery; yet you believe it.\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d we say, \u201cwe do not believe\nit. When the mystery begins, our belief ends; we believe up to that point,\nand no farther.\u201d The statement, \u201cthe grass grows,\u201d is _not_ a mystery; the\nfact, \u201cthe grass grows,\u201d is _not_ a mystery. We believe the fact and the\nstatement. The _way_ in which it grows _is_ mysterious; and we do not\nbelieve anything about it. \u201cYou cannot understand _how_ the grass grows.\u201d\nNo; and, accordingly, we do not believe anything about _how_ the grass\ngrows. But the whole purpose of the Trinity is to show _how_ the Father,\nthe Son, and the Holy Spirit exist. You are not satisfied that we receive\n_what_ the Scripture teaches; you try to show us the _how_, and then leave\nit in obscurity at last.\n\nNor does Dr. Huntington reply to the Unitarian explanation of the\nTrinitarian proof-texts. Trinitarians have often quoted the texts\u2014\u201c_I and\nmy Father are one_;\u201d \u201c_He who has seen me has seen the Father_\u201d\u2014in proof\nof the Deity of Christ. Unitarians have often replied to both of them: to\nthe first passage, that since Jesus has also said that his _disciples were\nto be one with him, as he is one with God_, it either proves that the\ndisciples are also to be God, or does _not_ prove that Christ is God. To\nthe second passage, Unitarians have replied by reading the next clause, in\nwhich Christ says, \u201cBelievest thou not that I am _in_ the Father?\u201d showing\nhow it is that he reveals the Father. He is _in_ the Father, and his\ndisciples are _in_ him. Those who see him, see the Father; those who see\nhis true disciples, see the face and image of Christ. These answers are so\nobvious, and Dr. Huntington must have heard them so often, that he should,\nas a controversialist, have taken some notice of them. He has not done so.\n\nHe quotes the passage from Eph. 1:20, 21, and says, \u201c_Can this be a\ncreature?_\u201d We reply, \u201cCan he be anything _but_ a creature?\u2014he who was\n_set_ by God in this place of honor.\u201d Does God set God, as a reward, above\nprincipalities and powers? Does God make God \u201chead over all things in the\nChurch\u201d? Again: Dr. Huntington quotes, \u201cthat, at the name of Jesus, every\nknee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord;\u201d but he omits\nthe conclusion, \u201cto the glory of God the Father.\u201d\n\nHe even quotes the passage, \u201cHim _hath God exalted_ to give repentance and\nforgiveness of sin.\u201d\n\nAnd he quotes the passage, which has staggered the strongest believers in\nthe Trinity, where Paul declares (1 Cor. ch. 15), that, _at the end_,\nChrist will give up his kingdom to the Father, that \u201cGod may be all in\nall,\u201d and explains it as meaning that \u201che will resume his place in the\ncoequal Three, the indivisible One.\u201d Has he _left_ his place, then? Is\nthat Orthodox? Dr. Huntington evidently thinks so; for he says, \u201cThe Son,\nin his character of Sonship, is retaken, so to speak, into the everlasting\nundivided One.\u201d _So to speak._ We may _speak_ so: \u201cBut what do we mean by\nit?\u201d is the question. Did God the Son leave his place in the Godhead? Did\nhe become less than God? Did he become ignorant? Did he suffer and die?\nDid he arise, and at last reascend, and take his place, \u201cso to speak,\u201d in\nthe Godhead? If this is meant as real statement, what better is it than\nthe Avatars of Vishnu? What sort of Unity is left to us? We have a Trinity\nof council; but where is the Unity, except of agreement? One divine Being\ndescending, and leaving the other divine Being alone, temporarily, on the\nthrone of the universe, until the divine Being who had descended should\nreascend to take his seat again \u201cin the coequal Three and indivisible\nOne\u201d!\n\nOne Unitarian argument, which appears to us unanswerable, is in the fact,\nthat the very passages in which the highest attributes are ascribed to\nChrist are always those in which his dependence and subordination are most\nstrongly asserted. We could throw aside all the passages in which Jesus\nasserts directly his inferiority,\u2014as, \u201cMy Father is greater than I;\u201d \u201cOf\nmine own self I can do nothing,\u201d\u2014and take the strongest proof-texts of the\nTrinitarians, and ask for no better proof for the Unitarian doctrine: \u201cAll\npower is given to me in heaven and earth;\u201d \u201cThe image of the invisible\nGod, the first-born of every creature;\u201d \u201cIn him dwelt all the fulness of\nthe Godhead bodily.\u201d Are these passages written of Christ in his divine or\nhuman nature? Not his divine nature; for to God the Son all power cannot\nbe \u201cgiven.\u201d God the Son cannot be \u201cthe image of God,\u201d or the \u201cfirst-born\nof every _creature_.\u201d The \u201cfulness of the Godhead\u201d cannot dwell in God the\nSon. They must, then, be said of him in his human nature; and, if so, they\nshow that the loftiest titles and attributes do not prove him to be God.\n\nV. The good ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to it,\nbut to the truths which underlie it.\n\nDr. Huntington asserts, for example, that \u201cthe Triunity of God appears to\nbe the necessary means of manifesting and supporting in the mind of our\nrace, a faith in the true personality of God.\u201d\n\nIf so, it is remarkable that the two forms of religion in which the\npersonality of God, as absolute will, is most distinctly recognized (i.e.,\nthe _Jewish_ religion and the _Mohammedan_ religion), should both be\nignorant of the Trinity. It is equally remarkable that the most\nPantheistic religion in the world, in which the personality of God most\nentirely disappears (i.e., Braminism), should have a Trinity of its own.\nIt is also remarkable, on this hypothesis, that idolatry in the Christian\nChurch (as worship of Mary, worship of saints and relics, &c.) should come\nup with the Trinity, and flourish simultaneously with it.\n\nNo; it is not the Trinity which brings out most distinctly the personality\nof God, but the faith in a divine revelation through inspired men. If God\ncan dwell in the souls of men, teaching and guiding them, he must be a\nperson like the soul with which he communes. Especially does the religious\nconsciousness of Jesus, his simple and child-like communion with the\nheavenly Father, bring God near to the soul as a personal being. It is not\nthe Trinity, but the Christian faith which underlies it, which teaches the\ndivine personality.\n\nNor is it the doctrine of the Trinity which is necessary for a living\nfaith in God through Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. All that\nDr. Huntington says of the evil of sin is well said, but has no bearing on\nthe point before us. According to Dr. Huntington\u2019s own witnesses, as we\nhave seen above, the Trinity was unknown in the earlier ages of the\nChurch. Was reconciliation unknown? Was the forgiving love of Christ\nunknown? If he cannot assert this, the doctrine of the Trinity is not\nnecessary to a living faith in a reconciling God.\n\nDr. Huntington argues, that only the sufferings, and actual sufferings, of\nGod himself, can touch the sinful heart; and, therefore, the Trinity is\ntrue. The conclusion is a long way from the premise, even supposing that\nto be sound. But as regards the premise, he has read and quoted Mansel.\nHas he not verged towards the dogmatism which that writer condemns? Would\nit not be more modest, and better accord with Christian humility, to be\nsatisfied with believing the scriptural assertions, that \u201cGod so loved the\nworld, that he gave his only-begotten Son;\u201d that \u201cHe who spared not his\nown Son, but gave him up for us all,\u2014shall he not, with him, freely give\nus all things?\u201d Is not this enough, without an argument to prove that the\n_only_ way by which man can be saved is the method of a suffering God?\n\nWe will not dwell further on this head, nor examine our friend\u2019s argument\nto show that we cannot consistently, as Unitarians, have any piety. We\nwill try, then, to have it inconsistently.\n\nVI. Great evils to the Church have come from the doctrine of the Trinity.\n\nIt has tended to the belief in three Gods. It has tended to a confusion of\nbelief between three Gods of equal power and majesty, united only in\ncounsel; one supreme and two inferior Deities; one Deity with a threefold\nmanner of manifestation; and a vague, undetermined use of words, with no\nmeaning attached to them\u2014unhappy confusion, which none have been more\nready to recognize and to point out than Trinitarians themselves.\n\nAnd what shall we say of the continual struggles, conflicts, and bitter\ncontroversies, which this doctrine has caused from the time of its\nentrance into the Church? What is there more disgraceful in the history of\nthe Church, than the mutual persecutions of Arians and Athanasians, and of\nall the minor sects and parties, engendered by this disputed doctrine?\n\nThis is what Dr. Bushnell says of one of these matters; and his testimony\nis, perhaps, sufficient on this point,\u2014\n\n\u201cNo man can assert three persons,\u2014meaning three consciousnesses, wills,\nand understandings,\u2014and still have any intelligent meaning in his mind,\nwhen he asserts that they are yet one person; for, as he now uses the\nterm, the very idea of a person is that of an essential, incommunicable\nmonad, bounded by consciousness, and vitalized by self-active will; which\nbeing true, he might as well profess to hold that three units are yet one\nunit. When he does it, his words will, of necessity, be only substitutes\nfor sense.\n\n\u201cAt the same time, there are too many signs of the mental confusion I\nspeak of not to believe that it exists. Thus, if the class I speak of were\nto hear a discourse insisting on the proper personal Unity of God, it\nwould awaken suspicion in their minds, while a discourse insisting on the\nexistence of three persons would be only a certain proof of Orthodoxy;\nshowing that they profess three persons, meaning what they profess, and\none person, really not meaning it.\n\n\u201cSuch is the confusion produced by attempting to assert a real and\nmetaphysical Trinity of persons in the divine nature. Whether the word is\ntaken at its full import, or diminished away to a mere something called a\n_distinction_, there is produced only contrariety, confusion, practical\nnegation, not light.\u201d\n\nSo far Dr. Bushnell. On another point thus testifies Twesten:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere are many to whom the biblical and religious basis of the doctrine\nis exceeding sure and precious, who are dissatisfied with the Church form\nof the doctrine, and even feel themselves repelled or fettered by it. It\nis to them more negative than positive, more opposed to errors than giving\nany insight into truth. It solves no difficulty, it unseals no new\nrevelation.\u201d\n\nTwesten goes on to admit that the Trinity has really hemmed in the free\nmovement of the mind, substituting a dead uniformity for a manifold and\nvarious life; and yet Twesten is a very strong and able Trinitarian.\n\nVII. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of\nfaith.\n\nAs philosophy, it might be ever so true and important; but, when brought\nforward as religion (as Dr. Huntington has done), it would become at once\npernicious. To offer theology for religion, belief for faith, philosophy\nborn of speculative reflection in place of spiritual insight and pious\nexperience, have always been most deleterious both to religion and to\nphilosophy.\n\nThe objects of faith are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Through\nChrist we have access to the Father in the Spirit. We see the Father\nrevealed to us in the Son; we feel the power of the Spirit in our hearts.\nThis is religion; but this has nothing to do with the doctrine of the\nTrinity.\n\nVIII. We can trace the gradual formation of the doctrine in the Christian\nChurch.\n\nThe following facts we suppose to be incontrovertible:\u2014\n\n1. Down to the time of the synod of Nice (A.D. 325), the Son was\nconsidered to be subordinate, or inferior to the Father, by the great\nmajority of writers and teachers in the Christian Church, and by the\nmultitude of believers; and no doctrine of Trinity existed in the Church.\n\n2. The _Nicene symbol_, which declared Christ to be \u201cGod from God, Light\nfrom Light, true God from true God, of the same substance with the\nFather,\u201d(95) was directed against the two Arian positions,\u2014that Christ was\ncreated, and that there was a time when he did not exist; but it did not\ndeclare his equality with God the Father, nor teach the personality of the\nHoly Spirit, nor say anything of the Trinity.\n\n3. The councils vacillated to and fro during three hundred years,\ngradually tending towards the present Church doctrine of the Trinity;\nthus,\u2014\n\n1. _Synod of Nice_ (A.D. 325) opposed the Arian doctrine of the creation\nof Christ out of nothing, and maintained that his substance was derived\nfrom that of God.\n\n2. _Synod of Tyre_ (A.D. 335) favored the Arians, and deposed Athanasius.\n\n3. _Council of Antioch_ (A.D. 343) opposed the views of the Arians, and\nalso the views of their opponents.\n\n4. _Council of Sardica_ (A.D. 344) resulted in a division between the\nEastern and Western Churches\u2014the East being semi-Arian, and the West,\nAthanasian\u2014in their view of the nature of Christ.\n\n5. The Western Church tending to Sabellianism (taught by Marcellus and his\npupil Photinus), this view was condemned by two councils in the East and\nWest, viz.:\u2014\n\nSecond council of Antioch (A.D. 343).\n\nCouncil of Milan (A.D. 346).\n\n6. Constantius, an Arian emperor, endeavored to make the Western Churches\naccept the Arian doctrine, and, at two synods (A.D. 353 and 355, at\nArelate and Mediolanum), compelled the bishops to sign the condemnation of\nAthanasius, deposing those who refused so to do.\n\n7. The Arians, being thus dominant, immediately divided into Arians and\nSemi-Arians,\u2014the distinction being the famous distinction between _o_ and\n_oi_. Both parties denied the _Homoousios_; but the Semi-Arians admitted\nthe _Homoiousios_.\n\n8. At the synod of Ancyra (A.D. 358), the Semi-Arian doctrine was adopted,\nand the Arian rejected. The third synod of Sirmium (A.D. 358) did the same\nthing.\n\n9. Down to this time (A.D. 360), nothing was said about the Holy Spirit in\nits relation to the Trinity. The Emperor Valens, an Arian, persecuted the\nAthanasians from A.D. 364 to 378. Then Theodosius, an Athanasian emperor,\npersecuted the Arians. Semi-Arianism, however, continued Orthodox in the\nEast.\n\n10. The Nestorian controversy broke out A.D. 430. Council of Ephesus (A.D.\n431) condemned Nestor. The Nestorians (who were Unitarians) separated\nentirely from the Church, and became the Church of the Persian empire.\n\n11. The Monophysite controversy broke out. The council of Chalcedon (A.D.\n451) decided that there were two natures in Christ; and the Monophysites\nseparated, and formed the Coptic Church. Their formula was, that \u201cGod was\ncrucified in Christ.\u201d The Nestorians were too Unitarian, and the\nMonophysites too Athanasian. The Church decided (against the Nestorians)\nthat Mary was God\u2019s mother, but decided (against the Monophysites) that\nGod was not crucified.\n\n12. _First Lateran Council_ was called (in A.D. 640) to settle a new\npoint. It having been decided that there were _two_ natures in Christ, it\nwas now thought best by many to yield to the Monophysites\u2014that there was\nonly one will in Christ. Hence the Monotheletic controversy, finally\nsettled at the,\u2014\n\n13. Sixth General Council (A.D. 680), when _two_ wills in Christ were\naccepted as the doctrine of the Church.\n\nThus it appears that it took the Church from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680 to\nsettle the questions concerning the relation of Christ to God. During all\nthis time, opinion vacillated between Arianism on the one hand and\nSabellianism on the other. At the end of this period, the Church had\nbecome consolidated, and strong enough to compel submission to its\nopinions: but the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity remained\nunsettled for several centuries more; and finally the Eastern Church\nseparated altogether from the Western Church on this point. The whole\nGreek Church remains, to this day, separated from the Latin Church on a\nquestion belonging to this very doctrine of the Trinity. So much, then,\nfor Dr. Huntington\u2019s assertion, that the Trinity is a doctrine which can\nalmost literally be said to have been believed \u201calways, everywhere, and by\nall.\u201d\n\nIX. The doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to the real divinity of Christ\nand to his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the\nChurch in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ the Lord.\n\nOur final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes Christ\ndivine, but that it does _not_ make him so. It substitutes for the\ndivinity of the Father, the Supreme God, which Unitarians believe to dwell\nin Christ, a subordinate divinity of God the Son. This is subordinate,\nbecause derived; and, because derived, dependent. The Son may be said to\nbe \u201ceternally generated;\u201d but this is only an eternal derivation, and does\nnot alter the dependence, but makes it also to be eternal. The tendency of\nthe Church doctrine of the Trinity is always to a belief, not in the\nsupreme divinity dwelling in Christ, but in a derived and secondary\ndivinity.\n\nHow is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning Christ? Dr.\nHuntington claims Nice as Trinitarian. (p. 361.)\n\nBut what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine? Listen.\n\n\u201cThe Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or proper Godhead, in\nand of himself exclusively; it represents him as the _Fons et Principium_\nof the Son, and therefore gives him superior power and glory. It does not\neven assert the claims of the blessed Spirit to Godhead, and therefore\nleaves room to doubt whether it means to recognize a Trinity, or only a\nDuality.\u201d (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin. Test.,\np. 264.)\n\nAnd how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Huntington also\nconsiders to be Trinitarian? else certainly his rule of \u201calways,\neverywhere, and by all,\u201d does not hold. If, for the first three hundred\nyears after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it cannot be said that the\nTrinity has \u201calways\u201d been held in the Church. Listen, again, to Prof.\nStuart, whose learning no one can question.\n\n\u201cWe find that all the Fathers before, at, and after the Council of Nice,\nwho harmonize with the sentiments there avowed, declare the Father only to\nbe the self-existent God.\u201d (See the whole paragraph in Wilson, Trin.\nTest., p. 267.)\n\n\u201cTo be the author of the proper substance of the Son and Spirit, according\nto the Patristical creed; or to be the author of the _modus existendi_ of\nthe Son and Spirit, according to the modern creed,\u2014both seem to involve\n_the idea of power and glory in the Father, immeasurably above that of the\nSon and Spirit_.\u201d (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.)\n\nSo Coleridge asserts that \u201cboth Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach a\nsubordination of the Son to the Father, independent of the incarnation of\nthe Son.... Christ, speaking of himself as the coeternal Son, says, \u2018My\nFather is greater than I.\u2019 \u201d (Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 270.)\n\nAccording to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find God\u2014the\nSupreme God, our heavenly Father\u2014in Christ; but a derived, subordinate,\nand inferior Deity. Not the one universal Parent do we approach, but some\nmysterious, derived, inscrutable Deity, less than the Father, and distinct\nfrom him. Do we not, then, lose the benefit and blessing of the divinity\nof Jesus? Can we believe him when be says, \u201cHe who has seen me has seen\nthe Father?\u201d No; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians; but\nrather, that, having seen him, we have seen \u201cTHE SON;\u201d whom Coleridge\ndeclares to be an inferior Deity; over whom Bishop Pearson, in his\n\u201cExposition of the Creed,\u201d says, the Father holds \u201cpreeminence,\u201d\u2014the\nFather being \u201cthe Origin, the Cause, the Author, the Root, the Fountain,\nthe Head, of the Son.\u201d The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed,\nas Swedenborg ably contends, to the real divinity of Christ.(96)\n\nBut it is equally opposed to his real humanity. It constantly drives out\nof the Church the human element in Christ. Dr. Huntington is astonished at\nUnitarians not perceiving that the humanity of Christ is as dear to\nTrinitarians as his Deity; yet it cannot be denied, that the mysterious\ndogma of deity has quite overshadowed the simple human life of our dear\nLord, so that the Church has failed to see the Son of man. All his highest\nhuman traits become unreal in the light of this doctrine of his deity. He\nis tempted; but that is unreal, for God cannot be tempted. He prays, \u201cOur\nFather;\u201d but this also is no real prayer, for he is omnipotent, and can\nneed nothing. He encounters opposition, hatred, contumely, and bears it\nwith sweetest composure; but what of that? since, as God, he looked down\nfrom an infinite height upon the puny opposition. He agonizes in the\ngarden; but it is imaginary suffering: how can God feel any real agony,\nlike man? Jesus ceases to be example, ceases to be our best beloved\ncompanion and brother, and becomes a mysterious personage, inscrutable to\nour thought, and far removed from our sympathy.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 The following passage, from an article in the \u201cIndependent,\u201d by\n      Henry Ward Beecher, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one\n      who has \u201csummered it and wintered it\u201d with Orthodoxy:\u2014\n\n      \u201cDoes anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such\n      sharp articles upon the great religious newspapers, \u2018The Observer,\u2019\n      \u2018The Intelligencer,\u2019 and the like? O, pray do not think it from any\n      ill will. It is all kindness! We only do it to keep our voice in\n      practice. We have made Orthodoxy a study. And by an attentive\n      examination of \u2018The Presbyterian,\u2019 \u2018The Observer,\u2019 \u2018The Puritan\n      Recorder,\u2019 and such like unblemished confessors, we have perceived\n      that no man is truly sound who does not pitch into somebody that is\n      not sound; and that a real modern orthodox man, like a nervous watch\n      dog, must sit on the door-stone of his system, and bark incessantly\n      at everything that comes in sight along the highway. And when there\n      is nothing to bark at, either he must growl and gnaw his reserved\n      bones, or bark at the moon to keep up the sonorousness of his voice.\n      And so, for fear that the sweetness of our temper may lead men to\n      think that we have no theologic zeal, we lift up in objurgation now\n      and then\u2014as much as to say, \u2018Here we are, fierce and orthodox; ready\n      to growl when we cannot bite.\u2019 \u201d\n\n    2 Thus Theodore Parker (\u201cExperience as a Minister\u201d) speaks of a review\n      of his \u201cDiscourse on Religion\u201d in a Trinitarian work, which did it\n      no injustice.\n\n    3 According to the \u201cChart of Religious Belief\u201d in Johnston\u2019s Physical\n      Atlas, there are in the world 140,000,000 of Catholics, 70,000,000\n      of Protestants, 68,000,000 of the Greek Church, and 14,000,000 of\n      minor creeds. _About_, in his \u201cQuestion Romaine,\u201d gives the Roman\n      Church 139,000,000. He says, \u201cThe Roman Catholic Church, which I\n      sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000 of individuals, not\n      including the little Mortara.\u201d\n\n    4 Mr. Taylor shows that the Church, A.D. 300, was essentially corrupt\n      in doctrine and practice; that the Romish Church was rather an\n      improvement on it; that Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, and Athanasius are\n      full of false doctrine; and that a Gnostic theology, a Pagan\n      asceticism, and a corrupt morality prevailed in the Church in those\n      early centuries.\n\n    5 Of course we do not mean to charge our Orthodox friends with\n      believing in persecution. We only show that _if Orthodoxy is in the\n      letter_, they _ought_, consequentially, to believe in persecution.\n      No doubt Protestantism has put an end to persecution. When Luther\n      came, all believed in persecution; now, no one does. This is because\n      the Reformation contained a double principle: first, that we are\n      saved by faith, not by sacraments, and that faith is the belief of\n      doctrines; second, that to see them aright, we must use our own\n      minds, and consequently seek for truth as the paramount duty of\n      life. But in order to seek effectually, we must seek freely\u2014hence\n      the right of private judgment as against authority in Church and\n      State. The last principle is that of toleration; the first is the\n      principle of intolerance. The last has proved the stronger, because\n      it rests on the logic of things, the other only on the logic of\n      words.\n\n    6 Heb. 11:1.\n\n    7 Jacobi\u2014whose words have been said to let the thoughts shine through,\n      as wet clothes around the limbs allow the form to be seen\u2014says that\n      all knowledge begins with faith. Faith is, according to Jacobi, (1)\n      a knowledge proceeding from immediate revelation; (2) knowledge\n      which does not need, and cannot have, proofs; (3) much more certain\n      knowledge than any derived from demonstration; (4) a perception of\n      the super-sensual world; (5) A well-grounded and reliable\n      prepossession in favor of certain truths; (6) a faith which sees,\n      and a sight which believes; (7) a vision, an impenetrable mystery, a\n      perception of the thing in itself.\n\n    8 See \u201cBroken Lights,\u201d p. 207, note.\n\n    9 A story is told of a clock, on one of the high cathedral towers of\n      the older world, so constructed that at the close of a century it\n      strikes the years as it ordinarily strikes the hours. As a hundred\n      years come to a close, suddenly, in the immense mass of complicated\n      mechanism, a little wheel turns, a pin slides into the appointed\n      place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls a _requiem_\n      over the generations which during a century have lived, and labored,\n      and been buried around it. One of these generations might live and\n      die, and witness nothing peculiar. The clock would have what we call\n      an established order of its own; but what should we say when, at the\n      midnight which brought the century to a close, it sounded over the\n      sleeping city, rousing all to listen to the world\u2019s age? Would it be\n      a violation of law? No; only a variation of the accustomed order,\n      produced by the intervention of a force always existing, but never\n      appearing in this way till the appointed moment had arrived. The\n      tolling of the century would be a variation from the observed order\n      of the clock; but to an artist, in constructing it, it would have\n      formed a part of that order. So a miracle is a variation of the\n      order of nature as it has appeared to us; but to the Author of\n      nature it was a part of that predestined order\u2014a part of that order\n      of which he is at all times the immediate Author and Sustainer;\n      miraculous to us, seen from our human point of view, but no miracle\n      to God; to our circumscribed vision a violation of law, but to God\n      only a part in the great plan and progress of the law of the\n      universe.\u2014_Ephraim Peabody._\n\n   10 Trench, \u201cNotes on the Miracles of our Lord.\u201d\n\n   11 We use the term \u201cplenary inspiration\u201d rather than \u201cliteral\n      inspiration,\u201d or \u201cverbal inspiration,\u201d for \u201c_literal inspiration_\u201d\n      is a contradiction in terms, like \u201c_bodily spirit_.\u201d\n\n   12 Tholuck, in his Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration, ascribes the\n      origin of the belief in the infallibility of Scripture to this\n      supposed need of an authoritative outward rule of faith among\n      Protestants. He says, \u201cIn proportion as controversy, sharpened by\n      Jesuitism, made the Protestant party sensible of the necessity of an\n      externally fortified ground of combat, in that same proportion did\n      Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the outward authoritative\n      character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that infallible\n      authority which it had lost through its rejection of inspired\n      councils and the infallible authority of the pope. In this manner\n      arose, not earlier than the seventeenth century, those sentiments\n      which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible production of\n      the Divine Spirit,\u2014in its entire contents and its very form,\u2014so that\n      not only the sense, but also the words, the letters, the Hebrew\n      vowel points, and the very punctuation were regarded as proceeding\n      from the Spirit of God.\u201d\u2014_Tholuck\u2019s Essay\u2014Noyes\u2019s\n      __\u201c__Collection.__\u201d_\n\n   13 The doctrine of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a\n      distinguished Roman Catholic, is as follows:\u2014\n\n      \u201cThe doctrine of the Catholic Church on original sin is extremely\n      simple, and may be reduced to the following propositions: Adam, by\n      sin, lost his original justice and holiness, drew down on himself,\n      by his disobedience, the displeasure and judgments of the Almighty,\n      incurred the penalty of death, and thus, in all his parts,\u2014in his\n      body as well as soul,\u2014became strangely deteriorated. Thus his sinful\n      condition is transmitted to all his posterity as descended from him,\n      entailing the consequence that man is, of himself, incapable\u2014even\n      with the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from\n      without (not excepting even the one in the Old Covenant)\u2014to act in a\n      manner agreeable to God, or in any other way to be justified before\n      him, save only by the merits of Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\n      The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and\n      free will is in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that,\u2014\n\n      \u201cOriginal sin is ... the fault and corruption of the nature of every\n      man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby\n      man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own\n      nature, inclined to evil, ... and therefore in every person born\n      into the world it deserveth God\u2019s wrath and damnation....\n\n      \u201cThe condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot\n      turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works\n      to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good\n      works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by\n      Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with\n      us when we have that good will.\u201d\n\n      The early Fathers took different views of the origin of sin.\n      Tertullian ascribed it to human _impatience_. \u201cNunc ut compendio\n      dictum sit, omne peccatum impatienti\u00e6 adscribendum.\u201d (Tertul. _De\n      Patien._ 5.) Origen thinks _laziness_ the cause of sin; sin is a\n      negation\u2014_not_ doing right. Justin Martyr ascribes the origin of sin\n      to _sensuality_. Origen (after Philo) considered the story of the\n      fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in all men.\n\n   14 See, in the Appendix, an examination of Professor Shedd\u2019s article.\n\n   15 Ovid. Metam. 7:18.\n\n      \u201cSi possem, sanior essem.\n      Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido,\n      Mens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque,\n      Deteriora sequor.\u201d\n\n      See, also, the story, in the Cyrop\u00e6dia, of Araspes and his two\n      souls.\n\n   16 See Dr. Cox\u2019s Sermon on Regeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in\n      \u201cEssays and Reviews.\u201d\n\n   17 Luther, in his \u201cTable-talk,\u201d says of his preaching against the pope,\n      and the enormous labors it entailed, \u201cIf I had known then what I now\n      know of the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn\n      me to it.\u201d \u201cAt that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, \u2018What\n      will you do? They will not endure it.\u2019 But said I, \u2018What if they\n      _must_ endure it?\u2019 \u201d\n\n   18 See Raumer, \u201cGeschichte Europas,\u201d zweiter Band.\n\n   19 God in Christ, by Horace Bushnell, p. 193, &c.\n\n   20 Heb. 2:9, 17, 18. 4:15. 5:8, 9.\n\n   21 No sooner was Socrates dead than he rose to be the chief figure in\n      Greek history. What are Miltiades, Pericles, or Alcibiades to him?\n      Twenty years after Joan of Arc was burned by a decree of the Roman\n      Catholic Church, the same Church called a council to reconsider and\n      reverse her sentence. Twenty years after the death of Savonarola,\n      Rafaelle painted his portrait among the great doctors, fathers, and\n      saints in the halls of the Vatican. Within a few years after John\n      Brown was hanged, half a million of soldiers marched through the\n      South chanting his name in their songs. Abraham Lincoln was killed,\n      and he is now the most influential figure in our history.\n\n   22 \u201cDoctrinal Attitude of Old School Presbyterians.\u201d By Lyman B.\n      Atwater, Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Princeton\n      College. Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1864.\n\n   23 \u201cThe Old School in New England Theology.\u201d By Professor Lawrence, of\n      East Windsor. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1863.\n\n   24 \u201cDoctrines of the New School Presbyterians.\u201d By Rev. George\n      Duffield, D. D., of Detroit. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.\n\n   25 \u201cHopkinsianism.\u201d By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor\n      Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.\n\n   26 \u201cDoctrines of Methodism.\u201d By Rev. Dr. Whedon. Bibliotheca Sacra,\n      April, 1862.\n\n   27 \u201cTheologische Zeitscrift.\u201d Herausgegeben von Dr. Friedr.\n      Schleiermacher, Dr. W. M. L. DeWette, und Dr. Friedr. L\u00fccke. Erstes\n      Heft, Berlin, 1819. _Ueber die Lehre von der Erw\u00e4hlung._\n\n   28 Rom. 11:29. \u201cThe gifts and callings of God are without repentance.\u201d\n      By this we understand the apostle to mean the same thing as is\n      implied in Ecclesiastes (3:14): \u201cI know that what God doeth, it is\n      forever.\u201d God, having chosen the Jews for a work, will continue to\n      them the gifts, and will see that somehow or other, some time or\n      other, the work is done.\n\n   29 A person who never had an intellectual doubt concerning a future\n      life may be so poorly provided with an inward sense of immortality\n      that he may never feel quite willing to die, or confident in view of\n      death. Such a man was Dr. Johnson, who had not the least scepticism;\n      who was a dogmatic believer, and hated a heretic; who, yet, never\n      attained to any sort of comfort in view of death, and was always\n      afraid to die. So there may be another person who may have no\n      intellectual belief in a future life, but who will have the instinct\n      of immortality so strong as to be quite easy and happy in looking\n      forward to death. Such a person is Miss Martineau, who, in\n      consequence of a poor philosophy of _materialism_ which she was\n      taught in her childhood, and has always held, has been brought very\n      logically at last to disbelieve immortality, and even the existence\n      of God, and yet is very contented about it, and quite happy.\n\n   30 \u201cNescio, quomodo, dum lego, assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum\n      ipse de immortalitate animorum c\u0153pi cogitare, assensio omnis illa\n      illabitur.\u201d\n\n   31 Thus it is said, \u201cIn Christ shall all be made alive.\u201d The meaning\n      is, that when we live in reference to God, to immortal truth, to the\n      infinite law of right,\u2014when we really love anything out of\n      ourselves,\u2014we lose all fear of death. \u201cPerfect love casts out fear;\u201d\n      that is, pure love. The love of a mother for a child casts out fear.\n      She is not afraid of death; she will run the risk of death twenty\n      times over to save her child. The immortal element is aroused in\n      her. The soldier is roused by the general\u2019s fiery speech to a thrill\n      of patriotism, and thinks it sweet and beautiful to die for his\n      country. Love of his country has cast out his fear. This is\n      something more than any mere insensibility. Men can harden\n      themselves against danger and death; they can think of something\n      else. But that insensibility is merely a thick shell put round it\u2014a\n      sevenfold shield perhaps; but the mortal fear lies hidden all the\n      same within. True life is very different.\n\n   32 The word here rendered ABOLISHED is elsewhere translated\n      \u201cdestroyed,\u201d \u201cmade void,\u201d \u201cmade of none effect,\u201d \u201cbrought to\n      nothing,\u201d \u201cvanished away,\u201d \u201cdone away,\u201d \u201cput down.\u201d The meaning is,\n      that all its force, importance, value, is taken out of it.\n\n   33 \u201cThe State of the Impenitent Dead. By Alvah Hovey, D. D.\u201d Boston,\n      1859.\n\n   34 For \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 before a defining clause, see John 6:29; 4:34; 1 John 3:11,\n      23; 4:21; 2 John 6.\n\n   35 Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Berlin, 1800.\n\n   36 In addition to the extracts from Professor Hovey, Meyer, L\u00fccke, and\n      De Wette, the following passages from F. D. Maurice (\u201cTheological\n      Essays\u201d) are interesting, as showing a concurrence of testimony from\n      yet another quarter to the thesis of this section:\u2014\n\n      \u201cWhen any one ventures to say to an English audience, that eternity\n      is not a mere negation of time, that it denotes something real,\n      substantial, before all time, he is told at once that he is\n      departing from the simple, intelligible meaning of words; that he is\n      introducing novelties; that he is talking abstractions. This\n      language is perfectly honest in the mouths of those who use it. But\n      they do not know where they learned it. They did not get it from\n      peasants, or women, or children. They did not get it from the Bible.\n      They got it from Locke. And if I find that I cannot interpret the\n      language and thoughts of peasants, and women, and children, and that\n      I cannot interpret the plainest passages of the Bible, or the whole\n      context of it, while I look through the Locke spectacles, I must\n      cast them aside....\n\n      \u201cSuppose, instead of taking this method of asserting the truth of\n      all God\u2019s words, the most blessed and the most tremendous, we reject\n      the wisdom of our forefathers, and enact an article declaring that\n      all are heretics, and deniers of the truth, who do not hold that\n      eternal means endless, and that there cannot be a deliverance from\n      eternal punishment. What is the consequence? Simply this, I believe:\n      the whole gospel of God is set aside. The state of eternal life and\n      eternal death is not one we can refer only to the future, or that we\n      can in any wise identify with the future. Every man who knows what\n      it is to have been in a state of sin, knows what it is to have been\n      in a state of death. He cannot connect that death with time; he must\n      say that Christ has brought him out of the bonds of _eternal_ death.\n      Throw that idea into the future and you deprive it of all its\n      reality, of all its power. I know what it means all too well while\n      you let me connect it with my present and personal being, with the\n      pangs of conscience which I suffer now. It becomes a mere vague\n      dream and shadow to me when you project it into a distant world. And\n      if you take from me the belief that God is always righteous, always\n      maintaining a fight with evil, always seeking to bring his creatures\n      out of it, you take everything from me\u2014all hope now, all hope in the\n      world to come. Atonement, redemption, satisfaction, regeneration,\n      become mere words, to which there is no counterpart in reality.\u201d\n\n   37 In the German Bible we have the true word\u2014\u201cAuferstehung.\u201d\n\n   38 So De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T., ad\n      locum.\n\n   39 So Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX.\n\n   40 So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegriff) says that \u03c3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03be appears to\n      denote partly the startling power of the truth, and partly its power\n      of calling men together from all the regions of the earth.\n\n   41 Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming was as\n      Jesus, not as Christ. The human life is \u201cthe life of Jesus.\u201d\n      Christian history is \u201cthe life of Christ.\u201d In his earthly life he\n      was Prophet; in his death he was Priest; in his resurrection, or\n      risen state, he was King.\n\n   42 The book of the Revelation of John is the account of Christ\u2019s\n      coming; and the true interpretation of that book depends on the\n      proper understanding of his coming. If Christ\u2019s coming began at the\n      destruction of Jerusalem, and has continued in all the developments\n      of human history, then the key to \u201cthe Revelation\u201d is to be found in\n      the progress of Christian principles and ideas in the world.\n      Bertholdt (Christologia Jud\u00e6orum Jesu Apostolorumque \u00e6tate), note to\n      \u00a7 11, quotes from the Sepher Ikkarim this passage\u2014\u201cThe future age\n      will come _gradually_ to men after the day of the great judgment,\n      which will take place after the resurrection.\u201d Resurrection and\n      judgment both come with Jesus, and his were \u201cthe last days.\u201d\n\n   43 1 Thess. 4:17. \u201cWe, who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up\n      together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.\u201d\n      Usteri (Paul. Lehrbeg.) says that \u201cthis \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 has no analogy in\n      any other passage of the Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament.\u201d\n      But Paul outgrew this literalism, and in his later Epistles speaks\n      of sitting already with Christ in \u201cheavenly places.\u201d\n\n   44 Olshausen, an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to\n      Christ\u2019s predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25:\u2014\n\n      \u201cOne of the most striking examples of the binding of the present and\n      future in one narrative, and one which presents many difficulties,\n      is to be found in these passages. Plain descriptions of the\n      impending destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state blend\n      with no less apparent descriptions of the coming of Christ in his\n      kingdom. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox interpreters are far\n      less natural and unforced than the others, in their treatment of\n      this passage. Their dogmatic views lead them to put apart from each\n      other elements which are blended together by Matthew and by the\n      other evangelists. For example, Schott says, that the description of\n      Christ\u2019s coming begins (Matt. 24:29) immediately after \u2018the\n      tribulation,\u2019 &c., and that all before that belongs to the\n      destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impossibility of\n      regarding the 29th verse as the beginning of something entirely new,\n      there are also in the passages which follow distinct references to\n      the present generation (verse 34), and in the first part as distinct\n      references to \u2018the last time.\u2019 We do not, therefore scruple (says\n      Olshausen) to accept the simple explanation which alone suits the\n      text, that Christ speaks of his coming as coincident with the\n      destruction of Jerusalem, and with the downfall of the Jewish\n      state.\u201d\n\n      The most interesting question, perhaps, is as to the opinions of\n      Jesus _himself_ about his coming. That he forsaw the overthrow of\n      Jerusalem and the Temple is certain. Everything indicates that he\n      possessed a marvellous power of reading the future in the present,\n      and saw in the condition of the Jewish mind the inevitable overthrow\n      of their state. He also saw that through his death all men should be\n      brought to him, and that he should become King in the way in which\n      he described to Pilate his royalty, i.e., King of the truth. All who\n      love the truth shall, sooner or later, obey his voice. In what way,\n      then, did he expect to come? In the way he himself indicates the\n      coming of his kingdom\u2014like leaven, working secretly in the dough;\n      like seed, sprouting mysteriously in the ground; like lightning,\n      seen everywhere at once. By these images alone could he convey to\n      his disciples his ideas. He longed to tell them many things more,\n      but they were not able; to bear them.\n\n   45 The difficulties (of which Olshausen and other candid Orthodox\n      interpreters speak) in harmonizing the different parts of Matthew\u2019s\n      two chapters (24 and 25) about Christ\u2019s coming and judgment, may\n      perhaps be relieved in some such way as this. (1.) The end of the\n      Mosaic age and the beginning of the Messianic age are fixed at the\n      destruction of Jerusalem. (2.) Christ\u2019s coming begins there, and\n      continues through Christian history, till all mankind are\n      Christians. His coming, therefore, verifies what Schiller says of\n      truth, that it \u201c_nimmer ist, immer wird_.\u201d (3.) Whenever he comes,\n      he judges men according to the state of mind in which they are. (4.)\n      The three parables (virgins, talents, king on his throne) represent\n      the judgment of three different classes. The first class (of wise\n      and foolish virgins) are those who _are not yet converted_, and have\n      not become disciples of Christ. When he comes, those of them who\n      have oil in their lamps\u2014or who receive truth into an honest heart\n      (Luke 8:15)\u2014are ready to receive him, and to become Christians;\n      those who have no oil reject him. The second class (in the talents)\n      are Christians, who receive more or less of power and of good,\n      according to past fidelity. The third class (the \u201cnations \u201d) are the\n      heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all, but are\n      Christians outside of Christianity.\n\n   46 The latest illustration of Orthodox ideas on this subject we have\n      met with is contained in a little tract which has fallen in our way,\n      containing \u201cextracts from a sermon addressed to the students in the\n      United Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Rev.\n      William Davidson.\u201d It begins in this somewhat enigmatical way:\u2014\n\n      \u201cIt is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one\u2014for even a youth or\n      a heathen\u2014to be _lost_.\u201d\n\n      Why this limiting particle \u201ceven\u201d is introduced is not explained. It\n      seems to be implied either that a youth and a heathen have not as\n      much to lose as others, or else that we are not bound to feel so\n      much for their loss as for that of others. After a little poetry\n      (which we omit, as it is altogether too stern a matter for any\n      sentimental ornament), Mr. Davidson proceeds:\u2014\n\n      \u201cNor is this all to those who suffer _least_. It is not only the\n      loss of all, and a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are\n      _horrible objects_, filling every sense and every faculty; and there\n      are _horrible engines and instruments of torture_. There are the\n      \u2018chains of darkness,\u2019 thick, heavy, hard, and smothering as the\n      gloom of blank and black despair\u2014chains strong as the cords of\n      omnipotence, hot as the crisping flames of vengeance, indestructible\n      and eternal as justice. With chains like these, every iron link\n      burning into the throbbing heart, is bound each doomed, damned soul,\n      on a bed of burning marl, under an iron roof, riven with tempests,\n      and dripping with torrents of unquenchable fire.\u201d\n\n      The object of the preacher being to make as terrific a picture as\n      possible, he accumulates these material images of bodily torment in\n      order to excite the imagination to the utmost. We can conceive of\n      his writing these sentences carefully in his comfortable study, in\n      an easy chair, by the side of a cheerful fire, with a smile of\n      self-complacency, as he selects each striking expression. Then he\n      proceeds:\u2014\n\n      \u201cNor is this all. Unmortified appetites, hungry as death, insatiable\n      as the grave, torture it. Every passion burning, an unsealed volcano\n      in the heart. Every base lust a tiger unchained\u2014a worm undying, let\n      loose to prey on soul and body. Pride, vanity, envy, shame,\n      treachery, deceit, falsehood, fell revenge, and black despair,\n      malice, and every unholy emotion, are so many springs of\n      excruciating and ever-increasing agonies, are so many hot and\n      stifling winds, tossing the swooning, sweltering soul on waves of\n      fire. And there will be deadly hunger, but no food; parching thirst,\n      but no water; eternal fatigue, but no rest; eternal lust of sensuous\n      and intellectual pleasures, but no gratification. And there will be\n      _terrible companions_, or rather _foes_, there. Eternal longings\n      after society, but no companion, no love, and no sympathy there.\n      Every one utterly selfish, hateful, and hating. Every one cunning,\n      false, malignant, fierce, fell, and devilish. All commingle in the\n      confusion and the carnage of one wide-spread, pitiless, truceless,\n      desperate strife. And there will be terrible sights and sounds\n      there. Fathers and sons, pastors and people, husbands and wives,\n      brothers and sisters, with swollen veins and bloodshot eyes,\n      straining towards each other\u2019s throats and hearts, reprobate men,\n      and devils in form and features, hideous to as great a degree as are\n      the beauties of the blest in heaven beautiful. And there are groans\n      and curses, and everlasting wailings, as harsh and horrible as\n      heaven\u2019s songs, shouts, and anthems are sweet, joyous, and\n      enrapturing. And there will be terrible displays of the divine power\n      and skill, and infinitely awful displays of merciless and omnipotent\n      justice, in the punishment of that rebel crew, that generation of\n      moral vipers full grown, that congregation of moral monsters.\u201d\n\n      All this, however, is not enough. It is necessary to go further, and\n      represent God in the character of the devil, in order to complete\n      the picture.\n\n      \u201cUpon such an assembly, God, who is of purer eyes than to behold\n      iniquity, cannot look but with utter detestation. His wrath shall\n      come up in his face. His face shall be red in his anger. He will\n      whet his glittering sword, and his hand shall take hold on\n      vengeance; and he shall recompense. He shall launch forth his\n      lightnings, and shoot abroad his arrows. He shall unseal all his\n      fountains, and pour out his tumbling cataracts of vengeance. He\n      shall build his batteries aloft, and thunder upon them from the\n      heavens. His eye shall not pity them, nor shall his soul spare for\n      their crying. The day of vengeance is in his heart, and it is what\n      he has his heart set on. He will delight in it. He will show his\n      wrath, and _make his power known_. That infinite power has never\n      been fully made known yet; but it will be then. It is but a little\n      that we see of it in creation and providence; but we shall see it,\n      fully revealed, in the destruction of that rebel crew. He will tread\n      them in his anger, and trample them in his fury, and will stain his\n      raiment with their blood. The cup of the wine of his fierce wrath\n      shall contain no mixture of mercy at all. And they will not be able\n      to resist that wrath, nor will they be able to endure it; but they\n      shall, in soul and body, sink wholly down into the _second death_.\n      The iron heel of omnipotent and triumphing justice, pitiless and\n      rejoicing, shall tread them down, and crush them lower still, and\n      lower ever, in that burning pit which knows no bottom. All this, and\n      more and worse, do the Scriptures declare; and that preacher who\n      hesitates to proclaim it has forsworn his soul, and is a traitor to\n      his trust.\u201d\n\n      Now, it is simple truth to say that the blasphemer and profane\n      swearer who spends fifty years in cursing God and Christ is not so\n      blasphemous as the man who writes such sentences as these about the\n      Almighty, and utters them to young men as a preparation for their\n      work in the ministry. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah shall rise up\n      in the day of judgment against those who speak thus of God, and\n      shall condemn them. The Pagans, who represent their gods as horrid\n      idols, pleased with blood and slaughter, have an excuse, which Mr.\n      Davidson has not, for they do not have the gospel of the Lord Jesus\n      in their hands. Thus he continues:\u2014\n\n      \u201cAnd _all this shall be forever_. It shall never, never end. (Matt.\n      ch. 25.) The wicked go away into everlasting torments. This is a\n      bitter ingredient in their cup of wormwood, a more terrible thing in\n      their terrible doom. If after enduring it all for twice ten thousand\n      times ten thousand years, they might have a deliverance, or at least\n      some abatement, it were less terrible. But this may never, never be.\n      Their estate is remediless. There is a great gulf fixed, and they\n      cannot pass from thence. Or, if after suffering all this as many\n      years as there are aqueous particles in air and ocean, they might\n      then be delivered, or if, after repeating that amazing period as\n      many times as there are sand-grains in the globe, they might then be\n      delivered, there would be _some_ hope. Or, if you multiply this\n      latter sum\u2014too infinite to be expressed by figures, and too\n      limitless to be comprehended by angels\u2014by the number of atoms that\n      compose the universe, and there might be deliverance when they had\n      passed those amazing, abysmal gulfs of duration, then there would be\n      _some_ hope. But no! when all is suffered and all is past, still all\n      beyond is eternity.\u201d\n\n   47 To show how some _Roman Catholics_ write in the middle of the\n      nineteenth century, we quote the following from a Roman Catholic\n      book, published in England, by Rev. J. Furniss, being especially \u201ca\n      book for children.\u201d Wishing to spare our readers such horrors, we\n      put it here, advising no one of weak nerves to read its atrocious\n      descriptions.\n\n      \u201cThe fourth dungeon is \u2018the boiling kettle.\u2019 Listen: there is a\n      sound like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is\n      boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling\n      in the scalded veins of that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling\n      in his head; the marrow is boiling in his bones. The fifth dungeon\n      is the \u2018red-hot oven,\u2019 in which is a _little child_. Hear how it\n      screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the\n      fire; it beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its\n      little feet on the floor of the oven. To this child God was very\n      good. Very likely God saw that this child would get worse and worse,\n      and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished _much\n      more_ in hell. _So God in his mercy called it out of the world in\n      its early childhood._\u201d\n\n   48 We take the following from the \u201cMonthly Religious Magazine:\u201d\u2014\n\n      \u201cThe \u2018Country Parson,\u2019 in his late work, the \u2018Autumn Holidays,\u2019\n      contends that the fear of future punishment in another world has\n      little influence in deterring from crime. He ought to have added,\n      that the reason may be, that there is so little belief in any\n      spiritual world whatever, among men of grosser sensuality; and that\n      future punishment, as it is preached in the old theology, is so\n      arbitrary as to seem unreal, and is losing its power over all\n      thinking minds. The following case is cited from the experience of a\n      Scotch minister. No ministers, let it be remembered, preach the\n      literal flames of a local hell in tones more awful than they.\n\n      \u201cHis parishioners were sadly addicted to drinking to excess. Men and\n      women were given alike to this degrading vice. He did all he could\n      to repress it, but in vain. For many years he warned the drunkards,\n      in the most solemn manner, of the doom they might expect in another\n      world; but, so far as he knew, not a pot of ale or glass of spirits\n      the less was drunk in the parish in consequence of his\n      denunciations. Future woe melted into mist in the presence of a\n      replenished jug or a market-day. A happy thought struck the\n      clergyman. In the neighboring town, there was a clever medical man,\n      a vehement teetotaler; him he summoned to his aid. The doctor came,\n      and delivered a lecture on the _physical_ consequences of\n      drunkenness, illustrating his lecture with large diagrams, which\n      gave shocking representations of the stomach, lungs, heart, and\n      other vital organs as affected by alcohol. These things came home to\n      the drunkards, who had not cared a rush for final perdition. The\n      effect produced was tremendous. Almost all the men and women of the\n      parish took the total abstinence pledge; and since that day\n      drunkenness has nearly ceased in that parish. Nor was the\n      improvement evanescent; it has lasted two or three years.\u201d\n\n   49 So Erigena (quoted by Strauss), _De Divis Nat._ \u201cVera ratio docet,\n      nullum contrarium divin\u00e6 bonitati vit\u00e6que ac beatitudini posse esse\n      coeternum; divina siquidem bonitas consumet malitiam, \u00e6terna vita\n      absorbet mortem, beatitudo miseriam.\u201d\n\n   50 The name given to them by Augustine (\u201cCiv. Dei,\u201d lib. 21, c. 17):\n      \u201cDenique hujus sententi\u00e6 Patronos S. Augustinus appellat titulo non\n      incongruo, \u2018Doctores Misericordes\u2019 tractatque non inhumaniter.\u201d\n      Thomas Burnet, \u201cDe Statu Mortuum et Resurgentium.\u201d Chap. XI.\n\n   51 See Bretschneider, \u201cDogmatik,\u201d and Strauss, \u201cChristliche\n      Glaubenslehre.\u201d\n\n   52 \u201cNos et angelos futuros d\u00e6mones si egerimus negligenter; et rursum\n      d\u00e6mones, si voluerint capere virtutes, pervenire ad angelicam\n      dignitatem.\u201d Origen, quoted by Jerome.\n\n   53 \u201cNihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile aliquid est\n      factori suo.\u201d\n\n   54 \u201cQuod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes\n      intelligen dum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus s\u00e6culis, cum\n      sensim per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta,\n      pr\u00e6currentibus aliis, aliis insequentibus.\u201d See these quotations in\n      Strauss, Hase, &c.\n\n   55 Matt. 25:46. The Greek word translated in the English as\n      \u201ceverlasting\u201d punishment in the beginning of the verse, and as life\n      \u201ceternal\u201d at the end, is the same word (\u1f00\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) in both places, and\n      should be translated \u201ceternal\u201d in both.\n\n_   56 Remorse_\u2014from _mordeo_, to gnaw. So St. Thomas (Summa, Pars III. 2,\n      97): \u201cVermis non debet esse intelligi corporalis sed spiritualis,\n      qui est con scienti\u00e6 remorsus.\u201d\n\n   57 \u201cPauci res ipsas, sed rerum imagines, tanquam in speculo, intuentur:\n      at res ipsas, facie ad faciem, ut dicitur, et ablato velo, visuri\n      sumus tandem si Deo placuerit, partim sub occasu hujusee mundi,\n      plenius autem in futuro.\u201d\u2014_Thomas Burnet_, De Statu Mortuorum et\n      Resurgentium Tractatus. Londini. Typis et impensis J. Hooke, in vico\n      vulg\u00f2 dicto _Fleet Street_, 1737.\u2014No one has spoken more powerfully\n      and eloquently than he against everlasting punishment, particularly\n      in the passage beginning \u201cNobis difficile est omnem exuere\n      humanitatem.\u201d p. 309.\n\n   58 Is it not remarkable (as showing how little the New Testament has as\n      yet been really studied) that there should be so many discussions as\n      to the future doom of _the heathen_, when Jesus himself here\n      distinctly tells us what it will be. The word \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 is the only word\n      in the New Testament which is ever translated _heathen_: wherever\n      the word _heathen_ occurs in our Bible, it is always this. Jesus\n      teaches that the heathen (inside and outside of Christendom) will be\n      judged _according to their humanity_, their obedience to the law\n      written in their hearts; and he shows that this is coincident with\n      the law of Christianity. So, when the Church of England says (in its\n      18th article) that \u201cthey also are to be had accursed that presume to\n      say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professeth,\n      so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and\n      the light of nature;\u201d it denounces this curse on Christ himself, and\n      thus proves conclusively that it is not speaking by the Spirit of\n      God, since \u201cno man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus\n      accursed.\u201d (1 Cor. 12:3) This comes of the habit (happily less\n      common now than formerly) of throwing about curses at random,\n      against those who differ from our opinions. Some of them may thus,\n      accidentally, hit the Master himself. It is, perhaps, of less\n      consequence that this anathema also touches the apostle Paul, who\n      declares that the heathen who have not the law are a law to\n      themselves when they do right, and are absolved by their conscience.\n      (Rom. 2:14.)\n\n   59 Origen, Homil. in Levit. 7:2. \u201cSalvator meus luget etiam nunc\n      peccata mea; Salvator meus l\u00e6tari non potest, donec ego in\n      iniquitate permaneo. Non vult solus in regno Dei bibere vinum\n      l\u00e6titi\u00e6\u2014nos expectat.\u201d\n\n   60 Guericke, Christ. Symbolik, \u00a7 70.\n\n   61 \u201cEcclesia enim est c\u0153tus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis ut est\n      c\u0153tus populi Romani, vel regnum Galli\u00e6, aut respublica Venetorum.\u201d\n      Bellarmin. Eccles. Milit. c. 2.\n\n   62 Moehler, Symbolism, \u00a7 36.\n\n   63 \u201cBonos et malos ad ecclesiam pertinere Catholica fides vere et\n      constante affirmat.\u201d Cat. Rom.\n\n   64 The chief passage in proof of this, as is well known, is Matt.\n      16:18, 19 \u201cThou art Peter,\u201d &c. But even Augustine, the great light\n      of the Latin Church, says that \u201cPeter was not the Rock, but Christ\n      was the Rock.\u201d (Neander, vol. ii. p. 168.) The same power was given\n      to the other apostles. Matt. 18:18. John 20:23. Rev. 21:14.\n\n   65 Le Protestantisme Lib\u00e9ral par le Pasteur Bost. Paris, Bailli\u00e8re,\n      1865.\n\n   66 \u201cIl est de fait que le Catholicisme, qui est essentiellement un\n      principe d\u2019authorit\u00e9, ne sait pas dire o\u00f9 reside cette authorit\u00e9.\u201d\n\n   67 \u201cThirty-nine Articles, art. xix.\u201d So Augs. Conf. art. 7:\n      \u201cCongregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte\n      administrantur sacramenta.\u201d But it may be asked, Who is to decide on\n      the \u201c_recte_\u201d?\n\n   68 In the remarkable work \u201cEcce Homo\u201d.\n\n   69 Tholuck, in his charming work on the Sermon on the Mount, speaks\n      thus (\u201c_Bergpredigt Christ. von A. Tholuck._\u201d) \u201cTwo principal\n      defects are found in the usual treatment of this doctrine: first,\n      the different aspects and relations of the kingdom of God are by\n      many considered as different _meanings_ of the word, and are left\n      standing side by side, without any attempt to ground their unity in\n      some fundamental idea. Or, secondly, and still worse, a single\n      aspect of the term is taken up, and the rest are wholly neglected.\n      Examples of the first defect are to be found in Zwingle, in his note\n      to John 3:3. (Here the kingdom of God is considered as divine\n      doctrine and preaching of the gospel, as in Luke 18; sometimes it is\n      taken for eternal life, Matt. 25; Luke 14; sometimes for the church\n      and congregation of the faithful, as Matt. 13:24.) The later\n      lexicographers, as Schleusner and Bretschneider, have not avoided\n      these vague statements; and the last of them is particularly\n      defective in his article on this phrase. Trahl more correctly sums\n      up all these significations of the word thus: \u2018Happiness, present\n      and future, obtained through Christ.\u2019 But in this definition the\n      notion of \u2018a kingdom\u2019 is omitted. The opposite defect of taking only\n      one of the meanings of the matter, to the neglect of the rest, is to\n      be found, for example, in Koppe and Keil, according to whom the\n      expression relates merely to the future reign of the Messiah one day\n      to be established.\n\n      \u201cOur own explanation of this expression starts from the phrase\n      \u2018kingdom of God,\u2019 which explains the others, \u2018kingdom of heaven\u2019 and\n      \u2018kingdom of Christ.\u2019 We think that the fundamental idea has been\n      grasped by none more correctly than by Origen among the ancients,\n      and by Calvin among the reformers. The phase of the idea principally\n      dwelt upon by the Church Fathers may be seen in their explanation of\n      the third petition of the Lord\u2019s Prayer, which Augustine especially\n      examines profoundly. Most of them understand by it the realm of\n      glory, the future revelation of Christ. Origen alone, in his book on\n      Prayer, taken a more exact view of the subject. In like manner\n      Calvin, in his Commentary on the Harmony. So Luther, in his fine\n      Sermon on the Kingdom of God. Our own fundamental view we express\n      thus: \u2018A community in which God reigns, not by force, but by being\n      obeyed freely from love, and which is therefore necessarily united\n      in itself by mutual love.\u2019 The Saviour came upon the earth to found\n      such a community, and since it can only be completely established\n      after he has conquered all his enemies, this kingdom of Christ\n      belongs in its perfection to the other world.\u201d\n\n   70 An eminent and learned gentleman told me of this conversation which\n      he had with a Roman priest: \u201cWhen the wine of the Eucharist is\n      consecrated, it becomes the real blood of Christ\u2014does it not?\u201d\n      Priest, \u201cIt does.\u201d \u201cWhat, then, do you do with that which remains in\n      the cup, after communion?\u201d Priest, \u201cWe drink it.\u201d \u201cDoes not some\n      adhere to the glass?\u201d Priest, \u201cYes; but we wash the glass.\u201d \u201cWhat do\n      you do with the water?\u201d Priest, \u201cWe drink it.\u201d \u201cBut must there not\n      yet remain, on the napkin, with which you wipe the glass, some\n      portion of the blood of Christ, even though it be an infinitesimal\n      portion?\u201d Priest, \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cThen, might it not happen that when the\n      napkin is washed, this portion of Christ\u2019s blood may go into the\n      water, and be poured on the ground, and be taken up by the root of a\n      plant\u2014say a cabbage. Would, then, the flesh of that cabbage contain,\n      or would it not a portion of the blood of Christ?\u201d\n\n   71 See, in the New York \u201cIndependent,\u201d June 9, 1866, the account of the\n      \u201cRecognition of Congregational Churches in Philadelphia,\u201d where the\n      existence of this principle is admitted and defended by some eminent\n      Congregational ministers; admitted and deplored by others.\n\n   72 Twesten, \u201cVorlesungen,\u201d &c., vol ii., p. 216. He adds to this\n      definition its Latin form, in which the words \u201ccertain\n      characteristics\u201d stand \u201ccertis characteribus hypostaticis.\u201d\n\n   73 Quoted by Schleiermacher, \u201cGlaubenslehre,\u201d \u00a7 170.\n\n   74 See the full discussions of these terms in Twesten (as above), Hase,\n      \u201cChristl. Glaubenslehre,\u201d \u00a7 56. Strauss, \u201cChristl. Glaubenslehre,\u201d\n      vol. i. Hase, \u201cDogmatik,\u201d &c.\n\n   75 Dogmatik, \u00a7 239.\n\n   76 Augustine (de Trinit.), says, \u201cOne life in man, but three\n      faculties\u2014memory, intelligence, will.\u201d But how if this is bad\n      psychology?\n\n   77 Erigena, \u201cThe Father in the soul, the Son in the reason, the Spirit\n      in the sense\u2014this makes the most luminous illustration.\u201d\n\n   78 Abelard (quoted by Strauss).\n\n   79 Richard St. Victor (quoted by Hase), \u201cThere can be no possible\n      communion of affection between a less number than three persons.\u201d So\n      Augustine, \u201cCum aliquid amo, tria sunt\u2014_ego_, et _quod_ amo, et ipse\n      _amor_.\u201d Such illustrations are hardly satisfactory at the present\n      day. Poiret says the Father is \u201c_Deus a se_,\u201d the Son is \u201c_Deus ex\n      se_,\u201d the Holy Spirit \u201c_Deus ad se refluens_.\u201d Angelus Silecius\n      makes the Trinity a divine kiss. \u201cGod kisses himself\u2014the Father\n      kisses, the Son is kissed, the Spirit is the kiss.\u201d\n\n   80 Translated from the Latin in Hagenbach (Compend of the History of\n      Doctrines, vol. i. p. 289). We agree with Strauss, who says,\n      \u201cF\u00fcrwahr, wer das _Symbolum Quidcunque_ beschworen hatte, der hatte\n      die Gesetze des menschlichen Denkens abgeschworen.\u201d So the Pastor\n      Bost (Le Protestantisme Liberal), after giving the Creed, in a\n      somewhat different form, adds, \u201cubi insana faciunt, mysterium\n      appellant.\u201d\n\n   81 \u201cIncomprehensible,\u201d Church of England Liturgy.\n\n   82 Or \u201ceach person by himself.\u201d The word in the Latin is \u201csigillatim,\u201d\n      a word not in most of the dictionaries, but in some of them made\n      equivalent to \u201csingulatim.\u201d\n\n   83 Tertullian said, we can call Christ \u201cGod\u201d when we speak of him\n      alone; but if we mention him with the Father, then we must call the\n      Father \u201cGod,\u201d and call Christ only \u201cLord.\u201d \u201cFor a ray of light\n      shining into a room, we may call the sun shining there; but if we\n      speak of the sun at the same time, then we must distinguish the ray,\n      and call it not sun, but sunbeam.\u201d\n\n   84 The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to Sabellianism. The\n      term \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_of the same essence_) was a Sabellian term.\n      Sabellianism could, in fact, stand most of the tests of modern\n      Orthodoxy, since it maintains _three persons and one essence_, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd and \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1; and Schleiermacher, in one of his most\n      elaborate treatises (Ueber den Gegensatz zwischen der\n      Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen Vorstellung von der\n      Trinitat. Theolog. Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1822), has sought to\n      rehabilitate Sabellianism. Moses Stuart translated this treatise,\n      and plainly advocated a similar view. Hase (Kirchengeschichte, \u00a7 91)\n      defines the view of Sabellius as making \u201cFather, Son, and Spirit the\n      different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity unfolding itself\n      in the world history as the Triad.\u201d Perhaps (see Baur) the chief\n      peculiarity of Sabellius is in making the Triad begin and end with\n      the process of revelation. The Monad is God in himself: the Triad is\n      God in the process of self-revelation (Baur, \u201cChristliche Lehre von\n      der Dreieinigkeit,\u201d and \u201cLehrbuch der Christlichen\n      Dogmengeschichte\u201d).\n\n   85 \u201cDictum est tamen tres person\u00e6, non ut illud diceretur, sed ut ne\n      taceretur.\u201d Aug. de. Trin., quoted by Hase, Dog. \u00a7 238.\n\n   86 John of Damascus (quoted by Twesten) made his boast of Christianity,\n      that it united what was true in Polytheism with what was true in\n      Judaism. \u201cFrom the Jews,\u201d he says, \u201cwe have the oneness of nature,\n      from the Greeks the distinction in hypostases.\u201d\n\n   87 The substance of what follows in this section, appeared in the\n      \u201cChristian Examiner.\u201d\n\n   88 The _nature_ by which the heathen \u201cdo the things contained in the\n      law,\u201d i.e., obey God, which is here (Rom. 2:15) called \u201cthe law\n      written in the heart,\u201d is in Rom. 7:23 called the \u201claw of the mind.\u201d\n      Olshausen (a sufficiently Orthodox commentator), says, \u201cIt is wholly\n      false to understand \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6 of a mere ideal _possibility_; the\n      apostle speaks evidently of a real and actual obedience. Paul infers\n      that, because there are actually pious heathen, they must have a law\n      which they obey.\u201d _Ad locum._\n\n   89 We have no room to enter into an examination of this question at\n      this time, and can only give a general statement on this subject\n      from one of the authorities which happens to be at hand:\u2014\n\n      \u201c_All_ the Fathers\u201d (before Augustine, fourth and fifth century)\n      \u201cdiffered from Augustine in attributing freedom of will to man in\n      his present state. Thus Justin: \u2018Every created being is so\n      constituted as to be capable of vice or virtue.\u2019 Cyril of Jerusalem:\n      \u2018Know that thou hast a soul possessed of free will; for thou dost\n      not sin by birth (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd), nor by fortune, but we sin by free\n      choice.\u2019 _All_ the Latin Fathers also maintained that free will was\n      not lost after the fall. The Fathers also denied in part, that man\n      is born infected with Adam\u2019s sin. Thus Athenagoras says in his\n      Apology, \u2018Man is in a good state, not only in respect to his\n      Creator, but also in respect to his natural generation.\u2019 \u201d\u2014Wiggers,\n      _Augustinism and Pelagianism_. Translated by Rev. Ralph Emerson,\n      Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.\n\n   90 \u201cAbi ad Jordonum, et Trinitatem disce,\u201d was on early notion.\n\n   91 Dr. Horace Bushnell, a favorite authority with Dr. Huntington, whom\n      Dr. Huntington quotes largely, and whose views he earnestly\n      recommends, gives us his testimony to this point, thus (\u201cGod in\n      Christ,\u201d pp. 130, 131):\u2014\n\n      \u201cA very large portion of Christian teachers, together with the\n      general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three real living\n      persons in the interior nature of God; that is, three\n      consciousnesses, wills, hearts, understandings.\u201d\n\n      \u201c_A very large portion of Christian teachers_\u201d hold, then, to a\n      belief in three Gods; and with them is joined \u201c_the general mass of\n      the disciples_.\u201d The only Unity held by these teachers is, he goes\n      on to say, \u201ca social Unity.\u201d Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are, in\n      their view, socially united only, and preside in that way, as a kind\n      of celestial Tritheocracy, over the world. This heresy, he says,\n      \u201cbecause of its clear opposition to Unitarianism, is counted safe,\n      and never treated as a heresy.\u201d That is, the Christian Church allows\n      the belief in _three Gods_, and will not discipline those who hold\n      that opinion; but, if you believe strictly and only in _one God_,\n      you cannot be saved!\n\n   92 Dr. Bushnell goes on to say (p. 133), \u201cWhile the Unity is thus\n      confused and lost in the threeness, perhaps I should admit that the\n      threeness sometimes appears to be clouded or obscured by the Unity.\n      Thus it is sometimes protested, that in the word, \u2018person\u2019 nothing\n      is meant beyond a threefold distinction; though it will always be\n      observed, that nothing is really meant by the protestation; that the\n      protester goes on to speak and to reason of the three, not as being\n      only somewhats or distinctions, but as metaphysical and real\n      persons.... Indeed, it is a somewhat curious fact in theology, that\n      the class of teachers who protest over the word \u2018person,\u2019 declaring\n      that they mean only a _threefold distinction_, cannot show that\n      there is really a hair\u2019s breadth of difference between their\n      doctrine and the doctrine asserted by many of the later Unitarians.\u201d\n\n   93 \u201cIt has often been asserted _and admitted_,\u201d says Tweaten, one of\n      the strongest of modern Trinitarians, \u201cthat even the principal\n      notions about which the Church doctrine turns are foreign to the New\n      Testament; as \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n      \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2 and \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\u201d(Twesten: Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 281.)\n\n   94 \u201cWho will venture to say that any of the definitions heretofore\n      given of personality in the Godhead, in Itself considered,\u2014such\n      definitions as have their basis in the Nicene or Athanasian\n      Creed,\u2014are intelligible and satisfactory to the mind? At least, I\n      can truly say, that I have not been able to find them, if they do in\n      fact exist; nor, so far as I know, has any one been able, by any\n      commentary on them, to make them clear and satisfactory.\u201d (Prof.\n      Stuart, Biblical Repository, April, 1835. See Wilson, Trin. Test.,\n      p. 272.)\n\n   95 See the creed in Hagenbach (History of Doct., vol. i. p. 208): \u201c\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6.\u201d\n\n   96 Thus speaks Dr. Bushnell on this head (\u201cGod in Christ,\u201d p. 139):\u2014\n\n      \u201cBesides, it is another source of mental confusion, connected with\n      this view of three metaphysical persons, that, though they are all\n      declared to be infinite and equal, they really are not so. The\n      proper deity of Christ is not held in this view. He is begotten,\n      sent, supported, directed, by the Father, in such a sense as really\n      annihilates his deity. This has been shown in a truly searching and\n      convincing manner by Schleiermacher, in his historical essay on the\n      Trinity; and, indeed, you will see at it at a glance, that this view\n      of a metaphysical Trinity of persons breaks down in the very point\n      which is commonly regarded as its excellence\u2014its assertion of the\n      proper deity of Christ.\u201d","title":"Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":185498}