diff options
Diffstat (limited to '29054-h/29054-h.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | 29054-h/29054-h.html | 25436 |
1 files changed, 25436 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29054-h/29054-h.html b/29054-h/29054-h.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ba2cff4 --- /dev/null +++ b/29054-h/29054-h.html @@ -0,0 +1,25436 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /><link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" /><meta name="DC.Creator" content="James Freeman Clarke" /><meta name="DC.Title" content="Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors" /><meta name="DC.Date" content="June 6, 2009" /><meta name="DC.Language" content="English" /><meta name="DC.Publisher" content="Project Gutenberg" /><meta name="DC.Identifier" content="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/29054" /><meta name="DC.Rights" content="This text is in the public domain." /><title>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors by James Freeman Clarke</title><style type="text/css">/* +The Gnutenberg Press - default CSS2 stylesheet + +Any generated element will have a class "tei" and a class "tei-elem" +where elem is the element name in TEI. +The order of statements is important !!! +*/ + +.tei { margin: 0; padding: 0; + font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal } + +.block { display: block; } +.inline { display: inline; } +.floatleft { float: left; margin: 1em 2em 1em 0; } +.floatright { float: right; margin: 1em 0 1em 2em; } +.shaded { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; + padding: 1em; background-color: #eee; } +.boxed { margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; + padding: 1em; border: 1px solid black; } + +body.tei { margin: 4ex 10%; text-align: justify } +div.tei { margin: 2em 0em } +p.tei { margin: 0em 0em 1em 0em; text-indent: 0em; } +blockquote.tei { margin: 2em 4em } + +div.tei-lg { margin: 1em 0em; } +div.tei-l { margin: 0em; text-align: left; } +div.tei-tb { text-align: center; } +div.tei-epigraph { margin: 0em 0em 1em 10em; } +div.tei-dateline { margin: 1ex 0em; text-align: right } +div.tei-salute { margin: 1ex 0em; } +div.tei-signed { margin: 1ex 0em; text-align: right } +div.tei-byline { margin: 1ex 0em; } + + /* calculate from size of body = 80% */ +div.tei-marginnote { margin: 0em 0em 0em -12%; width: 11%; float: left; } + +div.tei-sp { margin: 1em 0em 1em 2em } +div.tei-speaker { margin: 0em 0em 1em -2em; + font-weight: bold; text-indent: 0em } +div.tei-stage { margin: 1em 0em; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic } +span.tei-stage { font-weight: normal; font-style: italic } + +div.tei-eg { padding: 1em; + color: black; background-color: #eee } + +hr.doublepage { margin: 4em 0em; height: 5px; } +hr.page { margin: 4em 0em; height: 2px; } + +ul.tei-index { list-style-type: none } + +dl.tei { margin: 1em 0em } + +dt.tei-notelabel { font-weight: normal; text-align: right; + float: left; width: 3em } +dd.tei-notetext { margin: 0em 0em 1ex 4em } + +span.tei-pb { position: absolute; left: 1%; width: 8%; + font-style: normal; } + +span.code { font-family: monospace; font-size: 110%; } + +ul.tei-castlist { margin: 0em; list-style-type: none } +li.tei-castitem { margin: 0em; } +table.tei-castgroup { margin: 0em; } +ul.tei-castgroup { margin: 0em; list-style-type: none; + padding-right: 2em; border-right: solid black 2px; } +caption.tei-castgroup-head { caption-side: right; width: 50%; text-align: left; + vertical-align: middle; padding-left: 2em; } +*.tei-roledesc { font-style: italic } +*.tei-set { font-style: italic } + +table.rules { border-collapse: collapse; } +table.rules caption, +table.rules th, +table.rules td { border: 1px solid black; } + +table.tei { border-collapse: collapse; } +table.tei-list { width: 100% } + +th.tei-head-table { padding: 0.5ex 1em } + +th.tei-cell { padding: 0em 1em } +td.tei-cell { padding: 0em 1em } + +td.tei-item { padding: 0; font-weight: normal; + vertical-align: top; text-align: left; } +th.tei-label, +td.tei-label { width: 3em; padding: 0; font-weight: normal; + vertical-align: top; text-align: right; } + +th.tei-label-gloss, +td.tei-label-gloss { text-align: left } + +td.tei-item-gloss, +th.tei-headItem-gloss { padding-left: 4em; } + +img.tei-formula { vertical-align: middle; } + +</style></head><body class="tei"> + + + + + + + + +<div lang="en" class="tei tei-text" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em" xml:lang="en"> + <div class="tei tei-front" style="margin-bottom: 6.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"> + <div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + <div id="pgheader" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em">The Project Gutenberg EBook of Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors by James Freeman Clarke</p></div><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <a href="#pglicense" class="tei tei-ref">included with this + eBook</a> or online at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/license" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/license</a></p></div><pre class="pre tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em">Title: Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors + +Author: James Freeman Clarke + +Release Date: June 6, 2009 [Ebook #29054] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS*** +</pre></div> + </div> + <div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + + </div> + + <hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Orthodoxy:</span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Its Truths And Errors</span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">By</span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">James Freeman Clarke</span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: center">“Soleo enim in allena castra transire, non tanquam +transfuga, sed tanquam explorator.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Seneca</span></span>, +<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-style: italic">Epistolæ</span></span>, 2.</p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: center">“Fiat lux. Cupio refelli, ubi aberrarim; nihil +majus, nihil aliud quam veritatem efflagito.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Thomas +Burnet</span></span>, <span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-style: italic">Arch. Phil.</span></span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Fourteenth Edition.</span></p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">Boston:</p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">American Unitarian Association.</p> + <p class="tei tei-p" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">1880.</p> + </div> + <hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + <h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Contents</span></h1> + <ul class="tei tei-index tei-index-toc"><li><a href="#toc1">Preface.</a></li><li><a href="#toc3">Chapter I. Introduction.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc5">§ 1. Object and Character of this Book.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc7">§ 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc9">§ 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc11">§ 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc13">§ 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc15">§ 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc17">§ 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc19">§ 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc21">§ 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great +Doctrinal Systems.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc23">§ 10. Importance of this Distinction.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc25">§ 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England.</a></li><li><a href="#toc27">Chapter II. The Principle And Idea Of Orthodoxy Stated And +Examined.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc29">§ 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc31">§ 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc33">§ 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc35">§ 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc37">§ 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads +to Rome.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc39">§ 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc41">§ 7. The three Tendencies in the Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc43">§ 8. The Party of Works.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc45">§ 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc47">§ 10. The Faith Party in Religion.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc49">§ 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc51">§ 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc53">§ 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion.</a></li><li><a href="#toc55">Chapter III. The Orthodox Idea Of Natural And Revealed Religion; +Or, Naturalism And Supernaturalism.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc57">§ 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc59">§ 2. The Creation Supernatural.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc61">§ 3. The Question stated.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc63">§ 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic +Creations.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc65">§ 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc67">§ 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of +Law.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc69">§ 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc71">§ 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc73">§ 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc75">§ 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism—Gulf +between Christianity and all other Religions.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc77">§ 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural +by being made hostile to the Nature of Man.</a></li><li><a href="#toc79">Chapter IV. Truths And Errors As Regards Miracles.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc81">§ 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc83">§ 2. The Definition of a Miracle.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc85">§ 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc87">§ 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc89">§ 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc91">§ 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as +Historic Facts.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc93">§ 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc95">§ 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc97">§ 9. Final Result of this Examination.</a></li><li><a href="#toc99">Chapter V. Orthodox Idea Of The Inspiration And Authority Of +The Bible.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc101">§ 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the +Bible.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc103">§ 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of +Mankind.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc105">§ 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc107">§ 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc109">§ 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc111">§ 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New +Testament Scriptures.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc113">§ 7. Authority of the Scriptures.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc115">§ 8. The Christian Prepossession.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc117">§ 9. Conclusion.</a></li><li><a href="#toc119">Chapter VI. Orthodox Idea Of Sin, As Depravity And As Guilt.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc121">§ 1. The Question stated.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc123">§ 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, +Natural Depravity, Total Depravity, Inability.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc125">§ 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased +or otherwise.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc127">§ 4. Sin as Disease.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc129">§ 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. +Their Truth and Error.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc131">§ 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc133">§ 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc135">§ 8. Proof Texts.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc137">§ 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc139">§ 10. Ability and Inability.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc141">§ 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc143">§ 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning +Human Sinfulness.</a></li><li><a href="#toc145">Chapter VII. Conversion And Regeneration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc147">§ 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man +can be found.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc149">§ 2. Crisis and Development.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc151">§ 3. Nature of the Change.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc153">§ 4. Its Reality and Importance.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc155">§ 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox +Difficulty.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc157">§ 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc159">§ 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not +two.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc161">§ 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc163">§ 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc165">§ 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.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc167">§ 11. Regeneration is God's Work in the Soul. Examination +of the Classical Passage, or conversation of Jesus with +Nicodemus.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc169">§ 12. Evidences of Regeneration.</a></li><li><a href="#toc171">Chapter VIII. The Orthodox Idea Of The Son Of God.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc173">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc175">§ 2. This Doctrine gradually developed.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc177">§ 3. Unitarian Objections.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc179">§ 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc181">§ 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc183">§ 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism.</a></li><li><a href="#toc185">Chapter IX. Justification By Faith.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc187">§ 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc189">§ 2. Its Meaning and Importance.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc191">§ 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc193">§ 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc195">§ 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc197">§ 6. Method in Christianity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc199">§ 7. Result.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc201">§ 8. Its History in the Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc203">§ 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification +by Faith.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc205">§ 10. Errors of Liberal Christians.</a></li><li><a href="#toc207">Chapter X. Orthodox Idea Of The Atonement.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc209">§ 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc211">§ 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc213">§ 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc215">§ 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc217">§ 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language +of the New Testament.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc219">§ 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement—warlike, +legal, and governmental.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc221">§ 7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of +his Disciples. First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to +the Hebrews.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc223">§ 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc225">§ 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some +Satisfaction in order to our Forgiveness.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc227">§ 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc229">§ 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc231">§ 12. This Law illustrated from History—in the Death of +Socrates, Joan of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc233">§ 13. Dr. Bushnell's View of the Atonement.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc235">§ 14. Results of this Discussion.</a></li><li><a href="#toc237">Chapter XI. Calling, Election, And Reprobation.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc239">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc241">§ 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc243">§ 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc245">§ 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc247">§ 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven +hereafter. How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a +Chosen People.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc249">§ 6. How other Nations were elected and called.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc251">§ 7. How different Denominations are elected.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc253">§ 8. How Individuals are elected.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc255">§ 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc257">§ 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election.</a></li><li><a href="#toc259">Chapter XII. Immortality And The Resurrection.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc261">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc263">§ 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the +Instinctive Consciousness, and Scripture.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc265">§ 3. The Three Principal Views of Death—the Pagan, +Jewish, and Christian.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc267">§ 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not +endless Future Existence, but present Spiritual Life.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc269">§ 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and +not a Rising again.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc271">§ 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.</a></li><li><a href="#toc273">Chapter XIII. Christ's Coming, Usually Called The “Second Coming,” +And Christ The Judge Of The World.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc275">§ 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly +outward, not local, nor material.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc277">§ 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc279">§ 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming +of Christ?</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc281">§ 4. Examination of the Account of Christ's Coming given +by Jesus in Matthew (chapters 24-26).</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc283">§ 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different +Times.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc285">§ 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the +Talents, to Christ's Coming.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc287">§ 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, +in Matt. ch. 25, to his Coming.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc289">§ 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc291">§ 9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc293">§ 10. Paul's View of the Judgment by Christ.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc295">§ 11. Final Result.</a></li><li><a href="#toc297">Chapter XIV. Eternal Punishment, Annihilation, Universal Restoration.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc299">§ 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent +hereafter.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc301">§ 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by +the Orthodox at the Present Time.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc303">§ 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, +in Regard to this Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc305">§ 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc307">§ 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love +of God.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc309">§ 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting +Punishment.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc311">§ 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc313">§ 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc315">§ 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc317">§ 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration.</a></li><li><a href="#toc319">Chapter XV. The Christian Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc321">§ 1. The Question stated.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc323">§ 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church—Roman Catholic +and High Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc325">§ 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc327">§ 4. Christ's Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc329">§ 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc331">§ 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc333">§ 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc335">§ 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc337">§ 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc339">§ 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be.</a></li><li><a href="#toc341">Chapter XVI. The Trinity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc343">§ 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc345">§ 2. History of the Doctrine.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc347">§ 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc349">§ 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of +Things.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc351">§ 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc353">§ 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood.</a></li><li><a href="#toc355">Appendix. Critical Notices.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc357">§ 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer +and Henry L. Mansel.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc359">§ 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc361">§ 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor +Shedd.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc363">§ 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah +Adams and Dr. J. P. Thompson.</a></li><li style="margin-left: 2em"><a href="#toc365">§ 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D.</a></li><li><a href="#toc367">Footnotes</a></li></ul> + </div> + + </div> +<div class="tei tei-body" style="margin-bottom: 6.00em; margin-top: 6.00em"> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="pageiii">[pg iii]</span><a name="Pgiii" id="Pgiii" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc1" id="toc1"></a> +<a name="pdf2" id="pdf2"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Preface.</span></h1> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page001">[pg 001]</span><a name="Pg001" id="Pg001" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc3" id="toc3"></a> +<a name="pdf4" id="pdf4"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter I. Introduction.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc5" id="toc5"></a> +<a name="pdf6" id="pdf6"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Object and Character of this Book.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page002">[pg 002]</span><a name="Pg002" id="Pg002" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +or unrelenting. Party spirit, compared with sectarian spirit, +seems rather mild.<a id="noteref_1" name="noteref_1" href="#note_1"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">1</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_2" name="noteref_2" href="#note_2"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">2</span></span></a> But to say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Fas est ab hoste <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">doceri</span></em>,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“not as deserters, but as +explorers”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page003">[pg 003]</span><a name="Pg003" id="Pg003" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and principles, to look <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">after</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc7" id="toc7"></a> +<a name="pdf8" id="pdf8"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Progress requires that we should look back as well as forward.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I have not +come to destroy, but to fulfil.”</span> The old system cannot pass +away until all its truths are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fulfilled</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page004">[pg 004]</span><a name="Pg004" id="Pg004" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us, then, reëxamine 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page005">[pg 005]</span><a name="Pg005" id="Pg005" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We ask, What are the substantial truths, and what the formal +errors, of Orthodoxy? But what do we mean by these +terms? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc9" id="toc9"></a> +<a name="pdf10" id="pdf10"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">further</span></em> test, +by which to find out <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">which</span></em> orthodoxy, among all these orthodoxies, +is the true orthodoxy—we accomplish little by +giving to any one system that name. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">out</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page006">[pg 006]</span><a name="Pg006" id="Pg006" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span lang="la" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="la"><span style="font-style: italic">petitio +principii</span></span>. +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.<a id="noteref_3" name="noteref_3" href="#note_3"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">3</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The term <span class="tei tei-q">“Evangelical”</span> is, perhaps, not as objectionable +as Orthodox, though it carries with it a similar slur on those +of other beliefs. It says, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are they who believe the +gospel of Christ; those who differ from us do not believe +it.”</span> It is like the assumption by some of the Corinthians +of the exclusive name of Christians. <span class="tei tei-q">“We are of Christ,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page007">[pg 007]</span><a name="Pg007" id="Pg007" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +said they—meaning that the followers of Paul and Apollos +were not so. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We +have as good a right to complain of your calling yourselves +<span class="tei tei-q">‘Rational Christians’</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">‘Liberal Christians’</span>—assuming +thereby that others are not rational or liberal. You mean no +such assumption, perhaps; neither do we when we call ourselves +<span class="tei tei-q">‘Orthodox’</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">‘Evangelical.’</span> 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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“The Orthodox,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“right belief”</span> is an unmeaning expression, signifying +nothing. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc11" id="toc11"></a> +<a name="pdf12" id="pdf12"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Who is he?”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page008">[pg 008]</span><a name="Pg008" id="Pg008" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Is it possible,”</span> it is +said, <span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page009">[pg 009]</span><a name="Pg009" id="Pg009" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +by opposing the majority in behalf of some neglected or +unpopular truth. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc13" id="toc13"></a> +<a name="pdf14" id="pdf14"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Some +people think that Orthodoxy means the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">oldest</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">they</span></em> believed cannot be a certain test +of Orthodoxy. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ancient Christianity,”</span> +has sufficiently shown that during no period in those early +centuries was anything like modern orthodoxy satisfactorily +established.<a id="noteref_4" name="noteref_4" href="#note_4"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">4</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Many doctrines generally believed in the early church are +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page010">[pg 010]</span><a name="Pg010" id="Pg010" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“A lie is no better because it is an +old one.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc15" id="toc15"></a> +<a name="pdf16" id="pdf16"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">essential</span></em> 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—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod +ubique</span></span>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc17" id="toc17"></a> +<a name="pdf18" id="pdf18"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Any +attempt, therefore, rigidly to define Orthodoxy, destroys it. +Regarded as a precise statement, in a fixed or definite form, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page011">[pg 011]</span><a name="Pg011" id="Pg011" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Whether there be knowledge, it shall pass +away.”</span> 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? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc19" id="toc19"></a> +<a name="pdf20" id="pdf20"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The one remains, the many change and pass;</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Heaven's light forever shines, earth's shadows fly.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Are there any such great convictions underlying and informing +all the creeds? I think there are. I think, for +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page012">[pg 012]</span><a name="Pg012" id="Pg012" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page013">[pg 013]</span><a name="Pg013" id="Pg013" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc21" id="toc21"></a> +<a name="pdf22" id="pdf22"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great +Doctrinal Systems.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page014">[pg 014]</span><a name="Pg014" id="Pg014" class="tei tei-anchor"></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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is the truth</span></em>; and all catholic beliefs are +valid beliefs. Opinions held by all men, everywhere and at +all times, must be substantially true. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page015">[pg 015]</span><a name="Pg015" id="Pg015" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc23" id="toc23"></a> +<a name="pdf24" id="pdf24"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Importance of this Distinction.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must and ought</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page016">[pg 016]</span><a name="Pg016" id="Pg016" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Each side may hold some truth which the other has not +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page017">[pg 017]</span><a name="Pg017" id="Pg017" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc25" id="toc25"></a> +<a name="pdf26" id="pdf26"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page018">[pg 018]</span><a name="Pg018" id="Pg018" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +victory: each has taken some important position, +and yielded some other. We have a book called <span class="tei tei-q">“Concessions +of Trinitarians:”</span> another might be written containing +the <span class="tei tei-q">“Concessions of Unitarians.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We assume, at the outset, that each doctrine <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Who made you a judge or a divider on these +subjects?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page019">[pg 019]</span><a name="Pg019" id="Pg019" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc27" id="toc27"></a> +<a name="pdf28" id="pdf28"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter II. The Principle And Idea Of Orthodoxy Stated And +Examined.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="sect-ii-1" id="sect-ii-1" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<a name="toc29" id="toc29"></a> +<a name="pdf30" id="pdf30"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc31" id="toc31"></a> +<a name="pdf32" id="pdf32"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page020">[pg 020]</span><a name="Pg020" id="Pg020" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Another form of this argument would be as follows: +Christ came to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reveal</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc33" id="toc33"></a> +<a name="pdf34" id="pdf34"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Majority.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Christianity</span></em>, 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<span lang="la" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="la"><span style="font-style: italic">Quod semper, quod +ubique, quod ab omnibus</span></span>.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc35" id="toc35"></a> +<a name="pdf36" id="pdf36"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page021">[pg 021]</span><a name="Pg021" id="Pg021" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.<a id="noteref_5" name="noteref_5" href="#note_5"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">5</span></span></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page022">[pg 022]</span><a name="Pg022" id="Pg022" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc37" id="toc37"></a> +<a name="pdf38" id="pdf38"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads +to Rome.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If Orthodoxy consists in a statement of opinions +the belief of which is essential to salvation, the question +arises, Are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“always, everywhere, and by all.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“all”</span> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page023">[pg 023]</span><a name="Pg023" id="Pg023" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc39" id="toc39"></a> +<a name="pdf40" id="pdf40"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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) <span class="tei tei-q">“shall pass +away.”</span> The word here used is elsewhere translated by +<span class="tei tei-q">“destroyed,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“brought to nought,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“abolished,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“made of +none effect.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Knowledge”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page024">[pg 024]</span><a name="Pg024" id="Pg024" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span lang="el" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="el"><span style="font-style: italic">Gnosis</span></span> +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—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">We</span></em> know in part, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em> prophesy [or +teach] in part.”</span> He speaks for himself and his fellow-apostles. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We see, therefore, that the great master and head of +Orthodoxy in the Church has himself declared every form +of Orthodoxy to be transient. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> forms are transient, and, therefore, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">none</span></em> essential. All +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page025">[pg 025]</span><a name="Pg025" id="Pg025" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +statement is a limitation, and the moment that we make a +definition, we say something which is incomplete. When +Paul says, <span class="tei tei-q">“We know in part,”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“To think,”</span> says Sir William Hamilton, <span class="tei tei-q">“is to +condition.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“First Principles”</span>) 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are not to believe, but to make believe.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page026">[pg 026]</span><a name="Pg026" id="Pg026" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc41" id="toc41"></a> +<a name="pdf42" id="pdf42"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. The three Tendencies in the Church.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">act</span></em>; an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">emotion</span></em> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Will</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></em> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, there have always been in the Church three parties, +or at least three tendencies, in regard to the basis of religion. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page027">[pg 027]</span><a name="Pg027" id="Pg027" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“We are saved by faith;”</span> the second says, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are saved +by love;”</span> the third says, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are saved by obedience.”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em> right +in order to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">be</span></em> right, beginning by the performance of the +humblest duties, the nearest duties, letting fidelity in the least +open the way to more? Shall we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> the truth in order to +love it and do it? Or shall we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">love</span></em> the truth in order to see +it and do it? Or shall we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em> right in order to know it and +love it? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Large numbers in the Church have followed each of these +three methods, and made each the basis of its action. One +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page028">[pg 028]</span><a name="Pg028" id="Pg028" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +has said, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are saved by works;”</span> a second, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are +saved by faith;”</span> a third, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are saved by love.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc43" id="toc43"></a> +<a name="pdf44" id="pdf44"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. The Party of Works.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Two tendencies have joined +in teaching salvation by works, or, more strictly, in teaching +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the initiative of the will in religion</span></em>. 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Believe,”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“Feel,”</span> you might justly reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“We cannot believe or +feel when we choose, and you have therefore no right to ask +us to do so.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Receive the creed as true until you are able to +see <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> it is true.”</span> The Church also insists greatly on love, +and its saints have been filled with the highest raptures of +piety. But it never <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">requires</span></em> feeling. It says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page029">[pg 029]</span><a name="Pg029" id="Pg029" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +come. The one thing needful and primary with them all +is obedience, and the result of obedience is knowledge and +love. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“What doth the Lord +require of thee,”</span> say they, <span class="tei tei-q">“but to do justly, and love mercy, +and walk humbly with thy God?”</span> 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? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Does</span></em> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page030">[pg 030]</span><a name="Pg030" id="Pg030" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc45" id="toc45"></a> +<a name="pdf46" id="pdf46"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“with the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">heart</span></em> men believe unto righteousness;”</span> +that we must <span class="tei tei-q">“be rooted and grounded in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">love</span></em>;”</span> that the +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> commandment is to <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">love</span></em> God with all the heart.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">repertoire</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page031">[pg 031]</span><a name="Pg031" id="Pg031" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="sect-ii-10" id="sect-ii-10" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<a name="toc47" id="toc47"></a> +<a name="pdf48" id="pdf48"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. The Faith Party in Religion.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the Word,”</span>—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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc49" id="toc49"></a> +<a name="pdf50" id="pdf50"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page032">[pg 032]</span><a name="Pg032" id="Pg032" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page033">[pg 033]</span><a name="Pg033" id="Pg033" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This is life eternal, +to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom +thou hast sent.”</span> In these words is the sufficient defence of +Protestantism. It was the cry of the soul to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> God, and +not merely to assent to what the Church taught concerning +him; it was the longing to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> Christ, and not to repeat by +rote the creeds of the first centuries, and the definitions of +mediæval 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page034">[pg 034]</span><a name="Pg034" id="Pg034" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page035">[pg 035]</span><a name="Pg035" id="Pg035" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc51" id="toc51"></a> +<a name="pdf52" id="pdf52"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 12. Error in the Orthodox Principle.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">better</span></em>? 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page036">[pg 036]</span><a name="Pg036" id="Pg036" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">knowledge</span></em>, Catholics have more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">love</span></em>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">truth</span></span>, +and all the virtues which go therewith,—such +as honesty, manliness, self-respect, conscientiousness,—in +Catholic countries there is more of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">love</span></span>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Therefore we still contend that Protestantism and Orthodoxy +are right in making the free and independent sight of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page037">[pg 037]</span><a name="Pg037" id="Pg037" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc53" id="toc53"></a> +<a name="pdf54" id="pdf54"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Religion originates +at every moment, from looking at truth. Now, +there are four kinds of looking; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">faith</span></em>, which is intuitive +looking; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">knowledge</span></em>, which is the intuition itself looked at by +reflection, and so brought to consciousness; third, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">belief</span></em>, +which arranges the products of knowledge in systematic +form, and makes them congruous with each other; and +lastly comes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span></em>, 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.<a id="noteref_6" name="noteref_6" href="#note_6"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">6</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page038">[pg 038]</span><a name="Pg038" id="Pg038" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These steps of intellectual activity may be called by other +names than these. What we (with Jacobi) call faith,<a id="noteref_7" name="noteref_7" href="#note_7"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">7</span></span></a> may +be denominated <span class="tei tei-q">“intuition”</span> (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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page039">[pg 039]</span><a name="Pg039" id="Pg039" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">look</span></em>; not only hear, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">listen</span></em>; +not only feel, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">touch</span></em>, in order to know. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Life</span></em>, therefore, +the constant synthesis of these three elements,—life which, +in every act, at once thinks, feels, and does,—alone gives us +knowledge. Divorce <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thought</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Knowledge</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page040">[pg 040]</span><a name="Pg040" id="Pg040" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +do not know the material world by a process of reasoning on +the one hand, or any single sensible perception on the other. +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">All knowledge comes from life</span></em>; or, as the apostle John +expresses it, <span class="tei tei-q">“Life is the light of man.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> God just as certainly, and just in the +same way, as we know things visible or things audible. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Thus John and James are friends. John <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">knows</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +On the other hand John may not know James at all. He +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page041">[pg 041]</span><a name="Pg041" id="Pg041" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the same way those who <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“This is life eternal, to <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">know</span></span> +thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast +sent.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is therefore a great mistake when Orthodoxy or Rationalism +reverses the axiom of John, and instead of saying, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Life is the light of man,”</span> tells us that <span class="tei tei-q">“Light is the life of +man.”</span> Knowledge comes from life. Belief comes from +knowledge, and not the contrary. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Principle</span></span> of Orthodoxy, as stated at the commencement +of this chapter (in <a href="#sect-ii-1" class="tei tei-ref">§ 1</a>), is, that there is one true system +of Christian doctrine, and that all others are false. The +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Idea</span></span> of Orthodoxy, as stated in +<a href="#sect-ii-10" class="tei tei-ref">§ 10</a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page042">[pg 042]</span><a name="Pg042" id="Pg042" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +limited by his position, his mode of thought, his power of +speech. Nor can any council, assembly, conference, synod +escape from similar limitations. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Faith</span></span>, 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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Knowledge</span></span>, 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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Belief</span></span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page043">[pg 043]</span><a name="Pg043" id="Pg043" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc55" id="toc55"></a> +<a name="pdf56" id="pdf56"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter III. The Orthodox Idea Of Natural And Revealed Religion; +Or, Naturalism And Supernaturalism.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc57" id="toc57"></a> +<a name="pdf58" id="pdf58"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“What do those who hold to +naturalism mean by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it</span></em>, and why do they insist on their +view?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The distinction between the two seems to be this: The +naturalists in theology assert that God comes to man through +nature, and nature <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em>; 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But how is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nature</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page044">[pg 044]</span><a name="Pg044" id="Pg044" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +supernatural. If it is something <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">outside of law</span></em>, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not +violating</span></em> it, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nor coming</span></em> from a higher source, we call it +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">preter</span></em>natural; like magic, ghosts, sorcery, fairies, genii, and the +like. What <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">violates</span></em> law is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">un</span></em>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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">subternatural</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">below</span></em> nature. What +belongs to a religion above the laws of time and space, +above the finite, is supernatural. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Thus brutes, and men like brutes, who are below the +moral law, are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">subter</span></em>natural as regards that law. We do +not call it a sin in a tiger to kill a man, for he is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">below</span></em> law +as regards sin. He is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">below</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> standards of +morality, though perhaps under some higher code of ethics. +They are supernatural beings as regards <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">above</span></em> that part of the +moral law. They are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">super</span></em>natural beings as respects that +part of human character. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +After these illustrations, we can see what is meant by +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">supernaturalism</span></em>. If there is anything in this world which +comes from above the world, and not from the existing laws +of being, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> is supernatural. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc59" id="toc59"></a> +<a name="pdf60" id="pdf60"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The Creation Supernatural.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In this sense, all but +atheists must admit the supernatural. If, for example, you +admit the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">creation of the world</span></em> by God, that was a supernatural +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page045">[pg 045]</span><a name="Pg045" id="Pg045" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +act; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">mind</span></span>, outside +of itself, above itself, arranging and governing it. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc61" id="toc61"></a> +<a name="pdf62" id="pdf62"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. The Question stated.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc63" id="toc63"></a> +<a name="pdf64" id="pdf64"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Geologic +Creations.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page046">[pg 046]</span><a name="Pg046" id="Pg046" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">tertiary</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page047">[pg 047]</span><a name="Pg047" id="Pg047" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Behold the history of supernatural events written on me.”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">him</span></em> a new creation of God. <span class="tei tei-q">“For if any man +is in Christ, he is a new creature.”</span> The analogy was so +striking, that the apostles noticed it, and constantly speak of +Christ as the medium of a new creation. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc65" id="toc65"></a> +<a name="pdf66" id="pdf66"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But +there is another example of the supernatural element in +the world. Dr. Bushnell, in his book called <span class="tei tei-q">“Nature and +the Supernatural,”</span> contends that man is capable of supernatural +acts; that, in fact, every really <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">free</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page048">[pg 048]</span><a name="Pg048" id="Pg048" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">super</span></em>natural or a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">subter</span></em>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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc67" id="toc67"></a> +<a name="pdf68" id="pdf68"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of +Law.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page049">[pg 049]</span><a name="Pg049" id="Pg049" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +To a dog, again, the proceedings of a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">man</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Not so, outside, doth the Creator linger,</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Nor let the all of things run round his finger,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">But moves its centre, not its outer rim;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Comes down to nature, draws it up to him;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Moving within, inspiring from above,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">With currents ever new of light and love.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page050">[pg 050]</span><a name="Pg050" id="Pg050" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc69" id="toc69"></a> +<a name="pdf70" id="pdf70"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the substance of Orthodox supernaturalism; and +this seems to me to be its truth, separated from its errors. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">order</span></em> +of the universe, as expressed in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">law</span></em>. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc71" id="toc71"></a> +<a name="pdf72" id="pdf72"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">see</span></em> God there, +incarnate in sun, moon, and stars; incorporate in spring, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page051">[pg 051]</span><a name="Pg051" id="Pg051" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“God the Father, God the Son, and God the +Holy Ghost;”</span> that is, God the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Creator</span></em>, seen in Nature and +Providence; God the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Redeemer</span></em>, seen in Christianity; and +God the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Sanctifier</span></em>, seen in every righteous and holy soul. +But the Church has neglected its own creed, and omitted +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">God the Creator</span></em>, often also God the Sanctifier, and has only +seen God in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Christianity</span></em>, in its history, its Church, its doctrines, +its ceremonies.<a id="noteref_8" name="noteref_8" href="#note_8"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">8</span></span></a> +Against this, naturalism comes as +a great and needed protest, and calls us to see God also in +nature and life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc73" id="toc73"></a> +<a name="pdf74" id="pdf74"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page052">[pg 052]</span><a name="Pg052" id="Pg052" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Vestiges +of Creation;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is certainly possible to believe this theory. But in +believing it we have to suppose two things; first, a happy +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page053">[pg 053]</span><a name="Pg053" id="Pg053" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“What does he gain by it?”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Development</span></em> instead. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page054">[pg 054]</span><a name="Pg054" id="Pg054" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +also often takes the initiative, giving us what we never asked +for, and knew nothing of.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc75" id="toc75"></a> +<a name="pdf76" id="pdf76"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturalism—Gulf +between Christianity and all other Religions.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">mélange</span></span> 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ethnic</span></em>; that is, religions of races. The religion of Confucius +belongs to China, that of Brahmanism to India, that of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page055">[pg 055]</span><a name="Pg055" id="Pg055" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page056">[pg 056]</span><a name="Pg056" id="Pg056" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +neither will the other religions of the world pass away till +they also are fulfilled in Christianity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Look at the heathen,”</span> it is said; +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +Phœnicia.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Then,”</span> it is continued, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +To which we might reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page057">[pg 057]</span><a name="Pg057" id="Pg057" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc77" id="toc77"></a> +<a name="pdf78" id="pdf78"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. Christianity considered unnatural, as well as supernatural +by being made hostile to the Nature of Man.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page058">[pg 058]</span><a name="Pg058" id="Pg058" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc79" id="toc79"></a> +<a name="pdf80" id="pdf80"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter IV. Truths And Errors As Regards Miracles.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc81" id="toc81"></a> +<a name="pdf82" id="pdf82"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In +considering the truth and error in the Orthodox +doctrine concerning miracles, we must, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em>, find out what +this doctrine is; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">secondly</span></em>, 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? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc83" id="toc83"></a> +<a name="pdf84" id="pdf84"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The Definition of a Miracle.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +As the creeds give no +authoritative definition of a miracle, we must examine individual +statements, in order to get the Orthodox idea. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +To answer the question, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What is a miracle?</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Johnson.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Miracle.</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> +A wonder—something above human +power. (In theology.) An effect above human or +natural power, performed in attestation of some truth.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Webster.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Miracle.</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> +(In theology.) An event or effect +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page059">[pg 059]</span><a name="Pg059" id="Pg059" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +contrary to the established constitution and course of things, +or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural +event.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Robinson's Bible Dictionary.</span></span> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Miracle.</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> After giving examples of this from the +Scriptures, Robinson adds, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">American Encyclopœdia.</span></span> +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Miracle.</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Theodore Parker.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">A miracle is one of three +things.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">1. It is a transgression of all law which God has made; or,</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">2. A transgression of all known laws, or obedience to a +law which we may yet discover; or,</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">3. A transgression of all law known or knowable by man, +but yet in conformity with some law out of our reach.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page060">[pg 060]</span><a name="Pg060" id="Pg060" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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. +</span></p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Pascal.</span></span> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">A miracle is an effect which exceeds the natural +force of the means employed to bring it about.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Hume.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Dr. Thomas Brown.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">Horne's Introduction to the New Testament.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">A +miracle defined is an effect or event </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">different from the established +constitution or course of things</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, or a </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">sign obvious to the +senses that God has interposed this power to control the established +powers of nature</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> (commonly termed the laws of nature), +which effect or sign is wrought either by </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">the immediate +act</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, or by the assistance, or by the permission, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">of God</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, and +accompanied with a </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">previous notice</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> or </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">declaration</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> that it is +performed according to the purpose and by the power of +God, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">for the proof or evidence</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> of some particular doctrine, or +in attestation of the authority or divine mission of some particular +person.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">—Vol. I. p. 203. +</span></p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Since, as we already have had occasion to observe, the +proper effect of a miracle is </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">clearly</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> to mark the divine interposition, +it must therefore have characters proper to indicate +such interposition; and these </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">criteria</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> are six in number.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">3. It must be sensible (that is, obvious to the senses) and +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page061">[pg 061]</span><a name="Pg061" id="Pg061" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">4. It must be independent of second causes.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">—Vol. +I. p. 214 and 215. +</span></p> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contrary to the laws of nature</span></em>; and that it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the only logical +proof of the divine authority of the miracle-worker</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc85" id="toc85"></a> +<a name="pdf86" id="pdf86"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible.</span></h2> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page062">[pg 062]</span><a name="Pg062" id="Pg062" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The four explanations of the miracles of the New Testament +(to which we now confine ourselves) are these:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Natural Explanation.</span></span>—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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page063">[pg 063]</span><a name="Pg063" id="Pg063" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Unnatural Explanation.</span></span>—A miracle is a violation +or a suspension of a law of nature. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The arguments in favor of this view are these:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. The miracles of the New Testament <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These are the two principal reasons for this view of miracles. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Objections.</span></span>—On the other hand, it is objected,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. That apparent violations may not be real violations of +the laws of nature. Examples: The Arab emir in <span class="tei tei-q">“The +Talisman”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Christ appeals to the moral character of his miracles, +and not merely to their supernatural character. They are +miracles of benevolence. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page064">[pg 064]</span><a name="Pg064" id="Pg064" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. On this view the sceptic's objections to miracles are +unanswerable. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So says Dr. Thomas Brown, in an article reprinted by Dr. +Noyes, of Cambridge, in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Theological Essays”</span> 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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) On the principle of continued uniformity of sequence +our whole belief of causation, and consequently of the divine +Being, is founded. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Gives an air of inconsistency, and almost of absurdity, +to a miracle. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d.</span></span>) 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. A miracle may be supernatural, or above nature, without +being unnatural, or against nature. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_9" name="noteref_9" href="#note_9"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">9</span></span></a> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page065">[pg 065]</span><a name="Pg065" id="Pg065" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +III. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Preternatural View of Miracles.</span></span>—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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">good</span></em> works. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“My Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +IV. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Supernatural View of Miracles.</span></span>—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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page066">[pg 066]</span><a name="Pg066" id="Pg066" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Geology teaches it. The rocks show not only an original +creation of the world, but successive creations of vegetable +and animal life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. The creation of the world teaches it. Creation was a +miracle in this sense of the word. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc87" id="toc87"></a> +<a name="pdf88" id="pdf88"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page067">[pg 067]</span><a name="Pg067" id="Pg067" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +deny all miracles as incredible and impossible. Renan, in +his <span class="tei tei-q">“Life of Jesus,”</span> says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Renan adds, that <span class="tei tei-q">“if a +commission of men of science should decide that a man had +been raised from the dead he would believe it.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Till +then,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Accordingly, Renan writes +his <span class="tei tei-q">“Life of Jesus”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Be Natural,”</span> says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page068">[pg 068]</span><a name="Pg068" id="Pg068" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +that men imbued with the spirit of science should dislike the +notion of miracles. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc89" id="toc89"></a> +<a name="pdf90" id="pdf90"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Therefore, it is argued, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us explain this. If miracles had been asserted to be +wrought by God in order to prove the truth of a doctrine +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page069">[pg 069]</span><a name="Pg069" id="Pg069" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is +done by some devilish power, not by a divine power. It is +not supernatural, it is preternatural.”</span> But Christianity +itself is the great miracle of human history. It is more +marvellous than raising a dead man, for it was the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">resurrection +of a dead world</span></em>—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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page070">[pg 070]</span><a name="Pg070" id="Pg070" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Martin Luther says,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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....</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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, +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page071">[pg 071]</span><a name="Pg071" id="Pg071" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the <span class="tei tei-q">“Christian Examiner,”</span> Dr. James Walker says,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Christianity embodies a collection of moral and vital +truths, and </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">these truths</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, apart from </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">all history</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">feel it to be true</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">. 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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 +</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">history</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> of Christianity, or to what are called the </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">external</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> +evidences of Christianity, and not to the </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">truth</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> of Christianity itself. +Give them Christianity itself: for if they believe in that, it +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page072">[pg 072]</span><a name="Pg072" id="Pg072" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">first converted to Christianity +itself</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, and afterwards, through the moral and spiritual change +which Christianity induces, are brought to believe entirely +and devoutly in its </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">miraculous origin and history</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Channing says,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">There is another evidence of Christianity still more </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">internal</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> +than any on which I have yet dwelt; an evidence to be +</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">felt</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> rather than described, but not less </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">real</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And here is an extract from another writer:— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page073">[pg 073]</span><a name="Pg073" id="Pg073" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">I have not +followed cunningly devised fables, but have been an eye-witness +of his majesty,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page074">[pg 074]</span><a name="Pg074" id="Pg074" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +not to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven +should bring it. Instead of compelling assent, miracles are +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 Æsculapius to show? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_10" name="noteref_10" href="#note_10"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">10</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc91" id="toc91"></a> +<a name="pdf92" id="pdf92"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as +Historic Facts.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page075">[pg 075]</span><a name="Pg075" id="Pg075" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +as it has already in Renan's construction, into an amorphous +mass of unhistoric rubbish. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span>—does +not this seem incredible? But we know that we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">can</span></em> +now tell just that. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“These stories must be +simple facts. Delusion never spoke in this tone,—so clear, +so luminous,—in language so honest and sincere.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I do not deny that some mistakes or misapprehensions may +have crept into the records. Occasionally we can see signs +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page076">[pg 076]</span><a name="Pg076" id="Pg076" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He is dead.”</span> 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? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc93" id="toc93"></a> +<a name="pdf94" id="pdf94"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">distinction</span></em> between the miracles of +Christ and all those portents will be pointed out hereafter. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page077">[pg 077]</span><a name="Pg077" id="Pg077" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the <span class="tei tei-q">“Atlantic Monthly”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page078">[pg 078]</span><a name="Pg078" id="Pg078" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. This phenomenon takes these forms:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +A. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Power of the soul over the body (a.) to resist pain</span></span>, as +in the case of martyrs, who are burned alive without any +appearance of suffering; <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">(b.) to resist physical injury</span></span>, as in +the case of the Convulsionists; <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">(c.) to dispense with the usual +service of the senses</span></span>, 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; <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">(d.) to give a preternatural energy and +strength to the body</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +B. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Preternatural knowledge</span></span>—such cases as that narrated +by Dr. Bushnell, of Yonnt, in California; or <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">knowledge +through dreams</span></span>, waking presentiments; cases of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">foresight</span></span>, or +prophecy; of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">insight</span></span>, or knowledge of what is passing in +other minds; of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">clairvoyance</span></span>, or knowledge of what is happening +at a distance, of which multitudes of facts are narrated +in such books as the <span class="tei tei-q">“Seeress of Provorst,”</span> Mrs. Crowe's +<span class="tei tei-q">“Night Side of Nature,”</span> Robert Dale Owen's <span class="tei tei-q">“Footfalls +from the Boundary of the Unseen World,”</span> which, after +being sifted by a fair criticism, will leave a large residuum +of irresolvable facts. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +C. Higher than these is a preternatural elevation of the +whole character, as in such cases as that of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Joan of Arc</span></span>, +where a young girl, ignorant, a peasant, destitute of all common +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page079">[pg 079]</span><a name="Pg079" id="Pg079" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">secondly</span></em>,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">pleroma</span></span>, of +this spiritual life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page080">[pg 080]</span><a name="Pg080" id="Pg080" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +which always are guided by love, and justice, and a holy +sense of what is true and good. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Westminster Review,”</span> to show the +most recent ideas of the critical and negative school on this +point. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc95" id="toc95"></a> +<a name="pdf96" id="pdf96"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In an article in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Westminster Review,”</span> in <span class="tei tei-q">“The Life of +Christ, by Strauss,”</span> occurs the following passage:— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page081">[pg 081]</span><a name="Pg081" id="Pg081" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">savant</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page082">[pg 082]</span><a name="Pg082" id="Pg082" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +experience of the operations of nature recognizes no extra-mundane +interventionalism.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I will not believe that Christ +appeared after his death, on any amount of testimony, because +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page083">[pg 083]</span><a name="Pg083" id="Pg083" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +some persons have defined such appearances as being +opposed to the laws of nature.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page084">[pg 084]</span><a name="Pg084" id="Pg084" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It may be said that all this is only a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perhaps</span></em>. Very well; +it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> only a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perhaps</span></em>, but that is all we want in order to refute +the logic of the article just quoted. The scientific sceptic +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“I will not believe that Jesus was really seen after +death, because that would be a violation of a law of nature.”</span> +We reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“No, not necessarily. It might <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perhaps</span></em> have +been thus and so.”</span> That will do; for if we can show that +it is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">necessarily</span></em> a violation of a law of nature, we wholly +remove the objection. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">natural</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page085">[pg 085]</span><a name="Pg085" id="Pg085" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +glimpse of the hereafter, to bridge over the gulf between this +life and that to come. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc97" id="toc97"></a> +<a name="pdf98" id="pdf98"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Final Result of this Examination.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. For, in the third place, we may say that these miracles +of Jesus have very little direct bearing on our <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">religion</span></em>. +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. We may also believe the miracles of Jesus to be +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page086">[pg 086]</span><a name="Pg086" id="Pg086" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">natural</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">shall</span></em> be done by others. +Looked at as mere <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">signs</span></em> or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">portents</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">so</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page087">[pg 087]</span><a name="Pg087" id="Pg087" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc99" id="toc99"></a> +<a name="pdf100" id="pdf100"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter V. Orthodox Idea Of The Inspiration And Authority Of +The Bible.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc101" id="toc101"></a> +<a name="pdf102" id="pdf102"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the +Bible.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Plenary Inspiration.</span></span>—That +is, that everything in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page088">[pg 088]</span><a name="Pg088" id="Pg088" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">the Orthodox theory</span></span> even at the present time. +Any variation from this is considered a deviation into heresy. +No doubt, in practice it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> deviated from, by very Orthodox +people; but all Protestant sects, claiming to be Orthodox, +profess to hold to the plenary inspiration of the Bible. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Rationalist +or Naturalistic View of the Bible.</span></span>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">mediatorial</span></span> +view of the Bible, or the view which +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mediates</span></em> between the others. This view endeavors to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reconcile</span></em> +the others, by accepting the truths in each, and eliminating +their errors or defects. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page089">[pg 089]</span><a name="Pg089" id="Pg089" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc103" id="toc103"></a> +<a name="pdf104" id="pdf104"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Age of +Mankind.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us then see, first, what the problem before +us is; and this can perhaps be best understood by means of +an example. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page090">[pg 090]</span><a name="Pg090" id="Pg090" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page091">[pg 091]</span><a name="Pg091" id="Pg091" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page092">[pg 092]</span><a name="Pg092" id="Pg092" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +No! <span class="tei tei-q">“It is never safe,”</span> said Luther, <span class="tei tei-q">“to do anything +against the truth!”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Vedas,”</span> in India, may have been written 1500 B.C.; +the <span class="tei tei-q">“Kings,”</span> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Two</span></em> different sources +have been discovered within a few years,—one of them by +philology, the other by geology. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page093">[pg 093]</span><a name="Pg093" id="Pg093" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Aryan</span></span>; 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page094">[pg 094]</span><a name="Pg094" id="Pg094" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc105" id="toc105"></a> +<a name="pdf106" id="pdf106"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em> somewhere; and when Protestants rejected +the authority of the Church, they took the Bible in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page095">[pg 095]</span><a name="Pg095" id="Pg095" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +its place. The doctrine of inspiration, therefore, was adopted +as a basis for the authority of the Bible. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The principal reason given by those who believe in the +plenary inspiration of the Bible, for holding to this doctrine, +is the necessity of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a priori</span></span> argument. Let us +therefore examine this argument, and see what is its force. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page096">[pg 096]</span><a name="Pg096" id="Pg096" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the chief argument in favor of the plenary inspiration<a id="noteref_11" name="noteref_11" href="#note_11"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">11</span></span></a> +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.<a id="noteref_12" name="noteref_12" href="#note_12"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">12</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, to all these questions, we are obliged to say, No. +The Bible claims no such absolute inspiration for itself. It +says that <span class="tei tei-q">“holy men of old spake as they were moved by the +Holy Spirit,”</span> but it does not say that the Holy Spirit made +them infallible. It says, <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture is given by inspiration, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page097">[pg 097]</span><a name="Pg097" id="Pg097" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and is profitable for doctrine,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And yet we admit the importance of having some authority. +Truth which does not come with authority is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page098">[pg 098]</span><a name="Pg098" id="Pg098" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +speculations about them, but shows us the things themselves. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If, therefore, we can show that the Bible can be authority +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">without being</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc107" id="toc107"></a> +<a name="pdf108" id="pdf108"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from other persons</span></em>, or by means of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mental +effort</span></em>, or by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inspiration</span></em>. +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page099">[pg 099]</span><a name="Pg099" id="Pg099" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What</span></em> he shall see will depend on what he +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page100">[pg 100]</span><a name="Pg100" id="Pg100" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There is, then, a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">universal inspiration</span></em>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page101">[pg 101]</span><a name="Pg101" id="Pg101" class="tei tei-anchor"></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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mr. Emerson, in one of his poems, called the <span class="tei tei-q">“Problem,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The passive master lent his hand</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">To the vast soul that o'er him planned;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And the same power that reared the shrine</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Bestrode the tribes that knelt within.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc109" id="toc109"></a> +<a name="pdf110" id="pdf110"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Having thus +spoken of inspiration in general, we proceed to speak of +Christian inspiration in particular. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page102">[pg 102]</span><a name="Pg102" id="Pg102" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Christian inspiration, then, reveals inwardly the spirit of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page103">[pg 103]</span><a name="Pg103" id="Pg103" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page104">[pg 104]</span><a name="Pg104" id="Pg104" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +are prepared for it, which long for it, and which hold themselves +ready to receive it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We are thus prepared to state more distinctly the difference +between inspiration in general and Christian inspiration +in particular. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) These two inspirations <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">resemble</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d.</span></span>) 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page105">[pg 105]</span><a name="Pg105" id="Pg105" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These being the resemblances between natural and supernatural +inspiration, what are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">differences</span></em>? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) The first difference is in the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">kind of truths +seen</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">sine qua +non</span></span>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) Natural and supernatural inspiration differ also in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page106">[pg 106]</span><a name="Pg106" id="Pg106" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc111" id="toc111"></a> +<a name="pdf112" id="pdf112"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New +Testament Scriptures.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We now pass on to ask, What is the +inspiration of the New Testament, or of its writers? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“By one spirit +we have all been baptized into one body, and have been all +made to drink into one spirit.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page107">[pg 107]</span><a name="Pg107" id="Pg107" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“We speak what we +know, and testify what we have seen.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">lasts</span></em> is inspired. +Perpetuity, not infallibility, is the sign of inspiration. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The word unto the prophet spoken</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Was writ on tables yet unbroken;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The word by seers or sibyls told</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">In groves of oak or fanes of gold</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Still floats upon the morning wind,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Still whispers to the willing mind.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">One accent of the Holy Ghost</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The heedless world has never lost.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The famous proof-text on this subject is that in the Second +Epistle of Paul to Timothy: <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture is given by +inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, +correction, and instruction in righteousness.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">All</span></em> +Scripture is inspired”</span>—not merely Jewish or Christian +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page108">[pg 108]</span><a name="Pg108" id="Pg108" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Out from the heart of nature rolled</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The burdens of the Bible old.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The litanies of nations came,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Like the volcano's tongue of flame,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Up from the burning cone below,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The canticles of love and woe.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The hand that rounded Peter's dome,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And groined the aisles of Christian Rome,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Wrought in a sad sincerity.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Himself from God he could not free;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">He builded better than he knew;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The conscious stone to beauty grew.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Such and so grew those holy piles,</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">While love and terror laid the tiles.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Earth proudly wears the Parthenon</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">As the best gem upon her zone,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And morning opes in haste her lids</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">To gaze upon the Pyramids;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">O'er England's abbeys bends the sky</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">As on its friends with kindred eye;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">For out of thought's interior sphere</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">These wonders rose to upper air.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page109">[pg 109]</span><a name="Pg109" id="Pg109" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +is a wide gulf between <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">man</span></em> and the highest of the inferior +animals; and yet we put man into the class <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Mammalia</span></span>, +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">genus</span></span> belongs to the same +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">order</span></em> as the Vedas, +Edda, Zendavesta, and Koran, and that order belongs to +the same <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">class</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">class</span></em> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“They flash upon our inner eye;”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Paradise Lost”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Order</span></em> by themselves, and it is no discredit to the +Bible to be ranked with the works of Confucius, which have +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page110">[pg 110]</span><a name="Pg110" id="Pg110" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +kept the Chinese orderly, peaceful, industrious, and happy +for almost twenty-six centuries. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But still, among these sacred books the Bible may be said +to constitute a distinct <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">genus</span></em>, 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">profitable</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But what is this Holy Spirit? What does it teach? +Scientific truth? No. Scientific truth has been taught the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page111">[pg 111]</span><a name="Pg111" id="Pg111" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +world by other channels. Bacon and Newton, La Place and +Cuvier, Linnæus 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But are not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But it may be said, <span class="tei tei-q">“If the history of the Bible is not inspired, +it may be erroneous.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">order</span></em> 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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page112">[pg 112]</span><a name="Pg112" id="Pg112" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc113" id="toc113"></a> +<a name="pdf114" id="pdf114"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Authority of the Scriptures.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Yes</span></em>; and will try to show it to +be so. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page113">[pg 113]</span><a name="Pg113" id="Pg113" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +bound.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page114">[pg 114]</span><a name="Pg114" id="Pg114" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +consistent, solid with information, his authority is increased +continually, and his bearers defer to him more and more. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When Columbus came back from his first voyage, and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page115">[pg 115]</span><a name="Pg115" id="Pg115" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +reported the discovery of America, was he not an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em>? +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">authority</span></em> coming from an imposing +manner; not an authoritative air, or tone, or manner, certainly. +That was precisely the tone and manner which the +Scribes <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">did</span></em> have in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page116">[pg 116]</span><a name="Pg116" id="Pg116" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">try</span></em> him, than that they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">trust</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are all +safe now; this is the famous John Smith or William Brown, +the best pilot in the harbor,”</span> then everybody is ready to +trust him more entirely. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Knowledge and fidelity, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">try</span></em> a man and trust him partially, trust +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page117">[pg 117]</span><a name="Pg117" id="Pg117" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +him, but watch him. Add to this our own experience of his +knowledge and fidelity, and we trust him wholly. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When we speak of inspiration, we mean, in regard to +the inward world, exactly the same thing. We mean that a +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page118">[pg 118]</span><a name="Pg118" id="Pg118" class="tei tei-anchor"></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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page119">[pg 119]</span><a name="Pg119" id="Pg119" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Separate me Barnabas and Saul for +the work whereunto I have called them.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +During this mission Barnabas seems to have been the +more important of the two, for at Lystra the people called +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">him</span></em> Jupiter, and Paul Mercury. Barnabas and Paul appeared +before the first council at Jerusalem; and the +apostles, in their letter, say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Our beloved Barnabas, and a +man that has hazarded his life for the name of the Lord +Jesus.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page120">[pg 120]</span><a name="Pg120" id="Pg120" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So the Christian Church says to us, of the New Testament, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> more than most of us +about spiritual truth.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But you may say, <span class="tei tei-q">“If inspiration gives <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">knowledge</span></em>, and +these writers are inspired, then they do more than believe or +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page121">[pg 121]</span><a name="Pg121" id="Pg121" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +think what they say about God, duty, and immortality. +They <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em>; and if they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em>, does not that mean that they +are infallible?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +A Frenchman <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">knows</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am not quite sure of this path.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is just so with inspired writers. While their inspiration +runs in a full tide, they speak confidently; they are distinct +in their statements. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +A question would arise here whether history was a subject +of inspiration or not; that is, whether an inspired writer, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page122">[pg 122]</span><a name="Pg122" id="Pg122" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc115" id="toc115"></a> +<a name="pdf116" id="pdf116"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. The Christian Prepossession.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page123">[pg 123]</span><a name="Pg123" id="Pg123" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page124">[pg 124]</span><a name="Pg124" id="Pg124" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page125">[pg 125]</span><a name="Pg125" id="Pg125" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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 +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page126">[pg 126]</span><a name="Pg126" id="Pg126" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">—</span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Theodore +Parker, Discourse of Religion.</span></span> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Seek and ye shall find”</span> 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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This Christian prepossession is, however, only a general +confidence that there is something exceedingly good in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page127">[pg 127]</span><a name="Pg127" id="Pg127" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page128">[pg 128]</span><a name="Pg128" id="Pg128" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">my</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc117" id="toc117"></a> +<a name="pdf118" id="pdf118"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Conclusion.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“The Holy Scripture,”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page129">[pg 129]</span><a name="Pg129" id="Pg129" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 16.20em"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Facies non omnibus una,</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Nec diversa tamen, qualis decet esse sororum.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page130">[pg 130]</span><a name="Pg130" id="Pg130" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc119" id="toc119"></a> +<a name="pdf120" id="pdf120"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter VI. Orthodox Idea Of Sin, As Depravity And As Guilt.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc121" id="toc121"></a> +<a name="pdf122" id="pdf122"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. The Question stated.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is God?”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is +God?”</span> asked, instead, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is man?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We begin, therefore, with the great question, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is +man?”</span> This is the radical question in practical, experimental +theology, as the question, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is God?”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc123" id="toc123"></a> +<a name="pdf124" id="pdf124"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, +Natural Depravity, Total Depravity, Inability.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Orthodoxy +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page131">[pg 131]</span><a name="Pg131" id="Pg131" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +answers the question, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is man?”</span> by saying, <span class="tei tei-q">“Man is +a sinner;”</span> and this answer has these four moments:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Man was created at first righteous and good. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Man fell, in and with Adam, and became a sinner. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. All now born are born totally corrupt and evil;— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. And are utterly disabled to all good, so as not to have +the power of repenting, or even of wishing to repent. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These four ideas are,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +First, that of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The Fall</span></span>, +or <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Inherited Evil</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Second, of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Natural Depravity</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Third, of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Total Depravity</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Fourth, of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Inability</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These points are fully stated in the following passage from +the <span class="tei tei-q">“Assembly's Confession of Faith,”</span> chap. 6:— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">3. They being the root of all mankind, the </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">guilt</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> of this +sin was </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">imputed</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, and the same </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">death in sin, and corrupted +nature</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, </span><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-variant: small-caps">conveyed</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, to all their posterity, descending from +them by ordinary generation.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page132">[pg 132]</span><a name="Pg132" id="Pg132" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><a id="noteref_13" name="noteref_13" href="#note_13"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">13</span></span></a> +</p> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We assume the <span class="tei tei-q">“Assembly's Catechism”</span> as almost <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the</span></em> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page133">[pg 133]</span><a name="Pg133" id="Pg133" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, it is very easy, and what has often been done, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to +stand on the outside</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inside</span></em> view of Orthodoxy, +and see why, being unreasonable, it yet commends itself to +so many minds of the highest order of reason. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc125" id="toc125"></a> +<a name="pdf126" id="pdf126"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased +or otherwise.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page134">[pg 134]</span><a name="Pg134" id="Pg134" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +On the other hand, all the systems which may be associated +under the term <span class="tei tei-q">“Liberal Christianity”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc127" id="toc127"></a> +<a name="pdf128" id="pdf128"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Sin as Disease.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We regard Orthodoxy as substantially +right in its views of sin as being a deep and radical disease. +Our Saviour says, <span class="tei tei-q">“I came not to call the righteous, +but sinners, to repentance.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The Son of man came to +seek and to save that which is lost.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page135">[pg 135]</span><a name="Pg135" id="Pg135" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“No,”</span> and Orthodoxy has said, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Yes.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If we attempt to analyze evil, we shall find that it may be +conveniently distributed into these divisions:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Physical Evil.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Pain.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Weakness.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) Physical disease. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Intellectual or Mental Evil.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Ignorance.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Error, or mistake.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) Sophism, or falsehood. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Moral Evil. Disobedience to the Moral Law.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Ignorant and accidental, or transgression.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Habitual disobedience, or vice.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) Wilful violation of human law; crime.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d.</span></span>) Diseased moral state, as selfishness, bad temper, &c. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page136">[pg 136]</span><a name="Pg136" id="Pg136" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Spiritual Evil.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) Wilful alienation from God, or perverse choice.<br /> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Spiritual inability. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">disease</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc129" id="toc129"></a> +<a name="pdf130" id="pdf130"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. +Their Truth and Error.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The first point of the doctrine +of evil regards the Fall, including the doctrine of +depravity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page137">[pg 137]</span><a name="Pg137" id="Pg137" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +No doubt, sin began with the historical Adam—the first +man who lived. <span class="tei tei-q">“By one man sin entered into the world, +and death by sin.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fall</span></em> +in Adam, because we are, each of us, at first an Adam. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We are all in the garden; we are at first placed in paradise; +and each has in himself all the four <span lang="la" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="la"><span style="font-style: italic">dramatis +personæ</span></span>—Adam, +Eve, the Serpent, and the Voice of God. Adam +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page138">[pg 138]</span><a name="Pg138" id="Pg138" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Love is an unerring light,</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And joy its own security.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page139">[pg 139]</span><a name="Pg139" id="Pg139" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +indolence, anger, wilfulness, impatience, obstinacy—tendencies +which are, in me, not crime, but disease; and I can see +how to say with Paul, <span class="tei tei-q">“Now, then, it is no more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I</span></em> that do +it, but <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">sin that dwelleth in me</span></span>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">truly</span></em> (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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">truly</span></em> +(§ 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true</span></em> +(§ 5) that this corrupt nature does remain (to some extent +at least), even in the regenerate, in this life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The first error of Orthodoxy is in declaring transmitted or +inherited evil to be total. It declares that our first parents +<span class="tei tei-q">“were <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wholly</span></em> defiled in all faculties and parts of soul and +body,”</span> and that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em>, in consequence, <span class="tei tei-q">“are utterly indisposed, +disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined +to all evil.”</span> This statement is indefensible. But we shall +consider this in another section on <span class="tei tei-q">“Total Depravity,”</span> and +only allude to it now in passing. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Another error, however, and a very important one, is to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page140">[pg 140]</span><a name="Pg140" id="Pg140" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +attribute the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilt</span></em> of Adam and Eve to their descendants. +This is the famous doctrine of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">imputation</span></em>, which is now +rejected by all the leading schools of modern Orthodoxy. +That we can be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilty</span></em> of Adam's sin, either by imputation +or in any other way, seems too absurd and immoral a statement +to be now received. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilty</span></em> for that part of sin which is +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">depravity</span></em>, as well as for that which is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wilful</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Now, then, it is +no more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I</span></em> that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Professor Shedd, late of Andover, some years ago published +a very able essay in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Christian Review,”</span> the title of +which was, <span class="tei tei-q">“Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt.”</span> This +title is a sufficient refutation of the essay. A man could not +utter a more palpable contradiction, if he said, <span class="tei tei-q">“The sun +solid, and that solid fluid,”</span> or, <span class="tei tei-q">“The earth black, and that +black white.”</span><a id="noteref_14" name="noteref_14" href="#note_14"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">14</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">moral virtue</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">moral beauty</span></em>; the two +kinds of moral evil may be named <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilt</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">depravity</span></em>. +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page141">[pg 141]</span><a name="Pg141" id="Pg141" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We can also conceive of a nature so depraved as to be incapable +of guilt, because incapable of virtue. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc131" id="toc131"></a> +<a name="pdf132" id="pdf132"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">die</span></em> in him, but by no +means asserts that we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sin</span></em> in him. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The passage referred to runs thus (Rom. 5:12-18):— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Verse 12: <span class="tei tei-q">“As by one man sin entered into the world,”</span>— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(Paul here refers to the fact that sin <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">began</span></span> with the first +man.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“And death by sin;”</span>— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(By means of the sin of one man, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">death</span></em> entered.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“And so death passed upon all men, for that all have +sinned.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(Rather <span class="tei tei-q">“death <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">came upon</span></em> all men, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because</span></em> all have +sinned.”</span> The Vulgate has here <span lang="la" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="la"><span style="font-style: italic">in quo</span></span>, +<span class="tei tei-q">“in whom;”</span> that is, in Adam. So Augustine. But even those who, like Olshausen, +contend for Augustine's views, admit that ἐφ᾽ ῷ here +is a conjunction, equivalent to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because</span></em>, and not a relative.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“How could all sin, from Adam to +Moses, when there was no law till Moses? and you, Paul, +have said (Rom. 4:15), that <span class="tei tei-q">‘where there is no law there +is no transgression.’</span> ”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Paul replies that <span class="tei tei-q">“sin is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">imputed</span></em> without law;”</span> that +is, as I think evident, it is not regarded as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilt</span></em>. A man +who sins ignorantly is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilty</span></em>; but he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suffers</span></em> the +consequences of his sin, which are depravity of his nature, or +moral death. <span class="tei tei-q">“Sin is not imputed,”</span> says Paul; <span class="tei tei-q">“but death +reigns.”</span> Those who do not sin <span class="tei tei-q">“after the similitude of +Adam's transgression,”</span>—that is, who do not violate a positive +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page142">[pg 142]</span><a name="Pg142" id="Pg142" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We see, then, that Paul distinctly recognizes the distinction +made above between <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sin as guilt</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sin as depravity</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +He distinguishes between sin as sinfulness, or unconscious +transgression (ἡ ἁμαρτία), and sin as conscious transgression +of a known command (παράβασις). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The consequence of the first is death, or moral and spiritual +depravity; the consequence of the second is condemnation, +or a sense of guilt. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page143">[pg 143]</span><a name="Pg143" id="Pg143" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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—<span class="tei tei-q">“that by one man sin <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">entered into</span></em> the world, +and death by sin.”</span> This amounts to saying that sin <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">began</span></em> +with Adam. Then he adds, in the same verse, <span class="tei tei-q">“that death +has passed upon all men, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because all have sinned</span></em>.”</span> He therefore +distinctly declares that every man is punished for his +own sin, and not for the sin of Adam. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the other passage (1 Cor. 15:22), Paul says, <span class="tei tei-q">“As in +Adam all die, even so, in Christ, shall all be made alive.”</span> He +does not say here, either that <span class="tei tei-q">“all sinned in Adam,”</span> or that +<span class="tei tei-q">“all fell in Adam,”</span> or that <span class="tei tei-q">“all died in Adam.”</span> It is the +present tense, <span class="tei tei-q">“all die in Adam.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What he means by this, he explains himself afterwards. +He tells us that as <span class="tei tei-q">“souls”</span> descended from Adam, we are +liable to death; as spirits quickened by Christ, we are filled +with spiritual and immortal life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the forty-fourth verse he gives the explanation. The +body <span class="tei tei-q">“is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sown</span></em> a natural body”</span> (σῶμα ψυχικὸν)—literally a +soul-body, a body vitalized by the soul. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is raised a spiritual +body”</span>—literally spirit-body (σῶμα πνευματικὸν), a body +vitalized by the spirit. <span class="tei tei-q">“There is a soul-body, and there in +a spirit-body.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“And so it is written, The first man, Adam, +was made a living soul”</span> (which is a quotation from Genesis +2:7—<span class="tei tei-q">“and man became a living soul”</span>), <span class="tei tei-q">“but the last +Adam,”</span> says Paul (meaning Christ), <span class="tei tei-q">“became a life-making +spirit.”</span> But, continues Paul, the soul-man (psychical man) +comes first; the spiritual-man afterwards, according to a +regular order. <span class="tei tei-q">“The first man is of the earth, earthy; the +second is the Lord from heaven.”</span> And then he adds,—and +this is the key to the whole passage,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">As we have borne the +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page144">[pg 144]</span><a name="Pg144" id="Pg144" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-style: italic"> +image of the earthy</span></em>, we shall also bear the image of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the +heavenly</span></em>.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The apostle Paul, therefore, does not by any means teach +Calvinism. The Catechism says that <span class="tei tei-q">“our first parents +being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed +to all their posterity.”</span> But Paul says, <span class="tei tei-q">“So death +passed upon all men, because all have sinned.”</span> The Catechism +says that <span class="tei tei-q">“this same death in sin, and corrupted +nature, being conveyed to their posterity, makes us utterly +indisposed and opposite to all good,”</span> and that <span class="tei tei-q">“from this +original corruption do proceed all actual transgressions.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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), <span class="tei tei-q">“Now, +then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in +me.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“renders us +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page145">[pg 145]</span><a name="Pg145" id="Pg145" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +obnoxious to the divine wrath,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If we were to sum up the doctrine of the apostle Paul on +this subject, it would be thus:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">death</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">towards</span></em> evil, and +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from</span></em> good; and this is called death, because it takes us away +from God, who is the source of life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page146">[pg 146]</span><a name="Pg146" id="Pg146" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">imputation</span></em>, or transfer of guilt; but he speaks of an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">actual +communication</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc133" id="toc133"></a> +<a name="pdf134" id="pdf134"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page147">[pg 147]</span><a name="Pg147" id="Pg147" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +depravity cannot avoid any point of the severest Calvinism. +Schleiermacher has shown, in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Essay on Election,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us look, then, at what Orthodoxy says of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">extent</span></em> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the +faculties and parts of soul and body.”</span> Other creeds use +similar language. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> +to teach that he is totally depraved. Let us examine a few +of them. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc135" id="toc135"></a> +<a name="pdf136" id="pdf136"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Proof Texts.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page148">[pg 148]</span><a name="Pg148" id="Pg148" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">degenerated</span></em>. But there were some good even then; for in +the ninth verse we are told that <span class="tei tei-q">“Noah was a just man, and +perfect in his generation, and walked with God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. There is another passage, in the fourteenth Psalm +which is quoted by Paul in Rom. 3: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This passage is relied on to prove total depravity. But +we may reply, that— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“They have all <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">gone</span></em> out of the way; they +are together <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">become</span></em> unprofitable.”</span> It does not, therefore, +apply to men <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">universally</span></em>, but to men in those particular +times. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It was not true of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em>, 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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“O God! early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee; +my flesh longeth for thee.”</span> He also frequently speaks +of and to those who fear the Lord, and says, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am a companion +to all those that fear thee.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The <span class="tei tei-q">“all”</span> is not to be taken strictly. It means people +generally at that time. Just so it is said, <span class="tei tei-q">“There went out +to him Jerusalem and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> Judea, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the region round +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page149">[pg 149]</span><a name="Pg149" id="Pg149" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +about Jordan;”</span> which does not imply that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no one</span></em> staid at +home. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“But,”</span> it may be said, <span class="tei tei-q">“does not Paul teach that this is to +be taken universally, when he quotes it, and adds, <span class="tei tei-q">‘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’</span> ”</span>? We think he means to say, that, as this is said +to Jews, it proves that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Jews</span></em>, as well as Gentiles, are very +guilty. He is addressing the Jews, who boasted of their +knowledge of the law. Chap. 2: <span class="tei tei-q">“Behold, thou art called +a Jew,”</span> &c. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Jer. 17:9. <span class="tei tei-q">“The heart is deceitful above all things, +and desperately wicked.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the heart.”</span> +Man's nature has other things besides desire: it has conscience, +reason, and will; and it does not follow that these +are also depraved. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Rom. 8:7. <span class="tei tei-q">“The carnal mind is enmity against +God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This does not intend that the mind of man, in its <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">natural</span></em> +state, is enmity, but in its <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">carnal</span></em> state; that is, when subject +to fleshly desires. Nearly the same phrase is used in the +verse before, and is translated, <span class="tei tei-q">“To be carnally minded is +death.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“We were by nature <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">children of wrath</span></em>, even +as others.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page150">[pg 150]</span><a name="Pg150" id="Pg150" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +For, in the next verse Paul says that God loved us with +a great love <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">when we were dead in trespasses and sins</span></em>, and +children <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of wrath</span></em>. It is therefore evident that <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">children of +wrath</span></em>”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“children of wrath.”</span> Or it may mean that men +are exposed to the consequences of sin; for, in Scripture +language,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">God's wrathful said to be, when he doth do</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">That </span><em class="tei tei-emph" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">without wrath</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> which wrath doth force us to.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Moreover, <span class="tei tei-q">“nature,”</span> in Scripture usage, does not necessarily +mean, <span class="tei tei-q">“as human beings.”</span> It often intends external +position, origin, and race. So (in Gal. 2:15) we read, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Jews by nature;”</span> and so (in Rom. 2:27) <span class="tei tei-q">“uncircumcision, +which is by nature.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The same word is used twice in James 3:7, and is translated +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">kind</span></em>. <span class="tei tei-q">“Every <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">kind</span></em> of beasts, birds, serpents, things +in the sea, is tamed of man-<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">kind</span></em>:”</span> literally, <span class="tei tei-q">“the whole +animal <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">race</span></em> is tamed by the human <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">race</span></em>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If φυσις here meant <span class="tei tei-q">“constitutional depravity,”</span> the same +word in Rom. 2:14 must mean <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">constitutional goodness</span></em>, where +we are told that some <span class="tei tei-q">“do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">by nature</span></em> the things contained in +the law.”</span> So, too, we read of the olive tree, wild by nature, +in Rom. 11:24. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“By nature,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page151">[pg 151]</span><a name="Pg151" id="Pg151" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +John 3:20, 21. <span class="tei tei-q">“Every one that doeth truth cometh to +the light.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Matt. 26:41. <span class="tei tei-q">“... The spirit is willing, the flesh is +weak.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Rom. 2:24. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Acts 10:35. <span class="tei tei-q">“In every nation, he that feareth God, +and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> guilt. He says, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is no more I that do it, but sin +that dwelleth in me.”</span> He describes himself as morally +impotent—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wishing</span></em> to do right, but unable to do it. He says +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he delights in the law of God after the inner man</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">natural evil</span></em> +and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">moral evil</span></em>. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page152">[pg 152]</span><a name="Pg152" id="Pg152" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">totally</span></em> depraved; but the total depravity, if +anywhere, is in the flesh only, as Paul plainly says: <span class="tei tei-q">“I know +that in me (that is, in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">my flesh</span></em>) dwelleth no good thing;”</span> +that is, the depravity is physical, not moral. But physical +depravity is not guilt, but only disease. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc137" id="toc137"></a> +<a name="pdf138" id="pdf138"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us see what there is of this in man. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the new birth,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“regeneration,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to be +born again,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“conversion,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“a new creation,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to be born +of God,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with +fire,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to put off the old man,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to have Christ formed +within us.”</span> It is a very superficial view which explains +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page153">[pg 153]</span><a name="Pg153" id="Pg153" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We have no fault to find with them.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Outwardly we may seem innocent, but we feel an inward +want that weighs on our heart like a frost.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“This is a true saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that +Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page154">[pg 154]</span><a name="Pg154" id="Pg154" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Look at the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">actual sins</span></em> 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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page155">[pg 155]</span><a name="Pg155" id="Pg155" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Which of us will next fall?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page156">[pg 156]</span><a name="Pg156" id="Pg156" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page157">[pg 157]</span><a name="Pg157" id="Pg157" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +up with gratitude for all their mercies and joys! This shows +a terrible estrangement of soul from God. The veil is on +their <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hearts</span></em>, not on their minds. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The question is sometimes asked, <span class="tei tei-q">“whether sin is a positive +or merely a negative evil.”</span> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Jesus, we think, asserts a similar view when he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“He +that is not with me is against me.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> He will not be +indifferent to either, if their characters and commands are of +an opposite kind. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We do not mean to say that we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hate</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page158">[pg 158]</span><a name="Pg158" id="Pg158" class="tei tei-anchor"></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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc139" id="toc139"></a> +<a name="pdf140" id="pdf140"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Ability and Inability.</span></h2> + + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +One of the pivotal points +in the Orthodox theory of evil is that of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">moral inability</span></em>. +Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity seems to be taught for +the sake of this. Total depravity resolves itself, in the mind +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page159">[pg 159]</span><a name="Pg159" id="Pg159" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Reasoning in this way, consciously or unconsciously, Orthodoxy +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page160">[pg 160]</span><a name="Pg160" id="Pg160" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +has built up its doctrine of human inability, which +we will proceed to state,—first, however, indicating the scriptural +view of this subject. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Thus Jesus says (Matt. 26:41), <span class="tei tei-q">“Watch and pray, that +ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but +the flesh is weak.”</span> And so Paul says, in the passage on this +subject before referred to (Rom. 7:18), <span class="tei tei-q">“To will is present +with me, but how to perform that which I will, I find not.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye shall +know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“If +the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free +indeed.”</span> (John 8:32, 36.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Stand fast in the liberty +wherewith Christ hath made us free.”</span> (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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page161">[pg 161]</span><a name="Pg161" id="Pg161" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 (σαρκικος) is one +in whom the earthly appetites are supreme, and the soul, +(ψυχη) and spirit (πνευμα) subordinate. The natural man +(ψυχικος ανθρωπος, 1 Cor. 2:14) is one in whom the soul, +or central principle, the finite will, is supreme. The spiritual +man (πνευματικος, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">less</span></em> a slave than before, for now he is endeavoring +to escape. His <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">will</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page162">[pg 162]</span><a name="Pg162" id="Pg162" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +from the service of evil, and shares in <span class="tei tei-q">“the glorious liberty +of the children of God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_15" name="noteref_15" href="#note_15"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">15</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page163">[pg 163]</span><a name="Pg163" id="Pg163" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +regenerate, state he can both will and do. Body, as well as +soul, serve the spirit. +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-tb"><hr style="width: 50%" /></div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> power to will or to do +right. It is evident, however, that all men have power to +will and to do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">many</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">always</span></em> to do right, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">often</span></em> succeeds +in doing so. And in this state the apostle declares +that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> does not do the evil, but <span class="tei tei-q">“sin that dwells in him.”</span> +So long as his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">purpose</span></em> is right, he is right. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc141" id="toc141"></a> +<a name="pdf142" id="pdf142"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“we are utterly indisposed, disabled, +and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all +evil.”</span> In chap. 9, § 3, it says that <span class="tei tei-q">“man, by his fall into +a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any +spiritual good accompanying salvation.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This seems plain enough. It would justify the charge +made by Dr. Cox, that there are those who teach that <span class="tei tei-q">“a +man has no ability to do his duty,”</span><a id="noteref_16" name="noteref_16" href="#note_16"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">16</span></span></a> and <span class="tei tei-q">“that, where the +means of grace are abundantly vouchsafed, a man can do +nothing for, but can only counteract, his own salvation.”</span> It +would also seem to lay a fit foundation for that kind of Calvinistic +preaching which, according to Professor Finney, of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page164">[pg 164]</span><a name="Pg164" id="Pg164" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +Oberlin (see <span class="tei tei-q">“Revival Lectures”</span>), virtually amounts to +saying, +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">You can, and you can't;</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">You shall, and you shan't;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">You will, and you won't;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">You'll be damned if you don't.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These charges, it must be noticed, are brought against +Calvinism, not by us, but by Presbyterian divines, themselves +holding to this same Westminster Confession. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But let us look at some of the expositions given to this +doctrine of inability by modern Orthodox authorities. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Old School Presbyterians.</span></span>—As +stated by one of their own number (Professor Atwater, of Princeton College, +Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1864), they hold an inability +<span class="tei tei-q">“moral, sinful, and real,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“irremovable by the sinner's own +power.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The New School +Presbyterians.</span></span>—(Rev. George Duffield, +in Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.) Although Dr. Duffield +objects to the language of the Old School Presbyterians in +denying <span class="tei tei-q">“free agency,”</span> and regarding man <span class="tei tei-q">“as destitute of +ability as a block of marble,”</span> he yet declares that the New +School, as well as the Old, believe that in the unconverted +state <span class="tei tei-q">“man can do nothing morally good.”</span> Still, he adds, +men can accept the offers of salvation made by Jesus Christ. +But he positively denies that <span class="tei tei-q">“man, in his natural state, +independent of the gospel and Spirit of Christ, has ability +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">perfectly</span></em> to obey <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the commandments of God.”</span> We suppose +that most persons would agree with him in this statement. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Old +School in New England Theology.</span></span>—(Bibliotheca +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page165">[pg 165]</span><a name="Pg165" id="Pg165" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">d.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Hopkinsianism.</span></span>—(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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">say</span></em> that <span class="tei tei-q">“man has no power to do his duty,”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am unable to eat,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page166">[pg 166]</span><a name="Pg166" id="Pg166" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the inconsistency in almost all Orthodox systems. +By dwelling so much on human weakness, they destroy at +last the sense of responsibility. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc143" id="toc143"></a> +<a name="pdf144" id="pdf144"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning +Human Sinfulness.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the article in the Bibliotheca +Sacra before referred to (April, 1863), by Edward A. Lawrence, +D. D., Professor at East Windsor, Connecticut, on +<span class="tei tei-q">“The Old School in New England Theology,”</span> the writer gives +the following account of the doctrines of this body concerning +sin:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“holiness of being.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The first man,”</span> says Professor Lawrence, <span class="tei tei-q">“was the +federal head of this race, representatively and by covenant, +as no other father has been or can be with his children.”</span> +This is illustrated by the fact of a legal corporation, whose +members are responsible in law for the actions of their agent. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Professor Lawrence explains the belief of the Old School in +the imputation of Adam's sin thus: It was not the personal +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page167">[pg 167]</span><a name="Pg167" id="Pg167" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +guilt of Adam which was imputed to his descendants, but +<span class="tei tei-q">“certain disastrous consequences.”</span> They, as well as he, became +<span class="tei tei-q">“subject to temporal and eternal death.”</span> The next +consequence of Adam's sin we must give in Professor Lawrence's +own language, in order not to misrepresent him. +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Imputation, therefore, means not the transfer of +guilt, but of a corrupt nature. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is not a sin to be born +sinful; but the sin with which men are born is nevertheless +sinful.”</span> Then follows this statement: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This, again, is explained by defining guilt as liability to +punishment on account of the acts of another, <span class="tei tei-q">“as when the +members of a corporation suffer from the ill management of +its agent.”</span> This he calls corporate guilt. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“sin a +nature,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Upon this statement of the Old School doctrine, the following +criticisms naturally occur:— +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page168">[pg 168]</span><a name="Pg168" id="Pg168" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“we are guilty for the sinfulness +with which we are born, because it is really ours,”</span> he +utters a moral absurdity, and strikes at the root of all moral +distinctions. He says, <span class="tei tei-q">“The sinfulness with which we are +born is really ours;”</span> but in what sense ours? Only as any +congenital disease may be called <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ours</span></em>. If a man is born +with a tendency to consumption, blindness, lameness, he may +say, <span class="tei tei-q">“my lameness, my near-sightedness.”</span> But no one +would suppose that he meant thereby to hold himself responsible +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page169">[pg 169]</span><a name="Pg169" id="Pg169" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +for them, or to consider himself guilty because of them. +It is absurd to speak of <span class="tei tei-q">“corporate guilt.”</span> The corporate +guilt, for example, of the stockholders of a bank, because of +the crime of an absconding teller! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Third. Professor Lawrence does not think it correct to +say that <span class="tei tei-q">“sin is a nature.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page170">[pg 170]</span><a name="Pg170" id="Pg170" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“if they will speak with unfairness +for God,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“speak deceitfully for him,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“accept his +person.”</span> He declares that if he could find God he would go +before his throne and defend his own cause. <span class="tei tei-q">“Would he +contend with me with his mighty power? No! he would +have regard unto me.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the sin of Calvinism, that it <span class="tei tei-q">“accepts the person +of the Almighty,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Fourth. Professor Lawrence says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The power of infancy is wonderful. It can even break +down the logic of Calvinism. Wordsworth was right in calling +the infant— +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page171">[pg 171]</span><a name="Pg171" id="Pg171" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Mighty prophet! Seer blest!</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">On whom those truths do rest</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Which we are toiling all our lives to find.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a general belief</span></em> that they will be saved. The +Catechism declares, less decidedly, that <span class="tei tei-q">“elect infants”</span> will +be saved. Dr. Whedon (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1862), +on behalf of the Methodists, says, <span class="tei tei-q">“That the dying infant is +saved, and saved by the atonement, all agree.”</span> But <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page172">[pg 172]</span><a name="Pg172" id="Pg172" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“by reason +of the sin of Adam, the race are treated as if they had sinned;”</span> +and from another document of the same school which says, +that <span class="tei tei-q">“we are all born with a tendency to sin, which makes +it morally certain that we shall do so.”</span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">death in infancy is the most desirable thing possible</span></em>. +According to this doctrine, child-murder becomes almost a +virtue. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page173">[pg 173]</span><a name="Pg173" id="Pg173" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">will</span></em> supreme in God, we legitimate +all tyranny and contempt from man to man. Then comes +the state of things described by Shakespeare:— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Force should be right, or, rather, right and wrong</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">(Between whose endless jar justice resides)</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Should lose their names, and so should justice too.</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Then everything includes itself in power,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Power into will, will into appetite;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And appetite, a universal wolf,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">So doubly seconded with will and power,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Must make perforce a universal prey,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And, last, eat up himself.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 7.20em"><span class="tei tei-hi" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Shakespeare</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, Troilus and Cressida.</span></div> +</div> +</div> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page174">[pg 174]</span><a name="Pg174" id="Pg174" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc145" id="toc145"></a> +<a name="pdf146" id="pdf146"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter VII. Conversion And Regeneration.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc147" id="toc147"></a> +<a name="pdf148" id="pdf148"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man +can be found.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“my impenitent hearers,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“my penitent +hearers.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Is he +pious?</span></em>”</span> just as they would ask, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Is he married?</span></em>”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Where were you converted?</span></em>”</span> just +as they may say, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Where did you go to college?</span></em>”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Where +were you born?”</span> said an English bishop to Summerfield, the +Methodist preacher. <span class="tei tei-q">“In Dublin and Liverpool,”</span> he answered. +<span class="tei tei-q">“Were you born in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> places?”</span> said the bishop. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page175">[pg 175]</span><a name="Pg175" id="Pg175" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<span class="tei tei-q">“ <span class="tei tei-q">‘Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these +things?’</span> ”</span> replied Summerfield. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">crisis</span></span>; according to the other, nothing +but a <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">development</span></span>. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc149" id="toc149"></a> +<a name="pdf150" id="pdf150"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Crisis and Development.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Common sense and the analogies of common life must +answer, <span class="tei tei-q">“Both.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page176">[pg 176]</span><a name="Pg176" id="Pg176" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +may not change again to the wrong, and again to the right. +There may be conversion, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">re</span></em>-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: <span class="tei tei-q">“No man can serve two +masters.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc151" id="toc151"></a> +<a name="pdf152" id="pdf152"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Nature of the Change.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page177">[pg 177]</span><a name="Pg177" id="Pg177" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“The +life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God.”</span> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc153" id="toc153"></a> +<a name="pdf154" id="pdf154"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Its Reality and Importance.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page178">[pg 178]</span><a name="Pg178" id="Pg178" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc155" id="toc155"></a> +<a name="pdf156" id="pdf156"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Is it the Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox +Difficulty.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc157" id="toc157"></a> +<a name="pdf158" id="pdf158"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page179">[pg 179]</span><a name="Pg179" id="Pg179" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">for</span></em> God, are really <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against</span></em> him. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">converted</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc159" id="toc159"></a> +<a name="pdf160" id="pdf160"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Men may be divided, religiously, into three Classes, not +two.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page180">[pg 180]</span><a name="Pg180" id="Pg180" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“He is not subject to +the law of God, neither indeed can be.”</span> The natural man +is he in whom the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">soul</span></em> is supreme: he is neither carnal on +one side, nor spiritual on the other. <span class="tei tei-q">“He cannot receive +the things of the Spirit of God;”</span> yet he is not in opposition +and hostility to them, like the carnal man, whose mind is +enmity against God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Still more plainly does the apostle indicate the distinction +when speaking of those who are without law, those who are +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page181">[pg 181]</span><a name="Pg181" id="Pg181" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +under law, and those who are free from law and above it. +The first state he describes in such words as these: <span class="tei tei-q">“I was +alive without the law once”</span>—the glad, natural life and +freedom before conscience is developed. But conscience does +awake in all: <span class="tei tei-q">“The commandment came, sin revived, and +I died.”</span> 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">under law</span></em>, and on his way to a higher state. That higher +state he speaks of as being <span class="tei tei-q">“delivered from the law, to serve +in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If this distinction between conversion and regeneration be +correct, it removes the difficulty in the Orthodox statement. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc161" id="toc161"></a> +<a name="pdf162" id="pdf162"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Conversion is an act, regeneration an experience. <span class="tei tei-q">“Turn +ye, turn ye; for why will ye die?”</span> is the command of the +Old Testament. <span class="tei tei-q">“Repent, and be converted, that your sins +may be blotted out;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Repent, and be baptized, and ye +shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,”</span> is the command of +the New Testament. It is a duty to repent; but to become +regenerate is not a duty: <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page182">[pg 182]</span><a name="Pg182" id="Pg182" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 5.40em"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Truths which wake</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 5.40em"><span style="font-size: 90%">To perish never;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Which neither listlessness nor mad endeavor,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 5.40em"><span style="font-size: 90%">Nor man nor boy,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Nor aught that is at enmity with joy,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Can utterly abolish or destroy.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And herein lies the basis of the truth in the doctrine of the +<span class="tei tei-q">“perseverance of saints.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc163" id="toc163"></a> +<a name="pdf164" id="pdf164"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page183">[pg 183]</span><a name="Pg183" id="Pg183" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to get religion</span></em>. 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“I am not,”</span> he said, <span class="tei tei-q">“a Christian. I am +sorry I am not. I wish I were. I hope that, some day, I +shall be.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page184">[pg 184]</span><a name="Pg184" id="Pg184" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">follow Christ</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">should</span></em> receive +the Holy Ghost afterwards. Spiritual influences were not +the condition of Christianity, but the result of Christianity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page185">[pg 185]</span><a name="Pg185" id="Pg185" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc165" id="toc165"></a> +<a name="pdf166" id="pdf166"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 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.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I +will arise, and go to my father;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“One thing is needful,”</span> said Jesus; that is, to sit at the +feet of the Master, to follow him, to become his disciple. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page186">[pg 186]</span><a name="Pg186" id="Pg186" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page187">[pg 187]</span><a name="Pg187" id="Pg187" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc167" id="toc167"></a> +<a name="pdf168" id="pdf168"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. Regeneration is God's Work in the Soul. Examination +of the Classical Passage, or conversation of Jesus with +Nicodemus.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the third chapter of John we have the conversation +which has been made the basis of the doctrine of +the new birth. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“born +again;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page188">[pg 188]</span><a name="Pg188" id="Pg188" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘hope’</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">‘evidences,’</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the</span></em> 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!”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, if his state of mind, thus described, had been at +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page189">[pg 189]</span><a name="Pg189" id="Pg189" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page190">[pg 190]</span><a name="Pg190" id="Pg190" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +so thoroughly right in all he does; everything about him is so +proper; he is so perfectly <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">en règle</span></span> +in his own eyes,—that we +sometimes wish that he might be betrayed into some impropriety, +commit some not too great folly, have some <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">escapade</span></em> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +He observes all proprieties; he calls Jesus Doctor,—<span class="tei tei-q">“Rabbi,”</span>—but +takes good care <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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—<span class="tei tei-q">“No man can work miracles without God's +help.”</span> Minor proposition—<span class="tei tei-q">“Jesus works miracles.”</span> +Conclusion—<span class="tei tei-q">“Therefore Jesus has God's help.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, what does Jesus reply? Evidently much of the conversation +has been omitted. We have only the substance of +it here. <span class="tei tei-q">“You believe in the kingdom of heaven, Nicodemus.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Certainly.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“How do you expect to know it when you see +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page191">[pg 191]</span><a name="Pg191" id="Pg191" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +it?”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“By some great outward signs; something which shall +shake heaven and earth; the Messiah coming in the sky, with +angels.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But Nicodemus says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">my</span></em> life again.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Jesus then replies, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Then Nicodemus says, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How</span></em> can these things be?”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page192">[pg 192]</span><a name="Pg192" id="Pg192" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +understand. Give it to him in the letter, and he can do it. +He wants a map of the operations of the Holy Spirit. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know this?”</span> replies +Jesus. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Jesus means to teach us here that the Spirit of God comes +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page193">[pg 193]</span><a name="Pg193" id="Pg193" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.<a id="noteref_17" name="noteref_17" href="#note_17"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">17</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“to grieve the Spirit,”</span> and to <span class="tei tei-q">“quench the Spirit.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page194">[pg 194]</span><a name="Pg194" id="Pg194" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“differences of operation, but +the same Spirit.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When men see that, they say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Well, there is something +in religion, after all, if it can touch such a heart as his.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“a chore to live.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page195">[pg 195]</span><a name="Pg195" id="Pg195" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">within</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When we see this alteration in a man, we say, <span class="tei tei-q">“There is +surely something in Christianity to produce such a change. +Why, what a very sweet Christian he has grown to be!”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">One impulse from the autumn wood</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 1.80em"><span style="font-size: 90%">May teach us more of man,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Of moral evil and of good,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 1.80em"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Than all the sages can.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page196">[pg 196]</span><a name="Pg196" id="Pg196" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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! +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc169" id="toc169"></a> +<a name="pdf170" id="pdf170"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 12. Evidences of Regeneration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The new life is a hidden life; a <span class="tei tei-q">“life hid with Christ in +God.”</span> Its essence is love, and love is an inward sentiment, +not an outward act. Conviction demands utterance; actions +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page197">[pg 197]</span><a name="Pg197" id="Pg197" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Evidences of love!</span></em> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am in heaven.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page198">[pg 198]</span><a name="Pg198" id="Pg198" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +biographers arrive to examine it in the crucible of their +painful analysis, and to tell us how wonderful it is. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +How can any man <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">prove that he is alive</span></em>? Why <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">should</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The mistake here, as before, is in confounding conversion +and regeneration. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Including in the terms <span class="tei tei-q">“conversion”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“repentance”</span> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Know thyself”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></em> +God or <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">from</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page199">[pg 199]</span><a name="Pg199" id="Pg199" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“trusts in the atoning blood of Christ.”</span> But this may +be a mere word. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +All ceremonies and prayers are means, but none of them +are evidence, of a state. The only evidences are the fruits +of the Spirit. <span class="tei tei-q">“The tree is known by its fruits.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The +fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, +goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“That is not first which is spiritual, but that +which is natural, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">afterwards</span></em> that which is spiritual.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first</span></em> question, therefore, to ask ourselves, is not, <span class="tei tei-q">“Do +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page200">[pg 200]</span><a name="Pg200" id="Pg200" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +I love God?”</span> but, <span class="tei tei-q">“Do I obey God?”</span> Every man's own +soul, if sincere, can answer that question. <span class="tei tei-q">“If our heart +condemn us, God is greater than our heart.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“If our +heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards +God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So, if the question be asked, <span class="tei tei-q">“Is man active or passive in +this process?”</span> the answer is, that he is active in conversion, +receptive in regeneration. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So in regard to faith and works. <span class="tei tei-q">“We are justified by +faith;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And now we ask, <span class="tei tei-q">“Why is it, if this new life is a gift, do +not all good men receive it?”</span> The answer is, <span class="tei tei-q">“There are +conditions. All good men do not believe in it. Some believe +that duty is every thing; that Christianity consists +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wholly</span></em> 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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Yet it is like the life of nature, which in the abounding +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page201">[pg 201]</span><a name="Pg201" id="Pg201" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is what we need for peace, for real progress, for +present comfort, for future joy. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is communion with God, it is receiving his love, it is +accepting his forgiveness, and living day by day as his beloved +children. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page202">[pg 202]</span><a name="Pg202" id="Pg202" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc171" id="toc171"></a> +<a name="pdf172" id="pdf172"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter VIII. The Orthodox Idea Of The Son Of God.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc173" id="toc173"></a> +<a name="pdf174" id="pdf174"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Orthodox opinion concerning Christ is thus stated in +the Assembly's Confession of Faith: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Christ, therefore, was perfectly God and perfectly man. +The formula is, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two natures, but one person</span></em>.”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc175" id="toc175"></a> +<a name="pdf176" id="pdf176"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. This Doctrine gradually developed.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page203">[pg 203]</span><a name="Pg203" id="Pg203" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc177" id="toc177"></a> +<a name="pdf178" id="pdf178"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Unitarian Objections.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page204">[pg 204]</span><a name="Pg204" id="Pg204" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“My Father is +greater than I;”</span> but God has no one greater than himself. +Jesus said, <span class="tei tei-q">“I can of mine own self do nothing;”</span> but God +can of his own self do everything. Jesus said <span class="tei tei-q">“that he +came down from heaven not to do his own will;”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">given</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“it not only does +an affront to the plain language of Scripture, but virtually +denies any real unity between the human and the divine.”</span> +Jesus does not say, <span class="tei tei-q">“All power in heaven and earth is given +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to my human nature</span></em>,”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">me</span></em>;”</span> and when the +Trinitarian himself declares that in Christ, with two natures, there +is but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one person</span></em>, the question is concerning that one person, +whether <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc179" id="toc179"></a> +<a name="pdf180" id="pdf180"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But now we +ask, What substantial truth underlies this formal error? +What truth of life underlies this error of doctrine? +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page205">[pg 205]</span><a name="Pg205" id="Pg205" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Those, therefore, who could find God nowhere else, found +him in Christ. Those who saw <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">him</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page206">[pg 206]</span><a name="Pg206" id="Pg206" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“became flesh, +and dwelt among us.”</span> The word of the Lord <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">came</span></em> to the +prophets, but it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">dwelt</span></em> 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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Here</span></em>,”</span> they said, <span class="tei tei-q">“is God. We have found God. +He is in Christ. We can see him there.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Is it any wonder that men should have called Jesus God? +that they should call him so still? In him truly <span class="tei tei-q">“dwelt the +fulness of the Godhead bodily;”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Go and sin no more,”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc181" id="toc181"></a> +<a name="pdf182" id="pdf182"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“God +was in Christ,”</span> and saying, <span class="tei tei-q">“Christ was God.”</span> In short, +was the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">person</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page207">[pg 207]</span><a name="Pg207" id="Pg207" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“I,”</span> he +must mean by that <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I</span></em>”</span> either the finite man or the infinite +God. I believe the Unitarian is right in saying that this +personal pronoun <span class="tei tei-q">“I”</span> always refers to the finite being and +consciousness, and not to the infinite Being. For example: +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent +me.</span></em>”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I +proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, +but he sent me.</span></em>”</span> God cannot proceed from God; God +cannot send God. Again: <span class="tei tei-q">“If I honor myself, my honor is +nothing; it is my Father that honoreth me.”</span> This cannot +mean, <span class="tei tei-q">“If God honors God, his honor is nothing; but it is +God that honors him.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page208">[pg 208]</span><a name="Pg208" id="Pg208" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“but the new creation.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc183" id="toc183"></a> +<a name="pdf184" id="pdf184"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, preëxisting +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page209">[pg 209]</span><a name="Pg209" id="Pg209" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">dwelt</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page210">[pg 210]</span><a name="Pg210" id="Pg210" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc185" id="toc185"></a> +<a name="pdf186" id="pdf186"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter IX. Justification By Faith.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc187" id="toc187"></a> +<a name="pdf188" id="pdf188"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“we are justified by faith, and not by works,”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">practical</span></em>. +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There are also many persons, who, while they can understand +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page211">[pg 211]</span><a name="Pg211" id="Pg211" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page212">[pg 212]</span><a name="Pg212" id="Pg212" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us, then, endeavor to see what we can of the truth +there may be in this doctrine. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc189" id="toc189"></a> +<a name="pdf190" id="pdf190"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Its Meaning and Importance.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And, first, let us see +what the doctrine does not mean, and what it does mean. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page213">[pg 213]</span><a name="Pg213" id="Pg213" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Principia,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“No doubt he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">had</span></em> a meaning,”</span> it may be said; <span class="tei tei-q">“but has +he any meaning <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em>? 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?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“That darkness is not depth: it is the +shadow of a Jewish error which lies across the path.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“That has +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page214">[pg 214]</span><a name="Pg214" id="Pg214" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +nothing to do with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em>. The Jews had such and such an +opinion, and this was meant to show them their mistake”</span>? +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">God does not approve a +man merely for going through a routine of outward, formal +ceremonies, but for a thoroughly religious life.</span></em>”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There are, therefore, four ways of explaining this passage, +none of which are satisfactory. These are, that Paul,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Was teaching a self-evident absurdity; +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Was teaching a self-evident truism; +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Was teaching nothing, and only talking at random; +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Was correcting a Jewish error, which only the Jews +ever had, or are ever likely to have. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page215">[pg 215]</span><a name="Pg215" id="Pg215" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">justification</span></em>, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">faith</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">works</span></em>—into their modern equivalents, and see +what they mean for us at the present time. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page216">[pg 216]</span><a name="Pg216" id="Pg216" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“What is faith?”</span> said +Wesley. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc191" id="toc191"></a> +<a name="pdf192" id="pdf192"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page217">[pg 217]</span><a name="Pg217" id="Pg217" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">work</span></em> which gives +contentment; but <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">conscience</span></span>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">love God and love man with all our heart, soul, +mind, strength</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">think</span></em> of him? If +we do not think of him, of course we do not love him. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page218">[pg 218]</span><a name="Pg218" id="Pg218" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Moreover, it is evident that this condition of self-dissatisfaction +is not a good one. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Self-reproach may be a wholesome +medicine, but it is a bad food.</span></em> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This question in its Jewish form is stated thus: <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">How +shall he be justified before God</span></span>? 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc193" id="toc193"></a> +<a name="pdf194" id="pdf194"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page219">[pg 219]</span><a name="Pg219" id="Pg219" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +darkens, weakens the spiritual principle in man. <span class="tei tei-q">“He who +sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.”</span> We may +call these results the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">external</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He hated him because he had injured him.”</span> 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: <span class="tei tei-q">“I consent, then, but only on one condition,—that +you do not leave a Huguenot in France to reproach me with +it.”</span><a id="noteref_18" name="noteref_18" href="#note_18"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">18</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page220">[pg 220]</span><a name="Pg220" id="Pg220" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc195" id="toc195"></a> +<a name="pdf196" id="pdf196"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em>, we, on our part, may feel freed from any shame +in his presence, and be reconciled to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">him</span></em>. The other way +is by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> coming to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em>, and +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proving</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page221">[pg 221]</span><a name="Pg221" id="Pg221" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +very same feeling which induces a man to give a present to +one whom he has wronged, to appease him. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page222">[pg 222]</span><a name="Pg222" id="Pg222" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +of sin.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc197" id="toc197"></a> +<a name="pdf198" id="pdf198"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Method in Christianity.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em>; 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“God's +hand,”</span> says the prophet (Isa. 59:2), <span class="tei tei-q">“is not shortened, that +he cannot save, nor is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> ear grown dull, that he cannot +hear; but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">your</span></em> iniquities have separated you from your +God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, that he +doth not hear.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page223">[pg 223]</span><a name="Pg223" id="Pg223" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +we say, He <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> merciful, but not to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em>; we have sinned too +long and deeply. Something must be done, then, to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">convince</span></em> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">emblem</span></em> of God's love, but an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">act</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">matter of fact</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And if one asks <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This is my beloved +Son, in whom I am well pleased;”</span> and we hear him say of +God, <span class="tei tei-q">“My Father has not left me alone; for I do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">always</span></em> +the things which please him.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And now we look at the world, and see it <span class="tei tei-q">“lying in wickedness;”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em>, sinful and miserable, may be reconciled. +We say, in the view of all this, <span class="tei tei-q">“He who spared not his own +Son, but delivered him up for us, how shall he not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with</span></em> him +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page224">[pg 224]</span><a name="Pg224" id="Pg224" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +freely give us all things?”</span> We say, <span class="tei tei-q">“God commended his +love towards us, in that, while we were sinners, Christ died +for us.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that +he loved us.”</span> Christ, <span class="tei tei-q">“being lifted up, draws all men unto +him.”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc199" id="toc199"></a> +<a name="pdf200" id="pdf200"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Result.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us sum up, then, the doctrine of justification +by faith, as we have now explained it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Justification</span></span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">forgiveness</span></em> is subjectively, as a human experience. +It relates to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">present</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">present</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The following passages show that justification is equivalent +to reconciliation or forgiveness. Rom. 5:8-10: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Rom. 4:6-8: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Faith</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page225">[pg 225]</span><a name="Pg225" id="Pg225" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +God seen in him; and the determination is to rely on him as +a Mediator and Saviour. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +That faith is not a mere intellectual belief, but involves +also a feeling of trust, appears from such passages as these: +<span class="tei tei-q">“If thou believe in thy heart;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“An evil <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">heart</span></em> of unbelief.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Works</span></span>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And the whole doctrine of justification by faith may be +thus expressed:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc201" id="toc201"></a> +<a name="pdf202" id="pdf202"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Its History in the Church.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We have seen the origin, +nature, and value of this doctrine. Let us now look at +its history. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The apostolic Church was founded on the simple doctrine +of faith in Christ. It was not founded on any theory or +speculation <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">about</span></em> Christ, or about his plan of salvation, but +on <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Christ himself</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page226">[pg 226]</span><a name="Pg226" id="Pg226" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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! <span class="tei tei-q">“They ate their +meat in gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and +having favor with all the people.”</span> New converts <span class="tei tei-q">“gladly +received the word, and were baptized”</span> by thousands, in the +face of the bitterest persecution. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">saw</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page227">[pg 227]</span><a name="Pg227" id="Pg227" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">feel</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page228">[pg 228]</span><a name="Pg228" id="Pg228" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc203" id="toc203"></a> +<a name="pdf204" id="pdf204"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification +by Faith.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em>? Does this tendency show itself in our present +churches? And the answer we am compelled to make is, +that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it does</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">about</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">work</span></span>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page229">[pg 229]</span><a name="Pg229" id="Pg229" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ</span></em>”</span>? +or do they not rather find it necessary to say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Believe this, +that, and the other thing, about Jesus Christ”</span>? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">work</span></span>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">source</span></em>, not the +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">result</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">simple</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“See, here is water;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page230">[pg 230]</span><a name="Pg230" id="Pg230" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“What shall we do?”</span> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">own</span></em> feelings, +instead of relying on Christ. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">them</span></em>, but are themselves excluded. The Old +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page231">[pg 231]</span><a name="Pg231" id="Pg231" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">occasional +hearing</span></em>; 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“public propagator of infidelity;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There is, then, a tendency among the Orthodox to rely on +their own opinion and their own feelings, rather than on Jesus +Christ. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc205" id="toc205"></a> +<a name="pdf206" id="pdf206"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Errors of Liberal Christians.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">duty</span></span>, and are continually +exhorting men to the performance of their duties in +order to be forgiven. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But there is a mistake here also, which arises from confounding +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page232">[pg 232]</span><a name="Pg232" id="Pg232" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Abba, +Father,”</span>—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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thy sins are forgiven +thee,”</span> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page233">[pg 233]</span><a name="Pg233" id="Pg233" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page234">[pg 234]</span><a name="Pg234" id="Pg234" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Are we reconciled +to God, or are we not? Are we living in filial communion +with him, or living without him in the world?”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Who shall go up to heaven for us, +to bring him to us? Who shall go over the sea for us?”</span> +For his word is very nigh, in our mouth and heart. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The above discussion will show what we consider to be the +truths, and what the errors, in the Orthodox view of justification +by faith. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page235">[pg 235]</span><a name="Pg235" id="Pg235" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc207" id="toc207"></a> +<a name="pdf208" id="pdf208"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter X. Orthodox Idea Of The Atonement.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc209" id="toc209"></a> +<a name="pdf210" id="pdf210"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The subject of this chapter is the Orthodox doctrine of the work of Christ, +and especially of the atonement. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“atonement,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“expiation,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“vicarious sacrifice,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“sin-offering,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“substitution,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“satisfaction,”</span> +yet they connect with these words very different +ideas. Such is the testimony of an eminent Orthodox divine, +who speaks thus:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“There is a general concurrence in the words <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">vicarious</span></em>, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expiation</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">offering</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">substitute</span></em>, +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page236">[pg 236]</span><a name="Pg236" id="Pg236" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expression</span></em>.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Thus God would have expressed a certain abhorrence of +sin by the punishment of the world. Christ now suffers only +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page237">[pg 237]</span><a name="Pg237" id="Pg237" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘My God, my God, why hast thou +forsaken me?’</span> it will be taken for literal truth, that the +frown of God, or divine justice, rested on his soul.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em>; the other, by force of what it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">expresses</span></em>; +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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_19" name="noteref_19" href="#note_19"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">19</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc211" id="toc211"></a> +<a name="pdf212" id="pdf212"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page238">[pg 238]</span><a name="Pg238" id="Pg238" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“to be saved by the atoning blood of Christ,”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fear</span></em> for him: no +matter how bad he is, if he does accept it, they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hope</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc213" id="toc213"></a> +<a name="pdf214" id="pdf214"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Consider the stress laid on the sufferings of Jesus in the New +Testament. Notice what our Saviour says himself: <span class="tei tei-q">“This +is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many +for the remission of sins.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The bread that I will give is +my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“I am the +good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the +sheep.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page239">[pg 239]</span><a name="Pg239" id="Pg239" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Consider, again, what is said on this subject in the Epistles. +<span class="tei tei-q">“Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth as a mercy +seat through faith in his blood.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“When we were enemies +we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He +died for our sins.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He is sacrificed for us.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He gave +himself for our sins.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“We have redemption through his +blood, even the forgiveness of sin.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Having made peace +through the blood of his cross.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He gave himself a ransom +for all.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He washed us from our sins through his +blood.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“By whose stripes we are healed.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Again: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These are some of the passages which connect the sufferings +of Jesus Christ with sin on the one hand, and salvation +on the other. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc215" id="toc215"></a> +<a name="pdf216" id="pdf216"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page240">[pg 240]</span><a name="Pg240" id="Pg240" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc217" id="toc217"></a> +<a name="pdf218" id="pdf218"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language +of the New Testament.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page241">[pg 241]</span><a name="Pg241" id="Pg241" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page242">[pg 242]</span><a name="Pg242" id="Pg242" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc219" id="toc219"></a> +<a name="pdf220" id="pdf220"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement—warlike, +legal, and governmental.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Three principal views on +this subject have prevailed in the Christian Church as Orthodox. +The first may be called the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">warlike</span></em> view of Christ's +work, the second may be called the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">legal</span></em> view, and the third +the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">governmental</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“ransom”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“redemption.”</span> If Christ's death was a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ransom</span></em>, +if he came <span class="tei tei-q">“to give his life a ransom for many,”</span> the +question naturally arose, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">From</span></em> whose power were men redeemed, +and to whom was the ransom paid?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page243">[pg 243]</span><a name="Pg243" id="Pg243" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">debt</span></em>. 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“as not giving to God his due.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Vicarious +Sacrifice.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc221" id="toc221"></a> +<a name="pdf222" id="pdf222"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of +his Disciples. First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to +the Hebrews.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page244">[pg 244]</span><a name="Pg244" id="Pg244" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for +me, but weep for yourselves and your children.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Father, +forgive them; they know not what they do.”</span> This is the +secret of Christ's anguish—this infinite horror of sin joined +to an infinite love for the sinner. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_20" name="noteref_20" href="#note_20"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">20</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page245">[pg 245]</span><a name="Pg245" id="Pg245" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc223" id="toc223"></a> +<a name="pdf224" id="pdf224"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">To each their sufferings: all are men</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Condemned alike to groan;</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The feeling for another's woe,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">The unfeeling for his own.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc225" id="toc225"></a> +<a name="pdf226" id="pdf226"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some +Satisfaction in order to our Forgiveness.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page246">[pg 246]</span><a name="Pg246" id="Pg246" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">man</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“If I have done any man wrong, I restore him four-fold.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“She opened, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">but to shut</span></em> excelled her power.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”</span> This +the conscience thinks right; this is justice. All less than +this is mercy; all more than this is revenge. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page247">[pg 247]</span><a name="Pg247" id="Pg247" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +should produce an alienation or separation between the guilty +party and those who are not guilty. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a crime</span></em>; the offence against God is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a sin</span></em>. +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> demand this full restitution, +does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> intend to inflict this punishment, and is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> alienated +from the penitent sinner. The death of Christ has +done this. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc227" id="toc227"></a> +<a name="pdf228" id="pdf228"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +As a matter of fact, the death of Christ has enabled men to come +to God. <span class="tei tei-q">“They who were afar off are made nigh by the blood +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page248">[pg 248]</span><a name="Pg248" id="Pg248" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +of Christ.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“God +was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.”</span> 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; <span class="tei tei-q">“for, while we were sinners, +Christ died for us.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There is, however, a difficulty in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">believing</span></em> that we can be +forgiven. This difficulty is in the conscience; and,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) To say <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">there is no difficulty</span></em>, will not remove +it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) To say that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">repentance and good works</span></em> are enough, +will not remove it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) To say that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">God is merciful</span></em>, will not remove +it; for the difficulty lies in the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">conscience</span></em>, which declares that every +sin is,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. An injury done to God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. An injury to the moral universe; inasmuch as it is +an example of evil, and a defiance of right. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. An injury to ourselves, by putting us away from God, +the source of life, and alienating us from him. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, it is true that the New Testament says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Repent, +and be converted, and your sins shall be blotted out;”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Believe, and be saved.”</span> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We need something to believe in—some manifestation, +some object. Something we need done by God to assure us +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page249">[pg 249]</span><a name="Pg249" id="Pg249" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +that he is in earnest in desiring us to come and be reconciled +to him. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sufferings and death</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">punishment</span></em>. +The innocent cannot be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">punished</span></em> in the place of the guilty; +but he can suffer, and constantly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> suffer, in the place +of the guilty. These two laws are announced in the Old +Testament: <span class="tei tei-q">“The soul that sinneth, it shall die;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The +wickedness of parents shall be on the children.”</span> If a man +is alone, he must bear <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> the consequences of his sins; but +if he have friends and children, they will relieve him of +some by their self-sacrificing kindness: their <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sufferings</span></em> take +the place of his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">punishment</span></em>. 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">substituted</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Then, as to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">injury to the world</span></em> by the contempt sin +does to the law, the sufferings of Christ are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">satisfaction</span></em>: +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page250">[pg 250]</span><a name="Pg250" id="Pg250" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">satisfied</span></em> +when the sufferings of Christ and his followers, caused +by sin, lead men to abhor sin, and love righteousness. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +As to the injury which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sin does to a man himself</span></em> 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reconciliation</span></em>. <span class="tei tei-q">“God was in Christ, reconciling the world +to himself.”</span> 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: <span class="tei tei-q">“I in them, and +thou in me, that we may be perfectly at one.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> reconcile the world to +himself,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> create a sense of pardoned sin,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> +remove the weight of transgression,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> take away the +obstacle in our conscience,—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">does</span></em> help us into a living faith, +hope, peace, and joy. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page251">[pg 251]</span><a name="Pg251" id="Pg251" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The practical conclusion is, that it is less important to +speculate as to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em>, 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This my +son was dead, and is alive again; was lost, and is found.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc229" id="toc229"></a> +<a name="pdf230" id="pdf230"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Orthodoxy, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page252">[pg 252]</span><a name="Pg252" id="Pg252" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“foreordained before the foundation +of the world, but manifest in these last times.”</span> He was +the <span class="tei tei-q">“Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.”</span> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“yesterday, to-day, and forever.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page253">[pg 253]</span><a name="Pg253" id="Pg253" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +is, somewhere and in some way, asserted also of his disciples, +and of all Christians. Is he said to be one with God? <span class="tei tei-q">“I +and my Father are one.”</span> They also are said to be one with +God: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Was Christ said to know all things? It is also said of his +disciples, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye have an unction from the Holy Ghost, and +know all things.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Did Christ work miracles? He says to his disciples, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Greater works than these shall ye do?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Did God give to Christ glory which he had before the +world was? He himself says of his disciples, <span class="tei tei-q">“The glory +thou gavest me I have given them.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Did Christ rise from the dead into a higher life? We +shall do the same. <span class="tei tei-q">“As we have borne the image of the +earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +And again, <span class="tei tei-q">“Because he laid down his life for us, we ought +also to lay down our lives for the brethren.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And Paul, after having spoken of <span class="tei tei-q">“Christ's having made +peace by the blood of the cross,”</span> says of himself that he rejoices +in his own sufferings for their sake—rejoices to <span class="tei tei-q">“fill +up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ;”</span> that is, +make up any deficiency in Christ's sufferings for them. +<span class="tei tei-q">“Christ's sufferings,”</span> he says elsewhere, <span class="tei tei-q">“abound in us,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page254">[pg 254]</span><a name="Pg254" id="Pg254" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +his disciples. <span class="tei tei-q">“We are partakers of his sufferings,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“partook”</span> of them. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc231" id="toc231"></a> +<a name="pdf232" id="pdf232"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 12. This Law illustrated from History—in the Death of +Socrates, Joan of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the child +within us, who trembles before death.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page255">[pg 255]</span><a name="Pg255" id="Pg255" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">minæ</span></span>.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +They asked why she let the people kiss her feet and garments. +She answered, <span class="tei tei-q">“The poor people came to me because +I did them no wrong, and helped them when I could.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Was it well to attack Paris on Our Lady's day?”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“It is +well to keep the festivals of Our Lady always.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Do your +saints love the English?”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“They love what God loves, and +hate what he hates.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Does God hate the English?”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“As to his love or hate for their souls I know nothing; but +I know he will drive them from France.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Can you tell +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page256">[pg 256]</span><a name="Pg256" id="Pg256" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +whether you will escape death?”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“That I leave in God's +hands.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We have burned a saint.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page257">[pg 257]</span><a name="Pg257" id="Pg257" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, we are not by any means <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">comparing</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seen</span></em> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page258">[pg 258]</span><a name="Pg258" id="Pg258" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">up</span></em>, 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.<a id="noteref_21" name="noteref_21" href="#note_21"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">21</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The difference between Christ's death and all of these is, +that Christ lived and died not merely for popular education, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page259">[pg 259]</span><a name="Pg259" id="Pg259" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“those who were +afar off, nigh.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“is not +ashamed of the cross of Christ,”</span>—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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc233" id="toc233"></a> +<a name="pdf234" id="pdf234"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 13. Dr. Bushnell's View of the Atonement.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In his book, lately published, Dr. Bushnell teaches that the vicarious +sacrifice of Jesus consists in his sympathy with sinners. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page260">[pg 260]</span><a name="Pg260" id="Pg260" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“My God! why hast thou forsaken +me?”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">but was in all +points tempted as we are</span></span>, 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.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc235" id="toc235"></a> +<a name="pdf236" id="pdf236"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 14. Results of this Discussion.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Orthodox doctrine +of the atonement contains a fact and a theory which ought to +be carefully discriminated. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The fact</span></em> asserted by Orthodoxy +is, that Jesus Christ has done something by means of which +we obtain God's forgiveness for our sins. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">The theory</span></em> attempts +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page261">[pg 261]</span><a name="Pg261" id="Pg261" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +to explain what is the difficulty in the way of our +forgiveness, and how Christ removes it. Thus Orthodoxy +attempts to answer three questions: <span class="tei tei-q">“What?”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Why?”</span> +and <span class="tei tei-q">“How?”</span> The first of these regards the fact. <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What</span></em> +has Christ done?”</span> And the answer is, that he has brought +to man forgiveness of sin. The second and third questions +regard the theory. <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Why</span></em> was it necessary for Christ to do +and suffer what he did?”</span> and, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How</span></em> did he accomplish his +work?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">why</span></em> it was necessary for Jesus to die, nor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page262">[pg 262]</span><a name="Pg262" id="Pg262" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">sine quâ non</span></span> of divine +perfection. And any struggle or conflict like that supposed implies imperfection. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Moreover, the Unitarians are fully justified in saying that +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page263">[pg 263]</span><a name="Pg263" id="Pg263" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“who were +afar off, and have been made nigh, by the blood of Christ.”</span> +It is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-q">“who, when we were enemies, were reconciled to +God by the death of his Son;”</span> not God, who was afar off, +who has been brought nigh to us; not God, who has been +reconciled to us. It is <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">we</span></em>, who have received the atonement.”</span> +Christ has suffered for sins, <span class="tei tei-q">“to bring <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">us</span></em> to God,”</span> +not to bring God to us. All this is plain, positive, and unequivocal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ought</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page264">[pg 264]</span><a name="Pg264" id="Pg264" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the real difficulty. Christ did not die to pay a debt +to God, or to appease his wrath, but <span class="tei tei-q">“to bring us to God,”</span> +and to put the Spirit into our heart by which we can say, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Abba, Father!”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In conclusion, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page265">[pg 265]</span><a name="Pg265" id="Pg265" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page266">[pg 266]</span><a name="Pg266" id="Pg266" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc237" id="toc237"></a> +<a name="pdf238" id="pdf238"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XI. Calling, Election, And Reprobation.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc239" id="toc239"></a> +<a name="pdf240" id="pdf240"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Assembly's Catechism, +with its usual frankness, states this doctrine thus:—(chap. +3). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +III. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +IV. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +V. <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page267">[pg 267]</span><a name="Pg267" id="Pg267" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise +of his glorious grace.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VI. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VII. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Our Father.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us see how far this view of God is mitigated by modern +explanations. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page268">[pg 268]</span><a name="Pg268" id="Pg268" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_22" name="noteref_22" href="#note_22"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">22</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">confrères</span></span>, the Arminian view, and insist that +God's decrees are not based on his foreknowledge.<a id="noteref_23" name="noteref_23" href="#note_23"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">23</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Ultra-Calvinists,”</span> +and they are not <span class="tei tei-q">“Arminians,”</span> and especially they <span class="tei tei-q">“do not +wish to be wise above what is written.”</span><a id="noteref_24" name="noteref_24" href="#note_24"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">24</span></span></a> 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<a id="noteref_25" name="noteref_25" href="#note_25"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">25</span></span></a> say +that <span class="tei tei-q">“the sovereignty of God belongs to him as the Supreme +Disposer, and consists in his perfect right and perfect ability +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page269">[pg 269]</span><a name="Pg269" id="Pg269" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +to do us he pleases.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“words of wind for the Almighty,”</span> and +<span class="tei tei-q">“accepting his person.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Methodism, on the contrary, denies that God foreordains +whatsoever comes to pass, holding foreordination to be a +causative act.<a id="noteref_26" name="noteref_26" href="#note_26"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">26</span></span></a> 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,<a id="noteref_27" name="noteref_27" href="#note_27"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">27</span></span></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc241" id="toc241"></a> +<a name="pdf242" id="pdf242"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page270">[pg 270]</span><a name="Pg270" id="Pg270" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">them</span></em> to come in, <span class="tei tei-q">“and so all Israel shall +be saved.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">gospel</span></span>, or the reception of +Christianity, the Jews are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">enemies</span></em>; that is, are left out of the +circle of God's gifts, in order that the Gentiles may come in. +But as regards the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">election</span></span>, they are still the chosen people, +inheriting all the qualities, powers, position, which their +fathers had before them, since God never takes back his +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page271">[pg 271]</span><a name="Pg271" id="Pg271" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +gifts.<a id="noteref_28" name="noteref_28" href="#note_28"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">28</span></span></a> +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: +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all of them</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc243" id="toc243"></a> +<a name="pdf244" id="pdf244"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page272">[pg 272]</span><a name="Pg272" id="Pg272" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">time</span></em> +when God's kingdom shall come, and his will be done; but +that is all. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc245" id="toc245"></a> +<a name="pdf246" id="pdf246"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page273">[pg 273]</span><a name="Pg273" id="Pg273" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +work, and that God would aid him. God and man must +work together. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Then came the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. +The latter, being at Rome, heard this sentence read +from the writings of the former: <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Da quod jubes, et jube +quod vis</span></span>”</span>—Give what thou commandest, and command +what thou willest. Pelagius objected to this formula. He +said, <span class="tei tei-q">“Since man ought to be without sin, he can be without +sin.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“There is,”</span> said he, <span class="tei tei-q">“in man, a <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Can Do</span></em>,’</span> +a <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Will Do</span></em>,’</span> and a <span class="tei tei-q">‘<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Do</span></em>.’</span> ”</span> +The first is from God; in the others God and man unite. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But to this Pelagius replied, <span class="tei tei-q">“Then there is no freedom +in man.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Augustine answered, <span class="tei tei-q">“God does not move us as we move +a stone, but rationally; he makes us <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">will</span></em> what is good, and +does not force us against our will. He frees the will from +its proclivity to evil, by <span class="tei tei-q">‘preparing grace,’</span> and determines it +to good by <span class="tei tei-q">‘effecting grace.’</span> That some do not yield to this, +is not because of their greater resistance, but because God +does not choose to conquer their resistance.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the point where grace passes into predestination. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Old Church had maintained that God predestined to +life those whom he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">foresaw</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Basil said, <span class="tei tei-q">“God hardened Pharaoh's heart by his judgments, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page274">[pg 274]</span><a name="Pg274" id="Pg274" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +which were sent to show how hard it was, because +he saw he would not repent.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Origen adds, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Pelagius (and Augustine at first) took the same view. +They said that God foresees and permits evil, and decrees +the consequence of it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Augustine said, <span class="tei tei-q">“God has chosen some men in Christ, not +because he foresaw they would be good, but because he determined +to make them so.”</span> The reason of this choice, +therefore, lay not in man, but in God's arbitrary will. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Pelagius said, <span class="tei tei-q">“This is fatalism, under the name of grace, +and is saying that God accepts the persons of men.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Augustine answered, <span class="tei tei-q">“All men in Adam are in ruin. God +saves some of them. If he let <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> die, we could not blame +him: how much less for saving some!”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But why does he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> save all? The answer is,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Because the elect see in the fate of the non-elect what +they have escaped, and God's justice is revealed with his +goodness. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The non-elect may be often better men than the elect; but +they will not be saved. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The only place where Augustine allows freedom is in +Adam, who might have turned either way. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Semi-Pelagianism consists essentially in saying, <span class="tei tei-q">“Man +begins the work; God aids him.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Augustine's view was carried out afterwards thus: <span class="tei tei-q">“If +God does all, it is no use to preach, exhort, or read Scripture, +or use any means of grace.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Augustine had said that reprobation was not a decree to +sin, but to punishment. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page275">[pg 275]</span><a name="Pg275" id="Pg275" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But Gottschalk, his follower, said it was a decree to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sin</span></em>. +The Church rejected this statement, and softened the doctrine. +Thomas Aquinas revived it again. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Luther made freedom of the will to consist in doing evil +with pleasure, and not by constraint. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Calvin denied that there is any free will. <span class="tei tei-q">“Why give it +such a lofty title?”</span> he said. He seemed to think that all the +power left to men is so much taken from God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When God says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Do this and live,”</span> it is, says Luther, +merely irony on his part, as though he had said, <span class="tei tei-q">“See if you +can do it! Try it.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Luther actually taught that God's will in revealed Scripture +was, that all should be saved, but his real and secret will was, +that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not all</span></em> should be saved. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Melancthon said, <span class="tei tei-q">“Man has no power by himself to do +right; but when grace is offered, he can receive it or reject +it.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Calvin went beyond Augustine. He taught that,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. If men complain that God has so created them, Calvin +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page276">[pg 276]</span><a name="Pg276" id="Pg276" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. God causes the sin which he forbids. This is not a +contradiction in him, for his nature is different from ours. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +God created all for his own glory, and sinners to glorify +his justice. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Finally, Calvin himself admits that this is <span class="tei tei-q">“a horrible +decree.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc247" id="toc247"></a> +<a name="pdf248" id="pdf248"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven +hereafter. How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a +Chosen People.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">reductio ad absurdum</span></span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The word <span class="tei tei-q">“elect”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unity of God</span></em> and his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">holiness</span></em>. They were +a city set on a hill, a light shining in the darkness of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page277">[pg 277]</span><a name="Pg277" id="Pg277" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +world, to proclaim these truths. That was their opportunity. +It was not happiness, or heaven, or even goodness, that they +were chosen for, but <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">work</span></span>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +God selected Jacob and rejected Esau. <span class="tei tei-q">“Jacob have I +loved, and Esau have I hated.”</span> 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 Phœnicians. Their obscurity, poverty, +and unheroic qualities were their salvation, and these they +derived apparently from Jacob, their ancestor. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page278">[pg 278]</span><a name="Pg278" id="Pg278" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc249" id="toc249"></a> +<a name="pdf250" id="pdf250"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. How other Nations were elected and called.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 Phœnicia, and settling in that sweet climate +and romantic land, where the lovely Ægean, 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. Æschylus 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Romans also had their chosen work. They were +elected to develop the idea of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">law</span></span>. 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page279">[pg 279]</span><a name="Pg279" id="Pg279" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +election of the Jews shows a principle of God's government, +and is not an exceptional case. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc251" id="toc251"></a> +<a name="pdf252" id="pdf252"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. How different Denominations are elected.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc253" id="toc253"></a> +<a name="pdf254" id="pdf254"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. How Individuals are elected.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And now let us +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page280">[pg 280]</span><a name="Pg280" id="Pg280" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Inferno,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page281">[pg 281]</span><a name="Pg281" id="Pg281" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Every man has his +proper gift from the Lord; one after this fashion, and another +after that.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Let every man,”</span> says the apostle, <span class="tei tei-q">“abide in +the calling in which he is called.”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc255" id="toc255"></a> +<a name="pdf256" id="pdf256"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Perhaps we can now better understand how Christ was <span class="tei tei-q">“the chosen one +of God.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page282">[pg 282]</span><a name="Pg282" id="Pg282" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“To this end I was born, that I might bear witness to the +truth.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“God sent not his Son into the world to condemn +the world, but that the world, through him, might be saved.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“For this cause came I to this hour.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“I have finished +the work given me to do.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc257" id="toc257"></a> +<a name="pdf258" id="pdf258"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Calling and Election.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But it is not merely great men, and men of genius, +who are thus providentially chosen and sent. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Every</span></em> man is +chosen for something, and that something not vague and +general, but special and distinct. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“squire.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“reverend;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And perhaps in the same village is a woman, poor, old, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page283">[pg 283]</span><a name="Pg283" id="Pg283" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Some persons are called to love and teach little children: +that is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">their</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“A place for everything, and everything in its place,”</span> +says the prudent housekeeper. <span class="tei tei-q">“A place for every man, +and every man in his place,”</span> 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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page284">[pg 284]</span><a name="Pg284" id="Pg284" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +our too luxuriant branches that we may bring forth more +fruit. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So this doctrine of election, in its other form, as usually +taught by Orthodoxy, so harsh and terrible,—<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">horrible +decretum</span></span>,”</span>—so dishonorable to God, so destructive to morality, +so palsying to effort, grows lovely and encouraging +when looked at aright. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page285">[pg 285]</span><a name="Pg285" id="Pg285" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc259" id="toc259"></a> +<a name="pdf260" id="pdf260"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XII. Immortality And The Resurrection.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc261" id="toc261"></a> +<a name="pdf262" id="pdf262"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Orthodox doctrine of the +future life is thus stated in the Assembly's Catechism, chapter +32:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page286">[pg 286]</span><a name="Pg286" id="Pg286" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Man consists of soul and body. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. The soul of man is naturally immortal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. The only satisfactory proof of this immortality is the +resurrection of Christ. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Christ's resurrection consisted in his return to earth in +the same body as that with which he died, though glorified. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-tb"><hr style="width: 50%" /></div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +On the other hand, those views which incline towards +rationalism and spiritualism agree in part with these statements, +and in part differ; thus:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. They usually agree with Orthodoxy in believing man +to consist of soul and body. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. They also agree in believing the soul of man naturally +immortal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We will therefore examine these two points of immortality +and the resurrection, to see what the true doctrine of Scripture +is concerning them. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc263" id="toc263"></a> +<a name="pdf264" id="pdf264"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the +Instinctive Consciousness, and Scripture.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The first class of +proofs usually adduced for immortality are the rational +proofs, which are such as these:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The Metaphysical Proof.</span></span>—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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page287">[pg 287]</span><a name="Pg287" id="Pg287" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">infer</span></em> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“I,”</span> +is a fundamental idea. Now, as soon as we perceive the +existence of soul, it becomes evident that soul <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> die. +It may be annihilated, but it cannot die. For what is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">death</span></em> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the metaphysical proof of immortality. Then comes +the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">teleologic</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page288">[pg 288]</span><a name="Pg288" id="Pg288" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“to be continued”</span> written +at its close, to show that it is not yet ended. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And besides these proofs of immortality, there is the +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">theological</span></span> proof, founded on the attributes of God; and +the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">moral</span></span> proof, based on the conflict between conscience +and self-love; and the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">analogical</span></span> proof, based on the law +of progress in nature; and the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">cosmic</span></span> proof, founded on the +relation of the soul to the universe; and the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">historic</span></span> proof, +resting on the universal belief in immortality; and lastly, the +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">psychologic</span></span> proof, or the instinct of life in man, which carries +with it its own evidence of continuity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_29" name="noteref_29" href="#note_29"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">29</span></span></a> +Those who have much are easily convinced by these +various arguments. But those who have less, feel as Cicero +did after reading the Phædo of Plato.<a id="noteref_30" name="noteref_30" href="#note_30"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">30</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page289">[pg 289]</span><a name="Pg289" id="Pg289" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.<a id="noteref_31" name="noteref_31" href="#note_31"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">31</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc265" id="toc265"></a> +<a name="pdf266" id="pdf266"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. The Three Principal Views of Death—the Pagan, +Jewish, and Christian.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There are three principal views of +death—the Pagan view, the Jewish view, and the Christian +view. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Paganism</span></span>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page290">[pg 290]</span><a name="Pg290" id="Pg290" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +by lymphatic ghosts, misty spectres, unsubstantial and unoccupied. +When a living man enters, like Ulysses, Æneas, or +Dante, they throng around him, delighted to have something +in which they can take a real interest. <span class="tei tei-q">“Better be a plough-boy +on earth than a king among the ghosts.”</span> This expresses +the Pagan idea of the other world. This world is more <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">real</span></em> +than the other, to the Pagan. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Judaism</span></span>, 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">law</span></span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“I have a hope toward +God, as they themselves also allow,”</span> said Paul, speaking of +the Pharisees, <span class="tei tei-q">“that there shall be a resurrection of the +dead, of the just, and also of the unjust.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christian</span></span> view of death is, that it is abolished—it +has ceased to be anything. The New Testament distinctly +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“who has <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abolished</span></em> death, and brought life and immortality +to light.”</span><a id="noteref_32" name="noteref_32" href="#note_32"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">32</span></span></a> Death, to a Christian, is but a point on +the line of advancing being; a door through which we pass; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page291">[pg 291]</span><a name="Pg291" id="Pg291" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +a momentary sleep between two days. In the same sense +the Saviour says, <span class="tei tei-q">“He that liveth and believeth on me shall +never die.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So also he spoke of Lazarus as being only asleep, and said +of the daughter of Jairus, <span class="tei tei-q">“She is not dead, but sleepeth.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The proof of this we find in the Christian doctrine of the +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Resurrection</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The meaning of the resurrection of Christ is not, as has +been often supposed, that after death he came to life <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">again</span></em>, +but that at death he rose; that his death was rising up, +ascent. This we shall show in a future section of this +chapter. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +One power of Christ's resurrection was to abolish the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fear +of death</span></em>. It brought life and immortality to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">light</span></em>. It +showed men their immortality. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page292">[pg 292]</span><a name="Pg292" id="Pg292" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“When we look at the things which are +seen,”</span> which <span class="tei tei-q">“are temporal,”</span> we have an inward feeling of +instability—nothing substantial. Therefore it is said, <span class="tei tei-q">“In +Adam all die,”</span> for the Adam, the first man in all of us, is the +animal soul. <span class="tei tei-q">“The first man is of the earth, earthy.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The philosopher Lessing says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thus was Christ the first +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">practical</span></em> 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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page293">[pg 293]</span><a name="Pg293" id="Pg293" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is what Paul means when he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“it doth not yet appear what we shall be, +yet we know this, that when <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">he</span></em> shall appear, we shall be +like him.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page294">[pg 294]</span><a name="Pg294" id="Pg294" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“something after death”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory +through our Lord Jesus Christ.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> abolished death to the majority of Christians. Christians +are almost as much afraid of death as the heathen—sometimes +more so. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page295">[pg 295]</span><a name="Pg295" id="Pg295" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">constants</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So it has been in regard to this subject. We Paganize +and Judaize in our view of death. We reëstablish again +what Christ has abolished. We make death something where +Christ made it nothing. It is made the great duty of life to +<span class="tei tei-q">“prepare for death.”</span> No such duty is pointed out in the +New Testament. Our duty is to prepare every day <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to live</span></em>; +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page296">[pg 296]</span><a name="Pg296" id="Pg296" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Christ has abolished death, and brought life and +immortality to light through the gospel.</span></span>”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“brought life <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">and</span></span> immortality +to light.”</span> Jesus himself says, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am the resurrection <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">and</span></span> +the life.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He that believeth in me hath eternal life abiding +in him, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">and</span></span> I will raise him up at the last day.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Life is a matter of consciousness. It is a present possession, +something abiding in us now. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Immortality, or the resurrection, is an object of intellectual +belief. It is something future. We <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">feel</span></em> life; we believe in +the resurrection. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We will pass on, in the next sections, to consider each of +these. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc267" id="toc267"></a> +<a name="pdf268" id="pdf268"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not +endless Future Existence, but present Spiritual Life.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is only necessary carefully to examine the passages in the New +Testament where the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal life”</span> (ζωή αἰώνιος) +occurs, to see that it does not refer to the duration, but to the +quality, of existence. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Temporal life</span></em> is that life of the soul +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page297">[pg 297]</span><a name="Pg297" id="Pg297" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +which through the body is subject to the vicissitudes of +time. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Eternal</span></em> (or everlasting) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">life</span></em> 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. (<span class="tei tei-q">“I am the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I Am</span></em>.”</span> Exod. 3:14.) Man, made in +the image of God, becomes a <span class="tei tei-q">“partaker of the divine nature”</span> +(2 Peter 2:4) by the gift of eternal life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +That <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal life”</span> is not an endless temporal existence +appears,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“in this time;”</span> +and <span class="tei tei-q">“in the coming age eternal life”</span> (<span class="tei tei-q">“ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ +ἐρχομένῳ ζωὴν αἰώνιον”</span>). The coming age is the age of +the Messiah, when the gift of the Holy Ghost should be +bestowed. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) Passages in which eternal life is spoken of as a +present possession, not a future expectation. (John 3:36.) +<span class="tei tei-q">“He that believeth on the Son <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hath</span></em> (ἔχει) eternal life.”</span> So +John 6:47, 54, &c. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) Passages in which eternal life is defined expressly as +a state of the soul. (John 17:3.) <span class="tei tei-q">“This is life eternal, that +they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ +whom thou hast sent,”</span> &c. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So (Gal. 6:8) it is represented as the natural result of +<span class="tei tei-q">“sowing to the Spirit;”</span> (Rom. 2:7) of <span class="tei tei-q">“patient continuance +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page298">[pg 298]</span><a name="Pg298" id="Pg298" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +in well-doing;”</span> as <span class="tei tei-q">“the gift of God”</span> (Rom. 6:23); as +something which we <span class="tei tei-q">“lay hold of”</span> (1 Tim. 6:12, 19). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This view of <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal life”</span> is taken by all the best critics. +Professor Hovey thus sums up their testimony:—<a id="noteref_33" name="noteref_33" href="#note_33"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">33</span></span></a> +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">On a certain occasion, Christ pronounced it necessary for +the Son of Man to be lifted up, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">that whosoever believeth +in him should not perish, but </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">have eternal life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> +(John 3:15)—ἔχῃ +ζωήν αἰώνιον. Ζωὴν αἰώνιον, says Meyer, who is, perhaps, +the best commentator on the New Testament, of modern +times, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">signifies the eternal Messianic life, which, however, +the believer already possesses—ἔχῃ—in this αἰὼν, 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> And Lücke, +whose commentary on the Gospel of John is one of the most +thorough and attractive in the German language, says that +the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, which is the exact opposite of ἀπώλεια (destruction), +or θάνατος (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. +</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Whosoever,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> says Christ, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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—πηγὴ—of water, +springing up into everlasting life.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (John 4:14.) In another +place our Saviour utters these words: </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">He that heareth my +word, and believeth on him that sent me, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">hath eternal life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, and +shall not come into condemnation, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">but has passed from death +into life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (John 5:24)—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page299">[pg 299]</span><a name="Pg299" id="Pg299" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +ζωήν. Here, again, the believer is said to </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">have</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> eternal life, +even now; for he has passed from death into life. </span><span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Ingens +saltus</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">, remarks Bengel, with his customary brevity and +graphic power. We translate a part of Lücke's ample and +instructive note on this important verse.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“ </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The words, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Has passed from death into life</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> determine +that ἔχει (</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">hath</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">) must be taken as a strict present. For the +verb μεταβέβηκεν (</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">has passed</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">) 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 ἔχει and the present perfect μεταβέβηκεν 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 </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">hath,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> and </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">hath passed,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> then ζωὴ and ζωὴ αἰώνιος +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 θάνατος 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 +θάνατος 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 θανατοῦν (Rom. 7:4; 8:13), and νεκρός, +νεκροῦν, ἀποθνήσκειν (Matt. 8:22; Eph. 5:14; Heb. 6:1; +Col. 3:5; Gal. 2:19).</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">With the passage now examined may be compared a statement +of the apostle John to the same effect, namely: </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">We +know that we have passed from death into life, because we +love the brethren; he that loveth not abideth in death.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (1 +John 3:14.) This language, explained with a due regard +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page300">[pg 300]</span><a name="Pg300" id="Pg300" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +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.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Again: we find our Saviour saying, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">He that believeth +on me hath everlasting life;</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Except ye eat the flesh of +the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> +and, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">The words that I speak unto you are spirit, and are +life.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">has</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">hath not life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> in himself.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Is it not plain that the words </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> and </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">death</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, +as well as the words </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">bread</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">flesh</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, and +</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">blood</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">eating</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> and </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">drinking</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, 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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">? +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 </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">qualities</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> +and blessed </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">emotions</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">, but not the want of personal existence. +In still another place we read, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Jesus said unto her, I am +the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though +</span><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page301">[pg 301]</span><a name="Pg301" id="Pg301" class="tei tei-anchor"></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> +he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and +believeth in me shall never die.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (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 +ζῶν, translated in our version </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">liveth,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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: +οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰώνα—</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">he shall never die</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">....</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“ </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">And this is life eternal,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> says the Great Teacher, </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">that +they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, +whom thou hast sent.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> (John 17:3.) The best ancient and +modern interpreters hold this verse to be a definition by +Christ himself of the expression </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">life eternal,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> so often used +by him, according to the record of John. De Wette says, +</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">And this is</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%"> (therein consists) </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">the life eternal</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">; 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> Meyer +translates thus: </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">Therein consists the eternal life</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> and says, +</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">‘</span><span style="font-size: 90%">This knowledge, willed of God, is the </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">eternal life,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%"> 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">’</span></span><a id="noteref_34" name="noteref_34" href="#note_34"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">34</span></span></a><span style="font-size: 90%"> The +same view, substantially, is presented by Olshausen, Lücke, +Bengel, Alford, and many others.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</p> +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page302">[pg 302]</span><a name="Pg302" id="Pg302" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The root of this eternal life is in every human being. It +is what we call <span class="tei tei-q">“the spirit”</span> in man, as distinguished from +the soul and body. It is the side of each person which +touches the infinite and eternal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Fichte, the most spiritual of German philosophers, says, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Love is life. Where I love, I live. What I love, I live +from that.”</span><a id="noteref_35" name="noteref_35" href="#note_35"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">35</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The natural instinct of immortality is the spirit, or sense +of the infinite and eternal. But it needs to be reënforced 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Immortality must begin here.”</span> +And so Hase (Dogmatic, § 92) says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page303">[pg 303]</span><a name="Pg303" id="Pg303" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.”</span><a id="noteref_36" name="noteref_36" href="#note_36"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">36</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The law of the Spirit +of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page304">[pg 304]</span><a name="Pg304" id="Pg304" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and death;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“to be spiritually minded is life and peace;”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“the life of Jesus is manifested in our dying (mortal) flesh;”</span> +when John says, <span class="tei tei-q">“He that hath the Son hath life;”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc269" id="toc269"></a> +<a name="pdf270" id="pdf270"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and +not a Rising again.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +One part of the Christian doctrine of +immortality is conveyed in the term <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal life;”</span> the other +part in the other term, usually associated with it—<span class="tei tei-q">“the resurrection.”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou sowest +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> that body that shall be.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These words, translated <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“rise again,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page305">[pg 305]</span><a name="Pg305" id="Pg305" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and the like, all have, in the Greek, the sense of rising <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">up</span></span>, +not of rising <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">again</span></span>. 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span></em>; but that we rise <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">up</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Ἀνάστασις, commonly translated <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection,”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“rising again,”</span> but which literally means <span class="tei tei-q">“rising up.”</span> (So +Bretschneider, <span class="tei tei-q">“Lexicon Man. in lib. Nov. Test.”</span> defines it +as <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrectio, <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">rectius</span></span> +surrectio.”</span>)<a id="noteref_37" name="noteref_37" href="#note_37"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">37</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This word occurs forty-two times in the New Testament. +In <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">none</span></em> of them (unless there be a single exception, which +we shall presently consider) does it necessarily mean <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a rising +again</span></em>, or coming back to the same level of life as before. +In a large number of instances the word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">can only</span></em> mean a +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rising up</span></em>, or ascent to a higher state. Of these cases we will +cite a few examples. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page306">[pg 306]</span><a name="Pg306" id="Pg306" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Ten of the passages in which the word ἀνάστασις 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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Therefore, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the resurrection</span></em>, whose wife of them is she?”</span> +It is plain that the word <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> here is equivalent +to <span class="tei tei-q">“the future state,”</span> 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: <span class="tei tei-q">“In the +resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, +but are as the angels of God in heaven.”</span> (Matt. 22:30.) +Mark, instead of <span class="tei tei-q">“the resurrection,”</span> has the corresponding +verb, <span class="tei tei-q">“when they shall rise from the dead.”</span> This certainly +means, not rising again, but rising up, ascending to a higher +state. And Luke adds another element, showing that the +<span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> is a state to which all may not attain, but +which is dependent on character; evidently therefore a higher +state. <span class="tei tei-q">“They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain +that world (τοῦ αιῶνος ἐχείνου), 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”</span> (or +rather <span class="tei tei-q">“are like the angels”</span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“and are children of God, being +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">children of the resurrection</span></em>.”</span> (Luke 20:35, 36.) This last +phrase, <span class="tei tei-q">“children of the resurrection,”</span> 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) <span class="tei tei-q">“every one in his order.”</span> +All shall ascend into the higher state, called <span class="tei tei-q">“the resurrection,”</span> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page307">[pg 307]</span><a name="Pg307" id="Pg307" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +of life and of judgment; but, in due season, all shall +come forth from their graves, and hear it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Another passage in which this word occurs is in Luke 2:34, +where Simon says, <span class="tei tei-q">“This child is set for the fall and +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rising again</span></em> (ἀνάστασιν) of many in Israel.”</span> A moral fall +and rising are here evident; and only if the reduplication be +dropped, and we read <span class="tei tei-q">“for the fall and the rising up,”</span> 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, ἀνάστασις means rising +up, and not rising again. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am the resurrection and the life.”</span> If resurrection +means coming back to life after death, in what sense can +Jesus be <span class="tei tei-q">“the resurrection and the life”</span>? Then Jesus said +that he was <span class="tei tei-q">“the coming back to life,”</span> which is unintelligible. +But if the resurrection means the ascent to a higher +state, then Jesus declares that he is the way of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ascent to a +higher state</span></em>, just as he says elsewhere, <span class="tei tei-q">“I am the way;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“I +am the door.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He who believeth in me, though he +were dead, yet shall he live.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“He +who liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page308">[pg 308]</span><a name="Pg308" id="Pg308" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, Martha believed, as most of us believe, in a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">future</span></em> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Your dead will rise,”</span> reply, +<span class="tei tei-q">“I know it—at the resurrection, at the last day.”</span> But +Jesus tells Martha, and all the Martha Christians of the +present time, that he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">up</span></em>, not +down, when he is Christianized. Now or then, to-day or at +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page309">[pg 309]</span><a name="Pg309" id="Pg309" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It appears, from 1 Cor. ch. 15, that there were some in the +Christian church who said there was no resurrection of the +dead (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν,) 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“If we are +to rise into a higher life after this, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> shall we rise, and with +what bodies?”</span> (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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">above</span></em> 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page310">[pg 310]</span><a name="Pg310" id="Pg310" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There is one passage, however, where there seems a difficulty +in considering ἀνάστασις, or resurrection, as implying +an ascent of condition. It is in John 5:28, 29. Our common +translation reads thus: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> At first +sight it certainly seems that the <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection of damnation”</span> +(ἀνάστασιν χρίσεως) could hardly be considered a +higher state. All depends, however, on the meaning of the +word, here translated <span class="tei tei-q">“damnation.”</span> The word, in the +Greek, is the genitive of χρίσις. Now, by turning to the +Concordance, we find that this word χρίσις occurs some forty-eight +times in the New Testament. In these places,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is translated 3 times by <span class="tei tei-q">“damnation.”</span><br /> +It is translated 2 times by <span class="tei tei-q">“condemnation.”</span><br /> +It is translated 2 times by <span class="tei tei-q">“accusation.”</span><br /> +It is translated 41 times by <span class="tei tei-q">“judgment.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is evident, therefore, that our translators considered <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judgment</span></em> +to be the primary and usual meaning of the word. Why, +then, did they not translate it here, <span class="tei tei-q">“rising to judgment,”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection of judgment”</span>? It must have been because +they believed either that (1.) <span class="tei tei-q">“judgment”</span> would make no +sense here; (2.) that <span class="tei tei-q">“damnation”</span> would make better sense; +or, (3.) that <span class="tei tei-q">“damnation”</span> was more in accordance with +the analogy of faith. But we can decide these points for +ourselves. <span class="tei tei-q">“Judgment”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page311">[pg 311]</span><a name="Pg311" id="Pg311" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> (ἀνάστασις) occurs +in the New Testament, it implies going up into a higher +state. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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), <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou shalt be recompensed in the +higher state of the just.”</span> (20:27), the Sadducees <span class="tei tei-q">“deny a +higher state.”</span> (Acts 1:21), <span class="tei tei-q">“he is to be a witness with us +of the ascended state of Jesus.”</span> (Acts 4:2), <span class="tei tei-q">“preached, +through Jesus, the higher state of the dead.”</span> (17:18), +<span class="tei tei-q">“preached to them Jesus and the higher state.”</span> (20:23), +that Christ <span class="tei tei-q">“should be the first to rise into the higher state.”</span> +(Lazarus and others had returned to life again before Jesus, +so that in this sense he was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> the first fruits.) (Rom. 6:5), +<span class="tei tei-q">“planted in the likeness of his resurrection.”</span> This can only +mean as Christ passed through the grave into a higher state, +so we pass through baptism into a higher state. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The only text which presents any real difficulty is Heb. +11:35, translated, <span class="tei tei-q">“women received their dead raised to +life again,”</span> literally, <span class="tei tei-q">“women received from the resurrection +their dead”</span> (ἐξ ἀναστάσεως), 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).<a id="noteref_38" name="noteref_38" href="#note_38"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">38</span></span></a> But in the same verse, the other and <span class="tei tei-q">“better”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page312">[pg 312]</span><a name="Pg312" id="Pg312" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The King +of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto +everlasting life”</span> (εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἀνατήσει ἡμας), +literally, <span class="tei tei-q">“to an eternal renewal of our life.”</span><a id="noteref_39" name="noteref_39" href="#note_39"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">39</span></span></a> This verse +shows, therefore, that though ἀνάστασις may mean a return +to this life, yet that the other sense of a higher life is expressly +contrasted with it, even here. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Our conclusion, therefore, with regard to this term +ἀνάστασις, is, that its meaning, in New Testament usage, is +not <span class="tei tei-q">“rising again,”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“rising up,”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“ascent.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Ἀνίστημι. This word is the root of the former. It +is used one hundred and twelve times in the New Testament. +It is translated with <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">again</span></em> (as, <span class="tei tei-q">“he must rise again from the +dead”</span>) fifteen times. It is translated thirty-six times <span class="tei tei-q">“rise +up”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“raise <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">up</span></em>”</span> (as, <span class="tei tei-q">“I will raise him up at the last +day”</span>), and ninety-six times without the <span class="tei tei-q">“again.”</span> It is rendered +<span class="tei tei-q">“he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">arose</span></em>,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“shall <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">rise</span></em>,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“stood up,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“raise up,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“arise,”</span> and in similar ways. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Ἐγείρω. This word is also frequently used in relation +to the resurrection, and is translated <span class="tei tei-q">“to awaken,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“arouse,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“animate,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“revive.”</span> The natural and usual meaning is +ascent to a higher state, and not merely a <span class="tei tei-q">“rising again.”</span> +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-tb"><hr style="width: 50%" /></div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +From these considerations we see that the primitive and +central meaning of the terms used to express the resurrection +is that of <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">ascent</span></span>. +It is <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">going up</span></span>. 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page313">[pg 313]</span><a name="Pg313" id="Pg313" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +day. But though there is a truth in each of these beliefs, +the Christian doctrine is neither one nor the other. +The gospel <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">assumes</span></em>, but does not teach, a continued existence +of the soul. Since the greater includes the less, in teaching +that the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">man</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“not to destroy, +but to fulfil,”</span> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">fulfils</span></span> both Pagan and Jewish ideas of the +future state in this doctrine of an <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">ascension</span></span> at death. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The principal points of the teaching of Jesus concerning +the life which follows the dissolution of the body are these: +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">First.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em>. If God thinks of them +as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his</span></em>, 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. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Secondly.</span></span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He that liveth +and believeth in me shall never die.”</span> (John 11:26.) <span class="tei tei-q">“He +that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”</span> (John 6:47.) +<span class="tei tei-q">“I am the living bread, whereof if a man eat, he shall live +forever.”</span> (John 6:51.) <span class="tei tei-q">“Whoso eateth my flesh, and +drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.”</span> (John 6:54.) <span class="tei tei-q">“If +a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.”</span> Here, +<span class="tei tei-q">“eating Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood,”</span> is plainly +equivalent to <span class="tei tei-q">“keeping his saying,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“believing on him.”</span> +As <span class="tei tei-q">“food which we eat and drink changes itself so as to become +a part of our own body by assimilation,”</span> so Christ +intends that his truth shall not be merely taken into the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page314">[pg 314]</span><a name="Pg314" id="Pg314" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +memory, and reproduced in words, but shall be taken into the +life, and reproduced in character. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Thirdly.</span></span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“ascent,”</span> the <span class="tei tei-q">“going up.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“I will +raise him up at the last day.”</span> The <span class="tei tei-q">“last day,”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“hath in these +last days spoken unto us by his Son;”</span> 1 John 2:18, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Little children, it is the last time.”</span> 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.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +That <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“risen with Christ”</span> (Col. 3:1); <span class="tei tei-q">“risen +with him in baptism”</span> (Col. 3:1); walking <span class="tei tei-q">“in the likeness +of his resurrection”</span> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“it was +past already.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This Christian faith in <span class="tei tei-q">“resurrection”</span> as ascent to a +higher condition of being at death is practically borne witness +to by such common expressions concerning departed +friends as these: <span class="tei tei-q">“He has gone to a better world;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“He +is in a higher world than this;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“We ought not to grieve +for him—he is better off than he was.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page315">[pg 315]</span><a name="Pg315" id="Pg315" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +are absorbed into God until then, while the souls of the +impenitent descend to a lower sphere. Christ teaches that +at death <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> rise to a higher state—of life and love to the +loving, or judgment by the sight of truth to the selfish; but +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">higher</span></em> to all. Paul declares that <span class="tei tei-q">“as in Adam +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">all</span></span> die, even so in Christ shall <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">all</span></span> +be made alive,”</span> making the rise equivalent in extent to the fall. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> shall rise. This was the <span class="tei tei-q">“power of +the resurrection”</span> of Jesus to destroy the fear of death, to +enable them <span class="tei tei-q">“to attain”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“to the resurrection of the +dead”</span> (Phil. 3:10), teaching that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“For it is Christ +that died, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">yea, rather, that is risen</span></em>, who is even at the right +hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”</span> It was, +therefore, the duty of all Christians, since they were risen in +Christ, <span class="tei tei-q">“to seek the things which are above.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc271" id="toc271"></a> +<a name="pdf272" id="pdf272"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 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.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">materially</span></em> the same as this. We often hear labored arguments +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page316">[pg 316]</span><a name="Pg316" id="Pg316" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“We sow +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> the body which shall be, but bare grain, and God giveth +it a body as pleaseth him.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Many persons, however, take an opposite view, and have +no belief in any future bodily existence. They speak much +more frequently of the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">immortality of the soul</span></em>. 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“How say some among +you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">future existence</span></em>, but they +denied a rising up and a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">future bodily existence</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us consider, first, what is meant by a resurrection of +the body. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">resurrection</span></em> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page317">[pg 317]</span><a name="Pg317" id="Pg317" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +as we have fully shown, means not merely rising out of the +grave, but rising to a higher state of existence. The +<span lang="el" class="tei tei-foreign" xml:lang="el"><span style="font-style: italic">anastasis</span></span> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">body</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Again, the future body is identical with the present true +body of man. For what is our <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true body</span></em>? 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page318">[pg 318]</span><a name="Pg318" id="Pg318" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But again, it will be a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">higher development of the body</span></em>. +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou sowest <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> that body <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that shall be</span></em>, +but bare grain.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Paul goes on to say that <span class="tei tei-q">“there is a natural body and +there is a spiritual.”</span> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Here</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> we +see things through a glass, darkly, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">then</span></em> face to face. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Here</span></em> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">manifest the spirit</span></em> hereafter, as the natural or soul body +now manifests the soul. For while the present body expresses +adequately enough present wishes and emotions, it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page319">[pg 319]</span><a name="Pg319" id="Pg319" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +fails of expressing the spiritual emotions, and fails of being +a true servant of the higher life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this future body</span></em>. How do we know, or why +do we think, that we shall have any such body? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page320">[pg 320]</span><a name="Pg320" id="Pg320" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page321">[pg 321]</span><a name="Pg321" id="Pg321" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page322">[pg 322]</span><a name="Pg322" id="Pg322" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> exalted, he who forgives <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page323">[pg 323]</span><a name="Pg323" id="Pg323" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page324">[pg 324]</span><a name="Pg324" id="Pg324" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc273" id="toc273"></a> +<a name="pdf274" id="pdf274"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XIII. Christ's Coming, Usually Called The </span><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 173%">“</span><span style="font-size: 173%">Second Coming,</span><span style="font-size: 173%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 173%"> +And Christ The Judge Of The World.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc275" id="toc275"></a> +<a name="pdf276" id="pdf276"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly +outward, not local, nor material.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It cannot be wholly future, for if it were, Jesus was mistaken +in saying of the signs of his coming, <span class="tei tei-q">“This generation +shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.”</span> +(Mark 13:30.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Nor can it be wholly outward, for if it were, Jesus was +mistaken when he declared of the signs of his coming, <span class="tei tei-q">“The +kingdom of God cometh not with observation”</span> (Luke 17:20); +<span class="tei tei-q">“The kingdom of God is within you ”</span> (Luke 17:21); +<span class="tei tei-q">“My kingdom is not of this world”</span> (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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Lo, here!”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“Lo, there!”</span> not to +go into the desert when men say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Behold, he is there,”</span> +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.) +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page325">[pg 325]</span><a name="Pg325" id="Pg325" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“here”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“there,”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“clouds of heaven”</span> may symbolize +spiritual movements and influences; the <span class="tei tei-q">“trumpet,”</span> the +awakening power of new truth.<a id="noteref_40" name="noteref_40" href="#note_40"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">40</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc277" id="toc277"></a> +<a name="pdf278" id="pdf278"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is also a remarkable fact that only one coming of Christ +is mentioned in the New Testament. Orthodoxy speaks continually +of Christ's <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> 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) <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em> refer to a +second coming. Hence the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“second coming”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_41" name="noteref_41" href="#note_41"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">41</span></span></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“at the end of the world,”</span> but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at the end of the +age</span></em>. They, like other Jews, divided time into two periods, +<span class="tei tei-q">“the present age,”</span> or times previous to the Messiah, and +<span class="tei tei-q">“the coming age,”</span> or times of the Messiah's reign. When, +therefore, Jesus was with them, only teaching and healing, +they did not at all consider him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to have come</span></em> as the Messiah. +But when he spoke of the destruction of the Temple, as <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page326">[pg 326]</span><a name="Pg326" id="Pg326" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +indicated the end of the existing economy, they understood it +to be synchronous with his coming as the Christ. So they +said, <span class="tei tei-q">“What shall be the sign of thy <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">coming</span></span>, and of the +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">end of the age</span></span>?”</span> And so through the Epistles, when the +<span class="tei tei-q">“coming of Christ”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Christ's +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second</span></em> coming”</span> is unknown to the Scriptures.<a id="noteref_42" name="noteref_42" href="#note_42"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">42</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc279" id="toc279"></a> +<a name="pdf280" id="pdf280"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming +of Christ?</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How</span></em> can this man give +us his flesh to eat?”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page327">[pg 327]</span><a name="Pg327" id="Pg327" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +seen <span class="tei tei-q">“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,”</span> they took it literally. +His apostles, even, may have supposed that he was to be seen +up in the air in physical form,<a id="noteref_43" name="noteref_43" href="#note_43"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">43</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Materialists and Literalists are always the same. The +apostles soon rose out of their literalism, and soon spoke of +Christ as being revealed <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">within</span></em> them, not outside of them; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page328">[pg 328]</span><a name="Pg328" id="Pg328" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Fools, and slow of heart,”</span> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc281" id="toc281"></a> +<a name="pdf282" id="pdf282"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Examination of the Account of Christ's Coming given +by Jesus in Matthew (chapters 24-26).</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“this generation shall not pass away till +all these things be fulfilled.”</span> On the other hand, the coming +of Christ is expressly connected, in our translation, with <span class="tei tei-q">“the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page329">[pg 329]</span><a name="Pg329" id="Pg329" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +end of the world,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page330">[pg 330]</span><a name="Pg330" id="Pg330" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The best way to get at the facts is to begin at the beginning, +and ask <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what the disciples meant</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">When</span></em> shall these things be? and what +shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”</span> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page331">[pg 331]</span><a name="Pg331" id="Pg331" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +what he meant, we must place ourselves on their stand-point, +look out of their eyes, and listen with their ears. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The coming of Christ had a very distinct meaning to the +Jewish mind. It meant the manifestation of the Messiah, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as +such</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Nor were they asking—as our translators make them ask—for +<span class="tei tei-q">“the end of the world.”</span> But they were asking for +the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">end of the age</span></em>—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, <span class="tei tei-q">“These are written for our admonition, +upon whom the ends of the world are come;”</span> and where +he says that Christ has <span class="tei tei-q">“now once appeared in the end of +the world to put away sin.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page332">[pg 332]</span><a name="Pg332" id="Pg332" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +this really was the coming of the Messiah and the end of +the age. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_44" name="noteref_44" href="#note_44"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">44</span></span></a> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page333">[pg 333]</span><a name="Pg333" id="Pg333" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +were manifested then, continue to be manifested in other +forms to-day. Jesus said on one occasion, <span class="tei tei-q">“The hour is +coming, and now is, when all that are in their graves shall +hear the voice of the Son of man.”</span> And on another occasion, +<span class="tei tei-q">“The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers +shall worship the Father.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us look and consider how this may be. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc283" id="toc283"></a> +<a name="pdf284" id="pdf284"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different +Times.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page334">[pg 334]</span><a name="Pg334" id="Pg334" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">over the individual soul</span></em> as its Master, +Guide, and Redeemer from all sin. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page335">[pg 335]</span><a name="Pg335" id="Pg335" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page336">[pg 336]</span><a name="Pg336" id="Pg336" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Lo, +here!”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Lo, there!”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc285" id="toc285"></a> +<a name="pdf286" id="pdf286"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the +Talents, to Christ's Coming.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“My Lord delayeth his coming,”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page337">[pg 337]</span><a name="Pg337" id="Pg337" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +he comes, of recognizing him in any new manifestation of +truth, depends on his previous fidelity. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc287" id="toc287"></a> +<a name="pdf288" id="pdf288"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, +in Matt. ch. 25, to his Coming.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But what is meant by +the judgment described in the 25th chapter of Matthew, commencing, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Come, ye blessed of my Father; inherit +the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the +world.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It may be said, this is to make the coming of Christ merely +figurative—the coming of ideas and principles only; only +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page338">[pg 338]</span><a name="Pg338" id="Pg338" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc289" id="toc289"></a> +<a name="pdf290" id="pdf290"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“For God sent not his +Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world +through him might be saved.”</span> The word here translated +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">condemn</span></em>”</span> is precisely the same as that which elsewhere +is translated <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judge</span></em>.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“For judgment have I come +into the world, that they which see not may see, and that +they which see might be made blind.”</span> Again (in John +5:22) it is said, that <span class="tei tei-q">“the Father judgeth no man, but hath +committed all judgment unto the Son.”</span> But in the following +passage (John 8:15) Jesus says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye judge after the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page339">[pg 339]</span><a name="Pg339" id="Pg339" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +flesh. I judge no man.”</span> And in the last text he repeats +the same idea. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What, then, is the explanation of these passages? In +what way is Christ to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judge</span></em>? How is it that he has come +into this world for <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judgment</span></em>? and how has the Father committed +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all judgment</span></em> unto the Son? and how, nevertheless, can +be say, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I judge no man; for I came not to judge the world</span></em>”</span>? +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page340">[pg 340]</span><a name="Pg340" id="Pg340" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“The law was given by +Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page341">[pg 341]</span><a name="Pg341" id="Pg341" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“For judgment I have +come into the world, that those which see not may see, and that +those who see may be made blind.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page342">[pg 342]</span><a name="Pg342" id="Pg342" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +pure in heart. They were proud of their position, their influence, +their piety, and his coming transformed them into +murderers. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He who believeth +not on me is judged already, because he hath not believed +on the name of the only begotten Son of God.”</span> It was not +the will of Christ, but the truth itself, which pronounced the +sentence upon him. <span class="tei tei-q">“The word that I have spoken, the same +shall judge him at the last day.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page343">[pg 343]</span><a name="Pg343" id="Pg343" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc291" id="toc291"></a> +<a name="pdf292" id="pdf292"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Nevertheless, there is a more important question to be answered in relation +to the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">time</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Now</span></em> is the judgment of the world.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He is a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber,”</span> they +may have forgotten their words almost before they left their +mouths. But there they stand, recorded against them +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page344">[pg 344]</span><a name="Pg344" id="Pg344" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page345">[pg 345]</span><a name="Pg345" id="Pg345" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is appointed +unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So it is whenever a new truth comes into the world: it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page346">[pg 346]</span><a name="Pg346" id="Pg346" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">war</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">slavery</span></em>, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">intemperance</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">licentiousness</span></em>, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">popular ignorance</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">pauperism</span></em>, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">infidelity</span></em>, +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 +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or +blight,</span></span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Parts the goats upon the left hand, parts the sheep upon the right,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and the +light.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page347">[pg 347]</span><a name="Pg347" id="Pg347" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“It was necessary that the word of God should be +first preached to you; but since you put it from you, and +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life</span></em>, lo, we turn to the +Gentiles.”</span> A hard judgment for a man to pronounce on +himself—that he is not worthy of eternal life! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc293" id="toc293"></a> +<a name="pdf294" id="pdf294"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. Paul's View of the Judgment by Christ.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What were the views of the apostle Paul concerning a future judgment? +One of the passages is in Romans. (2:5-16.) In +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page348">[pg 348]</span><a name="Pg348" id="Pg348" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“that day”</span> the <span class="tei tei-q">“day of judgment,”</span> as, <span class="tei tei-q">“it +shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day +of judgment.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page349">[pg 349]</span><a name="Pg349" id="Pg349" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">mise +en scène</span></span>; 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Know ye not that the saints shall +judge the world?”</span> and (verse 3), <span class="tei tei-q">“Know ye not that we +shall judge angels?”</span> 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), <span class="tei tei-q">“Know ye +not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of +God?”</span> or (verse 19), <span class="tei tei-q">“Know ye not that your body is the +temple of the Holy Spirit?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The other point is the passage in 1 Cor. 11:31: <span class="tei tei-q">“If we +would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.”</span> Here a +principle seems to be laid down—that just so far as we apply +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page350">[pg 350]</span><a name="Pg350" id="Pg350" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 (τὰ ἔθνη). +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.<a id="noteref_45" name="noteref_45" href="#note_45"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">45</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc295" id="toc295"></a> +<a name="pdf296" id="pdf296"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 11. Final Result.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page351">[pg 351]</span><a name="Pg351" id="Pg351" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +It is right in making it a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">personal</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The spirit quickeneth, the flesh +profiteth nothing</span></span>,”</span> and the similar statement of Paul, +<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">The letter killeth</span></span>.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page352">[pg 352]</span><a name="Pg352" id="Pg352" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc297" id="toc297"></a> +<a name="pdf298" id="pdf298"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XIV. Eternal Punishment, Annihilation, Universal Restoration.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc299" id="toc299"></a> +<a name="pdf300" id="pdf300"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Different Views concerning the Condition of the Impenitent +hereafter.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The different views concerning the future +state, held by the Christian Church, may be thus classified; +arranging them, exhaustively, under eight divisions:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I. The Roman Catholic Church makes three conditions +hereafter; viz.,— +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">1. Everlasting joy.</div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">2. Everlasting suffering.</div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">3. Temporal sorrow in purgatory.</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. The Orthodox Protestant Church makes two conditions +hereafter; viz.,— +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">1. Unmixed and everlasting joy.</div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">2. Unmixed and everlasting suffering.</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +III. The Old School Universalists make one condition +hereafter; viz.,— +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">1. Eternal joy.</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +IV. New School Universalists and Restorationists make +two conditions hereafter; viz.,— +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">1. Eternal joy.</div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left">2. Temporal and finite suffering.</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +V. Unitarians make an indefinite number of conditions +hereafter, according to the various characters and moral +states of men. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VI. The Swedenborgians make an indefinite but limited +number of heavens and hells, suited to the varieties of character, +but having a supernatural origin. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page353">[pg 353]</span><a name="Pg353" id="Pg353" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VII. The Spiritualists make the other world like this +world, with no essential differences, making it a continuation +of the natural life. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VIII. The Annihilationists believe that the finally impenitent +will perish wholly, and come to nothing. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc301" id="toc301"></a> +<a name="pdf302" id="pdf302"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by +the Orthodox at the Present Time.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page354">[pg 354]</span><a name="Pg354" id="Pg354" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page355">[pg 355]</span><a name="Pg355" id="Pg355" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> view of the Deity, +however shocking, may very legitimately proceed. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There are some doctrines, the statement of which is their +refutation. This, we think, is one of them. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page356">[pg 356]</span><a name="Pg356" id="Pg356" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page357">[pg 357]</span><a name="Pg357" id="Pg357" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“was followed to the tomb by the holy +feet of his three dear companions—Luxury, Simony, and +Cruelty.”</span><a id="noteref_46" name="noteref_46" href="#note_46"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">46</span></span></a> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page358">[pg 358]</span><a name="Pg358" id="Pg358" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page359">[pg 359]</span><a name="Pg359" id="Pg359" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page360">[pg 360]</span><a name="Pg360" id="Pg360" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +declines to install him as pastor, because it <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Are you insured?”</span> which represents +Christianity as a contrivance for escaping from everlasting +torment, as a spiritual insurance office, where one +must <span class="tei tei-q">“take out a policy,”</span> and so escape everlasting fire.<a id="noteref_47" name="noteref_47" href="#note_47"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">47</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +There is no theological journal, bearing the Orthodox +name, which is more rational and liberal than the <span class="tei tei-q">“New +York Independent.”</span> But in its issue of January 5, 1860, +it speaks of future endless misery thus, saying that there +is a <span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page361">[pg 361]</span><a name="Pg361" id="Pg361" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Love and Penalty.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_48" name="noteref_48" href="#note_48"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">48</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page362">[pg 362]</span><a name="Pg362" id="Pg362" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc303" id="toc303"></a> +<a name="pdf304" id="pdf304"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, +in Regard to this Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“These shall go away into eternal punishment;”</span> +but it is also written, that Christ <span class="tei tei-q">“shall reign till all things +are subdued unto him;”</span> when <span class="tei tei-q">“the Son also himself shall +be subject to Him who did put all things under him, that +God may be all in all.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“with +everlasting destruction from the presence of God;”</span> but it is +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page363">[pg 363]</span><a name="Pg363" id="Pg363" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +also said that <span class="tei tei-q">“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;”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> It is said +of the wicked, that <span class="tei tei-q">“their worm never dies, and their fire is +not quenched;”</span> but it is also said that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> So that Scripture, +at first sight, seems to teach both eternal punishment and +universal restoration. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Of course these seeming contradictions of Scripture and +antinomies of reason are not real contradictions. God does +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page364">[pg 364]</span><a name="Pg364" id="Pg364" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +not contradict himself either in revelation or in reason. +Whether we can reconcile such antagonisms <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em>, 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I know that it is so—here is the +evidence,”</span> I reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“I do not care for your evidence. I +know that it is impossible.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These contradictions we shall consider in a paper printed +in the Appendix (an examination of Dr. Neheimiah Adams's +tract on the <span class="tei tei-q">“Reasonableness of Everlasting Punishment”</span>). +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.) +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page365">[pg 365]</span><a name="Pg365" id="Pg365" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach +of the Deity. Plutarch saith well to that purpose. <span class="tei tei-q">‘Surely,’</span> +saith he, <span class="tei tei-q">‘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,’</span> as the poets speak of Saturn. And +as the contumely is greater towards God, so is the danger +greater towards men.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to</span></em> God, drive them as slaves, as sycophants, as servants, not +as sons. We are saved by becoming <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the sons of God</span></em>; 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page366">[pg 366]</span><a name="Pg366" id="Pg366" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc305" id="toc305"></a> +<a name="pdf306" id="pdf306"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of God.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_49" name="noteref_49" href="#note_49"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">49</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is, in fact, impossible to conceive of an eternal hell co-existing +with an eternal heaven, without also seeing that it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page367">[pg 367]</span><a name="Pg367" id="Pg367" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> reduced to submission and obedience. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">eternal</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">no</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc307" id="toc307"></a> +<a name="pdf308" id="pdf308"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love +of God.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page368">[pg 368]</span><a name="Pg368" id="Pg368" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, the being who could inflict such torture as this is +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page369">[pg 369]</span><a name="Pg369" id="Pg369" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Finite</span></em> suffering may result in greater good, may +be an education to good; but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">everlasting</span></em> suffering cannot. +The finite and infinite cannot be compared together. There +is no analogy between them. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The God of the New Testament is our Father. If he inflicts +suffering, it is for our good; <span class="tei tei-q">“not for his pleasure, but +for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness.”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">see how</span></em> +it tends to good; but all suffering <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that ends</span></em> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">may</span></span> +end in good. +Suffering that does not end <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">cannot</span></span> end in good. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">may</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">so</span></em> ceased sinning. In either case, +God must punish everlastingly those who have ceased to be +sinners; which is incredible. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If God is a Father, he is at least <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">as good</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">created</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page370">[pg 370]</span><a name="Pg370" id="Pg370" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +he saves us by a special act of grace. <span class="tei tei-q">“What man among +you, being a father,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">justice</span></span> of their parents +in thus punishing some and rewarding the rest. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“But what right,”</span> says the Orthodox defender of this doctrine, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">No</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page371">[pg 371]</span><a name="Pg371" id="Pg371" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +ourselves that God cannot fail of acting as we should expect +a good and wise earthly parent to act. <span class="tei tei-q">“What man is there +of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">you</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ye</span></em> 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?”</span> (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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Believe this, because I say it,”</span> he +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Believe it, because it accords with your own convictions +and with human nature.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc309" id="toc309"></a> +<a name="pdf310" id="pdf310"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting +Punishment.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page372">[pg 372]</span><a name="Pg372" id="Pg372" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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<a id="noteref_50" name="noteref_50" href="#note_50"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">50</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Many, in all ages, have made the everlasting continuance +of punishment not absolute, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hypothetical</span></em>—depending on +the question, <span class="tei tei-q">“Will the sinner continue forever to sin?”</span><a id="noteref_51" name="noteref_51" href="#note_51"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">51</span></span></a> +Others have made future punishment <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">relatively</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page373">[pg 373]</span><a name="Pg373" id="Pg373" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +progress, as though it was limited, like the going of a horse, +to so many miles a day. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Many of the early fathers, and some of the mediæval 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.<a id="noteref_52" name="noteref_52" href="#note_52"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">52</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_53" name="noteref_53" href="#note_53"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">53</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_54" name="noteref_54" href="#note_54"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">54</span></span></a> Since Jesus speaks +of a sin which cannot be forgiven in this age (ἀιὼν) 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 (sæcula sæculorum) must pass away before all bad +men and angels shall have returned to their original state. +Quoting the passage, <span class="tei tei-q">“The last enemy that shall be destroyed,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mr. Brownson (or rather a writer in Brownson's <span class="tei tei-q">“Quarterly +Review,”</span> July, 1863) takes another way of softening +the terrors of hell. With him too, hell is an everlasting +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page374">[pg 374]</span><a name="Pg374" id="Pg374" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. St. Augustine nowhere teaches that human nature is +intrinsically evil, but he invariably teaches that it is substantially +good. (<span class="tei tei-q">“Omnis natura in quantum natura est bona +est.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Omnis substantia aut Deus est aut ex Deo.”</span> De Lib. +Arbit.) Therefore it follows that the very notion of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">total</span></em> +depravity is impossible. St. Augustine distinctly says that +<span class="tei tei-q">“the very unclean spirit himself is good, inasmuch as he is a +spirit, but evil inasmuch as he is unclean.”</span> Hence, not +even the nature of the devil himself is evil. So St. Thomas +(<span class="tei tei-q">“Diabolus, in quantum habet esse, est bonus”</span>), <span class="tei tei-q">“the devil, +so far as he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em>, is good.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page375">[pg 375]</span><a name="Pg375" id="Pg375" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Their nature still remains essentially good, +and far superior in excellence and beauty to material light, +which is the highest corporeal substance.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Hell, therefore (Infernus), is simply a lower state of +inchoate and imperfect being, <span class="tei tei-q">“of saints nipped in the bud.”</span> +Infant damnation is only a gentle sadness—<span class="tei tei-q">“levis tristitia.”</span> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">minus</span></em> the temporal +sufferings of this life. They continue <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">natural</span></em> beings, and +therefore can enjoy all natural joy; and that which they lose, +being the <span class="tei tei-q">“beatific vision,”</span> of which they have no conception, +is a loss of which they are wholly unconscious. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc311" id="toc311"></a> +<a name="pdf312" id="pdf312"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But what, then, is the vital truth in the doctrine of eternal +punishment? Christ says, <span class="tei tei-q">“These shall go away into eternal +punishment.”</span><a id="noteref_55" name="noteref_55" href="#note_55"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">55</span></span></a> What is this <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal punishment”</span>? +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page376">[pg 376]</span><a name="Pg376" id="Pg376" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“This <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> life eternal, +to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom +thou hast sent.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Eternal life and eternal death both come +from the knowledge of God and of Christ.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page377">[pg 377]</span><a name="Pg377" id="Pg377" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“come to himself.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“I was +scarcely seated,”</span> says he, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Or perhaps they will be the poor black women +in Africa, who took such kind care of Mungo Park, singing, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Let us pity the white man: he has no mother to bring +him milk, no wife to grind him corn.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Lord, when saw we thee an hungered?”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page378">[pg 378]</span><a name="Pg378" id="Pg378" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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<a id="noteref_56" name="noteref_56" href="#note_56"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">56</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">are</span></em> eternal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page379">[pg 379]</span><a name="Pg379" id="Pg379" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">duration</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And this reconciles the philosophic difficulty. Man, being +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">free</span></em>, can postpone his submission and obedience <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">indefinitely</span></em>; +but, being finite, cannot postpone it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">infinitely</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Eternal”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“everlasting”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The whole of antiquity recognizes this distinction; and +the Bible is saturated with it. When Jesus says, <span class="tei tei-q">“He who +believes in me has <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">eternal life</span></em> abiding in him,”</span> there is +nothing about duration intended in that. When he says, +<span class="tei tei-q">“This is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">life eternal</span></em>, to know thee the only true God,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We believe in eternal punishment; but, because it is eternal, +therefore it is not everlasting. Eternal suffering, flowing +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page380">[pg 380]</span><a name="Pg380" id="Pg380" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">conviction</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page381">[pg 381]</span><a name="Pg381" id="Pg381" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is the great truth which is often lost sight of by +Liberal Christianity, and by that easy optimism which declares +that <span class="tei tei-q">“whatever is, is right;”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page382">[pg 382]</span><a name="Pg382" id="Pg382" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_57" name="noteref_57" href="#note_57"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">57</span></span></a> +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc313" id="toc313"></a> +<a name="pdf314" id="pdf314"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punishment.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +A deaf and dumb child being asked, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is judgment?”</span> +replied, <span class="tei tei-q">“Judgment is to see ourselves as we are, and to see +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page383">[pg 383]</span><a name="Pg383" id="Pg383" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +God as he is.”</span> This is the essential thing in judgment; and +in this sense Christ is declared <span class="tei tei-q">“to be the judge of the quick +and the dead;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page384">[pg 384]</span><a name="Pg384" id="Pg384" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> So +it always is. God does not judge us, nor Christ; but we +judge ourselves. For this reason Jesus says, <span class="tei tei-q">“If any man +hear me, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not +to judge the world.”</span> And again he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“The word which +I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day.”</span> +And yet again, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the +last day.”</span> The first takes place whenever we are <span class="tei tei-q">“called”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">who are invited to receive Christianity</span></em>; +the servants with the talents, believers who have received it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page385">[pg 385]</span><a name="Pg385" id="Pg385" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +in different degrees; and the nations (heathen, τὰ ἔθνη)<a id="noteref_58" name="noteref_58" href="#note_58"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">58</span></span></a> +those (in Christendom or outside of it) to whom Christianity +has never come. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc315" id="toc315"></a> +<a name="pdf316" id="pdf316"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“too good for banning, and too bad for blessing,”</span> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“life through +Christ”</span> is equivalent to continued conscious existence, and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page386">[pg 386]</span><a name="Pg386" id="Pg386" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +that <span class="tei tei-q">“death”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em>, then he is +<span class="tei tei-q">“the God, not of the dead, but of the living, for all live to +him.”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc317" id="toc317"></a> +<a name="pdf318" id="pdf318"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_59" name="noteref_59" href="#note_59"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">59</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page387">[pg 387]</span><a name="Pg387" id="Pg387" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Eph. 1:9, 10. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The apostle is speaking of the <span class="tei tei-q">“riches of God's grace,”</span> +wherein <span class="tei tei-q">“he hath <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">abounded</span></em> toward us,”</span> and gives as the +proof this revelation made in Christ of a great mystery—that +<span class="tei tei-q">“in the dispensation [economy] of the fulness of times”</span> +he might bring into one (under one head) <span class="tei tei-q">“all things in +heaven and on earth.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“in heaven and earth.”</span> This +would seem to be a very plain statement of a universal restoration. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“It cannot be disputed,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“that in it the restoration +of all things seems to be again favored—a view which Paul +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page388">[pg 388]</span><a name="Pg388" id="Pg388" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> The defenders of universal restoration, +says Olshausen, <span class="tei tei-q">“understand the harmony of the +universe seriously, in its literal meaning, and seem, according +to that, to be here in the right.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Phil. 2:9, 10. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Here we have <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">things under +the earth</span></em>”</span> (καταχθονίων) added to <span class="tei tei-q">“things in heaven and +on earth.”</span> This word only occurs here in the New Testament, +but is by Bretschneider (Lex. Man.) translated <span class="tei tei-q">“subterranean”</span> +or <span class="tei tei-q">“infernal,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page389">[pg 389]</span><a name="Pg389" id="Pg389" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Col. 1:20. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Here a new feature is added to the statement by +the word <span class="tei tei-q">“reconcile,”</span> which evidently expresses the entire +conversion of the heart, and therefore of human beings, to +the law of Christ. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. 1 Cor. 15:22. <span class="tei tei-q">“As in Adam all die, even so in +Christ shall all be made alive.”</span> The <span class="tei tei-q">“all”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> human beings, in the fullest sense. All +men die, and all men sin. It would therefore seem that the +other <span class="tei tei-q">“all”</span> must be quite as comprehensive. It must include +all human beings. All men shall <span class="tei tei-q">“be made alive in Christ.”</span> +But this cannot mean a mere physical immortality, or an +immortality in misery; for one cannot be said to be <span class="tei tei-q">“alive +in Christ”</span> who is suffering endless torment. To be <span class="tei tei-q">“alive +in Christ”</span> means to be spiritually alive, for <span class="tei tei-q">“he that hath +the Son hath life.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. 1 Cor. 24:28. In this passage Paul declares that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> +enemies shall be subject to Christ. But this, again, cannot +mean a forced submission, for that is in no sense being subject +to Christ. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Christ's</span></em> subjects are willing subjects. It +therefore must mean that, finally, all human beings shall become +Christian in conviction and in heart. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">never</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page390">[pg 390]</span><a name="Pg390" id="Pg390" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +good. The prodigal son represents those who are <span class="tei tei-q">“dead in +sin.”</span> (Luke 15:24-32.) The parable teaches that God loves +them all the while they are away, and that <span class="tei tei-q">“there is more +joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety +and nine just persons who need no repentance.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“his mercy endure forever”</span>? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Make +us as thy hired servants.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">present</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“worm +that never dies,”</span> the <span class="tei tei-q">“fire that is never quenched,”</span> the +<span class="tei tei-q">“outer darkness,”</span>—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 <span class="tei tei-q">“chasten us, not for his pleasure, but for our profit, +that we may be partakers of his holiness.”</span> +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page391">[pg 391]</span><a name="Pg391" id="Pg391" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc319" id="toc319"></a> +<a name="pdf320" id="pdf320"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XV. The Christian Church.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc321" id="toc321"></a> +<a name="pdf322" id="pdf322"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. The Question stated.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page392">[pg 392]</span><a name="Pg392" id="Pg392" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +purposes; and Odd-Fellows associations, Masonic associations, +and clubs for social purposes. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Church</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page393">[pg 393]</span><a name="Pg393" id="Pg393" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fulfilled</span></em>, not destroyed. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page394">[pg 394]</span><a name="Pg394" id="Pg394" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc323" id="toc323"></a> +<a name="pdf324" id="pdf324"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church—Roman Catholic +and High Church.</span></h2> + + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Admitting, then, the permanency of the +Christian Church, we next ask, <span class="tei tei-q">“What is its true form?”</span> or, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Which is the true Church?”</span> or, again, to state it in another +way, <span class="tei tei-q">“Is the form of the Church permanent, or only its substance? +Is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> union for Christian purposes, for worship +and work, a Church, or must it be found in some particular +organic form?”</span> To this question Romanism and High +Church Episcopacy reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“It must.”</span> The rest of Protestantism +answers, <span class="tei tei-q">“No.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Thou art Peter,”</span> &c., and in the regularity of the succession +of subsequent bishops. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“According to the Catholic dogma,”</span> says Guericke,<a id="noteref_60" name="noteref_60" href="#note_60"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">60</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +This Church, according to Bellarmine, is a wholly visible and +outward association; as much so as the kingdom of France +or republic of Venice.<a id="noteref_61" name="noteref_61" href="#note_61"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">61</span></span></a> According to Moehler,<a id="noteref_62" name="noteref_62" href="#note_62"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">62</span></span></a> the Church +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page395">[pg 395]</span><a name="Pg395" id="Pg395" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +to the end of the world.”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_63" name="noteref_63" href="#note_63"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">63</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> infallible, and has never committed any +mistake; (7.) That it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> Catholic, and includes all true +Christians; (8.) That it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> at one with itself, having never +known divisions; (9.) That it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em> 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;<a id="noteref_64" name="noteref_64" href="#note_64"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">64</span></span></a> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page396">[pg 396]</span><a name="Pg396" id="Pg396" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every</span></em> link, and cannot carry conviction +to any unbiassed mind. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In a little work lately published in France by the Protestant +Pastor, Mr. Bost,<a id="noteref_65" name="noteref_65" href="#note_65"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">65</span></span></a> 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.<a id="noteref_66" name="noteref_66" href="#note_66"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">66</span></span></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">against</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">because it has done no worse</span></em> +than those which it denounces as being in error and sin. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc325" id="toc325"></a> +<a name="pdf326" id="pdf326"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Protestantism does not claim for its Church exclusive holiness or +infallibility. It defines the Church to be <span class="tei tei-q">“a congregation of +faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and +the sacraments duly administered.”</span><a id="noteref_67" name="noteref_67" href="#note_67"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">67</span></span></a> Why, then, the reaction +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page397">[pg 397]</span><a name="Pg397" id="Pg397" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span class="tei tei-q" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">Me this unchartered freedom tires,</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span><span style="font-size: 90%">—</span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +and which, in <span class="tei tei-q">“Van Artevelde,”</span> declares that,— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<div class="tei tei-lg" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em; margin-top: 0.90em"> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 90%">Thought is tired of wandering through the world,</span></div> +<div class="tei tei-l" style="text-align: left; margin-left: 1.80em"><span style="font-size: 90%">And homeward fancy runs its bark ashore,—</span></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page398">[pg 398]</span><a name="Pg398" id="Pg398" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Presbyter is only the old priest written +large.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">naïveté</span></span>, +the tendency of both Catholic and Protestant Orthodoxy, to +put right opinion above right conduct. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“It was heard by some that Abbot Agatho possessed the +gift of discrimination. Therefore, to make trial of his temper, +they said to him, <span class="tei tei-q">‘We are told that you are sensual and +haughty.’</span> He answered, <span class="tei tei-q">‘That is just it.’</span> They said again, +<span class="tei tei-q">‘Are you not that Agatho who has such a foul tongue?’</span> He +answered, <span class="tei tei-q">‘I am he.’</span> Then they said, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Are not you Agatho +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the heretic</span></em>?’</span> He made answer, <span class="tei tei-q">‘No.’</span> Then they asked him +why he had been patient of so much, but would not put up +with this last. He answered, <span class="tei tei-q">‘By those I was but casting +on me evil; but by this I should be severing me from God.’</span> ”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +According, therefore, to Agatho and Dr. Newman, the +tongue <span class="tei tei-q">“which is set on fire of hell,”</span> does not separate us +from God, but an error of opinion does. Pride, <span class="tei tei-q">“which +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page399">[pg 399]</span><a name="Pg399" id="Pg399" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +comes before a fall,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc327" id="toc327"></a> +<a name="pdf328" id="pdf328"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Christ's Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,<a id="noteref_68" name="noteref_68" href="#note_68"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">68</span></span></a> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“kingdom of heaven,”</span> This phrase, in the mouth of +Jesus, expresses essentially what we mean by <span class="tei tei-q">“the Church.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page400">[pg 400]</span><a name="Pg400" id="Pg400" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +This will appear more plainly if we sum up the principal +meanings of the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“kingdom of God”</span> in the New Testament. +It is,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Something near at hand.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mark 1:15. <span class="tei tei-q">“The kingdom of God is at hand.”</span> Luke +9:27. <span class="tei tei-q">“There are some standing here who shall not taste +of death till they see the kingdom of God.”</span> Mark 9:1. +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It was already beginning.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Luke 17:20. <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘among’</span>) you.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It was not of this world.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +John 18:36. Jesus said, <span class="tei tei-q">“My kingdom is not of this +world.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">But was to be in this world.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Matt. 6:10. <span class="tei tei-q">“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on +earth, as it is in heaven.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">In some respects it was to be an outward and visible +kingdom, or an outward institution.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Parable of the grain of mustard-seed. Matt. 13:31, 32. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +6. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It would contain good and bad.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Parable of the net. Matt. 13:47. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +7. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It would belong to Christ.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Col. 1:13. <span class="tei tei-q">“Hath translated us into the kingdom of +his Son.”</span> Luke 22:30. <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye shall eat and drink in my +kingdom.”</span> John 18:36. <span class="tei tei-q">“My kingdom is not of this +world.”</span> Matt. 16:28. <span class="tei tei-q">“Shall see the Son of man coming +in his kingdom.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +8. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It would be finally given up to God.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1 Cor. 15:24. <span class="tei tei-q">“Then the end; when he shall have delivered +up the kingdom to God, even the Father,”</span> &c. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page401">[pg 401]</span><a name="Pg401" id="Pg401" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +9. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It is a spiritual kingdom.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Rom. 14:17. <span class="tei tei-q">“For the kingdom of God is not meat and +drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +10. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Flesh and blood cannot inherit it.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1 Cor. 15:50. <span class="tei tei-q">“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom +of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +11. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The conditions of admission are spiritual.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +John 3:3. <span class="tei tei-q">“Except a man be born again,”</span> &c. Matt. +5:3. <span class="tei tei-q">“Blessed are the poor in spirit,”</span> &c. 1 Cor. 6:9. +<span class="tei tei-q">“The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”</span> +See Gal. 5:21. Eph. 5:5. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +12. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The kingdom was to be established by the Son of man +at his coming.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Matt. 24:30; 25:1. <span class="tei tei-q">“They shall see the Son of man +coming in the clouds of heaven,”</span> &c. <span class="tei tei-q">“Then shall the +kingdom of heaven be likened.”</span><a id="noteref_69" name="noteref_69" href="#note_69"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">69</span></span></a> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page402">[pg 402]</span><a name="Pg402" id="Pg402" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">truth</span></em>, in which his <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">method</span></span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page403">[pg 403]</span><a name="Pg403" id="Pg403" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc329" id="toc329"></a> +<a name="pdf330" id="pdf330"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">influence</span></em>; +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The wind +bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sound thereof.... +So is every one who is born of the Spirit.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“So is every one who is born of the Spirit.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page404">[pg 404]</span><a name="Pg404" id="Pg404" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the Church of +the Leaven</span></span> pass through. <span class="tei tei-q">“Nobody can be saved,”</span> says +Dogmatic Christianity, <span class="tei tei-q">“who does not believe in the Trinity +and the Atonement.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Nobody can be saved,”</span> says Sentimental +Christianity, <span class="tei tei-q">“who has not had a conscious +change of heart.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“ Nobody can be saved,”</span> says Formal +Christianity, <span class="tei tei-q">“who is out of the true Church and its sacraments.”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Let them come to me, and forbid them not;”</span> gathering +the lambs in his arms, carrying them in his bosom, and +tenderly leading them in the green pastures beside the still +waters. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page405">[pg 405]</span><a name="Pg405" id="Pg405" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +ours pass by. What kind-hearted Orthodox man or woman +was ever wanting in an excuse for letting his heretical +friends into heaven. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc331" id="toc331"></a> +<a name="pdf332" id="pdf332"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page406">[pg 406]</span><a name="Pg406" id="Pg406" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The visible Church may be looked at in four points of +view. We may consider it as,— +</p> + +<table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">1. The Primitive Church, or Church as it was.</td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">2. The Church Actual, or Church as it is.</td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">3. The Ideal Church, or Church as it ought to be.</td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">4. The Possible Church, or Church as it can be.</td></tr></tbody></table> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc333" id="toc333"></a> +<a name="pdf334" id="pdf334"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +ὁς δὲ μεθύει). 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page407">[pg 407]</span><a name="Pg407" id="Pg407" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“seemed +to be pillars”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“A murmuring arose”</span> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page408">[pg 408]</span><a name="Pg408" id="Pg408" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +That they had no form of service, no fixed Liturgy, in the +apostolic Church, appears from 1 Cor. 14:26. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Now, it is very evident +no fixed or formal service could have been established in the +churches when he recommended this. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“While +it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was +it not in thine own power?”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page409">[pg 409]</span><a name="Pg409" id="Pg409" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the flight of one alone to the only One,”</span>—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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do +good</span></em> and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">get good</span></em>—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. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page410">[pg 410]</span><a name="Pg410" id="Pg410" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc335" id="toc335"></a> +<a name="pdf336" id="pdf336"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 8. The Actual Church, or the Church as it is.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page411">[pg 411]</span><a name="Pg411" id="Pg411" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +feebleness, are yet the instruments of an incalculable good. +But when we look at what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> to be done, what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ought</span></em> to be +done, what <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">could</span></em> be done by them, their present state seems +most forlorn. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is one of the most difficult of our duties not to despise +an imperfect good, and yet not to be satisfied with it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page412">[pg 412]</span><a name="Pg412" id="Pg412" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">intention</span></em> 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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">How much</span></em> is essential? Is it essential +that there be enough to entirely immerse the body? The +Catholic Church replies, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">No</span></em>.”</span> Is the aqueous vapor always +present in the air enough? It answers, <span class="tei tei-q">“No, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">that</span></em> is +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> enough.”</span> At what precise point, then, between these two, +does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">enough</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page413">[pg 413]</span><a name="Pg413" id="Pg413" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +answer this question, has answered it thus: There is no +baptism until water enough to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">run</span></em> is put on the child. A +drop which will not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">run</span></em>, 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.<a id="noteref_70" name="noteref_70" href="#note_70"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">70</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +How does this sound by the side of the declaration of the +apostle Paul—<span class="tei tei-q">“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”</span>? +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“O, no!”</span> we say, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot help being a +follower</span></em> of Christ, whatever he may call himself. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +How the Church Judaizes about the Sabbath—pretending, +first, that there <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is a Sabbath</span></em> in Christianity, and teaching +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page414">[pg 414]</span><a name="Pg414" id="Pg414" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +people that there is a sort of piety in calling Sunday <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Sabbath</span></em>, +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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Forbid him not: he that is +not against us is with us.”</span> And again: <span class="tei tei-q">“Whosoever wishes +to do the will of God, the same is my mother, my sister, and +my brother.”</span> Dear Master! is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">thy</span></em> Church so broad as to +include all who desire to do the will of God, and are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We are not learned.”</span> And the answer of the +learned clergy is, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is sealed. It is a mystery. We must +not even try to understand it.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Church Actual sticks in the letter. How it idolizes +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page415">[pg 415]</span><a name="Pg415" id="Pg415" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +the Bible! But when you ask, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">What?</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“bodily spirit.”</span> Question the inspiration of the letter, and +a thousand voices cry, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> But +the apostle Paul thought somewhat differently, when he said, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but +the spirit giveth life</span></em>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“They have taken away my +Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page416">[pg 416]</span><a name="Pg416" id="Pg416" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.<a id="noteref_71" name="noteref_71" href="#note_71"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">71</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">saying</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page417">[pg 417]</span><a name="Pg417" id="Pg417" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc337" id="toc337"></a> +<a name="pdf338" id="pdf338"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“So the whole body, fitly +joined together, and compacted by that which every joint +supplieth,”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page418">[pg 418]</span><a name="Pg418" id="Pg418" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +in new homes. The Ideal Church does not dispute about +doctrines or dogmas. It says to each, <span class="tei tei-q">“To your Master +you shall stand or fall, not to me.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“left its first love”</span>? that of Pergamos, which contained +heretical teachers? that of Thyatira, which communed with +Jezebel and the depths of Satan? that of Sardis, which had +<span class="tei tei-q">“a name to live, and was dead”</span>? or that of Laodicea, which +was lukewarm? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“profane and vain babbling”</span>? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page419">[pg 419]</span><a name="Pg419" id="Pg419" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc339" id="toc339"></a> +<a name="pdf340" id="pdf340"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page420">[pg 420]</span><a name="Pg420" id="Pg420" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“The body of Christ, and members +one of another.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Public Worship</span></em>! There is no such thing now as public +worship. The churches are not public places—each +belongs to a private corporation of pew-holders. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is possible to have a Church which shall consider it its +duty to obey its Master's first command, and <span class="tei tei-q">“preach the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page421">[pg 421]</span><a name="Pg421" id="Pg421" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +gospel to every creature.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The day is coming in which our dogmatic Churches, formal +Churches, sentimentally pious Churches, and professedly +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page422">[pg 422]</span><a name="Pg422" id="Pg422" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page423">[pg 423]</span><a name="Pg423" id="Pg423" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc341" id="toc341"></a> +<a name="pdf342" id="pdf342"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Chapter XVI. The Trinity.</span></h1> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc343" id="toc343"></a> +<a name="pdf344" id="pdf344"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The fundamental +formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by +the Church,”</span> says Twesten,<a id="noteref_72" name="noteref_72" href="#note_72"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">72</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> The <span class="tei tei-q">“Augsburg Confession,”</span> says, in +like manner, <span class="tei tei-q">“three persons in one essence.”</span><a id="noteref_73" name="noteref_73" href="#note_73"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">73</span></span></a> So the +<span class="tei tei-q">“Gallic Confession,”</span> and other Church Confessions, which +say almost the same thing in the same words.<a id="noteref_74" name="noteref_74" href="#note_74"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">74</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The explanations given to these phrases vary indefinitely. +Nitzsch (System d. Christ. Lehre, § 80) says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> Schleiermacher considers +this doctrine as not any immediate expression of the +Christian consciousness, and declares that <span class="tei tei-q">“our communion +with Christ might be just the same if we knew nothing at all +of this transcendent mystery.”</span> Hase says,<a id="noteref_75" name="noteref_75" href="#note_75"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">75</span></span></a> <span class="tei tei-q">“This Church +dogma always has floated between Unitarianism, Tritheism, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page424">[pg 424]</span><a name="Pg424" id="Pg424" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and Sabellianism, asserting the premises of all three, and +denying their conclusions only by maintaining the opposite.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +All sorts of illustrations have been used from the earliest +times—such as fountain, brook, river; root, stalk, branch; +memory, understanding, will;<a id="noteref_76" name="noteref_76" href="#note_76"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">76</span></span></a> soul, reason, +sense;<a id="noteref_77" name="noteref_77" href="#note_77"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">77</span></span></a> three +persons in grammar, the teacher, the person spoken to, and +that spoken of.<a id="noteref_78" name="noteref_78" href="#note_78"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">78</span></span></a> +Some mystics argued the necessity of three +persons in the Deity for the sake of a divine society and +mutual love.<a id="noteref_79" name="noteref_79" href="#note_79"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">79</span></span></a> Lessing argues that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span><a id="noteref_80" name="noteref_80" href="#note_80"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">80</span></span></a> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page425">[pg 425]</span><a name="Pg425" id="Pg425" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things must take +care to keep the Catholic faith: +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Which except one keeps it entire and inviolate, he shall +without doubt perish everlastingly. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. But the Catholic faith is this: that we adore one God +in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity; +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the +Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +6. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is one, +the glory equal, the majesty equal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy +Spirit. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the +Holy Spirit uncreated. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +9. The Father immeasurable,<a id="noteref_81" name="noteref_81" href="#note_81"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">81</span></span></a> the Son immeasurable, and +the Holy Spirit immeasurable. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy +Spirit eternal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +12. And so there are not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> uncreated, nor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> +immeasurable, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> uncreated, and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> immeasurable. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, +and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +14. And yet there are not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> omnipotents, but one +omnipotent. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy +Spirit is God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +16. And yet there are not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> Gods, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy +Spirit is Lord. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +18. And yet there are not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> Lords, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one</span></em> Lord. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +19. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page426">[pg 426]</span><a name="Pg426" id="Pg426" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +of each one, that each person<a id="noteref_82" name="noteref_82" href="#note_82"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">82</span></span></a> is God and Lord; so we are +forbidden by the Catholic religion from saying three Gods or +three Lords. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +21. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor +created, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">but begotten</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father; not +created, nor begotten, but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">proceeding</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three; one +Son, and not three; one Holy Spirit, and not three. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none +greater or less, but all three Persons are coeternal and +coequal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in +Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus +of the Trinity. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc345" id="toc345"></a> +<a name="pdf346" id="pdf346"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. History of the Doctrine.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_83" name="noteref_83" href="#note_83"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">83</span></span></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">divinity</span></em> in the Father, in the Son, and in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page427">[pg 427]</span><a name="Pg427" id="Pg427" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.<a id="noteref_84" name="noteref_84" href="#note_84"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">84</span></span></a> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The Son was created by the Father, and +is inferior to him;”</span> that of Sabellius, who says, <span class="tei tei-q">“The +Father, Son, and Spirit, are manifestations of God, and the +same essence;”</span> and Orthodoxy, as the Council of Nice, +trying to stand between them, and saying, <span class="tei tei-q">“The Son is +derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with +him.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page428">[pg 428]</span><a name="Pg428" id="Pg428" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“Trinity”</span> in any sense, if you +will only call Christ God in any sense, you are Orthodox. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc347" id="toc347"></a> +<a name="pdf348" id="pdf348"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The errors in the popular view concerning the Trinity, as it is at +present held, appear to be these:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Trinity is held as a mere dogma</span></span>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page429">[pg 429]</span><a name="Pg429" id="Pg429" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">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.</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“one essence”</span> was chosen in order to exclude +Arianism; the term <span class="tei tei-q">“three Persons,”</span> or subsistences, was +chosen in order to avoid Sabellianism. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page430">[pg 430]</span><a name="Pg430" id="Pg430" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But, before illustrating this, we must consider further +some of the objections to the common form of the doctrine. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">It is also charged against the doctrine of the Trinity, +</span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-style: italic">“</span><span style="font-style: italic">that it is a contradiction in terms, and therefore essentially +incredible.</span><span style="font-style: italic">”</span></span></span> To this it is replied, that it would be a contradiction +if God were called Three <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in the same sense</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“person.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the three”</span>? there +can be given but three answers,—two of them distinct, and +one indistinct. These answers are, (1.) We mean three +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page431">[pg 431]</span><a name="Pg431" id="Pg431" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">a.</span></span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> So Augustine said, long ago, <span class="tei tei-q">“We say +three Persons, not because we have anything to say, but +because we want to say something.”</span><a id="noteref_85" name="noteref_85" href="#note_85"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">85</span></span></a> But if one uses the +phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“three Persons,”</span> and refuses to define it positively, +merely defining it negatively, saying, <span class="tei tei-q">“It does not mean +this, and it does not mean that, and I don't know what it +does mean,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">may be</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">believed</span></em>, or could <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">believe</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page432">[pg 432]</span><a name="Pg432" id="Pg432" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">b.</span></span>) The second answer to the question is, <span class="tei tei-q">“We mean, by +Persons, three Persons, like Peter, James, and John.”</span> According +to this answer, the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Trinity</span></em> remains, but the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Unity</span></em> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">agreement</span></em> of feeling and action. But this answer we may +set aside as unorthodox, no less than unscriptural. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">c.</span></span>) 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">contradiction</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">obscurity</span></em>; 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a true one</span></em>? +Is there any foundation for it in Scripture, in reason, and in +Christian consciousness, the three sources of our knowledge +of the truth? +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc349" id="toc349"></a> +<a name="pdf350" id="pdf350"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of +Things.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page433">[pg 433]</span><a name="Pg433" id="Pg433" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“so loved the +world”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true</span></em> 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), +<span class="tei tei-q">“being understood by the things that are made,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“not +leaving himself without a witness.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page434">[pg 434]</span><a name="Pg434" id="Pg434" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc351" id="toc351"></a> +<a name="pdf352" id="pdf352"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“Jesus said, I thank +thee, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">O Father</span></em>, Lord of heaven and earth.”</span> As omniscient: +<span class="tei tei-q">“Of that day knoweth no man, nor the angels, nor the Son, +but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em> only.”</span> As omnipotent: <span class="tei tei-q">“Abba, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Father</span></em>, all +things are possible to thee.”</span> As having life in himself, and +as spirit: <span class="tei tei-q">“They shall worship <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em> in spirit and in +truth.”</span> As the source of all power, life, and authority of the +Son: <span class="tei tei-q">“I came forth <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of the Father</span></em>;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em>, which +hath sent me;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“the works which <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em> hath given me +to do.”</span> The apostle Paul says, <span class="tei tei-q">“To us there is but <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one +God, the Father</span></em>;”</span> and calls him <span class="tei tei-q">“the God of our Lord +Jesus;”</span> also <span class="tei tei-q">“the one God <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and Father</span></em> of all, who is above +all, and through all, and in us all.”</span> The great order of the +universe depends on him: <span class="tei tei-q">“He has put the times and the +seasons in his own power.”</span> Christ will at last <span class="tei tei-q">“deliver up +the kingdom to God, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em>.”</span> By Christ, <span class="tei tei-q">“we have +access in one spirit <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to the Father</span></em>.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“All things were +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page435">[pg 435]</span><a name="Pg435" id="Pg435" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +delivered”</span> to Christ <span class="tei tei-q">“of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">his Father</span></em>,”</span> whose will Christ +always sought. Thus is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the Father</span></em> spoken of in the New +Testament as the Source from which all things have proceeded, +and the End to whom all things tend. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Son</span></span> (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. <span class="tei tei-q">“The +Father hath sent me,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“and I live by the Father.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“I am not alone; but I, and the Father who sent me.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The Son is in the Father, and the Father in him.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“No +man cometh to the Father but by”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“He that hath the Son +hath life;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“And in him is everlasting life.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Holy Spirit</span></span>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page436">[pg 436]</span><a name="Pg436" id="Pg436" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“divides the substance”</span> nor <span class="tei tei-q">“confounds the persons.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“divide the substance”</span> is so to separate the +revelations of God as to make them contradict or oppose +each other: to <span class="tei tei-q">“confound the persons”</span> is not to recognize +each as an independent source of truth to the soul. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc353" id="toc353"></a> +<a name="pdf354" id="pdf354"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly understood.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine +of Tri-personality, that God is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">immanent</span></em> in nature, in Christ, +and in the soul. It teaches that God is not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">outside</span></em> of the +world, making it as an artisan makes a machine; nor <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">outside</span></em> +of Christ, sending him, and giving to him miraculous powers; +nor outside of the soul, touching it <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">ab extra</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page437">[pg 437]</span><a name="Pg437" id="Pg437" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +monitions of conscience, and the influences which draw our +heart to goodness, we are meeting and communing with God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Moreover, the Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its +doctrine of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">One Substance</span></em> (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 <span class="tei tei-q">“divide the substance”</span> of the Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The error of <span class="tei tei-q">“dividing the substance”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page438">[pg 438]</span><a name="Pg438" id="Pg438" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Such errors come from <span class="tei tei-q">“dividing the substance;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page439">[pg 439]</span><a name="Pg439" id="Pg439" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">merely</span></em> human; leaves the soul a +machine to be moved by an external impulse, not an inward +inspiration.<a id="noteref_86" name="noteref_86" href="#note_86"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">86</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page441">[pg 441]</span><a name="Pg441" id="Pg441" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<hr class="page" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<a name="toc355" id="toc355"></a> +<a name="pdf356" id="pdf356"></a> +<h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Appendix. Critical Notices.</span></h1> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Christian Examiner,”</span> or in the +<span class="tei tei-q">“Monthly Journal of the American Unitarian Association.”</span> +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc357" id="toc357"></a> +<a name="pdf358" id="pdf358"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer +and Henry L. Mansel.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his book +called <span class="tei tei-q">“First Principles,”</span> lays down the doctrine of theological +nescience, as the final result of religious inquiry. In his chapter +on <span class="tei tei-q">“Ultimate Religious Ideas”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page442">[pg 442]</span><a name="Pg442" id="Pg442" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">ab extra</span></span>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first cause</span></em>. The First Cause must +be infinite and absolute. He then follows Mansel in showing the +contradiction between the two ideas. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page443">[pg 443]</span><a name="Pg443" id="Pg443" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a visual image</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But I can produce, out of nothing, something visible, tangible, +and audible. There is no motion and no sound. I move my arm +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page444">[pg 444]</span><a name="Pg444" id="Pg444" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But Mr. Spencer, who is not a theologian, is at this point reënforced +by Mr. Mansel, on whose former work, <span class="tei tei-q">“The Limits of +Religious Thought,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But this is a dangerous argument; since it is evident that one +might reply, that there remains another alternative; which is, to +believe <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">neither</span></em>. 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page445">[pg 445]</span><a name="Pg445" id="Pg445" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +reason in order to retain religion, or they will renounce religion in +order to retain reason. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“by giving up the unlimited use of reason;”</span> but, as we shall +presently see, this comes very much to the same thing at last. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“North British Review ”</span> for +May, 1835. But we will not here attempt any examination of +Hamilton's theory, but confine ourselves to Mr. Mansel. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The argument of Mansel is this (p. 75): <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page446">[pg 446]</span><a name="Pg446" id="Pg446" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Through revelation; that is, through the direct +declarations of Scripture.”</span> This he calls faith. We are to believe +in a personal God on the ground of a Bible confirmed by miracles. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em> conceive of the Deity as an infinite personality. Of +what use to tell us that we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">cannot</span></em> have an idea, when we know +that we <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">do</span></em> have it? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mansel tells us that we cannot think the idea of the Infinite and +Absolute. He says (p. 110), <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page447">[pg 447]</span><a name="Pg447" id="Pg447" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly +worship, him declare I unto you.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This miracle +proves that God has sent me to teach you.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“That is not first which is spiritual, but that which +is natural; afterward that which is spiritual.”</span> Christ said, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye +believe in God: believe also in me.”</span> Mr. Mansel reverses all this, +and makes Christ say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye believe in me: believe also in God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">think</span></em> the Infinite, how can it believe the Infinite? Must +we not apprehend a proposition before we can believe it? Does +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page448">[pg 448]</span><a name="Pg448" id="Pg448" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mr. Mansel declares that our religious knowledge is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">regulative</span></em>, +but not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">speculative</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wills</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“This is life eternal, to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">know</span></em> thee, the only true +God.”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">regulative</span></em> truths are simply moral precepts, +addressed to the will, not to the intellect; capable of being +obeyed, but not of being understood. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page449">[pg 449]</span><a name="Pg449" id="Pg449" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Quarterly Review;”</span> Professor Hickok, the +Presbyterian, in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Bibliotheca Sacra;”</span> 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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">demonstrated</span></em> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc359" id="toc359"></a> +<a name="pdf360" id="pdf360"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Gaussen.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Following the declaration of the apostle Paul, that <span class="tei tei-q">“the letter killeth,”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Inspiration, as defined by Gaussen, is <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“We aim,”</span> says he, <span class="tei tei-q">“to establish, by the word of God, that the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page450">[pg 450]</span><a name="Pg450" id="Pg450" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +Scriptures are from God—that all the Scriptures are from God—and +that every part of the Scripture is from God.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Let us consider the arguments in support of this kind of inspiration, +and the objections to them. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Argument I. Plenary Inspiration is necessary, that we may +know with certainty what we ought to believe.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Great stress is laid upon this supposed <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">necessity</span></em>, both by +Gaussen and Kirk. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The book so written,”</span> say they, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reply to Argument I.</span></span>—It is no way to prove a theory +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">true</span></em> to assume its <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">necessity</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“we are +disarmed.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“only by the Scriptures;”</span> therefore (according to this +argument) it cannot be proved at all. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +If, therefore, the doctrine of plenary inspiration is necessary <span class="tei tei-q">“to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page451">[pg 451]</span><a name="Pg451" id="Pg451" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +bind the conscience of the world,”</span> it is a doctrine incapable of +proof. If, on the other hand, it can be proved, it is then clearly +not necessary <span class="tei tei-q">“to bind the conscience of the world.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But again. This theory of plenary inspiration does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, +who is over all, God, blessed forever,”</span>—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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Argument II. Several Passages of the New Testament plainly +teach the Doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The passages quoted by Gaussen, and mainly relied upon, are +2 Tim. 3:16. <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture is given by inspiration,”</span> &c.; +2 Peter 1:27, <span class="tei tei-q">“Holy men of God spake as they were moved,”</span> &c. +Besides these, he refers to many passages in the Old and New +Testaments, but his chief stress is laid on these. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reply to Argument II.</span></span>—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, <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture, +given by inspiration, is profitable,”</span> &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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page452">[pg 452]</span><a name="Pg452" id="Pg452" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +which we also maintain. But they do <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> assert a verbal +inspiration, nor one which makes the Scriptures <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">infallible</span></em>, but +simply one which makes them <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">profitable</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The stress laid on the passage 2 Tim. 3:16, <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture,”</span> +&c., is itself an argument against the theory of plenary inspiration. +The most which can be made of this text, by <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Gaussen's only argument on this point is, <span class="tei tei-q">“that it is the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">writing</span></em> +which is said to be inspired, and writing must be in words; hence +the inspiration must be verbal.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But further still. There is another argument which lies against +every attempt to prove plenary inspiration out of the Scripture. +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Every such attempt is necessarily reasoning in a circle.</span></em> Gaussen +and Kirk have labored earnestly to reply to this argument, but in +vain. The answer they make is, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But we answer Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk thus: <span class="tei tei-q">“You are +indeed reasoning with Christians, not with Deists; but you are +reasoning with Christians who do not believe that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">every passage</span></em> +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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In this vicious circle the advocates of a verbal inspiration of +infallibility are necessarily imprisoned whenever they attempt to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page453">[pg 453]</span><a name="Pg453" id="Pg453" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Argument III. The theory of plenary inspiration is simple, +precise, intelligible, and easy to be applied.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Argument IV. The quotations from the Old Testament, by +Jesus and his apostles, show that they regarded its language as +infallibly inspired.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Thus, in the temptation of Jesus, in his reply to the tempter, he +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou shalt not live by bread alone;”</span> the whole force of +the argument depending on the single word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">alone</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Replying to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Have ye not read that God says, I <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">am</span></em> the God of Abraham, +and of Isaac, and of Jacob? God is not the God of the +dead, but of the living.”</span> Then the whole stress of the argument +rests on the use of the verb in the present tense, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I am</span></em>.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Arguing with the Pharisees, <span class="tei tei-q">“How did David, by the Spirit, +call him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Lord</span></em>, saying, The Lord said to my Lord,”</span> &c.? Here the +argument depends on the use of the single word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Lord</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page454">[pg 454]</span><a name="Pg454" id="Pg454" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +Jews had also believed in the verbal inspiration of their Scriptures, +they would have replied that these particular words might have +been errors. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Reply to this Argument.</span></span>—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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Cum +recedit a litera, judex transit in legislatorem</span></span>.”</span> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In this very argument for plenary inspiration, Gaussen and his +associates rest their argument on the single word <span class="tei tei-q">“all,”</span> in the +text, <span class="tei tei-q">“All Scripture is given by inspiration,”</span> &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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all</span></em>, 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“He says not, <span class="tei tei-q">‘And to +seeds’</span> σπέρμασιν, as of many, but as of one, <span class="tei tei-q">‘And to thy seed’</span> +σπερματι.”</span> 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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“seed”</span> is a collective noun, and does mean <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">many</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page455">[pg 455]</span><a name="Pg455" id="Pg455" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“was good enough for the foolish +Galatians.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“inasmuch as +others have taken in hand”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. The differences in the accounts of the same transactions show +that their inspiration was not verbal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Paul declares that some things which he says are <span class="tei tei-q">“of the +Lord,”</span> other things <span class="tei tei-q">“of himself;”</span> that in regard to some things +he was inspired, in regard to others, not. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Every writer in the New Testament has a style of his own, +and there is no appearance of his being merely an amanuensis. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This view we have already sufficiently considered in our chapter +on inspiration. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc361" id="toc361"></a> +<a name="pdf362" id="pdf362"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 3. Defence of the Doctrine that Sin is a Nature, by Professor +Shedd.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In the <span class="tei tei-q">“Christian Review”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page456">[pg 456]</span><a name="Pg456" id="Pg456" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +the article was calculated to attract attention, as a bold attempt to +defend an extreme position of Calvinism—<span class="tei tei-q">“Sin a Nature, and +that Nature Guilt.”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_87" name="noteref_87" href="#note_87"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">87</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">our nature</span></em>, i.e., the character born with us, original +and innate. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The proofs of this position are, 1. The language of St. Paul +(Eph. 2:3), <span class="tei tei-q">“We were by nature the children of wrath, even as +others.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +These are the proofs of the first position, that sin is a nature. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page457">[pg 457]</span><a name="Pg457" id="Pg457" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +We have stated them concisely, but with sufficient distinctness and +completeness. Let us now examine their validity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The first argument is the text in Ephesians, <span class="tei tei-q">“We were by nature +children of wrath,”</span> ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς. The word φύσις, +the writer contends, <span class="tei tei-q">“always denotes something original and innate, +in contradistinction to something acquired by practice or habit.”</span> +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 φύσις, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“always denotes something original +and innate,”</span> it denotes this in Rom. 2:14,<a id="noteref_88" name="noteref_88" href="#note_88"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">88</span></span></a> which declares that +the Gentiles <span class="tei tei-q">“do by nature the things contained in the law.”</span> 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 +φύσις 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“law of the mind;”</span> +the second, to the other <span class="tei tei-q">“law in the members”</span> (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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page458">[pg 458]</span><a name="Pg458" id="Pg458" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +evident that φύσις 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page459">[pg 459]</span><a name="Pg459" id="Pg459" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“To will is present with me; but how +to perform that which I will, I find not”</span>? Every earnest effort +shows us more plainly how deep the roots of evil run below the +surface. We find a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">law</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">law</span></em>; 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“O <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilty</span></em> man that I am!”</span> but <span class="tei tei-q">“O <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wretched</span></em> +man that I am!”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_89" name="noteref_89" href="#note_89"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">89</span></span></a> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page460">[pg 460]</span><a name="Pg460" id="Pg460" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The writer proceeds thus: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +As the writer's first argument to prove a sinful nature was +drawn from the Greek word φύσις, so his first argument to prove +that nature guilt is derived from the Greek word ὀργή in the same +passage. <span class="tei tei-q">“The apostle teaches,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> But this word, translated +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">wrath</span></em>, 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to +come?”</span> and other places. This word is used in the passage just +quoted for some future evil; in John 3:36, for a present evil—<span class="tei tei-q">“The +wrath of God abides on him;”</span> and in 1 Thess. 2:16, for a +past evil—<span class="tei tei-q">“For the wrath is come [lit. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">has</span></em> come] on them to the +uttermost.”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page461">[pg 461]</span><a name="Pg461" id="Pg461" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +idea of guilt, <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">a vi terminis</span></span>. +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“His +other faculties of knowing and feeling are grafted into this stock +and root; and hence he is responsible from centre to circumference.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page462">[pg 462]</span><a name="Pg462" id="Pg462" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What proof have we that this guilty direction of the will is a +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nature</span></em>, 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Again: what proof have we that we are so wholly <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unconscious</span></em> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">preceding choice</span></em>, 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Sin is not imputed where there is no law.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Again: we totally dissent from the statement that this deep-lying +will in man is unable to obey the commands, <span class="tei tei-q">“Turn ye, turn +ye from your evil way, for why will ye die?”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“Repent and be +converted, that your sins may be blotted out,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“Make you a new +heart and a new spirit,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“Choose you this day whom you will +serve,”</span>—<span class="tei tei-q">“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.”</span> The +writer says, that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> True: not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">so</span></em> easily managed; but can it +not be managed at all? It may require <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">more</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page463">[pg 463]</span><a name="Pg463" id="Pg463" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">with</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“is not to be reversed +so easily.”</span> True, again; but why not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">less</span></em> easily? The +writer speaks of the sinful will as a <span class="tei tei-q">“total determination of itself +to self;”</span> and asks <span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> +But what! Has man become <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a process</span></em>? 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The human will becomes a current that becomes +unmanageable simply because of its own momentum.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">guilty</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page464">[pg 464]</span><a name="Pg464" id="Pg464" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +race should have had this fatal opportunity of destroying themselves +utterly, by one simultaneous act, in Adam, is, to say the +least, an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">awful</span></em> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“What man is there among <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">you</span></em>, +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">being a father</span></span>,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Therefore we will only say further, concerning this theory, +that, as being <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">apparently</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Repent and turn to God,”</span>—this theory of a sin committed +in Adam <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ought to have the amplest proof</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page465">[pg 465]</span><a name="Pg465" id="Pg465" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +to him the commencement of human disobedience. If the passage +teaches anything more than this, it certainly does not teach it +plainly or explicitly. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc363" id="toc363"></a> +<a name="pdf364" id="pdf364"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah +Adams and Dr. J. P. Thompson.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We will first examine Dr. Adams's tract on <span class="tei tei-q">“The Reasonableness +of Eternal Future Punishment.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We have these three objections to it:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I. It, throughout, denies the sovereignty of God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. It is, throughout, a system of naturalism. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +III. It, throughout, ignores the central truth of the gospel. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is our business to substantiate these assertions by sufficient +proof. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. The view taken in his tract, of God, cannot be true, because +it conflicts with his supreme and sovereign deity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The only divine supremacy which Dr. Adams admits is that of +force. God is, on the whole, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">stronger</span></em> than the Devil; so that He +can prevent him from carrying his ravages beyond certain limits. +God can <span class="tei tei-q">“hem in and overrule”</span> the power of sin; but he cannot +conquer it. He has no complete power over the heart and will of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page466">[pg 466]</span><a name="Pg466" id="Pg466" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +men to become supreme there; but he has power over their conduct, +and can restrain that within certain limits. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“having expended upon us all which +the gospel of his grace includes,”</span> and of <span class="tei tei-q">“the failure of that which +is the brightness of his glory.”</span> Now, Dr. Adams says, <span class="tei tei-q">“What +God will probably do is, to go away and leave us,”</span> God says, according +to the idea of this tract, <span class="tei tei-q">“I will place all of you, who sin, +in a world by yourselves, from which I and my friends will forever +withdraw.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal,”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page467">[pg 467]</span><a name="Pg467" id="Pg467" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page468">[pg 468]</span><a name="Pg468" id="Pg468" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. The third and principal argument against the doctrine of everlasting +punishment is, that it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inconsistent with the divine love +to his creatures</span></em>. 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The force of this objection is such, that Dr. Adams has felt +obliged to add to his tract on <span class="tei tei-q">“Everlasting Punishment”</span> another +tract upon the text, <span class="tei tei-q">“God is love,”</span> endeavoring to show a consistency +between the two. But he does this by substituting something +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page469">[pg 469]</span><a name="Pg469" id="Pg469" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +else in the place of the last. It is curious enough, that a +master in Israel should have written a tract upon the <span class="tei tei-q">“love”</span> of +God, and should have substituted <span class="tei tei-q">“benevolence”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page470">[pg 470]</span><a name="Pg470" id="Pg470" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal +punishment”</span> is applied. Some of these may not be inconsistent +with the love of God. Let us give some instances. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Eternal,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page471">[pg 471]</span><a name="Pg471" id="Pg471" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We are accustomed to complain of the <span class="tei tei-q">“horrors of the Inquisition;”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Dolor, si dura, brevis; si +longa, levis</span></span>. But not so with everlasting punishment. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page472">[pg 472]</span><a name="Pg472" id="Pg472" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“in the place where the tree falleth, there +it shall be;”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“there is no work, nor device, +nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Let him that is unjust +be unjust still;”</span> from which it is inferred that men have no +opportunity hereafter for repentance. But, as this is said to those +who are in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">this</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page473">[pg 473]</span><a name="Pg473" id="Pg473" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Thou thoughtest me altogether such a one as thou +thyself.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“What +man among you is there, being a father,”</span> who would cause his +children to come into the world exposed to such fearful risks; +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page474">[pg 474]</span><a name="Pg474" id="Pg474" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The reply to such arguments, by those whom Thomas Burnet +calls the <span class="tei tei-q">“unmerciful doctors”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“ferocious theologians,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">suffering</span></em>, however great, is as +nothing when compared with everlasting happiness afterwards; but +all finite <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">happiness</span></em>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page475">[pg 475]</span><a name="Pg475" id="Pg475" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Human +nature shrinks from the very name of eternal punishment; +yet the Scriptures seem to hold the other side.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“probably against him,”</span> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">forever</span></em>,—meaning till the year of jubilee; in which +circumcision is called an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">everlasting covenant</span></em>,—meaning that it +shall be abolished by the same divine authority; in which the land +of Canaan was given for an <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">everlasting possession</span></em> to Abraham and +his seed, from which they have long since been expelled; &c. Dr. +Burnet does, indeed, say that the Scriptures <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">seem</span></em> to favor the doctrine +he opposes; but he then goes on to show that such is not +the case. He also <span class="tei tei-q">“awakens antiquity,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. Matt. 18:8, <span class="tei tei-q">“Having two eyes, two hands,”</span> &c., <span class="tei tei-q">“to be +cast into hell fire,”</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">“into everlasting fire”</span> (τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον)—(τὴν +γέεναν τοῦ πυρός). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Matt. 25:46, <span class="tei tei-q">“These shall go away into everlasting (eternal) +punishment, but the righteous into life eternal ”</span>(κόλασιν +αἰώνιον and ζωὴν αἰώνιον). The same adjective is used in both +places here, in the Greek; but our translators have seen fit to render +it <span class="tei tei-q">“everlasting”</span> in the first place, and <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal”</span> in the second. +There is no authority for such a different translation. The +word κόλασις, translated <span class="tei tei-q">“punishment,”</span> occurs in one other +place in the New Testament: this is (1 John 4:18), <span class="tei tei-q">“Perfect +love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment.”</span> In this last instance, +it is evident that the idea of punishment is not found, but +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page476">[pg 476]</span><a name="Pg476" id="Pg476" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +only that of suffering. In the LXX. (Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7) it is +translated <span class="tei tei-q">“stumbling-block,”</span> and means, says Schleusner (Lexicon +in LXX.), <span class="tei tei-q">“all that is the source of misfortune or suffering.”</span> +Donnegan gives as its meaning, <span class="tei tei-q">“the act of clipping or pruning; +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">generally</span></em>, restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement; +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">lit. and met.</span></span>, punishment.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The true translation of the passage, then, is,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“These shall go away into the sufferings or punishments of eternity; +and the righteous, into the life of eternity.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +In some instances, if αἰώνιος were translated <span class="tei tei-q">“everlasting”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“never-ending,”</span> 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 πρὸ +κρόνων αἰώνιον; which would be, literally, <span class="tei tei-q">“before eternity,”</span> or +<span class="tei tei-q">“before everlasting time began,”</span> according to the common rendering. +They have, therefore, translated it <span class="tei tei-q">“before the world began.”</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“So +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page477">[pg 477]</span><a name="Pg477" id="Pg477" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +shall it be at the end of forever;”</span> or, <span class="tei tei-q">“The ends of eternity +have arrived.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Mark 9:43-50, it is said that the <span class="tei tei-q">“worm does not die”</span> in Gehenna, +and <span class="tei tei-q">“the fire is not quenched.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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; <span class="tei tei-q">“for their worm shall +not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an +abhorring unto all flesh.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Their +worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched,”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Matt. 26:24. In this passage, as it stands in our translation, +Jesus says concerning Judas, <span class="tei tei-q">“Woe to that man by whom the +Son of man is betrayed! It were good for that man if he had never +been born.”</span> (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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page478">[pg 478]</span><a name="Pg478" id="Pg478" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But, in reply to this argument, we say,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. The translation is doubtful. The literal translation is, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> This is the literal +rendering of the Greek; and the apparent meaning seems to be, +<span class="tei tei-q">“that it had been good for the Son of man if Judas had not been +born.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page479">[pg 479]</span><a name="Pg479" id="Pg479" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Christ did not say, <span class="tei tei-q">‘I am the Custom,’</span> but, <span class="tei tei-q">‘I am the +Truth.’</span> ”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">An Act of Faith</span></span>,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">an +act of faith</span></em> to believe that <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God</span></span> 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. +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-tb"><hr style="width: 50%" /></div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Love and Penalty,”</span> consists of nine lectures delivered in the +Broadway Tabernacle. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the irrelevant conclusion.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page480">[pg 480]</span><a name="Pg480" id="Pg480" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">ignoratio elenchi</span></span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Now, our author (p. 19) declares that he has one object; viz., +to show the truth of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. He +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“It will be the aim of this series of lectures to show that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the +doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked is in entire harmony +with the paternal character of God</span></em>.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +His first position is this, in Lecture I.: <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">attribute of punitive justice</span></em>”</span>? 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page481">[pg 481]</span><a name="Pg481" id="Pg481" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">needs</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“punitive +justice,”</span> 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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“Mercy and truth meet together; righteousness and peace kiss +each other.”</span> The law is vindicated and the sinner benefited at +the same moment. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page482">[pg 482]</span><a name="Pg482" id="Pg482" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and what shall be the result, it does not say. That was left to +Christ to reveal. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“necessary reason”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Another position of Dr. Thompson is, however, so extraordinary, +that it needs more consideration. His fifth proposition is +this: <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">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.</span></em>”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> one +of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">indiscriminate</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“we love him because he first loved us.”</span> And again: <span class="tei tei-q">“Herein +is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent +his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“She loved much; +but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.”</span> God's forgiving +love comes first, and creates a grateful love in return. And +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page483">[pg 483]</span><a name="Pg483" id="Pg483" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +again we read (John 3:16), <span class="tei tei-q">“God so loved the world, that he +gave his only-begotten Son.”</span> He therefore loved the world while +it was still alienated from him. And again we are told by the +Saviour (Matt. 5:44) to <span class="tei tei-q">“love our enemies, that we may be the +children of our Father in heaven,”</span> who loves his enemies. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Possibly our friend may say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Yes, God loves the sinner; but +he does not love him with a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">fatherly</span></em> love, but only with a general +love.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the high and +sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in +Christ towards those who love him.”</span> Is that <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">high and sacred +Fatherhood of God</span></em>”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page484">[pg 484]</span><a name="Pg484" id="Pg484" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +When Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, <span class="tei tei-q">“Ye are of your father +the devil,”</span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">devilish</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Abba, Father,”</span> he +could say, <span class="tei tei-q">“My son, give me thy heart.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Herein +is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“God +commends his love toward us, that, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">while we were sinners</span></em>, Christ +died for us.”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The sixth position argues future retribution from the demerit of +sin, and asserts that <span class="tei tei-q">“no punishment equal to the demerit of sin +is, or can be, inflicted in the present life.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">a priori</span></span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The seventh position declares that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page485">[pg 485]</span><a name="Pg485" id="Pg485" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“You must repent in this life, for +after death there will be no opportunity;”</span> or, <span class="tei tei-q">“At death, man's +spiritual condition is finally determined;”</span> or, <span class="tei tei-q">“After this life, man +cannot turn from evil to good,”</span>—we should have some distinct +proof of the doctrine. But now we have none. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> The word translated <span class="tei tei-q">“hell”</span> in this parable +is not Gehenna, but Hades. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Our author says, and says justly, that we can form no opinion +as to another probation hereafter from <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">a priori</span></span> +reasoning, but that the question must be answered only from Scripture. Having said +this, he immediately proceeds to argue it, <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">a priori</span></span>, +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“The door is shut;”</span> and, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Depart! I know you not.”</span> With regard to this parable, also, +Olshausen says that <span class="tei tei-q">“the words <span class="tei tei-q">‘I know you not’</span> cannot denote +eternal condemnation;”</span> that the foolish virgins were <span class="tei tei-q">“saved, but +not sanctified;”</span> and that the parable does not distinguish between +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page486">[pg 486]</span><a name="Pg486" id="Pg486" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +the penitent and the impenitent, but between the penitent believers +who watch and those who do not watch. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +</div> + +<div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"> +<a name="toc365" id="toc365"></a> +<a name="pdf366" id="pdf366"></a> +<h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">§ 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D.</span></h2> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The principal reasons, then, for rejecting the Church doctrine +of the Trinity, as assigned by Unitarians, are these:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. That it is nowhere taught in the New Testament. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. That the arguments for it are inadequate. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. That the arguments against it are overwhelming. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. That the good ascribed to it does not belong to it, but to the +truths which underlie it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +6. That great evils to the Church come from it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +7. That it is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +8. That we can trace its gradual historic formation in the Christian +Church. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<div class="tei tei-tb"><hr style="width: 50%" /></div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Proceeding, then, to an examination of these reasons, we say,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +I. The Church doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the +New Testament. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page487">[pg 487]</span><a name="Pg487" id="Pg487" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is the fundamental article of the Christian +faith,”</span>—which is just what he denies in the following passage. +We call Neander to the stand, however, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">now</span></em>, 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):— +</p> + +<div class="block tei tei-quote" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"> +<span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-size: 90%">“</span><span style="font-size: 90%">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—</span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">the +doctrine of the Trinity</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">. This doctrine does not strictly belong +to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as appears sufficiently +evident from the fact, that it </span><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-size: 90%; font-style: italic">is expressly held forth in no +one particular passage of the New Testament</span></em><span style="font-size: 90%">; 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.</span><span style="font-size: 90%">”</span></span> +</div> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“a clear +and full declaration of the fundamental article of Christian belief.”</span> +He says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Now, if ever, Christ will distinctly proclaim the doctrine +of Christendom;”</span> and he then declares that Christ, in this passage, +told his Church to baptize <span class="tei tei-q">“in the Triune name.”</span><a id="noteref_90" name="noteref_90" href="#note_90"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">90</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Not in the Tri<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">une</span></span> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> objects of baptism, no +doubt; but he does not say that they are one. How far this baptismal +formula is <span class="tei tei-q">“a clear and full declaration”</span> of the doctrine +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page488">[pg 488]</span><a name="Pg488" id="Pg488" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +of the Trinity will appear thus. The doctrine of the Trinity +declares,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. That the Father is God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. That the Son is God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. That the Holy Ghost is God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, like the Father and +the Son. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +5. That these three persons constitute one God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Of these five propositions, all of which are essential to the doctrine +of the Trinity, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not one is stated in the baptismal formula</span></em>. +Christ here says <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span></em> about the deity of the Father, the Son, or +the Holy Ghost; <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span></em> about the personality of either of them; +and <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Huntington adds, <span class="tei tei-q">“Our faith is summoned to the three persons, +of the one God.”</span> But nothing is said of three <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">persons</span></em>; +nothing is said of their being one God. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +He says, <span class="tei tei-q">“No hint is given that there is any difference of nature, +dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +We admit it, but also say, that no hint is given of any <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">equality</span></em> 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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +That the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word</span></em> <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Trinity</span></span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page489">[pg 489]</span><a name="Pg489" id="Pg489" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +that it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +II. The second reason why Unitarians reject the Church doctrine +of the Trinity is this:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The doctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds of the +churches, is this:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What, then, is the Trinity? It is a Trinity of persons. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But what is meant by <span class="tei tei-q">“person,”</span> 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> 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. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page490">[pg 490]</span><a name="Pg490" id="Pg490" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“person,”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“We +say that there are three persons, not in order to say anything, but +in order not to be wholly silent.”</span> <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Non ut aliquid diceretur, sed +ut ne taceretur.</span></span> And so Archbishop Whately, in the notes to his +Logic, regrets that the word <span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> should ever have been +used by our divines; and says, <span class="tei tei-q">“If <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">hypostasis</span></span>, 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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(1.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Unintelligible Statement.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> +here does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Trinitarian.</span></span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unitarian.</span></span> Tell me what it is, and I will see if I can believe it. +What is the Trinity? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Trin.</span></span> God exists as one being, but three persons. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page491">[pg 491]</span><a name="Pg491" id="Pg491" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> What do you mean by <span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span>? Do you mean a person +like Peter, James, or John? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Trin.</span></span> No; we use <span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> from the poverty of language. +We do not mean that. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> What, then, do you mean by it? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Trin.</span></span> It is a mystery. We cannot understand it precisely. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> I have no objection to the doctrine being mysterious; I +believe a great many things which are mysterious; but I don't +want the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">language</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">hypostases</span></span> or three +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">prosopa</span></span> in Deity, if you do not +tell me what you mean by the word <span class="tei tei-q">“person.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Trin.</span></span> It is a great mystery. It is a matter of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">faith</span></em>, +not of <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">reasoning</span></em>. You must believe it, and not speculate about it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Believe <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">it</span></em>? Believe <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what</span></em>? 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">words</span></em>, but thoughts. +I wish to look through the word, and see what thought lies +behind it. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">“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? <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">for ye shall speak into the air</span></em>.... 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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +It is of no use to talk about mystery in order to excuse ourselves +for not using intelligible language. That which is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mysterious</span></em> +is one thing; that which is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">unintelligible</span></em> is quite another +thing. We may understand what a mystery is, though we cannot +comprehend <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> it is; but that which is unintelligible we neither +comprehend nor understand at all. We neither know <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> it is, nor +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what</span></em> 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page492">[pg 492]</span><a name="Pg492" id="Pg492" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in both statements</span></em>, 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the statement</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the statement</span></em> that a flower grows, though we do not comprehend +how it grows. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(2.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Tritheistic Statement.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> as implying independent existence; in which case the +Unity is changed into Union. Then we have really three Gods: +the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Father</span></span>, who devises the +plan of redemption; the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Son</span></span>, who goes forth +to execute it; and the <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">Holy Spirit</span></span>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page493">[pg 493]</span><a name="Pg493" id="Pg493" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">first of all the commandments is</span></em>, <span class="tei tei-q">“Hear, O Israel! +the Lord our God is <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">one</span></span> Lord.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“But why argue against Tritheism?”</span> you may say. <span class="tei tei-q">“Are any +Tritheists?”</span> Yes: many Trinitarians are in reality Tritheists, by +their own account of themselves. There are many who make the +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Unity</span></em> of God a mere unity of agreement, and talk about the society +in the Godhead, and the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">intercourse</span></em> between the Father, Son, +and Spirit.<a id="noteref_91" name="noteref_91" href="#note_91"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">91</span></span></a> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page494">[pg 494]</span><a name="Pg494" id="Pg494" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“person”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“I, being one, sustain three persons or characters; my own, +that of my client, and that of the judge”</span>—<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Ego unus, +sustineo tres personas</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.<a id="noteref_92" name="noteref_92" href="#note_92"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">92</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(3.) <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">The Subordination View.</span></span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Trinitarians.”</span> +According to this view, the Son and the Holy Ghost are really +God, but are so by a derived divinity. God the Father communicates +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page495">[pg 495]</span><a name="Pg495" id="Pg495" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“God of (ἐκ) God, Light of (ἐκ) +Light, true God of true God;”</span> the <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of</span></em>”</span> here being the same as +<span class="tei tei-q">“from,”</span> and denoting origin and derivation. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“God over all,”</span> not the Supreme Being, and so +loses the Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The analogies which are used to explain the Trinity are all either +Sabellian or Tritheistic. Nature has been searched in all ages for +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page496">[pg 496]</span><a name="Pg496" id="Pg496" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Thus we have instances in which the three are made the three +parts of one being, or substance; as in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">man</span></em>,—spirit, soul, body; +thought, affection, will; head, heart, hand. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +One Being with three distinct faculties is Tritheism: one Being +acting in three directions is Sabellianism. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Time is past, present, and future. Syllogism has its major, minor, +and conclusion. There are other like analogies. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This survey of Church Trinity shows that it is either one in +which,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. The persons are not defined; or an unintelligible Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. Or which defines person and Unity in the usual sense; or a +contradictory Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. Or which defines person as usual, and the Unity as only +Union; or Tritheism. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. Or which defines person as only manifestation; or Sabellianism. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The Trinitarian's difficulty appears to be in defining person. But +possibly he may say, <span class="tei tei-q">“I cannot, indeed, give a positive idea of person; +but I can give a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">negative</span></em> one. I cannot say what it <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em>; but +I can say what it is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em>. It is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> a mere <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mode</span></em> +on the one hand; and not <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">being</span></em>, on the other. We must neither confound +the persons nor divide the substance.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page497">[pg 497]</span><a name="Pg497" id="Pg497" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +and mode. They <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em> either confound the persons or divide +the substance. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">inference</span></em> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What arguments does he allege for this? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +His first and principal argument is the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">universal belief of the +Christian Church in the doctrine of the Trinity</span></em>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +On this Dr. Huntington lays great stress. He says,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page498">[pg 498]</span><a name="Pg498" id="Pg498" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +tolerable confidence in that great promise of the Master, that he +would be with his own all days.”</span> (p. 359.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +To which we answer,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(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 <span class="tei tei-q">“divided the substance”</span> of the deity, and another +large portion have <span class="tei tei-q">“confounded the persons;”</span> and so the majority +of the Church, while holding the word <span class="tei tei-q">“Trinity,”</span> have never believed +in the Triunity at all. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. Huntington.</span></span> Tell us, Dr. Bushnell, what instances you +know of persons who have been converted or deeply blessed by the +holy doctrine of the Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. Bushnell.</span></span> I have known of <span class="tei tei-q">“a great cloud of witnesses,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“living myriads,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“who have been raised to a participation of God +in the faith of this adorable mystery,”</span> (Huntington, p. 413.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. H.</span></span> Mention some of them. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Francis Junius,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“two centuries and a half +ago,”</span>—a professor <span class="tei tei-q">“at Heidelberg (Leyden?), testified that he was, in +fact, converted from atheism by the Christian Trinity;”</span> also <span class="tei tei-q">“the +mild and sober Howe;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Jeremy Taylor;”</span> also <span class="tei tei-q">“the Marquis de +Rentz;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Edwards,”</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">“Lady Maxwell.”</span> (Huntington, p. +414.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unitarian.</span></span> Say, Dr. Bushnell, whether, in your opinion, the +majority of Christians really believe in the Church doctrine of the +Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (Bushnell: <span class="tei tei-q">“God in +Christ,”</span> p. 130.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Is that scriptural or Orthodox? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> No. It is only <span class="tei tei-q">“a social Unity.”</span> It is <span class="tei tei-q">“a celestial +Tritheocracy.”</span> It <span class="tei tei-q">“boldly renounces Orthodoxy at the point opposite +to Unitarianism.”</span> (Bushnell: <span class="tei tei-q">“God in Christ,”</span> p. 131.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Do I understand you to be now speaking of the properly +Orthodox ministers and churches generally? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Our properly Orthodox teachers and churches, while +professing three persons, also retain the verbal profession of one +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page499">[pg 499]</span><a name="Pg499" id="Pg499" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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.”</span> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 131.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Do you believe, Dr. Bushnell, that spiritual good can +come from such a belief in the Trinity as you describe to be <span class="tei tei-q">“undoubtedly”</span> +that of <span class="tei tei-q">“the general mass of disciples”</span>? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 134.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> This state of mind is undoubtedly that of the general mass +of the disciples? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> It is. (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 130.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Are there others, calling themselves Trinitarians, who +hold essentially the Unitarian doctrine? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> Yes. <span class="tei tei-q">“It is a somewhat curious fact in theology that +the class of teachers who protest over the word <span class="tei tei-q">‘person,’</span> declaring +that they mean only a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">threefold distinction</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘person,’</span> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Wherein +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page500">[pg 500]</span><a name="Pg500" id="Pg500" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +does the indefinable <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">distinction</span></em> of one differ from the mysterious +and peculiar <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">communication</span></em> of the other?’</span> or <span class="tei tei-q">‘How does it appear +that there is any difference?’</span> there is no living man, I am quite +sure, who can invent an answer.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 135.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> Is it not true that both of these views are sometimes held +alternately by Trinitarians? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +(<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 134.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Unit.</span></span> But can they not hold the Unity with this Trinity? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Dr. B.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ibid.</span></span> p. 131.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +(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, <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">a +fortiori</span></span>, 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:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page501">[pg 501]</span><a name="Pg501" id="Pg501" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘two or three’</span> +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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +What would Luther have replied to that? He would have said, +<span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> We can make the same answer now. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Huntington proceeds to give his own creed in regard to +the Trinity,—to state his own belief. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +God, in himself, he declares, we cannot know at all. We know +him only, in his revelation. <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the Son is eternally begotten of the Father,”</span> +and <span class="tei tei-q">“the Holy Ghost proceeds out of the Father, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not in time</span></em>;”</span> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Christ comes forth out of the Godhead +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page502">[pg 502]</span><a name="Pg502" id="Pg502" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +as the Son;”</span> that he <span class="tei tei-q">“leaves the glory he had with the +Father;”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“He +lessens himself to dependency for the sake of mediation.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“All this +we might expect.”</span> This he calls an <span class="tei tei-q">“instrumental inequality between +Son and Father:”</span> it <span class="tei tei-q">“is wrought into the biblical language, +remains in all our devotional habit, and ought to remain there.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“My +Father is greater than I,”</span> does not satisfy him. He is not satisfied +that Jesus said it <span class="tei tei-q">“in his human nature.”</span> No. It was the +divine nature which said it; and it was really <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">God the Son</span></span>, 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Huntington (p. 366) ascribes it to <span class="tei tei-q">“condescension”</span> in +Christ, to say that <span class="tei tei-q">“of that day and hour knoweth not the Son.”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">It is condescension indeed!</span></em>”</span> says he. But this word +<span class="tei tei-q">“condescension”</span> does not well apply here. One does not condescend +to be ignorant of what he knows: still less does a truthful person +condescend <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">to say</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +IV. The arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are unanswerable. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page503">[pg 503]</span><a name="Pg503" id="Pg503" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">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</span></em>. Does Dr. Huntington answer this argument? +No; he answers the argument from the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">word</span></em> <span class="tei tei-q">“Trinity”</span> 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.<a id="noteref_93" name="noteref_93" href="#note_93"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">93</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">mode</span></em> of which is unintelligible. But when we say, <span class="tei tei-q">“Can we believe +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a doctrine</span></em> or proposition which cannot be distinctly stated?”</span> +He has no answer. The Trinity is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">a doctrine</span></em>, and must therefore +be distinctly stated in order to be believed. It has not been distinctly +stated,<a id="noteref_94" name="noteref_94" href="#note_94"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">94</span></span></a> +and therefore cannot be believed. To this objection +Dr. Huntington has no reply; and we may conclude that it +is an unanswerable objection. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Huntington uses an unnecessary phrase about those who +object to mystery. He calls the objection <span class="tei tei-q">“shallow self-illusion,”</span> +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? +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page504">[pg 504]</span><a name="Pg504" id="Pg504" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +You ask us to believe a precise statement, viz., that <span class="tei tei-q">“there are +three <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">persons</span></em> in the Godhead.”</span> We say, <span class="tei tei-q">“What do you mean by +<span class="tei tei-q">‘person’</span>?”</span> The Trinitarian answers, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is a mystery.”</span> We +say, <span class="tei tei-q">“We cannot believe it, then.”</span> The Trinitarian replies, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Why, all is a mystery. How the grass grows is a mystery; yet +you believe it.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“No,”</span> we say, <span class="tei tei-q">“we do not believe it. When +the mystery begins, our belief ends; we believe up to that point, +and no farther.”</span> The statement, <span class="tei tei-q">“the grass grows,”</span> is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> a +mystery; the fact, <span class="tei tei-q">“the grass grows,”</span> is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> a mystery. We +believe the fact and the statement. The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">way</span></em> in which it grows <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">is</span></em> +mysterious; and we do not believe anything about it. <span class="tei tei-q">“You cannot +understand <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> the grass grows.”</span> No; and, accordingly, we +do not believe anything about <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> the grass grows. But the +whole purpose of the Trinity is to show <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em> the Father, the Son, +and the Holy Spirit exist. You are not satisfied that we receive +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">what</span></em> the Scripture teaches; you try to show us the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">how</span></em>, and then +leave it in obscurity at last. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Nor does Dr. Huntington reply to the Unitarian explanation of +the Trinitarian proof-texts. Trinitarians have often quoted the +texts—<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">I and my Father are one</span></em>;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">He who has seen me has +seen the Father</span></em>”</span>—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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">disciples were to be one with him, as he +is one with God</span></em>, it either proves that the disciples are also to be +God, or does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> prove that Christ is God. To the second passage, +Unitarians have replied by reading the next clause, in which +Christ says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Believest thou not that I am <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in</span></em> the Father?”</span> showing +how it is that he reveals the Father. He is <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in</span></em> the Father, and +his disciples are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">in</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +He quotes the passage from Eph. 1:20, 21, and says, <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Can +this be a creature?</span></em>”</span> We reply, <span class="tei tei-q">“Can he be anything <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">but</span></em> a +creature?—he who was <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">set</span></em> by God in this place of honor.”</span> Does +God set God, as a reward, above principalities and powers? Does +God make God <span class="tei tei-q">“head over all things in the Church”</span>? Again: +Dr. Huntington quotes, <span class="tei tei-q">“that, at the name of Jesus, every knee +should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord;”</span> but he +omits the conclusion, <span class="tei tei-q">“to the glory of God the Father.”</span> +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page505">[pg 505]</span><a name="Pg505" id="Pg505" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +He even quotes the passage, <span class="tei tei-q">“Him <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">hath God exalted</span></em> to give +repentance and forgiveness of sin.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And he quotes the passage, which has staggered the strongest +believers in the Trinity, where Paul declares (1 Cor. ch. 15), that, <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">at +the end</span></em>, Christ will give up his kingdom to the Father, that <span class="tei tei-q">“God +may be all in all,”</span> and explains it as meaning that <span class="tei tei-q">“he will resume +his place in the coequal Three, the indivisible One.”</span> Has he <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">left</span></em> +his place, then? Is that Orthodox? Dr. Huntington evidently +thinks so; for he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“The Son, in his character of Sonship, is +retaken, so to speak, into the everlasting undivided One.”</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">So to +speak.</span></em> We may <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">speak</span></em> so: <span class="tei tei-q">“But what do we mean by it?”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“so +to speak,”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“in the coequal Three and indivisible One”</span>! +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, +<span class="tei tei-q">“My Father is greater than I;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Of mine own self I +can do nothing,”</span>—and take the strongest proof-texts of the +Trinitarians, and ask for no better proof for the Unitarian doctrine: +<span class="tei tei-q">“All power is given to me in heaven and earth;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“The image of +the invisible God, the first-born of every creature;”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“In him dwelt +all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“given.”</span> God the Son cannot +be <span class="tei tei-q">“the image of God,”</span> or the <span class="tei tei-q">“first-born of every <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">creature</span></em>.”</span> The +<span class="tei tei-q">“fulness of the Godhead”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +V. The good ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity does not +belong to it, but to the truths which underlie it. +</p> + +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page506">[pg 506]</span><a name="Pg506" id="Pg506" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Dr. Huntington asserts, for example, that <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Jewish</span></em> religion and the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Mohammedan</span></em> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“God so +loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son;”</span> that <span class="tei tei-q">“He +who spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all,—shall +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page507">[pg 507]</span><a name="Pg507" id="Pg507" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +he not, with him, freely give us all things?”</span> Is not this enough, +without an argument to prove that the <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">only</span></em> way by which man +can be saved is the method of a suffering God? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VI. Great evils to the Church have come from the doctrine of +the Trinity. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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? +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +This is what Dr. Bushnell says of one of these matters; and his +testimony is, perhaps, sufficient on this point,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Such is the confusion produced by attempting to assert a real +and metaphysical Trinity of persons in the divine nature. Whether +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page508">[pg 508]</span><a name="Pg508" id="Pg508" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +the word is taken at its full import, or diminished away to a mere +something called a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">distinction</span></em>, there is produced only contrariety, +confusion, practical negation, not light.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So far Dr. Bushnell. On another point thus testifies Twesten:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VII. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of philosophy, and +not of faith. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +VIII. We can trace the gradual formation of the doctrine in the +Christian Church. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The following facts we suppose to be incontrovertible:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. The <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Nicene symbol</span></em>, which declared Christ to be <span class="tei tei-q">“God from +God, Light from Light, true God from true God, of the same substance +with the Father,”</span><a id="noteref_95" name="noteref_95" href="#note_95"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">95</span></span></a> was directed against the +two Arian positions,—that +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page509">[pg 509]</span><a name="Pg509" id="Pg509" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. The councils vacillated to and fro during three hundred +years, gradually tending towards the present Church doctrine of +the Trinity; thus,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +1. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Synod of Nice</span></span> (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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +2. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Synod of Tyre</span></span> (A.D. 335) favored the Arians, and deposed +Athanasius. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +3. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Council of Antioch</span></span> (A.D. 343) opposed the views of the +Arians, and also the views of their opponents. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +4. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Council of Sardica</span></span> (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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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.:— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Second council of Antioch (A.D. 343). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Council of Milan (A.D. 346). +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +7. The Arians, being thus dominant, immediately divided into +Arians and Semi-Arians,—the distinction being the famous distinction +between <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">o</span></span> and <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">oi</span></span>. Both parties denied the +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Homoousios</span></span>; +but the Semi-Arians admitted the <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Homoiousios</span></span>. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +10. The Nestorian controversy broke out A.D. 430. Council +of Ephesus (A.D. 431) condemned Nestor. The Nestorians (who +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page510">[pg 510]</span><a name="Pg510" id="Pg510" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +were Unitarians) separated entirely from the Church, and became +the Church of the Persian empire. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“God was crucified in Christ.”</span> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +12. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">First Lateran Council</span></span> was called (in A.D. 640) to settle a +new point. It having been decided that there were <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> 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,— +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +13. Sixth General Council (A.D. 680), when <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">two</span></em> wills in Christ +were accepted as the doctrine of the Church. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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 <span class="tei tei-q">“always, everywhere, +and by all.”</span> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Our final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes +Christ divine, but that it does <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> 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. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page511">[pg 511]</span><a name="Pg511" id="Pg511" class="tei tei-anchor"></a> +The Son may be said to be <span class="tei tei-q">“eternally generated;”</span> 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. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +How is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning +Christ? Dr. Huntington claims Nice as Trinitarian. (p. 361.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +But what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine? +Listen. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or +proper Godhead, in and of himself exclusively; it represents him +as the <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Fons et Principium</span></span> 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.”</span> +(Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin. Test., +p. 264.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +And how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Huntington +also considers to be Trinitarian? else certainly his rule of +<span class="tei tei-q">“always, everywhere, and by all,”</span> does not hold. If, for the first +three hundred years after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it +cannot be said that the Trinity has <span class="tei tei-q">“always”</span> been held in the +Church. Listen, again, to Prof. Stuart, whose learning no one +can question. +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> (See the whole paragraph +in Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 267.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">modus existendi</span></span> of the Son and Spirit, according to the +modern creed,—both seem to involve <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the idea of power and glory in the +Father, immeasurably above that of the Son and Spirit</span></em>.”</span> (Moses +Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +So Coleridge asserts that <span class="tei tei-q">“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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘My Father is greater than I.’</span> ”</span> (Wilson, +Trin. Test., p. 270.) +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +According to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find +God—the Supreme God, our heavenly Father—in Christ; but a +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page512">[pg 512]</span><a name="Pg512" id="Pg512" class="tei tei-anchor"></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, <span class="tei tei-q">“He who has seen me has seen the +Father?”</span> No; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians; but +rather, that, having seen him, we have seen <span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">the Son</span></span>;”</span> whom +Coleridge declares to be an inferior Deity; over whom Bishop +Pearson, in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Exposition of the Creed,”</span> says, the Father holds +<span class="tei tei-q">“preeminence,”</span>—the Father being <span class="tei tei-q">“the Origin, the Cause, the +Author, the Root, the Fountain, the Head, of the Son.”</span> The +doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed, as Swedenborg ably +contends, to the real divinity of Christ.<a id="noteref_96" name="noteref_96" href="#note_96"><span class="tei tei-noteref"><span style="font-size: 60%; vertical-align: super">96</span></span></a> +</p> + +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Our Father;”</span> 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. +</p> + +</div> + +</div> + +</div> +<hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-back" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 6.00em"> + <div id="footnotes" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + <a name="toc367" id="toc367"></a> + <a name="pdf368" id="pdf368"></a> + <h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Footnotes</span></h1> + <dl class="tei tei-list-footnotes"><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_1" name="note_1" href="#noteref_1">1.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The following passage, +from an article in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Independent,”</span> by Henry +Ward Beecher, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one who has <span class="tei tei-q">“summered +it and wintered it”</span> with Orthodoxy:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Does anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such sharp +articles upon the great religious newspapers, <span class="tei tei-q">‘The Observer,’</span> <span class="tei tei-q">‘The +Intelligencer,’</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘The Presbyterian,’</span> <span class="tei tei-q">‘The Observer,’</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">‘The Puritan Recorder,’</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Here we are, fierce and +orthodox; ready to growl when we cannot bite.’</span> ”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_2" name="note_2" href="#noteref_2">2.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus +Theodore Parker (<span class="tei tei-q">“Experience as a Minister”</span>) speaks of a review +of his <span class="tei tei-q">“Discourse on Religion”</span> in a Trinitarian work, which did it no +injustice.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_3" name="note_3" href="#noteref_3">3.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">According +to the <span class="tei tei-q">“Chart of Religious Belief”</span> 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. +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">About</span></span>, in his +<span class="tei tei-q">“Question Romaine,”</span> gives the Roman Church 139,000,000. He says, <span class="tei tei-q">“The +Roman Catholic Church, which I sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000 +of individuals, not including the little Mortara.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_4" name="note_4" href="#noteref_4">4.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_5" name="note_5" href="#noteref_5">5.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Of +course we do not mean to charge our Orthodox friends with believing +in persecution. We only show that <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">if Orthodoxy is in the letter</span></em>, +they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ought</span></em>, +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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_6" name="note_6" href="#noteref_6">6.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Heb. +11:1.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_7" name="note_7" href="#noteref_7">7.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_8" name="note_8" href="#noteref_8">8.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See <span class="tei tei-q">“Broken Lights,”</span> p. 207, note.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_9" name="note_9" href="#noteref_9">9.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">requiem</span></em> 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.—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ephraim +Peabody.</span></span> +</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_10" name="note_10" href="#noteref_10">10.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Trench, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Notes on the Miracles of our Lord.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_11" name="note_11" href="#noteref_11">11.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">We +use the term <span class="tei tei-q">“plenary inspiration”</span> rather than <span class="tei tei-q">“literal inspiration,”</span> +or <span class="tei tei-q">“verbal inspiration,”</span> for <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">literal inspiration</span></em>”</span> +is a contradiction in terms, like <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">bodily spirit</span></em>.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_12" name="note_12" href="#noteref_12">12.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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, <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Tholuck's +Essay—Noyes's </span><span class="tei tei-q"><span style="font-style: italic">“</span><span style="font-style: italic">Collection.</span><span style="font-style: italic">”</span></span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_13" name="note_13" href="#noteref_13">13.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The doctrine +of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a distinguished +Roman Catholic, is as follows:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and free will +is in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that,— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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....</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The early Fathers took different views of the origin of sin. Tertullian +ascribed it to human <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">impatience</span></em>. <span class="tei tei-q">“Nunc ut compendio dictum sit, omne +peccatum impatientiæ adscribendum.”</span> (Tertul. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De Patien.</span></span> 5.) +Origen thinks <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">laziness</span></em> the cause of sin; sin is a +negation—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">not</span></em> doing right. Justin Martyr ascribes the origin of sin +to <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">sensuality</span></em>. Origen (after Philo) considered the +story of the fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in all men. +</p> +</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_14" name="note_14" href="#noteref_14">14.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See, in the Appendix, +an examination of Professor Shedd's article.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_15" name="note_15" href="#noteref_15">15.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Ovid. Metam. 7:18. +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Si possem, sanior essem.<br /> +Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido,<br /> +Mens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque,<br /> +Deteriora sequor.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +See, also, the story, in the Cyropædia, of Araspes and his two souls. +</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_16" name="note_16" href="#noteref_16">16.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Dr. Cox's Sermon on +Regeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in <span class="tei tei-q">“Essays +and Reviews.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_17" name="note_17" href="#noteref_17">17.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Luther, +in his <span class="tei tei-q">“Table-talk,”</span> says of his preaching against the pope, and +the enormous labors it entailed, <span class="tei tei-q">“If I had known then what I now know of +the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn me to it.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“At +that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, <span class="tei tei-q">‘What will you do? They will +not endure it.’</span> But said I, <span class="tei tei-q">‘What if they <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">must</span></em> endure it?’</span> ”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_18" name="note_18" href="#noteref_18">18.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See Raumer, <span class="tei tei-q">“Geschichte Europas,”</span> +zweiter Band.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_19" name="note_19" href="#noteref_19">19.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">God +in Christ, by Horace Bushnell, p. 193, &c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_20" name="note_20" href="#noteref_20">20.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Heb. 2:9, 17, 18. 4:15. 5:8, 9.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_21" name="note_21" href="#noteref_21">21.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_22" name="note_22" href="#noteref_22">22.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Doctrinal Attitude +of Old School Presbyterians.”</span> By Lyman B. Atwater, +Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Princeton College. Bibliotheca +Sacra, January, 1864.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_23" name="note_23" href="#noteref_23">23.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“The +Old School in New England Theology.”</span> By Professor Lawrence, of +East Windsor. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1863.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_24" name="note_24" href="#noteref_24">24.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Doctrines +of the New School Presbyterians.”</span> By Rev. George Duffield, +D. D., of Detroit. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_25" name="note_25" href="#noteref_25">25.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Hopkinsianism.”</span> +By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor +Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_26" name="note_26" href="#noteref_26">26.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Doctrines of Methodism.”</span> +By Rev. Dr. Whedon. Bibliotheca Sacra, +April, 1862.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_27" name="note_27" href="#noteref_27">27.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Theologische Zeitscrift.”</span> +Herausgegeben von Dr. Friedr. Schleiermacher, +Dr. W. M. L. DeWette, und Dr. Friedr. Lücke. Erstes Heft, Berlin, +1819. <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Ueber die Lehre von der Erwählung.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_28" name="note_28" href="#noteref_28">28.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Rom. 11:29. <span class="tei tei-q">“The gifts +and callings of God are without repentance.”</span> By this we understand +the apostle to mean the same thing as is implied in Ecclesiastes +(3:14): <span class="tei tei-q">“I know that what God doeth, it is forever.”</span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_29" name="note_29" href="#noteref_29">29.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">materialism</span></em> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_30" name="note_30" href="#noteref_30">30.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Nescio, +quomodo, dum lego, assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum ipse +de immortalitate animorum cœpi cogitare, assensio omnis illa illabitur.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_31" name="note_31" href="#noteref_31">31.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Thus it +is said, <span class="tei tei-q">“In Christ shall all be made alive.”</span> 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. <span class="tei tei-q">“Perfect love casts out fear;”</span> 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_32" name="note_32" href="#noteref_32">32.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The word here rendered +<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-variant: small-caps">abolished</span></span> is elsewhere translated <span class="tei tei-q">“destroyed,”</span> +<span class="tei tei-q">“made void,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“made of none effect,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“brought to nothing,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“vanished +away,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“done away,”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“put down.”</span> The meaning is, that all its force, +importance, value, is taken out of it.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_33" name="note_33" href="#noteref_33">33.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“The +State of the Impenitent Dead. By Alvah Hovey, D. D.”</span> Boston, +1859.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_34" name="note_34" href="#noteref_34">34.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">For +ἵνα before a defining clause, see John 6:29; 4:34; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:21; +2 John 6.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_35" name="note_35" href="#noteref_35">35.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Berlin, +1800.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_36" name="note_36" href="#noteref_36">36.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">In addition +to the extracts from Professor Hovey, Meyer, Lücke, and De +Wette, the following passages from F. D. Maurice (<span class="tei tei-q">“Theological Essays”</span>) +are interesting, as showing a concurrence of testimony from yet another quarter +to the thesis of this section:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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....</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">eternal</span></em> 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.”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_37" name="note_37" href="#noteref_37">37.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In the German Bible +we have the true word—<span class="tei tei-q">“Auferstehung.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_38" name="note_38" href="#noteref_38">38.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum +N. T., ad locum.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_39" name="note_39" href="#noteref_39">39.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Schleusner, +Lexicon in LXX.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_40" name="note_40" href="#noteref_40">40.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegriff) +says that σάλπινξ 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.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_41" name="note_41" href="#noteref_41">41.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming +was as Jesus, not as Christ. The human life is <span class="tei tei-q">“the life of Jesus.”</span> Christian +history is <span class="tei tei-q">“the life of Christ.”</span> In his earthly life he was Prophet; in his death +he was Priest; in his resurrection, or risen state, he was King.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_42" name="note_42" href="#noteref_42">42.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“the Revelation”</span> is to be found in the progress of Christian principles +and ideas in the world. Bertholdt (Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque +ætate), note to § 11, quotes from the Sepher Ikkarim this passage—<span class="tei tei-q">“The +future age will come <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">gradually</span></em> to men after the day of the great judgment, +which will take place after the resurrection.”</span> Resurrection and judgment +both come with Jesus, and his were <span class="tei tei-q">“the last days.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_43" name="note_43" href="#noteref_43">43.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">1 Thess. 4:17. +<span class="tei tei-q">“We, who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together +with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”</span> Usteri (Paul. +Lehrbeg.) says that <span class="tei tei-q">“this εἰς ἀέρα has no analogy in any other passage of the +Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament.”</span> But Paul outgrew this literalism, +and in his later Epistles speaks of sitting already with Christ in <span class="tei tei-q">“heavenly +places.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_44" name="note_44" href="#noteref_44">44.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Olshausen, +an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to Christ's +predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘the tribulation,’</span> &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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘the last time.’</span> 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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +The most interesting question, perhaps, is as to the opinions of Jesus +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">himself</span></em> 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.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_45" name="note_45" href="#noteref_45">45.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">nimmer ist, immer wird</span></span>.”</span> +(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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">are +not yet converted</span></em>, 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“nations ”</span>) are the heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all, +but are Christians outside of Christianity.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_46" name="note_46" href="#noteref_46">46.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <span class="tei tei-q">“extracts +from a sermon addressed to the students in the United Presbyterian Theological +Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Rev. William Davidson.”</span> It begins in this +somewhat enigmatical way:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“It is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one—for even a youth or a +heathen—to be <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">lost</span></em>.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +Why this limiting particle <span class="tei tei-q">“even”</span> 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:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Nor is this all to those who suffer <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">least</span></em>. It is not only the loss of +all, and a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">horrible +objects</span></em>, filling every sense and every faculty; and there are +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">horrible engines and instruments of torture</span></em>. There are the <span class="tei tei-q">‘chains +of darkness,’</span> 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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">terrible companions</span></em>, or rather +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">foes</span></em>, 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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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. +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">make his power known</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">second death</span></em>. 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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +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:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“And <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">all this shall be forever</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">some</span></em> hope. But no! +when all is suffered and all is past, still all beyond is eternity.”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_47" name="note_47" href="#noteref_47">47.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">To +show how some <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Roman Catholics</span></em> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“a book for children.”</span> Wishing +to spare our readers such horrors, we put it here, advising no one of weak +nerves to read its atrocious descriptions. +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The fourth dungeon is <span class="tei tei-q">‘the boiling kettle.’</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘red-hot oven,’</span> in which is a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">little +child</span></em>. 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">much more</span></em> in hell. +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">So God in his mercy called it out of the world in its early +childhood.</span></em>”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_48" name="note_48" href="#noteref_48">48.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">We take +the following from the <span class="tei tei-q">“Monthly Religious Magazine:”</span>— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“The <span class="tei tei-q">‘Country Parson,’</span> in his late work, the <span class="tei tei-q">‘Autumn Holidays,’</span> +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.</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">physical</span></em> 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.”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_49" name="note_49" href="#noteref_49">49.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">So Erigena (quoted by Strauss), <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">De +Divis Nat.</span></span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Vera ratio docet, nullum +contrarium divinæ bonitati vitæque ac beatitudini posse esse coeternum; divina +siquidem bonitas consumet malitiam, æterna vita absorbet mortem, beatitudo +miseriam.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_50" name="note_50" href="#noteref_50">50.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The +name given to them by Augustine (<span class="tei tei-q">“Civ. Dei,”</span> lib. 21, c. 17): <span class="tei tei-q">“Denique +hujus sententiæ Patronos S. Augustinus appellat titulo non incongruo, +<span class="tei tei-q">‘Doctores Misericordes’</span> tractatque non inhumaniter.”</span> +Thomas Burnet, <span class="tei tei-q">“De Statu Mortuum et Resurgentium.”</span> Chap. XI.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_51" name="note_51" href="#noteref_51">51.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See +Bretschneider, <span class="tei tei-q">“Dogmatik,”</span> and Strauss, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Christliche Glaubenslehre.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_52" name="note_52" href="#noteref_52">52.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Nos et +angelos futuros dæmones si egerimus negligenter; et rursum +dæmones, si voluerint capere virtutes, pervenire ad angelicam dignitatem.”</span> +Origen, quoted by Jerome.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_53" name="note_53" href="#noteref_53">53.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Nihil enim omnipotenti +impossibile est, nec insanabile aliquid est factori +suo.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_54" name="note_54" href="#noteref_54">54.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Quod tamen non +ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes intelligen +dum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus sæculis, cum sensim per singulos +emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta, præcurrentibus aliis, aliis insequentibus.”</span> +See these quotations in Strauss, Hase, &c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_55" name="note_55" href="#noteref_55">55.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Matt. 25:46. The Greek word +translated in the English as <span class="tei tei-q">“everlasting”</span> +punishment in the beginning of the verse, and as life <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal”</span> at the end, is +the same word (ἀιώνιος) in both places, and should be translated <span class="tei tei-q">“eternal”</span> in +both.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_56" name="note_56" href="#noteref_56">56.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Remorse</span></span>—from +<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">mordeo</span></span>, to gnaw. So St. Thomas (Summa, Pars III. 2, +97): <span class="tei tei-q">“Vermis non debet esse intelligi corporalis sed spiritualis, qui est con +scientiæ remorsus.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_57" name="note_57" href="#noteref_57">57.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span>—<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Thomas +Burnet</span></span>, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium Tractatus. Londini. Typis +et impensis J. Hooke, in vico vulgò dicto <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Fleet Street</span></span>, +1737.—No one has +spoken more powerfully and eloquently than he against everlasting punishment, +particularly in the passage beginning <span class="tei tei-q">“Nobis difficile est omnem exuere +humanitatem.”</span> p. 309.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_58" name="note_58" href="#noteref_58">58.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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 +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the heathen</span></em>, when Jesus himself here distinctly tells us what it will be. +The word ἔθνη is the only word in the New Testament which is ever translated +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">heathen</span></em>: wherever the word <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">heathen</span></em> occurs in our Bible, it is +always this. Jesus teaches that the heathen (inside and outside of Christendom) will be +judged <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">according to their humanity</span></em>, 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“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;”</span> it denounces this curse on Christ himself, and +thus proves conclusively that it is not speaking by the Spirit of God, since +<span class="tei tei-q">“no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed.”</span> (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.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_59" name="note_59" href="#noteref_59">59.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Origen, +Homil. in Levit. 7:2. <span class="tei tei-q">“Salvator meus luget etiam nunc peccata +mea; Salvator meus lætari non potest, donec ego in iniquitate permaneo. +Non vult solus in regno Dei bibere vinum lætitiæ—nos expectat.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_60" name="note_60" href="#noteref_60">60.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Guericke, +Christ. Symbolik, § 70.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_61" name="note_61" href="#noteref_61">61.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Ecclesia enim +est cœtus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis ut est cœtus +populi Romani, vel regnum Galliæ, aut respublica Venetorum.”</span> Bellarmin. +Eccles. Milit. c. 2.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_62" name="note_62" href="#noteref_62">62.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Moehler, +Symbolism, § 36.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_63" name="note_63" href="#noteref_63">63.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Bonos +et malos ad ecclesiam pertinere Catholica fides vere et constante +affirmat.”</span> Cat. Rom.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_64" name="note_64" href="#noteref_64">64.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The +chief passage in proof of this, as is well known, is Matt. 16:18, 19 +<span class="tei tei-q">“Thou art Peter,”</span> &c. But even Augustine, the great light of the Latin +Church, says that <span class="tei tei-q">“Peter was not the Rock, but Christ was the Rock.”</span> +(Neander, vol. ii. p. 168.) The same power was given to the other apostles. +Matt. 18:18. John 20:23. Rev. 21:14.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_65" name="note_65" href="#noteref_65">65.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Le Protestantisme Libéral +par le Pasteur Bost. Paris, Baillière, 1865.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_66" name="note_66" href="#noteref_66">66.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Il +est de fait que le Catholicisme, qui est essentiellement un principe +d'authorité, ne sait pas dire où reside cette authorité.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_67" name="note_67" href="#noteref_67">67.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Thirty-nine +Articles, art. xix.”</span> So Augs. Conf. art. 7: <span class="tei tei-q">“Congregatio +sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte administrantur sacramenta.”</span> +But it may be asked, Who is to decide on the +<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">recte</span></span>”</span>?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_68" name="note_68" href="#noteref_68">68.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">In +the remarkable work <span class="tei tei-q">“Ecce Homo”</span>.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_69" name="note_69" href="#noteref_69">69.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Tholuck, in +his charming work on the Sermon on the Mount, speaks thus +(<span class="tei tei-q">“<span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Bergpredigt Christ. von A. Tholuck.</span></span>”</span>) <span class="tei tei-q">“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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">meanings</span></em> 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: <span class="tei tei-q">‘Happiness, present and future, obtained through Christ.’</span> But in this +definition the notion of <span class="tei tei-q">‘a kingdom’</span> 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.</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“Our own explanation of this expression starts from the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">‘kingdom of +God,’</span> which explains the others, <span class="tei tei-q">‘kingdom of heaven’</span> and <span class="tei tei-q">‘kingdom of Christ.’</span> +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: <span class="tei tei-q">‘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.’</span> 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.”</span></p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_70" name="note_70" href="#noteref_70">70.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">An eminent +and learned gentleman told me of this conversation which he +had with a Roman priest: <span class="tei tei-q">“When the wine of the Eucharist is consecrated, it +becomes the real blood of Christ—does it not?”</span> Priest, <span class="tei tei-q">“It does.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“What, +then, do you do with that which remains in the cup, after communion?”</span> +Priest, <span class="tei tei-q">“We drink it.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“Does not some adhere to the glass?”</span> Priest, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Yes; but we wash the glass.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“What do you do with the water?”</span> Priest, +<span class="tei tei-q">“We drink it.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span> Priest, <span class="tei tei-q">“Yes.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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?”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_71" name="note_71" href="#noteref_71">71.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See, +in the New York <span class="tei tei-q">“Independent,”</span> June 9, 1866, the account of the +<span class="tei tei-q">“Recognition of Congregational Churches in Philadelphia,”</span> where the existence +of this principle is admitted and defended by some eminent Congregational +ministers; admitted and deplored by others.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_72" name="note_72" href="#noteref_72">72.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Twesten, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Vorlesungen,”</span> &c., vol ii., p. 216. He adds to this definition +its Latin form, in which the words <span class="tei tei-q">“certain characteristics”</span> stand <span class="tei tei-q">“certis +characteribus hypostaticis.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_73" name="note_73" href="#noteref_73">73.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Quoted +by Schleiermacher, <span class="tei tei-q">“Glaubenslehre,”</span> § 170.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_74" name="note_74" href="#noteref_74">74.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See +the full discussions of these terms in Twesten (as above), Hase, +<span class="tei tei-q">“Christl. Glaubenslehre,”</span> § 56. Strauss, <span class="tei tei-q">“Christl. Glaubenslehre,”</span> vol. i. +Hase, <span class="tei tei-q">“Dogmatik,”</span> &c.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_75" name="note_75" href="#noteref_75">75.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dogmatik, § +239.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_76" name="note_76" href="#noteref_76">76.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Augustine (de Trinit.), +says, <span class="tei tei-q">“One life in man, but three faculties—memory, intelligence, +will.”</span> But how if this is bad psychology?</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_77" name="note_77" href="#noteref_77">77.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Erigena, <span class="tei tei-q">“The Father in the soul, the Son in +the reason, the Spirit in the sense—this makes the most luminous +illustration.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_78" name="note_78" href="#noteref_78">78.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Abelard (quoted by Strauss).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_79" name="note_79" href="#noteref_79">79.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Richard St. Victor (quoted by Hase), <span class="tei tei-q">“There +can be no possible communion of affection between a less number than three +persons.”</span> So Augustine, <span class="tei tei-q">“Cum aliquid amo, tria +sunt—<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">ego</span></em>, et <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">quod</span></em> amo, et ipse <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">amor</span></em>.”</span> +Such illustrations are hardly satisfactory at the present day. Poiret says the Father is +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Deus a se</span></em>,”</span> the Son is <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Deus ex se</span></em>,”</span> the Holy +Spirit <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Deus ad se refluens</span></em>.”</span> Angelus Silecius makes the Trinity +a divine kiss. <span class="tei tei-q">“God kisses himself—the Father kisses, the Son +is kissed, the Spirit is the kiss.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_80" name="note_80" href="#noteref_80">80.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Translated from the Latin in +Hagenbach (Compend of the History of Doctrines, vol. i. p. 289). We agree with +Strauss, who says, <span class="tei tei-q">“Fürwahr, wer das <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Symbolum Quidcunque</span></span> +beschworen hatte, der hatte die Gesetze des menschlichen +Denkens abgeschworen.”</span> So the Pastor Bost (Le Protestantisme +Liberal), after giving the Creed, in a somewhat different form, adds, <span class="tei tei-q">“ubi +insana faciunt, mysterium appellant.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_81" name="note_81" href="#noteref_81">81.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Incomprehensible,”</span> +Church of England Liturgy.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_82" name="note_82" href="#noteref_82">82.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Or <span class="tei tei-q">“each person by himself.”</span> +The word in the Latin is <span class="tei tei-q">“sigillatim,”</span> a +word not in most of the dictionaries, but in some of them made equivalent +to <span class="tei tei-q">“singulatim.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_83" name="note_83" href="#noteref_83">83.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Tertullian +said, we can call Christ <span class="tei tei-q">“God”</span> when we speak of him alone; +but if we mention him with the Father, then we must call the Father <span class="tei tei-q">“God,”</span> +and call Christ only <span class="tei tei-q">“Lord.”</span> <span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_84" name="note_84" href="#noteref_84">84.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to Sabellianism. +The term ὁμοούσιος (<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">of the same essence</span></em>) was a Sabellian term. Sabellianism +could, in fact, stand most of the tests of modern Orthodoxy, since it maintains +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three persons and one essence</span></em>, μίαν ὑπόστασιν and τρία πρόσωπα; 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 +<span class="tei tei-q">“Father, Son, and Spirit the different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity +unfolding itself in the world history as the Triad.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit,”</span> +and <span class="tei tei-q">“Lehrbuch der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte”</span>).</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_85" name="note_85" href="#noteref_85">85.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Dictum +est tamen tres personæ, non ut illud diceretur, sed ut ne taceretur.”</span> +Aug. de. Trin., quoted by Hase, Dog. § 238.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_86" name="note_86" href="#noteref_86">86.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">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. +<span class="tei tei-q">“From the Jews,”</span> he says, <span class="tei tei-q">“we have the oneness of nature, from the Greeks +the distinction in hypostases.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_87" name="note_87" href="#noteref_87">87.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The substance of +what follows in this section, appeared in the <span class="tei tei-q">“Christian +Examiner.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_88" name="note_88" href="#noteref_88">88.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">The +<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">nature</span></em> by which the heathen <span class="tei tei-q">“do the things contained in the law,”</span> +i.e., obey God, which is here (Rom. 2:15) called <span class="tei tei-q">“the law written in the +heart,”</span> is in Rom. 7:23 called the <span class="tei tei-q">“law of the mind.”</span> Olshausen (a sufficiently +Orthodox commentator), says, <span class="tei tei-q">“It is wholly false to understand ὅταν +ποιῆ of a mere ideal <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">possibility</span></em>; 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.”</span> <span class="tei tei-foreign"><span style="font-style: italic">Ad +locum.</span></span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_89" name="note_89" href="#noteref_89">89.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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:— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">All</span></em> the Fathers”</span> (before Augustine, fourth and fifth century) +<span class="tei tei-q">“differed from Augustine in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state. +Thus Justin: <span class="tei tei-q">‘Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice +or virtue.’</span> Cyril of Jerusalem: <span class="tei tei-q">‘Know that thou hast a soul possessed of +free will; for thou dost not sin by birth (κατὰ γένεσιν), nor by fortune, but we +sin by free choice.’</span> <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">All</span></em> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘Man is in a good +state, not only in respect to his Creator, but also in respect to his natural +generation.’</span> ”</span>—Wiggers, <span class="tei tei-hi"><span style="font-style: italic">Augustinism and Pelagianism</span></span>. +Translated by Rev. Ralph Emerson, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover, +Mass.</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_90" name="note_90" href="#noteref_90">90.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“Abi ad +Jordonum, et Trinitatem disce,”</span> was on early notion.</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_91" name="note_91" href="#noteref_91">91.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 (<span class="tei tei-q">“God in Christ,”</span> +pp. 130, 131):— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">A very large portion of Christian teachers</span></em>”</span> hold, then, to a belief +in three Gods; and with them is joined <span class="tei tei-q">“<em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">the general mass of the +disciples</span></em>.”</span> The only +Unity held by these teachers is, he goes on to say, <span class="tei tei-q">“a social Unity.”</span> 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, <span class="tei tei-q">“because of its clear opposition to Unitarianism, is counted safe, and +never treated as a heresy.”</span> That is, the Christian Church allows the belief +in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">three Gods</span></em>, and will not discipline those who hold that opinion; but, if +you believe strictly and only in <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">one God</span></em>, you cannot be saved! +</p></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_92" name="note_92" href="#noteref_92">92.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">Dr. Bushnell goes on to say (p. 133), <span class="tei tei-q">“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, <span class="tei tei-q">‘person’</span> 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 <span class="tei tei-q">‘person,’</span> declaring that they +mean only a <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">threefold distinction</span></em>, 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.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_93" name="note_93" href="#noteref_93">93.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“It has +often been asserted <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">and admitted</span></em>,”</span> says Tweaten, one of the +strongest of modern Trinitarians, <span class="tei tei-q">“that even the principal notions about +which the Church doctrine turns are foreign to the New Testament; as οὐσία +and ὑπόστασις, τρόπος ὑπάρξεως and ἀποκαλύψεως, τριάς and ὁμοούσια.”</span>(Twesten: +Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 281.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_94" name="note_94" href="#noteref_94">94.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span> +(Prof. Stuart, Biblical Repository, April, 1835. See Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 272.)</dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_95" name="note_95" href="#noteref_95">95.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext">See the creed in Hagenbach +(History of Doct., vol. i. p. 208): <span class="tei tei-q">“Θεος ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, +Θεον ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.”</span></dd><dt class="tei tei-notelabel"><a id="note_96" name="note_96" href="#noteref_96">96.</a></dt><dd class="tei tei-notetext"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Thus +speaks Dr. Bushnell on this head (<span class="tei tei-q">“God in Christ,”</span> p. 139):— +</p> +<p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"> +<span class="tei tei-q">“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.”</span></p></dd></dl> + </div> + <hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> + <div id="pgfooter" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 4.00em; margin-top: 4.00em"><pre class="pre tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em">***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS*** +</pre><hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader369" id="rightpageheader369"></a><a name="pgtoc370" id="pgtoc370"></a><a name="pdf371" id="pdf371"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">Credits</span></h1><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr><th class="tei tei-label tei-label-gloss">June 6, 2009 </th></tr><tr><td class="tei tei-item"><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item">Project Gutenberg TEI edition 1</td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><span class="tei tei-respStmt"> + <span class="tei tei-name"> + 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.) + </span> + </span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><hr class="doublepage" /><div class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader372" id="rightpageheader372"></a><a name="pgtoc373" id="pgtoc373"></a><a name="pdf374" id="pdf374"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">A Word from Project Gutenberg</span></h1><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This file should be named + 29054-h.html or + 29054-h.zip.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This and all associated files of various formats will be found + in: + + <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/0/5/29054/" class="block tei tei-xref" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span><span style="font-size: 90%">/dirs/2/9/0/5/29054/</span></a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Updated editions will replace the previous one — the old + editions will be renamed.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ electronic works + to protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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 <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">anything</span></em> with public domain eBooks. + Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially + commercial redistribution.</p></div><hr class="page" /><div id="pglicense" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 3.00em; margin-top: 3.00em"><a name="rightpageheader375" id="rightpageheader375"></a><a name="pgtoc376" id="pgtoc376"></a><a name="pdf377" id="pdf377"></a><h1 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"><span style="font-size: 173%">The Full Project Gutenberg License</span></h1><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Please read this before you distribute or use this + work.</span></em></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">To protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span>), you agree to comply with all the terms + of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License (<a href="#pglicense" class="tei tei-ref">available with this file</a> or online + at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/license" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/license</a>).</p><div id="pglicense1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 1.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ + electronic works</span></h2><div id="pglicense1A" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.A.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic + works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a + copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ 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 <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8.</a></p></div><div id="pglicense1B" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.B.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> 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™ electronic works even without complying with the + full terms of this agreement. See paragraph <a href="#pglicense1C" class="tei tei-ref">1.C</a> below. There are a lot of things you can + do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this + agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic + works. See paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E" class="tei tei-ref">1.E</a> below.</p></div><div id="pglicense1C" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.C.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (<span class="tei tei-q">“the Foundation”</span> or PGLAF), owns a compilation + copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by + freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this + agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License when you share it + without charge with others.</p></div><div id="pglicense1D" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.D.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ work. + The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status + of any work in any country outside the United States.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.E.</span></h3><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p><div id="pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.1.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate + access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any + copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> + appears, or with which the phrase <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> is associated) is + accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + </p><div class="block tei tei-q" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 0.90em"><span style="font-size: 90%">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 </span><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org" class="tei tei-xref"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span></a></p></div></div><div id="pglicense1E2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.2.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Project Gutenberg”</span> associated with or appearing on the work, you + must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for + the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs + <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8</a> or 1.E.9.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.3.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission + of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both + paragraphs <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> through 1.E.7 and any + additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will + be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission + of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.4.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from + this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work + associated with Project Gutenberg™.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.5.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1</a> with active links or immediate access + to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E6" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.6.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ work in a format other than + <span class="tei tei-q">“Plain Vanilla ASCII”</span> or other format used in the official + version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ 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 <span class="tei tei-q">“Plain Vanilla ASCII”</span> or + other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License + as specified in paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E1" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.1.</a></p></div><div id="pglicense1E7" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.7.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, + copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with + paragraph <a href="#pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-ref">1.E.8</a> or 1.E.9.</p></div><div id="pglicense1E8" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.8.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to + or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that</p><table summary="This is a list." class="tei tei-list" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em; margin-top: 1.00em"><tbody><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label">• </th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to + calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the + Project Gutenberg™ 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 <a href="#pglicense4" class="tei tei-ref">Section 4, <span class="tei tei-q">“Information about donations to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”</span></a></p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ 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™ works.</p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You provide, in accordance with paragraph <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">1.F.3</a>, 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.</p></td></tr><tr class="tei tei-labelitem"><th class="tei tei-label"></th><td class="tei tei-item"><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div id="pglicense1E9" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.E.9.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set + forth in <a href="#pglicense3" class="tei tei-ref">Section 3</a> below.</p></div></div><div id="pglicense1F" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h3 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">1.F.</span></h3><div id="pglicense1F1" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.1.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ + electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may + contain <span class="tei tei-q">“Defects,”</span> 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.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.2.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES — Except for the <span class="tei tei-q">“Right of + Replacement or Refund”</span> described in <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">paragraph + 1.F.3</a>, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any + other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ 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.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.3.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.4.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in + <a href="#pglicense1F3" class="tei tei-ref">paragraph 1.F.3</a>, 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.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.5.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.</p></div><div id="pglicense1F6" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h4 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em">1.F.6.</h4><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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™ electronic works in accordance with this + agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion + and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ work, (b) alteration, + modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any + Defect you cause.</p></div></div></div><div id="pglicense2" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 2.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ 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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the + assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s goals and + ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ and future generations. To learn + more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see + Sections <a href="#pglicense3" class="tei tei-ref">3</a> and <a href="#pglicense4" class="tei tei-ref">4</a> and the Foundation web page at <a href="http://www.pglaf.org" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.pglaf.org</a>.</p></div><div id="pglicense3" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 3.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf</a>. 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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <a href="http://www.pglaf.org" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.pglaf.org</a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">For additional contact information: + + </p><div class="block tei tei-address" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">Dr. Gregory B. Newby</span></span><br /><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">Chief Executive and Director</span></span><br /><span class="tei tei-addrLine"><span style="font-size: 90%">gbnewby@pglaf.org</span></span><br /></div></div><div id="pglicense4" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 4.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ 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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate</a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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: <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate" class="tei tei-xref">http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate</a></p></div><div id="pglicense5" class="tei tei-div" style="margin-bottom: 2.00em; margin-top: 2.00em"><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 2.88em; margin-top: 2.88em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Section 5.</span></h2><h2 class="tei tei-head" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 2.40em; margin-top: 2.40em"><span style="font-size: 120%">General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic + works.</span></h2><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em"><span class="tei tei-name">Professor Michael S. Hart</span> is the + originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that + could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and + distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer + support.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Project Gutenberg™ 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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">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.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Corrected <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">editions</span></em> of our eBooks replace the old file + and take over the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file + is renamed. <em class="tei tei-emph"><span style="font-style: italic">Versions</span></em> based on separate sources are treated + as new eBooks receiving new filenames and etext numbers.</p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search + facility: + + <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org" class="block tei tei-xref" style="margin-bottom: 1.80em; margin-left: 3.60em; margin-top: 1.80em; margin-right: 3.60em"><span style="font-size: 90%">http://www.gutenberg.org</span></a></p><p class="tei tei-p" style="margin-bottom: 1.00em">This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg™, 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.</p></div></div></div> + </div> +</div> +</div> +</body></html> |