s. ... f., to" .ÞO' :.r <'! ., - ,zI; . ',", -r v- dr' .. ").I ... \ J ts 1I' -- " ... . . " j' 't .' . " \" r' . MtJ if' ,. 'f : " -'oS : TYv\.L EXA IINATION OF IR IAURICE'S THEOLOGICAIJ ESSAYS. BY ROBERT S. CANI)I..ISII, D.D. LONDON: JA IES NISBET AND CO., 21 BERNERS STREET. MDCCCLIV. PREFATORY NOTE. I HA VE endeavoured to make my examination in- telligible ,vithout its being necessary for the reader to refer to the Essays. Of course, one familiar with the Essays, or having them at hand, nlay be able to shew that I have not always succeeded in this at- tempt. I have used liberties of abridgment in quoting the author's words; but I can say that I have done so, only with a view" of compression, and with a sin- cere desire ratÌler to encumber my own book than to misrepresent the book which I was examining. I have no right to plead haste as an apology for error; and I have no wish to do so, in so far as the essential merits of the questions at issue arc concerned. I may be allowed, however, to suggest.. in palliation of the manner in which I have executed VI PREFATORY KOTE. 111J task, that I am not an Englisllman trained to the nice use of the English tongue,-nor an English theoJol:-rian, familiar 'with England's academic habits and DIodes of thought. ..1\1 J object ,viII be thoroughly gained if I btir up one English thinker and doer to consider ,'crJ seriously in lrllat direction the tide of Engli h theology appears in certain quarters to be running. I ,,"oulcl lun'e hinl to ask, also, by ,,'hat practical n1ensure , 38 well as by 'what deeper cur- rent of diyine t110nght and feeling, that tendencJ is to be Inct. Edinburgli, 5th tpTil, 1854. CONTENTS. PAGE I TRÜDUCTORí LECTURE, 1 PRELI:\II!\ARY CHAPTER. PREFACJ.: TO THE SECO:tU) EDITION OF THE ESSAYS; PLAN Of' THE PROPOSED EXA nNATIOì\, 49 CHAPTER I. "THE SOt"RCE OF THEOLOGY;-I:N THE :NATURE OF GOD. WHICH IS LOVE. AXD THE NECESSITY OF !IAN. WHICH IS SIX. ESSAY I.-ON CHARITY, H.-ON SIK, .")9 75 VIU COXTE TS. CHAPTER II. THE GROU DS OR ORIGI AL ELE: IE TS OF THEOLOGY AS A REl1EDIAL SYSTEM. " PAGE ESSAY IlL-ON THE EYIL SPIRIT, IV.-O THE SEXSE OF RIGHTEOUS ESS IN IEN, AND THEIR DISCOVERY OF A REDEE1IER, 103 13G CHAPTER III. THF RE:\IEDY PROVIDED-THE PERSON . ... TATE OF THE QUESTION. truth, than if I ,vere to inquire and speculate and form a theory to account for its appearance, or to anticipate its effects. Doubtless, its appearance is a phenomenon which nlay turn out to be a great fact, significant of , . many antecedents, pregnant ,vIth Inany consequences. But 1 do not enter upon any vague and ,vide inquiry regarding Its probable origin and possible results. I take the product as I find it. And I mean to try if English minds, so far as I have access to theIn, cannot estimate its practical value, apart from all personal regard for its author ;-and apart also from all abstract and nlystical philosophising about its relation to the present conditions of human kno,vledge, or to the pro- gressive developnlent of hUInan thought and feeling. FJ.'0 give son1C unity to 111Y remarks, which Inust nece sarily be n1Íscellaneous if they are to touch the varicd topics of thc book, I may be allo"wed to indicate, at the outset, what SeeI1lS to me the real matter at issue, the vital and essential question raised. It is this,- Does God de l judicially ,vith his intelligent creatures? Doc8 he try and judge, to the effect of acquitting or condemning, the persons of men-you, my brother, lJcrsonally, and me? I may, perhaps, best raise the question, if I advert to a lctter from Ir 1\1aurice to a private friend, published at )lr )Iaurice's request by Dr J elf, in his pamphlet stating the grounds for his pro- ccdure against lr 1\Iaurice before the Council of l{illg's College, Londou. I had not Iny attention called to that THE AUTHOR'S STA.RTING-POIXT. 3 letter until I had completed my analysis of the Essays. But it seems to me to furnish a key to the Essays, ,vhich, on many accounts, is to be regarded as important. The Letter was written in November 1849, several years before the Essays were published; but the theory developed in the Essays is contained in the Letter, and the process of thought and feeling through w11Ïch the theory was constructed, is in a very interesting manner laid open. Let it be observed, that the Letter is written in reply to a question regarding the dluation of fuhue punishment. The Essays are 'wTitten 'with a view to persuade Unitarians, and especially those of the recent and more spiritual school, that, instead of repudiating, they ought to welcome the Anglican Creed and Articles, as the real expression of that life ,yhich they are panting for, and their best defence against counterfeits and exaggerations. I t is evident, indeed, that the Letter is the germ of the Essays. The author deenls it a point of honour to produce it in that character, in so far as the doctrine of a future state is concerned. Ko injustice, therefore, is done by making a notice of the Letter an introduction to the consideration of the Essays. This is the rather desirable, because in the Letter, as has been said, he means "to ten his correspondent something of the processes of thought through which he had himself passed while endeavouring to arrive at the tnlth" (p. 3). 1. "I 'vas brought up," he tells his correspondent, "in the belief of universal restitution. I ,vas taught 4 REPUDL\TIO:S OF UXIVERSALIS1\I. that the idea of etenlal punishment could not consist ,vith the goodness and mercy of God" (p. 3). But he explains ]lOW, 'when "he came to think and feel for him- self, the vie\vs he had learned respecting sin" did not seenl to "accord ,vith his experience of it, or ,vith the facts 'which he saw in the ,vorId." lIe shrunk also from what shocked his intellect and conscience, as being "a feeble notion of the divine perfections, one 'which re- presented good-natl17.e of the highest of them." And he disliked the "distortions of the text of Scripture" fre- quently in use, such as making "eternal" signify different things when applied to punishment and to life respectively. Thus three strong cords drew him out of the pit of old vulgar Universalism: a sense of sin; an apprehension of the divine perfections; reverence of the Scripture. Sin, in himself and in the 'world around him, was not to be made light of; the perfections of God " erc not to be re:;:.olved into mere good-nature; Scripture was not to be set a<;;ide, or twisted so as to nlean anything or nothing. These 'were not, he ackno,vledges, "very deep, vital convictions." But" theJ were honest opinions as far as they 'Yent." ..L\.nd they made him "despise the Universalist and lTnitarian theories as weak." "I do not kno,v," he adds, "that I found anything at all bettcr" (p. 4). TIe passes at once, accordingly, to the reconstruction of his o"Tn belief, de novo). which ,vas, it would seem, a work or process altogether personal to himself: "1 can say, I did not receive this of maD, SIN, GOD, SCRIPTURE. 5 neither was I taught it" (p. 5). Of course, no one is necessarily the worse for having to elaborate his own vie,ys and impressions of divine truth for himself, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, out of the materials furnished by the '1r ord of God, and by his o,vn conscious- ness and experience. And if, upon his emancipation from the lo,yest depths of Universalist latitudinarianism, the inquirer had gone on in earnest to follow out the three lines of thought which had been the Ineans of his rescue, -sin, ,vithin and váthout,-the perfections of God,- the authority of Scriphue ;-keeping all the three distinct and parallel ;-he would have been in the right ,vay. There might have been as "great confusion and dark- ness" as that through 'which, he says, he got "every glilnpse" of ,vhat has ultimately satisfied and settled his mind; perhaps more, a great deal nlore. But the subj, ect,-man the sinner; the object,-God, the all- perfect; the Inedium,-a real and actual conlmunication from God to man, precisely such as one man makes to another ;-these three primary facts ;-the sin of man, the perfection of God, the ",'ord of God to man ;-ac- cepted as first principles, and dra,vn forth in humble, loving reverence of soul to their proper issues ;-must have led to a theology, with far more in it of the element of a real transaction between us and our )Iaker than the author is prepared to admit. 2. The origin of his positive faith, following upon the destruction of the coldly negative belief in ,vhich he ,vas 6 HOD-GOOD-NATURE OR SOVEREIGNTY. brought up, is described by him thus :-" vVhcn I began in earnest to seek God for myself, the feeling that I needed a deliverer from an overwhelming ,,'"eight of selfishness ,vas the pred'ominant one in my n1ind. Then I found it more and more impossible to trust in any being who did not hate selfishness, and ,vho did not desire to raise his creatures out of it. Such a Being " as alto- gether different from the mere image of good-nature I had seen among Universalists. lIe ,vas also very diffe- rent from the mere Sovereign whom I heard of amongst Calvinists, and ,vho it seenled to me was worshipped by a great portion of the religions ,vorld. But I thought he was just that Being who ,vas exhibited in the cross of Jesus Christ. If I might believe his words, ' lIe that hath seen me hath seen the Father;' if in his death the whole "\visdom and po,ver of God did shine forth, there was one to ,vhom I might fly from the demon of self, there was one 'v ho could break his bonds asunder. This ,vas and is the ground of my faith" (p. 4). It ,,'"ill be observed, that in the author's transition state, the only t"\vo idea;:, of the Supreme Being present to his mind were,-that of the Universalists, ,vho bow before a mere image of good-nature-and that of the Calvinists, and a great portion of the religious world, who, as he represents the matter, worsllÎp a mere Sove- reign. ITurthcr, it will be observed that the predonli- nant feeling in his mind respecting himself was, dlat he needed to be delivered from an over,vhelming weight GOD-RECKONING 'VITH MAN JUDICIALLY. 7 of selfishness. And, finally, since he cannot trust in any being who does not hate selfishness and desire to raise his creatures out of it, he welcomes the Being who is exhibited in the cross of Jesus Christ-especially be- lieving his words, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father "-as OIle to ,vhom he may fly from the demon of self, ,vho can break his bonds asunder. There is truth in all these experiences. An earnest man cannot reve- rence either a mere image of good-nature, or a mere sovereign. He is crushed under the weight of selfish- ness, bound by the demon of self. But, in the first place, is there no conception of God, but either Infinite Good-nature or Infinite Sovereignty, that haunts an awakened conscience? Is there no sense of a holy eye reading me through and through,-of the righteous ann of a La,vgiver and ,Judge holding me fast? Then, secondly, when my broken heart smites l11e for my sel- fishness,-my miserable selfishness, that ,vill not spare Bathsheba in its lust, nor Uriah in its l11eanness,-my deplorable selfishness, that makes my very ,vorship of God and my kindness to my fellows nothing else than disguised self-seeking,-I cannot feel that I have got to the root of the evil, until I hear the yoice of the Lord God ,yalking in the garden in the cool of the day, and calling me out of my hiding-place among the trees of the garden. "Then,-feeling that he is reckoning ,vith me for my disobedience, and feeling also instinctively that it is not in mere ,vrath,-I have the effrontery to say, She, thy 8 TIlE TARTIKG-POIKT IX THEOLOGY. gift, led me to sin; and ,vhen,-not smitten do,vn for my monstrous ingratitude and heartlessne.ss, I see him still ,vaiting to be gracious ;-that makes me kno,v my sel- fishness. And no,v, thirdly, the Being ,yhom I must have to deliver me-,vhom T cannot do without-is that same Being,-holy, righteous, ,vaiting to be gracious,- ,vho nlust reckon ,vith me for my sin,-,vholn I would have to reckon ,vith me for my sin,-,vhom I could not love or trust if he did not reckon ,vith me, in most rigor- ous justice, tor nlY sin ;--,vho, pointing to the Son of his love, tells me that he beareth n1Y sin in .his own body on the cross, and slays the enmity thereby. I have thought it fair to take the author's own a('- count of the origin and rise of his the.ology as he gives it in this Letter, instead of forming a theory on the sub- ject out of the Essays; although I may say that the theory 'v hich I ,vas inclined to form, to account for the Essays, before I carefully read the Letter, was very much the sanIC as the explanation which I have been consider- ing. And before passing on, I desire to fix one thought ill your millds. It is alw'ays important to know the starting-point of one ,yho proposes for our acceptance a theology, or a vie,\. of divine truth, avo,vedly-and if not exclusively, at least lllost intimately, based upon and bound up with his o,vn experience. 'rhis is neces ary if we would do jus- tice, either to him or to ourselves. It is not, of course, so necessary 'when a n1an professes simply to illustrate SLEIER IACHER-COLERIDG E. 9 an old and ,yell-defined system, to place its relative parts in fresh and original lights, and bring out its harmony with the facts of his own life and consciousness, or of nlan's life and consciousness generally. Even in such a case it may be useful and interesting. But ,vhen one comes to us ,vith a ne,v system,-and still more, when he comes to us ,vith a systematic repudiation of system,- to give us his own reading of divinity and humanity, as if he ,vere surveying a hitherto unnlapped continent,- then it becomes a nlatter of the highest importance to ascertain, if possible, his point of vie,v from the outset; that we may fairly estimate the probable effect of his speculations on himself, as ,veIl as the influence which they ought to exert over us. For instance, take Sleier- macher in Germany. Those who know his history and 'writings better than I do, tell us that to the last his l\Io- ravian training and deep l\Ioravian piety continued to steep his ,vhole nature in an intensely spiritual warmth, and leaven his compositions 1vith an energetic, spiritual life. Hence it n1ight happen that opinions and tenden- cies might be comparatively harmless in his mind,-nay, might be so blended 'with his old l\Ioravianisln as to be not only neutralised, but, as if by some. chemical affinity, absorbed, - '\vhich, neverthelef's, ,vhen transferred to minds otherwise constituted and otherwise trained, might beconle the germs of the coldest Rationalism. Or take our o,vn Coleridge. He began at the very opposite ex- trclne from the German thinker; and was led on in a 10 THE AUTHOR'S STARTING-POINT. path which, probably, none else ever trod,-through almost unparallcled conflicts and exercises of soul,-to such a profound insight into the guilt and misery of sin, and the glorious mystery of the divine government and nature, as must have been eminently blessed to himself, and must ever furnish materials of most interesting study to all inquiring students, ,vhether of man's nature or of God's. But the height ,vhich a man may reach as he toils his perilous ,yay from the lowest depth up the steep and rough ascent, though most profitable for him- self, may be unsafe for one whose position, given to him, is higher still. I may thus be tempted,-,vith neither hcart so ardent to aspire nor foot so finn to persevere,-to n1cet the adventurous pilgrim ,vhere he is-not resting, but cut off in the very heart of his struggling up,vard. .A.nd I may make it a matter of silly boasting that I can stand at ease where such a one as Coleridge, stiU press- ing on, fell. Equally unsafe may it be for me,-alas ! ,vith but little of Ioravian devotion, and, it Inay be, too little also of Ioravian discipline,-to think that I occupy ground high enough, ,vhen I am on the level of that subtle idealistic philosophy, which one wont to soar aloft on eagle' ,vings into the atmosphere around the throne, and bound by cords of love inseparable to Him ,vho sits upon the throne, might, if not ,vithout peril, yet almost ,vith impunity, make his scientific, because it ,vas not his spiritual, standing-point. These remarks apply in SOlne measure to Ir laurice; ,vith one qualification, GOD IS LOVE. 11 ho\vever, which is noted here, not invidiously, but as a necessary caution: that 'whereas he begins at a level far nearer that at which Coleridge began than that at which Sleiermacher began,-the level of lo'v Univer- salism, not high Ioravianism,-he does not appear to have pushed his inquiries so far as Coleridge did, into man's sinful nature and the Almighty's moral govern- Inent. In particular, in his very first statement of the experience which originated his theology, as ,veIl as throughout the whole of his subsequent exposition of his theology, there is an entire omission of the fact of guilt, as a real fact in our history, and a fact with which a righteous God must deal. I may return again to the Letter. But it may be proper, before proceeding further, to submit an outline of what these Essays teach. This I scruple not to do in my own ,vords, briefly but boldly, being prepared to verify ,vhat I say in full detail. 1. Love, absolute and unconditional, is the whole nature of God. This love is not mere facile and imbecile good-will. It is cOll1patible with indignation, anger, wrath: it implies wrath. "\Vrath against that which is unlovely," is an essential attribute of it. The will of God, strong against the unlovely, seeks to subdue and assimilate all other wills to his o\vn nature, ,vhich is love. Thus God is love. 2. Sin is something different and distinct from crime to be checked by outward penalties, or habit to be 12 THE EVIL SPIRIT. extirpated by moral influences. The first of these is the legislative idea of sin; the second, the ethical. Both are set aside; and instead of them there is sub- stituted 1\ hat l11ay be... called the exclusively personal idea of sin. An unloving, an unlovely creature, finds hilnself, at sonle a\vful moment, alone ,vith the great Being 1\?hose very nature is love - \vhose name is Father. .A.ll intense feeling of his being in a \vrong state, himself the doer of \vrong, hilnself the thinker of \vrong, himself displeasing to his Father, and not fight \vith his Father, seizes him. It is not a sense of his having transgressed a la\v and being justly liable to ptmishment. It is not a sense of his being tmder the po\ver of an evil habit needing to be eradicated. It is the discovery that he is not \vhat he now sees that his Father is, and \yhat he is now intimately conscious that his Father \vould have him to be. Thus the case is stated: the question is raised. \Ve have the nature and \vill of God on the one hand, and the sin of m3.n, in a certain vie\v of it, on the other. Ho\v the case is to be rr..et, ho,v the question is to be solved, is next to be considered. For this end,- 3. "fhe actual position of man is brought out in tw'o lights. lIe finds himself in the presence,-not merely of external circnnlstances fitted to exert evil influences, w'ith, perhaps, an in\vard susceptibility of receiving these influenccs,- but of an Evil Spirit. He has to contend \vith a personal enemy-the Spirit of selfish- THE REDEE IER, THE SON OF GOD. 13 ness. And self being the plague of man, the Spirit of selfishness tyrannises over him, and must be overcome. But, on the other hand, man-and here Job is taken as the type--conscious of a righteousness deeper than his sin, and more entirely his own, although sin seems almost as if it were himself ;-claiming also a sort of indefeasible right to be delivered from evil ;-has the explanation of this contradictory experience in the presence of a living Redeemer, ,vho is with hiIn, in him, the root of his being. This is Christ in every man. 4. The person and work of Christ are the subjects next in order; his person as the Incarnate Son; his ,york in the Atonement. On the subject of Christ's person, there are t\VO Essays. In the first Essay, his divinity as the Son of God is asserted. It is asserted, ho\vever, chiefly to the effect of eXplaining, by lneans of it, the entire process of man's emancipation and deliver- ance. ' rhe Redeemer, who is .with man and in man, as the root of his being, is discovered to be a Son, an actual Son of God, a strong Son of God. Ow-ning hÌ1n in that character as his Lord, man is free. The Incarnation, ac- cordingly, of which the second of the t\""O Essays treats, is not a step towards the effecting of man's deliverance. It is such a manifestation of the divine perfection and the divine ,viII, in human nature, as mankind have ever been desiderating; and such a combination and representation of all manhood's various properties as makes all men one. The value of it is, that it reveals 14 TIlE IKCARNATION AKD ATONElVfENT. God, and unites men. It is not, however, so far as I can judge, essential to man's redempiion. It is rather the full and complete exhibition of it. Ien are still exhorted to recognise and own the Christ ,vithin,-the Redeemer in thcIn-the root of their being-the strong Son of God. For anything I can see, the Redemption is really independent of the Incarnation. But, in fact, there is really 110 Redemption at all, in any fair sense of that term (Essays, p. 117, &c.) This appears plainly \v hen the work of Christ is discussed; especially in the Essay on the Atonement. There Christ is represented as giving up self-,vill-that self-,vill "phich is the root of all evil in man. He is also said to suffer the ,vrath of God. But how.? Dwell- ing among men, he was can ten t to endure all the effects and manifestations of that , vTath against the unlovely, ,vhich is the esscntial attribute of love; and would not have that wTath quenched till it had effected its full loving purpose. IIis sacrifice is the giving up of self- ,yill. IIis endurance of punishment is his perfect will- ingness that the loving God's ,vrath against the unlovely should continue to ,york on among men, until all unloyeliness disappears; and that he, becom- ing one of them, should not be specially exempt. The idea of his expiating guilt by making himself a true and proper sacrifice of atonement, is in not very temperate language denounced; and, in fact, neither the 0 bediencc ,y hich he renders, nor the cross ,vhich THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF MAN. 15 l1e bears, is, in any sense ,vhatever, the procuring cause of man's redemption (Essays, p. 141, &c.) Here I might almost close my summary. The essence of ,vhat this book teaches is in the statements ,yhich I have laid before you. The remainder of the book, though the larger portion of it, is little more than the dra,ving out of legitimate and necessary conse- quences. I must trace these, however, as rapidly as I can. And while I do so, I ask you to bear in mind two conclusions as to the author's teaching, which I think you .will agree with me are fully established. The one respects the condition of man. The other respects the mind and will of God, as his manner of dealing with men is affected by the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ. 1. The condition of man is not the condition of a fallen being. I am not guilty and under condemnation. I am not depraved, having a nature radically corrupt-- a heart alienated from God. I aln apt to be selfish; I am selfish; self is lllY plague. And being thus unlovely, I cannot but be miserable in the presence of the God of love. I have an oppressor, also-a tyrant: the Evil Spirit of selfishness, whose yoke I ought to shake off, but cannot. I have, ho,yever, with me, in me, waiting only to be owned, a Redeemer, a Redeemer living: a strong Son of God-one ,vith that God of love ",.ho is my Father, as he is intimately one .with me, the very root of my being. I see him becoming a man, the 16 THE EFFECT OF THE ATOXE [E T. same as I am, and as all men are. As a man, he sacri- fices self-will, and consents to endure ,vhat I and all men have to endure-the punishment which the wrath of the God of love against the unlovely inflicts on the children of men, until its full loving purpose is effected. I find in hin1 a representative man, as well as a strong Son of God. But alas! I find in him no substitute-no vicarious Lamb of God. 2. rrhe will of God is not only not changed by the .A.tonement- ,vhich of course is an impossibility-but it does not find in the Atonement any reason for a dif- ferent mode of dealing \vith lllan from that \yhich, irre- spcctiycly of the Atonement, might have been adopted as right and fitting. The ,vrath of God is not turned nvay from any: it i not quenched. But, ,vItat! some one says: ,vonld you really have it quenched? rfhat "Trath against the unlovely, \vl1Ích is the essential attri- bute of all love \vorthy of the nan1e,-\vould you Ilave it quenched in the boson1 of IIilll ,vho is love, so long as anything unluvely any\vhcre or in anyone rC111ains? No. But the object again t \vhich the \vrath burns is not merely an abstraction; it is a liying person-myself, for exanlple. Anù that \vrath is not merely indignant or sorro\vful dislike of \vhat is unlovely in HIe on the part of a l athcr \vhoÍ"e nature is love ;-bnt holy displeasure and righteous disapprobation on the part of One who, how- ever he may be disposed to feel aud act to\vards ll1e as a }-'ather, is at all events my Ruler and my Judge ;- THE 'VRATH OF GOD. 17 "\vhose la"\v I have broken and by ,vhom I alll con- demned. There is room here for his arranging that, through the gracious interposition of his ow"n Son, meet- ing on my behalf the inviolable claims of justice, his "\yrath should be turned a,vay from me ;-and if from me, from others also, willing to acquiesce in the arrange- ment. If a moral government according to la,y is con- ceivable, such a procedm'e is conceivable under it. Of course, even after such a procedure in our favour, He whose love we thus experience will have more cause than ever to be angry with us for 'W hatever in us is unlovely. l\..nd he may deal ,vith us in various ,,-ays for the removal of it. But still the .Atonenlent ,, ill have effected a real and decided change in our position, -in our relation to God. There is, in consequence of the Atonement, and our acceptance of it, an actual re- moval from us of the wrath and the condemnation under ,vhich we personally were before. But take the doctrine of this book, and there neither is, nor can be, any change whatever effected in the position of any nlan by virtue of the \tonement. All that Christ's endurance of the ,vrath of God, in the author's sense of that doctrine, can possibly do, is to bring out more vividly than ever the intensity of the dislike "\vhich the God of love has of the unlovely. This it does quite general]y;-giving to all men an affecting proof that punishment must con- tinue to be administered-that the 'wrath of the loving God cannot be quenched-till it has effected its loving B 18 TIlE PROSPECT OF DELIYEIL\XCE. purpose. This is all that it does. .As to everything else, it leaves men where they ,vould have been ,vith- out it. J.\.. momentous consequence follows. There is abso- lutely no security for any of the human race being ever beyond the reach of punishment; there is no security for the \vrath of God ever being quenched in the case of any. Let me hold by the opinion, that the Atonement effects a real change in the position of those who sub- Init to it; that it brings then1 out of the position of con- demned criminals into the position of acquitted free-men, of adopted children-I can understand ho,,:--, by a reno- vating process, and by a fatherly discipline continued here for a tillle, they are prepared for passing, ere long, into a ,vorlc1 ,vhence all that is unlovely is for ever excluded. But if 1 take up the author's view, I see nothing before any of us, even those of us 'who 11ave o,vnec1 a Son of God as freeing us fronl the yoke of tIle Evil Spirit,-those of us ,,,ho have that kno,vledge of the Son ,vhieh is eternallife,-except an indefinite pro- longation of onr present experience. For when, or ho,v, arc ,ve ever finally to get rid of that ugly plague of self, w.ith ,, hi('h the unselfish and loving God cannot but be angry? I confess ,vhen this result, not of the author's representation of the Atoneinent merely, but of his ,vhole teaching in these Essays, began to flash upon my nlÏnc1, I read alnlost ,vith a shudt..ler one of the fifteen conclusions relative to a future state to ,vhich he comes, THE ENDLESS E S OF PUNISHME T. 19 and ,vhich he recites as final, in the Letter already quoted. He says "he feels it his duty," among other things, "not to deny God a right of using plu1Ïshments at any time or anywhere for the refonuation of his creatures" (p. 8). It was not the apparent questioning of God's right to punish for other ends that startled me. But is it really meant, I asked myself, that there is never to be a tinle ,vhen,-that there is nowhere a place ,, here,-the creatures of God are to be beyond the reach of punishment; so reinstated in the favour of their Father, and so restored to his likeness, that there shall be no occasion any more in their case for that ,vhich indicates his wrath against the unlovely,-nor indeed any possibility of it? And calling to Iuind the cOluplete system of these most systematic Essays,-for so they are, whatever the author Iuay profess,- I could not but perceive that the very same views w'hich hold out the prospect of ultiluate deliverance frolu evil to all, abso- lutely preclude the certainty of complete deliverance for any. This luay be more intelligible to you if I ask you to follow nle while I hastily sketch the substance of the remaining Essays. It is not necessary to d,vell on ", hat the author says concerning the death and burial of Christ, his descent into hell, his resun'ection and ascension, considered as parts of his mediatorial work, - his meritorious service and its reward. There is not much iluportance 20 TIlE DISAPPEARANCE OF CHRIST. attached to them in that view. In fact, the chief anxiety of thc author is to take all these events out of the category of ,vIlat 11light be regarded as special and pcculiar to Christ, and !o Inake them part and parcel of our common hun1an experience. The value of them to us is, that the Ruler and Lord of OUf spirits, the deepest root of our being-a Son of God, a Son of man -has tasted the death ,vhich we are to die, lain in the grave ,vhere our remains are to lie, visited ,vhatever abyss of hideous vacancy might haunt the uneasy soul, proved thc uninterrupted life of the entire 111an, and become invisible that he Inay be ahvays, and especially in the E ucharis t, really pl'esen t ,vi th us. I n such a dis- cussion of these topics, llluch interesting sentÌ1nent could not but be expressed by such a ,vrÏter. It nlust be ob- served, how'cver, that there is not only no mention made of any offices to be executed by Christ in connexion with our redenlPtion after his death, but everything of the sort is virtually excluded. There is nothing like a sacerdotallílinidtry carried on in heaven-nothing at all analogous to the n1Îni try of the high priest within the veil, the presenting of the offered sacrifice, and the making of intcrces ion in connexion "\vith it. There is no exaltation to rule and authority for the following out of the euds of his sacrifice. IIis ascension fronl )Iount Olivet ,vouid really seem to n1ean nothing nlore than his disappcarance out of the sight of the disciples at Emmaus. One ,vouIù suppose him to be personally, THE RESURRECTIOX-THE JUDGl\JEKT. 21 In the body, as really on the earth, going in and out among us, as he ,vas during the forty days that elapsed behveen his rising from the grave and his going up in the clouds to heaven. The use 'which is made of this idea for reconciling conflicting vie,vs of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is not a little ingenious;- although it may be doubted whether the Romanist will part ,yith his actual eating of the body and blood of Christ in the wafer,-or the Protestant ,vith his feeding on Christ by faith, in the Spirit and through the word, -for the notion of the Beloved of his soul being at his very side, while yet he may not see his face, or hear his voice, or touch even the henl of his garn1ent. But the more practical point for consideration at present, is the view given of these events in our Lord's history, as bearing upon the condition and prospects of men. It may be convenient here to depart a little from ,vhat might be the natural order; and, indeed, this is rendered necessary by the circumstance, that ,,"'hat the author says of the Resun"ection in the eighth Essay, is closely connected 'with his nlore forn1al exposition of the Judgment-day in the t\velfth. The first thing, therefore, to be observed is, that there is no general resurrection, and no final judgment. I do not argue these great topics here, nor do I go into the details of the author's reasoning. Of COluse he retains the words Resurrection and J udgnlent. But then he holds that every man's death is his resurrection. Death, 22 TIlE FPTURE IN PRO PECT. according to hin1, is not the separation of soul and body; it is the entire man, soul and body together, rising out of the clay-cold form \vhich ,ve consign to the earth, not to be the seeù and germ of a glorious body, but to be no more heard of for ever. Judgment, again, is not a trial, -a judicial process,-with a vie,v to the pronouncing of final sentence, and the separating of men into t"w.o classes. It is merely an unveiling or uncovering, such as may be expected on onr passing into a clearer light, diBclo ing and revealing to us, n10re and more, both God and ourselves. N o\v see how this fits into ,vhat I pointed out as an inevitable conclusion from the author's doctrine of the .t\tonemcnt. To all practical intents and purposes, the future state is to all alike absolutely nothing more than a continuation of the present. There is no day fixed,- nay, there is no prospect of a day,-\vhen the nlost faithful follo\vers of Christ shall be re\varded by their present chequered experience coming to an end; and a new era conling in, to introduce a ne,v condition of life, with no more sorro,v in it, and no more sin. Death is not such an era, nor the Resurrection, nor the Judgment. Kay, for anything I can see, when I come to undergo, and that for countless ages, the searching and relentless illumination of all above, around, within Ine, 'v hich 3,vaits 111C as I shuffic off this mortal coil, never to be n1Ìne again,-I may have before me even an intenser, anù still ever intenser, struggle, with that unlovely JUSTIFICATION. 23 selfishness which besets me no,v,-and a keener, far keener, sense of the ,vrath of my God against it! Ah me! is it really conle to this? Is my probation never to be ended? Am I never to enter into the joy of my Lord? Perhaps the author might taunt me, as apparently he taunts Dr J elf, ,vith "wanting that kind of security for the bliss of heaven ,vhich ,ve w"ant for our earthly pos- sessions;" adding the quiet irony, " No saint in heaven has that bliss in fee; he never ,vishes so to have it; he it holds Ly continual dependence on a righteous and loving Being." True. But, nevertheless, I long to hold it by the same kind of security by which my Saviour holds it: and what is nlore, my Saviour tells me that I shall. And no,v, with the Incarnation and Atonement in the past, on the one hand ;-and the Judgment on the other hand, in the future ;-the intennediate position of man may be ascertained. T,vo topics occur here, J usti- fication and Regeneration. As to Justification, it is scarcely necessary to say, after the sketch already submitted, that it has nothing in it of the nature of a forensic or judicial act. If there De nothing judicial ill the Atonement and nothing ju- dicial in the Judgnlent, manifestly there can be nothing judicial in Justification. If God, in the Atonement, reckons as a Judge ,vith his Son, as standing in the room and stead of guilty criminals-if, in the J udgnlent, he reckons as a Judge ,vith all men, calling them to 24 JL TIFIC..\TIOK-THE ll.ESURRECTIOK OF CHRIST. account and passing sentence according to their ,yorks, -then there may be keeping and consistency in our teaching, that ,vhen God justifies, he SU111ffiOnS the offender before hilll, a d looking upon hin1 as one by faith ,yith his o,vn righteous Son, acquits and accepts him accordingly. Such a vie,v, ho,vever, though in strict accordance ,vith the Lutheran and Pauline. doctrine, is repugnant to the ,, hole spirit of the theology of this book. According to that theology, Justification cannot denote the entrance-the introduc- tion-of a man into a nc,v state, or a new relationship to the Supreme TIeing. I t can be nothing n10re than the "indication or recognition of a state or relationship pre- viously existing. And so it is. rrhe resurrection of Christ is the justification of hilllself as the Son of God. .l\.nd it is also the justification of all 111e11, as thereby declarcd and proved to be sons. I t is so, ÍjJSO jåcto, apart froin any assent or consent on our part at all. N o'v it is true that Luther, following his great master, J?aul, docs connect the resurrection of Christ very closely váth the justification of a l who believe in him. The resun'cction of Christ is his justification. In raising hiln from the dead the Father justifies him, - ac- kno,yledges hin1, not only as his Son, but as his righteous l'5eryant, ,vho by the kno,vledge of him- self is to justify many. IIis resurrection is the evidence of his meritorious obedience and vicarious sacrifice being accepted on bchalf of the guilty. He REGENERATION. 25 "was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Still our justification, on the footing of his resurrection-and, as it 'were, in terms of it-is a ne,v act. The pardoning mercy,-the free, justify- ing grace,-is here. But, personally and individually, every man for himself, we must come in, or be brought In. And as we stand before the l"ighteous Judge-the loving Father,-ourselves guilty, but united by the II Spirit through faith to Christ,-united to hilll as raised from the dead for his righteousness' sake,-w-e have acceptance in the Beloved. ,,-rith Justification, Regeneration is intimately associ- ated. Upon any system this is true. The view taken of Justification must ahvays l11aterially affect the idea fOrIned of Regeneration. In the Essays there is an exact correspondence of the one to the other. Justification manifests a previously existing relationship; Regenera- tion apprehends, or realises it. The notion of a change of nattue is not admitted. It affords scope for ,,""hat, upon another subject, might be relished as pleasant raillery, about a ne,v nature being superadded to the old, and the like grotesque fancies. But the new birth, as implying a renovation of man's moral nature,-and espe- cially as implying that there is implanted in the heart a ne,v seed, or principle, of godliness,-is unequivocally disO"wned. The name is retained, and the conversation ,vith Nicodemus in the third chapter of the Gospel by John is expounded. But how? The second part of 26 REGE EIL\.TIO.N A D REDE IrTlON. the conversation,-,vhich speaks of the love of God to the ,vorld, as Inanifested in the sending of his only- begotten Son,-is taken, not as the necessary supplenlent or conlplclnent of tb first part, ,vhich speaks of the nature and necessity of the ne\v birth,-but as the full expression of ,vhat it teaches. Doubtless the second portion of this discourse fonns the supplement or conlple- nlent of the first part. The mistake lies in confounding or nlixing up the hvo. The closing revelation made by our Lord to Nicodemus nlay be a key,-it is the key,- to his prelinlÍnary expostulation. But they must not be mixed up with one another. And the one lllUSt not be made the substitute for the other. !{eep the t\VO parts distinct, and they wonderfully fit into one another. There is a work of the Spirit ,vithin me, giving Iny faculties of thought, feeling, conscience, and, above all, my .will, an entirely ne\v direction,- Godw'ard, to use a good old ,vorcl, and he aven\vard. There is presented to me by the same Spirit,-in Christ, in the Son of man lifted up,-a manifestation of the love of God, far beyond mere good-nature-far beyond mere absolute love, ,vith its attribute of \Vratll against the unlovely,-the manifestation of a love meeting the crisis of Iny guilt by the sacrifice of an only-begotten Son. They are separate; these t1vo acts, or ,yorks. But they are silnultaneous. Like the hvo gases under the electric spark, they meet. ,] here is a flash of light ;- and then a calm, pure river of water of life, clear as THE CHURCH. 27 crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb,-and making glad the city of God. But if you confound thelll,-or if you put the one for the other-you really nlake void both of them. There is no real change in IllY nature ",.ithin nle, if there is no real change in IllY relation .without me. If the Gospel is to tell me, not that I must and that I Inay become 'what I alll not ;-but only that I ought to know ,vhat I already aITI ;-there can be no occasion for any radical renovation or revolution in nlY III oral being. ..A.ll that is needed is that I shall be infornled and persuaded; not that I Illust be converted, created anew. It is the call to accept a privilege never possessed, never possible, before ;-a privilege .which, ho,vever precious in itself, brings me too near to God, and places nle too deeply under obligation to God to be agreeable to IllY suspici- ous and jealous soul ;-it is this, and this alone, 'v hich makes palpable the necessity of IllY being made" ,villing in the day of the Lord's po\ver." Hitherto, follo\ving the Essays, I have spoken of Theology, or the Gospel of Christ, in its bearing upon men generally, simply as men to be redeeIlled, justified, regenerated; or as being actually redeerned, justified, re- generated. But anyone, even ordinarily acquainted \vith theological method, kno\vs that there is another vie\v to be taken of the Gospel. I t is to be viewed as not merely Illeeting the wants of men, whether in the mass or individually, but as forming a society, based upon 28 IKSPIRATIOK. certain principles and placed under certain rules. I refer, of course, to the doctrine of the Church, a topic far too ,vide for full consideration now; on which, ho,vever, I must. at least indica e ,vhat I take to be the teaching of this book. There are three Essays bearing on this subject: those on Inspiration, on the Personality and Teaching of the 110ly Spirit, and on the Unity of the Church. The connexion of the three appears to be this: -The Church is informed by the teaching of Inspiration; it is quickened by the ind\velling of the Spirit; and so, it is one. 1. Inspiration falls to be discllssed in this connexion, as God's method of infoflning the Church-his Inanner of imparting kno,vledge. In this view, the Essay on Inspiration ought to have had for its title not Inspiration, but Revelation. That is the real question raised in it; the question, I mean,-Is there, or is there not, given to the Church, an authoritative Revelation f the mind and ,,-ill of God? That is the question to be settled. ,... ery llluch of ,vhat the author says about the inspi- ration of deep, earnest thinkers,-as ,veIl as also what he says about the inspiration of creative genius in poetry anll art,-may be admitted as tnle. Rapt sages, seers, singers of every age and clime, have doubtless experi- enced, 11lore or less consciously, the ilnpulse and guid- ance of a po,ver not their own ;-a power ,vhich ,ve need not hesitate to identify, as l\lilton did, ,vith the fire that kindled Isaiah's bosom and opened his burning lips. IKSPIRATION VIEWED GENEn \.LLY. 29 In the pencil that could make the canvas glo,v ,vith na- ttu.e's brightest radiance, or sink far back into nature's remotest shade, or start into nature's busiest and ,vildest life, or calmly rest in the peace of nature's beautiful and awful death ;-in the chisel that could evoke out of cold Illarble, in living po,ver and chastest ptuity, the ideals of nature's best and loveliest fonns, till the dull nlatter all but speaks ;-need ,,?e scruple to recogllise the traces of the same Spirit of God, the same ,visdom of heart, ,vith which the Lord filled the nlen ,vho ,vere to cut the stones and carve the work of the Tabernacle? By all means, let these and all other nlethods by which God may design to train his creatures to the love of the pure, the beautiful, the sublime, the holy, be appreciated and improved. Very possibly there is ground for charging the religious ,vorld, and religious men, ,vith timidity and inconsistency in their attitude to,vards Greek and Roman lore,-to.wards Greek and Roman poetry and art;- whether original, or revived and reproduced in modern efforts. There may have been too much vacillation be- tween undue sensitiveness and scrupulosity on the one hand, and a taIlle acquiescence in usage on the other, under shelter of an unheeded protest. Certainly in these days, the relation of Christianity to the products of science, taste, and genius, is a topic ,vhich cannot be evaded. And ,vho so competent to deal with it as this author?- If only he ,vould approach it with some"what less of contempt for the not unnatural apprehensions and 30 IXSPIRATIOX AS CONNECTED 'VITH REYEI.ATIOK. difficulties of serious Ininds :-and I must add also, with some\vhat more of a knowledge of reallnunan nature, among the average of the won1en of England, I dare to say, as ,veIl as of its boys and men (Essays, p. 278). Still the question rèmains, Have we,-altogether dis- tinct from these means by,vhich God may partly train and teach those who Inake a ,vise use from them,-Have ,ve, distinct from them in kind, a Revelation? Is the Bible an authoritative standard and rule of faith? Does God in the Bible make a communication to us,- exactly as one of us might Inake a con1munication to another,-by messengers sent at sundry tilnes, and com- missioned to speak in divers manners? Nor are ,ve here called to inquire into the nature of the inspiration granted to one ,vho has to convey a direct message from God, as distinct from the divine help ,vhich a man may have in the use of the common lnaterials of thought and speculation. "r e are not even called to inquire ,vhether the inspiration of the Bible is plenary and verbal, or not. Let it be first settled that we have, in the Bible, a collection of actual messages and con1munications fron1 God to us; and ,ve may then consider upon ,yhat principles they are to be interpreted. But the Bible is not, in these Essays, accepted as a re- velation, in the true and proper Ineaning of that ,yord. I t is indeed exalted to a high place, as being pre- eminently, and lJar exceUence, the Book by lneans of ,vhich God discovers himself to us. It stands alone in REVELATION A PREVIOUS Q1)ESTION TO IXSPlnATIO . 31 that respect, and admits of no rival near its throne. Still the manner in \vhich God discovers himself to us in the Bible, through the writings of prophets and apostles, is really not essentially different from the mannel' III which he discovers himself through the 'writings of other gifted men. The difference is a difference of measure or degree. . I may take the liberty of warning you ,vhom I now address, against the attempt too often made to confound together these t,,-o questions of the Inspiration of Scrip- ture, and its Divine authority. It is very easy to involve an inquirer in inextricable doubts as to the natlue of the impulse or influence under ,vhich the authors of the Bible \vrote; ancl as to the extent to which it has secured the infallible accuracy of their thoughts, state- ments, and words. By a kind of sleight of hand, he is thus made to believe that it is the fact or doctrine of the Bible being an authoritative revelation of God's ,vill which is thus embarrassed. Xo hvo things can be more distinct. Satisfy yourself upon the point of the Bible being a communication from God; given by hilll "dth authority. Then, and then only, are you prepared to ascertain, from the Bible itself, what its inspiration really is. And I may 'warn you also to beware of another con- troversial artifice,-a discreditable artifice,-"which this author ought to have disdained. It is a precious old Puritan and Evangelical doctrine, that the saIne Spirit 32 THE DOUBLE OF:FICE OF THE SPIRIT. who superintended the composition of the Bible, IS given to the hUlnble reader of the Bible, that he may understand, believe, and profit by it. Can it be a luere mistake and stupid blunder, ,vhich makes the author re- present these hvo offices as inconsistent? .A.re they not manifestly conspiring, not conflicting works? Are they not most beautifully coincident? . The author laments the cruelty to which the younger members of evangelical families are subjected (Essays, 340, 341). They are told that they cannot apprehend the truth and Ineaning of the Bible ,yithout a special inspiration of the Spirit in themselves, ,vhich as yet they have not. And then they are sent to satisfy themselvrs, by the study of a CUIn brous external evidence, as to a cOinplicated and incredible theory about the Bible being, do,vn to its minutest jot and tittle, the hand- ,vriting of God, as directly and immediately as ,vere the rren Comlnanc1u1ellts on the tables of stone. ""'hat an10nnt of injudicious training there may be in evangelical, as in other families, I cannot tell. But ho,v stands the fact, as to the doctrine actually held by our fathers ;-as ,yell as by us, ,vho seek to teach it to our children? There, ,ve sar; there is the Bible. The 110ly Ghost ,vas in the ,vriting of it all through; he moved the holy men ,yho spake in it; and he has left his own impress on every book, on every page of it. True, you cannot understand it ,vithout his teach- Ing. lIe must himself give you understanding to under- SELF-EVIDENCI G PO\VER OF THE TRUTH. 33 stand the Scriptures, and open your hearts to receive them. The Father promises to give the Holy Spirit to you if you ask him. Search, then, the Scriptures, as ,vritings ,yhich the I-Ioly Spirit has prepared for you. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit to be with you, and in you. Search and pray in faith. You ,vill not have long. to w'ait. The bright glory of God shining forth everywhere, as the pervading characteristic of all the Bible, in all its parts; and your hearts in you being made ,"Tilling unreservedly to accept and to do the will of God ;-this glory of God in the Bible, and this own- ing of the will of God in your hearts, - these t\yO meeting together ;-you 'will know of a truth that the Bible is the 'Vord of God, better and more surely than 'v hole libraries of external evidences could teach you. I ask your pardon for what Dlay look too nutCh like preaching. It seerned the shortest way of Ineeting a Inisrepresentation, and giving an idea of the docirine of the divine self-evidenciug power of the Gospel, as bound up ,vith the doctrine of the necessity of divine teaching to apprehend it. For further study of both, I send yon to John O,ven. It ,vill be a sad day for our country's theology, if the massive thinking of he old Puritan Chancellor of Oxford shall ever be displaced by nlore modern methods of grappling ,vith the errors of Soci- niallisn1 and Infidelity. 2. To constitute the society which the Gospel is designed to form, not only is information by the teach- c B-1 TIlE CHURCH A D THE 'YORLD. ing of Inspiration provided,-but quickening or life also, by the inû,yelling of the Spirit. .A.nd the i8sue is the one universal Church. II ere let it suffice to say that, practically, as between Evangelical divines and these Essays, the issue lies ,vithin small compass. Is the Church a society, ,vhether visible or not, or partly visible and partly not,-is it a society distinct froill the ,vorld,-distinct fronl the general mass of mankind? Is the ,york of the IToly Spirit in forn1ing the Church a ,york of per80nal dealing \vith individual persons, one by one-váth a vie,v to separate them, by a process of con- viction and conversion, from the ,vorld,-to change them fronl ,vhat they naturally are,-to nlake then1 a peculiar people? The separation may not be ouhvard: there may be no leaving of old societies-no joining of any new one. But it n1ay be not the less real on that aCCOUll t. The doctrine of the Essays would seen1 to be, that under the influence of a universal presence of the IToly Spirit, convincing the ,vorld of sin, of righteous- ness, and ot judgnlent, juster views of moral evil, of 1110ral good, and of God's discrinlination behveen the t,vo, pervade society ,yherever Christianity prevails. 1"hrough the influence of that presence nlen are brought to know. and feel, not ,vhat they need to be and may be, but ,vhat they already are-sons, justified, regene- rate. And as this process, not of conversion, but, as it ,vere, of self-recognition, goes on, the Church is in course of being formed. In short, the Church is the ,vorld THE TRIKITY IN UNITY. 35 ackno1rledging its position in Christ ;-it IS mankind become alive to the apprehension and realisation of the actual and universal redemption of humanity. You perceive ho,v completely and sYlnmetrically the different parts of the author's theology in this book hang together. Throughout, there is a careful and consistent disavowal of anything being really done by God. The ,vhole resolves itself into mere discovery on the part of God; ouhvard or in,vard discovery as regards us; or both; but still discovery alone. This comes out very strikingly in ,yhat ,vas the last Essay in the first edition of the book-the Essay on the Trinity in Unity. That great Inystery the author rightly holds to be the cro,vning and culminating point ill theology; the resting-place of the inquirer; the home, as it .were, of spiritual sacrifice and prayer. In one view, indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity may fitly be the beginning as well as the end of a right theological Inethod. It \vill naturally be so, if there are separate acts or offices to be ascribed to the several Persons of the Godhead, and if these are to be considered as laying the foundation of spiritual experience. In that case, we can scarcely dispense with a dogmatic and formal statement of this truth, at the commencement of any summary 'eve mean to give of God's ways of dealing with men. Even then, however, it ,vill always be interesting to rise again, at the conclusion, into the high contemplation of the essential nature of God; and the .wondrous manner 36 DISTIXCTION OF THE PERSONS. of his subsistence as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For thus the ultimate and united glory of whatever is accomplished by the Persons of the Trinity, considered apart froin one another, may be ascribed to the one un- divided Godhead, in whose infinite wisdom and love the whole plal l haù its origin and rise. The theology of these Essays admits easily of the postponernent of this doctrine of the Trinity to the close. In truth, according to that theology, the doctrine is really the result or product of a process of induction; opening up, one after another, the glorious Three in One. First, God is apprehended as being to us a Father. Next, it is felt that there must be one to be our ehanlpion-our deliverer from the Evil Spirit,-and that he n1ust be the Son of that Father,-his Eternal Son. .A.nd then, there must be a Spirit, in whom the Father and the Son are one,-and ,vho, proceeding from the Father and the Son, quickens Inen. As the Spirit of the Father, he quickens theln to the confession that they are sons of God; and as the Spirit of the Son, to the confession that they are brethren. I shall not offer any remarks here on this exposition of the baptisn1al formula. I merely obscrye, in the first place, that the distinc- tion of the Persons in the Trinity is chicfly viewed as a distinction of relationship; our belief in it being grounded on the original filial relationship in ,vhich ,ve are supposed to stand, simply as creattITes, to God as our Father; a relationship for ,vhich, unless it be in " ARNING AGAINST SABELLIAKISl\I. 37 son1e very vague and figluative sense, I find no warrant, either in reason, or in conscience, or in Scripture; and secondly, that while no distinct offices or .works are ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost- ,vhile there is no distribution among them of the parts of any real and actual transaction-it may in the long run be found not a little difficult to guard any such representation of the Trinity,-based upon an aln10st exclusively subjective foundation,-from lapsing into Sabellianism ;-and so becoming a mere threefold ex- hibition or manifestation of the one Person, the Father. I come now to the concluding Essay, in which one ,vouid almost think that the author manifests some little irritation. He is like a man who has travelled a long road, ,vith infinite pains, all the day; and ,vho, as ,yeary night closes, and he catches a glimpse of the hospitable nlansion of rest, finds a heavy gate flung unceremoniously in his face, or a strong bar suddenly let fall across his path. But really he need not be so in1patient. He might have foreseen this result all the time. And, in fact, he has had an eye to it. His previous Essays have thoroughly den10lished the ground on ,\?hich,- I say not the doctrine of unending retribution,-but any doctrine of retribution at all, can stand. Hence, I really am not very careful to join issue with -him on the subject of this last Essay. )1y issue with him would be, or rather has already been, on a higher and wider theme; the nature and character of the moral 38 l....\ 'v AND JUDG)IENT. governnlent of God. I stand for the authority of Goù as Judge, in the plain English meaning of the word judge. I stand for the authority of his la,v, and its anctions; apart frolll "which I see no hope for earth, no security against heaven itself becolning as hell. \. theology ,vithout la,v,-la,v in the condemnation,-la,v in the atonement,-law in the justification,-la,v in the jndglnent,-is to me like the universal return of chaos and old Night. But a few brief remarks may be allo,yed upon the Essay in question. As to the word "eternal," of which the author makes so ll1uch in his correspondence 1yith Dr J elf-as ,vell as in the concluding Essay in the second edition of his book, manifestly arising out of that correspondence, -I confess myself to have been not a little puzzled at first to make out ,vhat the exact bearing of his some,vhat subtle criticism ,yas n1eant to be. I am inclined to think, however, that it is, after all, a Inare's nest he has found. I-Ie ,vill not hear of " eternal" signifying endless duration. Eternity is not endless time. It is sonle- thing positive. I believe he is substantially right. But T suspect that when any person or thing comes to have associated .with him, or with it, the attribute of eternity, it "Tin be extremely difficult to make out that enùless duration is not necessarily implied. I ,viII try to ex- plain Iny meaning in one or two brief propositions. J. The words " eternal" and " eternity" do not denote merely negative ideas: they are not negations of time, THE \VORD " ETER AL." 39 but assertions or affirmations of ,yhat is independent of tinle. Infinity or immensity, in spite of the negative form of the word, is not a negation of limited extension, but the assertion or affirmation of ,yhat is independent of limited extension, as eternity is of l mited duration. Time, or linlÍted duration, is in eternity as lilnited extension is in imlnensity. But no multiplication of limited durations - no prolonging of time either ,yay, w'ill make eternity: as, in like manner, no multiplication of limited extensions will make inlmensity. Call them laws of thought or real existences, as you please; or say that by necessary la-ws of thought-by the unalterable constitution of our Inelltal nature, they ilnply eternal and infinite being. At all events they are positive, absolute realities-not notions reached by Inerely adding together an indefinite number of limited durations and linlited extensions, or by inutgining the renloval of the lilnits on either side. II. "Thatever the ,vord eternal qualifies, it removes altogether out of the category or region of tinle. "That- ever is tlnts qualified, although it exists in time, is not any longer subject to the conditions, or ,vithin the measures, of time. I t does not grow, by progression or prolongation, froin time on to eternity. It leaps, or is carried at a bound, clear out of tilHe into eternity. '''"'"hen it is said, " He that believeth in the Son of God hath eternal life," the life which he has is still in tinle, for he ,vho has it is in time. But the eternity of it is 40 THE ETERNAL GE!\ERATION OF THE SON. not n1erely a lengthening out of the time. It may be calleel a quality, or it may be said to denote the quality, of the life spoken of. l\lore properly speaking, it indicates ,vhat we may venture to call the region, or sphere, or essential nature of that life, as belonging to the category of the absolute, the fixed ;-and not to the category of the relative, the n1utable. The eternal life, therefore, ,, hich man, believing in the Son of God, receives, or has, is a life as fixed and absolute, as remote fron1 the vicissitudes and as much beyond the measures of time, as is the life of God. III. This life is in the Son; and he is the E temal Son, eternally begotten. In his correspondence ,vith Dr J elf, the author more than once re rs to the use ,vhich he has been accustomed to make, in his public teaching, of the idea of eternity, on which cc his suggestions re- specting punishn1ent depend," as a conclusive argument against Arianism. "In speaking of the doctrine of Arius, I have again and again eXplained to my pupils, that his errors arose from his mixing time 'with relations which had nothing to do \vith time." (Grounds, &c., by Dr Jelf, p. 19.) ... gain, speaking of Athanasius, he says: "lIe felt that Arius, in attributing notions de- rived from time to the only-begotten Son, was, in fact, bringing back the old divided Pagan " orship." Athana- sius "asserted the eternal generation of the Son, not as a dry dOgIua, but a a living principle, in which every child and peasant was interested-certainly not under- ETERN AL LIFE. 41 standing etenlal to mean endless." (Letter to Dr J elf, p. 9.) The meaning ,\yould seem to be that, by calling the generation of the Son eternal, the relation implie(l in it was lifted above all notions derived from time ;- and all inquiry as to the date of it consequently silenced. IV. But whatever is the force and value of the word " etenlal" when it qualifies the generation of the Son, as an argunlent against the Arians,-exactly the same is its force and value, vrhen it qualifies the life which a man believing in the Son receives, as an argument against the very idea of a date, or an end, or a change. Let the author be consistent with himself. He meets Arius, who assigns a beginning to the existence of the Son, by means of the word " eternal." Of course I know he does not mean that the word " eternal," as applied to the Son, denotes merely-without beginning. It does not meet the Arian heresy directly. But ","hat I ask is, Does it 11leet that heresy really and bonâ fide? If so, it must be because when eternity is predicated of the Son, or of the generation of the Son,-whatever else is to be under- stood, or 'w"hatever more,-it must, at all events, by im- plication deny that there was or could be any COlnmence- ment of the Sonship. And so, ,yh\;D eternal life is given, it is life possessed of a quality or character to which the limits and la"ws of time do not apply. But, nevertheless, or rather on that very account, the possi- bility of change or end is excluded. V. :Now, I challenge the same principle of interpret a- 42 ETERNAL PU ISII)IEXT. tion precisely for the opposite expressiol1s--eterllal death, eternal punishnlent, eternal fire. Eternity has a Son for the Father. Eternity has a life for those to 'VhOlll the Son gives life in the kno,vlec1ge of hilllseif. Eternity has a death, a pUllishlllent, a fire, for those "Wh0111 the Judge shall condelnn. And whatever that punish- ment Of fire may be, - ,vhateyer stripes, ,vhatever horror of destruction from the presence of the Lord,- there must attach to ,vhatever of evil has the character or stanlp of eternity affixed to it, in connexion ,vith whatever persons lllay have it as their portion, the very same independence of the accidents of time-the very sanle exclusion of the possibility of change or end- ,vhich belongs to the Son as etefnally begotten of the Father; and to the life ,vhich consists in the kno\vledge of the Son, and is, therefore, like the Son, eternal. The plain truth is this: it is the author hilllself \yho should be the object of his o,vn nletaphysical scon1. It is the author himself ,vIlo is for introducing the idea of time, ,vith its changes, into the unbroken oneness of eternity. Grant that et rnity is the very being of God. Then I hold, that whatever TIe marks out iu his word as eternal, has in it the same quality of endurance "rith the being of God. And it will ùe very difficult to make Scripture say anything else than that the exercise of penal severity-the infliction of righteous retribution- has upon it this mark of God's o\vn eternity. But metaphysical subtleties, as well as minute and EXPULSIOX FRO)! OFFICE. 43 critical ,yord-catching, may ,yell be dispensed with, ,vhen so awful a thenle is before us. They are especi- any out of place when they can serve no other purpose than that of clouding and obscuring ",-hat the author must kno\y is the real point at issue. On several accounts, I nlay be allo\ved to express my regret on account of the treatment 'which this book and its author have received. I have no right to sit in judg- ment on the proceedings of ecclesiastical or acadenlic authorities in England, but I may form and express an opinion; and I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the summary ejection of )11' l\laluice from his offices in I{ing's College as a calamity. 1\11' lt1aurice, in one of his letters to Dr J elf, refers to some" Scotch Calvinists, heavily bo'wed ",-ith the yoke of the ".,. estminster Con- fession," who "are turning to our forms, as ",-itnesses of a Gospel to Inankind 'which they are hindered from preaching" (p. 16). It is just possible that a recent case in Brighton may have been in his eye. I would only say, whether that be so or not, that if any process for censure, or deprivation of office, against Ir Iaurice had been conducted as that process ","-as conducted,- and as \ve are accustomed to see such processes con- ducted in Scotland ;-,vith some delay, yet with full publicity; ,vith all the l'egular formality of a carefully- dra,vn indictment, an examination of w'itnesses, and the fullest hearing of parties ;-considering the man, the church, the cause concerned ;-unspeakable good might 44 BENEFITS OF A TRIAL. have been effected; a most valuable testimony for truth might have been borne; and an exposure made, not of one isolated error, but of a systematic form of false doc- trine,-such as England might have been the better for ages hence. For I must, with all deference to Principals, venture to nlake another remark. IIow any theologian could bring himself to discuss and condemn-or even to discuss-'\vhat lr l\laurice says on the subject of future punishn1ent, at the very close of his book, and almost by way of a luere appendix,* other\vise than in con- nexion ,vith his whole previous teaching throughout all the Essays, passes my comprellension. I have not done so. I do not intend to do so. I recall your minds in a sentence or two to the actual state of the question, and leave you '\vith a single observation thereafter. "'That is our position here and no\v? on tl1Îs earth, and for the space of some threescore and ten years which '\ve have to spend on the earth? Are '\ve un- fallen creatures,-not guilty, depraved, condemned;-tor- mented, no doubt, with a plague of self '\vithin, and sadly vexed and oppressed by an Evil Spirit of selfishness tyral1nising over us ;-but still having near us and in us, as the root of our being, a Righteousness, a Redeeemer, a strong Son of God, who has sounded the depths of all * This remark applies particularly to the first edition of the Essays, which alone Dr Jelf had before him, and in which the subject of the future state is not considered in a separate Essay at all, but occupies merely a few pages at the end of the Essay on the Trinity. SUMMARY OF THE QUESTION. 45 our experiences ;-and also a Spirit cOllling forth from the Father and the Son, to shew us that we are all sons of God, and are all brethren? Is this our present state? ... nd have we in prospect before us indefinite time, beyond death, in w"hich, under a clearer light of dis- covery and revelation, the a,vful problem of God's will prevailing over ours, or our ,vill resisting God's, may work out somehow its solution,-the loving Father's wrath against the unlovely burning on, in respect of all of us, and not quenched till its loving purpose is fulfilled? Or are we a race of respited crilninals, over whom the righteous sentence of the holy and righteous God is suspended, that a dispensation of mercy may run its appointed and limited course? If this last vie,v of our present state is the true one (and Scripture nlust be read back"yards or ,vritten over again,-nay, the univer- sal conscience of mankind must be annihilated,-if it is not), then ho\v sad a thing is it to let any vague and general reasonings of ours, about ,vhat we think should be the ultimate issues of things, interfere ,vith the urgent ,york of persuading the guilty criminals, whose respite is so precarious, rather to embrace the offered mercy than remain under the old condemnation, aggra- vated as it must be by the fresh guilt of the rejected amnesty and nlercy! Shew me one hint in all the Bible of any offer of grace, or any opportunity of sal- vation, beyond the limits of this present life, and I will try to calculate chances for myself and my fellow- 46 SOURCES OF THE THEOLOGY O:F THE ESBAYS. SInners. But if you cannot, stand aside, and I also \vill stand aside. Let us be still. And let God himself l)l'oclaim on Sinai the threatenings of law, and fill the air round Bethlehenl ,vith the soft song of peace. Above all, let hin1, in the cross of his o,vn Son, reveal the inevitable certainty of retribution-the unsearchable riches of grace. Iy closing observation is a practical one. I had in- tended to trace slightly the author's views, as developed in this book, to SOlne of the sources whence they might have been, if they have not been, derived. There is little or nothing that is really ne,v in them. Ir 1tlaurice cau- not be called an original ,vriter as to Inatter, though his D1anncr and style are fresh. lIe is not, probably, n1uch acquainted \vith the literature of Protestant theology. If he is, it is the \vorse for his candour; for in that case his misrepresentations are inexcusable. lIe writes as if the field had never been gone over before, and as if he ,vas lnaking discoveries; never indicating any kno.w-- ledge of the fact, that aU his reasonings against the current orthodox and evangelical doctrines have been anticipated and answered. over and over again. I n1Ìght she\v the coincidence of his vie,",-s as to the in,vard light \vith those of Barclay and the Friends; the extent of hi::; obligation to Edw'ard Irving and Thomas Erskine for his ideas of the Incarnation and .A.tonement; and the agreement of his opinions, on all the leading points of Christian doctrine, with those of ordinary Unitarians; STATE OF THE HEATHEN AXD THE MASSES. 47 'with these t".o exceptions: that, uncler \vhatever limi- tations, they admit a resurrection, a judgment, and a future state of rewards and punishments; whilst on the other hand, \vith \vhatever explanations, he asserts strongly the doctrine of the Trinity. But to return to my concluding remark ;- The heavy ,,"'eight upon every thinking nlan's mind in connexion \vith this "Thole subject, is the sad and seemingly hopeless state of the vast multitudes, not in heathen lands only, but at our very doors, to whonl there seems actually to be no opportunity given for escaping the \vrath to conlee IIo\v that \veight should lie less oppressively on my mind if I embrace the author's vie\v, than if I hold by the common belief of Christendom, I cannot understand ;-unless I have a far clearer revelation than he can giye me, of a more favourable condition of things, \vhen life's fitful fever IS over. Nor can I see any reason \vhy men seeking to persuade their fellows to em brace an offered means of escape from coming judgment, should be nlore violent or nlore ecstatic than those \vho have to tell them that they are in a \vrong state, and that that state, \vhile it lasts, is hell. But this I say,-If ny luan accepts the Gospel as a nlessage of mercy for himself, and rejoices in his escape ii'om liability to condemnation, and his present possession of eternal life in the kno\v- ledge of the Son of God,-he lies under an obligation not to be measured, to go everywhere among his 48 OBLIGATION OF CIIRISTIAXS. fello,ys, that, kno,ving the terror of the Lord, he may persuade men. I say, moreover, that it váll be foul guilt in him if he is not the foremost in every good ,\york for rescuing society from ignorance, poverty, and crime. And I say, finally, that he has a weapon of po\ver \vhich none else can wield, '\vhen he has to tell of an all-sufficient Atonement, a free Justification, a full Salvation. I call upon the Evangelical Churches every\vhere to arise and to do their duty in these perilous times. God expects it at their hands. " Awake, a\vake; put on thy strength, 0 Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, 0 Jerusalem. Shake thy- self from the dust; arise and sit doW11, 0 Jerusalem; loose the bands of thy neck, 0 captive daughter of Zion !" PRELI IINARY CHAPTER. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE ESSAYS; PLAN OF THE PROPOSED EXA1rII ATIO . The Introductory Lecture on the Essays is the result of the examination of them, to which attention is now solicited. It is all the more necessary, on that account, to explain the principle upon which the examination was conàucted. 'Vith that view, it may be right to submit a few remarks upon the Preface to the second edition of the Essays, prepared when the task of examining them was first undertaken. And, at the same time, it may be convenient to embrace the oppor- tunity of indicating generally the plan, or method, of the examination itself. DUE allowance being made for the irritation natu- rally caused by some not perhaps very liberal or candid criticisms on the Essays, as first published, there are traces of temper, and instances of unfairness, in this pre- face to the second edition, ,vhich, as affecting the author's impartiality and competency, deserve a passing notice. Referring to a remark by a revie"wer of the K ew U ni- tarian school, that" few' ,vriters ever do radicallyover- turn any mature system of belief," the author says- H To overturn radically a mature system of be1ief is the very last object of my ambition" (p. 11). So he speaks D 50 A MATURE SYSTEM OF BELIE:F. at the very outset. It is very difficult to perceive how this disavowal is to be understood, consistently 'with the unequivocal identification, in this very preface, of what is well kno,Vll as the Evangelical system, and the vehement protest against it which is over and over again repeated. "There are some Unitarians," he adds, "and some Trinitarians also, who are not very mature in their convictions-not very settled in their belief-,vho have tried systems and are not content ,yith them. To such I addressed myself. By some of these I have been understood." A" mature system of belief" is the matter in question; it is an evaò5ion of it to speak merely of men being " not very mature in their convictions, not very settled in their belief." Doubtless, the author does apply himself to persons of that class; and whatever nlay be the object of his ambition, the fact is, that, in dealing with them, he does aim at overturning a ma- ture system of belief. II is whole ,york is an effort to get the ordinary Orthodox srstem, as held by the gene- ral body of Trinitarians, entirely out of the way, that he nlay propose "what he considers a more satisfactory rest- ing-place for those ,vho have tried systems, and are not content with them. That he should succeed in radically overturning the belief of persons intelligently mature and settled in their convictions with regard to that sys- tem, lTIay be neither his expectation nor his desire. Such persons, especially if they have made a full and fair trial of it, will easily detect the author's distorted OPPOSITION TO THE BELIEF OF CHRISTEXDOl\I. 51 representations, and \vill consequently be little moved from their calm faith in the Righteousness and Atone- ment of the Son of God. But there is a class of men who think they' try the spirits whether they be of God,' when in a rare moment of seriousness they consult a book or t\VO ;-or 'v hen they make a kind of desperate attempt to be convinced at all hazards of some extreme opinion,-recoiling forth,vith into incredulity. They ,, ill "elcome the author's assurance about not overturning a mature system of belief; they 'v ill make their own use of it. They will find in it a convenient apology for casting a,vay their faith in what they have been taught to consider the essential doctrines of the Gospel, and persuading others to do the same; .with a plausible profession, all the while, of the utmost reluctance to ap- pear as the subverters of the established opinions of re- ligious men. It ,vouId be far lllore candid on the part of this author to avow, that he means directly to assail the common well-understood creed of Orthodox and Evangelical Christendonl. Speaking still of the review of his Essays in the Unitarian Journal, he says: "It undertakes to expose the feebleness of my analysis and the unsatisfactoriness of my logic." " Very likely," he replies, "it may have succeeded. But the question at issue behveen us is not that at all, not whether they are good reasoners and I am a bad one, but ,vhat gospel they have to bring to mankind, what light they have to throw on the question- 52 CRITERION OF A MESSAGE FRO1\[ GOD. ings of the human spirit, what they can shew has been done for the deliverance of our race and its members, what hope they can give us of that which shall yet be done. On that issue I am willing to put their creed and mine" (p. xii.) vVith all deference it is submitted that to ascertain this,-to kno,v what I have to com- municate as divine truth to mankind,-from whatever sources of information may be open to me,-good reason- ing is indispensable, and feeble analysis and unsatisfac- tory logic are disqualifications. But the main thing to be observed here is, that apparently, the criterion of a message from God is made to be the measure in which, or the extent to which, it satisfies man's inquiries and ministers to his hope. So also, speaking of the common orthodox system which he is opposing, he pays a some,vhat suspicious complinlent to the parties holding it :-" I admire un- speakably those ,vho can believe in the love of God and can love their brethren, in spite of the opinion ,vhich they seem to cherish, that he has doomed them to destruction. I am sure that their faith is as Inuch purer and stronger than mine, as it is than their own system." And then he adds; "But if tllat system does prevent Ine from believing that which God's Word, the Gospel of Christ, the ,vitness of my o,vn conscience, the miseries and necessities of the universe, compel me to believe, I must throw it off" (xxvi. xxvii.) Is it meant that these are different kinds of evi- POPULAR THEORY OF THE GOSPEL. 53 dence-whose conspiring forces have power to compel belief? Am I to associate with the vYord of God and the Gospel of Christ, and apparently place on the same level with them as grounds of conviction, the .witness of my own conscience, and the miseries and necessities of the universe? This last is certainly a very large and wide measure of truth. I am to test a doch'ine proposed for my acceptance by the miseries and necessities of the universe ;-that is, evidently, by my own notion of ,, hat the universe requires. For this, it ,, ould seem that one must really be as God, knowing good and evil. Invidious, and sometimes offensive representations of the opinions of his opponents disfigure the pages of the preface. The passage just quoted is perhaps a specimen; but there are other instances. Is it ignorance, or a satirical vein, that makes the author speak of "the popular theory" as " gratifying to all the instincts of religious men," because according to it "the Gospel is only a scheme for saving theJ1 fronl the ruin w.hich God decreed for the universe when t\.dam sinned"? (p. xx.) Is there a courteous sarcasm in the allegation that they to ,vhom we of " the popular theory" preach the Gospel "understand us to say that God has sent his Son into the world, not to save it, but to con- demn it"? (p. xx.) Is the " riter so ill-read in theology as to believe his O'wn words ,vhen he alleges, that the explanations of Christ's sacrifice usually given are "such as a heathen would use to defend the sacrifices 54 THE ATONEMENT. which he offers to a malignant power"? (p. xxiv.) Or does he think that it is in good taste coolly to represent the divines with .whom he is contrasting himself as those who" say"-not merely ,vho are considered by him as virtually holding, but who themselves "say-that the doctrines of the Atonement, of the Resurrection, and of the Judgnlent, can only be received in connexion with certain metaphysical, legal, or commercial explanations"? (p. xxv.) These and similar remarks are spots on the surface of that charity which the ,york and its author claiin as pre-eminently their own, and ,vith respect to w"hich it can scarcely be said that it vaunteth not itself. They are quite in keeping ,vith his manner of writing in the Essays upon these subjects; but as thus thrust ultrone- ously into the ne,v preface, they indicate an increasing feeling of bitterness and anger which it is by no means pleasant to observe. There are one or two other instances also, either of the want of an exact acquaintance ,vith the views of his opponents, or of the want of a scrupulous accuracy in stating theIn, ,vhich are fitted to leave a painful im- pression on the mind. In speaking of the changes in the Essay on the Atonement, and" one omission" which he has" made with very great reluctance," he seems to have some reason to complain of an unfair construction put upon his quotation, in his first edition, of the collect for the THE GOSPEL OFFER. 55 Sunday before Easter. It may be incorrect to say that he "appealed to this collect, because he regarded Christ's death not as a sacrifice, but simply as an example" (pp. xxii. xxiii.) But on the other hand, is it quite fair or correct in him to adopt the words-" a sacrifice \vhich takes a\vay sin,-a sacrifice, satisfaction, and oblation for the sins of the whole \vorld,"-as expressive of his own view ;-and that, too, without ,yarning or expla- nation ;-,vhen he cannot but be a\vare that the com- mon usage of language, and the unquestionable phrase- ology of theological writers, assign to them a very different meaning from that in which he himself employs them? Nor is it possible to read without regret the passage in ,vhich he refers to the Bishop of Natal, Dr Colenso. Not content with claiming that prelate as holding, along with himself, "the conviction that ,ve are living in a ,,,"odd ,vhich God loves, and which Christ has re- deelned" (pp. xxix. xxx.)-.he thinks it needful to stig- matise the evangelical men from whom he differs, by an antithesis more ,vitty than ,vise, as "those who think that the world is not redeemed, that God's love is limited to a few." There n1ay be differences mong the parties alluded to, in regard to their Inanner of stating, and t.rying to solve, various difficult questions connected with the carrying out of the plan of mercy among a guilty and rebellious race. But the author surely can- not believe that anyone of them would acquiesce in 56 PUN ISHMENT. those propositions which he coolly puts forward as an off-hand summary of their belief. 'l'he author sometimes mistakes-or misstates-the exact point at issue behyeen himself and those \vho are supposed to complain of him. "It has been supposed," he says, "that I have argued for some mitigated notion of future punishment, as more consistent ,vith the mercy of God than the ordinary one." " The ordinary doctrine" is one ,vhich "to him seems full of the most miserable mitigations and indulgencies for evil." And he adds, "I plead for the love of God \vhich resists sin, and triumphs over it, not for a mercy \vhich relaxes the penalty of it " (p. xxvi.) The distortion and abuse of " the ordinary doctrine" Inay, for the present, pass. But the very contrast w.hich he dra\vs in this last sentence, with not a little of ,vhat he feels to be just pride, may indicate,- what will afterw.ards more fullyappear,-that the real "supposition," or allegation, with w.hich he has to deal, is not that he " has argued for sonle mitigated notion of future punishment," but that his view of the Gospel excludes, and he himself denies, future punishment altogether, in the true and proper sense of the term punishment, as that term is used alike in theology and in common life. There are some other matters in this preface on which a remark or t,yO might be made, especially in connexion with the subject of Inspiration and the doctrine of the PLAN OF THE ESSAYS. 57 .Atonem ent. But the opportunity for considering them ,vill afterwards occur in the progress of the inquiry which it is proposed now to institute into the teaching of this book. For the purpose of the follo,ving examination, the Essays may conveniently be grouped in classes, accord- ing to an arrangement of the topics of theology common among divines; - which indeed the author virtually follows in the most orderly manner. In the first hvo Essays the source of theology on the part of God, and the sotU"ce of it also on the part of man, are pointed out. In the third and fourth, the condition of man is exhibited as capable of remedy; inasmuch as on the one hand, the Evil Po'wer that tyrannises over him is foreign to himself, and on the other hand, the protest against evil in his own bosom is not only in eradicated and ineradicable, but is identified with a present living Redeemer. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Essays describe the person and ,york of the Rec1eelner. The ninth and tenth Essays trace the process of personal salvation, or emancipation. In the eleventh and tw"elfth, ,ve are asked to consider ",'hat the Redeemer is now' doing, and w'hat he has yet to do, in his ascension-state and in his ,york of judgment. In the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the condition of the Church under the teaching of the divine Word and Spirit is sketched; and the principle of the Church's 58 PLAN OF EXA)IINATION. unity is unfolded. The sixteenth reaches the culminating point of the Trinity in Unity. The concluding Essay, the seventeenth, contemplates the future state. Thus there are these several and successive topics discussed in their order:- Tlte First, The source of Theology ;-in the nature of God, which is love, and in the necessity of man, which is sin (Essays i. ii.) The Second, The possibility of a Remedial Theology ;- the po\ver of evil being foreign to man, and the protest against evil being inherent in man-being his living Redeemer (iii. iv.) The Tllird, The Remedy provided ;-in the person (v. vi.) and work (vii. ,riii.) of the Son of God. TIle Fourth, '__rIte Remedy applied ;-in the justifica- tion and regeneration of men (ix. x.) The Fifth, The exaltation of the Redeemer to the office of Ruler and Judge (xi. xii.) The Sixth, The subjection of the Church to divine guidance ; - Inspiration, - the personality and teaching of the Holy Spirit,-the Unity of the Church (xiii. xiv. xv.) The Seventh, The Trinity in Unity (xvi.) Oonclusion, Eternal Life and Eternal Death (xvii.) CHAPTER I. THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY;-IN THE KATURE OF GOD, WHICH IS LOVE, AND THE NECESSITY OF MAN, WHICH IS SIN. ESSAYS 1. AND II. ESSAY I.-ON CHARITY. THE subject of this Essay is the character of God. It is as a guide or index to the character of God that the apostle Paul's praise of charity is introduced, and is rtlade, not only the theme of the present Essay, but the key-note of the whole treatise. Carrying out the in- tentions of a deceased "Lady, once a lnember of the Society of Friends," who had desired that" some book especially addressed to Unitarians" should be prepared by him, the author thought that" a series of Discourses which had occurred to him as suitable for his own con- gregation, in the interval between Quinquagesima Sun- day and Trinity Sunday, might embrace all the topics" which he ,vould 'wish to bring under their notice (Ad- vertisement, pp. vii. viii.) He accordingly threw the Discourses into the form of Essays; following very much the order in which the leading truths of the Gospel are exhibited in the services of the Church of 60 CHARITY-QUINQUAGESIMA SUKDAY. England from the beginning of the season of Lent onwards to Trinity Sunday. To this arrangenlent he refers in his first Essay. IIaving directed attention to the stress ,vhich all men of all parties are now laying upon charity, and which, he thinks, should" incline a writer of this day to begin his moral or theological dis- courses from charity, at whatever point he may ulti- mately arrive,"-as a similar motive "led one of the Reformers to speak first of faith,"-he appeals to "the doctors of the first ages, and of the middle ages," 'W 110 " continually put forth the Divine Charity as the ground upon ,vhich all things in heaven and earth rest, as the centre round ,vhich they revolve." And he adds;- ""\Vhat is more to the purpose, the compilers of our Prayer-book, living at the very time when faith was the ,vatchword of all parties, thought it wise to introduce the season of Lent ,vith a prayer and an epistle, ,vhich declare that the tongues of men and of angels, the giving all our goods to feed the poor, the giving our bodies to be burnt, final1y, the faith which removes mountains, váthout char 1 ty, are nothing. This alone ,vas to be the ground of all calls to repentance, conver- sion, hunliliation, self-restraint; this was to unfold gradually the mystery of the Passion, and of the Re- surrection, the mystery of Justification by faith, of the New Life, of Christ's Ascension and Priesthood, of the descent of the Spirit, of the Unity of the Church. This was to be the induction into the deepest mystery of all, ARRAXGEME T OF PRAYER-BOOK. 61 the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (pp. 6, 7). It is not for a stranger to comment upon a vÌe\v of the Church of England Prayer-book given by a clergyman. But when so much importance is attached to the selection of the Epistle of Quinquagesima Sunday, as introductory not only to Lent, but to all the Church's high days froln Lent to Trinity Sunday,-one can scarcely help asking if Septuagesima Sunday, and Sexagesima Sunday, have not as direct a reference to Lent as Quinquagesima Sun- day? Ioreover, do not the very names of these three Sundays prove that whatever principle may have guided the compilers of the Prayer-book in fixing ap- propriate services for them, it must have been a principle applicable exclusively to the seven ,,'"eeks of Lent and Easter, ending on Easter Sunday, and not reaching beyond it? Still further, if the Epistles and other devotions for these three Sundays, Septuagesima, Sexa- gesima, Quinquagesima,-be considered as preparatory to the contrition of Lent and the joy of Easter,-and nothing more,-may not a reason be found for dwelling upon the high standard of Christian responsibility and duty, at least as satisfactory as the assumption that the compilers of the Prayer-book meant the Epistle for the Sunday before Ash- "r ednesday to be the starting-point of all its subsequent theology, including the Passion, the Resurrection, Pentecost, the Trinity? This, ho\vever, is a matter of comparatively little 62 THE CHARITY OF 1 COR. XIII. consequence. A more serious consideration is that by making the human character, ho,vever excellent,--and indeed one single excellent feature of that character,- the suggestive type, the mould, according to which our conceptions of the divine character are to be formed, ,ve run the risk of these conceptions being limited, partial, one-sided. Even as a description of consummate Chris- tian virtue, the commendation of charity is incomplete; other graces must be blended ,vith it to constitute the perfect man in Christ. It is not a natural or direct method to overlook the express statements on the sub- ject of the divine nature and government of ,vhich Scripture is full, to isolate a single element of human goodness however beautiful and beautifully delineated, and to resolve all the perfection of the Ruler of the uni- verse into that. The danger seems to be all the greater, if there is to be no definition of charity,-no analysis of the apostolic account of it,-no comparison of that ac- count with other scriptm.al representations ;-if all criti- cism or inquiry of that sort is to be resented as narro,ving in an intolerable mannfr the scope and sense of the divine word ;-if, in fact, the love signalised in the thirteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians is to be regarded as of that ,vide and comprehensive sort which shall gather up into itself all those aspirations towards a better Inutual understanding, and a larger common brotherhood, of ,vhich men's hearts are vaguely consci- ous. Even if that chapter were taken alone and sepa- ALLEGED IXCOXSISTENCY OF PAUL. 63 rately, a careful examination of the qualities ascribed to charity might bring out a view of that excellence, as belonging first to man, and then in an infinite degree to God, more pointed and precise than any of these aspira- tions,-than all of them together. Still it would be necessarily an imperfect view of ,vhat the n10ral Gov- ernor of the ,vorId is. It is even more unsatisfactory, according to the author's manner of handling the pass- age, and drawing forth from it the idea of the character of God. This will appear more clearly .when the Essay is examined somewhat more in detail. The opening sentence gives a portion of the noble verses in ,vhich charity is exalted above the best gifts, -the gifts most to be coveted. "St Paul says, Though I have all faith, so that I could re'1nove mountains, and have not cltarity, I arn nothing" (p. 1). Those ,vith whom the author deals are supposed to hail this as a "confession" on the part of Paul "how poor all those dogmas are on which he dwells else,vhere with so much of theological refinement; faith, 'wlách he told the Romans, and Galatians, ,vas necessary and able to save men from ruin, shrinks here to its proper dimen- sions, and in comparison of another excellence is pro- nounced to be good for nothing." They rejoice in "what seems to theIn a splendid inconsistency in sup- port of a principle which it is the great work of our age to proclaim," leaving it to "divines to defend the apostle's consistency if they can" (p. 1). 64 LOVE AND FAITH. At one time, the author intimates, he would have accepted the challenge. He ,vould have said; "The charity "\vhich the apostle describes is not the least that tolerance of opinions, that disposition to fraternize with all characters and creeds, which you take it to be. His nomenclature is spiritual and divine, yours human and earthly. If you could look into the real signification of this chapter, you would not find that you liked it much bettcr than what he says of faith elsew.here" (p. 2). He abandons" this language" now, as "impertinent and unchristian." And perhaps there is no harm in his doing so, not so much for that reason, as because the language is not particularly intelligible. It ,vouId have been but fair, however, to the apostle to explain, that the faith which he contrasts with charity in ,vriting to the Corinthians, is not the faith ,vhich he comlnends in "\vriting to the Romans and Galatians: and that the charity of the one epistle is the love by which faith is represented as working, in the others. It ,vouId have been ,veIl also if the author had said, ,vhether or not he agrees in the sentiments supposed to be uttered by the advocates of charity as against faith. At all events, he repudiates the answer which he might once have given. 1. It may" silence an objector," he says. But it is equivalent to "telling him that the Bible means some- thing altogether different from that which it appears to mean," and this again is equivalent to a denial of its inspiration and divine truth. "I must suppose," he IXSPIRED LA GUAGE. 65 adds, "that inspired language is the 1110St inclusive and con1prehensive of all language; that divine truth lies beneath all the inlperfect forms of truth which men have perceived,-sustaining them, not contradicting them." (Pp. 2, 3.) Revelation, according to hin1, coming in con- tact with a particular temper or habit in a man, a country or an age, finds in the temper or habit, ,yhatever it 111ay be, some partial affinity to itself. Under the in- fluence of that temper or habit, 111en may "fix upon a certain aspect of the Revelation," while "another side of it is for them lying in shado,v." They thus" treat it in the most sincere and natural way, accepting what in their state of mind they can most practically appre- hend and use." And a teacher having strong" faith in GOll'S revelation," and a "clear conviction that God has his o"n ,vay of guiding his creatures," n1Ïght " be con- tent that they should not, for the present, try to bring" the side that is for them lying in shado.w ",yithin the range of their vision." ",A.t all events he would feel that his ,vork ,vas clearly marked out for hiln,"-that ,york being "to arrive at the unkno,vn through that which is perceived, ho,, ever partially," and "not to quench the light by 'which any men are v;ralking." (P. 4.) Kow if all this means merely, on the one hand, that the Bible is to be understood according to the ordinary in1port of the language which it elnploys; and on the other hand, that whatever amount of truth may be found in a nlan's convictions ig to be taken advantage of, as E 66 MEAKING OF TIlE BIBLE. common ground, in dealing \vith him on behalf of Reve- lation ;-it is of course a correct statement, although it is little to the purpose. But there is a gernlof ambi- guity, if not of error, in these some\vhat vague observa- tions. If I tell a man 'whose only notion of charity or love is the notion of mere good-\vill, for exan1ple,-that this is not the charity or love of \vhich Paul speaks,- am I therefore telling him that the Bible means some- thing different from \vhat it appears to mean? The question is not what the Bible appears to mean to a man fastening upon an isolated ,vord, or sentence, and inter- preting it according to some idea of his o\vn, or of the age: but ,v11at it lTIeanS to one ,vIto reads it, as he ,voulc1 read any other book, studying the connexion in \v hich the ,yord or sentence occurs, and endeavouring in the ordinary way to ascertain ,vhat idea the ,vriter intended to convey. Nor ,vill it do to ride off upon some transcendental theory of inspiration, as if it imparted to the language used a certain character of universality or cOlllpre- hensiveness; making it, chanleleon-likc, assun1e the hue and colour of the minds \yith w.hich it meets; or mak- ing it assimilate and harmonise the imperfect forms of truth ,vhich men express in still more Í1nperfect forms of ,vards. Inspired language is to be regarded as having a definite n1eaning not less than uninspired language, and is to be read and studied accordingly. If any think that they do homage to inspired language by elevating it into a region \vhere the common laws of Y ARIOUS IDEAS OF CHARITY. 67 criticism and interpretation, applicable to all other lan- I guage, may not reach it, they are in reality betraying it \ \vith a kiss; unconsciously perhaps, and unintentionally, but yet effectually. "Ve are asked to take the word (( charity," or love, as used by Paul, for the very symbol and standard of our theology. And at the same time " e are gravely warned against putting upon the word any definite meaning, and rather recommended, as it would almost seem, to avoid "looking into the real signification of the chapter" containing it; although that, after all, is the only possible method of alTiving at a knowledge of the divine truth which the term "charity," as used by Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, ,vas really designed to teach. This is surely a large demand on our implicit faith. 2. It is so all the rather for the admissions which are made as to the spurious character of much of the charity no,v in vogue. "Artificial, fantastical, morbid," -nay "compatible with a vast amount of uncharitableness,"- much of all that is felt and said and practised in this age is allowed to be. One ,vould think that this is a good reason for seeking some surer starting-point for our theology than the ,vord "charity," as found in an isolated verse, or half a verse, of the Apostle Paul, and interpreted by the" temper or habit" of the age. But the author has an ingenious "point" here, \vhich he suggests for consideration. "It is true," he says, "that each school has its own notion of charity, that the defi- 68 A RIGHTEOUS fÅN A GOOD l\IA . nitions of it are unlike, that the limitations of it are various and capricious." But" the point to be con- sidered is, whether all these diversities, subsisting under a common name, do not prove, more than anything else, the tendency of the time in which they are found,-the direction in which our thoughts are all moving." (P. 5.) Certainly they ll1ay prove this. But they prove also that in obeying that tendency, and moving in that direction, ,ye are very much at sea. And surely they do not prove that ,ve are so much at one in our ideas of 'v hat the charity ,ve talk about and long for really is, as to be warranted in making these ideas the measure of the charity which "inspired language" praises; and dispensing ,vith the light w"hich a fair examination of that language might shed upon the subject. It may be quite true that in these days, "portraits of dry, hard, cold-hearted men, '\yho have in them, possi- bly, a sense of justice and right, are sure to produce a revolting, as from something profoundly and essentially evil, even in spectators ", ho can look upon great crin1Í- nals ,vith half-adluirati n, as gigantic and heroical." No doubt, these are the stock characters of cheap novels and minor theatres,-the fit successors of the stern anel upright father or husband, and the gay and generous libertine, ,vho used to entertain our ancestors. Certainly "dry, hard, cold-hearted men," are anything but ami- able, even thongh they have "a sense of justice and right." But an age which revolts froin such characters, :FAITH APPREHENDI G _\. D REPRODUCIXG LOYE. 69 as from something profoundly and essentially evil, and looks in preference on great criminals '\vith half-admira- tion, is not precisely the best fitted for deciding, from its own sense and consciousness, and "without exalllination of the passage, '\vhether the charity of the thirteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians be inc1usive, or exclusive, of that "sense of justice and right" which, it seems, will not rescue a "dry, hard, cold-hearted man" from the fate of being regarded as less tolerable than a "gigantic and heroical " villain. If the meaning of the term be first ascertained, there can be no objection to our "beginning our moral or theological discourses from charity," and ending them also in charity. "The divine charity" is to be "put forth as the ground upon 'which all things in heaven and earth rest, as the centre round ,vhich they revolve." (P. 6.) Not only "the doctors of the first ages and of the middle ages," but the Reformers also, rightly un- derstood, held this vie,v. They did not, as the author thinks, " speak first on faith." Still less did they do so for the reason he gives, "because all men, whether Romanists or Allti-Romanists, ackno,vle ged the neces- sity of it." They spoke first on love; and on faith as 1 apprehending and reproducing love; apprehending love in God; reproducing love in n1an. Charity- " the divine charity,"-is a good portal through which to enter into the christian temple. And it is true that "huluan charity is the image and counterpart of the 70 I fP ATIEXCE OF DOGMAS _\ND DISTINCTIOXS. divine." Froln human charity, therefore, ,ve nlay rise to a conception of the divine. But in order to this, we must kno,y what human charity is,-the human charity . which is ,vorthy to be the inlage and counterpart of the divine. And surely it is safer to take our kno.wledge of this human charity,-especially since so much is to be made of it,-from the 'V ord of God fairly interpreted as all spoken and written words ought to be, than from the temper and tendency of any age,-least of all an age admitted to have the name, indeed, very n1uch in its mouth, but to be very much in the dark as to the thing. 3. Nor is the author's case the better for a further admission that it is an age impatient of " dogmas; " and in haste to grasp "some union of parties in ,vhich all barriers, theological, nay, it would seem sometimes, moral also, shall be thrO"wn down." This" impatience of distinctions, of the distinction behveen Right and "\V rong, as well as of that behveen Truth and False- hood "-is seen to be "the greatest peril of this age," and felt to be a "temptation" against ,vhich, for our- selves and others, it is our" highest duty" to " ,vatch." "In performance of it," he "denounces the glorification of private judgment," by which he understands the notion that .we may think what \ve like to think; that there is no standard to which our thoughts should be conformed: that they fix their o,vn standard." ""\Vho," he asks, "can toil to find, that .which, on this sup- position, he can make?" (Pp. 8, 9.) A shrewd question, CH .\.RITY, TRUTH, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. 71 and a sharp one! If any lllan can be discovered who holds and glorifies this notion of private judgment, l1e may deal with it. Equally ,vith this so-called priyate judgment,-or rather as virtually identical ,vith it,- " the dogmatical authority of the Church" is denounced. The confusion is only ,vorse confounded. But" if ,ve start from the belief,-charity is the ground and centre of the universe, God is charity" -our theology becomes at once distinct and cOlnprehensive. Be it so. Let us start from that belief, if by charity '\ve lllean ,vhat Paul means in the thirteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians. In that vie,v, the belief in question may be subdivided into several beliefs. For example ;-truth is the ground and centre of the universe - God is truth. Justice is the ground and centre of the universe-God is justice. IIoliness is the ground and centre of the universe-God is holiness. If \ charity is allowed to stand alone in the expression of I the belief from which ,ve start, it is because it is inclu- sive of these other attributes. If it is not to be so under- stood, " e must refuse to start from a belief essentially defective and one-sided. This is the vital point of the First Essay. That theology should be "regarded not as a collection of our theories about God, but as a declaration of his ,vill and his acts toward us,"-that its articles ought to be viewed in a light fitted to bring "the divine love and human life into conjunction, the one being no longer a 72 DIVINE U ITY, DIYIKE LOVE. barren tenet or sentiment, the other a hopeless struggle," -these are irnportant and seasonable observations. (Pp. 10, 11.) To acquaint hinlself 'with God and be at }Jeace, is the highest study and happiness of man. And beyond all question, the belief that God is love lies at the root of all divine knowledge, and embraces the sum of alL But the painful doubt in 'which this Essay leaves us regards the nature of that charity, or love, into which the entire divine character is resolved, and from ,vhich all theology is to be elaborated :-a painful doubt in- deed, and one w'hich almost passes, before the Essay closes, into still more painful certainty. The author, appealing, as he usually does in all his Essays, to those 'with a vie,,,, to whose benefit they,vere composed, acknowledges, in the strongest ternls, his obligation to "two classes of Unitarians." The first class consists of Unitarians of the old school, "ho "repudiate" the Trinitarian " ,A.rticles absolutely," and "protest against thenl." vVith reference to that class, he observes, "I am not ashanled to say that the vehement denunciations of '\vhat they suppose to be the general faith of Christendonl, 'which I have heard fronl Unitarians,-denunciations of it as cruel, immoral, in- consistent with any full and honest acknowledglnent of the Divine Unity, still more of the Divine love,-have been eminently useful to nle. I receive then1 as bless- ings froin God, for ,vhich I ought to give him continual thanks." K ot, he explains, "because the hearing of OLD SCHOOL UNITARIAKS-THE NATURE OF GOD. 73 these charges has set me upon refuting theln,"-but lC because great portions of these charges have seemed to Ine ,veIl-founded; because I have been compelled to confess that the evidence for them is irresistible." And that evidence, he adds, does not 11lerely lC refer to some secondary or subordinate point." "It does not touch those secret things which belong to the Lord, but the Ileart of that Revelation which he has made to us and to our children." These" protests" have taught him to say to himself, "Take away the love of God, and you take away everything." They have" urged him to believe that God is actually love;" and "to dread any representation of him w'hich is at variance ,vith this; to shrink from attributing to him any acts ,vhich ,,,"ould be unlovely in man." (Pp. 11-14.) If there be mean- A ing in so unqualified an acknowledgment of obligation, ' and force in the appeal grounded upon it,-it n ust be because the view of the divine character ,vith which the author sets out is the same as that of those Unitarians who" vehemently denounce what they suppose to be the general faith of Christendom;" and further, because the standard by ,vhich he is to try 'what "acts may be at- tributed to God," even in his character of ruler, is their opinion of ,vhat ,vould be unlovely in man. On any other supposition, his pleading with them is InSIncere, or at least, irrelevant. The other class of Unitarians to whom he addresses himself compose "the modenl school." They" be- 74 KE1V SCHOOL UNITARIANS-THE 'YORD OF GOD. ing less strong in condemnation of the thoughts and language of books 'wTitten by Trinitarians, and avowing a sympathy 1vith some of the accounts ,\\rhich they have given of their 01vn inward conflicts, nevertheless hate . orthodoxy ,vith a perfect hatred, affirming it to be the stifler of all honest convictions and of all moral gro,vth." From these he has learned that "if we are resting on any formulas, even the best," or "on the divinest book that .was ever ,vritten by God for the teaching of man- kind, and not on the living God hin1self, our founda- tion ",""ill be found sandy." (P. 13.) The reference to the Bible here is inappropriate and unmeaning, unless \ve are to understand that he substantially agrees 'with the Unitarians of the modern school, not only in their opinion of fonnulas, but in their opinion also of the ,,,or ord of God. It is true that the author does not intend to soothe either of these classes of Unitarians with idle compli- ment. He is anxious to raise them to a higher platform of religious attainment than they now occupy. Placing his foot on what he has in common \vith them, he would bring them on, and bring them up, to have sOITIething better in common ,vith him. To the first class he says -'V ork out your o,vn idea of the character of God,- your own belief that God is love,-and you \vill find that it forces you to admit that God has done and is doing more for mankind than you at present seem to think. To the second he says,-Granted that human 'YHA T IS SI ? 75 formulas and divine books are but shells and husks ;-- only treat them fairly as such; and they may yield to you better food and better kernels than you have yet got out of them. In particular, you will find in and under then1, not" a certain religious sentiment-a tend- ency, that is, a bias or aspiration of soul to,vards some- thing," but "a Person," "the Deliverer and Head of mankind." This is true. But it is not the less true, on the other hand, that the probable success, and indeed the very significancy and common sense, of this bene- volent attenlpt, turn upon its being an admitted fact-on his part,-tbat he holds with Unitarians of the old school on the subject of the divine character, and 'with Unitarians of the new school on the subject of the Divine "\V ord. ESSAY II.-ON SL . 'Vhat is Sin ?-" Clergynlen," it seems, are apt "to take it for granted that their congregations lmderstand what they mean 'when they speak of SIN." And they are advised to "attend more to the doubts and objec- tions of others," which "might assist in clearing and deepening their own thoughts." (P. 18.) 'Vhat these others have to say is in substance this :- 'Ve know of crimes, or overt acts, to be "checked by direct penalties." We kno,v of habits, or tendencies, 76 THEOLOG lCAL AXS"TER. leading to these crinles, to be "extirpated by son1e nIoral influences." For the first, ,ve have our legisla- tion; for the second, our ethics. But you theologians bring in a tertÙl1n qzdd,-a third notion,-"\vhich ",e can refer to neither head You speak of SI . And you say it is comn1Îtted against God. You thus represent God as ",van ting sOlnething for his o,vn use and honour,-craving services and sacrifices as due to him." " Is not doing justice and mercy to the fello,v-creaÍlu-es among whom he has placed us, the thing ,vhich he re- quires and ,vhich pleases him? If not, where "TonId you stop?" The ,vorst heathen notions of propitiation rush in; and "the nalne or word 'Christianity' has no charm to keep them off." "But if once \\-re adnlit good feeling and good doing to,vards our neigh bour to be the essence and fulfilment of God's cOlnmandments, why are not the ethical and legal conceptions of evil sufficient? '\Vhat room is there for any other?" (Pp. 18, 19.) To all this, the author represents the ordinary theo- logical answer to be to the follo,ving effect (p. 20) ; first, that" the commandments sJ!eak of a duty to,vards God as well as a duty to,vards our neighbour;" secondly, that "there is no reason ,vhy he from ,vhom we receive all things, should not demand sonlething in return, and that a priori ,ve could not the least tcll ,vhether he ,vould or not;" tldrdly, that" if he did, it ,yould be reasonable to expect that he ,vould enforce very heavy punishments upon our failure, especially ifit might have been ayoided;" SUM OF THE TEN CO I)L\XD)IEXTS. 77 fourthly, that" those punishments may be infinite,- at all events that we can have no reason to allege why they should not be;" and fifthly, that "if we have any authority for supposing they will be so, we ought to do anything rather than incur so tremendous a risk." Such is the view which he evidently Dleans to attri- bute to the theologians from 1vl1om he separates himself. If he does not intend it to be taken as his version of the current Evangelical doctrine regarding Sin,-if it is a mere caricature of some extreme opinion,-it is out of place, as well as out of taste. He plainly wishes it to be received as the account 1vhich theologians give of the "third notion," which the objectors complain of as being " thrust upon them," and as being" one wbich they can refer to the head neither of legislation nor of ethics." It is surely unnecessary to point out the unfairness of such a representation. Has the author read the sum- mary of the Ten Commandments given by our Lord himself? 'Vho are they by whonl "'we have been told, perhaps," that for anything 1ve kno,v God may be an hard master, and that upon a calculation of risks and chances, it may upon the ,,-hole be safest to act towards him as if he were? By whom is it maintained that onr duty to God is founded on his gifts to us, and is a sort of mercenary return or requital ,, hich he exacts for these gifts? To whom does the author venture to impute the offensive, if not blasphemous, opinion, that God resents our withholding of the service which he 78 DUTY TO GOD-ITS NATURE AND OBLIGATION. claims, as a personal injury to himself, or enforces the rendering of that service by heavy,-possibly infinite,- punishments, like a tyrant, Inerely for his O'Vl1 sake, and because the service is his right? He can scarcely fail to know that, according to the concurrent doctrine of the theologians on ,vhom he is reflecting, the duty which God requires of man is made to rest on a far higher ground, and is itself of a far higher nature, than he has indicated. ' }'Ig son, gire 'lne thy !teart,' is the clailn ,vhich God asserts. Obedience from the heart is due to hinl simply as our l\Iaker, our Ruler, OlU. Lord. And the necessity of punishment, strictly so called, in case of disobedience, arises not out of such considerations as are put into the lnoutll of the parties to w.hom the author is opposed, but out of the essential character of God, as holy, just, and true, and the essential nature of that moral government ,vhich, as the righteous La-\vgiver and Judge, he exercises over his reasonable and responsible creatures. The author '''"QuId not probably admit these vie,ys, even as thus stated, to be correct. But it is, at any rate, thus that they are to be correctly stated; and ,vhen thus con'ectly stated, it ,vill be found that they cannot be quite so easily disposed of as the extrava- gance ,vhich he adroitly substitutes in thcir place. To return, ho,vever, to his o,vn line of thought.- Of course, "there is a horror and heart-shrinking from the doctrine that we are to serve God because ,ve are ignorant of his nature and character "-as also" fronl ETHICAL AKD LEG_\L DOCTRIKES. 79 the doctrine that we are to serve him because, upon a fair calculation, it appears likely that this course váll a&,ver better than the opposite course, or that that will involve us in ruin." Certainly the Ulan is right who says, "I cannot be religious on these terms,-it is my religion to repudiate them." (P. 20.) Such a man, the author seems to think, "may not prize the command- ments very highly." Perhaps he means that in the judgment of the theologians ,vhom he is opposing, such a Ulan would be set do,vn as one who did not prize the commandlnents very highly. He cannot intend seriously to assert that a man does not prize highly both the la\y and the gospel 'v hen "he feels that by duty to God Ioses meant something wholly and generically different from this "-from service upon the terms ,vhich he him- self repudiates: and when he "is sure that Christ did not come into the ,vorld to tell men that they cannot kno\v anything of their Father in heaven; or that he is to be served for hire, or through dread of ,vhat he ,viII do to thenl." (P. 21.) But no, v, this 'ìJwnstrurn hOrl"endum of the theologians being disposed of, ,, hat is our friend, ,,"'ith his "direct penalties for checking crimes," and his "moral influences for extirpating habits," to do? He is to "keep his ethical or his legal doctrine, if he really has some grasp of it, not exchange it for any which has a greater sho,v and savour of divinity." But he is "conjured not to bar his soul against the entrance of another conviction, 80 CONVICTIO OF SIK. if it should come at any time with a very mighty power, because he is afraid that he is receiving some old tenet of theology which he has dreaded and hated." (P. 21.) The passage in which the entrance of this other con- viction into the soul is described is one of rare elo- quence,-the eloquence of deep and true feeling. I am first confronteù, face to face, ,vith my own " dark self." I-Iere am I, doing a wrong .ct, thinking a ,vrong thought; the ,vrong act,-the wrong thought is Inine; "evil lies not in some accidents, but in me." l'here "comes a sense of Eternity, dark, unfathomable, hope- less." " That Eternity stands face to face ,vith me; it looks like anything but a picture; it presents itself to me as the hardest driest reality. There are no inlages of torture and death. JVhat 'Jnattpr where, if I be still tlw scone ?-this question ,vill be the torture; all death lies in that." "'Vhen once a man arrives at this con- viction," the author goes on to say, "he is no nlore in the circle of outward acts, ouhvard rules, ouhvard punishments; he is no more in the circle of tendencies, inclinations, habits, and the discipline "t\Thich is appro- priate to them. fIe has come una,vares into a more inward circle,--a very close, narro,v, dismal one, in ,vhich he cannot rest, out of which he must emerge." This he can do only'! ,vhen he begins to say, 'I have sinned against some Being,-not against society merely, not against my own nature merely, but against another to whom I was bounù.' .i\.nd the emancipation 'will not GUILT, EN)IITY. 81 be complete till he is able to say,-giving the ,vords their full and natural meaning, ' F_\.THER, I have sinned against thee.'" (Pp. 22, 23.) Here then are two parties. Here am I myself, doing ,yrong, thinking wrong. I-Iere am I, not merely liable to evil as an accident, but having evil in me. Here am I, an evil thing,-an evil being,-,yith eternity around me. And here also is the Being against ,vhom I have sinned, the Being to ,vhom I 'was bound, the Being to ,vhom I say, Father. This is death. This also is life. One sln"inks from breaking in upon the stillness of so solemn an illterview- '\vith any questions. But it is neces:5ary, as before, to ask if this vivid representation of sin is intended to be inclusive, or exclusive, of the ideas of legislation and of ethics with which the Essay opens? 1V1len in the vie,v of eternity I nleet, face to face, the Being, the Father, against ,vhom I have sinned,-,vhat is it that I am conscious of? Is it crime deserving punishment? Is it habit, - a habit of thinking and feeling, needing to be somehow thoroughly changed? If not, ,vhat is it ( In the presence of this Being, this Father, am I a criminal ( am I a prodigal? ..A.ill I both (-or either? If not, what am I? There is nothing in the author's account of conviction of sin which expressly denies that a sense of criminality, and a sense of estrangement or enmity, are parts or elements of that conviction. )Ianifestly, ho,vever, he means to transfer the question of what sin is, a\yay F 82 LA 'Y AXD ETHICS IN OUR REI..ATIOS TO GOD. fron1 the level ground of human legislation and human ethics, into some higher region of thought and feeling. And so far, he is right. Theology, or the knowledge of God, unquestionably opens a ne,v sphere to the 111ind and heart of man. 13ut is it not a sphere in which the radical and essential principles, both of legislation and of ethics, are as applicable and operative as in the lo,ver sphere of 111an's walk an10ng his fellows? I discover God. He summons me to n1eet hiD1. He summons me to meet him as a Father,-as n1Y Father, -having a father's love to me. And I have sinned against him. Have I no feeling that I deserve punish- ment,-that I am guilty? Have I no in1pression of my having displeased and offended him? IIave I no grief on account of my habit of suspicion, or of dread, or of dislike, to,vards hilH? I do not get rid of legisla- tion or of ethics ,vhen I con1e to o,vn, under a sense of eternity, my relation to the Supreme. On the con- trary, I then first reach the heart both of lcgislation and of ethic3. I find myself face to face '\Tith the everlasting God,-olnyself alone with him alone. I see hin1 as a Father, entitled to all a father's honour, full of all a father's affection. In n1Y apostasy fron1 him, I recognise a crin1e,-the crin1e of crilues,-the crin1e of ,yhich all other crimes are but faint types. In lny disaffection towards hiln, I feel a habit,-habit the most invet l"ate as ,yell as the Inost inexcusable,-habit ,vhich a divine po\\"cr and divine influences alone can extirpate. CRIME TO BE PUNISHED--HABIT TO BE REXE"'ED. 83 Even if it turn out, after all, that "doing justice and mercy to n1Y fello,v-creatures" is the thing 'which he requires,-that "good feeling and good doing towards my neighbour is the essence and fulfiln1ent of God's commandlnents," -still, I n1ust now feel that I o'\ve these duties not to Inen only, but to God. They may constitute the 'whole of ", hat I owe to God. At all events, it is to God that I o,ve thenl. And 'when con- viction ûf sin seizes Ine,-and I meet God, as my Father, under it,-he may deal with me exclusively about Iny ill-will toward n1Y brethren. But must he not deal ,vith me about it as sin against hilnself? And can I feel that he does so, ,yithout feeling also, that it is a crime to be punished-that it is also a habit to be eradicated? In every view, conviction of sin against God our Father, if it is really genuine and in the truest sense natural, Dlust be the saIne in kind ,vith conviction of sin against OlU' brethren of nlankind. It must have in it, therefore, both a sense of ill-desert, and a sense of ill- affection. "Vhatever else it may be, sluely sin is both crime and habit. To be convinced of sin, is to be convinced of crime deserving punishment, and of habit needing to be revolutionised. In the presence of n1Y Father in heaven, ,vith my "dark self" haunting me, and dark eternity facing 111e, I anI deeply conscious of guilt lying upon DIe, and e"il dwelling in me. And I alll so all the rather, because in hinl whom I call 84 FREE TRADE IN SPIRITUAL QUACKERY. }1-"ather I recognise not only a being whose very name is Love, but a sovereign Lawgiver and righteous Judge. The inadequacy of the author's representation of sin will appear more clearly, perhaps, from a survey- of the ren1aining portion of this Essay. In reply to a suggestion that the experience ,vhich he has been describing,-the " dark sense of contradiction " into ,vhich a man is brought ,vhen he is "confronted ,vith himself" ancllnade to "see a dark ilnage of Self, behind him, before him, beneath hiln,"-may after all be " the idiosyncracy of a fe,v strange inexplicable teln- peraments,"-with which busy men in a busy world have little sympathy,-the author rightly pronounces it to be " that ,vhich besets us all." (Pp. 24, 25.) "That sense of a sin intricately, inseparably illter\voven "with the very fibres of their being, of a sin ,vhich they cannot get rid of ,vithout destroying themselves, does haunt those yery men ,vho you say take no account of it." And it lays then1 open to "all deceits and impostures," -to influencès of all sorts, religious, philosophical, lite- rary; for" the preachers of religion have not a 1110nopoly of these influences at this time; here, as elsewhere, there is unrestricted con1petition; )lormonists, .A.nilnal )Iag- nctists, Rappists, take their turn with us, and often ,york their charms more effectually than '\ve ,york ours." Fron1 this free trade in quackery, the author ,vould pro- tect us, by laying open the real nature and right remedy of the disorder to which it appeals. T'VILIGHT- METHODIST PREACHING 85 " :Jlen are d,velling in twilight;" and therefore "all ghosts of the past, all phantoms of the future, 'walk by them." The question is, "how they can come out of the hvilight." And the ans,ver apparently is this :-" The darkness which is blended ,vith the light n1ust, in sonle ,vay, be she,,-rn to be in deadly contrast ,vith it,-the opposites must be seen one against the other." (P. 26). This is illustrated by a reference to the success of the first )lethodist movement. " Think of any sermon of a l\lethodist preacher 'v hich roused the heart of a Kings- 'wood collier, or of a dry, hard, formal nlan, or of a con- tented, self-righteous boaster of his religion, in the last century. You 'will say the orator talked of an infinite punishment ,vhich God might inflict on them if they continued disobedient. He may have talked of that, but he ,vauld have talked till doonlsday if he had not spoken nnother language too, ,vhich interpreted this, and into which the conscience rapidly translated it." '-Yhat the orator really talked of was-the ,vrath of God revealed froin heaven against all ungodliness and Ull- righteousness of men, and the nlercy of God also revealed from heaven in the gospel of his grace. He told collier, formalist, self-righteous boaster,-all alike,-that they ,vere guilty and needed pardon,-that they ,vere corrupt and needed renovation,-that Jesus Christ came into the ,vorld to save sinners,-to give himself a ranSOlll for thf'm. He exhorted them to flee fronl the wrath to come, and lay hold on eternal life. But take the author's 86 T'VILIGHT DISPELLED. representation of the orator's taIk,-that which he puts into the mouth of those ,vith whom he is reasoning. 'Vhat the preacher n1ight say of future punishment is interpreted by "another language," into ,vhich " the conscience rapidly translated it." And '\vhat is that other language? "lIe spoke of an infinite Sin: he spoke of all infinite Love;. he spoke of that 1vhich ,vas true then, ","'hatever might become true hereafter. He said, 'Thou art in a .wrong state: hell is a bout thee. God would bring thee into a right state; he ,vouId save thee out of that hell.' The 111an believed the ,yords; something ,vithin him told him they were true, and that for the first time he had heard truth, seen truth, been himself true." There nlay have been "vanities and confusions after,vards, con1ing to hinl from his o,yn dreallls or the crudities of his teachers." But" this 'vas not a delusion-could not be. He had escaped froill the twilight: he had seen the opposite forms of light and darkness no longer miserably confused together. Good was all good; evil ,vas all evil: there was war in hea- ven and earth behveen +helll; in hÍIn, even in him, ,vhere the battle had been fiercest, the odds against good greatest, good had gotten the victory. He had a right to believe that the lllorning star were singing together at the ne,vs of it; othenvise, ,vhy ,vas there such lllusic in his, the I(ings,vood collier's, heart?" (Pp. 26, 27.) Even at the risk of marring such harmony of the sp heres-such melody in the heart,-the vie,v of the SEP.ARATIO OF LIGHT A D DARK ESS. 87 gospel here given must be characterisec1 as strange and novel; especially strange and novel to be propounded by one professing adherence to primitive Christianity and achniration of early Iethodisn1. If it were neces- sary to pronounce a full and final juc1g111ent npon it at this stage of the inquiry, a rigid exan1Ïnation, first of its meaning, and secondly of its n1erits, would be indis- pensable. For that end, the really fine poetry into ,vhich the author makes the conscience of the I{ings- ,, ood collier rapidly translate the preaching of his orator, must be re-translated, n10re slowly, into plain prose. In particular, let the idea of sin,-the sin of man,-which is in1p1ied in it, be specially noticed. The blending of light and darkness,-the confounding together of good and evil,-is our sin: the s2paration of them is our sal- vDtion. Or rather, perhaps, he l11ixture and confusion of light and darkness-of good and evil,-is the" wrong state" in ,, hich we are; and the extrication of the light from the darkness,-the good fron1 the evil,-with the accompanying assurance that even ,vhere the odds against good ,vere the greatest, good has gotten the victory,-this is the" fight state into ,, hich God ,,,"ould bring us." OUf" ,vrong state" is tw"i1ight,-the blend- ing of light and darkness. It is SUSpel13e bet,veen good and evil ;-it is good and evil held, as it " ere, in solu- tion. To rectify our state,-to constitute the right state into which God would bring us,-,vhat is needed is an illumination ,vhich ,vill make darkness flee before 88 DISCOVERY OF D \HK:KESS-oF EVIL. the light ;-a precipitate ,vhich will cause the evil and the good to part company and take opposite forms, as the solution in which they ,vere combined is dissolved, and its antagonist e1elnents come out fron1 one another, ,vide as the poles asunder. Now it is unquestionably true that this blending of light and d rkness,-this confounding of good and evil, -is one of the most nlarked and characteristic features of our ",yrong state." Isaiah seems to indicate this ,vhen l1e says :-' 'V oe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for s" eet, and s,veet for bitter.' It is true, also, that if ,ve are to be "brought into a right state," an indispensable step, if not the first step, is our being made to see and discern, to apprehend and feel, the difference betw'een light and darkness,- behveen good and evil. In the chaos of my moral dis- order and disorganisa tion; the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the "raters-the ",.aves and billo\vs of God ,vhich have gone over me; God says, 'Let there be light.' He sees the light, that it is good. lIe divides the light fronl the darkness,-the good light from the evil darkness. 'I con ent unto the la,v that it is good;' 'I delight in the la,y of God after the in,yard man;'- here is the light, ,vhich is good. And it nlakes the dark- ness visible - palpable ;-' evil is present ,vith me;' , the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.' The light, ,yhich is good, discovers and renders nlore DELIYER.ÄXCE FROl\I EVIL. 89 intense and thick the darkness, 'which is evil. But this earching, discrin1Ïnatillg proce:3 , though essential to my emancipation, is not itself my emancipation. 1\ly ap- prehension of the light,-the good,-opens up to me a ne\v sight, and imparts to me a ne\v sense, of the c1ark- ness,-the evil. It is hvilight no longer. Light and darkness are not no,y blended. Good and evil are not no\v confounded. Is this enough? Am I delivered? .L n1 I en1ancipate and free? Far from it. r.rhe dark- ness, in contrast ,vith the light, is only the n10re thickened into darkness ,vhich can be felt. The evil, rejectec1-condelnned-by the good, is n10re and n10re to me a body of death, from .which, "who shall deliver me?' I must sound the depth of the darkness ,vhich the light exposes: I must know the secret po,ver of the evil 'which the good condemns. I find that secret po\ver in the fact that in n1e, that is in my flesh, d\velleth no good thing, that sin d.welleth in n1e; in the fact also that I am guilty, that I lie under the sentence .which guilt righteously deserves. Nor is there any liberty for n1e until I an1 enabled to perceive ho,y 'there is now no condemnation to them ,vhich are in Christ Jesus, ,yho walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.' This 'vas the preaching of the l\Iethodists from the first. It is so still. Of course it is a testimony to all alike, ,vhether openly ,vicked, or hard and dry fonnalists, not on1y that they n1ay be punished hereafter, but that they are now in a 'wrong state. It is a testimony also 90 CO DITION OF l\rA AS A SIXXER. that God ,vonId bring then1 into a right state. I t severs, nloreover, light and darkness,-good and evil,- thoroughly and for ever. But it ans"\vers, n10re cate- gorically than the author is inclined to answer, the question,-,vherein does the darkness,-"\vhereill does the evil,-consist? It specifies guilt and enluity,- guilt before God, enmity against God,-as the elements of this darkness, this evil. It proclailus loudly that no 111ere discovery of the darkness as distinct from the light, -of the evil as separated from the good,-,vill meet the case; such discovery can only aggrayate the helpless and hopeless n1isery of the luan in whon1, and over "\VhOlU, the darkness-the evil-reigns. The preaching in question announces as the source of light-of good-a definite procedure on the part of God, for expiating the guilt and overcoluing the enlnity. ..A.nd through that procedure it proclailus that even in hilll in 'VhOlll the odds against the good are the greatest, the good 111ay get the victory. It is very ilnportant to observe thus early in the ex- amination of these Essays, the author's vie,v o.f the condition of man, as a silr1er. lIe is in a "Tong state, because he does not rightly know the state in ,vhich, if he would but see it, he actually is, and consequently is not true to himsel or to it. 'V hat is ,yrong about hin1 is righted, not by any act or work of God altering his con- dition, but by his being n1ade to see w'hat he really is. He is brought into a right state by ilhunination lllerely, not by reden1ption and regeneration, in the plain popular ILLU:MIXATIOX. 91 and theological nleaning of these tel'n1S. That upon any view of man's case illumination is necessary, all of course must admit. There must be a clearing up of the dim mist and haze which has settled thick upon our range of spiritual vision: the twilight must be chased a-way before the rising of the Sun of righteousness; and the eye n1ust be purged, and the senses exercised, to discern both good and evil. But the question is,- 'Vhat does this illumination disclose? "That discovery does it nlake to me of IllY position and standing as a subject of the moral government of God,-of Iny character or habit of n1Ïnd as an intelligent creature of God, bound to love, honour, and obey hin1 ,vith all my heart? According to the author, the extrication of the good out of its confusion with the evil, is not only a preliminary to the good in me getting the victory, through my acquiescence in God's .way of dealing 1\?ith the evil; it is in itself alone the cause of the victory; or rather it is the nlanifestation of the victory as already got. In the dark twilight, I fight as one that beateth the air, in a nlingled cro,vcl of fair friends and ugly foes, 1\Those forms and features I cannot discrin1Ïnate, and in whose promiscuous riot I am apt to be overcome. But the day dawns; the shado,ys flee a1\?ay: and 10! I find myself,-the good in me,-conqueror in the strife and master of the field. Evidently the author's view is inconsistent with the idea of there being any radical and essential disorder or de- rangement in nlan's relation to God, and in the state of 92 RIGIITEÛD8XESS, PARDÛX, REXE"\VAL. his affections to,yards God, such as needs to be not Inerely discovered, but ren1edied and rectified. And therefore it is not surprising that he finds no room in his theology, for any 111ention of the Fall, or any esti- mate of its consequences. The early triumphs of Iethodist preaching were notoriously based upon appeals to the conscience. The " orator" spoke to n1en as criminals; guilty, condemned, depraved. r rheir o\vn hearts confessed the charge to be true. The Holy Spirit convinced them. They ,vere told that God in love had given his Son to die in their stead, and was giving his Spirit to lnake theln new creatures in his Son. They believed that there ,vas a righteous pardon for their deep guilt, and a complete rene\val for their impure and unholy nature, in Christ presented to then1 in the gospel. And this faith was their victory. So the first )Iethodists succeeded. And if their descendants, and other modern preachers, have failed in comparison with them,-whatever else may be the cause,-it cannot be their having d,velt too lnuch or too articulately on the guil ,vhich lies on men, and the moral corruption ,vhich characteriscs them, as a race of intelligent creatures, fallen and depraved. But the author thinks he can explain this con1parative failure on our part, in effecting the "processes" ,vhich were common in the first days of l\Iethodism. "... e "fancy," it seen1s, "that the mere machinery, whether earthly or divine, ,vhich they put in nlotion, ,vas the :MACHIXERY-EARTHLY OR DIYIXE. 93 cause of them." "'V e do not thoroughly understand or heartily believe that there is that ,var of Life and Death, of Good and Evil, no,v in every man's heart, as there 'was of old. Therefore we do not speak straightly and directly to both. \Ve suppose men are to be she,vn by arguments that they have sinned, anc1 that God has a right to punish them. ,,-redo not say to them, ' You are under a la,v of love; you know. you are, and you are fighting ,vith it.'" (P. 27.) K ow', in the first place, ,vhat is this" nlere machinery, ,vhether earthly or divine?" The earthly Inachinery of Iethodist arrangelnents and custolns, one can under- stand. But ,vhat is the divine machinery alluded to? Is it the divine plan for expiating guilt by the substitu- tion of the Eternal Son in the room of the guilty,-and for rene'wing the nature by the creative energy of the Holy Spirit? Again, secondly, who refuses to recognise the inward struggle in every nlan's heart, and to addre s as directly as he can the conscience and the ,, ill- the principal parties in the strife? But chiefly, in the third place, ,, hat do I really mean ,,-hen I say to my fellow- men, as the author w'oulel have llle to say, " Yon are under a law of love: you know you are, and you are fighting ,,"ith it?" You are under a law of love. The moral law,-the la,v of the ten conlmandnlents,-the law ,vhose sanction is a curse, or sentence of condenula- tion, upon all transgressors of it,-is a la\v of love. The Gospel,-the 1vord of reconciliation,-the message of 94 L \. "\V -THE L \ 'V OF LOVE. mercy,-is a la,v of love. You are under both; under the one la,v, to be for ever lost; under the other la\v, if you ,viII but believe, to be saved. But neither of these is the law of love which the author has in his vie\v. His la,v of love is likè the law of gravitation ;-it is like one of the laws of extension in space, or proportion in nunlbers. It is that absolute love which is the very nature, and the 'whole nature, of God,-,yorking itse]f out,-unfolding and developing itself along the stre,un of time. You are under it, as you are under the la\v that regulates the fall of a loose ",-all or a slanting to\ver. You are fighting ,vith it, as you might fight ,vith that other la-\v, if you ,vere to linger ,vithin reach of the ÏInpending ruin. But in either case, you have only to recognise the la\v,-the order of nature ;-the la,v or order of material nature in the one case, the la\v or order of the divine nature in the other case; -ancl imme- diately JOll are in a safe position, or in a safe direction. In a subsequent Essay the author refers, ,vith a qualified conlmendation, to Combe's treatise on The Constitution of fiJan. The 011ject of that treatise is to resolve all man's obligatioll and responsibility into what nlay be held to be implied in his subjection to physical la,ys. fThe author does not approve of that theory; he thinks that Ulan has elenlents in his composition \vhich reach beyond mere physicalla,vs. 1\Ian is under higher laws; he is under a la",'" of love. But after all, are not these la ,vs of the saIne kind f They are facts connected VIOLATIO OF LA \V. 95 ,vith actual substances or subsistences near us, touching us, affecting us for " eal or 1voe ;-facts 'which it concerns l'S to kno\v and turn to account. Gravitation i;::; thus a fact or la\v in the nature of n1atter; love is a fact or la,," in the nature of God. r ro be fighting ,,,ith either of these facts or laws, is to be mad and to be miserable. To be falling in with what is fact and la,v, is always wise and safe. O\vning the fact or law of gravitation in the nature of matter, I neither sÌlunble on the rough road nor anl crushed under toppling to\vers. O\vning the fact or law of love in the naÌlue of God, I cease to be a selfish, and become a loving, being. They are both of them laws, in the same sense; and the violation of either of them is, in the same sense as the violation of the other, \vrong. There may be a difference of degree; the wrong of the one violation may be greater than that of the other; to fight with the law of love in the nature of God may be stignlatised as sin; to fight 'with the la,v of gravitation in the nature of matter may be more mildly characterised as imprudence. Still it does not appear that, on the author's shewing, there is more room for legislative and moral government, properly so called, in our relation to God, than in our connexion ,vith matter. Responsibility, guilt, condemnation, judglnent, are as unmeaning terms in his theology as in the philosophy of Combe. 'Vhen the philosophy of Combe on the subject of physicalla,v satisfies the comn10n sense of mankind, the theology of the author on the subject 96 SECL"L \..R AXD SPIRITUAL KKO'VLEDGE. of SIn luay possibly approve itself to their con- SCIcnce. In closing this Essay, the author returns apparently to the ideas of legislation and ethics ,vith ,vhich he set '" out. " Benevolent men ,vish that the poor should kno,v more of legislation and ethics and economy." By all lueans the author ,vould have it so. Better" ,vhat is sincerely cOlllmunicated to them of Economics or Physics" than" insincere artificial theological teaching." At the salue tinle, you luuet "point men to the deeper springs of hUlnanity, from \V hich both ethics and la,vs and econoluics must be feà, if they are to have any freshness or life." Other,vise, even with "Physical Science" along ,vith them, they" nlay theulselves con- tribute to the foundation of superstitions, if the Ulan is not first called into life to receive them and to connect thclu with hinlself." "T e IUUst " call forth the heart and conscience of nlen, so that being first a ble to see their }-'ather in heaven truly, and thenlselves in their true re- lation to him, they may after,vards investigate the con- ditions under which they t lemselves, his children, exist, and the la,vs ,vhich govern all his ,vorks." (Pp. 27-29.) IIere again the author's view comes out,--that Inen do not need to be brought into a new relation to God, but only to see in ,, hat relation they ah'cady actually aloe to him. Almost all that he says, ho,veyer, on the subject of ,vhat is often called secular kno,vledge, is valuable and season- able. And so also, apparently, are the remarks which PREACHI Ó ABOUT THE SOLL. 97 follo,v as to the increasing in1portance, in modern times, of social questions and social aspects of duty :-" Ien are evidently more alive no,v to their social than to their individual \vants; they are therefore more a,vake to the evils which affect society, than to those vdlÏch affect their own souls." (P. 29.) But he adds an observation not very intelligible: "To him "who merely, or mainly, preaches about the soul, this is a most discouraging circumstance." 'Vhy? Is there anything anti-social in our endeavouring to enforce our Lord's question, "'That is a man profited, if he shall gain the w"hole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' Or is the author's remark Inerely one of his pleasant off-hand hits against evange- lical preaching, not to be considered too curiously? To preach about the soul is, perhaps, according to his idea of it, to tell a man that he is hilnself in a position in- volving both criminality and ruin, and that his first and most urgent concern is to be himself saved. This, one \vould think, ",-as what Peter did when' with many words he testified and exhorted, saying, Save yourselvea from this untoward generation.' It is probable that he would say the san1e thing \vere he preaching no\v; nor in thus preaching would he be greatly discouraged by the cir- cumstance that men in these days are so much alive and awake to the evils ,vhich affect society. Doubtless, he would recognise that circumstance, as the author does; he 'would take advantage of it and turn it to the best ac- G 98 EY AXGELICAL EXCLUSIVEXESS. count; although he might 110t deal ,vith it precisely as the author does.- How does the author deal 'with it ? "The sense of sIn" is still a profound " sense of soli- tude." But it lllay "con1e to a lllan" lllOSt fully, "in all its painfulness and agony" ,vhen he recollects" how he has lllade hilnself alone, by not confessing that he was a brother, a son, a citizen." "I believe," the author adds, " the conviction of that Sin lllay be brought home more mightily to our generation than it has been to any former one; and that a tin1e "\vill come, W' hen every family and every man ,vill n10lun apart, under a sense of the strife and divisions of the body politic ,vhirh he has contributed to create and to perpetuate." "The priest and the prophet will confess that they have been greater rebels against the la"\v of love than the publican and the harlot, because they ,vere sent into the world to testify of a Love for all, and a J{ingdom for all, and they have been ,vitnesses for separation, for exclusion, for themselves." (Pp. 29,30.) Those" ,vho n1erely, or mainly, preach about the soul," are evidently the parties here denounced. I t ,vorld be vain to tell the author that they do testify of a love for all, and a kingdom for all; for they say, 'God so loved the "world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him n1ight not perish, but have everlasting life;' and they,varn hypocrites and unbelievers, as the Lord did, that ' the publicans and harlots go into the kingdon1 of God before them.' They preSlUlle to think that they FREE PROCLAi\IATIO OF THE GOSPEL. 99 are thus witnesses, not for exclusion, but against it; and that the message which they have to deliver is fitted, as it is intended, first to reconcile men to God, and then to reconcile them to one another. Of course this does not satisfy the author. According to him, any doctrine .which implies that men are called to con1e into a new state,- a new relation to God ;-and that those w.ho do so COlne are on a different footing with God from that on which those who refuse to come are ;-however wide, unrestrict- ed, unreserved, universal and free, the call may be ;-is a doctrine of separation,-of selfishness. There váll be other occasions for bringing this out more fully. For the present, it is more to the purpose to remark, that conviction of sin against the second great commandment of the la,v, which enjoins equal love of our neighbour, -as ,veIl as conviction of sin against the first, which enjoins supreme love to God,-is really nothing more than our being made to see and feel that we have been going against a general law of being,-the law of love. There is still no acknowledgment whatever of guilt, criminality, corruption,-in connexion with rebellion against that law,-essentially different from what may be said to belong to rebellion against any other law of nature. There is room, indeed, for much difference in the measure of regret, sorrow, shame, compunction, with which I reflect upon my rebellion against different natu- ral laws; according to their different degrees of import- ance in themselves; or ,yith reference to the parties 'with 100 NATURAL LAWS. wholn they connect me. In this view, my grief for my rebellion against the law of love, 'which should bind me to my brethren, to my Father, will be far more poignant and penitential than my grief for having violated any lower . and narrower law of sensient or intelligent being. But that is all. Law, in its truest and highest sense, as the exponent and the instrument of authoritative moral gov- ernment, is not admitted into the author's theory. Sin is not, ,vith reference to that sense of it, the transgres- sion of the la\v. Unitarians of both schools are appealed to at the close of the Essay. Those" of the older school knew some- thing of transgression; almost nothing of Sin. But the transgression ,vas of a rule rather than of a law; breaches of social etiquette and propriety, at Inost uncolnelyand unkind habits, seemed to compose all the evils they took account of, which did not appear in the shape of crimes." (P. 32.) 'Vhy does the author contrast "rule" and "la,v" -" the transQTession of a , b rule" and "the transgression of a law?" A rule implies a ruler; and the transgression of a rule is an offence with which the ruler Inay and must deal as one having authority; either judicially condemning and pronouncing sentence, or in the exercise of mercy remitting the sentence. The transgression of a la","', as the author seems to accept the tenn, may entail sad consequences upon the transgressor; and expose hiln, if it be the law of love, to the wrath of Him who is love. L WS--RULE--RULER--JUDGMENT. 101 This, h01vever, may be altogether apart from any judicial reckoning 'with him,-any trial or condem- nation. Admit that the law of love is administered by God as a ruler, in precisely the same sense in which the la-w of the land is adlninistered by its governors and judges; and the author's system of divinity must be reconstructed from the beginning. The low tone and standard of the old-school U ni- tarian theology, in its estimate of duty and of sin,-as ,yell as in its idea that relaxation of duty and allowance for sin constitute redemption, - cannot satisfy the author's tastes and tendencies. The old" sleepy talk" to "sleepy congregations," about "a God '\yho was 'willing to forgive if men repented,"-a sort of talk for ,vhich he takes just blame to the orthodox as ,yell as the Unitarians,-will not now suffice. "Try ,vhat repentance can. But what can it, if one cannot repent?" There must be a loevelation, or movement, on the part of God, -or both,- causing the repentance required. Nor is the author content to fall in with the vague and impersonal recognition of spiritual po,ver, which Unitarians of the ne,v school o,yn. He asks the old school to carry out their acknowledged idea of God as a father; and the ne\y school to confess, not influences merely, but a person. " 'Ve have an enemy who tries to deprive us even of necessaries." (P.32.) The necessaries are the essential elements of a right state and standing with God, as op- posed to the" religion,-apparently a graceful and refined 102 RELIGION NOT A LUXURY. one,"-which might be " a luxury if 'we could afford it." Upon this issue with the younger Unitarians the author is prepared to do battle. An enemy is trying to deprive us of necessaries; and, "unless you can teach us how to procure them in spite òf him, I and my fello,v-fighters must for the present let your religion alone." (P. 32.) Thus this Essay on Sin closes; ushering in the Es- say on the Evil Spirit. The doctrine of the personality and power of the Evil Spirit is to explain the condition in ,vhich man is, as needing a Redeelner, and ready to welcolne, in that character, a righteous Lord of his being -a Son of God. CHAPTER II. THE GROUNDS OR ORIGINAL ELEJIEXTS OF THEOLOGY AS -\ RE)IEDIAL SYSTE)I.-ESSAYS III. IV. ESSAY III.-O THE EVIL SPIRIT. THE third and fourth Essays may be conveniently con- sidered in connexion vtith one another. They con.e- spond and fit into one another. T,vo po,vers or persons are contending for the possession of man,-the Evil Spirit,-the living Redeelner. Both are near hÎ1n, the one to be resisted-the other to be o,yned. Hence two elements of hope arise out of the twilight as it parts into darkness and light. There is a Prince of darkness whom I may defy; because he is not my righteous Lord, but a usurping tyrant. There is an Angel of light, a. Sun of righteousness, a living Redeemer, whom I Inay fiud closer to me than the Evil Spirit,-in me,- nigh me,-at n1Y heart. Thus, upon d double view of it,-a view of it on both sides,-n1Y case, as a sinner, is seen to adinit of a remedy. The subject of the existence and agency of the Evil Spirit is treated of in connexion ,vith the subject of 104 THE FALL OF MAN Ol\IITTED. human depravity. It is not, ho"wever, brought in to account for that depravity historically, through any such transaction as the temptation of Ilian in innocence and the ruin in which his compliance involved him. The Fall is not recognised at all in this Essay. The author takes man as he finds him, and contemplates his present relation to the Evil Spirit. It might seem only reasonable to inquire, in this discussion, '\vhether there is any difference beh,veen what was man's position ",-ith reference to the Evil Spirit before the Fall, and what is his position now:-and if so, "\vhat the difference is? The author avoids that inquiry. He simply vie"ws luan as he is. Man sins: he violates the la"\v of love; of that love ,vhich is the very nature of God. Is there any explanation to be given of this fact ?-any explana- tion which, 'without in the least justifying or making light of it, may nevertheless, by discovering an enen1Y ,vho has done this, R\vaken a "\vholeson1e feeling of indignant resistance? Such is the practical use which the author woulg. make of the doctrine concerning the Evil Spirit, as developed and applied in this Essay. That this is a legitimate use to 111ake of that doctrine, and one fruitful of not a little both of encouragement and of reproof,-is readily admitted, and may be lliore fully illustrated as the examination of the Essay pro- ceeds. The more in1n1ediate point for consideration, however, is '\vhether the doctrine, according to the author's view of it, really solves and satisfies the THE ORIGIK OF EVIL. 105 experience with regard to sin on 'which he brings it to bear? It is to that point chiefly that attention must no be directed. The connexion in which the author intl'oduces the doctrine, and the use which he means to make of it, may partly account for what otherwise seen1S somewhat strange ;-the apparent confusion of two very distinct topics ,vhich may be traced throughout the Essay. In the opening paragraph itself, there is a fallacy or ambiguity,-a sort of play upon 'Yords,-,, hich might be regarded in other circumstances as of little conse- quence. But as affecting the credit due to the author as a theological 'writer, and as thro,ving light upon n1any of his subsequent statements, it deserves at least a passing notice. The" origin of Evil," is the question raised in the first sentence. It is an old controversy,-a controversy of centuries. And as such, being still as unsettled as ever, it is apt to be rather unceremoniously shelved. But this cannot be; the author cannot allow it; he must of necessity reopen it. He must do so, because practically all mankind are debating it, if not an10ng themselves, at least each within his o,vn breast. ""r e nu8t consider the origin of evil, whether we like it or not." (Pp. 33, 34.) K ow this is either not very intelligent, or it is hardly fair. The author can scarcely be altogether ignorant that, under the phrase, "the Origill of evil," he is con- 106 T'VO QUESTIOXS COXFOUNDED. founding two vcry different questions. And it is not pleasant to find hilll adroitly substituting the one for the other; especially \Vhell the account to which he turns the substitution COlnes to be observed. The two questions lre easily distinguished. The one refers to the entrance of evil into the universe; the other, to the rise and progress of evil in the individual. The one may be said to be luetaphysical; the other, psycho- logical. The difficulty in the one case is to explain ho\v, under a governnlent of infinite po\ver, \yisdom, and goodness, evil has intruded itself into the creation of God. The difficulty in the other case is to account for the adlnitted prevalence of evil over all the race of man, and in every individual of that race, by referring this universal effect to a conlmon cause. The author raises the first question, and \vithout ,yarning slides into the second. The convenience of this procedure becomes apparent before the Essay is far advanced. I am told that I cannot evade the inquiry as to the origin of evil. I follow the author into tha inquiry. I find that under that name, he discusses quite another subject. It is not how evil caIne to be; but how I conle to be evil. The subject, however, is full of intere t. I ,vish to kno\v what is the reason why I am the evil being that I am. And the reason, it seems, is that there is another evil "being, prior to me, and independent of me, to ,vhom someho\v I am subject. This reason is commended as ORIGIN OF EVIL-THEORY OF CIRCIDtSTA:SCES. 107 more satisfactory than the doctrine of my having in- herited a depraved nature. And it is thus that the problem of the origin of evil is solved. \Vith all deference, it may be submitted that the theory of native depravity, and the theory of universal subjection to a depraved power, are nearly equally valu- able for settling the real question about the origin of evil. In plain terms, neither the one nor the other is of any value 1vhatever. They refer, both of them, to a far lower question; "which, however, far more nearly touches human experience and the human heart, and into w'hich, accordingly, the author enters very fully. It being admitted, then, that evil is universal among men ;-that every individual man is evil ;-to ,vhat are we to trace this common feature of the race? 1. It cannot be ascribed to the external world in which men live. "The conclusion, that all evil has its origin in circumstances; that if you make tltem, good, you make men good,"-cannot be maintained. Peculiar temperament,-birth and breeding,-associations at hOllie and abroad,-as well as various other" items" and con- tingencies,-do indeed nlake up "an enormous calcula- tion," if we ,vould estimate the influences by which character is formed. But the author passes all of them in review before him, and concludes that evil is not thus to be accolmted for. It is not by any means that he underrates these influences or is insensible to their power. On the contrary, he gives a just and eloquent sketch of 108 INFLUEKCE OF CIRCU)ISTAKCES. the different positions in ,vhich men are placed, and she,vs ho,v, almost inevitably, it is to a large extent by the peculiarities of these different positions that men are made ,vhat they are. He allows that it is very natural .. for a man to plead these peculiarities of his position in his o,vn defence when he is charged ,vith being wrong, or doing ,vrong. "lIas he not a fight to do so? Can he not prove his case?" And if "we reason in this ,yay about ourselves, can we refuse the advantage of the sanle plea to our fello,vs?" 3Ioreover, "if we are aroused to exertion respecting ourselves or our brethren, it appears as if ,ve directly applied this doctrine to prac- tice." "T e seek for ourselves or for our brethren a change of position, as all but indispensable to a change of conduct. " There are forms of government and forms of belief 1Y hich we wish to see destroyed, because we suppose individual morality can scarcely exist under their shado\v." Still, granting that all this and more may be said for the opinion of those who would make men good by making the circumstances around them good, the author cannot bO along ,vith them so far as they ,vonld carry him. (Pp. 35-37.) 2. Let another method, therefore, be tried. If cir- cumstances make so many evil Í1npressions, there must, many think, be a susceptibility of evil impressions in man. "They cannot persuade themselves that human creatm'es ,yould receive so nlany evil impressions from the slu'rounding world, if there ""as not in them some ORJGI OF EVIL-THEORY OF CORRurTIOX. 109 great capacity for such impressions." "The bad cir- cumstances" cannot" produce the susceptibility to which they appeal, however they may increase it. Ho,v, they ask, did the circumstances become bad?" ,Axe the elements good, but ill-conlbined? vVhat, or ,vho put them out of order? Is there" some one of them that was bad and disturbed the rest? That one must have become so, independently of its circumstances. There must be some evil, ,vhich was not made so by the acci- dents which invested it.." And if so, nlay it not be "reasonable" to say" that this evil belongs to the very nature of man, that it is a corruption of blood?" "Confess that the infection you speak of is in us all, confess that we are members of a depraved race, and you can explain all the phenomena you take notice of; on any other hypothesis they are incon1prehensible." (Pp. 37, 38..) This is evidently meant to be a correct representation of the common theological doctrine respecting man as a fallen being. The correctness of it may be admitted, so far as it goes. It omits, indeed, all recognition of the element of guilt and condemnation, as demanding judicial treatment on the part of a righteous Ruler. And it consequently overlooks the explanation of existing phe- nomena which is furnished by the doctrine, that n1en are living under a dispensation in which judgment is postponed, w'ith a view to definite proposals of mercy. But such as it is, let it in the meanwhile be accepted. 110 CORRurTIOK AKD ITS CURE. "This view of the origin of evil is pregnant," the author says, "with practical consequences; it never can become a nlere theory." l\Iay the corruption be cured? Is" the cure to COlne by the destruction of the substance in ,yhich the corruption d,vells? Or may it be reformed? In either case," the inquiry must be urged, "what is the seat of the lllalady?" and" ho\v is the alnputation to be effected or the ne,,- blood poured in, and the man hilnself" still to "survive?" The world's history," the author adds, "is full of the most serious and terrible answers to these questions,-ansrvers attesting how real and radical the difficulty ,vas which suggested them." (P. 38.) 'Vhat if one should answer,-first, that the corruption is in the whole "nature of man,"-in "his blood," according to the full sense of that phrase in common life; secondly, that the cure is to be effected, neither by destruction of the substance 110r by reformation of the conduct,-neither by amputation nor by the infusing of ne\v blood,-but by a change equivalent to a new birth; and thirdly, that the seat of the malady being in the entire man, the recovery must consequently consist in the entire man being rene\ved ;-the will subjected to the authority and law of God,-the conscience quick- ened to the fear of God,-the heart reconciled to the love of God? Not thus is this author satisfied. He kno,vs appa- rcntly of only hvo practical issues to '\vhich the view in ENTHUSL\..S:U -)IYSTICIS::\[. 111 question leads. " rrhe disease is in my bodr, this flesh, this accursed matter;" -" the flesh must be destroyed; till it is destroyed, I can neyer be better." " 0, it is in the soul that you are corrupted and fallen. The soul must try to recover itself;" either by "thinking high thoughts of itself," as the enthusiast advises; or, as "the mystic" counsels, by " sinking-desiring anni- hilation for itself-dying, that it may kno" what life is." Thus the alternative is put, according to the doc- trine that the infection of evil is in us all,-that .we are members of a depraved race. The disease is in the body :-hence bodily exercise,-" the macerations and tortures of Indian devotees." Or the disease is in the mind :-hence self-deification, or self-annihilation. (Pp. 38, 39.) Such is really a fair summary of the author's state- ment on the subject of the theory which ascribes evil in man to native depravity. He is right on one point. If the theory cannot be better met,-if it must breed these monster superstitions,-they are superstitions ,vhich an age of unbelief may deride; but they have in them a vitality and susceptibility of resurrection apt to be not a little troublesome to the deniers of the supernatural. "These conclusions" must affect not only "a few individuals," but "the whole society in which they are found." There may be occasional reactions, "v-then a general unbelief may take the place of an all-embracing credulity." But" the old notions are not dead; they 112 OnIGI OF EVIL-THE EVIL SPIRIT. cannot die." They are" about you," "within you." "If you call find no clue to them, no explanation of them, they will still darken your hearts and the face of the "\vhole universe." Thus inevitable - thus ineradicable, - are these notions of a destruction of the flesh,-of an exal- tation or death of the soul,- if the explanation of the origin of evil ,vhich refers it to a universal depravity of nature be adn1Ïtted. (Pp. 39, 40.) 3. In this enlergency, accordingly, the author invokes the supernatural. It is a d gnus vl.ndice nodus. And the dells ex 'nzacldnâ is the belief in Evil Spirits. That belief touches a theme far too solemn for even a passing smile. And the use ,vhich the author Inakes of it is fitted to awaken serious thought. .L\.lmost all that he says about it as a fact in history, is valuable. lIe speaks of it, ,rith reference to the hvo former theories, as "an older, ,ve may think quite an obselete, method of accounting for the existence of evil;" ,vhile at the same time he says truly that unless it can be rightly explained, it is as apt as either of the others to "darken men's hearts and the face of the ,vhole universe;" or rather, indeed, a great de'll more so. On this account, any rational and scriptural statement of the doctrine of Satanic agency, such as the author professes to give, cannot but be acceptable. He brings out well the universality of this belief in the heathen ,,'"orld, in "T hich the powers of evil came to be deified, and treated as beings to be conciliated and SEXSE OF BOXD_\GE. 113 appeased. His account of the vie,vs and feelings ,vhich devout Jews cherished is upon the 'whole a fair one. And he seizes with good effect the chief triunlph of Christianity in this particular; - its having set con- spicuously in the view of all the great adversary and antagonist of God and of nlan, as entitled neither to worship nor to compromise, but on the contrary to be resisted 'with unrelenting force of ,vill, and full assur- ance of victory. lIe concludes" that this belief is at least as potent as either of the others, often mixing with them and giving them a new character." And he assigns a reason; "There is in men a sense of bondage to some po,ver ,vhich they feel that they should resist and cannot. That feeling of the' ought,' and the' can- not,' is what forces, not upon scholars, but upon the poorest men, the question of the freedom of the ,viII, and bids them seek some solution of it." In proof or illus- tration of this, the author refers to the eagenless with which men listened "'v hen Covenanters and Puritans were preaching" about such high and deep themes, and he earnestly exclaims: "Oh! let us give over our miserable notion that pOOT nlen only "Tant teaching about things on the surface, or ,viti ever be satisfied .with such teaching! They are grúping about the roots of things, whether we know it or not. You must nleet them in their underground search, and shew them the way into daylight, if you want true and brave citi- zens, not a community of quacks and dupes." True; H 114 COVENA TERS AND PURITANS. most true; and no man is more entitled to speak and write thus than this author, as all who are acquainted with his labours in the direction here indicated must cheerfully and cordially allow. He does ,veIl to recog- nise in men those cravings with which Covenanters and Puritans sought to deal,-and ,vhich it was once a point of fashion with polite divines to overlook and ignore. Possibly he might recognise them to better purpose if he could bring himself to apply to them a litt1é more of the authoritative decision ,vith which Covenanters and Puritans ,vere accustomed to speak in behalf of God,- to vindicate his righteousness and enforce his sentence of condemnation against man's guilt. But at an events it is a sOlmd knowledge of human nature which prompts the slightly sarcastic rebuke with which he concludes his sketch of the "three schemes of the universe" he has been considering;- " You may talk against devilry as you like; you will not get rid of it, unless you can tell human beings ,vhence comes that sense of a tyranny over their very selves, which they express in a thousand forms of speech, which excites them to the greatest, often the most profitles3, indignation against the ar- rangements of t11is ,vorld, which tempts them to people it and heaven also, with objects of ten'or and despair." (Pp. 41, 42.) The "three schemes of the universe" COlne again under review, in the reverse order from that in which TYRANNY OVER THE WILL. 115 theJ have been enumerated. "Each has given birth to theories of divinity, as ,veIl as to a very complicated anthropology." " They show no symptoms of recon- ciliation; yet they exist side by side." But in the light of "the statements ,vhich have embodied themselves in creeds, and are most open to the censures of nlodern re- finement,"-not "according to anJ new conception,"- the author proposes to "ask what Christian theology says of them." (P.42.) 1. " The acknowledgment of an Evil Spirit is cllarac- teristic of ChristianitJ." Doubtless" the dread of such a spirit" existed before; ahvays, indeed, and everywhere. But "in the gospels first the idea of a spirit directly and absolutely opposed to the Father of Lights, to the God of absolute goodness and love, bursts full upon us. There first \ve are taught, that it is not merely some- thing in peculiarly evil men which is contending against the good and the true; no, nor something in all men; that God has an antagonist, and that all men, bad or good, have the same." "This antagonist presents him- self to us, altogether as a spirit, with no visible shape or clothing whatsoever." "He is not a rival creator, or entitled to worship, but a mere destroyer "-" seeking continually to make us disbelieve in the Creator, to for- sake the order that 'we are in." "This tempter speaks to me, to myself, to my will; over that he has estab- lished his tyranny: there his chains must be broken;" although "all things in nature, with the soul and the 116 DEPRAVITY. body have partaken, and do partake, of the slavery to which the man himself has submitted." These" pro- positions" are left to "defend themselves by the light "\vhich they throw on the anticipations and difficulties of the human spirit, by fhe hint of deliverance w.hich they offer it, by the horrible dreams "\vhich they scatter." (Pp. 43, 44, 45.) 2. Among these horrible dreams, the author specially notices" the horrible notion, '\\?hich has haunted moral- ists, divines, and practical men, that pravity is the law of our being, and not the perpetual tendency to struggle against the Ia\v of our being." This notion the gospel " discards and anathematises." "As it confesses an evil spirit \vhose assaults are directed against the ",'ill in nlan, it forbids us ever to look upon any disease of our nature as the ultimate cause of transgression." (P. 45.) Evidently he means to represent "looking upon some disease of our nature as the ultimate cause of transgres- sion," and" the horrible notion that pravity is the law of our being," as identical. _tnd just as evidently he means thus to characterise,-perhaps to stigmatise,-the CUITent theological doctrine on the subject of human depravity. It is difficult to see ho\v "pravity" can be at once "a disease of our nature" and" the law of our being." It is equally difficult to understand ,,?hat is meant by "the ultimate cause of transgression." Does the author hold that "the tyranny of the Evil Spirit over the will" is "the ultimate cause of transgression?" SENSE OF SIN. 117 l\Iay not the ",.ill itself be "the ultimate cause of transgression;" and may not "the assaults of an evil spirit against it," as well as "the disease or pravity of our nature," be conspiring or combining forces influenc- ing the determination of the will? Certainly if the sense of sin depicted in the previous Essay is a reality, the feeling of the sinner is,-I am " the ultimate cause of the transgression," -I Inyself;- I alone, I "rilled it. No matter ",.hether I willed it in subjection to an evil spirit, or in subjection to a "disease of my nature," or in subjection to both. I nevertheless,-I ,villed it. I caused it. And I .willed it freely, of my own choice, under no compulsion or coercion of any sort. To explain my willing it, by telling me that my ,vill is in bondage to an evil spirit, is to meet my case, as Eve sought to meet her o,vn case, before a just and penitential sense of sin visited her; , the serpent beguiled me and I did eat.' To explain my ,villing it, on the other hand, by telling me that my .will is under bondage to a disease of my nature which is the ultimate cause of transgression, - may perhaps be equivalent to representing pravity as the la,v of my being. But to explain it, as Paul did, ,vhen he said, 'I find a la\v in Iny members " an'ing against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin in my members,'-is consistent ,vith both of the facts upon which these other explanations might be sapposed to proceed; and maintains entire, ,vhat neither 118 ORIGIN OF EVIL-FREEDOl\I OF THE "'"ILL. of the others does, my individuality,-my responsi- bility;-the standing of the I,-the ego,-in me, which above all things I must vindicate as my very manhood. Pravity is not this I,-any more than an evil spirit is this I. Pravity may influence me. The evil spirit may assail me. But neither the one nor the other is either the law of my being, or the ultimate cause of transgression. By pravity, or by an evil spirit, it may be said, I am what I am,-as Paul says the con- verse of this of hinlself as a converted and renewed man-' by the grace of God I am hat I am.' But it is for what I am, from whatever cause, that I am responsible. It is I ho am,-it is my ,vill ,yhich is,- "the ultimate cause," either of transgression, or of obedience ;-according to the only meaning in which the expression" ultimate cause" can have any relevancy here ;-the meaning, namely, that it is the really re- sponsible cause, beyond which it is vain to look for any other explanation either of the sin, or of the sense of sin, with which, as a matter of fact, the gospel has to deal. On the ,vhoIe, it doeR not appear that either the question of the origin (f evil, or the question of the freedom of the il1, receives much light from the doctrine of the tyranny of an evil spirit, as that doctrine is placed in contrast to the doctrine of man's entire depravity. "Thatever difficulty there may be in eXplaining how my will, though subject to the depravity of my nature, still acts so freely as to make me the PL...\.GUE OF SELF-SPIRIT OF SELFISHNESB. 119 proper cause of my ow.n transgression,-there is pre- cisely the same difficulty in eXplaining how my will, though subject to the tyranny of an Evil Spirit, does so. In both views alike there is the "ought," and the " cannot," -all the same. But they need not be contrasted. They may be com- bined. And so they are, at least apparently, before the author leaves the subject. He too believes in "pravity.H And he thinks that "by setting forth the spirit of selfishness as the enemy of man, the gospel explains, in perfect coincidence with our experience, wherein this pravity consists; that it is the inclination of every man to set up for himself, to become his own law and his O'\"\îl centre, and so to throw all society into discord and disorder. It thus explains the conviction of the devotee and the mystic that the body must die, and that tbe soul must die. Self being the plague of man, in some most ,vonderful sense he must die, that he may be delivered froln his pravity. And yet neither body nor soul can be in itself evil. Each is in bondage to some evil power." (Pp. 45, 46.) The evil spirit is "the spirit of selfishness." This means, it is to be presumed, that he is himself intensely selfish,-that he is the impersonatioll of selfishness,- that selfishness is the characteristic,-the moving princi- ple,-of his active moral being. Thus selfish himself he finds men selfish too; self being the plague of man. This self in man must die. And the spirit of selfish- 120 TE:\IPTA TIOX. ness tyrallnising over man must be overcome. Are these t".o operations, or are they one? Perhaps the question is premature. But it is necessary to indicate here that it is a question 'which must be raised. lTpon the answer to it which may be gathered fronl this and the subsequent Essays, will depend the solution of a grave doubt,-how far the authoT really holds the tyranny of the Evil Spirit and the pravity of Inan as distinct and independent doctrines,-nay ho,v far, in any well-defined sense, he really holds either. Unless, indeed,-he holds them as distinct and independent, the one from the other, it may questioned how far, to any practical purpose, he can recognise them at all. That I am a fallen being,-that, under whatever tenlptation, I have aspired to be as God,-that my "in- clination" is to be "my o\yn la\v and n1Y own centre," -that" self is my plague,"-I deeply feel. That as a fallen being myself, I have come into a relation to other fallen beings,-to an evil spirit,-implying a large measure of subjection on my part and tyranny on his part, J am compelled to own. But the hvo things do not explain or account for one another. ' rhe one may exist 'without the other. If there be an evil bpirit, the one has existed without the other. In the case of the evil spirit himself, - a fallen spirit of course, unless )Ianichæism is to be our refuge,-what is to be said? lIas he the feeling of the "ought" and the "cannot? " If he has not, he cannot have intelligence, or conscience, SURREXDER OF THE WILL TO EVIL. 121 or \vill, analogous to ours; in which case he cannot be our tempter, or our tyrant. If he has, .whence and how did he get it? This is not an unfair question 'when it is the origin of evil that is under discussion. I t cannot be evaded other- wise than by having recourse to something like the Indian method of supporting the earth upon an elephant, the elephant upon a tortoise, and so on indefinitely. It is directly in point to ask the question. And the point of it is this. The tyranny of an evil spirit over me is brought in to shew me \vhy I feel myself bound and enslaved,-to solve the mystery of my being,-the "I ought" and the" I cannot." If I am myself innocent and holy,-if I am pure from pravity and loyal to the Supreme,-it is difficult to see how any assaults of the evil spirit should enslave me, or make me feel - I " ought" but I "cannot." Certainly not unless my will surrenders,-unless I w'illingly consent. And if I do thus \villingly consent, and my \vill surrenders,-to 'what do I consent- to \vhat does my will surrender? Not to the evil spirit, but to the seeming good and the seeming true which he presents to me as his temptation. The instant I give in, I find myself in the position in which the evil spirit is; not, however, because he has been my tyrant; but because at his instance, when he ,vas not my tyrant, I did as he had done. He and I might never afterwards lneet. He n1Ïght never use another art, or wield another "weapon, against me. 122 :MYSTERY OF THE BONDAGE OF SIN. V\r ould I at all the less in that case have the feeling of bondage-the "I ought " but "I cannot?" \Ve do meet, ho\yever. And I find that he has an ascendancy over me. I am told also that his ascendancy over nle is the true explanation of my bondage and my feeling of it. Can I fail to ask ,vhat is the explanation of his? F or I alll as certain of his bondage and his feeling of it, as I alll of my o\vn. Otherwise he is again to Ine the rival of my Creator; and as such, he is to be appeased, or to be ,vorshipped. The truth is, the confusion of ideas as to the question of the origin of evil which is so noticeable at the begin- ning of this Essay, pervades it to the end. In account- ing for the origin of evil in the race of man, the agency of an evil spirit l11ay be introduced. He is the tempter. But he is the tempter of innocence. Before the tempta- tion, and the surrender of the will to temptation, there is neither tyranny on the tempter's part, nor subjection on the part of man. In seeking to ascertain the source and the strength of evil in the individual man,-in my- self for instance,-I may know that the evil spirit is not now my tempter merely, but my tyrant. And I may deeply feel and resent my subjugation to him. I cannot, however, accept anything I know, or anything I feel, of my relation to the evil spirit as a solution of the mystery of my bondage. For I instinctively know and feel that the bondage is common to me,-and the sense of it is common to me,-with the evil spirit him- RELATIO TO THE HOLY ONE--GUILT. 123 self,-,vho had no tempter and has no tYloant,- but having been my tempter, has become my tyrant. Thus the doctrine of the tyranny of the evil spirit, if it is to explain the phenomenon or fact to be accounted for, really implies the doctrine of human depravity; and on the other hand, the doctrine of human depravity sets aside and makes irrelevant the explanation founded on the doctrine of the tyranny of the evil spirit. But in fact, the sense of sin in man is not to be resolved either into an impression of subjection to a foreign force, or into a consciousness of inherent pravitr. The sense of sin may bring me into contact with both; but it is caused by neither. It is a primary, original, independent conviction in the mind of a \vrong-doer, or a wrong-thinker, possessed of reason, conscience, and will. And it has respect, not to an evil spirit, not to pravity of nature, but to the Holy One, and the relation of that wrong-doer or wrong-thinker to the Holy One. The thought which haunts me is not that an evil spirit rules me, nor that inl1erent pravity lnakes me ,vhat I am, but that I sin against the Holy One. And my first glimpse of hope must spring from the assurance, not that he can conquer the evil spirit ",.,.ho rules me,- not even that he can renovate the pravity of my nature, -though I must believe that he can do both,-but that he, the Holy One, can righteously rid me of that con- sciousness of guilt,-that criminality or blameworthi- ness,-that feeling of ill-desert,-which is the real ulti- 124 THE DEVOTEE AND THE 1\IYSTIC. mate cause of the bondage in which I am, and the sense or feeling of bondage which is in me. A capital defect in this Essay is the omission ,vhich, for the pre- sent, it is enough thus to indicate. In the meantime, let the element of correspondence or adaptation behveen man and his tyrant be observed. The plague of man is self; the evil spirit is the spirit of selfishness. The suggestion of the evil spirit to me is to set up for myself, to consult for myself, to act for myself; and I am but too ready to comply .with the suggestion. This is my plague, from which by dying "in some most wonderful sense" I am delivered. It is not dying in the sense of "the devotee and the mystic" who are convinced "that the body must die, and that the soul n1ust die." "Neither body nor soul can be in itself evil. Each is in bondage to some evil power. If there be a God of order mightier than the Destroyer, body and soul must be capable of redemption and restoration." (P. 46.) 3. "And thus this theology comes in contact ,vith that wide-spread and lllost plausible creed ,vhich attri- butes all evil to circuln tances." It admits all "the facts from ,vhich this creed is deduced." It" justifies in principle the prudential alleviations of the evil to which ,ve all do and must resort." Let "injurious influences be taken away from a man," because he is apt" to think that they are his rightful masters, and to act as if they "\vere;" and also because he ought to kno,v I IIERITÀNCE OF EVIL FRo r .ADAM. 125 " what has robbed him of his freedom, whose yoke needs to be broken if he is not always to be a slave." He will discover that" the tyranny which is over him is a tyranny over his whole race." " "'\Ve shall never give l1Ìm any clearness of mind, or any hope, unless 've can tell him that the spirit of selfishness is the common enemy, and that he has been overcome." (Pp. 46, 47.) It is not necessary to inquire particularly 'what bear- ing these remarks have on the real question at issue. It may be more useful to follow the author in what may be regarded as the practical application of his views respect- ing the evil spirit, and the conllexion of his agency ,vith human depravity. The "deeply-rooted aversion" w'ith '\vhich U nitari- ans regard "the doctrine of the existence and person- ality of the Devil," is so thoroughly understood by the author, that he almost" shrinks from saying, I maintain this dogma." But he will satisfy them that he must maintain it, and even reconcile them to his maintaining it, for he finds in it a defence against "some of the hard- est, most mischievous theories of our modern popular divinity,-those ,\v1Úch shock the moral sense and rea- son of men most, those 'which most undermine the belief in God's infinitp. charity." (Pp. 47, 48.) The first of these pestilent heresies is the representa- tion usually given of our fallen state. "TTé talk of the depravity of our nature, of the evil we have inherited from Adam," instead of saying" as the men in the old 126 WHAT ARE WE BY N_t\.TURE? time would have said bravely, meaning what they said, "Ve are engaged in a warfare with an evil spirit; lze is trying to separate us from God, to make us hate our brethren.'" (P.48.) This, according to the ordinary view, the evil spirit tried at first, when man was yet innocent. ...4.nd he succeeded. Of course he is trying still to keep us in the state into ,vhich he brought us. But the question is, Are men separated from God, and selfish haters of their brethren? Is that their condition and character by nature? If so, then until there is a thorough radical change of both,-of their condition and of their character,-it is idle to talk of a brave battle ,yith an evil spirit. The point at issue lies pre- cisely here. The author says that an evil spirit is trying to separate us from God and make us hate our brethren. Are \ve not separated from God-is not self the plague of man-naturally? "That every child of Adam has this infection of nature, I must entirely and inwardly believe; "-so the author writes, with immedi- ate reference to that very" depravity of our nature," that "evil we have inherited from Adam" of which he says " we talk," when the men of old would have talked of doing battle against the evil spirit. "\Vhat is "ihis infection of nature" ,vhich the author believes that every child of Adam has? Is it ungodliness, uncharitable- ness, selfishness? Is it that we are naturally what the evil spirit is trying to make us? If not, ,vhat is it? Nor ,vill it avail to represent the holders of the conl- ACTING ACCORDING TO NATURE. 127 mon doctrine as saying that" this infection of nature forces us to commit sin," and to stigmatise their saying so as " a very close approximation" to "what the Jews of old said, - what the prophets denounced as the most flagrant denial of God,-lfTe are delivered to do all these abom'inations;" -an approximation to "this de- testable heresy" so close as to have" called forth an indignant and a righteous protest from many classes of their countrymen, the Unitarians being in some sort the spokesmen for the rest." (P. 48.) The author strangely enough confolmds the Antinolnian boast of irnpunity,- we are at liberty to commit sin,-with the sort of fatalism which he means to impute to "some of our popular statements," -we are forced to commit sin. But, in- deed, what is it that he really means? vVhen a free agent acts according to his nature, does he act upon compulsion? He whose nature is perfect love cannot but do works of love. Would it be right to say that the perfection of his nature forces him to do them? He whose plague is self, may have that plague as an infec- tion of natlITe so thoroughly that he cannot but do ,yorks of selfishness, which are works of sin. Is this fairly equivalent to saying that the infection of his nature forces him to commit sin? \Vhat of the evil spìrit? His nature is infected; deeply infected; on the author's o,vn showing, pure malignity is the essence of it. And yet it must be presumed that he acts freely,-not under force or com- l)ulsion,-when the malignity of his nature moves him to 128 COl\fPULSIO N. tempt anù tyrannise over man. Nay further, is there more of force and compulsion when a man acts in accordance with his nature, - be that nature holy or infected,-than \v hen he acts in compliance \vith the power or influence of a tyrant? But in fact, does the author admit infection of nature in any real sense,-to any extent at all? Does he allo\v that a Ilian is in any degree, even partially, influenced in his acting by that infection of nature? Be that influence ever so slight, it is, as he represents the matter, force and compulsion so far as it goes; it luust be so, if it is force and compul- sion \vhen the infection of nature is such as to influence him altogether. It is a mere evasion of the difficulty in which he himself is, to taunt those \vho "maintain the , absolute, universal, all-pervading depravity' of human nature" with resorting to "the feeble and pusillanimous course of introducing modifications into the broad phrases with \vhich" they start, and using "pretty lnetaphors " about '" beautiful relics of the divine image,' 'fallen colulnns,' &c." (Pp. 48, 49.) The taunt may pass for argument with some; and perhaps metaphors had better be avoided on " a subject of such solemn and personal interest." The advocates of the obnoxious doctrine in question are quite prepared to say, \vithout a metaphor, -and indeed are in the habit of saying,-that there is good to be found among fallen men,-good qualities, good affections, good deeds,-which may be ascribed partly to their essential humanity, and partly also to the DEPllA YITY -UKGODLIKESS. 129 dispensation of divine forbearance under which they are. 'Y11at they allege respecting deprayity is quite consistent ,vith their saying that. They hold, however, not vaguely and with modifications "reducing their assertions into mere nonentities," but distinctly and ",-ithout qualifica- tion, that in so far as our relation to God and the state of our heart to'wards God are concerned, our depravity,- the derangement or infection of our nature,-is thorough and entire. And they hold, moreover, that lmtil there is a thorough and entire change in our relation to God and in the state of our heart toward God, 'we can neither be delivered from the plague of self ,vhich makes even the most amiable and kindly of us unsocial and unlovely, nor emancipated from the tyranny of the evil spirit, and put in a position to wage a braye ,,"'arfare 'with him. These are explicit enough statements. Are the author's own statements equally so? "Till he tell us plainly, and ,,-ithout "equivocations," ,vhat kind or amount of infection of nature he admits, as being safe from the very appearance of approximation to the "detestable heresy," -that "this infection forces us to commit sin?" In particular, to come back to the real point at issue, 'will he say whether the evil spirit, ,,-hen he "tries to separate us from God, to make us hate our brethren," finds us already, by infection of nature, lmgodly and selfish, or merely capable of becoming ungodly and selfish at his instance and under his in- flu nce and po,ver? Are we all naturally, what Adam I 130 OLD 'YAY OF STATING THE CASE. is usually understood to have "been "before the Fall, apt to yield to the evil spirit trying to separate us from God? Are we so apt to yield as to make it morally certain that all of us, more or less, ,vill yield-to make .. it matter of fact that with scarcely an exception, if '\vith any, we do yield? Is that our "infection of nature? " Or is it something more than that? If so, yáll the author have the goodness to shew ,, hat it is,-as distinct from the hereditary and entire depravity asserted in the ordinal"y doctrine,-and how it is less open to those objections against that doctrine which he regards as so formidable and so fatal? The real question is,-Are we, or are we not, by nature, ,vhat the author says that an evil spirit is trying to make us? That question must "be n1et, and not evaded. Is it met by the final explanation Trhich the author gives? He asks "vVhat is pravity or depravity,- affix to it the epithets universal, absolute, or any you please,-but an inclination to something that is not right,-an inclination to turn aw"ay from what is right, that which is the true anJ proper state of him who has the inclination? 1Vhat is it that experiences the incli- nation; what is it that provokes the inclination? I "believe it is the spirit within me which feels the inclina- tion; I believe it is 8 spirit speaking to my spirit who stirs up the inclination. That old ,yay of stating the case explains the facts, and commends itself to my reason." (P. 49.) RECOG ITIO OF A SPIRIT AS THE TE)IPTER. 131 It is an old ,,'"ay of stating the case. It is, after all, ",ery much like the way in ,vhich the old Unitarians stated the case, with scarcely any material or practically important difference. The author's doctrine that it is a spirit speaking to my spirit who stirs up the inclination, is really equivalent to little more than that the inclina- tion is stirred up by the suggestion of motives and the application of influences to my spirit. Probably not a few Unitarians, of the old school as well as of the ne,v, migh t not be very unwilling to admit an unseen agency of some kind at ,york, suggesting these motives and applying these influences. They might acknowledge an evil spirit, and believe that he is dealing thus, in a very powerful manner, 'with men. But after all, they might say, is not our direct and immediate business "\vith those motives and influences of which we are con- scious? If "'"e fight Inanfully 'with these, "\ve fight with the evil spirit. How othenvise can we ll1eet him? "That is gained by bringing the invisible enemy him- self so much forward, instead of setting us to grapple with the palpable means and instruments he uses?- Much, the author ,vould reply. "The whole battle of life becomes infinitely more serious to me, and yet more hopeful; because I cannot believe in a spirit ,vho is tempting me into falsehood and evil, without believing that God is a spirit, and that I am bound to hillI, and that he is attracting me to truth and goodness." (P. 49.) It might have been well for our mother Eve, if Satan 132 ELE IENTS O} 1VEAKNESS. had not disguised himself as an angel of light, if he had been revealed to her in his o,yn malignant nature. The l'ecognition of an evil spirit tempting her into false- hood and evil, might have set her to think of the Spirit of all good to who , as her gracious l\Iaker, she ,vas bound, ,vho ,vas attracting her to truth and goodness. Place Ine again ,vhere Eve ''''as; nlake me again what Eve was; let file be upon a right footing with IllY God; let my lleart be right \vith God. Then let me see the enemy face to face, a living, powerful, tyrant spirit; and forewarned, forearmed, I fight against him valiantly. But my conscience tells Ille that I am a criminal and rebel. l\Iy heart upbraids me 1vith disaffection and disloyalty. Shew me ho\v these elements of weakness are to be got rid of; and then again I rouse myself to the combat. Till then I incline rather to compromise and special pleading; I am fain to shelter myself under the old apology of circuIllstances and influences; I can but hang IllY head and feebly complain,-' The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.' llere the examination )f this Essay lllay close "\vith a mere notice of another of "those hardest, most mis- chievous theories of our modern popular divinity," against which the author finds a defence in the doctrine he has been teaching about the evil spirit. This second pestilent heresy is "the unsightly, and to him quite portentous, Î1llagination of Illodcrn divines," ,vho, it seems,. hold that there" has been a ,yar in the divine . 'Y \.R BETWEEN JUSTICE AND :MERCY. 133 mind beh\?eCll justice and lnercy; and that a great scheme ,vas necessary to bring these qualities into reconciliation." He thinks that the belief that "an evil spirit is dra\ving men aw.ay both froin mercy and righteousness, is a practical witness against any notion of this kind." :\Ien holding strongly that belief must feel "that to be in a healthful nloral state, they must be both just and merciful; that there must be a perfect unity and harmony between these qualities; that what- ever puts them in seeming division comes from the Evil Spirit; that it is treason to ascribe to the archetypal mind that \vhich destroys the pnrity of the image. The God w.ho is to deliver men from this strife, cannot him- self be the subject of it." (P. 50.) Does the author really not know that when theologians speak of a \var between justice and nlercy, they refer not to a strife in the divine mind, but to a crisis or exigency in the divine governn1ent? If he does not kno,v this, or if he cannot see the difference between these two things, he is an incompetent theologian. Of the other alternative it is lmnecessary to speak. True, there nlust be no strife-there can be no strife-in the mind of the God who is to deliver us from the strife which the evil spirit causes. But \vhat is that strife? Is it not the divorce of justice and mercy? Iercy \viII prevail against justice; 'ye shall not surely die.' The author's plan, apparently, is to diso,vn both attributes. In his system there is no room either for justice or for mercy; 134 FIG-HT WITH ""ORLD, FLESH, DEVIL. for there is no sentence of condemnation, and no re- mission of it. All is resolved into love, and a law of love ,vorking itself out somehow, as any other law of nature must do. The divine plan, on the other hand, refuses either to diso,vn or to dissever the perfections of justice and mercy in God. It exhibits their harmony in Christ,--in Christ as meeting the claims of justice; causing mercy and truth to meet together, righteousness and peace to embrace each other. In that "Tay it destroys the strife which the devil would fain perpetuate. The concluding appeal to the younger men anlong the Unitarians is full of po,ver. "Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress,"-" the fight with Apollyon,"-are owned by thelll as real. Apart from the" old Hebrew drapery" there are "abysses and eternities ,vith which men have to do,-valleys of the shadow of death, if you like that language." By all means, replies the author, let" the outside" be given up; "to the inside I hold fast." But" these eternities and abysses of yours look to me very like outsides, mere drapery." Strip it off, and '\vhat remains? "The l1istory of some nlental process no doubt ;-.but the nr"ture of the process? Is it a shado\v-fight? Is it a game of blacks and ,vhites, the same hand moving both? " No, says the author. Yon w'ill be sin1ple, healthy, victorious, true,-it is "the result of my o,,"n experience,"-" ,yhen you have courage to say, ",redo verily believe that ,ve have a world, and a flesh, and a DEVIL, to fight ","ith.'" Certainly the PRELI)IIN ARY TO THE FIGHT. 135 battle of life is not a game of blacks and ,,'"hites, moved by the san1e hand. I am not a lonely amateur, getting up a fight upon a chess-board to interest or amuse my solitude. I am engaged in a real strife with a real enemy, to ,vItom n1Y sin,-my guilt,-my depravity,- giyes an immense advantage over me. If I am to cope ,vith him successfully, I must first of all come to an un- derstanding ,vith another being,-the Being to 'whom I really belong and am legitimately bound. The adjust- ment of his claims as a Ruler upon me as his subject,- and of ll1Y peace "ith him,-must be as real and per- sonal as my warfare with the evil spirit; and must precede any hopeful prosecution of that ,varfare. The author himself seelns to admit, that there must be some divine panoply. Addressing a parting 'word in this Essay to the younger Unitarians, he promises to she\v them,-before they believe, or know that they believe, what he has been telling them of the evil spirit,-" that in their heart, as much as in his O"\vn, there is a witness for righteousness and truth, ,vhich ,vorld, and flesh, and devil, have been unable to silence." (P. 53.) This, ac- cordingly, he proceeds to do in the next Essay. Let it be observed, how.ever, in leaving the present Essay, that not a hint is given of any personal bansaction between a man and his Iaker,-such as judicial reckoning and renovation of nature. There is no need of any such transaction to be the preliluinary to an effectual struggle with the evil spirit,-there is no room for it in the 13G EXPERIEXCE OF JOB. author's theology. 'Vhat he undertakes to shew is that, quite apart from all procedure of that sort, every man has in himself, as the root of his being, a living Re- deemer, ,vhom if he ,viTI but own, he is more than a match for ,vorld, flesh, and devil, all combined. ESSAY IV.-OY THE SE SE OF RIGHTEOUS:NESS IN l\IEN, AND THEIR DISCOVERY OF .A. REDEE)IER. The experience of Job is the beginning and end of this Essay. It is not necessary to inquire how far the author's vie"\v of the Book,-or his view of the character of Job and the dealings of God ,vith him,-may or may not be recognised as Scriptural and sound. lIe makes Job the representative of manhood generally, and of every in- dividual man in particular. lIe finds nothing in the experience of Job ,vhich is not common to the ,vhole l.ace. And he finds also, in every member of the race, the elements of the experience of Job. These elements are two in number. The one is a sense of righteousness; -- the other is resentment of pain. The sense of righteousness is a protest against the charge of sin: the reselltnlent of pain is a protest 3gainst the call to sublnission. IIaving the sense of righteousness, I cannot adn1Ît the charge of sin '\"ithout an explanation on my part: having the resentnlent of pain, I cannot yield to suffering '\vithout an explanation SEXSE OF RIGHTEOL'SXESS-PAIY. 137 on the part of God. If I must confess that I sin, I must be allowed, in doing so, to vindicate Iny righteous- ness: if I must consent to suffer, I must be permitted to ask the reason '\vhy, and with whatever docility I can con1mand, to require an answer. These are the prin1ary elmnents of genuine human experience. They pass, as the Essay advances, into principles of the divine government. Or rather, they are found to meet in a divine Person. The righteous- ness of \vhich every man has a sense, is identical with the Redeemer. The acknowledgment of his right to be set free from evil, is identical with the redemption. Thus 'I know that Iny Redeemer liveth..' The sense of righteousness is associated with the sense of sin. The resentment of pain has associated .with it the sense or feeling of a claim to deliverance from pain. In this double antithesis, the idea, or belief, of a Redeemer and a redenl ption takes its rise. The sense of righteousness and the sense of sin, are intimately bound up in one another. They are so in the case of Job, as the author puts it in the very begin- ning of the Essay :-" The suffering n1an has the n10st intense personal sense of his o,vn evil. He makes also the most vehement, repeated, passionat protestations of his o\vn righteousness." (P. 54.) His friends may ask -" \vhy does he indulge in such dreadful wailings, which must be offensive to the Judge who has affiictecl ltim? Above all, ho\v dares he talk, as if a In an might 138 SENSE OF SIN-RIGHTEOUSNESS. 'be just 'before God? IIow could he, who complained that he possessed the sins of his youth, nevertheless de- clare, that there was a purity and a truth in him, which the Searcher of all hearts would at last ackno,vledge (P. 55.) As the trial goes on, the two feelings grow in intensity, apparently strengthening one another. Job's " consciousness that he has a righteousness, a real sub- stantial righteousness, which no one shall remove from hiln, which he will hold fast and not let go, ,vaxes stronger as his pain becomes bitterer and more habitual. There are great alternations of feeling. The deepest ackno,y ledgmen ts of sin come forth from his heart. But he speaks as if his righteousness were deeper and more grounded than that. Sin cleaves very close to him; it seems as if it ,vere part of himself, almost as if it ,vere himself. But his righteousness belongs to him still more entirely. IIo,vever strange the paradox, it is more lzÙnself than even that is." (Pp. 56, 57.) v'-'-hether this is a true representation of Job's feel- ings or not,-is not no,v the question. It represents truly the author's view of what is the common experience of man. (P. 59.) Accordingly he tells us that" clergymen and religi- ous persons" who" have conversed at all seriously with men of any class,"-" hear from one and all, in some language or other, the a3sertion of a righteousness which they are sure is theirs, and ,vhich cannot be taken from them." Amid all their confession and feeling. of sin, SENSE OF PAIS. 139 and all their fear of judgment, " there is a secret reserve of belief that there is in them that which is not sin, which is the very opposite of sin." If you tell them that this is wrong, "that 'God be merciful to me ' is the only true prayer, that God's la,v is very holy, that they have violated it, and so forth,-they ,vill listen-they may assent" -they may be silent. But not "the best and honestest." " The man 'who cries, Till I die Y01t sllall not take 'lny integ1" .t!J fr07n 1ne,-may be nearest, if the Bible speaks right, to the root of the matter, nearest to repentance and humiliation." At all events, " each man has got this sense of a righteousness, '\v11ether he realizes it distinctly or indistinctly, whether he expresses it courageously, or keeps it to himself." (Pp. 60, 61.) Such is the author's account of the first elenlent in human experience, as identified with the experience of Job. Omitting the some'what supercilious, and not very respectful allusion to the holy law of God, the viola- tion of it, " and so forth,"-it is impossible not to notice the extreme vagueness of this description. Nor is the falùt amended by 'what he says of "that other convic- tion ,vhich Job uttered so manfully, that pain is an evil and comes from an enemy, and is contrary to the naÌlue and reason of things." Some questions n1ight here be asked. Is the enemy from ,vhom pain comes the evil spirit? If so, how is this to be reconciled w'ith the in- fliction of punishment on the part of God? If not, if pain is a salutary discipline,-which is the author's only 140 rAIN-FRO ! WHO)! DOES IT CO:\IE? idea of pUllishment,-ho"\v is the conviction that it comes from an enenlY to be justified or eXplained? An enemy may be the instrument,-the subordinate agent; "\vork- ing, as in Job's case, by express permission from God, and under restrictions previously fixed by God. But Job ùoes not recognise him in that capacity. On the contrary, the very object of Satan is to make Job feel that the pain comes from an enemy,-that God is the enemy,-and that the sufferer had better seek l.elief in an alliance or compron1Ïse with hin1self: Job resisted this feeling. lIe never o"\vned Satan as the party from \vhom his pain came. He traced it all to God. And \vhatever darkness might envelope the whole procedure, he never thought of regarding the God from \v horn his pain came, as on that account an enemy. His victory in the trial was that he refused to do so. Such ques- tions and remarks, however, n1ay be classed by the author among the "cool, disinterested reflections," for "\v hich "the "\vitness of the conscience,-of the \v hole man,-on this point, is too strong." "It is no tiule for school distinctions between soul and body." "I t is not a Redeemer for his soul that man asks, lllore than for his body,"-but a deliverer from "the condition in 'which he is." " '1'0 be as he is, is not, he thinks, according to nature and order. He asks God, if he asks at all, to shew that it is not according to his will." (Pp. 61, 62.) It is apparently a bold demand. It compels at all events an examination of what the author says in the SATAN'S FEELIXG OF SIN A!\D PAIN. 141 'way of eXplaining, defining and identifying, the fact or phenomenon in human experience,-the instinct of man's nloral nature,-on which he bases the den1and; and to ,yhich he attaches so much inlportance as to make it the germ of man's idea of a Redeemer,-if not even the ground of his belief in a Redeemer. It is important, then, to know what is real in the instinct or experience to ",vhich the author appeals;- what is really natural. The sense of sin and the resent- Inent of pain are the fundan1ental elen1ents of this inquiry. They are the clata,-the assumed or conceded facts. K o'v it is true that the sense of sin involves as its counterpart or correlative, a sense of righteousness; and the acconlpanying resentment of !)ain involves a sense of some claim to deliverance-or at least of some deliver- ance that may be claimed. Let the sense of sin and the resentment of pain be genuine. Let them have respect to God, and. my relation to God. I sin against God; God inflicts pain upon me. If I do unreservedly own these two facts, it must be because I am enabled to see a righteousness and a redemption,-or a righteous redemp- tion,-adequate to Ineet both of them; either apørt, or both together. So human-no rational being, can really feel sin apart from righteousness,-or pain apart from redemp- tion. The evil spirit,-)Ianichæism being out of the question,-sins and suffers; he commits sin and suffers pain. He justifies the sin. He resents the pain. He 142 FORBEARANCE--MERCY. justifies the sin; not perhaps as sin, but as foroed upon him by the exigency of his case, and ,van'an ted in all the circumstances ;-inevitable, in short ;-a just protest against undue severity. He resents the pain, }'ebelling against it as an infliction of tyranny, to be repudiated when it cannot be resisted. Let him be brought to acknowledge the sin, and accept the pain, as Job did. And like Job, he ",-ill be saved. But has the evil spirit the elements of this salvation in himself? Or could he have them apart from a divine message, proposing to hÎ1n reconciliation, and prescribing its terms? The question is in point. And the point of it does not lie in any contrast bet,veen our position and tempera- ment, and those of the evil spirit; for it may be con- tended that fallen men and fallen angels are not on the same footing,-and it is admitted that they are not. But the point of the question, in its bearing upon the author's theory, is this :--If the sense of sin and the re- sentment of pain are different in fallen men from ,yhat the corresponding feelings are in the fallen angels, to what is the difference to l)e ascribed? If the answer be, that it is to be ascribed to a dispensation of forbearance and a revelation of mercy,-then plainly, those ,yho are the subjects of that dispensation, and to whom that reve- lation is made, come to a sense of sin and resentment of pain, to whatever extent they may come to either or both, in very peculiar circumstances ;-in circumstances, THE SUFFERI G SINXER :MEETIXG GOD. 143 indeed, so peculiar as to preclude their subjective per- sonal experience from being any indication of the divine method of procedure; since that experience is itself the result of the divine method of procedure, indicated in the dispensation of forbearance, and unfolded in the reve- lation of mercy. It "would seem, indeed, as if the author reasoned in a circle. He takes the sense of sin and resentment of pain as these rise in the bosom of a criminal l'espited and within sight of a reprieve; which is man's real position. And he sets up that sense of sin and that resentment of pain in the criminal so situated, as the measure, the proof and evidence, of the very respite and reprieve, - the present respite and prospective reprieve, - which call these feelings forth. I sin and I suffer. All aòove and around me there is no voice or sign of mercy; but only an awful silence. I am summoned to stand, to use the solemn language of Isaac Taylor, C denuded of all but conscience, before the open presence of the Holy One.' Still there is no voice or sign beyond the solitary question-Hast thou done the evil? "\Vhat room can there be for any other feel- ing in my bosom but sulky shame, or sneaking fear, or insolent defiance, or all the three? But let a look of compassion òe seen on the countenance of the Holy One, and let ,yords of hope come from his lips,-let hinl tell me of his purpose to provide a remedy for the evil I ùave done,-let him discover to me the love which he still 144 PROGRESS OF REAL CONVICTION. bears to TIle, and give me a hint of some wise and holy plan by means of ,vhich that love is to meet my case,- then, if I understand him, and in so far as I understand and believe him, there rises ,vithin me a new-born honesty. 1\ly sin is before me. It is before me in the sight of the Holy One. But his communication to l1le restores my l1lanhood. Confession comes; but it is no longer craven; it has in it a consciousness of integrity, -a feeling of returning self-respect-wide as the poles asunder from self-justification-essentially, however, and truly, a sense of righteousness. l\Ieanwhile suffering continues or increases. I suffer,.-I suffer l1l0re and more. And I cry out, not only fron1 the instinct of pain, but ,vith a deeper grief,-the grief of an unsolved mystery. 'Vhy all this anguish, seeming to keep pace with the uprightness of which I am no,v conscious in the matter of my sin and the confession of it,-warring against that uprightness,-and threatening to thro,v nle back, as unwise friends would throw me, upon the mere effort to propitiate my tormentor,-the inflicter of my pain,-by abject submission? Let the struggle go on and get ,vorse. Let my sin be more and more felt and o,vned. The more it is felt and o,vned, the nlore I am conscious of my integrity. I am certain that, let sin be ever so much in me, as part of Ine, as my very self, -yet because I see it to be sin, and feel it to be sin, and confess it to be sin,-there is that in me which is not sin, but is against sin. And still I suffer more and RECO CILIATIOX. 145 more. And it is more andn10re hard to understand ho,v all this comes to be so. The teITIptation to defiance, or to Eervility, gro,vs very strong. It is time for the Holy One again to speak to me. Calmly he directs Iny vie,v to the "\visdom with ,vhich he guides and governs all things above and around me,-a wisdom which I can- not search, but ,vhich "\vith reference to all these things I firmly trust. He asks me if I cannot tnlst that wis- dom, though I cannot search it, ill Iny o,vn case also. And I am silenced and ashall1ed. Or, still more to reassure me and enable me to hold fast my integrity, he discovers to me more unreservedly the plan of n1Y recovery; and in the mission of his Son, causes me to perceive his own fatherly love. Then, in the choice language of this Essay, "a feeling of infinite shame gro\vs out of the feeling of undoubting trust. \ The child sinks in nothingness at its Father's feet, just when he is about to take it to his arms." (P. 63.) Let the author be corc1ial1y thanked for these fe,v words of rarest beauty as well as of deepest truth. There can be no controversy here; the cry, ',vho shall deliver me ?' is met. 'Return unto thy rest, 0 my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee.' Alas! that with so much apparent and even real agreement as to the result, there should be any question as to the process! But if the result is to be genuine and trust- ,vorthy, the process must be sound and Scriptural. It is necessary, therefore, to prosecute the inquiry,-How K 146 ARGUl\IEKTS FROl\I NATURE. does the author arrive at the blessed COusuffilllation he so well describes? The suffering man, crying to heaven, believes that he must have a deliverer some\vhere. The condition in which he finds himself,-not a part of him- self merely, his soul as distinct from his body,-(the author is right in that, though \vho they are \vhom he means to hit is not very apparent,)-- but his entire self, -is one from which he has a sort of right to be set free. It is not" according to nature and order; he asks God to show that it is not according to his ",.ill." God" ans\vers his creature and child out of the whirhvind; and by '\vonc1erful argu1l1ents, drawn, it 111ay be, from the least object in nature, from the commonest part of luau's experience, or from the "Thole COSlll0S in \vhich he finds himself, addressed to an ear which our \vords do not }'each, entering secret passages of the spirit to which we have no access, leads hi1l1,-the instincts and anticipa- tions of his heart being not denied but justified,-to lay hÌ1nself in dust and ashes. "Then a 111an kno\vs that he has a righteous Lord and Judge, who does not plead his omnipotence and his right to punish, but \vho debates the case with hiu1, ",'ho shows hiln his truth and his error, the sense of infinite wisdom, sustaining and carry- ing out infinite love, abases him rapidly. lIe perceives that he has been measuring himself, and his under- standing, against that love, that wisdon1." Trusting and ashamed, "the child sinks in nothingness at its Father's feet, just \vhen he is about to take it to his arms." IXFORl\IATION FRO::\[ GOD. 147 Now it may be admitted most fully that if God, in answering" the instincts and anticipations" of my heart, "\vere to deny, instead of justifying them,--and in parti- cular, if he were l11erely to "plead his omnipotence and his fight to punish,"-no such gracious effect as this could be produced in me. If, ho"\vever, I believe and cannot help believing, not merely that God has a right to punish, but that being a righteous Ruler, lIe must punish, and punish judicially ;-if my conscience testifies that as a guilty and conllpt criminal I am condemned ;- if I deeply feel that no redeemer "\vill meet my urgent need who is not able to rid n1e of n1Y guilt and my corrup- tion, and that too váth the concurrence of n1Y offended Lord ;-if these are among the instincts and aspirations of my heart ;-then, no "debating of my case" that does not imply some light on these points will either humble me, or reconcile me. Information, to some ex- tent at least, on the subject of God's manner of dealing with guilt and corruption in man, was actually given after the Fall, by express revelation and by the institution of sacrifice. All n1en, in all ages and countries, have had the benefit of that information; the earlier races having the most of it,-excepting, of com'se, the line of Scripture. Job had it; and most expositors think that he refers to it when he says, 'I kno,v that my Redeemer liveth.' At all events he had it. And ,, hatever may have been the full import of what God said to hin1 out of the whirl,,-ind, as bearing upon his immediate expe- 148 GOD A FATHER-PANTHEISM. rience,-his kno\vledge of the divine plan and purpose of redemption, as revealed after the Fall, must have entered into that impulse of generous and honest self- abasement \vhich moved him to exclailn,-' I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee; \vherefore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.' All this is quite consistent with the child falling at the feet, being taken into the arms, of its Father. Nay, it explains the reconciliation on both sides. As a Father, God has undertaken, in infinite mercy, to provide for the removal of fallen man's guilt and corruption. Believing this, feeling this, I am satisfied at last,-after his calm remonstrance ,vith me for not implicitly trusting his wisdom and his love. I am more than satisfied, I am subdued. The criminal is melted into a child; the child is clasped in the embrace of a Father. " It is a Father, not a vague world, before which he has bo,ved." So the author follo,vs up immediately his touching representation. And he implores us, "if we ,vouid preserve our brethren from a dark abyss of pan- theism, when their spirits are beginning to open to some of the harmonies of the universe, not to pause till ,ve understand how it should be the end of God's discipline to justify Job more than his three friends; how it can be possible for him to sanction that conviction of an actual righteousness, belonging to the man himself, which ,ye were so anxious to confute." "For this pur- BRINGING THE SINNER TO CHRIST. 149 pose," he says, "we must lay the foundations of our faith very much deeper than they are laid in modern exposi- tiol1s." (P. 63.) Then he seizes on the expression "bringing the sinner to Christ," as the sum and sub- stance of these " modern expositions." And representing that as equivalent to bringing him "to know what Christ did and spoke, in those thirty-three years be- t\veen his birth and his resurrection," he adds, " we shall never understand the infinite significance of those years, or be able to take the gospel narratives of them simply as they stand, if we have no other thought than this, or if there is no other which we dare proclaim to our fellow- nlen." (Pp. 63, 64.) It seems that our" belief that Christ was, before he took human flesh and d","'elt among us,"-" that he actually conversed with prophets and patriarchs, and made them a\vare of his presence,"-has become unreal; "an arid dogma, ,vhich we prove out of Pearson, and \vhich has nothing to do ,vith our inmost convictions, \vith our very life." And the reason is,- "because lve do not accept the N e,v Testament expla- nation of these appearances and manifestations; because \ve do not believe that Christ is in every man, the source of all light that ever visits him, the root of all the right- eous thoughts and acts that he is evel O ' able to conceive or do." (P. 64.) No\v, in the first place, if woe ,vonld preserve thoughtful men from pantheism, ,ve nlust distinguish the righteous- ness,-the uprightness,-the ' truth in the in\vard parts,' 150 CHRIST BROUGHT NEAR. -\vhich Job had and which God owned in him,-from the Redeelller whom Job kne\v to be living, and to be his. To confound, or to identify, these,-is to cut away the foundation of any real personal transaction beh.veen me and my Iaker ;-any actual reckoning on his part ,vith me ;-any righteous adjustment of my position as under la,v to him. And if that foundation be destroyed, I think I see only a very frail barrier, if any, between me and pantheislll. Again, secondly, "\ve" do not in our preaching merely wish to bring sinners to Christ; we try to bring Christ near to thelll; or rather to shew them that in the gospel ,vhich we preach Christ is brought near to them; very near; so near that as he stands at the door and knocks, they have but to open, and he will come in to them and sup ,vith them. In the third place, we do not forget that Christ as the living Redeemer,-the 'V ord,-the Life,-the Light of men,-has been always and is now everywhere in the world,-lighting more or less every man that cometh into the world,-shining in darkness though the darkness comprehendeth it not. But, in the fourth place,-while \ve account for what- ever is good in human cl1aracter and human society by the fact that he ,vho is the light of men has always been among men,-we do not believe that Christ is in every man. 'Ve say that such a belief does not meet the sin- ner's case. Christ for him, not Christ in hiln, is what he first needs,-,vhat he first \vill welcome. This is the point at issue. This is the real question CHRIST THE LIGHT AND THE LIFE OF MEX. 151 raised by the painful but gracious experience of Job and its happy issue. It is thís; II01v may a certain state of mind 'with reference both to sin and to suffering, be exp]ained? Is it the result of "the instincts and anti- cipations of" every man's" heart not being denied, but justified?" Is it "Christ in every man? " Or is it Christ, from the beginning, discovering ll10re or less clearly to every man, by a revelation from without and from above, the Father's purpose and plan of salvation, -and making that discovery more and more clear to all whose minds are opened to receive it? Is it " Christ in every man?" Or is it Christ to every man? That there is, and has always been, 'a light, lighting every nlan that cometh into the ,vorld,' - and that Christ is that light,-must be adlnitted, if it be true that God revealed at first his plan of mercy, and has never since left himself 'without a ,vitness. That light all men have had, and have, in their experience of the forbearance of God, and in the indications of his graci- ous designs on their behalf. It increases in clearness as the revelation in the ,vord becomes more plain. But more or less it lighteth all. And it is under that light, that the feelings ,vhich have been described as to sin and suffering are called forth. The author does not formal1y deny this external light ; but he omits it; he leaves it out of view', and makes no use of it as an elelnent in his account of the experience in questìon. All the light he needs is "Christ in every 152 XECESSITY OF DISCOVERY FRO:\I WITHOUT. man." This indeed is all, or nearly all, that there is room for in his theology. And here, let it be observed, it is not necessary even to discuss the question;- Is Christ in every man? Admitting that to be true, another question must arise,- Is it possible to explain in that ,yay alone the state of mind ,vhich is ascribed to Job? . It is not said that Christ is in every man, as giving him information on the subject of God's manner of dealing ,vith sinners; but that Christ is in every man, as calling forth, or originating, a certain common experience. And the difficulty is this,-that after all, the experience is of such a sort as nothing but some knowledge or notion of God's manner of dealing w'ith sinners can rationally eXplain. By no conceivable internal movement or operation or principle,-by no in,vard light,-no Christ in me,-can I reach and realise that frankness to confess sin, and faith to submit to suffering, which constitute my integrity, unless I have before me,-presented to me and not evolved out of me,-some idea, \vhether vague and doubtful or distinct and certain, of ,vhat the n1ind and purpose of the Holy One to"\vards such as I am, really and actually, and as a matter of fact, are. The author considers that his view,-finding in every n1an a state of mind ,vith reference to sin and suffer- ing, "whether he realises it distinctly or indistinctly," lvhich is equivalent to the Redeemer, and is in fact the Redeemer, - has an important bearing on "the STRAUSS-CRITICIS1I. 153 Straussian doctrine," and on the "Unitarian contro- versy." (P. 64.) He has no fear of our falling, in these days, "into the doctrine about Christ \vhich prevailed in the last century,"-" into a belief of him as a man, and nothing more than a man." He dreads our falling "into the notion of him as a shado\v-persol1age, ,vhom the imagi- nation has clothed, as it does all its heroes, with a certain divinity, really belonging to and derived from itself." He sees no security against this in a critical confutation of Strauss and his disciples. " That which is a tendency and habit of the heart, is not clu'ed by detecting fallacies in the mode in \vhich it is embodied and presented to the intellect. If you have no other way of shewing Christ not to be a mythical being, or a man elevated into a god by the same process \v hich has deified thousands before and since," you ,vill be sure to fail. (P. 65.) How., then, is this theory to be met? "Our divines are, in the first place, to deal more honestly with facts of human experience" than they do; "and secondly, they are to connect these facts with principles which they admit to a certain extent, \vhen they are arglling with those \vho deny them, but ,vhich they seldom fairly present to themselves, and still more rarely bring hOll1e to the consciences of their suffering fellow-men." (P. 66.) \Vhat are the facts? and what the prin- . 1 ') Cl P es . The facts are those which the author" has tried to 154 RO:\IANS x. 6-10. present" in the light of Scripture and observation. The principle is applied to those facts in two ,vays. It is applied ,vhen ,ve tell "the man W110 declares that he has a righteousness which no one shall remove from him-' That is true. You have such a righteous- ness. It is deeper than all the iniquity which is in you. It lies at the very ground of your existence. And this l-ighteousness d\vells not merely in a law which is con- demning you, it d,vells in a Person in ,vhom you n1ay trust. The righteous Lord of man is ,vith you,' not 'in some heaven,'-' in some hell,'-but nigh you, at your heart." (P. 66.) The author evidently refers to the statement of the Apostle Paul (Romans x. 6-10.) He omits the condi- tion ,, hich the apostle attaches to the statement. If the author llleans what the apostle seems to mean, that the ,yord of the gospel, revealing Christ as 'the righteous- ness of God,' brings Christ so very near to every man w'ho hears it,-is itself so nigh him, in his lllouth and in his heart, that he has but to 'confess with the lllouth the Lord Jesus and belipve in his heart that God has raised him from the dead,' in order to his being saved, and having , Christ in him the hope of glory; '-if that is the author's meaning, it is, as has been seen, 110 more than every earnest evangelical preacher is con- stantly teaching. But then it is Christ, not in contrast '\vith the la" , but in closest union with the la,y, ,vho is nigh us, at our heart. The righteousness ,vhich such a CHRIST KIGH TO EVERY MAX. 155 preacher speaks of, dw.ells first and primarily" in a la,v which is condemning us; " and "it d.wells in a Person in whom ,,"e may trust," because it d,vells in Christ, who is "the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." This Christ the 'word brings nigh to every man,-to me,-so nigh that I have but to open my heart and 111Y mouth to find Christ in both. This is the apostle's doctrine, which "our divines" delight "to bring home to the consciences of their suffering fellow-men." It .would be very satisfactory to find that this is also the doctrine of the author in this Essay,-that there is nothing more than a misunderstanding behveen him and other divines, arising partly out of the somewhat ideal cast and character of his writings,-that he means ,vhat they nlean, and only wishes to say more strongly than they do, ho,v near the ,vord of the gospel brings Christ to every man to .whom it conles. This, ho,vever, can- not be his meaning. According to his vie,v, the word of the gospel must find Christ in every man to whom it comes. It may find Christ dead in the man, as in his tomb; and it may have to effect a resurrection of Christ in the man, as from his tomb. But that is all. This would seem to be, in part at least, what is meant when the author speaks of the principle being expressed with reference to suffering. You do ,veIl, he says to the sufferer, in "maintaining that pain is not good but ill, -a sign of wrong and disorder," "a bondage." " You 156 PAIN A BONDAGE. cannot stop to settle in what part of you it is,"-you need not,-" it is throughout you, affecting you al- together,-you want a complete emancipation from it." " IIold fast that conviction. Let no man, divine or lay- man, rob you of it." , Pain is " a bondage, the sign that a tyrant has in some way intruded himself into this earth of ours. But you are permitted to suffer the con- sequences of that intrusion, just that you may attain to the knowledge of another fact, - that there is a Re- deemer, that he lives, that he is the stronger. That l'igh teous King of your heart, w hon1 you have felt to be so near you, so one with you, that you could scarcely help identifying him with yourself, even while you con- fessed that you ,,"ere so evil, he is the Redeemer as well as the Lord of you and of man. Believe that he is so. Ask to understand the ,yay in which he has proved hilnself to be so. You ,vill find that God, not we, has been teaching you of him "-" has taught you that you have been in chains, but that you have been a willing wearer of the chains. To break them, he must set you free. Self is your great prison-house. The strong man armed, ,vho keeps that prison in safety, must be bound." (P. 67.) 'Vhat does this mean? Is it that ,vhen I suffer pain, there rises ,vithin me the sense of an oppressor, a tyrant, an intruder, the keeper of a prison, to 'whom the disorder ,vhich pain indicates is to be ascribed,-,vhile at the same tilne, God teaching me, I discover near me, at RELATION TO GOD TO BE RECTIFIED. 157 my heart, a Redeemer who is the stronger,-and that this discovery breaks "the rod of the enchanter ,vho holds my will in bondage," and sets me free? But ,vhat if, when I suffer pain, even kno,ving it to be the con- sequence of a tyrant's intrusion, I am haunted ,vith the surmise that my relation to God may have something to do ,vith my subjection to bondage? I feel that in my relation to God may lie the root of the disorder, for that is itself disordered. I ask how I am to be on a right footing with God-how the outstanding question ,yhich my sin has raised between my God and myself is to be adjusted? Let me have a Redeemer who comes from God to me to tell me this,-himself to effect the required adjustment ;-let him rectify my relation to God ;-and the enchanter's rod is broken. I may suffer pain still, as Job did; and feeling it still to be "not good but ill," U a sign and witness of disorder," I may feel also as if I had a right to ask ,vhy. But, at all events, I am in a position no,v to disconnect my suffering of pain from any tyranny of an intruding enemy. And ,vhen the Redeemer 'who comes to tell me of a Father's mercy and to take me home to a Father's heart, stands by me in my suffering, - expostulating with me, encouraging me, reminding me of a Father's wisdom and a Father's love, -I begin to understand the discipline by ,vhich that Father is preparing me for a better experience than that which cro,vned the trial of Job: and understanding that, "I confess my own baseness," I acquiesce and 158 EXTETINAL l\IORALIST-EXCLUSIYE RELIGIONIST. adore. Nay, in this ,yay, I think I could enter perhaps even better than the author himself, were I as true and genuine as he is, into what he says so beautifully about "the gray hairs of the stricken, ,vorn out, desolate man "-being "fresher, freer, more hopeful than the .. untaught innocence of his childhood,"-as ,yell into ,vhat he says of the "deep mystery," -how God "may use the consequences of the evil to which ,ve have yielded," -and ho,v he "can make also the deliverance, if it be at present only a partial one, from these consequences,- instruments in our emancipation froln the evil itself." (P. 68.) But it is time to draw these remarks to a close, by briefly noticing ,vhat the author says of the Unitarian controversy. He would have it to start from a ne,v point. He rightly exposes the contrast behveen "the Unitarians discoursing concerning the doings of man," and "those they called enthusiasts concerning his being." He discovers a general dissatisfaction with two opposite theories. The one is "that flimsy doctrine about behaviour, which ,vas all that the religion of re,,-arc1s and punishments could produce." The other is " that assertion of truths as belonging to the believer and not to other men, ,vhich is its antagonist." " Both systems are falling by their o,vn ,veigh t. The external moralist fails to produce the results he says are all- important. The exclusive religionist she,ys himself more worldly than his neighbours." "The exclusive STARTIXG-POINT OF U ITARIAN CO TROVERSY. 159 religionist" is of course the party '\"\ hom the Unitarian ,voulcl call an enthusiast. It seems that he asserts truths as belonging to the believer and not to other men. This is a vie,v of ,vhat is commonly regarded as evangelical preaching ,\"\Thich ,vould require explanation. "Truths belonging to the believer and not to other men," - are not generally asserted by the party in question. The truths which they assert are common to all; and it is their boast and glory to assert them as conlnlon to all. They nlake a distinction, indeed, behveen those who believe these truths and those who do not. But that is all. 'V ould the author do less? 'V.ould he place on the same footing those ,vho believe a truth and those who do not ? Or, because he did not place them on the same footing, would he consider that he ,vas asserting a tnlth belonging to the believer and not to other men? Does he mean that there are no truths to be believed ?-no truths, the belief or disbelief of which can nlake men to differ from one another? The" exclusive religionist" says that there are. And he says no more. Does the author say less? To start the Unitarian controversy ii'om the admis- sion of our Lord's humanity, and then argue from Scrip- ture that he is more than man, is a mistake now, if in- deed it was not a mistake all along. The author would start it froIn "the experiences of a man's own heart,- those spiritual conflicts of which he has learnt to see the significance," and with which he is to " look upo}J. Jesus 160 JESUS-SON OF l\IAN-SON OF GOD. as connected in some way." We thus" get rid of mere texts and narratives" "more easily than Priestley and Belsham," and" with less of outrage upon scholarship." We get rid of scriptural interpretation and argument altogether. And" ,vith ho,v much more of delight than they ever betrayed, can we recognise all that ,vas divinest in the life of hiln who is called the Son of Ian; ,vith ho"\\" much more of freedom and less of exclusiveness can we connect him ,vith all the other great champions of the race!" (P. 74.) Is it thus that the author "asserts truths" different from those which" the exclusive religionist" asserts as "belonging to the believer and not to other men ?" Is it that, on the one hand, he finds the Redeeu1er, Jesus, the Son of fan, as to " all that ,vas divinest in his life," in the common experience of man,-and that on the other hand, he connects" him ,vho is called t.he Son of 1\Ian" "with all the other great champions of the race? " Are these the truths ,vhich he asserts? Stil1, even these are truths "belonging to the believers" of them" and not to others," in the only sense in ,vhich this can be intelligently said of the truths asserted by " the exclusive religionist." And certainly if these are the truths ,vhich the author asserts,-concerning the connexion of Jesus, and of all that was divinest in the life of the Son of 1.Ian, ,vith the experiences of a man'i own heart,-and his connexion ,vith all the other great champions of the race,-it is time 'YHAT A:KD WHO IS JESL'S? 161 to ask "rho and what this Son of ßlan, this Jesus, really is? The author in his \valk through life stumbles upon " rich mines." Exploring these rich mines in himself, he discovers that" lie is the ,vorker of them and has ,vrought them ill; that he is the ste"ward of some one who is the possessor of theIll; that he is a bankrupt, and guilty." " It becomes a necessity of his inmost spirit, that he should find some one v , hom he did not create, some one who is not subject to his accidents aucl changes, some one in ,vhonl he may rest for life ancl death. "'Tho is this?" (P. 75.) I am a bankrupt and guilty. To meet my case I must have some one ,vhom I did not create, and ,vho is not subject to my accidents and changes. Such a one, uncreated and unchanging, rises out of the expe- rience of "Job, and David, and the prop11ets," of every rnan, in short,-myself of course included. I certainly have a deep interest in learning why I should "hold this righteous Being to be the Son of God." The de- mand for him on my part, bankrupt and guilty as I am, and the discovery of him, as nleeting Iny delnand,- seem to proceed from the saIne source,-my own con- sciousness,-my own experience; "texts and narratives being got rid of." It much concerns me to kno,v sonle- ho,v in ,vhat relation he stands to God, ,vhose bankrupt and guilty steward I am. L QHAPTER III. THE REl'tIEDY PROVIDED-THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE REDEEMER-THE PERSON.-ESSAYS V. VI. ESSAY V.-OX THE SON OF GOD. IA Y not your faith,-your 'I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,'-be merely the adoption of "those 11uman feelings and notions" ,vhich have cro,yded all my- thologies ,vith elnanations from God and sons of God? You adopt these human feelings and notions without some of their former adjuncts, and with some new ones of your o\vn, which will drop off in time by a necessary law. You especially connect a high ideal of hunlanity with a particular person. That ideal 'will be found to belong to the ,yhole race, not to him. TIe will retain a high place, not as the only Son of God, but as one of Inany. (Pp. 76, 77.) Such, in substance, is the suggestion on the part of Unitarians ,vith which the author proposes to deal at the outset of this Essay. He ,, ill not deal with it according to "the ordinary methods of controversy." These are" entirely out of place when statements of this kind are propounded. The question, ,vhichever ,yay it CRITICIS)I-REASONING- YOTES. 163 is decided, nlust concern the life and being of everyone of us. It Inust affect the condition of mankind now, and the ,vhole future history of the world. To argue and debate it as if it tm'ned upon points of verbal criti- cism, as if the determination could be influenced by the greater or less skill in reasoning on either side, as if it could be settled by yotes," tends to darken the con- science and make men question the importance or the possibility of finding truth. Better silence than such a mode of treating these doubts; silence, in that case, is both religious reverence and common sense. (P. 77.) 'There is an odd conlbination or confusion here; criti- cism, reasoning, votes. It is a question of theology that is to be considered; the question of the relation in ,y hich the Redeemer stands to God as his only-begotten Son. IIo"r it may be put to the vote, it is not easy to see. Perhaps reasoning, as a mere trial of dialectic art, may be unsuitable; and the minute word-catching that lives on syllables may, ,vhen applied to Scripture, be offensive. It is not clear, however, that criticism and reasoning,- a scholar-like examination of what the Bible says and the manly exercise of a sound judgment upon it,-are really" out of place" 'when 'we are discussing ,vhat ,, ould seem to be very much, if not entirely, a matter of revela- tion and discovery on the part of God. But be that as it may, the author distinctly indicates that the question is not to be debated upon Scriptural evidence. It is not to be settled by an appeal to Scripture,-a critical and rea- 164 BEJ. IEF IN SOXS OF GOD. sonable examination of the statements of Scripture. The author pursues his usual method. lIe first analyses the doubts in which the question takes its rise. And then he extracts a product,-to be afterwards identified ,vith some saying or sayiugs in the Bible, and \vith the article in the Creed. In that course he is to be followed, with much interest, but ,vith some anxiety. Starting from the fact of a universal tendency to 01vn and believe in sons of God,-he inquires, "what are those general human feelings which this faith" in sons of God" embodies?" They are three in number. The first is " an instinct of men that their helpers must come to them from some mysterious region; that they cannot be merely children of the earth, merely of their own race." The second is " a strong persuasion among men, that human relationships have something ans.wering to them in that higher world" whence their heroes come. And the third is the sure conviction, tlIat "unless the superior beings were not only related to one another, but in some way related to then , their mere protection ",vould be 1yorth very little; they,vould not confer the kind of benefits ,vhich the inferior asks frOlTI them." (P. 79.) OUf helpers must be from heaven. They must be em- braced in relationships of heaven analogous to those of earth. They must partake of the relationships of earth. These "instincts,"-this "conscience of humanity" -might almost create a presumption that some of " the beings who have done it good" may "have come from EXPERIEXCE OF JOB-OF l\lAN. 165 SOlne mysterious source," ,,"ere it not that men imputed to them so much of their O"wn peculiarities of country and race, their o,vn morbid temperaments, their own corruption and debasement. Sons of God, then, such as these three feelings naturally crave and create, are to be set aside as unworthy and unrea1. (Pp. 79, 80.) " But," says the author, " there is a chapter of hUlnan experience which we have not yet looked into. It is that of \vhich I spoke in the last Essay." (P. 80.) The experience of Job is again rehearsed,-his experi- mental discovery that "there ,vas, in some mysteriou,,, manner, a Redeelner,-an actual person connected ,vith him,-one ,vho he ,vas sure lived,-one ,vho ,vas at the root of his being,-one in ,v-hom he was righteous." The emphatic was, contrasts the idea of a Redeemer in whom every man is righteous with the idea of a Re- deenler in ",ThaIn every In an, even the guiltiest, nlay becolne righteous, or may be justified. That, ho'wever, is not the present question, excepting in so far as it bears upon the next experimental discovery;-that this " actual person" whom Job finds" connected váth him," is not "a Redeemer but tIle Redeemer." Job is not" a man un- like other men, placed under rare and peculiar conditions ,vhich enabled him to ascertain certain facts as true for himself which are not true for his race." " The sufferer has been cOlnpelled to feel himself silnply a man." This is true; and therefore it is also true that ,vhatever Redeenler Job had, must be a RedeeIller whom every 166 JOB FEELI G HIl\ISELF SI IPLY A MAN. man has,-or Inay have. To take this last alternative, -to say that he must be a Redeemer whom every man may have, as Job had him,-,vould not by any means satisfy the author. To him, that would appear equiva- lent to saying that Job ,vas" a man unlike other men, placed under rare and peculiar conditions which enabled him to ascertain a certain fact as true for himself" and not for his race. But it really is not so. A Redeemer whom every n1an may have as his own, as truly satisfies the condition of the problem,-'which is Job feeling him- self to be simply a man,-as a Redeemer whom every l11an has, or who is in every man. The fact true for himself is true for his race,-equally in either view. A Redeemer liveth who is mine, and whom every man as well as I may have as his,-this is language which does not isolate Job one whit more than his being understood to say;- a Redeemer liveth who is mine, and ,vhom every man as ,veIl as I, whether he knows and believes it or not, actually has as his. The author assumes, ,vithout proof, that if Job is not to be regarded" as a man unlike other men," but as "feeling himself simply to be a nlan,"- every n1an, merely in virtue of his being a man, must have the living Redeemer as his ;-not in right but in fact-not de Jure but de facto .;-cxactly as he was Job's, at the crisis of his experience at ,vhich he said-' I kno,v that my Redeemer liveth.' It is this unproved assump- tion which really lies at the root of the author's doctrine that Christ is in every man. EXPLANATION OF THE MANY SOXS OF GOD. 167 He advances now a step. Upon the man to whose " innermost heart and spirit God himself is discovering his righteousness as ,veIl as his sin,-the avenger as' well as the oPl)reSsor,"-" the question forces itself; Is this Redeemer," -that is, the righteousness of the man, the avenger,-" so closely connected with the human sufferer, not connected also with that divine instructor who answered him out of the ,vhirlwind? 'Vas this l-ighteousness which Job perceived, not the righteousness of God himself? 'Vas he as ,videly separated from his creature as ever ? 'Vas there no meaning in the asser- tion that one ,'-as the image of the other?" (P.83.) The Redeemer, the righteousness, the avenger, mllst therefore be connected ,vith God as closely as he is con- nected ,vith the human sufferer; otherwise "the sense of separation from him,-the longing to plead with him,"-'which Job felt, is not met. The" cry for a daysman between them" is not heard. In this instinct or experience the author finds the lC explanation of those many sons of God of ,vhom he has been speaking." He regards this as "the radical and universal expel-ience" which "interprets those superficial and partial ones." First, " Job could not think of this daysman, near as he was to his very being, except as one 'who had come to him,-who had stooped to him,-w'ho belonged to a world of mystery." Secondly, "Job could not think of him except as related to the in- 'visible Lord of all." Thirdly," Job's most intimate con- 168 ANALYSIS AND PRODUCT OF EXPERIEXCE. viction was, that he ""as related to himself." These are the three conditions of the mythological sons of God. They are realised here; and without "the causes which Inake those dreams of demigods and heroic men local) temporary, artificial.'..z For, in the first place, " it is froln the one being, the Lord of the spirit of all flesh, that this Son of God must have come." Next," he n1ust be spiritual, like that Being; for it is the spirit and not the sense of the sufferer ,vhich confesses him." And then, "whatever righteousness and goodness are perceived by the erring, trusting, broken-hearted penitent to be in the one,-speaking to his sorro,ys and wants,-must be the image and reflex of an absolute righteousness and grace in the other, ,vhich he could only adore." (P. 84.) This is the author's analysis of hUlnan experience; and this the product. He now reverses the process. He deduces from Chris- tian theology, especially from the .writings of the Apostle John, a Son of God,-an only-begotten Son,-to be identified with the Son of God discovered or developed in the experience which he has described. But before entering upon his synthesis, or process of deduction, it is necessary to ask, to what do his analysis nnd its product amount? Before I judge how far the Son of God concerning ,vhom the Apostle John "Tites, is to be recognised as the Son of God ,vhom the author has found in the instincts of humanity,- I must be allo"ved to ask,-who and ""-hat is the Son of God developed or BA.KKRUPT AND GUILTY. 169 discoyered by this last method? Does he n1eet my case? Does he exhaust my experience? C rtainly not,-if I am "a bankrupt and guilty." You tell me first, that I must have a helper who comes froD1 heaven, ,vho is related to God in heaven as closely as he is related to nle. Yon tell me also secondly, that this helper is the sense of righteousness, the kind of protest against pain,-,vhich sin and suffering call forth In me. ....L\.nd you tell me, moreover, that this helper is the Son of God. But 'what of my bankruptcy and my guilt? ,'Till any personification,-will any deification,- of my experience, ,vhile bankrupt and guilty, even if you make a Son of God, an only-begotten Son of God, out of it,-meet my case? I say at once, No. I say that if I an1 to fonn any notion of the Son of God wholn I need, and 'v ho alone can satisfy the denlands of Iny conscience and heart,-he must not merely be one ,vho represents my experience, and stands in a certain undefined connexion with God as well as ,,-ith me. He nlust be one "ho comes to me, outside of nle, directly from God; not lapsing or gliding into me, but speaking to me; and telling me how my debt is to be discharged and Iny guilt disposed of. That is the sort of helper ,vhom, as " a bankrupt and guilty," I yeanl f()r. And I cannot easily believe that any other can be my helper, in that sense, but only one coming straight from the boson1 of the Father,-not cOIning through the circuitous channel of nlY subjective experience, but directly, as a living 170 SCRIPTURAL DEDUCTION. Person from a living Person,-entitled and authorised to tell me that he is the Son of God, and that he has his Father's commission to discharge my debt and expi- ate n1Y guilt. As a bankrupt and guilty, I can accept no helper from within me as sufficient, however authen- ticated from ,vithout and from above. I desiderate a helper who, altogether apart from his relation to me, can give me assurance of his relation to the IToly One, and his power on earth to forgive sins. But let the theological or Scriptural deduction, which is to fit into the experimental induction, be taken fairly and fully into account. The author disc1aims,-what "many readers fancy," that" when we speak of a Person ,vho is at once divine, and the ground of humanity, we must be assuming an incarnation." (P. 84.) 'Vhat is meant by a divine Person being the ground of humanity, is not clear. According to the representation given in the previous Essays and in this one, it would seen} to mean that all human experience of the right kind subsists in this divine Person,-that it is he in all men ,vho originates that experience,-,vho is l1Ïmself that experience. But at any rate, there is no reference as yet to an incal"Da- tion. "Christian theology does not speak of an incar- nation, until it has spoken of 'an only-begotten Son, begotten of his Father before all ,vorlds, of one sub- stance ,vith him.' " r rhis article of the Creed, thus ex- pressed, is the author's starting-point now. ARTICLE IN THE CREED. 171 He laments that "these words, though In former times they ,vere the strength and nourishment of con- fessors and n1artyrs, have come, in modern days, to be regarded as mere portions of a school divinity." "Learned n1en must maintain them by subtle arguments and an anny of texts." "Ordinary men are to receive them im- plicitly, because it is dangerous to doubt them." But they " have no hold upon our common daily life, can be tested by no experience." Those ,, ho are busy "Tith reli- gious feelings and states of mind ,, ill pass them by ,,-ith indifference, as not concerning vital godliness." (P. 85.) This is a grave allegation, for which, ho,, eYer, there is no apparent ground except the author's fixed idea that to set about proving a doctrine directly out of Scripture is at once and ipso facto to make it a dry and arid dogma. But is it so? I may happen to think that the truth concerning the Redeemer's relation to the Father as his only-begotten Son is best ascertained, and indeed can only be ascertained, by the devout and intelligent study of the Bible ;-that authentic information and a correct belief on this subject are to be obtained, not from the instincts and aspirations of man,-the experience of Job or anyone else,-but from the written revelation of God. That may be my opinion. Acting upon it, I examine the scriptures of the Old and Ne,v Testament; I compare passages; and praying for the help of the Spirit ,vho inspired them, I use my faculties of under- standing and reason, to t11e best of my ability, for in- 172 SCHOOL-DIYINITY. terpreting these passages, and gathering up the SUIll and substance of \vhat, \vhen fairly taken together, they con- cur in teaching. Of course, if I am a mere sophist or Dryasdust, I may conduct the investigation with a chop- ping of logic and a marshalling of \vords and syllables ,yorthy of l\Iartinus Scriblerus himself. But there is nothing in the process itself to preclude the deepest personal earnestness. On the contrary, I engage in it believing that my highest interests are involved in the Issue. And when the issue is actually reached,-when I rise from searching the Scriptures and ,yeighing the scriptural evidence,-it is with a heart full of the ms- covery 'v hich God n1akes to me of the Son of his love. It is no idea of my o,vn that I grasp as the image of ,vhat I think my Redeemer, and the Redeemer of men, n1ust be. It is no mere idea of my o,vn, verified, authen- ticated, reflected, in the Divine ,yord. It is 'what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man.' It is the unfolding of the Father's bosoln, in ,vhich the Son has ever dwelt. Angels behold and \yorship. I too behold. I see the Son coming forth fron1 the Father's bosom, to do the Father's "Till, to be my Redeemer from the curse of the 1a\v, the Redeemer of the lost; and to give us the adoption of sons. Believing, I enter into his relation to the Father ;-and hearing l1Ïm, as he prays at parting with his disciples, use ,vords like these,-' Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved 111e,'- I rejoice with trembling; I stand in a,ve. OBLIGATION TO OBJECTOR::':. 173 This is no "school divinity," having no hold on com- mon life, ,vhich can be tested by no experience. If men busy with religious feelings and states of mind, pass it by,-or if men trying to spin an entire Christo- logy and Theology out of their 01vn head or heal.t will have none of it,-l cannot part with it for any Christ in every man, the ground of humanity, who cannot be thought of except as related someho,v to me and to the Invisible Lord of all. In the deep conviction of my heart, this is the essence of vital godliness. I thank the learned men who maintain it by arguments and texts, who enable me to receive it intelligently and defend it Scripturally. I thank aboye all the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ who by the power of his Spirit causes me to know-that he to whom my faith unites me is indeed the only-begotten Son of the Highest. But to return. The author looks "with far more com- placency on objectors, in this instance, than on the ordinary run of advocates. "'V e owe it to them" "that these truths," the mysteries connected ,vith the Sonship, "are compelled to come forth from amidst the cobwebs in ,,"hich we have left then1, to prove that they can bear the open day, and that they bring a more glorious sun- light ,vith them, 'which may penetrate into all the ob- scurest caverns of human thoughts and fears." (P. 85.) The objectors are those who raise the question at the outset of this Essay;-what is there in Christ the Son of God, beyond the universal idea of sons of God being 174 VULGAR EARTH-BORN NOTIONS. the deliverers of men? They scatter the " school- divinity" delusion; it is not very clearly stated how. "The Apostle St John," however, being our guide,- "we shall find" anlong other things, that the mysteries in question" can set us free from a host of vulgar earth- born notions and superstitions \vhich \ve have adopted fronl the cloister or the crowd into our Christian dialect and practice; that they can shew how the one funda- mental truth of God's love and charity makes all other facts,-those belonging to the most in\vard discipline of the heart, those concerning the most out\,vard economy of the world,-sacred and luminous." (Pp. 85, 86.) It might be wrong to assume here that the" vulgar earth-born notions and superstitions adopted fronl the cloister or the cro\vd," are the opinions commonlr en- tertained respecting the necessity of an expiation of guilt, and the reconciliation of justice and mercy,-not in the divine mind but in the divine government,-as bearing upon the pardon of offenders,-the justification of the ungodly. The author does not say what those chimeras are from which we are to be set free. But he holds that, under the gu:dance of the Apostle John, we are to explain all human experience and all the divine government by the one truth of God's love and charity; -and that, too, upon the ground of the" mysteries" connected ,vith there being" an only-begotten Son, be- gotten of his Father before all worlds, of one substance 'With him." For hÏ111self, "he only sees at a great dis- JOHN VIII. 31-36. 175 tance" the much-desired consummation which he hopes and prays that others may be raised up to hasten. He gives, however, one illustration of" the relation in which a belief in the Son of God stands to that conciousness of bondage which is inseparable from a consciousness of sin." (P. 86.) The passage ,vhich he selects is that in ,vhich Christ reasons .with the Jews on the subject of liberty. (John viii. 31-36.) He says that he wOlùd not quote it if he "traced in it any allusion to the belief of his incarnation, or to that passion 'which had not yet taken place." "'That- ever allusion there may be to one or both of these facts, the incarnation and the passion, our Lord's argument does undoubtedly turn upon a higher view than either. The essential relation of the Son to the Father is the ground of the appeal. You, who say that you are Abra- ham's children and "were never in bondage to any man, commit sin, and are the servants of sin. Such is your position with reference to him by ,, hom you have been overcome. And ","'hat is your position with reference to God, to ".,.hom originally you belong, and in whose house you have to n1ake good your footing? You are servants, not children, in the house; and the only stand- ing you can have in the house is the standing of servants. The servant, ho,vever, has no permanent standing in the house; and especially if he becomes the servant of another master, he can claim no right to abide in his original 176 SERVANT IN THE HOUSE-SO I THE HODSE. master's family. But the Son has a full title and firm footing. ' The servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth ever; if the Son therefore make you free, you are free indeed.' T\vo things are plain here, if words have any Inean- ing. The first is, that it is the indefeasible right of the Son to abide in the house,-the house or family of God, -as being not a servant but the Son,-which fits him for being the enlancipator. The second is, that the emancipation consists in his making the servants of sin, who cannot always abide in the house, partakers of his own right to abide in it for ever. It is a great truth, that to be made partakers of the Son's right to abide in the house for ever, is the only freedom. This is "the glorious liberty of the children of God." \tVe then wage 'war ,vith evil and the evil spirit,-" shaking off the yoke from our wills,"-strong in the belief that' greater is lie that is for us than all they that are against us,'- , greater is he that is in us than he that is in the ,vorld.' The author's vie\v of om" Lord's teaching in this passage omits apparently these hvo thoughts. He d,yells rather on the idea, that to recognise " a Son of God" actually ruling in the house, to wholTI the house belongs -" not to the poor slave ,vho fancied it ,vas his,"- is our redemption, our freedom. The house, in that view, is man's nature-men themselves. "Over this house of theirs, not made ,vith hands, there is a Son actually ruling, a Son of God." "To confess THE TRUE HERCULES. 177 the true Lord of it, to give up his o,vn imaginary claim to it, ,vhich is submission to a real servitude," "to own that a Son, an actual Son of God is his Lord,"-is the secret of freedom. " This is the true Hercules that takeg Prometheus from his rock, and slays the vulture ,vho is preying upon him." (F. 88.) Now what there is in the owning of a Son, an actual Son of God,-as Lord of the house, Lord of me,-to disenthrall my will and make me free, I cannot, if I follow the author's order of thought upon this subject, understand. I can understand it better if I reverse that order; and instead of rising from human experiences to a divine relation, begin ,vith the divine relation, and bring it down to these human experiences. The Holy One himself tells me, "what I never could have guessed otherwise,-wllat no instincts of mine nor the instincts em bodied in all the mythologies could ever have sug- gested,-that he has a Son,-an only-begotten Son,- who has been with him, in his bosom, froln everlasting. The Son comes forth, - I care not for the present whether in the flesh or not,-he is ever coming forth. And he also tells me ,vhat no instincts of mine or of any man could tell me ;-he tells me perhaps what these in- stincts mean, but what is far more imp()rtant, he tells me of ,, hat ,vill meet them. He tells me how his Father loveth him, and how his Father loveth me and every man. He tells me that he has authority from his Father to deal with me and with every man for the settlen1ent I 178 OWNING THE SON. of ,vhatever claim or charge the Holy One has against me or against any man. He tells me also that he has power to renovate my nature and every man's nature. And to cro,vn all, he tells me that he has overcome the evil spirit, and that neither I nor any man need be separated from his Father, or subject to the evil spirit, any longer. For the Son to tell me this, not as identifying hin1self ,vith my nstincts, or my instincts with himself, but as making a direct communication to me from his Father,- for the Son thus to tell me this, is to tell me what, if I believe it, makes me free indeed. And what, in reality, is the other view? I find in me an instinct,-or ,vhatever else it may be called,- something, however, ,vhich does not acquiesce in sin and suffering, but is contrary to both. I recognise in that instinct a life,-a living person. He is near me,-in me,-n1Y Redeemer. I feel that he must be from above, from heaven. I am certain that as he is connected ,yith me, so he must be connected with the Holy One, the great Father. I own bim as a Son-a true Son of God, -the Son. And I am free. At the very best this is only intensifying to the Lighest point,-to the measure of divinity itself,-a se.n::;e and a power already in me,- the sense of righteousness and the power of resistance. If any earnest men reach emancipation in that way, one ,vould think that it must be through some such kind of unavowed, and almost unconscious, faith as the author sometimes ascribes to the better class of Unitarians. THE POPULAR DOGMA. 179 It nlust be through their believing more than they them- selves consider that they believe,-through their ascrib- ing far more of a true and divine personality to the Son as being ,vith the Father from eternity, and far more of a distinct, 0 bjective reality to the coming forth of the Son from the bosom of the Father ever since time began, -than might appear to be implied in their own state- ments and representations. That the contrast between these vie,vs is fairly stated, and the account of the author's theory con'ect, may appear from what he says when, after quoting the open- ing lines of "In íemoriam," he proposes to "look courageously" at what he calls "the popular dogma." That dogma, as he represents it, finds "certain great ideas floating in the vast ocean of traditions which the old ,vodd exhibits to us." And it holds that" the gospel appropriated some of these, and that \ve are to detect them and eliminate them from its O"wn traditions." Probably the author means to refer to the comlnon opinion that many of the wild fables in the old my tho- logies,-Trinities, Sons of God, Incarnations, Victims, and such like,-are corrupt traditional remains of the primæval revelations before and after the Flood. That opinion it is not necessary to discuRs. It might have some bearing on the author's previous analysis: it has little to do with his arguluent here. He disposes of it summarily. He states again in opposition to it his O'Vll view of "the great ideas floating" in that wide sea. 180 THE PROBLE1tI OF lIU1tIAKITY. They "demand," he says, "to be substantiated." " That we ask for," he adds, "is-not a system \vhich shall put these ideas in their proper places, and so make them the subjects of our partial intellects, but-a revelation which shall shew us what they are, \vhy we have these hints and intimations of them, \vhat the eternal substances are which correspond to them." The " popular dogma" certainly does not want the system he sets aside, any more than he himself wants it. But it does want something more than the author desiderates. It wants ,vhat ,viII not merely substantiate the instincts of humanity, but satisfy their cravings. ""r e beseech the Father of lights, if he is the God of infinite charity ,ve proclaim him to be, to tell us "-not "whether all our thoughts of freedom and truth have proceeded from the father of lies," (p. 90)-but \vhether He has any communication to make to us, in and through his Son, which may fit into these thoughts, - bring the real economy of heaven to meet the real experience of earth, and so solve the problem of humanity. There is valuable matter in the closing portion of this Essay. How far the aut nor is right in o,rning so great an obligation to Unitarians, first for their assertion of the subordination of the Son, and secondly for their pro- test against idolatry,-it is not necessary to inquire. He succeeds in establishing, \vith not a little both of power and of pathos, a great truth, not often enough attended to. It is this :-that the creature, invested PROTEST AGAIKST IDOLATRY. 1 1 with high and noble qualities, either truly or by the fond imagination of admirers, must ahyays be drawing men away frolll the Supreme, and leading them into virtual idolatry. 'rhe only security lies in the discovery that the ideal of humanity is the Son of God; that the perfect human hero, sw.allowing up in himself all hero- ,vorship, turns out to be one who is " of the same sub- stance ,vith the j;-'ather." There is no answer to "the Straussians," with their appeal to the multitudinous "sons of God," ,vho have left" their foot-prints on every different soil," all of them demanding a God,- either" an abstraction" or a "Father' "-there is no , , " escape" fronl " the ,vorship of ten thousand imaginal)'" Buddhas and demigods; "-unless it be in the brutish ,vorship of )Iammon, or in the ackno.wledgment of the Son of God, and the belief of ,vhat he tells us of him- self 'when he says, 'I and my Father are one.' Finally, the author asks the parties with w.horn he pleads, to consider" .whether they can avoid the ackno,v- ledgment of fleshly beings made into gods, "With all their infirmities and crimes, if they are not prepared to confess that there is an only-begotten Son of God, who has been nlade flesh." (Pp. 93-97.) '.rhu8 the question of Incarnation is raised. ESSAY VI.-THE L.,CARNATIOX. " The hearts of the people, as nluch in the East as J82 INCAR:YATIO . in the "rest, demanded incarnations." The sons of God among the Greeks were real flesh and blood. The Orientals rather dealt in emanations, shrinking from the contact ,vith flesh and blood. The Jews were familiar with angels or sons, of God, " persons, not abstractions," "conversing with human beings as if they ,vere of the same kind; "-and yet not embodied or incarnate. Spiritual themselves, they" leave in us a strong impres- sion of spirituality," making us feel that we must be spiritual also. "One higher Angel," in particular, " one Son of God," they had" no difficulty in acknow- ledging," " above all the rest." " The formal Scribes," indeed, "might expect merely the coming of a great king and Thlessiah." But there were those who per- ceived this divine Person,-" this mysterious Teacher," -" tracing him through their Scriptures,"-" not con- fining his illuminations to the wise of their own land," but yet believing " that the law and the prophets inter- preted his relation to God and to the souls of men as no other books did, and that their nation ,vas chosen to be an especial ,vitness of his presence." (Pp. 98-100.) But all combined against the true Incarnation. " The chief struggle of all minds in the first centuries after the Church had established itself in the world, was against this belief,-I say emphatically and deliberately, in all minds." So the author puts the case. And after a brief allusion to the different aspects of the Gnostic controversy, he resolves the general offence taken, " \vhen KNO'VLEDGE OF GOD. 183 the voice went from a band of despised men, , the TVord, or the Son of God, has been made flesh, and du;elt among us,'" - into three maxims common to all the objecting "schools." "They held, first, that it \yas possible to kno\v God \vithout an incarnation; secondly, that it is not right or possible, that a perfectly good being should be tempted as nlen are tempted; thirdly, that all \ve have to look for is a deliverer of SODle choice spirits out of the corruption and ruin of humanity, not a deliverer of man himself, of his spirit, his soul and his body." (Pp. 100-102.) The author vindicates the Incarnation by " reversing these propositions." In the reverse of these three pro- positions he finds" the convictions which have sustained the general creed of the Church." "First, we accept the fact of the Incarnation because we feel that it is im- possible to know the absolute and invisible God, as man needs to kno\v him, and craves to know him, \vithout an incarnation." Thus the first proposition is broadly enough reversed. But the question occurs,-is the pro- position, thus reversed, to be accepted as universal? ATe there no other intelligent beings besides men ,vho need to kno\v God? Is it universally true that in order to the Creator being kno,vn by his reatures, there must be on the part of the Creator an assumption of the nature of the creature? Or if this is a necessity of the human family alone, in ",-hat peculiarity of the human family does it take its rise? And ,vhat is the explanation of 184 INCARNATION NECESSARY. the peculiarity? Apparently the author does mean to restrict the proposition to the race of man. "It is im- possible," he says, "to kno,v God, as lnan needs and crayes to know him, ,vithout an incarnation." But then, how is this? Is it because man has brought him- self into a position in ,vhich no knowledge of God call be of avail to him without an incarnation? Then, there must be something in his position "Thich an incar- nation meets, and ,vhich an incarnation alone can lneet. The Incarnation thus beconles, not a mode of revealing, but a fact revealed. The inquiry now suggested is not irrelevant or im- pertinent. Is the assumption by the Creator of the nature of the creature, an essential condition of the creature's kno,vledge of the Creator? Then, in that case, incarnation is a mode of revelation to man,-just as angelisation, or \vhatever else the assumption of the angelic nature might be called, ,vonld on that supposition be the mode of revelation to angels. On the other hand, is the assumption of human nature by the Son of God an act of condescension rendered necessary by SOIne peculi- arity of the human race '" hich makes it impossible for them other,vise to know God? In that case, the Incar- nation can be the means of our kno,ving God, only because it relnoves that peculiarity, ,vhatever it is. If the peculiarity is in us, personally,-if it attaches to our nature,-it is hard to see how any presentation to us of God, even in the "r ord nlac1e flesh, can rid us of that. CHRIST REVEALS THE FATHER. 185 If, on the other hand, the peculiarity lies in our relation to what is outside of us,-to God,-then there must be 3. readjustment of that relation. And it must be as a step to ards snch a readjustment, or as effecting it, that the Incarnation contributes to our kno,vledge of God. Let it be observed, however, that the question, vVhether God can be know'n, or ever is kno,vn, by any order of intelligences, other,yise than through the Son, is not the question here raised. Nor is there any controversy about the benefit ,,'"hich 'we have in knowing God as ex- ]1Ïbited to us in the person of one who shares our nature. Let the Lord's own declaration be thankfully received; -' 'Vhosoever hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Still the inquiry must be pressed,- "\Vherein consists the impossibility of our knowing God, as w.e need and crave to know him, ,vithout an incarnation ?-and ho,v does the Incarnation remove that impossibility? The author seems to put the matter thus. "r e find in hUlnan beings qualities of goodness, an element or sense of truth, and certain falnily relationships. l\len are gentle or brave. They are friends, brothers, fathers. They have a gliulpse of a truth beyond their life and death for which they can suffer and die. "Are all these fact::; and feelings delusions?" " No. It has. pleased the Father to shew us ,,-hat he is." And it has pleased him to she,," us this in a 1\Ian who says that he comes from the Father ;--and 'who in hin1self,-in his luanifest fulness of grace and tnlth, and in his ascribing all the 186 THE ONE SHRIXE OF THE HOLIEST. glory that shines in hÌ1n to the Father,-gives evidence sufficient to establish his claim to be believed. Thus all divine perfections are concentrated, and become apparent, in this Ian, who satisfies the craving we have for a real ground of the good, the affectionate, the true, as discovered among our fello,v-men, and ,vho at the same time' seeks not his o.wn glory but his glory that sent him.' In accordance with the author's view, it is not difficult to see, in the first place, how this l\Ian must be the type and representative, not of '\vhat distinguishes men froin one another, but of what man universally is ;-so that not a throne, or a palace, or any singular career, must be his, but a manger for his birth, and ,vhat all may recognise as the common lot for his life. Nor is it difficult to see, secondly, ho'\v he must be not" a shrine of the Holiest" but " the One." -how "the o-lor y of God" instead of , b , being diffused through many images, "must be con- centrated in one." " That it may be diffused through many, it must be concentrated in one." (P. 108.) It might be unfair to say that this is really nothing more than the manufacture of a human image or repre- sentation of the Holiest, out of whatever goodness, or truth, or love, may be observed in the excellent of the earth. The author does not think so; but the thought may occur to others. A man is found who combines in himself perfectly all human excellency; he gives all the glory of that excellency to God; and he declares hilTIself to be the Son of God, sent to reveal his Father. TE:\IPTATION. 187 Is there anything here beyond a model man, in whom the glory of God, or his moral image, w'hich shines in a fragmentary way throughout the human race, is con- centrated and revealed? The author deals with a second objection to the In- carnation, urged by those ,vho say,-" It destroys the idea of a Son of God to suppose him in contact 'with the temptations of ordinary men." (P. 109.) This proposi tion, also, he reverses. Now if the author here, or in the previous essay to which he refers (Essay Third), recognised f ârly these two elements of evil,-natural corruption and Satanic temptation,-as distinct from one another, ho'wever the one may act upon the other,-his treatment of the objec- tion which he is now discussing would on the whole be good. He says well, of the "actual trial" in 'which the superiority of righteousness over "an actual" evil spirit is to be tested and ascertained ;-" If ,ve suppose that the Son of God had any advantage in that trial, any power save that ,vhich came from simple trust in his Father, from the refusal to make or prove himself his Son instead of depending on his word and pledge, we shall not feel that a real victory has been ,von." But then he adds immediately;-" Thence ",'ill come (alas! have come) the consequences of supposing our flesh to be accursed in itself, OlU bodies or our souls to be subject to a necessary evil, and not to be holy creatures of God, made for all good." (P. 111.) Of course, this 188 HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. cannot on any account be admitted to be a fair antithesis. The author, with all his repudiation of logical accuracy, can scarcely believe that it is. Our bodies and our souls may be, and are, holy creatures of God, made for all good. And yet they may be, and are, in conse- quence of the Fall, subject to a necessary evil. The author himself admits that they are subject to the neces- sary evil of a conflict ,vith the evil spirit. Is this con- sistent w'ith their being holy creatures of God, made for all good? If it be, how can it be inconsistent with their being so, to hold, besides, that they are subject to the necessary evil of corruption in themselves, and of liability to the curse or condemnation of God? But the main point is this. So far as temptation from ,vithout is concerned,-such temptation as Adam in innocency had to meet,-it is most important to remem- ber that our Lord did not take advantage of any power or privilege belonging to him as the Son, but relied, as other men must do, on the promises and on the Spirit of God. The question, however, remains- \Vas his flesh like that of other men in all respects? \Vas he, in soul and body, altogether like other men? Are they guilty and COITupt by nature,-as they come into this ,vorld and live in this world, before they undergo the new birth, ,yhatever that nlay be? "r as he thus guilty and corrupt? The author does not say that he ,vas. He certainly holds the reverse. But just as certainly he holds that there is no subjection to evil in men :llANNER OF CHRIST'S BIRTH. 189 generally, at all essentially different from that trial of strength 'with the evil spirit, in which, as he Úghtly says, the Son of God had not "any po,ver save that ,vhich came from simple trust in his Father." The truth is, the author evades the difficulty,-,,'"hich is, not to conceive of a Son of God, or the Son of God, contending ,vith an evil po,ver,-but to admit that his holy divine naÍlrre can have united to it our human na- ture, as that nature has exhibited itself in all the speci- mens of it ,vhich have existed since the Fall. Is the miracle of our Lord's birth a reality? .Lt\..nd if so, what is its meaning? It may be gravely doubted how far Unitarians, or any others, can accept the author's ac- count of the Incarnation, without knowing more of what he holds on the subject of the change which our human nature experienced ,vhen sin entered into the world, and also on the question whether the human nature of the Son of God was, or was not, in all respects the same as our human nature since then has been. The question just put-Is the miracle of our Lord's birth a reality?-is at least a nattrral one when the Incarnation is the subject under consideration; and the omission of all notice of it in an essay on that subject, must appear strange to ordinary theological readers. In a subsequent essay, 'when he is closing his discussion of the person and work of the Redeemer, the author partly explains the omission. "Respecting the Con- ception, I haye been purposely silent; not because I 190 BIRTH OF CHRIST MIRACULOL . haye any doubt about that article or am indifferent to it, but bccause I believe that the ,yard miraculol s, \vhich ,ye ordinarily connect 'with it, suggests an unh'ue n1ealling." "The simple language of the Eyangelists," he adds, " offers itself as the only natural and rational account of the nIcthod by ,,-hich the eternal Son of God could have taken lnullan flesh." (P. 313.) For the fuller exprcssion of his thoughts on this subject, he sends us to his sennOll "on 111arriage," in "The Church a Fan1Ïly;" in which, speaking of" the received doctrine respecting the ,yay in ,y hich the Sou of God became man;' as " the siu1plest that ,ye could adopt," he gives this as the reason: "....\..ny other contains sonIcthing ,,-hich shocks the he u.t and conscience, sOlnething ,vhich limits the lu1Îversal )Ian to narro"., partial conditions, SOllIe thing ,,-hich interferes with the full and clear recognition of him a'3 the only-begotten of the Father." (P. 97.) The author is speaking, in that sennoll, of the DIanner of our Lord's birth, chiefly in connexion 'with the institu- tions of domestic and soci ù life. ..illY allusion to it in these Essays ll1USt have had a more general re- ference to the quality ('1" character of the "human flesh," or hUlnan nature, ,yhich he "took." "... as it in all respects the sanIC as ours since the Fall has been? "-as he, as to his ll1anhood, altogether such as we are? Or did the manner of his birth sccure an xelnption,- an ilulliunity,-fì'om guilt and corruption, ,vhich does not belong to us ? The author's v3gue phraseology may CHRIST SEPARATE FROM SIKNERS. 191 be allowed to pass, because no one ,vould choose to discuss in detail such questions as he suggests. The ordinary theological doctrine, however, that the birth of the Son of God ,vas miraculous, and that it ,vas miracu- lous because its being so was the necessary condition of his becoming man, true and very man,-and yet be- coming luan, free from all that taint of criminality and pollution which is the common inheritance of Adam's race; this doctrine, as a doctrine revealed in Scripture, ,,-ill explain the recorded historical fact at least as well as any à priori idea of ,vhat might be the mode of incarnation most worthy of the eternal Son of God, and most fitted to constitute him the universall\Ian. The understanding, the conscience, the heart of man, -of any man of sound sense and right feeling,-of the man \vho most thoroughly enters into the author's vivid representations of sin, and the plague of self, and the sense of bondage; unsophisticated human nature in short, may be allowed to say, ho,v far a Son of God, ever so in- timately revealed as in DIe, and ever so manifestly em- bodied or incarnate before me, can really meet my case and be DIY Redeenler,-if his consenting to be one with me, and to nlake common cause \vith me, implies his being origin l1y, in his manhood, no better than I am. And it matters little \vhether you tell me, as to this conlnlon manhood,-that he is, as I am, fallen; - or that I am, as he is, unfallen. In the one case, you out- rage my veneration; in the other, my consciousness. 192 THIRD GNOSTICAL REFINE IENT. Even " a strong Son of God," becoming the man I feel myself to be, guilty, corrupt, and frail, cannot be accepted as my Redeemer. 3. The third gnostical refinelnent with which the author deals is the "belief that Christ descended from some pure and ethèreal world, to save certain elect souls from the pollutions of the flesh and the death which was consequent upon them: not to save the human race; above all not to save that which "'"as designated as the poor, ignoble, accursed body." The refutation of this refinement he discovers in our Lord's addressing himself, not to select companies, but to multitudes of all classes, even the lo,vest; in his care also for the bodies of men, and his manner of dealing ",vith "pain, disease, death,"- which he treated" not as portions of a divine scheme, but as proof." that it has been violated; as witnesses of the presence of a destroyer, ,vho is to be resisted and cast out." (P. 112.) This is a right protest" against all persons ",vho, on any grounds ,vhatever, religious or philosophical, are maintaining an exclusive position, striving to separate themselves from other hUillan beings, or wishing to dis- parage animal existence as the only way of exalting that which is intellectual or spiritual." (P. 113). Undoubt- edly Christ, as man, possesses the human natlue, not as peculiar to some, but as common to all; and he possesses that nature entire. Its animal life, not less than its intellectual and spiritual life, was and is his. To iso- CHRIST OUR BROTHER. 193 late olU"selves from other men, or to undervalue the body, is practically to deny the incarnation of the 80n of God. So far the author is in harmony ,vith all sound divines. And it is a service rendered to the cause of truth, as 'well as to many struggling men in the battle of life, 'when any cOlnpetent person, such as this author, illus- trates, as he can so well illustrate, the aspect ,vhich the incarnation of the Son of God-his true and proper manhood-has tow"ards humanity in general; towards all human fellowships and relationships; towards all the toils and trials of human life; towards all members of the human falnily. It may be admitted that this fact or doctrine,-the assun1ption of our nature by the Son of Goc1,-has sometimes been vie"' ecl by divines and exhibitecl by preachers, too lllnch as if it were merely a means to an end,-a step in the ,york of redemption; and that in consequence of this, its significance and value, considered silnply in itself, may have been unintentionally sOlne,vhat overlooked. There is ahvays danger lest 'we substitute a thing, a transaction, a plan, or ", hatever it may be called, instead of a real and living person, as the object of our habitual confidence and contemplation; and he who calls us from the mere belief of a systeln, to living communion with the Divine )Ian, deserves our thanks. Probably, a candid observer of modern evangelical min- istrations ", ould allo,v that the person of the Saviour is very prominently brought forw'ard, and that he is earnestly commended to the loving embrace of his disciples; ,, hile 194 CHRIST'S :MAKHOOD OURS. pains are also taken to shew, ho,v the mere fact of his becoming man stamps a certain character of sacredness on human nature, wherever it is found and in ,vhatever circumstances; how it elevates and hallows all hlullHn ex- l)erience; ho,v it invests every human being ,vith a value , which his fello,v men cannot estimate enough. By all means, ho,vever, let more be done in this direction. Let all such considerations be urged as are fitted to break do,vn barriers of separation, to quicken our sense of re- sponsibility in our dealings ,yith one another, and to put an end to the unseemly divorce of the religious from the comlllon life. If the author will labour on in that vocation, eyery right-minded and right-hearted Chris- tian will bid him God-speed. But at the same time, it is not necessary for such a practical nse of it, and it is not possible in a theological point of vie,v, to isolate the doctrine of the Incarnation. I t must be considered in connexion with two other doctrines at least,-the one, the doctrine concerning the nature of man since the Fall, and the other, the doctrine concerning the nature of the undertaking for which the Son of God was born into this world. And in the end it will be found, that ,vhen it is so represented as to be consistent both ,vith the belief of fallen nian's depravity and guilt, and with the belief of a real vicarious sacrifice of propitiation,-the Incarnation, -the manhood of our blessed Lord,-becomes only the more valuable, and the more universally available for all the purposes of man's life,-persollal, social, spiritual, and CHRIST'S :MANHOOD SINLESS. 195 divine. It is because the author's representation of it does not appear to be consistent with right and scriptu- ral ideas of the Fall and the Atonement, that a further examination of this Essay is indispensable. The author speaks of" theology making its appeal to the great hUlnan heart;" and of "the witness which that has found for the gospel and for the fact of an incarnation," in those very passages which might be " offensive" to certain classes of religionists. They might be offensive, as implying ahnost too close a contact of what is divine váth what is human, even in "the lowest types of the race," as well as in the mere" animal nature and animal wants" of the man. Certainly, the humanity of Christ connects hinl, and it may be said, identifies him, with our hunlanity, throughout all its range and in all its parts. The author, however, evidently holds that the Incarnation has, by itself alone, acconlplished all that our humanity requires for its elnancipatioll. "'The Son of God u 1 as 'lJzanifested that lie '!night destroy tIle 'l()orl s of the devil j' this is 8t John's sunlmary of the whole matter." But how does the incarnate Son defeat the devil? First, by "revealing the Father, destroying in human flesh the great calumny of the devil that man has not a Fa- ther in heaven;" secondly, by "submitting to tempta- tions, and so proving in hUlnan flesh that man is not the subject and thrall of the tell1pter;" and thirdly, by affirming, for man's entire deliverance out of bondage, " that his own humanity is the standard of that 'which 196 CALL TO REPENTANCE. each man bears, and is that to which man shall be raised." (Pp. 113, 114.) In connexion ,vith this view of redemption, the author remarks that " when the Son of God was to be manifested to men " a prophet came, "not to argue and prove the probability of an incarnation," but to preach, " saying, , Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven .s at hand.' " Such a call to repentance, he says well, is "the true way of bringing evidence for any of the articles of Christian theology." He urges its importance, accordingly, in connexion with the article now under consideration; earnestly desiring to carry Unitarians as well as others along ,vith him. And then he resumes the subject of the Baptist's preaching, taking it as it is recorded in the gospel by John. "'Vhen St John explains the object of the Baptist's mission, he does not use the language of the other evangelists. lIe says, 'He Cll'ìne to bear cÜness of the LIGHT, that all men through. hÙn '}Jug/it betieve.' This is not a mere equivalent for the words, , RelJent, for the 7cingdo'J1 of Heaven is at /land;' but it gives the inner- most force of them." And that " innermost force,"- " taking a,vay the vagueness" of the mere call to repent, -seems to amount, according to the author, to something like this; "There is a light ,vithin you, close to you. Oh, turn to it."-Is it "my conscience? "-" Call it that, or ,vhat you please; but in God's name, my friend, do not cheat yourself with a phrase. I mean a reality; I mean that ,vhich has to do with your innermost being; :MYSTICISM. 197 I mean something which does not proceed from you or belong to you; but which is there, searching you and judging you. Nay! stay a nl01nent. I mean that this light comes from a Person,-from the King and Lord of your heart and spirit,-from the "\V ord,-the Son of God. vVhen I say, Repent; I say, Turn and confess his presence. You have always had it ,vith you. You have been unmindful of it." (Pp. 113-117.) The author anticipates, here, that not only Unitarians, but good orthodox souls, may be startled, and cries of "lHysticism," and so forth, may bÐ heard on all sides. He may be at ease on that score. Sometimes, indeed, his vague idealism might bring to recollection "the lore of the Alexandrian fathers,"-or" Fénélon, l\iadame Guion, Jacob Böhme, &c. ;" and sometimes also it suggests the reflection that the reveries of such dreamers as Irving, and the birth-throes of such pregnant thinkers as Coleridge, may be the sources of the author's theologi- cal speculations. But the hard fate that ties him to the Unitarian stake keeps him always ,vi thin the range of terrestrial attraction. If he is chargeable with 111ysticism at all, it certainly has more in it of ,vhat is allied to the prosaic subtlety of modern rationalislll, than of anything resembling either Alexandrian lore, or the enthusiastic rapture of the quietists. At any rate, he may brave the reproach of mysticism, boldly and with a safe conscience. How far he can separate himself as easily fronl the colder creed,-,vhether of the Friends, or of the l\laterialists,- 198 GOD LL\.NIFEST IN THE FLESH. which would resolve all revelation into inward experience, and identify Christ the Redeemer with conscience or the light within,-is another matter altogether. l\Iysticism apart, then, - and the author provokes this sally,-let hls manner of following up the call to repentance, based upon an appeal to the inward light, be carefully observed. Not only" Unitarians," but" many among us," are "bewildered by the proposition, 'Christ took flesh.' 'Vhat Christ? they would ask, if they were not withheld by SOllie fear. Is not Jesus of Nazareth the Christ?" Surely this is an excess of timidity. The proposition, , Christ took flesh,' has no particular sacredness attached to it, and is, in fact, by no means very defensible. It is a convenient stepping-stone, however, for the author. He finds that the" difficulty" which it occasions" is not relieved, but increased, by the emphasis with which divines, here and in Germany, are d,yelling on the words, , God manifest in the flesh.' " Not that" these divines" put on their" spectacles" to examine the" 0," ,vith or without the line, "in the Epistle to Timothy;" but "they take these word as expressing the very sense of the Gospel." So also does the author. But, having an eye to "Unitarian difficulties," he sees a danger, lest- "setting forth the manifestation," and not sufficiently "declaring who is the manifester "-we "lead people to suppose that the Image of the Holy One had no reality till it was presented through a human body to GOD AL'VAYS K:KO'YN THROCGII THE SOX. 199 men, or at least, that till then, this lInage bad no relation to the creature ,vho is said in Scripture to be fonned in it." "'\Ve thus, it seelns, cut off "the Old Testament economy" frolll "the revelation of the Son of God." And" ,vhat is ,vorse still, by this nleans the heart and conscience of lnunan beings beCOlne separated from that revelation. It stands outside, as if it were presented to the eye, not to them; as if those who sa,v Christ in the flesh must really have kno\vn him for that reason, whereas every sentence of the Gospels is telling us that they did not." (P. 119, 120.) Here is confusion ,vorse confounded! 'Ve seem to teach, either first, that the floly One had no image of hinlself before the Incarnation; or secondly, that before that event, the Son who is ' the brightness of the Father's glory and the express ilnage of his person' had no rela- tion to Inan and no dealings ,vith man; hence third]y, that he is not in the Old Testanlent economy; and fOlu-thly, that to see him in the flesh, \vith the bodily eye, ,vas enough to insure a real and saving knowledge of him. Such ghosts are raised out of one imaginary text, , ClzrÍðt took flesh,' and one real one, , God 1nanifest Ù the flesh.' For calnling weak minds, it Inay be enough to say that those who represent the inc rnation of the Son of God as the nlanifestation of God in the flesh, ahvays strenuously assert these two things: On the one hand, whatever knowledge of God man has had from the begin- ning has been through the Son, the "\V ord, the Inlage of 200 IN'VARD ILLUl\IINATION BY THE SPIRIT. the Father, ,vho has ever been in the ,yorld,-the light, and the life of men; on the other hanel, no In ani- festation of Christ, or of God in Christ, fron1 ,vith- out,-,vhether it be in his personal presence or in the preaching of his gospel,-can give a real kno,vledge of him ,vithout the in,vard illumination of the Holy Spirit. That, ho,yever, is no reason ,vhy ,ye should confound or identify .what Christ reveals to us, ",.hat is revealed to us in Christ, or by and through Christ, before his incarnation and since, with the light in every nlan, Christ in every man. It is a lnere artifice of controversy to represent any party as holding, that to have seen Christ in the flesh w'ith the bodily eye ,vas equivalent to really know- ing hin1. And it is a strange one-sided explanation of the difficulty ,vhich the author conjures up, ,vhen he makes the Incarnation, ,vhich, at the beginning of the Essay, was the only lneans of our kno.wing God as ,ve need and crave to kno,v hilll, nothing more after all than the exhibition or realization, for once, in a perfect man, of what every man may find in himself ;-and to all appearance lnight equally ,veIl have found, if there had been no prolllise of the ,vo an's Seed at the first, and no fulfilment of the prolnise in the fulness of the tinle. Of course, the author does not abandon his first propo- sition. On the contrary, after again appealing to "the Inethod of St John," in the preface to his Gospel, as "far more scientific, and also far more human and practical," than 'what he has been ilenouncing, he fixes cnRIST ENTERIXG INTO OUR TEMPTATIOXS. 201 the Unitarian in a kind of dilemma. Either own the Son, as he appeared on earth, to be ' of one substance ,vith the Father,' or else you ,viII assuredly, however you may talk about" omnipotence or omnipresence," " honour the Son, not as you honour the Father, but above him." (Pp. 120-122.) You cannot help it; for ,vhat you see of God in Christ approves itself to you as luore godlike than any vague and abstract notions you can form of Deity apart from Christ. This is a vie,v which surely admits of, if it does 110t require, a separation of t", o things which the author is always blending into one; the light to men and the light in men. The Son of God, as the 'V ord, hag ever been the revealer of the Father. He reveals him fully as the ,yo ord made flesh. He reveals him, ho'wever, to men, not in men. It is the special office of the Spirit, 'who has ever since the Fall been moving on the face of the chaotic human 'waters, to ' take of what is Christ's and shew it unto us;' to ' shine into our hearts and give the light of the kno'wledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' After a brief and emphatic appeal to "the younger Unitarian," in connexion with his second proposition,- enforcing the practical importance of ,yIlat he ha said about "Christ entering into OlU" tenlptatiolls," (p. 122, 123,)-the author proposes "to indulge in a nlere aì'gumentun ad lwnlÍnent," by which he hopes" to make much of his third proposition in discoursing with a U ni tarian. " 202 EXCLUSIONS REP"CDIATED. lIe appeals to Unitarians as "pledged, along "with Arminian churchmen, to hostility against the Calvinisti- cal theory of election." They both "have complained of the Calvinist, partly for his exclusions, partly for his zeal in proclaiming the ,vill of God as the sole cause of reden1ption and salvation." He propo es to "repudiate" the exclusions and to adopt the proclamation. 'Vhat Calvinism proclaims is "as much presumed in the doctrine that God redeems mankind, as in the doctrine that he redeems certain elect souls,"-he Ineans persons, -" out of mankind." Does the author not see that this is a mere evasion? A part altogether frolll the doctrine of election,-the question is, vVhat is the cause of one man believing and being saved, ,vhile another Inan refuses to believe and is condemned? Is it his o'wn '\yill? Or is it the will of God putting forth divine power to move the will of the nlan? N or will it avail to distort and caricature the opinions of "those who consider themselves very moderate Calvinists," and to speak of "those favourite divisions of theirs which seem to Inake the' believer' something different from a man, and so to take from him the very truth which he has to believe." (Pp. 123-125.) Is the author jesting? If I believe a truth in science which another Ulan rejects,-does that make nle different from a man, or take from Ine the very truth I have to believe? If I believe the author when he offers me a boon, and accordingly take the boon,-does that make REAL HUMAX NATUR:L OF CHRIST. 203 me something different from a man? But this is trifling. The Inain point is, that, according to the author, it will not do " to denounce the exclusiveness of Calvinists," unless "Anglicans give up their exclusive- ness, and Unitarians of all schools give up their several exclusivenesses," and "we heartily and unfeignedly acknowledge that Christ, the Son of God, has taken the nature of every man. 'Vith that faith, when it has possessed our ,, hole being, exclusiveness of any kind cannot dwell." (Pp. 123-125.) Now if this sentence means merely that Christ, the Son of God, has taken the nature common to all men,- or in other words, that real human nature ,vhich every man has,-it is true; but it is not to the author's pur- pose: for it does not shut out the exclusivenesses "which he repudiates, nor anyone of them. If it is to do that which the author desires, it must be because it means sOlnething else than this, or something more. Does it mean that Christ, the Son of God, has taken the nature of every man, in the sense of his being the same to every man,-and continuing always dIe same to every man,-whether he believes or not? If believing or not believing makes any difference 'whatever behveen men, with reference to Christ, the Son of God in human nature,-or if any other thing makes a difference,-if recognising or not recognising the light ,vithin does so, -then what becomes of the doctrine that the Incarnation is a safeguard against all exclusiveness? It can be so, 204 THE INCARNATION BANISHING HEATHENISM. only if it is understood as ipso facto,-or ex opere operato, -illaking Christ and every man one; making them one -beyond the power either of the hUlllan ,vill or the divine to cause any difference in that respect between man and man ;-unless indeed it come to this, that Christ is every man and every man is Christ. The author hints, in closing, that his view of the Incarnation may have the effect of banishing" all the dark and horrible thoughts respecting our Father in heaven, and our fellow-creatures on earth, which exist anlong us, and which we have adopted from heathenism." (P. 126.) vVhat these are, ,vill probably appear in the sequel. In the meantime, he suggests the inquiry, ",vhether the belief that Jesus Christ set forth in the gospels as the express image of God, and the image after ,vhich man is formed, has not been the secret of all that is confessedly high, pure, moral in our con- victions." Even here, should it not be the image after w.hich man ,vas formed?" At all events, ,vith the author's theology, as already unfolded before us,- with the prospect also of finding that the theology váth ,vhich he contrasts his o,yn is "at the root of all that is cruel in our doctrine, as well as of that 'which is most feeble and base in our practice,"--it is necessary to hesitate. These concluding ,yords of this Essay form a somewhat ominous prelude to the consideration of the doctrine of the Atonement. CH.A.PTER IV. THE REMEDY PROVIDED-THE PERSON A D 'WORK OF TIIE REDEEMER. ESSAY VII.-ON THE ATONIDIENT. THE author disclaims H the so-called theology of con- sciousness." He does so, ho,vever, with three qualifica- tions. lIe" is anxious to observe all the experiences and consciousnesses which the history of the ,\yorld bears witness of." He desires that" all these should be un- derstood, as they can only be understood, through the conscience of each lnan." And he "asks of theology that it should explain these consciousnesses, and clear and satisfy that individual conscience." There are, then, general consciousnesses ",yhich the history of the ,yodel bears witness of." And there is an "individual con- 8ciencc,"-" the conscience of each man." Theology must explain the consciousness; and it must also clear and satisfy the conscience. But it seems, "a theology which is based upon consciousness, which is derived out of it, cannot fulfil these conditions." It cannot harmo- Dise the consciousnesses and the conscience ;-the con- 206 CO SCIOUSNE SES-COKSCIEXCE. sciousnesses witnessed by history, and the individual conscience of each man ;-as that conscience has been carried through sin, suffering, righteousness, a Redeemer, a Son of God, an incarnation,-in the previous Essays. (Pp. 127, 128.) Four of the consciousnesses are specified: the consci- ousness of sin;" "the consciousness of a tyrant and oppressor;" "the consciousness of an advocate;" "the conciousness that ,ve share our sin with our fellow-crea- tures, and that we a.re obnoxious to a punishment ,vhich belongs equally to them." (Pp. 128, 129.) This last consciousness ought to be equivalent to a consciousness of common guilt, and a common liability to retribution, on the part of each individual of the human race, own- ing a comnlon character with all the rest. These four consciousnesses originate four theologies, or theological tendencies. The first,-the consciousness of sin,-suggests "a consciousness of consequences flo,ving from sin,-sh'etching into the furthest future." It raises the question, " vVho shall sever the consequences from the cause?" It " suggests the thought that pain, suffering, lllisery, are eS'pecially the Creator's work;"- he having linked the one to the other ;-that they are therefore" the signs which denote his feelings towards his creatures." The second, the consciousness of a tyrant and oppressor, " leads to the supposition that he," the Creator, "is that tyrant and oppressor." The third, the consciousness of an advocate, "leads to the supposi- THEOLOGIES OF COXSCIOUSXESS. 207 tion that the advocate may be the instrument of deliver- ing us out of the hand of the Creator, of saving us frolTI the punishment ", hich the Creator has appointed for transgression." 'Vhile the fourth "leads to the reflec- tion, ho,v can we put ourselves into a different position froin" that of our fello'w-creatures? "how can we escape frolH the calan1ities with ,vhich God has threatened then1?" (Pp. 128, 129.) How can we escape from the calamities ,vith ,vhich God has threatened us?- would seem to be" the more natural "W"ay of putting the question. But it serves a purpose to put it otherwise. "In each of these cases," the author adds, "a notion or maxinl respecting theology is likely to be gelleralised fronl the consc'iousness, which will oppose and outrage the conscience." ....t1.nd he " ",-ishes the reader to observe" this. (P. 129.) It may ,,"ell be observed: for is it not somewhat strange? That there should be consciousnesses,-ori- ginal instincts of our being,-moral and spiritual senses, -from each of 'which "a notion or maxim is likely to be generalised" different fronl that ,, hich may be generalised from any of the others ;-alld that all of these notions or maxims should "oppose and outrage conscience;" this is surely a startling view of human nature. No doubt it might be expected, if human nature is corrupt and man has fallen,-that man's best instincts or consciousnesses might be so perverted as to breed monsters from which the conscience must revolt; such 208 FACTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. monsters as the author brings together in fourfold array, to guard the threshold of his theory of the Atonement. But it will not do to marshal these products of the alleged consciousnesses of mankind before the conscience, and sue for an indiscriminate sentence against them. Let the products, in the meantime, be dismissed out of court. Let the conscience be asked to deal with the consciousnesses themselves, as ascertained to be genu- ine; all perversions of them, or of their products, being set aside. And let an estimate be made as to the fair value of each apart, and of all together. The author institutes no such process. He does not pause to distinguish the precious from the vile, either in the consciousnesses themsel ves, or in the notions or maxims generalised from them. And yet his 01vn summary,-his own analysis as n01V given,-may suggest a ground or basis for the doctrine of the ....t\..tone- ment 1vhich he himself altogether evades. Let these four facts in my experience be adn1Îtted to be real:- I feel that I do ,vrong and am '\\'Tong; I feel that I am under bondage, and am not my 01vn master, -not master of myself; I feel that I should be delivered or emancipated,-that I ought to be, and someho,v must be, different from ",vhat I am; I feel that there lies upon m , in common with all men, guilt, criminality, con- demnation, liability to punishment. Now take tllese feelings,--or these facts,-as fairly representing my consciousness and that of every man. Take them in OBNOXIOUSXESS TO PU ISH:\lEXT. 209 their true and fulllueaning. I am a ,vrong doer, a ,vrong thinker. I am in bondage to an evil spirit. I have that ,vithin me which demands a deliverer. And I have also that ,,-ithin llle which tens me that, in comn10n with all lllen, I am "obnoxious to punishn1ent." In plain terms, I have not only consciousnesses, but a conscience; for the consciousnesses coalesce in a conscience; \vhich, ho,vever, speaks n10re to the point, and more' as one hav- ing authority,' than they can do. l\Iy conscience testifies that I am obnoxious to punishn1ent. And n1Y conscience also testifies that unless the deliverer is one 1yho can deal \vith that feature of my case ;-\vho can meet and dispose of,-not the punishment to ,,-hich I am obnoxious, -but my consciousness of being obnoxious to punish- ment ;-he cannot rescue me from my subjection to the tyranny of the evil spirit ;-he cannot make me a right doer,-a right thinker ;-in a \vord, he cannot lllake me a righteous and holy being. I cannot get out of this vice in which my conscious- nesses, as authenticated by my conscience, hold me fast. I may be told that if I dw"ell exclusively on my con- sciousness of sin, in connexion with its inevitable and inseparable consequence, suffering,- I may come to regard the suffering, if not also the sin, as an inilex of the Creator's feelings to,vards his creatures ;-.perhaps even to cast the respon3ibility of both upon him ;--and so to originate a theology of fatalism, or something ,vorse. I may be told that" the conSCIousness of a tyrant and o 210 VAIUOUS THEOLOGIES. oppressor may lead to the supposition that he," the Creator, "is that tyrant and oppressor; "--\vhich is the theology of Devil-worship. I may be told further of the temptation besetting me to look for an Ad vocate ,vho shall" deliver me out of the hand of the Creator," and in that ,yay " save e froIll the punishu1ent" ,vhich he has appointed ;--a notion lying at the root of the theology of superstition. And to crown all, I l11ay be told that because I feel this punishn1ent to belong equally to me and to my fello,v-creatures, I ,vill be moved by that feel- ing to originate a theology of selfishness, and to ask ho,v I may escape "from the calan1Ï ties ,vi th \v hich God has threatened then1 ; "-as if I \vere not one of them,-in the same condemnation 'with the very worst of them. But neither this last selfish theology,-nor the superstitious,- nor the Satanic,-nor that of fatalism,-fairly represents anyone of these consciousnesses apart ;--far less the \vhole of them compactly joined together. Under the dark pressure of all the four, I go straight up to my con- science. I ask of that oracle what all this means. And the ans,ver I get is, that J am an intelligent being 'who has sinned ;-that I aIP a criminal,-guilty,-ill-desery- illg,-incapable of de erving better; that I an1 under a just sentence,-condemned as the violator of an unalter- able ]'Ioral La\y. True, J feel, most true. Now I have reached the ultimate explanation-the prin1ary cause-of my nature's unnatural strife. Tell me ho\v this consciousness is to G UILTLESS ESS-GUILELESS ESS. 211 be lllet,- how my craving for relief from my guilt and corruption is to be satisfied,-ho,v I am to get rid of the feeling that I anl a depraved and condemned man,- helplessly depraved, and righteously condemned. Tell me that, I say. For until you ten me that, you need not speak to nle of escape from pUllishlllent,-or of an Advo- cate to plead for me,-or of an evil spirit overcome,- or even of sin yielding to an inward sense of Úghteous- ness, and pain to an inward l'esentment of wrong,-of a "strong Son of God" waging the very war which 1 have to ,vage, and a man like lllyself, yet perfect in the image of God. 1\lost precious is all such assurance of nlY oneness ,vith nlY Saviour and of his synlpathy ,vith nlC. But she'w me first, I repeat, how I may be just with God, and ho,v God nlay be just ,vith me,-ho,v he may be pure in receiving me, and I may be pure in returning to him. Then I will listen thankfully to ,vhat you have to shew me of these other things. Give me back my sense of guiltlessness and guilelessness,--or else you do not make me the man I ,vas before I broke the law of my God; the man I feel I would have been if I had not broken the ]a,v of my God, and had not been hardened in the breaking of it. This is the consciousness, or conscience,-call it w'hat you ,vill,--in which the root of the doctrine of the Atone- nlent is to be found; and no man adequately discusses that doctrine unless he l'ecognises this feeling far more unequivocally and explicitly than the author does. It 212 SELF-RESPECT-FE \.R OF HELL. is real. And so far from its being relieved by any mere discovery of the absolute love of God,--his love to us,-- or by any advances \vhich he nlay make to us through his Son becon1Ïng one of us, one ,, ith us,- it gro-,ys deeper and darker,-more intense than ever. She,v me that God does not hate, but loves his sinful creatures,--and me among the rest,-the most sinful of them all. Shew me that he desires and deserves to be loved and trusted, not suspected and feared. Shew nle any amount \yhat- ever of grace and condescension by which he seeks to ,vin our confidence and destroy our tyrant, and make our nature like his own. The more you shew me all this,- the more,--if I have a spark of generolIS feeling in my bOSOlTI,-- the more do you stir up in me, -- in my inmost heart and soul,--an intolerance of the thought that I am guilty in the judgn1ent of such a God,-guilty of violating his holy and good la\v. And J cannot rest until I see ho\v that guiltiness in me is to be righteouRly got rid of. I cannot other,vise have that self-respect, ,,?ithout which I cannot respect Him. I t is a libel on the COmlTIOn doctrine of the Atonement,- not that this author kn nvingly utters it, for apparently he does not know the doctrine itsclf,- but it is neverthe- less a foul libel on that doctrine, to say that it merely meets the vulgar dread of punishment ,-the fear of hell, -which is 'the hangn1an's 'whip, to keep the wretch in order.' That is met far more easily and successfully every day by the thousand presumptions of impunity SEXSE OF COXDE)IXATION. 213 and pleas for mercy in ,vhich men take comfortable refuge. It will be met more easily also by the doctrine ,vhich resolves the ",-hole character and government of God into charity. "That the .A.tonement really meets is a far higher, holier, deeper feeling in our moral nature; -a feeling ,vhich, though too nearly dead in 1110st men, yet speaks more or less in all ;-a feeling ,vhich, the more God is known to be love, and the more there is of ' truth in the in"Tard parts,' only grows the lllore in- tense ;-the feeling of blame-worthiness,-the sense of being justly condemned. The best theologies, overlook- ing this consciousness so much as the author's theology does, may refine and elevate the thoughtful mind. But it may be doubted if they can make the heart right with God,-tld a child's heart is made right with his father, w"hcn his offence is not connived at, but dealt ,vith aud disposed of. .And it lUllst be deliberately said, that dis- o" ning,-or at least not owning,-\vhat is perhaps the truest and best instinct of fallen lllan struggling to be free,- these theologies ,vant the sub tance and body ,vhich alone can render any belief that stirs the con- science elldurillg,-and must soon therefore give place, either to the reveries of the mystics, or to the far lo,ver but more practical discipline of a cold and superficial utilitarian morality. These remarks partly anticipate, although they do not exhaust, the matters of discussion suggested by the 214 PRIESTS OF CHRISTENDO)I. remainder of this Essay; and therefore the review of it may be Jess minute than it might otherwise have been. Having found that fron1 each "co 1sciousness," as described by him, " a notion or maxim respecting theo- logy is likely to be generalised "\vhich "\vill oppose and outrage the conscience,"-the author represents a man proceeding naturally on these "data," as " of necessity working out a system, on "\vhich he aftenvards gazes with terror, from which he longs to break loose, "\vhich he charges priests and doctors with having created." No, the author replies, they did not quite create it. But they endorsed, and systematised, and embodied in rules and practice, the false, loose, morbid conceptions and cravings of the diseased heart; and sanctified as "faith, that ,vhich is grounded, in great part, upon fear and distrust." For this they are to be blan1ed, especially the Christian portion of them. " They have had an intuition of a higher truth," ",vhich alone gave substance to the opinions with which they and their disciples disfigured it." " The priests of Christendom," in particular, "have a theology revealed from heaven, which perfectly satisfieJ the demands of the human heart;" which, anlong other recommendations of it, " presents such a God as the conscience witnesses there must be and is, not such a one as the understanding tries to shape out from its o,vn reflections on the testimony of conscience." (P. 130.) CONSCIEXCE-UNDERST.\NDING. 215 'fhere is, of course, a meaning in this contrast be- t\veen the conscience '\vitnessing directly, and the con- science '\vitnessing through the understanding. The "priests of Christendom" are represented as taking the idea of God on .which they rest their theory of the ..A.tonement, not immediately from what the conscience itself testifies, but as it ,vere at second hand, from w.hat the understanding manufactures out of its testimony. There is an impertinent interference of the understand- ing, professedly to interpret, but l'eally to pervert, the evidence of the conscience. vVhy this jealousy of that humble functionary,-the understanding? If a question al.ises as to the real inlport of '\vhat the conscience 'witnesse8 in any matter, ho,v is it to be settled without some use of the understanding? The author thinks that a being of mere absolute love is such a God as the conscience ,vitnesses that there is and must be. I may happen to be of opinion that this is not ,vhat conscience testifies at all, ,vhen it is questioned fairly, not through any medium, but directly,-that on the contrary it testifies of la\v and government, of guilt and judgment, of sin and death,-that only a holy and righteous Ruler, dealing judiciaHy with his responsible creatures, can be such a God as the conscience witnesses that there is and must be. I nlay be quite willing tv submit the case bet,veen us to the arbitration of the understanding. But the author objects, and I am silenced. ..\..11 I can do is to protest that I shall not be held as confessing that the 216 THE TESTING SUBJECT. deposition of the ,vitness, according to my reading of it, is in the least degree Inore inferential and constructive than the author's own stateluent of its inlport. And perha ps I n1a y be allo\ved, as I retire from court, to suggest that this manifest distrust or dislike of the understanding, taken in connexion '\vith a certain eager- ness already noticed to "get rid of texts and nan'a- tives," affords an additional reason for receiving '\vith considerable caution \vhat the author may have to say, either on the subject of " an intuition of a higher truth," or on the subject of" a theology revealed from heaven." Having conjured up for the be,vildered student or victim of " consciousnesscs" and "conscience" a system on ,vhich he "gazes \vith horror ;-and having duly stigmatised "the priests of Christendon1" as largely responsible for the system, and the most crinlinal of all its abettors; - the author no,v "reaches the subject '\vhich is the test of all that he has been saying hitherto." He finds in the teaching of " the priests of Christendom," an ample apology at least, if not a justification, for " those '\vho cry for a theology based upon consciousness, w'hich shall supersede the theology of Christendom." These parties protest that "the doctrines respecting sacrifice and atonement which prevail in Christendoln, among Protestants as ,yell as Romanists," are" doomed," " dead;" that neither "texts of Scripture" can keep thenl unburied on the plain, nor "the verdict of centuries" galvanise thenl into artificial life ; that they CRUEL CO CEPTIOXS RESPECTIXG GOD. 217 exist merely by the \veight of authority, civil and ecclesiastical, and the prejudice of "a certain public opinion;" that they darken the sense of right and \\T0ng, be\vilder the understanding, sanction the most false conceptions respecting sin, the most cruel con- ceptions respecting God;" that "the conscience of hunlan beings is in revolt against then1." (Pp. 129- 131.) Such is their cry, such is their protest; with \vhich the author no\v proceeds to deal, ,yith a vie\v to luake out that the theology based on consciousness for \vhich they cry, instead of being the fitting cure, is the real cause of the evil against w'hich they protest. He admits that these notions may be imputed to Rornanists and Protestants. 'Vith a vast show of candour, he confesses a want of courage on the part of himself and others "in saying whether they regard the.se as parts of their creed or not." He holds "that they are not parts of God's revelation, or of the old creeds, but belong to that theology of consciousness \vhich nlodern enlightenment w'oulù substitute for the theology of the Bible and of the Church; that their rise filay be distinctly and historically traced to this source," and "that Christian theology, as expressed in the language of the Bible and of the Church, construed most simply, is a deliverance from these oppressive notions, and is the only one which has yet been or ever will be found." (Pp. 132, 133.) He proceeds to trace the notions in question historically 218 RO)L\NISl\I -LUTHER. to their source in the theology of consciousness. Of course he means the theology of consciousness as he has given an analysis of it in the beginning of the Essay. 1. He traces the usual account of the" gro,vth of the Romish system." "ltlen who 'were stung with the recollection of evil acts, thought they might do some- thing to win the favour or avert the wrath of the Divine Being." Hence the conviction that they must make sacrifices, the greater the better, that their sins may be forgiven. They consult the priests. They accept in- dulgences and penances. They apply to popular COl1- fessors,-the saints,-the ,rirgin l\Iother to intercede with the Divine Son, that his infinite sacrifice might remove post- baptisnlal sins. (Pp. 133, 134.) 2. He sketches the experience of Luther and the manner of his deliverance. rrhe sketch is very brief. What Luther believed respecting the Atonement, on the authority of the Bible, is given as simply this, " that the Son of God had taken away sin." His" conscience did not make a system. It protested against one which had been made in compliance with apparent necessities of the conscience. It said that the real necessity of the con- science was, that God 8hould speak to it, declare himself to it,-should proclaim hin1self as its Reconciler, should shew ho,v and in ,vItom he had accomplished that ,york on its behalf." (P. 136.) It is not necessary at pre- sent to ask what this means-or how far it does justice to Luther's glorying in the cross of Christ. }'ERVERSIOX OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE .ATONE)lE T. 219 3. The material point comes now. The author says, "I admitted that there were grave and earnest doubts aaainst much of what is called our doctrine of the b ..Atonen1ent." These doubts are thus expressed by the objector, 'who is represented dramatically as expostu- lating w'ith "'us." (1.) liS to ,vhat "our" doctrine is; "you hold that God had condemned all his creatures to perish, because they had broken his law; that his justice could not be satisfied without an infinite punishment; that that infinite punishment would have visited all men, if Christ in his mercy to men had not interposed and offered himself as the substitute for then1; that by enduring an inconceivable amount of anguish, he recon- ciled the Father, and made it possible for him to forgive those who would believe." (P. 137.) Is this the "our doctrine" against much of which there are "grave and earnest protests?" One ,vouid think there might well be protests against the ,vhole of it. But does the author really accept the objector's representation of it? Then, excepting only that ,yords are used ans,vering to "condemnation," "satisfaction," "substitution," "reconciliation,"-he ought to know that the entire statement is a perversion. . But not to \. insist on this at present, let the objector proceed. (2.) ...-1s to the basis of " our" doctrine; "It is based on a certain notion of justice," which, ho,vever, " out- rages the conscience to which you seem to offer your 220 THE PENITENT CLINGING TO THE CROSS. explanation." (P. 137.) " You admit that it is not the kind of justice ,vhich ,vould be expected of men." "vVe can forgive a fello,v-creature a ,vrong done to us without exacting an equivalent for it: we blalne our- selves if ,ve do not." "We do not feel that punishment is a satisfaction to our minds; we. are ashanled of our- selves ,vhen we consider it is. vVe may suffer a crilni- J nal to be punished, but it is that we lnay do him good, or assert a principle. And if that is our object, we do not suffer an innocent person to prevent the guilty froln enduring the consequences of his guilt, by taking them upon himself." (P. 138.) It might be asked here, 'Vhat is meant by our suffer- ing a crin1Ïnal to be punished" that ,ve may assert a principle {"-,vhat principle ?--a principle of govern- ment {-hulnan or divine {-or both? But to pass on. (3.) It seems that" clergymen are exceedingly anxi- ous to stifle these questions," although they " are asked on all sides of us." They fear that" such doubts" re- specting " sOlne vie,vs of the Atonement" may lead to a denial of" the doctrine itself,"-to a denial of" the Bible itself." They 'v ill not f0b " the hUlllble penitent" who " on a dying bed" " cli 1gs to the cross of Christ as her dearest hope, and feels that ,vithout his sacrifice aud death she can have no hope." (Pp. 138, 139.) Neither ,vill the author. "Debates are going 011- misery, alienation of hearts arises fi.'oln then1." "rrhe divine and the moralist" must be brought into agree- GOD RECOXCILIKG THE \YORLD. 221 mente But by no means must those ,vho, according to lC the statement of the clergynlen," w'hich "is certainly not exaggerated," are "the best, the humblest, truest Jlearts," be robbed of their peace and hope. They" rest with most childlike faith upon the belief that' God !tas 'reconciled tlte u orld un.to hÙnselj, not Ùnputing their tres- paS8fS unto them, j' that the death of Christ is the death of that 'Lamb of God v:lw taketh away tIle sins of the world.'" It may be impertinent to ask a repudiator of "texts and narratives" where he finds the passages ,vhich he professes to quote from Scripture_ Both of them are altered from the usual reading. The altera- tion in the last is not important, although the "sin" of the w.orld is not necessarily identical with its "sins," and may be held to indicate the root and origin, rather than the nlanifestations of its evil; condelnnation and corruption, as giving birth to actual offences. In regard to the first, if the author as a theologian " ere amenable at all to scholarship, he might not merely be asked to justify his translation, , God lias reconc'lled,' as preferable to the authorised version, ' God was -n Chrt.st reconcil- 'l-ng,' -but he might be challenged to produce a single text of Scripture, or a single fair inference froln any nunlber of texts of Scripture, in support of the opinion that ' God Ilas reconciled fIle world unto hirnself.' It is more to the point, however, to ask if the author really meets the case of the true and hU111ble hearts váth \vhom he sympathises, 'when he puts the question,-" 'Y.hat is 222 Al\INESTY --RENEW AL- ATOKE:MEKT. it to assure them that transgressions are forgiven by a bare act of amnesty, unless the sin of the heart and ,vill, the separation from God, which is the root of these transgressions, is at an end?" 'Vho are they ,vho teach" that transgressions are forgiven by a bare act of an1nesty?" Not those who hold and preach the doc- trine of a vicarious sacrifice. If the author admitted into his creed, in any definite form, the article of the for- giveness of transgressions, he himself might be said to proclaim" a bare act of amnesty." If he does not, it is because in his theology the 'v hole question of the for- giveness of sin is set aside, or superseded. No man of really childlike faith can easily acquiesce in such a pro- cedure. A man of that stamp '\vill admit and deeply feel that" a bare act of amnesty" cannot meet his case. His " separation from God" -" the sin of the heart and ,vill "-must come " to an end." " God himself" must "remove it." And he must do so by "some one in whom ,ve are bound more closely to him than our evils have put us asunder." But that "some one," if the poor are not to be spoiled of their birthright, must be a real 'Lamb of God; '- -he must be an actual High- priest, having an atoning sacrifice to present for theIn, and entitled in their name, and on their behalf, to nego- tiate for them a covenant of pardon and peace, in the most holy place, within tbe veiL The author, however, has another idea of the Atone- ment. Those who" rest with childlike faith" on ,vhat GIVING UP SELF-1VILl... 2 '> ...V the Bible says of reconciliation and the Lamb of God are not to be told "that no atonement has been made be- hveen man and God." "The gospel sets forth the Iedi- ator, in ,vhom we are at one \vith the Father." "It she\vs him, who is one ,vith God and one with man, perfectly giving up that self-will which had been the cause of all men's crimes and all their misery." (P. 110.) Is this the old quibble about At-one-ment? Here is Christ, in ,vhom \ve are bound more closely to God than our evils have put us asunder ;-in ,vhonl we are at one with the Father ;-'who, being one w'ith God and one with man, perfectly gives up that self- ,vill \yhich has been I11an's crime and ruin. This must mean, that he is not self-.willed, like other men. It can nlean nothing Inore. But is there any sacrifice here? Is there any giving up of anything unless it be a giving up of sin? In a 1o0se sense, it 111ay be said of a selfish man, \vhen he beCOIlles generous or godly, that he gives up that self-,vill \vhich has been his great fault,-his curse,-and that in doing so, he makes a sacrifice. In \vhat sense can this be said of Christ? But the author can go very far in the use of current phrases. He can "affirm that the cross exhibits the wTath of God against sin, and the endurance of that wrath by the ,veIl-beloved Son; "-and he can do so because "no,, here is the contrast between infinite love and infinite evil brought before us as it is there." " 'V rath agains t that which is unlovely is not the 24 CHRIST FEELING SIN. counteracting force to love, but the attribute of it. 'Vithout it, love must be a name, and not a reality. And the endurance of that ,vrath or punishment by Christ, caIne from his ackno\vledging that it proceeded from love, and his ,villingness that it should not be quenched till it had effected its loving purpose. The endurance of that ,vrath ,vas the proof that he bore in the truest and strictest sense the sins of the world, feeling them with that anguish ,vith '\vhich only a per- fectly pure and holy being, ,vIto is also a perfectly sympathising and gracious being, can feel the sins of others." (P. 141.) How does Christ on the cross feel the sins of others? Does he feel them as I might feel them? I am not per- fectly pure and holy; I am not perfectly sympathising and gracious. But comparatiyely I may be so. In pure and gracious love, I cast myself into the midst of a people sunk in crirne and misery. I pity theIll and would rescue them. With this view, I d\vell among theln; I make lnyself one with them; I suffer with them and for theln. Plainly the ,vrath of heaven is upon them,-that \vrath against the unlovely ,vhich is the attribute of Love itself: This ,vrath is exhibited in what they suffer. It is exhibited in what I suffer. 1\ly endurance of it is exhibited ,vhile I continue aU10ng them, and am ,villing to brave death rather than abandon theln. All the \vhile, I feel their pollutions, I feel their sins, as they do not feel them thelnselves. And the sY rp ATHI-SUDSTITUTIO . 225 purer I am, and the more loving, the more do I feel them. I endure the" rath of God, acknowledging that it proceeds from love, and should not be quenched until it has accoIllplished its loving purpose. I bear the sins of these men, feeling them ,vith an anguish proportioned to my own personal purity. Living and dying among them, entering into their miserable state, over which the cloud of I-Ieaven's wrath darkly hangs, I suffer ,vith their sin and for it. Is there an atonement here? Is there a sacrifice of propitiation? Is there anything more than synlpathy? -sympathy ,vith God in his ,vrath against that ,vhich is unlovely-sympathy ,vith 111Y poor brethren whose sufferings I share, ,vhose sins I feel? But substitution, not sympathy, is the essence of an atonement. It is a judicial transaction; if it is not so, it is no reality, but a mere name. And the cross of Christ is not really different from the cross of Peter, or that of any other pure and loving benefactor of his race. There may be a difference of degree in the endurance of ,vrath and the feeling of sin, according to the measure of sensibility to the divine love and to human evil. But as to the essential nature and character of the procedure, there is none. I-Iaving traced the rise of the notions which have cor- nlpted the doctrine of the Atonement, and having indicated his o,vn idea of it, the author undertakes "to shew that the orthodox faith, as it is expressed in the Bible and the p 226 CHRIST BEARING OUR GRIEFS. creeds, absolutely prevents us from acquiescing in some of those explanations of the Atonement which both in popular and scholastic teachings have been identified with it." The following are his propositions or heads, stated by him with more than ordinary formality. 1. and 2. The '\vill of God originates all good, and, in particular, the mission of Christ. The Father sendeth the Son. And the Son is one in will with the Father. "On earth his whole life ,vas nothing else than an exhibition of this will, an entire submission to it." Therefore "we must not dare to speak of Christ as changing that will which he took flesh and died to fulfil." (Pp. 143, 144.) 3. "Christ is the Lord of men" -" the root of righteousness in each man," "made known as such by his incarnation. If ,ve speak of Christ as taking upon himself the sins of men by some artificial substitution, we deny that he is their actual representative." (P. 144.) 4. Founding on Hebrews ii. 14, the author says of "aU orthodox schools," and "tens of thousands of suffering people," -" instead of seeking to put Christ at a distance from them;;elves, by tasking their fancy to conceive of sufferings which at the same moment are pronounced inconceivable, they have claimed him as entering into their actual miseries, as bearing their griefs." "They have believed that }1e rescued them out of the power of an enemy by yielding to his power, THE 'Y.AGES OF SIN IS DEATH. 227 not that he rescued them out of the hand of God by paying a penalty to him." (P. 145.) 5. "The Scripture says, , The Lamb of God taketh azc((y tlte s'tn of the wo'rld.' All orthodox teachers repeat the lesson." "Have we right to call ourselves scriptural or orthodox, if we change the words, and put 'penalty of sin' for' sin;' if 'we suppose that Christ destroyed the connexion between sin and death,-the one being the necessary wages of the other,-for the sake of benefiting any individual man whatever? If he had, would he have magnified the law and made it honourable? ".,. ould he not have destroyed that which he came to fulfil? Those who say the law must execute itself, must have its penalty, should remember their ,yords. IIow does it execute itself if a person, against ",'hom it is not directed, interposes to bear its punish- ment? H (P. 146.) 6. "A perfectly holy and loving Being can be satis- fied only '\vith a holiness and love corresponding to his OW11." "Christ satisfied the Father by presenting the image of his o'\vn holiness and love," especially in "his sacrifice and death." "How, then, can we tolerate for an instant that notion of God ,vhich would represent him as satisfied by the punishment of sin, not by the purity and graciousness of the Son?" (P. 147.) 7. Summing up the whole, the author gives again his view of the Atonement. "The Father's will is a "yill to all good." " The Son obeys and fulfils, in our flesh, 228 MAN PRESENTED AS A SACRIFICE TO GOD. that \vill, by entering into the low.est condition into 'v hich men had fallen through their sin." Therefore " he is an object of continual complacency to his Father, and that complacency is fully dra,yn out by the death of the cross." "IIis death is a sacrifice, the only complete sacrifice ever offered, the entire surrender of the \vhole spirit and body to God." "This, in the highest sense, is atonelnent." " The true, sinless root of humanity is revealed; God in him is reconciled to man. The cross is the meeting point bet\veen man and man, bet\veen luan and God." " In it all the '\visdom and truth and glory of God .were manifested to the creature; in it man is presented as a holy and acceptable sacrifice to God." (Pp. 147, 148.) There is nothing ne\v in these objections against the doctrine of a vicarious or expiatory sacrifice. They have been urged by Unitarians, and fully answered, times \vithout number. The novelty is to find them in a de- fence of the doctrine of the Atonement. And the sur- passing wonder is to see an English theologian, at this hour, so thoroughly ignorant of '\vhat really is the doc- trine of "Archbishop Iagee" and those who hold in substance his vie,,"s,-Llnd at the same time so dogmatic in claiming for himself the authority of the Bible and the creeds, '\vithout once glancing at the texts or at the Articles '\vhich directly bear upon the question at issue. (P. 148.) Let the case De fairly stated for the defenders of the current evangelical belief. STATE)IENT OF EV AXGELICAL BELIEF. 229 V{ e do not hold that Christ in any sense changed the ,viti of the Father. 'Ve do not hold that the Atonement moved the Father to love the ,vorld, but that the Father so loved the ,yorld as to provide the Atonement. "T e do not admit the substitution of Christ in the roonl of the guilty to be artificial. "T e believe it to be real and actual. 'Ve believe it to be the gracious appointment of the sovereign will of God. And we believe that be- cause Christ is the actual representative of men, he is on that very account qualified to be their substitute. "\Ve do not put Christ's endurance of inconceivable sufferings as our substitute instead of his entering into our actual miseries and bearing our griefs. "T e believe both. 'Ve believe in the sympathy of Christ ,vith us, as well as in the substitution of Christ for us: and we believe the sympathy to be all the more tender and true on account of the substitution. "T e do not believe that he rescued men out of the hand of God, by paying a penalty to him: but as little do we believe that he rescued them out of the pow.er of an enemy, by yielding to his power. "T e believe that he did not yield to the enemy's po'wer, but triumphed over it. He yielded to death, not be- cause the enemy had any po\ver over him, but because the Father gave him the cup to drink. 'Ve do not put I penalty for sin' instead of ' sin' in the passage about the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world. But ,ve ask what persons accustomed to the sacrificial language and ideas of the Old Testament would under- 230 SATISFACTION. stand by t11at pI1rase. And \ve ask \vhat that other passage means,-' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.' vVe do not suppose that Christ has destroyed the connexion between sin and death. vVe hold that he has ratified and confirmed it fnore emphatically than if all sinners perished. The Holy One, taking the responsibility,- the guilt,-of our sin upon himself, accepted the wages of sin, which is death. vVe do not say that the law must execute itself. The L nvgiver must execute his own law; and it is for him to judge if in any instance a substitute may stand for the guilty. "r e do not re- present God as satisfied by the punishment of sin. "T e speak, indeed, of the justice of God, or his holy law., being satisfied,-its claims being met,-its violated ma- jesty being vindicated,-when sin is punished. But this is a very different thing from representing God as feeling a personal satisfaction in punishing sin ; which is clearly \vhat the author means to ascribe to us. 'Ve hold strongly, that God can be satisfied only \vhen he beholds his own image in man, as he did at first, and in Christ Jesus does again. "r e believe, finally, that the death of Christ is a sacrifice, both because it is the entire surrender of the whole spirit and body to God, and also because this surrender implied that 'he bore our sins in his own person on the cross.' We believe that it is not a sacrifice of man to God, but a sacrifice for man ;-the sacrifice, the vicarious and expiatory suffering of the DIVINE JUSTICE. 231 representative of man, the substitute for man,-the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all,-who gave his life a ransom for the many. It moves one's deepest sorrow to see a man like this author trying to gain his case by mere abuse of the opposite counsel. Let it be granted that in popular statements of the doctrine of the Atonement unguarded expressions may be found. Surely one so learned and so charitable ought to know that he is really fighting against a \vooden Soldan,-a mere man of straw,-and that he is offensively caricaturing a belief w'hich to very many poor afflicted ones is the very life of their souls. Is he not aware that the true and only idea he has to deal with is the idea of substitution? Let him expunge that idea,-not loose declamation about it, not ignorant perversions of it,-but the idea itself,-out of the Bible, out of the creeds. Let him expunge it out of the great conscience of mankind. Then his cause is won. This, however, is not so easy a task as the other. Is there such an attribute as justice in the character of God ?-not justice of a different kind from what we call justice among men, but the very same - the justice \vhich would force me, however willing to "forgive a wrong done to me without exacting an equivalent for it," (p. 137,)-yet as a judge to count the criminal guilty, and enforce the sentence of the la,v? That is the fair analogy; in1perfect no doubt, but fair. The author must surely know that, and he should have said 232 GUILT-JUDG)IENT. it. If he denies that God judges and condemns us,- that we are actually guilty and condemned,-he raises another question. Of course, in that case, there is no need of any judicial procedure, any infliction of punish- Inent, either upon men themselves, or upon a surety in their stead. But the doctrine of substitution, as held by its advocates, proceeds upon the assumption that there is guilt, criminality, blame'worthiness, attaching to all men, and that the Judge of all deals ,vith it judicially, in terms of his own law. Disprove the assumption, and the doctrine falls. But in all fairness, discuss the principle of the doctrine, upon the assump- tion. IIere, then, are we all, summoned before the Judge, - compelled to plead guilty, - condemned,- sentenced. vVhat no,v is the Judge, the Lawgiver, to do? Does he divest himself of the judicial character? The unsophisticated conscience of mankind answers- No, he cannot. 2\ly conscience,-the more I know and believe that he is love, answers the more emphatically, -No, he cannot. 'Vere he to forgive me ,vithout executing the judicial sentence which, the more I see that he loves me the more I feel that my deep guilt deserves,-I could not forgive myself. I feel as if almost I would be compelled myself to execute it. And he tells me that this feeling is right. But he tells me this, when he presents to me one,-his only-begotten Son,-whom in infinite love he sends,-who in infinite love comes,- to take my place. lIe is infinitely worthy; RIGHTEO"CS P ARDOX-PEACE. 233 and the more I gaze on him, obeying, suffering, dying, as the substitute of sinners of ,vhom I am chief, the more do I admire the glorious harmony of righteousness aLd love which the gracious arrangement unfolds. I lay the burden of n1Y conscious guilt on him. .A.nd now., ,vith conscience cleansed and heart won over,-my own sense of justice being satisfied, as w.ell the claims of that justice of God ,vhich I deeply feel must be met,-I return to my Father and have peace. This is that instinct in men, recognising justice in God and guilt in sin, ,vhich, more or less distinctly realized, has made them always v.-elcome,-,vhenever conscience awakes within them,-the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. This is the true doctrine of the Atonement,-holding which, I can go to all my fello,ys as confidently as the author, and say-" my theology rests on the eternal love, which overlooks all distinctions, which embraces all the world," (p. 150;) for 'it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.' CHAPTER V. THE RE)IEDY PROVIDED IN THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE REDEE:\IER-HIS WORK. ESSA Y VIII.-THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD FROM DEATH, THE GRAVE, AND HELL. DEATH, the Grave, Hell, the Resurrection,-these are the subjects of this Essay, suggested by the words of the creed, 'he was dead and buried, he descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead.' They are t,vice passed in review. On the first review of them it is not l1eCessal'Y to d ,veIl long. 1. On the subject of death, Strauss and the Apostle Paul are well contrasted. '.rhe last enemy to be destroyed, according to Paul, is death. According to Strauss, 'it is the belief of a man in his own immor- tali ty.' The desire to be rid of this belief is not so unnatural or unreasonable as Inight be supposed. So far the philosopher is right. But the thing is impos- sible. "'rhe sense of immortality is very dreadful, but the terror is not one ,, hich the thought of death relieves us of; the thought of death a,vakens it in us,-the nearer ,ve come to death, the more it faces us. Death, then, is tlte enemy." The citizen of Tarsus carries it over the I I)IORTALITY -DEATH. 235 German. To overcome the terror of the sense of im- mortality, woe must grapple with death. vVe do grapple \vith it. Weare convinced that its dark isolation and loneliness cannot and should not be submitted to. There is that in us \vhich" rebels against death, all the nlore "because it is a necessity." But Christ died. And therefore in death ,ve are no longer solitary. Nor is death now to us a mere necessity. "Christ chose it because it is ours. 'Ve can choose it as his more than ours." (Pp. 153-159.) There ,yould seem to be little occasion here for dis- charging another poisoned arrow against the convenient lay-figure] set up in order to be knocked douîl, in the last Essay. By whom is the death of Christ represented as "an ariificial arrangement for saving us from a future penalty, while the actual penalty ,,-hich makes us tremble is incurred as much as ever?" (P. 158.) 'Vhether the an'angement is artificial or not, depends upon the previous questions as to the reality of justice in God, and guilt in man. But at all events, those w"ho have recourse to that arrangement believe that it enables them not only to escape a future penalty,-but to say now,-' 0 death, ,vhere is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory, through Jesus Christ our Lord. ' 2. "The feelings of nlen respecting death" are not 236 THE GRAVE-REMAI S. to be confounded" w'ith those which are awakened by the grave." "Then one dies, ,ve say of him-' he is gone.' cc The person ,vhonl ,ve knew is not in the form ",-hich ,ve look upon." But the form is sacred-" we cannot look at it and satisfy ourselves with any thoughts of a disembodied spirit." cc In some ,va y or other '\ve must connect it 'with the friend" ,vho is gone. At the same tinle, cc the instinct to bury the dead out of our sight is also deep and healthy." cc"\V e call that ,vhich the earth incloses, that ,vhich it devours or assimilates to itself, 'remains,' or ',vhat is mortal;' we have a horror of identifying it with the actual body which ,vas so precious to us." cc The body associates itself 'with any thoughts '\ve have of personality and immortality; that which lies in the earth, or is consumed with the fire, we naturally and inevitably associate with decay, putrefaction, destruction." (Pp. 159, 160.) This is the germ of the author's theory of the Resur- rection. In fact, it is the theory itself covertly intro- duced: for if his account of our feelings and instincts in burying our dead is accepted ,vithout qualification, it will go far to settle the q 1 1estion. It amounts to this,- that "Te expect nothing at all back from the grave in which we lay the body, or from the urn which incloses its ashes, or from the deep sea in ,vhich it has sunk with sullen plunge, or from the desert in ,vhich its bones have been left to bleach. But is it so? It is admitted that it is 'c a true feeling, strongest in BURYING THE DEAD OUT OF SIGHT. 237 truest minds," which pronlpts us to put the inanimate form of our best-beloved out of sight. cc"\V e shrink from the mumnlY," and cannot, even at superstition's bidding, "invest relics ,vith the sacredness which we must attach to body." But is not this because that identical body is still precious to us? \Ve cannot bear to see it lifeless. But fain 'Would "\,e see it living again. And it is because we long to see it living, that "\ve hasten to put it, "\vhile dead, out of OlU' sight. It is because "\ve do identify what the earth receives "\vith the actual body ,vhich "\vas so precious to us, that ,ve do not like to look at its decay. Neither is it correct to say, that" the body associates itself with any thoughts "\ve have of personality and inlmortality." It is true that when "\ve think of our departed brother, and try to picture him to our mind's eye such as we hope again to see him, 'we do not accurately distinguish between' the dust which has returned to the earth as it was, and the spirit ,yhich has returned unto God ,vho gave it.' He is before us, the entire man whose hand we used to grasp. But ask the mourner letting down the coffin into its narrow bed,-' vVill your heart be satisfied when you meet him, unless this tomb shall have given hilll back something of ,,'hat death has robbed him of? ,- ask, and pause for his reply. He ,vill tell you that all of his friend that lives else"\vhere, ,vill not be enough for him without 'v hat of his friend lies here. And he will tell you, moreover, that he finds consolation in the fact 238 DESCEXT INTO HELL. that" HE 'lcas bur'iecl"-because it proves that what the earth receives, the earth cannot retain or hold for ever. The manner of the resurrection ,vill fall to be con- sidered afterwards. In the meantime, it is submitted that this is at least as natural and intelligible an account of our feelings abðut the grave, and of the comfort to be derived from Christ's having been in the grave, as the explanation which the author gives. It is sub- mitted also, that, ingenious aYld subtle as the author's explanation unquestionably is, it is not so true to the instincts of bereaved humanity. 3. "He descended into hell." "l\Iighty words! which I do not pretend that I can penetrate, or reduce under any forms of intellect. If I could, I think they would be of little worth to me." So the author ex- clain1s; while at the same time he "accepts theln as news that there is no corner of God's universe over which his love has not brooded;" and he claims from them a right to tell every man that" there is nothing created ,vhich his Lord and )Iaster has not redeemed, of which he is not the king." These statements may perhaps mean less than they at first sight appear to mean; although it may be doubted whether the author would not resent the suggestion as an offence. There is nothing in the rest of the passage materially to modify them. He" ,vill not quarrel ,vith the etymology of Hades." Of course, he will not ask ,vhat it was under- stood to be the name of 'when the creed was made. To THE UNSEEK-THE FORMLESS. 239 him it represents a great idea. " The abyss of space into which Lord Byron brought Cain, Lucifer being his guide thither," -is apparently" the true conception" of it. It is "a dark, formless world, in which there is nothing for the eye to dwell upon, for the heart to embrace, where all is vague and monstrous." It is "utter dreariness." "If we were merely children of earth, we might be satisfied ,vith its pictures ancl images." "Being something better, we must make a hell for ourselves, if we cannot find a heaven. Yes, a hell: the silllpiest language is the best." "It may mean," the ,,"ord Hades, "the unseen, the formless. But the unseen becomes to the bewildered conscience the formless ;-the negative of a .world, the darkest con- ception a man may have of that ,vhich is ,vithout him- self. He brings into it a more terrible darkness, that which is wz.thin himself; the worm of conscience ,vhich he cannot kill, the fire he can never quench." (Pp. 160, 162.) A terrible description, truly, of the 'outer darkness' n1eeting the darkness within! But its very terror makes it necessary to ask-Did Christ pass into,-did he pass through,-that? Some divines have held, that, to complete the endurance of the penal sentence annexed to guilt, Christ actually descended into the place of torment, not however to redeem either it or its inmates, but that his vicarious sacrifice might be perfect. The author does not, of course, agree 'with them. Neither 240 DARK HORROR OF HADES. does he agree ,vith the far larger nlunber of theologians '\vho think t.hat the sacrifice was finished on the cross, and that ,vhat the Creed ,vas meant to teach ,vas merely the reality of his death ;-his body being buried, and his soul passing into the unseen ,vorld, as other holy souls do when their bodies are in the grave. The author understands by hell, just in "the simplest language," hell ;-the hell ,vhich, he says, men nlust n1ake for themseh-es if they cannot find heaven-dark- ness without-darkness within. 'Vas it into this hell that the Redeemer descended? lIe may reply that he cannot reduce the mighty words under any fOrITIS of intellect; and to hilTIself personally the words may be of the more worth because he cannot. But for the sake of others, whom the gloomy horror of his vivid deli- neation may unduly haunt, or \vho may respond too readily to his jubilant call for" merry songs to God" "because there is nothing created that is not re- deemed,"-he ought at least to say if the hell he speaks of is part of men's common lot here, or is the doom awaiting the condemned hereafter; and if the last,- then he ought also to say '\vhether he means that Christ descended into it for tIle purpose, or to the effect, of either mitigating the severity of the sentence or abridg- ing the term of its duration. 4. The resurrection of Christ, the author thinks, was at first believed, not so much for any great array of proofs, as because it met and satisfied a want which men BELIEF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTIOK. 241 felt. "If there ,vas no person ,vho 'was actually one ,vith God and one with man, the gulph must remain for ever unfilled; if there was, it was not incredible that he had entered into lnan's death, grave, hell; it \vas ab- solutely incredible that he should be holden of them." On this view of the matter, historically, it is needless to d ,yell, because the author at once conles down to the present tilne, and raises important general questions. He appeals to "the experience of eighteen centuries,- our experience especially of the confusions and con- tradictions in to \y hich ch urchmen and ch urch doctors have fallen ,vith respect to the state of TIlen here and hereafter," as "illustrating the \yords he has been speaking of in this Essay, as they could not have been illustrated in the first ages." (Pp. 164, 165.) Accordingly, the words death, burial, hell, resurrec- tion, pass in review again, under the new light of this long and melancholy experience. 1. Is death the separation of the soul from the body? The author ans,vers-Ko. AntI he proves his point by steps of reasoning \vhich it may be convenient to number. (1.) "Death, so far as 'we can judge from any of the phenomena it presents to us, affects the powers of think- ing, of motion, of sensation, equally; our natural inl- pression 'would be that ,, hatever influence it produces on one, it produces also on the other." (2.) But there is "a sense of immortality" which "would not allow people to follo,y this conclusion of Q 242 SOUL AND BODY. nature; smnething, they said, must survive. The soul would go to IIades,-the hero himself to the birds and dogs. " (3.) So they said of old. And so we are apt to speak, until" a confused impression that the soul has more to do ,vith the hero himself, and the body w'ith that which the dogs or birds devour,"-grows into a thorough con- viction. Then the" sense of immortality expresses itself in the only language which can express it." And the man "says, ' I shall survive, I cannot perish.' " (4.) '''hen the man feels this, first in "horror," and then more calmly, "it becomes impossible for him to divide his soul from that which has been, during all his experience of it, its yokefellow." "Psychology" may gradually teach him that the names, soul and body, "have distinct realities answering to them." But psychology, "imperfect" as it is, must not" be allowed to interfere with the witness of his conscience-that he, who uses equally the po"Ters of thought and the po,,yers of motion and sensation which have been intrusted to him, is responsible for both ;-that, ho'wever they may be divided or united, t'!1ey are both intimately attached to his personality." (5. ) The man has now "a luuch stronger sense of his connexion with the deeds done in the body than when he was dra,ving those artificial lines, alid also a much stronger conviction of the dignity and sacredness of the body than those can entertain who would separate it DEATH OF CHRIST. 243 from the soul." And" the marvel of death, 'which seems to extinguish soul as ,veIl as body, and yet which he can neither hope nor fear will extinguish kÙn, pre- sents itself under a new aspect. He must have a solution." (Pp.165-167.) (6.) The solution is to be found in the death of Christ. "He poured out his soul as well as his body to death." It was" the death of a soul as well as of a body." The author says-" Those 'who have wished to repre- sent his death as different from all others, for the sake of enhancing its "\yorth, have dwelt upon this as its most wonderful characteristic." Is this candid? Does he not know that whatever they may hold as to what Christ suffered in his soul, and however they may express their views on that awful subject, they would shrink with horror from the doctrine he is himself here propounding? And well they may. For it involves nothing short of this shocking conclusion, that our blessed Lord, soul and body together, lay for three days in the sepulchre! That conclusion is inevitable, ,vhether the author sees it or not. " To me," he says, "the death of Christ seems the most ,yonderful, because from it I am able to learn what other deaths are,-what the death of man is." How this bears upon the doctrine of the Atone- ment, it is not to the purpose here to inquire. I t must mean, however, that the death of Christ was not diffe- rent from other deaths. "Christ gave up all that ,vas his own,-he gave up ltÙnself to his Father." But what 244 CHRIST AFTER DEATH. ,vas" lltJnself" after he was dead, and before he rose fronl the dead? On the COlnmon theory of death, the ques- tion is easily ans\vered. His body ,vas in the grave; himself, his living soul, was ,vith God. But ,vhat ans\ver can the author's theory suggest? Nor ",.ill it avail to say that the san1e question might be asked re- specting others as well as Christ. In the case of all others, what is buried, according to the author, ceases altogether and for ever to be part of the person. But the body ,vhich sa\v no corruption, and came out of the tomb on the third day, .cannot be thus disposed of. 'Vhat ,vas buried on the evening before the Sabbath, and reappeared on the morning of the first day of the ""reek, nlust, on the author's theory, have been the entire man,-' the nlan Christ Jesus.' FraIn its first step, the reasoning aSSUlnes ,vhat no intelligent reader of Butler's Analogy, entitled to taunt his opponents 'with that book as this author does, would have asserted; not at least without proof. The starting point is the very opposite of Butler's. Butler founds his whole argument on the fact that you do not see the mental faculties arrested by death, ,vhile you do see the bodily functions stopptd; and his argument is, that you have no right to infer a discontinuance of action without evidence, and in the face of the naturalla\v or principle '\vhich presumes continuance. The author, at the outset, exactly reverses this process. And at the close, the question is really narro'\ved, ,,-hatever he nla)"" say, to a DILE)IJlA. 245 very simple,-but a very soIemn,-dilemma :- If Christ was true and very man,-and if his resurrection was a real fact,-then, either his soul was with God ,vhile his body ,vas in the grave,--or he ,vas, both soul and body, buried till the third day. This is not a dilemma to be trifled with, nor one to be evaded under any plea of dis- like to logical forms in spiritual matters. The sum of all, as the author puts the case, is this :- "1. If 'we were indeed created and constituted in Christ, -if he ,vas the root of our humanity,"-" 'we should not then have occasion to ask how much perishes or surviv"es in the hour of death. 'Ve should assume that all must perish, to the end that all may survive." (Pp. 165-168.) "2. Such a conclusion" he immediately adds, "would go far to help us through that terrible perplexity into ,vhich we fall, respecting the body, and that ,vhich we commit to the ground." The belief that" the mystery of death is the division of soul and body" makes us U cling, ,vi th a deep love, to those remains ,vhich yet we are forced to regard with a kind of loathing." v"Ve are tempted, like the Roman- ists, to invest them with miraculous powers, and worship them. Or we "take our own Protestant way of assert- ing the sanctity of relics, by maintaining that at a cer- tain day they w-ill all be gathered together, and that the very body to 'which they once belonged will be recon- structed out of them." (P. 168.) Thus the author stigmatizes the prevalent doctrine of 246 BUTLER'S GROUND CHAPTER. the resurrection of the dead. I t is "an immense de- Inand made upon our faith;" and that too, "by divines 'w'ho would yet shrink instinctively from saying that what they call a living body here, is a mere congeries of particles,-who would denounce any man as a materi- alist if he said that." vVhat does the author mean? lIas his noble zeal against Protestant relic-"worship wholly blinded his clear understanding? To say that a living man here is a mere congeries of particles,- might look like materialism. But a very fanatic against materialism might admit the author's formula - " a living body" -to be quite harmless. "'\tV orse and worse, however, these divines" use as a text book of Christian evidences Butler's .Analogy, the ground chapter of which, (On the Future State,' is based on the argument that there is no proof that death destroys any of our living po,vers-those of the body more than those of the soul" The argument, on the .contrary, separates the two. Still it säys 'l that ordinary attrition may destroy the particles of which the matter of our bodies consists, more than once in the course of a life; so that nothing can be inferred from our depositing the whole of that Inatter at the moment of dissolution." (Pp. 168, 169.) These unfortlmate divines might demur to this state- ment of Butler's fundamental argument; they ,vould admit, ho,vever, that they are accustomed to avail thenl- selves of "the fact" here cast in their teeth, as proving that it does not require identity of particles to constitute BARE GRAIN-1V"HEAT. 247 identity of the body. Nay more, they are accustomed to think that they find some hint of this in Paul's answer to the question-' How are the dead raised up ? and ,vith \yhat body do they con1e? '-' Thou fool! ,- the words are Paul's-' that ,vhich thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that "T hich thou sowest, thou S01vest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of "'''heat, or of some other grain.' It is bare grain when sown, 'but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.' Still further, ,vhereas they are taunted with" reading to every n10urner that corruption cannot inherit incor- ruption; that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- dom of God," (p. 169)-they venture timidly to ask if they may not take shelter behind the adjoining promise, 'This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' 'Vhat corruptible? ''' hat mortal ?-if it be not the lifeless clay 've are bury- ing out of our sight. But the author" hopes, at some other time, to ex- anline the whole of this great chapter, and to see \vhat it actually reveals to us." (P. 171.) Till then, the divines had best maintain a prudent reserve. It may be enough at present, to declare in their nalne generally, that an identity equivalent to that of the 'bare grain' sown with the' body' that springs from it, will fully satisfy their most extravagant demands; and moreover, that they lay their account with finding as great a difference 248 IDENTITY OF THE BODY. between the' vile body' on which they drop a last tear while the cold earth covers it in, and the same body changed, and 'fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Lord Jesus Christ,' as there is between the rotting seed which the earth" devours and assimilates to itself" and the plant of beauty and renown on which the summer sun shines brightly. Such identity, and such differencp, they believe that there will be. And more than that they do not ask to understand. Is any man entitled to speak of this-the common belief of Christendom,-of Romanist, Protestant, Uni- tarian, all alike,-as "this notion of a resurrection of relics,- of that corruption which our Lord did not see? " (P. 170.) Is it fitting to apply such language to it, even when he who applies it is to offer what he l11ay consider rather a complimentary solution of it ? I t indicates, it seems, " a very deep conviction that the body of our humiliation must be identical ,vith the body redeemed and renewed;" a conviction" so rooted in the heart that it ,viII absolutely force nature, fact, Scripture, everything, into accordance ,yith it. I must be, in all respects, the same person that I was before I put off my tabernacle; therefore, these elements which were once attached to my body, must come from all the ends of the earth to constitute it. What a witness for the reality of a belief, that it can sustain such a contradiction as this rather than cease to exist!" "Soul and body are groaning together under a weight of decay and mor- ADAM CONDITIONS. 249 tality." "An hour comes which seems to say that their emancipation has taken place; that these Adam condi- tions belong no more to the man; that as to them he is utterly dead. The preacher of God's gospel runs about saying, , Oh, no! it is a mistake! These 'witnesses of the Fall,-these pledges of pain and shame, from which fever, consumption, cholera, afte! days or years of suffer- ing, have at last set your friend free,-belong to him inseparably, necessarily, eternally. They are that body, the most curious, ,vonderful, glorious, of God's ,vorks; they are not, as your consciences tell you, as the Scrip- ture tells you, the proofs that this wonderful fabric has suffered a monstrous and cruel outrage; that it needs a deliverer to raise it and renew it.' A strange gospel, one ,vould think." (P. 171.) Certainly, a very strange gospel indeed! But whose is it? 'An J[eliboei?' At any rate, it is worth looking at. First of all, what is this " wonderful fabric?" And what are the proofs that it "has suffered a monstrous and cruel outrage?" Are the remains we bury the proofs of this? "One ,yould think" that the "Adam conditions" of "decay and mortality," -" pledges of pain and shame," - might be "fever, consunlption, cholera," and visitations of that nature preying upon men's bodies, and cutting them down. But, oh no! These kindly "set your friend free." And the material body from which they set him free, is itself, as it would seem, the sum and substance of the" AdalTI conditions" that are to "belong to him no more." 250 conRUPTIO -CORRUPTJ BLE. The author would count it foul scorn to be charged with holding any of the heresies of the Gnostical teachers. And yet it would puzzle the most learned adept in these old controversies to dra\v the line between ,vhat they thought of the bodies ,vhich they burned or buried, and ,,,,hat -this 'v hole passage must be under- stood to teach, if it has any definite meaning at all. " , As IÚ Adal1 all dz.e, so in Christ shall all be '}nade alive,' is St Paul's broad statement." And ,,'hat does the author give as its meaning? "Christ is the Lord of man, the Lifegiver of n1an, the tnle l\Ian: Adam is the root of his individuality, of his disease, of his death. All is strictly in order. Death has its accomplishment; the Adam dies and is buried, and sees corruption; Christ gives himself to death, and sees no corruption. If a man has an A.dam nature and is also related by a higher and closer affinity to Christ,-is the effect of that union that he shall be redeemed, body and soul, out of the corruption ,vhich is deposited in the grave, or that it shall be his future, as it has been his past, inheri- tance?" (P. 171.) That which is depos 1 ted in the grave the Apostle calls 'this corruptible;' the author calls it "the cor- ruption." Perhaps the difference of expression is accidental and unimportant. At all events the author's doctrine is plain enough. r.rhe effect of union to Christ is, that " a man shall be redeemed, body and soul, out of the corruption which is deposited in the grave." Death, DEATH IS THE nESURnECTIO . 251 therefore, is the resurrection. At death, the man, body and soul, leaves for ever behind, what is not the body, but relics or remains which the earth devours and assimilates to itself. All this, the author thinks, would be generally admitted to be the alTIOunt of Paul's teaching in that " great chapter," ,,-ere it not for hvo expressions,-" the twinkling of an eye "-and "the last trump." (P.172.) As to the former, there is no great difficulty; it simply denotes suddenness. It is used when men watch the last breath departing from a dear friend; "they say it has been but the hvillkling of an eye, and what a change has come!" Thus the mourners instinct- ively exclaim. N or are they disturbed by the thought of "any want of identity betw'een him that has been and him that is. rrhough the decaying, agonised frame is lying calm and at rest, they do not then doubt that he 'who spoke to them a fe,v minutes before, did not derive his powers of speech, any more than the celestial smile which still remains in the clay, fronl that clay. Faith and reason, ho,vever crushed and con- founded, are too strong, in that hour of reality, for a notion so cold and so inhuman." (P. 173.) Apparently the author considers that notion, so cold and so inhuman, to be involved in the doctrine which he is combating. And if so, it is not surprising that he combats it. But there are different ,,-ays of looking at the same thing. One might say, as he caught a friend's 252 TRUMP OF THE ARCHAXG EL. expInng sigh,-I never believed, when his eloquent speech and celestial smile cheered me in life, that he derived them from the chiselled clay which sculptor vainly sought to copy or to rival. I do not believe it no"\v. 1\ly very grief is that because the living soul is gone, that speech is dumb and that smile already fading away. But you tell me that tIle clay, as you call it,- the clay still beautiful and not yet cold,-is a worthless mass of corruption, which my friend has cast off for ever, and which earth is to devour and assimilate to itself, so that nothing of it is ever to be seen again. And I turn from the notion so cold and so inhuman, to listen to an apostolic whisper; 'This corruptible shall put on incorruption. ' " But the trump of the archangel! that seems to put all belief of a resurrection of the body to an incon- ceivable distance, and to make the hypothesis which identifies it with a resurrection of remains, after all, the only seriptural one." (P. 173.) What the author says on this subject is quite away from the question. After roundly rating Protestants for undervaluing pictures lil{e 1\Iichael Angelo's, and com- plimenting pious and intelligent Romanists on their right use of them ;-deprecating, moreover, an undue zeal against symbolism, as tending ultimately, through exeessive spiritualising, to "the driest and most material conceptions being added on to the spiritual one, as a necessary support of its feebleness; "-he CALL TO ACCOU!\T. 253 proceeds to deal with the symbol of the archangel's trunlpet. lIe finds its origin in the trumpet at Sinai. Prophets and apostles used it to denote " convulsions of nature," or whatever events ,vere fitted to indicate that the "King ,yas coming forth to punish the earth. " Paul expected "an archangel's trumpet to sound in his O'YIl day ,vhich ,vould call the nations, his own first, into God's judglnent." He connects it also with" the condition of each individual n1an." To every man, the archangel's trun1pet sounds in everything which warns him that "a day of revelation and discovery" "is at hand, vdlÏch rouses hilll to seek for light, and to fly from darkness." And at death, 'in the hvinkling of an eye,' "what had merely sounded to hin1 here as some common note of preparation for death, ,vill be recognised as the archangel's trumpet calling him to account." (Pp. 174-177.) The real question is,-adlnitting 'what is said of the origin and frequent use of the synlbol,-does its intro- duction in that" great chapter" indicate a simultaneous resurrection of a race, or successive resurrections of individuals? That question the author does not touch. Let a plain man, reading the chapter with ullbiassed mind, ans,ver it for hin1self. The author's view of judgment, present and future, may be aftenvards considered. Even if his view is conceded for the sake of argument,-and the judgment to \\Thich the trmD p of the archangel SUlunlOllS every 254 THE BODY REDEE)IED FROM CORRUPTION. man is admitted to be nothing more than the coming of "a time when the light will burst in upon him, and she,v him things as they are; when he will kno\v that there is all life for hirn in Christ, and that there is all death in himself,"-still it does not follow that the graves are never to 'yield their ancient charge.' At present it is enough to bear in mind the meaning and grounds of the author's belie "that Christ was buried in order that the body might be claimed as an heir of life; as redeemed from corruption." (P. 178.) Let it be added, however, that, in his sense of it, this would have been better proved, if, being buried, Christ had not risen from the dead ;-if he had left in the grave the relics or l'cmains which his follo'wers have to leave there, as it seems, for ever. Certainly, on the author's theory, the resurrection of our Lord is an inconvenience. It affords no proof that what is deposited in the grave is \vorthless, and is never to be o\vned as ,vorthy. In the case of Christ, \vhat lay in the grave ,vas rescued from its power before it could experience its conl1ption. lIe is thus separated from me. His resurrection is an entirely different thing frolll mine - fronl my death. His experience of death, including in death the grave, is not mine at all. lIe left nothing in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea laid him. The Joseph of my house may lay me in the tomb. Is the sepulchre redeemed and sanctified for me? It can only be so upon the ground, that \vhat of me is buried in that PLACE OF DISEMBODIED SPIRITS. 255 grave is as sacred, and as sure of a resurrection, as was what of Christ lay in the new sepulchre between the dark night of his death and the bright morning of his re3un"ection. It is absurd and offensive to say that Christ is one with me, or that I am one with him, in respect of his burial, if he left nothing in the tomb, and if nothing of ,vhat I leave in it is ever to be n1ine again. Take it in any view that can be suggested, the interval between Good Friday and Easter Sunday,-the interval òetween the death and the resurrection of Christ,-pre- sents, according to the author's theory, a very perplex- . . lng enIgma. 3. Nor is there any solution of it in ,vhat follows relative to the descent into hell. "ÂD enonnous ,\\Teight," it seems, has been crushing "the hun1an Bpirit." " "r e are told to believe in a place of d "sem- bodied spirits." "Place appertains to body." "This is a logical principle, and it accords ,vith our higher instincts." "People talk of their friends as disembodied. "'Then they think of them, they are obliged to suppose them clothed with bodies. They admit the necessity; it is part, they say, of their ,veakness. They ought to feel othenvise." This, then, is the 'c enormous ,veight;" this is the nightmare. It takes two alternate shapes of heavy horror, as its enormous weight sits on the panting bosom. No,v it is a logical principle; anon, it is a higher instinct. From the incubus of the logical principle, perhaps 256 MEETING 'VITH FIUENDS. some relief might be found in Isaac Taylor's Theory of a Future Life. But, in fact, except among the school- lllen, ","ho has ever been distressed by it? Are the questions about angels and points of needles to be raised again? Are not the angels spirits? Or if you hold that they have a certain kind of corporeity, as some think, and that departed souls may possibly be-in the same sense ,vith the angels-spirits, having \vhat the angels have,--this may satisfy .A.quinas himself. But, locally, the Inaxinl that spirits cannot exist in place, would amount to this, that there can be no created spirits at all, -none without bodies. Subtlety set aside, ho,vever, a Christian may be satisfied with the assurance that to depart is to be with Christ,-to be absent from the body is to be present ,vith the Lord. The higher instinct also may be best satisfied, and indeed can only be satisfied, by that yery doctrine respecting the Resurrection ,vhich the author rejects; which would seem, indeed, expressly designed to satisfy it. You may think of your friends as clothed with bodies; you ought to do so. The Ne\v Testament as ,veIl as the Old bids you chiefly fix your thoughts, \vhen you sorro\v for the dead, on your Lord's second c0J11ing and their being raised to lneet him. And what you look for then, enables you now to think of your friends as clothed with bodies, far more distinctly and \\Tith far more of ,varm hope, than the doctrine ,vhich tells you that all you are again io see of them is w'hat is finally and BODIES OF SAINTS CO IING FORTH. 257 for ever separated fi"om the loved remains to which you cling in one long and last embrace. Surely the anticipation of the Lord's second coming, of 'which the New Testament is so full, may explain and justify sufficiently our " thinking of our friends as clothed 'with bodies." But it seems that this is a feeling ,,-hich ,ve ackno"rledge to be ,vrong. It is our infirn1Ïty. "T e confess that ,ve ought to feel otherwise, because " Scripture commands it." " I-Io,v ant! where?" indignantly asks the author on our behalf; while 'with some'what too impetuous haste, he sets himself to prove the contrary. Scripture" speaks of the bodies of saints coming forth, and she,v-ing themselves after the resurrection. It speaks of l\Ioses and Elias ap- pearing to the disciples. It records acts of our Lord on earth, by 'which bodies are recalled from the unseen regions into ours." (P.179.) These aloe his proofs that Scripture permits us to think of our departed friends as aheady clothed with bodies,-all the bodies they are ever to have. "\Vas there ever such a jumble? 'And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' These 'bodies of the saints' came forth out of their graves. Are the graves, then, the place of embodied spirits after death? One would say that any place of disembodied spirits were better than that. So much for the first proof. As to the second, does the author forget that Elias was translated? l\Iany have thought that the R 258 TRA SLATIO S. mysterious account of the lattcr end of 'loses, and the allusion to a contest about his body behveen the arch- angel and the devil, taken along with his appearance on the l\[ount of Transfiguration, may snggest the proba- bility of a translation, Or an immediate resurrection, in his case also. Be that, ho,vever, as it may, few persons will feel that the scene on that mountain casts much light on the condition of men in the unseen ,yorld. These translations, by the way, of Elijah and Enoch, might somewhat disturb the author's theory. Have Enoch and Elijah got rid of their lC Adam conditions?" They took with them that from which fever or cholera should have freed them. IIo,v is that? But to come to the third proof,-the most amazing of all,-our Lord "recalled bodies from the unseen regions into ours." 'Vhen and w'here? No doubt the body of Lazarus ,vas in an unseen region when' it was in a cave, and a stone lay upon it.' But our Lord made the region visible before he recalled the body. 'Take ye away the stone,' he said, before he cried with a loud voice, , Lazarus COllie forth.' This is surely sad trifling indeed. Instances of bodies,-decaying and decayed,-coming from their graves ant! being reanimated by the souls '\vhich had quitted them, Scripture records; but not one solitary instance of a man returning, body and soul together, from the unseen regions into ours. Hades, as first, the horror of the "men of the old world," - secondly, relieved by the introduction of a PLACE FOR SHADOWS. 259 poetic Elysium and the forms of human justice,-thirdZy, to the Jew who dare not adopt the heathen dream, "a frightful vision of mere death and darkness," from wpich he "fled to trust in the living God,"-is now stript of its unkno,vn gloom. 'V"hatever it be, Christ has been there; and that is enough for us. (P. 180.) It is generally admitted now, that to the Je,v a dark cloud hung over the question- v'Vhat and where are men to be after death, and before the resurrection? The hope of the resurrection was his stay,-the thought of the in- terval between death and that event was often a heavy burden to him. Christ has removed the veil. "'Thoso- ever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die.' , To- day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.' 'To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.' Is not this a view of the matter as intelligible and as satis- factory as the author's? The place of spirits he n.n(ls wherever spirits dwell. "This earth is such a place; we who dwell in it are spirits." Other spirits may dwell in it. The stars and planets may be places of spirits. But" the question is," _cc must I invent a place,-not for spirits, but for shadows? " No. That is not the question. It is a begging of the question; and so offensive a sneer, more- over, as to be utterly unworthy of the author. Let him prove that disembodied spirits must be shac1ows,-let him prove that because my friend's body is to be raised, therefore, until it is raised, my friend is a shado'w,- 260 SPIRITS IX PRISON. then let him \vither me \vith heartless scarcasm. Iean- \vhile, I can clothe nlY absent friend \vith all the attri- bu tes \v hich the author ascribes to those \v horn he here calls spirits,-váth this additional hope, that \vhen I meet him at the resurrection, I shall find him in a body identical ,vith what I deposit in the grave,-only as much surpassing it, in glory alid in beauty, as the rich luxuriance of the \vaving corn surpasses the bare gTain from \vhich it springs. r rhe text about Christ preaching "to the spirits in prison," may surely be best interpreted,-and the author, follo\ving 8t Augustine, is inclined to interpret it,-as "pointing more to the time of Noah, than to a later time.", lIe tries, indeed, to turn the traditionary notions connected \vith it to account, as witnesses that Christ is "the great Deliverer of spirits." He" thanks God that men have been Slue that there ,vas a justification for that faith in Scripture, \vhether it is to be found in the particular texts to which they appealed, or not." Does he nlean that Christ delivers" all spirits, \vho have lived in all times?" This \vas not precisely the faith which the parties to \v horn he refers found in this text. But at any rate, according to his o\vn view, it has nothing to do with" a place of spirits." (P. 182.) One more objection to his language he anticipates. " Pushed to its consequences, it might prove that there is no heaven and no hell." Nay, if \ve \vill "forgive" him, it is our teaching that tends that way. According :MYSTICAL! MYSTICAL! 261 to him, lC righteousness, love, truth," are the" heaven" presented to men by Christ and his apostles. ".And since they reveal heaven to us, they of necessity 111ake known hell also. The want of righteousness, truth, love, the state which is contrary to these, is and must be hell." (Pp. 182, 183.) " , 1tlystical! mystical! States, not places! So 'we expected.'" Such is the shout of triumph ,vhich the author fancies himself to hear from us, as from those ,vho exult in the arrest of a thief they have been long in chase of, or in the detection of a diabolical plot they have been eagerly ,vatching. Iildly and meekly he replies,-" A danger to be feared; and one to be care- fully avoided. I have tried to avoid it, by saying that I know of no place for disembodied spirits." He" can- not understand how 111en realise a state except in some place." It would be strange if he did; strange if he or anyone should try. Living creatures must have 'a local habitation' at least, if not 'a name.' But then, the kind of local habitation which they ha,?e may son1e- what affect them, for good or for evil, for weal or for 'woe. The question, therefore, is still a relevant and fair one ;-Is the distinction between heaven and hell a distinction of place, of outward locality.-:-or a distinction of state, of personal character, merely? That is the question raised by the objection ,vith w'hich the author has to deal, as he himself puts it. He must kno,v this very ,yell; and it would have been far more manly and 262 GOOD AKD EVIL IKDEPENDENT OF PLACE. straightfor,vard if, instead of blandly smiling at the ridiculous imputation of an impossible belief in states ,vithout places, he had avowed in plain terms whether he admits or denies the separation of nlen after death into hyo classes, and their departure into hvo separate abodes. It is un,vorthy of himself and of the subject to meet the question as he does. It may be very true, as he remil1ds us, that" sonle spirits in different places of this earth are very Inisera ble, and others in a certain degree of blessedness,"-that "the place in ,vhich they are does not Inake the difference,"-that "the moral and spiritual condition of the inhabitants is the nlcans of making a heaven or a hell of this earth." These may be very good topics or truisnls in morals; and if there are any ,vho imagine that to be in one locality rather than in another ,vill insure their happiness, the Horatian comnlonplace ,vill be in point, 'Cælun non anÙnum 'l1ndat, qui trans mare cu'rrit." But the author goes a step further, and very ingeniously carries us, before \ve are ,veIl a,vare of it, the full hvo miles when ,ve think we are only going ,vith him one. "Scripture sustains this conclusion." .Vrhat conclusion? Apparently, the conclusion that the place in \vhich we are does not constitute our 11lisery or our blessedness, and that, according to the moral and spiritual condition of its inhabitants, this earth may be a heaven or a hell. So one would say; but it is not so; that is not the con- clusion ,vhich the author means; he presses the argu- CHANGE AFTER DEATH. 263 Inent much beyond that. He seems to make the con- dition of things, in this respect, now subsisting on the earth, the type and sample of what it is and must be ev ry,vhere and always in the universe. This he does on the ground, first of Scripture, secondly of analogy. 'Vha t Scripture "tells me of the kingdom of heaven, shews me," he says, "that man must anywhere be bless- ed, if he has the kno,vledge of God and is living as his willing subject; everywhere accursed, if he is ignorant of God and at war with him." This he knows; and, "be- lieving God's l'evelation of his Son," he may, by the help of Butler and the argument from analogy, "know a little more." "Death does not change the substance of the human creature, or any of its powers or moral conditions, but only removes that ,vhich had crushed its substance, checked the exercise of its powers, kept its moral con- ditions out of sight." " The la,vs of God's kingdom in its different regions are not different;" everywhere to be holy is to Le happy; to be unholy is to be n1iserable. The good has not "anywhere reached its climax;" there lnust be progress ahvays. And ,vherever we may be, if "left to ourselves, without a Redeemer and a Father, there must be a continual descent into a lower depth." (Pp.183-185.) All this is true, ,vhether heaven and hell are separate places or not, whether evil is to con- tinue for ever or not. But is this all that the author can say that he knows? Is this all the hope the Bible gives to a man ,vho has been taught to kno,v God and to 264 THE FUTURE STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS. live as 11Îs obedient subject-,vho painfully and imper- fectly, with much failure in good and many symptoms of evil, is continuing C faithful unto death,' expecting that C Christ will give him the cro,vn of life?' The universal Church has been accustomed to believe, that such a man after death is completely and for ever delivered from evil and the strife ,vith evil; that he d,vells in a hOlne into "\v hich nothing to cause either sin or SOlTO'V can enter; that he is ,vith Christ in pure and perfect peace no,v; that a time is at hand when he shall appear with Christ in glory. That is ,vhat is meant by heaven, call it a state or a place as you please. Are there any ,vith whom God deals thus when they die? How he may deal with others,-,vith those .who quit this life ignorant of him and at war ,vith him,- it might òe premature at this stage to inquire. }-'or the present, it is enough to urge the question,-...c1re those 1,rho l{no,v God here, and live as his ,villing sub- jects, separated from among these others? Are they differently situated,-di:fferently treated,-in a ,vord, brought into a condition of perfect security from an ill, and perfect enjoyment of all the n1cans of progre.ssive holiness and blessedness? Beyond a fuller and freer development of what they are ,vhen they die, and the continued operation of tI1C general laws of the kingdom of heaven applica"blc everywhere-auY'vherc-to aH,- the la,ys identifying holiness with happiness, and sin or evil to whatever extent it exists with miser.r)-there is RESURRECTION. 265 absolutely no provision, so far as the author apparently kno,vs, for the position even of the most faithful servants of God being better in the life that is to con1e than it is in the life that no, v is. 4. The preceding argument on the part of the author leaves little room for the article in the Creed about the resurrection. But, nevertheless, he faces the difficulty. He takes his stand on the conversation of our Lord with l\Iartha. She says of her brother-' I know that he shall rise in the resurrection at the last day.' This is l\Iartha's "point of view," learned from the Pharisees. But" a glorious mystery" is "implied" in our Lord's word, and the accompanying act. ' Jesus answered, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And ,vho- soever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.' A simple account of this may be given. lartha believed in the resurrection of the body. This was the belief of the Old Testament saints. Our Lord does not supersede, or set aside, that belief. He adds to it another which had been less clearly recognised. lIe opens up the mystery of the intermediate state so far as to give emphatic assurance that it does not imply a cessation or interruption of life. That reany is all. There is no proof 'whatever that Iartha was ,vrong in her belief,- however" the Pharisees may have instructed her." She was right, apparently, so far as her belief went. The Redeemer does not discard-he supplements-her belief. 266 UNITARIAXS. To join issue with the author in his closing appeal to Unitarians, is beyond the range of an examination in- tended rather to guard the truths which Unitarianism assails. But at the same tin1e, it is but right to say that Unitarians had better hold fast their faith in the resur- rection of the body, in the face of all this author's reasoning, than accept any substitute for it that he has proposed. The theory of human life, present and future, -for ,vhich the Unitarians are asked to surrender the one peculiar doctrine of revelation which they hold in comn10n with the general body of Christians,-is not a theory, to say the least of it, ,vhich \vill better stand the test of reason and Scripture than the old belief respect- ing the resurrection of the dead. CHAPTER 'TI. THE REMEDY APPLIED-ESSAYS IX. X. ESSAY IX.-O JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. THE author introduces the subject of Justification by anticipating "a fear w'hich is both natural and right- eous," as likely to arise in connexion with the "broad statements" put forward and defended in his "last four Essays." " Does not such language" as he has been using throughout these Essays "overlook the notorious fact, that good and evil men are mixed together in this world,-that the evil far outnumber the good? Does it not break down moral distinctions, ,yhich it is our first duty to preserve? Does it not practically deny that God approves the just and conden1ns the \vicked?" (P. 189.) The author hints that he might complain of such objections, because " the whole purpose of his argument has been to shew ho,v essentially and eternally opposed good and evil are; how impossible it is that they ever can blend; and ,,"'hat, according to God's revelation of 268 DISTINCTIONS. himself, he has done and is doing to separate them." He seems to think that by settling these two points,- first, that good and evil are opposed and cannot blend,- and, secondly, that God is carrying on a process of sepa- ration,- he not only sufficiently guards the interests of righteousness,-but renders it almost unnecessary to raise any question as to the distinction between the righteous and the wicked personally, or as to the ,yay in which a man passes from the one class to the other. In the mean time, out of deference to certain parties, not easily recognised, who say or think that "instead of identifying ourselves ,vith the mass of the creatures around us, we must become most entirely unlike them, or we never shall be like Him ,vho you say is perfectly good and just,"-he is willing to enter into the inquiry, -the rather because he respects" their honest and deep conviction," and also because he finds that "this diffi- culty, in one shape or other, has given occupation to every age of the Christian Church." (P. 190.) 1. It was felt in the apostolic Church, ,, hose "mem- bers Inust carefully distinguish themselves from those among ,vhom they dwelt." " Baptism became the sign of their fello,vship,-separating the churchnlan fron1 the common earthly man." But" the ne,v dispensation had penetrated below the surface to the roots of things; " and therefore "baptism could not merely denote an outward contrast." It" must inlport the most in,vard purification, the removal of that common evil which all had inherited from Adam." BAPTISM-POST-BAPTIS IAL SIN. 269 This ,\yas the separating "opinion" in the early Church; held amid "innumerable checks and coun- teractions :" but yet "the fonnal recognised school nlaxim." It influenced practice. It led to "the doc- trine of post-baptismal sin." That doctrine, making baptism so fOrlnidable that lnen " ere fain to postpone it to the last,-and in many other w'ays oppressing the conscience, or debauching it,-so wrought that "it seemed as if the great line which separated the Church from the ,vorld "ras one which could not be wisely passed." Other lines were dra\vn. "One class of the baptized" luight live like ordinary n1en; "others might becon1e religious,-might esche\v, as far as possible, human ties and obligations, and give themselves to the service of God. II ere \vas another experiment for the purpose of separating the righteous from the unrighteous. A church ,vas to be set up ,vithin the Church. The whole fello.wship 'was not one of saints, but it ,vas one which might nurture saints." This habit of mind ,vas counteracted by influences, partly of clerical ambition, partly of true saintly beneficence. But it ,vas strong; and its effects upon nlorality, 'within and w'ithout the Church, ,vere disastrous. (Pp. 193, 194.) Such is the author's account of "the experiments" made in the early Church" for separating the righteous from the wicked." The chief 0 bj ection to its accuracy is, that it assumes as its starting-point, not merely baptism, but a particular doctrine concerning baptism. 270 REFORMATION. Its relevancy to the question on hand is another matter. It ,vill fall to be considered as the inquiry goes on. 2. The author begins again at the Reformation, ,vhen "there came a clear and effectual testimony against" previous "notions and practices;" -" there is one righteousness, that which is in Christ," for all men. "Faith in the Son of God is the only deliverance for the conscience of any man." And going back to Paul, the Reformers " ere forced to say,-" God himself is the Justifier. He has given Christ for our sins, and has l"aised him again for our justification. He calls you, each of you, to know that Just One, in ,vhom you are accepted." (Pp. 195, 196.) "This was levelling language;" so much so as to lay the Reformers open to a double charge on the part of the Romanists, who said:-'" By preaching faith ,vithout the deeds of the law, you efface moral distinctions; by speaking so generally as you do of Christ's death and resurrection, you seem to take away the privileges of the baptized man.'" "The Reformers retaliated ;-' you have overthrown all difference between the 'Dure and .&. the impure; inevitably, because you have destroyed all difference between those who believe and those who do not believe.' That being the danger 'which they dreaded n1ost, they set themselves to consider how they might successfully avoid it. The result was, a ne,v set of experiments to separate the Church from the world, and then to create a church ,vithin the Church." (Pp. 196, 197.) PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION. 271 Three principles of separation are specified. 1. "Faith justifies; but it must be ascertained who have faith." 2." Christ's is the only righteousness; but to whorll is that righteousness imputed? " 3." God calls men to the knowledge of his Son; but if he calls, does he not also reject?" These are the "plans" which "Protestants have invented," "for dividing," 1. "the faithful from the unbelieving;" 2. "those who belong to Christ from those who have no relation to him; " 3. "the elect from the reprobate." Now, there is one distinction between these principles of separation and those of the earlier Church, which it is important to notice here. The lines dra,vn by the Protestants, as given by the author, are lines legible in heaven. Their predecessors insisted on lines palpable on earth. The three Protestant divisions may be right or wrong; but at any rate they are divisions with which God and each man's own heart have exclusively to do. Who have faith? To whom is Christ's righteousness imputed? Who are elect? These are all of them questions between the individual conscience and the Lord of the conscience. No external rite can discri- minate here. No priest can decide. l\Ien may form a probable opinion concerning their fellow-men, for the regulation of their own conduct towards them, in the fellowship of the Church or in the common intercourse of society. But the distinctive doctrine of Protestant- ism is, that whatever lines of separation it recognises 272 EFFECTS. are lines \vhich God and conscience alone can trace. This n1ay not materially affect the author's judgment of Protestant principles of division as compared \vith the Ronlanist ones. But it is a real difference, which he ought not to have overlooked. Both, ho\vever, according to him, have produced "similar effects." In fact, the Protestant liues, as he represents them, are beyond all question the most revolt- ing of the two. " It seems," first, " as if faith signified a persuasion that God will not punish us hereafter for the sins we have cOlnmitted here, because we have that persuasion; " secondly, "as if some men were accounted righteous, for Christ's sake, by a nlere deception, it not being the fact that they are righteous;" thirdly, "as if God pleased of mere arbitrariness that certain men should escape his \vrath, and that certain men should en- dure the full measure of it." And he speaks of the Pro- testants ,vhom he has in vie\v as persons" ,vho seem as if they thought their faith ,vas nlerely to procure them an exemption from penalties which others must suffer;" -" 'v ho seem, by their ,yords, as if they could bear to suspect fIim of a fiction; "-" whose phrases ascribe to IIim a principle of conduct upon "Thich they would themselves be ashamed to act." (P. 198.) It is idle to compliment those to \vhom he ascribes such opinions, with "their willingness to bear any punishment rather than be slaves of sin;" or " their zeal for God's truth;" or their" acknowledging in their JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 273 hearts God to be without partiality, and to be altogether just." Not only does he thus add insult to injury, but he must be plainly told that it is altogether incredible that he can be in earnest in these hollow praises. To use his own expression, it would be necessary" to bring him distinctly to book;" and to call for articulate proof of the charges .which he ventures to allege against his Protestant brethren. It would really almost seem as if the author's notion of charity and candour were this ;- blacken your opponent to the utmost pitch of blackness by nlaking his belief thoroughly odious, - and then generously ,vhite,vash him ,vith the insinuation that after all his belief is a sham. Saving faith, imputed righteousness, electing love; or, reversing the order ,-sovereign love as the origin, the righteousness of Christ as the ground, faith as the means or instrulnent, of justification and eternal life ;-these are confessedly the doctrines nlaintained by those who are conlmonl y regarded as orthodox and evangelical Protestants ;-doctrines of ,vhich they are not ashamed; doctrines in ,vhich they glory. But to a man, they ,vould repudiate ,vith indignation the author's caricature of thein. They trace the salvation of any of Adam's race to the mere good pleasure of God. 1'hey prcsunle not to fathom his counsels, but they are sure that these will ultilnately be seen to have been all wise and just; and they gratefully adore the love 'which originated a plan of mercy for the lost. They own the righteousness s 274 IMPUTATION NO FICTION. of Christ,-the righteousness of his glorious person, character, obedience, and atoning death,-as the only ground of a guilty sinner's acceptance in the sight of God. They believe in the imputation of his righteous- ness, by no deception or fiction, but really and justly, to those ,vho are actual1y united to him,-"? ho are made one with him by the power of the Holy Spirit,-and who are accounted righteous, because being in him they are righteous, as he is righteous. And finally, they teach that faith,-reliance on him, trust in him, receiving him and resting upon him, - is the act or exercise of the soul,-of the whole heart and mind,- which effects this true and blessed union between the Saviour and the sinner. This, according to them, is the gospel. This gospel they carry to every living man, without any distinction, or exception, or limitation, or reserve; assuring him that Christ is near him, in his very heart, if he will but have him, to be his Redeemer, Lord, King,-his all in all. If the separation of men into two classes now, or if their separation into two classes hereafter, be the result of such a gospel,-this at least may be asked: Is it possible to imagine a message from heaven more fitted to s,vell the ranks of the saved,-upon the supposition that fallen men are to be tried as responsible beings at all, and that their wills are not to be forced? It oblite- rates all human lines, all outward badges of distinction. It makes all men absolutely equal. The preacher may THE GOSPEL FREE-1\IA FHEE. 275 uIHvarily or unwisely embarrass it; but so far as its three great doctrines are concerned, it tends to unite and not to separate. And it may be asked again with all reverence: "\Vhat more could have been done, by means of any overtures of peace on the part of God, to prevent separation {-unless, indeed, upon the supposition of all freedom and responsibility on the part of men, as to their reception of these overtures, being entirely super- seded and annulled. The real truth, however, is that the author vehelnently opposes all theories or doctrines implying separation, or even the possibility of separation, under the economy of the gospel. This will appear plainly enough when his o\vn vie.w of justification comes to be considered. But first, let him dispose of the other views of it ,vhich he has been expounding. Every attempt ,vhich has been hitherto n1ade to draw lines and limitations about the gospel of God, for the purpose of dividing the righteous from the wicked, has tended to confound them,-' to put evil for good and good for evil.' "That then is to be done { "God himself has established eternal distinctions, which become clear to us 'when, and only when, \ve are content to be the heralds of his free and universal love." "These distinctions are most recog- nised when ,ve look upon all men as interested in Christ's death and resurrection." (P. 199.) What does this mean { Are the distinctions to be recognised abstractly as eternal, and never to be applied 276 JUSTIFICATION OF CHRIST. to persons, either in time or in eternity? What connexion is there between the question,-whether or not these distinctions are eternal, and revealed by God as eternal? --and the question, - who are interested in Christ's death and resurrection? Are ,ve told that we can best recognise distinctions in principle, when we resolve to recognise no distinctions in persons? Is it meant that good and evil can be best separated,-as "eternal dis- tinctions" separate them,-when the impo sibility of separating good and evil persons is confessed? The author apparently thinks so. He will on no ac- count have any separation of persons. lie thus" recog- nises eternal distinctions." And he harmonises and reconciles "the zeal of Ron1anists for baptism, of Pro- testants for faith; "-"with equal hand "doing justice" impartially to both. (P. 199.) The" first and highest justification" is found in the re- surrection of Christ. Thus the author opens his own view. " God justifies the Ulan ,vho perfectly trusted in him ;- declares him to have the only righteousness ,vhich he had ever claimed,-the only one '\\"hich it would not have been a sin and a fall in him to claim,-the righte- ousness of his Father:-the righteousness ,vhich was his so long as he ", ould have none of his o\vn, so long as he was content to give up hilnself." lIe then quotes, as the language of Paul, , He was put to death in the flesh, he was justified in the spirit.' And he adds,-" this is the apostle's language; this is his clear, noble, satis- CHRIST'S RESURRECTIO FROM THE DEAD. 277 factory distinction, ,vhich is reasserted in various forms throughout the New Testament." (P. 200.) The distinction is allo\ved and much prized by "d vines." They hold strongly that the contrast, or an- tithesis, between the death and the resurrection of Christ is-that in the one there ,vas condemnation, in the other justification. In dying, he "was made a curse,"-he was condemned,-for us. In rising again, he is justified as the righteous One,-himself the very righteousness of God for us. They believe also that he ,vas justified because" he was content to give up himself,"-because, although he had all righteousness and all life in himself, he claimed neither, but surrendered both; being 'willing to take upon him the guilt of our sin, and die our death on 'the accursed tree.' ""lth this qualification, they would accept the author's statement as to "the first and highest idea of justification." " But St Paul takes it for granted, that this justifica- tion of the Son of God and the Son of man was his own justification,-his own, not because he ,vas Saul of Tar- sus, not because he ,vas a Hebre\v of the Hebre1vs, but because he ,vas a man." His" zeal" would have" worn out," his" arguments against his own countrymen would have fallen to pieces, if he had not been assured that Christ's resurrection declared him to be the Son of man, the head of man, and therefore, that his justification was the justification of each man." (P. 201.) Paul says that the resurrection of Christ declared him 278 RO (AKS VII. to be " the Son of God, with pow"er." lIe says also that Christ" rose again for our justification." But nowhere in all his writings is it either assumed or asserted that the resurrection of Christ, or his justification in his re- sun'ection, was the justification of the apostle hin1self, or that it was" the- justification of each n1an." Invariably Paul connects his o,vn justification, and the justification of any sinner, whoever he may be, with faith. The author gives no proof ,vhatever that Paul taugl1t the doctrine which he ascribes to l1Ïm. But he finds it apparently "taken for granted" in the account ,,yhich that apostle gives of his o,vn experience under conviction of sin. And in four short sentences, he sums up the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Paul, it seems, "felt far more deeply than Job did," -that" he was at war with the la\v of his being,"- " that there was a righteousness near him, and in him, in ,yhich his inner lllind delighted. lIe had been Slue that there must be a Redeenler to give the righteousness the victory over the evil; to deliver him out of the power to which he was sold, to satisfy the spirit in him which longed for good. IIe had thanked God through Jesus Christ his Lord. And now he felt that he ,vas a righteous man; that he had the only righteousness ,vhich a man could have,-the righteousness of God,- the righteousness which is upon faith,-the righteousness vthich is not for Jew more than for Gentile,-which is for all alike." (P. 201.) NO CONDEMNATION. 279 This is a general sketch, omitting particulars. No doubt Paul tells us that he had undergone a great cha.nge of mind; that the change was effected by the lavr, condelnning him and sentencing him to death; that he had been made to feel, as he had not felt before, the excellence of the law and the justice of his own con- demnation; that he had been smitten with a new desire to be ,vhat the law required him to be; that all his efforts in that direction had only aggravated his feeling of the righteous sentence of the la,v being upon him, and of his 01vn helplessness under it as being l carnal and sold under sin;' that he cried for deliverance from that. "And he now thanks God through Jesus Christ his Lord;" because he can say, 'There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' Justification, 'with Paul, is deliverance from condemnation,-from the curse of the law. He does not say that " the justification of Christ was his. own justification," or that it "was the jus- tification of each Inan." But in language unlllistakeably inlPlying separation-' there is no,v no condemnation to the III that are in Christ Jesus.' It is not, however, on the interpretation of cripture that the author really rests his view, except in the vaguest manner. He rather reasons a priori. And now he tests the doctrine which by such reasoning he has reached, by applying it to the two elements or means of separation, as they have hitherto been understood to be, -baptism and faith. 280 BAPTISM A UNIVERSAL SIGN. 1. Baptism, of course, cannot now be the sign of ad- herence to a sect, or of a choice made between two reli- gions. It must denote that the baptized man claims his relation to the Son of God, the head of the ,vhole human race. It must denote more. It is the "ordinance of God for men,-his declaration of that which is true con- cerning men,-of the relation in which men stand to him." " If Christ is not the actual )Iediator between God and man,-if his resurrection did not declare that God confessed him in that character, and thereby con- fessed men to be righteous in him, baptism is a nullity, a mere delusion." (Pp. 201, 202.) Baptism, then, is the sign and declaration of what is true of all men, without any distinction, that God "lIas justified his Son, by raising him from the dead;" that " in that act, he has justified the race for which Christ has died;" that "men are justified before God;" that cc they are the sons of God in the only-begotten Son." So the author teaches, very emphatically-" By declaring in plain words, that they who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death,-that they put on Christ, that they were to count themselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, risen with Christ,-St Paul pointed out the ever-effectual protection against the error into which the Church after"rards fell." vVhat is this pano- ply? 1t is "the one great Divine distinction for ,yhich the Church substituted its awk"rard and mischievous theories and practices." (P. 203.) OXE GREAT DIVINE DISTINCTIO:S. 281 vVhat! Is there a distinction still? And on this occasion, it must mean a distinction of persons; other- wise it is quite irrelevant. There is "one great divine distinction,"-not perhaps an outward separation,-but a distinction not the less real on that account. And it Dlllst be so. The baptized are told that they are "to count themselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, risen ,vith Christ." vVhat if they fail to do so? 'Vhat of those 'who notoriously fail to do so? Nor will it avail to say that the old notions about post-baptismal sin are exploded. It is true that there is no room 110'V for the notion that a man may have a "certain justifi- cation for a moment," but that, through "yielding to the lusts of the flesh or the power of the evil spirit, the blessing may be his no longer." v Vhat then? I may at the present moment be counting myself dead unto sin and alive unto God. In other words, I may be realizing the meaning and blessedness of the justification which my baptism signifies. But ,,,"hat if I yield to the lusts of the flesh or the po,ver of the evil spirit ? Yon tell me that "I have still a righteousness, which is not my own property,-,vhich I may be thankful never can becollle my own property,-,vhich my baptism proclaims not to be lny o.wn property." Yon tell me that "it is my fight and duty at all times to turn to tIim in whom I aln created, redeemed, justified ;-that trust is either lawful at no time, or la,vful at every time ;-that on no principle, save that of continual trust in the Lord of his 282 FAITH TIlE GROUND OF ACTION. spirit, can a n1an assert the privilege and glory of his baptis1l1 and rise above his enemies." (P. 204.) Good! Baptism, then, makes no distinction; but trust does. Is not this very like a doctrine of justification by faith, after all? Is it not, at least, the doctrine,-that the practical assertion, the actual realization of justification, to any good purpose, is by faith? 2. By all n1eans, says the author. The Reformers ,verc right in calling on all men to believe in the Son of God for their justification. The Church was becom- ing a mere world. Faithful men must be the instru- ments of raising it out of that condition. " Faith, they said,-and the conscience of men confirmed their ,vords, -is the ground of right hearty action; unbelief makes it impossible." (P. 205.) But the ROlllanist taunts us ,vith our splits and sects. And the author confesses that" the mockery is severe, and is deserved." He traces the evil to "the schemes which Protestants have adopted for the purpose of defin- ing ,vho have a right to be members of Christ's Church, and who have not; "-or "to ascertain who have and '\vho have not the gift of faith, or the right to believe." (P. 205.) Protestants generally ,vould say,- 'V e do not define ,vho have a right to be members of Christ's Church, and ,vho have not. ",r e proclaim that all men have a right. 'Ve do not try to ascertain who have and ,vho have not the gift of faith, or the right to belieye. The right to believe all men equally have. " ho have CALM EXPLAXATIOX. 283 and who have not the gift of faith, God alone can tell. 'Ve preach Christ, a Saviour for all; his righteousnes'3, a righteousness for all; his blood a ransom for all. To each man we say-' Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' One is sometimes inclined to hope that the removal of misconception by a calm explanation might go far to satisfy the author that the evangelical doctrine, as com- monly held and preached, is not the mischievous pesti- lence which he imagines it to be; and in particular, that it is as wide and unrestricted as the gospel which he hilllself proclaims. In tact, an unprejudicecl by- stander might say to him: -' After all, what is the difference bet\veen rou and them? You tell me that I am justified in Christ; that my baptism means this; and that I ought to believe this, and live accordingly. They tell me that there is complete justification in Christ for any man ,rho will have it; and that I ought to believe this, and live accordingly. If I listen to you, I count myself to have been justified when Christ was justified by his l'eslu-rection f.rom the dead,-to have been justified all along, even w'hen I had no faith, ,yhen I 'was no believer, but a doubter and denier of the love of God. If I listen to them, I count myself to have been condemned before, and to be justified now, upon Iny owning Christ and believing God's love. ...\..nd after all,' he might add, 'if the justification which I realize by believing is not sOlnething better than I had before 284 SPIRITUAL AND CARNAL MEN. believing, it scarcely amounts to that acceptance and peace ", ith God which my wounded conscience and weary heart need. You assure me that I have all my life been justified. I feel that I have been and am now condemned. l\Iy awakened conscience, and the law of God coming home to it, convince nle that if God be such a God as I can reverence and esteem, he must hold me, up to this moment, to be under condelnnation. The others, the 'divines,' testify that it must be so,- that Scripture declares it to be so,-that in point of fact it is so,-that I am under condelnnation. But they testify also, from the same Scripture, that I need not continue for an hour longer in that state, - because , Christ is the end of the la,v for righteousness to every one that believeth,' and ',vhosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' For anything I can see, their method better meets my case than yours.' One other objection the author urges: "'V e must have our own sets of spiritual and carnal men; of those ,vho can make it clear to us that they believe, and of those who cannot." vVho must have this? For regulating our own conduct,-for deciding with 'v horn ,ve are to have close fello,vshir,-'we must distinguish bet,veen man and man. So, ,ve presunle, does the author. But we tell all men, as he does, tllat it is not with us, or ,vith our judgment, that they have to do, but with their own consciences and their God. But be that as it may, these" divisions are EO many premiums to hypocrisy, so TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE. 285 lllany hindrances to honest men, so many temptations." They tempt the so-called "religious" man "to think that he has not a ,vorld and flesh and devil to struggle ,vith," 'v hile in reality he may" be an obedient slave of all three. They tempt those who are treated as carnal and ,vorldly, to believe ,vhat they are told of themselves, to act as if they had not that longing for good which they yet know. that they have, ancl ,vhich God does not diso\vn, for his Son has awakened it, though his servants may be stifling it." (P. 206.) N ow this old objection against the doctrine of justifi- cation by faith has at all events some meaning, 1vhen it comes from one ,vho holds the doctrine of justification by works. But what the author, according to his own vie\v of justification, can Inean by it,-or what he can make of it,--it is very hard to see. The persuasion of my being justified now in Christ as received by faith, may lead to carelessness or unfaithfulness in the war against evil. Ilow is it more apt to do so than the author's persuasion of his having been justified always in Christ as raised from the dead? If the author says that, though justified, he has always had to contend with evil and the evil spirit; and more and Inore has to do so now, the more he counts himself to be justified;- why, so also say I. And I add, moreover, that the feel- ing of my being in a different state from that in which I once was,-the belief, so far as I realize it, that w here- as I 'was guilty, condemned, sentenced justly to die, I 286 DEALING \VITH SI NERS. am now acquitted, accepted, justified,-gives me ne,v motives and new strength for the contest, rids me of a heavy burden, places me on a new footing with my God, and enables me in his name to overcome every foe. Then again, in dealing ,vith those ,vho, by the author's confession as well as mine, are obedient slaves of the ,vorld, the flesh, and the devil,-,vho has the advantage,-he or I? lie tells theIn, however carnal and worldly, that they are justified already. I testify to them that they are condemned,-that the ,vrath of God is upon them,-that they are under the curse of the la,v. He bids them recognise that longing for good which they kno,v that they have. I call and invite them to believe and repent,-to accept the righteousness ,vhich in Christ Jesus God brings near to them, that they may be justified from all their transgressions,-to obey those strivings of the Holy Spirit which ,vill not suffer their consciences to have peace or their hearts to be at rest until they seek and find acceptance in the Beloved. If it be said that this is merely an a1"fjumentu'ln ad hO'1ninen , a kind of retort,-not directly bearing upon the real question at issue ;-it is of course adnlitted to be so. nd all that is asked is, that as much, or as little, weight be attached to the author's reasoning as to the attempted reply, excepting in so far as the " general conscience" of mankind may incline to,vards either. The closing appeal to Unitarians it is scarcely neces- sary to notice. The author refers to the sort of alliance THE CLAPHAM SCHOOL. 287 that once existe(l behveen Ortho(lox High Churchmen and Unitarians against "the conversions and spiritual struggles upon which the evangelical teachers (lwelt so lnuf'h," as .well as "against the leading evangelical doctrine," as ""\veakening moral obligations," an (1 putting a "high-flown pedantical morality," in the place of "plain home-spun English honesty an(l good faith." lIe refers .with satisfaction to Sir James Stephen's Essay' on the Clapham School,' an(l to the altere(l tone of the Edinburgll Review, since the palmy days of that prince of w.its ,vhom a writer in another journal quotes as ' our in'everend friend, Sidney Smith.' lIe pays a graceful compliment to the patriotism an(l philanthropy of the evangelical n1en of the last century; and ",.hile ac1nlitting numerous exceptions, he laments the absence of " similar fruits" among" those who talk lnost of justification by faith in our day." He accounts for it by asking,-" Is it not because they believe justifi- cation by faith, instea(l of believing in Christ the Justifier? Is not the ,, hole principle change(l? Is not the formula ,vhich represents the principle doing duty for it?" An(l (lesiring the Unitarians to (listinguish bet" een the evangelical men ,,,ho still hol(l the principle and those who merely hol(l by the formula,-he ,varns them finally against "falling into the errol'. ,, hich he has attribute(l to our modern Evangelicals, an(l which infects many besides theln,-that of making faith itself an object of trust, almost of worship." (Pp. 207-212.) 288 THE FOR1tIULA DOING- DUTY FOR TIlE PRI CIPLE. vVhat measure of truth there may be in the charge brought against modern Evangelicals, it would scarcely become one of themselves to say. rhe good fruits are too few; the tares too many, - "tradesmen mixing chicory with coffee, jobbing merchants and politicians, divines given to,glander." In one remark the author is right. There always is a tendency to substitute for the living principle, its dead formula ;-to cease fronl deal- ing with Christ personally, an(l to begin to (leal .with some proposition about Christ. The warning against such a tendency is al \vays seasonable. Every earnest lnan feels the nee(l of it in his oV\Tn experience. The sa(l history of the age succeeding the Reformation exem- plifies the tendency; the present race of evangelical Protestants may perhaps be suffering from it. By all lneans let a revival be sought. And let it not be sup- pose(l to be a mere retort if the hint be gi\ren, that of all theories respecting the person and work of Christ, that advocated by the author is perhaps the most likely, when it passes out of genial hearts like his own into colder and keener intellects, to degenerate into a mere dry personification of man's in\var(l sense of right. The allusions to Co\vper an(l Blanco v.Vhite might suggest nlost interesting inquiries, far too serious to be disposed of in a fe\v sentences. It seems 0(1(1, ho\vever, that the author should not have seen ,vhat a large dc- Inan(l he makes, in the case of Co\vper, for the very faith \vhich the poet ,vanted. Does he think that his despair CO'VPER-BLANCO WHITE. 289 would have been relieved by the belief that Christ \vas in him ahvays, merely as the author holds Christ to be in every man? It was a more experimental, a more realized fello"Tship with Christ that the sufferer desired, -a fellowship which even the author must admit can only be enjoyed by the man who trusts, as alas! it was often not in the power of the poet's disordered mind to trust. rfhe history of Blanco 'Vhite's struggles after faith, and their ultimate issue in utter au(l universal un- belief, is a chapter in human nature yet to be written. It may be doubted, however, hO"T far the author's short- hand solution of the problem \vill be of avail in the \vriting of it. ESSAY X.-ON REGE.. ERATION. George Combe and Bishop Butler,-the OOnstl.tut'lOn of lJ,lan, and the Discourses on Human .1Vature,-are the poles or pivots on which this Essay turns; or at least the starting points in the inquiry,- What that human nature is whose regeneration is in question. Combe's book, the author is tol(l, has "had an enor- mous circulation." He" cannot .wonder at its success." Has anyone told him, or has he read in the a(l vertise- ment to the cheap edition, how largely it is endowe(l- what a sum has been given to re(luce the price and push the sale of the poißon? But he " does not regret the T 290 l\1R COl\[BE. success, though," he adds, "I might not easily find a book from the conclusions of ,vhich I more entirely dis- sent. It has, I think, brought the question of eclucation, and many other questions, to the right issue,- ""Vhat is the constitution of Inan ? " And certainly to know the constitution of man, is the first step towards "the sound and orthodox doctrine" as to the way of dealing rightly with it. Combe may also have some reason to blame "our ancestors" for "kno,ving little or nothing of man's physical state; "-and even to conclude that" our n10ralists and divines are guessers and nothing else," substituting for the certainty of physical facts, the con- jectures of speculation and so-called faith ;-insomuch that "if every other method of eclucation is laid aside, and his adopted, as the only one which States can sanc- tion, or which is available for men universally, he and those who have joined with him in advocating it will be much less answerable for the result, than we who have opposed him." (Pp. 214-217.) Thus far, Ir Combe being "balanced" against "divines and moralists," these last apparently "'lnust kick the beam." But the Goliath, with all his enor- mous weight, meets" ith a second David, sling in hand. As the author has been "throughout tracing feelings and consciousnesses in men ,vhich point to some spiritual object,"-he cannot "suppose that we can provide for all the necessities of human beings, or set them altogether right, by treating them as creatures possessing a PHYSICAL LA ,,"S. 291 stomach, a liver, and a brain." "It is, of course," he adds, "an obvious an(l familiar theory that these con- sciousnesses are secreted in the stomach, the liver, and the brain." And he is "quite willing that anyone should hold that theory, and should try to work it out." He believes, as usual, that such an inquirer" will do much goo(l,"-because light will b thrown on "the connexion of these bodily functions "rith the thoughts and moral state of human beings,"-and also because he will be himself" convinced that this scheme must fail." "'Vhen he has got all priests and traditions out of his way, he is only beginning" his task. H He must get the thoughts and convictions ,vhich have helped most to raise and civilise human society out of his ,vay I also: if he does not, they ,vill perplex and torlnent him perpetually." For this end "he must persecute. The inconvenient consciousnesses ,vhich do not let the phy- I sical constitution act freely and healthily, will have to be prohibited." (Pp. 217-219.) Pos ibly a disciple of Ir Combe might object to this a}-g1nnentun in invÙlialn, as not touching the merits of the question; and even an opponent of that writer might , somewhat question its fairness. That infidelity-mate- I rialism-is essentially intolerant,-that when it becomes fanatical it is more intolerant than any other bigotry,- may be proved on other grounas. But Ir Combe might have a plausible defence against the charge; he might a k how the theory of a universal law of love is less 292 BISHOP BUTLER. intolerant than the theory of physical laws. 'Vhat is meant, however, is clear. The author holds that "the feelings and consciousnesses ,vhich point to some spiritual object," cannot be resolved into physical la,vs, and are themselves ineradicable. From the champion of the Physical constitution of man, the author turns to the chanlpion of the Ioral. lIe "honours Butler, and owes much to his discourses on HUlllan Þlatlll'e." But" there are causes which give the exclusive believers in a l)hysical constitution,-im- measurably inferior as they may be to him,-a very decided advantage over him." He mentions three. In the first place, "The physiologist speaks confiùently of some facts or la,vs ,vhich he has ascertained. As Butler is commonly interpretecl, he assumes all moral principles to depend merely on probable evidence." rThis Inay be doubted; but io proceed. In the second place, l)hysical evils, such as " certain diseases of the body," can be traced to their causes, either physical or Inoral; and these causes Inay be directly cured, or prudently avoided. lC But when our social affections and our self-love are diseased, it does not '1ppear that Butler has pointed out any satisfactory method of setting them right." And thirdly, even l\Iackintosh, almost an "excessive" ad- mirer of Butler, "has complained, that while he is bold and clear in asserting the fact of a conscience, and its right to dominion, he is timid and hesitating in affirming ""hat it is, and ho\v its prc 'ogatives are to be exercised; " 8IR J .A)IES l\IACKI TOSH. 293 a just complaint, accorcling to the author. " Every prac- tical student of Butler is putting the question, 'This faculty belongs to my nature, then :- \Vhat, to me? Is the conscience 'lniue? Do I govern it, or does it govenl me? ' The school-doctor may dismiss this difficulty ".ith great indifference. For the living man, everything is involved in the answer to it." (Pp. 220-223.) The author refers to one of the finest passages in Iackintosh's noble Dissertation, in which, with con- summate ability, he analyses the supremacy of con- science, and places it on an impregnable basis. The passage, however,-which everyone should consult,- does not naturally suggest the question supposed to be put by "every practical student of Butler." Nor is it very apparent that the question is either a necessary or a fair one. No careful and candid reader of Butler can ,veIl doubt that he might have somewhat resented it. His doctrine surely is, that conscience is de Jure, if not de facto, the governor in and over the man. There is more force in the author's second objection, ,vhich indeed is the main one. Butler does not sufficiently recognise the signs of ruin in man's moral constitution; nor does he adequately discuss the nature of the repair required. How far the author succeeds better,-is now to be seen. IIaving disposed of Combe and of Butler, he has the field now to himself. " The great facts to which Butler bore so brave a ,vitness, cannot be explained, 'v hile we regard thenl 294 REG EXERATIOK. 1nerely as facts in D1an's nature." "They imply an ascent out of that nature, a necessity in man to acknow- ledge that which is above it, that which is above himself." In pursuance of this thought, the author proposes to she\v ho\v "the difficulties \vhich beset the most full and masterly explanation that can be given of these facts, gradually disappear;" and how "theology is. the protector and basis of morality and humanity;" -of morality, it may be presumed, as elevated by Butler; of humanity as developed by Combe. And " the word REGENEUATION" gives the key-note. " To many it seems to import a principle inconsistent with that of Butler." If a man requires to be regene- rated, "ho\v can human nature in itself be that good thing \vhich Butler would have us believe it to be?" l\Iust not Butler contradict the Scriptures on this point, " and 0 lIT hearts, which confess the Scriptures to be true, and ourselves to be evil?" He" is glad" w hen this is asked by a person who reverences both the Bible and Butler; sorry ,vhen it is asked by one ",vho \vishes to plove Butler \vrong." Of this last he says "that in his eagerness not to twist the Bible into conformity with Butler's notions, he 'will tvást it into conforn1Ïty ,vith his o,vn." By all means let both the VV ord of God and the great human moralist be reverenced, each in due measure. It ,vill be found that the more the 'V ord of God is reverenced unre:servedly, the more intelligent \vill be the restricted reverence felt for the moralist. A NEW NATURE. 295 In dealing with the question as to the apparent in- consistency of the doctrine of Regeneration with Butler's views, the author contrasts t,vo meanings of the ,vord. 1. "Regeneration 'lnay mean the substitution, in certain persons, at some giyen moment (say in the or- dinance of baptism, or at a crisis called conversion), of a nature specially besto.wed upon them, for the one which belongs to them as ordinary human beings. N 0 doubt it has this meaning for a great many Protestants, as well as Romanists; no doubt this meaning mixes ,vith another, in some of the purest and no blest hearts to be found in either communion." (P. 224.) No doubt, nloreover, evangelical divines in particular are thus , damned ,vith faint praise.' Paul describes some 'teachers of the law' as 'under- standing ne .ther what they say, nor whereof they affir.m.' It is but charity to think that when the author ,vrote these sentences he w"as in that predicament; other,vise he is liable to a far graver charge. Probably, even Romanists ,vould disclaim the notion ascribed to them. "Thatever change they may hold to be effected in the ordinance of baptism, the advocates of baptismal regene- ration, in its most literal sense, do not hold the substitu- tion of one nature for another to be that change. And as to Protestants,-could the author really look an evan- gelical friend and brother-clergyman in the face, and coolly say,-unless it ,yere by way of harmless pleasantry and banter,-' Dear sir, do you not believe that in certain 296 RENOV ATION. persons, at a crisis which you call conversion, a nature specially besto,vec1 upon them is substituted for the one which belongs to them as ordinary hun1an beings?' Nay,-his some"what startled and half-amused fellow- collegian might reply,-if you seriously imagine that '\ve absurd and extravagant evangelicals believe such stuff as that, I can set your mind at rest on that score. If you think that regeneration has this meaning for us, either pure or undiluted, or mixed with another,-though '\vhat other could mix with it I can hardly see,-it is a mere mistake. I can assure you that we thoroughly agree wi t.h yourself in the opinion that" such a doctrine of regeneration is quite incompatible" with Butler's doc- trine, and indeed with common sense. Nay, more, we ,,"ould very much agree ,vi th yourself as to the meaning to be attached to the word, if we rightly understand your own definition of it. For you say :- 2. "Regeneration may mean the renovation or resti- tution of that which has fallen into decay, the repair of an edifice according to the ground plan and design of the original architect." Let that be its meaning. " It is obvious that such a signification need not in the least contradict Butler's idea of a human constitution, but might remarkably illustrate it." So far good. But the author immediately adds :-" There being a certain con- stitution intended for man by his Creator, and certain influences about him or ,vithin him which weakened or underrnined it, the Author of the work might look A LIFE CO lMUNICATED FROM A FATHER 297 lovingly upon it, and devise measures for counteracting those influences, and bringing it forth in its fulness and order. Some such theological complement of his moral system we may suppose gave coherency and satisfaction to tile mind of Butler himself." (Pp. 225, 226.) This second description of regeneration is surely an under- statement, as compared with the definition which makes regeneration mean" tile renovation or restitution of that which has fallen into decay." Is the" decay" nothing more than "certain influences about man or within him which weaken or undermine the constitution intended for him by his Creator? " Is" the renovation or resti- tution" nothing more than "devising measures for counteracting those influences, and bringing it forth in its fulness and order?" 3. .li difficulty here occurs,- Is Regeneration, in the meaning which divines attach to the ,vord, the future hope of individuals and of the race,-or is it a present possession also, at least in part? Theologians hold that it is both. "They contend that there is so,nething already obtained by CHrist, for those who will receive it." " And the words' birth' and' generation,' which they find recurring so frequently in Scripture, do, they contend, suggest another thought than that ,vhich the restoration of an edifice suggests. They must indicate a life communicated from a Father." And "for the full interpretation of the doctrine" respecting the com- munication of this life,-as implying apparently even 298 JOHN III. 3-6. something more than "the renovation or restitution of that which has fallen into decay,"-" they refer," and the author accepts the reference, "to the 3d chapter of St John's Gospel." (P. 227.) " Three views of Regeneration" are before us. The first is "directly opposed to Butler's doctrine of a moral constitution of man." The second is " compatible with it, but scarcely according with the exact language of Scripture." The third" promises something like a kingdom or constitution to man hereafter, but seems to make the existence of a spiritual society at present rather an anomaly and an exception among human societies." But" if we may take Christ's own ex- position, if ,ve assume him to be the Regenerator of hun1anity, a light seems to fall on all these different aspects of the theological doctrine; ,ve need not despair of their being reconciled." These things the author says, after dealing with the dialogue of our Lord 'with Nicodelnus. (Pp. 230, 231.) It is convenient to have them in view at the outset. " From the very letter of the Evangelist," a " hUlll ble reader perceives, that the birth is fronl above; that a Divine Spirit is the J.uthor of it; that it is the birth of a spirit; that it is the condition of entering a king- dom; that it has something to do ,vith Baptism." Here are five discoveries made by the" humble reader," out of four verses (John iii. 3-6). He may be relieved of two of them, the third and the fifth. There is not a JOHN III. 13-21. 299 word about "the birtl1 of a spirit." ..A..nd there is no allusion to bapti::;m,. To be born of water, is eXplained as meaning, according to Old Testament phraseology, to be born of the Spirit. But the water of baptisln is not admissible here. r rhe three remaining truths are, 1, that the birth is from above,-that it is a new birth; 2, that it is a birth effected by the Spirit; and 3, that it is the condition of entering a kingdom. And in fact these three may be reduced to one, ,vhen it is the na- ture of regeneration that is considered. It is to be born of the Spirit. But the "humble reader" "suspects that the latter part of the conversation" "cannot be separated from the fonner part." This latter part (verses 13-21) is concerning, 1, "the Son of nlan ,vho canle down from heaven and is in heaven;" 2, "tile serpent that ,vas lifted up in the ,vilderness;" 3, "the love of God to the w.orld in sending his only-begotten Son, that ,vhoso- ever believeth in him should not perish but have ever- lasting life;" and 4, " the light which is come into the ,vorId, the condemnation ,rhich consists in loving the darkness. " The leading idea here also is one; the love typified in the brazen serpent, and manifested in the sending of the only-begotten Son. (Pp. 227, 228.) Several "be,vildering" questions here occur, about baptism, the kingdoln, heaven, and the Son of man being said to be in this heaven, even while he is upon earth. But chiefly they are these three: 1, ""\Vhy 300 THE CENTRE-THE SYSTEM. should the exaltation of the Son of man be refen.ed to in flns connexion, all-important as it may be in reference to the doctrine of redemption, or the expiation of sins? " -2, "Why is God's love to the ,vorld brought into a passage which seems to slJeak expressly of the con- dition of those "' ho are "-rather, ,vho are to be- "separated from the ,vorId?" -3, "Is not the condem- nation of men this, that they do not partake of this divine and spiritual birth? 'Vhy is it declared to be that they love darkness rather than light? " (P. 228.) ,A..ll these questions resolve themselves into one,- "That has the discovery of the love of God to men,-as declared in Christ and by Christ,-to do with the change which must be ,vrought in man, in order that he may enter into the kingdom of God? Perhaps this is ,,,,hat the author means when he says that " disagree- ments arise from the ans,vers which are given to these questions;" "each of us being disposed to fix on some one of our Lord's statements, as that to which he shall refer all the rest; " and when he adds that we must have "a centre" for our thoughts to "revolve ' round, -and that it is better "to find" such a centre than to " choose it, and so create a system for ourselves." The centre and the systelll he thus adjusts. "God himself is the centre here. The love ,yith which he loved the ,vorId, is that to which our Lord is leading us. If we learn from him .what that love is, what it has designed, what it has accomplished, we shall BORN INTO THE LIGHT OF HEAYEX. 301 be in a better condition to apprehend all that he is teaching us respecting the birth frolll above." " Starting from this point, then," we trace this love in its course. It" has nlanifested itself in setting forth the only-begotten Son, not lnerelyas the author of for- giveness, but as the very ground and source of man's eternal life." "The cross is the exhibition of God's love." It is also "the exhibition of the true and per- fect )Ian." "Looking up to the cross" _" the man does not perish by the bite of the serpent,"-,vhich is the "spirit of selfishness continually separating him fronl God and his brethren." " He sees that eternal life ,vhich ,vas with the Father, and ,vhich in the Divine "\V ord is manifested to us; he becomes an inheritor of it." And what he perceives is real. "The Son of man," "who is in heaven," even "while he is ,valking on earth, has come down to establish the kingdom of heaven upon emth, to unite earth and heaven in him- self,"-" to claim men as spiritual beings capable of this spiritual life, inheritors of this spiritual kingdom. Baptism declares this to be their proper and divine constitution in Christ. All ,vho receive it clailll the kingdoln w'l1Îch God has declared to be theirs. They take up their rights as spiritual beings. He besto" s his Spirit U pOll them that they may enjoy these rights; that they may be as much born into the light of heaven, into the light of God's countenance, as the child is born out of the womb into the light of the sun." (Pp. 228-230.) 302 "BORN OF THE SpnUT. Such, according to the author, is regeneration. First, the love of God is manifested in Christ, as the SOurce of eternallife,-the destroyer of the spirit of selfishness in man,-the uniter of heaven and earth in hinlself. He thus establishes the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and claims men as spiritual beings, inheritors of the kingdom. They, being baptized, claim their rights. And God bestows his Spirit upon them that they may enjoy these rights. And this is as truly a birth as the cOIning forth of the child out of the 1vom b. One disposed to be minutely critical might say that it is rather like letting in the light and life of day upon the child still in the worn b, and making hinl feel there as if he ,vere abroad and at large, under the open eye of heaven. Our Lord says very solemnly ;-' Except a man be bonl of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Before that birth, whatever it may be, he has no more interest in the kingdom of God than the un born child has in the ,vorld into ,vhich it has not yet entere . But apart from this, has not the author evaded the real question? That question is not respecting the connexion between the inw.ard work of the Spirit in regeneration and the ouhvard manifestation of the love of God in redemption,-upon which our Lord's discourse sheds a flood of light. But ,yhat is regeneration? 'Vhat change, or renovation of the moral nature of man does it Ï1nply? So far as appears from the author's some,vhat obscure multiplying of words,-it is not that ENTERING I TO THE KINGDO}[ OF GOD. 30 I am so rene1ved as to become what I ,yas not before- but that I am so enlightened as to apprehend 'what I ,vas before. It is not that the ruin is repaired, but that it discovers itself to be no ruin. It is not that a new life is commtmicated, but that an old life is recognised. It may be a ne,v light,-a new experience,-a ne,v revelation; but it is not a ne'"r creation; it is not a new birth. The ne,v birth demands the proclamation of the love of God, as our Lord most graciously proclaims it- that love which provides a Saviour to be lifted up upon the cross. But it demands also an immediate work of the Holy Spirit in and npon the moral nature of ll1an, in order that the conscience may reassert effectually its right both to command and to condemn. There is light from above to sbe,y the love of God in Christ. There is power from above to make the heart willing. Enlightened and renewed, the man enters into the king- dom of God. Having worked out what he considers the true idea of regeneration, the author now applies it to the "dif- ferent aspects of the theological doctrine" ,vhich he had previously noticed; "not despairing of their being reconciled." He begins with Butler. He thinks that Butler's" ethical principle" may now be accepted and applied. First, Iackintosh's objection, as the author under- stands it, "is taken away. The name, Conscience, would seem to import, not a power 'which rules in us, 304 SU PREMACY OF CONSCIENCE. but rather our perception and recognition of some power very near us, 'v hich has a claim on our obedience." Dr Chalmers has admirably shewn that Butler's doctrine respecting conscience may be turned to most important account in natural theology. "The felt su- prenlacy" of a m.pral sense within, points to and proves the actual supremacy of a moral Governor above. The existence of conscience, ,vith its ackno,vledged sove- reignty, in Inan,-implies a law, and a Lawgiver and Judge over man. This is a cogent argument; but it is an argument ,vhich bears, not upon luau's regeneration, but upon his need of being regenerated. "If I anl entitled to say, 'There is a Lord over lilY inner man to whom I am bound, apart from ,vholn I cannot exercise the functions ,vhich belong to me as a man, according to the law of nlY being,'-conscience can be restored to its silnple and natural signification; it does not demand sovereignty, but pays honlage." So far the author seems to nlean, ,vhat Dr Chalmers means, that the sovereignty of conscience over the other parts of our constitution really proceeds upon its 01vning, as paramount over all, the sovereignty of God. But then immediately after, he speaks of that to which conscience pays homage as "a supernatural governnlent established ,vi thin us." And still more plainly he adds,--" I feel that I am not confessing Christ before men "-" if I do not say that it is of him my conscience speaks, that I am under hi:> government, in his kingdom. Nor dare I hide from THE REGE ERATION OF HUMANITY. 305 any man the good news that lie too is a subject of this kingdom, that the Regenerator of humanity is his Lord and l\Iaster." (Pp. 231-233.) This must mean, first, that ,vhat conscience recognises is a supernatural government in me,-the government of a lord and master in me; and secondly, that conscience recognises or discovers this lord and master in me to be the Regenerator of humanity. .L1s to the first, is it not a defecti \le vie,v of what conscience indicates? Is it not the instinctive belief of a lord and master out of me,- above me,-before me,-that conscience prompts? It is not a lord over my inner man, establishing a super- natural government within me, that my conscience causes me to own, but a lord over my inner man, over myself,-confronting me,-reckoning 'with me,--com- pelling me to plead at his tribunal and listen to his sentence. And then, as to the other point, neither reason nor Scripture can ever make my conscience recognise in this lord and master, as such,--as the instinct of conscience itself points him out,-the Regene- rator either of humanity, or of myself. On the contrary, my conscience must protest to the last against his being so, unless he hill1self shall tell me of some power or process,-quite distinct from any that my own conscience could ever suggest,-by which my moral nature may be changed. The truth is, my conscience as to this matter says nothing to me at all of regeneration; it speaks exclusively of guilt, pollution, condemnation, and a u 306 PERVERSIONS OF CONSCIEXCE. great Being to whom I am accountable. Rcgeneration must be found for me, not in me. And it must be something more than the owning of "a supernatural government established ,yithin me;" it must be a pro- vision for so renovating my whole inner man as to bring it into harmony 'with that government. The lord and master 'whom my conscience o,vns, may be the Regene- rator; but it is because he presents himself to me in a new character, and performs in nle a ne,v work. Butler admits "the possible effects of superstition in perverting the decrees of conscience;" and the author's principle explains and prevents the mischief. " Till the true Lord of the conscience has made himself kno,vn to it, of necessity it must go about seeking rest and find- ing none." It ",vill bow to any impostor," or "false king," under whose influence it will" become beclouded in its judgments," and exercise ' a cruel tyranny over its vassals." " It may prescribe outrages on physical rules and on the social affections/' not to be tolerated. This, of course, is true, - as ,vitness infanticide, the Suttee, and a thousand other abominations. It is, in fact, a truism in moral science; and Christian moralists have usually found thf' remedy in the kno,vledge of the true God as he has revealed himself in his ".,.. ord. They have held that the conscience, like every other part of man's constitution, has suffered by the Fall: that it is apt to be ,varped and clouded; and that its testimony within becomes true and strong only when it is enlight- TIlE BRIDEGROOM OF AUAN'S SPIRIT. 307 ened by the testimony of God from without and from above, as that testimony is contained in the Holy Scrip- hues. This is at least a plainer and more intelligible, if not a surer and safer statement, than the author's way of putting it :-" If we believe that Christ is the ruler of this conscience, ho,v beautifully the distinction of St Paul behveen the flesh and the spirit would interpret the mystery of his divine government; ""-hat a solid basis would it lay for ethics and practical education!" The interpretation of this divine government .which is thus to uphold the fabric of morals, ,vould seem to be,- that there are punishments, and fears of ptmishment, "needful for that evil nature in us, which is always seeking to break loose from law, and which would reduce us to mere animals: "-but that" the Christ, the true bridegroom of man's spirit, is ever drawing it towards himself,-is holding out to it freedom from evil, and the knowledge of himself as its high reward. Owning Him, the man rises out of dark superstitions, out of immoral practices; he recognises the fitness of all G.od's arrange- ments in the physical and moral world; he claims for the body, as well as the soul, a redem ption from all which corrupts and degrades it." (P. 234.) There is, then, an evil nature in me, for which punish- ments and fears of punishment are needful. Interpreted by the light of former essays, the evil nature may mean nothing more than my liability to be drawn into evil by the evil spirit; and the punishments, actual or 308 SELF-LOVE AND SOCIAL. feared, may be those arrangements of God in the physi- cal and moral ,vorld, ,vhose fitness I ought to recognise and "Those fixedness I cannot come across without loss and damage. But ,vhatever the evil nature in me may be, I ask,-is it to be renewed, changed, lllade really different from ,vhat it was before? To tell me that my spirit is married to Christ, that he is dra,ving it to"Tards himself,-that owning him, I am free, risen, redeemed, -is not to answer my question at all. I ask about that evil nature in me which, to say the least of it, is coun- teracting this drawing of my spirit to" ards himself on the part of its Bridegroom, and interfering ,vith this own- ing of him on my part,-I ask-Is that to undergo any alteration? For if not, it is idle to tantalise me with the mere idea of regeneration, a new birth, a ne"r creation, -which IllY enlightened conscience IllaIt.es me feel that I sorely need. It is 'keeping the word of pron1Ïse to the ear and breaking it to the sense.' The reconciliation of self-love and social, is another problenl of Butler's. But this also is eXplained by " the principle that Christ is the Regenerator of humanity." " I am certain that I have no self that I can love- . . . unless I am the member of a body. I am certain that I cannot be the lllenlber of a body consisting of persons, unless I am myself a person; that I cannot love another person unless I do also love myself." So the author states the difficulty. He meets it thus :-" Bring in the belief of the one IIead and Brother of each man, the . SUPREME LOVE TO GOD. 309 one Centre of society, and that great moral contradiction is felt to be a great moral necessity; one which we can welcome and rejoice in, and act upon." (P. 234, 235). To some it may appear that our Lord's solution is clearer. Having rehearsed the first and great command- ment, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and ,vith all thy soul, and with all thy mind,'-he added, ' And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Let there be supreme love to God, and "self-love and social become the same." But in order to this subordination of the creature to the Creator, a man must be really born of the Spirit. From Butler, the author passes again to Combe. The disciples of Combe may still complain of Butler as " dealing only with probabilities and chances." " You may pretend that you have given certainty to ,vhat is doubtful in his speculations, by adding to them the "ords of Scripture." But you have only given us your inter- pretation of those words. Such is their complaint. "It is but a guess sustaining a guess." In reply, the author confesses and laments certain ad- missions of Butler, which might seem to mean that he wanted men to decide and act for eternity upon a calcu- lation of chances. He refers to Newman's having over- throw'n, as a Romanist, his own previous theory which carried that idea to a Rad extreme. And he very ably vindicates Butler's process of induction, and that kind of evidence generally, as giving results equally certain. 310 BIBLE TEACHING BY INDUCTION. in the region of mind and morals, with the conclusions reached in the study of material nature. lIe then ex- plains the use to be made of the Bible in connexion 'with these results. It is itself" a book in 'which God is teaching his creatures induction by setting them an example of it; 1l0thing is taught there as it is in the Koran, by mere decree; everything by life and experi- ment." Certainly, what God teaches in the Bible is not for the most part taught oracularly, but rather through real, living, and personal histories, on ,vhich oracular light is shed. And revelation must be received as "in- terpreting the facts of human life," and tracing to their " source the difficulties of human speculation." " Ac- cepting it for this purpose, ,ve do not put our own sense upon it." vVhat then? Ho,," do ,ve use it? " vVe go to it in our great necessity, to see whether it can give us the help we need;" not "putting our own sense upon it," but in our helplessness interrogating it. And" if that ,vhich ,vas a presumption before, becomes clothed with a ne,v force, illuminated with a new brightness; if it comes back to me, stripped of all that ,vas merely my o,v 11 , and yet I recognise it as more mine than ever,-I do not know ,vhat the reason can ask for besides, to quiet it, and satisfy it." This, the author thinks, "the belief of Christ as the Regenerator of hUlnanity does for all the questionings and demands of suffering human beings," as well as " for the speculations of the faithful moral student." (Pp.236-240.) DATA-. DESIDERA TA. 311 Surely a distinction is here overlooked ;-the distinc- tion bet\veen the data and the desiderata of man's moral nature, as a sound induction ascertains them. The author's account of the function of IIoly Scripture is con- sequently one-sided. It is quite true that much is taught in the Bible "by life and experiment,"-not perhaps everything,-but at any rate much. Studying it as a book of " life and experiment," very much as ,,"e study life and experience in ourselves and others, ,,"e find a harmony most satisfying to our reason; and are enabled to interpret many facts, and trace many specula- tions to their source in the deep heart of man, or of God. The great fundamental principles of our spiritual con- stitution,-the supremacy of conscience among the rest, -are thus invested \vith new force and brightness. But a sound induction brings out, not only \vhat man is, but ,vhat man needs; and it is possible that God may be telling us in the Bible of some procedure on his part, -altogether new,-such as could never enter into the heart of man,-fitted to supply our need. In that view, the Bible must be inten"ogated upon the point,--w"hether or not it has information to give on the subject of the dealings of God, as well as the consciousnes es and ex- periences of man. It may have something more, and something else, to do, than to send back to me what was a pre8umption before, with \vhatever added po\ver and purity a divine record of life and experiment may ilnpart. I search it that I may know if it has. And 312 THE CHURCH AN EDUCATOR. here, I must to the best of my ability, and with \vhat help I can get, "put my o\vn meaning upon it." I must interpret it, as I would interpret the letter or message of a friend. I find that it tells me of a ne\v birth,-of regeneration. I examine \vhat that may fairly be held to mean, not according to any previous presumption of mine, but according to the ordinary rules by which language is explained. And I rejoice to ascertain that it is a new work of God, in and upon my moral nature, repairing, renovating it. There is nothing inconsistent with the facts which a sound induction has ascertained to be facts of my moral nature; but there is sonlething different,-something which :fits into them. There is the discovery from above and from ,yithout of a remedy for a disease felt \vithin,-the supply of a ,vant under the sense of ,yhich I inwardly groan. The evidence of ,vhat he has been saying to the dis- ciples of Com be, the author draws from the very evils to which they are accustomed to point in the Church and in Christendom. 1. Faith in " the fact that Christ is the Regenerator of humanity," gives to the Church her true elevation. The author charges Romanjsts with "having undervalued the Church." He contrasts the mischief ,,-hich the Church has done, ,vhen, forgetting its true position as God's witness, it has assumed to be his delegate and so to lord it in the \yorld,-,vith the good it has nevertheless done as "a civiliser and educator of hunlan beings." THE "WORLD REGENERATED I CHTIrST. 313 And he thus" explains the facts." "I find men 'who have acted in the faith of God having regenerated the 'world in Christ,-have been the great instnlments of good to the "Torld. And I find that men-possibly these very men-"Then they have acted on the opposite hypothesis, when they have behaved as if it was their business to make human beings something else than God has made them, have produced all manner of mischief and confusion." Doubtless it must be so. In so far as Popery, or any other Church tyranny, has tried to make men unnatural,-unnaturally recluse,-unnaturally chaste, - unnaturally spiritual, - unnaturally moral,- having a law of casuistry above the law of God;- the result has been bad saints,-bad monks and nuns,-bad kings and subjects,-,bad parents and chi1dren,-and in short, all kinds of social disorganisation. Of course the author cannot mean to charge these consequences against the doctrine that by regeneration human beings are made again to be what God made nlan at the first. And he surely cannot intend to restrict the credit of being "civilisers and educators of human beings" to those "Tho have believed that "God has regenerated the world in Christ." (Pp. 24:1-244.) 2. And yet one ,,"ould almost think so, on reading his reproof to Protestants. "Romanists and Greeks have not believed that Christ came into the ,vorld to regenerate all human society, all the forms of life." Hence" a secret }Ianicheism has gained strength, and 314 A REGENERATED HUMANITY. must gain strength every hour, till the idea of a regenerated humanity supersedes and extinguishes it." " "\Vhat then are Protestants doing," "when they deny the renewal and regeneration of society in Christ; ,vhen they insist that ,ve may not claim for our children the glory and privil ge of the ne\v birth, of being menIbers of Christ; that this is the special distinction of a few persons who have been brought to know that they pos- sess it?" (Pp. 245, 246.) N OlV this is very smart,-lllore smart than civil. It is very adroit, too,-more adroit than candid. Two things are here ingeniously confounded; "the bclief that Christ came into the ,vorld to regenerate all human society, all the forms of life, - all civil order, all don1estic relationships;" -and "the idea of a regene- rated humanity." If the author intends to say that "Protestants," demurring to this latter idea, are to be held as disowning the former belief,-he can hardly be acquitted of the charge of being, ,vhether ignorantly or not, 'an accuser of the brethren.' Protestants do not "deny the rene, val and regeneration of society in Christ," if by that is n1eant that "he came into the ,yorld to regenerate all human society, all fornls of life." r.fhey hold strongly that Christ has declared all civil order, all domestic relationships, human flesh, common food, ll1arriage and the luarriage feast, to be intilllately connected \vith him. They repudiate the ROll1anist idea of setting up a so-called religious profession in REGEXERATIO OF IAK'S NATURE. 315 contrast ,vith ordinary forms of life, as if it could be more sacred or nlore Christian. They, as ,veIl as the author, regard it as a secret Ianicheism. But surely to loegenerate, as, wherever the influence of his gospel is fèlt, Christ does regenerate,-human nature in all its parts, human society in all its institutions and relations, is a different thing from regenerating the moral nature of men; although this last may be the means of the other. And it may be fairly left for decision to the common sense of nlen, whether "the idea of a regene- rated humanity," or the belief that God, by his Holy Spirit, renews the hearts of men, one by one,-making them love able and loving,-is after all the lever best fitted for elevating " all forms of life, all civil order, all domestic relationships." ..As tõ the author's hit, when he would make "Protestants" say "that the new-birth is the special distinction of a fe\v persons ",-ho have been brought to kno,v that they possess it," it is scarcely worth while to ay that to possess the new-birth and to know that I possess it, are not the saIne thing; far less is it my being brought to kno\v that I possess it that procures for nle this distinction. It may be enough to retort the question, Of .what avail is the regeneration ,yhich he himself describes as universal, unless men are brought to knO\V that they possess it And it may be lawful to express a doubt \vhether, unless all language and all experience be altered, men ,vill easily be brought to know and realize their regeneration, without a change 316 NEGLECT O:F PHYSICAL LAWS. being undergone by them personally, in their whole moral and spiritual nature. 3. The author thinks that the view which he advo- cates 111ay so far commend itself to the disciples of Combe, as it holds physical nature, not less than that "Thich is spiritual and moral, to be embraced in the regeneration. The" Protestant" doctrine on this subject is undoubtedly favourable to physical inquiry, and the fullest ackno,vledgment of the physical la\vs. According to that doctrine, the entire nature of man, all social relations, and indeed the earth itself, must be vie\ved as capable of renovation. To regard all as already regenerated, is another opinion, and one ,vhich in the end may lead as much to acquiescence as to struggle. But there can be no dissent from the author's closing remark here ;-" we ought to feel that all God's judgments by fever and choler8, are judgments for neglect of his physical laws, but that tlzey will not be obeyed till men obey his moral laws, by ceasing to live to themselves, by feeling that it is their business to care for their fello,vs and for the earth." Only let a qualification be allowed, - that to the individuals themselves ,yho suffer, these are not ahvays or neces- sarily judgments for neglect of any law of God, physical or moral; and a supplement,-that this obedience to the moral laws of God, which is the only security for obedience to his physical laws, may imply a moral and spiritual change, some,vhat more personal to the indi- PRACTICAL BEARIKGS OF THE QUESTION. 317 vidual than "the idea of a regenerated humanity." (Pp. 2-16, 247.) 4. The bearing of these inquiries upon" the \vorking classes," who "are discussing the question, \vhether there is a God," -is a subject of vast importance. The author thinks that the doctrine of an actual and universal regeneration of humanity,-" a social as \vell as an individualloegeneration.; "-the assertion" that God has regenerated us, and has given us a sinlple sign and pledge that he has done so; "-nlight, "in time, bring some of them to feel that the Church was their friend and deliverer, not as they no\v, \vith great excuse, con- sider it, the bitterest of their foes." lIe anticipates a round of persecution for anyone "speaking and acting upon this principle." "IIigh churchmen'" "lo,v churchmen "-" P riests monarchs nobles" and "those , , , , who denounce all three,"-" those w.ho say you must reform the individual before you refonn society,"- "those \vho talk of reforming society, as the only ,yay of reforming the individual,"-" those ,vho .wish to keep things as they are,"-and "the whole ne,v school of philosophers and reformers," whose "greeting to one another is, 'Christ is not risen;' "-all will be upon him. In this universal 'war against him, "his only hope of that \vhich shall be, lies in his acknowledg- ment of that which has been and is." This makes hinl neither a "Thig, "comprolnising between the past and the present, between order and freedom; " nor a Radical, 318 THE WORK TN PROGRESS. if that implies his thinking, "that the world which is to arise out of the wreck of that in ,vhich 'Vte are living," is to be "one of which some other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is to be the king." (Pp. 247-250.) He will not consent to sever the future from the past an(l present. And he is right. But at the same time, in entire consistency with ,vhat he says, and says ,veIl, on these subjects,-and indeed for the very purpose of she,ving ho,v the past and present work out the future, -it is most important to maintain that regeneration is a process no,v going forward; that, in the first. instance, it is a change of the n10ral and spiritual nature of in- dividual men, one after another, fitting them for the kingdom of God; and that through this renew.al of individual men, and in connexion with it, there is in progress a regeneration of society,-in its families, its communities, its laws and customs, its relations and institutions,-such as may ,varrant the expectation of seeing manifested in due tin1e, 'the new heavens and the new earth, ,vherein dwelleth righteousness.' This surely is a ground of hope and a spur to exertion for which "the idea of a regenerated humanity" is scarcely an adequate substitute. CH_\.PTER VII. THE EXALTATIOS OF THE REDEE}[ER TO THE OFFICE OF RULER AND JL'"DGE.-ESSA YS XI. AND XII. ESSAY XI.-OY THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST. "HU lAKITY is continually longing and striving to ascend above itself into a mysterious heaven. The Greeks, with their creative faculty, expressed this truth in various modes and symbols. The poor Jew could think only of an actual body ascending into some actual heaven. The Christian Church has accepted the J e,vish dogma; but with a feeling of the restraint ,vhich it imposes. The notion of a present Christ alternates in her teachings with that of One who has gone away. The doctrine of transubstantiation has represented and perpetuated the contradiction. Protestants have tried to rid themselves of it; but cannot do so, lmless they are content to receive the kernel without the shell, to take the idea of the ascension, and to cast away the story of it." Such is the language which the author puts into the mouth of certain idealists, who are the respondents in this Essay. (Pp. 254, 255.) He admits in substance their representation of the 320 TEACHING OF CHRIST. Jewish mind, especially as formed by the Jewish " laws, institutions, traditions." He holds, at the same time, that the sense of an actually present God and of their interest in him must have been strong in many hearts; strongest in times of trouble; and that the ordinary teaching of the scri1es or doctors of the law could not tlleet it. But the teaching of Christ did. lIe " as one of themselves. He spoke to them of a Father who knew them and whom they might kno\Y,-from whom he came. He drew them "from a ,vor ld which they looked upon with their eyes, into an unseen world ,vhich another eye that he was opening must take in; yet a world ,vhich was intilnately united to the one they ,vere walking in, ,vl1Ïch gave the forms of that world a dis- tinctness they had never had before." Thus he spoke to them of the kingdon1 of heaven; and" ,yhen he wielded the powers of his kingdom, they felt 1110re and more that he governed the secret heart of nature and of man." The teaching went on, in spite of all their preju- dices, "kindling in them a new feeling of hU1l1anity." There was danger of the Teacher being idolised. Ho\v does he meet this danger? lIe owns Peter's confession, and rebukes mildly his expostulation. He is trans- figured on the l\Iount. He comes" down into the cro,vd about the boy who had fits. Thus a sense of in,vard glory belonging to him, ,,-hich spirit might apprehend, but the eye could not, was awakened in them; while they saw him crushing and humbling aU that they THE FORTY DA Y8. 321 looked upon, all that they could make an excuse for idolatry. At last the humiliation became complete." "The night before his passion," hvo things hap- pened. lIe spoke of his going to his Father, and of their seeing him no more; he spoke of it as "a day of bliss to them, which should succeed a night of sorro,v." "lIe took bread and ,vine, saying-Take, eat,-drink ye all of this. This is my body broken, and my blood shed for the remission of sins." "His body \vas there; 'within a fe,v horn's it was" in the "sepulchre." That he ",-ould "rise out of it," they did not believe; but ,vhen "he did rise, this seemed the explanation of all that he had done, and said, and been." "If there was such a Son of God and Son of mall, as he had led them to believe there was, then it seemed to them strange and monstrous that he should die, but natural and reasonable that he should rise. And soon they seen1 to have felt it scarcely less natural and necessary that he should ascend to Him from whom they believed that he had come. They relate, in a few simple words, how they arrived at that conviction, how he educated them into it." How ,vas that? "He appeared to them ,, hile they ,vere met together, the doors being shut for fear of the Jews. He shewed them his hands and his side; he ate with them; he vanished out of their sight; he breathed on them; he commanded them to go and baptize all nations; he said, 'All power is gÙ)en unto me in heaven and earth j' he said, 'Lo, I an, x 322 EXPECTATIONS RAISED. with you alway, even unto (he end of the 'world.'" (Pp. 259-262.) This is a most imperfect summary of a long passage in ,vhich there is much that is not only extremely beautiful, but valuable and true. The yearning of many a poor Jewish heart, under the dry teaching of the Rabbis, for some better and more satisfying food than the husks of traditionary formalism; - the intense longing felt by common men, especially in seasons of sadness, for such a real and actual personal acquaint- ance with Jehovah as sustained amid their trials the saints and worthies of the olden time ;-" their hearts, not their eyes, crying out for the living Goel ; "-the glad ,velcome given to him who ,vent about among them 'speaking a word in season to the weary;' -their ,vorship of him, awed into a better feeling by the 'glory which he received from the Father,' and by his o,vn submission to suffering; - these are topics inviting longer discussion than can now be given. The points particularly to be observed as bearing upon the ....\scen- sion, in the author's view of it, are ;-011 the one hand, what the Lord taught the disciples to expect on the night before he died;- -and on the other hand, what he taught them dm'ing the forty days after his resurrection concerning the way in which the expectations he had raised were to be fulfilled. These are, as it ,vere, the tlles.is and the antithesis}. answering to one another. As to the first point, the thesis, he held out the prospect EXPECTATIO S FULFILLED. 323 of his going to the Father as fitted to reconcile them to the idea of their not seeing him; and he encouraged them to look for his being with them in a feast in which they ,vere to feed upon his body and blood. As to the second point, the an titlws is, he familiarized them with the idea, that though not seen by them, he was still capable of being present with them, in the very body in which they had beheld him suffering. To c- custom them to this belief, he for a season continued to make himself now and then actually visible,-appearing, they knew not how,-disappearing, they kne,v not how, -yet proving by infallible signs that he \vas the very Jesus who had died. Thereafter, having, as the head of a universal kingdom, given them their commission- and his inspiration, his blessing,-he ceased to present himself any more to their bodily eye ;-still however assuring them, 'Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' The plain import of all this seems to be that the mere invisibility of Christ explains and harmonizes both his presence with the Father and his presence ".,.ith us. He is \vith the Father in the body, though we do not see him; he may be with us in the body, though \ve do not see him. His being with the Father in heaven in the body is the exaltation of humanity; his being with us on earth still in the body, though we see him not even ,vhile we feed upon him, realizes to us that exalta- tion in our present earthly state. And this is the 324 CHRIST RECEIYED INTO HEAVEN. ascension. But perhaps it is best not to anticipate the author's o,vn account. It is not a little remarkable, ho"\vever, that, profess- ing "to repeat their story,"-a story \vhich, "if it sounds unnatural, inconsistent, grotesque, to any," he I"efuses "to make less so by translating it out of their ,vords into his," -the author Oillits all mention of what the apostles thelllseives actually tell concerning the fact of "\vhich they \vere eye-\vitnesses. "Their story" is, that they sa\v Jesus on J\lount Olivet parted from them and carried up into heaven, that a cloud received him out of their sight, that they sa\v two angels and heard thenl say, 'This same Jesus ,vhich is taken up froin you into heaven, shall so come in like lllanner as ye have seen hin1 go into heaven.' According to that story, the fact is this;-that Christ in the body has left this earth altogether, 'the heavens having received him until the time of the restitution of all things;' that Christ in the body is w'here Enoch and Elijah are, 'where the saints \vho rose on the morning of his o\vn resurrection are. lIe may have appeared occasionally,-he has appeared to Stephen, to Saul, to John in Patmos,-in the glory in \v hich he appeared \vith l\loses and Elias on the l\Iount. lIe may and he does Inanifest his gracious presence, by his word and Spirit, in the Eucharist and ahvays, to thelll that love him and keep his words. But his bodily presence is not now enjoyed by the Church, and cannot be, any more than the bodily presence of Elijah ;-unless the human HISTORICAL NARRATIVE. 325 nature of the Son of God is invested with the attribute of ubiquity. The author altogether, and all throughout, sets aside the historical narrative of the ascension; at all events, to use his o,vn expression elsewhere, he ,vould require to be " brought to book" upon the subject. He finds it more convenient to assume that the ascension from :ì\Iount Olivet made no difference whatever in the position of Christ with reference to the apostles; and then to give an account of what their views and senti- ments must have been, on that assumption. " They felt, , This Lord of OlU"S is actually related to us and to the Father, as he was before he was crucified. His body is the very body which he had then. But .we are not henceforth to see him often in that body. OUf intercourse with him is not to be helped or hindered by the eye. . . . It must be-as he told llS it 'would be- henceforth awful intercourse with the Father through him, so that as in him God has stooped to us, in him we may ascend to God.'" (Pp. 259- 263.) If any object that this "is ideallanguage,-translat- ing Hebre"' into Greek," -the author's reply is that "the minds of these dull Galileans were idealized, spiritualized." ,A.nd he shews how. "...\.. person ,vhom they knew, ,vith whom they felt that they ",-ere in- separably, eternally united, had gone out of this world; to what place they knew not, nor cared to know; but certainly to his Father, certainly to IIim with w.hom he had always been one, with whom he had come to lnake 326 PA CHAL SUPPER. thell1 one, .whom he had declared and proved to be their Father as ,veIl as his Father." It was thus "de- monstrated" to theln "that they ,vere spirits having bodies, not bodies into which a certain ethereal particle, called spirit, ,vas infused." As" spirits having bodies" they "converseq with God" and ",vith one another," and could "feel, suffer, hope, with all men, ,vith the whole uniyerse." "They could claim the dignity of spirits, because they were one ,vith him ,vho had redeelned the body and made it spiritual. They could have fello,vship 'with all sufferers in the body, because lie had suffered and died, and ,vas the conlnlon Lord of all. They could rise to communion ,yith the }-'ather of spirits; because there was One in a body who ,vas his ,veIl-beloved Son, and who had offered hiulself for them." (Pp. 264, 265.) And no, v "they could enter into the force of those words spoken at the Paschal supper." "They could l'emember how at Capernaum, he had spoken of his flesh being meat indeed, of his blood being drink indeed," of "his flesh being given for the life of the ,vorId ;" how" ,vhen some were offended he said, ' TIle Spirit quiclænetlt, tIle tiesl" lJ'i'o.fiteth notkÙzg j' and how he had connected these apparent contradictions vtÏth the question, , TVltut altd if ye sltall see tIle Son of 'rnan ascend up u;lwre lw was before?'" They therefore could receive the bread and ,vine in the Eucharist as " the surest pledge that they \vere risen \vith him; that THE LIFE OF THE '\VORLD IN CHRIST. 327 they ,vere in his presence as much as ever; that they 11ad no life in themselves; that the life of the ,vorld ,vas in him; that his flesh and blood ,vere indeed the bond behveen the creatures and the Creator, between the creatures and one another." (P. 265.) If it may be permitted to express somewhat lnore precisely what these statements appear to mean, is it not in substance this? Christ becomes invisible,-at least ordinarily invisible. But he still has a body. rrhis body ,-Christ as having this body ,-is the bond between us and God,-between us and one another. Remembering and o,vning Christ as being "rith the Father with ,vhom he has ahvays been one,-and as the common Lord of all,-"we are elevated into fellowship ,vith his Father and his brethren ;-into the fello,vship ,vhich he has ,vith his Father, and ,vith his brethren also, as being still, though invisible, in the body. There is thus a union, a sympathy, between us as "spirits having bodies," and Christ as " having a .body." To feel this, is to ascend in him to God. And of this ascension, the symbols of his body and blood are the surest pledges. No,v, according to the author's view, what really is the ascension of Christ himself? Is it anything more than his becoming invisible,-while still having a body? " lIe is gone out of this world," it is true. But that can mean only that " ,ve are not henceforth to see him often in the body;" for the disciples" were in his presence 328 THE ASCENSIO A REAL FACT. as much as ever. " Nor can this refer to his divinity. As introduced in connexion with the symbols of his flesh, it must mean that we are as much as ever in the presence of Christ considered as having a body. There is really nothing but his being seen, that distinguishes Christ before hi&. ascension from Christ after that event. There is no change of condition personal to himself. It is easy to say that we need not care to know to ,vhat place he has gone. But Christ having a body is a man, and must be in some place; and he a id not himself think that his disciples would be indifferent to the question,-,vhere he was to be when he was gone, and what he was to be doing there. lIe .went to his Father, we are told, ,vith ,vhom he had ahvays been one. TIue, he had ahvays been one w.ith his Father. But having a body, he dwelt among us, both before and after his resurrection; and we know what he was doing. Is he not in a different position no,,,,, since his ascension? Was there no change of locality, no change of condition, when in the sight of the men of Galilee, he ,vas taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight, and he was carried up into heaven? Again, the author assigns no ne,v office, or function, or ,york to Christ in connexion with bis ascension. Scripture seems to speak of certain parts of his ministry, as )lediator, being the immediate consequence, and in- deed the fulfilment of the very end of that event; such as, his intercession, his procuring gifts for men, his send- SITTI:sa AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. 329 ing the IIoly Spirit, his ruling over all for his Church, and his appointment of means, ordinances and ministers in his Church. These, and such as these, are the par- ticulars commonly understood to be contained in the clause of the Creed-" he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty." The author makes little or nothing of that clause, although he professes to dis- pose of it along with the article,-" He ascended into heaven." No theologian can deny that the "ascension into heaven" is in order to the" sitting on the right hand of God." And that this last formula implies the exercise of certain powers and prerogatives not belonging to Christ before, can scarcely be doubted. It is true that the efficacy of all that Christ was, and did, and suffered, and received, as having the body which the Father prepared for him, is retrospective as 'well as pro- spective;-and tells by anticipation upon the characters and destinies of men, do,vnwards from the Fall, as well as onwards to the end of time. Theology a!,,-ays admits this. But the question is,- \Vho and what is the Christ when fully unfolded,-to whom ages past have looked and ages to come must look? "\Vho and what is he in the different stages of his being? In particular, Is he differently situated no\v, since his ascension, from what he was before that event? And is he,-Christ having a body,-called in consequence to different acts and exercises? If so, ,vhat are they? The truth is, what the author discusses is not the 330 rfIIE GREEKS-THE COLOSSIANS. ascension of Christ at all, but our ascension in Christ. The ascension, as a historical fact in the experience of Christ himself, is entirely overlooked. And of necessity, the meaning and bearing of the fact, as regards the divine government over human beings, are equally over- looked. For auy practical purpose, the ascension is nothing more than the resurrection, \vith the additional circumstance of invisibility. There is really no change in Christ's relation to us, or in our relation to him, involved in his ascending into heaven. 1Ve are some- ho\v to identify ourselves \vith a human being, \vho is one with the Father, and who has passed unscathed through the ordeal of death ;-we are to keep a feast over and upon his flesh ;-and so ,ve are to apprehend and seal our ascension, "as spirits having bodies," to God. It is not necessary to follow the author in detail, as he passes from the Galileans to the Greeks. Saul of Tarsus is the chief agent here. He deals \vith various Gentile churches, finding different peculiarities of belief among theIne "\V riting to the Colossians, in par- ticular, as combining several of these peculiarities, both Greek and Oriental, he addresses to them the appeal, , If ye tlwn be risen v, .tlt Christ, seek those tkings that a're above, where CIl/' .st sittetl" on tlte 'rigId hand of God.' There are other passages in \vhich this apostle speaks of the ascension of Christ lllore directly than he does in this one. But this one suits the author's purpose. "The words are generally applicable to all conditions of the PALEY' ENGLISH KATURE. 331 Church;" and they "point out the source of various diseases," and the" one remedy for them." '" If ye be r .sen with Christ,'" _" the language is meta- phorical, some one says." But" Paley, ,yho had a broad, simple, English nature," and was" struck especially by the business-like quality of St Paul's mind,"-" must have concluded that such passages" as this, "were not pieces of fine writing, not flourishes of rhetoric." And Paul" could say boldly, 'you are risen with Christ.' 'It is not a metaphor or fancy that you are.'" He could say so, according to the author, because he be- lieved that God had" regenerated and restored hlunanity in Christ, that he had called men to claim their relation to the Father through the Son." And upon the assump- tion of his believing this, Paul is made to deliver a communion-sermon, a call to the altar, ,vhich certainly might tax not a little" the business-like quality of his n1ind." The object of it is to rouse ll1en to a recogni- tion, not of their need of regeneration, but of their actual regeneration in Christ, and to llleet their sense of subjec- tion to evil by rerniuding theln that Christ's flesh is meat indeed, his blood is drink indeed. "He ,vho is at the right hand of God is not merely a spiritual being separated froln you; he is in your nature, he has taken your flesh, he has redeemed it, glorified it." And then follows the . invitation to the Eucharist, warning you not to come " as a fine, dainty, selfish epicure, to seek some special and solit.ary blessings for yourself/'-nor " as tl10se who 332 EPICURES-COW ARDS. come with cowardly prostration before a dæmon whose favour they are bribing ;-but as those ,vho have their habitation and their polity ,vith Christ, their Represen- tative and Intercessor." (Pp. 269-273.) "Tho the epicures and co,vards here stigmatized are, the author does not say. Paley's broad, simple, English nature would not probably have been so reserved, or so fond of inuendoes. But let that pass. There can be no doubt that Paul addresses the Colossians and others as those who are already risen and ascended ,vith Christ. He appeals to them as being one with Christ in all the aspects of his condition,-crucified with him, buried with him, risen ,vith him, set down with him in the heavenly places. And it is poor criticism which ,vould resolve all this into a figure. It is reality. But it is quite as much so if I say,-these statements are true of men "hen they are brought individually, by a personal process of conviction and conversion, to receive and o,vn Christ, each man for himself; as it is if I say,-they are true of universal humanity. Nay, there is far more reality in that first ,yay of putting the case. For then, men actually do undergo changes corresponding exactly to the changes which Christ underwent. They are as real changes in their personal history as they were in his. They may be as conscious of them in their experience, as Christ was in his. According to the other view, human nature -the human nature which all possess,-shares in some mysterious n1anner the fortunes of the human nature REAL CHANGES. 333 of Christ. It does so equally in the case of those ,vho realize this, and of those ,vho do not. Humanity as a ""hole is crucified, buried, risen, ascended, in Christ. Eyery man is so in point of fact, ,vhether he thinks and feels so, or not. The author might say, '"\V ould you then make the fact depend upon the feeling? Is the feeling to make or create the fact? Is it a man's getting him- self to believe that he is one ,vith Christ that constitutes his oneness?' This is a comlIlon misrepresentation of his. 'The reply is simple ; No. There are real changes effected by divine power in and upon men, answering to the real changes which ""ere effected by the same power in and upon Christ. True, the changes are in the 11lean time nloral and spiritual; but they are not the less real on that account. And it is because they are real in fact, that they can be realized by consciousness. All this, ho,vever, the author would denounce as sel- fishness,-perhaps as "peeping into the ground, and muttering, to ask the aid of some familiar spirit." Paul, in his opinion, presents the flesh and blood of Christ, not to remind men who have personally undergone a change equivalent to his death and resurrection, that they are dead with him aud risen 'with him,-but to assure men, indiscriminately and universally, "that they are mem- bers of Christ's body, and Christ is at the right hand . of God." Taken in the first of these vie\vs, the fact that Christ in our human nature is glorified, has in it a true significancy, and enforces powerfully those very 334 CHALLEXGE TO THE GREEKS. lessons aòout the sacredness of the entire person,-of common life also, and common things, - which the author rightly values as among the best fruits of the doctrine of Christ's ascension. But may it not be rea- sonably feared that, just in proportion as you quit the idea of human beings actually undergoing a cllange which may be fitly called dying with Christ and rising with him, - and put instead of it the idea of human nature itself being exalted in Christ,-you take away the very foundation of those appeals to practical holiness and to the discharge of all the offices of charity, 'v hich Paul so anxiously connects ,vith whatever he says of man's high standing in the Son of God? The author challenges "the Greeks, with their high spirituality, to produce anything which was more spiritual," or-" ,vith their humanity, anything which was more human,"-than the teaching of Paul, as he interprets that apostle. lIe charges the Church ,, ith having" lost hold of this truth of Christ's actual ascen- sion," and "substituted a mere symbolical or ideal ascension for that." He adds that, in consequence, "the Greek notion of men rising and ascending by dint of high gifts of soul intoJ gods, superseded the notion of the fishermen and the tent-maker, that they and the humblest men are risen with Christ, and may therefore seek those things which are above." By" the truth of Christ's actual ascension," -he means our actual ascen- sion,-the ascension of aU men universally,--of regene- ANOMALOUS EVE TS. 335 rated humanity}-in Christ. He connects this line of observation with the previous Essay; and repeating the statement, that "many of the mischiefs and abon1ina- tions which have tormented the Church, and n1ade her the oppressor of mankind, arose from her disbelief in Christ as the Regenerator of man," he proceeds to make " some special applications," which" belong to the sub- ject he is now considering." He contrasts two views of " the resuITection and ascen- sion of Christ." He himself thinks they are" events which could not have been otherwise, which exhibit eternal la-ws, which vindicate the tnle order and consti- tution of human existence." By" a great portion of the Church," however, they are "taken as merely extra- ordinary, anomalous events,"--" while at the same time there has been an assurance that they were necessary to men, and that they must in some \yay be pattern events, examples of that which men are to be and to do." This is his representation of the doctrine commonly held by " divines;" and it is partly correct. They do regard the resurrection and ascension of Christ as events sui generis. Christ is alone in his resurrection and ascen- sion, as \yell as in his incarnation, obedience, and death. He sustains a character peculiar to himself. He carries forward and completes a ,york of salvation in which no man is or can be a partner with him. From first to last, his is a history which can belong to no other. On that very account, indeed, it is the pattern of the new 336 SCIENCE BECOMING DYNAMICAL. history of all who believe in his name. He enables them to enter into the experience which was his, and his alone, as their representative and substitute. They are crucified ,vith him; they are risen with hiln ;-not, ho,vever, because his death and resurrection are ordinary or necessary events, according to the constitution of human existence, as it naturally is; but because they are the very reverse,-because they are events new, unparalleled, not to be repeated,-the conditions of a ne,v life, in ,vhich, by a ne,v birth, we become one ,vith him. But the author represents the common doctrine as leading to this result; "A series of acts, attesting the po\ver of spirit over body, the capacity of men to over- come the po\vers of nature, the possibility of rising into communion ,vith the infinite, has been imagined." lIenee, according to him, "the miracles of the middle ages," --" connected ,vith the life of some favourite saint or hero." By degrees, modern science has either accounted for these triumphs, or exposed them. Still there ,vas a "clinging to these instances of an actual connexion behveen the spiritual and the external ,vorld, and of the dominion of the first over the second." And now" science becomi'lg dynamical rather than mechani- cal,"-" man is able, through science, to attest the dominion of spirit over nature more conlpletely than by any signs" the miracle-,vorkers "ever wrought." And the arts also,-sculpture mysteriously compelling the marble " to express the thoughts and emotions of living THE GREEK LEGE DS. 337 beings," poetry, and" the legends of Greece received as striking commentaries on the powers of her sculptors and poets," are" leading many in the same direction" in ","hich science is leading others. How are these tendencies to be dealt ,,-ith? (Pp. 274-276.) "Ron1Ïsh priests" would summarily "banish the classics from our schools," and "restore, if possible, the old notions about the sun." )Iany" in Protestant England" think "that the facts of science, unless they are ,veIl sifted and sorted by religious men, and mixed with religious maxims, are likely to disturb the faith of the people, and that the beautiful forms of Greek sculp- ture, especially if they are not clothed, and nlade unnatural, must corrupt their morals." "The Ron1Ïsh protesters," according to the author, "may be ,vise in their generation." But" OlU' Bible culture ought to have taught us" to receive the facts and la,vs of nature, as the facts and la,ys of a God of truth, and "to fear nothing but 'what is false, that being certainly of the devil." It should have n1ade us "regard the study of forms as they came from the Divine hand, ,vith the beauty ,vhich he has impressed upon them, as safe and elevating. Such has been the effect of the Bible upon the daughters of England; if her sons manifest it less, the Greek legends are not to blalne." The blame lay "somewhere else." "It ,vas that the words the boy heard in church, or 'was compelled to learn about the y 338 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES-THE GREEK WORLD. religion of his countryn1en, did not present themselves to him as connected with those which he was reading in his Greek or Latin forn1." "The Hebrew Scriptures, and the Creed and Catechism, were taken to be setting forth a theory about God. The Greek world was human. And what had the human and Divine to do "ith each other?" A strange question, the author thinks, ominously "asked by our youths," in "a country 1vhich receives as the cardinal tenet of its theology, that Jesus Christ is very God and very n1an." And it is not answered by any hesitating acceptance of " that tenet,"-such as " puts God at an infinite distance from man, and makes Him an object of dread not of confidence to the creatures who are declared to be formed in his image and who are craving for the knowledge of hilli." (Pp. 277-279.) This is a grave crisis for England, especially for" her young men,"-who are struggling, the author tells us, between two tendencies. The one inclines them "to regard Christianity as utterly hopeless,-as convicted of incapacity for giving any relief to the efforts of human beings after a higher state." The other inclines them, it would seem, "to accept a Christianity which guaran- tees the salvation of their souls if they '" ill abjure all such efforts, and sun'ender to a system that 1yhich their consciences tell them they can only surrender to God." "Their English hearts solemnly protest against either alternative;" but they cannot "live in a perpetual THE SIG IFICÅNCY OF SCIENCE AND ART. 339 see-saw; nothing, they feel, is less English, less manly, than such a position. " Ho,v then is it to end? Ill, if all they hear is " loud ravings against Rationalism and Romanism, ,vhile nothing is offered them but ,vhat looks less sincere and hopeful than either." 'V ell, on the other hand, "if the message is indeed brought to us, 'The Ian is born into the world!' And is not this the message 1vhich is contained in the old story of Christ's ascension to the right hand of God, if we take that story not as a legend, but as the fulfilment of all legends; not as an idea, but as the substantiation of an idea in a fact?" Then, as the author eloquently explains his view, science, art, mytho- logy, are studied in a new light. And he asks, ""Thy may not the countrymen of Bacon, and Shakspeare, and ::\Iilton, aspire thus to declare to all mankind, the signi- ficancy of science and art, the essential and practical connexion of earth with heaven, of the human and the divine? " (Pp. 280, 281.) It may be doubted whether either Bacon or l\Iilton would have taken the author's way of declaring this. Nor, indeed, is it intuitively clear how the doctrine of regenerated humanity, or the message that 'The l\Ian is born into the ,vorld,' or the story of Christ's ascension, as the author tells it, is to consecrate all science, art, and mythology. One can understand better how a regenerated human being, believing that he has an Advocate ,, ith the Father, who died to redeem men from all iniquity 340 A SOUND HEBREW ROOT. and purify them unto himself, - who manifests the Father's love to guilty sinners and reconciles them to the Father,-,vho, having risen to insure their acceptance and peace ,yith the 'Father, now offers continual inter- cession on their behalf, gives the Holy Spirit, lnakes all things ,york together for their good, and prepares a place for them ;-one can understand ho,v a regenerated man, or a regenerated youth, believing these things, may find ill the discoveries of science, the triunlphs of art, the legends of luythology, \vhat may be turned to account for the glory of God, and for cultivating pure tastes and high hopes in man. And it cannot be too loudly pro- claimed that the only security for faith and morals is to be found, not in any narrow jealousy of such studies, but in a right knowledge of God and Christ. The men who, "like l\Iilton, have been most deeply penetrated by the meaning of these "-the Greek legends,-" if their minds have had a sound Hebrew root, have been the purest and the bravest." (P.278.) True. There is no purity or bravery in mere ignorance of evil or of danger. But the sound Hebrew root ,vhich :ßlilton had ,vas not pre- cisely the belief that all things are already l'egenerated, elevated, made heavenly, in Christ, if only this could be realized ;-but the strong persuasion that he had himself come to kno,v One able and willing to renew, to sanctify and save, him and all men; to know IIim as having been lifted up once, a sacrifice, upon the cross,-as now sitting, for important purposes, at the right hand of God. TRAKSUBSTANTIA TION. 341 But " the countrymen of Bacon, and Shakspeare, and Milton" are also, as the author reminds them, country- men "of some millions of men, living on our own soil and in our own day, speaking our tongue; '\\"ho ,vork with their hands, and who have, besides those hands, senses which converse with this earth, sympathies that should unite them to each other, spirits that might hold converse with God." Thus appealed to on their behalf, we are told that we "have a still higher work to accom- plish, which perhaps must precede the other." In order to this, we must rid the Eucharist of the distinctions and theologico-metaphysical subtleties of eighteen cen- turies. The doctrine of h'ansubstantiation, 1\?e are asked to observe, "gathering up all idealism and all materi- alism into itself, is a compendious expression of all the contradictions in the hearts and understandings of human beings," and has" stood its ground against all notions that the bread and wine are memorials of an absent Lord, or that the believer creates a presence which, but for his faith, could not exist." How this last sarcasm is to be reconciled with the author's own account of the feeling of the disciples, that Christ "'was drawing them from a world 'which they looked upon with their eyes, into an unseen world w.hich another eye that he w.as opening must take in,"-he must himself explain. The believer does not create the presence, any more than the new eye of the disciples created the unseen vi'"orld which it took in. The real and only 342 A REAL PRESE1\CE IN THE EUCHARIST. question is, ,vhether Christ's presence in the Eucharist is bodily or spiritual. Is he present in the body? Or is he present only through the agency of the Spirit and the exercise of faith,-in a l11anner partly analogous to that in ,vhich a departed friend is present often to my mind and heart? The analogy is of course very imperfect; for the present dealing of the Holy Ghost with my memory and intellect, far transcends any dealing of these faculties themselves \yith the dim reminiscences of the past; and He whose ,vords the Spirit brings to my remembrance and interprets, is one who in his own essential nature is not restricted to any place, but comes \vith the Father, to manifest himself to his disciples, as he does not manifest himself to the world. The author, however, can find in the Supper a fellow- ship ,vith the risen Saviour common equally to all. The advantage which he has is this. His vie,v of the ascension of Christ, as amounting really to nothing more than invisibility, admits of his recognising a real presence in the Eucharist. If that be once recognised, -if Christ in the flesh,-or as "having a body,"-is actually \vith us in the eating of bread and the drinking of \vine,-the ordinance becomes a sort of panacea equally for all. Sonle may, indeed, urge a troublesome ques- tion ;-is Christ, bodily, more really present \vith us in the Eucharist than at other times? If so, can it be other\vise than by transubstantiation? If not, then is MISSIONS. 343 not your sacrament as ideal as that of the Spiritualists? I it not a n1atter of faith after all? The author thinks that missionaries might use to good purpose the vie,v which he advocates. He touches on that topic so briefly that it is not easy to follow him ",-ith equal brevity. The ,veakness of missions it is easy to point out; and it is easy to trace it to its cause in the divisions of Christendom. But how far, even if Christendom were rallied into a united testimony for such a universal regeneration and ascension of humanity and all earthly things in Christ, as the author holds,-and such a sacrament of it, -the heathen would in that event give up their sacrifices, invocations, and prayer-machines, - may well be doubted .when the pantheism lying at the root of all idolatries is con- sidered. (Pp. 284, 285.) ESSAY XII.-ON THE JUDG IENT DAY. The question of responsibility is to be met. The author deals first ,vith "public opinion." He describes its "vigilant and suspicious scrutiny." A man's" whole existence is in a great measure exposed; his sphere of independent action or judgment is very limited." Then "comes a short recoil." A man ",vill not have his deeds or thoughts moulded by this opinion." " In youth, " especially, he takes "bold and eccentric 344 RESPONSIBILI TY. courses." But he "is driven into the old rut." Still, to understand what the world's judgment can do for us, as ,veIl as ""hat it cannot do," "re must "learn the secret of overcoming this po,ver, of acting as if we ,vere indeed responsible to some other and more }'igh teons one." We must have" courage to say' TJ7wther it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you 1ìl01'e than unto God, Judge ye.' Divines have thought that the words, 'we must all appear befo'J'e the Judg'1lwnt-seat of ChrÙt' might" teach the required lesson and inspire the necessary courage. And accordingly, " they have pre- sented to their disciples the picture of a great assize, to which all ages and nations shall be summoned." (Pp. 288-291.) Thus the subject is introduced. The author exposes the failure of even the best descriptions, rhetorical or pictorial, of this "great assize." And he Bays well, that" earnest, devout men" ,vouId not "have derived the least support from the anticipation of standing before Christ in SOUle distant day, if they had not believed they,vere standing before him in their o,vn day." "'Vhatever light they have thrown on the Scripture doctrine of a judgment to come has proceeded froln the light in ,vhich they .were con- tinually,valking." All true. But they" darkened the doctrine, or coloured and distorted it by their fancy," because they forgot " that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;" or, in other ,yords, because they thought that their standing before Christ PRESE:NT JUDGMENT. 345 continually in their own day, and being judged by him in joro consc'ientiæ, was no presumption against, but rather a presumption in favour of, the doctrine that they were one day to stand before him and be judged by him in foro unive'J'si rn'llndi. But the author thinks that an objection against the identifying of the present and future judgments, may be urged from the words in the Creed with ,vhich he has now to deal: 'Fr01'J1. whence he shall come to Judge tIle quick and the dead j' although at the same time the ob- jector is supposed to ask,-" If the most highly-wrought picture of the fact is of such small worth, ,vhat can be the use of repeating a bare announcement of it? " He meets this objection, in the first instance, by re- hearsing ,vhat he has been teaching about Christ, and proving the impossibility of any man being, under" any present or possible conditions of his being," separated from Christ, or removed from his scrutiny and judgment. The disciples owned his present judgment of them more after his ascension than ,yhen he was visibly with them in the flesh. And the Creed affirms "first of all, this discovery of theirs,-that Christ, ascended on high at the right hand of God, is our judge, the judge of the living and the dead." This is not "an that the .words signify;" but" whatever else they signify, they signify this." No one is likely to deny that they do; although the author thinks that" our popular discourses on a great judgment-day" tend to convey the idea that men 346 THE GREAT ASSIZE. "are, at some distant, unkno,vn l)eriod, to be brought into the presence of One who is far from them no'\Y, and "ho is not now fulfilling the office of a Judge, \vhatever other may be committed to him." By all means let this notion of postponed judgment be denounced. ' God judgeth the rigqteous, and God is angry ,vith the wicked every day.' vVhat the author's view of this present judgment as 'well as of the future really amounts to, may presently appear. (Pp. 292-297.) The author points out another common error, and deals ,vith it rather strangely. " If we follow the popular }'e- presentations of the great assize, ,ve should conclude that it was fulfilled when certain persons w"ere su bj ected to an infìni te penalty for their transgressions, and certain others ,vere absolved from that penalty,-perhaps ac- quired, by some means, an infinite reward." Thus, according to the author, "divines" use the analogy of " earthly jurisprudence;" legitimately, as he adnlÌts. But ,ve must consult counsel learned in the law. 'Ve must lay the case before some" English jurist." Is this your conceptioll of "the function of a judge? " No, replies the solclnn sage, some\vhat astonished at his being asked such a question ;-'" It is a very secondary part of this function to assign penalties or re,vards: that, in a majority of cases, is done already by the law ,yhich the judge announces. But to discern ,vho is right and who is ,,"-rong; , "-'" to find out the fact: ' "-" , to de- tect the lie;' "-'" to justify the good and honest purpose CARICATL"RE. 347 which may have got itself be,vildered in a variety of complications and contradictions,-kic labor, hoc opus j here is, indeed, a sphere for the exercise of that judicial factJty, which we all esteem so highly.'" (P. 298.) Thanks, 1\lr Attorney. Spoken like an oracle. The author has it hollow. The umpire decides in his favour. Parties are called to hear the decision. The author ap- pears, successful and triumphant. But "where are those on the other side? " here are the" divines," ,vith their "popular representations of the great assize," against whom the author has got so conclusive an opinion? '"ViII none of them come forward to accept the defeat? Did they not consent to the reference? Surely. And did they not agree to the terms in ,vhich the question 'was to be asked? Not they; not a man of them. The " English jluist" feels that he has been befooled: and the author ,vins a barren victory. Seriously, it is indeed mere trifling with the most solemn of all subjects, to deal in caricature, as the author does; to try, as it would seem, by imputing a sheer absurdity to those 'whom he is opposing, to get rid of the real question at issue, and ride off upon some irrelevant commonplace of la,v or of criticism. And yet the main effort of the author in this Essa y is to prove what no one denies, and what is nothing to the purpose. Of course, the idea of judgment is "discrimination or discovery." (P. 299.) And it is all the same who judges, when, and where; still the essence of the pro- 348 DISCRIMI ATION-DISCOVERY. cedure is "discrimination or discovery;" 1yhether it be the \vord of God that judges me, or my own conscience, or the Lord of my conscience, or " a human day," or ' tlze !Jl.eat and tIle terrible day if tlw Lord.' Everyw here and always it is "discrimination or discovery" "exercised over the man hilnself, over his internal character, over his meaning and will." " The substitution of any mere external trial or examination for this," anywhere or at any time, is rejected by those whom the author is oppos- ing, as earnestly as it can be by the author himself, and by the Bible. It is held to be "inconsistent with the spirit and grandeur of Christ's revelation." The author ought to remember that it is not l\Iartin's picture of the final judgment he has to criticise, nor any poetic rhap- sody of Robert l\fontgomery; but the doctrine held by the general body of Christians,- by theologians as alive as he can be to the danger of substituting an external trial for the trial of the internal character,-the doctrine which they think they find expressed in such words as these :-' the day ",.hen God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ.' The real and only question is not about the precise meaning of " a hurnal1 day," or the day of the Lord, or unveiling, or manifestation ;-let it be admitted that our being judged by Christ is his being unveiled to us and our being" MADE :l\lANIFEST" before his tribunal ;-but the question is,- To what effect and 1vith ,vhat issue? Is it to the effect of his dealing \vith us judicially accord- THE REAL QUESTION. 349 ing to what we shall then be nlade manifest to be? Is it to the effect of our being not Inerely tried, but sen- tenced ? Is it with the issue of our hearing one or other of these a,vards pronounced by the Son of man, the I :ing : ' Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king- dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; , or 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire pre- pared for the devil and his angels?' It is not asked, at this stage, how these sentences are carried into effect, or how long they remain in force? But is there a tinle coming \v hen all Inen, being made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, shall receive sen- tence, and be acq ui tted or condemned according to the deeds done in the body? Xay, it is not even necessary here to ask whether the judicial procedure is or is not to be simultaneous, or at the same time for all. The day of the Lord, the day of judgment,-of unveiling and manifestation, - may be an extended period, an age, a millennium. Still the question remain the same:- Is there, or is there not, awaiting every luan, at some time in his history, a "discrimination or discovery," to be " exercised over his internal character," before Christ as judge, for the purpose of determining \vhether he is thereafter to be treated as a condemned criminal, or as an acquitted man, entitled to acceptance and a gracious 'recompence of reward?' The author evades that question. He raises a cloud of dust,-legal, ethical, and what is unusual 'with him, 350 {ANIFESTATION. critical too,-round about it. But the question itself he does not face. And yet he ought to kno\v that it is the only question of real, essential importance here. It is, however, very plain that the author does in point of fact settle that question; and that he settles it in the negative. He does not believe that men are to be tried before the Searcher of hearts, with a view to their being sentenced, to the blessing or to the curse, according to ,vhat the trial may make manifest. His o\yn account of ,vhat Paul means when he says, , We must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ,' sets aside that belief. "A time must come "Then it "\vill be clearly discovered to all men ,vhat their state ,vas ,vhile they were pilgrims in this world; that they '\vere in a spiritual relation just as much as they ,vere in relation to those visible things of which their <.,.; senses took cognizance. That which has been hidden will be made known; the darkness will no longer be able to quench the light ,vhich has been shining in the midst of it, and seeking to penetrate it; each man ,vill be revealed as that '\vhich he actually is, that everyone may receive the things done in the body according to that he hath done, ,,,hether it be good or bad." The author is not "exactly satisfied with our rendering of this sentence,"-the sentence about receiving the deeds done in the body,-but he "is not prepared to suggest another." (P. 301.) So, then, the final judgment is not an act of judicial TRIBUNAL OF CHRIST. 351 authority towards us, but a new light breaking in upon us, giving us a fresh start on,vards from the position ,,'e shall then see that we had in the body. There is nothing like retribution in it: in fact, it is more like a regeneration. But really there is no final judgment at all; no judgment hereafter, differing materially from the judgment ,vhich is exercised now.. "The tribunal of Christ is one which is not to be set up for the first time in some distant day, amidst earthly pomp and cere- monial," "but" one before 1\'"hich "'"e, in our o,vn inmost being, are standing no,,,";" the only change being, "that thé time ,vill come when we shall know that it is so, and when all which has concealed the Judge from us shall be taken away." (P. 302.) The contrast is of course unfair. The tribunal of Christ will be then 'what It IS now. 'Ve are made manifest before that tribunal in an important sense no,y. 'Ve shall be made manifest before it completely and nakedly then. But will it be for the same purpose then, as no,v ? Now, it is ordi- narily for regeneration or revival or discipline. Then, it will be for retribution and reward. The author anticipates here an objection founded on the ,yords in the Apostles' Creed-Fl'on thence he shall come: and the ,yords in the :Nicene Creed-He shall come again Ù glory. As to the first, reading the ,yords- From thence he shall come-" following immediately upon the account of an ascension into heayen," one would not think they im- 352 UNVEILING. plied that "he ,vould descend froln that state-that he would assun1e again the conditions and limitations of the one \v hich he had left." (P. 303.) Certainly not, whatever these very absurd " divines" may say. " The favourite scriptural analogy of the sun con1Ïng forth out of his bridal chamber," is far better. Undoubtedly it is; and it Inay relieve the author to assure him that nobody will ask hiln to "accept" "the difficult hypothesis" of a reversal of the resurrection, \v hich he is candid enough to ascriLe to certain parties, and which, he adds, he him- self might be induced or obliged to "take up ,vith," if scriptural authority \vere produced for it. By all nlcallS let hilTI accept" the natural" hypothesis; although, after all, it is not clear that even "the favourite scriptural analogy of the sun cOIning forth out of his bridal cham- ber," quite squares with his view, as that lllay be gathered from his criticism on " åWOlCáÀvtlS, or ' unveil- ino- .'" " cþ avÉ p ClJfflS or ' a manifestation. "'-or froln his b , , , appeal to Paul's usual n1ethod of describing his own con- version, and preaching the gospel, in accordance ,vith it, to his fello,v-men. (P. 304.) There is no room what- ever left for any arrest or interruption, in the experience of individual men, or in the history of the race, such as a real judicial procedure on the part of God nlust cause. ':rhe "lturnan day," and 'tIle day of the Lord,' are not t\VO judgments, distinct in their nature from one another. They are the same in kind. The only difference is, that men come to know better ,vhat they really are, when GOD'S JUDGMENTS. 353 they are made to feel that they are under the scrutiny, not of their fello,\r-mortals Inerely, but of their Lord. The author finds "unspeakable benefit" in Paul's " úse of this form of expression. Instead of allo,ving us to dream of a final judgnlent, ,vhich shall be unlike any other that has ever been in the '","orId, he compels us to look upon everyone of ,vhat we rightly call c God's judgnlents' as essentially resembling it in kind and principle. Our eagerness to deny this doctrine,-to Inake out an altogether peculiar and unprecedented judgnlent at the end of the ,vorld,"-has led us, first, to "outrage the language of Scripture; "-.secondly, "to treat ,vith most especial contnnlely" our Lord's dis- course about the temple, and his declaration that the generation then living 'would see the fulfilment of his ,vords ;-and, thirdly, to imagine "that we are only using llletaphors ,v hen ,ve speak of God as coming forth to judge the ,vorId in any crisis of war or revolution. Certainly the Bible justifies that language, as not metaphorical, but most real. It speaks of all such crises as C days of the Lord.'" (Pp. 305, 306.) Certainly it does; and it distinguishes them all from any c. human day," any judgment of men upon one another. There are judglnents of God on the earth now, resembling in kind and principle the final judg- ment. The destruction of the temple and city of Jeru- salem was one of tbese; so was the Flood; and so are many events occurring publicly and privately in our own z 354 RETRIBUTION. day. But what is the feature of resemblance? It is not that the characters of men are tried and manifested to themselves or others. It is that they are punishn1ents, - penal inflictions, - announced beforehand in such cases as the Flood and the fall of Jerusalem, and un- relentingly executed. The difference is, that the judg- ments now often ,vant that full "unveiling" and " manifestation" which will give its terrible solemnity to the judgment then. In so far as these visitations, whether in the prospect or in the endurance of them, serve to discover men to themselves, they may ans,ver the purpose of discipline and correction. That, however, is not their essential character. They are presages and pledges of retribution. They proclaim with trumpet- tongue a real judgment to comc. The author finds in "the Kicene phrase," a safe- guard against the notion that "Christ ,viII resume earthly conditions, take a throne in some part of this earth," and "be invested with vulgar ensigns of royalty." And here he has a ,vord to say to "the supporters of the pre-millennial advent," - to "true- hearted Iinennarians." So far he sympathi cs with them. He cannot under- stand ho,v " the ,vriters of the Old Testament," and" of the Ne\v," should represent the final judgment as an object of desire and hope, if 'we are to "look upon it only as something exceedingly terrible, which ,ve are to set before our readers" "w hen we can no longer Inove MILLENARIANS. 355 them by any testimonies ,ve bear concerning the mercy of God or his redeeming love; if the thought of Christ as a Judge is one that ,ve are to shrink from, though we may find satisfaction in thinking of him as a Saviour." "To escape from this amazing contradiction," he considers it " natural for men to invent a theory, and say, 'He is coming, but not only for this end, not first for this end. lIe is coming to reign over his saints,-to give them rest from their enemies; then the judgment of the ,vorld ,vill follow." Better this, he adds, than to " contemplate Christ as one who has saved heretofore, but is coming hereafter only to punish and condemn." From the tyranny of some expectants of the l\Iillennium,-Fifth- monarchy men perhaps,-he prays "the good Lord to deliver his bleeding earth." But he is glad to think that there are many ",vho rejoice in it only because it is identified in their minds ,vith the victory of Christ over what is evil, with the establishment of his gracious dominion over all people. Such men felt themselves tied and bonnd by the notion of the religious world, that Christ had taken the nature of man and died on the cross, only to save a few elect souls. They were sure that he mnst intend to bless mankind, to redeem the earth." He honours them accordingly. He suggests, ho,vever, that" a creed that speaks of a Son of God and a Son of man, has no need to tell us,-could not tell us, \vithout contradicting all its other statements,-that at some distant day he will assume an authority 'which he 356 KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF HIS SON. has never exercised yet." He then eloquently rehearses the instances of Christ's exercise of his authority from the do\vnfall of Jerusalem, and the ruin of the ROlnan empire; tracing it in the stream of \vestern civilisation, and the w.ar of good against evil in lllodern society. And he anticipa es a time w.hen there shall be an un- veiling and lnanifestation of Christ thus exercising his authority, "so that every eye may see hiln, so that every king, and judge, and priest, ,vho has professed to rule or teach by his authority or for him, shall be forced to o,vn to himself and to the universe, ,, hether he })as been serving truth or a lie; ,vhether he has been serving Christ, or l\Iammon, or himself; ,vhether he has bow.ed do\\ru to the judgment and opinion of any public, religi- ons or secular, or has walked as a child of the day in that light ,vhich lighteth every man w.ho does not choose the darkness." And w.hat then? Is Christ to separate the hvo classes personally, and pronounce sentence upon them respectively? Or is "the kingdom of righteousness, and truth, and peaee,-,vhich is the kingdolll of God and of his Son, and therefore can have no end,"-to com- prehend them all? The author says, "a sound creed should convey to us the needful assurance and comfort, that all events have been ,vorking under a divine guid- ance to a divine issue; that nothing \vhich has been good can ever perish; that nothing 'which is evil can abide in that kingdom." (Pp. 306-310.) The truth is, neither any doctrine about the l\lillen- POPULAR NOTIOY. 357 nium, nor any doctrine about election,-a subject w"hich the author is fond of hitting at, and ,vhich is far too seri- ous for such a mode of treatment,-has anything ,vhat- ever to do w'ith the question raised in this Essay. That question is not,-Is Christ one day to exercise an autho- 11 rity which he is not exercising no,,,' ?-but,-.A.re men to be tried judicially before him, and is he to fix, accord- ing to the issue of the trial, whether they are to be acquitted or condemned,-to be welcomed as blessed into the kingdom of the Father, or to depart as cursed into the realms of woe? The author decides the ques- tion in the negative; and it must be added that he does so ,,-ithout once attempting to argue it from reason or from Scripture,- upon mere misrepresentations of the common doctrine of a judgment to come. I t is extremely painful to notice the author's last attack on ,,"'hat he calls "the popular notion on this subject." For" producing terror in the Ininds of thieves and vagabonds," he prefers" the constabulary force," as "a more useful, effectual, and also a more godly, instrument," ,vhich at least "does assert the .existence of an actual present justice." For influencing "the lives of ordinary worldly men," he thinks ap- parently that" the kind of mysterious judgment" which some might charge him with substituti.llg for the popu- lar notion, may tell upon them as public opinion. As regards " religious men," he holds it to be " quite clear" that they "are not in the least satisfied with" the 358 LOW JUDAISM-LOW HEATHENIS [. popular notion, "but are inclined rudely to discard it. Such men delnand for thelnselves an habitual govern- ment, inspection, judgment, reaching to the roots of their heart and will." So they do. And because they do so, they try to live habitually, by anticipation, in the light of the unveiling and manifestat on of the final - judgment. They have a sense of righteousness, more- over,--a resentment of ,vrong,-\vhich makes them re- joice with trembling in the prospect of a judicial reckon- ing on the part of God \vith his creatures; they could not other\vise be satisfied, or feel that law, government, and order, are realities. And far from being inclined to use this a\vful theme as a weapon of rhetorical art,-a last resource \vhen the theme of mercy fails,-they re- coil \vith horror from the thought of either telling their fello\v-sinners that they have no curse to fear, or suffer- ing them to meet it un\varned; 'Rno'wing the terror of the Lord, they persuade Inen.' This is not" low Judaism" -nor "low heathenism" either; although it is not what the author announces as \vhat is ultimately required ;-" a judgment and separa- tion which shall con1e from the revelation of Him who has redeemed and gloritied our 'v hole humanity, behveen that in us ,vhich is his, and that \vhich \ve have con- tracted by turning away from him." For that judgment, -" for gathering together in Christ all the limbs of his scattered body in heaven and earth," -the author asks not" a day of twenty-four hours in duration," but" one TENETS-CREEDS. 359 which has dawned on the world already, which our con- sciences tell us we may dwell in now., which therefore Scripture and rea:5on both affirm must wax clearer and fuller till he who is the Sun of righteousness is felt to be shining every'v here, and till there is no corner of the universe into ,vhich his beams have not entered." (Pp. 310-312.) Of such a day of judgment, there is no assignable end; in it there cannot possibly be any con- demnation. It is, in fact, no judicial procedure at all. It is a process going on indefinitely for refining uni- versal redeemed and glorified humanity, ,vherever and in whomsoever it is found, purging it more and more at successive stages of any dross it has contracted, with no secUl.i ty tlia t the process shall ever come to a final issue in the case of any, lmless it is to come to a favourable issue in the case of all. It is endless discipline,-chas- tisement,-probation; prolonging in the life to come, under a clearer light, the experience of the life that now is, with no sure prospect of there ever being a close. There is a sort of appendix to this Essay, in which the author invites Unitarians and other dissenters to take refuge in creeds from the oppression of tenets. He says (( they will be driven to creeds by their \veariness of tenets." A tenet is an instrument of tyranny, ap- parently because it is the imposing of one man's opinion upon another. A creed is the palladium of liberty, because it points to a person. "If they want freedom for their reason and wills, the old creeds speak 360 THE OLD l\IINOS FOR1\[. of One who came to deliver them." Tenets ,yonld "tie do,vn the language of Scripture by the language of a formula; " "Creeds oblige us to look out of themselves to some book which shaH unfold the person and acts of him of whom they are bearing witness." The distinction is applied to the octrine of a judgment to come. As a mere tenet, it takes "the old Iinos form, or one that is akin to it," - derived "from heathenism." "It assumes a higher, nobler, more practical form when, ceasing to be a tenet, it becomes part of a creed. vVhen it is viewed as one of the acts of a living person, a Son of man, and a Son of God, then its coating of superstition falls off from it: it becomes identified with the greatest triumphs ,vhich humanity has yet ,von; with its present struggles, with its most glorious hopes." (Pp. 313-317.) Now whether as a tenet or as part of a creed, judgment must be the act of a living person, of Christ. This is true on any view. The author may hold, perhaps, that a judge sitting to administer justice is rather a sort of legal machine grinding out decisions, t11an a living person putting forth his living energies in action. And perhaps he may be so far right. The tenet, in his view of it, mere.ly exhibits in relnote distance before me an impressive scene, got up as if it "ere for st ge effect,-a throne and One seated upon it who is to me little more than a personification of cold, formal, statutory law. That, it may be presumed, is the old l\Iinos form. It is not, however, precisely the doctrine usually embraced TREAT:\IEXT OF MORAL AGEXTS. 361 I by" divines." Christ's coming to judgment is not an isolated act, separated from ",-hat he is now doing, and 'will continue throughout endless ages to be doing, for the very purpose of winning for humanity its greatest triumphs and realising its most glorious hopes. It is a step in the progress of that wise and gracious plan which he is carrying forward by an incessant and uninterrupted living personal agency for the highest good of all who, ,,,hile the opportunity is given to them, consent to fall in with its arrangements. It is, however, a real and im- portant step. It is indispensable, if he is to deal with them as free, responsible, moral agents,-the once re- bellious but no,v loyal subjects of a righteous moral government. For in the heart of a loyal subject there is an irrepressible instinct and sense of right \vhich demands a day of reckoning, to vindicate the ,vays of God, to redress the ,yrongs of those 'who have trusted in hin1, to establish the eternal throne in righteousness. How strong that feeling was in the manly, unsophis- ticated bosom of such real heroes as David, the Psalms all throughout attest; it often shook his faith; and the rest he found was when he planted his foot on the as- surance of an actual judgment to come. If Jesus Christ is a mere King of men,-a pattern Jlan, identifying hun1anity 'with the divine nature in himself, exalting hUD1anity to heaven,-the action in which he is engaged, --leading, guiding, enlightening, quickening all men,- may advance without break or material change, inde- 362 RESPITE-FIKAL ISSUE. finitely-for ever. But if he is the Son, sent by the Father to treat with a race of fallen intelligences, who have cast off their allegiance to his Father's authority, and are under his Father's suspended sentence of re- tribution,-if he is to treat with them upon certain terms, making he final issue of the respite granted to them turn chiefly or ,vholly on the reception which they give to him,-there cannot but conle a time when he must judicially detern1Ïne who are and who are not to be saved. "\Vhich of these t,vo vie,ys of man's condi- tion and of the government of God is the right one, let reason, conscience, and Scripture say. CHAPTER VIII. THE SUBJECTIOX OF THE CHURCH TO DIVIYE GUIDAXCE- ESSAYS XIII. XIV. XV. ESSAY XIII.-OX L. SPIRATION. THE three Essa.ys here classed together, under a some- ,vhat vague general title, for which of course the author is not responsible, correspond to what is usually made a separate head in theology, embracing the ,vhole subject of the Christian society. In this connexion, the "\V ord of God, the rule or directory ,-and the Spirit of God, the living agent, the moving po,ver,-are regarded as concurring in the formation and regulation of the Churc11. It is true that the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures may and ought to find a place earlier in the inquiry. It should come in at the very beginning as a preliminary to the whole; and so, also, should the consideration of what the Holy Spirit does for enabling men to under- stand the Scriptures. To kno,v ,,"hat weight is due to the testimony of the Bible, and how it should be studied in order to its being rightly interpreted, would seem to 364 POPULAR VIK\VS. be the natural and primary conditions of a study whose professed object it is to ascertain the revealed mind and '\vill of God. These topics are not thus discussed in this book. They are introduced chiefly as bearing upon the question of the Church; and, accordingly, it is in that view of them that they are now to be considered. In the pream ble of the Essay on Inspiration, the author first shakes himself free from "popular views," as being vague, sickly, good for the platform and the boudoir, but not fit for the hearts of the people, nor accordant with the creeds. Next, he braves as a martyr the displeasure of " the religious world," ,vhich, like the miser, is "continually in dread of burglars and pick- pockets," and would "banish tnlst and cultivate uni- versal suspicion." Thirdly, at the risk apparently of not unfrequently "expending argument, - probably, which is much more precious, temper,-with no calcu- lable return," he appeals "from the region of self- satisfied, untroubled orthodoxy," as well as from "the region of equally self-satisfied, untroubled unbelief," to a middle region of anxious inquiry '\vith ,vhich he justly sympathises more. And at last, having calmed his mind by slaying several foes, he proceeds" to fix his thoughts on the word inspiration," and to give the 'result of previous and present reflection on "our uses of the name which '\ve feel to be so sacred." (Pp. 318-324.) lIe has five preliminary paragraphs. 1." The singers INSPIRATIONS. 365 of olù" \vere " ont to ask" sonle divine power to in- spire them; and they ,vere not " Inerely using a trade phrase;" it "expressed their strongest convictions." 2. Is the inspiration of the Bible at all sin1Ìlar to \vhat these singers of old asked? Some say-Yes: the dif- ference is one of degree merely. Others again say- e The Bible must be looked upon as the inspired book.' 3. "Religious men speak of themselves as taught, actuated, inhabited by a Divine Spirit," ,,"ithout ",'hose " guidance they could kllO\Y nothing of the Scriptures." cc Is lIds the inspiration ,vhich ,ve attribute to the \\Titers of the Old and N e\v TestaIl1ents, or is that different from it in kind?" 4. Iany religious teachers-fanatics- claim to be inspired; and crowds run after them. Here is "a very serious fact indeed. " cc The peremptory decrees of our schools have not cleared it up." ""... e must understand ourselves a little better about its nature and cause." 5. The Church of England, lacking spiri- tuality, as some allege,-s\vom foe to fal1aticisln, as her sons boast,-" clain1s inspiration for her sons, in a fuller, larger sense than either of the two classes" last referred to. She prays God to grant that cc by his holy -inspÙ'a- tion ,ye Inay think those things that be good;" and that "the thoughts of our hearts may be cleansed by the .nsptration of the Holy Spirit." cc "Then \ve speak of inspiration do ,ve mean inspiration?" Or cc are we paltering ,vith words in a double sense? " Thus, then, we have-I. The inspiration "Thich the 366 REVELATION. " singers of old" asked, earnest and believing: 2, The inspiration which religious men say is necessary in order to their understanding the Bible: 3, The inspiration which fanatical teachers claim; and 4, 'rhe inspiration for which the Church of England directs her sons to pray. The questions thus suggested are to be discussed. " Let us not shrink from them, or dispose of them lightly and frivolously, as if the hearts of tens of thousands were not interested in them." (Pp. 324-327.) But first, let a statement ,vhich occurs further on in the Essay be considered. 'Vhen he passes from the Greeks to the J e,vs, the author says: "Inspiration ,vas not the :first idea in the mind of a Jew', as it 'vas per- haps in that of a Greek. The Law took precedence of the Prophets; the Covenant ,vas before either;" and after quoting the covenant with .L\.braham and the com- mission to :àloses, he adds, before going on to the function of the prophets: "The righteous King and Judge, ,vho claims men as his servants, who teaches them to judge between right and ,vrong, is revealed first." (P. 332.) Does this mean that the first idea in the mind of a J elV was not inspiration, but revelation? That is true: and it is inlportant: it reaches flu,ther than at first ap- pears. A Je,v believed that God had actually spoken to the patriarchs, as one nlan speaks to another, telling them things ,,-hich they could not other\vise have known, giving promises and enacting la,ys. He believed that I I in tbe Pentateuch he had a true record of w]lat God ! really did say to Abraham, !Ioses, and the rest. But i his first idea ,vas revelation,-the revelation \vhich God I , Inade to the fathers,-actually and litcral1y communi- cating his mind to them. The inspiration by ,vhich the I record of that revelation was COIn posed, ,vas an entirely different idea, second and subsequent to the other. And the ideas are, or ought to be, equally distinct from one another, and they ought to stand in the same order, in the mind of a Christian, with reference to the wllole Bible. I believe that the Bible is the record of a revelation, or of a succession of I'evelations. I believe that God has spoken C at sundry times and in divers manners' to men; and that I have an authentic record of \v hat he has said, in whatever manner he was pleased to say it, in the Scrip- tures, and there only. Ho,v the books of Scripture were cOlnposed,-under what sort of guidance the authors of them ,vere,-is not the first point for inquiry. Am I satisfied, on good and sufficient reasons, that God has on various occasions COllllllunicated his ,viII to n1en,-as I communicate lllY will, by word of mouth or by letter or by message, to n1Y fellow-men? And am I satisfied that I have in these \vritings a correct and true account of ,vhat these communications ,vere? Then, if so, I Inay perhaps learn from the comn1unications then1selves something as to the manner in which the accuracy of the account of them has been provided for and secured. This is the second inquiry which I institute, and this is RECORD OF REVELATION. 367 368 THE CITIES OF GREECE. the stage at ,vhich it should be instituted, ,vhen I pass from the subject of revelation to that of inspiration. If this plain, cOlllnlon-sense, business-like statement of the question \vere kept in view, it would prevent much confusion. For one thing, it at once disposes of three out of the four inspirations \vith \vhich the author sets out; if not, indeed, of the \vhole four; for even fanatics usually clairn rather a high degree of insight into the revelation already received, than any commission to give a ne\v one. The discovery of a new' Bible alleged by the l\Iormonites,-the doctrine of the in\vard light held by the Quakers,-and it is to be feared by others who do not so openly avow it,-nlay be considered as excep- tions; but even these touch the question of revelation more properly than the question of inspiration. And so also, in point of fact, does nearly the entire discussion ,vith \vhich this Essay is occupied; although the author has chosen to call it an essay on Inspiration. Let his o\vn method of discussion, ho\vever, be resumed and follo\ved out. 1. ""Then 8t Paul canIe into the different cities of Greece, he found men whose traditions told them of an inspiration, ,vhich l)oets, prophets, priestesses, received from some divine source." (P. 327.) So the author opens the discussion. "These traditions," he adds, "had facts for their basis. l\Ien ,verc actually seen to be carried far above the level of their ordinary thoughts." " The conscience of men, n also, as ,,?ell as experience, DION1.SI.A.C INSPIRATION. 369 CC \vas entitled to òear its testimony. It said, C this power is something \vhich \ve cannot measure or reduce under rules. It works in us, but it is above us. It must come from some higher source; ,,, from" a God." "The next and most a\vful question was, C TV/tat God, what is his name? ,,, Here" ne\v facts forced them- selves upon their observation. A lllan under the influ- ence of some extraordinary afflatus, might be raised to a higher and nobler state." "Or he lllight be lllerely in- ebriated, maddened, . . . . lllight, in the worst and grossest sense, lose the mastery of himself." cc The theory of a divine Inspirer must, they thought, explain both these discordant experiences." The" legends and grotesque forms" connected váth "Dionysius," shew "how the heart and imagination of the Greek \vere exercised with that problem." (Pp. 327, 328.) How then might Paul have acted,-how did he act? He did not tell these people" that all the thoughts of their ancestors were unmeaning and ridiculous." He took a course \vhich "tended to awaken that old faith out of its sleep." "He spoke of gifts of healing, of speech, of government. " lIe spoke of them as lC proceeding from a Person," \vhose presence he spoke of cc as the great gift of all," "coming to men, because a }Ian had appeared in the world, and had ascended on high, who was tl1e Son of God." " Such language could not but associate itself with all the thoughts ,,-hich they had before of inspira- tion and an Inspirer. "\Ve know that it did, for most of 2A 370 THE SPIRIT OF ORDER AND TRUTH. the confusions in the Corinthian church arose from the old dreams of a Dionysiac inspiration." To distinguish the t,vo, Paul did not say, H 'Those powers which you referred to your gods are not what ,ve are permitted and enabled to exercise;'" for then it might have been asked " 'What then is the origin of those? ' " But he said '" vVhat you have attributed to a demon, . . . . I come to vindicate for the Father of spirits, for the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" This was his testimony, that the cc reign of the old gods ,vas over." He told "of the gradual discovery of man's relation to God, and conse- quently of man's spiritual condition;" and the hearers recognised the "necessary corollary" "that a Divine Spirit should come to meet and raise a spirit hard pressed with animal inclinations." Subjection either to frenzy or to mere animal impulses was thus to cease, when" those very powers and gifts, ,vhich man had felt before he could not ascribe to himself, ,vere ascribed to the Spirit of God, the Spirit of order and truth." Then, again, "the old belief" had been "partial, narrow, peculiar; " trying "to explain how extraordinary men, or men in some extraordinary crisis of their lives, were able to do strange acts, to speak unusual words. St Paul's gospel ,vas human and universal." It recognised, indeed, distinctions of gifts and callings. But first it asserted, as above them all, the one common "human gift." H The Divine Spirit, the Spirit of love, who was promised to all, was described as the source and spring THE APOSTOLIC COM1\HSSION. 371 of those peculiar endo,vments which were given to this and that man as he willed. They were to esteem their gifts mainly as witnesses of his presence." His presence, as the human gift, covers all other gifts, ,vhether old or new. (Pp.327-331.) Thus, it seems, Paul taught the doctrine of inspiration to the Greeks. He seized, elevated, enlarged, their old belief in the inspiration of heroes, poets, prophets, priests; vindicated that inspiration, with its gifts, for God; connected it with the Son of God, and ascribed it to the in1mediate presence of the Divine Spirit given to all. Now, ,vhether this account be right or wrong, it is not necessary at present to inquire. Be it right or ,vrong, it has really nothing whatever to do ,vith the question on hand. That question, as raised by Paul's preaching to the Greeks, relates not to any inspiration promised or given to them, but to the inspiration of his own teach- ing. Had Paul a message to deliver from the Lord? And was he inspired to deliver it? "\Vere his com- mission and his inspiration different from the power or ajJlatus ,vhich moved the seers and oracles of Greece? That is surely, in the first instance at least, the question. ,A.nd even if we are forced to complicate it by taking into accolmt the gifts exercised by the arly converts to Christianity, gifts of healing, of speech, of government, still the point is a simple one, and may be thus put: Suppose the Corinthian church met, not to hear Paul, but w.hen he is absent. A brother declares that he has rtceived a communication from the Lord, and he utters 372 THE JEWISH SEEUS AND PROPHETS. it accordingly in the hearing of all. Is there any differ- ence between that and the old Greek inspiration? Is there any difference between that and the presence of the Holy Spirit promised to all? It may be retorted,-- Does not this take for granted that the Lord first com.. municates to a man, directly and immediately, what he would have him to say, and then guides him in saying it ? Certainly it does. But then, is it not on that ac- count all the more apparent that we must first settle what revelation is,-or whether there be such a thing as revelation,-and that the tug of war,-the question at issue,-lies really there? 2. This is still further seen in follo,ving the author when he turns from the Greek inspiration to the Je,vish. " vVhat kind of dignity did Paul claim for the inspira- tion of his own seers and prophets? " They had, as has been seen, a revelation to start from; the covenant and the law; ,vhat God had said to AbrahalTI and to Ioses. "The righteous King and Judge, who claims men as his servants, who teaches them to judge between right and wrong, is revealed first." The prophet is the "witness of unchangeable right, and of judgments that shall distinguish behveen it and the wrong. And the Word, who comes to him, and speaks to him, makes him aware how he and his people are related to" God; and how c, there is a King on the holy hill of Zion, one WhOlll he can call his Lord, and to ,vhom the Lord is saying, 'Sit thou on my right hand, till I mal(;e th1:ne enemies thy footstool.' The revelation of this mysterious STIRRI GS "TITHIX. 373 Teacher, this divine King, is what the prophet looks for; he gains glimpses of the steps and method of his manifestation through his own sorrows and the trials of his country;" and he anticipates "the full declaration of God some day," and man's attainment then of " his proper glory." (Pp. 331, 332.) "But ho\v,"-the author asks,-" how is it that the prophet is enabled to enter into these divine com- munications? "That is there in him different from other men ,vhich makes him capable of them?" And he describes a prophet under the stirrings within him of a power ,vhich subdues and humbles him, and makes him feel, 'when he speaks, that his words are the Lord's, and belong as much to all his countrYlnen as to him. lC This is surely .nspi'ration." Possibly. But since there may be inspirations ,vithout these "stirrings within," - and since there may be these "stirrings ,vithin 77 'without inspiration, - it l11ay be la\vful to inquire what are the "divine con1munications" into which the inspired prophet is It to enter," and of ,vhich he, more than other men, is made II capable?" Are they comn1unications from God to him, to be by him conveyed to his fellows? Has he a message from God, -no matter how he receives it,-and is he infallibly moved and guided to deliver it to men"t Is he author- ized to say, in an exact and Ii teral sense, as a king's commissioned and inshl1cted messenger might say, 'Thus saith the Lord' ? That is inspiration, for which 374 COMMUNICATIONS FROJI GOD. Pythonic raptures and ecstasies are a poor substitute. Nor is it enough to ask, "" ho is the inspirer?" -and then to run once more through John the Baptist's preaching; -the Saviour's baptism, his receiving the Holy Spirit, his ministry, his pron1Îse of the COll1forter, his ascension, the day of Pentecost,-and his con1Îng to all the Church of the Spirit of the Son of God. It is easy thus to identify the privileges of the sons of God under all dispensations, and to trace throughout the working of one and the same divine person,-the IIo1y Spirit. And, no doubt, this is "a magnificent idea," and must have given to Paul an elevated view of the whole Scriptures of God, such as he had not before, anù would not ,villingly lose no,v. Still, could he ever cease to feel that he and his fello,v-apostles 'v ere inspired revealers of the Lord's will,-and that the prophets had been so also,-not merely as "entering into divine com- munications,"-but as receiving them directly from God, and uttering them directly to H1en ? The author, however, has a theory of inspiration to submit to Paul, from ,vhich he is sure that apostle ,vould have revolted. "Can we conceive any vie,v of the Holy Scriptures,-either of those he had kno,vn from a child, or those he was contributing to form,-which would have seeu1ed to hill1 1110re dreadful, than one which, under colour of exalting then1, should set aside their own express testimony concerning the unspeakable gift which God had conferred on his creatures?" If SCRIBE KOTION OF THE BIBLE. 375 he 'would have been indignant with those who forbid nlen to read the Bible, he ,, ould have been equally" in- dignant ,vith those ,vho, talking of the Bible as their only religion, and only rule of life, prevent it from being eitber, by saying that its inspiration has no relation to that of the writers ,vhose dark sayings it illuminates, to that of the human beings it is intended to educate and console." (Pp. 336, 337.) \'Yhat this means is not very clear. Before the apostle is asked, like the" Eng- lish jurist," to decide in the reference, the terms of it must at least be intelligible. 3. They may perhaps become so, as "this scribe notion of the Bible" is further canvassed by the author. But first, it may be proper to clear up, if possible, his "Tay of putting the case to the apostle. The inspiration of a revealer,-of one receiving and conveying a fresh communication from heaven to earth,-is a different thing from the inspiration of one,-it may be the same person, the revealer himself,-w ho by the help of the IIoly Spirit uses and applies a revelation or communi- cation already existing. Kor let anyone make a work about the question-,vherein lies the difference? The agent is the same; and ",-hat the nlanner of the agency is in either case, none can tell. But let common sense judge. Have I a message given to lliC by God, to be delivered by me to my fello,v-men? IIave I to make the most of messages, intimations, discoveries, now or previously within my reach and ,vithin the reach of all? 376 OUR VENNS AND NEWTO:NS. Surely what the IIoly Spirit has to do for nle in the for- mer case, is not to be confounded with what he has to do for me in the latter. And surely also, it would be unfair to say that what the Spirit has to do w'hen he enables me to convey the message,-in dark sayings, perllaps,- has no relation to what he does when he illuminates , these dark sayings to myself,-as he illuminates to me other dark sayings uttered by other revealers,-and .when he enables the human beings to whom they come to be both educated and consoled by means of them. But "this scribe notion of the Bible ,vas stoutly re- sisted by the evangelical teachers of the last age: "- " Francke and Spener : "_cc our o,vn Venns and N e,y- tons. " They opposed the hard orthodox doctors, "who looked upon the Bible as a mere collection of dry facts and dogmas, and who supposed that it could be under- stood ,vithout the aid of such a Spirit as d"welt in the writers of it." The author hopes that their" testimony is not extinct." lIe believes "that in solitary cham- bers, among bed-ridden sufferers," " the Bible is read as a book ,vhich proves itself not to be the "york of a different Spirit from that 'which is reproving and conlforting the sinner, but of the same." Surely; it is the same Spirit who inspired the Bible, ,vho also deals with the humblest reader of it. But if it be so, ",ye must forego the de- mand ,vhich we make on the consciences of young men, when we compel them to declare that they regard the inspiration of the Bible as generically unlike that wl1Ïch SHIFTIXG THE QUESTION. 377 God bestows on his children in this day." (Pp. 337, 338. ) Here the author unfairly, though of course without intending it, shifts the terms of the question. The belief of 'which "bed-ridden sufferers)7 are not to be spoiled is, -that lIe 'who inspired the Bible is the very same Spirit who, by means of the Bible, is reproving and con1forting them. The belief ,yhich he represents as incompatible 'with that is,-that the ,york of the Spirit in the inspiration of the Bible is generically unlike the work of the same Spirit in reproving and comforting sinners by means of the Bible. 'Vhere is the contradiction? "There is the inconsistency? It is difficult to be patient when such names as Venn and Newton are thus invoked. The author knows, or ought to kno,y, that these holy men held fast, both the doctrine that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, guiding infallibly the authors of the sacred books in all that they wrote,-and also the doctrine that the same Holy Spirit inspires the humble reader of the Bible, in1parting to him a quick understanding of its contents and a warm feeling of their value. They w'ere far above any verbal juggle. It is the same Spirit, they could say; and for anything 'we know, it may be the same kind of operation "generically." But we thank God that there are these hyo worl::s,-not conflict- ing but graciously conspiring; the Holy Spirit giving us infallibly the mind of God in his word; and the IToly Spirit enabling us to apprehend the mind of God 378 DOUBTS. thus given in his word. It will be a sad day for" bed- ridden sufferers," and for all sufferers of the sinful race of Adam, ,vhen they listen to men \vho, like the author, ,,,"ould put asunder ,vhat God has joined together; and persuade them that in the ,vords of Ioses, Isaiah, and Paul, they have nothing generically different froln the promptings of the Spirit ,vhich, in connexion ,vith these very,vords, their consciences recognise in themselves. It is a sad look-out for England, if her young men, and especially" the younger n1embers of evangelical fanli- lies," are to have no better defence against neology than such arts of reasoning as it has been She'Yll that the author does not count it unworthy of himself to employ. The author describes the gro\vth of the doubts ,vhich, he seems to think, not unnaturally spring up in the minds of those ,vho have been educated in the common evangelical opinion. He puts the case of a young man taught to o,vn the necessity of the Spirit's illumination ,vhen he reads the Bible,-encouraged aftenvards to examine for himself the claims of the Bible,-finding difficulties,-and having a dry theory of universal and uniform inspiration flung as a ,vet blanket upon his inquiring spirit. (P. 340.) There are gross n1Ïsrepre- sen tations in the picture. The separation of "the external evidence" from that which the Bible contains in itself ;-the telling young men that they do not "at present possess the illumination" of the Spirit, and un- der that condition sending them to study the external ?tIAN ER OF DEALING " ITII TIIE r. 379 evidence ;-and the wholesale 'way in which it is alleged that their perplexities are met ;-the entire description, in short, is an exaggeration of the most injudicious training any ignorant bigot professing evangelical opinions may be supposed to give to his sons. But the Inaterial point is,-ho\v does the author deal with the case? "'\Vhat is his method? "That does he tell these young Illen about the Bible? "There is divinity here and inspiration there;" "there are passages which speak to the heart within them,-,vhich a\vaken a heart that ,vas asleep ;-there is a divine \V ord who is enlightening them, a divine Spirit who is seeking to inspire theIn." And they may be brought " gradually, with n1any tears and much joy, to trace that 'V ord and that Spirit not only here and there, but connecting" the "docun1ents" of Scripture and" the facts of the universe;" "reconciling, explain- ing," harmonizing all. (P. 341.) The" "'\V ord" in this passage is not the Scripture, but Christ. Is it not plain that this is teaching them, not the inspiration of the Bible, but their o\vn inspiration? The Bible is not inspired in any other sense than that in which they are themsel\ es inspired. The 'V ord, that is the Son, and the Spirit, are personally present with you,-as they were personally p 'esent \vith the writers of the Bible, the actors in the scenes \vhich it records,-as indeed they are personally present \vith all writers and all actors,-the same 'V ord, the same Spirit, amid ,,-hat ever diversities of gifts, the same to all. Under 380 IMPOSING A THEORY OF INSPIRA TIO . the guidance of this VV ord, this Spirit, thus personally with you, the documents of Scripture and the facts of the universe, including all inspirations old and ne\v, will yield to you what in them is at once divine and human; and out of the apparently miscellaneous mass of n1aterials there ,vill come forth a consistent and harmonious unity . of faith. This mayor may not be a correct summary of what the author would tell the young men ,vhose case he pities. It is not very easy to fix his sOlne\vhat vague generalities in any definite statement. It may fairly be inferred from them, however, that he recog- nises no inspiration in the Scriptures as revealing the will of God, different from ,vhat he finds in any of the other means,-such as the facts of the universe or the insights of gifted genius,-by which God more or less clearly discovers himself to men with 1vhom his 'V ord and his Spirit are ahvays present. And in fact the author makes this clear when he says to us, not only "you must give up the attempt to impose a theory of inspiration upon them,"-but "you must very gravely consider whether the one ,vhich you hold is compatible ,,,ith that belief in inspiration which belonged to prophets and apostles." (P. 3':12.) Does not this again bring out the ' "gnoratio elenchi,'-the confounding of the question at issue? Plainly the author confuses hvo things together,-the belief ,vhich prophets and apostles had in their own inspiration, and our belief in the inspiration of them and of their sayings. And just as plainly may it thus appear, that the real point in debate THE CRITIC LOOKED IN THE FACE. 381 is not a theory of inspiration,-plenary or partial,- verbal or ideal,-but the authority of the Bible as a revelation of the mind and will of God,-a communica- tion from hi III to his creatures, of the very sanle nature with the communication \vhich anyone of these crea- tures might make to another. The author, at this stage, conjures up the vision of "so111e critic," who taunts him with "putting for\yard these young men" to cover his own " secret unbelief about the books of the Bible," and coarsely proposes to " apply the scre,v," to Inake "this tenet of inspiration" more stringent for his apparent" wincing." " I ,yish," he cries, "my friend the critic would look me as steadily in the face" \vhile he says this, " as I would look him in the face while I replied." The reply is some,vhat to this effect; "I am conscious of just as much unbelief about the books of the Bible, as I am about the facts of nature and of my own existence. These oftentimes seenl to 111e quite incredible. I turn to the Bible as the interpretation of them. It is the resolver of nlY per- plexities. I find many things in it which I do not under- stand; many more in myself. I cannot part \vith these documents; they become more and more necessary'with every advance of civilization and every ne\v complication of my feelings and circumstances. Books of the Bible become clearer as I meet with hard passages in myself or in society 'which I cannot construe ,vithout them; all the more, the more I rest my faith on the God whom 382 EXPERIMENT.\ L EVIDENCE. the Bible declares to me, and not on conclusions respect- ing the authenticity of different books. These I hope may be sound. But apart from their soundness or unsound- ness, I must be allo,ved first of all to accept the canon of Scripture as given to me, and, secondly, to rise gradu- ally to believe, not on the authority of any Samaritan ,voman or Church doctor, but because I have heard Christ for myself, speaking to me out of this book, and speaking to me in my heart, and therefore kno,v that he is indeed that Saviour ,vho should come into the world." r rhus the author faces his critic. (Pp.342-344.) It is a beautiful account that he gives of one of the ways in which the Bible proves itself to be divine. He has often in his other works shewn himself a mas- ter in the practical illustration of it. Few men can so exquisitely blend in one the elements of life in those ancient Jewish records, and the elements of life in n1en's hearts and homes and streets and cities no,v. lIe de- scribes here the course which any man of common sense, young or old, would follow in studying the Bible. I take it at first as my parents, as " the traditions of n1Y country," give it to me. I read it, believing and pray- ing. I go to it in my perplexities, whether these arise from within or froln without. Above all, I go to it when a sense of guilt ovenv helms me,-and strong corruption, unholy desire, uncharitable passion, mean selfishness in me, drives me almost to despair,-,vhen the idea of having offended my righteous Lord, my loving Father, 'W HA. T IS THE BIBLE? 383 makes all the heaven above me as brass, and hardens my heart as iron. It is my refuge then. And as a bright ray of love begins gradually to illuminate its thoughts and words, and there comes forth out of it a living Saviour, telling ,vhat he is to the Father and ,vhat he is to me, ho,v he does the Father's ,vill and meets my case,-I know that the doctrine is of God,- I I have a persuasion, which criticism can neither greatly strengthen nor shake, that the Scriptures, ,vhich testify of IIim in whom I have eternal life, are the book of God. But the question remains,- \Vhat is it that by either of these processes is gained? And what is the real, valid evidence for the result reached? The author's reverence and love for the Bible may far exceed mine; as far as his power of identifying its incidents and characters .with comn1on experience exceeds mine. Still I may be forced to ask, 'Vhat do you hold the Bible to be? It is the prince of books. It stands alone as a revelation of God. But is it God revealing himself exactly as I reveal my- self in the volun1e w'hich I am now publishing? No doubt, I reveal myself otherwise, in many ways. Any who think it worth their ,vhile may watch my proceed- ings and the proceedings of those whom I influence, and may gather up from many quarters a thousand incidental traces of my character and will. But it I c0111mit my- self to a document which I undertake to authenticate as containing my real mind, then in proportion as you trust me, I ask you to stand by that. It may be difficult of 384 NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATION. interpretation; it may be multiform and multifarious; but it 11lay be all that I can give you as a direct com- munication of my will; and I trust to your affection to make the most of it. Precisely on this footing, what- ever may have been the process of conviction in my mind, I receive the Bible from God. I receive it exactly as I '\vould desire a friend who trusted me to receive a paper, or a bundle of papers, from me. I look into the papers as I receive them from God. If I find in them any hints as to the manner in which they have been composed, or as to the nlanner in ,vhich they should be interpreted and applied, I avail myself of the informa- tion. But I cannot consent to confound them in one mass ,vith what I nlay infer from my own consciousne:3s, or from my observation of the other ,yorks and ,vays of their ....J\..uthor, and to call the whole a revelation. In parti- cular, when I wish to know what is his real character and what are his fixed plans, I must be pern1Ïtted to take his own account of thenl, in his own book, as a communication from himself of an essentially different character from all the conclusions to which I might other'\vise COlne. There may be questions as to how' I am to verify the communication, or h01v I am to identify it as genuine, or how I am to interpret it with all its manifold embarrassment of riches. But I cannot allow any such questions to be made handles for destroying the distinctive character of the communication itself,- which is this, that it is not merely the revelation, in the TAKING PAINS. 385 sense of being the one par excellence among many,- but the one only revelation in which God breaks the solemn silence of nature and providence, and actually speaks through chosen messengers, in the language of men, to the understanding of men. There is a note here, (p. 344) ,vhich might uggest a treatise. It is really the only part of the Essay which fairly touches even a corner of the subject of inspiration. It refers, among other things, to the difficulties connected w.ith our holding that narratives of facts are inspired. , The author takes a common fact, "that such a city was taken at such a time." He thinks it "far safer, more scriptural, more Godly, to suppose that" the writers of the Bible, being honest men and "possessed by the I Spirit of Truth," took pains, and 'were "taught by the Spirit to take pains, in sifting facts, than to suppose that they were merely told the facts." Surely this is strange ignorance or inattention. No one supposes that inspired men, revealing God's will, ,vere " merely told the facts" or truths ,vhich they were commissioned to record. Of course, they were moved to take pains, to sift facts, to avail themselves of existing records and traditionary songs, to use their faculties in every ,yay, just as any writer or speaker having access tovarions sources of kno,v- ledge ,vonld do. Inspiration supersedes 'none of these exercises of inquiry and thought; it assumes them all. This, indeea, occasions the I'eal difficulty; a difficulty which such men as the author might do much to solve, 2B 386 l\IETHOD OF INTERPRETATION. if only they could join in the belief that what the Bible says, however the \vriters of it may have been guided, is to be received, according to the fair, scholar-like inter- pretation of it, as said by God. That interpretation lnust be regulated by the usual canons applicable to manuscripts \vhich have stood the wear and tear of centuries; with free scope to purge and correct; to theorize, if need be, on the pro ba hle human sources of ideas and histories; to allow for minute inaccuracies, as well as for insoluble difficulties and doubts. The advo- cates of inspiration,-even of verbal inspiration,-have no objection whatever to cast the Bible unreservedly into the crucible of exegetical and antiquarian analysis; and they are not very careful though the result should be, along with the explanation of many old puzzles, the rais- ing of some new ones. Like the author, they accept the Scriptures upon deeper evidence than what the shifting discoveries or conjectures of the day can unsettle. They accept them, however, as having an authority exclusively their o,vn,-as being in themselves alone, apart from all other grounds of divine knowledge and belief, the authentic record of the one revelation \vhich God has given, to tell us, as one man tells another, what his mind and \vill are. This is no "theory of in piration, taking the place, not only of faith in inspiration, but of faith in God." It is no attempt to take better" care of his truth, his book, his creatures, and the universe," than he does himself. STRUGGLING WITH LIFE AXD DEA.TH. 387 It is no "pretty toy for men at leisure to play with; "- like the author's clever pun upon the word" pwnary." "I object to the inspiration 'which people talk of, for being too empty, not for being too full." That is a pun or "pretty toy," certainly" not made so hard as to do mischief." rr-'he" use of it," therefore, is not "to be checked." "But it does not belong to business." "\Vhen men are" stnlggling ,vith life and death,"-" wanting a book of life,"-it is not enough to "have courage to tell then1," as the author does, "that there is a Spirit with , them, who will guide them into the truth of it; "-which is all he has to say, and which, so far as it goes, may be i good. (Pp. 345, 346. ) You must be able to tell them also , that the book itself is God speaking to them, as really 1 and literally as a friend speaks to them, when t11ey are I reading his letter or receiving the message he may have commissioned a servant to convey;-and that they may rely on what they find to be the fair import of the comn1unication,-the Spirit who inspired it being with them,-as confidently as if they stood like Abraham in I the plains of Iamre conversing face to face with J e- hovah, or like John in the isle of Patmos hearing 'a voice as of a trumpet, as the sound of many waters.' " These words being openly proclaimed," -that there I is a Spirit ,vith men guiding them into the truth of the I book of life,-the author represents certain parties as , taking alarm; anticipating a flood of vulgar, ranting I fanaticism. He thus passes into the next particular in I his review of the current theories of inspiration. I I 388 FANATICS. 4. He would not by any means try to weaken the in- fluence of fanatics "by telling them that the Bible is the inspired book; that it is utterly absurd and extravagant for men in these days to call themselves inspired." That plan has been tried; but tried in vain. Nay," what is worse, this kind of treatment has destroyed precious seeds which God has planted in men's hearts, and which they cannot afford to lose." He ,vould tell" the deceiver" claiming inspiration, that "instead of a mere power of utterance, for which he will have to give an account, the Spirit who has endued him ,vith that po,ver is near him, claiming him as a servant; and near every one of those whom he is making his tools." In other words, lIe would substitute an inspiration COlnmon to both for an inspiration peculiar to "the great prophet." .LL\.nd in that way, apparently, he would separate "the chaff in their minds from the wheat." (Pp. 346-348.) 5. The Church of England, also, he thinks, ,viII best fulfil her "honourable function" of ,vitnessing against fanaticisln, not "by setting at nought all belief in spiritual operations, referring all that is spoken of them in Scripture to the age of the apostles," nor by " setting up the Bible as a book ,vhich incloses all that may lawfully be called inspiration; "-but by" saying to our count.rymen, of every order and degree, 'The Father of all has sent forth his Son, made of a 'VOInan, that. you may receive the adoption of sons. He has baptized you with the Spirit of his Son: and that Spirit would claim all things for you; common books and the chief CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 389 book, nature and grace, earth and heaven.'" (P. 349.) He is in you: he is in all things; in the chief book especially. Here again the author confounds the work of the Holy Spirit in the manufacture of a revelation, if the expres- sion may be allowed, .with the work of the Holy Spirit as he enables us to study and understand the revelation. He mixes up the Bible with "colnmon books," with "nature," and whatever Inay be embraced under the term" earth," as all alike contributing to form the reve- lation. He does not admit the Bible to have an au- thority, as the Book of God, essentially different in kind from what belongs to other books, or to the dis- coveries of our own minds. He assigns, indeed, to the Bible a high pre-eminence; and in the close of this Essay, he uses language which seems to draw a definite line of distinction. His subject being" not merely inspiration, but the inspiration of the Bible," he has a parting word to say to "the new Unitarian school." "'Vhere their fathers honoured the letter, they perceive a divine n1Ïnd in the old seers. But they do not half so much accept them as wachers." In short, they think that they are wiser, and that they must be so, "if the "Todd is ahvays advancing." This tendency is "not in general fairly met." The author meets it by referring to " physical science;" by assert- ing the la,v of the Baconian method, and asking, " Is it altogether otherwise in moral science?" He does not 390 8CIENCE, DISCOVERY, PROGRESS. think so. He tells us he has been "forced to inquire whether that old notion of a Bible," "which sets forth a revelation that is complete and cannot receive additions from our researches, - is un favoura ble to science, to discovery, to progress; nay, may not be the necessary protection of al three." (P. 353.) Now, apart from its bearing upon science, discovery, and progress, how far is "that old notion" the true one? And \vhat, according to that notion, is the inspiration of the Bible? What authority 11as the Bible, in this vie,v of it, as a rule of faith and manners? IIo,v is that authority to be brought to bear on the fixing of our belief and the regulation of our conduct? These ques- tions the author does not pause to consider. But he states his conviction that moral science gains certainty, light, and hope, when ,ve resort to the Bible in the spirit of the physical student ,vho "has exchanged the syllogisms of the study for the induction of the labora- tory." 1. In the Bible" God has declared himself; he has withdra,vn the veil which hides him from his crea- tures ; he has in a wonderful and orderly history enabled us to see what he is, and what he is to us." vVe thus find in the Bible" divine and human science." 2. .As " he who reveals himself is light," there are" perpetual openings for discovery." 3." The Bible also contains a promise of progress,-a promise which has been most fulfilled when it has been most reverently listened to." (P. 354.) THE BIBLE INEXHAUSTIBLE. 391 Such language might almost satisfy the most devout believers in the exclusive divine authority of the Bible. They -might be startled, perhaps, by what follows, and might ask ,vhat the author means when he represents certain parties as "believing that they know all that is in the Bible, and merely resorting to it for sentences and watch words to confirm their own notions and to con- demn their brethren." The author's idea must be, that in whatever manner the Bible is to be used as con- taining discoveries which God has made of himself,- as in that way furnishing materials for a divine and human science,-and hatever peculiar character may attach to it in that light,-it is not to be made really a test and definite standard of opinion. 'Ve may come to it " as learners; " and" it has more to teach us yet than we can ask or think." But if we conclude that we have ascertained its meaning, and that it confirms certain notions which we in consequence adopt and hold, 'v hile necessarily it condemns the opposite notions which some other people may hold, we are uncharitable and wrong. " God will shew us,-he is she,ving us,-how great the punishment to us and to our children must be, for abusing the unspeakably precious treasure 'with ,vhich he has endowed us." (P. 354.) The apostle Paul speaks of those who are 'ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth;" and this apparently is the position in which the author would keep us. If he says, No; I only mean that you can as little exhaust the Bible in your study of 392 IKDUCTION. it, as you can exhaust nature in your physical researches; -that is true. But then, in the first place, we do not hesitate to believe and say, that our physical researches have so far ascertained the meaning of what nature teaches as to make it certain that nature confirn1s certain notions, and con elllns others. ...'\.nd in the second place, the question still remains,- Have we, or have ,ve not, in the Bible, a comillunication from God to men, of the san1e kind with that which one man, in various ,vrit- ings, may make to another? If so, then our business is to interpret the Bible just as ,ve ,vould interpret other books, with a view to discover what God means to tell us in it, about hin1self and us. This may be called a process of induction. It is the sort of induction by ,vhich ,ye gather from the voluminous works of an author what his teaching really is,-\vhat information he intends us to receive,-,vhat opinions he \yould have us, on his authority, to form,-what practices he ,vould have us to follow. It is that, and nothing more. If, on the other hand, the Bible is regarded as one of n1any sources from ,vhich the materials of divine and human science are dra\vll,-it may be the best source,-it may be the most complete and authentic collection,-it may be such a collection as cannot no\v receive any additions of the same nature and value. And it may enter largely as an element into a process of induction more analogous than the other to the induction of physical SCIence. But as an authoritative divine standard of what men are to elieve concerning God, and what duty HOPES-HISTORY. 393 they owe to him,-it becomes, to use the words "which the author applies in another connexion, "the dream of a shadow." ESSAY XIV.-O THE PERSONALITY AND TEACHIKG OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The author states at the outset the difficulty to be met. It is the difference behveen "the hopes which Scripture seems to hold out of the effects that should follo,v the revelation of Christ," and "the history of the world since he appeared in it." The difficulty is "felt more strongly no\v than fonnerly, for several reasons; " of which hvo are nlentioned. The old world, \vith its excellences as well as its crimes,-and the new world, 'with its faults as well as its graces,-have been more fairly laid alongside of one another. And men are ask- ing, "\Vhere is the great alteration?" Nay," in some respects, is there not a change for the worse?" - new " crimes canonized" -" old virtues disparaged?" Then again, we have ceased to be satisfied with being told that Christ was merely a teacher of lllorals and a worker of miracles. If he had been nothing more, the compara- tive failure of Christianity ,yould have been as easily accounted for, as the impotency of 0ther systems of preceding teachers. But we have taught men no,v to expect a po"\\yer, as well as a rule. '\T e have spoken to them of " a dispensation of tILe Spirit," as that which 394 EV ASIO S OF THE DIFFICULTY. "our Lord's coming in the flesh" was to introduce. And we thus" give everyone a right to ask us some searching questions ;-' A divine Spirit has been given to men, for the purpose of moulding their lives into con- formity ,vith the la,v ","hich has been proclaimed to them. Surely, then, you are bound to shew some evidence of that conformity.'" N or will it do to speak of the in- credulity of men, or the power of " a world, or flesh, or devil," unless" you mean that there has not been a power which could overcolne" them all,-being the po'wer of God. (Pp.355-.359.) The difficulty is "evaded" in "several ways." In the first place, some point to "fruits of faith and love" among those ,vho have o,vned this influence, distinguish- ing them from those who do not. This is too narrow and exclusive a view. " The story of the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and of the signs ,vhich accolnpanied it, and of the preaching ,vhich follo,ved it, must be thrown aside altogether, if no blessing was then vouchsafed to mank1 nd." Secondly, some say that the universal benefit is the completed canon of the inspired Scriptures. That, certainly, will not do. "Lapses," in the third place, eXplaining reforn1ations and revivals, will not meet the promise; occasional movements do not come up to the assurance of " a Spirit ,vho shall abide with the disciples for ever." Nor, fourthly, will it do to bring in the "spiritual nature of man" as the explanation. The l\Iontanist notion, "that the Com- PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT. 395 forter was a bodily teacher," and that" )Iontanu.c:; him- self was the fulfiller of the promise," must also be set aside, although it had plausibility enough to secure the support of Tertullian. It has often appeared since, and is very likely, it seems, to appear now. It may there- fore suggest the consideration" why it has seemed to those who entertained it, to answer more exactly to our Lord's language than any mere notion of an invisible influence?" The author admits that" such an influence is continually spoken of in Scripture under the symbols of 'rain' and 'de,v.'" But he asks, "'Vhat is there in such symbols "T hich corresponds to these "Tords?" -the ,vords being our Lord's assurance respecting the Comforter, - " 'he will reprove the ,yor ld of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.' " Thus the doctrine of the personality and work of the Holy Spirit is ushered in. (Pp. 360-363.) Nor can anything ,veIl be stronger than the assertion of his personality, founded upon that text in the Gospel by John. "All here is personal in the strictest sense; " so much so that ,ve need not wonder at Tertullian's adoption of the )Iontanist opinion. "'T exed by Gnostic teachers," 'who "have no associations with spirit" ex- cept "moisture or vapour,"-who "do habitually con- found it with vapour, and do not even attach to vapour that sense of power '\vhich the sight of a locomotive engine suggests to us,"-Tertullian, "with his fierce African nature," is "very like1y to adopt a coarse 396 SOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTY. material counterpart of reality." But we now know- from what Christ has shewn us in reference to himself, -from the evil spirit tempting him and us "in no bodily shape,"-and from the worship which God re- quires as "a Person and a Father,"-that a body does not constitute personality; so that "lve shall accept the words " quoted from John "in the most liberal sense when we take them in their Inost spiritual sense." The question concerning the relation of the Person of the Comforter to the Son, and to the Father, is reserved for a future Essay. ]'leanwhile," ackno\vledging this Spirit as a Person," we are to "accept our Lord's account of his work," as the "solution of the difficulty with which" the author" started." (Pp. 364, 365.) This work of the Spirit is traced in the feelings and views which prevail in the modern world, as cOlnpa.red with those prevailing formerly, on the subjects of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It is important here to bear in mind what the difficulty really is, and \vhence it arises. The author's assumption amounts to this, that nothing but a benefit absolutely universal can fulfil the anticipations ,vhich prophets and apostles entertained themselves, and led men to cherish, on the subject of the dispensation of the Spirit. lIe connects that dispensation with the ascension of Christ. He speaks of it as " a n1ighty gift bestowed upon God's creature as soon as that creature ,vas capable of receiving it." (P. 362.) The ascension vindicated our" position THE SPIRIT GIVEN-JESUS GLORIFIED. 397 and capacities" as "spiritual beings," and so made us capable of receiving the gift of the Spirit. The author strangely quotes in support of this view what John says, 'The Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified; , omitting the previous words, 'This spake he of the Spirit, ,vhich they that believe on hin1 should receive.' Surely in that passage, as well as in the saying of Paul which he considers parallel to it,-' The Spirit ,vitnesseth with our spirit that we are the sons of God,'-something different from a privilege common to all, ,vhether they believe or not, is indicated. Let it, ho,vever, be allowed for the sake of argument to be so; and to what does it amount? The expectation men were taught by prophets and apostles to form "pointed not merely to the manifesta- tion of a great King, but also to the manifestation of him from whom their thoughts and impulses had pro- ceeded." The ascension of Christ, being the exaltation of human nature, vindicates our spiritual position and spiritual capacities. The gift bestowed upon us in con- sequence 'would seem to be that anticipated manifesta- tion of the Spirit. The Spirit being thus manifested, his work among men,-elevated en masse as spiritual beings by the ascension of Christ,-issues in the formation of a public opinion, or in the production of a habit of thought and feeling, with reference to 'sin, righteousness, and judgment,' different from what prevailed before. It is not easy to make more of the author's language. 398 CHRIST'S DISCIPLES HIS WITNESSES. And really, if this is all, it does not differ much prac- tically from the theory ,vhich traces the promised presence of the Comforter in the beneficial influence which the spirit of the gospel, and the con1pleted canon of Scripture, have exercised on the general mind of Christendom. It is true the author goes on in the follo\ving Essay to speak of another work or manifesta- tion of the Spirit, different from that of convincing the world; he speaks of his" coming and dowelling in" the Church. That, however, is rather analogous, as may be shewn presently, to those more special influences of the Spirit ,vhich may be said to 'accompany salvation.' For the present, let it be observed that the 'conviction of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment,' which the author finds in the altered feelings of the modern world upon these subjects, is as poor an accomplishment of the large promise about the mighty gift, as any of those which he himself with just severity condemns. , But does not our Lord's assurance that the Comforter shall convince and reprove the ,vorld refer to the dis- pensation of the Spirit, and to its universality? If not, what do you make of it ? ' Certainly, our Lord speaks of the Spirit's ,york ill the minds and consciences of men generally and indiscriminately. But he speaks of it in immediate connexion with the bearing of a testimony for hin1, or in other words, with the proclamation of the gospel. He tells the disciples that they are to be his '\vitnesses in a \vorld which \vill not receive their sayings, THE ACCO)IPANYI G 'VITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 399 which will persecute them as it persecuted him. But for their encouragement he tells them further, that in that very ,vorld the Spirit is to be at work, testifying of him. \Vhen therefore you bear witness of Christ to men, the Spirit will be bearing witness also; moving in\vardly the understandings and moral feelings of those to whom you address your appeal; so that, pricked in their consciences, cut to the heart, they shall 'not be able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which you speak.' This is our Lord's promise to his disciples. It was this that gave them courage in facing a hostile ,vorld and labouring to '",-in souls to Christ.' It is this which gives courage to every faithful man still, when as a witness for Christ he deals with his fellow-men. If he is a man of faith and prayer, he knows that, take the world at its very worst,-not as leavened lllore or less by Christianity,-but as sunk even in Patagonian dark- ness and horrid cruelty,-w henever he speaks of Christ to any, he has not merely to rely for success on the response which natural reason and conscience may make; he has a fellow-,vitness accon1panying him; the Spirit is working among these men and in them, all the ,vhile that he is teaching and persuading them. And hence he perseveres, hoping against hope ;-' his speech and his preaching being not with enticing words of man's wisdon1, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.' This is surely a presence, a manifestation or ,york 400 THE SPIRIT CONVINCING THE 'VORLD. of the Spirit, more practical and effectual than that which the author recognises; and if it is not equally wide and universal, it is at least as much so as the call of the gospel itself. But indeed, even as regards this condition of universality, where is the difference? I say that ,vhenever Christianity comes in contact with the hearts and consciences of men, there is warrant to expect an accompanying movement of the Spirit in their hearts and consciences. I t is a movement which causes them to "bear even unwilling testimony to the truth that fastens upon them the guilt of sin, especially of the sin of un- "belief. And it makes them feel, moreover, that the right- eousness which is in Christ for them, and the judgment which, having overtaken the world's prince, must be im- pending over the world whose prince he is, are realities. Do I thus restrict either the prediction or its fulfihnent any more than if I find the promise fulfilled in the general Christian sentiment of modern times? I cer- tainly make the conviction which the Spirit produces more definite and precise. I connect the Spirit's work more immediately with the exhibition of Christ and of his work. I suppose conviction of sin to be a sense of personal guilt and condemnation, aggravated by the discovery of a Saviour in whom I have not believed. I suppose conviction of righteousness to be a persuasion of his having made good a valid ground for my justifica- tion before he went to the Father. I suppose conviction of judgment to be the belief wrought in me at last, that COX\ICTIO OF SlY. 401 exemption from penal retribution is as ÏInpossible for Satan's subjects, the servants of sin, as it is proved to be for Satan himself. I believe that this is the conviction to effect which the Holy Spirit is promised and given, in connexion ,vith whatever faithful testimony is borne for Christ, any,vhere, anyho,v, by anyone man to any other man. And I trace Pentecostal conversions, Lutheran reformations, :\lethodist revivals, whatever success attends the ordinary means and ministry of grace, "Thatever change is wrought by whatever instrumentality among any l)eople \vith "Thorn a lover of Christ and a lover of his fello,vs may be dealing,- I trace all to this wide, tune- stricted, comprehensive promise, 'He will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.' The author's view of this ,york of the Spirit is, of course, in harmony with his previous discussion of these three topics. According to him, the experience, the con- sciousness, the instinct or craving which he finds in all men, upon each of these topics,-especially now that Christ has been manifested in his incarnation, his life and death, his resurrection and ascension,-is associated in- timately with the actual presence of a person, the Com- forter, the Spirit w'hom every lnan has,-who moves and influences all. It is not necessary to follow him here in detail. 1. On the subject of sin, he refers to his second Essay; and brings out again, on the one hand our dis- covery of evil as personal to ourselves, beneath legal transgressions and customary habits; and on the other 2c 402 CONVICT lOX OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. hand, our instinct of resistance to evil, as a foreign foe. The harmony of these consciousnesses he finds in the doctrine that the COlnforter convinces the world' of sin because they believe not in Christ; '-in Christ, in whom the -Spirit leads men" to a kno,vledge of \vhat they are according to that separate, unnatural, immoral condition ,\\Thich they have imagined for thenlselves, and of what they are according to the true and blessed order \vhich God has established for them." 2. On the subject, again, of righteousness, the author indulges in severe remarks on " apparent objections" to the statement he sets out with, "that there has been a higher standard of righte- ousness" in the new world than in the old. " The love of city and country" has been disparaged, "the relations of civil and social life " condemned or degraded, a "mean self-righteousness" fostered,-by a spurious "elevation of the Christian standard," and false" spiritual and ecclesiastical maxims." " Above all, the fearful contradictions which have gathered about the idea of sacrifice," countenancing intense selfishness,-as \vell as " the horrible notion" of subordinating truth to the safety of the soul, nay making it "merely a nleans to safety,".-are conspicuous beyond example in "the acts and conceptions of Christian men." Still, even these horrors are counterbalanced by " such an idea of a uni- versal fello\vship," such self-denial and charity, such strong adherence to truth,-and that, too, among the humblest and feeblest, as the best among the ancients COKYICTION OF JUDGMEXT. 403 could but faintly grasp. Ien have been" lifted up," often by painful discipline, "to feel that there was a perfect righteousness, a universal self-sacrificing love, an eternal truth, of which they ,vere inheritors." The" standard" of these graces has been "exhibited by a man carrying mortal flesh, dying a death ,vhich we die." He" has gone out of sight." But there is a voice whispering at Inen's hearts, "That righteousness which was seen here, is no,v yours." This is the Comforter enabling men to realize .what Christ ,vas and is, and what humanity is in him. Finally, 3. The judgment of ,vhich the world is to be convinced, is connected ,vith the feelings of mingled awe and expectation that fill the hearts of men as they contemplate the discriminating and searching process of discovery now going forward; the victory of the good over the evil being guaranteed by the defeat which the evil power has already sustained. Thus the author traces the universal presence and work of the Spirit, now that, according to him, the Holy Ghost is given because Christ is glorified. He is the living personal ,vitness of humanity's participation in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. The author con- trasts this vie,v with the others noticed by him at the outset,-setting aside in favour of it, or superseding by means of it, such theories as speak of 'a gracious in- fluence stealing into certain gentle, prepared, believing hearts," -or of the Bible,-or of lapses,-or of spiritual movements in men themselves,-as equivalent to the promised Spirit. There are some perversions of the com- 404 THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF THE SPIRIT. mon evangelical doctrine in what he says: but there is also much truth and point. Certainly, nothing but the actual presence of a living Divine Person, dealing per- sonally with men in their inmost thoughts and feelings, can either fulfil the terms of the promise or meet the exigency of the case. It may be doubted, ho,vever, whether this is so clear according to the author's account of the Spirit's work .with reference to the ,vorld, as it is according to that which represents the Spirit as seconding, by an inward operation upon the conscience and the "Till, an express outward testimony concerning actual guilt, a present justifying righteousness, a coming retribution. One can conceive of a man reasoning thus; 'It is all very well to assure me that there is a Holy Spirit attesting to me the regeneration and elevation of humanity, the ulti- mate triumph of good over evil. But I feel no,v, as I never felt before, my sin in not believing in Christ; the fulness and perfection of his righteous doings and suffer- ings in my stead; the impossibility, if I neglect this great salvation, of escape from the penal sentence which sin deserves.' That, to my mind, is a clearer and more practical accomplishment of our Lord's saying than the other; it better " solves the problem of my o,vn heart." And it gives me better hope in dealing with the hearts of others. It is no experience peculiar to myself. I rely upon its being common to them also. I plead the promise in prayer to my Saviour on behalf of evelY man; and upon the faith of it, I go to every man to bear witness to him of Jesus. THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT. 405 ESSAY XV.-ON THE UNITY OF THE OHURCH. This Essay the author connects with the preceding, at the close of which he says, "The unity of the Spirit, -as nlaking us true and making us one-and what is involved in it, I reserve for my next subject." The work of the Spirit in convincing the world, ought to issue in unity. How it may do so, how it does so, is the point for consideration now. A unity of some sort the Spirit must surely either manifest or create. It is in this necessity that the original idea of a Church lies. lIenee the propriety of discussing the subject of "the unity of the Spirit 77 under the title of "the unity of the Ch urch." " The great difficulty for those who compare the pro- mises of the New Testament with the history of Chris- tendom," confessedly "still remains," even after the words of our Lord which "speak of a world, not of a Church," have been commented on. And" there is a very distinct obligation laid upon us all to explain what 'we understand by the language of Scripture respecting the gift of the Spirit and the foundation of the Church, and ho,v we suppose the records of the world, and the world which ,ve see, can be eXplained in accordance ,, ith it." The author cannot, of course, consent to the opinion, "that the Ne,v Testament promises certain spiritual blessings to individuals, but that it does not connect the 406 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. gift of the Spirit with a society." The connexion of the later with the earlier records turns upon their describing "the expansion of a national society into a human and universal society." The expectations of the apostles, the decisive events of the day of Pentecost, the" unity and holiness," as ,veIl as the power and organization, of the new society established in the name of Christ at Jerusalem and confessing the Spirit to be with it, the forming of societies all over the Gentile ,vorld,-" every- thing," in short, "in the Old a!1d New Testament, speaks of fellowship and organization." "A kingdom had come forth, which, ho\vever apparently insignificant, was instinct ,vith a Spirit that would enable it to rule the nations." (Pp. 382-386.) But then, how are \ve "to face the problems which the world, as we see it, presen ts to us ? " Are ,ye "to save the credit of inspiration by resorting to fictions?" -" by assuming, for instance, that forms and pro- fessions constitute a Church,-that external badges mean the same thing as an ind,velling Spirit?" The author hopes to " be preserved from any such ,vicked trifling." He passes in review before him the principal societies which have assumed the name and character of the Church of Christ. 1. He begins with the lC body 'which affirms itself to be the one Holy Catholic Church of the ,vorld." lIe enumerates at considerable length the grounds on which it rests its claims,-" miraculous powers,-uninterrupted ROME-PROTESTANT NATIONS. 407 descent,-infallible authority,-fixed dogmas,-adapta- tion to circumstances,-a band of saints." Such argu- I ment he does not care to refute. He calls for more of holiness and unity;-a holiness which ,vill make" this society in which I d,vell,"-this country, these human beings, holy;-a unity which shall not have in it " con- trarieties of belief," "immoral heathenish superstitions," "contemptuous infidelity," " muttered discontent." And he asks concerning" the body" in question, "Can this be that Church which began when a SpÙ.it of unity took possession of a body of men, allowing then1 to retain their ext8rnal differences, because they had that w'itkin ,vhich made them one?" (Pp. 387-392.) 2. "Protestant nations" are next tried; and with an acknowledged improven1ent in many things among then1, as compared with those which "only breathe a sacerdotal atmosphere," they are nevertheless set aside as "altogether unspiritual and secular." The lower classes may be "less superstitious than in Romish countries." But "what spiritual influence has been exerted over them?" The higher classes may not be priest-ridden. But is it not upon the tacit understand- ing that "the priest shall abdicate his functions as a spiritual reprover, and shall be content to þe reckoned a safety-valve of the social machine, or a::; some insignifi- cant accessory to it, which no one will disturb until it begin to move?" Alas! too true is the author's picture; and too conclusive his question,-" Is it here that we 408 SPIRITUAL SOCIETIES. are to look for a Holy Catholic Church; can we find tokens here that a Spirit of holiness and love is dw.elling among men?" The cure for this sad and sinful state of things may ,veIl be matter of serious inquiry. :Jlean- ,vhile, the society we are in quest of is at all events not discovered in the Protestant nations. (Pp. 392-394.) 3. Perhaps there may be some "relief" in turning "to a number of particular societies," or "spiritual sects." "The student. . . . must needs be attracted by their statements, not only because they point out evils which he has hin1self noticed in their opponents, but because they affirm that the true spiritual principle is with them." It is this,-" the Church must be a body of men chosen out of the world,"-" drawn by a Divine Spirit to confess a Divine Lord." "'Vhat data can sound more hopeful than these?" And the author cordially acknowledges that "the early history of all sects,"-gives proof of "a Spirit,-yes, the Spirit of truth, having been among these men; their sect would not have survived them for a century, or even a year, if it had been merely gathered for a purpose of spite or faction." But soon he hears "deep groans arising fronl the midst of these sects,"-" cOlnplaints" that they are "formal ancJ. worldly," "restrainers of moral freedom," " bitter against each other and seldom at peace within." " Can we then find among these sects the resemblance of that Church of which St Patù spake as being one body, into which all had been baptized by one Spirit?" THE LA 'Y OF II U L\.N SOCIETY. 409 (Pp. 395, 396.) \"1" ery probably not. And yet we may find among these sects, and among men in national Churches, too, and in the so-called Catholic Church, " the true spiritual principle," upon which the unity of the body of Christ,-the unity of the Spirit,-depends. The author now himself proceeds to deal with the knot very boldly. He seems indeed to be sunk in de- spondency, ahnost amounting to despair,-as if the only refuge fronl all this "conflict, strife, contradiction, in those \y ho bear the name of one Lord" \vere the belief that" men are not spiritual beings,"-that they" have no tics to each other except such as are produced by outw"ard animal necessities." But on a sudden he passes at once to bright hope. He finds "that facts which he has been pondering offer the most decisive witness for, not against, the law which was proclaimed on the day of Pentecost; for, not against, the assertion that it is the la" of hunlan society,-the one by \vhich society 8 governed,-ho\vever ll1uch nlen may be deny- ing it or rebelling against it." (P. 398.) To she\v hov{ this is, the parties already examined are reca11ed. 1. The "Church \vhich boasts to be One, IIoly, Catholic," has en"ed and sinned because she has been false to her o\vn boast. She professes to have faith "in an indwelling Spirit, a Spirit of truth, and love, and power, \yhich is to bind all together in one and enable her to rule the nations." She should not, therefore, have had recourse to "the practices of the conjuror,"-" of the 410 NATIONAL CHURCHES-SECTS. diplomatist,"-" of the hard-hearted ,vorldly oppressor," "when she was sent to tell men of a Father who had claimed them as his sons, of a Son who was at his right hand for them, of a Spirit ,vho was ,vithin them to make them inheritors of his glory." (P. 399.) 2. "Protestant National Churches" have erred from "the same unbelief,"-unbelief in not confessing in deed, as ,veIl as in words, "that a Spirit has appeared to build up a one Holy Catholic Church." All that is g?od in them, as ,veIl as in Rome, is to be in1puted to that L1,ith. They have not "erred from their too great patriotism" or nationality; still less "from their fixed purpose that no religion whatever should rob them of their common morality." "They have erred in not thinking that the Spirit of God was with them," to maintain, purify, and enlarge these excellent practical virtues, national and social. (P. 401.) 3. Sects, again, have not been wrong in believing ,vhat their forefathers told them, "that the Spirit was seek- ing to bind them in one. " No;" this lesson taken home to the heart, makes men first true, in due time Catholic, leading them to cling mightily to the special conviction God has wrought in them, afterwards en- abling them to feel the necessity of other convictions to sustain that." But they have lost this faith, and substi- tuted some petty external badge and symbol of theirs, for the belief and confession of a Divine Spirit. Hence they are "impatient of dogmas, yet fiercely dogmatic; FOUNDATIONS ROTTEN. 411 eager to rob other men of their treasures; feeble in their hold upon their own." And their SODS are asking, " whether the earth has no other foundations than those which the sects have laid ? "-often thinking sadly that It its foundations are built on rottenness." (P. 402.) But courage! An Atlas comes. At last we are to have an answer to the inquiry-" how a Church differs from a \-vorld?" It is an answer which is to serve the purpose better than" all artificial definitions;" being, in fact, what" Romanists, Protestant nations, all sects" agree in declaring. It is in substance this: There is a 1\ body of Christ, and there is a Spirit d welling in that body. "Their words bear witness of it; their crimes, which outrage those words, bear witness of it still more." (P. 403.) One is half inclined to exclain1, 'vVhen they do agree, their unanimity is wonderful!' How, then, does a Church differ from a world? '" The C01nforter,' our Lord says, 'shall con?:ince the lco'J"ld.' ""'"hen he speaks to the disciples, he says, 'He shall come and dwell .n you.'" The contrast is correct, although this last sentence, quoted as from Scripture, is a singular specimen of compression. 'Vhat the Lord says to the disciples concerning the Comforter, in his farewell discourses recorded by John, is a bout ten tin1es more than \vhat he says on that subject, still to the disciples, when he has the world in his view. And perhaps these discourses, with the prayer that follows them, might shed some light on this question about" a Church differing 412 THE WORLD-THE CHURCH. from a world,"-if we could place ourselves in the posi- tion of the eleven, on that eventfuillight, and understand sin1ply, as they must have understood them, the words then uttered to them, and for them. But to proceed; "The world contains the elements of which the Church is con1posed. J11. the Church, these elements are pene- trated by a uniting, reconciling power. The Church is, therefore, human society in its normal state; the ,vorld, that same society irregular and abnormal. The world is the Church without God; the Chm'ch is the world re- stored to its relation with God, taken back by him into the state for ,vhich he created it." (P. 404.) Of course" the world contains the elements of which the Church is composed," if by these elen1ents we un- derstand human beings. Of course, also, "the world restored to its relation ,vith God" ,vould be the Church. The author does not apparently hold that this consumma- tion has yet been actually attained. Ho,v, then, in the mean tinIe, "does a Church differ from a world? " The world confessedly not being" taken back by God into the state for ,vhich he created it,"-at least not de f(l()to, whatever it may be de Jure,-is there a society ,vhich is ? The author may retort the question ;-Do you say that there is? Assuredly we do. 'Vhat! A society com- posed of different elements fronl those which the ,yorld contains? No; of the very same,-of the ,vorst and vilest of the world's elements. Can you shew it to us, then, in the communion of Rome, or of national Churches, or THE CHURCH OP THE REGENERATED. 413 I of sects? It is in all; it may be seen in all; but we do not profess to shew it. "Tho, then? The Holy Spirit. He, and he alone, both fOTInS and manifests this society. And let not priest, or prelate, or presbyter, or essayist, interfere with his prerogative, either by presuming to define the society by outward marks, or by maintaining that because it cannot be so defined, it does not exist. But is not this the old story of an invisible Church having its place in heaven? Certainly it is an old story. Only it is the story of a Church on earth; its members are living men and women. Yes; but it is the Church invisible. No; it is visible; it may be seen by any eye that earnestly and candidly looks for it. Then, it can be defined and marked out? o; that does not follow. There may be palpable enough evidence that the Holy Spirit is gathering out of all peoples and nations and kindreds and tongues, a pure and holy society;-a regenerated family;-a1though it may be neither possible nor lawful to limit it by any "bounds of creed, confession, country ,-or to say precisely who are and who are not '\vithin its pale. This is the doctrine which really asserts the person- ality, and personal agency, of the Holy Spirit; the doctrine that he is in the world; dealing personally and individually with its inhabitants, one by one; effecting a change of nature and character in them, one by one; and forming thus a body of persons renovated by his personal dealing ,vith them; a body one and universal; one in Christ the Lord; universal, unrestricted, as is the 414 ORGANIZATION. wind which bloweth where it listeth. Its unity and universality are real, although they may not be fully felt I and kno,vn until the ,vhole COlnpal1Y is assenlbled, com- plete, before the throne of God and of the Lamb. But then, in your way of representing it, there is no order, - goveqment, - organization; such as enabled "the society at Jerusalem to meet the lie of Anallias and Sapphira, and the murmuring of the Grecians against the IIebrews ;" and such as ,,?e usually associate ,vith tbe idea of a Church on earth. (P. 385.) Nay, there is at least as nluch room for all that under the vie,v now suggested, - the vie,v commonly held by evangelical "divines,"-as under that of the author. vVhatever place he finds in his system for the rules and rites,-the dis- cipline and administration,-of an external ecclesiastical association,-,ve find the very same place for them in ours. We may differ as to what they are, and as to the authority on ,vhich they rest. He may perhaps think that the regulation of them is less fixed by Christ, and left more to the discretion of men, than we might admit; or the reverse lllay be the state of the case between us. At all events, any difference of that sort is not nlaterial here. The author's idea of " a Church as differing from a ,vorld," is quite as independent and irrespective of outward Church arrangements, as is the most spiritual notion ever ilnagined concerning the Church invisible. The real question, in one ,vord, alnounts to this-Is the difference between" a Church and a \vorId," a difference of persons, or of principles merely? Of course there is , NULLA SALUS EXTRA ECCLESIAM.' 415 a radical distinction of principles; but is there a dis- tinction of persons also? Does the Church ,vhich the Holy Bpirit, by his personal dealing ,vith lnen, is form- ing, consist at this moment of certain persons, dis- tinguished and separated from certain other persons, living on the earth? It is not supposed that .we can make the distinction and separation, although we may be able to discern in godly men of every name the marks of the kingdom. Neither is it supposed that the Church consists of the same persons next monlent that it consists of no,v. The Lord,-the Holy Spirit,-is ever adding to the nunlber. But the point is this :-Are there persons kno"wn to God, however indiscernible by man, \vho do now really make up a Church differing from a world,-a Church which God can distinguish al- though man cannot? Are they separated from others,- are they changed from what they themselves naturally are,-by a personal dealing of the Holy Spirit with each one of them individually, creating hilll anew in Christ? The author nlakes a some"what noticeable distinction behveen a nominal and a real inheritance. lIe ,vishes to vindicate the maxim, 'nulla salus extra Ecclesia1J ,' from the abuse of it in the hands of Romanists and some Protestants, and to restore it to what he considers its true and originallneaning. To,varll.l the close of his explanation, he speaks of those who are not satisfied with our common notions and practices in Church matters, who "long for a wider fellowship, a Father's 416 A NOMINAL AND A REAL INHERITANCE. honse, a Spirit "\vho can make them brothers with all men, Greeks, Romanists, Protestants." And he adds that ,ve do not meet their longing "if ,ve cannot tell them that they are inheritors of Christ's kingdom in earth and heaven, and that the Spirit of the Father and Son is ,vith thew-in order that the inheritance may not be a nominal, but a real one." Are there, then, those to ,vhom the inheritance as yet is nominal merely? It would seem so; and, indeed, it must be so. 'Vhat, then, is our gospel-message to them to be ? You are sons and heirs; but you do not know this; you do not believe it; you do not feel it to be a reality. If you did, you ,vould be convinced that you are not" Ineant to live in a world where everyone is divided from his neighbour,-in which there is no uniting, fusing prin- ciple,-in which each lives to himself, and for hill1self." We" bid you fly from that chaos; for.... ' There is a universe for you! Nay, more, there is a Father's house open to you.' "-God "is the Head of a family; his Son has proved you to be members of it. His Spirit is given that you may know him as he is, not as your hard material hearts represent him to you. Come into this ark. Take up your place in this family. Here is deliverance and health. J.. T ul1a salus extra Eccles'lam. No comfort, no health, no peace, ",.hile you count your- selves exiles from God, strangers to your brethren." (Pp. 404-406.) Such is the author's call to men. Now, wherein does this differ from the ordinary evan- 'VHERE IS THE DIFFEREXCE? 417 gelical method of inviting sinners to come to Christ? Is this really, after all, a ,vider, more comprehensi ve, more universal gospel? "T e, too, go to all men in- discriminately' and say-There is a Father's house,- a Father's .heart,-open to you. His Son has proved this by cOIning, at his Father's desire, to remove the obstacle ,vhich your guilt and depravity have interposed bet,veen you and the righteous Lord of all. His Spirit also is given that you may know him as he is; that your heart of stone may become a heart of flesh; that instead of doubt, dislike, distrust, there may be a new- born feeling of confidence. You may see hiln now waiting to receive you ,vith open arnlS the instant you return to him. You feel him no,v, persuading-moving you to return. Lo! he welcomes you ,vithout one ,vord or look of upbraiding as his sons again. Come into this ark. Take your place in this family. Here is deliver- ance and health. Come, and be 'no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens 'with the saints and of the household of God.' This is our 'nulla salus extra EcclesiaJ1 j' this is our gospel. Does anyone stiU ask, ' ,,-rhere is the difference? The author tells men that ,vhatever they lnay be in point of right, they are all 'Yr ng in point of. fact, until the Spirit she,vs them and makes them feel that they are members of the family of God, that he is their Father, that the inheritance is not nominal but real. Do not you tell them the very same thing?' So far, the author 2n 418 OUR GOSPEL. and \ve are in the same position. He, as well as we, is forced after all to admit that men must undergo a change of some sort when they are, one by one, added to the nUlnber of those who to any good or saving pur- pose are intra EcclesiæÌÎ , ,vithin the Church. But here is the point. lIe teIls men that they already are, and have all along been, in the family of God, sons and heirs; that his Son has proved this: that his Spirit is given to Inake them kno,v and feel it. 'Ve say to them, No: up to this moment you are exiles from God, whether you count yourselves to be so or not; nay more, you are crilninals, under a suspended, a respited, sen- tence of condemnation; you are enemies also, alienated from hiln, ' hateful and hating one another.' That, up to this present time, is your real state and character. But there is no reason whatever ,vhy it should continue to be so for one instant longer. There is provision in the Son for the removal of your guilt, and your sense of it. There is power in the Spirit to create in you a clean heart, to renovate your nature. ....'Ì.nd both are near; both are freely given. Resist not the Spirit. Refuse not the Son. Believe, and enter into peace; receive the Spirit of adoption, and say, ,A.bba, Father. No\v, Scripture apart, which of these two ,vays of meeting the case is really adapted to ,vhat a thoughtful man must feel \vhen he is led to reflect on his relation to God, and the state of his heart to,vards God? 'Vill it be easy to satisfy hilll that he already is a child of WHICH IS THE BETTER NE'VS? 419 God, a member of his fanlily, and that all he has to do is to realize this? Will not his conscience revolt against any such belief, as not consistent with his consciousness? Is it not better news to tell him of Christ as bringing hilll into a new relation to God, and of the IIoly Spirit a:5 making him a ne1V man? And, in fine, is it not thus the Spirit is really h011- oured,-his per80nality asserted,-his work magnified? I t ",-ill be found very difficult indeed to hold fast the conviction that the IIoly Spirit is a real, living Person, -and has a real work to do, in and upon living men, as persons,-if the formation of a Church out of a world,- or the transformation of a world into a Church,-be really little more than this; that men en masse, as it were,- in all circumstances, societies and relations,- recognise ,vhat they already are. It is, after all, in the doctrine that men are individually converted, and be- come mem bers, de novo, of a body separate from the 'world, and not as yet definitely visible in the world, that the personality and work of the Holy Spirit are most clearly and conspicuously seen. There may be occasion to refer to this observation again before the subject of the Trinity is disposed of. Jean,vhile let the hvo questions be kept distinct. Is the ,,"orld to become the Church? That is possible, probable, certain; dif- ferent men 1vill reply, more or less confidently. But what is the Church now, in its present relation to the world? That is the real point at issue. CIIAPTER IX. , THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRI ITY. ESSAY XVI.-ON THE TRI:NITY IN UXITY. THE recapitulation at the beginning of this Essay, (pp. 410-415), may be passed over in the mean tillle; and the opening Essay on Charity may be allo,ved to J find its supplement, or complement, through the inter- mediate topics, in this Essay on the Trinity. Certainly love on earth is identical ,vith love in heaven. . This great doctrine, the author thinks,-the Trinity in Unity,-is not to be treated as "a mere dogma," supported only "by tradition, or inferences from texts of Scripture," or any" great philosophical tenet, de- ducible from reason, or latent in nature." Tradition, Scripture, philosophy, may do much. But it must be because they guide us "to a Nanle ,vhich is implied in our thoughts, acts, ,vords, in our fellow.ship ,vith each other; " -a Name which proves the charity of God to be at once the model, and the ultimate fulfilment and joy, of the charity of man. Upon this footing, the author undertakes to "she,v how each portion of that Name into which we are baptized, answers to some ap- F .ÄTE-C.ÄrRICE- F ATHER. 421 prehension and anticipation of human beings." (Pp. 416, 417.) This is the main object of the present Essay; and on this, attention may in the first instance be con- centrated. The other views suggested by the author are incidental and subordinate to this one. He is to find in the baptigmal nalne the realization of the higher in- s tincts of man. It may be necessary here to adopt some"rhat more of forn1al subdivision than he himself might choose. I. rrhe Father. The question of the government of the universe is raised by this mention of the first Person. 1. There are three ideas pervading the Greek mytho- logy; first, that of Fate, Necessity, Fixed La\\r, Des- tiny; secoítdly, that of \V"ill, Sovereignty; and tkirdly, that of a Father. There vtas often relief from the op- pressive sense of being ruled by caprice or tyranny in the recognition of the second of these, mere sovereignty, as subject to the first,-to fixed fate. But again, " the sense of a hard, dry, iron rule,-an irresistible necessity,- became more intolerable than the govenlment of the 1110st uncertain king." "Especially these words, 'Fa- ther of gods and men' touched chords which at once responded to them." A Father, having a will, is better than a fate. (P. 418.) 2. The same three ideas are to be traced in Scripture. First, there is "fixed la\v, grounded on the name of the I A)I." Secondly," Christ on the mountain announced the \Vill of ,vhich that law ,vas the expre::3sion." 422 LAW-WILL--FATHER. Thirdly, "lIe said it was the 'ViII of a Father." " Be- neath the name of the God of Abraham, this was con- cealed. The sound of it was from time to time caught, not only by holy men in their closets, but by the ordi- nary,vorshipper. The Greek heard the echo of it from his Thessalian hiU. Christ uttered it." (P. 419.) 3. This last message unites the other two conceptions. (C The fixed and the absolute for "which man craves," "is bound inseparably with a name which speaks of relation, which tells him what he was sure must be; that his own will has an author; that he is not merely a creature of the highest God, but a child." (P. 419.) 4. "All is peace if \ve accept this as a revelation,- as a Gospel of God;" not to be "measured," though it must be "tested" by "the conceptions and anticipations of our own mind." Thus to measure it ;-that is, pro- bably, to inquire in ", hat sense, on what ground, to what effect, man, the creature, is ipso facto a child of the highest God ;-to ask ,vhat conscience has to say upon the subject ;-to raise any question whether the relation is nominal or real-or if real, '\vhether it subsists entire or needs to be restored ;-thus to measure it, is to }'evive the war. Again we oscillate between" iron necessity" and f:5ome "present helper, some one to whom we may address cries and litanies." We may call him Father; but the name will be associated with the caprices of nature or of man; his ,vill is changeable as the clouds, or irregular as our own. It is cc the old name, the given THE CHILD CONFESSING ITS FATHER. 423 l1ame, w'hich we need, and are trying to spell out." " The child must confess its Father, and confess itself to him. Then it knows whose will rules it, and ,vith what will it has been striving." (P. 420.) True, the child must know. his Father. But in order to that, he may require to know jirst,-if not whether his being the creature of the highest God constitutes him of necessity a child, at least ,vhether the Father with whose will he has been striving is willing to be to him a Father still, really and not nominally,-if that is the Father's will ? -and secondly, how is it the Father's will that the relation which he feels has been interrupted, should be readjusted and revived? 5. These are relevant questions. They tend to prove that it is not possible to find the ground of the name given to the First Person in the Trinity in the actual relation of man, the creature, to God the Creator; that neither con- sciousness nor conscience ,,,ill sustain any such ground. It may be quite true that the" superstitions of the Chris- tian 'world" are connected with two notions; that" the notion of a sovereign necessity has taken the place of a will of absolute truth and goodness;" that" the notion of a capricious Power to be made placable by some agency of ours has superseded the belief in a Father, whose will Christ came on earth to manifest and to ful- fil." And the author may discover "in our baptismal faith" a refuge from both; provided only ,ve do not " substitute for a belief in a Father, a belief in a notion 424 THE FATHER A RULER A:KD JUDGE. of ours about a Father.': (P. 421.) But Iny moral sense, my conunon sense, insists upon some explanation here. I anI baptized into tLe name of a Father. Be it so. Still I l11ay ask,-I must ask,-does this mean that the highest God is my Father necessarily, in respect of his beiUg nlY )Iaker? Is that the revelation into the belief of \vhich I am baptized? It ,vil1 go but a little ,yay to satisfy my guilty and inquiring spirit. For I ask again,- has this Father anything to do ,vith that necessary, imlllutable, eternal law of holiness, truth, and love,-that authoritative moral la,v,--the obliga- tions and the sanctions of 'v hich I Ï1nvardl y kno\v and deeply feel to be as fixed as the nature of God? Is he the very God 'whose essential l110ral being this law repre- sents,-,vhose throne it upholds? Gladly do I \VelCOlne the thought that this Father, in 'VhOlll I see the La\v- giver and Judge, is not fate, and is not bound by fate, but is free, and has a will to exercise ;-a will infinitely holy, ,vise, and good. But I " ait to learn ,vhat exercise of that ,,-ill it is ,vhich can meet the case of a criminal ,vhom the law condemns. .And until I am satisfied that he can, that he will, that he does make me his c11ild,- upon another footing than that of any original relation subsisting beÍ\veen us by creation, - you lllay tell file of my "baptisll1al faith," but for anything you tell me, I cannot be convinced that I am not baptized into the belief of an empty title. Of course it nlay be said that I am doing the very A IEDIATOn. IUST BE A SON. 4 9- _D thing tIle author deprecates, "substituting for a belief in a Father, a belief in a notion of mine about a Father." But ho,v can I believe in a Father, ,vithout having notions about hinl? And the notions are not mine; they are the very notions 'which the author hinIself suggests. One thing at any rate seems clear, that to rest the nanle Father upon the natural, prin1ary, and uni- versal relation of God to his creatures, is to build upon a some,, hat uncertain and unsatisfactory foundation. -: II. The Son. The question here is that of )Iediation. 1. The idea of mere Fate or Necessity being ruler, precludes mediation; that of mere "Vill or capricious Po\ver, adnlits of nlediators ,vithout l1lunber; "helpers of the creatures against their Creator; " naturally related, perhaps, to hinl; or having an influence or right over him obtained by some merit; but still ahvays "the benignant patrons of those ,vhom he is disposed, for some reason, to injure." (P. 421.) 2. "''''hen the ",'ord (Father' has taken any strong hold of a man anywhere, ,vhen it has displaced the no- tion of a mere sovereign, there win be a counteraction to this feeling. Those w'ho plead for man ,vith Him, must be felt .n sonle sense to express his mind; they 'v ill be ackno,vledged as his sons." Thus that low and 1vicked theory of luediation is exploded. It is not ne- cessary to inquire ,vhether there are not other ,vays of ll1eeting it, and ways 1110re obvious than this, ,vhile they are as nIuch in accordance ,vith Scripture and right reason. 426 A SO -A 'YORD. But there is a point to be specially noted. The author seems to make the sense of our natural and original re- lation to God the ground of our belief in the relation behveen the First Person in the Trinity and the Second. 3. It must be further remembered, as counteracting the feeling in que tion, that " the 'Vill of this Father is as steadfast as any fate can be;" steadfast, because it is righteous and good, and "can only seek to do good." This "\Vill must have a \V ord." "It must speak." "A "Till that is, and lives, must utter itself by a living \V ord." Hence the t\';o interchangeable names in John's " divine theology," a Word; a Son. (P. 422.) 4. l\iuch harm arises from using either" exclusively." To d \vell on the former, is to make everything imper- sonal, and to become at last ourselves impersonal; it tends to pantheism. To isolate the second, is to incur the danger of merging "the Son of God in the Son of man," and falling into" idolatry." The author speaks of "a poplllar,"-as distinguished from an "abstract," -" way of thinking of the Son of God;" and of "the unspeakable dangers into w'hich those fall who think of the Son only as their Saviour, and not as the brightness of his Father's glory." \Ve do ,veIl to "cleave to the blessed name of Son," and never to "forget that only a Person can express the ,vill of the ..Absolute Being; that only in a Person can he see his own image." But" if we do not recur to that other name," ",ve shall refer his relationship to ours, not ours to his." The more AT HOME-AT PEACE. 427 " abstract" name, then,-the "\V ord,-qualifies the more personal and popular, and as it were human name,-the Son. It brings out an element in his relationship to the Father ,-his being the expression of the Father's .will, the image of the Father's glory,-w"hich obliges us to refer our relationship to his, not his to ours. That is an advance upon the previous statement, which appears to find the origin of our idea of Christ's filial relation to the Father in the sense or consciousness of our o\vn. But the one is not inconsistent with the other. Our conviction that t be J\Iediator must be a Son is based upon God being our Father. He must also, .we feel, lC in some sense express the mind ' of his Father. He is the utterance of his will. He is his word. His re- lationship, therefore, to the Father transcends ours, and ours is to be referred to his. His is the index or ex- ponent of ours. (P. 422.) 5. The author finds the remedy for these evil ten- dencies in "the name of the Son into which we are baptized;" our "being adopted into him as members of his body." " This faith is not notional, but practical; not for this and that man, but for mankind." "He is re- vealed to us as the ground of our intellects,-the creative "r ord of God, from w"hom they derive their light: as the centre of our fellowship, the only-begotten Son of God, in whom we are made sons of God." All" ,,"eary effort is over." "r e are" at home" and" have peace." (Pp. 423, 424.) If the author meant that in the Son of 428 RELATION-OFFICE. God-in Christ-we are made the sons of God de novo, anew and afresh, by regeneration and adoption; if he ll1cant that ,ye are made,-that men universally need to be lllade,-the sons of God, for the first time, or for the first tinle since the Fall, by a new creative act or work on the part of God; his statenlent might be adn1Ïtted: thus only is weary effort ended; thus only are home and !)eace reached. But it is the mere relation of the Son to the Father, and not any office executed by the Son for the Father, that the author has in view. ,A.nd he finds the ground or reason of the name given to the Second Person in the Trinity,jìrst, in the relation in 'which man naturally and necessarily stands to God, and secondly, in the actual relation of the Redeenler to man,-to every man,-as the ground of his intellect and the centre of his fello,vship,-the light of the one and the life of the other. I am a son, and must have a Son to be my helper. III. The Spirit. Inspiration, or the living and per- sonal energy of divine po,ver, is here in question. 1. "A nlere ""ate or K ecessity of course cOl1ununi- cates no life or energy to those who are the subjects of it." " A Ruler or Lord of Nature may ilnpart po"Ters or energies to particular 111Cn; "-to favourites ;-" dear to the Gods;" -"Those "high gifts" 'will "indicate an Inspirer, descended fronl the highest God." The " name of Father greatly modified the previous belief." I t excluded "nwre choice or favouritism. H The" gift of inspiration" "'was a kind of inheritance." (P. 424.) T".O DIFFICGLTIES. 429 2. "A 'Vill, driving out a Fate, must seek to make other ,vills like itself.'" Holiness is and "lllust be the innermost nature of God;" and of this, "it is the win of God to nlake man partaker." lIe asks how? " Can he become God?" No;" his desire is to sink rather than to rise." Again" the inmost life of God should be communicated." "A Being of perfect love cannot be so ,vrapt up in himself" as "to d\vell in the contempla- tion of his o\vn excellence and perfection." A Being of perfect holiness cannot be "satisfied with any lo,yer ex- cellence or perfection." Here are two "difficulties," the one" human," the other" divine." " The belief of a Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son meets both." (P. 426.) Is it asked, how? The answer be- gins ,vith the following sentence: 3. "To think of the Father resting in the Son, in the deepest sense kno\ving the Son, and of the Son kno,ving the Father, we must think of a uniting Spirit." K ot a syllable of explanation or proof is added. And yet the proposition is certainly not self-evident. Kor is there a hint of anything like it in the passage of Scripture ,, hich seems to have suggested the language. But the author inlmediately adds: "And if there is such a Spirit, it 11lust be capable of being illlparted; that 11lUSt be the way in which holiness is imparted." The Spirit, uniting the Father as kno\villg the Son and the Son as knowing the Father, is imparted to men. "This gift is through the Son." It" must bring all to a level, 430 RELATIONSHIPS. In so far as they confess it to be the Spirit of a Father, they must confess that it is meant to make them sons of God; in so far as they confess that it is the Spirit of Christ, they confess that it is meant to make them brothers." l\Iore and lllore they "o,vn it as distinct from them,"-recognise in it the "Comforter,"-and feel " that there is a divine Person \vith them to wholn they o\ve reverence and "Torship." (P. 427.) Is there anything 1110re in all this than our being enabled to recognise an existing relation behveen the Father and us, and to identify it \vith the relation between the Father and Son? Is not this what is really 111eant by the holiness,-the innermost nature of God,-being communicated to us ( But, minute criti- cism apart, let an observation or two on this doctrine of the Trinity be hazarded. In the first place, What is there in it beyond the personification of relations (-or rather a threefold per- sonification of one relation? There is the Father, sus- taining to us the relation, not of fate or of will,-not of mere la,y or arbitrary sovereignty,-but of necessary paternity. A \vill he has; a ,vill he exercises. But it is not as 'of his own will begetting us with the ,vord of truth,' that he is to us a Father. He is so, originally and naturally, independently of any act of grace, or any work ofpo\ver, since the Fall, or since our birth. Then there is the Son-the l\Iediator; who nlust be a Son if he is to represent us and plead for us with the Father; and who REAL .AND Å KOMINAL TRI.KITY. 431 also nlust express, or must himself be, the utterance of the Father's ,vill. In him the relation of paternity is authenticated and revealed. Lastly, there is the Spirit, uniting the Father as kno,ving the Son, and the Son as kno,ving the Father; and conununicating to us this union. By hiln the relation of paternity is made real and palpable to our inmost experience. Again, secondly, \vithout reviving the old subtleties of Oriental and Grecian refinement, or plunging into the abyss of speculation about the manner of the Divine subsistence,-it is impossible to examine the portion of , this Essay thus far brought under review, in the light of the previous Essays and the systeIn which they develope, and not to feel that the question is unavoidably raised, -Is the distinction of the persons in the Trinity real, and not merely nominal? "T e have, first, the relation of fatherhood; secondly, that relation attested and made apparent; thirdly, that relation energized and vitalized. God is our Father. He proves by a "Titness in us and to us,-ultimately by that "\Vitness becoming one of us, -that \ve are his sons. lIe exerts a powerful influence upon us, that we may own and feel this, and act accord- ingly. ,A. father has to deal with children \vIlo have become suspicious of him and estranged fronl him. He is their father still He is still always among them; prompting filial thoughts and feelings; keeping alive in them the ineradicable sense of sonship; and perhaps singling out one whom he succeeds in making pre- 432 DISTI CTIO OF OFFICES. eminently a model of this sonship to the rest. At the same tin1e he brings his mind lllore directly into contact with theirs; thro\ving himself, as their father by right, and as by sympathy one of themselves, into their hearts; and exerting all the po\ver and influence he has, to get them to call him,father. This is a human analogy; and therefore imperfect. Let the father be the omnipotent and omnipresent God; and let the problem suggested be ,vorked out under that condition. The design of this remark is not by any llleans to insinuate a charge of Sabellianism, or of any unsound opinion on the subject of the Trinity;-beyond vague- ness and indistinctness. The object of it is to prepare the ,yay for one other observation. In the third place, therefore, it deserves to be con- sidered ,vhether a real distinction of the Persons in the r.rrinity can long be maintained as a theological belief, if there be not a distinction of offices. If there be ascribed to the Son an actual \vork of redemption-the work of meeting the demands of la,v and justice as the Substitute of responsible and guilty men; if there be ascribe(l to the Spirit an actual ,vork of regeneration an(l sanctification-the ,vork of renovating their moral nature and creating them ane\v to holines ; and if the Father be recognised. as, ,vith the Son and the Spirit, originating this dispensation of love-and as, through the Son and by the Spirit, reconciling the ,vorld unto hilTIself; there is such a separation of offices in this THE USUAL LAXGUAGE OF JOHX. 449 have had much difficulty about cc leaving out the be- ginning," when he used the word with reference to man and things human. It seems, how.ever, that the spirit of the New Testament precludes us from understanding , eternal' or 'eternity' as having anything to do with duration. This ,vas "just tlæ lesson ,vhich God }lad been teaching men by the rev-elation of himself; "-the lesson, namely, " that mere negatives are utterly unfit to express his being, his substance." True. But does it follO'\v that negatives cannot be predicated of God at all? It ,vouid seem so, according to the author. He traces the education by ,, hich the Jew ,vas taught this lesson, and made to "perceive that God's righteousness, his truth, his love, were the substantial and eternal things, by seeking 'which he was delivered from the worship of gods of time and sense, as .well as from the more miser- able philosophical abstraction of a God who is merely a negative of time; without beginning and (jithout end." And then he quotes the language of John, " The life 'Was 'lnanifi:sted, and 'We h(("re seen it, and we decla].e 'unto YOlt that eternal life ?}"Idch leas 'Uxith the Father, and which has been manifested to 'lIS." It is "a specimen of his usual language ; " and as the author "is bold to say, it interprets all the language of the New Testament." Be it so. Certainly the beloved apostle delights to speak of eternal life, to connect it with his master and Lord, to identify it with the kno,vledge of him. Jesus himself does so in "his last prayer, if he who reports that prayer did 2F 450 THE LA:KG U AGE OF CHRIST. not misinterpret his meaning," -a strange qualification, a hint, probably, that the only w"ay to get rid of the author's own interpretation of Christ's nleaning, is to sup- pose that the evangelist Inisinterpreted it. IIappily there is no occasion to call in question either the reporter's accuracy or the ssayist's judgment,-\vhatever may be thought of the taste and nlodesty of his innuendo. It may be admitted that" the eternal life is the righteous- ness and truth and love of God \vhich are manifested in Christ Jesus; manifested to men, that they may be partakers of them, that they may have fello\vship ,vith the Father and \vith the Son." Still some questions will remain. [ay not the term' life' sufficiently denote all this? 'The life was manifested; '-He .who is the life, -the Word of life. J\Iay there not be some additional idea implied in the adjunct' eternal?' Granting it to be the idea of what is most absolute and positive, is it self-evident that it may not also be inclusive of the idea of unlimited duration? (Pp. 446-450.) The truth is, the author seems almost to practise a sleight-of-hand upon himself and his readers. It is the words' life and death' that he explains,- not the word 'eternal.' 'Vhat he says about that word in his Corre- spondence arising out of his book, has been considered already (attte, pp. 38-42.) But so far as the present Essay is concerned, the discussion might be said to be ,simply upon 'life and death,' in the New Testament acceptation of these terms. In that view, the author " A LONG LIFE CURDLED INTO AN HOUR." 451 "ould meet with a large Ineasure of concurrence in his stateulents on the part of intelligent evangelical' divines.' They are accustomed to hold, that 'the knowledge of the true God and of Jesus Christ whom he has sent' is the life, the true "blessedness of those who seek God and love him," both here and hereafter; and that" the loss of it" is death. They can quite understand ho,v the experience of either condition must be such as the poet describes, when he speaks of "a long life curdled into an hour." They ventlli-e, however, still to be of opinion that all this is compatible with the' life' and the' death' having connected with then1 the elenlent of duration,-that when human beings are concerned, it is not possible to conceive either of the life or of the death apart froln that element,-that ,vhether the duration is or is not endless, is a question ,yhich it much concerns us to have settled,-that Scripture must be understood as intending to settle it,-that it does settle it by the use of the ,,"'ord ' eternal,' which, whatever else or whatever more it may denote, excludes the possibility of a termi- nation or a change. The author is fond of nlixing up together two entirely distinct and separate inquiries, the one concerning the nature of the happiness 01' Inisery a,yaiting men, the other concerning its continuance. l\Iuch of what he says on the subject of the first inquiry is true and valuable; it is, indeed, in substance, what most preachers ,vould regard as one of the commonplaces of their ministry. 452 SEPARATIO OF 1IEN. They labour to teach that the blessedness of heaven must begin on earth, and that it essentially consists in a right knowledge of Goel, a right relation to him, and right affections to,vards him. The opposite of these things, they also teach, ,vill mainly constitute the tonnent of hell. Charity, UI iversal charity, is the pure joy of un- fallen spirits and redeelned men. Fear and hatred are the vultures '\vhich prey upon the condemned, - the devil and his angels,-the uncharitable ,vho depart into the punishnlent prepared for their predecessors. But the inquiry concerning the continuance of these two different states of being must still be met as Scripture alone can meet it; unless, indeed, we adopt what ap- pears to be the doctrine of these Essays, that no such different states of being are revealed in Scripture at all; that a judicial separation of men into two classes after death is a doting dream, an ignorant superstition, or a ,vicked device of priestcraft. II. The author rapidly reviews ecclesiastical history. In the primitive ChlU'ch he finds, as he thinks, a large latitude of belief. He can trace, on the one hand, the influence of the New Testament doctrine, that eternal life is the knO"wledge of God and eternal punishment or death the want of it,-as ,veIl as also the progress of matel'ial notions of retribution and re,vard,-in the con- flict of opinions and interests which resulted in the for- mal doctrine of purgatory. In the lnore intelligent and spiritual believers of that doctrine,-and in the represen- TETZEL'S DOUBLE RonllERY. 453 tation of it by the poet Dante,-he recognises the idea of an "ascent, not out of material torn1ents, but out of nloral evil, into a higher moral state;" and in Luther's dt3nunciation of indulgences, he discovers a protest "against the doctrine, that the greatest re,vard 'which the highest pow'er in the Church can hold out, is de- liverance from punishment, not deliverance from sin." (Pp. 455-457.) "That he says of Luther is the truth, but not the whole truth. "Everything," in Luther's teaching, "turns upon the assertion, that a n1an requires and desires punishment, not indulgence, when he has done evil;" and that Tetzel doubly robbed the people of their money, since he not only blasphemously claimed a divine prero- gati\ e, but in the exercise of it promised "that vd1Îch it is not good for a man to have." This is ,veIl said, if by punishment is to be understood fatherly correction, not judicial condemnation. Luther repudiated the idea of any man being the better for a mere assurance of indul- gence and in1punity. Not thus ",.ill the awakened con- science be pacified, or the impure heart rene,ved. But the author must know that Luther strenuously asserted, as the antithesis of indulgence or impunity, justifica- tion, or a judicial act of acquittal and acceptance. lIe ought therefore to kno,v that he is not fairly representing the Reformer's sentin1ents ,vhen he gives his own idea of justification as a gloss upon Luther's. And he ought further to know that Luther's doctrine of justification in- 454 LUTHER'S TEACHIXG-. volved, 'what Luther himself undoubtedly believed, the final judicial condemnation of those ,vho are not absolved from guilt in this world through a believing appropri- ation of Christ as their substitute and surety. Evidently, the author would leave his readers at this stage under the impression that the tendency of Luther's theology, and of the entire Reformation movement, ,vas against the tenet of eternal punishment. And, indeed, he ascribes it partly to the Jesuit reaction, and partly to an inade- quate recognition of the connexion bet\veen the visible and the invisible world in the different schools of the Reformation, that what he regards as the material con- ceptions of a future state retained, or regained, their sway in the Protestant churches. (P. 459.) He comes no,v to the articles of his o,vn Church, and has thus given occasion for a separate discussion, 'which for obvious reasons it is not expedient to mix up here with this analysis of his book. The modern asserters of the obnoxious tenet remain to be dealt ,vith. III. It has assumed now, very offensively, an active and aggressive form; "theologians have in our age be- con1e entirely positive and dogmatic upon this subject; " they" hold that a man is as much bound to say, 'I be- lieve in the endless punishment of the greater portion of lllankind,' as ' I believe in God the Father, in God the Son, and in God the IIoly Ghost.' " (P. 462.) If this is wit or sarcasm, it is singularly ill-timed; in every view, unsuitable and unseasonable. If the author, JOHN LOCKE. 455 being a serious man as he is, had been present to hear the answer to the question, , Are there few that be saved?' it is to be hoped that he 'would have felt and o\vned its pewer. 1\1:ost assuredly he would not have dared, in that presence, to forge such an article as this,-to foist it into tIle creed,-and charge it upon poor trembling guilty men \vho have as much charity at least as he has, -and ,vho shudder for thelllseives .while they speak to others, and testify to theln of present grace as ,veIl as of coming judgment and retribution. But he has philosophy on lvhich he can fall back. lIe is prepared for a candid and "metaphysical" expla- nation of this modern evangelical mania. 1. John Locke is the convenient scapegoat. He is to England what Aristotle was to Germany; with a diffe- rence, however, l'endering his influence more practical and paramount. "Aristotle belongs merely to the schools; Locke connects the schools with the ,vorId." He spoke to the "love of the simple and practical," ,vhich is peculiarly English. He" persuaded those .who believed very little, not to pretend to believe more than they did." The dra-wback was, that he Inade it difficult to "recover some principles held by their ancestors," which, though not "represented in the dialect of the day," might yet be found to have a substance and meaning in thein. Among these the author includes the meaning of the word 'eternity.' It is "a mere negation of time" according to Locke and a Locke- 456 PROTESTAKT IKDIVIDUALITY. ridden generation. According to the author, "it denotes something real, substantial, before all tinle." It is not necessary to discuss again this metaphysical question, in stating ,, hich the author does not quite fairly put the opposite doctrines. I 111ay differ from Locke, and agree rather ,vith the author, on the subject of eternity as opposed to time; I may hol(l eternity to be, not "a mere negation of time," but something positive, independent of time. .A.nel yet J may con- sistently hold that the ielea or element of duration is common to both. 1\lost certainly, ho\vever, Locke's philosophy does not 11luch favour what seems to be the author's notion, that there is an absolute annihilation of time in the spil'itual ,\yorld. But it nlay be doubted how' far such a notion is either consistent ,, ith comIllon sense or intelligible by human reason. 2. In comparison '\vith the apparently more compre- hensive position which the Romish Church takes up, the author holds that "the distinctiveness, the indi- viduality of Protestantis111 is its strength." "But close to that strength is its greatest '\veakness ;" "the root of our sectarianism." Then follo,vs the usual representa- tion as to "the religious men, the saved men, being looked upon as exceptions to a rule." .A.nd this ushers in a sort of criticism on the word' dalnnatiol1.' That word, it appears, according to "its etymology" lllcans,- "'what it certainly did mean to the Church in former days," _" the loss of a mighty gift ,vhich has been be- GOD REPRESE TED AS THE DESTROYEU. 457 stowed upon the race." But w'e do not understand it so now. " }Ien are not regarded as rejecting the counsel of God against the1nselves. God is represented as the De- stroyer. Kay, divines go the length of asserting-even of taking it for granted-that when Christ taught his disciplc!i to fear, 'not tneJn 'lchicl kill tIle body, and afteJ' that llare no 1nore tllat they can do,' but 'h-Ùn u'h icn, aftm o he has k 7led, hath power to cast Ùzto lzel',' "-he actually ,vas speaking to them of God. " ",r e are come," it seems, "to such a pass, as actually to suppose that Christ tells those ,vhom he calls his friends, not to be afraid of" mere human enemies, "but of that greater enemy ,vho can destroy their very selves, and that this enemy is-not the devil. . . . but that God ",.ho cares for the span.o'ws. They are to be afraid lest He who numbers the hairs of their head should be plotting their ruin." (Pp. 468, 469.) N o,v, it must be deliberately said that this is neither more nor less than 'a railing accusation.' The critical sagacity ,vhich would rob the Inartyr or the confessor of the fear of God as his shield against the fear of nlan, and give him instead of that the fear of Satan,-so that 'v hen he braves death for Christ he may be said to do so, if not suadente, at least minante diabolo j-the spiritual tact ,yhich finds in God's care of us now a reason for not dreadilIg his displeasure if we prove unfaithful ;-may be left to speak for them- selves. But the solemn truth ,vhich the Lord proclaims cannot be sacrificed either to sickly selltin1ent or to 458 l\IISREPRESENTATIO . sarcastic scorn; 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! ' The author tries to shock and startle us by putting into the lips of the Saviour" the message ,vhich, accord- ing to this "-the con1mon-" view of the case, Christ brings froin heaven to earth." It is literally given by him in these horrid ,vords; " , Your Father has created mul- titudes whoin he means to perish for ever and ever. By my agony and bloody sweat, by my cross and passion, I have induced him in the case of an inconceivably small minority to forego that design.'" He seenlS to admit that this is "a blasphemous thought" which ,ve "dare not state as a proposition to ourselves or preach to others." But he evidently thinks that it " has n1Ïngled with our belief hitherto; "-he plainly Ine' ns it to be accepted as the full and fair expression of that belief. (P. 470.) "\Ve have been accustomed to this profane ribaldry, for it is nothing better, in the writings of infidels of the school of Paine, and Socinians of the school of Belshaln. :N ay, it is almost an injustice to name Bclsham in this connexion. "r ere the theme not so awful, one might smile at the thought of there beiug a n1an capable of such extravagance of misrepresentaion. But- , ,vho would not ,veep if .A..tticus ,vere he?' 3. The author can understand why divines should " crave for some more distinct apprehensions, nay even statements, respecting eternal punishment, than n1ight perhaps be necessary in former days." lie supposes PUXISH)IENT-DEATH. 459 them to ask if this is the time for "relaxing the strict- ness of our statements," ,vhen among all classes of our countrymen the ,yords commonly used upon this subject are losing their power; and "a vague dream of bliss hereafter, into which righteousness and goodness do not enter, which has no relation to God, floats before the minds of numbers, but has just as little power to a,vaken them to any higher or better life, as the dread of the future has to keep theln from any evil." And he replies elnphatically ;-" ,,-r e do, it seeIllS to me, need to have a more distinct and awful idea of eternal death and eternal Plmishment than ,ve have." )Iaking a distinction between these two things, he justly holds punishment, in the sense he puts upon the word, to be "less dreadful than death;" such punishment implies a punisher, and he who is punishing, men believe, "h01vever faintly, to be a Father." "The thought of his ceasing to punish them, of his letting them alone, of his leaving them to themselves, is the real, the unutterable horror." (Pp. 470-473.) Be it so. There are not wanting intimations in Scripture that it is so. ' "'Thy should ye be stricken any more?' , Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone.' But is not that the very point at which chastiseInent, correction, admonition, ceases, and punishment properly so called begins? X 0 one believing that men are spiri- tuaI beings can refuse to go along with the author in his vivid picture of the dark and confuse(l struggle be- t\veen a man's anticipation of meeting God, and the 460 THE FUTURE CONKECTED ""'ITH THE PRESENT. shrinking of his "Thole nature fron1 the loneliness anJ dreariness of being "friendless, hOlneless, fatherless." It is a struggle ,vhich, even to one" living without God in the ,vorld," may well be more" appalling" than " any ouhvard terrors you can threaten him ,vith." All this Dlay be true. It is most true that the anguish of remorse, the fury of unsated passion, and above all the inextinguishable sense of alienation from the IIoly One from ,vhom escape is impossible,-Dlust be the chief elements of " that second death, of ,vhich all material pictures offer only the faintest picture." (P.474.) The author, surely, cannot be so ignorant as to imagine that this is a vie\v different from that ,vhich evangelical divines are accustorned to enforce. To them as ,veIl as to hiln the second death is the opposite of the life ,vhich consists in the favour and fello,vship of God; nor has he "the shado,,,," of a dream" of a warrant for alleging, as he evidently means to do, that they" refer the state of eter- nallife and eternal death only to the future." They do not" in any ,vise identify it ,vith the future," as separate from the present. On the contrary, they solemnly ,yarn every nlan that his state hereafter ,vill be what it is "Then he passes hence ;-that there ,vill be continuance, not alteration. .A.nd they solemnly ,yarn him, moreover, that Scripture does not hold out the slightest hint or hope of any provision for effecting a change at any stage of his future existence ;-no, nor the least prospect of his exist- ence coming to an end; that so far frolll that, the express CO TI L ED EXISTEXCE. 461 statements ,vhich Scripture n1akes, and the fundalnental principles of the divine government ,vhich Scripture asserts,-especially in connexion ,vith the proclalnation of mercy,-preclude the idea of another ransom being ever found, or another opportunity being ever given of , believing to the saving of the soul.' This, and this alone, is the real question. It is throwing dust in men's eyes to raise a cloudy, wOl'dy discussion about some transcendental thought supposed to be hid in the term' eternal.' And it is beside the point to create a prejudice by loading' divines' with the obloquy of materialising and making 111onstrous the doctrine of a future state, upon ,vhich, so far as the nature of that state is concerned, they are at least as spiritual and rational as the author himself. The case stands actually thus. \Ve live no\y; ,ve live after death; we are to live for ever. The author believes that we are. His speculation about 'eternal' does not touch the doctrine of our continued and endless subsistence as living persons; it merely makes out, or tries to make out, that ,vhen that word qualifies life and death as con- trasted states of being,-life as a blessing, death as an evil,-there is no reference to the duration or endurance, but only to the nature, of the blessing indicated on the one hand and the evil characterized on the other. There is not a doubt cast upon the fact, that ,ve are destined not only to survive death, but neyer to die. The .whole reasoning implies this. ""'" ell, then. Vv T e have a con- 462 DARKNESS OF THE FUTURE. scious pcrsonal existence now--,ve exist now; we con- tinue to exist-to have a conscious personal existence, -,vhen we die; and ever after, without end. l\Iore- over, ,vhat ,ye are ,vhen we die,-what we are ,vith respect to God,-with respect to our state and character to\yard God,-that w.e continue to be after death. And . the solemn inquiry is this: if I an1 not right '\Tith God ,vhen I die, is there any ground for hoping that I ever at any futm"e tilne shall be? l 1. The author himself eVIdently feels that even upon his own system, it is impossible to conclude certainly that all evil will everywhere come to an end. "I ask no one," he says, "to pronounce, for I dare not pro- nounce lnyself, ,yhat are the possibilities of resistance in a human ,vill to the loving will of God. There are times ",-hen they seem to me-thinking of myself more than of others-almost infinite. But I kno,v that there is sOlnething ,vhich must be infinite. I anl obliged to believe in an abyss of love which is deeper than the abyss of death."-" I must feel that this love is com- passing the universe. l\Iore about it I cannot kno,v. But God kno,vs. I leave Inyself and all to him." (P. 476.) lIe is content, apparently, to let shadows, clouds and darkness, rest upon the future state. And let it be observed that they rest alike on the future state of all. So far as the author's meaning niay be gathered, 110t tì'om this passage only but from his .whole argument, neither death nor judgment is to any of the children of men the PROLONGED STRUGGLE. 463 beginning of a ne,v order of things,-a new manner of dealing ,vith them on the part of God. 'Vith reference to all alike, the present economy, or dispensation, or whatever else it may be called,-the present arrange- ment by which" the loving will of God" and" the human ,vill" are brought into contact ,vith one another, -is to continue uninterrupted; with more of discovery, no doubt,-,vith a fuller revelation,-but still in prin- ciple essentially the saIne. "There, then, is the security that evil ,yill ever allyw"here come to an end? Is there any living man, let him have gone ever so far in learning to submit his o,vn human will to the loving will of God, to ,vhom the thought of an infinite prolongation of ,vhat his experience-even at the best-has been here, would give solid comfort? The author says well that, " thinking of himsélf more than of others," he sometimes feels as if" the possibilities of resistance" were" almost infinite." True, every lllan who knows God-,vho kno,vs himself-will reply; the more he kno,vs God and himself, the more earnestly 'v ill he reply; most true. I certainly need not exult over others. I have in myself a will capable of almost infinite resistance to the loving will of my Father; the deep consciousness that I have, causes me all the days of my life, if I rejoice, to rejoice with trem bling. And is it nothing more than the endless lengthening out of this trembling joy that I am to look for as my haven of rest,-my recompence of reward,-at last? Is this an of heaven I am eyer to 464 CESSATION OF STRUGGLE. taste? Tell me not of a fuller discovery, a fuller revelation, of God and of myself. For anything I now feel, I cannot see but that, instead of giving relief, that should add ne\v intensity to my sensitive concern. Perhaps, ho,vever, it is not to be ahvays thus. I am to reach a stage of ttdvancement at which there is to be no more tren1bling,-no more struggle,-no more contend- ing with evil tendencies or an evil spirit,-no more possibility at all of resistance on the part of my human will to the loving will of God. I ask, ho\v? Is it by my being placed in a new position, in ,vhich, my appointed trial being over, I am to be tried no more? Is it that God brings to an end the discipline by which he has been guiding me here, and takes me home to himself, and makes me perfectly like himself, and introduces me to new scenes and a new society, in which there is no room any more for anything like what Job felt, or Paul, or Christ when he prayed in the garden? That is good news for me,-for me, the chief of sinners,-saved by grace alone,-standing \vhile here ahvays on the verge of a fall, and standing by faith alone. But it seems to involve the whole matter in debate respecting a judicial procedure, to issue in the acquittal and gracious acknowledgment of some,-in the condemnation and rejection of others. If, again, I am told that although there may be no essential change in my position, but only a clearer light,-still walking in that light, I may learn more and more thoroughly to THE USUAL LANGUAGE ÙF JOHN. 449 have had much difficulty about "leaving out the be- ginning," ,vhen he used the ,vord with reference to man and things human. It seems, however, that the spirit of the New Testament precludes us from understanding , eternal' or 'eternity' as having anything to do with duration. This 'was "just tlw lesson ,, hich God had been teaching men by the revelation of himself; "-the lesson, namely, " that nlere negatives are utterly unfit to express his being, his substance." True. But does it follow that negatives cannot be predicated of God at all? It would seem so, according to the author. He traces the education by ,vhich the Jew ,,,"as taught this lesson, and made to "perceive that God's righteousness, his truth, his love, 'were the substantial and eternal things, by seeking which he was delivered from the worship of gods of time and sense, as ,yell as from the more miser- able philosophical abstraction of a God who is merely a negative of time; without beginning and 'without end." And then he quotes the language of John, " The life was '1nanifested, and we have seen it, and 'lce declare unto YOM that ete'ì'nal life whiclt 'lcas 'lvith the Fa tIler, and 'lvltich has been '1Ttanifested to us." It is "a specimen of his usual language ; " and as the author" is bold to say, it interprets all the language of tl1e New TestSlment." Be it so. Certainly the beloved apostle delights to speak of eternal life, to connect it "rith his master and Lord, to identify it with the kno,vledge of him. Jesus himself does so in " his last prayer, if he who reports that prayer did 2F 450 THE LAXGUAGE OF CHRIST. not misinterpret his meaning,"-a strange qualification, a hint, probably, that the only ,yay to get rid of the author's o,vn interpretation of Christ's meaning, is to sup- pose that the evangelist n1isintel'preted it. IIappily there is no occasion to call in question either the reporter's accuracy or the essayist's judgment,-,vhatever may be thought of the taste and Inodesty of his innuendo. It may be admitted that" the eternal life is the righteous- ness and truth and love of God which are n1anifested in Christ Jesus; manifested to Inen, that they may be partakers of them, that they may have fello,vship with the Father and with the Son." Still some questions ,viII renlain. J\[ay not the term' life' sufficiently denote all this? 'The life was manifested; '-He who is the life, -the 'V ord of life. J\Iay there not be SOlne additional idea implied in the adjunct ' eternal? ' Granting it to be the idea of what is most absolute and positive, is it self-evident that it 111ay not also be inclusive of the idea of unlimited duration? (Pp. 446-450.) The truth is, the author seems almost to practise a sleight-of-hand upon himself and his readers. It is the ,vords ' life ancl death' that he eXplains,- not the word 'eternal.' 'Vhat he ;ays about that word in his Corre- spondence arising out of his book, has been considered already (allie, pp. 38-42.) But so far as the present Essay is concerned, the discussion might be said to be simply upon 'life and death,' in the New Testament acceptation of these terms. In that view,. the author " A LONG LIFE CURDLED INTO AN'" nouR." 451 would 111eet with a large measure of concurrence in his statements on the part of intelligent evangelical' divines.' They are accustomed to hold, that 'the kno,vledge of the true God and of Jesus Christ whom he has sent' is the life, the true" blessedness of those who seek God and love hin1," both here and hereafter; and that "the loss of it" is death. They can quite understand ho,v the experience of either condition 111USt be such as the poet describes, ,vhen he speaks of "a long life curdled into an hour." They venture, however, still to be of opinion that all this is compatible with the' life' and the ' death' having connected ",.ith them the element of duration,-that w.hen human beings are concerned, it is not possible to conceive either of the life or of the death apart froin that element,-that ,vhether the duration is or is not endless, is a question which it much concerns us to have settled,-that Scripture must be understood as intending to settle it,-that it does settle it by the use of the word' eternal,' ,vhich, ,vhatever else or ,vhatever more it may denote, excludes the possibility of a termi- nation or a change. The author is fond of n1ixing up together t\yO entirely distinct and separate inquiries, the one concerning the nature of the happiness or misery a,vaiting men, the other concerning its continuance. :l\Iuch of what he says on the subject of the first inquiry is true and valuable; it is, indeed, in substance, ,vhat most preachers ,vould regard as one of the commonplaces of their ministry. 452 SEP ARA TIO:N OF MEN. They labour to teach that the blessedness of heaven must begin on earth, and that it essentially consists in a right kno,vledge of God, a right relation to him, and right affections towards him. The opposite of these things, they also teach, ,vill mainly constitute the torment of hell. Charity, universal charity, is the pure joy of un- fallen spirits and redeemed men. Fear and hatred are the vultures which prey upon the condemned, - the devil and his angels,-the uncharitable who depart into the punishn1ent prepared for their predecessors. But the inquiry concerning the continuance of these two different states of being must still be met as Scripture alone can meet it; unless, indeed, ,ve adopt what ap- pears to be the doctrine of these Essays, that 110 such different states of being are revealed in Scripture at all; that a judicial separation of men into two classes after death is a doting drean1, an ignorant superstition, or a ,vicked device of priestcraft. II. The author rapidly reviews ecclesiastical history. In the primitive ChlU"ch he finds, as he thinks, a large latitude of belief. lIe can trace, on the one hand, the influence of the New Testament doctrine, that eternal life is the kno ? ledge of God and eternaJ punishment or death the ?ant of it,-as ""ell as also the progress of material notions of retribution and re,vard,-in the con- flict of opinions and interests ,vhich resulted in the for- mal doctrine of purgatory. In the more intelligent and spiritual believers of that doctrine,-and in the represen- TETZEL'S DOUBLE ROBBERY. 453 tat ion of it by the poet Dante,-he loecognises the idea of an "ascent, not out of material torn1ents, but out of D10ral evil, into a higher lnoral state;" and in Luther's denunciation of indulgences, he discovers a protest "against the doctrine, that the greatest rew'ard ,vhich the highest pow.er in the Church can hold out, is de- liverance from punishment, not deliverance froin sin." (Pp. 455-457.) "That he says of Luther is the truth, but not the whole truth. "Everything," in Luther's teaching, "turns upon the assertion, that a man requires and desires punishn1ent, not indulgence, ,vhen he has done evil;" and that Tetzel doubly robbed the people of their n10ney, since he not only blasphemously clailned a divine prero- gath-e, but in the exercise of it promised "that ,vhich it is not good for a man to have." This is ,yell said, if by punishment is to be understood fatherly conoection, not judicial condemnation. Luther repudiated the idea of any man being the better for a mere assurance of indul- gence and in)punity. Not thus will the awakened con- science be pacified, or the inlpure heart rene,ved. But the author must kno,v that Luther strenuously asserted, as the antithesis of indulgence or in1punity, justifica- tion, or a judicial act of acquittal and acceptance. lIe ought therefore to kno\y that he is not fairly representing the Reformer's sentilnents ,vhen he gives his o",.n idea of justification as a gloss upon Luther's. And he ought further to kno,v that Luther's doctrine of justification ill- 454 LUTHER'S TEACHING. volved, what Luther himself undoubtedly believed, the final judicial condemnation of those ,vho are not absolved from guilt in this world through a believing appropri- ation of Christ as their substitute and surety. Evidently, the author would leave his readers at this stage under the impression that the tendency of Luther's theology, and of the entire Reformation movement, was against the tenet of eternal punishment. And, indeed., he ascribes it partly to the Jesuit reaction, and partly to an inade- quate recognition of the connexion between the visible and the invisible ,vorld in the different schools of the Reformation, that \vhat he regards as the material con- ceptions of a future state retained, or regained, their sway in the Protestant churches. (P. 459.) He comes no,v to the articles of his o,vn Church, and has thus given occasion for a separate discussion, which for obvious reasons it is not expedient to Inix up here with this analysis of his book. ' rhe modern asserters of the obnoxious tenet remain to be dealt ,vith. III. It has assulned now, very offensively, an active and aggressive fonn; "theologians have in our age be- come entirely positive a'id dogn1atic upon this subject; " they" hold that a Inan is as much bound to sar, 'I be- lieve in the endless punishment of the greater portion of lnankind,' as 'I believe in God the Father, in God the Son, ålld in God the Holy Ghost.' " (P. 462.) If this is 'wit or sarcasm, it is singularly ill-tilned; in every view, unsuitable and unseasonable. If the author, JOH LOCKE. 455 being a serious lnan as he is, had been present to hear the answer to the question, '.i\.re there fe,v that be saved?' it is to be hoped that he .would have felt and o.wned its pú,ver. [ost assuredly he would not have dared, in that presence, to forge such an article as this,-to foist it into the creed,-and charge it upon poor trembling guilty men ,vho have as n1uch charity at least as he has, -and ,,,,ho shudder for themselves ,vhile they speak to others, and testify to them of present grace as ,veIl as of coming judgment and retribution. But he has philosophy on ,, hich he can fall back. He is prepared for a candid and "metaphysical" expla- nation of this modern evangelical mania. 1. John Locke is the convenient scapegoat. He is to England what ...tristotle ,vas to Gem1any; ,vith a diffe- rence, however, rendering his influence more practical and paramount. "...LÌ.ristotle belongs merely to the schools; Locke connects the schools with the world." lIe spoke to the "love of the simple and practical," which is peculiarly English. He" persuaded those who believed very little, not to pretend to believe more than they did." The draw"back was, that he made it difficult to "recover some principles held by their ancestors," which, though not "represented in the dialect of the day," might yet be found to have a substance and meaning in them. Among these the author includes the meaning of the ,yord 'eternity.' I t is "a mere negation of time" according to Locke and a Locke- 456 PROTESTANT IXPIVIDUALITY. . dd . A d . 1 I " l ' t rl en generatIon. ceor lng to t le aut lor, denotes something real, substantial, before all time." I t is not necessary to discuss again this nlctaphysieal question, in stating w.hich the author does not quite fairly put the opposite doctrines. I may differ fronl Locke, and agree ather 'with the author, on the subject of eternity as opposed to time; I may hold eternity to be, not "a mere negation of time," but something positive, independent of time. ..A_nd yet J may con- sistently hold that the idea or element of duration is common to both. ltlost certainly, ho\vever, Locke's philosophy does not much favour 'what seenlS to be the author's notion, that there is an absolute annihilation of time in the spiritual world. But it may be doubted ho,y far such a notion is either consistent \vith common sensc or intelligible by human reason. 2. In comparison \vith the apparently more compre- hensive position ,vhich the Ron1Îsh Church takes up, the author holds that "the distinctiveness, the indi- viduality of Protestantism is its strength." "But close to that strength is its greatest weakness;" "the root of our sectarianism." Then follo\vs the usual representa- tion as to "the religious men, the saved nlen, being looked upon as exceptions to a rule." ..A_nd this ushers in a sort of rriticism on the \vord ' dalnnation.' That ,vord, it appears, according to "its etymology" nleans,- "w.hat it certainly did mean to the Church in former days,"-" the loss of a mighty gift \vhich has been be- GOD REPRESEl\TED AS THE DESl.'ROYER. 457 stowed upon the race." TIut ,ve do not understand it so now. " 1tlen are not regarded as reJecting the counsel oj" God agaz.nst themselves. God is represente(l as the De- stroyer. Nay, divines go the length of asserting-even of taking it for granted-that when Christ taught his disciples to fear, 'not tlten wkich kill the body, and after that ltave no 'lnore tllat they can do,' but' hÙn 'lchicll, after he has killed, llatl" power to cast into liell,' "-he actually ,vas speaking to them of God. ""T" e are conle," it seems, "to such a pass, as actually to suppose that Christ tells those \VhOlll he calls his frtends, not to be afraid of" mere human enemies, "but of that greater enelny ,vho can destroy their very selves, and that this enemy is-not the devil. . . . but that God who cares for the span'o\vs. They are to be afraid lest He 'v ho numbers the hairs of their head should be plotting their ruin." (Pp. 468, 469.) Now, it must be deliberately said that this is neither more nor less than 'a railing accusation.' The critical sagacity ,vhich ,vould rob the martyr or the confessor of the fear of God as his shield against the fear of nlan, and give him instead of that the fear of Satan,-so that ,,,hen he braves death for Christ he may be said to do so, if not slladente, at least nrÙzanle diabolo j-the spiritual tact \vhich finds in God's care of us now a reason for not dreading his displeasure if ,ve prove unfaithful ;-may be left to speak for them- selves. But the solemn truth .which the Lord proclaims cannot be sacrificed either to sickly sentiment or to 458 :MISREPRESENTATION. sarcastic scorn; 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living G.od! ' The author tries to shock and startle us by putting into the lips of the Saviour" the message which, accord- ing to this "-the comlnon-" view of the case, Christ brings from heaven to earth." It is literally given by him in these horrid ,,,"ords; " , Your Father has created mul- titudes wholTI he means to perish for ever and ever. By n1Y agony and bloody sweat, by my cross and passion, I have induced him ill the case of an inconceivably small minority to forego that design.'" He seelns to admit that this is "a blasphemous thought" which ,ve "dare not state as a proposition to ourselves or preach to others." But he evidently thinks that it " has mingled ,vith our belief hitherto; "-he plainly means it to be accepted as the full and fair eXPl'ession of that belief. (P. 470.) "\Ve have been accustomed to this profane ribaldry, for it is nothing better, in the writings of infidels of the school of Paine, and Socinians of the school of Belshaln. Nay, it is almost an injustice to name Belshalll in this conneXlon. "\Vere the theIne not so a,vful, one might smile at the thought of there being a man capable of such extravagance of misrepresentaion. But- , who ,vould not ,veep if Atticus ,vere he ? ' 3. The author can understand ,vhy divines should " crave for some more distinct apprehensions, nay even statements, respecting eternal punishment, than n1Îght perhaps be necessary in former days." lIe supposes PUXISH:ME T- DEATH. 459 them to ask if this is the time for "relaxing the strict- ness of our statements," when among all classes of our countrYlnen the ,vords commonly used upon this subject are losing their power; and "a vague dream of bliss hereafter, into which righteousness and goodness do not enter, which has no relation to God, floats before the minds of numbers, but has just as little po,ver to a" aken them to any higher or better life, as the dread of the future has to keep them from any evil." ..And he replies emphatically ;-" 'Ve do, it seems to me, need to have a lllore distinct and awful idea of eternal death and eternal punishment than we have." )Iaking a distinction between these two things, he justly holds punishment, in the sense he puts upon the word, to be "less dreadful than death;" such punishment implies a punisher, and he who is punishing,lnen believe, "however faintly, to be a Father." "The thought of his ceasing to punish them, of his letting them alone, of his leaving thenl to themselves, is the real, the unutterable horror." {pp. 470-473.) Be it so. There are not w"anting intimations in Scripture that it is so. "''''hy should ye be stricken any more?' 'Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone.' But is not that the very point at ,vhich chastisement, correction, admonition, ceases, and punishment properly so called begins? Noone believing that men are spiri- tual beings can refuse to go along w"ith the author in his vivid picture of the dark and confused struggle be- hveen a man's anticipation of meeting God, and the 460 THE FUTURE CONNECTED \YITH THE PRESENT. shrinking of his ,vhole nature from the loneliness and dreariness of being "friendless, homeless, fatherless." It is 3 struggle ,vhich, even to one" living without God in the ,,-orId," may ,yell be more" appalling" than " any ouhvard terrors you can threaten him ,vith." All this may be true. It is most true that the anguish of ren10rse, the fury of unsa ted passion, and above all the inextinguishable sense of alienation froln the IIoly One from 1vhom escape is impossible,-must be the chief elements of " that second death, of ,vhich all material pictures offer only the L'lintest picture." (P.474.) The author, surely, cannot be so ignorant as to in1agine that this is a vie\v different from that 1vhich evangelical divines are accustomed to enforce. To them as ,veIl as to hin1 the second death is the opposite of the life which consists in the favour and fellowship of God; nor has 11e " the shado,v of a dream" of a ,varrant for alleging, as he evidently means to do, that they" refer the state of eter- nallife and eternal death only to the future." They do not" in any wise identify it ,vith the future," as separate from the present. On the contrary, they solemnly ,yarn every 111an that his state hereafter 1vill be ,,-hat it is "Then he passes hence ;-that there will be continuance, not alteration. .A.ud they solen1nly warn hiln, moreover, that Scripture does 110t hold out the slightest hint or hope of any provision for effecting a change at any stage of his future existence ;-no, nor the least prospect of his exist- ence coming to an end; that so far fron1 that, the express CO TINUED EXISTEKCE. 461 statements ,vhich Scripture makes, and the fundamental principles of the divine government 'which Scripture asserts,-especially in connexion w"ith the proclalnation of mercy,-preclude the idea of another ransom being ever found, or another opportunity being ever given of , believing to the saving of the soul.' This, and this alone, is the real question. It is throwing dust in men's eJ"es to raise a cloudy, wordy discussion about some transcenclental thought supposed to be hid in the term' eternal.' And it is beside the point to create a prejudice by loading' divines' ,vith the obloquy of materialising and making monstrous the doctrine of a future state, upon which, so far as the nature of that state is concerned, they are at least as spiritual and rational as the author himself. The case stands actually thus. ,,-r e live no-w; 'we live after death; we are to live for ever. The author believes that 1ve are. His speculation about 'eternal' does not touch the doctrine of our continued and endless subsistence as living persons; it merely makes out, or tries to make out, tbat when that word qualifies life and death as con- trasted stat s of being,-life as a blessing, death as an evil,-there is no reference to the duration or endurance, but only to the nature, of the blessing indicated on the one hand and the evil characterized on the other. There is not a doubt cast upon the fact, that we are destined not only to survive death, but never to die. The 'whole reasoning implies this. vVell, then. V\T e have a con- 462 D.\.RKNESS OF THE FUTUnE. scious personal existence now--,ve exist no""; ,ve con- tinue to exist-to have a conscious l)ersonal existence, -", hen we die; and ever after, without end. :ßlore- over, ,, hat ,YC are ,yhen ,ve die,-,vhat ,ve are with respect to God,-,vith respect to our state and character toward God,-that ,ye continue to be after death. -\.nd the solelnn inquiry is this: if I am not right \vith God ,, hen I die, is there any gTound for hoping that I ever at any futm'e time shall be? 1. The author himself evidently feels that even upon his o,vn system, it is impossible to conclude certainly that all evil ,vill every,vhere come to an end. "I ask no one," he says, "to pronounce, for I dare not pro- nounce myself, what are the possibilities of resistance in a hUlnan ,vill to the loving will of God. There are tirnes ,vhen they seem to me-thinking of myself more than of others-almost infinite. But I kno\v that there is sOlnething which must be infinite. I am obliged to believe in an abyss of love 1vhich is deeper than the abyss of death."-" I must feel that this love is com- passing the universe. Iore about it I cannot kno,,,". But God knows. I leave myself and all to hÏ111." (P. 476.) He is content, ap )arently, to let shadows, clouds and darkness, rest upon the future state. And let it be observed that they rest alike on the future state of all. So far as the author's meaning may be gathered, not from this passage only but from his whole argument, neither death nor judgment is to any of the children of men the PROLOKGED STRUGGI...E. 463 beginning of a ne,v order of things,-a ne1V manner of dealing ,vith them on the part of God. 'Vith reference to all alike, the present economy, or dispensation, or ,vhatever else it may be called,-the present an-ange- . nlent by which "the loving will of God" and "the hunlan ,vill" are brought into contact ,,,,ith one another, -is to continue uninterrupted; ,yith nlore of discovery, no cloubt,-w"Îth a fuller revelation,-but still in prin- ciple essentially the sa111e. "T"here, then, is the security that evil ,vill ever anywhere conle to an end? Is there any living man, let him have gone ever so far in learning to submit his own human will to the loving váll of God, to whom the thought of an infinite prolongation of ,vhat his experience-even at the best-has been here, would give solid comfort? The author says well that, " thinking of himself more than of others," he sometimes feels as if " the possibilities of resistance" "''"ere " almost infinite." True, every lnan "who kno,ys God-who knows himself - ,vill reply; the nlore he kno,vs God and himself, the more earnestly ,,,"ill he reply; most true. I certainly need not exult over others. I have in myself a ,viII capable of almost infinite resistance to the loving ,viII of my Father; the deep consciousness that I have, causes me all the days of my life, if I rejoice, to rejoice with trembling. And is it nothinp" more than the endless lengthening out of this trembling joy that I am tp look for as my haven of rest,-my recompence of reward,-at last? Is this all of heaven I am ever to 464 CESSATION OF STRUGGLE. taste? Tell me not of a fuller discovery, a fuller revelation, of God and of myself. For anything I no\v feel, I cannot see but that, instead of giving relief, that should adcl ne,v intensity to my sensitive concern. Perhaps, however, it is not to be always thus. I am to reach a stage of advancement at which there is to be no , more trembling,-no more struggle,-no more contend- ing with evil tendencies or an evil spirit,-no more possibility at all of resistance on the part of my human will to the loving will of God. I ask, how? Is it by my being placed in a new position, in ,vhich, my appointecl trial being over, I am to be tried no more? Is it that God brings to an end the discipline by which he has been guiding me here, and takes TIle home to himself, and makes me perfectly like himself, and introduces me to ne'\v scenes and a new society, in which there is no room any more for anything like what Job felt, or Paul, or Christ when he prayed in the garden? That is good news for me,-for l11e, the chief of sinners,-saved by grace alone,-stallding ,yhile here always on the verge of a fall, and standing by faith alone. But it seems to involve the whole matter in debate respecting a judicial procedure, to issue in the acquittal and gracious acknowledgment of some,-in the condemnation and rejection of others. If, again, I am told that although there may be no essential change in my position, but only a clearer light,-still \valking in that light, I may learn more and more thoroughly to ARGUMENTUl\I AD INVIDIAM. 465 go along with the loving will of God, and so may cease to be haunted by any consciousness of possibilities of resistance in my human will,-then I put the case of those 'who pass into that clearer light actually resisting, and continuing to resist, the loving \vill of God,-and I ask what, according to the same law or principle which may seem to minister hope to me, nlust be the inevi- table tendency of the course which they are following? Is it not in the direction of ever-increasing resistance, -an ever-,videning separation? And is there any pro- vision revealed in Scripture, or even imagined by the author, for arresting or changing that course; for' the Ethiopian changing his skin and the leopard his spots, and those learning to do good ,vho are accustomed to do evil?' 2. But in truth the author has no right to raise the question of the duration of future rewards and punish- ments; at any rate' divines' are not called upon to discuss it with him. They have to move a previous question. That previous question has respect to their reality. For the ends of popular declamation, or the a]'gul1'lentU'ln ad invläiam, it is easy to gibbet before the eyes of an admir- ing crowd the preacher \vho would persuade one and all of them, as 'Vhitefield persuaded the Kingswood colliers, to flee from the wrath to come ;-it is easy to make him seem as a demon, whose joy it is to brood over the agony of lost souls,-whose gospel flames with fire and smells of brimstone. The author has incurred responsibility 2G 466 THE PRESE T STATE-THE FUTUUE. enough on that score. But a theologian ought to kno\v that tIle subject must be approached from another point of view al together. Are men to be separa ted in to t\VO classes? Is the separation to be a judicial act? These are the primary elements of the inquiry. As to the first, it is not nec ssary for the present purpose to deter- mine when or how the separation is to be made. That it is made really, as regards individuals, at death;- publicly and collectively, as regards the whole race, at the coming of Christ,-is the common belief. Nor as to the second point, is there any propriety in drawing on fancy for the details of a great world-assize. The two questions stand in their bare and naked simplicity; Are men to be separated into two classes, at and after death, according to the deeds done in the body? Is the stpa- ration of them to be, on the part of God, a judicial act? , Divines' answer both of these questions in the affirma- tive. According to them, the Bible, from first to last, teaches that there is a radical, fundamental, vital diffe- rence, between the present state of things 011 the earth, and the state into w.hich the inhabitants of the earth are passing, and which is comlnonly and conveniently called the future state. Of course it is not future in one sense; since it is already in existence, and we have im- portant relations to it no,v. But to all living men it is practically the future state; and with deference to the author's hypercriticism, the expression may, for bre- vity's sake, be allowed. Now, the point of contrast DISPEXSATION OF FORBEARAKCE. 467 behveen the present state and the future state is, that nlen are mixed indiscriminately in the one, that they are separated by a final judgment in the other. Ien, even here, are reducible, at any given moment, to two classes, -those whom God justifies, and those whom God con- demns. They are known to God as belonging to the one class, or as belonging to the other; but they are not known to one another; often not to themselves; and above all, there is no fixed line or ' great gulph ' to pre- vent any from passing out of the one class into the other. Then, again, God does not seem, in his treatment of them, to make a marked or unequivocal distinction be- hveen them. There are, no doubt, indications of his favouring really, though not outwardly, the one class; and there are instincts within, and events without, which give no insignificant hint of ,vhat may ultimately be his manner of dealing 'with the other. But in the mean time God exercises over them a common providence, and proclaims to all of them a common message of mercy. So long as that message is proclaimed, the separation of the two classes is not stereotyped or confirmed. ' rhe acceptance of the message at any time transfers a living man from the class of the condemned to the class of the justified. All this Scripture traces to the forbearance, the long-suffering of God. It is the suspension of a judicial sentence lying upon all men for their sins. It is a suspension granted in order that there may be a pro- clamation of mercy to all ;-emphatic warning "being at 468 PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE. the same time given, that if the message is not believed, the sentence must continue in force, with all the aggrava- tion of guilt which a refusal of grace implies. These considerations necessarily point to a time when God is to change his method of government over men individually, and over the racf. For the present, viewing it broadly, it is a government of suspended judgment and offered mercy. Sentence.is not executed, because a ministry of grace is going fonvard. But this very circumstance implies that in some future day the govemn1ent is to take again the judicial form and character, and men are to receive according to their deeds, either good or evil. According to these vie\vs, the separation of men here- after into two classes, upon a judicial principle, is to be eXplained in connexion with their being at present mixed together, upon a principle of forbearance; as well as also in accordance with the economy of mercy which the gospel reveals. They are not views \vhich the author will admit. They have been already under discussion in this examination of the Essays, and indeed all through- out. In point of fact it is here that the doctrine of a future state held commonly by 'divines,' presses hard upon" the principle of the author's 'whole book." He \vould have his readers to believe that it is "the notion of everlasting punishment after death,"-the notion of its being everlasting,-that contradicts the principle of this book. It really is not so. It is the notion of there being any judgment, or any punishment at all,-in the EVERLASTING ISSUES. 469 plain, common-sense meaning of these \vords. 'Vill he grant that God is about to separate the righteous into a class by themselves,-the evil into a class by them- selves; to confer upon the good some new privilege-. some new element of happiness which they do not now possess; to inflict upon the evil some new deprivation -some new element of misery beyond what is now their portion? He cannot; for it cuts up by the roots his wllole theology. And he will not, for another reason also. He is too shre\vd not to see, that if but that much is held to be true, neither Scripture nor reason affords any,varrant whatever for limiting the duration of what the righteous are to enjoy and ",-hat the evil are to suffer; that, on the contrary, if there is actual, forensic judgment, both Scripture and reason demand a judg- . h 1 .. 1.- ment 'WIt ever ashng Issues. . 3. Anything like a full examination of the evidence which forces upon' divines' the belief which this Essay so unbecomingly stigmatizes is not to be attempted here. A single observation is suggested by one of the coarsest of those revilings into which his entire loss of temper and patience on this subject has betrayed the author. He dares to address, "especially to the clergy," these words: -" The doctrine of endless punishment is avowedly put forward as necessary for the reprobates of the world, the publicans and harlots, though perhaps religious men might dispense with it. Now I find in our Lord's dis- courses, that when he used such words as these, , 1""e 470 HOW THE DOCT:hINE IS PREACHED. serpents, ye generat'ion of vipers, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell?' he was speaking to religious men, to doctors of the law; but that when he "' ent among pub- licans and sinners, it was to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God." Is this wit? for it is not wisdom. Is it decent to trifle with the words of Jesus? Is it the author's opinion that Christ is in these words teaching the doctrine of endless punishment as necessary for reli- gious men,-doctors of the law? But, seriously, does the author find the clergy making use of the doctrine, whether among publicans and sinners, or among' Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' ever at any other time, or in any other connexion, than at the very time when they are preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and in connexion ,vith the preaching of it? This, indeed, is the only use which they are required to make of it,-the only use which they can ever find it in their hearts to make of it. It is a libel to say that they employ the doctrine of endless punishment merely to restrain the reprobate, or, indeed, that they employ it for that purpose at alL It is a worse and more heartless libel to insinuate that they feel complacency when they consign to that doom whole multitudes indiscriminately, whose measures of light, and circumstances of trial, God only can kno"\v. No! v'Vhen J speak of that theme, I speak of it with exclusive reference to myself and those ,vho hear me. r dare Dot keep it back: it is part of the whole counsel of God. I must testify that there is a judgment to WE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. 471 come, and an endless retribution thereafter. But it is to n1yself and to them that I apply the testimony. I have nothing to do with the threatening of wrath against others. I t is the threatening of 'wrath against myself,- against my hearers,-which alone is either their concern or mine. And it is their concern and mine all the more, because 'the kingdom of God is come nigh' to us both. e 'Vhat have we to do,' I cry,-' either you or I,-with the punishment to ,vhich those may be justly liable who have never had our advantages, our opportunities, our exemption from temptation, the preaching of this gospel which is now sounding in our ears? Let us think of ourselves. vVe, at least, are without excuse. vVhatever may be the measure of the guilt of others, ours must be all the greater for this very message of warning and of nlercy, if we refuse to listen, and believe, and be saved.' I thank God continually that it is in preaching the gos- pel of the kingdon1 I am called to speak of the ,vrath to come; but woe unto me if I leave any to whom I preach that gospel under the inlpression that they may cast a,vay from them the fear of suffering, and that for end- less ages, the vengeance of eternal fire! CHAPTER XI. CONCLUDIXG OBSERVATIONS. "\tV RILE engaged in passing the preceding chapters through the press, I received the follo"\ving anonymous letter. I would not in ordinary circumstances notice such a communication. But it is so evidently genuine and earnest, and it furnishes so good a text for "\vhat J ,vish to say in closing my remarks, that I am tempted to avail myself of it: "1 lately saw from the Glasgow F'loee Church Guardian, that you had been lecturing against that great-minded man Iaurice. No doubt he has his faults, but he surely cannot be the heretic you make him to be. He has strengthened and comforted many a waverer in the faith of God's Son. "Surely he cannot be the dangerous teacher you have repre- sented him, or the Archbishop of Canterbury would not have expressed his confidence in the soundness of Bishop Colenso of Natal, who thus writes of faurice to the Archbishop:- 'In company with a thousand others, I do love and honour 1\11' laurice 38 a great religious teacher. But I do not in all points-nor in some material points-agree with him, as my sermons sufficiently shew. I have said that he, more than any other living writer, has taught me to bring the great fact of the Incarnation of our Lord to bear upon the commonest doings of DR COLE!\SO. 473 my daily life. In all my own life-struggle, and in all my inter- course and labours with my fellow-men, he has taught me to fix my faith upon a Person, an ever-present Lord and Iaster, not upon a system of doctrines, however good and scriptural. He has taught me also to bring that great fact to bear upon the con- dition of the heathen world, and to realize the full meaning of that truth which I was taught from my childhood, that I learn from the Creed to believe in God the Son, who both redeemed me and all mankind.' See more in 'A Letter to his Grace,' &c. " The Archbishop writes to Dr Colenso, with full confidence in him and his teaching. See his Grace's letter in the London Guardian of 7th December. " I would further add, that a bishop has, within the last few days, recommended the writer of this to put 1\Iaurice's Theologi- cal Essays into the hands of a person earnestly seeking the truth, but in difficulty and distress on some points, more particularly bearing on the Atonement of our Lord. I must add, that this bishop does not approve of Ir Iaurice's last Essay." Dr Colenso has indicated what is probably the most attractive feature of 1\11' l\Iaurice's theological teaching, -the prominence given to the Incarnation of our Lord as fÌ.."'{ing our faith upon a Person, not upon a systenl of doctrines. This antithesis or contrast is the charm. A system of doctrines is supposed to come in between us and the Ii ving person of our ever- presen t Lord and Iaster,-to set him aside and occupy his place. N O\V, it may be true that this is sometimes the effect of syste- matic theology; nay, it may be admitted that this is a tendency against which both students and teachers of it require to be continually on their guard. Christ, and not certain truths about Christ,-an actual, living, per- sonal Christ, not far off, but nigh nle, in me,-is the 474 FAITH IN A LIVING PERSON. object of my believing apprehension, my believing and affectionate embrace. The union effected by the Holy Spirit between me, the sinner, and Christ, the Saviour, is real and personal; and it is realized as personal by faith. "\Vhat there is in Ir l\Iaurice's manner of pre- senting the Incarnation that tends peculiarly to fix our faith upon a living person, it might be interesting to inquire. Certainly, in so far as it does so, it is to be highly commended; and in so far as other divines make any system of doctrines about Christ stand for Christ hin1self, they are to be condemned. It must be observed, however, that according to the theology of these Essays, the Incarnation is the one single fact in the history of Christ that has, or can have, any real doctrinal signifi- cancy. It is the only one of the events recorded con- cerning him in respect of \vhich he stands alone; all the others are common to him and all mankind, and have no other meaning in his case than in theirs. Hence this theology has the advantage of great apparent simplicity as compared with the ordinary theology; it is less in danger of fixing our faith on a systelll of doctrines instead of a living person; for in fact it has only one doctrine properly so called in its Christology, and that one doctrine is, that Christ is a living person. But the question still remains,-do the other doctrines commonly taught concerning Christ,-in particular those concern- ing his vicarious obedience, his atoning death, his re- surrection, his ascension, his sitting at the right hand EMBRACIXG CHRIST. 475 of God, his coming again to judge the world, - really complicate the system so as to keep in the background or in the shade the living Saviour? That they may be taught in a harcl, dry, and as it were impersonal manner, tending almost to give the impression that the Saviour himself, as ,veIl as his ,york of salvation, is a mere instrument or expedient to be taken advantage of for securing a selfish end,-is quite true. But ,vhen rightly taught, have they any such tendency? Let me be moved and enabled to embrace the eternal Son, the Ian Christ Jesus, as my substitute actually taking my place under the law which I have violated, fulfilling on my behalf all its righteousness, bearing the burden of my criminality,-of my condemnatioll,-expiating the guilt of my sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of hilllseif. Let me embrace him also as my surety, representative and head, rising from the grave, passing into the heavens, pleading my cause, nding over all things for me, giving the Holy Spirit to assure me of his uninterrupted sympathy and love, of his presence ,vith me always, not indeed in the body, yet so that by faith I may apprehend him as ever at my right hand, ever in my heart. Let me embrace him finally as my }(ing, Lord and Judge, who is con- tinually judging, trying, correcting me now, and whom I expect to see con1ing again in glory;-to vindicate right-to redress wrong-to end the long strife of minglecl good and evil-to bring the dispensation of for- bearance and grace, with all the questions it occasions, 476 REDE}.IPTION OF ALL MANKIND. to a righteous close,-to welcome the loyal subjects of his Father into the many mansions of his Father's house,- to give terrible proof that in the character of the Holy God, and in his government of the world, retributive justice is a reality. Let me thus embrace Christ, and I surely feel that it is not with a system of doctrines I am dealing,-that it is no cloud of words I am taking to my heart,-that it is a living person whom I am grasping,-rather who is grasping me, 'whom, having not seen, I love; in whom, though now I see hÎ1n not, yet believing, I rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; receiving the end of my faith, the salvation of my soul.' This is something more than the Incarnation as the author represents it, and ,vith deference to the Bishop of Natal, it is something better. The other benefit for which Dr Colenso owns his obligation to his friend's teaching on the subject of the Incarnation is, that it has taught him to realize the full meaning of the truth, , I learn from the Creed to believe in God the Son, ,vho hath redeemed me and all n an- kind.' This also is an attractive feature in the author's theology; it appears so when it is contrasted with the more narrow and exclusive if not selfish vie,vs, as they are alleged to be, of those who consider, either that the purchase of redemption, or that at all events the saving application of redemption, is limited to a portion of mankind,-what portion or what proportion they do not pretend to say. As this is a very favourite topic with CAL VINISTS- AR)IINIANS. 477 the author himself, which he is continually casting in the teeth of' divines,' at the expense not only of charity and temper but of decency and good manners,-and as it is one ,vhich did not fall to be discussed very formally or fully in the examination of the Essays, a few re- marks upon it may not be unsuitable here. It is an old maxim in logic, C quo maJm. exte1'i,sio, minor comprehensio.' The wider the extent is to which you apply a term, the less can you comprehend in the term itself. If redemption is co-extensive with the race of man de facto as well as de Jure,- if Christ has redeemed all mankind, not merely in the sense of his incarnation, obedience, and atoning death being available for all men, but in the sense of this entire work of his being actually and effectually of avail, and of equal avail, to all men, -the amount of benefit implied in such a universal redemption must be small indeed. No doubt, if the doctrine of universal salvation is connected with it, the benefit is large enough; but the bishop, it seems, repudiates that doctrine, and the author will not commit himself to it. Setting it aside, therefore, I ask what does this redemption of all mankind include or compre- hend? Nor do I touch here the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. 'Vhether in any sense Christ died for all men, and if so, in ,vhat sense,-may be a question l intra 'nHtros n'iacos,' among those who believe that his death is a real and actual propitiatory sacrifice. The most exclusive ultra-Calvinist will not 478 ACTUAL STATE OF THE HEATHEN. deny that mankind universally are indebted to the Cross, for he ascribes to the Cross the universal dispensation of forbearance and the universal offer of mercy. The most liberal evangelical Arminian ,viII tell you, that although the atoning sacrifice is offered for all, none are in point of fact savingly int rested in it unless they are converted and born again,-unless they repent and believe; he will tell you, also, that in the case of all who believe, the atonement effects a positive change of condition, deliver- ing them from all condemnation and restoring thenl to the favour and fello,vship of God. But the view which the author holds is very different. According to him, whatever change the incarnation or the atonement of Christ is fitted and designed to effect, is effected already in the case of all alike; universal humanity is already redeemed, regenerated, glorified; and there is absolutely nothing which a believing man can say that he owes to Christ beyond what all men universally, whatever may be their state and character, owe to him. How such a redemption of all mankind can afford relief or satisfac- tion in the view of the condition of the heathen, except upon the hypothesis of ultimate universal ,;alvation, Dr Colenso may be able to eXplain. But, in fact, is it not with the actual state of the heathen that we have practically to do? It is that which gives them a claim upon our regard, and lays upon us a duty towards them. A missionary bishop would doubtless be the last man to welcome any doctrine or speculation on account of CO f IAND OF CHRIST. 479 its being fitted to mitigate our horror of heathenism, to lessen our feeling of obligation to,vard the heathen or our sense of the urgency of their case. The teaching of his friend must be felt by him as having an entirely opposite effect upon his own mind. Still, it must be observed that the line of thought in question is, to say the least of it, not parallel to what is suggested by a near view of the deplorable darkness and degradation in ,vhich so many of our fellow-men at home and abroad are sunk, or by an earnest study of our Lord's command, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.' The theory of a redeemed humanity is not necessarily inconsistent with the utmost tenderness of sympathy and the utmost promptitude in action. There may be those ,vho find in it a motive to deeper pity and more energetic effort. At the same time, these two con- siderations,-their miserable case and my Lord's last command,-are surely enough to influence and guide TIle in the discharge of my duty towards the heathen,- towards all ungodly men. And I may warrantably feel that I have no right to look beyond ;-that if at any time the vast thought of the' dark places of the earth still full of the habitations of cruelty,' is apt to prove too appalling and altogether over,vhelming to my soul, the legitimate Scriptural remedy is to be found, not in any more favourable or sanguine contemplation of humanity in the abstract, or humanity en masse, but in more special exertions for the deliverance of human 480 CHRIST THE LIGHT OF MEN. beings, as I have access to them, and more unceasing and importunate prayer for a divine blessing upon the exertions of others. These exertions must, of course, be in accordance with the vie,vs which I hold on the subject of the redeelning work of the Son and the regenerating ,york of the Spirit. But they need not be at all the less compassionate or the less hopeful because the message I have to can'y, and to help others in carrying, is ;-that the Father giveth the Son to be a real propitiation for guilt of deepest dye, and the Spirit to effect a real and radical change, a gracious and happy renovation, in natures the most hardened and depraved, in hearts the most desperately wicked. There are some other points on which a word or two might be said. In particular, it might be interesting to trace every,vhere and always in the world the presence of the eternal, living VV ord who is the light of men, and the influence of the darkness in which it shines, every- where and ahvays obscuring, quenching it ;-to illustrate this great principle in its historical application to all ages, nations, and religions, both before and since the publi- cation of Christianity. The subject has an impol.tant bearing on the inquiries ill ,vhich I have been engaged; but the discussion of it is by far too serious for me; especially here and now, at the end of a volume. I rather choose to close with a single general observation on the one great question raised by these Essays. That question, as it seems to me, concerns the nature GOVER )lE T OP LA 'V. 481 of the government of God. Is it a governlnent of la,,- t Does God rule intelligent beingg by a la,\? ? Certainly, I may be told. Who doubts it? The government of God is a government of la,v,-of the la,v of love. But I nlust be allowed again to ask, In what sense is it a gov- ernment of la,v? For the familiar use of the expression, 'laws of nature,' has introduced an ambiguity into this phrase. "\Vhat is a government of law, a. government by law? If I am absolutely dependent upon a being po - sessed of certain tastes, under the influence, let it be gupposed, of a particular ruling passion,-if he and I are inseparably bound together so that I must make up my mind to receive all my good from him and find all my good in him, such as he is,-then in his tastes, in hi:;: fuling passion, I have a law, conformity to 'which is the condition of my well-being. Obviously, ho,vever, this ruling passion in him is a law to me, in precisely the same sense in which any quality in matter is a la,v to Ine; in that sense and in no other. Iy iutinlate con- nexion with the material world makes conforn1ity to the unchanging principles, according to which its nlovement proceed, a condition of my well-being as a creature en- dowed with a physical nature. ßI y intimate connexion with the being or person with whom I an1 living and anl always to live, makes conformity to the unchanging principle or habit or ruling passion according to ,vhich he uniformly feels and acts, the condition of my well- being as a being elldo,ved ,vith the capacity of feeling 2 H 482 GOD A :MORAL RULEU. and acting as he does. Let his ruling passion be pure charity or love. Then, in one sense, there is a law of love brought into contact with my ,viII. The Jaw of love is unbending, and it has in it an element of ",-rath against the unlovely. l\Iy will is perverse, apt to incline to- \vards subjection to a usurping tyrant or an intruding - tempter, capable of almost infinite resistance. But the la\vof love works steadily on,-it unfolds and reveal itself, - it em bodies itself in action, - it is n1anifested wonderfully in a redeeming and regenerating economy,-. and ultin1ately one cannot see ho\v it can fail to bring my ,viII, and every reasonable will, into accordance váth it- self. For anything I can perceive, government by la\v in any other sense than this, is not recognised at all in the theology of these Essays. It is needless to add that the ,,-hole theology of those who are commonly considered orthodox and evangelical divines, is based upon an en- tirely different conception both of government and of law. According to them, it is an administrative govern- lllent that God exercises, a government embracing in it legislation, judicial procedure, calling to account, a,vard- ing sentences; it is an authoritative law, with distinct sanctions annexed to it, that God promulgates and f'nforces. This is \vhat they understand when they Rpeak of God being a moral Rlùer as .well as a holy and loving Father. They cannot rid themselves of the im- pression, that both Scripture and conscience attest the reality of such a government and such a law. It is MAX FREE AND RESPOXSIßLE. 483 under that impression that they draw out from Scripture, to meet the anguish of conscience, those views of the guilt of sin and its complete expiation, the corruption of nature and its thorough renovation,-those views of pardon, peace, reconciliation, reward,-which they de- light to urge upon all men in the nan1e of Him ,,,ho 'hath no pleasure in the death of the ,vicked, but that the ,vicked should turn unto him and live.' And it is under the same impression that they think they find in the essential freedom of the .will of man, as a respoll- Bible agent,-an explanation, on the one hand, of the possibility of evil entering into the universe under the rule of a good and holy God; and on the other hand also, a probable explanation of the impossibility of there being any provision of mercy brought within the reach of men, which does not in1ply a provision also for the case of that mercy being neglected or refused. THE EXD. BALL\!-.TY E, PRIKTER, EDI Bt7RGH. ..