diff options
Diffstat (limited to '29054-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 29054-8.txt | 18963 |
1 files changed, 18963 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29054-8.txt b/29054-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f00a60 --- /dev/null +++ b/29054-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,18963 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors by James +Freeman Clarke + + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no +restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under +the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or +online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license + + + +Title: Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors + +Author: James Freeman Clarke + +Release Date: June 6, 2009 [Ebook #29054] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO 8859-1 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS*** + + + + + + Orthodoxy: + + Its Truths And Errors + + By + + James Freeman Clarke + +"Soleo enim in allena castra transire, non tanquam transfuga, sed tanquam + explorator."--SENECA, _Epistolę_, 2. + + "Fiat lux. Cupio refelli, ubi aberrarim; nihil majus, nihil aliud quam + veritatem efflagito."--THOMAS BURNET, _Arch. Phil._ + + Fourteenth Edition. + + Boston: + + American Unitarian Association. + + 1880. + + + + + +CONTENTS + + +Preface. +Chapter I. Introduction. + § 1. Object and Character of this Book. + § 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward. + § 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief. + § 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections. + § 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections. + § 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all. + § 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found. + § 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions. + § 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great Doctrinal Systems. + § 10. Importance of this Distinction. + § 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England. +Chapter II. The Principle And Idea Of Orthodoxy Stated And Examined. + § 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined. + § 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy. + § 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority. + § 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful. + § 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads to Rome. + § 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument. + § 7. The three Tendencies in the Church. + § 8. The Party of Works. + § 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity. + § 10. The Faith Party in Religion. + § 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea. + § 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle. + § 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion. +Chapter III. The Orthodox Idea Of Natural And Revealed Religion; Or, +Naturalism And Supernaturalism. + § 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural. + § 2. The Creation Supernatural. + § 3. The Question stated. + § 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic + Creations. + § 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom. + § 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of Law. + § 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events. + § 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism. + § 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. + § 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism--Gulf between + Christianity and all other Religions. + § 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural by + being made hostile to the Nature of Man. +Chapter IV. Truths And Errors As Regards Miracles. + § 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles. + § 2. The Definition of a Miracle. + § 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible. + § 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles. + § 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity. + § 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as Historic + Facts. + § 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History. + § 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections. + § 9. Final Result of this Examination. +Chapter V. Orthodox Idea Of The Inspiration And Authority Of The Bible. + § 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the Bible. + § 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of Mankind. + § 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration. + § 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration. + § 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration. + § 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament + Scriptures. + § 7. Authority of the Scriptures. + § 8. The Christian Prepossession. + § 9. Conclusion. +Chapter VI. Orthodox Idea Of Sin, As Depravity And As Guilt. + § 1. The Question stated. + § 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, Natural + Depravity, Total Depravity, Inability. + § 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or + otherwise. + § 4. Sin as Disease. + § 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. Their Truth + and Error. + § 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21. + § 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability. + § 8. Proof Texts. + § 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity. + § 10. Ability and Inability. + § 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability. + § 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning Human + Sinfulness. +Chapter VII. Conversion And Regeneration. + § 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man can be + found. + § 2. Crisis and Development. + § 3. Nature of the Change. + § 4. Its Reality and Importance. + § 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox Difficulty. + § 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration. + § 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not two. + § 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration. + § 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church. + § 10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and be converted; that + is, to make it his Purpose to obey God in all Things. + § 11. Regeneration is God's Work in the Soul. Examination of the + Classical Passage, or conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. + § 12. Evidences of Regeneration. +Chapter VIII. The Orthodox Idea Of The Son Of God. + § 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated. + § 2. This Doctrine gradually developed. + § 3. Unitarian Objections. + § 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine. + § 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement. + § 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism. +Chapter IX. Justification By Faith. + § 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete. + § 2. Its Meaning and Importance. + § 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience. + § 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul. + § 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness. + § 6. Method in Christianity. + § 7. Result. + § 8. Its History in the Church. + § 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification + by Faith. + § 10. Errors of Liberal Christians. +Chapter X. Orthodox Idea Of The Atonement. + § 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement. + § 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine. + § 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture. + § 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages. + § 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language of the New + Testament. + § 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement--warlike, legal, and + governmental. + § 7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of his Disciples. + First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews. + § 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education. + § 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some Satisfaction in + order to our Forgiveness. + § 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God. + § 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal. + § 12. This Law illustrated from History--in the Death of Socrates, Joan + of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln. + § 13. Dr. Bushnell's View of the Atonement. + § 14. Results of this Discussion. +Chapter XI. Calling, Election, And Reprobation. + § 1. Orthodox Doctrine. + § 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine. + § 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom. + § 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination. + § 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven hereafter. + How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a Chosen People. + § 6. How other Nations were elected and called. + § 7. How different Denominations are elected. + § 8. How Individuals are elected. + § 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ. + § 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election. +Chapter XII. Immortality And The Resurrection. + § 1. Orthodox Doctrine. + § 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the Instinctive + Consciousness, and Scripture. + § 3. The Three Principal Views of Death--the Pagan, Jewish, and + Christian. + § 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not endless Future + Existence, but present Spiritual Life. + § 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and not a + Rising again. + § 6. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testament, not a + Rising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into a higher Body. +Chapter XIII. Christ's Coming, Usually Called The "Second Coming," And +Christ The Judge Of The World. + § 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly outward, not + local, nor material. + § 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture. + § 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ? + § 4. Examination of the Account of Christ's Coming given by Jesus in + Matthew (chapters 24-26). + § 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different Times. + § 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the Talents, to + Christ's Coming. + § 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, in Matt. + ch. 25, to his Coming. + § 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World. + § 9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place. + § 10. Paul's View of the Judgment by Christ. + § 11. Final Result. +Chapter XIV. Eternal Punishment, Annihilation, Universal Restoration. + § 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent + hereafter. + § 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by the Orthodox at + the Present Time. + § 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, in Regard + to this Doctrine. + § 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God. + § 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love of God. + § 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting + Punishment. + § 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture. + § 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment. + § 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation. + § 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration. +Chapter XV. The Christian Church. + § 1. The Question stated. + § 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church--Roman Catholic and High Church. + § 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church. + § 4. Christ's Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven. + § 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church. + § 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed. + § 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was. + § 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is. + § 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be. + § 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be. +Chapter XVI. The Trinity. + § 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine. + § 2. History of the Doctrine. + § 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity. + § 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of Things. + § 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture. + § 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood. +Appendix. Critical Notices. + § 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer and + Henry L. Mansel. + § 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen. + § 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor Shedd. + § 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah Adams and Dr. + J. P. Thompson. + § 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D. +Footnotes + + + + + + +PREFACE. + + +The Protestant Reformation has its Principle and its Method. Its Principle +is Salvation by Faith, not by Sacraments. Its Method is Private Judgment, +not Church Authority. But private judgment generates authority; authority, +first legitimate, that of knowledge, grows into the illegitimate authority +of prescription, calling itself Orthodoxy. Then Private Judgment comes +forth again to criticise and reform. It thus becomes the duty of each +individual to judge the Church; and out of innumerable individual +judgments the insight of the Church is kept living and progressive. We +contribute one such private judgment; not, we trust, in conceit, but in +the hope of provoking other minds to further examinations. + + + + + +CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. + + + + +§ 1. Object and Character of this Book. + + +The peculiarity of the book now offered to the religious public by the +government of the American Unitarian Association, is this--that it is an +honest attempt to find and state the truth contained in the doctrines of +their opponents. It is, perhaps, something new for an association +established to defend certain theological opinions, and baptized with a +special theological name, to publish a work intended to do justice to +hostile theories. The too usual course of each sect has been, through all +its organs, to attack, denounce, undervalue, and vilify the positions +taken by its antagonists. This has been considered as only an honest zeal +for truth. The consequence has been, that no department of literature has +been so unchristian in its tone and temper as that of sectarian +controversy. Political journals heap abuse on their opponents, in the +interest of their party. But though more noisy than the theological +partisans, they are by no means so cold, hard, or unrelenting. Party +spirit, compared with sectarian spirit, seems rather mild.(1) + +It is true that theologians do not now use in controversy the epithets +which were formerly universal. We have grown more civil in our language +than were our fathers. It is also true that we often meet with theological +discussions conducted in a spirit of justice towards one's opponents.(2) +But to say, "Fas est ab hoste _doceri_," is a step as yet beyond the +ability of most controversialists. To admit that your antagonist may have +seen some truth not visible to yourself, and to read his work in this +sense,--in order to learn, and not merely to confute,--is not yet common. + +This we are about to undertake in the present treatise. We stand in the +Unitarian position, but shall endeavor to see if there be not some truths +in Orthodoxy which Unitarians have not yet adequately recognized. To use +the language of our motto--we come "not as deserters, but as explorers" +into the camp of Orthodoxy. We are satisfied with our Unitarian position, +as a stand-point from which to survey that of others. And especially are +we grateful to it, since it encourages us by all its traditions, by all +its ideas and principles, to look _after_ as well as before--to see if +there be no truth behind us which we have dropped in our hasty advance, as +well as truth beyond us to which we have not yet attained. + + + + +§ 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward. + + +Such a study as this may be undertaken in the interest of true progress, +as well as that of honest inquiry. For what so frequently checks progress, +causes its advocates to falter, and produces what we call a reaction +towards the old doctrines, as something shallow in the reform itself? +Christians have relapsed into Judaism, Protestants into Romanism, +Unitarians into Orthodoxy--because something true and good in the old +system had dropped out of the new, and attracted the converts back to +their old home. All true progress is expressed in the saying of Jesus, "I +have not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The old system cannot pass away +until all its truths are _fulfilled_, by being taken up into the new +system in a higher form. Judaism will not pass away till it is fulfilled +in Christianity--the Roman Catholic Church will not pass away till it is +fulfilled in Protestantism--Orthodoxy will not pass away till it is +fulfilled by Rational Christianity. Judaism continues as a standing +protest, on behalf of the unity of God, against Trinitarianism. + +And yet we believe that, in the religious progress of the race, +Christianity is an advance on Judaism, Protestant Christianity an advance +on Roman Catholic Christianity, and Liberal and Rational Christianity an +advance on Church Orthodoxy. But all such advances are subject to reaction +and relapse. Reaction differs from relapse in this, that it is an +oscillation, not a fall. Reaction is the backward swing of the wave, which +will presently return, going farther forward than before. Relapse is the +fall of the tide, which leaves the ships aground, and the beach uncovered. +Reaction is going back to recover some substantial truth, left behind in a +too hasty advance. Relapse is falling back into the old forms, an entire +apostasy from the higher stand-point to the lower, from want of strength +to maintain one's self in the advance. + +The Epistle to the Hebrews deserves especial study by those who desire to +understand the philosophy of intellectual and spiritual progress. It was +written to counteract a tendency among the Jewish Christians to relapse +into Judaism. These Christians missed the antiquity, the ceremony, the +authority of the old ritual. Their state of mind resembled that of the +extreme High Church party in the Church of England, who are usually called +Puseyites. They were not apostates or renegades, but backsliders. They +were always lamenting the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism, in the +absence of a priesthood, festival, sacrifices. It hardly seemed to them a +church at all. The Galatians, to whom Paul wrote, had actually gone over +and accepted Jewish Christianity in the place of Christianity in its +simplicity and purity. The Hebrews had not gone over, but were looking +that way. Therefore the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews endeavors to +show them that all which was really good in the Jewish priesthood, temple, +ritual, was represented in Christianity in a higher form. It had been +fulfilled in the New Covenant. Nothing real and good can pass away till it +is fulfilled in something better. Thus the Roman Catholic Church stands, +as a constant proof that Protestant Christianity yet lacks some important +Christian element which Romanism possesses. Orthodoxy, confuted, as we +suppose, over and over again, by the most logical arguments, stands firm, +and goes forward. + +Let us, then, reėxamine the positions of our antagonists--not now merely in +order to find the weak places in their line of battle, but to discover the +strong ones. Let us see if there be any essential, substantial truth in +this venerable system, to which we have as yet not done justice. If there +be, justice and progress will both be served by finding and declaring it. + +We ask, What are the substantial truths, and what the formal errors, of +Orthodoxy? But what do we mean by these terms? + + + + +§ 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief. + + +By Orthodoxy in general is meant the right system of belief. This is the +dictionary definition. But as the world and the Church differ as to +_which_ is the right system of belief--as there are a vast multitude of +systems--and as all sects and parties, and all men, believe the system they +themselves hold to be the right belief--Orthodoxy, in this sense of right +belief, means nothing. In this sense there are as many orthodoxies as +there are believers, for no two men, even in the same Church, think +exactly alike. Unless, therefore, we have some _further_ test, by which to +find out _which_ orthodoxy, among all these orthodoxies, is the true +orthodoxy--we accomplish little by giving to any one system that name. + +Here, for instance, in New England, we have a system of belief which goes +by the name of Orthodoxy; which, however, is considered very heterodox +_out_ of New England. The man who is thought sound by Andover is +considered very unsound by Princeton. The General Assembly of the +Presbyterian Church, in 1837, cut off four synods, containing some forty +thousand members, because they were supposed not to be sound in doctrinal +belief. But these excommunicated synods formed a New School Presbyterian +Church, having its own orthodoxy. Andover considers itself more orthodox +than Cambridge; but the New School Presbyterians think themselves more +orthodox than Andover--the Old School Presbyterians think themselves more +orthodox than the New School. But the most orthodox Protestant is called a +heretic by the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics, again, are called +heretics by the Greek Church. So that orthodoxy, in this sense, seems an +impossible thing--something which, if it exists, can never be certainly +ascertained. + +Whenever a body of believers assumes the name of Orthodox, intending +thereby that they are right, and their opponents wrong, they evidently +assume the very point in dispute. They commit the fallacy called in logic +a _petitio principii_. They beg the question, instead of discussing it. +They put will in the place of reason. They say, in the very title page of +their book, in the first step of their argument, that their book is +satisfactory and their argument conclusive. It would be more modest to +wait till the discussion is concluded before they proceed thus to state +what the conclusion is. This is an arrogance like that which the Church of +Rome commits, in calling itself Catholic or Universal, while excluding +more than half of Christendom from its communion.(3) + +A political party does not offer such an affront to its opponents. It may +name itself Democratic, Republican, Federal; it may call itself the +Conservative party, or that of Reform. By these titles it indicates its +leading idea--it signifies that it bears the standard of reform, or that it +stands by the old institutions of the country. But no political party ever +takes a name signifying that it is all right and its opponents all wrong. +This assumption was left to religious sects, and to those who consider +humility the foundation of all the virtues. + +The term "Evangelical" is, perhaps, not as objectionable as Orthodox, +though it carries with it a similar slur on those of other beliefs. It +says, "We are they who believe the gospel of Christ; those who differ from +us do not believe it." It is like the assumption by some of the +Corinthians of the exclusive name of Christians. "We are of Christ," said +they--meaning that the followers of Paul and Apollos were not so. + +Probably the better part of those who take the name of Orthodox, or +Evangelical, intend no such arrogance. All they want is some word by which +to distinguish themselves from Unitarians, Universalists, &c. They might +say, "We have as good a right to complain of your calling yourselves +'Rational Christians' or 'Liberal Christians'--assuming thereby that others +are not rational or liberal. You mean no such assumption, perhaps; neither +do we when we call ourselves 'Orthodox' or 'Evangelical.' When we can find +another term, better than these, by which to express the difference +between us, we will use it. We do not intend by using these words to +foreclose argument or to beg the question. We do not mean by Orthodoxy, +right belief; but only a certain well-known form of doctrine." + +This is all well. Yet not quite well--since we have had occasion to notice +the surprise and disgust felt by those who had called themselves "The +Orthodox," in finding themselves in a community where others had assumed +that title, and refused to them any share in it. Therefore it is well to +emphasize the declaration that Orthodoxy in the sense of "right belief" is +an unmeaning expression, signifying nothing. + + + + +§ 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections. + + +The majority, in any particular place, is apt to call itself orthodox, and +to call its opponents heretics. But the majority in one place may be the +minority in another. The majority in Massachusetts is the minority in +Virginia. The majority in England is the minority in Rome or +Constantinople. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of all England, +gave Mr. Carzon a letter of introduction to the Patriarch of +Constantinople, the head of the Greek Church. But the Patriarch had never +heard of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and inquired, "Who is he?" + +Nevertheless, it is a very common argument that such and such a doctrine, +being held by the great majority of Christians, must necessarily be true. +Thus it is said that since the great majority of Christians believe the +doctrine of the Trinity, that doctrine must be true. "Is it possible," it +is said, "that the great majority of Christian believers should be now, +and have been so long, left in error on such a fundamental doctrine as +this?" Even so intelligent a man as Dr. Huntington seems to have been +greatly influenced by this argument in becoming a Trinitarian. The same +argument has carried many Protestants into the Roman Catholic Church. And, +no doubt, there is a truth in the argument--a truth, indeed, which is +implied all through the present work--that doctrines thus held by great +multitudes during long periods cannot be wholly false. But it by no means +proves them to be wholly true. Otherwise, truth would change as the +majorities change. In one century the Arians had the majority; and +Arianism, therefore, in that century would have been true. Moreover, most +of those who adhere to a doctrine have not examined it, and do not have +any defined opinion concerning it. They accept it, as it is taught them, +without reflection. And again, most truths are, at first, in a minority of +one. Christianity, in the first century, was in a very small minority. +Protestantism, in the time of Luther, was all in the brain and heart of +one man. To assume, therefore, that Orthodoxy, or the true belief, is that +of the majority, is to forbid all progress, to denounce all new truth, and +to resist the revelation and inspiration of God, until it has conquered +for itself the support of the majority of mankind. According to this +principle, as Christianity is still in a minority as compared with +paganism, we ought all to become followers of Boodh. Such a view cannot +bear a moment's serious examination. Every prophet, sage, martyr, and +heroic champion of truth has spent his life and won the admiration and +grateful love of the world by opposing the majority in behalf of some +neglected or unpopular truth. + + + + +§ 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections. + + +Some people think that Orthodoxy means the _oldest_ doctrine, and that if +they can only find out what doctrine was believed by the Church in the +first century, they shall have the true orthodox doctrine. But the early +Church held some opinions which all now believe to be false. They +believed, for instance, that Jesus was to return visibly, in that age, and +set up his church in person, and reign in the world in outward form--a +thing which did not take place. They therefore believed in the early +church something which was not true--consequently what _they_ believed +cannot be a certain test of Orthodoxy. + +The High Church party in the Church of England, in defending themselves +against the Roman Catholic argument from antiquity, have appealed to a +higher antiquity, and established themselves on the supposed faith of the +first three centuries. But Isaac Taylor, in his "Ancient Christianity," +has sufficiently shown that during no period in those early centuries was +anything like modern orthodoxy satisfactorily established.(4) The Church +doctrine was developed gradually during a long period of debate and +controversy. The Christology of the Church was elaborated amid the fierce +conflicts of Arians and Athanasians, Monothelites and Monophysites, +Nestorians and Eutychians. The anthropology of the Church was hammered and +beaten into shape by the powerful arm of Augustine and his successors, on +the anvils of the fifth century, amid the fiery disputes of Pelagians, +Semi-Pelagians, and their opponents. + +Many doctrines generally believed in the early church are universally +rejected now. The doctrine of chiliasm, or the millennial reign of Christ +on earth; the doctrine of the under world, or Hades, where all souls went +after death; the doctrine of the atonement made by Christ to the +devil,--such were some of the prevailing views held in the early ages of +the Church. The oldest doctrine is not certainly the truest; or, as +Theodore Parker once said to a priest in Rome, who told him that the +primacy of Peter was asserted in the second century, "A lie is no better +because it is an old one." + + + + +§ 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all. + + +But, it may be said, if Orthodoxy does not mean the absolutely right +system of belief, nor the system held by the majority, nor the oldest +doctrine of the Church, it may, nevertheless, mean the _essential_ truths +held in all Christian Churches, in all ages and times; in short, according +to the ancient formula--that which has been believed always, by all +persons, and everywhere--"_quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique_." + +In this sense no one would object to Orthodoxy. Only make your Catholicity +large enough to include every one, and who would not be a Catholic? But +this famous definition, if it be strictly taken, seems as much too large +as the others are too narrow. If you only admit to be orthodox what all +Christian persons have believed, then the Trinity ceases to be orthodox; +for many, in all ages, have disbelieved it. Eternal punishment is not +orthodox, for that, too, has often been denied in the Church. Sacraments +are not orthodox, for the Quakers have rejected them. The resurrection is +not orthodox, for there were some Christians in the Church at Corinth who +said there was no resurrection of the dead. + + + + +§ 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found. + + +Any attempt, therefore, rigidly to define Orthodoxy, destroys it. Regarded +as a precise statement, in a fixed or definite form, it is an +impossibility. There is no such thing, and never has been. No creed ever +made satisfied even the majority. How, indeed, can any statement +proceeding from the human brain be an adequate and permanent expression of +eternal truth? Even the apostle says, "I know in part, and I prophesy in +part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part +shall be done away." The apostle declares that his sight of truth is only +partial, and that everything partial is imperfect, and that everything +imperfect must pass away; so that our present knowledge of truth is +transient. "Whether there be knowledge, it shall pass away." If the +apostle Paul declared that he had not the power of making a perfect and +permanent statement of truth, how can we believe that any one else can +ever do it? + + + + +§ 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions. + + +If, therefore, every doctrinal statement is changeable and changing; if +the history of opinions shows the rise and fall of creeds,--one after the +other becoming dominant, and then passing away; if no formula has ever +gained the universal assent of Christendom; if the oldest creeds contained +errors now universally rejected,--what then remains as Orthodoxy? We +answer, no one statement, but something underlying all statements--no one +system of theology, but certain convictions, perhaps, pervading all the +ruling systems. Man's mind, capable of insight, sees with the inward eye +the same great spiritual realities, just as with his outward eye he sees +the same landscape, sky, ocean. According to the purity and force of his +insight, and the depth of his experience, he sees the same truth. There is +one truth, but many ways of stating it--one spirit, but many forms. + + + "The one remains, the many change and pass; + Heaven's light forever shines, earth's shadows fly." + + +Are there any such great convictions underlying and informing all the +creeds? I think there are. I think, for example, it has always been +believed in the Church that in some sense man is a sinner, and in some +sense Christ is a Saviour from sin; that Christianity is in some way a +supernatural revelation of the divine will and love; that Scripture is +somehow an inspired book, and has authority over our belief and life; that +there is a Church, composed of disciples of Jesus, whose work in the world +is to aid him in saving the lost and helping the fallen and wretched; that +somehow man needs to be changed from his natural state into a higher +state, and to begin a new life, in order to see God; that there is such a +thing as heaven, and such a thing as hell; that those who love God and man +belong to heaven, and that the selfish and sensual belong to hell. These +ideas have been the essential ideas of the Church, and constitute the +essence of its Orthodoxy. + +Orthodoxy, then, is not any definite creed, or statement of truth. It is +not of the letter, but of the spirit. The letter kills. Consequently those +who cling to the letter of Orthodoxy kill its spirit. The greatest enemy +of Orthodoxy is dead Orthodoxy. The old statements retained after their +life is gone,--the old phrases made Shibboleths by which truth is to be +forever tested,--these gradually make the whole system seem false to the +advancing intellect of the human race. Then heresies come up, just as +providential, and just as necessary, as Orthodoxy, to compel the Church to +make restatements of the eternal truth. Heresies, in this sense, are as +true as Orthodoxy, and make part, indeed, of a higher Orthodoxy. + +By Orthodoxy, therefore, we do not mean the opinions held by any +particular denomination in New England or elsewhere. We do not mean the +opinions of New England Calvinists or of Southern Presbyterians; not the +creed of Andover, of New Haven, or of Princeton: but we mean that great +system of belief which gradually took form in the Christian Church, in the +course of centuries, as its standard theology. The pivotal points of this +system are sin and salvation. In it man appears as a sinner, and Christ as +a Saviour. Man is saved by an inward change of heart, resulting in an +outward change of life, and produced by the sight of the two facts of sin +and salvation. The sight of his sin and its consequences leads him to +repentance; the sight of salvation leads him to faith, hope, and love; and +the sight of both results in regeneration, or a new life. This system also +asserts the divinity of Christ, the triune nature of God, the divine +decrees, the plenary inspiration of Scripture, eternal punishment, and +eternal life. + + + + +§ 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great Doctrinal Systems. + + +Within the last twenty-five years, a new department of theological +literature has arisen in Germany, which treats of the history of +doctrines. The object of this is to trace the doctrinal opinions held in +the Church in all ages. By this course of study, two facts are +apparent--first, that the same great views have been substantially held by +the majority of Christians in all ages; and, secondly, that the forms of +doctrine have been very different. The truths themselves have been +received by Christians, as their strength, their hope, and their joy, in +all time; but the formal statement of these truths has been wrought out +differently by individual intellects. The universal body of Christians has +taken care of Christian truth; while the Church Fathers, or doctors, have +held in their hands the task of defining it doctrinally for the intellect. + +By substantial truth we mean this--that in all the great systems of opinion +which have had a deep hold on the human mind, over broad spaces and +through long periods, there is something suited to man's nature, and +corresponding with the facts of the case. The mind of man was made for +truth, and not for error. Error is transient: truth only is permanent. Men +do not love error for its own sake, but for the sake of something with +which it is connected. After a while, errors are eliminated, and the +substance retained. The great, universal, abiding convictions of men must, +therefore, contain truth. If it were not so, we might well despair; for, +if the mind of the race could fall into unmixed error, the only remedy by +which the heart can be cured, and the life redeemed from evil, would be +taken away. But it is not so. God has made the mind for truth, as he has +adapted the taste to its appropriate food. In the main, and in the long +run, what men believe _is the truth_; and all catholic beliefs are valid +beliefs. Opinions held by all men, everywhere and at all times, must be +substantially true. + +But error certainly exists, and always has existed. If the human mind is +made for truth, how does it fall into error? There never has been any +important question upon which men have not taken two sides; and, where +they take two sides, one side must be in error. Sometimes these two +parties are equally balanced, and that for long periods. With which has +the truth been? Is God always with the majority? If so, we must at once +renounce our Unitarian belief for the Trinity, as an immense majority of +votes are given in its favor. But, then, we must also renounce +Protestantism; for Protestantism has only eighty or ninety millions +against a hundred and forty millions who are Catholics. And, still +further, we must renounce Christianity in favor of Heathenism; since all +the different Christian sects and churches united make up but three +hundred millions, while the Buddhists alone probably exceed that number. +Moreover, truth is always in a minority at first,--usually in a minority of +one; and, if men ought to wait until it has a majority on its side before +they accept it, it never will have a majority on its side. + +These objections lead us to the only possible answer, which consists in +distinguishing between the substance and the form. When we assert that all +creeds, widely held and long retained, have truth, we mean substantial +truth. We do not mean that they are true in their formal statement, which +may be an erroneous statement, but that they are true as to their +contents. The substance of the belief is the fact inwardly beheld by the +mind; the form is the verbal statement which the mind makes of what it has +seen. It has seen something real; but, when it attempts to describe what +it has seen, it may easily commit errors. Thus there may be, in the same +creed, substantial truth and formal error; and all great and +widely-extended beliefs, as we assert, must contain substantial truth and +formal error. Without substantial truth, there would be nothing in them to +feed the mind, and they would not be retained; and, if they were not more +or less erroneous in form, it would imply infallibility on the part of +those who give them their form. + + + + +§ 10. Importance of this Distinction. + + +This distinction is one of immense importance; because, being properly +apprehended, it would, by destroying dogmatism, destroy bigotry also. +Dogmatism consists in assuming that the essence of truth lies in its +formal statement. Correctly assuming that the life of the soul comes from +the sight of truth, it falsely infers that the essence of truth is in the +verbal formula. Consequently, this formula must necessarily seem of +supreme importance, and the very salvation of the soul to depend on +holding the correct opinion. With this conviction, one _must and ought_ to +be bigoted; he ought to cling to the minutest syllable of his creed as the +drowning man clings to the floating plank. Holding this view, we cannot +blame men for being bigoted: it is their duty to be bigoted. But, when the +distinction is recognized, they will cling to the substance, knowing that +the vital truth lies there. It is the sight of the fact which is the +source of our life, and not the statement which we make, in words, as to +what we have seen. Then the sight becomes the thing of immense importance; +the creed in which it is expressed, of comparative unimportance. + +This distinction would tend to bring the Church to a true unity--the unity +of the spirit. All would strive for the same insight, all tolerate variety +of expression. Instead of assenting outwardly to the same creed, every man +ought, in fact, to make his own creed; and there should be as many +different creeds as there are different men. Nor should my creed of to-day +be the same as that of yesterday; for, instead of resting on a past +experience, I should continually endeavor to obtain new sights of the one +unchangeable truth. Seeing more of it to-day than I did yesterday, my +yesterday's creed would seem inadequate, and I should wish to make a new +one. + +Substantial truth means the truth which we see--the inward sight, the +radical experience. Formal truth is the verbal statement, and consists in +accuracy of expression. And so of error. Substantial error means error in +regard to the substance, and is necessarily inadequacy of inward +experience. Strictly speaking, there cannot be substantial error; for +error, in regard to the substance of truth, is purely negative. It is +not-seeing. It is failing to perceive the truth, either from want of +opportunity, weakness of vision, or neglect in looking. But formal error +is not merely defect: it may also be mistake. We may misstate the truth, +and say what is radically false. From this source come contradictions; +and, where two statements are contradictory, both cannot be true. +Falsehood, therefore, originates with the statement. The errors of insight +are merely defects; but the errors of statement may be positive +falsehoods. + +This leads us to take a special view of theological controversies. In all +great controversies, in the conflicts of ages, where the good and wise +have stood opposed to each other, century after century, it is probable +that there are truth and error on both sides. + +Each side may hold some truth which the other has not seen. There is, +therefore, also substantial error on both sides; for each may have failed +to see some phase of truth which the other has recognized. But there may +be formal error, or error of statement, even where there is substantial +truth; for the truth may be overstated, or understated, or misstated, and +a false expression given to a true observation. + +What, then, is the duty of those who stand opposed to each other in these +controversies--of Catholics and Protestants, Christians and Deists, +Orthodox and Unitarians? They have plainly a twofold duty to themselves as +well as to their opponents. They ought to increase their insight, and to +improve their statements; to deepen and widen their hold of the substance; +to correct and improve their expression of the form. The first is the work +of religion; the second, that of theology. + +The first is infinitely the most important, because the life of the soul +depends on the sight of truth. This is its food, without which it will +starve and die. But it is also important that it should improve its +theology, because a correct theology is a help to insight, and a ground of +mental communion. + + + + +§ 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England. + + +The Liberal party in New England have carried on a theological controversy +for some forty years with the Orthodox. This controversy was inevitable. +Calvinism had neglected important truths which the human soul needed, and +without which it would starve. Unitarianism came to assert and vindicate +those truths. At first, it was inevitable that the statements on either +side should be narrow and mutually exclusive. But, as a battle goes on, +the position of the opposing armies changes. The points of attack and +defence alter. Old positions are abandoned, and new ones occupied. Seldom +does it happen to either army to sleep on the field of battle. Nor has it +so happened to us. Neither the Unitarians nor the Trinitarians have gained +a complete victory: each has taken some important position, and yielded +some other. We have a book called "Concessions of Trinitarians:" another +might be written containing the "Concessions of Unitarians." Neither side +has conceded, or ought to concede, any real truth of experience or of +statement; but it is honorable to each to concede its own partial and +inadequate statements. + +We intend, in this volume, to endeavor, from our own point of view, to +gain what sight we can of the radical, vital truth underlying each great +Orthodox doctrine. At the same time, we shall freely criticise the forms, +especially the more recent ones, in which Orthodox doctrines have been +stated. + +We assume, at the outset, that each doctrine _does_ cover some truth of +experience, some real solid fact, which is as important to us as to our +opponents. We assume, that, though the doctrines may be false, there may +be an experience behind them which is true. We have satisfied ourselves of +the formal error of their statements. We consider it impossible for a +sound Unitarian intellect to accept the Orthodox theology as a whole, +without being untrue to itself; but there is no reason why we should not +break this shell of doctrine, and find the vital truths which it contains. +And if it be said, "Who made you a judge or a divider on these subjects?" +we reply, that only by contributions from all quarters can a final +judgment be reached. Meantime, it is the right and duty of every serious +thinker to add his own opinion to the common stock; willing to be refuted +when wrong,--glad, if right, to be helpful in any degree towards the +ultimate result. + +This is the object of the present work, which, though written by a +Unitarian, and from a Unitarian stand-point, and though published by the +American Unitarian Association, will, we trust, be sufficiently +unsectarian. + + + + + +CHAPTER II. THE PRINCIPLE AND IDEA OF ORTHODOXY STATED AND EXAMINED. + + + + +§ 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined. + + +The principle of Orthodoxy is, that there is one true system of Christian +doctrine, and that all others are false; that this system can be, and has +been, so stated in words as to distinguish it from all the false systems +or heresies; and that this true system of doctrine is the one which is now +held, and always has been held, by the majority of Christians; and, +finally, that the belief of this system is, as a rule, essential to +salvation--so that those who may be saved, while not accepting it, will be +saved (if at all) by way of exception, and not according to rule. + + + + +§ 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy. + + +The principle of Orthodoxy seems to have arisen, and to have maintained +itself in the Church, in some such way as this. Jesus Christ, it is +assumed, came to save the soul from sin and evil. He saves the soul by the +word of truth. In order that this truth shall become saving truth, it must +be believed, and so strongly believed as to have a practical influence on +life and action. We are therefore saved by believing the truth taught by +Christ. But in order to be believed, it must be expressed in some definite +statement, or in what we call Christian doctrine. But truth is one, and +therefore the doctrine which expresses it must also be one. + +Therefore there must be one system of Christian doctrine, containing in +itself the substance of Christian truth, and constituting the object of +Christian faith. This system, though it may vary in its unessential parts, +must in its essence be unchangeable. In proportion as any system of belief +varies from it, such system is heterodox and dangerous, while this system +alone is orthodox and safe. + +Another form of this argument would be as follows: Christ came to _reveal_ +something to men. If revealed, it must be made known. If made known, it +must be capable of being so expressed that there can be no reasonable +doubt concerning it. Otherwise, Christianity would not be a revelation. +But if expressed so as to enter the human mind, it must be expressed in +human language. A verbal revelation, therefore, is essential for the +purposes of Christianity. Such a revelation is nothing else than a system +of doctrine, or that which can be systematized into doctrine. And this +system must be one and the same from age to age, or it is not a permanent +divine revelation, but only a transient human seeking for such a +revelation. + + + + +§ 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority. + + +The natural test of Orthodoxy is assumed to be the belief of the majority +of Christians; for if Christianity be a revelation of truth, its essential +contents must be easy to apprehend, and when apprehended, they must be +generally accepted. The revelations of God in nature are seen and accepted +by the human intellect, and so become matters of science. Orthodox science +is that which the great majority of scientific men have accepted as such; +and Orthodox _Christianity_, in like manner, must be that which the +majority of Christian believers accept as such. Hence it is taken for +granted, as regards Orthodox doctrine, that it meets the test, "_Quod +semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_." + + + + +§ 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful. + + +But if the essential truth of Christianity be thus plain, those who do not +receive it must be either stupid or wilful. Its rejection argues a want of +intellect or a bad heart. Heretics, therefore, ought logically to become +to the Orthodox objects either of contempt or hatred. If they cannot see +what is so plain, they must be intellectually imbecile. If they will not +see it, they must be morally depraved. Therefore intelligent people who +accept and teach heresies ought to be considered wicked people by logical +Orthodox minds. Moreover, they are the most dangerous persons in the +community, because, by denying that truth by which the soul is to be +saved, they endanger not merely the temporal, but also the eternal, +welfare of those whom they seduce. And if we have a right to abate a +nuisance which only interferes with the earthly comfort and peace of +society, how much more one which attacks its spiritual peace and eternal +welfare! Have not the majority a right to protect themselves, their +children, and society from that which they not merely believe, but know, +to be evil? For Orthodoxy assumes to be not merely opinion, but knowledge. +Hence Orthodoxy legitimates persecution.(5) Persecution is only the +judicious repression of criminal attempts to pervert and injure society. +Moreover, Orthodoxy, according to its principle, ought to discourage +inquiry in relation to its own fundamental principles. For why continue to +discuss and debate about that which is known? Progress consists in +advancing from the known to the unknown. The unknown, and not the known, +is the proper subject for inquiry. The system of Orthodoxy, therefore, +according to its own principle, should be withdrawn from further +examination. Intellectual advance requires us to take for granted +something--to forget that which is behind in order to press forward to that +which is before. The doctrines of Orthodoxy therefore, when once +established, should afterwards be assumed, and need not be proved. We do +not call a scientific man a bigot because he refuses to discuss +fundamental principles. If Orthodoxy be science, why accuse it of bigotry +when it follows the same course? + + + + +§ 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads to Rome. + + +If Orthodoxy consists in a statement of opinions the belief of which is +essential to salvation, the question arises, Are _all_ these opinions +essential, or only a part? It is generally admitted that the great system +called Orthodoxy contains some things not essential to salvation. How +shall these be distinguished? Moreover, some variation of statement is +judged allowable. No Orthodox creed is assumed to be inspired as to its +language. The same essential truth may be expressed in different terms. +How, then, are we to define the limits of expression so as to know what +error of opinion is venial, and what vital? Orthodoxy assures us that our +salvation depends on accepting its statements. In which particular form, +then, must we accept them? In so important a matter as this, where +salvation is assumed to depend on accepting the right form of doctrine, +one surely ought to be able to know which the right form is. Now, the rule +of Orthodoxy, as given above, is, that nothing is Orthodox, as essential +doctrine, which has not been believed "always, everywhere, and by all." +But this raises an historical question, and one of no little difficulty. +For since heresies have always existed, and some one has always been found +somewhere to deny the most essential doctrines of Orthodoxy, the question +is somewhat intricate who these "all" are who have never disbelieved the +Orthodox system. It is plain that the majority of Christians have neither +time nor ability for these investigations. The historical inquiry must be +conducted for them by others. And here seems to come in the law of Church +authority as against private judgment. And so the principle of Orthodoxy, +carried out to its legitimate results, appears to land us at last in the +Roman Catholic Church, to set aside the right of private judgment, and to +justify intolerance and the forcible suppression of heresy. But as these +results are not accepted by those who yet accept the principles of +Orthodoxy, it is necessary to see if there is a fallacy anywhere in our +course of thought, and at what precise point the fallacy has come in. + + + + +§ 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument. + + +The fallacy in all this argument lies here--that faith is confounded with +belief; knowledge with opinion; the sight of truth with its intellectual +statement in the form of doctrine. Undoubtedly there is only one faith, +but there may be many ways of stating it in the form of opinion. Moreover, +no man, no church, no age, sees the whole of truth. Truth is multilateral, +but men's minds are unilateral. They are mirrors which reflect, and that +imperfectly, the side of the object which is towards them. Therefore even +knowledge in any finite mind is partial, consequently imperfect; and +consequently needs other knowledge to complete it. + +This, apparently, is what the apostle Paul means (1 Cor. 13:8-12) in his +statement concerning the relation between knowledge and love. Knowledge +(Gnosis) "shall pass away." The word here used is elsewhere translated by +"destroyed," "brought to nought," "abolished," "made of none effect." +"Knowledge" here probably refers to definite and systematic statements of +real insights. It is something more than opinion, but something less than +faith. Faith abides, but knowledge passes away. Faith abides, because it +is a positive sight of truth. It is an experience of the soul, by which it +opens itself in trust, and becomes receptive of spiritual influence. +Faith, therefore, remains, and its results are permanent in the soul. They +make the substance of our knowledge as regards the spiritual world. This +substance becomes a part of the soul itself, and constitutes a basis of +self-consciousness as real as is its experience of the external world. But +_Gnosis_ is this faith, translated by the intellect into systematic form. +Such systems embody real experience, and are necessary for mental and +moral progress. They are the bodies of thought. But all bodies must die, +sooner or later; and so all systems of knowledge must pass away. The body, +at first, helps the growth of thought, helps the growth of the soul; but +afterwards it hinders it. The new wine must be put into new bottles. +Therefore the apostle Paul, the great teacher of doctrinal theology in the +Christian Church, distinctly recognizes here, that every system of +doctrine, no matter how much truth it contains, is partial, and therefore +transient. He makes no exception in favor even of inspired statements--he +does not except his own. All bodies must die; all forms are fugitive; +nothing continues but the substance of knowledge, which is faith; the +inward sight of God's goodness producing that endless expectation which is +called hope; and the large spiritual communion with God and his creatures, +here called Agape, or love. The apostle speaks in the first person when he +says that knowledge passes away--"_We_ know in part, and _we_ prophesy [or +teach] in part." He speaks for himself and his fellow-apostles. + +We see, therefore, that the great master and head of Orthodoxy in the +Church has himself declared every form of Orthodoxy to be transient. + +We conclude, therefore, that the apostle Paul, in this famous passage, +overturns the whole principle of verbal Orthodoxy. He takes away its +foundation. Not denying the reality and permanence of religious +experience, not denying the saving power of truth, he declares that no +expressed system of truth is permanent. The basis of doctrinal Orthodoxy +is the assumption that its own particular form of belief is essential to +salvation. But the apostle declares that _all_ forms are transient, and, +therefore, _none_ essential. All statement is a limitation, and the moment +that we make a definition, we say something which is incomplete. When Paul +says, "We know in part," he says the same thing which is said by Kant, by +Sir William Hamilton, by Auguste Comte, by Mr. Mansell, and most modern +thinkers, when they declare the relativity of knowledge. All thinking is +limitation. "To think," says Sir William Hamilton, "is to condition." We +only know a thing, says this school, by its being different from something +else. The school of Kant declares all knowledge to be phenomenal, and that +all phenomenal knowledge consists of two parts--the part given by the +thing, and the part added by the mind. Herbert Spencer (in "First +Principles") insists on the certainty of the existence of things in +themselves, but also on their absolute and eternal unknowableness. +According to John Stuart Mill, the same view of the unknowableness of +Noumena is taken by M. Auguste Comte. + +These modern philosophers, it will be seen, go much farther than Paul, and +lay down positions which inaugurate a universal scepticism. According to +them there is nothing certain and nothing fixed. Mr. Mansell virtually +teaches us that we cannot know anything of God, duty, or immortality; and +that faith means, taking for granted on some outward authority. To use a +striking expression of President James Walker, "We are not to believe, but +to make believe." That is, we are not to believe with our intellect, but +with our will. Or, in other words, we are to believe not what is true, but +what is expedient. This he calls regulative truth, as opposed to +speculative truth. + +But this is by no means the doctrine of the apostle Paul. He teaches the +certainty of substantive knowledge, but the fallibility of formal +knowledge. He thus avoids the two extremes of dogmatism on the one side, +and scepticism on the other. The substance of Gnosis, which is the sight +of truth, is a reality, and, like all that is real, has its root in God, +and shares his eternity. The form of Gnosis is subjective, relative, and +transient. Everything which is seen is temporal; only that which is not +seen is eternal. All that takes outward, visible form, comes under the law +of change; the roots of our knowledge, fixed in God, are unchangeable. + + + + +§ 7. The three Tendencies in the Church. + + +The human soul, a unit, indivisible, and without parts, nevertheless acts +in three directions--of will, affection, intellect. These are +distinguishable, though not divisible. Every one knows the difference +between an _act_; an _emotion_ of anger, pity, sorrow, love; and a process +of logic, or an intellectual argument. These are the three primary states +of the mind, evidently distinct. It is impossible to mistake either for +the other. I may direct my mind towards action, towards thought, or +towards emotion. The first of these, action, is the most within my own +power, depends chiefly on myself, lies nearest the will. _Will_ passes +instantaneously into action. I will to lift my arm, and it is done. On the +other hand, feeling or emotion lies the farthest from this centre of will, +depends least of all on my own choice, and in it I am most passive. But +the sphere of intellect is intermediate. I am more free when I think than +when I feel; less free than when I act. In the domain of will, I act upon +external things; in the domain of feeling, I am acted upon by external +things; in the domain of intellect, I neither act nor am acted upon, but I +_see_ them. In all thinking, in proportion as it is pure thought, both +will and emotion are excluded. We are neither actors nor sufferers, but +spectators. Things seen pass into our life through the intellect, and +become sources of emotion and action. Love of truth causes us to desire to +know it; this desire leads us to put our mind in the presence of truth, +but when there, the functions of emotion and will cease, and all we have +to do is to look. + +Now, there have always been in the Church three parties, or at least three +tendencies, in regard to the basis of religion. One of these makes the +basis of the religious life to consist in thought, one posits it in +feeling, the third in action. With one, the intellect must take the +initiative; with the second, the heart; with the third, the will, or power +of determination. The three parties in the Church, based on these three +tendencies, may be characterized as the Orthodoxists, the Emotionalists, +and the party of Works. The first says, "We are saved by faith;" the +second says, "We are saved by love;" the third says, "We are saved by +obedience." The first assumes that the sight of truth must take the lead +in all Christian experience; the second believes that love for goodness is +the true basis in religion; the third maintains that the first thing to be +done, in order to become a religious man, is to obey the law of duty. It +is evidently very important to decide which of these answers is the true +one. What are we to do first, if we wish to become Christian men or women? +Are we to study, read, reflect, in order to know the truth? Are we to go +to church and listen to sermons, join Bible classes and study the +Scriptures, read compends of doctrine and books of Christian evidence? Or +are we to seek for emotion, to pray for a change of heart, to put +ourselves under exciting influences, to go where a revival is in progress, +to attend protracted meetings, to be influenced through sympathy till we +are filled full of emotions of anxiety, fear, remorse, followed by +emotions of hope, trust, gratitude, pardon, peace, joy? Or are we to do +neither of these things, but to begin by obedience, trying to _do_ right +in order to _be_ right, beginning by the performance of the humblest +duties, the nearest duties, letting fidelity in the least open the way to +more? Shall we _know_ the truth in order to love it and do it? Or shall we +_love_ the truth in order to see it and do it? Or shall we _do_ right in +order to know it and love it? + +Large numbers in the Church have followed each of these three methods, and +made each the basis of its action. One has said, "We are saved by works;" +a second, "We are saved by faith;" a third, "We are saved by love." + + + + +§ 8. The Party of Works. + + +Two tendencies have joined in teaching salvation by works, or, more +strictly, in teaching _the initiative of the will in religion_. These are +the Church-tendency and the Moral-tendency in Christianity. The Church +party in Christianity teaches that the first duty towards a child is to +make it a member of the Christian Church by baptism, and that the first +duty of every baptized person is to obey the commands of the Church. The +Church thus becomes a school, in which baptized persons are educated as +Christians. The Church of Rome, and the High Church party in the Church of +England and in the Episcopal Church of the United States, teach this +doctrine of salvation by works. This system by no means dispenses with +Christian belief or Christian feeling, but makes them both subordinate. +The Church says to its faithful, We do not require you to believe or to +feel, but to obey. If we said, "Believe," or "Feel," you might justly +reply, "We cannot believe or feel when we choose, and you have therefore +no right to ask us to do so." Therefore the Church only demands obedience, +which it is in the power of all to render. It, indeed, requires an assent +to its creed, and forbids heresy. But this only means, "Receive the creed +as true until you are able to see _how_ it is true." The Church also +insists greatly on love, and its saints have been filled with the highest +raptures of piety. But it never _requires_ feeling. It says, "Use the +means we put into your hands, and feeling will come. Pray, as we command +you to do, whether you feel deeply or not. Feeling will come by and by." +Discipline, therefore, and not illumination, has been the method of the +Church of Rome, and is also the method of all other Churches, so far as +they are ecclesiastical Churches. All such Churches teach that by a +faithful conformity to their ritual, methods, sacraments, services, +discipline, the Christian life will surely come. The one thing needful and +primary with them all is obedience, and the result of obedience is +knowledge and love. + +Essentially the same view is taken by the Ethical party, or Moralists, in +Christianity. Their statement, also, of the foundation of religion is, +that it lies in obedience. They differ only from the Church party as +regards the authority to be obeyed. With them it is not the Church, but +the Moral Law, as made known to men in revelation, or in the natural +instincts of conscience. The foundation of all goodness and religion is +right doing. This leads to right thinking and right feeling; or, when it +does not lead to these, it is still sufficient, and is satisfactory to +God. "What doth the Lord require of thee," say they, "but to do justly, +and love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God?" At this point the extremes +meet, and the Roman Catholic Church, or the extreme right, offers its hand +to the Liberal Christians, or the extreme left. This is the point of +contact between the two, which sometimes, also, becomes a bridge by which +proselytes pass either way, from one to the other. But the practical +question is, Is this answer sound? _Does_ the will lead the way in +religion? Is obedience the first step to be taken at every point of the +way? Is the initiative in the religious life always an action? Are we +saved by works? + +The objection to this view is, that a religious action, without a +religious thought and a religious affection behind it, is not in any sense +religious. It has in it nothing of the essence of religion. Religion, +regarded merely as obedience to God, implies the knowledge of God. We must +know God in order to obey him; we must know God in order to love him. +Knowledge, therefore, must precede obedience, and not the contrary. +Otherwise obedience is an empty form, having no religious character. +Unless we see the truth and justice of obedience, we are only yielding to +human persuasion, to human authority, and not to the authority of God. It +may be well, or it may be ill, to yield to such human authority; but there +is no religion in it, or only a religion of dead works. + + + + +§ 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity. + + +There are those, and always have been those, who have placed the substance +of religion in love, in which they have, perhaps, not been mistaken. But +they have often taken another step, by degrading love into mere emotion. +They have considered that feeling was the basis of religion; not thought, +nor action. They too have texts to quote in support of their view. They +say that "with the _heart_ men believe unto righteousness;" that we must +"be rooted and grounded in _love_;" that the _first_ commandment is to +"_love_ God with all the heart." As with them religious emotion +constitutes the essence of religion, they make use of all means of +producing it, and especially the excitement which comes from sympathy. The +Methodist Church has, perhaps, gone farther than any other towards making +this a principle. This great and noble body has done its vast work for +Christianity by making prominent the love-principle in all its operations. +If the Church party stands at one extreme, Methodism, in all its forms, +stands at the other. The Roman Catholic Church sums up all the +inspirations of the past, collects in its large _repertoire_ all ancient +liturgies, all saintly lives, all sacred customs, and so brings an +imposing authority, a reverend antiquity, made up of the best history of +man. Methodism drops the past, and finds God in the present--in present +inspirations, in the newly-converted soul, born out of darkness into +light, by the immediate coming of the Spirit of God. According to the +Catholic Church the Christian life commences with an outward act,--that of +baptism,--and is carried on by outward sacraments; according to Methodism, +the Christian life begins with an inward emotional experience,--the +spiritual new birth,--and is carried on by successive emotions of +penitence, faith, hope, joy, and pious devotion. According to Catholicism, +the one thing needful is the outward sacramental union with the Church; +according to Methodism, the one thing needful is the inward emotional +union with the Holy Spirit. + + + + +§ 10. The Faith Party in Religion. + + +If Churchism and Moralism place the essence of Christianity in action, and +Emotionalism puts it in feeling, Orthodoxy places it in something +intellectual, which it calls faith. All the sects of Christendom do, +indeed, place faith at the root of the Christian life; but some make it +essentially an intellectual act, others essentially affectionate, and +others an act of will. Orthodoxy makes it, in substance, a sight of faith, +or an act of looking at spiritual realities. Sometimes it is called a +realizing sense of spiritual things. But, at all events, the sight of +truth is considered the beginning and root of religion by the Orthodox +party in the Church. We are saved by the word of truth; and the Saviour +himself is called "the Word,"--belief in whom constitutes eternal life. +Rationally, it is argued that the essential difference between the +Christian and the unbeliever, or the unchristian, must lie in seeing +Christ or not seeing him. The first step in the religious life always +consists in looking at the truth. + + + + +§ 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea. + + +Admitting, then, what all these systems and parties in the Church unite in +asserting,--that an act of faith is always at the foundation of every +Christian state and of all Christian experience,--we ask, Which is the most +essential element in faith--will, intellect, or affection? Is an act of +faith chiefly an act of the will, a determination, or is it a loving +desire, or a state of knowledge, a looking at truth? Suppose we call it a +state of love, for this reason, that in order to be good, the first thing +requisite is to wish to be good. A longing for goodness, it may be said, +must precede everything else. But what makes us long for goodness, if we +_do_ desire it? What shall produce that longing, if it does not exist? The +only answer must be, The sight of truth. The sight of God's holiness and +of God's tenderness, the sight of law and gospel, whatever shows us the +beauty of goodness and the meanness of sin, must come first to awaken this +desire. Or suppose it be said that the essential thing in faith is the +active element, because it is submitting to God's law, trusting in his +help, coming to the truth, opening the heart to the Holy Spirit,--all of +which are determinations of the will. We must reply, True; but these +determinations will never be taken unless we first _see_ the will of God +to which we submit, see the salvation of God on which we lean, know that +there is a truth to which we may come, know that there is a Holy Spirit, +in order to ask for it. + +So that, on the whole, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in making the +sight of truth the beginning of the Christian life, and the beginning of +every Christian state, act, or experience. All human goodness is the +reflection of God's goodness; it all has its source in the sight of a +divine holiness, truth, beauty. This is the fundamental idea of Orthodoxy, +and in this Orthodoxy is right. + +It is no answer to this to say that man has an instinctive longing for +goodness, which causes him to feel after God before he finds him. For what +are these instincts themselves, as soon as they begin to act, but the +voice of God speaking in the soul, showing it some glimpses of a divine +truth? The longing in the soul must be aroused by the sight or knowledge +of something better than that which one has or is. Consequently, we say +again, that the sight of truth is that which saves the soul, and first +creates in it a better life. + +If we make Christianity to be essentially obedience, we make of it, at +last, an oppressive form. If we consider it as essentially an emotional +experience, we destroy its moral character; for emotion is both passive +and blind, while the definition of morality is the freely choosing what we +see to be right. Ecclesiasticism and Emotionalism both tend to demoralize +Christianity. They remove from it the element of moral freedom in the +interest either of Church authority or of mystical piety. Then +Christianity must come anew, in the form of truth, to purify the air, and +renew the moral life of society. + +Protestantism arose in this way, to salt the corrupting Church. +Ecclesiasticism, in its well-meant efforts at training men, by a complete +discipline, to a perfect virtue, had suppressed the individual love of +truth to such an extent, that religion had become a mere surface, without +substance. Jesuitism abolished the distinction between things right and +wrong in themselves, and made right to consist solely in the intention; +that is, made it wholly subjective. The Lutheran reformation was the +revival of the intellect in regard to religion--the demand for conviction +instead of assent; for the sight of God in place of obedience to the +Church. It repeated, with an emphasis adapted to the needs of the +sixteenth century, the words of Jesus, "This is life eternal, to _know_ +thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." In these +words is the sufficient defence of Protestantism. It was the cry of the +soul to _know_ God, and not merely to assent to what the Church taught +concerning him; it was the longing to _know_ Christ, and not to repeat by +rote the creeds of the first centuries, and the definitions of medięval +doctors in regard to him. In a subsequent chapter we shall consider the +truth and error in the Protestant principle of justification by faith. Our +purpose here is to show that the truth in Orthodoxy is identical with the +truth in Protestantism. Both place, as the root of all religion, an +individual personal sight of God and truth. To this, freedom of thought is +an essential means. Right thinking involves free thinking. If to know the +truth makes us free, freedom, again, is the condition of knowing the +truth. Protestantism and Orthodoxy have often attempted to limit the +application of this principle. Protestants, as well as Catholics, have +persecuted heretics. But while Catholics, in doing this, have been +faithful to their own idea, and have therefore made of persecution a +system, Protestants have been vacillating and undecided persecutors. They +have been drawn in opposite directions by antagonist principles. +Fundamentally, Protestantism, as such, claims for all the rights of +private judgment, and is, therefore, in its whole stress and influence, +opposed to persecution, and in favor of religious liberty. It has +conquered the Catholic Church on this point so far as to compel it to +renounce the practice of persecution, if it has not relinquished the +theory. During three centuries Protestantism has been, more and more, +emancipating the human mind--making it the duty, and consequently the +right, of every human being to see truth for himself. It has been drawn +into inconsistencies by its belief in the saving power of certain +doctrines, and the supreme importance of believing them. On one hand it +has claimed, with a trumpet voice, the freedom of conscience and opinion +for all, and then has cried out against those who freely came to opinions +differing from its own. + +But, notwithstanding these inconsistencies, Protestantism has steadily +given freedom of spirit to mankind. And with the awakened and emancipated +intellect all the elements of progress have shown themselves in Protestant +lands. In 1517, when Luther nailed his theses to the church door, Italy, +Spain, and Portugal were far in advance of Northern Europe in +civilization. In commerce, art, and literature, Italy was the queen of +Europe. In military force, extent of possessions, and unbounded wealth, +Spain was the leading power of the world. The Portuguese mariners had +ransacked every sea, and discovered new continents and islands in every +zone. How insignificant, in comparison with these great nations, were +England, Holland, and Germany! But England, Holland, and Germany became +Protestant; Italy, Spain, and Portugal remained Catholic; while France and +Austria adopted a half-way Catholicism. + +The result has been, in the course of three centuries, a complete reversal +of the position. The last have become first, and the first last. What now +has become of the terrible power of Spain, the enterprise of Portugal, the +art and literature of Italy? When the element of Protestantism was crushed +out of these nations by the Inquisition, the principle of national +progress was also destroyed. But the northern powers who accepted the +Lutheran reform received with it the germs of progress. Holland, Denmark, +Norway, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, England, and Scotland, have, by a steady +progress in civilization, wealth, knowledge, and morality, conclusively +demonstrated the impulse of progress contained in the Protestant idea. + +So far, therefore, as this great experiment, continued during three +hundred years, can prove anything, it proves the truth of the central idea +of Protestantism and Orthodoxy, namely, that saving faith is essentially +not emotional nor volitional, but intellectual. + + + + +§ 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle. + + +We are well aware of the reply which might be made, from the stand-point +of Ecclesiasticism, to the historical argument just given. The Roman +Catholic might answer thus: "We admit that the tree must be known by its +fruits; but the tree of true Christianity is known by bearing the fruits +of Christianity, not those of worldly civilization. Suppose that England +is to-day richer than Italy, more powerful than Spain; is she _better_? +Are there more piety and more morality in Protestant than in Catholic +countries? In which communities do you find the most humility, simplicity, +religious faith, reverence for religious institutions, fear of God? In +which do you find most of sympathy, kindliness, good will from man to man? +The fierce civilization of Protestantism is hard, cold, and cruel. It +tramples under its feet the weak. It accumulates wealth and power; but are +these Christianity? Is London or Rome the best model of a Christian city? +Is it London, with its terrible contrasts of enormous wealth and naked +want, its proud aristocracy and brutalized mob, its empty churches and +illuminated gin-shops? or is it not rather Rome, poorer in material wealth +and luxury, but rich in grace--Rome, with its odor of sanctity about it; +its numerous churches, on which art has lavished her resources to make +them worthy to be the temples of God--Rome, with its priests and monks; its +religious houses, the centres of the great religious orders, whose +missions have been known in the four quarters of the earth? Protestant +countries may have a higher worldly civilization, more education and +intelligence, more manufactures and commerce; but Catholic countries have +more humility and reverence, a more habitual piety, more gentle manners. +If Protestants have more _knowledge_, Catholics have more _love_." + +And we, though Protestants of the Protestants, must admit that there is +some truth in this. The discipline of Romanism has repressed some amount +of evil which the liberty of Protestant lands has allowed to appear. But +repressed evil is none the less evil, and often works a greater inward +corruption than when it is allowed to show itself as it is. We may also +admit that while in Protestantism there is more of TRUTH, and all the +virtues which go therewith,--such as honesty, manliness, self-respect, +conscientiousness,--in Catholic countries there is more of LOVE, and all +the virtues which follow it,--as kindly, genial manners, ready sympathy +with suffering, a spirit of dependence and trust. Still, this does not +prove that there is more real Christianity among Catholics; for love which +does not grow out of the sight of truth is not genuine nor healthy. Its +life is weak. Protestant Christianity is an immature fruit, harsh because +not quite ripe. Catholic Christianity is a fruit over-ripe, and so rotten. + +Therefore we still contend that Protestantism and Orthodoxy are right in +making the free and independent sight of truth the root of all religion. +But the mistake of Orthodoxy has been in confounding truth with +doctrine--the sight of the thing with the theory about that sight. From +hence come the hardness and coldness of Orthodoxy. Pure thought is always +cold, and ought to be. The sight of spiritual things is truth and love in +one; but when we begin to reflect on that sight, the love drops out, and +the truth becomes cold. + +The defect of the Orthodox principle, therefore, is the confusion of truth +with belief. Out of this mistake come dogmatism, bigotry, and all their +natural consequences. It is therefore well, before going farther, to +explain more fully this distinction and its importance. + + + + +§ 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion. + + +Religion originates at every moment, from looking at truth. Now, there are +four kinds of looking; _faith_, which is intuitive looking; _knowledge_, +which is the intuition itself looked at by reflection, and so brought to +consciousness; third, _belief_, which arranges the products of knowledge +in systematic form, and makes them congruous with each other; and lastly +comes _opinion_, which does not deal at all with things, but only with +thoughts about things. By faith we see God; by knowledge we become +conscious that we see God; by belief we arrange in order what we see; and +by opinion we feel and grope among our thoughts, seeking what we may find +of his works and ways. Every act of faith brings us into the presence of +God himself, and makes us partakers of the divine nature. Thus faith is +strictly and literally the substance of things hoped for, or the substance +of hope.(6) Substance here has its etymological sense, and is the same +word in Greek and English, meaning basis, foundation, support, or +substruction. It is the inward experience by which we come in contact with +invisible things, as perception is the experience by which we come in +contact with visible things. + +These steps of intellectual activity may be called by other names than +these. What we (with Jacobi) call faith,(7) may be denominated "intuition" +(with the transcendentalists), reason (with Coleridge), God-consciousness +(with Schleiermacher), or anschauungs-vermögen (with Schelling and +others). But, by whatever name we call this power, we say there _is_ a +power in man by which he can see spiritual facts, as with his earthly +senses he can perceive sensible facts. If he has no such power, he is +incapable of knowing God, but can only have an opinion that there is a +God. But if he can know God, this knowledge rests on something back of +reasoning or reflection; it must rest on an intuition or spiritual +perception. And this, for our present purpose, we call faith. By means of +it we know the spiritual world, just as we know the material world through +sight, touch, and hearing. The senses are the organs by which we perceive +material things; intuition, or faith, the organ by which we perceive +spiritual things. He who denies the existence of such a power in man, +falls necessarily into dogmatism on the one hand, or rationalism on the +other. But as these words also take a very different sense on different +lips, we explain ourselves by saying that he puts either a theory or an +inference in the place of God. If orthodox, he puts a theory; if +sceptical, an inference. Mr. Mansell does the first, Herbert Spencer the +other. Neither of them believes that we can _know_ God's existence. So +dogmatism and scepticism join hands. All the consequences described in the +beginning of this chapter follow as a matter of course when an opinion or +theory is put in the place of truth. Then come the inflexible narrowness +of bigotry, the hot zeal of the persecutor, the sectarian strife which has +torn the Church in twain. The remedy and prevention for these are to +recognize that the basis of religion is in faith, in a living sight of +God, the soul, duty, immortality, which are always and forever the same. + +The best definitions of faith, by theologians of all schools, include the +notion of insight, will, and affection. It is an act of the soul by which +it looks at truth. But this act implies a desire to see and know the +truth. Now, such an act as this lies at the root of all our knowledge, +both of the material and spiritual world. How do I know the outward world? +The passive exercise of sensation would never give such knowledge. The +sights which enter the passive eye, the sounds which fill the passive ear, +the feelings which affect the passive sense, give no real knowledge of +outward things. That comes, not from sensation merely, but from sensation +changed into experience by a voluntary activity. We must not only see, but +_look_; not only hear, but _listen_; not only feel, but _touch_, in order +to know. _Life_, therefore, the constant synthesis of these three +elements,--life which, in every act, at once thinks, feels, and does,--alone +gives us knowledge. Divorce _thought_ from affection and will, and let it +act by itself, and it does not give knowledge; it only gives belief or +opinion. Knowledge comes only from experience--and experience means +communion. Communion with Nature by thought, desire, and action gives us +the knowledge of Nature; communion with God by thought, desire, and act, +gives us the knowledge of God. The organ by which we commune with God is +faith; it includes the desire of knowing God, and the act of looking to +him in order to know him. + +KNOWLEDGE of God, of immortality, and of spiritual things does not come +from any process of reasoning on the one hand, nor from any single +intuition of reason. Just so we do not know the material world by a +process of reasoning on the one hand, or any single sensible perception on +the other. _All knowledge comes from life_; or, as the apostle John +expresses it, "Life is the light of man." We become acquainted with +outward nature by living processes--by repeated acts of sight, hearing, +touch, taste. So we become acquainted with the spiritual world by repeated +spiritual acts; by repeated processes of faith; by continued steps of +devotion, submission, obedience, trust, love, prayer. In this way we come +to _know_ God just as certainly, and just in the same way, as we know +things visible or things audible. + +But knowledge is not belief. Knowledge is the rooted conviction of the +reality of certain facts or persons, derived from communing with those +facts or persons. Belief is the intellectual assent to a proposition--a +proposition formed by analytic and synthetic methods. We analyze our +notion concerning any subject, and then arrange the results of this +analysis in order, and deduce from them a proposition, a law. This we call +our belief, or creed, concerning it. The substance of this belief is given +us in life; the form of it comes from thinking or reasoning. But it is +evident that such a belief differs in each individual according to his +experience, and according to his habits of reasoning, and even according +to his facility in expression. Moreover, knowledge and belief differ also +in this, that knowledge places us in the presence of the reality, belief +only in the presence of a proposition concerning it. + +Thus John and James are friends. John _knows_ James through a long +intercourse. He is just as certain in regard to the essential character of +James as he is about his own. But if he tries to express this knowledge of +James in the form of belief, he may evidently express it badly. He may +fail from a defective analysis, or from imperfect powers of language. + +On the other hand John may not know James at all. He may never have seen +him. But he has heard about him from a mutual friend, in whose judgment he +trusts, or from several persons, and so he has formed a very decided +belief in regard to James. He has a creed about him, though he has never +known him. + +In the same way those who _know_ God truly and well, by the experience of +obedience and prayer, may have a very erroneous belief concerning him. +Those who do not know him at all, by any personal experience, may have a +very correct belief concerning him. But which saves the soul? Which +governs the life? Which affects the heart? Evidently not the belief, but +the knowledge. + +We are not saved by any belief whatsoever concerning God or Christ, +concerning sin or salvation, concerning duty or destiny. Belief brings us +into contact with the images of things, not the things themselves. Belief +has no saving power. But knowledge has. "This is life eternal, to KNOW +thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." + +It is therefore a great mistake when Orthodoxy or Rationalism reverses the +axiom of John, and instead of saying, "Life is the light of man," tells us +that "Light is the life of man." Knowledge comes from life. Belief comes +from knowledge, and not the contrary. + +The PRINCIPLE of Orthodoxy, as stated at the commencement of this chapter +(in § 1), is, that there is one true system of Christian doctrine, and +that all others are false. The IDEA of Orthodoxy, as stated in § 10 of +this chapter, is, that the soul is saved by the sight of truth. The idea +of Orthodoxy is true--its principle is false. The sight of truth--that is, +of the great spiritual realities--saves us, for only by that sight are we +lifted above our feeble and imperfect selves, and enabled to partake of +the nature of God. But while truth is ever one and the same, doctrine +varies from age to age, varies from man to man. Each man's statement is +limited by his position, his mode of thought, his power of speech. Nor can +any council, assembly, conference, synod escape from similar limitations. + +Let the distinction be once clearly recognized between truth as seen and +truth as stated,--between knowledge and belief,--and we see the end of +dogmatism, bigotry, intolerance, and superstition. We shall then see that +religion is one thing and theology quite another, and that the test and +evidence of a sound religious experience are not what a man says, but what +he is. The sight of truth remains, as always, the source of our moral and +spiritual life, but this sight of truth must pass into knowledge, by means +of life, in order to renew the soul. FAITH, or the act by which the soul, +desirous of good, puts itself in the presence of truth, is always the +beginning of each spiritual state. KNOWLEDGE, born of this faith, through +repeated acts of conscience, love, obedience, prayer, is the next step, +and that which fixes the truth in the soul. BELIEF comes afterwards, +resulting from the knowledge thus obtained, analyzed, and arranged by the +systematizing intellect. And theory, or opinion, goes forward, like the +skirmishers before an army, examining the route and opening the way, but +incapable of resisting any attack, or holding permanently any position. + + + + + +CHAPTER III. THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION; OR, +NATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM. + + + + +§ 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural. + + +Orthodox Christianity claims that Christianity is a supernatural +revelation, consisting of truths revealed by God, not according to the +method of nature, but outside of it. But not merely the orthodox, the +heterodox too, Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, Swedenborgians, all +hold to Christianity as a supernatural faith. What do they mean by this, +and why do they insist on it so strongly? This is our first question, and +the next will be, "What do those who hold to naturalism mean by _it_, and +why do they insist on their view?" + +The distinction between the two seems to be this: The naturalists in +theology assert that God comes to man through nature, and nature _only_; +the supernaturalist declares that God comes to man, not only through +nature, but also by other methods outside of nature, or above nature. +There is no question between them as to natural religion. Both admit that; +supernaturalists believe all that naturalists believe, only they believe +something more. + +But how is _nature_ to be defined? What is meant by nature? Various +definitions are given; but we wish for one now which shall really express +the issue taken in this controversy. So we may define nature as law. All +the nexus or web of existing substances and forces which are under law +belong to nature. All that happens outside of these laws is either +preternatural, unnatural, subternatural, or supernatural. If it is +something _outside of law_, but _not violating_ it, _nor coming_ from a +higher source, we call it _preter_natural; like magic, ghosts, sorcery, +fairies, genii, and the like. What _violates_ law is _un_natural. What is +so low down that it lies below law, as chaos before creation; or nebulous +matter not yet beginning to obey the law of gravitation; or intelligences, +like Mephistopheles or Satan, who have sunk so low in sin as to have lost +the perception of right and wrong, is _subternatural_, _below_ nature. +What belongs to a religion above the laws of time and space, above the +finite, is supernatural. + +Thus brutes, and men like brutes, who are below the moral law, are +_subter_natural as regards that law. We do not call it a sin in a tiger to +kill a man, for he is _below_ law as regards sin. He is _below_ the moral +law. Again, we can conceive of angels so high up as to be above the moral +law, in part of its domain, not capable either of common virtue or of +common sin, according to _our_ standards of morality, though perhaps under +some higher code of ethics. They are supernatural beings as regards _that_ +law--the moral law of this world. As regards some parts of the moral law, +there are, no doubt, multitudes of human beings above it even in this +world. There are many persons quite incapable of swearing, lying, +stealing, getting drunk, flying into a passion, and to whom, therefore, it +is no virtue to avoid these vices. They are simply _above_ that part of +the moral law. They are _super_natural beings as respects that part of +human character. + +After these illustrations, we can see what is meant by _supernaturalism_. +If there is anything in this world which comes from above the world, and +not from the existing laws of being, _that_ is supernatural. + + + + +§ 2. The Creation Supernatural. + + +In this sense, all but atheists must admit the supernatural. If, for +example, you admit the _creation of the world_ by God, that was a +supernatural act; _that_ did not come from the existing laws of the world, +because it created those laws. All the order and beauty of the world, its +variety and harmony, its infinite adaptation of part to part, and each to +all,--these existed in God's mind before they existed in nature. They were +supernatural, as ideas, before they appeared in nature as facts. And if, +as most geologists suppose, the crust of the earth denotes a long series +of creations, successive epochs, at the close of each of which new forms +of vegetable and animal life appeared, then each of these was a new +creation; that is, a new supernatural act of the Almighty. + +The physical world, therefore, shows a power above itself. The natural +testifies to the supernatural, the all to the over-all. The existing web +of laws gives evidence of MIND, outside of itself, above itself, arranging +and governing it. + + + + +§ 3. The Question stated. + + +This being granted, the question between naturalism and supernaturalism +is, whether this superintending mind, which came from above the world into +it by acts of creation, when the world was made, has or has not come into +it subsequently. We have a series of creations down to the time that man +arrived on the earth. When _he_ came, he was a supernatural being, and his +coming a supernatural event. Unless we assume that he was developed, by +existing laws, out of some ape, gorilla, or chimpanzee, his coming was +supernatural. Now, did supernatural events cease then, and since that time +has the world gone on of itself? or have there been subsequent incursions +from a higher sphere--a new influx from above, from time to time, adding +something new to nature? Naturalism says no; supernaturalism says yes. + + + + +§ 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic Creations. + + +The supernaturalist says, God comes to us in both ways--through nature; +that is, through the order of things already established; and also by new +creative impulses, coming in, from time to time, from above. He contends +that such a new creative impulse came into the world through Jesus Christ, +adding a new substance and new forms to those already existing--a new life +not before in the world, proceeding according to new laws. This new +creation, as the Scriptures themselves term it, is Christianity. This is +also said to be in analogy with the course of events. For, if there has +been a series of creations before, bringing animals into the world, and +higher forms of physical life,--if these have been created by new +supernatural impulses coming in at intervals of hundreds of thousands of +years,--why deny that another impulse may have come in four thousand years, +or forty thousand years, after man was created, to add a new form of +spiritual life to society? + +In the world, as it was at first, there was not a living plant or animal; +after thousands of years, or millions of years, there came into the broad +seas of the lower Silurian epoch, some of the lowest kinds of animals and +seaweeds, a few trilobites and mollusks, but no plants save fucoids. Next +came, after a long time, a few cartilaginous fishes and corals. A long +time passed--thousands of years rolled by: then came real fishes and land +plants in what is called the Devonian period, or the old red sandstone. +After a great while came the period to which belongs all the coal +formation; and in that carboniferous epoch first appears a whole vegetable +world of trees and plants, to the number of nine hundred and thirty-four +species. Some insects arrived at this time, as beetles, crickets, and +cockroaches, which are, therefore, much more venerable than man. More +thousands of years go by: then the earth receives a new creation in the +form of gigantic frogs, enormous reptiles, and strange fishes. But as yet +no mammal has come--not a bird nor a quadruped has been seen on the earth. +Then, after another long period, these appear, in what is called the +_tertiary_ period; until, at last, some remains of man are found, in the +diluvium, or gravel. Geology thus, once thought to be atheistic, gives its +testimony to a long series of supernatural facts; that is, to the +successive creation, after long intervals, of entirely new genera and +species of vegetables and animals. As you turn these great stone leaves of +that majestic manuscript roll written by God's hand, which we call the +earth, you and he has been writing new things on each page, new facts and +laws, not on any former leaf. New types of life, not prepared for by any +previous one,--by no slow evolution, but by a sudden step,--break in. On the +previous rocky page is to be found not one of their species, genus, order, +or even class, to point back to any possible progenitor. So that the globe +itself says, from these eternal monuments of rock, "Behold the history of +supernatural events written on me." Each creation is higher than the last: +finally man is created. But still from above, from outside the world, the +creative life is ready to be poured in. Only the next creation is to be +moral and spiritual, not physical. No new physical forms are now added, +but a new moral life is poured into man, making _him_ a new creation of +God. "For if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature." The analogy was +so striking, that the apostles noticed it, and constantly speak of Christ +as the medium of a new creation. + + + + +§ 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom. + + +But there is another example of the supernatural element in the world. Dr. +Bushnell, in his book called "Nature and the Supernatural," contends that +man is capable of supernatural acts; that, in fact, every really _free_ +act is, and must be, a supernatural act. To those who hold the doctrine of +necessity, this is, of course, no argument. But they who believe, in the +testimony of their own consciousness, that they are free beings; who feel +that they are not dragged helplessly by the strongest motive, but can +resist it or yield to it; who, therefore, feel themselves responsible for +what they do, or omit to do, they can see that in a real sense they create +new influences. Their actions are not results of previous causes, but are +new causes, not before in the world. Some supernatural power dwells in +man's will just as far as it is made free by reason and choice. Man stands +between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, with the power of +choosing either one or the other. If he chooses one, he sends a power into +society, life, humanity, to help it forward; if the other, he sends in a +power to hold it back. This power is not from man's nature, but from +something in him outside his nature. When he acts from habit, impulse, +passion, and not from choice, he is simply a natural being; when he acts +from choice, he is not a natural being, but either a _super_natural or a +_subter_natural being, according as he chooses good or evil. When he +chooses good, he rises above the natural man into the sphere of angels; +when he chooses evil, he sinks below the natural man into the sphere of +brutes or demons. + + + + +§ 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of Law. + + +Now, says the supernaturalist, if we have all this evidence to show that +God not only acts through nature, by carrying on existing forces and laws, +but also has repeatedly come into nature with new creations, not there +before,--and if even man himself has a certain limited but strictly +supernatural power, so as to be able to stand outside of the nexus of law, +and act upon it,--why deny, as incredible, that God should have made a new +moral creation in Christianity? should have created a new class, order, +genus, and species of spiritual beings, not represented before by any +existing congeners? And why question that what we call miracles--that is, +physical interferences with natural laws--should have attended this sudden +influx of spiritual life? We do not claim, says the judicious +supernaturalist (like Dr. Bushnell, for example), that miracles are +suspensions or violations of natural laws; but that they are the natural +modification of the agency of such laws by a new and powerful influence. +Of this, too, there is ample analogy in nature. The mineral kingdom, for +example, is passively subject to mechanical and chemical laws, which are +resisted and modified by plants and animals. A stone obeys passively the +law of gravitation; a plant resists it, rises into the air in opposition +to it. Such a proceeding on the part of a plant must seem to a stone a +pure miracle. If a piece of granite should write a book of theology, it +would probably say that the plant, in growing up, had violated or +suspended a law of nature. But it has not. The force of gravitation has +worked on according to its own law; it has been dragging the plant +downward all the time, only the vital power in the plant has overcome its +force, and modified the result. And, again, a tree, seeing a dog run to +and fro, might call that a miracle. The tree, unable to move from its +place, could not conceive of the possibility of voluntary motion. But no +law of nature is violated; only a higher power comes in--the power of +animal life. + +To a dog, again, the proceedings of a _man_ are strictly miraculous. To +plant corn, reap it, thresh it, grind it, and bake bread out of it, is +exactly as much a miracle to the dog, as the multiplication of loaves, or +turning water into wine, by Christ, is a miracle to us. But no law of +nature was violated in either case. Reason in the one case, some +profounder spiritual power in the other, may have modified the usual +operation of law, and produced these results. + +The Orthodox supernaturalist therefore contends that the supernatural is a +constant element of life. Higher natures are all supernatural to lower +natures, but natural in themselves, because obedient to the laws of their +own nature. Nature, without this supernatural element, is only a machine, +of which God, standing outside, turns the handle. This is a low conception +both of nature and of God. As Goethe says, in one of his immortal lyrics,-- + + + "Not so, outside, doth the Creator linger, + Nor let the all of things run round his finger, + But moves its centre, not its outer rim; + Comes down to nature, draws it up to him; + Moving within, inspiring from above, + With currents ever new of light and love." + + + + +§ 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events. + + +And besides all this, says the supernaturalist, we have continued and +constant evidences, in all history and in all human experience, of the +existence of this supernatural element. Only a small minority of mankind +have ever doubted it; and those are men so immersed in physical science, +or so hampered by some logical manacles, or so steeped in purely worldly +affairs, as to be incapable of seeing the supernatural facts which are +recurrent evermore. Christianity itself has been an uninterrupted series +of supernatural events. The physical miracles of Christ are nothing to the +spiritual miracles which Christianity is always working. Bad men are made +good, weak men strong, cowardly men brave, ignorant and foolish men wise, +by a supernatural influence given in answer to prayer, poured down into +hearts and minds which open themselves to receive it. The conversion of a +bad man by the power of Christianity is a miracle. The power of faith, +hope, love, which every Christian has experienced, coming into him, not +through any operation of his nature, but simply poured into his soul from +some higher sphere,--this makes all argument unnecessary to one who has had +ever so little Christian experience. + +This is the substance of Orthodox supernaturalism; and this seems to me to +be its truth, separated from its errors. + +The naturalism of the present time we conceive to be partly directed +against a false supernaturalism, and partly to be a mistake arising from a +too exclusive attention to the _order_ of the universe, as expressed in +_law_. + + + + +§ 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism. + + +Supernaturalism has generally disregarded God in nature, and only sees him +in revelation. It has allowed a sort of natural religion, but only in the +way of an argument to prove the existence of God by what he did a long +time ago. But it has not gone habitually to nature to _see_ God there, +incarnate in sun, moon, and stars; incorporate in spring, summer, autumn, +and winter; in day and night; in the human soul, reason, love, will. God +has been all around us, never far from us; but theology has only been +willing to see him in Jewish history, in sacred books, or on Sundays in +church. Let us see him there all we can, but see him also in every +rippling brook, in every tender flower, in all beauty, all sublimity, all +arrangement and adaptation of this world. No wonder that naturalism should +come to do what the Church has left undone--to find its God and Father in +this great and wonderful world which he has made for us. The creed says, +"God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;" that is, God the +_Creator_, seen in Nature and Providence; God the _Redeemer_, seen in +Christianity; and God the _Sanctifier_, seen in every righteous and holy +soul. But the Church has neglected its own creed, and omitted _God the +Creator_, often also God the Sanctifier, and has only seen God in +_Christianity_, in its history, its Church, its doctrines, its +ceremonies.(8) Against this, naturalism comes as a great and needed +protest, and calls us to see God also in nature and life. + +Then the Church has been too apt to teach a miraculous revelation, in +which the miracles are violations of law. But as God is confessedly the +author of law, it has made the Deity violate his own laws; that is, has +made him inconsistent, arbitrary, irregular, and wilful. Deep in the human +mind God has himself rooted a firm faith in the immutability of law; so +that when miracles are thus defined, naturalism justly objects to them. + + + + +§ 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. + + +But between true naturalism and true supernaturalism we do not think there +need be any war. We know that there are many men so rooted in their faith +in nature, that they cannot see anything outside of it, or beyond it. To +them God is law, and law only. Even creation is repugnant to them, because +they see that creation is really a supernatural thing. Hence come the +theories of development; the "Vestiges of Creation;" the nebular +hypothesis; the Darwinian theory of formation of species by natural +selection; the notion of man coming out of an ape; pantheistic notions of +a God so immersed in nature as to be not its intelligent guide, but only +its unconscious soul; the whole universe proceeding according to an order +which is just as much above God's knowledge as above ours. Now, the best +geologists assure us that there is no evidence in support of the +transmutation of species. Mr. Darwin's theory of the formation of species +by natural selection is this: In the struggle for life, the strongest and +best adapted animal lives, the rest die. This animal transmits to its +offspring its own superior qualities; so a higher animal is gradually +developed. For example, the giraffe was not made by God with a long neck +in order that it might browse on the leaves of high trees. But when leaves +were scarce, the animal who happened to have a neck a little longer than +the rest was able to get leaves. So he lived, and the rest died. His +children had longer necks by the law of hereditary transmission. So, in +the course of ages, animals were gradually found with very long necks. +Thus the walrus has a curved horn growing downwards from his lower jaw, by +which he climbs on to the floating ice. We must not suppose, however, that +God gave him the tusk for that purpose; but the walrus, or seal, who +happened to have a little horny bone under his chin, could climb on the +ice and get his food more easily, and so he lived, while the rest died; +and his descendants in the course of a few hundreds of thousands of years +came, by repeating this process, to have horns, and so this species of +phoca arrived. + +It is certainly possible to believe this theory. But in believing it we +have to suppose two things; first, a happy accident, and then a law of +transmission of hereditary qualities. Now, the theory substitutes this law +of transmission and these happy accidents for the creative design. Is +anything gained thereby? The domain of law is extended a little. But +extend it as much as you will, you must at last come to something above +law. Suppose these laws by which walrus and giraffe came, were all in the +original nebula, so that no Creator has been needed since, and nothing +supernatural--nature has done it all since. But who put the laws there to +begin with? You have to take the supernatural at last, or else suppose an +accident to begin with. Accidentally, all these wonderful laws happened to +be in a particular nebula. He who shrinks from this supposition accepts +the supernatural, all at once, at the beginning, instead of the +supernatural all the way along, "What does he gain by it?" He gains merely +this, that he puts the Creator out of sight; or rather, puts himself out +of sight of the Creator. He worships the great god _Development_ instead. + +Equally satisfactory to the intellect, to say the least, and much more +satisfactory to the best human instincts, is the view of God which sees +him coming evermore into nature from above nature. This view says, "God is +not only order, but also freedom. He is not only law, but also love. He is +in the world as law and order, but he is above the world as thought and +love; as Providence, as the heavenly Father. He comes to us to meet our +exigencies, to inspire our doubting hearts, to lift us into life and +light. He does not set a grand machine going, and then look on and see it +work; but he is in the world, and with us always. The supernatural dwells +by the side of the natural. Just as a wise and good father has rules and +laws by which to govern his children--rewarding and punishing them as they +obey or disobey; but besides that, does a thousand things for them, taking +the initiative himself; so God governs us by law, but also often takes the +initiative, giving us what we never asked for, and knew nothing of." + + + + +§ 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism--Gulf between Christianity +and all other Religions. + + +Orthodoxy has erred, as it would seem, in placing too great a gulf between +Christianity and all other religions. Christianity is sufficiently +distinguished from all other religions by being regarded as the perfect, +and therefore universal, religion of mankind. It is to all preceding +religions what man is to all previous races. These are separated from man +by various indelible characters; yet they are his fellow-creatures, +proceeding from the same creative mind, according to one creative plan. So +the previous religions of our race--Fetichism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, the +religion of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of Egypt, of Scandinavia, of Judea, +of Greece and Rome--are distinguished from Christianity by indelible +characters; but they, too, proceeded from the same creative mind, +according to one creative plan. Christianity should regard these humanely, +as its fellow-creatures. The other animals prepared man's way on the +earth, and since man's arrival we have seen no subsequent creation. So the +ethnic religions prepared the way for Christianity, and since Christianity +came no new religion has appeared; for Mohammedanism is only a _mélange_ +drawn from the Old and New Testaments, and may therefore be considered as +an outlying Christian sect. So, too, the gigantic abstractions of +Gnosticism were hybrid systems, formed of the union between Oriental +thought and Christian life. The analogy may be traced still farther. Man +is the only animal who possesses the whole earth. Every other race has its +habitat in some geographical centre, from which it may emigrate, indeed, +to some extent, but where only it thrives. To man, only, the whole earth +belongs. So the primitive religions are all _ethnic_; that is, religions +of races. The religion of Confucius belongs to China, that of Brahmanism +to India, that of Zoroaster to the Persians; the religion of Egypt is only +for the Egyptians. Exceptions to this law (like that of Buddhism, for +example) are only apparent. The rule is invariable. Christianity alone is +a cosmic or universal religion. It only has passed the boundaries of race, +so inflexible to all other religions. Born a Semitic religion, it soon +took possession of the Indo-European races, converting Romans, Greeks, +Teutons, Kelts, and Sclaves. It finds the African mind docile to its +influence. Its missionaries have made believers from among the races of +America, India, China, and the Pacific Islands. It is evidently destined +to be the religion of humanity. + +But, if so, why should it be put into antagonism with the religions which +preceded it? These are also creations of God, not the work of man. +Theologians have found multitudes of types of Christ in Jewish books and +Jewish history. But they might also find types of Christianity in the +so-called heathen religions. For as coming events cast their shadows +before, so coming revelations are seen beforehand in shadowy preludes and +homologons. The lofty spiritualism of the Brahmanical books, the moral +devotion of the Zendavesta, the law of the soul's progress in +Buddhism,--these are all types of what was to appear in a greater fulness +and higher development in Christianity. First the natural, afterwards that +which is spiritual. But these foregleams of Christian truth, irradiating +the night-side of history, are all touching proofs that God never leaves +himself without a witness in the world or in human hearts. + +Instead, therefore, of placing an impassable gulf between Christianity and +other human religions, we should consider these are preparations and +stepping-stones to something higher. Nor will they pass away until +Christianity has purified itself from the errors which still cling to it. +Judaism was not to pass till it was fulfilled in Christianity; and neither +will the other religions of the world pass away till they also are +fulfilled in Christianity. + +Now, the common teaching in our churches and religious books and +newspapers tends to depreciate all natural religion in the interest of +revealed religion. It is commonly said that the light of nature helps us a +very little way in the knowledge of God. "Look at the heathen," it is +said; "see their religious ignorance, their awful superstitions, their +degrading worship of idols, and their subjection to priestcraft. This is +your boasted light of nature, and these are its results--the Fetichism of +Africa, the devil-worship of the North American Indians, the cannibalism +of the Feejee Islands, the human sacrifices of Mexico and of the ancient +Phoenicia." "Then," it is continued, "look at the observations of the +wisest intellects apart from revelation! How little they knew with +certainty! Their views of the Deity varied from pantheism to idolatry; +their views of immortality were wholly vague and indistinct; their ideas +of duty confused and false." + +To which we might reply, "Is not the same thing true among Christians? Are +there no superstitions among them? Were not witches hanged and burned +during sixteen centuries in Christendom? If the heathen are ignorant, what +multitudes in Catholic countries also do not read the Bible! How many are +there even in Protestant churches who can give a reason for their belief? +If the heathen worship degrades mankind because it is a superstition, with +fear for its motive, how large a part of Christian preaching consists also +of an appeal to terror! Is not the fear of everlasting torment in hell the +motive power of much which is called Christianity? Consider Catholics +eating their God: is that the worship of the Father in spirit and truth? +Think of the religious wars, of the religious persecutions: did natural +religion ever do anything as bad as this? We cry out against Nero, who +covered Christians with pitch, and burned them as torches in the +amphitheatre. But how many were thus tortured? Perhaps ten, perhaps +twenty, or let us say a hundred. But, according to Llorente, the Holy +Office of the Inquisition, in Spain, burned alive, under Torquemada, 8800: +under Deza, 1669; under Ximenes, 2536; in all, from 1483 to 1498,--that is, +in fifteen years,--it burned alive 31,912 persons for heresy, and subjected +to rigorous pains and penalties 291,450 persons." + +It is not right to judge of any doctrine by the corrupt practices which +have taken place under it, unless it can be shown that these are its +legitimate fruits. We maintain that Christianity is not fairly responsible +for these persecutions; but let us make the same allowance for the +religions which prepared its way. + + + + +§ 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural by being +made hostile to the Nature of Man. + + +If the nature of man be regarded as wholly evil, then Christianity is not +merely a supernatural religion, but an unnatural one. This has been very +commonly taught. Man's nature has been declared so totally corrupt and +alien from all good, as to be radically opposite to the love of God and +man. Christianity, therefore, comes, not to help him attain that which he +is seeking after, but to change his whole purpose and aim--to give him a +wholly new nature. This is the result of the doctrine of total depravity, +so long taught in the Church as Orthodoxy. It has taught that all natural +tendencies and desires in man were wholly evil, and to be rooted out. It +has thus made Christianity unattractive, and has driven men away from it. +But of this it is not necessary to speak here, as we shall discuss this +doctrine and its influence hereafter. + + + + + +CHAPTER IV. TRUTHS AND ERRORS AS REGARDS MIRACLES. + + + + +§ 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles. + + +In considering the truth and error in the Orthodox doctrine concerning +miracles, we must, _first_, find out what this doctrine is; _secondly_, +see what objections have been urged against it; and so, lastly, we may +come to some conclusion as to where the truth or the error lies. There +are, however, four distinct questions in regard to miracles, each of which +may be considered separately. There is the philosophic question, or +definition of a miracle, which asks, What is a miracle? Then there is the +historical question, which asks, Did such facts actually occur? Next is +the theological question, What are the value and weight of these facts in +determining our Christian belief? And lastly comes the religious question, +What are the spiritual meaning of miracles, and their influence on the +heart and life? + + + + +§ 2. The Definition of a Miracle. + + +As the creeds give no authoritative definition of a miracle, we must +examine individual statements, in order to get the Orthodox idea. + +To answer the question, _What is a miracle?_ is not as easy as it would +seem, as will appear from considering the different definitions given by +different authorities, taking first those of the dictionary. + + + JOHNSON. "_Miracle._ A wonder--something above human power. (In + theology.) An effect above human or natural power, performed in + attestation of some truth." + + WEBSTER. "_Miracle._ (In theology.) An event or effect contrary to + the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation + from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event." + + ROBINSON'S BIBLE DICTIONARY. "_Miracle._ A sign, wonder, prodigy. + These terms are commonly used in Scripture to denote an action, + event, or effect, superior (or contrary) to the general and + established laws of nature. And they are given, not only to true + miracles, wrought by saints or prophets sent by God, but also to + the false miracles of impostors, and to wonders wrought by the + wicked, by false prophets or by devils." After giving examples of + this from the Scriptures, Robinson adds, "Miracles and prodigies, + therefore, are not always sure signs of the sanctity of those who + perform them, nor proofs of the truth of the doctrine they + deliver, nor certain testimonies of their divine mission." + + AMERICAN ENCYCLOPOEDIA. _Miracle._ "It is usually defined to be a + deviation from the course of nature. But this definition seems to + omit one of the elements of a miracle, viz., that it is an event + produced by the interposition of an intelligent power for moral + purposes; for, otherwise, we must consider every strange + phenomenon, which our knowledge will not permit us to explain, as + a miraculous event. A revelation is itself a miracle. If one + claims to be a teacher from God, he asserts a miraculous + communication with God; this communication, however, cannot be + visible, and visible miracles may therefore be necessary to give + credibility to his pretensions. The use, then, of a miraculous + interposition in changing the usual course of nature is to prove + the moral government of God, and to explain the character of it." + + THEODORE PARKER. "A miracle is one of three things. + + "1. It is a transgression of all law which God has made; or, + + "2. A transgression of all known laws, or obedience to a law which + we may yet discover; or, + + "3. A transgression of all law known or knowable by man, but yet + in conformity with some law out of our reach." + + He says that a miracle, according to the first definition, is + impossible; according to the second it is no miracle at all; but + that there is no antecedent objection to a miracle according to + the third hypothesis. + + PASCAL. "A miracle is an effect which exceeds the natural force of + the means employed to bring it about." + + HUME. "A miracle is a violation of a law of nature." + + DR. THOMAS BROWN. "A miracle is as little contrary to any law of + nature as any other phenomenon. It is only an extraordinary event, + the result of extraordinary circumstances; an effect that + indicates a power of a higher order than those we are accustomed + to trace in phenomena more familiar to us, but whose existence + only the atheist denies. It is a new consequent of a new + antecedent." + + HORNE'S INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. "A miracle defined is + an effect or event _different from the established constitution or + course of things_, or a _sign obvious to the senses that God has + interposed this power to control the established powers of nature_ + (commonly termed the laws of nature), which effect or sign is + wrought either by _the immediate act_, or by the assistance, or by + the permission, _of God_, and accompanied with a _previous notice_ + or _declaration_ that it is performed according to the purpose and + by the power of God, _for the proof or evidence_ of some + particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority or divine + mission of some particular person."--Vol. I. p. 203. + + "Since, as we already have had occasion to observe, the proper + effect of a miracle is _clearly_ to mark the divine interposition, + it must therefore have characters proper to indicate such + interposition; and these _criteria_ are six in number. + + "1. It is required, then, in the first place, that a fact or event + which is stated to be miraculous should have an important end, + worthy of its author. + + "2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed. + + "3. It must be sensible (that is, obvious to the senses) and easy + to be observed; in other words, the fact or event must be such + that the senses of mankind can clearly and fully judge of it. + + "4. It must be independent of second causes. + + "5. Not only public monuments must be kept up, but some outward + actions must be constantly performed in memory of the fact thus + publicly wrought. + + "6. And such monuments must be set up, and such actions and + observances be instituted, at the very time when those events took + place, and afterwards be continued without interruption."--Vol. I. + p. 214 and 215. + + +From these examples we may see what different definitions have been given +of miracles, and that the definition is not so easy a thing as one might +at first suppose. All depends on the point of view which we take. If we +look only at the outward fact, a miracle is a wonderful event, a portent, +something out of the common course of nature, and unparalleled in common +human experience. But if we look at it as regards the character of him who +works the miracle, it then becomes a supernatural work, or a preternatural +work, having a divine or a demoniac origin. + +But, on the whole, the Orthodox doctrine of a miracle seems to be +this--that it is a wonderful work, contrary to the laws of nature, wrought +by the direct agency of God, in proof of the divine commission of him by +whom it is done. The two essential points of the definition are, that a +miracle is _contrary to the laws of nature_; and that it is _the only +logical proof of the divine authority of the miracle-worker_. We call this +the orthodox definition, although we must admit that no one in modern +times has presented this view more forcibly and decidedly than the +Unitarian Andrews Norton, and though many Orthodox men have taken a +different view. + + + + +§ 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible. + + +The four explanations of the miracles of the New Testament (to which we +now confine ourselves) are these:-- + +I. _The Natural Explanation._--According to this, the miraculous facts of +the New Testament are to be explained as resulting from natural causes. +They are on the plane of our common human life. They are such events as +might easily happen anywhere at the present time. Christ himself was but a +natural genius of a high order. His miracles were merely the natural +results of his intellect and strength of will, or they were mistakes on +the part of the observers and narrators, or myths which have grown up +subsequently in the Church. Great ingenuity has been used in attempting to +show how each miracle may be explained so as to be nothing very +extraordinary, after all. But these explanations are often very forced. +Some events which are at first sight seemingly miraculous, are often +explained as natural events by the majority of commentators. Thus the +account of the angel who went down into the pool and troubled the water is +usually interpreted as a natural phenomenon, and no real miracle. Modern +travellers have noticed that this pool of Bethesda is an intermittent +spring, which may have possessed medicinal qualities. + +The old-fashioned naturalism, however, has mostly gone by. Its +explanations were too forced and unnatural to continue long. The more +common account at present is that which assumes that the narrators were +mistaken in the stories which they have given us. Mr. Parker thinks that +there is not sufficient evidence of the miracles. If there were more he +would believe them. He gives no explanation of their origin farther than +this. But Strauss attempts an explanation based upon an unconscious action +of the fancy and feelings on the part of the New Testament writers, +causing them to create these incidents out of some trifling basis of fact +or of history. Renan follows in the same general direction. + +II. _The Unnatural Explanation._--A miracle is a violation or a suspension +of a law of nature. + +This, until recently, has been the favorite view of miracles among +theologians, and is the view of miracles against which the arguments of +those who reject them have been chiefly directed. + +The arguments in favor of this view are these:-- + +1. The miracles of the New Testament _seem_ to be violations of laws of +nature. For example: the turning water into wine; healing by a word or +touch; stilling the tempest; feeding five thousand; walking on the sea; +transfiguration; raising of Lazarus; Christ's own resurrection. The law of +gravitation seems to have been suspended when he walked on the sea, &c. + +2. Miracles are appealed to by Christ and his apostles in proof that God +was with him. But, unless these miracles had suspended the laws of nature, +they would not be proofs of this. + +These are the two principal reasons for this view of miracles. + +_Objections._--On the other hand, it is objected,-- + +1. That apparent violations may not be real violations of the laws of +nature. Examples: The Arab emir in "The Talisman" who was told that water +sometimes became solid, so as to support a man on horseback; a steamboat +sailing against wind and current; the telegraph; the daguerrotype. In all +such cases the laws of nature are not violated or suspended, but new +powers come in. + +2. Christ appeals to the moral character of his miracles, and not merely +to their supernatural character. They are miracles of benevolence. + +3. If the proof of Christ's mission depends on this view of miracles, it +can never be proved. We can never be sure that the event is a violation of +a law of nature. + +4. On this view the sceptic's objections to miracles are unanswerable. + +So says Dr. Thomas Brown, in an article reprinted by Dr. Noyes, of +Cambridge, in the "Theological Essays" published by the American Unitarian +Association. He admits the principle of Hume's Essay on Miracles, but says +that his error lies in the false definition of the miracle as a violation +of the laws of nature. False, because,-- + +(_a._) On the principle of continued uniformity of sequence our whole +belief of causation, and consequently of the divine Being, is founded. + +(_b._) Gives an air of inconsistency, and almost of absurdity, to a +miracle. + +(_c._) Laws of nature are not violated when a new antecedent is followed +by a new consequent, but when, the antecedent being exactly the same, a +different consequent is the result. + +(_d._) No testimony could prove such a miracle. Suppose testimony so +strong that its falsehood would be an absolute miracle; then we should +have to believe, in either case, that a law of nature has been violated. +No ground of preference between them. + +5. A miracle may be supernatural, or above nature, without being +unnatural, or against nature. + +6. The greatest church teachers have maintained that miracles were not +against law or without law, but above common law. Hahn, after mentioning +the view of a miracle as a suspension of law, and calling it one neither +scriptural nor conceivable, proceeds to quote Augustine and other writers, +who held that miracles were by no means opposed to law.(9) + +III. _The Preternatural View of Miracles._--This view admits the reality of +the phenomena, but explains them as resulting from mysterious forces, +which are neither divine on the one hand, nor human on the other, but +which are outside of nature. This is the demoniacal view, or that which +supposes that evil spirits, departed souls, or spirits neither good nor +bad, surround the earth, and can be reached by magic, witchcraft, sorcery, +magnetism, or what is now called Spiritualism. This theory supposes that +the works of Jesus were performed by the aid of spiritual beings. The +objections to this view are,-- + +1. If it is supposed, as it was by the Jews, that Jesus had the aid of +evil spirits, the sufficient answer is, that his works were _good_ works. + +2. If it is argued that he performed his miracles by the aid of departed +spirits who were good spirits, the answer is, that he himself never took +this view, but always declared, "My Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth +the works." Moreover, the whole character of the miracles of Jesus differs +not only from everything ever done by magnetism or spiritualism, but from +everything ever claimed to be done. + +IV. _The Supernatural View of Miracles._--This view asserts that the +miracles were performed by higher forces, which came into this world from +a higher world than this. It asserts that besides the forces which are at +work regularly in the world, there are other forces outside of the world, +which may from time to time come into it. We call them higher forces not +only because they are more powerful than the forces before at work in the +world, by overcoming which they produce the extraordinary outward +phenomena, but because they always tend to elevate the world nearer to +God. They are thus proved to come from a world which is nearer to God than +this. The reasons in support of this view are, as before suggested.-- + +1. Geology teaches it. The rocks show not only an original creation of the +world, but successive creations of vegetable and animal life. + +2. The creation of the world teaches it. Creation was a miracle in this +sense of the word. + +3. There seems to be in the constitution of man a faculty provided for +recognizing the supernatural element. Phrenologists call it the organ of +marvellousness. Such a faculty would argue the existence of an appropriate +object on which it might be exercised. + +4. The whole life and character of Jesus were supernatural and miraculous +in this sense. They cannot be satisfactorily explained as the result of +anything existing in the world before. + + + + +§ 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles. + + +In attempting to discover the truths and errors contained in these +statements it is a great satisfaction to feel that our faith in Christ and +Christianity is not depending on them. If we believed with those who +consider miracles the only or the principal proof of Christianity, we +could hardly hope to be candid and just in examining the arguments of +those who deny the marvellous facts of the New Testament. There is no +doubt that the number of religious and Christian men who have relinquished +all belief in the marvellous part of the Bible has largely increased +within a few years. At the present time there is a strong tendency to +disbelieve and deny all miracles as incredible and impossible. Renan, in +his "Life of Jesus," says, "Miracles never happen except among people +disposed to believe them. We banish miracles from history in the name of a +constant experience. No miracle has, as yet, been proved." Renan adds, +that "if a commission of men of science should decide that a man had been +raised from the dead he would believe it." "Till then," he says, "it is +the duty of the historian not to admit a supernatural fact, but to find, +if he can, what part credulity and imposition have had in it." +Accordingly, Renan writes his "Life of Jesus" in this sense, discarding +most of the miracles, or explaining them away, and trying to put together +into some kind of shape the fragments which remain. But Renan does not go +far enough to satisfy some others. Gerritt Smith, for example, in a recent +lecture which he has published, called "Be Natural," says, "Jesus neither +performed nor attempted to perform miracles. His wisdom and sincerity +forbid the supposition. Am I an unbeliever in the historical Jesus because +I hold him innocent of the absurdities which superstition and folly tax +him with? No more than I should disbelieve in Shakespeare, by denying that +he walked on the Avon, or changed its waters into wine. M. Renan ought to +have made no account of these stories of miracles. He should have dropped +them entirely, as did Rammohun Roy in his Hindoo translation of the New +Testament. Let the credulous feed on these creations of superstition, but +let men of sense turn away from them." + +The reason why so many intelligent men find it impossible to believe the +miracles of the New Testament, while they find it very easy to believe the +religious and moral teaching of Jesus is partly due to the spirit of the +age. The intellect of this age is more and more scientific. Now, science +is the knowledge of facts and laws. A miracle is opposed to all usual +observation of facts, and is often called by theologians a violation of +the laws of nature. It is not therefore strange that men imbued with the +spirit of science should dislike the notion of miracles. + + + + +§ 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity. + + +Now, we should have little objection, on purely theological grounds, to +give up the miracles of the New Testament. Theologians have built up the +proof of Christianity on miracles. They have declared them the chief +evidence of Christianity. They have said, "A miracle is a violation of a +law of nature. Now, no one but God can violate a law of nature. If Jesus +violated a law of nature, it proved that God was with him. But that he did +so we know from the New Testament. That it tells the truth we know, +because it was written, by eye-witnesses, who could not have been +mistaken, because they saw the miracles with their own eyes, and were not +liars, because they laid down their lives in testimony of the truth of +what they asserted." Therefore, it is argued, "Christ worked miracles; +therefore he had God's help and power; therefore he has God's authority to +teach the religion of the New Testament." + +Now, for those who hold this view of Christianity, if they renounce +miracles, it is evident that the foundation of faith is gone. No wonder, +therefore, that they bitterly oppose all attacks of miracles. In defending +miracles, they are fighting for their lives. + +But we need not hold this view of the foundation of Christianity. +Christianity does not rest necessarily on the physical miracles of Christ, +but on his moral miracles, which no one has ever doubted, or can doubt. +Christianity proceeded from Jesus, and was transmitted by him, not as a +philosophy, but as a power, a life, which renewed the old world, and +created a new dispensation. This is the great miracle. We do not really +believe Christianity on the ground of miracles, but we believe miracles on +the ground of Christianity. + +Let us explain this. If miracles had been asserted to be wrought by God in +order to prove the truth of a doctrine irrational, self-contradictory, +odious to the conscience and to the heart,--to prove, for example, the +justice of the Spanish Inquisition, the lawfulness of slavery, or that God +loves some of his children and hates the rest,--then all the outward +evidence in the world would not have convinced us that God had taught such +a doctrine and confirmed it by miracles. If we had seen with our own eyes +a dead man raised to life, or if M. Renan's committee of scientific men +had testified that they had seen it, we should either say they were +deceived, or we should say, with the Jews, "It is done by some devilish +power, not by a divine power. It is not supernatural, it is +preternatural." But Christianity itself is the great miracle of human +history. It is more marvellous than raising a dead man, for it was the +_resurrection of a dead world_--of a dead humanity. Read Gibbon. He is an +infidel writer, but he is a perfect historian. He shows you Christianity, +as a living force, coming into history, pouring a tide of life into the +decaying civilization of Rome, overflowing upon the German tribes, and +changing their whole character, so as to make out of those savage warriors +merciful and reverential soldiers, who knew how to pardon and how to +spare. Now, there seems something quite as supernatural in this as in the +coming of new trees and plants into the world in the carboniferous epoch, +or the coming in of mammalia, a hundred thousand years or so after. It +seems as if God came near the world, and touched it in Jesus Christ; for +the power of one man was wholly inadequate to such results as followed his +coming. I believe Christianity a divine religion, a religion from God, +because it lifts the soul nearer to God--because it has lifted mankind +nearer to God, and enabled men to believe God a friend--not a tyrant, not a +stern king--but a father. Christianity is divine, because its truth and +love are divine--because it purifies, consoles, and elevates human hearts; +because the life of Jesus is, by the testimony of such men as Theodore +Parker, Rousseau, and Renan, infinitely superior to all other lives ever +lived in this world. Now, believing in Christianity and Christ on such +grounds, we may look with much more deference and respect upon the stories +of miracles which are intertwined in his life. We should not attend to +them at all if we found them told about only common men; but told about +Jesus, we are led to examine them more critically, and ask whether it is, +or is not, possible for them to have been, in the main, real facts. + +The Orthodox doctrine has been, and still is, that Christianity rests on +miracles. Our view is, that miracles rest on Christianity. But we close +this section with extracts from Luther, Channing, Trench, and Walker, to +show that the view for which we contend is not without able supporters in +all parts of the Church. + +Martin Luther says,-- + + + "People cry it up as a great miracle, that Christ made the blind + see, the deaf hear, and the lepers clean; and it is true such + works are miraculous signs; but Christ regards his influence on + the soul as far more important than that on the body; for as the + soul excels the body, so do the miracles wrought on the former + excel those wrought on the latter.... + + "The miracles which Christ wrought on the body are small and + almost childish, compared with the high and true miracles which he + constantly performs in the Christian world by his divine, almighty + power; for instance, that Christianity is preserved on the earth; + that the word of God and faith in him can yet hold out; yea, that + a Christian can survive on earth against the devil and all his + angels; also against so many tyrants and factions; yea, against + our own flesh and blood. The fact that the gospel remains and + improves the human heart,--this is indeed to cast out the devil, + and tread on serpents, and speak with tongues; for those visible + miracles were merely signs for the ignorant, unbelieving crowd, + and for those who were yet to be brought in; but for us, who know + and believe, what need is there of them? For the heathen, indeed, + Christ must needs give external signs, which they could see and + take hold of; but Christians must needs have far higher signs, + compared with which the former are earthly. It was necessary to + bring over the ignorant with external miracles, and to throw out + such apples and pears to them as children; but we, on the + contrary, should boast of the great miracles which Christ daily + performs in his church." + + +In the "Christian Examiner," Dr. James Walker says,-- + + + "Christianity embodies a collection of moral and vital truths, and + _these truths_, apart from _all history_ or philosophy, constitute + Christianity itself. Instead, therefore, of perplexing and + confounding the young with what are called the evidences of + Christianity, give them Christianity itself. Begin by giving them + Christianity itself, as exhibited in the life and character of the + Lord Jesus, as illustrated by his simple, beautiful and touching + parables, and as it breathes through all his discourses. They will + _feel it to be true_. Depend upon it, paradoxical as it may sound, + children will be much more likely to believe Christianity without + what are called the evidences, than with them; and the remark + applies to some who are not children. + + "Why talk to one about the argument from prophecy, or the argument + from miracles, when these are the very points, and the only + points, on which his mind, from some peculiarity in its original + constitution, or from limited information, chiefly labors. Give + him Christianity itself, by which we mean the body of moral and + vital truths which constitute Christianity. Observe it when you + will, you will find that the doubts and difficulties suggested by + children relate almost exclusively to the _history_ of + Christianity, or to what are called the _external_ evidences of + Christianity, and not to the _truth_ of Christianity itself. Give + them Christianity itself: for if they believe in that, it is + enough. Nothing can be more injudicious than to persist in urging + the argument from miracles on a mind, that, from any cause, has + thus become indifferent, and perhaps impatient of it. How idle to + think to convince a person of Christianity by miracles, when it is + these very miracles, and not Christianity, that he doubts! The + instances, we suspect, are not rare, even of adults, who are + _first converted to Christianity itself_, and afterwards, through + the moral and spiritual change which Christianity induces, are + brought to believe entirely and devoutly in its _miraculous origin + and history_." + + +Dr. Channing says,-- + + + "There is another evidence of Christianity still more _internal_ + than any on which I have yet dwelt; an evidence to be _felt_ + rather than described, but not less _real_ because founded on + feeling. I refer to that conviction of the divine original of our + religion which springs up and continually gains strength in those + who apply it habitually to their tempers and lives, and who imbibe + its spirit and hopes. In such men there is a consciousness of the + adaptation of Christianity to their noblest faculties; a + consciousness of its exalting and consoling influences, of its + power to confer the true happiness of human nature, to give that + peace which the world cannot give; which assures them that it is + not of earthly origin, but a ray from the everlasting Light, a + stream from the fountain of heavenly Wisdom and Love. This is the + evidence which sustains the faith of thousands, who never read and + cannot understand the learned books of Christian apologists, who + want, perhaps, words to explain the ground of their belief, but + whose faith is of adamantine firmness, who hold the gospel with a + conviction more intimate and unwavering than mere arguments ever + produced." + + +And here is an extract from another writer:-- + + + "Doubtless Christ's spiritual glory is in itself as + distinguishing, and as plainly showing his divinity, as his + outward glory, and a great deal more; for his spiritual glory is + that wherein his divinity consists, and the outward glory of his + transfiguration showed him to be divine only as it was a + remarkable image or representation of that spiritual glory. + Doubtless, therefore, he that has had a clear sight of the + spiritual glory of Christ may say, 'I have not followed cunningly + devised fables, but have been an eye-witness of his majesty,' upon + as good grounds as the apostle, when he had respect to the outward + glory of Christ that he had seen. A true sense of the divine + excellency of the things of God's Word doth more directly and + immediately convince of the truth of them; and that because the + excellency of these things is so superlative. There is a beauty in + them that is so divine and godlike, that is greatly and evidently + distinguishing of them from things merely human, or that men are + the authors and inventors of,--a glory that is so high and great, + that when clearly seen, commands assent to their divinity and + reality. The evidence which they who are spiritually enlightened + have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of + intuition and immediate evidence. They believe the doctrines of + God's Word to be divine, because they see divinity in them. That + is, they see a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently + distinguishing glory in them; such a glory as, if clearly seen, + does not leave room to doubt of their being of God, and not of + men." + + +Trench, also, denies that the miracle can have absolute authority, since +Satanic powers may work evil too. This convinces us, he says, that +miracles cannot be appealed to in proof of the doctrine or of the divine +mission of him who brings it to pass. The doctrine must first commend +itself to the conscience as being good; then the miracle shows it to be a +new word from God. But when the mind and conscience reject the doctrine, +the miracle must be rejected too. The great act of faith is to believe, in +despite of all miracles, what God has revealed to the soul of the holy and +the true; not to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven +should bring it. Instead of compelling assent, miracles are _then_ rather +warnings to us that we keep aloof; for they tell us not merely that lies +are here, but that he who utters them is an instrument of Satan. + +False miracles, or lying wonders, are distinguished from the true, not by +the intellect, but by the moral sense, which finds in them something +immoral, or ostentatious, or futile, leading to nothing. Origen says the +miracles of Moses issued in a Jewish polity; those of our Lord in a +Christian Church. But what fruits have the miracles of Apollonius or +Ęsculapius to show? + +The miracles of Christ are redemptive. Modern writers of evidences make a +dangerous omission when they fail to say that the doctrine is to try the +miracle, as well as the miracle to seal the doctrine. To teach men to +believe in Christ on no other grounds than his wonderful works is to pave +the way of Antichrist. Those books of Christian evidences are utterly +maimed and imperfect, fraught with the most perilous consequences, which +reverence in the miracle only its power.(10) + + + + +§ 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as Historic +Facts. + + +The first thing we notice about the miracles of Jesus is, that they are +intertwined inextricably with the whole narrative. It is almost impossible +to disentangle them, and to leave any solid historic residuum. There is a +story in Goethe of a statue of iron and silver, with veins of gold. The +flames licked out the gold veins of the colossus, and it remained standing +a little while; but when at last the tenderest filaments had been licked +out, the image crashed together, and fell in a shapeless, miserable heap. +So when the tongue of criticism shall have eaten out the supernatural +elements of the gospel narrative, the heroic figure will fall, as it has +already in Renan's construction, into an amorphous mass of unhistoric +rubbish. + +Then we see that most of these miracles are miracles of healing, which +have their analogues in many similar events scattered through history. +Many such facts might be collected to show that there is in man a latent +power of overcoming disease, in himself and others, by a great exertion of +will. If in common men there is such a power, latent, and as yet +undeveloped, why should it be an unnatural thing that one so full of a +superhuman life as Jesus should be raised to a position where, by his very +word or touch, he could cure disease, and that even at a distance? + +We see such wonderful discoveries made every day of latent powers in +nature, and secrets hidden till now from all men, that we do not know +where to put limits to the possibility of the wonderful. To go into a +telegraphic office in Boston, and speak to a man in New York or +Washington, and have an answer in five minutes; to have your portrait +painted in a moment by the rays of the sun,--such things as these would +have seemed miracles to us a few years ago. To be able to tell what metals +there are in the sun's atmosphere, and what not there; to say, "In the +atmosphere of the sun there is silver, but not gold; there are iron, and +antimony, and lead, and aluminum, but no copper nor zinc,"--does not this +seem incredible? But we know that we _can_ now tell just that. + +When we read the Gospels, we find everything in them so simple, so +unpretending, so little of an attempt at making out a consistent story, +such a harmony in the character of the works attributed to Jesus (with one +or two exceptions), that we are irresistibly inclined to say, "These +stories must be simple facts. Delusion never spoke in this tone,--so clear, +so luminous,--in language so honest and sincere." + +I do not deny that some mistakes or misapprehensions may have crept into +the records. Occasionally we can see signs of something being mistaken for +a miracle which was really not one. For example, the finding of a piece of +money in the fish's mouth may have been the mistake of a proverbial +expression, common among fishermen, and used by Matthew in his original +Hebrew Gospel, but which the Greek translator, ignorant of the popular +phrase, considered to be meant for a miracle. + +The most natural supposition is, that a wonderful power dwelt in Jesus, +which enabled him to heal the sick, cure the insane, and sometimes even +bring back life to the dead. What do we know about death? The last breath +has been drawn. The heart has ceased to beat, the lungs to move. We say, +"He is dead." But people have lain two or three days in this state, +declared dead by the physicians, and then have come to life again by +natural causes. A drowned man has all the marks of death; but after lying +in this state half an hour, he is brought to life again. What, then, might +not have been done by that supernatural power of life which, as history +shows, dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth? + + + + +§ 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History. + + +It may very properly be asked whether miracles have occurred since the +Bible record was closed; and if not, why not. Since we have regarded the +miracles of the New Testament as no violations of law, but the coming in +of higher laws or forces than those usually at work in the world, why may +they not have taken place in our own time? If Christ's miracles differ +only from other miracles in being higher and more perfect, what are the +miracles of a lower class? Can we point out any events belonging to the +same class of phenomena which have happened during the last thousand +years? + +In reply to this question, we will proceed to mention certain phenomena +which seem to belong to the same order as the works of Jesus. The +_distinction_ between the miracles of Christ and all those portents will +be pointed out hereafter. + +In the "Atlantic Monthly" for February and March, 1864, there appeared an +account (written, we believe, by R. Dale Owen), of the Convulsionists of +St. Médard. The facts therein stated _seem_ to contradict all the known +laws of physiology. The lower side of miracles, namely, their apparent +violation of physical laws, here appears as fully developed and as fully +attested as the most careful sceptic could desire. If, therefore, any one +objects to believing the miracles of Jesus on the ground that they _seem_ +to be violations of physical laws, we ask what they mean to do with these +facts, so extraordinary, and yet so fully attested. If believed, there is +no reason, based on the abnormal character of Christ's works, for +rejecting those. But if disbelieved, it can be done only by setting aside +all the ordinary rules of evidence, and all the laws of belief, in favor +of a negative prepossession of a purely empirical character. Phenomena +somewhat similar to these have occurred elsewhere, among Protestants as +well as Catholics, during periods of great religious excitement. The +beginnings of most religious systems--Methodism, Quakerism, &c.--have +stories like these of supernatural influences. They have usually been +disbelieved because their friends have claimed too much: they have claimed +that such phenomena were divine attestations to the truth of the doctrine +preached. What _is_ proved by them is the simple fact that the soul of man +is capable, under high excitement, of suspending, or rather overcoming, +all common physiological laws. We have seen similar results follow often +from such causes, only in ordinary ways. A sick person is made well in a +moment by some moral influence; a weak and sickly mother will nurse a sick +child, night after night, without rest or sleep, and keep well, where a +strong man would break down. Mesmerism brings forward multitudes of like +facts. There are, for example, the well-attested facts concerning the +transfer of the senses: that people under the influence of animal +magnetism can read with their forehead, the pit of their stomach, or the +back of their head. We have seen a weak boy, some thirteen years old, when +magnetized, lift a chair with three heavy men standing on it. +Clairvoyance, or seeing things at a distance, though not so well proved, +is confirmed by a vast number of facts. We come, then, to our final +statement concerning miracles, which is this:-- + +I. There is in man a power, as yet undeveloped, and only occasionally seen +in exceptional conditions, of overcoming the common laws of nature by +force of will; and this is sometimes voluntary, and sometimes involuntary. + +II. This phenomenon takes these forms:-- + +A. _Power of the soul over the body (a.) to resist pain_, as in the case +of martyrs, who are burned alive without any appearance of suffering; +_(b.) to resist physical injury_, as in the case of the Convulsionists; +_(c.) to dispense with the usual service of the senses_, as in the case of +the girl at Worcester Insane Asylum, Massachusetts, under the care of Dr. +Woodward, who could read a book in a perfectly dark room and with bandaged +eyes; _(d.) to give a preternatural energy and strength to the body_. + +B. _Preternatural knowledge_--such cases as that narrated by Dr. Bushnell, +of Yonnt, in California; or _knowledge through dreams_, waking +presentiments; cases of _foresight_, or prophecy; of _insight_, or +knowledge of what is passing in other minds; of _clairvoyance_, or +knowledge of what is happening at a distance, of which multitudes of facts +are narrated in such books as the "Seeress of Provorst," Mrs. Crowe's +"Night Side of Nature," Robert Dale Owen's "Footfalls from the Boundary of +the Unseen World," which, after being sifted by a fair criticism, will +leave a large residuum of irresolvable facts. + +C. Higher than these is a preternatural elevation of the whole character, +as in such cases as that of JOAN OF ARC, where a young girl, ignorant, a +peasant, destitute of all common means of influencing any one, by the +simple power of faith, because she believed herself inspired and +commissioned, succeeded in gaining the command of the armies of France, +and then of achieving a series of victories, equal, on the whole, as mere +military exploits, to those of the first captains of the world. + +In all these cases we see manifestations of a power in the soul over +nature, body, men, and the laws of time and space. So we say, _secondly_,-- + +III. This power was possessed in the highest degree known in this world by +Jesus of Nazareth, and it differed in him from these other cases in these +points:-- + +1. It was always voluntary in its exercise, never involuntary. He was not +possessed by it, he possessed it. He used it just when and where he chose +to use it. It was always at his command; he never appears to have tried to +work a miracle, and failed. So,-- + +2. It was in him constant, and not occasional. In other cases where the +miraculous element appears, it seems to come and go; but to Jesus the +spirit was not given by measure. He had it always. + +3. This power in him was total, and not partial. It was therefore +harmonious--in harmony with all his other qualities. He had power over +diseases of the body, and also those of the soul. He knew what was in man, +and what was in nature--in the present, and in the future. There was +nothing ecstatic, enthusiastic, nothing of excitement, about him; but +everything denoted a fulness, a PLEROMA, of this spiritual life. + +4. The exercise of this power in Christ was always eminently moral, never +wilful. The one or two seeming exceptions, as, for example, the cursing +the fig tree, and the causing the evil spirits to go into the swine, ought +to be explained in harmony with the vast majority of his actions, which +always are guided by love, and justice, and a holy sense of what is true +and good. + +5thly, and lastly. The miracle power of Jesus reached a higher point of +development than in any one else. The raising of the dead to life, and the +mysterious power over nature indicated by the turning of water into wine, +by the miracle of the loaves and fishes, calming the storm, if facts, are +facts unparalleled in any other biography, but seem possible, however +unintelligible, when considered as emanating from such a masterly and +commanding spirit as that of Jesus. + +And this finally brings us to the miracle of the resurrection, concerning +which we will first quote from an article in a late number of the +"Westminster Review," to show the most recent ideas of the critical and +negative school on this point. + + + + +§ 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections. + + +In an article in the "Westminster Review," in "The Life of Christ, by +Strauss," occurs the following passage:-- + + + "For of the two alternatives open to free inquiry, that if Jesus + died he never reappeared, or if he reappeared he never died, + Strauss considers the former not only preferable, but the only + tenable one; for he cannot persuade himself that a feeble + sufferer, who at first had scarcely strength to leave the tomb, + and in the end succumbed to death, could have contrived to inspire + his followers with the conviction that he was the Prince of life, + the Conqueror of the grave. Strauss thus admits that faith in the + supernatural revival of the buried Nazarene was undoubtedly the + profession of the Christian Church, the unconditional antecedent + without which Christianity could have had no existence. If, then, + we refuse to assume the resurrection to be an historical fact, we + have to explain the origin of the Church's belief in it. The + solution which satisfies Strauss, and which seems to us also an + adequate interpretation of the problem, is dependent on the two + following positions: 1. The appearance of Jesus was literally an + appearance, an hallucination, a psychological phenomenon. 2. It + was also a sort of practical fallacy of confusion, a case of + mistaken identity. + + "But it will be said that this natural solution of the problem + implies a foregone conclusion--the rejection of the Orthodox or + supernatural solution. Of course it does; and accordingly Strauss + has been accused of dogmatical or unphilosophical assumption. But + the rejection of the theological solution is not the result of + ignorant prejudice, but of enlightened investigation. + Anti-supernaturalism is the final irreversible sentence of + scientific philosophy, and the real dogmatist and hypothesis-maker + is the theologian. That the world is governed by uniform laws is + the first article in the creed of science, and to disbelieve + whatever is at variance with those uniform laws, whatever + contradicts a complete induction, is an imperative, intellectual + duty. A particular miracle is credible to him alone who already + believes in supernatural agency. Its credibility rests on an + assumption--the existence of such agency. But our most + comprehensive scientific experience has detected no such agency. + There is no miracle in nature; there is no evidence of any + miracle-working energy in nature; there is no fact in nature to + justify the expectation of miracle. Rightly has it been said by an + English _savant_ and divine, that testimony is a second-hand + assurance, a blind guide, that can avail nothing against reason; + and that to have any evidence of a Deity working miracles, we must + go out of nature and beyond reason. + + "Strauss's prepossession, therefore, is justifiable. It is the + prepossession of the rational theist, who does not believe in a + God who changes his mind and improves with practice--the prentice + maker of the world; it is the prepossession of the pantheist, in + whose theory of the perfect government of an immanent God, miracle + is an extravagance and absurdity; it is the prepossession of the + philosophical naturalist, whose experience of the operations of + nature recognizes no extra-mundane interventionalism." + + +We have quoted this passage as containing the most distinct statement of +an extreme anti-supernaturalism. Admitting the death of Jesus as a fact, +it denies his resurrection as a fact, and that on doctrinal and theoretic +grounds. Declaring anti-supernaturalism to be the final irreversible +sentence of scientific philosophy, it assumes supernaturalism to be a +denial that the world is governed by uniform laws. It assumes the +resurrection of Christ to be at variance with those uniform laws. It +denies the existence of any supernatural agency in the affairs of this +world. It denies that there ever has been a miracle in nature, or any +extra-mundane intervention in the history of nature or man. + +This is what claims to be science, at the present time. We deny that it is +science, and assert it to be pure dogmatism and theory, contradicted by +numerous facts. It is pure theory to assume the resurrection of Jesus to +be a violation of law. It is pure theory to define a miracle to be +something opposed to law. It is pure theory to assume that the miraculous +facts ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels must have been, if they occurred, +violations of law. It is an assumption, contradicted by geology, that +there is nothing in the experience of the naturalist of the operations of +nature to show any extra-mundane intervention. + +We have admitted, indeed, that these same assumptions have been made by +Orthodox theology. Orthodox theologians have also assumed the miracles of +Christ to be violations of the laws of nature. But some of the most +distinguished theologians, in all ages of the Church, have not so defined +them. And there is no reason why the man of science should deny the +possibility of fact because an unscientific explanation has been given of +that fact by others. This writer virtually says, "I will not believe that +Christ appeared after his death, on any amount of testimony, because some +persons have defined such appearances as being opposed to the laws of +nature." It is certainly true that we cannot fully believe in the reality +of any phenomenon which seems to us to be a violation of law. It is also +true that the reported facts concerning the appearances of Jesus _seem_ +like a violation of law. But the scientific course is neither to deny the +facts, nor to explain them away, but to study them, in order to see +whether, after all, they may not lead us to some new laws, before unknown. + +The resurrection of Jesus deserves this study, since, according to the +confession of science itself, the Christian Church rests upon that belief. +Strauss admits that Christianity could not have existed without it. But, +hastily assuming that the real appearance of Jesus himself would be a +violation of a law of nature, he supposes this immense fact of Christendom +to rest on an hallucination and a case of mistaken identity. + +But perhaps, after all, the resurrection may have been an example of a +universal law. Like other miracles, which are sporadic instances, in this +world, of laws which may be the nature of other worlds, so the +resurrection may have been as natural an event as any other in the life of +Jesus. Perhaps it is a law of nature that all souls shall become +disengaged from the earthly body on the third day after death. Perhaps +they all rise in a spiritual body, substantial and real, but not usually +perceptible by the senses. Perhaps, in the case of Jesus, that same +superior command of miraculous force, which appeared during his life, +enabled him to show himself easily and freely whenever he would. What +became of the earthly body we do not know; it may have been removed by the +priests or soldiers to prevent the disciples from getting possession of +it. The body in which Christ appeared differed evidently from the earthly +body in various ways. It came and went mysteriously; it was sometimes +recognized, and sometimes not; and it ascended into the spiritual world +instead of passing again to death and the grave. Perhaps, therefore, it +may be a universal law that souls rise out of the material body into a +higher state, clothed in another body, substantial and real, but not +material. The essence of the resurrection is this: Resurrection is not +coming to life again with the same body, but ascent into a higher life +with a new body. + +It may be said that all this is only a _perhaps_. Very well; it _is_ only +a _perhaps_, but that is all we want in order to refute the logic of the +article just quoted. The scientific sceptic says, "I will not believe that +Jesus was really seen after death, because that would be a violation of a +law of nature." We reply, "No, not necessarily. It might _perhaps_ have +been thus and so." That will do; for if we can show that it is not +_necessarily_ a violation of a law of nature, we wholly remove the +objection. + +But we may go farther, and assert that such a supposition as we have made +not only accords with the story in the Gospels, but also with the whole +spirit of Christianity, and with all the analogies of nature. The +resurrection of Jesus, so regarded, becomes the most _natural_ thing in +the world. If souls live after death, as even natural instinct teaches, +they live somewhere. As by the analogy of nature we see an ascending scale +of bodily existence up to man, whose body is superior to that of all other +animals, because fitted for the very highest uses, so if man is to live +hereafter and elsewhere, and not in this earthly body, analogy would +anticipate that he should live in a body still, but in a higher form. If +Jesus, therefore, rose in this higher body, and appeared to his disciples, +it was to lift them above fear of death by showing that this corruptible +must put on incorruption. So his resurrection was not merely coming to +life again in the same body, but rising up into a higher body and a higher +state, to show us how we are to be, to give us a glimpse of the hereafter, +to bridge over the gulf between this life and that to come. + + + + +§ 9. Final Result of this Examination. + + +We have thus examined, as thoroughly as our limited space will allow, the +questions at issue, on the subject of miracles, between the old Orthodox +and recent heterodox views; and the result to which we have arrived may be +thus stated:-- + +1. We may believe, on the testimony of history, that through Jesus of +Nazareth there entered the world a great impulse of creative moral life, +which has been, and is now, renewing society. This new impulse of life may +be regarded as miraculous or supernatural. + +2. We may believe, though perhaps less strongly, but still decidedly, that +during the stay of Jesus on earth many extraordinary phenomena took place, +such as the sudden healing of the sick, the raising of the dead to life, a +display of miraculous insight and foresight, or knowledge of the present +and the future, and some influence over organic and material life, and +over the lifeless forces of nature. The precise limits of this we do not +know, and need not pretend to define. We need not think it essential to +fix the boundary. It may be interesting as speculation, but it is not +important as religion. + +3. For, in the third place, we may say that these miracles of Jesus have +very little direct bearing on our _religion_. As they illustrate his +character, they are valuable, and also as they help us to believe that the +laws of nature are not stiff and rigid, like the movement of a machine, +but that there is force above force, a vortex of living powers, in the +universe, rising higher and higher towards the fountain of all force and +life in God. All portents and wonders are useful, as they shake us out of +the mechanical view of things, and show that even the outward, sensible +world is full of spiritual power. + +4. We may also believe the miracles of Jesus to be _natural_ in this +sense--that under the same conditions they could have been done by others, +and that they are probably prophetic of a time in which they _shall_ be +done by others. Looked at as mere _signs_ or _portents_, he himself +discouraged any attention being paid to them. Looked at as logical proofs +to convince an unbeliever, he never brought them forward. His object in +miracles, as stated by Mr. Furness, was simply to express his character. +Some, indeed, were symbolical, as the cursing of the fig tree. It is the +custom in the East for teachers to speak in symbolic language. + +Miracles were at first believed, on low grounds, as violations of law by a +God outside of the world. Now they are disbelieved on scientific grounds. +They may possibly be believed again on grounds of philosophy and historic +evidence, not as portents, not as violations of law, not as the basis of a +logical argument, but as the natural effluence and outcome of a soul like +that of Jesus, into which a supernatural influx of light and life had +descended. They are not more wonderful than nature; they are not _so_ +wonderful as the change of heart by which a bad man becomes a good man. +But they will find their proper place as evidence how plastic the lower +laws are to the influence of a higher life. + + + + + +CHAPTER V. ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. + + + + +§ 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the Bible. + + +The subject of this chapter is the Orthodox idea concerning the +inspiration and authority of the Bible. We shall consider the conflict of +opinion between those who believe in the full inspiration of every word of +Scripture, and those who treat it like a common book, and endeavor to see +how far we ought to believe a fact or a doctrine, because it is asserted, +or seems to be asserted, by some writer in the Bible. + +Such questions are certainly of great importance to us all at the present +time, when opinions on these subjects are unsettled, and few people know +exactly what to believe. Especially in regard to the Old Testament, not +many persons have any distinct notions. They do not know what is its +inspiration or its authority; they do not know whether they are to believe +the account of the creation and of the deluge in the book of Genesis, in +opposition to the geologists, or believe the geologists, in opposition to +Genesis. Certainly it is desirable, if we can, to have some clear and +distinct opinions on these points. + +And, first, in regard to Inspiration: there are three main and leading +views of the inspiration of the Bible. There cannot be a fourth. There may +be modifications of these, but nothing essentially different. These three +views are,-- + +(_a._) _Plenary Inspiration._--That is, that everything in the Bible is the +word of God. All the canonical books are inspired by God, so as to make +them infallible guides to faith and practice. Every word which really +belongs to these books is God's truth, and to be received without question +as truth, no matter how much it may seem opposed to reason, to the facts +of nature, to common sense, and common morality. + +This is _the Orthodox theory_ even at the present time. Any variation from +this is considered a deviation into heresy. No doubt, in practice it _is_ +deviated from, by very Orthodox people; but all Protestant sects, claiming +to be Orthodox, profess to hold to the plenary inspiration of the Bible. + +(_b._) _The Rationalist or Naturalistic View of the Bible._--The Bible is +not inspired at all, or at least in no way differing from any other book. +Its authors were inspired, perhaps, just as Homer, or Thucydides, or +Cicero were inspired, but not differently. It has no _authority_, +therefore, over any other book, and is just as liable to be in error as +any other. If you should bind in one volume the histories of Herodotus, +Tacitus, Gibbon, and Mr. Bancroft, the poems of Horace, Hafiz, and Dante, +and the letters of Cicero and Horace Walpole, this collection would have +to the Naturalist just as much authority as the Bible. + +(_c._) The _mediatorial_ view of the Bible, or the view which _mediates_ +between the others. This view endeavors to _reconcile_ the others, by +accepting the truths in each, and eliminating their errors or defects. + +To this third division of opinions belong those of a large class, who are +not prepared to accept either the first or the second. They cannot believe +every word in the Bible to be the word of God, for they find things in it +contradicting the evidence of history and the intuitions of reason, and +also contradicting other teachings of the same book. They cannot see why, +as Christians, they should believe everything in the Jewish Scriptures. As +Christians, they go to the New Testament as a main source of faith and +practice, but do not see why they should go to the Old Testament for +Christian truth. On the other hand, they cannot look upon the Bible as a +common book. They remember that it has been a light to the world for +thousands of years, that it has been the means of awakening the human +intellect and heart, of reforming society, and purifying life. Even in the +Old Testament they find the noblest truth and the tenderest piety. The +Bible has been the litany, prayer-book, inspirer, comforter of nations and +centuries. They cannot and would not emancipate themselves from the +traditions in which they were born, nor cut off history behind them. The +Christian Church is their mother; she has taught them out of this book to +know God, and out of this book to pray to him, and they cannot regard it +without a certain prepossession. + +To this third class I myself belong. I would not be unjust to the past or +to the future. I would be loyal to truth, and not shut my eyes to what God +reveals which is new; and I would not be unfaithful to what has already +been taught me, or ungrateful for the love which has taught the world by +the mouths of past prophets and apostles. + + + + +§ 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of Mankind. + + +Let us then see, first, what the problem before us is; and this can +perhaps be best understood by means of an example. + +The common opinion among Christians is, that the world was made four +thousand and four years before Christ, and that all mankind are descended +from Adam and Eve. These opinions are derived from the book of Genesis, +which tells us that after God had made the world and other things in five +days, on the sixth day he made man in his own image; and that, when the +first man, Adam, was a hundred and thirty years old, he had a son, named +Seth; and from Seth, according to Genesis, are descended, by a genealogy +given in the fifth chapter of Genesis, Noah and his sons; and the ages +being given from Adam down to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, the age +of the world and the age of the human race have been computed. + +As long as there was no reason for supposing any different period for the +antiquity of the world, these numbers were quietly accepted. But various +new facts have been noticed, and new sciences have arisen, within the past +fifty years, which have thrown doubt upon this chronology. In the first +place the great science of geology has examined the rocky leaves which +envelop the surface of the earth, and has found written upon them proofs +of an immense antiquity. It is found that the earth, instead of being +created four thousand years ago, must have existed for myriads of years, +in order to have given time for the changes which have taken place in its +structure. This evidence was long doubted and resisted by theologians, as +they supposed in the interest of Scripture; but the evidence was too +strong to be denied, and no intelligent theologian, however Orthodox, now +believes the world to have been made in six days, or to have been created +only six thousand years ago. With some, the six days stand for immense +periods of time; with others, the whole story is considered a vision, or a +symbolical account of geological events; but no one takes it literally. +This result has come from the overwhelming amount of evidence for the +antiquity of the earth, derived mainly from the fossil rocks. Of these +fossiliferous rocks there are over thirty distinct strata, lying +superimposed, in a regular series, each filled with the remains of +distinct varieties of animals or of plants. These rocks must each have +been an immense period of time in being formed, for the shells which they +contain, although very delicate, are unbroken, and could only be slowly +deposited in the quiet depths of a great ocean. There are also evidences +that after those strata were formed, violent and sudden upheavals took +place, throwing them into new positions, then slow uprisings of the bottom +of the sea, or slow subsidings of the land. At one time the northern parts +of Europe and America were covered with ice. Great glaciers extended over +the whole of Switzerland, and icebergs floated from the mountains of +Berkshire in Massachusetts upon a sea which filled the valley of the +Connecticut River, dropping erratic blocks of stone, taken from those +mountains, in straight lines, parallel with each other, half way across +the valley, where they still lie. Similar icebergs floated from Snowdon, +in Wales, and Ben Lomond, in Scotland, over the submerged islands of Great +Britain. At one time the whole surface of the earth, instead of being +covered with icy glaciers, was filled with a hot, damp atmosphere, laden +with carbonic gas, which no creature could breathe, but in which grew +great forests of a strange tropical vegetation. Then came another period, +in which all these forests were submerged and buried, and at last turned +into coal. Long after this hot period had passed, and long after the cold, +glacial period, which followed it, had departed, came a time when the +elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus covered the whole of +Europe, and the mammoth roamed in North America. Such facts as these, +incontestably established by the amplest evidence, have made it impossible +for any reasonable man to believe that the earth was made in six days, or +that it was made only six thousand years ago. + +But this question being thus disposed of, other questions arise in their +turn. Are all mankind descended from one pair, or from many? Has the human +race existed on the earth only six thousand years, or during a longer +period? Was the deluge of Noah a real event? and if so, was it universal +or partial? Did the sun stand still at the command of Joshua? or is that +only a poetic image taken from an ancient book of poems--the book of +Jasher? Is there any truth in the story of the passage of the Red Sea by +the Israelites? of the passage of the Jordan? of the walls of Jericho +falling when the trumpets were blown? of the story of Samson? If we once +begin to doubt and disbelieve the accounts in the Bible, where shall we +stop? What rule shall we have by which to distinguish the true from the +false? Is it safe to begin to question and deny? Is it not safer to accept +the whole book as the word of God, and to let everything in it stand +unexamined? + +No! "It is never safe," said Luther, "to do anything against the truth!" +Truth alone is safe; and his soul only is safe who loves and honors truth +more than human approbation--more than ease, comfort, or life. It is not +safe to pretend to believe what we do not. And in this instance, half of +the infidelity of the age and country has come from the teaching that +everything in the Bible is the word of God. Sincere men have been +disgusted when told they must believe things contrary to their common +sense and reason. + +Another question, which is now being investigated, is the age of +mankind--the antiquity of the human race. The Bible gives the list of +generations from Adam to Abraham; and the length of each, and other data, +given in Scripture, make six thousand years for the life of man on this +earth. Greek history only goes back some twenty-three hundred years; the +Egyptian monuments go back fifteen hundred or two thousand years +earlier--to 2000 B.C., or 3000 B.C. The "Vedas," in India, may have been +written 1500 B.C.; the "Kings," in China, before that. But recently we +have been carried back to a yet earlier period,--to a time when man existed +on the earth, before any written monument or sculptured stone which now +exists. _Two_ different sources have been discovered within a few +years,--one of them by philology, the other by geology. + +It has been found that the languages spoken by Europeans, in their airy +sounds, are more permanent monuments than granite or enduring brass. +Stamped on these light, imponderable words are marks of a gray antiquity +going back to times before Herodotus, before Moses and the book of +Genesis, before the Vedas in India, before the Zendavesta in Persia. It +has been proved, first, that nearly all the languages of Europe belong to +one linguistic family, and therefore that those who speak them were +originally of one race. These different languages--seven sister languages, +daughters of a language now wholly gone--are the Sanscrit or ancient +Hindoo, the Zend or ancient Persian, the Greek, the Latin, the Keltic, the +German, and the Slavic languages. By a comparison of these, it has been +found that originally there lived, east of the Caspian, a race of +shepherds and hunters, calling themselves _Aryan_; that one branch +descended into India at least five thousand years ago, and drove out the +aboriginal inhabitants, a second branch went into Persia, a third into +Italy, a fourth into Greece, a fifth vast immigration filled Northern +Europe with the Kelts, a sixth with Scandinavians and Germans, and a +seventh with the Slaves. But long ago as this immigration was,--before all +history,--it found aboriginal inhabitants everywhere, whose descendants +remain. The Lapps and Finns in Northern, Europe, the Basques in Spain, and +Magyars in Hungary, are probably descended from this earlier European +race. It is difficult to suppose mankind only six thousand years old, when +we find such great movements taking place four or five thousand years ago. + +But now come the geologists, and tell us that they find evidence of three +different races existing in Europe in three distinct periods of +civilization, some of which probably preceded the immigration of these +Indo-European races. These three belong to what they call the Stone, the +Bronze, and the Iron Age. In the gravel and drift, from ten to twenty feet +below the surface, along with the bones of the elephant and the +rhinoceros, and other animals long since extinct, are found hundreds of +flint instruments, axes, arrow-heads, and tools, indicating that men lived +in Europe in great numbers, contemporaries with these extinct animals. If +this should be proved, we should then be brought to admit, with respect to +the antiquity of man, what we have already admitted with regard to the +antiquity of the world, that the account in Genesis is not to be +understood as theologians have hitherto taught; that is, that we must not +go to Genesis, but to philology and geology, for our knowledge of the most +ancient history. + +In this case, then, it will be evident that the old notion of a literal +inspiration cannot be maintained. God certainly did not inspire men to +teach anything about the creation which was adapted to mislead and deceive +men for two thousand years. We shall be obliged to say, then, that Moses +was not inspired to teach geology or history; that what he taught on these +subjects he taught from such sources as were available to him, and that he +was liable to error. + +The old Orthodox theory of plenary inspiration has received very damaging +blows from such scientific researches as these which we have been +describing. The letter of the Bible seems, in such cases, to be at war +with the facts of nature. + + + + +§ 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration. + + +Why, then, should the Orthodox doctrine be so stoutly maintained? What are +the reasons used in its defence? What its arguments? What is its basis? On +what does it rest? Do the writers of the Bible say that they were inspired +by God to write these books? Not at all. Do they claim infallibility? +Nowhere. Do they lay down any doctrine of plenary, verbal, literal +inspiration? No. We do not even know who wrote many of these books. We do +not know who collected them, or why just these books were put into the +collection, and no others. The Orthodox theory rests on few facts, but is +mainly an assumption. It seemed necessary that there should be _authority_ +somewhere; and when Protestants rejected the authority of the Church, they +took the Bible in its place. The doctrine of inspiration, therefore, was +adopted as a basis for the authority of the Bible. + +The principal reason given by those who believe in the plenary inspiration +of the Bible, for holding to this doctrine, is the necessity of _some_ +authority. The argument is this: Unless every part of the Bible is +believed to be fully inspired, some part of it may be believed to be +erroneous; and if we admit error in any part, the Bible loses its +authority, and we do not know what to believe. The doctrine of literal and +plenary inspiration rests, therefore, in the last analysis, on no basis of +fact, but on a purely _a priori_ argument. Let us therefore examine this +argument, and see what is its force. + +Revelation, it is said, is a communication of truth with authority. It is +truth shown to us by God, not truth reasoned out by man. Its value is, +that we can rely upon it entirely, live by it, die by it, without doubt or +hesitation. We do not want speculation, opinion, probability; we want +certainty; otherwise religion ceases to be a power, and becomes a mere +intellectual amusement. + +The only religion, it is added, which is of any real value, is that which +carries with it this authority. The outward world, with its influences and +its temptations, is so strong, that we shall be swept away by it unless we +can oppose to it some inward conviction as solid and real. Amid the +temptations of the senses, the allurements of pleasure, the deceitfulness +of riches, will it enable a man to hold fast to honesty, temperance, +purity, generosity--to believe that in all probability these things are +right, and that there is something to be said in favor of the opinion that +God approves of them? + +Will it help him, to think that unless the writer of the Gospel is +mistaken, or his words mistranslated, Christ may have said that goodness +leads to heaven, and sin to hell? No. We need authority in order to have +certainty; and we need certainty in our convictions in order that they +should influence us deeply and permanently. + +This is the chief argument in favor of the plenary inspiration(11) of the +Bible. We see it amounts to this--that it is very desirable, for practical +purposes, that we should believe everything in the Bible to be true.(12) + +In reply to this, we ought first to say, that the question in all these +cases is not, What is desirable? but, What is true? We should begin by +investigating the facts. We should ask, Does the Bible anywhere say of +itself that it is inspired in this sense? Do any of the writers of the +Bible declare themselves to be thus inspired, so that all that they say is +absolutely true in every particular? Does Christ say that those who are to +write the Gospels or the Epistles of the New Testament shall be thus +guarded against every possible error? Or is there any evidence in the +books themselves that the writers were thus protected? Do they never +contradict each other or themselves? Do they never contradict facts of +nature or facts of history? + +Now, to all these questions, we are obliged to say, No. The Bible claims +no such absolute inspiration for itself. It says that "holy men of old +spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," but it does not say that the +Holy Spirit made them infallible. It says, "All Scripture is given by +inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine," but it does not say what are +the limits of Scripture; and to be profitable or useful for doctrine is +surely not the same thing as to have infallible authority over belief. +Besides, if those who wrote certain Scriptures were infallibly inspired, +those who collected the present books of the Old and New Testament, and +made our canon, were _not_ so inspired. Those who transcribed their +autographic manuscripts were not inspired. The manuscripts of the Gospels +and Epistles, written by their authors, have long since perished. There +were no autograph collectors in ancient times. There was no such reverence +then paid to the letter of religion, to cause the original manuscript of +an apostle to be kept in a church as a sacred relic. We have plenty of +pieces of wood claiming to be parts of the true cross, but not a +manuscript claiming to be the original writing of an apostle. The earliest +manuscript goes only to the fourth century, and that contains the Epistle +of Barnabas. If, then, the writers of the New Testament were inspired, +those who collected their writings were not inspired, and may have left +out the right books, and put in the wrong ones. Those who copied their +manuscripts were not inspired, and may have left out the right words, and +put in wrong ones. Those who translated their manuscripts were not +inspired, and may have made mistakes in their translating. So that, after +all, the plenary inspiration of the apostles does not bestow that +infallibility upon our English Bible which this theory demands in order to +give it authority. + +And yet we admit the importance of having some authority. Truth which does +not come with authority is _not_ truth; it is only speculation; it cannot +influence life. Revelation and philosophy differ in this, that philosophy +tells us what men think about God, revelation what God thinks about men. +Revelation is the drawing aside of the veil which hides God, duty, +immortality. It does not give us speculations about them, but shows us the +things themselves. + +If, therefore, we can show that the Bible can be authority _without being_ +plenarily inspired, very possibly Orthodoxy would no longer cling to this +doctrine with such remarkable tenacity. This point of authority we shall +consider in another section of this chapter, and so we will say no more +about it now. We shall try to show, then, that the Bible may be, and is +authority, without being inspired as regards every page and word, and that +inspiration is one thing and infallibility another. At present we desire +to see the truth there is in the Orthodox doctrine of inspiration. + + + + +§ 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration. + + +There is a foundation for inspiration in human nature, a capacity for +inspiration which all possess. Were it not so, Christian inspiration would +be something unnatural, and not in the order of providence. Moreover, we +commonly speak of the inspiration of the poet, the painter, the inventor, +the man of genius. The man of genius is he who has more of this capacity +for inspiration than other men. But all men have it in a greater or a less +degree. All men have their hours or moments of inspiration. By these +experiences of their own, they understand the larger inspirations of +genius. If we distribute the thoughts we possess according to their +source, we shall find that we have obtained them all, either _from other +persons_, or by means of _mental effort_, or by _inspiration_. The largest +part of our thoughts and opinions we have taken in ready made, and +reproduced them just as we received them. We suppose ourselves thinking, +when we utter them, but we are only remembering. A much smaller proportion +of our thoughts we have obtained reflectively, by personal efforts of the +active intellect. Another part are those which have come to us in some +happy moments, when the inner eye was unclouded, and when we seem to see +at a glance truth and beauty. These inspired moments give us the most +solid knowledge we have. They are mental experiences, which are the master +lights of all our being. They give direction and unity to all our other +thoughts and opinions. They constitute mental originality. The peculiarity +of inspiration, in this general sense, does not lie in the subjects of the +thoughts, but in the manner of their coming. Ideas and thoughts of very +different kinds may all be inspired thoughts. The poet, the artist, have +their inspirations. But the scholar, the thinker, has his also. The man +who invents a machine often has the idea come to him by an inspiration. +The man who discovers a continent has seen it in idea before he sees it in +reality. If Shakespeare was an inspired man, so was Newton, so was +Columbus, so was Lord Bacon, so was Faust when he discovered printing, +Watt when he improved the steam engine, and Daguerre when he found out +photographic pictures; for, in all great discoveries and inventions, and +in small ones too, the original idea is an inspiration, though it has to +be worked out mechanically by hard thinking. + +It will be seen, then, what we understand by inspiration, in this general +sense. It is a mental sight, corresponding as nearly as anything can to +physical sight. It seems, in the inspired moment, as if we looked into +another world, and saw new truths and facts there. We do not bring them up +out of our memory; we see them in all their own fresh life and reality. We +do not think them out by an effort of the will; we stand still and see +them. All that our will has to do with it is negative rather than +positive. It is to keep off disturbing influences of memory and sense, to +hold the mind still, attentive, receptive, and ready. If we believe in +these inspirations, we can thus prepare the way for them, but nothing +more. We can wait and look, till the vision is presented, and then we +shall see it; but this is all. The man of genius is he who believes in +these inspirations, and so looks for them. _What_ he shall see will depend +on what he looks for. The man whose taste is in the world of imagination +looks for forms of poetic or artistic beauty, and so sees these. Every man +looks for that which he is most interested in, whether he be metaphysician +or mechanic. The world of ideal beauty and truth, which overhangs ours, +has a thousand portals, and we can pass in through one or another, and see +that which suits our various tastes and desires. Memory, reflection, and +sight,--these are the three sources of our thoughts. The inspired man is a +seer--he has insight and foresight; and these objects of mental sight are +to him more real and certain than any others. But he is unable to prove +their reality or justify them to the sceptic. And hence his fate is often +that of Cassandra,--to be a true prophet, but not to be believed, until by +and by the strength of his own conviction wins its way, and produces faith +in others. + +There are, therefore, two principal intellectual states of the mind--the +one receptive, the other plastic; the one by which it takes in truth, the +other by which it works it up into shape. By the one it obtains the +substance of thought, by the other the form of thought. The one may be +called the perceptive state, the other the reflective state. Thus, too, we +see that the perceptive faculty may be exercised in two directions, +outwardly and inwardly. It is the same intellectual faculty which, through +the senses, looks at and perceives the outward material universe, and +through the mind itself, the inward world of thought. It is this power of +looking inward which gives us all that we call inspiration. We have, thus, +outsight and insight. + +There is, then, a _universal inspiration_, on which the special +inspiration of the Old and New Testament rests. There are inspired men and +uninspired men. There are inspired writings and uninspired writings. There +is a general inspiration, out of which the particular inspiration of Bible +writers grew. Universal inspiration is a genus, of which this is a +species. We cannot understand the inspiration of the writers of the Bible +till we understand this universal inspiration on which it rests. We can +best explain the special inspiration of Scripture by first knowing the +general inspirations of mankind. + +Mr. Emerson, in one of his poems, called the "Problem," describes this +universal inspiration. He describes Phidias as being inspired to make his +Jupiter, as well as the prophets to write their burdens. He says the +architect that made St. Peter's was guided by some divine instinct in his +heart--he wrought in a sad sincerity. He says we cannot tell how such +buildings as the Parthenon and St. Peter's were built, any more than how +the bird builds its nest; they were formed by a natural architecture; they +grew as the grass grows; they came out of thought's interior sphere, just +as the pine tree adds a myriad of new leaves to its old arms every year. + + + "The passive master lent his hand + To the vast soul that o'er him planned; + And the same power that reared the shrine + Bestrode the tribes that knelt within." + + + + +§ 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration. + + +Having thus spoken of inspiration in general, we proceed to speak of +Christian inspiration in particular. + +Christian inspiration is the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart. It is +that influence which came to the apostles, and to all Christians after +Jesus had left the earth, to unite them inwardly with Christ, and to show +them the true Christ. It is that of which Paul speaks, when he says, It +pleased God to reveal his Son in me. All Christians were baptized with the +Holy Ghost; had the spirit of Christ dwelling in them; were led by the +spirit of God; received the spirit of adoption, which bore witness that +they were the sons of God; which helped their infirmities; helped them to +pray; enabled them to mortify the deeds of the body, and produced many +gifts and graces. It is quite certain that all Christians were expected to +partake of this Christian inspiration. This enabled them inwardly to see +and know Christ--the true Christ. And only thus could they become truly +his. + +Now, the Christian inspiration, so necessary at first, is equally +necessary now, for its object is, as it was then, to turn nominal +Christians into living Christians; to turn historical Christianity into +vital Christianity; to enable those who already know Christ after the +flesh, also to know him after the spirit. What is it which we need for +comfort, improvement, usefulness? We need a living, practical faith in +God's truth and love. We need to see it as we now see the outward world. +We believe in the inevitable retribution of God's laws. We need to see +this; to see that selfishness is death, and generosity life; to see that +humility is exaltation, and that pride is abasement. Having seen law, we +need also to see grace, the reality of forgiveness, the reality of a +Father's love. We need to see immortality and eternity, while we are yet +surrounded with the world of sense and time; to see that the two worlds +are not two, but one, all temporal things having their roots in spiritual +things. This is what we need for comfort, for no hardship would seem hard +while we were thus looking at the things which are eternal, and knowing +that every light affliction works out an eternal weight of glory. This is +what we need for improvement. For no efforts at improvement can accomplish +that which this inward inspiration can do. It is a tide which bears us on. +It takes from us the weight of years. It is the sap which rises into every +branch, penetrates every twig, swells the buds, expands the leaves, opens +the blossoms, ripens the fruit, and causes universal growth. And it is +what we need for usefulness. For how mechanical and lifeless are efforts +at usefulness which proceed merely from the sense of duty! How blessed are +those which proceed from a heart filled with love and peace! + +Christian inspiration, then, reveals inwardly the spirit of Christ, and so +gives us a new heart, and makes of us new creatures. It is the most +essential and vital part of Christianity, yet it is that part of +Christianity which is the least known and prized. How many dogmatists +there are fighting for doctrines; how many ceremonialists earnest about +forms; how many conscientious Christians trying hard to do their +duties;--to one spiritual Christian, whose Christianity consists in living +in the spirit, that he may walk in the spirit! + +One reason for this seems to be the prevalence of false views concerning +the nature of Christian inspiration. It has been regarded as wholly +different in its laws from other inspiration, as an arbitrary influence +without laws or conditions. Now, in fact, the inspiration of the +Christian, while it differs in its subject from that of the poet, rests on +the same mental faculty, and has analogous conditions. The condition of +the poet's inspiration is, that loving the outward beauty of the natural +world, and faithfully studying its truth, he should then hold himself +ready, in strong desire, to see, inwardly, ideal truth and ideal beauty. +And so the Christian, believing in the outward Christ, and loving him, +holds himself expectant of an inward revelation of that same Jesus in his +glorified and higher influence. All inspiration has its conditions and +laws. The poet's eye, in its fine frenzy, must look from heaven to earth, +and from earth to heaven. His inward inspiration is in strict accordance +with his outward occupation and his outward fidelity. Every man is +inwardly inspired, according to the nature of his outward work. +Shakespeare cannot discover America, nor Columbus write Hamlet. And it is +only he who believes in Christ, and so endeavors to obey and serve him, +who receives an inward sight of his essential spirit. Christian +inspiration is not arbitrary, is not unnatural, is not limited. It is the +life of Christ, flowing steadily and constantly into all hearts which are +prepared for it, which long for it, and which hold themselves ready to +receive it. + +We are thus prepared to state more distinctly the difference between +inspiration in general and Christian inspiration in particular. + +(_a._) These two inspirations _resemble_ each other in resulting from the +exercise of the same mental faculties, since the state of mind in both +cases is not that of reflection, but perception; and the perception is +inward perception. Newton fixes his mind steadily upon the confused +mathematical thought within till it becomes clear. Milton fixes his mind +upon the inward image of ideal truth and beauty till it grows so distinct +that he can put it into corresponding words. Columbus meditates upon the +thought of a Western Continent till it seems so plain to him that he is +ready to set sail for it. And so Paul and John look steadily at the Christ +formed within them till they see clearly what is Christ's thought +concerning every question, every subject. + +(_b._) The two inspirations also are alike in this, that the truth seen is +in both cases, as to its substance, given to us by God. For the truths +seen by Newton, Milton, Descartes, and Columbus were not inventions of +theirs, but divine realities shown to them by God. + +(_c._) In both cases the form of the truth seen comes from the exercise of +the human faculties of each individual upon the substance thus given. For +Paul and John, no less than Newton and Milton, worked up in their own +minds the truth seen. This is evident from the fact, that, while their +writings agree in contents and substance with each other, they differ from +each other in form and style. Each writer of the New Testament has his own +distinctly marked style, not only of expression, but also of thought. + +(_d._) They are alike also in combining truth of substance with +fallibility of statement. The substance of every inspired man's thought is +truth, because it is the reality shown to him by God. The form in which he +expresses it varies more or less from this truth, because that comes from +the exercise of his own finite faculties. Newton and Milton looked at +God's truths, and uttered them as well as they were able. So did Paul and +John. That these last were liable to err in matters of statement appears +from the fact that they did err in some matters, as, for example, in +regard to the speedy coming of Christ. + +These being the resemblances between natural and supernatural inspiration, +what are _differences_? + +(_a._) The first difference is in the _kind of truths seen_. The truths +seen by Newton and Milton belong to the natural world, those seen by Paul +and John to the supernatural world. The substance of the inspiration in +the one case is nature, in the other case it is Christ. Intercourse with +nature had fed the minds of Newton and Milton with the truth, forming the +material upon which their inspiration could work. Intercourse with Christ, +in the flesh and in the spirit, had filled the minds of Paul and John with +the material on which their inspiration could be exercised. Christ had +come to them outwardly and inwardly, and this was the substance of their +inspiration. + +(_b._) The inspiration of Newton and Milton implies genius; that is, a +special faculty in each individual. This possession of genius, or special +faculty, is a condition _sine qua non_, of natural inspiration. It is +solitary, it is individual. But the inspiration of the writers of the New +Testament does not imply genius. Of the eight writers of the New +Testament, only one, viz., Paul, appears to have been a man of natural +genius. He was great by endowment, the others were made great by their +inspiration. In the one case the uncommon man finds wonderful things in +the common world; in the other case the uncommon world shows wonderful +things to the common man. + +(_c._) Natural and supernatural inspiration differ also in their occasion. +A miraculous event, namely, the coming of Christ inwardly to their souls +on the day of Pentecost, was the occasion of the apostolic inspiration. +This coming of the Holy Ghost was the second of the two supernatural +events of Christianity, of which the other was the birth of Christ. The +miraculous events in the life of Jesus may have been the natural results +of the coming of such a being into the world. The miracles of Christ's +life, including his resurrection, may have been natural to a supernatural +being. They are the evidence of a break in the series of causation in the +outward world. In like manner the inward coming of Christ to the hearts of +his disciples in what is called the influence of the Holy Spirit, is +another supernatural event, the natural result of which is the founding of +the Church, the writing of the New Testament, and the newly created life +in individual souls. + +These two inspirations, therefore, differ in their substance, source, and +method. The substance of one consists of truths of the natural order, the +other of the supernatural order. The source of one is the world of nature, +the source of the other is the inward Christ. And the method of the one is +that of individual genius, which is solitary, while the method of the +other is that of love or communion. + + + + +§ 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament +Scriptures. + + +We now pass on to ask, What is the inspiration of the New Testament, or of +its writers? + +The writers of the New Testament had no different inspiration from that of +all other Christians. We nowhere hear of any one receiving an inspiration +to enable him to write a Gospel or an Epistle. They distinctly repel the +idea of any such special or distinct inspiration. "By one spirit we have +all been baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one +spirit." Gifts are different, but the spirit is one and the same in all. +But even among these diversities of gifts, nothing is said of any gift for +writing Gospels or Epistles. Probably, therefore, the inspiration by which +these were written was precisely the same as that by which they preached +to the Gentiles or taught in the Church. It was an inward sight of Christ, +an inward sight of his truth and love, which enabled them to speak and +write with authority--the authority of those who saw what they said, and +knew it to be true. "We speak what we know, and testify what we have +seen." Hence it is that we find in their writings so much substance, so +much comprehensiveness, so much insight. They are in constant communion +with an invisible world of truth. They describe what is before their eyes. + +A book given by inspiration is not a book made perfect by miracle, but a +book, the writer of which was in a state open to influences from a higher +sphere. All books which the human race has accepted as inspired--Vedas, +Koran, Zendavesta--are sacred scriptures; all that _lasts_ is inspired. +Perpetuity, not infallibility, is the sign of inspiration. + + + "The word unto the prophet spoken + Was writ on tables yet unbroken; + The word by seers or sibyls told + In groves of oak or fanes of gold + Still floats upon the morning wind, + Still whispers to the willing mind. + One accent of the Holy Ghost + The heedless world has never lost." + + +The famous proof-text on this subject is that in the Second Epistle of +Paul to Timothy: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is +profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in +righteousness." To what Scripture did Paul refer? Some say to the Jewish +Scripture. Some say to the Jewish and Christian writings. But the +Christian writings were not then all written, and were not collected into +what we call the New Testament. The apostle does not limit himself to +these. He says, "_All_ Scripture is inspired"--not merely Jewish or +Christian Scripture, but all sacred writing. All the writings of every age +which are looked upon as Scripture, which men from age to age reverence +and honor as such, were _not_ of man's invention, not of man's device, but +came from some irrepressible influence acting on the soul from within. The +poet before quoted says truly,-- + + + "Out from the heart of nature rolled + The burdens of the Bible old. + The litanies of nations came, + Like the volcano's tongue of flame, + Up from the burning cone below, + The canticles of love and woe. + The hand that rounded Peter's dome, + And groined the aisles of Christian Rome, + Wrought in a sad sincerity. + Himself from God he could not free; + He builded better than he knew; + The conscious stone to beauty grew." + + +There is a truth in this--a profound truth. The Bible is not an exceptional +book in this, that it has no parallels in nature to its method of +production. It is true that Phidias was inspired to make his statue and to +build the Parthenon. + + + "Such and so grew those holy piles, + While love and terror laid the tiles. + Earth proudly wears the Parthenon + As the best gem upon her zone, + And morning opes in haste her lids + To gaze upon the Pyramids; + O'er England's abbeys bends the sky + As on its friends with kindred eye; + For out of thought's interior sphere + These wonders rose to upper air." + + +When Mr. Emerson and Theodore Parker compare in this way the Bible with +the Vedas or the Parthenon, we often feel that it degrades the Bible, and +takes away its special sanctity. But this is not necessarily the case. +There may be a wide gulf between the inspiration of the Bible and that of +the Vedas, or of Homer or Plato; and yet they may all belong to the same +class of works. There is a wide gulf between _man_ and the highest of the +inferior animals; and yet we put man into the class MAMMALIA, along with +oxen, whales, and cats, and into the same Order with apes and bats. We do +not think that man is degraded by being thus classified. He occupies a +distinct species in this order and class. So the New Testament and Old +Testament constitute two distinct species, of which they are the sole +representatives of one genus of inspired books; but that _genus_ belongs +to the same _order_ as the Vedas, Edda, Zendavesta, and Koran, and that +order belongs to the same _class_ as the poems of Homer and Dante, the +architecture of the Parthenon and the Strasburg Minster, the discovery of +America by Columbus, and of the law of gravitation by Newton. + +The _class_ of works which we call inspired comprehends, as we have before +said, all which come to man by a certain influx into his soul--not by +looking out of himself, but by looking into himself. Sometimes we go and +search and find thoughts; sometimes thoughts come and find us. "They flash +upon our inner eye;" they haunt us, and pursue us, and take possession of +us. So Columbus was haunted by the idea of a continent in the west; so +Newton was haunted by his discovery long before he made it; so the +"Paradise Lost" pursued Milton long before it was written. Every really +great work must have in it more or less of this element which we call +inspiration. + +But while the great works of genius belong to the class of inspired works, +we make a distinct order out of the great religious works which have been +the sacred Scriptures of races of men. They evidently came from a higher +inspiration than the works of science and the works of art. They have +ruled men's souls for thousands of years. These, then, we place in an +_Order_ by themselves, and it is no discredit to the Bible to be ranked +with the works of Confucius, which have kept the Chinese orderly, +peaceful, industrious, and happy for almost twenty-six centuries. + +But still, among these sacred books the Bible may be said to constitute a +distinct _genus_, because it differs from all the rest in two ways--in +teaching the holiness of God and the unity of God. The writer has been a +careful reader of all these sacred books for twenty years; he has read +them with respect; in no captious spirit; wishing to find in them all the +truth he could. He has found in them much truth--much in accordance with +Christianity. But he sees a wide difference between them all and the +Bible. They are all _profitable_ for doctrine, for reproof, for +instruction; but they are not Holy Scriptures in the sense in which we +ascribe that word to the Bible. The Old Testament, though having in it +many harsh and hard features, belonging to the Jewish mind, has strains +which rise into a higher region than anything in the Vedas or the +Zendavesta. The Proverbs of Solomon are about on a level with the books of +Confucius. But nowhere in all these Ethnic Scriptures are strains like +some of the Psalms--like passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The laws of Menu +are low compared with the Pentateuch. + +But if the Old and New Testament make a genus by themselves, they divide +again into two species. There is a specific difference between the New +Testament and the Old. The New Testament inspiration is of a far deeper, +higher, and broader character than the other. In fact, we ought, perhaps, +to make a special order by itself from the New Testament writings. They +are so full of life, light, and love--they are so strong yet so tender--so +pure yet so free! They have no cant of piety, no formalism, but breathe +throughout a heavenly atmosphere. Their inspiration is of the highest kind +of all. + +But what is this Holy Spirit? What does it teach? Scientific truth? No. +Scientific truth has been taught the world by other channels. Bacon and +Newton, La Place and Cuvier, Linnęus and De Candolle, have been inspired +to teach science. Their knowledge came, not only by observation, not only +by study, but by patiently opening their minds to receive impressions from +above. Were the writers of the Bible inspired to teach history? We think +not. There are histories of the Jews in the Bible, and they are likely to +be as authentic, as histories, as are those of Herodotus and Livy, and +other painstaking and sincere historians. But the special inspiration of +the Bible does not appear in the historic books. + +But are not _all_ parts of the Bible equally inspired by this Holy Spirit? +By no means. We can easily see that they are not. It is evident that there +is nothing spiritually edifying in a large part of the history of the Old +Testament--the account of Samson, the story of Gideon, large parts of the +books of Judges and Chronicles, the Song of Solomon, the book of Esther. +The book of Ecclesiastes is full, throughout, of a dark and terrible +scepticism. Now, all these books are valuable, exceedingly so, as history, +but not as proceeding from the Holy Spirit. + +But it may be said, "If the history of the Bible is not inspired, it may +be erroneous." Certainly it may. We have seen that the account of creation +in the book of Genesis is probably erroneous. It contains one great faith, +luminous throughout--namely, that there is one God, Creator of all worlds +and of mankind. But as to the _order_ of creation,--the six days, the +garden of Eden,--all we can say is, that there may be some way by which +Moses could, in vision, have seen these things, represented in picture, as +they happened long before. There may be such a kind of unveiling of the +past before the inner eye of the soul. We do not deny it, for it is not +wise to deny where we know nothing. But we can assert that Christianity +does not require us to believe those chapters of Genesis to contain +historic truth. It may be allegorical truth. It may be a parable, +representing how every little child comes into an Eden of innocence, and +is tempted by that wily serpent, the sophistical understanding, and is +betrayed by desire, his Eve, and goes out of his garden of childhood, +where all life proceeds spontaneously and by impulse, into a world of work +and labor. If it be such an allegory as that, it teaches us quite as much +as if it were history. + + + + +§ 7. Authority of the Scriptures. + + +We have seen that the Bible, though inspired, is not infallible. But, it +is said, unless the Bible is infallible it has no authority. This we deny. +Inspiration is not infallibility, but inspiration _is_ authority. The +inspired man is always an authority. Phidias and Michael Angelo are +authorities in sculpture; Titian and Rafaelle are authorities in painting; +Mozart and Beethoven in music; and Paul, John, Peter, in religion. + +Authority without infallibility is the problem before us. It is evident +that authority is desirable; it is equally evident that infallibility is +impossible. Can there, therefore, be the one without the other? Can God +reveal himself to man through a fallible medium? Can the writers of the +New Testament be so inspired as to be able to communicate truth, and yet +so inspired as not to be infallible? To all these questions we answer, +_Yes_; and will try to show it to be so. + +Suppose that you are going through a forest in company with others. You +have lost your way. No one knows which way to go; dangers are around +you--dangers from cold, hunger, wild beasts, enemies. If you go the wrong +way, you may all perish; if you go the right way, you will reach your +destination and be safe. Under these circumstances, one of the party +climbs a tree, and when he has reached the top he cries out with joy, "I +see the way we ought to go. We must go to the right. I see the ocean in +that direction, and the spires of the city to which we are bound." You all +immediately go the way that he directs. He has become an authority to you. +You follow his guidance implicitly, and put your lives into his hands, +depending upon the truth of what he says. Why? Because he has been where +you have not been, and has seen what you have not seen, and you believe +him honest and true. He has no motive to deceive you. This is his +authority. + +But is it equivalent to infallibility? By no means. No one supposes him to +be infallible. If, after following his direction for a while, you see no +signs to show that you are in the right way, you begin to think that he +may have been mistaken, and some one else climbs a tree to verify his +judgment, or to correct it. But if, instead, signs begin to appear to show +that you are in the right way, your faith in your guide is confirmed, and +his authority is practically increased. + +What gives a man authority as a guide, teacher, counsellor, is not our +belief in his infallibility, but our belief in his knowledge; if we +believe that he knows something we do not know, he becomes thereby an +authority to us. If he has been where we have not been, and seen what we +have not seen, he is an authority. A man who has just come from Europe or +from California, who has been in the midst of a great battle, who has +studied a subject which others have not studied, and made himself familiar +with it, such a man is an authority to others. Observe men listening to +him. All defer to him while he is speaking on this subject. He may be much +more ignorant than they are in regard to other things, but, if he has had +superior opportunities in regard to this subject, he is an authority. Yet +they do not believe him infallible; for if, in the course of his +conversation, he says anything which seems contradictory, incredible, +absurd, they begin to withdraw their confidence, and may withdraw it +wholly. But if, on the other hand, what he says is clear, consistent, +solid with information, his authority is increased continually, and his +bearers defer to him more and more. + +Now, the authority of the writers of the New Testament is exactly of this +kind. The authority of inspiration everywhere is of this kind. An inspired +man is one who is believed to have been where we have not been, and to +have seen what we have not seen. + +In Cooper's novels there is a character whom he calls Leatherstocking, +familiar with the woods, knowing all their signs, acquainted with the +habits of bird, beast, and Indian. He guides the travellers through the +wilderness, and, by his superior knowledge, saves them from the Indian +ambush and the pursuing savage. They commit themselves implicitly to his +guidance, trust their lives to him. Why? Because they confide in his +knowledge of woodcraft and in his fidelity. As regards all matters +pertaining to the forest, he is an authority; their teacher if they want +information, their guide if they are ignorant of the way, their saviour in +imminent peril from savage beasts and savage men. He is an authority to +them, a perfect authority; for they confide in him entirely, without a +shade of doubt. But no one thinks him infallible, nor supposes it +necessary to believe him infallible, in order to trust him entirely. + +Just so a ship on a lee shore, in the midst of a driving storm, throws up +signal rockets or fires a gun for a pilot. A white sail emerges from the +mist; it is the pilot-boat. A man climbs on board, and the captain gives +to him the command of the ship. All his orders are obeyed implicitly. The +ship, laden with a precious cargo and hundreds of lives, is confided to a +rough-looking man whom no one ever saw before, who is to guide them +through a narrow channel, where to vary a few fathoms to the right or left +will be utter destruction. The pilot is invested with absolute authority +as regards bringing the vessel into port. + +When Columbus came back from his first voyage, and reported the discovery +of America, was he not an _authority_? Did not men throng around him, to +hear of what he had seen and done? Yet who believed him infallible. He who +has been where I have not been, and seen what I have not seen, is an +_authority_ to me. If I believe him honest, and no impostor, then I learn +from him, and depend on his testimony. Now, the writers of the New +Testament have been where we have not been. They have ascended heights, +and sounded depths in the spiritual world unknown to us. So they are +authorities to us, provided we have enough of their spirit in us to enable +us to see and know their inspiration. For, unless I have some musical +spirit in me, I cannot discern the inspiration of Mozart; unless I have +some mathematical spirit in me, I cannot discern the mathematical +inspiration of Newton and Kepler. So the natural man (the man who has +nothing in him corresponding to the Christian inspiration) cannot discern +the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, for they +are spiritually discerned or judged. He lives in external things, as babes +do. The authority of the Spirit in the Bible is that it awakens and +appeals to whatever spiritual element exists in our soul, and compels it +to feel and admit its truth. + +Jesus, it is said, in giving the Sermon on the Mount, taught as one having +authority, and not as the Scribes. What was his authority, then? Not +official authority, for he was not yet known to be the Christ, hardly yet +known to be a prophet. Not merely the _authority_ coming from an imposing +manner; not an authoritative air, or tone, or manner, certainly. That was +precisely the tone and manner which the Scribes _did_ have in _their_ +teaching. But the authority is in the Sermon itself. Its truths are so +wonderfully distinct and self-evident, they carry conviction with them. +Jesus sees so plainly all that he says--there is no hesitation, no +obscurity, no perhapses in his language. He is like one describing what is +before his eyes, what he knows to be true because he sees it while he is +saying it. It is, in short, the authority which always attends knowledge. +He who knows anything, and can speak with certainty, carries conviction +with him, though we do not suppose him to be infallible, nor is it thought +necessary to believe him so, in order to give to him this authority. + +By such examples, we see that in earthly matters of the very highest +importance we ascribe authority without supposing infallibility. Now, if +we analyze the source of this authority, we shall find that it comes, +first, from the testimony of others, and, secondly, from our own +experience. Leatherstocking comes recommended to the travellers as a +skilful and faithful guide, and they trust him, at first, on the simple +ground of that recommendation. But they do not trust him entirely or fully +on that ground. They watch him while they trust him,--perhaps we ought +rather to say, they _try_ him, than that they _trust_ him. But, after they +have tried him day by day, week by week, and find him always skilful, +always faithful, they come to place a more and more implicit trust in his +guidance; he becomes more and more an authority. + +So the pilot comes at first recommended only by his office. His office +implies the testimony of those who ought to know that he is able to guide +the vessel into the harbor. But if, besides this, there is some one on +board who knows his ability and fidelity by previous experience, and says, +"We are all safe now; this is the famous John Smith or William Brown, the +best pilot in the harbor," then everybody is ready to trust him more +entirely. + +Knowledge and fidelity, _not_ infallibility, these make a man an authority +to others in things pertaining to this life--knowledge and fidelity, +evidenced to us, first by the testimony of others, and secondly by our own +experience. Testimony leads us to _try_ a man and trust him partially, +trust him, but watch him. Add to this our own experience of his knowledge +and fidelity, and we trust him wholly. + +There are two worlds of knowledge--outward and inward. Knowledge of the +outward world comes to us through the senses, by observation; knowledge of +the inward world comes to us through the consciousness, by insight or +inspiration. Every man's knowledge has come to him by both of these +methods. The soul has a perceptive power with which it can look either +way. It looks outward through the senses, and perceives an external world; +it looks inward through the consciousness, and perceives an internal +world. It looks outward, and perceives forms, hears sounds, becomes +acquainted with external nature. It looks inward, and becomes acquainted +with justice, holiness, love, freedom, duty, sin, immortality, the +infinite, the eternal, God. + +But just as it depends on various conditions as to what a man shall see +through the senses in time and space, so it depends on other conditions as +to what a man shall see beyond time and space in the spiritual world. The +conditions in the first instance are, good perceptive organs, a genius for +observation, educated powers for observation, knowledge of what to +observe, and finally opportunities for observation, or being able to go +where the things are which are to be seen. A blind man standing in front +of the Parthenon would be no authority to us as to its architecture; +neither would the most sharp-sighted person who should happen in be in +America, instead of Greece. So an Indian, with the finest perceptive +faculty, and standing directly in front of this majestic temple, would +give a very poor account of it, from want of previous knowledge. He, only, +would be an authority to us in regard to such a building, who should +combine with good perceptive organs, and some knowledge of the subject, an +opportunity for looking at it. + +When we speak of inspiration, we mean, in regard to the inward world, +exactly the same thing. We mean that a man has his spiritual organs in a +healthy condition, that he has some knowledge of spiritual things, and +that he has been placed by divine Providence where he is able to see them. +Some men are lifted into a world of spiritual perception, when they see +things not seen by other men. They become prophets, apostles, lawgivers to +the human race. They are invested with authority. Men believe what they +say, and do what they command, and put their souls into their hands, just +as they trust their bodies to the guide of the pilot. + +These are the inspired men--the men to whom revelations have been made. +They have authority, because they have been where we have not been, and +seen what we have not seen. But they have not infallibility, because, as +the apostle says, they have this treasure in earthen vessels. This divine +knowledge is contained in a finite, and therefore fallible mind. But we +see by means of our former illustrations that to grant their fallibility +does not detract at all from their authority. + +And again, their authority is certified to us exactly as in the other +instances. They come recommended by external testimony, and on the +strength of that testimony we confide in them and try them. If we find +that they are not able to teach us, they cease to be authorities to us. +But if we find that they are full of truth, they become our guides and +teachers, and their authority is more and more confirmed; that they are +good and true guides, is evidenced by their being able to guide us. They +lead us into deeper depths of truth and love. They become the teachers of +their race. The centuries which pass add more and more weight to their +authority. They inspire us, therefore they are themselves inspired. It is +no more necessary, after this, to prove their inspiration, in the sense +which I have given, than to prove that the sun shines. + +One remarkable illustration of this process, by which the test of +Scripture, as inspired, is that it should be profitable for doctrine, +reproof, and instruction, is to be found in the Epistle of Barnabas. +Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles at Jerusalem, and is called, in +the book of Acts, a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost. He was sent on a +mission to Antioch by the apostles; afterwards was specially pointed out +by the Holy Ghost to go with Paul on his mission. (Acts 13:2.) He is +styled a prophet in this place, and we read that the Holy Spirit said, +"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." + +During this mission Barnabas seems to have been the more important of the +two, for at Lystra the people called _him_ Jupiter, and Paul Mercury. +Barnabas and Paul appeared before the first council at Jerusalem; and the +apostles, in their letter, say, "Our beloved Barnabas, and a man that has +hazarded his life for the name of the Lord Jesus." Now, this Barnabas, +called an apostle in the book of Acts, companion of Paul, sent on a +mission by the Holy Spirit, and commended by the apostles at Jerusalem, +was believed by the early Church to have written an Epistle. It is quoted +as his, seven times by Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, three +times by Origen, and by other writers. + +Accordingly, it was originally included in the New Testament, and for +nearly four hundred years made a part of it. The oldest manuscript of the +New Testament in the world, supposed to have been written in the fourth +century, contains the Epistle of Barnabas; and one reason for believing +the manuscript so old, is that it _does_ contain it. This manuscript was +found by the celebrated German critic Tischendorf, in 1859, in the convent +of St. Catharine, at Mount Sinai. Why, then, is not this Epistle of +Barnabas printed in our New Testament? Whoever reads it will easily see +the reason. It is because it does not deserve to be there; it does not +have the marks of a high inspiration; it is made up in a great degree of +quotations from the Old Testament, of imitations of St. Paul, and of +allegories. It evidently dropped out of the Bible by its own weight. It +had every opportunity offered it to become a part of sacred Scripture; but +being tried by Paul's test, it was found not to be profitable for +doctrine, reproof, or anything else, and so the copyists saved their time, +labor, and vellum by leaving it out. It was received on testimony, and +discarded after experience. It had authority at first, because of its +supposed author; it lost it afterwards, by means of its empty self. + +This, then, is the authority of the writers of the Bible. It is the +authority of inspired men--men who have been into spiritual regions where +most men have not gone, and seen what most men have not seen. It is not +infallibility. They are capable of mistakes and error. Their being in the +Bible is only so far a proof that they are inspired, as it gives the +testimony of the Church that it has found the proofs of inspiration in +their writings. The Christian community has followed the apostolic +direction, and tried the spirits whether they were of God or not, and has +come to the conclusion that these New Testament writers have the marks of +inspiration. For you will observe that the present code of the New +Testament was gradually formed, and that not by the votes of councils or +the decisions of bishops, but by the feelings of the Christian community. +An inward instinct, and no external authority, presided over the +collection of the Scriptures, gradually dropping out some books (like +Barnabas, Hermas, and the Revelation of Peter), and taking in others. + +So the Christian Church says to us, of the New Testament, "Here is a book +concerning which we testify that the writings in it are profitable for +doctrine; that its writers have superior knowledge in regard to spiritual +things; that they are inspired men, who have been taken up into a region +where most men have never gone, and seen what most men have never seen, +and therefore _know_ more than most of us about spiritual truth." + +But you may say, "If inspiration gives _knowledge_, and these writers are +inspired, then they do more than believe or think what they say about God, +duty, and immortality. They _know_; and if they _know_, does not that mean +that they are infallible?" No, knowledge is not infallibility. It is true +that inspiration gives knowledge, while speculation only gives opinion. +This is the reason why inspired men speak with authority, and philosophers +without it. But knowledge, though it gives authority, does not give +infallibility. + +A Frenchman _knows_ the French language; still he may make mistakes in +speaking it. The man from California knows that country, but he may be +mistaken about it. Thus, if these writers are not infallible, they may +make mistakes; and if so, how are we to distinguish between their truth +and their error? This is a fair question: let us try to answer it. + +Let us return to our former comparison of travellers and their guide. How +are you to distinguish between your guide's knowledge and his errors? + +Probably, when your guide begins to be uncertain as to the way, he will +show his uncertainty in his behavior. He will become doubtful, hesitating, +undecided; he will, by and by, supposing him honest, begin to express his +uncertainty, and say, "I am not quite sure of this path." + +It is just so with inspired writers. While their inspiration runs in a +full tide, they speak confidently; they are distinct in their statements. + +Again, if your guide begins to speak of things outside of his province, he +does not carry much authority. If Leatherstocking discusses Shakespeare, +or the pilot begins to talk about politics, his opinions carry no weight +except what is inherent to them. + +So when the writers of the Bible, leaving themes of religion and morals, +describe natural objects, as the leviathan or behemoth, we give no more +credit to their descriptions than we should to those of any other writer +of their day. + +A question would arise here whether history was a subject of inspiration +or not; that is, whether an inspired writer, when he comes to speak of +historic facts, has any more authority than another. There may be some way +by which past events might be presented by inspiration to the mind of one +caught up by the spirit into another world. But the writers of the Old and +New Testament are careless about dates and numbers, and do not seem to be +made accurate by any special gift. I should, therefore, incline to the +opinion that the historic books of the Bible have no authority except that +of their reasonableness and conformity to what we might believe on other +grounds. As fragments of history, coming from so remote a past, they are +invaluable, when we treat them as simple, honest records of what was then +believed or known. + +Take, for instance, the story of the deluge, and compare it with similar +stories in other mythologies. We find it so corroborated by these, that we +may believe that there is a basis of reality in it. + + + + +§ 8. The Christian Prepossession. + + +It is a great thing to read a book with expectation instead of distrust. +Expectation opens the mind to light, and makes it easy to see. Distrust +closes it. If I have read Shakespeare till I feel sure of his poetic +inspiration, then I read with expectation all he writes; I am looking for +truth and beauty, and so I find it. If I had never read Shakespeare, nor +heard of him, and Hamlet were put into my hand, I should probably be +displeased with something or other, and throw it aside, and so lose the +deepness and loveliness of that wonderful creation. How much we find in +the words of Jesus and Paul, because we read them with expectation and +hope! because we read them always looking for what is deep and high! + +Nevertheless many persons recommend a contrary course. They say that we +ought to forget all that has been told us about the Book, and read it as +if we had never seen it before. But this method is neither practicable nor +desirable. It is impossible to look at the Bible as though it were an +unknown book; impossible to forget that it is the text book of +Christianity; regarded as sacred by millions of our fellow-men; the source +of spiritual and moral life to the world for the last fifteen hundred +years; that our parents and friends have found in it strength for duty, +comfort in trial, hope in the hour of death. You might as well tell the +child who begins to study geography to forget that he lives in America, or +when he studies the history of the United States, to forget that it is the +history of his own land. Nor would it be desirable to study the New +Testament thus. For it is this grand belief concerning it which makes us +desire to study it at all. Were it not for this belief it might be +occasionally read by a student in the interest of science, but never by +the mass of the community. Faith in its divine origin and divine purpose, +causes it to be read in families, schools, churches, to be used as a +manual of prayer in the closet, and to grow familiar in every home. The +Book is surrounded by a traditional halo of wonder, reverence, and hope, +and this gives us motive and power with which to read it. If a cold +criticism, a sceptical spirit, shall ever succeed in causing the New +Testament to be regarded as a common book, on the natural plane of human +thought, full of errors and imperfections, inspired only as Plato is +inspired, then it will be read as Plato is read, that is, by one man in a +million. It is not desirable to lose the reverence which causes us to +expect extraordinary truth and good in certain books, men, and +institutions; for so we lose the best motive power of the soul; so life +becomes tame, the day empty, and events unmeaning. + +It is, therefore, perfectly right for the Church to surround Christ and +Christianity with this divine aureola of reverence and wonder, not +exaggerating it, but neither understating it. For this wonder and +reverence, when legitimate, is a great treasure of spiritual life, +animating and elevating, which the Church possesses in order that it may +communicate it. It is continually proclaiming its good news; constantly +asserting that through Christ God has given it a divine peace; that in +Christ there is a marvellous truth and beauty; and that the Gospels and +Epistles, which contain his life and truth, have a strange power of +raising us above ourselves, and bringing us into communion with an eternal +world. When this is said, not by rote, or as a mere form, but from sincere +conviction, the spirit of faith creates faith, and faith is the great +motive which leads to action. + +As it is the duty of the Church to excite our interest in the New +Testament, by declaring its own love and respect for it, so it is right +for the student of the New Testament to give a certain preliminary weight +to this testimony of the Church in commencing his study. This is what we +call the Christian prepossession. And it regards the New Testament exactly +as when a friend whose judgment we respect earnestly recommends to us some +book which he has read, and which has done him good. He recommends it to +us as a good book, and he recommends it with enthusiasm. His enthusiasm +produces in us a desire to become acquainted with the book, and a certain +hope that we shall find in it what our friend has found. This hope leads +on towards fruition, and is one of its conditions. It ought not, +therefore, to be relinquished; but neither should it lead us to accept +blindly everything which we are told. We must look with our own eyes, +think with our own mind, feel with our own heart. + +To wish to come to the study of the Bible without prepossession in its +favor is, therefore, a foolish wish; for, without prepossession in its +favor, we should have little motive for studying it at all. It is our +faith in the Bible that leads us to read it; and faith here, as +everywhere, is the motive power which reason has only to guide and +restrain. Faith is the brave steed which carries us forward, full of fire +and full of pride. Reason is the bridle by which he is guided, supported, +and restrained. There is a story of a thief so skilful that he could steal +a man's horse from under him without his knowing it, and so leave him +holding the bridle in his hand, and supposing himself to be still on +horseback. So are those deceived who think to live by reason without +faith. The motive power of their life has been taken away from them, and +they do not know it; they suppose that they can ride with a bridle and +saddle, without a horse. + +To read the New Testament to any purpose, we must, therefore, read with +the faith that there is some great good to be got from it. But what is the +true foundation of this faith? Is it legitimate, or is it an illusion? The +basis of this faith is to be found in the fact that the Bible has done so +much, and is doing so much, for the world--a fact which cannot be stated +better than in these words of one who is not commonly supposed to have too +high a reverence for the Bible:-- + + + "This collection of books has taken such a hold on the world as no + other. The literature of Greece, which goes up like incense from + that land of temples and heroic deeds, has not half the influence + of this book from a nation alike despised in ancient and modern + times. It is read of a Sabbath in all the ten thousand pulpits of + our land. In all the temples of Christendom is its voice lifted up + week by week. The sun never sets on its gleaming page. It goes + equally to the cottage of the plain man and the palace of the + king. It is woven into the literature of the scholar, and colors + the talk of the street. The bark of the merchant cannot sail the + sea without it, no ship of war go to the conflict but the Bible is + there. It enters men's closets; mingles in all the grief and + cheerfulness of life. The affianced maiden prays God in Scripture + for strength in her new duties; men are married by Scripture. The + Bible attends them in their sickness; when the fever of the world + is on them. The aching head finds a softer pillow when the Bible + lies underneath. The mariner, escaping from shipwreck, clutches + this first of his treasures, and keeps it sacred to God. It goes + with the pedler in his crowded pack; cheers him at eventide, when + he sits down dusty and fatigued; brightens the freshness of his + morning face. It blesses us when we are born; gives names to half + Christendom; rejoices with us; has sympathy for our mourning; + tempers our grief to finer issues. It is the better part of our + sermons. It lifts man above himself; our best of uttered prayers + are in its storied speech, wherewith our fathers and the + patriarchs prayed. The timid man, about awaking from this dream of + life, looks through the glass of Scripture, and his eye grows + bright; he does not fear to stand alone, to tread the way unknown + and distant, to take the death-angel by the hand, and bid farewell + to wife, and babes, and home. Men rest on this their dearest + hopes. It tells them of God, and of his blessed Son; of earthly + duties and of heavenly rest. Foolish men find it the source of + Plato's wisdom, and the science of Newton, and the art of Raphael. + Men who believe nothing else that is spiritual believe the Bible + all through; without this they would not confess, say they, even + that there was a God."--_Theodore Parker, Discourse of Religion._ + + +A book which exercises this great influence over our fellow-men ought to +be approached with reverence. It is for the same reason that we approach +with faith and expectation the writings of Shakespeare and Milton. We read +them expecting to find in them great truths, and this expectation enables +us to find them. "Seek and ye shall find" is the law. How often we should +have been disappointed and dissatisfied with such books, and have thrown +them aside impatiently, had we not remembered the great universal +testimony to their surpassing excellence! + +This Christian prepossession is, however, only a general confidence that +there is something exceedingly good in the New Testament; that it is a +book containing in some way a divine revelation, in some way or other +inspired, in some way likely to be a great help and comfort to our +spiritual nature, and the best guide we can have for this life and towards +the next. It is an expectation of all this, an expectation based on the +testimony of mankind. So far it is a reasonable expectation. So far it is +right and just to entertain it. It is the natural inheritance to which we +were born, by being born Christians. To throw it away, or to try to throw +it away, would be as though one should try to throw away the habits of +civilization which he inherits by being born in a civilized community, and +try to go back and start as a savage. It is neither more futile nor more +foolish in the one case than in the other. + +But, though this Christian prepossession is a perfectly legitimate one +with which to begin, it is not a legitimate one in which to remain. It is +our business, by the free action of our intellect, to change this general +and vague expectation into a distinct opinion of one kind or another. +Protestantism allows us to take our faith in the Bible from the Church, +but not to take from the Church our opinions about the Bible. Faith may, +and ought to be, received, but opinions are to be formed. An opinion or +belief received from another man is his opinion, and not ours. + +With regard to any other book this would be self-evident. For example, +suppose that I have never read the play of Hamlet. I hear it universally +spoken of as one of the greatest works of the human intellect. That +naturally and properly creates in my mind the expectation of finding it +so. It produces the general belief that it is a great work of genius. But +suppose that, besides this general expectation, I should also accept from +my neighbors their particular opinions concerning the play. I hear them +say that it is more philosophical, but less dramatic, than Macbeth; that +the character of Hamlet is overcharged with intellect, and the like. If, +now, I adopt and repeat these opinions, without having read the play, it +is evident that I am only a parrot or an echo. It is evident that they are +not _my_ opinions at all, and that they indeed interfere with my having +any opinions. Fifty thousand echoes of a voice leave us only one voice and +fifty thousand echoes. + +This distinction between faith and opinion, which we have already spoken +of, is of the utmost practical importance. We may add here that, for want +of it, intellectual people try to go to the study of the Bible without +faith in the Bible, and religious people think they must accept all their +opinions from others, and take them in ready made. It is not absolutely +essential to have opinions; but if we do have them, they ought to be our +own. Faith must be received, opinions must be formed. + +All persons, therefore, ought to form opinions for themselves about the +New Testament. They may bring to the work a faith in the New Testament, as +being in some sense or other a revelation, as being written in some way or +other by inspired men, as being somehow or other a holy book, the +legitimate source of spiritual life, moral goodness, and inward peace. + + + + +§ 9. Conclusion. + + +If the views given in this chapter are reasonable, we shall conclude that +Orthodoxy is right in maintaining the supreme excellence and value of the +Christian Scriptures, but wrong in claiming for them infallible accuracy. +It is right in saying that they are written by inspired men, but wrong in +considering this inspiration a guarantee against all possible error or +mistake. It is right in calling the Bible "The Holy Scripture," but wrong +in denying to the scriptures of other religious some divine influx and +some religious life. It is right in asking that the Bible be read with +faith and expectation; wrong in demanding for it unreasoning, uncritical +submission. Let reverence for its spirit and criticism of its letter go +hand in hand; for reverence and criticism, faith and reason, docility to +great masters and freedom in seeking for ourselves, are antagonist, +indeed, but not contradictory. They are not hostile, but helpful, though +acting in opposite directions--like the opposition of the thumb and fingers +in the human hand, which makes of it such a wonderful servant of the +thought. They belong to the group of sisterly powers which the Creator has +placed in the human soul--varied, complex, like and unlike. + + + "Facies non omnibus una, + Nec diversa tamen, qualis decet esse sororum." + + + + + +CHAPTER VI. ORTHODOX IDEA OF SIN, AS DEPRAVITY AND AS GUILT. + + + + +§ 1. The Question stated. + + +We now approach the orthodoxy of Orthodoxy--the system of sin and +redemption, which constitutes its most essential character. The questions +hitherto treated--the natural and supernatural, miracles, the +Scriptures--belong to universal religion. On these points heretics and the +Orthodox may agree. But the essence of heresy, in the eyes of an Orthodox +man, is to vary from the standards of belief in regard to sin and +salvation. + +We commence with the subject of human sinfulness; in other words, with the +character of man in relation to Orthodoxy. The theology of the East asked, +"What is God?" and entered on its course from the specially theological +side. It began with ontology, and proceeded to psychology. In this, +Oriental theology followed in the path of Oriental philosophy. But +Occidental theology, originating strictly with Augustine, followed the +practical and experimental method of European thought, and, instead of +asking, "What is God?" asked, instead, "What is man?" + +We begin, therefore, with the great question, "What is man?" This is the +radical question in practical, experimental theology, as the question, +"What is God?" is the radical question in speculative theology. But we are +now concerned in the theology of experience and of life. We are seeking +for human wants. Knowing what man is, we can next ask what he needs. + + + + +§ 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, Natural Depravity, +Total Depravity, Inability. + + +Orthodoxy answers the question, "What is man?" by saying, "Man is a +sinner;" and this answer has these four moments:-- + +1. Man was created at first righteous and good. + +2. Man fell, in and with Adam, and became a sinner. + +3. All now born are born totally corrupt and evil;-- + +4. And are utterly disabled to all good, so as not to have the power of +repenting, or even of wishing to repent. + +These four ideas are,-- + +First, that of THE FALL, or INHERITED EVIL. + +Second, of NATURAL DEPRAVITY. + +Third, of TOTAL DEPRAVITY. + +Fourth, of INABILITY. + +These points are fully stated in the following passage from the +"Assembly's Confession of Faith," chap. 6:-- + + + "1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and + temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This + their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, + to permit; having purposed to order it to his own glory. + + "2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and + communion with God; and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled + in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. + + "3. They being the root of all mankind, the _guilt_ of this sin + was IMPUTED, and the same _death in sin, and corrupted nature_, + CONVEYED, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary + generation. + + "4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly + indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly + inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. + + "5. This corruption of nature during this life doth remain in + those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, + pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions + thereof are truly and properly sin. + + "6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of + the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own + nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to + the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to + death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal."(13) + + +We assume the "Assembly's Catechism" as almost _the_ standard of +Orthodoxy. It was prepared with the concurrence of the best minds in +England, in an age when theological discussion had sharpened all wits in +that direction. Thoroughly Calvinistic, it is also a wonderfully clear and +precise statement of Calvinism. Framed after long controversies, it had +the advantage of all the distinctions which are made only during +controversy. It is a fortress made defensible at all points, because it +has been attacked so often that all its weak places have been seen and +marked. It is a masterpiece of statement. + +Now, it is very easy, and what has often been done, _to stand on the +outside_ and show the actual error and logical absurdity of this creed; to +show that men are not by nature totally depraved, and that, if they were, +this would not be guilt; that, if they have no power to repent, they are +not to blame for not repenting; and that God, as a God of justice even (to +say nothing of mercy, of love, of a heavenly Father), cannot condemn and +punish us for a depraved nature inherited from Adam. + +It is easy to say all this. But it has often been said; and with what +result? Unitarians have been, by such arguments, confirmed in their +Unitarianism; but the Orthodox have not, by such arguments, been convinced +of the falsity of their creed. Let us see, then, if we cannot find some +truth in this system,--some vital, experimental truth,--for the sake of +which the Orthodox cling to these immense and incredible inconsistencies. +Let us take an _inside_ view of Orthodoxy, and see why, being +unreasonable, it yet commends itself to so many minds of the highest order +of reason. + + + + +§ 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or otherwise. + + +Let us begin with the substance of Orthodoxy (neglecting, at present, its +form), and say, in general, that it regards human nature as being in an +abnormal or diseased condition. The first thing to be done with man, +according to Calvinism, is to cure him. Many systems, differing from each +other in name, agree in this--that they do not believe in any such diseased +condition of man. According to them, he is not to be cured, but to be +educated. The Church is not a hospital, but an academy. Man needs, mainly, +instruction. His purposes, in the main, are right; but he errs as to what +he has to do. What he requires is precept and example. + +As Orthodoxy believes man to be diseased, its object is twofold, and the +truths which it employs are of two kinds. First, it seeks to convince man +that he really has a dangerous disease; and then to convince him, that, by +using the right means, he can be cured. It therefore constantly dwells +upon two classes of truths: first, those which reveal man's sinfulness and +his ruined condition; and, secondly, those which reveal the plan of saving +him from this condition--a plan which has been devised by the Almighty, and +which is accomplished in Christianity. Orthodoxy dwells upon sin and +salvation: these are its two pivotal doctrines. + +On the other hand, all the systems which may be associated under the term +"Liberal Christianity" regard man, not as in a state of disease, and +needing medicine, but as in a state of health, needing diet, exercise, and +favorable circumstances, in order that he may grow up a well-developed +individual. It regards sin, not as a radical disease with which all are +born, but as a temporary malady to which all are liable. It does not, +therefore, mainly dwell on sin and salvation, but on duty and improvement. +Man's nature it regards, not as radically evil, but as radically good; and +even as divine, because made by God. + +Here, then, in the doctrine of evil, lies the essential distinction +between the two great schools of thought which have divided the Church. +What is evil? and how is it to be regarded? This is, perhaps, the most +radical question in Christian theology. Is evil positive, or only +negative? Is it a reality, or only a form? What is it? Whence comes it? +Until these questions are exhaustively discussed, there is little hope of +union in theology. + + + + +§ 4. Sin as Disease. + + +We regard Orthodoxy as substantially right in its views of sin as being a +deep and radical disease. Our Saviour says, "I came not to call the +righteous, but sinners, to repentance." "The Son of man came to seek and +to save that which is lost." + +But the question recurs, Is there only one kind of sin,--namely, voluntary +and conscious transgression of God's law, originating with the individual +himself, and in the moment of committing it, by means of his free will, +which is its only seat? or is there sin which is a tendency in man's +nature, something permanent, involuntary, of which he is not conscious, +and which has its seat not merely in the will, but in the desires and +affections. To this question Liberal Christianity has commonly said, "No," +and Orthodoxy has said, "Yes." + +And on this point I concur with Orthodoxy. Besides the sin which consists +in free choice, and which is essentially transient, there is also the sin +which consists in wrong desire, and which is essentially permanent, +because it is a habit of the mind. If it were not so, there could be no +such thing as a bad character, and no such thing as a vicious habit. + +If we attempt to analyze evil, we shall find that it may be conveniently +distributed into these divisions:-- + +1. PHYSICAL EVIL. + +(_a._) Pain. +(_b._) Weakness. +(_c._) Physical disease. + +2. INTELLECTUAL OR MENTAL EVIL. + +(_a._) Ignorance. +(_b._) Error, or mistake. +(_c._) Sophism, or falsehood. + +3. MORAL EVIL. DISOBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW. + +(_a._) Ignorant and accidental, or transgression. +(_b._) Habitual disobedience, or vice. +(_c._) Wilful violation of human law; crime. +(_d._) Diseased moral state, as selfishness, bad temper, &c. + +4. SPIRITUAL EVIL. + +(_a._) Wilful alienation from God, or perverse choice. +(_b._) Spiritual inability. + +Now, we see that in all these divisions of evil,--physical, intellectual, +moral, and spiritual,--it is found in the two forms of active and passive +evil. In the latter form it is disease, and independent of the will. + +Returning, then, to the Orthodox view of evil, which it is our business to +examine, we find already that it has the advantage of the Liberal theology +in recognizing this passive side of evil, which we may call _disease_. It +is true that Orthodoxy has not yet succeeded in coming to any clearness on +this question, and has not yet any firm, intellectual hold of the main +points of its argument. Examples of this confusion are quite common. Not +to go back to the Calvinistic and Arminian controversies, which were but a +revival of the Augustinian and Pelagian dispute; not to recur even to the +Hopkinsian and Edwardian discussions,--we have only to refer to the +differences between new and old school theology in the Presbyterian +Church; to the trial of Dr. Beecher; to the book of his son Edward; to the +divergence of Andover from New Haven, and Princeton from Andover. +Unsettled, because superficial, views of evil are at the roots of all +these controversies. + + + + +§ 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. Their Truth and +Error. + + +The first point of the doctrine of evil regards the Fall, including the +doctrine of depravity. + +Modern French philosophers have dwelt much on what they call the +solidarity of the human race. By this they mean that two individuals are +not independent of each other, like two trees standing side by side, but +like two buds on the same tree or bough. There is a common life-sap +flowing through them all. Let the life of the tree be attacked +anywhere,--in its roots, its trunk, its limbs,--and all these individual +buds feel it. Yet each bud has also a life of its own, and develops its +own stalk, leaves, blossom, fruit. It can be taken from its own tree, and +put into another tree, and grow. So it is with separate men grafted into +the great tree of mankind. No one lives to himself, nor dies to himself. +If one suffers, all suffer. The life of mankind, becoming diseased, pours +disease into all individual men. + +Now, is there not something in this doctrine to which our instincts +assent? Do not we feel it true that we inherit not our own life merely, +but that of our race? and is not this the essential truth in the doctrine +of the fall? + +It is true that we fell in Adam. It is also true that we fell in every act +of sin, in every weakness and folly, of any subsequent child of Adam. We +are all drawn downward by every sin; we are lifted upward, too, by every +act of heroic virtue, not by example only, but also by that mysterious +influence, that subtile contagion, finer than anything visible, +ponderable, or tangible,--that effluence from eye, voice, tone, manner, +which, according to the character which is behind, communicates an impulse +of faith and courage, or an impulse of cowardice and untruth; which may be +transmitted onward, forward, on every side, like the widening circles in a +disturbed lake,--circles which meet and cross each other without +disturbance, and whose influence may be strictly illimitable and infinite. + +No doubt, sin began with the historical Adam--the first man who lived. "By +one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." But still more true +is it that we fell in the typical Adam--Adam who stands for innocent, +ignorant human nature before temptation; truest of all, that we _fall_ in +Adam, because we are, each of us, at first an Adam. + +We are all in the garden; we are at first placed in paradise; and each has +in himself all the four _dramatis personę_--Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the +Voice of God. Adam is the will, the power of choice, the masculine +element, in man; Eve is the affection, the desire, the feminine element, +in man; the Voice of God is the higher reason in the soul, through which +infinite truth commands,--i.e., the higher law; and the Serpent, the lower +reason in the soul, the cunning element, the sophistical understanding, +which can put evil for good, and good for evil. The garden is our early +innocence, where there is no struggle, no remorse, no anxiety; where +goodness is not labor, but impulse. But, when we go out of the garden, we +enter a life of trial, till we reach the higher paradise, the kingdom of +heaven; and then joy and duty become one again. Then-- + + + "Love is an unerring light, + And joy its own security." + + +From paradise, through the world, to heaven; from Egypt, through the +wilderness, to Canaan; from innocence, through temptation, sin, +repentance, faith, to regeneration,--such is the progress of man. + +To me, the belief that I fell in Adam is not an opinion fraught only with +sadness. This tide of life which comes pouring through me comes from ten +thousand ancestors. All _their_ sorrows and joys, temptations and +struggles, sins and virtues, have helped to make it what it is. I am a +member of a great body. I am willing to be so--to bear the fortunes and +misfortunes of my race. + +It is true that I find evil tendencies in me, which I did not cause; but I +know, that, for whatever part I am not the cause, I am not accountable. +For this part of my life I do not dread the wrath, but rather claim the +pity, of my God. My nature I find to be diseased--not well; needing cure, +and not merely food and exercise. I can, therefore, the more easily +believe that God has sent me a physician, and that I shall be cured by +him. I can believe in a future emancipation from these tendencies to +vanity, sensuality, indolence, anger, wilfulness, impatience, +obstinacy--tendencies which are, in me, not crime, but disease; and I can +see how to say with Paul, "Now, then, it is no more _I_ that do it, but +SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME." + +If, now, we return to the consideration of the Orthodox doctrine of the +fall, as set forth by the Westminster Assembly, we shall find it to be +half true and half false. It states _truly_ (chap. 6, § 1) that our first +parents sinned, and also (§ 2) that by this sin they fell from their +original righteousness; for this only means that the first conscious act +of disobedience by man produced alienation from God, and degeneracy of +nature. This was no arbitrary punishment, but the natural consequence. The +creed also says _truly_ (§ 3) that this corrupted nature was conveyed to +all their posterity; for this only means, that, by the laws of descent, +good and evil qualities are transmitted; which all wise observers of human +nature knew to be the fact. It is also _true_ (§ 5) that this corrupt +nature does remain (to some extent at least), even in the regenerate, in +this life. + +So far, so true. Sin, as disease, began with the first man, in his first +sin, and has been transmitted, by physical, moral, and spiritual +influences, from him to us all. + +But now we find complicated with these truths other statements, which we +must need regard as falsehoods. Tried either by reason or Scripture, they +are palpably untrue, and are very dangerous errors. + +The first error of Orthodoxy is in declaring transmitted or inherited evil +to be total. It declares that our first parents "were _wholly_ defiled in +all faculties and parts of soul and body," and that _we_, in consequence, +"are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and +wholly inclined to all evil." This statement is indefensible. But we shall +consider this in another section on "Total Depravity," and only allude to +it now in passing. + +Another error, however, and a very important one, is to attribute the +_guilt_ of Adam and Eve to their descendants. This is the famous doctrine +of _imputation_, which is now rejected by all the leading schools of +modern Orthodoxy. That we can be _guilty_ of Adam's sin, either by +imputation or in any other way, seems too absurd and immoral a statement +to be now received. + +But though many intelligent Orthodox teachers and believers do now reject +the imputation of Adam's sin, they admit what is just as false and just as +immoral a doctrine. They make us _guilty_ for that part of sin which is +_depravity_, as well as for that which is _wilful_. + +Whatever, either of moral good or moral evil, proceeds from our nature, +and not from our will, has no character of merit or demerit. The reason is +evident, and is stated by the apostle Paul. We are only guilty for what we +do ourselves, we are only meritorious for what we do ourselves: but what +our nature does, we do not do. "Now, then, it is no more _I_ that do it, +but sin that dwelleth in me." + +Professor Shedd, late of Andover, some years ago published a very able +essay in the "Christian Review," the title of which was, "Sin a Nature, +and that Nature Guilt." This title is a sufficient refutation of the +essay. A man could not utter a more palpable contradiction, if he said, +"The sun solid, and that solid fluid," or, "The earth black, and that +black white."(14) + +There are two kinds of moral good and two kinds of moral evil, which are +essentially different. The two kinds of moral good may be named _moral +virtue_ and _moral beauty_; the two kinds of moral evil may be named +_guilt_ and _depravity_. Now, so far as goodness proceeds from a beautiful +nature, it is not virtuous, and so far as sin proceeds from a depraved +nature, it is not guilty. We can conceive of an angelic nature with no +capacity of virtue, because incapable of guilt. + +We can also conceive of a nature so depraved as to be incapable of guilt, +because incapable of virtue. + + + + +§ 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21. + + +The famous passage in Paul (Rom. 5:12-21), which is the direct scriptural +foundation claimed for the doctrine of Adam's fall producing guilt in his +posterity, is in reality a support of our view. The only other passage (1 +Cor. 15:22) where Adam is referred to, declares that we all _die_ in him, +but by no means asserts that we _sin_ in him. + +The passage referred to runs thus (Rom. 5:12-18):-- + +Verse 12: "As by one man sin entered into the world,"-- + +(Paul here refers to the fact that sin BEGAN with the first man.) + +"And death by sin;"-- + +(By means of the sin of one man, _death_ entered.) + +"And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." + +(Rather "death _came upon_ all men, _because_ all have sinned." The +Vulgate has here _in quo_, "in whom;" that is, in Adam. So Augustine. But +even those who, like Olshausen, contend for Augustine's views, admit that +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK KORONIS~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI~} here is a conjunction, equivalent to _because_, and not a relative.) + +The next five verses (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) constitute a parenthesis, and +refer to an objection which is not stated. Some one might say, "How could +all sin, from Adam to Moses, when there was no law till Moses? and you, +Paul, have said (Rom. 4:15), that 'where there is no law there is no +transgression.' " + +Paul replies that "sin is not _imputed_ without law;" that is, as I think +evident, it is not regarded as _guilt_. A man who sins ignorantly is not +_guilty_; but he _suffers_ the consequences of his sin, which are +depravity of his nature, or moral death. "Sin is not imputed," says Paul; +"but death reigns." Those who do not sin "after the similitude of Adam's +transgression,"--that is, who do not violate a positive +command,--nevertheless are depraved morally, and are dead spiritually. The +Hottentots and Fejee Islanders violate no positive law given them by God, +and consequently are not guilty of that; but because they violate (even +ignorantly) the laws of their moral nature, they are depraved morally. + +We see, then, that Paul distinctly recognizes the distinction made above +between _sin as guilt_ and _sin as depravity_. + +He distinguishes between sin as sinfulness, or unconscious transgression +({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}), and sin as conscious transgression of a known command +({~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}). + +The consequence of the first is death, or moral and spiritual depravity; +the consequence of the second is condemnation, or a sense of guilt. + +Sinfulness, bringing with it depravity (the general demoralization of +human nature), began with Adam. All became involved in sinfulness, and +consequently all partook of the depravity which belongs to it as its +wages. + +It should, however, be observed that it is not the purpose of Paul to +teach anything about Adam. His intention is to teach something about +Christ. He refers to Adam's case as something they all are acquainted +with; he compares Christ's case with it both by contrast and resemblance. +But his object is not to instruct us about Adam, but about Christ. He uses +Adam as an example to enforce his doctrine about Christ. Through Christ, +goodness and happiness were to come into the world. He illustrated this +fact, and made it appear probable, by the fact which they already +knew--that through Adam sin and death had entered the world. If it seemed +strange, in an age in which men were so disunited, that one man should be +the medium of communicating goodness to the whole human race, they might +remember that Adam also had been the medium of introducing sin to the +whole human race. If the Jews wondered that Christ should bring salvation +to those who were not under the law, they might remember that Adam had +brought death to those not under the law, and who did not sin as he did. +If they doubted how Christ's goodness could help to make men righteous, +they might remember that in some way Adam's transgression had helped to +make men sinners. Yet, after all, the main fact which he states is in the +twelfth verse, chapter five--"that by one man sin _entered into_ the world, +and death by sin." This amounts to saying that sin _began_ with Adam. Then +he adds, in the same verse, "that death has passed upon all men, _because +all have sinned_." He therefore distinctly declares that every man is +punished for his own sin, and not for the sin of Adam. + +In the other passage (1 Cor. 15:22), Paul says, "As in Adam all die, even +so, in Christ, shall all be made alive." He does not say here, either that +"all sinned in Adam," or that "all fell in Adam," or that "all died in +Adam." It is the present tense, "all die in Adam." + +What he means by this, he explains himself afterwards. He tells us that as +"souls" descended from Adam, we are liable to death; as spirits quickened +by Christ, we are filled with spiritual and immortal life. + +In the forty-fourth verse he gives the explanation. The body "is _sown_ a +natural body" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~})--literally a soul-body, a body vitalized by +the soul. "It is raised a spiritual body"--literally spirit-body ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}), a body vitalized by the spirit. "There is a soul-body, and +there in a spirit-body." "And so it is written, The first man, Adam, was +made a living soul" (which is a quotation from Genesis 2:7--"and man became +a living soul"), "but the last Adam," says Paul (meaning Christ), "became +a life-making spirit." But, continues Paul, the soul-man (psychical man) +comes first; the spiritual-man afterwards, according to a regular order. +"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second is the Lord from +heaven." And then he adds,--and this is the key to the whole passage,--"_As +we have borne the __ image of the earthy_, we shall also bear the image of +_the heavenly_." The doctrine, then, is plainly this: that we have two +natures--a soul-nature, which we derive from Adam, and share with all +mankind, which nature is liable to weakness, sin, and death; and a +spirit-nature, which we derive from God, which Christ comes to quicken and +vitalize, and the life of which constitutes our true immortality. + +The apostle Paul, therefore, does not by any means teach Calvinism. The +Catechism says that "our first parents being the root of all mankind, the +guilt of their sin was imputed to all their posterity." But Paul says, "So +death passed upon all men, because all have sinned." The Catechism says +that "this same death in sin, and corrupted nature, being conveyed to +their posterity, makes us utterly indisposed and opposite to all good," +and that "from this original corruption do proceed all actual +transgressions." + +But if this is so, there has been no such thing in the world as guilt +since Adam fell. If all actual transgressions proceed from original +corruption, and original corruption comes from the first transgression of +Adam, it logically follows that there has been but one sin committed in +the world since it was made, namely, the sin of Adam. All other sins have +been pure misfortunes; his alone was guilt. His transgression alone came +from a free choice; all others have come from an involuntary necessity of +nature. + +Nothing can be more certain from reason and Scripture than this--that +transgressions which come from a corrupt nature are just so far done in +us, and not done by us. This the apostle distinctly affirms when he says +(7:17), "Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in +me." No man is responsible for disease, when he has not brought that +disease on himself, but inherited it from his ancestors. The disease may +make him very odious, very disagreeable, but cannot make him blamable. +Therefore, when Calvin says that hereditary depravity "renders us +obnoxious to the divine wrath," he utters an absurdity. This confusion of +ideas runs through all Orthodox statements on the subject, and the only +cure is, that we should learn how to make this distinction between natural +evil and moral evil, or the evil which proceeds from a corrupt nature and +the evil which comes from a free will. + +If we were to sum up the doctrine of the apostle Paul on this subject, it +would be thus:-- + +1. The first man, Adam, consisted, as we all consist, of nature and will. +His nature consisted of innocent tendencies and appetites. None were +excessive; all were well balanced. His nature inclined him no more to evil +than to good, but each faculty was in proper poise. The first sin, +therefore, could not have been a gross one; it was a simple transgression; +but its effect was to introduce what the apostle calls _death_; that is, a +diseased or corrupt nature. The process is this: With the first conscious +and free transgression there arises a sense of guilt. This sense of guilt +leads the soul away from God. Adam and Eve hide in the garden. Every act +of sin tends to create a habit, and so destroys the moral equipoise. There +hence arises a tendency _towards_ evil, and _from_ good; and this is +called death, because it takes us away from God, who is the source of +life. + +2. A tendency towards evil is thus introduced into the world by the +transgression of the first man. His descendants are now born with a nature +which is not in equipoise, but which leans more towards evil than towards +good. Their will remains free as before; but they cannot perform the same +amount of good as before. These corrupt tendencies tempt to greater sin +than the pure tendencies did, and, whenever yielded to, bring a greater +amount of moral evil into the race. + +3. Things, therefore, are thus growing worse continually; for every new +act of sin makes it easier to sin again. And this tendency to death, or +estrangement from God, must go on increasing, unless some antagonist +principle can be communicated to the race. This is actually done by Jesus +Christ. The principle of life which Christ introduces consists in +reconciliation to God. Sin separates us from God, and therefore tends to +death. Christ reconciles us to God, and so gives life. The way in which +Christ reconciles us to God is by manifesting God's pardoning and saving +love to the sinful soul. In his own life, but especially by his death, he +communicates this pardoning love, and so produces the atonement. This is +the central, Pauline view of the relation of Adam and Christ to the race. +Adam introduces death into the world: Christ introduces life. He does not +speak at all of _imputation_, or transfer of guilt; but he speaks of an +_actual communication_ of death and life. Adam and Christ both stand in +actual, and not merely ideal, connection with the whole race of man. Adam +is a living soul; Christ, a life-giving spirit. By inheritance, we receive +a depraved life of the soul from Adam; by communion, we receive an eternal +or spiritual life from Christ. And, in regard to both of these acts, the +notion of blame or merit is entirely excluded. We are not to blame for our +inherited depravity derived from Adam. We deserve no credit for the +salvation which comes to us from Christ. The compensation for the +misfortune of inherited evil is the free gift of divine goodness in Jesus. + +We have thus considered the truth and the error contained in the Orthodox +doctrine of the fall. The truth of it is in its assertion of a depravity +of nature, to which we are liable in consequence of ancestral sins: the +error is in imputing guilt to us in consequence of them. + + + + +§ 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability. + + +In speaking of the fall of man, we necessarily anticipated somewhat the +doctrine of total depravity. Still, we must say something further on this +doctrine, because it is so important in the Church system: it is, indeed, +at its foundation. Those who accept, in its strictness, the doctrine of +total depravity cannot avoid any point of the severest Calvinism. +Schleiermacher has shown, in his "Essay on Election," that this latter +doctrine necessarily follows the doctrine of total depravity; for, if man +is wholly depraved, he has no power to do anything for his own conversion; +therefore God must do it. And if some are converted, and not others, it +must be because God chooses to convert some, and does not choose to +convert others. + +Let us look, then, at what Orthodoxy says of the _extent_ of human +depravity. In all the principal creeds, this is stated to be unlimited. +Man's sin is total and entire. There is nothing good in him. The +Westminster Confession and the Confession of the New England +Congregational churches describe him as "dead in sin, and wholly defiled +in all the faculties and parts of soul and body." Other creeds use similar +language. + +In considering this theory, we are struck at first by the circumstance, +that the Bible gives it very little support. The Bible continually speaks +of man as a sinner; but there are very few texts which can, without +straining, be made to _seem_ to teach that he is totally depraved. Let us +examine a few of them. + + + + +§ 8. Proof Texts. + + +1. A text often cited is Genesis 6:5,--the reason given for destroying the +human race, in the time of Noah, by the deluge: "And God saw that the +wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of +the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." But this seems to be +a description of the state of the world at that particular time, not of +its character in all ages. It is not a description of man's natural +condition, but of an extremely degenerate condition. If the state of the +world here described was its natural state, it would rather be a reason +for not having created the race at first; or, if it was a reason for +destroying it, it would, at best, seem to be as strong a one against +creating it again. If a man plants a tree in his garden, whose nature he +knows is to produce a certain kind of fruit, it would seem hardly a good +reason for cutting it down, that it produced that kind of fruit: certainly +it would not be a good reason for cutting it down, and planting another of +precisely the same kind in its place. The reason why the race of men was +destroyed was, that it had _degenerated_. But there were some good even +then; for in the ninth verse we are told that "Noah was a just man, and +perfect in his generation, and walked with God." + +2. There is another passage, in the fourteenth Psalm which is quoted by +Paul in Rom. 3: "There is none righteous; no, not one: there is none that +understandeth, none that seeketh after God. They have all gone out of the +way, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good; +no, not one. There is no fear of God before their eyes." + +This passage is relied on to prove total depravity. But we may reply, +that-- + +This also is a degenerate condition, not a natural one. It was a condition +into which men had fallen, not one in which they were born. "They have all +_gone_ out of the way; they are together _become_ unprofitable." It does +not, therefore, apply to men _universally_, but to men in those particular +times. + +It was not true of _all_, even at that particular time. It was not true of +David himself, that he did not seek after God, or have the fear of God +before his eyes; or else other passages in the same book are not true, in +which he says the contrary. "O God! early will I seek thee: my soul +thirsteth for thee; my flesh longeth for thee." He also frequently speaks +of and to those who fear the Lord, and says, "I am a companion to all +those that fear thee." + +The "all" is not to be taken strictly. It means people generally at that +time. Just so it is said, "There went out to him Jerusalem and _all_ +Judea, and _all_ the region round about Jordan;" which does not imply that +_no one_ staid at home. + +"But," it may be said, "does not Paul teach that this is to be taken +universally, when he quotes it, and adds, 'Now we know that what the law +saith, it saith to those under the law, that every mouth be stopped, and +all the world guilty before God' "? We think he means to say, that, as +this is said to Jews, it proves that _Jews_, as well as Gentiles, are very +guilty. He is addressing the Jews, who boasted of their knowledge of the +law. Chap. 2: "Behold, thou art called a Jew," &c. + +3. Jer. 17:9. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately +wicked." + +If we suppose that we are to take this as an unlimited expression, and not +merely a strong declaration of the wickedness of the Jews, it still does +not prove total depravity of the nature, but merely that of the +affections, or "the heart." Man's nature has other things besides desire: +it has conscience, reason, and will; and it does not follow that these are +also depraved. + +4. Rom. 8:7. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." + +This does not intend that the mind of man, in its _natural_ state, is +enmity, but in its _carnal_ state; that is, when subject to fleshly +desires. Nearly the same phrase is used in the verse before, and is +translated, "To be carnally minded is death." + +5. There is one famous passage, however, which seems to say that God is +angry with us on account of our nature. This is a passage very much +quoted, and we hear it so often that it seems as if the Bible was full of +such texts. It is in Eph. 2:3. "We were by nature _children of wrath_, +even as others." This is quoted to prove that God is angry with men for +their natures, and hates them for being born evil--just as we may hate a +snake, a scorpion, or spider, for its nature. But, as it happens, the very +next verses show that this is impossible, unless God can be hating one of +his creatures and loving it at the very same moment. + +For, in the next verse Paul says that God loved us with a great love _when +we were dead in trespasses and sins_, and children _of wrath_. It is +therefore evident that "_children of wrath_" must mean something else. It +may mean that men outside of Christianity--Jews and Gentiles--were afraid of +God; living under a constant sense of his displeasure; that God seemed to +them a terrible being, always disposed to punish them with severity. This +was the fact. Jews and Gentiles were afraid of their gods, before Christ +came, and so were "children of wrath." Or it may mean that men are exposed +to the consequences of sin; for, in Scripture language,-- + + + "God's wrathful said to be, when he doth do + That _without wrath_ which wrath doth force us to." + + +Moreover, "nature," in Scripture usage, does not necessarily mean, "as +human beings." It often intends external position, origin, and race. So +(in Gal. 2:15) we read, "Jews by nature;" and so (in Rom. 2:27) +"uncircumcision, which is by nature." + +The same word is used twice in James 3:7, and is translated _kind_. "Every +_kind_ of beasts, birds, serpents, things in the sea, is tamed of +man-_kind_:" literally, "the whole animal _race_ is tamed by the human +_race_." + +If {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} here meant "constitutional depravity," the same word in Rom. 2:14 +must mean _constitutional goodness_, where we are told that some "do _by +nature_ the things contained in the law." So, too, we read of the olive +tree, wild by nature, in Rom. 11:24. + +"By nature," here, plainly means the original condition, not the original +constitution. Just so we say that wild animals are in a state of nature, +and call savages the children of nature. + +These five texts are the strongest in the Bible to support the doctrine of +total depravity, and, as such, are constantly quoted. They have very +little weight, and not one of them is from the words of Jesus. + +On the other hand, there are many passages which seem to declare that +there is something good in man in his unconverted or natural state, and +that even in that state he may turn towards the light, and struggle +against evil. + +John 3:20, 21. "Every one that doeth truth cometh to the light." + +Matt. 26:41. "... The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak." + +Rom. 2:24. "Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things +contained in the law, and show the work of that law which is written in +the heart." + +Acts 10:35. "In every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh +righteousness, is accepted of him." + +But the passage most strikingly and thoroughly opposed to the doctrine of +total depravity, is the description, in the seventh chapter of Romans, of +the conflict between the law in the members and the law of the mind. Paul, +speaking evidently from his own experience in his unconverted state, +describes the condition of one morally depraved, who is trying to do +right, but is prevented by evil habits which have become a part of +himself. He describes this as moral death, but _not_ guilt. He says, "It +is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." He describes +himself as morally impotent--_wishing_ to do right, but unable to do it. He +says _he delights in the law of God after the inner man_. The inmost is +right, but outside of that are evil habits, in the body, which drag down +the soul and enslave it. Paul therefore distinctly says that a man in such +a condition is not himself a sinner, because he does not commit the sin. +Thus he makes clear and strong the distinction we referred to above, +between depravity and guilt--between _natural evil_ and _moral evil_. + +Paul teaches that man is not totally depraved, but that even in the carnal +man there is a good principle, only that it is conquered by the evil. If +the mind delights in the law of God, and the will to do right is present +with us, we evidently are not _totally_ depraved; but the total depravity, +if anywhere, is in the flesh only, as Paul plainly says: "I know that in +me (that is, in _my flesh_) dwelleth no good thing;" that is, the +depravity is physical, not moral. But physical depravity is not guilt, but +only disease. + + + + +§ 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity. + + +Nevertheless there is a sense in which man may be said to be often totally +sinful; but this is only in a total alienation of the will from God. It is +not a total depravity, but a total alienation. There is a natural +depravity, but it is not total. But the choice may be totally perverted, +when it chooses darkness instead of light, evil instead of good. + +Let us see what there is of this in man. + +The gospel of Christ, as we understand it, undertakes to effect an entire +change, a radical reformation, in human character. It proposes to reform +the life by changing the heart, by giving new aims, new affections, new +aspirations, new objects of love and pursuit. Jesus does not endeavor to +alter and improve, a little here and a little there, on the outside of the +character, to improve a little our modes of action in this and the other +particular; but he alters the conduct and character by altering the +fundamental ideas, and inspiring an inward life. This wonderful change, +which takes place in the profoundest depth of our nature, under the +influence of the Gospel,--this great event of life, which forms the +turning-point of our being and history,--is called in the New Testament +"the new birth," "regeneration," "to be born again," "conversion," "a new +creation," "to be born of God," "to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and +with fire," "to put off the old man," "to have Christ formed within us." +It is a very superficial view which explains away the meaning of all these +profound expressions, and supposes that they only signify a little outward +improvement and reformation. We need just such a change as is here +described--a radical one, not a superficial one. All need it. Those who are +the most pure in heart and most blameless in character (spotless children, +as they seem to us, of a heavenly world) feel their own need of this +change no less than do the profligate and openly vicious. Parents and +friends say, "We have no fault to find with them." They do not say they +have no fault to find with themselves. They feel they have all kinds of +fault to find with themselves, and nothing is so painful to them as this +commendation. They say, "Outwardly we may seem innocent, but we feel an +inward want that weighs on our heart like a frost." + +"This is a true saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus +came into the world to save sinners." It is because we are sinners that we +need to experience this great change. We do not wish to exaggerate the +amount of human sinfulness. Theologians have carried their attacks on +human nature quite too far, and the result has often been that men have +looked on sin as a sort of theological matter, which has nothing to do +with actual life. They have cheerfully admitted that they were totally +depraved by nature, and could not think or will a good thing, and then +have thought no worse of themselves than before. We know that there is +something good in man, something which God loves, some pure aspiration +even in the natural heart, some throbs of generosity, some warnings of +conscience, some pure love, some courageous virtue, in the humblest, the +most depraved, the most abandoned. There are some flowers of sweetest +perfume which spring up in the uncultivated soil of the natural heart on +which God and his angels smile, for the seeds of those flowers God himself +planted. We have seen harebells, graceful and lovely as the sweetest +greenhouse plant, growing out of a sand-heap; and we have seen some +disinterested, generous benevolence in the mind of a hardened profligate. +It is not, therefore, because there is nothing good in man that he needs a +change of heart, but because he is destitute of a deep-rooted and living +goodness till this change has taken place. + +Look at the _actual sins_ of men. The majority of men, in a civilized +community like ours, do not commit great crimes, or fall into flagrant +vices, because they have little to attract them to such a course, and much +to deter them from it. They are aiming at those objects which they need +the countenance, aid, and good opinion of their fellow-men to obtain, to +be glaringly vicious would make it impossible. Also, there is a certain +amount of conscience which restrains them--the influence of good education +and good habits which preserves a certain uprightness and purity of +character. But is it a deep principle? If so, why do the vast majority of +men allow themselves in many small violations of the same laws which they +would not break on a large scale? They would not steal; yet they commit +every day some slight acts not perfectly honest; they take advantage of +others in little things. They would not lie; yet they exaggerate, and +conceal part of the truth, and color their statements to produce an +effect. They would not kill; but they are willing to injure one who has +interfered with their interests. With these tendencies and feelings, why +would they not, under different influences, commit greater crimes? How +often do we feel, in talking with the criminal and abandoned, that, in +their circumstances and with their temptations, we might have been as bad +as they! + +Does not all this show that there is a deep and hidden fountain of evil +within our hearts which is restrained by external influences, by checks +and barriers with which God has kindly surrounded us? and if these were +taken away, it would break out into something far worse than now appears. +How much there is of evil under the smooth surface of refined society! How +many thoughts of sin pass to and fro in the heart while the countenance +seems pure and calm! Who ever looked into the interior depths of our most +moral community, and saw all the secret sins and pollutions which are +hidden there? Every now and then there occurs in the midst of the most +refined classes some startling revelation of long-concealed wickedness +which makes men look each other in the face and draw a long breath, as +though they should say, "Which of us will next fall?" So in the midst of a +fruitful country, of lakes, and valleys, and vine-clad hills, the earth +will sometimes open, and a river of melted lava pour forth, desolating all +around. We hear of this with wonder, and do not think that right beneath +our own feet, a few miles down, under these smooth fields and gentle +plains, that same fiery ocean is rolling its red billows. God has laid his +hand upon our heart, and restrains its lawless passions as he restrains +the tornadoes, and earthquakes, and volcanic fires; else they might easily +hurry us to swift destruction. + +Still, if this were all, no radical change might be necessary. It might be +enough that by effort, and self-discipline, and direction of the thoughts, +we gradually overcome our evil habits and tendencies; but when we resolve +to do so, and make the effort, we meet with an unexpected resistance. "The +spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." "I find a law in my members +warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the +law of sin in my members." The Church has long asserted the doctrine of an +hereditary depravity; and we have seen that there is more truth in it than +we have sometimes supposed. It is not total, but it is real. Besides the +sins of our own committing, there are the sins which our ancestors have +committed, which have made themselves part of our bone and flesh. We are +not exactly balanced in our natural state; there is a preponderating +tendency towards evil in one or another direction. + +This forms too fearful an alliance with circumstances, the moment they +become powerful to draw us away from good. A friend of ours, some years +since, was making a trip up the Lakes, late in the season. As they entered +Lake Huron from the River St. Clair in the noble steamer, the skies were +serene, and she ploughed her way on towards the north, so that by night +the land had sunk almost out of sight. But then the wind began to freshen, +the sea rose, and as the night advanced, and the wind blew harder and +harder, the boat strained and staggered along, occasionally struck hard by +a heavier sea, till at last one of her wheels was carried away, and the +fires were put out by the water. How long and anxious was that night! How +many prayed then who never prayed before! When morning came, the boat was +found to be drifting before the wind and waves, directly upon a rocky +shore on the south-east side of the lake. There was no help in man; but a +gracious Providence all at once caused the storm to lull, so that a fire +could be built, and with one wheel the boat got into a harbor. Man seems a +powerful being when he is surrounded by favorable circumstances, and is +going with a fair wind and fair weather; but let the wind change, and his +weakness becomes apparent. He who just now breasted the tide, is now +drifting helplessly before it. + +But there is a difficulty far worse than any we have mentioned. We might +conquer the sin which most easily besets us, we might conquer our inherent +evil tendencies, and outgrow them, if we really wished to do so; but the +deepest of all evils is a want of love for God and for goodness. We know +that we ought to love and obey God; but our heart is alienated from him. +The great mass of men are living away from God. They are not conscious of +his presence, though they know that he is near to them. Though they know +that his eye is upon them, it does not restrain them from sin. Though they +know that their heavenly Father and best Friend is close at hand, how +seldom do they pray! how seldom look up with gratitude for all their +mercies and joys! This shows a terrible estrangement of soul from God. The +veil is on their _hearts_, not on their minds. + +The question is sometimes asked, "whether sin is a positive or merely a +negative evil." Now, whatever may be the case with other kinds of sin, +this alienation of the heart seems to us a very positive evil; for it is +an antagonism, and resistance of goodness. If the supreme goodness of God +does not attract us, does not excite our affection, does not irresistibly +draw us to him, then it repels us; it makes the thought of his presence a +restraint and burden; it makes us wish to go away from God. The goodness +of God is so very positive a thing, that we cannot be indifferent to it; +we cannot be neutral in regard to it. If we do not love it, it is +disagreeable, and we are uncomfortable in the thought of it. Swedenborg +relates that certain wicked persons were allowed to enter heaven on a +certain occasion; but they immediately became almost lifeless, and, from +the torment and pain in their head and body, prostrated themselves on the +ground, and writhed like worms; but, being taken and carried into hell, +became comparatively comfortable. What can be more terrible than the idea +thus conveyed of our aversion to goodness, which makes heaven intolerable, +and the presence of God insufferable torture! Can anything express, more +than this, the need of a change of heart? + +Jesus, we think, asserts a similar view when he says, "He that is not with +me is against me." "No man can serve two masters; for he will either love +the first and hate the last, or love the last and hate the first." He will +not be indifferent to either, if their characters and commands are of an +opposite kind. + +We do not mean to say that we _hate_ God; but we mean that there is +something within us, while our hearts are not wholly his, which makes it +unpleasant and burdensome to think of God and pray to him. We feel a +certain repugnance to a familiar and happy intercourse with our heavenly +Father. Our prayers, if we pray, are formal and cold; our hearts are hard, +and their affections do not flow easily upward. + +Now, if there be such a thing as a change of heart, which will make it a +pleasure to pray, a joy to think of God; which will make it natural to us +to approach him, and dwell on the thought of his goodness; which will +enable us to see him in the majesty and sweetness of nature, in the rise +of empires or the death of an infant, in the coming of Christ, and in +every good thought which swells in our souls,--then it is evident that this +is what we need. Let us dig deep, and build our house upon a rock. + +We shall see in another section that there is such a change of heart as we +have described. Jesus saves sinners by taking away the heart of stone, and +giving a heart of flesh. He saw the whole depth and extent of the disease +which he came to cure. There are some preachers who do not know how great +an evil sin is, and would not know what to do for a penitent and anxious +soul which really saw the greatness of its needs. Thus, when George Fox +went to the rector of his church to ask advice for the distress of his +soul, he was told to amuse himself and divert his mind. But Jesus saw all +the extent of sin, and yet was ready to encourage and help the sinner. He +knew that his remedy was equal to the emergency. The gospel of Christ can +give to us love to God and love to man; can soften our hearts in humility, +can enable us to fight with and conquer even the hereditary evil of our +organization; can ultimately redeem us from all evil. This is the +depravity we are to conquer; not of nature, but of will, and aim, and +purpose. + + + + +§ 10. Ability and Inability. + + +One of the pivotal points in the Orthodox theory of evil is that of _moral +inability_. Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity seems to be taught for +the sake of this. Total depravity resolves itself, in the mind of the +Orthodox teacher, into total inability, and means that man, unable to do +right by any power in himself, must throw himself wholly and absolutely on +the divine grace. The secret motive of the whole Orthodox doctrine of evil +is to lead through a sense of sin to humility, and at last to dependence. +Orthodoxy here becomes intelligible, so soon as we perceive that its +purpose is not speculative, but practical. As religion consists so greatly +in the sentiment of dependence, it is a leading purpose in the Orthodox +system to produce this sense of dependence. That group of +graces--reverence, humility, submission, trust, prayer--which lend such an +ineffable charm to the moral nature, which purify and refine it to its +inmost depths,--these spring almost wholly from the sense of dependence on +a higher and better being than ourselves. These being absent, the +elevating principle is wanting; the man cannot rise above himself. There +may be truth, courage, conscience, purity, but they are all stoical and +self-relying. It is only he who relies on a higher power, clings to a +higher being, and draws his moral life from above, who can ascend. He who +humbles himself, and he only, shall be exalted. But humility does not +consist in looking down, but in looking up. It does not come from looking +at our own meanness, but at something higher and better than ourselves. +The sense of sin is only elevating when connected with the sight of a +higher beauty and holiness. + +It is, therefore, in order to produce a conviction of absolute dependence +that Orthodoxy urges so strongly the doctrines of total depravity and +total inability. A man will not pray, says the Orthodox system, till he +feels himself helpless. He will not seek a Saviour so long as he hopes to +save himself. He must see that he can do nothing more for himself; and +then, for the first time, he exercises a real faith in God, and casts +himself on the divine mercy. + +Reasoning in this way, consciously or unconsciously, Orthodoxy has built +up its doctrine of human inability, which we will proceed to state,--first, +however, indicating the scriptural view of this subject. + +Scripture teaches that man is able to choose the right, but not always +able to perform it. He is free in his spirit, but bound by circumstances +of position, and by bodily organization. He is free to choose, but not +free to do. His freedom is in effort, not necessarily in accomplishment. +He can always try; he cannot always effect what he tries. + +Thus Jesus says (Matt. 26:41), "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into +temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." And so +Paul says, in the passage on this subject before referred to (Rom. 7:18), +"To will is present with me, but how to perform that which I will, I find +not." + +Without attempting here to enter into the tormented question of fate and +freedom, of necessity so irrefragably demonstrated by the logic of Edwards +and others,--of free-will perpetually reasserted by the intuitive reason in +the soul,--we may say this: Whether there be such a thing as metaphysical +freedom or not, there is such a thing as moral freedom. In proportion as +man sinks into the domain of nature, he is bound by irresistible laws. In +proportion as he rises into the sphere of reason, justice, truth, love, he +is emancipated, and can direct his own course. "Ye shall know the truth, +and the truth shall make you free." "If the Son, therefore, shall make you +free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:32, 36.) "Stand fast in the +liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." (Gal. 5:1.) It is therefore +true that only as we direct our course by eternal laws, we rise above the +controlling influence of habit, prejudice, public opinion, inherited and +original tendencies of the blood and brain. According to Paul (Rom. +6:16-22), man must be either the servant of sin or the servant of God. He +must serve, willingly or unwillingly. He must be the degraded slave of +desire and selfishness, or the willing, loyal subject of truth and right. +Paradoxically enough, however, he only feels free in these two cases. For +in these two states he is doing what he chooses to do. When he is blindly +and willingly following his lower instincts he feels free. When he is +rationally and freely choosing right, and doing it, he also feels free. +But when half way between these two states, when his conscience is pulling +one way and his desires drawing him the other, when he is choosing right +and doing wrong, he feels himself a slave. + +There are therefore these three conditions of the will, corresponding to +the Pauline division of man into spirit, soul, and body (1 Tim. 5:23)--a +view of man which was held throughout antiquity. The carnal man ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}) +is one in whom the earthly appetites are supreme, and the soul, ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}) and +spirit ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}) subordinate. The natural man ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, 1 Cor. +2:14) is one in whom the soul, or central principle, the finite will, is +supreme. The spiritual man ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, 1 Cor. 2:15) is he in whom the +infinite principle, the sense of eternal truth and right, is supreme. In +the first condition--that of the carnal man--one is the slave of sin, but +without knowing it, because there is no wish to become anything different. +In the second state--that of the natural man (or psychical man)--the soul +chooses the good, but is drawn down by the evil. The law of the mind is +warring against the law of the members, and the man is torn asunder by +this conflict. He tries to do right, and does wrong. He now first feels +himself a slave; yet he is in reality _less_ a slave than before, for now +he is endeavoring to escape. His _will_ is emancipated, though his habits +of conduct, his habits of thought, his habits of feeling, still bind him +fast. In the third condition, that of the spiritual man, he has broken +these chains. He not only wills to do right, but does it. His body shares +in the new life of his soul. He now is made free by the truth and the +spirit from the service of evil, and shares in "the glorious liberty of +the children of God." + +In all these conditions the human being has some freedom, but differing in +degree in each. In the lowest state he has freedom of action, for he does +what he wishes to do; but he has not freedom of choice, for he does not +choose at all. He acts not by intelligent choice, but by blind instinct, +habit or custom. In the middle state he has freedom of choice, but not of +action. He chooses the good, but performs the evil. This is the condition +described by Ovid, and other profane writers, before Paul described it in +the seventh chapter of Romans.(15) But in the highest state--a spiritual +condition--he has both freedoms; he can both choose and perform. The carnal +man seems to be free, but is most thoroughly enslaved of all. The +psychical man seems to himself to be enslaved, but has begun to be free. +The spiritual man both seems to be free and is so. The apparent freedom of +the carnal man differs from the real freedom of the spiritual man in +this--the spiritual man could do wrong if he chose to do so, but chooses to +do right. But the carnal man could not do right if he should choose. A +good man, if he chose to do so, might lie, and steal, and drink, and be +profane; but a bad man could not, by choosing, become temperate, pure, +truthful, and honest. + +Scripture and experience give, therefore, the same account of human +ability and inability. In the lowest state man is the servant of sense, +and can neither will nor do right. In the higher condition he can will, +but cannot perform; for his ideal aim is above his actual power. In the +highest, or regenerate, state he can both will and do. Body, as well as +soul, serve the spirit. + + ------------------------------------- + +These are the truths which lie at the basis of the Orthodox doctrine of +inability. But Orthodoxy, in its desire to awaken a sense of dependence, +has pushed them to an unreasonable extreme. It asserts that man, in his +natural state, before he is regenerated, has _no_ power to will or to do +right. It is evident, however, that all men have power to will and to do +_many_ right things. Even in the lowest condition, a man wills and does +much that is right. Though the governing principle be the lowest one, he +can yet perform many good actions. In the second condition also, the +psychical man, though not able _always_ to do right, _often_ succeeds in +doing so. And in this state the apostle declares that _he_ does not do the +evil, but "sin that dwells in him." So long as his _purpose_ is right, he +is right. + + + + +§ 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability. + + +Let us see what Orthodoxy says of the inability of the unregenerate man. +The Assembly's Confession declares (chap. 6, § 4), that by our corrupt +nature "we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all +good, and wholly inclined to all evil." In chap. 9, § 3, it says that +"man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of +will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." + +This seems plain enough. It would justify the charge made by Dr. Cox, that +there are those who teach that "a man has no ability to do his duty,"(16) +and "that, where the means of grace are abundantly vouchsafed, a man can +do nothing for, but can only counteract, his own salvation." It would also +seem to lay a fit foundation for that kind of Calvinistic preaching which, +according to Professor Finney, of Oberlin (see "Revival Lectures"), +virtually amounts to saying, + + + "You can, and you can't; + You shall, and you shan't; + You will, and you won't; + You'll be damned if you don't." + + +These charges, it must be noticed, are brought against Calvinism, not by +us, but by Presbyterian divines, themselves holding to this same +Westminster Confession. + +But let us look at some of the expositions given to this doctrine of +inability by modern Orthodox authorities. + +(_a._) _The Old School Presbyterians._--As stated by one of their own +number (Professor Atwater, of Princeton College, Bibliotheca Sacra, +January, 1864), they hold an inability "moral, sinful, and real," +"irremovable by the sinner's own power." He sets aside the objection that +we are not bound to do what we are unable to do, by saying that this +applies to actions only, not to sinful dispositions. He illustrates this +by saying that an irrepressible disposition to slander would be only so +much more culpable. But in this he is evidently wrong. Such a habit has +become a disease, and the unfortunate victim is no longer accountable for +what he does. + +(_b._) _The New School Presbyterians._--(Rev. George Duffield, in +Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.) Although Dr. Duffield objects to the +language of the Old School Presbyterians in denying "free agency," and +regarding man "as destitute of ability as a block of marble," he yet +declares that the New School, as well as the Old, believe that in the +unconverted state "man can do nothing morally good." Still, he adds, men +can accept the offers of salvation made by Jesus Christ. But he positively +denies that "man, in his natural state, independent of the gospel and +Spirit of Christ, has ability _perfectly_ to obey _all_ the commandments +of God." We suppose that most persons would agree with him in this +statement. + +(_c._) _The Old School in New England Theology._--(Bibliotheca Sacra, +April, 1863. Article by Professor Lawrence, East Windsor, Connecticut.) +This writer contends that human inability is moral, and not natural--a +distinction much dwelt upon by the Hopkinsians, but rejected by the Old +School Presbyterians. This system differs from the Arminian or Methodist +view in insisting that man has power enough to sin, though not enough to +obey. + +(_d._) _Hopkinsianism._--(Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.) The Hopkinsians +profess to contend for free agency, in order to save responsibility. They +adopt the ideas of Edwards on free agency. But freedom, with them, +consists only in choice. Whatever we choose, we choose freely. The carnal +man is as free in choosing evil as the spiritual man in choosing good. All +real freedom in this system disappears in a juggle of words. + +The result of this examination will show that the great body of the +Orthodox, of all schools, continues to deny any real ability in the +unregenerate man to do the will of God. They do not _say_ that "man has no +power to do his duty," but that is the impression left by their teaching. +The distinction between natural and moral inability is insufficient; for +it is as absurd to say that a man is unable not to sin, when you only mean +that he chooses to sin, as it would he to say, when invited to eat your +dinner, "I am unable to eat," meaning only that you were unwilling. +Besides, if inability is moral, it is in the will, and not in the nature, +and so is not natural depravity at all. It is also making God unjust to +teach that he considers us guilty for a misfortune. If we derive a +corrupted nature from Adam, that is our misfortune, and not our fault, and +God owes us not anger, but pity. Instead of punishing us, he should +compensate us for this disaster. + +Therefore the unreason, the want of logic, and the absence of any just +view of God, appear, more or less, throughout these statements. For where +there is no ability, there can be no guilt. Just as soon as man ceases to +have the power to do right, he ceases to have the power to do wrong. +Inability and guilt, which are connected by all these creeds, logically +exclude each other. If our nature is incapable of doing good, then it is +incapable of committing sin. One or the other must be given up. Keep which +you will, but you cannot keep both. We may be totally depraved by our +nature; but then we cease to be sinners, and cease to be guilty. Or we may +be going wholly wrong, and so be sinful, but then we have the power of +going right. + +This is the inconsistency in almost all Orthodox systems. By dwelling so +much on human weakness, they destroy at last the sense of responsibility. + + + + +§ 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning Human +Sinfulness. + + +In the article in the Bibliotheca Sacra before referred to (April, 1863), +by Edward A. Lawrence, D. D., Professor at East Windsor, Connecticut, on +"The Old School in New England Theology," the writer gives the following +account of the doctrines of this body concerning sin:-- + +"God created man a holy being. He was not merely innocent, as not having +committed sin, not merely pure, as not inheriting any derived evil, but +was positively holy in his very being." This, we suppose, must mean that +he was inclined by nature to do right, rather than wrong. It was as +natural for him to love God as for a fish to swim or a bird to fly. +Nothing less than this, certainly, would deserve to be called "holiness of +being." + +"The first man," says Professor Lawrence, "was the federal head of this +race, representatively and by covenant, as no other father has been or can +be with his children." This is illustrated by the fact of a legal +corporation, whose members are responsible in law for the actions of their +agent. + +Professor Lawrence explains the belief of the Old School in the imputation +of Adam's sin thus: It was not the personal guilt of Adam which was +imputed to his descendants, but "certain disastrous consequences." They, +as well as he, became "subject to temporal and eternal death." The next +consequence of Adam's sin we must give in Professor Lawrence's own +language, in order not to misrepresent him. "The first evil disposition +which led to the evil choice was not only confirmed in him as an +individual, but also as a quality of human nature, and it reappears, +successively, in each one of them." Imputation, therefore, means not the +transfer of guilt, but of a corrupt nature. "It is not a sin to be born +sinful; but the sin with which men are born is nevertheless sinful." Then +follows this statement: "We are strictly guilty only for our own sin; but +the sinfulness with which we are born is as really ours as if it +originated in our own act." + +This, again, is explained by defining guilt as liability to punishment on +account of the acts of another, "as when the members of a corporation +suffer from the ill management of its agent." This he calls corporate +guilt. + +The Old School doctrine, according to this writer, concerning sin, makes +it a state rather than an act. It is not merely the act of disobedience, +but the wrong bias of the will, out of which the act proceeds. He thinks +it wrong to call "sin a nature," for neither the substance of the soul, +nor its faculties, are sinful. The depravity of nature is not choice, so +much as tendency which leads to choice. It is hereditary, being +transmitted from father to son. + +The old theology, therefore, predicates sinfulness of human nature; +affirms sin to be a wrong state or bias of will; considers it to be +hereditary; regards new-born infants as depraved, but thinks that those of +them who die in infancy, before actual transgression, are renewed and +saved by the blood of Christ; and considers temporal death as a part of +the penalty of sin. + +Upon this statement of the Old School doctrine, the following criticisms +naturally occur:-- + +First. If original righteousness was holiness of nature, and not mere +innocence; if it was a positive tendency to good, and not merely a state +of indifference between good and evil; then, we ask, What produced the +fall? What motive led to the commission of the first sin? If the nature of +the first man was holy, there was nothing in it which could lead him to +sin, and any external temptation addressed to such a nature must fall +powerless before it. It would be like trying to tempt a fish to fly in the +air, or like tempting a bird to go into the water. Even if the first man +could have been induced by any deception or external influence to commit a +wrong act, this would not be sinful, because there would be no sinful +motive behind it. A wrong act proceeding from a holy nature is either an +impossibility or a mere innocent mistake. Our first criticism, therefore, +on the Old School doctrine of sin, is, that it makes Adam's fall an +impossibility. + +Second. As regards Adam's federal headship and the illustration of a +corporation, we say, that the members of a corporation are not considered +guilty in consequence of the acts of their agent, although they may suffer +in consequence of these acts. If he commits forgery they may lose money +thereby, but no one would think of calling them forgers. The sin of a +parent may be visited upon his children to the third or fourth generation, +but in their case it is neither punishment nor guilt, but only misfortune. +When Professor Lawrence, therefore, says, that "we are guilty for the +sinfulness with which we are born, because it is really ours," he utters a +moral absurdity, and strikes at the root of all moral distinctions. He +says, "The sinfulness with which we are born is really ours;" but in what +sense ours? Only as any congenital disease may be called _ours_. If a man +is born with a tendency to consumption, blindness, lameness, he may say, +"my lameness, my near-sightedness." But no one would suppose that he meant +thereby to hold himself responsible for them, or to consider himself +guilty because of them. It is absurd to speak of "corporate guilt." The +corporate guilt, for example, of the stockholders of a bank, because of +the crime of an absconding teller! + +The natural objection to this illustration of a corporation is, that those +who enter into a corporation do it by a free act, and make themselves +voluntarily responsible. But _we_ did not consent that Adam should be our +agent. We did not agree that if Adam should commit a single act of +disobedience we should be born totally depraved, and liable to everlasting +torments in consequence. Professor Lawrence replies, that it would have +been impossible for God to ask our consent, and therefore, apparently he +supposes that God took for granted that we would consent. This seems to be +no answer to the objection. If it was impossible for God to obtain our +consent, before we were born, to incur this awful danger, he was not +compelled to expose us to it. It is an insult to the justice of the +Almighty to assume that he could have done so. + +Third. Professor Lawrence does not think it correct to say that "sin is a +nature." But why not, if it be a universal and constant element, an +original and permanent state of the soul? To say that human nature is +sinful, but deny that sin is a nature, seems to be making a distinction +without a difference. It is a disposition to sin born with the child. Now, +say what we will, such a disposition to sin thus born with us is not guilt +but misfortune. A just God will not hold us responsible for it, but will +hold himself responsible to help us out of it. As a faithful Creator, he +is bound to do so, and will do so. + +It is common for theologians to deny all such assertions as these last. +They hold it irreverent to say that God owes anything to his creatures. +They accumulate responsibility upon man, but deny responsibility to God. +But in doing this they take from the Almighty all moral character. +Calvinism, especially, makes of the Deity infinite power and infinite +will. But no blasphemy is worse than that which, though with the best +intentions, virtually destroys the moral character of the Almighty, +reducing him to an infinite will: that is, making of him an infinite +tyrant. For the essence of tyranny is the union of power and will in a +ruler, who recognizes no obligations towards his subjects. + +The book of Job seems to have been written partly to refute this sort of +Calvinism. The friends of Job were Calvinists in this sense. The sum of +their argument was that, since God was all-powerful, therefore whatever he +did must be right; and, since he punished Job, Job must be a sinner, and +ought to confess his sin whether he saw it or not. This has been, in all +ages, the substance of Calvinism--Jewish Calvinism, Mohammedan Calvinism, +Christian Calvinism. It declares that we are bound to submit to God, not +because he is good, but because he is powerful. But the answer of Job to +his friends is a rebuke to the same spirit wherever shown. He asks them +"if they will speak with unfairness for God," and "speak deceitfully for +him," and "accept his person." He declares that if he could find God he +would go before his throne and defend his own cause. "Would he contend +with me with his mighty power? No! he would have regard unto me." + +This is the sin of Calvinism, that it "accepts the person of the +Almighty," assuming that he has a right to do as he pleases with his +creatures, and that they have no rights which he is bound to respect, +except that of being punished. Thus it destroys the moral character of the +Almighty. + +Fourth. Professor Lawrence says, "It is the general belief of the Old +School that those who die in infancy before actual transgression, are +renewed and saved by the blood of Christ." + +The power of infancy is wonderful. It can even break down the logic of +Calvinism. Wordsworth was right in calling the infant-- + + + "Mighty prophet! Seer blest! + On whom those truths do rest + Which we are toiling all our lives to find." + + +Every kind of theology, however savage and bitter it may be against adult +sinners, sending them into an eternal hell without the least hesitation or +remorse, hesitates and stammers when it comes to speak of little children. +Even the idolatrous Jews, sacrificing their children to Moloch in the +valley of Hinnom, beat drums to drown their cries, which they could not +bear to hear. Both schools of theology, Old and New, hasten to say that +infants are not to be damned. But _why_ not, if they are born with a +depraved nature, and die without being converted? Both the great schools +of Presbyterian theology hold to the doctrine of the Assembly's Catechism, +which declares (chap. 6, § 6), that "every sin, both original and actual, +being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, +doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound +over to the wrath of God." Therefore the infant who dies before he has +exercised repentance and faith in Christ, is under the wrath of God. +Orthodoxy does not allow of repentance in the other life: how, then, can +infants be saved according to Orthodoxy? Professor Lawrence can only +reply, that it is _a general belief_ that they will be saved. The +Catechism declares, less decidedly, that "elect infants" will be saved. +Dr. Whedon (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1862), on behalf of the Methodists, +says, "That the dying infant is saved, and saved by the atonement, all +agree." But _how_ he is saved, or what reason they have to think him +saved, except their wish to believe it, no one can tell. Death, in fact, +becomes to the infant a saving sacrament. As long as he lives he is +believed unregenerate and unconverted. As soon as he dies he is considered +ready for heaven. But he cannot be ready for heaven until he is +regenerate; and after death there is no such thing as obtaining a new +heart, and no opportunity for repentance. Logically, therefore, the infant +is converted by the mere act of dying. We presume that no Orthodox +theologians would assert this; and yet we really do not see how they can +avoid the conclusion. + +But why is it any worse for children to be damned in consequence of Adam's +sin than for adults to be damned? Orthodoxy assures us that in consequence +of Adam's sin we are born depraved. Dr. Duffield, stating and defending +the doctrines of the New School Presbyterian Church (Bibliotheca Sacra, +July, 1863), says that Adam subjected his posterity to such a loss that +they are born without any righteousness, are exposed to the consequences +of his transgression, and all become sinners as soon as they are capable +of it. He quotes with approbation from a protest of the New School +minority, in the General Assembly of 1837 (which he calls a document of +great historic value), an assertion that "by reason of the sin of Adam, +the race are treated as if they had sinned;" and from another document of +the same school which says, that "we are all born with a tendency to sin, +which makes it morally certain that we shall do so." Now, we do not see +why it is any worse to send infants to hell because of this depraved +nature, than to send grown persons there who have sinned in consequence of +possessing such a depraved nature. If it be said that adults have had an +opportunity to repent, and have not accepted it, we reply, that to the +mass of mankind no such opportunity is offered; that, where it is offered, +no one has the power to accept it, except he be one of the elect; and that +at all events, since infants are sure to be saved, and a very large +proportion of adults are very likely to be lost, _death in infancy is the +most desirable thing possible_. According to this doctrine, child-murder +becomes almost a virtue. + +The radical difficulty in all these theories consists in refusing to apply +to God the same rules of justice which we apply to man. To do so implies +no irreverence, but the highest reverence. There is nothing more honorable +to the Almighty than to believe him to be actuated by the same great +principles of right which he has written in our conscience and heart. +Those laws of eternal justice, so deeply engraven on the fleshly tables of +the heart, are a revelation of the character of God himself. If we think +to honor him by rejecting these intuitions of the reason, and by +substituting for this divine idea of a God of justice that of a being of +arbitrary will, who is under no obligations to his creatures, we deeply +dishonor the Almighty and fatally injure our own character. From this +perverted view of God comes a cynical view of man. When we make _will_ +supreme in God, we legitimate all tyranny and contempt from man to man. +Then comes the state of things described by Shakespeare:-- + + + "Force should be right, or, rather, right and wrong + (Between whose endless jar justice resides) + Should lose their names, and so should justice too. + Then everything includes itself in power, + Power into will, will into appetite; + And appetite, a universal wolf, + So doubly seconded with will and power, + Must make perforce a universal prey, + And, last, eat up himself." + + _Shakespeare_, Troilus and Cressida. + + + + + +CHAPTER VII. CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. + + + + +§ 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man can be found. + + +Orthodoxy knows only two states in which man can be found. Man is either +in the natural state, and then he is totally depraved; or he is in the +supernatural state, in which the chain of sin has been broken. He is +either impenitent or penitent, either unregenerated or regenerate, +unconverted or converted, a sinner or a saint. + +There is no gradation, no shading off, no twilight between this midnight +gloom and midday splendor. To the common eye, and in the judgment of their +friends and neighbors, the people who enter a church seem of all degrees +of goodness; and every one has good and bad qualities mixed up together in +his character. But, as the Orthodox minister looks at them from the +pulpit, they instantly fall into two classes, and become "my impenitent +hearers," and "my penitent hearers." + +Moreover, it is assumed that the distinction between these two classes is +so marked and plain, that it can be recognized by any one who will. +Orthodox people inquire, "_Is he pious?_" just as they would ask, "_Is he +married?_" + +Again, the change from one state to the other is assumed to be so distinct +and marked, that he who runs can read. One may say to another, "_Where +were you converted?_" just as they may say, "_Where did you go to +college?_" "Where were you born?" said an English bishop to Summerfield, +the Methodist preacher. "In Dublin and Liverpool," he answered. "Were you +born in _two_ places?" said the bishop. " 'Art thou a master in Israel, +and knowest not these things?' " replied Summerfield. + +On the other hand, it is quite common among Liberal Christians to doubt +the reality, or deny the importance, of such changes altogether. With them +the Christian life consists, not in change, but in progress. In the +Christian source, Orthodoxy lays the main stress on the commencement; +Liberal Christianity, on the progress. The one wishes you to begin the +journey, without seeming to care whether you go forward: the other urges +you to go forward, without inquiring whether you have begun to go. +According to one, Christianity is nothing but a CRISIS; according to the +other, nothing but a DEVELOPMENT. + + + + +§ 2. Crisis and Development. + + +Is there any truth in this Orthodox view of man? anything essential, +substantial, vital? And is there any formal error? If there is, what is +it? Is Christianity crisis or development, or both? + +Common sense and the analogies of common life must answer, "Both." If +Christianity is a life, it must begin with a birth; if a journey, it +cannot be taken except we set out; if an education, we must determine to +commence the education; if labor in God's vineyard, we must go into the +vineyard, and begin. There are only two classes--those who are alive, and +those who are not alive; those who are taking the journey, and those who +have not yet set out; those who are studying, and those who have not yet +begun to study; those who are at work for God, and those who are standing +idle. The distinction into two classes seems, therefore, substantial and +real. It does not follow, to be sure, that these two classes can be +distinguished so easily by the eye of man; but they certainly can be by +the eye of God. Nor does this primary distinction interfere with other +distinctions and many degrees of difference--greater or less differences +and degrees of progress, usefulness, goodness. Nor does it follow that +those who are now on the right side may not change again to the wrong, and +again to the right. There may be conversion, and _re_-conversion; but +that, at any moment, every person must be either endeavoring to do right, +or not so endeavoring, is evident. This view is confirmed by the New +Testament: "No man can serve two masters." + +That in the religious life there should be both crisis and development, +accords with the analogies of nature. The seed lies in the ground in a +dormant state, perhaps for a long period. After a time comes a crisis; +thrills of life vibrate through it; the germ is stirred; it sends its +roots downward; its stalk pierces the mould, moving upward into light and +air. After this great change, there comes a period of progress and +development. The plant grows; its roots multiply; its stalk ascends, and +divides into leaves. Then there comes a second crisis. The plant blossoms. +In the course of a few hours, after weeks of growth, the bud bursts into +beautiful petals, surrounding the delicate stamens and precious pistil. +Then there comes a second long period of slow development. The petals +fall, and the fruit slowly swells through many weeks of growth. At last +there comes a day when the fruit is ripe. Yesterday it was not ripe; +to-day it is. This is the third crisis. And so, in human life, long +periods of development terminate in critical hours--the seeds of another +long growth. So it is in other things; so also in religion. + + + + +§ 3. Nature of the Change. + + +The next position of Orthodoxy is, that man, in the second or regenerate +state, is a new creature. It asserts the change to be entire and radical, +and the difference immense. Not only the whole direction of the life is +changed, but the motive power is different, and the spirit different. +Instead of ambition, there is content; in the place of sensitive vanity, +there comes humility; instead of anxiety, trust in God. The burden of sin +is taken away; the sense of our unworthiness no longer torments us: for +God has forgiven our sins. Duty no longer seems arduous and difficult; for +there is joy in doing anything for the sake of God. The law is written in +the heart. We are born into a new life, the principle of which is faith. +"The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God." +This faith enables us to see God as he is, not as a stern King, or a +distant Power, or an abstract Law, but as a Friend, Father, watchful +Providence, surrounding Love, inflowing Life; Source from which we are +always coming, and towards which we are always tending. This life of faith +makes all things new. Old things have passed away, and the outward world +is fresh as on the first morning of creation. Our inward and outward life +are both new. We have new convictions, new affections, new aims, new +hopes, new joys. Nature is new, life is new, the Bible is new, the future +world is new. Such and so great is the change which Orthodoxy assumes as +the result of conversion. + + + + +§ 4. Its Reality and Importance. + + +And the experience of the whole Church, the biographies of the saints in +every denomination, assure us of the substantial truth of this +description. Even in churches which are not Orthodox,--churches like our +own, which insist more upon development than upon crisis,--observation +verifies this description. Even those who do not expect such a change, nor +believe in it, often come to it unexpectedly. In the course of each one's +experience as a Christian minister, though he may never have insisted on +the importance of sudden changes, and though he may be no revival +preacher, he must have known numerous instances of those who seem to have +passed from death to life in the course of a day or an hour. And is not +this change, either sudden or gradual, that which makes Christianity a +gospel? It is the good news, not of a future and distant heaven, but of a +present heaven,--a heaven not outward, but inward; a present salvation from +the power of sin; a present relief from the sense of guilt; a present joy +and peace in believing; happiness in serving God; sympathy and good-will +to man, instead of envy and uncharitableness; peace with God, with man, +with ourselves, with our condition and circumstances. + +That such a state is possible for every human being who desires it, is the +good news which Christ brings; and the experience of ten thousand times +ten thousand grateful hearts declares that it is a reality. + + + + +§ 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox Difficulty. + + +But now comes a difficulty in the Orthodox statement. Orthodoxy declares +that this regenerate state is the result of faith, not of works; and that +faith is the gift of God; and herein Orthodoxy follows the Scripture. Yet +Orthodoxy calls upon us to repent and be converted, that our sins may be +blotted out; and herein likewise Orthodoxy follows the Scripture. Is, +then, conversion an experience, or is it an action? Is it something God +gives, or something which he commands? Is it a duty to be done, or a gift +to be received? Is it submission to his will, or joy in his love? a new +life of obedience, or a new heart of faith? If it is submission, then we +can all change our hearts at once, and make ourselves love God and love +man. But who can love by an effort of the will? Yet, if the new life is a +gift, then we have no power to procure it, and can only wait till God sees +fit to send it; and how, then, can we be called upon to be converted? + +Here is a difficulty which it seems to us Orthodoxy does not solve; and +yet we think that a solution is to be found in a very simple distinction, +which, like all other true and real distinctions, throws light on many +other difficulties. + + + + +§ 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration. + + +The distinction of which we speak is between repentance or conversion on +the one side, and regeneration or a new life on the other side. Repentance +or conversion consists in renouncing all sin, and resolving to forsake it; +in turning to God, with the purpose of submitting to his will and obeying +his law. This conversion or repentance is an act proceeding from the will, +and in obedience to the conscience. This is what God commands, and what we +can and ought to do. Every conscientious person, every person who is +endeavoring to do right and is ready to act up to his light, is a +converted person. Every one who hates his sins, resists temptation, +watches and prays against it, is a penitent person. This is the great, +broad distinction between man and man. This divides all men into two +classes--those who, in their will and purpose, are for God, truth, and +right; and those who, because they are not _for_ God, are really _against_ +him. + +But, besides this broad distinction, there is another secondary +distinction--a distinction among those who are conscientiously endeavoring +to do God's will. Among the _converted_ there are two classes--the +regenerate and the unregenerate. A man may be converted, and not be +regenerate; for a man may repent of his sin and turn towards God, and yet +not have the life of love and joy which we have described. + +He is under law, not under grace. He is struggling to do right, but is not +borne forward on a joyful tide-wave of love. + + + + +§ 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not two. + + +If this be so, we may divide men into three classes, and not into two. The +first class is of those who are neither converted nor regenerate; the +second, who are converted, but not regenerate; the third, who are +converted, and also regenerate. The first are like the prodigal in the +parable,--living without God; the second, like the hired servants in the +same story,--serving God for wages; the third are sons, serving from love, +ever with their Father, and all that he has is theirs. The motive of the +first class is selfish will, selfish pleasure; the motive of the second is +duty; that of the third, love. The first are without law, the second under +law, the third under grace. And so we might multiply distinctions. But is +it not clear to common observation, that this threefold classification +meets the facts of life better than the other? There are three degrees of +character. There is the worldly man, who is just as good or bad as society +around him leads him to be; whose virtues result merely from a happy +organization, or fortunate influences, but who has no principle of +goodness, no purpose of righteousness, no serious aim in life. Then there +is the conscientious man, who means to live, and does live, by a standard +of morality; who has a serious aim, but who is not yet deeply and joyfully +religious; whose religion, at any rate, is hard work, not confiding, +child-like faith. And then there is the Christian believer, who has begun +to live from faith; who begins to feel a higher life pouring into his +heart from on high; who has help and strength from above. From his heart +the burden has been lifted, and he has become again as a little child. He +knows how to pray the prayer of faith. He may not be so very much better +than the other in outward character; but he has the principle within him +which will make all things new, sooner or later. + +The New Testament confirms this view of a threefold division. We saw, in +our last chapter, that the apostle Paul, who considers human nature to +consist of three elements,--spirit, soul, and body,--divides mankind into +the carnal man, the natural (psychical or soulish) man, and the spiritual +man. The carnal man is he in whom the bodily instincts and appetites are +supreme. "He is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." The +natural man is he in whom the _soul_ is supreme: he is neither carnal on +one side, nor spiritual on the other. "He cannot receive the things of the +Spirit of God;" yet he is not in opposition and hostility to them, like +the carnal man, whose mind is enmity against God. + +Still more plainly does the apostle indicate the distinction when speaking +of those who are without law, those who are under law, and those who are +free from law and above it. The first state he describes in such words as +these: "I was alive without the law once"--the glad, natural life and +freedom before conscience is developed. But conscience does awake in all: +"The commandment came, sin revived, and I died." When man sees that he +ought to serve God, yet continues to serve the flesh and the world, he is +spoken of as dead in sin; for all the principle of progress ceases. But if +he does endeavor to do right, then Paul speaks of him as _under law_, and +on his way to a higher state. That higher state he speaks of as being +"delivered from the law, to serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness +of letter." + +Thus we see that all religious experiences coincide. The experience of the +apostle Paul is exactly the same, in its essentials, with that of every +soul, however humble, that begins and goes forward in the Christian life. + +If this distinction between conversion and regeneration be correct, it +removes the difficulty in the Orthodox statement. + + + + +§ 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration. + + +Conversion is an act, regeneration an experience. "Turn ye, turn ye; for +why will ye die?" is the command of the Old Testament. "Repent, and be +converted, that your sins may be blotted out;" "Repent, and be baptized, +and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is the command of the +New Testament. It is a duty to repent; but to become regenerate is not a +duty: _that_ is a gift, to be received afterwards. God commands +conversion: he bestows regeneration. Submission is an act of our own: +faith is the gift of God. A change of outward life and conduct we can +accomplish ourselves; at least, we can endeavor to accomplish it; but the +change of heart God himself will bestow. + +Conversion, a turning round, is necessarily instantaneous: it is a change. +But regeneration, or reception of divine Love, is a state, not sudden, but +passing by gradations into a deeper and deeper life of faith and joy. + +So, too, conversion may be repeated: we may often find that we have again +turned round, and are going the wrong way. But the inflow of life, when +begun, cannot be begun again. When God has touched the heart with his +love, it is forever lifted by that divine experience beyond the region of +mere law. We can never forget it. These are the: + + + "Truths which wake + To perish never; + Which neither listlessness nor mad endeavor, + Nor man nor boy, + Nor aught that is at enmity with joy, + Can utterly abolish or destroy." + + +And herein lies the basis of the truth in the doctrine of the +"perseverance of saints." + + + + +§ 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church. + + +We cannot but think the attitude of Orthodoxy towards this part of +Christianity to be singularly unsatisfactory and inefficient. The work of +the Church, all admit, is to convert the world to God, and so save it from +the power and evil of sin. But if this is a work which the Church has to +do, it ought surely to have some fixed method or rule by which to act. It +should not be a matter of accident whether it can do its work or not. It +should not be in doubt, every day, as to the success to come from its +efforts. If its work is to make men Christians, it ought to know how to do +it, be able to do it, and know when it is done. Such is the case with all +other work. If a man is to build a house, he does not bring together his +materials, hire his carpenters and masons, and, when all are on the +ground, sit down with them, and wait for some emotion or interior change +by which they will be enabled to go on and do their work. If we are +mechanics, merchants, lawyers, physicians, teachers, we do not wait for a +revival before we can properly fulfil our engagements. It is only in the +work of converting the world to God--the greatest and most important of +all--that such a strange system is adopted. We are told to put ourselves in +the proper place, namely, the Church; collect our materials, that is, the +means of grace; and then we are to wait until, somehow or other, we may be +able _to get religion_. Religion is made a spasm, a struggle, an agony--not +a regular work, not a steady growth. Everything about it is uncertain and +tentative. No one knows when he will become a Christian, but hopes, some +time or other, that he shall be made one. The common thought, produced by +the common Orthodox system of preaching, was expressed once in a public +meeting by Henry Clay. "I am not," he said, "a Christian. I am sorry I am +not. I wish I were. I hope that, some day, I shall be." He did not mean by +this to say that he was an unbeliever; but he had adopted the helpless, +passive system by which he was taught that he had nothing to do but wait +till some great change should take place in his soul. + +Out of this way of thought comes the revival system, which is a curious +blending of machinery and expectation, of adroit and careful management +with reliance on some great inspiration. Crisis and development are to be +expected, no doubt; but we do not set a trap to catch the Spring. It is +ours to plant and to water, but it is God's to give the increase. That, +therefore, should be left to him. + +The revival system is Arminianism grafted on Calvinism. It is an attempt +to unite the belief that man is wholly passive in conversion, and is not +able to prepare himself thereunto, with the opposite doctrine that by a +use of means he can become a Christian. It is an attempt to unite the +Calvinistic article that God, when he chooses, calls those he has +predestined to eternal life, with the attempt to make him choose our time +and way. Such a system, disjointed at its centre, must necessarily work +badly, and result in an alternation of feverish heats and aguish chills. +To carry on the work of the Church by revivals is as unreasonable as it +would be to carry on a school, or a cotton factory, by a revival +system--alternations of violent study and work, followed by relapses into +indolence and sloth. + +The Church of Rome has a great advantage over Protestant Orthodoxy in this +respect. It, too, admits revivals, and has its periods of extraordinary +attention to religion. But there is this great difference. It does not +depend on them for creating Christianity in the soul; it uses them only +for increasing its warmth and power. In the Roman Church every baptized +person is a Christian so long as he does not continue in mortal sin, but +by the regular use of the sacraments preserves his Christian life. The +essential work of the Church is done by its regular methods--by baptism, +confession, and its ritual service. In the Church of Rome, all connected +with it are Christians, and in the way of salvation. In Protestant +Orthodox churches, if any of those born and brought up in it are +Christians, it is, so far as they are concerned, a happy accident. + +All this shows something wrong in the common theory of conversion. Every +one in a Christian community who desires to be a Christian ought to be +able to become one. Christianity is a gospel, because it opens the kingdom +of heaven to all. The call of the Church at the beginning was to _follow +Christ_. Any one who was willing to follow Christ was baptized at once, +and became a Christian. No one waited till he should experience some +remarkable interior change, or some influence of the Holy Ghost. The +promise at first was, that whosoever became a Christian _should_ receive +the Holy Ghost afterwards. Spiritual influences were not the condition of +Christianity, but the result of Christianity. + +One bad consequence of the Orthodox idea is discouragement on the one +side, and spiritual pride on the other. Those who are not converted are +discouraged, and deprived of the comforts of Christian faith. Those who +think they have been converted are satisfied with this past experience, +and believe themselves Christians on the strength of it. Because some +spiritual commotion took place in their souls at a certain time and place, +they consider themselves children of God and heirs of his favor, though in +their daily lives they may show little proof of practical Christianity. +And the result of this, again, is a professed distrust, by the majority of +sensible men, of such conversions. Men of the world do not find that +professed Christians are better than themselves. Often, indeed, church +members are not so just, honest, manly, or truthful as those who make no +claim to religion. And the reason is simply this--that they have been +taught to believe that the essence of Christianity does not consist in +righteousness, but in certain religious experiences. + + + + +§ 10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and be converted; that is, +to make it his Purpose to obey God in all Things. + + +As far as man is concerned, repentance is the one thing needful. But by +repentance we do not mean sorrow or contrition, but simply turning round +whenever we are going wrong, and beginning at once to go right. This is +something in every man's power, and this makes him a Christian; this gives +him a claim to all the promises and hopes of the gospel here and +hereafter. It would seem that there need be no doubt as to the nature of +repentance while the parable of the prodigal son stands in the Bible. That +divine story gives us the whole theory of repentance and +regeneration--repentance being that which comes from man, regeneration that +which is given by God. When the prodigal son was aware of his sin and +sorrow, and said, "I will arise, and go to my father;" and when he arose, +and went to his father, and confessed his sin and need, then he had +repented. It was simply going to his father with the purpose of obedience. +And when the father received him, not with reproach, but with pardon and +joy, then he was born again, introduced into a new life, into the peace, +and love, and freedom of his own home. + +"One thing is needful," said Jesus; that is, to sit at the feet of the +Master, to follow him, to become his disciple. That is all we have to do; +then we are safe. We can trust God to do his part if we do ours. He will +give us his Holy Spirit; he will give us a new heart; he will put his +peace and strength into our souls. It is not necessary to be anxious, or +to be inspecting our feelings to see if we are feeling right. All such +introspection is unnecessary if we have faith in God and his promises. We +are Christians just as long as we are obeying God and following Christ. +When we find ourselves disobedient, selfish, going wrong, then the one +thing needful is to repent and be converted. We are to come back to our +duty. + +The general impression in Orthodox churches, resulting from the preaching, +is, that not much is gained by doing one's duty unless one is regenerate. +Doing our duty does not make us Christians, does not save the soul; so, +why be particular in doing more than others, or being better than others? +Orthodox congregations believe in the new life, but not in obedience as +its necessary antecedent. + +Unitarians, on the other hand, believe in obedience, but have little faith +in a higher life as attainable here. Hence a Unitarian congregation +usually consists of intelligent, virtuous, well-meaning people, but +destitute of enthusiasm, and with little confidence in the new birth or +religious life. + +Unitarians believe in obedience as the one thing needful; and in this they +are right. But they are wrong in not expecting the influences which God is +always ready to give, which change the heart, and fill it with a peace +passing understanding, which make duties easy, which fill life with joy, +and take the sting from death. The Orthodox believe in all these higher +emotions and states of the soul, but unfortunately do not believe in +obedience as the one thing needful. They think that some emotional +transaction in the soul is the one thing needful. + + + + +§ 11. Regeneration is God's Work in the Soul. Examination of the Classical +Passage, or conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. + + +In the third chapter of John we have the conversation which has been made +the basis of the doctrine of the new birth. + +In this conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus we have the old argument, +which is always being renewed, between the letter and the spirit, between +knowledge and insight, between routine and genius, ceremony and +inspiration, the past and the future, the goodness of habit and the +holiness born out of the living vision of good. In fact this little +dialogue may be considered as a renewal, on a higher plane, of the picture +given us by Luke of the boy Jesus in the temple talking with the doctors. + +The common doctrine of the Orthodox churches about this chapter is, that +Jesus teaches here that no man can be a Christian or a good man unless he +passes through some mysterious experience, usually sudden, of which he +must be conscious, which gives him a certain definite series of very deep +feelings. First, he must feel very deeply that he is a sinner; then that +he cannot by any effort of his own become different; thirdly, that, unless +God makes him different, he never can be saved; and, lastly, he must feel +that God will change his heart, and save him. Having passed through this +kind of experience, it is assumed that he is "born again;" that he is a +Christian; that he is a new creature; that he has a new heart; that if he +dies now he will go to heaven; whereas, if he had died before, he would +have gone to hell. It is also Orthodox to believe that a man can do +nothing himself to produce this change of heart, or facilitate it. + +A very interesting book was published not long ago, written by Miss +Catherine Beecher, in which she describes the sufferings caused in her own +experience by this theory of regeneration. Her father fully believed in +it, and thought it necessary to carry all his children through it somehow +or other. Their conversions, to be sure, were not all quite in rule; +especially that of Henry seems to have been a little abnormal, if we may +trust an account given by himself in an article on the dissolution of the +Bowdoin Street Church and congregation, Boston, of which his father was +the first minister. The description is so suggestive that we will quote +the passage:-- + +"If somebody will look in the old records of Hanover Street Church about +1829, they will find a name there of a boy about fifteen years old, who +was brought into the Church on a sympathetic wave, and who well remembers +how cold and almost paralyzed he felt while the committee questioned him +about his 'hope' and 'evidences,' which upon review amounted to this--that +the son of such a father ought to be a good and pious boy. Being +tender-hearted and quick to respond to moral sympathy, he had been caught +and inflamed in a school excitement, but was just getting over it when +summoned to Boston to join the church! On the morning of _the_ day, he +went to church without seeing anything he looked at. He heard his name +called from the pulpit among many others, and trembled; rose up with every +emotion petrified; counted the spots on the carpet; looked piteously up at +the cornice; heard the fans creak in the pews near him; felt thankful to a +fly that lit on his face, as if something familiar at last had come to +break an awful trance; heard faintly a reading of the articles of faith; +wondered whether he should be struck dead for not feeling more--whether he +should go to hell for touching the bread and wine that he did not dare to +take nor to refuse; spent the morning service uncertain whether dreaming, +or out of the body, or in a trance; and at last walked home crying, and +wishing he knew what, now that he was a Christian, he should do, and how +he was to do it. Ah, well; there is a world of things in children's minds +that grown-up people do not imagine, though they, too, once were young!" + +Now, if his state of mind, thus described, had been at that time exposed +and told, it would not have been thought a very sound Orthodox experience. +But in reality the boy was at that very time as good a Christian for a boy +as he is now for a man. But Miss Beecher, in the book referred to, tells +us that when one of her other brothers was striving in prayer for this +change of heart, with groans and struggles, the house was like a tomb. The +poor young man was in his chamber alone, and his groans and cries were +heard through the whole house. All the other members of the family staid +in their own rooms in silence, until at last, by some natural reaction of +feeling, there came a sense of rest and peace to his mind, which they +believed to be the new birth. She also describes the way in which Dr. +Payson, of Portland, tortured his little daughter, three years old, by a +torture as well meant, as conscientious, and more terrible than that of +the Holy Inquisition. He told his little daughter that she hated God; that +she must have a change of heart, but that she could not get it for +herself; and that even her prayers, until she was converted, were only +making her worse. The poor little girl denied that she hated God; she said +she was sure she loved him. Then the misguided father brought up all her +little childish faults as a proof that she hated God; for if she loved him +she would never do wrong. And so, from three years of age till she was +thirteen, this poor, infatuated parent tormented this little child by +keeping her on this spiritual rack--all because of a false view of the +passages concerning regeneration in the Bible. And when we think of the +twenty thousand pulpits which to-day are teaching in this country this +same sort of belief, it is evident that it is our duty to see what the +Master really meant to teach us by this passage. + +Nicodemus is the type of a class of men common in all times. We have seen +Nicodemus very often. He is a good man whose goodness has no life in it. +His goodness is a sort of an automaton--all machinery and no soul. He is so +thoroughly right in all he does; everything about him is so proper; he is +so perfectly _en rčgle_ in his own eyes,--that we sometimes wish that he +might be betrayed into some impropriety, commit some not too great folly, +have some _escapade_ of rash enthusiasm. You respect him so much, you +wonder why you do not love him more. It is because he is not open to +influence. His goodness is so rigid, his opinions so declared, his +character so pronounced, that there is no crack anywhere by which God or +man can reach him. He has a whole armor of opinions all round him, and you +cannot get through it. He has narrowed himself, and shut himself in, so +that he feels no influence of sympathy coming from the wide ocean of +humanity around, no influence of love from the deep heaven of God above. +He is a sort of good rhinoceros, with a skin so thick that nothing can +pierce it. + +Nicodemus was such a man, and he came to Jesus with all his opinions cut +and dried, ready for an argument. He begins in a very formal and precise +way. "Rabbi, we know thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do +these miracles that thou doest except God be with him." He observes all +proprieties; he calls Jesus Doctor,--"Rabbi,"--but takes good care _not_ to +call him Christ. He gives his reason for thinking Jesus a teacher come +from God, namely, his miracles. Not his holiness, not his inspiration, not +his supreme sweetness, not that he is a channel through which God's +tenderness runs down into our hearts. No; he sees no such spiritual proof +as this, but a merely logical one, expressed almost in the form of a +syllogism. Major proposition--"No man can work miracles without God's +help." Minor proposition--"Jesus works miracles." Conclusion--"Therefore +Jesus has God's help." + +Now, what does Jesus reply? Evidently much of the conversation has been +omitted. We have only the substance of it here. "You believe in the +kingdom of heaven, Nicodemus." "Certainly." "How do you expect to know it +when you see it?" "By some great outward signs; something which shall +shake heaven and earth; the Messiah coming in the sky, with angels." +"Nicodemus, you cannot even see the kingdom when it is here, if you look +for it so; you must be born again yourself; you must be changed, and +become as a little child, in order to enter the kingdom." We remember that +Peter, who was probably not half as good as Nicodemus, an impulsive soul, +was nevertheless enough of a little child, in openness of heart, to see +that this was the kingdom of heaven,--this teaching and life of Jesus,--and +that Jesus was the Messiah. + +But Nicodemus says, "No. A Gentile, a heathen, ought, no doubt, to begin +at the beginning, give up all his old opinions, and be born of water by +being baptized. He should begin by a recantation. I suppose that is what +you mean by being born again. But _I_ ought not, for I am a Jew, grown up +in the true knowledge of God, learned from Moses and the prophets. So I +need not begin _my_ life again." + +Jesus then replies, "The form is nothing. You must be born not only of +water, but of the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. You need +not only to wash off all your old opinions and conduct, as the Gentiles +must do; but also you must be made a little child by laying your heart +open to God's Spirit, and letting it lead your thoughts into new ways, +your heart into new love, and your life into new action. You must be +willing to follow me, not by night only, but in the day. If they turn you +out of the Sanhedrim, you must not mind that; you must find your happiness +in getting good and doing good; receiving God's love into your soul, and +letting it go out again. You must give yourself up to this divine +influence." + +Then Nicodemus says, "_How_ can these things be?" He wishes to see the +way, to have it all marked out; to have a creed with all its articles of +belief fixed; a programme of what he is to do arranged. The spirit he does +not quite understand. Give it to him in the letter, and he can do it. He +wants a map of the operations of the Holy Spirit. + +"Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know this?" replies Jesus. "The +whole Old Testament is full of this inspiration; full of the Spirit of God +coming and going, in a thousand ways, and not by any special rule or +method; going as the wind comes and goes in the sky, we do not know whence +or how." It is well that some things cannot be arranged beforehand--well +that no almanac can tell if the wind to-morrow is to be east or west, +north or south. + +I sit in the sweet autumn woods. I see the squirrel leap from branch to +branch. I hear the woodpecker tapping the trunk with sagacious beak, +watching when the sound shall indicate that a worm has hidden himself +below the bark. All else is calm and still. I look up and see the white +clouds drifting through the deep ocean of blue above. Then there comes a +sudden shiver through the tree-tops, a sprinkling of dry leaves on the +grass, a whisper, a rush of air; and now every tree is swinging its +branches in the breeze. + +So is every one that is born of the Spirit! God comes to us all in these +uncalculated, incalculable ways. He moves our conscience by the light of +loyalty and fidelity in another soul. There comes through all the land a +fresh breeze of justice and right, and all at once we feel that we ought +to lead better lives, more manly, more true. There comes a revival of +honesty, as well as of piety. Yesterday you did not care for it; now you +do. God's holy air of truth and right is sweeping through the land. We all +arise and say, "No matter what our fathers consented to; no matter what we +have consented to in past times; we will have no more compromises with +evil and sin, no more concessions to tyranny and cruelty." When this +spirit comes to a nation, or to a community, it is as much a revival sent +by God, as the reformation of Luther, or the reformation of Wesley. + +Jesus means to teach us here that the Spirit of God comes in a great many +different ways, comes unexpected and unforeseen, comes unapparent as the +invisible air. So came the reformation of Luther. Luther did not mean to +make a reformation, or to build a new Church.(17) + +All recollect the story of the Quaker, George Fox, how he went from Church +to Church, and got no good, and at last opened his soul to God, and was +led by the Spirit into new and strange thoughts and purposes, and became a +reformer, and founder of a denomination, unintentionally. And so the +Quaker movement came--the most radical reform which ever sprang up in the +Christian Church. It abolished the ministry and sacraments, baptism, and +the Lord's supper. It reformed the theology of Christendom, putting the +inner light above the written words. It reformed life, opposing war, +oaths, slavery, and fashion. And as it came, so is it passing away, having +done its work. As the breeze dies softly, and the leaves cease to glitter +in the sunlight, and the red leaf on the top-most twig, far up in the sky, +leaves off its airy dance, and at last hangs motionless, so the wild air +which stirred in the depths of all hearts dies away in silence, and old +opinions and old customs resume their places, yet all purified and +changed. Only those which were so wholly dead that the wind blew them +entirely away, are gone forever. + +So are the changes which come in human hearts, we know not whence or how. +It is a great mistake in the Church to have a stereotyped experience, to +which all must conform. Procrustes only lopped the limbs to suit the +measure of his bed; but these rules and moulds for the spiritual life, cut +down the new man, who is made by God's Spirit, to the earthly standard of +some narrow stunted experience of other times. This it is "to grieve the +Spirit," and to "quench the Spirit." For God's Spirit goes everywhere, and +where it goes it produces the best evidence of Christianity in sweet, +holy, Christian lives. It is the wind which blows where it will, which +does not run on a railroad through the sky, or stop at any particular +stations in the clouds, or go by any time-table. God's Spirit comes and +goes not according to any rules of ours. The publicans and sinners have +it, and show it, sometimes, instead of the Scribes and Pharisees. For so +the apostle declares that there are "differences of operation, but the +same Spirit." + +Sometimes you see a hard man, a man of the world, who has been fighting +his way through life, till he has come to rely wholly on himself, and +feels like some of those rocky reefs which stand out in the sea on our New +England coast, and have borne the onset of a thousand storms. Yet at last +he is softened. We see it, we feel it. There is a strange softness in his +tone, a gentleness in his manner, a suspicion of moisture in his eye. The +good God has been moving in his heart; perhaps it was by some trial or +disappointment, or the loss of some curly-headed darling, who went up to +heaven, and left the doors open behind, so that the joyful music which +welcomed her came down to his ears and touched his soul. + +When men see that, they say, "Well, there is something in religion, after +all, if it can touch such a heart as his." + +Sometimes we see a Christian who is at first all conscience, all work. +Religion means to him, doing his duty. He intends to be a Christian, and +wishes others to be so. But it is a piece of hard work. His Christianity +reminds one of the poor woman who thought it "a chore to live." But after +a while, we see a change--very gradual, but still very certain. He is +beginning to get acquainted with the gospel side of Christianity. He +learns to forgive himself his own sins, and so he can forgive others. His +face begins to reflect more and more of heaven. It is the change which +comes to the grapes in October. Perhaps you have some Catawba grapes on +the south side of your house, and they grow very nicely all through the +summer. They are good, large grapes well formed, good clusters, but very +sour. But by and by there comes the final change; the juice grows sweet +within the berry. There is but a very little difference in its appearance, +but a very great change _within_. + +When we see this alteration in a man, we say, "There is surely something +in Christianity to produce such a change. Why, what a very sweet Christian +he has grown to be!" It took all the summer and part of the fall to do the +work; but no matter. God is not in a hurry. Some fruit ripens sooner, and +some later; that is all. + +I looked up from my table as I wrote these words, and saw from my window a +tulip tree and a maple, each dressed in its royal robes of beauty--the gift +of the declining year; the green leaves of the one touched with gold, and +the other with its crimson and scarlet glories. They were full of +sunlight, and made the whole landscape glad and gay. No Tyrian loom could +rival the purple splendors and deep crimson of these trees. Why does God +give all this varied beauty to the October woods, so that Solomon in all +his glory was not arrayed like one of these oaks or maples? Is not this +also to touch our hearts with a sense of his love? An autumn ride is also +a means of grace; quite as much so, perhaps, as a tract or sermon. If we +see God in nature, then nature may also be the source of a new birth to +us. + + + "One impulse from the autumn wood + May teach us more of man, + Of moral evil and of good, + Than all the sages can." + + +What I understand Jesus, then, to teach in this passage, is, that we must +become as little children, in order to see heavenly things; that, like +new-born babes, we must receive meekly the milk of the word of God; that +spiritual influences are all around us, invisible--incalculable: that not +by the regular outward means of religion alone, but by a thousand other +ways, God comes to us. He means that we should believe in the presence and +nearness of God's Spirit always; that we should open our hearts and minds +to be led by it into truth and love. He meant the very opposite of what he +has been made to mean. He did not mean that all souls must pass through +one and the same religions experience, but that, as the wind blows a +thousand ways, so God's Spirit comes to the heart by a thousand ways. So +coming, it makes the hard heart tender, the rude will gentle, the selfish +soul generous, gives the reckless a new sense of responsibility. Jesus +means that we should not be discouraged because we find it hard to correct +our faults, or to enter into God's love. God's Spirit comes to us when we +cannot go to find it. God's love comes into our hearts when we long for +it, look for it, wait for it. + +Look up, then, poor trembling heart; look up, and see God near. Look up, +hard heart, and feel the soft showers of divine grace coming down to make +everything tender. Look up, and be made new creatures, become as little +children, be born anew, every day, into a fresh inspiration, faith, and +hope; and so enter every day the kingdom of heaven! + + + + +§ 12. Evidences of Regeneration. + + +The common Orthodox method is to require and expect evidence of the +Christian change. As we have already said, a Christian is expected to know +and to be able to tell when, where, and under what circumstances he +entered into the new life. + +But, perhaps, the preliminary question is, Ought we to have, and can we +have, any evidence at all of the new life? And to this question many reply +in the negative, and with very good reason. + +The new life is a hidden life; a "life hid with Christ in God." Its +essence is love, and love is an inward sentiment, not an outward act. +Conviction demands utterance; actions speak louder than words; but love is +accustomed to hide itself away in the heart, and to be known only to its +object, and that indirectly. _Evidences of love!_ What should we think of +asking of young people coming to be married, the evidences that they loved +each other; obliging them to give an account of their experience; to say +when, where, and how they began first to care for each other; and then, if +the evidence was satisfactory, allowing them to be married! Why, then, ask +of the soul wishing to be united with God and Christ in a Christian +covenant, to tear open the folded bud of this tender affection, analyze it +metaphysically, measure it mathematically, and cross-examine it as a +witness suspected of falsehood is questioned by lawyers before a jury? + +What do we know of this new life? what can we tell of it? Almost always it +comes to us gradually and unconsciously. It is veiled in shadows, misty +lights, and neutral tints. The second life comes like the first. The child +is born, and knows not of the awful change from not being to being--the +immense event of passage from unconscious existence to conscious life. For +consciousness dawns slowly, imperceptibly. The infant is long immersed in +outward things. Years pass before it becomes aware of the fact that it +exists, before it begins to look in and see itself in the mirror of +reflection. So, probably, will it also be, when we pass from this life +into the next. We shall, perhaps, awaken very gradually, in the future +life, to the knowledge that we are in another state. As the little child +becomes quite at home in this world before he thinks to ask how he came +here, so probably in the other world we shall become quite at home with +the angels, before we shall begin to say, "I am in heaven." + +All the births of time partake of this quality. They do not reflect on +themselves, are not surprised at themselves, but come as a matter of +course. Years after, when the early heat of the new life has grown cold, +the historians and biographers arrive to examine it in the crucible of +their painful analysis, and to tell us how wonderful it is. + +How can any man _prove that he is alive_? Why _should_ he prove it? Let +his life show itself, but not try to prove itself. Let its light shine, +and those who see its good and joy will glorify the Father in heaven who +has sent it. + +The mistake here, as before, is in confounding conversion and +regeneration. + +Including in the terms "conversion" and "repentance" the whole activity of +the will, the religious purpose, the aim of life, it is, no doubt, of the +utmost importance to see, continually, what it is. "Know thyself" is a +heaven-descended maxim, if we understand by it that we are to watch +ourselves always, and see whither we are going. We need continually to +know the direction of our life, whether it is _to_ God or _from_ him; +whether it is upward or downward; whether we are following truth, and +justice, and love, or following our own selfish desires and will. In this +sense self-examination is both possible and necessary. + +When the great ocean steamer is in the midst of the mighty Atlantic, it is +necessary to watch continually its direction, and keep it always heading +the right way. Day and night, therefore, the man stands sleepless at the +helm, his eye always turning from the compass to the ship's head, with +unfailing vigilance. But it is not thought necessary to inspect the +interior of the boilers, or to examine the quality of the fire. If steam +enough is made, and the wheels revolve, that is enough. + +The new life into which we enter by the new birth has this one +character--that it gives us for a motive, not fear, but hope; not law, but +love; not constraint, but joy. Prayer is not a duty, but the spontaneous +impulse of the child, to seek and find its father. Work is not drudgery +but satisfaction, when the motive is to serve the great cause of Christ. +The only real evidence, therefore, that we are born of God, is, that we +have the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, and peace. The tree is known by +its fruits, and these are the appropriate fruits of the new life. When we +find them, let us gladly receive them; but if we do not find them, let us +at least be glad that if not yet new-born, we are, nevertheless, +converted; if not sons, at least servants. We have the one thing needful +when we have the right purpose; sooner or later, we shall also have the +happy life. When we do right, we sow to the Spirit, and we shall, in due +season, reap life everlasting. + +As regards the evidence of the new life, too much stress, we think, has +been laid on outward profession, ceremonies, religious language, religious +acts. Because a man professes religion, it is no evidence that he is +religious. Because he partakes of the Lord's supper, or prays openly, or +speaks in the habitual religious language of his sect, it is no evidence +of his religious life. Many persons are quite comforted if one who has led +an immoral life says on his death-bed that he "trusts in the atoning blood +of Christ." But this may be a mere word. + +All ceremonies and prayers are means, but none of them are evidence, of a +state. The only evidences are the fruits of the Spirit. "The tree is known +by its fruits." "The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, +long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." + +Let us remember that though a man may be converted, and not as yet be +regenerate, he cannot be regenerate unless he is converted; that is, there +can be no true piety, no love, no faith, no spiritual religion, except +there be a sincere and determined purpose of righteousness beneath it. +There may be true morality without piety, but there cannot be a true piety +without a true morality. The law must precede the gospel. +Conscientiousness must go before love, to prepare its way. "That is not +first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and _afterwards_ that +which is spiritual." + +The _first_ question, therefore, to ask ourselves, is not, "Do I love +God?" but, "Do I obey God?" Every man's own soul, if sincere, can answer +that question. "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart." +"If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God." + +But if we are obeying God, then let us believe in a higher life which God +has to bestow, and believing, seek for it. It is not earned, it is not a +reward, it is not by works; but it is very nigh and close at hand; it is +ready to be given to those who believe in it and look for it. + +So, if the question be asked, "Is man active or passive in this process?" +the answer is, that he is active in conversion, receptive in regeneration. + +So in regard to faith and works. "We are justified by faith;" but +justification is the sense of God's forgiving love which is received into +an open heart. Justification is not salvation; it is only a step in that +direction, and a preparation for it. + +And now we ask, "Why is it, if this new life is a gift, do not all good +men receive it?" The answer is, "There are conditions. All good men do not +believe in it. Some believe that duty is every thing; that Christianity +consists _wholly_ in obedience. They know nothing higher, and therefore +seek for nothing higher. Regeneration they hear of, but think it something +mystical, miraculous, unnatural, and, to say the truth, not very +attractive. If they believed in a life of love and trust, a life free from +the burden of anxiety, they would surely desire it." + +Those also who believe in it do not always believe it is for themselves. +They think it not meant for common people in the midst of common life, but +for some special saintship. They do not believe in this divine life +flowing into every heart and soul, high and low, wise and ignorant, be it +only sincere, honest, and believing. + +Yet it is like the life of nature, which in the abounding spring-time +comes down from the skies, and flows not only into the majestic tree, +swelling at once its myriad buds, but also into every seed, and root, and +weed, awakening them all. + +This is what we need for peace, for real progress, for present comfort, +for future joy. + +It is communion with God, it is receiving his love, it is accepting his +forgiveness, and living day by day as his beloved children. + + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE SON OF GOD. + + + + +§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated. + + +Having considered the Orthodox idea of man in his natural state, and of +man in his supernatural state, we next pass to consider the Orthodox idea +of Christ's person and of Christ's work. In this chapter we shall consider +the Orthodox view of the person of Christ, and ask what is its substantial +truth, and what its formal error. + +The Orthodox opinion concerning Christ is thus stated in the Assembly's +Confession of Faith: "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, +being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, +did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with +all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without +sin; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures--the Godhead and the +Manhood--were inseparably joined together in one person, which person is +very God and very Man." + +Christ, therefore, was perfectly God and perfectly man. The formula is, +"_two natures, but one person_." The Orthodox doctrine is not of God +dwelling in a human body as its soul (which seems to be the view of +Swedenborg), but it is of God united with a human soul and body as one +person or one consciousness. + + + + +§ 2. This Doctrine gradually developed. + + +This idea of Christ, as we know, was gradually formed in the Christian +Church, and did not become Orthodox until after many struggles. First came +the question whether the Deity of Christ was equal or subordinate to that +of the Father. Hardly had the Orthodox doctrine triumphed over that of +subordination, against those who denied the equal Deity, than it was +obliged to turn round and contend against those on the other side, who +denied the humanity of Christ altogether. The Ebionites considered Jesus +as a mere man. Theodotus, in the year 200, taught the same, with Artemon +and Praxeas. In the next century the Arians and Sabellians opposed +Orthodoxy from opposite sides,--the one confounding the persons of the +Godhead, and the other dividing the substance. So for several centuries +the pendulum of opinion swung from one side to the other before it rested +in the golden mean of Orthodoxy. + +The Nestorians separated the two natures of Christ, and maintained that +his Divinity consisted only in the indwelling of God. But scarcely had +Nestorius been banished for separating the two natures than Eutyches +plunged into heresy on the other side, by confounding them together. This +was the Monophysite heresy; and no sooner was this overthrown, and it was +decided to be wrong to say that Christ had only one nature, than others +began to contend that he had only one will. These were the Monothelites. +But through all these controversies, the main doctrine of Orthodoxy +continues to shine out luminous and distinct, asserting that Christ +combines the fulness of Deity and the fulness of Humanity. + + + + +§ 3. Unitarian Objections. + + +As this view of the Deity of Christ has been stated, it seems, in its +doctrinal form, contradictory to Scripture as well as to reason. That the +infinite God, who fills the universe, and sustains it; present in the +smallest insect; present in the most distant nebula, whose light just +arriving at our eye has been a million of years on its journey,--that this +infinite Being should have been born in Palestine, seems to confute itself +by its very statement. Who took care of the universe when God was an +infant in the arms of the Virgin Mary? Jesus was born, and died; but God +cannot be born, and cannot die. Jesus suffered from hunger, fatigue, and +pain; but God cannot suffer. Jesus was seen by human eyes, and touched by +human hands; but no man hath seen God at any time. Jesus had a finite +body; but God is Spirit. Jesus was tempted; but God cannot be tempted with +evil. Jesus prayed; but God cannot pray. Jesus said, "My Father is greater +than I;" but God has no one greater than himself. Jesus said, "I can of +mine own self do nothing;" but God can of his own self do everything. +Jesus said "that he came down from heaven not to do his own will;" but God +always does his own will. Jesus said that there were some things he did +not know; but God knows everything. He declared that all power was _given_ +to him in heaven and earth; but God's power cannot be given to him. +Scripture, therefore, as well as common sense, seems to deny the Orthodox +doctrine of the Deity of Christ. + +The common Trinitarian answer to these texts is, that Christ is speaking +in his human nature when he asserts these limitations. But this answer, as +Dr. Bushnell has well shown, is no answer; for, as he says, "it not only +does an affront to the plain language of Scripture, but virtually denies +any real unity between the human and the divine." Jesus does not say, "All +power in heaven and earth is given _to my human nature_," but "to _me_;" +and when the Trinitarian himself declares that in Christ, with two +natures, there is but _one person_, the question is concerning that one +person, whether _that_ is finite or infinite, absolute or dependent, +omniscient or not so, omnipresent or not so, omnipotent or not so. The +question does not concern his nature, but himself. The one person must be +either finite or infinite: it cannot be both. + + + + +§ 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine. + + +But now we ask, What substantial truth underlies this formal error? What +truth of life underlies this error of doctrine? Let us remember how empty +the world was of God at the time of Christ's coming. The wisest men could +speak thus with Pliny: "All religion is the offspring of necessity, +weakness, and fear. What God is,--if in truth he be anything distinct from +the world,--it is beyond the power of man's understanding to know." All +intelligent men agreed that if God existed he could not possibly take any +interest in the affairs of the world or of individuals. Phariseeism on the +one hand, and Sadduceeism on the other,--a religion hardened into forms, +and an empty scepticism, cold and dead,--divided the world between them. +But men cannot live without God, and be satisfied. They were feeling after +him, if haply they might find him, who is not far from any one of us. + +Then Christ came; and in all that he said and did, he spoke from the +knowledge of God; he acted from the life of God. Here was one, then, at +last, to whom God was not an opinion, but a reality; through whose life +flowed the life of God in a steady current. We see that all sincere souls +who came near Jesus received from him the same sight of God which he +possessed; for faith in a living and present God is so congenial to the +nature of man, that it carries conviction with it wherever it is not a +mere opinion, but a state of the soul. + +Those, therefore, who could find God nowhere else, found him in Christ. +Those who saw _him_, saw the Father. As when through a window we behold +the heavens, as when in a mirror we see an image of the sun, we do not +speak of the window or the mirror, but say that we see the sun and the +heavens, so those who looked at Christ said that they saw God. + +The apostle said that God was in Christ; and this was wholly true. +Christians afterwards said that Christ was God; and they thought they were +only saying the same thing. They said that Christ had a divine nature as +well as a human nature; and in this also there was no essential falsehood, +for when we speak of our nature, we intend merely by it those elements of +character which are original and permanent, which are not acquired, do not +alter, and are never lost. God dwelt in the soul of Christ thus +constantly, thus permanently. The Word thus "became flesh, and dwelt among +us." The word of the Lord _came_ to the prophets, but it _dwelt_ in +Christ. He and his Father were one. The vital truth of all this was that +men were now able to see God manifested in man as a living, present +reality. "_Here_," they said, "is God. We have found God. He is in Christ. +We can see him there." + +Is it any wonder that men should have called Jesus God? that they should +call him so still? In him truly "dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" +and this indwelling Spirit expressed itself in what he said and what he +did. When Jesus speaks, it is as if God speaks. When Jesus does anything, +it is as if we saw God do it. It becomes to us an expression of the divine +character. When Jesus says to the sinner, "Go and sin no more," we see in +this a manifestation not merely of his own compassion, but of God's +forgiving love; and when he dies, although God cannot die, yet he dies +according to the divine will, and thus expresses God's willingness to +suffer for the redemption of the world. + + + + +§ 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement. + + +When we look at Christ's Divinity from this point of view, the distinction +between the Trinitarian and Unitarian seems almost to disappear. Still the +question remains, Is it right to call him God? The distinction remains +between saying, "God was in Christ," and saying, "Christ was God." In +short, was the _person_ of Christ human or divine? We agree with the +Orthodox in saying that Christ had two natures--a divine nature and a human +nature. We also maintain with them that he had one person. But the +question comes, Was that one person divine or human, finite or infinite, +dependent or absolute? The consciousness of the one person is a single +consciousness. Christ could not at the same time have been conscious of +knowing all things and of not knowing all things, of having all power and +of not having it, of depending on God for all things and of not depending +for anything. One of two things alone is possible. Either Christ was God +united with a human soul, or he was a human soul united with God. When +Christ uses the personal pronoun "I," he must mean by that "_I_" either +the finite man or the infinite God. I believe the Unitarian is right in +saying that this personal pronoun "I" always refers to the finite being +and consciousness, and not to the infinite Being. For example: "_I am not +alone, but I and the Father that sent me._" "_I proceeded forth and came +from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me._" God cannot proceed +from God; God cannot send God. Again: "If I honor myself, my honor is +nothing; it is my Father that honoreth me." This cannot mean, "If God +honors God, his honor is nothing; but it is God that honors him." It must +mean that the human being, Christ, receives his honor from the divine +Being. This view--that the person of Christ is human, but is intimately +united and in perfect union with the indwelling God--makes all Scripture +intelligible. Any other view is either unintelligible or contradictory. +This view of the divine nature of Christ united with the human person, of +God dwelling in the flesh, does not confound the mind like the common +Trinitarian view, and yet has a value for the heart of paramount +importance. If Christ is really a man like ourselves, made in all respects +like his brethren, and yet is thus at one with God, thus full of God, it +shows us that sin and separation from God are accidental things, and not +anything necessary. If Jesus is truly a man, he redeems and exalts +humanity. What he has been is a type of what all men may be. Thus the +apostle Paul speaks when he says that all things were created in Christ, +who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he might go +before us, or be our leader in all things; which is a much higher view +than the common understanding of the passage, which merely supposes him to +have been God's instrument in creating the physical universe. He is the +image of the invisible God--the first-born of the whole creation. This +creation is the new creation--that which is intended in Revelation (3:14), +where Christ is spoken of as the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the +Beginning of the creation of God, and that which Paul means when he says +that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is worth +anything, "but the new creation." + +All such passages refer, as it seems to us, not to a past natural +creation, but to a supernatural creation--a creation of life eternal, +which, beginning in Christ, is to embrace the whole of humanity. + + + + +§ 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism. + + +And we cannot but think this doctrine far truer, as well as more Orthodox, +than the Arianism which so long struggled in the Church for supremacy. +That view which supposed that Christ was neither truly man nor truly God, +but some high, preėxisting being between the two, appears to us to be the +falsest and most unsatisfactory of all the doctrines concerning Christ's +person. It separates him more entirely from our sympathies than either of +the others. It destroys both his divinity and his humanity, and, by giving +us something intermediate, gives us really nothing. It makes his apparent +human life a delusion, his temptation unreal, his human sympathies and +sorrows deceptive. We think, therefore, that the Church was right in +rejecting the Arian doctrine. + +We think it was also right in rejecting the Humanitarian doctrine, or that +of mere Naturalism. Christ was something more than mere man,--something +more than Moses and Elijah,--something more than a man of great religious +genius. The peculiarity of Christ was, that he was chosen by God's wisdom, +and prepared by God's providence, to be the typical man of the race,--the +God-man, in whom the divine Spirit and human soul become one in a perfect +union. He was, perhaps, placed, by an exceptional birth, where the first +Adam stood,--rescued from inherited depravity, made in the image of God. +Then the Spirit was given him without measure. The word of God _dwelt_ in +him, and did not merely come to him as a transient influence for a special +purpose. Add to this a freely chosen aim of life, and a fidelity which was +always about his Father's business, and aiming to finish the work which +was given him to do, and we have a being in whom we can see either a +manifestation of God or a manifestation of man. The Spirit in Christ was +one with God; the soul and body were human. + + + + + +CHAPTER IX. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. + + + + +§ 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete. + + +That portion of the New Testament which speaks so earnestly of +justification by faith is by many supposed to have become obsolete for all +useful purposes at the present time. The doctrine that "we are justified +by faith, and not by works," it is supposed, was intended for the benefit +of the Jews alone, and to amount to this--that admittance to the privileges +of the gospel is to be obtained, not by practising the ceremonies and +external ritual of the Jewish law, but by a simple belief in Jesus Christ. +Accordingly, as no one nowadays endeavors to become a Christian by +practising the Jewish ceremonies, we suppose that there is no present need +of this doctrine; and when we come upon it in the Scripture, we turn over +the pages in search of something more practical and profitable. As, in the +book of Acts, we read, that, "when Paul was about to open his mouth, +Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked +lewdness, O Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; but if it be a +question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be +no judge of such matters," so we, when Paul is about to open his mouth to +speak to us of this doctrine, think it a mere question of words and names, +and of the Jewish law, and interrupt him to ask him for something +_practical_. If he has anything to say to us of wrong-doing or wicked +conduct, it would be reasonable to hear him; but we will be no judge of +such matters as this. + +There are also many persons, who, while they can understand the Gospels +and enjoy them, find it difficult to understand and enjoy the writings of +the apostle Paul. Among these writings, the most difficult is the Epistle +to the Romans, and especially that part of it which treats of this +doctrine of justification by faith. Anything which can be done to remove +this difficulty will do good; for the writings of Paul are so intimately +connected with the rest of the New Testament, that it is not easy to +reject them, and yet to believe the rest. It can be done, no doubt; but it +is done with difficulty. It is as if one part of the foundation of the +house had given way: perhaps the house will not fall; but it has become +unsafe. It is as if a part of the wall of a city had been battered down: +the breach may be defensible from within; but it is also practicable from +without. At all events, we miss the satisfaction of a complete faith, +perfect and entire, round and full. + +Besides, may there not be something important for us to know in this part +of the New Testament? Are we quite sure we do not need these very +doctrines, and that they will do us good? + +We have said that it is sometimes thought that the questions discussed by +Paul were only Jewish questions,--not human questions; that they belonged +only to that time, not to all time. But, though the form which they +assumed was temporary and local, there is reason to believe that the +substance of the question is one belonging to human nature in every age; +that it is the question of the spirit and the letter, the substance and +the form, the root and the branches, the inside of religion and the +outside. While contending against a particular Jewish error, the apostle +unfolded principles by which similar errors may be opposed and refuted in +every age. + +At all events, it is a matter of fact, that there seldom has been in the +Church any great religious movement which has not immediately gone back to +the apostle Paul, and planted itself on his doctrine of justification by +faith. This was the watchword of Luther, and the soul of the reformation. +Luther and his companions armed themselves with this doctrine to contend +against the great power of the Papacy and the Romish Church. + +Let us, then, endeavor to see what we can of the truth there may be in +this doctrine. + + + + +§ 2. Its Meaning and Importance. + + +And, first, let us see what the doctrine does not mean, and what it does +mean. + +To be justified by faith does not mean that we are to be saved by our +opinions. To say that a man can be saved by holding certain opinions, +instead of certain other opinions, is to say what is contradicted by all +experience; for experience shows us that there are good men holding every +variety of opinion, and bad men holding every variety of opinion. But God +saves men by making them good: therefore men are not saved by their +opinions. Let us suppose that men are to be saved by the opinion that +Jesus is the Christ: then we ought to find that all men holding that +opinion are on the way of salvation; that is, are becoming good men. But +this is far from being the case. In fact, the connection between mere +opinion of any kind, and goodness, is very distant and indirect. No doubt, +in the long run, opinion affects character; but it is only in the long run +that it does so. And, at all events, the doctrine of the New Testament is +very distinct and decided, that men may hold very sound opinions, and yet +not be in the way of salvation. The Scribes and Pharisees held very sound +opinions; and Jesus told his disciples to do whatever they said, but not +to imitate their works; for their doctrine was much better than their +lives. + +Nor does the apostle mean to say that one can be saved without morality. +He certainly does not mean to undervalue goodness; for, in that case, he +would contradict his own teachings, which uniformly declare, as all the +rest of the Bible declares, that without holiness no man can see the Lord. +It is certainly a very superficial view which is satisfied with supposing +that an earnest man, as the apostle certainly was, devoting his life, as +he certainly did, to the teaching of Christianity, with such a grand +intellect as he certainly possessed, could assert with so much energy a +doctrine plainly contradicting common sense, daily observation, the plain +teachings of Jesus, and his own uniform doctrine elsewhere. + +Some persons have a short method of getting over the difficulty by saying +that Paul did not himself know what he meant. They assume that he was +talking at random. It would be about as wise, when we open Newton's +"Principia," and cannot understand it, to say that Newton was talking at +random; or, when we cannot understand Plato or some other profound +metaphysician, to declare directly that he did not himself know what he +was talking about. No doubt, this is the shortest and easiest way of +getting out of such difficulties, but perhaps not the most modest, nor the +most wise. + +When an earnest man, a profound man, a man in the highest degree +practical, a man who has done the greatest work for Christianity which has +been done since its foundation, sums up his doctrine in a comprehensive +maxim like this, it is, perhaps, wise to admit, at once, that he had a +meaning, and probably an important one. + +"No doubt he _had_ a meaning," it may be said; "but has he any meaning +_now_? His formula meant something for the Jews; but does it mean anything +for us? Is not this merely a Jewish question, with which we have nothing +to do?" + +This is another easy way of getting over difficulties. In reading the New +Testament, when we come to a place where we are stopped by something which +looks deep and is dark, we are often told, "That darkness is not depth: it +is the shadow of a Jewish error which lies across the path." + +Have we not often felt dissatisfied, when, approaching some great saying +of Christ and his apostles from which we hoped to gain new insight, we +have been told, "That has nothing to do with _us_. The Jews had such and +such an opinion, and this was meant to show them their mistake"? So the +great and earnest words of the Bible, which we thought to be full of +spirit and life, are found to be only fossil remains of old opinions, of +opinions long since passed away--good for nothing but to be put into the +museums of antiquaries, and paraded by scholastic pedants. + +But, after all, take it on the lowest ground, were not the Jews men? Did +they not, as a race, represent some element, common, in a less degree, to +the rest of mankind? and therefore is there not in each of us something of +that Jewish element? Are not we also sometimes Jews, therefore liable to +Jewish errors, and needing to have them corrected? The Jews did not live +in vain: their struggles, errors, hopes, were for the benefit of humanity. +We were to learn something by their mistakes, and to be taught something +by their experience. + +Another way of treating such a passage is to translate it into some +trivial, insignificant commonplace. Thus, we are told, our doctrine only +means that "_God does not approve a man merely for going through a routine +of outward, formal ceremonies, but for a thoroughly religious life._" This +explanation assumes that the apostle is here talking to simpletons, and +that what he says is no more worth listening to by us than the prattle of +a nurse to her infant. + +There are, therefore, four ways of explaining this passage, none of which +are satisfactory. These are, that Paul,-- + +1. Was teaching a self-evident absurdity; + +2. Was teaching a self-evident truism; + +3. Was teaching nothing, and only talking at random; + +4. Was correcting a Jewish error, which only the Jews ever had, or are +ever likely to have. + +If these views are not satisfactory to us, the simplest way would seem to +be, first, to endeavor to understand precisely what the Jewish error was, +and then to see if there is anything like it in ourselves, and if there be +anything which we can learn from this old argument which will be, not old, +but new for our time and for all time, because a part of the tendencies of +man. Let us translate these old terms--_justification_, _faith_, +_works_--into their modern equivalents, and see what they mean for us at +the present time. + +We have shown that we may be mistaken in supposing this Orthodox doctrine +of justification to be of merely local and temporary interest, having no +permanent value. It is not likely that a man like Paul, of so large, so +deep, so philosophic a mind, should have devoted himself so earnestly, and +returned so fondly, to a theme involving no universal and eternal +principles, whose interest was to perish with the hour. It is not probable +that, in this small volume of writings of the new covenant,--this precious +gift of God to the world in all ages and in every nation,--so large a +portion should be devoted to a wholly temporary argument; and, more than +all, it is a most remarkable fact, that whenever there arises a man +uniting a deeper spirit of piety with a larger sense of liberty than other +men,--a man commissioned by God to give a new religious impulse to his age, +and to help Christianity to shake itself free from the cumbrous mass of +human forms and traditions which have crushed it, and to go forth in its +native grace and loveliness again,--some profound instinct should always +lead him to this doctrine as to a weapon effectual for pulling down the +strongholds of bigotry, scepticism, and spiritual death. Sir James +Mackintosh somewhere says, that the great movement which shook Christendom +to its centre, and did more to change and reform society than the +political revolutions and wars of a thousand years, originated with an +obscure Augustinian monk preaching the doctrine of justification by faith. +This acute Scotchman saw, what all must see who read Luther's writings +with any attention, that it was no accident, no temporal interest, which +led him to lay such stress on this doctrine. It was the soul of his +preaching, the essence of his doctrine, the secret of his strength, the +life of his life. And so, when Wesley and the early Methodists were called +upon to pour new religious life into the English Church, they fell back on +this doctrine--this ancient sword of the Spirit. And so we may believe that +it has a value for all ages; that it did not relate merely to Jewish +usages, but is a principle of vital and everlasting application. + +No doubt that if by faith we understand intellectual belief, or the assent +to opinions, and if by works we understand true obedience, and by +justification final salvation or actual goodness, there can scarcely be a +greater absurdity than to say that a man is justified by faith, and not by +works. To say that goodness, in the sight of God, consists in receiving +certain opinions, rather than in true obedience, is a most unscriptural +and irrational doctrine. + +But none of the great reformers of whom I have spoken, and no profound +theologians of any sect or school, have ever held the doctrines of +justification by faith in this way. Neither Luther nor Wesley ever made +faith synonymous with intellectual belief or opinion. "What is faith?" +said Wesley. "Not an opinion, nor any number of opinions put together, be +they ever so true. A string of opinions is no more Christian faith than a +string of beads is Christian holiness. It is not an assent to any opinion, +or any number of opinions. A man may assent to three or three and twenty +creeds, he may assent to all the Old and New Testament, and yet have no +Christian faith at all." + +But what is the true doctrine of justification by faith, as taught in the +Scriptures, and as inspiring these great reformers? This is naturally our +next inquiry. + + + + +§ 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience. + + +There is nothing in the nature of man more paradoxical than conscience. It +is that which lifts him to God; and yet it is that which makes him capable +of sin, and without which he could not be a sinner. It gives him the sense +of right, but at the same time makes him conscious of wrong. It makes him +capable of duty, but thereby also capable of disobedience. It shows us +what we ought to do, without giving us the least strength wherewith to do +it. It condemns us for not doing right, even when we have no power to do +anything but what is wrong. It shows us a great ideal of goodness to which +we ought to aspire, and discourages us by the very loftiness of the +standard. It tells us in the same breath that we are sinners, and that we +ought to be angels. It seems at the same time to elevate and degrade us. +It elevates us by giving a great object to life, and making it serious and +earnest; but it degrades us by making us constantly ashamed of ourselves, +and keeping us in a perpetual state of humiliation. Now, one of the chief +peculiarities of the conscience is, that beyond a certain point, the more +we try to obey it, the less satisfaction we have. We know that this is not +the usual theory. We are commonly told that the conscientious man is +always contented and happy,--satisfied with himself, and at peace with God. +But facts contradict this theory. The conscientious man is apt to be very +much dissatisfied with himself,--much, more so than the man whose +conscience is torpid and indifferent. There is comfort in faithful work; +no doubt there is great content in the steady performance of regular +duties; but here conscience is subordinate to work. It is _work_ which +gives contentment; but CONSCIENCE, when thoroughly roused by the strong +meat of a divine law, is the source of much self-dissatisfaction. How can +it be otherwise? It shows us that we ought to _love God and love man with +all our heart, soul, mind, strength_. Which of us does it? Do you? Do I? +How large a part of our life have we given to the service of God? how +large a part to the service of our neighbor? How often do we thank God for +his goodness? How often do we pray to him? how often _think_ of him? If we +do not think of him, of course we do not love him. + +Love makes us very thoughtful of another's wishes. When people love each +other, they joy in thinking of each other; they treasure souvenirs of each +other; they like to make each other presents of things they think will +please; they steal an hour from daily cares or nightly rest to write +letters to each other. Our heavenly Father's arms are around us all +day,--his infinite bounty blessing us, his careful providence making for us +home, friends, all; yet we do not think of him, or wish to do anything to +please him. + +Conscience tells us that our heart is hard and cold to our best Friend; +and that is by no means a pleasant piece of information. + +Moreover, it is evident that this condition of self-dissatisfaction is not +a good one. _Self-reproach may be a wholesome medicine, but it is a bad +food._ We cannot do our work while we are finding fault with ourselves. +The man whose conscience is always tormenting him is in a morbid state. He +is a spiritually sick man,--sick of too much medicine. What must be done? +He is always looking at his sins, and that disqualifies him for doing his +duties. What shall he do? + +This question in its Jewish form is stated thus: HOW SHALL HE BE JUSTIFIED +BEFORE GOD? If God can excuse him, he can excuse himself. How, then, can +he know that God looks at him not as a sinner, but as a just man, so that +he can look on himself not as a sinner, but as a just man? This is the +problem. What are its solutions? + +In the Jewish mind, the Jewish law had brought the conscience into an +extremely irritable state. The same effect, in a less degree, is produced +by the Catholic confessional. + + + + +§ 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul. + + +Now, the consequences of sin are these: First, every act of sin brings +after it natural evil consequences. It weakens the strength of the soul, +it darkens the spiritual eye, it hardens the heart, it adds a new link to +the chain of evil habit. By a result as inevitable as the law of +gravitation, every act of sin pollutes, darkens, weakens the spiritual +principle in man. "He who sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap +corruption." We may call these results the _external_ consequences of sin, +because they change our spiritual relation and position in God's external +universe. But there is another more awful and as inevitable consequence of +sin. It alienates us from God himself. It turns our face from the Source +of life and love. It makes us at war with him. It fills us with the sense +of his displeasure, and burdens us with the consciousness of guilt. To +escape the dreadful sense of his anger, we hide ourselves from him, as +Adam did. It is a law of the human mind that we dread the sight of any one +whom we have wronged, because it condemns us. Perhaps he may be perfectly +willing to forgive us; perhaps he does not even know that we have wronged +him; but we cannot bear to see him, notwithstanding. It was a profound +feeling of this law which led an ancient historian to say, "He hated him +because he had injured him." Thus an active conscience, if it does not +make a man better, will make him worse: to escape its torture he will +plunge into new crimes. Some of the darkest crimes which stain the page of +history may be traced to this source,--to the operation of a conscience +strong enough to produce the sense of guilt, but not strong enough to +produce the determination to reform. It is related that when the mother of +Charles IX. of France and his uncles were urging the young king to consent +to the execution of some of the principal Protestants to whom he was +strongly attached, after a long resistance, when he at last gave way, it +was with these remarkable words: "I consent, then, but only on one +condition,--that you do not leave a Huguenot in France to reproach me with +it."(18) And hence the Bartholomew Massacre, which its authors had +intended before only to include a few individuals. So sin takes occasion +by the law, and the commandment ordained for life becomes death. + +The same principle operates with respect to God. We have broken his law. +We feel that he must be displeased with us; we therefore hide ourselves +from him, turn away from him, avoid the thought of him, are alienated from +him. This is the greatest evil of sin, and this we may call the inward +consequence of sin, because it affects our inward relation to God rather +than our outward relation to the universe. + +And now, how are we to be reconciled to God? How are we to be freed from +this sense of guilt which falls on us in his presence, and makes us fear +and shun him? + + + + +§ 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness. + + +There are two ways in which, when we have injured our brother, and so have +become estranged from him, we may become reconciled again, and freed from +a sense of shame in his presence. One is by endeavoring to atone for the +evil we have done by acts of kindness, by expressions of penitence. So at +last we may feel that we have done him far more good than evil; and though +he may not forgive us or be reconciled to _us_, we, on our part, may feel +freed from any shame in his presence, and be reconciled to _him_. The +other way is by _his_ coming to _us_, and _proving_ to us, by his conduct +and words, that he is not estranged from us by our bad conduct; that he +loves us as ever. So he will overcome our evil by his good, and reconcile +us to him. + +The pagan nations in all ages and lands have taken the first way of being +reconciled to God. Oppressed by a guilty fear of their terrible idols, +they have brought as gifts to their altars what they had most valuable; +they have hung their gold, their jewels, in the temple; they have slain +their cattle on the shrine. Still unable to pacify their trembling hearts, +they have gone farther, and sought to prove the sincerity at least of +their repentance by self-inflicted tortures, and by giving even their +children's lives to the bloody power whom they worshipped. Hence +sacrifices: they originated in the very same feeling which induces a man +to give a present to one whom he has wronged, to appease him. + +Pagan religions are founded, therefore, wholly on the first mode of +reconciliation. The offending party comes to him whom he has injured, and +does something to pacify him. But these religions never brought peace to +the heart of the worshipper. After the wretched mother had dropped her +infant into the burning arms of Moloch, she still had no evidence that his +wrath was turned away. + +In the religion of Moses, the first mode of reconciliation was united with +the second. Pitying the weakness of man, the law allowed him to bring his +sacrifice of birds or beasts or the fruits of the soil, and place it on +God's altar as an expiation and atoning offering for his sin; and then, +the suppliant, having faith in the permanent presence of God in the holy +of holies, was received again to favor and assured of pardon. The Jew, who +had broken any of the laws of Jehovah, knew exactly what to do in order to +be reconciled to his national God and King. God had pointed out the way +which he would accept. By certain acts of sacrifice and restitution, the +Jew became once more worthy of living under the protecting care of +Jehovah. + +This mode of reconciliation under the law was far superior to that in +pagan religions. It gave temporary peace to the conscience, though not +permanent. It prevented the sinner from going farther from God, though it +did not unite him with God in unbroken union. It kept the conscience +awake, and prevented it from being hardened. It was a schoolmaster to +bring the Jews to Christ. It was a preparation for a more excellent way. +In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer declares that the law was but +the shadow of that which was to come; that it could not, "by the +sacrifices offered year by year, make the comers thereunto perfect; for +then would they have ceased to have been offered, because the worshippers, +once purged, would have had no more conscience of sin." The sacrifice made +no revelation of God's character and love, planted no root of piety in the +heart: it relieved the conscience only for this once, only with respect to +this one sin; and there its influence ended. And therefore was a new +covenant necessary, and promised by the prophets, and looked forward to by +holy men, when they should be reconciled not by works, but by faith. + +We have seen that there are two modes by which alienation may be removed: +first, by the offending party doing something to atone for his offence; +second, by the injured one showing that he has forgiven the offence, and +is ready to be reconciled without an atonement. The first mode is the way +of reconciliation in pagan religions; the first and second are united in +the Jewish religion; the second is the mode in the Christian religion. + + + + +§ 6. Method in Christianity. + + +In Christianity, in the gospel of grace, God offers pardon freely to those +who are willing to accept it. He is ready now to receive those who are +ready to come to him. It is only necessary to believe this in order to be +reconciled. We are, therefore, reconciled by faith. + +But we are said to be reconciled by the death and blood of Christ. How is +this? We have seen the source of our alienation: it lay not in God, but in +ourselves. God had not gone away from _us_; we went away from him. He had +not ceased to love us; but by a terrible reaction from our sinfulness, we +had ceased to believe in his love. "God's hand," says the prophet (Isa. +59:2), "is not shortened, that he cannot save, nor is _his_ ear grown +dull, that he cannot hear; but _your_ iniquities have separated you from +your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, that he doth not +hear." By an immutable law of our mind, God's wrath abides on us, and we +cannot believe in his love. Here is the source of our alienation. Now, +merely to be told that God is merciful does not wholly help the matter. +True, we say, He _is_ merciful, but not to _us_; we have sinned too long +and deeply. Something must be done, then, to _convince_ us that God is +ready to forgive and receive us freely. The death of Christ is the fact +which produces this conviction. The death of Christ, therefore, is not +merely an _emblem_ of God's love, but an _act_ of God's love. It draws us +to him. It changes our hearts. It melts our doubt, our distrust. It +reveals to us our Father's love. The blood of Christ makes those who were +afar off nigh. This all experience teaches as a _matter of fact_. It is +the cross of Christ, borne by the simple missionary, preached by the +devout Moravian, which, amid the ice of Greenland or beneath the burning +sun of the tropic, reconciles the sinner to God. + +And if one asks _how_ the death of Christ does this, we will briefly +indicate what we believe to be the way in which it operates. We look at +Christ, and see the brightness of God's glory and express image of his +person. We see a holiness pure and perfect, a character infinitely +beautiful and lovely. We see how dear and near such a one must have been +to God; and we hear God say, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well +pleased;" and we hear him say of God, "My Father has not left me alone; +for I do _always_ the things which please him." + +And now we look at the world, and see it "lying in wickedness;" we see men +trampling on God's law, polluting his image, cruelly oppressing each +other, and boldly defying and mocking at the Almighty. What does he then? +For the sake of these miserable, weak, and wretched sinners, who seem +scarcely worth the saving, he sends his holy child among them; he sends +this pure being to have his heart rent with the sight and knowledge of +human sin; he sends him to be cruelly and shamefully killed by a death of +agony, in order that _we_, sinful and miserable, may be reconciled. We +say, in the view of all this, "He who spared not his own Son, but +delivered him up for us, how shall he not _with_ him freely give us all +things?" We say, "God commended his love towards us, in that, while we +were sinners, Christ died for us." "Herein is love; not that we loved God, +but that he loved us." Christ, "being lifted up, draws all men unto him." +Thus, in the midst of the gloom of that horrible scene on Calvary, when +the power of darkness was at its height,--that crisis of the world, when +human sin stood at the flood,--the heavens were opened, and a new ray of +divine love poured into the world. + + + + +§ 7. Result. + + +Let us sum up, then, the doctrine of justification by faith, as we have +now explained it. + +1. JUSTIFICATION is not the doing away with all the consequences of sin, +but only the consequence which consists in present alienation from God. It +is objectively, as a divine act, what _forgiveness_ is subjectively, as a +human experience. It relates to _present_ acceptance with God; it is not +the cancelling of the results of our past sins on the character, nor is it +the hope of future salvation. It relates to the _present_. + +The following passages show that justification is equivalent to +reconciliation or forgiveness. Rom. 5:8-10: "But God commendeth his love +toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much +more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath +through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by +the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by +his life." Rom. 4:6-8: "David also describeth the blessedness of the man +unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying, Blessed are +they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is +the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." + +2. FAITH is not mere intellectual belief or opinion; nor is it mere +feeling, nor a mystical emotion in which we are wholly passive; but a +sentiment, in which belief, feeling, and determination are blended +together. The belief is that Christ is the Son of God; the feeling is +trust and joy in the love of God seen in him; and the determination is to +rely on him as a Mediator and Saviour. + +That faith is not a mere intellectual belief, but involves also a feeling +of trust, appears from such passages as these: "If thou believe in thy +heart;" "An evil _heart_ of unbelief." + +That faith is not a mere emotion, in which we are wholly passive, appears +from such cases as those where men are exhorted to believe, as a thing in +their own power. + +3. WORKS, in this doctrine, include every effort to reconcile God by +offering him anything in expiation of our sin, whether sacrifices, +sacraments, the assent to creeds, the struggle after feelings and +experiences, or reformation of character. + +And the whole doctrine of justification by faith may be thus expressed:-- + +If you are burdened with a sense of unworthiness and guilt; if something +seems to separate your heart from God; if you want confidence to come to +him boldly in prayer,--do not try to remove this difficulty by any effort +to do something different, or become something different; but simply look +at Jesus in his sufferings and death, and see your heavenly Father calling +you to him _now_ to be forgiven. Go at once to God through Christ. Repose +on that love that will cleanse you, that will save you; and nevermore +doubt, even in your darkest hour, that your Father is ready to hear, to +forgive, and bless you. + + + + +§ 8. Its History in the Church. + + +We have seen the origin, nature, and value of this doctrine. Let us now +look at its history. + +The apostolic Church was founded on the simple doctrine of faith in +Christ. It was not founded on any theory or speculation _about_ Christ, or +about his plan of salvation, but on _Christ himself_ as the Saviour. All +that the first Christians professed was faith in Jesus as the Son of God. +They had been reconciled to God by him; they were at peace with God; they +were washed in the blood of the Lamb; and they were happy. A deep and +wonderful joy brooded over the early church. A hurricane of persecution +and war raged around them: within the Church, all was security and peace. +How beautiful are the expressions by which the apostles describe the +serenity and joy of the Church! "They ate their meat in gladness and +singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people." +New converts "gladly received the word, and were baptized" by thousands, +in the face of the bitterest persecution. "The multitude of them that +believed were of one heart and one soul; neither said any of them, that +aught of the things that he possessed was his own." Whence came all this +peace and union in the early Church? Was it because they had attained to +such clear views of truth, and all held the same opinions? So far from it, +some had not heard that there was a Holy Ghost; others did not believe in +a resurrection of the dead; and many thought the whole Jewish ritual +essential to salvation. Was it that they had become suddenly pure in +heart, and holy in life, and freed from sin? So far from it, we find the +apostles exhorting them against very great vices,--against murder, theft, +and licentiousness,--and condemning them for having practised gross +immoralities. It came from the simplicity of their faith. They looked to +Jesus, and their faces were lightened. They _saw_ the love of God in him; +they felt it in their hearts; they reposed on it undoubtingly. In +quietness and confidence was their strength. O, happy days! in which men's +minds had not yet been harassed by thousands of vain controversies and +empty verbal disputes; by questions, and strifes of words; by most +profound theological discussions, ending in nothing but weariness; but +were satisfied, that, if men would go to Christ, they would find truth. O, +happy time! in which men had not learned to dissect their own hearts, and +pry curiously into their feelings, and torture themselves by anxious +efforts to _feel_ right, and tormenting doubts as to whether their inward +experiences were as they ought to be, but believed that all good feelings +would come in their own time out of Christian faith. O, happy, golden +hour! when love, and joy, and duty were all one; when men did not +prescribe for themselves and others a task-work, an outward routine of +duties; but had confidence, that, if they lived in the Spirit, they would +also walk in the Spirit. + +That hour of simple, child-like faith passed away. Its decay appeared in a +return to the old mode of justification. Instead of simply relying on what +God had done, men must do something themselves to atone for their sins; +they must do penance, and have priests, and sacraments, and masses, and +countless ceremonies to come between them and God; they must pile up a +cumbrous fabric of religious and moral works, by which to climb up to God; +until, at last, though the doctrine of justification by faith was never +given up, it was made of none effect by the rubbish of human ceremonies +heaped before it. And then came Luther, armed with the old doctrine, to +sweep these all away, and call men back to the simple faith in the +Saviour. The pure word of faith went forth through all lands, conquering +and to conquer. + +But there is a continual tendency to fall back again from faith upon +works. Ever as the life of religion weakens, ever as the strength of holy +confidence decays, men betake themselves to some outward forms or efforts. +When they cease to lean on the love of God, they begin to lean on +sacraments and ceremonies, on opinions and doctrines, on feelings and +experiences, on morality and works of duty. Ever, as the cold winter of +worldliness and sin causes the stream of holy faith to shrink back into +its channel, the ice of forms accumulates along its shores; and then, as +the inevitable consequence and sign of the decay of faith, we find the +Church becoming anxious and troubled, confidence giving way to anxiety, +cheerfulness to gloom, hope to fear. Everything terrifies the unbelieving +Church; new opinions terrify it; new measures terrify it. It has ashes +instead of beauty, mourning for joy, the spirit of heaviness instead of +the garment of praise. + + + + +§ 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification by +Faith. + + +We have said that there is a constant tendency to fall back from faith to +works of some kind or other. The important question comes, How is it with +us _now_? Does this tendency show itself in our present churches? And the +answer we am compelled to make is, that _it does_, certainly to some +extent, and in all the churches. Orthodox churches have fallen away, more +or less, from the doctrine of justification by faith. They have fallen +back from the central point of Christianity, faith in Jesus, in different +directions, and seek to be justified by a law,--some upon a law of belief, +and others on a law of emotion. + +Do not understand us as saying that any of the churches have denied, or +that they do not constantly teach, the doctrine of justification by faith. +This is not the point. The Romish Church never denied, nor ceased to +teach, this doctrine; but she virtually abolished it, and made it of none +effect by teaching other things also. Is not this, to some degree, the +case now? + +Are there not many Orthodox Christians, at the present time, who seek to +make their peace with God, not by relying on Jesus himself, but on some +theory with respect to his nature or person; not on his death, but on some +speculation _about_ his death,--some theory, scheme, or plan? Is it not the +idea of many, that they are to be brought to God, not by faith in Jesus +and his death, but by assenting to the correct doctrine about it? and +accordingly they anxiously labor, and make it a WORK, to believe in the +true theory, in order that they may be brought to God. We do not say that +correct opinions on these points are unimportant; but we say that the +faith in Christ which justifies us does not come from believing right +opinions, but that right opinions come from the justifying faith. Are +religious teachers now willing to do as Paul did, and say simply, +"_Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ_"? or do they not rather find it +necessary to say, "Believe this, that, and the other thing, about Jesus +Christ"? + +And again: is it not thought by Orthodox people, that, in order to be +justified and have peace with God through Jesus Christ, it is necessary +that a person should experience certain feelings, beginning with a sense +of guilt, a fear of punishment, and passing into a state of hope and +assurance? And, accordingly, men make it a WORK, and labor, to have these +feelings in the precise order and manner, and, until they can experience +these feelings, believe that they can have no access to God. As before, we +do not mean that these feelings are unimportant, but only that we should +not try to work ourselves up into certain feelings in order to be just +before God. It is faith in Jesus which is the _source_, not the _result_, +of piety as well as of holiness. It is faith in God's love to us which +enables us to love him. The sense of pardon produces both the feeling of +gratitude and of unworthiness. God does not forgive us because we have had +the right feelings, but that we may have them. Those love much to whom +much is forgiven; but to whom little is forgiven, the same love little. + +Were we ever struck with the remarkable contrast between the conversions +to God in the apostolic time and those which we hear of now? How much more +_simple_ they were! A man is riding in a chariot, reading his Bible, and +trying in vain to comprehend it. An apostle comes, and explains to him the +prophecy, and applies it to Jesus. Presently they come to water, and he +says, "See, here is water;" he is baptized, and goes on his way rejoicing. +We fear there are not many churches now who would receive that Ethiopian +as a member, if he could give no further account of his religious +experience than is recorded in the book of Acts. + +But is it not, we say again, remarkable, that not only in this case, but +in all the cases of conversion recorded and described in the Acts, there +should be nothing of the descriptions which we read every week in our +religious newspapers? In the case of the three thousand baptized on the +day of Pentecost, we only read that they were cut to the heart; said, +"What shall we do?" were told to repent and be baptized; joyfully received +the word, and were baptized. Even the remarkable conversion of Paul was +nothing like what we now have. How is this--that now we are not willing to +trust to a simple act of faith in Jesus Christ, and in turning to God; but +we have a scale and rule of religious experience--a work which all must go +through in order to be justified? + +And what is the result of thus substituting for justification by faith, +justification by belief in opinions, and by processes of feeling? Look at +the churches where this has been carried farthest, and see the result. +Religion becomes gloomy, anxious, and austere; it ceases to breathe +cheerfulness and joy around; the gentler graces die before it; fear treads +fast in the footsteps of hope; a stiff formality introduces cant in the +place of what is natural and artless; the heart is stretched on a rack of +self-torturing doubts and anxieties. The biographies and private journals +of many eminent saints show us how little happiness they had in their +religion,--how they were tortured by spiritual doubts, perplexities, and +anxieties. The reason is, that they rely on their _own_ feelings, instead +of relying on Christ. + +And with the reliance placed on theory and opinion vanishes the union of +the Church. There are five sects in this country, all holding to the +Assembly's Catechism--a large and minute compendium of opinions,--and yet +which often do not allow each other to commune at the Lord's table. The +New School Presbyterians might permit the others to commune with _them_, +but are themselves excluded. The Old School Presbyterians would commune +with all but the New, but are not permitted. Nay, the Associate Reformed, +the Covenanters, and the Seceders carry it so far as to discipline and +excommunicate their members for what is called _occasional hearing_; i.e., +attending worship at other churches than their own. There was in the State +of Indiana an Old School preacher, and president of a college, who refused +to allow a Unitarian to give a literary address which the students had +asked him to give, and which he had gone to deliver, and, in defending +himself for this, called him a "public propagator of infidelity;" and +within a mile or two of his college there was a society of Seceders, or +Covenanters, holding, like himself, the Assembly's Confession, who would +excommunicate any of their members who should go to hear him preach. + +There is, then, a tendency among the Orthodox to rely on their own opinion +and their own feelings, rather than on Jesus Christ. + + + + +§ 10. Errors of Liberal Christians. + + +Liberal Christians have fallen into error of a different sort. They seek +to be justified, not by opinion nor by feeling, but by action; by works of +righteousness, honesty, charity; by the faithful performance of social +duties; by an active obedience to the law of God. Looking at the +Scriptures, and seeing in how many places we are plainly taught that we +are to work out our own salvation; to be rewarded and punished according +to our active goodness; to be judged by our works,--they say that a man is +forgiven when he has corrected his fault, and not before; that repentance +and reformation are the only means of atonement with God; that, if we wish +to be forgiven, we must reform our conduct and change our character. +Accordingly, they lay great stress on DUTY, and are continually exhorting +men to the performance of their duties in order to be forgiven. + +But there is a mistake here also, which arises from confounding two very +different things; namely, justification and final salvation. We have seen +that the consequences of sin are twofold--external and internal. The inward +consequence of sin is separation from God; the external is the weakening +and debasing of the soul. The first consequence is removed by faith; the +second, by obedience. Every act of sin pollutes, darkens, and ruins the +soul; every act of obedience strengthens, elevates, and saves it. +Obedience, persevered in to the end, insures the salvation of the soul. +But, in order that we may obey, we must first be justified; for what is to +give us the strength and the heart to obey, except the pardoning love of +God? It is this sense of reconciliation,--it is this spirit of adoption, +whereby we cry, "Abba, Father,"--which gives us the power to obey. We do +not obey God to be forgiven; but we are forgiven that we may obey. Have we +read the Gospels, and have we forgotten all the instances in which Jesus +said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," before there had been any change of +conduct, or reform of character? and have we forgotten the memorable +passage in which he explains to the captious Pharisee why he does this +(Luke 7:36-50),--on the principle that the one to whom the most is forgiven +will love the most? + +To point out to men their duties, and tell them to do them, does not +enable them to do them; but the sight of God's love in Jesus Christ _does_ +create in them new strength. That true follower of Jesus, the first of our +Ministers at Large, Dr. Tuckerman, did not say to the poor victim of sin, +that when he reformed his conduct, he would be his friend. No: like his +Master, he showed himself his friend while he was yet a sinner, and so +gave him hope and courage to break away from his sin. He has left on +record one of the most touching instances of the power of love to melt +down the impenitent heart, in the case of a convict whom he persisted in +visiting, though he was perfectly hardened, and filled with bitterness and +rage. He persisted in patient attempts to soften his heart, till he +succeeded, by the irresistible power of love, in making him humble as a +little child. Suppose he had sent him word, that if he repented, and +showed the proper spirit, he would come and visit him. He had not so +learned God or Christ. He knew that he must overcome evil with good. +Exactly so does God overcome our evil with good. + +To tell men to do their duties that they may be forgiven, is to tell them +to do what they have no power to do. A confident reliance on God's love, +and steadfast communion with him, are the only source of real improvement. +When we feel these, we are one with God; when we can go to him +confidently, as children to a father; when we can betake ourselves to his +love in every emergency of life,--we have a source of real strength, and +growth, and improvement within us. But, without this feeling of peace with +God, the effort to do our duties only harasses and irritates our +conscience: it produces weariness of heart, a constant feeling of +unworthiness and failure, a constant sense of obligations and +responsibilities which we do not and cannot fulfil. Duty is a weary task, +a heavy burden; and our life is crushed down by constant anxiety and care. +But if we begin right, and come to God first, and lean on his love, and +rely on his promise, then we are filled with hope and joyful assurance, +and failure does not dismay us, for we say, "God's truth is pledged for +our success; and if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by +the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by +his life." + +It may be objected that it is dangerous to religion to admit that we can +be justified before we have believed certain important doctrines or +experienced certain peculiar feelings. It may also be objected, on the +other hand, that it is dangerous to morality to suppose that pardon can +precede reformation. But the more we read the Scriptures, the more we look +into our own heart, and the more we become acquainted with our fellow-men, +the deeper is our conviction, that there is but one source of true piety +and sound morality--a heart reconciled to God, and at peace with him. We do +not undervalue correct belief, deep feeling, or active obedience; but we +place them where they belong. They are the fruit of the tree, not the root +of the tree. The root and source and beginning of all piety and holiness +is simple faith in God through Christ. We must ask ourselves, therefore, +first of all, "Are we reconciled to God, or are we not? Are we living in +filial communion with him, or living without him in the world?" If +unreconciled, we must not think to work ourselves up into a degree of +goodness or pious feeling without God. There is no strength where there is +no confidence, where there is nothing to lean on, where there is +hollowness within. We ought to come at once to God. We ought to lift our +hearts to him, not saying, "Who shall go up to heaven for us, to bring him +to us? Who shall go over the sea for us?" For his word is very nigh, in +our mouth and heart. + +The above discussion will show what we consider to be the truths, and what +the errors, in the Orthodox view of justification by faith. + + + + + +CHAPTER X. ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. + + + + +§ 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement. + + +The subject of this chapter is the Orthodox doctrine of the work of +Christ, and especially of the atonement. + +No doctrine of Orthodoxy is more difficult to state to the satisfaction of +the Orthodox than this. The reason is, that there is no doctrine +concerning which the Orthodox differ so much among themselves. There is no +difficulty in stating the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; for this is +the same, or nearly the same, in the symbols of all the Orthodox sects. +The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is essentially the same with +that of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal Churches. But +not so with the doctrine of Christ's reconciling and atoning work. This +has taken every form in past history, and is altogether unsettled at the +present time. Usually, many views are mingled together in modern +Orthodoxy; and while all Orthodox teachers use the same language, speaking +of the death of Christ as "atonement," "expiation," "vicarious sacrifice," +"sin-offering," "substitution," "satisfaction," yet they connect with +these words very different ideas. Such is the testimony of an eminent +Orthodox divine, who speaks thus:-- + +"There is a general concurrence in the words _vicarious_, _expiation_, +_offering_, _substitute_, and the like, but no agreement as to the manner +in which they are to get their meaning. Sometimes the analogy of criminal +law is taken; and then our sins are spoken of as being transferred to +Christ, or he as having accepted them to bear their penalty. Sometimes the +civil or commercial law furnishes the analogy; and then, our sins being +taken as a debt, Christ offers himself as a ransom for us. Or the analogy +of the ceremonial law is accepted; and then Christ is set forth as a +propitiatory or expiatory offering to obtain remission of sins for us. +Regarding Christ as suffering for us in one or another of these Scripture +forms or figures taken as the literal dogmatic truth, we have as many +distinct theories. Then, again, different as these figures are from each +other, they will yet be used interchangeably, all in the sense of one or +another of them. And then, again, to double the confusion yet once more, +we have two sets of representations produced under each, accordingly as +Christ is conceived to offer himself to Jehovah's justice, or as Jehovah +is conceived himself to prepare the offering out of his own mercy. + +"On the whole, I know of no definite and fixed point on which the Orthodox +view, so called, may be said to hang, unless it be this, viz., that Christ +suffers evil as evil, or in direct and simple substitution for evil that +was to be suffered by us; so that God accepts one evil in place of the +other, and, being satisfied in this manner, is able to justify or pardon. + +"As to the measure of this evil, there are different opinions. Calvin +maintained the truly horrible doctrine, that Christ descended into hell +when crucified, and suffered the pains of the damned for three days. A +very great number of the Christian teachers, even at this day, maintain +that Christ suffered exactly as much pain as all the redeemed would have +suffered under the penalties of eternal justice. But this penal view of +Christ's death has been gradually giving way, till now, under its most +modern, most mitigated, and least objectionable form, he is only said to +have suffered under a law of _expression_. + +"Thus God would have expressed a certain abhorrence of sin by the +punishment of the world. Christ now suffers only as much pain as will +express the same amount of abhorrence. And considering the dignity of the +Sufferer, and his relations to the Father, there was no need of suffering +the same, or even any proximate amount of pain, to make an expression of +abhorrence to sin, that is, of justice, equal to that produced by the +literal punishment of the race. Still, it will be seen to be a part of +this more mitigated view, that Christ suffers evil as evil; which evil +suffered is accepted as a compensative expression of God's indignation +against sin. Accordingly, in the agony of Gethsemane, and when the Saviour +exclaims in his passion, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' it +will be taken for literal truth, that the frown of God, or divine justice, +rested on his soul. + +"It will probably be right, then, to distribute the views of those who are +accepted now as Orthodox teachers, into two classes--one who consider the +death of Christ as availing by what it _is_; the other, by force of what +it _expresses_; the former holding it as a literal substitution of evil +endured for evil that was to be endured; the latter holding it as an +expression of abhorrence to sin, made, through the suffering of one, in +place of the same expression that was to be made by the suffering of many. + +"As regards the former class of representations, we may say, +comprehensively, that they are capable, one and all, of no light in which +they do not even offend some right moral sentiment of our being. Indeed, +they raise up moral objections with such marvellous fecundity, that we can +hardly state them as fast as they occur to us."(19) + + + + +§ 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine. + + +But, notwithstanding the fact that there is such confusion in the minds of +the Orthodox about this doctrine, there is, nevertheless, no doctrine the +belief in which is regarded as so important. With respect to other +doctrines,--the Trinity, for example,--dogmatic Christianity declares our +salvation to depend upon our belief of it; but in regard to the atonement, +it goes farther, and makes our salvation depend on using the phraseology +of the doctrine. Other doctrines will save us, on the condition of +believing them; this, on the condition of using the language. If a man +shall lead a life of purity and goodness, but expresses doubts concerning +this doctrine, his Orthodox friends will have scarcely any hope of his +salvation; but if the most depraved criminal, after a life steeped in +wickedness, shall merely say on his death-bed, that he hopes "to be saved +by the atoning blood of Christ," he is thought immediately to be on the +fair way to heaven. No matter how good a man is, if he does not accept the +Orthodox language on this point, his friends _fear_ for him: no matter how +bad he is, if he does accept it, they _hope_ for him. There is a sort of +magical power attributed to the very words. They are almost supposed to +act like a talisman or a charm. + +Now, while we reject all such superstitious views of the power of mere +words, while we reject all false meaning and all no meaning, it is proper +to think that there may be some substantial truth in these Orthodox +opinions concerning the atonement. Let us endeavor to find what this vital +truth really is, and why this doctrine is so dear to the heart of +Orthodoxy. + + + + +§ 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture. + + +Consider the stress laid on the sufferings of Jesus in the New Testament. +Notice what our Saviour says himself: "This is my blood of the New +Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." "The bread +that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the +world." "For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so +must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should +not perish, but have eternal life." "I am the good shepherd: the good +shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." + +Consider, again, what is said on this subject in the Epistles. "Jesus +Christ, whom God hath set forth as a mercy seat through faith in his +blood." "When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of +his Son." "He died for our sins." "He is sacrificed for us." "He gave +himself for our sins." "We have redemption through his blood, even the +forgiveness of sin." "Having made peace through the blood of his cross." +"He gave himself a ransom for all." "He washed us from our sins through +his blood." "By whose stripes we are healed." "Though he were a Son, yet +learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made +perfect, became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey +him." Again: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the +angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, +by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. For it became him, +for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons +unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through +sufferings." "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto +his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in +things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the +people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to +succor them that are tempted." + +These are some of the passages which connect the sufferings of Jesus +Christ with sin on the one hand, and salvation on the other. + + + + +§ 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages. + + +There is a difficulty, however, in understanding the meaning and feeling +the force of such texts as these. This difficulty consists in the fact +that these passages are constantly quoted as proof texts. From our +childhood up we have heard them brought forward to prove the truth of some +particular doctrine or theory of atonement, and when we read these verses, +we immediately associate them with some doctrine which we like or dislike. +Our feelings and prejudices are involved in interpreting the passage one +way or the other, so that we are unable to look at it fairly. In order to +overcome this difficulty, we must make this obvious distinction. We must +distinguish between the statement of a fact and the theory concerning it. +The fact which the Bible states is simply this--that the sins of man were +the occasion of Christ's death, and that by his death he saves us from our +sin. This is the fact which the Scriptures assert. The way in which he +saves us is a matter of theory. Why it was that human sin made it +necessary for Christ to die, how it is that his death reconciles us to +God,--this belongs to the theory. + +Now, while the Scriptures say a great deal about the fact that Christ's +sufferings save us from our sins, they say very little as regards the way +in which they save us from our sins. + + + + +§ 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language of the New +Testament. + + +The Scriptures state the fact; the theologians have supplied the +explanations. Innumerable have been the theories devised by theology to +show in what way the sufferings of Christ have availed for the salvation +of men--theories of imputation, theories of substitution, theories of +satisfaction. He was punished in our place; he paid our debt; he was our +federal head and representative; he satisfied the justice of God; he +appeased the wrath of God. But especially are the figures and metaphors of +the New Testament pressed into the service of theology, and made the basis +of grave theories. Thus are metaphors turned into metaphysics, and +rhetoric changed to logic. The images of the New Testament were naturally +taken from familiar objects and transactions, especially from war, from +slavery, and from the Jewish ritual. Sin is our enemy, who has conquered +us in battle, and made us his prisoners. Christ redeems us from this +captivity, and pays our ransom. Sin is a cruel master, and we are his +slaves. He is about to torture us with the rod. Christ comes and takes our +punishment on himself. He bears our stripes. According to the Jewish +ritual the paschal feast was a commemoration of God's mercy. It was to the +Jews what Thanksgiving Day is to the people of New England. So the +Christians said Christ is our Passover. In the Jewish ritual God was +believed to manifest himself over the mercy seat in the inner sanctuary of +the temple. The Christians said, Christ is our mercy seat. All this was +natural; but these images have been turned into elaborate theories by the +theologians who have argued that Christ's death was a literal ransom, a +literal mercy seat, and a literal passover. + +These theories have mostly passed by. The common Orthodox theory in New +England now is much more reasonable, but unfortunately much less +scriptural. It is founded on the analogy of human government. God is +compared to a wise and kind ruler, who governs by law, and who wishes to +pardon the penitent criminal, but fears that if he does so, he will impair +the respect felt for his law, and therefore thinks it necessary to do +something to show the evil of disobedience before he can pardon. Christ is +willing to die in order to make this impression on the minds of men. And +this he accordingly does. But unfortunately, as we said, there is nothing +in the Scripture, not even a metaphorical expression, to support this +theory. The apostles did not have recourse for their figures and images to +such usage of government, and that for the simple reason that no such +usage or necessity then existed. The governments were all despotic, and no +despot, wishing to pardon, had any difficulty on the ground that the +sanctity of his laws might be impaired. + +War, slavery, and the Jewish ritual, and household usages existed. Their +images were taken from these. They spoke of ransom, of stripes, of the +passover, and the mercy seat, of washing and healing, but not of +governments and laws. + +Sin is our conqueror, and Christ redeems us. Sin is a slavery, and Christ +ransoms us. Sin is defilement, and Christ washes us. Sin is a disease, and +Christ heals us. All this occurs again and again, but nothing occurs about +constitutional governments, or conflicts between the claims of justice and +mercy. + + + + +§ 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement--warlike, legal, and +governmental. + + +Three principal views on this subject have prevailed in the Christian +Church as Orthodox. The first may be called the _warlike_ view of Christ's +work, the second may be called the _legal_ view, and the third the +_governmental_ view. The first was the prevailing Orthodox view from the +earliest times till the middle ages, and is based on the idea of a +conflict or war between Christ and the Devil for the soul of man. The +Devil had gained possession of the human race in consequence of its sin. +The right of the Devil over men was fully admitted. Augustine considered +it as the right of property, Leo the Great as the right of a conqueror. +Christ gave his own life to the Devil as a ransom, which was adequate to +redeem the whole race. This theory rested on the literal interpretation of +the words "ransom" and "redemption." If Christ's death was a _ransom_, if +he came "to give his life a ransom for many," the question naturally +arose, "_From_ whose power were men redeemed, and to whom was the ransom +paid?" Certainly, men were not redeemed from the power of God. The ransom +could not have been paid to God, but to some enemy who held us as his +prisoners. The only possible answer, therefore, is, that the ransom was +paid to the Devil. The Devil was the cruel tyrant who had enslaved us. He +had a right to do so; for we had become his slaves through our sin. But he +had no right over Christ, for Christ had committed no sin; so that the +death of Christ was a free offering to the Devil to redeem the race. +According to this view, therefore, the atonement was made to the Devil. + +But in the middle ages another view of the atonement became Orthodox, +founded not upon the idea of a ransom, but on that of a _debt_. According +to this view the divine law requires that the debt which man owes to God, +which is perfect obedience, shall be paid, either by himself or by some +one else. Anselm, the founder of this theory, defined sin "as not giving +to God his due." Man cannot pay this debt himself, and therefore Christ +pays it for him. This is the legal view of the atonement, or perhaps we +might rather call it the commercial view. + +But this theory, after having endured as Orthodox for some five hundred +years, gave place to a third, based not on the idea of a ransom or of a +debt, but of a state necessity. It would not do for God, as a moral +Governor, to forgive sin, unless by some great example an impression could +be made of the evil of sin. This impression is produced by the death of +Christ, who therefore died not to atone for past sin, but to prevent +future sin, or, in other words, to make a moral impression on the human +mind. This is the popular theory of the atonement held by the Orthodox at +the present time. But it is very much mixed up with the others. The +different views held by modern Orthodoxy range all the way from the old +Calvinism of Princeton, through the various shades of New England +theology, to the latest form expressed by Dr. Horace Bushnell in his +recent work on "Vicarious Sacrifice." + + + + +§ 7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of his Disciples. +First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews. + + +The sufferings of Jesus produced a wonderful impression on the minds of +his disciples. This impression was compounded of astonishment, tenderness, +and gratitude. That a man so divine in character, in wisdom, in a command +over nature, should submit willingly to such labor, ignominy, and anguish, +was a wonder to them. But there was a mystery of sorrow beneath the +visible sorrow, a pain within the pain, a depth of grief felt not for +himself, but for others, an anguish on account of the sin of the world, +which especially awed and touched them. Christ plunged into the midst of +sin to save souls, as a hero rushes into the midst of burning flames to +save lives. No man like Jesus had ever felt such anguish and horror at the +sight of sin; but instead of flying from it, he came into the midst of it +to save the sinner. This was the secret of his agony, the bitterness of +his cup. Martyrs at the stake are borne up by their own triumphant +self-approval. But Jesus, in his anguish, did not think of his own +triumph, but the sin and sorrow of those who afflicted him. "Daughters of +Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children." +"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." This is the secret of +Christ's anguish--this infinite horror of sin joined to an infinite love +for the sinner. + +Through this depth of sorrow there came to the minds of the apostles a +revelation of the evil of sin and the infinite compassion of God, which +produced penitence, hope, and love. The dying Christ reconciled them to +God. This they felt and declared; they did not attempt to explain how, but +by images and metaphors drawn from all familiar objects, they declared +that Christ's sorrows more than his glory, his patience rather than his +power, his death more than his life, had withdrawn their hearts from sin, +and given them peace with God. + +One writer alone in the New Testament attempts an explanation of this +influence. It is only an attempt, a mere hint, the germ of a theology: it +is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.(20) + +According to these passages Christ suffered,--1. To learn obedience; 2. +That he might thus become perfect; 3. By an entire cultivation of his +sympathies with the tempted; 4. So as to become to them the author of +eternal salvation by reconciling them to God. + +This, we may observe, so far as it goes, is really a theory of atonement, +and not a mere statement of the fact. Moreover, it seems to us to contain +the germ of a far nobler and deeper theory than any in which the Church +has hitherto believed. It is more human, more rational, connected more +with real experience and the solid facts of life. + + + + +§ 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education. + + +The sufferings of Christ were necessary for his own perfection, and +suffering in some form or other is necessary for all perfection. It is +often said that suffering in this world is casual, an accidental thing, +arising from human mistakes, and that the time will come in which man will +grow up into perfection without suffering. A perpetual sunlight is thought +to be the best condition for the human plant. Pain and want stunt its +growth, winter storms arrest its development; and so it is supposed that +if we can get rid of this element of suffering, human beings will soon +become all they ought to be. But the poet speaks more wisely who says,-- + + + "To each their sufferings: all are men + Condemned alike to groan; + The feeling for another's woe, + The unfeeling for his own." + + +For suppose that we could remove from the world all outward evil--get rid +of sickness, pain, poverty, death. Would not the worst part of evil still +remain? Would not discontent, selfishness, envy, wilfulness, cruelty, +self-indulgence continue? All these exist--perhaps exist most +frequently--where there is the least of outward evil; and the outward evil +is the bitter medicine which comes by and by as a cure. + + + + +§ 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some Satisfaction in order +to our Forgiveness. + + +The central idea of the atonement is, that Christ has done something which +enables God to forgive us our sin; and the reason why this doctrine of +atonement seems so precious is, that we feel that there is a real +difficulty in the way of forgiveness,--as if something else were necessary +besides repentance,--as if some compensation or reparation should be made +somehow to the offended law of God, or to the aggrieved holiness of God. +We do not say that this feeling is a true feeling: that question we must +consider afterwards. But it is, at any rate, a natural feeling, whether it +be founded on our knowledge of God or our ignorance of God. It is hard to +believe that a _man_ whom we have injured will forgive us that injury +merely because we ask him to do so, and are sorry for what we have done. +We feel that we must make some reparation before he can or ought to +forgive us. Unquestionably, the conscience is the source of this feeling. +It led Zaccheus to say, "If I have done any man wrong, I restore him +four-fold." A full reparation for an injury, accompanied with sorrow for +having done it, the expression of which sorrow is confession, satisfies +the conscience. Having done this, we feel that we have a right to be +forgiven. + +But it is very seldom that such full reparation can be made. The +consequences of our wrong acts cannot usually be removed or effaced. +Wrong-doing is like the gate of hell--easy to open, but difficult, if not +impossible, to close again. "She opened, _but to shut_ excelled her +power." Instead of reparation, therefore, the conscience substitutes +retribution--either reparation or the penalty; and the natural form of the +penalty is an equivalent. Natural justice says, "An eye for an eye, a +tooth for a tooth." This the conscience thinks right; this is justice. All +less than this is mercy; all more than this is revenge. + +We think that if we analyze the feeling which the conscience gives us +concerning the consequences of wrong-doing, it is this: First, conscience +demands reparation to the injured party; second, it demands punishment as +a satisfaction to be made to the law of right, and this suffering to be +accepted as just by the guilty party; and thirdly, it declares that guilt +should produce an alienation or separation between the guilty party and +those who are not guilty. + +To illustrate all this, let us suppose a case. A man, hitherto respected +and trusted by society commits some great breach of trust, and robs the +community. What does the conscience in such a case demand? First, that he +should give up his property, and make, if he can, full restitution; +second, that he should endure some suffering--that he should not continue +to enjoy, as before, all his accustomed privileges; and third, that he +should not retain his standing in society, and receive, as before, the +countenance and esteem of honorable persons. Conscience requires that he +should make atonement to those he has injured by restitution; to the law +of right, which he has offended, by suffering some punishment; and to +honorable men by keeping out of their way. + +This, which the conscience teaches of an injury done to man, it also +teaches of an injury done to God. The offence against man is _a crime_; +the offence against God is _a sin_. For a crime, the conscience requires +restitution, punishment with confession, and alienation from the good, +which is shame. For a sin, the conscience requires, in like manner, +restitution, punishment, and alienation. It merely transfers to God's +justice the ideas of atonement which human justice has given to it. + +But God's justice is not like man's. The ideas of atonement so abstracted +are essentially false; and to convince us of their falsehood is one of the +objects of Christ's death. It is to show us that God does _not_ demand +this full restitution, does _not_ intend to inflict this punishment, and +is _not_ alienated from the penitent sinner. The death of Christ has done +this. + + + + +§ 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God. + + +As a matter of fact, the death of Christ has enabled men to come to God. +"They who were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." As a matter +of fact, it has lifted men above the fear of God into the love of God. And +this must be a divine work. Not the mere death of the human being could +have done this; but the God who dwelt in him has uttered his tender love, +his forgiving grace, from the cross. "God was in Christ, reconciling the +world unto himself." The death of Christ is an expression of God's free +grace. If we regard Christ, in his life and character, as a manifestation +of God's will, then his pathetic and tender death reveals to us that God +loves us even when we are sinners, before reparation or repentance; "for, +while we were sinners, Christ died for us." + +There is, however, a difficulty in _believing_ that we can be forgiven. +This difficulty is in the conscience; and,-- + +(_a._) To say _there is no difficulty_, will not remove it. + +(_b._) To say that _repentance and good works_ are enough, will not remove +it. + +(_c._) To say that _God is merciful_, will not remove it; for the +difficulty lies in the _conscience_, which declares that every sin is,-- + +1. An injury done to God. + +2. An injury to the moral universe; inasmuch as it is an example of evil, +and a defiance of right. + +3. An injury to ourselves, by putting us away from God, the source of +life, and alienating us from him. + +Now, it is true that the New Testament says, "Repent, and be converted, +and your sins shall be blotted out;" "Believe, and be saved." It is true +that if we will believe ourselves forgiven, we shall be forgiven. But how +can we believe it, when the inward voice of conscience is always saying +that God ought not to forgive us without some reparation made for the +injury done to himself, to the universe, and to ourselves? + +We need something to believe in--some manifestation, some object. Something +we need done by God to assure us that he is in earnest in desiring us to +come and be reconciled to him. + +Now, the _sufferings and death_ of Christ seem to be this object: they +enable us to believe in forgiveness, and so to be forgiven; they meet the +difficulty of the conscience, and relieve it of its threefold +embarrassment. For, in regard to the injury done to God, Christ's +sufferings are substitution, or vicarious suffering. I do not say +vicarious _punishment_. The innocent cannot be _punished_ in the place of +the guilty; but he can suffer, and constantly _does_ suffer, in the place +of the guilty. These two laws are announced in the Old Testament: "The +soul that sinneth, it shall die;" "The wickedness of parents shall be on +the children." If a man is alone, he must bear _all_ the consequences of +his sins; but if he have friends and children, they will relieve him of +some by their self-sacrificing kindness: their _sufferings_ take the place +of his _punishment_. How often a wife does this!--interposing her +sufferings between her husband's sins and their penalty. And what a +profound impression is made by it of the evil of sin! It torments innocent +women and children; it shipwrecks the peace of a family. What an effect is +produced on the man himself! What a reproach and tender rebuke to him is +this! The sufferings of Christ are _substituted_ in this way for ours, +according to this law; and this divine substitution is continued in the +sacrifices of Christians. Missionaries and martyrs, by their zeal, +patience, and generosity, carry out the sacrifice of Christ. This is God +in Christ working in us and in the Church, and working for sinners. + +Then, as to the _injury to the world_ by the contempt sin does to the law, +the sufferings of Christ are _satisfaction_: they satisfy the divine law; +they make an impression of the importance of the law. But here, again, it +is not merely Christ alone who does it, but God in Christ, and Christ in +the Church, who honor the divine law by the respect produced for it. They +bring us to repentance; they make us feel the sinfulness of sin; show us +the misery it causes to those who love us,--how it pains God, pains Christ, +pains the good, and pains our friends. So we feel it, and show it by true +penitence, and so honor the law. The law is _satisfied_ when the +sufferings of Christ and his followers, caused by sin, lead men to abhor +sin, and love righteousness. + +As to the injury which _sin does to a man himself_ by separating him from +God's love, and making him at enmity with God, and God's wrath on him, the +sufferings of Christ are _reconciliation_. "God was in Christ, reconciling +the world to himself." Why was God alienated from man? Because he is holy. +How can an unholy person be at one with a holy God? The answer is this: +God comes into his heart by Christ, to form Christ within him, and to make +him holy as Christ was holy. He sees that when united with Christ his +sinfulness is killed in its roots, and a seed of perfect purity is planted +in his soul; and so God is able to be at one with him through his union +with Christ: "I in them, and thou in me, that we may be perfectly at one." +A love for Christ in the heart forms Christ within us. He is our life, our +motive power, our aim; and so he casts out the root of our sin, and brings +us to God. + +Thus we see that, even though we should reject all the Orthodox theories +about atonement, we may accept the fact. We can believe that God in Christ +_does_ reconcile the world to himself,--_does_ create a sense of pardoned +sin,--_does_ remove the weight of transgression,--_does_ take away the +obstacle in our conscience,--_does_ help us into a living faith, hope, +peace, and joy. + +Moreover, Christ is really a sacrifice for sin--a real and true +sin-offering. For what were the sin-offerings under the law? How did they +remove sin? Not by themselves (it was impossible for the blood of bulls +and goats to remove sin), but because they were an appointment of God, and +so showed God's disposition. They showed that his holiness was displeased +with evil; they showed that he loved the sinner, and wished to make him +holy. So the death of Christ is a true sacrifice in exactly the same way, +but in a higher degree, convincing us of the evil of sin and the love of +God. + +The experience of the whole Church teaches the power of this faith to +create in our souls a new life of love. Seeing God coming to us in Christ +to reconcile us to himself, and freely forgiving our sins, removes from +our hearts doubt, anxiety, and the burden of hard responsibility, and +fills the soul with a deep peace and joy in believing. So felt the apostle +Peter when the Master forgave him his denial. From the fountain of that +forgiveness flowed forth a river of devotion. So felt Paul when forgiven +by Jesus; so felt Augustine, so Ambrose, so Luther, so Wesley: because +they had been forgiven much, they loved much; for to whom little is +forgiven, the same loveth little. + +The practical conclusion is, that it is less important to speculate as to +the _how_, than to endeavor to see the fact. What we need is faith in +God's pardoning, redeeming, saving love in Christ Jesus--faith that our +sins are blotted out; that we can come at once to our Father; that we can +come boldly to the throne of grace; that the infinite Father looks at us +with love when we are a great way off, and says, "This my son was dead, +and is alive again; was lost, and is found." + +We may therefore, when we are conscious of going wrong and of doing wrong, +instead of trying to reform ourselves alone by our own strength, go first +to God, and be forgiven through faith in the great sacrifice of Christ: +"When God hath set forth to be a propitiation (or mercy seat), through +faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins +that are past, through the forbearance of God, that he might be just, and +the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." + + + + +§ 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal. + + +Orthodoxy, in all its theories concerning the influence of the death of +Jesus, has supposed his case exceptional and his work peculiar. It would +be very shocking to most Orthodox minds to suppose that the same law of +vicarious sacrifice applies to others; that the sufferings and death of +the good, in all ages, have helped to atone for evil; have enabled sinners +to obtain pardon. But such, we believe, is the fact. + +Jesus Christ came, providentially, as the typical and perfect man--the one +who was sent by God, in his providence, to illustrate what humanity is to +be and to do. If this is so, then Christ did essentially nothing but that +which is finally to be done by _all_, in some degree, or some way. He is a +channel, a mediator, through whom God's life flows into ours; but then he +makes us also mediators, by whom _his_ life shall flow to others. He is +the image of God; but every true Christian is, again, the image of Christ. +For what Christ did, and was, was no afterthought, no exception, but a +part of the plan of the universe. He was "foreordained before the +foundation of the world, but manifest in these last times." He was the +"Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world." That is, his +coming, his character, his death, his resurrection, his miracles, were all +a part of a divine law. And all God's laws are the same "yesterday, +to-day, and forever." + +If this were not so, we could not understand Christ, nor sympathize with +him. His life would be, not only supernatural, which it is, but unnatural, +which it is not. His miracles would be, not what they truly are,--God's +higher life flowing into nature, and the Spirit overcoming the material +resistance of things,--but they would be magical; they would be like +sorcery and enchantment--violations of the course of events. + +All of Christ's life, then, is typical of our future lives, in this world +or in some other world. It would be easy to prove this out of Scripture. +Everything asserted of Christ is, somewhere and in some way, asserted also +of his disciples, and of all Christians. Is he said to be one with God? "I +and my Father are one." They also are said to be one with God: "That they +all may be one, as we are one; I in them, and thou in me. As thou, Father, +art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." + +Was Christ said to know all things? It is also said of his disciples, "Ye +have an unction from the Holy Ghost, and know all things." + +Did Christ work miracles? He says to his disciples, "Greater works than +these shall ye do?" + +Did God give to Christ glory which he had before the world was? He himself +says of his disciples, "The glory thou gavest me I have given them." + +Did Christ rise from the dead into a higher life? We shall do the same. +"As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image +of the heavenly." + +Christ, in his high and perfect life, may be regarded as a prophecy of +what man is to become: we may look on him as a revelation of the higher +laws of human nature, as a type of all humanity. + +As regards his atoning death, his reconciling sufferings, the same thing +is true. As he died for man, so must we die for each other. Thus says the +apostle John: "Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved +us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God +so loved us, we ought also to love one another." And again, "Because he +laid down his life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for the +brethren." + +And Paul, after having spoken of "Christ's having made peace by the blood +of the cross," says of himself that he rejoices in his own sufferings for +their sake--rejoices to "fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of +Christ;" that is, make up any deficiency in Christ's sufferings for them. +"Christ's sufferings," he says elsewhere, "abound in us," his disciples. +"We are partakers of his sufferings," says the apostle Peter. If he +thought Christ's sufferings entirely different in their nature and meaning +from all other sufferings, he would scarcely have said that he "partook" +of them. + + + + +§ 12. This Law illustrated from History--in the Death of Socrates, Joan of +Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln. + + +The death of Jesus, therefore, manifested in a higher degree the same law +which is illustrated in the deaths of all good and great souls, martyrs to +a principle, or to an idea. In proportion to the greatness and +universality of the idea, and the greatness and holiness of the martyr, is +the impression profound. We will give a few instances of this from +history, to see that the death of Jesus was not something wholly outside +of law, wholly exceptional, but the highest example of the great effect +produced by one who walks straight into death for a great idea. + +The first instance we take shall be that of Socrates. When we think of +Socrates, we think of his death. He, like Jesus, spent the time before his +death conversing with his friends concerning the highest themes. He talked +of immortality through the long summer day. He showed the superiority of +the soul to the body in which it dwelt; and he had lost all fear of dying. +He had silenced what Plato calls "the child within us, who trembles before +death." In fact, the whole tone of his defence before the judges shows +that he did not care to save his life. The verdict of guilty was +pronounced by a majority of five or six, in a vote of five hundred and +fifty-seven dicasts. He made no preparation for his defence, and said that +a blameless life was the best defence. When he came to speak before those +whose vote was to decide on his life or death, his speech seems a sort of +confidential clearing of his breast of all his opinions. He declares he +has been the greatest benefactor of Athens. He tells them they ought not +to be offended at the resolute tone of his defence, since it would be +unmanly for him to beg and plead for life; for his duty was to instruct +them, but not to supplicate. It was strange that so small a majority was +cast against him after such a speech. Then the custom required him to say +himself what punishment he should suffer. His accuser had called for +death. If he had named something less severe, as exile, fine, +imprisonment, no doubt his life had been saved. Instead, he said, "I +propose that I be rewarded as a public benefactor, by being supported at +the public expense, as a teacher of the people. Still, as my friends wish +me to name a fine, I will say thirty _minę_." They took this as an insult, +and sentenced him to death. Then he spent his hours in those immortal +conversations which will be remembered when all the rest of the glory and +beauty of Greek literature and art has passed away. Every moment of his +last hours has been carefully recorded; and the death of Socrates gave a +power to his life, and his life an influence to his death, which placed +him among the names which will never perish from human memory and +gratitude. + +There is another name, which comes out of the darkness and cruelty of the +middle ages, with a sweet, serene, and noble beauty--a pure life glorified +by a death of martyrdom. I mean that of Joan of Arc--the Maid of Orleans. +On her trial, the readiness and beauty of her answers astonished her +prejudiced judges. The poor girl, only nineteen years old, a prisoner in +chains, before these doctors and lawyers, showed as much courage as on the +field of battle. + +They asked why she let the people kiss her feet and garments. She +answered, "The poor people came to me because I did them no wrong, and +helped them when I could." "Was it well to attack Paris on Our Lady's +day?" "It is well to keep the festivals of Our Lady always." "Do your +saints love the English?" "They love what God loves, and hate what he +hates." "Does God hate the English?" "As to his love or hate for their +souls I know nothing; but I know he will drive them from France." "Can you +tell whether you will escape death?" "That I leave in God's hands." When +she went to death, her purity and truth had so touched men's hearts that a +great tide of remorse and pity began to swell up against her persecutors. +A priest, who had played the part of Judas, and betrayed her, repented +like Judas, and flung himself down before her, accusing himself of his +treachery. The soldiers who stood by were melted. They said, "We have +burned a saint." The executioner declared that God would never forgive +him. From the day of her death, all men began to believe in her holiness +and truth. + +Come down to the end of the same century, and take another instance in +Savonarola, the Florentine friar--the man who was at once the patriot, +leading the minds of the people of Florence to republican institutions; +the reformer, seeking to root out the abuses of the Church; and the +prophetic teacher, preacher, religious inspirer. He also climbed to the +height of his glory on his funeral pile. As Athens was glorified by the +death of Socrates, as the Maid of Orleans has been a vision of beauty in +the square of Rouen, so the place in Florence where Savonarola was +murdered, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, is memorable as the scene of +virtue triumphing over its enemies and over evil, when it seemed to be +conquered. That day, also, will never be forgotten, when he and his two +companions walked through the furious rabble to their death, calm as if to +a marriage feast. Savonarola was so absorbed in the thought of the life to +come, says his biographer, that he appeared already to have left the +earth. He was put to death by the order of Alexander Sixth, the worst pope +and worst man of modern times; but in twenty years Rafaelle was painting +the monk's portrait on the walls of the Vatican by order of another pope. + +So it is that death glorifies life. If John Brown had escaped from his +prison, and gone to Canada, what would have been his influence? He would +only have been remembered as a crazy fanatic. But now there remains in all +minds the picture of the old man going quietly and peacefully to die, +kissing the little negro child on the way, looking up at the surrounding +hills, and admiring the beauty of the scenery. Death set its seal on his +life, and so his soul became the leader of the armies of the Union, going +before them to victory. + +And how much, also, was Abraham Lincoln glorified by his martyr death! How +he rose at once into a great figure in history--a monumental form before +which enmity was silenced! All men forgot their hostility, their +criticisms, their sneers--forgot that they had ever done anything but honor +him. The assassin, who thought to revenge the wrongs of the southern +slaveholders on Lincoln, gave to him a lasting niche in the temple of +fame. + +Now, we are not by any means _comparing_ the work of these persons with +that of our great Master, Jesus Christ. Such is not our object. We are +only pointing out the law by which a person who has devoted himself to a +great cause, when he comes to die in its service, gives to that cause an +immense help, and seems to sanctify and glorify the cause and himself. +There is a mystery about it which we do not fully understand,--which is not +accounted for by saying that death proves a man's sincerity, and makes him +a more competent witness, or that death conciliates his enemies, and puts +an end to personal dislike. No; there is something more than this. When +men live for a cause outside of themselves, when they labor for public +objects, they are not _seen_ while they live. Those whose interests are +interfered with by their action, misrepresent them, and surround them with +a cloud of suspicion, jealousy, and slander. When they go to death for +their cause, all these slanderous voices are hushed, and they emerge from +this cloud of prejudice, and are seen as they are. They are glorified then +in their cause, and their cause is glorified in them. The cause for which +Socrates lived was the education of the people of Athens to truth and +justice. All the Sophists were his enemies. Aristophanes ridiculed him as +no other reformer has ever been ridiculed, holding him up, by his +inimitable wit, to the scorn of the crowded theatre. When he died, and +died in the faith, all this ended. Socrates and his great cause of justice +rose at once, and drew all men to them. So Savonarola, who lived only with +the purpose of helping on the triumph of pure religion in the Church, and +pure liberty in the state, was mocked and abused in his life; but his +death made him an undying power, and being dead, he spoke across the rapid +years to Martin Luther and the reformers who came after. John Brown lived +and died for universal freedom; Abraham Lincoln lived and died for the +existence and deliverance of the nation. Of them, exactly as of Christ, we +may say that when they died the hour came for them to be glorified. They +died, and they rose again. The resurrection, in these instances, came +close after the crucifixion; not seen in their cases, as is that of Jesus, +by the visible eye, but essentially the same thing inwardly as his. They +and their cause went _up_, instead of going down, by their death. When +they were lifted up, they drew all men to them. In all such deaths, also, +there is a certain atoning, reconciling influence. Death brings together, +in harmony, conflicting interests; it silences hatreds, and breaks down +many a partition wall of separation.(21) + +The difference between Christ's death and all of these is, that Christ +lived and died not merely for popular education, for patriotism, for +philanthropy, but to be the power of God for the salvation of the world; +to found a universal religion of love to God and man; to reveal God as a +Father, not a King; to show man to man as brother. But the effect of his +death, as in all these other cases, was simply to glorify his life and his +cause. The same law worked in his case and in theirs, only on a higher +plane, and for a vastly greater object. + +We may observe that most of the passages concerning the effect of Christ's +death are from the apostle Paul. They are written thirty years after that +death by one who probably had never seen him, at least never knew him. But +Paul had seen the actual effect of the death of Jesus on the minds and +hearts of the people. It was a reconciling effect; it did away with their +hatred to his religion, and enabled them to see it, and be led by it to +God. It made "those who were afar off, nigh." It made peace between man +and God,--between man and man. When Jesus died, men's eyes seemed at once +to open, and they saw for the first time the beauty and holiness of his +life. His death, therefore, did what his life had not done. We, misled by +a false theology, imagine Paul to be speaking of some transcendental +transaction in the spiritual world by which the death of Jesus acted on +God's mind to make him placable; whereas, in truth, he is speaking of the +simple historic fact that the death of Christ did draw men to his +religion, and so to God; did, therefore, bring them to see God's forgiving +love; did unite them with each other. So Paul says that he "is not ashamed +of the cross of Christ,"--not ashamed of the fact that Christ was hanged as +a malefactor, since that very death was the power of God to bring man to +salvation. It made men just, and kind, and true, and so was the power of +God. + + + + +§ 13. Dr. Bushnell's View of the Atonement. + + +In his book, lately published, Dr. Bushnell teaches that the vicarious +sacrifice of Jesus consists in his sympathy with sinners. He suffers with +them and for them, as a friend suffers for a friend, or a mother for a +child,--in the same way, and in no exceptional or uncommon way. He did not +die officially, but naturally. He did not come here to die, but he died +because he was here. + +We are persuaded that this is the right view. We are sure that one day we +shall all see that Christ's sufferings and death, and their influence, are +as simple, as natural, as wholly in accordance with human nature, as that +of any other saint or martyr; that the difference is of degree, not of +kind; and Christ will go before the world, its great Redeemer and Leader, +all the more certainly because one of us,--educated, as we are, by trial +and sorrow; tempted as we are, but without sin; crying out, as we do, from +the depths of our despair, "My God! why hast thou forsaken me?" and +rising, as we do, through death to a higher life, through sorrow to a +completer joy, through the pains of earth to the glories of heaven. "For +it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in +bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation +perfect through suffering; wherefore in all things it behooved him to be +made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful High Priest; for +in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able also to succor +those who are tempted. For we have not a High Priest who cannot be touched +with the feeling of our infirmities, BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED AS WE +ARE, yet without sin; who can have compassion on the ignorant, as he also +himself is compassed with infirmity, and though a Son, yet learned +obedience by the things he suffered." + + + + +§ 14. Results of this Discussion. + + +The Orthodox doctrine of the atonement contains a fact and a theory which +ought to be carefully discriminated. _The fact_ asserted by Orthodoxy is, +that Jesus Christ has done something by means of which we obtain God's +forgiveness for our sins. _The theory_ attempts to explain what is the +difficulty in the way of our forgiveness, and how Christ removes it. Thus +Orthodoxy attempts to answer three questions: "What?" "Why?" and "How?" +The first of these regards the fact. "_What_ has Christ done?" And the +answer is, that he has brought to man forgiveness of sin. The second and +third questions regard the theory. "_Why_ was it necessary for Christ to +do and suffer what he did?" and, "_How_ did he accomplish his work?" + +Now, as concerns the matter of fact, Orthodoxy is in full accordance with +the Scriptures, which everywhere teach that through Christ we have +redemption, through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins. But the +Scriptures are perfectly silent concerning the theory. They do not tell us +_why_ it was necessary for Jesus to die, nor _how_ his death procured +forgiveness. The only exception is, as we have seen, in the statement, in +the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the sufferings of Christ were necessary +to make him perfect, and to enable him to be touched with a feeling of our +infirmities. + +Of the three theories which in turn have been regarded as Orthodox in the +Church, two have completely broken down, and the third rests on such an +insecure foundation that we may be very sure that it will follow the +others as soon as any better one comes to take its place. The warlike +theory and the legal theory of the atonement have gone to their place, and +are no more believed by men. The governmental theory must soon follow. + +Nevertheless, in each of these three theories there is one constant +element. And it is due to Orthodoxy to state it. This element is, that the +necessity of the death of Christ lay in the divine attribute of justice. +According to the first theory, Christ died to satisfy what was due by God +to the Devil; according to the second, he died to satisfy what was due by +God to himself; according to the third, he died to satisfy what was due by +God to the moral universe. Divine justice, in the first theory, owed a +ransom to the Devil, which Christ paid; in the second, it owed a debt to +the divine honor, which Christ paid; in the third, it owed protection to +the universe from the danger of evil example. + +The difficulty to be removed before God can forgive sin, lay, according to +all of these theories, in the divine justice. Christ died to reconcile +justice and mercy, so as to make justice merciful, and mercy just. + +But, in opposition to this view, the Unitarian argument is so formidable +as to seem quite unanswerable. On grounds of reason, the Unitarian +maintains that there can be no such conflict among the divine attributes, +waiting till an event should occur in human history by which they should +be reconciled. That God's justice and mercy should have been in a state of +antagonism down to A.M. 4034, when Jesus died, is an incredible +supposition. No event taking place in time and space can be the condition +_sine quā non_ of divine perfection. And any struggle or conflict like +that supposed implies imperfection. + +Moreover, the Unitarian truly maintains that the Orthodox theory that men +cannot be forgiven on the simple condition of repentance, is wholly +unscriptural. The Scriptures plainly teach that forgiveness follows +repentance. In the classic passage of the Old Testament (Ezek. 18:20-32), +the Jews were taught, unequivocally, that the death which is the wages of +sin, is always removed by the simple act of repentance. If the modern +doctrine of Orthodoxy be true, that in order to be saved it is necessary +not only to repent, but also to believe in the atoning sacrifice, the Jews +were fatally misled by this teaching of the prophet. + +And so in the New Testament, the parable of the prodigal son teaches us +plainly that when we repent and return to God, we shall be received, and +that without any reference to belief in the atonement. + +Moreover, the Unitarians are fully justified in saying that the New +Testament nowhere asserts that the primary and immediate influence of the +death of Jesus is upon the divine attributes. In every instance Christ is +said to reconcile us to God, never to reconcile God to us. (See Rom. 5:10, +11; 11:15. 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, 20. Eph. 2:13, 16. Coloss. 1:20, 21. 1 Peter +3:18.) It is we "who were afar off, and have been made nigh, by the blood +of Christ." It is _we_, "who, when we were enemies, were reconciled to God +by the death of his Son;" not God, who was afar off, who has been brought +nigh to us; not God, who has been reconciled to us. It is "_we_, who have +received the atonement." Christ has suffered for sins, "to bring _us_ to +God," not to bring God to us. All this is plain, positive, and +unequivocal. + +And yet, notwithstanding that the Old and New Testaments declare the +forgiveness of sin to the penitent, we nevertheless find a difficulty in +believing it. It seems as if God _ought_ not to forgive us our sins on so +simple a condition. And it is on this very feeling that the whole Orthodox +theory of the atonement rests. + +The explanation of this is, that man is obliged to understand God by +himself. Since man was made in the image of God, he can know God only by +understanding the moral and spiritual laws of his own soul. Now, in +himself, he finds the constant antagonism of truth and love, justice and +mercy, conscience and desire. From this essential original antagonism of +truth and love spring all the moral conflicts which make cases of +conscience. Whenever we see before us a divided duty, on being analyzed, +it resolves itself into this conflict between truth and love. We +naturally, and almost necessarily, transfer this same conflict to the mind +of God. Whenever we wish to forgive an offender, but feel as if we ought +not to do so, we teach ourselves to regard God as feeling the same +difficulty. Conscience tells us that we are not fit to be forgiven, that +it would be wrong for God to forgive us. Orthodoxy plants itself on this +instinct, and elaborates its various theories, which men accept for a time +as a sufficient explanation of their difficulty, and then reject when +their inconsistencies appear. The deep-lying difficulty is the sense of +our want of holiness, and the instinctive feeling of the eternal mutual +repulsion of good and evil. Since God is good, and we are evil, how can he +forgive us? If forgiveness merely meant the remitting of penalty, it might +be done after sufficient expiation. If forgiveness meant laying aside of +anger, we can well believe that God cannot retain wrath against his +children. But forgiveness means communion, the mutual love of father and +child, the being always in the presence of God. And for this, even after +we have repented, and are endeavoring to do right, we do not feel +ourselves qualified. + +This is the real difficulty. Christ did not die to pay a debt to God, or +to appease his wrath, but "to bring us to God," and to put the Spirit into +our heart by which we can say, "Abba, Father!" The atonement is made to +the divine justice--but not to distributive justice, which rewards and +punishes, but to divine justice in its highest form, as holiness. And this +consists in making us fit to appear before God, notwithstanding our +sinfulness, because we have received a principle of holiness which will +ultimately cast out all our sin. When we have faith in Christ, we have +Christ formed within us, the hope of glory. God, looking on us, sees us +not as we are now, but as we shall be when we are changed into that same +image from glory to greater glory. + +This suggests the theory which may replace the rest, and reconcile all +those who believe in Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer of men. Christ +saves us by pouring into us his own life, which is love. When Christian +love is formed within us, it has killed the roots of sin in the soul, and +fitted us to be forgiven, and to enter the presence of God. + +In conclusion, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in maintaining that +Jesus has by his sufferings and death brought forgiveness to mankind--not +by propitiating God or appeasing his anger, not by paying our debt or +removing a difficulty in the divine mind, but by helping us to see that +the love of God is able to lift us out of our sin, and present us spotless +in the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. The way in which his +death produces this result is the sympathy with human sinfulness and +sorrow, which finds in it its highest expression. Those whom men cannot +forgive, and who cannot forgive themselves, see that God, speaking through +the sufferings of Jesus, is able to forgive them. So the love of God +brings them to repentance, and those who were afar off are made nigh by +the blood of Christ. + + + + + +CHAPTER XI. CALLING, ELECTION, AND REPROBATION. + + + + +§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine. + + +The Assembly's Catechism, with its usual frankness, states this doctrine +thus:--(chap. 3). + +I. "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his +own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever cometh to pass, yet so +that neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will +of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken +away, but rather established. + +II. "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all +supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw +it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. + +III. "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men +and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others +foreordained to everlasting death. + +IV. "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are +particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and +definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. + +V. "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the +foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable +purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen +in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, +without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of +them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving +him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. + +VI. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the +eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means +thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are +redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his +Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept +by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed +by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, +but the elect only. + +VII. "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable +counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he +pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass +by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise +of his glorious justice." + +This statement is contained in the creed of more than three thousand +churches in the United States. So far as it is believed by those who +profess it, it conveys the idea of a God who is pure will--a God, in short, +who does as he pleases, saving some of his creatures and damning others, +without reason or justice. He does not reward virtue nor punish sin, but +scatters the joys of heaven and the torments of hell out of a mere +caprice, as an Eastern despot gives a man a purse of gold, or inflicts the +bastinado, without reason, simply to gratify his sense of power. The +essential character of such a Being is arbitrary will, and this creed of +Calvinism places an infinite caprice on the throne of the universe, +instead of the Being whom the Gospels call "Our Father." + +Let us see how far this view of God is mitigated by modern explanations. + +The Old School Presbyterianism, or Princeton Orthodoxy, accepts it in its +entireness. They simply deny the consequences supposed to be drawn from +it. They deny that it makes God the author of sin, or that sinful +dispositions are created by God. They deny that this doctrine interferes +with freedom of will in man. But they are obliged to admit that, according +to their creed, God decrees things which he forbids; for, "inasmuch as +many things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he foreordains all +things, it must be that in these cases he purposes one thing and commands +another."(22) In other words, God sends his prophets, and apostles, and +Son, to command men to do justly and love mercy, when he has already +determined that they shall commit sin. This school rejects the Arminian +doctrine that God's decree is founded on his foreknowledge, and asserts +that his foreknowledge is based on his decree. + +The Old School in New England do not go quite so far as Princeton. They +say, decidedly, that God foreordains sin only by permitting it. Still, +they reject, as stoutly as their sterner _confrčres_, the Arminian view, +and insist that God's decrees are not based on his foreknowledge.(23) + +According to Dr. Duffield, of Detroit, the New School Presbyterians escape +the pinch of this conflict by taking refuge in their ignorance. They are +not "Ultra-Calvinists," and they are not "Arminians," and especially they +"do not wish to be wise above what is written."(24) Dr. D. asserts that +the Old School makes the decree in election to be wholly arbitrary, while +the New School believes that it has a reason, though one wholly unknown. +But the Hopkinsians(25) say that "the sovereignty of God belongs to him as +the Supreme Disposer, and consists in his perfect right and perfect +ability to do us he pleases." Of course, having made the will of God +wholly arbitrary, they proceed to deny that it is arbitrary, or that +wilfulness in God can possibly be wilful. But all this is using "words of +wind for the Almighty," and "accepting his person." + +Methodism, on the contrary, denies that God foreordains whatsoever comes +to pass, holding foreordination to be a causative act.(26) It also denies +that man is guilty for inherited sin, or is any way responsible for his +depraved nature. He only becomes responsible when he begins to act freely. +He may suffer for inherited evil, but cannot justly be punished for it. +Thus Methodism avoids the rude injustice of the Calvinistic system. And +yet, as Schleiermacher has shown,(27) if it accepts total depravity, it +must also consistently accept the Calvinistic doctrine of election. For if +man is totally depraved, he cannot take a single step towards his own +salvation. God must, in every case, take the initiative, and begin the +conversion of each man who is converted. Therefore, if we ask why one man +is converted, and another not, the only answer possible is this--that God +chose to convert one, and not the other. Schleiermacher accepts and +defends the doctrine of election, but by connecting it with that of +universal restoration, which reduces it to the statement that God saves +all, but in a certain order, which order is determined by himself, without +regard to any foresight of merit or demerit in man. + + + + +§ 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine. + + +The principal passages relied upon for the doctrine of absolute decrees +are found in Rom. 8:30, and 9:8-24. In these passages, Paul is, no doubt, +speaking of an unconditional election. In the first, he declares that the +gift of Christianity to those who received it was no accident. God had +known them long ago as individuals, known them before they were born, +known the character they were to have. He had foreordained them to become +Christians, to be made into the likeness of Christ. He had called them to +be Christians by his providence; he had forgiven them their sins; he had +glorified them, filling them with the glory of the new life of faith and +love. In the other passage, Paul shows the Jews that God selects races and +families, not according to any merit of theirs, but for reasons of his +own, to do his work. Ishmael as well as Isaac was a child of Abraham, but +Isaac was selected. Esau as well as Jacob was a child of Isaac, but Jacob +was selected. It is no merit of the man which causes him to be chosen, no +fault which causes him to be rejected, but that one is made for the work, +and the other not. One is influenced to obey and serve; one is allowed to +resist God's will; and yet both of them--he who obeys and he who +resists--serve the divine purpose. The Jewish Christians, therefore, may +believe that their nation, in resisting Christ, is blindly serving the +providential designs of God, and making way for the Gentiles to come in; +and then, the Gentiles, in turn, will help _them_ to come in, "and so all +Israel shall be saved." But in neither of these passages is any reference +to final salvation or damnation. All that is spoken of is the predestined +and divinely arranged order, the providential method, in which gifts are +bestowed and opportunities offered. In fact, in Rom. 11:28, election is +formally opposed to the gospel. As regards the GOSPEL, or the reception of +Christianity, the Jews are _enemies_; that is, are left out of the circle +of God's gifts, in order that the Gentiles may come in. But as regards the +ELECTION, they are still the chosen people, inheriting all the qualities, +powers, position, which their fathers had before them, since God never +takes back his gifts.(28) So also in Ephesians 1:5, 11, Paul says that we, +Christians, have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, +and predestined to be adopted as children, and obtained an inheritance in +Christianity. But neither here is anything intended concerning final +salvation. It all refers to their having received the gift of Christian +faith, in the plan of God, by a wise providence of his, and not by +accident. So also, in Timothy (2 Tim. 1:9), Paul says that God hath saved +us out of the world, and called us to be Christians, not because of any +merit of ours, but simply according to a gracious purpose which he always +had, that the Gentiles should come into his kingdom with the Jews. In none +of these passages is any final doom or destiny hereafter intended: _all of +them_ refer to the gift of Christianity in this world. The apostle softens +the exultation of the Gentiles, and consoles the sorrow of the Jewish +Christians, by telling them that the acceptance of the Gentiles and +rejection of the majority of the Jews is part of a great plan of +Providence, which will finally redound to the good of both. + + + + +§ 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom. + + +In order that God shall be the Ruler of the world, and its providence, he +must know the course of events, and determine them. In order that man +shall be responsible, and a moral being, he must be free to choose, at +every moment, between right and wrong, good and evil. In part of his +nature and life, man is a creature of destiny; in part, he is the creator +of destiny. Every man's character is the result of three +factors--organization, education, and freedom. The character he has now has +come to him, partly from the organization with which he was born, partly +from the influences by which he has been educated, and partly from what he +has done or omitted to do at every moment of his life. Now, the two first +of these factors are out of his power. A man born in Africa, or descended +from Chinese parents, cannot, by any choice or effort, become what a man +born of French or German parents may become. A man born among the Turks or +Arabs, and educated by the circumstances surrounding him there, _must_ be +a wholly different man from one born in New England. Man's freedom, +therefore, may be likened to the power of the helmsman to direct a vessel. +He cannot determine what sort of a vessel he shall be in, nor what sort of +weather or currents shall come: all he can do at any moment is to steer it +to the right or left. If, now, in steering, he guides himself by a compass +turning to a fixed point, and by a chart giving the true position of +continents and islands, then this power enables him, in spite of storms +and calms, to take the vessel round the world, to the harbor he seeks. But +if he has no chart and compass, but steers as he chooses from moment to +moment, he goes nowhere. His vessel will then drift before the steady +winds and constant currents. So is human freedom a great power when it +guides itself by eternal truths and fixed laws. But if it does not, then +it is not freedom, but only wilfulness, and it accomplishes nothing. Man's +freedom is thus surrounded by divine providence. God determines the +original organization of every human being; God determines the +circumstances which educate him; and God has fixed the laws by which he +must guide himself in order to become really free. He cannot therefore +resist the divine will, except temporarily. He can postpone the _time_ +when God's kingdom shall come, and his will be done; but that is all. + + + + +§ 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination. + + +Before Augustine, all the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church taught the +concurrence of free will and grace in human conversion. They taught that +man must begin the work, and that God would aid him. God and man must work +together. + +Then came the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. The latter, +being at Rome, heard this sentence read from the writings of the former: +"_Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis_"--Give what thou commandest, and command +what thou willest. Pelagius objected to this formula. He said, "Since man +ought to be without sin, he can be without sin." "There is," said he, "in +man, a '_Can Do_,' a '_Will Do_,' and a '_Do_.' " The first is from God; +in the others God and man unite. + +Augustine objected that God worked in us both to will and to do. He had +first taught that God sends motives which we can obey or resist; but he +saw that if God works in us to will, he must also conquer our resistance, +and work the power by which we consent. + +But to this Pelagius replied, "Then there is no freedom in man." + +Augustine answered, "God does not move us as we move a stone, but +rationally; he makes us _will_ what is good, and does not force us against +our will. He frees the will from its proclivity to evil, by 'preparing +grace,' and determines it to good by 'effecting grace.' That some do not +yield to this, is not because of their greater resistance, but because God +does not choose to conquer their resistance." + +This is the point where grace passes into predestination. + +The Old Church had maintained that God predestined to life those whom he +_foresaw_ would repent and obey him. His foreknowledge did not cause this +to happen, but he foreknew it because it would happen. It did not take +place because he foresaw it, but he foresaw it because it would take +place. + +Election, according to the early Fathers, was nothing arbitrary. It +depended on man to be saved or lost. So taught Justin Martyr, Origen, +Basil, Hilary. + +Basil said, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart by his judgments, which were +sent to show how hard it was, because he saw he would not repent." + +Origen adds, "Like a wise physician, God did not cure Pharaoh too soon, +for fear of a relapse. He let him drink the cup of sin to the bottom in +this life, so as to cure him more thoroughly hereafter." + +Pelagius (and Augustine at first) took the same view. They said that God +foresees and permits evil, and decrees the consequence of it. + +Augustine said, "God has chosen some men in Christ, not because he foresaw +they would be good, but because he determined to make them so." The reason +of this choice, therefore, lay not in man, but in God's arbitrary will. + +Pelagius said, "This is fatalism, under the name of grace, and is saying +that God accepts the persons of men." + +Augustine answered, "All men in Adam are in ruin. God saves some of them. +If he let _all_ die, we could not blame him: how much less for saving +some!" + +But why does he _not_ save all? The answer is,-- + +Because the elect see in the fate of the non-elect what they have escaped, +and God's justice is revealed with his goodness. + +None of the elect perish, though they may die unbaptized, and be ever so +bad in their lives; but they will be all converted before they die. + +The non-elect may be often better men than the elect; but they will not be +saved. + +The only place where Augustine allows freedom is in Adam, who might have +turned either way. + +Semi-Pelagianism consists essentially in saying, "Man begins the work; God +aids him." + +Augustine's view was carried out afterwards thus: "If God does all, it is +no use to preach, exhort, or read Scripture, or use any means of grace." + +Augustine had said that reprobation was not a decree to sin, but to +punishment. + +But Gottschalk, his follower, said it was a decree to _sin_. The Church +rejected this statement, and softened the doctrine. Thomas Aquinas revived +it again. + +Luther and Calvin both maintained that there is no good in man after the +fall. Flacius said that original sin is the substance of human nature, and +human nature now bears the image of the devil. + +Luther made freedom of the will to consist in doing evil with pleasure, +and not by constraint. + +Calvin denied that there is any free will. "Why give it such a lofty +title?" he said. He seemed to think that all the power left to men is so +much taken from God. + +When God says, "Do this and live," it is, says Luther, merely irony on his +part, as though he had said, "See if you can do it! Try it." + +Luther actually taught that God's will in revealed Scripture was, that all +should be saved, but his real and secret will was, that _not all_ should +be saved. + +Melancthon said, "Man has no power by himself to do right; but when grace +is offered, he can receive it or reject it." + +Calvin went beyond Augustine. He taught that,-- + +1. The decree of predestination was not merely a decree to punishment, but +to sin. He rejects with scorn the distinction between permitting and +causing, between foreknowledge and predestination. He says it is improper +to have God's decree waiting on men's choice. + +2. He taught that Adam's sin was decreed by God. The Infralapsarian taught +that God foresaw that Adam would sin, and so decreed some men to life, and +others to death. The Supralapsarian taught that God determined to reveal +his majesty, and mercy, and justice. He created men, and made them +miserable to show his mercy, and made them sinful to show his justice. + +3. If men complain that God has so created them, Calvin answers, God has +the same right that the potter has over the clay. If they complain that +God has chosen some, and not others, to life, he replies, that so oxen, +horses, and sheep might complain that they were not men. + +4. God causes the sin which he forbids. This is not a contradiction in +him, for his nature is different from ours. + +God created all for his own glory, and sinners to glorify his justice. + +Finally, Calvin himself admits that this is "a horrible decree." + + + + +§ 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven hereafter. +How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a Chosen People. + + +This _reductio ad absurdum_ disproves the common idea of election. If a +man were elected by God to heaven, and so could not help going to heaven, +it would not be worth his while to give diligence to make his calling and +election sure. It is sure already, without any diligence. + +The common Orthodox idea of election is, therefore, a false one. God does +not elect, or choose us, for passive enjoyment, but for active duty. He +elects us to opportunities. He elects, or, as we may say, selects, us for +certain special work, gives us certain special privileges, and holds us to +an accountability for the use of them. + +In the parable of the talents, God elected, or selected, one man to the +possession of five talents, another to the possession of two, and another +one. Each was elected; but each was elected to opportunities, and each to +a different opportunity; but they all had to give diligence to make their +calling and election sure. + +The word "elect" was first applied to the Jews. They were an elect or +chosen people. They were selected from among all nations for a great duty +and opportunity. They were taught the _unity of God_ and his _holiness_. +They were a city set on a hill, a light shining in the darkness of the +world, to proclaim these truths. That was their opportunity. It was not +happiness, or heaven, or even goodness, that they were chosen for, but +WORK. As long as they continued to do this work, they continued to be +God's chosen or selected people. But when they hardened into the bigotry +of Phariseeism, and froze into the scepticism of Sadduceeism, when they +ceased to do the work, then they ceased to be the elect people. While they +were diligent to make their election sure, they were the elect, but no +longer. + +God selected Jacob and rejected Esau. "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I +hated." But how did God love Jacob? He loved him by giving him +opportunity. And why? Not because he was better than Esau, but because he +was different. Jacob was selected to be father of the chosen people +because he had the qualities required for his work. Esau was wild, +reckless, martial. Jacob was industrious, money-making, fond of small +trade; pastoral, rather than warlike; tenacious of his ideas even to +obstinacy. These were the qualities required in a people who were so few +that if they had been warlike they would have been swept from the earth. +They never fought for the pleasure of fighting, but only when they could +not help it, or when a political necessity compelled it. Though surrounded +by nations much more powerful than themselves,--the Assyrians on the +north-east at Nineveh, the Egyptians on the south-west, the Babylonians on +the east, the Tyrians on the west, and the Greeks on the north-west,--they +saw the fall of all these great nations and empires, but they continued. +Many waves of war swept over their Syrian hills, and left them still +there, peaceful, industrious, worshipping Jehovah in their sacred city, +offering no motive for conquest, too poor to tempt invasion, too far from +the sea to grow rich by commerce, like the Phoenicians. Their obscurity, +poverty, and unheroic qualities were their salvation, and these they +derived apparently from Jacob, their ancestor. + +Thus we see that the Jews were a chosen people, and we see what they were +chosen for, and also that they were chosen not because of superior virtue, +but for superior capacity. + + + + +§ 6. How other Nations were elected and called. + + +Other nations were chosen, too, for other purposes. The Greeks also were a +chosen people--chosen to develop the idea of beauty, as the Jews that of +religion. Their mission was beauty in art and in literature. It was no +accident that they came as they did from confluent races, flowing together +from India and Phoenicia, and settling in that sweet climate and romantic +land, where the lovely Ęgean, tossing its soft blue waters on the +resounding shore, tempted them to navigation, and awakened their intellect +by the sight of many lands. There they did their work. They made their +calling and election sure. Greek architecture--one birth of beauty after +another--was born. Athens was crowned with marvellous temples, whose +exquisite proportions amaze and charm us to-day--inimitable creations of +beauty. Homer came, and then epic poetry was born. Ęschylus and tragedy +came; Pindar and the lyric song; Theophrastus and pastoral music; Anacreon +and the strain which bears his special name. And so Phidias and his +companions created sculpture, Herodotus history, Demosthenes oratory, +Plato and Aristotle philosophy, Zeuxis painting, and Pericles +statesmanship. This was their election, and they made it sure. + +The Romans also had their chosen work. They were elected to develop the +idea of LAW. A prosaic people, but filled with notions of justice, they +developed jurisprudence. To show that a nation can be governed not by +despotic will, nor by popular will, but by law,--this was the office of +Rome. As long as it did this work it prospered; when it ceased to do it, +it fell. All other races, no doubt, have their special calling too. Some +make it sure; others seem to fail of making it sure, and so disappear. +Thus the election of the Jews shows a principle of God's government, and +is not an exceptional case. + +That which is true of nations and races is also true of religions and of +Christian denominations. All Christians are a chosen people. They are +chosen for the work of teaching to the human race the great doctrines of +the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Other religions were +sent to men too. Mohammed had his mission--to convert the idolatrous Arabs +to Monotheism. The religions of Asia were intended to prepare the way for +Christianity by teaching the elementary ideas of religion and morality. + + + + +§ 7. How different Denominations are elected. + + +Every great denomination, and small ones, too, are chosen to unfold some +one Christian idea. The Catholic Church was chosen to carry forward the +great central idea of unity--one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But the +Catholic Church is not catholic enough: it has turned itself into a sect +by excluding those who could not accept all its statements and methods, +though they accepted Christ. The Jewish Church committed the same mistake. +When it became narrow, bigoted, exclusive, it left its first love; it then +ceased to enlarge itself, and was obliged to disappear. The Jewish +religion, and all positive religions, are like vases in which a plant is +growing. While the plants are young, they hold them easily; but as the +plants grow, the vases, incapable of expansion, are shivered by the +enlarging roots. So that, unless the Roman Catholic Church can be +liberalized and enlarged, it must break to pieces. + +Whatever is said of Jews as the chosen and elect people is intended to +show us a principle which must be applied to others. It is a principle +very visible in their case, but not confined to them. It is the law of +divine Providence. By what we see of its working in their case, we are +able to see it in other cases, where it is less distinct and less +apparent. + + + + +§ 8. How Individuals are elected. + + +And now let us apply the doctrine of election to individuals. When one is +elected he is always elected to some special opportunity, which he can +improve or not, and for which he is held accountable. + +When God sends into the world a great and original genius, like Columbus, +Sir Isaac Newton, Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michael Angelo, Franklin, +Washington, Byron, Napoleon, it is very plain that they are sent, provided +with certain qualities, to do a certain work. It is evident that God meant +Columbus to discover America, and Dante to write a poem. If Columbus had +tried to write the "Inferno," and Dante had devoted himself to inventing a +steam-engine, if Franklin had written sonnets and pastorals, and Isaac +Newton had gone into trade, if Washington had composed symphonies, and +Beethoven had travelled to discover the source of the Nile, they would not +have made their calling and election sure. But such men (with an +occasional exception, like that of Napoleon and Byron) were all faithful +to their own inspiration, and each chose to abide in the calling in which +he was called; and so each did the work God gave him to do in the world. +Napoleon and Byron did their work only partially, for they allowed their +egotism to blind them, so as to lose sight of their mission after a while. +God sent Napoleon to bind together and organize the institutions of a new +time--to organize liberty. He did it for a season, and then sought, +egotistically, only to build up himself and his dynasty; then his work +came to a sudden end. For it is vanity and egotism which make us fail. We +wish for some calling finer or nobler than the calling God gives us; so we +come to nothing. + +In these great and shining examples we are taught how God elects men, how +he elects all men, and how he elects all to work. These are not the +exceptional cases, as we are apt to suppose, but they are the +illustrations of a universal rule. + +Every human being has his own gift and opportunity from God; some after +this fashion, and others after that. If faithful, he can see what it is. +If his eye is single, his whole body is full of light. If he is true to +the light within his soul, it grows more and more clear to him what God +wants him to do. Not every man's business is to do great works in the +world; but every one is sent to do something and to be something--something +which shall bring him nearer to God--something which shall make him more +useful to man. At first he is confused; he cannot tell what his calling +is. But each day, if he be faithful to each day's call, causes the whole +calling of his life to become more luminous and clear. So we see that +conscientious and faithful people, as they continue to live, grow more and +more into specialty of work, and have more and more of a special place and +duty. Thus we see that all God's callings are special, and none vague or +general. "Every man has his proper gift from the Lord; one after this +fashion, and another after that." Perhaps it is not a shining gift, it +will not make him famous, but it is always a good one--always useful and +noble. If we follow God's leadings, we shall always come out right. "Let +every man," says the apostle, "abide in the calling in which he is +called." Let him not be impatient of his own gift, nor covetous of +another's; let him not be uneasy in his place, nor straining for something +beyond his reach. But if faithful every day to his own gift, he may be +sure that it will grow at last into something truly good, satisfactory, +and sufficient. + + + + +§ 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ. + + +Perhaps we can now better understand how Christ was "the chosen one of +God." If Columbus was chosen and sent to discover a world, if Dante was +sent to be a great poet, if Mozart, Rafaelle, had each his mission, can we +doubt that Jesus also was specially selected and endowed for the work +which he has actually done, to be the leader of the human race in religion +and goodness--to lead it up to God? Yet those who will admit the mission in +all other cases, question it in his case. But what was true in them was +much more so in him. He was conscious from the first that he was selected. +"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" "To this end I +was born, that I might bear witness to the truth." "God sent not his Son +into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through him, +might be saved." "For this cause came I to this hour." "I have finished +the work given me to do." + +Jesus, by his nature and organization, by his education, by the very time +of his birth, by the inspiration and influence of the Holy Spirit, was +elected and called. And he fulfilled his part perfectly; and so, the two +conditions being met, he became Saviour of the world, and perpetual Ruler +of the moral and spiritual nature of man. + + + + +§ 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election. + + +But it is not merely great men, and men of genius, who are thus +providentially chosen and sent. _Every_ man is chosen for something, and +that something not vague and general, but special and distinct. + +You go into some country village of New England. You find there some plain +farmer, of no great education, perhaps, but endowed with admirable insight +and sagacity, and of a kind and benevolent nature. He has come to be the +counsellor and adviser of the whole community. He has no title; he is not +even a "squire." He has no office; he is not even a justice of the peace. +But he fulfils the mission of peace-maker and of sagacious counsellor. He +is judge without a seat on the bench; he is spiritual guide without being +called "reverend;" he is the stay, the centre, the most essential person +in the place. He has had an evident calling from God, not from man, and he +has made it sure by his diligence and fidelity in his work. + +And perhaps in the same village is a woman, poor, old, and uneducated. But +she, too, has a calling from God. She is always sent for in the hour of +trial. If any accident happens, she is there. Her sagacity and experience +help her to do what is needed. She has no medical diploma, but she is the +good physician of the place. God gave to her native sagacity, gave to her +benevolence, gave her acute observation and a good memory, and she has +made her election sure by her own fidelity. + +Some persons are called to love and teach little children: that is _their_ +work. They are happy with children, and children are happy with them. Some +are called to sympathize; their natures overflow with sympathy; they enter +readily into all trials and into the troubles of every soul, and they pour +oil and wine into the wounds of the heart. God called them to be his good +Samaritans, and they hear the call and obey. + +"A place for everything, and everything in its place," says the prudent +housekeeper. "A place for every man, and every man in his place," says the +divine Housekeeper, who has so many mansions in his house, and whose Son +said he went to prepare a place for us there in the other world--a working +place, probably, and a sphere of labor there as here. But in this world, +too, what a delight it is to see any one in his right place! + +There are different ways in which God calls us, and different kinds of +callings. But every calling of God is good and noble. He calls us to work; +he calls us to Christian goodness; he calls us to heavenly joy, to glory, +honor, and immortality. These are the three great callings of +man--Christian work first, Christian goodness next, Christian glory last. +Since God made every one of us, he made every one of us for something; he +has appointed a destiny for each one, and he calls us to it. If we do not +hear the gentle call, the whisper of his grace, he calls us by trial, by +disaster, by disappointment. He chastens us for our profit. He prunes our +too luxuriant branches that we may bring forth more fruit. + +So this doctrine of election, in its other form, as usually taught by +Orthodoxy, so harsh and terrible,--"_horrible decretum_,"--so dishonorable +to God, so destructive to morality, so palsying to effort, grows lovely +and encouraging when looked at aright. + +As one grows old, and looks back over his past life, he sees the working +of this divine decree--working where he concurred with it, working where he +resisted it. He sees more and more clearly what his election was, and how +he has fulfilled it, how far failed. He sees himself as a youth, fiery and +ardent, striving for one thing, educated by God for another. He sees how +he was partly led and partly driven into his true work; how he has been +made an instrument by God for good he never dreamed of to God's other +children. He says, "It is no doing of mine. It is the Lord's doing. He +chose me for it before the foundation of the world. I builded better than +I knew. I have failed in a thousand plans of my own, but I have ignorantly +fulfilled God's plans. I am like Saul, the son of Kish, who went out to +seek his father's asses, and found a kingdom. I am like Schiller's +explorer, who went to sea with a thousand vessels, and came to shore saved +in a single boat, yet having in that boat the best result of the whole +voyage." + + + + + +CHAPTER XII. IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. + + + + +§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine. + + +The Orthodox doctrine of the future life is thus stated in the Assembly's +Catechism, chapter 32:-- + +"I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; +but their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an immortal +subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the +righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the +highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, +waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the +wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter +darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two +places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledged +none. + +"II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be +changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and +none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again +with their souls forever. + +"III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to +dishonor; the bodies of the just by his Spirit unto honor, and be made +conformable to his own glorious body." + +The views here given may be considered, on the whole, the Orthodox notions +on this subject, although Orthodoxy is by no means rigorous on these +points. Considerable diversity of opinion is here allowed. The nature of +the life between death and the resurrection, and the nature of the +resurrection body, are differently apprehended, without any discredit to +the Orthodoxy of the belief. But, on the whole, we may say that the +Orthodox views on these topics include the following heads:-- + +1. Man consists of soul and body. + +2. The soul of man is naturally immortal. + +3. The only satisfactory proof of this immortality is the resurrection of +Christ. + +4. Christ's resurrection consisted in his return to earth in the same body +as that with which he died, though glorified. + +5. Our resurrection will consist in our taking again the same bodies which +we have now, glorified if we are Christians, but degraded if we are not. + + ------------------------------------- + +On the other hand, those views which incline towards rationalism and +spiritualism agree in part with these statements, and in part differ; +thus:-- + +1. They usually agree with Orthodoxy in believing man to consist of soul +and body. + +2. They also agree in believing the soul of man naturally immortal. + +3. They differ from Orthodoxy in thinking the proof of immortality to be +found in human consciousness, not at all in the resurrection of Jesus. + +We will therefore examine these two points of immortality and the +resurrection, to see what the true doctrine of Scripture is concerning +them. + + + + +§ 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the Instinctive +Consciousness, and Scripture. + + +The first class of proofs usually adduced for immortality are the rational +proofs, which are such as these:-- + +THE METAPHYSICAL PROOF.--This is based on the distinction of soul and body. +The existence of the soul is proved exactly as we prove the existence of +the body. If we can prove the one, we can equally prove the other. If any +one asks, How do we know there is such a thing as body? we reply that we +know it by the senses; we can touch, taste, smell, and see it. But to this +the answer is, that the senses only give us sensations, and that these +sensations are in the mind, not out of it. We have a sensation of +resistance, of color, of perfume, and the like; but how do we know that +there is anything outside of the mind corresponding to them? The answer to +this is, that by a necessary law of the reason, when we have a sensation, +we _infer_ some external substance from which it proceeds. We look at a +book, for example. We have a sensation of shape and color; we infer +something outside of our mind from which it proceeds. In other words, we +perceive qualities and infer substance. This inference is a spontaneous +and inevitable act of the mind. Now, we are conscious of another group of +feelings which are not sensations, which do not come from without, but +from within. These are mental and moral. But they, too, are qualities; +and, as in the other case, perceiving qualities, we infer a substance in +which they inhere. This latter substance we name soul, and we know it +exactly as we know body. It is known by us as a simple substance, having +personal unity. The personality, the "I," is a fundamental idea. Now, as +soon as we perceive the existence of soul, it becomes evident that soul +_cannot_ die. It may be annihilated, but it cannot die. For what is +_death_ when applied to the body? Dissolution or separation of the parts, +but not destruction of the simple elements. Death is decomposition of +these elements, and their resolution into new combinations. Now, the soul, +being known by us as a simple substance, is incapable of dissolution. + +This is the metaphysical proof of immortality. Then comes the TELEOLOGIC +proof, or that from final causes. Man's end is not reached in this life. +We see everything in this world made for an end. The body is made for an +end, and attains it, and then decays and is dissolved. The soul, with all +its great powers, goes on and on, but the body dies before the soul is +ever perfected. Every human life is like an unfinished tale in a magazine, +with "to be continued" written at its close, to show that it is not yet +ended. + +And besides these proofs of immortality, there is the THEOLOGICAL proof, +founded on the attributes of God; and the MORAL proof, based on the +conflict between conscience and self-love; and the ANALOGICAL proof, based +on the law of progress in nature; and the COSMIC proof, founded on the +relation of the soul to the universe; and the HISTORIC proof, resting on +the universal belief in immortality; and lastly, the PSYCHOLOGIC proof, or +the instinct of life in man, which carries with it its own evidence of +continuity. + +But after all these proofs have been considered, the final result is +probability. Only the last gives more, and this acts not as an argument, +but as conviction. And the strength of this conviction depends on the +strength in any individual of this instinct. Some have more of the +instinct of life, others less.(29) Those who have much are easily +convinced by these various arguments. But those who have less, feel as +Cicero did after reading the Phędo of Plato.(30) + +This instinct of life appears not only to be different from the fear of +death, but its exact opposite. When we have most of the one, we have the +least of the other. Any great excitement lifts us temporarily above the +fear of death by giving us more life. So a man will plunge into the sea, +and risk his own life to save that of another. So whole armies go to die +cheerfully in the great rage of battle. But this instinct receives a +permanent strength by all that elevates the soul. All greatness of aim, +all devotion to duty, all generous love, take away the fear of death by +adding to the quantum of life in the soul.(31) + +If it be asked what the Scriptures teach concerning immortality, it must +be admitted that they have not much to say. They speak of life and of +eternal life; but this, as we shall discover, is quite another thing from +continued existence. It refers to the quality and quantity of being, and +not merely to its duration. + + + + +§ 3. The Three Principal Views of Death--the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. + + +There are three principal views of death--the Pagan view, the Jewish view, +and the Christian view. + +PAGANISM, in all its various forms, is chiefly distinguished by its +transferring to the other life the tastes, feelings, habits of this life. +The other world is this one, shaded off and toned down. It is gray in its +hue, wanting the color of this world; and is really inferior to it, and +only its pale reflection. To the gods of Olympus the doings of men are +matters of chief interest. Tartarus and the Elysian Fields are occupied by +lymphatic ghosts, misty spectres, unsubstantial and unoccupied. When a +living man enters, like Ulysses, Ęneas, or Dante, they throng around him, +delighted to have something in which they can take a real interest. +"Better be a plough-boy on earth than a king among the ghosts." This +expresses the Pagan idea of the other world. This world is more _real_ +than the other, to the Pagan. + +JUDAISM, in its view of hereafter, is much more positive. It began with no +idea of a hereafter. Nothing is taught concerning a future life by Moses, +and little is to be found concerning it even in the prophets. The +explanation is simple. Men hard at work in the present do not think much +of the future; and the work of the Jews was to be servants of Jehovah and +doers of his law here. However, all men must think a little of the region +beyond death. When the Jews thought of it, they projected their LAW upon +its blank spaces. It was a place where Jehovah would vindicate his +law--where the just should be happy, the unjust miserable. The perplexity +which tormented Job, David, and Elijah--namely, that bad men should succeed +in this world and good men fail--was to find its solution there. Judgment +was the Jewish idea of hereafter--a judgment to come. "I have a hope toward +God, as they themselves also allow," said Paul, speaking of the Pharisees, +"that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, of the just, and also of +the unjust." + +The CHRISTIAN view of death is, that it is abolished--it has ceased to be +anything. The New Testament distinctly says, "who has _abolished_ death, +and brought life and immortality to light."(32) Death, to a Christian, is +but a point on the line of advancing being; a door through which we pass; +a momentary sleep between two days. In the same sense the Saviour says, +"He that liveth and believeth on me shall never die." + +So also he spoke of Lazarus as being only asleep, and said of the daughter +of Jairus, "She is not dead, but sleepeth." + +Certainly Jesus could not have spoken of death in this way if he regarded +it as the awful and solemn thing which most believers consider it. If it +is the moment that decides our eternal destiny, which shuts the gate of +probation, which terminates for the sinner all opportunity of repentance +and conversion, for the saint all danger of relapse and fall,--then death +is surely something, and something of the most immense importance. + +But Christ has really destroyed death both in the Pagan and in the Jewish +feeling concerning it. He destroys the Pagan idea of death as a plunge +downward from something into nothing, a descent into non-entity or +half-entity, a diminution of our being, a passage from the substantial to +the shadowy and unreal. + +For, according to Christianity, we do not descend in death; we ascend into +more of reality, into higher life. Death is a passage onward and upward. + +The proof of this we find in the Christian doctrine of the RESURRECTION. + +The meaning of the resurrection of Christ is not, as has been often +supposed, that after death he came to life _again_, but that at death he +rose; that his death was rising up, ascent. This we shall show in a future +section of this chapter. + +One power of Christ's resurrection was to abolish the _fear of death_. It +brought life and immortality to _light_. It showed men their immortality. + +The fear of death is natural to all men, but it is easily removed. The +smallest and lowest power of the resurrection is shown in removing it. + +The fear of death is natural. It consists in this--that we are, in a great +part of our nature, immersed in the finite and perishing. "When we look at +the things which are seen," which "are temporal," we have an inward +feeling of instability--nothing substantial. Therefore it is said, "In Adam +all die," for the Adam, the first man in all of us, is the animal soul. +"The first man is of the earth, earthy." The law of our life is, that it +comes from our love. When we love the finite, our life is finite. But +besides the finite element in man, the animal soul, or Adam, is the +spiritual element, or Christ, the life flowing from things unseen, but +eternal. + +Christ has abolished death. There is now to the Christian no such thing as +death, in the common sense of the term. The only death is the sense of +death, the fear of death, which insnares and enslaves. Jesus delivers us +from this by inspiring us with faith. We rise with him when we look with +him at the things unseen. Faith in eternal things brings into the soul a +sense of eternity. Death is only a sleep: outward death is the sleep of +the bodily life; inward death is the sleep of the higher life. We awake +and rise from the dead when Christ gives us life; and when he, who is our +life, shall appear, we shall also appear with him. + +The philosopher Lessing says, "Thus was Christ the first _practical_ +teacher of the immortality of the soul. For it is one thing to conjecture, +to wish, to hope for, to believe in immortality as a philosophical +speculation--another thing to arrange all our plans and purposes, all our +inward and our outward life, in accordance to it." + +Jesus also destroys the Jewish idea of death, as a passage from a world +where the good suffer and the bad triumph, to a world where this state of +things is reversed. The kingdom of heaven, with him, begins here, in this +world. Judgment is here as well as hereafter. The Jew lived, and all +Judaizing Christians live, under a fearful looking for of judgment after +death. The Christian sees that judgment is always taking place; that +Christ is always judging the world; that God's moral laws and their +retributions are not kept in a state of suspense till we die--that they +operate now daily. The Christian knows that heaven and hell are both here, +and he expects to find them hereafter, because he finds them here. He +believes in law, but not in law only. He believes in something higher than +law, namely, love--the love of a present, helpful Father, of a friend near +at hand, of an inspiration from on high, of a God who forgives all sins +when they are repented of, and saves all who trust in him. He is not under +law, but under grace. + +When he looks forward to the other world, it is not as to a place where he +goes to be sentenced by a stern and absolute judge, but where judgment and +mercy go hand in hand, where law remains, but is fulfilled by love. + +This is what Paul means when he says, "The sting of death is sin, and the +strength of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who hath given us the +victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." + +The only real death is the fear of death--the Pagan fear of death, which is +a dread of loss, change, degradation of being, to follow the dissolution +of the body; and the Jewish fear of death, which is a fearful looking for +of judgment, and the sting of which is sin. Christ abolishes both of these +fears in every believing heart. He abolishes them in two ways--by the life +and the resurrection. He is both resurrection and life: by inspiring us +with spiritual or eternal life, he abolishes all fear of dissolution; and +by showing us that he has ascended into a higher state by his +resurrection, he gives us the belief that death is not going down, but +going up. For, though "it doth not yet appear what we shall be, yet we +know this, that when _he_ shall appear, we shall be like him." + +But, unfortunately, Christians are still subject to the fear of death. +This fear has been aggravated by the current teaching in pulpits +professedly Christian. The fear of that "something after death" has been +made use of to palsy the will; and conscience, as instructed by Christian +teachers, has made cowards of us all; so that few persons can really say, +"Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus +Christ." + +It is very certain that the Pagan view of death and the Jewish view of +death still linger in the Church, and are encouraged by Christian +teachers. Death is made terrible by false doctrine and false teaching in +the Church. Christ has _not_ abolished death to the majority of +Christians. Christians are almost as much afraid of death as the +heathen--sometimes more so. + +Actual Christianity is a very different thing from ideal Christianity. +Ideal Christianity is Christianity as seen and lived by Jesus; the gospel +which he saw and spoke; the word of God made flesh in him. But actual +Christianity is an amalgam; a portion of real Christianity mixed with a +portion of the belief and habits of feeling existing in men's minds before +they became Christians. The Jews took a large quantity of Judaism into +Christianity; the Pagans a large quantity of Paganism. The Christian +Church from the very beginning Judaized and Paganized. Paul contended +against its Judaism on the one hand and its Paganism on the other. But +Judaism and Paganism have always stuck to the Christian Church. She has +never risen above them wholly to this day. They mingle with all her +doctrines, ceremonies, and habits of life. The Romish Church has more of +the Pagan element, the Protestant more of the Jewish. The mediatorial +system of Rome is essentially Pagan. Its ascending series of deacons, +sub-deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, and +pope in the Church below; and beatified and sanctified spirits, angels, +and archangels in the Church above; its processions, pilgrimages, dresses, +its monastic institutions, its rosaries, relics, daily sacrifice, votive +offerings--everything peculiar to the Roman Church, existed before, +somewhere, in Paganism. So Protestantism has taken from the Jews its +Sabbath, its idea of God as King and Judge, its exclusion from God's favor +of all but the elect, its view of the divine sovereignty, its doctrine of +predestination, day of judgment, resurrection of the body, material heaven +and material hell. + +I do not mean to say that there is no truth in these things. There is, +because there is some truth in Paganism and in Judaism. We are all Pagans +and Jews before we become Christians. The Jewish and Pagan element is in +every human soul, and in all _constants_ in man there is truth. But the +Pagan and Jewish truths are but stepping-stones to the higher Christian +truth. The law and Paganism are school-masters to bring us to Christ. The +evil is, that Christianity has not been kept supreme; it has often been +sunk and lost in the earlier elements. As the foolish Galatians were +bewitched, and relapsed from the gospel to the law,--turning again to weak +and beggarly elements, desiring to be in bondage to them again, going back +to their minority under tutors and governors,--so the Church has been +relapsing, going back to weak and beggarly elements, not keeping +Christianity supreme in thought, heart, and life, but letting Paganism or +Judaism get the upper hand. + +So it has been in regard to this subject. We Paganize and Judaize in our +view of death. We reėstablish again what Christ has abolished. We make +death something where Christ made it nothing. It is made the great duty of +life to "prepare for death." No such duty is pointed out in the New +Testament. Our duty is to prepare every day _to live_; then, when we die, +we shall be taken care of by God. We can safely leave the other world and +its interests to Him who has shown himself so capable of taking care of us +here. + +The gloom of death has been heightened by artificial means. Mourning +dresses, solemn faces, funeral addresses, the grave,--all have had an +unnatural depth of awe added to the natural sense of bereavement. The +Orthodox Church has deliberately and systematically Paganized and Judaized +in what it has said and done about death. Its object has been always to +make use of the great lever of fear of a hereafter in order to enforce +Christian belief and action. Hence Death has been made the king of +terrors, the close of probation, the beginning of judgment, the awful +entrance to the final decision of an endless doom. All this is wholly +unchristian, unknown to apostolic times, a relapse towards Paganism. It is +utterly opposed to the great declaration that "CHRIST HAS ABOLISHED DEATH, +AND BROUGHT LIFE AND IMMORTALITY TO LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL." + +What is called faith in immortality, therefore, is of two kinds: it is an +instinct, and it is a belief. In the New Testament these are plainly +distinguished. In the passage just quoted, it is said that Jesus "brought +life AND immortality to light." Jesus himself says, "I am the resurrection +AND the life." "He that believeth in me hath eternal life abiding in him, +AND I will raise him up at the last day." + +Life is a matter of consciousness. It is a present possession, something +abiding in us now. + +Immortality, or the resurrection, is an object of intellectual belief. It +is something future. We _feel_ life; we believe in the resurrection. + +We will pass on, in the next sections, to consider each of these. + + + + +§ 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not endless Future +Existence, but present Spiritual Life. + + +It is only necessary carefully to examine the passages in the New +Testament where the phrase "eternal life" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}) occurs, to see +that it does not refer to the duration, but to the quality, of existence. +_Temporal life_ is that life of the soul which through the body is subject +to the vicissitudes of time. _Eternal_ (or everlasting) _life_ is that +life of the spirit which is independent of change, and is apart from +duration. God's being was regarded by the Semitic races as outside of time +and space, as a perpetual Now, without before or after. ("I am the _I +Am_." Exod. 3:14.) Man, made in the image of God, becomes a "partaker of +the divine nature" (2 Peter 2:4) by the gift of eternal life. + +That "eternal life" is not an endless temporal existence appears,-- + +(_a._) From the passages in which it is spoken of as something to be +obtained by one's own efforts, as (Matt. 19:16) when the young man asks of +Jesus what good thing he shall do that he may have eternal life, and Jesus +replies that he must keep the commandments, give his possessions to the +poor, and come and follow him. Certainly that was not the method to obtain +an endless existence, but it was the true preparation for receiving +spiritual good. So Jesus tells Peter (Mark 10:30) that those who make +sacrifices for the sake of truth shall receive temporal rewards "in this +time;" and "in the coming age eternal life" ("{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI AND YPOGEGRAMMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}"). The coming age is the age of the Messiah, when the gift of the +Holy Ghost should be bestowed. + +(_b._) Passages in which eternal life is spoken of as a present +possession, not a future expectation. (John 3:36.) "He that believeth on +the Son _hath_ ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}) eternal life." So John 6:47, 54, &c. + +(_c._) Passages in which eternal life is defined expressly as a state of +the soul. (John 17:3.) "This is life eternal, that they may know thee the +only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," &c. + +So (Gal. 6:8) it is represented as the natural result of "sowing to the +Spirit;" (Rom. 2:7) of "patient continuance in well-doing;" as "the gift +of God" (Rom. 6:23); as something which we "lay hold of" (1 Tim. 6:12, +19). + +This view of "eternal life" is taken by all the best critics. Professor +Hovey thus sums up their testimony:--(33) + + + "On a certain occasion, Christ pronounced it necessary for the Son + of Man to be lifted up, 'that whosoever believeth in him should + not perish, but _have eternal life_' (John 3:15)--{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}. + {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, says Meyer, who is, perhaps, the best commentator on + the New Testament, of modern times, 'signifies the eternal + Messianic life, which, however, the believer already + possesses--{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI~}--in this {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, that is, in the temporal development + of that moral and blessed life which is independent of death, and + which will culminate in perfection and glory at the coming of + Christ.' And Lücke, whose commentary on the Gospel of John is one + of the most thorough and attractive in the German language, says + that the {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, which is the exact opposite of {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} + (destruction), or {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} (death), is the sum of Messianic + blessedness. It is plain, we think, that the life here spoken of + as the present possession of every believer in Christ is more than + endless existence; it is life in the fullest and highest sense of + the word, the free, holy, and blessed action of the whole man, + that is to say, the proper, normal living of a rational and moral + being. The germ, the principle of this life, exists in the heart + of every believer; it is a present possession. 'Whosoever,' says + Christ, 'drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never + thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a + fountain--{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}--of water, springing up into everlasting life.' (John + 4:14.) In another place our Saviour utters these words: 'He that + heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, _hath eternal + life_, and shall not come into condemnation, _but has passed from + death into life_' (John 5:24)--{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}. Here, again, the believer is said to _have_ eternal life, + even now; for he has passed from death into life. _Ingens saltus_, + remarks Bengel, with his customary brevity and graphic power. We + translate a part of Lücke's ample and instructive note on this + important verse. + + " 'The words, "Has passed from death into life" determine that + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} (_hath_) must be taken as a strict present. For the verb + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} (_has passed_) affirms that the transition from death + into life took place with the hearing and believing. Only if an + impossible thought were thus expressed, could we consent, as in a + case of extreme necessity, to understand the present {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} and the + present perfect {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} as futures. And then we should be + compelled to say that John had expressed himself very strangely. + But if a higher kind of life, a resurrection process prior to + bodily death, is represented by "hath," and "hath passed," then + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} are not to be understood of a life commencing + after bodily death, but of the true and eternal Messianic life or + salvation, beginning even here. This life does not, to be sure, + exclude natural death, but neither does it first begin after this + death. (Cf. 5:40.) Even so {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} cannot be understood of bodily, + but only of spiritual death, of lying in the darkness of the + world. This interpretation would be justified here, even if + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} elsewhere in the New Testament denoted uniformly nothing + but bodily death. But the metaphorical idea of death stands out + clearly in 1 John 3:14; 5:16, 17; John 8:51, 52; 2 Cor. 2:16; + 7:10. Similar, also, is the use of the words {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} (Rom. 7:4; + 8:13), and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} (Matt. 8:22; Eph. 5:14; + Heb. 6:1; Col. 3:5; Gal. 2:19).' + + "With the passage now examined may be compared a statement of the + apostle John to the same effect, namely: 'We know that we have + passed from death into life, because we love the brethren; he that + loveth not abideth in death.' (1 John 3:14.) This language, + explained with a due regard to the preceding context, speaks, + evidently, of spiritual death and life, of a passing from one + moral condition into another and opposite one. To say that this + new moral condition and blessed state is to endure and improve + forever, may doubtless be to utter an important truth, but one + which does not conflict in the slightest degree with its present + existence. It begins in this life; it continues forever and ever. + + "Again: we find our Saviour saying, 'He that believeth on me hath + everlasting life;' 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and + drink his blood, ye have no life in you;' and, 'The words that I + speak unto you are spirit, and are life.' (John 6:47, 53, 63.) By + these verses we are taught once more, that the Greek terms which + denote life and death, living and dying, were applied by Christ to + opposite moral states of the soul. For, observe, (1.) he more than + intimates that his words, his doctrines, are the source of present + life to those who receive them, and that, by eating his flesh and + drinking his blood, he signifies a reception of his words, and so + of himself as the Lamb of God. And, (2.) he declares that one who + believes _has_ eternal life; that one who eats of the true bread + shall not die, but shall live forever; and that one who does not + eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man _hath not + life_ in himself. + + "Is it not plain that the words _life_ and _death_, as well as the + words _bread_, _flesh_, and _blood_, _eating_ and _drinking_, are + here used in a spiritual sense? Is it not plain that Jesus here + speaks of something in the believer's soul which is nourished by + Christian truth, and which is at the same time called _life_? But + it is the function of truth to quicken thought and feeling, to + determine the modes of conscious life, the character or moral + condition of the human soul; and hence the rejection of it may + involve the utter want of certain spiritual _qualities_ and + blessed _emotions_, but not the want of personal existence. In + still another place we read, 'Jesus said unto her, I am the + resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were + dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me + shall never die.' (John 11:25, 26.) Christ here affirms that every + believer is exempted from death. And it matters not for our + present purpose whether the word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, translated in our version + 'liveth,' refers in this passage to physical or to moral life. If + it refers to physical life, then our Saviour pronounces the + Christian to be already, in time, delivered from the power of + death, and in possession of a true and immortal life. But if it + refers to moral life, Christ declares that whoever possesses this + life, whether in the body or out of the body, is delivered from + the power of death; that is, his union with God and delight in + him, which alone constitute the normal living of the soul, shall + never be interrupted: {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PSILI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}--_he shall never + die_.... + + " 'And this is life eternal,' says the Great Teacher, 'that they + should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou + hast sent.' (John 17:3.) The best ancient and modern interpreters + hold this verse to be a definition by Christ himself of the + expression 'life eternal,' so often used by him, according to the + record of John. De Wette says, '_And this is_ (therein consists) + _the life eternal_; not, this is the means of the eternal life; + for the vital knowledge of God and Christ is itself the eternal + life, which begins even here, and penetrates the whole life of the + human spirit.' Meyer translates thus: '_Therein consists the + eternal life_,' and says, 'This knowledge, willed of God, is the + "eternal life," inasmuch as it is the essential subjective + principle of the latter, its enduring, eternally unfolding germ + and fountain, both now, in the temporal development of the eternal + life, and hereafter, when the kingdom is set up, in which faith, + hope, and charity abide, whose essence is that knowledge.'(34) The + same view, substantially, is presented by Olshausen, Lücke, + Bengel, Alford, and many others." + + +Eternal life is the gift of God to the soul through Jesus Christ. It is +God's life communicated to man--the life of God in the soul of man. This is +distinctly stated in the First Epistle of John (chap. 1:1), as the life +which was from the beginning, the eternal life which was with the Father, +but is manifested to us, giving us fellowship with the Father and with his +Son. + +The root of this eternal life is in every human being. It is what we call +"the spirit" in man, as distinguished from the soul and body. It is the +side of each person which touches the infinite and eternal. + +Fichte, the most spiritual of German philosophers, says, "Love is life. +Where I love, I live. What I love, I live from that."(35) When we love +earthly things, our life is earthly, that is, temporal; when we love the +true, the right, the good, our life is spiritual and eternal. Then we have +eternal life abiding in us. Then all fear of death departs. The great gift +of God through Christ was to make the right and true also lovely, so that +loving them, we could draw our life from them. When God becomes lovely to +us, by being shown to us as Jesus shows him, then by loving God we live +from God, and so have eternal life abiding in us. + +The natural instinct of immortality is the spirit, or sense of the +infinite and eternal. But it needs to be reėnforced by the influence of +Christian conviction, hope, and experience, in order completely to conquer +the sense of death. It is not by logical arguments in proof of a future +existence that immortality becomes clear to us, but by living an immortal +life. Dr. Channing says truly, "Immortality must begin here." And so Hase +(Dogmatic, § 92) says, "Any proof which should demonstrate, with +mathematical certainty, to the understanding, or to the senses, the +blessings or terrors of our future immortality, would destroy morality in +its very roots. The belief in immortality is therefore at first only a +wish, and a belief on the authority of others; but the more that any one +assures to himself his spiritual life by his own free efforts and a pure +love for goodness, the more certain also does eternity become, not merely +as something future, but as something already begun."(36) + +Whenever Jesus is said to give eternal life, or to be the life of the +world; whenever the apostles declare Christ to be their life, or say that +as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive; when Paul says, +"The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the +law of sin and death;" "to be spiritually minded is life and peace;" "the +life of Jesus is manifested in our dying (mortal) flesh;" when John says, +"He that hath the Son hath life;" when in Revelation we read of the book +of life, and water of life, and tree of life,--the meaning is always the +same. It refers to the spiritual vitality added to the soul by the +influence of Jesus, who communicates God's love, and so enables us to LOVE +God, instead of merely fearing him or obeying him. Love casts out all +fear, the fear of death included. He who looks at the things unseen and +eternal, partakes of their eternal nature, and though his outward human +nature perishes, his inward spiritual nature is renewed day by day. + + + + +§ 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and not a Rising +again. + + +One part of the Christian doctrine of immortality is conveyed in the term +"eternal life;" the other part in the other term, usually associated with +it--"the resurrection." The common Orthodox doctrine of the resurrection, +is that the dead shall rise with the same bodies as those laid in earth; +and this identity is usually made to consist in identity of matter, though +Paul expressly says, "Thou sowest _not_ that body that shall be." On the +other hand, many liberal thinkers of the Spiritual School deny any +resurrection, and think the whole doctrine of the resurrection a Jewish +error, believing in a purely spiritual existence hereafter. Others, like +Swedenborg, teach that the soul hereafter dwells in a body, though of a +more refined and sublimated character; and in this we think they approach +more nearly the teaching of the New Testament. + +It is a remarkable fact that the Greek words indicating the rising of men +should have been translated, in our English Bible, by terms signifying +something wholly different, and conveying another sense than that in the +original. It is equally extraordinary that this change of meaning should +seldom or never be alluded to by theological writers. + +These words, translated "resurrection," "rise again," and the like, all +have, in the Greek, the sense of rising UP, not of rising AGAIN. They +signify not return, but ascent; not coming back to this life, but going +forward to a higher. The difference in meaning is apparent and very +important. It is one thing to say, that at death we go down into Hades, or +into dissolution, and at the resurrection we come back to conscious +existence, or to the same life we had before, and quite a different thing +to say that what we call death is _nothing_; but that we rise _up_, and go +forward when we seem to die. This last is the doctrine of the New +Testament, though the former is the one usually believed to be taught in +it. + +The immense stress laid, in the New Testament, on the resurrection of +Jesus is by no means explained by supposing that after his death he came +to life again, and so proved that there is a life after death. What he +showed his disciples was, that death was not going down, but going up; not +descent into the grave, or Hades, but ascent to a higher world. This is +the evident sense of such passages as these. We have not room to go over +all the passages which should be noticed in a critical examination, but +select a few of the most prominent. + +1. {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, commonly translated "resurrection," or "rising again," but +which literally means "rising up." (So Bretschneider, "Lexicon Man. in +lib. Nov. Test." defines it as "resurrectio, _rectius_ surrectio.")(37) + +This word occurs forty-two times in the New Testament. In _none_ of them +(unless there be a single exception, which we shall presently consider) +does it necessarily mean _a rising again_, or coming back to the same +level of life as before. In a large number of instances the word _can +only_ mean a _rising up_, or ascent to a higher state. Of these cases we +will cite a few examples. + +Ten of the passages in which the word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} occurs, are in the account +by the Synoptics of the discussion between Jesus and the Sadducees +concerning the case of the woman married to seven brothers. After stating +the case, they say, "Therefore, _in the resurrection_, whose wife of them +is she?" It is plain that the word "resurrection" here is equivalent to +"the future state," and cannot be limited to a return to life. This +becomes more apparent in the answer of Jesus, as given, somewhat varied, +by the three Synoptics: "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are +given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30.) +Mark, instead of "the resurrection," has the corresponding verb, "when +they shall rise from the dead." This certainly means, not rising again, +but rising up, ascending to a higher state. And Luke adds another element, +showing that the "resurrection" is a state to which all may not attain, +but which is dependent on character; evidently therefore a higher state. +"They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given +in marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the +angels" (or rather "are like the angels") "and are children of God, being +_children of the resurrection_." (Luke 20:35, 36.) This last phrase, +"children of the resurrection," is very significant, and intends a +character corresponding to this higher state. There seems, indeed, to be a +contradiction between this passage, which makes the resurrection +conditional, and those which declare it universal. (See John 5:29, and 1 +Cor. ch. 15.) But perhaps the reconciliation can be found in the apostolic +statement (1 Cor. 15:23) "every one in his order." All shall ascend into +the higher state, called "the resurrection," but only as they become +prepared for it. All are not now prepared to hear the voice of the Son of +man (or of divine truth), which shall causes them to rise to the +resurrection of life and of judgment; but, in due season, all shall come +forth from their graves, and hear it. + +Another passage in which this word occurs is in Luke 2:34, where Simon +says, "This child is set for the fall and _rising again_ ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}) of +many in Israel." A moral fall and rising are here evident; and only if the +reduplication be dropped, and we read "for the fall and the rising up," do +we get the true idea. It is not meant that Jesus comes to degrade us +morally, and then lift us up again morally. Rather it means that he comes +to test the state of the hearts of men: some cannot bear the test, and +fall before it; others, better prepared, rise higher. Here, also, +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} means rising up, and not rising again. + +The most remarkable use of this word, however, is in that famous passage +where the common meaning is wholly unintelligible, in the story of +Lazarus. (John 11:24, 25.) Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the +life." If resurrection means coming back to life after death, in what +sense can Jesus be "the resurrection and the life"? Then Jesus said that +he was "the coming back to life," which is unintelligible. But if the +resurrection means the ascent to a higher state, then Jesus declares that +he is the way of _ascent to a higher state_, just as he says elsewhere, "I +am the way;" "I am the door." It is the power of Christ within the soul, +the power of his spirit of faith, hope, and love, which enables us to go +forward and upward. Christ is not the principle of resuscitation to an +earthly existence, or a merely human immortality. He does not bring us to +life again, but he lifts us up. So he adds, "He who believeth in me, +though he were dead, yet shall he live." Not, shall come to life again; +no, but, shall rise out of death into life, ascend into a higher condition +of being. Then he adds that to one who has faith in him, who has adopted +his ideas, there is no longer any such thing as death. Death has +disappeared--is abolished. "He who liveth and believeth in me shall never +die." + +But, it may be objected, if spiritual death and life are here spoken +of,--if the passage means that he who believeth in Christ shall have inward +religious spiritual life, a heavenly and celestial life,--then how could +that comfort Martha, or apply to her case, who was mourning, not the +spiritual, but the natural, death of her brother? + +Christ is essentially a manifestation of the truth and love of God. To +believe in him is therefore to believe in God's truth and love. But belief +in this fills the soul with life. And the soul full of life cannot die. +What seems death is only change, and a change from a lower to a higher +state, therefore rising up, or resurrection. Christ, then, the love and +truth of God in the soul, is the life and the resurrection. He fills the +soul with that life which causes it to rise with every change, to go up +and on evermore to a higher state. That which seems death is nothing; the +only real death is the immersion of the soul in sense and evil, the +turning away from truth and God. + +Now, Martha believed, as most of us believe, in a _future_ resurrection. +She believed that, after lying a long time in the grave, one would come +out of it at last, on a great day of judgment, and somehow the soul and +body be reunited. She believed this, for it was the general belief of the +Jews in her day. It is the general belief of Christians now. The majority +of Christians have not got very far beyond that. They talk of the +resurrection, as though it were merely the return of the soul into the old +body; and when you comfort them over their dead by saying, "Your dead will +rise," reply, "I know it--at the resurrection, at the last day." But Jesus +tells Martha, and all the Martha Christians of the present time, that he +_is_ the resurrection and the life. Your brother is not to sleep in the +dust till the last day, and then rise. He does not die at all. He rises +with Christ here, and in whatever other world. His nature is to go _up_, +not down, when he is Christianized. Now or then, to-day or at the last +day, if he has the living faith of a son of God, he will be raised by that +Christ within him, who is his life. + +This, it seems to us, is the only adequate explanation of this passage, +and shows conclusively that resurrection must mean, in this place, a +rising up to a higher existence, and not a mere return to this life. + +It appears, from 1 Cor. ch. 15, that there were some in the Christian +church who said there was no resurrection of the dead ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~},) +or that it was past already. (2 Tim. 2:18.) These Christians did not deny +the doctrine of immortality, or a future life. It is difficult to imagine +the motive which could induce any one, in those days, to join the +Christian church, if he denied a future life. Probably, therefore, they +assumed that the only real resurrection takes place in the soul when we +rise with Christ. They said, "If we are to rise into a higher life after +this, _how_ shall we rise, and with what bodies?" (1 Cor. 15:35.) They +professed to believe in a simple immortality of the soul, but not an +ascent of the personal being, soul and body together, to the presence of +God. They did not question a future life, but a higher life to which soul +and body should go up together. + +To these doubting Christians, who could not gather strength to believe in +such a great progress as this, Paul says that if man does not rise, if it +is contrary to his nature to rise, then Jesus, being a man, has not risen, +but gone down to Hades with other souls. Then he is not _above_ us, with +God, sending down strength and inspiration from our work. This faith of +ours, which has been our great support, is an illusion. We have all been +deceived--deceived in preaching forgiveness of sins through Christ from +God; deceived in preaching a higher life above us, into which Christ has +gone, and where he is waiting to receive us. But we have not been +deceived--Christ _has_ risen, and risen as the first fruits of humanity. He +leads the way up, and in proportion as we share his life, we also have in +ourselves the principle of ascent, and shall go up too. He goes first; +then all who are like him follow and finally, in due order, all mankind. +Death and Hades have been conquered by this new influx of life in Christ. +Instead of remaining pale ghosts, naked souls, we shall rise into a +fuller, richer, larger life, of soul and body. + +There is one passage, however, where there seems a difficulty in +considering {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, or resurrection, as implying an ascent of +condition. It is in John 5:28, 29. Our common translation reads thus: "The +hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice +(that is, the voice of the Son of man), and shall come forth, they that +have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil +unto the resurrection of damnation." At first sight it certainly seems +that the "resurrection of damnation" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}) could hardly be +considered a higher state. All depends, however, on the meaning of the +word, here translated "damnation." The word, in the Greek, is the genitive +of {~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}. Now, by turning to the Concordance, we find that this word +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} occurs some forty-eight times in the New Testament. In these +places,-- + +It is translated 3 times by "damnation." +It is translated 2 times by "condemnation." +It is translated 2 times by "accusation." +It is translated 41 times by "judgment." + +It is evident, therefore, that our translators considered _judgment_ to be +the primary and usual meaning of the word. Why, then, did they not +translate it here, "rising to judgment," or "resurrection of judgment"? It +must have been because they believed either that (1.) "judgment" would +make no sense here; (2.) that "damnation" would make better sense; or, +(3.) that "damnation" was more in accordance with the analogy of faith. +But we can decide these points for ourselves. "Judgment" is the better +word here, for it accords with the doctrine of the New Testament, that in +proportion as man goes wrong, he dulls his moral sense, and needs a +revelation of truth to show him what he is. A true man, who has lived +according to the truth here, has judged himself, and will not need to be +judged hereafter. (1 Cor. 11:31.) He rises into the resurrection of life. +But those who follow falsehood here, need to see the truth; and they rise +into the resurrection of judgment. The truth judges and condemns them. But +this is really an ascent to them also. It is going up higher, to see the +truth, even when it condemns them. This passage, then, is no exception to +the principle that wherever "resurrection" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}) occurs in the New +Testament, it implies going up into a higher state. + +All the other places where the word occurs either evidently have this +meaning, or can bear it as easily as the other. Thus (Luke 14:14), "Thou +shalt be recompensed in the higher state of the just." (20:27), the +Sadducees "deny a higher state." (Acts 1:21), "he is to be a witness with +us of the ascended state of Jesus." (Acts 4:2), "preached, through Jesus, +the higher state of the dead." (17:18), "preached to them Jesus and the +higher state." (20:23), that Christ "should be the first to rise into the +higher state." (Lazarus and others had returned to life again before +Jesus, so that in this sense he was _not_ the first fruits.) (Rom. 6:5), +"planted in the likeness of his resurrection." This can only mean as +Christ passed through the grave into a higher state, so we pass through +baptism into a higher state. + +The only text which presents any real difficulty is Heb. 11:35, +translated, "women received their dead raised to life again," literally, +"women received from the resurrection their dead" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}), which +may refer to a return to this life, as in the case of the child of the +widow of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:17), and of the Shunamite (2 Kings 4:17).(38) +But in the same verse, the other and "better" resurrection is spoken of, +for the sake of which these martyrs refused to return to this life. The +case referred to is probably that of the record of the seven brothers put +to death by Antiochus (2 Macc. 7:9), who refused life offered on condition +of eating swine's flesh, and said, when dying, "The King of the world +shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}), literally, "to an eternal renewal +of our life."(39) This verse shows, therefore, that though {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} may +mean a return to this life, yet that the other sense of a higher life is +expressly contrasted with it, even here. + +Our conclusion, therefore, with regard to this term {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, is, that +its meaning, in New Testament usage, is not "rising again," but "rising +up," or "ascent." + +2. {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}. This word is the root of the former. It is used one hundred +and twelve times in the New Testament. It is translated with _again_ (as, +"he must rise again from the dead") fifteen times. It is translated +thirty-six times "rise up" or "raise _up_" (as, "I will raise him up at +the last day"), and ninety-six times without the "again." It is rendered +"he _arose_," "shall _rise_," "stood up," "raise up," "arise," and in +similar ways. + +3. {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}. This word is also frequently used in relation to the +resurrection, and is translated "to awaken," "arouse," "animate," +"revive." The natural and usual meaning is ascent to a higher state, and +not merely a "rising again." + + ------------------------------------- + +From these considerations we see that the primitive and central meaning of +the terms used to express the resurrection is that of ASCENT. It is GOING +UP. This is the essential Christian idea. But it soon became implicated +with the Pagan idea of immortality, or continued existence of the soul, +and the Jewish idea of a bodily resurrection at the last day. But though +there is a truth in each of these beliefs, the Christian doctrine is +neither one nor the other. The gospel _assumes_, but does not teach, a +continued existence of the soul. Since the greater includes the less, in +teaching that the MAN rises at death into a higher life, it necessarily +implies that he continues to live. And in teaching that he is to exist as +man, with soul and body, in a higher condition of development, it teaches +necessarily the bodily resurrection of the Jews. Christ, who came "not to +destroy, but to fulfil," FULFILS both Pagan and Jewish ideas of the future +state in this doctrine of an ASCENSION at death. + +The principal points of the teaching of Jesus concerning the life which +follows the dissolution of the body are these: _First._ As against the +Sadducees, he argues that the dead are living (Matt. 22:31, and the +parallel passages), from the simple fact that God calls them _his_. If God +thinks of them as _his_, that is enough. His thinking of them makes them +alive. No one can perish while God is thinking of him with love. Such an +argument, carrying no weight to the mere understanding, is convincing in +proportion as one is filled with a spiritual conception of God. +_Secondly._ Jesus abolishes death by teaching that there is no such thing +to the soul which shares his ideas concerning God and the universe. This +is implied in the phrases, "He that liveth and believeth in me shall never +die." (John 11:26.) "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John +6:47.) "I am the living bread, whereof if a man eat, he shall live +forever." (John 6:51.) "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath +eternal life." (John 6:54.) "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see +death." Here, "eating Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood," is plainly +equivalent to "keeping his saying," and "believing on him." As "food which +we eat and drink changes itself so as to become a part of our own body by +assimilation," so Christ intends that his truth shall not be merely taken +into the memory, and reproduced in words, but shall be taken into the +life, and reproduced in character. _Thirdly._ He teaches that as feeding +on his truth changes our natural life into spiritual life, and lifts +temporal existence into eternal being, so it will also place us outwardly +in a higher state and higher relations, to which state he applies the +familiar term the "resurrection" or "ascent," the "going up." "I will +raise him up at the last day." The "last day," in Jewish and New Testament +usage, means the Messianic times, as appears from such passages as Acts +2:17, where the term is used of the day of Pentecost; Heb. 1:2, "hath in +these last days spoken unto us by his Son;" 1 John 2:18, "Little children, +it is the last time." Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to the +Father (John 14:15), in whose house are many mansions, where he is to +prepare a place for his disciples. (John 14:2.) + +That "resurrection" was understood to mean a present higher state, and not +a future return to life, appears also from its use by the apostles. +Christians are spoken of as having already "risen with Christ" (Col. 3:1); +"risen with him in baptism" (Col. 3:1); walking "in the likeness of his +resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). And, no doubt, it was by making this idea of a +present resurrection too exclusive, that some Christians maintained that +it was wholly a present resurrection, and not at all future--that "it was +past already." + +This Christian faith in "resurrection" as ascent to a higher condition of +being at death is practically borne witness to by such common expressions +concerning departed friends as these: "He has gone to a better world;" "He +is in a higher world than this;" "We ought not to grieve for him--he is +better off than he was." The practical sense of Christendom has taken this +faith from the Gospels, though the Creeds do not authorize it. The Creeds +teach that the souls of the good either sleep till a future resurrection, +or are absorbed into God until then, while the souls of the impenitent +descend to a lower sphere. Christ teaches that at death _all_ rise to a +higher state--of life and love to the loving, or judgment by the sight of +truth to the selfish; but _higher_ to all. Paul declares that "as in Adam +ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive," making the rise +equivalent in extent to the fall. + +The great change in the faith of the apostles, in consequence of the +resurrection or ascent of Christ, was this: They before believed that at +death all went to Hades, to the gloomy underworld of shadows, there to +remain till the final resurrection. But the belief that Christ, instead of +going down, had gone up, and had assured them that all who had faith in +him had the principle of ascent in their souls, and were already +spiritually risen,--this took the victory from Hades and the sting from +death. + +To Christians, at least, Hades is no more anything; all who have a living +faith rise with Christ; and sooner or later, each in his order, _all_ +shall rise. This was the "power of the resurrection" of Jesus to destroy +the fear of death, to enable them "to attain" _now_ "to the resurrection +of the dead" (Phil. 3:10), teaching that "if the Spirit of Him who raised +up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus from the dead +shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you." +"For it is Christ that died, _yea, rather, that is risen_, who is even at +the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." It was, +therefore, the duty of all Christians, since they were risen in Christ, +"to seek the things which are above." + + + + +§ 6. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testament, not a +Rising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into a higher Body. + + +It is remarkable that those who profess to believe in the literal +inspiration of the New Testament should nevertheless very generally teach +that the future body is _materially_ the same as this. We often hear +labored arguments to show how the identical chemical particles which +compose the body at death may be re-collected from all quarters at the +resurrection. Yet the only place where any account is given of the future +body, declares explicitly that it is different from the present, just as +the stalk which comes out of the ground differs from the seed planted. "We +sow _not_ the body which shall be, but bare grain, and God giveth it a +body as pleaseth him." + +Many persons, however, take an opposite view, and have no belief in any +future bodily existence. They speak much more frequently of the +_immortality of the soul_. But the resurrection of the body is +unquestionably a doctrine of the New Testament, while the immortality of +the soul is not. The New Testament knows nothing of a purely spiritual +existence hereafter, nothing of an abstract disembodied immortality. The +reaction from materialism to idealism has caused us now to undervalue +bodily existence. So it did among the Corinthians to whom Paul wrote, "How +say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" These +Corinthians were not Sadducees, nor Epicureans. There is no evidence that +these sects had any influence on the Christian Church. They did not deny a +_future existence_, but they denied a rising up and a _future bodily +existence_. They believed, like us, in an immortality of the soul, denying +the possibility (probably on philosophical grounds) of the resurrection of +the body. So Paul proceeds, in the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians, first +to prove the fact, and then to explain the nature of a bodily +resurrection. + +Let us consider, first, what is meant by a resurrection of the body. + +This word _resurrection_ tends to mislead us by suggesting the rising from +the grave of the material body there deposited; and accordingly we have +the theory which makes the future body the mere revival of the same +particles of matter composing the present body. But the Greek word, as we +have fully shown, means not merely rising out of the grave, but rising to +a higher state of existence. The _anastasis_ of the body is its elevation +and spiritualizalion. By the resurrection of the body, we mean that in the +future life of man, he shall not exist in the same material and fleshly +envelope as now, nor yet as a purely disembodied spirit. The true doctrine +avoids both extremes--the extreme of pure idealism on the one hand, and of +pure materialism on the other. It asserts three things: first, that we +have a real body hereafter; second, that this will be identical with our +_true_ body now; third, that it will be this true body in a higher state +of development than at present, a spiritual instead of a natural body. + +First, it will be a real body. A real body is an organization with which +the soul is connected, and by means of which it comes into connection with +the material universe, and under the laws of space and time. This +organization may be more or less refined and subtle; it may not come under +the cognizance of our present senses; but if it is an organization by +means of which we may commune with the physical universe, it is +essentially a _body_. + +Again, the future body is identical with the present true body of man. For +what is our _true body_? Not the particles of flesh and blood, but the +principle of its organization. The identity of our body does not consist +in the identity of its material particles, for these come and go, are in +constant flux, and are wholly changed, it is said, every seven years. But, +notwithstanding this change, the body of the man is the same with that of +the child. The same features, figure, temperament, morbid and passional +tendencies, are reproduced year after year. These flying particles, +gathered from earth and air, are manufactured into brain, bone, blood, +according to an unvarying law, and then given back again to air and earth. +There is, therefore, a hidden mysterious principle of organization working +on during the whole seventy years of our earthly existence, which makes +the body of the infant and the child identical with that of the man and +the old man. This is the true body; and this, extricated at death from its +present envelope, and clothed upon with a higher spiritual and immortal +form, will constitute the future body. + +But again, it will be a _higher development of the body_. Paul plainly +teaches this. He uses the analogy of the seed, showing that the future +body is related to this; and differenced from this, as the plant is +related to the seed, and yet different from it. "Thou sowest _not_ that +body _that shall be_, but bare grain." You do not sow the stalk, but the +kernel; you do not sow the oak, but the acorn. Yet the oak is contained +potentially in the acorn, and so the future body is contained potentially +in the present. The condition of the germination of the acorn is its +dissolution; then the germ is able to separate itself from the rest of the +seed, and start forward in a new career of development. In like manner the +spiritual body cannot be developed until the present organization is +dissolved. + +Paul goes on to say that "there is a natural body and there is a +spiritual." This body is the natural body; the future will be the +spiritual. Two things may be implied in this distinction. As by the +natural body we come into communion with the natural world, the world of +phenomena, so by the spiritual we commune with the spiritual world, the +world of essential being and cause. _Here_ and _now_ we see things through +a glass, darkly, _then_ face to face. _Here_ we look at things on the +outside only; but how often a longing seizes us to know the essences, to +penetrate to their interior life! That longing is an instinctive prophecy +of its own fulfilment hereafter. The spiritual body must also _manifest +the spirit_ hereafter, as the natural or soul body now manifests the soul. +For while the present body expresses adequately enough present wishes and +emotions, it fails of expressing the spiritual emotions, and fails of +being a true servant of the higher life. + +This, then, constitutes the future body. First, it is an organization +connecting us with the outward universe of space and time. Second, it is +identical with the present true body. Third, it is a development and +advance of this into a higher organization. Let us now inquire what are +the evidences and proofs of _this future body_. How do we know, or why do +we think, that we shall have any such body? + +The first proof of a future bodily existence is its reasonableness. There +is a law of gradation in the universe by which the seed unfolds gradually +into the stalk, the bud into the flower, the flower into the fruit. We see +a gradual progress of vegetable life into animal, and a gradual transition +from the lower forms of animal existence to the higher. The transition is +so gradual that it is very difficult to say where vegetables end and where +animals begin. Radiated animals ascend towards the mollusks, the mollusks +towards the articulata, the articulata towards the vertebrata. And through +this last class we see a steady ascent from one form of organization to +another; from fishes to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from birds to +mammalia, until by steady rise we reach the human body, in delicacy, +beauty, and faculty the crown of all. Why should we suppose this the end +of bodily existence? Why not rather that this is to pass into a still more +noble and beautiful type of organization? After this gradual development, +why suppose the enormous change to a purely spiritual existence? Is it not +more reasonable to suppose, instead, a higher order of bodily life? + +If we may look at the question for a moment from a metaphysical point of +view, we shall find it hard to comprehend the possibility of personal +existence hereafter apart from bodily organization. Everything which is, +must be either somewhere, or everywhere, or nowhere; that is, it must be +present in some particular point of space, or omnipresent through all +space, or wholly out of space. But to be wholly out of space is to lose +that which distinguishes one thing from another, for all distinctions +which we can conceive of are distinctions in space and time. To be +everywhere is to be omnipresent, which is an attribute belonging to God +and not to finite being, and would imply absorption into the divine +nature. Therefore personal existence is existence somewhere in space, but +locality in space is an attribute of body, not of spirit, and implies +bodily existence. + +Moreover, shall we suppose that after death we are to have no more +communion with the material universe, no more knowledge of this vast order +and beauty, which is a perpetual manifestation of God, the garment which +he wears, one of his grand methods of revelation? These myriads of suns +and worlds, these constellations of stars peopling space, this city of God +full of wonder and infinite variety, are they to be nothing to us after +the few years of mortal life are over? We cannot believe it. If, then, we +are still to perceive the material universe, the faculties by which we +perceive it will be more intense bodily faculties. If spiritual things are +spiritually discerned, bodily things are discerned in a bodily manner. + +Such considerations as these show that a future bodily existence is +reasonable; but the proof of it must come, if at all, either from +revelation or experience. Let us see, then, what bearing the resurrection +of Jesus has upon this question. + +According to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form. This +body resembled his former one, so as to be recognized by his disciples; it +had the marks of the spear and nails; it could be touched, and was capable +of eating food. In all these respects it seems exactly the same body he +had before. This, too, is confirmed by the fact that he came from the tomb +where his body had been placed, and that this had disappeared. But, on the +other hand, many peculiarities indicate a difference; such as his not +being recognized at once by Mary in the garden, nor by the disciples +during the whole walk to Emmaus; his appearing and disappearing suddenly; +his coming through the closed doors. Again, if the body of Jesus was +exactly like that which he had before death, it is evident that he would +have to lay it aside again before ascending into the spiritual world, for +flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But if he was to lay it +aside again, this would be equivalent to dying a second time, which would +destroy the whole meaning and value of his resurrection, making it nothing +but a mere revival, or coming to life again, like that of a person who has +been apparently drowned. Such a revival would have produced no results, +and the faith of the Church which has come from the resurrection of Jesus +would never have taken place. + +Accordingly, we must conclude that Jesus rose with a higher spiritual +body. And this gives to the ascension its meaning. For otherwise, the +ascension would be only a disappearance; whereas, in this view, the +disciples saw him pass away in the shape and form he was to continue to +wear in the other world. Then the gulf was bridged over, in their minds, +and they had looked into heaven. + +This was what the resurrection of Jesus did for the apostles. It changed +doubt and despair into faith and hope; changed theoretical belief into +practical assurance; imparted that commanding energy of conviction and +utterance which only comes from life. Animated thus themselves, they were +enabled to animate others. And so the resurrection of Christ was the +resurrection of Christianity, the resurrection of a Christian faith and +hope infinitely deeper and stronger than had before existed in the minds +of the disciples. + +We do not like the usual method of regarding the resurrection of Jesus as +a great exceptional event, and an astounding violation of the laws of +nature. Its power seems rather to have consisted in this, that it was a +glorious confirmation of those everlasting laws announced by Jesus--laws +boundless as the universe. The very essence of the gospel is the +declaration that good is not only better than evil, which we all knew +before, but stronger than evil, which we weakly doubt. + +The gospel assures us that love is stronger than hatred, peace than war, +holiness than evil, truth than error. It is the marriage of the goodness +of motive and the goodness of attainment; goodness in the soul and +goodness in outward life; heaven hereafter and heaven here. It asserts +that the good man is always in reality successful; that he who humbles +himself _is_ exalted, he who forgives _is_ forgiven, he who gives to +others receives again himself, he who hungers after righteousness is +filled. This was the faith which Christ expressed, in which and out of +which he lived and acted; it was this faith which made him Christ the +King, King of human minds and hearts. Was it then all false? Did his death +prove it so? Was that the end, the earthly end, of his efforts for man? +Were truth and love struck down then by the power of darkness? That was +the question which his resurrection answered; it showed him passing +through death to higher life, through an apparent overthrow to a real +triumph; it gave one visible illustration to laws usually invisible in +their operation, and set God's seal to their truth. Through that death +which seemed the destruction of all hope, Jesus went up to be the Christ, +the King. + +In this point of view we see the value and importance of the resurrection +of Jesus, and why Easter Sunday should be the chief festival of +Christianity. It was the great triumph of life over death, of good over +evil. It was the apt symbol and illustration of the whole gospel. + +If, then, the resurrection of Christ means that Christ ascended through +death to a higher state; if our resurrection means that we pass up through +death, and not down; not into the grave, but into a condition of higher +life; if the resurrection of the body does not mean the raising again out +of the earth the material particles deposited there, but the soul clothing +itself with a higher and more perfect organization; if it is, then, the +raising of the body to a more perfect condition of development,--then is +there not good reason why such stress should be laid upon this great fact? + +All the proof rests on the historic fact of the resurrection. Was Christ +seen in this higher spiritual and bodily state, or was he not? If he was, +then we have a fact of history and experience to rely upon to show us that +the future life involves an ascent both spiritual and bodily. And this is +the reason why such stress has been laid on the resurrection. + +This raising of man, through the power of Christ's life, to a higher +state, is not a mere matter of speculation, then, not an opinion, not +something pleasant to think of and hope for, but it is a fundamental fact +of Christian faith. Because Christ has arisen and passed up, we must all +arise and pass up, too, with him. He is the first fruits of those who +sleep. In proportion as the Spirit of Christ is in us, in that proportion +is the power in us which shall carry us upward towards him. He wishes that +those who believe in him shall be where he is. We shall belong to him and +to his higher world, not arbitrarily, but naturally; not by any positive +decree of God, but by the nature of things. + +The essential fact in the resurrection is, that Christ rose, through +death, to a higher state. The essential doctrine of the resurrection is, +that death is the transition from a lower to a higher condition in all who +have the life which makes them capable of it. + + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. CHRIST'S COMING, USUALLY CALLED THE "SECOND COMING," AND +CHRIST THE JUDGE OF THE WORLD. + + + + +§ 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly outward, not +local, nor material. + + +It is a curious fact that, in direct contradiction to Christ's own +explanations concerning his coming, this should frequently be considered +by the Orthodox, (1.) as wholly future; (2.) as wholly outward; (3.) as +local; (4.) as bodily and material. + +It cannot be wholly future, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken in saying +of the signs of his coming, "This generation shall not pass away until all +these things be fulfilled." (Mark 13:30.) + +Nor can it be wholly outward, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken when he +declared of the signs of his coming, "The kingdom of God cometh not with +observation" (Luke 17:20); "The kingdom of God is within you " (Luke +17:21); "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). See also Mark +4:26,27, and Matt. 13:33, where his kingdom is compared with seed +sprouting and leaven working secretly. + +Nor is Christ's coming local, that is, in a certain place, for if it were, +Jesus was mistaken in telling his disciples not to believe those who said, +"Lo, here!" or "Lo, there!" not to go into the desert when men say, +"Behold, he is there," and not to believe those who declare that he is +hidden somewhere in the city, for that the coming of the Son of man should +be like that of the lightning, which shines all round the sky, and seems +to be everywhere at once. (Matt. 24:26.) + +And if not local, neither can it be a bodily coming; for all bodily coming +must be in some one place. Since, therefore, Jesus distinctly denies that +his coming is to be "here" or "there,"--that is, local,--it must be a +spiritual coming, a coming in spirit and in power. All the material images +connected with it--the clouds, the trumpet, &c.--are to be considered +symbolical. The "clouds of heaven" may symbolize spiritual movements and +influences; the "trumpet," the awakening power of new truth.(40) + + + + +§ 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture. + + +It is also a remarkable fact that only one coming of Christ is mentioned +in the New Testament. Orthodoxy speaks continually of Christ's _second_ +coming, but without any warrant. It assumes that the manifestation of +Jesus in the flesh was his first coming as the Christ, and that +consequently the predictions (in Matt. ch. 24, and the parallels) _must_ +refer to a second coming. Hence the phrase "second coming" has been +introduced, and naturalized in theology. But, in truth, the life of Jesus +on earth was not regarded as his coming as the Messiah.(41) What the +disciples expected was his manifestation or investiture as the Messiah, +which evidently had not taken place at the time of their conversation. And +this was to be, not "at the end of the world," but _at the end of the +age_. They, like other Jews, divided time into two periods, "the present +age," or times previous to the Messiah, and "the coming age," or times of +the Messiah's reign. When, therefore, Jesus was with them, only teaching +and healing, they did not at all consider him _to have come_ as the +Messiah. But when he spoke of the destruction of the Temple, as _that_ +indicated the end of the existing economy, they understood it to be +synchronous with his coming as the Christ. So they said, "What shall be +the sign of thy COMING, and of the END OF THE AGE?" And so through the +Epistles, when the "coming of Christ" is spoken of, is meant his +manifestation in the world as the Messiah. This was a single event, to +take place once, not to be repeated. Such a thing as "Christ's _second_ +coming" is unknown to the Scriptures.(42) + + + + +§ 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ? + + +It is often said that the apostles themselves were mistaken in expecting a +speedy coming of Christ. No doubt they did expect his speedy coming, and +with reason; for he himself had told them that the existing generation +should not pass away till all those things were fulfilled. Therefore they +were justified in looking for a near coming of Jesus as the Christ. We +admit that they expected his speedy coming; but we think they were not +mistaken, for he did come. He came, though not perhaps in the manner they +anticipated. Possibly they interpreted too literally what he said +concerning his coming. + +For though Christ spoke so much in symbols and parables, literal people +took him literally. And so they do still. When he said that except men ate +his flesh and drank his blood they could not be his, the literalists said, +"_How_ can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And so many persons still +think that somehow Christ's actual body is to be eaten in the Lord's +supper. So, when he said that the Son of man should be seen "coming in the +clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and send his angels with the +sound of a trumpet, and gather his elect from the four winds," they took +it literally. His apostles, even, may have supposed that he was to be seen +up in the air in physical form,(43) and that a material trumpet was to be +blown. But all this was the flesh, the garb of his thought. The spirit of +his thought only is of value; the flesh profits nothing. The apostles were +wrong in supposing--if they did suppose it--that Christ was to come in their +day in the air, in an outward physical fashion, with an outward noise, +making a great demonstration to the senses of sight and hearing. Christ +never came so, and he never will come so. The only coming of Christ +possible is spiritual coming, for Christ is spirit. He did come, +therefore, in the days of the apostles, in the great access of faith and +power in their own souls, and in the souls of those whom they converted. +He came in power and great glory, when his truth came to human minds, and +his love to human hearts. He sent his angels then, and gathered his elect +from the four quarters of the heavens. When Paul was converted, Christ +came to him; when the negro chamberlain of the Queen of Ethiopia was +converted, Christ came to him; when the people of Ephesus and Corinth, +Philippi and Rome, were converted, Christ came to them. The trumpet +sounded, but it was in their souls that it sounded; the angels summoned +the elect, but these angels were the convictions sent into their reason, +and the longings awakened in their hearts. + +Materialists and Literalists are always the same. The apostles soon rose +out of their literalism, and soon spoke of Christ as being revealed +_within_ them, not outside of them; dwelling, not in the air, but in their +hearts. But literalists, down to this day, have always imagined the coming +of Christ to be to the senses, rather than to the soul. They do not see +that a great noise in the air is not so glorious a thing as a voice heard +in the depths of the heart, and a great outward conflagration somehow +seems to them more imposing than the burning up of falsehood and sin in +the world. So we are always hearing people predict that Christ is to come +in 1846, or 1856, or 1866, meaning thereby that they expect some great +outward event then, visible to eyes and ears. "Fools, and slow of heart," +not to see that the only possible coming of Him who is spirit and love is +a coming in the soul, and that he has come, and is coming, and is to come +more and more abundantly, from day to day. So they read about the heavens +and earth being burned up, and of a new heavens and earth; and they +imagine that the sky is somehow to be burned with material fire, and the +surface of the earth to sink into the flaming abyss beneath us. But if +this should happen, _that_ would have nothing to do with the coming of +Christ. The heavens and earth which he consumes with the breath of his +mouth, and destroys with the brightness of his coming, are the religions +and moralities, the institutions and works, of men. And the new heavens +and new earth which take their place are the higher, nobler, purer +religions and moralities which flow out of the Spirit of Christ. + + + + +§ 4. Examination of the Account of Christ's Coming given by Jesus in +Matthew (chapters 24-26). + + +A great difficulty in regard to the coming of Christ is to combine in one +view the different notions given in Scripture concerning it. Many of these +ideas indicate that the coming of Christ took place at the destruction of +Jerusalem, as, for example, the description of wars, destruction of the +Temple, and especially the declaration that "this generation shall not +pass away till all these things be fulfilled." On the other hand, the +coming of Christ is expressly connected, in our translation, with "the end +of the world," and with the general judgment. Hence a difficulty in +interpreting these passages, some persons thinking that the coming of +Christ took place at the destruction of Jerusalem; others thinking that it +is yet to take place at the end of the world; others, again, maintaining +two or more comings of Christ; and others spiritualizing the whole of it, +and making it mean the spread of the spirit of Christianity. + +Let us, therefore, examine the passage in which Christ's coming is spoken +of, and endeavor to find its natural and obvious meaning, and so see how +far the common Orthodox conception is correct. + +The subject is not unimportant. Several chapters in the Gospel of Matthew +(24-26) are devoted to the description of this event. All of the Epistles +contain frequent allusions to it. The apostles unquestionably expected +Christ's coming in their day, and they had a right to do so, inasmuch as +Jesus himself had distinctly said that their generation would not pass +away till all was fulfilled. And in the main fact they were not mistaken, +however they may have been deceived, as we have before said, in taking too +outward a view of the attending circumstances. For if Christ's coming did +not take place in their day, not only were they themselves mistaken on a +most important point, but Jesus was mistaken likewise. + +Some of the other points in the description of this event are these: +Christ's coming was to be like that of the thief in the night--that is, it +was to be unexpected, and to take men unprepared. It was to be preceded by +wars, commotions, and misery in every form; preceded also by the preaching +of the truth in many lands. It was to be as difficult to locate Christ at +his coming, as to fix the lightning, which comes out of the east and +shines to the west. It was to be attended with great spiritual darkness, +even in the minds of the wise and good. The sun, and moon, and stars of +the moral world were to be darkened, and the powers of the heavens to be +shaken; and of ten virgins, all going together to meet the bridegroom, +half would be found spiritually asleep when he came. Christ's coming would +be especially judgment and punishment. He would part the sheep from the +goats. He would consume with the brightness of his coming the man of sin. +Such are some of the traits with which the coming of Jesus is described by +himself and by his apostles. How are these to be reconciled with the +facts, and what was his coming? + +The best way to get at the facts is to begin at the beginning, and ask +_what the disciples meant_ when they asked for the signs of Christ's +coming. They were sitting with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, looking +across the valley between, at the Temple. They saw and admired the +gorgeous magnificence of this vast edifice towering before them, white +with marble and yellow with gold, against the deep blue sky of that sunny +land, and as they admired it, Jesus told them that every stone of that +divine structure should be cast down. And then they asked, "_When_ shall +these things be? and what shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end +of the world?" What was the connection, in their minds, between the three +events? Why should they have at once inferred that the destruction of the +Temple was to take place at the coming of Christ, and that the coming of +Christ was to take place at the end of the world? There was no connection +at all, according to the common notions on this subject. If the coming of +Christ was to be a great outward manifestation in the sky, to take place +long after his death, after the lapse of thousands of years, and at the +destruction of the visible universe, what had that to do with the Jewish +Temple? or, indeed, what had that to do with any of their ideas concerning +their Master? But the notion in their minds, when they asked the question, +was something very different; not the present Christian idea, but the +usual Jewish idea. They spoke as Jews, out of the notions of their day. +Christ answered what was in their minds, not what is in ours. If we wish +to know what he meant, we must place ourselves on their stand-point, look +out of their eyes, and listen with their ears. + +The coming of Christ had a very distinct meaning to the Jewish mind. It +meant the manifestation of the Messiah, _as such_. It meant his coming to +reign as king. It meant his manifestation in Judea, in Jerusalem, as the +great Son of David, and the submission of the Jews, and Gentiles with +them, to his authority. The disciples of Jesus, believing him to be the +Christ, believed that he was to come as such. He had come as Prophet, as +Teacher, as a worker of beneficent miracles, but he had not yet come as +Christ, as King. They were not asking about any second coming after his +death and resurrection, for they did not believe that he was to die. They +were asking for his present triumphant manifestation and investiture as +the Messiah. + +Nor were they asking--as our translators make them ask--for "the end of the +world." But they were asking for the _end of the age_--that is, of the +first age. We have said that the Jews divided all time into two great +periods; one the age preceding the Messiah, the other the age of the +Messiah. The first was called this age, or the present age; the other the +coming age. The end of the first period and beginning of the second were +called the ends of the age; as where Paul says, "These are written for our +admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come;" and where he says +that Christ has "now once appeared in the end of the world to put away +sin." These were the ideas of the Jews, as we know from history. When, +therefore, Christ spoke of the overthrow of the Temple, they inferred that +he was speaking of the beginning of the Messianic age; since the Temple +would not be overthrown while the Jewish theocratic and Levitical +government continued. Now, as the Jewish age did come to an end at the +destruction of Jerusalem, and Christianity, as the universal religion, +took the place of Judaism in the education of the human race, this really +was the coming of the Messiah and the end of the age. + +We understand, therefore, Christ to have been really speaking of his +coming, as an event soon to take place, and which did soon take place, +when, at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians were +scattered through the world, and Christianity took its place as a +universal religion.(44) If this exhausted the meaning of the idea, it +would be of very little interest to us. But the contents of the passage +are more rich and full; and, like most of Christ's sayings, besides its +present and immediate application, it has more universal and far-reaching +meanings. The principles of Christianity which were manifested then, +continue to be manifested in other forms to-day. Jesus said on one +occasion, "The hour is coming, and now is, when all that are in their +graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man." And on another occasion, +"The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship +the Father." The hour had come in its first manifestation, but was to come +again in other and richer manifestations of the same principle. So Christ +himself came as King at the taking of Jerusalem, but has come since, again +and again, more plainly and fully, in other triumphs of his truth, in +other manifestations of his power. We believe that the coming of Christ +took place at the destruction of Jerusalem. We believe that it has taken +place since, in other historical events. We believe that it is to take +place more fully hereafter, in this life and in the other life. + +Let us look and consider how this may be. + + + + +§ 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different Times. + + +As we look back through the eighteen centuries of Christian history, we +can observe many events which may now be seen to have been each a coming +of Christ. When, at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Mosaic theocracy +went down before the iron power of Rome, amid those scenes of horror the +firmest believers in Christ might have feared only evil. It seemed to be +the overthrow of everything most sacred--the triumph of Paganism over the +worship of Jehovah. Yet what was the result? Jesus then ceased to be the +Jewish Messiah, and began to reign over all nations as the world-teacher, +the Son of God, the prophet for mankind. Since then, more and more, the +world has gone to him as to its great Master. This, therefore, was a +coming of Christ. + +Look again. The early centuries are disgraced with theological wars. +Fierce conflicts are carried on about the Trinity, and the rank of Jesus +in the universe. All regard for the pure, divine truth of Christianity +seems forgotten in the fury of these controversies. Yet, nevertheless, +amid all the absurdity and contradiction, one truth emerges, everywhere +recognized--that in Jesus was something divine; that God was more fully +manifest in him than elsewhere; that he is the moral image of the Infinite +One. This is another coming of Christ. He comes now not merely as a +prophet, but as the revealer of divine love and truth, in his own +character. The theological doctrines, in which this truth has been +wrapped, are the husks and shells which the world will throw away. But +throughout Christendom the idea of God is derived from the character of +Jesus, and in this way Jesus has come to rule the hearts of men as their +divine King. + +Other centuries passed by, and we find new and strange ideas taking +possession of men's minds. A horror of life, a dread of the sins of the +world, drive men into the desert, to live as hermits and anchorites. +Thousands and tens of thousands of monks withdrew from the world into the +wilderness. All Christianity appeared to be changing into a new form of +heathenish, self-inflicted torture. Its blessed humanity, its genial +influences on social life, seemed to be fast disappearing. Nevertheless, +out of all this error one truth emerged, one Christian idea was +developed--that of self-discipline and self-culture. And in the development +of this idea Christ came to reign _over the individual soul_ as its +Master, Guide, and Redeemer from all sin. + +After this arose the Papacy. The Church, as a powerful institution, became +ambitious to rule the state and the world. A spiritual despotism appeared, +surrounding itself with earthly splendor, grasping the sword of earthly +power, and the farthest removed from the humble and gentle spirit of its +Master. It would tolerate no opposition to its will, in high places or +low. It hurled its thunders at the head of kings, and sent crusading +armies to persecute and torture the peasants of the Piedmont valleys. +Nothing could seem more full of the spirit of Antichrist than this +spiritual despotism embodied in the Papacy. And yet, even through this +evil there was developed a truth--that there was something in the world +higher than kings, greater than the state. Papacy, with all its evils, was +a standing proof, in an age of brute force, of the supremacy of mind over +matter. So that, even here, the pride and selfishness of the priests and +the popes have been overruled, in the providence of God, to give +ascendency to a Christian idea, and to cause Christ to come as the King of +the world. + +Consider another important event in the history of Europe: the conversion +of the barbarous tribes to Christianity. When the nations of the north +poured from the forests of Germany and the deserts of Scandinavia over the +Roman empire,--when Goths and Vandals, Franks, Lombards, and Normans, +quenched the light of civilization and brought the dark ages over +Europe,--how terrible seemed the gloom, and how hopeless the prospects, of +the human race! But we now see the result in modern civilization. We see +all these different nations subdued by the power of Christianity, and a +new unity, a higher harmony, as the result. We see the great idea of the +unity of the race, the harmony of nations, resulting from all this +darkness and misery. So Christ has come again as the Prince of Peace, +breaking down the partition walls, and proclaiming a brotherhood of man. + +Let us look at one more event of history--the Lutheran Reformation. What +evils attended it! What wars came out of it! How has the impulse to +freedom given by Luther degenerated into licentiousness, run out in +infidelity and unbelief! And yet, when we consider the ideas of personal +responsibility and individual independence which have been born of +it,--when we consider what an impulse it has given to thought, to free +inquiry, to earnest investigation of truth, all the results of this +fruitful principle,--we cannot doubt that this also was a coming of Jesus, +the unfolding of a new and higher power in Christianity. + +Thus has Christ come from age to age, and in the midst of apparent +failure, increasing error, growing unbelief, and all forms of human +wickedness, has acquired new power over the human mind. At the present day +he is more the King of the world than ever. When he seems to go, then he +comes. When iniquity most abounds, then he is nearest. When love grows +cold in the hearts of his disciples, then a new impulse of faith is about +to be given. When false prophets rise up and deceive many, then new +champions of the truth are near at hand. Christ comes amid wars and +persecutions. He comes unexpectedly, like the thief in the night; comes +without observation; and while men say, "Lo, here!" and "Lo, there!" the +kingdom of heaven is in the midst of them. He is not to be found in the +desert, nor in the secret chambers; neither in public nor private; located +neither in this nor that particular place; incarnate neither in this nor +that particular person. But Christ comes like the lightning, seen over the +whole heaven at once, in a new spirit pervading all parts of life, all +parts of society. + + + + +§ 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the Talents, to +Christ's Coming. + + +We now see what is meant by the parable of the foolish and wise virgins, +and of the talents, which follows it. We see their application to this +description of Christ's coming. If the coming of Christ be thus +unexpected, he will not be recognized by the sleeping servant, nor by +those who beat their fellow-servants. Slothful Christians who make no +effort to improve, persecuting Christians who spend their time in +denouncing heretics, and saying, "My Lord delayeth his coming," never +understand the signs of the times, nor recognize any new influx of divine +light in the world. At each new coming of Christ those who have been +faithful are rewarded by more light. To those who have, shall be given, +and the faithless lose what they had before. From him who hath not, shall +be taken away even what he seems to have. The capacity of seeing Christ +when he comes, of recognizing him in any new manifestation of truth, +depends on his previous fidelity. + + + + +§ 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, in Matt. ch. +25, to his Coming. + + +But what is meant by the judgment described in the 25th chapter of +Matthew, commencing, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all +the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and +before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one +from another, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats." This +stands in such close connection with what goes before, that many refer +this also to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the moral meaning is so +prominent, that others apply it entirely to the final judgment in the +future life. The difficulties on both sides disappear if we reflect that +the principles which govern this life and the next are identical--that +whether Christ came at Jerusalem, comes to-day, or comes in the future +life, the laws of Christian retribution are the same. Wherever Christ +judges men, the sheep go to the right, and the goats to the left. The +generous, humane, and disinterested hear always the words, "Come, ye +blessed of my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the +foundation of the world." The judgment in this world, it may be, is only +heard in the depths of the soul. It may be that no other mortal knows of +it. Still it is the voice of Christ which speaks. Still it is the real +kingdom which they inherit. The judgment in the future life, may be or may +not be, before assembled multitudes whom no man can number, and the +kingdom then inherited may be one shared with the angels, and extending +over worlds. Still the sentence is the same in both cases. The judgment of +Christ is one in all worlds. It was, and is, and shall be. Jesus Christ is +the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. + +It may be said, this is to make the coming of Christ merely figurative--the +coming of ideas and principles only; only the coming of his religion; and +this is but an invisible abstraction. We reply, that according to our +view, Christianity cannot be conceived of as an abstraction, apart from +the person of Jesus, nor can his religion come unless he comes with it. +Jesus is with us always, in the world always, and none the less really, +because invisibly. It is no figure of speech to say that Christ is with +his Church, and with his truth; that where it goes, he goes; that when he +comes, it comes. It may even be that his presence will not always be an +invisible one. It may be that what we now believe, we shall one day see +and know. But then those only will recognize their Master's presence who +are awake and watching for him. To the others it will seem a mere illusion +or enthusiasm. + + + + +§ 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World. + + +In some places Jesus says that he is made Judge of mankind, and in other +places denies that he is to judge any one. Take, for example, the +following passages, selected because they seem to contradict each other. +They are all in the Gospel of John, and therefore the contradiction is not +in the different limitations or special misconceptions of the different +evangelists. The passages are, John 3:17; 9:39; 5:22; 8:15; 12:47. The +first is as follows: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn +the world, but that the world through him might be saved." The word here +translated "_condemn_" is precisely the same as that which elsewhere is +translated "_judge_." Consequently we should here read that God sent +Christ into the world, not to judge the world, but to save it. But the +next text referred to (John 9:39) is one in which Jesus says, "For +judgment have I come into the world, that they which see not may see, and +that they which see might be made blind." Again (in John 5:22) it is said, +that "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the +Son." But in the following passage (John 8:15) Jesus says, "Ye judge after +the flesh. I judge no man." And in the last text he repeats the same idea. +"And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came +not to judge the world, but to save the world." We have, therefore, in +these passages, this apparent contradiction--that the Saviour seems in some +places to declare that he is to judge the world, and in others that he is +not to judge the world. We therefore shall do well to inquire how these +are to be understood, and in what way at all they are to be reconciled +with each other, and with the common Orthodox doctrine concerning +judgment. + +And here we may remark, in passing, that there are many such seeming +contradictions as these in the New Testament, and that to the student of +the Gospels, who is a sincere seeker of truth, they are very precious and +valuable. Such a one is always glad at finding statements in the New +Testament which thus appear opposed to each other; for he knows, by +experience, that they are the very passages from which he may learn the +most, and where he will be likely to find some hitherto unnoticed truth +concerning Christ or his gospel. Such truth, however, will not be found if +he attempts to remove the contradiction by any artificial, hasty, or +forced process. If his object is merely to find proof-texts in support of +the doctrines he already believes, such paradoxes will afford him nothing +but barren difficulties, and a sphere for the exercise of sophistry and +misplaced ingenuity. But if he can bear to admit his ignorance, and is +willing to examine these difficulties in order to correct his own errors, +enlarge his own views, and learn something really new, he will often find +here the clew to deeper insight and to a larger knowledge. + +What, then, is the explanation of these passages? In what way is Christ to +_judge_? How is it that he has come into this world for _judgment_? and +how has the Father committed _all judgment_ unto the Son? and how, +nevertheless, can be say, "_I judge no man; for I came not to judge the +world_"? + +Christ's coming was simply to do good; to make men better; to save them +from their sins; to reveal pardon; to offer salvation; to manifest God's +love. "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus +Christ." It is the law, and not the gospel, which judges and condemns the +evil-doer. The law given by Moses, or the law given in the conscience, in +the reason, in the nature of things, written on the face of nature, +written in the soul of man,--this law has not been made more strict by the +coming of Christ. Men were bound before, by the law of nature and the law +of Moses, to love God with all their heart, and their neighbor as +themselves; and they are not bound to do more now. They were bound by +nature and reason to obey their conscience, to do the best they could +always, and they are not bound to do any more now. The whole influence of +the gospel is a bountiful and gracious one, intended and adapted to make +it easier to do right, to add new motives to virtue. Christ is no strict, +severe judge, deciding by the letter of the law, bound by his office to +show no favor or compassion, but the sinner's advocate and friend. And +hence it may truly be said that he came not to judge the world, but to +save the world. + +Nevertheless, it is also true that the greatest blessings and the best +gifts of God are also judgments. They test the character. They show what +it is. According to the state of mind and heart in which a man is, so does +he receive, or reject, or neglect the offered good. If he loves light, he +comes to the light. If he loves darkness, he goes away. If his deeds are +good, he gratefully receives any revelation which brings him nearer to +God. If his deeds are evil, he rejects such revelation, avoids it, +dislikes the thought of it. So it necessarily is that the best and kindest +of men who wishes only to do good to all, nevertheless, by his very +presence and his offers of good, judges and condemns the wicked. But what +are the judgment and the sentence? Simply this--that light has come into +the world, and that they have chosen darkness rather than light, because +their deeds are evil. Therefore it was necessarily the case that the +coming of Jesus into the world was a judgment, and that though he +everywhere went with the purpose of saving and blessing men, yet that he +necessarily was also a judge. The thoughts of many hearts were revealed by +his presence. The pure in heart came to him in humility, penitence, and +faith. The proud in heart, the self-willed, the self-righteous, turned +away from him, and so judged themselves unworthy of receiving his truth. +The Galilean peasants, the common people, heard him gladly. The Scribes +and Pharisees murmured against him and rejected him. This was really a +judgment on both: the sheep went to the right hand, and the goats to the +left. Thus it is a law of human nature that all high truth by its coming +judges men, and shows by its influence upon them what is their real state. +And in this way, as Christ's truth was the highest of all, so he was, and +is, a judge in the highest sense. But this is not quite all. The coming of +such truth not only shows the good and evil which are in men, but it +develops them, brings them out, increases the good, increases also the +evil. It is necessarily so; it cannot be otherwise. When good comes to us, +if it does not make us better, it makes us worse. Truth and goodness are +like the magnet. They have two poles. They attract and they repel. Thus it +was written that the coming of Jesus would be for the fall or the rising +of many. Thus he said, "For judgment I have come into the world, that +those which see not may see, and that those who see may be made blind." +Peter was made better, Judas was made worse, by being in the company of +Christ. His coming was not only judgment, but also reward and punishment. +He came to the fishermen of Galilee: they were pure in heart, they were +lovers of truth and goodness, and his coming transformed them into +apostles, saints, and martyrs. He came to the Scribes and Pharisees: they +were not pure in heart. They were proud of their position, their +influence, their piety, and his coming transformed them into murderers. + +We are now prepared to decide what is meant by Jesus in saying that he +came to judge the world, and yet that he came not to judge, but to save. +It was not the purpose of his mission to judge. The direct object of his +coming was not to judge, but to save; but indirectly, and as a matter of +necessity, one of the consequences of his coming was, that men were judged +by the word which he spoke, by the truth which he manifested, by the +holiness of his life, by the bliss which he offered, and which they +rejected. And yet it was true that he did not judge them, and that he did +not mean to judge them. They were already judged by their own choice and +determination. Therefore he says, "He who believeth not on me is judged +already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son +of God." It was not the will of Christ, but the truth itself, which +pronounced the sentence upon him. "The word that I have spoken, the same +shall judge him at the last day." And thus it is said, that God is the +Judge of all, and yet again, that the Father judgeth no man, but hath +committed all judgment unto the Son, and hath given him authority to +execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. The explanation is, +that men are judged by the truth. But this truth is not abstract, but the +truth embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. God does not come into +the world himself to show men their sins, but he embodies his truth and +holiness in the life of his Son, and so judges the world. + +In giving this explanation, we have looked steadily at the essential thing +in judgment. We have regarded the substance, not the form. If we think of +judgment as something outward, the judge seated on his throne, the +criminal standing before him, and a formal sentence pronounced, of +acquittal or condemnation, we confess that we should find it difficult to +reconcile these different passages of Scripture, some of which declare +that Christ is to be the judge, and others that he is not to be. But what +is the essential thing in judgment? It is that justice shall be done, and +that truth and right shall be vindicated; that the good shall be rewarded, +and the wicked punished; that virtue and truth shall be seen and +recognized in the consciences of men for what they are. This is the +essential thing. _How_ this is done, whether in an open tribunal, before +the assembled universe, or in the secret places of every man's soul, +belongs not to the essence, but to the form, and is comparatively +unimportant. + + + + +§ 9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place. + + +Nevertheless, there is a more important question to be answered in +relation to the _time_ of judgment. When is the judgment? For it may be +thought, from what we have said, that we consider judgment as taking place +only in this world. But such is not the fact. Christ's judgments take +place at Christ's coming, whether here or hereafter. Whenever Christ +comes, he comes to judge. His first coming, in Judea, was a judgment; and +he said, "_Now_ is the judgment of the world." His coming judged all those +who were near him; revealed the state of their minds and hearts; showed +them what they were. Wherever he went, men arranged themselves at once +according to their real characters, and the thoughts of many hearts were +revealed. + +It is true that people at that day did not understand that they were thus +condemning themselves. They did not know that the awful judgment of God +was being pronounced upon them; that they were standing before his bar in +the presence of angels. They did not know that the day of judgment had +come, and that they were giving an account of every idle word even then. +But so it was. When they scoffed at Jesus and said, "He is a gluttonous +man and a wine-bibber," they may have forgotten their words almost before +they left their mouths. But there they stand, recorded against them +forever--an everlasting proof of their blindness of mind and their hardness +of heart. When the penitent woman brought the ointment and anointed the +feet of Jesus, and bathed them with her tears, little did she think that +it was her day of judgment also, and that the approving sentence of her +act would be read by angels in heaven and countless myriads on earth. None +of them knew that it was a judgment then; but it was so. + +But was that the only judgment? No; for whenever Jesus comes, he comes to +judge; and since that, his first coming, he has come again and again to +individuals and to the world, and every coming has been a new judgment on +the state of the human mind and heart. It has therefore been well said, +that the history of the world is the judgment of the world. And it is +always true that this judgment is not understood when it is pronounced, +but is seen and recognized afterwards. It is so with individuals; it is so +with communities. Who is there who, in looking back over his past life, +does not witness many an hour in which the truth has come to him, and he +refused to admit it, and so sentenced himself to receive a lie? in which +he has had opportunities of improvement, opportunities of doing good, and +has refused to accept them, and so the talent has been taken from him and +given to another. This is the judgment--that light has come into the world, +and we have chosen darkness. At the time we did not know it: blinded by +prejudice, heated by passion, we rushed recklessly on. But sooner or later +comes the calm hour of recollection, and we see ourselves as we are. + +But is this judgment which takes place in this world the only one? It is +unreasonable to think so. There are, in fact, two extreme views on this +subject. The views of those who say that all judgment is in this life, and +the views of those who say that no judgment is in this life. The New +Testament teaches that we are judged here, and that we are also judged +hereafter. The coming of Christ is here, and also hereafter; and the +judgment which commenced with his first coming will not be completed till +all of us stand before the judgment seat to give an account of the deeds +done in the body, whether they be good or evil. "It is appointed unto men +once to die, but after this the judgment." There is a judgment in this +life, and another to come. But those will be best prepared for that future +judgment who understand the present judgment. Here is an example of the +nature of the judgments which take place in this world. + +In the year 1633, an old man was brought before the Court of the +Inquisition, consisting of seven cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, +to hear a sentence and to pronounce a recantation. The crime he had +committed was the publication of a book in the form of a dialogue, +maintaining that the sun stood still, and that the earth moved; which +proposition these holy cardinals pronounced to be absurd, false in +philosophy, and formally heretical, seeing that it was expressly contrary +to Holy Scripture. Whereupon they call upon him to abjure, execrate, and +detest these errors and heresies; prohibiting his book and condemning him +to confinement, with the penance of reciting once a week, for three years, +the seven penitential psalms. And thereupon, this man, Galileo Galilei, of +the age of seventy, on his knees, with his hands on the Gospels, abjures +his opinion. + +These seven cardinals thought that they were pronouncing sentence on +Galileo and on the Copernican system. But, in reality, they pronounced +sentence on themselves and their own church. They put it upon record +forever, that the Roman Catholic Church, claiming to be infallible in +matters of faith, had, by its highest judicature, declared the Copernican +system a heresy, and thus declared its own claim to infallibility a lie. +This was the condemnation--that light had come into the world, and they +chose darkness rather than light. + +So it is whenever a new truth comes into the world: it attracts the +free-minded, the lovers of truth; it repels those bound by interest or +passion. Those who believe, with Solomon, that a living dog is better than +a dead lion, leave behind them the past, and with open eyes go forward, +leaving the dead to bury the dead. Those who change the maxim, and love a +dead dog more than a living lion, turn their backs to the east and to the +rising sun, and hug their much-loved errors to their hearts. So the truth +stands in their midst, awful in its beauty, and judges them--sending away +its foes, drawing its friends to its embrace. + +But it is not in abstract truth, whether of science or theology, that +Christ comes to us now. It is in the truth in its concrete shape, embodied +in the reforms which overthrow evil, in the great moral improvements which +do away with the sin and woe of the world. Every new cause of this sort +parts the sheep from the goats, and causes the thoughts of many hearts to +be revealed. We do not mean to assert that all who sympathize with any +particular reformatory measures, or any particular reformatory party, are +on the side of Christ, and all who disapprove these measures, or this +party, are against him. Such an assertion would be the sign of the +narrowest bigotry or the most foolish ignorance of human nature. But we +mean to say, that when any great human and moral movement comes to rouse +men's minds to a great evil--such as the evil of _war_, _slavery_, +_intemperance_, _licentiousness_, _popular ignorance_, _pauperism_, +_infidelity_, it is impossible for good men not to take an interest in it, +and in their own way to aid it. If men neglect and ridicule such +movements, find fault with all that is done, and do nothing themselves, +they show thereby that they do not care so much for their brother's +happiness as for their own ease and comfort. In this way it becomes true +that + + + "Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or + blight, + Parts the goats upon the left hand, parts the sheep upon the + right, + And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and the + light." + + +We read in the book of Acts, that after Paul and Barnabas had preached the +gospel to the Jews in Antioch, the Gentiles were interested also, and +great multitudes came together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews +saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and contradicted Paul and +blasphemed. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, "It was necessary +that the word of God should be first preached to you; but since you put it +from you, and _judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life_, lo, we turn to +the Gentiles." A hard judgment for a man to pronounce on himself--that he +is not worthy of eternal life! + +But do we not often all do the same? Christ comes to us in the form of a +new truth, which will correct our errors and enlarge our hearts. But +loving our own little creed better than the truth, we reject it without +examination, and so judge ourselves unworthy of the light, strength, and +peace it might bestow. Christ comes again in some opportunity of +usefulness to our neighbor. But loving our own selfish ease, we excuse +ourselves, and so judge ourselves unworthy of the happiness we should +enjoy in doing the kind action. He comes in some deep conviction, calling +us to a new life. We feel that we ought to leave our frivolity, and live +for God and eternity--live for what is real and permanent. But we stifle +these convictions, and go back to our old lives, and so judge that we are +not worthy to become the friends and fellow-workers of Jesus, and +companions of the pure and good. The great feast is ready, and the +invitation is sent to us, and we, with one consent, begin to make excuse. +Do we think that in that moment we are standing before the judgment seat +of God, and pronouncing sentence on ourselves? It is our own heart that +condemns us, and God, and Christ, and the everlasting truth of things must +confirm the sentence. + + + + +§ 10. Paul's View of the Judgment by Christ. + + +What were the views of the apostle Paul concerning a future judgment? One +of the passages is in Romans. (2:5-16.) In this passage Paul describes a +day, or time, when God should judge and bring to light the secrets of the +human heart. He refers probably to the coming of Christ, as described in +the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Christ's coming is represented as +"that day" the "day of judgment," as, "it shall be more tolerable for +Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment." It was not, we have seen, as +is commonly supposed, only a judgment in the other world after death, but +also a judgment in this world. It was not when we should go to Christ in +the other world, but when Christ should come to us in this world. It is +spoken of as a particular day, or time, and, no doubt, it was thought at +first by Paul, as by the other apostles, that the coming of Christ was to +be sudden and outward--an imposing visible transaction. But, gradually, +Paul's views on this subject changed, under the influence of a growing +spiritual insight. At first he interprets literally what Jesus says of his +coming. But afterwards, in his later Epistles to the Ephesians and +Colossians, he ceases to dwell on the outward coming, and speaks of the +inward revelation of Christ in the heart--speaks of our now sitting in +heavenly places with Christ. We may, therefore, suppose that the apostle +believed the essence of the judgment to be in this--that either in this +world or the next, or both, there shall be a revelation of God's truth to +the soul, so that every soul shall see itself as God sees it--see its own +evil or good, and so be rewarded or punished by that sight. This idea is +given by Jesus himself, in his description of the judgment which was to +take place before that generation passed away--a judgment in which the Son +of man should be seated on the throne of his glory, with all his angels, +and all nations be collected before him. The judgment consists in showing +to the good, that when they did anything good to man, they did it to +Christ and God; and in showing to the bad, that when they refused anything +to their poor brethren in want, they refused it to Christ and God. The +judgment is therefore making known to each man his own real character. The +consequence of that revelation is, that some men immediately go into +spiritual happiness, and others into spiritual suffering. + +This is the substance of the Christian doctrine of judgment, as taught in +the New Testament. All else is accessory, and belongs to the rhetoric--is +part of the _mise en scčne_; but there are two points in the views of the +apostle concerning judgment, which deserve further notice. The first is in +1 Cor. 6:2, where he says, "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the +world?" and (verse 3), "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" He speaks +of this as of something which they already knew, or at any rate could +know; something like an axiom, as when he says (verse 9), "Know ye not +that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" or (verse 19), +"Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?" This notion +is based on the idea of the unity of Christ and his disciples. Christians +are joint heirs with Christ. Whatever Christ inherits, they receive and +share with him. If he judges the world, and judges angels, they do the +same with him, because they share his spirit of insight. Paul thinks the +essence of Christianity to be so profound, that even the angels, desiring +to look into it, may not have seen it. Therefore Christians, to whose +heart God has revealed it by his Spirit, may be able to set the angels +right in some matters. But this does away with the notion of a literal day +of judgment; for we can hardly imagine Christians to be assembled together +and seated on a throne by the side of Christ, in order to judge the world. +Some millions of Christians seated on a local throne as judges, with +millions of men and angels standing before them, is an impossible picture. + +The other point is the passage in 1 Cor. 11:31: "If we would judge +ourselves, we should not be judged." Here a principle seems to be laid +down--that just so far as we apply God's truth to our own hearts and +consciences, we do not need to have it applied by God. And this +corresponds with the account of the judgment to which we have before +referred, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Those who are there +called up for judgment, and who stand before the throne, are not Jews or +Christians, but Gentiles ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}). The holy angels are with Christ in his +glory. The heathen appear before him; those who have been doing good +without knowing it are received by him into his kingdom, as those who have +been blessed by his Father. They are Christians, it appears, without +knowing it. They inherit the kingdom, from which the original heirs who +have been wicked and slothful servants, and who have buried their talent +in the napkin, are excluded. Christians who have judged themselves, and +applied Christianity by their own lives, are not to be judged at the +coming of Christ, but only those who have been doing right or wrong +ignorantly.(45) + + + + +§ 11. Final Result. + + +The course of our investigations in the present chapter has brought us to +this result. Orthodoxy is right in expecting the coming of Christ in this +world, but wrong in supposing it wholly future and wholly outward. It is +right in making it a _personal_ coming, and not merely the coming of his +truth apart from him, but wrong in conceiving of this personal coming, as +material to the senses, instead of spiritual to the soul. It is right in +expecting a judgment, but wrong in placing it only in the other world. It +is right in supposing that all mankind, the converted, the unconverted, +and the heathen, are to be judged by Christian truth, but wrong in +supposing that this judgment must occur in one place or at one time. +Finally, in this, as in regard to many other doctrines, Orthodoxy fails by +neglecting the great saying of Jesus, "THE SPIRIT QUICKENETH, THE FLESH +PROFITETH NOTHING," and the similar statement of Paul, "THE LETTER +KILLETH." + + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ANNIHILATION, UNIVERSAL RESTORATION. + + + + +§ 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent hereafter. + + +The different views concerning the future state, held by the Christian +Church, may be thus classified; arranging them, exhaustively, under eight +divisions:-- + +I. The Roman Catholic Church makes three conditions hereafter; viz.,-- + +1. Everlasting joy. +2. Everlasting suffering. +3. Temporal sorrow in purgatory. + +II. The Orthodox Protestant Church makes two conditions hereafter; viz.,-- + +1. Unmixed and everlasting joy. +2. Unmixed and everlasting suffering. + +III. The Old School Universalists make one condition hereafter; viz.,-- + +1. Eternal joy. + +IV. New School Universalists and Restorationists make two conditions +hereafter; viz.,-- + +1. Eternal joy. +2. Temporal and finite suffering. + +V. Unitarians make an indefinite number of conditions hereafter, according +to the various characters and moral states of men. + +VI. The Swedenborgians make an indefinite but limited number of heavens +and hells, suited to the varieties of character, but having a supernatural +origin. + +VII. The Spiritualists make the other world like this world, with no +essential differences, making it a continuation of the natural life. + +VIII. The Annihilationists believe that the finally impenitent will perish +wholly, and come to nothing. + +This statement includes all, or nearly all, of the views held in the +Christian Church concerning the condition of departed souls in the other +world. We do not propose to examine them all at the present time; but we +shall examine at some length three of them. + +Eternal punishment, annihilation, and universal restoration are the three +principal views taken in the Church of the condition hereafter of those +who die impenitent, and in a state of hostility to God. The wicked may +hereafter be reformed, may be annihilated, or may be kept in a state of +permanent punishment. One of these views is held by the Universalists; +another by Orthodoxy; the third is now adopted by those who are +dissatisfied with the horrors of Orthodoxy, but not yet ready to accept +the Optimism of the Universalist hope. We will consider these, beginning +with the Orthodox doctrine of everlasting punishment. We wish we could say +that this doctrine was not fully and decidedly Orthodox. But it is quite +as much so as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, or the atonement. No one +is allowed to have any doubts or questions concerning it. It seems to be +believed that the whole system of Orthodoxy would be endangered, if this +terror was not held to its bosom with an unfaltering grasp. + + + + +§ 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by the Orthodox at +the Present Time. + + +What is this doctrine, as it is taught at the present day in all Orthodox +churches, and as it stands in all Orthodox creeds? It is, that the moment +of death decides, and decides forever, the destiny of man; that those who +die impenitent, unbelieving, and unconverted are forever lost, without the +possibility of return; that those thus lost are to suffer forever and +ever, without end, the most grievous torments in soul and body. These +torments consist in banishment from the presence of God, and positive +sufferings, in addition thereto, of an awful kind. Precisely what they +are, it is not, perhaps, necessary for an Orthodox man to believe. There +is no Orthodox definition which is authoritative on that point; and +considerable range, therefore, is allowable. The suffering may be that of +literal fire, or it may not. It may be physical suffering, or the pangs of +conscience, the absence of love, and the sense of emptiness. On these +points there is some liberty of opinion, doubtless. But we presume that it +would not be Orthodox to admit a preponderance, in hell, of good over +evil; or to admit, with Swedenborg, the existence of pleasure there, even +though it be only a diabolical and sinful pleasure. The doctrine of +Orthodoxy certainly is, that evil predominates over good, and pain over +pleasure, in the condition of the damned; so that there existence is a +curse, and not a blessing. Especially is hope shut out: there is no hope +of return, no possibility of escape, no chance of repentance, even at the +end of myriads of years. The man who is condemned to imprisonment for +life, in solitary confinement, is in an unfortunate condition; but he has +hope,--hope of escape, hope of pardon,--sure hope, at all events, of +deliverance, one day, by death, from his condition, and a change to +something better, or at least to something different. But, in the Orthodox +opinion, there is no such alleviation as this to the sufferings of the +future state. + +It is usual, we know, for many Orthodox preachers to intensify in +description the sufferings of the future state, and to task their +imagination for multiplied pictures of horror; and we shall presently give +some examples to show how far this is carried. We have no doubt that there +are many Orthodox men who are as much shocked by these gross descriptions +as those are who deny everlasting punishment. But are they not themselves +really responsible for them? Those who admit the principle that God can +torment his children forever, in the other life, for sins committed in +this, have accepted the principle, from which _any_ view of the Deity, +however shocking, may very legitimately proceed. + +But let us, for the present, only assume that Orthodoxy asserts a +preponderance of evil over good in the other world, and that this +preponderance is to be continued without end--forever. Let us see what this +means. + +It means that the suffering to be endured hereafter by each individual +soul, as a punishment for sins committed in this world, will infinitely +exceed in amount all the suffering borne on the surface of the earth, by +its total population, from the creation of Adam to the destruction of the +world. Each lost soul will suffer not only more, but infinitely more, than +all the accumulated sufferings of the human race throughout all time. We +shudder as we read the account of the sufferings from hydrophobia, or the +burning alive of a slave at the South, or the tortures inflicted by the +Holy Inquisition, or the horrors of a field of battle, or the cruelties +inflicted by savages upon their victims; but all of these, added together, +are finite, and the sufferings of a single soul hereafter are infinite. +That is to say, all the pain and evil of this world, resulting from all +human sin, through all time, is infinitely small and insignificant when +compared with the punishment endured by a single soul hereafter for his +share of that sin. And all this is inflicted by God; and he is a God of +love. + +There are some doctrines, the statement of which is their refutation. +This, we think, is one of them. + +But it must also be considered, that this doctrine, which throws such +darkness over the future, also sends down a rayless night over the +present. It refutes every theodicy; it nullifies every solution of evil. +The consolation for the sufferings of this world is, that the fashion of +this world passes away, and that there is a better world to come. The +explanation of the evils of this life is, that they are finite, and that +they are, therefore, to be swallowed up and to disappear in an infinite +good. The Christian finds relief, in considering the sufferings of this +world, by regarding them as the means of a greater ultimate joy; by +looking forward to the time when all tears shall be wiped away; and by a +firm faith that love is stronger than selfishness, good stronger than +evil. But the doctrine of eternal punishment gives us, in the condition of +a single lost soul, a greater amount of evil hereafter than all the evil, +which is to be thus explained, here; and the myriads of lost souls, each +of which is to suffer infinitely more than all the sufferings of the +present world, present us with a problem, in the future, so appalling, +that the problem of present evil, vast as it is, becomes insignificant by +its side. + +We are tormented with evil here. We seek a solution of the problem: we +find it in the limited, finite, and ancillary nature of evil. But that +solution is wholly taken away when we are told that evil is infinite and +eternal. + +It seems to us impossible to hold the common doctrine on this subject, +without having the gospel view of the divine character essentially shaken; +it is not possible to regard Him as a being in whom love is the essential +attribute. If this is so, as we shall presently undertake to prove, it +becomes a matter of vital importance that the doctrine should be disproved +and rejected. It is not enough that it should be quietly laid aside: it is +due to the truth that it should be distinctly and fully confuted. For this +doctrine, if it be false, is deeply dishonorable to God: it takes away his +highest glory; it substitutes fear of him, in the place of love, in the +human heart; it neutralizes the peculiar power of the gospel; it degrades +the quality of Christian piety, and poisons religion in its fountain. + +The Orthodox doctrine of future punishment is, then, exceedingly simple. +There is to be a judgment in the last day, universal and final. All +mankind are to be collected before the judgment seat of Christ, and there +to be divided into two classes,--one on the right hand, and the other on +the left. These are to go upward, to heaven, to be eternally happy; those +downward, to hell, to be eternally miserable. There are no degrees of +suffering; for the torments of hell are infinite in degree, as well as +everlasting in duration. Usually the suffering is made intensively as well +as extensively infinite. Sometimes degrees are allowed in suffering. No +allowance is made for ignorance, or want of opportunity; for inherited +evil, or evil resulting from force of circumstances. The purest and best +of men, who does not believe the precise Orthodox theory concerning the +Trinity, sits in hell side by side with Zingis Khan, who murdered in cold +blood hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, marking his +bloody route by pyramids of skulls. The unbaptized child, who goes to hell +because of the original sin derived from Adam, is exposed to God's wrath +no less than Pope Alexander VI, who outraged every law of God and man, and +who, says Machiavelli, "was followed to the tomb by the holy feet of his +three dear companions--Luxury, Simony, and Cruelty."(46) + +This is the doctrine which every denomination and sect in Christendom, +except the Unitarians and Universalists, maintain as essential to +Orthodoxy. It is but a year or two since twenty-one bishops of the +Protestant Episcopal Church issued a declaration of their belief that this +doctrine is maintained, without reserve or qualification, by the Church of +England. Only recently an ecclesiastical council of Congregationalists +refused the fellowship of the churches to a gentleman elected as its +pastor by the Third Congregational Church in Portland, Maine. In the +report of the result, the council says that it believes the candidate to +be generally sound in his belief, and exemplary in his Christian spirit, +and heartily extends to him its Christian sympathy. But it declines to +install him as pastor, because it "understands him as saying, that he does +not know but there may be another state of probation and offer of +salvation, after death, for all to whom Christ is not personally preached; +and that, whilst believing in a future retribution, he says that the +everlasting punishment of the wicked may be an extinction of the wicked by +annihilation." So that a mere doubt on this subject is considered a +sufficient reason, by the most advanced and liberal of the whole Orthodox +body at the present day, for refusing church fellowship. + +The American Tract Society floods the land with loose leaves, all +appealing to the fear of an eternal hell. We have one before us now, +called "Are you insured?" which represents Christianity as a contrivance +for escaping from everlasting torment, as a spiritual insurance office, +where one must "take out a policy," and so escape everlasting fire.(47) + +There is no theological journal, bearing the Orthodox name, which is more +rational and liberal than the "New York Independent." But in its issue of +January 5, 1860, it speaks of future endless misery thus, saying that +there is a "vast amount and weight of evidence to the point--evidence +enough to prove it, if provable; all nature, all law, all revelation +uttering the doctrine, so that it is an amazing stretch and energy of +unbelief not to believe it, implying a moral state and position that will +not believe it on any testimony, however clearly and unqualifiedly, even +to the exhaustion of the capabilities of language, God himself may declare +and affirm it." + +There is evidently an energetic attempt made in some quarters to revive +the decaying belief in the doctrine of everlasting punishment in the +future state, as a penalty for the sins of this. Dr. Thompson, of New +York, has published a work to this end, called "Love and Penalty." Dr. J. +P. Thompson, the author of this book, is considered the leader of New +Haven theology--the Elisha on whose shoulders the mantle of Dr. Taylor, of +New Haven, has fallen. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, has labored in the +same field, exerting himself to prove this doctrine in various tracts and +other works. Professor Hovey, of the Baptist Seminary of Newton, has +published a little book on the same subject. + +It is probably thought dangerous by these gentlemen to relax at all the +terrors of futurity. And, no doubt, if all those who have been restrained +from evil by fear of eternal punishment were to lose that belief suddenly, +the consequences, at first, would be sometimes bad. If you have exerted +your whole force in producing fear of hell, instead of fear of sin, then, +the terror of hell being taken away, men might rush at first into license. +But the dread of a future hell is by no means so efficacious a motive as +is often thought. We become hardened to everything, and neither the +clergyman nor his parish eat any less heartily of their Sunday dinner, nor +sleep any less soundly on Sunday night, in consequence of the terrible +descriptions of eternal torments contained in the morning's sermon.(48) + + + + +§ 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, in Regard to +this Doctrine. + + +Beside the practical motive for maintaining this doctrine, which we have +intimated, there are also scriptural and philosophical reasons. Scripture +and reason both do, in fact, seem to teach opposite doctrines on this +subject. There are passages in the New Testament which appear to teach +never-ending suffering, and others which appear to teach a final, +universal restoration. It is written, "These shall go away into eternal +punishment;" but it is also written, that Christ "shall reign till all +things are subdued unto him;" when "the Son also himself shall be subject +to Him who did put all things under him, that God may be all in all." As +the same word is used to express the way in which all enemies are to be +subject to Christ, and the way in which Christ himself is to be subject to +God, it follows that the enemies, when subjected, shall be friends. It is +said that the wicked shall be punished "with everlasting destruction from +the presence of God;" but it is also said that "in the dispensation of the +fulness of times, God will gather in one all things in Christ, both which +are in heaven and on earth;" and "that at the name of Jesus every knee +should bow, in heaven, in earth, and under the earth; and that every +tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the +Father." It is said of the wicked, that "their worm never dies, and their +fire is not quenched;" but it is also said that "it pleased the Father, +having made peace through the blood of the cross, by Christ to reconcile +all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth or things in +heaven." So that Scripture, at first sight, seems to teach both eternal +punishment and universal restoration. + +There is a similar contradiction on this subject, if considered in the +light of pure reason. When looked at from the divine attributes, the +unavoidable conclusion seems to be, that all men must be finally saved. +For God is infinitely benevolent, and therefore must wish to save all; is +infinitely wise, and therefore must know how to save all; is infinitely +powerful, and therefore must be able to overcome all difficulties in the +way of saving all: hence all must be saved. But, on the other hand, when +we consider the subject from the position of man's nature, an opposite +conclusion seems to follow. For man, being free, is able to choose either +evil or good at any moment; and, as long as he continues to be essentially +man, he must retain this freedom; and therefore, at any period of his +future existence, however remote, he may prefer evil to good--that is, may +prefer hell to heaven. But God will not compel him to be good against his +will (for unwilling goodness is not goodness); and therefore it follows +that there is no point of time in the infinite future of which we can +certainly say that then all men will be saved. + +Of course these seeming contradictions of Scripture and antinomies of +reason are not real contradictions. God does not contradict himself either +in revelation or in reason. Whether we can reconcile such antagonisms +_now_, or not, we know that they will be reconciled. Meantime, it is our +duty to disbelieve whatever is dishonorable to God, or opposed to the +character ascribed to him by Jesus Christ. Christ has taught us to regard +God as our Father. It is our duty to refuse credence to any doctrine +concerning him which is plainly opposed to this character. If I have +formed my opinion of my friend's character from a large experience, I +ought to refuse to believe, even on good evidence, anything opposed to it. +What is faith in man, or in God, good for, that is unable to resist evil +reports concerning them? If I am told that my friend has become a thief or +a swindler, and he who tells me says, "I know that it is so--here is the +evidence," I reply, "I do not care for your evidence. I know that it is +impossible." So, if all the churches in the world, Catholic and +Protestant, tell me that Jesus teaches everlasting punishment inflicted by +God for the sins of this life, and produce chapter and verse in support of +their statement, I reply, "If I have learned anything about God from the +teachings of Jesus, it is that your assertion is impossible. About the +meaning of these passages you may be mistaken, for the letter killeth; but +I cannot be mistaken in regard to the fatherly character of the Almighty." + +These contradictions we shall consider in a paper printed in the Appendix +(an examination of Dr. Neheimiah Adams's tract on the "Reasonableness of +Everlasting Punishment"). At present we will only say that we should hold +it less dishonorable to God to deny his existence than to believe this +doctrine concerning him. We think that in the last day it will appear that +the atheist has done less to dishonor the name of God than those who +persistently teach this view. For what says Lord Bacon? (Essays, XVII. Of +Superstition.) "It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such +an opinion as is unworthy of him; for the one is unbelief, the other is +contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity. +Plutarch saith well to that purpose. 'Surely,' saith he, 'I had rather a +great deal men should say there were no such man at all as Plutarch, than +that they should say there was one Plutarch that would eat his children as +soon as they were born,' as the poets speak of Saturn. And as the +contumely is greater towards God, so is the danger greater towards men." + +The doctrine of everlasting punishment, being essentially a heathen and +not a Christian doctrine, cannot do any Christian good to any one. It is +the want of faith in the Church which makes it afraid of giving it up. The +Christian Church has not faith enough to believe in the power of truth and +love. It still thinks that men must be frightened into goodness, or driven +into it. Fear is a becoming and useful motive no less than hope; but fear +of what? Not fear of God; but fear of sin, fear of ourselves, fear of +temptation. To be afraid of God never did any one any good. These +doctrines drive men away from God; or, if they drive them _to_ God, drive +them as slaves, as sycophants, as servants, not as sons. We are saved by +becoming _the sons of God_; but you cannot drive a man into sonship by +terror. You may make him profess religion, and go through ceremonies, and +have an outward form of service; but you cannot make him love God by means +of fear. + +But good men teach these things, no doubt. Men far better than most of us +believe them and teach them. It always has been so. The best men have +always been the chief supporters of bad doctrines. A good man, humble and +modest, is apt to shrink from doubting or opposing what the Church has +taught. He accepts it, and teaches it too. When God wants a reformer, he +does not take one of these good, modest, humble men. He does not take a +saint. He takes a man who has ever so much will, a little obstinacy, and a +great love of fighting; and he makes the wrath of such a man to serve him. + +Neither St. Teresa nor Fénélon could have reformed the Catholic Church. It +took rough old Martin Luther and hard-hearted John Calvin to do it. The +first Universalists, the Abolitionists, all reformers, are necessarily men +of that sort. They are rude debaters, not standing on ceremony or +politeness. They are hard-headed logicians, going straight to their point, +careless of elegances and proprieties. They are God's pioneers, rough +backwoodsmen, hewing their way with the axe through the wilderness. After +them shall come the peaceful farmer, with plough and spade, to turn the +land into wheat fields, orchards, and gardens. + + + + +§ 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God. + + +It is certain that the doctrine of eternal punishment, in the common form, +can only be maintained by giving up some of the infinite attributes of the +Almighty. If punishment is to exist without end; if hell is always to +co-exist with heaven; if certain beings are to be continued forever in +existence merely as sinful sufferers,--then, it is clear, God is not +omnipotent. He shares his throne forever with Satan. Satan and God divide +between them the universe. God reigns in heaven, Satan in hell. God +desires that all shall be saved; but this desire is absolutely and forever +defeated by a fate greater than Deity. Law divorced from love--that is, +nature in its old Pagan aspect--is higher than God. God is not the Almighty +to any one who really believes eternal punishment. God is not the +Sovereign of the universe, but only of a part of it. The doctrine of +eternal punishment, in its common form, does, therefore, virtually +dethrone God.(49) + +It is, in fact, impossible to conceive of an eternal hell co-existing with +an eternal heaven, without also seeing that it limits eternally the divine +Omnipotence; for the omnipotence of God is in carrying out his will to +have all men saved by becoming holy. Unless God's laws are obeyed, God is +not obeyed; and he is not sovereign if not obeyed. Hell is a condition of +things hostile to God's will: it is a permanent and successful rebellion +of a part of the universe. It is no answer to say, that it is shut up, and +restrained, and made to suffer; for it is _not_ conquered. God has +conquered sin only when he has reduced it to obedience. Hell is no more +subject to God than the Confederate States, during the rebellion, were +subject to the United States government. They were shut up by a blockade; +they were restrained by great armies and navies; they were made to suffer; +but they were _not_ reduced to submission and obedience. + +Nor is it any answer to say, that the existence of sin and suffering +hereafter no more limits God's omnipotence than their existence here and +now limits his omnipotence. For the question is of ETERNAL suffering. +Temporal suffering hereafter, we grant, is no objection to the divine +Omnipotence. Limited and finite evil, in this world or the other, is no +philosophical difficulty; and for this reason--that finite evil, when +compared with infinite good, becomes logically and mathematically _no_ +evil. The finite disappears in relation to the infinite. All the +sufferings and sins of earth, through all ages, are strictly nothing when +viewed in the light of the eternal joy and holiness which are to result +from them. This is a postulate of pure reason. Make evil finite, and good +infinite,--make evil temporal, and good eternal,--and evil ceases to be +anything. But make evil eternal, as is done by this doctrine, and then we +have Manicheism--an infinite dualism--on the throne of the universe. + + + + +§ 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love of God. + + +This doctrine is a relapse on Paganism, and derived from it. It has +nothing to do with Christianity, except to corrupt it. No man was ever +made better by believing it: multitudes have been made worse. It +attributes to our heavenly Father conduct that, if done by the worst of +men, would add a shade of increased wickedness to their character. It +assumes that God has made intelligent creatures with the intention of +tormenting some of them forever. It assumes that those who are thus +created, exposed to this awful risk, are to be thus tormented, unless they +happen to pass through what is called an Orthodox conversion in this short +earthly life. God keeps them alive forever in order to torture them +forever. + +The barbarity of this opinion exceeds all power of language to express. We +are accustomed to mourn over the anguish and misery that are in this +world. The problem of earthly evil has been a burden and anxiety to good +men in all times, a great question for thinkers in all ages. The only +satisfactory solution is, that it is temporary and educational; that it is +to pass away, and, in passing, to create a higher joy and goodness than +could otherwise have come. But the doctrine of everlasting punishment not +only annuls this explanation, and makes it impossible to explain earthly +evil, but adds to it a tenfold greater mystery. The fatherly character of +God disappears in Pagan darkness, in view of this horrid doctrine; for the +everlasting suffering of one human being contains in itself more evil than +the accumulated sufferings of all mankind from the creation of the world +to the end of it. Add together all the sicknesses, bereavements, +disappointments, of all mankind; all the wars, famines, pestilences, that +have tormented humanity; add to these all the mental and moral pangs +produced by selfishness and sin in all ages, and all that are to be to the +end of time,--and these all combined are logically and mathematically +_nothing_, compared with the sufferings of one human being destined to be +everlastingly punished. For all temporal sufferings added together are +finite; but this is infinite. + +Now, the being who could inflict such torture as this is _not_ the God and +Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There may be some deity of cruelty, some +incarnation of wrath and despotism, in the Hindoo Pantheon, capable of +such terrific wickedness. It is no answer to say that God inflicts +suffering now in this world, and therefore he may inflict everlasting +suffering in the other; for those are all finite; that is infinite. +_Finite_ suffering may result in greater good, may be an education to +good; but _everlasting_ suffering cannot. The finite and infinite cannot +be compared together. There is no analogy between them. + +The God of the New Testament is our Father. If he inflicts suffering, it +is for our good; "not for his pleasure, but for our profit, that we may be +partakers of his holiness." All earthly suffering finds this solution, and +accords with the fatherly character of God in this point of view. Much, no +doubt, cannot be now fully understood. We do not _see how_ it tends to +good; but all suffering _that ends_ MAY end in good. Suffering that does +not end CANNOT end in good. + +If human beings are everlastingly punished, it must either be that they go +on sinning forever, and cannot repent, lose all power of repentance, and +so cease to be moral agents, or else that they retain the power of +repenting, and therefore _may_ repent. In the first case, God continues to +punish forever those who have ceased to sin, because their freedom and +moral power have ceased; or else he punishes forever those who have +repented, and _so_ ceased sinning. In either case, God must punish +everlastingly those who have ceased to be sinners; which is incredible. + +If God is a Father, he is at least _as good_ as the best earthly father. +Now, what father or mother would ever consent to place a child in a +situation where there was even a chance of its running such an awful risk? +God has _created_ us with these liabilities to sin; he has (according to +Orthodoxy) chosen and determined that we shall be born wholly prone to +evil, and sure to fall into eternal and unending ruin, unless he saves us +by a special act of grace. "What man among you, being a father," would do +so? Custom dulls our sense to these horrors. Let us therefore imagine a +case far less terrible. Suppose that a number of parents should establish +a school, to which to send their children. Suppose they should arrange a +code of laws for the school of such a stringent character that all the +children are sure to break it. Under the school are vaults containing +instruments of torture. For each offence against the laws of the school +(offences which the children cannot fail to commit) they are to be +punished by imprisonment for life in these cells, with daily torture, from +racks, thumb-screws, and the like. A few of them are to be selected from +the rest, not for any merit of their own, but by an arbitrary decree of +the parents, and are to be rewarded (not for their superior good conduct, +but according to the caprice of the parents) with every luxury and +privilege. Among these privileges is included that of taking a daily walk +through the cells, and witnessing the horrible sufferings of their +brothers and companions, and hearing their shrieks of anguish, and +praising the JUSTICE of their parents in thus punishing some and rewarding +the rest. + +But this, you may say, is not a parallel case. No, we grant it is not, for +what are these torments to that of a never-ending futurity? They are all +as nothing. Therefore every such comparison must utterly fail of doing +justice to the diabolic cruelty ascribed to the Almighty by this Orthodox +doctrine. + +"But what right," says the Orthodox defender of this doctrine, "have we to +reason in this way concerning the divine proceedings, by the analogy of +earthly parents? What right have we to compare God's doings with those of +a human father?" _No_ right, perhaps, as philosophers; but as Christians +we have not only the right to do it, but it is our duty to do so. Jesus +has himself taught us to use this analogy, in order to acquire confidence +in God's ways, and to assure ourselves that God cannot fail of acting as +we should expect a good and wise earthly parent to act. "What man is there +of _you_, whom, if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he +ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If _ye_ then, being evil, know how +to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father, +which is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?" (Matt. +7:9-11.) Jesus authorizes and commands us to reason from the parental +nature in man to that in God. Instead of simply assuring us of it, on the +ground of his own authority to teach us; instead of saying, "Believe this, +because I say it," he says, "Believe it, because it accords with your own +convictions and with human nature." + + + + +§ 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment. + + +The reasons for the late efforts to support this terrific doctrine are +probably to be found in a widespread and increasing disbelief concerning +it, pervading the churches nominally Orthodox. This has come from the +growing intelligence and progressive movements of thought in the Christian +Church. The evidences of this belief are numerous and increasing. Those +who reject the Orthodox view are a numerous body, but divided into several +parties. There are the old-fashioned Universalists, a valiant race,--men of +war from their youth,--who, under the lead of such men as Hosea Ballou and +Thomas Whittemore, have spent their lives in fighting the doctrine of +everlasting punishment. Very naturally, perhaps, they went to the opposite +extreme of opinion, and denied all future suffering. But this view has, we +think, ceased to be the prevailing one among the Universalists. The +doctrine of ultimate restoration has very generally taken its place. This +doctrine also prevails widely in other denominations; not only among the +liberal bodies, like the Unitarians, but also among Methodists, +Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. It has widely spread, as is well +known, in Germany. It was held by Schleiermacher, the father of modern +German theology. It tinges the writings of such Orthodox men as Tholuck, +Hahn, and Olshausen. Others profess to believe in everlasting punishment, +but make it a merely negative consequence of lost time and opportunity: +one will be always worse off hereafter in consequence of the neglect of +duty. Others follow Swedenborg, and make the sufferings of hell rather +agreeable than otherwise to those who bear them. + +Various ineffectual attempts have indeed been made, in all ages of the +Church, to soften the austerity of this doctrine. From the days of Origen, +these merciful doctors(50) have always been trying to soften this austere +dogma, but ineffectually; for the dread of an eternal hell has been one of +the chief motives which the Church has used in converting men from sin to +holiness. Any suggestion of the possibility of future restoration would, +it is feared, cut the sinews of effective preaching. For the baptized who +are not fit for heaven the Roman Catholic Church has established, indeed, +a temporary hell, with torments of an inferior sort; for bad Catholics +there is purgatory, with the hope of ultimate escape from it; but for the +unbaptized heathen, for heretics, and for excommunicated persons, there is +nothing but eternal punishment. + +Many, in all ages, have made the everlasting continuance of punishment not +absolute, but _hypothetical_--depending on the question, "Will the sinner +continue forever to sin?"(51) Others have made future punishment +_relatively_ everlasting; that is, because even the repentant sinner will +be always just so far behind the position he would have had if he had not +sinned. This, however, is taking a material view of progress, as though it +was limited, like the going of a horse, to so many miles a day. + +Many of the early fathers, and some of the medięval doctors, took milder +views of the future sufferings of the impenitent or unconverted. +Proceeding from the idea of freedom, as indestructible in the human soul, +Origen declared that, no matter how low any moral being has fallen, a way +to return is always open to him. Even the devil may, in time, regain the +highest position in the angelic hierarchy.(52) No doubt Origen admitted +the need of external conditions for this restoration; but he said, God is +able to heal the damage done to any part of his works.(53) He will restore +all things to their origin, uniting the end and the beginning, and so +becoming indeed the Alpha and Omega. This may require long processes, +through many ages.(54) Since Jesus speaks of a sin which cannot be +forgiven in this age ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}) nor the next, it follows, says Origen, that +there is a series of ages, or worlds, through which we pass, and many of +these ages of ages (sęcula sęculorum) must pass away before all bad men +and angels shall have returned to their original state. Quoting the +passage, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed," he says that he shall +not be destroyed as to his substance, but as to his enmity. His being was +made by God, and cannot perish; his hostile will proceeded from himself, +and shall be destroyed. + +Mr. Brownson (or rather a writer in Brownson's "Quarterly Review," July, +1863) takes another way of softening the terrors of hell. With him too, +hell is an everlasting state; but he maintains that the Roman Church has +not made it an article of faith to believe that there is any positive +suffering therein. If you believe in an eternal hell, that is enough; you +are not precluded from softening its horrors to any extent you can. Thus +he maintains that the great Augustine allows hell to be only a negative +state--only the absence of the exquisite beatitude of heaven. This writer +(who is said by the editor to be a learned Catholic priest) asserts that +there is a growing repugnance to the popular doctrine upon eternal +punishment among the most intelligent of the Catholic laity, and this +reluctance is the chief obstacle to the reception of the faith by a large +class of non-Catholics. He attempts to meet this state of mind by showing +that neither the doctrine of St. Augustine nor that of the Catholic Church +supports this popular view, but allows a much milder one. He proceeds to +make these points:-- + +1. St. Augustine nowhere teaches that human nature is intrinsically evil, +but he invariably teaches that it is substantially good. ("Omnis natura in +quantum natura est bona est." "Omnis substantia aut Deus est aut ex Deo." +De Lib. Arbit.) Therefore it follows that the very notion of _total_ +depravity is impossible. St. Augustine distinctly says that "the very +unclean spirit himself is good, inasmuch as he is a spirit, but evil +inasmuch as he is unclean." Hence, not even the nature of the devil +himself is evil. So St. Thomas ("Diabolus, in quantum habet esse, est +bonus"), "the devil, so far as he _is_, is good." + +2. St. Augustine teaches in explicit terms that existence is a good even +to angels and men who are eternally bound by the consequences of evil. + +3. Eternal death, according to St. Augustine, is a subsidence into a lower +form of life, a privation of the highest vital influx from God in order to +everlasting life, or supreme beatitude, but not of all vital influx in +order to an endless existence, which is a partial and incomplete +participation in good. These sinful souls, therefore, fulfil in a measure +the end of their creation, and have a place and a function in harmony with +the general order of the cosmos. There is no trace, in this view of +Augustine, that God hates a portion of his creatures with an absolute, +infinite, and eternal hatred, and is hated by them in return. The original +act of creative love is an enduring and eternal act, in which even Satan +is included. "Their nature still remains essentially good, and far +superior in excellence and beauty to material light, which is the highest +corporeal substance." + +4. Hell, therefore (Infernus), is simply a lower state of inchoate and +imperfect being, "of saints nipped in the bud." Infant damnation is only a +gentle sadness--"levis tristitia." All positive suffering in hell is +probably temporal, and therefore must at last cease. The lost souls will +enjoy there quite as much as they can do here, _minus_ the temporal +sufferings of this life. They continue _natural_ beings, and therefore can +enjoy all natural joy; and that which they lose, being the "beatific +vision," of which they have no conception, is a loss of which they are +wholly unconscious. + +Swedenborg maintains, in the same way, the everlasting character of the +punishment of those who have passed the final judgment, but admits many +palliations to its sufferings. He teaches that delight is the universal +substance of heaven, and also of hell, and that evil spirits are in the +delight of evil, as good spirits in that of good. An evil spirit would be +as unhappy in heaven as a good one would be in hell. + + + + +§ 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture. + + +But what, then, is the vital truth in the doctrine of eternal punishment? +Christ says, "These shall go away into eternal punishment."(55) What is +this "eternal punishment"? It is commonly supposed to mean the same thing +as punishment which shall never end, or punishment continued through all +time. But this is to misunderstand both the philosophical and scriptural +meaning of the word "eternal." Eternal punishments are the opposite of +temporal punishments: they have nothing to do with time at all; they are +punishments outside of time. To attempt to realize eternity by adding up +any number of myriads of years of time, is necessarily a failure; for time +and eternity are different things. You might as well attempt to produce +thought or love, by adding up millions of miles of distance, as, by adding +up millions of years of time, to get any idea of eternity. Eternal life, +in the language of Scripture, has nothing to do with the future or the +past. It is a present life in the soul, awakened within by the knowledge +of God and Christ. "This _is_ life eternal, to know thee, the only true +God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." "Eternal life and eternal +death both come from the knowledge of God and of Christ." To one it is a +savor of life, to another of death. Eternal punishment and eternal life +are the punishments and the rewards of eternity, distinguished from those +of time, and having their root in the knowledge of God which comes through +Christ. Eternal life and eternal punishment both commence here, from the +judgments which takes place now: but the last judgment, or the judgment of +the last day, is that which will take place hereafter, when the soul shall +have a full knowledge of itself and of God; see its whole life as it +really is; have all self-deceptions taken away, all disguises removed, and +know itself as it is known. God's love, when revealed, attracts and +repels. Like all real force, it is a polar force. The one pole is its +attractive power over those who are in a truth-loving state; the other +pole is its repelling power to those who are in a truth-hating state. Love +attracts the truthful, and repels the wilful. Eternal punishment, then, is +the repugnance to God of the soul which is inwardly selfish in its +will,--loving itself more than truth and right. It is the sense of +indignation and wrath, alienation and poverty, which rests on it while in +this condition. It is the outer darkness; it is the far country; it is the +famine, which comes as a holy and blessed evil, sent to save, by bringing +to repentance, the prodigal child, who has not yet "come to himself." + +From this knowledge of God and of itself, therefore,--from this judgment of +the last day,--will flow eternal life to the one class, and eternal +punishment or suffering to the other. Those who have been conscientious +and generous; who have endeavored faithfully to live for truth and right; +who have made sacrifices, and not boasted of them; who have clothed the +naked and fed the hungry, making the world better and happier by their +presence,--will hear the Saviour say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, +inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for +I was hungry, and ye gave me meat." Perhaps they have never even heard the +name of Christ; perhaps they were the Buddhists of Burmah, of whom Mr. +Malcom speaks, who brought food to him, though a stranger to them. "I was +scarcely seated," says he, "when a woman brought a nice mat for me to lie +on; another, cool water; and a man went and picked me a half dozen fine +oranges. None sought or expected the least reward, but disappeared, and +left me to my repose." Or perhaps they will be the poor black women in +Africa, who took such kind care of Mungo Park, singing, "Let us pity the +white man: he has no mother to bring him milk, no wife to grind him corn." +The reward of their fidelity will be the gift of a greater power of +goodness, coming from a knowledge of God and Christ. They were helping +Christ, though they did not know him. They will say, "Lord, when saw we +thee an hungered?" These Gentiles, without the law, who do by nature the +things contained in the law, will come to know Christ, and receive a +spiritual life--life flowing from that knowledge. On the other hand, those +who have not endeavored to do what they knew to be right will receive from +the same knowledge of God and Christ a spiritual or eternal punishment. +Perhaps they have received some of it already in this world; but a deeper +knowledge of the truth will bring a keener self-reproach. The worm that +never dies is this gnawing(56) tooth of conscience. The fire which is not +quenched is the heart still selfish, turned to evil, joined with a +conscience which sees the good. For man, as long as he is man, cannot get +away from himself. He may sophisticate himself with falsehoods, put his +conscience to sleep, and imagine that he has escaped all the penalties of +evil; but he cannot escape from himself. The longer and deeper the sleep +of conscience, the more terrible its final awakening. + +Eternal punishment, therefore, is the punishment which comes to man from +his spiritual nature; from that side of man which connects him with +eternity, in contradistinction from temporal punishment, which is that +which comes from his temporal nature and the temporal world. Through the +body he receives temporal pleasure or pain from the world of time and +space; through the spirit he receives spiritual joy or sorrow from the +world of eternity and infinity. + +Thus intimately are judgment and retribution connected. There is nothing +arbitrary about rewards or punishments. They follow naturally and +necessarily from the revelation of divine and eternal truth. Sooner or +later, the everlasting distinctions between right and wrong, good and +evil, make themselves seen and known. The distinctions between right and +wrong _are_ eternal. + +The idea of duration is not connected with eternal punishment or eternal +life; for the idea of duration belongs to time, and not to eternity. Human +law sentences men, for crime, to be punished by imprisonment for six +months, three years, ten years, or for life; but in God's world there is +not, and cannot be, any relation between a man's guilt and the precise +time he is to suffer. He must suffer while he is guilty, be the time +longer or shorter. When he ceases to be guilty, he must cease to suffer. +He therefore fixes the _duration_ of his suffering himself: that makes no +part of the divine sentence. If he judges himself unworthy of eternal life +during five, ten, one hundred, or ten thousand million years, that is for +himself to say. God will never save him against his will; and God can +wait. The sphere of time belongs to man's freedom; that of eternity, to +the freedom of God. + +And this reconciles the philosophic difficulty. Man, being _free_, can +postpone his submission and obedience _indefinitely_; but, being finite, +cannot postpone it _infinitely_. At any point of time, he may still +resolve to resist the influx of eternal life, and continue in the sphere +of death: but eternity surrounds time, and infolds it; and in eternity +God's purposes will be realized, and every knee bow, of things in heaven, +and in earth, and under the earth. Universal harmony must prevail at last. + +"Eternal" and "everlasting" are two wholly different ideas. We fully +believe in eternal punishment, but not in everlasting punishment. Eternal +life is spiritual life: eternal suffering is spiritual suffering. + +The whole of antiquity recognizes this distinction; and the Bible is +saturated with it. When Jesus says, "He who believes in me has _eternal +life_ abiding in him," there is nothing about duration intended in that. +When he says, "This is _life eternal_, to know thee the only true God," +there is nothing about duration implied. It is the quality of the life +which is conveyed--spiritual life, life flowing from the sight of God and +Christ. + +We believe in eternal punishment; but, because it is eternal, therefore it +is not everlasting. Eternal suffering, flowing from the sight of the +eternal truth and love of God, is real suffering, because it involves the +sight of sin, the consciousness of failure, the deep conviction of what we +ought to do and have not done; but all this leads to repentance and +salvation. When the Lord turned and looked on Peter, Peter went into +eternal suffering. He saw his own guilt and the infinite goodness of his +Master at the same time. The one produced penitence; the other, hope. But, +when Judas hanged himself, he did _not_ go into eternal punishment, but +into temporal. He saw his own baseness and his own folly; but he did not +see God's love. If he had seen God's love and Christ's pardoning mercy, +together with his sin, he would not have hanged himself; but, like Peter, +he would have repented, and gone forth to preach the gospel. + +When we see God's truth and love, we go into eternal life or into eternal +suffering, according to the direction of our lives and hearts. If we are +following Christ, and trying to do right,--if we are not selfish, but +generous,--then the sight of God's love and truth in Christ leads us +directly into spiritual joy; but if we are selfish, and seeking only our +own good, if we are indifferent to the rights of our fellow-men, then we +go into eternal or spiritual suffering. + +The force of eternal punishment, therefore, is not in the statement that +it is never to end; nor in any description, however vivid, of outward +physical torments. Such descriptions produce excitement, agitation, +terror. But this is not _conviction_. The doctrine, not being in harmony +with the attributes of God or the nature of man, can never be sincerely or +profoundly believed. It is inwardly opposed by every Christian conviction +in the human soul; for it is not Christian, but Pagan. It is a relapse +into Paganism, an importation of Pagan terrors into Christianity. It +degrades every soul that teaches it, or that accepts it, in the same way +that idolatry degrades it. It puts a veil between the soul and the true +God. + +But the true Christian doctrine of eternal punishment is, that the soul +which sins shall eternally suffer; that there is an eternal distinction +between truth and falsehood, good and evil; that spiritual distinctions +are positive and real; and that evil is not a mere negative thing, +implying a little less of good, but positive, being the state of a soul +which is repelled, not attracted, by the divine goodness; which keeps away +from God, as the shadow keeps on the side of the globe which is away from +the sun. + +Again: eternal suffering is the suffering of eternity, as distinguished +from temporal suffering, which has its root in time. This is something +which comes from within, while temporal suffering comes from without. Till +man is reconciled to God by obedience and love, he has the sentence of +death in himself. This suffering is not arbitrary, but fixed in the nature +of things. As a sinner, man must be eternally separated inwardly from God, +and therefore from bliss. His hell is within him, not without. And it is +also here, as well as hereafter, since eternity is here, no less than +time. + +In this view of eternal punishment, there is an important truth--truth +essential to the just spiritual growth of man. It is needed to resist the +tendency to make light of sin. It is needed to oppose the view which makes +evil, as well as good, a natural growth, and teaches that all men are on +their way upward, and will ultimately fall into heaven by some specific +levity. It is needed to remind us that we must choose whom we will serve, +and that, consciously or unconsciously, we are at all moments tending +either upward or downward--either towards God or away from him. + +This is the great truth which is often lost sight of by Liberal +Christianity, and by that easy optimism which declares that "whatever is, +is right;" but darkly taught, because dimly seen, by Orthodoxy. Pagan in +its form, there is often an essentially Christian idea communicated by the +Orthodox pulpit. The Pagan form may be neglected and disbelieved: the +Christian impression may remain. It tightens the nerves of the soul, as a +cold bath invigorates the body made languid by too much warmth and ease. +Yet, as long as the Pagan form remains, the interior truth is shorn of its +full power. Let us pray that the truth, divested of its dark errors, may +at last be recognized by the Christian Church. For very often the words of +a great writer and thinker (who also was an earnest opponent of the +Orthodox form of this doctrine) recur to us in these studies: "Few see the +things themselves, but only the forms of things, in the mirror of +reflection, as images. But we shall at last see the things themselves face +to face, as it is said, and without a veil, if it please God, in part +before the close of this present life, more fully in the life to +come."(57) + + + + +§ 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment. + + +To what we have said of judgment by Christ, in the previous chapter, we +add here some further thoughts in regard to its connection with +punishment. Orthodoxy makes this connection arbitrary and outward. For +such sins, it says, God has appointed such a punishment; and the object of +judgment is to glorify God, by showing how exact he is in finding out +every sinner, and fulfilling his every threat against evil. But, according +to a better view, which alone can commend itself to minds of any large +range--future judgment is simply the act by which God shows to a man the +truth concerning himself, so that he can see it. + +A deaf and dumb child being asked, "What is judgment?" replied, "Judgment +is to see ourselves as we are, and to see God as he is." This is the +essential thing in judgment; and in this sense Christ is declared "to be +the judge of the quick and the dead;" that is, he judges us in this world, +and will judge us in the other world. His judgments are not external, +sentencing us to external punishments; but they are internal, causing us +to judge ourselves. He shows us what we are. Whenever he comes, he comes +to judgment, separating the good from the evil, testing the state of the +heart, causing men to go to the right or the left. His coming always makes +an issue which cannot be avoided; calls upon us to decide which course we +shall take, what thing we shall do, what master we will serve. When Christ +first came, he came for judgment, that the thoughts of many hearts might +be revealed,--revealed to themselves and to others. Wherever he came, men +immediately were divided into two classes,--becoming his disciples, or +becoming his opponents. No longer was any compromise possible between +truth and error, between right and wrong. They were obliged to choose +which to serve; and they chose according to the inward tendency of their +hearts. They whose hearts were right, chose the right: they whose hearts +were wrong, chose the wrong. + +Christ is thus the Judge of the living as well as the dead. Often in our +lives he comes to us thus to be our Judge. Every time he calls upon us to +do anything for him, he judges the state of our heart. Every time he +offers an opportunity to the world of improvement or progress, he judges +the world. + +When he was on trial before Caiaphas and before Pilate, they were on +trial, and not he. When they sentenced him, they condemned themselves. +During the whole of those dark hours, when Christ was buffeted, spit upon, +crowned with thorns, to the eyes of angels he was seen to be sitting on +the throne of his glory. Caiaphas and the Jewish priests, Pontius Pilate +and the Roman soldiers, Judas Iscariot, the Jewish people, each in turn +received their sentence, and passed to the left hand. And so ever since, +whenever any great opportunity has been given to the world to decide +between right and wrong, the world has pronounced judgment on itself; has +gone to the right hand with the sheep, or to the left hand with the goats. +When Paul offered Christianity to the Jews, and they rejected it, he said +"it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to +you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of +eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." So it always is. God does not +judge us, nor Christ; but we judge ourselves. For this reason Jesus says, +"If any man hear me, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to +judge the world." And again he says, "The word which I have spoken, the +same shall judge him at the last day." And yet again, "This is the +judgment, that light has come into the world, and that men have chosen +darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." + +The account of judgment (in the 25th chapter of Matthew) at Christ's +coming we considered in the last chapter. It will, however, bear a little +further examination. There are _three_ different judgments indicated in +the three parables of the virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats. +The first is the judgment of opportunity, the second of work, the third of +knowledge. In the first and second we judge ourselves, in the last we are +judged. These two occur in time, the other in eternity. The first two are +the judgments which take place at Christ's coming here; the third is the +judgment of "the last day." The first takes place whenever we are "called" +by a new opportunity; the second comes in all retribution; the third by +the inward revelation of God's truth, showing men what they are, and what +God is. The wise and foolish virgins represent those _who are invited to +receive Christianity_; the servants with the talents, believers who have +received it in different degrees; and the nations (heathen, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~})(58) +those (in Christendom or outside of it) to whom Christianity has never +come. + + + + +§ 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation. + + +This view of the final results of moral evil, as destroying personal +existence, is hardly an Orthodox doctrine, though quasi-Orthodox. It is +the refuge of that class of minds which are unable to accept universal +restoration on the one side, or everlasting punishment on the other. To +them a large number of human beings seem "too good for banning, and too +bad for blessing," and in their opinion will be suffered quietly to drop +out of conscious existence. The analogies of nature, in which out of many +seeds and many eggs produced, only a few attain to the condition of plants +and animals, tend to confirm this view. The state of human character here +appears also to favor it, since multitudes pass out of this world in an +undeveloped condition, seeming wholly to have failed of the end of their +being. The chief scriptural argument in favor of the doctrine is found in +the assumption that "life through Christ" is equivalent to continued +conscious existence, and that "death" as the punishment of sin, is +equivalent to annihilation. We have so fully discussed the meaning of +these terms in the previous chapter, that it is not desirable to argue +this point here. We agree with the Orthodox view, and differ from that of +the annihilationists on this point. The God of the gospel is the Father of +all his children--of the weakest, feeblest, and most sinful. If he is the +God of _all_, then he is "the God, not of the dead, but of the living, for +all live to him." Indian tribes and heathen nations may be willing that +the sickly infants, and those worn with age, should perish; they may +expose female infants, thinking them not worth bringing up; but Christian +nations establish schools and hospitals for the deaf and dumb, the insane, +the inebriates, the idiotic. If we, then, being evil, know how to care for +the weak, undeveloped, and vegetative natures, how much more shall their +Father in heaven care for them! The doctrine of annihilation rests +fundamentally on a Pagan view of God. + + + + +§ 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration. + + +This opinion has its roots, we think, in the gospel. It has prevailed in +the church from the earliest times, having been held, as we have seen, by +Origen, and a great number of eminent church fathers and doctors. What +more Christian word has come to us from the earliest centuries than the +cry out of the heart of the great Alexandrian teacher, "My Saviour, even +now, mourns for my sins. My Saviour cannot be happy while I remain in my +iniquity. He does not wish to drink the cup of joy alone in the kingdom of +God; he is waiting till we shall come and join him there."(59) + +Our object in this chapter is to consider the Orthodox view, and we shall +not, therefore, enter into any extensive argument concerning universal +salvation. We will only here indicate the general scriptural evidence in +its support. The alternative to the Orthodox view of everlasting +punishment is not, as we have shown, necessarily Universalism. It may be +annihilation, or it may be, under the name of eternal punishment, a +negative evil, being the privation of the highest kind of happiness. +Still, it seems proper to suggest, if only very briefly, some reasons +given by Universalists for their belief. + +In the Epistles of Paul there are five or six passages, which appear to +teach, or to imply, an ultimate restoration of salvation of all moral +beings. Among them are these:-- + +1. Eph. 1:9, 10. "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, +according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, that in +the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one +all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, +even in him." + +The apostle is speaking of the "riches of God's grace," wherein "he hath +_abounded_ toward us," and gives as the proof this revelation made in +Christ of a great mystery--that "in the dispensation [economy] of the +fulness of times" he might bring into one (under one head) "all things in +heaven and on earth." The idea of the passage seems evidently to be that +in the economy, or order, of the divine plan, which extends through +indefinite periods of time, all things shall be united under one head in +Christ. But if brought under one head (as the Greek word signifies), then +all become Christians, all "in heaven and earth." This would seem to be a +very plain statement of a universal restoration. + +As such, Olshausen, one of the most Orthodox of commentators, regards it. +He rejects all the explanations offered by the advocates of everlasting +punishment as unsatisfactory. "It cannot be disputed," he says, "that in +it the restoration of all things seems to be again favored--a view which +Paul in general, as has already been remarked (on Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor. +15:24; Gal. 3:22) says more to support than the other writers of the New +Testament." Olshausen declares the interpretations which suppose a merely +external subjection of the world to Christ to be entirely inadequate, and +have left unresolved the principal difficulty, which is, "how Paul could +say that all have a share in redemption, if he held the common view that +the numberless hosts of angels who fell, along with the far greatest part +of mankind (Matt. 7:13, 14) are eternally damned, and thus shut out from +the harmony of the universe." The defenders of universal restoration, says +Olshausen, "understand the harmony of the universe seriously, in its +literal meaning, and seem, according to that, to be here in the right." + +2. Phil. 2:9, 10. "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a +name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee +should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the +earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to +the glory of God the Father." Here we have "_things under the earth_" +({~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}) added to "things in heaven and on earth." This word only +occurs here in the New Testament, but is by Bretschneider (Lex. Man.) +translated "subterranean" or "infernal," and applied to the inhabitants of +Hades, with a reference to Origen, who uses the word in relation to the +demons. De Wette applies the language to angels, living men, and the dead. +At all events, it appears to include all moral beings, and to declare that +the whole human race shall bow to Christ, and accept him as Master. But +this cannot mean a merely outward submission, for such a forced and +reluctant homage would bring little honor to God, nor be worth such +admiration on the part of the apostle. It must therefore mean that all +men, not only all who now live, but all who have lived, shall finally +become Christians and enter into the glory of God. + +3. Col. 1:20. "And, having made peace by the blood of the cross, by him to +reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in +earth or things in heaven." Here a new feature is added to the statement +by the word "reconcile," which evidently expresses the entire conversion +of the heart, and therefore of human beings, to the law of Christ. + +4. 1 Cor. 15:22. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made +alive." The "all" must be as extensive on one side as the other. Now, +whether the death in Adam be physical or moral, whether it mean the +dissolution of the earthly body, or the loss of innocence by sin, it +certainly includes _all_ human beings, in the fullest sense. All men die, +and all men sin. It would therefore seem that the other "all" must be +quite as comprehensive. It must include all human beings. All men shall +"be made alive in Christ." But this cannot mean a mere physical +immortality, or an immortality in misery; for one cannot be said to be +"alive in Christ" who is suffering endless torment. To be "alive in +Christ" means to be spiritually alive, for "he that hath the Son hath +life." + +5. 1 Cor. 24:28. In this passage Paul declares that _all_ enemies shall be +subject to Christ. But this, again, cannot mean a forced submission, for +that is in no sense being subject to Christ. _Christ's_ subjects are +willing subjects. It therefore must mean that, finally, all human beings +shall become Christian in conviction and in heart. + +These five texts from the apostle Paul seem to us very plain and +conclusive as to his opinions. But perhaps the strongest evidence in proof +of a universal restoration is to be found in Christ's own parable of the +prodigal son. For in this the genuine spirit and purpose of the gospel is +shown to be that God _never_ loses his fatherly love for his rebellious +and lost children. On the contrary, his heart yearns towards them with a +more earnest affection than towards the holy and good. The prodigal son +represents those who are "dead in sin." (Luke 15:24-32.) The parable +teaches that God loves them all the while they are away, and that "there +is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and +nine just persons who need no repentance." Now, if God loves the sinners +thus whose bodies are yet alive, does he cease to love them when the +bodily change takes place which we call death? Does his nature change +then? And if not, does it ever change? After millions of years, if they +have been lost and dead so long, has his love become weary of waiting, or +does "his mercy endure forever"? + +To us it seems clear, that if the parable of the prodigal son is to be +taken as a true statement of the feeling of God towards every sinner, that +every sinner must at last be brought back by the mighty power of this +redeeming love. The power of the human will to resist God is indeed +indefinite; but the power of love is infinite. Sooner or later, then, in +the economy of the ages, all sinners must come back, in penitence and +shame, to their Father's house, saying, "Make us as thy hired servants." +If so, if universal restoration does not mean primarily restoration to +outward happiness, but to inward obedience, it seems to us that the +doctrine may be so stated as to be a new motive for _present_ repentance +and obedience. May we not say to the sinner, You may resist God to-day, +to-morrow, for a million years; but, sooner or later, you _must_ return, +obey, repent, and submit? God will spare no means to bring you. His love +to you requires him to use all methods, all terrors, all suffering. The +"worm that never dies," the "fire that is never quenched," the "outer +darkness,"--these are all blessed means, in the providence of the Almighty, +to bring the sinner back to a sense of his evil state. In the other world, +as in this world, God will "chasten us, not for his pleasure, but for our +profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness." + + + + + +CHAPTER XV. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. + + + + +§ 1. The Question stated. + + +One of the most interesting questions of the present time, in practical +theology, concerns the nature, authority, organization, functions, and +future of the Christian Church. The interest in this subject has recently +much revived, in consequence of a reaction towards the Roman Catholic or +High Church view. This has appeared in the tendency among Protestants to +join the Catholic Church as the only true and saving Church of Christ. The +same tendency has taken into the Church of England, and into the Episcopal +Church of the United States, those who were not ready to go as far as +Rome. It is therefore important and useful to ask, What is the truth and +what the error in the different views concerning the Church? These differ +very widely. The Roman Catholics declare that theirs is the only true +Church, and that out of it is no salvation. Many Protestants reply that +the Roman Catholic Church is Antichrist, and the only true Churches are +those which hold the Evangelical or Orthodox creed. The Swedenborgians say +that the Old Church came to an end in 1758, and that since then the New +Church has taken its place. Finally, a considerable number of persons +maintain that all these churches are worse than useless, and that it is +the duty of Christians to come out, and be separate from them all. They do +not believe in the need of any church, but would substitute for it +societies for special purposes,--lyceums and literary clubs for purposes of +mental instruction; temperance societies, peace societies, and other +associations for moral purposes; and Odd-Fellows associations, Masonic +associations, and clubs for social purposes. + +The question then is, Is a Christian Church needed for the permanent wants +of man? Was such a Church established by Christ? If so, which Church is +it? And what is to be its future character and mode of organization? + +It is scarcely necessary to discuss here the abstract question--Is a church +an essential want of man, so as to be needed by him forever? It is enough +to show that a church is needed now, and will be, for a long time to come. +Every religion has had its church. No sooner does a new idea arise, than +it is incorporated in some outward union. The new wine is put into new +bottles. Confucius has his church, Mohammed has his church; even Mormonism +and Spiritualism have established their churches. The Christian Church +arose immediately after the ascension of Jesus; it came as a matter of +necessity, born not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It has +continued ever since, in ever-varying forms, but one undying body. Other +institutions have risen and passed away. The Roman empire has disappeared. +The barbarous nations overflowed Europe, and then were civilized, +Christianized, and absorbed into the Christian Church. Protestantism +separated from Romanism, but _the Church_ remained in both. Other sects, +Presbyterian, Independent, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, Swedenborgian, +Unitarian, Universalist, separated from the main Protestant body, but each +took with it the church; each has its own church. Even the Quakers, the +most unchurched apparently of any, who renounced the visible ministry, and +the visible sacraments, made themselves presently into the most compact +church of all. So the word continues evermore to be made flesh. So all +spirit presently becomes incarnate in body. The body is outward and +visible; the spirit inward and invisible. Both are necessary to the life, +growth, and active influence of the gospel. Without the spirit of +Christianity, the body would be good for nothing; it would be only a +corpse. Without the body of Christianity, the spirit would be +comparatively inactive; it would be only a ghost. A body without spirit +corrupts and is offensive; a spirit without body is inoperative and +alarming. Through body alone the spirit can act; through spirit alone the +body can live. + +Without asking, therefore, for any other authority for the Church, than +its adaptation to human wants, we may safely say, that it is a great +mistake to suppose we can dispense with churches. You cannot overthrow the +churches, not the weakest of them, by any agency you can use; for all came +up to meet and supply a want of the human soul. They are built on that +rock. What will you put in their place? A lyceum? A debating society? A +reform club? What are you to say to the souls of men, hungering and +thirsting for God? What to the sinner, borne down by the mighty weight of +transgression? What to the dying man, who knows not how to prepare to meet +his God? We need the Church of Christ--the Church whose great aim it is, +and always has been, to renew and regenerate the soul from its foundation, +to lay the axe at the root of the tree of evil, and the very sound of +whose bell, rolling its waves of music over the sleeping hills on the +Sabbath morning, is worth more to the soul than a thousand lyceums and +debating societies. + +No; the Church is not to be destroyed; it is to be renewed with a deeper +and fuller life. We want a better Church, no doubt--one more free in its +thought, more active in its charity, with more of brotherhood in it. We +want an apostolic Church, fitted to the needs of the nineteenth century. +The theological preaching which satisfied our parents is not what we wish +now. We need Christianity applied to life--the life of the individual and +of the state. A better Church, no doubt, is needed; but we want the +churches _fulfilled_, not destroyed. + + + + +§ 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church--Roman Catholic and High Church. + + +Admitting, then, the permanency of the Christian Church, we next ask, +"What is its true form?" or, "Which is the true Church?" or, again, to +state it in another way, "Is the form of the Church permanent, or only its +substance? Is _any_ union for Christian purposes, for worship and work, a +Church, or must it be found in some particular organic form?" To this +question Romanism and High Church Episcopacy reply, "It must." The rest of +Protestantism answers, "No." Romanism says--Jesus established an essential +form for his Church, as well as an essential substance. The true Church is +an organization as well defined as any corporation for secular purposes. +It has the monopoly of saving souls, a patent right of communicating +spiritual life, which cannot lawfully be infringed by any other +corporation. This right was originally bestowed on St. Peter, and has been +transmitted by him to his successors, bishops of Rome. The proof is in the +original deed of gift, "Thou art Peter," &c., and in the regularity of the +succession of subsequent bishops. + +"According to the Catholic dogma," says Guericke,(60) "the Church is an +outward community, by which all communion with Christ is conditioned and +mediated. This outward community is the true Church, with the signs of +unity, universality, apostolicity, and holiness, and is both the only +infallible Church, and only one which can save the soul." This Church, +according to Bellarmine, is a wholly visible and outward association; as +much so as the kingdom of France or republic of Venice.(61) According to +Moehler,(62) the Church "is the visible community of believers, founded by +Christ, in which, by means of an enduring apostleship, &c., the works +wrought by him during his earthly life are continued to the end of the +world." The Roman Catholic idea is of a visible Church only, and not of a +Church at once visible and invisible, which is the Protestant notion. It +is composed of good and bad, while the Protestant notion makes the true +Church consist only of the regenerate.(63) + +The chief refutation of this claim of the Romish Church is to be found in +the very vastness of its assumption. Assuming itself to be the only true +Church, and the only one founded by Christ, we of course require full and +exact evidence in proof of its assertion. It must prove, (1.) That Jesus +founded an outward Church of this kind; (2.) That he made Peter its head; +(3.) That he gave Peter power to continue his authority to his successors; +(4.) That the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter; (5.) That this +succession has been perfect and uninterrupted; (6.) That the Roman +Catholic Church _is_ infallible, and has never committed any mistake; (7.) +That it _is_ Catholic, and includes all true Christians; (8.) That it _is_ +at one with itself, having never known divisions; (9.) That it _is_ the +only holy Church, bearing the fruits of Christian character in a quality +and quantity which no other Church can rival. If any one of these nine +propositions fail, the whole claim of Rome falls prostrate. But they _all_ +fail, not one being susceptible of proof. It cannot be made to appear that +Jesus ever intended to found a Church having such a monopoly of salvation; +nor that the apostle Peter was ever placed at its head, with supreme +authority;(64) nor, if he had this authority, that he ever was bishop of +Rome; nor, if he were, that he transmitted his authority to his +successors; nor, if he did, that the bishops of Rome are his successors; +nor, if they are, that the succession has been unbroken; nor that the +church has been actually infallible; nor that it includes all true +Christians; nor that it has been free from schisms; nor that it has always +been so pure and holy as to show that Romanism is eminently Christian, and +Protestantism not so. The chain of proof, therefore, which, if one link +parted, would be a broken chain, is broken at _every_ link, and cannot +carry conviction to any unbiassed mind. + +In a little work lately published in France by the Protestant Pastor, Mr. +Bost,(65) the author gives as a reason for not being a Catholic, that +while the Church calls on us to submit to its authority, it cannot tell +where the authority resides.(66) The Ultramontanes place it in the person +of the pope; but the Gallicans have never admitted this idea, and place +the supreme authority in a universal council. + +Besides, what sort of infallibility is that which has tolerated the +Inquisition, applauded the St. Bartholomew massacre, preached crusades +against the heretics in France, massacred the Protestants in Holland, +burned ten thousands at the stake in Spain? If it be said that Protestants +also have persecuted, we reply, that they did it _against_ their own +principles, but that the Catholics persecuted in accordance with theirs; +and that the Church which claims exclusive infallibility and holiness has +no right to excuse itself _because it has done no worse_ than those which +it denounces as being in error and sin. + + + + +§ 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church. + + +Protestantism does not claim for its Church exclusive holiness or +infallibility. It defines the Church to be "a congregation of faithful +men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly +administered."(67) Why, then, the reaction towards Romanism? It is partly +owing to the passive element in man--the wish to be governed, the weariness +of independent thought, which led Wordsworth to say,-- + + + "Me this unchartered freedom tires,"-- + + +and which, in "Van Artevelde," declares that,-- + + + Thought is tired of wandering through the world, + And homeward fancy runs its bark ashore,-- + + +and partly because the Protestant Churches are often less active and +diligent in the practical part of Christian work than the Roman Catholic +Churches. Instead of a manly Protestantism, they give us a diluted +Catholicism. They insist on a creed which has neither antiquity nor +authority to recommend it, on sacraments that are no real sacraments, but +only symbols, and on a ritual which has neither the beauty nor variety of +the Roman worship. + +What does the Protestant Church propose to itself as its end? To produce +an abstract piety, instead of a concrete piety--not a piety embodied in +life and conduct, but taking only the form of an inward experience. If the +churches should set themselves the work of feeding the hungry and clothing +the naked, of removing the vices and crimes of men, of helping the +outcasts and visiting the prisoners, they would have a more living piety +growing out of this active charity. Their prayer meetings would be much +more vigorous when they prayed in order to work, than when they pray in +order to pray. Men should not be admitted into the Church because they are +pious, but in order to become pious by doing Christian work. By loving, +practically, the brother they have seen, they would come to love God, whom +they have not seen. + +Again: the Protestant Church feebly imitates the aristocracy of the Romish +Church. In order to conquer Romanism, we must go on and leave it behind, +seeking something better, and finding some more excellent way. Now, the +sin of Romanism is its aristocracy; Protestantism ought, then, to give us, +in its Church, a Christian democracy. But it keeps up the pernicious +distinction between clergy and laity, making the clergy a separate class, +and so justifying Milton's complaint that the "Presbyter is only the old +priest written large." It makes a distinction between men and women in the +Church, not encouraging the latter to speak or to vote. It makes a +distinction between the rich and poor, selling its pews to those who can +buy them, and leaving those who are unable to do so outside of the +sanctuary. It makes a distinction between Orthodox and heretics, excluding +the latter, instead of inviting them in where their errors might be +corrected. And finally, it makes an unchristian distinction between good +people and bad people; for while Jesus, its Master, made himself the +friend of publicans and sinners, the Church too often turns to them the +cold shoulder, and leaves them to be cured by the law, and not the gospel. + +The following saying of a saint of the desert, Abbot Agatho, is reported +by Dr. Newman, who tells it as something wise and good. It seems to us to +illustrate, with much _naļveté_, the tendency of both Catholic and +Protestant Orthodoxy, to put right opinion above right conduct. + +"It was heard by some that Abbot Agatho possessed the gift of +discrimination. Therefore, to make trial of his temper, they said to him, +'We are told that you are sensual and haughty.' He answered, 'That is just +it.' They said again, 'Are you not that Agatho who has such a foul +tongue?' He answered, 'I am he.' Then they said, 'Are not you Agatho _the +heretic_?' He made answer, 'No.' Then they asked him why he had been +patient of so much, but would not put up with this last. He answered, 'By +those I was but casting on me evil; but by this I should be severing me +from God.' " + +According, therefore, to Agatho and Dr. Newman, the tongue "which is set +on fire of hell," does not separate us from God, but an error of opinion +does. Pride, "which comes before a fall," and sensuality, which makes of a +man a beast, do not come between the soul and God so much as an honest +error of opinion. + +The Protestant Church fails to overcome the Catholic Church only by being +too much like the latter. With Protestant ideas, we have semi-Catholic +Churches. We claim as our fundamental principle the right of private +judgment, and then denounce and exclude those who differ from us. We claim +that the soul is not to be saved by monkish seclusion, by going away from +the world; and yet we do not preach and carry out in our church-action the +purpose of saving the bodies of men as well as their souls. When the +Protestant Church work gets more into harmony with Protestant ideas, we +shall then see fewer relapses into Romanism. + + + + +§ 4. Christ's Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven. + + +The Roman Catholics having made the visible Church, or outward Christian +community, the central idea of Christianity, and having changed this into +a close corporation of priests, it was natural, perhaps, that Protestants +should go too far in another direction. Accordingly, the central idea in +Protestantism is not the Church, but the salvation of the soul; not +social, but personal religion; not the Christian community, but personal +development; not the kingdom of heaven here, but heaven in a future life. +Yet it is true, and has been shown lately with great power,(68) that the +direct and immediate object of Jesus was to establish a community of +believers. This was implied in his being the Christ,--for the Christ was to +be the head of the kingdom of heaven,--and the kingdom of heaven was to be +an earthly and human institution. Jesus took the idea of the kingdom of +God, as it was announced by the prophets; purified, developed, deepened, +and widened it; and it resulted in his varied descriptions of the "kingdom +of heaven," This phrase, in the mouth of Jesus, expresses essentially what +we mean by "the Church." This will appear more plainly if we sum up the +principal meanings of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the New Testament. It +is,-- + +1. _Something near at hand._ + +Mark 1:15. "The kingdom of God is at hand." Luke 9:27. "There are some +standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of +God." Mark 9:1. "There be some of them which stand here which shall not +taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." + +2. _It was already beginning._ + +Luke 17:20. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of +God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not +with observation, neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, Lo, there! for +behold, the kingdom of God is within (or 'among') you." + +3. _It was not of this world._ + +John 18:36. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." + +4. _But was to be in this world._ + +Matt. 6:10. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in +heaven." + +5. _In some respects it was to be an outward and visible kingdom, or an +outward institution._ + +Parable of the grain of mustard-seed. Matt. 13:31, 32. + +6. _It would contain good and bad._ + +Parable of the net. Matt. 13:47. + +7. _It would belong to Christ._ + +Col. 1:13. "Hath translated us into the kingdom of his Son." Luke 22:30. +"Ye shall eat and drink in my kingdom." John 18:36. "My kingdom is not of +this world." Matt. 16:28. "Shall see the Son of man coming in his +kingdom." + +8. _It would be finally given up to God._ + +1 Cor. 15:24. "Then the end; when he shall have delivered up the kingdom +to God, even the Father," &c. + +9. _It is a spiritual kingdom._ + +Rom. 14:17. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but +righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." + +10. _Flesh and blood cannot inherit it._ + +1 Cor. 15:50. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither +doth corruption inherit incorruption." + +11. _The conditions of admission are spiritual._ + +John 3:3. "Except a man be born again," &c. Matt. 5:3. "Blessed are the +poor in spirit," &c. 1 Cor. 6:9. "The unrighteous shall not inherit the +kingdom of God." See Gal. 5:21. Eph. 5:5. + +12. _The kingdom was to be established by the Son of man at his coming._ + +Matt. 24:30; 25:1. "They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of +heaven," &c. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened."(69) + +Christ, therefore, had in his mind, as the direct object of his coming, to +cause God's kingdom to come, and his will to be done on earth as in +heaven. It was not his direct purpose to teach the truth in abstract +forms, like the philosophers; nor to make atonement by his death for human +sins; nor to set an example of a holy life; nor to make a revelation of +God and immortality; nor to communicate new life to the world. These he +did; but they came as a part of the kingdom of heaven. They were included +in this great idea. His kingdom was a kingdom of _truth_, in which his +_word_ was to be the judge. He was to reconcile the world to God by his +death. He was to show what man was made to be and could become. He was to +reveal God as a Father to his human children. He was to set in motion a +tide of new spiritual life. But the METHOD by which all this was to be +done was the method of a community of disciples and brethren, who should +be his apostles and missionaries. They were to be an outward, visible +association with the symbols of baptism and the supper. They were also to +be an influence in the world, a current of religious life. We find that +such was the result. We see the disciples embodied and united in a visible +community, which spread through all the Roman empire, which soon had its +teachers, officers, its meetings, its worship, its sacred books, its +sacred days. But we find also the larger and deeper current of life, which +constitutes the invisible Church, flowing, like a great river, down +through the centuries. All Christians in all Christian lands drink from +this stream, and all their ideas of God, man, duty, immortality, are +colored and tinged by it. We read the Bible by the light of the +convictions we absorbed at our mother's knee in our infancy. We carry on +our churches in the power of the holy traditions which have become a part +of our nature. There is a Christian consciousness which grows up in every +child who is born in Christendom, and is the best part of his nature. This +makes him a member of the invisible Church before he outwardly becomes a +member of the visible Christian community. + + + + +§ 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church. + + +There are two parables of Christ which apply to the Church visible and +invisible. The Church Visible is the Church of the Mustard-seed; the +Church Invisible is the Church of the Leaven. The former is an +organization, the latter an _influence_; the one is body, and the other +spirit. The Visible Church is limited by certain boundaries; defined by +its worship, creeds, officers, assemblies, forms. It has its holy days, +holy places, holy men, holy books. But the Invisible Church is not limited +by any such boundaries; it exists wherever goodness exists. The Church of +the Leaven is to be found inside and outside of Orthodoxy; inside and +outside of professing Christianity; among Jews, Mohammedans, Heathen; +among Deists and unbelievers of all sorts, who build better than they +know. For says Jesus, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the +sound thereof.... So is every one who is born of the Spirit." A locomotive +must run on a track, a wagon on a road. But there is no track laid through +the sky for the south wind; there is no time-table to determine the +starting and arriving of the soft breeze which comes from the far +prairies, laden with the sweet fragrance of ten thousand flowers. + +"So is every one who is born of the Spirit." Get out your Catechism, my +Orthodox friend; establish, dear Methodist brother, your experience to +determine whether one is converted or no. Settle for yourself, excellent +formalist, the signs of the true Church, out of which there is no +salvation; and when you have got all your fences arranged, and your gates +built to your satisfaction, you are obliged to throw them all down with +your own hands, to let THE CHURCH OF THE LEAVEN pass through. "Nobody can +be saved," says Dogmatic Christianity, "who does not believe in the +Trinity and the Atonement." "Nobody can be saved," says Sentimental +Christianity, "who has not had a conscious change of heart." " Nobody can +be saved," says Formal Christianity, "who is out of the true Church and +its sacraments." Here are the three fences of the Church of the +Mustard-seed. But see! here comes an innumerable multitude of little +children, who have never believed in Trinity or Atonement; have never been +baptized at all; have never been converted. Yet neither Dogmatist, +Sentimentalist, nor Formalist dares to exclude them from heaven. Logic +steps aside; good feeling opens the three gates; and the little ones all +walk quietly to the good Shepherd, who says, "Let them come to me, and +forbid them not;" gathering the lambs in his arms, carrying them in his +bosom, and tenderly leading them in the green pastures beside the still +waters. + +The little children must be allowed to go through; consistency requires +them to be damned; but consistency must take care of itself; so much the +worse for consistency. But who comes next? Here are all the heathen, who +have not heard of Christ. Must they be damned? According to the creeds, +yes; but modern Orthodoxy has its doubts; its heart has grown tender. +Somehow or other we think that we shall have to let them pass, before a +great while. Then here are all the people whom we have known and loved. +They did not believe as they should. They were never converted, so far as +we know; they were not members of any Church, true or false. But we loved +them. Cannot the three fences be put aside again, just to let these +friends of ours pass by. What kind-hearted Orthodox man or woman was ever +wanting in an excuse for letting his heretical friends into heaven. "He +changed his views very essentially before he died. He used very Orthodox +language, to my certain knowledge. He said he relied on the merits of +Christ; or, at least, he said he believed in Christ." And so all the good +and kind dead people must follow all the little children, and pass the +triple fence. They do not belong to the Church of the Mustard-seed; but +they belong to the Church of the Leaven. These fences are like the flaming +wall in Tasso; they seem impassable, but as soon as one comes up to them +they are found to be nothing. Blessed be God that common sense is stronger +than logic; that humanity is stronger than forms; and that large, kind +Christian hearts are more than a match for the somewhat narrow Christian +head. + + + + +§ 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed. + + +This is not the spirit, but the body; not the life, but the organization +of that life. There is no doubt that we need a Church visible as well as a +Church invisible; need a body as well as a soul; and it is a very +important question what sort of a body we shall have. Soul, no doubt, is +infinitely more important than body; still we do not wish our body to be +lame, blind, or dyspeptic. Because soul is better than body, we do not +like rheumatism or neuralgia. Our visible Church, the body of Christ, is +sometimes a little dyspeptic, and goes about looking very gloomy and +miserable, when it ought to be as gay as a lark. Sometimes also it seems +to be rheumatic; at any rate, it cannot go and attend to its work. It is +very subject to fever and ague; plenty of meetings to-day, all alive with +zeal and heat, but to-morrow it is cold and shivering. It has its +pulmonary disease too; its lungs are not strong enough to speak when it +ought; to cry out for truth and right in the day of trial. And as we find +that hygienics are better than therapeutics for physical diseases, so, +perhaps, it will be better for us to prevent the diseases of the Church by +wise arrangements, which shall give it air, exercise, and a wholesome +diet, than to cure it, when sick, by the usual medicine of rebuke, +reproof, and ascetic mortification. + +The visible Church may be looked at in four points of view. We may +consider it as,-- + + 1. The Primitive Church, or Church as it was. + 2. The Church Actual, or Church as it is. + 3. The Ideal Church, or Church as it ought to be. + 4. The Possible Church, or Church as it can be. + + + + +§ 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was. + + +If we study the nature, organization, and character of the primitive +Christian Church, as it appears in the book of Acts and in the Epistles, +we recognize easily the warm, loving life which was in its spring time, +when all buds were swelling, and all flowers opening. It was far from +being a perfect Church. It had many errors, and included many vices. Some +persons in the Church did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. (1 +Cor. 15:12.) Some disciples had not heard there was a Holy Ghost. (Acts +19:2.) Some even became intoxicated at the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:21, +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}). Some Christians had to be told not to steal (Eph. 4:28); +nor to lie, (Col. 3:9); nor to commit other immoralities. Peter (supposed +to be the infallible head of the Church) was rebuked by Paul for +dissimulation. Paul and Barnabas could not get along together, but +quarrelled, and had to separate. Part of the Church Judaized, and +denounced Paul as a false apostle. Another part Paganized, and carried +Pauline liberty into license. And yet, though there was so little of +completed Christian character, there was a great amount of spiritual life +in the apostolic Church. They are styled saints, but never was anything +less saintly than the state of things in the beginning. But they were +looking the right way, and going in the right direction. They were full of +faith, zeal, enthusiasm, and inspiration; so they had in themselves the +promise and expectation of saintship, if not its reality. + +Directly after the ascension of Christ, and the wonderful experiences of +the day of Pentecost, we find the Christian community in active operation. +Its organization was as yet very indefinite; that was to come by degrees. + +It was a Church without a creed; its only creed was a declaration of faith +in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. It was a Church without a bishop, +or a single head of any kind; for Peter, James, and John seem all three to +have possessed an equal influence in it, and that influence was derived +from their character. Paul tells us expressly, in the Epistle to the +Galatians, that when he went up to Jerusalem, long after his conversion, +Peter, James, and John "seemed to be pillars" there. No mention is made +anywhere in the book of Acts of a single bishop presiding over the Church +at Jerusalem, or over any other Church. And as to the Romish Church, which +claims to be the oldest Church, and the mother of all the rest, it was not +yet founded at all, when the Church at Jerusalem was established. Nor was +the Church at Rome as old as the Churches at Antioch, at Lystra, at +Iconium, and elsewhere, for Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in all these +churches, as we are expressly told in Acts 14th; and in Acts 15:7 we find +Peter still at Jerusalem. If there was any church at Rome, Peter was not +its bishop; then either it was a church without a bishop, or Peter was not +its first bishop. + +We find also that as the apostolic Church had no creed and no bishop, +neither had it any fixed or settled forms. Its forms and usages grew up +naturally, according as convenience required. Thus (Acts 6:1-5) we find +that the apostles recommended the disciples to choose seven persons to +attend to the distribution of charity. "A murmuring arose" because the +Greek widows were neglected--neglected, probably, because not so well known +as the others. This shows that there were no fixed, established forms; +even the order of deacons was originated to meet an occasion. + +That they had no form of service, no fixed Liturgy, in the apostolic +Church, appears from 1 Cor. 14:26. "How is it, brethren, when ye come +together, every one of you hath a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a +revelation, an interpretation? Let the prophets speak, two or three, and +the others judge, and if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, +let the first hold his peace. You may all prophesy one by one, that all +may learn, and all be comforted." Now, it is very evident no fixed or +formal service could have been established in the churches when he +recommended this. + +But though the apostolic Church had neither bishop, nor creed, nor fixed +forms, nor a fixed body of officers, it had something better--it had faith +in God, and mutual love. "The multitude of them that believed were of one +heart and one soul; neither said any man that aught that he possessed was +his own, but they had all things common." We do not find an absolute +community of property established by a law of the Church, as in the +monastic orders, or as in the school of Pythagoras, and some modern +communities, as that of St. Simon; for Peter says to Ananias, of his +property, "While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, +was it not in thine own power?" But though their property was in their own +power, they did not call it their own, or consider it so; it belonged to +God: they were only stewards, and they readily brought it, and gave it to +the use of the Church. + +The apostolic Church was a home of peace and joy. Whatever tribulations +they might have in the world, when they met together they met Christ, and +ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. They were in an +atmosphere of love and freedom. We hear of no rules, no laws, no +constraining forms; but all were led by the Spirit of God. Even in their +public service, as we have seen, though Paul recommended a greater order, +it was not based on authority, but on the sense of propriety of each +individual, because God was not the God of confusion, but of peace. + +Such was the original Church, as described in the Acts and Epistles. It +sprang up because it was wanted, and Christ foresaw that it would be. It +was founded not on an arbitrary command, but on the needs of human nature. +Man is not a solitary, but a social being. He needs society in his labors +and in his joys; society in study, society in relaxation. Even in the +highest act of his life,--in the act of prayer, in communion with God; in +that act, called by an ancient Platonist "the flight of one alone to the +only One,"--even then he cannot be alone. In the union of man with man in +any natural and true relation, his thought becomes more clear, his will +more firm, his devotion more profound, his affections more enlarged. The +broader and deeper the basis of the union, the more it blesses and helps +him. A friendship based upon the knowledge and love of the same God, what +can be better for us than this? + +Thus we see that the apostolic Church was a home for Christ's family +(Matt. 12:49); a school for his disciples; a fraternity of brethren. For +discipline, it had officers, but no clergy, nor priesthood, for all were +priests, and all took part in the services. (1 Peter 2:5; Rom. 1:6; 1 Cor. +14:26.) Its only creed was a belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of +God. (Acts 8:37; 16:31. 1 John 4:15; 5:5, 10. Rom. 10:9.) The unity of the +Church was not the unity of opinion, nor the unity of ceremonies, but the +bond of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3), and the central unities of faith, not of +doctrine (Eph. 4:5.) The object of the Church service was not merely to +partake the Lord's Supper together, nor to maintain public worship, nor to +defend and propagate a creed, nor to call men into an outward +organization, nor to gather pious people together, and keep them safe as +in an ark, but to _do good_ and _get good_--to grow up in all things into +Him who is the Head. And the condition of membership was to wish to be +saved from sin, and to have faith in Christ that he could save them; it +was to hunger and thirst after righteousness. + + + + +§ 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is. + + +Now, if we turn from the Church as it was to the Church as it is,--from the +apostolic Church to those around us,--we see a difference. Instead of the +freedom and union which were in the early Church, we find in the Roman +Catholic communion union, but no freedom; in the Protestant Churches +freedom, but no union. In both we find the Church built on the ministry, +instead of the ministry on the Church; the priests everything, the people +nothing; fixed forms, instead of a free movement; dead creeds, instead of +a living faith. The spirit of worldliness has entered the churches, and +they try to serve God and Mammon; God on Sunday, and Mammon on the week +days. The members of the churches are more devout and more religious, but +not more moral or more humane, than many who are out of their body. And +because they do not love man whom they have seen, they find it hard to +love God, whom they have not seen. Their want of humanity destroys their +piety. + +A vast amount of good is done by the churches, even in their present +state; but when we think of what they might do, it seems nothing. Yet it +is _not_ nothing. Could we know the good done by the mere sound of the +church bells on Sunday, by the quiet assembling of peaceful multitudes in +their different churches; could we measure the amount of awe and reverence +which falls over every mind, restraining the reckless, checking many a +half-formed purpose of evil, rousing purer associations and memories, +calling up reminiscences of innocent childhood in the depraved heart of +man; could we know how many souls are roused to a better life, made to +realize their immortal nature, reminded of a judgment to come; could we +see how many souls, on every Sabbath, in our thousands of churches, are +turned from sin to God, how many sorrowing hearts are consoled by the +sweet promises of the gospel; could we see, as God sees and the angels +see, all this,--we should feel that the churches, in their greatest +feebleness, are yet the instruments of an incalculable good. But when we +look at what _is_ to be done, what _ought_ to be done, what _could_ be +done by them, their present state seems most forlorn. + +It is one of the most difficult of our duties not to despise an imperfect +good, and yet not to be satisfied with it. + +One of the greatest evils of our churches is, that they are churches of +the clergy, not of the people. Our clergy are generally pure-minded, +well-intentioned men, less selfish and worldly than most men; but they are +not equal to the demands of their position. We take a young man, send him +to college, then to a theological school, where he studies his Greek very +faithfully, and learns to write sermons. He comes out, twenty-two years +old, a pleasing speaker, and is immediately settled and ordained over a +large long-established church. As he rises in the pulpit and looks down on +his congregation, one would think he would despair. What can he say to +them? He knows nothing of human nature, of its struggles and sins, its +temptations in the shop and the street. Men do not curse at him, nor try +to cheat him, nor entice him into bar-rooms, oyster-cellars, +billiard-rooms, and theatres. He cannot speak to men of their vices, their +stony and hard hearts, their utter unbelief, their crying selfishness, for +he knows nothing of it. He must speak of sin in the abstract, not of sin +in the concrete. If he did, what could he say? What weapons has he? The +sword of the Spirit is in his hands, but he has not tried it; he has no +confidence in it. The awful truths of the Bible, which smite the stoutest +sinner to the earth, these he might utter, if he dared; but he knows not +how. And yet he is the teacher of these gray-headed men, and their only +teacher. Had he gone out as Jesus sent his disciples, without purse or +shoes or two coats, and preached the gospel for ten years by the way-side, +in cottages, in school-houses, living hard, sleeping on the floor, seeing +men and women everywhere without disguise, and taking no thought +beforehand what to say, but leaning on God for his inspiration,--then might +he have learned how to say something weighty even to a great congregation. +Or if this poor boy were surrounded by a living active church, helping him +by advice, going with him into the house of sorrow, the haunt of sin, +kneeling with him by the sick couch and death-bed, and adding to his small +experience the whole variety and richness of theirs,--then might he be a +man of God, thoroughly furnished for every work. + +If there were Judaism and Paganism in the early Church, they still, no +doubt, linger in our churches to-day. The Church Judaizes in this--that it +still puts forms above life. For example, the Roman Catholic Church +teaches that if you take a child, and put water upon him, repeating the +baptismal formula, and with the _intention_ of baptizing him, the child +becomes in that moment regenerate. If he had died the moment before, he +would have been damned forever in eternal torments; if he dies the moment +after, he will go to eternal bliss in heaven. Now, if an earthly parent +should cover his child's body with camphene, and then set it on fire, +because somebody had not baptized it, we should say he was a very cruel +parent. But this conduct is attributed to the good God by the Roman +Catholic doctrine. Moreover, when an outward form is made thus essential, +when everlasting salvation or damnation depends on it, it behooves us to +know what it is. Baptism consists of three parts--the water, the formula, +and the intention of the baptizer. But as to the water, we may ask, _How +much_ is essential? Is it essential that there be enough to entirely +immerse the body? The Catholic Church replies, "_No_." Is the aqueous +vapor always present in the air enough? It answers, "No, _that_ is _not_ +enough." At what precise point, then, between these two, does _enough_ +begin, does baptism take place, and the child cease to be a child of +perdition, and become an heir of salvation? The Roman Catholic Church, +being obliged to answer this question, has answered it thus: There is no +baptism until water enough to _run_ is put on the child. A drop which will +not _run_, does not baptize him; a drop which will run, baptizes him. The +difference, then, between these two drops, is the difference to the child +between eternal damnation and eternal salvation.(70) + +How does this sound by the side of the declaration of the apostle Paul--"He +is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision outward in the +flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the +heart"? Judaism, if anything, was an outward institution; Christianity, if +anything, is an inward life. And yet that which the apostle Paul said of +Judaism we hardly to-day would venture to say of Christianity. "He is not +a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is Christianity in outward +belief, profession, or aspect; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly." +"O, no!" we say, "there must be a distinction. A man who does not believe +in the miracles, for example, may be a good man, but you must not call him +a Christian." But he who follows Christ, we think, is a Christian. And as +Christ walks before mankind on the divine road of goodness, truth, love, +purity, he who walks on that road _cannot help being a follower_ of +Christ, whatever he may call himself. + +How the Church Judaizes about the Sabbath--pretending, first, that there +_is a Sabbath_ in Christianity, and teaching people that there is a sort +of piety in calling Sunday _the Sabbath_, and next putting this ritual +observance, this abstinence from labor and amusement, on a level with +moral duties! When men tithe mint, they are apt to forget justice and +mercy. If Jesus were to return, after all these centuries, and were only +to do and say just what he did and said about the Sabbath when he was here +before, there are many pious Protestants who would think him rather lax in +his religious principles. How long he has been with us, and yet we have +not known him! + +An American Protestant bishop once forbade a clergyman of his church to +officiate again, because this clergyman had invited a Methodist minister +to assist him in the administration of the sacrament. This is backsliding +a good way from the position of Him who said, "Forbid him not: he that is +not against us is with us." And again: "Whosoever wishes to do the will of +God, the same is my mother, my sister, and my brother." Dear Master! is +_thy_ Church so broad as to include all who desire to do the will of God, +and are _our_ churches so narrow that they cannot hold any but those who +agree with us in our little notions about ceremony and form? Hast thou +been so long time with us, and yet have we not known thee? + +The Church Actual is a timid Church. It is afraid of truth, and afraid of +love. Its creed is full of mysteries too solemn and sacred to be examined. +They are the sealed book of the prophet, which is given to the learned +clergy, and to the unlearned laity; and the answer of the unlearned laity +is, "We are not learned." And the answer of the learned clergy is, "It is +sealed. It is a mystery. We must not even try to understand it." The +Actual Church is not fond of a free examination of its tenets, but rather +represses it by the flaming terrors of perdition impending over honest +error. + +The Church Actual sticks in the letter. How it idolizes the Bible! But +when you ask, _What?_ you find it is rather the letter of the Bible than +its manly, generous, humane, and holy spirit. It babbles of verbal +inspiration and literal inspiration, which are phrases as absurd as it +would be to say "bodily spirit." Question the inspiration of the letter, +and a thousand voices cry, "You are cutting away the very foundations of +our faith. If we cannot believe every letter of the Bible to be from God, +we have nothing to hold by." But the apostle Paul thought somewhat +differently, when he said, "Who hath also made us able ministers of the +New Testament, _not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter +killeth, but the spirit giveth life_." + +The American Bible Society appointed a committee of learned persons to +revise the present translation of the Bible--not to make a new translation +by any means, but merely to correct palpable blunders of the press, +palpable errors in the headings of chapters, or universally admitted +mistakes of the translators. The learned men did their work. It was +examined, printed--about to be published. But an outcry was made, that the +Bible Society, in taking away these few errors of the press, was taking +away _our_ Bible. The Christian public, in the middle of the nineteenth +century, has been so instructed, that when a few errors in the letter of +the outward word are corrected, it cries out, "They have taken away my +Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." + +The Church Actual is sectarian. Every church is trying to swell its +numbers at the expense of its neighbors. We do not think that a Christian +Church should be constructed on the principle of a mouse-trap, which it is +easy enough to get into, but hard to get out of. We do not think it right +that young persons, in the glow of their piety, should be drawn into a +church, without being told that if they should change their views on any +important point, they cannot leave it except by being excommunicated +publicly. But there are churches in New England which have many very easy +and agreeable entrances, but only two exits--very difficult and +disagreeable. If one wishes to leave, he is dismissed with a letter +directed to some other church of the same creed, and not till he has +joined some such church, and a certificate is sent back to that effect, is +he released from his obligations. The Church is therefore like a city on a +hill, with a palisade fence all round, with openings by which one can get +in, but not out; and having only two outlets--one by a gate kept carefully +locked, and the other over a steep wall, fifty feet high. You have your +choice of three things: 1. Stay where you are; 2. Go through the gate into +another palisaded enclosure; 3. Be pitched down the Tarpeian rock of +excommunication.(71) + +Thus we see that the Church Actual differs much, and often for the worse, +from the Church Primitive. It is not now a home or a fraternity, for its +members often do not know each other by sight. It is not a school of +disciples, for it is thought necessary to take your whole creed at once, +ready made, and not learn it by degrees. The worship is too often by the +minister and choir, the people being only spectators. Instead of the +simple original faith in Jesus as the Christ, the people are taught long +and complicated creeds. Instead of a unity of conviction, seeing the same +things, there is only a unity of expression, _saying_ the same things. +Instead of seeking to save the outcasts, infidels, vicious; churches are +built and occupied by Christians themselves, as though Christ came to call +only the righteous to repentance. There may be, in our great cities, a +church to every two thousand persons; but every seat in every church is +bought and occupied by the respectable and comfortable classes. The gospel +is preached, but no longer to the poor. There is something wrong in all +this. + + + + +§ 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be. + + +The Church Ideal is full of life, power, love, freedom. It is a teaching +Church; calling men out of darkness into marvellous light, throwing light +on all the mysteries of human existence. It takes the little child and +teaches it concerning its duty and destiny. It organizes schools through +every Christian nation, so that all Christian children shall be taught of +God, and that great shall be their peace. It teaches systematically and +thoroughly all classes of society; so that all, from least to the +greatest, know the Lord. It organizes missions to all heathen lands, and +its missionaries are so true, noble, kind, so reflect the life of Jesus in +their own, that the heathen come flying like clouds, and like flocks of +doves, to the windows of the holy home. The dusky, and swarming races of +Hindostan, the mild and studious Chinamen, come flowing to Christ, as the +long undulating clouds of pigeons darken along the October sky in our +western forests. The ideal Church is a loving Church. It loves men out of +their sins. It seeks the poor and forlorn, the hard-hearted and +impenitent, and by unwearied patience soothes their harsh spirit. Enter +its gates, and you find yourself in an atmosphere of affection. The strong +bear the infirmities of the weak. Each seeks the lowest place for himself. +They love to wash the disciples' feet. + +The Ideal Church is an active Church. All the members work together for +the building up of the body; some after this fashion, others after that. +"So the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which +every joint supplieth," is built up in love. Is there any ruinous vice, +any corroding sin, any festering moral disease in the land? The Ideal +Church searches for its root, and finds its cure. It takes the intemperate +man by the hand, and will not let him go till he abstains. It penetrates +into every haunt of sin and pollution, and brings forth the half-ruined +child, triumphantly leads out the corrupt woman, and places them in new +homes. The Ideal Church does not dispute about doctrines or dogmas. It +says to each, "To your Master you shall stand or fall, not to me." + +Therefore the Ideal Church is an earthly heaven. There is in it a warm, +serene, sunny atmosphere; a sky without clouds; the society of love, the +solitude of meditation, the inaccessible mountain tops of prayer; the +low-lying, quiet valleys, where the wicked cease from troubling, and the +weary are at rest. + +But where is the Ideal Church? We have seen that it is not in the past, +where many look for it. The golden age of the Church, the Paradisiacal +state of Christianity, is not behind us. Was the Ideal Church that which +persecuted Paul for renouncing Judaism? Was it any of the Churches +described by John in the book of Revelation? that of Ephesus, which had +"left its first love"? that of Pergamos, which contained heretical +teachers? that of Thyatira, which communed with Jezebel and the depths of +Satan? that of Sardis, which had "a name to live, and was dead"? or that +of Laodicea, which was lukewarm? + +Was that an Ideal Church where Paul was obliged to write to Titus that a +bishop must not be a striker, nor given to wine, nor to filthy lucre? and +to advise Timothy to avoid "profane and vain babbling"? + +There was more life in it than in the Church now; a great struggling, but +undeveloped power of life, heaving and tossing the Church, as with +subterranean fire--smoke and flame bursting forth together; a great power +of life, but little chance of doctrine as yet; little harmony of action; +little in accordance with our ideas of decency and order. It was the +spring time, and as in the spring there is a great power of life in +nature, swelling all buds, pushing all shoots, unfolding leaves,--but all +things still bare; few flowers, no fruit,--so it was in the Primitive +Church. It was not Ideal. The Ideal Church is before us, not behind us; it +is to come. + + + + +§ 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be. + + +Is any Church possible but the Actual? We think there is. We think that a +Church may be something more and better than any we have now. Without +reaching the ideal standard we can yet do something. + +We think it possible for a Church to be united on a basis of study and +action rather than on that of attainment. Instead of having it consist of +those who have formed opinions, let it consist of those who wish to form +them. Instead of having it consist of those who have been converted, and +who believe themselves pious, let it consist of those who wish to be +converted, and who desire to be pious. Instead of having it consist of +good people, let us invite in the bad people who desire to be good. Do you +send your children to school because they are learned, and not rather +because they are ignorant? Why should we not become disciples of Christ +because of our ignorance, rather than our knowledge. + +We think it possible to have a Church, and even a denomination, organized, +not on a creed, but on a purpose of working together. Suppose that the +condition of membership was the desire and intention of getting good and +doing good. The members of a church are not those who unite in order to +partake the Lord's Supper, but to do the Lord's work. The Lord's Supper is +their refreshment after working. They come together sometimes to remember +his love, and to get strength from him. Let them sit together, express +their desires, confess their faults, say what they have been trying to do, +where they have failed, where succeeded, and so encourage each other to +run with diligence the race set before them. + +We therefore think it possible for a Church to be built on Christ himself, +and not on a minister. The Church might even do without a sermon; the +members might pray together and sing together, when they had no minister, +and be a true family of Christian men and women, brothers and sisters in +the Lord. The lowest view of a Christian Church is that which makes it a +body of pew-holders; the next lowest, that which makes them an audience +met to hear a sermon; the next lowest, a mere congregation or assembly of +worshippers; a little higher is that of a body of communicants, bound +together by the desire of knowing Christ; but highest of all is that which +regards a Church as the body of Christ. Such a Church is to learn of him, +and to do his will; it is his eyes, to look on all things with a Christian +vision; his hands, by which he shall still touch and heal the wretched; +his feet, to go through the world, to search out its evils and sins; his +mouth, through which he shall speak words of divinest help and +encouragement. "The body of Christ, and members one of another." The body +of Christ; always active, always progressing, always advancing; advancing +into a deeper and better knowledge of his will, into a purer love of his +kingdom, into a further and divine life of union with him; the body fitly +joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, making +increase of the body to the building of itself up in love. + +It is possible to have a Church which shall be ready to teach and preach +the gospel, not to a few pew-holders only, but to the whole community. +Every child born in New England is taught the elements of secular +knowledge without money and without price. Are the waters of earthly +knowledge, then, so much more essential to the safety of the state than +the waters of life, that we cannot risk the chance of leaving any child +uninstructed in reading and writing, but may leave him untaught in the +gospel? It would seem to be possible, since we have free schools, to have +also free Churches, and so really to have, what we profess to maintain, +_Public Worship_! There is no such thing now as public worship. The +churches are not public places--each belongs to a private corporation of +pew-holders. + +It is possible to have a Church which shall consider it its duty to obey +its Master's first command, and "preach the gospel to every creature." Its +mission shall be to go out into the highways and the hedges, to seek and +save the lost. It will regard the world as its field, and the whole +community as its sphere of labor--the whole community, according to its +needs, to be taught, helped, comforted, and cured by the gospel. + +It is possible to have a Church which shall be united, not on ceremonies, +nor on a creed, but on study and labor, on loving and doing. The condition +of admission should be the purpose to get good and do good. They should +enter this school to learn, and not because they were already learned; to +become good, and not because they were already so. + +It is possible to have a Church which shall make it its purpose to educate +the whole man--spirit, soul, and body; and not merely the spirit; to +present the human being to God perfect and entire, wanting nothing. + +It is possible to have a Church which shall combine union and freedom. The +Roman Church, aiming at union, and neglecting freedom, has a union which +is no real union; which is an outward shell of conformity, without inward +unity of heart and thought. The Protestant Church, desiring freedom and +neglecting union, has a freedom which is not really freedom, being only +the outward liberty of tolerated opinions, but one in which free thought +is discouraged, and honest difference of opinion disallowed. Only by +combining in a living whole such antagonist needs, can either of these be +fully secured. Union without freedom is not union; freedom without union, +not freedom. There is no harmony in the juxtaposition of similar notes, +but in the concord of dissimilar ones. Difference without discord, variety +in harmony, the unity of the spirit with diversity of the letter, +difference of operation, but the same Lord, many members, but one +body,--this is very desirable, and wholly possible. + +The day is coming in which our dogmatic Churches, formal Churches, +sentimentally pious Churches, and professedly liberal Churches, shall be +all taken up into something higher and better. The very discontent which +prevails everywhere announces it. It is the working of the leaven--mind +agitating the mass. In Protestant countries there is a tendency to Rome; +but in Roman Catholic countries an equal or greater tendency to +Protestantism. Orthodoxy tends to Liberal Christianity. Liberal +Christianity tends to Orthodoxy. Each longs for its opposite, its +supplement, its counterpart. It is a movement towards a larger liberty and +a deeper life. + + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. THE TRINITY. + + + + +§ 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine. + + +"The fundamental formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by +the Church," says Twesten,(72) "is, that in one divine essence or nature +there are three persons, distinguished from each other by certain +characteristics, and indivisibly participating in that one nature." The +"Augsburg Confession," says, in like manner, "three persons in one +essence."(73) So the "Gallic Confession," and other Church Confessions, +which say almost the same thing in the same words.(74) + +The explanations given to these phrases vary indefinitely. Nitzsch (System +d. Christ. Lehre, § 80) says, "We stand related in such a way, with all +our Christian experience (Gewerdensein und Werden), to the one, eternal, +divine essence, who is love, that in the Son we adore love as mediating +and speaking, in the spirit as fellowship and life, in the Father as +source and origin." Schleiermacher considers this doctrine as not any +immediate expression of the Christian consciousness, and declares that +"our communion with Christ might be just the same if we knew nothing at +all of this transcendent mystery." Hase says,(75) "This Church dogma +always has floated between Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Sabellianism, +asserting the premises of all three, and denying their conclusions only by +maintaining the opposite." + +All sorts of illustrations have been used from the earliest times--such as +fountain, brook, river; root, stalk, branch; memory, understanding, +will;(76) soul, reason, sense;(77) three persons in grammar, the teacher, +the person spoken to, and that spoken of.(78) Some mystics argued the +necessity of three persons in the Deity for the sake of a divine society +and mutual love.(79) Lessing argues that "God from eternity must have +contemplated that which is most perfect, but that is himself; but to +contemplate with God, is to create; God's thought of himself, therefore, +must be a being, but a divine being, that is, God, the Son God; but these +two, God the thinker and God the thought, are in perfect divine harmony, +and this harmony is the Spirit."(80) Leibnitz also considers the Trinity +as illustrated best by the process of reflection in the human mind. +Strauss objects to this class of definitions, that they are two elements +united in a third, while the Church doctrine requires three united in a +fourth. + +The Church doctrine concerning the Trinity appears most fully developed in +its Orthodox form in what is called the Creed of St. Athanasius. It was +not written by him, but by some one in the fifth or sixth century. + +1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things must take care to keep the +Catholic faith: + +2. Which except one keeps it entire and inviolate, he shall without doubt +perish everlastingly. + +3. But the Catholic faith is this: that we adore one God in Trinity, and +the Trinity in Unity; + +4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. + +5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another +of the Holy Spirit. + +6. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is one, the glory +equal, the majesty equal. + +7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit. + +8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit +uncreated. + +9. The Father immeasurable,(81) the Son immeasurable, and the Holy Spirit +immeasurable. + +10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. + +11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. + +12. And so there are not _three_ uncreated, nor _three_ immeasurable, but +_one_ uncreated, and _one_ immeasurable. + +13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy +Spirit is omnipotent. + +14. And yet there are not _three_ omnipotents, but one omnipotent. + +15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. + +16. And yet there are not _three_ Gods, but _one_ God. + +17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. + +18. And yet there are not _three_ Lords, but _one_ Lord. + +19. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess of each one, +that each person(82) is God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic +religion from saying three Gods or three Lords. + +20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten. + +21. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor created, _but +begotten_. + +22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father; not created, nor +begotten, but _proceeding_. + +23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three; one Son, and not three; +one Holy Spirit, and not three. + +24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none greater or +less, but all three Persons are coeternal and coequal. + +25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity +in Unity. + +26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus of the Trinity. + + + + +§ 2. History of the Doctrine. + + +In the Christian Church, the history of this doctrine is interesting and +important. Some sort of Triad, or Trinity, existed in very early times, +although the Orthodox form was not established until later. + +At first, the prevailing doctrine is that of subordination; that is, that +the Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father. But, as the Son and the +Spirit were also called divine, those who thought thus were accused of +believing in three Gods.(83) Some then said, that the Father was alone +divine; and these were called Monarchians. Others, wishing to retain the +divinity of the Son and Spirit, and yet to believe in one God, said that +the _divinity_ in the Father, in the Son, and in the Spirit, was +essentially the same, but that the divinity of the Father was the fountain +from which that of the Son and Spirit was derived. This was fixed as +Orthodox at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and was the beginning of +Orthodoxy in the Church. It was a middle course between Scylla and +Charybdis, which were represented on the one side by Arius, who maintained +that the Son was created out of nothing; and by Sabellius on the other +hand, who maintained that the Son was only a mode, manifestation, or name +of God; God being called the Father, as Creator of the world; called Son, +as Redeemer of the world; and Spirit, as Sanctifier of the world. The +Council of Nice declared that the Son was not a manifestation of God, as +Sabellius said, nor a creation by God, as Arius said, but a derivation +from God.(84) Just as the essence of the fountain flows into the stream +derived from it, so the essence of the Father flows into the Son, who is +derived from him. Here, then, we have the three formulas of the early +Church--that of Arius, who says, "The Son was created by the Father, and is +inferior to him;" that of Sabellius, who says, "The Father, Son, and +Spirit, are manifestations of God, and the same essence;" and Orthodoxy, +as the Council of Nice, trying to stand between them, and saying, "The Son +is derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with him." + +The Church, ever since, has been like a ship beating against head winds +between opposing shores. It has stood on one tack to avoid Arianism or +Tritheism, till it finds itself running into Sabellianism; then it goes +about, and stands away till it comes near Arianism or Tritheism again. +Unitarianism is on both sides: on one side in the form of one God, with a +threefold manifestation of himself; on the other side in the form of a +Supreme God, with the Son and Spirit subordinate. It has always been very +hard to be Orthodox; for, to do so, one must distinguish the Persons, and +yet not divide the substance, of the Deity. In keeping the three Persons +distinctly separate, there was great danger of making three distinct Gods. +On the other hand, if one tried to make the Unity distinct, there was +danger that the Persons would grow shadowy, and disappear. + +The heaviest charge against the Church doctrine of the Trinity is, that, +driven to despair by these difficulties, it has at last made Orthodoxy +consist, not in any sound belief, but only in sound phrases. It is not +believing anything, but saying something, which now makes a man Orthodox. +If you will only use the _word_ "Trinity" in any sense, if you will only +call Christ God in any sense, you are Orthodox. + + + + +§ 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity. + + +The errors in the popular view concerning the Trinity, as it is at present +held, appear to be these:-- + +1. _The Trinity is held as a mere dogma_, or form of words, not as a +reality. It is held in the letter, not in the spirit. There is no power in +it, nor life in it; and it is in no sense an object of faith to those who +accept it. They do not believe it, but rather believe that they ought to +believe it. There are certain texts in Scripture which seem to assert it, +certain elaborate arguments which appear convincing and irrefutable. On +the strength of these texts and these arguments, they believe that they +ought to believe it. But it is a matter of conscience, not of heart; of +logic, not of life; of law, not of love. It is not held as a Christian +doctrine ought to be held, with the heart; but only philosophically, with +the head. If it should cease to be preached for a few years in Orthodox +pulpits, it would cease to be believed; it would drop out of the faith, or +rather out of the creed, of the community. Unitarianism has extended +itself, without being preached, from the simple reading of the Bible. But +Trinitarianism cannot be trusted to its own power. It has no hold on the +heart. Here, in Massachusetts, the ministers left off preaching the +Trinity, and the consequence was, that the people became Unitarian. +Unitarianism in New England was not diffused by preaching: it came of +itself, as soon as the clergy left off preaching the Trinity. This shows +how worthless, empty, and soulless the doctrine was and is. Instead of +this formal doctrine, we want something vital. + +2. _Another objection to the present form of the Trinity is, that it is +not only scholastic, or purely intellectual, but that it is also +negative._ It is not even a positive doctrine. It is often charged against +Unitarianism, that it is a mere negation; and, in one sense, the charge is +well founded. Unitarianism is a negation, so far as it is a mere piece of +reasoning against Orthodoxy; but, as asserting the divine Unity, it is +very positive, But the doctrine of the Trinity _is_ a mere negation, as it +is usually held; because it is an empty form of denial. It only can be +defined or expressed negatively. The three Persons are not substances, on +the one hand; nor qualities, on the other hand. It is not Sabellianism, +nor is it Arianism. Every term connected with the Trinity has been +selected, not to express a truth, but to avoid an error. The term "one +essence" was chosen in order to exclude Arianism; the term "three +Persons," or subsistences, was chosen in order to avoid Sabellianism. + +Because the doctrine is thus a negation, it has failed of its chief use. +It has become exclusive; whereas, when stated truly, as a positive truth, +it would become inclusive. Rightly stated, it would bind together all true +religion in one harmonious whole, comprehending in its universal sweep +everything true in natural religion, everything true in reason, and +uniting them in vital union, without discord and without confusion. Every +manifestation which God has made of himself in nature, in Christ, and in +the human soul, would be accepted and vitally recognized by Christianity, +which comes, not to destroy, but to fulfil. The doctrine of the Trinity +would be the highest form of reconciliation or atonement,--reconciling all +varieties in one great harmony; reconciling the natural and supernatural, +law and grace, time and eternity, fate and freedom. + +But, before illustrating this, we must consider further some of the +objections to the common form of the doctrine. + +3. _It is also charged against the doctrine of the Trinity, __"__that it +is a contradiction in terms, and therefore essentially incredible.__"_ To +this it is replied, that it would be a contradiction if God were called +Three _in the same sense_ in which he is called One; but not otherwise. +The answer is perfectly satisfactory; and we therefore proceed to ask, In +what sense is he called Three, and in what sense is he called One? The +answer is, The Unity is of essence, or substance: the Trinity is of +persons. This answer, again, is satisfactory, provided we know what is +meant by these two terms. But the difficulty is to know what is meant by +the word "person." We are expressly informed, that this term is not used +in its usual sense; for, if it were, it would divide the essence, and +three Persons would be the same as three Gods. On the other hand, we are +told that it means more than the three characters or manifestations. Here +lies the difficulty, and the whole of the rational difficulty, in the +doctrine of the Trinity. It is all on the side of the Triad. When we ask, +What do you mean by "the three"? there can be given but three answers,--two +of them distinct, and one indistinct. These answers are, (1.) We mean +three somethings, which we cannot define; (2.) We mean three Persons, like +Peter, James, and John; (3.) We mean three manifestations, characters, or +modes of being. Let us consider these three answers. + +(_a._) "The three Persons are three somethings, which cannot be defined. +It is a mystery. It is above reason. There is mystery in everything, and +there must be mystery in the Deity." So Augustine said, long ago, "We say +three Persons, not because we have anything to say, but because we want to +say something."(85) But if one uses the phrase "three Persons," and +refuses to define it positively, merely defining it negatively, saying, +"It does not mean this, and it does not mean that, and I don't know what +it does mean," he avoids, it is true, the difficulties, and escapes the +objections; but he does it by giving up the article of faith. No one can +deny that there _may be_ three unknown distinctions in the divine nature; +but no one can be asked to believe in them, till he is told what they are. +To say, therefore, that the Trinity is a mystery, is to abandon it as an +article of faith, and make of it only a subject of speculation. We avoid +the contradiction; but we do it by relinquishing the doctrine. + +This fact is not sufficiently considered by Trinitarians. They first +demand of us to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and, when pressed to +state distinctly the doctrine, retire into the protection of mystery, and +decline giving any distinct account of it. Now, no human being ever denied +the existence of mysteries connected with God, and nature, and all life. +To assure us, therefore, that such mysteries exist, is slightly +superfluous. But, on the other hand, no human being ever _believed_, or +could _believe_, a mystery, any more than he could see anything invisible +or hear anything inaudible. To believe a doctrine, the first condition is, +that all its terms shall be distinct and intelligible. + +(_b._) The second answer to the question is, "We mean, by Persons, three +Persons, like Peter, James, and John." According to this answer, the +_Trinity_ remains, but the _Unity_ disappears. This answer leaves the +Persons distinct, but the Unity indistinct. The Persons are not +confounded; but the essence is divided. The Tri-personality is maintained, +but at the expense of the Unity. In fact, this answer gives us Tritheism, +or three Gods, whose unity is only an entire _agreement_ of feeling and +action. But this answer we may set aside as unorthodox, no less than +unscriptural. + +(_c._) Having thus disposed of each other possible answer, there remains +only that which makes of the three Persons three revelations or +manifestations of God, or representations of God. This answer avoids all +the difficulties. It avoids that of _contradiction_; as we do not say that +God is one in the same sense in which he is three, but in a different +sense. It avoids the objection of _obscurity_; for it is a distinct +statement. It avoids the objection of Tritheism; for it leaves the Unity +untouched. Moreover, it is a real Trinity, and not merely nominal. The +Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not merely three different names +for the same thing, but they indicate three different revelations, three +different views which God has given of his character, which, taken +together, constitute the total divine representation. It remains, +therefore, simply to ask, Is this view _a true one_? Is there any +foundation for it in Scripture, in reason, and in Christian consciousness, +the three sources of our knowledge of the truth? + + + + +§ 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of Things. + + +We repeat, that this view is an Orthodox view of the Trinity, according to +the teaching of the greatest fathers of the Church. If we suppose that the +Deity has made, and is evermore making, three distinct and independent +revelations of himself,--each revelation giving a different view of the +divine Being, each revelation showing God to man under a different +aspect,--then each of these is a personal manifestation. Each reveals God +as a Person. If we see God, for example, in nature, we see him not merely +as a power, a supreme cause, but also a living Person, who creates +evermore out of a fulness of divine wisdom and love. God in nature is, +then, a Person. Again: if God reveals himself in Christ, it is not as +abstract truth or as doctrinal statement. But we see God himself, the +personal God, the Father and Friend, the redeeming grace, the God who +loved us before the foundation of the world, approaching us in Christ to +reconcile us and save us. It is a God who "so loved the world" that we see +in Christ, therefore, a Person. And so the Spirit, which speaks in the +human conscience and human heart, is not a mere influence, or rapture, or +movement, but is one who communes with us; one who talks with us; one who +comforts us; one who hears and answers us; therefore a Person. + +If, then, there is no antecedent objection to this form of the Trinity as +a threefold manifestation of the divine Being, we have only to ask, Is it +_true_ as a matter of fact? Has such a threefold manifestation of God +actually taken place? We reply, that it is so. According to Scripture, +observation, and experience, we find such to be the fact. Scripture shows +us God, the Father, as the source of all being, the fountain and end of +all things; from whom all things have come, and to whom all things tend. +As the Creator, he reveals himself in nature and providence (as the +apostle Paul declares), "being understood by the things that are made," +and "not leaving himself without a witness." + +Supreme power, wisdom, and goodness are manifested in nature as unchanging +law, as perfect order. But God is seen in Christ again as Redeemer, as +meeting the exigencies arising from the freedom of the creature by what we +call miracle; not contrary to nature, but different from nature, showing +himself as the Friend and Helper of the soul. As the essence of the first +revelation of God is the sight of his goodness, and wisdom, and power, +displayed in law, so the essence of the second revelation is of the same +essential Being displaying himself as love. In the first revelation, he is +the universal Parent; in the second, he is the personal Friend. But there +is a third revelation which God makes of himself,--within the soul as life. +The same power, wisdom, and goodness which we see displayed externally in +outward nature, we find manifested internally in the soul itself, as its +natural and its spiritual life. That which is displayed outwardly as power +is manifested within the soul as cause; that which is manifested outwardly +as wisdom is revealed inwardly as reason; and that which is manifested +outwardly as goodness is manifested inwardly as conscience, or the law of +right. + + + + +§ 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture. + + +The Scriptures also speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. When +they speak of the Father, they usually mean God as the Supreme Being. +Matt. 11:25: "Jesus said, I thank thee, _O Father_, Lord of heaven and +earth." As omniscient: "Of that day knoweth no man, nor the angels, nor +the Son, but _the Father_ only." As omnipotent: "Abba, _Father_, all +things are possible to thee." As having life in himself, and as spirit: +"They shall worship _the Father_ in spirit and in truth." As the source of +all power, life, and authority of the Son: "I came forth _of the Father_;" +"_the Father_, which hath sent me;" "the works which _the Father_ hath +given me to do." The apostle Paul says, "To us there is but _one God, the +Father_;" and calls him "the God of our Lord Jesus;" also "the one God +_and Father_ of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." +The great order of the universe depends on him: "He has put the times and +the seasons in his own power." Christ will at last "deliver up the kingdom +to God, _the Father_." By Christ, "we have access in one spirit _to the +Father_." "All things were delivered" to Christ "of _his Father_," whose +will Christ always sought. Thus is _the Father_ spoken of in the New +Testament as the Source from which all things have proceeded, and the End +to whom all things tend. + +_The Son_ (or Son of God) is spoken of in the New Testament as distinct +from the Father, but intimately united with him. The Father gives power; +the Son receives it. The Father gives light; the Son receives it. The Son +does nothing but what he seeth the Father do. "The Father hath sent me," +he says, "and I live by the Father." "I am not alone; but I, and the +Father who sent me." "The Son is in the Father, and the Father in him." +"No man cometh to the Father but by" him. He shows the Father to the +world. The Father is glorified in the Son. He is in the bosom of the +Father. The Father sent him to be the Saviour of the world. "He that hath +the Son hath life;" "And in him is everlasting life." + +_The Holy Spirit_, which came after Jesus left the world (also called the +Holy Ghost and the Spirit of God), is an inward revelation of God and of +Christ. It teaches all things, comforts, convinces. It is a spirit of +life, lifts one above the flesh, makes one feel that he is a Son of God, +communicates a variety of gifts, produces unity in the Church, sanctifies, +sheds the love of God into the heart, and renews the soul. The New +Testament speaks of joy in the Holy Ghost, power of the Holy Ghost, and +communion of the Holy Ghost. + +According to the New Testament, the Father would seem to be the Source of +all things, the Creator, the Fountain of being and of life. The Son is +spoken of as the manifestation of that Being in Jesus Christ; and the Holy +Ghost is spoken of as a spiritual influence, proceeding from the Father +and the Son, dwelling in the hearts of believers, as the source of their +life,--the idea of God seen in causation, in reason, and in conscience, as +making the very life of the soul itself. + +There are these three revelations of God, and we know of no others. They +are distinct from each other in form, but the same in essence. They are +not merely three names for the same thing; but they are real personal +manifestations of God, real subsistences, since he is personally present +in all of them. This view avoids all heresies, since it neither "divides +the substance" nor "confounds the persons." And these are really the two +heresies, which are the most common and the most to be avoided. We think +it can be easily shown that these are the great practical dangers to be +avoided. To "divide the substance" is so to separate the revelations of +God as to make them contradict or oppose each other: to "confound the +persons" is not to recognize each as an independent source of truth to the +soul. + + + + +§ 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood. + + +There is, therefore, an essential truth hidden in the idea of the Trinity. +While the Church doctrine, in every form which it has hitherto taken, has +failed to satisfy the human intellect, the Christian heart has clung to +the substance contained in them all. Let us endeavor to see what is the +practical value of this doctrine, for the sake of which its errors of +statement have been pardoned. What does it say to the Christian +consciousness? + +The Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine of +Tri-personality, that God is _immanent_ in nature, in Christ, and in the +soul. It teaches that God is not _outside_ of the world, making it as an +artisan makes a machine; nor _outside_ of Christ, sending him, and giving +to him miraculous powers; nor outside of the soul, touching it _ab extra_ +from time to time with unnatural influences, revolutionizing and +overturning it; but that he is personally present in each and all. So +that, when we study the mysteries and laws of nature, we are drawing near +to God himself, and looking into his face. When we see Christ, we see God, +who is in Christ; and when we look into the solemn intuitions of our soul, +the monitions of conscience, and the influences which draw our heart to +goodness, we are meeting and communing with God. + +Moreover, the Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine of _One +Substance_ (the Homoousion), that these three revelations, though +distinct, are essentially at one; that nature cannot contradict +revelation; that revelation cannot contradict nature; and that the +intuitions of the soul cannot be in conflict with either. Hence it teaches +that the Naturalist need not fear revelation; nor the Christian believer, +natural Theism. Since it is one and the same God who dwells in nature, in +Christ, and in the soul, all his revelations must be in harmony with each +other. To suppose otherwise is to "divide the substance" of the Trinity. + +And again: the Trinity, rightly understood, asserts the distinctness of +these three personal revelations. It is the same God who speaks in each; +but he says something new each time. He reveals a new form of his being. +He shows us, not the same order and aspect of truth in each manifestation, +but wholly different aspects. + +And yet again: as the doctrine teaches that the Son is begotten of the +Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, it thereby shows +how the revelation in nature prepares for the revelation in Christ, and +both for the revelation in the soul. + +The error of "dividing the substance" is perhaps the most common. The man +who sees God in nature, sees him only there: therefore God loses to him +that personal character which seems especially to be seen through Christ; +for God, as a person, comes to us most in Christ, and then is recognized +also in nature and the soul as a personal being. So, without Christ, +natural religion is cold: it wants love; it wants life. But, on the other +hand, the Christian believer who avoids seeing God in nature, and who +finds him only in his Bible, loses the sense of law or order, of +harmonious growth, and becomes literal, dogmatic, and narrow. And so, too, +the mystic, believing only in God's revelation through the soul, and not +going to nature or to Christ, becomes withdrawn from life, and has a +morbid and ghastly religion, and, having no test by which to judge his +inward revelations, may become the prey of all fantasies and all evil +spirits, lying spirits, foul spirits, and cruel spirits. + +Such errors come from "dividing the substance;" and they are only too +common. So that, when the true doctrine of Trinity in Unity is +apprehended, the most beneficial results may be expected to flow into the +life of the Church. No longer believed as a dead formula, no longer held +in the letter which killeth, no longer accepted outwardly as a dogma or +authority, but seen, felt, and realized in the daily activity of the +intellect and heart, the whole Church will recover its lost union, sects +will disappear, and the old feud between science and religion forever +cease. Science will become religious, and religion scientific. Science, no +longer cold and dead, but filled through and through with the life of God, +will reach its hand to Christianity. Piety, no longer an outlaw from +nature, no longer exiled from life into churches and monasteries, will +inform and animate all parts of human daily action. Christianity, no +longer narrow, Jewish, bigoted, formal, but animated by the great liberty +of a common life, will march onward to conquer all forms of error and evil +in the omnipotence of universal and harmonious truth. + +Natural religion, Christianity, and spiritual piety, being thus +harmonized, nature will be more warm, Christ more human, and the divine +influences in the soul more uniform and constant. Nature will be full of +God, with a sense of his presence penetrating it everywhere. Christianity +will become more natural, and all its great facts assume the proportion of +laws, universal as the universe itself. Divine influences will cease to be +spasmodic and irregular, and become calm, serene, and pure, an indwelling +life of God in the soul. + +A simple Unity, as held by the Jews and Mohammedans, and by some Christian +Unitarians, may be a bald Unity and an empty Unity. Then it shows us one +God, but God withdrawn from nature, from Christ, from the soul; not +immanent in any, but outside of them. It leaves nature godless; leaves +Christ _merely_ human; leaves the soul a machine to be moved by an +external impulse, not an inward inspiration.(86) + +We conclude, finally, that no doctrine of Orthodoxy is so false in its +form, and so true in its substance, as this. There is none so untenable as +dogma, but none so indispensable as experience and life. The Trinity, +truly received, would harmonize science, faith, and vital piety. The +Trinity, as it now stands in the belief of Christendom, at once confuses +the mind, and leaves it empty. It feeds us with chaff, with empty phrases +and forms, with no real inflowing convictions. It seems to lie like a +vessel on the shore, of no use where it is, yet difficult to remove and +get afloat; but when the tide rises, and the vessel floats, it will be +able to bear to and fro the knowledge of mankind, and unite various +convictions in living harmony. It is there for something. It is +providentially allowed to remain in the creeds of the Church for +something. It has in itself the seed of a grand future; and, though +utterly false and empty as it is taught and defended, it is kept by the +deeper instinct of the Christian consciousness, like the Christ in his +tomb, waiting for the resurrection. + + + + + +APPENDIX. CRITICAL NOTICES. + + +In this Appendix we shall add a brief critical examination of certain +recent works on points connected with our previous subjects. These +criticisms will complete the discussion in these various directions, so +far as space will allow here. The largest part of what follows has been +printed already, either in the "Christian Examiner," or in the "Monthly +Journal of the American Unitarian Association." + + + + +§ 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer and Henry +L. Mansel. + + +Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his book called "First Principles," lays down the +doctrine of theological nescience, as the final result of religious +inquiry. In his chapter on "Ultimate Religious Ideas" he argues thus: The +religious problem is, Whence comes the universe? In answer to this +question only three statements are possible. It is self-existent. It was +self-created. It was created by external agency. Now, none of these, says +Spencer, is tenable. For, (1.) Self-existence means simply an existence +without a beginning, and it is not possible to conceive of this. The +conception of infinite past time is an impossibility. (2.) Self-creation +is Pantheism. We can conceive, somewhat, of self-evolution, but not of a +potential universe passing into an actual one. (3.) The theistic +hypothesis is equally inconceivable. For this is to suppose the world made +as a workman makes a piece of furniture. We can conceive of this last, +because the workman has the material given; he only adds form to the +substance. To produce matter out of nothing is the real difficulty. No +simile enables us to conceive of this production of matter out of nothing. +Again, says Spencer, space is something, the non-existence of which is +inconceivable; hence the creation of space is inconceivable. And lastly, +says Spencer, if God created the universe, the question returns, Whence +came God? The same three answers recur. God was self-existent, or he was +self-created, or he was created _ab extra_. The last theory is useless. +For it leads to an endless series of potential existences. So the theist +returns to self-existence; which, however, says Spencer, is as +inconceivable as a self-existent universe, involving the inconceivable +idea of unlimited duration. + +Nevertheless, continues Spencer, we are compelled to regard phenomena as +effects of some cause. We must believe in a cause of that cause, till we +reach a _first cause_. The First Cause must be infinite and absolute. He +then follows Mansel in showing the contradiction between the two ideas. + +But total negation is not the result,--only nescience. Atheism, Pantheism, +and Theism agree in one belief, namely, that of a problem to be solved. An +unknown God is the highest result of theology and of philosophy. "If +religion and science are to be reconciled, the basis of the reconciliation +must be their deepest, widest, and most certain of all facts--that the +power which the universe manifests is utterly inscrutable." + +Thus Mr. Spencer proposes to take back human thought eighteen centuries, +and ignoring the conquests of Christian faith in civilization, theology, +and morals, carries us to Athens, in the time of Paul, to worship at the +altar of an unknown God. He makes a solitude in the soul, and calls it +peace. He makes peace between religion and science, by commanding the +first to surrender at discretion to the other. Science knows nothing of +God; therefore theology must know nothing of God. But not so. Let each +impart to the other that which it possesses, and which the other lacks. +Let science enlarge theology with the idea of law, and theology inform +science with the idea of a living God. + +It is not difficult to detect the fallacies in this argument of Spencer +for religious nescience. His notion of conception is that of a purely +sensible image. He assumes that we have no knowledge but sensible +knowledge, and then easily infers that we do not know God. We can +conceive, he says, of a rock on which we are standing, but not of the +whole earth. No great magnitudes, he declares, can be conceived. The +conception of infinite time is, therefore, an impossibility. + +But it is clear to any one, not bound hand and foot by the assumptions of +sensationalism, that it is just as easy to conceive of the whole globe of +earth, as of the piece of it which we see. We cannot have _a visual image_ +of the whole earth, indeed, but the mental conception of the globe is as +distinct as that of the stone we throw from our hand. And so far from the +conception of infinite duration being an impossibility, not to conceive of +time and space as infinite is the impossibility. It is impossible to +imagine or conceive of the beginning of time, or the commencement of +space. + +Looking at his trilemma concerning the universe, namely, that it was +either, (1.) Self-existent, (2.) Self-created, or, (3.) Created by an +external power, we say,-- + +1. The real objection to a self-existent universe, is not that we cannot +conceive of existence without beginning. Nothing is easier than to +conceive of an everlasting, unchanging universe, without beginning or end. +It is not existence, but change, that suggests cause. Phenomena, events, +require us to believe in some power which produces them. Now, the events +which take place in the universe suggest an intelligent, absolute, and +central cause, that is, a cause combining supreme wisdom, power, and +goodness. A self-existent universe is not inconceivable, but it is +incredible. + +2. Self-creation, he objects, is Pantheism. But this is no reason for +denying it, since Pantheism may, for all we see at this stage of the +argument, be the true explanation of the universe. The real objection to +the hypothesis of a self-created universe (or of a self-created God), is +that it involves the contradiction of something which exists and which +does not exist at the same moment; at the moment of self-creation, the +universe must exist in order to create, but must be non-existent in order +to be created. A self-created universe, then, is not incredible because it +involves Pantheism, but because it involves a contradiction. + +3. He objects to the Theistic hypothesis, that we cannot conceive of the +production of matter (more strictly, of substance) out of nothing. He adds +that no simile can enable us to imagine it. + +But I can produce, out of nothing, something visible, tangible, and +audible. There is no motion and no sound. I move my arm by the power of +will, and I produce both sound and motion. The motion of a body in space +is a material phenomenon; for whatever is perceived by the senses is +material. We do then constantly perceive material phenomena created out of +nothing, by human will. + +His argument against the Theist, that space could not have been created by +God, since its non-existence is inconceivable, is much more plausible. But +suppose we grant that space, supposed to be a real existence, was not +created in time. Does it follow from that, that it does not proceed from +God? Not being an event in time, it does not require a cause; but being +conceived of as a reality, it may have eternally proceeded from the divine +will, and so not be independent of the Creator. + +And as regards his trilemma concerning Deity, that also fails in the +failure of his thesis that eternal duration is inconceivable. His argument +against the self-existent Deity, only rests on that assumption which we +have shown to be untenable. + +But Mr. Spencer, who is not a theologian, is at this point reėnforced by +Mr. Mansel, on whose former work, "The Limits of Religious Thought," we +proceed to offer some criticism. This also is an argument for nescience in +theology, in the presumed interests of revelation. Mr. Martineau has ably +shown the weakness and the dangerous tendency of this whole argument of +Mansel, in an article to which we earnestly refer our readers. + +The work of Mr. Mansel is a desperate attempt to save Orthodox doctrines +from the objections of reason, not by replying to those objections and +pointing out their fallacy, but by showing that similar objections can be +brought against all religious belief. For example, when reason objects to +the Trinity, that it is a contradiction, Mr. Mansel does not attempt to +show that it is _not_ a contradiction, but argues that our belief in God +is another contradiction of the same kind. His inference therefore is, +that as we believe in God, notwithstanding the contradiction, we ought to +believe in the Trinity also, notwithstanding the contradiction. If we +believe one, we may believe both. + +But this is a dangerous argument; since it is evident that one might +reply, that there remains another alternative; which is, to believe +_neither_. If Mr. Mansel succeeds in convincing his readers, the result +may be a belief in the Trinity, or it may be a disbelief in God +altogether; one of two things--either a return to Orthodoxy, or a departure +from all religion. Either they will renounce reason in order to retain +religion, or they will renounce religion in order to retain reason. + +At the very best, also, the help which this argument offers us is to be +paid for somewhat dearly. It proposes to save Orthodoxy by giving up the +use of reason in religion. Mr. Mansel would say, "by giving up the +unlimited use of reason;" but, as we shall presently see, this comes very +much to the same thing at last. + +What, then, is the nature of Mr. Mansel's argument? It is an argument +founded upon Sir William Hamilton's philosophy of the Unconditioned. Now, +this has been generally considered the weak side of Hamilton's system. +According to him, the unconditioned is inconceivable: in other words, of +the Absolute and Infinite we have no conception at all. But this denies to +man the power of conceiving of God, and so leads directly to Atheism. This +charge has already been brought against Hamilton's philosophy, in various +quarters; for example, in the "North British Review " for May, 1835. But +we will not here attempt any examination of Hamilton's theory, but confine +ourselves to Mr. Mansel. + +The argument of Mansel is this (p. 75): "To conceive the Deity as he is, +we must conceive him as First Cause, as Absolute, and as Infinite. By the +First Cause is meant that which produces all things, and is itself +produced of none; by the Absolute is meant that which exists in and by +itself, having no necessary relation to any other being; by the Infinite +is meant that which is free from all possible limitation." + +Having thus defined the Deity as the First Cause, the Absolute, and the +Infinite, Mansel goes on to show that these ideas are mutually +contradictory and destructive. A First Cause necessarily supposes effects, +and therefore cannot be absolute: nor can the Infinite be a person; for +personality is a limitation. By a course of such arguments as these, +Mansel endeavors to show that the reason is as incapable of conceiving God +as it is of conceiving the Trinity, the Atonement, or any other Orthodox +doctrine; and since we do not renounce our belief in God because of these +contradictions, neither ought we, because of similar contradictions, to +renounce our belief in the Trinity. + +Such is the substance of Mansel's statement, though the arguments by which +it is proved are varied with great ingenuity and to great extent. This +course of thought is by no means original, either with Mr. Mansel or Sir +William Hamilton. A far greater thinker than either of them (Immanuel +Kant) had long before shown the logical contradictions of the +understanding in what he called the Antinomies of the pure reason. But the +important question is, If the reason contradicts itself thus in its +conception of Deity, how are we to obtain a ground for our belief in God? +Mansel answers, "Through revelation; that is, through the direct +declarations of Scripture." This he calls faith. We are to believe in a +personal God on the ground of a Bible confirmed by miracles. + +This result is so strange, that it may well seem incredible. Yet we cannot +think that we have misrepresented the tendency of the argument; though, of +course, we have given no ideas of the acuteness and flexibility of the +reasoning, the extent of the knowledge, and mastery of logic, in this +work. That such a position should be taken by a religious man, in the +supposed interest of Christianity, is sufficiently strange; for it seems +to us equally untenable in its grounds, unfounded in its statements, empty +of insight, destructive in its results. We will add, very briefly, a few +of the criticisms which occur to us. + +The first thing which strikes us in the argument is, that everywhere it +deals with words rather than with things. The whole object of the +discussion concerns the meaning of terms, and it deals throughout with the +relation of words to other words. It is an acute philological argument. We +feel ourselves to be arguing about forms, and not about substances. Now, +such arguments may confuse, but they cannot convince. We do not know, +perhaps, what to say in reply; but we remain unsatisfied. One not used to +logic may listen to an argument which shall conclusively prove that white +is black; that nothing is greater than something; that a man who jumps +from the top of the house can never reach the ground; but, though the +thing is proved, he is not convinced. So, when Mr. Mansel proves to us +that we cannot conceive of a Being who is at the same time Infinite and +Personal, we are unable, perhaps, to reply to the argument; but we know it +to be false, since we actually have the two conceptions in our mind. + +We _do_ conceive of the Deity as an infinite personality. Of what use to +tell us that we _cannot_ have an idea, when we know that we _do_ have it? + +Mansel tells us that we cannot think the idea of the Infinite and +Absolute. He says (p. 110), "The Absolute and the Infinite are thus, like +the Inconceivable and Imperceptible, names indicating, not an object of +thought or of consciousness at all, but the mere absence of the conditions +under which consciousness is possible." + +But, then, they are only words, with no meaning attached; and, if so, how +can we argue about them at all? All argument must cease when we come to an +unmeaning phrase; therefore the existence of Mr. Mansel's argument proves +the falsehood of his assertion. Since he argues about the Infinite, it is +evident that he has the idea of the Infinite in his mind. + +Mr. Mansel agrees in principle wholly with the Atheists; for the Atheists +do not say that God does not exist, or that God cannot exist, but that we +cannot know that he exists. So says Mr. Holyoake, a leading modern +Atheist. This is what Mansel also asserts, only he goes farther than they, +contending that the very idea of God is impossible to the human reason. It +is true that he believes in God on grounds of revelation, which the +Atheists do not; but he agrees with them in setting aside all natural and +reasonable knowledge of Deity. + +But how is it possible to obtain an idea of God from revelation, if we are +before destitute of such an idea? When Paul preached to the Athenians, he +addressed them as having already a true, though an imperfect, idea of God. +"Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." But, if +they had not already an idea of God, how could he have given them such an +idea? Suppose that he works a miracle, and says, "This miracle proves that +God has sent me to teach you." But, by the supposition, they know nothing +about God; consequently, they have nothing by which to test the truth of a +revelation professing to come from him. Neither miracles, nor the nature +of the truth taught, nor the character of the teacher, avail anything as +evidence of a revelation from a Being of whom we know nothing. Without a +previous knowledge of God, only immediate revelation is possible. + +Mr. Mansel, therefore, is one who, without a foundation, builds a house on +the sand. He attempts to erect faith in God after taking away the +foundation of reason. The apostles built revealed religion upon natural +religion, revealed theology upon natural theology, according to the rule, +"That is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; +afterward that which is spiritual." Christ said, "Ye believe in God: +believe also in me." Mr. Mansel reverses all this, and makes Christ say, +"Ye believe in me: believe also in God." + +But, even if it were possible to ascend to belief in God through belief in +Christ, we must ask, Is not belief thought? If the mind cannot _think_ the +Infinite, how can it believe the Infinite? Must we not apprehend a +proposition before we can believe it? Does not the conception of a thing +logically precede the belief of it? If it is impossible to apprehend the +Absolute, if this is only an empty name, how is it possible to believe in +the Absolute on grounds of revelation, or on any other grounds? A miracle +cannot communicate to the mind an idea which is beyond its power of +conception. + +Mr. Mansel declares that our religious knowledge is _regulative_, but not +_speculative_. + +He lays great stress on this distinction: by which he means that we have +ideas of the Deity sufficient to guide our practice, but not to satisfy +our intellect; which tell us, not what God is in himself, but how he +_wills_ that we should think of him. According to this view, all +revelation is overturned, just as all natural religion has been previously +overturned. Revelation does not reveal God on this theory. We have no +knowledge of God in the gospel, any more than we had in nature. Instead of +knowledge, we have only law. But this seems to despoil Christianity of its +vital force. Christ says, "This is life eternal, to _know_ thee, the only +true God." But Mr. Mansel tells us that such knowledge of God is +impossible. Therefore, instead of the gospel, he gives us the law; for it +is certain that his _regulative_ truths are simply moral precepts, +addressed to the will, not to the intellect; capable of being obeyed, but +not of being understood. + +The radical error of Mansel seems to be this,--that his mind works only in +the logical region belonging to the understanding, and is ignorant of +those higher truths which are beheld by the reason. He has tried to find +God by logical processes, and, of course, has failed. He therefore +concludes that God cannot be known by the intellect. He has fully +demonstrated that God cannot be comprehended by the logical understanding; +and in this he has done a good work. But he has not shown that God cannot +be known by the intuitive reason. The understanding comprehends: the +reason apprehends. The understanding perceives the form: reason takes +holds of the substance. The understanding sees how things are related to +each other: the reason sees how things are in themselves. The +understanding cannot, therefore, see the infinite and absolute; cannot +apprehend substance or cause; knows nothing of the eternal. But the reason +is as certain of cause as of effect; knows eternity as really as it knows +time; it is as sure of the existence of spirit as it is of matter; and +sees the infinite to be as real as the finite. Therefore, though we cannot +comprehend God by logic, we can apprehend him by reason. We can be as sure +of his being as we are of our own, and we are not obliged to explain away +all those profound scriptures which teach us that the object and end of +our being is to know God. + +Since, therefore, Mr. Mansel's argument, with all its acuteness, learning, +and honesty, tends directly to Atheism; since, by overturning the +foundation of Christianity, it overturns Christianity itself; since it +substitutes mere moral laws in place of the vital forces of the gospel,--it +is no wonder that its positions have been rejected with much unanimity by +the most eminent Orthodox scholars. Its defence of Orthodoxy costs too +much. Leading thinkers of very different schools--for example, Mr. +Brownson, the Roman Catholic, in his "Quarterly Review;" Professor Hickok, +the Presbyterian, in the "Bibliotheca Sacra;" and Mr. Maurice, of the +Church of England, in an able pamphlet--have opposed with great force the +arguments and conclusions of this volume. It is true that some Orthodox +divines consider that Mr. Mansel has _demonstrated_ that the human +consciousness is unequal to the speculative conception of a Being at once +absolute, infinite, and personal, and seem gladly to have the aid of this +book in defending the Trinity. But the more distinguished and experienced +thinkers mentioned above are cautious of accepting the help of so +dangerous an ally. + + + + +§ 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen. + + +Following the declaration of the apostle Paul, that "the letter killeth," +we have, in the text of this volume, set aside all the theories of the +Bible which assume its absolute and literal infallibility. But within a +few years, a work in defence of this doctrine has been published abroad, +by an excellent man, M. Gaussen, of Geneva, and translated and republished +in America by Rev. Dr. Kirk, of Boston. Such a work, coming from such +sources, deserves some examination. We shall, therefore, show the course +of argument followed in this book, and the reasons which lead us to +consider its conclusions unsound, and its reasoning inadequate. + +Inspiration, as defined by Gaussen, is "that inexplicable power which the +divine Spirit formerly exercised over the authors of the Holy Scriptures, +to guide them even in the employment of the words they were to use, and to +preserve them from all error, as well as from every omission. + +"We aim," says he, "to establish, by the word of God, that the Scriptures +are from God--that all the Scriptures are from God--and that every part of +the Scripture is from God." + +Let us consider the arguments in support of this kind of inspiration, and +the objections to them. + +_Argument I. Plenary Inspiration is necessary, that we may know with +certainty what we ought to believe._ + +Great stress is laid upon this supposed _necessity_, both by Gaussen and +Kirk. + +"The book so written," say they, "is the Word of God, and binds the +conscience of the world; and nothing else does so bind it, even though it +were the writings of Paul and Peter. + +"With the Infidel, whether he be Christian in name or otherwise, the sharp +sword of a perfect inspiration will be found, at last, indispensable. If +the ground is conceded to him that there is a single passage in the Bible +that is not divine, then we are disarmed; for he will be sure to apply +this privilege to the very passages which most fully oppose his pride, +passion, and error. How is the conscience of a wicked race to be bound +down by a chain, one link of which is weak?" + +_Reply to Argument I._--It is no way to prove a theory _true_ to assume its +_necessity_. The only legitimate proof of a theory is by an induction of +facts. This method of beginning by a supposed necessity, this looking +first at consequences, has always been fruitful of false and empty +theories. The great advance in modern science has come from substituting +the inductive for the ideological method. Find what the facts say, and the +consequences will take care of themselves. An argument from consequences +is usually only an appeal to prejudices. + +Again: This argument is fatal to the arguments drawn from the Scriptures +themselves. In arguing from the Scripture to prove that every passage is +divine, we have, of course, no right to assume that every passage is +divine, for that is the very thing to be proved. Then the texts which we +quote to prove our position may themselves not be divine, and if we grant +that, "we are disarmed." For, according to this argument, nothing can be +proved conclusively from Scripture except we believe in plenary +inspiration--then plenary inspiration itself cannot be proved from +Scripture. But Gaussen admits that this doctrine can be proved "only by +the Scriptures;" therefore (according to this argument) it cannot be +proved at all. + +If, therefore, the doctrine of plenary inspiration is necessary "to bind +the conscience of the world," it is a doctrine incapable of proof. If, on +the other hand, it can be proved, it is then clearly not necessary "to +bind the conscience of the world." + +But again. This theory of plenary inspiration does _not_ bind the +consciences of men. If men are naturally disposed (as Messrs. Gaussen and +Kirk maintain) to deny and disbelieve the doctrines and statements of the +Bible, they have ample opportunity of doing so, notwithstanding their +belief in this theory. For, after admitting that the words of Scripture, +just as they stand, are perfectly true and given by God, the question +comes, What do they mean? For instance, I wish, we will suppose, to deny +the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. Now, you quote to me the text Rom. +9:5. "Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God, +blessed forever,"--which is the strongest text in the Bible in support of +that doctrine. Now, though I believe in the doctrine of plenary +inspiration, I am not obliged to accept this passage as proof of the Deity +of Christ. For I can, 1. Assert that the verse is an interpolation; 2. +Assert that it is wrongly pointed; 3. Assert that it is mistranslated; 4. +Assert that Christ is called God in an inferior sense, as God over the +Church. And, as a matter of fact, these are the arguments always used, +even by those who deny the doctrine of a plenary inspiration. They seldom +or never accuse the writer of a mistake, but always rely on a supposed +mistranslation, or misinterpretation, in order to avoid the force of a +passage. Hence, also, we find believers in this doctrine of plenary +inspiration, differing in opinion on a thousand matters, and with no +probability of ever coming to an agreement. + +_Argument II. Several Passages of the New Testament plainly teach the +Doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible._ + +The passages quoted by Gaussen, and mainly relied upon, are 2 Tim. 3:16. +"All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c.; 2 Peter 1:27, "Holy men of +God spake as they were moved," &c. Besides these, he refers to many +passages in the Old and New Testaments, but his chief stress is laid on +these. + +_Reply to Argument II._--It is well known that both these passages refer +only to the Old Testament Scriptures. It is well known that the first may +be translated so as to read, "All Scripture, given by inspiration, is +profitable," &c. But it is reply enough to both these passages, to say, +that neither of them indicates what kind of inspiration is intended. They +assert an inspiration, which we also maintain. But they do _not_ assert a +verbal inspiration, nor one which makes the Scriptures _infallible_, but +simply one which makes them _profitable_. + +The stress laid on the passage 2 Tim. 3:16, "All Scripture," &c., is +itself an argument against the theory of plenary inspiration. The most +which can be made of this text, by _any_ punctuation or translation, is, +that all the Scripture is written by inspired men. What was the degree or +kind of their inspiration, is not in the least indicated. It might have +been verbal, it might have been the inspiration of suggestion, or of +superintendence, or the general inspiration of all Christians. + +Gaussen's only argument on this point is, "that it is the _writing_ which +is said to be inspired, and writing must be in words; hence the +inspiration must be verbal." To this we must reply, that inspired writing +can only mean what is written by inspired men. The writing itself cannot +be inspired. This argument is too flimsy to be dwelt upon. + +But further still. There is another argument which lies against every +attempt to prove plenary inspiration out of the Scripture. _Every such +attempt is necessarily reasoning in a circle._ Gaussen and Kirk have +labored earnestly to reply to this argument, but in vain. The answer they +make is, "We are not reasoning with Infidels, but with Christians. We +address men who respect the Scriptures, and who admit their truth. The +Scriptures are inspired, we affirm, because, being authentic and true, +they declare themselves inspired; and the Scriptures are plenarily +inspired, because, being inspired, they say that they are so totally, and +without any exception." + +But we answer Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk thus: "You are indeed reasoning +with Christians, not with Deists; but you are reasoning with Christians +who do not believe that _every passage_ of Scripture is infallibly +inspired. To prove your doctrine from any particular passages or verbal +expressions, you must prove that those particular passages and expressions +are not themselves errors. You yourselves assert that this cannot be done, +except we believe these passages to be infallibly inspired. Therefore you +must assume infallible inspiration in order to prove infallible +inspiration. In other words, you beg the question instead of arguing it." + +In this vicious circle the advocates of a verbal inspiration of +infallibility are necessarily imprisoned whenever they attempt to argue +from the words of Scripture. They contend that one must believe their +theory in order to be sure that any passage is absolutely true, and then +they quote passages to prove their theory, as if they were absolutely +true. + +_Argument III. The theory of plenary inspiration is simple, precise, +intelligible, and easy to be applied._ + +We admit this to be true. It has this merit in common with the opposite +theory of no inspiration. Both are simple, precise, and very easy of +application. But simplicity is not always a sign of truth. The facts of +nature and life are more apt to be complex than simple. Theories +distinguished by their simplicity most commonly ignore or omit a part of +the facts. Simplistic theories are generally one-sided and partial. +Materialism, Atheism, Idealism, Fatalism, are all very simple theories, +and explain all difficulties with a marvellous rapidity. This makes them, +at first, attractive to the intellect, which always loves clear and +distinct views; but afterwards, when it is seen that they obtain clearness +by means of shallowness they are found unsatisfactory. + +_Argument IV. The quotations from the Old Testament, by Jesus and his +apostles, show that they regarded its language as infallibly inspired._ + +This argument, upon which great stress is laid, both by Prof. Gaussen and +Dr. Kirk, though plausible at first sight, becomes wholly untenable on +examination. + +Thus, in the temptation of Jesus, in his reply to the tempter, he says, +"Thou shalt not live by bread alone;" the whole force of the argument +depending on the single word _alone_. + +Replying to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, "Have ye +not read that God says, I _am_ the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of +Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Then the whole +stress of the argument rests on the use of the verb in the present tense, +"_I am_." + +Arguing with the Pharisees, "How did David, by the Spirit, call him +_Lord_, saying, The Lord said to my Lord," &c.? Here the argument depends +on the use of the single word _Lord_. + +Many more instances could be produced of the same kind; and Gaussen +contends, that when Jesus and his apostles thus rest their argument on the +force of a single word of the Old Testament, they must have believed that +the very words were given by inspiration. For otherwise the writers might +not have chosen the right word to express their thought in each particular +case. And unless the Jews had also believed in the verbal inspiration of +their Scriptures, they would have replied that these particular words +might have been errors. + +_Reply to this Argument._--Plausible as this argument may seem, it turns +out to be wholly empty and worthless. Whenever any writer is admitted to +be an authority, then his words become authoritative, and arguments are +necessarily based on single words and expressions. In all such cases, we +assume that he chose the best words by which to convey his thought, and +yet we do not ascribe to him any inspiration or infallibility. + +Thus, go into our courts of law, and you will hear the language of the +United States constitution, of the acts of legislature, of previous +decisions of the courts, argued from, word by word. Counsel argue by the +hour upon the force and weight of single words in the authorities. Judges +in their charges instruct the jury to determine the life and death of the +criminal according to the letter of the law. And this they do necessarily, +according to the rule, "_Cum recedit a litera, judex transit in +legislatorem_." But will any one maintain that the counsel and court +believe that the legislature was infallibly inspired to choose the very +language which would convey their meaning? + +In this very argument for plenary inspiration, Gaussen and his associates +rest their argument on the single word "all," in the text, "All Scripture +is given by inspiration," &c. Yet, say they, we are not assuming that this +text is plenarily inspired, for that, we admit, would be begging the +question. If, then, Mr. Gaussen can argue from the force of the single +word _all_, without assuming the doctrine of plenary inspiration, why +could not Jesus and his apostles argue from single words, without assuming +the doctrine of plenary inspiration? + +There is, however, a passage in Paul (Gal. 3:16), in which the apostle +quotes a text from the Old Testament, and lays the whole stress of his +argument on two letters. "He says not, 'And to seeds' {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, as of +many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed' {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}." According to Gaussen's +argument, Paul must have believed in the inspiration of the letters. But +Gaussen is careful not to adduce this instance, which seems at first so +much in his favor. For, in fact, both in Hebrew and Greek, as in English, +"seed" is a collective noun, and does mean _many_ in the singular. The +argument of Paul, therefore, falls through; and it is evident that he is +no example to be imitated here, in laying stress on one or two letters. +Most modern interpreters admit that he made a mistake; and so, among the +ancients, did Jerome, who nevertheless, said the argument "was good enough +for the foolish Galatians." + +Having thus replied, very briefly, but we believe sufficiently, to the +main arguments in support of this theory, we say, in conclusion, that it +cannot be true, for the following reasons, which we simply state, and do +not now attempt to unfold. + +1. The New Testament writers nowhere claim to be infallibly inspired to +write. If they had been infallibly inspired to write the Gospels and +Epistles, they certainly ought to have announced this important fact. +Instead of which Luke gives as his reason for writing, not that God +inspired him to write, but that "inasmuch as others have taken in hand" to +write, it seemed good to him also to do the same, and that for the benefit +of Theophilus. John and Paul assert the truth of what they say, but not on +account of their being inspired to write, but because they are disciples +and apostles. + +2. The differences in the accounts of the same transactions show that +their inspiration was not verbal. + +These differences appear on every page of any Harmony of the New +Testament. They are numerous but unimportant; they go to prove the truth +of the narrative, and give probability to the main Gospel statements. But +they utterly disprove the theory of plenary inspiration. + +3. Paul declares that some things which he says are "of the Lord," other +things "of himself;" that in regard to some things he was inspired, in +regard to others, not. + +4. Every writer in the New Testament has a style of his own, and there is +no appearance of his being merely an amanuensis. + +5. While the New Testament writers lay no claim to any such inspiration as +this theory assumes, they do claim for themselves and for all other +Christians another kind of inspiration, which is sufficient for all the +facts, and which gives them ample authority over our faith and life, and +makes them independent sources of Christian truth. + +This view we have already sufficiently considered in our chapter on +inspiration. + + + + +§ 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor Shedd. + + +In the "Christian Review" for 1852 appeared an article of great power, +written by a gentleman who has since become eminent as a thinker and +writer--Professor W. G. T. Shedd. The title of the article was calculated +to attract attention, as a bold attempt to defend an extreme position of +Calvinism--"Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt." The article was so +rational and clear that we consider it as being even now the best +statement extant of this thorough-going Calvinism, and therefore devote a +few pages here to its examination.(87) + +After some introductory remarks, which it is not necessary to notice, the +writer lays down his first position, that sin is a nature. His statement +is, that we all sin necessarily and continually in consequence of _our +nature_, i.e., the character born with us, original and innate. + +The proofs of this position are, 1. The language of St. Paul (Eph. 2:3), +"We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." 2. That we are +compelled by the laws of our mind to refer volitions to a nature, as +qualities to a substance. We cannot stop in the outward act of sin, but by +a mental instinct look inward to the particular volition from which the +sin came. Nor can the mind stop with this particular volition. There is a +steady and uniform state of character, which particular volitions cannot +explain. The instinct of reason causes us to look back for one common +principle and source, which shall give unity to the subject; and, having +attained a view both central and simple, it is satisfied. As our mind +compels us to refer all properties to a substance in which they inhere, so +it compels us to refer all similar volitions to a simple nature. When we +see exercises of the soul, we as instinctively refer them to a nature in +that soul, as we refer the properties of a body to the substance of that +body. 3. Christian experience proves that sin is a nature. The Christian, +especially as his experience deepens, is troubled, not so much by his +separate sinful actions and volitions, as by the sinful nature which they +indicate, and out of which they spring. We are compelled to believe, as we +look inward, that there is a principle of evil within us, below those +separate transgressions of which we are conscious. There is a diseased +condition of the soul, which these transgressions, indicate. There are +secret faults from which we pray to be cleansed. 4. The history of +Christian doctrine shows that the Church has in all ages believed in a +sinful nature, as distinguished from conscious transgressions. + +These are the proofs of the first position, that sin is a nature. We have +stated them concisely, but with sufficient distinctness and completeness. +Let us now examine their validity. + +The first argument is the text in Ephesians, "We were by nature children +of wrath," {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}. The word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, the writer contends, +"always denotes something original and innate, in contradistinction to +something acquired by practice or habit." This text, we know, is the +proof-text of original sin, and is considered by many commentators as +teaching that man's nature is wholly corrupt. But plainly this is going +too far. Granting the full meaning claimed for the word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, the text +only asserts that there is something in man's nature which exposes him to +the divine displeasure by being the source of sin. It does not assert the +corruption of the whole nature, nor preclude the supposition that we are +born with tendencies to good, no less than to evil. That we are so, the +writer is bound by his own statement to admit; for if this Greek word +"always denotes something original and innate," it denotes this in Rom. +2:14,(88) which declares that the Gentiles "do by nature the things +contained in the law." According to this passage in Romans, if there be +such a thing as natural depravity, it is not total; and if there be such a +thing as total depravity, it is not natural. Those who wish to maintain +both doctrines can only do it by admitting two different kinds of +sinfulness in man, one of which is natural, but not total; the other +total, but not natural--a distinction which we esteem a sound one. +According to this passage in Rom 2:14, we must understand {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} as +referring to the good side of man's nature, and the same word in Eph. 2:3 +as referring to the corrupt side of man's moral nature. The first refers +to the "law of the mind;" the second, to the other "law in the members" +(Rom. 7:23). But there is another passage (Gal. 2:15), which asserts that +the Jews by nature are not sinners, like the heathen. Now, as we can +hardly suppose that the original instincts and innate tendencies of the +Jewish child were radically good from birth, and essentially different +from those of the heathen, and as such a supposition would contradict the +whole argument of Paul in Rom. ch. 2, it is evident that {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} in Gal. +2:15 does not denote something original and innate. The meaning of this +verse probably is, that the Jew from birth up, and by the mere fact of +being born a Jew, came under the influences of a religious education, +which preserved him from many forms of heathen depravity. The word, +therefore, means in that passage, not a Jew by nature, but a Jew by birth; +and, if so, we are at liberty, if we choose, to ascribe the same meaning +to the word in Ephesians, and to understand the text to teach that we were +by birth placed under circumstances which tended necessarily to deprave +the character. + +This passage, therefore, quoted by the writer, does not teach entire +depravity by nature, but a partial depravity, either found in the +hereditary tendencies and instincts, or acquired by means of the evil +circumstances surrounding the child from his birth. + +The second argument of the writer is, that the laws of mind compel us to +refer sinful volitions to a sinful nature, as they compel us to refer +qualities to a substance. + +We admit that, where we see uniform and constant habits of action, we are +compelled to refer these to a permanent character or state of being. If a +man once in his life becomes intoxicated, we do not infer any habit of +intemperance, or any vicious tendency; but if he is habitually +intemperate, we are compelled, as the writer justly asserts, to look +beneath the separate single actions for one common principle and source. +But in assuming that this source is a nature brought with us into the +world, the writer seems to us to jump to a conclusion. It may be an +acquired character, not an original nature. It may be an induced state of +disease either of body or mind, a depravity which has commenced this side +of childhood. We know that there are acquired habits both of mind and of +body; otherwise, not only would it be impossible for a man to grow worse, +but it would also be impossible for him to grow better, and there would be +an end to all improvement and progress. Such an acquired character +introduces unity into the subject of investigation, as completely as does +an original nature, and therefore satisfies all the wants of the mind. + +A precisely similar answer may be made to the writer's third argument, +drawn from Christian experience. He is perfectly right, we think, in +saying that the Christian is troubled, not merely, nor chiefly, by the +recollection of single acts and volitions of evil, but in the evidence +which they seem to give of a sinful state of mind and heart. He is right +in considering any theory of moral evil shallow and inadequate which only +takes into account sinful actions and sinful volitions. What earnest man, +who has seriously set about correcting a fault, or improving his +character, but has been obliged to say, "To will is present with me; but +how to perform that which I will, I find not"? Every earnest effort shows +us more plainly how deep the roots of evil run below the surface. We find +a _law_ in the members warring against the law of the mind, and bringing +us into captivity to the law of sin. This is the description which Paul +gives of it. It is a _law_; that is, something regular, constant, +permanent--a steady stress, a bias towards evil. The apostle, however, +differs from the writer in placing this law, not in the will, but in the +members; and also in stating that there is another law,--that of the +mind,--which has a tendency towards good. In the unregenerate we understand +him to teach that the law of evil is the stronger, and holds the man, the +personal will, captive. In the regenerate, the reverse is the case. Nor +does Paul teach that this sinful tendency is guilt. It is not "O _guilty_ +man that I am!" but "O _wretched_ man that I am!" + +Now, while we agree with the writer in rejecting as superficial and +inadequate any theory of evil, whether emanating from our own denomination +or from any other, which does not recognize this evil state or tendency +lying below the volitions, we differ from him in that we think it not +always a nature, but a character. He has not proved, nor begun to prove, +that this dark ground of evil in man is always innate or original. It may +or may not be; but the argument from Christian experience shows nothing of +the sort. + +The writer's fourth and remaining argument is, that the Church has, in all +ages, believed in a sinful nature, as distinguished from conscious +transgressions. If this were so, we admit that it should have weight in +the inquiry; but we deny the fact so far, at least, as the sinful nature +is concerned.(89) + +The writer proceeds thus: "Assuming, then, that the fact of a sinful +nature has been established, we pass to the second statement of St. Paul, +that man is by nature a child of wrath. We pass from his statement that +sin, in its ultimate form, is a nature, to his statement that this nature +is guilt." If we have done justice to the writer's arguments,--and it has +been our object to state them fairly, though briefly,--we submit that the +fact of a sinful nature has not been established by them. He has shown +that in man there is a tendency to evil running below the conscious, +distinct volitions--that there is a permanent character, good or evil, +which manifests itself, and becomes first apparent to ourselves, or to +others, in these separate, spiritual exercises or actions. But that this +stress either to good or evil, this law either of the mind or members, is +original and inborn, is yet to be proved. Let us then consider the second +point, namely, whether this character or nature, whichever it may be, is +also guilt. + +As the writer's first argument to prove a sinful nature was drawn from the +Greek word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, so his first argument to prove that nature guilt is +derived from the Greek word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~} in the same passage. "The apostle +teaches," he says, "that sinful man is a child of wrath. Now, none but a +guilty being can be the object of the righteous and holy displeasure of +God." But this word, translated _wrath_, is confessedly used in other +senses besides that of the divine anger or displeasure. It may mean the +sufferings or punishments which come as the result of sin, in which sense +it is used in Matt. 3:7, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to +come?" and other places. This word is used in the passage just quoted for +some future evil; in John 3:36, for a present evil--"The wrath of God +abides on him;" and in 1 Thess. 2:16, for a past evil--"For the wrath is +come [lit. _has_ come] on them to the uttermost." It may mean the +subjective feeling of guilt; the sense that we deserve the divine +displeasure, which is removed by the assurance of forgiveness. It may mean +the state of alienation from God, which results by a law of the conscience +from this sense of guilt--an alienation removed by the divine act by which +God reconciles the sinner to himself. And the radical meaning, from which +these secondary meanings flow, may be the essential antagonism existing +between the holy nature of God and all evil. But whatever it means, it +cannot intend anything like human anger. In the divine wrath there is +neither selfishness nor passion; and it must consist with an infinite love +towards its object. The word, therefore, as used in Eph. 2:3, does not +convey the idea of guilt, _a vi terminis_. It may mean as well, that this +sinful tendency in man, manifesting itself in sinful actions, produces a +state of estrangement or alienation between man and God. How far this is a +guilty alienation, and how far it is evil and sorrowful, is not to be +learned from the term itself. + +But the main proof of the writer in support of his second position is +found in the assertion, that this sinful tendency in man, out of which +evil acts continually flow, is not a tendency of the physical nature, but +of the will itself. He distinguishes the will proper from the mere faculty +of single choices, and considers it to be a deeper power lying at the very +centre of the soul, which determines the whole man with reference to some +great and unlimited end of living. It is, in fact, the man himself--the +person. For man, he asserts, is not essentially intellect or feeling; but +is essentially and at bottom a will, a self-determining creature. "His +other faculties of knowing and feeling are grafted into this stock and +root; and hence he is responsible from centre to circumference." He then +affirms the will, thus defined, to be the responsible and guilty author of +the sinful nature; being nothing more nor less than its constant and total +determination to self as the ultimate end of living. This voluntary power, +which is the man himself, has turned away from God and directed itself to +self as an ultimate end; and this state of the will is the sinful nature +of man. + +We have no disposition to quarrel with the psychology of this statement. +We admit man to be essentially will, in the sense here described. He is +essentially activity; an activity limited externally, by special +organization and circumstances,--limited internally, by quantity of force, +and knowledge. + +Nor, again, do we deny that in the unregenerate state the will of man is +directed to self rather than to God as its ultimate end; and that this is +guilt, and in a certain sense total guilt. No man can serve two masters. +If he is obedient to one, he is necessarily disobedient to the other. This +disobedience may, or may not, appear in act; but it is there in state. He +whose ultimate end is self-gratification is always ready to sacrifice the +will of God to his own. He whose ultimate end is God is always ready to +sacrifice his own will. In this sense, the unregenerate man may be said to +be wholly sinful; and he who is born of God, not to commit sin. + +Thus much we grant; and the admission is a large one. But we must now +object to the writer, that this is but one side of the question; and that +he has omitted to see the other side. The sources of evil are not so +simple as he seems to suppose; for man is a very complex being, and the +world in which he lives is a very complex world. We therefore would +inquire,-- + +What proof have we that this guilty direction of the will is a _nature_, +in the sense claimed, i.e., something innate or original? Why may not the +will have been turned gradually in this direction as we grow up, by +enticements of pleasure; and why might not the will, in like manner, by +means of wise culture, have been gradually directed to God? + +Again: what proof have we that we are so wholly _unconscious_ of this +direction of the will, as our author contends? That a great many of the +acts of the will are unconscious acts, like the separate movements of the +finger in a skilful pianist, or lifting of the feet in walking, we admit; +and we are not responsible for these separate acts, but for the _preceding +choice_, by means of which we determine to play the tune, or walk the +mile. In like manner, the direction of the soul to self rather than to God +may be moral evil; but is not moral guilt, until we become conscious of +it, in a greater or less degree. Then, when partially or wholly awakened +to the evil direction of the soul, if we allow ourselves to neglect this +discovery, to turn away from the fact and forget it, on that conscious act +presses the whole burden of guilt, and not on the unconscious volitions +which may result from it. We say, therefore, in opposition to the writer, +that though there may be depravity without consciousness of the depraved +state, there cannot be guilt without consciousness of the evil choice, or, +as the apostle says, "Sin is not imputed where there is no law." + +Again: we totally dissent from the statement that this deep-lying will in +man is unable to obey the commands, "Turn ye, turn ye from your evil way, +for why will ye die?"--"Repent and be converted, that your sins may be +blotted out,"--"Make you a new heart and a new spirit,"--"Choose you this +day whom you will serve,"--"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved." +The writer says, that "such a power as this, including so much, and +running so deep, which is a determination of the whole soul, cannot, from +the very nature of the case, be such a facile and easily managed power as +that by which we resolve to do some particular thing in every-day life." +True: not _so_ easily managed; but can it not be managed at all? It may +require _more_ self-examination to understand what the direction of the +will is, and more concentration of thought and will, and more leaning on +God's help; but _with_ all these are we able or not able to turn to God? +He says, the great main tendency of the will to self and sin as an +ultimate end, though having a free and criminal origin, "is not to be +reversed so easily." True, again; but why not _less_ easily? The writer +speaks of the sinful will as a "total determination of itself to self;" +and asks "how the power that is to reverse all this process can possibly +come out of the will thus shut up, and entirely swallowed in the process. +How is the process to destroy itself?" But what! Has man become _a +process_? He is essentially will, but is this will blind mechanism? Has it +not, according to our author's own theory, intelligence, conscience, +affection, rooted into it? The moment that the writer begins to speak of +the will, as unable to change its direction, he is compelled to conceive +of it materially and mechanically, and not as the moral, responsible soul. +He says, "The human will becomes a current that becomes unmanageable +simply because of its own momentum." And therefore, again, he is obliged +to conceive of the whole voluntary power as lost, and lost before man was +born; and he reduces all our real freedom to the original act of the will +previous to birth, which took place when we were present in Adam's soul, +and committed the first transgression with him. + +This is plainly the denial of all human freedom since the fall of Adam. We +bring into the world, according to the writer, a will wholly and +inevitably bent to evil. We have no consciousness of this tendency, and if +we were conscious of it we have no power to change it; but we yet are +responsible for it, and guilty because of it, inasmuch as we began this +state ourselves when all our souls were mystically present in the soul of +Adam. Of this theory, we merely say now, that, if it be true, man is not +_now_ guilty of any sin which he commits in his mortal life; for he is not +now a free being. He is only responsible for the sin which he freely +committed in Adam. He is no more responsible when we suppose his sin to +proceed from his will, than when we suppose it to proceed from a depraved +sensuous nature, or from involuntary ignorance, for he is no more free in +the one case than in the other. He may be an infinitely depraved and +infinitely miserable being, but he can in no true sense be called a +_guilty_ being. Again we say, if this theory be true, it is an awful +theory, and one which we cannot possibly reconcile with the justice or +goodness, and still less with the fatherly character, of God. That God +should so have constituted human nature that all the millions of the human +race should have had this fatal opportunity of destroying themselves +utterly, by one simultaneous act, in Adam, is, to say the least, an +_awful_ theory to propound concerning our heavenly Father. We might put +Christ's argument to any man not hardened by theological study, as it +seems to us, with irresistible force. "What man is there among _you_, +BEING A FATHER," who could do anything of this sort? But we know too well +that all such appeals fall harmless from the sevenfold shield of a +systematized theology. + +Therefore we will only say further, concerning this theory, that, as being +_apparently_ in direct conflict with the divine attributes as taught in +the New Testament; as making man a mere process deprived of real freedom; +as proving man not guilty for any sin committed in this life; and as +thereby deadening the sense of responsibility, and showing that we cannot +possibly obey the command, "Repent and turn to God,"--this theory of a sin +committed in Adam _ought to have the amplest proof_ before we believe it. +We admit that it may be true, though opposed to all our ideas of God, man, +and duty. But being thus opposed, it ought to be sustained by the most +unanswerable arguments. If Jesus and his apostles have told us so plainly, +we will believe it if we can. How is it, then? Not a word on the subject +in the four Gospels. Not a text from the lips of Jesus which can be +pretended to lay down any such theory. He does not even mention the name +of Adam once in the Gospels, nor allude to him, except when speaking of +marriage. This theory rests, not on anything contained in the Gospels, +book of Acts, or Epistles of Peter, James, or John, but on two texts in +two Epistles of Paul (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22). In the latter passage Paul +says not a word of Adam's sin, but only of his death,--the whole chapter +treating, not of sin, but of death and the resurrection. This passage, +therefore, can hardly be considered a plain statement of the theory. The +other, in Romans, is confessedly so far from plain, that it is difficult +to make it agree with any theory; but the most evident meaning, to one who +has no theory to support, is, that sin began with Adam, and the +consequences of sin, which are moral and physical evil, began also with +him; and as he thus set in motion a series of evil tendencies which we +find in our organization, and which Paul elsewhere calls the law of the +members, and a series of evil circumstances which we find around us in the +world, both of which are the occasion of sin, we may trace back to him the +commencement of human disobedience. If the passage teaches anything more +than this, it certainly does not teach it plainly or explicitly. + + + + +§ 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah Adams and Dr. J. +P. Thompson. + + +Two defences of this dreadful doctrine have appeared within a few +years--one by Rev. Nehemiah Adams, D. D. (chiefly known by his many and +determined pleas for slavery), and the other by Dr. Thompson of New York. + +We will first examine Dr. Adams's tract on "The Reasonableness of Eternal +Future Punishment." + +We have these three objections to it:-- + +I. It, throughout, denies the sovereignty of God. + +II. It is, throughout, a system of naturalism. + +III. It, throughout, ignores the central truth of the gospel. + +It is our business to substantiate these assertions by sufficient proof. + +1. The view taken in his tract, of God, cannot be true, because it +conflicts with his supreme and sovereign deity. + +Of course, this is to dethrone God. God, if not sovereign, is not God. Any +view which disturbs, however remotely, the supremacy of the Deity, must be +a relapse towards Pagan idolatry. We charge this tendency on the whole +tenor of this tract. We affirm that it seriously impairs that confidence +and strength which can only come from reliance on Omnipotence, and remands +us to the terrors and narrowness of Polytheism: not consciously, of +course, or intentionally, but by the logic of its ideas and the tendency +of its argument. + +According to Dr. Adams's view of the world, it is a scene of conflict +between God and the Devil. The prize contended for is the souls of men. +God wishes to save them: the Devil wishes to damn them. By immense +efforts,--by the unparalleled sacrifice of himself on the cross,--God +succeeds in saving a portion of this race, whom the Devil had plunged into +fearful and desperate sin. As for the rest, He can do nothing with them, +but must go away and leave them; escaping with the saved to some other +region, where the sin and misery of the rest may be lost sight of. + +The only divine supremacy which Dr. Adams admits is that of force. God is, +on the whole, _stronger_ than the Devil; so that He can prevent him from +carrying his ravages beyond certain limits. God can "hem in and overrule" +the power of sin; but he cannot conquer it. He has no complete power over +the heart and will of men to become supreme there; but he has power over +their conduct, and can restrain that within certain limits. + +God's sovereignty, according to Dr. Adams, is only like that of a human +government, and that, again, a weak one. A human government is strong when +it is able to dispense with standing armies, with an omnipresent police, +with prisons and dungeons: it is weak when its authority is only +maintained by these. In the first case, it rests on the love of the +people; in the other case, only on force. + +Now, according to Dr. Adam's tract, God's sovereignty is essentially one +of force. He is not sovereign by overcoming sin through his own holiness, +but only by restraining its outbreaks by externally applied force. So far +from conquering sin, he is represented as giving up all hope of conquering +it. He has tried everything in his power, and has failed. He can do +nothing more. Dr. Adams speaks of God's "having expended upon us all which +the gospel of his grace includes," and of "the failure of that which is +the brightness of his glory." Now, Dr. Adams says, "What God will probably +do is, to go away and leave us," God says, according to the idea of this +tract, "I will place all of you, who sin, in a world by yourselves, from +which I and my friends will forever withdraw." In substance, He gives up, +and acknowledges himself defeated. He is beaten by sin, which is more +powerful than his gospel. Sin compels the Deity to compromise; to take +some souls, and to leave others; to divide the universe,--love reigning in +one part of it, hatred and wickedness in another. + +2. The second objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment, as +taught in these works, is, that it is a system of pure materialism. It is +naturalism, as opposed to supernaturalism. All its arguments from +Scripture interpret Scripture according to its letter, and not according +to its spirit. While much stress is laid on the word "eternal," no real +eternity is believed in, or even conceived of. The fundamental law of +religious knowledge--namely, that a man must be born of the Spirit in order +to see the kingdom of God, and that spiritual things must be spiritually +discerned--is wholly lost sight of. The spiritual world, with its bliss and +its woe, is supposed to be a continuation of the natural world, instead of +being its exact opposite. The same conditions of space and time are +supposed to prevail there as here. Hell is regarded by Dr. Adams as a +large place, located in some remote part of the universe, where the +sufferings and blasphemies of damned souls and devils will not disturb the +sentimental happiness of himself and his pious companions. Eternity he +regards as an enormous and quite inconceivable accumulation of time, +instead of being the very negation of time. An unlimited quantity of days, +months, and years, is his notion of eternity. + +In like manner, all the arguments by which the school to which he belongs +maintains this doctrine, are drawn from relations which exist in this +world. Great use is made of the analogies of human government. It is said +that it would not be safe for the Deity to forgive sins on the simple +condition of repentance, without an atonement, because it would not be +safe for human governments to do so. The government of God is made wholly +similar to the imperfect and ignorant governments of men. When we say that +God, as described in the New Testament, is not a Being to inflict +everlasting suffering hereafter, we are told that he inflicts suffering +here; as though there were no essential distinction between the finite and +the infinite, the temporal and the eternal. When we argue that God would +not suspend the eternal destiny of a soul upon the conduct and the +determination of a brief earthly life, we have instances given us of great +risks to which we are exposed, and great evils which we may incur, in this +world; as though there were no difference between a partial loss and total +destruction. When we say that the justice of God will not permit him to +punish everlastingly those who, like the heathen, have never known Christ, +we have instances given of those who have ignorantly burned themselves or +have fallen down precipices. In all such examples, these reasoners +overlook the essential distinction between the finite and the infinite. +They forget that all finite evil can be made the means of a greater +ultimate good, but that infinite evil cannot. + +It is a curious fact, that those who are most Orthodox fall most easily +into a very hard and dry naturalism. God is to them a king sitting on a +throne in some far heaven outside of the world, not a spirit pervading it +and sustaining it. He governs men from without by offering them rewards +and threatening them with punishments, not by inward inspirations and +influence. He teaches them from without by an outward Christ, an outward +Bible, outward preachers, pulpits, creeds, Sabbaths, and churches; not by +Christ formed within us, not by epistles and gospels written on the +fleshly tables of the heart. The day of judgment is a particular time, +when God shall sit on his throne, and all appear before him; not the +perpetual spiritual sentence pronounced in each human soul by the divine +law. And so heaven is a place where there is to be some singing of psalms, +and such amusements as are here considered proper in Orthodox families; +hell, another place, where souls are shut up, to suffer from physical +fire, or at least from some external infliction. The doctrine taught by +the Saviour in the first twelve verses of his first sermon, that the +humble, the generous, the merciful, are already blessed, and have heaven +now, does not appear to be at all comprehended. That heaven and hell are +in this world already; that truth, love, and use are its essence, whilst +falsehood and selfishness are the essence of hell,--these, though +rudimental facts of Christianity, are commonly considered mere mysticism. +But those who do not see all this have not seen the kingdom of heaven, and +must be born again, into a new world of spiritual ideas, in order to see +it. + +3. The third and principal argument against the doctrine of everlasting +punishment is, that it is _inconsistent with the divine love to his +creatures_. It is impossible for God to manifest love to a human being by +inflicting everlasting torment upon him. It cannot do him good, because, +according to this theory, the period of probation is past, and he has no +power now to repent. As far, therefore, as the man himself is concerned, +it is gratuitous suffering--torment inflicted without any purpose. It +cannot be said that God has any love for the soul which he is treating in +this way. He has cast it off. To that soul, nevermore, throughout the ages +of an everlasting existence, shall God appear as a friend, but always as +an enemy. + +We sometimes hear of a father who disinherits a child in consequence of +some act of disobedience. In one of the most touching tragedies in the +English language, a father refuses to forgive his daughter who had married +contrary to his wishes. He leaves her to starve, and refuses to forgive +her or to see her. No one approves of this conduct in the parent. But +every Orthodox man, who believes in everlasting punishment, attributes an +infinitely greater cruelty to God; infinitely greater, because the +obstinacy of the human parent endures only during a short life, but the +severity of God endures forever. + +The force of this objection is such, that Dr. Adams has felt obliged to +add to his tract on "Everlasting Punishment" another tract upon the text, +"God is love," endeavoring to show a consistency between the two. But he +does this by substituting something else in the place of the last. It is +curious enough, that a master in Israel should have written a tract upon +the "love" of God, and should have substituted "benevolence" instead of +it. In other words, instead of that fatherly love to every individual +which is the essential fact revealed in the gospel, he gives us a general +good-will towards the human race. Such a general benevolence he finds not +inconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting punishment; for, if love be +only general good-will, then, the greatest good of the greatest number +being the object, there is nothing to complain of if a few are sacrificed +for the sake of the rest. It is not, to be sure, easy to see how those who +have safely reached glory, and are in no danger of relapse, can be +benefited by the knowledge that their old neighbors and friends are in +hell; but there may be some benefit which is not apparent. By quietly +substituting, therefore, the idea of benevolence in the place of love, the +difficulty may be evaded, which otherwise is unanswerable. + +But what an entire confusion of ideas is this, which substitutes a general +benevolence for a personal affection, good-will towards the race for love +to the individual! It is, in fact, abolishing the idea of Father, and +substituting that of Ruler. The kind ruler, actuated by benevolence, +desires the good of all his subjects; but he does not love them as +individuals. But the father loves the child with a wholly different +feeling. The tie is personal, not general. It is one of mutual knowledge +and mutual dependence. We cannot love one whom we do not know; but we can +exercise benevolence towards him very easily. Benevolence depends wholly +on the character of the benevolent person; but love is drawn out by the +object loved. I do not love my child because I am benevolent, but because +it is my child. The infant draws forth a host of feelings, before unknown, +in the mother's heart. She does not love her infant because she is a +benevolent woman, but because the infant excites her love. A man is +benevolent towards the sufferers in Kansas, whom he has never seen; but he +does not love them. He loves his wife, but is not benevolent towards her. +Benevolence and love, therefore, are not only essentially different in +their nature, origin, and manifestations, but so different as often to +exclude each other. + +Now, it has always been seen that God is benevolent. This is taught by +natural religion. We see it in all the arrangements of divine Providence. +The infinitely varied provisions for the good of his creatures, the myriad +adaptations by which their wants are met, are ample evidence of this. But +Christianity comes to teach us something else,--to teach us that God is our +Father, and so to see in him benevolence swallowed up in love. God does +not love his children because he is benevolent, but because they are his +children. He does not love them for the sake of others, but for their own +sake. His love does not depend upon their being good, pious, or Christian; +it depends only upon the fact that they are his children. This is the +doctrine of the prodigal son; in which wonderful parable it is more +distinctly stated than in any other part of the New Testament. The +doctrine there taught, that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner +who repents than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance, +is somewhat different from that other doctrine, that the redeemed in +heaven look down with joy upon the sufferings of the damned below. This +parable teaches that God has a personal, fatherly love towards the +impenitent sinner who has gone away from him into a far country. The +father's joy when his child returned is the evidence of the love which had +continued in his heart while his child was absent from him. + +This being the character ascribed by Christ to the Deity, we assert that +it is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting punishment as +taught in the pamphlet before us. There are, it is true, many widely +different doctrines to which the term "eternal punishment" is applied. +Some of these may not be inconsistent with the love of God. Let us give +some instances. + +Some, by eternal punishment, intend the punishments of eternity, as +distinguished from those of time. They mean spiritual punishment, as +distinguished from temporal punishment. They mean the sufferings which +have their root in the sight of eternal things, as distinguished from +those which originate in the sense of earthly things--sufferings which come +to us from within, and not from without. "Eternal," in this sense, +describes the quality, and not the quantity, of the suffering; and in this +sense eternal punishment is not inconsistent with the divine love. But +this is not the sense which Dr. Adams intends. + +Some mean by endless punishment, that, as long as men continue to sin, +they will continue to suffer; that sin is eternally suffering. But this is +not the sense which Dr. Adams intends. + +And some say that they believe in eternal punishment; meaning thereby, +that the consequences of sin are everlasting,--either positively, by +leaving forever some remorseful sorrow in the mind, or negatively, by +leaving men forever lower down in the scale of excellence and happiness +than they would otherwise be. But this is not what Dr. Adams means by it. + +And some men believe in eternal punishment in the sense of a dark +background to the universe, which will always continue, a shadow as +permanent as light,--necessary for the full perfection and beauty of an +infinite divine creation. Into this shadow man may forever plunge; out of +it he may forever emerge: and it will always continue so to be. But this +is not the view taken by Dr. Adams. + +The view which Dr. Adams takes is of endless punishment inflicted as a +consequence of temporal sin committed in this life. There will be no +opportunity to repent hereafter, no pardon offered. There is nothing done +by God, after this life, to save men. The heathen who have never heard of +Christ, unconverted infants, those who have been brought up in the midst +of evil, and heretics who do not accept the theory of Calvin concerning +Christianity, are to be tormented forever in the other world. This view he +thinks not only scriptural, but reasonable. It corresponds nearly to the +human penalty of imprisonment for life; except that, instead of a few +years of earthly life, it is a never-ending existence; and, instead of +simple imprisonment, it is imprisonment with torture added. + +We are accustomed to complain of the "horrors of the Inquisition;" but +wherein do they differ in principle from the doctrine of Dr. Adams? The +inquisitors tortured men for heresy; Dr. Adams thinks that God will do the +same. The power of the Inquisition, however, was limited, on the +principle, _Dolor, si dura, brevis; si longa, levis_. But not so with +everlasting punishment. + +That this view is absolutely inconsistent with the fatherly love of God to +every soul, is apparent. It would be impossible for a father to torment +his child forever in consequence of temporal sin. No earthly parent could +be found cruel enough to inflict a million years of torture upon his child +for each sin committed by him; but a million years for every sinful action +would be but a trifling penalty compared with everlasting punishment. + +As it is absolutely impossible to defend this doctrine on the ground of +the fatherly love of God, it is defended by Dr. Adams and his companions +on other grounds, namely, of the divine benevolence, and the duty of God +as a governor. The argument is this: If God was dethroned, all sorts of +evil would ensue. But sin is always endeavoring to dethrone God; therefore +it is his duty to use the most strenuous measures to prevent this result. +These strenuous measures consist in the highest rewards offered to +obedience, and the severest punishments threatened to disobedience. But no +punishment is so severe as everlasting punishment; therefore the +benevolence of God requires him to threaten it; and, if threatened, his +truth requires him to inflict it. This is the sort of argument by which +the doctrine is defended. Its fallacies are manifest. It is based on a +sort of Manicheism, making evil a hostile power in the universe, which +threatens the supremacy of God. It makes God in danger of outward +overthrow in consequence of the external assaults of sin. But we have +always supposed that the essence of sin was the state of the heart, and +the evil of sin to consist in the estrangement of the heart from God, and +not in any danger that Omnipotence would be dethroned by it. Besides, +though the fear of future punishment may restrain the outward act, it +cannot change the heart, and cannot, therefore, remove the real evil of +sin. Here is the fallacy of this whole argument. + +Another weak point in the argument for everlasting punishment regards its +proof, that all opportunity for repentance is confined to this life. Only +two or three texts are quoted in proof of this very important position. +One is taken from the book of Ecclesiastes, and declares, that, "in the +place where the tree falleth, there it shall be;" of which there is no +evidence that it has any relation to the subject; or, if it has, that it +carries the least authority with it. Another passage asserts that "there +is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither +thou goest." But this would prove too much; for it would prove that there +was no knowledge in the other life. Another passage, quoted by Dr. Adams +from the book of Revelation, says, "Let him that is unjust be unjust +still;" from which it is inferred that men have no opportunity hereafter +for repentance. But, as this is said to those who are in _this_ world +waiting for the coming of Christ, it also proves too much, if taken +literally; since it would declare that men cannot repent even in this +world. Such is the extremely slight foundation on which this essential +part of the doctrine is made to rest. Never was there so weak a support +for so important a position. + +The arguments from reason, by which our writer supports this part of his +doctrine, are all taken from the plane of the lowest naturalism. He thinks +it reasonable that the Almighty should suspend the everlasting destiny of +his creatures upon what they do or omit doing in this life, because men, +in earthly transactions, adopt a similar principle. A railroad train is +advertised to start at a certain hour. If we are there a minute too late, +we lose our opportunity of going on an important journey. We think this +reasonable; why, then, argues Dr. Adams, should we think it unreasonable +for God to make us lose our chance throughout eternity if we do not take +the opportunity during life? God has given us full notice, he says, of his +intention; we have been duly notified; and, after due notice, it is +thought reasonable, in earthly business transactions, for people to run +their chance. A man may commit a crime in a minute, for which he is +sentenced to imprisonment for life or to capital punishment. We think this +reasonable; why should we think it unreasonable that God should send men +to an everlasting hell in consequence of sin committed in a short +lifetime? + +All these arguments are fallacious, because they apply to the infinite, +conditions belonging wholly to the finite; because they transfer to Him, +whose ways are not as our ways, and whose thoughts are not as our +thoughts, the poor necessities of human ignorance and weakness. To those +who reason thus, the Almighty may say, "Thou thoughtest me altogether such +a one as thou thyself." It is because man is weak and ignorant that he is +obliged to live under these limitations. If we were able to do +differently, we should not make such severe consequences flow from human +ignorance and weakness. We do such things, not because we think them +absolutely just and good, but because we cannot help it. To argue that, +because it is reasonable for human weakness to do something which it +cannot help, it is reasonable for divine Omnipotence to do an infinitely +more injurious thing of the same kind, is to fly in the face of all logic +and reason. + +Men make a rule, that, if I am not at the station when the train starts, I +shall lose my trip for that day. Yes; but suppose the rule should be, +that, if I arrived a moment too late, I should be crucified. Suppose a +father should give full notice to his children, that, whenever any of them +mispronounced a word, he should be burned alive. But it is easier, +according to Dr. Adams's theory, for a child never to make a mistake, than +not to commit the sins for which it is to be punished with everlasting +torment. "What man among you is there, being a father," who would cause +his children to come into the world exposed to such fearful risks; who +would allow them to be born with constitutions tending inevitably to sin, +the inevitable consequence of which, after a few short years of life, is +never-ending torment, the only possible escape from which is salvation +through a Being of whom the majority never heard, according to a system +which the majority cannot believe, and by a process, which, except by a +special help, none of them are able to accomplish? We should say, that we +would not have children under these conditions. It were better that such +children had never been born. If we then, being evil, would not subject +our children to such risk, how much less would our Father in heaven do +anything of the kind! + +The reply to such arguments, by those whom Thomas Burnet calls the +"unmerciful doctors" and "ferocious theologians," is always the same. +Because finite evil exists, and is not inconsistent with the divine plan, +therefore infinite evil may also exist, and not be inconsistent with the +divine plan. Because one may suffer for a time in this world, therefore he +may be compelled to suffer forever in the other world. It is assumed that +there is no essential distinction between time and eternity, between +finite and infinite evil. Here is the immense fallacy of the argument. The +difference is simply this: All finite _suffering_, however great, is as +nothing when compared with everlasting happiness afterwards; but all +finite _happiness_, however great, is as nothing when compared with +everlasting suffering afterwards. If we deny, therefore, the doctrine of +everlasting suffering, evil virtually disappears from the universe; if we +accept it, good virtually disappears, as far as the sufferers are +concerned. If all evil is finite, the goodness of God can be fully +justified; but, if to any one it is infinite, no such theodicy is +possible. + +This is the fatal objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment. It +clouds the face of the heavenly Father with impenetrable gloom. It takes +away the best consolations of the gospel. When Jesus tells us to forgive +our enemies, that we may be like our heavenly Father, who sends his +blessings upon the evil and the good, this doctrine adds, that God's +character is thus forgiving only in this world; but that, in the other +world, he will torment his enemies forever in hopeless suffering. When we +seek consolation amid the griefs and separations of this world by looking +to a better world, where all tears will be wiped away, we have presented +to us instead this awful vision of unmitigated horror. Instead of finite +evil being swallowed up into infinite good, it darkens down into infinite +woe. + +Dr. Adams quotes Thomas Burnet, Master of the Charter-house, as a striking +instance of one, who, though he denied or doubted this doctrine, admitted, +nevertheless, that the Scriptures were probably against him. He quotes him +correctly as saying, "Human nature shrinks from the very name of eternal +punishment; yet the Scriptures seem to hold the other side." Though Dr. +Adams gives the Latin, and refers to the page of the book, let us hope, +for his own sake, that he quotes it at second-hand; which, as he twice +misspells the name, is not unlikely; for Dr. Burnet, so far from admitting +that the Scriptures are "probably against him," concludes, after an +examination of the leading passages, that they prove nothing certainly as +to the eternal duration of future punishment. He quotes the passage in +which the Jewish servant is said to become a slave _forever_,--meaning till +the year of jubilee; in which circumcision is called an _everlasting +covenant_,--meaning that it shall be abolished by the same divine +authority; in which the land of Canaan was given for an _everlasting +possession_ to Abraham and his seed, from which they have long since been +expelled; &c. Dr. Burnet does, indeed, say that the Scriptures _seem_ to +favor the doctrine he opposes; but he then goes on to show that such is +not the case. He also "awakens antiquity," and calls to his aid the +merciful doctors of the early church (Justin Martyr, Jerome, the +Gregories, &c.) to support his hope in a merely limited future suffering. + +We will now consider the meaning of some of the texts usually adduced in +support of this doctrine. Of these texts, there are some six or seven only +upon which much stress is laid; and of these the principal ones are as +follows:-- + +1. Matt. 18:8, "Having two eyes, two hands," &c., "to be cast into hell +fire," or "into everlasting fire" ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~})--({~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}). + +2. Matt. 25:46, "These shall go away into everlasting (eternal) +punishment, but the righteous into life eternal "({~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} +{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}). The same adjective is used in both places here, in the Greek; +but our translators have seen fit to render it "everlasting" in the first +place, and "eternal" in the second. There is no authority for such a +different translation. The word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, translated "punishment," occurs +in one other place in the New Testament: this is (1 John 4:18), "Perfect +love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment." In this last instance, +it is evident that the idea of punishment is not found, but only that of +suffering. In the LXX. (Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7) it is translated +"stumbling-block," and means, says Schleusner (Lexicon in LXX.), "all that +is the source of misfortune or suffering." Donnegan gives as its meaning, +"the act of clipping or pruning; _generally_, restriction, restraint, +reproof, check, chastisement; _lit. and met._, punishment." + +The true translation of the passage, then, is,-- + +"These shall go away into the sufferings or punishments of eternity; and +the righteous, into the life of eternity." + +The simple, direct, and natural meaning, therefore, of this passage is, +that, besides temporal joy and suffering, there are eternal joy and +suffering: besides the joys and sufferings which have their root in time +and in temporal things, there are joys and sufferings which have their +root in eternity and in eternal things. In the twenty-fifth chapter of +Matthew, the sufferings of eternity are described as following directly +upon judgment, and as being its natural consequence. The judgment on each +soul consists, according to this passage, in showing it its real +character. Both the good and the bad are represented as needing such a +judgment as this. Until the judgment takes place, men are described as +being ignorant of the true nature of their own past conduct. They do not +know their own good or their own evil: they do not understand themselves +as they really are. They have done good and bad actions, but have not +understood the value of those actions. They have not seen, that in every +deed of charity, in every act of humble benevolence, they were helping +Christ and his cause. They have not understood, that, by every selfish and +cruel deed, they were injuring their Master. But the judgment reveals all +this to them, and lifts them immediately out of temporal joy or pain into +eternal joy or pain. They rise out of temporal things into eternal things, +and the new insight is to them a source of spiritual joy or spiritual +suffering. + +In some instances, if {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} were translated "everlasting" or +"never-ending," it would make such palpable nonsense, that our translators +have been obliged to give it an entirely different rendering. Thus (2 Tim. +1:9; Tit. 1:2) we have the phrase {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}; which would be, +literally, "before eternity," or "before everlasting time began," +according to the common rendering. They have, therefore, translated it +"before the world began." In the same way (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 10:11), they +are obliged to change their usual rendering, or they would have to say, +"So shall it be at the end of forever;" or, "The ends of eternity have +arrived." + +Mark 9:43-50, it is said that the "worm does not die" in Gehenna, and "the +fire is not quenched." This, therefore, is thought to teach the doctrine +of never-ending punishment hereafter; but this was a proverbial +expression, taken from the book of Isaiah. + +Chap. 66:24, the prophet says, that, in the times of the Messiah, all men +shall come, and worship in the presence of Jehovah; and shall then go out, +and look upon the dead bodies of the men who had transgressed against the +Lord; "for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; +and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Our Saviour, therefore, is +not making an original doctrinal statement, but he is quoting from Isaiah. +Now, the passage in Isaiah refers, not to punishment of the soul +hereafter, but to the destruction of the bodies of transgressors in the +valley of Hinnom. The fire and the worms in that valley were not +everlasting in any strict sense. When Isaiah says, "Their worm shall not +die, nor their fire be quenched," he expresses merely the utter +destruction which would fall upon them. The fire and the worms of the +valley of Hinnom have long since disappeared; but, while the fire lasted, +it was the emblem, to the Jews, of the destruction which was to fall upon +those who resisted the will of Jehovah. But it is not to be supposed that +the idea of eternity, which is not in the original image, should be added +in the figure. The fire and the worms were to last in the valley of Hinnom +as long as there were idolaters to be punished for their idolatry; and so +the spiritual suffering consequent upon sin lasts as long as sin lasts. +Sin is perpetual misery; conscience is a worm which never dies; bad +passions are a fire which is never extinguished. This is the simple and +natural meaning of this passage. + +3. Matt. 26:24. In this passage, as it stands in our translation, Jesus +says concerning Judas, "Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is +betrayed! It were good for that man if he had never been born." (Mark +14:21.) The argument is, that, if it were good for Judas not to have been +born, it must be impossible that he should ever repent and be saved; +because, if he should ever be saved, and his punishment should cease +(though at ever so remote a period), it would be better for him to have +been born than not to have been born; since there would remain an eternity +of happiness to be enjoyed afterwards. And if this be true of Judas, it +may be also true of others. + +But, in reply to this argument, we say,-- + +1. The translation is doubtful. The literal translation is, "Woe to that +man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for him if that +man had never been born." This is the literal rendering of the Greek; and +the apparent meaning seems to be, "that it had been good for the Son of +man if Judas had not been born." Jesus seems to say that it is a great woe +to him, a great sorrow, to be betrayed by one of his own friends, by a +member of his own household. It would have been good for Jesus, if this +traitor, who was to wound his heart so deeply, had never existed. + +2. But, retaining our present translation, the natural application of it +is to this life. It means simply this: The earthly life of this man is an +entire failure. His life is wholly thrown away. He had better never have +been in the world, than to stand, as he will to all time, a monument of +the basest treachery. The idea of the future life does not come it at all +here. + +On the whole, one must feel, in reading these books and tracts, that such +writers are more to be pitied than to be blamed. Confined in the +strait-jacket of an austere theology; steeped to the lips in Calvinism; +working painfully all his life in sectarian harness; with an angry heaven +over his head, and a ruined earth about his feet; his friends and +neighbors dropping into hell by thousands every year; never having had any +real sight of the blessed face of Jesus; having for them no hope full of +immortality, but, instead thereof, a tenor full of damnation,--even a +kindly nature and an affectionate heart must suffer, be dwarfed and +crippled. + +It is not an agreeable task to refute such errors; but believing them +equally destructive, in their tendency, to piety and morality,--corrupting +the Christian life at its centre, and weakening its chief source of +power,--we feel it a duty not to be avoided. Advancing age does not make us +conservative in regard to such doctrines. The longer we live, the more we +see of their evil tendency. When young, we shrank from attacking them, +fearing lest they might contain some truth beyond the range of our limited +experience. But, having come to see wherein the essence of Christian truth +lies in all varieties of pious experience, we know that this doctrine is +an excrescence, weakening always the vital power of the gospel. It rests +on custom, on cowardice, on the fear of change, not on any positive +insight or substantial knowledge. But, as Tertullian declared of another +doctrine defended by precedent, "Christ did not say, 'I am the Custom,' +but, 'I am the Truth.' " + +The time will come in which the Christian Church will look back upon its +past belief in this doctrine as it looks back now on its former universal +belief in the duty of persecution, the primacy of the pope, or the +atonement made by Christ to Satan. It will regard it with the horror with +which it now regards its former universal conviction, that God was pleased +when his children burned each other alive for difference of opinion. We +now shudder when we hear of "AN ACT OF FAITH," consisting in burning at +the stake ten or twenty Jews and Protestants. Our children will shudder +with a still more inward grief that we could make it _an act of faith_ to +believe that GOD burns millions of his own children in unquenchable fire +forever because they deny Calvin's view of the atonement, or the Church +definition of the Trinity, or because of any possible amount of sin +committed in this world. + + ------------------------------------- + +We now proceed to add some remarks upon a recent work by Dr. Thompson of +New York, a zealous and favorite disciple of the late Dr. Taylor of New +Haven. This book, the title of which is, "Love and Penalty," consists of +nine lectures delivered in the Broadway Tabernacle. + +With the contents of some of the chapters we have nothing to do. All the +arguments for retribution, derived from the nature of God, the nature of +man, the course of Providence, the demerit of sin, have for their object +to prove what all Christians fully believe. Unitarians and Universalists, +Theodore Parker and R. W. Emerson, teach retribution, present and future, +with a force which leaves little need of additional arguments from +Orthodoxy. They teach a perfect and inevitable retribution, proceeding +both from the truth and goodness of God, by means of which every man reaps +as he sows. Orthodoxy, they complain, teaches no such full and perfect +retribution. All that part of this volume, therefore, which is intended to +show the probability of retribution, is wasted, so far as any opposers are +concerned. In this part of his book, Dr. Thompson fights as one who beats +the air. He is very zealous to disprove that which no one asserts, to +prove that which no one denies, and to show the folly of a position which +no one assumes. + +The confusion referred to runs through the whole book; and perhaps there +is no better illustration than this volume presents of that logical +fallacy which is called "the irrelevant conclusion." This fallacy consists +in proving one thing, and making men think you have proved another. Dr. +Thompson's hearers saw that he proved future retribution, and thought that +he proved eternal punishment. We do not suppose that he intended to +sophisticate them: the difficulty seems rather to be, that he has +sophisticated himself. The _ignoratio elenchi_ is in his own mind. He +thinks, because he sees penalty, that he has seen vengeance; that, because +he has established retribution, he has demonstrated everlasting +punishment. + +A reasoner has, no doubt, a perfect right to try to prove two distinct and +independent propositions; but he must keep them distinct and independent, +and not pretend to be proving one when he is proving the other. He has +also a perfect right, if he desires to establish one proposition, to prove +another, as the first step towards it; but he has no right to assume or +imply that he has made out one of his points, when he has only shown the +probability of the other. + +Now, our author (p. 19) declares that he has one object; viz., to show the +truth of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. He says, "It will be the +aim of this series of lectures to show that _the doctrine of the eternal +punishment of the wicked is in entire harmony with the paternal character +of God_." He then proceeds to give the substance of his argument, under +eight heads. Six of these only prove future retribution, and only two of +them have any direct bearing upon the main question. Yet, through all of +them, there runs a quiet assumption, that they are bearing directly on the +main question. This is the radical sophism of the whole volume. We may see +this more plainly by analyzing some of his chapters. + +His first position is this, in Lecture I.: "Our own nature, which is +appealed to as refusing to recognize the attribute of punitive justice in +a God of love, in fact demands this attribute, as essential to the moral +perfection of the Deity--an attribute without which he could not command +the confidence and homage of his intelligent creatures." + +Before attempting to demonstrate any theorem, it is important to define +its terms. An accurate definition at first of what we wish to prove would +often make a long discussion unnecessary. What is meant by the "_attribute +of punitive justice_"? Does it mean that God's nature is such that he +causes happiness to flow from goodness, and suffering from wickedness, in +the constitution of the universe? If this is meant, Dr. Thompson will find +no one to oppose him; for all this can take place in perfect accordance +with divine love to the sinner himself. What he _needs_ is suffering: this +is the way by which he is to be cured of that sin which is a greater evil +than suffering. Or does the author mean, by "punitive justice," some +attribute of the divine nature which finds pleasure in punishing the +sinner, without regard to any good which is to come from it, either to him +or to any one else? Apparently, this last is what he means; for he goes on +to quote from Pagan authorities and Pagan religions, to show that +conscience in man requires that the wicked should be punished, without any +regard to any good to result from it. But these authorities only show, +that, in the one-sided action of man's nature, the sense of justice acts +independently of love. What Dr. Thompson has undertaken to show is, that +it can act in God in harmony with love. In man, conscience produces hatred +of sin, without regard to the good of the sinner; but the divine +conscience acts in no such one-sided way. "Mercy and truth meet together; +righteousness and peace kiss each other." The law is vindicated and the +sinner benefited at the same moment. + +The atonement of Christ, objectively considered, consisted exactly in +this, that he showed a perfect reconciliation, in his own life, of God's +hatred to sin, and love to the sinner. No one was ever so averse from sin, +no one was ever so in sympathy with the sinner, as Jesus. The power of his +life, death, and higher life, lay in this union of holiness and love. This +was the objective atonement in Christ, and in this he was God manifest in +the flesh. He who has seen him has seen the Father. The Christianized +conscience, following Christ, pities the sinner, while it abhors the sin. +Christian legislation lays aside the vindictive tendencies of natural law, +and seeks at the same time to destroy evil, to protect society, and to +reform the criminal. From this gospel view our author remands us to +Paganism, and to the dicta of the natural conscience in unregenerate man. +These testimonies only show, that conscience, in its unregenerate state, +demands that the sinner be punished, and does not care whether that +punishment does him good or harm, makes him better or worse. But +conscience, when Christianized, does care: it wishes to save the sinner, +while it punishes the sin. As far as the natural conscience goes, it +speaks truly in saying that evil should follow sin. But why it should +follow it, and what shall be the result, it does not say. That was left to +Christ to reveal. + +Dr. Thompson himself bears witness, unconsciously, to the truth of this +distinction. Along with his testimonies from the Heathen conscience, he +gives us two testimonies from the Christian conscience. The one is his own +feelings on seeing a woman carried to the Tombs. He says he felt sympathy +for her, and would fain have saved her from that shame, while he wished +her crime to be punished. The other is the testimony of Dr. Bushnell, that +the "necessary reason" why wicked people, remaining wicked, should not be +in heaven, is, that it would destroy the happiness of heaven. These two +Christians, therefore, have consciences which do not testify to punishment +proceeding from naked, arbitrary, and vindictive law, such as the Pagan +conscience accepts, but punishment having a reasonable end, a benevolent +purpose, and accompanied with sympathy for the sinner. + +Another position of Dr. Thompson is, however, so extraordinary, that it +needs more consideration. His fifth proposition is this: "_The high and +sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in Christ +towards those who love him, and not a general Fatherhood of indiscriminate +love and blessing for the race._" + +A certain want of logical clearness in our author's mind appears in the +very statement of this proposition. He joins together a positive and a +negative, which have no antithetical relation. We entirely agree with him, +that the Fatherhood of God is _not_ one of _indiscriminate_ love and +blessing for the race; but we utterly reject the proposition, that the +Fatherhood which Christ reveals is only one towards those who love him. +The apostle John tells us that "we love him because he first loved us." +And again: "Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, +and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The doctrine of the +apostle is exactly opposite to that of Dr. Thompson. The modern divine +teaches that God only loves those who first love him; but the ancient +divine teaches that only by God's loving us first do we come to love him. +Nor is this doctrine peculiar to John. It is a fundamental truth of the +New Testament, that God's fatherly love, manifested to the soul, creates +an answering love, and that nothing else can create it. Jesus said of the +woman, "She loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth +little." God's forgiving love comes first, and creates a grateful love in +return. And again we read (John 3:16), "God so loved the world, that he +gave his only-begotten Son." He therefore loved the world while it was +still alienated from him. And again we are told by the Saviour (Matt. +5:44) to "love our enemies, that we may be the children of our Father in +heaven," who loves his enemies. + +Possibly our friend may say, "Yes, God loves the sinner; but he does not +love him with a _fatherly_ love, but only with a general love." Perhaps a +copy of the New Testament may be used in the Tabernacle Church, New York, +which does not contain the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Only on some such +supposition can we account for this assertion of Dr. Thompson, that "the +high and sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in +Christ towards those who love him." Is that "_high and sacred Fatherhood +of God_" revealed anywhere more fully and plainly than in this parable? +and does it not teach expressly that the father loved the son, while he +was absent, as a son? Is not his joy at the return of his son the evidence +of that love which clung to him while he was away? Even after the son +returned, he had not begun to love his father as a son: he did not think +he had any right to do so. He did not expect that his father would love +him again: he only expected to be as a servant. It is evidently, then, +utterly false to say that God's Fatherhood, revealed in the gospel, is +only a Fatherhood towards those who love him: it is a Fatherhood to those +who hate him and to those who fear him. His love creates theirs, and is +not created by it. Such a doctrine as this of Dr. Thompson, if generally +believed, would sap the foundations of Christian life, and turn the gospel +of reconciling grace into a cold system of retribution. + +As a proof of this melancholy opinion,--an opinion which takes the life out +of the gospel,--the author relies chiefly on that passage in which Jesus +says to the Jews that they were of their father the devil. (John 8:44.) +From this he argues that they had no right to regard God as Father, and +that no one has that right except pious believers in Christ. But was not +God at that very moment their Father, in the same way that the father of +the prodigal son was his father while he was yet in the far country? The +prodigal son could not see his father's love: while absent from him, he +could not tell how much his father loved him. Only when he returned, and +came back to his father's house, could he behold that blessed countenance +and feel that pardoning love. But none the less did his father love him +during all that absence; none the less did he desire his return. + +When Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, "Ye are of your father the +devil," was he describing God's state of mind, or their state of mind? Did +he mean that God was alienated from them, or that they were alienated from +God? He evidently meant to say that they were in a _devilish_ state of +mind; that in their character and feelings they partook of the spirit of +the devil, and not of the spirit of God. He was describing their position +in relation to God, not God's position in relation to them. The text, +therefore, appears to have no direct bearing on the subject. It teaches, +indeed, that they could have no truly filial feeling towards God; but it +does not show that he might not have a truly parental feeling towards +them. If they could not truly say, "Abba, Father," he could say, "My son, +give me thy heart." + +We dwell on this because our author seems to us to have assumed a position +injurious, if not fatal, to the most vital force of the gospel. That which +subdues and converts the heart, and makes all things new in the soul, is +not to be told, that God will be our Father when we love him, but that he +is our Father now. "Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he +loved us." "God commends his love toward us, that, _while we were +sinners_, Christ died for us." But why multiply quotations to prove that +which is written on the face of the gospel, and to which all Christian +experience bears testimony? It is God's love to us, descending in Christ, +while we are estranged and far off, which draws up our affection to him: +it is not our love which takes the initiative, and draws his down. + +The sixth position argues future retribution from the demerit of sin, and +asserts that "no punishment equal to the demerit of sin is, or can be, +inflicted in the present life." + +The boldness of this proposition is only equalled by the poverty of the +reasoning by which it is supported. To assert that it is not in the power +of God adequately to punish sin in this world, is to profess a knowledge +of the resources of Omnipotence, and an acquaintance with the deserts of +man, which it seems to us presumptuous to claim. On this point it is not +necessary to enlarge. An _a priori_ argument to prove that God cannot +punish sin in this life as much as it deserves to be punished, can carry +conviction to no mind which possesses any intellectual humility. + +The seventh position declares that "there is no conceivable mode and no +revealed promise by which the Fatherhood of God can make one, dying in +impenitence and unbelief, holy and blessed in the future world." + +This is, of course, the very key-stone of the argument in support of the +doctrine of everlasting punishment. The burden of proof rests upon those +who assert that doctrine. It is not enough that Scripture does not +expressly declare that there is an opportunity in the other life for +repentance and pardon; for Scripture is dealing with us in this life, and +has no occasion to say much of the opportunities of the other. Those who +wish to prove that there is no opportunity hereafter must show some text +which expressly declares it. No such text is produced, and there is no +such text in the Bible. If Jesus had said, "You must repent in this life, +for after death there will be no opportunity;" or, "At death, man's +spiritual condition is finally determined;" or, "After this life, man +cannot turn from evil to good,"--we should have some distinct proof of the +doctrine. But now we have none. + +The Parable of Dives and Lazarus is referred to more than once by our +author in support of his position. It is sufficient to say in regard to +this, that the most Orthodox commentators, provided they are scholars, +expressly deny that this refers to the doctrine of everlasting punishment. +Olshausen, for instance, says, "Rightly to understand the whole +delineation, we must, above all, keep clearly in view, that it is not +everlasting salvation or condemnation which is here described, but the +middle state of departed souls, between death and the resurrection." "In +our parable, there is no possible reference to the everlasting +condemnation of the rich man, inasmuch as the germ of love, and of faith +in love, is clearly expressed in his words." The word translated "hell" in +this parable is not Gehenna, but Hades. + +Our author says, and says justly, that we can form no opinion as to +another probation hereafter from _a priori_ reasoning, but that the +question must be answered only from Scripture. Having said this, he +immediately proceeds to argue it, _a priori_, stating that there are only +three conceivable modes by which those dying impenitent can be saved; and +then tries to show that neither is possible. After this, he quotes a few +passages bearing only indirectly, and by inference, upon the question. The +Parable of the Ten Virgins is one of these, because in it it is said, "The +door is shut;" and, "Depart! I know you not." With regard to this parable, +also, Olshausen says that "the words 'I know you not' cannot denote +eternal condemnation;" that the foolish virgins were "saved, but not +sanctified;" and that the parable does not distinguish between the +penitent and the impenitent, but between the penitent believers who watch +and those who do not watch. + +Of course, we have not been able to notice all the arguments of this book, +or all the texts referred to; but we have perhaps said enough to show that +its positions are not all tenable, and that its arguments are not +absolutely unanswerable. This book of Dr. Thompson, though able, cannot be +called conclusive. + + + + +§ 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D. + + +The last section of this Appendix shall be devoted to an examination and +criticism of Dr. Huntington's sermon, printed some time since, in defence +of the Trinity. The course of our argument will be as follows. We shall +give the reasons which have induced Unitarians to reject the Church +doctrine of the Trinity; also examining Dr. Huntington's positions and +arguments in its support. + +The principal reasons, then, for rejecting the Church doctrine of the +Trinity, as assigned by Unitarians, are these:-- + +1. That it is nowhere taught in the New Testament. + +2. That every statement of the Trinity, which has ever been made, has been +either, (1.) Self-contradictory; (2.) Unintelligible; (3.) Tritheistic; +or, (4.) Unitarian, in the form of Sabellianism, or of Arianism. + +3. That the arguments for it are inadequate. + +4. That the arguments against it are overwhelming. + +5. That the good ascribed to it does not belong to it, but to the truths +which underlie it. + +6. That great evils to the Church come from it. + +7. That it is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith. + +8. That we can trace its gradual historic formation in the Christian +Church. + +9. That it is opposed to a belief in the real divinity of Christ, and to a +belief in his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the +Church in the divine humanity of Christ Jesus the Lord. + + ------------------------------------- + +Proceeding, then, to an examination of these reasons, we say,-- + +I. The Church doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the New +Testament. + +To prove this, as it is a negative proposition, would require us to go +through the whole New Testament. But we are saved this necessity by the +fact that we have a statement on this point from one of Dr. Huntington's +own witnesses, and one on whom he mainly relies. He brings forward +Neander, the great Church historian, as a believer in the Trinity (p. +361), and again (p. 378), by an error which he has since candidly +admitted, quotes him as saying, "It is the fundamental article of the +Christian faith,"--which is just what he denies in the following passage. +We call Neander to the stand, however, _now_, to have his unimpeachable +testimony as a Trinitarian (and a Trinitarian claimed by Dr. Huntington +with pride) to the fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere +stated in the New Testament. This is what Neander says of the Trinity, in +the first volume of his great work on Church History (p. 572, Torrey's +translation):-- + + + "We now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken in its + connection with the proper and fundamental essence of + Christianity, or with the doctrine of redemption, finds its + ultimate completion--_the doctrine of the Trinity_. This doctrine + does not strictly belong to the fundamental articles of the + Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evident from the fact, + that it _is expressly held forth in no one particular passage of + the New Testament_; for the only one in which it is done, the + passage relating to the three that, bear record (1 John 5:7), is + undoubtedly spurious, and in its ungenuine shape, testifies to the + fact, how foreign such a collocation is from the style of the New + Testament Scriptures. We find in the New Testament no other + fundamental article than that of which the apostle Paul says, that + other foundation can no man lay than that is laid--the annunciation + of Jesus as the Messiah." + + +With this authority we might be content. But Dr. Huntington differs from +Neander in thinking that Jesus has himself stated the doctrine of the +Trinity, and stated it clearly and fully, in the baptismal formula. (Matt. +28:19.) He says that this is "a clear and full declaration of the +fundamental article of Christian belief." He says, "Now, if ever, Christ +will distinctly proclaim the doctrine of Christendom;" and he then +declares that Christ, in this passage, told his Church to baptize "in the +Triune name."(90) + +Not in the Tri_une_ name, certainly. This is an assumption of our friend. +He may think that this is implied; that this is to be inferred; that this +is what Christ meant; but certainly it is not what Christ said. Christ +gives us here _three_ objects of baptism, no doubt; but he does not say +that they are one. How far this baptismal formula is "a clear and full +declaration" of the doctrine of the Trinity will appear thus. The doctrine +of the Trinity declares,-- + +1. That the Father is God. + +2. That the Son is God. + +3. That the Holy Ghost is God. + +4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, like the Father and the Son. + +5. That these three persons constitute one God. + +Of these five propositions, all of which are essential to the doctrine of +the Trinity, _not one is stated in the baptismal formula_. Christ here +says _nothing_ about the deity of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost; +_nothing_ about the personality of either of them; and _nothing_ about +their unity: It is difficult to conceive, therefore, how Dr. Huntington +can bring himself to call this a command to baptize in the Triune name. + +Dr. Huntington adds, "Our faith is summoned to the three persons, of the +one God." But nothing is said of three _persons_; nothing is said of their +being one God. + +He says, "No hint is given that there is any difference of nature, +dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them." + +We admit it, but also say, that no hint is given of any _equality_ of +nature, dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them. Which way, then, +is the argument? Christ does not state, on the one hand, that the three +are unequal or different: he does not state, on the other hand, that they +are equal and the same. The inference of proof from this fact seems to us +to be this: If the apostles, when Christ spoke to them, were already full +believers in the church doctrine of the Trinity, the fact that Christ did +not deny it would be an argument in its favor; but if the apostles were, +at that time, wholly ignorant of the Trinity, then the fact, that he did +not assert it distinctly, at least shows that he did not mean to teach it +at that time. That inference appears to us a very modest one. But Dr. +Huntington will admit that they did not know the doctrine; for he tells us +that it was the purpose of Christ to teach it to them at that time. To +which we can only reply, If he meant to teach the doctrine, why did he not +teach it? + +That the _word_ TRINITY is not to be found in the New Testament, and that +it was invented by Tertullian, is a matter of little consequence; but that +the doctrine itself should be nowhere stated in the New Testament we +conceive to be a matter of very great consequence. We have seen that Dr. +Huntington's attempt to show that it _is_ stated in the baptismal formula +is a failure. If not stated there, we presume that he will not maintain +that it is stated anywhere. We therefore agree with Neander in saying, +that, whether the doctrine be true or not, it is not taught distinctly in +the New Testament. If taught at all, it is only taught inferentially; that +is, it is a matter of reasoning, not a matter of faith. It is metaphysics: +it is not religion. + +II. The second reason why Unitarians reject the Church doctrine of the +Trinity is this:-- + +That every statement of the Trinity has proved, on examination, to be +either, (1.) A contradiction in terms; or, (2.) Unintelligible; or, (3.) +Tritheistic; or, (4.) Unitarianism under a Trinitarian form. + +Let us examine this objection. What is the general statement of the +Trinity, as made by the Orthodox Church, Catholic and Protestant? +Fortunately, this question is easily answered. + +Orthodoxy has been consistent since the middle ages in its general +statement, however much it may have varied in its explanations of what it +meant by that statement. + +The doctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds of the churches, +is this:-- + +There is in the nature of God three persons,--the Father, the Son, and the +Holy Ghost,--and these three are one being. They are the same in substance, +equal in power and glory. Each of these three persons is very God, +infinite in all attributes; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. + +According to the general doctrine of Orthodoxy, the unity of God is in +being, essence, and substance; that is, God is one being, God is one +essence, God is one substance. The threefold division stops short of the +being of God: it does not penetrate to his essential nature: it does not +divide his substance. + +What, then, is the Trinity? It is a Trinity of persons. + +But what is meant by "person," as used in this doctrine? According to the +common and familiar use of the word at the present time, three persons are +three beings. Personality expresses the most individual existence +imaginable. If, therefore, the word "person" is to be taken according to +the common use of the phrase, the doctrine of the Trinity would be +evidently a contradiction in terms. It would be equivalent to saying, God +is one being, but God is three beings; which again would be equivalent to +saying that one is three. + +Now, Trinitarians generally are too acute and clear-sighted to fall into +such a palpable contradiction as this. It is a common accusation against +them, that they believe one to be three, and three one; but this charge +is, in most cases, unjust. This would be only true in case they affirmed +that God is three in the same way in which he is one; but they do not +usually say this. They declare that he is one being,--not three beings. +They declare that the threefold distinction relates to personality, not to +being, and that they use the word "person," not in the common sense, but +in a peculiar sense, to express, as well as they can, a distinction, +which, from the poverty of language, no word can be found to express +exactly. Thus St. Augustine confessed, long ago, "We say that there are +three persons, not in order to say anything, but in order not to be wholly +silent." _Non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ut ne taceretur._ And so +Archbishop Whately, in the notes to his Logic, regrets that the word +"person" should ever have been used by our divines; and says, "If +_hypostasis_, or any other completely foreign word, had been used instead, +no idea at all would have been conveyed, except that of the explanation +given; and thus the danger, at least, of being misled by a word, would +have been avoided." + +(1.) _The Unintelligible Statement._ + +The Trinitarian thus avoids asking us to believe a contradiction; but, in +avoiding this, he runs upon another rock--that, namely, of not asking us to +believe anything at all; for if "person" here does _not_ mean what it +commonly means, and if it be impossible, from the poverty of language, to +define precisely the idea which is intended by it, we are then asked to +believe a proposition which Trinitarians themselves are unable to express. +But a proposition which is not expressed is no proposition. A proposition, +any important term of which is unintelligible, is wholly unintelligible. + +To make this matter clear, let us put it into a conversational form. We +will suppose that two persons meet together,--one a Unitarian, the other a +Trinitarian. + +_Trinitarian._ You do not believe the Trinity? Then you cannot be saved. +No one can be saved who denies the Trinity. It is a vital and fundamental +doctrine. + +_Unitarian._ Tell me what it is, and I will see if I can believe it. What +is the Trinity? + +_Trin._ God exists as one being, but three persons. + +_Unit._ What do you mean by "person"? Do you mean a person like Peter, +James, or John? + +_Trin._ No; we use "person" from the poverty of language. We do not mean +that. + +_Unit._ What, then, do you mean by it? + +_Trin._ It is a mystery. We cannot understand it precisely. + +_Unit._ I have no objection to the doctrine being mysterious; I believe a +great many things which are mysterious; but I don't want the _language_ to +be mysterious. You might as well use a Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Chinese +word, and ask me to believe that there are three _hypostases_ or three +_prosopa_ in Deity, if you do not tell me what you mean by the word +"person." + +_Trin._ It is a great mystery. It is a matter of _faith_, not of +_reasoning_. You must believe it, and not speculate about it. + +_Unit._ Believe _it_? Believe _what_? I am waiting for you to tell me what +I am to believe. I am ready to exercise my faith; but you are tasking, not +my faith, but my knowledge of language. I suppose that you do not wish me +to believe _words_, but thoughts. I wish to look through the word, and see +what thought lies behind it. + +Now, it seems to us that this is a very fair demand of the Unitarian. To +ask us to believe a proposition, any important term of which is +unintelligible, is precisely equivalent to asking us to believe no +proposition at all. Let us listen to Paul: "Even things without life, +giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the +sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For, if the trumpet +give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise +ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall +it be known what is spoken? _for ye shall speak into the air_.... For, if +I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a +barbarian; and he that speaketh, a barbarian unto me." + +It is of no use to talk about mystery in order to excuse ourselves for not +using intelligible language. That which is _mysterious_ is one thing; that +which is _unintelligible_ is quite another thing. We may understand what a +mystery is, though we cannot comprehend _how_ it is; but that which is +unintelligible we neither comprehend nor understand at all. We neither +know _how_ it is, nor _what_ it is. Thus, for example, the fact of God's +foreknowledge and man's freedom is a mystery. I cannot comprehend how God +can foreknow what I am to do to-morrow, and yet I be free to do it or not +to do it. I cannot comprehend how Jesus should be delivered to death by +the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, and yet the Jews have +been free agents in crucifying him and accountable for it. These things +are mysteries; but they are not unintelligible as doctrines. I see what is +meant by them. There is no obscurity in the assertion that God foreknows +everything, nor in the other assertion that man is a free agent. I can see +clearly what is implied _in both statements_, although my mind cannot +grasp both, and bring them together, and show the way in which they may be +reconciled. So, too, infinity is a mystery. We cannot comprehend it. Our +mind cannot go round it, grasp it, sustain it. Our thought sinks baffled +before the attempt to penetrate to the depth of such a wonderful idea. But +we understand well enough what is meant by infinity. There is nothing +obscure in _the statement_ of the fact, that the universe is unbounded. So +the way in which a flower grows from its seed is mysterious. We cannot +comprehend how the wonderful principle of life can be wrapped up in those +little folds, and how it can cause the root to strike downward, and the +airy stalk to spring lightly upward, and the leaves to unfold, and, last +of all, the bright, consummate flower to open its many-colored eye. But +certainly we can understand very well _the statement_ that a flower grows, +though we do not comprehend how it grows. + +Do not, then, tell us, when you have announced a doctrine, the language of +which is unintelligible, that you have told us a mystery. You have done no +such thing. Your proposition is not mysterious: it is unintelligible. It +is not a mystery: it is only a mystification. + +(2.) _The Tritheistic Statement._ + +Leaving, then, this ground of mystery, and attempting to define move +clearly what he means by three persons and one substance, the Trinitarian +often sinks the Unity in the Triplicity, and so runs ashore upon +Tritheism. This happens when he explains the term "person" as implying +independent existence; in which case the Unity is changed into Union. Then +we have really three Gods: the FATHER, who devises the plan of redemption; +the SON, who goes forth to execute it; and the HOLY SPIRIT, who sanctifies +believers. If there are these three distinct beings, they can be called +one God only as they are one in will, in aim, in purpose,--only as they +agree perfectly on all points. The Unity of God, then, becomes only a +unity of agreement, not a unity of being. This is evidently not the Unity +which is taught in the Bible, where Jesus declares that the _first of all +the commandments is_, "Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is ONE Lord." + +Moreover, against such a Trinity as this there are insuperable objections, +from grounds of reason as well as of Scripture. For God is the Supreme +Being, the Most High; and how can there be _three_ Supreme Beings, three +Most High Gods? Again: God is the First Cause; but if the Father, the Son, +and the Holy Ghost are each God, and all equal in power and majesty, and +have each an independent existence, then there are three first causes; +which is evidently impossible. Again: one of the attributes of God is his +independent or absolute existence. A being who depends on another cannot +be the Supreme God. The Father, Son, and Spirit, therefore, cannot depend +on each other; for each, by depending on another, would cease to be the +independent God. But, if they do not depend on each other, then each +ceases to be God, who is the First Cause; for that being is not the First +Cause who has two other beings independent of him. Other arguments of the +same kind might be adduced to show that there cannot be three necessary +beings. In fact, all the arguments from reason, which go to prove the +Unity of God, prove a unity of nature, not of agreement. + +"But why argue against Tritheism?" you may say. "Are any Tritheists?" Yes: +many Trinitarians are in reality Tritheists, by their own account of +themselves. There are many who make the _Unity_ of God a mere unity of +agreement, and talk about the society in the Godhead, and the +_intercourse_ between the Father, Son, and Spirit.(91) + +Opposed to this kind of Trinity is another view, in which the Unity is +preserved, but the Trinity lost. According to this view, God is one Being, +who reveals himself in three ways,--as Father, as Son, as Spirit,--or +sustains three relations, or manifests himself in three modes of +operation. The Trinity here becomes a nominal thing, and is, in reality, +only Unitarianism with an Orthodox name. This kind of Trinity also is very +prevalent, and is the one really maintained by men of high standing in the +Orthodox Church, both in Europe and America. According to this view, the +word "person" in the doctrine of the Trinity means the same as the +corresponding word in Greek and Latin formerly meant; namely, the outward +character, not the inward individuality. Thus Cicero says, "I, being one, +sustain three persons or characters; my own, that of my client, and that +of the judge"--_Ego unus, sustineo tres personas_. + +This view of the Trinity is commonly called Modalism, or Sabellianism, and +is also widely held by those who call themselves Trinitarians. It is, in +fact, only Unitarianism under a Trinitarian name.(92) + +(3.) _The Subordination View._ + +Avoiding these two extremes, and yet wishing to retain a distinct idea of +Unity and Tri-personality, the Trinitarian is necessarily driven upon a +third view, in which the Father is the only really Supreme and Independent +Being, the Son and the Holy Spirit subordinate and dependent. + +This view, which is called the subordination scheme, or Arianism, is +Unitarianism again in another form; and this view also is entertained by +many who still retain the name of "Trinitarians." According to this view, +the Son and the Holy Ghost are really God, but are so by a derived +divinity. God the Father communicates his divinity to the Son and the Holy +Ghost. This is the view really taken in the Nicene Creed, though adopted +in opposition to the Arians, and was the doctrine of the earliest Church +Fathers before the Arian controversy began. In the Nicene Creed, we read +that the Son is "God of ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}) God, Light of ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}) Light, true God of true +God;" the "_of_" here being the same as "from," and denoting origin and +derivation. + +This doctrine seems, in reality, to have less in its favor than either of +the others. By calling the Son and Holy Spirit God, it contrives to make +three distinct Gods, and so is Tritheism; and yet, by making them +dependent on the Father, it becomes Unitarianism again. Thus, singularly +enough, this attempt at making a compromise between Unity and Trinity +loses both Unity and Trinity; for it makes three Gods, and so loses the +Unity; and yet it makes Christ not "God over all," not the Supreme Being, +and so loses the Trinity. + +Between these different views, between Tritheism, Sabellianism, and +Arianism, the Orthodox Trinity has always swung to and fro,--inclining more +to one or to the other according to the state of controversy in any +particular age. When the Arian or Tritheistic views were proclaimed and +defended, the Orthodoxy of the Church swung over towards Sabellianism, +making the Unity strong and solid; and the Trinity became a thin mode or +an airy abstraction. When Sabellianism, thus encouraged, came openly +forward, and defended its system and won adherents, then Church Orthodoxy +would hasten to set up barriers on that side, and would fall back upon +Tritheistic ground, making the Threefold Personality a profound and real +distinction, penetrating the very nature of Deity, and changing the Unity +of Being into a mere Unity of Will or agreement. We will venture to say, +that there has never yet been a definition of the Trinity which has not +been either Tritheistic or Modalistic; and Church Orthodoxy has always +stood either on Tritheistic or on Sabellian ground. In other words, the +Orthodox Trinity of any age, when searched to the bottom, has proved to be +Unitarianism, after all--Unitarianism in the Tritheistic or in the +Sabellian disguise; for the Tritheism of three coequal, independent, and +absolute Gods, is too much opposed both to reason and Scripture to be able +ever to maintain itself openly as a theology for any length of time. + +The analogies which are used to explain the Trinity are all either +Sabellian or Tritheistic. Nature has been searched in all ages for these +analogies, by which to make the Trinity plain; but none have ever been +found which did not make the Trinity either Sabellianism or Tritheism. +They are either three parts of the substance, or else three qualities or +modes of the substance. + +Thus we have instances in which the three are made the three parts of one +being, or substance; as in _man_,--spirit, soul, body; thought, affection, +will; head, heart, hand. + +One Being with three distinct faculties is Tritheism: one Being acting in +three directions is Sabellianism. + +Time is past, present, and future. Syllogism has its major, minor, and +conclusion. There are other like analogies. + +St. Patrick took for his illustration the three leaves of trefoil, or +clover. Others have imagined the Trinity like a triangle; or they have +referred to the three qualities of space,--height, breadth, width; or of +fire,--form, light, and heat; or of a noun, which has its masculine, +feminine, and neuter; or of a government, consisting of king, lords, and +commons; or of executive, legislative, and judiciary. + +This survey of Church Trinity shows that it is either one in which,-- + +1. The persons are not defined; or an unintelligible Trinity. + +2. Or which defines person and Unity in the usual sense; or a +contradictory Trinity. + +3. Or which defines person as usual, and the Unity as only Union; or +Tritheism. + +4. Or which defines person as only manifestation; or Sabellianism. + +These four are all the views ever hitherto given, and are all untenable. +We might stop here, and say that the Trinity is utterly unsupported. There +is no need of going to the Scripture to see if it is taught there; for we +have, as yet, nothing to look for in Scripture. + +The Trinitarian's difficulty appears to be in defining person. But +possibly he may say, "I cannot, indeed, give a positive idea of person; +but I can give a _negative_ one. I cannot say what it _is_; but I can say +what it is _not_. It is _not_ a mere _mode_ on the one hand; and not +_being_, on the other. We must neither confound the persons nor divide the +substance." + +We will, then, go further, and say, as Trinitarians have never yet defined +person, without making it either a mode or a being, so they never can +define it otherwise. There is no third between being and mode. They _must_ +either confound the persons or divide the substance. + +Again: that which differences one person in the Deity from another must be +either a perfection or an imperfection. There is nothing between these. +But it cannot be an imperfection; for no imperfection exists in God: and +it cannot be a perfection; for then the other two persons would want a +divine perfection, and would be imperfect. + +III. The arguments in support of the Trinity are wholly inadequate. Since, +according to Neander, the Trinity is not stated in the New Testament, it +follows that it is a doctrine of _inference_ only; that is, a piece of +human reasoning. Now, we have, no doubt, a perfect right to infer +doctrines from Scripture which are not stated there; but, as Protestants, +we have no right to make these inferences fundamental, or essential to the +religious life. They may, indeed, be metaphysically essential; that is, +essential to a well-arranged system; but they are not morally essential; +that is, not essential to the moral and spiritual life of the soul. + +But this is just what Dr. Huntington attempts to do. He tries to show that +there is a doctrine essential to the life, peace, and progress of man, +which the New Testament has omitted to state; which is neither distinctly +stated by our Saviour nor by any of his apostles; which has been left to +be inferred, and inferred by the mere processes of unaided human reason. + +What arguments does he allege for this? + +His first and principal argument is the _universal belief of the Christian +Church in the doctrine of the Trinity_. + +On this Dr. Huntington lays great stress. He says,-- + +"Truth is not determined by majorities; and yet it would be contrary to +the laws of our constitution not to be affected by a testimony so vast, +uniform, and sacred as that which is rendered by the common belief of +Christian history and the Christian countries to the truth of the Trinity. +There is something extremely painful, not to say irreverent, towards the +Providence which has watched and led the true Christian Israel, in +presuming that a tenet so emphatically and gladly received in all the ages +and regions of Christendom, as almost literally to meet the terms of the +test of Vincentius,--believed always, everywhere, and by all,--is unfounded +in revelation and truth. Such a conclusion puts an aspect of uncertainty +over the mind of the Church, scarcely consistent with any tolerable +confidence in that great promise of the Master, that he would be with his +own all days." (p. 359.) + +To which we answer,-- + +(1.) That, according to Dr. Bushnell (Dr. Huntington's own witness), there +never has been, nor is now, any such belief in the doctrine of the Trinity +as he asserts. The largest part of the Church have always "divided the +substance" of the deity, and another large portion have "confounded the +persons;" and so the majority of the Church, while holding the word +"Trinity," have never believed in the Triunity at all. + +Dr. Huntington summons Dr. Bushnell as a witness to the practical value of +the Trinity; and we may suppose something such an examination as this to +take place:-- + +_Dr. Huntington._ Tell us, Dr. Bushnell, what instances you know of +persons who have been converted or deeply blessed by the holy doctrine of +the Trinity. + +_Dr. Bushnell._ I have known of "a great cloud of witnesses," "living +myriads," "who have been raised to a participation of God in the faith of +this adorable mystery," (Huntington, p. 413.) + +_Dr. H._ Mention some of them. + +_Dr. B._ "Francis Junius," "two centuries and a half ago,"--a professor "at +Heidelberg (Leyden?), testified that he was, in fact, converted from +atheism by the Christian Trinity;" also "the mild and sober Howe;" "Jeremy +Taylor;" also "the Marquis de Rentz;" "Edwards," and "Lady Maxwell." +(Huntington, p. 414.) + +_Unitarian._ Say, Dr. Bushnell, whether, in your opinion, the majority of +Christians really believe in the Church doctrine of the Trinity. + +_Dr. B._ "A very large portion of the Christian teachers, together with +the general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three living persons in +the interior nature of God." (Bushnell: "God in Christ," p. 130.) + +_Unit._ Is that scriptural or Orthodox? + +_Dr. B._ No. It is only "a social Unity." It is "a celestial +Tritheocracy." It "boldly renounces Orthodoxy at the point opposite to +Unitarianism." (Bushnell: "God in Christ," p. 131.) + +_Unit._ Do I understand you to be now speaking of the properly Orthodox +ministers and churches generally? + +_Dr. B._ "Our properly Orthodox teachers and churches, while professing +three persons, also retain the verbal profession of one person. They +suppose themselves really to hold that God is one person; and yet they +most certainly do not: they only confuse their understanding, and call +their confusion faith. This I affirm on the ground of sufficient evidence; +partly because it cannot be otherwise, and partly because it visibly is +not." (_Ibid._ p. 131.) + +_Unit._ Do you believe, Dr. Bushnell, that spiritual good can come from +such a belief in the Trinity as you describe to be "undoubtedly" that of +"the general mass of disciples"? + +_Dr. B._ "Mournful evidence will be found that a confused and painfully +bewildered state is often produced by it. They are practically at work in +their thoughts to choose between the three, sometimes actually and +decidedly preferring one to another; doubting how to adjust their mind in +worship; uncertain, after, which of the three to obey; turning away, +possibly, from one with a feeling of dread that might well be called +aversion; devoting themselves to another, as the Romanist to his patron +saint. This, in fact, is Polytheism, and not the clear, simple love of +God. There is true love in it, doubtless; but the comfort of love is not +here. The mind is involved in a dismal confusion, which we cannot think of +without the sincerest pity. No soul can truly rest in God, when God is in +two or three, and these in such a sense that a choice between them must be +continually suggested." (_Ibid._ p. 134.) + +_Unit._ This state of mind is undoubtedly that of the general mass of the +disciples? + +_Dr. B._ It is. (_Ibid._ p. 130.) + +_Unit._ Are there others, calling themselves Trinitarians, who hold +essentially the Unitarian doctrine? + +_Dr. B._ Yes. "It is a somewhat curious fact in theology that the class of +teachers who protest over the word 'person,' declaring that they mean only +a _threefold distinction_, cannot show that there is really a hair's +breadth of difference between their doctrine and the doctrine asserted by +many of the later Unitarians. They may teach or preach in a very different +manner; they probably do: but the theoretic contents of their opinion +cannot be distinguished. Thus they say that there is a certain divine +person in the man Jesus Christ; but that, when they use the term 'person,' +they mean, not a person, but a certain indefinite and indefinable +distinction. The later Unitarians, meantime, are found asserting that God +is present in Christ in a mysterious and peculiar communication of his +being; so that he is the living embodiment and express image of God. If, +now, the question be raised, 'Wherein does the indefinable _distinction_ +of one differ from the mysterious and peculiar _communication_ of the +other?' or 'How does it appear that there is any difference?' there is no +living man, I am quite sure, who can invent an answer." (_Ibid._ p. 135.) + +_Unit._ Is it not true that both of these views are sometimes held +alternately by Trinitarians? + +_Dr. B._ "Probably there is a degree of alternation, or inclining from one +side to the other, in this view of Trinity, as the mind struggles, now to +embrace one, and now the other, of two incompatible notions. Some persons +are more habitually inclined to hold the three; a very much smaller +number, to hold the one." (_Ibid._ p. 134.) + +_Unit._ But can they not hold the Unity with this Trinity? + +_Dr. B._ "No man can assert three persons, meaning three consciousnesses, +wills, and understandings, and still have any intelligent meaning in his +mind, when he asserts that they are yet one person. For, as he now uses +the term, the very idea of a person is that of an essential, +incommunicable monad, bounded by consciousness, and vitalized by +self-active will; which being true, he might as well profess to hold that +three units are yet one unit. When he does it, his words will, of +necessity, be only substitutes for sense." (_Ibid._ p. 131.) + +(2.) But suppose that the belief of the Church in the Trinity was as +universal as Dr. Huntington asserts and Dr. Bushnell denies, what would be +its value? His argument proves too much. If it proves the Trinity to be +true, it proves, _a fortiori_, the Roman Catholic Church to be the true +Church, and Protestantism to be an error; for Martin Luther, at one time, +was the only Protestant in the world. Suppose that a Roman priest had come +to him then. He might have addressed him thus:-- + +"It is certainly an impressive testimony to the truth of the Church of +Rome, that the Christian world have been so generally agreed in it. Truth +is not determined by majorities; and yet it would be contrary to the laws +of our constitution not to be affected by a testimony so vast, uniform, +and sacred as that which is rendered by the common belief of Christian +history and the Christian centuries to the doctrines and practices of the +Roman Catholic Church. We travel abroad, through these converted lands, +over the round world. We enter, at the call of the Sabbath morning light, +the place of assembled worshippers; let it be the newly planted +conventicle on the edge of the Western forest, or the missionary station +at the extremity of the Eastern continent; let it be the collection of +Northern mountaineers, or of the dwellers in Southern valleys; let it be +in the plain village meeting-house, or in the magnificent cathedrals of +the old cities; let it be the crowded congregation of the metropolis, or +the 'two or three' that meet in faith in upper chambers, in log-huts or +under palm-trees; let it be regenerate bands gathered to pray in the +islands of the ocean, or thankful circles of believers confessing their +dependence and beseeching pardon on ships' decks, in the midst of the +ocean. So we pass over the outstretched countries of both hemispheres; and +it is well nigh certain--so certain that the rare and scattered exceptions +drop out of the broad and general conclusion--that the lowly petitions, the +fervent supplications, the hearty confessions, the eager thanksgivings, or +the grand peals of choral adoration, which our ears will hear, will be +uttered according to the grand ritual of the Church of Rome. This is the +voice of the unhesitating praise that embraces and hallows the globe." + +What would Luther have replied to that? He would have said, "Truth must +have a beginning. It is always, at first, in a minority. The gate of it is +strait, the path to it narrow, and few find it. All reforms are, at the +beginning, in the hands of a small number. If God and truth are on our +side, what do we care for your multitudes?" We can make the same answer +now. + +Dr. Huntington proceeds to give his own creed in regard to the Trinity,--to +state his own belief. + +God, in himself, he declares, we cannot know at all. We know him only, in +his revelation. "Out of that ineffable and veiled Godhead--the groundwork, +if we may say so, of all divine manifestation; a theocracy--there emerge to +us, in revelation, the three whom we rightly call persons--Father, Son, and +Holy Ghost." + +We can only conceive of God, he says, in action; and in action we behold +him as three. But action and revelation take place in time. The Trinity, +therefore, according to Dr. Huntington, is only known to us in temporal +manifestation: whether it exists in eternity or not, we cannot tell. And +yet, in the next sentence, he goes on to say that "the Son is eternally +begotten of the Father," and "the Holy Ghost proceeds out of the Father, +_not in time_;" which is the very thing he had a moment before professed +to know nothing about. It is very difficult, therefore, to tell precisely +what his view is. With regard to the incarnation of the Son, he is still +more obscure. He says that "Christ comes forth out of the Godhead as the +Son;" that he "leaves the glory he had with the Father;" that, while he is +on earth, the Father alone represents the unseen personality of the +Godhead, and that therefore the Son appears to be dependent on him, and +submissive; that temporarily, while the Son is in the world, he remains +ignorant of what the Father knows, and says that his Father is greater +than he. "He lessens himself to dependency for the sake of mediation." +"All this we might expect." This he calls an "instrumental inequality +between Son and Father:" it "is wrought into the biblical language, +remains in all our devotional habit, and ought to remain there." + +In other words, Dr. Huntington believes that the Infinite God became less +than infinite in the incarnation. The common explanation of those +passages, where Christ says, for example, "My Father is greater than I," +does not satisfy him. He is not satisfied that Jesus said it "in his human +nature." No. It was the divine nature which said it; and it was really GOD +THE SON, who did not know the day nor the hour of his own coming. He lost +a part of his omniscience. He ceased to be perfect in all his attributes. +We should say, then, that he ceased to be God; but Dr. Huntington +maintains that he was God, nevertheless; but God less than omnipotent,--God +less than omniscient; God the Son, so distinct from the Father as to be +ignorant of what the Father knew, and unable to perform what the Father +could do. + +Dr. Huntington (p. 366) ascribes it to "condescension" in Christ, to say +that "of that day and hour knoweth not the Son." "_It is condescension +indeed!_" says he. But this word "condescension" does not well apply here. +One does not condescend to be ignorant of what he knows: still less does a +truthful person condescend _to say_ he is ignorant of what he knows. We +may wisely condescend to help the feeble, and sympathize with the lowly, +but hardly to be ignorant with them, or to pretend to be ignorant. It is a +badly chosen word, and seems to show the vacillation of the writer's +thought. + +IV. The arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are unanswerable. + +We infer that they are unanswerable from the fact that they are not +answered. It is to be presumed that Dr. Huntington, having been for so +many years a preacher of Unitarian doctrine, is acquainted with our +arguments. It is a remarkable fact that, in this sermon, he has nowhere +attempted to reply to them. He has passed them wholly by. You would not +know, from reading the discourse, that he had ever been a Unitarian, or +had ever heard of the Unitarian objections to the Trinity; still less that +he had himself preached against it. Unitarians, for instance, have said, +that _if the Trinity be true, and if it be so important to the welfare of +the soul as is contended, it would be somewhere plainly taught in the New +Testament_. Does Dr. Huntington answer this argument? No; he answers the +argument from the _word_ "Trinity" not being in the Bible, and his answer +is sufficient; but he does not answer the argument from the fact, that the +doctrine itself is not anywhere distinctly taught, and that none of the +terms which have been found essential to any Orthodox statement of the +doctrine are to be met with in the New Testament.(93) + +Nor does Dr. Huntington anywhere fairly meet the Unitarian argument from +the impossibility of stating the doctrine in intelligible language. He +tells us, with his usual eloquence, what we have often enough been taught +before, that there are many things which we do not understand, and that we +must believe many facts the _mode_ of which is unintelligible. But when we +say, "Can we believe _a doctrine_ or proposition which cannot be +distinctly stated?" He has no answer. The Trinity is _a doctrine_, and +must therefore be distinctly stated in order to be believed. It has not +been distinctly stated,(94) and therefore cannot be believed. To this +objection Dr. Huntington has no reply; and we may conclude that it is an +unanswerable objection. + +Dr. Huntington uses an unnecessary phrase about those who object to +mystery. He calls the objection "shallow self-illusion," and proceeds with +the usual declaration, that all of life is mysterious. Can he have been a +Unitarian preacher for twenty years, and not have known that Unitarians +object to mystery only when it is used by Trinitarians as a cover for +obscurity and vagueness of statement? + +You ask us to believe a precise statement, viz., that "there are three +_persons_ in the Godhead." We say, "What do you mean by 'person'?" The +Trinitarian answers, "It is a mystery." We say, "We cannot believe it, +then." The Trinitarian replies, "Why, all is a mystery. How the grass +grows is a mystery; yet you believe it." "No," we say, "we do not believe +it. When the mystery begins, our belief ends; we believe up to that point, +and no farther." The statement, "the grass grows," is _not_ a mystery; the +fact, "the grass grows," is _not_ a mystery. We believe the fact and the +statement. The _way_ in which it grows _is_ mysterious; and we do not +believe anything about it. "You cannot understand _how_ the grass grows." +No; and, accordingly, we do not believe anything about _how_ the grass +grows. But the whole purpose of the Trinity is to show _how_ the Father, +the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist. You are not satisfied that we receive +_what_ the Scripture teaches; you try to show us the _how_, and then leave +it in obscurity at last. + +Nor does Dr. Huntington reply to the Unitarian explanation of the +Trinitarian proof-texts. Trinitarians have often quoted the texts--"_I and +my Father are one_;" "_He who has seen me has seen the Father_"--in proof +of the Deity of Christ. Unitarians have often replied to both of them: to +the first passage, that since Jesus has also said that his _disciples were +to be one with him, as he is one with God_, it either proves that the +disciples are also to be God, or does _not_ prove that Christ is God. To +the second passage, Unitarians have replied by reading the next clause, in +which Christ says, "Believest thou not that I am _in_ the Father?" showing +how it is that he reveals the Father. He is _in_ the Father, and his +disciples are _in_ him. Those who see him, see the Father; those who see +his true disciples, see the face and image of Christ. These answers are so +obvious, and Dr. Huntington must have heard them so often, that he should, +as a controversialist, have taken some notice of them. He has not done so. + +He quotes the passage from Eph. 1:20, 21, and says, "_Can this be a +creature?_" We reply, "Can he be anything _but_ a creature?--he who was +_set_ by God in this place of honor." Does God set God, as a reward, above +principalities and powers? Does God make God "head over all things in the +Church"? Again: Dr. Huntington quotes, "that, at the name of Jesus, every +knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord;" but he omits +the conclusion, "to the glory of God the Father." + +He even quotes the passage, "Him _hath God exalted_ to give repentance and +forgiveness of sin." + +And he quotes the passage, which has staggered the strongest believers in +the Trinity, where Paul declares (1 Cor. ch. 15), that, _at the end_, +Christ will give up his kingdom to the Father, that "God may be all in +all," and explains it as meaning that "he will resume his place in the +coequal Three, the indivisible One." Has he _left_ his place, then? Is +that Orthodox? Dr. Huntington evidently thinks so; for he says, "The Son, +in his character of Sonship, is retaken, so to speak, into the everlasting +undivided One." _So to speak._ We may _speak_ so: "But what do we mean by +it?" is the question. Did God the Son leave his place in the Godhead? Did +he become less than God? Did he become ignorant? Did he suffer and die? +Did he arise, and at last reascend, and take his place, "so to speak," in +the Godhead? If this is meant as real statement, what better is it than +the Avatars of Vishnu? What sort of Unity is left to us? We have a Trinity +of council; but where is the Unity, except of agreement? One divine Being +descending, and leaving the other divine Being alone, temporarily, on the +throne of the universe, until the divine Being who had descended should +reascend to take his seat again "in the coequal Three and indivisible +One"! + +One Unitarian argument, which appears to us unanswerable, is in the fact, +that the very passages in which the highest attributes are ascribed to +Christ are always those in which his dependence and subordination are most +strongly asserted. We could throw aside all the passages in which Jesus +asserts directly his inferiority,--as, "My Father is greater than I;" "Of +mine own self I can do nothing,"--and take the strongest proof-texts of the +Trinitarians, and ask for no better proof for the Unitarian doctrine: "All +power is given to me in heaven and earth;" "The image of the invisible +God, the first-born of every creature;" "In him dwelt all the fulness of +the Godhead bodily." Are these passages written of Christ in his divine or +human nature? Not his divine nature; for to God the Son all power cannot +be "given." God the Son cannot be "the image of God," or the "first-born +of every _creature_." The "fulness of the Godhead" cannot dwell in God the +Son. They must, then, be said of him in his human nature; and, if so, they +show that the loftiest titles and attributes do not prove him to be God. + +V. The good ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to it, +but to the truths which underlie it. + +Dr. Huntington asserts, for example, that "the Triunity of God appears to +be the necessary means of manifesting and supporting in the mind of our +race, a faith in the true personality of God." + +If so, it is remarkable that the two forms of religion in which the +personality of God, as absolute will, is most distinctly recognized (i.e., +the _Jewish_ religion and the _Mohammedan_ religion), should both be +ignorant of the Trinity. It is equally remarkable that the most +Pantheistic religion in the world, in which the personality of God most +entirely disappears (i.e., Braminism), should have a Trinity of its own. +It is also remarkable, on this hypothesis, that idolatry in the Christian +Church (as worship of Mary, worship of saints and relics, &c.) should come +up with the Trinity, and flourish simultaneously with it. + +No; it is not the Trinity which brings out most distinctly the personality +of God, but the faith in a divine revelation through inspired men. If God +can dwell in the souls of men, teaching and guiding them, he must be a +person like the soul with which he communes. Especially does the religious +consciousness of Jesus, his simple and child-like communion with the +heavenly Father, bring God near to the soul as a personal being. It is not +the Trinity, but the Christian faith which underlies it, which teaches the +divine personality. + +Nor is it the doctrine of the Trinity which is necessary for a living +faith in God through Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. All that +Dr. Huntington says of the evil of sin is well said, but has no bearing on +the point before us. According to Dr. Huntington's own witnesses, as we +have seen above, the Trinity was unknown in the earlier ages of the +Church. Was reconciliation unknown? Was the forgiving love of Christ +unknown? If he cannot assert this, the doctrine of the Trinity is not +necessary to a living faith in a reconciling God. + +Dr. Huntington argues, that only the sufferings, and actual sufferings, of +God himself, can touch the sinful heart; and, therefore, the Trinity is +true. The conclusion is a long way from the premise, even supposing that +to be sound. But as regards the premise, he has read and quoted Mansel. +Has he not verged towards the dogmatism which that writer condemns? Would +it not be more modest, and better accord with Christian humility, to be +satisfied with believing the scriptural assertions, that "God so loved the +world, that he gave his only-begotten Son;" that "He who spared not his +own Son, but gave him up for us all,--shall he not, with him, freely give +us all things?" Is not this enough, without an argument to prove that the +_only_ way by which man can be saved is the method of a suffering God? + +We will not dwell further on this head, nor examine our friend's argument +to show that we cannot consistently, as Unitarians, have any piety. We +will try, then, to have it inconsistently. + +VI. Great evils to the Church have come from the doctrine of the Trinity. + +It has tended to the belief in three Gods. It has tended to a confusion of +belief between three Gods of equal power and majesty, united only in +counsel; one supreme and two inferior Deities; one Deity with a threefold +manner of manifestation; and a vague, undetermined use of words, with no +meaning attached to them--unhappy confusion, which none have been more +ready to recognize and to point out than Trinitarians themselves. + +And what shall we say of the continual struggles, conflicts, and bitter +controversies, which this doctrine has caused from the time of its +entrance into the Church? What is there more disgraceful in the history of +the Church, than the mutual persecutions of Arians and Athanasians, and of +all the minor sects and parties, engendered by this disputed doctrine? + +This is what Dr. Bushnell says of one of these matters; and his testimony +is, perhaps, sufficient on this point,-- + +"No man can assert three persons,--meaning three consciousnesses, wills, +and understandings,--and still have any intelligent meaning in his mind, +when he asserts that they are yet one person; for, as he now uses the +term, the very idea of a person is that of an essential, incommunicable +monad, bounded by consciousness, and vitalized by self-active will; which +being true, he might as well profess to hold that three units are yet one +unit. When he does it, his words will, of necessity, be only substitutes +for sense. + +"At the same time, there are too many signs of the mental confusion I +speak of not to believe that it exists. Thus, if the class I speak of were +to hear a discourse insisting on the proper personal Unity of God, it +would awaken suspicion in their minds, while a discourse insisting on the +existence of three persons would be only a certain proof of Orthodoxy; +showing that they profess three persons, meaning what they profess, and +one person, really not meaning it. + +"Such is the confusion produced by attempting to assert a real and +metaphysical Trinity of persons in the divine nature. Whether the word is +taken at its full import, or diminished away to a mere something called a +_distinction_, there is produced only contrariety, confusion, practical +negation, not light." + +So far Dr. Bushnell. On another point thus testifies Twesten:-- + +"There are many to whom the biblical and religious basis of the doctrine +is exceeding sure and precious, who are dissatisfied with the Church form +of the doctrine, and even feel themselves repelled or fettered by it. It +is to them more negative than positive, more opposed to errors than giving +any insight into truth. It solves no difficulty, it unseals no new +revelation." + +Twesten goes on to admit that the Trinity has really hemmed in the free +movement of the mind, substituting a dead uniformity for a manifold and +various life; and yet Twesten is a very strong and able Trinitarian. + +VII. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of +faith. + +As philosophy, it might be ever so true and important; but, when brought +forward as religion (as Dr. Huntington has done), it would become at once +pernicious. To offer theology for religion, belief for faith, philosophy +born of speculative reflection in place of spiritual insight and pious +experience, have always been most deleterious both to religion and to +philosophy. + +The objects of faith are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Through +Christ we have access to the Father in the Spirit. We see the Father +revealed to us in the Son; we feel the power of the Spirit in our hearts. +This is religion; but this has nothing to do with the doctrine of the +Trinity. + +VIII. We can trace the gradual formation of the doctrine in the Christian +Church. + +The following facts we suppose to be incontrovertible:-- + +1. Down to the time of the synod of Nice (A.D. 325), the Son was +considered to be subordinate, or inferior to the Father, by the great +majority of writers and teachers in the Christian Church, and by the +multitude of believers; and no doctrine of Trinity existed in the Church. + +2. The _Nicene symbol_, which declared Christ to be "God from God, Light +from Light, true God from true God, of the same substance with the +Father,"(95) was directed against the two Arian positions,--that Christ was +created, and that there was a time when he did not exist; but it did not +declare his equality with God the Father, nor teach the personality of the +Holy Spirit, nor say anything of the Trinity. + +3. The councils vacillated to and fro during three hundred years, +gradually tending towards the present Church doctrine of the Trinity; +thus,-- + +1. _Synod of Nice_ (A.D. 325) opposed the Arian doctrine of the creation +of Christ out of nothing, and maintained that his substance was derived +from that of God. + +2. _Synod of Tyre_ (A.D. 335) favored the Arians, and deposed Athanasius. + +3. _Council of Antioch_ (A.D. 343) opposed the views of the Arians, and +also the views of their opponents. + +4. _Council of Sardica_ (A.D. 344) resulted in a division between the +Eastern and Western Churches--the East being semi-Arian, and the West, +Athanasian--in their view of the nature of Christ. + +5. The Western Church tending to Sabellianism (taught by Marcellus and his +pupil Photinus), this view was condemned by two councils in the East and +West, viz.:-- + +Second council of Antioch (A.D. 343). + +Council of Milan (A.D. 346). + +6. Constantius, an Arian emperor, endeavored to make the Western Churches +accept the Arian doctrine, and, at two synods (A.D. 353 and 355, at +Arelate and Mediolanum), compelled the bishops to sign the condemnation of +Athanasius, deposing those who refused so to do. + +7. The Arians, being thus dominant, immediately divided into Arians and +Semi-Arians,--the distinction being the famous distinction between _o_ and +_oi_. Both parties denied the _Homoousios_; but the Semi-Arians admitted +the _Homoiousios_. + +8. At the synod of Ancyra (A.D. 358), the Semi-Arian doctrine was adopted, +and the Arian rejected. The third synod of Sirmium (A.D. 358) did the same +thing. + +9. Down to this time (A.D. 360), nothing was said about the Holy Spirit in +its relation to the Trinity. The Emperor Valens, an Arian, persecuted the +Athanasians from A.D. 364 to 378. Then Theodosius, an Athanasian emperor, +persecuted the Arians. Semi-Arianism, however, continued Orthodox in the +East. + +10. The Nestorian controversy broke out A.D. 430. Council of Ephesus (A.D. +431) condemned Nestor. The Nestorians (who were Unitarians) separated +entirely from the Church, and became the Church of the Persian empire. + +11. The Monophysite controversy broke out. The council of Chalcedon (A.D. +451) decided that there were two natures in Christ; and the Monophysites +separated, and formed the Coptic Church. Their formula was, that "God was +crucified in Christ." The Nestorians were too Unitarian, and the +Monophysites too Athanasian. The Church decided (against the Nestorians) +that Mary was God's mother, but decided (against the Monophysites) that +God was not crucified. + +12. _First Lateran Council_ was called (in A.D. 640) to settle a new +point. It having been decided that there were _two_ natures in Christ, it +was now thought best by many to yield to the Monophysites--that there was +only one will in Christ. Hence the Monotheletic controversy, finally +settled at the,-- + +13. Sixth General Council (A.D. 680), when _two_ wills in Christ were +accepted as the doctrine of the Church. + +Thus it appears that it took the Church from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680 to +settle the questions concerning the relation of Christ to God. During all +this time, opinion vacillated between Arianism on the one hand and +Sabellianism on the other. At the end of this period, the Church had +become consolidated, and strong enough to compel submission to its +opinions: but the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity remained +unsettled for several centuries more; and finally the Eastern Church +separated altogether from the Western Church on this point. The whole +Greek Church remains, to this day, separated from the Latin Church on a +question belonging to this very doctrine of the Trinity. So much, then, +for Dr. Huntington's assertion, that the Trinity is a doctrine which can +almost literally be said to have been believed "always, everywhere, and by +all." + +IX. The doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to the real divinity of Christ +and to his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the +Church in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ the Lord. + +Our final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes Christ +divine, but that it does _not_ make him so. It substitutes for the +divinity of the Father, the Supreme God, which Unitarians believe to dwell +in Christ, a subordinate divinity of God the Son. This is subordinate, +because derived; and, because derived, dependent. The Son may be said to +be "eternally generated;" but this is only an eternal derivation, and does +not alter the dependence, but makes it also to be eternal. The tendency of +the Church doctrine of the Trinity is always to a belief, not in the +supreme divinity dwelling in Christ, but in a derived and secondary +divinity. + +How is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning Christ? Dr. +Huntington claims Nice as Trinitarian. (p. 361.) + +But what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine? Listen. + +"The Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or proper Godhead, in +and of himself exclusively; it represents him as the _Fons et Principium_ +of the Son, and therefore gives him superior power and glory. It does not +even assert the claims of the blessed Spirit to Godhead, and therefore +leaves room to doubt whether it means to recognize a Trinity, or only a +Duality." (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin. Test., +p. 264.) + +And how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Huntington also +considers to be Trinitarian? else certainly his rule of "always, +everywhere, and by all," does not hold. If, for the first three hundred +years after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it cannot be said that the +Trinity has "always" been held in the Church. Listen, again, to Prof. +Stuart, whose learning no one can question. + +"We find that all the Fathers before, at, and after the Council of Nice, +who harmonize with the sentiments there avowed, declare the Father only to +be the self-existent God." (See the whole paragraph in Wilson, Trin. +Test., p. 267.) + +"To be the author of the proper substance of the Son and Spirit, according +to the Patristical creed; or to be the author of the _modus existendi_ of +the Son and Spirit, according to the modern creed,--both seem to involve +_the idea of power and glory in the Father, immeasurably above that of the +Son and Spirit_." (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.) + +So Coleridge asserts that "both Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach a +subordination of the Son to the Father, independent of the incarnation of +the Son.... Christ, speaking of himself as the coeternal Son, says, 'My +Father is greater than I.' " (Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 270.) + +According to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find God--the +Supreme God, our heavenly Father--in Christ; but a derived, subordinate, +and inferior Deity. Not the one universal Parent do we approach, but some +mysterious, derived, inscrutable Deity, less than the Father, and distinct +from him. Do we not, then, lose the benefit and blessing of the divinity +of Jesus? Can we believe him when be says, "He who has seen me has seen +the Father?" No; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians; but +rather, that, having seen him, we have seen "THE SON;" whom Coleridge +declares to be an inferior Deity; over whom Bishop Pearson, in his +"Exposition of the Creed," says, the Father holds "preeminence,"--the +Father being "the Origin, the Cause, the Author, the Root, the Fountain, +the Head, of the Son." The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed, +as Swedenborg ably contends, to the real divinity of Christ.(96) + +But it is equally opposed to his real humanity. It constantly drives out +of the Church the human element in Christ. Dr. Huntington is astonished at +Unitarians not perceiving that the humanity of Christ is as dear to +Trinitarians as his Deity; yet it cannot be denied, that the mysterious +dogma of deity has quite overshadowed the simple human life of our dear +Lord, so that the Church has failed to see the Son of man. All his highest +human traits become unreal in the light of this doctrine of his deity. He +is tempted; but that is unreal, for God cannot be tempted. He prays, "Our +Father;" but this also is no real prayer, for he is omnipotent, and can +need nothing. He encounters opposition, hatred, contumely, and bears it +with sweetest composure; but what of that? since, as God, he looked down +from an infinite height upon the puny opposition. He agonizes in the +garden; but it is imaginary suffering: how can God feel any real agony, +like man? Jesus ceases to be example, ceases to be our best beloved +companion and brother, and becomes a mysterious personage, inscrutable to +our thought, and far removed from our sympathy. + + + + + + +FOOTNOTES + + + 1 The following passage, from an article in the "Independent," by + Henry Ward Beecher, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one + who has "summered it and wintered it" with Orthodoxy:-- + + "Does anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such + sharp articles upon the great religious newspapers, 'The Observer,' + 'The Intelligencer,' and the like? O, pray do not think it from any + ill will. It is all kindness! We only do it to keep our voice in + practice. We have made Orthodoxy a study. And by an attentive + examination of 'The Presbyterian,' 'The Observer,' 'The Puritan + Recorder,' and such like unblemished confessors, we have perceived + that no man is truly sound who does not pitch into somebody that is + not sound; and that a real modern orthodox man, like a nervous watch + dog, must sit on the door-stone of his system, and bark incessantly + at everything that comes in sight along the highway. And when there + is nothing to bark at, either he must growl and gnaw his reserved + bones, or bark at the moon to keep up the sonorousness of his voice. + And so, for fear that the sweetness of our temper may lead men to + think that we have no theologic zeal, we lift up in objurgation now + and then--as much as to say, 'Here we are, fierce and orthodox; ready + to growl when we cannot bite.' " + + 2 Thus Theodore Parker ("Experience as a Minister") speaks of a review + of his "Discourse on Religion" in a Trinitarian work, which did it + no injustice. + + 3 According to the "Chart of Religious Belief" in Johnston's Physical + Atlas, there are in the world 140,000,000 of Catholics, 70,000,000 + of Protestants, 68,000,000 of the Greek Church, and 14,000,000 of + minor creeds. _About_, in his "Question Romaine," gives the Roman + Church 139,000,000. He says, "The Roman Catholic Church, which I + sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000 of individuals, not + including the little Mortara." + + 4 Mr. Taylor shows that the Church, A.D. 300, was essentially corrupt + in doctrine and practice; that the Romish Church was rather an + improvement on it; that Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, and Athanasius are + full of false doctrine; and that a Gnostic theology, a Pagan + asceticism, and a corrupt morality prevailed in the Church in those + early centuries. + + 5 Of course we do not mean to charge our Orthodox friends with + believing in persecution. We only show that _if Orthodoxy is in the + letter_, they _ought_, consequentially, to believe in persecution. + No doubt Protestantism has put an end to persecution. When Luther + came, all believed in persecution; now, no one does. This is because + the Reformation contained a double principle: first, that we are + saved by faith, not by sacraments, and that faith is the belief of + doctrines; second, that to see them aright, we must use our own + minds, and consequently seek for truth as the paramount duty of + life. But in order to seek effectually, we must seek freely--hence + the right of private judgment as against authority in Church and + State. The last principle is that of toleration; the first is the + principle of intolerance. The last has proved the stronger, because + it rests on the logic of things, the other only on the logic of + words. + + 6 Heb. 11:1. + + 7 Jacobi--whose words have been said to let the thoughts shine through, + as wet clothes around the limbs allow the form to be seen--says that + all knowledge begins with faith. Faith is, according to Jacobi, (1) + a knowledge proceeding from immediate revelation; (2) knowledge + which does not need, and cannot have, proofs; (3) much more certain + knowledge than any derived from demonstration; (4) a perception of + the super-sensual world; (5) A well-grounded and reliable + prepossession in favor of certain truths; (6) a faith which sees, + and a sight which believes; (7) a vision, an impenetrable mystery, a + perception of the thing in itself. + + 8 See "Broken Lights," p. 207, note. + + 9 A story is told of a clock, on one of the high cathedral towers of + the older world, so constructed that at the close of a century it + strikes the years as it ordinarily strikes the hours. As a hundred + years come to a close, suddenly, in the immense mass of complicated + mechanism, a little wheel turns, a pin slides into the appointed + place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls a _requiem_ + over the generations which during a century have lived, and labored, + and been buried around it. One of these generations might live and + die, and witness nothing peculiar. The clock would have what we call + an established order of its own; but what should we say when, at the + midnight which brought the century to a close, it sounded over the + sleeping city, rousing all to listen to the world's age? Would it be + a violation of law? No; only a variation of the accustomed order, + produced by the intervention of a force always existing, but never + appearing in this way till the appointed moment had arrived. The + tolling of the century would be a variation from the observed order + of the clock; but to an artist, in constructing it, it would have + formed a part of that order. So a miracle is a variation of the + order of nature as it has appeared to us; but to the Author of + nature it was a part of that predestined order--a part of that order + of which he is at all times the immediate Author and Sustainer; + miraculous to us, seen from our human point of view, but no miracle + to God; to our circumscribed vision a violation of law, but to God + only a part in the great plan and progress of the law of the + universe.--_Ephraim Peabody._ + + 10 Trench, "Notes on the Miracles of our Lord." + + 11 We use the term "plenary inspiration" rather than "literal + inspiration," or "verbal inspiration," for "_literal inspiration_" + is a contradiction in terms, like "_bodily spirit_." + + 12 Tholuck, in his Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration, ascribes the + origin of the belief in the infallibility of Scripture to this + supposed need of an authoritative outward rule of faith among + Protestants. He says, "In proportion as controversy, sharpened by + Jesuitism, made the Protestant party sensible of the necessity of an + externally fortified ground of combat, in that same proportion did + Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the outward authoritative + character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that infallible + authority which it had lost through its rejection of inspired + councils and the infallible authority of the pope. In this manner + arose, not earlier than the seventeenth century, those sentiments + which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible production of + the Divine Spirit,--in its entire contents and its very form,--so that + not only the sense, but also the words, the letters, the Hebrew + vowel points, and the very punctuation were regarded as proceeding + from the Spirit of God."--_Tholuck's Essay--Noyes's + __"__Collection.__"_ + + 13 The doctrine of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a + distinguished Roman Catholic, is as follows:-- + + "The doctrine of the Catholic Church on original sin is extremely + simple, and may be reduced to the following propositions: Adam, by + sin, lost his original justice and holiness, drew down on himself, + by his disobedience, the displeasure and judgments of the Almighty, + incurred the penalty of death, and thus, in all his parts,--in his + body as well as soul,--became strangely deteriorated. Thus his sinful + condition is transmitted to all his posterity as descended from him, + entailing the consequence that man is, of himself, incapable--even + with the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from + without (not excepting even the one in the Old Covenant)--to act in a + manner agreeable to God, or in any other way to be justified before + him, save only by the merits of Jesus Christ." + + The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and + free will is in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that,-- + + "Original sin is ... the fault and corruption of the nature of every + man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby + man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own + nature, inclined to evil, ... and therefore in every person born + into the world it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.... + + "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot + turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works + to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good + works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by + Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with + us when we have that good will." + + The early Fathers took different views of the origin of sin. + Tertullian ascribed it to human _impatience_. "Nunc ut compendio + dictum sit, omne peccatum impatientię adscribendum." (Tertul. _De + Patien._ 5.) Origen thinks _laziness_ the cause of sin; sin is a + negation--_not_ doing right. Justin Martyr ascribes the origin of sin + to _sensuality_. Origen (after Philo) considered the story of the + fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in all men. + + 14 See, in the Appendix, an examination of Professor Shedd's article. + + 15 Ovid. Metam. 7:18. + + "Si possem, sanior essem. + Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido, + Mens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque, + Deteriora sequor." + + See, also, the story, in the Cyropędia, of Araspes and his two + souls. + + 16 See Dr. Cox's Sermon on Regeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in + "Essays and Reviews." + + 17 Luther, in his "Table-talk," says of his preaching against the pope, + and the enormous labors it entailed, "If I had known then what I now + know of the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn + me to it." "At that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, 'What + will you do? They will not endure it.' But said I, 'What if they + _must_ endure it?' " + + 18 See Raumer, "Geschichte Europas," zweiter Band. + + 19 God in Christ, by Horace Bushnell, p. 193, &c. + + 20 Heb. 2:9, 17, 18. 4:15. 5:8, 9. + + 21 No sooner was Socrates dead than he rose to be the chief figure in + Greek history. What are Miltiades, Pericles, or Alcibiades to him? + Twenty years after Joan of Arc was burned by a decree of the Roman + Catholic Church, the same Church called a council to reconsider and + reverse her sentence. Twenty years after the death of Savonarola, + Rafaelle painted his portrait among the great doctors, fathers, and + saints in the halls of the Vatican. Within a few years after John + Brown was hanged, half a million of soldiers marched through the + South chanting his name in their songs. Abraham Lincoln was killed, + and he is now the most influential figure in our history. + + 22 "Doctrinal Attitude of Old School Presbyterians." By Lyman B. + Atwater, Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Princeton + College. Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1864. + + 23 "The Old School in New England Theology." By Professor Lawrence, of + East Windsor. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1863. + + 24 "Doctrines of the New School Presbyterians." By Rev. George + Duffield, D. D., of Detroit. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863. + + 25 "Hopkinsianism." By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor + Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862. + + 26 "Doctrines of Methodism." By Rev. Dr. Whedon. Bibliotheca Sacra, + April, 1862. + + 27 "Theologische Zeitscrift." Herausgegeben von Dr. Friedr. + Schleiermacher, Dr. W. M. L. DeWette, und Dr. Friedr. Lücke. Erstes + Heft, Berlin, 1819. _Ueber die Lehre von der Erwählung._ + + 28 Rom. 11:29. "The gifts and callings of God are without repentance." + By this we understand the apostle to mean the same thing as is + implied in Ecclesiastes (3:14): "I know that what God doeth, it is + forever." God, having chosen the Jews for a work, will continue to + them the gifts, and will see that somehow or other, some time or + other, the work is done. + + 29 A person who never had an intellectual doubt concerning a future + life may be so poorly provided with an inward sense of immortality + that he may never feel quite willing to die, or confident in view of + death. Such a man was Dr. Johnson, who had not the least scepticism; + who was a dogmatic believer, and hated a heretic; who, yet, never + attained to any sort of comfort in view of death, and was always + afraid to die. So there may be another person who may have no + intellectual belief in a future life, but who will have the instinct + of immortality so strong as to be quite easy and happy in looking + forward to death. Such a person is Miss Martineau, who, in + consequence of a poor philosophy of _materialism_ which she was + taught in her childhood, and has always held, has been brought very + logically at last to disbelieve immortality, and even the existence + of God, and yet is very contented about it, and quite happy. + + 30 "Nescio, quomodo, dum lego, assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum + ipse de immortalitate animorum coepi cogitare, assensio omnis illa + illabitur." + + 31 Thus it is said, "In Christ shall all be made alive." The meaning + is, that when we live in reference to God, to immortal truth, to the + infinite law of right,--when we really love anything out of + ourselves,--we lose all fear of death. "Perfect love casts out fear;" + that is, pure love. The love of a mother for a child casts out fear. + She is not afraid of death; she will run the risk of death twenty + times over to save her child. The immortal element is aroused in + her. The soldier is roused by the general's fiery speech to a thrill + of patriotism, and thinks it sweet and beautiful to die for his + country. Love of his country has cast out his fear. This is + something more than any mere insensibility. Men can harden + themselves against danger and death; they can think of something + else. But that insensibility is merely a thick shell put round it--a + sevenfold shield perhaps; but the mortal fear lies hidden all the + same within. True life is very different. + + 32 The word here rendered ABOLISHED is elsewhere translated + "destroyed," "made void," "made of none effect," "brought to + nothing," "vanished away," "done away," "put down." The meaning is, + that all its force, importance, value, is taken out of it. + + 33 "The State of the Impenitent Dead. By Alvah Hovey, D. D." Boston, + 1859. + + 34 For {~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH DASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} before a defining clause, see John 6:29; 4:34; 1 John 3:11, + 23; 4:21; 2 John 6. + + 35 Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Berlin, 1800. + + 36 In addition to the extracts from Professor Hovey, Meyer, Lücke, and + De Wette, the following passages from F. D. Maurice ("Theological + Essays") are interesting, as showing a concurrence of testimony from + yet another quarter to the thesis of this section:-- + + "When any one ventures to say to an English audience, that eternity + is not a mere negation of time, that it denotes something real, + substantial, before all time, he is told at once that he is + departing from the simple, intelligible meaning of words; that he is + introducing novelties; that he is talking abstractions. This + language is perfectly honest in the mouths of those who use it. But + they do not know where they learned it. They did not get it from + peasants, or women, or children. They did not get it from the Bible. + They got it from Locke. And if I find that I cannot interpret the + language and thoughts of peasants, and women, and children, and that + I cannot interpret the plainest passages of the Bible, or the whole + context of it, while I look through the Locke spectacles, I must + cast them aside.... + + "Suppose, instead of taking this method of asserting the truth of + all God's words, the most blessed and the most tremendous, we reject + the wisdom of our forefathers, and enact an article declaring that + all are heretics, and deniers of the truth, who do not hold that + eternal means endless, and that there cannot be a deliverance from + eternal punishment. What is the consequence? Simply this, I believe: + the whole gospel of God is set aside. The state of eternal life and + eternal death is not one we can refer only to the future, or that we + can in any wise identify with the future. Every man who knows what + it is to have been in a state of sin, knows what it is to have been + in a state of death. He cannot connect that death with time; he must + say that Christ has brought him out of the bonds of _eternal_ death. + Throw that idea into the future and you deprive it of all its + reality, of all its power. I know what it means all too well while + you let me connect it with my present and personal being, with the + pangs of conscience which I suffer now. It becomes a mere vague + dream and shadow to me when you project it into a distant world. And + if you take from me the belief that God is always righteous, always + maintaining a fight with evil, always seeking to bring his creatures + out of it, you take everything from me--all hope now, all hope in the + world to come. Atonement, redemption, satisfaction, regeneration, + become mere words, to which there is no counterpart in reality." + + 37 In the German Bible we have the true word--"Auferstehung." + + 38 So De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T., ad + locum. + + 39 So Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX. + + 40 So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegriff) says that {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~} appears to + denote partly the startling power of the truth, and partly its power + of calling men together from all the regions of the earth. + + 41 Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming was as + Jesus, not as Christ. The human life is "the life of Jesus." + Christian history is "the life of Christ." In his earthly life he + was Prophet; in his death he was Priest; in his resurrection, or + risen state, he was King. + + 42 The book of the Revelation of John is the account of Christ's + coming; and the true interpretation of that book depends on the + proper understanding of his coming. If Christ's coming began at the + destruction of Jerusalem, and has continued in all the developments + of human history, then the key to "the Revelation" is to be found in + the progress of Christian principles and ideas in the world. + Bertholdt (Christologia Judęorum Jesu Apostolorumque ętate), note to + § 11, quotes from the Sepher Ikkarim this passage--"The future age + will come _gradually_ to men after the day of the great judgment, + which will take place after the resurrection." Resurrection and + judgment both come with Jesus, and his were "the last days." + + 43 1 Thess. 4:17. "We, who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up + together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." + Usteri (Paul. Lehrbeg.) says that "this {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} has no analogy in + any other passage of the Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament." + But Paul outgrew this literalism, and in his later Epistles speaks + of sitting already with Christ in "heavenly places." + + 44 Olshausen, an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to + Christ's predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25:-- + + "One of the most striking examples of the binding of the present and + future in one narrative, and one which presents many difficulties, + is to be found in these passages. Plain descriptions of the + impending destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state blend + with no less apparent descriptions of the coming of Christ in his + kingdom. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox interpreters are far + less natural and unforced than the others, in their treatment of + this passage. Their dogmatic views lead them to put apart from each + other elements which are blended together by Matthew and by the + other evangelists. For example, Schott says, that the description of + Christ's coming begins (Matt. 24:29) immediately after 'the + tribulation,' &c., and that all before that belongs to the + destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impossibility of + regarding the 29th verse as the beginning of something entirely new, + there are also in the passages which follow distinct references to + the present generation (verse 34), and in the first part as distinct + references to 'the last time.' We do not, therefore scruple (says + Olshausen) to accept the simple explanation which alone suits the + text, that Christ speaks of his coming as coincident with the + destruction of Jerusalem, and with the downfall of the Jewish + state." + + The most interesting question, perhaps, is as to the opinions of + Jesus _himself_ about his coming. That he forsaw the overthrow of + Jerusalem and the Temple is certain. Everything indicates that he + possessed a marvellous power of reading the future in the present, + and saw in the condition of the Jewish mind the inevitable overthrow + of their state. He also saw that through his death all men should be + brought to him, and that he should become King in the way in which + he described to Pilate his royalty, i.e., King of the truth. All who + love the truth shall, sooner or later, obey his voice. In what way, + then, did he expect to come? In the way he himself indicates the + coming of his kingdom--like leaven, working secretly in the dough; + like seed, sprouting mysteriously in the ground; like lightning, + seen everywhere at once. By these images alone could he convey to + his disciples his ideas. He longed to tell them many things more, + but they were not able; to bear them. + + 45 The difficulties (of which Olshausen and other candid Orthodox + interpreters speak) in harmonizing the different parts of Matthew's + two chapters (24 and 25) about Christ's coming and judgment, may + perhaps be relieved in some such way as this. (1.) The end of the + Mosaic age and the beginning of the Messianic age are fixed at the + destruction of Jerusalem. (2.) Christ's coming begins there, and + continues through Christian history, till all mankind are + Christians. His coming, therefore, verifies what Schiller says of + truth, that it "_nimmer ist, immer wird_." (3.) Whenever he comes, + he judges men according to the state of mind in which they are. (4.) + The three parables (virgins, talents, king on his throne) represent + the judgment of three different classes. The first class (of wise + and foolish virgins) are those who _are not yet converted_, and have + not become disciples of Christ. When he comes, those of them who + have oil in their lamps--or who receive truth into an honest heart + (Luke 8:15)--are ready to receive him, and to become Christians; + those who have no oil reject him. The second class (in the talents) + are Christians, who receive more or less of power and of good, + according to past fidelity. The third class (the "nations ") are the + heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all, but are + Christians outside of Christianity. + + 46 The latest illustration of Orthodox ideas on this subject we have + met with is contained in a little tract which has fallen in our way, + containing "extracts from a sermon addressed to the students in the + United Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Rev. + William Davidson." It begins in this somewhat enigmatical way:-- + + "It is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one--for even a youth or + a heathen--to be _lost_." + + Why this limiting particle "even" is introduced is not explained. It + seems to be implied either that a youth and a heathen have not as + much to lose as others, or else that we are not bound to feel so + much for their loss as for that of others. After a little poetry + (which we omit, as it is altogether too stern a matter for any + sentimental ornament), Mr. Davidson proceeds:-- + + "Nor is this all to those who suffer _least_. It is not only the + loss of all, and a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are + _horrible objects_, filling every sense and every faculty; and there + are _horrible engines and instruments of torture_. There are the + 'chains of darkness,' thick, heavy, hard, and smothering as the + gloom of blank and black despair--chains strong as the cords of + omnipotence, hot as the crisping flames of vengeance, indestructible + and eternal as justice. With chains like these, every iron link + burning into the throbbing heart, is bound each doomed, damned soul, + on a bed of burning marl, under an iron roof, riven with tempests, + and dripping with torrents of unquenchable fire." + + The object of the preacher being to make as terrific a picture as + possible, he accumulates these material images of bodily torment in + order to excite the imagination to the utmost. We can conceive of + his writing these sentences carefully in his comfortable study, in + an easy chair, by the side of a cheerful fire, with a smile of + self-complacency, as he selects each striking expression. Then he + proceeds:-- + + "Nor is this all. Unmortified appetites, hungry as death, insatiable + as the grave, torture it. Every passion burning, an unsealed volcano + in the heart. Every base lust a tiger unchained--a worm undying, let + loose to prey on soul and body. Pride, vanity, envy, shame, + treachery, deceit, falsehood, fell revenge, and black despair, + malice, and every unholy emotion, are so many springs of + excruciating and ever-increasing agonies, are so many hot and + stifling winds, tossing the swooning, sweltering soul on waves of + fire. And there will be deadly hunger, but no food; parching thirst, + but no water; eternal fatigue, but no rest; eternal lust of sensuous + and intellectual pleasures, but no gratification. And there will be + _terrible companions_, or rather _foes_, there. Eternal longings + after society, but no companion, no love, and no sympathy there. + Every one utterly selfish, hateful, and hating. Every one cunning, + false, malignant, fierce, fell, and devilish. All commingle in the + confusion and the carnage of one wide-spread, pitiless, truceless, + desperate strife. And there will be terrible sights and sounds + there. Fathers and sons, pastors and people, husbands and wives, + brothers and sisters, with swollen veins and bloodshot eyes, + straining towards each other's throats and hearts, reprobate men, + and devils in form and features, hideous to as great a degree as are + the beauties of the blest in heaven beautiful. And there are groans + and curses, and everlasting wailings, as harsh and horrible as + heaven's songs, shouts, and anthems are sweet, joyous, and + enrapturing. And there will be terrible displays of the divine power + and skill, and infinitely awful displays of merciless and omnipotent + justice, in the punishment of that rebel crew, that generation of + moral vipers full grown, that congregation of moral monsters." + + All this, however, is not enough. It is necessary to go further, and + represent God in the character of the devil, in order to complete + the picture. + + "Upon such an assembly, God, who is of purer eyes than to behold + iniquity, cannot look but with utter detestation. His wrath shall + come up in his face. His face shall be red in his anger. He will + whet his glittering sword, and his hand shall take hold on + vengeance; and he shall recompense. He shall launch forth his + lightnings, and shoot abroad his arrows. He shall unseal all his + fountains, and pour out his tumbling cataracts of vengeance. He + shall build his batteries aloft, and thunder upon them from the + heavens. His eye shall not pity them, nor shall his soul spare for + their crying. The day of vengeance is in his heart, and it is what + he has his heart set on. He will delight in it. He will show his + wrath, and _make his power known_. That infinite power has never + been fully made known yet; but it will be then. It is but a little + that we see of it in creation and providence; but we shall see it, + fully revealed, in the destruction of that rebel crew. He will tread + them in his anger, and trample them in his fury, and will stain his + raiment with their blood. The cup of the wine of his fierce wrath + shall contain no mixture of mercy at all. And they will not be able + to resist that wrath, nor will they be able to endure it; but they + shall, in soul and body, sink wholly down into the _second death_. + The iron heel of omnipotent and triumphing justice, pitiless and + rejoicing, shall tread them down, and crush them lower still, and + lower ever, in that burning pit which knows no bottom. All this, and + more and worse, do the Scriptures declare; and that preacher who + hesitates to proclaim it has forsworn his soul, and is a traitor to + his trust." + + Now, it is simple truth to say that the blasphemer and profane + swearer who spends fifty years in cursing God and Christ is not so + blasphemous as the man who writes such sentences as these about the + Almighty, and utters them to young men as a preparation for their + work in the ministry. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah shall rise up + in the day of judgment against those who speak thus of God, and + shall condemn them. The Pagans, who represent their gods as horrid + idols, pleased with blood and slaughter, have an excuse, which Mr. + Davidson has not, for they do not have the gospel of the Lord Jesus + in their hands. Thus he continues:-- + + "And _all this shall be forever_. It shall never, never end. (Matt. + ch. 25.) The wicked go away into everlasting torments. This is a + bitter ingredient in their cup of wormwood, a more terrible thing in + their terrible doom. If after enduring it all for twice ten thousand + times ten thousand years, they might have a deliverance, or at least + some abatement, it were less terrible. But this may never, never be. + Their estate is remediless. There is a great gulf fixed, and they + cannot pass from thence. Or, if after suffering all this as many + years as there are aqueous particles in air and ocean, they might + then be delivered, or if, after repeating that amazing period as + many times as there are sand-grains in the globe, they might then be + delivered, there would be _some_ hope. Or, if you multiply this + latter sum--too infinite to be expressed by figures, and too + limitless to be comprehended by angels--by the number of atoms that + compose the universe, and there might be deliverance when they had + passed those amazing, abysmal gulfs of duration, then there would be + _some_ hope. But no! when all is suffered and all is past, still all + beyond is eternity." + + 47 To show how some _Roman Catholics_ write in the middle of the + nineteenth century, we quote the following from a Roman Catholic + book, published in England, by Rev. J. Furniss, being especially "a + book for children." Wishing to spare our readers such horrors, we + put it here, advising no one of weak nerves to read its atrocious + descriptions. + + "The fourth dungeon is 'the boiling kettle.' Listen: there is a + sound like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is + boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling + in the scalded veins of that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling + in his head; the marrow is boiling in his bones. The fifth dungeon + is the 'red-hot oven,' in which is a _little child_. Hear how it + screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the + fire; it beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its + little feet on the floor of the oven. To this child God was very + good. Very likely God saw that this child would get worse and worse, + and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished _much + more_ in hell. _So God in his mercy called it out of the world in + its early childhood._" + + 48 We take the following from the "Monthly Religious Magazine:"-- + + "The 'Country Parson,' in his late work, the 'Autumn Holidays,' + contends that the fear of future punishment in another world has + little influence in deterring from crime. He ought to have added, + that the reason may be, that there is so little belief in any + spiritual world whatever, among men of grosser sensuality; and that + future punishment, as it is preached in the old theology, is so + arbitrary as to seem unreal, and is losing its power over all + thinking minds. The following case is cited from the experience of a + Scotch minister. No ministers, let it be remembered, preach the + literal flames of a local hell in tones more awful than they. + + "His parishioners were sadly addicted to drinking to excess. Men and + women were given alike to this degrading vice. He did all he could + to repress it, but in vain. For many years he warned the drunkards, + in the most solemn manner, of the doom they might expect in another + world; but, so far as he knew, not a pot of ale or glass of spirits + the less was drunk in the parish in consequence of his + denunciations. Future woe melted into mist in the presence of a + replenished jug or a market-day. A happy thought struck the + clergyman. In the neighboring town, there was a clever medical man, + a vehement teetotaler; him he summoned to his aid. The doctor came, + and delivered a lecture on the _physical_ consequences of + drunkenness, illustrating his lecture with large diagrams, which + gave shocking representations of the stomach, lungs, heart, and + other vital organs as affected by alcohol. These things came home to + the drunkards, who had not cared a rush for final perdition. The + effect produced was tremendous. Almost all the men and women of the + parish took the total abstinence pledge; and since that day + drunkenness has nearly ceased in that parish. Nor was the + improvement evanescent; it has lasted two or three years." + + 49 So Erigena (quoted by Strauss), _De Divis Nat._ "Vera ratio docet, + nullum contrarium divinę bonitati vitęque ac beatitudini posse esse + coeternum; divina siquidem bonitas consumet malitiam, ęterna vita + absorbet mortem, beatitudo miseriam." + + 50 The name given to them by Augustine ("Civ. Dei," lib. 21, c. 17): + "Denique hujus sententię Patronos S. Augustinus appellat titulo non + incongruo, 'Doctores Misericordes' tractatque non inhumaniter." + Thomas Burnet, "De Statu Mortuum et Resurgentium." Chap. XI. + + 51 See Bretschneider, "Dogmatik," and Strauss, "Christliche + Glaubenslehre." + + 52 "Nos et angelos futuros dęmones si egerimus negligenter; et rursum + dęmones, si voluerint capere virtutes, pervenire ad angelicam + dignitatem." Origen, quoted by Jerome. + + 53 "Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile aliquid est + factori suo." + + 54 "Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes + intelligen dum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus sęculis, cum + sensim per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta, + pręcurrentibus aliis, aliis insequentibus." See these quotations in + Strauss, Hase, &c. + + 55 Matt. 25:46. The Greek word translated in the English as + "everlasting" punishment in the beginning of the verse, and as life + "eternal" at the end, is the same word ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}) in both places, and + should be translated "eternal" in both. + +_ 56 Remorse_--from _mordeo_, to gnaw. So St. Thomas (Summa, Pars III. 2, + 97): "Vermis non debet esse intelligi corporalis sed spiritualis, + qui est con scientię remorsus." + + 57 "Pauci res ipsas, sed rerum imagines, tanquam in speculo, intuentur: + at res ipsas, facie ad faciem, ut dicitur, et ablato velo, visuri + sumus tandem si Deo placuerit, partim sub occasu hujusee mundi, + plenius autem in futuro."--_Thomas Burnet_, De Statu Mortuorum et + Resurgentium Tractatus. Londini. Typis et impensis J. Hooke, in vico + vulgņ dicto _Fleet Street_, 1737.--No one has spoken more powerfully + and eloquently than he against everlasting punishment, particularly + in the passage beginning "Nobis difficile est omnem exuere + humanitatem." p. 309. + + 58 Is it not remarkable (as showing how little the New Testament has as + yet been really studied) that there should be so many discussions as + to the future doom of _the heathen_, when Jesus himself here + distinctly tells us what it will be. The word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~} is the only word + in the New Testament which is ever translated _heathen_: wherever + the word _heathen_ occurs in our Bible, it is always this. Jesus + teaches that the heathen (inside and outside of Christendom) will be + judged _according to their humanity_, their obedience to the law + written in their hearts; and he shows that this is coincident with + the law of Christianity. So, when the Church of England says (in its + 18th article) that "they also are to be had accursed that presume to + say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professeth, + so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and + the light of nature;" it denounces this curse on Christ himself, and + thus proves conclusively that it is not speaking by the Spirit of + God, since "no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus + accursed." (1 Cor. 12:3) This comes of the habit (happily less + common now than formerly) of throwing about curses at random, + against those who differ from our opinions. Some of them may thus, + accidentally, hit the Master himself. It is, perhaps, of less + consequence that this anathema also touches the apostle Paul, who + declares that the heathen who have not the law are a law to + themselves when they do right, and are absolved by their conscience. + (Rom. 2:14.) + + 59 Origen, Homil. in Levit. 7:2. "Salvator meus luget etiam nunc + peccata mea; Salvator meus lętari non potest, donec ego in + iniquitate permaneo. Non vult solus in regno Dei bibere vinum + lętitię--nos expectat." + + 60 Guericke, Christ. Symbolik, § 70. + + 61 "Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis ut est + coetus populi Romani, vel regnum Gallię, aut respublica Venetorum." + Bellarmin. Eccles. Milit. c. 2. + + 62 Moehler, Symbolism, § 36. + + 63 "Bonos et malos ad ecclesiam pertinere Catholica fides vere et + constante affirmat." Cat. Rom. + + 64 The chief passage in proof of this, as is well known, is Matt. + 16:18, 19 "Thou art Peter," &c. But even Augustine, the great light + of the Latin Church, says that "Peter was not the Rock, but Christ + was the Rock." (Neander, vol. ii. p. 168.) The same power was given + to the other apostles. Matt. 18:18. John 20:23. Rev. 21:14. + + 65 Le Protestantisme Libéral par le Pasteur Bost. Paris, Bailličre, + 1865. + + 66 "Il est de fait que le Catholicisme, qui est essentiellement un + principe d'authorité, ne sait pas dire oł reside cette authorité." + + 67 "Thirty-nine Articles, art. xix." So Augs. Conf. art. 7: + "Congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte + administrantur sacramenta." But it may be asked, Who is to decide on + the "_recte_"? + + 68 In the remarkable work "Ecce Homo". + + 69 Tholuck, in his charming work on the Sermon on the Mount, speaks + thus ("_Bergpredigt Christ. von A. Tholuck._") "Two principal + defects are found in the usual treatment of this doctrine: first, + the different aspects and relations of the kingdom of God are by + many considered as different _meanings_ of the word, and are left + standing side by side, without any attempt to ground their unity in + some fundamental idea. Or, secondly, and still worse, a single + aspect of the term is taken up, and the rest are wholly neglected. + Examples of the first defect are to be found in Zwingle, in his note + to John 3:3. (Here the kingdom of God is considered as divine + doctrine and preaching of the gospel, as in Luke 18; sometimes it is + taken for eternal life, Matt. 25; Luke 14; sometimes for the church + and congregation of the faithful, as Matt. 13:24.) The later + lexicographers, as Schleusner and Bretschneider, have not avoided + these vague statements; and the last of them is particularly + defective in his article on this phrase. Trahl more correctly sums + up all these significations of the word thus: 'Happiness, present + and future, obtained through Christ.' But in this definition the + notion of 'a kingdom' is omitted. The opposite defect of taking only + one of the meanings of the matter, to the neglect of the rest, is to + be found, for example, in Koppe and Keil, according to whom the + expression relates merely to the future reign of the Messiah one day + to be established. + + "Our own explanation of this expression starts from the phrase + 'kingdom of God,' which explains the others, 'kingdom of heaven' and + 'kingdom of Christ.' We think that the fundamental idea has been + grasped by none more correctly than by Origen among the ancients, + and by Calvin among the reformers. The phase of the idea principally + dwelt upon by the Church Fathers may be seen in their explanation of + the third petition of the Lord's Prayer, which Augustine especially + examines profoundly. Most of them understand by it the realm of + glory, the future revelation of Christ. Origen alone, in his book on + Prayer, taken a more exact view of the subject. In like manner + Calvin, in his Commentary on the Harmony. So Luther, in his fine + Sermon on the Kingdom of God. Our own fundamental view we express + thus: 'A community in which God reigns, not by force, but by being + obeyed freely from love, and which is therefore necessarily united + in itself by mutual love.' The Saviour came upon the earth to found + such a community, and since it can only be completely established + after he has conquered all his enemies, this kingdom of Christ + belongs in its perfection to the other world." + + 70 An eminent and learned gentleman told me of this conversation which + he had with a Roman priest: "When the wine of the Eucharist is + consecrated, it becomes the real blood of Christ--does it not?" + Priest, "It does." "What, then, do you do with that which remains in + the cup, after communion?" Priest, "We drink it." "Does not some + adhere to the glass?" Priest, "Yes; but we wash the glass." "What do + you do with the water?" Priest, "We drink it." "But must there not + yet remain, on the napkin, with which you wipe the glass, some + portion of the blood of Christ, even though it be an infinitesimal + portion?" Priest, "Yes." "Then, might it not happen that when the + napkin is washed, this portion of Christ's blood may go into the + water, and be poured on the ground, and be taken up by the root of a + plant--say a cabbage. Would, then, the flesh of that cabbage contain, + or would it not a portion of the blood of Christ?" + + 71 See, in the New York "Independent," June 9, 1866, the account of the + "Recognition of Congregational Churches in Philadelphia," where the + existence of this principle is admitted and defended by some eminent + Congregational ministers; admitted and deplored by others. + + 72 Twesten, "Vorlesungen," &c., vol ii., p. 216. He adds to this + definition its Latin form, in which the words "certain + characteristics" stand "certis characteribus hypostaticis." + + 73 Quoted by Schleiermacher, "Glaubenslehre," § 170. + + 74 See the full discussions of these terms in Twesten (as above), Hase, + "Christl. Glaubenslehre," § 56. Strauss, "Christl. Glaubenslehre," + vol. i. Hase, "Dogmatik," &c. + + 75 Dogmatik, § 239. + + 76 Augustine (de Trinit.), says, "One life in man, but three + faculties--memory, intelligence, will." But how if this is bad + psychology? + + 77 Erigena, "The Father in the soul, the Son in the reason, the Spirit + in the sense--this makes the most luminous illustration." + + 78 Abelard (quoted by Strauss). + + 79 Richard St. Victor (quoted by Hase), "There can be no possible + communion of affection between a less number than three persons." So + Augustine, "Cum aliquid amo, tria sunt--_ego_, et _quod_ amo, et ipse + _amor_." Such illustrations are hardly satisfactory at the present + day. Poiret says the Father is "_Deus a se_," the Son is "_Deus ex + se_," the Holy Spirit "_Deus ad se refluens_." Angelus Silecius + makes the Trinity a divine kiss. "God kisses himself--the Father + kisses, the Son is kissed, the Spirit is the kiss." + + 80 Translated from the Latin in Hagenbach (Compend of the History of + Doctrines, vol. i. p. 289). We agree with Strauss, who says, + "Fürwahr, wer das _Symbolum Quidcunque_ beschworen hatte, der hatte + die Gesetze des menschlichen Denkens abgeschworen." So the Pastor + Bost (Le Protestantisme Liberal), after giving the Creed, in a + somewhat different form, adds, "ubi insana faciunt, mysterium + appellant." + + 81 "Incomprehensible," Church of England Liturgy. + + 82 Or "each person by himself." The word in the Latin is "sigillatim," + a word not in most of the dictionaries, but in some of them made + equivalent to "singulatim." + + 83 Tertullian said, we can call Christ "God" when we speak of him + alone; but if we mention him with the Father, then we must call the + Father "God," and call Christ only "Lord." "For a ray of light + shining into a room, we may call the sun shining there; but if we + speak of the sun at the same time, then we must distinguish the ray, + and call it not sun, but sunbeam." + + 84 The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to Sabellianism. The + term {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} (_of the same essence_) was a Sabellian term. + Sabellianism could, in fact, stand most of the tests of modern + Orthodoxy, since it maintains _three persons and one essence_, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}; and Schleiermacher, in one of his most + elaborate treatises (Ueber den Gegensatz zwischen der + Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen Vorstellung von der + Trinitat. Theolog. Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1822), has sought to + rehabilitate Sabellianism. Moses Stuart translated this treatise, + and plainly advocated a similar view. Hase (Kirchengeschichte, § 91) + defines the view of Sabellius as making "Father, Son, and Spirit the + different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity unfolding itself + in the world history as the Triad." Perhaps (see Baur) the chief + peculiarity of Sabellius is in making the Triad begin and end with + the process of revelation. The Monad is God in himself: the Triad is + God in the process of self-revelation (Baur, "Christliche Lehre von + der Dreieinigkeit," and "Lehrbuch der Christlichen + Dogmengeschichte"). + + 85 "Dictum est tamen tres personę, non ut illud diceretur, sed ut ne + taceretur." Aug. de. Trin., quoted by Hase, Dog. § 238. + + 86 John of Damascus (quoted by Twesten) made his boast of Christianity, + that it united what was true in Polytheism with what was true in + Judaism. "From the Jews," he says, "we have the oneness of nature, + from the Greeks the distinction in hypostases." + + 87 The substance of what follows in this section, appeared in the + "Christian Examiner." + + 88 The _nature_ by which the heathen "do the things contained in the + law," i.e., obey God, which is here (Rom. 2:15) called "the law + written in the heart," is in Rom. 7:23 called the "law of the mind." + Olshausen (a sufficiently Orthodox commentator), says, "It is wholly + false to understand {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~} of a mere ideal _possibility_; the + apostle speaks evidently of a real and actual obedience. Paul infers + that, because there are actually pious heathen, they must have a law + which they obey." _Ad locum._ + + 89 We have no room to enter into an examination of this question at + this time, and can only give a general statement on this subject + from one of the authorities which happens to be at hand:-- + + "_All_ the Fathers" (before Augustine, fourth and fifth century) + "differed from Augustine in attributing freedom of will to man in + his present state. Thus Justin: 'Every created being is so + constituted as to be capable of vice or virtue.' Cyril of Jerusalem: + 'Know that thou hast a soul possessed of free will; for thou dost + not sin by birth ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}), nor by fortune, but we sin by free + choice.' _All_ the Latin Fathers also maintained that free will was + not lost after the fall. The Fathers also denied in part, that man + is born infected with Adam's sin. Thus Athenagoras says in his + Apology, 'Man is in a good state, not only in respect to his + Creator, but also in respect to his natural generation.' "--Wiggers, + _Augustinism and Pelagianism_. Translated by Rev. Ralph Emerson, + Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. + + 90 "Abi ad Jordonum, et Trinitatem disce," was on early notion. + + 91 Dr. Horace Bushnell, a favorite authority with Dr. Huntington, whom + Dr. Huntington quotes largely, and whose views he earnestly + recommends, gives us his testimony to this point, thus ("God in + Christ," pp. 130, 131):-- + + "A very large portion of Christian teachers, together with the + general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three real living + persons in the interior nature of God; that is, three + consciousnesses, wills, hearts, understandings." + + "_A very large portion of Christian teachers_" hold, then, to a + belief in three Gods; and with them is joined "_the general mass of + the disciples_." The only Unity held by these teachers is, he goes + on to say, "a social Unity." Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are, in + their view, socially united only, and preside in that way, as a kind + of celestial Tritheocracy, over the world. This heresy, he says, + "because of its clear opposition to Unitarianism, is counted safe, + and never treated as a heresy." That is, the Christian Church allows + the belief in _three Gods_, and will not discipline those who hold + that opinion; but, if you believe strictly and only in _one God_, + you cannot be saved! + + 92 Dr. Bushnell goes on to say (p. 133), "While the Unity is thus + confused and lost in the threeness, perhaps I should admit that the + threeness sometimes appears to be clouded or obscured by the Unity. + Thus it is sometimes protested, that in the word, 'person' nothing + is meant beyond a threefold distinction; though it will always be + observed, that nothing is really meant by the protestation; that the + protester goes on to speak and to reason of the three, not as being + only somewhats or distinctions, but as metaphysical and real + persons.... Indeed, it is a somewhat curious fact in theology, that + the class of teachers who protest over the word 'person,' declaring + that they mean only a _threefold distinction_, cannot show that + there is really a hair's breadth of difference between their + doctrine and the doctrine asserted by many of the later Unitarians." + + 93 "It has often been asserted _and admitted_," says Tweaten, one of + the strongest of modern Trinitarians, "that even the principal + notions about which the Church doctrine turns are foreign to the New + Testament; as {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} and {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}."(Twesten: Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 281.) + + 94 "Who will venture to say that any of the definitions heretofore + given of personality in the Godhead, in Itself considered,--such + definitions as have their basis in the Nicene or Athanasian + Creed,--are intelligible and satisfactory to the mind? At least, I + can truly say, that I have not been able to find them, if they do in + fact exist; nor, so far as I know, has any one been able, by any + commentary on them, to make them clear and satisfactory." (Prof. + Stuart, Biblical Repository, April, 1835. See Wilson, Trin. Test., + p. 272.) + + 95 See the creed in Hagenbach (History of Doct., vol. i. p. 208): "{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} + {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}." + + 96 Thus speaks Dr. Bushnell on this head ("God in Christ," p. 139):-- + + "Besides, it is another source of mental confusion, connected with + this view of three metaphysical persons, that, though they are all + declared to be infinite and equal, they really are not so. The + proper deity of Christ is not held in this view. He is begotten, + sent, supported, directed, by the Father, in such a sense as really + annihilates his deity. This has been shown in a truly searching and + convincing manner by Schleiermacher, in his historical essay on the + Trinity; and, indeed, you will see at it at a glance, that this view + of a metaphysical Trinity of persons breaks down in the very point + which is commonly regarded as its excellence--its assertion of the + proper deity of Christ." + + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS*** + + + +CREDITS + + +June 6, 2009 + + Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1 + Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, David King, and the + Online Distributed Proofreading Team at + <http://www.pgdp.net/>. (This file was made using scans of + public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital + Libraries.) + + + +A WORD FROM PROJECT GUTENBERG + + +This file should be named 29054-8.txt or 29054-8.zip. + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/0/5/29054/ + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one -- the old editions will be +renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one +owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and +you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission +and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the +General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and +distributing Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works to protect the Project +Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered +trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you +receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of +this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away +-- you may do practically _anything_ with public domain eBooks. +Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE + + +_Please read this before you distribute or use this work._ + +To protect the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or +any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), +you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. + + +General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works + + +1.A. + + +By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic work, +you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the +terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) +agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this +agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee +for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic work +and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may +obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set +forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + + +1.B. + + +"Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or +associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be +bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can +do with most Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works even without complying +with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are +a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works if you +follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + + +1.C. + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or +PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual +work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in +the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, +distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on +the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of +course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} mission of +promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project +Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for +keeping the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} name associated with the work. You can +easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License when you +share it without charge with others. + + +1.D. + + +The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you +can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant +state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of +your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before +downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating +derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} work. +The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of +any work in any country outside the United States. + + +1.E. + + +Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + + +1.E.1. + + +The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access +to, the full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License must appear prominently whenever +any copy of a Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} work (any work on which the phrase +"Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" +is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or +distributed: + + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with + almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away + or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License + included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org + + +1.E.2. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic work is derived from the +public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with +permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and +distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or +charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you +must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 +or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.3. + + +If an individual Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic work is posted with the +permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply +with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed +by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project +Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License for all works posted with the permission of the +copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + + +1.E.4. + + +Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License +terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any +other work associated with Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~}. + + +1.E.5. + + +Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic +work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying +the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate +access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License. + + +1.E.6. + + +You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, +marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word +processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted +on the official Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} web site (http://www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. +Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License as +specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + + +1.E.7. + + +Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, +copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} works unless you comply +with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + + +1.E.8. + + +You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or +distributing Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works provided that + + - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} works calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to + the owner of the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} trademark, but he has agreed to + donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 + days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally + required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments + should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, + "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary + Archive Foundation." + + You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} License. + You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the + works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and + all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} works. + + You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + + You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} works. + + +1.E.9. + + +If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic +work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this +agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in +Section 3 below. + + +1.F. + + +1.F.1. + + +Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to +identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain +works in creating the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} collection. Despite these +efforts, Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works, and the medium on which they +may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, +incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright +or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk +or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot +be read by your equipment. + + +1.F.2. + + +LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -- Except for the "Right of +Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for +damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE +NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH +OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE +FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT +WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, +PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY +OF SUCH DAMAGE. + + +1.F.3. + + +LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND -- If you discover a defect in this +electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund +of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to +the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a +physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. +The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect +to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the +work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose +to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in +lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a +refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. + + +1.F.4. + + +Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in +paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + + +1.F.5. + + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the +exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or +limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state +applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make +the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state +law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement +shall not void the remaining provisions. + + +1.F.6. + + +INDEMNITY -- You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark +owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and +any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution +of Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs +and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from +any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of +this or any Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} work, and (c) any Defect +you cause. + + +Section 2. + + + Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} + + +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic +works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including +obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the +efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks +of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance +they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~}'s goals and ensuring +that the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} collection will remain freely available for +generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} and future generations. To learn more about the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations +can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at +http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. + + + Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of +Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. +The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. +Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. Contributions to the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full +extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. +S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North +1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information +can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at +http://www.pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. + + + Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive + Foundation + + +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread +public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the +number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment +including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are +particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. +Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable +effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these +requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not +received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or +determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have +not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against +accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us +with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any +statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the +United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods +and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including +checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please +visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. + + + General Information About Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} electronic works. + + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with +anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} +eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~} eBooks are often created from several printed editions, +all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright +notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance +with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's eBook +number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, compressed +(zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected _editions_ of our eBooks replace the old file and take over the +old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +_Versions_ based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + + http://www.gutenberg.org + + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg{~TRADE MARK SIGN~}, including how +to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, +how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email +newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + + + + + +***FINIS*** +
\ No newline at end of file |