IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 %^ II I.I 1.25 •45 IM 16 J •1. -40 2.5 12.2 12.0 1.8 U ill 1.6 V] <^ /; o /J 7 ///. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIViH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductlons / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy wh«jh may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlted below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de C9t exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modificat'on dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes r~7J Showthrough/ LjlJ Transparence □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire r~7] Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion D along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. lOX 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d ia g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning v^ith the front cover and ending on the last pcge with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —•►(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmis en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniftre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd A partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iiiustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE DAVID MORRICE HALL, MONTREAL, In 1883-84. -2L0 1- \l .. MONTREAL ; WILLIAM DRYSDALE & CO. 1885. If Ex 9/ 78: 245781 -., Principal Presbyterian College, Montreal, Questions of the Day. .SCIENCE AND rRAYEll. JESUS said, "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer believing, ye shall receive." Hence we are bound to regard answers to prayer a certainty, or to treat the words of our IJe- deemer as good for nothing. This is the momentous issue which we arc now to contemplate. There are certain limitations, quite compatible with this doctrine of our Savioxir, imposed by science and revelation, which we must at once take into account. Both make it very a[)[»arent that prayer is not designed to relieve us of the diligent use of means and of ordinary activity and precautions. You remember how on one occasion " the Loixi said unto Moses, wherefore criest thou unto me ? Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward." It was a time fav action, not for prayer. Scripture and common-sense alike teach us that we are not to ask God to do for us what we can very well do for ourselves. He gives us ability to till the fields, sow the seed, and reap the harvest, and if we neglect to do so no amount of prayer can fill our barns with abundance. Science tells us that stagnant pools, lack of drainage, and neglect of vaccination and cleanliiie-s breuil miasma, measles, small-pox, typhoid fever, and sucli like ; and hence our first duty in these circumstances is to attend to the obvious laws of health. This is nothing more tlinu to say that we should conform our conduct to the Divine will as expresstxl in the ascertained laws of the physical universe. 12 Questions of the Day. And besides, "\ve should ])ray " believing." This is snrely leasonabJe, for if u man dues not believe his own ja-ayer why shonld he expec". God to pay any attention to it? ]f it is* not worthy of the confidence of the one by whom it is offered, why should God be supposed to act upon it as a thing of truth and purity and power ? Thus you see we rule out of our discussion a g(jod deal that passes current for prayer. We feel in no sense bound to defend worthless prayers, the empty talk which some persons designate by that name, or the feeble things that may be said in its behalf. Lei it also bo understood in what is to follow, and for that matter in all theological and scientific discussions, that the simple ])(jssibility of difficulties and objections being raised is not fatal to truth in any case. The fact is, that there is scarcely a truih in the whcde realm of human knowledge to which some one may not be ready to object. But objections are often the fruit of ignorance and jierversity, and, therefore, it is manifest folly to abandon any position simply because some one cries out, " I object ; I see grave ilitUculties in the way which render it impossible for me to accept your doctrine." Of course you d >, and were your vision a little l)etter and your judgment clearer and nioie impartial, were you less under the sway of biased feeling, you might possibly see how to remove them. Did you employ as much skill and ingenuity in seeking to remove as you do in fostering and defending your olijections they might wholly disajijiear, they might seem as feeble and foolish to yourself as they do to others. But " let God be true and every man a liar," even if it should ajipear that we cannot fully understand and ex])lain all that is involved in the subject of prayer. We ore not at liberty to conclude, because of our own ignorance and inability to solve all mysteries, that Jesus erred when He uttered the words with which we set out. The truth is that our kiowledge is finite and our ignorance infinite. What we know of any subject — not iA jirayer merely but of any subjectis vastly less than A\hat we do not know. There is an iignosticism in this sense which Science and Prayer. 13 I ■%• .1 is true. We have far more to loarn of the Tufuiite God ami of things finite and phenomenal than we have yet been able to iniared with the va.-t un- known, wliich spreads out into a shoreless ocean. In a.'jtronomy we have made a large number of accurate iiaeas\irements and tentative conjectures about a limited number of worlds that move in our immediate vicinity, but what do we know, and what can we know, of the innuiuerable worlds tluit occupy infinite spiee ? Tlit-re are multitudes of facts touching human conduct stored up in innumerable volumes which we dignify with the names of history and archajology, but what do we know of all the events and all the actions of free agents which fill up the pjst and are to occupy the coming ages of eternity ? T rejKJat, therefore, without detaining you with further illus- tration, that our knowledge is finite and our ignorance infinite. HeiKX3 if this should turn out to be conspicuously the case res]>ecting prayer we are not at liberty on this aceeting prayer from a practical and scientific stan{|}x)int ? It is alleged : I. That prayer is wholly needless, that man can very well do without it. This is prol)ably the creed of most jKjrsons who try to educate themselves into scepticism. A man may say to me, " I have tried honestly to exercise my common-sense in this matter, to divest niyself of tho supersti- tions of theologians, and 1 have not found any use in ])rayiM'. I have gone to business after having spent some time in. I'Ktyrr, and I have gone to business without jjraycr, and have not noticed any difference in my success in eitlicr case." Very likely. We do not. doubt your statement; luit we 14 Questions of the Dmj. remind you of what it assumes. It takes for graijted that vljat you aiikecl in prayer was precisely the very best thirifj for you to receive. Are you quite sure, upon calm reflection, that tliis was the case, and that God did not do right and kindly indisai)iM>int- ing you ? He might have cursed and blighted your soul by gi'anting the very things you asked. Your statement assumes, too, that you received nothing else, no invisible protection, or care, or restniint, or guidance, instead of wljat you looked for. Ge-d often gives us, not what we ask, 1)uti what "vve need, although we u\ay fail to Tea>gni'ent assuuios that, asking is the whole of ])niyer — that it is a j)ious systeui of beggary — surely a mean and selfish view of the matter. Have you no thanksgivings to' o^er, no blessings and bounties received from the hand of the God in "W'hom you live and move and have your Ix'ing which deserve to be acknowledged ? Is theie no such thing in yourexjieri- ence as communion with God ? Have you no sins to conh'ss ? If what those who do business with you, tliose wlu> are your i)eigld)ors, say of you is true, you must be far from sinless. And were you never the better of C(jnfessin«4: your sins of heart and life before (Jod ? Wea> you never more joyful and fresh and wholesome to others in your teuiper and dis))osition after you had made a clean breast of your iniquities and sought for- giveness fmm iho. Lord wltose tendir mercies ai"o oyct all His woi'ks ? IJut more tlian this. Tell mo, liow did you ])niy on the occasi()7is reft'rred to ? Witli the tacit but distinct UMderslatidiiig that it was a matter of no account, and tl/at no one would he as much surprised as youreelf did it result m any ^i»ood'. Did you pray coldly, heartlessly, faithlessly^ as a matter of forr»\, repeat- ing certain woids but not Ixditning what you cidlcd your prayers yet expecting Goresented in religious controversy by persons accustomed to determine all things by figures. What is our answer? First of all, we deny that the great s])iritual benefits of jn-ayer can be summed up by statistics. The pardon, the peace of soul, 13 Questions of the Day. the purity of heart, the buoyancy of hope, the elevation and strength of moral purpose, the unsi)eakable fortitude and com- fort in aftliction and sorrow which come to us throui^h ])rayer are not matters of mere arithmetic, to be tabulated by insurance agents and estimr.tfid by actuaries. Let any man try this method in a much simpler case that he may prove its weakness and folly. Let him devote himself with the utmost intensity and enthusiasm to the study of soukj sul)ject for months or years, and at the end of a set period let him try to ex[)ress by a little sum in addition the amount of his knowledgt^, the degree of wisdom and measure of culture ho has attained. Will he conclude that study is absolute folly, and that knowledge and wisdom are t(j be despised and abandoned because they cannot be reduced to statistical tables ? Assuredly not. Statistics are valuable, and should be resorted to, in do])artments where they are a]»idicable, but they become dangerous and pernicious when carried out of their own ])roj)er domain. You may as well attempt to measure music and art by a yardstick as to estimate tlie value of prayer by tigiires. But let it not be supposed tliat we shrink from the comparison of praying men with those who never i)ray. No. We are ready to meet the issue fairly, and to maintain that praying ])ersons — not lypocrites, no, no, but real, honest praying men and women — are better in every respect, in the estimation of insurance companies, physicians, and business men than tiiose who openly despise and neglect this sacred oliligation. The issue now raised simply amounts to a comparison of Christianity and paganism, for praying men are christians, and those who of set purpose never pray are practically pagans,whether they live in ^lontreal or Central Africa. The comparison now is broad and easy, and it will l)e quite unnecessary to go into details respecting it. We take the position that prayer is the vital breath of exi)eriiuental Christianity. Its Founder's truthfulness and honor are ])ledged to this position. With prayer the wliole system stands or falls. If wliat is taught on this subject is false and to be rejected then the whole system is false, for Jesus Christ, the uthor, the centre and substance of it, is our Teacher and Master Science 'and Pmyer. 19 on and id coni- lyer are sura nee method iss and ity and r years, a little R,L,'ree of ViU he (1<40 and ' cannot tics are >re they .IS when as well estimate sed that ose who rly, and no, hut respect, business s sacred nparison ians, and .whether ison now to details l)reath of ,nd honor m stands md to be u'ist, the d Master in ]imyer. But the fruit, the outcome of Christianity is before the Wdihl for centuries, and so with })aj^auisni, and therefore the comi)arison between the two is easily made. We are willinurity, treachery, theft, muixler and eveiy crime den(juuced in the decalogue. If, theixifoi-c, their votaries rose to the rank of these gods and l>ecame thoroughly assimilated to the objects of their worship, how unspeakal^ly low and dc- giaded woukl they still bo as eomi)arcd wilh the humblest christians in our day. And wlio docs not know the nameless crimes and unutterable ]>ollutions which defile the ])agt3S of jiagan literature, to say nothing of its grotes({ue inanitiiis. And the same del)asing tendencies a])))earedin art, and spi'ead tlu'ough every social, i)olitical, and religious institution. Ijil)or was des]»ised, and slavery maintained in its most cruel and gigantic forms. Public amusements and ix'ligious rites and c^ixunonies were indulged in, the accounts of which, for the sake of counnon decency, should be allov.'eil to remain looked up untranshited iu tlie original Gi'eek and Latin. Teeming multitudes, both of men and women, and of all classes, beheld with delight tlie bloody contests of trainiid gladiators and the helpless struggles of unarmed jjrisoners with ferocious beasts in the ampliitlieatre. These, and such like, are surely not the things which surpass in Movth and glory the fruits of ehristianitv. TiKiinism is a failure, and always was, when ]iroperly tested, but Christianity never. Who but praying nuui abolished scrftlom and slavery, estab- lished and maintained the marria<^e law, the bulwark of social jiurity and order, elevated woman, ]»romoted science and dis- covery in all ages, and secured hunuin rights and freedom iu all parts of the world ? 20 Questions of the Day. But we do not require in the nineteenth century to repruduce the successful and unanswerable ajtologies offered to ruler.s and emperors by the Fathers of the first four centuries, when they triumphantly fought the battle of Christianity versus paganism. The infinite superiority of the former is now everywhere con- ceded, and, therefore, unbelievers make a fatal mistake when they attempt to assail Christianity in any of its essential ele- ments through the medium of mere statistics. III. It is alleged that prayer fails when tested by the experi- mental method of science. About eleven years ago an anonymous writer in the Contehipor- ary Review announced this doctrine : He proposed that the efficacy of prayer should be scientifically tested in connection witli the recovery of sick persons. For this purpose two separate wards or hospitals were to be selected and ]ilaced under the care of first- class physicians, the ])atients in both to be afflicted with those diseases which have been best studied and of which the mortality rates are best ascertained ; the treatment in both cases to be pre- cisely the same, and to continue so during a period of not hiss than thn rayer. The article \\'as publicly endorsed by i)r. Tyndall, and thus at once came to be regarded by many as an unanswerable challenge to all believers in prayer. But was it such? By no means. The answer is not difficult, as you will presently see. For observe that a scientific experiment, in order to be of value, must be conducted under conditions fitted to secure accuracy, but in the instance proposed this is utterly impossible. Why ? Because the most eminent doctors on earth cannot give such a correct dii-.gnosis of the condition of sufferers as to enable them to say honestly and with certainty that two companies of patients in Science and Prayer. 21 spruiluce ilers and \('n tlit'y iminism. ire con- iu when itial cle- i experi- itchipor- eetUtiacy with the wards or 3 of (irst- ith tlinse mortality () he in'e- ■ not hiss ward or while for and tlie nd of the k'ged by iling the ndorsed by many diificult, of value, racy, but Because a correct ni to say tieuts ill two separate liospitals or wards have precisely the same chances of (Icjith or recovery. The elements which enter into the problem are far too numerous and too complicated to enable them to pro- nounce any such definite judgment. They must take into account a hundred things about heredity, constitutional peculiarities, nunal conduct, and the antecedent career of each i)atient. Hence we hold that Tyndall and his friends cannot even accurately select their patients to begin the so-called scientific experiment; a;id, therefore, what sense is there in speaking of it as having shattered the foundations of Christianity I'ut suiijio^e they were allowed to begin, and that we accepted tlii'ir word for it that the two companies of patients were j>re- cisely and in all respects in the same condition, they surely could not exjiect us to believe that they could keep them in the sanu' condition as to atmosphere, drugs, food, nursing, and all the rest through this long experiment of three or five years. Yet this is ipiite indispensable to scientific accuracy in order to com- parison between the patients who are to be prayed for and those who are not to enjoy this advantage. But, aside from all this, here is an insu])erable difficulty. Do the promoters of this experi- ment imagine that they could secure an absolute cessation of ])rayer for the patients of one ward or hospital while it would be continued in ])ehalf of those of another ward or hospital ? Sup- l»ose a large number of christians were weak enough to agree to be silent, to offer no prayer for the inmates of the selected hos- ]iita1, depcnil upon it no power on earth could restrain or silence all jirayer in their behalf, and hence the experiment becomes MJiolly inaccurate and preposterous. And, moreover, who is authorized to engage on God's behalf that He will meekly and submissively be a party to this experi- ment ? After six thousand years in which He has been answering }irayer God may not in His infinite wisdom judge the nice little experiment approved by Dr. Tyndall necessary for the vindica- tion of His character and glory. God may think that He has already "at sundry times and in divers manners" given men sujjicUnt reasons for their faith to rest upon, and that is all that 12 Questions of the Day. science and common-sense can demand. And, at any rate, He may decline to be dictated to, even by great men, and to be chal- lenged to show His power in specific forms. Jesus Christ did so when Satan asked Him to work miracles. And if the Lord, for sufficient reasons springing out of His own infinite majesty and glory, should decline to accept the challenge, what then becomes of the experiment ? True, God has promised to answer prayer, but He has not promised to gratify the caprice of men. He has promised to answer prayer, but He has not promised to hold Him- self in readiness to be called down from His throne at the instance of a small company of men who maybe pleased to arrange a cer- tain medical experiment for Him to perform. God has promised to answer prayer, but He has not promised to ignore His own sovereignty, or to trample under foot His own will, whether that will is revealed in the volume of nature or of the written word. It is only when we ask for things agreeable to His will in the name of Jesus Christ that we have any right to expect answers to our petitions. And wliat we need in order to more fervor and constancy and power in prayer is not stronger evidence, but stronger faith in the abundant evidence we already possess, — not one to rise from the dead to tell us that prayer is right and good, but one to come down from heaven, even God the Holy Ghost, to convince us that One has risen from the dead who has given full and irresistible proof of His willingness and power to answer prayer. IV. It is urged in the name of science that answers to prayer are wholly incomjiatible with the uniformity of natural laws. These laws are immutable and admit of no exceptions such as christians expect God to make in their behalf when they pray. For example : It may please simple-minded believers in revela- tion to cherish the conviction that the prayers of the Prophet Elijah interfered with the action of these laws and stayed the showers of heaven for three years and a half ; but science has discovered that the atmosphere, the clouds, and all the phenomena of the physical universe are subject to laws absolute and unvary- Science and Prayer. 2a ly rate, He to be cluil- ii'ist (lid so e Lord, for lajesty and ill becomes ie has not i promised hold Him- le instance ange a cer- iS promised e His own lietlier that itten word, will in the jct answers lore fervor idence, but sscss, — not and good, oly Ghost, has given r to answer s to prayer ural laws. QS such as they pray, in revela- le Prophet stayed the cience has )henomeiia id unvary- 'f ing, to which there are no exceptions, and, therefore, this notion of believers is merely an ignorant delusion. What can we answer to this triumjihant boast ? Many things. We may say, generally, that the term law is one used with great latitude and vagueness. Those of you who have read the Duke of Argyll's work on the Keign of Law may recollect that he enumerates five distinct senses in which the term is eiiii>loyed by cieiitists. I mention this as showing that we manifestly recjuire to use the term with a good degree of caution. Specially do we need to remember, when we speak of the uniformity and imnnita- bility of the laws of nature, that they are not precisely axionuitic, but rather something to be discovered and verified by us. Viewed from the Divine side they are God's modes of working in the physical universe ; but, so far as understood and realized by us, they are simply the results of observation and experience. Thus, we observe certain iihenomena to occur in a particular order of sequence. We notice, for examjde, that with a low atmospheric temperature water freezes, and that the a])plication of fire to gunpowder is followed by an explosion. We observe this to ha])pen again and again, and we generalize and affirm that it is always the case, and, therefore, call it a law of nature. Hence, so far as we are concerned, a law of nature is nothing moie than an inference from certain observations ; the inference may be correct or it may not, — the latter has often been the case as the history of science abundantly proves. We may, of course, claim for the inference infallibility and suju'eme authority ; we may declare, as some do, that it renders God Himself hel})less in attem})ting to answer our prayers ; but I submit that this is claiming too much for our inference, giving it a force and value which it does not possess even when it is perfectly accurate, liut, more than this : Natural laws, indeed all laws, are powerless, useless, non-existent without a lawgiver, a self-moved executive to enforce them. I desire here to protest against the common error of imagining that law is first and supreme, and that God is second and subordinate — the error of making God the helpless slave of physical laws. ^lany talk and dream of law doing this and 24 Questions of the Day. that and putting its veto on the freedom and actions of God and man, while in reality law does nothing aj)art from some one to enforce it. When did law ever arrest a thief or convict a mur- derer ? Some person or persons must do these things. Hence the simj)le truth is that when we speak of being encom- passed by natural laws we should remember that we have ultimate- ly to do with a Person, a Person of intinite resources, who works according to certain modes, which we learn b} observation and which we are pleased to call primary and secondary laws, and, therefore, the question now at issue is, are answers to prayer inconsistent with and contrary to what we know of tiiis Person ? Assuredly not, but just ])recisely what we would expect from Him. For if there is anything to which the united voice of science and revelation testifies with overwhelming clearness and power, and in an unlimited variety of forms, it is the fact that God is possessed of infinite resources and versatility, that nothing is too hard for Him, that He is free and able to meet all emer- gencies, and that He is just as willing as He is able to do so in the case of His creature man. To say the contrary is to deny all the cardinal facts of human redemption. I'he proof of His willing- ness to help us was furnished by the gift, the sufferings, and death of His own Son. Is He not our Father ? Flas He not the heart of a father ? Is He not full of comjiassion as well as of power, and the Author of every kind and loving impulse in our nature ? Is He not touched by the cry of His otl'si)ring ? When, as the incar- nate God, He dwelt with men did He turn a deaf ear to the sup- j»licatious of any ? Did He find himself so hampered, embarrassed, and helpless in the hands of natural laws that He could do nothing to answer the petitions of those who approached Him ? Nay, verily. He showed himself to be far from trammelled by the laws of the jihysical universe, to be superior to them, and to disease and suffering and death, — to be " God over all, blessed forever. " The positions taken here, however, will be strengthened as I deal with the next diificulty urged. V. It is alleged tliat answers to prayers are incredible because they undeniably involve miracles. Science and Prayer. 25 God and Qe one to 3t a miir- ig enconi- uUiniute- lio works itioa and iws, and, prayer 3 Person ? pect from voice of ,rness and fact that it nothing all emer- so in the ny all the s willing- and death e heart of ower, and ture ? Is the incar- ,0 the 8up- jarrassed, could do led Him ? melled by im, and to 11, blessed med as I e because i Professor Tyndall says, '• the dispersion of the slightest mist by the special volition of the Eternal would be as great a miracle as the stoppage of an eclipse or the rolling of the St. Lawrence up the Falls of Niagara," "No actof humiliation.individual or national, could call one shower from heaven or deflect towards us a single beam of the sun. " Certainly not ; and Tyndall might have added that science, even all the sciences combined, cannot bring us a shower from heaven, but God can, and God has promised to do so in answer to prayer, and we believe that He is true to His promise. We know that He has already answered such prayers and can do so again. As to the cases supposed, that of having the St. Lawrence roll up the Falls of Niagara and that of praying for ruin they are obviously and fundamentally different. To begin with, we can see no good purpose to be served by the reversal of the torrent of Niagara, and we have no reascm to expect God to work miracles for the amusement of men or to gratify their wish for the wonderful ; while, on the other hand, there are many beneficent ends which might be acconqilished by the descent of a copious rain. Besides, God has not promised the stoppage of an eclipse or the reversal of the stream of the Niagara ; and, if we are twitted on our inability to effect such marvels by prayer this is the reason. We are not at all ashamed to decline the challenge and to refuse to call a union prayer meeting to ask for either of these wonders, because there is a wide and undeniable difference between asking according to our own whim and plead- ing God's sacred promise. In this connection I desire to eiii])lia- size the scientific conclusion formulated in our shorter catechism that prayer should be offered only " for things agreeable to God's will. " Hence unless a person can be perfectly sure that his petitions are in accordance with the divine will he has no right to expect that he will receive what he asks. To urge an answer to prayers not in harmony with the Divine mind is to desire God to deny Himself, which is impossible. And, inasmuch as our knowledge of God's ways and God's will is B '' I Quesfione of the Day. finite ftiitl our ignovanco iutinito, as we liavo already remarked, wo can never bo sure that the granting of what we ask, especially in temporal matters wonld be for onr own good, i'ov His glory and in accordance with every particular of J lis great and all- enibracing scheme of providence. What are we to do in these cin umstances ? Must we, by reason of our own dense ignorance, never pray at all for temporal liless- ings? This by no means follows. Wo should jiray for such, but always, as Christ hath taught us, lH)th by i)receptand example, in huu\blo submission to the Father's will. And this is surely as reasonable as it is inevitable, because we canncjt know, for exiimpie, that deliverance from temptation and dang»',r and Hufferiug and death is always best for us, ami, therefore, wo must ask for such conditiouidly, ascribing to Him the king(U)m, the jiovver and the glory. It is obvious that prayer for the sick should not be uncon- ditioiuil, and cannot always result in their recovery, for then they would never die. But, while we are thus necessarily restricted to ask for tern- poral blessings conditionally, there is a wide range of spiritual blessings in reganl U) which our faith and our asking should know no limitation but the revealed will of (lod. We know, and we should i)lead in full assurance of it, that it is His will, on tho foundation of the obedience the sacritice and the intercession of Jesus Christ, to forgive sin, to bestow peace, to grant grace to purify our nature, to enable us to resist temptation, to endure atlliclion and to eoncjuer our own pride and sellislmess. We know that it is His will that men should go into all the M'orUl and preach the gospel to every creature, that the knoNvledge of the Lord slmuld till the whole earth as the waters cover the channels of the great dee}), that His kingtlom shouUl come and Jlis will be done on earth as it is in heaven ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and to Him every tongue should confess to the j^lory of CJod the Father. Hence, for all these comprehen- sive and glorious blessings, we may pray unconditionally. But what of the miraculous element involved in answers to Buch prayers i A miracle is not necessarily required in all such ^ i G< n OM '''^91 th m efi ■ ^^•! m ^^\ M wi m an vn vii cai 1 Science (irul Prayer 27 marked, pucially in glory md all- y roason 111 blesa- iich, but iiiplo, in uiiv.ly as Lixiunitle, iiiug and tor such • and the •0 \iucou- hcu they for tem- [ si»iritual g should low, aud oil lllQ X'ssioii of grace to endure \Vc know orUl and ge of the cluumels is will be of Jesus I confess iipruheu- y- nswers to all such 1) I 1 onsf's. TlH'y are included under the ordinary and specinl work- ings (tfilod's providence iiud saving grace. Thii true, conefption ofijod i.H that h(! is incessiintly acjtive, lie neither slnnihiTs nor sleeps. " iMy Father work(;lh liit.herl,(», " s;iiil .Ii-sns, " iiml I Mork. " And lie has ten thonsand methods of working nnd of nnswering prayers whie.li w(! cannot niidtM'stitnd. Tin-re iiw. inlinit(! intt^rlaciugs iind overlappings of His providences wiiicli we ciiiin<)t tr.'ict.', — good and evil sointcrniingled, physieid and ,s|iiiii nul forces so acting and reacting n]ion (;iicli other as to Imllle onr inosl pcnetiiiting research. W^e ai'ci not, how(!ver, at liheily to|ir;i.y for nliracll^s eak of the Infinite Being 1 speak of a Being which has no limits, no negations, no boundaries, " which is above all, and through all, and in you all." Gentlemen, we live in a free country, and men may use words as they like, nay, if it })lease them they may stand on their heads, but to call such an idea as that negative is to employ words not to express but to entangle one's ideas. It is to turn all the processes of the intellect upside dov.'n in obedience to a mere accident of grammatical form. The The Creed of the Agnostic. 39 eame is true of the other statements made about the unknow- able. Call them negative or positive, as you like, — it mutters not, you can express things, at your will, in either positive or negative form. But the fact remains : they convey a vast amount of knowledge, and if they are applied to a Being wliich in the same breath is called unknowable we have a Hut cun- tradiction, a statement the two halves of which destroy each other, like the two Irishmen w^ho each committed suicide by cutting the other's throat. So that, as it seems to me, the creed of the Agnostic is inconsistent. But, again, I find the Agnostic creed superstitious also. A. superstitious man believes without a reason — so does the Agnos- tic. A superstitious man worships an unworthy object, an object lower and less than the highest ideal which the human miad can apprehend — so does the Agnostic. There is only one qualification of this last statement — in justice to the Agnostic it ought to be stated — namely, that he seldom troubles himself to worship at all. I say he believes without a reason. For what possible rea- son can a man have for believing in the bundle of contradictions which constitutes the object of his faith ? Eead Mr. Herl)ei-t--^ Spencer's summary of its qualities. You cannot, he tells you, think it as infinite, but then you must not suppose it to be finite ; you cannot think it as out of relations, but you must not so degrade it as to imagine that it sustains any relation to any per- son or thing ; you cannot imagine it to be many, but neither can you suppose it to be one ; it can have neither beginning nor end, and yet, if you call it eternal, you make a mistake. In- fact, its very quality is that it is out of all relation to the laws of thought. Now, gentlemen, that is a very imposing phrase. It stands on the pages of philosophical books with a sort of official dignity, like a parish beadle with a cocked hat and a staff, and Meak minds are so overcome with awe that they lose the power 'if thinking. But what does it mean after all ? If you want another great word, what is the "outcome" of it ? AVhy, just this, th'^t the thing to which the word is applied is a contradic- 40 Questions of the Day. tion and an absurdity. Its qualities destroy one another, —they make up something unthinkable. Now whit is thinkable is sense, and what is unthinkable is nonsense, — that is the plain fact of the matter. To believe in Mr. Spencer's unknowable is to believe in a boundless realm of nonsense. It is to believe that this l)eautiful, harmonious, rational world — this world in which the human intellect finds daily delight, either in tracing its exquisite order by science, or in rendering its wonderful beauty into poetry — reposes on and is caused by a something whose character is a chaos of impossible contradictions. The belief of some poor African who worships a painted block is not irrational after that. Then, again, the Agnostic worships an object unworthy of worship and in that sense also he is superstitious- For observe we are told that we must deny of the unknowable all the quali- ties that we can understand and admire, and must yet retain our admiration and awe simply because it is unknowable. This is omne Ujnofum pro magmjico with, a vengeance! The unknowal)le is not intelligent, for then we could know it. For the same reason it is nut just, or righteous, or pitiful, or loving, or ethically pure. It has no beauty, no truth, no good-will ; it is a mere dead-head — it knows nothing about us, and cares nothing, and we know nothing about it ; it has no eyes and it sees not ; it has no cars and it hears not, neither speaks it through its throat. Very much like that stock of a tree of which Isaiah tells us. A man takes it and uses it for fire, for furniture, for all the pur- poses it will serve, and the "residue thereof he maketh a God." So of the Agnostic : he gets through all he can know and love, and then finds, or fancies he finds, in the universe a " residue," — a formless, meaningless over and above, without character or (juali- ties, andto this residue he i)ays divine honors ! A witty Ger- man has calkd it " der ewige Dummer," the everlasting Stupid, and I cannot but think the designation is a true one. To my thinking Brahma or Vishnu, Thor or Woden, Zeus or Apollo are rational as objects of reverence when compared with that. Mumbo Jumbo himself is not without his claims, for, ugly as he is, we can at till events know something about him. No, I will not The Creed of the Agnostic. 41 I ! worsliip the residue of the wood pile, neither will I worshij") the amorphnus residue of baffled thought. Rather will 1 c ntinue to bow before Hiui who stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in ; who appoints to the sea his bounds which he'eannot cross; who bringeth out the heavenly host by number, and calleth them all by their names, aye, before I lira who permits us to call him Our Father which art in Heaven, and who gives us a portion with His blessed and perfect Son. I must reject the creed of the Aguostic, then, because I find it superstitious, but I must reject it also because I find it ske})tical. At fu'st sight these may seem inconsistent charges, but all expe- rience shows that they are not so. The skei)tic is a man who unduly distrusts the ])Owers of the mind ; he is afraid i(^ ])Ut confidence in the verdict of his reason, in the testimony of his consciousness. It is of no use to prove a truth to the ske])tic, for he feels no assurance even when all his faculties unite to atlirni it. Now, I know that our faculties are limited. We do not know everything, and our reason soon reaches the limit of her powers. This is one thing, but it is quite another to say that the universe is so made that its inmost reality can uv.\ev be known. To say this last is to say, not that our ])<>wers are Ihuitcd, but, what is quite a different thing, that they n\v false. Gentlemen, I call your particular attention to the distinction I am now drawing. Limited powers may know the truth as far as they go, l)ut false powers — ])owers which cannot know things as they are, but only as they seem — can never take a single stcj) towards tnith. Common-sense, consciousness, the Jiible, all atiirni the limits of our powers. '' Canst thou by searching liiid out (lo(W Canst thou find out the Almighty unto pcrf^tion ? It is high as Heaven — what canst thou do ? dee])er than the grave — what canst thou know ? The m(>asure, ther(>of is longer tlian the earth and broader than the sea." It is a useful rebuk-c to the pride of man to feel the truth that his knowledge is limited ; it is more— it is at the same time a stimulus toj'atient searching ill religion, to reverent, prayerful inquiry. JJiit if our powers 42 Questions of the Day. arc not only limited but false, if the realities of the universe are related to tliem so that we can no more apprehend those realities than we can see with our ears, or listen with our finger-nails, we can get neither humility nor stimulus out of that. If the ultimate reality is such that no increase of my intellect could make me know it, because it is contradictory to the very laws of knowing, then I may feel that my intellect is very useless, and the ultimate reality very stupid and nonsensical, and 1 may be puzzled and distressed accordingly, but the effect will be, not hui))ility, but only confusion. And very certainly it will not stimulate me to higlier or intenser thought. It will rather do for me as it did for Hume — it will make me feel that, except as an amusement, thought itself is an absurdity, and I am a still greater absurdity ; that num and the universe, life and death, arc an unreal jthantasmagoria, with no core of reality and no puLse of true life. Away with all this nonsense about philo- sojihical skepticism teaching us humility — it teaches us no such thing. The average skeptic is far enough from that; he is the man who has been behind the scenes and discovered that there is nothing there, and he wears on his face a smile of pitying con- de.'X'ension as he looks on the poor foolish dupes who imagine that there is reality in life, and a knowledge which leatls to power and goodness. No, no. The livst condition of all sound thinking is to trust the jjowers which Uod has given you. If they are false, all is false; I say it reverently, God himself is fals(!. Of course our powers are to be used in humhleness and diligence ; of course, also, they need training and diseijiliue, but they are faculties of truth and not of error. Kightly used they will lead us to light and liberty, not to cloudy obscui'ity end puzzled despair. Get rid also, gentlenum, of this false and misleading notion that reality, because it is real, cannot be known. Tlu; very op- posite is the fact. Ileality is the most knowable of all things, it is, in fact, the only thing that can be truly known. Ohxiously you cannot know that which is not. To be and to be know u — or at all events to be knowivble — are not two facts; they are two Tlie Creed of ike Agnostic. 43 su los of one and the same fact. In a nniverso which is tlie eml)0(hiueut of Divine Thought — which is created and U})lieldby the divine Logos, tlie rational Word of God — things are real in tlie exact pro])ortion in which they aru rational, and the greatest realities, the widest truths, are so perfectly intelligible that a child cati nnderstand them. Truth docs not dwell in some far- away s])here, hut here \\\m\i earth and among men. Sh(i once descended to the earth in the jierson of the perfect Man, and when She did so She came unto her own. The eternal Logos became llesh and dwelt among us, and the reason is given Ity the voice of insiiiration — "Because the children were jiartakers of llrsh luid blood He also Himself likewise took jiart of the same." Yl'S, it is our high destiny to feel after God and find Him, assured that He is seeking us, and is not far fi-oni every one of n-i. Nay, more still— our own reason is much wMnv than onr own. Itis a light kindled from above, a revelation of that greater light which was never on sea or shore — Not ill entire I'oi-jretl'iiliK's.a, jiiid not in utter luikedn os!cn met with vi'luimcnt, almost indignant, denial. We are told that it is tht^ very otlice of the Agnostic })hih)soi)hy to bring morality mit from the cloudy dis- cussions of divines and metaphysicians, and to give it a firm and lasting foundation in the facts of daily life. It is very easy to abiisi' (liviiKis anil metaphysicians, and just now very jiojuilar ; but as threatened men live long so do almsed studies and modes of thinking. Divinity can take exceedingly good care of herself, and metaiihysics will never be dead while the human intellect is 44 Questions of the Day. ulive. it is a false contrast, too, Mhich is drawn between pliilo- sophy and divinity on the one liand and the facts of common life on the other. Divinity and phil(jsoj)hy have a great deal more to do with daily life than they have with the study and the lecture room. l'hiloso])hy is the art of living nobly, and divinity is the knowledge of God's relation to men, and these have as much to do with daily life as our nightly slumber or our necessary fdod. The fficts of daily life are not the property of the Agnostic alone. Ho takes them under his special patronage and talks as though he hatl invented them, but it is a mistake. They are common ground ; we must all start there ; the only ques- tion is what to make of them and how to tleal with them. And, as to this matter of murality, I iind Aguosticism defective. It can give me no satisfactory account of duty and no sujireme motive for doing it. if a man ask, why should 1 do my ihity ? there is, I think, a sim})le re]»ly. You should do your duty because you ought, — in other words, because it is the necessary law of your nature, a law foundud in the eternal cluu'acter of the First Cause Himself, or, if you like the phrase better, in the Ultimate Struc- ture of the universe. Because eternal truth is what it is, and liecause your nature, in its nujral as])ects, re Meets eternal truth, therefore you are bijund to do right. Observe, I do not say that right or mondity is founded in the wdl of God, because I liolil that this iloes not get to the bottom of the question. The will of God is not arbitrary, it is founded in reason, and right is an element of the eternal reai^on, of tiie very structure, if 1 may so say, of the Being from whom all things tiow. Now, that is a reason for doing right that '-j satisfactory, — it gets to the bottom. If that be trui, then, the man who does wrong is fighting against all the facts and laws of the universe, (luickoned as they are and inspired by the Uving will of the living God. iiight is WW ultinuite eleiiUMit in the nature of reality ; to fight against it is to take the side of anarchy, destruction, death, ibit what doe» the Agnostic say to all this ? He says, I am unable to know anything about reality ; I cnn know only phenomena which are ex[)ressly distinguished fioni reality. The ultimate fact in the universe is totally unknowable ; whether it is righteous or The Creed of the Agnostic. unrighteous, or whether, as is more probable, the whole question of righteousness has no more to do with it than it has with tlic temperature of the North Pole or the color of a rose it is imjx)!-: sible to say. Right is an affair of human agreement. Wh.'n people come together into society they find that some actions conduce to the public good and others do not. The useful they agree to reward and approve — the injurious they punish. If the evil done is great they throw men into ])rison or ])ut them to deatli ; if it is slight they cast them out of social favor and, as we say, send them to Coventry. A mass of public sentiment thus arises which acts as a force to uphold men in the good and to deter them from the evil. Now, all that is very well, and in ])art true. It is quite true that the approval of society is a potent moral force, giving great power to whatever it endorses. If we can get society to disapprove slavery, or popular ignorance, or to apjirove temperance, or any other form of social reforma- tion, our battle is half won. Society means men, and the voice of society is the voice of our fellow-men. It cannot be other than powerful over creatures like us, whose very being is rooted and grounded in social relations. But you will observe that this theory gives us no reply to the question — what is meant by tlie Tightness of an action ? Why ovght I to do right ? Why ought I to obey society ? If right is ](art of the very essence of the universe then tliere is no more question — as I said before, we liave got down to th'^ foundation — we have found the reasons of righteousness, where we hud the reasons of every tiling great ^and glorious, in the ultimate nature of eternal being. But if rigiit is simply a human agreement, its soundness, its grandeur, its inetlablc glory are done away. It is no longer true of righteousness, as WiM'dsworth says it is, that the stars and the heavens arc kept in order by its power. Ami with its dignity right loses its unchangeableness also. If the feeling of right is only an artificial emotion, created by the voice of society, conscience is a weather-cock which olxsys the arbifrium jwpuldris aurae, and has neither soundness nor fixity. It approves one thing to-day — but it may ajiprove the direct opposite to-morrow. And indeed the very words appnjve and !■ I rfl! 46 Questions of the Bay. disapprove have lost their meaning. They no longer mean more than like or dislike, instead of conveying the utterance of an inward moral conviction. It may he luy interest to keep out of prison and to be in favor with the social body around me, but Avhy is it my duty / Look at that martyr as he stands at the stake. All society is against him. He has been tried and condemned by a regular course of law. The crowd around are not in sympathy with liim — they are come to witness his agonies as a holiday spectacle. Whence comes the liglit that Hashes from his eyes ? Whence springs the courage that elevates his brow into dignity and gives him the manner of a king? Wlience ? He sees the Heavens opened and hears the voice of eternal righteousness saying: " Well done good and faithful servant.'' He .'-■i,. *'^11 yoa why right is right, why duty is duty. But if the n. ^ikes right, and, subject only to empirical laws of utility, ma' e^ ■-.'■. ./. its will, and if duty only means tliat I had better take care not to cross the pathway of social law, then the martyr is n, l hei' it a madman, and his martyrdom a romantic folly. No, sus, lueic is no ultimate root of righteous- ness but in God — and by God I do not mean a vague, formless, unknowable, but an Infinite Father and Friend, who can be l^nown, and of whom it is true "This is eternal life to know Thee the only true God." If he is the root of all reality then righteousness is real and nothing can shake it, it was with the Father before all worlds, and we mny say of it as of Him " they shall perish but thou remainest, they all shall wax old as doth a garment and as a vesture shalt thou change them and they shall be changed, but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail." Or in the more modern language of Wordsworth's Ode to Duty we may exclaim : Stern (.laughter of the voice of Goil 1 Oh dutyl Iftliat name thou love. Who art a light to guide, a rod To check the erring, and reprove ; Thou who art victory and law When empty terrors overawe ; From vain temptations dost pet free; And cahu'et tlie weary etril'e of frail humanity. The Creed of the Agnostio. 47 Stern law-giver ! yet do8t thou wear Tlie Godhead's most benignant grace; Nor know we anj'tliing so fair As i.^ the smile upon thy face. Flowers laugh before thee on their beds ; And fragrance in thy footing treads; Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong ; And the most ancient heavens, through thee, are fresh and strong. You see then, gentlemen, why I cannot embrace the creed of the Agnostic. I find it inconsistent, and I find it sii])erstitious ; I find it based on a skeptical and self-destructive theory of the human faculties ; and I find it providing no solid and secure basis for a pure morality. There are still other objections, but these are enough for the present. I thank you for your patient hearing, as I thank the learned Principal and other authorities of your College for the honor they liave done me in inviting me to address you. And I conclude what I have now to say by expressing my firm and deepening conviction that the closest possible scrutiny of these great questions will only clear and strengthen the basis of a spiritual philosophy, and will leave the gloiy of the Gospel of Christ not only unimpaired but infinitely brightened and extended. (' QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. LECTURE THIRD: EVOLUTION IN MORALS. DELIVEKED IX TUE David M or rice Hall, Nov. \th 1883, BY THE REV. J. S. BLACK, Minister of Erskine Church. Montreal. ivfi. ! : 1 ])ur depi advi enoi est criti prop iiect 111 us of 01 then posit L( life A proii] ceptii piisb alarn reticf liabit oiily( the S( ing ( physi ridicu Questions of the Day. EVOLUTION IN MORALS. The title given to tliis lecture is very wide, and one niiuht ]iur.siie a good many distinct lines of thought and yet not depart from the subject. This is a favorite theme with the advocates of current scepticism. It is roomy enough and vague enough for the ill-furnished mind, while it touches the profound- est questions of pliiloso[)hy and exercises the keenest historical criticism. In the brief sj)ace which this j)aper must occuiiy I propose to advance some thoughts on evolution in morals as con- nected with the relation of the Church to ethics. While there mast be more or less reference to the o])inions of the ojjponi'nts of orthodoxy, my immediate object is neither to assail nor refute them. Incidentally, however, we have to comment on the position of scepticism. Long before the evolution theories with regard to physical life were dreamed of, evolution theories in morals were not only promulgated but also tacitly received in quarters where their re- ception was least to be expected. Not until these theories were pushed to their legitimate conclusions did orthodoxy take tlie alarm. The vague term experience was credited with all theo- retical and practical progress in ethics. The scholar got into the habit of speaking of the inductive method as being the true and only cause of all progress, in moral, as well as in])hysical, science ; the scientist scouted the bare idea of a superintending, adjust- ing or interfering Providence finding anything to do in the physical universe of to-day, and, by an easy transition, he also ridiculed the idea of a divine moral government and Governor. 52 Questions of the Day. As a striot matter of fact, the f];reat majority of thinking men, not Christians, dispose of God in one of four ways, and they have a goodly following of the great unthinking, who are for the most part persuaded that they do their own thinking. (1) Th(;y take refuge in Materialism ; or (2) in Pantheism ; or (o) they refuse to entertain the God idea because unthinkable, and therefore unphilosophical, and call themselves Agnostics ; or (4) they move God back, very far back, give Him something of creative energy among primal germs ; but they concede this with apparent reluctance, and, as sternly as ])hilosophic calm will jiermit, they fevbid His having any thing more to do with the universe. The history of philosophy bears witness to the fact that there has always been a tendency to transpose the laws of matter to mind, the law of the thing becoming the law of life. This craving after uniformity and unity is an unintentional tribute to the soul that " lives and works in all things," to the One, While evolution theories in morals preceded evolution theories in mutter, the latter, when they did appear, greatly strengthened the former. Hence we have the old cavils seeming almost new under the aegis of their supposed champion, and they take very practical and plausible shape. The objector of to-day turns on the Bible and the Church and the ministers of religion and says : " you do not come with laws from Heaven for life on earth ; you do not originate anything in morals ; your Bible has always fitted the times, but not until you found that you had to get into line with the grand march of thought ; you have never taken the initial steps in any of the great reforms, moral and social ; you are never found in the van until observation, experience and experiment have proved this or that reform to be the coming thing in morals ; — then,, but not till then, you are willing to become its apostles. Not until this new thing has proved its right to live by its own merits do you discover that it is scriptural and of God. The Church, the accredited ambassador of Heaven, ought to bo the first to recognize the heavenly child, but she is not. These Evolution in Morals. 53 tliiii^^ — and moral truths arc thin^.s as much as material sub- stiuices aro — were evolved by a natural process of <,M"o\vth, by tlie law of their being. Wlien Paul said things which are seen weie not made of things which do appear, he was not only unphilosophical, lie was meaningless.'' — Such is the position taken to-day by many in Uermany, Ejigland and America. We tind it in newspaper, magazine and review. It is on the lecture i)latform and has begun to invade the pul))it. Let us examine and discover whether there is any good cause for conclusions so little to the credit of the (!hurch. We take a case in point : — To-day, almost all thoughtful men in America and Europe admit that slavery is a moral and social wrong. Why did it take so many centuries of Christian culture to tind out this truth ? How comes it that the ex{)ounders of the word of (}od did not discover the grand truth long ago and, proclaim it from every pul[)it and platform and mountain top ? Why was the discovery of this new departure in the world's life not owing to the ministers of religion at all ? Why, after the accurs d thing was bravely condemned by the heroic founders and fathers of abolition, did preachers denounce them, or take jfuge in neutrality, which shelters the coward as well as the sage, or, at their best, give but a fiiint-hearted sup[)()rt until the thing had vindicated its own existence, and demonstrated to the world that it was indeed the moral army on the mareh destined to move over the land and over the sea? So savs the world, and, though there is over-statement, the world is not altogether wrong. Let us look at the Temperance (question : While we may and do differ very much as to the way in which we arc to light against the abuse of intoxicating licjuors, is it not a gathering, prevailing opinion that the drinking habit, ev^ii in moderati(-n, is a moral and soci.il evil. But, says the world, we have not to thank the Church or the Jiible for this growing sentiment and public judgment. Only after this thing in morals had vindi- cated its own existence, and demonstrated to the world that it was one of the coming things in social science, did the Church ■f 54 Questions of the Day. take hold of it, and prove to the world tliat the Bible was all on the side of the new movement. Here, again, the world exagger- ates, but it is not altogether incorrect. Such premises paved the way for two conclusions. These were : — (1.) These things which are now seen, these great facts in morals, liave been made or evolved out of things which do appear ; — they come by no supra-natural revelation,^they have no divine jiarentage. (•J) The Church has followed the new movements at a dis- creet distance, but has never led the van in their promulgation. These are grave charges, and we have but to read the history of the anti-slavery movement in England and America, and the history of the Teinperanoa movement in order to make frank con- fession that thev are not alto'fetiier groundless. These two great reform- of the nineteenth century have been chosen as illustrations of our theme because their history is so well known. Tliey touched political and social as well as church life ;— tlioy did not a}»peal to the learned few but to the ])opular heart and conscience. Wlien the history of the nineteenth century comes to be written from a stand] joint corresponding to that from which we now view the sixteentli, will not the anti-slavery successful war be the glory of its beginning, as We believe the ultimate triumph of the Tem[)eraiice cause will be the crowning glory of its close. These two, and the l)irth and marvelous growth of modern missions, will attract the attention of the students of the future, when our kings and our cabinets, our wars and our policies, have but a small place in the histories of the future. There are other ethidJ ami moral problems already solved or in process of solution which might have been taken had more extended illustration been necessary or desirable. Let us look into the genesis of these great changes more closely, and perhaps we shall lind God after all. There was a time when slavery was considered right, when the degradation of use and wont made the slaves themselves actpiiesoe in the dispensation. The man who is a slave cannot Evolution in Morals. 65 bemoan the radical injustice of his lot, so long as he, with )ut scruiile, would enslave the enslaver if lie only had the upperhand. Every student of history knows that there was a time, when, humaidy speaking, slavery, in and of itself, was not opposed to the laws of God or of man. We must go beyond glittering and specious generalities about observation and experience, if we wouUl behold the birth of this new truth, — to own a slavh is WRONG. Just as surely as there was a time wlien every- body thought slavery right, as surely must the moment liave come when, out of its own internal consciousness some soul evolved this new creation in morals, — to own a blave is wuono. It may be replied, that such a conviction on the part of the individual was the result of observation and experience. But we d(j not know tliat the man wlio first gave utterance to tliis new truth was in a position to observe and expeiiment. Even in such a case, however, it may be maintained that abstract reasoning on theoretic justice, excited by the recital or the experience of others, might be the producing cause, ('lantiug tills, it is nevertheless true that the internal consciousness and soul life, the Divinity within the man, is the womb, the scene of the gestation-time of this new trutl.. Like tlie Christ of extraordinary parentage, both human and divine, it is an unknown fountain-head of good, but we must adore and confess that this thing in morals that is seen is not wholly made of things that do ajipear. Presumably, there never was a time when drunkenness was not consiilered by some a moral or social blunder and impro- priety, but everybody knows that there was a time, not lost in the mist of the dark ages, when i)rofessedly ChrisLiau communi ties were unaninu)usly agreed as to tin; sinlessness and harm- lessness of moderate drinking, and that discreet exhiliration, luiiiccomjianied by scandal, was to be winked at. A time came when some soul, out of its moral sense, generated the dicfiini, to make a beverage of the intoxicant is wromj. And the Sjdrit of God was there, verifying the Pauline ]ihilosophy concerning the beginning of things. If we deny this we virtually nuiintuin 56 Questions of the Day. the spontaneous generation of moral truth. But the trained intellect finds it more difficult to believe in the spontaneous generation of the moral than of the physical. It has been the custom, both in and out of the pulpit, to com- pare the advances in moral science with those discoveries and inventions which produce such constant change upon the outward life of man, and are not without their reflex action on his inner life. There is a superficial reasonableness in such comjiarisons. The discovery is the finding of the treasure which has been lying in the lap of nature waiting the ap])ropriating hand of man; the nvention is a combination of existing principles to produce an entirely new result. We may call the new thing in morals a discovery, and declare that it has always been lying in the nature of things and in the Word of God, waiting for the eyes that were yet to see it, — or we may call it an iir ention and afiirni that in everything it is in harmony with that law from Heaven lV»r life on earth to which, as to a divine measure, we bring it. But there is an essential diiference. It is one thing to discover or to in- vent, — to detect the law or to combine the laws to produce a new result, — and([uite another to take the truth that has come into the world and try it by the measure of the Word of God. There is all the diiference that there is between a problem and a theorem in geometry, between synthesis and analysis in rea- soning. Who are the fathers of these truths ? Who can tell ! We hope they will be known, for some where and some time we greatly desire to see theni. It seems that the angels have done with thcAii, as Fuller says they did with Moses : " they buried him, and then they buiietl his grave." It may be asked why those whose names and memories are forgotten should be chosen as the pai'ents of great truths. We do not know. We have not yet mastered the principles of divine selection. We ilo not know fur what reason Mary was chosen as the blether of our Lord. We do not know what was the nature or measure of the fitness that oui' 1-ord saw in each of the twelve, but we do know that Ho sometimes puts down " the mighty from their seats and exalts Evolution in Morals. 57 them of low degree," and we know " that the things which have been hid from tlie wise and the great have been revealed unto babes." Before Wilbei'force or Clarkson or Garrison there are the great names of Anthony Benezet, William Dellwyn and Granville Sharp ; before these are other mure obscure names, and so we trace the stream very near to its fountain-head, but that fountain we cannot find. Something similar to this we find in the beginning of the Total Abstinence movement, liack of all modern movements we find the Abstemii, who could not partake of the cup of the Eucharist on account of their natural aversion to wine. This natural aversion was in the case of the crreat majority a mere jihysical disgust, but in the case of some there may have been a moral repugnance. Indeed this is almost beyond a doubt, for only the utterly foolish would make war against a clear case of physical inability, but we find that whereas the Calvinists, usually credited with all intolerance, allowed these primitive abstainers to jiartake of the bread and merely touch the cup with their lips, without swallowing any of its contents, the Lutherans declared that this tolerance of theirs was neither more nor less than profanation. AVe see in this lit- tle glimpse of church history the generous forbearance of the creed which has been most accused of harsh severity in dogma and in discipline; but in the action of tlie Lutheran Church do we not perceive their thought, that the will, as much as the phy- sical capacity, was at fault on the ])art of lhos(> who refused to touch the wine cup. Back of this sect, we find the Xazaritesof Scripture. We do not know where and when the first total abstainer on the ground of morality and conscience lived, but we knov/ there must have been a first. If evolution in morals is scarcely a half-truth, if ]»hilosoi)hy and history join hands in holding high the raiilinc genesis •, "Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" — the (juery, why the Church has been so slow in es- pousing the cause of these great moral biiths is all the more perplexing, if true ; for the Church, as the accredited custodian of the Divine oracles ought to be the first to recognize and foster D .58 Questions of the Day. that which is from above. This charge admits of several replies and these take the form of a cum illative excuse and explanation : J. The Churcli has been misrepresented, and its backwardness in this respect has been exaggerated. The Church, more espe- cially since the Keformation, has been the warm friend and advocate of all great moral movements. In England and in America, the tight for civil liberty was won by virtue of the previous training in the struggle for religious freedom. Jiefore the Church, as a body, moves its individual members have been active in these high enterprises, and the men who have been the high priests, and sometimes the martyrs, of social progress, have been, in many cases, devout Christians. When men become intensely in earnest, when their hearts are moved, then they fall buck upon the word of Cod for their watch- words and their inspiration. It is the Christian Tem])erance movement that is to conquer the world. .St. I'aul does not for- mally attack slavery, but he establishes the equality of men in the sight of God. If certain ministers, and even certain denominations, made their plea for slavery find its corner-stone in (Jod's Word, let us re- member that we are taught to pray for the better undcrstandinig of God's law, for the opening of our eyes to l)ehold the wonders of it. Speaking of the year of Jubilee and its effects u[)on slavery, a living preacher* says: "Humaidy s[»eaking, slavery could not be kept out of the Hebrew common- wealth ; it was too early in the history of the world ; but it was hedged about by stren- uous laws, all merciful in character, and of such a nature in their operation, that slave-holding became unproHtable, and the sys- tem died out. Moses was wiser tlian this nineteenth century of ours. He sapped the life-blood of the institution by wise states- manship ; we drowned it in a sea of blood and fire, — blood from a million hearts, fire that touched the hearts of forty millions." 2. There is a human as well as a divine side to the church. It sometimes liai)pens that its finances and material well-being • Munger'a " Freedom of Faith," page 18. Evolution in Morals. 50 are in tlie hamls of men not remarkable fur personal piety. A cluireh edifice, ordinarily, represents not only a comnnmion roll but also a society, trustees, ])e\vholders, etc., who all may not be Christians in the higher sense of the word. Zeal usually demands sacrifice. Worldly ])rudence shrinks from and frowns upon this uncomfortable and unmanageable zeal. Need we wonder that the human sometimes i!n[)edes the progress of the divine side. But, observe, this argument does not tell against the Church, exce])t in so far as she for the moment becomes the friend of the world and the enemy of God. 3. The Church is a huge body; denominations vsq huge bodies, and it is the law of such bodies to move slowly. The fiery apostle runs through the world, and waxes indignant if every sleeper does not awake at his ])assing trumpet-blast. His impatience is not wise, declining elei)hants take a much longer time to rise than reclining mice. The Church is an army, not a mob; it is adi'liberative assend)ly even more than it is an army. By the very nei^essity tliat is laid ujjon lier to preserve the jjeace within her own borders, and to do no injury to the consciences of her members, a new moral movement may l)e well under- way before the Church with harmonious and united front can join the grand march of progress. 4. The Church is an aged hotly, and, in social, jxtlitical and ecclesiastical being, the old are inclined to be conservative. The youngest sect is usually the most radical. Those religious bodies asj.iring to be ])ermanently radical, eitlier in dogma or in formula, have not made much imja-ession npon society. The average man cannot grow old comfortably in a communion that refuses to don the signs of age along with him. In certain quarters we hear a cry for the preaching that attracts the young people. This, although the fashion to-day, is weak, because abnormal. The true function of the Church is to maintain a certain ethical standard. The Church is a censor not a caterer. In all this, however, we have simply a reaction from, and rebel- lion against, the Church of history, which has been always found at the opposite extreme. The church has very frequently resem- 60 Questions of the Day. bled an au;e(l father, who instils lofty principles of daring and pro- gress into his children, and yet looks on very dnbiously ■vvhen they Itegin to reduce his principles to practice in some unexi)ected direction. It is one thing to be conservative, it is quite another to boast in the sPMiper idem. Every true church is conservative, every false system chiims this attribute of almighty God — the unchanifing. 5. The prime function of the church is the teaching and enforcing of that enthusiasm for God and for humanity, which leavens society with spiritual influences. This is accomplished directly and indirectly by the regeneration of individuals as such. The advocacy of any particular item in moral and social reform, thouy;h wot to be neu'lected, is neither its first nor its finest office work. It is a significant fact that, though some hideous social abuses and some disgusting vices, which it were shame to name, were common in the days of our Lord, He did not give His ajios- tles special injunctions to make a crusade against them. The general injunction was "teach." Moses gave manna; the Chris- tian's manna is everywhere, and Christ gives him leaven. Christianity is not a knight errant, running a tilt at particular abuses ; it is a sage inculcating the principles that lie at the root of justice and freedom. It is cause of complaint with some that the Church does not reprove derelictions from duty in particular directions on the part of individual transgressors. We admit that the church is just a litthi weak-kneed, the " bondage of the pul])it" is not all a myth. But we maintain that the true work of the Church is, not so much to cultivate a keen scent for individual heresy and individual transgression, as it is to rouse the intellect of hunumity, to quicken the conscience of humanity, and to renew the heart of humanity. Thus the world is led from the " letter that killeth to the spirit that giveth life." 6. Almost all moral movements and ethical questions have an environment, political or social, or both. Is it not fair that every such innovation or change should have to struggle into a lusty manhood, and literally prove itself to be the child of God Evolution in Morals. 61 before the Church opens its doors to it and strengthens its posi- tion by the " Thus saith the Lord V' Ahnost unconsciously the church has treated principles just as it treats the individuals who seek to enter into its fellowship. Men are not received into the church, Ijecause there is an expectation, or even a ])ro- bability, that in some future they shall ])rove wortliy, good and true men. Nor are they usually ailmitted on a mere verbal confession. Previous to admission they are expected to bear, if not fruit, at least buds of promise. The Church has treated moral innovations as it has treated men, and this is theoretically fair ; but good men and good measures have very often received but scant justice at the hands of the Church. From our present point of view wo, sec the even-luuuledness rather than the justice of her sway. 7. In many countries there exists a imion between the Church and the State. At one time this connection with the State, or rather this identification of the Church with the -State was universal. It is apart frtim the pu'ovince of this lecture to even enter u})on the merits of this question ; but the warmest advocates of church establishment by the State will admit that the church council and the civil nuigistrate wen; not and are not always like-minded. The ]>riest lit the lamps on the altar, but the treasury of the commonwealtli supjdied the oil, and so it came to ]iass that in enforced inaction or in enforced activity the Church had sometimes to pay a price for the fostering care of the State. The foregoing considerations take the shape of a cumulative apoldgy, and if to them we add i\w. timidity, lukewarmness and unfaithfulness to which churches, like individuals, must plead guilty, the wonder is, not that the Cliurch lias done so little, but that it has done so much as a pioneer in ethics and nmrals. Let me again remind you that, while slavery and intem])er- ance have been selected as typical cases, they jioint to the general law. We do not shrink from giving a hearty assent to the doctrine of the evolution of moral truth. Moral science is piogressive like any other scioice, and unlike any other science. t* :'■ 62 Questions of the Day TliiiU-i's wliieli iire seen are notiiiiide of thinjirs wliich do appear. We believe in the presence and power of tlie (luickeninjj; s])irit. We believe that it was not for iioii<;lit that men are cxhdrted to pray for tlie <^il't of the Sjiiritual vision wliich will enable them to behold more and more of the law of God. which is the linal truth in morality. The Word of the Lord end ureth forever, but our iiiter[)retations are not ([uite so endurinjf. The scientist reads the book of nature, and in too many cases his weakness is to regard his last conclusion as final, but we know that twenty-five years Jigo many theories of to-day were nidvnown. We have had to change onr views as to the gulf-stream, glaciers, icebergs, life in the depths of ocean, tlie nniformitarian theory in geology, the age of the world, the anti(|uity of man, &c. But, meanwdiile, nature has never failed to give man the bread he eats and the clothing he wears; and the constellations have pnrsned their nntroubled way, while theories vary and modify as the astronomers move onward from this view of truth to that. Even so inspiration unfolds in s(>reue dignity while we write much and fight not a little on our way to absolute truth, but, meanwhile, it has never failed to be the bread of life to the man who, in sincerity, takes his siiirit' ual hunger to it. In the middle ages they massacred Jews and thought they did God service. One hundred years ago the slave ship was res- pectal)le, and slavery was a most Christian institution. The ministers of one hundred years ago had not begun to suspect that there might be something wroug in the indulgence iu daily rations of rum. We see more clearly than they did, and one hnndred years hence some of the social sores of to-day will be clean gone for ever, and our very great grand-children will wonder how, with the Word of (rod in (jur hands, we could have bci'n guilty of such strange inconsistencies. These things may not bo very clear to ns because it is the peculiarity of eveiy age to imagine itself so near the suinm/tin honnm that there is hut little left for its successors to do. Every age has been willing to believe that when it is done the world is clone. Evolution in Morals. G3 hue One liundved years hence tlio fiicilitiesfor education may be so general that ignorance sliall be a crime. Then will men remember tliat it was said nearly four thousand years ago by an insi)ired Hebrew that it was not good f(jr the soul to be without knowledge. Then will they magnify Christ's command, " Go and teach all nations." One hundred years lience public prostitu- tion may not only be criminal but invariably lead to the severe punishment of both }»arties. One hundred years hence divorce when granted may invariably lead to the punishment of one of the twain on a criminal charge. One hundred years hence the rum-freighted ship may l)e considered as much of a |)u]jlic enemy and contraband as is the slave ship of to-d;iy. Then jireachers of righteousness will find these things in the Word of God. It may be asked why these, and views sucli as these, are not ])ro- claimed from our pulpits now. We reply, in tlie first ])lace, that the puljjit is not silent; and, in the second place, we maintain tiiat every age has more than enough to do in enforcing the morals about which all are agreed. Why, then, make time miscarry by attempting to enforce measures about which there is not a pres- ent probability of agreement. While it is the rule for the Church to be conserv^ative to a fault in its reception of new theories there has occasionally been a very marked tendency to the opposite extreme. A due regard to the progressive nature of ethics should save us from either extreme. Let us beware of treating with contempt the man who comes before the Churcih or th.' world with any new word con- cerning life and progn'ss, for this man or woman whom you negk'ct or despise may be the God-ai»pointed medium through M'hom a new idea, a moral truth, is to be born into this world. On the other hand, let us be very slow in making adherence to any new movement in ethics or nu)rals a condition of Church mendjership. I do not care to discuss this (piestion as a (pies- tion of right or power on the part of any Christian denomination. The right to ut there shonid be room for the full play of individuality in failli and in jiractice. The church is not made strong by da])bling in ethics, letting down these bars and jutting u]) those. To-day a me?nber is disciplined because he dances, or allows others to dance u])on his ])remises, but, unre- buked, he takes his convivial glass ; to-morrow the tendency is to wink at the quadrille party, but to excommunicate him because of the strong drink. To-day we cannot imagine how a professor of religion can go to the tlieatre or t(j the opera, but we see no harm in his belongini: to a secret oath-bonnd society ; to-morrow we are kindly disjmsed lo theatricals, especially if amateur, but wax indignant at the secret organization. We can suppose the case of a man who is a believer, sound on the cardinal doctrines of exemplary life save for this oi)inion that he holds, and which he is man enougli to put into practice. You will not let him into your Church. Tf you arc riijlit voii should rejoice if every Church followed your exani[)le. This child of God, burdened with an oi)inion of his own, becomes a pariah, a religious outcast, with no Lord's table where he is wel- come, with none that he can call his own. In this way a very ordinary sort of man is sometimes made half a hero and half a martyr, and he has all the satisfaction which flows from a chronic injustice. Coercion in non-essentials hinders the cause it seeks to help, and a church shonid enquire of the Lord very earnestly before it ventures to rank any moral or etliical reform among its essentials. The sumptuary legislation in whicli both ecclesias- tical and civil power deliglited to dabble in the days gone by is no longer possible, but a good deal of social tyranny in the name of zeal for morals and manners is still possible. One of the glories of the Church ought to consist in its being the place where Evolution ill Morals. 65 really good men can forget a hundred differences, because the bond of their union in Clirist is so strong. You may make rules to the effect tiiat no member of this Church shall dance, or smoke, or taste wine, or go to the ojK-ra, or ]n' a lueuiber of a secret society, or assume a certain attitude in prayer, etc. All these practices may be more or less reja-ehensi- l)Ii', and it may be an improvement, from an aesthetic as well as friiin an ethical standpoint, to have them done away with, but by yoin- legislation you reduce the Church into a club, and ct invert the Lord's table into a private and exclusive feast for those whose own worthiness is the measure of their neighbor's uii worthiness. Such are a few of the problems suggested by the general subject of the evolution of morals. Our aim has been to put this great question in as concrete and practical a shape as possible. He who thinks will at once realize how much of human i)hilo- sophy must be devoted to this theme, and how much room there is for the insinuations and direct charges of the enemy of revealed religion. Herbert S})encer imagines he has made a grand point when he proves, or thinks he proves, that hiw, religion and man- ners have a common origin. lie says* : " little as from present api»earance we should suppose it, we shall yet find that at first, the control of religion, the control of laws, and the control of manners were all one control. Plowever incredible it may now seem, we believe it to be demon;itrable that the rules of eticpiette, the jjrovisions of the statute book, and the commands of the decalogue have grown from the same root." Now this very thing which Mr. S[)encer introduces with all the conscious self-impor- tance of a discoverer, and tells us how incredible it may seem, is exactly what we have been contending for. Maimers, law aud morals have grown from the same root, and, however much the flowers and fruit may be roughly handled and bruisetl and have lost their flavor, as we near the goal of perfection their beauty will be the more apparent. lu well-ordered Christian Illustrations of Universal Progress, Appleton's ed., page 05. 66 Questions of the Day. families, "Law, r(.'li<^noii find morals" do spriii",' from tlie same root. Tlu! great state, and the wide, wide world will yet be as clear and jiure as a holy family. (_)nr jthilosopher need not lie 80 much amazed at discovering three fruits from one loot. The tree of life has twelve manner of fruits. George Henry Lewes says: * "The great desire at this age is for a doctrine which may serve to condense our knowliMlgi', guide our researches, and shajie our lives, so that condu(.'t may really be the consequence of Belief." Need I say that Mr. Lewes saw no \u)[H^ or ])ossilnlity of this in revealed religion. His hope was in a "religion fouudeil on science." We adopt the words we havo quoted, and we maintain that tlie Revealed Word presents such a doctrine. ]>ut the ('hristian philosophy goes deejier than this doubter's : love keeps the commandments, and he thiit doeth His will knows the l)(jctrine. Henry Sidgwick, the learned lecturer in Moral Scienci' in Cand)ridge university, thus interprets Hegel's position : " Tlie essence of the universe is a yirocessof thought from the abstract to the concrete." This we also accejit, tor it is the point we have been trying to make, while we at the same time maintain the extraordinary generation of the ahstfad. When the I'ilgrim Fathers left the shores of the Old World in search of their New Kuglaud home, John llobinson, their pastor, and one of the noblest of a truly heroic band, not being able to go with tluMu, gave them with his blessing and prayers, much good advice. In this famous address occurs this passage : " And if God should reveal anything to you, by any other instru- ment of His, be as ready to receive it as ever ye were to receive any truth by my miinstry ; for I am very confident the Lord has more truth and light yet to break forth out of His holy word." The " Confession of Faith" declares that "all things in scrip- ture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.' While guarding against the mutilation of the Canon of Scripture it nevertheless acknowledges " the inwtird illumination of the * l'roL)leins in Life and Miiul (I. 11. Osgood & Co.)j page 2. Evolution in Morals, 67 Spirit of riod to be necessary for the saving laiderstanfling of sucli tliiii;-rs as are revealed in the word ; and that there are some things concerning tlie worship of God and governnifMit of the Chnrcli, common to hnman actions and societies, whicli are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian jiriidence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Whenthe Westminster divines spoke of the "gov- ernment of the church," they had regard to the nidrals and man- ners of its adherents as well as to mere ecclesiastical j^rocedure. We do not claim the liberty to sliift our ground, but we do claim tlie liberty to dress and to keep the garden of truth that God has given us ; and if we can discover new odors and can develo]ie new forms and shades of color, it is all to the glory of Him who has given us the primal forms, and under the laws of whose kingdom we are working. Theologians are accused of shifting their ground and of accommodating themselves to the inevitable when they meet science in the attitude of reconciliation. After all this is not a very serious charge. This same venerable Westminster Con- fession declares that " God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means," and when many of the crudities of today shall have passed into oblivion this fact concerning the work of modern science, and even of the unbelieving wing of it, will re- main, nan.u'ly, that by its researches men were induced to revise opinions whh wliich tiie Revealed Word had become connected, but with which it had never been formally identified. But our quotations from Robinson and from the Confession of Faith ]>rovc most conclusively that we have not been advancing a startling novelty to which we have l)een urged by the neces- fit} 1 citing scepticism. Though not sufficiently considered )-day, evolution in morals is not a new doctrine. Tlie C irch is not the motive-power in the vast engine of social piogress. The S])irit of God is the living fire; the ' iiurch is the balance-wheel of the mechanism. There is an evuhition in morals 'ubject to tlie creative acts of God. This evolution the Churcu recognises and guides, but does not always 68 Questions of the Day. lead, and advocates without invariably assuming the right to enforce. Thus it works without touching the liberty of its mem- bers ; it knows nothing of secrecy or concealment ; it is not j)]edged to teach astronomy or geology or any other physical science, or any mechanical ar*-.. iKit it is j)ledged to teach a pure ethics to society, as such, and to teach the art of holy living and jteaceful dying to individuals, as such. In doing tliis its trust is in God, for not only is its charter the holy Word of llevelation, but in tlie daily strug<,le onward and u[)ward it recognises a superintending, an inspiring, a creating God. Its watchword is " Things which are seen were not made of tilings which do appear." QULiSTIONS OF THE DAY. LECTURE FOURTH : ATHEISM OR theism: WHICH? DELIVEREII IN TJIE David M or rice Hall, Nov. nth, 1883, BY THE REV. JOHN JENKINS, D.D., LL.D., Pastor Emeritus 0/ St. Pau/'s Church, Montrcah ?' 4 Questions of the Day. ATHEISM OR TllKIS>r: WTIICIT? Fdi; the title of this lecture I )t ible. It to responsii iiic, iiud I took it witlhjiit giiiiisayiiig — took it for what it was ■\V(iith. And it is worth a great deal; worth thinking about, Worth talkin|.>- about and discussing. It embodies the one sub- ject of the age. It is the theme on wliieli hangs every other thciuc that occu])ies modern s])ecnlation — jihilosopliical, seien- tilic, religious. It is a theme which is inclusive of all the thought (il'tlie time that is worth anythiug, for involved in it are all the holies and art|)irations, and no less all the appndiensions and misgivings of the human race. You see at a glance what this title veans, and what the sub- jects are which it suggests for discussion. It oifers us two alter- natives to choose from : " Atheism " or " Theism." It si^ems to say, one or other of the two, every man is ol)liged to take, seeing that they embrace, — that they exhaust, indeed, — the whole circle of human speculation ])ast and present, as to the origin and being of the universe and man's relations to it, so that, between the two, there is no middle ground ; to accept one is to reject the other. Kither there is a (lod, (>r there is no God. I anticipate the conclusicni to which this discussion M'ill lead, by stilting in the outset that Theism is the alternative which I unhesitatingly accept, and for tlie truth of which 1 am abiuit i contend. If I succeed in demonstrating to you the suiliciency of my reasons for this choice, I shall ec^ually convince you that Atheism, the other alternative, is logically impos-sible, and there- fore to be rejected. *7<\ 72 Questions of the Day. I have SDme difficulty in entering on the discussion, owing to the vastness of the theme and the limited time at our command, HoM', in thirty or forty minutes, could any man compass an argu- ment, (jr arguments, embracing so wide a range of investigation ? For there is no important class of the literature of any country or age, and tliere is no branch of i)hilosophy, intelleftual or ethi- cal, and tliere is scarcely a department of science, which wtuhl be justly overlooked by any author who should projtose an exhaustive, I may even say a moderately adequate, treatment of the great sul)ject. Theism is a belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a Primal Mind, or Intelligence, personal, uncreated, independent, the Originato" of the universe, and its Supreme Kuler. It should be explained that the word " Deism, " traced to its derivation, is the precise synonym of "Theism. " For two hun- dred years, however, in England and France cliiefly, Deism has been used in a restricted sense. Technically, he is a Deist who, while professing to believe in the being of a God, rejects reve- lation — all revelation, l)ut chiefly the Christian revelation; whereas the word "Theist " applies to all who, in any and every age, have acknowledged and believed the existence of one God. Before supplying the grounds on which I accept the Theistic rather than tlie Atheistic alternative, I remind you that the whole question of religion and the supernatural, stands or falls with the success or failure, as the case may be, of the argument which we are to follow. If Theism has no basis on which to rest its claims to human acceptance, then the worship, the practice and the restraints of religion i.i the manifold forms in which, during successive ages and generations, it has been professed and observed amongst men, have had, and still have, no rational existence, even in the highest and purest form which it has reached, lleligion is a mistake, is 'ndeed a senseless super- stition, if there is no God ; if, in other words. Theism has no claim on our belief, and Atheism is to be accej)ted as the more reason- able alternative. I cannot at this time give you all the reasons which might Atheism or Theism: Which? 73 be advanced in support of Theism. T shall address myself to these four arguments : The historical, the psychological, the ethical, and the arjTument from design. I. The historical. — To speak strictly, it is an illustration no less than an argument which I am proposing to myself, in dealing with the history of Theism. It will be found a valuable intro- duction, and a strength withal, to the treatment of two argu- ments that are to follow, the psychological and the ethical. I may cull it an illustrative argument. Theism has a history, consistent aiid continuous, a history with- out a break ; it is incorporated with tiie entire round of human history, from the earliest times until now; with the political, the social, the inttdlectual, and the moral history of all nations ; — of the great nations of antiquity and of the greater modern nations; — of the nations of the densely-peopled East, — India, China, Japan; of those, too, in Central America, Africa, and Polynesia with their limited populations. Eob the history of any nation of that portion of it which relates to the religious beliefs and customs of its people, — you tear away the fibre and strength, the living force of the history of its intellectual progress, of its social development, yea of its political growth also. It would be to write the history of Greece with no reference eitlier to the exist- ence of Socrates and Plato, or to the character and influence of their opinions and teaching. We have no knowledge of prehistoric religion, but we can go back to a very early period in the world's history, and trace the opinions of some of the earliest progenitors and teachers of mankind in regard to the being, the nature, and the worship of God. My illustrations will be (h'awn, chiefly, from the Aryan family. Let me say here, in reference to antiquity and Theism, that no sufficient evidence is forthcoming of the existence of an Atheistic community in the earli(!st histoiic times ; or in later times for tliat matter. Of Buddhism I shiill have to speak by and l»y, under the ethical branch of my sul)ject, Reference to the Mosaic records, I purposely omit. I take you back, then, to the age of the Hindoo Vedas, for the [)urpose of showing you S 74 Questions of the Day. out of these wonderful productions of the far-gone past, that Theism held a commanding position in the thought and aspira- tions of the earliest minds of our race, and took practical form in rites of worship, in maxims of conduct and in the sanctions of a retributive hereafter. It is safe to state that the earliest of these Aryan writings date back thirty-five centuries, sixteen or seventeen hundred years before the Christian era. It is proba- ble, almost certain indeed, that the first conception of the doctrines of the Vedas took the form of speech or language, and in lyrical phrase and measure were piously handed down to succeeding generations by remote Vedic teachers, fully two thousand years before Jesus was bom in Bethlehem of Judea. There are prose lectures incorporated with the Vedas for the pur- pose of supplying an authoritative interpretation of the sacred verses. In one of these, attached to the Kig Veda, occurs the following description of the origin of the universe : " Originally, this (Universe) was indeed Soul only : nothing else whatsoever existed, active (or inactive). He thought, ' I will create (worlds) ! ' Thus He created these various worlds : water, light, mortal beings and the waters. That water is the (region) abovt; heaven, which heaven upholds ; the atmosphere comprises light ; the earth is mortal, and the regions below are the waters. He thought, ' These are indeed worlds ; I will create guardians of worlds : ITius He drew from the waters, and framed an embodied being, purusha — Man. He, the universal Soul^ reflected : How can this body exist without Me ? Parting the suture, He penetrated by this route.'' In the estimation of these Aryan sages, behind all beginnings there was one Supreme Intelligence, Himself unbegun. No more convincing proof of the certainty and the credibility by us, therefore, of this stat3ment could be offered than that which is contained in the followitig elevated description of the Supreme Being, taken from the sacred songs of the Vedas : " Perfect truth, perfect happiness, without equal, immortal, absolute unity, whom neither speech can describe nor mind com- prehend; all transcending, delighted with His own boundless intelligence, not limited by time or space ; without feet, moving Atheism or Theism : Which ? 75 ki swiftly ; without hands, grasping all worhls ; without eyes, all surveying; without ears, all hearing; without an intelligent guide, understanding all ; without cause, the First of all causes ; all-ruling, all-powerful, the Creator, Preserver, Transformer of all things ; such is the Great One ! " Whoever penned these wonderful sentences, from what source soever their substance was derived, this of all things is clear, that the author recognized the being of a personal God, infinite, almi<,dity, all-knowing, all-creating, all-sustaining, all- providing, all-governing. I may add in the words of an able Ori(Mital student that "there are strains in the Vedas which speak out not only primitive impressions of God, but those also of the immateriality of the soul ; yea, and those feelings of responsibility, of dependence, and of guilty imperfection, which suppose a knowledge of sin and the hope of pardon.'' Tbe verses are at hand for the proof of this statement, but I cannot give them no\\'. Imagine not that these Vedic specimens of Aryan religious thought stand by themselves in the early history of Theism. Had we time to prolong the investigation, we could show that similar notions respecting a Supreme Ruler existed in ancient Egypt, Phoenit'ia and Persia ; we should find, indeed, in the speculations and beliefs of these peoples, a singular likeness to those early Aryan gropings and discoveries of which I have given you such striking examples. The ancient " Faitbs " of the world are in marked accord with each other, as to the basis on which they are severally constructed — a basis which is incon- trovertibly Theistic. Granted there was subsequent declension from this elevated and somewhat commensurate tlieory of the origin of the Universe. Polytheism with its erroneous notions, its absurd fables, and its monstrous ritual, displaced the earlier beliefs. But after all. Polytheism, grotesque and hideous as were its mythological growths, had a Theistic root. Polytheism, indeed, is neither more nor less than a simply abnormal and degenerate growth from a normal Theism. So much for the historical aspect of our subject. 76 Questions of the Day. II. I nientionod a second reason for accepting the Tlieistic alternative, rather than the Atheistic — the j^sychological reaaon or argument. Psychology is that science which investigates ami classifies the phenomena of any single mind ; and as these phenomena com})rise one essential element or condition of the mind, — con- sciousness. Psychology is termed that knowledge of the mind and its faculties which we derive from a careful examination of the facts of consciousness. This ex])lanation of terms may lead you to infer that the argument in support of Theism which I am now to offer, bears on the attitude of the human mind towards the idea and doctrine of God. It is a purely sul)jectivo argument therefore. Note, Firstly: Man is the only earthly creature who is capable of conceiving an idea of God, and of reasoning \\\nm this idea. Note, Secondly : The impression of God, of the existence of an Intelligent First Cause, has been the common ])ossession of the human mind from the remotest ages. This I have shown, and provetl (I think) in the first branch of the discussion. Whence arose this impression ? How did it find its way into the common human mind? It is not denied that the impression was and is sufhciently general to warrant its being termed universal. How are we to account for this consensus of Theistic impression and opinion — a consensus of all nations and peoples ? Acknowledging the fact, philosophers have sought to account for it. Some, Cicero, e.g., have traced it to an innate idea of a supreme governing Intelligence. This Eoman orator and philoso- pher, in certain piassages of his DeNaturd i^eoritiu, speaks of the idea of God and immortality as having been inserted, engraven or inborn in the mind. Others have pleaded for an intuitive i)er- ception or an intuitive sense of Deity — a theory which is akin to that of Cicero. This is not the time for discussing the doctrine of innate ideas, or for tracing the history of the controversy to which the propagation of the doctrine gave rise. The controversy is praclically over, and philosophers, on the whole, are agreed that, while there are no innate ideas iu the mind, there are constitu- Atheism or Theism : Which ? 77 tional principles operating in it, and that ♦^bese come forth into consciousness as individual cognitions, and that these individual exercises, when carefully inducted, give us primitive or philoso- phic truths.* Now, while I do not say that that prevalence of a belief in the being of a God of which I have spoken affords ground for the inference that this belief is native to the human mind, it seems incontrovertibly clear that the constitution of the human mind is such that in the presence of the facts of nature and of life, religion necessarily arises, and that the demands of reason, heart and conscience, in which it originates, can only be satisfied by communion with and submission to an intelligent, uncreated, Su]»reme Mind. If this is so, it is to be accepted, with no lower certainty, that Theism is the only rational explanation of this psychological fact. As has been well stated, " The idea of Gud is inexplicable without God." It has been argued that Monotheism, or the belief in one Supreme Being, has been slowly evolved from lower and rudi- mentary concei)tions of Deity — that, beginning with coarse Fetich- worship, the human mind advanced to a higher conception, and evolved Polytheism ; that in the progress of the race Polythe- ism, in like irumner and by the same law, was su])])lanted by Theism ; and that, from the time in whicii Monotheism asserted itself in the thought and aspiration of the human mind, its notion of the Divine Being became more elevated and attrac- tive. They who speak thus are leading us to anticipate a further development. Out of what has been already evolved there is ra])idly dawning upon the world a yet higher form of thought. The world is advancing, we are told, to the point of doing away with God altogether. His worship and service, men say — some men — produce fear and dread ; superstition is the legi- timate offspring of belief in a God ; His character repels rather than attracts ; and now mankind is about to be lifted up to that free, broad sphere, untrammelled and frictionless — Godless — in McCopli. 78 Questions of the Day. which no shadow of darkness falls from the form and presence of a supremely just Judge to whom man is to be held responsi- ble for bis deeds. We are on the way to a condition of society, to human relations, and to political confederacies, from which all idea of God is to be banislied ! This is that which men call a development from good to better ! Or, put in its naked form, a development from God to no God ! This is that higher, nobler concept which some modern pbilosophcrs have reached, and which they hold out to Society and to mankind as worthy of expectation and fulfilment. But in this view of the gradual development of Fetich- worship, what becomes of the fact which meets us when we trace up, as we did in our opening argument, Theistic thought to the earliest historic period, and when, as we have also done, we search out and find the workings and aspirations of the earliest minds towards a Supreme Iiit^illigence, as furnished in those Sacred Songs from which we have quoted, and which Eastern sagos sung on the banks of the Indus four thousand five hundred years ago ? Some objectors have met, or tried to meet, the difficulty. Their method is original, and savours of the sceptical tendency of the age. They have thrown out the suggestion that the translations of Wilson, Colebrooke and Max ]\Ililler cannot be true to the original ; these scholars, they say, have not knowledge enough of the Sanskrit tongue to qualify them to render into English the true thoughts and spirit of those primitive thinkers ? I wonder not that they are startled at the purity, the elevation, and the reli- gious truth and fervor which mark the period of Vedic litera- ture ; but to stumble upon an objection so flagrantly stupid is to vie with a critic who should pronounce Lord Derby's transla- tion of the Iliad too elevated in its genius and poetry to be a faithful representation of a work written so long ago as the age of Homer ! We are met in the discussion of this subject by a psychologi- cal objection, to which, as it is so commonly advanced and, in some quarters, enthusiastically received, I must refer for a little Atheism or Theism : Which 1 79 before passinjr on to our third argument. Some modern think- ers contend that God cannot be known; that, indeed, the limit of human knowledge is the investigation ot the laws of pheno- mena, and that all enquiry into their ultimate causes end futilely. Mr. Huxley, quoting a passage from Hume, in which the latter r conimtiuds that volumes of Divinity be given to the flames, as containing nothing but sophistry and illusion, says : " Permit me to enforce this most wise advice. Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing." Professor Tyndall, following in the same line, institutes a comparison between the mind of man and a musical instrument, beyond which, in both directions we have an infinitude of silence. " The phenomena of matter and force (he says) lie within our intellectual range, and, as far as they reach, we will at all hazards push on our inquiries. But, behind, above and around all, the real mystery of this nnivevse lies, unsolved and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of sohition." In these assumptions thought is limited as to the unseen and the spiritual. The phenomena of matter and force arc, it would seem, within our range. Are they ? Are there no limits to our knowledge of matter ami force, and their phenomena ? Listen to the following illustration in answer : " We know that bodies approach eacli other in the ratio of thfiir masses, and in the inverse ratio of the square of th ir distances; but why do they approach each other? This is what we do not know, and probably never shall know. As to the real came which niak 'S small bodies rush towards greater (tnes, and tlie little stais to revolve round the larger, it is a mvsterv that cannot be pem.'- trated by mortals." Even in tlie material sjihcre of investiga- tion, therefore, we know only " in jjart." If wliat is meant is, that the finite cannot Goinpreh<',Yi I the Lufiaite — \ve allow it ; l)nt this is very different from saying as we now sny, that the cxi^if.' euce of the Infinite may be known to the finite — and that He who is Infinite may be trusted, ol)eyed, loved, and cominmied with by the finite man. Tliere are limits to the progress of the human mind in its pursuit after the knowledge of God ; yet we 80 Questions of the Day. may know Him " in part." In like manner, are there limits to our progress in the investigation of matter. There are deeps here — great deeps and unfathomable, and he judges partially, and there- fore, unfairly, who would confine us to the sphere of physical nature, iiiid bar us out from investigating in the sphere of God, on the gratuitous assumption that He is unknowable, while the phenomena of nature are knowable. He who maintains that God cannot be known assumes a range of knowledge to which you can present no limit, assumes illimitable knowledge ; in a word he arrogates to himself, as it has been well put, a superhuman knowledge of the possible attainments of the; human mind. " Under the apparent humility that God cannot be known, there lurks the affirmation that a finite mind can trace the limits of infinite power." What we plead for is that the spiritual is as worthy of investigation as the material, and that any system which does not recognize and act upon this assumption is unsound. Mind is an essential part of the universe, and to ignore it and its phenomena is to build on a partial and, therefore, nnphilosopical, basis. The i)hysical and the psychical are parts of one system, and we are not disposed to doubt the latter as a witness, when it testifies, as it does testify, to the existence of God and the immortality of man. Having been led to speak of Agnosticism, I would interpose a word or two in regard to the position of Agnostics as to these two alternatives. There are Agnostics and Agnostics. Wide are the dil'f'erences which exist between them. Si, me of them distinctly disown Atheism and avow Tiieism ; with these we have no quarrel here. They have a ])lace in the category under which we are ourselves ranged — the category of Theists. There seem indeed to be two classes of Agnostics, the Atheistic and the Theis- tic. A note of Darwin's which has recently come to light warrants us in making this classification. " It seems to me absurd," he says, "to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an Evolutionist. What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to anyone but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover, whether Atheism or Theism : Which ? 81 i a man deserves to be called a Theist depends on the definition of the term, which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist, in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that, generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an Agnos- tic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." III. My third reason for choosing the Theistic alternative is ethical. This argument, therefore, rests on morals. First, on the testi- mony of conscience to the truth of Theism. Second, on the testi- mony of history as to Theism having, at all times, been the source and strength of morals in society. Not less certain is it that man is a moral being than that he is a thinking being. We have been looking at him as endowed with intelligence ; let us now regard him as endowed with the faculty of determining, and then approving or condemning, the right and the wrong. This is the faculty wliich we call con- science ; and it is a distinct, though not the sole and sufficient, witness to the truth of Theism. " For when conscience is allowed to assert itself, with its full, imperative and personal force, it at once arouses in us a sense of our being in contact with a personal and righteous Will.'' Some philosophers have gone so far as to regard the moral faculty or sense in man as the exclusive basis of the argument for the being of a God ; and to affirm that con- science is distinctively and solely the religious organ of the soul. This is to make conscience a religious, rather than a moral, faculty. What we apprehend through conscience is the difference between the right and the wrong in human actions — our own and no less those of others. This vie": is presented with striking clearness by a late writer : " In its essence, conscience is ethical, not reli- gious I grant that conscience is the supreme faculty in man, and that the logical inferences to be deduced from the nature and operations of conscience carry us further in our understanding of the Supreme Being than the arguments derived from any other, or from all other, sources ; but they do this only when combined with those other arguments. Man does 82 Questions of the Day. not reach his final conviction of religious truth throu2;h anv one faculty or orj^an. He is framed for religion by the whole make and constitution of his nature." Look now for a little at the testimony of liistory as to Theism having at all times been the source and strength of morals in society. In one of my opening sentences I stated, referring to antiquity and Theism, that no sufficient evidence is forthcoming of the existence of a purely xUheistic community in the earliest historic times, or in late times, for that matter, I made this statement advisedly and d"liberately ; not forgetting that it has been claimed on behalf of Guatama Buddha, that he built up an elaborate and comparatively pure ethical syscem on an Atheistic basis. Buddhism, indeed, has been a God-send to our modern " leaders of thought," as ihey assume, and are by many assumed to bo. They have disported in the history and facts of Buddhism with buoyant and almost frolicsome satisfaction, and have ad- vanced its ancient testimony as the strongest they could oifer as a reason for those Atheistic tendencies, to say the least, which run through their philosophic inquiries and speculations — the plague spot which darkens and corrupts them. Investigation will show that Buddhism furnishes no adequate ground for supposing that a fruitful system of ethics can exist in a community, irrespective of the fjanction which is afforded by a belief in a Sui)rcme Being, who is at once tho Benefactor and R'llfar of mankind. What we say is, that ethics was not divorced from religion under tiie Buddhistic regime. Bud- dhism was a strong and successful reacfionfrom the superstitions and oriuptions of a degenerate Brahminism. Cc'ituries after those elevated verses were sung out of the Vedas, and when the MouoLbeism which they taught, and th(i lofty soiitimonts in which thoy abounded wo.re forgotten (for the ]ie()j»le of India had become th.e slaves of tyrant priests), Buddha, like Luther after him — Lutlrir whoso name we pronounce to-day with special honour, and with gratitude to Cod for his noble life and nobler work — made ai» earnest and vigorous crusade against the cor- ruptions of I'.rahminism, and taught the people that virtue and ^' I r. Atheism or Theism : Which ? 83 \ ;,. virtuous living depended not on religions ceremonies, not on priests, or threatening auguries, or superstitious terror, hut on tiie personal mind, on a man's own }u>art and will. It is not necessary that, in tl)is presence, I should eitl)er recite or applaud those no))le moral maxims which the great Faster n He former propounded, and which grew up in his grand nature, a product from earl}'' Vedic germs. They are known to modern scholars, and to mar.y other readers who, though they may not be ranked as scliolars, are thoughtful observers, noting faithfully the phases of thought which are passing before us iu these days of active speculative in([uiry. What I wish to .show is, that it is fatal to the theory of the Atheistic cliaracter of this wide-spread move- ment — a movement whose mark rests to-dny upon four hundred millions of our brotlier men — that from the very initiation of the system, worship, prayer and contemplation were prescribed, and tliat, in a comparatively short period of time, temples and priests were marked features in that system which Guatama inaugurated with an earne'"pearance, in which there is observable a gradual tendency backwards to simplicity of structure in the leg, foot and teeth, and notably towards an original separation of the toes. In the i\Iiocene, two other s[)ecies occur, still more simple in structure aud with the toes more divided. And in the Eocene, or lowest period, the orohippus, a four-toed horse, with teeth of the simplest pattern, has been found and set forth as the ancestor of all the others. Having established, as he The Descent of Man. 93 claims, the genealogy of our present horse, Professor Huxley sees his way cleiir to estalilish tliat of his rider. In this, however, neither he nor any of the other believers in evolution has succeeded. A great gulf still se]>nrates man from tlie anthropoid apes, and to carry the chain of development across that gulf no missing link has yet been brought to light. Some investigators liave even been tempted to renounce the ape astheii- progenitor and to substitute for that travesty of tlie human form the bear and kindred animals. The second way in wliich it has been sought to strengthen the evidonce for evolution is the collection of facts concerning the animal and vegetable kingdoms in historic time, illustrating the variation of species. Tliis was the great work of that diligent and accurate observer, Darwin. His studies, however, carried him beyond the observ^ation of mere physical changes into the region of sense and intelligence, to which also he api)lied. the ductrine of evolution, of which he furnished many very plausible examples. Bolder or more unscrupulous — and cer- tainly less reverent — minds, availing tiiemselves of the hint thus given in tiie direction of ])ure materialism, reduced what has been generally known as tlie spiritual nature of man to the level of mere vital force, and in that force itself they recognized but one form of the blind activities inherent in all matter. It thus became subject of legitimate speculation whether a combina- tion of material particles, with their accompanying forces, should develope into a clod of earth or a human soul. And now not a single department of knowledge is free from the evolutionist's slimy trail: history, arclueology, philology, social science, theology, have been overrun; all that is good and nourishing to the soul in these he has greedily devoured, and, in the alembic of his own sensual thinking, transmitted into a mere trail, the beginning and the end of which are alike in the dust. It is impossible to sustain this theory of evolution by the evidence of palaeontology. No observation of successive forms of life can tell us anything about their genesis. In order to make it plausible even that the higher forms in geological time IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 Iff 12^ 1^ IIM 11 22 20 1.8 1-4 IIIIII.6 V] <^ e: ^1 /a ^i /, o 7 /A Photographic Sciences Corporation iV % V ^ :\ \ ^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 W 4m '^'^' o^ <. ^y. s" MP. osses3a measure of intelligence is not to contradict any of the teachings of pure Theism, nor to controvert a single doctrine of Revelation. In God we live and move and have our being, and in no other are the lives and activities of the lower creatures led and exercised. There is no contradiction of our judgment, no real mystery, in the superiority of insect instinct to human wisdom, when we recognize the nearness tQ the humblest work of His hands and object of His providential care of the Infinite Wisdom and Source of all intelligence. As a doctrine accounting for the phenomena of the natural worl(?, that of the tlieologian possesses an immeasurable advantage over that of the materialist. Are we able on the principles of evolution to account for all the phenomena of man's higher nature ? Allowing the possi- bility of developing a human intelligence out of the life of the an mal by the observation of the senses, is there anything pertaining to man's reason which ic not derivable from such a i^'-' 'Vj 102 Questions of the Day, source ? Now one of the chief elements in the philosophy of evolu- tion is of this nature. That philosoj)hy connects successive and similar animal forms by the metaphysical ja-inciple, causality. Whence comes the notion of cause ? David Hume, from no worthy motive, but with scientific truth, denied th t it is possible to find this notion throuj^h any ol)servation of nature by the senses. Our senses in relation to the external world can only reveal to us a succession of events, not that the one is the cause of the other. We cannot see cause, nor liear, nor feel it — we think cause. Causality, then, is not ])henomenal ; yet it is true, and necessary to all higher thought and action, — a condition of our thinking, a category of the mind, which matter can neither give nor take away. The animal knows place, but man is conscious of that to which place is a mere incident — infinite space. To think otherwise involves the mind in contradiction, for it at once asks, what lies beyond the point at which space ends ? So it is in regard to time limited and time infinite. The former is a limitation, a partial negation, of the latter. Again the mind asks : what was before the beginning ? What shall be after the end of time ? No observation of necessarily finite phenomena can furnish the mind with those infinite ideas ; yet they are estab- lished as completely as any mathematical demonstration by the Tcductio ad ahsiirdum. Some other source than matter, some other fount than that of mere sentient existence has furnished these metaphysical concepts to the human mind. Man possesses a still higher set of notions pertaining to that moral sense which forces him to decide between right and wrong. It has been averred that brutes exhibit moral perception, but their conduct which is supposed to attest this simply indicates that they recognize in their master man the law of their actions, a being to whom they are responsible. Wild animals have not been known to betray moral sensibility. The moral sense is common to all humanity ; its origin does not belong to history. Some opponents of a spiritual nature have sought the foundation of morality in the consent of man on the score of utility ; yet ever since history began it has existed, and, in whatever phase of wm^ The Deficent of Man. 103 conscience it appeared, has acted against utility. The Christian martyr and the votary of Juggernaut have alike des])ised the sordid god of the utilitarian. And if it be said that conscience lias energized for the benefit of the entire race as the higliest utility, it may reasonably be answered that this is to attribute to the man who possessed it something little short of omniscience and a godlike love of humanity. Morality is the foundation of the very idea of law, and not its sui)erstructure. You may educate the conscience as you may educate the eye, but as well may it be athrmed that the eye is the result of a human con- vention to discern objects as that conscience is the outcome of a convention to discern utility. Still another nnderived element in the spiritual nature of man is the instinct of worship, an instinct that, having man for its object, is found in members of the brute creation. Its existence is testified to by all the past history of the world, by the uni- versal sway of some form of religion among nations civilized and savage. No philosophical substitutes have been able to take religion's place. Indeed the instinct of worship or religious sense is found to be the fount of all chivalry, the basis of all true poetry, the crown of all philosophy. Man must worship whether he will or no. The English sensationalist Mill, and the French positivist Oomte, while professing to have divested themselves of all religion, nevertheless rendered divine honors, the one to the memory of his deceased wife, the other to a living woman who was not his wife. We look for tiie origin of religion, and are told that it arises from a feeling of helplessness which seeks consolation in dependence. The history of religion cries shame on such an indefensible and calumnious theory. The world's strong men, the heroes of history, the bravest and most self- reliant, who have dared all, suffered all, and broken the iron bands of apparent fate and circumstance, have ever been those in whom the religious sense was strongest. It has made the quickest intelligence, the most judicial mind, the acutest reason, spurn the dust of the materialist's universe and deity from human feet, and rise into a purer atmosphere to claim kindred with the Infinite Soul. / ^ 104 Questions of the Day. I It is natural to ask, what is the cause of evolution theories, seeing that they are at variance with the results of honest induction in the fields of physical science, of history, and of i)hiIo- sophy ? These theories are the effects of three distinct classes of causes, moral, psychological and historical. The moral gives us the fool who hath said in his heart there is no God. The heart, being thus perverted, influences the mind in the same direction. Whatever the immoral motive may be, a degrading love of sensuality, or a higher, but hardly less obnoxious, pride of intellect, its object is to put God out of the world. Between this moral cause and its end no obstacle is allowed to stand. The enslaved intellect, urged on to the accomplishment of the heart's jjuvpose, disregards the evidence of all opposing testimony, shuts the eyes and stops the ears against the mute or outspoken protests in favor of man's present happiness and highest future good, falsifies fact, evades argument, and outrages the laws of honest thinking. No reasoning can prevail with such a fool, whose nature is that of the liar, — his profession one of robbery and spiritual murder. Another cause, and, one would hope a more common cause, of the belief in evolution is psychological. The human mind is narrow, ever inclining towards unity, ever satis. fied with the one side of truth which it most easily attains. Unconscious of its limitations, it seeks to comprehend all the phenomena of the field towards which it is attracted. That which is incomprehensible, therefore, however strong may be the evidence for its existence and the possibility of its apprehension, the mind either rejects or reduces to the rank of phenomena supposed to be perfectly comprehended. Thus life and intellect, mysterious things in themselves, are reduced to mere forms of ordinary physical force, and the mind rests complacently in the thought that mystery is thus solved, whereas these so-called phydical forces are themselves mysteries insoluble. Matter and force are observed in constant connection, matter never being found deficient in force, and force ever revealing itself in relation to matter. The mind, seeking to attain unity, views matter as the one, the origin of all things, and the necessary seat of all wm The Descent of Man. 105 potencies. By the same mode of reasoning, the oldest Greek philosophers discovered equally worthy sources of all that exists^ Thales' choice of water, Anaximenes' of air, and Heraclitus' of fire were as rational as Tyndall's of mud. The most dangerous form of the mind's one-sidedness is found in the confident assumption, which is probably responsible to a greater extent than anything else for the reception of the doctrine of evolution, that a theory which satisfies the apparent conditions of a case, or accounts in great measure for its facts, is necessarily the truth regarding it. The lawyer dealing with circumstantial evidence, the epigrapher studying an obscure inscription, the young practitioner seeking to diagnose a disease, are well aware that there may be many interpretations which would satisfy most of the apparent conditions of the cases in their care, only one of which can be the correct interpretation. This over- confidence on the part of evolutionists to interpret the phenomena of nature leads to the third or historical cause of their error. Comparatively few years have passed since the physical sciences obtained a place in the scheme of higher education. Before that time they were barely tolerated, and on their first ap])earance as subjects of general study they met with a fciir share of contempt from the votaries of the older branches of learning. They became respectable in time, chiefly through the practical benefits which they conferred upon humanity by men who never lost their faith in the spiritual world, and thus, together with the worthy disciples of these, attracted towards them a class of young men whose insufficient training in other departments of knowledge precluded them from seeking eminence elsewhere. These young men became conceited, and, under the memory of former sliglits, revengeful. When they became teachers tliov could not rest content with the mere investigation of nature, with recording all that is known concerning living organisms, with the employment of matter and its accompanying forces for the good of their fellows. They aspired to the highest place in the realm of knowledge, to the supersedence of the sciences which had shewn scant courtesy to their branch of learning in former days. Their ww^ 106 Questions of the Day. subject was despised and degraded, now it shall be scientia sden- tiarum ; theology once swayed all departments of study and investigation, therefore physical science must sap the founda- tions of theology; philosophy formerly reigned as queen, she shall become biology's slave, and, in the garb of physiology, wait on the new ruler of the world of thought. Thus physical science has been set forth by its immature votaries as absorbing into itself all other systems of knowledge. No wonder that these votaries hailed with delight the theory of evolution, which enabled them to realize their dream, and bind to that which is of the earth earthy every function of human thought, every record of noble existence, every achievement of the mind of man. The descent of man, according to the evolutionist, is from matter, matter possessed of infinite potencies. By these it underwent various differentiations, and became protoplasm. Protoplasm, being the physical basis of life, received that life from a combination of inhering forces. A living structure was thus formed, and by degrees this living structure, gaining from its surroundings by various selections, passed onwards through numberless stages of being to culminat s in thinking man. The Bible doctrine is that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul. Evolving matter and creative spirit are the deities respectively of the evolutionist and the Christian. Ko human eye has witnessed a creative act of God, it may be said. Neither has any eye witnessed an evolving act of matter. That there are infinite potencies in our world is evident, but there is not one tittle of evidence that these potencies reside in matter. The thought of matter itself is one which the mind deems altogether unessential to the conception of the universe; that of spirit has from the beginning of the world till now, and in all lands, been regarded as exhibiting the highest form of existence, the form to which infinite potencies would naturally Vvelong. Eternal, matter is not in any of its known forms, for the evolutionist traces them to their beginnings. Animal life is not from everlasting, for its record, the date of its commencement. ^mrnmi The Descent of Man. 107 can be read in the strata of tlie Laurentian liills. Man is a creature but of yesterday, according to the testimony of geoh^uy, a fatherless, motherless Melchizedek appearing suddenly, without warning note of any kind, upon the stage of the world's liistory. , How came these sudden changes about ? How did matter suddenly start from the homogeneous into differentiation? I low did life so suddenly rise out of universal death ? How did man, the crown and glory of creation, with all his powers and fticulties, spring like the Cadmean Sparti from the earth wherein no seed of his high nature had been sown ? There can only be one answer to these questions : the activity came from without, from a lord of matter, because its Creator, from a power, not from a force — a j)ower energizing with regularity, with harmony, and with progress, but with freedom, with benevolence, with infinite wisdom. The evolutionist's plan of the universe is an inverted pyramid resting u])onth(Miarrow point of homogeneous matter, and tower- ing upwards and outwards into the great sum of present existence. It is amazing how any mind can keep such an edifice in equili- brium, how it has not already tottered to its in(!vitable fall. The plan of the Christian i? the everlasting arras, tilling broad round immensity, and ujiholdingall ; the pervading s})irit breathing order and beauty, life and knowledge, into his creation; the voice of inexpressible majesty, eternally uttering forth not words but things. ]\ran seeks his Father. How shall he discover Ilim but by the family likeness. No brute over whom he proudly claims dom- inion as rightful lord. No sum of material forces, powerful, subtle, far reaching though they be, no coml)inations of mattiu- the most precious that earth can offer or the heavens in star-dust shower down, shall dare to call him son. " Bring forth," he cries to the man of evolution, "that which is infinitely potential, and disjjlay the potentiality before my eyes, that I nuiy see therein the likeness to my own immortal cravings." But the man of theories can show n(jthingthat has not already been rejected. He disjilays an infinite series of lesser existences, the whole sum of which cannot e(iual that of the human mind which interrogates him ; mTT i i 108 Questions of the Day. he cannot reveal the Greater, who is the true, the logical, the only ethcient canse of the less ; the Infinite Mind, from wliich finite intelhgcnce has heen deriving its increase in knowledge; the Infinite Heart, sole imagiual^le sonrceofthe world's goodness and beauty and love ; the Infinite Life wliich, like the starry heavens in the dark waters, finds its reflection in tlie true man's aspirations after immortality. Wliei'e a false science fails Christianity succeeds. Turning over the ])ages of the oacred Record, she exhibits the genealogy of the human race, and lays her finger on the place where it is written of its second Father, " which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God." A pierced hand, once phtmomenal on earth, now witnessed only by the soul that pierces the phenomenal veil, takes the new-found heir, the son of right royal lineage, and leads him to the oiiject of his search. There, above all the babbling of little sordid, dust-embracing souls, who are siriviiig to fill the earth with their discordant noises, there rises on earth itstdf and througii all realms of s])ace, ujnvards to the throne of God, the child's acknowledgment " Our Father, which art in heaven ! " STATE.MF:NT and refutation of the THEOllY OF EVOLUTION. 1, Within historic time notable and lasting changes have taken place in the aspect and habits of animals and plants under climatic conditions or human cultivation. Answer. — Such variations of species in historic time are rare exceptions ; the rule being that like produces like. Historic records extending 4,000 years into the past combine with ordinary experience in attesting the general fixity not only of species but of numerous so-called varieties. Under restored climatic conditions and on the withdrawal of human superinten- dence accidental varieties revert to the original tyjjc. 2. In geological time, animal and plant life appear generally in the order of ascending forms, presenting in many instances very com[tlete series, the members of which are but slightly dilferentiated from each other. Answer. — While in geological time there is visible a generally The Descent of Man. 109 ascending scale of life, in harmony with the Mosaic reeortl, that scale is altogether deficient in the continuity which the evolu- tionist desiderates. The continuity is broken by the permanence of many types remaining unchanged through long periods ; by sudden disturbances occasioning the extinction of certain types and necessitating a new creation ; by the absence in what are called perfect series of minutely differentiated forms, which are necessary to bring the distinct grades of the series into relation to each other ; by innumerable abrupt transitions in the history of almost all families of fossil animals ; and by numerous instances of degradation of type. 3. Eeasoning analogically from varietal changes in historic time, it follows that the higher forms of geological time were gradually produced from or evolved out of the lower. Answer. — This analogical argument is minimized by the elimination of instances in historic time due to the superinten- dence of man, whicli was entirely wanting in the geological ages. It is further reduced by the fact that paleontology reveals the continued existence of certain unclianged types through many widely differing climatic conditions. There is therefore no tittle of evidence for the derivation of all the higher forms of animal and vegetable life from the lower. 4. Hence it follows that there has been no creation of distinct genera and si)ecies, inasmuch as no limit can be set to the progress of such evolution. Answer. — In asserting that there has been no creation of genus and species the evolutionist, arguing ujton a pi'incii)le of causality wliich his science does not afford, confounds succession with causality, contradicts all ex[)eriei)ce by making the less the cause of the greater, sets at naught the analogies of life in historic time, and ignores the glaring discrepancies between his theory and the geological record. 5. Man belongs to the animal kingdom, and, as such, must take his i)laee in the history of evolution. Answer. — It is admitted that by his physical orgatiization man belongs to the animal kingdom, but denied that any evidence rii "TTWIf" 110 Que8tio7i8 of the Day. has been adduced from the remains of prehistoric man, from a comparison of man's structure with that of other existing mem- bers of the animal kingdom, or from palaeontology, to support the theory of his evolution from the lower animals. 6. The mental, moral, emotional, and other powers of man's so-called spiritual nature, by which he is supposed to differ from tlie brutes, are found to have analogies among the lower animals and the inference to be drawn from such analogies is that these powers of man are the results of evolution, an inference which is justified by the history of the development of culture. Answer. — Some characteristics of man's spiritual nature find analogies in the brute creation. But these characteristics in animals are either instincts, which are unimprovable, and frequently appear in inverse ratio to the development of the animal, or results of human companionship and training, which, though transmitted in some cases, lead to no gradual improve- ment of the race. The beast hts no history, while that of man, so far from favoring the evolution of his spiritual nature, tells directly against it. Animal instinct is itself inexplicable, save on the basis of the Theist's belief of an all-pervading soul distinct from the material universe. 7. Hence it follows that the higher powers of man have no right to the name spiritual, as if their origin were distinct from that of the matter and vital forces with which biology is con- cerned. Answer. — There are elements in man's consciousness and instincts of his nature, metaphysical, moral, resthetic, and religious, which transcend all sense perception, and cannot be shewn to have derived their existence from any results of observation or arguments of expediency. These, therefore, have a right to be called spiri- tual, inasmuch as tliey are not of physical origin. 8. Psychology being thus reduced to physiology, and it being shewn that man possesses no element of nature that may be called spiritual in contradistinction to the physical, it is evident that, even supposing gratuitously the existence of an infinite spiritual being, man has no faculty by which he may apprehend him. The Descent of Man. Ill Answer. — Psychology cannot be reduced to physiology without eliminating some of its most important elements and confounding the physical basis of thought with thought itself. By the spiritual nature of man, already established and universally attested, he is able, on the principle of like drawing to like, to apprehend the spiritual world, if he may not comprehend it, and to cognize the source of all life and being, physical and spiritual, which is God. ^Ji"!- 1 QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY OF CHRIST'S DEATH, DELIVERED IN THE David M or rice Hall, Nov. 25/^, 1883, BY THB REV. WILLIAM CAVEN, D.D., Principal 0/ Knox College, Toronto. Ml SCH Jes am( my wh( doe.' Clir phei gres peac gavt His our plac and nam Bi see 1 its ei writt acce] Abov own ; of no Tt upou Questions of the Day. MORAL INFLUEJ^CE THEORY OF CHRIST'S DEATH. ScRipruKE teaches that deliverance from sin is only through Jesus Christ: "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." This is not denied by any who receive the Bible as the Word of God ; scarcely by any who wisli to bear the Christian name. But not less definitely does Scri[)ture teach that salvation is through the death of Christ, and that His priestly office is as necessary as His pro- phetical and kingly offices. " He was wounded for our trans- gressions and bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His 3tri[)e3 we are healed." " He gave His life a ransom for many." " We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of our sins." " He washed us from our sins in His own blood." Thus Scripture speaks in many places ; and those who should deny what inspiration so clearly and emphatically teaches would render their title to the Christian name more than doubtful. But, further, the Word of God in some measure enables ns to see luhy the death of Christ is required and liow it accomplishes its end; and whilst we must not seek to be wise above what is written, neither must we, under plea of humility, refuse to accept the light which revelation sheds upon this great question. Above all, we must not contravene Scripture by theories of our own ; theories, perhaps, which would make the death of Christ of none effect. The vast importance of all that relates to the atonement lays upon us the duty of seeking with great earnestness to learn the ''mm 116 Questions of the Day. mind of the Spirit regarding it. We here touch the very heart of the Gospel, and our error will not be trivial should we substi- tute our own philosophy for the teaching of revelation. It is little, comparatively, that theological science shall suffer ; but should men inquiring the way to heaven receive misleading instructions, the evil will be momentous. It is impossible that in the brief limits of a single lecture I should give any adequate account of the opinions wliich have been held touching the nature of the Lord's death, and the way in which it stands related to our salvation. I am not to speak of the S.)ciniaii view, which holds that we are saved rather by the teaching and the example of Christ than by the shedding of His blood. I have to deal with those who admit that the death of Christ is required to the integrity of His work, and who are not unwilling to speak of redemption as through His sufferings. The theory which at present is loudly demanding to be heard is that known to theology as the Moral Influence T/ieori/. It is represented by such writers as F. D. Maurice and F. W. Robert- son, Drs. Bushuell and John Young. It is prominent in period- ical literature, and is heard from pulpits not a few on both sides of the Atlantic. This theory maintains that the only design of God in the work of Christ is to set men free from the bondage of sin, and restore them to holiness. Christ came to effect the reformation of char- acter, and this alone. By His death He acquired power to do this. Men see in His sufferings the crowning evidence of His love ; for so intent is Hi upon saving them that He submits to any pains and sorrows that may overtake Him in His benevolent mission. He is not appointed to suffer in order to vindicate thi righteousness of God —to satisfy His justice — in the saving of sinners ; but the work He will do necessarily subjects Him t > tli3 greatest sufferings. " He came into collision with the world's evil, and He bore the penalty of that daring. He approached the whirling wheel and was torn in pieces. He laid His haul up ):i the cockatrice's den and its fangs pierced Him. He put His Moral Influence Theory. 117 lljl)'! naked foot upon the serpent's head and crushed it, but the fang went into His iieel." Beholding the matchless love revealed in the sacrifice of tlio Cross, and seeing in this awful tragedy the wickedness of sin, men are led to repentance and a new life. The gracious Saviour, invested with the moral intlnence of His mar- velous benevolence, thus attested by His passion, gains power over human souls, such as could not have been otlu'rwise acquired ; and His teaching and example have their autiiority immensely re-inforced. When men look at His completed course, His lioly life. His pure and heavenly doctrine. His miracles of mercy, His steadfastness in the presence of danger, His death incurred by His perfect benevolence, and His utter opposition to sin, and see the wlujle gl(jritied in His resurrection there emerges a moral power which has no parallel, and the effects of wliichon human life and character are correspondingly gieat. He is thus " perfected" for His work of redeeming men, und is "lifted up that He may draw all men unto Himself." This theory denies that the sufferings of Christ have any such relation to sin as to make them expiittory, or any such relation to the divine justice as to warrant us in speaking of them as a sat'o^fac- t'lon to it. Expiation, the theory holds, is not necessary in order to forgiveness, because there is not in God any principle of vindi- catory justice such as to require that expiation should be made. The ascribing to God of such principle is, we are assured, the 7r/)U7ov ipevSog in the popular conception of atonement. God dues of course hate sin, and He will not treat sinners as if they were righteous, but if men are only willing to repent and turn from sin the justice of God does not require tliat any account should bj t iken uf the past. The connection between sin and suifer- ing is indissoluble, but this connection is not due to any vindi- catory function of justice, but solely to the laws of natural consequence. Moral law stands on the same ground as pliysical law. "Justice is a fixed principle of order, as truly as the laws of the heavenly bodies." Accordingly, if the sinner turns from his evil way he escapes the consequences of continued trans- gression, as men escape evils and suiferings by having respect to 118 Questions of the Day. the e?tabiishtt 1 phy.-sicil order — by withdrawing from situations in which th(3se l.iwi would oporato to their injury. "The wages of sin is death," ami notliing can prevent the sinner from receiv- ing his wages; but let him, persuaded by the marvelous love and sacritice of Clirist, cease to sin, and he shall be no longer in the territory over which death has sway. Without repentance and a new life there can be no forgiveness, no salvation, but wherever these are found, God, from His very nature, hastens to forgive and to receive into favour; and we do injury to the divine character by supposing that any atonement— any com- pensation to justice — any expiation is re({uired. If God can but accomplish the extinction of evil in the sinner, nothing more is sought by Him, and the "reconciliation " to be effected is wholly on our part. The strongest things are said against tlie usual conception of justice in God as demanding expiation, and wo are told that our theology ascribes to God a principle, a feeling, whieli in man wonld be highly censurable — the princijtle of revenge. Surely it is said, God is more benevolent than we, and if a good man is glad to forgive an injury as soon as it is repented of God will not do less. If you fail to mark any essential difference between this theory and the Socinian view of the work of Christ I shall not be greatly surprised. They may perhaps be said to differ in this, that while Socinianism made little reference to the death of Christ, unless when it spoke of His doctrine as sealed with His blood ; this theory regards His death as the irresistible demon- stration of His love — as the crowning appeal by which He breaks and melts the sinner's heart. It has the advantage of Socinianism in ap])r()a,ching to a correct interpretation of many passages of Scri[)Lure, but its essential identity with the view of Abelard and the Socinians cannot be denied. In accordance with the Moral Influence Theory we are not surprised to hear it asserted that " what we call the vicarious sacritice of Christ is nothing strange as regards the principle of it; no superlative, unexampled, and, therefore, unintelligible grace. It only does and suffers, and comes into substitution Moi'al Influence Theory. 119 for, just what any and all lave will, accordinfr to its degree." We find the very same vicariousness in the ca.se of all who have toiled and suffered for the l)enefit of others. If Paul was "in labors abundant and in deaths oft " his whole experience was vicarious, and he was filling up what was lacking of the suffer- ings of Christ for the Church. He was a Saviour in the same souse as his Master, though in a lower degiee. Nay, when the mother watches over her child, bears all its pains and sicknesses oil her feeling, is stung more bitterly by its wrongs than is the child itself, her whole action is vicarious. Let the sufferings of Christ, therefore, be called vicarious, but remember that you do not designate in them anything which is not found in all labor done and sufferings endured for the sake of othei's, at the instance of love. It is a mistake to suppose that the Father and the Spirit are not in vicarious suffering eiiually with the Son. In a universe where sympathy and help are needeil, no good being — no unselfish being can be found otherwise than in vicarious action. The law of love demands it of all. With regard to this theory of Christ's death we remark tha,t it contains an important element of truth. It rightly affirms that the spectacle of the Just One suffering for the unjust, suf- fering because His love led Him to suffer, is intended to produce upon the mind of the sinner a powerful impression against sin and in favour of holiness. Nor can we conceive any object of contemplation fitted to produce an equal impression. Minds which are not entirely given up to wickedness cannot fail to be moved when they witness the sorrow and ag:;ny of Him who conies to seek and save the lost, who endures the contradiction of sinners against Himself, and who, because He will not aban- don the work of love, accepts the cross with all its shame and agony. Men will " look upon Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him." They will say — what a tremendous evil sin must be when Divine Love thus labors and suffers to put it away! How precious the salvation of the soul when He who knows its worth, and sees what awaits it in eternity, deems it worth delivering at such coit. We might harden ourselves 120 Questions of the Day. atjainst all threats, maledictions of law, but how can we resist this appeal of love ? We see that God is love, that Christ is love, and that we have been sinning against a Benefactor infinitely gracious and good. Vanijuished by love we are no longer rebels, but yield grateful homage to Ilini who is entitled to reign over us. There is, therefore, no fault to find with the Moral Influence Theory in what it affirms as to the Lord's sufferings being designed and fitted to affect the human heart; for it is a familiar experience that minds which remain insensible and obdurate when plied by considerations of self-interest and duty, are overcome and subdued by the appeal of suffering love. But the view of Christ's death which regards it as the expiation of guilt is not less powerful as an appeal to the sinner. Nay, it is more pow- erful — very much more powerful, for, as has been truly observed, " It is unquestionably a law of human nature that, while tragic sulfering, voluntarily incurred in fidelity to high principle and out of un(iuenchable love for us, in order to remove obstacles to our well-being exterior to ourselves, has more power over the depths of the human heart than any other conceivable thing ; on the other hand, such suffering, intentionally gotten up with the de- sign of producing a pathetic effect upon us,— not as a necessary incident of a work for ns, but as a calculated part of a work upon us — necessarily defeats itself and excites disgust." Such suffering is too dramatic, too unreal, to accomplish its end. The Westminster Confession says : " The Lord Jesus by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him," The xxxi. Article of the Church of England says ; " The offering of Christ ouco made is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sins but that alone.'' The Augsburg Confession says : " Christus sua morte pro nostris peccatis satisfecit." The Council of Trout says : " Jesus ,1 Moral Influence Theory. 121 Irte pro 1" Je3U9 Christus cum essemus iniraici, propter nimiam cavitatem qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligiio crucis juatificationem meruit, et pro nobis Deo Patri sati.sfecit." Here there is a clear issue between the Moral lutlueuce Theory and the doctrine held both by Protestants and Roman Catholics. The former regards the death of Christ as designed solely to produce an impression upon the mind of the sinner ; the latter holds that the sulferings of Christ are expiatory and propitiatory — that they produce an effect terminating upon God. The common view does not ignore the effect of Christ's death in the impression which it naturally makes upon the mind and heart of individual sinners ; nor, again, its effect in connection with the general interests of God's moral government in deterring from sin and confirming in obedience, by the manifestation at once of the justice and righteousness of God and of His unbounded love ; but it names before everything, as the direct and primary end contemi)lated in the sacrifice of Christ, the satisfying of divine justice by the expiation of sin ; and it maintains that any view of Christ's work which fails to provide for this latter end will miscarry in regard to the former. The question then — we m ly thus put it — is between the purely sahjectioe view of the atone- ment, and the view which makes it objective also. If we can prove by Scripture that the death of Christ has im- mediate bearings upon the character and government of God — th.it it expiates guilt, that it is a propitiation, that it vindicates the justice of God while He pardons and acce[>ts the sinner — then the Moral Theory is overthrown; for this theory allows of no effect immediately contemplated by the sufferings of the Lord but tlieir effect upon us, in persuading us to believe upon Glirist and be saved. It is angry with every approach to the opinion that there is anything in God, or His Government, rendering it necessary that sin should be expiated by suffering. I })roceed to illustrate the following positions ; 1. Sin on its own account deserves to be punished. This is the teaching of Scripture, and to this conscience at once assents. There rnay be considerations connected with the Government of H W^Vi'i* l/." " Be ye holy for I am holy." Let attention be fixed upon this point. Let no one suppose that the denunciations of punishment of vengeance are arbitrary ; or that, having served the purpose of restraining transgression amongst the mass of men, they will not be strictly executed upon individual transgressors. God who is holy, must be unchangeably, eternally, in opposition to all sin ; and if anyone would wish it to be otherwise he takes part with sin against God — His heart is not right before God. At this point many seek to introduce confusion by denying the validity of the conception o^ judice as ordinarily ascribed to God. Justice, they allege, is merely a modification of bnnevolenoe, which last term sums up the moral character of God. There is no reason, therefore, in the justice of God, as if it were an irredu- cible attribute, why sin should ever be visited with penalty. If God sees fit He can forgive His enemies fi". •hf, just as any ruler may exercise executive clemency, or as any mm may forgive a personal injury. We must not venture to tie up the hands of tile Supreme Ruler — the Judge of all the earth — and refuse to Him a power which it is competent to all His creatures to exercise — nay, which, in many cases, it is equally their duty and their privilege to use. " If," says Socinus, " we could but get rid of this justice, even if we had no other proof, that human fiction t^u 124 Questions of the Day. of Christ's satisfaction would be thoroughly exposed and would vanish," Now it cannot be shewn that justice is a modification of bene- volence or of anything else. The attribute of justice is no more resolvable into benevolence than benevolence is resol- vable Mito justice. Such is the common judgment of mankind, as attested by their language in all cases where there is no special theory to be supported. Justice, as well as benevolence, enters i'>to our conception of moral excellence ; and both attributes are found in perfection in God. Analogies taken here from the case of private persons, wlio may and should forgive, and from rulers, who may warrantably exercise clemency, are really nothing to the purpose. For no man and no government is charged with the duty of upholding jus- tice as such. This belongs to the Governor of the universe, and to Him alone ; and whilst governments and individuals should act justly — should act rightly — they amnot become the adeipiate executive of the moral law. It is not possible that any creature should have such function. Morality is doubtless the same thing in God as in the creature, but only in limited measure can any creature become God's lieutenant. We reject, therefore, the argument that because men may and should in many cases exercise a gratuitous forgiveness, justice in God interposes no obstacle to His pard(jning without compensation, without expia- tion, without atonement. But here the argument simply turns upon the meaning of Scripture. God has said. that He will visit sin — all sin — with penalty. If, therefore, He cannot lie, sin will receive its due. There is no possibility of escaping the conclusion, except l)y call- ing in question God's veracity ; and " let God be true and every man a liar." Nor is it anything to the purpose to cite passages in which God promises to forgive sin — to forgive freely — to for- give whenever repentance takes place. All such passages pre- suppose the remedial dispensation — the intervention of the Redeemer in our behalf. No promise is spoken, no portion of revelation given, except in connection with the scheme of grace ; I;' $. I, Moral Influence Theory. 125 and the entire form and substance of the divine communications to sinful man are based upon and ira]>ly the work of Jesus Christ. It is no argun mt, therefore, against the nei^essity of expiation to quote passages in which the i)romise of pardon is extended to all who repent and forsake their sins. But should any one count it too daring to affirm that God cannot forgive without atonement, should he think that our knowledge of the necessary claims of justice at the hands of the Supreme Ruler is too imperfect to warrant such an assertion — he can at least recognize the force of the argument from the divine truth- fulness ; for in multitudes of places God declares that He will punish sin, 3. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ, as our substitute, made expiation of sin. This is the main proposition which we seek to establish. If the death of Christ is expiatory, the ohjecfiue view of the atone- ment is established. His death is not merely an appeal to the sinner but lias such bearing upon the character and governni uit of God as to lay the foundation for the forgiveness of sin, wlien- ever the merits of Christ are appropriated. It is not necessary that I should here explain accurately, and mark the distinction between such terms as expiation, pro|)itia- tion, atonement, redemption, satisfaction. They are all found in Scripture as ap))lied to the work of Christ, except the last. When sin itself is contemplated as the object of Christ's work it is said to be expiated, that is, its guilt is removed. When God is the object we use the term propitiation. God is propitiated when His judicial displeasure is averted. The same Greek term is used in both cases {'uiwiFai^at. lAanrrjpMt)). Redemption is the deliver- ance of the sinner ; his deliverance from ruin by the payment of a "ransom." It may denote deliverance merely, without reference to ransom ; but in this application of it a ransom is paid, " we have redemption through His blood." The English word atonement, in the etymological and primary sense of it, is equiv- alent to " reconciliation," and is so used in Romans v. 7. " By whom we have now received the atonement. " In theological W¥ 126 Questions of the Day. speech it means nearly the same as propitiation ; it denotes that ■which so covers or expiates sin that God and the sinner are brought together. Reconciliation is effected. The term satisfaction as used by divines is wider than any of the other terms. It embraces both the active and the passive obedience of Christ. So far as the latter is referred to it need not be distinguished from propitiation. But at this stage of our argument, and in connection with the term, I wish to correct a misapprehension sometimes entertained. Not unfrequently the common doctrine of the atonement is charged with the odious- n?ss of representing God as pleased with suffering in itself — so pleased with it that He will not grant remission nnless the due amount of it is forthcoming. Robertson of Brighton does not think it unfair, or in bad taste, to say that we make God a Shy- lock, who will have his pound of flesh. In the minds of igno- rant persons the term satisfaction may seem to countenance this misconception. I do not need to explain to you that it is not, and has not been, so understood ; and that it is inexcusable to charge the doctrine of the Church with representing Him " who only is good" as delighting in the sufferings whereby sin is expiated. Are we here dealing, may I not a.sk, with a miscon- ception or a slander ? Can any intelligent person have read any accredited exposition of the doctrine Jind not know that for God to be pleased with suffering, as such, is one thing, and for God, as the fountain and guardian of justice and law, to require that sin shall be visited with its penalty, is (][uite another thing ? Earthly analogies might shield the doctrine from any such injurious imputation. Are the legislators and the judges who decree retribu- tion for the malefactor without sympathy ? Has not many a judge pronounced the death-sentence with tears streaming from hiaeyep^ But we should know that nothing is higher than jus- \(n ■ i. "'r'r7 must supersede it — in its own s[)here ; and that the •j; n.'.[a>i : ih*} tender-heartedness, which would hinder its action is eerii-iil ^ot holiness. Rather is it infirmity from which per- fect sanctifi cation will set the good man free. On such a thenia it is easy by strong appeals to the sensibility to raise such a Moral Influence Theory. 127 tumult of passion in our poor, weak minds that both rea' on and conscience shall be overpowered, and that we shall be utterly unable even to listen to the Word of God. Is this the state of mind in which the light of holy truth is most likely to irradiate our path ? Were I to address you as students of philosophy, I would say: preserve moderation of feeling if you would rightly estimate the elements of truth and duty. But, surely, as Ciiristian theologians, we should know that the disordered feelings of a sin- ful nature cannot be our guide in estimating the desert of sin, or determining Ikav God should treat it. Probably our understand- ing were inadequate to such a task, even were our feelings lioly ; as it is, we can but listen with silent awe to the voice of God addressing us in His Word. I have been anxious to speak distinctly upon this point, because no obj(!ction to the Scripture doctrine of exjjiation is urged with greater popular effect, or is more frequputly and unscrupulously employed. It is affirmed that morality in (iod must be the same as in His creatures; that lie is not less tender and compassii)nate than men, but infinitely more; that he is not the slave of any attribute, such as justice, but, as Lord of all, free to pardon unconditionally, wiienever He desires. And thus it is forgotten that justice and holiness are not less essential to God than mercy, and that no one attribute of His can ever be illustrated at the expense of another. Before presenting the proof of the position laid down as to the expiation of sin by the Lord's death, it may be well to obviate another misconception of the Church's doctrine, and especially of that doctrine as held and. taught in the Calviiiistic braui'hes of the Church. It is often alleged that we r*>present the qimnfam of tlie Lord's sufferings as proportioned to the number to be saved by Him; so that had fewer been saved, His sutfeiings would have been less, and had more been saved His suH'erings must have been greater; He endured precisely what the redeemed must have endured had they borne their own guilt. This gross concejjtion, which confounds a judicial with a pecuniary com- pensation or satisfaction, is frequently declared by opponents of 128 Questions of the Day. expiation to betlie doctrine of the Church. You are well aware that it is not so, and that our theology carefully guards against any possibility of so construing the death of Christ. Dr. Hodge writes : " It is a gross misconception of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many ; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the pui^pose of salvation. Tliis is not the doctrine of any church on earth, and never has l^een. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite num- ber and variety of plants and aiumals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption ; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through His blood." There is little prospect of ignorant and unscrupulous men ceasing to misrepre- sent the opinions to which they are opposed, and all that can be done is to embrace every legitimate opportunity of exposing thoir misrepresentations and of stating the truth. Still further, the doctrine which we propose to establish does not imply that God is naturally hostile to sinners, and needs to be projjitiated and won to clemency by the sufferings of His Son. This, also, Sccinians have charged upon the doctrine of expiation, and the charge is being repeated with great emphasis and passion by the advanced broad school of our own day. They tell us that God is love, that He delights to exercise mercy, and that no greater injury can be done to the cliaracter of the Hea- venly Father than to conceive, as our doctrine does, a change in the divine disposition towards men effected by the intervention of the Redeemer. Here again we must say that no church on earth has ever held the opinion repudiated. We admit, however, that incautious passages in certain popular works, or in spoken discourses, may have given a pretext for the reproaches. Let it, then, be distinctly uuderetood that we regard the gift of Christ— redemption in all that appertains to it — as originating Moral Influence Theory. 129 in the infinite love of God. He cannot love ns more on account of the Redeemer's work than He did from the beginniu},'. The love of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Si)irit is one and equal, for God is one. We put far away from us the conception that the Father, concerned for the claims of justice alone, is bent upon our destruction, and that by the plea of His inexpressible sufferings one who is more tender and loving than He persiuides Him to regard us with pity. Even the words which express such a thought must be uttered with apology. But if this conception has no place in theology, is injurious to the divine character and abhorrent to true piety, it nevertheless must be asserted that there is a reason in God Himself — in what He is — why expiation or atonement should precede the forgive- ness of sins. God must be "just" while He " justifies the ungodly." It is not arbitrarily that "death " has been denounced as the penalty of transgression. It is right that death should be the penalty; and hence both the justice and the veracity of God now demand that sin shall be visited with its due, either in the person of the sinner or in that of his substitute. We now proceed to offer some direct scriptural evidence for the objective character of the Atonement. We wish to shew that it produces effects terminating upon God ; and tliat it is no adequate view which conceives it merely in its sabjecfive effect upon man. It lays in righteousness a foundation for the believer's justification, even while the constraining power of the love which made expiation, which suffered in the garden and on the cross, is felt beyond every other appeal. 1. The sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ are rendered by Him in the character of Priest ; and the work of a priest always has respect to God, and terminates upon God. That Christ is a priest, and that He offered Himself a sacrifice to God for the pardon and cleansing of His people, are very distinctly and fully taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In eh. i. 3 it is said, " when He had by Himself purged our sins. He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." This is the first intimation in the Epistle of priestly work, but the reference to His death |i|! i 130 Questions of the Day. mio;ht not be recognized had we not other passages more explicit. In eh. V. His appointment as priest — High-priest — is formally declared : '' Every high priest taken from among men is ordaintid for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer b(jth gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . .No man taketh this honour unto him- self but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest, but He that said unto Him, Thou art my Son. this day have I begotten Thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of IMelchisedec." If Scripture can be appealed to in proof of any position, the priesthood of Christ is a true and real ])riesthood. Melchised(?c and the priests of Aaron's order, equally, find their antity])e in Him. He, indeed, is the one, true Priest ; for all other priests " served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Being ordained a priest, He performs the duties of His ollice. Not only does He, through experience of suffering, ac([uire a perfect sympathy with us, so that He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but He does what is most character- istic of the priest. He offers sacrifice for sins. "He needclh not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sins and then for the people's ; for this He did once (once for all) uilien He offered up Himself. " He is both the Priest and the Victim ; and surely the sacrifice is not less really such because it is of transcendent value. In ch. viii. we are told that He is a *' minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not men. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices ; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." And in the 9th ch., " But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands neither by the blood of goats and of calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the tlesb, how much more shall the blood of Moral Influence Theory. 131 Christ who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Since " without shedding of blood there is no remission," Christ's blood was shed ; and tlius " the lieavenly things were purified with better sacrifices " than those of the law. " He hath appeared once in the end of the world to put away sill by the sacrifice of Himself." He has been " once offered to bear the sins of many." The 10th ch. tells us that what the blood of bulls and goats could not efft.'Ct — the taking away of sin — has been accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ. Believers have their *' conscience purged," their " sins taken away," they are " sanctified," " perfected," and " have boldness to enter into the holiest, by the blood of Jesus." Thus Christ has finislied His work of exjiiation, and now " there remaiueth no more sacrifice for sins." We cannot examine in detail these statements assertory of the sacrificial and expiatory character of the Lord's death, but certainly they warrant us in saying that all that was typified by the sacrifices under the law was really and truly effected by the sufferings and death of Christ. Unless we take the ground that the epistle to the Hebrews contains no reliable exposition of doctrine, but is occupied with fanciful application of the Old Testament, we must hold that the reality of the priesthood and propitiation of the Son of God is abundantly established. In order rightly to understand these statements it is neces- sary to take with us the true conception of sacrifice, of otifering for sin, as given in the Old Testament. This conce])tion, lodged in the mind of the Church from the beginning of its history and rendered exceedingly distinct by the Mosaic Economy, must certainly be applied to the sacrifice of the Saviour. Rationalism could not venture a more reckless statement than when it alleges that, if we would understand aright the sacrifice of Christ, we must, as uearly as possible, reverse the ideas vvhici. the Jew- ish dispensation taught men to entertain regarding sacrifice (Biehr). Jowett could not contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews more explicitly than when he says : " The death of Christ was m^^m 132 Questions of the Bay. not a sacrifice in the Levitical sense. " The ohl economy was from God, and its fundamental religious and ethical concej)- tions cannot be at variance with the new economy. ^Moreover, the divine wisdom, by means of the ritual and cerc^monial of Old Testament worship, was ja-eparing moulds into which the Chris- tian doctrines might be put. We a*hrm, then, that the expia- tory nature of sacrifice is tanght in the law as clearly as })ossi- ble. In the case of all bleeding sacrifices, whether for indivi- Jnals or the congregation, the hand is laid upon the victim's head, to signify that it becomes the representative of the offerer and that his guilt is transferred to it. It is slain, to signify that the original sentence of death pronounced against sin has been accomplished. The 3acrifice is " accepted " to " make atone- ment" for the oiferer, " For the life of all flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul, for it is the blood that niaketh an atonement fur the soul." (Lev. xvii. 11). "On the great day of atonement, when the most exact representation the ancient worship could offer of the all-perfect atonement of Christ was given, the bluod was taken into the Holy of Holies itself, and sprinkled upon the Capporeth. This brought the blood which had thus vicariously discharged the jienalty incurred by the worshipper into imme- diate contact with God. It signified that the vicarious satisfac- tion was accepted, and that in each case the soul-bearing blood of the victim avails to cover from the judicial sight of God the sins of the oiferer." (Hodge A. A.) How strikingly also, are the imputation of sin and its removal signified when, of two goats, one chosen by lot is slain, and the other is sent into the wilder- ness : " And Aaron shall lay his hand upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness ; and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities, into a land not inhabited." (Lev. xvi. 21, 22.) "Unless the obvious meaning of Scripture must give way to our theory, this cannot represent merely the removal of Moral Injluence Theory. 133 sin by sanctification, or the suvremlcr to the service of God of those atoned for, an expression of their .sense of gratitude, obliga- tion and dependence." (Maurice). The Hebrew word rendered " atone " in our P^nglish Version, the Soptuagint transhites by D.anKtadai and the Vulgate by propitiarc, cjcpiare, dimittere. Whether the radical meaning of the verb is to " wijye out " or *' to cover" the sense oi atojiernent, as understood theologically, is too well established to be contested. It were waste of ♦^'nie here to expend criticism upon the point. We have to say, then, that the teaching of the Ejtistle to the Hebrews, read in the light of the Old Testament, cannot be mistaken. The death of Christ, His sacrifice, so " hides " or " covers " sin from the eyes of God that He takes no account of it against the sinner. The penalty has been borne by the sinner's Substitute. This is the conclusion to which the exam- ination of the Epistle itself, even without reference to the history of sacrifice as ordained by God, would certaiidy lead us. As our g'-eat High Priest is appointed by God, so He "offers up Himself" to God : " Through the Eternal Spirit He hath offered Himself without spot to God." He mediates the "new covenant for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." There must of necessity be His death, that the covenant under which we receive the " eternal inheritance " may be valid. He hath appeared " to bear the sins of many " and " to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Believers, consequently, have now " boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He hath consecrated for us." And when we turn to the Old Testament law of sacrifice, and find how clearly the ideas of substitution or vicariousness, of penal suffering, of expiation and propitiation are connected with offerings for sin, we see that scripture in both Testaments is irrevocably committed to an atonement which affects God as well as the sinner, and which has power subject- ively just because it is objective in its bearing. " Probatur omnium sacrificiorum vim non circa homines, sed circa Deum prime ac proprie versatum esse." (Outram). 134 Questions of the Day. We have not proposed to ourselves any general examination of Scripture on this theme, else it might be easily shewn that tlie conclusion reached as to the expiatory nature of Christ's sufferings, by comparing the Epistle to the Hebrews with t]ie Levitical law, is abundantly confirmed by many other parts of the Word of God. The 53rd ch. of Isaiah so emphatically asserts this great cardinal truth — so amplifies and varies the expression of it — that it were sufficiently established by this passage alone. Only by giving a non-natural meaning to this chapter, and doing so with much violence, can you silence its testimony to the penal death of the Messiah. It is e^sy to say that language which seems to teacii strict substitution and expiation may be understood in such and such a sense ; but the question is, in what sense would it naturally be understood ? In what sense has it actually been understood, through the centuries, by those who have devoutly received its instruction ? For if the great central truths of Scripture, in the passages which deal with them ex professo^ are so enunciated that nearly all fair-minded and com- petent readers have been misled, we are brought to the conclu- sion that Revelation has failed in its purpose. We set down these words : " He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all It pleased the Lord to bruise Him : He hath put Him to grief. When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, lie shall see Hia seed," &c. Take the passage as poetry or as prose, it must contain some meaning; and what is this meaning but the doctrine held by the Church of Christ from the beginning, and declared in the Confessions of Christendom, regarding the expiation of sin and the redemption of sinners through the death of the Messiah ? We are prepared, therefore, to hear the Lord Himself say that He " came to give His life a ransom for many." And so, when the dark shadow projected by His sufferings, now near, fell with inexpressible sorrow across His soul, and tha prayer was forced from His lips, " Father save Moral Influence Theory. 135 me from this hour," He recalled the word, and said — " but for this end came I unto tliis hour." If He dies merely to create Moral Influence upon men's minds, with what changed feeling the generations to come will read the narrative ! 2. The Scripture doctrine of justification clearly shews the objective character of the Atonement. In justification God for- gives our sins, and accepts us as righteous. We are not right- eous, and we cannot make ourselves such. How, then, can He whose judgments are according to truth regard and treat us as righteous persons ? Those who deny expiation by the death of Ciirist tell us that as soon as we repent and come to a better mind God condones the past, simply beca' .0 He is gracious. As a Sovereign He proclaims forgiveness to oil who will lay down their arms and return to allegiance ; but there is no need of any compensation to justice, any atonement. Such a view is distinctly and unequivocally opposed to Scrip- ture. Were there nothing in the Bible bearing upon this great question of justification but Ilom. iii. 25-26, the objective view of Clirist's death, as seen in relation to it, would be clearly estab- lished : " Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remis- sion of sins that are past in the forbearance of God ; to declare at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justilitir of him which believeth in Jesus." Christ's death is a proj)itiation ; and this propitiation is rendered that, in the justi- fying of sinners, God Himself may be just. The jtisfice of God here comes before us. He will save men — ^.justify them ; but this must be done in a way consistent with His character as a just God. Therefore His Son is set forth as a '^n^-'z/xot', a jjropitiatory sacrifice. We make bold to say that this i)assage not only harmonizes with the view of Christ's death here nuiintained, but cuts up the Moral Iiifinence Theory by the very roots. It mat- ters not whether you translate "just and the justifier," or "just yd the juatifier," for in either case the idea is that tiie claims of justice are duly respected in doing a thing which, without propitiation, would have trenched upon its prerogative. 136 Questions of the Day. Then, observe how completely the Moral Influence Theory is at fault in view of the temporal distinction made in the ])assage. The past is divided from the present— the time before Chri.st's coming from the time after it ; and the propitiation declares the righteousness of God in remitting the sins of the former period as well as those of the latter. Were the latter only referred to^ it might possibly be argued that the justice of God is in some way satisfied by the change in the sinner —by the penitence, faith and love which his contemplation of Christ's propitiation produces. This might be argued, I say, though perversely enough ; but what shall l)e said of these whose sins were remit- ted " in the forbearance of God," i.e., during the time of His forbearance — the time before the advent? God's justice is declared in justifying them, though they had passed from earth before the propitiation was made, and could not be affected by the life and sufferings of Christ, so as to find salvation in the influence excited by the recital of them. See, then, what tlie Moral Theory has brought us to : Christ can be a Saviour only to those who live after His coming, and are properly affected by the tragedy of His death, having witnessed it themselves, or having had an " adequately graphic account " of it conveyed to them. All who died before His sufferings took place either failed of salvation, or were saved in some other way. No infant either before or after His crucifixion can be saved through His cross ! Let the theory be carried consistently through, and it will evolve conseciuences which few, we presume, are prepared to accept. There are doubtless thorough-going advocates of the subjective theory, who are prepared to accept its consequences in its bearing upon justification. They do not shrink from admitting that man is justified on the ground of his own righteousness; that the merits of Christ are not imputed to him ; that he is not redeemed through Christ except as he is redeemed by all whose life or death has been an element in his spiritual culture. But many persons are dallying with the theory who are not disposed, we cannot but hope, to follow it in that complete subversion of Moral Infiuence Theory^ 137 sctive aring that that J not vhose But losed, oil of the great principles of the Gospel to which it necessarily leads. These persons profess little interest in theological dogmas, as such, and they have a vague idea that the theory which is now soliciting their approval is something less hard, technical^ dogmatical than the view ordinarily held. But are they ready for the entire change in Christian experience and in the grounds of Christian hope which the theory demands ? Are they ready to say : " we do not need the removal of our guilt through a Saviour's blood nor to be clothed with His righteousness. God will certainly accept us if we embrace a mercy which would have been extended to us though Christ had never appeared. We shall endeavour as we can to appreciate the wonderful bene- volence of Jesus Christ, and to see in Him the supreme dignity of virtue, but we need not cling to His Cross, as if by it were the hope of pardon and eternal life." Is simple-hearted piety prepared for this result ? There is perhaps no passage of Scrij ture in which the ration- ale of the atonement is more clearly expressed than in the one now considered. There are multitudes of passages, however, in which the same doctrine is contained. Without referring to these I may simply say that the passage which has been under consi- deration is intimately connected with the entire scope of the Epistle tt) the Eomans. All that precedes prepares for it, and all that follows is in accordance with it. It is merely the culmination of the Apostle's argument, the keystone of the arch which he is constructing. For if he elaborately shows that both Gentiles and Jews are sinners before God, and that they cannot attain to justification of life by any works which they can do, he is merely preparing to unfold God's method of justification, in which all the demands of law and justice are satisfied in the work of Christ • so that justice is illustrated equally with grace in the salvation of those who believe. There is a great truth — a great fact — which lies at the basis of all statements about the Saviour's work on our behalf, and which serves in some measure to explain the etftcacy of His intervention— -our release from penalty, and our acceptance as ^(■^ 138 Questions of the Day. righteous in the sight of God. It is the oneness of Ghnst tcith those He came to redeem — He is one with them, both legally and vitally. This fact, rightly apprehended, should help to remove the difficulty vvhich many feel in admitting that what was done and suffered by Him should accrue to our advantage, in the manner which Scripture plainly declares, and which the Church of God has ever taught. When we say, or rather when Scripture says, that our sins are transferred to Him and that His righteousness is transferred to us (" He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteous- ness of God in Him"), the statement will be seen to be no " intol- erable figment." This identification of the Lord, the Giver of life, with us, is effected historically in, and is attested by, the incarnation: " For- asmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also him>^elf likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their life- time subject to bondage." (Heb. ii. 14, 15.) In presenting this doctrine of the oneness of Christ witli the new humanity we need not run into the theological mysticism which brings to its aid a realistic philosophy, and says that Clirist not merely became man, but assumed the generic humanity. We decline to go beyond Scripture ; but we have before us the plain declaration that His assumption of humanity was in order to His making common cause with us. i>rot only to (qualify for accord- ing a perfect sympathy, but to establish such relationship that He may become cur priest, our substitute, our sin-bearer, our right- eousness, does He clothe Himself in flesh. His relation to those represented by Him is thus analogous to that sustained by Adam to those whom he represents. We wrongly conceive the position of either if we think of Him simply as a unit, how- soever important. Each so comprehends his class in himself, that obedience on the one hand, as disobedience on the other, passes over to their account. We iire not here adducing this fact as additional proof of the objective character of Christ's Moral Injluence Theory. 139 .•loht- to aiued ccive how- nself, other, this irist's work for us, but as helping us, in some measure, to apprehend how Christ should bear the penalty of our sins, and how His righteousness should become ours. The object ion that our ideas of justice are all confused by the doctrine of vicarious sufieiing and expiation is, by this fact, completely met. What Christ does is counted to us, because He is one with us. This corpo- rate identity is the ground on which divine justice reckons His obedience to our account : He " took part of flesh and blood " that, being identified with the " children," He might be able to crush their adversary ; able to do this " through death," because in His dying their obligation to die would be discharged. Injustice is not done to Ilini, because He voluntarily takes this place of substitute ; nor to the law because His identification with them is a fact which the law itself recognizes. And we may here be permitted to say that the very incarnation, the assumption of the human nature by the only-begotteu Son does more than suggest that the Moral Theory cannot be an adequate explanation of His death. His appearing in human nature is infinitely the most wonderful event which the history of the race exhibits. Is it probable, then, that His work — His death — will operate merely in the ordinary methods of human influence, though with power exceptionally high ? He who was in the beginning with God, and was God, becomes flesh, and in the flesh sufl'ers upon the accursed tree : is this only to exert a moral influence greater than that exerted by the prophets of the old dispensation or the apostles of the new ? It can hardly be. The problem of the world's redemption must surely be affected in some unique way by an event not only unique but so trans- cendently wonderful that '* the angels desire to look into it." This is not in any strict sense, perhaps, a iwoof that the death of Christ is more than an argument of great moral force ; but I can hardly conceive how a mind that has felt the marvelousness of the divine and human meeting in the person of Jesus Christ, can acquiesce in the view that He " lays His hand " merely upon man — merely upon one of the parties in this strife, and not " upon both." ^ 140 Questions of the Day. From the brief and inadequate exposition given it is evident that the Moral Influence Theory of the atonement must, if accepted, completely revolutionize both theology and experimen- tal religion. If this theory is right our ruling conceptions in Soteriology have been wrong. We have been quite astray not only as to the character in which, and the purpose with which, the Saviour shed His blood, but as to the desert of sin> the justice of God, the justification of the sinner, and, as may be easily shewn, the work of the Spirit, faith, union with Christ, the Lord's Supper, &g. Wb' tever piety has hitherto existed has been an ignorant piet> u '■'^ wonder is that it has existed at all. Yes, we recognize t(. it-i . ^1 extent the truth and impor- tance of what Bushnell an'^ others say as to the injury done to religion by the orthodox c- '^ if tl v'v are not true. If his views are true they should be uucouipromi ri^' ' asserted until they prevail. If the heart of the Church is paralyzed with terror, because we ascribe to God a character worse than that of any human tyrant, then " spare no arrows " against the enemy of God's glory and man's peace. If " almost all the doctors and dogma- tizing teachers" have been shocking the moral sentiments of men, and " violating the principles of natural reason," it is time that they were silenced. — If there is much in God's attitude, as the common view of atonement represents it, " to revolt the soul and raise a chill of revulsion,'' the issue has all the importance which can be ascribed to it. If, on the other hand, the view which we oppose cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of Scripture, essentially alters (if it does not destroy) the attri- bute of justice in God; places the justification of the sinner and his hope of eternal life upon a wrong basis, and inevitably leads to grave misconception of the work of the Spirit and of the sentiments and exercises of true piety, the importance of the controversy must on our side be equally recognised. It is clear that the Socinian theology, in its distinctive ethical conceptions, is again knocking at our door. If we except a certain warmth and radiance of feeling which the Soteriology of Maurice and Bushnell has derived from that which it would Moral Influence Theory. 141 ,'ould supplant, and perhaps to some extent from the mysticism of Schleiermacher, we fail to see wherein it does more than revive the old Socinianism. That God accepts us on the ground of qual- ities purely personal, and not on the ground of a righteousness wrought out by the Eedeemer and reckoned to those who receive Him by faith — this is the very heart of Socinianism ; and this is the theology of the writers just named. Socinianism, it is true, denied the deity of the Son, as well as that of the Spirit, and the new theology has not yet taken this step. Is there no danger that it will take it ? Do not the utterances of some of the bolder members of the broad school regarding the reconstruction of Christian doctrine (the doctrine of the Trinity among others) shew that, the atonement having gone to the wall, the necessity of a divine Saviour ceases to be urgently felt ? It is not ours to predict. Many things may prevent the logical necessities of thought from hastening the descent of the new doctrine into the gulf of avowed Unitarianism. The great mercy of God may so visit the Church that the restoration of doctrine shall accompany everywhere the increase of piety. But if the moral view of the atonement is permitted to assimilate the other parts of theology to itself — to throw off everything which shall have ceased to be necessary to the system of which it is part — what the end will be is scarcely matter of doubt. It is very instructive to note that when Bushuell comes to discuss " the practical uses and ways of preaching '* his pious heart compels him to dishonour the theology which he has laboriously constructed. The Moral Influence Theory he admits cannot be eftectively presented for purposes of edification and comfort. Eecourse must still be had to the " altar forms " which were provided of old ; and whilst we know that the death of Christ is not a sacrifice in the orthodox sense, we must still permit the Christian feeling thus to express itself : " Christ is my sacrifice ; beholding Him with all my sin upon Him I count Hira my offering. I come unto God by Him and enter into the Holiest by His blood" (p. 461). «' Plainly," he admits, "there is a want here, and this want is met by giving a thought-form 142 Questions of the Day. to the facts which is not in the facts themselves. They are put directly into the moulds of the altar, and \ve are called to accept the crucified God-man as our Sacrifice, an offering or oblation for us, our propitiation." I do not stay to enquire whether this language is consistent with ♦•lie author's at- tempted demonstration that the Jewish sacrifices had not the meaning which Evangelical Christians ascribe to them, and were not so understood by the Jews themselves ; but surely it is incredible that we must practise deceit upon ourselves — present ourselves with a fiction — in order to get the benefit of the '.en- tral fact of the Gospel. Is this a pious fraud, or is it the offspring of a philosophy which finds irreconcilable varian(^,e in the principles of man's nature, and holds it to be necessary that the imagination should befool the understanding ? Which- ever it be, healthful and reverent minds will prefer to believe that the true doctrine is that which promoies piety ; and if the Moral Influence Theory must give way to an objective atone- ment when the soul is to be cared for, the argument for the inadequacy of that theory could not be more strongly put. The truth can do its own work, and needs not to assume the guise of falsehood, — Magna est Veritas. Unless the Church shall be given over to delusion it will never ajquiesce in a theory which requires that the religious life should be nourished by a constant imposture. Our object has not been lo attempt any complete statement of the doctrine of at/onement. Nothing has been said regarding another view which may be vermed intermediate between the Moral Theory and that set forth in the Reformed Confession — the Governmental Theory. What we have attempted is to disprove the purely subjective view. The account given of the divine justice in relation to atonement is no doubt inconsistent with the Governmental Theory as ordinarily eirpouuded, for this theory ** places the necessity of the atonement of Christ in ihe exigencies of God's Moral Government, not in the demands of retributive justice, common to God and man." Both the Moral and Governmental Theories we regard as right in what they Moral Infuence Theory. Uc given affirm, wrong in what they deny. The sufferings of our Lord are the most convincing of all j)roofs of God's love, and the most powerful persuasive to repentance and holiness ; the entire universe must see in the Cross the assurance that sin will be punished, and thus, while fear is infused into the hearts of the rebellious, the loyalty of the obedient and holy will be confirmed. But both these theories are radically defective. Neither of them has a basis on which it can rest, if you deny that sin deserves to be punished on its own account, and that the justice and holiness of God ensure that punishment will over- take it. Neither serves to explain the ordinance of sacrifi'oe under the Old Testament, nor the testimony of our Lord and His apostles regarding the end and nature of His death and the method of the sinner's iustification. Had we to choose between the Moral and the Governmental Theories we could have no hesi- tation in preferring the latter. It approximates much nearer than the other to the radical idea of atonement. It allows its objective relations, and takes from it the unreal dramatism of the purely subjective view. But why not embrace in one conception all its elements, and so conceive this fundamental doctrine that we can naturally interpret the various Scripture statements regarding it, and, at the same time, preserve its right relations to the general doctrinal and ethical teachings of the Bible ? Why not have a theology which, without mental reservation, will enable us to say, " He made His Soul an offering for sin " ; " He died for our offences and rose again for our justification ; " He is the pro- pitiation for our sins ; " " He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him " ? Humbly and with adoring gratitude, accepting and resting in Him as our Saviour, may we be able to say, " the chastisement of our peace was upon Him. and with His stripes we are healed " — " Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own I'lood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.'' QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. THE MOBALITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. DBLrVBKKD IN THB David Morrice Hall, Dec. i6M, 1883, BY THE REV. G. H. WELLS, MiNISTBR OF the; AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CRQRCU, MOKTRBAL. T as a^ n( ac gf ol CO th. ar pc ac ea; su of Sol for poi pet Up( as by Ko: Questions of the Day. THE MORALITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The morality of the Old Testament is strongly and persistently assailed. Attacks upon the Bible, as a whole, and upon all its various parts and books, are common in these days, but it is against its earlier portions that the most determined onsets are now made. Many persons who profess admiration for the i aar- act' and morals of Jesus Christ, and who are ready to accept in gf " His teachings and that of the Apostles, make serious objections to the books of Moses and the Propheis. They consider the spirit of the New Testament to be excellent, but they find many things in the Old Testament unworlhy their approval and belief. They object to it for various reasons and at many different points. They discredit its historic truthfulness, impugn its scientific accuracy, disparage its literary merit, and most especially and earnestly lament the lowness of its moral standards and re- sults. They discuss the sins and faults of iis best men, talking of Abraham's deceit, and Jacob's avarice, and David's lust, and Solomon's luriury, and remind us that these men are set forth as teachers and examples in those sacred books. They point to slavery and polygamy and divorce and war. all per- petrated and permitted under the Mosaic law. They dwell upon wevere, and seemingly excessive, punishmenis for sin, as when a whole family is execuied for the crime committed by its head, in cases, like that of Achan and hi3 house, of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, with tlieir wives and little ones, or where an entire community or nation is destroyed, as in the over- 148 Questions of the Day, throw of Sodom and Gomorrah, the slaughter of the Midianites and Amalekites and the extermination of the Canaanitish tribes. They speak of Jephthah's killing of his daughter and God's requirement of Abraham to offer up his son — and ask if human sacrifice may be commended and allowed? They quote some Psalms that breathe the spirit of wrath and of revenge against one's foes, and say that these wer(i written by inspired hands, and sung in service of the Temple court. They sit in judgment on the law given to be the guide of life, and on the proverbs that express the wisdom and the ethics of their days, and find them sadly lacking in the deepest, most essential elements of truth. They declare that the moral- ity here taught is often nothing more or better than selfish and time-serving policy. It is mercenary and prudential in its spirit, it rests on no sufficient grounds, and it appeals to no higli and worthy consciousness of right. It seeks to bribe men to well- doing by the alluring prospect of reward, and strives to scare them from rebellion by the threatenings of woe. Moreover, and still worse, both the blessings promised and the sufferings pronounced are of a coarse and sordid type ; they belong almost exclusively to present, worldly welfare, and scarcely ever hint at spiritual and lasting good, e.gr., obedience to parents, one of the first and dearest duties, is based not upon the ground of simple right, but is presented as a means of attaining long and prosperous days upon the earth. Men are exhorted to control their spirits, not because auger is wrong but, forsooth, because the passionate man is weak, and, like a city whose walls are broken down, he is exposed to hostile inroad and attack.* We are directed to pity and assist the poor, not for the sake of common humanity and of sweet charity, but for the selfish fear lest we ourselves may come to want and cry in vain for help. Wrong-doing is condemned because it is foolish, and righteousness is commended because it is better and more durable than wealth. In short, the critics urge, these maxims are for the moat part pitched in a low key ; •Canon Wesley. The Morality of the Old Testament. 149 they say but little of the right as naked right; they do not press tlie supreme authority of duty for duty's sake alone ; they do not show that " virtue is its own exceeding great reward," nor that vice is loathsome in its very nature thrcjugh and through ; they do not win us to the love of God by His inherent holiness, and loveliness, and truth, but they make us cringe before His might and frown, and set us seeking for His favor and His gifts. Our opponents gather all these statements and many others of like kind, and from their study they conclude that, while the Old Testament contains much that is truly excellent end good, it enjoins, or at least sanctions, some things that are positively bad, and it very rarely rises to the best and most exalted plane of moral thought. Weighed in the balance of calm and even judgment, it must be found wanting in some most im- portant points, and, whatever may have been its worth for earlier and ruder days, it clearly is not suited to the light and sweetness of these modern and enlightened times. They bring tliis sum and crown of their research, and, calling us to look upon it, demand whether, in view of all these fiicts, we still venture to accept and to defend these ancient Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Do we stand by the morality of the Old Testament, regarding it, like the Psal- mist, as " a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path," and believing with Paul, that " all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ? " As a mediaival warrior threw down his glove in gage of battle, and defied his foe to take it up and wear it in his helm, so these objectors cast such assertions and inquiries in our teeth, and challenge us to conflict for our Sacred Books. We acce])t the challenge, and stand forth humbly, and yet hopefully, to cham))ion the cause of Scripture against what we believe to be mistaken and unjust attacks. In doing this we will at first suggest some general consider- ations that may help us to a proper grasp and understanding of 150 Questions of the Day. the subject, and then, if time permit, examine some special eases that may serve for illustration and enforcement of our tiienie : — I, — I wish to ask the?e foes of the Old Testament where thay have gained these advanced and elevated notions of moralily which they profess ? Whence comes this conscientiousneos so quick and tender, this sense of justice so fastidious and iiiie that it is grieved by the mean motives and shocked by the havsh scenes which the Old Testament presents ? " What meat do these our moral Ctesars feed upon that they are grown so great ? " Have they learned ethics in some favored school, sechuied from the blighting breath of Hebrew thought ? Have they held quickeuing converse wiuh sages and masters of the g''eat healhen world in former as in later times ? From Egyptian or Assyrian, from Persian or Phoenician, from Grecian or Roman systems of reason and religion have they drawn a higher co(1e or a more pure faith ? Have the ancient and acute Chinese, or the lioary- headed, keen-eyed Hindoos instructed them in the mistakes of Moses and the foolishness of Solomon ? Has Buddha or Confucius whispered in their ear laws betier than the Decalogue and hymns sweeter than the Psalms ? To all such questions there can be but one reply. They heard the stories of Joseph and Samuel and Daniel upon their mother's knees. They learned the ten commandments at home and in the Sabbath School. They breathed an air impregnated and surcharged with Scripture narrative and truth. Of all the moulding intluenp.es that they have felt, no other has wrouglit so constantly and strongly on their minds as have the very words which they now seek to undermine. These men, without exception, owe their education and ideas to the Bible. They drink their inspiration from the sjU'ing which they now call impure and corrupt. They could imbibe such teachings from no other source. Go, read that old Hebrew Bible in hearing of any hea- then audience, the best and most intelligent the world can gather ; let all the great philosophers and moralists and legislators that have lived outside the sphere of scripture light be there con- vened and, whatever criticisms or objections they may bring The Morality of the Old Testament. 151 Mire thor hca- luT ; that con- ■)ring against the book, be sure that they will not complain because its morals are too lax or low. The men who make that charge are like the scientists who count and measure spots upon the sun. The light by which they see the spots shines from the sun itself. The Bible, and the Bible only, trains men to be s j tender, pitiful and just, and some of these its pupils turn to criticize its lessons, asserting that they have always been im[)er- fect, and are now hopelessly behind the times and out of date. A system that produces such results, that makes its pupils wiser than the wisest, and better than the best beside ; that makes them feel dissatisfied with even this, and sets them ques- tioning and reaching after something still beyond ; that creates tliis new and higher criticism of itself must doubtless have vitality and worth. By its fruits let it be judged ! " Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles." But perhaps our critics will admit that they have fDund the weapons of their warfare in the Scripture armoiy, but rot in the Old Testament. They may maintain that the Gospel pro- vides them arguments against the law. They see discrepancy and contrariety between the earlier and later works. It seems to them that Christ has contradicted Moses in the Sermon on the Mount and in other discourses, drawing a clear distinction between the previous teaching and His own : " This has been said by them of old time; but I say unto you," He says, and then proceeds to utter something quite new and very different from the old. They contrast His mild and gentle precepts, that enjoin forgiveness and unfailing love, with the old-time maxims of retaliation and revenge ; they set the " love your enemies " and the " resist not evil " on one side, and the " love your friends, but hate your foes " and the " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth " opposite — and they do not see how these can agree and coincide. They argue that both these classes caunot be true and right. They prefer the new, and so they feel compelled to cast away the old. This reasoning has some truth and force, and we are glad to bring it into view, because it leads ua toward a fact, that seema 152 Questions of the Day. to us the key of the position. This fact will show an error into which the critics fall, and may, if rightly used, go far to solve and to remove the difficulties which they feel. The New Testament is different from the Old, not in the sense of denying or op- posing it, but in the meaning of completing and of making it more full and clear. The Evangelists are wiser than the Pro- phets, and Christ is a better teacher and a higher moralist than Moses. If there be real variance between the two then we ought to leave Moses and cleave to Christ, but we do not believe there is. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is careful to affirm His harmony with the Old Scriptures : '' Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Then, in order to make clear His meaning, He takes some precepts of the ancient law — the prohibitions to kill and to commit adultery — and gives to them new scope and depth. He frees them from the narrow sense that men have put upon them, and shows that they forbid, not murderous and unchaste deeds alone, but angry words and unclean thoughts as well — the hateful feeling and licentious look. By doing this He " magnifies the law, and makes it honorable." This is a good example of the thought we wish to urge — of the development and growth of Scripture, of what some one has called "the gradualness and partialness of revelation." The Bible is not a single, final utterance of God to man, nor is it a series of detached and isolated writings, each one distinct and able to be judged alone. Its different books are like succes- sive steps in a grand staircase, each resting on those beneath and supporting those above, and all conducting upward from the first and lowest stages, to the latest, loftiest height. Better, they are like the different periods of human life — the childhood and the youth, the manhood and the ripe maturity and mellowed wisdom of old age. The Bible is a living book. There is real movement and advancement in it.* Its truths are at the first like seeds dropped into human thought — to germinate and to spring up, to * SeeSmythe's" Old Faitho in New Lights." The Moi'ality of tht Old 'ital^ment. 153 blossom and bear fruit. The favorite term with scientists just now is evolution, and the watchword of the social reformers is progress. We believe in progress and in evolution, too, and we see their process in the realm of truth as well as in the world of animals and plants. In this the Bible but conforms to natural, perhaps to universal, law. In moral, mental and material affairs, the rule holds good, *' first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." Only in fable does Minerva spring full-grown and armed from the aching head of Jove. God did not blind men at first by flashing on them the full blaze of revelation, but He began by giving them the morning stars, and next the reddening dawn, and later still the rising sun, and ever since the light is steadily increasing and " shining more and more unto the perfect day." This fact should shape and govern all our study of the Bible. We ought not to execute upon it the judgment Solomon pronounced upon the child — cut the living book in twain and then dissect and estimate the severed parts — but we should think of it and treat it as one organic and connected whole. It is foolish and unjust to demand of the Old Testament that it should be as ripe and perfect as the New. It is absurd to try its persons and events by our degree of knowledge and our sense of right. Let us remember Christ's own saying that : " Unto whom- soever much is given of him shall much be required," and from the servant who received but one talent let us not demand the ten. When I was in Salt Lake City a Mormon Bishop tried to convince me from the Bible that their system of polygamy is right. His argument was this : Abraham was a jjolygamist, he was also a good man, and an especial friend and favorite of God, therefore polygamy is right, and is approved by God. In reply I said that I considered it strange and unreasonaljle fnv any man or system to go back four thousand years and justify a custom by the practice of one who lived so long ago, and at an age that, in comparison with ours, enjoyed so little light. It were a wonder and a pity if the world had learned nothing since his day. T"— "WPf 154 Questions of the Day. Probably most of us will see that that is true, and yet some one may still feel puzzled how to reconcile Abraham's polygamy and piety, and to understand why, if our ideas of the family be right, God permitted His chosen servant to live in such a way. And because this case is representative of a large class of actions which the Old Testament allowed, but which we now hold wrong, let us look at it a moment, and find the explanation if we can. The family was the first human institution. The account of its creation and its benediction is recorded on the first page of Genesis, and that early narrative contains as in a seed the whole domestic doctrine that is now believed, the singleness and sacred- ness and honor of the marriage state. God creates one woman to be the companion and helper of the one man, gives her to his love and care, and speaks an equal blessing on them both. There, at the dawn of human history, in the iinf alien innocence of Eden, God has hung the fair and perfect picture of the family until the end of time. A man and woman formed for one another, and going forth to their united life beneath their Heavenly Father's guidance and approving smile — the world will never frame a purer, lovelier ideal of the family than that, however long it may endure, however wise it may become. But men forgot the simple Bible story of creation, and with it they lost the lessons that it taught. Sin and lust spoiled the institutions that God gave. The family suffered with the rest, and in the time of Abraham one man had many wives, and none supposed the custom to be wrong. He shared the habits and ideas of his day. God did not violently overturn and revolutionize the forms of social and domestic life. Moses did not forbid polygamy nor prevent divorce, but he re- stored tlie narrative that held the primal truth, he re-enforced the sanctions of the family, he restrained the abuses to which it was exposed ; he set it in the right direction and started it upon the upward road, and so he prepared the way for Christ's comple- tion of the work — when he denounced divorce and spoke once more the rightful law of marriage, telling the Jews that Moses The Morality of the Old Testament 155 had permitted se]^ration because of the hardness of their hearts, but in the beginning it had not been so, and then, rehearsing the account of Genesis, said, in effect, that it contained all the teaching that is needed or is possible upon this point. The family, as we possess it, including the elevation and esteem of woman, is wholly and peculiarly a Bible gift The richest product of our civilization was God's earliest boon and blessing to mankind. So, too, with slavery. The great truths of the freedom and of natural and equal rights of men are wrapped up in that sacred record of creation. God creates man in His own image, breathes into him the breath of life, and makes him owner and ruler of this lower world. Th and stand beside him in presence of the burning bush, and follow him as he ascends to God upon the mountain top and look upon him when he sees the molten calf. We should tread with him the tedious and dusty desert paths, and view him as he hears the murmurings of the people and knows their cowardly refusal to enter Canaan. If we do this, our sympathy and admiration for him will increase. We shall cease to feel surprised that he did not accomplisli more, and we shall marvel that he did perform so much. We shall believe that he did the best and wisest things that it was possible to do, and, separating from the principles the incidentals of his course, we shall confess that he was prudent, merciful and just. As to the punishments of persons and of nations that appear to us so harsh, and the general spirit of the Old Testament that sternly calls for justice and knows little of mercy and forgiveness, we must remember that men need first and thoroughly to learn the principle of justice and the danger and enormity of sin. Jus- tice is fundamental, and mercy and forgiveness have no place till it is fixed. If God had not shown how He hated evil and how surely and sorely it must be atoned for, He could not have shown the treasures of His love in the redeeming work of Christ, nor proved the wondrous height and depth of His forgiving grace. Without a strong loathing of wrong and deep sense of justice at the bottom any system of society is weak. Those feelings are like the great stone blocks we place beneath large structures when we The Morality of the Old Testament 159 mean that they shall stand. God built them into the founda- tions of His Kingdom on the earth. He could not teach all truths at once. After He had taught the prime fact of His eternal justice and written His inflexible decree that sin shall be requited — in lines so large and lurid that the world must read them and remember them — in the blotting out of Sodom and the conquest of Canaan, and the penalties of the old dispensation — then He taught the principle of mercy too, and gave that most impressive proof of love, the sacrifice of His own Son. " The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." And yet the thought of pardon gleams out of the Old Testament sometimes. There is not a fuller nor more beautiful statement of God's kindness and justice, blended and combined, than in the revelation that He makes to Moses of Himself as " The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." It was the latter portion of that passage which the Jews chiefly held. It is perhaps the former portion that is too exclusively believed to-day. God is both our Father and our King. It was the old way to dwell mostly on His sovereignty ; it is the present fashion to think onlv of his Fatherhood, and sometimes to make it a very weak and worthless Fatherhood at that. The perfect doctrine of the Church will hold them both and melt them into one, and the true thought of God will be expressed in language of the Psalm, " Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other." The cities of the plain were overthrown for their corruption. The Canaanites were doomed for their idolatries and crimes, the Midianites were punished for tempting Israel to sin. Achan was put to death because he disobeyed the plain and well-under- stood command of God. His family suffered with him, perhaps because they knew and shared his sin, but, more probably, because the truth of separate and individual character had not yet come to ^m 160 Questions of the Day. light. jMen were not thought of as persons, but as families. There was believed to be a real and living union between the memljers of a house, so that all were involved in the actions of each one, and especially in that of the father as the family head. A good man saved his household, like Noah from the flood, and a bad man destroyed his wife and children with himself. We said before that the family was the first human institution. It was long before the individual gained his personal regard and rights. But here, again, the later writings of the Old Testament correct the earlier mistake, for Jeremiah declares that, "they shall say no more the fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge, but every one shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth a sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge ;" and Ezekiel uses almost the same words, and says " the soul that sinneth it shall die." Nay, this principle is proclaimed in Deuteronomy, for there we read, " The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers ; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." We might remark that the ideas of the family and of the person follow the same order in other nations as among the Jews. Our Saxon ancestors made much of the house- hold, and always counted the people as being so many families and not individuals. The patriarchal system still survives in India and in many Eastern countries, and a man scarcely has a name or standing but as his father's son. With us polygamy was banished before slavery, i. e., the family was freed from its abuses before the prisoner was released from fetters. And, once again the family idea was probably too largely prominent among the ancient Jews. Upon the other hand, we likely hold too strongly by the personal idea. We sometimes see individualism and independency run mad. The rightful social state will be attained when both these thoughts shall be believed, harmoniously and evenly combined — the sacred unity of home, the personality and the responsibility of every man. The Morality of the Old Testament. 161 In this connection I cannot refrain from speaking of another case connected with the family, and which has been already mentioned as one with which some fault is found. I refer to Abraham's offering of Isaac, and, through this special instance, to the general bearing of the Scripture upon human sacrifice. Some minds are troubled by the direct command of God that the father shall make a burnt offering of his son, but if we look with candor at the whole account we may escape the difficulty and may approve of the result attained. We touch here one of the deepest facts of human experience and history, the fact of sacrifice, or the consecration and offering of something we possess to God. It is a universal impulse of mankind, and an ever-present rite in any kind of worship. There is a precious truth underneath it, the truth that man owes to God his deepest reverence and service, and should hold all things in obedience and loyalty to Him. Men have felt this duty> and in seeking to fulfil it they have devoted that which was most valuable and which they prized most, and so they have slaughtered human beings and sacrificed their children to the Gods. Abraham is God's special pupil ; he needs to be instructed in the important matter of sacrifice in such a way as to preserve the truth that underlies the act and yet avoid the error which other men commit. He needs to learn the lessons of complete obe- dioDcc iTi(l ol unfaltering trust, or, having learned them, he called to manifest them for an example and encouragement to others. He can only show them perfectly by yielding up the deare. . treasure that he holds. And so, God calls for Isaac, bis favorite and well-beloved son, answer granted to his patient pi aver, and object of his fondest hopes. And Abraham obeys without a murmur c . a moment's hesitation, goes to the place commanded, binds his son upon the altar and lifts the sacrificial knife. And now God stays his hands and substitutes another offering for the ch'ld, commends His servant, and sends him joyful and instructea to his home. What does the whole instruction teach ? w 162 Questions of the Day. First, most clearly and impressively, the great truth that we must keep nothing back from God. The heart's peculiar pride and joy — that which is better, dearer than one's life — must be acknowledged to be His, and be resigned when He commands. And, secondly, most plainly and emphatically agiiin, that God does not require human sacrif je. He does not bid us slay our children, but keep them alive and bring them up for Him. " Lay not thine hand upon the lad neither do thou anything unto him." It is a prohibition to shed human blood for, if a father with all the high ideas of paternal authority that then obtained (among the Eomans a father always had the power of life and death in his own family), may not kill his sou, then, surel}-, no one may take another's life. If such a sacrifice as that of Isaac is not acceptable to God, then indeed no man may hope to win God's favor by the offering of his child, for none can ever have a son more dearly cherished and beloved. We may judge this event by its historical effect. No Jewish parent thought of pleasing God by offering up his son. While the neighboring nations cast their children into the flames of Moloch, no human victims bled on Jewish altars. The only exception in Hebrew history is that of Jeplitha, and he was doubtless imitating the customs of the heathen and not follow-'ng the example of Abraham. The prophet Micah voices the Jewish feeling, both as to the human question and the divine answer respecting sacrifice, when he cries: "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall 1 come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give ray first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath shown thee, man, what is good ; and what doth the Ijord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? " That is a very pure and exalted conception of religion ; we could not treat the subject better in our day, and Abraham's act had some influence in leading up to such a thought. 2 he Morality of the Old Testament. 163 give body what instlv So this command of God, that seems to many hard and wrong, is really made a means of strengthening Abraham's faith and rendering it more intelligent, and becomes a safeguard of the family and a strong bulwark of human life. It is hardly necessary to explain that all the actions of ancient worthies are not to be defended and approved. We are not called upon to prove that Isaac's lies and Jacob's tricks were justifiable, or to maintain that all the persons praised by Scrip- ture—as, for example, Eahab and Samson and Gideon, were model and consistent saints in every respect. God found some- thing good in them, and stamped it with His seal of favor. Let us charitably hope that He " who will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax " beheld in them the spark of saving faith and fanned it to a rising flame. The Bible frankly tells the bad as well as the good deeds of the men whose lives it represents. In this respect it is certainly very unlike much of the biography and history, both pious and profane, now in vogue, but that perhaps is no objection to the sensible and honest reader. The Scriptures do not show us perfect men, if they did their narratives would be of little use to us — for we are not such persons, and we are not acquainted with any of that kind. They do describe the lives of persons such as we — " men of like passions " as ourselves. They tell us how these persons fought and struggled, how they sinned and suffered, how they repented and were restored, how they were tempted and betrayed, and l)0w, thank God ! they were delivered and led onward and at last were saved. They were not faultless and ideal characters, but they were real and veritable men, and therefore they can evoke our sympathy, and ran extend us aid. Looking ou their record we can see the kindness and long-suffering of God, and be encouraged to follow in the path in which so many feet before our own have trod and found, despite its [•itfalls and its snares, that it conducted to the Father's home above. We stretch our hands to them across the centuries, and, tbuugh they spoke another tongue, and had ideas different from ! 164 Questions of the Day. ours ; although they lived among the types and shadows of the law, and we beneath the shining of full Gospel light, yet we feel that they were tried by the same enemies and fears that meet us in the way, and comforted by the same truths and hopes that cheer our troubled hearts, and so we call them brethren, and believe they have " obtained like precious faith," and that we shall meet and know them on the farther shore. We conclude that the Old Testament needs no anxious, nervous advocacy to shield it from the charge of immorality and wrong. We believe that it is like the ark of Israel when David brought it up from Gibeah. The cart which carried it was rude, the road was rough, and Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it, lest it might fall. So, many men are troubled now for fear the Word of God should be cast down. The way is rugged — the Book seems sometimes sorely shaken ; we feel inclined to grasp and hold it up, but let us rather have faith in God and in His Word of truth. It will return from its captivity with the Philistines, it will survive the shocks and dangers of the way, and it will be brought at last, amid the shouts and praises of the people, into its rightful lasting home within the Temple and beneath the Mercy Seat. QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. IS THE BIBLE A REVELATION ? DELIVERED IN THE David Morrice Hall, January 20th, 1884, BY THE REV. JOHN SCRIMGER, M.A., Professor of Hebrew and Greek Exegesis in the Presbyterian CoLtEOE Montreal. Ti th; m( Re CO] is exi th( wr cor do int tivi his itn sup mu 8tri Th. tiot] adi eve: edi of A tnc'ii reve Not in a Questions of the Day. IS THE BIBLE A REVELATION? The question ■which I have proposed to myself to answer in this lecture — " Is the Bible a Eevelation?" might perhaps be more accurately put in this form, " Does the Bible contain a Revelation ? " For no one supposes that the whole of the matter contained in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments is a direct communication from God. Much of the history, for example, was composed by contemporary writers who wrote from their own personal knowledge of the facts, while much more was written after such materials as were available had been carefully consulted. We may hold, indeed, as most professing Christians do hold, that even this was composed under such a divine super- intendence and guidance as to render it inspired and authorita- tive, and so placed on a somewhat higher level than any ordinary history, even when strictly accurate. In so far as it is inspired it might all be regarded as a revelation, whether made known by supernatural means or not, because even the simplest narrative must exhibit something of God's character or will. But in a stricter sense we distinguish between inspiration and revelation. The Bible professes to be the inspired record of a series of revela- tions suiternaturally made. But the inspiration of the record is a different thing from the revelations recorded. The two are not even coterminous. It does not profess that everything contain- ed in it was so revealed, there being many things the knowledge of which was attained by the writer througli purely natiu-al means. In other words, inspiration is claimed to be the constant revelation only the frequent, attribute of the Sacred Writings. Not indeed that any one could draw a sharp line of demarcation iu all cusea between what is supernaturally communicated and 168 Questions of the Day. what is not ; for the writers have not always chosen to inform us as to what they regarded as the sources of their materials. In fact, it may be doubted whether they themselves could always have drawn the line between the two had they wished; for there is a large amount of virtually divine teaching in the Bible which is neither altogether natural nor altogether supernatural in its origin, consisting of historical developments in which God's character and will are manifested, but in which men never would have seen them unless their attention had been called to them. The knowledge was not actually communicated by God to his servants, but they were directed how and where tc* look for it. Yet the distinction is there, according to their own view, whether we can trace it or not, and it is important that we should recog- nize the fact. Now the chief value of the Bible will of course lie in these revelations supernaturally made. They constitute the main element which differentiates it from all other books. Without them any degree of inspiration would be of comparatively tri- fling importance, while it is conceivable that the record might not be inspired at all and yet contain a revelation that would be of priceless value. In any case the inquiry as to whether the record is inspired can be profitably considered only after we have determined whether there be any revelation to record. And the one question need not be complicated by the other, I propose to confine myself entirely to the inquiry whether the Bible contains any direct communication from God, or any trustworthy information outside of ourselves upon those matters which are of perennial interest to us all — the existence and char- acter of the Supreme Being, the duty we owe to Him, the way of escape from evil, and the final destiny of man. This inquiry is manifestly a fundamental one, and demands a definite answer ; for all the claims which Christianity makes upou the acceptance and allegiance of men rest upon the supposition that it is a divinely revealed religion. Apart from that, it might conceivably be true, just as science may be true without being revealed; but it would have no authority. We never could la the Bihle a Revelation? 169 know that it was true any more than Mahomraedanism or Bud- dhism. It would sink down to the level of a natural religion and would become at once smitten with the conscious uncer- tainty and doubt which paralysed the purest speculations of the noblest philosophers of antiquity and rendered thera powerless to transform life or elevate human character. If the Bible does not contain any divine revelation to which men are bound to listen as such, then no panegyrics on its contents, no eulogies of its lofty morality will save it from being relegated to the lumber-room of worn-out and discarded systems. There can be no doubt that the part which this book has played in the past history of the world and the influence which it has exerted have been almost entirely due to the conviction that in it the voice of God is heard, and that here we have fuller and surer information on the great matters which most intimately concern us than can be furnished by the conscience and unaided reason of man. It may safely be predicted that its influence in the future will depend upon this same conviction, which, if true, of course carries with it the highest possible obligations. Within the limits of a brief lecture it will be clearly impos- sible to present all the evidence in favour of the existence of a divine revelation in the Bible or to consider all the objections that have been urged against it. All that can be done is to indicate in somewhat broad lines the chief considerations which warrant and require us to maintain it. le way luds a upon Isition might I being could ITS CLAIM. I. In the first place, then, some account must be taken of the fact that the Bible distinctly claims to give us the record of direct revelations from God. It tells us of Adam the first man, upon whom certain prohibitions were laid, and to whom, after his sad fall, certain re-assuring promises of redemption were given ; of Noah, who was warned as to the approaching judg- ment upon the guilty world, and instructed as to the means of his own escape ; of Abraham, to whom God appeared more than once, and to whom certain assurances were given relating to the K 170 Questions of the Day. future of his tribe ; of Moses, who was divinely instructed as to the constitution which he should give to the Hebrew nation, as to the modes of worship which they were to practice, and as to the laws by which they were to be governed. It tells us of the prophets who received definite messages for the people direct from God and delivered them as such ; of John the Baptist, who was sent to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah, and was given a sign whereby he should know Him when He did come ; and especially it tells of Jesus of Nazareth, who not only spake in God's name but claimed that He was Himself the Son of God from heaven, whose every word, therefore, was divine, and all whose teaching, whether new or confirmatory of the old, was a revelation from God. In hundreds of different passages the claim is thus distinctly made and everywhere is quietly assumed to be unquestionably true. It is to be observed, too, that in many cases, though not indeed in all, the writers who record the revelations are the very persons who profess to have received them. The statements are not simply those of admiring dis - ciples, but the deliberate record of personal experience. Attempts have indeed been made to evade these claims by softening down or explaining away what are spoken of as Hebrew modes of expression. When a prophet says that the word of the Lord came to him, this is explained as meaning simply that he became strongly impressed with the conviction that a thing was true or right. The seeing of visions is merely the Hebrew for poetic insight or imagination. It was part of the genius of the nation to see God in everything, and when a man dreamed a dream he at once treated it as a message from God. Now all this is very largely gratuitous. But suppose we admit it to be true, it does not materially change the state of the case. We might surrender all the claims which rest upon such formulas, but there would yet remain the many instances in which it is distinctly stated with almost every circumstantiality of detail how God appeared and made direct communications in audible words. Take for example the transactions at Sinai. It is there interwoven with the very fibre Is the Bible a Revelation ? 171 fiction liierely of the |a man rod. of the narrative, and forms an inseparable part of it. Whether true or false, this claim is no inference from ambiguous phrases, or theological theory invented by the church to cast a halo of authority about the book. It is in the book itself, and the vvliole stands or falls with it. Now what are we to make of such a claim ? Tt does not of course follow that it is true because it is set up. Moliammed, Swedenborg, and Joe Smith have made similar claims, and we utterly repudiate them as false. Nor does the fact that Christianity has large numbers of adherents who acknow- leilge the claim make it valid. Those have their followers, too, as devoted and conscientious as need be. Such matter'- cannot be decided by majorities. But neither is such a claim, wlien cahuly made by men otherwise sane who are responsible for tlieir conduct, to be at once set aside as absurd and incredible. They may be impostors, or they may be under a delusion, but then, again, they may be asserting what is true. ()f that we must judge for ourselves from the known character of the men, as honest and truthful or otherwise, from the character of the revelation they profess to make as being generally worthy or unworthy of God, and the amount of corroborative evidence otherwise which they may be able to bring. The matter is purely one of evidence and though the evidence is not — cannot be mathematical, nor altogether of such a character as could well be put into the witness-box in a trial by jury, it is still evidence as to which we are fairly capable of judging. Just hei'e, however, we meet with an objection which deserves to be noticed. There are those who would cut short the in(juiry at this stage by asserting the utter improbability, if not impos- sibility of any revelation at all, and of its credibility on any con- ceivable evidence, on the ground that it is contrary to exjierience for God to reveal himself in any direct way to man. He has manifested Himself in His works and in history, and He has given us rational faculties whereby we may discover in these all that it is of any use for us to know. We never hear of Him giving f\.ny revelations to men now-a-days, and therefore it is altogetiier 172 Questions of the Day. unlikely, if not ini[)ossible, that He should ever have done so. There has many a fable come down to us from the unscientific and uncritical days of old, and these stories of revelations are but like the rest. But this objection can hardly be thought a valid one. There is no scientific ground whatsoever for regarding a revelation as impossible. The sceptic has not here even the plea which has been so often set up against miracles, that they traverse fixed physical laws. For knowledge is purely mental ; and surely if we have a dozen modes of conveying our thoughts to one another — some of them so subtle as almost to defy analysis and explanation — we need not hesitate to believe that He who is infinitely greater than we, and free from our physical limitations, can find means of conveying His thoughts to us clearly and unmistakeably, with- out doing violence either to His own nature or to ours, and with- out disan-anging in any way the order of the universe He has planned. Furthermore, it is obviously unscientific and unfair to deny that certain things could ever have occurred, because we do not find them occurring now. We do not find mastodons and gigan- tic saurians on the earth to-day, yet no scientific man doubts the testimony of the rocks that they once existed. They filled their place in the development of the world, and, having done their work, passed away forever. So, though revelations may not be given now, it is surely conceivable that they may once have been given, supposing there to be any need for them ; and that, having been given, they have become a perpetual possession, not requir- ing to be repeated. As to the need there was, we have only to ask the most advanced philosophy of the present day. The very name in which it glories — Agnosticism — is a confession of ignorance about God, nay, a despairing confession that we never can know anything about Him. If, then, there be a God at ell, what more probable than that He should take pity upon our ignorance and reveal to us that knowledge of Himself which is most necessary for our highest weal. We must refuse, therefore, to have our inquiry barred by any rigid philosophical theory which thus rules out the possibility of la the Bible a Revelation ? 173 a revelation, or of anything else that claims to be a fact, until there has been the fullest opportunity for examining the evidence on which it rests. We can hardly imagine a plainer confession of weakness in any system of philosophy which professes to explain the mystery of the universe than that it should ex cathedra declare anything to be impossible and decline to consider it, even when vouched for by reasonable testimony. This is to. discard the philosophical spirit at the bidding of a provisional theory, and to be guilty of infidelity to the fundamental method of all true science — the induction of facts. To such as do so we might well quote the oft-repeated words of Hamlet : " There are more things in heaven and eartli, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." THE CHARACTER OF THE MEN. II. — We proceed, then, to inquire as to what kind of men they were who made this claim to have received revelations from God. Here, happily, we are in a fair position to form some just con- clusion. They are not indeed all equally well known to us ; some of them may be said to be so enshrouded in obscurity as to be virtually unknown altogether. But in the case of the great majority the materials for estimating their character are abun- dant enough. We know almost as much of Moses as we do of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or Napoleon ; almost as much of Elijah or Isaiah as we do of Milton ; almost as much of Jesus of Nazareth as we do of Martin Luther or John Knox. We know more of the Apostle Paul than we do of Shakespeare. For the most part, too, those who are represented or re[>resent themselves as the media of special conmiunications from God were men of action rather than recluses, and reveal their charac- ter in their deeds. We are not left to vague descriptions or ful- some eulogies to form our opinion about them. We may there- fore estimate their characters with some confidence. And what do we find ? Not that they were perfect men, free from fault or failing. Save for Jesus of Nazareth, this is not even claimed. 174 Questions of the Day. But a man does not need to be faultless in order to be credible. And we do find that they were men who had strong convictions, God-fearing, earnest, public-spirited, self-denying even to mar- tyrdom, men who shewed that they valued truth and puiity more than honour or pelf. Whatever else tliey were, they were no deceivers or impostors. They were incapable of acting a part, abhorred lies and all manner of deceit. This is so ap])ar- ent that many of the most pronounced opponents of revealed religion have felt bound to surrender any idea of conscious im- posture on their part. They are too transparently honest for that; and it is felt to be inconceivable that men who were in- variably in advance of their time in the statement of moral truths should have been guilty of the base crime of consciously deceiving their fellows, even though it should seem to be for their good. This may be dismissed, therefore, without further notice. But may they not have been themselves deceived ? Iherc have been dreamers and fanatics who have seen visions and thought them revelations, while in truth these have been only the vagaries of a disordered imagination ; and may not these have been of the same class, — not conscious deceivers, but them- selves deceived ? They were earnest men. May they not have been betrayed by the very earnestness and enthusiasm of their nature into the delusion that they were the mouthpiece of God, and so spoke, in His name, the thoughts that burned in their own hearts ? This is certainly conceivable, and to many seems the most satisfactory explanation of all the facts of the case. But, again, we ask, how does this accord with the character of the men as they stand out In this history ? Were they dreamers or fanatics ? Was Moses a dreamer, the man who organized a horde of slaves without education, without any strong religious con- victions, without heroism, nay, almost without spirit, into a nation self-governing and self-reliant ; and out of the nation formed an army which conquered some of the most warlike tribes then in existence? Was Samuel a dreamer, who found his countrymen weak, disunited and dispirited, without patriotism or vigorous national life of any kind, and left them a strong military empire Is the Bible a Revelation ? 175 already almost touching the zenith of its greatness ? Dreamers are not wont to make such successful statesmen as were these. In reference to many of the prophets the case is less clear, for they were not usually men of affairs. And did Elijah or Isaiah or Ezekiel stand alone without other evidence to strengthen their claims we might be tempted to think them, noble-minded patriots indeed, but enthusiastic visionaries who had been carried away by the grandeur of their own thoughts. But was Jesus of Naz- areth a dreamer, whose calm self-possession, strong common- sense and shrewdness impress every reader of the Gospels, whose clearness and directness of moral insight appealed straight to the consciences of the people, and still form the admiration alike of friend and foe ? Was the Apostle Paul a dreamer and incapa- able of distinguishing between his own imaginations and com- munications from without— he whose learning was so wide and thorough that he was equally at home in the literature of Greece and of Judea, whose logic was so keen that he was more than a match for the strongest of his opponents, whose system of doc- trine was so severely concatenated that it has been the basis of almost every great work on theology since, whose practical sagacity was so great that almost alone he guided the new-formed Church through the many perils that beset its earliest history, and, humanly speaking, saved Christianity from shrivelling up into a mere Jewish sect ? If these men were only visionaries and fana- tical enthusiasts then we shall search history in vain for sane men who are superior to delusions of the mind. They were cer- tainly as capable of judging <^lie marks of a divine revelation as any men who have ever lived. In the matter of character, both moral and mental, they substantiate their claim, as far as charac- ter can do so. MIRACLES AND PROPHECY. II. — We may admit, however, that personal character alone, high though it be, will not serve to support entirely such a claim as that which they set up. The interests involved are too impor- tant for us to run any risks that can well be avoided. And we may not unreasonably demand some further credentials from 176 Questions of the Day, these men beforo accepting their communications as divine. An ambassador is expected to be provided with positive proof of his mission, over and above his own assurance, even when backed by an irreproachable record. Character is a thing which cannct be judged at a glance, and there is always the possibility of being mistaken about it. The need of something more tangi- ble to authenticate and seal a revelation would be felt, especially by contemporaries to whom the matter of it was always of prime importance, but who would naturally be in the worst position to judge of the true inward character of the man. We might even say that there would be a felt necessity for it on the part of the persons to whom the revelations were given. Something was needed to guarantee their own sanity, even to themselves. And this proof is not wanting. It is furnished by one or other of two signs — miracles performed or prophecies fulfilled. When we look into the record of revelation as given in the Bible we find one or other of these the almost invariable accompani- ment of a professed massage from God, and in some cases both are given. In those few cases where it appears to be wanting, it is more probably an omission from the record than an absence of it as a matter of fact. Such omissions are, howevor, of small moment in any case, for the more important the revelations the more numerous do the signs appear. Moses in the Old Testament and Jesus iu ihe New, the two great teachers whence we derive our knowledge of things divine, are also the chief workers of miracles, ^hile prophecies, more or less literally verified, are to 1)6 found in almost every book of Scripture. Time v/ill not allow any detailed examination of these signs, but it will be admitted that, so far as the number of them is concerned, the authentication is ample. It will be admitted, too, that, if genuine, these signs fu 'nish a sufficient ground to believe in the reality of any divine communication which they may acconii)auy. Xhcy display super human knowledge and super-human [ower which would not be entrusted to anyone for the purpose of practising dec3it. Nor i^ there any other conceivable way iu which positive proof that a ^aperhumau revelation had been Is the Bible a Revelatio'n ? 177 given could be as well afforded as by some such superhuman endowments, which can be practically tested through the senses, even by persons of average capacity. Everybody knows, however, that these signs have bean most vi^'orously attacked by unbelievers in modern times. In fact, so far horn practically authenticating revelation to the n?inds of many in our day, the very assertion of these miracles and prophecies constitutes one of the most serious obstacles to the accepitance of it at all. They find it more difficult to believe in the miracles than to believe in the revelation itself. Their presence is an offence, so much so that many who already believe display a strong tendency, not very wisely perhaps, to minimize, as far as possi])le, the amount of the supernatural in connection with Christianity, with a view to rendering it more acceptable. kSome discussion of this point in a general way is therefore nocessary. The objections made to prophecy are not precisely the same in form as those made to miracles, and in a full treatise might well be considered separately. But they are not radically differ- ent ; and if th^^se against miracles can be satisfactorily disposed of, no further question can well be made as to prophecy. Hence we may confine our attention to miracles alone. The objections made against the latter may be all reduced to two — (1) that they are impossible, as being a direct inte^'ference with the fixed course of nature, and (2) that, even if possible, they are, still incredible, as being contrary to all our experience — their only jiarallels in our day being found in the ecclesiastical miracles performed at llomish shrines, which only 8inii)le people now believe in, and which are either impostures or resolvable into the operjition of purely natural causes. These two practically em])race the whole case. The first of them — asserUng the impossibility of miracles as being an interference with the fixed order of nature — though urged with hicreasing vehemence as science has enlarged itsdomivin and shown more clearly the regularity of nature in all it^ ojierations, has now practically lost all its force for thinking minda. For it M 178 Questions of the Day. has come pretty generally to be recognized that it proc':'etl3 upon a mistaken idea of what a miracle really is. It is not the aubver.iiou of a physical law but the controlling of it in a way not possible for man, apart from divine aid. There is a sense in which the order of nature is fixed and invariable, so that not even (rod Himself can be thought of as changing it without throwing the whole universe into confusion. But there is amithcr sense in which everybody knows it is very far from ])eing so. All its laws are subject to control by any being that has intel- ligence enough to exercise it. No hiw of nature ever could build a bird's nest, and of course a bird cannot set aside nature's Lavs ; but every bird can so far control them as to bring that nest into the shape it desires. iNo law of nature ever could build a beaver dam; l)ut here again mere animal instinct is so fa' sujterior to these laws as to secure a result which otherwise never woidd have been produced. No law of nature ever built a house or constructed a ship, neither could a bird or a beaver do so ; but man can so far control nature as to do both. Man's power to control nature, too, increases with the increase of his knowL'dge. There was a time when he could build a ship only of wood, which will float of itself. Now he can build a ship of iiou — a material which ordinarily sinks. There was a time when to send a m'issage a hundred miles he must either go there himscdf or send some one else in his place to carry it. Then he discovered the laws of electricity, and made the lightning do his bidding by means of the telegraph. Now he can make his own voice heard over all that intervening space. New discoveries will doubtless still iurther add to his power. What, then, is to hinder a being infinitely surpassing man in knowledge and comprehension of the universe from doing what lies far beyond man's power, and that without interfering with nature's laws in any manner essen- tially different from what we are constantly doing ourselves ? But, it may be said, when man accomplishes anytlung new and woiulerful by h'a increased knowledge, we can always understand the means by which he does it. Once the discovery is made it ia no longer a mystery. The telephone, for example, Is the Bible a Revelation ? 179 iKMIlg f new ilwiiys ■uvcry iiiiple, is simply the use of means that, in ncconlance with kDown physical laws, are fitted to produce the result ; and we can quite comprehend it. To some extent this is true. If a man cho ises to ex])lain his discovery we commonly can comprehend something of it. But no amount of explanation would ever make the telephone intelli- gible to the bird or the beaver with all their wonderful skill. And so we need not be surprised if God's mode of aciion in miracles should be a mystery to us — a mystery of which, more- ovir, Muses and Elijah and Paul, who were the immediate agents m them, could no more give any account than we can. Mysteries they may always remain, but impossible; they are not, exce])t on piincipl' s wliici would transmute us ourselves into helpless machines. This uiijection, therefore, we may set aside. But, it is said, even granting that they are possible,, are they not still iiirie lible ? God does not now work miracles. No living ma.: f?7er saw one, and is it credible tliat the great God who rules all things should have wrought miracles for the instruc- tion of one small and comparatively obscure people when He has not thought it worth while to do so '"or others ? Moreover, they point us to the fact that all nations have their stories of miracu- lous events, which we rightly reject as fables, and why not these ? Nay, look abroad to-day, and spurious ossible evidence in their favour, and so, by a snap verdict, it carries the day. But, it may be confidently said, in spite of all its plausibility, that no such mode of objection will ultimately prevail ; for in the first place : 1. The antecedent improbability of these miracles is by no means so great as it is represented to be. Granted the need of a revelation at all, granted also the need of authenticating that revelation, so as to remove it as far as possible from the area of doubt, and, so far from being improbable altogether, they become highly probable. That revelation, too, if made at all, must be made to somebody in particular, and why not to Jews as well as to any one else ? Having begun with them there was an obvious advantage in continuing in the same line. It was found practi- cally easier to school one small people than to school the whole world simultaneously. And to be of any use the miracles had to follow the line of the revelations. It is surely, then, no valid objection to them that genuine miracles did not occur elsewhere, or that they do not occur now in e very-day experience, apart altogether from such a revelation, for if they did they would Is the Bible a Revelation ? 181 by no ed of a that area of jecome lust be well as jbvious practi- vvhole les had 1 valid where, , apart would cease to be miracles at all, and would have no value to attest any- thing whatsoever. And 2. Secondly, the evidence for them is too strong to be lightly set aside at the bidding of any d priori theory or prejudice. Men who have sealed their testimony with their blood will make themselves heard at the bar of history, all theories to the contrary notwithstanding. Their evidence cannot be rejected, indeed, except on principles that would destroy the value of all human testimony altogether. And that the world will never consent to. Of course it is true, as all must admit, that all human testi- mony is fallible. No merely human testimony, however strong, can ever make it mathematically certain that a genuine miracle has been performed. But there area thousand grades of certainty short of mathematical demonstration. And if men will not believe until it has been demonstrated with mathematical cer- tainty that a miracle has been performed and a revelation given then there is no help for it — they must be left to doubt. If anything short of that will suffice, however, it will hardly be denied that the evidence for such miracles say, as the feeding of the iive thousand or the resurrection of Christ, is as strong as we can well conceive it to be for any fact in the history of the past. Nor can we fairly discredit their testimony on the ground of the general credulity of the age in which they lived. As a matter of fact, it was not a credulous age when Jesus of Na- zareth appeared in the world. Doubtless there were credulous people in it, as there are in every age, but it was fully as critical, or, in other words, as sceptical, as our own. If we may judge from the literature of the time, faith had well-nigh died out from the hearts of all classes in the Roman Em]>ire generally, and the purest materialism reigned ahnost everywhere. Yet in that age men who were neither ignorant, fanatical nor credulous believed in these miracles, and showed the sincerity of their belief by the patient endurance of mart} rdom rather than give it up. They discrimuiated, too, l)etvveen true and false miracles as carefully as any modern phil.^sopher could have done. The Apogtle Peter 182 Questions of the Bay. has no difficulty in drawing a wide line of distinction between the true miracles of Jesus and the spurious ones of Simon the Sorcerer of Samaria. Paul has no hesitation in unmasking Elymas the Sorcerer of Cyprus. The prophets of the Old Testa- ment denounce those who sought to seduce the people by lying wonders. Elijah in his famous contest with the priests of Baal is represented as taking good care to guard against the possibilities of fraud on their part or the suspicion of it on his own, and his success was due mainly to that fact. Indeed, ever since the days of Moses the distinction had been a familiar one ; for when he wrought his signs in the presence of the King of Egypt it is said the magicians counterfeited them by their enchantments. And our modern sceptics, so far from being original in the position they occupy, are but disciples of that old Pharoah, who excused him- self from believing in true miracles and in the message which they attested, on the ground that there were false ones, and he could not be sure of the truth. His ultimate discomfiture may be safely taken as the certain prophecy of theirs. The Character of the Revelation. IV. — Whatever measure of uncertainty may still attacli to the testimony of miracles as an authentication of revelation (and there must always be a little, owing to the possibility of fraud) full account is taken of it in the Bible itself It therefore invites us to a])ply another test of genuineness of (juite a differed', nature— the character of the professed revelation. As early in the canon as the ))ook of Deuteronomy we have Moses reported as warning the people of Israel against accepting any idolatrous teaching, even if backed by miracles apparently genuine. The mere fact that it was idolatrous was to be enough to discredit it. We have, then, stdl further to inquire whether this revelation is such a one as we might expect to come from God and worthy of Hiui. If it is, we cannot help feeling that it lends greater [trobability to its claims. If not, hardly any amount of assertion or proof would make it credible. Of course we must bear in mind here that it is only within certain limits we can judge whether any professed revelation is 7s the Bible a Revelation ? 183 \vovthy of God or not. In so far as God's thought surpasses our thought, in so far must any revelation from Him be a surprise to us. If we could definitely map out beforehand all the fea- tures of such a revelation the chief need for it would be removed. Hence we must be careful how we use this criterion. And yet there are certain broad lines on which the conscience within man may be safely trusted to judge the character of any system professing to give the truth, even though it might never have been able to originate or formulate that truth. It is nothing to the point to say that, as our opinion about the worthiness of any supposed communication from God will depend entirely on the view taken of His character, and as our view of His charac- ter is derived from that same revelation, this test simply resolves itself into the question, whether the professed revelation is con- sistent with itself. For, apart from and prior to all revelations whatsoever, wittingly or unwittingly, man has his ideal of what God ought to be, and, therefore, of what any revelation coming from Him must be. In spite of the thousand idolatries which have prevailed, at no time, whether in Christian, Jewish or Heathen lauds, has the human conscience accepted any represen- tation of God lower than that ideal without hesitation and pro- test, more or less open. Again and again it has broken out into rebellion against such representations, preferring to accept nothing and remain in doubt oftentimes rather than believe in a Deity felt to be unworthy ; and if to-day we find a widespread scepticism, is not this, in so far as it is honest at all, due mainly to the rebellion of men's consciences against the unworthy concep- tions of God which they find practically controlling the lives of professed Christians. By their very unljelief they assert their power and their right to test any system which professes to unfold the divine. Even the Agnostic, who avers that the only God is something unknowable, would agree that if God has personality at all there are certain attributes and qualities, moral and otherwise, that must l)e conceived of as belonging to Him. He must, for exanqjle, be ade(|uate in power and wisdom to the production of the uni- 184 Questions of the Day. verse as we see it. He must be just in his dealings with his creatures, and order the world, as far as possible, for the highest good of all. If he thinks fit to reveal Himself or instruct us, that revelation must be suited to our capacity and yet not petty or frivolous. It will be characterized by a dignified reserve, and must be self-consistent. Its moral teaching must commiend itself to our consciences as pure and lofty ; the motives which it pre- sents for the purpose of securmg obedience to its law must be honourable and unselfish. Now, how far do the revelations contained in the Bible answer these demands or any demands of a like nature that may rightly be insisted on ? The question hardly needs any reply. In its main features the teaching of the Bible forces the admiration even of its foes, and it would be easy to collect from the writings of its opponents the strongest expressions of appreciation for the pure spirituality of its conception of God, for the lofty tone of its morality, and for the nobility of the motives to which it appeals. It is con- fessedly the highest and purest religion the world has ever known. Difficulties in detail there are, doubtless — such difficulties as we might look for in connection with matters that reach out to in- finity. It would be strange indeed if our limited understand- ings could grasp all the bearings of any revelation on such sub- jects. But in its main features the revelation contained in the Bible is confessedly such as might well have come from God. It is morally worthy of Him, and meets the requirements of the conscience. The voice of God within man chords with this voice of God coming from without, and the two blend in h irmony to- gether. So clearly does the divine impress appear upon the great leading features of Bible truth that many ask for no other evidence of its divine origin. Like Thomas in the presence of his risen Master, they look upon its face and iiear its voice and it is enough; they fall down and wo'ship without seeking further pr-^of that God is there. The question is uiten asked, sometimes by out-spoken oppo- nents, and sometimes by perplexed and sorely - troubled Is the Bihle a Revelation ? 18;"i it to in- I'stand- ch sub- ill the 11 God. of the 3 voice [Ony to- lon the 10 other leiice of ce aud urther adherents, why God, in giving -^ revelation did not make it so plainly divine that doubt would have been impossible, that all men would at once have recognized its character and received it. And many answers have been given more or less to the point. But is it not a sufficient answer to say that this revelation which God has given has compelled the homage of almost all who have looked into tlie matter fairly, with an eye honestly open to tlie li'se always easier to see than to explain, but of whi(.',li tliere is n;j need to despair, we feel justitieil in main- taining that this revelation is frc)m (rod. N.VTUlt.VLISTIG EXl'LAX VTIOXS INSUFFICIEX f. V. — P)uL tluu'e is another way of booking at this matter wliich may be briclly noticed, ami whicli tends to couHrm us in this coiudusion — and tliat is the impossibility of ac-jountiug for the distinctive fciitures of the Bible on any purely natuml theory. We may challenge our o|)])i)uents to explain the growth of the I}il>le and of Bil)le truth on any other supposition than that it is divine. Tlie Bible exists as a fact, a,nd its origin must be accounted for. [t gives a certain account of itsidf — an account which is umloubtedly adequate co explain its existence. If that be not true the sim[)lest .vay to discredit it would be to explain how it came into being and aciiuired its peculiar features in a i)urely natural way. How, for example, are we to explain the singular elevation and reasonableness (jf its teaching on all spiritual and moral subjects — so much higher than that of all other systems, whether claiming to be revelations or not ? How are we to ex[)lain the fact that these Hebrew teachers so far surpassed the cultured philosophers of (ireew and Home with all their profound speculations, wlio only guessed at or altogether missed the truths which they seized firmly and clearly ? How are we to explain the fact that, even with the aid of their teaching, the world has not been able to made a single im[)ortant advance IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 i.l 1.25 128 2.2 m III 14£ 12.0 mm iA IIIIII.6 v; m 'el rf> o *;. / /A Photographic Sciences Corporation m V :\ \ ^ <^^ 6^ % :> >*^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY 14580 I 716) 872-4503 rl? r ^ o v ^<^ 188 Questions of the Day. in the discovery of religious truth since the days of the Apostles ? How are we to explain the marvelous unity and consistency that run through all its teaching fro'n beginning to end — though representing many different teachers s])read over a period of 1,G()0 years or more ? If these books do not contain divine com- munications then the men who professed to give them were either im])ostois or fanatical enthusiasts. The stream cannot rise higher than its source. How is it that from such men has come the teaching vvhiclj is admitted to be the best and the wisest the world has yet known ? Th(>se questions and many more like them demand an answer. Until they are answered the Bible will insis*" on being taken at its own estimate of itself. Now it is oidy just to the opponents of the Biljle to say that they have realized the fairness of the challenge and have bravely made the attempt at least to exi)lain all on purely naturalistic princijiles. Here, as everywhere else, evolution is the watch- won I of their theory. They would have us believe that the whole system of the Bible has been a gradual growth in the attaiunientof spiritual an«l moral truth under favourable circum- stances, that the Semitic peoples have always shown a natural bias towards sim})le Monotheistic forms of belief, and once that point was gained all ihe rest was comparatively easy ; that the Hebrews were a peojde possessing a special genius for the perception of fundamental moral truths. They were not gifted in the direction of art, nor in that of philosophical speculation, but this one gift they had of clearly perceiving primary moral distinctions — a gift which they wisely used, and we see the issue in a religious structure of singular beauty and loftiness, ])ut still i>ur(dy human, like all others, having no higher authority than theirs, destined probably to p.ass away and ultimately make room for sonu'thing loftier still. After all, it has been nothing more than natural selection, heredity, anil the survival of tlu fittest. How far is this satisfactory ? There is undoubtedly some truth in it, truth enough to make it plausible at any rate. It is no doubt true there is a process of development in Scripture. Is tJie Bible a Revelation ? 189 All truth is not made known at once and together. It was impossible that it should be so. The higher mathematics cannot^" be taught until the elementary processes have first been mastered. There is a gradual unfolding of the divine character pnd will, until they find their full manifestation in Jesus and the New Testament. There is a continual advance, and at every step in that advance all p' seeding revelations are taken for granted and incorporated. 13ut when we look a little closer we see that this progress is a very dilferent thing from evolution. It is ot the very nature of evolution that the main elements of every advance should be found in the pre-existing condition of things. There can be no sudileu lea])S. The present is the outcome of the past ; the future is born of the ])resent. Bearing this in mind let us test the theory here. For tliis purpose we may select the two most prominent points in the progress of this development — Moses and Christ. If it is true anywhere it must be true here also. Was Mssaisra the outcome of any pre-existing condition of things ? In order to free ourselves from all side issues we may reduce the truly Mosaic portions of the Pentateuch to the smallest jiossible dimensions. We may give up everything but the Decalogue, with its already clear-cut and spiritual jMonotheism and its m;itchless moral generalizations. To what natural parentage are wd to ascribe this ? Mosi^s was to all intents ami pur])oses an Egyi)tian by birth and education, The ieoi)le around him were the same. But wo shall search Egypt in vain for anything bearing tlie faintest likeness to the Mosaic legislation. Tiie legitimate ))rotluct of Egypt is rather to be found in the calf-worship of Israel, which so long survived and was eradicated with so much dilliculty. Mosaism was not a case of evolution, but of revolution, for which there is nothing to ])repare us. So with Jesus the Christ. He was Uivn into Judaism, but he was not born of it. Both in form and in s})irit His teacliiug was in strongest contrast to all that He heard around Him. They could not even understand Him, they could only crucify Ilim. Nor is it that He represents simply the outcome of tho older and better spirit of prophecy. In spite of all their 190 Questions of the Day. excellencies they could by purely natural laws beget only the false Christs that arose one after another to mock the nation's hopes. There is a mighty bridgeless gap between Him and them. In order to .see how great it is we have only to com])are Him with John the Baptist, the last in the older line before Him. John might ja-epare the way for His coming, but he never could produce or evolve such a Christ as He. But, further, it is said that the Hebrew had a natural bias towards a ]ture Monotheism, and a s])ecial genius for the jjcrcep- tion of sjiiritual truth. Well, if this be true, all we can say is tliat their own acce])ted historians have strangely belied and slandered them. For that history is very largely the account of their continual defections fi'om ])ure Monotheism and of the stern experiences whereby their idolatrous tendencies were finally eradicated. So far from having a natural quickness in the apprehension of spiritual truth, they would appear to have \)vi'U all along a stiti-necked and morally obtuse people, continually disposed to substitute form for substance, more wmly to boast of ])rivil('ges than to perform duties, more ready to i)ersecute their prophets than to listen to them. If they were iitted to be the religious instructors of the world, as undoubtedly they have been, it is clearly not because they were acute discoverers or even apt pupils, but solely because they were like those ])Upils who, learning slowly, yet oft-times learn thoroughly, and hold tenaciously what they have once accpiired. And if it be .said that tiiis history gives only one side of the national character, and that the poorer one, while the very existence of the history proves that there was aiujther and better side, we answer that this at any rate was the prevailing side, and the existence of the other is the very problem to be solved. For the solution of the i)roblem we get little or no help from the geniiral tenden- cies of the nation — they are altogether iiuuiiupiate to explain it ; and we turn away from them with the deepened conviction that over and above all the factors which the Hebrew nation could contribute to the acMial result, there is another factor which is Supernatural and Divine. QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. IS CHRISTIANITY A FAILURE ? DELIVERED IN THE David Morrice Hall, January 2'jtk, 1884. BY REV. JAS. BARCLAY, M.A., St. Pau/'s Church., Montreal. t u fl n n th th itj ex \vi nil to hu tli.n the (ies isl bar pov thai and Questions of the Day. IS CHRISTIANITY A FAILURE? THE PROBLEM. To answer this we must first know what the problem is Cliris- tianity proposed to solve — the work it undertook to do. It is, unfortunately, far too wide a subject to admit of anything like full or even fair treatment in a single lecture, but my time will not have been .pent, nor your attention occupied, in vain, if I do nothing more than awaken a spirit of thoughtful enquiry. My thoughts will run along some such lines as these: — What the world needs; the various agencies which have presented themselves to supply these needs ; Christianity as oue of these : its success, its failure, and some reasons of that failure. To give a full catalogue of the woild's wants wo\dd more than exhaust the time at my disposal. What a chapter might be written of its varied needs — material, mental, moral, spiritual. It must be put very briefly and very generally. The world wants to be freed from disease and poverty, and the tliousand ills that human flesh is heir to ; from lust and crime, and the thousand ills tliat the human heart is heir to ; from bigotry and narrowness, and the thousand ills that the human mind is heir to ; from doulit, despondency, despair, and the thousand ills that the human soul is heir to. What does the world not need? It wants its bar- barism civilized, and its civilization ])uriHed ; it wants some power to reclaim its outcasts and save its criminals, some power that will harmonize the relations between rich and poor, learned and ignorant, strong and weak, capital and labor. It wants some wm I '^ 194 Questions of the Day. power that will overthrow tyranny, abolish slavery, subdue oppression ; some power that will throw down the barriers between man and man, and make men brothers. This is the world's want, and you can read it everywhere — in every nation, every clime, every ago ; you can read it in tlic rudest thoughts of the most savage and in the sublimest concep- tions of the most cultured, in the loftiest strains of its poetry and the deepest thoughts of its philosophy. It has a hundred briglit dreams it wants fulfilled, and a hundred dark dreams it wants swept away. Somehow or other, strange, sad fears have crept into the hearts of men, and sit then; a very nightmare until some revelation chase them away. Amongst others, there is tlie dread fear, old as Adam and wide as tlie W(^rld, that some great destructive power is waiting to punisli, and the world has made fearful efforts to rid itself of this fear. IltMitlien mothers have thrown tlieir children in front of a destroying car, grim ascetics have tortured the (lesh ami killed the alfections, monks have gone intoctdls and nuns into conv^ents, martyrs have gone hungry and naked, — for thousands of years the world has been crying for a deliverer from this, and has been ready to pay any price if only its prayer couhl be answered. In addition to its real and vision- ary fears, the world is h".unted by veritaljle evil sjiirits, which must be cast out ere it ever can have [)eace. The fearful demon of selfishness, which works such havoc in human hearts and homes ; the gross fiend of sensualism which brutalizes the body ; the subtle spirit of scepticism which withers the soul ; the dark ghost of superstition which, clouds tlie si)irit with ignorance and fills the heart with dread, — " Re.deem me from these,'' is the world's cry. Yes, to any observant eye, to any thoughtful mind this is a sad andsutrering world — full of crying needs, aims frusti'ated, ideals unrealised, toils unrequited, sin festering at the world's heart, evil spirits in every corner of it that must be cast out, bodies racked by pain, lioines overshadowed l)y sickness and broken up by death. It is a suffering world, it is a fallen world, and the problem is, " Can it be saved ? " and, if so, how ? 78 Christianity a Failure ? 195 DIFFERENT (SAVIOUUS. Many savionrs have proclaimed themselves and professed to answer the world's cry, and sup])ly its wants and lieal its wrongs. Heathenism came, with its stocks, and stones, and amnlets, and shrines, and votive ofterings to appease the anger of the gods and thus save the world. Polytheism came with " the glorious name all i^arcelled out," the great God subdivided into numerous deities, and, be a man's wants what they nnght, surely, in some niche of the great Pantheon, he would find the special providence that would hear and answer his cry. Pantheism came with its bit of Deity in everything, in every blade of grass and every pearl of dew, and sought to chase away men's fears and give them hope of safety in its great strange dream of absorption of everyr thing into the Infinite All, a great abyss of self-t.nnulment. But men found no comfort in the thought that man is merely plienomenal, and will sink at death into the general all ; that he is but a [)art of nature, and will be resolved at death into the elements. Stoicism, with its cure of " proud endurance of the world's wrongs and death as the reward," failed to answer tho cry. Epieureanism with its denial of God's interference, its shadowy faith in lazy deities, altogether careless of mankind, likewise failed and passed away. Buddhism came, but the heart of man finds no salvation in a religion which is little more than a dreary atheism, a morality wiiich is nothing more than a refined selfislmess, and a heaven which is but the cessation of conscious existence. Science presents itself, with its discoveries and theories; but the man who seeks his refuge there finds that there is a region, a great region, of human life it cannot penetrate — the region of s[»irit, the hopes and fears, the loves and hates of humanity — a thousand cries, and these tlie very deepest, which it is powerless either to interpret or answer ; not one ftiint glimmer v)f light can it tlirow on many a problem that lies heavy on the heart, on many a question that loudly clamors for an answer. Pliilosophy likewise was found to be a broken reed j it might have an eye to see man's m'«ery, but it had no hand to lift him out of it. Then we have new saviours in our day, » 196 Questions of the Day. offering to cure the world of its evils and sn])i)ly its wants. Materialism, Evolution, rusitivisni. Of the first it is suilicient to say, had man had only an animal life, that niij^ht iiave proved adefpiate to his iiueds ; but it is no saviour of tlie s(»ul, it hut kills dignity and nobleness. And whatever truth there may be in the new doctrine of Evolution, and we frankly admit tlnre is much, yet its strongest advocates admit that it cannot account f(.i' the beginning of life, for the facts of consciousness, for what, ill the face of every ])hilosophy, and in spite of all scieiiCL', the soul will cling to, moral and personal freedom, nor for what comes after life. What about Positivism, then, the latest professing saviour of mankind. This new religion was born nnder the most favorable circumstances. As has been said, "The records of every Ixdief, the truths of every philosophy, the discoveries of every science, the memorials of every life, the moral treasury of every hmd and age," were at its disposal. Yet, what does it offer the world in place of what it would sweep away? Does man more easily find jjardon, ])eace, hope, joy in its new (rod- head of humanity, the world and space, than in the Christian " Father, Son and Holy Ghost ?" ClIKIST AS A SAVIOUR. We turn now to Christianity. Christ came, saying, " I am the Light and Life of the world, I am come to save it, to redeem — i.e., bing it back for God, convert its kingdom into God's kingdom, wash away its sins, right its wrongs, satisfy its longings, deliver it from fear and sin and death." Christ camC; offering to make man at peace with the world, with his conscience, with God ; offering to seek and save the lost, to gather in the outcasts, to take healing and life and light down into the very lowest dejjths of society ; to be the Saviour of all — the poor, the blind, the deaf, the leper, the possessed, the publican, the drunkard, the harlot ; to all Me came with the message that God loved them, loved them because they were men ; and the pathway of their return to God was not riches, nor learning, nor greatness, but penitence, humility, faith, love — a pathway that was open to the poorest, 7s Cliristianify a Failure 1 197 yea, the worst of them. This wiis the inessauc tliat toiiclicii the woi M's li icait ncavlv two ctituncs aijo, and \i\\\v it new life Tl us w as the h'ver 1 )V w liich Christ f)fter('(l to raise the witrld. He came with an ofTcr of rest to tl lidt'ii, of ])ar(lon to the ic wearv am licav with the jiromise and i)hMl,u;e to inner all of a common inheritance as (Jod's ciiildren, and that hccause they were (rod's children. We know how, at first, at h-ast, Jlis words ftdl like dew on a thirsty world. Men were tan,^ht to love, and that because they were kived ; and if you can get a man to believe that (rod h)ves him you have ]»lanted in his heart the seed corn of immortal life. We love Him Itecause He first loved us, and \v»» love others because He loves them. There is Chris- tianity in its power, and any system or phase of Christianity without that is not Christ and cannot l>e a saviour of the world. This, then, is the offer that Christ makes, and the offer that Christianit v, in tli<» name of Christ, makes to save the world. an d the main h'ature of mj lectun^ is to ask. Has this olfer b(^ en made good ? Can it be made good? Is Christianity suilicient fur this? Let me begin mv answer 1)V shewing how far it has been made good, by speaking of the success hitherto of Christian- ity ; so far as the world could judge, it was not a very likely puwer, when it came, to convert and save it. It was ohscuri! in its origin and very humble in its beginning. He who came, in'oclaiming Himself the worW's Uedeemer, came as the jioorest of the poor, His mother was the wife of an humble mechanic, and His cradle was a manger. We can ill afford to sneer at the riuu'iseesfor liiughing witli scorn at His pieteusiuus, — would we liiive done other >vise, would we do otherwise were (Jhiist tocome ill similar form to-day ? How vastly dilferent it all seemed from the golden age pictured by the prophets, when Jerusalem was to be the pride of the earth, her temple the praise of nations, and decked with rich splendor by the Gentiles' gifts. Instead of this what have we ? It is difficult for us to realize the early beginning of Christianity, when it numbered but a handful of timid follow- ers, of whom the boldest had denied his blaster with blasphemy, and the most attached had forsaken Him in coward fear. Without m — ^p" 1 198 Questions of the Day. syn;igoi,Mie or lioine, without wealth or learning, with two doctriiKiS to teach, the Ci'ucifixiou and the Kesurrection, of which the one evoked shrinking horror, and the other contemptuous scorn. Yet we know how the humble and despised Xazurene touched a chord in the heart of humanity, and men were drawn to Ilirii, and when we look l)ack over the pages of history we know there is no one to be com])ared witli Him in majesty and power, we can see Him towering far above all tlio great men of all the ages, above sovereign and sage, above philanthropist and hero. Xoone has changed the world as He has done, no message has changed as His luu: done the character and destiny of millions. We know what Christianity I'epresented Ijy the simple (lalilean fishermen did, how, unaided by any, o[)[)ose'l by all, they won victory after victory, how they nuide the instrutnent of the meanest criminal's death a symbol more glorious than the diadem of kings. Christianity lias been aptly compared to the fairy tent of Arabian story, which a young prince bnnightludden in a walnut shell to his fatlier. Placed in the Council Chaml)er it grew till it encanopied the king and his ministers. Taken into the courtyard, it filled the space till all the househoM stood beneath its shade, lirought into the midst of the great jilain without the city, where all the army was encamped, it s[)read its mighty awning all above till it gave shelter to a host. So with Christianity, which was less than the least of all seeds, but which grew till it embraced within its fold men of all cliuies and colors and creeds — Jew, lloman, Greek, Oriental, African, American — awakening a response in every breast, from the wild negro of the west coast to the highly-educated gentleman of India. Yes, Christ's message llowed onwanla like a nnghty river in ever-increasing volume, bearing away in its impetuous course the proud temples of Taganism and the haughty towers of the old philosophers. History tells us that before the close of the third century Christianity had penetrated every part of the world. It had its hand on the world's heart, it sat on thrones, it was the sovereign power in society. As the snow melts in the sunshine, so there Is Christianity a Failure 1 199 vanished before its liglit and warnitli the bigotry of Jiidiea, the ' subtle scepticism of Greece, the gross sensuality of lionie, and the dark superstition of i)aganism. And what a power it exercised on the outward life of man. It made the drunkard dash his idols to the ground and rise out of the slt)Ugh of bestial debase- ment. It burst the fetters of the slave of lust and nuide him chaste and pure. It made the miser generous, the rich sell their lands, the extortionate publican give half his goods to feed the poor. It enabled men to suifer hunger, and nakedness, and peril, and prison and scorn — aye, the scorn of companions, too, and the cruel jeers of the world. It enabled men, and gentle women, too, to defy the axe of the executioner and the rack of the tormentor. Yes, and what, perhaps, is a great marvel of its power, it enabled men and women to bear with calm, uncomidaining heart the obscure, but not less heavy, trial that is laid n])on us in the common ills of life — poverty, sickness, disai)pointment. It tilled men's hearts '^vith love to God and man ; yea, with love to the prodigal, the criminal, the drunkard and the outcast. It came to men as the protector of children, the healer of the sick, the seeker of the wandering, the saviour of the lost. It shed quite a new light upon Heaven and earth, upon God and man, upon life and death. The world knew God before Christ came, but it did not know the Divine Father, He revealed new light upcjn sin and judgment and punishment, upon existence and imiiK^rtality. What has Christianity not done for the heart ? It has kept love alive in hope, even face to face witli death, instead of crushing it as Paganism did uiuler the nether millstone of despair, Christ may n(jt have done much as the world often counts much. He may have invented, as we have said, no machine, neither engine, nor loom, nor com})ass ; He may have taught no science, laid down no theory of pul)lic education, no system of government. Perhaps not. He went far deeper than that. He went right to the human heart, and freed it from the terrible jiressure that burdened it and kept it from beating freely. He lifted num, every man, out of the crush of nature and the pressure of the world, and told Mm he was a child of God, an heir of Heaven, and, if he would 1^ I' : H 1^ ■ f i i ? : ! ' I 200 Questions of the Day. ' only believe it, all things were his. Xo wonder that Christianity found votaries wherever there was a heart that sighed after better things. Yes ; Christianity has done mucli to save the world, to make it better than it was, to redress its wrongs and undo its burdens, to let its oppressed go free and break its many yokes. FAILURE. But we must honestly confess it has met with failure too — great and grievous failure. For eighteen long centuries Chris- tianity has been at work. Has it redeemed the world fioni sense and self and sin? Is the world not full oi wants to-day, and crying as loudly as ever, " come over and help us." Darkness yet covers the earth and gross darkness the people. The beams of the sun of righteousness have not yet penetrated the heart of the race. It has been calculated that perliaps seven-eighths of the human population have never yet heard the glad tidings ; and of tliose w^ho have heard how few are living in their spirit and power. Some men maintain tliat there is not at this hour a larger number of Christians in })roportion to the population of tlie world than existed at the close of the first century of our Lord. It is asked, and asl.ed not witliout justification, Is Christianity making any successful aggression on the world ? Is it not the case that men and women in the very heart of Christendom are exhibiting a growing indilference to Christianity ? Is the Church not only not drawing the outcasts and aliens into her fold, but losing hold of many who were and are within her pale? Is it true that the mass of tlie ])opulation in all countries are more and more refusing to recognize her claims ? Ceasing to realize or recognize her blessings ? Is it true, as we hear it frequently said, that the literature, the science, nay, even the philanthropy of our day, are standing aloof from the Church, either in indilfer- ence or actual hostility ; that you have to go outside of tlie Church for the greatest deeds of the most genuine charity ; that the Church is not leading but actually retarding many of the best movements that are on foot for the amelioration of society Is Christianity a Failure ? 201 and the salvation of the world ? Is it true, as we are sometimes told, that the greatest heads and greatest hearts, and greatest hands of our day, are standing aloof from the Church, looking askance on it ? Is it true, that since the breaking up of paganism there never has been such a decline of religion in Europe as at this day ? The rich, the cultured, the learned, have little regard for it; the laboring and che poor have no confidence in it; the outcast and the criminal feel no attractive power about it. Tliere is, we must confess, much sad truth in these accusations, they are by no means groundless. Christianity somehow has largely lost the vitality and power of its early years ; it is not defyii\g and overcoming and con verting the world as it did in tiie first three centuries. CAUSES OF FAILURE. Now, where shall we look for the causes of this decline and failure ? Shall we accept the propounded theory that Christianity, like other systems, has had its day, and soon will cease to be ? That, like other religions, it has contributed its quota to the world's salvation, and is to be succeeded by a new and higher pow3r, for which the world is waiting ? Has God accomplished all that He designed by the Christian church, and has it now within it the seeds and symptoms of decay and death. Is it not true, then, tliat Christ came not to save any ])articular race or age of mankind, but mankind entire ? Was not His commission to tlie Church world-wide and time-wide. Is Christ's message, which so marvelously touched the world's heart, no longer true ? Is God no longer in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? Has the world got another and a better gospel now ? Has it exhausted this old gospel ? Got all out of it that it can ? No ! The failure is not heie. The message is as true to-day as when fust it was delivered, and as essential to the salvation of the world. Has the world no longer need of Christ ? Has it discovered some- thing else to heal its wounds and take away its sins ? Something else that will enable men to rise to the perfection of their being ? Does it know of some other source of pardon, some other regeu- m 202 Questions of the Day. eratiiig stream, and can dispense with the love of God revealed in Christ ? No, no ! The failure of Christianity is not because Christ's message can be done without, not because the Gositcl is unneeded to save, and not because it is unfitted to save. It lias abundantly proved its power to reach, to influence, to purify men of every race, of every temperament, of every social rank and condition and the power is there still. Whence, then, the apparent ftiilurc ? Whence the slowness of the progress ? Whence the lack and loss of power ? I can do litth; more to-day than bri(.!lly indicate what seem to me some of the causes of the Church's failure in carrying out Christ's commission to save the world. THEOLOGICAL MISINTEIiPUETATION. One cause of failure is that the Churcli has often sadly misinterpreted Clirist's message, and given forth to the world the strangest caricatures of His Gospel. We have Christian theologies just as unlike the teaching of the four Kvaugclists who record Christ's thoughts as any of the heathen inythohigies. It is not fair to lay the blame on Christ or Christianity, because it has failed when it has been grievously misrepresented. Again and again in Christ's name, men have stood forth and preached to tlie world the very exclusiveness and intolerance which Christ came to destroy, and, naturally, instead of atti'aeting, drawing men to Christ, they have repelled them. It was far more justifiable for a Jew to think that the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom were only to be fur His favored race than for a Christian to imagine that God has kept His Heaven for Ills email sect. We know only too well from the pages of history, the sad, yea, savage uses to which i)rofessiug Christians, tcacliers, too, of Christianity, have put their creed. But is it fair to cry out failure on Christianity, because some wretched travesty of it has not succeeded, and a good deal of the popular theolog} of nearly every age of the church, and not least of our own, has been little better than a travesty of Christianity. I would have grave fear of the reception Christ would meet with, from I8 Cliristianity a Failure ? 203 many of the reputed pious of our day, were He to come again in human form and teach in our churches and streets as He taught of old in the streets and synagogues of Judpea. It is painful to think how terribly the Church has misre[)resented Christ's teaching about a Father in Heaven ? Who cannot recall theologies and theologians absolutely without a Father at all. The Church has not preached to the world as Christ did, God's Fatherhood to man, and in that revelation, and that alone, lay the power, and lies the power, to touch the world's heart and draw men. But theology has again and again represented God as angry with mankind, and refusing to be reconciled save by the payment of some tremendous penalty. Say as you please, or characterize the teaching as you please, I never can believe that the death of Christ was, as it has been so often and so unfortunately put, a scheme to win God's love. No ; it was the outcome, and expression, and seal of God's love — a love that was there all the while, yearning for mankind all the while. But has not the other teaching forced its way only with too great success into men's hearts, so much so that earthquake, storm, deluge, thunder speak to men of the wrath of God and make them tremble ? When or where did Jesus teach men so ? God is love, Christ taught, and manifests His love by feeding tho birds of the air and clothing with beauty the lilies of the field, by sending rain and sunshine to just and unjust, by feeding, not only once and again by miracle the hungering thousands, but from day to day and year to year, the wicked even as the righteous, with the grain that springs from the bosom of the earthy Theology has gone on harping on one string, telling men of the evil that is in them, that they are evil by nature, and by inclina- tion and action ; that they naturally love sin and hate God. Clu'ist came, telling men that they were created in God's image, born in God's love, that there was a something in the very worst of them clear to God and like to God, and that something He was come to seek out and save, and it was with God's own fatherly yearn- ing love He came to save it. Yes, God is father, God is pity, God is love, was Christ's message to the world. God is sovereign w 204 ' 1 Questions of the Day. God is power, God is judge has been far too much the Churcli'g messMge. No wonder it has failed in great measure to draiv men ; and it was to draw men by love, not to drive them by terror, that Christ came. Contrast for a moment such words as these : " I am come to seek and save the lost ; " " Come unto me all ye that labor and aro heavy laden, &c.," and the touching story of the Prodigal Son, with some of theology's hideous pictures of predestination, with its few elect, with its poor unbaptized infants, not only lost, but in end- less torture, with the saved in Heaven having their happiness increased by the light of the wretched sufferers in Hell. One can scarcely believe that such things have been taught in tlie name of Christianity. We need not wonder that the Church has in a great measure failed to be Christ to the world. Go forth with this as your message to men — that God hates them — is tilled with a feeling of angry revenge towards them — that nothing but dread punishment awaits them, unless in terror they turn and flee from impending wrath, and you go forth with an absolutely powerless call — with a voice that will never get a chord of the human heart to vibrate in response, and that will never save a human soul. But go forth with the story of the Prodigal Scni, and preach that in all its fullness and fveeness, and show by your own joy, and your own hope, and your own life that you believe it, and you go forth with that, which, as it did of old, will melt the hardened heart, and touch the lost soul, and bring poor, siiuiing, suffering ones to the feet of Christ. Another cause of the Cliurch's fftilure is that she has mistiikon her proper sphere. Sometimes claiming too much power — sonic- times exercising too little. She has sought admission into prov- inces not her own, and has failed to take her light into provinces which are her own. Again and again tlie Church has mixed itself up with political systems and parties, and invariably to the Church's detriment and deserved loss of power. The Church's ju'oper duty is to see that it inspires, so far as it jiossibly can, all forms of government, all leaders and all members of all parties with a pure and patriotic spirit. The duty of the Church is to Is Christianity a Failure ? 205 inspire its own members with a spirit of justice, and forbearance, and love, and if it succeeds in doing this it will have its say, and the only say it has any right to have in politics. Instead of this, however, it has done much to enkindle and enflame that spirit of party bitterness which so poisons and degrades political life. What has the church not done in utter disregard and de- fiance of it's Master's spirit and teaching ? It has allied itself with tyranny, defended slavery, has been inspired by motives, and has stooped to practices in political life, which would have discredited and disgi'aced any mere secular institution ; and because, forsooth, men's reverence and respect have been lost thereby Christianity is to be pronounced a failure. And if the Church has been false in its relation towards politics, it has been equally false in its relation towards other departments of human life. At different times it has sought to put a ban upon art, upon music, upon science, treating th"se as the enemies, instead of the handmaids, of religion. It has angrily shut out the pious offerings of painter, and sculptor, and poet from its sanctuaries and service, and sought to make the world believe that God cannot be worshipped by talents whicli He himself has given, instead of teaching the world, as Christ taught it, that nothing which God has made or given is common or unclean ; that every act of human life, that every faculty and gift are religious, holy, and should be dedicated to God. Why should not holy men paint on windows and on canvas in colors, as well as other holy men on paper in words, parables of beauty and lessons of love ? Why should not holy men express in stone, as well as other men in manuscript, the hopes and the fears, the faiths and the loves of men ? Why should the Church refuse to use in its praise the inspired poetry of its saintliest men ? And yet this is what the Church has again and again, and narrowly and angrily done, and the misfortune is that the failure that has followed from these miserable caricatures of our Lord's religion is charged upon Christianity. And what has been the attitude of the Church too often and too much towards science ? An intolerant refusal of light, and a i 206 Questions of the Day. cowardly shrinking from it, and has thereby not only lost, but deserved to lose, its hold on earnest men, who cannot rest satisfied with a ready-made creed or second-hand tradition, but must l)e able to give a reason for the faith that is in them, who will study, and will rather leave the Church than not study the volumes of nature, and history and life. True science has never sought to discredit Christianity; it has attacked its false forms and unnatural excrescences ; it has attacked the follies and suyicr- stitions taught in its name. True science has recognized, as true Christianity has recognized, that the two have quite distinct spheres. Christ never meant His teaching to be regarded as a scientific treatise, or a literally accurate theory of natural phenomena. Nor, on the other hand, has science anything whatever to do with the spiritual life of man ; it knows nothing of penitence, or forgiveness, or faith, or hope, or love. The Church, yea, churches which have paraded on their banners the words free and protestant, have sought to bind men over not to think, and have thus alienated the sympathies of many wlio would have been, and ought to have been, the CI urch's bes* friends, and thus weakened the power and destroyed tae influence of Christianity. But is it fair to cliarge Christianity with the failure because that Church has failed to see that its duty is to wish men God-speed in every sphere of life, and inspire them with a spirit that will consecrate toil, merchandise, art, science, politics, and thus transform work into worship and daily life into a sacrament, as Christ worshipped God and taught the world, by the carpenters' tools in His hands, no less than by the beatitude and parables on His lips ? ROBBED OF ITS SIMPLICITY. A third cause of failure, and I do little more than mention it, is that v^e have taken from the Gospel its simplicity. We have buried it beneath the traditions and opinions of men, and in our jealous defence of these have lost sight of the simple saving truth. We have buried the Gospel beneath the shibboleths of sects, and partizanship has killed charity, and the Church, instead Is Christianity a Failure ? 207 of being a healing, binding power, has become a great dis- integrating, separating force, not building bridges, but erecting barriers between man and man. I do not wish, however, to spe;ik of the divisions in the Church, and the terrible havoc and hindrance these have been to Christianity, paralysing everything and killing love, and making Christianity a bye-word among the Gentiles. I pass that over, so that I may avoid saying a word that could woimd a feeling, or lessen the strength of my ai)i)eal for the revival of the spirit of Clirist. Of this I am sure, that the nearer we keep to the simple teaching of the Gos})els, the fewer will be our divisions, and the greater will be our power. The worsliip of man to God, which Christ taught, is a fiir wider and broader and more savmg power than any genealogy of sacred fires, or succession of hallowed buildings and consecrated priests, consecrated not by inheritance of spirit, but by manual trans- mission. How can we expect the Church to draw men or save the world so long as among its own memljers each one has au anathema for the other, and the still, small voice of charity is drowned in the storm of controversy, and the invitati(Hi of God's love lost in the conflict of creeds ; and so the image of Clirist grows dim, " and the Master," as has been said, " is buried first beneath His Church, and then under formal renderings of Hia truth, and to-day Christendom puts its churches and its theologies before its Lord." Give us back in its simplicity the Christianity of the Gospels, which is personal love and devotion to Christ, and Christianity will be no failure. UNREALITY AND INCONSISTENCY. Another cause of failure is to be found in the unreality of much of the preaching and the inconsistency of much of the life within tlie Church. Men have supposed too readily that every- thing that was uttered by the Apostles, as applical)le to the age and circumstances in which they lived, must also be a])plicable to our age and circumstances, and hence we have frequently a wild caricature, unjust to the first age of Christianity, injurious to our ! 208 Questions of the Day. own, and subversive of all true apprehension of human nature and human duty. They forget that many of the precepts were given under circumstances and influences which have entirely passed away, and therefore can have no just application to new conditions and new problems whose very existence was tlien wholly uncontemplated. It is the vainest of hopes to imn[;ine that any stereotyped forms can be handed down the a<];es ; if men are not allowed to harmonize the old truths with their own new modes of thought, and with their own new discoveries of truth and the relationship of one truth to another, they will abandon them altogether as obsolete. To insist that all the Eeformers taught and did is to be handed down unchanged from age to age is to crystalize or petrify truth. Why should the light and culture of the nineteenth century be chained forever to the thinkings of men of like passions with ourselves, and who thought moreover in the heat of controversies and in the very heart of prejudices and partialities? But a more damaging feature, a more serious hindrance, is that our beliefs are so immeasurably above ourselves. We profess that our duty, nay, our deliglit, is to imitate Christ, but out in the world we find this very ditticult and very uncongenial too, and the world sees this, and laughs at us and despises our creed. Need we be surprised that this robs Christianity of its power ? Wliat are we Christian men and women of this 19th century really doing for the salvation of tlie world ? Is that the chief purpose, or is it much of a purpose at all in our life; how much of our learning, or leisure, or money are we devoting to this ? Oh, it is not Christianity, it is our unfaithfulness to Christianity that is such a failure. " It is not your doctrine, say some, which keeps me from being a Christian — Heathen as I am I could kiss the feet of any man who leaves home and friends, and the softnesses of life, and takes the cross in his hand and becomes Christ to the poor and needy." So long as we preach a gospel of unreality, we need not wonder that we see few signs of the conversion of the world. So long as the charge can be made with any measure of truth that Christians are as grasping, mean, dishonest in trade, as other men, or. 7s Chnstianity a Failure ? 209 perhaps, a little worse ; so long as Christians, with all zeal in sectarian success, are slow in originating and helping on great movements of philanthropy, Christianity will he a conspicuous failure. So long as the Christian religion is only apparent on Sunday and in the sanctuary, Init conspicuous by its absence in the market and in society, it will be but a poor, poor instrument wherewith to convert the world. The Christian who is a politician, Imt allows Christianity no voice in his politics ; the Christian who is a merchant, but carefully excludes Christianity from his wareroom ; the Christian who lays aside his Christianity when he enters society or engages in recreation — these are no followers nor representatives of Christ, and it is unfair to charge Christianity with failure because these are not succeeding in making the world better than it is. Complaints are made not only from without, but by members of the Church, about the decadence of religion and the powerlessness of the pul])it. We admit at once great insincerity and unreality and unworthiness on the part of the ministry, but there is also much on the part of the people, and the people who complain most are generally those who are doing least to make the pulpit a power, — people who do no work for Christ, and give just as little as regard for their own respectability will allow, — people whose minds are filled with the work; and the things of the world, its business, its gain, its pleasures, and who have no heart for any sermon unless it be a sermon that will provide a little passing excitement, but not a sermon that will lay bare their soul, and expose their life, and lash their vices, and call by their true names the sins in which they indulge, — People v/hose whole moral sensibilities are chilled, whose whole spiritual being is buried, overlaid vvitli business m<^mories and business hopes. And these go out into the world with their own hearts — in spite of their Christian name, and worshij) and profession — covered over with a hard, thick crust of worldliness, and join the world, forsooth, in its clamor that the Church is a failure. They feel — there is little wonder that they feel — that little influence for good is being exercised in the neighborhood in which their church stands, and yet they know mm 210 ' Questions of the Day. ^^4 tliey are giving neither symp.athy nor support to Christ in His work; but, by cold, careless, worldly, grossly inconsistent lives are mightily hindering His career and injuring His cause. What kind of witnesses are these ? What sort of epistles are these for men to know and read ? No ; we know such Christians will never save the world. But let us catch Christ's s[)irit, and do Christ's work and live Christ's life as we move amongst men ; and we will find that Christianity is not dead nor dying, is not a failure, but is the power, and the only powei', that can save the world. The speaker then concluded his eloquent lecture as follows : — I had hoped to speak, but time forbids me, of two OTHEIl CAUSES OF FAILURE. The fatal compromises Christianity has too often made with the world, and the want of sympathy in the Church. One word ou the latter. Syni])athy with humanity was Christ's strong power, and this the Church has sadly lacked. For men in their deepest degradation Christ had sympathy and hope. But what is the Churcii's attitude too often and too much ? How does it treat men in degradation, and how does it help men to rise. We don't go down amongst them, as Christ did, with a brotherly heart and a kiivlly message. N"o, but when one of these ])Oor wretches tries to rise Christian society is too respectable to hold out its hand to hira. And we call this Christianity, and pro- nounce it a failure. No, Christianity is no failure ; wherever the spirit of Christ is to-day, as eighteen hundred years ago, it is touching the world's heart and awakening responses there ; it is drawing and saving men. There are i)laces where Christ's spirit still lives, and thousands throughout the world are living nobly and dying bravely by their faith in Him. His mission, His message have never failed, can never fail. His words are eternal life. His truth is the truth of God, but if we are to save men we must not only speak these words with our lip3, but translate them into life. We put our trust, and will put it in One who, with clearest eye, looked down into the world and 7s Chnstianity a Failure ? 211 up into the heavens vvlio, with deepest insight, gauged liunian life, who, with purest heart throhbing with a love divine, told men that there was a Father's house open for all, and God willed not one should perish. I close with words which, I fear we must admit, much of modern Christianity justly deserves, and which I hope, while rebuking us, will animate us with a new resolve : " Alas, it has been verbal rather than practical, deal- ing more in sentimental harangues than in the lal)()rs of love. It has been partial rather than comprehensive, weci)ing over thfi invisible and unfelt woes of men's souls, and taking little heed of the tangible and pressing evils of their bodies. It has been more official than human. The manifestation of a functionary, rather than tlie natural outtjoings of a brother's heart. It has fraternised with the wealthy, but stood aloof from the poor. It is no wonder that the pulpit is becoming effete, or ratlier that the Christian ministry has lost attraction for the millions. If it would rise again into power, let it blossom fully with a Christ- like sympathy, — a sympathy which will grasp the entire man, regard his temporal, as well as his spiritual interests ; seek to give bread to the hungry as well as bibles to the ungodly ; grasp with as much generous affection the horny hand of the i)Oor as the gloved one of the rich, and join heartily in the common battle of the indigent and oppressed against the social demons of injustice. This would give it a pulse of life, a breath of fragrance, a flower of beauty, that would fascinate the world yet, and the heart-touclied populace would shout again, ' How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth.' " II ' i * QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. CHRIST THE GREAT MIRACLE OF CHRISTIANITY. DKLIVEHED IX THE David Morrice Hall, Feb. lolk, 1884. BY THK REV. D. ROSS, M.A., B.D., Professor of Apologetics and N. T. Criticism, Queen's Col/ege, Kingston. ^mF i1 a II 0( b( Questions of the Day. CHRIST THP: GKEAT MIEACLE of CHRISTTANITY. "WHO IS THIS SON OF MAN?" — JOHN 12: 34. The spirit of modern historical criticism is relentlessly destruc- tive. It lays tlie axe at the root of the fundamental truths of Christianity with savage vehemence. It would cut down, as a deadly upas, the tree of the Lord's planting whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and under whose grateful shade weary pilgrims through this wilderness find shelter and rest. It would relegate the liible, on whose teaching tlu^ dearest hopes of Chris- tenck)ni are based, to the limbo of myths and legends, and set it side by side with the Vedas, and the Zenda vesta, and the Analects of Confucius. It pronounces the personal God of Scripture to be only a creation of human thought, just as Jupiter, and I'an, and Apollo, and other deities of Grecian mythology were. As the forces of nature came to be understood in the light of ad- vancing science, so that Jupitei and his thunderbolts were re- solved into op])Osing currents of electricity, and Apollo, the God of day, was ascertained to be no tlaming charioteer swiftly cour.sinf along tiie sky, but an incandescent body around which the earth and its sister planets revolve, the Jehovah of the Bible has been demonstrated, by the latest researches into the secrets of the universe, to be but an impersonal Force. Man is the lordliest being of whom we have any cognizance. He alone is worthy to occupy tlie throne from which human thought has deposed the deity that Christians adore. The supernatural element in the Christian religion is the product of the ages of faith, and cannot be admitted in an age of scientific culture. Miracles are impos- «p 216 Questions of the Bay. sible, because the universe is under the control of unvarying laws. The miraculous interferences recorded in the Gospels are only " the offspring of the rehgious imagination, and we must treat them simply as tlie poetical form in which great truths are pre- sented to us." The death of Lazarus was but a cdse of suspended animation, and his coming forth from the grave a return to con- sciousness. Tlie Resurrection of Christ was not a fact : it was simply an illusion by which Mary Magdalene's excited fancy deceived her. The wish that He should rise again was father to the thought. Now, wliile it is contended that the miracles of the Gospels were the accretions of a later age around a life of idyllic beauty and completeness, and must be eliminated as unhistorical, and opposed to the conceptions of modern science, it is admitted, even by the most hostile critics, that che Christ of the Gospels was a historical Personage. But, if you take away the miraculous narratives, you destroy the unity of that life of which tli(,'y are represented to be a part; in fact you annihilate Christ Himself. They are in perfect harmony with His essential s])irit and aims. We are shut up to this alternative : either the life of Christ as transmitted to us is historically true, and, therefore, supernatural ; or it is the creation of men comparatively illiterate, a fact which is no less miraculous. " Its inventors would be even more marvellous than its hero." For it presents to us the loftiest Ideal with which the world has been enriched in all time. " It has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, and tem- peraments, and conditions. It has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its })ractice ; and it has exercised so deep an inliuence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the (lis(iuisi- tions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists." A true philosophy must account for this unique power potssessed by Jesus Christ. If the character is a subjective creation, and not an historical reality, why is it that it has exerted an iniluence compared with which that of all other mythical or legendary Christ the Great M 'acle of Christianity. 217 personages lias been feebleness? If Jesus Christ was "a great man only," why has He done more to regenerate mankind than all the sages and moralists who have attempted to lift the race to a higher plane ? The mighty inliiience which he wielded can- not be accounted for on naturalistic grounds. We are confronted here by a historical fact which is not in the line of natural sequences. We are brought face to face with what numy, who think that the principles of the higher criticism alone can separ- ate the pure gold of Truth from the legendary dross of Scripture, vehemently proclaim to be impossible — viz., a miracle. This is the proposition whic.'i I have undertaken to establish. And clearly, in the whole range of human inquiry, there is no sub- ject on which it is of such transcendent importance for us to have accurate knowledge as this, " Who is this son of Man ?" Even as men of intelligence we ought to have well-defined and positive convictions regarding One who is acknowledged to have exercised a greater influence upon the thought and life of the W(3rld than any other. Was He but a mere man, like one of us, though of finer intellectual and moral mould, or was He really, as He claimed to be, from above, and invested with prerogatives such as no one, whose moral nature was not seriously war[)ed, could pretend to possess? Was He simply the greatest genius in religious his- tory, or did He, while true to our common nature, also Ixdoug to the supernatural world and form an exception to the ordinary line of human genera, ion? Now, to answer this ([uestion we have only to <.?xamine carefully the narrative of the four (los))els, leaving out of account the record of the mighty works attributed to Him. We take them as containing an authentic history of the great Founder of Christianity. There are facts in this history which must cone usively indicate that He was not the product of natural antecedents and conditions, but was a miraculous Vor- souage. Then, if ^bis be so, the way ia prepared for our accept- ance of the recorded miracles, and, inasmuch as the W'dited teachers of tlie day. He went through no formal course of theological training. Th'^ surprise expressed by tlie people, both in Nazareth and Jerusalem, as they heard the profound and far-i Pitching words that fell from His lips, proves that He had not been in any scliool. But He received instructions from His parents in the Old Testament Scriptures, and lie drank in the spirit of these sacred writings as He listened to their exposition in the synagogue. Then the great volume of Nature lay open before llim always, and from its pages He learned precious lessons of wisdom. His susce[)tible nature was stirred by the glories of the Galilean hills, by the splendor of the flowers that decked the valleys, by the pomp of setting suns, by the arrowy llight of the gparrows and ravens as they sped their way through the air in search of food or shelter, by the toiling sowers and reapers and by the blossoming fig trees and fruitful vines. Amid all tliese suggestive inthiences He moved, " in pious meditation fancy fed," while sublime thoughts that lie too deep for tears were waked within his soul. But His "tone of though," was not a psychological result of the scenery of North- Eiistern I'alesLiuc, as llenan thinks. It was not due to His material environment, else why did not the minds of others, who lived amid the same surrounilings, take a like lofty range ? It was due rather to the delicate affinities of His soul with the invisible realities by which he was compassed about, and which were inappreciable to less sensitive natures. That His intellectual and religious jiowers had undergone unwonted expansion at an early stage is evident from the incident in the Tenijde. All that heard Him talk wiih the learned Babbis were astonished at His understanding and His answers. From that day on lie continued to grow in wisdom, and when the fulness of the time was come that He should begin His mission as a Teacher of mankind, His utterances, so sweet Christ the Great Miracle of Christianity. 219 and tender and penetrative, kindled a flame of enthusiasm in the hearts of the multitudes. The common ])eople heard Him gladly "Never man spnke like this man" was the confession made even by his foes. Scribes and Pharisees, wlio attempted to en- trap Him, were adroitly balUed. Such minute and accurate knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, and keen and deep insight into their spirit, such consummate skill in confounding His wily adversaries, by showing, from the very wi'itings whose teaching they thought He was attempting to subvert, that they were blind guides, increased His fame and provoked the inrpiiry, " Whence hatli this nuin this wisdom ?" We repeat their ques- tion, and demand an answer from those who, while admitting that He was the crown and flower of humanity, refuse to see in Him anything more than a " divintdy gifted man." Whence did He derive this wisdom ? Certainly the marvel is not to be explained away by asserting it to be the natural product of a mind of rare endowments, stimulated by the peculiar ferment that thought was umlergoing in Palestine in His dav. It will not do to tell us that His ideas were created by the burning atmosphere in which He lived. These factors are not an adequate cause of such an extraordinary })henonienon. The existence of some other element, to whose operation all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hid in Him were due, must be predicated. What was this subtle element which produced results such as the world has never before nor since witnessed ? We range through all human exi)erience in search of it, but we find not the slightest clue to it. We are batUed by the mystery, and are forced to fall back on tlie sujiernatural as furnishing the only possible exi»lanation. His intellectual processes were a deviation from th(i ordinary lines along which the activities of human thought move. His teaching, taking all the circumstances of His education and training into account, was clearly miraculous. There are two featm-es of it which deserve special considera- tion in this connection. (1) Its vast range. Questions concer- ning life and destiny, u])on which the jdiilosophers speculated timidly, are solved with a detiniteness and com]ileteness that 220 Questions of the Day. must elicit the admiration of every unbiassed mind. The soul's immortality, the nature and source of sin, the true method of winning peace of conscience, the future adjustment of the inequalities of the life that now is, — all those profound reli..,; -d ^n a sphere of thought into which no one else could i-'l'rd!'. a (?phere peculiarly His own. And what should we say ' ' i-' ' a thinker, but that He was a miracle? (2) Its unpaidlicka inlluence, its immeasurable superiority to all the Christ the Great Miracle of Chnstianity. •)91 moral and religious systems that have been formulated is beyond question. Even those who refuse to sul)nnt to ITis claims as tlie blaster of their thoughts and lives admit that ]lis teaching stands ])re-eminent for its beauty and its ])o\vei' to transf(jrm human character. It found the Jioman Eni])ire sinking iiel])- lessly under vices wliich were deified and worshipjied. The story of its "Decline and F Jl," as told by a, brilliant English writer, is an eloquent testimony to the impotency of I'agan morality, to check the selfish and brutal passions of men, and to prevent its disintegration and collapse. Jiut the fragnientci into which it was broken were no sooner In'onght under the influence of the Gospel, than they were quickened with new energy, and the Continent of Europe began to undergo a ti'ans- formation which is still advancing to completion. Christ has given the world a higher type of civilization thati any that heathendom has ever offered. It has stimulated thought; it has creiited a lofty sentiment which has abolished one social evil after another ; it has evoked and fostered the spirit of huinau- itarianism ; it has revealed the universal brotherhood of man. It is true that, even yet, there are brutal and vicious elements at work in Christian society, and that much which is repulsive to a sensitive moral nature is occurring even under the very shadow of the Christian Church. "The tone of our social inter- course, the sympathies of our literature, the proceedings of our law-courts, remind us from time to time that ' the Canaanite is still in the land.' " Yet it must be conceded that, through the influence of the sayings of Jesus, moral evil is no longer openly caressed, auel flattered, and encouraged iu the high ])laces of society, but has been driven as an outcast to seek a home and shelter u)>on its outskirts. This social regeneration has not been eflected by any evolutijuistic process of the moral sentiment. The histor}'' of morals before the birth of Christ shows that, through the previous eight hundred years, not only had no moral progress been matle in Pagan Greece and Kome, but that an actual retrogression had taken place, though all the while they were undergoing a mar- vellous, material and iutellectual development. This forms the ^ip ,1 f ! O.)0 Questions of the Day. burden of tlioir lator ])oet,s. All of grandeur and beauty, nil of " sweetness and li.uht," wliicli characterises our latter-day civili- zation is but the efllorescence of the sayings of the Christ of the Gospels. And, looking forward to the future, we recognize with greater clearness that, if mankind is not to fall back into anarchy and barbarism, if civilization in its true sense is to ]irevail, and to bind the world together, the victory will be owing not to the mechanical arts and sciences, nor to the unaided power of reason, helping men to discern what is expedient, but to the influence exerted by the teaching of Christ. It has long since purified and lifted individual life to a level that was the des])air of Philosophy. The ideal to which it directs the gaze of Humanity, and to which men are urged to give a reality, exhibits a faultless grace and beauty. And ic is a profound philosophical principle that men's character is assimilated to the ideal or pattern they set before themselves. If, tlierefore, the model which the Gospels furnish is the noblest ;ind most perfect that has ever been presented to our race, and if the complexion uf our moral nature is determined by the ideal we have before us, it follows that the highest type of human character is the (Jhristian. The gifted author of Su[)ernatural Religion candidly admits th.at the " teaching of Jesus carried morality to the sub- limest [)oint attained, or even attainable, by humanity. The influence of liis spiritual religion has lieen rendered doubly great by the unparalleled purity and elevation of his own character. He presented the rare s])ectacle of a life, so far as we can esti- nuxte it, uniformly noble and consistent with His own lofty ])rinciples, so that the ' Imitation of Christ ' has become almost the linal word in the ]»reachiug of His religion, and must continue to be one of tlie most j»owerful elements of its permanence." (rranted tliat the ethical teacning of Christ was not, in its details, either new or original, that He only gathered together the prece])ts wliich are found scattered in early religious, in ancient philosoi)hies, and in the utterances of the great poets and seers of Israel, how is it that they came from His lii)s instinct with a power that elevates and purifles, such as they never before Christ the Great Miracle of Christianity. 223 HuneiK'c. exercised? What is the secret of their unparalleled influence ? What, hut tluit they carried with thefii a supernatural sanction, and wtTc linked hy their inspiring motive to the invisihle world, a spiritual Ruler and Judge. No other teacher ever ventund to declart', on his own authority, that eternal life wuold hinge u])on oliedicnce to Ilia sayings. Jesus' method of instruction was altogether uni(iue : He hjioke as a Master whose words carried in them the power of life and death, according to the s]»irit in whii'li they were received. In this solemn sense, too, " never man sjjakc like this Man." He was a miracle, an extraordinary exception to all those who have undertaken to eidighten humanity. 2. Tiie sinlessness of His life and character constitutes Him thi^ great miracle of Christianity. Sin is a characteristic feature of human life. Every chihl is born with tendencies that soon deve;lop and manifest themselves in acticjns which are op])osed to the authority of conscience. The conviction of everyone whose sanity is unquestioned is, that his nu)ral nature is dis- ordered. Men in all ages, under all skies, and in every stage of civilization, have been tortured by " the guilt aiul burden of their sins," and have sought deliverance from " the stings and terrors of conscieu'C." "Oh, wretched man that I am, when I would do good, evil is present with me," is the humiliating con- fession wrung from the most sainted of numkind, as well as from those whose lives have been pitifully disfigured by vice. " There is no man that sinnetli not," is the declaration of .Scrijiture, and the verdict of all human experience. But, in the Christ of his- tory, we have an excei)tion to this law to which Humanity is subject. He was without sin. He was separate from sinners, i.e., His nature was not tainted like theirs. I know that both Strauss and Kenan have given a confident denial of His sinless- ness, and that it is contended by some that the writers of the Gos[)els were not disinterested biographers, and hence they reported nothing concerning Him which was oifensive. But, without attaching much weight to the testinumy of Pilate and his wife, or of the centurion and the betrayer, which, after all. 224 Questions of the Day. may merely prove tliat His external life was blameless, let us examine the utterances of. Christ himself regarding; this matter. One of the earliest of these leads us to a height of the religious consciousness, where the world of sin with its shadows is alto- geth(!r left behind. He who aifirms that to do the will of His Father constitutes the nourishment of His inner nature can sin no more. When He says of Himself that He always does those tilings that please God, He must either be terribly deceived by spiritual pride or His life must bear out the truth of His saying. When He asks, "which of you convinceth Me of sin?" perhaps nothing more can be inferred from the silence of His enemies than th(^ fact that His public life was blameless. But when He, who so often accused of hypocrisy the great representatives of Jewish piety and sanctity, urges His outward blaiuelessness as evidence of a sinlessness whicii would guarantee His truthfulness, He vias either more wicked than any hypocrite upon whom He poured such burning words, or He must have been conscious that the most hidden recesses of His heart and life, as well as His outward walk and conversation, were free from reproach. He demands repentance from all men. He takes for granted that they are all evil by nature. With regard to His disciples, He declares that an infinite debt has been forgiven theqi, and He teaches them to pray daily for the for- giveness of their sins. But He never shows the slightest feeling of penitence. He never prays for pardon. He never gives expression to the consciousness of in any way enjoying for the first time, ])eace with God. No criticism ctm throw discredit upon these facts. Tliey are beyond all doubt historically true. And they jnusent to us this alternative, — He who has torn from our eyes the evil of self-deception and self-righteosnes3» who has taught us all to seek forgiveness where it is to be found, was either the chief of sinners, for self-righteous pride is the root and climax of all sin, or He was the only sinless One upon whose life the peace of God rested. No one capable of fairly judging the facts of the case, will be prepared to accept the former of these positions, and if we are irresistibly forced to believe '^S^'--'-'^^^'' Christ the Great Miracle of Chvistianiiy. 225 ij s % the latter, — what is this, but to believe .urely from the Bible, lu'uo-jc; '>^e ? and, if practicable, would it \h' a wholesome possi - i(- 'hristians ? If there is unity in the Scriptures — if they r r, .,w,m as a whole, consistent with them- selves — would it be for the edification of general readers to l)e informed what the C:.! '"ons " wliich the harmonized Scri]t- tures yield ? It is a matter of great practical importance to settle this jioint. Faith occupies a prominent ])osition in Christianity, and every (j^uestion relating to faith is of consequence. Belief is the fun- damental principle of the New Testament. How all-important an element it is in our religious s}'steni ; how entirely it pervades and aninuites the Gospel may be inferred from the fact that faith is adverted to as a mental exercise not fewer than four hundred auel tifty-two times in tlie distinctively Gliristian Scriptures. The corner-stone of Christianitv is faith. Jesus called it con- tinually into exercise as a condition of his making men sharers in the benefits within His gift. He knew wliat was in man. He had lived the child-life, which is largely a life of faith. He was aware that the first out-goings of the mental faculties are not in tlie direction of reasoning so much as of believing. The infant trusts first and reasons afterwards. The first principles, not of religion alone, but also of physical science and morals — the axioms and facts relating to them — are accepted by faith, and then reason deals with them. We cannot take a step forward Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 235 in our mental excursions, witliout the exercise of some measure of faith. Belief is a faculty at least co-ordinate with reason : the one is as characteristic of man as the other. It may be, indeed, that after reason has begun to assert its full sway it discards much that was accepted in infancy and childhood; but, all the same, there is a period of faith belonging to the training and maturing of the mind, as certainly as the corresponding period of childhood and youth has to be passed through before the body reaches niiinhood. Even though " men make stejjping- stones of their dead selves to higher things," the dead self, the mental and bodily immaturity, is as much a part of the self as the later temper and attainments are. The whole career makes up the man ; and he could not be what he becomes at last witliout [)assiiig through what he was during the earlier stages of his personal development. Men go believing, then, as well as reasoning, through life. I suppose not more than one in ten thousand understands the prob- lem by which the distance of the earth from the sun is estimated, or could satisfy himsulf, l)y examining the figures in detail, that the calculations of the mathematician in working out that prob- lem are correct ; yet we are all prepared to take on trust the results reached by the experts who have the necessary skill for dealing with the question. So that Jesus knew that He was appealing to a fundamental faculty in man when He mtide faith play the prominent part which it does in the Christian system. And time has justified the Lord's teaching on this subject. It is found that the relation between creed and character is constant. What men really believe — not always, of course, what they say they believe — sooner or later moulds them into harmony with itself. As a man's faith is, so does his conduct become wlien that faith has had a full chance to assert its sway. The exalted position assigned to faith in Christianity is in accordance with what experience has shown to be its power over the conscience and life. Believers in Jesus have attained the loveliest chaiac- ters and filled up the most splendid careers. I do not say that one who rejects Christianity cannot exhibit m 236 Questions of the Day. a high moral tone, or be a man of lofty aims. Far from it ! But I do say that no man living in a Christian land can claim to be uninfluenced by the spirit of Jesus. He cannot get away from Christiiin influences. They impregnate the mental, moral and social atmosphere in which he has all his life moved ; and he can no more get beyond them than he can jump out of his skin. This fact is apt to be overlooked by persons who have learned in after life to make light of those claims of Christ, in the belief of which their earlier years were spent. They fancy that they are nothing to Jesus, because they do not consciously accept of Him as their proj)het and guide, whereas, all through the formative period of their lives they were brought constantly into contact with Christian principles, and were insensibly moulded by them. In fact, they owe what is great and noble in them to our Lord's dominion over human affairs, but they fail to acknowledge the obligation, or even to perceive it. By the very constitution, then, which each of us possesses we are all capable of believing ; and everything which seriously affects the question of faith is of the first importance, since the complexion of men's lives is inevitably tinctured by their creed. I have already remarked that one does not need to be a believer in the facts and statements furnished by the Bible in order to be able to judge of the correctness of the conclusions logically deducible from them, but in what I have further to say on my theme I assume tliat I am addressing those who are believers in the contents of the Book. I suppose every intelligent person who reads the Scriptures as the Word of God comes to some conclusions in regard to their bearing upon belief, as well as upon practice. The question that we are to consider is whether it is reasonably to be hoped that the readers of the Bible shall agree as to their understanding of what is taught therein ? If each of them formulated his con- clusions as to what he draws from the Scriptures relating to matters of faith, would there be any chance of a near approxima- tion in their views ? If they summarized the declarations of the Word of God in ordinary human language what would be the pros- Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 237 pect of agreement ? Is the Bible so clear and consistent in its teaching, on the great religious problems on which it treats, that all intelligent readers must understand it alike ? Is it possible to set forth in well-defined propositions the substance of Biblical doctrine ? Is a creed possible ? A creed is just an induction from the contents of the Sacred Writings, as botany is an induc- tion from the facts and observations gathered by men relating to the vegetable kingdom, and as geology classifies and harmonizes what is known regarding the solid framework of the globe. The argument employed by the Christian opponents of creeds is that Scripture is plain enough in itself — conveys its meaning clearly on its face, and that it is something like presumption and impiety for mere men to endeavor to improve upon its sim- plicity by putting its doctrines into words of their own choosing. Is the assumption underlying this argument correct ? I think it will not be difficult to prove, on the contrary, that the signifi- cation of much that is contained in Holy Scripture does not lie on the surface. Have we not to dig deep in order to get at the truths bodied forth in tropes and symbols and prophecies ? One would suppose, to hear the opponents of creeds talk, that knowl- edge of the scope and bearings of the series of documents, which together go to form Holy Scripture, comes to men intuitively, and that previous preparation and special study are not necessary for gathering and setting forth the significance of these sixty-six tracts, while a long course of reading and many examinations have to be passed before one is competent to understand the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec, which is a much smaller treatise than our Bible. I am now speaking of the teachings of the Scriptures regarding the great religious problems which have in all ages engaged attention, arising from man's relation to God — of the light that this book sheds on the grave questions which occupied the sages of ancient Greece and Home, and which are yet earnestly debated outside of Christian circles, per- taining to the workings of the soul and conscience. It is the scientific bearings of the Word — its relation to theology — that we have under consideration. 238 Questions of the Day. i-' i I Thank God, the Bible is a book for the simple as well as for the learned ; " He may run that readeth it." It exhibits divine truth for tlie most part in the concrete. We discover in it the mind of God in reference to individual men, or families, or nations. We find action and mov^ement everywhere. It is the truth applied to the person or nation, which we are called upon to study in the Bible, as a rule. And this fact makes it the useful religious moTiitor of every reader, no matter how unlet- tered he is. As the magnet attracts to itself that for which it has affinities, so every soul will gather to itself from perusing the Scriptures what is needful and useful for its health and purity. The Bible exercises the kind of [popular influop^o that belongs to a picture or a vivid biography. Truths, set foriii ui the form of abstract propositions, would certainly not accomplish the same ends that are gained by the living embodiment of principles in the individuals, or families, or nations, which are made to move before us in the Scriptures. Tlie Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, in the New Testament, and the historical books of the Old Testament, may be read and under- stood by any person of ordinary intelligence. Every one may peruse them to edification. This is, after all, tlie great use designed to be served by the Word of God — to afford guidance and stimulus to the popular mind and heart. And every reader should treasure it up as a pearl of great price, even though he may not always correctly and fully interpret it, since some technical training is needed to enable one to be perfectly certain of the drift of the plainest portions of the Bible ; yet he always perceives and appropriates enough of truth to profit greatly by his Scripture studies. For the proper understanding of some portions of both Testaments professional training is absolutely necessary. This is when we come to deal with the dogmatic element in the Word of God. The Spirit of the Lord does not use ignorance but knowledge ; He is a spirit of light, not of darkness ; He works by means, and the means which He uses are conscientious study and the application of professional learning to the elucidation of the contents of the sacred volume. Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance^ 239 I have already observed that tlie Bible conveys its lessons in a great many forms. If the Scriptures were all narrative, perhajjs the need of a special training of experts for guiding us as to their meaning would not be so apparent. But the Word of God is not all pictorial or [lersonal in its presentation of truth. The o})ponents of creeds beg the question, when they allege the non-dogmatic character of the contents of the Bible. There is a vein of abstractions running through narrative, ])oetry and proi)hecy — such terse statements of truth as these : " God saw that tlie wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the tlioughts of his heart was only evil continually." " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of lambs." "The just shall live by his faith." " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." " For tlie Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which regardetli not persons, nor taketh reward," " God is a Spirit," I might go on for an hour quoting such dogmatic passages as these, which we find scattered up and down tlirough even the narrative and poetical parts of Scripture. What were the ten words of the Sinait ic law but the imposition of certain doctrines, under the form of prohibitions and commands ? The unity of the Godhead, His spirituality, and ITis Jioliuess were asserted in a way the most prominent ; wc have therein set forth in epitome both what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man. And so, when Jesus asked the disciples, " Whom say ye that I am ? " And I'eter answered for them all, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," we have the first distinctively Christian creed. Even if we are not warranted in citing Acts ix. 37, as in the accepted version — the form of belief prescribed by Pliilip to tlie eunuch — because of the doubt as to its authenticity, we still have Paul's declaration : " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." And, most 240 Questions of the Day. noticeahle of all, there is the baj)tisiual formula furnished by the Lord Himself: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which contains, at least in germ, the elements of a creed. And then, the most of the Apostolic letters are full of sententious declarations, and abstract propositions of a dogmatic character. So that an answer to those who think to settle the question by roundly asserting that creeds cannot be meant to be used in the Church of God, nor be helpful to Christians, otherwise we should have had one furnished in the Bible, is that the Bible does supply us with actual forms of sound words, which we are bound to accept and cherish. But even were it the case that the Scriptures contained no dogma, it would not follow that Christians would not be justified in seeking to gather from them the mind of God, regarding the great religious problems that have ^engaged the attention of the thoughtful in every age and country. We are endowed with the faculties requisite for formulating our own creed, and are supplied in the Bible with ample materials out of which to construct one. It might as well be objected that man should not manufacture bread, for the nourishment of his body, because God did not cause nature to furnish the article ready-made, as to say that creeds are not allowable or wholesome, because the Bible does not come to us in the shape of logically-arranged propositions. In both cases, the raw material, so to speak, is provided, and man has to do his part, employing the powers supplied to him by the great Creator. Although Holy Scripture is largely teaching by examples, it is expected that each reader shall generalize from what is there recorded of individuals ; and so draw abstract propositions from the concrete narrative before him. Systematizing in his mind the moral and spiritual lessons conveyed in his reading, and drawing conclusions therefrom, for his guidance, he in reality exercises the right to formulate a creed. If there was only a single utterance on each topic embraced in Scripture teaching, and it couched in plain, unmistakable Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 241 language, there would be no need of furtlier definition of tlie scope of wliat we are therein taught : the very words of the ]>ook would be the creed. But every reader acknowledges that there are few statements in the Bible which have not to be modified ""d limited by other staten^ents running either counter to them, t least casting a cross-light over them. Take any e])istle of the Apostles, for instance, and you will find that the writer was so bent on impressing some one truth, or at most some limited circle of truths, upon those whom he was addressing — dealing with a particular error or fault, and concentrating attention upon it — co-ordinate truths, that might help to modify it, were, for the time being, left out of view ; he did not wait to balance the whole bearings of the question, being too intent upon correcting the wrong which he found. Besides, we know that even if there was only a single writer on each subject embraced in the Bible, who, however, treated of that subject at different periods, and ler different circumstances, there would be a good deal of lining and adjusting required in order to ascertain the full- orbed intention of God in the communications of His servants. But when we remember that the sixty-six treatises, which go to make up the Sacred Writings, purport to have been composed by a great variety of authors, extending over nearly two thousand years, it is inevitable that much knowledge and thought should be required to explain and harmonize them, and deduce from them the mind of the Lord. And we find the case to be what w- as to be looked for in the circumstances. There is a wonderful variety in the matter of the Scriptures. There are many obscure passages, and not a few apparent contradictior-o, which afford room for doubt and difference of opinion. Yet there is a proper signification in every passage of the Bible, always supposing that we have the correct text ; and every other meaning put upon it than that proper one must be erroneous. It is our business as Christians to gather the Divine intention as therein set forth, — to endeavor to arrive at the correct interpretation of God's book. In order to this, one portion must be made to throw light on another, and serve to limit it; so that he who would expound 242 Questions of the Day. 1 1 m I ' the Scriptures aright must be in a position to grasp, if possible, the bearings of the whole. By comparing statement with statement, and weighing passages, which are apparently opposed, one ag;iinst anotlier, he will be able to arrive at safe conclusions as to what the Bible teaches on any given subject. And there is no help for it but that the substance of wbat he thus gathers shall crystallize into a new form. Hence, liuman formulas are inevitable, if we strive to harmonize Scri})ture, and deduce from it a consistent utterance on the several subjects of m liich it treats. Every reader comes to conclusions on those subjects, conceived in words different from those used in the Bible itself; and if each individual really formidates the doctrines of Scripture, why should not men combine to shape tlieir conclusions ? Another objecLion taken to creeds is tliat their use is subversive of the alleged Protestant principle of the riglit of each person to interpret the Word of God according to his own light and judgment. It is as well to say at on(!e that it is not a principle of Protestantism that every man is free to jmt what meaning he likes on the Bible. On the contrary, true Protestantism imposes an obligation on the readers of the Scriptures to exhaust all the means within their reach of ascertaining what the proper signifi- cation is of every portion of the Bible. No one is justified in presuming that Scripture is to be treated in a different nuinner from other books, as if experts were not required to tell us what its bearings are, as they are needed to keep us right as to what law and medicine have to teach. We admit, indeed, that more is required to fit a man for properly apprehcmding the gist of the Word of God than nu're intellectual acuteness : as it is spiritually disceriuid, spirituality of mind, devoutness of heart, is declared to be indispensable to its correct interpretation. But this is an additional equipment, not one that dispenses with intellectual qualifications. More is needed for discerning the drift of the Scrij)tures than that of other books, instead of less : a syni- pathetic spirituality, added to a thoroughly furnished mental a])paratus. Certainly the latter cannot be dispensed with, I em})hasize this point, as I am confident that it is here where the Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 243 divergence occurs that leads some to make light of creeds, and even to denounce them. And yet what are creeds, but the summing up by ex])erts of the teaching of the Bible on the chief subjects of which it treats ? They are tlie crystallized conclusions of tlie stu- dents (if all the ages. The Bible having a proper meaning, it is reasonable to suppose that experts who address themselves earn- estly to its study should be best able to arrive at its true signi- fication ; and those that are not experts in interpreting it must just accept the conclusions of such as are more learned in such nialters than themselves. And this is really the case with even those })er- sons who decry creeds. They agree to accept the meaning wliich learned men ascrite to the original Hebrew and Greek words and phrases of the Scriptures. They do not pretend to know intuitively what those words and phrases signify. They accept the consensus of learned opinion, as to the proper interpretation of the original. But the moment they do this they yield up the principle at issue. For, if we are warranted in leaning upon the knowledge of Gesenius, Eobinson, or other lexicograjjhers, as to the projjer signification of the terms in the original, why should we not be e([nally ready to accept the consensns of opinion of learned thinkers and earnest students of the Word, as to the grammatical bearings of the aggregate of words and jihrascs contained in the Scriptures on the points which have lieen crystallized in creeds ? These symbols are the outcome of the Catholic mind. Not that all competent authorities liave invariably agreed ; but tlie creed is, at all events, the inference generally drawn by those who have studied the subjects embraced within them. As such, surely it ought to be a help rather than a iiindrance to the simple-minded Christian. It is, of course, still the prerogative, yes, the bounden duty, of every reader, not only to peruse the Scriptures for personal edi- fication and spiritual stimulus, but also to exercise whatever learning and power of thought he can command, upon discovering the doctrines which they contain. He is not shut up to acce])ting of necessity the views of even the majority ; for the majority is not necessarily right in this matter, more than in others ; but any 244 Questions of the Day. II modest man will feel called upon to look well to the foundations on which his belief stands, if he finds his conclusions at variance with those of the larger proportion of the learned and thoughtful of past times. It is a question between one and ten thousand : which is more probably right, the one disagreeing or the ten thousand agreeing ? Of course, we are arguing on the assumption that all are equally competent to judge as to the meaning of the Scriptures; and that they are all equally honest in their search for the truth, equally anxious to find out what God really designed to teach. These being the conditions of the problem, it is surely most reasonable to suppose that the many are right and the few wrong. But that is just the situation as regards creeds. Creeds are the expression of the belief of the many, as to the scope of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures on the subjects embraced. These summaries put us in possession of the results of the research and thought of those who have gone before using the study of the oracles of God ; and who shall say that it is not wise and right to take advantage of what the past has be(i[ueathed to us, as a helj) in interpreting the Scriptures ? And is there any obstacle in the nature of the case, to earnest, learned, honest students of the Bible arriving at the same con- clusions ? I have admitted that there are obscure and difficult passages ; but I am far from conceding that the utterances of the Sacred Writings are so indefinite as to preclude all cluince or likelihood of agreement on the part of those who study them. There may be little prospect of agreement as regards much inci- dental matter, embraced in the sixty-six Scripture tracts; but this does not hold of the essential doctrines taught therein, per- taining to God and to man, to sin and salvation. There can be no hesitation on the part of any honest Bible reader in accepting an unqualified declaration that man is sinful and God is holy that God is righteous Himself, and very properly demands right- eousness in us; that God is a just God and a Saviour, and that His love has brought salvation within the reach of all, through His only-begotten and well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ. I men- tion these as mere specimens of the topics, regarding which there can be little room lor difference of interpretation. Greeds — A Help or a Hindrance / 245 Let us look at still another objection — if it be so that the minority are to defer to the majority, in their judgment as to the doctrines of the Bible, does this not involve Protestantism in error, in placing itself in opposition to the Church of Kcnie, which claims to i ;present the Catholic Christian mind ? At first sight this consequence seems to follow, but when we look all round the question, we find that it does not. If the teaching of the Vatican was based on the Holy Scriptures alone — if it even professed to find warrant for all its dogmas in the Bible, then there might be better ground for the accusation that Protestantism, in placing itself athwart the matured judgment of the Church of the past, as to what men were to believe on sacred subjects, took up an untenable ])osition. But the cham- pions of the lioman Church knew better than to rest the claims of their institution upon a correct exegesis of the Word of God. They were aware that they could not support the pretensions of the pontiffs upon a reasonable exposition of the Scriptures alone, and, therefore, they insisted in importing tradition as a factor in the problem. It was at this point the great livergence took place between the Keformers and the pajjacy. You know Luther's position. His challenge to the theologians of Piome was to prove to him from the Holy Scriptures — that is by a proper grammatical interpretation of the sacred oracles — that he was wrong and they were right, and he would at once yield. He was quite willing to take the Bible and even to interjiret it in the light of what the early Christian Fathers had written about it, and abide the issue. He would .agree with them, in all mat- ters on which they showed agreement Luther and Calvin were ready to accept the decisions of the learned men of past ages, as to the projicr grannnatical signification of scriptural words, phrases and texts. They planted their feet on the correct exegesis of the Old and New Testaments — they did not pretend to {settle the signification of the Bible for themselves — they were guided by the learning which had been bequeathed to them from former students of God's Word, and their conclusions were just in accord with those of the grammarians who were their masters. ii I- 246 QueUions of the Day. I I They entrenched therasolves in the consensus of former genera- tions of scholars ; and when the Konian disputants could not dislodge them from their position with their grammars and lexi- cons, tliey refused to bow to any other authority. They, and they alone, were in accord with the belief of the past, respecting the proper interpretation of the books of Scripture. There is, therefore, no risk to the principles of tlie Reformation in the ground now taken, that reason dictates to us the conclusion that the majority of those who have been in the past, or are now> experts in the interpretation of Scripture, should guide us as to the scope of tlie Word of God, on any matter to which tliey have specially directed their attenti(jn. But now the important point arises for consideration, why should there be a desire for agreement at all ? Why do we not rest satisfied with the Bible alone as its own interpreter ? What need is there for any authoritative exposition of its teacliing in human formularies ? If we are agreed in taking the Word of God for our religious guide, ought not that to suffice ? This is the ])osition usually taken by the opponents of creeds — and a very phiusible position it is — but will it bear a close examination ? I think not. The necessity for creeds and confessions arises from the con- dition of tlie Church on earth. The Church is a social institution. The called of God (the kTijitm) go to form the ecclesia, or assembly of called ones. Had it been the good- will of the Lord that Ilis servants should stand alone, doing His pleasure each by himself without any concerted action, then possibly there had been no need for such symbols as creeds and confessions. If I had no duty to my neighbor in matters religious, and if my resi)onsibility were only to God, if I had to do only with Him in such concerns, it is (juite clear that the Bible, and the Bible alone, should be the medium of communication, — for God, one of the parties, undei'stands it, and therefore m:in, the (jther party, could not do Him any harm, even if he misread the tenor of the l)ible. In heaven it is generally believed tluu'e will be no need of human formularies, for there this supposed condition of things will be Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 247 found: Every one will know for himself, by direct communi- cation with God, what it is rei|uisite for the health of his sj)irit to know, witliout the help of any fellow-creature. There the worshipper will not reijuire to tak(i into consideration his fellow- worshippers — each one directing his homage and praise on his own account, without the help of any human medium, there being no churches or organizations in heaven for promoting the spiritual life. Tiiis life will there be derived immediately from God, the Saviour, the Source of all spiritual life. But the Church on earth is a social organization. It is an institution in which man is designed to act on his fellow- man for the furthering of the religious life. This being so, the question put of old by the Prophet is quite suitable here : " How can two walk together, except they be agreed ? " One of the objects of the Church is to afford Christians opportunities of joining in the praises of their God and liedeemer ; but in this most simple element of worshij) it is manifest that there must be agreement as to the matter of the praise. Unless the psalm or hymn expresses the united faith of the worshijipers the people cannot join in the exercise. Hence, the most ancient of the Christian liymns — the 2'e Deiim — is really a creed as well as a song. The congregation must be agreed as to the substance of their hymns, and this inij)lies a human embodiment of the teaching of Scripture on the subject of their praises. And it is one of the most comforting facts, in the midst of the clamor and strife of sects, that all wIkj profess and call themselves Christians are found using many of the same sacred songs — lionian Catholics as well as Protestants. And so, as to ihe subject matter of ja-ayer. Prayer sui)poses foregoing doctrine; and the prayer must be in the line of the doctrine believed, otlierwise there can be no union in it : it cannot be the expression of the emotions or desires of the assembly unless it reflects their beliefs — such beliefs as are involved in the prayer oifered to God. Tlie Apostle tells us that botli singing and praying involve the understanding as \. 11 as the spirit ; and as he says in another connection, how can the ii M 248 Questions of the Day. people say " Amen," as was manifestly the practice in the Apostles' days, at the end of the prayer, unless that prayer be in accordance with their belief? In short, in all things in which men have to act in concert there must be unity. J3ut the necessity of agreement on the subject of Scripture teaching becomes still more manifest when we remember that the Church is an institution designed for imparting instruction as well as giving scope to the joint devotions of believers. The fact tliat one man has authority given him to instruct his fellow- men implies that he is qualified to expound rightly the Word of God. He has a creed to set forth. His business is to induce belief in the verities of the Gospel on the part of tlie listeners. His chief office is to persuade men to accept the doctrines of th.e Bible ; but this surely implies that he has a creed, and that he is striving to get others to adopt it. The office of preaching means nothing if it does not mean this. Peter and Paul both felt that they had a message to deliver to their fellow-men, and therefore they sought to expound the Old Testament Scriptures, as well as the facts of the Saviour's life and the substance of His teaching. The Apostles were sent forth to bid all men observe the things which the Lord commanded, and to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This implied that they had a common narrative to relate^ and common doctrine to inculcate. And, so long as men are employed to instruct other persons in divine truth, they must have a creed to set forth. Th«ir business, if we take for our guide the example of preaching set us by the Apostles, is not merely to string together texts of Scripture, and then leave it to the people to make what they can of those texts ; but rather to show the mutual relation of those passages, and the general doctrine jointly yielded by them. Their office is to expound the Word of God. When the good time promised has arrived, in which " no man shall need to say to his neighbor, ' Know the Lord,' for all shall know him, from the least even to the greatest," there may be no need for creeds, because there will be no need of pastors and teachers. But for the present, it is "by the foolishness of preaching" that Creech — A Help or a Hindrance ? Ud men are led to believe the Gospel ; and, therefore, there mujgt be a setting forth of that which is to be believed. If there are to be recognized teachers, who have authority from God, as expressed throngh the medium of His Church, to instruct their fellow-men, their commission surely must bear what they are to teach ; and this supposes a formulated creed. The necessity, then, for such brief summaries of truth arises from the nature and objects of the Christian Church militant. The environ- ments of the Church create the need of creeds. Nothing seems to me so ridiculously illogical as to hear men who set tliemselves up as Christian teachers denouncing creeds from their pulpits. If creeds are not permissible, I should like to ask them M'hat they are doing up in that place of authority v^^here their statements are not subject to challenge ? Are they giving forth views on divine truth in terms different from the w^ords of Scripture ? Then they are enforcing a creed. I could respect the op]ionent of creeds who holds his tongue, and does not seek to influence other men by his opinions. The moment any one begins to expound the Word of God in human language, he is setting up a creed. Even the public denouncer of creeds is striving to erect a creed of his own : his creed is that there should be no creeds. Logically, he sets up his individual views as more worthy of men's acceptance than the views, it may be, of the learned and thoughtful and spiritually-minded who went before him. This conceit only needs to be exposed to show sini])le- minded people the hollowness of the specious apjical to ignorance and vanity, which would flatter thcni by making them believe that they are qualified to interpret the Word of God for tliem- selves, whether they have grammatical attainments or not. It is clear that the Apostle Paul had given to Timothy an outline of doctrine to which he was bo confine himself in his public utterances. He was not free to speak his own fancies : ho was to hold fast the form of sound words. So that the Church has apostolic example to justify it in prescribing to its preachers a system of doctrine, to the substance of which it binds them to conform in their teaching. 250 Questions of the Day. I ■'■ It will be seen, then, that the question of creeds is a large one ; and it is not to be settled by a wave of the hand, or by smart attacks on priestcraft or ecclesiasticism, as professional deliver- ances on the subject are contemptuously called. And now a word or two as to what should find a place in the Christian creed. It may be said that anything unmistakably taught in the New Testament Scriptures may be put into the formularies of the Church. Whatever we conclude, ex animo, to be imposed upon our belief by Jesus the Lord may be legiti- mately embraced in our creed or confession. We may not always comprehend the matter, as we do not comprehend the details of Chemistry or Astronomy, although we accept their results ; and so we are required to say " credo " to all that is enjoined on our faith by Christ. On the other hand, only such matters should enter into a form of belief as are generally accept- ed. Consensus is required. Where the judgment of experts is nearly equally balanced, it would be manifestly wrong to dog- matize. And yet the creed should be as extensive as there are important matters to be believed. There may be differences of opinion as to what is necessary to be believed, in order to salvation ; but I think it is a safe position to take in this counection, that every doctrine which receives prominence in Scripture — which is fre- quently reiterated — it may be assumed, is helpful to salvation, and so may, properly enough, tind a place among the things to which we ought to be asked to say " credo." But wherever there is room for doubt as to what the Bible teaches, even the slightest, the word "credo" is inapi)licable. A large number of practical questions spring out of this discussion, at which time does not allow me to do more than glance. Must not the imposition of a creed bar the way to progressive thought and research ? If other sciences were content to rest at the point which they had reached hundreds or thousands of years ago, how dark and benighted would the world be to-day, and why should not theology advance as well as they ? For Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 251 every fre- :ation, iigs to »f this e than essive rest isauds 0-day, For this reason : that the materials on which judgment in regard to the rehgious questions before us rests were all in hand fifteen hundred years ago, whereas the facts on which the experimental sciences are built up are not all yet fully ascertained ; and so the chemistry or physics of to-day may be obsolete in fifty years from now. The only grounds of change in theological formulas which are aihnissible are that former ages may have made mistakes in interpreting and systematizing the Scripture materials before them. But this is a limited gr(juud of change, compared with what is true of the physical sciences. And as a matter of fact, in all the important doctrines of Cln-istianity little cliange has been made, from thu time when tlie first attempts at formu- lating them were put fortli. It cannot be said the councils at Nice and Chalcedon introdu'^ed a new interpretation of Scripture regarding the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ. They only set them forth in a stronger light than that in which tliey stood before. And tlie same may be said of the doctrines of grace as taught by Augustine and of Anselm's views on the Atonement, as well as of those of Luther on the place which belongs to faith in tlie Christian system. In matters of philology and geography and anticpiities we in this generation know more than any that went before us ; and ])erlia])s wt; have got nearer the proper meaning of individual texts of Scri])ture and diflicult passages. We do not pretend to have grasped the full significance of the Bible, or to be absolutely correct in our exegesis ; but we are satisfied that we are sufficiently near the whole truth of God's word to enable us to believe that which we do know. It might be said that religious uniformity would be the logical outcome of the view which I have urged. And so it would ; and mi^dit there not be a worse thing? I have said that if all men looked at the statements of the Bible under exactly the same conditions they must necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. But I need not "eniark that we are yet far off from a consumma- tion so devoutly to be wished. There is immense diversity in men's capacity and training and prepossessions, and this diversity 252 Questions of the Day. ■■ .1 \ i causes them U look at the same facts through entirely different mediums, so that uniformity is far from attainabh;. Of course, an enforced uniformity is not to be thought of — the being made "orthodox, by apostolic blows and knocks." Yet it is desirable that Christians should see eye to eye, through the spread of in- telligence, and study, and sjiiritual discernment; and we should not rest content until believers are of one heart and one mind. It is manifestly our duty to strive after the ideally ])erfeet state of things ; yet, as things are, there must be liberty of ]>ro}ihesying. I have observed that modesty would lead the individual to distrust his own views, when they came into coutlict with the general stream of o])inion in the ])ast and the ])resent. I may add that it behooves the Church on earth, too, to ])e modest in statements of doctrine, and gentle in its enforcement of creeds, since there is so much of which we know little or nothing here. 'NS'^e see through a glass darkly, and have but ]»artial knowledge. "We have l)Ut faith : we cannot know, For Unuwledi^^e is of things we see." In this world we touch only the outer boundaries of the domain of truth : as our noltle ]ioet says, we are but infants crying in the night, with all our l)oasted knowledge. And so, in compari- son with the blaze of s])irittial light that will dawn upon the soul in the regions beyond, the same poet might well say : " Our littk^ systems liave their Any, They have tlieir (iay, ami cease to !>e; Tliey are bnt hroken liiihts of Tliee, Ami Tliou, O Lord, art more than they." Our dogmatism should not be too confident. It was not un- wholesome advice which Oliver Cromwell gave to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, when he said : " Is it, therefore, infallibly agreeable to the Word of God all that you say ? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." And this leads to a remark or two on the cpiestion of tlie changeableness of church formularies. Being of human com- ])Osition, creeds and confessions necessarily occupy a lower platform than the ^^'ord of God, and are, of course, always liable Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance ? 25.^ to challenge. There is no bar to their being changed. Thm-e is nothing disloyal to truth in calling for a revision of any synopsis of Bible doctrine which the past has handed on to us. In this res])ect all ecclesiastical symbols differ from the Scrii)tures. The Bible cannot be changed at man's pleasure. We have to abide by it ; but, so far as any human forms of faith are concerned, there is nothing so fixed about them but that men may at least canvass them ; and it is the right of the Church to restate the truths of the Bible from age to age, in the form which shall be most for the edification of the Body of Clirist. So long as there is a single passage of Scripture not jiroperly understood, until criticism and Hermeneutics liave uttered their last word, logically all human formulas must necessarily lie open to possible change- Lovalty to truth is better than loyalty to any creed, liowever venerable. It is an implied condition of adhesion to any church formula that one is released from it, as soon as he is convinced that it is erroneous or faulty. And it follows from this thai every individual has a right to attack even an article of faith to which he may a*" one time have been pledged, and to agitate for its amendment, if he comes to r<^gard it as imperfect. Whole- some thought must be fret. And every man must think out the creed for himself. Let him thiidv and study freely ; but if he thinks truly, he is likely to come to the same conclusions for himself finally that others did before him who thought and studied freely. One of the ways in which free-thought will exercise itself will be in suspecting itself, if it differs from the free-thinking of otiier people. The man M'ho has fought his way to conclusions for himself becomes the best champion of the trutii. As Tennyson says : " Perplexed in faitli, but pure in deeds, At last he beat his nuisic out, Tliere is more faith in honest doubt, Believe nie, than in half the creeds. He fought hi.s doubt.sand gjitlierod strength, He would not make his judgment blind, He faced the spectres of his mind, And laid them : tlius he came at length To find a stronger faith his own," 254 Questions of the Day. H^ H ' It ? If Yet there are ways and ways of criticising and assailing creeds. We expect no quarter from those, one of the corner-stones of whose sect is the admission of no human formularies. But creeds sometimes obtain scant justice at the hands of those from whom diil'erent things were to be expected. Teachers within the Church occasionally win a cheap po])ularity with the unthinking and prejudiced outside conmiunity by innuendoes and insinuations against, if not by direct attacks on, the form of words to which they have professed adhesion. The time was when he who dissented from the received opinions went aside from his brethren, and, from a new and unembarrassed position, felt free to say his say against the views which he had abandoned ; but now a special merit is claimed for dissent within the Church, and it is applauded by those that are without. It was not always so. It used to be deemed indecorous to pursue such a course. It was formerly reasonably expected that the teachers in the Church should settle their differences among themselves, instead of ventilating them before the public. I judge no man or class of men. Loyalty to truth may seem to them to warrant or compel them to adopt the course which they pursue ; but to many unsophisticated minds it is as unseemly for ministers to be attacking the doctrines of their Church as it would be for families to parade their disagreements in the eye of the public. For my part, I am not ashamed to confess a great respect for the historic past, and a strong inclination towards its conclusions. History makes little account of the individual or his aberrations. Time is the great alembic into which novelties are thrown. It tests all fresh forms and fancies, generally resolving them into thin air. It holds on the even tenor of its way, heedless of puny attempts to divert its course. I have observed portions of the waters of rivers break away from the main channel; but, after forming islands, it may be, they generally follow the force of gravitation and return to tlie parent stream ; if in any case the rebellious water did not so return, it ended in a bog. The course of history is like our great St. Lawrence Eiver, which receives the contents of many turbulent tributaries > :| Creeds — A Help or a Hindrance 255 but all the discoloring animal and vegetable matter gets pre- cipitated, leaving, as a final result, the pure azure stream that flows into tlie Atlantic. And so, when agitation and attack have done their utmost to discredit the creed of Christendom, it will remain with its crystalline purity unsullied. In this discussion I have not had any particular form of sound words in view. What I have endeavored to do has been to assert the principle that human formulas, which we term creeds, may be legitimately deduced from Holy Scripture. I have gone further, and taken the position that they are eminently useful in guiding the reading and the thought of those whose time and opportunities do not admit of their becoming themselves experts in the study of the Bible ; giving fibre to the faith of the Church, and preserving the bulk of unlettered persons from becoming the prey of ignorant or presuming enthusiasts, or from being tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness after the wiles of error. But let me, in conclusion, say that, great as is the importance to be attached to a " form of sound words," we must beware of making our religion rest in a pure creed alone. While the Bible is full of strong meat for the nourishment of faith, and for the occupation of a spiritual understanding, its chief use is for personal edification. Let us yield ourselves up to the inspiration of the living personal force which runs through it, and especially to the glowing influence of the personality of the Redeemer. " The Word had breath, and wrought With human hands the creed of creeds, In loveliness of perfect deeds, More strong than all poetic thought." •ence ries > QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. THE DELIVKRED IN THE David M or rice Hall, Feb. 24///, 1884, BY THK REV. B. M. PALiMER, D.D., New Orleans. 'If 1 \ t F t G t] <( a.' h n ul of m tit gr( ex mi wl th( th( Th gei Questions of the Day. THE GROUND OF CERTITUDE IN CHRISTIAN BELIEF. The comparison often instituted, as to their relative vjilue, between the external and internal evidences of Christianity would seem to be an impertinence, when it is remembered that they are co-ordinates of one and the same argument. Two parties, for example, range themselves respectively in defence of the a 2^TioH and the a posteriori demonstration of the being of God — each undervaluing, if not actually denying, the validity of the reasoning upon the other side ; while, in fact, they are both " members one of another," and as strictly complementary as the ascending and descending curves of a single arch. These two branches of evidence can never be disjoined, simply because they distinctly involve and sui)port each other. It is inconceivable that miracles should be wrought, or that prophecies should be uttered, to attest a system which carries within itself no traces of its divine origin. On the other hand, a system whose linea- ments are clearly supernatural cannot be but herahled by creden- tials which shall challenge attention witli a superb authority. There is, however, a distinction Ijetween the two, which possibly grounds the comparison in which they are so often weighed. The external evidences, as the term indicates, break in u[)on the mind from without, are therefore more obtrusive, and carry their wliole weight of proof at once to those who are roused to consider them at all. Their significance is more easily apprehended, as they require little or no culture of the affections to be appreciated. The internal evidences, on the other hand, are drawn from the genius of the system itself; and demand a measure of symp^athy 260 Questions of the Day. n with the truths communicated. The evidence is not, as before, like that of light falling upon the eye, which needs only to be opened in order to perceive ; it is rather like that of heat, which can be felt only where a corresponding sen.sil)ility exists. Perhajis these terms are sufficiently discriminating. In the one case the demonstration is seen ; in the other case it is felt. In tlie one, the landscape is lighted up to the eye ; in the other, its beauty is disclosed to the sensilnhty and taste. Strictly co- ordinated as the liglit and the heat, they are, like these, conveyed to us by different rays. The external evidences authenticate Christianity as a whole ; and sweep away cavil and doubt in the overwhelming presumption of its trutli. The internal evidences verify this conclusion l^y a detailed examination of the system in all its parts; and rivet the conviction throiigli the combined im])ressions whi(di have been made singly by each. It follows, of course, that this line of proof is almost infinitely various. It is, in fact, kaleidoscopic — the same princi]>les and facts, like so many colored stones, falling into new and changing combina- tions before the mind. It will be the object of this Lecture to present one of these diversified proofs in the fact that Christianity is the only SYSTEM, DEPENDING UPON MORAL EVIDENCE, AVHICH UNDERTAKES TO CONDUCT ITS ADVOCATES TO UNQUALIFIED CERTAINTY OF ITS TRUTH. Moral or probable reasoning, as it is variously termed, does not in its philosophic sense stand oj luised to certainty, as though it were inferior in degree ; but only to demonstration, from which it dilfers in kind. Its peculiarity is, that it deals not with necessary, but with contingent, truth : that is, as expressed by Mr. Keid, *' with facts which exist <• -^ they are, but which might have been differently disposed by the Kuler of the universe." It is plainly this species of evidence upon which we depend in the common affairs of life, upon which all history is written, and by which the natural sciences are established. Upon it far the greater part of our knowledge and of our duty must rest. It is the only method under which character could The Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 261 be built up, or a moral governineut be administered. It differs from demunstratiou in that it admits of degrees, from the lowest probability to the highest certainty; and our conviction is strong or weak according to the amount of evidence, after sifting and weighing the facts, which we accumulate in this scale or iu thai. Here, then, is Christianity from its very nature, moving upon a line of evidence which is not necessarily exclusive of doubt; yet producing in tliose who surrender themselves to its influence an unwavering assurance of its truth. What increases the wonder, it works this conviction in all the faculties alike, and at every point where it touches the interests of the human soul. This, too, notwithstanding the immense range of its disclosures ; stretching far beyond the limits of the human reason into the region of the inlinite and eternal — bringing the high mysteries of a supernatural world, and lodging them as articles of faith and knowledge in the experience of the hundjlest saint wlio has been " taught of God as the truth is in Jesus." These are immense pro})ositions. If they can be sustained, we tind ourselves in a temple whose spler^did dome is supjKirtcd by pillars of strength and beauty, grander than the Jachin and Boaz of Solomon's Porch ; and tilled with a glory shining above the brightness of a thousand suns, from the self-illununated pages of the Inspired Word. The Scriptures speak of a threefold assurance — of understand- ing, of faith, and of hope. These may be tlistinguisiied thus : the assurance of understanding being the full conviction that we clearly perceive the meaning of Holy Scripture, and that we rightly interpret the princi[)les of (Jrace as revealed therein . the assurance of faith being the firm persuasion of the reality and truth of all the Scriptures make known, embracing it with the heart and acting upon it as each particular truth may require ; the assurance of hope being the well-grounded conviction that we are i)ersonally accepted before God, and shall never come into condemnation. The articulate discussion of each of these three topics would show how this certainty is wrought within all the mm 262 Questions of the Day. faculties of the soul; reciprocally strengthening each other, -m the separate strands which are wound together into the strength of the ro})e. Tlie limits of a single Lecture will not allow so wide a range. It will be necessary, therefore, to combine them, as far as possible, in one comj)reliensive view. Let us, then, in the outset, note the emphasis with which the Apostle atlirms the certainty of Christian knowledge and faith. In Colossians ii. 2 he pours out his prayer for all who hud not seen his face in the tlesh in these worils — " that their hearts niig^li t bc_ comforted, bein^' knit together iuj^ove and unto all riche'3 of the full assurance of understanding." Tiiere is no caution in his step, as though doubtful of the ground on wiiich he treads. On the contrary, the emphasis rings with the blast of a clarion in a fivefold intensification of language. A very Titan in his higic, he jiiles together his massive words, which, like separate beams, undergird the weakness of human speech, and rentier it capable of sustaining the burden of his thought. These Colossians may not oidy have understanding of the truth but the assurance of understanding as well; and, beyond this, the fulness of that assurance ; and then, the riches of that fulness ; until, rising to the fifth degree of his emphasis, he adds the entireness of these riches themselves. Such is the majesty of this Apostolic prayer, ascending the stairway of a splendid climax, that Christians may possess all the tvealth of the fultwss of assurance of understanduig. Nor is this the only place in Scripture which affirms this certainty of Christian knowledge. Let me blend into a constellation some of these blessed testimonies, beginning with that of our Lord, (John xvii. 3) "this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." So, the Apostle (2 Cor. iv. 6), " for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Thus, too, in his i)rayer for the Ephesiaus (Kph. i. 17, 18), " that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Tlie Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 2t)3 him; the eyes of your understanding being enlightened," &c. Again, in his ])rayer for the saints at Colosse, (CoL i. 9), " that they might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisd(jm and spiritual understanding." Finally, the beloved mystic speaks from the de])th3 of his own consciousness (1 John v. 20,) " and we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, eveii in His 8on, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." If in any case this grand result Ije not attained, the cause of failure is not ambiguously exposed (John vii. 17), " if any man will do his will, says the Master, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or wiiether I speak of myself.'' And the Apostle (1 Cor, ii. 14), "neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Christ says to Peter ; "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17). And again, in His parting counsels to His disciples (John xvi. I'S) : " When he the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." K, from want of grace in the heart, we are not in accord with the system of grace, how shall we perfectly understand its nature ? If the unsauctilied reason will repose upon deductions of logic rather than upon the demonstration of the Spirit, what basis of conviction remains but the value of the syllogism ? If the reliance be upon " flesh and blood " for what the Father alone can reveal, where is the spiritual discernment upon which this certainty of knowledge must linally rest ? We have unwittingly changed the ground upon which this holy privilege is established ; and we fail of assurance, simply because " the eyes of the under- standing" have not been " enlightened " through " the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God." When it is remembered that this " assurance of understanding " is a s})iritual grace wrought within the soid it will be seen that a complete surrender to the iuiluence of the Gospel becomes the condition upon which this certainty of conviction shall be enjoyed. What, then, does the Apostle mean by this assurance of 264 Questions of the Day. understanding and of faith, and within what limitations must these terms he h(dd ? Evidently he does not imply that reason is comjuitent to measure all the "deep things of God;" for in the next line, and in continuation of his thought, he speaks of "the mystery" that must be acknowledged — "the mystery of God, and of the Father and of Christ." The clear apprehension of truth by no means involves its full comprehension. We may toucli that which we may not be able to embrace; and the one is as truly a ground of certainty as the other. Like the "stupendous mount " of Coleridge's hymn, whose " sunless pillars sank deep in earth," and whose " breast was veiled in the depth of the clouds," the awful mysteries of Revelation may still be known as the mount itself was known. We may lie upon the bosom of the one, as upon the grey breast of the other ; and know them both, with a certainty which is not disturbed by the dark- ness which hides the base and peak alike from sight. To repeat, then, the definitions previously given : the assurance of under- standing indicates the fixed persuasion that we have a true knowledge of what the Scriptures reveal; the assurance of faith, the unwavering conviction of the reality of Divine truth, so as to embrace and rest upon it with all the heart. The question now presses, Wilvt pkingu'LES determine this ASSURANCE AND KENDER IT POSSIBLE TO THE CtllllSTIAN ? (1.) The first reply is, that all Dlcine truth is recelced slmplij and alone upon the Dlcine testimony. It cannot be doubted that belief in testimony is an elementary principle of our nature. It is seen in tiie credulity of childhood, which opens its faith to all that is communicated, withholding no part of its confidence, until later experience of error and falsehood imposes a necessary caution and reserve. Even when this restraint has been imposed, the natural tendency is to accept without suspicion every statement which is not in itself violently improbable, or where no distrust has been excited of the veracity of the witness. It must needs be so. God having designed men to live in society there would be no cohesion of its parts without confidence in the veracity one of another. All the transactions of business repose The Oround of Certitude in Christian Belief. 205 upon obligations ami promises wliich derive their value from faith ill the integrity and truthfulness of those by whom they are given. The administration of justice is estop]ted and society is left without i)rotection if facts cannot be estaltlished through the depositions of a credible witness. So limited, moreover, is the range of individual observation and experience that there can be no generalized knowledge witliout the confluence of many experiences flowing through the channel of a common testimony. In short, all progi'ess is blocked and fellowship is barred, if the evidence even of human testimon}'^ is excluded. I'rovi.'iion, therefore, is made for certainty of conviction in regard to Divine truth, in this principle which compels re[)ose upon unimpeachable testimony — since Divine truth is not offered to our accei)tance, except u})on the Divine veracity. There are many proj)ositions in the Bible, no doubt, so level to the natural understanding as to receive a ready assent without the need of affirmative evidence. Let it be noted, however, even in these, that a true faith grounds not upon the intrinsic probability of the case, but upon the authority which guarantees the statement. Just here lurks the crevice through which the desired assurance leaks out of the heart and leaves it in darkness. There is always danger that our convictions will rest u])on the suitableness of the proposition to our natural a|)prehension, rather than uj)on the authority of a revelation. The certainty wliich seemed sufficient in the lower sphere fails entirely in the sphere of supernatural truth. It fails because it is built upon a faith which is human and not divine ; which rests upon the authority of reason, and not upon the competency of testimony. For, l)e it remembered, divine faith wrought in the soul by the Holy Ghost accepts the plainest truths, precisely as the most difficult, upon a " thus saith the Lord." The principle is now in our hand which lifts us over the paradox of claiming to understand that which is in itself incomprehensible. It will not prejudice our case to admit that the staple truths of the Bible are mysteries which transcend the measure of human thought — mysteries solemn and vast as the Q 2G6 Questions of the Day. i 1 % Divine world from whose bosom they are drawn. Wliy, look at the eternity and omnipresence of God : what finite conception goes beyond the mere negative removal from Him of all limita- tions of time and space, which so obstruct our own being ? But who gi'asps all the positive elements which enter into them, as known to Himself? There is the adonible Trinity in tlie unity of the Godhead : What angel of the upper world will lift for us the veil which conceals the mysterious mode of the Divine subsistence ? There is the truth of the Divine Incarnation — so pleaded for by all the instincts of our nature, that it is postulated in every religion upon earth : yet, who can trace the seam at which the two natures are brought together in the unity of an individual Person ? I refer only to the mysteries which are undisputed, and which no finite reason has attempted to fathom. How, then, it may be asked, can such a system of transcendental truth claim to be understood at all, much less with the assurance that it is rightly understood ? The answer is, because it depends alone upon the testimony of one whose infinite knowledge renders Him competent to make the revelation. I have never been to Kome, but you have ; and your declaration is suflicient evidence to me that such a place exists. So, reason's short line may not take the soundings of God's infinitude, and her dim sight may not explore the recesses of His immensity ; yet, if He throw the covering from His throne in a revelation of His purposes and thoughts, the solemn secrets are known to me as things that are — though never measured in their boundless extension, or in the exhaustion of their mighty issues. The Divine origin of Christianity is conspicuously shown in the fact that all its truths rest upon the same plane of evidence. The deepest mystery is received with the same unhesitating assurance with the plainest fact of history or the simplest principle in ethics ; for the obvious reason that every thing is alike told to ns, and the veracity of the witness is the guarantee of our faith. All opposition of the heart being removed by divine grace, the Christian is perfectly willing to accept the testimony of Jehovah. He only needs to know that his grammatical construction of The Ground of Certitude in ChHstian Belief. 267 ', look at iiception .1 limita- r ? But them, as he unity ift for us Divine tion — so 3stulated seam at ty of an hich are ) fathom, jendental ,8surance , depends iowledo;e ve never Hifficiont hort line her dim et, if He of His to me as oundless s. The the fact e. The ssurance 1 ethics ; ns, and li. All ce, the ehovah. tion of the record is correct, to be fully persuaded of th« truth which is revealed. All its statements resting upon the same authority, he has no more difficulty in accepting the inexplicable than the demonstrable. If, then, the Divine testimony be the objective ground of cer- tainty, there must be a corresponding suhjecfi/ve ground in the actualizing power of faith, making real to us the spiritual world. Our contact with matter is close, through the five senses, by which it continually obtrudes itself. Yet there are pauses in life when the soul retires within its own chambei's, to learn that it belongs to a sphere which is not material. Often in the silnnce of night, as in the pause of some grand music, the soul hears " a still, small voice " from beyond the stars pleading for that which is not " of the earth, earthy." Now, iS God give us five senses to recognize the world of matter, shall there be no power to discover the world of spirit ? Observe that our bodily senses not only convey impressions from without, but they verify as real the objects which make them : as when, agtiinst all the whimsies of the Idealist, the sight of a tree is accompanied with the fixed belief of its substantive existence. Hence Isaac Taylor calls the body an organ of the soul; and the senses he terms open paths, by which the soul goes forth and takes possession of a world foreign to itself. In the intellectual sphere, also, the same provision is made for certainty of conviction. Our logic, if the links but hold together, will conduct to conclusions as certain as any that are yielded through the senses. Arguing, then, from analogy, there should be a certifying power in faith ensuring the same satisfaction and repose in the spiritual sphere, which sense-perception ensures in the material, and demonstration in the intellectual. We do not, however, rest upon the presumption created by this analogy. The truths of Christianity must be verified, as the foundation of duty and worshij). They must be certainties, and not mere probabilities. Reason cannot make them such, for they are out of its reach. Even if it could, the process would be too slow. They must antedate reason, and furnish that on which 268 Questions of the Day. »r she may proceed in her deductions. The principles ^J^ duty can- not be settled in the stir and strife of actual temptation, when they should be at hand ready to be applied. How, then, shall these be certified to the Christian, unless there be in faith an ap- prehensive power by which they are seized and verified ? This is that actualizing power, which the Apostle emphasizes aschar- .acteristic of true faith. In Hebrews ii. 1 it is described as "the substance of things hoped for." But hope respects the future (lloni. viii. 24, 25), made up of desire and expectation as its constituents ; and there must be an underlying conviction of some good, not yet in possession, as actually existing. This realization is by faith ; which is thus the substance, the actualiz- ation of what is future. Again, it is " the evidence of things not seen," — that is, by a spiritual apprehension of these through the testimony of God there is an actual seizure of them in their felt reality. How they are demonstrated we may not in all respects comprehend ; but conviction of their truth is produced by a faith divinely implanted, which tests and embraces them all. These observations have almost anticipated the second ground of certitude in Christian belief. (2.) There are spiritual instincts in man to ivhich the Gospd directly appeals, and through vjhich its claims are acknoivledged and received. As the axioms in Mathematics are the wheels upon which the demonstration turns — as all discursive reasoning takes its departure from certain primary beliefs, to which it recurs for verification — so there are prin- ciples in the moral constitution, to which Divine truth is congenial. There must be a nexus between the object and the subject, a ringbolt by which the uithout may be fastened to the within. If a Eevelation be given, what can it avail without points in man himself to which it can attach ? And if man's true glory lies in the Divine image in which he was created, there must be voices in the soul responding to the Divine ori- ginal speaking through the Word. Six-and-twenty years ago, when the building in which I have been so long permitted to minister was nearly finished, a crowd assembled in the square The Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 269 uty can- Q, when 3n, shall h an ap- ? This as char- ribed as ects the biition as iction of g. This actualiz- lings not J ugh the Lheir felt respects y a faith i ground kich the mis are lematics —as all )riinary re prin- ruth is ect and 'astened it avail And if created, ine ori- irs ago, itted to square opposite to witness a triumph of mechanical science in lifting the lofty spire to its place upon the tower, of which it was intended to be the crown. For convenience it had been built upon the ground, completely hid within the tower it was hereafter to sur- mount. It wad curious to see its tapering point as it emerged from its prison walls, rising with slow but steady movement towards the bright sky, until its huge bulk swung free in air one hundred and fifteen feet from the ground beneath — then, poising for a little, like a bird upon the wing, it settled with an easy motion downward, the protruding be^ms falling into great iron sockets within the tower, in whose giant clasp it has been held from that day to this swaying in the breeze higher than the tall pine of the forest. Will you spare me the illustration if I now put forth my hand to find the sockets in man's moral structure in which the massive truths of Divine Eevelation secure their lodgment forever ? (1) How are we, for example, to explain the universal con- viction that there is a God — not dislodged from its seat in the bosom even of the professed atheist ? Incredible as it might be thought, there is not in the whole compass of Eevelation a formal affirmation of this pre-existent and necessary truth, which forms the bed-rock on which all religion, natural and revealed, is founded. Can the strange omission be accounted for, if there was not some provision in man's nature to receive and retain a truth which is nevertheless folded within the implications of Scripture language throughout ? How, then, does the knowledge come ? Is it innate, born within us when we ourselves are born — woven in the texture of the soul, as the bright threads form the pa: jrn upon canvass ? On the contrary, no formulated truth of any kind lies originally in the mind, as a part of its necessary furniture. There are capacities indeed for the receiving of truth, faculties wonderfully sensitive to its approach ; but knowledge comes only from contact of these with the external truth which wakes them into action. Does it come, then, by intuition — the mind having an immediate apprehension of God, similar to the perception of natural objects through the 270 Qvestions of the Day. \\. ''•■' organs of sense ? There can be no such outlook upon Him of whom it is written "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (John i. 18.) Does the knowledge come finally through demonstration of the reason ? It is a sufiicient answer, that no line of argument adds a particle to our antecedent conviction of this truth ; or serves any other purpose than to vindicate it as a truth already known at the bar of human reason, and to parah'zu any assault upon it as a great faith in the soul. The solution is to be sought in that religious nature wherein man's true likeness to God consists, and to which the liict of the Divine existence presents itself with a self-evidencing power. The truth is no sooner proclaimed than it wakes its own echo in the soul, like the voice returning from the hills. In the one case, we find in the configuration of the landscaiie that which rolls back the wave of sound ; in the other, it is the congeniality of a spiritual nature which responds to the call addressed to it by the " Father of Spirits." Or, to vary the figure, the soul of man is like a mirror which refiects the august lining who stands before it. The thought awakened in the one, like the image upon the surface of the other, is the shadow which the truth has cast from the reality of its own substance. The naturalness of this truth to the hunum soul renders the conviction both uni- versal and ineradicable. Wherever man is found, he is suscep- tible of religious ideas, which are definitely formed and expressed, J List in proportion as mind itself has been developed. The universal acoi^ptance of the doctrine of a God is sim])ly the I'nstinctive response of man's sjtirit to the truth as soon as it is presented. Hence, too, the ludicrous imbecility of atheism in attempling to expunge the idea of God from human thought. It must use tlie idea in onler to argue against it, which only ne(Hls bare presentati )n to authenticate itself. Every line of the discussion, therefore, like each stroke of the hammer, only chisels dee])er the immo''i.al iMscrij)tion upon the tablet of meiiwiry. (2). Let us laid another of these sockets, in the indestructible prersuasioL of God's couversableneas with His creatures. You The Grou7id of Certitude in Christian Belief. 271 Hira of y time ; ther, He ge come iufiicieiit itecedent ! than to n reason, ;he soul, wherein .ct of the g power. 1 echo in the one lilt which igeiiiiility ssed to it le soul of lio sttmds lie image ruth has luess of joth luii- suscep- x])ressed, The iply the 1 as it is icism in thought, ■h only u' of the V cliisels lory. tnictible You can build up the presumption against it, which shall seem impregnable as another Gibraltar. It is easy to ask Mhether an Intinite Spirit, whose mode of being >vnd every attribute transcend the limits of human thought, will or can condescend to creatures who, in the comparison, are less than the mites of the microscope. Add to this the distance widening ever between the holiness that consumes in its briglitness and the impurity tliatdefdes a sinner, and we stand ap[)idled at the estrangement which would seem to be final. Vet with all tlie sense of littleness as contrasted with the immensity of God — with all the shame of guilt that cowers beneath the wrath and scorn of tlie Lawgiver — there remains beneath it a^.l, as a live coal hidden in the embers, a sustaining conviction that even this God will be found acct'ssible to those who seek Him. It is an amazing paradox, this faith of the race in the most improbable suggestion which could be offered to the "naked reason. But in tlie midst of our surprise let it be remembered that, through this instinctive persuasion of God's conversableness, the great trutlis of a Divine Revelation and Incarnation find their lodgment in, the human soul. It is here and here alone that the one doclnnc and the other are mortised into the belief of the i-ace. (o). What shall be said further of the decision of conscience, the soul that sinneth shall die? j\Ien of quick sensibility, like John Foster, shudder at a destiny too fearful for them \o (;.on- template without a half denial; and others, less scrupulous, in the frenzy of their atY:'ight, seek to entrench in disbelief out of the grasp of a, doctrine whicli binds then) over to a doom so terrilic. Yet, by a strange fascination, the faith of mankind has been heJd to the necessity of the just jumishment of the wicked hereafter. To what is it due, but to that sense of justice in the soul uf man which answers to the justice that dwells in (iod ? Aside from this, there would l)e no operation of conscience fasten- ing upon the transgressor the conviction of ill-desert and blame, and responding to the supremacy of law as vindicated in the penalty. (-1) Will these specifications sullice, or shall they be confirmed 212 Questions of the Bay. 1 1 by a fourth ? What shall we say, then, of the sweet and in- vincible persuasion of the Divine mercy and love ? Eeference has been made to the dictum of conscience which responds to the authority of law as enforced by Hhe penalty; and would seem to fill with despair the sinner who is convinced of his guilt. So it would, but that side by side with that clear view of God's holiness before which angels stand veiled in adoring awe — side by side with that sense of guilt which lies upon the sinner " a vast, oppressive load " — there runs parallel with both an ireradicable conviction that this just and holy God may be pro- pitiated. Even when not embodied in a formal proposition it exists as a sentiment in the heart, sustaining the sinner from the collapse of despair. It looks like a wonderful contradiction, until we push deep enough into what is fundamental in man's religious nature. There is another side of the Divine character than that of holiness, justice and power. He is crowned also with the attributes of mercy and grace. If He has fashioned us after His own likeness, He must have put the stamp of His own image of love, by which He j)rovides for the spontaneous recog- nition of the Father a« well as the Judge. It is this conviction which lies at the root of all our ideas of atonement and sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness. In this is laid the basis for the recognition of a Mediator, as before for the recognition of a God. When Jehovah stands before the soul iu the reality of His ])eing, it responds by pronouncing the name of its God ; when the Mediator stands before the soul burdened with guilt, it responds by pronouncing the name of its Redeemer. Tiie same subjective ground exists in the nature of man, as a creature and a sinner, for the recognition of both; just so soon as in a full-orbed revelation Jehovah is disclosed in the complement of all His attributes and relations. 3. In further proof, consider that the most di^cult truths of the Bible are so taken up into the experience as to receive the 7iiost practical and substantive vcrijication. This shall be made clear by illustrations drawn fr(uu the knowledge of every child of God. The Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 273 'uths of 'Ave the ii'ill be every (1) We have already seen how the doctrine of Redemption enters with its proposed relief, when the aroused conscience binds the sinner under a sense of guilt ; for " they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." But observe the long train of other truths which must enter with this : truths at first sight the most abs.''/ract and transcendental, yet absorbed into Christian experience as the most healing in their application and influence. If there be a Redemption, there must first be a Redeemer. He, as Mediator between two estranged parties, must be the equal, and partaker of the nature, of both. Thus we are lifted at once to those strange heights, the distinction of I'ersons in the Godhead and the incarnation of the Only-15egotten of the Father. Then follow by necessary implication the cove- nant b»'t\N<'er the Persons of the Trinity, the distribution of otiices in the same, the substitution of Christ under the law for His people, His expiatory sufferings and death, His vicarious obedience, the imputation of His righteousness, and, through it, the oiupl'ite justification of the believer before God. Here is a cluster oi doctrines interlacing and interdependent, a solar system of truths revolving around a common centre. They come before us not as speculative abstractions, but as potential factors of a practical scheme through which we are to be saved from eternal death. The soul in an agony of despair cries out for a Redeemer ; who, when He comes, implicates in His person and work the deepest and darkest mysteries of Revelation, and im])orts every one of them into the experience as the most vital and efficient truths. 1 may not comprehend any one of the enumerated doctrines in their intrinsic glory and manifold ramifications, but I may know them as substantive fact>, entering into the matter of my personal salvation, and verified to me in the unfoldings of my own experience. (2) So it is in the actings of faith and repentance, and in the delicious peace which settles upon the troubled thoughts through a sense of pardon sealed upon the conscience, lint see how this involves the entire office-work of the Holy Spirit, the suri)assing mystery of the new birth, and ail that pertains to the spiritual 274 Questions of the Day. conflict and progressive sanctification of the Christian. The whole discipline of grace, with its blessed effect in mellowing the character and life, draws into and along with it the most insoluDle problems — how spirit is aljle to act directly upon spirit — how it shall act npon free si)irit witli an invincible efficacy, and yet not disturb the spontaneity of its movement nor blunt the edge of its responsibility — how it shall be like the Spirit within the wheels of Ezekiel's vision, animating and directing, without impeding, their course. I cannot know the Holy Ghost in the awful communion of the Godhead, nor in the deep secrecy with which He dispenses the Divine life and Divine power to the children of men, but I may know Him in the spiritual life which He has given to me, and in the blissful calm which, as the Comforter, He diffuses through the soul. (3) In prayer we ascend the mount of worship, and learn the secret of communion with the ]\Iost High. Who can solve the mystery even of human int .rcourse, when through conventional symbols one pours the whole contents of his being into the bosom jf another? But here is intercourse without the inter- vention of sign or sound: the creature kneeling before his God in the silence of thought, or in the sultry stillness of unutterable emotion, whilst the eye of the Omniscient rests upon the secret movement of the soul itself. Where is the Christian who, in the office of prayer, does not go up into tiie cloud as IMoses did, and talk face to face with the thunder ? " Shall we who are but dust and ashes take upon us to speak to the Lord ? " Yea, verily : and He will answer back to us, " as a man speaketh with his friend." Thus in the daily acts of the Christian life, the electric circuit is complete ; and there are flaslies of light between heaven and earth. All that is incomprehensible in the communion of soul with the Infinite Spirit is taken up and verified in the exjierience of the most unlettered snintwho, under a sense of his adoption, can say " Our Father which art in heaven." (4) What is Chere of the inscrutable taken up intiie Christian grace of hope ? " We are saved by hope," says the Apostle ; i^j The Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 275 The " but liope tliat is seen is not hope ; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet liope for ? " What, then, are the unseen things whicli hope anticipates through the pr()])hGtic power of that faith of which it is born ? AVhat, but the triumph of the soul over death, the resurrection of tlie body, and '' the far more exco('(ling and eterual weight of glory ? " ]\rystery upon mystery ! i^Iysteries dark as the grave from which its victim is delivered ! Mysteries bright as the joy of angels through the eternity of ages ! Mysteries bursting away from the comprehension of reason ; yet im])licitly contained, as the oak in the acorn, within the experieiuu^ of all who can say, " I know^ wIkjui 1 have believed ! " Thus does the Christian swing around the entire circle of revealed truth, each doctrine fitting into his experience as the key into the wards of a lock. This verification of the highest mysteries is conijilete through the syui])atliy with which they are embraced, and by which they become the mould fashioning the entire Christian character and life. It should not be overlooked that the faith which embraces and assimilates this system of truth is thj expression of every faculty alike. Every power of the human soul is brought into play. The mind is emidoyed in undci'scanding the propositions of the Bil)le, and kncnving the method of grace in restoring men to the Divine favor. The affections are drawn out to the Lord Jesus as the "chiefest among ten thousand." The will, through its volitions, must render into act the decisions of the judgment and the reason Even the imngination must present the gospel in the ^ividuess of its reality ; and tlie moral taste must appre- ciate the " beauty of holiness," which is so large an element in our sanctitication. It is scarcely ni^eessary to point out the bearing of all this u])ou the certitude of fiiith. The concurrence of these diflereut jiowers gives cumulative force to the conviction reach xl. The aben-ations in one will be corrected in the others, affording additioual safeguards against the possibility of error in the final n-sult. We have thus the verification which is claimed in science, under every variety of test, and especially that of experience. 276 Questions of the Day. 4. This assurance has its support again in the direct influenoe of the Iluly Spirit, illuini7iating the truth, which He has inspired. It is unnecessary in this connection to discuss the doctrine of Inspiration, or to go beyond the simple fact that " holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Tn the free use of their own faculties, they were so quickened and guided by this Divine agent as rigbtly to a])pre- heud, and safely to disclose, Divine truth. Correlative with this is the other office of the Holv Ghost, in illinninatiuc; the minds of those to whom this truth is to be of saving ellicacy. The word is not tlie Divine word, except as it is given by the Divine Spirit; it is not read in a Divine light, except it be opened to the understanding by a Divine exposition. This illumination is distinctly promised by Christ to His diHcijiles: "but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Fatlier will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John xiv. 26). The promise is repeated in language sliglitly diiferent : " wlien He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth ; for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall liear, tliat shall He speak ; and Ho will show you things to come. He sliall glorify me ; for he sh.ill receive of mine, and shall show it unto you " (John xvi. 13, 14). There are seasons when a cloud settles upon the mind, just as night draws its mantle of darkness over the earth. We open the Scriptures, but the oracle is dumb. Its words are cold and unsuggestive, and reason fails to break tlie shell in which the Divine comfort is hidden. Again, this shell parts asunder appar- ently of itself, and our "souls are satisfied as witli marrow and fatness." This alternation of light and darkness in the soul of the believer, like the day and night in nature, is due to the same cause, the a|)pearance and withdrawal of the irradiating sun. The logi(3al proposition may be compassed well enough l)y the natural understanding, through a light, so to speak, outside of the word. But we want a light luithin the word, which sliall reveal the spiritual import and blessing which it has for us. It may be The Ground of Certitude in Christian Belief. 277 list as u the and 1 the i[)ar- V and :f the laiise, likened to those skeleton signs in the streets of our cities, made up of innumerable points, vague and unim]»ressive in the diffused glare of the day, hut each liglited at night by a jet of gas, the name written in fire blazes into the darkness with the splendor of a distant star. The Holy Spirit dwelling within us quickens every faculty and brings to a clear insight of the truth, as He lights up before us the Word in which it is deposited. These, then, are the principles which determine the assurance, revealed in Scripture as the privilege of every Christian. Let me mass them together in a sentence, that they may be seen in their combined strength. First, we have the unimpeachal)le testimony of Jehovah himself; over iigainst which there is the actualizing power of faith, making real to us all that is revealed. Second, there are the moral instincts of our nature, to which the truth directly ap[)eals, and in which it finds a secure lodgment. Thinl, these truths, even the most abstract and difliciilt, are taken up and verified in Christian experience, su])jecting them to a daily practical test. Fourth, the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer, for the declared purpose of " guiding him into all truth." His illuminating work standing over against His work of inspira- tion, as its necessary complement and correlative. All these, converging to a common end, bring to an assurance which can never be shaken by the combined assault of earth and hell. The design of this discussion is not simply apologetic, but experimental as well. Perhaps no topic of practical religion is involved in more obscurity than this grace of Christian assurance. The confusion arises chielly from failing to recognize the principles upon which it rests. Thus the comfort of believers is often marred, and one of the most powerful incentives to personal holiness is weakened. It will be helpful to us all, if the mist and haze surrounding this subject can be dispelled — if, with the beloved John, we can be brought to feel that God " has given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true;" and beyond this, " that we are in Him that is true, even in His Son, Jesus Christ." 278 Questions of the Day. f ■ As one of the internal proofs of Christianity, it is an immense advantage to go before the world with a bold challenge to com- pare this wonderful certainty of sujiernatural truth with the cloudiness and doubt enveloping all ethical and religious systems depending upon human reason alone. How much like a wail of despair is the confession of Cicero that, while reading the arguments of Plato for the immortality of the soul, he seemed to be convinced — but as soon as the book was laid aside, they slipped from his grasp and vanished into air. Yet .'hat con- viction needs to be more deeply rooted within us than this which underlies all obedience and worship, and all hope of enjoying hereafter the presence of God's glory ? To serve a religious end, it must cease to be a probability resting upon the shifting sands of finite sjjeculation ; and become an ascertained fact, through a Divine revelation. And this is but one of many to})ics upon which certainty is brought to the soul by the Inspired Word. We live in a time when freedom of inquiry sometimes degener- ates into the insolence of trampling with scorn upon the faiths of the past. The age wjiich should render these faiths more venerable is construed into a presumption of error and supersti- tion. It is necessary, then, to go down to the bottom facts of Christianity, as they are vouched for in the indestructible instincts of our nature — to those evidences which come up from the deptlis of the system itself, and proclaim it to be Divine and true. It will not be impro[)er to close this Lecture with an illustration which I once heard in connection with a diiferent subject. The famous Eddystone light on the coast of England is said to be imbedded in a chamber excavated in tlie solid rock, its massive foundati(jn being cemented to its eternal walls. Each rising tier of gigantic stones, narrowing as it jinjceeds, is cemented within a liice chamber of its own ; and wlien the revolving light tlirows its gleam over the stormy waters, they dash their wavas against a structure which appears as thougii it had grown from the central granite of the earth itself. Thus let our Christian l)elief.«, rising tier above tier, rest their «ii^ The Ground of Certitude in Clmaian Belief. 279 deep foundations in tl.e te'^^i^^ of tl.at Word of tl,o Lord wind, endureth forever. Cenrented at the ba,e wit li. t . evorlastrng rock, like ti,e Edd,»t„ne Pharo., they will hrw their light over a darkened world.