Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
^
*
' ^d
13
^#|MS
m
«»«y^a- ,
A
^smk
^
'
i
%%, fO;
1
■
L^lS; J
r
s.
LIBRARY
DIVINITY SCHOOL.
«
GIFT OF
o-^ ft/LO-lA
L
■■■iBi!^'^'
^
Q
ORTHODOXY:
ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
BY
JAMES FREEMAN CLAllKE.
'* Soleo enim in aliena castra transire, non tanqutun transfUga, bqA taeaqj^jsm.
explorator." — BKSEOAi JS>pistol(B,2.
" Fiat lax. Cupio refelli, ubi aberrtlLriin ; nihil majUd,.ilibil aliud quam yeri-
tatem ofllagito." —Thomas Burnet, Arch. Phil.
FIFTH EDITION.
BOSTON:
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.
1868.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 180C, by the
American Unitarian Association,
In the Clerk*8 Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Focmdiy,
No. 4 Spring Lane.
rresswork by John Wilson and Son.
By
ml
PKEFACE.
The Protestant Eeformation has its Principle and
its Method. Its Principle is Salvation by Faith, not
by Sacraments* Its Method is Private Judgment, not
Church Authority. But private judgment generates
authority ; authority, first legitimate, that of knowledge,
grows into the illegitimate authority of prescription,
calling itself Orthodoxy. Then Private Judgment comes
forth again to criticise and reform. It thus becomes the
duty of each individual to judge the Church ; and out
of innumerable individual judgments the insight of the
Church is kept living and progressive. We contribute
one such private judgment ; not, we trust, in conceit,
but in the hope of provoking other minds to further
examinations.
(lii)
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
•
INTRODUCTION.
TAom
§ 1. Object and Character of this Book 1
2. Prog^ress requires that we should look back as well as forward. . . 8
3. Orthodoxy as Right Belief. 6
4. Orthodoxy as' the Doctrine of the Majority. Objections 7
5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine. Objections 9
6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held by all 10
7. Orthodoxy, as a Formula, not to be found 10
8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions 11
9. Substantial Truth and Formal Error in all great Doctrinal Systems. 13
10. Importance of this Distinction 15
11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England 17
CHAPTER II.
THE PRINCIPLE AND IDEA OF ORTHODOXY STATED AND
EXAMINED.
§ 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined 19
2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy 19
3. Orthodoxy assumed to be the Belief of the Minority 20
4. Heterodoxy thus becomes sinful 20
6. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads to Rome. ... 22
6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument 23
7. The three Tendencies in the Church 26
8. The Party of Works 28
9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity 30
10. The Faith Party in Religion 31
11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea 31
12. Error in the Orthodox Principle 85
13. Faith, Knowledge, Belief, Opinion .37
a* (V)
VI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION;
OR, NATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM.
•
§ 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural 43
2. The Creation Supernatural 44
3. The Question stated 45
4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from succcsHive Geologic Creations. 45
6. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom 47
6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violations of Law 48
7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events oO
8. The Error of Orthodox Super naturalism 50
0. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supematuralism 51
10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supematuralism — Gulf between Chris-
tianity andiall other Religions 54
11. Christianity considered unnatural as well as supernatural by being
made hostile to the Nature of Man 67
CHAPTER IV.
TRUTHS AND ERRORS AS REGARDS MIRACLES.
§ 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Miracles. . . . . » 58
2. The Definition of a Miracle 58
3. The different Explanations of the Miracles of the Bible 61
4. Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles 66
5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity 68
6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as Historic Facts. 74
7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in History 76
8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections 80
9. Final Result of this Examination 85
CHAPTER V.
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY
OF THE BIBLE.
§ 1. Subject of this Chapter. Three Views concerning the Bible 87
2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the World, and Ago of Mankhid. . . 89
3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration 94
4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration 98
5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration 101
6. Inspiration of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament
Scriptures 106
7. Authority of the Scriptures 112
8r The Christian Prepossession 122
9. Conclusion 128
CONTENTS. VU
CHAPTER VI.
ORTHODOX IDEA OF SIN, AS DEPRAVITY AND AS GUILT.
§ 1. The Question stated 130
2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil — the Fall, Natural De-'
pravity, Total Depravity, Inability 130
3» Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or other-
wise .* 133
4. Sin as Disease 134
6. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity — their Truth
and Error 136
6. Examination of Romans, 5 : 12-21 141
7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability 146
8. Proof Texts 147
9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity 152
10. AbiUty and InabiUty. . . . • 158
11. Orthodox Doctrine of Inability 163
12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concerning human
Sinfulness 166
CHAPTER VII.
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION.
§ 1. Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man can be
found 174
2. Crisis and Development 175
3. Nature of the Change 176
4. Its Reality and Importance 177
6. Isitthe Work of God, or of the Man himself? Orthodox Difficulty. 178
6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and Regeneration. . 178
7. Men may be divided, religiously , ^to three Classes, not two. ... 179
. 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration 181
9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church 182
10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and be converted 3 that is,
to make it his Purpose to obey God in all Things 185
11. Regeneration is God's Work in tlic Soul. Examination of the Clas-
sical Passage, or Conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. . • • 186
12. Evidences of Regeneration 196
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE SON OF GOD.
§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated • 202
2. This Doctrine gradually developed 202
3. Unitarian Objections 203
4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine 204
5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement 206
6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism 208
Vm CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IX.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
fl. Tbls Doctrine of Paal not obsolete « « » • 210
2. ' Its Meaning and Importance • 212
8. Need of Justification for tlie Conscience 216
4. Reaction of Sin on the Soul 218
6. Different Methods of obtaining- Forgivcnest. 220
6. Method in Christianity 222
7. Result 224
8. Its History in the Church 225
9. Orthodox Errors, at the present Time, in Regard to Justification by
Faith, 228
10. Errors of Liberal Christians 231
CHAPTEE X.
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT.
$ 1. Oonfasion in the Orthodox Statement « < « • /235
2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine «... 237
3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture 238
4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages 239
6. Theological Theories based on the l^gurative Language of the New
Testament 240
6. The three principal Views of the Atonement — warlike, legal, and
governmental 243
7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of his Disciples.
First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews. . . 243
8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education 245
9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some Satisfaction in
order to our Forgiveness 245
10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to God 247
11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal 251
12. This Law illustrated from History — in the Death of Socrates^ Joan
of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln 254
13. Dr. Bushnell's View of the Atonement 259
14. Results of this Discussion 2G0
CHAPTER XI.
CALLING, ELECTION^ AND REPROBATION.
$1. Orthodox Doctrine. • « « « • 266
2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine 269
3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom 271
4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestination 272
0. Election is to Work and Opportunity here, not to Heaven hereafter.
How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a Chosen Peo-
ple - 276
CONTENTS. IX
6. How other Nations were elected and called 278
7. How different Denominations ^re elected 279
8. How Individuals are elected 279
9. How Jesus was elected to be the Christ 281
10. Other Ulustrations of Indiyiduol Calling and Election 282
CHAPTER XII.
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
§1. Orthodox Doctrine. . •* 285
2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught by Reason, the Instinctive
Consciousness, and Scripture 280
3. The Three Principal Views of Death— the Pagan, Jewish, and
Christian 289
4. Eternal Life, as taught in the New Testament, not endless Future
Existence, but present Spiritual Life 290
5. Resurrection, and its real Meaning, as a Rising up, and not a RiBing
again 304
0. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testament, not a
Rising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into a higher
Body 315
CHAPTER XIII.
CHRIST'S COMING, USUALLY CALLED THE "SECOND COMING,"
AND CHRIST THE JUDGE OF THE WORLD.
§ 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future, not wholly outward, not
local, nor material 324
2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture 325
3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Coming of Christ ? 326
4. Examination of the Account of Christ's coming given by Jesus in
Matthew 328
5. Coming of Christ in Human History at different Times 333
6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins, and of the Talents, to Christ's
Coming 336
7« Relation of the Account of the Judgment by the Messiah, in Matt.
ch. 25, to his Coming 337
8. How Christ is, and how ho is not, te judge the World 338
9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place 343
10. Paul's View of the Judgment by Christ , 347
11. Final Result ; 350
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIV.
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ANNIHILATION, UNIVERSAL RESTO-
RATION.
§ 1. Different Views concerning the Ck)ndition of the Impenitent here-
after 352
2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, as held by the Orthodox
at the Present Time 353
3. Apparent Contradictions, both in Scripture and Reason, in Regard
to this Doctrine 362
4. Ererlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignity of Cod 306
6. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love of Cod. . . 367
6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Everlasting Punish-
ment 371
7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment in Scripture 375
8. How Judgment J>y Christ is connected with Punishment 382
9. The Doctrine of Annihilation 885
10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration 38(3
CHAPTER XV.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
§1. The Question stated 391
2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church — Roman Catholic and High
Church 393
3. TheProtestant Orthodox Idea of the Church 390
4. Christ's Idea of a Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven 399
5. Church of the Leaven, or the Invisible Church 403
6. The phurch of the Mustard-seed 405
7. Primitive and Apostolic Church, or Church as it was 406
8. The Actual Church, or (Church as it is 410
9. The Church Ideal, or Church as it ought to be 417
10. The Church Possible, or Church as it can be 419
CHAPTER XVI.
THE TRINITY.
9 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine 423
2. History of the Doctrine 426
3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity 428
4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of Things. . . 432
5. It is in Harmony with Scripture 434
6. Practical Value ofthe Trinity, when rightly understood. ..... 436
I
CONTENTS. XI
APPENDIX.
CBITICAL NOTICES.
§ 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Spencer and
Henry L. Mansel 441
2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration, by Gaussen 449
3. Defence of the DoctriucLthat Sin is a Nature, by Professor Bhcdd. . 465
4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment, by Dr. Nehemiah Adams and
Dr. J. P. Thompson 465
6. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D 480
ORTHODOXY:
ITS TEUTHS AND EEEORS.
CHAPTER L
mTEODUCTION.
§ 1. Ohjed and Character of thu Book. — The pecnliarity
of the book now offered to the religious public by the govern-
ment of the American Unitarian Association, is this — that
it is an honest attempt to find and state the truth contained
in the doctrines of their opponents. It is, perhaps, something
new for an association established to defend certain theo-
logical opinions, and baptized with a special theological
name, to publish a work intended to do justice to hostile the-
ories. The too usual course of each sect has been, through
all its organs, to attack, denounce, undervalue, and vilify
the positions taken by its antagonists. This has been con-
sidered as only an honest zeal for truth. The consequence
has been, that no department of literature has been so un-
christian in its tone and temper as that of sectarian contro-
versy. Political journals heap abuse on their opponents, in
the interest of their party. But though more noisy than the
theological partisans, they are by no means so cold, hardf
1 (i>
2 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
or unrelenting. Party spirit, compared with sectarian spirit,
seems rather mild.*
It is true that theologians do not now use in controversy
the epithets which were formerly universal. We have
grown more civil in our language than were our fathers.
It is also true that we often meet with theological discussions
conducted in a spirit of justice towards one's opponents, t
But to say, " Fas est ab hoste doceri" is a step as yet
beyond the ability of most controversialists. To admit
that your antagonist may have seen some truth not visible
to yourself, and to read his work in this sense, — in order to
learn, and not merely to confute, — is not yet common.
This we are about to undertake in the present treatise.
We stand in the Unitarian position, but shall endeavor to
Bee if there be not some truths in Orthodoxy which Unita-
rians have not yet adequately recognized. To use the lan-
guage of our motto — we come "not as deserters, but as
explorers" into the camp of Orthodoxy. We are satisfied
with our Unitarian position, as a stand-point from which to
"Survey that of others. And especially are we grateful to it,
since it encourages us by all its traditions, by all its ideas
♦ The following passage, from an article in the «« Independent," by Henry
Ward Beech'er, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one who has <* sum-
mered it and wintered it " with Orthodoxy : —
«* Does anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such sharp
articles upon the great religious newspapers, < The Observer,' * The Intelli-
gencer,' and the like ? O, pray do not think it from any iU will. It is all kind-
ness ! We only do it to keep our voice in practice. We have made Orthodoxy
a study. And by an attentive examination of * The Presbyterian,' *■ The Ob-
server,' <The Puritan Recorder,' and such like unblemished confessors, we
have perceived that no man is truly sound who does not pitch into somebody
that is not sound; and that a real modem orthodox man, like a nervous watch
dog, must sit on the door-stone of his system, and bark incessantly at every-
thing that comes in sight along the highway. And when there is nothing to
bark at, either he must growl and gnaw his reserved bones, or bark at the moon
to keep up the sonorousness of his voice. And so, for fear that the sweetness
of our temper may lead men to think that we have no theologic zeal, we lift up
an objurgation now and then — as much as to say, * Here we are, fierce and
orthodox ; ready to growl when we cannot bite.' "
t Thus Theodore Parker (*« Experience as a Minister") speaks of a review
Of his " Discourse on Beligiou " in a Trinitarian worlc, which did it no ii^ustice.
INTRODUCTION. 8
and principles, to look after as well as before — to see if
there be no truth behind us which we have dropped in
our hasty advance, as well as truth beyond us to which we
have not yet attained.
§ 2. Progress requires that we should look hack as well as
forward, — Such a study as this may be undertaken in the
interest of true progress, as well as that of honest inquiry.
For what so frequently checks progress, causes its advocates
to falter, and produces what we call a reaction towards the
old doctrines, as something shallow in the reform itself?
Christians have relapsed into Judaism, Protestants into Ro-
manism, Unitarians into Orthodoxy — because something
true and good in the old system had dropped out of the new,
and attracted the converts back to their old home. All true
progress is expressed' in the saying of Jesus, " I have not
come to destroy, but to fulfil." The old system cannot pass
away until all its truths are fulfilled^ by being taken up into
the new system in a higher form. Judaism will not pass
away till it is fulfilled in Christianity — the Roman Catholic
Church will not pass away till it is fulfilled in Protestantism
— Orthodoxy will not pasg away till it is fulfilled by Rational
Christianity. Judaism continues as a standing protest, on
behalf of the unity of God, against Trinitarianism.
And yet we believe that, in the religious progress of the
race, Christianity is an advance on Judaism, Protestant
Christianity an advance on Roman Catholic Christianity,
and Liberal and Rational Christianity an advance on Church
Orthodoxy. But all such advances are subject to reaction
and relapse. Reaction differs from relapse in this, that it is
an oscillation, not a fall. Reaction is the backward swing of
the wave, which will presently return, going farther for-
ward than before. Relapse is the fall of the tide, which
leaves the ships aground, and the beach uncovered. Reac-
tion is going back to recover some substantial truth, left be-
hind in a too hasty advance. Relapse is falling back into
4 orthodoxy: its truths and errors,
the old forms, an entire apostasy from the higher stand-point
to the lower, from want of strength to maintain one's self in
the advance.
The Epistle to the Hebrews deserves especial study by
those who desire to understand the philosophy of intellectual
and spiritual progress. It was written to counteract a ten-
dency among the Jewish Christians to relapse into Juda-
ism. These Christians missed the antiquity, the ceremony,
the authority of the old ritual. Their state of mind resem-
bled that of the extreme High Church party in the Church
of England, who are usually called Puseyites. They were
not apostates or renegades, but backsliders. They were
always lamenting the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism,
in the absence of a priesthood, festival, sacrifices. It hardly
seemed to them a church at all. The Galatiaus, to whom
Paul wrote, had actually gone over and accepted Jewish
Christianity in the place of Christianity in its simplicity and
purity. The Hebrews had not gone over, but were looking
that way. Therefore the writer of the Epistle to the He-
brews endeavors to show them that all which was really
good in the Jewish priesthood, temple, ritual, was repre-
sented in Christianity in a higher form. It had been fulfilled
in the New Covenant. Nothing real and good can pass away
till it is fulfilled in something better. Thus the Roman
Catholic Church stands, as a constant proof that Protestant
Christianity yet lacks some important Christian element
which Romanism possesses. Orthodoxy, confuted, as we
suppose, over and over again, by the most logical argu*
ments, stands firm, and goes forward.
Let us, then, reexamine the positions of our antagonists —
not now merely in order to find the weak places in their line
of battle, but to discover the strong ones. Let us see if there
be any essential, substantial truth in this venerable system,
to which we have as yet not done justice. If there be, justice
and progress will both be served by finding and declaring it.
INTRODUCTION. 6
We ask, What are the substantial truths, and what the for*
mal errors, of Orthodoxy? But what do we mean by these
terms?
§ 3. Orthodoxy as Bight Belief. — By Orthodoxy in gen-
eral is meant the right system of belief. This is the diction-
ary definition. But as the world and the Church differ as to
which is the right system of belief — as there are a vast mul-
titude of systems — and as all sects and parties, and all men,
believe the system they themselves hold to be the right be-
lief— Orthodoxy, in this sense of right belief, means nothing.
In this sense there are as many orthodoxies as there are
believers, for no two men, even in the same Church, think
exactly alike. Unless, therefore, we have some further test,
by which to find out which orthodoxy, among all these or-
thodoxies, is the true orthodoxy — we accomplish little by
giving to any one system that name.
Here, for instance, in New England, we have a system of
belief which goes by the name of Orthodoxy ; which, how-
ever, is considered very heterodox out of New England.
The man who is thought sound by Andover is considered
very unsound by Princeton. The General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church, in 1837, cut off four synods, contain-
ing some forty thousand members, because they were
supposed not to be sound in doctrinal belief. But these
excommunicated synods formed a New School Presbyterian
Church, having its own orthodoxy. Andover considers
itself more orthodox than Cambridge ; but the New School
Presbyterians think themselves more orthodox than An-
dover— the Old School Presbyterians think themselves
more orthodox than the New School. But the most ortho-
dox Protestant is called a heretic by the Roman Catholics.
The Roman Catholics, again, are called heretics by the Greek
Church. So that orthodoxy, in this sense, seems an im-
possible thing — something which, if it exists, can never be
certainly ascertained.
1*^
6 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Whenever a body of believers assumes the name of Ortho-
dox, intending thereby that they are right, and their oppo-
nents wrong, they evidently assume the very point in dispute.
They commit the fallacy called in logic a petitio principii.
They beg the question, instead of discussing it. They put
will in the place of reason. They say, in the very title page
of their book, in the first step of their argument, that their
book is satisfactory and their argument conclusive. It would
be more modest to wait till the discussion is concluded be-
fore they proceed thus to state what the conclusion is. This
is an arrogance like that which the Church of Rome com-
mits, in calling itself Catholic or Universal, while excluding
more than half of Christendom from its communion.*
A political party does not offer such an affront to its
opponents. It may name itself Democratic, Republican,
Federal ; it may call itself the Conservative party, or that
of Reform. By these titles it indicates its leading idea — it
signifies that it bears the standard of reform, or that it stands
by the old institutions of the country. But no political
party ever takes a name signifying that it is all right and its
opponents all wrong. This assumption was left to religious
sects, and to those who consider humility the foundation of
all the virtues.
The term ^' Evangelical " is, perhaps, not as objectionable
as Orthodox, though it carries with it a similar slur on those
of other beliefs. It says, " We are they who believe the
gospel of Christ ; those who differ from us do not believe
it." It is like the assumption by some of the Corinthians
of the exclusive name of Christians. " We are of Christ,"
♦ According to the "Chart of Religions Belief »» in Johnston's Physical
Atlas, there are in the world 140,000,000 of Catholics, 79,000,000 of Protestants,
68,000,000 of the Greek Chnrch, and 14,000,000 of minor creeds. About, in Ida
«* Question Romame," gives the Roman Church 139,000,000. He says, " The
Roman Catholic Church, which I sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000
of indiyidualB, not including the little Mortara."
INTRODUCTION. 7
said they — meaning that the followers of Paul and Apollos
were not so.
Probably the better part of those who take the name of
Orthodox, or Evangelical, intend no such arrogance. All
they want is some word by which to distinguish themselves
from Unitarians, Universalists, &c. They might say, " We
have as good a right to complain of your calling yourselves
*' Rational Christians * or ' Liberal Christians ' — assuming
thereby that others are not rational or liberal. You mean no
such assumption, perhaps ; neither do we when we call our-
selves ' Orthodox ' or ' Evangelical.' When we can find
another term, better than these, by which to express the
difference between us, we will use it. We do not intend by
using these words to foreclose argument or to beg the ques-
tion. We do not mean by Orthodoxy, right belief; but
only a certain well-known form of doctrine."
This is all well. Yet not quite well — since we have
had occasion to notice the surprise and disgust felt by those
who had called themselves " The Orthodox," in finding
themselves in a community where others had assumed that
title, and refused to them any share in it. Therefore it is
well to emphasize the declaration that Orthodoxy in the
sense of " right belief" is an unmeaning expression, sig-
nifying nothing.
§4. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine of the Majority. Oh^
jedions. — The majority, in any particular place, is apt to
call itself orthodox, and to call its opponents heretics. But
the majority in one place may be the minority in another.
The majority in Massachusetts is the minority in Virginia.
The majority in England is the minority in Rome or Con-
stantinople. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate
of all England, gave Mr. Curzon a letter of* introduction to
the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Greek
Church. But the Patriarch had never heard of the Arch-
bishop of- Canterbury, and inquired, " Who is he?"
8 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Nevertheless, it is a rery common argument that such and
such a doctrine, being held by the great majority of Chris-
tians, must necessarily be true. Thus it is said that since
the great majority of Christians believe the doctrine of the
Trinity, that doctrine must be true. " Is it possible," it is
said, " that the great majority of Christian believers should
be now, and have been so long, left in error on such a funda-
mental doctrine as this ? " Even so intelligent a man as Di*.
Huntington' seems to have been * greatly influenced by this
argument in becoming a Trinitarian. The same argument
has- carried many Protestants into the Roman Catholic
Church. And, no doubt, there is a truth in the argument —
a truth, indeed, which is implied all through the present
work — that doctrines thus held by great multitudes during
long periods cannot be wholly false. But it by no means
proves them to be wholly true. Otherwise, truth would
change as the majorities change. In one century the Arians
had. the majority ; and Arianism, therefore, in that century
would have been true. Moreover, most of those who adhere
to a doctrine have not examined it, and do not have any
defined opinion concerning it. They accept it, as it is taught
them, without reflection. And again, most truths are, at
flrst, in a minority of one. Christianity, in the flrst cen-
tury, was in a very small minority. Protestantism, in the
time of Luther, was all in the brain and heart of one man.
To assume, therefore, that Orthodoxy, or the true belief, is
that of the majority, is to forbid all progress, to denounce
all new truth, and to resist the revelation and inspiration of
Grod, until it has conquered for itself the support of the
majority of mankind. According to this principle, as Chris-
tianity is still in a minority as compared with paganisn}, we
ought all to become followers of Boodh. Such a view can-
not bear a moment's serious examination. Every prophet,
sage, martyr, and heroic champion of truth has spent his
life and won the admiration and grateful love of the world
INTRODUCTION. 9
by opposing the majority in hehsM of some neglected or
unpopular truth.
§ 5. Orthodoxy as the Oldest Doctrine, Objections, — Some
people think that Orthodoxy means the oldest doctrine, and
that if they can only find out what doctrine was believed by
the Church in the first century, they shall have the true
orthodox doctrine. But the early Church held .some opinions
which all now believe to be false. They believed, for in-
stance, that Jesus was to return visibly, in that age, and set
up his church in person, and reign in the world in outward
form — a thing which did not take place. They therefore
believed in the early church something which was not true
^ — consequently what ^^ey believed cannot be a certain test
of Orthodoxy.
The High Church party in the Church of England, in
defending themselves against the Roman Catholic argument
from antiquity, have appealed to a higher antiquity, and
established themselves on the supposed faith of the first three
centuries. But Isaac Taylor, in his " Ancient Christianity,"
has sufficiently shown that during no period in those early
centuries was anything like modern orthodoxy satisfactorily
established.* The Church doctrine was developed gradually
during a long period of debate and controversy. The
Christology of the Church was elaborated amid the fierce
conflicts of Arians and Athanasians, Monothelites and
Monophysites, Nestorians and Eutychians. The anthropol-
ogy of the Church was hammered and beaten into shape by
the powerful aj*m of Augustine and his successors, on the
anvils of the fifth century, amid the fiery disputes of Pela-
gians, Semi-Pelagians, and their opponents.
Many doctrines generally believed in the early church are
* Mr. Taylor shows that the Church, A. D. 300, was essentially corrupt in
doctrine and practice ; that the Romish Church was rather an improvement on
it; that Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, and Athanasius are full of false doctrine;
and that a Gnostic theology, a Pagan asceticism, and a corrupt morality pre-
vailed in the Church in those early centuries
10 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
universally rejected noir. The doctrine of cbiliasra, or the
millennial reign of Christ on earth ; the doctrine of the
under world, or Hades, where all souls went after death ;
the doctrine of the atonement made by Christ to the devil,
— such were some of the prevailing views held in the early
ages of the Church. The oldest doctrine is not certainly
the truest ; or, as Theodore Parker once said to a priest in
Rome, who told him that the primacy of Peter was asserted
in the second century, ^^ A lie is no better because it is ao
old one."
§ 6. Orthodoxy as the Doctrine held hy all. — But, it may
be said, if Orthodoxy does not mean the absolutely right
system of belief, nor the system held by the majority,
nor the oldest doctrine of the Church, it may, nevertheless,
mean the essential truths held in all Christian Churches, in
all ages and times ; in short, according to the ancient for-
mula — that which has been believed always, by all persons,
and everywhere — " quod semper , quod ah omnibus^ quod
uhique,*
In this sense no one would object to Orthodoxy. Only
make your Catholicity large enough to include every one,
and who would not be a Catholic ? But this famous defini-
tion, if it be strictly taken, seems as much too large as
the others are too narrow. If you only admit to be ortho-
dox what all Christian persons have believed, then the Trinity
ceases to be orthodox ; for many, in all ages, have disbe-
lieved it. Eternal punishment is not -orthodox, for that, too,
has often been denied in the Church, Sacraments are not
orthodox, for the Quakers have rejected them. The resur-
rection is not orthodox, for there were some Christians in
the Church at Corinth who said there was no resurrection
of the dead.
§ 7. Orthodoxy^ as a Formula^ not to he found. — Any
attempt, therefore, rigidly to define Orthodoxy, destroys it.
Regarded as a precise statement, in a fixed or definite form,
INTRODUCTION, 11
it is an impossibility. There is no such thing, and never
has been. No creed ever made satisfied even the majority.
How, indeed, can any statement proceeding from the human
brain be an adequate and permanent expression of eternal
truth ? Even the apostle says, " I know in part, and I
prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then
that which is in part shall be done away." The apostle
declares that his sight of truth is only partial, and that
everything partial is imperfect, and that everything imperfect
must pass away ; so that our present knowledge of truth is
transient. "Whether there be knowledge, it shall pass
away." If the apostle Paul declared that he had not the
power of making a perfect and permanent statement of truth ,
how can we believe that any one else can ever do it?
§ 8. Orthodoxy as Convictions underlying Opinions, — If,
therefore, every doctrinal statement is changeable and
changing ; if the history of opinions shows the rise and
fall of creeds, — one after the other becoming dominant,
and then passing away ; if no formula has ever gained the
universal assent of Christendom ; if the oldest creeds con-
tained errors now universally rejected, — what then remains
as Orthodoxy ? We answer, no one statement, but something
underlying all statements — no one system of theology, but
certain convictions, perhaps, pervading all the ruling sys-
tems. Man's mind, capable of insight, sees with the inward
eye the same great spiritual realities, just as with his out-
w€ird eye he sees the same landscape, sky. Ocean. Accord-
ing to the purity and force of his insight, and the depth of
his experience, he sees the same truth. There is one truth,
but many ways of stating it — one spirit, but many forms,
** The one remains, the many change and pass ;
Heaven's light forever sliines, earth's shadows fly."
Are there any such great convictions underlying and in-
forming all the creeds? I think there are. I think, for
12 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
example, it has always been believed in the Church that in
some sense man is a sinner, and in some sense Christ is a
Saviour £rom sin ; that Christianity is in some way a super-
natural revelation of the divine will and love ; tliat Scripture
is somehow an inspired book, and has authority over our
beb'ef and life ; that there is a Church, composed of disciples
of Jesus, whose work in the world is to aid him in saving
the lost and helping the fallen and wretched; that some-
how man heeds to be changed from his natural state into a
higher state, and to begin a new life, in order to see God ;
that there is such a thing as heaven, and such a thing as
hell ; that those who love God and man belong to heaven,
and that the selfish and sensual belong to hell. These ideas
have been the essential ideas of the Church, and. constitute
the essence of its Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy, then, is not any definite creed, or statement of
truth. It is not of the letter, but of the spirit. The letter
kills. Consequently those who cling to the letter of Ortho-
doxy kill its spirit. The greatest enemy of Orthodoxy is
dead Orthodoxy. The old statements retained after their
life is gone, — the old phrases made Shibboleths by which
truth is to be forever tested, — these gradually make the
whole system seem false to the advancing intellect of the
human race. Then heresies come up, just as providential,
and just as necessary, as Orthodoxy, to compel the Church
to make restatements of the eternal truth. Heresies, in this
sense, are as true as Orthodoxy, and make part, indeed, of
a higher Orthodoxy,
By Orthodoxy, therefore, we do not mean the opinions
held by any particular denomination in New England or
elsewhere. We do not mean the opinions of New England
Calvinists or of Southern Presbyterians ; not the creed of
Andover, of New Haven, or of Princeton : but we mean that
great system of belief which gradually took form in the
Christian Church, in the course of centuries, as its standard
INTRODUCTION. 13
theology. The pivotal points of this system are sin and sal-
vation. In it man appears as a sinner, and Christ as a
Saviour. Man is saved by an inward change of heart, re-
sulting in an outward change of life, and produced by the
sight of the two facts of sin and salvation. The sight of his
sin and its consequences leads him to repentance ; the sight
of salvation leads him to faith, hope, and love ; and the' sight
of both results in regeneration, or a new life. This system
also asserts the divinity of Christ, the triune nature of God,
the divine decrees, the plenary inspiration of Scripture,
eternal punishment, and eternal life.
§ 9. Suhstanticd Truth and Formal Error in all great
Doctrinal Systems. — Within the last twenty-five years, a
new department of theological literature has arisen in Ger-
many, which treats of the history of doctrines. The ob-
ject of this is to trace the doctrinal opinions held in the
Church in all ages. By this course of study, two facts
are apparent — first, that the same great views have been
substantially held by the majority of Christians in all ages ;
and, secondly, that the forms of doctrine have been very
different. The truths themselves have been received by
Christians, as their strength, their hope, and their joy, in all
time ; but the formal statement of these truths has been
wrought out differently by individual intellects. The uni-
versal body of Christians has taken care of Christian truth ;
while the Church Fathers, or doctors, have held in their
hands the task of defining it doctrinally for the intellect.
By substantial truth we mean this — that in all the
great systems of opinion which have had a deep hold on the
human mind, over broad spaces and through long periods,
there is something suited to man's nature, and corresponding
with the facts of the case. The mind of man was made for
truth, and not for error. Error is transient : truth only is
permanent. Men do not love error for its own sake, but for
the sake of something with which it is connected. After a
14 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
while, errors are eliminated, and the substance retained. The
great, universal, abiding convictions of men must, therefore,
contain truth. If it were not so, we might well despair ; for,
if the mind of the race could fall into unmixed error, the
only remedy by which the heart can be cured, and the life
redeemed from evil, would be taken away. But it is not so.
God has made the mind for truth, as he has adapted the taste
to its appropriate food. In the main, and in the long run,
what men believe is the truth; and all catholic beliefs are
valid beliefs. Opinions held by all men, everywhere and at
all times, must be substantially true.
But error certainly exists, and always has existed. If the
human mind is made for truth, how does it fall into error?
There never has been any important question upon which
men have not taken two sides ; and, where they take two
sides, one side must be in error. Sometimes these two par-
ties are equally balanced, and that for long periods. With
which has the truth been ? Is God always with the majori-
ty ? If so, we must at once renounce our Unitarian belief
for the Trinity, as an immense majority of votes are given
in its favor. But, then, we must also renounce Protestantism ;
for Protestantism has only eighty or ninety millions against
a hundred and forty millions who are Catholics. And, still
further, we must renounce Christianity in favor of Heathen-
ism; since all the diiferent Christian sects and churches
united make up but three hundred millions, while the Buddh-
ists alone probably exceed that number. Moreover, truth
is always in a minority at first, — usually in a minority of
one ; and, if men ought to wait until it has a majority on its
side before they accept it, it never will have a majority on
its side.
These objections lead us to the only possible answer, which
consists in distinguishing between the substance and the form.
When we assert that all creeds, widely held and long re-
tained, have truth, we mean substantial truth. We do not
INTRODUCTION. 16
mean that they are true ia their formal statement, which
may be an erroneous statement, but that they are true as to
their contents. The substance of the belief is the fact in-
wardly beheld by the mind ; the form is the verbal statement
which the mind makes of what it has seen. It has seen
something real ; but, when it attempts to describe what it
has seen, it may easily commit errors. Thus there may be,
in the same creed, substantial truth and formal error ; and
all great and widely-extended beliefs, as we assert, must con*
tain substantial truth and formal error. Without substantial
truth, there would be nothing in them to feed the mind, and
they would not be retained ; and, if they were not more or
less erroneous in form, it would imply infallibility on the
part of those who give them their form.
§ 10. Importance of this Distinction, — This distinction is
one of immense importance ; because, being properly appre-
hended, it would, by destroying dogmatism, destroy bigotry
also. Dogmatism consists in assuming that the essence of
truth lies in its formal statement. Correctly assuming
that the life of the soul comes from the sight of truth, it
falsely infers that the essence of truth is in the verbal
formula. Consequently, this formula must necessarily
seem of supreme importance, and the very salvation of the
soul to depend on holding the correct opinion. With this
conviction, one must and ought to be bigoted ; he ought to
cling to the minutest syllable of his creed as the drowning
man clings to the floating plank. Holding this view, we
cannot blame men for being bigoted : it is their duty to be
bigoted. But, when the distinction is recognized, they wiU
cling to the substance, knowing that the vital truth lies there.
It is the sight of the fact which is the source of our life, and
not the statement which we make, in words, as to what
we have seen. Then the sight becomes the thing of immense
importance ; the creed in which it is expressed, of compara-
tive unimportance.
16 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
This distinction would tend to bring the Church to a true
unity — the unity of the spirit. All would strive for the
same insight, all tolerate variety of expression. Instead of
assenting outwardly to the same creed, every man ought, in
fact, to make his own creed ; and there should be as many
different creeds as there are different men. Nor should my
creed of to-day be the same as that of yesterday ; for, in-
stead of resting on a past experience, I should continually .
endeavor to obtain new sights of the one unchangeable truth.
Seeing more of it to-day than I did yesterday, my yester-
day's creed would seem inadequate, and I should wish to
make a new one.
Substantial truth means the truth which we see — the
inward sight, the radical experience. Formal truth is the
verbal statement, and consists in accuracy of expression.
And so of error* Substantial error means error in regard
to the substance, and is necessarily inadequacy of inwai'd
experience. Strictly speaking, there cannot be substantial
error ; for error, in regard to the substance of truth, is purely
negative. It is not-seeing. It is failing to perceive the
truth, either from want of opportunity, weakness of vision,
or neglect in looking. But formal error is not merely
defect: it may also be mistake. We may misstate the
truth, and say what is radically false. From this source come
contradictions ; and, where two stiatements are contradic-
tory, both cannot be true. Falsehood, therefore, originates
with the statement. The errors of insight are merely
defects ; but the errors of statement may be positive false-
hoods.
This leads us to take a special view of theological contro-
versies. In all great controversies, in the conflicts of ages,
where the good and wise have stood opposed to each other,
century after century, it is probable that there are truth and
error on both sides.
Each side may hold some truth which the other has not
INTRODUCTION. 17
seen. There. is, therefore, also substantial error on both
sides ; for each may have failed to see some phase of truth
which the other has recognized. But there may be formal
error, or error of statement, even where there is substantial
truth ; for the truth may be overstated, or understated, or
misstated, and a false expression given to a true observation.
What, then, is the duty of those who stand opposed to
each other in these controversies — of Catholics and Protes-
tants, Christians and Deists, Orthodox and Unitarians ? They
have plainly a twofold duty to themselves as well as to their
opponents. They ought to increase their insight, and to
improve their statements ; to deepen and widen their hold
of the substance ; to correct and improve their expression of
the form. The first is the work of religion ; the second,
that of theology.
The first is infinitely the. most important, because the life
of the soul depends on the sight of truth. This is its food,
without which it will starve and die. But it is also impor-
tant that it should improve its theology, because a correct
theology is a help to insight, and a ground of mental com-
munion.
§ 11. The Orthodox and Liberal Parties in New England.
— The Liberal party in New England have carried on a
theological controversy for some forty years with the Ortho-
dox. This controversy was inevitable. Calvinism had
neglected important truths which the human soul needed,
and without which it would starve. Unitarianism came to
assert and vindicate those truths. At first, it was inevitable
that the statements on either side should be narrow and
mutually exclusive. But, as a battle goes on, the position
of the opposing armies changes. The points of attack and
defence alter. Old positions are abandoned, and new ones
occupied. Seldom does it happen to either army to sleep on
the field of battle. Nor has it so happened to us. Neither
the Unitarians nor the Trinitarians have gained a com-
2*
18 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
plete victory: each has taken some important position,
and yielded some other. We have a book called " Conces-
sions of Trinitarians : " another might be written containing
the "Concessions of Unitarians." Neither side has con-
ceded, or onght to concede, any real truth of experience or
of statement ; bnt it is honorable to each to concede its own
partial and inadequate statements.
We intend, in this volume, to endeavor, from our own
point of view, to gain what sight we can of the radical, vital
truth underlying each great Orthodox doctrine. At the
same time, we shall freely criticise the forms, especially the
more recent ones, in which Orthodox doctrines have been
stated.
We assume, at the outset, that each doctrine does cover
some truth of experience, some real solid fact, which is as
important to us as to our opponents. We assume, that,
though the doctrines may be false, there may be an expe-
rience behind them which is tru^. We have satisfied .our-
selves of the formal error of their statements. We consider
it impossible for a sound Unitarian intellect to accept the
Orthodox theology as a whole, without being untrue to iteelf ;
but there is no reason why we should not break this shell
of doctrine, and find the vital truths which it contains. And
if it be said, " Who made you a judge or a divider on these
subjects ? ** we reply, that only by contributions from all quar-
ters can a final judgment be reached. Meantime, it is the
right and duty of every serious thinker to add his own opin-
ion to the common stock ; willing to be refuted when wrong,
— glad, if right, to be helpful in any degree towards the ulti-
mate result.
This is the object of the present work, which, though
written by a Unitarian, and from a Unitarian stand-point,
and though published by the American Unitarian Associa-
tion, will, we trust, be sufficiently unsectarian.
THE PRINCIPLE OF OBTHODOXT EXAMINED. 19
CHAPTER II.
THE PRINCIPLE AND IDEA OP ORTHODOXY STATED AND
EXAMINED.
§ 1. The Principle of Orthodoxy defined, — The principle
of Orthodoxy is, that there is one true system of Christian
doctrine, and that all others are false ; that this system can
be, and has been, so stated in words as to distinguish it from
all the false systems or heresies ; and that this true system
of doctrine is the one which is now held, and always has been
held, by the majority of Christians ; and, finally, that the be-
lief of this system is, as a rule, essential to salvation — so that
those who may be saved, while not accepting it, will be saved
(if at all) by way of exception, and not according to rule.
§ 2. Logical Genesis of the Principle of Orthodoxy. — The
principle of Orthodoxy seems to have arisen, and to have
maintained itself in the Church, in some such way as this.
Jesus Christ, it is assumed, came to save the soul from sin
and evil. He saves the soul by the word of truth. In
order that this truth shall become saving truth, it must be
believed, and so strongly believed as to have a practical
influence on life and action. We are therefore saved by
believing the truth taught by Christ. But in order to be
believed, it must be expressed in some definite statement, or
in what we call Christian doctrine. But truth is one, and
therefore the doctrine which expresses it must also be one.
Therefore there must be one system of Christian doctrine,
containing in itself the substance of Christian truth, and con-
stituting the object of Christian faith. This system, though
it may vary in its unessential parts, must in its essence be
20 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
unchangeable. In proportion as any system of belief varies
from it, such system is heterodox and dangerous, while this
system alone is orthodox and safe.
Another form of this argument would be as follows :
Christ came to reveal something to men. If revealed, it
must be made known. If made known, it must be capable
of being so expressed that there can be no reasonable doubt
concerning it. Otherwise, Christianity would not be a reve-
lation. But if expressed so as to enter the human mind, it
must be expressed in human language. A verbal revelation,
therefore, is essential for the purposes of Christianity. Such
a revelation is nothing else than a system of doctrine, or
that which can be systematized into doctrine. And this sys-
tem must be one and the same from age to ago, or it is not a
permanent divine revelation, but only a transient human
seeking for such a revelation.
§ 3. Orthodoxy assumed to he the Belief of the Majority, —
The natural test of Orthodoxy is assumed to be the belief of
the majority of Christians ; for if Christianity be a revelation
of truth, its essential contents must be easy to apprehend, and
when apprehended, they must be generally accepted. The
revelations of God in nature are seen and accepted by the
human intellect, and so become matters of science. Orthodox
science is that which the great majority of scientific men have
accepted as such ; and Orthodox Christianity^ in like manner,
must be that which the majority of Christian believers accept
as such. Hence it is taken for granted, as regards Ortho-
dox doctrine, that it meets the test, " Quod semper j quod
ubique, quod ah omnihus"
§ 4. Heterodoxy thus hecomes sinful, — But if the essential
truth of Christianity be thus plain, those who do not receive
it must be either stupid or wilful. Its rejection argues a
want of intellect or a bad heart. Heretics, therefore, ought
logically to become to the Orthodox objects either of con-
tempt or hatred. If they cannot see what is so plain, they
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 21
tnust be intellectually imbecile. If they will not see it, they
must be morally depraved. Therefore intelligent people
who accept and teach heresies ought to be considered wicked
people by logical Orthodox minds. Moreover, they are the
most dangerous persons in the community, because, by deny-
ing that truth by which the soul is to be saved, they endanger
not merely the temporal, but also the eternal, welfare c»f those
whom they seduce. And if we have a right to abate a nui-
sance which only interferes with the earthly comfort and peace
of society, how much more one which attacks its spiritual
peace and eternal welfare ! Have not the majority a right to
protect themselves, their childi*en, and society from that which
they not merely believe, but know, to be evil ? For Ortho-
doxy assumes to be not merely opinion, but knowledge.
Hence Orthodoxy legitimates persecution.* Persecution is
only the judicious repression of criminal attempts to pervert
and injure society. Moreover, Orthodoxy, according to its
principle, ought to discourage inquiry in relation to its own
Rmdamental principles. For why continue to discuss and
debate about that which is known ? Progress consists in ad-
vancing from the known to the unknown. The unknown,
and not the known, is the proper subject for inquiry. The
system of Orthodoxy, therefore, according to its own princi-
ple, should be withdrawn from further examination. Intel-
lectual advance requires us to take for granted something — to
* Of coarse we do notmean to charge oar Orthodox friends with believing
in persecution. We only show that if Orthodoxy is in the letter^ they ought,
consequentially, to believe in persecution. No doubt Protestantism has put
on end to persecution. When Luther came, all believed in persecution ; now,
no one does. This is because the Keformation contained a double princi-
phi : first, that we are saved by faith, not by sacraments, and that faith is the
belief of doctrines; second, that to see them aright, we must use our own
minds, and consequently seek for truth as the paramount duty of life. But in
order to seek cflfcctually, we must seek freely — hence the right of private judg-
ment as against authority in Church and State. The last principle is that of
toleration j the first is the principle of intolerance. The last has proved the
stronger, because it rests on the logic of things, tho other only on the logio of
words
22 OBTHODOXT: ITS TBUTHS AND EBBOBS.
forget that which is behind iii'Order to press forward to that
which is before. The doctrines of Orthodoxy therefore,
when once established, should afterwards be assumed, and
need not be proved. We do not call a scientific man a bigot
because he refuses to discuss fundamental principles. If
Orthodoxy be science, why accuse it of bigotry when it fol-
lows the same course?
§ 5. The Doctrine of Essentials and Non-essentials leads
to Rome, — If Orthodoxy consists in a statement of opinions
the belief of which is essential to salvation, the question
arises. Are all these opinions essential, or only a part ? It is
generally admitted that the great system called Orthodoxy
contains some things not essential to salvation. How shall
these be distinguished? Moreover, some variation of state-
ment is judged allowable. No Orthodox creed is assumed
to be inspired as to its language. The same essential truth
may be expressed in different terms. How, then, are we to
define the limits of expression so as to know what error of
opinion is venial, and what vital? Orthodoxy assures us
that our salvation depends on accepting its statements. In
which particular form, then, must we accept them ? In so
important a matter as this, where salvation is assumed to
depend on accepting the right form of doctrine, one surely
ought to be able to know which the right form is. Now,
the rule of Orthodoxy, as given above, is, that nothing is
Orthodox, as essential doctrine, which has not been believea
" always, everywhere, and by all.*' But this raises an his-
torical question, and one of no little difficulty. For since
heresies have always existed, and some one has always been
found somewhere to deny the most essential doctrines of Or-
thodoxy, the question is somewhat intricate who these " all '*
are who have never disbelieved the Orthodox system. It is
plain that the majority of Christians have neither time nor
ability for these investigations. The historical inquiry must
be conducted for them by others. And here seems to come
THE PRINCIPLE OF OBTHODOXY EXAMINED. 23
in the law of Church authority as against private judg-
ment. And so the principle of Orthodoxy, carried out to its
legitimate results, appears to land us at last in the Roman
Catholic Church, to set aside the right of private judgment,
and to justify intolerance and the forcible suppression of
heresy. But as these results are not accepted by those who
yet accept the principles of Orthodoxy, it is necessary to see
if there is a fallacy anywhere in our course of thought, and
at what precise point the fallacy has come in.
§ 6. Fallacy in this Orthodox Argument. — The fallacy in
all this argument lies here — that faith is confounded with
belief; knowledge with opinion ; the sight of truth with its
intellectual statement in the form of doctrine. Undoubt-
edly there is only one faith, but there may be many ways of
stating it in the form of opinion. Moreover, no man, no
church, no age, sees the whole of truth. Truth is multi-
lateral, but men's minds are unilateral. They are mirrors
which reflect, and that imperfectly, the side of the object
which is towards them. Therefore even knowledge in any
finite mind is partial, consequently imperfect, and conse*
quently needs other knowledge to complete it.
This, apparently, is what the apostle Paul means (1 Cor.
13 : 8-12) in his statement concerning the relation between
knowledge and love. Knowledge (Gnosis) " shall pass
away." The word here used is elsewhere translated by
" destroyed," " brought to nought," " abolished," " made of
none effect." " Knowledge" here probably refers to definite
and systematic statements of real insights. It is something
more than opinion, but something less than faith. Faith
abides, but knowledge passes away. Faith abides, because
it is a positive sight of truth. It is an experience of the
soul, by which it opens itself in trust, and becomes receptive
of spiritual influence. Faith, therefore, remains, and its
results are permanent in the soul. They make the substance
•f our knowledge as regards the spiritual world. This sub-
24 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Stance becomes a part of the soul itself, and constitutes a
basis of self-consciousness as real as is its experience of the
external world. But Gnosis is this faith, translated by the
intellect into systematic form. Such systems embody real
experience, and are necessary for mental and moral progress.
They are the bodies of thought. But all bodies must die,
sooner or later ; and so all systems of knowledge must pass
away. The body, at first, helps the growth of tliought, helps
the growth of the soul ; but afterwards it hinders it. The
new wine must be put into new bottles. Therefore the
apostle Paul, the gi*eat teacher of doctrinal theology in the
Christian Church, distinctly recognizes here, that every sys-
tem of doctrine, no matter how much truth it contains, is
partial, and therefore transient. He makes no exception in
favor even of inspired statements — he does not except his own.
All bodies must die ; all forms are fugitive ; nothing continues
but the substance of knowledge, which is faith ; the inward
sight of God's goodness producing that endless expectation
which is called hope ; and the large spiritual communion
with Grod and his creatures, here called Agape, or love.
The apostle speaks in the first person when he says that knowl-
edge passes away — " We know in part, and we prophesy [or
teach] in part.'* He speaks for himself and his fellow-apostles.
We see, therefore, that the great master and head of
Orthodoxy in the Church has himself declared every form
of Orthodoxy to be transient.
We conclude, therefore, that the apostle Paul, in this
famous passage, overturns the whole principle of verbal
Orthodoxy. He takes away its foundation. Not denying
the reality and permanence of religious experience, not deny-
ing the saving power of truth, he declares that no expressed
system of truth is permanent. The basis of doctrinal Or-
thodoxy is the assumption that its own particular form of
belief is essential to salvation. But the apostle declares that
aU forms are transient, and, therefore, none essential. All
THE PRINCIPLE OF ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 25
Statement is a limitation, and the moment that we make a
definition, we say something which is incomplete. When
Paul says, " We know in part," he says the same thing which
is said by Kant, by Sir William Hamilton, by Auguste
Comte, by Mr. Mansell, and most modem thinkers, when
they declare the relativity of knowledge. All thinking is
limitation. " To think," says Sir William Hamilton, '' is to
condition." We only know a thing, says this school, by its
being different from something else. The school of Kant
declares all knowledge to be phenomenal, and that all phe-
nomenal knowledge consists of two parts — the part given
by the thing, and the part added by the mind. Herbert
Spencer (in "First Principles") -insists on the certainty of
the existence of things in themselves, but also on their
absolute and eternal unknowableness. According to John
Stuart Mill, the same view of the unknowableness of Nou-
mena is taken by M. Auguste Comte.
These modern philosophers, it will be seen, go much far-
ther than Paul, and lay down positions which inaugurate a
universal scepticism. According to them there is nothing
certain and nothing fixed. Mr. Mansell virtually teaches us
that we cannot know anything of God, duty, or immortality ;
and that faith means, taking for granted on some outward
authority. To use a striking expression of President James
Walker, " We are not to believe, but to make believe."
That is, we are not to believe with our intellect, but with our
will. Or, in other words, we are to believe not what is true,
but what is expedient. This he calls regulative truth, as
opposed to speculative truth.
But this is by no means the doctrine of the apostle Paul.
He teaches the certainty of substantive knowledge, but the
fallibility of formal knowledge. He thus avoids the two ex-
tremes of dogmatism on the one side, and scepticism on the
other. The substance of Gnosis, which is the sight of truth,
is a reality, and, like all that is real, has its root in God, and
3
26 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
shares his eternity. The form of Gnosis is subjective,
relative, and transient. Everything which is seen is tem-
poral ; only that which is not seen is eternal. All that takes
outward, visible form, cpraes under the law of change ; the
roots of our knowledge, fixed in God, are unchangeable.
§ 7. The three Tendencies in the Church, — The human
soul, a unit, indivisible, and without parts, nevertheless acts
in three directions — of will, affection, intellect. These are
distinguishable, though not divisible. Every one knows the
difference between an act; an emotion of anger, pity, sorrow,
love ; and a process of logic, or an intellectual argument.
These are the three primary states of the mind, evidently
distinct. It is impossible to mistake either for the other. I
may direct my mind towards action, towards thought, or to-
wards emotion. The fii*st of these, action, is the most within
my own power, depends chiefly on myself, lies nearest the
will. Will passes instantaneously into action. I will to lift
my arm, and it is done. On the other hand, feeling or emo-
tion lies the farthest from this centre of will, depends least
of all on my own choice, and in it I am most passive. But
the sphere of intellect is intermediate. I am more free when
I think than when I feel ; less free than when I act. In the
domain of will, I act upon external things ; in the domain
of feeling, I am acted upon by external things ; in the do-
main of intellect, I neither act nor am acted upon, but I see
them. In all thinking, in proportion as it is pure thought,
both will and emotion are excluded. We are neither actors
nor sufferers, but spectators. Things seen pass into our life
through the intellect, and become sources of emotion and
action. Love of truth causes us to desire to know it ; this
desire leads us to put our mind in the presence of truth, but
when there, the functions of emotion and will cease, and all
we have to do is to look.
Now, there have always been in the Church three parties,
or at least three tendencies, in regard to the basis of religion.
THE PBINCIPLE OF OBTHODOXT EXAMINED. 27
One of these makes the basis of the religious life to consist
in thought, one posits it in feeling, the third in action. With
one, the intellect must take the initiative ; with the second,
the heart ; with the third, the will, or power of determina-
tion. The three parties in the Church, based on these three
tendencies, may be characterized as the Orthodoxists, the
Emotionalists, and the party of Works. The first says,
" We are saved by faith ; " the second says, " We are saved
by love ; " the third says, " We are saved by obedience."
The first assumes that the sight of truth must take the lead
in all Christian experience ; the second believes that love for
goodness is the true basis in religion ; the third maintains
that the first thing to be done, in order to become a religious
man, is to obey the law of duty. It is evidently very impor-
tant to decide which of these answers is the true one. What
are we to do first, if we wish to become Christian men or
.women? Are we to study, read, reflect, in order to know
the truth ? Are we to go to church and listen to sermons,
join Bible classes and study the Scriptures, read, com-
pends of doctrine and books of Christian evidence? Or
are we to seek for emotion, to pray for a change of heart, to
put ourselves under exciting influences, to go where a revi-
val is in progress, to attend protracted meetings, to be influ-
enced through sympathy till we are filled full of emotions of
anxiety, fear, remorse, followed by emotions of hope, trust,
gratitude, pardon, peace, joy? Or are we to do neither of
these things, but to begin by obedience, trying to do right
in order to he right, beginning by the performance of the
humblest duties, the nearest duties, letting fidelity in the least
open the way to more ? Shall we know the truth in order to
love it and do it? Or shall we love the truth in order to see
it and do it? Or shall we do right in order to know it and
love it?
Large numbers in the Church have followed each of these
three methods, and made each the basis of its action. One
28 orthodoxy: its tbuths and ebbobs.
has said, " We are saved by works ; '* a second, " We are
saved by faith ; "'a third, " We are saved by love."
§ 8. The Party of Works. — Two tendencies have joined
in teaching salvation by works, or, more strictly, in teaching
the initiative of the will in religion. These are the Church-
tendency and the Moral-tendency in Christianity. The
Church party in Christianity teaches that the first duty to-
wards a child is to make it a member of the Christian Church
by baptism, and that the first duty of every baptized person
is to obey the commands of the Church. The Church thus
becomes a school, in which baptized persons are educated as
Christians. The Church of RomjB, and the High Church
party in the Church of England and in the Episcopal Church
of- the United States, teach this doctrine of salvation by
works. This system by no means dispenses with Christian
belief or Christian feeling, but makes them both subordinate.
The Church says to its faithful. We do not require you to
believe or to feel, but to obey. If we said, " Believe," or '
"Feel," you might justly reply, "We cannot believe or
feel when we choose, and you have therefore no right to ask
us to do so." Therefore the Church only demands obedi-
ence, which it is in the power of all to render. It, indeed,
requires an assent to its creed, and forbids heresy. But this
only means, " Receive the creed as true until you are able to
see how it is true." The Church also insists greatly on love,
and its saints have been filled with the highest raptures of
piety. But it never requires feeling. It says, "Use the
means we put into your hands, and feeling will come. Pray,
as we command you to do, whether you feel deeply or not.
Feeling will come by and by." Discipline, therefore, and
not illumination, has been the method of the Church of
Rome, and is also the method of all other Churches, so far
as they are ecclesiastical Churches. All such Churches
teach that by. a faithful conformity to their ritual, methods,
sacraments, services, discipline, the Christian life will surely
THE PBINCIPLB OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 29
come. The one thing needful and primary with them all
is obedience, and the result of obedience is knowledge and
love.
Essentially the same view is taken by the Ethical party,
or Moralists, in Christianity. Their statement, also, of the
foundation of religion is, that it lies in obedience. They dif-
fer only from the Church party as regards the authority to
be obeyed. With them it is not the Church, but the Moral
Law, as made known to men in revelation, or in the natural
instincts of conscience. The foundation of all goodness and
religion is right doing. This leads to right thinking and
right feeling ; or, when it does not lead to these, it is still
sufficient, and is satisfactory to God. " What doth the Lord
require of thee," say they, " but to do justly, and love mercy,
and walk humbly with thy God?" At this point the ex-
tremes meet, and the Roman Catholic Church, or the extreme
right, offers its hand to the Liberal Christians, or the extreme
left. This is the point of contact between the two, which
sometimes, also, becomes a bridge by which proselytes pass
either way, from one to the other. But the practical ques-
tion is. Is this answer sound ? Does the will lead tl;e way
in religion? Is obedience the first step to be taken at every
point of the way? Is the initiative in the religious life al-
ways an action ? Are we saved by works ?
The objection to this view is, that a religious action, with-
out a religious thought and a religious affection behind it, is
not in any sense religious. It has in it nothing of the essence
of religion. Religion, regarded merely as obedience to God,
implies the knowledge of God. We must know God in order
to obey him ; we must know God in order to love him.
Knowledge, therefore, must precede obedience, and not the
contrary. Otherwise obedience is an empty form, having
no religious character. Unless we see the truth and justice
of obedience, we are only yielding to human persuasion, to
human authority, and not to the authority of God. It may
3*
80 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
be well, or it may be ill, to yield to such human authority ;
but there is no religion in it, or only a religion of dead
works.
§ 9. The Party of Emotion in Christianity. — There are
those, and always have been those, who have placed the sub-
stance of religion in love, in which they have, perhaps, not
bean mistaken. But they have often taken another step, by
degrading love into mere emotion. They have considered that
feeling was the basis of religion ; not thought, nor action.
They too have texts to quote in support of their view. They
say that " with the heart men believe unto righteousness ; "
that we must " be rooted and grounded in love ; " that the
first commandment is to " love God with all the heart." As
with them religious emotion constitutes the essence of reli-
gion, they make use of all means of producing it, and es-
pecially the excitement which comes from sympathy. The
Methodist Church has, perhaps, gone farther than any other
towards making this a principle. This great and noble body
has done its vast work for Christianity by making prominent
the love-principle in all its operations. If the Church party
stands, at one extreme, Methodism, in all its forms, stands at
the other. The Homan Catholic Church sums up all the in-
spirations of the past, collects in its large repertoire all ancient
liturgies, all saintly lives, all sacred customs, and so brings
an imposing authority, a reverend antiquity, made up of the
best history of man. Methodism drops the past, and finds
• God in the present — in present inspirations, in the newly-
converted soul, born out of darkness into, light, by the imme-
diate coming of the Spirit of God. According to the Catho-
lic Church the Christian life commences with an outward act,
—that of baptism, — and is carried on by outward sacraments ;
according to Methodism, the Christian life begins with an
inward emotional experience, — the spiritual new birth, — and
is carried on by successive emotions of penitence, faith, hope^
joy, and pious devotion. According to Catholicism, the one
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 81
thing, needful is the outward sacramental union with the
Church ; according to Methodism, the one thing needful is
the inward emotional union with the Holy Spirit.
§ 10. The Faith Party in Religion, — If Churchism and Mor-
alism place the essence of Christianity in action, and Emo-
tionalism puts it in feeling. Orthodoxy places it in some-
thing intellectual, which it calls faith. All the sects of Christen-
dom do, indeed, place faith at the root of the Christian life ;
but some make it essentially an intellectual act, others essen-
tially affectionate, and others an act of will. Orthodoxy
makes it, in substance, a sight of faith, or an act of looking
at spiritual realities. Sometimes it is called a realizing
sense of spiritual things. But, at all events, the sight of
truth is considered the beginning and root of religion by the
Orthodox party in the Church. We are saved by the word
of truth ; and the Saviour himself is cajled " the Word,"
— belief in whom constitutes eternal life. Rationally, it is
argued that the essential difference between the Christian
and the unbeliever, or the unchristian, must lie in seeing
Christ or not seeing him. The first step in the religious
life always consists in looking at the truth.
§ 11. Truth in the Orthodox Idea. — Admitting, then,
what all these systems and parties in the Church unite in
asserting, — that an act of faith is always at the foundation
of every Christian state and of all Christian experience, —
we ask, Which is the most essential element in faith — will,
intellect, or affection ? Is an act of faith chiefly an act of the
will, a determination, or is it a loving desire, or a state of
knowledge, a looking at truth? Suppose we call it a state of
love, for this reason, that in order to be good, the first thing
requisite is to wish to be good. A longing for goodness, it
may be said, must precede everything else. But what makes
us long for goodness, if we do desire it? What shall produce
that longing, if it does not exist? The only answer must
be, The sight of truth. The sight of God's holiness and of
82 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
God's tenderness, the sight of law and gospel, whatever
shows us the beauty of goodness and the meanness of sin,
must come first to awaken this desire. Or suppose it be
said that the essential thing in faith is the active element,
because it is submitting to God's law, trusting in his help,
coming to the truth, opening the heart to the Holy Spirit, —
all of which are determinations of the will. We must reply,
True ; but these determinations will never be taken unless
we first see the will of God to which we submit, see the sal-
vation of God on which we lean, know that there is a truth
to which we may come, know that there is a Holy Spirit, in
order to ask for it.
So that, on the whole, we may say that Orthodoxy is right
in making the sight of truth the beginning of the Christian
life, and the beginning of every Christian state, act, or ex-
perience. All human goodness is the reflection of God's
goodness ; it all has its source in the sight of a divine holi-
ness, truth, beauty. This is the fundamental idea of Ortho-
doxy, and in this Orthodoxy is right.
It is no answer to this to say that man has an instinctive
longing for goodness, which causes him to feel after God be-
fore he finds him. For what are these instincts themselves, as
soon as they begin to act, but the voice of God speaking in the
soul, showing it some glimpses of a divine truth ? The long-
ing in the soul must be aroused by the sight or knowledge
of something better than that which one has or is. Conse-
quently, we say again, that the sight of truth is that which
saves the soul, and first creates in it a better life.
If we make Christianity to be essentially obedience, we
make of it, at last, an oppressive form. If we consider it
as essentially an emotional experience, we destroy its moral
character ; for emotion is both passive and blind, while the
definition of morality is the freely choosing what we see to
be right. Ecclesiasticism and Emotionalism both tend to de-
moralize Christianity. They remove from it the element of
THE PRINCIPLE OF ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 83
moral freedom in the interest either of Church authority or
of mystical piety. Then Christianity must come anew, in
the form of truth, to purify the air, and renew the moral
life of society.
Protestantism arose in this way, to salt the corrupting
Church. Ecclesiasticism, in its well-meant efforts at training
men, by a complete discipline, to a perfect virtue, had sup-
pressed the individual love of truth to such an extent, that
religion had become a mere surface, without substance.
Jesuitism abolished the distinction between things ri<jht
and wrong in themselves, and made right to consist solely in
the intention ; that is, made it wholly subjective. The Lu-
theran reformation was the revival of the intellect in regard
to religion — the demand for conviction instead of assent ;
for the sight of God in place of obedience to the Church.
It repeated, with an emphasis adapted to the needs of the
sixteenth century, the words of Jesus, " This is life eternal,
to hnoio thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent." In tliese words is the sufficient defence of
Protestantism. It was the cry of the soul to know God, and
not merely to assent to what the Church taught concerning
him ; it was the longing to know Christ, and not to repeat by
rote the creeds of the first centuries, and the definitions of
mediaeval doctors in regard to him. In a subsequent chap-
ter we shall consider the truth and error in the Protestant
principle of justification by faith. Our purpose here is to
show that the truth in Orthodoxy is identical with the truth
in Protestantism. Both place, as the root of all religion, an
individual personal sight of God and truth. To this, free-
dom of thought is an essential means. Kight thinking in-
volves free thinking. If to know the truth makes us free,
freedom, again, is the condition of knowing the truth. Prot-
estantism and Orthodoxy have often attempted to limit the
application of this principle. Protestants, as well as Catho-
lics, have persecuted heretics. But while Catholics, in doing
84 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
this, have been faithful to their own idea, and have therefore
made of persecution a system, Protestants have been vacil-
lating and undecided persecutors. They have been drawn
in opposite directions by antagonist principles. Fundamen-
tally, Protestantism, as such, claims for all the rights of pri-
vate judgment, and is, therefore, in its whole stress and
influence, opposed to persecution, and in favor of religious
liberty. It has conquered the Catholic Church on this point
so far as to compel it to renounce the practice of persecu-
tion, if it has not relinquished the theory. During three
centuries Protestantism has been, more and more, emanci-
pating the human mind — making it the duty, and conse-
quently the right, of every human being to see truth for him-
self. It has been drawn into inconsistencies by its belief in
the saving power of certain doctrines, and the supreme im-
portance of believing them. On one hand it has claimed,
with a trumpet voice, the freedom of conscience and opinion
for all, and then has cried out against those whe freely
came to opinions differing from its own.
But, notwithstanding these inconsistencies. Protestantism
has steadily given freedom of spirit to mankind. And with
the awakened and emancipated intellect all the elements of
progress have shown themselves in Protestant lands. In
1517, when Luther nailed his theses to the church door,
Italy, Spain, and Portugal were far in advance of Northern
Europe in civilization. In commerce, art, and literature,
Italy was the queen of Europe. In military force, extent
of possessions, and unbounded wealth, Spain was the lead-
ing power of the world. The Portuguese mariners had
ransacked every sea, and discovered new continents and
islands in every zone. How insignificant, in comparison
with these great nations, were England, Holland, and Ger-
many ! But England, Holland, and Germany became Prot-
estant ; Italy, Spain, and Portugal remained Catholic ;
while France and Austria adopted a half-way Catholicism,
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 86
The result has been, in the course of three centuries, a com-
plete 'reversal of the position. The last have become first,
and the first last. What now has become of the terrible
power of Spain, the enterprise of Portugal, the art and
literature of Italy? When the element of Protestantism
was crushed out of the^e nations by the Inquisition, the
principle of national progress was also destroyed. But the
northern powers who accepted the Lutheran reform re-
ceived with it the germs of progress. Holland, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Prussia, Saxony, England, and Scotland,
have, by a steady progress in civilization, wealth, knowl-
edge, and morality, conclusively demonstrated the impulse
of progress contained in the Protestant idea.
So far, therefore, as this great experiment, continued
during three hundred years, can prove anything, it proves
the truth of the central idea of Protestantism and Ortho-
doxy, namely, that saving faith is essentially not emotional
nor volitional, but intellectual.
§ 12. EiTor in the Orthodox Principle. — We are well
aware of the reply which might be made, from the stand-
point of Ecclesiasticism, to the historical argument just
given. The Roman Catholic might answer thus : " We
admit that the tree must be known by its fruits ; but the
tree of true Christianity is known by bearing the fruits of
Christianity, -not those of worldly civilization. Suppose that
England is to-day richer than Italy, more powerful than
Spain ; is she better? Are there more piety and more morality
in Protestant than in Catholic countries ? In which communi-
ties do you find the most humility, simplicity, religious faith,
reverence for religious institutions, fear of God ? In which
do you find most of sympathy, kindliness, good will from
man to man? The fierce civilization of Protestantism is
hard, cold, and cruel. It tramples under its feet the weak.
It accumulates wealth and power ; but are these Christianity?
Is London or Home the best model of a Christian city? Is
86 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
it London, with its terrible contrasts of enormous wealth
and naked want, its proud aristocracy and brutalized mob,
its empty churches and illuminated gin-shops? or is it not
rather Rome, poorer in material wealth and luxury, but rich
in grace — Rome, with its odor of sanctity about it; its
numerous churches, on which art has lavished her resources
to make them worthy to be the temples of God — Rome,
with its priests and monks ; its religious houses, the centres
of the great religious orders, whose missions have been
known in the four quarters of the earth ? Protestant coun-
tries may have a higher worldly civilization, more education
and intelligence, more manufactures and commerce ; but
Catholic countries have more humility and reverence, a
more habitual piety, more gentle manners. If Protestants
have more knowledge^ Catholics have more love"
And we, though Protestants of the Protestants, must
admit that there is some truth in this. The discipline of
Romanism has repressed some amount of evil which the
liberty of Protestant lands has allowed to appear. But
repressed evil is none the less evil, and often works a greater
inward corruption than when it is iallowed to show itself as
it is. We may also admit that while in Protestantism there
is more of truth, and all the virtues which go therewith, —
such as honesty, manliness, self-respect, conscientiousness, —
in Catholic countries there is more of love, and all the
virtues which follow it, — as kindly, genial manners, ready
sympathy with suffering, a spirit of dependence and trust.
Still, this does not prove that there is more real Christianity
among Catholics ; for love which does not grow out of tlie
sight of truth is not genuine nor healthy. Its life is weak.
Protestant Christianity is an immature fruit, harsh because
not quite ripe. Catholic Christianity is a fruit over^ripe,
and so rotten.
Therefore we still contend that Protestantism and Ortho-
doxy are right in making the free and independent sight of
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 87
i
truth the root of all religion. But the mistake of Orthodoxy
has been in confounding truth with doctrine — the sight of the
thing with the theory about that sight. From hence come
the hardness and coldness of Orthodoxy. Pure thought is
always cold, and ought to be. The sight of spiritual things
is truth and love in one ; but when we begin to reflect on
that sight, the love drops out, and the truth becomes cold.
The defect of the Orthodox principle, therefore, is the
confusion of truth with belief. Out of this mistake come
dogmatism, bigotry, and all their natural consequences. It
is therefore well, before going farther, to explain more fully
this distinction and its importance.
§ 13. Faith^ Knowledge^ Beliefs Opinion, — Religion ori-
ginates at every moment, from looking at truth. Now,
there are four kinds of looking; faith^ which is intuitive
looking ; knowledge, which is the intuition itself looked at by
reflection, and so brought to consciousness ; third, beliefs
which arranges the products of knowledge in systematic
form, and makes them congruous with each other; and
lastly comes opinion, which does not deal at all with things,
but only with thoughts about things. By faith we see God ;
by knowledge we become conscious that we see God ; by
belief we arrange in order what we see ; and by opinion we
feel and grope among our thoughts, seeking what we may
find of his works and ways. Every act of faith brings us
into the presence of God himself, and makes us partakers
of the divine nature. Thus faith is strictly and literally the
substance of things hoped for, or the substance of hope.*
Substance here has its etymological sense, and is the same
word in Greek and English, meaning basis, foundation, sup-
port, or substruction. It is the inward experience by which
we come in contact with invisible things, as perception is
the experience by which we come in contact with visible
things.
• Heb. 11;1.
4
88 OBTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
These steps of intellectual activity may be called by othet
names than these. What we (with Jacobi) call faith,* may
be denominated "intuition" (with the tr«|,nscendentalist8),
reason (with Coleridge), God-consciousness (with Schleier-
macher), or anschauungs-vermogen (with Schelling and
others). But, by whatever name we call this power, we
say there is a power in man by which he can see spiritual
facts, as with his earthly senses he can perceive sensible facts.
If he has no such power, he is incapable of knowing God,
but can only have an opinion that there is a God. But if
he can know God, this knowledge rests on something back
of reasoning or reflection ; it must rest on an intuition or
spiritual perception. And this, for our present purpose, wo
call faith. By means of it we know the spiritual world,
just as we know the material world through sight, touch, and
hearing. The senses are the organs by which we perceive
material things ; intuition, or faith, the organ by which we
perceive spiritual things.* He who denies the existence of
such a power in man, falls necessarily into dogmatism on
the one hand, or rationalisfn on the other. But as these
words also take a very different sense on different lips, we
explain ourselves by saying that he puts either a theory or
an inference in the place of God. If orthodox, he puts a
theory; if sceptical, an inference. Mr. Mansell does the
first, Herbert Spencer the other. Neither of them believes
that we can know God's existence. So dogmatism and
scepticism join hands. All the consequences described in
the beginning of this chapter follow as a matter of course
when an opinion or theory is put in the place of truth. Then
* Jacobi— whose words have been said to let the thoughts shine through,
as wet clothes around the limbs allow the lorm to be seen — says that aU
knowledge begins with faith. Faith is, according to Jacobi, (1) a knowledge
proceeding from immediate revelation ; (2) knowledge which does not need,
and cannot have, proofs ; (3) much more certain knowledge than any derived
from demonstration; (4) a perception of the super-sensual world; (6) a weU-
fH'Ounded and reliable pri^posscssion in favor of certain truths ; (G) a faith which
sees, and a sight which believes ; (7) a vision, an impenetrable mystery, a per-
ception of the thing in itself.
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 39
come the inflexible narrowness of bigotry, the hot zeal of the
persecutor, the sectarian strife which has torn the Church
in twain. The remedy and prevention for these are to recog-
nize that the ba§is of religion is in faith, in a living sight of
God, the soul, duty, immortality, which are always and for-
ever the same.
The best definitions of faith, by theologians of all schools,
include the notion of insight, will, and affection. It is an act
of the soul by which it looks at truth. But this act implies
a desire to see and know the truth. Now, such an act as
this lies at the root of all our knowledge, both of the mate-
rial and spiritual world. How do I know the outward
world? The passive exercise of sensation would never
give such knowledge. The sights which enter the passive
eye, the sounds which fill the passive ear, the feelings which
affect the passive sense, give no real knowledge of outward
things. That comes, not from sensation merely, but from
sensation changed into experience by a voluntary activity.
We must not only see, but look ; not only hear, but listen ;
not .only feel, but touchy in order to know. Life^ therefore,
the constant synthesis of these three elements, — life which,
in every act, at once thinks, feels, and does, — alone gives us
knowledge. Divorce thought from affection and will, and let
it act by itself, and it does not give knowledge ; it only gives
belief or opinion. Knowledge comes only from experience
— and experience means communion. Communion with
Nature by thought, desire, and action gives us the knowledge
of Nature ; communion with God by thought, desire, and
act, gives us the knowledge of God. The organ by which
we commune with God is faith ; it includes the desire of
knowing God, and the act of looking to him in order to
know him.
Knowledge of God, of immortality, and of spiritual things
does not come from any process of reasoning on the one
hand, nor from any single intuition of reason. Just so we
40 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
do not know the material world by a process of reasoning on
the one hand, or any single sensible perception on the other.
All knoiuledge comes from life; or, as the apostle John
expresses it, " Life is the light of man." We become
acquainted with outward nature by living processes — by
repeated acts of sight, hearing, touch, taste. So we become
acquainted with the spiritual world by repeated spiritual acts ;
by repeated processes of faith ; by continued steps of
devotion, submission, obedience, trust, love, prayer. In this
way we come to know God just as certainly, and just in the
same way, as we know things visible or things audible.
But knowledge is not belief. Knowledge is the rooted
conviction of the reality of certain f^cts or persons, derived
from communing with those facts or persons. Belief is the
intellectual assent to a proposition — a proposition fortned
by analytic and synthetic methods. We analyze our
notion concerning any subject, and then arrange the results
of this analysis in order, and deduce from them a propo-
sition, a law. This we call our belief, or creed, concerning
it. The substance of this belief is given us in life ; the
form of it comes from thinking or reasoning. But it is
evident that such a belief differs in each individual according
to his experience, and accordirig to his habits of reasoning,
and even according to his facility in expression. More-
over, knowledge and belief differ also in this, that knowl-
edge places us in the presence of the reality, belief only in
the presence of a proposition concerning it.
Thus John and James are friends. John knows James
through a long intercourse. He is just as certain in regard
to the essential character of James as he is about his own.
But if he tries to express this knowledge of James in the
form of belief, he may evidently express it badly. He may
fail from a defective analysis, or from imperfect powers of
language.
On the other hand John may not know James at all. He
THE PRINCIPLE OP ORTHODOXY EXAMINED. 41
may never have seen him. But he has heard about him
from a mutual friend, in whose judgment he trusts, or from
several persons, and so he has formed a very decided be-
lief in regard to James. He has a creed about him, though
he has never known him.
In the same way those who know God truly and well, by
the experience of obedience and prayer, may have a very
erroneous belief concerning him. Those who do not know
him at all, by any personal experience, may have a very
correct belief concerning him. But which saves the soul?
Which governs the life? Which affects the heart? Evi-
dently not the belief, but the knowledge.
We are not saved by any belief whatsoever concerning
God or Christ, concerning sin or salvation, concerning duty
or destiny. Belief brings us into contact with the images of
things, not the things themselves. Belief has no saving
.power. But knowledge has. *' This is life eternal, to know
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent." •
It is therefore a great mistake when Orthodoxy or Ration-
alism reverses the axiom of John, and instead of saying,
" Life is the light of man," tells us that " Light is the life of
man." Knowledge comes from life. Belief comes from
knowledge, and not the contrary.
The Principle of Orthodoxy, as stated at the commence-
ment of this chapter (in § 1), is, that there is one true sys-
tem of Christian doctrine, and that all others are false. The
Idea of Orthodoxy, as stated in § 10 of this chapter, is, that
the soul is saved by the sight of truth. The idea of Ortho-
doxy is true — its principle is false. The sight of truth —
that is, of the great spiritual realities — saves us, for only by
that sight are we lifted above our feeble and imperfect selves,
and enabled to partake of the nature of God. But while
truth is ever one and the same, doctrine varies from age to
age, varies from man to man. Each man*s statement is
4*
42 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
limited by his position, his mode of thought, his power of
speech. Nor can any council, assembly, conference, synod
escape from similar limitations.
Let the distinction be once clearly recognized between
truth as seen and truth as stated, — between knowledge and
belief, — and we see the end of dogmatism, bigotry, intoler-
ance, and superstition. We shall then see that religion is
one thing and theology quite another, and that the test and
evidence of a sound religious experience are not what a man
says, but what he is. The sight of truth remains, as always,
the source of our moral and spiritual life, but this sight of
truth must pass into knowledge, by means of life, in order td
renew the soul. Faith, or the act by which the soul, de-
sirous of good, puts itself in the presence of truth, is always
the beginning of each spiritual state. Knowledge, born of
this faith, through repeated acts of conscience, love, obedi-
ence, prayer, is the next step, and that which fixes the truth
in the soul. Belief comes afterwards, resulting from the
knowledge thus obtained, analyzed, and arranged by the sys-
tematizing intellect. And theory, or opinion, goes forward,
like the skirmishers before an army, examining the route
and opening the way, but incapable of resisting any attack,
or holding permanently any position.
NATURAL AND BEYEALED BEUGION. 43
CHAPTER III.
THE ORTHODOX IDEA OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELI-
GIONj OB, NATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALI8M.
§ 1. Meaning of Natural and Supernatural. — Orthodox
Christianity claims that Christianity is a supernatural reve-
lation, consisting of truths revealed by God, not according
to the method of nature, but outside of it. But not merely
the orthodox, the heterodox too, Unitarians, Universalists,
Quakers, Swedenborgians, all hold to Christianity as a
supernatural faith. What do they mean by this, and why
do they insist on it so strongly? This is our first ques-
tion, and the next will be, "What do those who hold to
naturalism mean by it^ and why do they insist on their
view ? "
The distinction between the two seems to be this : The
naturalists in theology assert that God comes to man through
nature, and nature only; the supematuralist declares that
God comes to man, not only through nature, but also by
other methods outside of nature, or above nature. There is
no question between them as to natural religion. Both ad-
mit that ; supematuralists believe all that naturalists believe,
only they believe something more.
But how is nature to be defined? What is meant by
nature ? Various definitions are given ; but we wish for one
now which shall really express the issue taken in this con-
troversy. So we may define nature as law. All the nexus
or web of existing substances and forces which are under
law belong to nature. All that happens outside of these
laws is either preternatural, unnatural, subternatural, or
44 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
supernatural. If it is something outside of law^ but not vio'
lating it, nor coming from a higher source, we call it preterm
natural ; like magic, ghosts, sorcery, fairies, genii, and the
like. What violates law is unnatural. What is so low
down that it lies below law, as chaos before creation ; or
nebulous matter not yet beginning to obey the law of gravita-
tion ; or intelligences, like Mephistopheles or Satan, who
have sunk so low in sin as to have lost the perception of
right and wrong, is subterncUurcd, below nature. What
belongs to a religion above the laws of time and space,
above the finite, is supernaturaL
Thus brutes, and men like brute^, who are below the
moral law, are suhtern&tural as regards that law. We do
not call it a sin in a tiger to kill a man, for he is below law
as regards sin. He is below the moral law. Again, we
can conceive of angels so high up as to be above the moral
law, in part of its domain, not capable either of common
virtue or of common sin, according to our standards of
morality, though perhaps under some higher code of ethics.
They are supernatural beings as regards that law — the
moral law of this world. As regards some parts of the
moral law, there are, no doubt, multitudes of human beings
above it even in this world. There are many persons quite
incapable of swearing, lying, stealing, getting drunk, flying
into a passion, and to whom, therefore, it is no virtue to
avoid these vices; They are simply above that part of the
moral law. They are st^pernatural beings as respects that
part of human character.
After these illustrations, we can see what is meant by
supernaturalism. If there is anything in this world which
comes from above the world, and not from the existing laws
of being, that is supernaturaL
§ 2. The Creation SupernaiuraL — In this sense, all but
atheists must admit the supernatural. If, for example, you
kdmit the creation of the world by God, that was a super-
NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 45
natural act ; thai did not come from the existing laws of the
world, because it created those laws. All the order and
beauty of the world, its variety and harmony, its infinite
adaptation of part to part, and each to all, — these existed
in Grod's mind before they existed in nature. They were
supernatural, as ideas, before they appeared in nature as
facts. And if, as most geologists suppose, the crust of the
earth denotes a long series of creations, successive epochs,
at the close of each of which new forms of vegetable and
animal life appeared, then each of these was a new crea-
tion ; that is, a new supernatural act of the Almighty.
The physical world, therefore, shows a power above itself.
The natural testifies to the supernatural, the all to the over-
all. The existing web of laws gives evidence of mind, out^
side of itself, above itself, arranging and governing it.
§ 3. . The Question stated, — This being granted, the
question between naturalism and supernaturalism is, whether
this superintending mind, which came from above the world
into it by acts of creation, when the world was made, has or
has not come into it subsequently. We have a series of
creations down to the time that man arrived on the earth.
When he came, he was a supernatural being, and his coming
a supernatural event. Unless we assume that he was devel-
oped, by existing laws, out of some ape, gorilla, or chimpan-
zee, his coming was supernatural. Now, did supernatural
events cease then, and since that time has the world gone on
of itself? or have there been subsequent incursions from a
higher sphere — a new influx from above, from time to
time, adding something new to nature? Naturalism says
no ; supernaturalism says yes.
§ 4. Argument of the Supernaturalist from successive Oeo^
logic Creations. — The supernaturalist says, God comes to
us in both ways — through nature ; that is, through the order
of things already established ; and also by new creative
impul»<M, coining in, from time to time, from above. He
46 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
contends that such a new creative impulse came into the
world through Jesus Christ, adding a new substance and new
forms to those already existing — a new life not before in the
world, proceeding according to new laws. This new creation,
as the Scriptures themselves term it, is Christianity. This is
also said to be in analogy with the course of events. For, if
there has been a series of creations before, bringing animals
into the world, and higher forms of physical life, — if these
have been created by new supernatural impulses coming in
at intervals of hundreds of thousands of years, — why deny
that another impulse may have come in four thousand years,
or forty thousand years, after man was created, to add a new
form of spiritual life to society ?
In the world, as it was at first, there was not a living plant
or animal ; after thousands of years, or millions of year^,
there came into the broad seas of the lower Silurian epoch,
some of the lowest kinds of animals and seaweeds, a few
trilobites and mollusks, but no plants save fucoids. Next
came, after a long time, a few cartilagmous fishes and corals.
A long time passed — thousands of years rolled by : then
came real fishes and land plants in what is called the Devo-
nian period, or the old r§d sandstone. After a great while
came the period to which belongs all the coal formation ; and
in that carboniferous epoch first appears a whole vegetable
world of trees and plants, to the number of nine hundred
and thirty-four species. Some insects arrived at this time, as
beetles, crickets, and cockroaches, which are, therefore, much
more venerable than man. More thousands of years go by :
then the earth receives a new creation in the form of gigantic
frogs, enormous reptiles, and strange fishes. BuJ as yet no
mammal has come — not a bird nor a quadruped has been
seen on the earth. Then, after another long period, these
appear, in what is called the tertiary period ; until, at last,
some remains of man are found, in the diluvium, or gravel.
Geology thus, once thought to be atheistic, gives its testi-
NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 47
rnony to a long series of supernatural facts ; that is, to
the successive creation, after long intervals, of entirely new
genera and species of vegetables and animals. As you turn
these great stone leaves of that majestic manuscript roll
written by God's hand, which we call the earth, you find he
has been writing new things on each page, new facts and
laws, not on any former leaf. New types of life, not pre-
pared for by any previous one, — by no slow evolution, but
by a sudden step, — break in. On the previous rocky page
is to be found not one of their species, genus, order, or even
class, to point back to any possible progenitor. So that the
globe itself says, from these eternal monuments of rock,
" Behold the history of supematual events written on me."
Each ci*eation is higher than the last : finally man is created.
But still from above, from outside the world, the creative
life is ready to be poured in. Only the next creation is to
be moral and spiritual, not physical. No new physical
forms are now added, but a new moral life is poured into
man, making him a new creation of God. " For if any man
is in Christ, he is a new creature." The analogy was so
striking, that the apostles noticed it, and constantly speak of
Christ as the medium of a new creation.
§ 5. Supernatural Argument from Human Freedom.—^
But there is another example of the supernatural element in
the world. Dr. Bushnell, in his book called " Nature and
the Supernatural," contends that man is capable of super-
natural acts ; that, in fact, every really /ree act is, and must
be, a supernatural act. To those who hold the doctrine of
necessity, this is, of course, no argument. But they wlio
believe, in the testimony of their own consciousness, that
they are free beings ; who feel that they are not dragged
helplessly by the strongest motive, but can resist it or yield
to it ; who, therefore, feel themselves responsible for what
they do, or omit to do, they can see that in a real sense
they create new influences. Their actions are not results of
48 orthodoxy: its tuuths and errors.
previous causes, but are new causes, not before in the world.
Some supernatural power dwells in man's will just as far as
it is made free by reason and choice. Man stands between
good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, with the
power of choosing either one or the other. K he chooses
one, he sends a power into society, life, humanity, to help it
forward ; if the other, he sends in a power to hold it back.
This power is not from man's nature, but from something in
him outside his nature. When he acts from habit, impulse,
passion, and not from choice, he is simply a natural being ;
when he acts from choice, he is not a natural being, but
either a st«/>ernatural or a st^&^ernatural being, according as he
chooses good or evil. When he chooses good, he rises above
the ^natural man into the sphere of angels ; when he chooses
evil, he sinks below the natural man into the sphere of brutes
or demons.
§ 6. Supernatural Events not necessarily Violaiions of
Law, — Now, says the supernaturalist, if we have all this
evidence to show that God not only acts through nature, by
carrying on existing forces and laws, but also has repeatedly
come into nature with new creations, not there before, — and if
even man himself has a certain limited but strictly supernatural
power, so as to be able to stand outside of the nexus of law.
and act upon it, — why deny, as incredible, that God should
have made a new moral creation in Christianity? should
have created a new class, order, genus, and species of spirit-
ual beings, not represented before by any existing congeners ?
And why question that what we call miracles — that is, physi-
cal interferences with natural laws — should have attended this
sadden influx of spiritual life? We do not claim, says the
judicious supernaturalist (like Dr. Bushnell, for example),
that miracles are suspensions or violations of natural laws ;
but that they are the natural modification of the agency of
such laws by a new and powerful influence. Of this, tooj
there is ample analogy in nature. The mineral kingdom,
for example, is passively subject to mechanical and chemical
NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 49
laws, which are resisted and modified by plants and animals.
A stone obeys passively the law of gravitation ; a plant re-
sists it, rises into the air in opposition to it. Such a pro-
ceeding on the part of a plant must seem to a stone' a pure
miracle. If a piece of granite should write a book of theol-
ogy, it would probably say that the plant, in growing up,
bad violated or suspended a law of nature. But it has not.
The force of gravitation has worked on according to its own
law ; it has been dragging the plant downward all the time,
only the vital power in the plant has overcome its force, and
modified the result. And, again, a tree, seeing a dog run to
and fro, might call that a miracle. The tree, unable to
move from its place, could not conceive of the possibility of
voluntary motion. But no law of nature is violated ; only a
higher power comes iu — the power of animal life.
To a dog, again, the proceedings of a man are strictly
miraculous. To plant corn, reap it, thresh it, grind it, and
bake bread out of it, is exactly as much a miracle to the
dog, as the multiplication of loaves, or turning water into
wine, by Christ, is a miracle to us. But no law of nature
was violated in either case. Reason in the one case, some
profounder spiritual power in the other, may have modi-
fied the usual operation of law, and produced these results.
The Orthodox supernaturalist therefore contends that the
supernatural is a constant element of life. Higher natures
are all supernatural to lower natures, but natural in them-
selves, because obedient to the laws of their own nature.
Nature, without this supernatural element, is only a machine,
of which God, standing outside, turns the handle. This is
a low < onception both of nature and of God. As Goethe
says, in one of his immortal lyrics, —
« Not BO, outside, doth the Creator linger,
Nor let the all of things run round his finger,
But moTcs its centre, not its outer rim;
Comes down to nature, draws it up to him;
Moving within, inspiring from above,
With currents ever new of light and love.**
6
60 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
§ 7. Life and History contain Supernatural Events, — And
besides all this, says the super naturalist, we have contin-
ued and constant evidences, in all history and in all human
experience, of the existence of -this supernatural element.
Only a small minority of mankind have ever doubted it;
and those are men so immersed in physical science, or so
hampered by some logical manacles, or so steeped in purely
worldly affairs, as to be incapable of seeing the supernatural
facts which are recurrent evermore. Christianity itself has
been an uninterrupted series of supernatural events. The
physical miracles of Christ are nothing to the spiritual
miracles which Christianity is always working. Bad men
are made good, weak men strong, cowardly men brave,
ignorant and foolish men wise, by a supernatural influence
given in answer to prayer, poured down into hearts and
minds which open themselves to receive it. The conversion
of a bad man by the power of Christianity is a miracle.
The power of faith, hope, love, which every Christian has
experienced, coming into him, not through any operation of
his nature, but simply poured into his soul from some higher
sphere, — this makes all argument unnecessary to one who has
had ever so little Christian experience.
This is the substance of Orthodox supernaturalism ; and
this seems to me to be its truth, separated from its errors.
The naturalism of the prcscut time we conceive to be partly
directed against a false supernaturalism, and partly to be a
mistake arising from a too exclusive attention to the order
of the universe, as expressed in law,
§ 8. The Error of Orthodox Supernaturalism, — Super-
naturalism has generally disregarded God in nature, and
only sees him in revelation. It has allowed a sort of
natural religion, but only in the way of an argument to
prove the existence of God by what he did a long time ago.
But it has not gone habitually to nature to see God there,
incarnate in sun, moon, and stars ; incorporate in spring,
NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 61
summer, autumn, and winter ; in day and night ; in the
human soul, reason, love, will. God has been all around us,
never far from us ; but theology has only been willing to see
him in Jewish history, in sacred books, or on Sundays in
church. Let us see him there all we can, but see him also
in every rippling brook, in every tender flower, in all beauty,
all sublimity, all arrangement and adaptation of this world.
No wonder that naturalism should come to do what the
Church has left undone — to find its God and Father in this
great and wonderful world which he has made for us. The
creed says, " God the Father, God the Son, aiid God the
Holy Ghost ; " that is, God the Creator, seen in Nature and
Providence ; God the Redeemer, seen in Christianity ; and
God the Sanctijier, seen in every righteous and holy soul.
But the Church has neglected its own creed, and omitted
God the Creator, often also God the Sanctifier, and has only
seen God in Christianity, in its history, its Church, its doc-
trines, its ceremonies.* Against this, naturalism comes as
a great and needed protest, and calls us to see God also in
nature and life.
Then the Church has been too apt to teach a miraculous
revelation, in which the miracles are violations of law.
But as God is confessedly the author of law, it has made
the Deity violate his own laws ; that is, has made him incon-
sistent, arbitrary, irregular, and wilful. Deep in the human
mind God has himself rooted a firm faith in the immuta-
bility of law; so that when miracles are thus defined,
naturalism justly objects to them.
§ 9. No Conflict between Naturalism and Supernatural-
isin. — But between true naturalism and true supernaturalism
we do not think there need be any war. We know that there
are many men so rooted in their faith in nature, that they
cannot see anything outside of it, or beyond it. To them
* See « Broken Lights," p. 207, note.
52 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
God is law, and law only. Even creation is repugnant to
them, because they see that creation is really a supernatural
thing. Hence come the theories of development ; the " Ves-
tiges of Creation ; " the nebular hypothesis ; the Darwinian
theory of formation of species by natural selection; the
notion of man coming out of an ape ; pantheistic notions of
a God so immersed in nature as to be not its intelligent
guide, but only its unconscious soul; the whole universe
proceeding according to an order which is just as much
above God's knowledge as above ours. Now, the best geolo-
gists assure us that there is no evidence in support of the
transmutation of species. Mr. Darwin's theory of the for-
mation of species by natural selection is this : In the strug-
gle for life, the strongest and best adapted animal lives, the
rest die. This animal transmits to its offspring its own
superior qualities ; so a higher animal is gradually developed.
For example, the giraffe was not made by God with a long
neck in order that it might browse on the leaves of high
trees. But when leaves were scarce, the animal who hap-
pened to have a neck a little longer than the rest was able
to get leaves. So he lived, and the rest died. His children
had longer necks by the law of hereditary transmission*
So, in the course of ages, animals were gradually found
with very long necks. Thus the walrus has a curved
horn growing downwards from his lower jaw, by which he
climbs on to the floating ice. We must not suppose, how-
ever, that God gave him the tusk for that purpose ; but the
walrus, or seal, who happened to have a little homy bone
under his chin, could climb on the ice and get his food more
easily, and so he lived, while the rest died; and his de-
scendants in the course of a few hundreds of thousands of
years came, by repeating this process, to have horns ; and
so this species of phoca arrived.
It is certainly possible to believe this theory. But in
believing it we have to .suppose two things ; first, a happy
NATURAL AND REVEALED REUGION. 63
accident, and then a law of transmission of hereditary qaali-
ties. Now, the theory substitutes this law of transmission
and these happy accidents for the creative design. Is any-
thing gained thereby? The domain of law is extended a
little. But extend it as much as you will, you must at last
come to something above law. Suppose these laws by which
walrus and giraffe came, were all in the original nebula, so
that no Creator has been needed since, and nothing super-
natural — nature has done it all since. But who put the laws
there to begin with ? You have to take the supernatural at
last, or else suppose an accident to begin with. Accidentally,
all these wonderful laws happened to be in a particular
nebula. He who shrinks from this supposition accepts the
supernatural, all at once, at the beginning, instead of the
supernatural all the way along. What does he gain by it?
He gains merely this, that he puts the Creator out of sight ;
or rather, puts himself out of sight of the Creator. He
worships the great god Development instead.
Equally satisfactory to the intellect, to say the least, and
much more satisfactory to the best human instincts, is the
view of God which sees him coming evermore into nature
from above nature. This view says, " God is not only
order, but also freedom. He is not only law, but also love.
He is in the world as law and order, but he is above the
world as thought and love ; as Providence, as the heavenly
Father. He comes to us to meet our exigencies, to inspire
our doubting hearts, to liflb us into life and light. He does
not set a grand machine going, and then look on and see it
work ; but he is in the world, and with us always. The
supernatural dwells by the side of the naturaL Just as a
wise and good father has rules and laws by which to govern
his children — rewarding and punishing them as they obey
or disobey ; but besides that, does a thousand things for them,
taking the initiative humself ; so God governs xis by law, but
5*
64 obthodoxy: its truths and erbors.
also often takes the initiative, giving us what we never asked
for, and knew nothing of."
§ 10. Further Errors of Orthodox Supernaturcdism -^
Gulf between Christianity and all other Religions. — Ortho-
doxy has erred, as it would seem, in placing too great a gulf
between Christianity and all other religions. Christianity is
suflBiciently .distinguished from all other religions by being
regarded as the perfect, and therefore universal, religion of
mankind. It is to all preceding religions what jnan is to all
previous races. These are separated from man by various
indelible characters ; yet they are his fellow-creatures, pro-
ceeding from the same creative mind, according to one crea-
tive plan. So the previous religions of our race — Fetich-
ism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, the religion of Confucius, of
Zoroaster, of Egypt, of Scandinavia, of Judea, of Greece
and Kome — are distinguished from Christianity by indelible
characters ; but they, too, proceeded from the same creative
mind, according to one creative plan. Christianity should
regard these humanely, as its fellow-creatures. The other
animals prepared man's way on the earth, and since man's
arrival we have seen no subsequent creation. So the ethnic
• reUgions prepared the way for Christianity, and since Chris-
tianity came no new religion has appeared; for Moham-
medanism is only a melange drawn from the Old and New
Testaments, and may therefore be considered as an outlying
Christian sect. So, too, the gigantic abstractions of Gnos-
ticism were hybrid systems, formed of the union between
Oriental thought and Christian life. The analogy may be
traced still farther. Man is the only animal who possesses
the whole earth. Every other race has its habitat in some
geographical centre, from which it may emigrate, indeed, to
some extent, but. where only it thrives. To man, only, the
whole earth belongs. So the primitive religions are all
ethnic; that is, religions of races. The religion of Confu-
cius belongs to China, that of Brahmanism to India, that of
NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 65
Zoroaster to the Persians ; the religion of Egypt is only for
the Egyptians. Exceptions to this law (like that of Buddhism,
for example) are only apparent. The rule is invariable.
Christianity alone is a cosmic or universal religion. It only
has passed the boundaries of race, so inflexible to all other
religions. Born a Semitic religion, it soon took possession
of the Indo-European races, converting Romans, Greeks,
Teutons, K!elts, and Sclaves. It finds the African mind
docile to its influence. Its missionaries have made believers
from among the races of America, India, China, and the
Pacific Islands. It is evidently destined to be the religion
of humanity.
But, if so, why should it be put into antagonism with the
religions which preceded it? These are also creations of
God, not the work of man. Theologians have found multi-
tudes of types of Christ in Jewish books and Jewish history.
But they might also find typ.es of Christianity in the so-called
heathen religions. For as coming events cast their shadows
before, so coming revelations are seen beforehand in shadowy
preludes and homologous. The lofty spiritualism of the Brah-
manical books, the moral devotion of the Zendavesta, the
law of the soul's progress in Buddhism, — these are all types
of what was to appear in a greater fulness and higher devel-
opment in Christianity. First the natural, afterwards that
which is spiritual. But these foregleams of Christian truth,
irradiating the night-side of history, are all touching proofs
that God never leaves himself without a witness in the
world or in human hearts.
Instead, therefore, of placing an impassable gulf between
Christianity and other human religions, we should consider
these are preparations and stepping-stones to something
higher. Nor will they pass away until Christianity has
purified itself from the errors which still cling to it. Juda-
ism was not to pass till it was. fulfilled in Christianity ; and
66 orthodoxy: its truths ani> errors.
neither will the other religions of the world pass away till
they also are fulfilled in Christianity.
Now, the common teaching in pur churches and religious
books and newspapers tends to depreciate all natural religion
in the interest of revealed religion. It is commonly said
that the light of nature helps us a very little way in the
knowledge of God. *'Look at the heathen," it is said;
" see their i*eligious ignorance, their awful superstitions,
their degrading worship of idols, and their subjection to
priestcraft. This is your boasted light of nature, and these
are its results — the Fetichism of Africa, the devil-worship
of the North American Indians, the cannibalism of the Fee-
jee Islands, the human sacrifices of Mexico and of the an-
cient Phoenicia.^' " Then," it. is continued, " look at the
observations of the wisest intellects apart from revelation I
How little they knew with certainty I Their views of the
Deity varied from pantheism to idolatry ; their views of im-
mortality were wholly vague and indistinct ; their ideas of
duty confused and false."
To which we might reply, " Is not the same thing true
among Christians ? Are there no superstitions among them ?
Were not witches hanged and burned during sixteen centuries
in Christendom ? If the heathen are ignorant, what multi-
tudes in Catholic countries also do not read the Bible ! How
many are there even in Protestant churches who can give a
reason for their belief? If the heathen worship degrades
mankind because it is a superstition, with fear for its mo-
tive, how large a part of Christian preaching consists also
of an appeal to terror I Is not the fear of everlasting tor-
ment in hell the motive power of much which is called
Christianity? Consider Catholics eating their: God: is that
the worship of the Father in spirit and truth ? Think of the
religious wars, of the religious persecutions : did natm*al
religion ever do anything as bad as this? We cry out
against Nero, who covered Christians with pitch, and burned
KATUBAL AND EEVEALED BELIGION. 57
them as torches in the amphitheatre. But how many were
thus tortured? Perhaps ten, perhaps twenty, or let us say
a hundred. But, according to Llorente, the Holy Office of
the Inquisition, in Spain, burned alive, under Torquemada,
8800 ; under Deza, 1669 ; under Ximenes, 2536 ; in all,
from 1483 to 1498, — that is, in fifteen years, — it burned
alive 31,912 persons for heresy, and subjected to rigorous
pains and penalties 291,450 persons.
It is not right to judge of any doctrine by the corrupt
practices which have taken place under it, unless it can be
shown that these are its legitimate fruits. We maintain
that Christianity is not fairly responsible for these persecu-
tions ; but let us make the same allowance for the religions
which prepared its way.
§ 11. Christianity considered unnatural^ as well as super*
naiural hy being made hostile to the Nature of Man. — If the
nature of man be regarded as wholly evil, then Christianity
is not merely a supernatural religion, but an unnatural one.
This has been very commonly taught. Man's nature has
been declared so totally corrupt and alien from all good, as
to be radically opposite to the love of God and man. Chris-
tianity, therefore, comes, not to help him attain that which
he is seeking after, but to change his whole purpose and
aim — to give him a wholly new nature. This is the result
of the doctrine of total, depravity, so long taught in the
Church as Orthodoxy. It has taught that all natural ten-
dencies and desires in man were whoUy evil, and to be
rooted out. It has thus made Christianity unattractive, an<)
has driven men away from it. But of this it is not nece»
sary to speak here, as we shall discuss this doctrine and it«
influence hereafter.
68 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
CHAPTER IV.
TRUTHS AND ERRORS AS REGARDS MIRACLES.
§ 1. The Subject stated. Four Questions concerning Mlror
cles. — In considering the truth and error in the Orthodox
doctrine concerning miracles, we must^ first, find out what
this doctrine is; secondly, see what objections have been
urged against it ; and so, lastly, we may come to some con-
clusion as to where the truth or the error lies. There are,
however, four distinct questions in regard to miracles, each
of which may be considered separately. There is the philo-
sophic question, or definition of a miracle, which asks, What
is a miracle ? Then there is the historical question, which
asks. Did such facts actually occur ? Next is the theological
question. What are the value and weight of these facts in de-
termining our Christian belief? And lastly comes the- reli-
gious question. What are the spiritual meaning of miracle^,
and their influence on the heart and life ?
§ 2. The Definition of a Miracle. — As the creeds give no
authoritative definition of a miracle, we must examine indi-
vidual statements, in order to get the Orthodox idea.
To answer the question. What is a miracle ? is not as easy
as it would seem, as will appear from considering the differ-
ent definitions given by different authorities, taking first
those of the dictionary.
Johnson. ^^ Miracle, A wonder — something above hu-
man power. (In theology.) An effect above human or
natural power, performed in attestation of some truth."
Webster. " Miracle, (In theology.) An event or effect
MIRACLES. 69
contrary to the established constitution and course of things,
or a deviation from the known laws of nature ; a supernatu-
ral event."
Robinson's Bible Dictionary. " Miracle, A sign, won-
der, prodigy. These terms are commonly used in Scripture
to denote an action, event, or effect, superior (or contrary)
to the general and established laws of nature. And they
are given, not only to true miracles, wrought by saints
or prophets sent by God, but also to the false miracles of
impostors, and to wonders wrought by the wicked, by false
prophets or by devils." After giving examples of this from the
Scriptures, Robinson adds, " Miracles and prodigies, there-
fore, are not always sure signs of the sanctity of those who
perform them, nor proofs of the truth of the doctrine they
deliver, nor certain testimonies of their divine mission."
American Encyclopqedia. Miracle, " It is usually de-
fined to be a deviation from the course of nature. But this
definition seems to omit one of the elements of a miracle,
viz., that it is an event produced by the interposition of an
intelligent power for moral purposes ; for, otherwise, we
must consider every strange phenomenon, which our knowl-
edge will not permit us to explain, as a miraculous event. A
revelation is itself a miracle. If one claims to be a teacher
from God, he asserts a miraculous communication with God ;
this communication, however, cannot be visible, and visible
miracles may therefore be necessary to give credibility to his
pretensions. The use, then, of a miraculous interposition in
changing the usual course of nature is to prove the moral
government of God, and to explain the character of it."
Theodore Parker. " A miracle is one of three things.
*' 1. It is a transgression of all law which God has made ; or,
"2. A transgression of all known laws, or obedience to a
law which we may yet discover ; or,
"3. A transgression of all law known or knowable by man,
but yet in conformity with some law out of our reach."
60 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
He says that a miracle, according to the first definition, is
impossible ; according to the second it is no miracle at all ;
but that there is no antecedent objection to a miracle accord-
ing to the third hypothesis.
Pascal. " A miracle is an efiect which exceeds the natu-
ral force of the means employed to bring it about."
Hume. " A miracle is a violation of a law of nature."
Dr. Thomas Brown. " A miracle is as little contrary to
any law of nature as any other phenomenon. It is only an
extraordinary event, the result of extraordinary circum-
stances ; an efiect that indicates a power of a higher order
than those we are accustomed to trace in phenomena more
familiar to us, but whose existence only the atheist denies.
It is a new consequent of a new antecedent."
Horne's Introduction to the New Testament. "A
miracle defined is an effect or event different from the estab-
lished constitution or course of things, or a sign obvious to the
senses that God has interposed this power to control the estab-
lished powers of nature (commonly termed the laws of na-
ture) , which effect or sign is wrought either by the immediate
act, or by the assistance, or by the permission, of God, and
accompanied with a previous notice or declaration that it is
performed according to the purpose and by the power of
God, for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or
in attestation of the authority or divine mission of some par-
ticular person." — Vol. I. p. 203.
" Since, as we already have had occasion to observe^ the
proper effect of a miracle is clearly to mark the divine inter-
position, it must therefore have characters proper to indi-
cate such interposition ; and these criteria are six in number.
"1. It is required, then, in the first place, that a fact or
event which is stated to be miraculous should have an im-
portant end, worthy of its author.
"2. It must be instantaneously and publicly performed.
" 3. It must be sensible (that is, obvious to the senses) and
MIBACLES. 61
easy t6 be observed ; in other words, the faot or event must
be such that the senses of mankind can clearly and fully
judge of it.
"4. It must be independent of second causes.
''5. Not only public monuments must be kept up, but some
outward actions must be constantly performed in memory of
the fact thus publicly wrought.
^'6. And such monuments must be set up, and such actions
and observances be instituted, at the very time when those
events took place, and afterwards be continued without inter*
ruption." — Vol. I. p. 214 and 215.
From these examples we may see what different definitions
have been given of miracles, and that the definition is not so
easy a thing as one might at ^rst suppose. All depends on
the point of view which we take. If we look only at the
outward fact, a miracle is a wonderful event, a portent,
something out of the common course of nature, and unparal-
leled in common human experience. But if we look at it as
regards the character of him who works the miracle, it then
becomes a supernatural work, or a preternatural work, hav-
ing a divine' or a demoniac origin.
But, on the whole, the Orthodox doctrine of a miracle
seems to be this — that it is a wonderful work, contrary to
the laws of nature, wrought by the direct agency of God, in
proof of the divine commission of him by whom it is done.
The two essential points of the definition are, that a miracle
is contrary to the laws of nature ; and that it is the only logl'
cat froof of the divine authority of the miracle-worker. We
call this the orthodox definition, although we must admit
that no one in modern times has presented this view more
forcibly and decidedly than the Unitarian Andrews Norton,
and though many Orthodox men have taken a different
view.
§ 3. The different Exjplanations of the Miracles of the Bible.
6
62 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
— The four explanations of the miracles of the New Testa-
ment (to which we now confine ourselves) are these : —
I. The Natural Explanation, — According to this, the
miraculous facts of the New Testament are to be explained
as resulting from natural causes. They are on the plane of
our common human life. They are such events as might
easily happen anywhere at the present time. Christ himself
was but a natural genius of a high order. His miracles were
merely the natural results of his intellect and strength of
will, or they were mistakes on the part of the observers and
narrators, or myths which have grown up subsequently in
the Church. Great ingenuity has been used in attempting
to show how each miracle may be explained so as to be
nothing very extraordinary, after all. But these explana-
tions are often very forced. Some events which are at first
sight seemingly miraculous, are often explained as natural
events by the majority of commentators. Thus the account
of the angel who went down into the pool and troubled the
water is usually interpreted as a natural phenomenon, and no
real miracle. Modern travellers have noticed that this pool
of Bethesda is an intermittent spring, which may have pos-
sessed medicinal qualities.
The old-fashioned naturalism, however, has mostly gone
by. Its explanations were too forced and unnatural to con-
tinue long. The more common account at present is that
which assumes that the narrators were mistaken in the stories
which they have given us. Mr. Parker thinks that there is
not sufficient evidence of the miracles. If there were more
he would believe them. He gives no explanation of their
origin farther than this. But Strauss attempts an explana-
tion based upon an unconscious action of the fancy and
feelings on the part of the New Testament writers, causing
them to create these incidents out of some trifling basis
of fact or of history, Renan follows in the same general
direction.
MIRACLES. 63
H. The Unnatural Explanation. — A miracle is a viola-
tion or a suspension of a law of nature.
This, until recently, has been the favorite view of miracles
among theologians, and is the view of miracles against which
the arguments of those who reject them have been chiefly
directed.
. The arguments in favor of this view are these : —
1. The miracles of the New Testament seem to be viola-
tions of laws of nature. For example : the turning water
into wine ; healing by a word or touch ; stilling the tempest ;
feeding five thousand ; walking on the sea ; transfiguration ;
raising of Lazarus ; Christ's o'Wti resurrection. The law of
gravitation seems to have been suspended when he walked
on the sea, &c.
2. Miracles are. appealed to by Christ and his apostles in
proof that God was with him. But, unless these miracles
had suspended the laws of nature, they would not be proofs
of this.
These are the two principal reasons for this view of mir^
acles.
Objections. — On the other hand, it is objected, —
1. That apparent violations may not be real violations of
the laws of nature. Examples : The Arab emir in " The
Talisman " who was told that water sometimes became solid,
so as to support a man on horseback ; a steamboat sailing
against wind and current ; the telegraph ; the daguerrotype.
In all such cases the laws of nature are not violated or sus-
pended, but new powers come in.
2. Christ appeals to the moral character of his miracles,
and not merely to their supernatural character. They are
miracles of benevolence.
3. If the proof of Christ's mission depends on this view of
miracles, it can never be proved. "We can never be sure
that the event is a violation of a law of nature.
64 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
4. On this view the sceptic's objections to miracles are
unanswerable.
So says Dr. Thomas Brown, in an article reprinted by Dr.
Noyes, of Cambridge, in the "Theological Essays" pub-
lished by the American Unitarian Association. He admits
the principle of Hume's Essay on Miracles, but says that his
error lies in the false definition of the miracle as a violation
of the laws of nature. False, because, —
(a.) On the principle of continued uniformity of sequence
our whole belief of causation, and consequently of the divine
Being, is founded.
(6.) Gives an air of inconsistency, and almost of absurdity,
to a miracle.
(c.) Laws of nature are not violated when a new antecedent
is followed by a new consequent, but when, the antecedent
being exactly the same, a different consequent is the result.
{d.) No testimony could prove such a miracle. Suppose
testimony so strong that its falsehood would be an absolute
miracle ; then we should have to believe, in either case, that
a law of nature has been violated. No ground of preference
between them.
5. A miracle may be supernatural, or above nature, without
being unnatural, or against nature.
6. The greatest church teachers have maintained that mir-
acles were not against law or without law, but above com-
mon law. Hahn, after mentioning the view of a miracle as
a suspension of law, and calling it one neither scriptural nor
conceivable, proceeds to quote Augustine and other writers,
who held that miracles were by no means opposed to law.*
* A story is told of a clock, on one of the higfh cathedral towers of the older
world, so constructed that at the close of a century it strikes the years as it
ordinarily strikes the hours. As a hundred years come to a close, suddenly, in
the immense mass of complicated mechanism, a little wheel turns, a pin slides
into the appointed place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls a requi-
em over the generations which during a century have lived, and labored, and
been buried around it. One of these generationermight live and die, and wit-
ness nothing peculiar. The clock would have what we oaU an established
MIRACLES. 65
m. The Preternatural View of Miracles. — This view ad-
mits the reality of the phenomena, but explains them as re-
sulting from mysterious forces, which are neither divine
on the one hand, nor human on the other, but which are
outside of nature. This is the demoniacal view, or that
which supposes that evil spirits, departed souls, or spirits
neither good nor bad, surround the earth, and can be reached
by magic, witchcraft, sorcery, magnetism, or what is now
called Spiritualism. This theory supposes that the works
of Jesus were performed by the aid of spiritual beings. The
objections to this view are, —
1. If it is supposed, as it was by the Jews, that Jesus had
the aid of evil spirits, the sufficient answer is, ihdX his works
were good works.
2. If it is argued that he performed his miracles by the
aid of departed spirits who were good spirits, the answer is,
that he himself never took this view, but always declared,
*'My Father, who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Moreover, the whole character of the miracles of Jesus dif-
fers not only from everything ever done by magnetism or
spiritualism, but from everything ever claimed to be done.
rV. The Supernatural View of Miracles. — This view as-
serts that the miracles were performed by higher forces,
which came into this world from a higher world than this.
It asserts that besides the forces which are at work regularly
order of its own ; bat what should we say whea, at the midnig^ht which broug^ht
the century to a close, it sounded over the sleeping^ city, rousing aU to listen to
the world's age ? Would it be a violation of law ? No ; only a variation of the
accustomed order, produced by the intervention of a force always existing, but
never appearing ia this way till the appointed moment had arrived. The toll-
ing of the century would be a variation from the observed order of the clock;
but to an artist, in constructing it, it would have formed a part of that order.
So a miracle is a variation of the order of nature as it has appeared to us ; but
to the Author of nature it was a part of that predestined order — a part of that
order of which he is at all times the immediate Author and Sustainer ; mirac-
ulous to us, seen from our human point of view, but no miracle to God ; to our
^rcumseribcd vision a violation of law, but to God only a part in the great
plan and progress of the law of the universe. — Ephraim Peaibody.
6*
66 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
in the world, tliere are other forces outside of the world,
which may from time to time come into it. We call them
higher forces not only because they are more powerful than
the forces before at work in the world, by overcoming which
they produce the extraordinary outward phenomena, but be-
cause they always tend to elevate the world nearer to God.
They are thus proved to come from a world which is nearer
to God than this. The reasons in support of this view are, as
before suggested, — *
1. Geology teaches it. The rocks show not only an origi-
nal creation of the world, but successive creations of vegeta^
ble and animal life.
2. The creation of the world teaches it. Creation was a
miracle in this sense of the word.
3. There seems to be in the constitution of man a faculty
provided for recognizing the supernatural element. Phre-
nologists call it the organ of marvellousness. Such a faculty
would argue the existence of an appropriate object on which
it might be exercised.
4. The whole life and character of Jesus were supernatural
and miraculous in this sense. They cannot be^ satisfactorily
explained as the result of anything existing in the world
before.
§ 4, Criticism on these Different Views of Miracles. — In
attempting to discover the truths and errors contained in
these statements it is a great satisfaction to feel that our
faith in Christ and Christianity is not depending on them.
If we believed with those who consider miracles the only or
the principal proof of Christianity, we could hardly hope to
be candid and just in examining the arguments of those who
deny the marvellous facts of the New Testament, There is
no doubt that the number of religious and Christian men
who have relinquished all belief in the marvellous part of
the Bible has largely increased within a few years. At the
present time thei'e is a strong tendency to disbelieve and
MIRACLES. 67
deny all miracles as incredible and impossible. Kenan, in
his " Life of Jesus," says, " Miracles never happen except
among people disposed to believe them. We banish miracles
from history in the name of a constant experience. No
miracle has, as yet, been proved." Renan adds, that " if a
commission of men of science should decide that a man had
been raised from the dead he would believe it." " Till
then,*' he says, " it is the duty of the historian not to admit
a supernatural fact, but to find, if he can, what part credulity
and imposition have had in it." Accordingly, Renan writes
his " Life of Jesus " in this sense, discarding most of the mira-
cles, or explaining them away, and trying to put together
into some kind of shape the fragments which remain. But
Renan, does not go far enough to satisfy some others. Ger-
ritt Smith, for example, in a recent lecture which he has
published, called "Be Natural," says, "Jesus neither per-
formed nor attempted to perform miracles. His wisdom and
sincerity forbid the supposition. Am I an unbeliever in the
historical Jesus because I hold him innocent of the absurdi-
ties which superstition and folly tax him with ? No more
than I should disbelieve in Shakespeare, by denying that
he walked on the Avon, or changed its waters into wine.
M. Renan ought to have made no account of these stories of
miracles. He should have dropped them entirely, as diJ
Rammohun Roy in his Hindoo translation of the New Tes-
tament. Let the credulous feed on these creations of super-
stition, but let men of sense turn away from them."
The reason why so many intelligent men find it impossible
to believe the miracles of the New Testament, while they
find it very easy to believe the religious and moral teaching
of Jesus is partly due to the spirit of the age. The intellect
of this age is more and more scientific. Now, science is the
knowledge of facts and laws. A miracle is opposed to all
usual observation of facts, and is often called by theologians
a violation of the laws of nature. It is not therefore strange
68 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
that men imbued with the spirit of science should dislike the
notion of miracle^.
§ 5. Miracles no Proof of Christianity, — Now, we should
have little objection, on purely theological grounds, to give
up the miracles of the New Testament. Theologians have
built up the proof of Christianity on miracles. They have
declared them the chief evidence of Christianity. They
have said, " A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.
Now, no one but God can violate a law of nature. If Jesus
violated a law of nature, it proved that God was with him.
But that he did so we know from the New Testament.
That it tells the truth we know, because it was written by
eye-witnesses, who could not have been mistaken, because
they saw the miracles with their own eyes, and were not
liars, because they laid dow;i their lives in testimony of the
truth of what they asserted." Therefore, it is argued,
" Christ worked miracles ; therefore he had God's help and
power ; therefore he has God's authority to teach the religion
of the New Testament."
Now, for those who hold this view of Christianity, if
they renounce miracles, it is evident that the foundation of
faith is gone. No wonder, therefore, that they bitterly
oppose all attacks on miracles. In defending miracles, they
' are fighting for their lives.
But we need not hold this view of the foundation of Chris-
tianity. Christianity does not rest necessarily on the physi-
cal miracles of Christ, but on his moral miracles, which no
one has ever doubted, or can doubt. Christianity proceeded
from Jesus, and was transmitted by him, not as a philosophy,
but as a power, a life, which renewed the old world, and
created a new dispensation. This is the great miracle. We
do not really believe Christianity on the ground of miracles,
but we believe miracles on the ground of Christianity.
Let us explain this. If miracles had been asserted to be
wrought by God in order to prove the truth of a doctrine
MIRACLES. 69
irrational, self-contradictory, odious to the conscience and to
the heart, — to prove, for example, the justice of the Spanish
Inquisition, the lawfulness of slavery, or that God loves
some of his children and hates the rest, — then all the out-
ward evidence in the world would not have convinced us
that God had taught such a doctrine and confirmed it by
miracles. If we had seen with our own eyes a dead man
raised to life, or if M. Renan's committee of scientific men
had testified that they had seen it, we should either say they
were deceived, or we should say, with the Jews, "It is
done by some devilish power, not by a divine power. It is
not supernatural, it is preternatural." But Christianity
itself is the great miracle of human history. It is more
marvellous than raising a dead man, for it was the resur-
rection of a dead world — of a dead humanity. Read Gib-
bon. He is an infidel writer, but he is a perfect historian.
He shows you Christianity, as a living force, coming into
history, pouring a tide of life into the decaying civilization of
Rome, overflowing upon the German tribes, and changing their
whole character, so as to make out of those savage warriors
merciful and reverential soldiers, who knew how to pardon and
how to spare. Now, there seems something quite as super-
natural in this as in the coming of new trees and plants into
the world in the carboniferous epoch, or the coming in of
mammalia, a hundred thousand years or so after. It seems
as if God came near the world, and touched it ill Jesus
Christ ; for the power of <jne man was wholly inadequate
to such results as followed his coming. I believe Christianity
a divine religion, a religion from God, because it lifts the
soul nearer to God — because it has lifted mankind nearer to
God, and enabled men to believe God a friend — not a tyrant,
not a stem king — but a father. Christianity is divine,
because its truth and love are divine — because it purifies,
consoles, and elevates human hearts ; because the life of Jesus
is, by the testimony of such men as Theodore Parker, Rous-
70 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
8eau, and Renan, infinitely superior to all other lives ever*
lived in this world. Now, believing in Christianity and
Christ on such grounds, we may look with much more
deference and respect upon the stories of miracles which are
intertwined in his life. We should not attend to them at all
if we found them told about only common men ; but told
about Jesus, we are led to examine them more critically, and
ask whether it is, or is not, possible for them to have been,
in the main, real facts.
The Orthodox doctrine has been, and still is, that Chris-
tianity rests on miracles. Our view is, that miracles rest on
Christianity. But we close this section with extracts from
Luther, Channing, Trench, and Walker, to show that the
view for which we contend is not without able supporters in
all parts of the Church.
Martin Luther says, —
" People cry it up as a great miracle, that Christ made the
blind see, the deaf hear, and the lepers clean ; and it is
true such works are miraculous signs ; but Christ regards his
influence on the soul . as far more important than that on
the body ; for as the soul excels the body, so do the mira-
cles wrought on the former excel those wrought on the
latter. . . .
" The miracles which Christ wrought on the body are
small and almost childish, compared with the high and true
miracles which he constantly performs in the Christian
world by his divine, almighty power ; for instance, that
Christianity is preserved on the earth ; that the word of God
and faith in him can yet hold out ; yea, that a Christian can
survive on earth against the devil and all his angels ; also
against so many tyrants and factions ; yea, against our own
flesh and blood. The fact that the gospel remains and
improves the human heart, — this is indeed to cast out the
devil, and tread on serpents, and speak with tongues ; for
those visible miracles were merely signs for the ignorant,
MIRACLES. 71
unbelieving crowd, and for those who were yet to be brought
in ; but for us, who know and believe, what need is there
of them ? For the heathen, indeed, Christ must needs give
external signs, which they could see and take hold of ; but
Christians must needs have far higher signs, compared with
which the former are earthly. It was necessary to bring
over the ignorant with external miracles, and to throw out
ttuch apples aiid pears to them as children ; but we, on the
contrary, should boast of the great miracles which Christ
daily performs in his church."
In the '' Christian Examiner," Dr. James Walker says, —
" Christianity embodies a collection of moral and vital
truths, and these truths^ apart from all history or philosophy,
constitute Christianity itself. Instead, therefore, of perplex-
ing and confounding the young with what are called the
evidences of Christianity, give them Christianity itself. Begin
by giving them Christianity itself, as exhibited in the life
and character of the Lord Jesus, as illustrated by his simple,
beautiful and touching parables, and as it breathes through
all his discourses. They will feel it to be true. Depend
upon it, paradoxical as it may sound, children will be much
more likely to believe Christianity without what are called
the evidences, than with them ; and the remark applies to
some who are not children.
" Why talk to one*about the argument from prophecy, or the
argument from miracles, when these are the very points, and
the only points, on which his mind, from some peculiarity in its
original constitution, or from limited information, chiefly la-
bors. Give him Christianity itself, by which we mean the
body of moral and vital truths which constitute Christianity.
Observe it when you will, you will find that the doubts and dif-
ficulties suggested by children relate almost exclusively to the
history of Christianity, or to what are called the external evi-
dences of Christianity, and not to the truth of Christianity itself.
Give them Christianity itself; for if they believe in that, it
72 orthodoxy: its tboths and errors.
is enough. Nothing can he more injudicious than to persist
in urging the argument from miracles on a mind, that, from
any cause, has thus become indifferent, and perhaps impa-
tient of it. How idle to think to convince a person of Chris-
tianity by miracles, when it is these very miracles, and not
Christianity, that he doubts ! The instances, we suspect, are
not rare, even of adults, who are first converted to Christianity
itself y and afterwards, through the moral and spiritual change
which Christianity induces, are brought to believe entirely
and devoutly in its miraculous origin and history."
Dr. Channing says, —
" There is another evidence of Christianity still more inter^
nal than any on which I have yet dwelt ; an evidence to be
felt rather than described, but not less real because founded
on feeling. I refer to that conviction of the divine original
of our religion which springs up and continually gains strength
in those who apply it habitually to their tempers and lives,
and who imbibe its spirit and hopes. In such men there is
a consciousness of the adaptation of Christianity to their
noblest faculties ; a consciousness of its exalting and consol-
ing influences, of its power to confer the true happiness of
human nature, to give that peace which the world cannot
give ; which assures them that it is not of earthly origin, but
a ray from the everlasting Light, a stream from the fountain
of heavenly Wisdom and Love. This ia the evidence which
sustains the faith of thousands, who never read and cannot
understand the learned books of Christian apologists, who
want, perhaps, words to explain the ground of their belief,
but whose faith is of adamantine firmness, who hold the
gospel with a conviction more intimate and unwavering than
mere arguments ever produced."
And here is an extract from another writer : —
" Doubtless Christ's spiritual glory is in itself as distin-
guishing, and as plainly showing his divinity, as his out-
ward glory, and a great deal more ; for his spiritual glory
MIRACLES. 78
is that wherein his divinity consists, and the outward glory
of his transfiguration showed him to be divine only, as
it was a remarkable image or representation of that spir-
itual glory. . Doubtless, therefore, he that has had a clear
sight of the spiritual glory of Christ may say, ' I have not
followed cunningly devised fables, but have been an eye-
witness of his majesty,' upon as good grounds as the apos-
tle, when he had respect to the outward glory of Christ tliat
he had seen. A true sense of the divine excellency of the
things of God's Word doth more directly and immediately
convince of the truth of them ; and that because the ex-
cellency of these things is so superlative. There is a
beauty in them that is so divine and godlike, that is greatly
and evidently distinguishing of them from things merely hu-
man, or that men are the authors and inventors of, — a glory
that is so high and great, that when clearly seen, commands
assent to their divinity and reality. The evidence which
they who are spiritually enlightened have of the truth of the
things of religion, is a kind of intuition and immediate evi-
dence. They believe the doctrines of God's Word to be
divine, because they see divinity in them. That is, they see
a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently distinguish-
ing glory in them ; such a glory as, if clearly seen, does
not leave room to dpuht of their being of God, and not of
men."
Trench, also, denies that the miracle can have absolute
authority, since Satanic powers may work evil too. This
convinces us, he says^ that miracles cannot be appealed to in
proof of the doctrine or of the divine mission of him who
brings it to pass. The doctrine must first commend itself to
the conscience as being good ; then the miracle shows it to
be a new word from God. But when the mind and con
science reject the doctrine, the miracle must be rejected too.
The great act of faith is to believe, in despite of all miracles,
what God has revealed to the soul of the holy and the true ;
7
74 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
not to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven
should bring it. Instead of compelling assent, miracles are
then rather warnings to us that we keep aloof; for they
tell us not merely that lies are here, but that hp who utters
them is an instrument of Satan.
False miracles, or lyiug wonders, are distinguished from
the true, not by the intellect, but by the moral sense, which
finds in them something immoral, or ostentatious, or futile,
leading to nothing. Origen says the miracles of Moses
issued in a Jewish polity ; those of our Lord in a Christian
Church. But what fruits have the miracles of ApoUonius
or ^sculapius to show ?
The miracles of Christ are redemptive. Modern writers
of evidences make a dangerous omission when they fail to
say that the doctrine is to try the miracle, as well as the
miracle to seal the doctrine. To teach men to believe in
Christ on no other grounds than his wonderful works is to
pave the way of Antichrist. Those books of Christian
evidences are utterly maimed and imperfect, fraught with
the most perilous consequences, which reverence in the
miracle only its power.*
§ 6. But Orthodoxy is right in maintaining their Reality as
Historic Facts, — The first thing we notice about the mira-
cles of Jesus is, that they are intertwii\ed inextricably with
the whole narrative. It is almost impossible to disentangle
them, and to leave any solid historic residuum. There is a
story in Goethe of a statue of iron and silver, with veins of
gold. The flames licked out the gold v-eins of the colossus,
and it remained standing a little while ; but when at last the
tenderest filaments had been licked out, the image crashed
together, and fell in a shapeless, miserable heap. So when
the tongue of criticism shall have eaten out the supernatural
elements of the gospel narrative, the heroic figure will fall,
* Trench, ** Notes on the Miracles of our Lord,"
MIRACLES. 75
as it has already in Benan's construction, into an amorphous
mass of unhistoric rubbish.
Then we see that most of these, miracles are mfracles of
healing, which have their* analogues in many similar events
scattered through history. Many such facts might be col-
lected to show that there is in man a latent power of over-
coming disease, in himself and others, by a great exertion of
will. If in common men there is such a power, latent, and
as yet undeveloped, why should it be an unnatural thing that
one so full of a superhuman life as Jesus should be raised to
a position where, by his very word or touch, he could cure
disease, and that even at a distance ?
We see such wonderful discoveries made every day of
latent powers in nature, and secrets hidden till now from all
men, that we do not know where to put limits to the possi-
bility of the wonderful. To go into a telegraphic office in
Boston, and speak to a man in New York or Washington,
and have an answer in five minutes ; to have your portrait
painted in a moment by the rays of the sun, — such things
as these would have seemed miracles to us a few years ago.
To be able to tell what metals there are in the sun's atmos-
phere, and what not. there; to say, "In the atmosphere of
the sun there is silver, but not gold ; there are iron, and anti-
mony, and lead, and aluminum, but no copper nor zinc," —
does not' this seem incredible? But we know that we can
now tell just that.
When we read the Gospels, we find everything in them so
simple, so unpretending, so little of an attempt at making
out a consistent story, such a harmony in the character of
the works attributed to Jesus (with one or two exceptions),
that we are irresistibly inclined to say, " These stories must be
simple facts. Delusion never* spoke in this tone, — so clear,
so luminous, — in language so honest and sincere."
I do not deny that some mistakes or misapprehensions may
have crept into the records. Occasionally we can see signs
76 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
of something being mistaken for a miracle which was really
not one. For example, the finding of a piece of money in
the fish's 'mouth may have been the mistake of a proverbial
expression, common among fishermen, and used by Matthew
iu his original Hebrew Gospel, but which the Greek trans-
lator, ignorant of the popular phrase, considered to be meant
for a miracle.
The most natural supposition is, that a wonderful power
dwelt in Jesus, which enabled him to heal the sick, cure the
insane, and sometimes even bring back life to the dead.
What do we know about death ? The last breath has been
drawn. The heart has ceased to beat, the lungs to move.
We say, " He is dead." But people have lain two or three
days in this state, declared dead by the physicians, and then
have come to life again by natural causes. A drowned man
has all the marks of death ; but after lying in this state half
an hour, he is brought to life again. What, then, might not
have been done by that supernatural power of life which, as
history shows, dwelt iu Jesus of Niizareth ?
§ 7. Analogy with other Similar Events recorded in His-
tory.— It may very properly be asked whether miracles
have occurred since the Bible record was closed ; and if not,
why not. Since we have regarded the miracles of tlie New
Testament as no violations of law, but the coming in of
higher laws or forces than those usually at work in the
world, why may they not have taken place in our own time ?
If Christ's miracles differ only from other miracles in being
higher and more perfect, what are the miracles of a lower
class ? Can we point- out any events belonging to the same
class of phenomena which have happened during the last
thousand years ? •
In reply to this question, we* will proceed to mention cer-
tain phenomena which seem to belong to the same order aa
the works of Jesus. The distinction between the miracles of
Christ and all those portents will be pointed out hereafter.
MIRACLES. 77
In the "Atlantic Monthly" for February and March,
1864, there appeared an account (written, we believe, by
R. Dale Owen), of the Convulsionists of St. M^dard. The
facts therein stated seem to contradict all the known laws of
physiology. The lower side of miracles, namely, their ap-
parent violation of physical laws, here appears as fully
developed and as fully attested as the most careful sceptic
could desire. If, therefore, any one objects to believing the
miracles of Jesus on the ground that they seem to be viola-
tions of physical laws, we ask what they mean to do with
these facts, so extraordinary, and yet so fully attested. If
believed, there is no reason, based on the abnormal charac-
ter of Christ's works, for rejecting those. But if disbelieved,
it can be done only by setting aside all the ordinary rules of
evidence, and all the laws of belief, in favor of a negative
prepossession of a purely empirical character. Phenomena
somewhat similar to these have occurred elsewhere, among
Protestants as well as Catholics, during periods of great
religious excitemtent. The beginnings of most religious sys-
tems— Methodism, Quakerism, &c. — have stories like these
of supernatural influences. They have usually been disbe-
lieved because their friends have claimed too much : they
have claimed that such phenomena were divine attestations
to the truth of the doctrine preached. What is proved by
them is the simple* fact that the soul of man is capable,
under high excitement, of suspending, or rather overcoming,
all common physiological Idwa. We have seen similar re-
sults follow often from such causes, only in ordinary ways.
A sick person is made well in a moment by some moral
influence ; a weak and sickly mother will nurse a sick child,
night after night, without rest or sleep, and keep well, where
a strong man would break down. Mesmerism brings for-
ward multitudes of like facts. There are, for example, the
well-attested facts concerning the transfer of the senses : that
people under the influence of animal magnetism can read
7*
78 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
with their forehead, the pit of their stomach, or the back of
their head. We have seen a weak boy, some thirteen years
old, when magnetized, lift a chair with three heavy men
standing on it. Clairvoyance, or seeing things at a distance,
though not so well proved, is confirmed by a vast number of
facts. We come, then, to our final statement concerning
miracles, which is this : —
I. There is in man a power, as yet undeveloped, and only
occasionally seen in exceptional conditions, of overcoming
the common laws of nature by force of will ; and this is
sometimes voluntary, and sometimes involuntary.
II. This phenomenon takes these forms : —
A. Power of the soul over the body (a.) to resist pairiy as
in the. case of martyrs, who are burned alive without any
appearance of suffering ; (h.) to resist physical injury j as in
the case of the Convulsionists ; (c.) to dispense with the usual
service of the senses^ as in the case of the girl at Worcester
Insane Asylum, Massachusetts, under the care of Dr. Wood-
ward, who could read a book in a perfectly dark room and
with bandaged eyes ; (c?.) to give a preternatural energy and
strength to the body.
B. Preternatural knowledge — such cases as that narrated
by Dr. Bushnell, of Yonnt, in California ; or knowledge
through dreams , waking presentiments ; cases offoresightj or
prophecy ; of insight^ or knowledge of what is passing in
other minds ; of clairvoyance, or knowledge of what is hap-
pening at a distance, of which multitudes of facts are nar-
rated in such books as the " Seeress of Provorst," Mrs. Crowe's
" Night Side of Nature," Robert Dale Owen's " Footfalls
from the Boundary of the Unseen World," which, after
being sifted by a fair criticism, will leave a large residuum
of irresolvable facts.
C. Higher than these is a preternatural elevation of the
whole character, as in such cases as that of Joan of Abc^
where a young girl, ignorant, a peasant, destitute of all com-
MIRACLES. 79
mon means of influencing any one, by the simple power of
faith, because she believed herself inspired and commis-
sioned, succeeded in gaining the command of the armies of
France, and then of achieving a series of victories, equal, on
the whole, as mere military exploits, to those of the first
captains of the world.
In all these cases we see manifestations of a power in llie
soul over nature, body, men, and the laws of time and spactc.
So we say, secondly ^ —
III. This power was possessed in the highest degree
known in this world by Jesus of Nazareth, and it differed in
him from these other cases in these points : —
1. It was always voluntary in its exercise, never involun-
tary. He was not possessed by it, he possessed it. He used
it just when and where he chose to use it. It was always at
his command ; he never appears to have tried to work a
miracle, and failed. So, —
2. It wad in him constant, and not occasional. In other
cases where the miraculous element appears, it seems to
come and go ; but to Jesus the spirit was not given by
measure. He had it always.
3. This power in him was total, and not partial. It was
therefore harmonious — in harmony with all his other quali-
ties. He had power over diseases of the body, and also
those of .the soul. He knew what was in man, and what
was in nature — in the present, and in the future. There
was nothing ecstatic, enthusiastic, nothing of excitement,
about him ; but everything denoted a fulness, a pleboma, of
this spiritual life.
4. The exercise of this power in Christ was always emi-
nently moral, never wilful. The one or two seeming excep-
tions, as, for example, the cursing the fig tree, and the
causing the evil spirits to go into the swine, ought to be
explained in harmony with the vast majority of his actions,
80 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
which always are guided by love, and justice, and a holy
sense of what is true and good.
5thly, and lastly. The miracle power of Jesus reached a
higher point of development than in any one else. The
raising of the dead to life, and the mysterious power over
nature indicated by the turning of water into wine, by
the miracle of the loaves and fishes, calming the storm, if
facts, are facts unparalleled in any other biography, but
seem possible, however unintelligible, when considered as
emanating from such a masterly and. commanding spirit as
that of Jesus.
And this finally brings us to the miracle of the resurrec-
tion, concerning which we will first quote from an article in
a late number of the " Westminster Review," to show the
most recent ideas of the critical and negative school on this
point.
§ 8. Miracle of the Resurrection. Sceptical Objections. —
In an article in the " "Westminster Review," in " The Life of
Christ, by Strauss," occurs the following passage : —
" For of the two alternatives open to free inquiry, that if
Jesus died he never reappeared, or if he reappeared he neve;*
died, Strauss considers the former not only preferable, but
the only tenable one ; for he cannot persuade himself that a
feeble sufferer, who at first had scarcely strength to leave
the tomb, and in the end succumbed to death, could have
contrived to inspire his followers with the conviction that he
was the Prince of life, the Conqueror of the gi*ave. 8trau?s
thus admits that faith in the supernatural revival of the
buried Nazarene was undoubtedly the profession of the
Christian Church, the unconditional antecedent without
which Christianity could have had no existence. If, then,
we refuse to assume the resurrection to be an historical fact,
we have to explain the origin of the Church's belief in it.
The solution which satisfies Strauss, and which seems to uh
also an adequate interpretation of the problem, is d-jperideut
MIRACLES. 81
on the two following positions : 1. The appearance of Jesus
was literally an appearance, an hallucination, a psychological
phenomenon. 2. It was also a sort of practical falls^cy of
confusion, a case of mistaken identity.
" But it will be said that this natural solution of the prob-
lem implies a foregone conclusion — the rejection of the Or-
thodox or supernatural solution. Of course it docs ; and
accordingly Strauss has been accused of dogmatical or un-
philosophical assumption. But the rejection of the theologi-
cal solution is not the result of ignorant prejudice, but of
enlightened investigation. Anti-supernaturalism is the final
irreversible sentence of scientific philosophy, and the real
dogmatist and hypothesis-maker is the theologian. That the
world is governed by uniform laws is the first article in the
creed of science, and to disbelieve whatever is at variance
with those uniform laws, whatever contradicts a complete
induction, is an imperative, intellectual duty. A particular
miracle is credible to him alone who already believes in sur
pernatural agency. Its credibility rests on an assumption —
the existence of such agency. But our most comprehensive
scientific experience has detected no such agency. There is
no miracle in nature ; there is no evidence of any miracle-
working energy in nature ; there is no fact in nature to jus-
tify the expectation of miracle. Rightly has it been said by
an English savant and divine, that testimony is a second-hand
assurance, a blind guide, that can avail nothing against rea-
son ; and that to have any evidence of a Deity working
miracles, we must go out of nature and beyond reason.
" Strauss's prepossession, therefore, is justifiable. It is the
pi'epossession of the rational theist, who does not believe in
a God who changes his mind and improves with practice —
the prentice maker of the world ; it is the prepossession of
the pantheist, in whose theory of the perfect government of
an iminanent God, miracle is an extravagance and absurdity ;
it is the prepossession of the philosophical naturalist, whose
82 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
experience of the operations of nature recognizes no extra-
mundane interventionalism."
We have quoted this passage as containing the most dis-
tinct statement of an extreme anti-supernaturalism. Ad-
mitting the death of Jesus as a fact, it denies his resurrection
as a fact, and that on doctrinal and theoretic grounds. De-
claring anti-supernaturalism to be the final irreversible sen-
tence of scientific philosophy, it assumes supernaturalism to
be a denial that the world is governed by uniform laws. It
assumes the resurrection of Christ to be at variance with
those uniform laws. It denies the existence of any super-
natural agency in the affairs of this world. It denies that
there ever has been a miracle in nature, or any extra-mun-
dane intervention in the history of nature or man.
This is what claims to be science, at the present time.
We deny that it is science^ and assert it to be pure dogma-
tism and theory, contradicted by numerous facts. It is pure
theory to assume the resurrection of Jesus to be a violation
of law. It is pure theory to define a miracle to be something
opposed to law. It is pure theory to assume that the mirac-
ulous facts ascribed to Jesus in the Grospels must have been,
if they occurred, violations of law. It is an assumption,
contradicted by geology, that there is nothing in the experi-
ence of the naturalist of the operations of nature to show any
extra-mundane intervention.
We have, admitted, indeed, that these same assumptions
have been made by Orthodox theology. Orthodox theolo-
gians have also assumed the miracles of Christ to be
violations of the laws of nature. But some of the most dis-
tinguished theologians, in all ages of the Church, have not
so defined them. And there is no reason why the man of
science should deny the possibility of a fact because an un-
scientific explanation has been given of that fact by others.
This writer virtually says, " I will not believe that Christ
appeared after his death, on any amount of testimony, be-
MIRACLES. 83
cause some persons have defined such appearances as being
opposed to the laws of nature." It is certainly true that we
cannot fully believe in the reality of any phenomenon which
seems to ns to be a violation of law. It is also true that the
reported facts concerning the appearances of Jesus eeem like
a violation of law. But the scientific course is neither
to deny the facts, nor to explain them away, but to study
them, in order to see whether, after all, they may not lead
us to some new laws, before unknown.
The resurrection of Jesus deserves this study, since, ac-
cording to the confession of science itself, the Christian
Church rests upon that belief. Strauss admits that Chris-
tianity could not have existed without it. But, hastily assum-
ing that the real appearance of Jesus himself would be a
violation of a law of nature, he supposes this immense fact
of Christendom to rest on an hallucination and a case of
mistaken identity.
But perhaps, after all, the resurrection may have been an
example of a universal law. Like other miracles, which are
sporadic instances, in this world, of laws which may be the
nature of other worlds, so the resurrection may have been
as natural an event as any other in the life of Jesus. Per-
haps it is a law of nature that all souls shall become disen-
r gaged from the earthly body on the third day after death.
Perhaps they all rise in a spiritual body, substantial and
real, but not usually perceptible by the senses. Perhaps, in
the case of Jesus, that same superior command of miracu-
lous force, which appeared during his life, enabled him to
show himself easily and freely whenever he would. What
became of the earthly body we do not know ; it may have
been removed by the priests or soldiers to prevent the disci-
ples from getting possession of it. . The body in which
Christ appeared differed evidently from the earthly body in
various ways. It came and went mysteriously; it wag
sometimes recognized, and sometimes not ; and it ascended
84 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
into tlie spiritual world instead of passing again to death
and the grave. Perhaps, therefore, it may be a universal
law that souls rise out of the material body into a higher
state, clothed in another body, substantial and real, but not
material. The essence of the resurrection is this : Resurrec-
tion is not coming to life again with the same body, but
ascent into a higher life with a new body.
It may be said that all this is only a perhaps. Very well ;
it is only a perhaps^ but that is all we want in order to refute
the logic of the article just quoted. The scientific sceptic
says, " I will not believe that Jesus was really seen after
death, because that would be a violation of a law of nature."
We reply, "No, not necessarily. It might perhaps have
been thus and so." That will do ; for if we can show that
it is not necessarily a violation of a law of nature, we wholly
remove the objection.
But we may go farther, and assert that such a supposition
as we have made not only accords with the story in the
Gospels, but also with the whole spirit of Christianity, and
with all the analogies of nature. The resurrection of Jesus,
so regarded, becomes the most natiural thing in the world.
If souls live after death, as even natural instinct teaches,
they live somewhere. As by the analogy of nature we see
an ascending scale of bodily existence up to man, whose
body is superior to that of all other animals, because fitted
for the Very highest uses, so if man is to live hereafter and
elsewhere, and not in this earthly body, analogy would an-
ticipate that he should Uve in a body still, but in a higher
form. If Jesus, therefore, rose in this higher body, and
appeared to his disciples, it was to lift them above fear of
death by showing that this corruptible must put on incorrup-
tion. So his resurrection was not merely coming to life
again in the same body, but rising up into a higher body and
a higher state, to show us how we are to be, to give us a
MIBACLES. 85
glimpse of the hereafter, to bridge over the gulf between this
life and that to come.
§ 9. Final Result of this Examination. — We have thus
examined, as thoroughly as our limited space will allow, the
questions at issue, on the subject of miracles, between the
old Orthodox and recent heterodox views ; and the result to
which we have arrived may be thus stated : —
1. We may believe, on the testimony of history, that
through Jesus of Nazareth there entered the world a great
impulse of creative moral life, which has been, and is now,
renewing society. This new impulse of life may be regarded
as miraculous or supernatural.
2. We may believe, though perhaps less strongly, but still
decidedly, that during the stay of Jesus on earth many
extraordinary phenomena took place, such as the sudden
healing of the sick, the raising of the dead to life, a display
of miraculous insight and foresight, or knowledge of the
present and the future, and some influence over organic and
material life^ and over the lifeless forces of nature. The
precise limits of this we do not know, and need not pretend
to define. We need not think it essential to fix the boun-
dary. It may be interesting as speculation, but it is not
important as religion.
3. For, in the third place, we may say that these mira-
cles of Jesus have very little direct bearing on our religion.
As tjiey illustrate his character, they are valuable, and also
as they help us to believe that the laws of nature are not
stiff and rigid, like the movement of a machine, but that
there is force above force, a vortex of living powers, in tlie
universe, rising higher and higher towards the fountain of
all force and life in God. All portents and wonders are
useful, as they shake us out of the mechanical view of
things, and show that even the outward, sensible world is
full of spiritual power.
4. We may also believe the miracles of Jesus to be
8
86
orthodoxy: ITS truths and errors.
natural in this sense — that under the same conditions they
could have been done by others, and that they are probably
prophetic of a time in which they shall be done by others.
Looked at as mere signs or portents^ he himself discouraged
any attention being paid to them. Looked at as logical
proofs to convince an unbeliever, he never brought them for-
ward. His object in miracles, as stated by Mr. Furness,
was simply to express his character. Some, indeed, were
symbolical, as the cursing of the fig tree. It is the custom
in the East for teachers to speak in symbolic language.
Miracles were at first believed, on low grounds, as viola-
tions of law by a God outside of the world. 'Now they are
disbelievfed on scientific grounds. They may possibly be
believed again on grounds of philosophy and historic evi-
dence, not as "portents, not as violations of law, not as the
basis of a logical argument, but as the natural effluence and
outcome of a soul like that of Jesus, into which a super-
natural influx of light and life had descended. They are
not more wonderful than nature ; they are not so wonderful
as the change of heart by which a bad man becomes a good
man. But they will find their proper place as evidence how
plastic the lower laws are to the influence of a higher life*
* ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 87
CHAPTER V.
OKTHODOX IDEA OP THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF
THE BIBLE.
§ 1. Subject of this Chapter, Three Views concerning the
Bible. — The subject of this chapter is the Orthodox idea
concerning the inspiration and authority of the Bible. We
shall consider the conflict of opinion between those who be-
lieve in the full inspiration of every word of Scripture, and
those who treat it like a common book, and endeavor to see
how far we ought to believe a fact or a doctrine, because it
is asserted, or seems to be asserted, by some writer in the
Bible.
Such questions are certainly of great importance to us all
at the present time, when opinions on these subjects are un-
settled, and few people know exactly what to believe. Espe-
cially in regard to the Old Testament, not many persons
have any distinct notions. They do not know what is its
inspiration or its authority ; they do not know whether they
are to believe the account of the creation and of the deluge
in the book of Genesis, in opposition to the geologists, or be-
lieve the geologists, in opposition to Genesis. Certainly it is
desirable, if we can, to have some clear and distinct opinions
on these points.
And, first, in regard to Inspiration : there are three
main and leading views of the inspiration of the Bible.
There cannot be a fourth. There may be modifications of
these, but nothing essentially different. These three views
are, —
(a.) Plenary Inspiration. — That is, that everything in
88 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS. •
the Bible is the word of Gfod. All the canonical books are
inspired by Cod, so as to make them infallible guides to faith
and practice. Every word which really belongs to these
books is God's truth, and to be received without question as
truth, no matter how much it may seem opposed to reason,
to the facts of nature, to common sense, and common
morality.
This is the Orthodox theory even at the present time.
Any variation from this is considered a deviation into heresy.
No doubt, in practice it is deviated from, by very Orthodox .
people ; but all Protestant sect«, claiming to be Orthodox,
profess to hold to the plenary inspiration of the Bible.
(6.) The Bationalist or Naturalistic View of the Bible. —
The Bible is not inspired at all, or at least in no way differing
from any other book. Its authors were inspired, perhaps,
just as Homer, or Thucydides, or Cicero were inspired, but
not differently. It has no authority^ therefore, over any other
book, and is just as liable to be in error as any other. If
you should bind in one volume the histories of Herodotus,
Tacitus, Gibbon, and Mr. Bancroft, the poems of Horace,.
Hafiz, and Dante, and the letters of Cicero and Horace Wal-
pole, this collection would have to the Naturalist just as
much' authority as the Bible.
(c.) The mediatorial view of the Bible, or the view which
mediates between the others. This view endeavors to recori'
die the others, by accepting the truths in each, and eliminat-
ing their errors or defects.
To this third division of opinions belong those of a large
class, who are not prepared to accept either the first or the
second. They cannot believe every word in the Bible to bo
the word of God, for they find things in it contradicting the
evidence of history and the intuitions of reason, and also con-
tradicting other teachings of the same book. They cannot
see why, as Christians, they should believe everything in tho
Jewish Scriptures. As Christians, they go to the New Tes-
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 89
tament as a main source of faith and practice, but do not see
why they should go to the Old Testament for Christian truth.
On the other hand, they cannot look upon the Bible as a
common book. They remember that it has been a light to
the world for thousands of years, that it has been the means
of awakening the human intellect and heart, of reforming
society, and purifying life. Even in the Did Testament they
find the noblest truth and the tenderest piety. The Bible
has been the litany, prayer-book, inspirer, comforter of na-
tions and centuries. They cannot and would not emancipate
themselves from the traditions in which they were bom, nor
cut off history behind them. The. Christian Church is their
mother ; she has taught them out of this book to know God,
and out of this book to pray to him, and they cannot regard
it without a certain prepossession.
To this third class I myself belong. I would not be unjust
to the past or to the future. I would be loyal to truth, and
not shut my eyes to what God reveals which is new ; and I
would not be unfaithful to what has already been taught me,
or ungrateful for the love which has taught the world by the
mouths of past prophets and apostles.
§ 2. The Difficulty. Antiquity of the Worlds and Age of
Mankind, — Let us then see, first, what the problem before
us is ; and this can perhaps be best understood by means of
an example. .
The common opinion among Christians is, that the world
was made four thousand and four years before Christ, and
that all mankind are descended from Adam and Eve. These
opinions are derived from the book of Genesis, which tells us
that after God had made the world and other things in five
days, on the sixth day he made man in his own image ; and
that, when the first man, Adam, was a hundred and thirty
years old, he had a son, named Seth ; and from Seth, accord-
ing to Genesis, are descended, by a genealogy given in the
fifth chapter of Genesis, Noah and his sons ; and the ages
8*
90 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
being given from Adam down to Abraham, and from Abra-
ham to Ghrisl*, the age of the world and the age of the human
race have been computed.
' As long as there was no reason for supposing any dif-
ferent period for the antiquity of the world, these numbers
were quietly accepted. But various new facts have been
noticed, and new sciences have arisen, within the past fifty
years, which have thrown doubt upon this chronology. In
the first place the great science of geology Has examined the
rocky leaves which envelop the surface of the earth, and
has found written upon them- proofs of an immense antiquity.
It is found that the earthy instead of being created four thou-
sand years ago, must have existed for myriads of years, in
order to have given time for the changes which have taken
place in its structure. This evidence was long doubted and
resisted by theologians, as they supposed in the interest of
Scripture ; but the evidence was too strong to be denied, and
no intelligent theologian, however Orthodox, now believes
the world to have been made in six days, or to have been cre-
ated only six thousand years ago. With some, the six days
stand for immense periods of time; with others, the whole
story is considered a vision, or a symbolical account of geo-
logical events ; but no one takes it literally. This result has
come from the overwhelming amount of evidence for the
antiquity of the earth, derived mainly from the fossil rocks.
Of these fossiliferous rocks there are over thirty distinct
strata, lying superimposed, in a regular series, each filled
with the remains of distinct varieties of animals or of plants.
These rocks must each have been an immense period of time
in being formed, for the shells which they contain, although
very delicate, are unbroken, and could only be slowly de-
posited in the quiet depths of a great ocean. There are also
evidences that after these strata were formed, violent and
sudden upheavals took place, throwing them into new posi-
tions, then slow uprisings of the bottom of the sea, or slow
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 91
•
subsidings of the land. At one time the northern parts of
Europe and America were covered with ice. Great glaciers
extended over the whole of Switzerland, and icebergs floated
from the mountains of Berkshire in Massachusetts upon a
sea which filled the valley of the Connecticut River, drop-
ping erratic blocks of stone, taken from those mountains, in
straight lines, parallel with each other, half way across the
valley, where they still lie. Similar icebergs floated from
Snowdon, in Wales, and Ben Lomond, in Scotland, over the
submerged islands of Great Britain. At one time the whole
surface of the earth, instead of being covered with icy gla-
ciers, was filled with a hot, damp' atmosphere, ladeu with
carbonic gas, which no creature could breathe, but in which
grew great forests of a strange tropical vegetation. Then
came another period, in which all these forests were sub-
merged and buried, and at last turned into coal. Long after
this hot period had passed, and long after the cold, glacial
period, which followed it, had departed, came a time when
the elephant, the rhinoceros, and ^he hippopotamus covered
the whole of Europe, and the mammoth roamed in North
America. Such facts as these, incontestably established by
the amplest^ evidence, have made it impossible for any rea-
sonable man to believe that the earth was made in six days,
or that it was made only six thousand years ago.
But this question being thus disposed of, other questions
arise in their turn. Are all mankind descended from one
pair, or from many ? Has the human race existed on the
earth only six thousand years, or during a longer period ?
Was the deluge of Noah a real event? and if so, was it
universal or partial? Did the sun stand still at the com-
mand of Joshua ? or is that only a poetic image taken from
an ancient book of poems — the book of Jasher ? Is there
any truth iu the story of the passage of the Red Sea by the
Israelites? of the passage of the Jordan? of the walls of
Jericho falling when the trumpets were blown ? of the story
92 ORTHODOxr: its truths and errors.
of Samson ? If we once begin to doubt and disbelieve the
accounts in the Bible, where shall we stop? What rule
shall we have by which to distinguish the true from the
false ? Is it safe to begin to question and deny ? Is it not
safer to accept the whole book as the word of God, and to
let everything in it stand unexamined ?
No ! " It is never safe," said Luther, " to do anything
against the truth I " Truth alone is safe ; and his soul only
is safe who loves and honors truth more than human appro-
bation — more than ease, comfort, or life. It is not safe to
pretend to believe what we do not. And in this instance,
half of the infidelity of 'the age and country has come from
the teaching that everything in the Bible is the word of God.
Sincere men have been disgusted when told they must be-
lieve things contrary to their common sense and reason.
Another question, which is now being investigated, is the
age of mankind — the antiquity of the human race. The
Bible gives the list of generations from Adam to Abraham ;
and the length of each, jind other data, given in Scripture,
make six thousand years for the life of man on this earth.
Greek history .only goes back some twenty-three hundred
years ; the Egyptian monuments go back fifteen hundred or
two thousand years earlier — to 2000 B. C, or 3000 B. C.
The " Vedas," in India, may have been written 1500 B. C. ;
the " Kings," in China, before that. But recently we have
been carried back to a yet earlier period, — to a time when
man existed on the earth, before any written monument
or sculptured stone which now exists. Two different sources
have been discovered within a few years, — one of them by
philology, the other by geology.
It has been found that the languages spoken by Europeans,
in their airy sounds, are more permanent monuments than
granite or enduring brass. Stamped on these light, impon*i
derable words are marks of a gray antiquity going back to
times before Herodotus, before Moses and the book of Gene«
OBTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 93
sis, before the Yedas in India, before the Zendavesta in
Persia. It has been proved, first, that nearly all the lan-
guages of Europe belong to one linguistic family, and there-
fore that those who speak them were originally of one race.
These different languages — seven sister languages, daugh-
ters of a language now wholly gone — are the Sanscrit or
.ancient Hindoo, the Zend or ancient Persian, the Greek, the
Latin, the Keltic, the German, and the Slavic languages.
By a comparison of these, it has been found that originally
there lived, east of the Caspian, a race of shepherds- and
hunters, calling themselves Aryan ; that one branch descended
into India at least five thousand years ago, and drove out
the aboriginal inhabitants, a second branch went into Per-
sia, a third into Italy, a fourth into Greece, a fifth vast im-
migration fiUed Northern Europe with the Kelts, a sixth
with Scandinavians and Germans, and a seventh with the
Slaves. But long ago as this immigi'ation was, — before all
history, — it found aboriginal inhabitants everywhere, whose
descendants remain. The Lapps and Finns in Northern
Europe, the Basques in Spain, and Magyars in Hungary,
are probably descended from this earlier European race.
It is difficult to suppose mankind only six thousand years
old, when we find such great movements taking place four
or five thousand years ago.
But now come the geologists, and tell us that they find
evidence of three different races existing in Europe in three
distinct periods of civilization, some of which probably pre-
ceded the immigration of these Indo-European races. These
three belong to what they call the Stone, the Bronze, and
the Iron Age. In the gravel and drift, from ten to twenty
feet below the surface, along with the bones of the elephant
and the rhinoceros, and other animals long since extinct, are
found hundreds of flint instruments, axes, arrow-heads, and
tools, indicating that men lived in Europe in great numbers,
contemporaries with these extinct animals. If this should
94 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
be proved, we should then be brought to admit, with respect
to the antiquity of man, what we have already admitted with
regard to the antiquity of the world, that the account in
Genesis is not to be understood as theologians have hitherto
taught ; that is, that we must not go to Genesis, but to phi-
lology and geology, for our knowledge of the most ancient
history.
In this case, then, it will be evident that the old notion of
a literal inspiration cannot be maintained. God certainly
did not inspire men to teach anything about the creation
which was adapted to mislead and deceive men for two
thousand years. We shall be obliged to say, then, that
Moses was not inspired to teach geology or history ; that
what he taught on these subjects he taught from such
sources as were available to him, and that he was liable to
error.
The old Orthodox theory of plenary inspiration has re-
ceived very damaging blows from such scientific researches
as these which we have been describing. The letter of the
Bible seems, in such cases, to be at war with the facts of
nature.
§ 3. Basis of the Orthodox Theory of Inspiration. — Why,
then, should the Orthodox doctrine be so stoutly maintained?
What are the reasons used in its defence ? What its arguments ?
What is its basis ? On what does it rest ? Do the writers
of the Bible say that they were inspired by God to write
these books? Not at all. Do they claim infallibility?
Nowhere. Do they lay down any doctrine of plenary, ver-
bal, literal inspiration? No. We do not even know who
wrote many of these books. We do not know who collected
them, or why just these books were put into the collection,
and no others. The Orthodox theory rests on few facts, but
is mainly an assumption. It seemed necessary that there
should be authority somewhere ; and when Protestants re-
jected the authority of the Church, they took the Bible in
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 95
its place. The doctrine of inspiration, therefore, was adopted
as a basis for the authority of the Bible.
The principal reason given by those who believe in the
plenary inspiration of the Bible, for holding to this doctrine,
is the necessity of some authority. The argument is this :
Unless every part of the Bible is believed to be fully inspired,
some part of it may be believed to be erroneous ; and if we
admit error in any part, the Bible loses its authority, and
we do not know what to believe. The doctrine of literal and
plenary inspiration rests, therefore, in the last analysis, on
no basis of fact, but on a purely a priori argument. Let us
therefore examine this argument, and see what is its force.
Revelation, it is said, is a communication of truth with
authority. It is truth shown to us by God, not truth rea-
soned out by man. Its value is, that we can rely upon it
entirely, live by it, die by it, without doubt or hesitation.
We do not want speculation, opinion, probability ; we want
certainty ; otherwise religion ceases to be a power, and be-
comes a mere intellectual amusement.
The only religion, it is added, which is of any real value,
is that which carries with it this authority. The outward
world, with its influences and its temptations, is so strong,
that we shall be swept away by it unless we can oppose to it
some inward conviction as solid and real. Amid the temp-
tations of the senses, the allurements of pleasure, the deceit-
fulness of riches, will it enable a man to hold fast to honesty,
temperance, purity, generosity — to believe that in all proba-
bility these things are right, and that there is something lo
be said in favor of the opinion that God approves of them ?
Will it help him, to think that unless the writer of the
Gospel is mistaken, or his words mistranslated, Christ may
have said that goodness leads to heaven, and sin to hell?
No. We need authority in order to have certainty ; and we
need certainty in our convictions in order tha^ they should
influence us deeply and permanently.
96 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
This is the chief argument in favor of the plenary inspira-
tion * of the Bible. We see it amounts to this — that it is
very desirable, for practical purposes, that we should believe
everything in the Bible to be true.f
In reply to this, we ought first to say, that the question in
all these cases is not, What is desirable ? but, What is true ?
We should begin by investigating the facts. We should ask.
Does the Bible anywhere say of itself that it is inspired in
this sense? Do any of the writers of the Bible declare
themselves to be thus inspired, so that all that they say is
absolutely true in every particular? Does Christ say that
those who are to write the Gospels or the Epistles of the
New Testament shall be thus guarded against every possible
error? Or is there any evidence in the books themselves
that the writers were thus protected ? Do they never con-
tradict each other or themselves ? Do they never contradict
facts of nature or facts of history ?
Now, to all these questions, we are obliged to say, No.
The Bible claims no such absolute inspiration for itself. It
says that " holy men of old spake as they were moved by the
Holy Spirit," but it does not say that the Holy Spirit made
them infallible. It says, " All Scripture is given by inspira-
♦ We use the term " plenary inspiration " rather than " literal inspiration,"
or " verbal inspiration," for " literal inspiration " is a contradiction in terms,
like ** bodily spirit."
t Tholuck, in his Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration, ascribes the origin
of the belief in the infallibility of Scripture to this supposed need of an author-
itative outward rule of faith amoujj Protestants. He says, '♦ In proportion as
coutroversy, sharpened by Jesuitism, made the Protestant party sensible of
the necessity of an externally fortified ground of combat, in that same propor-
tion did Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the outward authoritative
character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that infallible authority which it
had lost through its rejection of inspired councils and the infallible authority
of the pope. In this manner arose, not earlier than the seventeenth centuryi
those sentiments which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible produc-
tion of the Divine Spirit, — in its entire contents and its very form, — so that
not only the se^c, but also the words, the letters, the Hebrew vowel points,
ajid the very punctuation were regarded as proceeding from the Spirit of God."
— Tholvck*8 Essay-^Noyes^s " CoUedion."
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 97
tioQ, and is profitable for doctrine," but it does not say
-what are the limits of Scripture ; and to be profitable or
useful for doctrine is surely not the same thing as to have
infallible authority over belief. Besides, if those who wrote
certain Scriptures were infallibly inspired, those who col-
lected the present books of the Old and New Testament,
and made our canon, were not so inspired. Those who
transcribed their autographic manuscripts were not inspired.
The manuscripts of the Gospels and Epistles, written by
their authors, have long since perished. There were no
autograph collectors in ancient times. There was no such
reverence then paid to the letter of religion, to cause the
original manuscript of an apostle to be kept in a church as
a sacred relic. We have plenty of pieces of wood claiming
to be parts of the true cross, but not a manuscript claiming
to be the original writing of an apostle. The earliest manu-
script goes only to the fourth century, and that contains the
Epistle of Barnabas. If, then, the writers of the New Tes-
tament were inspired, those who collected their writings were
not inspired, and may have lefl out the right books, and put
in the wrong ones. Those who copied their manuscripts
were not inspired, and may have left out the right words,
and put in wrong ones. Those who translated their manu-
scripts were not inspired, and may have made mistakes in
their translating. So that, after all, the plenary inspiration
of the apostles does not bestow that infallibility upon our
English Bible which this theory demands in order to give it
authority.
And yet we admit the importance of having some au-
thority. Truth which does not come with authority is not
truth ; it is only speculation ; it cannot influence life. Reve-
lation and philosophy differ in this, that philosophy tells us
what men think about God, revelation what God thinks
about men. Revelation is the drawing asidS of the veil
which hides God, duty, immortality. It does not give us
98 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
speculations about them, but shows us the things themr-
selves.
If, therefore, we can show that the Bible can be authority
withovi being plenarily inspired, very possibly Orthodoxy
would no longer cling to this doctrine with such remarkable
tenacity. This point of authority we shall consider in another
section of this chapter, and so we will say no more about it
now. We shall try to show, then, that the Bible may be,
and is authority, without being inspired as regards every
page and word, and that inspiration is one thing and infalli-
bility another. At present we desire to see the truth there
is in the Orthodox doctrine of inspiration.
§ 4. Inspiration in general, or Natural Inspiration. —
There is a foundation for inspiration in human nature, a
capacity for inspiration which all possess. Were it not so,
Christian inspiration would be something unnatural, and not
in the order of providence. Moreover, we commonly speak
of the inspiration of the poet, the painter, the inventor, the
man of genius. The man of genius is he who has more of
this capacity for inspiration than other men. But all men
have it in a greater or a less degree. All men have their
hours or moments of inspiration. By these experiences of
their own, they understand the larger inspirations of genius.
If we distribute the thoughts we possess according to their
source, we shall find that we have obtained them all, either
from other persons, or by means of mental effort, or by inspi-
ration. The largest part of our thoughts and opinions we
have taken in ready made, and reproduced them just as
we received them. We suppose ourselves thinking, when
we utter them, but we are only remembering. A much
smaller proportion of our thoughts we have obtained reflec-
tively, by personal efforts of the active intellect. Another
part are those which have come to us in some happy mo-
ments, when the inner eye was unclouded, and when we seem
to see at a glance truth and beauty. These inspired momenta
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THB BIBLE. 99
give us the most solid knowledge we have. They are mental
experiences, which are the master lights of all our being.
They give direction and unity to all our other thoughts and
opinions. They constitute mental originality. The pecu-
liarity of inspiration, in this general sense, does not lie in
the subjects of the thoughts, but in the manner of their
coming. Ideas and thoughts of very different kinds may
all be inspired thoughts. The poet, the artist, have their'
inspirations. But the scholar, the thinker, has his also.
The man who invents a machine often has the idea come
to him by an inspiration. The man who discovers a con-
tinent has seen it in idea before he sees it in reality. If
Shakespeare was an inspired man, so was Newton, so was
Columbus, so was Lord Bacon, so was Faust when he dis-
covered printing. Watt when he improved the steam engine,
and Daguerre when he found out photographic pictures ; for,
in all great discoveries and inventions, and in small ones
too, the original idea is an inspiration, though it has to be
worked out mechanically by hard thinking.
It will be seen, then, what we understand by inspiration, in
this general sense. It is a mental sight, corresponding as
nearly as anything can to physical sight. It seems, in the
inspired moment, as if we looked into another world, and
saw new truths and facts there. We do not bring them up
out of our memory ; we see them in all their own fresh life
and reality. We do not think them out by an effort of the
will ; we stand still and see them. All that our will has to
do with it is negative rather than positive. It is to keep off
disturbing influences of memory and sense, to hold the mind
stiU, attentive, receptive, and ready. If we believe in these
inspirations, we can thus prepare the way for them, but
nothing more. We can wait and look, till the vision is pre-
sented, and then we shall see it ; but this is all. The man
of genius is he who believes in these inspirations, and so
looks for them. What he shall see will depend on what he
100 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
looks for. The man whose taste is in the world of imagina^
tion looks for forms of poetic or artistic beauty, and so sees
these. Every man looks for that which he is most interested
in, whether he be metaphysician or mechanic. The world
of ideal beauty and truth, which overhangs ours, has a thou-
sand portals, and we can pass in through one or another, and
see that which suits our various tastes and desires. Mem-
ory, reflection, and sight, — these are the three sources of our
thoughts. The inspired man is a seer — he has insight and
foresight; and these objects of mental sight are to him
more real and certain than any others. But he is unable to
prove their reality or justify them to the sceptic. And
hence his fate is often that of Cassandra, — to be a true
prophet, but not to be believed, until by and by the strength
of his own conviction wins its way, and produces faith in
others.
There are, therefore, two principal intellectual states of
the mind — the one receptive, the other plastic ; the one by
which it takes in truth, the other by which it works it up
into shape. By the one it obtains the substance of thought,
by the other the form of thought. The one may be called
the perceptive state, the other the reflective state. Thus^
too, we see that the perceptive faculty may be exercised in
two directions, outwardly and inwardly. It is the same in-
tellectual faculty which, through the senses, looks at and
perceives the outward material universe, and through the.
mind itself, the inward world of thought. It is this power
of looking inward which gives us all that we call inspiration.
We have, thus, outsight and insight.
There is, then, a univei^sal inspiration^ on which the spe-
cial inspiration of the Old and New Testament rests. There
are inspired men and uninspii*ed men. There are inspired
writings and uninspired writings. There is a general inspi-
ration, out of which the particular inspiration of Bible writers
grew. Universal inspiration is a genus, of which this is a
OBTHODQX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 101
species. We cannot understand the inspiration of the writers
of the Bible till we understand this universal inspiration on
which it rests. We can best explain the special inspiration
of Scripture by first knowing the general inspirations of
mankind.
Mr. Emerson, in one of his poems, called the " Problem,'*
describes this universal inspiration. He describes Phidias
as being inspired to make his Jupiter, as well as the prophets
to write their burdens. He says the architect that made
St. Peter's was guided by some divine instinct in his heart —
he wrought in a sad sincerity. He says we cannot tell how
such buildings as the Parthenon and St. Peter's were built,
any more than how the bird builds its nest ; they were formed
by a natural architecture ; they grew as the grass grows ; they
came out of thought's interior sphere, just as the pine tree
adds a myriad of new leaves to its old arms every year,
(( The passive master lent his hand
To the vast soul that o*er him planned ;
And the same power that reared the slirine
Bestrode the tribes that knelt within."
§ 5. Christian or Supernatural Inspiration. — Having thus
spoken of inspiration in general, we proceed to speak of
Christian inspiration in particular.
Christian inspiration is the work of the Holy Spirit on the
heart. It is that influence which came to the apostles, and
to all Christians after Jesus had left the earth, to unite them
inwardly with Christ, and to show them the true Christ. It
is that ^f which Paul speaks, when he says. It pleased God
to reveal his Son in me. All Christians were baptized with
the Holy Ghost ; had the spirit of Christ dwelling in them ;
were led by the spirit of God ; received the spirit of adop*
tion, which bore witness that they were the sons of God ;
which helped their infirmities ; helped them to pray ; en-
abled them to mortify the deeds of the body, and produced
many gifts and graces. It is quite certain that all Christians
9*
102 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
were expected to partake of this Christian inspiration. This
enabled them inwardly to see and know Christ — the true
Christ. And only thus could they become truly his.
Now, the Christian inspiration, so necessary at first, is
equally necessary now, for its object is, as it was then, to
turn nominal Christians into living Christians ; to turn his-
torical Christianity into vital Christianity ; to enable those
who already know Christ after the flesh, also to know him
afler the spirit. What is it which we need for comfort, im-
provement, usefulness ? We need a living, practical faith in
God's truth and love. We need to see it as we now see the
outward world. We believe in the inevitable retribution of
God's laws. We need to see this ; to see that selfishness is
death, and generosity life ; to see that humility is exaltation,
and that pride is abasement. Having seen law, we need also
to see grace, the reality of forgiveness, the reality of a Fa-
ther's love. We need to see immortality and eternity, while
we are yet surrounded with the world of sense and time ; to
see that the two worlds are not two, but one, all temporal
things having their roots in spiritual things. This is what
we need for comfort, for no hardship would seem hard while
we were thus looking at the things which are eternal, and
knowing that every light affliction works out an eternal
weight of glory. This is what we need for improvement.
For no efibrts at improvement can accomplish that which
this inward inspiration can do. It is a tide which bears
us on. It takes from us the weight of years. It is the sap
which rises into every branch, penetrates every twig, swells
the buds, expands the leaves, opens the blossoms, ripens the
fruit, and causes universal growth. And it is what we need
for usefulness. For how mechanical and lifeless are efforts
at usefulness which proceed merely from the sense of duty !
How blessed are those which proceed from a heart filled with
love and peace 1
Christian inspiration, then, reveals inwardly the spirit of
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLS. 103
Christ, and so gives us a new heart, and makes of us new
creatures. It is the most essential and vital part of Chris-
tianity, yet it is that part of Christianity which is the least
known and prized. How many dogmatists there are fight-
ing for doctrines ; how many ceremonialists earnest about
forms ; how many conscientious Christians trying hard to do
their duties ; — to one spiritual Christian, whose Christianity
consists in living in the spirit, that he may walk in the
spirit I
One reason for this seems to be the prevalence of false
views concerning the nature of Christian inspiration. It has
been regarded as wholly different in its laws from other in-
spiration, as an arbitrary influence without laws or condi-
tions. Now, in fact, the inspiration of the Christian, while
it differs in its subject from that of the poet, rests on the
same mental faculty, and has analogous conditions. The
condition of the poet's inspiration is, that loving the outward
beauty of the natural world, and faithfully studying its truth,
he should then hold himself ready, in strong desire, to see,
inwardly, ideal truth and ideal beauty. And so the Chris-
tian, believing in the ouWard Christ, and loving him, holds
himself expectant of an inward revelation of that same Jesus
in his glorified and higher infiuence. All inspiration has its
conditions and laws. The poet's eye, in its fine frenzy, must
look from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven. His
inward inspiration is in strict accordance with his outward
occupation and his outward fidelity. Every man is inwardly
inspired, according to the nature of his outward work.
Shakespeare cannot discover America, nor Columbus write
Hamlet. And it is only he who believes in Christ, and so
endeavors to obey and serve him, who receives an inward
sight of his essential spirit. Christian inspiration is not arbi-
trary, is not unnatural, is not limited. It is the life of
Christ, flowing steadily and constantly into all hearts which
104 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
are prepared for it, which long for it, and which hold them-
Belves ready to receive it.
We are thus prepared to state more distinctly the differ-
ence between inspiration in general and Christian inspiration
in particular.
(a.) These two inspirations iresemhle each other in result-
ing from the exercise of the same mental faculties, since the
state of mind in both cases is not that of reflection, but per-
ception ; and the perception is inward perception. Newton
fixes his mind steadily upon the confused mathematical
thought within till it becomes clear. Milton fixes his mind
upon the inward image of ideal truth and beauty till it
grows so distinct that he can put iji into corresponding
words. Columbus meditates upon the thought of a Western
Continent till it seems so plain to him that he is ready to set
sail for it. And so Paul and John look steadily at the Christ
formed within them till they see clearly what is Christ's
thought concerning every question, every -subject.
(&.) The two inspirations also are alike in this, that the
truth seen is in both cases, as to its substance, given to us
by God. For the truths seen by* Newton, Milton, Des-
cartes, and Columbus were not inventions of theirs, but
divine realities shown to them by God.
(c.) In both cases the form of the truth seen comes from
the exercise of the human faculties of each individual upon
the substance thus given. For Paul and John, no less than
Newton and Milton, worked up in their own minds the truth
seen. This is evident from the fact, that, while their
writings agree in contents and substance with each other,
they differ from each other in form and style. Each writer
of the New Testament has his own distinctly marked style,
not only of expression, but also of thought.
(cZ.) They are alike also in combiniug truth of substance
with fallibility of statement. The substance.of every inspired
nian*s thought is truth, because it is the reaHty shown to
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 105
him by God. The form in which he expresses it varies
more or less from this truth, because that comes from the
exercise of his own finite faculties. Newton and Milton
looked at God's truths, and uttered them as well as they were
able. So did Paul and John. That these last were liable
to err in matters of statement appears from the fact that
they did err in some matters, as, for example, in regard to
the speedy coming of Christ.
These being the resemblances between natural and super-
natural inspiration, what are the differences f
(a.) The first difference is in the kind of truths seen. The
truths seen by Newton and Milton belong to the natural
world, those seen by Paul and John to the supernatural
world. The substance of the inspiration in the one case is
nature, in the other case it is Christ. Intercourse with
nature had fed the minds of Newton and Milton with the
truth, forming the material upon which their inspiration
could work. Intercourse with Christ, in the flesh and in
the spirit, had filled the minds of Paul and John with the
material on which their inspiration could be exercised.
Christ had come to them outwardly and inwardly, and this
was the substance of their inspiration.
(6.) The inspiration of Newton and Milton implies
genius ; that is, a special faculty in each individual. This
possession of genius, or special faculty, is a condition sine qua
non of natural inspiration. It is solitary, it is individual.
But the inspiration of the writers of the New Testament
does not imply genius. Of the eight writers of the New
Testament, only one, viz., Paul, appears to have been a man
of natural genius. He was great by endowment, the others
were made great by their inspiration. In the one case the
uncommon man finds wonderful things in the common world ;
in the other case the uncommon world shows wonderful
things to the common man.
(c.) Natural and supernatural inspiration differ also in
106 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
iheir occasion. A miraculous event, namely, the coming
of Christ inwardly to their souls on the -day of Pentecost,
was the occasion of the apostolic inspiration. This coming
of the Holy Ghost was the second of the two supernatural
events of Christianity, of which the other was the birth of
Christ. The miraculous events in the life of Jesus may
have been the natural results of the coming of such a being
into the world. The miracles of Christ's life, including
his resurrection, may have been natural to a supernatural
being. They are the evidence of a break in the series
of causation in the outward world. In like manner the
inward coming of Christ to the hearts of his disciples in
what is called the influence of the Holy Spirit, is another
supernatural event, the natural result of which is the found-
ing of the Church, the writing of the New Testament, and
the newly created life in individual souls.
These two inspirations, therefore, differ in their substance,
source, and method. The substance of one consists of truths
of the natural order, the other of the supernatural order.
The source of one is the world of nature, the source of the
other is the inward Christ. And the method of the one is
that of individual genius, which is solitary, while the method
of the other is that of love or communion.
§ 6. Inspiration of the Scriptures^ especially of the New
Testament Scriptures, — We now pass on to ask. What is the
inspiration of the New Testament, or of its writers ?
The writers of the New Testament had no different in-
spiration from that of all other Christians. We nowhere
hear of any one receiving an inspiration to enable him to
write a Grospel or an Epistle. They distinctly repel the idea
of any such special or distinct inspiration. " By one spirit
we have all been baptized into one body, and have been all
made to drink into one spirit." Gifts are different, but the
spirit is one and the same in all. But even among these
diversities of gifts, nothing is said of any gift for writing
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 107
Gospels or Epistles. Probably, therefore, the inspiration
by which these were written was precisely the same as that
by which they preached to the Gentiles or taught in the
Church. It was an inward sight of Christ, an inward sight
of his truth and love, which enabled them to speak and
write with authority — the authority of those who saw what
they said, and knew it to be true. " We speak what we
know, and testify what we have seen." Hence it is that we
find in their writings so much substance, so much compre-
hensiveness, so much insight. They are in constant com-
munion with an invisible world of truth. They describe
what is before their eyes.
A book given by inspiration is not a book made perfect
by miracle, but a book, the writer of which was in a state
open to influences from a higher sphere. All books which
the human race has accepted as inspired — Vedas, Koran,
Zendavesta — are sacred scriptures ; all that lasts is in-
spired. Perpetuity, not infallibility, is the sign of inspira-
tion. ^
" The word unto the prophet spoken
Was writ on tables yet unbroken;
The word by eeers or eibyls told
In groves of oak or fanes of gold
Still floats upon the morning wind,
Still whispers to the willing mind.
One accent of the Holy Ghost
The heedless world has never lost.^'
The famous proof-text on this subject is that in the Second
Epistle of Paul to Timothy: "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness." To what
Scripture did Paul refer ? Some say to the Jewish Scrip-
ture. Some say to the Jewish and Christian writings. But
the Christian writings were not then all written, and were
not collected into what we call the New Testament. The
apostle does not limit himself to these. He says, ^^All
Scripture is inspired" — not merely Jewish or Christian
108 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Scripture, but all sacred writing. All the writings of every
age which are looked upon as Scripture, which men firom
age to age reverence and honor as such, were not of man's
invention, not of man's device, but came from some irrepres-
sible influence acting on the soul from within. The poet
before quoted says truly, —
*< Oat from the heart of nature roUed
The burdens of the Bible old.
The litanies of nations came,
Like the volcano's tongue of flame,
Up from the burning cone below,
The canticles of love and woe.
The hand that rounded Peter's dome,
And groined the aisles of Christian Romd,
Wrought in a sad sincerity.
Himself from God he could not free;
He buildcd better than he knew;
The conscious stone to beauty grew."
There is a truth in this — a profound truth. The Bible
is not an exceptional book in this, that it has no paral-
lels in nature to its method of production. It is true that
Phidias was inspired to make his statue and to build the
Parthenon.
" Such and so grew these holy piles.
While love and terror laid the tiles.
Earth proudly wears the Parthenon
As the best gem upon her zone, •
And morning opes in hast-e her lids
To gaze upon the Pyramids ;
O'er England's abbeys bends the sky
As on its friends with kindred eye;
For out of thought's interior sphere
These wonders rose to upper air."
"When Mr. Emerson and Theodore Parker compare in
this way the Bible with the Vedas or the Parthenon, we
often feel that it degrades the Bible, and takes away its
special sanctity. But this is not necessarily the case.
There may be a wide gulf between the inspiration of the
Bible and that of the Vedas, or of Homer or Plato ; and
yet they may all belong to the same class of works. There
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 109
is a wide gulf between man and the highest of the inferior
animals ; and yet we put man into the class Mammalia,
along with oxen, whales, and cats, and into the same Order
with apes and bats. We do not think that man is degraded
by being thus classified. He occupies a distinct species in
this order and class. So the New Testament and Old
Testament constitute two distinct species, of which they are
the sole representatives of one genus of inspired books ;
but that genus belongs to the same order as the Vedas,
Edda, Zendavesta, and Koran, and that order belongs to
the same class as the poems of Homer and Dante, the
architecture of the Parthenon and the Strasburg Minster,
the discovery of America by Columbus, and of the law of
gravitation by Newton.
The cla>ss of works which we call inspired comprehends,
as we have before said, all which come to man by a cer-
tain influx into his soul — not by looking out of himself,
but by looking into himself. Sometimes we go and
search and find thoughts ; sometimes thoughts come and
find us. '' They flash upon our inner eye ; " they haunt
us, and pursue us, and take possession of us. So Columbus
was haunted by the idea of a continent in the west; so
Newton was haunted by his discovery long before he made
it; so the "Paradise Lost" pursued Milton long before it
was written. Every really great work must have in it more
or less of this element which we call inspiration.
But while the great works of genius belong to the class
of inspired works, we make a distinct order out of the great
religious works which have been the sacred Scriptures of races
of men. They evidently came from a higher inspiration than
the works of science and the works of art. They have
ruled men's souls for thousands of years. These, then, we
place in an Order by themselves, and it is no discredit to the
Bible to be ranked with the works of Confucius, which have
10
110 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
kept the Chinese orderly, peaceful, industrious, and happy
for almost twenty-six centuries.
But still, among these sacred books the Bible may be said
to constitute a distinct genus^ because it differs from all the
rest in two ways — in teaching the holiness of God and the
unity of God. The writer has been a careful reader of all
these sacred books for twenty years ; he has read them with
respect ; in no captious spirit ; wishing to £nd in them all
the truth he could. He has found in them much truth —
much in accordance with Christianity. But he sees a wide
difference between them all and the Bible. They are all
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction ; but they
are not Holy Scriptures in the sense in which we ascribe that
word to the Bible. The Old Testament, though having in
it many harsh and hard features, belonging to the Jewish
mind, has strains which rise into a higher region than any-
thing in the Vedas or the Zendavesta. The Proverbs of
Solomon are about on a level with the books of Con-
fucius. But nowhere in all these Ethnic Scriptures are
strains like some of the Psalms — like passages in Isaiah
and Jeremiah. The laws of Menu are low compared with
the Pentateuch.
But if the Old and New Testament make a genus by
themselves, they divide again into two species. There is a
specific difference between the New Testament and the Old.
The New Testament inspiration is of a far deeper, higher,
and broader character than the other. In fact, we ought,
perhaps, to make a special order by itself from the New
Testament writings. They are so full of life, light, and
love — they are so strong yet so tender — so pure yet so
free ! They have no cant of piety, no formalism, but breathe
throughout a heavenly atmosphere. Their inspiration is of
the highest kind of all.
But what is this Holy Spirit? What does it" teach?
Scientific truth? No. Scientific truth has been taught the
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. Ill
^ world by other channels. Bacon and Newton, La Place and
Cuvier, Linnaeus and De Candolle, have been inspired to
teach science. Their knowledge came, not only by observa-
tion, not only by study, but by patiently opening their minds
to receive impressions from above. Were the writers of
the Bible inspired to teach history ? We think not. There
are histories of the Jews in the Bible, and they are likely to
be as authentic, as histories, as are those of Herodotus and
Livy, and other painstaking and sincere historians. But
the special inspiration of the Bible does not appear in the
historic books.
But are not all parts of the Bible equally inspired by this
Holy Spirit ? By no means. We can easily see that they
are not. It is evident that there is nothing spiritually edify-
- ing in a large part of the history of the Old Testament —
the account of Samson, the story of Gideon, large parts of
the books of Judges and Chronicles, the Song of Solomon,
the book of Esther. The book of Ecclesiastes is full,
throughout, of a dark and terrible scepticism. Now, all
these books are valuable, exceedingly so, as history, but not
as proceeding from the Holy Spirit.
But it may be said, "If the history of the Bible is not in-
spired, it may be erroneous." Certainly it may. We have
seen that the account of creation in the book of Genesis is
probably erroneous. It contains one great faith, luminous
throughout — namely, that there is one God, Creator of all
worlds and of mankind. But as to the order of creation, —
the six days, the garden of Eden, — all we can say is, that
there may be some way by which Moses could, in vision,
have seen these things, represented in picture, as they hap-
pened long before. There may be such a kind of unveiling
of the past before the inner eye of the soul. We do not
deny it, for it is not wise to deny where we know nothing.
But we can assert that Christianity does not require us to
believe those chapters of Genesis to contain historic truth.
112 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
It may be allegorical truth. It may be a parable, repre- #
senting how every little child comes into an Eden of innocence,
and is tempted by that wily serpent, the sophistical under-
standing, and is betrayed by desire, his Eve, and goes out of
his garden of childhood, where all life proceeds spontaneously
and by impulse, into a world of work and labor. If it be
8uch an allegory as that, it teaches us quite as much as if it
were history.
§ 7. Authority of the Scriptures. — We have seen that
the Bible, though inspired, is not infallible. But, it is said,
unless the Bible is infallible it has no authority. This we
deny. Inspiration is not infallibility, but inspiration is
authority. The inspired man is always an authority.
Phidias and Michael Angelo are authorities in sculpture ;
Titian and Rafaelle are authorities in painting ; Mozart and
Beethoven in music ; and Paul, John, Peter, in religion.
Authority without infallibility is the problem before us.
It is evidenj that authority is desirable ; it is equally evident
that infallibility is impossible. Can there, therefore, be the
one without the other? Can God reveal himself to man
through a fallible medium? Can the writers of the New
Testament be so inspired as to be able to communicate
truth, and yet so inspired as not to be infallible? To all
these questions we answer, Yes ; and will try to show it to
be so.
Suppose that you are going through a forest in company
with others. You have lost your way. No one knows
which way to go ; dangers are around you — dangers from
cold, hunger, wild beasts, enemies. If you go the wrong
^^y^ you may all perish ; if you go the right way, you will
rea?h your destination and be safe. Under these circum-
stances^ one of the party climbs a tree, and when he has
reached tl:e top he cries out with joy, " I see the way we
ought to^go. We must go to the right. I see the ocean in
that direction, and the spires of the city to which we are
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 113
bound." You all immediately go the way that he directs.
He has become an authority to you. You follow his
guidance implicitly, and put your lives into his hands, de-
pending upon the truth of what he says. Why ? Because
he has been where you have not been, and has seen what
you have not seen, and you believe him honest and true.
He has no motive to deceive you. This is his authority.
But is it equivalent to infallibility ? By no means. No
one supposes him to be infallible. If, after following his
direction for a while, you see no signs to show that you are
in the right way, you begin to think that he may have been
mistaken, and some one else climbs a tree to verify his
judgment; or to coiTect it. But if, instead, signs begin to
appear to show that you are in the right way, your faith
in your guide is confirmed, and his authority is practically
increased.
What gives a man authority as a guide, teacher, counsellor,
is not our belief in his infallibility, but our belief in his
knowledge ; if we believe that he knows something we do
not know, he becomes thereby an authority to us. If he has
been where we have not been, and seen what we have not
seen, he is an authority. A man who has just come from
Europe or from California, who has been in the midst of a
great battle, who has studied a subject which others have
not studied, and made himself familiar with it, such a man is
an authority to others. Observe men lijBtening to him. All
defer to him while he is speaking on this subject. He may
be much more ignorant than they are in regard to other
tliiags, but, if he has had superior opportunities in regard to
this subject, he is an authority. Yet they do not believe
him infallible ; for if, in the course of his conversation, he
says anything which seems contradictory, incredible, absurd,
they begin to withdraw their confidence, and may withdraw
it wholly. But if, on the other hand, what he says is clear,
10*
114 OBTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
consistent, solid with information, his authority is increased
continually, and his hearers defer to him more and more.
Now, the authority of the writers of the New Testament
is exactly of this kind. The authority of inspiration every-
where is of this kind. An inspired man is one who is
believed to have been where we have not been, and to have
seen what we have not seen.
In Cooper's novels there is a character whom he calls
Leatherstocking, familiar with the woods, knowing all their
signs, acquainted with the habits of bird, beast, and Indian.
lie guides the travellers through the wilderness, and, by his
superior knowledge, saves 'them from the Indian ambush and
the pursuing savage. They commit themselves implicitly to
his guidance, trust their lives to him. Wliy ? Because they
confide in his knowledge of woodcraft and in his fidelity. As
regards all matters pertaining to the forest, he is an author-
ity ; their teacher if they want information, their guide if
they are ignorant of the way, their saviour in imminent peril
from savage beasts and savage men. He is an authority to
them, a perfect authority ; for they confide in him entirely,
without a shade of doubt. But no one thinks him infallible,
nor supposes it necessary to believe him infallible, in order
to trust him entirely.
Just so a ship on a lee shore, in the midst of a driving
storm, throws up signal rockets or fires a gun for a pilot.
A white sail emerges from the mist ; it is the pilot-boat. A
man climbs on board, and the captain gives to him the
command of the ship. All his orders are obeyed implicitly.
The ship, laden with a precious cargo and hundreds of lives,
is confided to a rough-looking man whom no one ever saw
before, who is to guide them through a narrow channel,
where to vary a few fathoms to the right or left will be utter
destruction. The pilot is invested with absolute authority as
regards bringing the vessel into port.
TV hen Columbus came back from his first voyage, and
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 115
reported the discovery of America, was he not an authority f
Did not men throng around him, to hear of what he had
'seen and done? Yet who believed him infallible. He who
has been where I have not been, and seen what I have not
Been, is an authority to me. If I believe him honest, and
no impostor, then I leam from him, and depend on his
testimony. Now, the writers of the New Testament have
been where we have not been. They have ascended heights,
and sounded depths in the spiritual world unknown to us.
So they are authorities to us, provided we have enough of
their spirit in us to enable us to see and know their inspira-
tion. For, unless I have some musical spirit in me, I cannot
discern the inspiration of Mozart ; unless I have some math-
ematical spirit in me, I cannot discern the mathematical
inspiration of Newton and Kepler. So the natural man
(the man who has nothing in him corresponding to the
Christian inspiration) cannot discern the things of the Spirit
of God ; for they are foolishness to him, for they are spirit-
ually discerned or judged. He lives in external things, as
babes do. The authority of the Spirit in the Bible is that
it awakens and appeals to whatever spiritual element exists
in our soul, and compels it to feel and admit its truth.
Jesus, it is said, in giving the Sermon on the Mount,
taught as one having authority, and not as the Scribes. What
was his authority, then ? Not official authority, for he was
not yet known to be the Christ, hardly yet known to be a
prophet. Not merely the authority coming from an imposing
manner ; not an authoritative air, or tone, or manner, cer-
tainly. That was precisely the tone and manner which the
Scribes did have in their teaching. But the authority is in
the Sermon itself. Its truths are so wonderfully distinct and
self-evident, they carry conviction with them. Jesus sees so
plainly all that he says — there is no hesitation, no obscurity,
no perhapses in his language. He is like one describing
what is before his eyes, what he knows to be true because he
116 ORTHODOXY: ITS TUUTHS AND ERRORS.
Bees it while he is saying it. It is, in short, the authority
which always attends knowledge. He who knows anything,
and can speak with certainty, carries conviction with him,
though we do not suppose him to be infallible, nor is it thought
necessary to believe him so, in order to give to him this
authority.
By such examples, we see that in earthly matters of the
very highest importance we ascribe authority without sup-
posing infallibility. Now, if we analyze the source of this
authority, we shall find that it comes, first, from the testi-
mony of others, and, secondly, from, our own experience.
Leatherstocking comes recommended to the travellers as a
skilful and faithful guid^, and they trust him, at first, on the
simple ground of that recommendation. But they do not
trust him entirely or fully on that ground. They watch him
while they trust him, — perhaps we ought rather to say, they
try him, than that they trust him. But, after they have tried
him day by day, week by week, and find him always skilful,
always faithful, they come to place a more and more implicit
trust in his guidance ; he becomes more and more an au-
thority.
So the pilot comes at first recommended only by his office*
His office implies the testimony of those who ought to know
that he is able to guide the vessel into the harbor. But if,
besides this, there is some one on board who knows his ability
and fidelity by previous experience, and says, " We are all
safe now ; this is the famous John Smith or William Brown,
the best pilot in the harbor," then everybody is ready to
trust him more entirely.
Knowledge and fidelity, not infallibility, these make a man
an authority to others in things pertaining to this life —
knowledge and fidelity, evidenced to us, first by the testi-
mony of others, and secondly by our own experience. Tes-
timony leads us to try a man and trust him partially, trust
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 117
him, but watch him. Add to this our own experience of his
knowledge and fidelity, and we trust him wholly.
There are two worlds of knowledge — outward and in-
ward. Knowledge of the outward world comes to us
through the senses, by observation ; knowledge of the in-
ward world comes to us through the consciousness, by
insight or inspira.tion. Every man's knowledge has come to
him by both of these methods. The soul has a perceptive
po^er with which it can look either way. It looks outward
through the senses, and perceives an external world ; it looks
inward through the consciousness, and perceives an internal
world. It looks outward, and perceives forms, hears sounds,
becomes acquainted with external nature. It looks inward,
and becomes acquainted with justice, holiness, love, freedom,
duty, sin, immortality, the infinite, -the eternal, God.
But just as it depends on various conditions as to what
a man sball see through the senses in time and space, so
it depends on other conditions as to what a man shall see
beyond time and space in the spiritual world. The condi-
tions in the first instance are, good perceptive organs, a
genius for observation, educated powers for observation,
knowledge of what to observe, and finally opportunities for
observation, or being able to go where the things are which
are to be seen. A blind man standing in front of the Par-
thenon would be no authority to us as to its architecture ;
neither would the most sharp-sighted person who should
happen to be in America, instead of Greece. So an -Indian,
with the finest perceptive faculty, and standing directly in
fr«>ut of this majestic temple, would give a very poor account
of it, from want of previous knowledge. He, only, would be
an authority to us in regard to such a building, who should
combine with good perceptive organs, and some knowledge
of the subject, an opportunity for looking at it.
When we speak of inspiration, we mean, in regard to
the inward world, exactly the same thing. We mean that a
118 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
man has his spiritual organs in a healthy condition, that he
has some knowledge of spiritual things, and that he has been
placed by divine Providence where he is able to see them.
Some men are lifted into a world of spiritual perception,
when they see things not seen by other men. They become
prophets, apostles, lawgivers to the human race. They are
invested with authority. Men believe what they say, and do
wliat they command, and put their souls into their hands,
just as they trust their bodies to the guide of the pilot.
These are the inspired men — the men to whom revelations
have been made. They have authority, because they have
been where we have not been, and seen what we have not
seen. But they have not infallibility, because, as the apostle
says, they have this treasure in earthen vessels. This divine
knowledge is contained in-a finite, and therefore fallible mind.
But we sec by means of our former illustrations that to grant
their fallibility does not detract at all from their authority.
And again, their authority is certified to us exactly as in
the other instances. They come recommended by external
testimony, and on the strength of that testimony we confide
in them and try them. If we find that they are not able to
teach us, they cease to be authorities to us. But if we find
that they are full of truth, they become our guides and teach-
ers, and their authority is more and more confirmed ; that
they are good and true guides, is evidenced by their being
able to guide us. They lead us into deeper depths of truth
and love. They become the teachers of their race. The
centuries which pass add more and more weight to their
authority. They inspire us, therefore they are themselves
inspired. It is no more necessary, after this, to prove their
inspiration, in the sense which I have given, than to prove
that the sun shines.
One remarkable illustration of this process, by which the
test of Scripture, as inspired, is that it should be profitable for
doctrine, reproof, and instruction, is to be found in the Epistle
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE BIBLE. 119
m
of Barnabas. Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles at
Jerusalem, and is called, in the book of Acts, a good man, and
full of the Holy Ghost. He was sent on a mission to An-
tioch by the apostles ; afterwards was specially pointed out
by the Holy Ghost to go with Paul on his mission. (Acts 13 :
2.) He is styled a prophet in this place, and we read that
the Holy Spirit said, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for
the work whereunto I have called them."
During this mission Barnabas seems to have been the
more important of the two, for at Lystra the people called
him Jupiter, and Paul Mercury. Barnabas and Paul ap-
peared before the first council at Jerusalem ; and the
apostles, in their letter, say, " Our beloved Barnabas, and a
man that has hazarded his life for the name of the Lord
Jesus." Now, this Barnabas, called an apostle in the book
of Acts, companion of Paul, sent on a mission by the Holy
Spirit, and commended by the apostles at Jerusalem, was be-
lieved by the early Church to have written an Epistle. It is
quoted as his, seven times by Clement of Alexandria, in the
second century, three times by Origen, and by other writers.
Accordingly, it was originally included in the New Testa-
ment, and for nearly four hundred years made a part of it.
The oldest manuscript of the New Testament in the world,
supposed to have been written in the fourth century, contains
the Epistle of Barnabas ; and one reason for believing the
manuscript so old, is that it does contain it. This manuscript
was found by the celebrated German critic Tischendorf, in
18i:9, in the convent of St. Catharine, at Mount Sinai.
Why, then, is not this Epistle of Barnabas printed in our
New Testament? Whoever reads it will easily see the rea-
son. It is because it does not deserve to be there ; it does
not have the marks of a high inspiration ; it is made up in
a great degree of quotations from the Old Testament, of im-
itations of St. Paul, and of allegories. It evidently dropped
out of the Bible by its own weight. It had every opportu-
120 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
nity offered it to become a part of sacred Scripture ; but
being tried by Paul's test, it was found not to be profitable for
doctrine, reproof, or anything else, and so the copyists saved
their time, labor, and vellum by leaving it out. It was re-
ceived on testimony, and discarded after experience. It had
authority at first, because of its supposed author ; it lost it
afterwards, by means of its empty self.
This, then, is the authority of the writers of the Bible. It
is the authority of inspired men — men who have been into
spiritual regions where most men have not gone, and seen
what most men have not seen. It is not infallibility. They
are capable of mistakes and error. Their being in the Bible
is only so far a proof that they are inspired, as it gives the
testimony of the Church that it has found the proofs of in-
spiration in their writings. The Christian community has
followed the apostolic direction, and tried the spirits whether
they were of God or not, and has come to the conclusion
that these New Testament writers have the marks of inspira-
tion. For you will observe that the present code of the New
Testament was gradually formed, and that not by the votes
of councils or the decisions of bishops, but by the feelings of
the Christian community. An inward instinct, and no exter-
nal authority, presided over the collection of the Scriptures,
gradually dropping out some books (like Barnabas, Hermas,
and the Revelation of Peter), and taking in others.
So the Christian Church says to us, of the New Testa-
ment, " Here is a book concerning which we testify that tlie
writings in it are profitable for doctrine ; that its writers
have superior knowledge in regard to spiritual things ; that
they are inspired men, who have been taken up into a region
where most men have never gone, and seen what most men
have never seen, and therefore know more than most of us
about spiritual truth."
But you may say, "If inspiration gives knowledge j and
these writers are inspired, then they do more than believe or
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 121
think what they say about God, duty, and immortality.
They know ; and if they know^ does not that mean that they
are infallible? No, knowledge is not infallibility. It is
true that inspiration gives knowledge, while speculation only
gives opinion. This is the reason why inspired men speak
with authority, and philosophers without it. But knowledge,
though it gives authority, does not give infallibility.
A Frenchman knows the French language ; still he may
make mistakes in speaking it. The man from California
knows that country, but he may be mistaken about it. Thus,
if these writers are not infallible, they may make mistakes ;
and if so, how are we to distinguish between their truth and
their error ? This is a fair question : let us try to answer it.
Let us return to our former comparison of travellers and
their guide. How are you to distinguish between your
guide's knowledge and his errors ?
Probably, when your guide begins to be uncertain as to
the way, he will show his uncertainty in his behavior. He
will become doubtful, hesitating, undecided ; he will, by and
by, supposing him honest, begin to express his uncertainty,
and say, '^ I am not quite sure of this path."
It is just so with inspired writers. While their inspiration
runs in a full tide, they speak confidently ; they are distinct
in their statements.
Again, if your guide begins to speak of things outside of
his province, he does not carry much authority. If Leather-
stocking discusses Shakespeare, or the pilot begins to talk
about politics, his opinions carry no weight except what is
inherent to them.
So when the writers of the Bible, leaving themes of reli- '
gion and morals, describe natural objects, as the leviathan
or behemoth, we give no more credit to their descriptions
than we should to those of any other writer of their day.
A question would arise here whether history was a sub-
ject of inspiration or not ; that is, whether an inspired writer,
11
122 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
when he comes to speak of historic facts, has any more an*
thority than another. There may be some way by which
past events might be presented by inspiration to the mind of
one caught up by the spirit into another world. But the
writers of the Old and New Testament are careless about
dates and numbers, and do not seem to be made accurate by
any special gifl. I should, therefore, incline to the opinion
that the historic books of the Bible have no authority except
tliat of their reasonableness and conformity to what we
might believe on other grounds. As fragments of history,
coming from so remote a past, they are invaluable, when we
treat them as simple, honest records of what was then be-
lieved or known.
Take, for instance, the story of the deluge, and compare it
with similar stories in other mythologies. We find it so
corroborated by these, that we may believe that there is a
basis of reality in it.
§ 8. The Christian Prepossession, — It is a great thing to
read a book with expectation instead of distrust. Expecta-
tion opens the mind to light, and makes it easy to see. Dis-
trust closes it. If I have read Shakespeare till I feel sure of
his poetic inspiration, then I read with expectation all he
writes ; I am looking for truth and beauty, and so I find it.
If I had never read Shakespeare, nor heard of him, and Ham-
let were put into my hand, I should probably be displeased
with something or other, and throw it aside, and so lose the
deepness and loveliness of that wonderful creation. How
much we find in the words of Jesus and Paul, because we
read them with expectation and hope I because we read
'them always looking for what is deep and high I
Nevertheless many persons recommend a contrary course.
They say that we ought to forget all that has been told us
about the Book, and read it as if we had never seen it before.
But this method is neither practicable nor desirable. It is
impossible to look at the Bible as though it were an un-
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 123
known book ; impossible to forget that it is the text book of
Christianitj ; regarded as sacred by millions of our fellow*
men ; the source of spiritual and moral life to the world for
the last fifteen hundred years ; that our parents and friends
have found in it strength for duty, comfort in trial, hope in
the hour of death. You might as well tell the child who be-
gins to study geography to forgot that he lives in America,
or when he studies the history of the United States, to forget
that it is the history of his own land. Nor would it be de-
sirable to study the New Testament thus. For it is this
grand belief concerning it which makes us desire to study it
at all. Were it not for this belief it might be occasionally
read by a student in the interest of science, but never by the
mass of the community. Faith in its divine origin and di-
vine purpose, Causes it to be read in families, schools,
churches, to be used as a manual of prayer in the closet,
and to grow familiar in every home. The Book is sur-
rounded by a traditional halo of wonder, reverence, and
hope, and this gives us motive and power with which to
read it. 1£ a cold criticism, a sceptical spirit, shall ever
succeed in causing the New Testament to be regarded as a
common book, on the natural plane of human thought, full
of errors and imperfections, inspired only as Plato is in-
spired, then it will be read as Plato is read, that is, by one
man in a million. It is not desirable to lose the revereD(;e
which causes us to expect extraordinary truth and good in
certain books, men, and institutions ; for so we lose the best
motive power of the soul; so life becomes tame, the day
empty, and events unmeaning.
It is, therefore, perfectly right for the Church to surroimd
Christ and Christianity with this divine aureola of reverence
and wonder, not exaggerating it, but neither understating it.
For this wonder and reverence, when legitimate, is a great
treasure of spiritual life, animating and elevating, which the
Church possesses in order that it may communicate it. It
124 OBTHODOXt: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
is continually proclaiming its good news ; constantly asserting
that through Christ God has given it a divine peace ; that in
Christ there is a marvellous truth and beauty ; and that the
Gospels and Epistles, which contain his life and truth, have a
strange power of raising us above ourselves, and bringing us
into communion with an eternal world. When this is said,
jot by rote, or as a mere form, but from sincere conviction^
the spirit of faith creates faith, and faith is the great motive
which leads to action.
As it is the duty of the Church to excite our interest in
the New Testament, by declaring its own love and respect
for it, so it is right for the student of the New Testament
to give a certain preliminary weight to this testimony of the
Church in commencing his study. This is what we call the
Christian prepossession. And it regards the New Testament
exactly as when a friend whose judgment we respect ear-
nestly recommends to us some book which he has recu], and
which has done him good. He recommends it to us as a
good book, and he recommends it with enthusiasm. His
enthusiasm produces in us a desire to become acquainted
with the book, and a certain hope that we shall find in it
what our friend has found. This hope leads on towards fru-
ition, and is one of its conditions. It ought not, therefore,
to be relinquished ; but neither should it lead us to accept
blindly everything which we are told. We must look with
our own eyes, think with our own mind, feel with our own
heart.
To wish to come to the study of the Bible without pre-
possession in its favor is, therefore, a foolish wish; for,
without prepossession in its favor, we should have little
motive for studying it at all. It is our faith in the Bible
that leads us to read it; and faith here, as everywhere,
is the motive power which reason has only to guide and
restrain. Faith is the brave steed which carries us forward,
full of fire and full of pride. Beason is the bridle by which
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE« 125
he is guided, supported, and restrained. There is a story
of a thief so skilful that he could steal a man's horse from
tinder him without his knowing it, and so leave him holding
the bridle in his hand, and supposing himself to be still on
holdback. So are those deceived who think to live by
reason without faith. The motive power of their life has
been taken away from them, and they do not know it ; they
suppose that they can ride with a bridle and saddle, without
a horse.
To read the New Testament to any purpose, we must,
therefore, read with the faith that there is some great good
to be got from it. But what is the true foundation of this
faith? Is it legitimate, or is it an illusion? The basis of
this faith is to be found in the fact that the Bible has don«
80 mudi, and is doing so much, for the world — a fact which
cannot be stated better than in these words of one who is not
commonly supposed to have too high a reverence for the
Bible : —
*' This collection of books has taken such a hold on the
world as no other. The literature of Greece, which goes
Tip like incense from that land of temples and heroic deeds,
bas not half the influence of this book from a nation alike
despised in ancient and modem times. It is reed of a Sab*
1)ath in all the ten thousand pulpits of our land. In all the
temples of Christendom is its voice lifted up week by week.
The sun never sets on its gleaming page. It goes equally to
the cottage of the plain man and the palace of the king. It
is woven into the literature of the scholar, and colors the
talk of the street. The bark of the merchant cannot sail
the sea without it, no ship of war go to the conflict but the
Bible is there. It enters men's closets ; mingles in all the
grief and cheerfulness of life. The affianced maiden prays
Ck)d in Scripture for strength in her new duties ; men are
married by Scripture. The Bible attends them in their sick-
sess ; when the fever of tlie world is on them. The aching
11*
126 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
head finds a softer pillow when the Bihle lies nnderneath;
The mariuer, escaping from shipwreck, clutches this first of
his treasures, and keeps it sacred to God. It goes with thq
pedler in his crowded pack ; cheers him at eventide, when
he sits down dusty and fatigued ; hrightens the freshness of
his morning face. It hlesses us when we are horn; gives
names to half Christendom ; rejoices with us ; has sympathy
for our mourning ; tempers our grief to finer issues. It is
the better part of our sermons. It lifts man above himself ;
our best of uttered prayers are in its storied speech, where-
with our fathers and the patriarchs prayed. The timid man,
about awaking from this dream of life, looks through the
glass of Scripture, and his eye grows bright ; he does not
fear to stand alone, to tread the way unknown and distant^
to take the death-angel by the hand, and bid farewell to wife,
and babes, and home. Men rest on this their dearest hopes.
It tells them of God, and of his blessed Son ; of earthly
duties and of heavenly rest. Foolish men find it the source
of Plato's wisdom, and the science of Newton, and the art
of Raphael. Men who believe nothing else that is spiritual
believe the Bible all through ; without this they would not
confess, say they, even that there was a God." — Theodore
JParkeVj Discourse of Beligion*
A book which exercises this great influence over our
fellow-men ought to be approached with reverence. It is
for the same reason that we approach with faith and expeo
tation the writings of Shakespeare and Milton. We read
them expecting to find in them great truths, and this expec-
tation enables us to find them. '^ Seek and ye shall find" is
the law. How often we should have been disappointed and
dissatisfied with such books, and have thrown them aside
impatiently, had we not remembered the great universal
testimony to their surpassing excellence !
This Christian prepossession is, however, only a general
confidence th^t there is something exceedingly good in the
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE BIBLE. 127
New Testament ; that it is a book containing in some way a
divine revelation, in some way or other inspired, in some
way likely to be a great help and comfort to our spiritual
nature, and the best guide we can have for this life and
towards the next. It is an expectation of all this, an expec-
tation based on the testimony of mankind. So far it is a
reasonable expectation. So far it is right and just to enter-
tain it. It is the natural inheritance to which we were born,
by being bom Christians. To throw it away, or to try to
throw it away, would be as though one should try to throw
away the habits of civilization which he inherits by being
born in a civilized community, and try to go back and start
as a savage. It is neither more futile nor more foolish in
the one case than in the otl^er.
But, though this Christian prepossession is a perfectly
legitimate one with which to begin, it -is not a legitimate
one in which to remain. It is our business, by the free
action of our intellect, to change this general and vague
expectation into a distinct opinion of one kind or another.
Protestantism allows us to take our faith in the Bible from
the Church, but not to take from the Church our opinions
about the Bible. Faith m^y, and ought to be, received, but
opinions are to be formed. An opinion or belief received
from another man is his opinion, and not ours.
With regard to any other book this would be self-evident.
For example, suppose that I have never read the play of
Hamlet. I hear it universally spoken of as one of the
greatest works of the human intellect. That naturally and
properly creates in my mind the expectation of finding it so.
It produces the general belief that it is a great work of
genius. But suppose that, besides this general expectation,
I should also accept from my neighbors their particular
opinions concerning the play. I hear them say that it is
more philosophical, but less dramatic, than Macbeth ; that
the character of Hamlet is overcharged with intellect, and
128 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
the like. K, now, I adopt and repeat these opinions, with-
out having read the play, it is evident that I am only a par-
rot or an echo. It is evident that they are not my opinions
at all, and that they indeed interfere with my having any
opinions. Fifty thousand echoes of a voice leave us only
one voice and fifty thousand echoes.
This distinction between faith and opinion, which we have
already spoken of, is of the utmost practical importance.
T^'e may add here that, for want of it, intellectual people try
to go to the study of the Bible without faith in the Bible,
and religious people think they must accept all their opinions
from others, and take them in ready made. It is not abso-
lutely essential to have opinions ; but if we do have them,
they ought to be our own. Faith must be received, opinions
must be formed.
All persons, therefore, ought to form opinions for them-
selves about the New Testament. They may bring to the
work a faith in the New Testament, as bejng in some sense
or other a revelation, as being written in some way or other
by inspired men, as being somehow or other a holy book,
the legitimate source of spiritual life, moral goodness, and
inward peace.
§ 9. Conclusion, — If the views given in this chapter are
reasonable, we shall conclude that Orthodoxy is right in
maintaining the supreme excellence and value of the Chris-
tian Scriptures, but wrong in claiming for them infallible
accuracy. It is right in saying that they are written by
inspired men, but wrong in considering this inspiration a
guarantee against all possible error or mistake. It is right
in calling the Bible " The Holy Scripture," but wrong in
denying to the scriptures of other religions some divine influx
and some religious life. It is right in asking that the Bible
be read with faith and expectation ; wrong in demanding
for it unreasoning, uncritical submission. Let reverence for
its spirit and criticism of its letter go hand in hand ; for
oaerHODOz idea of the bibli:. ' 129
reverence and criticism, faith and reason, docility to great
masters and freedom in seeking for ourselves, are antagonist,
indeed, but not contradictory. They are not hostile, but
helpful, though acting in opposite directions — like the oppo-
sition of the thumb and fingers in the human hand, which
makes of it such a wonderful servant of the thought. They
belong to the group of sisterly powers which the Creator
has placed in the human soul — varied, complex, like and
nnlike.
** Fades non omnnms mia,
Neo diFersa tamen, quails deoet esse soronun.'*
130 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
CHAPTER VI.
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN, AS DEPRAVITY AND AS GUILT.
§ 1. The Question stated. — We now approach the ortho-
doxy of Orthodoxy — the system of sin and redemption, which
constitutes its most essential character. The questions hith-
erto treated — 'the natural and supernatural, miracles, the
Scriptures — belong to universal religion. On these points
heretics and the Orthodox may agree. But the essence of
heresy, in the eyes of an Orthodox man, is to vary from the
standards of belief in regard to sin and salvation.
We commence with the subject of human sinfulness ; in
•other words, with the character of man in relation to Ortho-
doxy. The theology of the East asked, "What is God?"
and entered on its course from the specially theological side.
It began with ontology, and proceeded to psychology. In
this. Oriental theology followed in the path of Oriental phi-
losophy. But Occidental theology, originating strictly with
Augustine, followed the practical and experimental method
of European thought, and, instead of asking, "What is
God?" asked, instead, "What is man?"
We begin, therefore, with the great question, " WTiat is
man?" This is the radical question in practical, experi-
mental theology, as the question, "What is God?" is tiie
radical question in speculative theology. But we are now
concerned in the theology of experience and of life. We
are seeking for human wants. Knowing what .man is, we
can next ask what he needs.
§ 2. The foxvr Moments or Characters of EviL The FaUj
Natural Depravity, Total Depravity , Inability. — Orthodoxy
ORTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. * 181
answers the question, " What is man? " by saying, " Man is
a sinner ; " and this answer has these four moments : —
1. Man was created at first righteous and good.
2. Man fell, in and with Adam, and became a sinner.
3. All now born are born totally corrupt and evil ; —
4. And are utterly disabled to all good, so as not to have
the power of repenting, or even of wishing to repent.
These four ideas are, —
First, that of The Fall, or Inhebited Evil.
Second, ot Natttp il Depravity.
Third, of Total Depravity.
Fourth,, of Inability.
These points are fully stated in the following passage from
the " Assembly's Confession of Faith," chap. 6 : —
** 1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and
temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.
This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and
holy counsel, to permit ; having purposed to order it to his
own glory.
" 2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness,
and communion with God ; and so became dead in sin, and
wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
" 3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this
sin was imputed, and the same death in sin^ and corrupted
nature^ conveyed, to all their posterity, descending from
them by ordinary generation.
" 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utter-
ly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgres-
sions.
"5. This corruption of nature during this life doth remain
in those that are regenerated ; and although it be, through
Christ, pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the
motions thereof are truly and properly sin.
^^6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a trans-
132 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
gression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,
doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby
• he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law,
and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual,
temporal, and eternal." *
We a&sume the "Assembly's Catechism" as almost the
standard of Orthodoxy. It was prepared with the concur-
rence of the best minds in England, in an age when theologi-
cal discussion had sharpened all wits in that direction.
Thoroughly Calvinistic, it is also a wonderfully clear and
precise statement of Calvinism. Framed after long contro-
versies, it had the advantage of all the distinctions which are
made only during controversy. It is a fortress made defen-
* The doctrine of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a distinguished
Boman Catholic, is as follows : —
" The doctrine of the Catholic Church on ori^nal sin is extremely simple,
and may be reduced to the following propositions: Adam, by sin, lost his
original justice and holiness, drew down on himself, by his disobedience, the dis-
pleasure and judgments of the Almighty, incurred the penalty of death, and thus,
in all his parts, — in his body as well as soul, — became strangely deteriorated.
Thus his sinful condition is transmitted to all his posterity as descended from
him, entailing the consequence that man is, of himself, incapable— even with
the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from without (not except-
ing even the one in the Old Covenant) — to act in a manner agreeable to God,
or in any other way to be justified before him, save only by the merits of Jesus
Chrl»t.»»
The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and free will
%i in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that, —
" Original sin is . . . the fault and corruption of the nature of every man,
that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very
fbr gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil)
. . . and therefore in every person bom into the world it deserveth 6od*8 wrath
and damnation. . . .
** The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn
and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and
calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant
and acceptable toGod, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that
we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.'*
The enrly Fathers took different views of the origin of sin. Tertullifm
ascribed it to human impatience. " Nunc ut compcndio dictum sit, omne pecca-
tum impatientise adscribendum.'* (Tertul. De Patien. 6. ) Origen thinks lazi-
ness the cause of sin; sin is a negation — not doing right. Justin Martyr
ascribes the origin of sin to sensuality. Origen (after Philo) considered the
•«tory of the fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in aD men.
OBTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. 1S3
sible at all points, because it has been attacked so often that
aU its weak places have been seen and marked. It is a
masterpiece of statement.
Now, it is very easy, and what has often been done, to
stand on the outside and show the actual error and logical
absurdity of this creed ; to show that men are not by nature
totally depraved, and that, if they were, this would not be
guilt ; that, if they have no power to repent, they are not to
blame for not repenting ; and that God, as a God of justice
even (to say nothing of mercy, of love, of a heavenly Father),
cannot condemn and punish us for a depraved nature inher-
ited from Adam.
It is easy to say all this. But it has often been said ; and
'with what result ? Unitarians have been, by such arguments,
confirmed in their Unitarianism ; but the Orthodox have not^
by such arguments, been convinced of the falsity of their
creed. Let us see, then, if we cannot find some truth in this
system, — some vital, 'experimental truth, — for the sake of
which the Orthodox cling to these immense and incredible
inconsistencies. Let us take an inside view of Orthodoxy,
and see why, being unreasonable, it yet commends itself to
so many minds of the highest order of reason.
§ 3. Orthodox am,d Liberal View of Man, as morally dis-
eased or otherwise, — Let us begin with the substance of Or-
thodoxy (neglecting, at present, its form), and say, in
general, that it regards human nature as being in an abnor-
mal or diseased condition. The first thing to be done with
man, according to Calvinism, is to cure him. Many sys-
tems, differing from each other in name, agree in this — that
they do not believe in any such diseased condition of man.
According to them, he is not to be cured, but to be educated.
The Church is not a hospital, but an academy. Man needs,
mainly, instruction. His purposes, in the main, are right ;
but he errs as to what he has to do. What he requires is
precept and example.
12
134 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
As Orthodoxy believes man to be diseased, its object is
twofold, and the truths which it employs are of two kinds.
First, it seeks to convince man that he really has a danger-
ous disease ; and then to convince him, that, by using the
right means, he can be cur^d. It therefore constantly dwells
upon two classes of truths : first, those which reveal man's
sinfulness and his ruined condition ; and, secondly, those
which reveal the plan of saving him from this condition —
a plan which has been devised by the Almighty, and which
is accomplished in Christianity. Orthodoxy dwells upon sin
and salvation : these are its two pivotal doctrines.
On the other hand, all the systems which may be asso-
ciated under the term " Liberal Christianity " regard man,
not as in a state of disease, and needing medicine, but as in
a state of health, needing diet, exercise, and favorable cir-
cumstances, in order that he may grow up a well-developed
individual. It regards sin, not as a radical disease with
which all are born, but as a temporary malady to which all
are liable. It does not, therefore, mainly dwell on sin and
salvation, but on duty and improvement. Man's nature it
regards, not as radically evil, but as radically good ; and
even as divine, because made by God.
Here, then, in the doctrine of evil, lies the essential distinc-
tion between the two great schools of thought which have
divided the Church. What is evil ? and how is it to be re-
garded ? This is, perhaps, the most radical question in Chris-
tian theology. Is evil positive, or only negative? Is it a
reality, or only a form? What is it? Whence comes it?
Until these questions are exhaustively discussed, there is lit-
tle hope of union in theology.
§ 4. Sin as Disease, — We regard Orthodoxy as substan-
tially right in its views of sin as being a deep and radical dis-
ease. Our Saviour says, ^'I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners, to repentance." ''The Son of man came to
seek and to save that which is lost."
OBTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 135
But the question recurs, Is there only one kind of sin, —
namely, voluntary and conscious transgression of God's law,
originating with the individual himself, and in the moment
of committing it, by means of his free will, which is its only
.^eat? or is there sin which is a tendency in man's nature,
something permanent, involuntary, of which he is not ron-
scious, and which has its seat not merely in the will, but in
ihe desires and' affections. To this question Liberal Chris-
tianity has commonly said, " No," and Orthodoxy has said,
" Yes."
And on this point I concur with Orthodoxy. Besides the
sin which consists ill free choice, and which is essentially
transient, there is also the sin which consists in wrong de-
sire, and which is essentially permanent, because it is a habit
of the mind. If it were not so, there could be no such thing
as a bad character, and no such thing as a vicious habit.
If we attempt to analyze evil, we shall find that it may be
conveniently distributed into these divisions : —
1. Physical Evil.
(a.) Pain.
(6.) Weakness.
(c.) Physical disease.
2. Intellectual ob Meittal EtHm
(a.) Ignorance.
(6.) Error, or mistake.
(c.) Sophism, or falsehood.
8. Moral Evil. Disobedience to the Moral Law.
(a.) Ignorant and accidental, or transgression.
(6.) Habitual disobedience, or vice.
(c.) Wilful violation of human law ; crime.
{d,) Diseased moral state, as selfishness, bad temper, &c.
186 0BTH0D02Y: ITS TRUTHS AND EBBOBS/
4. Spiritual Evil.
(a.) Wilful alienation from God, or perverse choice.
(h.) Spiritual inability.
Now, we see that ia all these divisions of evil, — physi-
cal, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, — it is found in the
two forms of active and passive eviL In the latter form it
is disease, and independent of the wilL
Keturning, then, to the Orthodox view of evil, which it is
our business to examine, we find already that it has the ad-
vantage o£ the Liberal theology in recognizing this passive
fiide of evil, which we may call diseasL It is true that Or-
thodoxy has not yet succeeded in coming to any clearness on
this question, and has not yet any firm, intellectual hold of
the main points of its argument. Examples of this confu-
sion are quite common. Not to go back to the Calvinistic
»nd Arminian controversies, which were but a revival of the
Augustinian and Pelagian dispute ; not to recur even to the
Hopkinsian and Edwardian discussions, — we have only to
refer to the differences between new and old school theology
in the Presbyterian Church ; to the trial of Dr. Beecher ; to
the book of his son Edward ; to the divergence of Andover
from New Haven, and Princeton from Andoven Unsettded,
because superficial, views of evil are at the roots of all these
controversies.
§ 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam^ and Natural Dejprav^
ity. Their Truth and Error, — The first point of the doc-
trine of evil regards the Fall, including the doctrine of
depravity.
Modern French philosophers have dwelt much on what
they call the solidarity of the human race. By this they
mean that two individuals are not independent of each other,
like two tiees standing side by side, but like two buds on the
same tree or bough. There is a common life-sap flowing
Ihrough them alL Let the life of the tree be attacked any-
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 137
'where, — in its roots, its trunk, its limbs, — and all these
individual buds feel it. Yet each bud has also a life of its
own, and develops its own stalk, leaves, blossom, fruit. It
can be taken from its own tree, and put into another tree, and
grow. So it is with separate men grafled into the great tree
of mankind. No one lives to himself, nor dies to himself.
If one suffers, all suffer. The life of mankind, becoming
diseased, pours disease into all individual men.
Now, is there not something in this doctrine to which our
instincts assent ? Do not we feel it true that we inherit not
our own life merely, but that of our race? and is not this the
essential truth in the doctrine of the fall ?
It is true that we fell in Adam. It is also true that we
fell in every act of sin, in every weakness and folly,* of any
subsequent child of Adam. We are all drawn downward by
every sin ; we are lifted upward, too, by every act of heroic
virtue, not by example only, but also by that mysterious in-
fluence, that subtile contagion, finer than anything visible,
ponderable, or tangible, — that effluence from eye, voice,
tone, manner, which, according to the character which is
behind, communicates an impulse of faith and courage, or an
impulse of cowardice and untruth ; which may be transmit-
ted onward, forward, on every side, like the widening circles
in a disturbed lake, — circles which meet and cross each
other without disturbance, and whose influence may be
strictly illimitable and infinite.
No doubt, sin began with the historical Adam — the first
man who lived. " By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin." But still more true is it that we fell in
the typical Adam — Adam who stands for innocent, ignorant
liuman nature before temptation ; truest of all, that we /aZZ
in Adam, because we are, each of us, at first an Adam.
We are all in the garden ; we are at first placed in para-
dise ; and each has in himself all the four dramatis personce
•—Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the Voice of God. Adam
12*
138 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
is the will, the power of choice, the masculine element, la
man ; Eve is the affection, the desire, the feminine element,
in man ; the Voice of God is the higher reason in tho soul,
through which infinite truth commands, — i. e., the higher
law ; and the Serpent, the lower reason in the soul, the cun-
ning element, the sophistical understanding, which can put
evil for good, and good for evil. The garden is our early
innocence, where there is no struggle, no remorse, no anxi-
ey ; where goodness is not labor, but impulse. But, when
we go out of the garden, we enter a life of trial, till we reach
the higher paradise, the kingdom of heaven ; and then joy
and duty become one again. Then —
^ " Love is an unerring light,
And joy its own security."
From paradise, through the world, to heaven ; from Egypt,
through the wilderness, to Canaan ; from innocence, through
temptation, sin, repentance, faith, to regeneration, — ^such is
the progress of man.
To me, the belief that I fell in Adam is not an opinion
fraught only with sadness. This tide of life which comes
pouring through me comes from ten thousand ancestors.
All their sorrows and joys, temptations and struggles, sins
and virtues, have helped to make it what it is. I am a
member of a great body. I am willing to be so — to bear
the fortunes and misfortunes of my race.
It is true that I find evil tendencies in me, which I did not
cause ; but I know, that, for whatever part I am not the
cause, I am not accountable. For this part of my life I do
not dread the wrath, but rather claim the pity, of my God.
My nature I find to be diseased — not well ; needing cure,
and not merely food and exercise. I can, therefore, the
more easily believe that God has sent me a physician, and
that I shall be cured by him. I can believe in a future
emancipation from these tendencies to vanity, sensualitji
OBTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. 139
indolence, anger, wilfulness, impatience, obstinacy — tenden-
cies which are, in me, not crime, but disease ; and I can see
how to say with Paul, " Now, then, it is no more / that do
it, but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME."
If, now, we return to the consideration of the Orthodox
doctrine of the fall, as set forth by the Westminster Assem-
bly, we shall find it to be half true and half false. It states
truly (chap. 6, § 1) that our first parents sinned, and also
(§ 2) that by this sin they fell from their original righteous-
ness; for this only means that the first conscious act of
disobedience by man produced alienation from God, and
degeneracy of nature. This was no arbitrary punishment,
but the natural consequence. The creed also says truly
(§3) that this corrupted nature was conveyed to all their
posterity ; for this only means, that, by the laws of descent,
good and evil qualities are transmitted ; which all wise ob-
servers of human nature knew to be the fact. It is also true
(§ 5) that this corrupt nature does remain (to some extent
at least), even in the regenerate, in this life.
So far, so true. Sin, as disease, began with the first
man, in his first sin, and has been transmitted, by physical,
moral, and spiritual influences, from him to us all.
But now we find complicated with these truths other state-
ments, which we must need regard as falsehoods. Tried
either by reason or Scripture, they are palpably untrue, and
are very dangerous errors.
The first error of Orthodoxy is in declaring transmitted or
inherited evil to be total. It declares that our first parents
. " were wholly defiled in all faculties and parts of soul and
body," and that we, in consequence, " are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined
tQ all evil." This statement is indefensible. But we shall
consider this in another section on " Total Depravity," and
only allude to it now in passing.
Another error, however, and- a very important one, is to
140 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
attribute the guilt of Adam and Eve to their deecendants*
This is the famous doctrine of imputation, which is now
rejected by all the leading schools of modem Orthodoxy.
That we can be guilty of Adam's sin, either by imputation
or in any other way, seems too absurd and immoral a state-
ment to be now received.
But though many intelligent Orthodox teachers and be-
lievers do now reject the imputation of Adam's sin, they
admit what is just as false and just as immoral a doc-
trine. They make" us guilty for that part of sin which is
depravity, as well as for that which is wilful.
Whatever, either of moral good or moral evil, proceeds
from our nature, and not from our will, has no character of
merit or demerit. The reason is evident, and is stated by
the apostle Paul. We are only guilty for what we do our-
selves ; we are only meritorious for what we do ourselves :
but what our nature does, we do not do. " Now, then, it is
no more / that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
Professor Shedd, late of Andover, some years ago published
a very able essay in the " Christian Review," the tide of
which was, " Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt.** This
title is a sufficient refutation of the essay. A man oould not
utter a more palpable contradiction, if he said, ^' The sun
solid, and that solid fluid," or, ^' The earth black, and ^at
black white." ♦
There are two kinds of moral good and two kinds of moral
evil, which are essentially different. The two kinds of moral
good may be named moral virtue and moral beauty ; the two
kinds of moral evil may be named guiU and depravity.
Now, so far as goodness proceeds from a beautiful nature,
it is not virtuous, and so far as sin proceeds from a depraved
nature, it is not guilty. We can conceive of an angelic
nature with no capacity of virtue, because incapable of guilt.
* Bee, in the Appendix, an examination of Professor Shedd'a artidi.
OBTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. 141
We can also conceive of a nature so depraved as to be inca-
pable of guilt, because incapable of virtue.
§ 6. Examination of Romans ^ 5: 12— 21. — The famous
passage in Paul (Kom. 5 : 12-21), which is the direct scrip-
tural foundation claimed for the doctrine of Adam's fall pro-
ducing guilt in his posterity, is in reality a support of our
view. The only other passage (1 Cor. 15 : 22) where Adam
is referred to, declares that we all die in him, but by no
means asserts that we sin in him.
The passage referred to runs thus (Rom. 5 : 12-18) : —
Verse 12 : "As by one man sin entered into the world," —
(Paul here refers to the fact that sin began with the first
man.)
" And death by sin ; " —
(By means of the sm of one man, death entered.)
"And so death passed upon all men, for that all have
Binned."
(Rather "death came upon all men, because all have
sinned." The Vulgate has here in quoy " in whom ; " that
is, in Adam. So Augustine. But even those who, like 01s-
hausen, contend for Augustine's views, admit that i(p* oS here
is a conjunction, equivalent to because, and not a relative.)
The next five verses (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) constitute a
parenthesis, and refer to an objection which is not stated.
Some one might say, " How could all sin, from Adam to
Moses, when there was no law till Moses? and you, Paul,
have said (Rom. 4 : 15), that " where there is no law there
is no transgression."
Paul replies that " sin is not imputed without law ; " that
is, as I think evident, it is not regarded as guilt. A man
who sins ignorantly is not guilty ; but he suffers the conse-
qneDces of his sin, which are depravity of his nature, or
moral death. " Sin is not imputed," says Paul ; " but death
reigDS." Those who do not sin " after the similitude of
Adam's transgression," — that is, who do not violate a posi*
142 OBTHODOXY: ITS TBUTHS AND £RROBS.
tive command, — nevertheless are depraved morally, and
are dead spiritually. The Hottentots and Fejee Islanders
violate no positive law given them by God, aad consequently
are not guilty of that ; but because they violate (even igno-
rantly) the laws of their moral nature, they are depraved
morally.
We see, then, that Paul distinctly recognizes the distinc-
tion made above between sin as guilt and sin as depratdty.
He distinguishes between sin as sinfulness, or unconscious
transgression (Ji d/jtagilu)^ and sin as conscious transgression
of a known command (nocQtjiSuaig),
The consequence of the first is death, or moral and spir-
itual depravity ; the consequence of the second is condemna-
tion, or a sense of guilt.
Sinfulness, bringing with it depravity (the general de-
moralization of human nature), began with Adam. All
became involved in sinfulness, and consequently all partook
of the depravity which belongs to it as its wages.
It should, however, be observed that it is not the purpose
of Paul to teach anything about Adam. His intention is to
teach something about Christ. He refers to Adam's case as
something they all are acquainted with ; he compares Christ's
case with it both by contrast and resemblance. But his ob-
ject is not to instruct us about Adam, but about Christ. He
uses Adam as an example to enforce his doctrine about
Christ. Through Christ, goodness and happiness were to
come into the world. He illustrated this fact, and made it
appear probable, by the fact which they already knew —
that through Adam sin and death had entered the world.
If it seemed strange, in an age in which men were so dis-
united, that one man should be the medium of communicat-
ing goodness to the whole human race, they might remember
that Adam also had been the medium of introducing sin to
the whole human race. If the Jews wondered that Christ
should bring salvation to those who were not under the laW|
0BTH0D02 IDEA OF SIN. 148
they might remember that Adam had brought death to those
uot.mider the law, and who did not sin as he did. If they
doubted how Christ's goodness could help to make men
righteous, they might remember that in some way Adam's
transgression had helped to make men sinners. Yet, after
all, the main fact which he states is in the twelfth verse,
chapter l^ve — " that by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin." This amounts to saying that sin began
with Adam. Then he adds, in the same verse, '^ that death
has passed upon all men, because all have sinned,** He there-
fore distinctly declares that every man is punished for his
own sin, and not for the sin of Adam.
In the other passage (1 Cor. 15 : 22), Paul says, "As in
Adam all die, even so, in Christ, shall all be made alive." He
does not say here, either that " all sinned iu Adam," or that
" all fell in Adam," or that " all died in Adam." It is the
present tense, " all die in Adam."
What he means by this, he explains himself afterwards.
He tells us that as " souls " descended from Adam, we are
liable to death ; as spirits quickened by Christ, we are filled
with spiritual and immortal life.
In the forty-fourth verse he gives the explanation. The
body " is sovm a natural body" (aw^a ^v;^txoi') — literally a
soul-body, a body vitalized by the soul. " It is raised a spirit-
ual body" — literally spirit-body (aw^a nvevfiuTixdv)^ a body
vitalized by the spirit. " There is a soul-body, and there is
a spirit-body." " And so it is written, The first man, Adam,
was made a living soul " (which is a quotation from Genesis
2:7 — "and man became a living soul)," "but the last
Adam," says Paul (meaning Christ), "became a life-making
spirit." • But, continues Paul, the soul-man (psychical man)
comes first ; the spiritual-man afterwards, according to a
regular order. " The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the
second is the Lord from heaven." And then he adds, — and
this is the key to the whole passage, — " As we have home the
144 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
image of the earthy^ we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly," The doctrine, then, is plainly this : that we have
two natores — a soul-nature, which we derive from Adam,
and share with all mankind, which nature is liable to weak-
ness, sin, and death ; and a spirit-nature, which we derive
from God, which Christ comes to quicken and vitalize, and
the life of which constitutes our true immortality.
The apostle Paul, therefore, does not by any means teach
Calvinism. The Catechism says that '^ our first parents
being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was im-
puted to all their posterity." But Paul says, " So death
passed upon all men, because all have sinned." The Cate-
chism says that ^Hhis same death in sin, and corrupted
nature, being conveyed to their posterity, makes us utterly
indisposed and opposite to all good," and that " from this
original corruption do proceed all actual transgressions,"
But if this is so, there has been no such thing in the
world as guilt since Adam fell. If all actual transgressions
proceed from original corruption, and original corruption
comes from the first transgression of Adam, it logically fol-
lows that there has been but one sin committed in the world
since it was made, namely, the sin of Adam. All other sins
have been pure misfortunes ; his alone was guilt. His trans-
gression alone came from a free choice ; all others have come
from an involuntary necessity of nature.
Nothing can be more certain from reason and Scripture
than this — that transgressions which come from a corrupt
nature are just so far done in us, and not done by us. This
the apostle distinctly affirms when he says (7:17), '' Now,
then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in
me." No man is responsible for disease, when he has not
brought that disease on himself, but inherited it from his
ancestors. The disease may make him* very odious, very
disagreeable, but cannot make him blamable. Therefore,
when Calvin says that hereditary depravity '' renders ns
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 146
obnoxious to the divine wrath," he utters an absurdity. This
confusion of ideas runs through all Orthodox statements on
the subject, and the only cure is, that we should learn how
to make this distinction between natural evil and moral evil,
or the evil which proceeds from a corrupt nature and the
evil which comes from a free will.
If we were to sum up the doctrine of the apostle Paul on
tliis subject, it would be thus : —
1. The first man, Adam, consisted, as we all consist, of
nature and will. His nature consisted of innocent tendencies
and appetites. None were excessive ; all were well balanced.
His nature inclined him no more to evil than to good, but
each faculty was in proper poise. The first sin, therefore,
could not have been a gross one ; it was a simple transgres-
sion ; but its effect was to introduce what the apostle calls
deaih ; that is, a diseased or corrupt nature. ' The process is
this: With the first conscious and free transgression there
arises a sense of guilt. This sense of guilt leads the soul
away from God. Adam and Eve hide in the garden. Every
act of sin tends to create a habit, and so destroys the moral
equipoise. There hence arises a tendency towards evil, and
frjom good ; and this is called death, because it takes us away
from God J who is the source of life.
2. A tendency towards evil is thus introduced into the world
by the transgression of the first man. His descendants are
now bom with a nature which is not in equipoise, but which
leans more towards evil than towards good. Their will
remains free as before ; but they cannot perform the same
amount of good as before. These corrupt tendencies tempt
to greater sin than the pure tendencies did, and, Tyhenever
yielded to, bring a greater amount of moral evil into the
race.
8. Things, therefore, are thus growing worse continually ;
for every new act of sin makes it easier to sin again. And
this tendency to death, or estrangement from God, must go
13
146 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
on increasing, unless some antagonist principle can be com-
municated to the race. This is actually done by Jesus Christ.
The principle of life which Christ introduces consists in rec-
onciliation to God. Sin separates us from God, and there-
fore tends to death. Christ reconciles us to God, and so gives
life. The way in which Christ reconciles us to God is by
manifesting God's pardoning and saving love to the sinful
soul. In his own life, but 'especially by his death, he com-u
municates this pardoning love, and so produces the atone-
ment. This is the central, Pauline view of the relation of
Adam and Christ to the race. Adam introduces death into
the world : Christ introduces life. He does not speak at all
of imputation^ or transfer of guilt ; but he .speaks of an actual
communication of death and life. Adam and Christ both
stand in actual, and not merely ideal, connection with the
whole race of man. Adam is a living soul ; Christ, a life-
giving spirit. By inheritance, we receive a depraved life of
the soul from Adam ; by communion, we receive an eternal
or spiritual life from Christ. And, in regard to both of these
acts, the notion of blame or merit is entirely excluded. We
are not to blame for our inherited depravity derived from
Adam. We deserve no credit for the salvation which comes
•
to us from Christ. The compensation for the misfortune of
inherited evil is the free gift of divine goodness in Jesus.
We have thus considered the truth and the error contained
in the Orthodox doctrine of the fall. The truth of it is in
its assertion of a depravity of nature, to which we are liable
in consequence of ancestral sins : the error is in imputing
guilt to us in consequence of them.
§ 7. Orthodox View of Total Depravity and Inability. —
In speaking of the fall of man, we necessarily anticipated
somewhat the doctrine of total depravity. Still, we must
say something further on this doctrine, because it is so im-
portant in the Church system : it is, indeed, at its foundation.
Those who accept, in its strictness, the doctrine of total
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 147
depravity cannot avoid any point of the severest Calvinism.
Schleiermacher has shown, in his " Essay on Election," that
this latter doctrine necessarily follows the doctrine of total
depravity ; for, if man is wholly depraved, he has no power
to do anything for his own conversion ; therefore God must
do it. And if some are converted, and not others, it must
be because God chooses to convert some, and does not choose
to convert others.
Let us look, then, at what Orthodoxy says of the exterU
of human depravity. In all the principal creeds, this is stated
to be unlimited. Man's sin is total and entire. There is
nothing good in him. The Westminster Confession and the
Confession of the New England Congregational churches
describe him as ^' dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the
faculties and parts of soul and body." Other creeds use
similar language.
In considering this theory, we are struck at first by the
circumstance, that the Bible gives it very little support. The
Bible continually speaks of man as a sinner ; but there are
very few texts which can, without straining, be made to seem
to teach that he is totally depraved. Let us examine a few
of them.
§ 8. Proof Texts, — 1. A text often cited is Genesis 6 : 5,
— the reason given for destroying the human race, in the
time of Noah, by .the deluge : " And God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con-
tinually." But this seems to be a description of the state of
the world at that particular time, not of its character in all
ages. It is not a description of man's natural condition, but
of an extremely degenerate condition. If the state of the
world here described was its natural state, it would rather
b^ a reason for not having created the race at first ; or, if it
was a reason for destroying it, it would, at best, seem to be
as strong a one against creating it again. K a* man plants
148 obthodoxt: its tbuths and ebbobs.
a tree in his garden, whose nature he knows is to produce a
certain kind of fruit, it would seem hardly a good reason for
cutting it down, that it produced that kind of fruit : certainly
it would not be a good reason for cutting it down, and plant-
ing another of precisely the same kind in its place. The
reason why the race of men was destroyed was, that it had
degenerated. But there were some good even then ; for in
the ninth verse we are told that " Noah was a just man, and
perfect in his generation, and walked with God."
2, There is another passage, in the fourteenth Psalm
which is quoted by Paul in. Rom. 3 : " There is none right
eous ; no, not one : there is none that under standeth, none
that seeketh after Grod. They have all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable : there is none that
doeth good ; no, not one. There is no fear of God before
their eyes."
This passage is relied on to prove total depravity. But
we may reply, that —
This also is a degenerate* condition, not a natural one. It
Vas a condition into which men had fallen, not one in which
they were bom. " They have all gone out of the way ; they
are together hecome unprofitable." It does not, therefore,
apply to men universally, but to men in those particular
times.
It was not true of all, even at that particular time. It was
not true of David himself, that he did not seek after God, or
have the fear of God before his eyes ; or else other passages
in the same book are not true, in which he says the contrary.
" O God ! ^arly will I seek thee : my soul thirsteth for thee ;
my flesh longeth for thee." He also frequently speaks
of and to those who fear the Lord, and says, ^^ I am a com-
panion to all those that fear thee."
The '^ all " is not to be taken strictly. It means people
generally at that time. Just so it is said, '^ There went out
to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and aU the region round
ORTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. 149
about Jordan ; " which does not imply that no one staid at
home.
^^ But," it may be said, '' does not Paul teach that this is to
be taken universally, when he quotes it, and adds, ^ Now we
know that what the law saith, it saith to those under the
law, that every mouth be stopped, and all the world guilty
before God ' ? We think he means to say, that, as this is said
to Jews, it proves that Jews^ as well as Gentiles, are very
guilty. He is addressing the Jews, who boasted of their
knowledge of the law. Chap. 2 : '^ Behold, thou art called
a Jew," &c.
• 3. Jer. 17:9. " The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked."
K we suppose that we are to take this as an unlimited ex-
pression, and not merely a strong declaration of the wicked-
ness of the Jews, it still does not prove total depravity of the
nature, but merely that of the affections, or "the heart."
Man's nature has other things besides desire : it has eon-
Bcience, reason, and will ; and it does not follow that these
are also depraved.
4. Bom. 8:7. " The carnal mind is enmity against
God."
This does not intend that the mind of man, in its natural
state, is enmity, but in its carnal state ; that is, when subject
to fleshly desires. 'Nearly the same phrase is used in the
verse before, and is translated, "To be carnally minded is
death."
5. There is one famous passage, however, which seems to
say that God is angry with us on account of our nature.
This is a passage very much quoted, and we hear it so often
that it seems as if the Bible was full of such texts. It is in
Eph. 2:3. " We were by nature children of wrath j even
as others." This is quoted to prove that God is angry with
men for their natures, and hates them for being born evil —
just as we may hate a snake, a scorpion, or spider, for its
13*
150 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
nature. But, as it happens, the very next verses show that
this is impossible, unless God can be hating one of his crea-
tures and loving it at the very same moment.
For, in the next verse Paul says that God loved us with
a great love when we were dead in trespasses and sins, and
children of wrath. It is therefore evident that " children of
wrath " must mean something else. It may mean that men
outside of Christianity — Jews and Gentiles — were afraid of
God ; living under a constant sense of his displeasure ; that
God seemed to them a terrible being, always disposed to
punish them with severity. This was the fact. Jews and
Gentiles were afraid of their gods, before Christ came, and
so were " children of wrath." Or it may mean that men
are exposed to the consequences of sin ; for, in Scripture
language, —
** Ood *B wrathful said to be, when he doth do
Th&ttoithout wrath which wrath doth force us to."
Moreover, " nature," in Scripture usage, does not necessa-
rily mean, " as human beings." It often intends external
position, origin, and race. So (in Gal. 2 : 15) we* read,
" Jews by nature ; " and so (in Rom. 2:27) " uncircumcis-
ion, which is by nature."
The same word is used twice in James 3 : 7, and is trans-
lated hind. " Every hind of beasts, birds, serpents, things
in the sea, is tamed of mdn-hind : " literally, " the whole
animal race is tamed by the human race."
If q)vaig here meant " constitutional depravity," the same
word in Rom. 2 : 14 must mean constitutional goodness, where
we are told that some "do hy nature the things contained in
the law." So, too, we read of the olive tree," wild by na-
ture, in Rom. 11 : 24.
" By nature," here, plainly means the original condition,
not the original constitution. Just so we say that wild ani-
mals are in a -state of nature, and call savages the children
of nature.
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 151
These five texts are the strongest in the Bible -to support
the doctrine of total depravity? and, as such, are constantly
quoted. They have very little weight, and not one of them
is from the words of Jesus.
On the other hand, there are many passages which seem
to declare that there is something good in man in his uncon-
verted or natural state, and that even in that state he may
turn towards the light, and struggle against evil.
John 3 : 20, 21. " Every one that doeth truth cometh to
the light."
Matt. 26 : 41. " . . . The spirit is willing, the flesh is
weak."
Rom. 2 : 24. " Gentiles, who have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, and show the work
of that law which is written in the heart."
Acts 10 : 35. "In every nation, he that feareth God,
and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."
But the passage, most strikingly and thoroughly opposed to
the doctrine of total depravity, is the description, in the
seventh chapter of Romans, of the conflict between the law
in the members and the law of the mind. Paul, speaking
evidently from his own experience in his unconverted state,
describes the condition of one morally depraved, who is try-
ing to do right, but is prevented by evil habits which have
become a part of himself. He describes this as moral death,
but not guilt. He says, " It is no more I that do it^ but sin
that dwelleth in me." He describes himself as morally im-
potent— wishing to do right', but unable to do it. He says
he delights in the law of God after the inner man. The in-
most is right, but outside of that are evil habits, in the body,
which drag down the soul and enslave it. Paul therefore
distinctly says that a man in such a condition is n9t himself
a sinner, because he does not commit the sin. Thus he
makes clear and strong the distinction we referred to above,
between depravity and guilt — between natural evil and moral
evil.
152 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Paul teaches that man is not totally depraved, but that
even in the carnal man there .is a good principle, only that
it is conquered by the evil. If the mind delights in the
law of God, and the will to do right is present with us, we
evidently are not totally depraved ; but the total depravity, if
anywhere, is in the flesh only, as Paul plainly says : "I know
that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing ; "
that is, the depravity is physical, not moral. But physical
depravity is not guilt, but only disease.
§9. Truth in the Doctrine of Total Depravity, — Never-
theless there is a sense in which man may be said to be often
totally sinful ; but this is only in a total alienation of the will
from God. It is not a total depravity, but a total alienation.
There is a natural depravity, but it is not total. But the
choice may be totally perverted, when it chooses darkness
instead of light, evil instead of good.
Let us see what there is of this in man.
The gospel of Christ, as we understaAd it, undertakes to
eflect an entire change, a radical reformation, in human
character. It proposes to reform the life by changing the
heart, by giving new aims, new affections, new aspirations,
new objects of love and pursuit. Jesus does not endeavor
to alter and improve, a little here and a little there, on the
outside of the character, to improve a little our modes of
action in this and the other particular ; but he alters the
conduct and character by altering the fundamental ideas, and
inspiring an inward life. This wonderful change, which takes
place in the profoundest depth of our nature, under the in-
fluence of the Gospel, — this great event of life, which forms
the turning-point of our being, and history, — is called in the
New Testament " the new birth," " regeneration," " to be
born again," " conversion," " a new creation," " to be born
of God," "to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with
fire," "to put off the old man," "to have Christ formed
within us." It is a very superficial view which explains
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 153
away the meaning of all these profound expressions, and
supposes that they only signify e^ little outward improvement
and reformation. We need just such a change as is here
described — a radical one, not a superficial one. All need
it. Those who, are the most pure in heart and most blame-
less in character (spotless children, as they seem to us, of a
heavenly world) feel their own need of this change no less
than do the profligate and openly vicious. Parents and
friends say, " We have no fault to find with them." They
do not say they have no fault to find with themselves. They
feel they have all kinds of fault to find with themselves, and
nothing is so painful to them as this commendation. They
say, " Outwardly we may seem innocent, but we feel an in-
ward want that weighs on our heart like a frost."
" This is a true saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." It is be-
cause we are sinners that we need to experience this great
change. We do not wish to exaggerate the amount of human
sinfulness. Theologians have carried their attacks on hu-
man nature quite too far, and the result has often been that
men have looked on sin as a sort of theological matter, which
has nothing to do with actual life. They have cheerfully
admitted that they were totally depraved by nature, and
could not think or will a good thing, and then have thought
no worse of themselves than before. We know that there
is something good in man, something which God loves,
some pure aspiration even in the natural heart, some throbs
of generosity, some warnings of conscience, some pure
love, some courageous virtue, in the humblest, the most de-
praved, the most abandoned. There are some flowers of
sweetest perfume which spring up in the uncultivated soil
of the natural heart on which God and his angels "smile, for
the seeds of those flowers God himself planted. We have
seen harebells, graceful and lovely as the sweetest green-
house plant, growing out of a sand-heap ; and we have seen
164 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
some disinterested, generous benevolence in the mind of a
hardened profligate. It is, not, therefore, because there is
nothing good in man that he needs a change of heart, but
because he is destitute of a deep-rooted and living goodness
till this change has taken place.
Look at the actual sins of men. The majority of men, in
a civilized community like ours, do not commit great crimes,
or fall into flagrant vices, because they have little to attract
them to such a course, and much to deter them from it.
They are aiming at those objects which they need the coun*
tenance, aid, and good opinion of their fellow-men to obtain .
to be glaringly vicious would make it impossible. Also,
there is a certain amount of conscience which restrains them
— the influence of good education and good habits which
preserves a certain uprightness and purity of character.
But is it a deep principle ? If so, why do the vast majority
of men allow themselves in many small violations of the
same laws which they would not break on a large scale?
They would not . steal ; yet they commit every day some
slight acts not perfectly honest ; they take advantage of others
in little things. They would not lie ; yet they exaggerate,
and conceal part of the truth, and color their statements to
produce an efiect. They would not kill ; but they are will-
ing to injure- one. who has interfered with their interests.
With these tendencies atid feelings, why would they not,
under different influences, commit greater crimes? How
often do we feel, in talking with the criminal and abandoned,
that, in their circumstances and with their temptations, we
might have been as bad as they !
Does not all this show that there is a deep and hidden
fountain of evil within our hearts which is restrained by
external influences, by checks and barriers with which God
has kindly surrounded us? and if these were taken away,
it would break out into something far worse than now
appears. How much there is of evil under the smooth sur-
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 156
face of refined society I - How many thoughts of sin pass to
and fro in the heart while the countenance seems pure and
cahn ! Who ever looked into the interior depths of our
most moral community, and saw all the secret sins and pol-
lutions which are hidden there? Every now and then there
occurs in the midst of the most refined classes some startling
revelation of long-concealed wickedness which makes men
look each other in the face and draw a long breath, as
though they should say, " Which of us will next fall? " So
in the midst of a fruitful country, of lakes, and valleys, and
vine-clad hills, the earth will sometimes open, and a river of
melted lava pour forth, desolating all around. We hear of
this with wonder, and do not think that right beneath our
own feet, a few miles down, under these smooth fields and
gentle plains, that same fiery ocean is rolling its red billows.
God has laid his hand upon our heart, and restrains its law-
less passions as he restrains the tornadoes, and earthquakes,
and volcanic fires ; else they might easily hurry us to swift
destruction.
Still, if this were all, no radical change might be neces-
sary. It might be enough that by effort, and self-discipline,
and direction of the thoughts, we gradually overcome our
evil habits and tendencies ; but when we resolve to do so,
and make the effort, we meet with an unexpected resistance.
*' The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." " I find a
law in my members warring against the law of my mind,
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin in my mem-
bers." • The Church has long asserted the doctrine of an
hereditary depravity ; and we have seen that there is mora
truth in it than we have sometimes supposed. It is not
total, but it is real. Besides the sins of our own committing,
there are the sins which our ancestors have committed, which
have made themselves part of our bone and flesh. We aro
not exactly balanced in our natural state ; there is a prepon-
derating tendency towards evil in one or another direction*
166 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Ik
This forms too fearful an alliance with circumstances, the
moment they become powerful to draw us away from good.
A friend of ours, some years since, was making a trip up the
Lakes, late in the ' season. As they entered Lake Huron
from the River St. Clair in the noble steamer, the skies were
serene, and she ploughed her way on towards the north, so
that by night the land had sunk almost out of sight. But
then the wind began to freshen, the sea rose, and as the night
advanced, and the wind blew harder and harder, the boat
strained and staggered along, occasionally struck hard by a
heavier sea, till at last one of her wheels was carried away,
and the fires wer^ put out by the water. How long and
anxious was that night ! How many prayed then who never
prayed before I When morning came, the boat was found
to be drifting before the wind and waves, directly upon a
rocky shore on the south-east side of the lake. There was
no help in man ; but a gracious Providence all at once caused
the storm to lull, so that a fire could be built, and with one
wheel the boat got into a harbor. Man seems a powerful
being when he is surrounded by favorable circumstances, aud
is going with a fair wind and fair weather ; but let.the wind
change, and his weakness becomes apparent. He who just
now breasted the tide, is now drifting helplessly before it.
But there is a difficulty far worse than any we have men-
tioned. We might conquer the sin which most easily besets
us, we might ccxnquer our inherent evil tendencies, and out-
grow them, if we really wished tp do so ; but the deepest of
all evils is a want of love for God and for goodness. We
know that we ought to love and obey God ; but our heart is
alienated from him. The great mass of men are living away
from God. They are not conscious of his presence, though
they know that he is near to them. Though they know
thqt his eye is upon them, it does not restrain them from sin.
Though they know that their heavenly Father and best Friend
is close at hand, how seldom do they pray ! how seldom look
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 157
up with gratitude for aU their mercies and joys ! This shows
a terrible estrangement of soul from God. The veil is on
their hearts, not on their minds.
The question is sometimes asked, " whether sin is a pos-
itive or merely a negative evil." Now, whatever may be
the case with other kinds of sin, this alienation of the heart
seems to us a very positive evil ; for it is an antagonism,
and resistance of goodness. If the supreme goodness of God
does not attract us, does not excite our affection, does not
irresistibly draw us to him, then it repels us ; it makes the
thought of his presence a restraint and burden ; it makes us
wish to go away from God. The goodness of God is so very
positive a thing, that we cannot be indifferent to it ; we can-
not be neutral in regard to it. If we do not love it, it is
disagreeable, and we are uncomfortable in the thought of it.
Swedenborg relates that certain wicked persons were allowed
to enter heaven on a certain occasion ; but they immediately
became almost lifeless, and, from the torment and pain in
their head and body, prostrated themselves on the ground,
and writhed like worms ; but, being taken and carried into
hell, became comparatively comfortable. What can be more
terrible than the idea thus conveyed of our aversion to good-
ness, which makes heaven intolerable, and the presence of
God insufferable torture ! Can anything express, more than
this, the need of a change of heart ?
Jesus, we think, asserts a similar view when he says, " He
that is not with me is against me." " No man can serve
two masters ; for he will either love the first and hate the
last, or love the last and hate the first." He will not be
indifferent to either, if their characters and commands are of
an opposite kind.
We do not mean to say that we hate God ; but we mean that
there is something within us, while our hearts are not wholly
his, which makes it unpleasant and burdensome to think of
God and pray to him. We feel a certain repugnance to a
14
158 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
familiar and happy intercourse with our heavenly Father.
Our prayers, if .we pray, are formal and cold; our hearts
are hard, and their |iiFections do not flow easily upward.
Now, if there be- such a thing as a change of heart, which
will make it a pleasure to pray, a joy to think of God ; which
will make it natural to us to approach him, and dwell on the
thought of his goodness ; which will enable us to see him in
the majesty and sweetness of nature, in the rise of empires
or the death of an infant, in the coming of Christ, and in
every good thought which swells in our souls, — then it is
evident that this is what we need. Let us dig deep, an4
build our house upon a rock.
We shall see in another section that there is such a
change of heart as we have described. Jesus saves sin-
ners by taking away the heart of stone, and giving a
heart of flesh. He saw the whole depth and extent of
the disease which he came to cure. There are some
preachers who do not know how great an evil sin is, and
would not know what to do for a penitent and anxious soul
which really saw the greatness of its needs. Thus, when
George Fox went to the rector of his church to ask advice
for the distress of his soul, he was told to amuse himself and
divert his mind. But Jesus saw all the extent of sin, and
yet was ready to encourage and help the sinner. He knew
that his remedy was equal to the emergency. The gospel of
* Christ can give to us love to God and love to man ; can
soften our hearts in humility, can enable us to fight with
and conquer even the hereditary evil of our organization ;
can ultimately redeem us from all evil. This is the de-
pravity we are to conquer ; not of nature, but of will, and
aim, and purpose.
§ 10. Ability and Inability. — One of the pivotal points
in the Orthodox theory of evil is that of moral inability.
Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity seems to be taught for
the sake of this. Total depravity resolves itself, in the mind
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 159
of the Orthodox teacher, into total inability, and means that
man, unable to do right by any power in himself, must throw
himself wholly and absolutely on the divine grace. The se-
cret motive of the whole Orthodox doctrine of evil is to lead
through a sense of sin to humility, and at last to dependence.
Orthodoxy here becomes intelligible, so soon as we perceive
that its purpose is not speculative, but practical. As religion
consists so greatly in the sentiment of dependence, it is a
leading purpose in the Orthodox system to produce this
sense of dependence. That group of graces — reverence,
himxility, submission, trust, prayer — which lend such an
ineffable charm to the moral nature, which purify and refine
it to its inmost depths, — these spring almost wholly from the
sense of dependence on a higher and better being than our-
selves. These being absent, the elevating principle is want-
ing; the man cannot rise above himself. There may be
truth, courage, conscience, purity, but they are all stoical and
self-relying. It is only he who relies on a higher power,
clings to a higher being, and draws his moral, life from
above, who can ascend. He who humbles himself, and' he
only, shall be exalted. But humility does not consist in
looking down, but in looking up. It does not come from
looking at our own meanness, but at something higher and
better than ourselves. The sense of sin is only elevating
when connected with the sight of a higher beauty and holi-
ness.
It is, therefore, in order to produce a conviction of abso-
lute dependence that Orthodoxy urges so strongly the doc-
trines of total depravity and total inability. A man will
not pray, says the Orthodox system, till he feels himself
helpless. He will not seek a Saviour so long as he hopes to
save himself. He must see that he can do nothing more for
himself; and then, for the first time, he exercises a real faith
in God, and casts himself on the divine mercy.
Masoning in this way, consciously or unconsciously, Or-
160 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
thodoxy has built up its doctrine of human inability, which
we will proceed to state, — first, however, indicating the scrip-
tural view of this subject.
Scripture teaches that man is able to choose the right, but
not fiJways able to perform it. He is free in his spirit, but
bound by circumstances of position, and by bodily organiza-
tion. He is free to choose, but not free to do. His freedom
is in effort, not necessarily in accomplishment. He can al-
ways try ; he cannot always effect what he tries.
Thus Jesus says (Matt. 26 : 41), " Watch and pray, that
ye enter not into temptation ; the spirit indeed is willing, but
the flesh is weak." And so Paul says, in the passage on this
subject before referred to (Rom. 7 : 18), " To will is present
with me, but how to perform that which I will, I find not."
Without attempting here to enter into the tormented
question of fate and freedom, of necessity so irrefragably
demonstrated by the logic of Edwards and others, — of free-
will perpetually reasserted by the intuitive reason in the
soul, — we may say this : Whether there be such a thing as
metaphysical freedom or not, there is such a thing as moral
freedom. In proportion as man sinks into the domain of
nature, he is bound by irresistible laws.- In proportion as
he rises into the sphere of reason, justice, truth, love, he is
emancipated, and can direct his own course. " Ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." " If
the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed." (John 8 : 32, 36.) " Stand fast in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free." (Gal. 5:1.) It is
therefore true that only as we direct our course by eternal
laws, we rise above the controlling influence of habit, preju-
dice, public opinion, inherited and original tendencies of the
blood and brain. According to Paul (Rom. 6 : 16-22), 'man
must be either the servant of sin or the servant of God.
He must serve, willingly or unwillingly. He must be the
degraded slave of desire and selfishness, or the willing, loyal
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 161
subject of truth and right. Paradoxically enough, however,
he only feels free in these two cases. For in these two states
he is doing what he chooses to do. When he is blindly and
willingly following his lower instincts he feels free. When
he is rationally and freely choosing right, and doing it, he
also feels free. But when half way between these two states,
<wheri his conscience is pulling one way and his desires
drawing him the other, when he is choosing right and doing
wrong, he feels himself a slave.
There are therefore these three conditions of the will, cor-
responding to the Pauline division of man into spirit, «oul,
and body (i Tim. 5 : 23) — a view of man which was held
throughout antiquity. The carnal man (^aa^xixog) is one
in whom the earthly appetites are supreme, and the soul,
{ipv^rj) and spirit (^nvevfia) subordinate. The natural man
(^tfjvxtxog av6QO)7iog, 1 Cor. 2 : 14) is one in whom the soul,
or central principle, the. finite will, is supreme. The spiritual
man (nvevfiaxtxog^ 1 Cor. 2 : 15) is he in whom the infinite
principle, the sense of eternal truth and right, is supreme.
In the first condition — that of the carnal man — one is the
slave of sin, but without knowing it, because there is no wish
to become anything difierent. In the second state — that
of the natural man (or psychical man) — the soul chooses^
the good, but is drawn down by the evil. The law of the
mind is warring against the law of the members, and the
man is torn asunder by this conflict. He tries to do right,
and does wrong. He now first feels himself a slave ; yet
iie is in reality less a slave than before, for now he is en-
deavoring to escape. His will is emancipated, though his
habits of conduct, his habits of thought, his habits of feeling,
still bind him fast. In the third condition, that of the spir-
itual man, he has broken these chains. He not only wills
to do right, but does it. His body shares in the new life of
his soul. He now is made free by the truth and the spirit
14*
162 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
from the service of evil, and shares in " the glorious liberty
of the children of God."
In all these conditions the human being has some freedom,
but differing in degree in each. In the lowest state he has
freedom of action, for he does what he wishes to do ; but he
has not freedom of choice, for he does not choose at all. He
acts not by intelligent choice, but by blind instinct, habit or
custom. In the middle state he has freedom of choice, buf
not of action. He chooses the good, but performs the evil.
This is the condition described by Ovid, and other profane
writers, before Paul described it in the seventh chapter of
Romans.* But in the highest state — a spiritual condition
— he has both freedoms ; he can both choose and perform.
The carnal man seems to be free, but is most thoroughly
enslaved of all. The psychical man seems to himself to be
enslaved, but has begun to be free. The spiritual man both
seems to be free and is so. The apparent freedom of the
carnal man differs from the real freedom of the spiritual
man in this — the spiritual man could do wrong if he chose
to do so, but chooses to do right. But the carnal man could
not do right if he should choose. A good man, if he chose
to do £0, might lie, and steal, and drink, and be profane ; ,
but a bad man could not, by choosing, become temperate,
pure, truthful, and honest.
Scripture and experience give, therefore, the same account
of human ability and inability. In the lowest state man is
the servant of sense, and can neither will nor do right. In
the higher condition he can will, but cannot perform ; for
his ideal aim is above his actual power. In the highest, or
♦Ovid. Metam. 7:18.
** Si posscm, sanior essem.
Bed trahit invitam nova vis ; aliudque cupido,
])f ens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque,
Deteriora sequor."
See, also, the stoiy, in the Cyropsedia, of Araspes and his two BOVll*
OBTHODOX IDEA OF SIN. 163
regenerate, state he can both will and do. Body, as well as
soul, serve the spirit.
These are the truths which lie at the basis of the Ortho-
dox doctrine of inability. But Orthodoxy, in its desire to
awaken a sense of dependence, has pushed them to an
unreasonable extreme. It asserts that man, in his natural
state, before he is regenerated, has no power to will or to do
right. It is evident, however, that all men have power to
will and to do many right things. Even in the lowest condi-
tion, a man wills and does much that is right. Though the
governing principle be the lowest one, he can yet perform
many good actions. In the second condition also, the psy-
chical man, though not able always to do right, often suc-
ceeds in doing so. And in this state the apostle declares
that he does not do the evil, but " sin that dwells in him."
So long as his 'purpose is right, he is right.
§ 11. Orthodox Doctrine of Indhility.^-Jjet us see what
Orthodoxy says of the inability of the unregenerate man.
The Assembly's Confession declares (chap. 6, § 4), that by
our corrupt nature " we are utterly indisposed, disabled,
and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil.'* In chap. 9, § 3, it says that " man, by his fall into
a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any
spiritual good accompanying salvation."
This seems plain enough. It would justify the charge
made by Dr. Cox, that there are those who teach that " a
man has no ability to do his duty," * and " that, where the
means of grace are abundantly vouchsafed, a man can do
nothing for, but can only counteract, his own salvation." It
would also seem to lay a fit foundation for that kind of Cal-
vinistic preaching which, according to Professor Finney, of
* See Dr. Ck>x'8 Sermon on Begeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in « Es-
MjB and BeviewB." •
164 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Oberlin (see "Revival Lectures"), virtually amounts to
saying,
** You can, and you can't;
You shall, and you shan't ;
You will, and you won't ;
You'll be damned if you dont."
•
These charges, it must be noticed, are brought against
Calvinism, not by us, but by Presbyterian divines, themselves
holding to this same Westminster Confession.
But let us look at some of the expositions given to this
doctrine of inability by modern Orthodox authorities.
(a.) The Old School Presbyterians. — As stated by one
of their own number (Professor Atwater, of Princeton Col-
lege, Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1864) , they hold an inability
" moral, sinful, and real," " irremovable by the sinner's own
power." He sets aside the objection that we are not bound
to do what we are unable to do, by saying that this applies
to actions only, not to sinful dispositions. He illustrates this
by saying that an irrepressible disposition to slander would
be -only so much more culpable. But in this he is evidently
wrong. Such a habit has become a disease, and the unfor-
tunate victim is no longer accountable for what he does.
(6.) The New School Fresbyterians, — (Rev. George Duf-
field, in Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.) Although Dr. Duf-
field objects to the language of the Old School Presbyterians in
denying " free agency," and regarding man " as destitute of
ability as a block of marble," he yet declares that the New
School, as well as the Old, believe that in the unconverted
state " man can do nothing morally good." Still, he adds,
men can accept the offers of salvation made by Jesus Christ.
But he positively denies that '^ man, in his natural state,
independent of the gospel and Spirit of Christ, has ability
perfectly to obey all the commandments of God." We sup-
pose that most persons would agree with him in this state-
ment.
(c.) The Old School in New England Theology, — (Bib-
OBTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 165
liotheca Sacra, April, 1863. Article by Professor Law-
rence, East Windsor, Connecticut.) This writer contends
that human inability is moral, and not natural — a distinction
much dwelt upon by the Hopkinsians, but rejected by the
Old School Presbyterians. This system differs from the
Arminian or Methodist view in insisting that man has power
enough to sin, though not enough to obey.
(<7.) Hopkmsianism, — (Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.)
The Hopkinsians profess to contend for free agency, in order
to save responsibility. They adopt the ideas of Edwards
on free agency. But freedom, with them, Consists only in
choice. Whatever we choose, we choose freely. The carnal
man is as free in choosing evil as the spiritual man in choos-
ing good. All real freedom in this sys^m disappears in a
juggle of words.
The result of this examination will show that the great
body of the Orthodox, of all schools, continues to deny any
real ability in the unregenerate man to do the will of God.
They do not say that " man has no power to do his duty,"
but that is the impression left by their teaching. The dis-
tinction between natural and moral inability is insufficient ;
for it is as absurd to say that a man is unable not to sin,
when you only mean that he chooses to sin, as it would be to
say, when invited to eat your dinner, " I am unable to eat,"
meaning only that you were unwilling. Besides, if inability
is moral, it is in the will, and not in the nature, and so is
not natur&l depravity at all. It is also making God unjust
to teach that he considers us guilty for a misfortune. If we
derive a corrupted nature from Adam, that is our misfortune,
and toot our fault, and God owes us not anger, but pity.
Instead of punishing us, he should compensate us for this
disaster.
Therefore the unreason, the want of logic, and the absence
of any just view of God, appear, njore or less, throughout
these statements. For where there is no ability, there can
166 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
be no guilt. Just as soon as man ceases to have the power
to do right, he ceases to have the power to do wrong. Ina-
bility and guilt j which are connected by all these creeds,
logically exclude each other. If our nature is incapable of
doing good, then it is incapable of committing sin. One or
the other must be given up. Keep which you will, but you
cannot, keep both. We may be totally depraved by our
nature ; but then we cease to be sinners, and cease to bo
guilty. Or we may be going wholly wrong, and so be sinful,
but then we have the power of going right.
This is the inconsistency in almost all Orthodox systems.
By dwelling so much on human weakness, they destroy at
last the sense of responsibility.
§ 12. Some further Features of Orthodox Theology concern/'
ing Human Sinfulness, — In the article in the Bibliotheca
Sacra before referred to (April, 1863), by Edward A. Law-
rence, D. D., Professor at East Windsor, Connecticut, on
" The Old School in New England Theology,'* the writer gives
the following account of the doctrines of this body concerning
sin : —
" God created man a holy being. He was not merely in-
nocent, as not having committed sin, not merely pure, as not
inheriting any derived evil, but was positively holy in his
very being." This, we suppose, must mean that he was in-
clined by nature to do right, rather than wrong. It was as
natural for him to love God as for a fish to. swim or a bird to
fly. Nothing less than this, certainly, would deserve to be
called " holiness of being."
" The first man," says Professor Lawrence, " was the
federal head of this race, representatively and by covenant,
as no other father has been or can be with his children."
This is illustrated by the fact of a legal corporation, whose
members are responsible in law for the actions of their agent.
Professor Lawrence ejcplains the belief of the Old School ia
the imputation of Adam's sin thus : It was not the personal
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 167
guilt of Adam which was imputed to his descendants, but
" certain disastrous consequences." They, as well as he, be-
came "subject to temporal aifd eternal death." The next
consequence of Adam's sin we must give in Professor Law-
rence's own language, in order not to misrepresent him.
*' The first evil disposition which led to the evil choice was not
only confirmed in him as an individual, but also as a quality
of human nature, and it reappears, successively, in each one
of them." Imputation, therefore, means not the transfer of
guilt, but of a corrupt nature. " It is not a sin to be born
sinful ; but the sin with which men are born is nevertheless
sinful." Then follows this statement : " We are strictly
guilty only for our own sin ; but the sinfulness with which
we are born is as really ours as if it originated in our
own act."
This, again, is explained by defining guilt as liability to
punishment on account of the acts of another, " as when the
members of a corporation suffer from the ill management of
its agent." This he calls corporate guilt.
The Old School doctrine, according to this writer, concern-
ing sin, makes it a state rather than an act. It is not merely
the act of disobedience, but the wrong bias of the will, out of
which the act proceeds. He thinks it wrong to call " sin a
nature," for neither the substance of the soul, nor its faculties,
are sinful. The depravity of nature is not choice, so much
as tendency which leads to choice. It is hereditary, being
transmitted from father to son.
The old theology, therefore, predicates sinfulness of human
nature ; affirms sin to be a wrong state or bias of will ; consid-
ers it to be hereditary ; regards new-born infants as depraved,
but thinks that those of them who die in infancy, before actual
transgression, are renewed and saved by the blood of Christ ;
and considers temporal death as a part of the penalty of sin.
Upon this statement of the Old School doctrine, the follow
ing criticisms naturally occur : —
168 orthodoxy: its truths and erjeiors.
First. If original righteousness was holiness of naturOy
and not mere innocence ; if it was a positive tendency to
good, and not merely a stafe of indifference between good
and evil; then, we ask. What produced the fall? What
mofive led to the commission of the first sin ? If the nature
of the first man was holy, there was nothing in it which
could lead him to sin, and any external temptation addressed
lo such a nature must fall powerless before it. It would be
like trying to tempt a fish to fly in the air, or like tempting
a bird to go into the water. Even if the first man could
have been induced by any deception or external influence to
commit a wrong act, this would not be sinful, because there
would be no sinful motive behind it. A wrong act proceed-
ing from a holy nature is either an impossibility or a mere
innocent mistake. Our first criticism, therefore, qn the Old
School doctrine of sin, is, that it makes Adam's fall an impos-
sibility.
Second. As regards Adam's federal headship and the
illustration of a corporation, we say, that the members of a
corporation are not considered guilty in consequence of the
acts of their agent, although they may suffer in consequence
of these acts. If he commits forgery they may lose money
thereby, but no one would think of calling them forgers.
The sin of a parent may be visited upon his children to the
third or fourth generation, but in their case it is neither pun-
ishment nor guilt, but only misfortune. Wlien Professor
Lawrence, therefore, says, that " we are guilty for the sinful-
ncjss with which we are born, because it is realjjr ours," he
utters a moral absurdity, and strikes at the root of all moral
distinctions. He says, ^' The sinfulness with which we are
bom is really ours ; " but in what sense ours ? Only as any
congenital disease may be called ours. If a man is .born
with a tendency to consumption, blindness, lameness, he may
Say, "my lameness, my near-sightedness." But no one
would suppose that he meant thereby to hold himself respon*
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 169
gible for them, or to consider himself guilty because of them.
It is absurd to speak of " corporate guilt.*' The corporate
guilt, for example, of the stockholders of a bank, because of
the crime of an absconding teller !
The natural objection to this illustration of a corporation
is, that those who enter into a corporation do it by a free act,
and make themselves voluntarily responsible. But we did
not consent that Adam should be our agent. We did not
agree that if Adam should commit a single act of disobedi-
ence we should be bom totally depraved, and liable to ever-
lasting torments in consequence. Professor Lawrence replies,
that it would have been impossible for God to ask our con-
sent, and therefore, apparently he supposes that God took for
granted that we would consent. This seems to be no answer
to the objection. If it was impossible for God to obtain our
consent, before we were born, to incur this awful danger, he
was not compelled to expose us to it. It is an insult to the
justice of the Almighty to assume that he could have done so.
Third. * Professor Lawrence does not think it correct to
say that " sin is a nature." But why not, if it be a universal
and constant element, an original and permanent state of the
soul? To say that human nature is sinful, but deny that sin
is a nature, seems to be making a distinction without a dif-
ference. It is a disposition to sin born with the child.
Now, say what we will, such a disposition to sin thus bom
with us is not guilt but misfortune. A just God will not
hold us responsible for it, but will hold himself responsible to
help us out of it. As a faithful Creator, he is bound to do
so, and will do so.
It is common for theologians to deny all such assertions
as these last. They hold it irreverent to say that God owes
anything to his creatures. They accumulate responsibility
upon man, but deny responsibility to God. But in doing
this they take from the Almighty all moral character. Cal-
vinism, especially, makes of the Deity infinite power and
15
170 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
infinite will. But no blasphemy is worse than that which,
though with the best intentions, virtually destroys the moral
character of the Almighty, reducing him to an infinite will ;
that is, making of him an infinite tyrant. For the essence of
tyranny is the union of power and will in a ruler, who. recog-
nizes no obligations towards his subjects.
The book of Job seems to have been written partly to re-
fute this sort of Calvinism. The friends of Job were Calvin-
ists in this sense. The sum of their argument was that:,
since God was all-powerful, therefore whatever he did must
be right ; and, since he punished Job, Job must be a sinner,
and ought to confess his sin whether he saw it or not. This
has been, in all ages, the substance of Calvinism — Jewish
Calvinism, Mohammedan Calvinism, Christian Calvinism.
It declares that we are bound to submit to God, not because
he is good, but because he is powerful. But the answer of
Job to his friends is a rebuke to the same spirit wherever
shown. He asks them " if they will speak with unfairness
for God," and " speak deceitfully for him," and " accept his
person." He declares that if he could find God he would go
before his throne and defend his own cause. "Would he
contend with me with his mighty power? No! he would
have regard unto me."
This is the sin of Calvinism, that it " accepts the person
of the Almighty," assuming that he has a right to do as he
pleases with his creatures, and that they have no rights
which he is bound to respect, except that of being punished.
Thus it destroys the moral character of the Almighty.
Fourth. Professor Lawrence says, "It is the general be-
lief of the Old School that those who die in infancy before
actual transgression, are renewed and saved by the blood of
Christ."
The power of infancy is wonderful. It can even break
down the logic of Calvinism. Wordsworth was right in call-
ing the infant —
ORTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 171
•* Mighty prophet ! Seer blest !
On whom those truths do rest
Which we are toiling all our lives to find."
Every kind of theology, however savage and bitter it may
be against adult sinners, sending them into an eternal hell
without the least hesitation or remorse, hesitates and stam-
mers when it comes to speak of little children. Eren the
idolatrous Jews, sacrificing their children to Moloch in the
valley of Hinnom, beat drums to drown their cries, which
they could not bear to hear. Both schools of theology. Old
and New, hasten to say that infants are not to be damned.
But why not, if they are born with a depraved nature, and
die without being converted? Both the great schools of
Presbyterian theology hold to the doctrine of the Assem-
bly's Catechism, which declares (chap. 6, § 6), that " every
sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the
righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its
own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound
over to the wrath of God." Therefore the infant who dies
before he has exercised repentance and faith in Christ, is
"under the wrath of God. Orthodoxy does not allow of re-
pentance in the other life : how, then, can infants be saved
according to Orthodoxy ? Professor Lawrence can only re-
ply, that it is a general belief that they will be saved. The
Catechism declares, less decidedly, that " elect infants " will
be saved. Dr. Whedon (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1862),
on behalf of the Methodists, says, " That the dying infant is
saved, and saved by the atonement, all agree." But how he
is saved, or what reason they have to think him saved, ex-
cept their wish to believe it, no one can- tell. Death, in
fact, becomes to the infant a saving sacrament. As long as
he lives he is believed unregenerate and unconverted. As
soon as he dies he is considered ready for heaven. But he
cannot be ready for heaven until he is regenerate ; and after
death there is no such thing as obtaining a new heart, and no
172 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
■
opportunity for repentance. Logically, therefore, the infant
is converted by the mere act of dying. We presume that no
Orthodox theologians would assert this ; and yet we really
do not see how they can avoid the conclusion.
But why is it any worse for children to be damned in con-
sequence of Adam's sin than for adults to be damned? Or-
thodoxy assures us that in consequence of Adam's sin we are
born depraved. Dr. Duffield, stating and defending the doc-
trines of the New School Presbyterian Church (Bibliotheca
Sacra, July, 1863), says that Adam subjected his posterity
to such a loss that they are born without any righteousness,
are exposed to the consequences of his transgression, and all
become sinners as soon as they are capable of it. * He quotes
with approbation from a protest of the New School minority,
in the General Assembly of 1837 (which he calls a docu-
ment of great historic value), an assertion that "by reason
of the sin of Adam, the race are treated as if they had sinned ; '*
and from another document of the same school which says,
that " we are all born with a tendency to sin, which makes
it morally certain that we shall do so." Now, we do not see
why it is any worse to send infants to hell because of this
depraved nature, than to send grown persons there who have
sinned in consequence of possessing such a depraved nature.
If it be said that adults have had an opportunity to repent,
and have not accepted it, we reply, that to the mass of man-
kind no such opportunity is offered ; that, where it is offered,
no one has the power to accept it, except he be one of the
elect; and that at all events, since infants are sure to be
saved, and a very large proportion of adults are very likely
to be lost, death in infancy is the most desirable thing possible*
According to this doctrine, child-murder becomes almost a
virtue.
The radical difficulty in all these theories consists in refiis-
ing to apply to God the same rules of .justice which we apply
to man. To do so implies no irreverence, but the highest
OBTHODOX IDEA OP SIN. 173
reverence. There is nothing more honorable to the Almighty
than to believe him to be actuated by the same great princi-
ples of right which he has written in our conscience and
heart. Those laws of eternal justice, so deeply engraven on
the fleshly tables of the heart, are a revelation of the charac-
ter of God himself. If we think to honor him by rejecting,
these intuitions of the reason, and by substituting for this
divine idea of a God of justice that of a being of arbitrary
will, who is under no obligations to his creatures, we deeply
dishonor the Almighty and fatally injure our own character.
From this perverted view of God comes a cynical view of
man. When we make will supreme in God, we legitimate
all t3rranny and contempt from man to man. Then cornea
the state of things described by Shakespeare : —
«* Force should be rig^ht, or» rather, right and wrong
(Between whose endless Jar justice resides)
Should lose their names, and so should Justice too.
Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, a universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Mast make perforce a unirersal prey.
And, last, eat up himself.'*
Shakespeare, TroiluB and CresBtdft*
174 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
CHAPTER VIL
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION.
§ !• Orthodoxy recognizes only two Conditions in which Man
can he found. — Orthodoxy knows only two states in which
man can be found. Man is either in the natural state, and
then he is totally depraved ; or he is in the supernatural
state, in which the chain of sin has been broken. He is
either impenitent or penitent, either unregenerated or regen-
erate, unconverted or converted, a sinner or a saint.
There is no gradation, no shading off, no twilight between-
this midnight gloom and midday splendor. To the com-
mon eye, and in the judgment of their friends and neighbors,
the people who enter a church seem of all degrees of good-
ness ; and every one has good and bad qualities mixed up
together in his character. But, as the Orthodox minister
looks at them from the pulpit, they instantly fall into two
classes, and become " my impenitent hearers," and " my peni-
tent hearers."
Moreover, it is assumed that the distinction between these
two classes is so marked and plain, that it can be recognized
by any one who will. Orthodox people inquire, ^^ Is he
pious f " just as they would ask, ^^ Is he married ? "
Again, the change from one state to the other is assumed
to be so distinct and marked, that he who runs can read.
One may say to another, " Where were you converted?'* just
as they may say, " Where did you go to college?" "Where
were you born ? " said an English bbhop to Summerfield, the
Methodist preacher. " In Dublin and Liverpool," he an-
swered. " Were you born in two places ? " said the bishop.
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 175
***Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these
things?'" replied Summerfield.
On the other hand, it is quite common among Liberal
Christians to doubt the reality, or deny the importance, of
such clianges altogether. With them the Christian life con-
sists, not in change, but in progress. In the Christian course.
Orthodoxy lays the main stress on the commencement ; Lib-
eral Christianity, on the progi'ess. The one wishes you to
begin the journey, without seeming to care whether you go
forward : the other urges you to go forward, without inquir-
ing whether you have begun to go. According to one, Chris-
tianity is nothing but a crisis ; according to the other, noth-
ing but a DEVELOPMENT.
§ 2. Crisis and Development, — Is there any truth in this
Orthodox view of man ? anything essential, substantial, vital ?
And is there any formal error? If there is, what is it? Is
Christianity crisis or development, or both ?
Common sense and the analogies of common life must
answer, " Both." If Christianity is a life, it must begin
with a birth ; if a journey, it cannot be taken except we
set out ; if an education, we must determine to commence
the education ; if labor in God's vineyard, we must go into
the vineyard, and begin. There are only two classes —
those who are alive, and those who are not alive ; those who
are taking the journey, and those who have not yet set out ;
those who are studying, and those who Kave not yet begun
to study ; those who are at work for God, and those who
are standing idle. The distinction into two classes seems,
therefore, substantial and real. It does not follow, to be
sure, that these two classes can be distinguished so easily by
the eye of man ; but they certainly can be by the eye of God.
Nor does this primary distinction interfere with other dis-
tinctions and many degrees of difference — greater or less
• differences and degrees of progress, usefulness, goodness.
Nor does it follow that those who are now on the right side
176 ORTHODOXY: ITS TBUTHS AND ERRORS.
may not change again to the wrong, and again to the right.
There may be conversion, and re-conversion ; but that, at
any moment, every person must be either endeavoring to do
right, or not so endeavoring, is evident. This view is con-
firmed by the New Testament: "No man can serve two
masters."
That in the religious life there should be both crisis and
development, accords with the analogies of nature. The
seed lies in the gi'ound in a dormant state, perhaps for s^ long
period. After a time comes a crisis ; thrills of life vibrate
through it ; the germ is stirred ; it sends its roots downward ;
its stalk pierces the mould, moving upward into light and
air. After this great change, there comes a period of prog-
ress and development. The plant grows ; its roots multi-
ply ; its stalk ascends, and divides into leaves. Then there
comes a second crisis. The plant blossoms. In the course
of a few hours, after weeks of growth, the bud bursts ijQto
beautiful petals, suri'ounding the delicate stamens and pre-
cious pistil. Then there comes a second long period of slow
development. The petals fall, and the fruit slowly swells
through many weeks of growth. At last there comes a day
when the fruit is ripe. Yesterday it was not ripe ; to-day it
is. This is the third crisis. And so, in human life, long
periods of development terminate in critical hours — the
seeds of another long growth. So it is in other things ; so
also in religion.
§ 3. Nature of the Change. — The next position of Ortho-
doxy is, that man, in the second or regenerate state, is a
new creature. It asserts the change to be entire and radical,
and the difference immense. Not only the whole direction
of the life is changed, but the motive power is different, and
the spirit different. Instead of ambition, there is content ;
in the place of sensitive vanity, there comes humility ; in-
stead of anxiety, trust in God. The burden of sin is taken
away ; the sense of our unworthiness no longer torments us ;
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 177
for God has forgiven our sins. Duty no longer seems ardu-
ous and difficult ; for there is joy in doing anything for the
sake of God. The law is written in the heart. We are
born into a new life, the principle of which is faith. " The
life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God."
This faith enables us to see God as he is, not as a stern King,
or a distant Power, or an abstract Law, but as a Friend,
Father, watchful Providence, surrounding Love, inflowing
Life*; Source from which we are always coming, and towards
which we are always tending. This life of faith makes all
things new. Old things have passed away, and the outward
world is fresh as on the first morning of creation. Our
inward and outward life are both new. We have new con-
victions, new affections, new aims, new hopes, new joys.
Nature is new, life is new, the Bible is new, the future world
is new. Such and so great is the change which Orthodoxy
assumes as the result of conversion.
§ 4. Its Reality and Importance, — And the experience of
the whole Church, the biogi-aphies of the saints in every
denomination, assure us of the substantial truth of this de-
scription. Even in churches which are not Orthodox, —
churches like our own, which insist more upon development
than upon crisis, — observation verifies this description.
Even those who do not expect such a change, nor believe in
it, often come to it unexpectedly. In the course of each one's
experience as a Christian minister, though he may never
have insisted on the importance of sudden changes, and though
he may be no revival preacher, he must have known numer-
ous instances of those who seem to have passed from death
to life in the course of a day or an hour. And is not this
change, either sudden or gradual, that which makes Chris-
tianity a gospel ? It is the good news, not of a future and
distant heaven, but of a present heaven, — a heaven not out-
ward, but inward ; a present salvation from the power of
Bin ; a present relief from the sense of guilt ; a present joy
178 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
and peace in believing ; happiness in serving God ; sympathy
and good-will to man, instead of envy and uncharitableness ;
peace with God, with man, with ourselves, with our condi-
tion and circumstances.
That such a state is possible for every human being who
desires it, is the good news which Christ brings ; and the
experience of ten thousand times ten thousand grateful
hearts declares that it is a reality*
§ 5. 7s it the Work of God^ or of the Man himself? . Or*
thodox Difficulty. — But now comes a difficulty in the Ortho-
dox statement. Orthodoxy declares that this regenerate
state is the result of faith, not of works ; and that faith is the
gift of God ; and herein Orthodoxy follows the Scripture.
Yet Orthodoxy calls upon us to repent and be converted,
that our sins may be blotted out ; and herein likewise Ortho-
doxy follows the Scripture. Is, then, conversion an experi-
ence, or is it an action? Is it something God gives, or
something which he commands ? Is it a duty to be done, or
a gift to be received ? Is it submission to his will, or joy in
his love ? a new life of obedience, or a new heart of faith ?
If it is submission, then we can all change our hearts at
once, and make ourselves love God and love man. But who
can love by an effort of the will? Yet, if the new life is a
gift, then we have no power to procure it, and can only wait
till God sees fit to send it ; and how, then, can we be called
upon to be converted?
Here is a difficulty which it seems to us Orthodoxy does
not solve ; and yet we think that a solution is to be found in a
very simple distinction, which, like all other true and real
distinctions, throws light on many other difficulties.
§ 6. Solved by the Distinction between Conversion and jRc-»
generation. — The distinction of which we speak is between
repentance or conversion on the one side, and regeneration
or a new life on the other side. Repentance or conversion
consists in renouncing all sin, and resolving to forsake it;
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 179
in turning to God, with the purpose of suhmittiag to his will
and obeying his law. This conversion or repentance is an
act • proceeding from the will, and in obedience to the con-
science. This is what God commands, and what we can and
ought to do. Every conscientious person, every person who
is endeavoring to do right and is ready to act up to his light,
is a converted person. Every one who hates his sins, resists
temptation, watches and prays against it, is a; penitent person.
This is the great, broad distinction between man and man.
This divides all men into two classes — those who, in their
will and purpose, are for God, truth, and right ; and those
who, because they are not /or God, are really against him.
But, besides this broad distinction, there is another secon-
dary distinction — a distinction among those who are con-
Bcientionsly endeavoring to do God's will. Among the
converted there are two classes — the regenerate and the
unregenerate. A man may be converted, and not be regen-
erate ; for a man may repent of his sin and turn towards
God, and yet not have the life of love and joy which we
have described.
He is under law, not under grace. He is struggling to do
right, but is not borne forward on a joyful tide-wave of love.
§ 7. Men may he divided, religiously, into three Glasses, not
two. — If this be so, we may divide men into three classes,
and not into two. The first class is of those who are neither
converted nor regenerate ; the second, who are converted,
but not regenerate ; the third, who are converted, and also
regenerate. The first are like the prodigal in the parable, —
living without God ; the second, like the hired servants in
the same story, — serving God for wages ; the third are
sons, serving from love, ever with their Father, and all that
he has is theirs. The motive of the first class is selfish will,
selfish pleasure ; the motive of the second is duty ; that of
tiie third, love. The first are without law, the second un-
der law, the third under grace. And so we might multiply
180 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
distinctions. But is it not clear to common observation, that
this threefold classification meets the facts of life better than
the other? There are three degrees of character. There is
the worldly man, who is just as good or bad as society
around him leads him to be ; whose virtues result merely
from a happy organization, or fortunate influences, but who
has no principle of goodness, no purpose of righteousness, no
serious aim in life. Then there is the conscientious man,
who means to live, and does live, by a standard of morality ;
who has a serious aim, but who is not yet deeply and joy-
fully religious ; whose religion, at any rate, is hard work,
not confiding, child-like faith. And tlien there is the Chris-
tian believer, who has begun to live from faith ; who begins
to feel a higher life pouring into his heart from on high ;
who has help and strength from above. From his heart the
burden has been lifted, and he has become again as a little
child. He knows how to pray the prayer of faith. He may
not be so very much better than the other in outward char-
acter ; but he has the principle within him w^ich will make
all things new, sooner or later.
The New Testament confirms this view of a threefold
division. We saw, in our last chapter, that the apostle
Paul, who considers human nature to consist of three ele-
ments, — spirit, soul, and body, — divides mankind into the
carnal man, the natural (psychical or soulish) man, and the
spiritual man. The carnal man is he in whom the bodily
instincts and appetites are supreme. " He is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be." The natural man
is he in whom the soul is supreme : he is neither carnal on
one side, nor spiritual on the other. " He cannot receive
the things of the Spirit of God ; " yet he is not in opposition
and hostility to them, like the carnal man, whose mind is
enmity against God.
Still more plainly does the apostle indicate the distinction
when speaking of those who are without law, those who are
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 181
under law, and those who are free from law and above it.
The first state he describes in such words as these : " I was
alive without the law once"; — the glad, natural life and
freedom before conscience is developed. But conscience does
awake in all : " The commandment came, sin revived, and
I died." When man sees that he ought to serve God, yet
continues to serve the flesh and the world, he is spoken of as
dead in sin ; for all the principle of progress ceases. But if
he does endeavor to do right, then Paul speaks of liim as
under law^ and on his way to a higher state. That higher
state he speaks of as being " delivered from the law, to serve
in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter."
Thus we see that all religious experiences coincide. The
experience of the apostle Paul is exactly the same, in its
essentials, with that of every soul, however humble, that
begins and goes forward in the Christian life.
If this distinction between conversion and regeneration be
correct, it removes the difficulty in the Orthodox statement.
§ 8. Difference between Conversion and Regeneration, —
Conversion is an act, regeneration an experience. "Turn
ye, turn ye ; for why will ye die ? " is the command of the
Old Testament. " Repent, and be converted, that your sins
may be blotted out ; " " Repent, and be baptized, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is the command of
the Nqw Testament. It is a duty to repent ; but to become
regenerate is not a duty : that is a gift, to be received after-
wards. God commands conversion : he bestows regenera-
tion. Submission is an act of our own : faith is the gift of
God. A change of outward life and conduct we can accom-
plish ourselves ; at least, we can endeavor to accomplish it ;
but the change of heart God himself will bestow.
Conversion, a turning round, is necessarily instantaneous :
it is a change. But regeneration, or reception of divine
Love, is a state, not sudden, but passing by gradations into
a deeper and deeper life of faith and joy.
16
182 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
So, too, conversion may be repeated : we may often find
that we have again turned round, and are going the wrong
way. But the inflow of life,, when begun, cannot be begun
again. When God has touched the heart with his love, it is
forever lifted by that divine experience beyond the region
of mere law. We can never forget it. These are the
" Truths which wake
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness nor mad endeayort
Nor man nor boy,
Nor aught that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy."
And herein lies the basis of the truth in the doctrine of the
*' perseverance of saints."
4-9. Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Orthodox Church. —
We cannot but think the attitude of Orthodoxy towards this
part of Christianity to be singularly unsatisfactory and ineffi-
cient. The work of the Church, all admit, is to convert the
world to God, and so save it from the power and evil of sin.
But if this is a work which the Church has to do, it ought
surely to have some fixed method or rule by which to act.
It should not be a matter of accident whether it can do its
work or not. It should not be in doubt, every day, as to
the success to come from its efforts. If its work is to make
men Christians, it ought to know how to do it, be able to do
it, and know when it is done. Such is the case with all
other work. If a man is to build a house, he does not bring
together his materials, hire his carpenters and masons, and,
when all are on the ground, sit down with them, and wait for
some emotion ov interior change by which they will be ena-
bled to go on and do their work. If we are mechanics,
merchants, lawyers, physicians, teachers, we do not wait for
a revival before we can properly fulfil our engagements. It
is only in the work of converting the world to God — the
greatest and most important of aU — that such a strange
system is adopted. We are told to put ourselves in the
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 183
proper place, namely, the Church ; collect our materials, that
is, the means of grace ; and then we are to wait until, some-
how or other, we may be able to get religion. Religion is
made a spasm, a struggle, an agony — not a regular work,
not a steady growth. Everything about it is uncertain and
tentative. No one knows when he will become a Christian,
but hopes, some time or other, that he shall be made one.
The common thought, produced by the common Orthodox
system of preaching, was expressed once in a public meeting
by Henry Clay. " I am not," he said, " a Christian. I am
sorry I am not. I wish I were. I hope that, some day, I
shall be." He did not mean by this to say that he was an
unb^iever ; but he had adopted the helpless, passive system
by which he was taught that he had nothing to do but wait
till some great change should take place in his soul.
Out of this way of thought- comes the revival system ;
which is a curious blending of machinery and expectation,
of adroit and careful management with reliance on some
great inspiration. Crisis and development are to be expected,
no doubt ; but we do not set a trap to catch the Spring. It
is ours to plant and to water, but it is God's to give the
increase. That, therefore, should be left to him.
The revival system is Arminianism grafted on Calvinism.
It is an attempt to unite the belief that man is wholly passive
in conversion, and is not able to prepare himself thereunto,
with the opposite doctrine that by a use of means he can
become a Christian. It is an attempt to unite the Calvinistic
article that God, when he chooses, calls those he has predes-
tined to eternal life, with the attempt to make him choose
ou]' time and way. Such a system, disjointed at its centre,
must necessarily work badly, and result in an alternation of
feverish heats and aguish chills. To carry on the work of
the Church by revivals is as unreasonable as it would be to
carry on a school, or a cotton factory, by a revival system —
alternations of violent study and work, followed by relapses
into indolence and sloth.
184 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
The Church of Rome has a great advantage over Prot-
estant Orthodoxy in this respect. It, too, admits revivals,
and has its periods of extraordinary attention to religion. But
there is this great difference. It does not depend on them
for creating Christianity in the soul ; it uses them only for
increasing its warmth and power. In the Roman Church
every baptized person is a Christian so long as he does not
continue in mortiil sin, but by the regular use of the sacra-
ments preserves his Christian life. The essential work of
the Church is done by its regular methods — by baptism,
confession, and its ritual service. In the Church of Rome,
all connected with it are Christians, and in the way of salva-
tion. In Protestant Orthodox churches, if any of those bom
and brought up in it are Christians, it is, so far as they are
concerned, a happy accident.
All this shows something wrong in the common theory of
conversion. Every one in a Christian community who de-
sires to be a Christian ought to be able to become one.
Christianity is a gospel, because it opens the kingdom of
heaven to all. The call of the Church at the beginning was
to follow Christ, Any one who was willing to follow Christ
was baptized at once, and became a Christian. No one
waited till he should experience some remarkable interior
change, or some influence of the Holy Ghost. The promise
at first was, that whosoever became a Christian should receive
the Holy Ghost afterwards. Spiritual influences were not
the condition of Christianity, but the result of Christianity.
One bad consequence of the Orthodox idea is discourage-
ment on the one side, and spiritual pride on the other.
Those who are not converted are discouraged, and deprived
of the comforts of Christian faith. Those who think they
have been converted are satisfied with this past experience,
and believe themselves Christians on the strength of it.
Because some spiritual commotion took place in their souls
at a certain time and place, they consider themselves chil-
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 185
dren of God and heirs of his favor, though in their daily-
lives they may show little proof of practical Christianity.
And the result of this, again, is a professed distrust, by the
majority of sensible men, of such conversions. Men of the
world do not find that professed Christians are better than
themselves. Often, indeed, church members are not so just,
honest, manly, or truthful as those who make no claim to
religion. And the reason is simply this — that they have
been taught to believe that the essence of Christianity docs
not consist in righteousness, but in certain religious experi-
ences.
§ 10. The Essential Thing for Man is to repent and he
converted; that is, to make it his Purpose to obey Ood in all
Things. — As far as man is concerned, repentance is the one
thing needful. But by repentance we do not mean sorrow
or contrition, but simply turning round whenever we are
going wrong, and beginning at once to go right. This is
something in every man's power, and this makes him a
Christian ; this gives him a claim to all the promises and
hopes of the gospel here and hereafter. It would seem
that there need be no doubt as to the nature of repentance
while the parable of the prodigal son stands in the Bible.
That divine story gives us the whole theory of repentance
and regeneration — repentance being that which comes from
man, regeneration that which is given by God. When the
prodigal son was aware of his sin and sorrow, and said, " I
will arise, and go to my father ; " and when he arose, and
went to his father, and confessed his sin and need, then ho
had repented. It was simply going to his father with the
purpose of obedience. And when the father received him,
not with reproach, but with pardon and joy, then he was
born again, introduced into a new life, into the peace, and
love, and freedom of his own home.
*' One thing is needful," said Jesus ; that is, to sit at the
feet of the Master, to follow him, to become his disciple*
16*
186 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
That is all we have- to do ; then we are safe. We can trust
God to do his part if we do ours. He will give us his Holy
Spirit ; he will give us a new heart ; he will put his peace
and strength into our souls. It is not necessary to be
anxious, or to be inspecting our feelings to see if we are
feeling right. All such introspection is unnecessary if we
have faith in God and his promises. We are Christians just
as long as we are obeying God and following Christ. When
we find ourselves disobedient, selfish, going wrong, then the
one thing needful is to repent and be converted. We are to
come back to our duty.
The general impression in Orthodox churches, resulting
from the preaching, is, that not much is gained by doing
one's duty unless one is regenerate. Doing our duty does
not make us Christians, does not save the soul ; so, why be
particular in doing more than others, or being better than
others ? Orthodox congregations believe in the new life, but
not in obedience as its necessary antecedent.
Unitarians, on the other hand, believe in obedience, but
have little faith in a higher life as attainable here. Hence
a Unitarian congregation usually consists of intelligent, vir-
tuous, well-meaning people, but destitute of enthusiasm, and
with little confidence in the new birth or religious life.
Unitarians believe in obedience as the one thing needful ;
and in this they are right. But they are wrong in not ex-
pecting the influences which God is always ready to give,
which change the heart, and fill it with a peace passing
understanding, which make duties easy, which fill life with
joy, and take the sting from death. The Orthodox believe
in all these higher emotions and states of the soul, but un-
fortunately do not believe in obedience as the one thin^
needful. They think that some emotional transaction in the
soul is the oue tiling needful.
§ 11. Regeneration is God's Work in the Soul, JSxami*
nation of the Classical Passage^ or conversation of JesiM wi^
GONYEBSION AND REGENERATION. 187
Xicodemus. — In the third chapter of John we have the con-
versation which has been made the basis of the doctrine of
the new birth.
In this conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus we have
the old argument, which is always being renewed, between
the letter and the spirit, between knowledge and insight,
between routine and genius, ceremony and inspiration, the
past and the future, the goodness of habit and the holiness
bom out of the living vision of good. In fact this little dia-
logue may be considered as a renewal, on a higher plape, of
the picture given us by Luke of the boy Jesus in the temple
talking with the doctors.
The common doctrine of the Orthodox churches about this
chapter is, that Jesus teaches here that no man can be a
Christian or a good man unless he passes through some
mysterious experience, usually sudden, of which he must be
conscious, which gives him a certain definite series of very
deep feelings. First, he must feel very deeply that he is a
sinner ; then that he cannot by any efibrt of his own become
different ; thirdly, that unless God makes him different, he
never can be saved ; and lastly, he must feel that God will
change his heart, and save him. Having passed through
this kind of experience, it is assumed that he is ^^born
again ; " that he is a Christian ; that he is a new creature ;
that he has a new heart ; that if he dies now, he will go to
heaven ; whereas, if he had died before, he would have gone
to hell. It is also Orthodox to believe that a man c^n do
nothing himself to produce this change of heart, or facili-
tate it.
A very interesting book was published not long ago, writ-
ten by Miss Catherine Beech er, in which she describes the
sufferings caused in her own experience by this theory of
regeneration. Her father fully believed in it, and thought it
necessary to carry all his children through it somehow or
other. Their conversions, to be sure, were not all quite in
188 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
rule ; especially that of Henry seems to have been a little
abnormal, if we may trust an account given by himself in an
article on the dissolution of the Bowdoin Street Church and
congregation, Boston, of which his father was the first min-
ister. The description is so suggestive that we will quote
the passage : —
**lf somebody will look in the old records of Hanover
Street Church about 1829, they will find a name there of a
boy about fifteen years old, who was brought into the Church
on a sympathetic wave, and who well remembers how cold
and almost paralyzed he felt while the committee questioned
him about his ' hope * and ' evidences,' which upon review
amounted to this — that the son of such a father ought to be
a good and pious boy. Being tender-hearted and quick to
respond to moral sympathy, he had been caught and inflamed
in a school excitement, but was just getting over it when
summoned to Boston to join the church I On the morning
of the day, he went to church without seeing anything he
looked at. He heard his name called from the pulpit among
many others, and trembled ; rose up with every emotion
petrified ; counted the spots on the carpet ; looked piteously
up at the cornice ; heard the fans creak in the pews near
him ; felt thankful to a fiy that lit on his face, as if some-
thing familiar at last had come to break an awful trance ;
heard faintly a reading of the articles of faith ; wondered
whether he should be struck dead for not feeling more —
whether he should go to hell for touching the bread and
wine that he did not dare to take nor to refuse ; spent the
morning service uncertain whether dreaming, or out of the
body, or in a trance ; and at last walked home crying, and
wishing he knew what, now that he was a Christian, he
should do, and how he was to do it. Ah, well ; there is a
world of things in children's minds that grown-up people do
not imagine, though they, too, once were young ! "
NoW) if his state of mind, thus described, had been at
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 189
diat time exposed and told, it would not haVe been thought
a very sound Orthodox experience. But in reality the boy
was at that very time as good a Christian for a boy as he is
now for a man. But Miss Beecher, in the book referred to,
tells us that when one of her other brothers was striving in
prayer for this change of heart, with groans and struggles,
the house was like a tomb. The poor young man was in
his chamber alone, and his groans and cries were heard
through the whole house. All the other members of the
family staid in their own rooms in silence, until at last, by
some natural reaction of feeling, there came a sense of rest
and peace to his mind, which they believed to be the new
birth. She also describes the way in which Dr. Payson,'of
Portland, tortured his little daughter, three years old, by a
torture as well meant, as conscientious, and more terrible
than that of the Holy Inquisition. He told his little daugh-
ter that she hated God ; that she must have a change of
heart, but that she could not get it for herself; and that
even her prayers, until she was converted, were only making
her worse. The poor little girl denied that she hated God ;
she said she was sure she loved him. Then the misguided
father brought up all her little childisli faults as a proof that
she hated God ; for if she loved him she would never do
wrong. And so, from three years of age till she was thir-
teen, this poor, infatuated parent tormented this little child
by keeping her on this spiritual rack •'— all because of a false
view qf the passages concerning regeneration in the Bible.
And when we think of the twenty thousand pulpits which
to-day are teaching in this country this same sort of belief,
it is evident that it is our duty to see what the Master really
meant to teach us by this passage.
Nicodemus is the type of a class of men common in all
times. We have seen Nicodemus very often. He is a
good man whose goodness has no life in it. His goodness is
a sort of an automaton — all machinery and no soul. He is
190 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
so thoroughly right in all he does ; everything about him is so
proper ; he is so perfectly en regie in his own eyes, — that we
sometimes wish that he might be betrayed into some impro-
priety, commit some not too great folly, have some escapade
of rash enthusiasm. You respect him so much, you wonder
why you do not love him more. It is because he is not open
to influence. His goodness is so rigid, his opinions so declared,
his character so pronounced, that there is no crack anywhere
by which God or man can reach him. He has a whole armor
of opinions all round him, and you cannot get through it.
He has narrowed himself, and shut himself in, so that he
feels no influence of sympathy coming from the wide ocean
of humanity around, no influence of love from the deep
heaven of God above. He is a sort of good rhinoceros, with
a skin so thick that, nothing can pierce it.
Nicodemus was such a man, and he came to Jesus with
all his opinions cut and dried, ready for an argument. He
begins in a very formal and precise way. " Rabbi, we
know thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest except God be with him."
He observes all proprieties ; he calls Jesus Doctor, —
" Rabbi," — but takes good care not to call him Christ. He
gives his reason for thinking Jesus a teacher come from God,
namely, his miracles. Not his holiness, not his inspiration,
not his supreme sweetness, not that he is a channel through
which God's tenderness runs down into our hearts. No ;
he sees no such spiritual proof as this, but a merely logical
que, expressed almost in the form of a syllogism. Major
proposition — "No man can work miracles without God's
help." Minor proposition — "Jesus works miracles." Con-
clusion— " Therefore Jesus has God's help."
Now, what does Jesus reply ? Evidently much of the con-
versation has been omitted. We have only the substance of
it here. " You believe in the kingdom of heaven, Nicodemus."
" Certainly." " How do you expect to know it when you see
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 191
it? " " By some great outward signs ; something which shall
shake heaven and earth ; the Messiah coming in the sky, with
angels." "Nicodemus, you cannot even see the kingdom
when it is here, if you look for it so ; you must be born again
yourself; you must be changed, and become as a little child,
in order to enter the kingdom." We remember that Peter,
who was probably not half as good as Nicodemus, an impul-
sive soiU, w^as nevertheless enough of a little child, in open-
ness of heart, to see that this was the kingdom of heaven,
— this teaching and life of Jesus, — and that Jesus was the
Messiah. '
But Nicodemus says, " No. A Gentile, a heathen, ought,
no doubt, to begin at the beginning, give up all his old opin-
ions, and be born of water by being baptized. He should be-
gin by a recantation. I suppose that is what you mean by
being born again. But / ought not, for I am a Jew, grown
up in the true knowledge of God, learned from Moses and the
prophets. So I need not begin my life again."
Jesus then replies, " The form is nothing. You must be
born not only of water, but of the Spirit, in order to enter the
kingdom of God. You need not only to wash off all your
old opinions and conduct, as the Gentiles must do ; but also
you must be made a little child by laying yoiii* heart open to
God's Spirit, and letting it lead your thoughts into new ways,
your heart into new love, and your life into new action.
You must be willing to follow me, not by night only, but in
the day. If they turn you out of the Sanhedrim, you must
not mind that ; you must find your happiness in getting good
and doing good ; receiving God's love into your soul, and
letting it go out again. You must give yourself up to this
divine influence."
Then Nicodemus says, " How can these things be? " He
wishes to see the way, to have it all niarked out ; to have a
creed with all its articles of belief fixed ; a programme of
what he is to do arranged. The spirit he does not quite
192 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
understand. Give it to him in the letter, and he can do it.
He wants a map of the operations of the Holy Spirit.
" Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know this?" re-
plies Jesus. " The whole Old Testament is full of this in-
spiration ; full of the Spirit of God coming and going, in a
thousand ways, and not by any special rule or method ; go-
ing as the wind comes and goes in the sky, we do not know
whence or how." It is well that some things ca7inot be ar-
ranged beforehand — well that no almanac can tell if the
wind to-morrow is to be east or west, north or south.
I sit in the sweet autumn woods. I see the squirrel leap
from branch to branch. I hear the woodpecker tapping the
trunk with sagacious beak, watching when the sound shall in-
dicate that a worm has hidden himself below the bark. All
else is calm and still. I look up and see the white clouds
drifting through the deep ocean of blue above. Then there
comes a sudden shiver through the tree-tops, a sprinkling of
dry leaves on the grass, a whisper, a rush of air ; and now
every tree is swinging its branches in the breeze.
So is every one that is born of the Spirit ! God comes to
us all in these uncalculated, incalculable ways. He moves
our conscience by the light of loyalty and fidelity in another
soul. There 6omes through all the land a fresh breeze of
justice and right, and all at once we feel that we ought to
lead better lives, more manly, more true.' There comes a
revival of honesty, as well as of piety. Yesterday you did
not care for it ; now you do. God's holy air of truth . and
right is sweeping through the land. We all arise and say,
^' No matter what our fathers consented to ; no matter what
we have consented to in past times ; we will have no more
compromises with evil and sin, no more concessions to tyran-
ny and cruelty." When this spirit comes to a nation, or to
a community, it is as much a revival sent by God, as the
reformation of Luther, or the reformation of Wesley.
Jesus means to teach us here that the Spirit of God comes
CONVERSION AND BEGENEBATION. l93
in a great many different ways, comes unexpected and un-
foreseen, comes unapparent as the invisible air. So came
the reformation of Luther. Luther did not mean to make a
reformation, or to build a new Church.*
All recollect the story of the Quaker, George Fox, how he
went from Church to Church, and got no good, and at last
opened his soul to God, and was led by the Spirit into new and
strange thoughts and purposes, and became a reformer, and
founder of a denomination, unintentionally. And so the
Quaker movement came — the most radical reform which ever
sprang up in the Christian Church. It abolished the ministry
and sacraments, baptism, and the Lord's supper. It reformed
the theology of Christendom, putting the inner light above the
written words. It reformed life, opposing war, oaths, slavery,
and fashion. And as it came, so is it passing away, having
done its work. As the breeze dies softly, and the leaves
cease to glitter in the sunlight, and the red leaf on the top-
most twig, far up in the sky, leaves off its airy dance, and
at last hangs motionless, so the wild air which stirred in the
depths of all hearts dies away in silence, and old opinions
and old customs resume their places, yet all purified and
changed. Only those which were so wholly dead that the
wind blew them entirely away, are gone forever.
So are the changes which come in human hearts, we know
not whence or how. It is a great mistake in the Church to
have a stereotyped experience, to which all must conform.
Procrustes only lopped the limbs to suit the measure of his
bed ; but these rules and moulds for the spiritual life, cut
down the new man, who is made by God's Spirit, to the earth-
ly standard of some narrow stunted experience of other times.
This it is " to grieve the Spirit," and to " quench the Spirit."
* Luther, in his " Table-talk," says of hiB preaching against the pope, and
the enormous labors it entailed, *' If I had known then what I now know of
the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn me to it." '* At
that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, < What will you do ? They will
not endure it.' But said I, * What if they must endure it ? ' "
17
194 obthodoxt: its tbui^s and ebbobs.
For God's Spirit goes everywhere, and where it goes it pro-
duces the best evidence of Christianity in isweet, holy.
Christian lives. It is the wind which blows where it will,
which does not run on a railroad through the sky, or stop at
any particular stations in the clouds, or go by any time-table.
Grod's Spirit comes and goes not according to any rules of
ours. The publicans and sinners have it, and show it, some-
times, instead of the Scribes and Pharisees. For ■ so the
apostle declares that there are '^ differences of operation, but
the same Spirit."
Sometimes you see a hard man, a man of the world, who
has been fighting his way through life, till he has come to
rely wholly on himself, and feels like some of those rocky
reefs which stand out in the sea on our New England coast,
and have borne the onset of a thousand storms. Yet at last
he is softened. We see it, we feel it. There is a strange
softness in his tone, a gentleness in his manner, a suspicion
of moisture in his eye. The good God has been moving in
his heart ; perhaps it was by some trial or disappointment,
or the loss of some curly-headed darling, who went up to
heaven, and left the doors open behind, so that the joyful
music which welcomed her came down to his ears and touched
his soul.
When men see that, they say, " Well, there is something
in religion, after all, if it can touch such a heart as his."
Sometimes we see a Christian who is at first all conscience,
all work. Religion means to him, doing his duty. He in-*
tends to be a Christian, and wishes others to be so. But it
is a piece of hard work. His Christianity reminds one of
the poor woman who thought it "a chore to live." But
after a while, we see a change — very gradual, but still very
certain. He is beginning to get acquainted with the gpspel ■
side of Christianity. He learns to forgive himself his own
sins, and so he can forgive others. His face begins to reflect
more and more of heaven. , It is the change which comes to
\
\
\
OQNVJSBSION AND REGENERATION. 195
the grapes in October. Perhaps you have some Cr^awb^
grapes on the south side of your house, and they grow very
nicely all through the summer. They are good, large grapes
well formed, good clusters^ but very sour. But by and b/
there comes the final change ; the juice grows sweet withi?
the berry. There is but a very little difference in its appear
ance, but a very great change within.
When we see this alteration in a man, we say, " There is
surely something in Christianity to produce such a change.
Why, what a very sweet Christian he has grown to be 1 It
took all the summer and part of the fall to do the work ;
but no matter. God is not in a hurry. Some fruit ripens
sooner, and some later ; that is all.
I looked up £rowL my table as I wrote these words, and
saw from my window a tulip tree and a maple, each dressed
in its royal robes of beauty — the gift of the declining year ;
the green leaves of the one touched with gold, and the other
with its crimson and scarlet glories. They were full of sun-
light, and made the whole landscape glad and gay. No
Tyrian loom could rival the purple splendors and deep crim-
son of these trees. Why does God give all this varied beauty
to the October woods, so that Solomon in all his glory was
not arrayed like one of these oaks or maples ? Is not this
also to touch our hearts with a sense of his love ? An au-
tumn ride is also a means of grace ; quite as much so, per-
haps, as a tract or sermon. K we see God in nature, then
nature may also be the source of a new birth to us.
<( One impulse from the aatumn wood
May teach us more of maiii
Of moral evil and of good.
Than all the sages Cdn«'*
What I understand Jesus, then, to teabh in this passage,
is, that we must become as little children, in order to see
heavenly things ; that, like new-born babes, we must receive
meekly the milk of the word of God ; that spiritual influences
196 obthodoxy: its truths and ebbobs.
are all around us, invisible — incalculable : that not by the
regular outward means of religion alone, but by a thousand
other ways, Grod comes to us. He means that we should
believe in the presence and nearness of God's Spirit always ;
that we should open our hearts and minds to be led by it
into truth and love. He meant the very opposite of what
he has been made to mean. He did not mean that all souls
must pass through one and the same religious experience,
but that, as the wind blows a thousand ways, so God's Spirit
comes to the heart by a thousand ways. So coming, it
makes the hard heart tender, the rude will gentle, the self-
ish soul generous, gives the reckless a new sense of respon-
sibility. Jesus means that we should not be discouraged
because we find it hard to correct our faults, or to enter into
God's love. God's Spirit comes to us when we cannot go to
find it, God's love comes into our hearts when we long for
it, look for it, wait for it.
Look up, then, poor trembling heart; look up, and see
God near. Look up, hard heart, and feel the soft showers
of divine grace coming down to make everything tender.
Look up, and be made new creatures, become as little chil-
dren, be bom anew, every day, into a fresh inspiration, faith,
and hope ; and so enter every day the kingdom of heaven !
§ 12. Evidences of Regeneration, — The common Ortho-
dox method is to require and expect evidence of the Christian
change. As we have already said, a Christian is expected
to know and to be able to tell when, where, and under what
circumstances he entered into the new life.
But, perhaps, the preliminary question is. Ought we to have,
and can we have, any evidence at all of the new life ? And
to this question many reply in the negative, and with very
good reason.
The new life is a hidden life ; a '^ life hid with Christ in
God." Its essence is love, and love is an inward sentiment,
not an outward act. Conviction demands utterance ; actions
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 197
speak louder than words ; but loye is accustomed to hide it-
self away in the heart, and to be known only to its object,
and that indirectly. Evidences of love I What should we
think of asking of young people coming to be married, the
evidencea that they loved each other ; obliging them to give an
account of their experience ; to say when, where, and how
they began first to care for each other ; and then, if the evi-
dence was satisfactory, allowing them to be married ! Why,
then, ask of the soul wishing to be united with God and Christ
in a Christian covenant, to tear open the folded bud of this
tender affection, analyze it metaphysically, measure it math-
ematically, and cross-examine it as a witness suspected of
£edsehood is questioned by lawyers before a jury?
What do we know of this new life ? what can we tell of it?
Almost always it comes to us gradually and unconsciously.
It is veiled in shadows, misty lights, and neutral tints. The
second life comes like the first. The child is born, and
kni>ws not of the awful change from not being to being — the
immense event of passage from unconscious existence to con-
scious life. For consciousness dawns slowly, imperceptibly.
The infant is long immersed in outward things. Years pass
before it becomes aware of the fact that it exists, before it
begins to look in and see itself in the mirror of reflection.
So, probably, will it also be, when we pass from this life into
the next. We shall, perhaps, awaken very gradually, in the
future life, to the knowledge that we are in another state.
As the little child becomes quite at home in this world before
he thinks to ask how he came here, so probably in the other
world we shall become quite at home with the angels, before
we shall begin to say, " I am in heaven."
All the births of time partake of this quality. They do
not reflect on themselves, are not surprised at themselves,
but come as a matter of course. Years after, when the
early heat of the new life has grown cold, the historians and
17*
198 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
biographers arrive to examine it in the crucible of their
painful analysis, and to tell us how wonderful it is.
How can any man prove that he is alive f Why should he
prove it? Let his life show itself, but not try to prove it-
self. Let its light shine, and those who see its good and jo}
will glorify the Father in heaven who has sent it.
The mistake here, as before, is in confounding conversion
and regeneration.
Including in the terms " conversion " and " repentance **
the whole activity of the will, the religious purpose, the aim
of life, it is, no doubt, of the utmost importance to see, con-
■tinually, what it is. " Know thyself** is a heaven-descended
maxim, if we understand by it that we are to watch ourselved
always, and see whither we are going. We need continually
to know the direction of our life, whether it is to God or from
him ; whether it is upward or downward ; whether we are
following truth, and justice^ apd love, or following our own
selfish desires and will. In this sense self-examination, is
both possible and necessary.
When the great ocean steamer is in the midst of the mighty
Atlantic, it is necessary to watch continually its direction,
and keep it always heading the right way. Day and night,
therefore, the man stands sleepless at the helm, his eye al-
ways turning from the compass to the ship's head, with un-
failing vigilance. But it is not thought necessary to inspect
the interior of the boilers, or to examine the quality of the
fire. If steam enough is made, and the wheels revolve, that
is enough.
The new life into which we enter by the new birth has
this one character — that it gives us for a motive, not fear, but
hope ; not law, but love ; not constraint, but joy. Prayer is
not a duty, but the spontaneous impulse of the child, to seek and
find its father. Work is not drudgery but satisfaction, when
the motive is to serve the great cause of Christ. The only
reat evidence, therefore, that we are bom of God, is, that wo
CONVERSION AND REGENERATION. 199
have the fruits of tbe Spirit, love, joy, and peace. The tree
is known by its fruits, and these are the appcopriate fruits of
the new life. When we find them, let us gladly receive
them ; but if we do not find them, let us at least be glad that
if not yet new-born, we are, nevertheless, converted ; if not
sons, at least servants. We have the one thing needful when
we have the right purpose ; sooner or later, we shall also
have the happy life. When we do right, we sow to the Spirit,
and we shall, in due season, reap life everlasting.
As regards the evidence of the new life, too much stress,
we think, has been laid on outward profession, ceremonies,
reb'gious language, religious acts. Because a man professes
religion, it is no evidence that he is religious. Because he
partakes of the Lord's supper, or prays openly, or speaks in
the habitual religious language of his sect, it is no evidence
of his religious life. Many persons are quite comforted if
one who has led an immoral life says on his death-bed that
he " trusts in the atoning blood of Christ." But this may
be a mere word.
AH ceremonies and prayers are means, but none of them
are evidence, of a state. The only evidences are the fruits
of the Spirit. " The tree is known by its fruits." " The
fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, long-sufiering, gen-
tleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance."
Let us remember that though a man may be converted,
and not as yet be regenerate, he cannot be regenerate un-
less he is converted; that is, there can be no true piety, no
love, no faith, no spiritual religion, except there be a sincere
and determined purpose of righteousness beneath it. There
may be true morality without piety, but there cannot be a
true piety without a true morality. The law must precede the
gospel. Conscientiousness must go before love, to prepare
its way. " That is not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual."
TiliQ first question, therefore, to ask ourselves, is not, '^Do
200 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
I love God?" but, "Do I obey God?" Every man's own
soul, if sinceref can auswer that question. " If our heart
condemn us, God is greater than our heart." "If our
heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards
God.*'
But if we are obeying God, then let us believe in a higher
life which God has to bestow, and believing, seek for it. It
is not earned, it is not a reward, it is not by works ; but it
is very nigh and close at hand ; it is ready to be given to
those who believe in it and look for it.
So, if the question be asked, " Is man active or passive in
this process ? " the answer is, that he is active in conversion,
receptive in regeneration.
So in regard to faith and works. " We are justified by
faith ; " but justification is the sense of God's forgiving love
which is received into an open heart. Justification is not
salvation ; it is only a step in that direction, and a prepara-
tion for it.
And now we ask, " Why is it, if this new life is a gift, do
not all good men receive it?" The answer is, "There are
conditions. All good men do not believe in it. Some be-
lieve that duty is every thing ; that Christianity consists
wholly in obedience. They know nothing higher, and there-
fore seek for nothing higher. Regeneration they hear of,
but think it something mystical, miraculous, unnatural, and,
to say the truth, not very attractive. If they believed in a
life of love and trust, a life free from the burden of anxiety,
they would surely desire it."
Those also who believe in it do not always believe it is
for themselves. They think it not meant for common peo-
. pie in the midst of common life, but for some special saint-
ship. They do not believe in this divine life flowing into
every heart and soul, high and low, wise and ignorant, be it
only sincere, honest, and believing.
Yet it is like the life of nature, which in the abounding
CONYEBSION AND BEGENEBATION. 201
spring-lime comes down from the skies, and flows not only
into the majestic tree, swelling at once its myriad buds, but
also into eyerj seed, and root, and weed, awakening them
aU.
This is what we need for peace, for real progress, for
present comfort, for future joy.
It is communion with God, it is receiving his love, it is
accepting his forgiveness, and living day by day as his be-
loved children.
202 obthodoxy: its tbuths ind ebbobs.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE SON OP GOD.
§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine stated, — Having considered the
Orthodox idea of man in his natural state, and of man in his
supernatural state, we next pass to consider the Orthodox
idea of Christ's person and of Christ's work. In this chap-
ter we shall consider the Orthodox view of the person of
Christ, and ask what is its substantiial truth, and what its
formal error.
The Orthodox opinion concerning Christ is thus stated in
the Assembly's Confession of Faith : " The Son of God, the
second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God,
of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the
fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with
all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof,
yet without sin ; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct na-
tures — the Godhead and the Manhood — were inseparably
joined together in one person, which person is very God and
very Man."
Christ, therefore, was perfectly God and perfectly man.
The formula is, " two natures^ hut one person" The Ortho-
dox doctrine is not of God dwelling in a human body as its
soul (which seems to be the view of Swedenborg), but it is
of Gt)d united with a human soul and body as one person or
one consciousness.
§ 2. This Doctrine gradually developed, — This idea of
Christ, as we know, was gradually formed in the Christian
Church, and did not become Orthodox until after many strug-
gles. First came the question whether the Deity of Christ
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE $0N OF GOD. 203
was equal or subordinate to that of the Father, Hardlj
had the Orthodox doctrine triuniphed over that of subordinar
tion, against those who denied the equal Deity, than it wa»
obliged to turn round and contend against those on the other
side, who denied the humanity of Christ altogether. The
Ebionites considered Jesus as a mere man. Theodotus, in
the year 200, taught the same, with Artemon and Praxeas.
In the next century the Arians and Sabellians opposed Or-
thodoxy from opposite sides, — the one confounding the per-
sons of the Godhead, and the other dividing the substance.
So for several centuries the pendulum of opinion swung from
one side to the other before it rested in the golden «uean of
Orthodoxy.
The Nestorians separated the two natures of Christ, and
maintained that his Pivinity consisted only in the indwelling
of God. But scarcely had Nestorius been banished for
separating the two natures than Eutyches plunged into heresy
on the other side, by confounding them together. This was
the Monophysite heresy ; and no sooner was this overthrown,
and it was decided to be wrong to say that Christ had only
one nature, than others began to contend that he had only
one wilL These were the Monothelites. But through all
these controversies, the main doctrine of Orthodoxy con-
tinues to shine out luminous and distinct, asserting that
Christ combines the fulness of Deity and the fulness of Hu-
manity.
§ 3. Unitarian Objections, — As this view of the Deity
of Christ has been stated, it seems, in its doctrinal form,
contradictory to Scripture as well as to reason. That the
infinite God, who fiUs the universe, and sustains it ; present
in the smallest insect ; present in the most distant nebula,
whose light just arriving at our eye has been a million of
years on its journey, — that this infinite Being should have
been bom in Palestine, seems to confute itself by its very
fitatement. Who took care of the universe when God was
204 obthodoxy: its truths and erbobs.
an infant in the arms of the Virgin Mary ? Jesus was bom,
and died ; but God cannot be born, and cannot die. Jesns
suffered from hunger, fatigue, and pain ; but God cannot
Buffer. Jesus was seen by human eyes, and touched by
human hands ; but no man hath seen God at any time.
Jesus had a finite body ; but God is Spirit. Jesus was
tempted; but God cannot be tempted with evil. Jesus
prayed ; but God cannot pray. Jesus said, " My Father is
greater than I ; *' but God has no one greater than himself.
Jesus said, " I can of mine own self do nothing ; " but God
can of his own self do everything. Jesus said " that he
came down from heaven not to do his own will ; " but God
always does his own will. Jesus said that there were some
things he did not know ; but God knows everything. He
declared that all power was given to him in heaven and
earth ; but God's power cannot be given to him. Scripture,
therefore, as well as common sense, seems to deny the Or-
thodox doctrine of the Deity of Christ.
The common Trinitarian answer to these texts is, that
Christ is speaking in his human nature when he asserts
these limitations. But this answer, as Dr. Bushnell has
well shown, is no answer ; for, as he says, " it not only does
an afiront to the plain language of Scripture, but virtually
denies any real unity between the human and the divine."
Jesus does not say, "All power in heaven and earth is given
to my human nature" but "to me;*' and when the Trini-
tarian himself declares that in Christ, with two natures, there
is but one person^ the question is concerning that one person,
whether that is finite or infinite, absolute or dependent, om-
niscient or not so, omnipresent or not so, omnipotent or not so.
The question does not concern his nature, but himself. The
one person must be either finite or infinite : it cannot be both.
§ 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine, — But now we
ask, What substantial truth underlies this formal error?
What truth of life underlies this error of doctrine?
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE BON OF GOD. 205
Lei us remember how empty the world was of God at the
time of Christ's coming. The wisest men could speak thus
with PUny: "All religion is the offspring of necessity,
weakness, and fear. What God is, — if in truth he be any-
thing distinct from the world, — it is beyond the power of
man's understanding to know." All intelligent men agreed
that if God existed he could not possibly take any interest in
the affairs of the world or of individuals. Phariseeism on
the one hand, and Sadduceeism on the other, — a religion
hardened into forms, and an empty scepticism, cold and
dead, — divided the world between them. But men cannot
live without God, and be satisfied. They were feeling after
him, if haply they might find him, who is not far from any
one of us.
Then Christ came ; and in all that he said and did, he
spoke from the knowledge of God ; he acted from the life of
G^d. Here was one, then, at last, to whom God was not
an opinion, but a reality ; through whose life flowed the life
of God in a steady current. We see that all sincere souls
who came near Jesus received from him the same sight of
God which he possessed ; for faith in a living and present
God is so congenial to the nature of man, that it carries con-
viction with it wherever it is not a mere opinion, but a state
of the soul.
Those, therefore, who could find God nowhere else, found
him in Christ. Those who saw him^ saw the Father. As
when through a window we behold the heavens, as when in
a mirror we see an image of the sun, we do not speak of
the window or the mirror, but say that we see the sun and
the heavens, so those who looked at Christ said that they
saw God.
The apostle said that God was in Christ ; and this was
wholly true. Christians afterwards said that Christ was
God; and they thought they were only saying the same
thing. They said that Christ had a divine nature as well as
18
206 obthodoxy: its teuths anjd j^aROB^.
a human nature; and in this also there was no essential
falsehood, for when we speak of our nature, we intend
merely by it those elements of character which are original
and permanent, which are not acquired, do not alter, and
are never lost. Grod dwelt in the soul of Christ thus con-
stantly, thus permanently. The Word thus " became flesh,
and dwelt among us." The word of the Lord came to the
prophets, but it dwelt in Christ. He and his Father were
one. The vital truth of all this was that men were now
able to see God manifested in man as a living, present re^
ality. " Here" they said, " is God. We have found God.
He is in Christ. We can see him there."
Is it any wonder that men should have called Jesu3 God ?
that they should call him so still? In him truly " dwelt the
fulness of the Godhead bodily ; " and this indwelling Spirit
expressed itself in what he said and what he did. When
Jesus speaks, it is as if God speaks. When Jesus does any-
thing, it is as if we saw God do it. It becomes to us an
expression of the divine character. When Jesus says to the
sinner, " Go and sin no more," we see in this a manifesta-
tion not merely of his own compassion, but of God's forgiv-
ing love ; and when he dies, although God cannot die, yet
he dies according to the divine will, and thus expresses
God's willingness to suffer for the redemption of the world.
§ 5. Formed Error of the Orthodox Statement. — When
we look at Christ's Divinity from this point of view, the dis-
tinction between the Trinitarian and Unitarian seems almost
to disappear. Still the question remains. Is it right to call
him God? The distinction remains between saying, "God
was in Christ," and saying, " Christ was God." In short,
was the person of Christ human or divine ? We agree with
the Orthodox in saying that Christ had two natures — a
divine nature and a human nature. We also maintain with
them that he had one person. But the question comes, Was
that one person divine or human, finite or infinite, dependent
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE SON OF 60D« 207
or absolute ? The consciousness of the one person is a sin-
gle consciousness. Christ could not at the same time have
been conscious of knowing all things and of not knowing ail
things, of having all power and of not having it, of depend-
ing on God for all things and of not depending for anything.
One of two things alone is possible. Either Christ was God
united with a human soul, or he was a human soul united
with God. When Christ uses the personal pronoun " I," he
must mean hy that "/" either the finite man or the infinite
God. I believe the Unitarian is right in saying that this
personal pronoun " I " always refers to the finite being and
consciousness, and not to the infinite Being. For example :
^^I am not alone, hut I and the FatJier that sent me,** "2
proceeded forth and came from Qod ; neitJier came I of my*
self, dvi he sent me" God cannot proceed from God ; God
cannot send God. Again : " If I honor myself, my honor is
nothing ; it is my Father that honoreth me." This cannot
mean, " If God honors God, his honor is nothing ; but it is
God that honors him." It must mean that the human being,
Christ, receives his honor from the divine Being. This view
— that the person of Christ is human, but is intimately
united and in perfect union with the indwelling God —
makes all Scripture intelligible. Any other view is either
unintelligible or contradictory. This view of the divine
nature of Christ united with the human person, of God
dwelling in the flesh, does not confound the mind like the
common Trinitarian view, and yet has a value for the heart
of paramount importance. If Christ is really a man like
ourselves, made in all respects like his brethren, and yet is
thus at one with God, thus full of God, it shows us that sin
and separation from God are accidental things, and not
anything necessary. If Jesus is truly a man, he redeems
and exalts humanity. What he has been is a type of what
all men may be. Thus the apostle Paul speaks when he
says that all things were created in Christ, who is tlie be-
208 obthodoxy: its truths and ekbobs.
ginning, the firstrbom from the dead, that he might go before
us, or be our leader in all things ; which is a much higher
view than the common understanding of the passage, which
merely supposes him to have been God's instrument in
creating the physical universe. He is the image of the
invisible God — the first-born of the whole creation. This
creation is the new creation — that which is intended in
Revelation (3 : 14), where Christ is spoken of as the Amen,
the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation
of God, and that which Paul means when he sajs that in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is
worth anything, "but the new creation.'*
All such passages refer, as it seems to us, not to a past
natural creation, but to a supernatural creation — a creation
of life eternal, which, beginning in Christ, is to embrace the
whole of humanity.
§ 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism, — And We can-
not but think this doctrine far truer, as well as more Ortho-
dox, than the Arianism which so long struggled in the Church
for supremacy. That view which supposed that Christ was
neither truly man nor truly God, but some high, preexisting
being between the two, appears to us to be the falsest and most
unsatisfactory of all the doctrines concerning Christ's person.
It separates him more entirely from our sympathies than
either of the others. It destroys both his divinity and his
humanity, and, by giving us something intermediate, gives
us really nothing. It makes his apparent human life a delu-
sion, his temptation unreal, his human sympathies and sor-
rows deceptive. We think, therefore, that the Church was
right in rejecting the Arian doctrine.
We think it was also right in rejecting the Humanitarian
doctrine, or that of mere Naturalism. Christ was something
more than mere man, — something more than Moses and
Elijah, — something more than a man of great religious
genius. The peculiarity of Christ was, that he was chosen
IDEA OF THE SON OF GOD. 209
by God's wisdom, and prepared by God's providence, to be
the typical man of the race, — the God-man, in whom the
divine Spirit and human soul become one in a perfect union.
He was, perhaps, placed, by an exceptional birth, where the
first Adam stood, — rescued from inherited depravity, made
in the image of God. Then the Spirit was given him with-
out measure. The word of God dwelt in him, and did not
merely come to him as a transient influence for a special pur-
pose. Add to this a freely chosen aim of life, and a fidelity
which was always about his Father's business, and aiming -to
finish the work which was given him to do, and we have a
being in whom we can see either a manifestation of God or
a manifestation of man. The Spirit in Christ was one with
God ; the soul and body were human.
18*
210 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
CHAPTER IX.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
§ 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete, — That portion
of the New Testament which speaks so earnestly of justifica-
tion by faith is by many supposed to have become obsolete for
all useful purposes at the present time. The doctrine that
*' we are justified by faith, and not by works," it is supposed,
was intended for the benefit of the Jews alone, and to amouut
to this — that admittance to the privileges of the gospel is to
6e obtained, not by practising the ceremonies and external
ritual of the Jewish law, but by a simple belief in Jesus
Christ. Accordingly, as no one nowadays endeavors to
become a Christian by practising the Jewish ceremonies,
we suppose that there is no present need of this doctrine ;
and when we come upon it in the Scripture, we turn over
the pages in search of something more practical and profit-
able. As, in the book of Acts, we read, that, " when Paul
was about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If
it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O Jews, rea-
son would that I should bear with you ; but if it be a ques-
tion of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it ; for
I will be no judge of such matters," so we, when Paul is
about to open his month to speak to us of this doctrine, think
it a mere question of words and names, and of the Jewish
law, and interrupt him to ask him for something practical^
If he has anj^hing* to say to us of wrong-doing or wicked
conduct, it would be reasonable to hear him ; but we will be
no judge of such matters as this.
There are also many persons, who, while they can under-
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH* 211
Btand the Gospels and enjoy them, find it difficult to under-
stand and enjoy the writings of the apostlo Paul. Among
these writings, the most difficult is the Epistle to the Romans,
and especially that part of it which treats of this doctrine of
justification by faith. Anything which can be done to re-
move this difficulty will do good ; for the writings of Paul
are so intimately connected with the rest of the New Testa-
ment, that it is not easy to reject them, and yet to believe
the rest. It can be done, no doubt ; but it is done with dif-
ficulty. It is as if one part of the foundation of the house
had given way : perhaps the house will not fall ; but it has
become unsafe. It is as if a part of the wall of a city had
been battered down: the breach may be defensible from
"within; but it is also practicable from without. At all
events, we miss the satisfaction of a complete faith, perfect
and entire, round and full.
Besides, may there not be something important for us to
know in this part of the New Testament? Are we quite
sure -we do not need these very doctrines, and that they will
do us good?
We have said that it is sometimes thought that the ques-
tions discussed by Paul were only Jewish questions, — not
human questions ; that they belonged only to that time, not
to all time. But, though the form which they assumed was
temporary and local, there is reason to believe that the
substance of the question is one belonging to human nature
in every age ; that it is the question of the spirit and the let-
ter, the substance and the form, the root and the branches,
the inside of religion and the outside. While contending
against a particular Jewish error, the apostle unfolded prin-
ciples by which similar errors may be opposed and refuted
in every age.
At all events, it is a matter of fact, that there seldom has
been in the Church any great religious movement which has
not immediately gone back to the apostle Paul, and planted
212 OBTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND EBBOBS.
itself on his doctrine of justification hy faith. This was the
watchword of Luther, and the soul of the reformation. Lu-
ther and his companions armed themselves with this doctrine
to contend against the great power of the Papacy and the
Bomish Church.
Let us, then, endeavor to see what we can of the truth
there may be in this doctrine.
§ 2. Its Meaning and Importance. — And, first, let us see
what the doctrine does not mean, and what it does mean.
To be justified by faith does not mean that we are to be
saved by our opinions. To say that a man can be saved by
holding certain opinions, instead of certain other opinions, is
to say what is contradicted by all experience ; for experience
shows us that there are good men holding every variety of
opinion, and bad men holding every variety of opinion. But
God saves anen by making them good : therefore men are
not saved by their opinions. Let us suppose that men are
to be saved by the opinion that Jesus is the Christ : then we
oifght to find that all men holding that opinion are on the
way of salvation ; that is, are becoming good men. But this
is far from being the case. In fact, the connection between
mere opinion of any kind, and goodness, is very distant and
indirect. No doubt, in the long run, opinion afiects charao>
ter ; but it is only in the long run that it does so. And, at
all events, the doctrine of the New Testament is very distinct
and decided, that men may hold very sound opinions, and
yet not be in the way of salvation. The Scribes and Phari-
sees held very sound opinions ; and Jesus told his disciples
to do whatever they said, but not to imitate their works ; for
their doctrine was much better than their lives.
Nor does the apostle mean to say that one can be saved
without morality. He certainly does not mean to undervalue
goodness ; for, in that case, he would contradict his own
teachings, which uniformly declare, as all the rest of the
Bible declares, that without holiness no man can see the
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 213
Lord. It is certainly a very superficial view which is satisfied
with supposing that an earnest man, as the apostle cer-
tainly was, devoting his life, as he certainly did, to the teach-
ing of Christianity, with such a grand intellect as he certainly
possessed, could assert with so much energy a doctrine plain-
ly contradicting common sense, daily observation, the plain
teachings of Jesus, and his own uniform doctrine elsewhere.
Some persons have a short method of getting over the dif-
ficulty by saying that Paul did not himself know what he
meant. They assume that he was talking at random. It
would be about as wise, when we open Newton's " Principia,"
and cannot understand it, to say that Newton was talking at
random ; or, when we cannot understand Plato or some other
profound metaphysician, to declare directly that ho did not
himself know what he was talking about. No doubt, this is
the shortest and easiest way of getting out of such difiicul-
ties, but perhaps not the most modest, nor the most wise.
When an earnest man, a profound man, a man in the high-
est degree practical, a man who has done the greatest work
for Christianity which has been done since its foundation,
sums up his doctrine in a comprehensive maxim like this, it
is, perhaps, wise to admit, at once, that he had a meaning, and
probably an important one.
" No doubt he had a meaning," it may be said ; " but has
he any meaning now f His formula meant something for the
Jews ; but does it mean anything for us ? Is not this mere-
ly a Jewish question, with which we have nothing to do ? "
This is another easy way of getting over difficulties. In
reading the New Testament, when we come to a place where
we are stopped by something which looks deep and is dark,
we are often told, " That darkness is not depth : it is the
shadow of a Jewish error which lies across the path."
Have we not often felt dissatisfied, when, approaching
some great saying of Christ and his apostles from which we
hoped to gain new insight, we have been told, '^ That has
214 OBTHODOXT : ITS TBUTHS AND ERRORS.
nothing to do with us. The Jews had such and such an
opinion, and this was meant to show them their mistake " ?
So the great and earnest words of the Bihle, which we thought
to be full of spirit and life, are found to be only fossil remains
of old opinions, of opinions long since passed away — good
for nothing but to be put into the museums of antiquaries,
and paraded by scholastic pedants.
But, after all, take it on the lowest ground, were not the
Jews men ? Did they not, as a race, represent some clomeuC',
common, in a less degree, to the rest of mankind ? and there-
fore is there not in each of us something of that Jewish ele-
ment? Are not we also sometimes Jews, therefore liable to
Jewish errors, and needing to have them corrected? The
Jews did not live in vain : their struggles, errors, hopes, were
for the benefit of humanity. We were to learn something by
their mistakes, and to be taught something by their experience.
Another way of treating such a passage is to translate it
into some trivial, insignificant commonplace. Thus, we are
told, our doctrine. only means that '''-God does not approve a
man merely for going through a routine of outward^ formal
ceremonies, but for a thoroughly religious life,** This expla-
nation assumes that the apostle is here talking to simpletons,
and that what he says is no more worth listening to by U8
than the prattle of a nurse to her infant.
There are, therefore, four ways of explaining this passage,
none of which are satisfactory. These are, that Paul, —
1. Was teaching a self-evident absurdity;
2. Was teaching a self-evident truism ;
3. Was teaching nothing, and only talking at random ;
4. Was correcting a Jewish error, which only the Jews
ever had, or are ever likely to have.
If these views are not satisfactory to us, the simplest way
would seem to be, first, to endeavor to understand precisely
what the Jewish error was, and then to see if there is. any-
thing like it in ourselves, and if there be anything which we
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 215
can learn from this old argument which will be, not old, but
new for our time and for all time, because a part of the ten*
dencies of man. Let us translate these old terms — justifi*
oaHan^ faith., works — into their modern equivalents, and see
what they mean for us at the present time.
We have shown that we may be mistaken in suppos-
ing this Orthodox doctrine of justification to be of merely
local and temporary interest, having no permanent value.
It is not likely that a man like Paul, of so large, so deep, so
philosophic a mind, should have devoted himself so earnestly,
and returned so fondly, to a theme involving no universal and
ecemal principles, whose interest was to perish with the hour.
It is not probable that, in this small volume of writings of
the new covenant, — this precious gift of God to the world
in all ages and in every nation, — so large a portion should
be devoted to a wholly temporary argument ; and, more than
all, it is a most remarkable fact, that whenever there arises
a man uniting a deeper spirit of piety with a larger sense of
liberty than other men, — a man commissioned by God to
give a new reUgious impulse to his age, and to help Chris-
tianity to shake itself free from the cumbrous mass of human
forms and traditions which have crushed it, and to go forth
in its native grace and loveliness again, — some profound in-
stinct should always lead him to this doctrine as to a weapon
eiSectual for pulling down the strongholds of bigotry, scepti-
cism, and spiritual death. Sir James Mackintosh some*
where says, that the great movement which shook Christen-
dom to its centre, and did more to change and reform societjf
than the political revolutions and wars of a thousand years^
originated with an obscure Augustinian monk preaching the
doctrine of justification by faith. This acute Scotchman
saw, what all must see who read Luther's writings with any
attention, that it was no accident, no temporal interest, which
led him to lay such stress on this doctrine. It was the soul
of his preaching, the essence of his doctrine, the secret of
216 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
his strength, the life of his life. And so, when Wesley and
the early Methodists were called upon to pour new religious
life into the English Church, they fell hack on this doctrine
— this ancient sword of the Spirit. And so we may helieve
that it has a value for all ages ; that it did not relate merely
to Jewish usages, but is a principle of vital and everlasting
application.
No doubt that if by faith we understand intellectual be-
lief, or the assent to opinions, and if by works we under-
stand true obedience, and by justification final salvation or
actual goodness, there can scarcely be a greater, absurdity
than to say that a man is justified by faith, and not by
works. To say that goodness, in the sight of God, consists
in receiving certain opinions, rather than in true obedience,
is a most unscriptural and irrational doctrine.
But none of the great reformers of whom I have spoken,
and no profound theologians of any sect or school, have ever
held the doctrines of justification by faith in this way.
Neither Luther nor Wesley ever made faith synonymous
with intellectual belief or opinion. " What is faith ? " said
Wesley. " Not an opinion, nor any number of opinions
put together, be they ever so true. A string of opinions is
no more Christian faith than a string of beads is Christian
holiness. It is not an assent to any opinion, or any number
of opinions. A man may assent to three or three and twenty
creeds, he may assent to all the Old and New Testament,
and yet have no Christian faith at all."
But what is the true doctrine of justification by faith, as
taught in the Scriptures, and as inspiring these great reform-
ers ? This is naturally our next inquiry.
§ 3. Need of Justification for the Conscience. — There is
nothing in the nature of man more paradoxical than con-f
science. It is that which lifts him to God ; and yet it is
that which makes him capable of sin, and without which he
could not be a sinner. It gives him the sense of right, but
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 217
at the same time makes him conscious of wrong. It makes
him capable of duty, but thereby also capable of disobedi-
ence. It shows us what we ought to do, without giving us
the least strength wherewith to do it. It condemns us for
not doing right, even when we have no power to do any-
thing but what is wrong. It shows us a great ideal of good-
ness to which we ought to aspire, and discourages us by the
very loftiness of the standard. It tells us in the same breath
that we are sinners, and that we ought to be angels. It
seems at the same time to elevate and. degrade us. It ele-
vates us by giving a great object to life, and making it seri-
ous and earnest ; but it degrades us by making us constantly
ashamed of ourselves, and keeping us in a perpetual state
of humiliation. Now, one of the chief peculiarities of the
conscience is, that beyond a certain point, the more we try
to obey it, the less satisfaction we have. We know that this
is not the usual theory. We are commonly told that the
conscientious man is always contented and happy, — satis-
fied with himself, and at peace with God. But facts contra-
dict this theory. The conscientious man is apt to be very
much dissatisfied with himself, — much more so than the
man whose conscience is torpid and indifferent. There is
comfort in faithful work ; no doubt there is great content in
the steady performance of regular duties ; but here con-
science is subordinate to work. It is work which gives
contentment ; but consciekce, when throroughly roused by
the strong meat of a divine law, is the source of much self-
dissatisfaction. How can it be otherwise ? It shows us that
we ought to love God and love man with all our hearty soul^
mind^ strength. Which of us does it? Do you? Do I?
How large a part of our life have we given to the service of
God? how large a part to the service of our neighbor?
How often do we thank God for his goodness? How
oileA. do we pray to him? how often think of him? If
we do not think of him, of course we do not love him*
19
218 OBTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Love makes us very thoughtful of another's wishes.
When people love each other, they joy in thinking of each
other ; they treasure souvenirs of each other ; they like to
make each other presents of things they think will please ;
they steal an hour from daily cares or nightly rest to write
letters to each other. Our heavenly Father's arms are
around us all day, — his infinite bounty blessing us, his care-
ful providence making for us home, friends, all ; yet we do
not think of him, or wish to do anything to please him.
Conscience tells us that our heart is hard and (;old to our
best Friend ; and that is by no means a pleasant piece of
information.
Moreover, it is evident that this condition of self-dissatis-
faction is not a good one. Self-reproach may he a wholesome
medicine^ hut it is a had food. We cannot do our work
while we are finding fault with ourselves. The man whose
conscience is always tormenting him is in a morbid state.
He is a spiritually sick man, — sick of too much medicine.
What must be done ? He is always looking at his sins, and
that disqualifies him for doing his duties. What shall he do ?
This question in its Jewish form is stated thus: How
SHALL HE BE JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD ? If God CaU exCUSe
him, he can excuse himself. How, then, can he know that
God looks at him not as a sinner, but as a just man, so that
he can look on himself not as a sinner, but as a just man ?
This is the problem. What are its solutions ?
In the Jewish mind, the Jewish law had brought the con-
science into an extremely irritable state. The same effect,
in a less degree, is produced by the Catholic confessional. ,
§ 4. Beaction of Sin on the Soul, — Now, the conse-
quences of sin are these : First, every act of sin brings after
it natural evil consequences. It weakens the strength of the
soul, it darkens the spiritual eye, it hardens the heart, it
adds a new link to the chain of evil habit. By a result as
inevitable as the law of gravitation, every act of sin pollutes.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 219
darkens, weakens the spiritual principle in man. ^' He who
sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap eorr option." We may.
call these results the external consequences of sin, because
they change our spiritual relation and position in God's exter-
nal universe. But there is another more awful and as inevita-
ble consequence of sin. It alienates us from God himself. It
turns our face from the Source of life and love. It makes us
at war with him. It Alls us with the sense of his displeasure,
and burdens us with the consciousness of guilt. To escape the
dreadful sense of his anger, we hide ourselves from him, as
Adam did. It is a law of the human mind that we dread the
sight of any one whom we have wrouged, because it condemns
us. Perhaps he may be perfectly willing to forgive us ; per-
haps he does not even know that we have wronged him ; but
^e cannot bear to see him, notwithstanding. It was a pro-
found feeling of this law which led an ancient historian to
say, " He hated him because he had injured him." Thus an
active conscience, if it does not make a man better, will
make him worse : to escape its torture he will plunge into
new crimes. Some of the darkest crimes which stain the
page of history may be traced to this source, — to the opera-
tion of a conscience strong enough to produce the sense of
gniJit, but not strong enough to produce the determination to
reform. It is related that when the mother of Charles IX.
of France and his uncles were urging the young king to
consent to the execution of some of the principal Protestants
to whom he was strongly attached, after a long resistance,
when he at last gave way, it was with these remarkable
words : " I consent, then, but only on one condition, — that
you do not leave a Huguenot in France to reproach me with
it." * And hence the Bartholomew Massacre, which its au-
thorls had intended before only to include a few individuals.
So sin takes occasion by the law, and the commandment
ordained for life becomes death.
* Bee Baumer, <* G^seUdite Europas," zwetter Band.
220 obthodoxt: its truths and ebbobs.
The same principle operates with respect to God. We
.have broken his law. We feel that he must be displeased
with us ; we therefore hide ourselves from him, turn away
from him, avoid the thought of him, are alienated from him.
This is the greatest evil of sin, and this we may call the
inward consequence of sin, because it affects our inward
relation to God rather than our outward relation to thd
universe.
And now, how are we to be reconciled to God? How
are we to be freed from this sense of guilt which falls on us
in his presence, and makes us fear and shun him ?
§5. Different Methods of obtaining Forgiveness^ — There
are two ways in which, when we have injured our brother,
and so have become estranged from him, we may become
reconciled again, and freed from a sense of shame in his
presence. One is by endeavoring to atone for the evil we
have done by acts of kindness, by expressions of penitence.
So at last we may feel that we have done him far more good
than evil ; and though he may not forgive us or be recon-
ciled to us^ we, on our part, may feel freed from any shame
in his presence, and be reconciled to him. The other way.
is by his coming to tis^ and proving to us, by his conduct and
words, that he is not estranged from us by our bad conduct ;
that he loves us as ever. So he will overcome our evil by
his good, and reconcile us to him.
The pagan nations in all ages and lands have taken the
first way of being reconciled to God. Oppressed by a guilty
fear of their terrible idols, <hey have brought as gifts to their
altars what they had most valuable ; they have hung their
gold, their jewels, in the temple ; they have slain their cattle
on the shrine. Still unable to pacify their trembling hearts,
they have gone farther, and sought to prove the sincerity at
least of their repentance by self-inflicted tortures, and by
giving even their children's lives to the bloody power whom
they worshipped. Hence sacrifices : they originated in the
• JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 221
very same deling which induces a man to give a present to
one whom he has wronged, to appease him.
Pagan religions are founded, therefore, wholly on the first
mode of reconciliation. The offending party comes to him
whom he has injured, and does something to pacify him.
But these religions never brought peace to the heart of the
worshipper. After the wretched mother had dropped her
infant into the burning arms of Moloch, she still had no
evidence that his wrath was turned away.
In the religion of Moses, the first mode of reconciliation
was united with the second. Pitying the weakness of man,
the law allowed him to bring his sacrifice of birds or beasts
or the fruits of the soil, and place it on God's altar as an ex-
piation and atoning offering for his sin ; and then, the sup-
pliant, having faith in the permanent presence of God in the
holy of holies, was received again to favor and assured of
pardon. The Jew, who had broken any of the laws of Je-
hovah, knew exactly what to do in order to be reconciled to
his national God and King. God had pointed out the way
which he would accept. By certain acts of sacrifice and
restitution, the Jew became *bnce more worthy of living under
the protecting care of Jehovah.
This mode of reconciliation under the law was far superior
to that in pagan religions. It gave temporary peace to the
conscience, though not permanent. It prevented the sinner
from going farther from God, though it did not unite him
with God in unbroken union. It kept the conscience awake,
and prevented it from being hardened. It was a schoolmas-
ter to bring the Jews to Christ. It was a preparation for a
more excellent way. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
writer declares that the law was but the shadow of that which
was to come ; that it could not, '' by the sacrifices offered
year by year, make the comers thereunto perfect ; for then
would they have ceased to have been offered, because the
worshippers, once purged, would have had no more conscience
19*
222 ' orthodoxy: its truths and errors. •
of sin." The sacrifice made no revelation of God's charao-
ter and love, planted no root of piety in the heart : it relieved
the conscience only for this once, only with respect to this
one sin ; and there its influence ended. And therefore was
a new covenant necessary, and promised by the prophets,
and looked forward to by holy men, when they should be
reconciled not by works, but by faith.
We have seen that there are two modes by which aliena-
tion may be removed: first, by the offending party doing
something to atone for his offence ; second, by tlTe injured
one showing that he has forgiven the offence, and is ready
to be reconciled without an atonement. The first mode is
the way of reconciliation in pagan religions ; the first and
second are united in the Jewish religion ; the second is the
mode in the Christian religion.
§ 6. Method in Christianity. — In Christianity, in the
gospel of grace, God offers pardon freely to those who are
willing to accept it. He is ready now to receive those who
are ready to come to him. It is only necessary to believe
this in order to be reconciled. We are, therefore, reconciled
by faith.
But we are said to be reconciled by the death and blood
of Christ. How is this ? We have seen the source of our
alienation : it lay not in God, but in ourselves. God had
not gone away from us ; we went away from him. He had
not ceased to love us ; but by a terrible reaction from our
sinfulness, we had ceased to believe in his love. " God's
hand," says the prophet (Isa. 59 : 2), '^ is not shortened, that
he cannot save, nor is his ear grown dull, that he cannot
hear ; but your iniquities have separated you from your
God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, that he
doth not hear." By an immutable law of our mind, God's
wrath abides on us, and we cannot believe in his love.
Here is the source of our alienation. Now, merely to be told
that God is merciful does not wholly help the matter. True,
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 223
we say, He is merciful, but not to us ; we have sinned too
long and deeply. Something must be done, then, to con^
vince us that God is ready to forgive and receive us freely.
The death of Christ is the fact which produces this convic-
tion. The death of Christ, therefore, is not merely an
ennhlein of God's love, but an act of God's love. It draws
us to him. It changes our hearts. It melts our doubt, our
distrust. It reveals to us our Father's love. The blood of
Christ makes those who were afar off nigh. This all expe-
rience teiches as a matter of fact. It is the cross of Christ,
borne by the simple missionary, preached by the devou^
Moravian, which, amid the ice of Greenland or beneath the
burning sun of the tropic, reconciles the sinner to God.
And if one asks how the death of Christ does this, we will
briefly indicate what we believe to be the way in which it
operates. We look at Christ, and see the brightness of
God's glory and express image of his person. We see a
koliness pure and perfect, a character infinitely beautiful and
lovely. We see how dear and near such a one must have
been to God ; and we hear God say, " This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased ; " and we hear him say of
God, '' My Father has not left me alone ; for I do ahvaya
the things which please him."
And now we look $it the world, and see it " lying in wick-
edness ; " we see men trampling on God's law, polluting his
image, cruelly oppressing each other, and boldly defying and
mocking at the Almighty. What does he then ? For the
sake of these miserable, weak, and wretched sinners, who
seem scarcely worth the saving, he sends his holy child
among them ; he sends this pure being to have his heart
rent with the sight and knowledge of human sin ; he sends
him to be cruelly and shamefully killed by a death of agony,
in order that we^ sinful and miserable, may \m reconciled.
We say, in the view of all this, " He who spared not his own
Son, but delivered him up for us, how shall he not v;ith him
224 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
freely give us all things?" We say, " God commended his
love towards us, in that, while we were sinners, Christ died
for us." " Herein is love ; not that we loved God, but that
he loved us." . Christ, " being lifted up, draws all men unto
him." Thus, in the midst of the gloom of that horrible scene
on Calvary, when the power of darkness was at its height, —
that crisis of the world, when human sin stood at the flood,
— the heavens were opened, and a new ray of divine love
poured into the world.
§ 7. Result, — Let us sum up, then, the doctrine of justi-
^cation by faith, as we have now explained it.
1. Justification is not the doing away with all the con-
sequences of sin, but only the consequence which consists in
present alienation from God. It is objectively, as a divine
act, yfh&t forgiveness is subjectively, as a human experience.
It relates to fresent acceptance with God ; it is not the can-
celling of the results of our past sins on the character, nor is
it the hope of future salvation. It relates to the 'present.
The following passages show that justification is equivalent
to reconciliation or forgiveness. Rom. 5 : 8-10 : " But God
commei^deth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life." Rom. 4 : 6-8 : " David also
describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God im-
puteth righteousness without works ; saying. Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
2. Faith is not mere intellectual belief or opinion ; nor is
it mere feeling, nor a mystical emotion in which we are
wholly passive ; but a sentiment, in which belief, feeling, and
determination are blended together. The belief is that Christ
is the Son of God ; the feeling is trust and joy in the love of
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 225
.»
God seen in him ; and the determination i& to rely on him as
a Mediator and Saviour.
That faith is not a mere intellectual belief, but involves
also a feeling of trust, appears from such passages as these :
" If thou believe in thy heart ; " " An evil heart of unbelief/*
That faith is not a mere emotion, in which we are wholly
passive, appears from such cases as those where men are ex-
horted to believe, as a thing in their own power.
3. Works, in this doctrine, include every effort to recon-
cile God by offering him anything in expiation of our sin,
whether sacrifices, sacraments, the assent to creeds, 'thj
struggle after feelings and experiences, or reformation of
character.
And the whole doctrine of justification by faith may be
thus expressed: —
If you are burdened with a sense of unworthiness and
guilt ; if something seems to separate your heart from God ;
if you want confidence to come to him boldly in prayer, —
do not try to remove this difficulty by any effort to do some-
thing different, or become something different; but simply
look at Jesus in his sufferings and death, and see your
heavenly Father calling you to him now to be forgiven. Go
at once to God through Christ. Repose on that love that will
cleanse you, that will save you ; and nevermore doubt, even
in your darkest hour, that your Father is ready to hear,' to
forgive, and bless you.
§ 8. Its History in the Church. — We have seen the ori-
gin, nature, and value of this doctrine. Let us now look at
its history.
The apostolic Church was founded on the simple doctrine
of faith in Christ. It was not founded on any theory or
speculation about Christ, or about his plan of salvation, but
on Christ himself as the Saviour. All that the first Chris-
tians professed was faith in Jesus as the Son of God. They
had been reconciled to God by him ; they were at peace with
226 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
God ; they were washed in the blood of the Lamb ; and they
were happy. A deep and wonderful joy brooded over the
early church. A hurricane of persecution and war raged
around them : within the Church, all was security and peace.
How beautiful are the expressions by which the apostles de-
scribe the serenity and joy of the Church ! " They ate their
meat in gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and
having favor with all the people." New converts " gladly
received the word, and were baptized " by thousands, in the
face of the bitterest persecution. " The multitude of them
that believed were of one heart and one soul ; neither sai^
any of them, that aught of the things that he possessed was
his own." Whence came all this peace and union in the
early Church ? Was it because they had attained to such
clear views of truth, and all held the same opinions? So
far from it, some had not heard that there i;^as a Holy
Ghost ; others did not believe in a resurrection of the dead ;
and many thought the whole Jewish ritual essential to salva-
tion. Was it that they had become suddenly pure in heart,
and holy in life, and freed from sin? So far from it, we
find the apostles exhorting them against very great vices,
— against murder, theft, and licentiousness, — and condemn-
ing them for having practised gross immoralities. It came
from the simplicity of their faith. They looked to Jesus,
and their faces were lightened. They saw the love of God
in him ; they felt it in their hearts ; they reposed on it nn-
doubtingly. In quietness and confidence was their strength.
O, happy days ! in which men's minds had not yet been
harassed by thousands of vain controversies and empty ver-
bal -disputes ; by questions, and strifes of words ; by most
profound theological discussions, ending in nothing but wea-
riness ; but were satisfied, that, if men would go to Christ,
they would find truth. O, happy time ! in which men had
not learned to dissect their own hearts, and pry curiously
into their feelings, and torture themselves by anxious efibrta
JUSTIUCATION BY FAITH. 227
•
to fed right, and tormenting doubts as to whether their
inward experiences were as they ought to be, but believed
that all good feelings would come in their own time out of
Christian faith. O, happy, golden hour ! when love, and joy,
and duty were all one ; when men did not prescribe for them-
selves and others a task- work, an outward routine of duties ;
but had confidence, that, if they lived in the Spirit, they
would also walk in the Spirit.
That hour of simple, child-like faith passed away. Its de-
cay appeared in a return to the old mode of justification. In-
stead of simply relying on what God had done, men must do
something themselves to atone for their sins ; they must do
penance, and have priests, and sacraments, and masses, and
countless ceremonies to come between them and God ; they
must pile up a cumbrous fabric of religious and moral works,
by which to climb up to God ; until, at last, though the doc-
trine of justification by faith was never given up, it was
made of none efiect by the rubbish of human ceremonies
heaped before it. And then came Luther, armed with the
old doctrine, to sweep these all away, and call men back to
the simple faith in the Saviour. The pure word of faith
went forth through all lands, conquering and to conquer.
But there is a continual tendency to fall back again from
faith upon works. Ever as the life of religion weakens, ever
as the strength of holy confidence decays, men betake them-
selves to some outward forms or efforts. When they cease
to lean on the love of God, they begin to lean on sacraments
and ceremonies, on opinions and doctrines, on feelings and
experiences, on morality and works of duty. Ever, as the
cold winter of worldliness and sin causes the stream of holy
faith to shrink back into its channel, the ice of forms accu-
mulates along its shores ; and then, as the inevitable conse-
quence and sign of the decay of faith, we find the Church
becoming anxious and troubled, confidence giving way to
anxiety, cheerfulness to gloom, hope to fear. Everything
228 OBTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND EBBOBS.
terrifies the unbelieving Church ; new opinions terrify it ;
new measures terrify it. It has ashes instead of beauty,
mourning for joy, the spirit of heaviness instead of the gar-
ment of praise.
§ 9. Orthodox Errors j at the present Time^ in Begard to Jub*
tificaiion hy Faith. — We have said that there is a constant
tendency to fall back from faith to works of some kind or
other. The important question comes, How is it with us
now? Does this tendency show itself in our present
churches ? And the answer we are compelled to make is,
that it doesj certainly to some extent, and in all the churches.
Orthodox churches have fallen away, more or less, from the
doctrine of justification by faith. They have fallen back
from the central point of Christianity, faith in Jesus, in dif-
ferent directions, and seek to be justified by a law, — some
upon a law of belief, and others on a law of emotion.
Do not understand us as saying that any of the churches
have denied, or that they do not constantly teach, the doc-
trine of justification by faith. This is not the point. The
Bomish Church never denied, nor ceased to teach, this doc-
trine ; but she virtually abolished it, and made it of none
efiect by teaching other things also. Is not this, to some
degree, the case now?
Are there not many Orthodox Christians, at the present
time, who seek to make their peace with God, not by relying
on Jesus himself, but on some theory with respect to his
nature or person ; not on his death, but on some speculation
ahovi his death, — some theory, scheme, or plan ? Is it not
the idea of many, that they are to be brought to God, not by
faith in Jesus and his death, but by assenting to the correct
doctrine about it? and accordingly they anxiously labor, and
make it a work, to believe in the true theory, in order that
they may be brought to God. We do not say that correct
opinions on these points are unimportant ; but we say that
the faith in Christ which justifies us does not come from
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 229
l>elieving right opinions, but that right opinions come from the
jnstifying faith. Are religious teachers now willing to do as
Paul did, and say simply, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ " f
or do fhey not rather find it necessary to say, " Believe this,
tliat, and the other thing, about Jesus Christ " ?
And again : is it not thought by Orthodox people, that, in
order to be justified and have peace with God through Jesus
Christ, it is necessary that a person should experience cer-
tain feelings, beginning with a sense of guilt, a fear of pun-
ishment, and passing into a state of hope and assurance?
And, accordingly, men make it a work, and labor, to have
these feelings in the precise order and manner, and, until
they can experience these feelings, believe that they can have
no access to God. As before, we do not mean that these
feelings are unimportant, but only that we should not ,try to
work ourselves up into certain feelings in order lo be just
before God. It is faith in Jesus which is the source^ not the
result^ of piety as well as of holiness. It is faith in God's
love to us which enables us to love him. The sense of par-
don produces both the feeling of gratitude and of unworthi-
ness. God does not forgive us because we have had the
right feelings, but that we may have them. Those love
much to whom much is forgiven ; but to whom little is for-
given, the same love little.
Were we ever struck with the remarkable contrast between
the conversions to God in the apostolic time and those which
we hear of now ? How much more simple they were I A
man is riding in a chariot, reading his Bible, and trying in
vain to comprehend it. An apostle comes, and explains to
him the prophecy, and applies it to Jesus. Presently they
come to water, and he says, '* See, here is water ; " he is
baptized, and goes on his way rejoicing. We fear there are
not many churches now who would receive that Ethiopian as
a member, if he could give no further account of his religious
experience than is recorded in the book of Acts.
20
230 obthodoxy: its truths and ebbobs.
But is it not, we say again, remarkable, that not only in
this case, but in all the cases of conversion recorded and
described in the Acts, there should be nothing of the descrip-
tions which we read every week in our religious newspapers ?
In the case of the three thousand baptized on the day of Pen-
tecost, we only read that they were cut to the heart ; said,
" What shall we do ? " were told to repent and be baptized ;
joyfully received the word, and were baptized. Even the
remarkable conversion of Paul was nothing like what wo
now have. How is this — that now we are not willing to
trust to a simple act of faith in Jesus Christ, and in turning
to God ; but we have a scale and rule of religious experi-
ence— a work which all must go through in order to be
justified?
And what is the result of thus substituting for justification
)yTaith, justification by belief in opinions, and by processes
of feeling? Look at the churches where this has been cai>
ried farthest, and see the result. Religion becomes gloomy,
anxious, and austere ; it ceases to breathe cheerfulness and
joy around ; the gentler graces die before it ; fear treads fast
in the footsteps of hope ; a stiff* formality introduces cant in
the place of what is natural and artless ; the heart is stretched
on a rack of self-torturing doubts and anxieties. The biog-
raphies and private journals of many eminent saints show
us how little happiness they had in their religion, — how
they were tortured by spiritual doubts, perplexities, and
anxieties. The reason is, that they rely on their own feelings,
instead of relying on Christ.
And with the reliance placed on theory and opinion van-
ishes the union of the Church. There are five sects in tliis
country, all holding to the Assembly's Catechism — a large
and minute compendium of opinions, — and yet which often
do not allow each other to comimune at the Lord's table.
The New School Presbyterians might permit the others to
commune with ihem^ but are themselves excluded. The Old
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 231
School Presbyterians would commune with all but the New,
but are not permitted. Nay, the Associate Reformed, the
Covenanters, and the Seceders carry it so far as to discipline
and excommunicate their members for what is called occa'
sional hearing ; i. e., attending worship at other churches
than their own. There was in the State of Indiana an Old
School preacher, and president of a college, who refused to
allow a Unitarian to give a literary address which the stu-
dents had asked him to give, and which he had gone to
deliver, and, in defending himself for this, called him a
"public propagator of infidelity ; " and within a mile or two
of his college there was a society of Seceders, or Covenant-
ers, holding, like himself, the Assembly's Confession, who
would excommunicate any of thqir members who should go
to hear him preach.
There is, then, a tendency among the Orthodox to rely on
their own opinion and their own feelings, rather than on Jesus
Christ.
§ 10. Errors of Liberal Christians, — Liberal Christians
have fallen into error of a different sort. They seek to be
justified, not by opinion nor by feeling, but by action ; by
worka of righteousness, honesty, charity ; by the faithful
performance of social duties ; by an active obedience to the
law of God. Looking at the Scriptures, and seeing in how
many places we are plainly taught that we are to work out
our own salvation ; to be rewarded and punished according
to our active goodness; to be judged by our works, — they
say that a man is forgiven when he has corrected his fault,
and not before ; that repentance and reformation are the only
means of atonement with God ; that, if we wish to be for-
given, we must reform our conduct and change our character.
Accordingly, they lay great stress on duty, and are contin-
ually exhorting men to the performance of their duties in
order to be forgiven.
But there is a mistake here also, which arises from con-
232 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
founding two very different things ; namely, justification and
final salvation. We have seen that the consequences of sic
are twofold — external and internal. The inward conse-
quence of sin is separation from God ; the external is the
weakening and debasing of the soul. The first consequence
is removed by faith ; the second, by obedience. Every act
of sin pollutes, darkens, and ruins the soul ; every act of
obedience strengthens, elevates, and saves it. Obedience,
persevered in to the end, insures the salvation of the soul.
But, in order that we may obey, we must first be justified ;
for what is to give us the strength and the heart to obey, ex-
cept the pardoning love of God ? It is this sense of reconcil-
iation,— it is this spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, " Abba,
Father,", — which gives us the power to obey. We do not
obey God to be forgiven ; but we are forgiven that we may
obey. Have we read the Gospels, and have we forgotten all
the instances in which Jesus said, " Thy sins are forgiven
thee," before there had been any change of conduct, or re-
form of character? and have we forgotten the memorable
passage in which he explains to the captious Pharisee why
he does this (Luke 7:36-50), — on the principle that the
one to whom the most is forgiven will love the most ?
To point out to men their duties, and tell them to do them,
does not enable them to do them ; but the sight of God's love
in Jesus Christ does create in them new strength. That true
follower of Jesus, the first of our Ministers at Large, Dr.
Tuckerman, did not say to the poor victim of sin, that
when he reformed his conduct, he would be his friend. No :
like his Master, he showed himself his friend while he was
yet a sinner, and so gave him hope and courage to break
away from his sin. He has left on record one of the most
touching instances of the power of love to melt down the im-
penitent heart, in the case of a convict whom he persisted in
visiting, though he was perfectly hardened, and filled with
bitterness and rage. He persisted in patient attempts to
i
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 233
soften his lieart, till he succeeded, by the irresistible power of
love, in making him humble as a little child. Suppose he
had sent him word, that if he repented, and showed the
proper spirit, he would come and visit him. He had not so
learned God or Christ. He knew that he must overcome
evil with good. Exactly so does God overcome our evil
with good.
To tell men to do their duties that they may be forgiven,
is to tell them to do what they have no power to do. A con-
fident reliance on God's love, and steadfast communion wi.li
him, are the only source of real improvement. When we feel
these, we are one with God ; when we can go to him confi-
dently, as children to a father ; when we can betake ourselves
to his love in every emergency of life, — we have a source
of real strength, and growth, and improvement within us.
But, without this feeling of peace with God, the effort to do
our duties only harasses and irritates our conscience : it pro-
duces weariness of heart, a constant feeling of unworthiness
and failure, a constant sense of obligations and responsibili-
ties which we do not and cannot fulfil. Duty is a weary
task, a heavy burden ; and our life is crushed down by con-
stant ans^iety and care. But if we begin right, and come to
God first, and lean on his love, and rely on his promise, then
we are filled with hope and joyful assurance, and failure does
not dismay us, for we say, " God's truth is pledged for our
success; and if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life."
It may be objected that it is dangerous to religion to admit
that we can be justified before we have believed certain im-
portant doctrines or experienced certain peculiar feelings. It
may also be objected, on the other hand, that it is dangerous
to morality to suppose that pardon can precede reformation.
But the more we read the Scriptures, the more we look into*
our own heart, and the more we become acquainted with our
20*
234 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
fellow-men, the deeper is our conviction, that there is but one
source of true piety and sound morality — a heart reconciled
to God, and at peace with him. We do not undervalue cor-
rect belief, deep feeling, or active obedience ; but we place
them where they belong. They are the fruit of the tree, not
the root of the tree. The root and source and beginning of
all piety and holiness is simple faith in God through Christ.
We must ask ourselves, therefore, first of all, " Are we recon-
ciled to God, or are we not? Are we living in filial com-
munion with him, or living without him in the world ? " If
unreconciled, we must not think to work ourselves up into a
degree of goodness or pious feeling without God. There is
no strength where there is no confidence, where there is
nothing to lean on, where there is hollowness within. We
ought to come at once to God. We ought to lift our hearts
to him, not saying, " Who shall go up to heaven for us,
to bring him to us ? Who shall go over the sea for us ? "
For his word is very nigh, in our mouth and heart.
The above discussion will show what we consider to be the
truths, and what the errors, in the Orthodox view of justifi*
cation by faith.
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. .235
CHAPTER X.
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT.
§ 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement. — The subject
of this chapter is the Orthodox doctrine of the work of Christ,
and especially of the atonement.
No doctrine of Orthodoxy is more difficult to state to the
satisfaction of the Orthodox than this. The reason is, that
there is no doctrine concerning which the Orthodox differ so
much among themselves. There is no difficulty in stating
the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity ; for this is the same, or
nearly the same, in the symbols of all the Orthodox sects.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is essentially the
same with that of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and
Episcopal Churches. But not so with the doctrine of Christ's
reconciling and atoning work. This has taken every form in
past history, and is altogether unsettled at the present time.
Usually, many views are mingled together in modem Ortho-
doxy ; and while all Orthodox teachers use the same language, ^
speaking of the death of Christ as " atonement," " expiation,"
*' vicarious sacrifice," " sin-offering," " substitution," " satis-
faction," yet they connect with these words very different
ideas. Such is the testimony of an eminent Orthodox divine,
who speaks thus : —
" There is a general concurrence in the words vicarious^
expiation^ offering^ substitute^ and the like, but no agreement
as to the manner in which they are to get their meaning.
Sometimes the analogy of criininal law is taken ; and then
our sins are spoken of as being transferred to Christ, or he
as having accepted them to bear their penalty. Sometimes
236 • ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
the civil or commercial law furnishes the analogy ; and then,
our sins being taken as a debt, Christ offers himself as a ran-
som for us. Or the analogy of the ceremonial law is accepted ;
and then Christ is set forth as a propitiatory or expiatory
offering to obtain remission of sins for us. Regarding Christ
as suffering for us in one or another of these Scripture forms
or figures taken as the literal dogmatic truth, we have as
many distinct theories. Then, again, different as these
figures are from each other, they will yet be used inter-
changeably, all in the sense of one or another of them. And
then, again, to double the confusion yet once more, we have
two sets of represenlationa produced under each, accordingly
as Christ is conceived to offer himself to Jehovah's justice,
or as Jehovah is conceived himself to prepare the offering
out of his own mercy.
"On the whole, I know of no definite and fixed point on
which the Orthodox view, so called, may be said to hang,
unless it be this, viz., that Christ suffers evil as evil, or in
direct and simple substitution for evil that was to be suffered
by us ; so that God accepts one evil in place of the other,
and, being satisfied in this manner, is able to justify or
pardon.
" As to the measure of this evil, there are different opin-
ions. Calvin maintained the truly horrible doctrine, that
Christ descended into hell when crucified, and suffered the
pains of the damned for three days. A very great number
of the Christian teachers, even at this day, maintain that
Christ suffered exactly as much pain as all the redeemed
would have suffered under the penalties of eternal justice.
But this penal view of Christ's death has been gi'adually
giving way, till now, under its most modern, most mitigated,
and least objectionable form, he is only said to have suf-
fered under a law of expression.
" Thus Grod would have expressed a certain abhorrence of
sin by the punishment of the world. Chi'ist now suffers only
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 237
as much pain as will express the same amount of abhorrence.
And considering the dignity of the Sufferer, and his relations
to the Father, there was no need of suffering the same, or
even any proximate amount of pain, to make an expression
of abhorrence to sin, that is, of justice, equal to that pro-
duced by the literal punishment of the race. ' Still, it will be
seen to be a part of this more mitigated view, that Christ
suffers evil as evil ; which evil suffered is accepted as a com-
pensative expression of God's indignation against sin. Ac-
cordingly, in the agony of Gethsemane, and when the Saviour
exclaims in his passion, ' My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?' it will be taken for literal truth, that the
frown of God, or divine justice, rested on his soul.
" II will probably be right, then, to distribute the views
of those who are accepted now as Orthodox teachers, into
two classes — one who consider the death of Christ as avail-
ing by what it is ; the other, by force of what it expresses ;
the former holding it as a literal substitution of evil endured
for evil that was to be endured ; the latter holding it as an
expression of abhorrence to sin, made, through the suffering
of one, in place of the same expression that was to be made
by the suffering of many.
" As regards the former class of representations, we may
say, comprehensively, that they are capable, one and all, of
no light in which they do not even offend some right moral
sentiment of our being. Indeed, they raise up moral objec-
tions with such marvellous fecundity, that we can hardly
state them as fast as they occur to us." *
§ 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine, — But,
notwithstanding the fact that there is such confusion in the
minds of the Orthodox about this doctrine, there is, never-
theless, no doctrine the belief in which is regarded as so
important. With respect to other doctrines, — the Trinity,
* God in Christ, by Horace Baslmell, p. 199^ &o.
238 obthodoxy: its tbuths and errors.
for example, — dogmatic Christianity declares our salvation
to depend upon our belief of it ; but in regard to the atone-
ment, it goes farther, and makes our salvation depend on
using the phraseology of the doctrine. Other doctrines will
save us, on the condition of believing them ; this, on the con-
dition of using the language. If a man shall lead a life of
purity and goodness, but expresses doubts concerning this
doctrine, .his Orthodox friends will have scarcely any hope of
his salvation ; but if the most depraved criminal, after a life
steeped in wickedness, shall merely say on his death-bed,
that he hopes " to be saved by the atoning blood of Christ,'*
he is thought immediately to be on the fair way to heaven.
No matter how good a man is, if he does not accept the Or-
thodox language on this point, his friends fear for him : no
matter how bad he is, if he does accept it, they Aope for him.
There is a sort of magical power attributed to the very words.
They are almost supposed to. act like a talisman or a charm.
Now, while we reject all such superstitious views of the
power of mere words, while we reject all false meaning and
all no meaning, it is proper to think that there may be some
substantial truth in these Orthodox opinions concerning the
atonement. Let us endeavor to find what this vital truth
really is, and why this doctrine is so dear to the heart of
Orthodoxy.
§ 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture. —
Consider the stress laid on the sufferings of Jesus in the New
Testament. Notice what our Saviour says himself: "This
is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." " The bread that I wiU give is
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." " For
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have eternal life." " I am the
good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the
sheep."
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 239
Consider, again, what is said on this subject in the Epis-
tles. " Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth as a mercy
seat through faith in his blood." " When we were enemies
we were reconciled to God hj the death of his Son." " He
died for our sins." " He is sacrificed for us." " He gave
himself for our sins." " We have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sin." " Having made peace
through the blood of his cross." *' He gave himself a ran-
som for all." " He washed us from our sins through his
blood." " By whose stripes we are healed." " Though he
were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he
suffered, and being made perfect, became the author of eter-
nal salvation unto all them that obey him." Again : " But
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that
he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom
are all things, in bringing many sons unto f^lory, to make
the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
" Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconcilia-
tion for the sins of the people. For in th$Jt he himself hath
suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are
tempted."
These are some of the passages which connect the suffer-
ings of Jesus Christ with sin on the one hand, and salvation
on the other.
§ 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Passages, —
There is a difficulty, however, in understanding the mean-
ing and feeling the force of such texts as these. This diffi-
culty consists in the fact that these passages are constantly
quoted as proof texts. From our childhood "up we have
heard them brought forward to prove the truth of su)me
particular doctrine or theory of atoaement, and when V9
240. orthodoxy: its truths and brrorS.
read these verses, we immediately associate them with some
doctrine which we like or dislike. Our feelings and prej-
udices are involved in interpreting the passage one way
or the other, so that we are unable to look at it fairly. In
order to overcome this difficulty, we must make this obvious
distinction. We must distinguish between the statement of
a fact and the theory concerning it. The fact which the
Bible states is simply this — that the sins of man were the
occasion of Christ's death, and that by his death he saves us
from our sin. This is the fact which the Scriptures assert.
The way in which he saves us is a matter of theory. Why
it was that human sin made it necessary for Christ to die,
how it is that his death reconciles us to God, — this belongs
to the theory.
Now, while the Scriptures say a great deal about the fact
that Christ's sujQTerings save us from our sins, they say very
little as regards the way in which they save us from our sins.
§ 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Lan-
guage of the New Testament, — The Scriptures state the fact ;
the theologians have supplied the explanations. Innumera-
ble have been the theories devised by theology to show in
what way the sufferings of Christ have availed for the sal-
vation of men — theories of imputation, theories of substi-
tution, theories of satisfaction. He was punished in our
place ; he paid our debt ; he was our federal head and repre-
sentative ; he satisfied the justice of God ; he appeased the
wrath of God. But especially are the figures and metaphors
of the New Testament pressed into the service of theology,
and made the basis of grave theories. Thus afe metaphors
turned into metaphysics, and rhetoric changed to logic. The
images of the New Testament were naturally taken from
familiar objects and transactions, especially from war, from
slavery, and from the Jewish ritual. Sin is our enemy, who
has conquered us in battle, and made us his prisoners.
Christ redeems us from this captivity, and pays <^ur ransom.
' ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE ATONEMENT. 241
Siu is a cruel master, and we are his slaves. He is about to
torture us with the rod. Christ. comes and takes our punish-
ment on himself. He bears our stripes. According to the
Jewish ritual the paschal feast was a commemoration of
God's mei-cy. It was to the Jews what Thanksgiving Day
is to the people of New England. So the Christians said
Christ is our Passover. In the Jewish ritual God was be-
lieved to manifest himself over the mercy seat in the inner
sanctuary of the temple. The Christians said, Christ is our
mercy seat. All this was natural ; but these images have
been turned into elaborate theories by the theologians who
have argued that Christ's death was a literal ranson, a literal
mercy seat, and a literal passover.
These theories have mostly passed by. The common Or-
thodox theory in New England now is much more reason-
able, but unfortunately much less scriptural. It is founded
on the analogy of human government. God is compared to
a wise and kind ruler, who governs by law, and who wishes
to pardon the penitent criminal, but fears that if he does so,
he will impair the respect felt for his law, and therefore
thinks it necessary to do something to show the evil of dis-
obedience before he can pardon. Christ is willing to die in
order to make this impression on the minds of men. And
this he accordingly does. But unfortunately, as we said,
there is nothing in the Scripture, not even a metaphorical
expression, to support this theory. The apostles did hot
have recourse for their figures and images to such usage of
government, and that for the simple reason that no such
ufiage or necessity then existed. The governments were all
dcjspotic, and no despot, wishing to pardon, had any difficulty
on the ground that the sanctity of his laws might be impaired.
"War, slavery, and the Jewish ritual, and household usages
existed. Their images were taken from these. They spoke
of ransom, of stripes, of the passover, and the mercy seat,
of washing and healing, but not x>f governments and lawg.
21
242 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Sin is our conqueror, and Christ redeems us. Sin is a
slavery, and Christ ransonas us. Sin is defilement, and
Christ washes us. Sin is a disease, and Christ heals us.
All this occurs again and again, but nothing occurs about
constitutional governments, or conflicts between the claimd
of justice and mercy.
§ 6. The three principal Views of the Atonement — trar-
likej legaly and governmental. — Three principal views on
this subject have prevailed in the Christian Church as Or-
thodox. The first may be called the warlike view of Chiist's
work, the second may be called the legal view, and the third
the governmental view. The first was the prevailing Ortho-
dox view from the earliest times till the middle ages, and is
based on the idea of a conflict or war between Christ and
the Devil for the soul of man. The Devil had gained pos-
session of the human race in consequence of its sin. The
right of the Devil over men was fully admitted. Augustine
considered it as the right of property, Leo the Great as the
right of a conqueror. Christ gave his own life to the Devil
as a ransom, which was adequate to redeem the whole race.
This theory rested on the literal interpretation of the words
" ransom " and " redemption." If Christ's death was a ran-
som, if he came " to give his life a ransom for many," the
question naturally arose, ^^From whose power were men re-
deemed, and to whom was the ransom paid ? " Certainly,
men were not redeemed from the power of God. The ran-
som could not- have been paid to God, but to some enemy
who held us as his prisoners. The only possible answer,
therefore, is, that the ransom was paid to the Devil. The
Devil was the cruel tyrant who had enslaved us. He had a
right to do so ; for we had become his slaves through our
sin. But he had no right over Christ, for Christ had comf-
mitted no sin ; so that the death of Christ was a free offering
to the Devil to redeem the race. According to this view,
therefore, the atonement 'was made to the Devil.
OBTHODOZ IDEA OF THB ATONEMENT. 243
Bot Id the middle ages another view of the atonement
became Orthodox, founded not upon the idea of a ransom,
but on that of a debt. According to this view the divine
law requires that the debt which man owes to God, which
ifl perfect obedience, shall be paid, either by himself or by
some one else. Anselm, the founder of this theory, defined
sin '^ as not giving to Grod his due." Man cannot pay this
debt himself, and therefore Christ pays it for him. This is
the legal view of the atonement, or perhaps we might rather
call it the commercial view.
But this theory, after having endured as Orthodox for
some five hundred years, gave place to a third, based not on
the idea of a ransom or of a debt, but of a state necessity. It
would not do for God, as a moral Governor, to forgive sin,
unless by some great example an impression could be made
of the evil of sin. This impression is produced by the death
of Christ, who therefore died not to atone for past sin, but
to prevent future sin, or, in otlier words, to make a moral
impression on the human mind. This is the popular theory
of the atonement held by the Orthodox at the present time.
But it is very much mixed up with the others. The differ-
ent views held by modern Orthodoxy range all the way from
the old Calvinism of Princeton, through the various shades
of New England theology, to the latest form expressed by
Dr. Horace Bushnell in his recent work on ^^ Vicarious
Sacrifice."
§ 7. Impression made by Chrtsfs Death on the 'Minds of
his Disciples, First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, — The sufferings of Jesus produced a wonder-
ful impression on the minds of his disciples. This impres-
sion was compounded of astonishment, tenderness, and grati-
tude. That a man so divine in character, in wisdom, in a
command over nature, should submit willingly to such labgr,
ignominy, and anguish, was a wonder to them. But there
was a mystery of sorrow beneath the visible sorrow, a pain
244 obthodoxt: its truths and erbobs.
within the pain, a depth of grief felt not for himself, but for
others, an anguish on account of the sin of the world, which
especially awed and touched them. Christ plunged into the
midst of sin to save souls, as a hero rushes into the midst
bf burning flames to save lives. No man like Jesus had
ever felt such anguish and horror at the sight of sin ; but
instead of flying from it, he came into the midst of it to save
the sinner. This was the secret of his agony, the bitterness
of his cup. Martyrs at the stake are borne up by their own
triumphant self-approval. But Jesus, in his anguish, did not
think of his own triumph, but the sin and sorrow of those
who afflicted him. " Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for
me, but weep for yourselves and your children." " Father,
forgive them ; they know not what they do." This is the
secret of Christ's anguish — this infinite horror of sin joined
to an infinite love for the sinner.
Through this depth of sorrow there came to the minds of
the apostles a revelation of the evil of sin and the infinite
compassion of God, which produced penitence, hope, and
love. The dying Christ reconciled them to God. This they
felt and declared ; they did not attempt to explain how, but
by images and metaphors drawn from all familiar objects,
they declared that Christ's sorrows more than his glory, his
patience rather than his power, his death more than his life,
had withdrawn their hearts from sin, and given them peace
with God.
One writer alone in the New Testament attempts an ex-
planation of this influence. It is only an attempt, a mere
hint, the germ of a theology : it is found in the Epistle to
the Hebrews.*
According to these passages Christ suffered, — 1. To
learn obedience; 2. That he might thus become perfect;
3. By an entire cultivation of his sympathies with the
tempted ; 4. So as to become to them the author of eternal
salvation by reconciling them to God,
• Heb. 2: 9, 17, 18. 4: 16. 6: 8, 9.
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 245
This, we may observe, so far as it goes, is really a theory
of atonement, and not a mere statement of the fact. More-
over, it seems to us to contain the germ of a far nobler and
deeper theory than any in which the Church has hitherto
believed. It is more human, more rational, connected more
with real experience and the solid facts of life.
§ 8. Value of Suffering as a Means of Education, — The
sufferings of Christ were necessary for his own perfection,
and suffering in some form or other is necessary for all per-
fection. It is often said that suffering in this world is casual,
an accidental thing, arising from human mistakes, and that
the time will come in which man will grow up into perfec-
tion without suffering. A perpetual sunlight is thought to
be- the best condition for the human plant. Pain and want
stunt its growth, winter storms arrest its development ; and
80 it is supposed that if we can get rid of this element of
sufferilig, human beings will soon become all they ought to
be. But the poet speaks more wisely who says, —
(* To each their snfferings : all are men
Condemned alike to groan;
The feeling for another's woes,
The unfeeling for his own."
For suppose that we could remove from the world all
outward evil — get rid of sickness, pain, poverty, death.
Would not the worst part of evil still remain ? "Would not
discontent, selfishness, envy, wilfulness, cruelty, self-indul-
gence continue ? All these exist — perhaps exist most fre-
. quently — where there is the least of outward evil ; and the
outward evil is the bitter medicine which comes by and by
as a cure.
§ 9. The Human Conscience suggests the Need of some
Satisfaction in order to our Forgiveness, — The central idea
of the atonement is, that Christ has done something which
enables God to forgive us our sin ; and the reason why this
doctrine of atonement seems so precious is, that we feel that
21*
246 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
there is a real difficulty in the way of forgiveness, — as if
something else were necessary besides repentance, — as if
some compensation or reparation sliould be made somehow
to the offended law of God, or to the aggrieved holiness of
God. "We do not say that this feeling is a true feeling : that
question we must consider afterwards. But it is, at any rate,
a natural feeling, whether it be founded on our knowledge
of God or our ignorance of God. It is hard to believe that
a man whom we have injured will forgive us that injury
merely because we ask him to do so, and are sorry for what
we have done. We feel that we must make some reparation
before he can or ought to forgive us. Unquestionably, the
conscience is the source of this feeling. It led Zacchens to
say, " If I have done any man wrong, I restore him four-
fold." A full reparation for an injury, accompanied with
Borrow for having done it, the expression of which sorrow is
confession, satisfies the conscience. Having done this, we
feel that we have a right to be forgiven.
But it is very seldom that such full reparation can be
made. The consequences of our wrong acts cannot usually
be removed or effaced. Wrong-doing is like the gate of
hell — easy to open, but difficult, if not impossible, to close
again. " She opened, hut to shut excelled her power." In-
stead of reparation, therefore, the conscience substitutes
retribution — either reparation or the penalty ; and the
natural form of the penalty is an equivalent. Natural jus-
tice says, " An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This
the conscience thinks right ; this is justice. All less thaa
this is mercy ; all more than this is revenge.
We think that if we analyze the feeling which the con-
science gives us concerning the consequences of wrong-doing,
it is this : First, conscience demands reparation to the injured
party ; second, it demands punishment as a satisfaction to be
made to the law of right, and this suffering to be accepted as
just by the guilty party ; and thirdly, it declares that guill
ORTHODOX IITEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 247
should produce au alienation or separation between the guilty
party and those who are not guilty.
To illustrate all this, let us suppose a case. A man, hith-
erto respected and trusted by society commits some great
breach of trust, and robs the community. What does the
conscience in such a case demand? First, that he should
give up his property, and make, if he can, full restitution ;
second, that he should endure some suffering — that he should
not continue to enjoy, as before, all his accustomed privi-
leges ; and third, that he should not retain his standing in
society, and receive, as before, the countenance and esteem
of honorable persons. Conscience requires that he should
make atonement to those he has injured by restitution ; to
the law of right, which he has offended, by suffering some
punishment ; and to honorable men by keeping out of their
way.
This, which the conscience teaches of an injury done to
man, it also teaches of an injury done to God. The offence
against man is a crime; the offence against God is a sin.
For a crime, the conscience requires restitution, punishment
with confession, and alienation from the good, which is
shame. For a sin, the conscience requires, in like manner,
restitution, punishment, and alienation. It merely transfers
to God's justice the ideas of atonement which human justice
has given to it.
But God's justice is not like man's. The ideas of atone-
ment so abstracted are essentially false ; and to convince us
of their falsehood is one of the objects of Christ's death. It
is to show us that God does not demand this full restitution,
does not intend to inflict this punishment, and is not alien-
ated from the penitent sinner. The death of Christ has
done this.
§ 10. How the Death of Jesus brings Men to Ood, — As a
matter of fact, the death of Ctirist has enabled men to come
to God. " They who were afar off are made nigh by the blood
248 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
of Christ." As a matter of fact, it has lifted men above the
fear of God into the love of God. And this must be a
divine work. Not the mere death of the human being could
have done this ; but the God who dwelt in him has uttered
his tender love, his forgiving grace, from the cross. " God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." The
death of Christ is an expression of God's free grace. If we
regard Christ, in his life and character, as a manifestation
of God's will, then his pathetic and tender death reveals to
us that God loves us even when we are sinners, before
reparation or repentance ; " for, while we were sinners,
Christ died for us."
There is, however, a difficulty in believing that we can be
forgiven. This difficulty is in the conscience ; and, —
(a.) To say there i$ no difficulty^ will not remove it.
(&.) To say that repentance and good works are enough,
will not remove it.
(c.) To say that God is merciful j will not remove it ; for
the difficulty lies in the conscience^ which declares that every
sin is, —
1. An injury done to God.
2. An injury to the moral universe ; inasmuch as it is
an example of evil, and a defiance of right. ^
3. An injury to ourselves, by putting us away from God,
the source of life, and alienating us from him.
Now, it is true that the New Testament says, " Repent,
and be converted, and your sins shall be blotted out ; "
" Believe, and be saved." It is true that if we will believe
ourselves forgiven, we shall be forgiven. But how can we
believe it, when the inward voice of conscience is always
saying that God ought not to forgive us without some repa-
ration made for the injury done to himself, to ihe universe,
and to ourselves?
We need something to believe in — some manifestation,
some object. ' Something we need done by God to assure us
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 249
that he is in earnest in desiring us to come and be reconciled
to him.
Now, the sufferings and death of Christ seem to be this
object : they enable us to believe in forgiveness, and so to be
forgiven ; they meet the difficulty of the conscience, and re-
lieve it of its threefold embarrassment. For, in regard to
the injury done to God, Christ's sufferings are substitution,
or vicarious suffering. I do not say vicarious punishment.
The innocent cannot be punished in the place of the guilty ;
but he can suffer, and constantly does suffer, in the place
of the guilty. These two laws are announced in the Old
Testament: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" "The
wickedness of parents shall be on the children." If a man
is alone, he must bear all the consequences of his sins ; but
if he have friends and children, they will relieve him of
Bome by their self-sacrificing kindness : their sufferings take
the place of his punishment. How often a wife does this !
— interposing her sufferings between her husband's sins and
their penalty. And what a profound impression is made by
it of the evil of sin I It torments innocent women and chil-
dren ; it shipwrecks the peace of a family. What an effect
is produced on the man himself I What a reproach and
tender rebuke to him is this ! The sufferings of Christ are
substituted in this way for ours, according to this law ; and
this divine substitution is continued in the sacrifices of Chris-
tians. Missionaries and martyrs, by their zeal, patience,
and generosity, carry out the sacrifice of Christ. This is
God in Christ working in us and in the Church, and working
for sinners.
Then, as to the injury to the world by the contempt sin
does to the law, the sufferings of Christ are satis/action :
they satisfy the divine law ; they make an impression of the
importance of the law. But here, again, it is not merely
Christ alone who does it, but God in Christ, and Christ in
the Church, who honor the divine law by the respect pro-
250 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
duced for it. They bring us to repentance ; they make us
feel the sinfulness of sin ; show us the misery it causes to
those who love us, — how it pains God, pains Christ, pains
the good, and pains our friends. So we feel it, and show it
by true penitence, and so honor the law. The law is sails'
jied when the sufFerings of Christ and. his followers, caused
by sin, lead men to abhor sin, and love righteousness.
As to the injury which sin does to a man himself by sepa-
rating him from God's love, and making him at enmity with
God, and God's wrath on him, the sufferings of Christ are
reconciliation. " God was in Christ, reconciling the world
to himself." Why was God alienated from man ? Because
he is holy. How can an unholy person be at one with a
holy God ? The answer is this : God comes into his heart
by Christ, to form Christ within him, and to make him holy
as Christ was holy. He sees that when united with Christ
his sinfulness is killed in its roots, and a seed of perfect
purity is planted in his soul ; and so God is able to be at one
with him through his union with Christ : " I in them, and
thou in me, that we may be perfectly at one." A love for
Christ in the heart forms Christ within us. He is our life,
our motive power, our aim ; and so he casts out the root of
our sin, and brings us to God.
Thus we see that, even though we should reject all the
Orthodox theories about atonement, we may accept the fact.
We can believe that God in Christ does reconcile the world
to himself, — does create ft sense of pardoned sin, — does
remove the weight of transgression, — does take away the
obstacle in our conscience, — does help us into a living faith,
hope, peace, and joy.
Moreover, Christ is really a sacrifice for sin — a real and
true sin-offering. For what were the sin-offerings under the
law? How did they remove sin? Not by themselves (it
was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to remove
Bin), but because they were an appointment of God, and so
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 251
showed God's disposition. They showed that his holiDess
was displeased with evil ; they showed that he loved th^ sia-
ner, and wished to make him holy. So the death of Christ
is a true sacrifice in exactly the same way, but in a higher
degree, conviiicing us of the evil of sin and the love of God.
The experience of the whole Church teaches the power of
this faith to create in our souls a new life of love. Seeing
God.ccrming to us in Christ to reconcile us to himself, and'
freely forgiving our sins, removes from our hearts doubt,
anxiety, and the burden of hard responsibility, and fills the
soul with a deep peace and joy in believing. So felt the
apostle Peter when the Master forgave him his denial. From
the fountain of that forgiveness flowed forth a river of devo-
tion. So felt Paul when forgiven by Jesus ; so felt Augus-
tine, SQ Ambrose, so Luther, so Wesley : because they had
been forgiven much, they loved much ; for to whom little is
forgiven, the same loveth little.
The practical conclusion is, that it is less important to
speculate as to. the how, than to endeavor to see the fact. What
we need is faith in God's pardoning, redeeming, saving love
in Christ Jesus — faith that our sins are blotted out ; that
we can come at once to our Father ; that we can come bold-
ly to the throne of grace ; that the infinite Father looks at us
with love when we are a great way off, and says, " This my
son was dead, and is alive again ; was lost, and is found."
We may therefore, when we are conscious of going wrong
and of doing wrong, instead of trying to reform ourselves
alone by our own strength, go first to God, and be forgiven
through faith in the great sacrifice of Christ : " Whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation (or mercy seat), through
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis-
sion of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God,
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believ-
eth in Jesus."
§ 11. This Law of Vicarious Suffering universal, — Or-
£52 orthodoxy: its tbuths and errors.
thbdoxy, in all its theories concerning the influence of the
death of Jesus, has supposed his case exceptional and his
work peculiar. It would be very shocking to most Ortho-
dox minds to suppose that the same law of vicarious sacri-
fice applies to others ; that the sufferings and death of the
good, in all ages, have helped to atbne for evil ; have enabled
sinners to obtain pardon. But such, we believe, is the fact.
Jesus Christ came, providentially, as the typical and per-
feet mao — the one who was sent by God, in his providence,
to illustrate what humanity is to be and to do. K this
is so, then Christ did essentially nothing but that which is
finally to be done by aU^ in some degree, or some way. He
is a channel, a mediator, through whom God's life flows into
ours ; but then he makes us also mediators, by whom his life
shall flow to others. He is the image of God ; but every true
Christian is, again, the image of Christ. For what Christ did,
and was, was no afterthought, no exception, but a part of the
plan of the universe. He was " foreordained before the foun-
dation of the world, but manifest in these last times." He was
the " Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.'*
That is, his coming, his character, his death, his resurrec-
tion, his miracles, were all a part of a divine law. And
all God's laws are the same "yesterday, to-day, and for-
ever."
If this were not so, we could not understand Christ, nor
sympathize with him. His life would be, not only super-
natural, which it is, but unnatural, which it is not. His
miracles would be, not what they truly are, — God's higher
life flowing into nature, and the Spirit overcoming the ma-
terial resistance of things, — but they would be magical ; they
would be like sorcery and enchantment — violations of the
course of events.
All of Christ's life, then, is typical of our future lives, in
this world or in some other world. It would be easy to
prove this out of Scripture. Everything asserted of* Christ
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 253
is, somewhere and in some way, asserted also of his disciples,
and of all Christians. Is he said to be one with God? ^' I
and my Father are one." They also are said to be one with
Grod : '^ That they all may be one, as we are one ; I in
them, and thou in me. As thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us."
Was Christ said to know all things ? It is also said of his
disciples, '^ Ye have an unction from the Holy Ghost, and
know all things."
Did Christ work miracles? He says to his disciples,
** Greater works than these shall ye do?"
Did GK>d give to Christ glory which he had before the
world was ? He himself says of his disciples, " The glory
thou gayest me I have given them."
Did Christ rise from the dead into a higher life? We
shall do the same. '^ As we have borne the image of the
earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
Christ, in his high and perfect life, may be regarded
as a prophecy of what man is to become : we may look on
him as a revelation of the higher laws of human nature, as
a type of all humanity.
As regards his atoning death, his reconciling sufferings,
the same thing is true. As he died for man, so must we
die for each other. Thus says the apostle John : " Herein
is love ; not that we loved God, but that • he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved,
if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another."
And again, '^ Because he laid down his life for us, we ought
also to lay down our lives for the brethren."
And Paul, after having spoken of " Christ's having made
peace by the blood of the cross," says of himself that he re-
joices in his own suflferings for their sake — rejoices to " fill
up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ ; " that is, •
make up any deficiency in Christ's suflferings for them.
*' Christ's sufferings," he says elsewhere, " abound in us,"
22
254 obthodoxt: its truths and errors.
his disciples. "We are partakers of his sufferings," says
the apostle Peter. If he thought Christ's sufferings entirely
different in their nature and meaning from all other suffer-
ings, he would scarcely have said that he " partook " of them.
§ 12. This Law illustrated from History — in the Death of
Socratesy Joan of Arc, Savonarola, and Abraham Lincoln^ —
The death of Jesus, therefore, manifested in a higher degree
the same law which is illustrated in the deaths of all good
and great souls, martyrs to a principle, or to an idea. In
proportion to the greatness and universality of the idea, and
the greatness and holiness of the martyr, is the impression
profound. We will give a few instances of this from history,
to see that the death of Jesus was not something wholly out-
side of law, wholly exceptional, but the highest example of
the great effect produced by one who walks straight into
death for a great idea.
The first instance we take shall be that of Socrates. When
we think of Socrates, we think of his death. He, like Jesus,
spent the time before his death conversing with his friends
concerning the highest themes. JEIe talked of immortality
through the long summer day. He showed the superiority
of the soul to the body in which it dwelt ; and he had lost all
fear of dying. He had silenced what Plato calls " the child
within us, who trembles before death." In fact, the whole
tone of his defence before the judges shows that he did not
care to save his life. The verdict of guilty was pronounced
by a majority of five or six, in a vote of five hundred and
fifty-seven dicasts. He made no preparation for his defence,
and said that a blameless life was the best defence. When
he came to speak before those whose vote was to decide on
his life or deaths his speech seems a sort of confidential
clearing of his breast of all his opinions. He declares he
has been the greatest benefactor of Athens. He tells them
they ought not to be offended at the resolute tone of his de-
fence, since i\ would be unmanly for him to beg and plead
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 255
for life ; for his duty was to instruct them, but not to suppli-
cate. It was strange that so small a majority was cast
against him after such a speech. Then the custom required
him to say himself what punishment he should suffer.
His accuser had called for death. If he had named some-
thing less severe, as exile, fine, imprisonment, no doubt his
life had been saved. Instead, he said, ^^ I propose that I be
rewarded as a public benefactor, by being supported at the
public expense, as a teacher of the people. Still, as my
friends wish me to name a fine, I will say thirty minoe.'*
They took this as an insult, and sentenced him to death.
Then he spent his hours in those immortal conversations
which will be remembered when all the rest of the glory and
beauty of Greek literature and art has passed away. Every
moment of his last hours has been carefully recorded ; and
the death of Socrates gave a power to his life, and his life an
influence to his death, which placed him among the names
which will never perish from human memory and gratitude.
There is another name, which comes out of the darkness
and cruelty of the middle ages, with a sweet, serene, and
noble beauty — a pure life glorified by a death of martyrdom.
I mean that of Joan of Arc — the Maid of Orleans. Ou her
trial, the readiness and beauty of her answers astonished her
prejudiced judges. The poor girl, only nineteen years old, a
prisoner in chains, before these doctors and lawyers, showed
as much courage as on the field of battle.
They asked why she let the people kiss her feet and gar-
ments. She answered, '* The poor people came to me be-
cause I did them no wrong, and helped them when I could.*'
"Was it well to attack Paris on Our Lady's day?" "It is
well to keep the festivals of Our Lady always." " Do your
saints love the English ? " " They love what God loves, and
hate what he hates." " Does God hate the English ? "
" As to his love or hate for their souls I know nothing ; but
I know he will drive them from France." " Can you tell
256 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
whether you will escape death?" " That I leave in God's
hands." When she went to death, her purity and truth had
so touched men's hearts that a great tide of remorse and pity
began to swell up against her persecutors. A priest, who
had played the part of Judas, and betrayed her, repented
like Judas, and flung himself down before her, accusing
himself of his treachery. The soldiers who stood by were
melted. They said, " We have burned a saint." The exe-
cutioner declared that God would never forgive him. From
the day of her death, all men began to believe in her holiness
and truth.
Come down to the end of the same century, and take
another instance in Savonarola, the Florentine friar — the
man who was at once the patriot, leading the minds of the
people of Florence to republican institutions ; the reformer,
seeking to root out the abuses of the Church ; and the pro-
phetic teacher^ preacher, religious inspirer. He also climbed
to the height of his glory on his funeral pile. As Athens
was glorified by the death of Socrates, as the Maid of Or-
leans has been a vision of beauty in the square of Kouen,
so the place in Florence where Savonarola was murdered,
in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, is memorable as the scene
of virtue triumphing over its enemies and over evil, when it
seemed to be conquered. That day, also, will never be
forgotten, when he and his two companions walked through
the furious rabble to their death, calm as if to a marriage
feast. Savonarola was so absorbed in the thought of the
life to come, says his biographer, that he appeared already
to have left the earth. He was put to death by the order of
Alexander Sixth, the worst pope and. worst man of modem
times ; but in twenty years Rafaelle was painting the monk's
portrait on the walls of the Vatican by order of another pope.
So it is that death glorifies life. If John Brown had
escaped from his prison, and gone to Canada, what would
have been his influence ? He would only have been remem-
ORTHODOX IDEA OP THE ATONEMENT. 257
bered as a crazy fanatic. But now there remains in all
minds the picture of the old man going quietly and peace-
fully to die, kissing the little negro child on the way, looking
up at the surrounding hills, and admiring the beauty of the
scenery. Death set its seal on tis life, and so his soul be-
came the leader of the armies of the Union, going before
them to victory.
And how much, also, was Abraham Lincoln glorified by
bis martyr death I How he rose at once into a great figure
in history — a monumental form before which enmity was
silenced ! All tnen forgot their hostility, their criticisms,
their sneers — forgot that they had ever done anything but
honor him. The assassin, who thought to revenge the
wrongs of the southern slaveholders on Lincoln, gave to
him a lasting niche in the temple of fame.
Now, we are not by any means comparing the work of
these persons with that of our gi'eat Master, Jesus Christ.
Such is not' our object. We are only pointing out the law
by which a person who has devoted himself to a great cause,
when he comes to die in its service, gives to that cause an
immense help, and seems to sanctify and glorify the cause
and himself. There is a mystery about it which we do not
fully understand, — which is not accounted for by saying
that death proves a man's sincerity, and makes him a more
competent witness, or that death conciliates his enemies, and
puts an end to personal dislike. No ; there is something
more than this. When men live for a cause outside of them-
selves, when they labor for public objects, they are not seen
while they live. Those whose interests are interfered with
by their action, misrepresent them, and surround them with
a cloud of suspicion, jealousy, and slander. When they go
to death for their cause, all these slanderous voices are
hushed, and they emerge from this cloud of prejudice, and
are seen as they are. They are glorified then in their cause,
and their cause is glorified in them. The cause for which
22*
258 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Socrates lived was the education of the people of Athens to
truth and justice. All the Sophists were his enemies. Aris-
tophanes ridiculed him as no other reformer has ever been
ridiculed, holding him up, by his inimitable wit, to the sconi
of the crowded theatre. When he died, and died in the
faith, all this ended. Socrates and his great cause of justice
rose at once, and drew all men to them. So Savonarola,
who lived only with the purpose of helping on the triumph
of pure religion in the Church, and pure liberty in the
state, was mocked and abused in his life ; but his death
made him an undying power, and being dead, he spoke
across the rapid years to Martin Luther and the reformers
who came after. John Brown lived and died for universal
freedom ; Abraham Lincoln lived and died for the existence
and deliverance of the nation. Of them, exactly as of
Christ, we may say that when they died the hour came for
them to be glorified. They died, and they rose again. The
resurrection, in these instances, came close after the cruci-
fixion ; not seen in their cases, as in that of Jesus, by the
visible eye, but essentially the same thing inwardly as his.
They and their cause went wp, instead of going down, by
their death. When they were lifted up, they drew all men
to them. In all such deaths, also, there is a certain atoning,
reconciling influence. Death brings together, in harmony,
conflicting interests ; it silences hatreds, and breaks down
many a partition wall of separation.*
The difference between Christ's death and all of these is,
that Christ lived and died not merely for popular education,
* No sooner was Socrates dead than he rose to be the chief figcare in Greek
history. What are Miltiadcs, Pericles, or Alcibiades to Iiim? Twenty years
after Joan of Arc was burned by a decree of the Roman Catholic Church, the
same Church called a council to reconsider and reverse her sentence. Twenty
years after the death of Savonarola, Kulaelle painted his portrait among the
great doctors, fathers, and saints in the halls of the Vatican. Within a few
years after John Brown was hanged, half a million of soldiers marched through
the South chanting his name in tlielr songs. Abraham Jjincoln was killed,
and he is now the most inHucntitU ligurc iu our history.
ORTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 259
for patriotism, for philanthropy, but to be the power of God
for the salvatiou of the world ; to found a universal religion
of love to God and man ; to reveal God as a Father, not a
King ; to show man to man as brother. But the effect of
his death, as in all these other cases, was simply to glorify
his life and his cause. The same law worked in his case
and in theirs, only on a higher plane, and for a vastly greater
object.
We may observe that most of the passages concerning the
effect of Christ's death are from the apostle Paul. They are
written thirty^ years after that death by one who probably
had never seen him, at least never knew him. But Paul
had seen the actual effect of the death of Jesus on the minds
and hearts of the people. It was a reconciling effect ; it did
away with their hatred to his religion, and enabled them to
see it, and be led by it to God. It made ^^ those who wer^
afar off, nigh." It made peace between man and God, —
between man and man. When Jesus died, men's eyes
seemed at once to open, and they saw for the first time the
beauty and holiness of his life. His death, therefore, did
what his life had not done. We, misled by a false theology,
imagine Paul to be speaking of some transcendental transac-
tion in the spiritual world by which the death of Jesus acted
on God's mind to make him placable ; whereas, in truth, he
is speaking of the simple historic fact that the death of
Christ did draw men to his religion, and so to God ; did,
•therefore, bring them to see God's forgiving love ; did unite
them with each other. So Paul says that he ^^ is not
ashamed of the cross of Christ," — not ashamed of the fact
that Christ was hanged as a malefactor, since that very death
was the power of God to bring man to salvation. It made
men just, and kind, and true, and so was the power of God.
§ 13. Dr. BushndVs View of the Atonement, — In his
book, lately published, Dr. Bushnell teaches that the vicari-
ous sacrifice of Jesus consists in his sympathy with sinners.
260 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
He suffers with them and for them, as a friend suffers for a
friend, or a mother for a' child, — in the same way, and in
no exceptional or uncommon way. He did not die officially,
but naturally. He did not come here to die, but he died
because he was here.
We are persuaded that this is the right view. We are
sure that one day we shall all see that Christ's sufferings
and death, and their influence, are as simple, as natural, as
wholly in accordance with human nature, as that of any
other saint or martyr ; that the difference is of degree, not
of kind ; and Christ will go before the world, its great Re-
deemer and Leader, all the more certainly because one of
us, — educated, as we are, by trial and sorrow ; tempted as
we are, but without sin ; crying out, as we do, from the
depths of our despair, " My God I why hast thou forsaken
me ? " and rising, as we do, through death to a higher life,
through sorrow to a completer joy, through the pains of
earth to the glories of heaven. " For it became him for
whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing
many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation
perfect through suffering ; wherefore in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful High Priest ; for in that he himself hath suffered,
being tempted, he is able also to succor those who are
tempted. For we have not a High Priest who cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was m all
POINTS TEMPTED AS WE ARE, yet without siu ; who can hav»
compassion on the ignorant, as he also himself is compassed
with infirmity, and though a Son, yet learned obedience by
the things he suffered."
§ 14. Results of this Discussion. — The Orthodox doctrine
of the atonement contains a fact and a theory which ought to
be carefully discriminated. The fact asserted by Orthodoxy
is, that Jesus Christ has done something by means of which
we obtain God's forgiveness for our sins. The theory at-
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 261
tempts to explain what is the difficulty in the way of our
forgiveness, and how Christ removes it. Thus Orthodoxy
attempts to answer three questions: ''What?" "Why?"
and " How? " The first of these regards the fact. " What
has Christ done?" And the answer is, that he has brought
to man forgiveness of sin. The second and third questions
regard the theory. *' Why was it necessary for Christ to do
and suffer what he did?" and, ^^How did he accomplish his
work?"
Now, as concerns the matter of fact. Orthodoxy is in full
accordance with the Scriptures, which everywhere teach
that through Christ we have redemption, through his blood,
even the forgiveness of our sins. But the Scriptures are
perfectly silent concerning the theory. They do not tell us
why it was necessary for Jesus to die, nor how his death
procured forgiveness. The only exception is, as we have
seen, in the statement, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the
sufferings of Christ were necessary to make him perfect, and
to enable him to be touched with a feeling of our infirmities.
Of the three theories which in turn have been regarded as
Orthodox in the Church, two have completely broken down,
and the third rests on such an insecure foundation that we
may be very sure that it will follow the others as soon as
any better one comes to take its place. The warlike theory
and the legal theory of the atonement have gone to their
place, and are no more believed by men. The governmental
theory must soon follow.
Nevertheless, in each of these three theories there is
one constant element. And it is due to Orthodoxy to state
it. This element is, that the necessity of the death of Christ
lay in the divine attribute of justice. According to the first
theory, Christ died to satisfy what was due by God to the
Devil ; according to the second, he died to satisfy what was
due by God to himself; according to the third, he died to
satisfy what was due by God to the moral universe. Divine
262 obthodoxt: its truths and erbobs.
justice, in the first theory, owed a ransom to the Devil, which
Christ paid; in the second, it owed a deht to the divine
honor, which Christ paid ; in the third, it owed protection to
the universe from the danger of evil example.
The difficulty to be removed before God can forgive sin,
lay, according to all of these theories, in the divine justice.
Christ died to reconcile justice and mercy, so as to make jus-
tice merciful, and mercy just.
But, in opposition to this view, the Unitarian argument is
so formidable as to seem quite unanswerable. , On grounds-
of reason, the Unitarian maintains that there can be no such
conflict among the divine attributes, waiting till an event
should occur in human history by which they should be recon-
ciled. That God's justice and mercy should have been in a
state of antagonism down to A. M. 4034, when Jesus died, is
an incredible supposition. No event taking place in time and
space can be the condition sine qua non of divine perfection.
And any struggle or conflict like that supposed implies im-
perfection.
Moreover, the Unitarian truly maintains that the Orthodox
theory that men cannot be forgiven on the simple condition
of repentance, is wholly unscriptural. The Scriptures plainly
teach that forgiveness follows repentance. In the classic pas-
sage of the Old Testament (Ezek. 18 : 20-32), the Jews
were taught, unequivocally, that the death which is the wages
of sin, is always removed by the simple act of repentance.
If the modern doctrine of Orthodoxy be true, that in order to
be saved it is necessary not only to repent, but also to believe
in the atoning sacrifice, the Jews were fatally misled by this
teaching of the prophet.
And so in the New Testament, the parable of the prodi-
gal son teaches us plainly that when we repent and return to
God, we shall be received, and that without any reference to
belief in the atonement.
Moreover, the Unitarians are fully justified in saying that
OBTHODOX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 263
the New Testament nowhere asserts that the primary and
immediate influence of the death of Jesus is upon the divine
attributes. In every instance Christ is said to reconcile us
to God, never to reconcile God to us. (See Bom. 5 : 10,
11; 11:15. 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, 20. Eph. 2:13, 16.
Coloss. 1 : 20, 21. 1 Peter 3 : 18.) It is we " who were
afar off, and have been made nigh, by the blood of Christ."
It is we, " who, when we were enemies, were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son ; " not God, who was afar off,
who has been brought nigh to us ; not God, who has been
reconciled to us. It is " we, who have received the atone-
ment." Christ has suffered for sins, " to bring vs to God,"
not to bring God to us. All this is plain, positive, and un-
equivocal.
And yet, notwithstanding that the Old and New Testa-
ments declare the forgiveness of sin to the penitent, we never-
theless find a difficulty in believing it. It seems as if God
ought not to. forgive us our sins on so simple a condition.
And it is on this very feeling that the whole Orthodox theory
of the atonement rests.
The explanation of this is, that man is obliged to under-
stand God by himself. Since man was made in the image
of God, he can know God only by understanding the moral
and spiritual laws of his own soul. Now, in himself, he
finds the constant antagonism of truth and love, justice and
mercy, conscience and desire.. From this essential original
antagonism of truth and love spring all the moral conflicts
which make cases of conscience. Whenever we see before
us a divided duty, on being analyzed, it resolves itself into
this conflict between truth and love. We naturally, and
almost necessarily, transfer this same conflict to the mind of
G^d. Whenever we wish to forgive an offender, but feel as
if we ought not to do so, we teach ourselves to regard God
as Teeling the same difficulty. Conscience tells us that we
are not fit to be forgiven, that it would be wrong for God to
264 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
forgive us. Orthodoxy plants itself on this instinct, and
elaborates its various theories, which men accept for a time
as a sufficient explanation of their difficulty, and then reject
when their inconsistencies appear. The deep-lying difficulty
is the sense of our want of holiness, and the instinctive
feeling of the eternal mutual repulsion of good and evil.
Since God is good, and we are evil, how can he forgive us?"
If forgiveness merely meant the remitting of penalty, it might
be done after sufficient expiation. If forgiveness meant lay^
ing aside of anger, we can well believe that God cannot
retain wrath against his children. But forgiveness means
communion, the mutual love of father and child, the being
always in the presence of God. And for this, even after we
have repented, and are endeavoring to do right, we do not
feel ourselves qualified.
This is the real difficulty. Christ did not die to pay a debt
to God, or to appease his wrath, but " to bring us to God,"
and to put the Spirit into our heart by which we can say,
"Abba, Father ! " The atonement is made to the divine jus-
tice — but not to distributive justice, which rewards and
punishes, but to divine justice in its highest form, as holiness*
And this consists in making us fit to appear before God,
notwithstanding our sinfulness, because we have received a
principle of holiness which will ultimately cast out all our
sin. When we have faith in Christ, we have Christ formed
within us, the hope of glory. God, looking on us, sees us
not as we are now, but as we shall be when we are changed
into that same image from glory to greater glory.
This suggests the theory which may replace the rest, and
reconcile all those who believe in Christ as the Saviour and
Redeemer of men. Christ saves us by pouring into us his
own life, which is love. When Christian love is formed
within us, it has killed the roots of sin in the soul, and fitted
us to be forgiven, and to enter the presence of God.
In conclusion, we may say that Orthodoxy is right in
ORTHO]>OX IDEA OF THE ATONEMENT. 265
maintaining that Jesus has by his sufferings and death
brought forgiveness to mankind — not by propitiating God
or appeasing his anger, not by paying our debt or removing
a difficulty in the divine mind, but by helping us to see that
the love of God is able to lift us out of our sin, and present
us spotless in the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.
The way in which his death produces this result is the sym-
pathy ^ith human sinfulness and sorrow, which finds in it
its highest expression. Those whom men cannot forgive,
and who cannot forgive themselves, see that God, speaking
through the sufferings of Jesus, is able to forgive them. So
the love of God brings them to repentance, and those who
were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
23
266 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
CHAPTER XI.
CALLING, ELECTION, AND REPROBATION.
§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine. — The Assembly's Catechism,
with its usual frankness, states this doctrine thus:—-*
(chap. 3).
I. " God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain what-
soever Cometh to pass, yet so that neither is Grod the author
of sin, nor is violence offered to the wilj of the creatures, nor
is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away,
but rather established.
II. " Although God knows whatsoever may or can come
to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed
anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which
would come to pass upon such conditions.
in. " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his
glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasti
ing life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. " These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and
their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either
increased or diminished.
V. " Those of mankind tliat are predestinated unto life,
God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according
to his eternal and imnmtablc purpose, and the secret counsel
and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, with-
out any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance ia
either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as condi-
CALUNG, ELECTION, AND REPROBATION. 267
lions or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise
of His glorious grace.
VI. " As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath
he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-
ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are
elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Clirist ; are
effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working
in due^ season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by
his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,
sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. " The rest of mankind God was pleased, according
to the unsearchable counsel of Iiis own will, whereby he eX-
tendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory
of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to
ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise
of his glorious justice."
This statement is contained in the creed of more than three
thousand churches in the United States. So far as it is be-
lieved by those who profess it, it conveys the idea of a God
who is pure will — a God, in short, who does as he pleases,
saving some of his creatures and damning others, without
reason or justice. He does not reward virtue nor punish
sin, but scatters the joys of heaven and the torments of hell
out of a mere caprice, as an Eastern despot gives a man a
purse of gold, or inflicts the bastinado, without reason, sim-
ply to gratify his sense of power. The essential character
of such a Being is arbitrary will, and this creed of Calvinism
places an infinite caprice on the throne of the universe, in- ^
stead of the Being whom the Gospels call *' Our Father."
Let us see how far this view of God is mitigated by mod-
ern explanations.
The Old School Presbyterianism, or Princeton Orthodoxy,
accepts it in its entireness. They simply deny the conse-
quences supposed to. be drawn from it. They deny that it
268 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
makes God the author of sin, or that sinful dispositions are
created by God. They deny that this doctrine interferes
with freedom of will in man. But they are obliged to admit
that, according to their creed, God decrees things which he
forbids ; for, " inasmuch as many things occur contrary to
his commands, while yet he foreordains all things, it must
be that in these cases he purposes one thing and commands
another." * In other words, God sends his prophets, aiyj apos-
tles, and Son, to command men to do justly and love mercy,
when he has already determined that they shall commit sin.
This school rejects the Arminian doctrine that God's decree
is founded on his foreknowledge, and asserts that his fore-
knowledge is based' on his decree.
The Old School in New England do not go quite so far as
Princeton. They say, decidedly, that God foreordains sin
only by permitting it. Still, they reject, as stoutly as their
sterner confreres^ the Arminian view, and insist that God's
decrees are not based on his foreknowledge ."f
According to Dr. Duffield, of Detroit, the New School
Presbyterians escape the pinch of this conflict by taking
refuge in their ignorance. They are not " Ultra-Calvinists,"
and they are not " Arminians," and especially they " do not
wish to be wise above what is written." J Dr. D. asserts
that the Old School makes the decree in election to be wholly
arbitrary, while the New School believes that it has a reason,
though one wholly unknown. But the Hopkinsians§ say
that " the sovereignty of God belongs to him as the Supreme
Disposer, and t^onsists in his perfect right and perfect ability
* *» Doctrinal Attitude of Old School Prosbjrtcrians.*' By Lyman B. At-
water, Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Princeton College. Bib-
liotheca Sacra, January, 1864.
t ** The Old School in New England Theology." By Professor Lawrence, of
East Windsor. Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1863.
X *' Doctrines of the New School Presbyterians." By Rev. George Doflkeld,
D. D., of Detroit. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1863.
§ ** Hopkinsianism." By Bev. Enoch Pond, D. D., Professor in Bangor
Theological Seminary. Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1862.
CALLING, ELECTION, AND BEPBOBATION. 269
to do as he pleases." Of course, having made the will of
God wholly arbitrary, they proceed to deny that it is arbi-
trary, or that wilfulness in God can possibly be wilful. But
all this is using '^ words of wind for the Almighty," and
*^ accepting his person."
Methodism, on the contrary, denies that God foreordains
whatsoever comes to pass, holding foreordination to be a
causative act.* It also denies that man is guilty for inher-
ited sin, or in any way responsible for his depraved nature.
He only becomes responsible when he begins to act freely.
He may suffer for inherited evil, but cannot justly be pun-
ished for it. Thus Methodism avoids the rude injustice of
the Calvinistic system. And yet, as Schleiermacher has
shown,! if it accepts total depravity, it must also consistently
accept the Calvinistic doctrine of election. For if man is
totally depraved, he cannot take a single step towards his own
salvation. God must, in every case, take the initiative, and
begin the conversion of each man who is converted. There-
fore, if we ask why one man is converted, and another not,
the only answer possible is this — that God chose to convert
one, and not th*e other. Schleiermacher accepts and defends
the doctrine of election, but by connecting it with that of
universal restoration, which reduces it to the statement that
God saves all, but in a certain order, which order is deter-
mined by himself, without regard to any foresight of merit or
demerit in man.
• § 2. Scripture Basis for this Doctrine, — The principal
passages relied upon for the doctrine of absolute decrees are
found in Kom. 8 : 30, and 9 : 8-24. In these passages, Paul
is, no doubt, speaking of an unconditional election. In the
* <*DoetrineB of Methodism.'* By Bey. Dr. Whedon. Bibliotheca Sacra,
April, 1862.
t ** Theologische Zeitecrift.*' Herausgegcben yon Dr. Friedr. Sohleienna-
cber, Dr. W. M. L. DeWette, and Dr. Friedr. LUcke. Erstes ^eft, Berlin,
1819. Ueiber die Ldire von der EnedMung,
23*
270 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
first, he declares that the gift of Christianity to those who
received it was no accident. God had known them long ago
as individuals, known them before they were born, known
the character they were to have. He had foreordained them
to become Christians, to be made into the likeness of Christ.
He had callc.d them to be Christians by his providence ; he
had forgiven them their sins ; he had glorified them, filling
tliem with the glory of the new life of faith and love. In
the other passage, Paul shows the Jews that God selects
races and families, not according to any merit of theirs, but
for reasons of his own, to do his work. Ishmael as well as
Isaac was a child of Abraham, but Isaac was selected.
Esau as well as Jacob was a child of Isaac, but Jacob was
selected. It is no merit of the man which causes him to be
chosen, no .fault which causes him to be rejected, but that
one is made for the work, and the other not. One is in-
fluenced to obey aild serve ; one is allowed to resist God's
will ; and yet both of them — he who obeys and he who
resists — serve the divine purpose. The Jewish Christians,
therefore, may believe that their nation, in resisting Christ, is
blindly serving the providential designs of Gfed, and mak-
ing way for the Gentiles to come in ; and then, the Gentiles,
in turn, will help them to come in, " and so all Israel shall
be saved." But in neither of these passages is any reference
to final salvation or damnation. All that is spoken of is the
predestined and divinely arranged order, the providential
method, in which gifts are bestowed and opportunities of-'
fcrcd. In fact, in Rom. 11 : 28, election is formally opposed
to the gospel. As regards the gospel, or the reception of
Christianity, the Jews are enemies ; that is, are lefl out of the
circle of God's gifts, in order that the Gentiles may come in.
But as regards the election, they arc still tlie chosen people,
inheriting all the qualities, powers, position, which their
fathers hatd before them, since God never takes back his
CALUNG^ ELECTION, AND REPBOBATION. 271
gifts.* So also in Ephesians 1:5, 11, Paul says that we,
Christians, have been chosen in Christ before the foundation
of the world, and predestined to be adopted as children, and
obtained an inheritance in Christianity. But niBither here is
anything intended concerning final salvation. It all refers tc
their having received the gift of Christian faith, in the plac
of God, by a wise providence of his, and not by accident.
So also, in Timothy (2 Tim. 1:9), Paul says that God hath
saved us out of the world, and called us to be Christians, not
because of any merit of ours, but simply according to a
gracious purpose which he always had, that the Gentiles
should come into his kingdom with the Jews. In none of
these passages is any final doom or destiny hereafter intended :
(dl of them refer to the gift of Christianity in this world.
The apostle softens the exultation of the Gentiles, and consoles
the sorrow of the Jewish Christians, bjr telling them that the
acceptance of the Gentiles and rejection of the majority of the
Jews is part of a great plan of Providence, which will finally
redound to the good of b^th.
§ 3. Relation of the Divine Decree to Human Freedom. —
In order that God shall be the Ruler of the world, and its
providence, he must know the course of events, and deter-
mine them. In order that man shall be responsible, and a
moral being, he must be free to choose, at every moment,
between right and wrong, good and evil. In part of his
nature and life, map is a creature of destiny ; in part, he is
the creator of destiny. Every man's character is the result
of three factors — organization, education, and freedom. The
character he has now has come to him, partly from the
organization with which he was born, partly from the in-
fluences by which he has been educated, and partly from what
* Kom. 11 : 29. ** The gifts and callmge of God are without repentance." By
this we understand tlio apostle to mean the same thing as is implied in Eccle-
Biastcs (3 : 14) : •' I know that what God doeth, it is forever." God, having
chosen the Jews for a work, will continue to them the giftsj and will see that
lomehow or other, some time or other, the work is done.
tt
272 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
he has done or omitted to do at every moment of his life.
Now, the two first of these factors are out of his power. A
man born in Africa, oi* descended from Chinese pai ents, can-
not, by any choice or effort, become what a man born Df French
or German parents may become. A man bom among the
Turks or Arabs, and educated by the circumstances surround-
ing him there, must be a wholly different man from one bom
in New England. Man's freedom, therefore, may be likened
to the power of the helmsman to direct a vessel. He cannot
determine what sort of a vessel he shall be in, nor. what sort
of weather or currents shall come : all he can do at any mo-
ment is to steer it to the right or lefl. K, now, in steering, he
guides himself by a compass turning to a fixed point, and by
a chart giving the true position of continents and islands, then
this power enables him, in spite of storms and calms, to take
the vessel round the world, to the harbor he seeks. But if he
has no chart and compass, but steers as he chooses from
moment to moment, he goes nowhere. His vessel will then
drift before the steady winds and instant currents. So is
human freedom a great power when it guides itself by eternal
truths and fixed laws. But if it does not, then it is not free-
dom, but only wilfulness, and it accomplishes nothing. Man^s
freedom is thus surrounded by divine providence. God de-
termines the original organization of every human being;
God determines the circumstances which educate him ; and
God has fixed the laws by which he must guide himself in
order to become really free. He cannot therefore resist the
divine will, except temporarily. He can postpone the time
when God's kingdom shall come, and his will be done ; but
that is alL
§ 4. History of the Doctrine of Election and Predestine^'
tion, — Before Augustine, all the Greek and Latin Fathers of
the Church taught the concurrence of free will and grace in
human conversion. They taught that man must begin the
CALLING, ELECTION, AND BEPROBATION. 273
work, and that God would aid him. God and man must
work together.
Then came the controversy between Augustine and Pela-
gius. The latter, beiog at Rome, heard this sentence read
fi*oni the writings of the former : " Da quod juhes, et juhe
quod vis" — Give what thou commandest, and command
what thou wiliest. Pelagius objected to this formula. He
said, '^ Since man ought to be without sin, he can be without
sin." " There is," said he, " in man, a ' Gan Do* a ' Will
Do^ and a ''Do.*'* The first is from God; in the others
God and man unite. *
Augustine objected that God worked in us both to will and
to do. He had first taught that God sends motives which we
can obey or resist ; but he saw that if God works in us to
will, he must also conquer our resistance, and work the power
by which we consent.
But to this Pelagius replied, *' Then there is no freedom
in man."
Augustine answered, *' God does not move us as we move
a stone, but rationally ; he makes us will what is good, and
does not force us against our will. He frees the will from
its proclivity to evil, by ' preparing grace,' and determines it
to good by ' effecting grace.' That some do not yield to this,
is not because of their greater resistance, but because God
does not choose to conquer their resistance."
This is the point where grace passes into predestination.
The Old Church had maintained that God predestined to
life those whom YiQ foresaw would repent and obey him. His
foreknowledge did not cause this to happen, but he foreknew
it because it would happen. It did not take place because
he foresaw it, but he foresaw it because it would take place.
Election, according to the early Fathers, was nothing arbi-
trary. It depended on man to be saved or lost. So taught
Justin Martyr, Origen, Basil, Hilary.
Basil said, " God hardened Pharaoh's heart by his judg-
274 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
meuts, which were sent to show how bard it was, becaase
he saw he would not repent."
Origen adds, " Like a wise physician, God did not cure
Pharaoh too soon, for fear of a relapse. He let him drink
the cup of sin to the bottom in this life, so as to cure him
more thoroughly hereafter."
Felagius (and Augustine at first) took 'the same view.
They said that God foresees and permit^ evil,, and deci'eef)
the consequence of it.
Augustine said, ^^ God has chosen some men in Christ, not
because he foresaw they would be good, but because he dc/-
termined to make them so." The reason of this choice,
therefore, lay not in man, but in God's arbitrary will.
Felagius said, '^ This is fatalism, under the name of grace,
and is saying that God accepts the persons of men."
Augustine answered, " All men in Adam are in ruin. God
saves some of them. If he let all die, we could not blame
him : how much less for saving some ! "
But why does he not save all ? The answer is, —
Because the elect see in the fate of the non-elect what
they have escaped, and, God's justice is revealed with his
goodness.
None of the elect perish, though they may die unbaptized,
and be ever so bad in their lives ; but they will be all con-
verted before they die.
The non-elect may be often better men than the elect ; but
they will not be saved.
The only place where Augustine allows freedom is in
Adam, who might have turned either way.
Semi-Pelagianism consists essentially in saying, ^'Man
begins the work ; God aids him."
Augustine's view was carried out afterwards thus: "If
God does all, it is no use to preach, exhort, or read Scrip-
ture, or use any means of grace."
Augustine had said that reprobation was not a decree to
sin, but to punishment.
CALLING, ELECTION, AND BEPBOBATION. 275
But Gottscbalk, his follower, said it was a decree to sin.
The Church rejected this statement, and sofleued the doc-
trine. Thomas Aquinas revived it again.
Luther and Calvin both maintained that there is no good
in man afler the fall. Flacius said that original sin is the
substance of human nature, and human nature now bears the
linage of the deviL
Luther made freedom of the will to consist in doing evil
with pleasure, and not by constraint.
Calyin denied that there is any free will. " Why give it
such a lofty title ? " he said. He seemed to think that aU the
power left to men is so much taken from God.
When God says, ^^ Do this and live," it is, says Luther,
merely irony on his part, as though he had said, '^ See if you
can do it 1 Try it."
. Luther actually taught that God's will in revealed Scripture
was, that all should be saved, but his real and secret will was,
that not all should be saved.
Melancthon said, '^ Man has no power by himself to do
right ; but when grace is offered, he can receive it or re-
ject it."
Calvin went beyond Augustine. He taught that,—
1. The decree of predestination was not merely a decree
to punishment, but to sin. He rejects with scorn the distinc-
tion between permitting and causing, between foreknowledge
and predestination. He says it is improper to have Gk>d's
decree waiting on men's choice.
2. He taught that Adam's sin was decreed by God. The
Infralapsarian taught that God foresaw that Adam would
sin, and so decreed some men to life, and others to death.
The Supralapsarian taught that God determined to reveal
his majesty, and mercy, and justice. He created men, and
made them miserable to show his mercy, and made them
sinful to show his justice.
d. If men complain that God has so created them, Calvin
276 obthodoxy: its truths and ebbobs.
.answers, God has the same right that the potter has over the
clay. If they complain that God has chosen some, and not
others, to life, he replies, that so oxen, horses, and sheep
might complain that they were not men.
4.. God causes the sin which he forbids. This is not a
contradiction in him, for his nature is different from ours.
God created all for his own glory, and sinners to glorify
his justice.
Finally, Calvin himself admits that this is "a horrible
decree." •
J 5. ElectionAs to Work and Opportunity here^ not to Heaven
hereafter. How Jacob was elected, and how the Jews were a
Chosen People, — This reductio ad ahsurdum disproves the
common idea of election. If a man were elected by God
to heaven, and so could not help going to heaven, it would
not be worth his while to give diligence to make his call-
ing and election sure. It is sure already, without any dili-
gence.
. The common Orthodox idea of election is, therefore, a
false one. God does not elect, or choose us, for passive
enjoyment, but for active duty. He elects us to opportuni-
ties. He elects, or, as we may say, selects, us for certain
special work, gives us certain special privileges, and holds
us to an accountability for the use of them.
In the parable of the talents, God elected, or selected, one
man to the possession of five talents, another to the possession
of two, and another one. Each was elected ; but each was
elected to opportunities, and each to a different opportunity ;
but they all had to give diligence to make theii* calling aud
election sure.
The word " elect " was first applied to the Jews. They
were an elect or chosen people. They were selected from
among all nations for a great duty and opportunity. They
were taught the unity of God and his holiness. They were
a city set on a hill, a light shining in the darkness of the
CALUNG, ELECTION, AND REPROBATION.' 277
world, to proclaim these truths. That was their opportunity.
It was not happiness, or heaven, or even goodness, that they
were chosen for, but work. As long as they continued to
do this work, they continued to be God's chosen or selected
people. But when they hardened into the bigotry of Phari-
seeism, and froze into the scepticism of Sadduceeism, when
they ceased to do the work, then they ceased to be the elect
people. While they were diligent to make their election
Bare, they were the elect, but no longer.
God selected Jacob and rejected Esau. ^^ Jacob have I
loved, and £sau have I bated." But how did God love
Jacob? He loved him by giving him opportunity. And
why ? Not because he was better than Esau, but because
he was different. Jacob was selected to be father of the
chosen people because he had the qualities required for his
work. Esau was wild, reckless, martial. Jacob was indus-
trious, money-making, fond of small trade ; pastoral, rather
than warlike ; tenacious of his ideas even to obstinacy.
These were the qualities required in a people who were so
few that if they had been warlike they would have been
swept from the earth* They never fought for the pleasure
of fighting, but only when they could not help it, or when a
political necessity compelled it. Though surrounded by
nations much more powerful than themselves, — the Assyr-
ians on the north-east at Nineveh, the Egyptians on the
south-west, the Babylonians on the east, the Tyrians on the
west, and the Greeks on the north-west, — they saw the fall
of all these great nations and empires, but they continued.
IVIany waves of war swept over their Syrian hills, and left
them still there, peaceful, industrious, worshipping Jehovah
in their sacred city, offering no motive for conquest, too
poor to tempt invasion, too far from the sea to grow rich by
commerce, like the Phoenicians. Tlieir obscurity, poverty,
and unheroic qualities were their salvation, and these they
derived apparently from Jacob, their ancestor.
24
278 • ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Thus we see that the Jews were a chosen people, and we
see what they were chosen for, and also that they were
chosen not because of superior virtue, but for sapenor
i^apacity.
§ 6. How other Nations were elected and called. —
Other nations were chosen, too, for other purposes.* The
Greeks also were a chosen people — chosen to develop the
idea of beauty, as the Jews that of religion. Their mission
was beauty in art and in literature. It was no accident that
they came as .they did from confluent races, flowing together
from India and Phoenicia, and settling in that sweet climale
and romantic land, where the lovely ^gean, tossing its soft
blue waters on the resounding shore, tempted them to navi-
gation, and awakened their intellect by the sight of many
lands. There they did their work. They made their calling
and election sure. Greek architecture — one birth of beauty
afler another — was born. Athens was crowned with marvel-
lous temples, whose exquisite proportions amaze and charm us
to-day — inimitable creations of beauty. Homer came, and
then epic poetry was bom. ^schylus and tragedy came ;
Pindar and the lyric song ; Theophrastus and pastoral music ;
Anacreon and the strain which bears his special name. And
80 Phidias and his companions created sculpture, Herodotus
history, Demosthenes oratory, Plato and Aristotle philoso-
phy, Zeuxis painting, and Pericles statesmanship. This was
their election, and they made it sure.
The Romans also had their chosen work. They were
elected to develop the idea of i«AW. A prosaic people,
but filled with notions of justice, they developed jurispru-
dence. To show that a nation can be governed not by des-
potic will, nor by popular will, but by law, — this was the
office of Rome. As long as it did this work it prospered ;
when it ceased to do it, it fell. All other races, no doubt,
have their special calling too. Some make it sure ; others
seem to fail of making it sure, and so disappear. Thus the
CALUNO, ELECTION^ AND BEPBOBATIOK. 279
election of the Jews shows a principle of God's government,
and is not an exceptional case.
That which is true of nations and races is also true of
religions and of Christian denominations. All Christians
are a chosen people. Thej are chosen for the work of
teaching to the human race the great doctrines of the father-
hood of God and the brotherhood of man. Other religions
were sent to men too. Mohammed had his mission — to
convert the idolatrous Arabs to Monotheism. The religions
of Asia were intended to prepare the way for Christianity
by teaching the elementary ideas of religion and morality.
§ 7. How differefU DenomincUions are elected, — Every
great denomination, and small ones, too, are chosen to un-
fold some one Christian idea. The Catholic Church was
chosen to carry forward the great central idea of unity —
one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But the Catholic Church
is not catholic enough : it has turned itself into a sect by
excluding th&se who could not accept all its statements and
methods, though they accepted Christ. The Jewish Church
committed the same mistake. When it became narrow,
bigoted, exclusive, it lefl its first love ; it then ceased to
enlarge itself, and was obliged to disappear. The Jewish
religion, and all positive religions, are like vases in*' which a
plant is growing. While the plants are young, they hold
them easily ; but as the plants grow, the vases, incapable of
expansion, are shivered by the enlarging roots. So that,
unless the. Roman Catholic Church can be liberalized and
enlarged, it must break to pieces.
Whatever is said of Jews as the chosen and elect people
is intended to show us a principle which must be applied to
others. It is a principle very visible in their case, but not
confined to them. It is the law of divine Providence. By
what we see of its working in their case, we are able to see
it in other eases, where it is less distinct and less apparent.
§ 8. How Individuals are elected. — And now let us
280 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
apply the doctrine of election to individuals. When one is
elected he is always elected to some special opportunity,
which he can improve or not, and for which he is held
accountable.
When God sends into the world a great and original
genius, like Columbus, Sir Isaac Newton, Dante, Shake-
speare, Mozart, Michael Angelo, Franklin, Washington, By-
ron, Napoleon, it is very plain that they are sent, provided
with certain qualities, to do a certain work. It is evident
that God meant Columbus to discover America, and Dante
to write a poem. If Columbus had tried to write the " In-
ferno," and Dante had devoted himself to inventing a steam-
engine, if Franklin had written sonnets and pastorals, and
Isaac Newton had gone into trade, if Washington had
composed symphonies, and Beethoven had travelled to dis-
cover the source of the Nile, they would not have made
their calling and election sure. But such men (with an oc-
casional exception, like that of Napoleon and Byron) were
all faithful to their own inspiration, and each chose to abide
in the calling in which he was called ; and so each did
the work God gave him to do in the world. Napoleon
and Byron did their work only partially, for they allowed
their egotism to blind them, so as to lose sight of their mis-
sion after a while. God sent Napoleon to bind together and
organize the institutions of a new time — to organize liberty.
He did it for a season, and then sought, egotistically, only to
build up himself and his dynasty ; then his work came to a
sudden end. For it is vanity and egotism which make us
fail. We wish for some calling finer or nobler than the
calling God gives us ; so we come to nothing.
In these great and shining examples we are taught how
God elects men, how he elects all men, and how he elects
all to work. These are not the exceptional cases, as we are
apt to suppose, but they are the illustrations of a universal
rule.
CALLING, ELECTION, AND BEPBOBATION. 281
Every human being has his own gift and opportunity from
Grod ; some after this fashion, and others after that. If
faithful, he can see what it is. If his eye is single, his
whole body is full of light. If he is true to the light within
his soul, it grows more and* more clear to him what God
wants him to do. Not every man's business is to do great
works in the world ; but every one is sent to do something
and to be something — something which shall bring him
nearer to Grod — something which shall make him more use-
ful to man. At first he is confused ; he cannot tell what his
calling is. But each day, if he be faithful to each day's
caU, causes the whole calling of his life to become more
luminous and clear. So we see that conscientious and faith-
ftil people, as they continue to live, grow more and more
into specialty of work, and have more and more of a special
place and duty. Thus we see that all God's callings are
special, and none vague or general. " Every man has his
proper gift from the Lord ; one after this fashion, and another
after that." Perhaps it is not a shining gift, it will not make
him famous, but it is always a good one — ^' always useful and
noble. If we follow God's leadings, we shaU always come
out right. " Let every man," says the apostle, " abide in
the calling in which he is called." Let him not be impatient
of his own gift, nor covetous of. another's ; let him not be
uneasy in his place, nor straining for something beyond his
reach. But if faithful every day to his own gift, he may be
sure that it will grow at last Into something truly good,
satisfactory, and sufficient.
§ 9. How Jesus was elected to he the Christ, — Perhaps we
can now better understand how Christ was " the chosen one
of God." If Columbus was chosen and sent to discover a
world, if Dante was sent to be a great poet, if Mozart,
Rafaelle, had each his mission, can we doubt that Jesus also
was specially selected and endowed for the work which he
has actually done, to be the leader of the human race in
24*
282 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
religion and goodness — to lead it up to God ? Yet those
who will admit the mission in all other eases, question it in
his case. But what was true in them was much more so in
him. He was conscious from the first that he was selected.
*' Wist ye not that I must be af>out my Father's business?'*
^^ To this end I was born, thq»t I might bear witness to the
truth." " God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but that the world, through him, might be saved."
*' For this cause came I to this hour." " I have finished
the work given me to do."
Jesus, by his nature and organization, by his education,
by the very time of his birth, by the inspiration and influence
of the Holy Spirit, was elected and called. And he fulfilled
his part perfectly ; and so, the two conditions being met, he
became Saviour of the world, and perpetual Ruler of the
moral and spiritual nature of man.
§ 10. Other Illustrations of Individual Galling and EleO"
tion. — But it is not merely great men, and men of genius,
who are thus providentially chosen and sent. Every man is
chosen for something, and that something not vague and
general, but special and distinct.
You go into some country village of New England. You
find there some plain farmer, of no great education, perhaps,
but endowed with admirable insight and sagacity, and of a
kind and benevolent nature. He has come to be the- coun-
sellor and adviser of the whole community. He has no title ;
he is not even a " squire." He has no office ; he is not even
a justice of the peace. But he fulfils the mission of peace-
maker and of sagacious counsellor. He is judge without a
seat on the bench ; he is spiritual guide without being caUed
" reverend ; " he is the stay, the centre, the most essential per-
son in the place. He has had an evident calling from God,
not from man, and he has made it sure by his diligence and
fidelity in his work.
And perhaps in the same village is a woman, poor, old,
OALLINOy ELECTION, AND REPROBATION. 283
I
and uneducated. But she, too, Las a calling from God.
She is always sent for in the hour of trial. If any acsident
happens, she is there. Her sagacity and experience help
her to do what is needed. She has no medical diploma, but
she is the good physician of the place. God gave to her
native sagacity, gave to her benevolence, gave her acute
observation and a good memory, and she has made her elec-
tion sure by her own fidelity.
Some persons are called to love and teach little children :
that is their work. They are happy with children, and chil-
dren are happy with them. Some are called to sympathize ;
their natures . overflow with sympathy; they enter readily
into all trials and into the troubles of every soul, and they
pour oil and wine into the wounds of the heart. God called
them to be his good Samaritans, and they hear the call and
obey.
J' A place for everything, and everything in its place,"
says the prudent housekeeper. "A place for every man,
and every man in his place," says the divine Housekeeper,
who has so many mansions in his house, and whose Son
said he went to prepare a place for us there in the other
world — a working place, probably, and a sphere of labor
there as here. But in this world, too, what a delight it is to
see any one in his right place I
There are different ways in which God calls us, and differ-
ent kinds of callings. But every calling of God is good and
nojble. He calls us to work ; he calls us to Christian good-
ness ; he calls us to heavenly joy, to glory, honor, and
immortality. These are the three great callings of man-^^
Christian work first. Christian goodness next. Christian
glory last. Since God made every one of us, he made every
one of us for something ; he has appointed a destiny for each
one, and he calls us to it. If we do not hear the gentle call,
the whisper of his grace, he calls us by trial, by disaster, by
disappointment. He chastens us for our profit. He prunes
284 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
our too luxuriant branches that we may bring forth more
fruits
So this doctrine of election, in its other form, as usually
taught by Orthodoxy, so harsh and terrible, — " horrihUe
dtcretwm^^ — so dishonorable to God, so destructive to mo-
rality, so palsying to effort, grows lovely and encouraging
when looked at aright.
As one grows old, and looks back over his past life, he
sees the working of this divine decree — working where he
concurred with it, working where he resisted it. He sees
more and more clearly what his election was, and how he
has fulfilled it, how far failed. He sees himself as a youth,
fiery and ardent, striving for one thing, educated by Grod
for another. He sees how he was partly led and partly
driven into his true work ; how he has been made an instru-
ment by God for good he never dreamed of to God's
other children. He says, ^^ It is no doing of mine. • It
is the Lord's doing. He chose me for it before the foun-'
dation of the world. I builded better than I knew. I have
failed in a thousand plans of my own, but I have ignorantly
fulfilled God's plans. I am like Saul, the son of Elish,
who went out to seek his father's asses, and found a king-
dom. I am like Schiller's explorer, who went to sea with
a thousand vessels, and came to shore saved in a single
boat, yet having in that boat the best result of the whole
voyage."
niMOBTALITY AND THE RESURBEGTION. 285
CHAPTER XII.
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
§ 1. Orthodox Doctrine, — The Orthodox doctrine of the
future life is thus stated in the Assembly's Catechism, chapter
82: —
^^ I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and
Bee corruption ; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep)
haying an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God
'who gave them. The souls' of the righteous, being then
made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heav-
ens, where they behold the face of Grod, in light and glory,
waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the
souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in
torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the
great day. Besides these two places for souls separated
from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
'^ IL At the last day, such as are found alive shall not
die, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up
with the selfsame bodies, and none other, although with
different qualities, which shall be united again with their
souls forever.
" m. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of
Christ, be raised to dishonor ; the bodies of the just by his
Spirit unto honor, and be made conformable to his own glori-
ous body."
The views here given may be considered, on the whole,
the Orthodox notions on this subject, although Orthodoxy is
by no means rigorous on these points. Considerable diver-
sity of opinion is here allowed. The nature of the life
286 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
between death and the resurrection, and the nature of the
resurrection body, are differently apprehended, without any
discredit to the Orthodoxy of the belief. But, on the whole,
we may say that the Orthodox views on these topics include
the following heads : —
1. Man consists of soul and body.
2. The soul of man is naturally immortal.
3. The only satisfactory proof of this immortality is the
resurrection of Christ.
4. Christ's resurrection consisted in his Return to earth in
the same body as that with which he died, though glorified.
5. Our resurrection will consist in our taking again the
same bodies which we have now, glorified if we are Chris-
tians, but degraded if we are not.
On the other hand, those views which incline towards
rationalism and spiritualism agree in part with these state-
ments, and in part differ ; thus : —
1. They usually agree with Orthodoxy in believing man
to consist of soul and body.
2. They also agree in believing the soul of man naturally
immortal.
3. They differ from Orthodoxy in thinking the proof of
immortality to be found in human consciousness, not at all
in the resurrection of Jesus.
We will therefore examine these two points of immortality
and the resurrection, to see what the true doctrine of Scrip-
ture is concerning them.
§ 2. The Doctrine of Immortality as taught hy Reason^ the
Instinctive Gonsciotisness^ and Scripture. — The first class of
proofs usually adduced for immortality are the rational
proofs, which are such as these : —
The Metaphysical Proof. — This is based on the dis-
tinction of soul and body. Tlie existence of the soul is
proved exactly as we prove the existence of the body. If
IHHOBTAUTY AND THE RESUBREGTION. 287
we can prove the one, we can equally prove the other. If
any one asks, How do we know there is such a thing as
body ? we reply that we know it by the senses ; we can
touch, taste, smell, and see it. But to this the answer is,
that the senses only give us sensations, and that these sensa-
tions are in the mind, not out of it. We have a scnsatiou
of resistance, of color, of perfume, and the like ; but how
do we know that there is anything outside of the mind cor-
responding to them? Tlie answer to this is, that by a neces-
sary law of the reason, when we have a sensation, we infer
some external substance from which it proceeds. We look
at a book, for example. We have a sensation of shape
and color ; we infer something outside of our mind from
which it proceeds. In other words, we perceive qualities
and infer substance. This inference is a spontaneous and
inevitable act of the mind. Now, we are conscious of
another group of feelings which are not sensations, wliich do
not come from without, but from within. These are mental
and moral. But they, too, are qualities ; and, as in the other
case, perceiving qualities, we infer a substance in which they
inhere. This latter substance we name soul, and we know
it exactly as we know body. It is known by us as a simple
substance, having personal unity. The personality, the ''I,"
is a fundamental idea. Now, as soon as we perceive the
existence of soul, it becomes evident that soul cannot die.
It may be annihilated, but it cannot die. For what is death
when applied to the body ? Dissolution or separation of the
parts, but not destruction of the simple elements. Death is
decomposition of these elements, and their resolution into
new combinations. Now, the soul, being known by us as a
simple substance, is incapable of dissolution.
This is the metaphysical proof of immortality. Then comes
the TBLEOLOGic proof, or that from final causes. Man's
encKis not reached in this life. We see everything in this
world made for an end. The body is made for an end, and
288 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
■
attains it, and then decays and is dissolved. The soul, with
all its great powers, goes on and on, but the body dies before
the soul is ever perfected. Every human life is like an un-
finished tale in a magazine, with " to be continued " written
at its close, to show that it is not yet ended.
And besides these proofs of immortality, there is the
7 HEOLOGiCAL proof, fouudcd ou the attributes of God ; and
the MORAL proof, based on the conflict between conscience
and self-love ; and the analogical proof, based on the law
of progress in nature ; and the cosmic proof, founded on th^
relation of the soul to tfie universe ; and the historic proof,
resting on the universal belief in immortality ; and lastly, the
PSYCHOLOGIC proof, or the instinct of life in man, which car-
ries with it its own evidence of continuity.
But after all these proofs have been considered, the final
result is probability. Only the last gives more, and this acts
not as an argument, but as conviction. And the strength of
this conviction depends on the strength in any individual of
this instinct. Some have more of the instinct of life, others
less.* Those who have much are easily convinced by these
various arguments. But those who have less, feel as Cicero
did after reading the Phaedo of Plato, f
This instinct of life appears not only to be difierent irom
the fear of death, but its exact opposite. When we have
most of the one, we have the least of the other. Any great
* a person who never had an intcllcctaal doubt concemhig a future lift may
be so poorly provided with on inward sense of immortality that he may never
feel quite willing to die, or confident in view of death. Such a man was Dr.
Johnson, who had not the least scepticism; who was a dogmatic believer, and
hated a heretic; who, yet, qever attained to any sort of comfort in view of
death, and was always afraid to die. So there may be another person who
may have no intellectual belief in a future life, but who will have the instinct
of immortality so strong as to be quite easy and happy in looking forward to
death. Such a person is* Miss Martineau, who, in consequence of a poor phi«
losophy of materialism which she was taught in her childhood, and baa always
held, has been brought very logically at last to disbelieve immortality, and evea
the existence of God, and yet is very contented about it, and quite happj^
t " Neseio, quomodo, dum logo, assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum Ipso
de immortalitate animorum ooepi oogitare, assensio omnia ilia illabltor.**
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 289
excitement lifts us temporarily above the fear of death by
giving us more life. So a man will plunge into the sea, and
risk his own life to save that of another. So whole armies
go to die cheerfully in the great rage of battle. But this
instinct receives a permanent strength by all that elevates
the soul. All greatness of aim, all devotion to duty, all
generous love, take away the fear of death by adding to the
quantum of life in the soul.*
If it be asked what the Scriptures teach concerning im-
mortality, it must be admitted that they have not much to
say. They speak of life and of eternal life ; but this, as we
shall discover, is quite another thing from continued exist-
ence. It refers to the quality and quantity of being, and not
merely to its duration.
§ 3. The Three Principal Views of Death — the Pagan^
Jetvish^ and Christian. — There are three principal views of
death — the Pagan view, the Jewish view, and the Christian
view.
Paganism, in all its various forms, is chiefly distinguished
by its transferring to the other life the tastes, feelings, habits
of this life. The other world is this one, shaded off and
toned down. It is gray in its hue, wanting the color of this
world ; and is really inferior to it, and only its pale reflection.
To the gods of Olympus the doings of men arc matters of
chief interest. Tartarus and the Elysian Fields are occupied
* Thus it is said, <* In Christ shall all be made alive." The meaning^ is, that
vrheji we live in reference to Grod, to immortal truth, to the infinite law of
right, — When we really love anything out of ourselves, — we lose aU fear of
death. "Perfect love casts out fear;" that is, pure love. The love of a
mother for a child casts out fear. She is not afraid of death ; she will mn the
risk of death twenty times over to save her child. The immortal element
IB aroused in her. The soldier is roused by the general's fiery speech to a
thrill of patriotism, and thinks it sweet and beautiful to die for his country.
Love of his country has oast out his fear. This is something more than any
mere insensibility. Men can harden themselves against danger and death;
they can think of something else. But that insensibility is merely a thick
sheU put round it — a sevenfold shield perhaps ; but the mortal fear lies hidden
•11 the sam^witliin. True life is very different.
25
«.
290 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
by lymphatic ghosts, misty spectres, unsubstantial and unoc-
cupied. When a living man enters, like Ulysses, -ZEneas, op
Dante, they throng around him, delighted to have something
in which they can take a real interest. " Better be a plough-
boy on earth than a king among the ghosts." This expresses
the Pagan idea of the other world. This world is more real
than the other, to the Pagan.
Judaism, in its view of hereafter, is much more positive.
It began with no idea of a hereafter. Nothing is -taught
concerning a future life by Moses, and little is to be
found concerning it even in the prophets. The explana-
tion is simple. Men hard at work in the present do not
think much of the future ; and the work of the Jews
was to be servants of Jehovah and doers of his law
here. However, all men must think a little of the region
beyond death. When the Jews thought of it, they pro-
jected their law upon its blank spaces. It was a place
where Jehovah would vindicate his law — where the just
should be happy, the unjust miserable. The perplexity
which tormented Job, David, and Elijah — namely, that bad
men should succeed in this world and good men fail — was
to find its solution there. Judgment was the Jewish idea of
hereafter — a judgment to come. " I have a hope toward
God, as they themselves also allow," said Paul, speaking of
the Pharisees, "that there shall be a resurrection of the
dead, of the just, and also of the unjust."
The Christian view of death is, that it is abolished — it
has ceased to be anything. The New Testament distinclly
says, " who has abolished death, and brought life and im-
mortality to light." * Death, to a Christian, is but a point on
the line of advancing being ; a door through which we pass ;
• The word here rendered abolished is elsewhere translated " destroyed,"
" made void,»» " made of none effect," ** brought to nothing," « vanished
away," " done away," ** put down." The meaning is, that all its force, im-
portance, value, is taken out of it. •
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 291
a momentaiy sleep between two days. In the same sense
the Saviour says, '^ He that liveth and belie veth on me shall
never die."
So also he spoke of Lazarus as being only asleep, and said
of the daughter of Jairus, " She is not dead, but sleepeth."
Certainly Jesus could not have spoken of death in this
way if he regarded it as the awful and solemn thing which
luoe' believers consider it. If it is the moment that de-
cides our eternal destiny, which shuts the gate of probation,
which terminates for the sinner all opportunity of repentance
and conversion, for the saint all danger of relapse and fall, —
then death is surely something, and something of the most
iomienso importance.
But Christ has really destroyed death both in the Pagan
and in the Jewish feeling concerning it. He destroys the
Pagan idea of death as a plunge downward from something
into nothing, a descent into non-entity or half-entity, a diminu-
tion of our being, a passage from the substantial to the
shadowy and unreal.
For, according to Christianity, we do not descend in death ;
we ascend into more of reality, into higher life. Death is a
passage onward and upward.
The proof of this we find in -the Christian doctrine of the
Resurrection.
The meaning of the resurrection of Christ is not, as has
been often supposed, that after death he came to life again^
but that at death he rose ; that his death was rising up,
ascent. This we shall show in a future section of this
chapter.
One power of Christ's resurrection was to abolish the fear
of death. It brought life and immortality to light. It
showed men their immortality.
The fear of death is natural to all men, but it is easily
removed. The smallest and lowest power of the resurrec-
tion is shown in removing it.
292 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
The fear of death is natural. It consists in this — that
we are,. in a great part of our nature, immersed in the finite
and perishing. " When we look at the things which are
seen," which " are temporal," we have an inward feeling of
instability — nothing substantial. Therefore it is said, " In
Adam all die," for the Adam, the first man in all of us, is the
animal soul. " The first man is of the earth, earthy." The
law of our life is, that it comes from our love. When we
love the finite, our life is finite. But besides the finite ele-
ment in man, the animal soul, or Adam, is th^ spiritual
element, or Christ, the life flowing from things unseen, but
eternal.
Christ has abolished death. There is now to the Chris-
tian no such thing as death, in the common sense of the
term. The only death is the sense of death, the fear of
death, which insnares and enslaves. Jesus delivers us
from this by inspiring us with faith. We rise with him
when we look with him at the things unseen. Faith in
eternal things brings into the soul a sense of eternity. Death
is only a sleep : outward death is the sleep of the bodily life ;
inward death is the sleep of the higher life. We awake
and rise from the dead when Christ gives us life ; and
when he, who is our life, shall appear, we shall also appear
with him.
The philosopher Lessing says, " Thus was Christ the first
practical teacher of the immortality of the soul. For it is
one thing to conjecture, to wish, to hope for, to believe in*
immortality as a philosophical speculation — another thing
to arrange all our plans and purposes, all our inward and
our outward life, in accordance to it."
Jesus also destroys the Jewish idea of death, as a passage
from a world where the good sufier and the bad triumph, to
a world where this state of things is reversed. The kingdom
of heaven, with him, begins here, in this world. Judgment
is here as well as hereafter. The Jew lived, and all Judaiz-
IMMOBTALITT AND THE BESUBBECTION. 293
ing Christians live, under a fearful looking for of judgment
after death. The Christian sees that judgment is always
taking place ; that Christ is always judging the world ; that
God's moral laws and their retributions are not kept in a
state of suspense till we die — that they operate now daily.
The Christian knows that heaveQ and hell are both here, and
be expects to find them hereafter, because he finds them here.
He believes in law, but not in law only. He believes in
something higher than law, namely, love — the love of a
present, helpful Father, of a friend near at hand, of an inspi-
ration from on high, of a God who forgives all sins when
they are repented of, and saves all who trust in him. He
is not under law, but under grace.
When he looks forward to the other world, it is not as to
a place where he goes to be sentenced by a stern and abso-
lute judge, but where judgment and mercy go hand in hand,
where law remains, but is fulfilled by love.
This is what Paul means when he says, " The sting of
death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law ; but thanks
be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ."
The only real death is the fear of death — the Pagan fear
of death, which is a dread of loss, change, degradation of
being, to follow the dissolution of the body ; and the Jewish
fear of death, which is a fearful looking for of judgment, and
the sting of which is sin. Christ abolishes both of these
fears in every believing heart. He abolishes them in two
ways — by the life and the resurrection. He is both resur-
rection and life : by inspiring us with spiritual or eternal life,
lie abolishes all fear of dissolution ; and by showing us that
Le has ascended into a higher state by his resurrection, he
gives us the belief that death is not going down, but going
op. For, though " it doth not yet appear what we shall be,
yet we know this, that when he shall appear, we shall bo
like him."
25*
294 orthodoxy; its truths and errors.
But, unfortunately, Christians are still subject to the fear
of deatli. This fear has been aggravated by the Current
teaching in pulpits professedly Christian. The fear of that
" something after death " has been made use of to palsy the
will; and conscience, as instructed by Christian teachers,
has made cowards of us all \ so that few persons can really
say, "Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ."
It is very certain that the Pagan view of death and the
Jewish view of death still linger in the Church, and are
encouraged by Christian teachers. Death is made terrible
by false doctrine and false teaching in the Church. Christ
has not abolished death to the majority of Christians. Chris-
tians are almost as much afraid of death as the heathen —
sometimes more so.
Actual Christianity is a very different thing from ideal
Christianity. Ideal Christianity is Christianity as seen
and lived by Jesus ; the gospel which he saw and spoke ;
the word of God made flesh in him. But actual Christianity
is an amalgam ; a portion of real Christianity mixed with a
portion of the belief and habits of feeling existing in men's
minds before they became Christians. The Jews took a large
quantity of Judaism into Christianity ; the Pagans a large
quantity of Paganism. The Christian Church from the very
beginning Judaized and Paganized. Paul contended against
its Judaism on the one hand and its Paganism on the other.
But Judaism and Paganism have always stuck to the Chris«
tian Church. She has never risen above them wholly to this
day. They mingle with all her doctrines, ceremonies, and
habits of life. The Bomish Church has more of the Pagan-
element, the Protestant more of the Jewish. The media-
torial system of Kome is essentially Pagan. Its ascending
series of deacons, sub-deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops,
patriarchs, cardinals, and pope in the Church below ; and
beatified and sanctified spirits, angels, and archangels in the
IMMORTALITY AND THE BESUBBECTION, 295
Church above ; its processions, pilgrimages, dresses, its mo-
• nastic iustitutious, its rosaries, relics, daily sacrifice, votive
offerings — everything peculiar to the Roman Church, existed
before,- somewhere, in Paganism. So Protestantism has
taken from the Jews its Sabbath, its idea of God as King and
Judge, its exclusion from God's favor of all but the elect, its
view of the divine sovereignty, its doctrine of predestination,
day of judgment, resurrection of the body, material heaven
and material hell.
I do not mean to say that there is no truth in these things.
There is, because there is some truth in Paganism and in
Judaism. We are all Pagans and Jews before we become
Christians. The Jewish and Pagan element is in every hu-
man soul, and in all constants in man there is truth. But
the Pagan and Jewish truths are but stepping-stones to the
higher Christian truth. The law and Paganism are school-
masters to bring us to Christ. The evil is, that Christianity
has not been kept supreme ; it has often been sunk and lost in
the earlier elements. As the foolish (jralatians were bewitched,
and relapsed from the gospel to the law, — turning again to
weak and beggarly elements, desiring to be in bondage to
them again, going back to their minority under tutors and
governors,— so the Church has been relapsing, going back to
weak and beggarly elements, not keeping Christianity su-
preme in thought, heart, and life, but letting Paganism or
Judaism get the upper hand.
So it has been in regard to this subject. We Paganize
and Judaize in our view of death. We reestablish again
what Christ has abolished. We make death something where
Christ made it nothing. It is made the gi*eat duty of life to
*' prepare for death." No such duty is pointed out in the
New Testament. Our duty is to prepare every day to live ;
then, when we die, we shall be taken care of by God. We
can safely leave the other world and its interests to Him who
has shown himself so capable of taking care of us here.
296 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
The gloom of death has been heightened by artificial
means. Mourning dresses, solemn faces, funeral addresses,
the grave, — all have had an unnatural depth of awe added
to the natural sense of bereavement. The Orthodox Church
has deliberately and systematically Paganized and Judaized
in what it has said and done about death. Its object has
been always to make use of the great lever of fear of a here-
after in order to enforce Christian belief and action. Hence
Death has been made the king of terrors, the close of proba-
tion, the beginning of judgment, the awful entrance to the
final decision of an endless doom. All this is wholly unchris-
tian, unknown to apostolic times, a relapse towards Pa-
ganism. It is utterly opposed to the great declaration that
"Christ has abolished death ^ and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel."
What is called faith in immortality, therefore, is of two
kinds : it is an instinct, and it is a belief. In the New Tes-
tament these are plainly distinguished. In the passage just
quoted, it is said that Jesus " brought life and immortality
to light." Jesus himself says, " I am the resurrection and
the life." " He that believeth in me hath eternal life abid-
ing in him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Life is a matter of consciousness. It is a fft*esent posses-
sion, something abiding in us now.
Immortality, or the resurrection, is an object of intellectual
belief. It is something future. We feel life; we believe in
the resurrection.
We will pass on, in the next sections, to consider each of
these.
§ 4. Eternal Life^ as taught in the New Testament^ not
endless Future Existence^ hut present Spiritual Life, — It is
only necessary carefully to examine the passages in the New
Testament where the phrase "eternal fife" (t;w»j aiiiivioi)
occurs, to see that it does not refer to the duration^ but to the
quality, of existence. Temporal life is that life of the soul
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 297
which through the body is subject to the vicissitudes of
time. Eternal (or everlasting) life is that life of the spirit
which is independent of change, and is apart from duration.
God's being was regarded by the Semitic races as outside
of time and space, as a perpetual Now, without before or
after. (" I am the / -4w»." Exod. 3 : 14.) Man, made in
the image of God, becomes a '^ partaker of the divine na-
ture " (2 Peter 2 : 4) by the gift of eternal life.
That " eternal life " is not an endless temporal existence
appears, —
(a.) From the passages in which it is spoken of as some-
thing to be obtained by one's own efforts, as (Matt. 19 : 16)
when the young man asks of Jesus what good thing he shall
do that he may have eternal life, and Jesus replies that he
must keep the commandments, give his possessions to the
poor, and come and follow him. Certainly that was not the
method to obtain an endless existence, but «it was the true
preparation for receiving spiritual good. So Jesus tells
Peter (Mark 10 : 30) that those who make sacrifices for the
sake of truth shall receive temporal rewards " in this time ; "
and "in the coming age eternal life" ('*eV tcJ dtwy* toT
igxofiivo} Jwi^i' txl(bviov"). The coming age is the age of
the Messiah, when the gift of the Holy Ghost should be
bestowed.
(h.) Passages in which eternal life is spoken of as a
present possession, not a future expectation. (John 3 : 36.)
" He that believeth on the Son hath (?/e*) eternal life." So
John 6 : 47, 54, &c.
(c.) Passages in which eternal life is defined expressly as
a state of the soul. (John 17:3.) " This is life eternal, that
they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent," &c.
So (Gal. 6:8) it is represented as the natural result of
*' sowing to the Spirit ; " (Eom. 2:7) of " patient continu-
298 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
ance in well-doing ; " as " the gift of God " (Rom. 6 : 23) ; aa
something which we "lay.hold of" (1 Tim. 6 : 12, 19).
This view of " eternal life " is taken by all the best critics.
Professor Hovey thus suras up their testimony : — *
'' On a certain occasion, Christ pronounced it necessary for
the Son of Man to be lifted up, ' that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have eternal life ' (John 3:15) —
e/ri t,(oi^v alihviov, Z(a^v ulihvi^ov^ says Meyer, who is, perhaps,
the best commentator on the New Testament, of modem
times, ' signifies the eternal Messianic life, which, however,
the believer already possesses — exri — in this «i(b*', that is,
in the temporal development of that moral and blessed life
which is independent of death, and which will culminate in
perfection and glory at the coming of Christ.' And Liicke,
whose commentary on the Gospel of John is one of the most
thorough and attractive in the German language, says that
the Jwi^ al^viog^ which is the exact opposite of dLTKoKsia (de-
struction), or &dvaiog (death), is the sum of Messianic
blessedness. It is plain, we think, that the life here spoken
of as the present possession of every believer in Christ is
more than endless existence ; it is life in the fullest and high-
est sense of the word, the free, holy, and blessed action of the
whole man, that is to say, the proper, normal living of a
rational and moral being. The germ, the principle of this
life, exists in the heart of every believer ; it is a present pos-
session. ' Whosoever,' says Christ, ' drinketh of the water
that I shall give him shall never thirst ; but the water that I
shall give him shall be in him a fountain — nrjyii — of water,
springing up into everlasting life.' (John 4 : 14.) In another
place our Saviour utters these words : ' He that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and
shall not come into condemnation, hut has passed from death
into life* (John 5 : 24) — /neru^iSijxsv ix rod d-uv&iov elg liiv
* »» The State of the Impenitent Dead. By Alvah Hovey, D. D.»» Boston,
1869.
IMMORTALITY AND THE BESUBRECTION. 299
CctiTJi'. Here, again, the believer is said to have eternal life,
even now ; for he has passed from death into life. Ingens
saltus, remarks Bengel, with his customary brevity and
graphic power. We translate a part of Liicke's ample and
instructive note on this important verse.
" ' The words, " Has passed from death into life " determine
that ^'/£» {hath) must be taken as a strict present. For the
verb firjTu^i^ijxetf (^has passed) affirms that the transition
from death into life took place with the hearing and believ-
ing. Only if an impossible thought were thus expressed,
could we consent, as in a case of extreme necessity, to under-
stand the present ^';fe* and the present perfect fieja^i^rjxev as
futures. And then we should be compelled to say that John
had expressed himself very strangely. But if a higher kind
of life, a resurrection process prior to bodily death, is repre-
sented by " hath," and " hath passed," then C^^ and ^a>^ alfbviog
are not to be understood of a life commencing after bodily
death, but of the true and eternal Messianic life or salvation,
beginning even here. This life does not, to be sure, exclude
natural death, but neither does it first begin after this death.
(Cf. 5 : 40.) Even so S^dvawg cannot be understood of bodily,
but only of spiritual death, of lying in the darkness of the
world. This interpretation would be justified here, even if
^dvaios elsewhere in the New Testament denoted uniformly
nothing but bodily death. But the metaphorical idea of
death stands out clearly in 1 John 3:14; 5:1 6, 17; John
8 : 51, 52 ; 2 Cor. 2:16; 7 : 10. Similar, also, is the use
of the words d^avatovv (Rom. 7:4; 8:13), and vexgds^
vexQovy^ tL^o^v/^axstv (Matt. 8 : 22 ; Eph. 5 : 14 ; Heb. 6:1;
Col. 3:5; Gal. 2:19).'
" With the passage now examined may be compared a state-
ment of the apostle John to the same effect, namely : ' "We
know that we have passed from death into life, because we
love the brethren ; he that loveth not abideth in death.' (1
John 3 : 14.)' This language, explained with a due regard
300 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
to the preceding context, speaks, evidently, of spiritual death
and life, of a passing from one moral condition into another
and opposite one. To say that this new moral condition and
blessed state is to endure and improve forever, may doubtless
be to utter an important truth, but one which does not con-
flict in the slightest degree with its present existence. It
begins in this life ; it continues forever and ever.
" Again : we find our Saviour saying, ' He that believeth
on me hath everlasting life ; ' ' Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ; '
and, ' The words that I speak unto you are spirit, and are
life.' (John 6 : 47, 53, 63.) By these verses we are taught
once more, that the Greek terms which denote life and death,
living and dying, were applied by Christ to opposite moral
states of the soul. For, observe, (1.) he more than intimates
that his words, his doctrines, are the source of present life to
those who receive them, and that, by eating his flesh and
drinking his blood, he signifies a reception of his words, and
80 of himself as the Lamb of God. And, (2.) he declares
that one who believes has eternal life ; that one who eats of
the true bread shall not die, but shall live forever ; and that
one who does not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the
Son of man hath not life in himself.
" Is it not plain that the words life and deaths as well as the
words bread, flesh, and blood, eating and drinking, are here
used in a spiritual sense ? Is it not plain that Jesus here
speaks of something in the believer's soul which is nourished
by Christian truth, and which is at the same time called life f
But it is the function of truth to quicken thought and feeling,
to determine the modes of conscious life, the character or
moral condition of the human soul ; and hence the rejection
of it may involve the utter want of certain spiritual qualities
and blessed emotions, but not the want of personal existence.
In still another place we read, ' Jesus said unto her, I am
the resurrection and the life : he that believeth in me, though
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 301
he were dead, yet shall he live ; and whosoever liveth and
believeth in me shall never die/ (John 11 : 25, 26.) Christ
here affirms that every believer is exempted from death.
And it matters not for our present purpose whether the word
t'^y, translated in our version ' liveth,' refers in this passage
to physical or to moral life. If it refers to physical life, tlien
our Saviour pronounces the Christian to be already, in time,
delivered from the power of death, and in possession of a true
and immortal life. But if it refers to moral life, Christ de-
clares that whoever possesses this life, whether in the body
or out of the body, is delivered from the power of death ;
that is, his union with God and delight in him, which alone
constitute the normal living of the soul, shall never be inter-
rupted : OTd fji^ &no&dvTj eig jov al6va — he shall never die, . . .
" ' And this is life eternal,' says the Great Teacher, ' that
they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent.' (John 17:3.) The best ancient and
modem interpreters hold this verse to be a definition by
Christ hhnself of the expression ' life eternal,' so often used
by him, according to the record of John. De Wette says,
' And this is (therein consists) the life eternal ; not, this is
the means of the eternal life ; for the vital knowledge of God
and Christ is itself the eternal life, which begins even here,
and penetrates the whole life of the human spirit.' Meyer
translates thus : ' Therein consists the eternal life,' and says,
' This knowledge, willed of God, is the " eternal life," inas-
much as it is the essential subjective principle of the latter,
its enduring, eternally unfolding germ and fountain, both
now, in the temporal development of the eternal life, and
hereafter, when the kingdom is set up, in which faith, hope,
and charity abide, whose essence is that knowledge.* * The
same view, substantially, is presented by Olshausen, Liicke,
Bengel, Alford, and many others."
* For ha before a defining clause, see John 6 : 29; 4 : 31; 1 John 3 : 11, 23; 4 :
21; 2 John 6.
26
802 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Eternal life is the gift of God to the soul through Jesus
Christ. It is God's life communicated to man — the life of
God in the soul of man. This is distinctly stated in the First
Epistle of John (chap. 1 : 1), as the life which was from the
beginning, the eternal life which was with the Father, but is
manifested to us, giving us fellowship with the Father and
with his Son.
The root of this eternal life is in every human being. It
is what we call " the spirit " in man, as distinguished from
the soul and body. It is the side of each person which
touches the infinite and eternal.
Fichte, the most spiritual of German philosophers, says,
" Love is life. Where I love, I live. What I love, I live
from that."* When we love earthly things, our life is
earthly, that is, temporal ; when we love the true, the right,
the good, our life is spiritual and eternal. Then we have
eternal life abiding in us. Then all fear of death departs.
The great gift of God through Christ was to make the right
and true also lovely, so that loving them, we could^draw our
life from them.* When God becomes lovely to us, by being
shown to us as Jesus shows him, then by loving God we live
from God, and so have eternal life abiding in us.
The natural instinct of immortality is the spirit, or sense
of the infinite and eternal. But it needs to be reinforced by
the influence of Christian conviction, hope, and experience, in
order completely to conquer the sense of death. It is not by
logical arguments in proof of a future existence that immor-
tality becomes clear to us, but by living an immortal life.
Dr. Channing says truly, " Immortality must begin here."
And so Hase (Dogmatic, § 92) says, "Any proof which
should demonstrate, with mathematical certainty, to the under-
standing, or to the senses, the blessings or terrors of our
future immortality, would destroy morality in its very roots.
The belief in immortality is therefore at first only a wish,
* Die Bestimmnng des Menschen. Berlin, 1800.
IBIMOBTALITY AND THE RESUBBECTION. 303
and a belief on the authority of others ; but the more that
any one assures to himself his spiritual life by his own free
efforts and a pure love for goodness, the more certain also
does eternity become, not merely as something future, but as
something already begun." *
Whenever Jesus is said to give eternal life, or to he the
life of the world ; whenever the apostles declare Christ to be
their life, or say that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
all be made alive ; when Paul says, " The law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin
• In addition to the extracts from Professor Hovey, Meyer, LUcke, and De
Wette, the following^ passages from F, D. Maurice (" Theological Essays ")
ore interesting^, as showing a concurrence of testimony from yet another quar-
ter to the thesis of this section : —
" When any one ventures to say to an English audience, that eternity is not
a mere negation of time, that it denotes something real, substantial, before all
time, he is told at once that he is departing from the simple, intelligible meaning
of words; that he is introducing novelties; that he is talldng abstractions.
This language is perfectly honest in the mouths of those who usu it. But they
do not know where they learned it. They did not get it from peasants, or
women, or children. Tlicy did not get it from the Bible. They got it from
Locke. And if I find tliat I cannot interpret the language and thoughts of
peasants, and women, and children, and that I cannot interpret the plainest
passages of the Bible, or the whole context of it, while I look through the
Locke spectacles, I must cast them aside. . . .
" Suppose, instead of taking tids method of asserting the truth of all God's
words, the most blessed and the most tremendous, wo reject the wisdom of
our forefathers, and enact an article declaring that all arc heretics, and deniers
of the truth, who do not hold that eternal means endless, and that there can-
not be a deliverance from eternal punishment. What is the consequence?
Simply this, I believe: the whole gospel of God is set aside. The state of
eternal life and eternal death is not one we can refer only to the future, or that
we can in any wise identify with tlie future. Every man who knows what it is
to liave been in a state of sin, knows what it is to liave been in a state of death,
lie cannot connect that death with time; he must say that Christ has brought
him out of the bonds of eternal death. Throw that idea into the future, and
you deprive it of all its reality, of all its power. I know what it means all too
well while you let me connect it with my present and personal being, with the
pangs of conscience which I suffer now. It becomes a mere vague dream and
sliadow to me when you project it into a distant world. And if you take from
me the belief that God is alwa} s righteous, always maintaining a fight with
evil, always seeking to bring his creatures out of it, you take everything from
me — all hope now, all hope in the world to come. Atonement, redemption,
satisfaction, regeneration, become mere wordS) to wliich there is no counter-
part in reality."
304 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
and death ; " *' to be spiritually minded is life and peace ; "
*' the life of Jesus is manifested in our dying (mortal) flesh ; "
when John says, " He that hath the Son hath life ; " when
in Revelation we read of the book of life, and water of life,
and tree of life, — the meaning is always the same. It refers
to the spiritual vitality added to the soul by the influence of
Jesus, who communicates God's love, and so enables us to
LOVE God, instead of merely fearing him or obeying him.
Love casts out all fear, the fear of death included. He who
looks at the things unseen and eternal, partakes of their
eternal nature, and though his outward human nature per-
ishes, his inward spiritual nature is renewed day by day.
§ 5. Resurrection^ and its real Meaning^ as a Bising up^ and
not a Bising again, — One part of the Christian doctrine of
immortality is conveyed in the term " eternal life ; " the other
part in the other term, usually associated with it — " the resur-
rection." The common Orthodox doctrine of the resurrec-
tion, is that the dead shall rise with the same bodies as those
laid in earth ; and this identity is usually made to consist in
identity of matter, though Paul expressly says, " Thou so west
not that body that shall be." On the other hand, many lib-
eral thinkers of the Spiritual School deny any resurrection,
and think the whole doctrine of the resurrection a Jewish
error, believing in a purely spiritual existence hereafter.
Others, like Swedenborg, teach that the soul hereafter dwells
in a body, though of a more reflned and sublimated charac-
ter ; and in this we think they approach more nearly the
teaching of the New Testament,
It is a remarkable fact that the Greek words indicating
the rising of men should have been translated, in our English
Bible, by terms signifying something wholly diflerent, and
conveying another sense than that in the original. It is
equally extraordinary that this change of meaning should
seldom or never be alluded to by theological writers.
These words, translated "resurrection," "rise again,"
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 305
and the like, all have, in the Greek, the sense of rising up,
not of rising again. They signify not return, but ascent ;
not coming back to this life, but going forward to a higher.
The difference in meaning is apparent and very important.
It is one thing to say, that at death we go down into Hades,
or into dissolution, and at the resurrection we come back
to conscious existence, or to the same life we had before,
and quite a different thing to say that what we call death is
nothing ; but that we rise -wp, and go forward when we seem
to die. This last is the doctrine of the New Testament,
though the former is the one usually believed to be taught
in it.
The immense stress laid, in the New Testament, on the
resurrection of Jesus is by no means explained by supposing
that after his death he came to life again, and so proved that
there is a life after death. What he showed his disciples
was, that death was not going down, but going up ; not de-
. scent into the grave, or Hades, but ascent to a higher world.
This is the evident sense of such passages as these. We
have not room to go over all the passages which should be
noticed in a critical examination, but select a few of the most
' prominent.
1. 'JvdLfjjaai^gy commonly translated "resurrection," or
" rising again," but which literally means " rising up." (So
Bretschneider, " Lexicon Man. in lib. Nov. Test." defines it
as " resurrectio, rectius surrectio.") ♦
This word occurs forty-two times in the New Testament.
In none of them (unless there be a single exception, which
we shall presently consider) does it necessarily mean a rising
again J or coming back to the same level of life as before.
In a large number of instances the word can only mean a
rising up, or ascent to a higher state. Of these cases we will
cite a few examples.
♦ In the German Bible we hare the true word — " AnferBtehnng."
26*
306 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Ten of the passages in which the word ^uvdaraatg occurs,
are in the account by the Synoptics of the' discussion between
Jesus and the Sadducees concerning the case of the woman
married to seven brothers. After stating the case, they say,
" Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of them is she?"
It is plain that the word " resurrection " here is equivalent
to "the future state," and cannot be limited to a return to
life. This becomes more apparent in the answer of Jesus, as
given, somewhat varied, by the three Synoptics : " In the
resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,
but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22 : 30.)
Mark, instead of " the resurrection," has the corresponding
verb, " when they shall rise from the dead." This certainly
means, not rising again, but rising up, ascending to a higher
state. And Luke adds another element, showing that the
" resurrection " is a state to which all may not attain, but
which is dependent on character ; evidently therefore a higher
state. " They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain .
that world {tov alibvog ^/FtVov), and the resurrection from
the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage ; neither
can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels " (or
rather " are like the angels ") " and are children of God, being
children of the resurrection.^* (Luke 20 : 35, 36.) This last
phrase, " children of the resurrection," is very significant,
and intends a character corresponding to this higher state.
There seems, indeed, to be a contradiction between this pas-
sage, which makes the resurrection conditional, and those
which. declare it universal. (See John 5 : 29, and 1 Cor. ch.
15.) But perhaps the reconciliation can be found in the
apostolic statement (1 Cor. 15 : 23) " every one in his order.'*
All shall ascend into the higher state, called " the resurrec-
tion," but only as they become prepared for it. All are not
now prepared to hear the voice of the Son of man (or of
divine truth), which shall cause them to rise to the resurrec-
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 307
tion of life and of judgment ; but, in due season, all shall
come forth from their graves, and hear it.
Another passage in which this word occurs is in Luke 2 :
84, where Simon says, " This child is set for the fall and
rising again (ivdaraaty) of many in Israel." A moral fall
and rising are here evident ; and only if the reduplication be
dropped, and we read " for the fall and the rising up," do we
get the true idea. It is not meant that Jesus comes to de-
grade us morally, and then lifl us up again morally. Rather
it means that he comes to test the state of the hearts of men :
>some cannot bear the test, and fall before it; others, better
prepared, rise higher. Here, also, div&aTacrig means rising
up, and not rising again.
The most remarkable use of this word, however, is in that
famous passage where the common meaning is wholly unin-
telligible, in the story of Lazarus. (John 11 : 24, 25.) Jesus
says, " I am the resurrection and the life." If resurrection
means coming back to life after death, in what sense can
Jesus be " the resurrection and the life " ? Then Jesus said
that he was " the coming back to life," which is unintelligi-
ble. But if the resurrection means the ascent to a higher
state, then Jesus declares that he is the way of ascent to a
higJier s^o^e, just as he says elsewhere, " I am the way ;" " I
am the door." It is the power of Christ within the soul, the
power of his spirit of faith, hope, and love, which enables us
to go forward and upward. Christ is not the principle of
resuscitation to an earthly existence, or a merely human im-
mortality. He does not bring us to life again, but he lifts
us up. So he adds, " He who believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live." Not, shall come to life again';
no. but, shall rise out of death into life, ascend into a higher
condition of being. Then he adds that to one who has faith
in him, who has adopted his ideas, there is no longer any such
thing as death. Death has disappeared — is abolished. " He
who liveth and believeth in me shall never die."
808 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
But, it may be objected, if spiritual death and life are here
spoken of, — if the passage means that he who believeth in
Christ shall have inward religious spiritual life, a heavenly
and celestial life, — then how could that comfort Martha, or
apply to her case, who was mourning, not the spiritual, but
the natural, death of her brother?
Christ is essentially a manifestation of the truth and lovo
of God. To believe in him is therefore to believe in God's
truth and love. But belief in this fills the soul with life.
And the soul full of life cannot die. What seems death is
only change, and a change from a lower to a higher state,
therefore rising up, or resurrection. Christ, then, the love
and truth of God in the soul, is the life and the resurrection.
He fills the soul with that life which causes it to rise with
every change, to go up and on evermore to a higher state*
That which seems death is nothing ; the only real death is
the immersion of the soul in sense and evil, the turning
away from truth and God.
Now, Martha believed, as most of us believe, in a future
resurrection. She believed that, after lying a long time in
the grave, one would come out of it at last, on a great day
of judgment, and somehow the soul and body be reunited.
She believed this, for it was the general belief of the Jews
in her day. It is the general belief of Christians now. The
majority of Christians have not got very far beyond that.
They talk of the resurrection, as though it were merely the
return of the soul into the old body ; and when you comfort
them over their dead by saying, " Your dead will rise," re-
ply, " I know it — at the resurrection, at the last day." But
Jesus tells Martha, and all the Martha Christians of the
present time', that he is the resurrection and the life. Your
brother is not to sleep in the dust till the last day, and then
rise. He does not die at all. He rises with Christ here,
and in whatever other world. His nature is to go tep, not
down, when he is Christianized. Now or then, to-day or at
IMMORTAUTY AND THE RESURRECTION. 309
the last day, if he has the living faith of a son of God, he
will be raised by that Christ within him, who is his life.
This, it seems to us, is the only adequate explanation of
this passage, and shows conclusively that resurrection must
mean, in this place, a rising up to a higher existence, and not
a mere return to this life.
It appears, from 1 Cor. ch. 15, that there were some in the
Christian church who said there was no resuiTection of the
d^ad (^div&(TTacrig vexgwv^') or that it was past already. (2
Tim. 2 : 18.) These Christians did not deny the doctrine of
immortality, or a future life. It is difficult to imagine the
motive which could induce any one, in those days, to join the
Christian church, if he denied a future life. Probably, there-
fore, they assumed that the only real resurrection takes place
in the soul when we rise with Christ. They said, " If we are
to rise into a higher life after this, how shall we rise, and with
what bodies?" (1 Cor. 15:35.) They professed to believe
in a simple immortality of the soul, but not an ascent of the
personal being, soul and body together, to the presence of
God. They did not question a future life, but a higher life to
which soul and body should go up together.
To these doubting Christians, who could not gather strength
to believe in such a great progress as this, Paul says that if
man does not rise, if it is contrary to his nature to rise, then
Jesus, being a man, has not risen, but gone down to Hades with
other souls. Then he is not above us, with God, sending down
strength and inspiration from our work. This faith of ours,
which has been our great support, is an illusion. We have
all been deceived — deceived in preaching forgiveness of sins
through Christ from God ; deceived in preaching a higher
life above us, into which Christ has gone, and where he is
waiting to receive us. But we have not been deceived —
Christ has risen, and risen as the first fruits of humanity*
He leads the way up, and in proportion as we share his life,
we ali^o have in ourselves the principle of ascent, and shall
310 obthodoxy: its truths and errors.
•
go up too. He goes first ; then all who are like him follow ;
and finally, in due order, all mankind. Death and Hades
have been conquered by this new influx of life in Christ.
Instead of remaining pale ghosts, naked souls, we shall rise
into a fuller, richer, larger life, of soul and body.
There is one passage, however, where there seems a diffi*
culty in considering av&aiaatg^ or resurrection, as implying
an ascent of condition. It is in John 5 : 28, 29. Our com-
mon translation reads thus : " The hour is coming in which
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (that is, the
voice of the Son of man), and shall come forth, they that
have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that
have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." At first
sight it certainly seems that the " resurrection of damna-
tion" (^dpdaTuaiv xQlastog) could hardly be considered a
higher state. All depends, however, on the meaning of the
word, here translated " damnation." The word, in the
Greek, is the genitive of xglaig. Now, by turning to the
Concordance, we find that this word xglaig occurs some forty-
eight times in the New Testament. In these places, —
It is translated 3 times by " damnation."
" " 2 " "condemnation."
" " 2 " "accusation."
" " 41 " "judgment."
It is evident, therefore, that our translators considered jW^
ment to be the primary and usual meaning of the word. Why,
then, did they not translate it here, " rising to judgment," or
"resurrection of judgment"? It must have been because
they believed either that (1.) "judgment" would make no
sense here ; (2.) that " damnation " would make better sense ;
or, (3.) that " damnation " was more in accordance with
the analogy of faith. But we can decide these points for
ourselves. "Judgment" is the better word here, for it
accords with the doctrine of the New Testament, that in
proportion as man goes wrong, he dulls his moral sense, and
IMMORTAUTY AND THE RESURRECTION. 311
needs a revelation of truth to show him what he is. A true
man, who has lived according to the truth here, has judged
himself, and will not need to be judged hereafter. (1 Cor.
11 : 31.) He rises into the resurrection of life. But those
who follow falsehood here, need to see the truth ; and they
rise into the resurrection of judgment. The truth judges
and condemns them. But this is really an ascent to them
also. It is going up higher, to see the truth, even when it
condemns them.^ This passage, then, is no exception to the
principle that wherever "resurrection" (d*'daT«(rig) occurs
in the New Testament, it implies going up into a higher
state.
All the other places where the word occurs either evident^
ly have this meaning, or can bear it as easily as the other.
Thus (Luke 14:14), "Thou shalt be recompensed in the
higher state of the just." (20 : 27), the Sadducees " deny a
higher state." (Acts 1 : 21), " he is to be a witness with us
of the ascended state of Jesus." (Acts 4:2), "preached,
through Jesus, the -higher state of the dead." (17:18),
"preached to them Jesus and the higher state." (26 : 23),
that Christ " should be the first to rise into the higher state."
(Lazarus and others had returned to life again before Jesus,
so that in this sense he was not the first fruits.) (Rom. 6:5),
" planted in the likeness of his resurrection." This can only
mean as Christ passed through the grave into a higher state,
so we pass through baptism into a higher state.
The only text which presents any real difficulty is Heb.
11:35, translated, "women received their dead raised to
life again," literally, " women received from the resurrection
their dead" {iS dcpaaT&aeajg)^ which may refer to a return
to this life, as in the case of the child of the widow of Sa-
repta (1 Kings 17: 17), and of the Shunamite (2 £ings
4:17).* But in the same verse, the other and "better"
* So De Wette, KurzgfefafisteB exegetischea Handbucli ziun N. T., ad looum.
312 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
resurrection is spoken of, for the sake of which these martyrs
refused to return to this life. The case referred to is proba-
bly that of the record of the seven brothers put to death by
Antiochus (2 Mace. 7:9), who refused life offered on condi-
tion of eating swine's flesh, and said, when dying, " The King
of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto
everlasting life" (i*^ dmbvirOP dtva^Uaaw tfar[g dvttTTJa6» ^a?),
literally, "to an eternal renewal of our life." * This verse
shows, therefore, that though dtvdaTaaig may mean a return
to this life, yet that the other sense of a higher life is express-
ly contrasted with it, even here.
Our conclusion, therefore, with regard to this term
hv&axauig^ is, that its meaning, in New Testament usage, is
not " rising again," but " rising up," or " ascent."
2. 'JvlaxT}^!,, This word is. the root of the former. It
is used one hundred and twelve times in the New Testament.
It is translated with again (as, " he must rise again from the
dead ") fifteen times. It is translated thirty-six times " rise
wp," or " raise up " (as, " I will raise him up at the last
day"), and ninety-six times without the " again." It is ren-
dered " he arose," " shall rise," " stood up," " raise up,"
" arise," and in similar ways.
3. 'EyBlQCii, This word is also frequently used in relation
to the resurrection, and is translated " to awaken," " arouse,"
''animate," "revive." The natural and usual meaning is
ascent to a higher state, and not merely a " rising again."
From these considerations we see that the primitive and
central meaning of the terms used to express the resurrection
is that of ASCENT. It is goiko up. This is the essential
Christian idea. But it soon became implicated with the
Pagan- idea of immortality, or continued existence of the
soul, and the Jewish idea of a bodily resurrection at the last
* So Sohleusner, Lexicon in hXX,
IMMORTALITY A>4D THE RESURRECTION. 313
day. But though there is a truth in each of these be-
liefs, the Christian doctrine is neither one nor the other.
The gospel asatmies^ but does not teach, a continued existence
of the soul. Since the greater includes the less, in teach-
ing that the man rises at death into a higher life, it neces-
sarily implies that he continues to live. And in teaching
that he is to exist as man, with soul and body, in a higher
condition of development, it teaches necessarily the bodily
resurrection of the Jews. Christ, who came " not to destroy,
but to fulfil," FULFILS both Pagan and Jewish ideas of the
future state in this doctrine of an ascension at death.
The principal points of the teaching of Jesus concerning
the life which follows the dissolution of the body are these :
First. As against the Sadducees, he argues that the dead are
living (Matt. 22:31, and the parallel passages), from the
simple fact that God calls them his. If God thinks of them
as hisj that is enough. His thinking of them makes them
alive. No one can perish while God is thinking of him with
love. Such an argument, carrying no weight to the mere
understanding, is convincing in proportion as one is filled
with a spiritual conception of God. Secondly. Jesus
abolishes death by teaching that there is no such thing to
the soul which shares his ideas concerning God and the
universe. This is implied in the phrases, " He that liveth
and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11 : 26.) " He
that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6 : 47.)
" I am the living bread, whereof if a man eat, he shall live
forever." (John 6:51.) " Whoso eateth my fiesh, and
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." (John 6 : 54.) " I£
a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Here,
** eating Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood," is plainly
equivalent to " keeping his saying, " and " believing on him."
Ad food which we eat and drink changes itself so as to be-
come a part of our own body by assimilation, so Christ
intends that his truth shall not be merely taken into the
27
814 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
memory, and reproduced in words, but shall be taken into the
life, and reproduced in character. Thirdly, He teaches
that as feeding on his truth changes our natural life into
spiritual life, and lifts temporal existence into eternal being,
so it will also place us outwardly in a higher state and
higher relations, to which state he applies the familiar term
the " resurrection " or " ascent," the " going up." " I will
raise him up at the last day." The " last day," in Jewish
and New Testament usage, means the Messianic times, as
appears from such passages as Acts 2 : 17, where the term is
used of the day of Pentecost ; Heb. 1:2, *' hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son ; " 1 John 2 : 18,
"Little children, it is the last time." Jesus tells his dis-
ciples that he is going to the Father (John 14 : 15), in whose
house are many mansions, where he is to prepare a place for
his disciples. (John 14 : 2.)
That " resurrection " was understood to mean a present
higher state, and not a future return to life, appears also
from its use by the apostles. Christians are spoken of as
having already "risen with Christ" (Col. 3:1); "risea
with him in baptism" (Col. 3:1); walking "in- the like-
ness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). And, no doubt, it
was by making this idea of a present resurrection too exclu-
sive, that some Christians maintained that it was wholly a
present resurrection, and not at all future — that "it was
past already."
This Christian faith in "resurrection" as ascent to a
higher condition of being at death is practically borne wit-
ness to by such common expressions concerning departed
friends as these : " He has gone to a better world ; " " He
is in a higher world than this ; " " We ought not to gi*ieve
for him — he is better off than he was." The practical
sense of Christendom has taken this faith from the Gospels,
though the Creeds do not authorize it. The Creeds teach that
the souls of the good either sleep till a future resurrection, or
IMMORTALITY AND THE BESUBBEGTION. 815
are absorbed into Ood until then, while the souls of the
impenitent descend to a lower sphere. Christ teaches that
at death all rise to a higher state — of life and love to the
loving, or judgment by the sight of truth to the selfish ; but
higher to all. Paul declares that '^ as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive," making the rise equiv-
alent in extent to the fall.
The great change in the faith of the apostles, in conse-
quence of the resurrection or ascent of Christ, was this :
They before believed that at death all went to Hades, to the
gloomy underworld of shadows, there to remain till tlie final
resurrection. But the belief that Christ, instead of going
down, had gone up, and had assured them that all who had
faith in him had the principle of ascent in their souls, and
were already spiritually risen, — this took the victory from
Hades and the sting from death.
To Christians, at least. Hades is no more anything ; all
who have a living faith rise with Christ ; and sooner or later,
each in his order, aU shall rise. This was the " power of
the resurrection" of Jesus to destroy the fear of death, to
enable them " to attain " now " to the resurrection of the
dead" (PhiL 3:10), teaching that "if the Spirit of Him
who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that
raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you." " For it is Christ
that died, yea, rather, that is risen, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." It was,
therefore, the duty of all Christians, since they were risen in
Christ, " to seek the things which are above."
§ 6. Resurrection of the Body, as taught in the New Testa^
ment, not a Bising again of the same Body, but the Ascent into
a higher Body, — It is remarkable that those who profess
to believe in the literal inspiration of the New Testament
should nevertheless very generally teach that the future body
is materially the same as this. We often hear labored argu-
316 orthodoxy: its truths and ebbobs.
meats to show how the identical chemical particles which
compose the body at death may be re-collected from all quar-
ters at the resurrection. Yet the only place where any ac-
count is given of the future body, declares explicitly that it
is different from the present, just as the stalk which comes
out of the ground differs from the seed planted. " We sow
not the body which shall be, but bare grain, and God giveth
it a body as pleaseth him."
Many persons, however, take an opposite view, and have
no belief in any future bodily existence. They speak much
more frequently of the immortality of the souL But the res-
urrection of the body is unquestionably a doctrine of the
New Testament, while the immortality of the sotd is not.
The New Testament knows nothing of a purely spiritual ex-
istence hereafter, nothing of an abstract disembodied immor-
tality. The reaction from materialism to idealism has caused
us now to undervalue bodily existence. So it did among the
Corinthians to whom Paul wrote, " How. say some among
you that there is no resurrection of the dead ? " These Co-
rinthians were not Sadducees, nor Epicureans. There is no
evidence that these sects had any influence on the Christian
Church. They did not deny a future existence^ but they
denied a rising up and a future bodily existence* They
believed, like us, in an immortality of the soul, denying the
possibility (probably on philosophical grounds) of the resur-
rection of the body. So Paul proceeds, in the fifteenth chap-
ter of Corinthians, first to prove the fact, and then to explain
the nature of a bodily resurrection.
Let us consider, first, what is meant by a resurrection of
the body.
This word resurrection tends to mislead us by suggesting
the rising from the grave of the material body there depos-
ited ; and accordingly we have the theory which makes
the future body the mere revival of the same particles of
matter composing the present body. But the Greek word,
IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION. 317
as we have fully shown, means not merely rising out of the
grave, but rising to a higher state of existence. The anas-
tasis of the body is its elevation and spiritualization. By the
resurrection of the body, we mean that in the future life of
man, he shall not exist in the same material and fleshly en-
velope as now, nor yet as a purely disembodied spirit. The
true doctrine avoids both extremes — the extreme of pure
idealism on the one hand, and of pure materialism on the
other. It asserts three things : first, that we have a real
body hereafter ; second, that this will be identical with our
true body now ; third, that it will be this true body in a
higher state of development than at present, a spiritual instead
of a natural body.
First, it will be a real body. A real body is an organi-
zation with which the soul is connected, and by means of
which it comes into connection with the material universe,
and under the laws of space and time. This organization
may be more or less refined and subtle ; it may not come
under the cognizance of our present senses ; but if it is an
organization by means of which we may commune with the
physical universe, it is essentially a body.
Again, the future body is identical with the present true
body of man. . For what is our true body ? Not the particles
of flesh and blood, but the principle of its organization. The
identity of our body does not consist in the identity of its
material particles, for these come and go, are in constant
flux, and are wholly changed, it is said, every seven years.
But, notwithstanding this change, the body of the man is the
same with that of the ehild. The same features, figure,
temperament, morbid and passional tendencies, are repro-
duced year after year. These flying particles, gathered from
earth and air, are manufactured into brain, bone, blood, accord-
ing to an unvarying law, and then given back again to air
and earth. There is, therefore, a hidden mysterious princi-
ple of organization working on during the whole seventy
27*
818 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
years of our earthlj existence, which makes the body of the
infant and the child identical with that of the man and the
old man. This is the true body ; and this, extricated at
death from its present envelope, and clothed upon with a
higher spiritual and immortal form, will constitute the future
body.
But again, it will be a higher development of the body,
Paul plainly teaches this. He uses the analogy of the seed,
showing that the future body is related to this, and differ-
enced from this, as the plant is related to the seed, and yet
different from it. " Thou so west not that body that shall 6e,
but bare grain." You do not sow the stalk, but the kernel ;
you do not sow the oak, but the acorn. Yet the oak is
contained potentially in the acorn, and so the future body is
contained potentially in the present. The condition of the
germination of the acorn is its dissolution ; then the germ
is able to separate itself from the rest of the seed, and start
forward in a new career of development. In like manner
the spiritual body cannot be developed until the present
organization is dissolved.
Paul goes on to say that " there is a natural body and
there is a spiritual." This body is the natural body ; the
future will be the spiritual. Two things may be implied
in this distinction. As by the natural body we come into
communion with the natural world, the world of phenomena,
80 by the spiritual we commune with the spiritual world,
the world of essential being and cause. Here and now we
see things through a glass, darkly, then face to face. Here
we look at things on the outside only ; but how oflen a
longing seizes us to know the essences, to penetrate to their
interior life ! That longing is an instinctive prophecy of its
own fulfilment hereafter. The spiritual body must also
manifesi the spirit hereafter, as the natural or soul body
now manifests the soul. For while the present body ex-
presses adequately enough present wishes and emotions, it
IMMORTAUTY AND THE RESURRECTION. 819
fails of expressing the spiritual emotions, and fails of being
a true servant of the higher life.
This, then, constitutes the future body. First, it is an or-
ganization connecting us with the outward universe of space
and time. Second, it is identical with the present true body.
Third, it is a development and advance of this into a higher
organization. Let us now inquire what are the evidences
and proofs of this future body. How do we know, or why
do we think, that we shall have any such body?
The first proof of a future bodily existence is its reason-
ableness. There is a law of gradation in the universe by
which the seed unfolds gradually into the stalk, the bud into
the flower, the flower into the fruit. We see a gradual prog-
ress of vegetable life into animal, and a gradual transition
from the lower forms of animal existence to the higher.
The transition is so gradual that it is very difficult to say
where vegetables end and where animals begin. Radiated
animals ascend towards the moUusks, the moUusks towards
the articulata, the articulata towards the vertebrata. And
through this last class we see a steady ascent from one form
of organization to another ; from fishes to reptiles, from rep-
tiles to birds, from birds to mammalia, until by steady rise
we reach the human body, in delicacy, beauty, and faculty
the crown of all. Why should we suppose this the end of
bodily existence ? Why not rather that this is to pass into a
still more noble and beautiful type of organization ? After
this gradual development, why suppose the enormous change
to a purely spiritual existence ? Is it not more reasonable to
suppose, instead, a higher order of bodily life ?
If we may look at the question for a moment from a meta-
physical point of view, we shall find it hard to comprehend
the possibility of personal existence hereafter apart from
bodily organization. Everything which is, must be either
somewhere, or everywhere, or nowhere ; that is, it must be
present in some particular point of space, or omnipresent
320 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
through all space, or wholly out of space. But to be wholly
out of space is to lose that which distinguishes one thing
from another, for all distinctions which we can conceive of
are distinctions in space and time. To be everywhere is to
be omnipresent, which is an attribute belonging to God, and
not to finite being, and would imply absorption into the divine
nature. Therefore personal existence is existence somewhere
in space, but locality in space is an attribute of body, not of
spirit, and implies bodily existence.
Moreover, shall we suppose that after. death we are to
have no more communion with the material universe, no
more knowledge of this vast order and beauty, which is a
perpetual n;anifestation of God, the garment which he Wears,
one of his grand methods of revelation? These myriads of
suns and worlds, these constellations of stars peopling space,
this city of God full of wonder and infinite variety, are they
to be nothing to us after the few years of mortal life are over?
We cannot believe it. If, then, we are still to perceive the
material universe, the faculties by which we perceive it will
be more intense bodily faculties. If spiritual things are
spiritually discerned, bodily things are discerned in a bodily
manner.
Such considerations as these show that a future bodily ex-
istence is reasonable ; but the proof of it must come, if at all,
either from revelation or experience. Let us see, then, what
bearing the resurrection of Jesus has upon this question.
According to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead in
bodily form. This body resembled his former one, so as to bo
recognized by his disciples ; it had the marks of the spear and
nails ; it could be touched, and was capable of eating food.
In all these respects it seems exactly the same body he had
before. This, too, is confirmed by the fact that he came
from the tomb where his body had been placed, and that this
had disappeared. But, on the other hand, many peculiari-
ties indicate a difierence ; such as his not being recognized at
IMMORTALITY AND THE BESUBBECTION. 321
once by Mary in the garden, nor by the disciples during the
whole walk to Emmaus ; his appearing and disappearing
suddenly ; his coming through the closed doors. Again, if
the body of Jesus was exactly like that which he had before
death, it is evident that he would have to lay it aside again
before ascending into the spiritual world, for flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But if he was to lay it
aside again, this would be equivalent to dying a second time,
which would destroy the whole meaning and value of his
resurrection, making it nothing but a mere revival, or com-
ing to life again, like that of a person who has been appar-
ently drowned. Such a revival would have produced no
results, and the faith of the Church which has come from the
resurrection of Jesus would never have taken place.
Accordingly, we must conclude that Jesus rose with a higher
spiritual body. And this gives to the ascension its meaning.
For otherwise, the ascension would be only a disappearance ;
whereas, in this view, the disciples saw him pass away in the
shape and form he was to continue to wear in the other
world. Then the gulf was bridged over, in their minds,
and they had looked into heaven.
This was what the resurrection of Jesus did for the apos-
tles. . It changed doubt and despair into faith and hope;
changed theoretical belief into practical assurance ; imparted
that commanding energy of conviction and utterance which
only comes from life. Animated thus themselves, they were
enabled to animate others. And so the resurrection of Christ
was the resurrection of Christianity, the resurrection of a
Christian faith and hope infinitely deeper and stronger than
had before existed in the minds of the disciples.
We do not like the usual method of regarding the resur-
rection of Jesus as a great exceptional event, and an astound-
ing violation of the laws of nature. Its power seems rather
to have consisted in this, that it was a glorious confirmation
of those everlasting laws announced by Jesus — laws bound-
822 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
less as the universe. The very essence of the gospel is the
declaration that good is not only better than evil, which wo
all knew before, but stronger than evil, which we weakly
doubt.
The gospel assures us that love is stronger than hatred,
peace than war, holiness than evil, truth than error. It is
the marriage of the goodness of motive and the goodness
of attainment ; goodness in the soul and goodness in outward
life ; heaven hereafter and heaven here. It asserts that the
good man is always in reality successful ; that he who hum-
bles himself is exalted, he who forgives is forgiven, he who
gives to others receives again himself, he who hungers after
righteousness is filled. This was the faith which Christ ex-
pressed, in which and out of which he lived and acted ; it was
this faith which made him Christ the King, King of human
minds and hearts. Was it then all false ? Did his death prove
it so ? Was that the end, the earthly end, of his efforts for
man ? Were truth and love struck down then by the power of
darkness ? That was the question which his resurrection an-
swered ; it showed him passing through death to higher life,
through an apparent overthrow to a real triumph ; it gave
one visible illustration to laws usually invisible in their oper-
ation, and set God's seal to their truth. Through that death
which seemed the destruction of all hope, Jesus went up to
be the Christ, the King.
In this point of view we see the value and importance of
the resurrection of Jesus, and why Easter Sunday should be
the chief festival of Christianity. It was the great triumph
of life over death, of good over evil. It was the apt symbol
and illustration ot the whole gospel.
If, then, the resurrection of Christ means that Christ as-
cended through death to a higher state ; if our resurrection
means that we pass up through death, and not down ;
not into the grave, but into a condition of higher life ; if the
resurrection of the body does not mean the raising again out
IMMOBTALITT AND THE RESURRECTION. 823
of the earth the material particles deposited there, but the
soul clothing itself with a higher and more perfect organiza-
tion ; if it is, then, the raising of the body to a more perfect
condition of development, — then is there not good reason
Yfhy such stress should be laid upon this great fact?
All the proof rests on the historic fact of the resurrection.
Was Christ seen in this higher spiritual and bodily state, or
was he not ? If he was, then we have a fact of history and
experience to rely upon to show us that the future life in-
volves an ascent both spiritual and bodily. And this is the
reason why such stress has been laid on the resurrection.
This raising of man, through the power of Christ's life, to
a higher state, is not a mere matter of speculation, then, not
an opinion, not something pleasant to think of and hope for,
but it is a fundamental fact of Christian faith. Because
Christ has arisen and passed up, we must all arise and pass
up, too, with him. He is the first fruits of those who sleep.
In proportion as the Spirit of Christ is in us, in that propor-
ti(fti is the power in us which shall carry us upward towards
him. He wishes that those who believe in him shall be
where he is. We shall belong to him and to his higher
world, not arbitrarily, but naturally; not by any positive
decree of God, but by the nature of things.
The essential fact in the resurrection is, that Christ rose,
through death, to a higher state. The essential doctrine of
the resurrection is, that death is the transition from a lower
to a higher condition in all who have the life which makes
them capable of it.
824 obthodoxy: its truths and ebbobs.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHRIST'S COMING, USUALLY CALLED THE "SECOND COMING,"
AND CHRIST THE JUDGE OF THE WORLD.
§ 1. The Coming of Christ is not wholly future^ not wholly
outward, not locals nor material. — It is a curious fact that,
in direct contradiction to Christ's own explanations concern-
ing his coming, this should frequently be considered bj the
Orthodox, (1.) as wholly future ; (2.) as wholly outward ;
(3.) as local ; (4.) as bodily and material.
It cannot be wholly future, for if it were, Jesus was mis-
taken in saying of the signs of his coming, " This generation
shall not pass away imtil all these things be fulfilled."
(Mark 13:30.)
Nor can it be wholly outward, for if it were, Jesus was
mistaken when he declared of the signs of his coming, '' The
kingdom of God cometh not with observation" (Luke 17:
20) ; " The kingdom of God is within you " (Luke 17 : 21) ;
"My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). See
also Mark 4 : 26, 27, and Matt. 13 : 33, where his king-
dom is compared with seed sprouting and leaven working
secretly.
Nor is Christ's coming local, that is, in a certain place, for
if it were, Jesus was mistaken in telling his disciples not to
believe those who said, " Lo, here ! " or " Lo, there ! " not to
go into the desert when men say, "Behold, he is there,"
and not to believe those who declare that he is hidden some-
where in the city, for that the coming of the Son of man
should be like that of the lightning, which shines all round
the sky, and seems to be everywhere at once. (Matt. 24 : 26.)
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AS JUDGE. 825
And if not local, neither can it be a bodily coming ; for all
bodily coming must be in some one place. Since, therefore,
Jesus distinctly denies that his coming is to be " here " or
" there," — that is, local, — it must be a spiritual coming, a
coming in spirit and in power. All the material images con-
nected witli it — the clouds, the trumpet, &c. — are to be con-
sidered symbolical. The " clouds of heaven " may symbolize
spiritual movements and influences ; the " trumpet," the
awakening power of new truth.*
§ 2. No Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in Scripture,
— It is also a remarkable fact that only one coming of Christ
is mentioned in the New Testament. Orthodoxy speaks con-
tinually of Christ's second coming, but without any warrant.
It assumes that the manifestation of Jesus in th« flesh was'
his first coming as the Christ, and that consequently the pre-
dictions (in Matt. ch. 24, and the parallels) must refer .to a
second coming. Hence the phrase "second coming" has
been introduced, and naturalized in theology. But, in truth,
the life of Jesus on earth was not regarded as his coming as
the Messiah, j- What the disciples expected was his manifes-
tation or investiture as the Messiah, which evidently had not
taken place at the time of their conversation. And this was
to be, not " at the end of the world," but at the end of the
age. They, like other Jews, divided time into two periods,
" the present age," or times previous to the Messiah, and
" the coming age," or times of the Messiah's reign. When,
therefore, Jesus "was with them, only teaching and healing,
they did not at all consider him to have come as the Messiah.
But when he spoke of the destruction of the Temple, as that
* So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegfriff ) says that adXirivf appears to dcnoto
partly the startling power of the truth, and partly its power of calling men
together from all the regions of the earth.
t Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming was as Jesus,
not as Christ. The human life is '< the life of Jesus." Christian history is " the
- life of Christ.'' In his earthly life he was Prophet; in his death he was Priest;
in his resurrection, or riRcn state, he was King.
28
826 . orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
indicated the end of the existing economy, they understood it
to be synchronous with his coming as the Christ. So they
said, " What shall be the sign of thy comikg, and of the end
op the age?" And so through the Epistles, when the
*' coming of Christ " is spoken of, is meant his manifestation
in the world as the Messiah. This was a single event, to
take place once, not to be repeated. Such a thing as " Christ's
second coming " is unknown to the Scriptures.*
§ 3. Were the Apostles mistaken in expecting a speedy Com*
ing of Christ 9 — It is often said that the apostles themselves
were mistaken- in expecting a speedy coming of Christ. No
doubt they did expect his speedy coming, and with reason ;
for he himself had told them that the existing generation
should not pass away till all those things were fulfilled.
Therefore they were justified in looking for a near coming
of Jesus as the Christ. We admit that they expected his
speedy coming ; but we think they were not mistaken, for he
did come. He came, though not perhaps in the manner they
anticipated. Possibly they interpreted too literally what he
said concerning his coming.
For though Christ spoke so much in symbols and parables,
literal people took him literally. And so they do still. When
he said that except men ate his flesh and drank his blood they
could not be his, the literalists said, " Sow can this man give
us his flesh to eat ? " And so many persons still think that
somehow Christ's actual body is to be eaten in the Lord's
supper. So, when he said that the Son of man should be
* The book of the Revelation of John is the account of Christ's coming;
and the true interpretation of that book depends on the proper understanding
of his coming. If Christ's coming began at the destruction of Jerusalem,
and has continued in all the developments of human history, then the key
to *' the Revelation '' is to be found in the progress of Christian princjplefl
and idci^ in the world. Bcrtholdt (Christologia Judeeorum Jcsu Apostolo-
rumque tetatc), note to § 11, quotes from the Scpher Ikkarim thift passage *
** The future age wiU come gradiuillp to men after the day of the great Judg-
ment, which wiU take place after the resurrection." Resurrection and JadgmenI
both come with Jesus, and his were " the last days."
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. . 327
seen " coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory, and send his angels with the sound of a trumpet, and
gather his elect from the four winds," they took it literally.
His apostles, even, may have supposed that he was to be seen
up in the air in physical form,* and that a material trumpet
was to be blown. But all this was the flesh, the garb of his
thought. The spirit of his thought only is of value ; the
flesh profits nothing. The apostles were wrong in suppos-
ing — if they did suppose it — that Christ was to come in their
day in the air, in an outward physical fashion, with an out-
ward noise, making a great demonstration to the senses of
sight and hearing. Christ never came so, and he never will
come so. The only coming of Christ possible is spiritual
coming, for Christ is spirit. He did come, therefore, in
the days of the apostles, in the great access of faith and power
in their own souls, and in the souls of those whom they con-
verted. He came in power and great glory, when his truth
came to human minds, and his love to human hearts. He
sent hi& angels then, and gathered his elect from the four
quarters of the heavens. When Paul was converted, Christ
came to him ; when the negro chamberlain of the Queen of
Ethiopia was converted, Christ came to him ; when the peo-
ple of Ephesus and Corinth, Philippi and Rome, were con-
verted, Christ came to them. The trumpet sounded, but it
was in their souls that it sounded ; the angels summoned the
elect, but these angels were the convictions sent into their
reason, and the longings awakened in their hearts.
Materialists and Literalists are always the same. The
apostles soon rose out of their literalism, and soon spoke of
Christ as being revealed within them, not outside of them ;
* 1 Thees. 4 :17. " We, who are alirc, and remain, ehall be caught up togeth-
er with tlicm, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." Ueteri (Puul.
Lehrbcg.) says that " this iti d:pa has no analogy in any other passage of the
Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament." But Paul outgrew this literalism,
and in his later Epistles speaks of sitting already with Christ in " heavenly
pliujes."
828 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
dwelling, not in the air, but in their hearts. But literal"
ists, down to this day, have always imagined the coming
of Christ to be to the senses, rather than to the soul. They
do not see that a great noise in the air is not so glorious
a ^ thing as a voice heard in the depths of the heart, and a
great outward conflagration somehow seems to them more
imposing than the burning up of falsehood, and sin in the
world. So we are always Hearing people predict that Christ
is to come in 1846, or 1856, or 1866, meaning thereby that
they expect some great outward event then, visible to eyes and
ears. " Fools, and slow of heart," not to see that the only
possible coming of Him who is spirit and love is a coming in
the soul,. and that he has come, and is coming, and is to come
more and more abundantly, from day to day. So they read
about the heavens and earth being burned up, and of a new
heavens and earth ; and they imagine that the sky is some-
how to be burned with material fire, and the surface of the
earth to sink into the flaming abyss beneath us. But if this
should happen, that would have nothing to do with the com-
ing of Christ. The heavens and earth which he consumes
with the breath of his mouth, and destroys with the bright-
ness of his coming, are the religions and moralities, the in-
stitutions and works, of men. And the new heavens and new
earth which take their place are the higher, nobler, purer re-
ligions and moralities which flow out of the Spirit of Christ.
§ 4. Examination of the Account of Chris fs Coming given
hy Jesus in Matthew (chapters 24-26). — A great difficulty
in regard to the coming of Christ is to combine in one
view the different notions given in Scripture concerning it.
Many of these ideas indicate that the coming of Christ took
place at the destruction of Jerusalem, as, for example, the
description of wars, destruction of the Temple, and especially
the declaration that ^Hhis generation shall not pass away till
all these things be fulfilled." On the other hand, the coming
of Christ is expressly connected, in our translation, with ^' the
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. 329
end of the world," and with the general judgment. Hence a
difficulty in interpreting these passages, some persons think-
ing that the coming of Christ took place at the destruction of
Jerusalem ; others thinking that it is yet to take place at the
end of the world ; others, again, maintaining two or more
comings of Christ ; and others spiritualizing the whole of it,
and making it mean the spread of the spirit of Christianity.
Let us, therefore, examine the passage in which Christ's
coming is spoken of, and endeavor to find its natural and
obvious meaning, and so see how far the common Orthodox
conception is correct.
The subject is not unimportant. Several chapters in the
Gospel of Matthew (24-26) are devoted to the description of
this event. All of the Epistles contain frequent allusions to
it. The apostles unquestionably expected Christ's coming in
their day, and they had a right to do so, inasmuch as Jesus
himself had distinctly said that their generation would not
pass away till all was fulfilled. And in the main fact they
were not mistaken, however they may have been deceived,
as we have before said, in taking too outward a view of the
attending circumstances. For if Christ's coming did pot take
place in their day, not only were they themselves mistaken
on a most important point, but Jesus was mistaken likewise.
Some of the other points in the description of this event
are these : Christ's coming was to be like that of the thief
in the night — that is, it was to be unexpected, and to take
men unprepared. It was to be preceded by wars, commo-
tions, and misery in every form ; preceded also by the preach-
ing of the truth in many lands. It was to be as difficult to
locate Christ at his coming, as to fi^ the lightning, which
comes out of the east and shines to the west. It was to be
attended with great spiritual darkness, even in the minds of
the wise and good. The sun, and moon, and stars of the moral
world were to be darkened, and the powers of the heavens to
be shaken ; and of ten virgins, all going together to meet
28*
330 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
the bridegroom, half would be found spiritually asleep when
he came. Christ's coming would be especially judgme it and
punishment. He would part the sheep from the goats. He
would consume with the brightness of his coming the man of
sin. Such are some of the traits with which the coming
of Jesus is described by himself and by his apostles. How
are these to be reconciled with the facts, and what was his
coming ?
The best way to get at the facts is to begin at the begin-
ning, and ask what the disciples meant when they asked for the
signs of Christ's coming. They were sitting with Jesus on
the Mount of Olives, looking across the valley between, at
the Temple. They saw and admired the gorgeous magnifi-
cence of this vast edifice towering before them, white with
marble and yellow with gold, against the deep blue sky of
that sunny land, and as they admired it, Jesus told them that
every stone of that divine structure should be cast down.
And then they asked, " When shall these things be ? and what
shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end of the world? "
What was the connection, in their minds, between the three
events? Why should they have at once inferred that the
destruction of the Temple was to take place at the coming
of Christ, and that the coming of Christ was to. take place at
the end of the world ? There was no connection at all, accord-
ing to the common notions on this subject. If the coming
of Christ was to be a great outward manifestation in the sky,
to take place long after his death, after the. lapse of thousands
of years, and at the destruction of the visible universe, what
had that to do with the Jewish Temple? or, indeed, what
had that to do with apy of their ideas concerning their Mas-'
ter? But the notion in their minds, when they asked the
question, was something very different ; not the present
Christian idea, but the usual Jewish idea. They spoke as
Jews, out of the notions of their day. Christ answered whaf
was in their minds, not what is in ours. J£ we wish to know
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. 331
what he meant, we must place ourselves on their stand-point,
look out of their eyes, and listen with their ears.
The coming of Christ had a very distinct meaning to the
Jewish mind. It meant the manifestation of the Messiah, aa
such. It meant his coming to reign as king. It meant his
manifestation in Judea, in Jerusalem, as the great Son of
David ; and the submission of the Jews, and Gentiles with
them, to his authority. The disciples of Jesus, believing
him to be the Christ, believed that he was to come as such.
He had come as Prophet, as Teacher, as a worker of benef-
icent miracles, but he had not yet come as Christ, as King.
They were not asking about any second coming after his
death and resurrection, for they did not believe that he was
to die. They were asking for his present triumphant mani-
festation and investiture as the Messiah.
Nor were they asking — as our translators make them ask
— for "the end of the world." But they were asking for
the end of the age — that is, of the first age. We have said
that the Jews divided all time into two great periods ; one
the age preceding the Messiah, the other the age of the Mes-
siah. The first was called this age, or the present age ; the
other the coming age. The end of the first period and be-
ginning of the second were called the ends of the age ; as
where Paul says, "These are written for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come ; " and where
he says that Christ has "now once appeared in the end of
the world to put. away sin." These were the ideas of the
Jews, as we know from history. When, therefore, Christ
spoke of the overthrow of the Temple, they inferred that he
was speaking of the beginning of the Messianic age ; since
the Temple would not be overthrown while the Jewish theo-
cratic and Levitical government continued. Now, as the
Jewish age did come to an end at the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, and Christianity, as the universal religion, took the
place of Judaism in the education of the human race,
332 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
this really was the coming of the Messiah and the end of
the age.
We understand, therefore, Christ to have been reallj speak-
ing of his coming, as an event soon to take place, and which
did soon take place, when, at the destruction of Jerusalem,
the Jewish Christians were scattered through the world, and
Christianity took its place as a universal religion.* If this
exhausted the meaning of the idea, it would be of very little
interest to us. But the contents of the passage are more rich
and full ; and, like most of Christ's sayings, besides its pres-
ent and immediate application, it has more universal and
far-reaching meanings. The principles of Christianity which
* Olshausen, an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to Christ's
predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25: —
" One of the most striking examples of the blending of the present and future
in one narrative, and one which presents many difficulties, is to be found in
these passages. Plain descriptions Of the impending destruction of Jerusalem
and of the Jewish state blend with no less apparent descriptions of the coming
of Christ in his kingdom. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox interpreters
are far less natural and unforced than the others, in their treatment of this pas-
sage. Their dogmatic views lead them to put apart from each other elements
which are" blended together by Matthew and by the other evangelists. For
example, Schott says, that the description of Christ's coming begins (Matt^ 24:
29) immediately after * the tribulation,' &c., and that all before that belongs
to the destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impossibility of regarding
the 29th verse as the beginning of sometliing entirely new, there are also in
the passages which follow distinct references to the present generation (verse
34), and in the first part as distinct references to * the last time.' We do not,
therefore, scruple (says Olshausen) to accept the simple explanation which
alone suits the text, that Christ speaks of his coming as coincident with the
destruction of Jerusalem, and with the downfall of the Jewish state."
The most interesting question, perhaps, is as 'to the opinions of Jesus himself
about his coming. That he foresaw the overthrow of Jerusalem and the Tem-
ple is certain. Everything indicates that he possessed a marvellous power of
reading the future in the present, and saw in the condition of the Jewish
mind the inevitable overthrow of their state. He also saw that through his
death all men should be brought to him, and that he should become King in the
way in which he described to Pilate his royalty, i. e., King of the truth. All
who love the truth shall, sooner or later, obey his voice. In what way, then,
did he expect to come ? In the way he himself indicates the coming of his
kingdom — like leaven, working secretly in the dough; like seed, sprouting
mysteriously in the ground; like lightning, seen everywhere at once. By
these images alone ex)uld he convey to his disciples his ideas. He longed to teh
them many things more, but they wepe not able to bear them.
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. 333
were manifested then, continue^ to be manifested in other
forms to-day. Jesus said on one occasion, " The hour is
coming, and now is, when all that are in their graves shall
hear the voice of the Son of man." And on another occa-
sion, " The hour is coming, and now is, when the true wor-
shippers shall worship the Father." The hour had come in
its first manifestation, but was to come again in other and
richer manifestations of the same principle. So Christ himself
came as King at the taking of Jerusalem, but has come since,
again and again, more plainly aud fully, in other triumphs
of his truth, in other manifestations of his, power. We be-
lieve that the coming of Christ took place at the destruction
of Jerusalem. We believe that it has- taken place since, in
other historical events. We believe that it is to take place
more fully hereafter, in this life and in the other life.
Let us look and consider how this may be.
§ 5. Coming of Christ in Human History aC different
Times, — As we look back through the eighteen centuries
of Christian history, we can observe many events which may
now be seen to have been each a coming of Christ. When,
at the destruction of Jerusalem, the Mosaic theocracy went
down before the iron power of Rome, amid those scenes of
horror the firmest believers in Christ might have feared only
evil. It seemed to be the overthrow of everything most
sacred — the triumph of Paganism over the worship of Je-
hovah. Yet what was the result? Jesus then ceased to be
the Jewish Messiah, and began to reign over all. nations as
the world-teacher, the Son of God, the prophet for mankind.
Since then, more and more, the world has gone to him as to
its great Master. This, therefore, was a coming of Christ.
Look again. The early centuries are disgraced with theo-
logical wars. Fierce conflicts are carried on about the Trin-
ity, and the rank of Jesus in the universe. All regard for the
pure, divine truth of Christianity seems forgotten in the fury
of these controversies. Yet, nevertheless, amid all the
334 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
absurdity and contradiction, one truth emerges, everywhere
recognized — that in Jesus was something divine ; that God
was more fully manifest in him than elsewhere ; that he is
the moral image of the Infinite One. This is another com-
ing of Christ. He comes now not merely as a prophet, but
as the revealer of divine love and truth, in his own charac-
ter. The theological doctrines, in which this truth has been
wrapped, are the husks and shells which the world will
throw away. But throughout Christendom the idea of God
is derived from the character of Jesus, and in this way
Jesus has come to rule the hearts of men as their divine
King.
Other centuries passed by, and we find new and strange
ideas taking possession of men's minds. A horror of life, a
dread of the sins of the world, drive men into the desert,
to live as hermits and anchorites. Thousands and tens of
thousands of monks withdrew from the world into the wil-
derness. All Christianity appeared to be changing into a
new form of heathenish, self-inflicted torture. Its blessed
humanity, its genial influences on social life, seemed to be
fast disappearing. Nevertheless, out of all this error one
truth emerged, one Christian idea was developed — that of self-
discipline and self-culture. And in the development of this
idea Christ came to reign over the individual aovl as its Mas-
ter, Guide, and Redeemer from all sin.
After this arose the Papacy. The Church, as a powerful
institution, became ambitious to rule the state and the world.
A spiritual despotism appeared, surrounding itself with earth-
ly splendor, grasping the sword of earthly power, and the
farthest removed from the humble and gentle spirit of its
Master. It would tolerate no opposition to its will, in high
places or low. It hurled its thunders at the head of kings,
and sent crusading armies to persecute and torture the peas-
ants of the Piedmont valleys. Nothing could seem more
fuU of the spirit of Antichrist than this spiritual despotism
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AS JUDGE. 335
embodied in the Papacy. And yet, even through this evil
there was developed a truth — that there was something in the
world higher than kings, greater than the state. Papacy,
with all its evils, was a standing proof, in an age of brute
force, of the supremacy of mind over matter. So that, even
here, the pride and selfishness of the priests and the popes
have been overruled, in the providence of God, to give as-
cendency to a Christian idea, and to cause Christ to come as
the King of the world.
Consider another important event in the history of Europe :
the conversion of the barbarous tribes to Christianity. When
the nations of the north poured from the forests of Germany
and the deserts of Scandinavia over the Roman empire, —
when Goths and Vandals, Franks, Lombards, and Normans,
quenched the light of civilization and brought the dark ages
over Europe, — how terrible seemed the gloom, and how hope-
less the prospects, of the human race ! But we now see the
result in modern civilization. We see all these different na-
tions subdued by the power of Christianity, and a new unity,
a higher harmony, as the result. We see the great idea of
the unity of the race, the harmony of nations, resulting from
all this darkness and misery. So Christ has come again as
the Prince of Peace, breaking down the partition walls, and
proclaiming a brotherhood of man.
Let us look at one more event of history — the Lutheran
Reformation. What evils attended it I What wars came
out of it ! How has the impulse to freedom given by
Luther degenerated into licentiousness, run out in infidelity
and unbelief! And yet, when we consider the ideas of per-
sonal responsibility and individual independence which have
been bom of it, — when we consider what an impulse it has
given to thought, to free inquiry, to earnest investigation of
truth, all the results of this fruitful principle, — we cannot
doubt that this also was a coming of Jesus, tbm unfolding o^
a new and higher power in Christianity.
336 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Thus has Christ come from age to age, and in the midst
of apparent failure, increasing error, growing unbelief, and
all forms of human wickedness, has acquired new power over
the human mind. At the present day he is more the King
of the world than ever. When he seems to go, then he
comes. When iniquity most abounds, then he is nearest.
When love grows cold in the hearts of his disciples, then a
new impulse of faith is about to be given. When false
prophets rise up and deceive many, then new champions of
the truth are near at hand. Christ comes amid wars and
persecutions. He comes unexpectedly, like the thief in the
night ; comes without observation ; and while men say, " Lp,
heie ! " and " Lo, there ! " the kingdom of heaven is in the
midst of them. He is not to be found in the desert, nor in
the secret chambers ; neither in public nor private ; located
neither in this nor that particular place ; incarnate neither in
this nor that particular person. But Christ comes like the
lightning, seen over the whole heaven at once, in a new spirit
pervading all parts of life, all parts of society.
§ 6. Relation of the Parable of the Virgins^ and of the
Talents^ to Christ's Coming, — We now see what is meant by
the parable of the foolish and wise virgins, and of the talents,
which follows it. We see their application to this descrip-
tion of Christ's coming. If the coming of Christ be thus,
unexpected, he will not be recognized by the sleeping servant,
nor by those who beat their fellow-servants. Slothful Chris-
tians who make no effort to improve, persecuting Christians
who spend their time in denouncing heretics, and saying,
" My Lord delayeth his coming," never understand the signs'
of the times, nor recognize any new influx of divine light iu
the world. At each new coming of Christ those who have
been faithful are rewarded by more light. To those who
have, shall be given, and the faithless lose what they had
before. From him who hath not, shall be taken away even
what he seems to have. The capacity of seeing Christ when
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. 837
he comes, of recognizing him in any new manifestation of
truth, depends on his previous fidelity.
§ 7. Relation of the Account of the Judgment hy the MeS'
siah^ in Matt, ch. 25, to his Coming, — But what is meant by
the judgment described in the 25th chapter of Matthew, com-
mencing, " When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne
of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations,
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd
divideth the sheep from the goats." This stands in such
close connection with what goes before, that many refer this
also to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the moral mean-
ing is so prominent, that others apply it entirely to the final
judgment in the future life. The difficulties on both sides
disappear if we reflect that the principles which govern this
life and the next are identical — that whether Christ came
at Jerusalem, comes to-day, or comes in the future life, the
laws of Christian retribution are the same. Wherever
Christ judges men, the sheep go to the right, and the goats
to the left. The generous, humane, and disinterested hear
always the words, " Come, ye blessed of my Father ; inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world." The judgment in this world, it may be, is only
heard in the depths of the soul. It may be that no other
mortal knows of it. Still it is the voice of Christ which
speaks. Still it is the real kingdom which they inherit.
The judgment in the' future life, may be or may not be,
before assembled multitudes whom no man can number, and
the kingdom then inherited may be one shared with the
angels; and extending over worlds'. Still the sentence is the
same in both cases. The judgment of Christ is one in all
worlds. It was, and is, and shall be. Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
It may be said, this is to make the coming of Christ mere-
ly figurative — the coming of ideas and principles only ; only
29
338 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
the coming of his religion ; and this is but an invisible ab-
straction. We reply,- that according to our view, Christiani-
ty cannot be conceived of as an abstraction, apart from the
person of Jesus, nor can his religion come unless he comes
with it. Jesus is with us always, in the world always, and
none the less really, because invisibly. It is no figirc of
speech to say that Christ is with his Church, and with his
truth ; that where it goes, he goes ; that when he comes, it
comes. It may even be that his presence will not always
be an invisible one. It mav be that what we now believe,
we shall one day see and know. But then those only will
recognize their Master's presence who are awake and watch-
ing for him. To the others it will seem a mere illusion or
enthusiasm.
§ 8. How Christ is, and how he is not, to judge the World. —
In some places Jesus says that he is made Judge of mankind,
and in other places denies that he is to judge any one. Take,
for example, the following passages, selected because they
seem to contradict each other. They are all in the Gospel of
John, and therefore the contradiction is not in the different
limitations or special misconceptions of the different evan-
gelists. The passages are, John 3:17; 9:39; 5:22; 8 :
15 ; 12 : 47. The first is as follows : " For God sent not his
Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved." The word here translated
^'condemn'' is precisely the same as that which elsewhere
is translated ^' judged' Consequently we should here read
that God sent Christ into the world, not to judge the world,,
but to save it. But the next text referred to (John 9 : 39)
is one in which Jesus says, " For judgment have I come
into the world, that they which see not may see, and that
they which see might be made blind." Again (in John
5 : 22) it is said, that " the Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son." But in the follow-
ing passage^(John 8 : 15) Jesus says, " Ye judge after the
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST AS JUDGE. 339
flesh. I judge no man." And in the last text he repeats
the same idea. " And if any man hear my words and be-
lieve not, I judge him not ; for I came not to judge the world,
but to save the world." We have, therefore, in these pas-
sages, this apparent contradiction — that the Saviour seems in
some places to declare 4hat he is to judge the world, and in
others that he is not to judge the world. We therefore shall
do well to inquire how these are to be understood, and in
what way at all they are to be reconciled with each other,
and with the common Orthodox doctrine concerning judg-
ment.
And here we may remark, in passing, that there are many
such seeming contradictions as these in the New Testament,
and that to the student of the Gospels, who is a sincere seeker
of truth, they are very precious and valuable. Such a one is
always glad at finding statements in the New Testament which
thus appear opposed to each other ; for he knows, by experi-
ence, that they are the very passages from which he may learn
the most, and where he will be likely to find some hitherto
unnoticed truth concerning Christ or his gospel. Such truth,
however, will not be found if he attempts to remove the con-
tradiction by any artificial, hasty, or forced process. If his
object is merely to find proof-texts in support of the doctrines
he already believes, such paradoxes will aiford him nothing
but barren difficulties, and a sphere for the exercise of sophis-
try and misplaced ingenuity. But if he can bear to admit
bis ignorance, and is willing to examine these difficulties in
order to correct his own errors, enlarge his own views, and
learn something really new, he will often find here the clew
to deeper insight and to a larger knowledge.
What, then, is the explanation of these passages? In
what way is Christ to judge f How is it that he has come
into this world for judgment f and how has the Father com-
mitted all judgment xmXo the Son? and how, nevertheless, can
he say, '* I judge no man / for I came not to judge the world " f
340 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Christ's coming was simply to do good ; to make men bet-
ter ; to save them from their sins ; to reveal pardon ; to offer
salvation ; to manifest God's love. " The law was given bj
Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." It is
the law, and not the gospel, which judges and condemns the
evil-doer. The law given by Moses^or the law given in the
conscience, in the reason, in the nature of things, written on
the face of nature, written in the soul of man, — this law has
not been made more strict by the coming of Christ. Men
were bound before, by the law of nature and the law of
Moses, to love God with all their heart, and their neighbor
as themselves ; and they are not bound to do more now.
They were bound by nature and reason to obey their con-
science, to do the best they could always, and they are not
bound to do any more now. The whole influence of the
gospel is a bountiful and gracious one, intended and adapted
to make it easier to do right, to add new motives to virtue.
Christ is no strict, severe judge, deciding by the letter of the
law, bound by his office to show no favor or compassion, but
the sinner's advocate and friend. And hence it may truly
be said that he came not to judge the world, but to save the
world.
Nevertheless, it is also true that the greatest blessings and
the best gifts of God are also judgments. They test the
character. They show what it is. According to the state
of mind and heart in which a man is, so does he receive, or
reject, or neglect the offered good. If he loves light, he
comes to the light. If he loves darkness, he goes away.**
If his deeds are good, he gratefully receives any revelation
which brings him nearer to God. If his deeds are evil, he
rejects such revelation, avoids it, dislikes the thought of it.
So it necessarily is that the best and kindest of men who
wishes only to do good to all, nevertheless, by his very pres-
ence and his offers of good, judges and condemns the wicked.
But what are the judgment and the sentence ? Simply this — -
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 341
that light has come iuto the world, and that thcj have chosen
darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.
Therefore it was necessarily the case that the coming of
Jesus into the world was a judgment, and that though he
everywhere went with the purpose of saving and blessing
men, yet that he necessarily was also a judge. The thoughts
of many hearts were revealed by his presence. The pure in
heart came to him in humility, penitence, and faith. The
proud in heart, the self-willed, the self-righteous, turned away
from him, and so judged themselves unworthy of receiving
his truth. The Galilean peasants, the common people, heard
him gladly. The Scribes and Pharisees murmured against
him and rejected him. This was really a judgment on both :
the sheep went to the right hand, and the goats to the left.
Thus it is a law of human nature that all high truth by its
coming judges men, and shows by its influence upon them
what is their real state. And in this way, as Christ's truth
was the highest of all, so he was, and is, a judge in the high-
est sense. But this is not quite all. The coming of such
truth not only shows the good and evil which are in men, but
it develops them, brings them out, increases the good, increases
also the evil. It is necessarily so ; it cannot be otherwise.
When good comes to us, if it does not make us better, it makes
us worse. Truth and goodness are like the magnet. They
have two poles. They attract and they repel. Thus it was
written that the coming of Jesus would be for the fall or
the rising of many. Thus he said, '* For judgment I have
come into the world, that those which see not may see, and that
those who see may be made blind." Peter was made better,
Judas was made worse, by being in the company of Christ.
His coming was not only judgment, but also reward and pun-
ishment. He came to the fishermen of Galilee : they were
pure in heart, they were lovers of truth and goodness, and
his coming transformed them into apostles, saints, and mar-
tyrs. He came to the Scribes and Pharisees : they were not
29*
342 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
pure in heart. They were proud of their position, their in-
fluence, their piety, and his coming transformed them into
murderers.
We are now prepared to decide what is meant by Jesus in
saying that he came to judge the world, and yet that he came
not to judge, but to save. It \^as not the purpose of his mis-
sion to judge. The direct object of his coming was not to
judge, but to save ; but indirectly, and as a matter of neces-
sity, one of the consequences of his coming was, that men
were judged by the word which he spoke, by the truth which
he manifested, by the holiness of his life, by the bliss which
he offered, and which they rejected. And yet it was true
that he did not judge them, and that he did not mean to
judge them. They were already judged by their own choice
and determination. Therefore he says, " He who belie veth
not on me is judged already, because he hath not believed
on the name of the only begotten Son of God." It was not
the will of Christ, but the truth itself, which pronounced the
sentence upon him. " The word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him at the last day." And thus it is said, that
God is the Judge of all, and yet again, that the Father judg-
eth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,
and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, be-
cause he is the Son of man. The explanation is, that men
are judged by the truth. But this truth is not abstract, but
the truth embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. God
does not come into the world himself to show men their sins,
but he embodies his truth and holiness in the life of his Son,
and so judges the world.
In giving this explanation, we have looked steadily at the
essential thing in judgment. We have regarded the sub-
stance, not the form. If we think of judgment as something
outward, the judge seated on his throne, the criminal stand-
ing before him, and a formal sentence pronounced, of acquit-
tal or condemnation, we confess that we should find it
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 343
difficult to reconcile these different passages of Scripture,
some of which declare that Christ is to be the judge, and
others that he is not to be. But what is the essential thing
in judgment? It is that justice shall be done, and that truth
and right shall be vindicated ; that the good shall be re-
warded, and the wicked punished ; that virtue and truth shall
be seen and recognized in the consciences of men for what they
are. This is the essential thing. How this is done, whether
in an open tribunal, before the assembled universe, or in the
secret places of every man's soul, belongs not to the essence,
but to the form, and is comparatively unimportant.
§ 9. When Christ's Judgment takes Place. — Nevertheless,
there is a m,ore important question to be answered in relation
to the time of judgment. When is the judgment? For it
may be thought, from what we have said, that we consider
judgment as taking place only in this world. But such is
not the fact. Christ's judgments take place at Christ's com-
ing, whether here or hereafter. Whenever Christ comes, he
comes to judge. His first coming, in Judea, was a judg-
ment ; and he said, " Now is the judgment of the world."
His coming judged all those who were near him; revealed
the state of their minds and hearts ; showed them what they
were. Wherever he went, men arranged themselves at once
according to their real characters, and the thoughts of many
hearts were revealed.
It is true that people at that day did not understand that
tlipy were thus condemning themselves. They did not know
that the awful judgment of God was being pronounced upon
them ; that they were standing before his bar in the presence
of angels. They did not know that the day of judgment had
come, and that they were giving an account of every idle
word even then. But so it was. When they scoffed at Jesus
and said, " He is a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber," they
may have forgotten their words almost before they left their
mouths. But there they stand, recorded against them
344 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
forever — an everlasting proof of their blindness of mind and
their hardness of heart. When the penitent woman brought
the ointment and anointed the feet of Jesus, and bathed them
«
with her tears, little did she think that it was her day of
judgment also, and that the approving sentence of her act
would be read by angels in heaven and countless myriads
on earth. None of them knew that it was a judgment then ;
but it was so.
But was that the only judgment ? No ; for whenever
Jesus comes, he comes to judge ; and since that, his first
coming, he has come again and again to individuals and to the
world, and every coming has been a new judgment on the
state of the human mind and heart. It has therefore been
well said, that the history of the world is the judgment of the
world. And it is always true that this judgment is not un-
derstood when it is pronounced, but is seen and recognized
afterwards. It is so with individuals ; it is so with commu-
nities. Who is there who, in looking back over his past life,
does not witness many an hour in which the truth has come
to him, and he refused to admit it, and so sentenced himself
to receive a lie ? in which he has had opportunities of im-
provement, opportunities of doing good, and has refused to
accept them, and so the talent has been taken from him and
given to another. This is the judgment — that light has
come into the world, and we have chosen darkness. At the
time we did not know it : blinded by prejudice, heated by
passion, we rushed recklessly on. But sooner or later comes
the calm hour of recollection, and we see ourselves as we are.
But is this judgment which takes place in this world the
only one? It is unreasonable to think so. There are, in
fact, two extreme views on this subject. The views of those
who say that all judgment is in this life, and the views of
those who say that no judgment is in this life. The New
Testament teaches that we are judged here, and that we are
also judged hereafter. The coming of Christ is here, and
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 345
also hereafter ; and the judgment which commenced with his
first coming will not be completed till all of us stand before
the judgment seat to give an account of the deeds done in
the body, whether they be good or evil. "It is appointed
unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There
is a judgment in this life, and another to come. But those
will be best prepared for that future judgment who under-
stand the present judgment. Here is an example of the
nature of the judgments which take place in this world.
In the year 1633, an old man was brought before the
Court of the Inquisition, consisting of seven cardinals of the
Roman Catholic Church, to hear a sentence and to pronounce
a recantation. ' The crime he had committed was the publi-
cation of a book in the form of a dialogue, maintaining that
the sun stood still, and that the earth moved ; which propo-
sition these holy cardinals pronounced to be absurd, false in
philosophy, and formally heretical, seeing that it was ex-
pressly contrary to Holy Scripture. Whereupon they call
upon him to abjure, execrate, and detest these errors and.
heresies ; prohibiting his book and condemning him to con-
finement, with the penance of reciting Once a week, for three
years, the seven penitential psalms. And thereupon this
man, Galileo Galilei, of the age of seventy, on his knees,
with his hands on the Gospels, abjures his opinion.
These seven cardinals thought that they were pronouncing
sentence on Galileo and on the Copernican system. But, in
reality, they pronounced sentence on themselves and their
own church. They put it upon record forever, that the Ro-
man Catholic Church, claiming to be infallible in matters of
faith, had, by its highest judicature, declared the Copernican
system a heresy, and thus declared its own claim to infalli-
bility a lie. This was the condemnation — that light had
come into the world, and they chose darkness rather than
light.
So it is whenever a new truth comes into the world : it
846 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
attracts the free-minded, the lovers of truth ; it repels those
bound by interest or passion. Those who believe, with Solo-
mon, that a living dog is better than a dead lion, leave be-
hind them the past, and with open eyes go forward, leaving
the dead to bury the dead. Those who change the maxim,
and love a dead do^ more than a living lion, turn their backs
to the east and to the rising sun, and hug their much-loved
errors to their hearts. So the truth stands in their midst,
awful in its beauty, and judges them — sending away its foes,
drawing its friends to its embrace.
But it is not in abstract truth, whether of science or theol-
ogy, that Christ comes to us now. It is in the truth in its
concrete shape, embodied in the reforms which overthrow
evil, in the great moral improvements which do away with
the sin and woe of the world. Every new cause of this sort
parts the sheep from the goats, and causes the thoughts of
many hearts to be revealed. We do not mean to assert that
all who sympathize with any particular reformatory measures,
or any particular reformatory party, are on the side of Christ,
and all who disapprove these measures, or this party, are
against him. Such an assertion would be the sign of the
narrowest bigotry or the most foolish ignorance of human
nature. But we mean to say, that when any great human
and moral movement comes to rouse men's minds to a great
evil — such as the evil of war^ slavery^ intemperance^ licen"
tiousnessj popular ignorance, pauperism^ infidelity^ it is impos-
sible for good ipen not to take an interest in it, and in their
own way to aid it. If men neglect and ridicule such move-
ments, find fault with all that is done, and do nothing them-
selves, they show thereby that they do not care so much for
their brother's happiness as for their own ease and comfort.
In this way it becomes true that
" Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
* Parts the goats upon the left hand, parts the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever *twixt that darkness and the light."
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 347
TVc read in the book of Acts, that after Paul and Barnabas
had preached the gospel to the Jews in Antioch, the Grcn-
tiles were interested also, and great multitudes came together
to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the mul-
titudes, they were filled with envy, and contradicted Paul
and blasphemed. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold,
and said, ^^ It was necessary that the word of God should be
first preached to you ; but since you put it from you, and
judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life^ lo, we turn to the
Gentiles." A hard judgment for a man to pronounce on
himself — that he is not worthy of eternal life I
But do we not often all do the same ? Christ comes to us
in the form of a new truth, which will correct our errors
and enlarge our hearts. But loving our own little creed bet-
ter than the truth, we reject it without examination, and so
judge ourselves unworthy of the light, strength, and peace it
might bestow. Christ comes again in some opportunity of
usefulness to our neighbor. But loving our own selfish ease,
we excuse ourselves, and so judge ourselves unworthy of the
happiness we should enjoy in doing the kind action. He
comes in some deep conviction, calling us to a new life. We
feel that we ought to leave our frivolity, and live for God
and eternity — live for what is real and permanent. But we
stifle these convictions, and go back to our old lives, and so
judge that we are not worthy to become the friends and fel-
low-workers of Jesus, and companions of the pure and good.
The great feast is ready, and the invitation is sent to us, and
we, with one consent, begin to make excuse. Do we think
that in that moment we are standing before the judgment
seat of God, and pronouncing sentence on ourselves ? It is
our own heart that condemns us, and God, and Christ, and
the everlasting truth of things must confirm the sentence.
§ 10. PauVs View of the Judgment by Christ, — What
were the views of the apostle Paul concerning a future judg-
ment? One of the passages is in Romans. (2 : 5-16.) In
348 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
this passage Paul describes a day, or time, when God should
judge and bring to light the secrets of the human heart.
He refers probably to the coming of Christ, as described in
the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Christ's coming is
represented as " that day" the " day of judgment," as, " it
shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment." It was not, we have seen, as is commonly
supposed, only a judgment in the other world after death,
but also a judgment in this world. It was not when we
should go to Christ in the other world, but when Christ
should come to us in this world. It is spoken of as a par-
ticular day, or time, and, no doubt, it was thought at first
by Paul, as by the other apostles, that the coming of Christ
was to be sudden and outward — an imposing visible transac*
tion. But, gradually, Paul's views on this subject changed,
under the influence of a growing spiritual insight. At first
he interprets literally what Jesus says of his coming. But
afterwards, in his later Epistles to the Ephesians and Colos-
sians, he ceases to dwell on the outward coming, and speaks
of the inward revelation of Christ in the heart — speaks of
our now sitting in heavenly places with Christ. We may,
therefore, suppose that the apostle believed the essence of the
judgment to be in this. — that either in this world or the next,
or both, there shall be a revelation of God's truth to the soul,
so that every soul shall see itself as God sees it — see its own
evil or good, and so be rewarded or punished by that sight.
This idea is given by Jesus himself, in his description of the
judgment which was to take place before that generation
passed away — a judgment in which the Son of man should
be seated on the throne of his glory, with all his augeb, and
all nations be collected before him. The judgment consists
in showing to the good, that when they did anything good to
man, they did it to Christ and God ; and in showing to the
bad, that when they refused anything to their poor brethren
in want, they refused it to Christ and Gt)d. The judgment
SECOND COMING OP CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 349
is therefore making known to each man his own real char-
acter. The consequence of that revelation is, that some
men immediately go into spiritual happiness, and others into
spiritual suffering.
This is the substance of the Christian doctrine of judgment,
as taught in the New Testament. All else is accessory, and
belongs to the rhetoric — is part of the mise en scene ; but there
are two points in the views of the apostle* concerning judg-
ment, which deserve further notice. The first is in 1 Cor.
6 : 2, where he says, " Know ye not that the saints shall
judge the world?" and (verse 3), "Know ye not that We
dhall judge angels?" He speaks of this as of something
which they already knew, or at any rate could know ; some-
thing like an axiom, as when he says (verse 9), " Know ye
not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God?" or (verse 19), "Know ye not that your body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit?" This notion is based on the
idea of the unity of Christ and his disciples. Christians are
joint heirs with Christ. Whatever Christ inherits, they re-
ceive and share with him. If he judges the world, and
judges angels, they do the same with him, because they
share his spirit of insight. Paul thinks the essence of Chris-
tianity to be so profound, that even the angels, desiring to
look into it, may not have seen it. Therefore Christians, to
whose heart God has revealed it by his Spirit, may be able
to set the angels right, in some matters. But this does away
with the notion of a literal day of judgment ; for we can
hardly imagine Christians to be assembled together and
seated on a throne by the side of Christ, in order to judge
the world. Some millions of Christians seated on a local
throne as judges, with millions of men and angels standing
before them, is an impossible picture.
The other point is the passage in 1 Cor. 11 : 31 : " If we
would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." Here a
principle seems to be laid down — that just so far as we apply
30
350 orthodoxy: its tbuths and ebrobs.
God's truth to our own hearts and consciences, we do not
need to have it applied by God. And this corresponds with
the account of the judgment to which we have before referred,
in the tweuty-fifth chapter of Matthew. Those who are
there called up for judgment, and who stand before the
throne, aire not Jews or Christians, but Gentiles (tA Wi^rj),
The holy angels are with Christ in his glory. The heathen
appear before him ; those who have been doing good without
knowing it are received by him into his kingdom, as those
who have been blessed by his Father. They are Christians,
it appears, without knowing it. They inherit the kingdom,
from which the original heirs who have been wicked and
slothful servants, and who have buried their talent in the
napkin, are excluded. Christians who have judged them-
selves, and applied Christianity by their own lives, are not
to be judged at the coming of Christ, but only those who
have been doing right or wrong ignorantly.*
§ 11. Final Result. — The course of our investigations in
the present chapter has brought us to this result. Ortho-
doxy is right in expecting the coming of Christ in this world,
but wrong in supposing it wholly future and wholly outward.
* The difficulties (of which Olshausen and other candid Orthodox interpreters
speak) in harmonizing the different parts of Matthew's two chapters (24 and 25)
about Christ's coming and judgment, may perhaps bo relieved in some such
way as this. (1.) The end of the Mosaic age and the beginning of the Mes
sianio age are fixed at the destruction of Jerusalem. (2.) Christ's coming begins
there, and continues through Christian history, till all mankind are Christians.
His coming, therefore, verifies what Schiller says of truth, that it ** nimmer
isti immerwird." (3.) Whenever he comes, he judges men according to the
state of mind in which they are. (4.) The three parables (virgins, talents,
king on his throne) represent the judgment on three different classes. The
first class (of wise and foolish virgins) are those who are not yet converted, and
have not become disciples of Christ. When ho comes, those of them who have
oil in their lamps — or who receive truth into an honest heart (Luke 8 : 15) — are
ready to receive him, and to become Christians ; those who have no oil reject
him. The second class (in the talents) are Christians, who receive more or
less of power and of good, according to past fidelity. The third class (the
** nations ") are the heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all,
bnt are ChristianB outside of Christianity.
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, AS JUDGE. 351
It is right in making it a personal coming, and not merely
the coming of his truth apart from him, but wrong in (Con-
ceiving of this personal coming, as material to the senses,
instead of spiritual to the soul. It is right in expecting a
judgment, but wrong in placing it only in the othei' world.
It is right in supposing that all mankind, the converted, the
unconverted, and the heathen, are to bo judged by Christian
truth, but wrong in supposing that this judgment must occur
in one place or at one time. Finally, in this, as in regard
to many other doctrines. Orthodoxy fails by neglecting the
great saying of Jesus,* " The spirit qxhckeneth, the flesh
PROFiTETH NOTHING," and the similar statement of Paul,
"The LETTER KILLETH."
352 obthodoxy: its truths and ebrobs.
CHAPTER XIV.
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ANNIHILATION, UNIVERSAL BESTO-
RATION.
§ 1. — Different Views concerning the Condition of the Im"
penitent hereafter. — The different views concerning the future
state, held by the Christian Church, may be thus classified ;
arranging them, exhaustively, under eight divisions : —
I. The Roman Catholic Church makes three conditions
hereafter ; viz., —
1. Everlasting joy.
2. Everlasting suffering.
3. Temporal sorrow in purgatory.
II. The Orthodox Protestant Church makes two condi-
tions hereafter ; viz., —
1. Unmixed and everlasting joy.
2. Unmixed and everlasting suffering.
in. The Old School Universalists make one condition
hereafter ; viz., —
1. Eternal joy.
IV. New School Universalists and Restorationists make
two conditions hereafter ; viz., —
1. Eternal joy.
2. Temporal and finite suffering.
V. Unitarians make an indefinite, number of conditions
hereafter, according to the various characters and moral
states of men.
YI. The Swedenborgians make an indefinite but limited
number of heavens and hells, suited to the varieties of char-
acter, but having a supernatural origin.
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 353
Vlr. The Spiritualists make the other world like this
world, with no essential differences, making it a continua-
tion of the natural life.
VIII. The Aunihilationists believe that the finally impen-
itent will perish wholly, and come to nothing.
This statement includes all, or nearly all, of the views held
in the Christian Church concerning the condition of departed
souls in tie other world. We do not propose to examine
them all at the present time ; but we shall examine at some
length three of them.
Eternal punishment, annihilation, and universal restora-
tion are the three principal views taken in the Church of the
condition hereafter of those who die impenitent, and in a
state of hostility to God. The wicked may hereafter be re-
formed, may be annihilated, or may be kept in a state of
permanent punishment. One of these views is held by the
Universalists ; another by Orthodoxy ; the third is now adopted
by those who are dissatisfied with the horrors of Orthodoxy,
but not yet ready to accept the Optimism of the Universalist
hope. We will consider these, beginning with the Orthodox
doctrine of everlasting punishment. We wish we could say
that this doctrine was not fully and decidedly Orthodox.
But it is quite as much so, as the Trinity, the deity of Christ,
or the atonement. No one is allowed to have any doubts or
questions concerning it. It seems to be believed that the
whole system of Orthodoxy would be endangered, if this ter-
ror was not held to its bosom with an unfaltering grasp.
§ 2. The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment^ as held hy
the Orthodox at the Present Time. — What is this doctrine,
as it is taught at the present day in all Orthodox churches,
and as it stands in all Orthodox creeds? It is, that the
moment of death decides, and decides forever, the destiny of
man ; that those who die impenitent, unbelieving, and uncon-
verted are forever lost, without the possibility of return ;
that those thus lost are to suffer forever and ever, without
30*
354 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
end, the most grievous torments in soul and body. * These
torments consist in banishment from the presence of God,
and positive sufferings, in addition thereto, of an awful kind.
Precisely what they are, it is not, perhaps, necessary for an
Orthodox man to believe. There is no Orthodox definition '
which is authoritative on that point ; and considerable range,
therefore, is allowable. The suffering may be that of literal
fire, or it may not. It may be physical suffering, or the
pangs of conscience, the absence of love, and the sense of
emptiness. On these points there is some liberty of opinion,
doubtless. But we presume that it would not be Orthodox
to admit a preponderance, in hell, of good over evil ; or to
admit, with Swedenborg, the existence of pleasure there,
even though it be only a diabolical and sinful pleasure. The
doctrine of Orthodoxy certainly is, that evil predominates
over good, and pain over pleasure, in the condition of the
damned ; so that there existence is a curse, and not a bless-
ing. Especially is hope shut out : there is no hope of re-
turn, no possibility of escape, no chance of repentance, even
at the end of myriads of years. The man who is condemned
to imprisonment for life, in solitary confinement, is in an un-
fortunate condition ; but he has hope, — hope of escape, hope
of pardon, — sure hope, at all events, of deliverance, one day,
by death, from his condition, and a change to something bet-
ter, or at least to something different.* But, in the Orthodox
opinion, there is no such alleviation as th^s to the sufferings
of the future state.
It is usual, we know, for many Orthodox preachers to
intensify in description the sufferings of the future state, and
to task their imagination for multiplied pictures of horror ;
and we shall presently give some examples to show how far
this is carried. We have no doubt that there are many Or-
thodox men who Ure as much shocked by these gross descrip-
tions as those are who deny everlasting punishment. But
are they not themselves really responsible for them? Those
FUTURE FUNIS eMENT. 355
who admit the principle that God can torment his children
forever, in the other life, for sins committed in this, have
accepted the principle, from which • any view of the Deity,
however shocking, may very legitimately proceed.
But let us, for the present, only assume that Orthodoxy
asserts a preponderance of evil over good in the other world,
and that this preponderance is to be continued without end
— forever. Let us see what this means.
It means that the suffering to be endured hereafter by each
individual soul, as a punishment for sins committed in this
world, will infinitely exceed in amount all the suffering borne
on the surface of the earth, by its total population, from the
creation of Adam to the destruction of the world. Each lost
soul will suffer not only more, but infinitely more, than all
the accumulated sufferings of the human race throughout all
time. We shudder as we read the account of the sufferings
from hydrophobia, or the burning alive of a slave at the
South, or the tortures inflicted by the Holy Inquisition, or
the horrors of a field of battle, or the cruelties inflicted by
savages upon their victims ; but all of these, added together,
are finite, and the sufferings of a single soul hereafter are
infinite. That is to say, all the pain and evil of this world,
resulting from all human sin, through all time, is infinitely
small and insignificant when compared with the punishment
endured by a single soul hereafter for his share of that sin.
And all this is inflicted by God ; and he is a God of love.
There are some doctrines, the statement of which is their
refutation. This, we think, is one of them.
But it must also be considered, that this doctrine, which
throws such darkness over the future, also sends down a
rayless night over the present. . It refutes every theodicy ; it
nullifies every solution of evil. The consolation for the suf-
ferings of this world is, that the fashion of*this world passes
away, and that there is a better world to come. The ex-
planation of the evils of this life is, that they are finite, and
356 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
that they are, therefore, to be swallowed up and to disappear
in an infinite good. The Christian finds relief, in consider-
ing the sufferings of this world, by regarding them as the
means of a greater ultimate joy ; by looking forward to the
time when all tears shall be wiped away ; and by a firm
faith that love is stronger than selfishness, good stronger than
evil. But the doctrine of eternal punishment gives us, in the
condition of a single lost soul, a greater amount of evil here-
after than all the evil, which is to be thus explained, here ;
and the myriads of lost souls, each of which is to suffer in-
finitely more than all the sufferings of the present world,
present us with a problem, in the future, so appalling, that the
problem of present evil, vast as it is, becomes insignificant
by its side.
We are tormented with evil here. We seek a solution of
the problem : we find it in the limited, finite, and ancillary
nature of evil. But that solution is wholly taken away when
"we are told that evil is infinite and eternal.
It seems to us impossible to hold the common doctrine on
this subject, without having the gospel view of the divine
character essentially shaken ; it is not possible to regard Him
as a being in whom love is the essential attribute. If this is
80, as we shall presently undertake to prove, it becomes a
matter of vital importance that the doctrine should be dis-
proved and rejected. It is not enough that it should be
quietly laid aside : it is due to the truth that it should be
distinctly and fully confuted. For this doctrine, if it be false,
is deeply dishonorable to God : it takes away his highest
glory ; it substitutes fear of him, in the place of love, in tlie
human heart ; it neutralizes the peculiar power of the gospel ;
it degrades the quality of Christian piety, and poisons religion
in its fountain.
The Orthodox Tioctrine of future punishment is, then, ex-
ceedingly simple. There is to be a judgment in the last day,
imiversal and final. All mankind are to be coUected before
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 857
the judgment scat of Christ, and there to be divided into two
classes, — one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
These are to go upward, to heaven, to be eternally happy ;
those downward, to hell, to" be eternally miserable. There
are no degrees of suffering ; for the torments of hell are in-
finite in degree, as well as everlasting in duration. Usually
the suffering is made intensively as well as extensively infinite.
Sometimes degrees are allowed in suffering. No allowance
is made for ignorance, or want of opportunity ; for inherited
evil, or evil resulting from force of circumstances. The
purest and best of men, who does not believe the precise
Orthodox theory concerning the Trinity, sits in hell side by
side with Zingis Khan, who murdered in cold blood huudreds
of thousands of men, women, and children, marking his
bloody route by pyramids of skulls. The unbaptized child,
who goes to hell* because of the original sin derived from
Adam, is exposed to God's wrath no less than Pope Alexan-
der VI., who outraged every law of God and man, and who,
Bays Machiavelli, " was followed to the tomb by the holy
feet of his three dear companions — Luxury, Simony, and
Cruelty." *
* The latest illustration of Orthodox ideas on this subject we have met with
is contained in a little tract which has fallen in our way, containing " extracts
from a sermon addressed to the students in* the United Presbyterian Theologi-
cal Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Her. William Davidson.*' It begins in this
somewhat enigmatical way : —
" It is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one — for even a youth or a
heathen— to be lost.**
Why this limiting particle '* even " is introduced is not explained. It seems
to be implied either that a youth and a heathen have not as 'much to lose as
others, or else that we are not bound to feel so much for their loss as for that of
others. After a little poetry (which we omit, as it is altogether too stem a
matter for any sentimental ornament), Mr. Davidson proceeds : —
** Nor is this all to those who suffer least. It is not only the loss of all, and
a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are horrible oljects, filling every
sense and every faculty ; and there are horrible engines and instruments of
Uyi'ture. There are the * chains of darkness,' thick, heavy, hard, and smothering
as the gloom of blank and black despair — chains strong as the cords of omnip-
otence, hot as the crisping flames of vengeance, indestructible and eternal as
Justice. With chains like these, every iron link burning into the throbbing
858 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
This is the doctriue which every denomiDation and sect in
Christendom, except the Unitarians and Universalists, main-
tain as essential to Orthodoxy. It is but a year or two
since twenty-one bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church
heart, is bound each doomed, damned soul, on a bed of burning marl, under an
iron roof, riven with tempests, and dripping with torrents of unquenchable
firo."
The object of the preacher being to make as terrific a picture as possible, he
accumulates these material images of bodily torment in order to excite the
imagination to the utmost. We can conceive of his writing these seutenceg
carefully in his comfortable study, in an easy chair, by the side of a cheerful
fire, with a smile of self-complacency, as he selects each striking expression*
Then he proceeds : —
'* Nor is this all. Unmortified appetites, hungry as death, insatiable aa the
grave, torture it. Every passion burning, an unsealed volcano in the heart.
Every base lust a tiger unchained — a worm undying, let loose to prey on soul
and body. Pride, vanity, envy, shame, treachery, deceit, falsehood, fell re-
venge, and black despair, malice, and every unholy emotion, are so many
springs of excruciating and ever -increasing agonies, are so many hot and
stifling winds, tossing the swooning, sweltering soul on waves of fire. And
there will be deadly hunger, but no food; parching thirst, but no water; eter-
nal fatigue, but no rest ; et-erual lust of sensuous and intellectual pleasures, bat
no gratification. And there will be terrible companions^ or rather /oe«, there.
Eternal longings after society, but no companion, no love, and no sympathy
there. Every one utterly selfish, hateful, and hating. Every one cunning,
false, malignant, fierce, fell, and devilish. All commingle in the confusion and
the carnage of one wide-spread, pitiless, truceless, desperate strife. And there
will be terrible sights and sounds there. Fathers and sons, pastors and people,
husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, with swollen veins and bloodshot
eyes, straining towards each other's throats and hearts, reprobate men, and
devils in form and features, hideous to as great a degree as are the beauties of
the blest in heaven beautiful. And there are groans and curses, and everlast-
ing wailings, as liarsh and horrible as heaven's songs, shouts, and anthems an
sweet, joyous, and enrapturing. And there will be terrible displays of the
divine power and skill, and infinitely awful displays of merciless and omnipo-
tent justice, in the punishment of that rebel crew, that generation of moral
vipers full grown, that congregation of moral monsters,"
All this, however, is not enough. It is necessary to go further, and represent
God in the character of the devil, in order to complete the picture.
*^ Upon such an assembly, God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity*
cannot look but with utter detestation. His wrath shall come up in his face.
His face shall be red in his anger. He will whet his glittering sword, and his
hand shall take hold on vengeance; and he shall recompense. He shaU launch
forth his lightnings, and shoot abroad his arrows. He shall unseal all his
fountains, and pour out his tumbling cataracts of venge^ce. He shall build
his batteries aloft, and thunder upon them from the heavens. His eye shall
not pity them, nor shall his soul spare for their crying. The day of vengeance
is in his heart, and it is what he has his heart set on. He wiU delight in it.
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 859
issued a declaration of their belief that this doctrine is main-
tained, without reserve or qualification, by the Church of
England. Only recently an ecclesiastical council of. Con-
gregationalists refused the fellowship of the churches to a
gentleman elected as its pastor by the Third Congregational
Church in Portland, Maine. In the report of the result, the
council says that it believes the candidate to be generally
sound in his belief, and exemplary in his Christian spirit,
and heartily extends to him its Christian sympathy. But it
He will show his wrath, and make Jiis power known. That infinite power has
never been fully made known yet; bat it will be then. It is but a little that
we see of it in creation and providence ; but we shall see it, fully revealed, in
the destruction of that rebel crew. He will tread them in his anger, and tram-
ple them in his fury, and will stuin his raiment with their blood. The cup of
the wine of his fierce wrath shall contain no mixture of mercy at all. And
they will not be able to resist that wrath, nor will they be able to endure it;
but they shall, in soul and body, sink wholly down into the second death. The
Iron heel of omnipotent and triumphing Justice, pitiless and rejoicing, shall
tread them down, and crush them lower still, and lower ever, in that burning
pit which knows no bottom. All this, and more and worse, do the Scriptures
declare; and that preacher who hesitates to proclaim it has forsworn his soul,
and is a traitor to his trust."
Now, it is simple truth to say that the blasphemer and profane swearer who
spends fifty years in cursing God and Christ is not so blasphemous as the man
who writes such sentences as these about the Almighty, and utters them to
young men as a preparation for their work in the ministry. The people of
Sodom and Gomorrah shall rise up in the day of judgment against those who
speak thus of God, and shall condemn them. The Pagans, who represent their
gods as horrid idols, pleased with blood and slaughter, have an excnse, which
Mr. Davidson has not, for they do not have the gospel of the Lord Jesus in their
hands. Thus he continues : —
<< And all this shall he forever. It shall never, never end. (Matt. ch. 25.) The
wicked go away into everlasting torments. This is a bitter ingredient in their
cup of wormwood, a more terrible thing in their terrible doom. If after endur-
ing it all for twice ten thousand times ten thousand years, they might have a
deli reran ce, or at least some abatement, it were less terrible, liut this may
never, never be. Their estate is remediless. There is a great gulf fixed, and
they cannot pass Arom thence. Or, if after sufflering all this as many years as
there a:'8 aqueous particles in air and ocean, they might then be delivered, or
if, after repeating that amazing period as many times as there are sand-grains
in the globe, they might then be delivered, there would be some hope. Or, if
you multiply this latter snm — too infinite to be expressed by figures, and too
limitless to be comprehended by angels — by the number of atoms that com-
pose the universe, and there might be deliverance when they had passed those
amazing, abysmal gulfs of duration, then there would be some hope. But no I
when all is suffered and all is past, stiU aU beyond is eternity."
360 orthodoxy: its tbuths and errors.
declines to install him as pastor, because it '' understands
him as saying, that he does not know but there may be
another state of probation and offer of salvation, after death,
for all to whom Christ is not personally preached ; and that,
whilst believing in a future retribution, he says that the ever-
lasting punishment of the wicked may be an extinction of the
wicked by annihilation." So that a mere doubt on this sub-
ject is considered a sufficient reason, by the most advanced
and liberal of the whole Orthodox body at the present day,
for refusing church fellowship. '
The American Tract Society floods the land with loose
leaves, all appealing to the fear of an eternal hell. We have
one before us now, called '' Are you insured?" which repre-
sents Christianity as a contrivance for escaping from ever-
lasting torment, as a spiritual insurance office, where one
must " take out a policy," and so escape everlasting fire.*
There is no theological journal, bearing the Orthodox
name, which is more rational and liberal than the "New
York Independent." But in its issue of January 5, 1860,
it speaks of future endless misery thus, saying that there
is a "vast amount and weight of evidence to the point —
evidence enough to prove it, if provable ; all nature, all law,
all revelation uttering the doctrine, so that it is an amazing
* To show how some Roman CatJiolics write in the middle of the nineteenth
century, we quote the following from a Roman Catholic book, published in
England, by Rev. J. Furniss, being especially ** a book for children." Wish-
ing to spare our readers such horrors, we put it here, advising no one of weak
nerves to read its atrocious descriptions.
*< The fourth dungeon is * the boiling kettle.' Listen : there is a Bound like
that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is boiling? No. Then what
is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalded veins of that boy;
the brain is boiling and bubbling in his head; the marrow is boiling in his
bones. The fifth dungeon is the * red-hot oven,' in which is a little child.
Hear how it screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in
the fire ; it beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet
on the flcor of the oven. To this child God was very good. Very WuXj
God saw tluit this child would get worse and worse, and would never repent,
and so it would have to be punished much more in hell. So Qod tn hU
called U out of the world in its early chUihood,**
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 861
Stretch and energy of unbelief not to believe it, implying a
moral state and position that will not believe it on any testi-
mony, however clearly and unqualifiedly, even to the exhaus-
tion of the capabilities of language, God himself may declare
and affirm it."
There is evidently an energetic attempt made in some
quarters to revive the decaying belief in the doctrine of ever-
lasting punishment in the future state, as a penalty for the
sins of this. Dr. Thompson, of New York, has published a
work to this end, called " Love and Penalty." Dr. J. P.
Thompson, the author of this book, is considered the leader
of New Haven theology —r the Elisha on whose shoulders
the mantle of Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, has fallen. Dr.
Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, has labored in the same field,
exerting himself to prove this doctrine in various tracts and
other works. Professor Hovey, of the Baptist Seminary of
Newton, has published a little book on the same subject.
It is probably thought dangerous by these gentlemen to
relax at all the terrors of futurity. And, no doubt, if all
those who have been restrained from evil by fear of eternal
punishment were to lose that belief suddenly, the conse-
quences, at first, would be sometimes bad. If you have
exerted your whole force in producing fear of hell, instead
of fear of sin, then, the terror of hell being taken away, men
might rush at first into license. But the dread of a future
hell is by no means so efficacious a motive as is often thought.
*We become hardened to everything, and neither the clergy-
man nor his parish eat any less heartily of their Sunday
dinner, nor sleep any less soundly on Sunday night, in con-
sequence of the terrible descriptions of eternal torments con-
tained in the morning's sermon.* '
* We take the following from the ** Monthly Religious Magazine : >> —
** The < Country Parson,' in his late work, the * Autumn Holidays,* contends
that the fear of Aiture punishment in another world has little influenoe in de-
terring from crime. He ought to have added, that the reason may be, that
31
862 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
§ 3. Apparent Contradictions^ both in Scripture and Beof
«on, in Regard to this Doctrine. — Beside the practical motive
for maintaining this doctrine, which we have intimated, there
are also scriptural and philosophical reasons. Scripture and
reason both do, in fact, seem to teach opposite doctrines on
this subject. There are passages in the New Testament
which appear to teach never-ending suffering, and others
which appear to teach a final, universal restoration. It is
written, " These shall go a way into eternal punishment ; "
but it is also written, that Christ " shall reign till all things
are subdued unto him ; " when " the Son also himself shall
be subject to Him who did put all thinga under him, that
God may be all in all." As the same word is used to ex-
press the way in which all enemies are to be subject to
Christ, and the way in which Christ himself is to be subject to
God, it follows that the enemies, when subjected, shall be
friends. It is said that the wicked shall be punished " with
everlasting destruction from the presence of God ; " but it is
there is so little belief in any spiritual world whatever, among men of grosser
eensuality; and that future punishment, as it is preached in the old ttieolog^,
is so arbitrary as to seem unreal, and is losing its power over all thinking
' minds. The following case is cited from the experience of a Scotch minister.
No ministers, let it be remembered, preach the literal flames of a local hell in
tones more awful than they.
*' His parishioners were sadly addicted to drinking to excess. Men and
women were given alike to this degrading vice. He did all he could to repress
iti but in vain. For many years he warned the drunkards, in the most solemn
manner, of the doom they might expect in anotlier world ; but, so far as he
knew, not a pot of ale or glass of spirits the less was drunk in the parish in con-
sequence of his denunciations. Future woe melted into mist in the presence of
a reijlenished jug or a market-day. A happy thought struck the clerg3'man.
In the neighboring town, there was a clever medical man, a vehement teetotal-
er; him he summoned to his aid. The doctor came, and delivered a lecture on
the physical consequences of drunkenness, illustrating his lecture with large dia-
grams, which gave shocking representations of the stomach, lungs, heart, and
other vital organs as afiected by alcohol. These things came home to the
drunkards, who had not cared a rush for final perdition. The effect produced
was tremendous. Almost all the men and women of the parish took the total
abstinence pledge ; and since that day drunkenness has nearly ceased in that
parish. Not was the improvement evanescent; it has lasted two or thre«
years."
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 863
also said that '^ in the dispensation of the fulness of times,
God will gather in one all things in Christ, both which are
in heaven and on earth ; " and ^' that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, in heaven, in earth, and under the
earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." It is said
of the wicked, that "their worm never dies, and their fire is
not quenched ; " but it is also said that " it pleased the
Father, having made peace through the blood of the cross,
by Christ to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they
be things in earth or things in heaven." So that Scripture,
at first sight, seems to teach both eternal punishment and
universal restoration.
There is a similar contradiction on this subject, if consid-
ered in the light of pure reason. When looked at from the
divine attributes, the unavoidable conclusion seems to be,
that all men must be finally saved. For God is infinitely
benevolent, and therefore must wish to save all ; is in-
finitely wise, and therefore must know how to save all ; is
infinitely powerful, and therefore must be able to overcome
all difiiculties in the way of saving all : hence all must
be saved. But, on the other hand, when we consider the
subject from the position of man's nature, an -opposite con-
clusion seems to follow. For man, being free, is able to
choose either evil or good at any moment ; and, as long as
he continues to be essentially man, he must retain this free-
dom ; and therefore, at any period of his future existence,
however remote, he may prefer evil to good — that is, may
prefer hell to heaven. But God will not compel him to be
good against his will (for unwilling goodness is not good-
ness) ; and therefore it follows that there is no point of time
in the infinite future of which we can certainly say that then
all men will be saved.
Of course these seeming contradictions of Scripture and
antinomies of reason are not real contradictions. God does
364 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
not contradict himself either in revelation or in reason.
Whether we can reconcile such antagonisms nowj or not, we
know that they will be reconciled. Meantime, it is our duty
to disbelieve whatever is dishonorable to God, or opposed to
the character ascribed to him by Jesus Christ. Christ has
taught us to regard God as our Father. It is our duty to
refuse credence . to any doctrine concerning him which is
plainly opposed to this character. If I have formed my
opinion of my friend's character from a large experience, I
ought to refuse to believe, even on good evidence, anything
opposed to it. What is faith In man, or in God, good for, that
is unable to resist evil reports concerning them? If I am
told that my friend has become a thief or a swindler, and
he who tells me says, " I know that it is so — here is the
evidence," I reply, "I do not care for your evidence. I
know that it is impossible." So, if all the churches in the
world. Catholic and Protestant, tell me Ihat Jesus teaches
everlasting punishment inflicted by God for the sins of this
life, and produce chapter and verse in support of their state-
ment, I reply, " If I have learned anything about God from
the teachings of Jesus, it is that your assertion is impossible.
About the meaning of these passages you may be mistaken,
for the letter-killeth ; but I cannot be mistaken in regard to
the fatherly character of the Almighty."
These contradictious we shall consider in a paper printed
in the Appendix (an examination of Dr. Nehemiah Adams's
tract on the " Reasonableness of Everlasting Punishment").
At present we will only say that we should hold it less dis-
honorable to God to deny his existence than to believe this
doctrine concerning him. We think that in the last day it
will appear that the atheist has done less to dishonor the
name of God than those who persistently teach this view.
For what says Lord Bacon ? (Essays, XVII. Of Superstition.)
'^ It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such an
opinion as is unworthy of him ; for the one is unbelief, the
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 865
other is contumely ; and certainly superstition is the reproach
of the Deity. Plutarch saith well to that purpose. ' Surely,*
saith he, ' I had rather a great deal men should say there
were no such man at all as Plutarch, than that they should
say there was one Plutarch that would eat his children as
soon as they were born,' as the poets speak of Saturn. And
as the contumely is greater towards God, so is the danger
greater towards men."
The doctrine of everlasting punishment, being essentially a
heathen and not a Christian doctrine, cannot do any Chris-
tian good to any one. It is the want of faith in the Church
which makes it afraid of giving it up. The Christian
Church has not faith enough to believe in the power of truth
and love. It still thinks that men must be frightened into
goodness, or driven into it. Fear is a becoming and useful
motive no less than hope ; but fear of what ? Not fear of
God ; but fear of sin, fear of ourselves, fear of temptation.
To be afraid of God never did any one any good. These
doctrines drive men away from God ; or, if they drive them
to God, drive them as slaves, as sycophants, as servants, not
as sons. We are saved by becoming the sons of God; but
you cannot drive a man into sonship by terror. You may
make him profess religion, and go through ceremonies, and
have an outward form of service ; but you cannot make him
love God by means of fear.
But good men teach these things, no doubt. Men far bet-
ter than most of us believe them and teach them. It always
has been so. TJie best men have always been the chief sup-
porters of bad doctrines. A good man, humble and modest, is
apt to shrink from doubting or opposing what the Church has
taught. He accepts it, and teaches it too. When God wants
a reformer, he does not take one of these good, modest, bumble
men. He does not take a saint. He takes a man who has
ever so much will, a little obstinacy, and a great love of
fighting ; and he makes the wrath of such a man to serve him
31*
866 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Neither St. Teresa Dor Fenelon could have reformed the
Catholic Church. It took rough old Martin Luther and hard-
hearted John Calvin to do it. The first Universalists, the
Abolitionists, all reformers, are necessarily men of that sort.
They are rude debaters, not standing on ceremony or polite-
ness. They are hard-heacfed logicians, going straight to
their point, careless, of elegances and proprieties. They are
God's pioneers, rough backwoodsmen, hewing their way with
the axe through the wilderness. After them shall come the
peaceful farmer, with plough and spade, to turn the land into
wheat fields, orchards, and gardens.
§ 4. Everlasting Punishment limits the Sovereignty of Ood.
— It is certain that the doctrine of eternal punishment, in
the common form, can only be maintained by giving up some
of the infinite attributes of the Almighty. If punishment is
to exist without end ; if hell is always to co-exist with heaven ;
if certain beings are to be continued forever in existence
merely as sinful sufferers, — then, it is clear, God is not
omnipotent. He shares his throne forever with Satan.
Satan and God divide between them the universe. God
reigns in heaven, Satan in hell. God desires that all shall
be saved ; but this desire is absolutely and forever defeated
by a fate greater than Deity. Law divorced from love —
that is, nature in its old Pagan aspect — is higher than God.
God is not the Almighty to any one who really believes eter-
nal punishment. God is not the Sovereign of the universe,
but only of a part of it. The doctrine of eternal puuish-
ment, in its common form, does, therefore, virtually dethrone
God.*
It is, in fact, impossible to conceive of an eternal hell co-
existing with an eternal heaven, without also seeing that it
* So Erigena (quoted by Strauss), De Divia Nat, ^Tera ratio dooet, nullum
oontrarlom divlnie bonitati yitseque ao bcatitudini posse esse coctemum; diviiui
siquidem bonitas oonsumet malitiam, teterua vita absorbet mortem, beatitado
miseriam.'*
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 367
limits eternally the diviae Omnipotence ; for the omnipo-
tence of God is in carrying out his will to have all men saved
by becoming holy. Unless God's laws are obeyed, God is
not obeyed ; and he is not sovereign if not obeyed. Hell is
a condition of things hostile to God's will : it is a permanent
and successful rebellion of a part of the universe. It is no
answer to say, that it is shut up, and restrained, and made
to suffer ; for it is not conquered. God has conquered sin
only when he has reduced it to obedience. Hell is no more
subject to God than the Confederate States, during the re-
bellion, were subject to the United States government.
They were shut up by a blockade ; they were restrained by
great armies and navies ; they were made to suffer ; but
they were not reduced to submission and obedience.
Nor is it any answer to say, that the existence of sin and
suffering hereafter no more limits God's omnipotence than
their existence here and now limits his omnipotence. For the
question is of eternal suffering. Temporal suffering here-
after, we grant, is no objection to the divine Omnipotence.
Limited and finite evil, in this world or the other, is no phil-
osophical difficulty ; and for this reason — that finite evil,
when compared with infinite good, becomes logically and
mathematically no evil. The finite disappears in relation to
the infinite. All the sufferings and sins of earth, through all
ages, are strictly nothing when viewed in the light of the
eternal joy and holiness which are to result from them. This
is a postulate of pure reason. Make evil finite, and good in-
finite,— make evil temporal, and good eternal, — and evil
ceases to be anything. But make evil eternal, as is done by
this doctrine, and then we have Manicheism — an infinite
dualism — on the throne of the universe.
§ 5. Everlasting Punishment contradicts the Fatherly Love
of God, — This doctrine is a relapse on Paganism, and de-
rived from it. It has nothing to do with Christianity, except
to corrupt it. No man was ever made better by believing
368 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
it : multitudes have been made worse. It attributes to our
heavenly Father conduct that, if done by the worst of men,
would add a shade of increased wickedness to their charac-
ter. It assumes that God has made intelligent creatures
with the intention of tormenting some of them forever. It
assumes that those who are thus created, exposed Jo this
awful risk, are to be thus tormented, unless they happen to
pass through what is called an Orthodox conversion in this
short earthly life. God keeps them alive forever in order to
torture them forever.
The barbarity of this opinion exceeds all power of language
to express. We are accustomed to mourn over the anguish
and misery that are in this world. The problem of earthly
evil has been a burden and anxiety to good men in all times,
a great question for thinkers in all ages. The only satisfac-
tory solution is, that it is temporary and educational ; that it
is to pass- away, and, in passing, to create a higher joy and
goodness than could otherwise have come. But the doctrine
of everlasting punishment not only annuls this explanation,
and makes it impossible to explain earthly evil, but adds to
it a tenfold greater mystery. The fatherly character of God
disappears in Pagan darkness, in view of this horrid doctrine ;
for the everlasting suffering of one human being contains in
itself more evil than the accumulated sufferings of all mankind
from the creation of the world to the end of it. Add to-
gether all the sicknesses, bereavements, disappointments, of
all mankind ; all the wars, famines, pestilences, that have
tormented humanity ; add to these all the mental and moral
pangs produced by selfishness and sin in all ages, and all
that are to be to the end of time, — and these all combined
are logically and mathematically nothing^ compared with the
sufferings of one human being destined to be everlastingly
punished. For all temporal sufferings added together are
finite ; but this is infinite.
Now, the being who could inflict such torture as this is
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 369
not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There
may be some deity of cruelty, some incarnation of wrath and
despotism, in the Hindoo Pantheon, capable of such terrific
wickedness. It is no answer to say that God inflicts suffer-
ing now in this world, and therefore he may inflict everlast-
ing suffering in the other ; for these are all finite ; that is
infinite. Finite suffering may result in greater good, may
be an education to good ; but everlasting suffering cannot.
The finite and infinite cannot be compared together. There
is no analogy between them.
The God of the New Testament is our Father. If he in-
flicts suffering, it is for our good ; " not for his pleasure, but
for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness."
All earthly suffering finds this solution, and accords with the
fatherly character of God in this point of view. Much, no
doubt, cannot be now fully understood. We do not see how
it tends to good ; but all suffering that ends may end in good.
Suffering that does not end cannot end in good.
If human beings are everlastingly punished, it must either
be that they go on sinning forever, and cannot repent, lose
all power of repentance, and so cease to be moral agents, or
else that they retain the power of repenting, and therefore
may repent. In the first case, God continues to punish for-
ever those who have ceased to sin, because their freedom and
moral power have ceased ; or else he punishes forever those
who have repented, and so ceased sinning. In either case,
God must punish everlastingly those who have ceased to be
sinners ; which is incredible.
If God is a Father, he is at least as good as the best earth-
ly father. Now, what father or mother would ever consent
to place a child in a situation where there was even a chance
of its running such an awful risk ? God has created us with
these liabilities to sin ; he has (according to Orthodoxy)
chosen and determined that we shall be born wholly prone to
evil, and sure to fall into eternal and unending ruin, unless
870 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
he saves us by a special act of grace. " What man among
you, being a father," would do so ? Custom dulls our sense
to these horrors. Let us therefore imagine a case far less
terrible. Suppose that a number of parents should establish
a school, to which to send their children. Suppose they
should arrange a code of laws for the school of such a strin-
gent character that all the children are sure to break it.
Under the school are vaults containing instruments of tor-
ture. For each offence against the laws of the school (of-
fences which the children cannot fail to commit) they are to
be punished by imprisonment for life in these cells, with daily
torture, from racks, thumb-screws, and the like. A few of
them are to be selected from the rest, not for any merit of
their own, but by an arbitrary decree of the parents, and are
to be rewarded (not for their superior good conduct, but ac-
cording to the caprice of the parents) with every luxury and
privilege. Among these privileges is included that of taking
a daily walk through the cells, and witnessing the horrible
sufferings of th.eir brothers and companions, and hearing their
shrieks of anguish, and praising the justice of their parents
in thus punishing some and rewarding the rest.
But this, you may say, is not a parallel case. No, we
grant it is not, for what are these torments to that of a never-
ending futurity ? They are all as nothing. Therefore every
such comparison must utterly fail of doing justice to the
diabolic cruelty ascribed to the Almighty by this Orthodox
doctrine.
" But what right," says the Orthodox defender of this doc-
trine, " have we to reason in this way concerning the divine
proceedings, by the analogy of earthly parents? What right
have we to compare God's doings with those of a human
father ? " No right, perhaps, as philosophers ; but as Chris-
tians we have not only the right to do it, but it is our duty
to do so. Jesus has himself taught us to use this analogy,
in order to acquire confidence in God's ways, and to assure
PUTUBB PUNISHMENT. 871
ourselves that God cannot fail of acting as we should expect
a good* and wise earthly parent to act. " What man is there
of youy whom, if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone ?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent ? If ye then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto jour children,
how much more shall your Father, which is in heaven, give
good things to them that ask him?" (Matt. 7:9-11.)
Jesus authorizes and commands us to reason from the pa-
rental nature in man to that in God. Instead of simply
assuring us of it, on the ground of his own authority to teach
us ; instead of saying, " Believe this, because I say it," he
says, " Believe it, because it accords with your own convic-
tions and with human nature."
§ 6. Attempts to modify and soften the Doctrine of Ever-
lasting Punishment. — The reasons for the late efforts to sup-
port this terrific doctrine are probably to be found in a wide-
spread and increasing disbelief concerning it, pervading the
churches nominally Orthodox. This has come from the grow-
ing intelligence and progressive movements of thought in the
Christian Church. The evidences of this belief are numer-
ous and increasing. Those who reject the Orthodox view
are a numerous body, but divided into several parties.
There are the old-fashioned Universalists, a valiant race, —
men of war from their youth, — who, under the lead of such
men as Hosea Ballou and Thomas Whittemore, have spent
their lives in fighting the doctrine of everlasting punishment.
Very naturally, perhaps, they went to the opposite extreme
of opinion, and denied all future suffering. But this view
has, we think, ceased to be the prevailing one among the
Universalists. The doctrine of ultimate restoration has very
generally taken its place. This doctrine also prevails widely
in other denominations ; not only among the liberal bodies,
like the Unitarians, but also among Methodists, Presbyte-
rians, and Congregationalists. It has widely spread, as is
well known, in Germany. It was held by Schleiermacher,
372 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
the father of modem German theology. It tinges the wiit^
ings of such Orthodox men as Tholuck, Hahn, and Olsliausen.
Others profess to believe in everlasting punishment, but make
it a merely negative consequence of lost time and opportuni-
ty : one will be always worse off hereafter in consequence of
the neglect of duty. Others follow Swedenborg, and make
the sufferings of hell rather agreeable than otherwise to those
who bear them.
Various ineffectual attempts have indeed been made, in all
ages of the Church, to soften the austerity of this doctrine.
From the days of Origen, these merciful doctors * have . al-
ways been trying to soften this austere dogma, but ineffectu-
ally ; for the dread of an eternal hell has been one of the
chief motives which the Church has used in converting men
from sin to holiness. Auy suggestion of the possibility of
future restoration would, it is feared, cut the sinews of effec-
tive preaching. For the baptized who are not fit for heaven
the Roman Catholic Church has established, indeed, a tem-
porary hell, with torments of an inferior sort ; for bad Cath-
olics there is purgatory, with the hope of ultimate escape
from it ; but for the unbaptized heathen, for heretics, and for
excommunicated persons, there is nothing but eternal pun-
ishment.
Many, in all ages, have made the everlasting continuance
of punishment not absolute, but hypothetical — depending on
the question, "Will the sinner continue forever to 8in?"f
Others have made future punishment relatively everlasting ;
that is, because even the repentant sinner will be always
just so far behind the position he would have had if he had
not sinned. This, however, is taking a material view of
♦ The name given to them by Augustine (*« Civ. Dei," lib. 21, c. 17) : " Deni-
que hi^us eententisQ Fatronos S. Augustinus appellat titulo non incongruo,
* Doctores Mlsericordes * tractatque non inhumaniter."
Thomas Burnet, " De Statu Mortuum et Hesurgentium." Chap. XI.
t See Bretschneider, " Dograatik," and Strauss, '' Christliche Glaabenelehre."
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 373
progress, as though it was limited, like the going of a horse,
to so many miles a day.
Many of the early fathers, and some of the mediaeval doc-
tors, took milder views of the future sufferings of the impen-
itent or unconverted. Proceeding from the idea of freedom,
as indestructible in the human soul, Origen declared that, no
matter how low any moral being has fallen, a way to return
is always open to him. Even the devil may, in time, re-
gain the highest, position in the angelic hierarchy.* No
doubt Origen admitted the need of external conditions for
this restoration ; but he said, God is able to heal the damage
done to any part of his works.f He will restore all things
to their origin, uniting the end and the beginning, and so
becoming indeed the Alpha and Omega. This may require
long processes, through many ages. J Since Jesus speaks
of a sin which cannot be forgiven in this age (<i*(bi') nor the
next, it follows, says Origen, that there is a series of ages,
or worlds, through which we pass, and many of these ages
of ages (saecula saBculorum) must pass away before all bad
men and angels shall have returned to their original state.
Quoting the passage, " The last enemy that shall be de-
stroyed," he says that he shall not be destroyed as to his
substance, but as to his enmity. His being was made by
God, and cannot perish ; his hostile will proceeded from him-
self, and shall be destroyed.
Mr. Brownson (or rather a writer in Brownson's " Quar-
teily Review," July, 18G3) takes another way of softening
the terrors of hell. With him too, hell is an everlasting
* *'NoB ct angelos faturos dsemones si egcrimus negligenter; et rarsum
daemones, si voluerint capere virtutes, pervenire ad angelioam dignitatem."
Origen, quoted by Jerome.
t " Niliil cnim omnipotcnti impossibile est, neo insanabile aliqoid est factor!
BUO."
I *' Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed pauiatim et per partes intelligen-
dum est, infinitis et immcnsis labentibus sseculis, cum sensim per singulos
emendatio fuerit et correctio prosccuta, priecurrentibas aliis, aliis insequenti-
bus.'* See these quotations in Strauss, Hase, &c.
32
374 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
state ; but he maintaiDs that the Roman Church has not
made it an article of faith to believe that there is any positive
suffering therein. If jou believe in an eternal hell, that is
enough ; you are not precluded from softening its horrors to
any extent you can. Thus he maintains that the great Au-
gustine* allows hell to be only a negative state — only the
absence of the exquisite beatitude of heaven. This writer
(who is said by the editor to be a learned Catholic priest)
asserts that there is a growing repugnance to the popular
doctrine upon eternal punishment among the most intelligent
of the Catholic laity, and this reluctance is the chief obstacle
to the reception of the faith by a large class of non-Catho-
lics. He attempts to meet this state of mind by showing
that neither the doctrine of St. Augustine nor that of the
Catholic Church supports this popular view, but allows a much
milder one. He proceeds to make these points : —
1. St. Augustine nowhere teaches that human nature is
intrinsically evil, but he invariably teaches that it is substan-
tially good. (" Omuis natura in quantum natura est bona
est.'* " Omnis substantia aut Deus est aut ex Deo." De Lib.
Arbit.) Therefore it fellows that the very notion of total
depravity is impossible. St. Augustine distinctly says that
" the very unclean spirit himself is good, inasmuch as he is a
spirit, but evil inasmuch as he is unclean." Hence, not
even the nature of the devil himself is evil. So St. Thomas
('* Diabolus, in quantum habet esse, est bonus "), " the devil,
so far as he is, is good."
2. St. Augustine teaches in explicit terms that existence
is a good even to angels and men who are eternally bound
by the consequences of evil.
3. Eternal death, according to St. Augustine, is a sub-
sidence into a lower form of life, a privation of the highest
vital influx from God* in order to everlasting life, or supreme
beatitude, but not of all vital influx in order to an endless
existence, which is a partial and incomplete participation in
»9
9»
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 375
good. These sinful souls, therefore, fulfil in a measure the
end of their creation, and have a place and a function ia
harmony with the general order of the cosmos. There is no
trace, in this view of Augustine, that God hates a portion of
his creatures with an absolute, infinite, and eternal hatred,
and is hated by them in return. The original act of crea-
tive love is an enduring and eternal act, in which even Satan
i« included. " Their nature still remains essentially good,
and far superior in excellence and beauty to material light,
which is the highest corporeal substance."
4. Hell, therefore (Infernus), is simply a lower state of
inchoate and imperfect being, " of saints nipped in the bud.
Infant damnation is only a gentle sadness — " levis tristitia.
All positive suffering in hell is' probably temporal, and there-
fore must at last cease. The lost* souls will enjoy there
quite as much as they can do here, mimes the temporal
sufferings of this life. They continue natural beings, and
therefore can enjoy all natural joy ; and that which they lose,
being the " beatific vision," of which they have no concep-
tion, is a loss of which they are wholly unconscious.
Swedenborg maintains, in the same way, the everlasting
character of the punishment of those who have passed the
final judgment, but admits many palliations to its sufferings.
He teaches that delight is the universal substance of heaven,
and also of hell, and that evil spirits are in the delight of evil,
as good spirits in that of good. An evil spirit would be as
unhappy in heaven as a good one would be in hell.
§ 7. The meaning of Eternal Punishment iiv Scripture, —
But what, then, is the vital truth in the doctrine of eternal
punishment? Christ says, "These shall go aWay into eter-
nal punishment." * What is this " eternal punishment " ?
* Matt. 25 : 46. The Greek word translated In the English as « everlasting "
punishment in the beginning of the verse, and as life <' eternal " at the end, is
the same word (dtcuvio;) in both places, and should be translated ^* eternal " in
both.
376 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
It is commonly supposed to mean the same thing as punish-
ment which shall never end, or punishment continued through
all time. But this is to misunderstand both the philosophi-
cal and scriptural meaning of the word " eternal.*' Eternal
punishments are the opposite of temporal punishments : they
have nothing to do with time at all ; they are punishments
outside of time. To attempt to realize eternity by adding up
any number of myriads of years of time, is necessarily a
failure ; for time and eternity are different things. T ou
might as well attempt to produce thought or love, by adding
up millions of miles of distance, as, by adding up millions of
years of time, to get any idea of eternity. Eternal life, in
the language of Scripture, has nothing to do with the future
or the past. It is a present life in the soul, awakened with-
in by the knowledge of God and Christ. " This is life eter-
nal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
thou hast sent." Eternal life and eternal death both come
from the knowledge of God and of Christ. To one it is a
savor of life, to another of death. Eternal punishment and
eternal life are the punishments and the rewards of eternity,
distinguished from those of time, and having their root in
the knowledge of God which comes through Christ. Eter-
nal life and eternal punishment both commence here, from the
judgments which takes place now : but the last judgment,
or the judgment of the last day, is that which will take place
hereafter, when the soul shall have a full knowledge of itself
and of God ; see its whole life as it really is ; have all self-
deceptions taken away, all disguises removed, and know it-
self as it is known. God's love, when revealed, attracts and
repels. Liko all real force, it is a polar force. The one
pole is its attractive power over those who are in a truth-
loving state ; the other pole is its repelling power to those
who are in a truth-hating state. Love attracts the truthful,
and repels the wilful. Eternal punishment, then, is the re-
pugnance to God of the soul which is inwardly selfish in its
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 377
will, — loving itself more than truth and right. It is the
sense of indignation and wrath, alienation and poverty, which
rests on it while in this condition. It is the outer darkness ;
it is the far country ; it is the famine, which comes as a holy
and blessed evil, sent to save, by bringing to repentance, the
prodigal child, who has not yet " come to himself."
From this knowledge of God and of itself, therefore, —
from this judgment of the last day, — will flow eternal life
to the one class, and eternal punishment or suffering to the
other. Those who have been conscientious and generous ;
who have endeavored faithfully to live for truth and right ;
who have made sacrifices, and not boasted of them ; who
have clothed the naked and fed the hungry, making the world
better and happier by their presence, — will hear the Saviour
say, '' Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world ; for I
was hungry, and ye gave me meat." Perhaps they have
never even heard the name of Christ ; perhaps they were the
Buddhists of Burmah, of whom Mr. Malcom speaks, who
brought food to him, though a stranger to them. " I was
scarcely seated," says he, " when a woman brought a nice
mat for me tQ lie on ; another, cool water ; and a man went
and picked me a half dozen fine oranges. None sought or
expected the least reward, but disappeared, and left me to
my repose." Or perhaps they will be the poor black women
in Africa, who took such kind care of Mungo Park, singing,
" Let us pity the white man : he has no mother to bring
him milk, no wife to grind him corn." The reward of their
fidelity will be the gift of a greater power of goodness, com-
ing from a knowledge of God and Christ. They were help-
ing Christ, though they did not know him. They will say,
" Lord, when saw we thee an hungered?" These Gentiles,
without the law, who do by nature the things contained in
the law, will come to know Christ, and receive a spiritual
life — life flowing from that knowledge. On the other hand,
32*
378 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
those who have not- endeavored to do what they knew to
be right will receive from the same knowledge of God and
Christ a spiritual or eternal punishment. Perhaps they have
received some of it already in this world ; but a deeper
knowledge of the truth will bring a keener self-reproach.
The worm that never dies is this gnawing * tooth of con-
science. The fire which is not quenched is the heart still
selfish, turned to evil, joined with a conscience which sees
the good. For man, as long as he is man, cannot get away
from himself. He may sophisticate, himself with falsehoods,
put his conscience to sleep, and imagine that he has escaped
all the penalties of evil ; but he cannot escape from himself.
The longer and deeper the sleep of conscience, the more ter-
rible its final awakening.
Eternal punishment, therefore, is the punishment which
comes to man from his spiritual nature ; from that side of
man which connects him with eternity, in contradistinction
from temporal punishment, which is that which comes from
his temporal nature and the temporal world. Through the
body he receives temporal pleasure or pain from the world
of time and space ; through the spirit he receives spiritual
joy or sorrow from the world of eternity and infinity.
Thus intimately are judgment and retribution connected.
There is nothing arbitrary about rewards or punishments.
They follow naturally and necessarily from the revelation
of divine and eternal truth. Sooner or later, the everlasting
distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, make
themselves seen and known. The distinctions between right
and wrong are eternal.
The idea of duration is not connected with eternal punish-
ment or eternal life ; for the idea of duration belongs to time,
and not to eternity. Human law sentences men, for crime,
* Hemorse— from mordeoy to gnaw. So St. Thomas (Summa, Pars III. 2.
97) : " Vermis non debet esse intellig^ corporalis scd spiritualis, qui est oon
BCientisB remorsus."
FUTUEB PUNISHMENT. 379
to be punished by imprisonment for six months, three years,
ten years, or for life ; but in God's world there is not, and
cannot be, any relation between a man's guilt and the pre-
cise time he is to suffer. He must suffer while he is guilty,
be the time longer or shorter. When he ceases to be guilty,
he must cease to suffer. He therefore fixes the duration of
his suffering himself: that makes no part of the divine sen-
tence. If he judges himself unworthy of eternal life duriug
five, ten, one hundred, or ten thousand million years, that is
for himself to say. God will never save him against his
will ; and God can wait. The sphere of time, belongs to
man's freedom ; that of eternity, to the freedom of God.
And this reconciles the philosophic difficulty. Man, being
/ree, can postpone his submission and obedience indefinitely ;
but, being finite, cannot postpone it infinitely. At any point
of time, he may still resolve to resist the influx of eternal
life, and continue in the sphere of death : but eternity sur-
rounds time, and infolds it ; and in eternity God'^ purposes
will be realized, and every knee bow, of things in heaven,
and in earth, and under the earth. Universal harmony must
prevail at last.
" Eternal " and " everlasting " are two wholly different
ideas. We fully believe in eternal punishment, but not in
everlasting punishment. Eternal life is spiritual life : eter-
nal suffering is spiritual suffering. *
The whole of antiquity recognizes this distinction ; and
the Bible is saturated with it. When Jesus says, " He who
believes in me has eternal life abiding in him," there is
nothing about duration intended in that. When he says,
'* This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God," there
is nothing about duration implied. It is the quality of the
life which is conveyed — spiritual life, life flowing from the
sight of God and Christ.
We believe in eternal punishment ; but, because it is eter-
nal, therefore it is not everlasting. Eternal suffering, flowing
380 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
from the sight of the eternal truth and love of Grod, is real
suffering, because it involves the sight of sin, the conscious-
ness of failure, the deep conviction of what we ought to do
and have not done ; but all this leads to repentance and sal-
vation. When the Lord turned and looked on Peter, Peter
went into eternal suffering. He saw his own guilt and the .
infinite goodness of his Master at the same time. The one
produced penitence ; the other, hope. But, when Jadas ^
hanged himself, he did not go into eternal punishment, but
into temporal. He saw his own baseness and his own folly ;
but he did, not see God's love. If he had seen God's love
and Christ's pardoning mercy, together with his sin, he would
not have hanged himself ; but, like Peter, he would have re-
pented, and gone forth to preach the gospel.
When we see God's truth and love, we go into eternal life
or into eternal suffering, according to the direction of our
lives and hearts. If we are following Christ, and trying to
do right,. — if we are not selfish, but generous, — then the
sight of God's love and truth in Christ leads us directly into
spiritual joy ; but if we are selfish, and seeking only our own
good, if we are indifferent to the rights of our fellow-men,
then we go into eternal or spiritual suffering.
The force of eternal punishment, therefore, is not in the
statement that it is never to end ; nor in any description,
however vivid, of outward physical torments. Such descrip-
tions produce excitement, agitation, terror. But this is not
conviction. The doctrine, not being in harmony with the
attributes of God or the nature of man, can never be sincere-
ly or profoundly believed. It is inwardly opposed by every
Christian conviction in the human soul ; for it is not Chris-
tian, but Pagan. It is a relapse into Paganism, an importa-
tion of Pagan terrors into Christianity. It degrades every
soul that teaches it, or that accepts it, in the same way that
idolatry degrades it. It puts a veil between the soul and
the true God.
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 381
But the true Christian doctrine of eternal punishment is,
that the soul which sins shall eternally suffer ; that there is
an eternal distinction between truth and falsehood, good and
evil ; that spiritual distinctions are positive and real ; and
that evil is not a mere negative thing, implying a little less
of good, but positive, being the state of a soul which is re-
pelled, not attracted, by the divine goodness ; which keeps
away from God, as the shadow keeps on the side of the globe
which is away from the sun.
Again : eternal suffering is the suffering of eternity, as
distinguished from temporal suffering, which has its root in
time. This is something which comes from within, while
temporal suffering comes from without. Till man is recon-
ciled to God by obedience and love, he has the sentence of
death in himself. This suffering is not arbitrary, but fixed
in the nature of things. As a sinner, man must be eternally
separated inwardly .from God, and therefore from bliss. Hi6
hell is within him, not without. • And it is also here, as well
as hereafter, since eternity is here, no less than time.
In this view of eternal punishment, there is an important
truth — truth essential to the just spiritual growth of man.
It is needed to resist the tendency to make light of sin. It
is needed to oppose the view which makes evil, as well as
good, a natural growth, and teaches that all men are on
their way upward, and will ultimately fall into heaven by
some specific levity. It is needed to remind us that we
must choose whom we will serve, and that, consciously or
unconsciously, we are at all moments tending either upward
or downward — either towards God or away from him.
This is the great truth which is often lost sight of by
Liberal 'Christianity, and by that easy optimism which de-
clares that " whatever is, is right ; " but darkly taught, be-
cause dimly seen, by Orthodoxy. Pagan in its form, there
is often an essentially Christian idea communicated by the
Orthodox pulpit. The Pagan form may be neglected and
382 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
disbelieved ; the Christian impression may remain. It tight-
ens the nerves of the soul, as a cold bath invigorates the
body made languid by too much warmth and ease. Yet, as
long as the Pagan form remains, the interior truth is shorn
of its full power. Let us pray that the truth, divested of its
dark errors, may at last be recognized by the Christian
Church. For very often the words of a great writer and
thinker (who also was an earnest opponent of the Orthodox
form of this doctrine) recur to us in these studies : " Few
see the things themselves, but only the forms of things, in
the mirror of reflection, as images. But we shall at last see
the things themselves face to face, as it is said, and without
a veil, if it please God, in part before the close of this pres-
ent life, more fully in the life to come." *
§ 8. How Judgment by Christ is connected with Punish'
ment, — To what we have said of judgment by Christ, in the
previous chapter, we add here some further thoughts in re-
gard to its connection with punishment. Orthodoxy makes
this connection arbitrary and outward. For such sins, it
says, God has appointed such a punishment ; and the object
of judgment is to glorify God, by showing how exact he is
in finding out every sinner, and fulfilling his every threat
against evil. But, according to a better view, which alone
can commend itself to minds of any large range — future
judgment is simply the act by which God shows to a man
the truth concerning himself, so that he can see it.
A deaf and dumb child being asked, " What is judgment? '*
replied, " Judgment is to see ourselves as we are, and to see
* *' Pauci res ipsas, sed rerum imagines, tanquam in speculo, intnentur: at
res ipsas, facie ad facicm, ut dicitur, ct abiato velo, visuri sumus t^dem si Doo
placucrit, partim sub occasu higusce mundi, plenius autem in fUturo." — ThomaM
Burnet., Dc Statu Mortuorum et Resurgeutium Tractatus. Londini. Typia
et impensis J. Uookc« in vico vulgd dicto Fleet Street^ 1727. — No one lias
spoken more powerfully and eloquently than he against everlasting punish-
ment, particularly in the passage beginning ^* Nobis difficile est omnem exuere
humanitatem." p. S09.
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 383
God as he is/* This is the essential thing in judgment ; and
* in this sense Christ is declared " to be the judge of the quick
and the dead ; " that is, he judges us in this world, and will
judge us in the other world. His judgments are not exter-
nal, sentencing us to external punishments ; but they are in-
ternal, causing us to judge ourselves. He shows us what we
are. Whenever he comes, he comes to judgment, separat*
ing the good from the evil, testing the state of the heart,
causing men to go to the right or the left. His coming
always makes an issue which cannot be avoided ; calls upon
us 1o decide which course we shall take, what thing we shall
do, what master we will serve. When Christ first came, he
came for judgment, that the thoughts of many hearts might
be revealed, — revealed to themselves and to others. Wher-
ever he came, men immediately were divided into two classes,
— becoming his disciples, or becoming his opponents. No
longer was any compromise possible between truth and error,
between right and wrong. They were obliged to choose
which to serve ; and they chose according to the inward
tendency of their hearts. They whose hearts were right,
chose the right : they whose hearts were wrong, chose the
wrong.
Christ is thus the Judge of the living as well as the dead.
Often in our lives he comes to us thus to be our Judge.
Every time he calls upon us to do anything for him, he judges
the state of our heart. Every time he olFers aq opportunity
to the world of improvement or progress, he judges the
world.
When he was on trial before Caiaphas and before Pilate,
they were on trial, and not he. When they sentenced him,
they condemned themselves. During the whole of those
dark hours, when Christ was buffeted, spit upon, crowned
with thorns, to the eyes of angels he was seen to be sitting
on the throne of his glory. Caiaphas and the Jewish priests,
Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers, Judas Iscariot, the
384 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Jewish people, each in turn received their sentence, and
passed to the left hand. And so ever since, whenever any
great opportunity has been given to the world to decide be-
tween right and wrong, the world has pronounced judgment
on itself; has gone to the right hand with the sheep, or to
the left hand with the goats. When Paul offered Christian-
ity to the Jews, and they rejected it, he said " it was neces-
sary that the word of God should first have been spoken to
you ; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves
unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." So
it always is. God does not judge us, nor Christ ; but we
judge ourselves. For this reason Jesus says, " If any man
hear me, and believe not, I judge him not ; for I came not
to judge the world." And again he says, " The word which
I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day."
And yet again, " This is the judgment, that light has come
into the world, and that men have chosen darkness rather
than light, because their deeds are evil."
The account of judgment (in the 25th chapter of Matthew)
at Christ's coming we considered in the last chapter. It
will, however, bear a little further examination. There are
Jiree different judgments indicated in the three parables of
the virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats. The first
is the judgment of opportunity, the second of work, the third
of knowledge. In the first and second we judge ourselves,
in the last ^e are judged. These two occur in time, the other
in eternity. The first two are the judgments which take place
at Christ's coming here ; the third is the judgment of " the
last day." The first takes place whenever we are "called"
by a new opportunity ; the second comes in all retribution ;
the third by the inward revelation of God's truth, showing
men what they are, and what God is. • * The wise and foolish
virgins represent those who are invited to receive Christianity ;
the servants with the talents, believers who have received it
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 885
in different degrees ; and the nations (heathen, rd Wfrj) *
those (in Christendom or outside of it) to whom Christianity
has never come.
§ 9. The Doctrine of Annihilation, — This view of the
final results of moral evil, as destroying personal existence,
is hardly an Orthodox doctrine, though quasi-Orthodox. It
ih the refuge of that class of minds which are unable to ac-
cept universal restoration on the one side, or everlasting pun-
ishment on the other. To them a large number of human
beings seem " too good for banning, and too bad for bless-
ing," and in their opinion will be suffered quietly to drop out
of conscious existence. The analogies of nature, in which
out of many seeds and many eggs produced, only a few attain
to the condition of plants and animals, tend to confirm this
view. The state of human character here appears also to
favor it, since multitudes pass out of this world in an unde-
veloped condition, seeming wholly to have failed of the end
of their being. The chief scriptural argument in favor of
the doctrine is found in the assumption that "life through
Christ " is equivalent to continued conscious existence, and
* Ib it not remarkable (as ehowing how little the New Testament has as yet
been really studied) that there should be so many discussions as to the fhtnre
doom of the Jieaihen, when Jesus himself here distinctly tells us what it wiU be.
The word edvn is the only word in the New Testament which is ever translated
heatJien t wherever the word heathen occurs in our Bible, it is always this.
Jesus teaches that the heathen (inside and outside of Christendom) will be
judged according to their humanity ^ their obedience to the law written in their
hearts; and he shows that this is coincident with the law of Christianity. So,
when the Church of England says (in its 18th article) that ** they also are to
be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law
or sect he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that
liw and the light of nature;*' it denounces this curse on Christ himself, and
thus proves conclusively that it is not speaking by the Spirit of God, since
" no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed." (1 Cor. 12 : 3.)
This comes of the habit (happily less common now than formerly) of throwing
about curses at random, against those who differ Arom our opinions. Some of
them may thus, accidentally, hit the Master himself. It is, perhaps, of less
consequence that this anathema also touches the apostle Paul, who declares that
the heathen who have not the law are a law to themselves when they do
right, and are absolved by their conscience. ( Bom. 2 : 14.)
33
886 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
that " death " as the punishment of sin, is equivalent to an-
nihilation. We have so fully discussed the meaning of these
terms in the previous chapter, that it is not desirable to argue
this point here. We agree with the Orthodox view, and dif-
fer from that of the annihilationists on this point. The God
of the gospel is the Father of all. his children — of the weakest,
feeblest, and most sinful. K he is the God of ally then he is
" the God, not of the dead, but of the living, for aU live to
him." Indian tribes and heathen nations may be willing
that the sickly infants, and those worn with age, should
perish ; they may expose female infants, thinking them not
worth bringing up ; but Christian nations establish schools
and hospitals for the deaf and dumb, the insane, the in-
ebriates, the idiotic. If we, then, being evil, know how to
care for the weak, undeveloped, and vegetative natures, how
much more shall their Father in heaven care for them ! The
doctrine of annihilation rests fundamentally on a Pagan view
of God.
§ 10. The Doctrine of Universal Restoration, — This opin-
ion has its roots, we think, in the gospel. It has prevailed
in the church from the earliest times, having been held, as
we have seen, by Origen, and a great number of eminent
church fathers and doctors. What more Christian word has
come to us from the earliest centuries than the cry out of the
heart of the great Alexandrian teacher, " My Saviour, even
now, mourns for my sins. My Saviour cannot be happy
whil^ I remain in my iniquity. He does not wish to drink
the cup of joy alone in the kingdom of God ; he is waiting
till we shall come and join him there." *
Our object in this chapter is to consider the Orthodox
view, and we shall not, therefore, enter into any extensive
argument concerning universal salvation. We will only here
* Origen, HomU^ in Levit. 7:2. ** Salvator mens laget etiam nnno pecoata
inea; Salvator mens laetari non potest, donco ego in iniquitate permaneo.
Ifon Yult BOluB in regno Dei bibere vinum Istitiie ~noB expectat.**
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 887
indicate the general scriptural evidence in its support. Tho
alternative to the Orthodox view of everlasting punishment
is not, as we have shown, necessarily Universalism. It may
be annihilation, or it may be, under the name of eternal pun-
ishment, a negative evil, being the privation of the highest
kind of happiness. Still, it seems proper to suggest, if only
very briefly, some reasons given by Universalists for their
belief.
In the Epistles of Paul there are five or six passages,
which appear to teach, or to imply, an ultimate restoration
of salvation of all moral beings. Among them are these : —
1. Eph. 1 : 9, 10. " Having made known to us the mys-
tery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he
hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the
fulness of times he might gather together in one all things
in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth,
even in him."
The apostle is speaking of the " riches of God's grace,"
wherein " he hath abounded toward us," and gives as the
proof this revelation made in Christ of a great mystery —
that " in the dispensation [economy] of the fulness of times "
he might bring into one (under one head) " all things in
heaven and on earth." The idea of the passage seems evi-
dently to be that in the economy, or order, of the divine
plan, which extends through indefinite periods of time, all
things shall be united under one head in Christ. But if
brought under one head (as the Greek word signifies), then
all become Christians, all "in heaven and earth." This
would seem to be a very plain statement of a universal res-
toration.
As such, Olshausen, one of the most Orthodox of commen-
tators, regards it. He rejects all the explanations offered by
the advocates of everlasting punishment as unsatisfactory.
" It cannot be disputed,'* he says, " that in it the restoration
of all things seems to be again favored — a view which Paul
888 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
in general, as has already been remarked, (on Bom. 11 : 32 ;
1 Cor. 15 : 24 ; Gal. 3 : 22) says more to support than the
other writers of the New Testament." Olshausen declares
the interpretations which suppose a merely external subjec-
tion of the world to Christ to be entirely inadequate, and have
left unresolved the principal difficulty, which is, " how Paul
could say that all have a share in redemption, if he held the
common view that the numberless hosts of angels who fell,
along with the far greatest part of mankind (Matt. 7 : 13,
14) are eternally damned, and thus shut out from the har-
mony of the universe. The defenders of universal restora-
tion, says Olshausen, " understand the harmony of the
universe seriously, in its literal meaning, and seem, accord-
ing to that, to be here in the right."
2. Phil. 2 : 9, 10, " Wherefore God hath highly exalted
him, and «given him a name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father." Here we have " things uiv-
der the earth*^ (xuTaxOovlMv) added to " things in heaven and
on earth." This word only occurs here in the New Testa-
ment, but is by Bretschneider (Lex. Man.) translated " sub-
terranean" or "infernal," and applied to the inhabitants of
Hades, with a reference to Origen, who uses the word in
relation to the demons. DeWette applies the language to
angels, living men, and the dead. At all events, it appears
to include all moral beings, and to declare that the whole
human race shall bow to Christ, and accept him as Master.
But this cannot mean a merely outward submission, for such
a forced and reluctant homage would bring little honor to
God, nor be worth such admiration on the part of the apos-
tle. It must therefore mean thaf all men, not only all who
now live, but all who have lived, shall finally become Chris-
tians and enter into the glory of God*
FUTURE PUNISHMENTl. 889
3. Col. 1 : 20. " And, having made peace by the blood
of the cross, by him to recancile all things to himself ; by
him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in
heaven." Here a new feature is added to the statement by
the word " reconcile," which evidently expresses the entire
conversion of the heart, and therefore of human beings, to
the law of Christ.
4. 1 Cor. 15 : 22. " As in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive." The '* all " must be as ex-
tensive on one side as the other. Now, whether the death
in Adam be physical or moral, whether it mean the dissolu-
tion of the earthly body, or the loss of innocence by sin, it
certainly includes all human beings, in the fullest sense. All
men die, and all men sin. It would therefore seem that the
other " all " must be quite as comprehensive. It must include
all human beings. All men shall " be made alive in Christ."
But this cannot mean a mere physical immortality, or an
immortality in misery ; for one cannot be said to be " alive
in Christ" who is suffering endless torment. To be " alive
in Christ" means to be spiritually alive, for "he that hath
the Son hath life."
5. 1 Cor. 24 : 28. In this passage Paul declares that all
enemies shall be subject to Christ. But this, again, cannot
mean a forced submission, for that is in no sense being sub-
ject to Christ. Chrisfs subjects are willing subjects. It
therefore must mean that, finally, all human beings shall be-
come Christian in conviction and in heart.
These five texts from the apostle Paul seem to us very
plain and conclusive as to his opinions. But perhaps the
strongest evidence in proof of a universg,l restoration is to be
found in Christ's own parable of the prodigal son. For in
this the genuine spirit and purpose of the gospel is shown to
be that God never loses his fatherly love for his rebellious and
lost children. On the contrary, his heart yearns towards
them with a more earnest affection than towards the holy and
33*
890 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
good. The prodigal son represents those who are " dead in
sin." (Luke 15 : 24-32.) The parable teaches that God loves
them all the while they are away, and that " there is more
joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety
and nine just persons who need no repentance." Now, if
God loves the sinners thus whose bodies are yet alive, does
he cease to love them when the bodily change takes place
which we call death ? Does his nature change then ? And
if not, does it ever change ? After millions of years, if they
have been lost and dead so long, has his love become weary
of waiting, or does "his mercy endure forever " ?
To us it seems clear, that if the parable of the prodigal
son is to be taken as a true statement of the feeling of God
towards every sinner, that every sinner .must at last be
brought back by the mighty power of this redeeming love.
The power of the human will to resist God is indeed indefi-
nite ; but the power of love is infinite. Sooner or later, then,
in the economy of the ages, all sinners must come back, in
penitence and shame, to their Father's house, sajing, '^ Make
us as thy hired servants." If so, if universal restoration does
not mean primarily restoration to outward happiness, but to
inward obedience, it seems to us that the doctrine may be so
stated as to be a new motive for present repentance and obedi-
ence. May we not say to the sinner. You may resist God
to-day, to-morrow, for a million years ; but, sooner or later,
you must return, obey, repent, and submit? God will
spare no means to bring you. His love to you requires him
to use all methods, all terrors, all sufiering. The " worm
that never dies," the "fire that is never quenched," the
'' outer darkness," — these are all blessed means, in the provi-
dence of the Almighty, to bring the sinner back to a sense of
his evil state. In the other world, as in this world, God
will '' chasten us, not for his pleasure, but for our profit,
that we may be partakers of his holiness."
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 891
CHAPTER XV.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
§ 1. The Question stated, — One of the most interesting
questions of the present time, in practical theology, concerns
the nature, authority, organization, functions, and future of
the Christian Church. The interest iix this subject has re-
cently much revived, in consequence of a reaction towards
the Roman Catholic or High Church view. This has ap-
peared in the tendency among Protestants to join the Cath-
olic Church as the only true and saving Church of Christ.
The same tendency has taken into the Church of England,
and into the Episcopal Church of the United States, those
who were not ready to go as far as Rome. It is therefore
important and useful to ask. What is the truth and what the
error in the different views concerning the Church ? These
differ very widely. The Roman Catholics declare that theirs
is the only true Church, and that out of it is no salvation.
Many Protestants reply that the Roman Catholic Church
is Antichrist, and the only true Churches are those which
hold the Evangelical or Orthodox creed. The Swedenbor-
gians say that the Old Church came to an end in 1758, and
that since then the New Church has taken its place. Final-
ly, a considerable number of persons maintain that all these
churches are worse than useless, and that it is the duty of
Christians to come out, and be separate from them all.
They do not believe in the need of any church, but would
substitute for it societies for special purposes, — lyceums and
literary clubs for purposes of mental instruction ; temperance
societies, peace societies, and other associations for moral
392 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
purposes ; and Odd-Fellows associations, Masonic associa*
tions, and clubs for social purposes.
The question then is, Is a Christian Church needed for the
permanent wants of man ? Was such a Church established
by Christ? If so, which Church is it? And what is to be
its future character and mode of organization?
It is scarcely necessary to discuss here the abstract ques-
tion— Is a church an essential want of man, so as to be
needed by him forever ? It is enough to show that a church
is needed now, and will be, for a long time to come. Every
religion has had its church. No sooner does' a new idea
arise, than it is incorporated in some outward union. The
new wine is put into new bottles. Confucius has his church,
Mohammed has his church ; evenMormonism and Spiritualism
have established their churches. The Christian Church arose
immediately after the ascension of Jesus ; it came as a mat-
ter of necessity, bom not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but
of God. It has continued ever since, in ever-varying forms,
but one undying body. Other institutions have risen and
passed away. The Roman empire has disappeared. The
barbarous nations overflowed Europe, and then were civil-
ized, Christianized, and absorbed into the Christian Church.
Protestantism separated from Romanism, but the Church re-
mained in both. Other sects, Presbyterian, Independent,
Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, Swedenborgian, Unitarian, Uni-
versalist, separated from the main Protestant body, but each
took with it the church ; each has its own church. Even
the Quakers, the most unchurched apparently of any, who
renounced the visible ministry, and the visible sacraments,
made themselves presently into the most compact church of
all. So the word continues evermore to be made flesh. So
all spirit presently becomes incarnate in body. The body is
outward and visible ; the spirit inward and invisible. Both
are necessary to the life, growth, and active influence of the
gospeL Without the spirit of Christianity, the body would
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 393
be good for nothing ; it would be only a corpse. Without
. the body of Christianity, the spirit would be comparatively
inactive ; it would be only a ghost. A body without spirit
coiTupts and is offensive ; a spirit without body is inopera-
tive and alarming. Through body alone the spirit can act ;
through spirit alone the body can live.
Without asking, therefore, for any other authority for the
Church, than its adaptation to human wants, we may safely
say, that it is a great mistake to suppose we can dispense
with churches. You cannot overthrow the churches, not the
weakest of them, by any agency you can use ; for all came
up to meet and supply a want of the human soul. They are
built on that rock. What will yott put in their place ? A ly-
ceum ? A debating society ? A reform club ? What are you
to say to the souls of men, hungering and thirsting for God ?
What to the sinner, borne down by the mighty weight of
transgression ? What to the dying man, who knows not how
to prepare to meet his God ? We need the Church of Christ
— the Church whose great aim it is, and always has been, to
renew and regenerate the soul from its foundation, to lay the
axe at the root of the tree of evil, and the very sound of whose
bell, rolling its waves of music over the sleeping hills on the
Sabbath morning, is worth more to the soul than a thousand
lyceums and debating societies.
No ; the Church is not to be destroyed ; it is to be renewed
with a deeper and fuller life. We want a better Church, no
doubt — one more free in its thought, more active in its char-
ity, with more of brotherhood in it. We want an apostolic
Church, fitted to the needs of the nineteenth century. The
theological preaching which satisfied our parents is not what
we wish now. We need Christianity applied to life — the
life of the individual and of the state. A better Church, no
* doubt, is needed ; but we want the churches fulfilled^ not de-
stroyed.
§ 2. Orthodox Doctrine of the Church — Boman Catholic
394 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
and High Church, — Admitting, then, the permanency of the
Christian Church, we next ask, "What is its true form? " or,
" Which is the true Church ? " or, again, to state it in another
way, " Is the form of the Church permanent, or only its sub-
stance? Is any union for Christian purposes, for worship
and work, a Church, or must it be found in some particular
organic form?" To this question Romanism and High
Church Episcopacy reply, " It must." The rest of Prot-
estantism answers, "No." Romanism says — Jesus es-
tablished an essential form for his Church, as well as an
essential substance. The true Church is an organization as
well defined as any corporation for secular purposes. It has
the monopoly of saving souls, a patent right of communicat-
ing spiritual life, which cannot lawfully be infringed by any
other corporation. This right was originally bestowed on
St. Peter, and has been transmitted by him to his successors,
bishops of 'Rome. The proof is in the original deed of gift,
" Thou art Peter," &c., and in the regularity of the succes-
sion of subsequent bishops.
" According to the Catholic dogma," says Guericke,* " the
Church is an outward community, by which all communion
with Christ is conditioned and mediated. This outward
community is the true Church, with the signs of unity, uni-
versality, apostolicity, and holiness, and is both the only in-
fallible Church, and only one which can save the soul."
This Church, according to Bellarmine, is a wholly visible and
outward association ; as much so as the kingdom of France
or republic of Venice.f According to Moehler, J the Church
" is the visible community of believers, founded by Christ,
in which, by means of an enduring apostleship, &c., the
works wrought by him during his earthly life are continued
* Guericke, Christ. Symbolik, § 70. • •
t Ecclesia enim est ccetus hominnm ita visibilis et palpabilis nt est e<Btcs
popnli Komani, yel regnum Gallise, aut respnblica Yenetoram." Bellarmin.
Eccles. Milit. c. 2.
X Moehler. Symbolism, § 38.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 395
to the end of the world." The Roman Catholic idea is of a
visible Church only, and not of a Church at once visible and
invisible, which is the Protestant notion. It is composed of
good and bad, while the Protestant Qotion makes the true
Church consist only of the regenerate.*
The chief refutation of this claim of the Romish Church is
to be found in the very vastness of its assumption. Assum-
ing itself to be the only true Church, and the.only one founded
by Christ, we of course require full and exact evidence in
proof of its assertion. It must prove, (1.) That Jesus
founded an outward Church of this kind ; (2.) That he made
Peter its head ; (3.) That he gave Peter power to continue
his authority to his successors ; (4.) That the bishops of
Rome are the successors of Peter ; (5.) That this succession
has been perfect and uninterrupted ; (6.) That the Roman
Catholic Church is infallible, and has never committed any
mistake; (7.) That it is Catholic, and includes all true
Christians ; (8.) That it is at one with itself, having never
known divisions ; (9.) That it is the only holy Church, bear-
ing the fruits of Christian character in a quality and quantity
which no other Church can rival. If any one of these nine
propositions fail, the whole claim of Rome falls prostrate.
But they all fail, not one being susceptible of proof. It can-
not be made to appear that Jesus ever intended to found a
Church having such a monopoly of salvation ; nor that the
apostle Peter was ever placed at its head, with supreme au-
thority ; f nor, if he had this authority, that he ever was
bishop of Rome ; nor, if he were, that he transmitted his
authority to his successors ; nor, if he did, that the bishops
of Rome are his successors ; nor, if they are, that the succes-
* *( Bonos et malos ad eoclesiam pertinere Catholica fides yere et oonstanter
affirmat." Cat Eom.
t The chief passage in proof of this, as is well known, is Matt. 16 : 18, If
*( Thou art Fcter," &o. But even Augustine, the great light of the Lati»
Church, says that " Peter was not the Rock, \iVLt Christ was the Sook."-
(Neander, vol. ii. p. 168.) The same power was given to the othdr apostles.
Matt. 18 : 18. John 20 : 23. Rev. 21 : 14: '
596 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Bion has been unbroken ; nor that the church has been actu-
ally infallible ; nor that it includes all true Christians ; nor
that it has been free from schisms ; nor that it has always
been so pure and holy as to show that Romanism is emi-
nently Christian, and Protestantism not so. The chain of
proof, therefore, which, if one link parted, would be a broken
chain, is broken at every link, and cannot carry conviction
to any unbiassed mind.
In a little work lately published in France by the Protes-
tant Pastor, Mr. Bost,* the author gives as a reason for not
being a Catholic, that while the Church calls on us to sub-
mit to its authority, it cannot tell where the authority resides. f
The Ultramontanes place it in the person of the pope ; but
the Galileans have never admitted this idea, and place the
supreme authority in a universal council.
Besides, what sort of infallibility is that which has tolerated
the Inquisition, applauded the St. Bartholomew massacre,
preached crusades against the heretics in France, massacred
the Protestants in Holland, burned ten thousands at the stake
in Spain ? If it be said that Protestants also have persecuted,
we reply, that they did it against their own principles, but
that the Catholics persecuted in accordance with theirs ; and
that the Church which claims exclusive infallibility and holi-
ness has no right to excuse itself because it has done no worse
than those which it denounces as being in error and sin'.
§ 3. The Protestant Orthodox Idea of the Church, — Prot-
estantism does not claim for its Church exclusive holiness or
infallibility. It defines the Church to be " a congregation of
faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and
the sacraments duly administered." { Why, then, the reao-
* Le Protestantisme Liberal par le Pasteur Bost. Paris, BaiUidre, 1866.
t '*I1 est de fait que le Gatholicisme, qui est essentiellement nn prinoipe
d*authorit^, ne salt pas dire oti. reside cette authority.*'
X " Thirty-nine Articles, art. xlx." So Augs. Conf. art 7 ; «* Congregatio
Banotorum, in qua evangelium reete dooetur, et recte adxninistrantor BaGramenta.**
But it may be asked, Who is to decide on the " recte " ?
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 397
tion towards Romanism ? It is partly owing to the passive
element in man — the wish to be governed, the weariness of
independent thought, which led Wordsworth to say, —
" Me this tmchartered freedom tires," —
and which, in "Van Artevelde," declares that, —
*' Thought is tired of wandering through the world,
And homeward fancy runs its bark ashore," ~~
and partly because the Protestant Churches are often less
active and diligent in the practical part of Christian work
than the Roman Catholic Churches. Instead of a manly
Protestantism, they give us a diluted Catholicism. They in-
sist on a creed which has neither antiquity nor authority to
recommend it, on sacraments that are no real sacraments,
but only symbols, and on a ritual which has neither the
beauty nor variety of the Roman worship.
What does the Protestant Church propose to itself as its
end? To produce an abstract piety, instead of a concrete
piety — not a piety embodied in life and conduct, but taking
only the form of an inward experience. J£ the churches
should set themselves the work of feeding the hungry and
clothing the naked, of removing the vices and crimes of men.
of helping the outcasts and visiting the prisoners, they would
have a more living piety growing out of this active charity.
Their prayer meetings would be much more vigorous when
they prayed in order to work, than when they pray in order to
pray. Men should not be admitted into the Church because
they are pious, but in order to become pious by doing Chris-
tian work. By loving, practically, the brother they have
seen, they would come to love God, whom they have not
seen.
Again : the Protestant Church feebly imitates the aristoc-
racy of the Romish Church. In order to conquer Romanism,
we must go on and leave it behind, seeking something better,
and finding some more excellent way. Now, the sin of
34
898 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
•
Komanism is its aristocracy ; Protestantism ought, then, to
give us, in its Church, a Christian democracy. But it keeps
up the pernicious distinction between clergy and laity, mak-
ing the clergy a separate class, and so justifying Milton's
complaint that the " Presbyter is only the old priest written
large." It makes a distinction between men and women in
the Church, not encouraging the latter to speak or to vote.
It makes a distinction between the rich and poor, selling its
pews to those who can buy them, and leaving those who are
unable to do so outside of the sanctuary. It makes a dis-
tinction between Orthodox and heretics, excluding the latter,
instead of inviting them in where their errors might be cor-
rected. And finally, it makes an unchristian distinction
between good people and bad people ; for while Jesus, its
Master, made himself the friend of publicans and sinners, the
Church too often turns to them the cold shoulder, and leaves
them to be cured by the law, and not the gospel.
The following saying of a saint of the desert. Abbot Agatho,
is reported by Dr. Newman, who tells it as something wise
and good. It seems to us to illustrate, with much naivete,
the tendency of both Catholic and Protestant Orthodoxy, to
put right opinion above right conduct.
" It was heard by some that Abbot Agatho possessed the
gift of discrimination. Therefore, to make trial of his tem-
per, they said to him, ' We are told that you are sensual and
haughty.' He answered, ' That is just it.' They said again,
^ Are you not that Agatho who has such a foul tongue ? ' He
answered, ' I am he.' Then they said, ' Are not you Agatho
the heretic f ' He made answer, ' No.*' Then they asked him
why he had been patient of so much, but would not put up
with this last. He answered, ' By those I was but casting
on me evil ; but by this I should be severing me from God.' "
According, therefore, to Agatho and Dr. Newman, the
tongue " which is set on fire of hell," does not separate os
from God, but an error of opinion does. Pride, "which
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 399
comes before a fall," and sensuality, which makes of a man a
beast, do not come between the soul and God so much as an
honest error of opinion.
The Protestant Church fails to overcome the Catholic
Church only by being too much like the latter. With Prot-
estant ideas, we have semi-Catholic Churches. We claim
as our fundamental principle the right of private judgment,
and then denounce and exclude those who differ from us.
We claim that the soul is not to be saved by monkish seclu-
sion, by going away from the world ; and yet we do not
preach and carry out in our church-action the purpose of
saving the bodies of men as well as their souls. When the
Protestant Church work gets more into harmony with Prot-
estant ideas,' we shall then see fewer relapses into Romanism.
§ 4. Chrisfs Idea of a Churchy or the Kingdom of Heaven,
— The Roman Catholics having made the visible Church, or
outward Christian community, the central idea of Christian-
ity, and having changed this into a close corporation of
priests, it was natural, perhaps, that Protestants should go too
far in another direction. Accordingly, the central idea in
Protestantism is not the Church, but the salvation of the
soul ; not social, but personal religion ; not the Christian
community, but personal development ; not the kingdom of
heaven here, but heaven in a future life. Yet it is true, and
has been shown lately with great power,* that the direct and
immediate object of Jesus was to establish a community of
believers. This was implied in his being the Christ, — for
the Christ was to be the head of the kingdom of heaven, —
and the kingdom of heaven was to be an earthly and human in-
stitution. Jesus took the idea of the kingdom of God, as it was
announced by the prophets ; purified, developed, deepened,
and widened it; and it resulted in his varied descriptions
of the " kingdom of heaven." This phrase, in the mouth of
Jesus, expresses essentially what we mean by " the Church."
* In the remarkable work ** Ecce Homo
400 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
This will appear more plainly if we sum up the principal
meanings of the phrase " kingdom of God" in the New Tes-
tament. It is, —
1. Something near at hand,
Mark 1 : 15. " The kingdom of God is at hand." Luke
9 : 27. " There are some standing here who shall not taste
of death till they see the kingdom of God." Mark 9:1.
"There be some. of them which stand here which shall not
taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come
with power."
2. It was already beginning,
Luke 17 : 20. " And when he was demanded of the Phar-
isees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with ob-
servation, neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or, Lo, there !
for behold, the kingdom of God is within (or ' among ') you."
3. It wa^ not of this world,
John 18:36. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this
world."
4. But was to he in this xoorld.
Matt. 6 : 10. " Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on
earth, as it is in heaven."
5. In some respects it was to he an outward and visible
kingdom^ or an outward institution.
Parable of the grain of mustard-seed. Matt. 13 : 31, 32.
6. It would contain good and bad.
Parable of the net. Matt. 13 : 47.
7. It would belong to Christ,
Col. 1 : 13. " Hath translated us into the kingdom of
his Son." Luke 22 : 30. " Ye shall eat and drink in my
kingdom." John 18 : 36. " My kingdom is not of this
world." Matt. 16 : 28. " Shall see the Son of man coming
in his kingdom."
8. It would he finally given icp to Ood,
1 Cor. 15 : 24. " Then the end ; when he shall have de-
livered up the kingdom to God, even the Father," &c.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 401
9. It is a spiritual Icingdom,
Rom. 14 : 17. " For the kingdom of God is not meat and
drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
10. Flesh and blood cannot inherit it.
1 Cor. 15 : 50. " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the king-
dom of God ; neither doth cori'uption inherit incorruption."
11. The conditions of admission are spiritual,
John 3:3. " Except a man be born again," &c. Matt.
5 : 3. " Blessed are the poor in spirit," &c. 1 Cor. 6 : 9.
" The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
See Gal. 5 :-21. Eph. 5 : 5.
12. The Jcingdom was to be established by the Son of man
at his coming.
Matt. 24:30; 25:1. "They shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven," &c. " Then shall the
kingdom of heaven be likened." *
* Tholuck, In his charming work on the Sermon on the Monnt, speaks thus :
(" Bergpredigt Christ, von A, Tholuck.") " Two principal defects are found in
the usual treatment of this doctrine : First, the different aspects and relations
of the kingdom of God are by many considered as different meanings of the
word, and are left standing side by side, without any attempt to ground their
unity in some fundamental idea. Or, secondly, and still worse, a single aspect
of the term is taken up, and the rest are wholly neglected. Examples of the
first defect are to be found in Zwingle, in his note to John 3 : 3. (Here the king-
dom of God is considered as divine doctrine and preaching of the gospel, as in
Luke 18 ; sometimes it is taken for eternal life, Matt. 25 ', Luke 14 ; sometimes
for the church and congreg^ation of the faithful, as Matt. 13 : 24.) The later
lexicographers, as Schleusner and Bretschneider, have not avoided these vague
statements ; and the last of them is particularly defective in his article on this
phrase. Trahl more correctly sums up all these sigpoifications of the word
thus : * Happiness, present and future, obtained through Christ.' But in this
definition the notion of * a kingdom » is omitted. The opposite defect of tak-
ing only one of the meanings of the matter, t« the neglect of the rest, is to be
found, for example, in Koppe and Keil, according to whom the expression re-
lates merely to the future reign of the Messiah one day to be established.
"Cup own explanation of this expression starts from the phrase * kingdom of
God,' which explains the others, * kingdom of heaven ' and * Idngdom of Christ.'
We think that the fundamental idea has been grasped by none more correctly
than by Origen among the ancients, and by Calvin among the reformers. The
phase of the idea principally dwelt upon by the Church Fathers may be seen in
their explanation of the third petition of the Lord's Prayer, which Augustine
especially examine^ profoundly. Most of them understand by it the realm
34*
402 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Christ, therefore, had in his mind, as the direct object of
his coming, to cause God's kingdom to come, and his will to
be done on earth as in heaven. It was not his direct pur-
pose to teach the truth in abstract forms, like the philosophers ;
nor to make atonement by his death for human sins ; nor to
set an example of a holy life ; nor to make a revelation of
God and immortality ; nor to communicate new life to the
world. These he did ; but they came as a part of the king-
dom of heaven. They were included in this great idea.
His kingdom was a kingdom of truths in which his word was
to be the judge. He was to reconcile the world to God by
his death. He was to show what man was made to be and
could become. He was to reveal God as a Father to his
human children. He was to set in motion a tide of new
spiritual life. But the method by which all this was to be
done was the method of a, community of disciples and breth-
ren, who should be his apostles and missionaries. They
were to be an outward, visible association with the symbols
of baptism and the supper. They were also to be an in-
fluence in the world, a current of religious life. We find
that such was the result. We see the disciples embodied
and united in a visible community, which spread through all
the Roman empire, which soon had its teachers, officers, its
meetings, its worship, its sacred books, its sacred days. But
we find also the larger and deeper current of life, which con-
stitutes the invisible Church, flowing,, like a great river, down
through the centuries. All Christians in all Christian lands
drink from this stream, and all their ideas of God, man, duty,
of glory, the future revelation of Christ. Origen alone, in hie book on Prayer,
takes a more exact view of the subject. In like manner Calvin, in his Com-
mentary on the Harmony. So Luther, in his fine Sermon on the Kingdom of
God. Our own fundamental view we express thus : *«A commnnity in which
God reigns, not by force, but by being obeyed freely from love, and which is
therefore necessarily united in itself by mutual love.' The Saviour came upon
the earth to found such a community, and since it can only be completely
established after he has conquered all his enemies, this kingdom of Christ be-
longs in its perfection to the other world."
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 403
immortality, are colored and tinged by it. We read the
Bible by the light of the convictions we absorbed at our
mother*s knee in our infancy. We carry on our churches in
the power of the holy traditions which have become a part
of our itature. There is a Christian consciousness which
grows up in every child who is born in Christendom, and is
the best part of his nature. This makes Him a member of
the invisible Church before he outwardly becomes a member
of the visible Christian community.
§ 5. Church of the Leaven^ or the Inviaihle Church. —
There are two parables of Christ which apply to the Church
visible and invisible. The Church Visible is the Church of
the Mustard-seed ; the Church Invisible is the Church of the
Leaven. The former is an organization, the latter an in-
fluence ; the one is body, and the other spirit. The Visible
Church is limited by certain boundaries ; defined by its wor-
ship, creeds, oiEcers, assemblies, forms. It has its holy
days, holy places, holy men, holy books. But the Inyisible
Church is not limited by any such boundaries ; it exists
wherever goodness exists. The Church of the Leaven is to
be found inside and outside of Orthodoxy ; inside and out-
side of professing Christianity ; among Jews, Mohammedans,
Heathen ; among Deists and unbelievers of all sorts, who
build better than they know. For says Jesus, "The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sound thereof. . . .
So is every one who is born of the Spirit." A locomotive
must run on a track, a wagon on a road. But there is
no track laid through the sky for the south wind ; there is
DO time-table to determine the starting and arriving of the
soft breeze which comes from the far prairies, laden with the
sweet fragrance of ten thousand flowers.
" So is every one who is born of the Spirit." Get out
your Catechism, my Orthodox friend ; establish, dear Meth-
odist brother, your experience to determine whether one is
converted or no. Settle for yourself, excellent formalist, the
404 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
signs of the true Church, out of which there is no salvation ;
and when you have got all your fences arranged, and your
gates built to your satisfaction, you are obliged to throw
them all down with your own hands, to let the Church of
THE Leaven pass through. " Nobody can be saved," says
Dogmatic Christianity, " who does not believe in the Trinity
and the Atonement." " Nobody can be saved," says Sen-
timental Christianity, " who has not had a conscious
change of heart." " Nobody can be saved," says Formal
Christianity, " who is out of the true Church and its sacra-
ments." Here are the three fences of the Church of the
Mustard-seed. But see ! here comes an innumerable multi-
tude of little children, who have never believed in Trinity
or Atonement ; have never been baptized at all ; have
never been converted. Yet neither Dogmatist, Sentimental-
ist, nor Formalist dares to exclude them from heaven.
Logic steps aside ; good feeling opens the three gates ; and
the little ones all walk quietly to the good Shepherd, who
says, " Let them come to me, and forbid them not ; " gather-
ing the lambs in his arms, carrying themin his bosom, and
tenderly leading them in the green pastures beside the still
waters.
The little children must be allowed to go through ; con-
sistency requires them to be damned ; but consistency must
take care of itself; so much the worse for consistency. But
who comes next ? Here are all the heathen, who have not
heard of Christ. Must they be damned ? According to the
creeds, yes ; but modern Orthodoxy has its doubts ; its
heart has grown tender. Somehow or other we think that
we shall have to let them pass, before a great while. Then
here are all the people whom we have known and loved.
They did not believe as they should. They were never con-
verted, so far as we know ; they were not members of any
Church, true or false. But we loved them. Cannot the
three fences be put aside again, just to let these friends of
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 405
ours pass by. What kind-hearted Orthodox man or woman
was ever wanting in an excuse for letting his heretical
friends into heaven. " He changed his views very essential-
ly before he died. He used very Orthodox language, to my
certain knowledge. He said he relied on the merits of
Christ ; or, at least, he said he believed in Christ." And so
all the good and kind dead people must follow all th* little
children, and pass the triple fence. They do not belong to the
Church of the Mustard-seed ; but they belong to the Church
of the Leaven. These fences are like the flaming wall in
Tasso ; they seem impassable, but as soon as one comes up to
them they are found to be nothing. Blessed be God that
common sense is stronger than logic ; that humanity is strong-
er thar. forms ; and that large, kind Christian hearts are more
than a match for the somewhat narrow Christian head.
§ 6. The Church of the Mustard-seed. — This is not the
spirit, but the body ; not the life, but the organization of that
life. There is no doubt that we need a Church visible as
well as a Church invisible ; need a body as well as a soul ;
and it is a very important question what sort of a body we
shall have. Soul, no doubt, is infinitely more important than
body ; still we do not wish our body to be lame, blind, or dys-
peptic. Because soul is better than body, we do not like
rheumatism or neuralgia. Our visible Church, the body of
Christ, is sometimes a little dyspeptic, and goes about look-
ing very gloomy and miserable, when it ought to be as gay
as a lark. Sometimes also it seems to be rheumatic ; at any
rate, it cannot go and attend to its work. It is very subject
to fever and ague ; plenty of meetings to-day, all alive
with zeal and heat, but to-morrow it is cold and shivering.
It has its pulmonary disease too ; its lungs are not strong
enough to speak when it ought ; to cry out for truth and
right in the day of trial. And as we find that hygienics are
better than therapeutics for physical diseases, so, perhaps, it
will be better for us to prevent the. diseases of the Church -by
406 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
wise arrangements, which shall give it air, exercise, and a
wholesome diet, than to cure it, when sick, by the usual
medicine of rebuke, reproof, and ascetic mortification.
The visible Church may be looked at in four points of
view. We may consider it as, —
1. The Primitive Church, or Church as it was.
2. The Church Actual, or Church as it is.
3. The Ideal Church, or Churxih as it ought to be.
4. The Possible Church, or Church as it can be.
§ 7. Primitive and Apostolic Churchy or Church as it was.
— If we study the nature, organization, and character of the
primitive Christian Church, as it appears in the book of Acts
and in the Epistles, we recognize easily the warm, loving life
which was in its spring time, when all buds were swelling,
and all flowers opening. It was far from being a perfect
Church. It had many errors, and included many vices.
Some persons in the Church did not believe in the resurrec-
tion of the dead. (1 Cor. 15 : 12.) Some disciples had not
heard there was a Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:2.) Some even
became intoxicated at the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11 : 21,
Sg dh fieddsL,) Some Christians had to be told not to steal
(Eph. 4 : 28) ; nor to lie, (Col. 3:9); nor to commit other
immoralities. Peter (supposed to be the infallible head of
the Church) was rebuked by Paul for dissimulation. Paul
and Barnabas could not get along together, but quarrelled,
and had to separate. Part of the Church Judaized, and de-
nounced Paul as a false apostle. Another part Paganized,
and carried Pauline liberty into license. And yet, though
there was so little of completed Christian character, there
was a great amount of spiritual life in the apostolic Church.
They are styled saints, but never was anything less saintly
than the state of things in the beginning. But they were
looking the right way, and going in the right direction.
They were full of faith, zeal, enthusiasm, and inspiration ;
«6 they had in themselves the promise and expectation of
saintship, if not its reality.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 407
Directly after the ascension of Christ, and the wonderful
experiences of the day of Pentecost, we find the Christian
community in active operation. Its organization was as yet
very indefinite ; that was to come by degrees.
It was a Church without a creed ; its only creed was a
declaration of faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.
It was a Church without a bishop, or a single head of any
kind; for Peter, James, and John seem all three to have
possessed an equal influence in it, and that influence was
derived from their character. Paul tells us expressly, in the
Epistle to the Galatians, that when he went up to Jerusalem,
long after his conversion, Peter, James, and John " seemed
to be pillars " there. No mention is made anywhere in the
book of Acts of a single bishop presiding over the Church at
Jerusalem, or over any other Church. And as to the Ro-
mish Church, which claims to be the oldest Church, and the
mother of all the rest, it was not yet founded at all, when
the Church at Jerusalem was established. Nor was the
Church at Rome as old as the Churches at Antioch, at
Lystra, at Iconium, and elsewhere, for Paul and Barnabas
ordained elders in all these churches, as we are expressly
told in Acts 14th ; and in Acts 15 : 7 we find Peter still at
Jerusalem. If there was any church at Rome, Peter was not
its bishop ; then either it was a church without a bishop, or
Peter was not its first bishop.
We find also that as the apostolic Church had no creed and
no bishop, neither had it any fixed or settled forms. Its
forms and usages grew up naturally, according as conven-
ience required. Thus (Acts 6 : 1-5) we find that the apos-
tles recommended the disciples to choose seven persons to
attend to the distribution of charity. " A murmuring arose **
because the Greek widows were neglected — neglected, prob-
ably, because not so well known as the others. Thi^ shows
that there were no fixed, established forms ; even the order
of deacons was originated to meet an occasion.
408 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
That they had no form of service, no fixed Liturgy, in the
apostolic Church, appears from 1 Cor. 14 : 26. " How is it,
brethren, when ye come together, every one of you hath a
psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation?
Let the prophets speak, two or three, and the others judge,
and if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
first hold his peace. Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all
may learn, and all. be comforted." Now, it is very evident
no fixed or formal service could have been established in the
churches when he recommended this.
But though the apostolic Church had neither bishop, nor
creed, nor fixed forms, nor a fixed body of officers, it had
something better — it had faith in God, and mutual love.
" The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
one soul ; neither said any man that aught that he possessed
was his own, but they had all things common." We do not
find an absolute community of property established by a. law
of the Church, as in the monastic orders, or as in the school
of Pythagoras, and some modern communities, as that of St.
Simon ; for Peter says to Ananias, of his property, " While
it remained, was it not thine own ? and after it was sold, was
it not in thine own power ? " But though their property was
in their own power, they did not call it their own, or con-
sider it so ; it belonged to Grod : they were only stewards,
and they readily brought it, and gave it to the use of the
Church.
The apostolic Church was a home of peace and joy.
Whatever tribulations they might have in the world, when
they met together they met Christ, and ate their meat with
gladness and singleness of heart. They were in an atmos-
phere of love and freedom. We hear of no rules, no laws,
no constraining forms ; but all were led by the Spirit of God.
Even in their public service, as we have seen, though Paul
recommended a greater order, it was not based on authority,
but on the seiise of propriety of each individual, becauBO
God was not the God of confusion, but of peace.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 409
Such was the original Church, as described in the Act?
and Epistles. It sprang up because it was wanted, and
Christ foresaw that it would be. It was founded not on an
arbitrary command, but on the needs of human nature. Man
is not a solitary, but a social being. He needs society in his
labors and in his joys ; society in study, society in relaxa-
tion. Even in the highest act of his life, — in the act of
prayer, in communion with God ; in that act, called by an
ancient Platonist " the flight of one alone to the only One,"
— even then he cannot be alone. In the union of man with
man in any natural and true relation, his thought becomes
more clear, his will more firm, his devotion more profound,
his affections more enlarged. The broader and deeper the
basis of the union, the more it blesses and helps him. A
friendship based upon the knowledge and love of the same
God, what can be better for us than this?
Thus we see that the apostolic Church was a home for
Christ's family (Matt. 12 : 49) ; a school for his disciples ;
a fraternity of brethren. For discipline, it had officers, but
no clergy, nor priesthood, for all were priests, and all took
part in the services. (1 Peter 2:5; Kom. 1 : 6 ; 1 Cor. 14 :
26.) Its only creed was a belief in Jesus as the Christ, the
Son of God. (Acts 8: 37; 16:31. lJohn4:15; 5:5,10.
Rom. 10:9.) The unity of the Church was not the unity
of opinion, nor the unity of ceremonies, but the bond of the
Spirit (Eph. 4:3), and the central unities of faith, not of
doctrine (Eph. 4 : 5.) The object of the Church service was
not merely to partake the Lord's Supper together, nor to main-
tain public worship, nor to defend and propagate a creed, nor
to call men into an outward organization, nor to gather pious .
people together, and keep them safe as in an ark, but to do
good and get good — to grow up in all things into Him who
is the Head. And the condition of membership was. to wish
to be saved from sin, and to have faith in Christ that he could
save them ; it was to hunger and thirst after righteousness.
35
410 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
§ 8. The Actual Churchy or the Church as it is, — Now,
if we turn from the Church as it was to the Church as it is, —
from the apostolic Church to those around us, — we see a dif-
ference. Instead of the freedom and union which were in
the early Church, we find in the Roman Catholic communion
union, but no freedom ; in the Protestant Churches freedom,
but no union. In both we find the Church built on the min-
istry, instead of the ministry on the Church ; the priests
everything, the people nothing ; fi^ed forms, instead of a
free movement ; dead creeds, instead of a living faith. The
spirit of worldliness has entered the churches, and they try to
serve God and Mammon ; God on Sunday, and Mammon on
the week days. The members of the churches are more de-
vout and more religious, but not more moral or more humane,
than many who are out of their body. And because they do
not love man whom they have seen, they find it hard to love
God, whom they have not seen. Their want of humanity
destroys their piety.
A vast amount of good is done by the churches, even in
their present state ; but when we think of what they might
do, it seems nothing. Yet it is not nothing. Could we know,
the good done by the mere sound of the church bells on Sun-
day, by the quiet assembling of peaceful multitudes in their
different churches ; could we measure the amount of awe and
reverence which falls over every mind, restraining the reck-
less, checking many a half-formed purpose of evil, rousing
purer associations and memories, calling up reminiscences of
innocent childhood in the depraved heart of man ; could we
know how many souls are roused to a better life, made to
realize their immortal nature, reminded of a judgment to
come ; could we see how many souls, on every Sabbath, in
our thousands of churches, are turned from sin to God,
how many sorrowing heacts are consoled by the sweet prom-
ises of the gospel ; could we see, as God sees and the angels
flee, all this, — we should feel that the churches, in their greatest
THE OHBISTIAN CHURCH. 411
feebleness, f^re yet the instruments of an incalculable good.
But when we look at what is to be done, what ought to be
done, what could be done by them, their present state seems
most forlorn.
It is one of the most difficult of our duties not to despise
an imperfect good, and yet not to be satisfied with it.
One of the greatest evils of our churches is, that they are
churches of the clergy, not of the people. Our clergy are
generally pure-minded, well-intentioned men, less selfish and
worldly than most men ; but they are not equal to the de-
mands of their position. We take a young man, send him
to college, then to a theological school, where he studies his
Greek very faithfully, and learns to write sermons. He
comes out, twenty-two years old, a pleasiog speaker, and is
immediately settled and ordained over a large long-established
church. As he rises in the pulpit and looks down on his
congregation, one would think he would despair. What can
he say to, them ? He knows nothing of human nature, of its
struggles and sins, its temptations in the shop and the
street. Men do not curse at him, nor try to cheat him, nor
entice him into bar-rooms, oyster-cellars, billiard-rooms, and
theatres. He cannot speak to men of their vices, their
stony and hard hearts, their utter unbelief, their crying self-
ishness, for he knows nothing of it. He must speak of sin
in the abstract, not of sin in the concrete. If he did, what
could he say? What weapons has he? The sword of the
Spirit is in his hands*, but he has not tried it ; he has no con-
fidence in it. The awful truths of the Bible, which smite the
stoutest sinner to the earth, these he might utter, if he dared ;
but he knows not how. And yet he is the teacher of these
gray-headed men, and their only teacher. Had he gone out
as Jesus sent his disciples, without purse or shoes or two
coats, and preached the gospel for ten years by the way-side,
in cottages, in school-houses, living hard, sleeping on the
floor, seeing men and women everywhere without disguisey
412 ORTHODOXY: ITS TBUTHS AND EBBOBS.
and taking no thought beforehand what to say, but leaning on
God for his inspiration, — then might he have learned how to
say something weighty even to a great congregation. Or if
this poor boy were surrounded by a living active church,
helping him by advice, going with him into the house of sor-
row, the haunt of sin, kneeling with him by the sick couch
and death-bed, and adding to his small experience the whole
variety and richness of theirs, — then might he be a man of
God, thoroughly furnished for every work.
K there were Judaism and Paganism in the early Church,
they still, no doubt, linger in our churches to-day. The
Church Judaizes in this — that it still puts forms above life.
For example, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that if you
take a child, and pUt water upon him, repeating the baptismal
formula, and with the intention of baptizing him, the child
becomes in that moment regenerate. K he had died the
moment before, he would have been damned forever in eter-
nal torments ; if he dies the moment aft«r, he ^ill go to
eternal bliss in heaven. Now, if an earthly parent should
cover his child's body with camphene, and then set it on fire,
because somebody had not baptized it, we should say he was
a very cruel parent. But this conduct is attributed to the
good God by the Roman Catholic doctrine. Moreover, when
an outward form is made thus essential, when everlasting
salvation or damnation depends on it, it behooves us to know
what it is. Baptism consists of three parts — the water, the
formula, and the intention of the bapttzer. But as to the
water, we may ask. How much is essential ? Is it essential
that there be enough to entirely immerse the body ? The
Catholic Church replies, " No.'* Is the aqueous vapor al-
always present in the air enough? It answers, " No, that is
not enough." At what precise point, then, between these two,
does enough begin, does baptism take place, and the child
cease to be a child of perdition, and become an heir of sal-
vation? The Roman Catholic Church, being oblige4 to
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 413
answer this question, has answered it thuB : There is no
baptism until water enough to run is put on the child. A
drop which will not run^ does not baptize him ; a drop which
will run, baptizes him. The difference, then, between these
two drops, is the difference to the child between eternal
damnation and eternal salvation.*
How does this sound by the side of the declaration of the
apostle Paul — "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
neither is circumcision outward in the flesh ; but he is a
Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart " ?
Judaism, if anything, was an outward institution ; Christian-
ity, if anything, is an inward life. And yet that which the
apostle Paul said of Judaism we hardly to-day would venture
to say of Christianity. " He is not a Christian who is one
outwardly, neither is Christianity in outward belief, profes-
sion, or aspect ; but he is a Christian who is one inwardly."
" O, no ! " we say, " there must be a distinction. A man
who does not believe in the miracles, for example, may be a
good man, but you must not call him a Christian." But he
who follows Christ, we think, is a Christian. And as Christ
walks before mankind on the divine road of goodness, truth,
love, purity, he who walks on that road cannot help being a
follower of Christ, whatever he may call himself.
How the Church Judaizes about the Sabbath — pretending,
first, that there is a Sabbath in Christianity, and teaching
* An emiiient and learned gentleman told me of this oonversatlon which he
had with a Roman priest : " When the wine of the Eucharist is consecrated, it
becomes the real blood of Christ — does it not ? " Priest, ** It does." " What,
then, do you do with that which remains in the cup, after communion?-'
Priest, " We drink it." " Does not some adhere to the glass ? " Priest,
" Yes ; but we wash the glass." " What do you do with the water ? " Priest*
" We drink it." " But must there not yet remain, on the napkin, with which
you wipe the glass, some portion of the blood of Christ, even though it be an
infinitesimal portion ? " Priest, " Yes." »* Then, might it not happen that
when the napkin is washed, this portion of Christ's blood may go into the
water, and be poured on the ground, and be taken up by the root of a plant-—
say a cabbage. Would, then, the flesh of that cabbage contain, or would it not
a portion of the blood of Christ ? "
35*
414 orthodoxy: its truths ani> errors.
people that there is a sort of piety in calling Sunday the Sah^
hath, and next putting this ritual observance, this abstinence
from labor and amusement, on a level with moral duties!
When men tithe mint, they are apt to forget justice and
mercy. If Jesus were to return, after all these centuries,
and were only to do and say just what he did and said about '
the Sabbath when he was here before, there are many pious
Protestants who would think him rather lax in his religious
principles. How long he has been with us, and yet we have
not known him !
An American Protestant bishop once forbade a clergyman
of his church to officiate again, because this clergyman had
invited a Methodist minister to assist him in the administra-
tion of the sacrament. This is backsliding a good way from
the position of Him who said, ^^ Forbid him not : he that is
not against us is with us." And again : " Whosoever wishes
to do the will of God, the same is my mother, my sister, and
my brother." Dear Master ! is thy Church so broad as to
include all who desire to do the will of God, and are ova'
churches so narrow that they cannot hold any but those who
agree with us in our little notions about ceremony and form?
Hast thou been so long time with us, and yet have we not
known thee?
The Church Actual is a timid Church. It is afraid of
truth, and afraid of love. Its creed is full of mysteries too
solemn and sacred to be examined. They are the sealed
book of the prophet, which is given to the learned clergy,
and to the unlearned laity ; and the answer of the unlearned
laity is, "We are not learned." And the answer of the
learned clergy is, " It is sealed. It is a mystery. We must
not even try to understand it." The Actual Church is not
fond of a free examination of its tenets, but rather represses
it by the flaming terrors of perdition impending over honest
error.
The Church Actual sticks in the letter. How it idolizes
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 415
the Bible ! But when you ask, What f you find it is rather
the letter of the Bible than its manly, generous, humane, and
holy spirit. It babbles of verbal inspiration and literal in-
spiration, which are phrases as absurd as it would be to say
" bodily spirit." Question the inspiration of the letter, and
a thousand voices cry, " You are cutting away the very foun-
dations of our faith. If we cannot believe every letter of the
Bible to be from God, we have nothing to hold by." But
the apostle Paul thought somewhat differently, when he said,
'* Who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testa-
ment, not of the letter^ but of the spirit ; for the letter kUlethj but
the spirit giveth life."
The American Bible Society appointed a committee of
learned persons to revise the present translation of the Bible
— not to m{ike a new translation by any means, but merely to
correct palpable blunders of the press, palpable errors in the
headings of chapters, or universally admitted mistakes of the
translators. The learned men did their work. It was ex-
amined, printed — about to be published. But an outcry was
made, that the Bible Society, in taking away these few errors
of the press, was taking away our Bible. The Christian pub-
lic, in the middle of the nineteenth century, has been so in-
structed, that when a few errors in the letter of the outward
word are corrected, it cries out, " They have taken away my
Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."
The Church Actual is sectarian. Every church* is trying
to swell its numbers at the expense of its neighbors. We
do not think that a Christian Church should be constructed
on the principle of a mouse-trap, which it is easy enough to
get into, but hard to get out of. We do not think it right
that young persons, in the glow of their piety, should be drawn
into a church, without being told that if they should change
.their views on any important point, they cannot leave it except
by being excommunicated publicly. But there are churches
in New England which have many very easy and agreeable
416 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
entrauces, but only two exits — very difficult and disagree*
able. K one wishes to leave, he is dismissed with a letter
directed to some other church of the same creed, and not
till he has joined some such church, and a certificate is
sent back to that effect, is he released from his obligations.
The Church is therefore like a city on a hill, with a palisade
fence all round, with openings by which one can get in, but
not out ; and having only two outlets — one by a gate kept
carefully locked, and the other over a steep wall, fifty feet high.
You have your choice of three things: 1. Stay where you
are ; 2. Go through the gate into another palisaded en-
closure ; 3. Be pitched down the Tarpeian rock of excom-
munication.*
Thus we see that the Church Actual differs much, and
often for the worse, from the Church Primitive. It is not
now a home or a fraternity, for its members often do not
know each other by sight. It is not a school of disciples, for
it is thought necessary to take your whole creed at once,
ready made, and not learn it by degrees. The worship is
too often by the minister and choir, the people being only
spectators. * Instead of the simple original faith in Jesus as
the Christ, the people are taught long and complicated creeds.
Instead of a unity of conviction, seeing the same things, there
is only a unity of expression, saying the same things. In-
stead of seeking to save the outcasts, infidels, vicious;
churches ure built and occupied by Christians themselves, as
though Christ came to call only the righteous to repentance*
There may be, in our great cities, a church to every two
thousand persons ; but every seat in every church is bought
and occupied by the respectable and comfortable classes.
The gospel is preached, but no longer to the poor. There
is something wrong in all this.
* See, in the New York " Independent," June 9, 1860, the aoooont of the
'* Recognition of Congregational Churches in Philadelphia," where the exist-
ence of tliis principle is admitted and defended by some eminent Congregational
ministers ; admitted and deplored by others.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 417
§ 9. The Church Ideal^ or Chwrch as it ought to he, — The
Church Ideal is full of life, power, love, freedom. It is a
teaching Church ; calling men out of darkness into marvel-
lous light, throwing light on all the mysteries of human
existence. It takes the little child and teaches it concerning
its duty and destiny. It organizes schools through every
Christian nation, so that all Christian children shall be taught
of God, and that great shall be their peace. It teachos
systematically and thoroughly all classes of society ; so that
all, from least to the greatest, know the Lord. It organizes
missions to all heathen lands, and its missionaries are so
true, noble, kind, so reflect the life of Jesus in their own, that
the heathen come flying like clouds, and like flocks pf doves,
to the windows of the holy home. The dusky, and swarming
races of Hindostan, the niild and studious Chinamen, come
flowing to Christ, as the long undulating clouds of pigeons
darken along the October sky in our western forests. The
ideal Church is a loving Church. It loves men out of their
sins. It seeks the poor and forlorn, the hard-hearted and
impenitent, and by unwearied patience soothes their harsh
spirit. Enter its gates, and. you find yourself in an atmos-
phere of affection. The strong bear the infirmities of the
weak. Each seeks the lowest place for himself. They love
to wash the disciples* feet.
The Ideal Church is an active Church. All the members
work together for the building up of the body ; some after
this fashion, others after that. " So the whole body, fitly
joined together, and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth," is built up in love. Is there any ruinous vice,
any corroding sin, any festering moral disease in the land ?
The Ideal Church searches for its root, and finds its cure.
It takes the intemperate man by the hand, and will not let
him go till he abstains. It penetrates into every haunt of
sin «and pollution, and brings forth the half-ruined child,
triumphantly leads out the corrupt woman, and places them
418 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
in new homes. The Ideal Church does not dispute about
doctrines or dogmas. It says to each, "To your Master
you shall stand or fall, not to me."
Therefore the Ideal Church is an earthly heaven. There
is in it a warm, serene, sunny atmosphere ; a sky without
clouds; the society of love, the solitude of meditation, the
inaccessible mountain tops of prayer; the low-lying, quiet
valleys, where the wicked cease from troubling, and the
weary are at rest.
But where is the Ideal Church ? We have seen that it is
not in the past, where many look for it. The golden age of
the Church, the Paradisiacal state of Christianity, is not behind
us. Was the Ideal Church that which persecuted Paul for
renouncing Judaism ? Was it any of the Churches described
by John in the book of Revelation ? that of Ephesus, which
had "left its first love"? that of Pergamos, which contained
heretical teachers ? that of Thyatira, which communed with
Jezebel and the depths of Satan ? that of Sardis, which had
" a name to live, and was dead " ? or that of Laodicea, which
was lukewarm?
Was that an Ideal Church where Paul was obliged to write
to Titus that a bishop must not be a striker, nor given to
wine, nor to filthy lucre ? and to advise Timothy to avoid
*' profane and vain babbling"?
There was more life in it than in the Church now ; a great
struggling, but undeveloped power of life, heaving and tossing
the Church, as with subterranean fire — smoke and flame
bursting forth together; a great power of life, but little
chance of doctrine as yet ; little harmony of action ; little in
accordance with our ideas of decency and order. It was the
spring time, and as in the spring there is a great power of
life in nature, swelling all buds, pushing all shoots, unfolding
leaves, — but all things still bare ; few flowers, no fruit, — so
it was in the Primitive Church. It was not Ideal. "Tbe
Ideal Church is before us, not behind ys ; it is to com6«
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 419
§ 10. The Church Possible^ or Church as it can he, — Is
any Church possible but the Actual? We think there is.
We think that a Church may be something more and better
than any we have now. Without reaching the ideal stan-
dard we can yet do something.
We think it possible for a Church to be united on a basis
of study and action rather than on that of attainment. In-
stead of having it consist of those who have formed opinions,
let it consist of those who wish to form them. Instead of
having it consist of those who have been converted, and who
believe themselves pious, let it consist of those who wish to
be converted, and who desire to be pious. Instead of having
it consist of good people, let us invite in the bad people who
desire to be good. Do you send your children to school
because they are learned, and not rather because they are
ignorant? Why should we not become disciples of Christ
because of our ignorance, rather than our knowledge*
We think it possible to have a Church, and even a denom-
ination, organized, not on a creed, but on a purpose of work-
ing together. Suppose that the condition of membership was
the desire and intention of getting good and doing gojod. . The
members of a church are not those who unite in order to par-
take the Lord's Supper, but to do the Lord's work. The Lprd's
Supper is their refreshment after working. They come togeth-
er sometimes to remember his love, and to get strength from
him. Let them sit together, express their desires, confess
their faults, say what they have been trying to do, where they
have failed, where succeeded, and so encourage each other to
run with diligence the race set before them.
We therefore think it possible for a Church to be bmlt on
Christ himself, and not on a minister. The Church might
even do without a sermon ; the members might pray together
and sing together, when they had no minister, and be a true
family of Christian men and women, brothers and sisters in
the Lord. The lowest view of a Christian Chyrch is that
\
420 orthodoxy: its tbuths and errors.
which makes it a body of pew-holders ; the next lowest, that
which makes them an audience met to hear a sermon ; the
next lowest, a mere congregation or assembly of worshippers ;
a little higher is that of a body of communicants, bound
together by the desire of knowing Christ ; but highest of all
is that which regards a Church as the body of Christ. Such
a Churoh is to learn of him, and to do his will ; it is his eyes,
to look on all things with a Christian vision ; his hands, by
which he. shall still touch and heal the wretched ; his feet, to
go through the world, to search out its erils and sins ; his
mouth, through which he shall speak words of divinest help
and encouragement. '^The body of Christ, and members
one of another." The body of Christ ; always active, always
progressing, always advancing ; advancing into a deeper and
better knowledge of his will, into a purer love of his king-
dom, into a further and divine life of union with him ; the
body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every
joint supplieth, making increase of the body to the building
of itself up in love.
It is possible to have a Church which shall be ready to
teach an^ preach the gospel, not to a few pew-holders only,
but to the whole community. Every child born in New
England is taught the elements of secular knowledge without
money and without price. Are the waters of earthly knowl-
edge, then, BO much more essential to the safety of the state
than the waters of life, that we cannot risk the chance of
leaving anj child uninstructed in reading and writing, but
may leave him untaught in the gospel? It would seem
to be possible, sinxse we have free schools, to have also free
Churbhes, and so really to have, what we profess to main-
lain, Public Worship I There is no such thing now as pub-
lic worship. The churches are not public places — each
belongs to a private corporation of pew-holders.
It IB possible to have a Church which shall .consider it its
duty to obey its Master's first oommand, and ^^ i»reaoh die
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 421
gospel to every creature." Its mission shall be to go out into
the highways and the hedges, to seek and save the lost. It
will regard the world as its field, and the whole community
as its sphere of labor < — the whole community, according to
its needs, to be taught, helped, comforted, and cured by the
gospel.
It is possible to have a Church which shall be united, not
on ceremonies, nor on a creed, but on study and labor, on
loving and doing. The condition of admission should be the
purpose to get good and do good. They should enter this
school to learn, and not because they were already learned ;
to become good, and not because they were already so.
It is possible to have a Church which shall make it its pur-
pose to educate the whole man — spirit, soul, and body ; and
not merely the spirit ; to present the human being to God
perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
It is possible to have a Church which shall combine union
and freedom. The Roman Church, aiming at union, and
neglecting freedom, has a union which is no real union ;
which is an outward shell of conformity, without inward
unity of heart and thought. The Protestant Church, desir-
ing freedom and neglecting union, has a freedom which is
not really freedom, being only the outward liberty of tol-
erated opinions, but one in which free thought is discouraged,
and honest difference of opinion disallowed. Only by com-
bining in a living whole such antagonist needs, can either of
these be fully secured. Union without freedom is not union ;
freedom without union, not freedom. There ia no harmony
in the juxtaposition of similar notes, but in the concord of
dissimilar ones. Difference without discord, variety in har-
mony, the unity of the spirit with diversity of the letter, dif-
ference of operation, but the same Lord, many members, but
one body, — this is very desirable, and wholly possible.
The day is coming in which our dogmatic Churches, formal
Churches, sentimentally pious Churches, and professedly
36
422 . ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
■
liberal Churches, shall be all taken up into something higher
and better. The very discontent which prevails everywhere
announces it. It is the working of the leaven — mind agitat-
ing the mass. In Protestant countries, there is a tendency
to Rome ; but in Roman Catholic countries an equal or
greater tendency to Protestantism. Orthodoxy tends to
Liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity tends to Ortho-
doxy. Each longs for its opposite, its supplement, its coun-
terpart. It is a movement towards a larger liberty and a
deeper life.
THE TBINITY. 428
CHAPTER XVI.
THE TEmrrY,
§ 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine. -^^^ The funda-
mental formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by
the Church," says Twesten,* " is, that in one divine essence
or nature there are three persons, distinguished from each
other by certain characteristics, and indivisibly participating
in that one nature." The " Augsburg Confession," says, in
like manner, " three persons in one essence." f So the
"Gallic Confession," and other Church Confessions, which
say almost the same thing in the same words. X
The explanations given to these phrases vary indefinitely.
Nitzsch (System d. Christ. Lehre, § 80) says, " We stand
related in such a way, with all our Christian experience
(Gewerdensein und Werden), to the one, eternal, divine
essence, who is love, that in the Son we adore love as
mediating and speaking, in the spirit as fellowship and life,
in the Father as source and origin." Schleiermacher con-
siders this doctrine as not any immediate expression of the
Christian consciousness, and declares that '' our communion
with Christ might be just the same if we knew nothing at all
of this transcendent mystery." Hase says, § " This Church
dogma always haa floated between Unitarianism, Tritheism,
* Twesten, ** Yorlesungen,'* &o., vol ii., p. 216. He adds to this definition
Its Latin form, in which the words *^ certain characterlstioB " stand " oertia
characteribus hypostaticis."
t Quoted by Schleiermacher, ** Glanbenslehre," $ 170.
X See the full discussions of these terms in Twestdn (aa above), Hase,
<* Christl. Glaubenslehre," § 68. Strauss, " Christl. GlaubenBlehre," vol. L
Hase, ** Dogmatik," 4c
§ Dogmatiic, § 239.
424 ORTUODOxy: its tbutbs and errors.
and Sabellianisra, asserting the premises of all three, and
denying their conclusions only by maintaining the opposite."
All sorts of illustrations have been used from the earliest
times — such as fountain, brook, river ; root, stalk, branch ;
memory, understanding, will ; * soul, reason, sense ; f three
persons in grammar, the teacher, the person spoken to, and
that spoken of. J Some mystics argued the necessity of three
persons in the Deity for the sake of a divine society and
mutual love. § Lessing argues that " God from eternity
must have contemplated that which is most perfect, but that
is himself; but to contemplate with God, is to create ; God's
thought of himself, therefore, must be a being, but a divine
being, that is, God, the Son God ; but these two, God the
thinker and God the thought, are in perfect divine harmony,
and this harmony is the Spirit^." Leibnitz also considers the
Trinity as illustrated best by the process of reflection in the
human mind. Strauss objects to this class of definitions,
that they are two elements united in a third, while the
Church doctrine requires three united in a fourth.
The Church doctrine concerning the Trinity appears most
fully 'developed in its Orthodox form in what is called the
Creed of St. Athanasius. It was not written by him, but by
some one in the fifth or sixth century.
* AugfUBtine (dc Trinit.), says, " One life in man, but three fkcoltieB —
memory, intellig'ence, will." But how if this is bad psychology ?
t Erig^ena, " The Father In the soul, the Son in the reason, the Spirit in the
sense — this makes the most luminous illustration."
X Abclard (quoted by Strauss). -
§ Richard St. Victor (quoted by Hase), ** There can be no possible com-
munion of affection between a less number than three persons." So Augustine,
** Cum aliquid amo, tria sunt — eyo, et quod amo, et ipse amor,** Such illus*
trations are hardly satisfactory at the present day. Poirct says the Father is
"Deu8 a set" the Son is *^Deu8 ex se," the Holy Spirit ^^Deua ad se refiuena,**
Angelus Sileoius makes the Trinity a divine kiss. '' God kisses himself —
the Father kisses, the Son is kissed, the Spirit is the kiss."
11 Translated from the Latin in Hagenbach (Compend of the History of
Doctrines, vol. i. p. 289). We agree with Strauss, who says, ** Fiirwabr, wer
das Symbolum Quidcunque beschworen hatte, der hattc die Gesetze des mensch-
lichen Denkens abgcschworen." So the Pastor Bost (Le Protestantisme
Liberal), after giving the Creed, in a somewhat different fonui addfl, **abl
insana fadunt, mysterlam appellant."
THE TRINITY. 425
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things must take
care to keep the Catholic faith :
2. Which except one keeps it entire and inviolate, he shall
without doubt perish everlastingly.
3. But the Catholic faith is this : that we adore one God
in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity ;
4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the sub-
stance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the
Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is one,
the glory equal, the majesty equal.
7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy
Spirit.
8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the
Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father immeasurable,* the Son immeasurable, and
the Holy Spirit immeasurable.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy
Spirit eternal.
11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.
12. And so there are not three uncreated, nor three im-
measurable, but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.
13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent,
and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but one
omnipotent.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Spirit is God.
16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy
Spirit is Lord.
18. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.
1 9 For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess
* M Inoomprehen^ible," Charch of England Liturgy
36*
426 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
of each one, that each person * is God and Lord ; so we are
forbidden by the Catholic religion from saying three Grods or
three Lords. -
20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten.
21. The Son is from the Father alone ; not made, nor
created, hut begotten.
22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father ; not
created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three ; one
Son, and not three ; one Holy Spirit, and not three.
24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none
greater or less, but all three Persons are coeternal and
coequal.
25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity.
26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus
of the Trinity.
§ 2. History of the Doctrine. — In the Christian Church,
the history of this doctrine is interesfing and important.
Some sort of Triad, or Trinity, existed in very early times,
although the Orthodox form was not established until later.
At first, the prevailing doctrine is that of subordination ;
that is, that the Son and the Spirit are inferior to* the Father.
But, as the Son and the Spirit were also called divine, those
who thought thus were accused of believing in three Gods.f
Some then said, that the Father was alone divine ; and these
were called Monarchians. Others, wishing to. retain the
divinity of the Son and Spirit, and yet to believe in one God,
said that the divinity in the Father, in the Son, and in the
♦ Or ** each person by himself." The word In the Latin Is ♦* bigillatim," a
word not in most of the dictionaries, hut in. some of thein made equiiralent
to ** slngulatim."
t TertuUian said, we can call Christ " Ood" when we speak of him alone;
but if we mention him with the Father, then we must oall the Father " God,"
and call Christ only »« Lord." ** For a ray of light shining into a room^ we
may call the sun shining there ; but if we speak of the sun at the same time,
then we must distinguish the ray, and caU it not sun^ bat Bvabeam."
THE trinity: 427
Spirit, was essentially the same, but that the divinity of the
Father was the fountain from which that of the Son and
Spirit was derived. This was fixed as Orthodox at the
Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and was the beginning of Or-
thodoxy in the Church. It was a middle course between
Scylla and Charybdis, which were represented on the one
side by Arius, who maintained that the Son was created out
of nothing ; and by Sabellius on the other hand, who main-
tained that the Son was only a mode, manifestation, or name
of God ; God being called the Father, as Creator of the
world ; called Son, as Redeemer of the world ; and Spirit,
as Sanctifier of the world. The Council of Nice declared
that the Son was not a manifestation of God, as Sabellius
said, nor a creation by God, as Arius said, but a deriva-
tion from God.^ Just as the essence of the fountain flows
into the stream derived from it, so the essence of the Father
flows into the Son, who is derived from him. Here, then,
we have the three formulas of the early Church — that of
Arius, who says, " The Son was created by the Father, and
is inferior to him ; " that of Sabellius, who says, " The
Father, Son, ^d Spirit, are manifestations of God, and the
same essence ; " and Orthodoxy, as the Council of Nice,
trying to stand between them, and saying, " The Son is
derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with
him."
* The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to SabelUanism. The term
biioovatos (of the same essence) was a Sabellian term. Sabellianism could, io
fact, stand most of the tests of modem Orthodoxy, since it maintains three
persons and one essence, ftiav iirSaraaip and rpia vpdatdira ; and Schlcicrmachcr,
in one of his most elaborate treatises (Ucber den Gcgensatz zwischcn der
Sal)elliani8chcn und dcr Athanasianischen Vorstcllung von dcr Trinitat.
Theolo^. Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1832), has sought to rehabilitate Sabellianism.
Moses Stuart translated this treatise, and plainly advocated a similar view.
Base (Kirchcngcschichtc, § 01) defines the view of Sabellius as making
" Father, Son, and Spirit the different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity
unfolding itself in the world-history as the Triad." Perhaps (see Baur)
the chief peculiarity of Sabellius is in making the Triad begin and end with
the process of revelation. The Monad is God in himself : the Triad is Grod in
the process of self-revelation (Baur, *'Chri8tliobe Lehre von derDreiei]iigkeit9"
and " Lehrbuch der Christlicben Dogmengeschichte ").
428 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
The Church, ever since, has been like a ship beating
against head witids between opposing shores. It has stood
on one tack to avoid Arianism or Tritheism, till it finds
itself running into Sabellianism ; then it goes about, and
stands away till it comes near Arianism or Tritheism again.
Unitarianism is on both sides : on one side in the form of one
God, with a threefold manifestation of himself ; on the other
side in the form of a Supreme God, with the Son and Spirit
subordinate. It has always been very hard to be Orthodox ;
for, to do so, one must distinguish the Persons, and yet not
divide the substance, of the Deity. In keeping the three
Persons distinctly separate, there was great danger of mak-
ing three distinct Gods. On the other hand, if one tried to
make the Unity distinct, there was danger that the Persons
would grow shadowy, and disappear.
The heaviest charge against the Church doctrine of the
Trinity is, that, driven to despair by these difiiculties, it has
at last made Orthodoxy consist, not in any sound belief, but
only in sound phrases. It is not believing anything, but
saying something, which now makes a man Orthodox. If
you will only use the word " Trinity " in any sense, if you
will only call Christ God in any sense, you are Orthodox.
§ 3. Errors in the Church Doctrine of the Trinity, — The
errors in the popular view concerning the Trinity, as it is at
present held, appear to be these : —
1. The Trinity is held as a mere dogma^ or form of words,
not as a reality. It is held in the letter, not in the spirit.
There is no power in it, nor life in it ; and it is in uc sense
an object of faith to those who accept it. They do not
believe it, but rather believe that they ought to believe it.
There are certain texts in Scripture which seem to assert it,
certain elaborate arguments which appear convincing and
irrefutable. On the strength of these texts and these argu-
ments, they believe that they ought to believe it. But it is a
matter of conscience, not of heart ; of logic, not of life ; of
THE TRINITY. 429
law, not of love. It is not held as a Christian doctrine ought
to be held, with the heart ; but only philosophically, with the
head. If it should cease to be preached for a few years in
Orthodox pulpits, it would cease to be believed ; it would
drop out of the faith, or rather out of the creed, of the com-
munity. Unitarianism has extended itself, without being
preached, from the simple reading of the Bible. But Trini-
tarianism cannot be trusted to its own power. It has no '
hold on the heart. Here, in Massachusetts, the ministers
left off preaching the Trinity, and the consequence was, that
the people became Unitarian. Unitarianism in New England
was not diffused by preaching : it came of itself, as soon as
the clergy left off preaching the Trinity. This shows how
worthless, empty, and soulless the doctrine was and is.
Instead of this formal doctrine, we want something vitaL
2. Another objection to tJie present form of the Trinity m,
that it is not only scholastic, or purely intellectual, but that it
is also negative. It is not even a positive doctrine. It is
often charged against Unitarianism, that it is a mere nega-
tion ; and, in one sense, the charge is well founded. Uni-
tarianism is a negation, so far as it is a mere piece of reason-
ing against Orthodoxy ; but, as asserting the divine Unity,
it is veiy positive. But the doctrine of the Trinity is a mere
negation, as it is usually held ; because it is an empty form
of denial. It only can be defined or expressed negatively.
The three Persons are not substances, on the one hand ; nor
qualities, on the other hand. It is not Sabellianism, nor is
it Arianism. Every term connected with the Trinity has
been selected, not to express a truth, but to avoid an error.
The term " one essence " was chosen in order to exclude
Arianism ; the term " three Persons," or subsistences, was
chosen in ofrder to avoid Sabellianism.
Because the doctrine is thu6 a negation, it has failed of its
chief use. It has become exclusive ; whereas, when stated
truly, as a positive truth, it would become inclusive. Rightly
430 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
stated, it would bind together all true religion in one bar-
monioas whole, comprehending in its universal sweep every-
thing true in natural religion, everything true in reason, and
uniting them in vital union, without discord and without
confusion. Every manifestation which God has made of
himself in nature, in Christ, and in the human soul, would
be accepted and vitally recognized by Christianity, which
comes, not to destroy, but to fulfil. The doctrine of the
Trinity would be the highest form of reconciliation or atone-
ment, — reconciling all varieties in one great harmony ; rec-
onciling the natural and supernatural, law and grace, time
and eternity, fate and freedom.
But, before illustrating this, we must consider further
some of the objections to the common form of the doctrine.
3. It is also charged against the doctrine of the Trinity ^
" that it is a contradiction in terms^ and therefore essentially
incredible J* To this it is replied, that it would be a contra-
diction if God were called Three in the same sen^e in which
he is called One ; but not otherwise. The answer is per-
fectly satisfactory ; and we therefore proceed to ask. In what
sense is he called Three, and in what sense is he called One ?
The answer is. The Unity is of -essence, or substance : the
Trinity is of persons. This answer, again, is satisfactory,
provided we know what is meant by these two terms. But
the difficulty is to know what is meant by the word
" person." We are expressly informed, • that this term is
not used in its usual sense ; for, if it were, it would divide
the essence, and three Persons would be the ' same as three
Gods. On the other hand, we are told that it means more
than the three characters or manifestations. Here lies the
difficulty, and the whole of the rational difficulty, in the
doctrine of the Trinity. It is all on the side of the Triad.
When we ask, What do you mean by " the three " ? there
can be given but three answers, — two of them distinct, and
one indistinct. These answers are, (1.) We mean three
THE TRINITY. 431
somethings^ which we cannot define ; (2.) We mean three
Persons, like Peter, James, and John ; (3.) We mean three
manifestations, characters, or modes of being. Let us con* '
aider these three answers.
(a.) " The three Persons are three somethings, which
cannot be defined. It is a mystery. It is above reason.
There is mystery in everything, and there must be mystery
in the Deity." So Augustine said, long ago, " We say
three Persons, not because we have anything to say, but
because we want to say something." * But if one uses the
phrase f' three Persons," and refuses to define it positively,
merely defining it negatively, saying, " It does not mean
this, and it does not mean that, -and I don't know what it
does mean," he avoids, it is true, the difiiculties, and escapes
the objections ; but he does it by giving up the article of
faith. No one can deny that there may be three unknown
distinctions in the divine nature ; but no one can be asked to
believe in them, till he is told what they are. To say,
therefore, that the Trinity is a mystery, is to abandon it as
an article of faith, and make of it only a subject of specula-
tion. We avoid the contradiction ; but we do it by . re-
linquishing the doctrine.
This fact is not sufliciently considered by Trinitarians.
They first demand of us to believe the doctrine of the Trinity,
and, when pressed to state distinctly the doctrine, retire into
the protection of mystery, and decline giving any distinct
account of it. Now, no human being ever denied the ex-
istence qf mysteries connected with God, and nature, and all
life. To assure us, therefore, that such mysteries exist, is
slightly superfiuous. But, on the other hand, no human
being ever believed^ or could betievcj a mystery, any more
'than he could see anything invisible or hear anything in-
audible. To believe a doctrine, the first condition is, that all
its terms shall be distinct and intelligible.
* ** Dlctttm est tamen tree personse, non ut illud dioeretur, sed at ne taofr*
retur.*' Aug, de Trin., quoted by ifiase, Dog. § 238.
432 ofiTHODOXY: its truths and errors,
(6.) The second answer to the question is, " We mean, by
Persons, three Persons, like Peter, James, and John." Ao-
• cording to this answer, the Trinity remains, but the Unity
disappears. This answer leaves the Persons distinct, but the
Unity indistinct. The Persons are not confounded ; but the
essence is divided. The Tri-personality is maintained, but
at the expense of the Unity. In fact, this answer gives us
Tritheism, or three Gods, whose unity is only an entire
agreement of feeling and action. But this answer we may
set aside as unorthodox, no less than unscriptural.
(c.) Having thus disposed of each other possible answer,
there remains only that which makes of the three Persons
three revelations or manifestations of Grod, or representations
of God. This answer avoids all the difficulties. It avoids
that of contradiction ; as we do not say that Grod is one in
the same sense in which he is three, but in a different sense.
It avoids the objection of obscurity ; for it is a distinct state-
ment. It avoids the objection of Tritheism ; for it leaves
the Unity untouched. Moreover, it is a real Trinity, and
not merely nominal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are not merely three different names for the same
thing, but they indicate three different revelations, three
different views which God has given of his character, which,
taken together,* constitute the total divine representation. It
remains, therefore, simply to ask, Is this view a true one f
Is there any foundation for it in Scripture, in reason, and in
Christian consciousness, the three sources of our knowledge
of the tnith ?
§ 4. The Trinity of Manifestations founded in the Truth of
Tilings. — We repeat, that this view is an Orthodox view of
the Trinity, according to the teaching of the greatest fathers
of the Church. If we suppose that the Deity has made, and
is evermore making, three distinct and independent revela-
tions* of himself, — each revelation giving a different view of
the divine Being, each revelation showing God to man under
THE TBINITY. 433
a different aspect, — then each of these is a personal mani- •
festation. Each reveals God as a Person. If we see God,
for example, in nature, we see him not merely as a power, a
supreme cause, but also a living Person, who creates ever-
more out of a fulness of divine wisdom and love. God in
nature is, then, a Person. Again : if God reveals himself in
Christ, it is not as abstract truth or as doctrinal statement.
But we see God himself, the personal God, the Father and
Friend, the redeeming grace, the God who loved us before
-the foundation of the world, approaching us in Christ to
reconcile us and save us. It is a God who " so loved the
world " that we see in Christ, therefore, a Person. And so
the Spirit, which speaks in the human conscience and human
heart, is not a mere influence, or rapture, or movement, but is
one who communes with us ; one who talks with us ; one
who comforts us ; one who hears and answers us ; therefore
a Person.
If, then, there is no antecedent objection to this form of
the Trinity as a threefold manifestation of the divine Being,
we have only to ask, Is it true as a matter of fact? Has
such a threefold manifestation of God actually taken place ?
We reply, that it is so. According to Scripture, observation,
and experience, we find such to be the fact. Scripture shows
us God, the Father, as the source of all being, the fountain
and end of all things ; from whom all things have come, and
to whom all things tend. As the Creator, he reveals himself
in nature and providence (as the apostle Paul declares),
" being understood by the things that are made," and " not
leaving himself without a witness."
Supreme power, wisdom, and goodness are manifested in
naturo a§ unchanging law, as perfect order. But God is
seen m Christ again as Redeemer, as meeting the exigencies
arisiiig from the freedom of the creature by what we call
miVacle ; not contrary to nature, but different from nature,
showing himself as the Friend and Helper of the soul. As
87
434 ORTHODOXY : ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS,
• the essence of the first revelation of God is the sight of his
goodness, and wisdom, and power, displayed in law, so the
essence of the second revelation is of the same essential
Being displaying himself as love. In the first revelation, he
is the universal Parent; in the second, he is the personal
Friend. But there is a third revelation which God makes of
himself, — within the soul as life. The same power, wisdom,
and goodness which we see displayed externally in outward
nature, we find manifested internally in the soul itself, as its
natural and its spiritual life. That which is displayed out-
wardly as power is manifested within the soul as cause ; that
which is manifested outwardly as wisdom is revealed in-
wardly as reason ; and that which is manifested outwardly
as goodness is manifested inwardly as conscience, or the law
of right.
§ 5. It is in Harmony with Scripture.-^ The Scriptures
also speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
When they speak of the Father, they usually mean God as
the Supreme Being. Matt. 11: 25: "Jesus said, I thank
thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth." As omniscient :
" Of that day knoweth no man, nor the angels, nor the Son,
but the Father only." As omnipotent : " Abba, Father ^ all
things are possible to thee." As having life in himself, and
as spirit: "They shall worship the Father in spirit and in
truth." As the source of all power, life, and authority of the
Son : "I came forth of the Father ; " " the Father , which
hath sent me ; ** " the works which the Father hath given me
to do." The apostle Paul says, " To us there is but one
God, the Father ; " and calls him " the God of our Lord
Jesus ; " also " the one God and Father of all, who is above
all, and through all, and in us all." The great order of the
universe depends on him : " He has put the times and the
seasons in his own power." Christ will at last " deliver up
the kingdom to God, the Father J* By Christ, " we have
access in one spirit to the Father. ^^ "All things were
THE TRINITY. 435
delivered" to Christ "of his Father" Trhose will Christ
always sought. Thus is the Father spoken of in the New
Testament as the Source from which all things have pro-
ceeded, and the End to whom all things tend.
The Son (or Son of God) is spoken of in the New Testa-
ment as distinct from the Father, but intimately united
with him. The Father gives power; the ."in receives
it. The Father gives light; the Son receives it. The
Son does nothing but what he seeth the Father do. " The
Father hath sent me," he says, " and I live by the Father."
" I am not alone ; but I, and the Father who sent me."
" The Son is in the Father, and the Father in him." " No
man cometh to the Father but by" him. He shows the
Father to the world. The Father is glorified in the Son.
He is in the bosom of the Father. The Father sent him
to be the Saviour of the world. " He that hath the Son
hath life ; " " And in him is everlasting life."
The Holy Spirit^ which came after Jesus left the world
(also called the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of God), is an
inward revelation of God and of Christ. It teaches all
things, comforts, convinces. It is a spirit of life, lifts one
above the flesh, makes one feel that he is a Son of God,
communicates a variety of gifts, produces unity in the
Church, sanctifies, sheds the love of God into the heart, and
renews the soul. The New Testament speaks of joy in the
Holy Ghost, power of the Holy Ghost, and communion of
the Holy Ghost.
According to the New Testament, the Father would seem
to be the Source of all things, the Creator, the Fountain of
being and of life. The Son is spoken of as the manifestation
of that Being in Jesus Christ ; and the Holy Ghost is spoken
of as a spiritual influence, proceeding from the Father and
the Son, dwelling in the hearts of believers, as the source of
their life, — the idea of God seen in causation, in reason,
and in conscience, as making the very life of the soul itself.
436 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
There are these three revelations of God, and we know
of no others. They are distinct from each other in form,
but the same in essence. They are not merely three names
for the same thing ; but they are real personal manifestations
of God, real subsistences, since he is personally present in all
of them. This view avoids all heresies, since it neither
" divides the substance " nor " confounds the persons." And
these are really the two heresies, which are the most com-
mon and the most to be avoided. We think it can be
easily shown that these are the great practical dangers to be
avoided. To " divide the substance " is so to separate the
revelations of God as to make them contradict or oppose
each other : to " confound the persons " is not to recognize
each as an independent source of truth to the soul.
§ 6. Practical value of the Trinity, when rightly under"
stood. — There is, therefore, an essential truth hidden in the
idea of the Tnuity. While the Church doctrine, in every
form which it has hitherto taken, has failed to satisfy the
human intellect, the Christian heart has clung to the sub-
stance contained in them all. Let us endeavor to see what
is the practical value of this doctrine, for the sake of which
its errors of statement have been pardoned. What does it
say to the Christian consciousness ?
The Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its doctrine
of Tri-personality, that God is immanent in nature, in Christ,
and in the soul. It teaches that God is not outside of the
world, making it as an artisan makes a machine ; nor outside
of Christ, sending him, and giving to him miraculous powers ;
nor outside of the soul, touching it ah extra from time to
time with unnatural influences, revolutionizing and overturn-
ing it ; but that he is personally present in each and all. So
that, when we study the mysteries and laws of nature, we
are drawing near to God himself, and looking into his faco.
When we see Christ, we see God, who is in Christ ; and
when we look into the solemn intuitions of our soul, the
THE TRINITY. 437
monitioiis of conscience, and the influences which draw our
heart to goodness, we arc meeting and communing with Grod.
Moreover, the Trinity, truly apprehended, teaches, by its
doctrine of One Substance (the Homoousion), that these
three revelations, thoup^h distinct, are essentially at one ;
that nature cannot contradict revelation ; that revelation
cannot contradict nature ; and that the intuitions of the soul
cannot be in conflict with either. Hence it teaches that the
Naturalist need not fear revelation ; nor the Christian
believer, natural Theism. Since it is one and the same God
who dwells in nature, in Christ, and in the soul, all his
revelations must be in harmony with each other. To sup-
pose otherwise is to ''.divide the substance" of the Trinity.
And again : the Trinity, rightly understood, asserts the
distinctness of these three personal revelations. It is the
same God who speaks in each ; but he says something new
each time. He reveals a new form of his being. He shows
us, not the same order and aspect of truth in each manifesta-
tion, but wholly diff'erent aspects.
And yet again : as the doctrine teaches that the Son is
begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the
Father and Son, it thereby shows how the revelation in
nature prepares for the revelation in Christ, and both for the
revelation in the soul.
The error of " dividing the substance ** is perhaps the
most common. The man who sees God in nature, sees him
only there : therefore God loses to him that personal char-
acter which seems especially to be seen through Christ ; for
God, as a person, comes to us most in Christ, and then is
recognized also in nature and the soul as a personal being.
So, without Christ, natural religion is cold : it wants love ;
it wants life. But, on the other hand, the Christian believer
who avoids seeing God in nature, and who finds him only in
his Bible, loses the sense of law or order, of harmonious
growth, and becomes literal, dogmatic, and narrow. And
37*
438 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
80, too, the mystic, believing only in God's revelation
through the soul, and not going to nature or to Christ,
becomes withdrawn from life, and has a morbid and ghastly
religion, and, having no test by w^hich to judge his inward
revelations, may become the prey of all fantasies and all evil
spirits, lying spirits,, foul spirits, and cruel spirits.
Such errors come from " dividing the substance ; " and
they are only too common. So that, when the true doctrine
of Trinity in Unity is apprehended, the most beneficial
results may be expected to flow into the life of the Church.
No longer believed as a dead formula, no longer held in the
letter which killeth, no longer accepted outwardly as a dogma
or authority, but seen, felt, and realized in the daily activity
of the intellect and hearty the whole Church will recover its
lost union, sects will disappear, and the old feud between
science and religion forever cease. Science will become
religious, and religion scientific. Science, no longer cold
and dead, but filled through and through with the life of
God, will reach its hand to Christianity. Piety, no longer
an outlaw from ndture, no longer exiled from life into
churches and monasteries, will inform and animate all parts
of human daily action. Christianity, no longer narrow,
Jewish, bigoted, formal, but animated by the great liberty
of a common life, will march onward to conquer all forms
of error and evil in the omnipotence of universal and har-
monious truth.
Natural religion, Christianity, and spiritual piety, being
thus harmonized, nature will be more warm, Christ more
human, and the divine influences in the soul more uniform
and constant. Nature will be full of God, with a sense of
his presence penetrating it everywhere. Christianity will
become more natural, and all its great facts assume the pro-
portion of laws, universal as the universe itself. Divine in-
fluences will cease to be spasmodic and irregular, and become
calm, serene, and pure, an. indwelling life of God in the soul.
THE TRINITY. 439
A simple Unity, as held by the Jews and Mohamn^edans,
and by some Christian Unitarians, may be a bald Unity and
an empty Unity. Then it shows us one Ood, but God
withdrawn from nature, from Christ, from the soul ; not
immanent in any, but outside of them. It leaves nature
godless ; leaves Christ merely human ; leaves the soul a
machine to be moved by an external impulse, not an inward
inspiration.*
We conclude, finally, that no doctrine of Orthodoxy is so
false in its form, and so true in its substance, as this. There
is none so \intenable as dogma, but none so indispensable as
experience and life. The Trinity, truly received, would
harmonize science, faith, and vital piety. The Trinity, as
it now stands in the belief of Christendem, at once confuses
the mind, and leaves it empty. It feeds us with chaff, with
empty phrases and forms, with no real inflowing convictions.
It seems to lie like a vessel on the shore, of no use where it
is, yet difficult to remove and get afloat ; but when the tide
rises, and the vessel floats, it will be able to bear to and fro
the knowledge of mankind, and unite various convictions in
living harmony. It is there for something. It is providen-
tially allowed to remain in the creeds of the Church for
something. It has in itself the seed of a grand future ; and,
though utterly false and empty as it is taught and defended,
it is kept by the deeper instinct of the Christian conscious-
ness, like the Christ in his tomb, waiting for the resurrec-
tion.
* John of Damasciis (quoted by Twesten) made his boast of Christianity,
that it united what was true is Polytheism with what Was true in Judaism.
«( From the Jews," he says, ** we have the oneness of nature, from the Greeka
the distinction in hypostases."
■4
I'M
r
I
APPENDIX.
CRITICAL NOTICES.
In this Appendix we shall add a brief critical examina-
tion of certain recent works on points connected with our
previous subjects. These criticisms will complete the dis-
cussion in these various directions, so far as space will allow
here. The largest part of what follows has been printed
already, either in the " Christian Examiner," or in the
" Monthly Journal of the American Unitarian Association."
§ 1. On the Defence of Nescience in Theology, by Herbert Sper^
cer and Henry L, ManseL — Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his book
called " First Principles," lays down the doctrine of theological
nescience, as the final result of religious inquiry. In his chapter
on "Ultimate Beligious Ideas" he argues thus: The religious
problem is. Whence comes the universe ? In answer to this ques-
tion only three statements are possible. It is self-existent. It was
self-created. It was created by external agency. Now, none of
these, says Spencer, is tenable. For, (1.) Self-existence means
simply an existence without a beginning, and it is not possible to
conceive of this. The conception of infinite past time is an im-
possibility. (2.) Self-creation is Pantheism. We can conceive,
somewhat, of self-evolution, but not of a potential universe pass-
ing into an actual one. (3.) The theistic hypothesis is equally in-
conceivable. Fo^/ (.bis is to suppose the world made as a workman
makes a piece of ^urniture. We can conceive of this last, because
442 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
the workman has the material given ; he only adds form to the sub-
stance. To produce matter out of nothing is the real difficulty.
No simile enables us to conceive of this production of matter out
of nothing. Again, says Spencer, space is something, the non-
existence of which is inconceivable ; hence the creation of space is
inconceivable. And lastly, says Spencer, if God created the uni-
verse, the question returns, Whence came God ? The same three
answers recur. God was self-existent, or he was self-created, or he
was created ah extra. The last theory is useless. For it leads to
an endless series of potential existences. So the theist returns
to self-existence ; which, however, says Spencer, is as inconceivable
as a self-existent universe, involving, the inconceivable idea of un-
limited duration.
Nevertheless, continues Spencer, we are compelled to regard
phenomena as effects of some cause. We must believe in a cause
of that cause, till we reach a Jirst cause. The First Cause must
be infinite and absolute. He then follows Mansel in showing the
contradiction between the two ideas.
But total negation is not the result, — only nescience. Atheism,
Pantheism, and Theism agree in oiie belief, namely, that of a prob-
lem to be solved. An unknown God is the highest result of the-
ology and of philosophy. " K religion and science are to be rec-
onciled, the basis of the reconciliation must be their deepest,
widest, and most certain of all facts — thai the power which the
universe manifests is utterly inscrutable."
Thus Mr. Spencer proposes to take back human thought eigh-
teen centuries, and ignoring the conquests of Christian faith in
civilization, theology, and morals, carries us to Athens, in the time
of Paul, to worship at the altar of an unknown God. He makes
a solitude in the soul, and calls it peace. He makes peace between
religion and science, by commanding the first to surrender at dis-
cretion to the other. Science knows nothing of God; therefore
theology must know nothing of God. But not so. Let each im-
part to the other that which it possesses, and which the other lacks.
Let science enlarge theology with the idea of law, and theology
inform science with the idea of a living God.
It is not difficult to detect the fallacies in this argument of Spen-
cer for religious nescience. His notion of conception is that of a
purely sensible image. He assumes that we have no knowledge but
sensible knowledge, and then easily infers that we do not know
APPENDIX. 443
•
God. We. can conceive, he says, of a rock on which we are stand-
ing, but not of the whole earth. No great magnitudes, he declares,
can be conceived. The conception of infinite time is, therefore, an
impossibility.
But it is clear to any one, not bound hand and foot by the
assumptions of sensationalism, that it is just as easy to conceive
of the whole globe of earth, as of the piece of it which we see.
We cannot have a visual image of the whole earth, indeed, but
the mental conception of the globe is as distinct as that of the
stone we throw from our hand. And so far from the conception of
infinite duration being an impossibility, not to conceive of time
and space as infinite is the impossibility. It is impossible to im-
agine or conceive of the beginning of time, or the commencement
of space.
Looking at his trilemma concerning the universe, namely, that
it was either, (1.) Self-existent, (2.) Self-created, Or, (3.) (>eated
by an external power, we say, —
1. The real objection to a self-existent universe, is not that we
cannot conceive of existence without beginning. Nothing is easier
than to conceive of an everlasting, unchanging universe, without
beginning or end. It is not existence, but change, that suggests
cause. Phenomena, events, require us to believe in some power
which produces them. Now, the events which take place in the
universe suggest an intelligent, absolute, and central cause, that is,
a cause combining supreme wisdom, power, and goodness. A
self-existent universe is not inconceivable, but it is incredible.
2. Self-creation, he objects, is Pantheism. But this is no reason
for denying it, since Pantheism may, for all we see at this stage
of the argument, be the true explanation of the universe. The
real objection to the hypothesis of a self-created universe (or of a
self-created God), is that it involves the contradiction of some-
thing which exists and which does not exist at the same moment ;
at the moment of self-creation, the universe must exist in order to
create, but must be non-existent in order to be created. A self-
created universe, then, is not incredible because it involves Pan-
theism, but because it involves a contradiction.
3. He objects to the Theistic hypothesis, that we cannot conceive
of the production of matter (more strictly, of substance) out of
nothing. He adds that no simile can enable us to imagine it.
But I can produce, out of nothing, something visible, tangible,
and audible. There is no motion and no sound. I move my arm
444 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
by the power of willi and I produce both sound and motion.
The motion of a body in space is a material phenomenon; for
whatever is perceived by the senses is material. We do then
constantly perceive material phenomena created out of nothing,
by human will.
His argument against the Theist, that space could not have been
created by God, since its non-existence is inconceivable, is much
more plausible. But suppose we grant that space, supposed to be
a real existence, was not created in time. Does it follow from
that, that it does not proceed from God ? Not being an event in
time, it does not require a cause ; but being conceived of as a
reality, it may have eternally proceeded from the divine will, and
80 not be independent of the Creator.
And as regards his trilemma concerning Deity, that also fails
in the failure. of his thesis that eternal duration is inconceivable.
His argument against the self-existent Deity, only rests on that
assumption which we have shown to be untenable.
But Mr. Spencer, who is not a theologian, is at this point reen-
forced by Mr. Mansel, on whose former work, " The Limits of
Beligious Thought," we proceed to offer some criticism. This
also is an argument for nescience in theology, in the presumed
interests of revelation. Mr. Martineau has ably shown the
weakness and the dangerous tendency of this whole argument of
Mansel, in an article to which we earnestly refer our readers.
The work of Mr. Mansel is a desperate attempt to save Ortho-
dox doctrines from the objections of reason, not by replying to
those objections and pointing out their fallacy, but by showing that
similar objections can be brought against all religious belief. For
example, when reason objects to the Trinity, that it is a contradic-
tion, Mr. Mansel does not attempt to show that it is not a contra-
diction, but argues that our belief in God is another contradiction
of the same kind. His inference therefore is, that as we believe in
God, notwithstanding the contradiction, we ought to believe in the
Trinity also, notwithstanding the contradiction. If we believe
one, we may believe both.
But this is a dangerous argument ; since it is evident that one
might reply, that there remains another alternative j which is, to
believe neither. If Mr. Mansel succeeds in coiivincing his readers,
the result may be a belief in the Trinity, or it may be a disbelief
in God altogether j one of two things — either a return to Ortho-
doxy, or a departure from all religion. Either they will renounce
APPENDIX. 445
Teason in order to retain religion, or they will renounce religion in
order to retain reason.
At the very best, also, the help which this argument offers us is
to be paid for somewhat dearly. It proposes to save Orthodoxy
by giving up the use of reason in religion. Mr. Mansel would say,
"by giving up the unlimited use of reason;" but, as we shall
presently see, this comes very much to the same thing at last.
What, then, is the nature of Mr. MansePs argument P It is an
argument founded upon Sir William Hamilton's philosophy of the
Unconditioned. Now, this has been generally considered the weak
side of Hamilton's system. According to him, the unconditioned
h inconceivable : in other words, of the Absolute and Infinite we
have no conception at all. But this denies to man the power of
conceiving of God, and so leads directly to Atheism. This charge
has already been brought against Hamilton's philosophy, in vari-
ous quarters ; for example, in the " North British Review " for
May, 1835. But we will not here attempt any examination of
Hamilton's theory, but confine ourselves to Mr. Mansel.
The argument of Mansel is this (p. 75) : " To conceive the Deity
as he is, we must conceive him as First Cause, as Absolute, and
as Infinite. By the First Cause is meant that which produces all
things, and is itself produced of none ; by the Absolute is meant
that which exists in and by itself, having no necessary relation to
any other being ; by the Infinite is meant that which is free from
all possible limitation."
Having thus defined the Deity as the First Cause, the Absolute,
and the Infinite, Mansel goes on to show that these ideas are mu-
tually contradictory and destructive. A First Cause necessarily
supposes effects, and therefore cannot be absolute : nor can the In-
finite be a person ; for personality is a limitation. By a course of
such arguments as these, Mansel endeavors to show that the rea-
son is as incapable of conceiving God as it is of conceiving the
Trinity, the Atonement, or any other Orthodox doctrine ; and since
we do not renounce our belief ih God because of these contradic-
tions, neither ought we, because of similar contradictions, to re-
nounce our belief in the Trinity.
Such is the substance of Mansel's statement, though the argu-
ments by which it is proved are varied with great ingenuity and to
great extent. This course of thought is by no means original,
either with Mr. Mansel or Sir William Hamilton. A far greater
thinker than either of them (Immanuel Kant) had long before
38
446 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
sliown the logical contradictions of the understanding in what he
called the Antinomies of the pure reason. But the important
question is, If the reason contradicts itself thus in its conception
of Deity, how are we to obtain a ground for our belief in God ?
Mansel answers, " Through revelation; that is, through the direct
declarations of Scripture." This he calls faith. We are to believe
in a personal God on the ground of a Bible confirmed by miracles.
This result is so strange, that it may well seem incredible. Yet
we cannot think that we have misrepresented the tendency of the
argument ; though, of course, we have given no ideas of the acute-
ness and flexibility of the reasoning, the extent of the knowledge,
and mastery of logic, in this work. That such a position should be
taken by a religious man, in the supposed interest of Christianity,
is sufficiently strange ; for it seems to us equally untenable in its
grounds, unfounded in its statements, empty of insight, destruc-
tive in its results. We will add, very briefly, a few of the criti-
cisms which occur to us.
The first thing which strikes us in the arguiaent is, that
everywhere it deals with words rather than with things. The
whole object of the discussion concerns the meaning of terms, and
it deals throughout with the relation of words to other words. It
is an acute philological argument. We feel ourselves to be arguing
about forms, and not about substances. Now, such arguments
may confuse, but they cannot convince. We do not know, perhaps,
what to say in reply ; but we remain unsatisfied. One not used to
logic may listen to an argument which shall conclusively prove
that white is black ; that nothing is greater than something ; that
a man who jumps from the top of the house can never reach the
ground ; but, though the thing is proved, he is not convinced. So,
when Mr. Mansel proves to us that we cannot conceive of a Being
who is at the same time Infinite and Personal, we are unable, per>
haps, to reply to the argument; but we know it to be false, since
we actually have the two conceptions in our mind.
We do conceive of the Deity as an infinite personality. Of
what use to tell us that we cannot have an idea, when we know
that we do have it ?
Mansel tells us that we cannot think the idea of the Infinite and
Absolute. He says (p. 110), " The Absolute and the Infinite are
thus, like the Inconceivable and Imperceptible, names indicating,
not an object of thought or of consciousness at all, but the mere
absence of the conditions under which consciousness is possible."
APPENDIX. 447
15ut, then, tbey are only words, with no meaning attached ; and, if
80, how can we argue about them at all? All argument must
cease when we come to an unmeaning* phrase ; therefore the exist-
ence of Mr. Mansel's argument proves the falsehood of his asser-
tion. Since he argues about the Infinite, it is evident that he has
the idea of the Infinite in his mind.
Mr. Mansel agrees in principle wholly with the Atheists ; for
the Atheists do not say that God does not exist, or that God can-
not exist, but that we cannot know that he exists. So says Mr.
Holyoake, a leading modern Atheist. This is what Mansel also
asserts ; only he goes farther than they, contending that the very
idea of God is impossible to the human reason. It is true that he
believes in God on grounds of revelation, which the Atheists do
not; but he agrees with them in setting aside all natural and rea-
sonable knowledge of Deity.
But how is it possible to obtain an idea of God from revelation,
if we are before destitute of such an idea? When Paul preached
to the Athenians, he addressed them as having already a true,
though an imperfect, idea of God. " Whom, therefore, ye igno-
rantly worship, him declare I unto you.** But, if they had not
already an idea of God, how could he have, given them such nn
idea? Suppose that he works a miracle, and says, " This miracle
proves that God has sent me to teach you/' But, by the supposition,
they know nothing about God ; consequently, they have nothing
by which to test the truth of a revelation professing to come from
him. Neither miracles, nor the nature of the truth taught, nor the
character of the teacher, avail anything as evidence of a revelation
from a Being of whom wg know nothing. Without a previous
knowledge of God, only immediate revelation is possible.
Mr. Mansel, therefore, is one who, without a foundation, builds a
house on the sand. He attempts to erect faith in God after taking
' away the foundation of reason. The apostles built revealed religion
upon natural religion, revealed theology upon natural theology, ac-
cording to the rule, *' That is not first which is spiritual, but that which
is natural ; afterward that which is spiritual." Christ said, " Ye
believe in God : believe also in me.** Mr. Mansel reverses all this,
and makes Christ «ay, " Ye believe in me : believe also in God."
But, even if it were possible to ascend to belief in Go^ through
belief in Christ, we must ask. Is not belief thought ? If the mind
cannot thinh the Infinite, how can it believe the Infinite ? Must
we not apprehend a proposition before we can believe it? Does
448 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
not the conception of a thing logically precede the belief of it ? If
it is impossible to apprehend the Absolute, if this is only an empty
name, how is it possible to ^selieve in the Absolute on grounds of
revelation, or on any other grounds ? A miracle cannot com-
municate to the mind an idea which is beyond its power of
conception.
Mr. Mansel declares that our religious knowledge is regulative,
but not speculative.
He lays great stress on this distinction : by which he means
that we have ideas of the Deity sufficient to guide our practice,
but not to satisfy our intellect ; which tell us, not what God is in
himself, but how he wills that we should think of him. According
to this view, all revelation is overturned, just as all ^natural religion
has been previously overturned. Revelation does not reveal God
on this theory. We have no knowledge of God in the gospel, any
more than we had in nature. Instead of knowledge, we have only
law. But this seems to despoil Christianity of its vital force.
Christ says, " This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true
God." But Mr. Mansel tells us that such knowledge of God is
impossible. Therefore, instead of the gospel, he gives us the law ;
for it is certain that his regulative truths are simply moral pre-
cepts, addressed to the will, not to the intellect j capable of being
obeyed, but not of being understood.
The radical error of Mansel seems to be this, — that his mind
works only in the logical region belonging to the understanding,
and is ignorant of those higher truths which are beheld by the
reason. He has tried to find God by logical processes, and, of
course, has failed. He therefore concludes that God cannot be •
known by the intellect. He has fully demonstrated that God
cannot be comprehended by the logical understanding; and in
this he has done a good work. But he has not shown that God
cannot be known by the intuitive reason. The understanding •
comprehends: the reason apprehends. The understanding per-
ceives the form : reason takes holds of the substance. The under-
standing sees how things are related to each other : the reason
sees how things are in themselves. The understanding cannot,
therefore, see the infinite and absolute; cannot apprehend sub-
stance or cause ; knows nothing of the eternal. But the reason is
as certain of cause as of efiect ; knows eternity as really as it
knows time ; it is as sure of the existence of spirit as it is of mat-
ter ; and sees the infinite to be as real as the finite. Therefore,
APPENDIX. 449
though we cannot comprehend God by logic, we can apprehend
him by reason. . We can be as sure of his being as we are of our
own, and we are not obliged to explain away all those profound
scriptures which teach us that the object and end of our being is
to know God.
Since, therefore, Mr. MansePs argument, with all its acuteness,
learning, and honesty, tends directly to Atheism*; since, by over-
turning the foundation of Christianity, it overturns Christianity
itself; since it substitutes mere moral laws in place of the vital
forces of the gospel, — it is no wonder that its positions have been
rejected with much unanimity by the most eminent Orthodox schol-
ars. Its defence of Orthodoxy costs too much. Leading thinkers
of very different schools — for example, Mr. Brownson, the Ko-
man Catholic, in his " Quarterly Review ; " Professor Hickok, the
Presbyterian, in the " Bibliotheca Sacra ; " and Mr. Maurice, of the
Church of England, in an able pamphlet — have opposed with
great force the arguments and conclusions of this volume. It is
true that some Orthodox divines consider that Mr. Mansel has
demonstrated that the human consciousness is unequal to the
speculative conception of a Being at once absolute, infinite, and
personal, and seem gladly to have the aid of this book in de-
fending the Trinity. But the more distinguished and experienced
thinkers mentioned above are cautious of accepting the help of so
dangerous an ally.
§ 2. On the Defence of Verbal Inspiration by Oatissen. Fol-
lowing the declaration of the apostle Paul, that ** the letter killeth,"
we have, in the text of this volume, set aside all the theories of
the Bibje which assume its absolute and literal infallibility. But
within a few years, a work in defence of this doctrine has been
published abroad, by an excellent man, M. Gaussen, of Geneva,
and translated and republished in America by Rev. Dr. Kirk, of
Boston. Such a work, coming firom such sources, deserves some
examination. We shall, therefore, show the course of argument
followed in this book, and the reasons which lead us to consider
its conclusions unsound, and its reasoning inadequate.
Inspiration, as defined by Gaussen, is " that inexplicable power
which the divine Spirit formerly exercised over the authors of the •
Holy Scriptures, to guide them even in the employment of the
words they were to use, and to preserve them from all error, as
well as from every omission ?
" We aim/' says he, " to establish, by the word of God, that the
38*
450 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Scriptures are from God — that all the Scriptures are from God —
and that every part of the Scripture is from God."
Let us consider the arguments in support of this kind of inspi-
ration, and the objections to them.
Argument I. Plenary Inspiration is necessary, thai we may
know with certainty what we ought to believe.
Great stress *is laid upon this supposed necessity, both by
Gaussen and Kirk.'
" The book so written," say they, " is the Word of God, and
binds the conscience of the world ; and nothing else does so bind
it, even though it were the writings of Paul and Peter.
** With the Infidel, whether he be Christian in name or other-
wise, the sharp sword of a perfect inspiration will be found, at
last, indispensable. If the ground is conceded to him that there is
a single passage in the Bible that is not divine, then we are dis-
armed ; for he will be sure to apply this privilege to the very
passages which most fully oppose his pride, passion, and error.
How is the conscience of a wicked race to be bound down by a
chain, one link of which is weak ? "
Eeply to Argument L — It is no way to prove a theory trf^e to
assume its necessity. The only legitimate proof of a theory is by
an induction of facts. This method of beginning by a supposed
necessity, this looking first at consequences, has always been
fruitful of false and empty theories. The great advance in modem
science has come from substituting the inductive for the ideolo-
gical method. Find what the facts say, and the consequences will
take care of themselves. An argument from consequences is
usually only an appeal to prejudices.
Again : This argument is fatal to the arguments drawn from the
Scriptures themselves. In arguing from the Scripture to prove
that every passage is divine, we have, of course, no right to
assume that every passage is divine, for that is the very thing to
be proved. Then the texts which we quote to prove our position
may themselves not be divine, and if we grant that, "we are
disarmed." For, according to this argument, nothing can be
proved conclusively from Scripture except we believe in plenary
inspiration — then plenary inspiration itself cannot be proved
from Scripture. But Gaussen admits that this doctrine can be
proved " only by the Scriptures ; " therefore (according to this
argument) it cannot be proved at all.
Ifi therefore, the doctrine of plenary inspiration is necessary ^ to
APPENDIX. 451
bind the conscience of the world/' it is a doctrine incapable of
proof. If, on the other hand, it can be proved, it is then clearly
not necessary ** to bind the conscience of the world."
But again. This theory of plenary inspiration does not bind the
consciences of men. If men are naturally disposed (as Messrs.
Gaussen and Kirk maintain) to deny and disbelieve the doctrines
and statements of the Bible, they have ample opportunity of
doing so, notwithstanding their belief in this theory* For, after
'admitting that the words of Scripture, just as they stand, are per-
fectly true and given by God; the question comes, What do they
mean ? For instance, I wish, we will suppose, to deny the doc-
trine of the Deity of Christ. Now, you quote to me the tei^t
Ilom. 9:5. '* Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came,
who is over all, God, blessed forever," — which is the strongest
text in the Bible .in support of that doctrine. Now, though I
believe in the doctrine of plenary inspiration, I am not obliged to
accept this passage as proof of the Deity of Christ. For I can,
1. Assert that the verse if an interpolation ; 2. Assert that it is
wrongly pointed; 3. Assert that it is mistranslated; 4. Assert
that Christ is called God in an inferior sense, as God over the
Church. And, as a matter of fact, these are the arguments always
used, even by those who deny the doctrine of a plenary inspira-
tion. They seldom or never accuse the writer of a mistake, but
always rely on a supposed mistranslation, or misinterpretation, in
order to avoid the force of a passage. Hence, also, we find
believers in this doctrine of plenary inspiration, differing in opinion
on a thousand matters, and with no probability of ever coming to
an agreement.
Argument 11. Several Passages of the New Testament plainly
teach 'the Doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Bible.
The passages quoted by Gaussen, and mainly relied upon, are
2 Tim. 3 : 16. " All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c. ;
2 Peter 1 : 27, " Holy men of God spake as they were moved," &c.
Besides these, he refers to many passages in the Old and New
Testaments, but his chief stress is laid on these.
Beply to Argument IL — It is well known that both these pas-
sages refer only to the Old Testament Scriptures. It is well
known that the first may be translated so as to read, " All Scrip-
tyre, given by inspiration, is profitable," &c. But it is reply
enough to both these passages, to say, that neither of them indi-
cates what kind of inspiration is intended. They assert an inspi-
452 outhodoxy: its truths and errors.
ration, which we also maintain. But they do not assert a verbal
inspiration, nor one which makes the Scriptures infallible, but
simply one which makes them profitable.
The stress laid on the passage 2 Tim. 3 : 16, " All Scripture,"
&c., is itself an argument against the theory of plenary inspira-
tion. The most which can be made of this text, by any punctua-
tion or translation, is, that all the Scripture is written by inspired
men. What was the degree or kind of their inspiration, is not in
the least indicated. It might have been verbal, it might have been
the inspiration of suggestion, or of superintendence, or the gen-
eral inspiration of all Christians.
Gaussen's only argument on this point is, " that it is the voriting
which is said to be inspired, and writing must be in words ; hence
the inspiration must be verbal." To this we must reply, that in-
spired writing can only mean what is written by inspired men.
The writing itself cannot be inspired. This argument is too flimsy
to be dwelt upon. «
But further still. There is another argument which lies against
every attempt to prove plenary inspiration out of the Scripture*
Every such attempt is necessarily reasoning in a circle. Gaussen
and Kirk have labored earnestly to reply to this argument, but in
vain. The answer they make is, " We are not reasoning with
Infidels, but with Christians. We address men who respect the
Scriptures, and who admit their truth. The Scriptures are in-
spired, we affirm, because, being authentic and true, they declare
themselves inspired ; and the Scriptures are plenarily inspired, be-
cause, being inspired, they say that they are so totally, and with-
out any exception."
But we answer Messrs. Gaussen and Kirk thus: "You are
indeed reasoning with Christians, not with Deists ; but you are
reasoning with Christians who do not believe that every passage
of Scripture is infallibly inspired. To prove your doctrine fi om
any particular passages or verbal expressions, you must prove that
those particular passages and expressions are not themselves
errors. You yourselves assert that tliis cannot be done, except we
believe these passages to be infallibly inspired. Therefore you
must assume infallible inspiration in order to prove infallible
inspiration. In other words, you beg the question instead of
arguing it."
In this vicious circle the advocates of a verbal inspiration of
infallibility are necessarily imprisoned whenever they attempt to
APPENDIX. 453
argue from tlie words of Scripture. They contend that one must
believe their theory in order to be sure that any passage is abso-
lutely true, and then thef quote passages to prove their theory, as
if they were absolutely true.
Artpiment IIL The theory of plenary inspiration ia simple,
precise, intelligible, and easy to be applied.
We admit this to be true. It has this merit in common with
the opposite theory of no inspiration. Both are simple, precise,
and very easy of application. But simplicity is not always a sign
of truth. The facts of nature and life are more apt to be complex
than simple. Theories distinguished by their simplicity most
commonly ignore or omit a part of the facts. Simplistic theories are
generally one-sided and partial. Materialism, Atheism, Idealism,
Fatalism, are all very simple theories, and explain all difficulties with
a marvellous rapidity. Tliis makes them, at first, attractive to the
intellect, which always loves clear and distinct views ; but after-
wards, when it is seen that they obtain clearness by means of
shallowness, they are found unsatisfactory.
Argumeni IV, The quotations from the Old Testament, by
Jesus and his apostles, show that t]iey regarded its language as
infallibly inspired.
This argument, upon which great stress is laid, both by Prof.
Oaussen and Dr. Kirk, though plausible at first sight, becomes
wholly untenable on examination.
Thus, in the temptation of Jesus, in his reply to the tempter, he
says, '' Thou shalt not live by bread alone ; " the whole force of
the argument depending on the single word alone.
Replying to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he
says, " Have ye not read that God says, I am the God of Abra-
ham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob ? God is not tlie God of the
dead, but of the living." Then the whole stress of the ai^ument
rests on the use of the verb in the present tense, " / am."
Arguing with the Pharisees, " How did David, by the Spirit,
call him Lord, saying, The Lord said to my Lord," &c. ? Here the
ai'gument depends on the use of the single word Lord,
Many more instances could be produced of the same kind ; and
Gaussen contends, that when Jesus and his apostles thus rest their
argument on the force of a single word of the Old Testament, they
must have believed that the very words were given by inspiration.
For otherwise the writers might not have chosen the right word to
express their thought in each particular case. And unless the
454 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Jews had also believed in the verbal inspiration of their Scriptures,
they would have replied that these particular words might have
been errors. *
Reply to this Argument. — Plausible as this argument may seem,
it turns out to be wholly empty and worthless. Whenever any
writer is admitted to be an authority, then his words become
authoritative, and arguments are necessarily based on single words
and expressions. In all sueh cases, we assume that he chose the
best words by which to convey his thought, and yet we do not
ascribe to him any inspiration or infallibility.
Thus, go into our courts of law, and you will hear the language of
the United States constitution, of the acts of legislature, of previous
decisions of the courts, argued from, word by word. Counsel argue
by the hour upon the force and weight of single words in the
authorities. Judges in their charges instruct the jury to determine
the life and death of the criminal according to the letter of the
law. And this they do necessarily, according to the rule, " Cum
recedit a litera, judex transit in iegislatorem" But will any one
maintain that the counsel and court believe that the legislature
was infallibly inspired to choose the very language which would
convey their meaning ?
In this very argument for plenary inspiration, Gaussen and his
associates rest their argument on the single word " all," in the
text, " All Scripture is given by inspiration," &c. Yet, say they,
we are not assuming that this text is plenarily inspired, for that,
we admit, would be begging the question. If, then, Mr. Gaussen
can argue from the force of the single word all, without assuming
the doctrine of plenary inspiration, why could not Jesus and his
apostles argue from single words, without assuming the doctrine
of plenary inspiration ?
There is, however, a passage in Paul (Gal. 3 : 16), in which the
apostle quotes a text from the Old Testament, and lays the whole
stress of his argument on two letters. " He says not, * And to
seeds ' (jjneQfmaiv), as of many, but as of one, * And to thy seed *
((TTTeQfiaTi)" According to Gaussen*s argument, Paul must have
believed in the inspiration of the letters. But Gaussen is careful
not to adduce this instance, which seems at first so much in his
favor. For, in fact, both in Hebrew and Greek, as in English,
" seed" is a collective noun, and does mean many in the singu-
lar. The argument of Paul, therefore, falls through ; and it is
evident that he is no example to be imitated herei in laying stress
APPENDIX. 455
OA true 01 two letters. Most modem interpreters admit that he
made s mistake ; and so, among the ancients, did Jerome, who
nevertheless said tne argument " was good enough for the foolish
Galatians."
Having thus replied, very briefly, but we believe sufficiently, to
the main arguments in support of this theory, we say, in condu-
sion, that it cannot be tine, for the following reasons, which we
simply state, and do not now attempt to unfold.
1. The New Testament writers nowhere claim to be infallibly
inspired to write. If they had been infallibly inspired to write the
Gospels and Epistles, they certainly ought to have announced this
important fact. Instead of which Luke gives as his reason for
writing, not that God inspired him to write, but that ** inasmuch as
others have taken in hand " to write, it seemed good to him also to
do the same, and that for the benefit of Theophilus. John and
Paul assert the truth of what they say, but not on account of their
being inspired to wiite, but because they are disciples and apostles.
2. The differences in the accounts of the same transactions show
that their inspiration was not verbal.
These differences appear on every page of any Harmony of the
New Testament. They are numerous but unimportant ; they go
to prove the truth of the narmtive, and give probability to the
main Gospel statements. But they utterly disprove the theory of
plenary inspiration.
3. Paul declares that some things which he says are ** of the
Lord," other things " of himself; ** that in regard to some things
he was inspired, in regard to others, not.
4. Every writer in the New Testament has a style of his own,
and there is no appearance of his being merely an amanuensis.
5. While the New Testament writers lay no claim to any such
inspiration as this theory assumes, they do claim for themselves
and for ail other Christians another kind of inspiration, which is
sufficient for all the facts, and which gives them ample authority
over our £uth and life, and makes them independent sources of
Christian truth.
This view we have already sufficiently considered in our chapter
or inspiration.
§ 3. Defence of the Doctrine tliat Sin is a Nature, by Professor
Shedd. In the " Christian Review " for 1852 appeared an article of
great power, written by a gentleman who has since become eminent
as a thinker and writer — Professor W. G. T. Shedd. The title of
456 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
the article was calculated to attract attention, as a bold attempt to
defend an extreme position of Calvinism — " Sin a Nature, and
that Nature Guilt." The article was so rational and clear that we
consider it as being even now the best statement extant of this
thorough-going Calvinism, and therefore devote a few pages here
to its examination.*
After some introductory remarks, which it is not necessary to
notice, the writer lays down his first position, that sin is a nature.
His statement is, that we all sin necessarily and continually in con-
sequence of our nature^ i. e^, the character bom with us, original
and innate.
The proofs of this position are, 1. The language of St. Paul
(Eph. 2:3)," We were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others." 2. That we are compelled by the laws of our mind to
refer volitions to a nature, as qualities to a substance. We can-
not stop in the outward act of sin, but by a mental instinct look
inward to the particular volition from which the sin came^ Nor can
the mind stop with this particular volition. There is a steady and
uniform state of character, which particular volitions cannot ex-
plain. The instinct of reason causes us to look back for one com-
mon principle and source, which shall give unity to the subject ;
and, having attained a view both central and simple, it is satisfied.
As our mind compels us to refer all properties to a substance in
which they inhere, so it compels us to refer all similar volitions to
a simple nature. When we see exercises of the soul, we as in-
stinctively refer them to a nature in that sou], as we refer the prop-
erties of a body to the substance of that body. 3. Christian expe-
rience proves that sin is a nature. The Christian, especially as
his experience deepens, is troubled, not so much by his separate
sinful actions and volitions, as by the sinful nature which they
indicate, and out of which they spring. We are compelled to be-
lieve, as we look inward, that there is a principle of evil within us,
below those separate transgressions of which we are conscious.
There is a diseased condition of the soul, which these transgres-
sions indicate. There are secret faults from which we pray to be
cleansed. 4. The history of Christian doctrine shows that the
Church has in all ages believed in a sinftd nature, as distinguished
from conscious transgressions.
These are the proofs of the first position, that sin is a nature.
* The substAnce of what follows in this section, appeared in the « Chriatian
Bxaminer."
APPENDIX. 457
We have stated them eoacisely, but with sufficient distinctness and
completeness. Let us now examine their validity.
The first argument is the text in Ephesians, "We were by na-
ture children of wrath," ^,tte#' linva g:f{fa6i dgyrig. The word qrdutgf
the writer contends, " always denotes something original and innate,
in contradistinction to something acquired by practice or habit"
This text, we know, is the proof-text of original sin, and is con-
sidered by many commentators as teaching that man's nature is
wholly corrupt. But plainly this is going too far. Granting the
full meaning claimed for the word gx^atg, the text only asserts that •
there is something in man's nature which exposes him to the di-
vine displeasure by being the source of sin. It does not assert
the corruption of the whole nature, nor preclude the supposition
that we are bom with tendencies to good, no less than to evil.
That we are so, the writer is bound by his own statement to ad-
mit ; for if this G^reek word " always denotes something original
and innate," it denotes this in Rom. 2 : 14,* which declares that
the Gentses " do by nature the things contained in the law." Ac-
cording to this passage in Komans, if there be such a thing as
natural depravity, it is not total ; and if there be such a thing as
total depravity, it is not natural. Those who wish to maintain
both doctrines can only do it by admitting two different kinds of
sinfulness in man, one of which is natural, but not total ; the other •
total, but not natural — a distinction which we esteem a sound
one. According to this passage in Hom. 2 : 14, we must un-
derstand qfCaig as referring to the good side of man's nature, and
the «ame word in £ph. 2 : 3 as referring to the corrupt side of
man's moral nature. The fiist refers to the " law of the mind ; "
the second, to the other "law in the members" (Rom. 7:23).
But there is another passage (Gal. 2 : 15), which asserts that the
Jews by nature are not sinners, like the heathen. Now, as we can
hardly suppose that the original instincts and innate tendencies of
the Jewish child were radically good from birth, and essentially
different from those of the heathen, and as such a supposition
would contradict the whole argument of Paul in Bom. ch. 2, it is
* The nature by which the heathen " do the things contained in the law,"
i. e., obey God, which is here (Rom. 2 : 15) called ** the law written in the
heart," is in Rom. 7 : 23 called *• the law of the mind," Olshausen (a suffi-
ciently Orthodox commentator), says, ^' It is wholly false to understand orav
iroiij of a mere ideal possibility; the apostle speaks evidently of a real and
actual obedience. Paul infers that, because there are actually pious heathen,
they must have a law which they obey." Ad locum,
39
458 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
evident that (l>vaic in Gal. 2: 16 does not denote something
original and innate. The meaning of this verse probably is, that
the Jew from birth up, and by the mere fact of being born a Jew,
came under the influences of a religious education, which preserved
him from many forms of heathen depravity. The word, therefore,
means in that passage, not a Jew by nature, but a Jew by birth ;
and, if so, we ^re at liberty, if we choose, to ascribe the same
meaning to the word in Ephesians, and to understand the text to
teach that we were by birth placed under circumstances which
tended necessarily to deprave the character.
This passage, therefore, quoted by the writer, does not teach
entire depravity by nature, but a partial depravity," either found in
the hereditary tendencies and instincts, or acquired by means of the
evil circumstances surrounding the child from his birth.
The second argument of the writer is, that the laws of mind
compel us to refer sinful volitions to a sinful nature, as they com-
pel us to refer qualities to a substance.
We admit that, where we see uniform and constant habits of
action, we are compelled to refer these to a permanent character
or state of being. If a man once in his life becomes intoxicated,
we do not infer any habit of intemperance, or. any vicious ten-
« dency ; but if he is habitually intemperate, we are compelled, as
the writer justly asserts, to look beneath the separate single actions
for one common principle and source. But in assuming that this
source is a nature brought with us into the world, the writer seems
to us to jump to a conclusion. It may be an acquired charafiter,
not an original nature. It may be an induced state of disease
either of body or mind, a depravity which has commenced this side
of childhood. We know that there are acquired habits both of
mind and of body ; otherwise, not only would it be impossible for
a man to grow worse, but it would also be impossible for him to
glow better, and there would be an end to all improvement and *
progress. Such an acquired character introduces unity into the
subject of investigation, as completely as does an original nature,
and therefore satisfies all the wants of the mind.
A precisely similar answer may be made to the writer's third
argument, drawn from Christian experience. He is perfectly
light, we think, in saying that the Christian is* troubled, not mere-
ly, nor chiefly, by the reccollection of single acts and volitions
of evil, but in the evidence which they seem to give of a sinful
Btate of mind and heart. He is right in considering any theory of
APPENDIX. 469
moral evil shallow and inadequate which only takes into account
sinful actions and sinful volitions. What earnest man, who has
seriously set ahout correcting a fault, or improving his character,
but has been obliged to say, " To will is present with me ; but how
to perform that which I will, I find not " ? Every earnest effort
shows us more plainly how deep the roots of evil run below the
surface. We find a law in the members warring against the law
of the mind, and bringing us into captivity to the ' law of sin.
This is the description which Paul gives of it. It is a law ; that
is, something regular, constant, permanent — a steady stress, a
bias towards evil. The apostle, however, differs from the writer in
placing this law, not in the will, but in the members ; and also in
stating that there is another law, — that of the mind, — which has a
tendency towards good. In^the unregenerate we understand him to
teach that the law of evil is the stronger, and holds the man, the
personal will, captive. In the regenerate, the reverse is the case.
Nor does Paul teach that this sinful tendency is guilt. It is not
" O guilty man that I am ! " but " O wretched man that I am ! "
Now, while we agree with the writer in rejecting as superficial
and inadequate any theory of e\'il, whether emanating from our
own denomination or from any other, which does not recognize this
evil state or tendency lying below the volitions, we differ from him
in that we think it not always a nature, but a character. He has
not proved, nor begun to prove, that this dark ground of evil in
man is always innate or original. It may or may not be ; but the
argument from Christian experience shows nothing of the sort.
The writer's fourth and remaining argument is, that the Church
has, in all ages, believed in a sinful nature, as distinguished from
conscious transgressions. If this were so, we admit that it should
have weight in the inquiry ; but we deny the fact so far, at least,
as the sinful nature is concerned.*
* We "have no room to enter into an examination of this question at tliis
time, and can only give a general statement on this subject from one of the
authorities which happens to be at hand : —
»* AU the Fathers " (before Augustine, fourth and fifth century) ** differed
from Augustine in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.
Thus Justin ; * Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice
or virtue.' Cyril of Jerusalem : * Know that thou hast a soul possessed of
free will; for thou dost not sin by birth (ifora y^vtaiv)^ nor by fortune, but y\Q
sin by free choice.* All the Latin Fathers also maintained that free will was
not lost after the fall. . The Fathers also denied in part, that man is born infected
with Adam's sin. Thus Athenagoras says in his Apology, ' Man is in a good
state, not only in respect to his Creator, but also in respect to his natural
generation.' " — Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism. Translated by Kev.
Balph Emerson, Frofcssor in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
460 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
The writer proceeds thus : " Assuming, then, that the fact of a
sinful nature has been established, we pass to the second statement
of St. Paul, that man is by nature a child of wrath. We pass from
his statement that sin, in its ultimate form, is a nature, to his
Statement that this nature is guilt." If we have done justice to
the writer's arguments, — and it has been our object to state them
fairly, though briefly, — we submit that the fact of a sinful nature
has not been established by them. He has shown that in man
there is a tendency to evil running below the conscious, distinct
volitions — that there is a permanent character, good or evil,
which manifests itself, and becomes first apparent to ourselves, or
to others, in these separate, spiritual exercises or actions. But
that this stress either to good or evil, this law either of the mind or
members, is original and inborn, is yet to be proved. Let us then
conside/ the second point, namely, whether this character or na-
ture, whichever it may be, is also guilt.
As the writer's first argument to prove a sinful nature was
drawn from the Greek word q){>cng, so his* first argument to prove
that nature guilt is derived from the Greek word d^y^j in the same
passage. " The apostle teaches," he says, " that sinful man is a
child of wrath. Now, none but a guilty being can.be the object of
the righteous and holy displeasure of God." But this word, trans-
lated wrath, is confessedly used in other senses besides that of the
divine anger or displeasure. It may mean the suflerings or pun-
ishments which come as the result of sin, in which sense it is used
in Matt. 3:7,** Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to
come ? " and other places. This word is used in the passage just
quoted for some future evil ; in John 3 : 36, for a present evil —
" The wrath of God abides on him ; " and in 1 Thess. 2 : 16, for a
past evil — " For the wrath is come [lit. has come] on them to the
uttermost." It may mean the subjective feeling of guilt; the
sense that we deserve the divine displeasure, which is removed by
the assurance of forgiveness. It may mean the state of alienation
from God, which results by a law of the conscience from this
tense of guilt — an alienation removed by the divine act by
which God reconciles the sinner to himself. And the radical
meaning, from which these secondary meanings flow, may be the
essential antagonism existing between the holy nature of God and
all evil. But whatever it means, it cannot intend anything like
human anger. In the divine \vTath there is neither selfishness nor
passion ; and it must consist with an infinite. love towards its object.
The word, therefore, as used in Eph. 2 : 3, does not conyey the
APPENDIX. 461
idea of guilt, a vi terminis. It may mean as well, that this sinful
tendency in man, manifesting itself in sinful actions, produces a
state of estrangement or alienation between man and God. How
far this is a guilty alienation, and how far it is evil and sorrowful,
is not to be learned from the term itself.
But the main proof of the writer in support of his second po-
sition is found in the assertion, that this sinful tendency in man,
out of which evil acts continually flow, is not a tendency of the
physical nature, but of the will itself. He distinguishes the will
proper from the mere faculty of single choices, and considers it to
be a deeper power lying at the very centre of the soul, which de-
termines the whole man with reference to some great and unlimited
end of living. It is, in fact, the man himself—^ the person. For
man, he asserts, is not essentially intellect or feeling ; but is essen-
tially and at bottom a will, a self-determining creature. "His
other faculties of knowing and feeling are grafted into this stock
and root ; and hence he is responsible from centre to circumfer-
ence." He then affirms the will, thus defifted, to be the responsi-
ble and guilty author of the sinful nature ; being nothing more
nor less than its constant and total determination to self as the
ultimate end of living. This voluntary power, which is the man
himself, has turned away from God and directed itself to self as an
ultimate end ; and this state of the will is the sinful nature of man.
We have no disposition to quarrel with the psychology of this
statement. We admit man to be essentially will, in the sense
here described. He is essentially activity; an activity limited
externally, by special organization and circumstances, — limited
internally, by quantity of force, and knowledge.
Nor, again, do we deny that in the unregenerate state the will
of man is directed to self rather than to God as its ultimate end ;
and that this is guilt, and in a certain sense total guilt. No man
can serve two masters. K he is obedient to one, he is necessarily
disobedient to the other. This disobedience may, or may not, ap-
pear in act ; but it is there in state. He whose ultimate end is
self-gratification is always ready to sacrifice the will of God to his
own. He whose ultimate end is God is always ready to sacrifice
his own will. In this sense, the unregenerate man may be said to
be wholly sinful ; and he who is born of God, not to commit sin.
Thus much we grant ; and the admission is a large one. But
we must now object to the writer, that this is but one side of the
question ; and that he has omitted to see the other side. The
39*
462 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
sources of evil are not so simple as he seems to suppose ; for man
is a very complex being, and the world in which he lives is a very
complex world. We therefore would inquire, —
What proof have we that this guilty direction of the will is a
nature, in the sense claimed, i. e., something innate or originsd?
Why may not the will have been turned gradually in this direction
as we grow up, by enticements of pleasure ; and why might not
the will, in like manner, by means of wise culture, have been
gradually directed to God ?
Again : what proof have we that we are so wholly unconscious
of this direction of the will, as our author contends? That a
great many of the acts of the will are unconscious acts, like the
separate movements of the finger in a skilful pianist, or lifting of
the feet in walking, we admit ; and we are not responsible for these
separate acts, but for the preceding choice, by means of which
we determine to play the tune, or walk the mile. In like mamier,
the direction of the soul to self rather than to God may be moral
evil ; but is not moral guilt, until we become conscious of it, in a
greater or less degree. Then, when partially or wholly awakened
to the evil direction of the soul, if we allow ourselves to neg-
lect this discovery, to turn away from the fact and forget it, on
that conscious act presses the whole burden of guilt, and not on
the unconscious volitions which may result from it. We say,
therefore, in opposition to the writer, that though there may be de-
pravity without consciousness of the depraved state, there cannot
be guilt without consciousness of the evil choice, or, as the apos-
tle says, " Sin is not imputed where there is no law."
Again: we totally dissent from the statement that this deep-
lying will in man is unable to obey the commands, " Turn ye, turn
ye from your evil way, for why will ye die ? " — " Kepent and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out," — " Make you a new
heart and a new spirit," —5 " Choose you this day whom you will
serve," — " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved." The
writer says, that *^ such a power as this, including so much, and
running so deep, which is a determination of the whole soul, can-
not, from the^ very nature of the case, be such a facile and easily
managed power as that by which we resolve to do some particular
thing in every-day life." True : not so easily managed ; but can it
not be managed at all P It may require more self-examination to
understand what the direction of the will is, and more concentra-
tion of thought and will, and more leaning on God's help ; but
APPENDIX. 463
• *
fciih all these are we able or not able to turn to God ? He says,
the great main tendency of the will to self and sin as an ultimate
end, though having a free and criminal origin, " is not to be re-
versed so easily." True, again ; but why not less easily ? The
writer speaks of the sinful will as a '* total determination of itself
to self; " and asks " how the power that is to reverse all this pro-
cess can possibly come out of the will thus shut up, and entirely
swallowed in the process. How is the process to destroy itself?"
But what ! Has man become a process ? He is essentially will,
but is this will blind mechanism P Has it not, according to our
author's own theor}', intelligence, conscience, affection, rooted into
itP The moment that the writer begins to speak of the will, as
unable to change its direction, he is compelled to* conceive of it
materially and mechanically, and not as the moral, responsible
soul. He says, " The human will becomes a current that becomes
unmanageable simply because of its own momentum." A^d there-
fore, again,^ he is obliged to conceive of the whole voluntary power
as lost, and lost before man was born ; and he reduces all our
real freedom to the original act of the will previous to birth,
which took place when we were present in Adam's soul, and com-
mitted the first transgression with him.
This is plainly the denial of all human freedom since the ML
of Adam. We bring into the world, according to the writer, a
will wholly and inevitably bent to evil. We have no conscious-
ness of this tendency, and if we were conscious of it we have uo
power to change it ; but we yet are responsible for it, and guilty
because of it, inasmuch as we began this state ourselves when all
our souls were mystically present in the soul of Adam. Of this
theory, we merely say now, that, if it be true, man is not now
guilty of any sin which he commits in his mortal life ; for he is
not now a free being. He is only responsible for the sin which he
freely committed in Adam. He is no more responsible when we
suppose his sin to proceed from his will, than when we suppose it
to proceed from a depraved sensuous nature, or from involuntary
ignorance, for he is no more free in the one case than in the other.
He may be an infinitely depraved and infinitely miserable being,
but he can in no true sense be called a guilty beiitg. Again we
say, if this theory be' true, it is an awful theory, and one which
we cannot possibly reconcile with the justice or goodness, and still
less with the fatherly character, of God. That God should so
have constituted human nature that all the millions of the human
464 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
race should have had this fatal opportunity of destroying them-
selves utterly, by one simultaneous act, in Adam, is, to say the
least, an aicful theory to propound concerning our heavenly
Father. We might put Christ's argument to any man not hard-
ened by theological study, as it seems to us, with irresistible
force. " What man is there among you, being a father," who
could do anything of this sort ? But we know too well that all
such appeals fall harmless from the sevenfold shield of a system-
atized theology.
Therefore we will only say further, concerning this theory,
that, as being apparently in direct conflict with the divine attri-
butes as taught in the New Testament ; as making man a mere
process deprived of real freedom 5 as proving man not guilty for
any sin committed in this life ; and as thereby deadening the sense
of responsibility, and showing that we cannot possibly obey the
command , " Repent and turn to God," — this theory of a sin com-
mitted in Adam ought to have the amplest proof before we believe
it. We admit that it may be true, though opposed to all our ideas
of God, man, and duty. But being thus opposed, it ought to be
sustained by the most unanswerable arguments. If Jesus and his
apostles have told us so plainly, we will believe it if we can.
How is it, then ? Not a word on the subject in the four Gospels.
Not a text from the lips of Jesus which can be pretended to lay
down any such theory. He does not even mention the name of
Adam once in the Gospels, nor allude to him, except when speak-
ing of marriage. This theory rests, not on anything contained in
the Gospels, book of Acts, or Epistles of Peter, James, or John,
but on two texts in two Epistles of Paul (Rom. 5 : 14 ; 1 Cor. 15 :
22). In the latter passage Paul says not a word of Adam's sin,
but only of his death, — the whole chapter treating, not of sin,
but of death and the resun*ection. This passage, therefore, can
hardly be considered a plain statement of the theory. The other,
in Romans, is confessedly so far from plain, that it is difficult
to make it agree with any theory ; but the most evident mean-
ing, to one who has no theory to support, is, that sin began
with Adam, and the consequences of sin, which are moral and
physical evil,* began also with him; and as he thus set in motion
a series of evil tendencies which we find in our organization,
and which Paul elsewhere calls the law of the members, and
a series of evil circumstances which we find around us in the
world, both of which are the occasion of sin, we may trace back
APPENDIX. 465
to him the commencement of human disobedience. If the passage
teaches anything more than this, it certainly does not teach it
plainly or explicitly.
§ 4. Defence of Everlasting Punishment^ by Dr. Neh^iah
Adams and Dr, J, P. Thompson. — Two defences of this dreadful
doctrine have appeared within a few yetys — one by Rev. Nehe-
miah Adams, D. D. (chiefly known by his many and determined
pleas for slavery), and the other by Dr.'Thompson of New York.
We will first examine Dr. Adams's tract on " The Reasonable-,
ness of Eternal Future Punishment."
We have these three objections to it : —
L It, throughout, denies the sovereignty of Ood.
n. It is, throughout, a system of naturalism.
in. It, throughout, Ignores the central truth of the gospeL
It is our business to substantiate these assertions by sufficient
proof.
1. The view taken in his tract, of God, cannot be true, because
it conflicts with his supreme and sovereign deity.
Of course, this is to dethrone God. God, if not sovereign, is not
God. Any view which disturbs, however remotely, the supremacy
of the Deity, must be a relapse towards Pagan * idolatry. We
charge thi's tendency on the whole tenor of this tract. We affirm
that it seriously impairs that confidence and strength which can.
only come from reliance on Omnipotence, and remands us to the
terrors and narrowness of Polytheism ; not consciously, of course,
or intentionally, but by the logic of its ideas and the tendency of
its argument.
According to Dr. Adams's view of the world, it is a scene of
conffict between God and the Devil. The prize contended for is
the souls of men. God wishes to save them : the Devil wfehes to
damn them. By immense efibrts, — by the unparalleled sacrifice
of himself on the cross, — God succeeds in saving a portion of this
race, whom the Devil had plunged into fearful and desperate sin.
As for the rest. He can do nothing with them, but must go away
and leave them; escaping with the saved to some other region,
wheie the sin and misery of the rest may be lost sight of.
Tfie only divine supremacy which Dr. Adams admits is that of
force. God is, on the whole, stronger than the Devil ; so that He
can prevent him from carrying his ravages beyond certain limits.
God can " hem in and overrule " the power of sin ; but he canno^
conquer it. He has no compfete power over the heart and will of
466 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
men to become supreme there ; but he has power over their con-
duct, and can restrain that within certain limits.
God's sovereignty, according to Dr. Adams, is only like that of
a Uhman government, and that, again, a weak one. A human
government is strong when it is able to dispense with standing
armies, with an omnipresent police, with prisons and dungeons : it
is weak when its authority is only maintained by these. In the
first case, it rests on the love of the people ; in the other case,
. only on force.
Now, according to Dr. Adams's tract, God's sovereignty is es-
sentially one of force. He is not sovereign by overcoming sin
through his own holiness, but only by restraining its outbreaks by
externally applied force. So far from conquering sin, he is rep-
resented *as giving up all hope of conquering it. He has tried
everjthing in his power, and has failed. He can do nothing more.
Dr. Adams speaks of God's " having expended upon us all which
the gospel of his grace includes," and of " the failure of that which
is the brightness of his glory." Now, Dr. Adams says, " What
God will probably do is, to go away and leave us." God says, ac-
cording to the idea of this tract, *' I will place all of you, who sin,
in a world by yourselves, from which I and my friends will forever
withdraw." In substance, He gives up, and acknowledges himself
. defeated. He is beaten by sin, which is more powerful than his
gospel. Sin compels the Deity to compromise ; to take some
souls, and to leave others; to divide the universe, — love reigning
in one part of it, hatred and wickedness in another.
2. The second objection to the doctrine of everlasting punishment,
as taught in these works, is, that it is a system of pure material-
ism. It is naturalism, as opposed to supernaturalism. All its ar-
gumerfts from Scripture interpret Scripture according to its letter,
and not according to its spirit. While much stress is laid on the
word " eternal," no real eternity is believed in, or even conceived
of. The fundamental law of religious knowledge < — namely, that
a man must be born of the Spirit in order to see the kingdom - f
God, and that spiritual things must be spiritually discerned — is
wholly lost sight of. The spiritual world, with its bliss and its
woe, is supposed to be a continuation of the natural world, instead
of being its exact opposite. The same conditions of space and
time are supposed to prevail there as here. Hell is regarded by
^r. Adams as a large place, located in some remote part of the
universe, where the sufferings and «bla6phcmies of damned aouli
• APPENDIX. 467
and devils will not disturb the sentimental happiness of himself
and his pious companions. Eternity he regards as an enormous
and quite inconceivable accumulation of time, instead of being the
very negation of time. An unlimited quantity of days, months,
and years, is his notion of eternity.
In like manner, all the arguments by which the school to which
he belongs maintains this doctrine, are drawn from relations which
exist in this world. Great use is made of the analogies of human
government. It is said that it would not be safe for the Deity to
forgive sins on the simple condition of repentance, without an
atonement, because it would not be safe for human governments to
do so. The government of God is made wholly similar to the im-
perfect and ignorant governments of men. When we say that
God, as described in the New Testament, is not a Being to inflict
everlasting suffering hereafter, we are told that he inflicts suffering
here ; as though there were no essential distinction between the
finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal. When we
argue that God would not suspend the eternal destiny of a soul
upon the conduct and the determination of a brief earthly life, we
have instances given us of great risks to which we are exposed,
and great evils which we may incur, in this world ; as though
there were no difference between a partial loss and total destruc-
tion. When we say that the justice of God will not permit him to
punish everlastingly those who, like the heathen, have never knowii
Christ, we have instances given of tl9)se who have ignorantly
burned -themselves or have fallen down precij)ices. In all such
examples, these reasoners overlook the essential distinction between
the finite and the infinite. They forget that all finite evil can h©
made the means of a greater ultimate good, but that infinite evil
cannot. •
It is a curious fact, that those who are most Orthodox fall most
ealsily into a very hard and dry naturalism. God is to them a king
sitting on a throne in some far heaven outside of the world, not a
spirit pervading it and sustaining it. He governs men from with-
out by offering them rewards and threatening them with punish-
ments, not by inward inspirations and influence. He teaches them
firom without by an outward Christ, an outward Bible, outward
preachers, pulpits, creeds. Sabbaths, and churches ; not by Christ
formed within .us, not by epistles and gospels written on the
fleshly tables of the heart. The day of judgment is a particular
time, when God shall sit on his throne, and all appear before him $
4C8 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS. *
not the perpetual spiritual sentence pronounced in each human
soul by the divine law. And so heaven is a place where there is
to be some singing of psalms, and such amusements as are here
considered proper in Orthodox families ; hell, another place, where
souls are shut up^ to suffer from physical fire, or at least from
some external infliction. The doctrine taught by the Saviour in
the first twelve verses of his first sermon, that the humble, the
generous, the merciful, are already blessed, and have heaven now,
does not appear to be at all comprehended. That heaven and hell
are in this world already ; that truth, love, and use are its essence,
whilst falsehood and selfishness are the essence of hell, — these,
though rudimental facts of Christianity, are commonly considered
mere mysticism. But those who do not see all this have not seen
the kingdom of heaven, and must be born again, into a new world
of spiritual ideas, in order to see it.
3. The third and principal argument against the doctrine of ever-
lasting punishment is, that it is inconsistent with the divine love
to his creatures. It is impossible for God to manifest love to a
human being by inflicting everlasting torment upon him. It can-
not do him good, because, according to this theory, the period of
probation is past, and he has no power now to repent. As far,
therefore, as the man himself is concerned, it is gratuitous suffer-
ing — torment inflicted without any purpose. It cannot be said
that God has any love for the soul which he is treating in this
way. He has cast it off* To that soul, nevermore, throughout
the ages of an everlasting existence, shall God appesir as a friend,
but always' as an enemy.
• We sometimes hear of a &ther who disinherits a child in conse-
quence of some act of disobedience. In one of the most touching
tragedies in the English language, a father refuses to forgive his
daughter who had married contrary to his wishes. He leaves her
to starve, and refuses to forgive her or to see her. No one ap-r
proves of this conduct in the parent. But every Orthodox man,
who believes in everlasting punishment, attributes an infinitely
greater cruelty to God ; infinitely greater, because the obstinacy
of the human parent endures only during a short life, but tl e
severity of God endures forever.
The force of this objection 'is such, that Dr. Adams has felt
obliged to add to his tract on " Everlasting Punishment " another
tract upon the text, *' God is love," endeavoring to show a oon-
eistency between the two. But he does this by substituting some-
APPENDIX. 469
thing else in the place of the last. It is curious enough, that a
master in Israel should have written a tract upon the " love " of
God, and should have substituted ** benevolence " instead of it. In
other words, instead of that fatherly love to every individual which
is the essential fact revealed in the gospel, he gives us a general
good-will towards the human race. Such a general benevolence he
finds not inconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting punishment ;
for, if love be only general good-will, then, the greatest good of
the greatest number being the object, there is nothing to complain
of if a few are sacrificed for the sake of the rest It is not, to be
sure, easy to see how those who have safely reached glory, and are
in no danger of relapse, can be benefited by the knowledge that
their old neighbors and friends are in hell ; but there may be
some benefit which is not apparent. By quietly substituting,
therefore, the idea of benevolence in the place of love, the difficulty
may be evaded, which otherwise is unanswerable.
But what an entire confusion of ideas is this, which substitutes
a general benevolence for a personal a&ction, good-will towards
the race for love to the individual ! It is, in fact, abolishing the
idea of Father, and substituting that of Ruler. The kind ruler,
actuated by benevolence, desires the good of all his subjects ; but
he does not love them as individuals. But the father loves the
child with a wholly different feeling. The tie is personal, not
general. It is one of mutual knowledge and nqutual dependence.
We cannot love one whom we do not know ; but we can exercise
benevolence towards him very easily. Benevolence depends wholly
on the character of the benevolent person ,> but love is drawn out
by the object loved. I do not love my child because I am benevo-
lent, but because it is my child. The infant draws forth a host of
feelings, before unknown, in the mother's heart. She does not
love her infant because she is a benevolent woman, but because the
infant excites her love. A man is benevolent towards the sufferers
in Kansas, whom he has never seen ; but he does not love them.
He. loves his wife, but is not benevolent towards her. Benevolence
and love, therefore, are not only essentially different in their
nature, origin, and manifestations, but so different as often to ex-
clude each other.
Now, it has always been seen that God is benevolent. This is
taught by natural religion. We see it in all the arrangements of
divine Providence. The infinitely varied provisions for the good
of his creatures, the myriad adaptations by which their wants are
40
470 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
met, are ample evidence of this. But Christianity comes to teach
us something else, — to teach us that God is our Father, and so
to see in him benevolence swallowed up in love. God does not
love his children because he is benevolent, but because they are
his children. He does not love them for the sake of others, but
for their own sake. His love does not depend upon their being
good, pious, or Christian ; it depends only upon the fact that
they are his children. This is the doctrine of the prodigal son ;
in which wonderful parable it is more distinctly stated than in any
other part of the New Testament. The doctrine there taught,
that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than
over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance, is some-
what different from that other doctrine, that the redeemed in
"heaven look down with joy upon the sufferings of the damned
below. This parable teaches that God has a personal, fatherly
love towards the impenitent sinner who has gone away from him
into a far country. The father's joy when his child returned ia
the evidence of the lov«. which had continued in his heart while
his child was absent from him.
This being the character ascribed by Christ to the Deity, we as-
sert that it is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of everlasting
punishment as taught in the pamphlet before us. There are, it is
true, many widely different doctrines to which the term " eternal
punishmeut " is applied. Some of these may not be inconsistent
with the love of God. Let us give some instances.
Some, by eternal punishment, intend the punishments of eternity,
as distinguished from those of time. They mean spiritual punish >
ment, as distinguished from temporal punishment. They mean
the sufferings which have their root in the sight of eternal things,
as distinguished from those which originate in the sense of earthly
things — sufferings which come to us from within, and not from
without. " Eternal," in this sense, describes the quality, and not
the quantity, of the suffering ; and in this sense eternal punish-
ment is not inconsistent with the divine love. But this is not the
sense which Dr. Adams intends.
Some mean by endless punishment, that, as long as men con-
tinue to sin, they will continue to suffer; that sin is eternally
suffering. But this is not the sense which Dr. Adams intends.
And some say that they believe in eternal punishment ; mean-
ing thereby, that the consequences of sin are everlasting, — either
positively, by leaving forever some remorseful sorrow in the
APPENDIX. 471
mind, or negatively, by leaving men forever lower down ia the
scale of excellence and happiness than they would otherwise be.
But this is not what Dr. Adams means by it.
And some men believe in eternal punishment in the sense of a
dark background to the universe, which will always continue, a
shadow as permanent as light, — necessary for the full perfection
and beauty of an infinite divine creation. Into this shadow man
may forever plunge ; out of it he may forever emerge : and it
\i ill always continue so to be. But this is not the view taken by
Dr. Adams.
The view which Dr. Adams takes is of endless punishment in-
flicted as a consequence of temporal sin committed in this life.
There will'be no opportunity to repent hereafter, no pardon offered.
There is nothing done by God, after this life, to save men. The
heathen who have never heard of Christ, unconverted infants, those
who have been brought up in the midst of evil, and heretics who
do not accept the theory of Calvin concerning Christianity^ are to
be tormented forever in the other world. This view he thinks not
only scriptural, but reasonable. It corresponds nearly to the
human penalty of imprisonment for life ; except that, instead of a
few years of earthly life, it ia a never-ending existence ; and,
instead of simple imprisonment, it is imprisonment with torture
added.
We are accustomed to complain of the " horrors of the Inquisi-
tion ; " but wherein do they differ in principle from the doctrine of
Dr. Adams ? The inquisitors tortured men for heresy ; Dr. Adams
thinks that God will do the same. The power of the Inquisition,
however, was limited, on the principle, Dolor ^ si dura, brevis ; si
longa, levi9. But not so with everlasting punishment.
That this view is absolutely inconsistent with the fatherly love
of God to every soul, is apparent. It would be impossible for a
father to torment his child forever in consequence of temporal
sin. No earthly parent could be found cruel enough to inflict a
million years of torture upon his child for each sin committed by
him ; but a million years for every sinful action would be but a
trifling penalty compared with everlasting punishment.
As it is absolutely impossible to defend this doctrine on the
ground of the fatherly love of God, it is defended by Dr. Adams
and his companions on other grounds, namely, of the divine
benevolence, and the duty of God as a governor. The argument
is this : If God was dethroned, all sorts of evil would ensue. But
472 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
sin is always endeavoring to dethrone God ; therefore it is his duty
to use the most strenuous measures to prevent this result. These
strenuous measures consist in the highest rewards offered to
obedience, and the severest punishments threatened to disobedi-
ence. But no punishment is so severe as everlasting punishment ;
therefore the benevolence of God requires him to threaten it ; and,
if threatened, his ti'uth requires him to inflict it This is the sort
of argument by which the doctrine is defended. Its fallacies are
manifest. It is based on a sort of Manicheism, making evil a
hostile power in the universe, which threatens the supremacy of
God. It makes God in danger of outward overthrow in consequence
of the external assaults of sin. But we have always supposed that
.the essence of sin was the state of the heart, and the evil of sin to
consist in the estrangement of the heart from God, and not in any
danger that Omnipotence would be dethroned by it. Besides,
though the fear of future punishment may restrain the outward
act, it cannot change the heart, and cannot, therefore, remove the
real evil of sin. Here is the fallacy of this whole argument.
Another weak point in the argument for everlasting punishment
regards its proof, that all opportunity for repentance is confined
to this life. Only two or three texts are quoted in proof of this
very important position. One is taken- from the book of Ecclesi-
astes, and declares, that, " in the place where the tree falleth, there
it shall be ; " of which there is no evidence that it has any relation
to the subject ; or, if it has, that it carries the least authority with
it. Another passage asserts that " there is no work, nor device,
nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest."
But this would prove too much ; for it would prove that there was
no knowledge in the other life. Another passage, quoted by Dr.
Adams from the book of Revelation, says, " Let him that is un-
just be unjust still ; " from which it is inferred that men have no
opportunity hereafter for repentance. But, as this is said to those
who are in this world waiting for the coming of Christ, it also
proves too much, if taken literally ; since it would declare that
men cannot repent even in this world. Such is the extremely
slight foundation on which this essential part of the doctrine is
made to rest. Never was there so weak a support for so impor-
tant a position.
The arguments from reason, by which our writer supports this
part of hi& doctrine, are all taken from the plane of the lowest
naturalism. He thinks it reasonable that the Almighty should
APPENDIX. 473
suspend the everlasting destiny of his creatures upon what they
do or omit doing in this life, because men, in earthly transactions,
adopt a similar principle. A railroad train is advertised to start
at a certain hour. K we are there a minute too late, we lose our
opportunity of going on an important journey. We think this
reasonable; why, then, argues Dr. Adams, should -we think it
unreasonable- for God to make us lose our chance throughout
eternity if we do not take the opportunity during life ? God has
given us full notice, he says, of his intention ; we have been duly
notified ; and, after due notice, it is thought reasonable, in earthly
business transactions, for peoj)le to run their chance. A man may
commit a crime in a minute, for which he is sentenced to imprison-
ment for life or to capital punishment. We think this reasonable ;
why should we think it unreasonable that God should send men
to an everlasting hell in consequence of sin committed in a short
lifetime ?
AU these arguments are fallacious, because they apply to the
infinite, conditions belonging wholly to the finite; because they
transfer to Him, whose ways are not as our ways, and whose
thoughts are not as our thoughts, the poor necessities of human
ignorance and weakness. To those who reason thus, the Almighty
may say, "Thou thoughtest me altogether such a one as thou
thyself." It is because man is weak and ignorant that he is
obhged to live under these limitations. If we were able to do
difierently, we should not make such severe consequences flow
from human ignorance and weakness. We do such .things, not
because we think them absolutely just and good, but because we»
cannot help it. To ai'gue that, because it is reasonable for human
weakness to do something which it cannot help, it is reasonable
for divine Omnipotence to do an- infinitely more injurious thing of
the same kind, is to fiy in the face of all logic and reason.
Men make a rule, that, if I am not at the station when the train
starts, I shall lose my trip for that day. Yes ; but suppose the
rule should be, that, if I arrived a mom^t too late, I should be
crucified. Suppose a father should give full notice to his children,
that, whenever any of them mispronounced a word, he should be
burned alive. But it is easier, according to Dr. Adams's theory,
for a child never to make a mistake, than not to commit the sins
for which it is to be punished with everlasting torment. " What
man among you is there, being a father," who would cause his
children to come into the world exposed to such fearful risks ;
40*
474 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
•who would allow them to be born with constitutions tending in-
evitably to sin, the inevitable consequence of which, after a few
short years of life, is never-ending tormenti the only possible es-
cape from which is salvation through a Being of whom the majority
never heard, according to a system which the majority cannot
believe, and by a process, which, except by a special help, none of
them are able to accomplish ? We should say, that we would not
have children under these conditions. It were better that such
children had never been born. If we then, being evil, would not
subject our children to such risk, how much less would our Father
in heaven do anything of the kind !
The reply to such arguments, by those whom Thomew Burnet
calls the " unmerciful doctors " and " ferocious theologians,*' is
always the same. Because finite evil exists, and is not inconsist-
ent with the divine plan, therefore infinite evil may also exist, and
not be inconsistent with the divine plan. Because one may suffer
for a time in this world, therefore he may he compelled to suffer
forever in the other world. It is assumed that there is no essen-
tial distinction between time and eternity, between finite and in-
finite evil. Here is the immense fallacy of the argument. The
difference is simply this : AJl finite suffering, however great, is as
nothing when compared with everlasting happiness afterwards ; but
all finite happiness, however great, is as nothing when compared
with everlasting suffering afterwards. If we deny, therefore, the
doctrine of everlasting suffering, evil virtually disappears from the
universe ; . if we accept it, good vii'tually disappears, as far as the
» sufi'erers are concerned. If all evil is finite, the goodness of God
can be fully justified ; but, if to any one it is infinite, no such
theodicy is possible.
This is the fatal objection to the doctrine of everlasting punish-
ment. It clouds the face of the heavenly Father with impenetra-
ble gloom. It takes away the best consolations of the gospeL
When Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies, that we may be like
our heavenly Father, w^o sends his blessings upon the evil and the
good, this doctrine adds, that God's character is thus forgiving only
in this world ; but that, in the other world, he will torment his
enemies forever in hopeless suffering. When we seek consolation
amid the griefs and separations of this world by looking to a bet-
ter world, where all tears will be wiped away, we have presented
to us instead tliis awful vision of unmitigated horror. Instead of
finite evil being swallowed up into infinite good, it darkens dowD
into infinite woe.
APPENDIX. 475
Dr. Adams quotes Thomas Burnet, Master of the Charter-house,
as a striking instance of one, who, though he denied or doubted
this doctrine, admitted, nevertheless, that the Scriptures were
probably against him. He quotes him correctly as saying, " Hu-
man nature shrinks from the very name of eternal punishment ;
yet the Scriptures seem to hold the other side." Though Dr.
Adams gives the Latin, and refers to the page of the book, let us
hope, for his own sake, that he quotes it at second-hand ; which,
as he twice misspells the name, is not unlikely ; for Dr. Burnet, so
far from admitting that the Scriptures are ** probably against him,"
concludes, after an examination of the leading passages, that they
prove nothing certainly as to the eternal duration of future punish-
ment. He quotes the passage in which the Jewish seiTant is said to
become a 8h,ye forever, — meaningirtill the year of jubilee ; in which
circumcision is called an everlasting covenant, — meaning that it
shall be abolished by the same divine authority ; in which the land
of Canaan was given for an everlasting possession to Abraham and
his seed, from which they have long since been expelled ; &c. Dr.
Burnet does, indeed, say that the Scriptures seem to favor the doc-
trine he opposes ; but he then goes on to show that such is not
the case. He also ** awakens antiquity," and calls to his aid the
merciful doctors of the early church (Justin Martyr, Jerome, the
Gregories, &c.) to support his hope in a merely limited future suf-
fering.
We will now consider the meaning of some of the texts usually
adduced in support of this doctrine. Of these texts, there are
some six or seven only upon which much stress ia laid ; and of
these the principal ones are as follows : —
1. Matt. 18 : 8, " Having two eyes, two hands," &c., " to be
cast into hell fire," or " into everlasting fire " (j6 twq i6 aldiviov) —
(r^y yievttv ton) nvgdg),
2. Matt. 25 : 46, " These shall go away into everlasting (eter-
nal) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal {x6Xaaii^
alibvtop and tfij^iv al(aviop). The same adjective is used in both
places here, in the Greek ; but our translators have seen fit to ren-
der it " everlasting " in the first place, and " eternal " in the sec-
ond. There is no authority for such a different translation. The
word xdXaaig, translated " punishment," occurs in one other
place in the New Testament; this is (1 John 4: 18), "Perfect
love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment." In this last in-
stance, it is evident that the idea of punishment is not found, but
476 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
only that of suffering. In the LXX. . (Ezek. 14 : 3, 4, 7) it is
translated ** stumbling-block," and means, says Scbleusner (Lexi-
con in LXX.), " all that is the source of misfortune or suffering."
Donnegan gives as its meaning, ** the act of clipping or pruniug ;
generally, restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement ; lit,
and met,, punishment."
The true translation of the passage, then, is, —
** These shall go away into the sufferings or punishments of eter-
nity J and the righteous, into the life of eternity."
The simple, direct, and natural meaning, therefore, of this pas-
sag^ is, that, besides temporal joy and suffering, there are eternal .
joy and suffering : besides the joys and sufferings which have their
root in time and in temporal things, there ai*e joys and sufferings
which have their root in eternity and in eternal things. In the
twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, the sufferings of eternity are de-
scribed as following directly upon judgment, and as being its nat-
ural consequence. The judgment on each soul consists, according
to this passage, in showing it its real character. Both the good and
the bad are represented as needing such a judgment as this.
Until the judgment takes place, men are described as being igno-
rant of the true nature of their own past conduct. They do not
know their own good or their own evil : they do not understand
themselves as they really are. They have done good and bad ac-
tions, but have not understood the value of those actions. They
have not seen, that in every deed of charity, in every act of hum-
ble benevolence, they were helping Christ and his cause. They
have not understood, that, by every selfish and cruel deed, they
were injuring their Master. But the judgment reveals all this to
them, and lifts them immediately out of temporal joy or pain
into eternal joy or pain. They rise out of temporal things into
eternal things, and tl^e new insight is to them a source of spiritual
joy or spiritual suffering.
In some instances, if al(aPiog were translated ** everlasting " or
" never-ending," it would make such palpable nonsense, that our
translators have been obliged to give it an entirely different ren-
dering. Thus (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1 : 2) we have the phrase 7iq6
K^6v(t}v ahjjyiojp ; which would be, literally, "before eternity," or
" before everlasting time began," according to the common rerider-
ing. They have, therefore, translated it " before the world began."
In the same way (Matt. 24: 3; 1 Cor. 10: 11), they are obliged
to change their usual rendering, or they would have to say, ** So
APPENDIX. 477
shall it be at the end of forever ; *' or, " The ends of eternity
have arrived.**
Mark 9 : 43-60, it is said that the " worm does not die " in Ge-
henna, and " the fire is not quenched." This, therefore, is thought
to teach the doctrine of never-ending punishment hereafter ; but
this was a proverbial expression, taken from the book of Isaiah.
Chap. 66 : 24, the prophet says, that, in the times of the Mes-
siah, all men shall come, and worship in the presence of Jehovah ;
and shall then go out, and look upon the dead bodies of the men
who had transgressed against the Lord ; " for their worm shall
not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an
abhorring unto all ffesh." Our Saviour, therefore, is not making an
original doctrinal statement, but he is quoting from Isaiah. Now,
the passage in Isaiah refers, not to punishment of the soul here-
after, but to the destruction of the bodies of transgressors in the
valley of Hinnom. The fire and the worms in that valley were
not everlasting in any strict sense. When Isaiah says, " Their
worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched," he expresses
merely the utter destruction which would fall upon them. The
fire and the worms of the valley of Uinnom have long since disap-
peared ; but, while the fire lasted, it was the emblem, to the Jews,
of the destruction which was to fall upon those who resisted the
will of Jehovah. But it is not to be supposed that the idea of
eternity, which is not in the original image, should be added in the
figure. The fire and the worms were to last in the valley of Hin-
nom as long as there were idolaters to be punished for their idola-
try ; and so the spiritual suffering consequent upon sin lasts as long
as sin lasts. Sin is perpetuat misery ; conscience is a worm which
never dies ; bad passions are a fire which is never extinguished.
This is the simple and natural meaning of this passage.
3. Matt. 26 : 24. In this passage, as it stands in our translation,
Jesus says concerning Judas, " Woe to that man by whom the
Son of man is betrayed ! It were good for that man if he had never
been born." (Mark 14 : 21.) The argument is, that, if it were
good for Judas not to have been born, it must be impossible that
he should ever repent and be saved ; because, if he should ever be
saved, and his punishment should cease (though at ever so remote
a period), it would be better for him to have been born than not
to have been borij ; since there would remain an eternity of hap-
piness to be enjoyed afterwards. And if this be true of Judas, it
may be also true of others.
478 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
But, in reply to this argument, we say, —
1. The translation is doubtful. The literal translation is, " Woe
to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! It had been
good for him if that man had never been born." This is the literal
rendering of the Greek ; and the apparent meaning seems to be,
** that it had been good for the Son of man if Judas had not been
bom." Jesus seems to say that it is a greats woe to him, a great
sorrow, to be betrayed by one of his own friends, by a member of
his own household. It would have been good for Jesus, if this
traitor, who was to wound his heart so deeply, had never existed.
2. But, retaining our present translation, the natural application
of it is to this life. It means simply this : The earthly life of this
man is an entire failure. His life is wholly thrown away. He had
better never have been in the world, than to stand, as he will to all
time, a monument of the basest treachery. The idea of the future
life does not come in at all here.
On the whole, one must feel, in reading these books and tracts,
that such writers are more to be pitied than to be blamed.
Confined in the strait-jacket of an austere theology j steeped to the
lips in Calvinism ; working painfully all his life in sectarian har-
ness ; with an angry heaven over his head, and a ruined earth
about his feet ; his friends and neighbors dropping into hell by
thousands every year; never having had any real sight of the
blessed face of Jesus ; having for them no hope full of immortality,
but, instead thereof, a terror full of damnation, — even a kindly
nature and an affectionate heart must suffer, be dwarfed and
crippled.
It is not an agreeable task to refut% such errors ; but believing
them equally destructive, in their tendency, to piety and morali-
ty, — corrupting the Christian life at its centre, and weakening its
chief source of power, — we feel it a duty not to be avoided. Ad-
vancing age does not make us conservative in regard to such doc-
trines. The longer we live, the more we see of their evil tendency.
When young, we shrank from attacking them, fearing lest they
might contain some truth beyond the range of our limited ex-
perience. But, having come to see wherein the essence of Chris-
tian truth lies in all vai*ieties of pious experience, we know that
this doctrine is an excrescence, weakening always the vital power
of the gospel. It rests on custom, on cowardice, on the fear of
change, not on any positive insight or substantial knowledge.
But, as Tertullian declared of another doctrine defended by pre«
APPENDIX. 479
cedent, " Chrwt did not say, * I am the Custom,' but, * I am the
Truth.' "
The time will come in which the. Christian Church will look back
upon its past belief in this doctrine as it looks back now on its
former universal belief in the duty of persecution, the primacy of
the pope, or the atonement made by Christ to Satan. It will re-
gard it with the horror with which it now regards its former uni-
versal conviction, that God was pleased when his children burned
each other alive for difference of opinion. We now shudder when
we hear of " An Act of Faith," consisting in burning at the
stake ten or twenty Jews and Protestants. Our children will
shudder with a still more inward grief that we could make it an
act of faith to believe that God burns millions of his own children
in unquenchable fire forever because they deny Calvin's view of
the atonement, or the Church definition of the Trinity, or because
of any possible amount of sin committed in this world.
We now proceed to add some remarks upon a recent work by
Dr. Thompson of New York, a zealous and favorite disciple of the
late Dr. Taylor of New Haven. This book, the title of which is,
" Love and Penalty," consists of nine lectures delivered in the
Broadway Tabernacle.
With the contents of some of the chapters we have nothing to
do. All the arguments for retribution, derived from the nature
of God, the nature of man, the course of Providence, the demerit
of sin, have for their object to prove what all Christians fully be-
lieve. Unitarians and UniversaUsts, Theodore Parker and R. W.
Emerson, teach retribution, present and future, with a force which
leaves little need of additional arguments from Orthodoxy. They
teach a perfect and inevitable retribution, proceeding both from the
pruth and goodness of God, by means of which every man reaps as
he sows. Orthodoxy, they complain, teaches no such full and per-
fect retribution. All that part of this volume, therefore, which is
intended to show the probability of retribution, is wasted, so far as
any opposers are concerned. In this part of his book. Dr. Thomp-
son fights as one who beats the air. He is very zealous to dis-
prove that which no one asserts, to prove that which no one
denies, and to show the folly of a position which no one assumes.
The confusion referred to runs through the whole book; and
perhaps there is no better illustration .than this volume presents
of that logical fallacy which is called ^* the irrelevant conclusion."
480 ORTHODOXY: ITS TROTHS AND ERRORS.
This fallacy consists in proving one thing, and making merf think
you have proved another. Dr. Thompson's hearers saw that he
proved future retribution, and thought that he proved eternal pun
ishment. We do not suppose that he intended to sophisticate
them : the difficulty seems rather to be, that he has sophisticated
himself. The ignoratio elenchi is in his own mind. He thinks,
because he sees penalty, that he has seen vengeance ; that, because
he has established retribution, he has demonstrated everlasting
punishment.
A reasoner has, no doubt, a perfect right to try to prove two dis-
tinct and independent propositions ; but he must keep them dis-
tinct and independent, and not pretend to be proving one when he
is proving the other. He has also a perfect right, if he desires to
establish one proposition, to prove another, ai> the first step towards
it ; but he has no right to assume or imply that he has made out
one of his points, when he has only shown the probability of the
other.
Now, our author (p. 19) declares that he has one object ; viz.,
to show the truth of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. He
says, *' It will be the aim of this series of lectures to show that the
doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked is in entire har-
mony with the paternal character of God,^^ He then proceeds to
give the substance of his argument, under eight heads. Six of
these only prove future retribution, and only two of them have any
direct bearing upon the main question. Yet, through all of them,
there runs a quiet assumption, that they are bearing directly on
the main question. This is the radical sophism of the whole
volume. We may see this more plainly by analyzing some of his
chapters. .
His first position is this, in Lecture I. : " Our own nature, which
is appealed to as refusing to recognize the attribute of punitive
justice in a God of love, in fact demands this attribute, as essen-
tial to the moral perfection of the Deity — an attribute without
which he could not command the confidence and homage of his
intelligent creatures."
Before attempting to demonstrate any theorem, it is important
to define its terms. An accurate definition at first of what we wish
to prove would often make a long discussion unnecessary. What
is meant by the " aUrihute of punitive justice " ? Does it mean
that God s nature is such that he causes happiness to flow from
goodness, and sufiering from wickedness, in the constitution of the
APPENDIX. 481
universe ? If this is meant. Dr. Thompson will find no one to op-
pose him ; for all this can take place ia perfect accordance with
divine love to the sinner himself> What he needs is suffering:
this is the way by which he is to be cure^ of that sin which is a
greater evil than suffering. Or does the author mean, by ** puni-
tive justice/' some attribute of the divine nature which finds pleas-
ure in punishing the sinner, without regard to any good which is
to come from it, either to him or to any one else ? Apparentjy, this
last is what he means; for he goes on to quote from Bagan author-
ities and Pagan religions, to show that conscience in man requires
that the wicked should be punished, without any regard to any
good to result fi'om it But these authorities only show, that, in
the one-sided action of man's nature, the sense of justice acts in-
dependently of love. What Dr^ Thompson has undertaken to
show is, that it can act in Ood in harmony with love. In man,
conscience produces hatred of sin, without regard to the good of
the sinner ; but the divine conscience acts in no such one-sided way.
"Mercy and truth meet together; righteousness and peace kiss
each other." The law is vindicated and the sinner benefited at
the same moment
The atonement of Christ, objectively considered, consisted ex-
actly in this, that he showed a perfect reconciliation, in his own
life, of God's hatred to sin, and love to the sinner. No one was
ever so averse from sin, no one was ever so in sympathy with the
sinner, as Jesus. The power of his life, death, and higher life, lay
in this union of holiness and love* This was the objective atone-
ment in Christ, and ia this he was God manifest in the flesh. He
who has seen him has seen the Father. The Christianized con-
science, following Christ, pities the sinner, while it abhors the sin.
Christian legislation lays aside the vindictive tendencies of natural
law, and seeks at the same time to destroy evil, to protect society,
and to reform the criminal. From this gospel view our author re-
mands us to Paganism, and to the dicta of the natural conscience
in unregenerate man. These testimonies only show, that conscience,
in its unregenerate state, demands that the sinner be punished,
and does not care whether that punishment does him good or
harm, makes him better or worse. But conscience, when Chris-
tianized, does care : it wishes to save the sinner, while it punishes
the sin. As far as the natural conscience goes, it speaks ti*uly in
saying that evil should follow sin. But why it should follow it,
41
482 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
and what shall be the result, it does not say. That was lefl to
Christ to reveal.
Dr. Thompson himself bears witness, unconsciously, to the truth
of this distinction. Along with his testimonies from the Heathen
conscience, he gives us two testimonies from the Christian con-
science. The one is his own feelings on seeing a woman carried
to the Tombs. He says he felt sympathy for her, and would fain
have saved her from that shame, while he wished her crime to be
punished. The other is the testimony of Dr. Bushnell, that the
" necessary reason " why wicked people, remaining wicked, should
not be in heaven, is, that it would destroy the happiness of heaven.
These two Christians, therefore, have consciences which do not tes-
tify to punishment proceeding from naked, arbitrary, and vindic-
tive law, such as the Pagan conscience accepts, but punishment
having a reasonable end, a benevolent purpose, and accompanied
with sympathy for the sinner.
Another position of Dr. Thompson is, however, so extraordi-
nary, that it needs more consideration. His fifth proposition is
this : " The high and sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals
is a Fatherhood in Christ towards those who love him, and not a
general Fatherhood of indiscriminate love and blessing for the
race^
A certain want of logical clearness in our author's mind appears
in the very statement of this proposition. He joins together a
positive and a negative, which have no antithetical relation. We
entirely agree with him, that the Fatherhood of God is not one
of indiscriminate love and blessing for the -race ; but we utterly
reject the proposition, that the Fatherhood which Christ reveals is
only one towards those who love him. The apostle John tells us
that " we love him because he first loved us." And again : " Here-
in is love ; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The doctrine of the
apostle is exactly opposite to that of Dr. Thompson. The mVxlera
divine teaches that God only loves those who first love him ; but
the ancient divine teaches that only by God's loving us first do we
come to love him. Nor is this doctrine peculiar to John. It is a
fundamental truth of the New Testament, that God's fatherly love,
manifested to the soul, creates an answering love, and that nothing
else can create it. Jesus said of the woman, " She loved much ;
but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." God's for-
giving love comes first, and creates a grateful love in return. And
APPENDIX. 483
again we read (John 3 : 16), " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only-begotten §on." He therefore loved the world while
it was still alienated from him. And again we are told by the
Saviour (Matt. 5:44) to "love our enemies, that we may be the
children of our Father in heaven," who loves "his enemies.
Possibly our friend may say, " Yes, God loves the sinner j but
he does not love him with a fatherly love, but only with a general
love." Perhaps a copy of the New Testament may be used in the
Tabernacle Church, New York, which does not contain the Para-
ble of the Prodigal Son. Only on some such supposition can we
account for this assertion of Dr. Thompson, that ** the high and
sacred Fatherhood whicTi the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in
Christ towards those who love him." Is that " high and sacred
Fatherhood of Ood" revealed anywhere more fully and plainly
than in this parable? and does it not teach expressly that the
father loved the son, while he wa>9 absent, as a son ? Is not his
joy at the return of his son the evi^nce of that love which clung
to him while he was away ? Even after the son returned, he had
not begun to love his father as a son : he did not think he had any
right to do so. He did not expect that his father would love him
again : he only expected to be as a servant. It is evidently, then,
utterly false to say that God's Fatherhood, revealed in the gospel,
is only a Fatherhood towards those who love him : it is a Father-
hood to those who hate him and to thpse who fear him. His love
creates theirs, and is not created by it. Such a doctrine as this of
Dr. Thompson, if generally believed, would sap the foundations of
Christian life, and turn the gos])el of reconciling grace into a cold
system of retribution.
As a proof of this melancholy opinion, — an opinion which takes
the life out of the gospel, — the author relies chiefly on that pas-
sage in which Jesus says to the Jews that they were of their father
the devil. (John 8 : 44.) From this he argues that they had no
right to regard God as Father, and that no one has that right ex-
cept pious believers in Christ. But was not God at that very mo-
ment tleir Father, in the same way that the father of the prodigal
son wi« his father while he was yet in the far countrj- ? The prod-
igal son could not see his father's love : while absent from him, he
could not tell how much his father loved him. Only when he re-
turned, and came back to his father's house, could he behold that
blessed countenance and feel that pardoning love. But none the
le^s did his father love him during all that absence ; none the less
did he desire his return.
484 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
When Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, " Ye are of your fether
the devil," was he describing God's state* of mind, or their state
of mind? Did he mean that God was alienated from them, or
that they were alienated from God ?' He evidently meant to say
that they were in a devilish state of mind ; that in their character
and feelings they partook of the spirit of the devil, and not of the
spirit of God. He was describing their position in relation to
God, not God's position in relation to them. The text, therefore^
appears to have no direct bearing on the subject. It teaches, in-
deed, that they could have no truly filial feeling towards God ; but
it does not show that he might not have^ a truly parental feeling
towards them. If they could not truly say, " Abba, Father," he
could say, " My son, give me thy heart."
We dwell on this because our author seems to us to have as-
sumed a position injurious, if not fatal, to the most vital force of
the gospel. That which subdues and converts the heart, and makes
all things new in the soul, is not to be told, that God will be our
Father when we love him, but that he is our Father now. " Here-
in is love ; not that we loved God, but that he loved us." " God
commends his love toward us, that, while we were sinners, Christ
died for us." But why multiply quotations to prove that which is
written on the face of the gospel, and to which all Christian ex-
perience bears testimony ? It is God's love to us, descending in
Christ, while we are estranged and far off, which draws up our
affection to him : it is not our love which takes the initiative, and
draws his down.
The sixth position argues future retribution from the demerit of
sin, and asserts that ** no punishment equal to the demerit of sin
is, or can be, inflicted in the present life."
The boldness of this proposition is only equalled by the poverty
of the reasoning by which it is supported. To assert that it is 'not
in the power of God adequately to punish sin in this world, is to
profess a knowledge of the resources of Omnipotence, and an ac-
quaintance with the deserts of man, which it seems to us presump-
tuous to claim. On this point it is not necessary to enlarge. An
a priori argument to prove that God cannot punish sin in this life
as much as it deserves to be punished, can carry conviction to no
mind which possesses any intellectual humility.
The seventh position declares that '* there is no conceivable mode
and no revealed promise by which the Fatherhood of God can
make one, dying in impenitence and unbelief, holy and blessed in
the future world."
APPENDIX. 486
This is, of course, the very key-stone of the argument m support
of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. The burden of proof
rests upon those who assert that doctrine. It is not enough that
Scripture does not expressly declare that there is an opportunity
in the other life for repentance and pardon ; for Scripture is deal-
ing with us in this life, and has no occasion to say much of the
opportunities of the other. Those who wish to prove that there
is no opportunity hereafter must show some text which expressly
declares it. No such text is produced, and there is no such text
in the Bible. If Jesus had said, " You must re])ent in this life, for
after death there will be no opportunity j " or, " At death, man's
spiritual condition is finally determined ; " or, " After this life, man
cannot turn from evil to good,'' — we should have some distinct
proof of the doctrine. But now we have none.
The Parable of Dives and Lazarus is referred to more than once
by our author in support of his position. It is sufRcicnt to say in
regard to this, that the most Orthodox commentators, provided
they are scholars, expressly deny that this refers to the doctrine of
everlasting punishment. Olshausen, for instance, says, '* Rightly
to understand the whole delineation, we must, above all, keep clear-
ly in view, that it is not everlasting salvation or condemnation
which is here described, but the middle state of depai'ted souls,
between death and the resurrection." ** In our parable, there is
no possible reference to the everlasting condemnation of the rich
man, inasmuch as the germ of love, and of faith in love, is clearly
expressed in his words." The word translated " hell " in this par-
able is not Gehenna, but Hades.
Our author says, and says justly, that we can form no opinion
as to another probation hereafter from a priori reasoning, but that
the question must be answered only from Scripture. Having said
this, he immediately proceeds to argue it, a priori, stating that there
Bi'e only three conceivable modes by which those dying impenitent
can be saved; and then tries to show that neither is possible.
After this, he quotes a few passages bearing only indirectly, and by
inference, upon the question. The Parable of the Ten Virgins is
•one of these, because in it it is said, ** The door is shut ; " and,
" Depart ! I know you not." With regard to this parable, also,
Olshausen says that " the words * I know you not ' cannot denote
eternal condemnation ; " that the foolish virgins were " saved, but
not sanctified; " and that the parable does not distinguish between
41*
486 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
the penitent and the impenitent, hut hetween the penitent believ-
ers who watch and those who do not watch.
Of course, we have not been able to notice all the arguments of
this book, or all the texts referred to ; but we have perhaps said
enough to show that its positions are not all tenable, and that its
arguments are not absolutely unanswerable. This book of Ur.
Thompson, though able, cannot be called conclusive.
§ 5. Defence of the Trinity ^ by Frederick B, Huntington, 2>. D.
The last section of this Appendix shall be devoted to an examina-
tion and criticism of Dr. Huntington's sermon, printed some time
since, in defence of the Trinity. The course of our argument will
be as follows. We shall give the reasons which have induced
Unitarians to reject the Church doctrine of the Trinity ; also ex-
amining Dr. Huntington's positions and arguments in its support
The principal reasons, then, for rejecting the Church doctrine
of the Trinity, as assigned by Unitarians, are these : —
1. That it is nowhere taught in the New Testament.
2. That every statement of the Trinity, which has ever been
made, has been either, (1.) Self-contradictory; (2.) Unintelligible;
(3.) Tritheistic ; or, (4.) Unitarian, in the form of Sabellianism, or
of Arianism.
3. That the arguments for it are inadequate.
4. That the arguments against it are overwhelming.
5. That the good ascribed to it does not belong to it, but to the
truths which underlie it.
6. That great evils to the Church come from it.
7. That it is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith.
8. That we can trace its gradual historic formation in the Chris-
tian Church.
9. That it is opposed to a belief in the real divinity of Christ,
and to a belief in his real humanity ; thus undermining continually
the faith of the Chuich in the divine humanity of Christ Jesus the
Lord.
Proceeding, then, to an examination of these reasons, we say, —
I. The Church doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the-
New Testament.
To prove this, as it is a negative proposition, would require us to
go through the whole New Testament. But we are saved this
necessity by the fact that we have a statement on this point from
one of Dr. Huntington's own witnesses, and one on whom he
APPENDIX. ' 487
mainly relies. He brings forward Neander, the great Church his-
torian, as a believer in the Trinity (p. 361), and again (p. 378),
by an error which he has since candidly admitted, quotes
him as saying, ** It is the fundamental article of the Christian
faith," — which is just what he denies in the following passage.
We call Neander to the stand, however, noWf to have his unim-
peachable testimony as a Trinitarian (and a Trinitarian claimed by
Dr. Huntington with pride) to the fact, that the doctrine of the
Trinity is nowhere stated in the New Testament. This is what
Neander says of the Trinity, in the first volume of his great work
on Church History (p. 572, Torrey's translation) : —
" We now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken in its
connection with the proper and fundamental essence of Christianity,
or with the doctrine of redemption, finds its ultimate completion —
the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine does'not strictly belong
to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as appears suffi-
ciently evident from the fact, that it is expressly held forth in no
one particular passage of the New Testament ; for the only one in
which it is done, the passage relating to the three that bear record
(1 John 5 : 7), is undoubtedly spurious, and in its ungenuine shape,
testifies to the fact, how foreign such a collocation is from the style
of the New Testament Scriptures. We find in the New Testament
no other fundamental article than that of which the apostle Paul
Bays, that other foundation can no man lay than that is laid -r- the
annunciation of Jesus as the Messiah."
With this authority we might be content. But Dr. Huntington
differs from Neander in thinking that Jesus has himself stated the
doctrine of the Trinity, and stated it clearly and fully, in the bap-
tismal formula. (Matt. 28 ; 19.) He says that this is " a clear
and full declaration of the fundamental article of Christian belief."
He says, ** Now, if ever, Christ will distinctly proclaim the doctrine
of Christendom ; " and he then declai'es that Christ, in this pas-
sage, told his Church to baptize " in the Triune name." *
Not in the lixiune name, certainly. This is an assumption of our
friend. He may think that this is implied ; that this is to be in-
ferred ; that this is what Christ meant ; but certainly it is not what
Christ said. Christ gives us here three objects of baptism, no
doubt ; but he does not say that they are one. How far this bap-
tismal formula is " a clear and full declaration " of the doctrine
* (< Abi ad Jordanum, ct Trinitatcm disce," was an early notion.
488* ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
of the Trinity will appear thus. The doctrine of the Trinity
declares, —
1. That the Father is God.
2. That the Son is God.
3. That the Holy Ghost is God.
4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, like the Father and
the Son.
5. That these three persons constitute one God.
Of these five propositions, all of which are essential to the doc-
trine of the Trinity, not one is stated in the baptismal formula*
Christ here says nothing ahout the deity of the Father, the Son, or
the Holy Ghost ; nothing about the personality of either of them ;
.and nothing about their unity. It is difficult to conceive, there-
fore, how Dr. Huntington can bring himself to call this a com-
mand to baptize in the Triune name.
Dr. Huntington adds, " Our faith is summoned to the three per-
sons of the one God." But nothing is said of three persons;
nothing is said of then* being one God.
He says, " No hint is given that there is any difierence of nature,
dignity, duFation, power, or glory, between them."
We admit it, but also say, that no hint is given of any equality of
nature, dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them. Which
way, then, is the argument ? Christ does not state, on the one band,
that the three are unequal or different : he does not state, on the
other hand, that they are equal and the same. The inference of
proof from this fact seems to us to be this: If the apostles, when
Christ spoke to them, were already full believers in the church
doctrine of the Trinity, the fact that Christ did not deny it would
be an argument in its favor ; but if the apostles were, at that time,
wholly ignorant of the Trinity, then the fact, that he did not assert
it distinctly, at least shows that he did not mean to teach it at that
time. That inference appears to us a very modest one. But Dr.
Huntington will admit that they did not know the doctrine ; for
he tells us that it was the purpose of Christ to teach it to them at
that time. To which we can only repl;^*, If he meant to teach the
doctrine, why did he not teach it P
That the word Trinity is not to be found in the New Testament,
and that it was invented by TertuUian, is a matter of little conse-
quence ; but that the doctrine itself should be nowhere stated in
the New Testament we conceive to be a matter of very great con-
sequence. We have seen that Dr. Huntington's attempt to show
APPENDIX. 489
•
that it is stated in the baptismal formula is a £ailure. If not stated
there, we presume that he will not maintain that it is stated any-
where. We therefore agree with Neander in saying, that, whether
the doctrine be true or not, it is not taught distinctly in the New
Testament. K taught at all, it is only taught inferentially ; that
is, it is a matter of reasoning, not a matter of faith. It is meta-
physics : it is not religion.
IL The second reason why Unitarians reject the Church doctrine
of the Trinity is this : —
That every statement of the Trinity has proved, on examination,
to be either, (1.) A contradiction in terms ; or, (2.) Unintelligible ;
or, (3.) Tritheistic ; or, (4.) Unitarianism under a Trinitarian fomi.
Let us examine this objection. What is the general statement
of the Trinity, as made by the Orthodox Church, Catholic and
Protestant ? Fortunately, this question is easily answered.
Orthodoxy has been consistent since the middle ages in its gen-
eral statement, however much it may have varied in its explana-
tions of what it meant by that statement.
The doctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds of the
churches, is this ; —
There is in the nature of God three persons, — the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, — and these three are one being. They
are tha same in substance, equal in power and glory. Each of
these three persons is very God, infinite in all attribute^ ; and yet
there are not three Gods, but one God.
According to the general doctrine of Orthodoxy, the unity of
God is in being, essence, and substance ; that is, God is one being,
God is one essence, God is one substance. The threefold division
stops short of the being of God : it does not penetrate to his
essential nature : it does not divide his substance.
What, then, is the Trinity ? It is a Trinity of persons.
But what is meant by " person," as used in this doctrine ? Ac-
cording to the common and familiar use of the word at the present
time, three persons are three beings. Personality expresses the
most individual existence imaginable. If, therefore, the word
" person " is to be taken according to the common use of the
phrase, the doctrine of the Trinity would be evidently a contra-
diction in terms. It would be equivalent to saying, God is one
being, but God is three beings ; which again would be equivalent
to saying that one is three.
490 ORTHODOXY : ITS* TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
Now, Trinitariang generally are too acute and clear-sighted to
fall into such a palpable contradiction as this. It is a common ac-
cusation against them, that they believe one to be three, and three
one ; but this charge is, in most cases, unjust. This would be
only true in case they affirmed that God is thi^ee in the same way
in which he is one j but they do not usually say this. They
declare that he is one being, — not three beings. They declare
that the threefold distinction relates to personality, not to being,
and that they use the word " person," not in the common sense,
but in a peculiar sense, to express, as well as they can, a distinc-
tion, which, from the poverty of language, no word can be found
to express exactly. Thus St. Augustine confessed, long ago, " We
say that there are three persons, not in order to say anything, but
in order not to be wholly silent." Non ut aliquid diceretur, sed
ut ne iaceretur. And so Archbishop Whately, in the notes to his
Logic, regrets that the word " person " should ever have been
used by our divines ; and says, " If hypostasis^ or any other com-
pletely foreign word, had been used instead, no idea at all would
have been conveyed, except that of the explanation given ; and
thus the danger, at least, of being misled by a word, woul4 ha> ?
been avoided."
(1.) The Unintelligible Statement.
The Trinitarian thus avoids asking us to believe a contradic-
tion; but, in avoiding this, he runs upon another rock — that,
namely, of not asking us to believe anything at all ; for if " person "
here does not meoxx what it commonly means, and if it be impos-
sible, from the poverty of language, to define precisely the idea
which is intended by it, we are then asked to believe a proposition
which Trinitarians themselves are unable to express. But a propo-
sition which is not expressed is no proposition. A proposition, any
important term of which is unintelligible, is wholly unintelligible.
To make this matter clear, let us put it into a conversational
form. We will suppose that two persons meet together, — one a
Unitarian, the other a Trinitarian.
Trinitarian, You do not believe the Trinity ? Then you can-
not be saved. No one can be saved who denies the Trinity. It is
a vital and fundamental doctrine.
Unitarian. Tell me what it is, and I will see if I can believe it.
What is the Trinity P
' Trin, God exists as one being, but three persons.
APPENDIX. 491
Unit What do you mean by " person " ? Do you mean a per-
son like Peter, James, or John ? •
THn, No ; we use " person " from the poverty of language.
We do not mean that.
Unit. What, then, do you mean by it ?
Trin. It is a mystery. We cannot understand it precisely.
Unit. I have no objection to the doctrine being mysterious ; I
believe a great many things which are mysterious ; but I don't
want the language to be mysterious. You might as well use a
Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Chinese word, and ask me to believe that
there ai*e three hypostases or three prosopa in Deity, if you do not
tell me what you mean by the word " person."
Trin. It is a great mystery. It 'is a matter of faith, not of
reasoning. You must believe it, and not speculate about it.
Unit. Believe it ? Believe what 9 I am waiting for you to tell
me what I am to believe. I am ready to exercise my faith ; but
you are tasking, not my faith, but my knowledge of language. I
suppose that you do not wish me to believe words, but thoughts.
I wish to look through the word, and see what thought lies
behind it.
Now, it seems to us that this is a verj' fair demand of the Uni-
tarian. To ask us to believe a proposition, any important term of
which is unintelligible, is precisely equivalent to asking us to
believe no proposition at all. Let us listen to Paul : " Even things
without life, giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give
a distinction In the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or
harped ? For, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall
prepare himself for battle ? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the
tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what
is spoken ? for ye shall speak into the air, . . . For, if I know not
the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that si)eaketh a bar-
barian ; and he that speaketh, a barbarian unto me.^'
It is of no use to talk about mystery in order to excuse our-
selves for not using intelh'gible language. That which is myste-
rious is one. thing ; that wliich is unintelligible is quite another
thing. We may understand what a mystery is, though we cannot
comprehend how it is j but that which is unintelligible we neither
comprehend nor understand at all. We neither know how it is, nor
what it is. Thus, for example, the fact of God's foreknowledge
and man's freedom is a mystery. I cannot comprehend how God
can foreknow what I am to do to-morrow, and yet I be free to do
492 ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS.
it or not to do it. I cannot comprehend how Jesus should be de-
livered to death by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of
God, and yet the Jews have been free agents in crucifj-ing him
and accountable for it. These things are mysteries ; but they are
not unintelligible as doctrines. I see what is meant by them.
There is no obscurity in the assertion that God foreknows every-
thing, nor in the'other assertion that man is a free agent. I can see
clearly what is implied in both statements, although my mind can-
not grasp both,^and bring them together, and show the way in
which they may be reconciled. So, too, infinity is a mysterj*. We
cannot comprehend it. Our mind cannot go round it, grasp it,
sustain it. Our thought sinks baffled before the attempt to pene-
trate to the depth of such a wonderful idea. But we understand
well enough what is meant by infinity. There is nothing obscure
in the statement of the fact, that the universe is unbounded. So
the way in which a flower grows from its seed is mysterious^ "We
cannot comprehend how the wonderful principle of life can be
wrapped up in those little folds, and how it can cause the root to
strike downward, and the airy stalk to spring lightly upward, and
the leaves to unfold, and, last of all, the bright, consummate flower
to open its many-colored eye. But certainly we can understand
very well the statement that a flower grows, though we do not com-
prehend how it grows.
Do not, then, tell us, when you have announced a doctrine, the
language of which is unintelligible, that you have told us a mys-
tery. You have done no such thing. Your proposition is not
mysterious : it is unintelligible. It is not a mystery : it is only a
mystification.
(2.) The Tritheistic Statement,
Leaving, then, this ground of mystery, and attempting to define
more clearly what he means by three persons and one substance,
the Trinitarian often sinks the Unity in the Triplicity, and so runs
ashore upon Tritheism. This happens when he explains the term
** person " as implying independent existence ; in which case the
Unity is changed into Union. Then we have really three Gods :
the Father, who devises the plan of redemption ; the Son, who
goes forth to execute it ; and the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies be-
lievers. If there are these three distinct beings, they can be called
one God only as they are one in will, in aim, in purpose, — only as
they agree perfectly on aU points. The Unity of God, then, be-
APPENDIX. 493
comes only a unity of agreement, not a unity of being. This is
evidently not the Unity which is taught in the Bible, where Jesus
declares that the j^r*^ of all the commandments is, " Hear, O Israel !
the Lord our God is one Lord."
Moreover, against such a Trinity as this there are insuperable
objections, from grounds of reason as well as of Scripture.
For God is the Supreme Being, the Most High; and how can
there be three Supreme Beings, three Most High Gods ? Again :
God is the First Cause ; but if the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are each God, and all equal in power and majesty, and have
each an independent existence, then there are three first causes ;
which is evidently impossible. Again: one of the attributes of
God is his independent or absolute existence. A being who de-
pends on another cannot be the Supreme God. The Father, Son,
and Spirit, therefore, cannot depend on each other ; for each, by
depending on another, would cease to be the independent God.
But, if they do not depend on each other, then each ceases to be
God, who is the First Cause ; for that being is not the First Cause
who has two other beings independent of him. Other arguments
of the same kind might be adduced to show that there cannot be
three necessary beings. In fact, all the arguments from reason,
which go to prove the Unity of God, prove a unity of nature, not
of agreement.
" But why argue against Tritheism P " you may say. " Are any
Tritheists ? " Yes : "many Trinitarians are in reality Tritheists, by
their own account of themselves. There are many who make the
Unity of God a mere unity of agreement, and talk about the so-
cietf/ in the Godhead, and the intercourse between the Father, Son,
and Spirit.*
* Dr. Horace Bushnell, a favorite authority with Dr. ITuntington, whom Dr.
Huntingfton quotes largely, and whose views he earnestly recommends, gives
us his testimony to this point, thus (" God in Christ," pp. 130, 131) : —
*' A very large portion of Christian teacliers, together with the general mass
of disciples, undoubtedly hold three real living persons in the interior nature
of God; that is, three consciousnesses, wills, hearts, understandings."
" A very large portion of Christian teachers " hold, then, to a belief in three
Gods ; and with them is joined »' tJie general mass of the disciples." The only
Unity held by these teachers is, he goes on to say, " a social Unity." Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are, in their view, socially united only, and preside in
that way, as a kind of celestial Trithoocracy, over the world. This heresy,
he says, ** because of its clear opposition to Unitarianism, is counted safe, and
never treated as a heresy." That is, the Christian Church allows the belief
in three Gods, and will not discipline those who hold that opinion; but, if yoa
believe strictly and only in one God^ you cannot be saved '.
42
494 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Opposed to this kind of Trinity is another view, in which the
Unity is preserved, but the Trinity lost. According to this view,
God is one Being, who reveals himself in three ways, — as Father,
as Son, as Spirit, — or sustains three relations, or manifests him-
self in three modes of operation. The Trinity here becomes a
nominal thing, and is, in reality, only Unitarianism with an Ortho-
dox name. This kind of Trinity also is very prevalent, and is the one
really maintained by men of high standing in the Orthodox Church,
both in Europe and America. According to this view, the word
" person " in the doctrine of the Trinity means the same as the cor-
responding word in Greek and Latin formerly meant ; namely, the
outward character, not the inward individuality. Thus Cicero
says, " I, being one, sustain three persons or characters ; my own,
that of my client, and that of the judge " — Ego unus, sustineo
ires personas.
This view of the Trinity is commonly called Modalism, or Sa-
bellianism, and is also widely held by those who call themselves
Trinitarians. It is, in fact, only Unitarianism under a Trinitarian
name.*
(3.) The Subordination View,
Avoiding these two extremes, and yet wishing to retain a
distinct idea of Unity and Tri-personality, the Trinitarian is neces-
sarily driven upon a third view, in which the Father is the only
really Supreme and Independent Being, th» Son and the Holy
Spirit subordinate and dependent.
This view, which is called the subordination scheme, or Arian-
ism, is Unitarianism again in another form ; and this view also is
entertained by many who still retain the name of " Trinitarians."
According to this view, the Son and the Holy Ghost are really
God, but are so by a derived divinity. God the Father communi-
* Dr. Bushnell goes on to say (p. 133), " While the Unity is thus confused
and lost in the thrceness, perhaps I should admit that the thrceness some-
times appears to be clouded or obscured by the Unity. Thus it is sometimes
protested, that in the word, ' person ' nothing is meant beyond a threefold
distinction ; though it will always be observed, that nothing is really meant
by the protestation ; that the protester goes on to speak and to reason of tho
three, not as being only somewhats or distinctions, but as metaphysical and
real persons. . . : Indeed, it is a somewhat curious fact in theology, that the
class of teachers who protest over the word * person,* declaring that they
mean only a threefold distinctiont cannot show that there is really a hair*a
breadth of difference between their doctrine and the doctrine asserted by many
of the later Unitarians."
APPENDIX. 495
cates his divinity to the Sftn and the Holy Ghost. This is the
view really taken in the Nicene Creed, though adopted in opposi-
tion to the Arians, and was the doctrine of the earliest Church
Fathers before the Arian controversy began. In the Nicene
Creed, we read that the Son is " God of (^x) God, Light of {ix)
Light, true God of true God ; " the " of" here being the same as
" from," and denoting origin and derivation.
This doctrine seems, in reality, to have less in its favor than
either of the others. By calling the Son and Holy Spirit God, it
contrives to make three distinct Gods, and so is Tritheism ; and
yet, by making them dependent on the Father, it becomes Unita-
rianism again. Thus, singularly enough, this attempt at making a
compromise between Unity and Trinity loses both Unity and Trin-
ity ; for it makes three Gods, and so loses the Unity ; and yet it
makes Christ not " God over all," not the Supreme Being, and so
loses the Trinity.
Between these different views, between Tritheism, Sabellianism,
and Arianism, the Orthodox Trinity has always swung to and fro,
— inclining more to one or to the other according to the state of
controversy in any particular age. When the Arian or Tritheistic
views were proclaimed and defended, the Orthodoxy of the Church
swung over towards Sabellianism, making the Unity strong and
solid ; and the Trinity became a thin mode or an airy abstraction.
When Sabellianism, thus encouraged, came openly forward, and
defended its system and won adherents, then Church Orthodoxy
would hasten to set up barriers on that side, and would fall back
upon Tritheistic ground, making the Threefold Personality a pro-
found and real distinction, penetrating the very nature of Deity,
and changing the Unity of Being into a mere Unity of Will or
agreement. We will venture to say, that there has never yet been
a definition of the Trinity which has not been either Tritheistic or
Modalistic; and Church Orthodoxy has always stood either on
Tritheistic or on Sabellian grouitd. In other words, the Orthodox
Trinity of any age, when searched to the bottom, has proved to be
Unitarianism, after all — Unitarianism in the Tritheistic or in the
Sabellian disguise ; for the Tritheism of three coequal, indepen-
dent, and absolute Gods, is too much opposed both^to reason and
Scripture to be able ever to maintain itself openly as- a theology for
any length of time.
The analogies which are used to explain the Trinity are all either
Sabellian or Tritheistic. Nature has been searched in all ages for
496 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
these analogies, by which to make the Trinity plain ; but none have
ever been found which did not make the Trinity either Sabellian-
ism or Ti-itheisra. They are either three parts of the substance, or
else three qualities or modes of the substance.
Thus we have instances in which the three are made the three
parts of one being, or substance ; as in man, — spirit, soul, body ;
thought, affection, will ; head, heart, hand.
One Being with three distinct faculties is Tritheism : one Being
acting in three directions is Sabellianism.
Time is past, present, and future. Syllogism has its major, minor,
and conclusion. There are other like analogies.
St. Patrick took for his illustration the three leaves of trefoil, or
clover." Others have imagined the Trinity like a triangle ; or they
have referred to the three qualities of space, ^ height, breadth,
width ; or of fire, — form, light, and heat ; or of a noun, which has
its masculine, feminine, and neuter ; or of a government, consist-
ing of king, lords, and commons ; or of executive, legislative, and
judiciary.
This survey of Church Trinity shows that it is either one in
which, —
1. The persons are not defined ; of an unintelligible Trinity.
2. Or which defines person and Unity in the usual sense ; or a
contradictory Trinity.
3. Or which defines person as usual, and the Unity as only
Union; or Tritheism.
4. Or which defines person as only manifestation; or Sabel-
lianism.
These four are all the views ever hitherto given, and are all un-
tenable. We might stop here, and say that the Trinity is utterly
unsupported. There is no need of going to the Scripture to see if
it is taught there ; for we have, as yet, nothing to look for in Scrip-
ture.
The Trinitarian's difficulty app^rs to be in defining person. But
possibly he may say, " I cannot, indeed, give a positive idea of per-
son ; but I can give a negative one. I cannot say what it is ; but
I can say what it is not. It is not a mere mode on the one hand ;
and not being, on the other. We must neither confound the per-
sons nor divide the substance."
We will, then, go further, and say, as- Trinitarians have never
yet defined person, without making it either a mode or a being, so
they never can define it otherwise. There is no third between be-
APPENDIX. 497
ing and mode. They must cither confound the persons or divide
the substance.
Again: that which differences one person in the Deity from
another must be either a perfection or an imperfection. There is
nothing between these. But it cannot be an imperfection ; for no
imperfection exists in Ood: and it cannot be a perfection; for
then the other two persons would want a divine perfection, and
would be imperfect.
ILL The arguments in support of the Trinity are wholly inade-
quate. Since, according to Neander, the Trinity is not stated in
the New Testament, it follows that it is a doctrine of inference
only ; that is, a piece of human reasoning. Now, we have, no
doubt, a perfect right to infer doctrines from Scripture which are
not stated there ; but, as Protestants, we have no right to make
these inferences fundamental, or essential to the religious life.
They may, indeed, be metaphysically essential j that is, essential
to a well-arranged system: but they are not morally essential;
that is, not essential to the moral and spiritual life of the soul.
But this is just what Dr. Huntington attempts to do. He
tries to show that there is a doctrine essential to the life, peace,
and progress of man, which the New Testament has omitted to
state ; which is neither distinctly stated by our Saviour nor by any
of his apostles ; which has been left to be inferred, and inferred by
the mere processes of unaided human reason.
What arguments does he allege for this ?
His first and principal argument is the universal belief of the
Cliristian Church in the doctrine of the Trinity,
On this Dr. Huntington lays great stress. He says, —
" Truth is not determined by majorities ; and yet it would be
contrary to the laws of our constitution not to be affected by a tes-
timony so vast, uniform, and sacred as that which is rendered by
the common belief of Christian history and the Christian countries
to the truth of the Trinity. There is something extremely painful,
not to say irreverent, towards the Providence which has watched
and led the true Christian Israel, in presuming that a tenet so em-
phatically and gladly received in all the ages and regions of Chris-
tendom, as almost literally to meet the terms of the test of Vincen-
tius, — believed always, everywhere, and by all, — is unfounded in
revelation and truth. Such a conclusion puts an aspect of uncer-
tainty over the mind of the Church, scarcely consistent with any
42 ♦
498 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
tolerable confidence in that great promise of the Master, that he
would be with his own all days." (p. 359.)
To which we answer, —
(1.) That, according to Dr. Bushnell (Dr. Huntington's own
witness), there never has been, nor is now, any such belief in the
doctrine of the Trinity as he asserts. The Uirgest part of the Church
have always " divided the substance " of the Deity, and another
large portion have " confounded the persons ; " and so the majority
of the Church, while holding the word " Trinity," have never be-
lieved in the Triunity at all.
Dr. Huntington summons Dr. Bushnell as a witness to the
practical value of the Trinity ; and we may suppose something such
an examination as this to take place : —
Dr. Huntington, Tell us, Dr. Bushnell, what instances you
know of persons who have been converted or deeply blessed by the
holy doctrine of the Trinity.
Dr, Bushnell. I have known of " a great clmid of witnesses,"
"living myriads," " who have been raised to a participation of God
in the faith of this adorable mystery." (Huntington, p. 413.)
Dr, H, Mention some of them.
Dr, B. ".Francis Junius," " two centuries and a half ago," —
a profesfior "at Heidelberg (Leyden?), testified that he was, in
fact, converted from atheism by the Christian Trinity ; " also " the
mild and sober Howe ; " " Jeremy Taylor ; " also " the Marquis de
Kentz ; " " Edwards," and " Lady Maxwell." (Huntington, p.
414.)
Unitarian. Say, Dr. Bushnell, whether, in your opinion, the
majority of Christians really believe in the Church doctrine of the
Trinity.
Dr. B. " A very large portion of the Christian teachers, to-
gether with the general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three
living persons in the interior nature of God." (Bushnell : " God in
Christ," p. 130.)
Unit. Is that scriptural or Orthodox ?
Dr. B. No. It is only " a social Unity." It is " a celestial
Tritheocracy." It " boldly renounces Orthodoxy at the point op-
posite to Unitarianism." (Bushnell : ** God in Christ," p. 131.)
Unit. Do I understand you to be now speaking of the properly
Orthodox* ministers and churches generally?
Dr, B. " Our properly Orthodox teachers and churches, while
professing tluree persons, also retain the verbal profession of one
APPENDIX. 499
person. They suppose themselves really to hold that God is one
person; and yet they most certainly do not: they only confuse
their understanding, and call their confusion faith. This I afhrm
on the ground of sufficient evidence ; partly because it cannot be
otherwise, and partly because it visibly is not." {Ibid. p. 131.)
Unit, Do you believe, Dr. Bushnell, that spiritual good can
come from such a belief in the Trinity as you describe to be " un-
doubtedly " that of " the general mass of disciples " ?
Dr, B. " Mournful evidence will be found that a confused and
painfully bewildered state is often produced by it. They are prac-
tically at work in their thoughts to choose between the three;
sometimes actually and decidedly preferring- one to another ;
doubting how to adjust their mind in worship; uncertain, after,
which of the three to obey ; turning away, possibly, from one with
a feeling of dread that might well be called aversion ; devoting
themselves to another, as the Komanist to his patron saint. This,
in fact, is Polytheism, and not the clear, simple love of God. There
is true love in it, doubtless ; but the comfort of love is not here.
The mind is involved in a dismal confusion, which we cannot think
of without the sincerest pity. No soul can truly rest in God, when
God is in two or three, and these in such a sense that a choice be-
tween them must be continually suggested." (Ihid, p. 134.)
Unit This state of mind is undoubtedly that of the general mass
of the disciples P
Dr. B. It is. {Ibid, p. 130.)
Unit. Are there others, calling themselves Trinitarians, who
hold essentially the Unitarian doctnne?
Dr. B. Yes. " It is a somewhat curious fact in theology that
the class of teachers who protest over the word * person,' declaring
that they mean only a threefold distinction, cannot show that
there is really a hair's breadth of difference between their doctrine
and the doctrine asserted by many of the later Unitarians. They
may teach or preach in a very difierent manner ; they probably
do: but the theoretic contents of their opinion cannot be dis-
tinguished. Thus they say that there is a certain divine person in
the man Jesus Christ ; but that, when they use the term * person,*
they mean, not a person, but a certain indefinite and indefinable
distinction. The later Unitarians, meantime, are found asserting
that God is present in Christ in a mysterious and peculiar commu-
nication of his being ; so that he is the living embodiment and ex-
press image of God. If, now, the question be raised, 'Wherein
600 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
does the indefinable distinction of one differ from the mysterious
and ])eculiar communication of the other ? * or * How does it appear
that there is any difference ? ' there is no living man, I am quite
sure, who can invent an answer." (Ibid. p. 135.)
Unit. Is it not true that both of these views are sometimes held
alternately by Trinitarians ?
Dr, B, " Probably there is a degree of alternation, or inclining
from one side to the other, in this view of Trinity, as the mind
struggles, now to embrace one, and now the other, of two incom-
patible notions. Some persons are more habitually inclined to
hold the three ; a very much smaller number, to hold the one."
ilhid. p. 134.)
Unit. But can they not hold the Unity with this Trinity ?
Dr. B. " No man can assert three persons, meaning three con-
sciousnesses, wills, and understandings, and still have any intelli-
gent meaning in his mind, when he asserts that they are yet
one person. For, as he now uses the term, the very idea of a per-
son is that of an essential, incommunicable monad, bounded by
consciousness, and vitalized by self-active will j which being true,
he might as well profess to hold that three units are yet one unit.
When he does it, his words will, of necessity, be only substitutes
for sense." (Ibid. p. 131.)
(2.) But suppose that the belief of the Church in the Trinity
was as universal as Dr. Huntington asserts and Dr. Bushnell de-
nies, what would be its value ? His argument proves too much.
If it proves the Trinity to be true, it proves, a fortiori^ the Ro-
man Catholic Church to be the true Church, and Protestantism to
be an error ; for Martin Luther, at one time, was the only Protes-
tant in the world. Suppose that a Roman priest had come to him
then. He might have addressed him thus : -^
" It is certainly an impressive testimony to the truth of the
Church of Rome, that the Christian world have been so generally
agreed in it. Truth is not ^determined by majorities ; and yet it
would be contrary to the laws of our constitution not to be af-
fected by a testimony so vast, uniforb[), and sacred as that which is
rendered by the common belief of Christian history and the Chris-
tian centuries to the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catho-
lic Church. We travel abroad, through these converted lands,
over the round world. We enter, at the call of the Sabbath morn-
ing light, the place of assembled worshippers ; let it be the newly
planted conventicle on the edge of the Western forest, or the mis-
APPENDIX. 601
nonary station at the extremity of the Eastern continent ; let it be
the collection of Northern mountaineers, or of the dwellers in
Southern valleys ; let it be in the plain village meeting-house,
or in the magnificent cathedrals of the old cities ; let it be the
crowded congregation of the metropolis, or the *two or three'
that meet in faith in upper chambers, in log-huts or under palm-
trees ; let it be regenerate bands gathered to pray in the islands
of the ocean, or thankful circles of believers confessing their de-
pendence and beseeching pardon on ships* decks, in the midst of
the ocean. .So we pass over the outstretched countries of both
hemispheres ; and it is well nigh certain — so certain that the rare
and scattered exceptions drop out of the broad and general con-
clusion— that the lowly petitions, the fervent supplications, the
hearty confessions, the eager thanksgivings, or the grand peals of
choral adoration, which our ears will hear, will be uttered accord-
ing to the grand ritual of the Church of Rome. This is the voice
of the unhesitating praise that embraces and hallows the globe."
What would Luther have replied to that ? He would have said,
"Truth must have a beginning. It is always, at first, in a mi-
nority. The gate of it is strait, the path to it narrow, and few
find it. All reforms are, at the beginning, in the hands of a small
number. If God and truth are on our side, what do we care for
your multitudes ? " We can make the same answer now.
Dr. Huntington proceeds to give his own creed in regard to
the Trinity, — to state his own belief.
God, in himself, he declares, we cannot know at all. We know
him only in his revelation. " Out of that ineffable and veiled God-
head— the groundwork, if we may say so, of all divine manifesta-
tion; a theocracy — there emerge to us, in revelation, the three
whom we rightly call persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
We can only conceive of God, he says, in action ; and in action
we behold him as three. But action and revelation take place in
time. The Trinity, therefore, according to Dr. Huntington, is
only known to us in temporal manifestation : whether it exists in
eternity or not, we cannot tell. And yet, in the next sentence, he
goes on to say that " the Son is eternally begotten of the Father,"
and "the Holy Ghost proceeds out of thQ Father, not in time;"
which is the very thing he had a moment before professed to know
nothing about. It is very difficult, therefore, to tell precisely what
his view is. With regard to the incarnation of the Son, he is still
more obscure. He says that " Christ comes forth out of the God*
502 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
head as the Son;" that he "leaves the glory he had with the
Father ; " that, while he is on earth, the Father alone represents
the unseen personality of the Godhead, and that therefore the Son
appears to "be dependent on him, and submissive; that temporari-
ly, while the Son is in the world, he remains ignorant of what the
Father knows, and says that his Father is greater than he. " He
lessens himself to dependency for the sake of mediation." " All this
we might expect." This he calls an " instrumental inequality be-
tween Son and Father : " it " is wrought into the biblical language,
remains in all our devotional habit, and ought to remain there."
In other words. Dr. Huntington believes that the Infinite God
became less than infinite in the incarnation. The common expla-
nation of those passages, where Christ says, for example, " My
Father is greater than I," does not satisfy him. He is not satis-
fied that Jesus said it " in his human nature." No. It was the
divine nature which said it ; and it was really God the Son, who
did not know the day nor the hour of his own coming. He lost a
part of his. omniscience. He ceased to be-perfect in all his attri-
butes. We should say, then, that he ceased to be God ; but Dr.
Huntington maintains that he was God, nevertheless ; but God less
than omnipotent, — God less than omniscient ; God the Son, so
distinct from the Father as to be ignorant of what the Father
knew, and unable to perform what the Father could do.
Dr. Huntington (p. 366) ascribes it to " condescension " in
Christ, to say that " of that day and hour knoweth not the Son."
** It is condescension indeed!" says he. But this word "con-
descension " does not well apply here. One does not condescend
to be ignorant of what he knows : still less does a truthful person
condescend to say he is ignorant of what he knows. We may
wisely condescend to help the feeble, and sympathize with the
lowly, but hardly to be ignorant with them, or to pretend to be ig-
norant. It is a badly chosen word, and seems to show the vacil-
lation of the writer's thought.
IV. The arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are un-
answerable.
We infer that they are unanswerable from the fact that they are
not answered. It is to be presumed that Dr. Huntington, hav-
ing been for so many years a preacher of Unitarian doctrine, is
acquainted with our arguments. It is a remarkable fact that, in
this sermon, he has nowhere attem£ted to reply to them. He has
APPENDIX. 603
passed them wholly by. You would not know, from reading the
discourse, that he had ever been a Unitarian, or had ever heard of
the Unitarian objections to the Trinity ; still less that he had him-
self preached against it. Unitarians, for instance, have said, that
if the Trinity be true, and if it be so important to the welfare of
the soul as is contaided, it would be somewhere plainly taught in
the New Testament Does Dr. Huntington answer this argument?
No ; he answers the argument from the word " Trinity " not being
in the Bible, and his answer is sufficient ; but he does not answer
the argument from the fact, that the doctrine itself is not anywhere
distinctly taught, and that none of the terms which have been
found essential to any Orthodox statement of the doctrine are to
be met with in the New Testament.*
Nor does Dr. Huntington anywhere fairly meet the Unitarian
argument from the impossibility of stating the doctrine in intelligi-
ble language. He tells us, with his usual eloquence, what we have
often enough been taught before, that there are many things which
we do not understand, and that we must believe many facts the
mode of which is unintelligible. But when we say, " Can we be-
lieve a doctrine or proposition which cannot be distinctly stated?"
he has no answer. The Trinity is a doctrine, and must therefore
be distinctly stated in order to be believed. It has not been dis-
tinctly 8tated,t and therefore cannot be believed. To this objec-
tion Dr. Huntington has no reply ; and we may conclude that it
is an unanswerable objection.
Dr. Huntington uses an unnecessary phrase about those who
object to mystery. Jle calls the objection " shallow self-illusion,"
and proceeds with the usual declaration, that all of life is mysterious.
Can he have been a Unitarian preacher for twenty years, and not
have known that Unitarians object to mystery only when it is used
by Trinitarians as a cover for obscurity and vagueness of statement ?
* " It has ollten been asRerted and admitted,^* says Twesten, one of the
stronf^cst of modern Trinitarians, ** that even the principal notions about
which the Church doctrine turns are foreign to the New Testament; as ovaia
and vrroaratriSy ri'dnng ivafjleojs anddiroKaXvil/eoJs, rpiag and bixoovaia,*^ (Twestcn:
Doo^atik, vol. ii. p. 281.)
t ** Who will venture to say that any of the definitions heretofore given of
personality in the Godhead, in itself considered, -> such definitions as have
their basis in the Nicene or Athanasian Creed, — are intelligible and satis-
factory to the mind ? At least, I can truly say, that I have not been able to
find them, if they do in fact exist ; nor, so far as I know, has any one been
able, by any comment-ary on them, to make them clear and satisfactory.*'
(X'rof. Stuart, BibUcal Repository, April, 1835. See WUson, Trin. Test., p. 272.>
504 orthodoxy: its tbqths and errors.
You ask us to believe a precise statement, viz., that " there are
three persons in the Godhead." We say, " What do you mean by
* person ' ? " The Trinitarian answers, " It is a mystery." We
say, " We cannot believe it, then." The Trinitarian replies,
" Why, all is a mystery. How the grass grows is a mystery ; yet
you believe it." " No," we say, " we do not believe it. When
the mystery begins, our belief ends ; we believe up to that point,
and no farther." The statement, "the grass grows," is not a
mystery ; the fact, " the grass grows," is not a mystery. We
believe the fact and the statement. The way in which it g^ows is
mysterious ; and we do not believe anything about it. " You can-
not understand how the grass grows." No ; and, accordingly, we
do not believe anything about how the grass grows. But the
whole purpose of the Trinity is to show how the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit exist. You are not satisfied that we receive
what the Scripture teaches ; you try to show' us the how, and then
leave it in obscurity at last.
Nor does Dr. Huntington reply to the Unitarian explanation of
the Trinitarian proof-texts. Trinitarians have often quoted the
texts — "J and my Father are one ; " " He who has seen me has
seen the Father " — in proof of the Deity of Christ. Unitarians
have often replied to both of them : to the first passage, that since
Jesus has also said that his disciples were to he one with him, as he
is one with Ood, it either proves that the disciples are also to be
God, or does not prove that Christ is God. To the second pas-
sage, Unitarians have replied by reading the next clause, in which
Christ says, " Believest thou not that I am in the Father ? '* show-
ing how it is that he reveals the Father. He is in the Father, and
his disciples are in him. Those who see him, see the Father;
those who see his true disciples, see the face and image of Christ,
These answers are so obvious, and Dr. Huntington must have
heard them so often, that he ^hould, as a controversialist, have
taken some notice of them. He has not done so.
He quotes the passage from Eph. 1 : 20, 21, and says, " Gan
this be a creature?" We reply, "Can he be anything but a
creature ? — he who was set by God in this place of honor. Does
God set God, as a reward, above principalities and powers ? Does
God make God " head over all things in the Church " ? Again :
Dr. Huntington quotes, " that, at the name of Jesus, every knee
should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord ; " but he
omits the conclusion, " to the glory of God the Father."
APPENDIX. 505
He even quotes the passage, "Him hath Ood exalted to give
repentance and forgiveness of sin."
And he quotes the passage, which has staggered the strongest
believers in the Trinity, where Paul declares (1 Cor. ch. 15), that, at
the end, Christ will give up his kingdom to the Father, that " God
may be all in all," and explains it as meaning that " he will resume
his place in the coequal Three, the indivisible One." Has he left
his place, then ? Is that Orthodox ? • Dr. Huntington evidently
thinks so; for he says, ''The Son, in his character of Sonship, is
retaken, so to speak, into the everlasting undivided One." So to
speak. We may speak so : " But what do we mean by it ? " is the
question. Did God the Son leave his place in the Godhead ? Did
he become less than God ? Did he become ignorant ? Did he suffer
and die P Did he arise, and at last reascend, and take his place, " so
to speak," in the Godhead ? K this is meant as real statement,
what better is it than the Avatars of Vishnu ? What sort of Unity
is left to us P We have a Trinity of council ; but where is the Unity,
except of agreement P One divine Being descending, and leaving
the other divine Being alone, temporarily, on the throne of the uni-
verse, until the divine Being who had descended should reascend
to take his seat again " in the coequal Three and indivisible One " !
One Unitarian argument, which appears to us unanswerable, is
in the fact, that the very passages in which the highest attributes
are ascribed to Christ are always those in which his dependence
and subordination are most strongly asserted. We could throw
aside all the passages in which Jesus asserts directly his inferiori-
ty, — as, " My Father is greater than I ; " " Of mine own self I
can do nothing," — and take the strongest proof-texts of the
Trinitarians, and ask for no better proof for the Unitarian doctrine :
" All power is given to me in heaven and earth ; " " The image of
the invisible God, the first-born of every creature ;" "In him dwelt
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Are these passages written
of Christ in his divine or human nature ? Not his divine nature ; for
to God the Son all power cannot be " given." God the Son cannot
be " the image of God," or the " first-born of every creature,** The
" fulness of the Godhead " cannot dwell in God the Son. They must,
then, be said of him in his human nature ; and, if so, they show
that the loftiest titles and attributes do not prove him to be God.
V. The good ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity does not
belong to it, but to the truths which underlie it.
43
506 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
Dr. Huntington asserts, for example, that " the Triunity of God
appears to be the necessary means of manifesting and supporting,
in the mind of our race, a faith in the true personality of God."
If so, it is remarkable that the two forms of religion in which
tho personality of God, as absolute will, is most distinctly rec-
ognized (i. e., the Jewish religion and the Mohammedan religion),
should both be ignorant of the Trinity. It is equally remarkable
that the most Pantheistic religion in the world, in which the per-
sonality of God most entirely disappears (L e., Braminism), should
have a Trinity of its own. It is also remarkable, on this hypothesis,
that idolatry in the Christian Church (as worship of Mary, worship
of saints and relics, &c.) should come up with the Trinity, and
flourish simultaneously with it.
No ; it is not the Trinity which brings out most distinctly the
personality of God, but the faith in a divine revelation through in-
spired men. If God can dwell in the souls of men, teaching and
guiding them, he must be a person like the soul with which he
communes. Especially does the religious consciousness of Jesus,
his simple and child-like communion with the heavenly Father,
bring God near to the soul as a personal being. It is not the
Trinity, but the Christian faith which underlies it, which teaches
the divine personality.
Nor is it the doctrine of the Trinity which is necessar}' for a
living faith in God through Christ, reconciling the world unto him-
self. All that Dr. Huntington says of the evil of sin is well said,
but has no bearing on the point before us. According to Dr.
Huntington*s own witnesses, as we have seen above, the Trinity
was unknown in the earlier ages of the Church. Was reconcilia-
tion unknown ? Was the forgiving love of Christ unknown ? If
he cannot assert this, the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary
to a living faith in a reconciling God.
Dr. Huntington argues, that only the sufferings, and actual
sufferings, of God himself, can touch the sinful heart; and, there-
fore, the Trinity is true.' The conclusion is a long way from the
premise, even supposing that to be sound. But as regards the
premise, he has read and quoted Mansel. Has he not verged to-
wards the dogmatism which that writer condemns ? Would it not
be more modest, and better accord with Christian humility, to be
satisfied with believing the scriptural assertions, that "God so
loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son ; ^ that " He
who spared not his own Son, but gaVe him up for us all, — shall
APPENDIX. 507
he not, with him, freely ^jive us all things ? " Is not this enough,
without an argument to prove that the only way by which man
can be saved is the method of a suftering God ?
We will not dwell further on this head, nor examine our friend's
argument to show that we cannot consistently, as Unitarians, have
any piety. "We will try, then, to have it inconsistently.
VI. Great evils to the Church have come from the doctrine of
the Trinity.
It has tended to the belief in three Gods. It has tended to a
confusion of belief between three Gods of equal power and majesty,
united only in counsel ; one supreme and two inferior Deities ;
one Deity with a threefold manner of manifestation ; and a vague,
undetermined use of words, with no meaning attached to them —
unhappy confusion, which none have been more ready to recognize
and to point out than Trinitarians themselves.
And what shall we say of the continual struggles, conflicts, and
bitter conti'oversies, which this doctrine has caused from the time
of its entrance into the Church ? What is there more disgraceful
in the history of the Church, than the mutual persecutions of
Arians and Athanasians, and of all the minor sects and parties^
engendered by this disputed doctrine ?
This is what Dr. Bushnell says of one of these matters ; and his
testimony is, perhaps, sufficient on this point, —
" No man can assert three persons, — meaning three consciouH-
nesses, wills, and understandings, — and still have any intelligent
meaning in his mind, when he asserts that they are yet one per-
son ; for, as he now uses the term, the very idea of a person is
that of an essential, incommunicable monad, bounded by conscious-
ness, and vitalized by self-active will ; which being true, he might
as well profess to hold that three units are yet one unit. When he
does it, his words will, of necessity, be only substitutes for sense.
" At the same time, there are too many signs of the mental con-
fusion I speak of not to believe that it exists. Thus, if the class I
speak of were to hear a discourse insisting on the proper personal
Unity of God, it would awaken suspicion in their minds, while a
discourse insisting on the existence of three persons would be only
a certain proof of Orthodoxy; showing that they profess three
persons, meaning what they profess, and one person, really not
meaning it.
" Such is the confusion produced by attempting to assert a real
and metaphysical Trinity of persons in the divine nature. Whether
508 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
the word is taken at its full import, or diminisbed away to a mere
something called a distinction, there is produced only contrariety,
confusion, practical negation, not light."
So far Dr. BushnelL On another point thus testifies Twesten :—
" There are many to whom the biblical and religious basis of
the doctrine is exceeding sure and precious, who are dissatisfied
with the Church form of the doctrine, and even feel themselves
repelled or fettered by it. It is to them more negative than posi-
tive, more opposed to errors than giving any insight into truth.
It solves no difficulty, it unseals no new revelation."
Twesten goes on to admit that the Trinity has really hemmed in
the free movement of the mind, substituting a dead uniformity for
a manifold and various life ; and yet Twesten is a very strong and
able Trinitarian.
VII. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of philosophy, and
not of faith.
As philosophy, it might be ever so true and important; but,
when brought forward as religion (as Dr. Huntington has done),
it would become. at once pernicious. To offer theology for religion,
belief for faith, philosophy bom of speculative reflection in place
of spiritual insight and pious experience, have always been most
deleterious both to religion and to philosophy.
The objects of faith are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Through Christ we have access to the Father in the Spirit. We
see the Father revealed to us in the Son j we feel the power of the
Spirit in our hearts. This is religion ; but this has nothing to do
with the doctrine of the Trinity.
VIII. We can trace the gradual formation of the doctrine in the
Christian Church,
The following facts we suppose to be incontrovertible : —
1. Down to the time of the synod of Nice (A. D. 325), the Son
was considered to be subordinate, or inferior to the Father, by the
great majority of writers and teachers in the Christian Church, and
by the multitude of believers ; and no doctrine of Trinity existed
in the Church.
2. The Nicene symhol, which declared Christ to be " God from
God, Light from Light, true God from true God, of the same sub- ■
stance with the Father," * was directed against the two Arian posi-
* See the creed in Hagenbach (History of Doct., vol. 1. p. 268) : ** Ocov
Ik Bto^t ^d)f Ik ^urd;, Qtov dXrfiivdv Ik 6eoi) dXTfiivo^."**
APPENDIX. 609
•
tions, — that Christ* was created, and that there was a time when
he did not exist ; but it did not declare his equality with God the
Father, nor teach the personality of the Holy Spirit, nor say any-
thing of the Trinity.
3. The councils vacillated to and fro during' three hundred
years, gradually tending towards the present Church doctrine of
the Trinity ; thus, —
1. Synod of Nice (A. D. 325) opposed the Arian doctrine of
the creation of Christ out of nothing, and maintained that his sub-
stance was derived from that of God.
2. Synod of Tyre (A. D. 335) favored the Arians, and deposed
Athanasius.
3. Council of Antioch (A. D. 343) opposed the views of the
Arians, and also the views of their opponents.
4. Council of Sardica (A. D. 344) resulted in a division between
the Eastern and Western Churches — the East being semi-Arian,
and the West, Athanasian" — in their view of the nature of Christ.
5. The Western Church tending to Sabellianism (taught by
Marcellus and his pupil Photinus), this view was condemned by
two councils in the East and West, viz. : —
Second council of Antioch (A. D. 343).
Council of Milan (A. D. 346).
6. Constantius, an Arian emperor, endeavored to make the
Western Cliurches accept the Arian doctrine, and, at two synods
(A. D. 353 and 355, at Arelate and Mediolanum), compelled the
bishops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, deposing those
who refused so to do.
7. The Arians, being thus dominant, immediately divided into
Arians and Semi- Arians, — the distinction being the famous dis-
tinction between o and oi. Both parties denied the Homoousios ;
but the Semi-Arians admitted the Homoiousios,
8. At the synod of Ancyra (A. D. 358), the Semi-Arian doctrine
was adopted, and the Arian rejected. The third synod of Sirmium
(A. D. 358) did the same thing. ^
9. Down to this time (A. D. 360), nothing was said about the
Holy Spirit in its relation to the Trinity. The Emperor Valens, an
Arian, persecuted the Athanasians from A. D. 364 to 378. Then
Theodosius, an Athanasian emperor, persecuted the Arians. Semi-
Arianism, however, continued Orthodox in the East.
10. The Nestorian controversy broke out A. D. 430. Council
of Ephesus (A. D. 431) condemned Nestor. The Nestorians (who
43*
510 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
9
were Unitarians) separated entirely from the Church, and became
the Church of the Persian empire.
11. The Monophysite controversy broke out. The council of
Chalcedon (A. D. 451) decided that there were two natures in
Christ ; and the Monophysites separated, and formed the Coptic
Church. Their formula was, that " God was crucified in Christ.'*
The Nestorians were too Unitarian, and the Monophysites too
Athanasian. The Church decided (against the Nestorians) that
Mary was God's mother, but decided (against the Monophysites)
that God was not crucified.
12. Fii'st Lateran Council was called (in A, D. 640) to settle a
new point. It having been decided that there were two natures in
Christ, it was now thought best by many to yield to the Monophy-
sites— that there was only one will in Christ. Hence the Mon-
otheletic controversy, finally settled at the, —
13. Sixth General Council (A. D. 680), when two wills in Christ
were accepted as the doctrine of the Church.
Thus it appears that it took the Church from A. D. 325 to A. D.
680 to settle the questions concerning the relation of Christ to God.
During all this time, opinion vacillated between Arianism on the
one hand and Sabellianism on the other. At the end of this
period, the Church had become consolidated, and strong enough to
compel submission to its opinions : but the relation of the Holy
Spirit to the Trinity remained unsettled for several centuries more ;
and finally the Eastern Church separated altogether from the
Western Church on this point. The whole Greek Church remains,
to this day, separated from the Latin Church on a question belong-
ing to this very doctrine of the Trinity. So much, then, for Dr.
Huntington's assertion, that the Trinity is a doctrine which can
almost literaUy be said to have been believed " always, everywhere,
and by alL"
, IX. The doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to the real divinity
of Christ and to his real humanity ; thus undermining continually
the faith of the Church in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ the
Lord.
Our final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes
Christ divine, but that it docs not make him so. It substitutes for
the divinity of the Father, the Supreme God, which Unitarians
believe to dwell in Christ, a subordinate divinity of God the Son.
This is subordinate, because derived ; and, because derived, de-
APPENDIX. 511
pendent. The Son may be said td be " eternally generated ; " but
this is only an eternal derivation, and does not alter the depend-
ence, but makes it also to be eternal. The tendency of the Church
doctrine of the Trinity is always to a belief, not in the supreme
divinity dwelling in Christ, but in a derived and secondary divinity.
How is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning
Christ? Dr. Huntington claims Nice as Trinitarian, (p. 361.)
But" what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine ?
Listen.
" The Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or
proper Godhead, in and of himself exclusively ; it represents him
as the Fons et Principium of the Son, and therefore gives him
superior power and glory. It does not even assert the claims of
the blessed Spirit to Godhead, and therefore leaves room to doubt
whether it means to recognize a Trinity, or only a Duality."
(Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin, Test.,
p. 264.)
And how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Hun-
tington also considers to be Trinitarian ? else certainly his rule of
" always, everywhere, and by all," does not hold. If, for the first
three hundred years after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it
cannot be said that the Trinity has " always " been held in the
Church. Listen, again, to Prof. Stuart, whose learning no one
can question.
" We find that all the Fathers before, at, and after the Council
of Nice, who harmonize with the sentiments there avowed, declare
the Father only to be the self-existent God." (See the whole para-
graph in Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 267.)
" To be the author of the proper substance of the Son and Spirit,
according to the Patristical creed; or to be the author of the
modus existendi of the Son and Spirit, according to the modern
creed, — both seemi to involve the idea of power and glory in the
Father, immeasurably above that of the Son and Spirit.^* (Moses
Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.)
So Coleridge asserts that " both Scripture and the Nicene Creed
teach a subordination of the Son to the Father, independent of
the incarnation of the Son. . . . Christ, speaking of himself as the
coeternal Son, says, * My Father is greater than L* " (Wilson,
Trin. Test, p. 270.)
According to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find
God — the Supreme God, our heavenly Father — in Christ ; but a
512 orthodoxy: its truths and errors.
derived, subordinate, and inferior Deity. Not the one universal
Parent do we approach, but some mysterious, derived, inscrutable
Deity, less than the Father, and distinct from him. Do we not,
then, lose the benefit and blessing of the divinity of Jesus ? Can
we believe him when he says, "He who has seen me has seen the
Father " ? No ; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians ; but
rather, that, having seen him, we have seen " the Son ; " whom
Coleridge declares to be an inferior Deity j over whom Bishop
Pearson, in his ** Exposition of the Creed," says, the Father holds
" preeminence," — the Father being " the Origin, the Cause, the
Author, the Root, the Fountain, the Head, of the Son." The
doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed, as Swedenborg ably
contends, to the real divinity of Christ.*
But it is equally opposed to his real humanity. It constantly
drives out of the Church the human element in Christ. Dr.
Huntington is astonished at Unitarians not perceiving that the
humanity of Christ is as dear to Trinitarians as his Deity ; yet it
cannot be denied, that the mysterious dogma of deity has quite
overshadowed the simple human life of our dear Lord, so that the
Church has failed to see the Son of man. All his highest human
traits become unreal in the light of this doctrine of his deity. He is
tempted ; but that is unreal, for God cannot be tempted. He
prays, " Our Father j " but this also is no real • prayer, for he is
omnipotent, and can need nothing. He encounters opposition,
hatred, contumely, and bears it with sweetest composure j but
what of that? since, as God, he looked down from an infinite
height upon the puny opposition. He agonizes in the garden ;
but it is imaginary suflering : how can God feel any real agony,
like man ? Jesus ceases to be example, ceases to be .our best
beloved companion and brother, and becomes a mysterious per-
sonage, inscrutable to our thought, and far removed from our
sympathy.
* Thus speaks Dr. Bushnell on tliis head (" God in Christ," p. 139) : —
*' Besides, it is another source of mental confusion, connected with this view
of three metapliysical persons, that, thougli they are all declared to be infinite
and equal, they really are not so. The proper deity of Christ is not held in
this view, lie is begotten, sent, fiupi)orted, directed, by the Father, in such a
sense as really annihilates his deity. This has been shown in a truly search-
ing: and convincing manner by Schleiermacher, in his historical essay on the
Trinity; and, indeed, you will see at a glance, that this view of a metaphysical
Trinity of persons breaks down in the very point wliich is commonly regarded
as its excellence — its asjertion of the proper deity, of Christ,"
PUBLICATIONS
OW THE
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION
Anif book in the foQomng list mil he sent fkee, on receipt of the advert
tised price. Address "Ambbicah Unitabiah Asbooiation,
Boston, Mass"
AI^TAR AT HOME, A Collection of Prayers for Private
and Social Um, written by Eminent Ministers in and near Boston. With
appropriate Selections from Scripture, Collects, and Litanies. lOmo. 80 cts.
A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW PROPH-
ETS. Third edition, with a new Introduction and additional Notes. Bj
Geobgb R. Not KB, D.D., Ilancock Professor of Hebrew, Ito., and Dexter
Lecturer in Harvard University. 2 vols. 12mo. $2.50.
ATHANA8TA; or, Foregleams of Immortality. By Rev.
Bdmuitd H. Sears. 16mo. SIOO.
In this work the subjects of death and the ftature lift are fhlly considered ;
and cheering views are presented, which " turn the shadow of death into th«
morning."
BEGINNING AND GROWTH OF THE CHRISTIAN
LIFE,' or. The Sunday-school Teacher. 16mo. 60 cts.
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF PRAYER. By Rev. Jambs
FRSEiLAif Clarke. 16mo. 75 cts.
This work discusses, in the bold and clear style of Its author, fhe whole
sutject of prayer; the importance of it; doctrine of Jesus and the Apostlea
concerning it ; objections to it ; preparaUons for it ; and its methods, motives,
and results.
CHRISTIAN LESSONS AND A CHRISTIAN LIFE;
Sermons of Rev. Samuel Abbot Smith. With a Memoir by Rev.
Edward J. Young. 16mo, 289 pp. $1.25.
The Association, having purchased the remainder of the edition of this excel-
lent work, offer it at a reduction of twenty-five per cent fipom the former price.
COMMUNION THOUGHTS. By Rev. S. G. Bulfinch.
16mo. 75 cts.
DISCIPLINE OF SORROW. By Rev. Wimjam G.
Eliot, D.D. 16mo. 50 cts.
Hundreds of bereaved fiunilies have expressed their gratefhl soise of the
value of these soothing and hopeftil words.
DISQUISITIONS AND NOTES ON THE GOSPELS.
Matthew, By Bev. JOHN H. MORIBON, D.D. 12mo. 91.25.
This Commentary has been prepared by one of our most aocomplished
Biblical scholars, as the first of a series which, it is believed, wiU meet fne very
wide want of a commentary, in our own language, which shall give the latest
results of critical investigation in a spirit at once liberal and devout.
DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. By Rev. William
O.Eliot, D.D. 12mo. gOcts.
Orer thirteen thousand copies of this book haye been circulated. Probably
DO work of the kind presents the great leading doctrines of Christianity, aa
understood by Unitarians, in a clearer style, and in a more kindly and conciliat-
ing temper.
FORMATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER,
addressed to those who are seeking to lead a Religious Life ; and PROGKESS
OF TUE OURISTIAN LIFE, being a Sequel to the " Formation of the
Christian Character." By Hbnry Ware, Jr. 16mo. 50 cts.
These works, formerly published as two books, are now bound together in a
neat volume of 270 pages, and sold at a price which should secure for them the
wide circulation to wMch their great worth entitles them.
EARLY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, Considered as a
Divinely-appointed Way to the R^enerate life. By Ber. William Q.
Eliot, D.D. 16mo. 60 cts.
ENDEAVORS AFTER THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, By
Rey. Jaueb Martinbau. Two yolumes in one. 12mo. $1.00.
These are the brilliant discourses which first made Professor Martinkao
extensively known to American readers.
HARP AND CROSS. By Rev. S. G. BuLFiNCn, D.D
16mo. 80 cts.
The work contains between one and two hundred gems of sacred poetry
culled from all the best writers in the English language, by one who has himsel/
added some of the choicest contributions to this department of letters.
HALF-CENTURY OF THE UNITARIAN CONTRO-
VERSY, with particular reference to its Origin, its Course, and its Prominent
Subjects among the Congregationalists of Massachusetts. By Rev Georos
E. Ellis, D.D. 8vo. 81.50.
LAYS FOR THE SABBATH. A oollection of Rebgioiis
Poetry, compiled by EMILY Taylor. Revised with additions by JouN
PiBRPONT. New edition. 16mo. 50 cts.
LECTURES ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By Rev.
A. P. Peabody, D.D. 16mo. 60 cts.
This book discusses " the prominent points at issue between the Unitarian
and the Calvinistic portion of the Christian Church." The name of the author
will be sufficient assurance that the topics of which he treats are presented with
ability and clearness.
LECTURES TO YOUNG WOMEN. By Rev. William
G. Eliot, D.D. 16mo. 50 cts.
These lectures are on the following subjects : " An Appeal," " Home,"
" Duties," " Education," " Follies," " Woman's Missipn."
MEMOIR OF MRS. MARY L. WARE. By Rev. Edward
B. Hall, D.D. With a fine portrut on steel. 12mo. 91.00.
"We should rejoice to place the book in the hands of eveiyyoTUig
In whom we take an interest." — Qtristian Register.
MEMOIR OF THE LIFE OF HENRY WARE, Jr.
By hiB Brother, John Ware, M.D. 12mo. 1.25.
MEMOIRS OF THE REV. NOAH WORCESTER, D.D.
By Rev. EIknkt Warb, Jr., D.D., with a Pre&ce, Notes, and Conclading
Chapter, by Samuel Worcbbtkk. 12ino. 5U cts.
MEMOIR OF R^V, WILLIAM E, CUANNINO, D.D.
With Extracts from his Correepondence and Bianuacripts. 8 Tola, with two
portrait!}. 12mo. 93.00.
ORTHODOXY: ITS TRUTHS AND ERRORS, By Rev.
James Fkeeman Clarke, D.D. 12mo, 612 pp. $1.25.
This book is not desif^ed, as may be inferred firom its title, for the Orthodox
alone, but should be read by every Unitarian who wishes to be a truly liberal and
catholic Christian. Unitarians who desire to make converts to their fidth can in
no way effect their purpose better than by oiroulating among tbeir oaadid Ortho-
dox friends this admirable woriL.
REGENERATION. By Rev. Edmund H. Seabs. 12mo.
75ets.
Tliifl work d&wribes the necesidty and proj^^ss of the great transformation
which the Gospel is def<ipcned to make in the individual life, and is written in a
style of excce«liug freshness and beauty.
RELIGIOUS CONSOLATION 18mo. 75 cts.
This volume is an excellent one to place in the hands of the bereaved or
afllicted, abounding as it does with hope and consolation.
SELECTIONS FROM THE WORKS OF REV, WIL-
LIAM E. CHANGING, D.D. 12mo, 480 pp. 60 cts.
This work contains the clearest and fullest statements Dr. CiTANinNO gave
of his views couceniing Theology and Keligion, the subjects treated of being aa
follows : (Christianity a Rational Keligion ; Evidences of Revealed lleligion ; Evi-
dences of ChriAtianity ; Unitarian Christianity ; Unitarian Christianity most
favorable to i'iety ; Objections to Unitarian Christianity Considered ; Moral
Argument agjunst Calvinism ; Letter on Catholicism ; Letter on Creeds ; The
Church ; Self-culture; Imitableness of Christ*s Character.
SERMONS DESIGNED TO FURNISH COMFORT AND
STRENGTH TO THE AFFLICTED. By Rev. Andrew P. Pbabodt,
D.D. New and enlarged edition. 16mo. Sl-50.
SERMONS FOR CHILDREN By Rev. Andrew P.
PEABODY, D.D. 16mo. Bevelled boards, gjtt top. 60 cts.
This book contains Four Sermons, with the following subjects : How to be
Religious ; Use and Abuse of the Tongue ; False Shame ; Memory.
SEVEN STORMY SUNDAYS, 16mo. $1.00.
A series of services (including seven sermons never before published) arranged
Ibr home or social use.
STATEJMENT OF REASONS FOR NOT BELIEVING
THE DOCTRINES OF TRINITARIANS CONCERNING THE
NATURE OF GOD AND THE PERSON OF CHRIST. By Prof.
Andrews Norton. With a Mem(^ of the Author by Rev. Willlak
Newell, D.D., of Cambridge. 12mo. S1.26.
This is the fullest, the ablest, and most oonoltudTS aigoment that has ever
been published on this su1]jeot.
STUDIES OF CHRISTIANITY; or, Timely Thoughts fop
Religious Thinkers. By Rev. James Mastinbau. Edited by Rev. WlL-
LLAM R. Alokr. 12mo. S1.26.
THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS FROM VARIOUS AUTHORS.
With an Introduction by Ber. Gbobgb B. Notes, D.D. 12mo. 9L26.
This work contains essays by the following raainent writers : Stanley, Jowett,
Tholuck, Powell, Guixot, Newcome, Roland WHliaflu, Edward Harwood, and
Thomas Brown.
THE SILENT PASTOR ; or, Consolation for the Sick.
By Ber. John F. W. Wabb. 16mo. Plain, 60 cts ; berelled boards, Sl-OO.
THOUGHTS SELECTED FROM THE WRITINGS OF
REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, D.D. 82mo. Bevelled boards, ie«
edges. 60 cts.
This little book contains those short epigrammatic sentences into which Dr
Channing so often condensed his greatest thoughts.
UNITARIAN PRINCIPLES CONFIRMED BY TRINI-
TARIAN TESTIMONIES. Behig Selections from the Works of Eminent
Theologians belonging to Orthodox Churches. With Introductory and Occa-
sional Kemarks. By John Wilson. 12mo. $1.25.
This Tolume has more than five hundred pages ; and, as it has quotations
from oyer four hundred of the most approyed theological writers in all ages, it
comprises a whole libi^ry in one volume. Its object is to show what concessions
have been made by Trinitarian writers to the essential truth of Unitarian views.
WORD OF THE SPIRIT TO THE CHURCH By
Bev. Cyrus A. Babtol, D.D. 16mo. 50 cts.
WORKS OF WILLIAM E. CHANNING, D.D. 6 vols.
bound as 3. 12mo. S8.00.
All the published writings of Dr. Channing, collected by him before hil
death, with his introductory remarks, are included in this edition.
The Association have also for sale the following valuable uxnrks, w€
published hy than : —
WORKS OF REV. ORVILLE DEWEY, D.D. 3 vols
8vo. tH.50.
These volumes contain Discourses on the following topics : Human Nature ;
Human Life; the Nature' of Religion: Commerce and Business, and Questiong
in Controversial Theology, and Practical Beligion.
REASON IN RELIGION. By Rev. Fbederic H. Hkdgb,
D.D. 12mo. $2.00.
MEMOIR OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING
THE THREE HE A VENLY WITNESSES, L JOHN, r. 7. Includ-
ing Critical Notices of the Principal Writers on both Sides of the Discussion.
By Critious. a new Edition, with Notes and an Appendix, by EzsA
Abbot. 16mo. 70 cts.
SIX SERMONS. Bj Rev. Gbobgb F, Simhoks. 16ino.
75 CGBtS
THE LORD'S SUPPER AND ITS OBSERVANCE. Bf
LucRBTiA P. Hale. 16mO| red edges. $1.60.
CIARKE, James Freeman 686
Orthodoxy: Unit
C595or
1B68
cop. 2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11