IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ill 1.0 I.I 1.25 :!: as, IIIM IM 1.8 ■ U 11^ V] /^ ^i. V /^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 '', Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 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 checked below. nyi Coloured covers/ \v\ Couverture de couieur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couieur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D D D D D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 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 ajout^es lors d'une restauretion apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couieur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudss Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough> Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — yt Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I — I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ D 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 6t6 film6es 6 nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. r~7| This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X yr 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X tails du idifieir une nage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Ralph Pickard Bell Library Mount Allison University 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. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6ndrosit6 de: Ralph Pickard Bell Library Mount Allison University Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire fiim6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page 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. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 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 film6s 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 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^-signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large tj 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 c&rtes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. i-orsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd i partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. srrata to pelure, >n d n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6 v> . ■, /f^^" •■'^' 'r ■,^. WM. ■f^i 'Pm&ni^ r '■"S r*r- ."■■J jr^' ■ ■ . . .i, ^ o .^ „:-^tT K'-} BY THB '^f # tBEV. E. H. DEW4RT, D.D. T^Af -^BY THW :f^ %, •. 4.v-i3:A-jBW;0Bi;:;'j; , ^ -v.-^-* ;• iT.. BM^a THe aecoND D'5«6 BifORB !EBK J^eologital Eniffttof SUfetorta #olk0e/ m 1|!^^. ^.. METHODIST CONi'KjngNpB ^II^ialitG OFPICtJ ^■o?"-;;:; vif; ■-t« /J ■m ./^il^^lWir' ■<■ , -■.;, C- :J;"-.>^- Ir^'^^'k'^^. ■r-:^^- I ■■^:#^ ?s«^'' ■ ,ci -.i--' ■■ -'--v i.e.- ■■■' . , , ■'■"I'.K'fe'W ; • ; \ ■•■■ ' -■ ■ : :"-v>'. -,. •i<;^rf^:#fe'.^^'\ xr r i ■^ •■ '.^-^ \ ■'.'- ■•'-it ? ^'■\'- ft-. . ^ -^^-, .~v V f<-if - ' ,^4 '/' .^^A -^^ >%-m THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. &j:^ "^;3 BY THB REV. E. H. DEWART, D.D. THE WORK OF CHRIST. BT THB REY. E. A. STAFFORD. BEING THE SECOND ANNUAL LECTURE AND SERMON BBFORE THB ®^wlo0wal Winxaxi of iwtoria €olh^z, in 1879. TORONTO: METHODIST CONFERENCE PBINTING OFFICE. 1879. ■M'^t:,-" •«: ;; r Y0-. ^^'A 4 -^p^MBiqnMnilffinNPW "11 ji, . iiiiw ■wiPiinwi iiH. i||PMi 4 THE A LECTURE DELIVERED BEFORE THE THEOLOGICAL UNION OF VICTORIA UNIVERSITY, MAY 19, 1879. BY THE REV. E. HARTLEY DEWART, D.D. ft (o I S -| t. f PEEFATOKY NOTE. This lecture is designed to be a brief introduction to the History of Christian Doctrine. The subject was selected, partly because it has largely occupied my thoughts for some years past ; and partly because the drift of current theological speculation renders it necessary that every intelligent Christian should have definite views on a question of such great, practical interest. Steering clear of the Romanist theory, on the one hand, and the theory of Skeptical Rationalism, on the other, I have endeavoured to present and defend a conception of the Development of Doctrine, which recognizes both the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the right of the Church to test the doctrines received from the past, "by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." How far I have succeeded in fitly working out this idea my readers must decide for themselves. E. H. D. Toronto, May jo, iS/g. > A-U' ■if ■^^■i^r -1 ,:t-^M'r' :u# LECTURE. THE §tbtbi^mmt d €)^mimx ^odnrtL I. 1. Many weighty considerations invest the history of the doctrines of Christian Theology with profound and abiding interest, not only to the public teacher of religious truth, but to every one who aspires to be able to give a reason for his faith, and to defend it intelligently against the cavils of gainsayers. The simple fact, that by dogmatic theology we mean the statement of the Church's mptured conceptions of the great truths of religion, is enough to justify the highest estimate of the importance of the sub- ject. The most ingenious disquisitions, on themes which have no vital relation to human well-being, can never evoke widespread or deep attention, froui the busy, prac- tical world. And, as we all know, topics full of instructive n 6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. interest may be thrust aside, on the plea that, as they have no direct connection with the vocation in life in which we are engaged, we cannot give them the time that our particular departments of thought and work demand. We may say of some subjects, that they belong to the lawyer, the engineer, the navigator, or the agriculturist, and therefore do not specially concern us. But the doc- trines of Christianity are not something which belongs to a class or tribe. They are the science of God, of life and destiny ; our best interpretation of God's revelation of Himself in his Word and Works. Christian theology is the full and accurate statement of the great truths re- specting the character, government, and purposes of the Creator of all things ; and the condition, duty, and des- tiny of man. These doctrines are not remote abstractions, but living verities, which it deeply concerns all classes of men to understand aright. The importance of our concep- tions of these truths is heightened, by remembering that the object for which we study the doctrines of the Bible is to learn how wo may fulfil the purpose of our being, glorify God in our earthly life, and be made meet to enjoy the blessedness of eternal life in heaven. 2. The history of dogmatic theology also claims increasing importance, because of the characteristics and tendencies of the times in which we live. This is pre-eminently the age of historic research. The relentless criticism of all that has been received from the past is one of the most striking features in the intellectual activity of the nine- teenth century. In all spheres of thought men are persis- tently demanding the historic facts. The early historical accounts of the institutions of difierent countries have been keenly investigated and dissected ; and many theories IMPORTANCE OP THE SUBJECT. ls they life in ae that emand. to the ilturist, he doc- ongs to ife and tion of )logy is iithb re- of the tnd des- cactions, lasses of • concep- ing that le Bible r being, to enjoy icreasing jndencies ently the n of all the most the nine- re persis- historical lave been theories which once were deemed unquestionable have passed out of sight, and now find no defenders. The constituent elements of this globe, on which we dwell, have been ri- gorously cross-examined, to find out the secret of their birth, and the mystic forces that moulded their forms in remote ages. Within a few years, the life of Christ has been written and re-written, with the closest scrutiny, by both the friends and foes of Christianity, to determine what are the indisputable facts of that wonderful biogra- phy, and what testimony they bear to Christ's character and mission, as an infallible teacher of men. In all branches of mental, moral, and physical science, mere theories no longer suffice. Everywhere, and from all classes, there is a cry for the attested facts. No depart- ment of thought can be hedged in from this eagle-eyed research. This widely-prevailing spirit of historical criti- cism prompts us to trace the story of those doctrinal statements of truth, which have so largely become the guiding stars of Christendom. No history can be of more absorbing interest, or profound significance, than the his- tory of those central doctrines, that have fired the hopes and moulded the character of the greatest benefactors of our race. The history of kings and warriors pales before the wonderful history of the grand, immortal truths, which have enlightened and inspired the greatest thinkers and reformers of all climes and ages. 3. A knowledge of the occasions and circumstances under which the truths of dogmatic theology received their scientific expression, and of the peculiar errors these state- ments were designed to counteract, gives a clearer con- ception of their import and relation to other truths ; and invests them with an attractive interest, which, 9S un- 1 8 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. i I i historic definitions, they would not possess. An old doo- trinal definition is like an old coin ; it bears upon it certain impressions which connect it in our thoughts with the men and the conditions of life which produced it. We trace the history of great thoughts, as we follow the biography of great souls. Keligious dogmas have an in- structive history. They have had their times of war and peace, victory and defeat ; and, like individuals, according to the degree of truth they embodied, have contributed to enlighten and elevate, or to bewilder the world. All per- sons who have travelled in countries that have been the theatre of events which have influenced the destiny of nations, know well that such a place is invested with a vastly deeper interest to one who is familiar with the historic events, than the same place possesses for the unin- telligent traveller, who, because his ignorance excludes him from the power of its associations, sees nothing but the physical features of scenes where armies battled and king- doms were lost and won. So, those who are ignorant of the history of doctrines regard them only as technical defi- nitions of truth ; while to the intelligent student of the progress of Christian thought, each doctrine is like an old shield battered in fight ; or a sword that he knows has been wielded victoriously on many a hard-fought battle- field. 4. The interest of this subject, as well as the obligation to pursue it, is also greatly enhanced by the prevailing atti- tude of many of the representatives of other branches of science towards theology. It cannot be denied that a great change has come over the world of letters in this par- ticular. In former times, theology was the throned monarch, that exacted unquestioning submission from all adl of IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 9 i doo jertain th the We w the an in- ar and cording uted to ill per- jen the 5tiny of with a ith the tie unin- des him but the id king- orant of Leal defi- of the an old LOWS has battle- gation to ling atti- mches of ,t a great his par- throned from all the subject sciences. It marked out the boundaries of their provinces, and determined their rank. Tt was enough to ruin the reputation of any science or philosophy to say it contravened the orthodox theology. In our times all this is changed. And, it may be frankly admitted, that in those past times of which I speak, this imperial ruler in the realms of thought was sometimes too despotic ; and that the modern revolution against dogmatic theology is, like most political revolutions, a reaction against the strin- gency of a time, when priestly dogmas were deemed more sacred and authoritative than the written Word of God and the testimony of human consciousness. But, however that may be, the rebellion against dogma is a serious fact, which demands candid consideration. There is a general outcry against the bondage of doctrines, creeds, and confessions of faith. The intellectual intoxication of our day bends its bow and aims its sharpest arrows against all forms of dogmatic faith. Most precious truths, which have become enshrined as golden treasures in all the creeds of Chris- tendom, are ruthlessly assailed by unbelievers who profess to march under the banner of liberty and progress ; not because they have been proved false, but on the plea that all definite statements of doctrine limit freedom of thought. This condition of things makes it the imperative duty of all who are set for the defence of the gospel, to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the testimony which history bears to the doctrines of Christianity, as well as with their agreement with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. 5. These features of the times in which we live also give additional interest to the history of the errors and heresies of the past. It is instructive to learn the causes of these 1* 10 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. t aberrations from the faith of the Church, because they are generally exaggerations of neglected truths ; and because it is often found that the same heresy which perplexes modern thought, in some slightly different form, disturbed the faith of the people of some distant land and age, under outward conditions of church life widely different from those of our day. As a knowledge of the past conflicts and victories of the doctrines of the Bible is adapted to strengthen our faith in those tried verities, which have vindicated their adaptation to human want and weakness in all conditions of life, so a knowledge of the history of erroneous and unscriptural theories throws light upon their real character, and greatly aids in proving them un- worthy of belief. II. In bringing before you the History and Development of Doctrine, it will not be expected by any one who knows the vast range of the subject, that I could in the limits of a single lecture discuss the modifications which Christian doctrines have undergone, or trace the influences by which they have been moulded into the forms they have ulti- mately assumed in the systematic theology of modern Christianity. To do this would demand volumes. Ritschl devotes a volume of over 600 8vo. pages to the history of the doctrine of justification, and only traces it from the time of Anselm to the present. The most that I can do is to offer a few thoughts, designed to show that there is a development of doctrine, attested by history, which does not conflict with the authority of the Holy Scriptures, -or disparage the value of definite statements of doctrine. tr nc se: th re to ml ei tl 01 eel ui till ot CA as cc of Sc OBJECTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT. 11 hey are because jrplexes Lsturbed B, under at from conflicts Eipted to ch have veakness istory of ht upon them un- )pmeut of ho knows s limits of Christian by which have ulti- f modern ;. Ritschl history of ; from the I can do t there is a which does I Scriptures, doctrine. i Taking the term doctrine as meaning the interpretation and definite statement of the religious truths taught in the Bible, let us candidly enquire whether there has been in the past a development of doctrine, or progress in the exposition of theology ; and whether there is ground to believe, that it is the function and province of the Church to mould and modify the form in which the truths of Christianity shall be set forth, in order that these defiui- tions may moro fully express the clearer apprehensions and more just conceptions of the mind and will of God, to which the representative teachers of Christian truth have attained. I am aware that there is a strong popular feeling of dis- trust respecting all theories of progress in theology. It is not very long ago since it would -have been deemed a serious offence, to say that the doctrines of dogmatic theology had a historical development at all. They were regarded as fixed formulas, which it would be recreancy to Christianity to change or modify. Some Christian ministers, whose piety and fidelity to the orthodox faith entitle their views to courteous consideration, oppose all theories of development in theology. They do so mainly on the ground, that revelation is complete and can re- ceive no & dition ; that its teaching is too explicit and unquestionable to leave room for expansion of mealning, or the discovery of new phases of truth ; that as the promise of the Spirit to guide into all truth has been given to the Church, it would be a practical denial of that promise to assume that the doctrines which we now possess were not complete expressions of the truth of God ; that the theory of the evolution of doctrine implies the insufficiency of Scripture, and tends to destroy confidence in the doctrines 12 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. t of the Christian faith. It is tnie that many of the ablest Christian apologetic writers have risen to what may be deemed broader and truer conceptions of the progress of Christian thought; and have adapted their modes of de- fence to the present condition of scientific and religious thought. Yet the prevailing belief among most evangelical Christians is, that all the doctrines of the denomination to which they belong are precisely identical, in all re- spects, with those held by the primitive churches of Jeru- salem, Rome, and Antioch ; that they have not been, and cannot be, modified. Even among those who admit that there has been an historical development of dogmatic theology in former times, many deny the right of the Church of to-day to modify tlie doctrinal symbols which have been received from the past. This general opposition to the idea of doctrinal development mainly arises from incorrect notions of what is meant by this term ; or rather by confounding a reverent and scriptural doctrine of devel- opment with skeptical and anti-scriptural theories, which undermine the Christian faith. Theories of development in theology, like theories of development in nature, may be either false or true, and should be accepted or rejected accordingly. We accept the idea of evolution, which re- cognises it as one of the modes of God's operation, in the accomplishment of his wise purposes ; but we reject the theory of evolution, which claims that a mode of develop- ment is the efficient cause of the resulting facts of nature. There are two current theories of development, both of which are misleading and dangerous. There is the Romish theory, as elaborated by the acute Cardinal Newman. It was formerly the practice of Romish theologians to claim that the Church of Rome was always the same, and to I NEWMAN b THEORY. 13 le ablest may be ogress of es of de- religious /'angelical )mination in all re- of Jeru- been, and imit that dogmatic it of the »ols which opposition .rises from ; or rather B of devel- •ies, which lopment in e, may be or rejected , which re- tion, in the reject the of develop- 3f nature, int, both of the Romish ewman. It ns to claim me, and to I * appeal to the theologians of the early centuries in proof of the unity of her teaching. But as time went on, the unscriptural additions of succfissive popes and councils be- came so numerous and palpable, that even Romish eflfron- tery could ro longer pretend that all these priestly inven- tions could be vindicated by ,he example and teaching of the primitive Church. In order to justify these departures from the siuple, primitive faith of the Church, the theory of development, which Newman finally presented so plau- sibly, has been generally accepted by Romish theologians. Its main feature is, that from the original germs of doc- trine, and Irom the theological opinions which may be evolved in any age, the Church can, with unerring judg- ment, develop doctrines which should be received on her infallible authority with implicit faith. It is easy to see how deftly the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope, and other humiin dogmas, can be covered and justified by such a theory as this. An unanswerable ob- jection to Newman's theory of development is that its main position — the infallibility claimed for the Church of Rome — is a baseless assumption, that has not a shadow of proof to sustain it. We demand some satisfactory evidence that th.j infallibility is a fact ; but none is available. The whole testimony of history is against this spurious claim. The promise of Christ to St. Peter, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church, like all God's pro- mises to men, is conditional. The attainments of true conclusions by men, respecting any great question, depends upon the intelligence and impartiality with which they use their faculties, and the sincerity with which they seek Divine guidance ; and not, in any case, on an unconditional freedom from error. If the bishop of Rome was from the u THE DEVKLOFMENT OF DOCTRINE. f ?i T ■■ h. beginning the infallible authority in all matters of faith, it is inconceivabla that a fact of such tremendous importance should not have been authoritatively made known to Ihe Church for eighteen centuries ! Nor should it be forgotten, that neither St. Paul nor St. Peter, nor any other apostle, ever ckiraed to exercise the infallible dictatorship, which is now presumptuously claimed for the Roman Pontiff. Another theory of development is that of skeptical Rationalism, which repudiates the authority of the Bible as an inspired revelation of truth ; places religious know- ledge ou the same level with secular knowledge ; maintains the sufficiency of reason to discover all religious truth ; rejects all standards of authority in matters of faith, and constitutes the intuitions of the mind the supreme arbiter in determining what is or is not worthy of belief. This theory is destructive rather than constructive ; a system of doubting and drifting, rather than one which presents any religious truths that claim the faith of the soul. The main characteristic of this school of thought is the denial of a supernatural revelation, and the assumption that all systems of religious belief which have been held among men, have been the natural outgrowth and development of the human mind in its progress towards perfection. The adherents of this general theory display unlimited diversity of belief and teaching, and can only be regarded as belonging to one class, by virtue of their common hostility to all definite or authoritative statements of religious truth. This theory leaves its votaries adrift on the dark and mysterious sea of being, without either compass, chart, or guiding star, except the impulses and speculations of minds which, by cutting themselves loose from the guidance of re- vealed truth, have rejected the counsel of God against them f i a personal , and many ich latitude lich we are Dgical teach- ^mple rather e advantage believe that J possessed a ■ that their nding of the '. Copies of sed by com- istitutions of gh study of nd centuries onverts from ch aids and the meaning ;ical remains hole, an im- as a eompre- interest must Lnions of the faithful confessors and martyrs, who were the leading spirits of the Church in the period succeeding the Apostolic age, yet they are to be regarded as noble examples of fidelity to Christ, rather than as great or unerring teachers. They express the truths of the Gospel which relate to salvation generally in Scriptural terms ; but their defini- tions are frequently vague, and their expositions sometimes fanciful. There is no attempt to set the doctrines of Scrip- ture in harmonious relation to each other. Those who have most carefully studied the patristic writings would be least disposed to accept them as infallible theological guides. No doubt, a doctrine being taught by the early Christian fathers is a strong point in favour of its truth ; but a doc- trine not being definitely taught in their works would not disprove its scripturalness. There were vast mines of truth in the Bible, whose wealth thev had not discovered. Their discussions did not embrace the whole range of doctrinal truth. Those who have turned to the writings of the fathers for a solution of some grave question in theology, know very well that, on many important subjects, you can find only imperfect and unsatisfactory hints. The inconsistency, contradiction, and confusion which abound in their writings, contrast so strikingly with the ^harmonv of the New Testament, that this marked difierence becomes a powerful indirect testimony to the inspiration of - the sacred writers. Neander, Prof. Fisher, and others base an argument against the late date which some Gernan critics tassign to St. John's Gospel, on the low state of theological literature in the second century ; which makes it a literary anachronism to suppose that such a work could have been produced in that period. Every impartial student of the theology of the Church of that period must acknowledge, .*, , III fi I' > ' tf n-> 24 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. i that it possessed neither the fulness nor precision of state- ment necessary to enable the Church successfully to meet and refute the paganism, heresy, and false philosophy by which Christianity was subsequently assailed. Some development was therefore a necessity. #t] iK IV. What the condition of theology in the early Church would lead us to expect, actually took place in its subse- quent history. There has been an historic development of doctrine. We can point out the time when certain doc- trines received their scientific expression, name the men who have stamped the impress of their thoughts upon them, and trace the causes which led to their being thus formulated. Our limits will not permit us to dwell on each of these points. But we may briefly glance at some of the chief causes of doctrinal development. Among these we place, conflict with false systems of religion, heresy, current theories in philosophy, and attempts to produce a compre- hensive and systematic science of theology. 1. The moment we attempt to defend our principles and beliefs against objections, we are compelled to definitely chose the positions we will fortify and defend against the enemy ; and to reduce our crude ideas to a definite and defensible form, as well as to repudiate all incorrect repre- sentations of our beliefs. In this way, the attacks of Pagans and unbelieving Jews compelled the early defendera of Christianity to clear away misrepresentations of the Christian religion, to state their own views, and to give a more explicit interpretation of the teaching of the Scrip- tures on the points assailed. The apologetic writings 1 2, ^C] W56rt <^:ti iCw, ^ny sary subje ence to be woul h$d neces these sink dizec them Ohu ■ i: proce Juda npij*e in 90I mim i INFLUENCE OF HERESY. 25 on of state- Uy to meet ilosophy by 3d. Some irly Church n its subse- slopment of jertain doc- le the men ughts upon being thus well on each some of the g these we esy, current B a compre- inciples and > definitely against the lefinite and ►rrect repre- attacks of ly defenders Lons of the id to give a the Scrip- ;ic writings of Justin Martyr, Ireiifeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others, not only show us the nature of the objections of Wjiti-Christian assailants, and tlie method of defence adopted, they also present a fuller statenoent of their conceptions of the fundamental truths of the Christian system. 2. In a still greater degree, the promulgation of heretical corruptions of the truth became the occasion of developing the doctrines of Christianity ; by rendering it necessary to discriminate between the true and false teaching, which were often plausibly blended in these heresies. Tlie creeds and doctrinal definitions of every age are largely the protest of the Church, against the prevailing heresies of that age. It was found that a heresy could not be refuted merely by denying its truth. Tn such controversies, it became neces- sary to state the true teaching of the Scriptures on the subject in dispute. This definition of doctrine, with refer- ence to some current heresy, has caused special prominence to be given to particular doctrines at one time, above what would seem due to them when the errors they condemned had been driven out of sight. This, in turn, might render necessary some adjustment of the creed which contained these doctrines. The history of the Church furnishes many striking examples of the way in which conflicts with heresies directly conduced to shape Christian doctrines, and to give them a permanent prominence in the future teaching of the Church. IJveu in the New Testa.aent age, we see examples of this pr0cess. It was in repudiating the narrow exclusiveness of Judaism that the great truth was proclaimed, that " God is npjrespecter of persons ; but in every nation he that feareth B%i and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him." It is in '^ntradiction of the error of a legal and ritualistic justi- .M 2 {. i\ I "I 26 THE DEVKLOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. fication, tliat St. Paul asserts the great doctrine of justifica- tion by faith in Christ. It is in condemnation of an An- tinomian theory of salvation by faith alone, that St. James asserts the principle that " faith without works is dead." In post- Apostolic times, this tendency is constantly ap- parent. The mazy theories of Gnostic dualism early com- pelled the theologians of the Church to define more ex- plicitly the unity of God. It was in the controversies witli Monarchianism, Sabellianism, and Arianism, that the true doctrine of the Trinity was develo})ed and formulated; which, under the leadership of Athanasius, was fully and formally defined at the Council of Nice in 325. It was in opposition to the heresy of the followers of Macedonius, that Gregory Nazianzen vindicated the doctrine of the per- sonality of the Holy Spirit, which was explicitly stated and confirmed by the Council of Constance in 381. It was in refuting the erroneous teaching of Patripassians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, respecting Christ, that the orthodox doc- trine of the human and divine nature being united in one person, which was finally defined and confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, was developed. In all these cases, there was no pretence of having dis- covered any new doctrine, or of adding anything to tk teaching of the Holy Scriptures. The appeal was made to the testimony of Scripture, and the previous writings of the chief theologians of the Church; by whom it was alleged all these truths were taught, though not always witli equal fulness and definiteness. The position that these truths have maintained in the creeds of Christendom attests the ability and fidelity with which the work was done, Even the great upheaval of the Protestant Eeformatiou, which had no regard for the church authority claimed for 3 of justifica- Dn of an An- lat St. James is dead." instantly ap- n early com- ne more ex- oversies witli hat the true formuhited; 'as fully and 5. It was in Macedonius, 18 of the per- ly stated and [. It was in 3, Nestorians, rthodox doc- mited in one [•med by the f having dis- thing to the was made to , writings of vhom it was , always witli L that these indom attests was done, ^ Reformation, claimed for . INFLUENCE OF SYSTEMATIC! THEOLOGY. 27 ter imscriptural accretions, left these earlier definitions d symbols undisturbed, as a sacred legacy for all time, would be easy to add numerous illustrations of the influ- ence of heresy, in indirectly promoting the development of Christian doctrine. The early the logy of the Protestant eformation is largely a protest against the heresies of the 'hurch of Rome. The Articles of Religion, in our own ook of Discipline, may be taken as a good illustration of is influence. Some of them would never have been ritten, but for the Roman errors they condemn. The me influence is operative in our own day. We find it .ecessary to guard and adjust our statements of truth, be- use of prevailing errors. We have learned to define a iracle more carefully, because of current theories respect- g the immutability of the order of nature. The position Imd method of our best Christian apologists have necessarily changed since the time of Butler and Paley. ' 3. Every attempt to frame a systematic body of theology, In which each doctrine will occui)y its proper harmonious lation to every other doctrine, must lead to modification d adjustment. Those who have crudely held a few leading doctrines are in danger of presenting them in dis- rted and exaggerated forms, which leave no room for just nceptions of other important doctrines. This is the great ult in the teaching of some of our modern evangelists. They ike a part of the truth as if it were tlie whole, and thus pre- nt an imperfect and distorted theology. The process of ascer- ining the teaching of Scripture on any point is not so simple some think. In some instances, indeed, we find a doctrine early taught in a single text, but this is not ordinarily the se. The steps of exegesis, according to a learned authority, e three : first, authenticating a doctrine out of a single l! '! PS •i ■'!i 28 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. ^ tr', ' ■ doctrinal passage, as the sense of that passage ; second, ascertaining the contents of whole books and divisions, and various statements of doctrine by comparison of several passages ; third, deriving a sum total of doctrinal state- ments from the sum total of doctrinal passages and writings. If doctrines which have been left out of sight be brought forward, and assigned their due prominence in a system of theology, those that had previously received an exaggerated importance must be modified. In systematic theology one doctrine depends upon another. Our belief respecting the Trinity and the Person of Christ will determine our doc- trine of the Atonement. Our views respecting the nature of the Atonement will necessarily determine our conception of saving faith, justification, and the extent of the Atone- ment. The doctrine of sin set forth in any creed, will of necessity determine the doctrines of Soteriology contained in that creed. The degree of authority over the conscience, claimed for the Church, will fix the degree of liberty of thought conceded to the individual Christian. It is evident, therefore, that a change in the conception and statement of any central doctrine would tend to modify the formal ex- pression of other doctrines. This tendency, which was more or less active through the whole history of the Church, was seen in its most imposing form during the scholastic period. The schoolmen attempted nothing less than to gather up into one harmonious whole all the great principles of the Christian system, to set forth their import and their relation to each other. Though they brought great intellectual acuteness to this task, it was beyond their powers. They were " in wandering mazes lost," bewildered by the subtlety of their own speculations and distinctions. This influence was specially potent in developing the second, jions, and f sevei'al lal state- writings. ) brought system of aggerated ology one jctiug the our doc- ile nature onception le Atone- id, will of contained Dnscience, liberty of s evident, tement of jrmal ex- hicli was y of the I ring the ;hing less the great ir import ight great I )nd their ewildered itinctions. iping the THE INFLUENCE OF PHILOSOPHY. 29 theology of the period immediately following the Protestant Keformation. The rejection of errors which Rome had in- corporated with the theology of the Church, and the closer and more general study of the Bible, greatly quickened theological enquiry, and enriched the religious literature of the Reformers with broader and sounder interpretations of the teaching of the Word of God. The vastness of the treasures of truth, bequeathed to the world in the inspired writings, was never before so fully apprehended. There arose, therefore, a pressing demand for a clear and scientific statement of the doctrinal results attained ; and for their presentation in a systematic form. Numerous attempts were made to supply this want. Though the early theology of the Reformation is largely anti-papal, the subsequent creeds cover broader ground. Tho Augsburg Confession, the Helvetic Confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism, and other doctrinal symbols of that time — not to speak of the works of Calvin and Arminius, — are all evidently efforts to present a systematic and consistent statement of the doctrines they believed to be taught in the Bible. Com- paring these with earlier creeds, t.»ey present tokens of such adjustment and modification of definition, as the larger range of subjects embraced, the clearer light possessed, and the fuller comparison of Scripture with Scripture rendered necessary. 4. If philosophy is, as it has been called, "The Science of Sciences," which determines the principles and conditions, the limits and relations of all branches of knowledge, it is evident it must influence methods and results in the sphere of theology. The views which a theologian holds on fundamental questions in metaphysics will, consciously or unconsciously, affect his expositions of religious truth. Two I (S "V^- T I 30 THE DEVELOPMENT OK DOCTIIINR. teachers who hold opposite views reRpectiiig Freedom and Necessity, or Cause and Effect, must differ in their theo logical and ethical teachinj;. Different intellectual methods : will prevent uniform results. Even those who may profess '$ to disregard philosophy, unconsciously assume some philo- sophical principles which will affect their conclusions. The history of Christian thought amply confirms this. While Christianity has sanctified and assimilated what was good and true in the intellectual methods and results of every age, it is well known to every student of Church history, that the prevailing systems of philosophy, in some degree, impressed their features on the theology of every period. All along the Christian centuries, w«.» can trace clearly, in the theology of the Church, the potent influence of the profound idealism of Plato, and the subtile dialectics of Aristotle. The influence of the speculations of Plato is as clearly seen in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, as is that of Aristotle, in the works of Thomas Aquinas, and the Schoolmen of the 13tli and 14th centuries. Dr. Pressense pertinently says : — " If in the ripe age of Christianity Cartesianism could set its stamp upon the theology of an entire century, it is not surprising that Platonism, in its various forms, more or less modified, should have pressed heavily upon early Christian thought, without, however, absorbing it, except in the form of heresy." The influence of English and Continental philosophy on modern religious thought is too well known to require proof or example here. A remarkable illustration of the influ- ence of a philosophic theory, on theological teaching, is furnished by Hansel's « Limits of Religious Thought," in which he applies Sir William Hamilton's " Philosophy of m k hi ismeiL* INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE. 31 reedom and their theo lal nietliods «ay profess Jorno philo- dons. The tis. Whilo t was good s of every cli history, ine degree, 3ry period, clearly, in tice of the ialectics of Plato is as 'rigen, and le, in the t' the 13th pe age of upon the sing that ed, should , without, r." sophy on lire proof the influ- Lching, is ught," in (Sophy of ^0 Unconditioned," in defence of Christian truth, by the 10BO of arguments, which Herbert Spencer borrows to justify ^e Agnosticism that denies the possibility of any know- ledge of the Creator. At times, indeed, secular philosophy as threatened to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel, by tendency to interpret the teaching of Scripture, on every oint, so as to make it agree with the speculations of a iizy and fanciful philosophy ; just as in later times the antheistic philosophy of Spiuuza, Schelling, and Hegel has ended to undermine faith in a personal God. When the piritual life of the Church was vigorous, and human specu- ations were tested by the Word of God, Christian theology hook off all that was baneful in the secular thought of the imes ; but when religious life was feeble, vain speculations ometimes were substituted for the simple verities of the Christian faith. It does not, however, fall within the scope of our present enquiry to estimate the character and results of this influence ; but simply to point out that in every period the dominant philosophy largely impressed itself on the methods and statements of the current theology. 5. Another powerful influence in modifying theological systems and forms, closely allied to the last-named, is science — using this term to mean our knowledge of the verified facts of the physical universe. This force is speci- ally potent in our own day. It is indeed claimed that theology is a science, and therefore liable to all the muta- tions and modifications of other sciences. I am not disposed to lay much stress on this, as an argument for development in theology. The analogy is not complete. Although theology is a science, it has special characteristics which lift it out of the ranks of ordinary sciences. The great central truths, on which Christian theology is based, are clearly I ■i I ■! 32 THE DEVELOPMENT OK DOCTRINE. revealed in the "Word of God. They aro not a discovery oi humiin research ; but a Divine legacy to the Chinch and the world. But, as in all the other sciences the fact8 are being slowly sought out and put in order ; they cannot U fully classified, because not yet fully known. We cannot, therefore, argue that because the science of geology lias^^.^ been constantly modified by the discovery of new facts,' theology must be subject to similar changes. Yet, as long as we do not claim absolute infallibility for our expositions of Scriptural truth, theology cannot be wholly untouched by the causes which affect other sciences. Because theology is the full and systematic statement of wliat is known and j believed as truth, in that great department of knowledge which embraces the character of God and the moral nature, duty, and destiny of man, it must, in the main, be subject to the same laws of thought which govern our conceptions in other departments of knowledge. ] Neither does the science of tlieology stand apart from all otlier sciences, in solitary and unaffected isolation. On the contrary, it is intimately related to every science, which attempts to unfold the truth respecting any province of the created universe. The idea that the theologian and the scientist work in wholly different spheres, and that each is to pursue his enquiries without regard to the discoveries or conclusions of the other, is an easy way of getting over difficulties, by refusing to look at them ; but is not accord- ing to truth. It is true, religion has spiritual truths which cannot be discovered or appreciated by the instruments and methods of physical science; and some of the facts of physical nature are only remotely related to moral and religious questions. But yet, religion and science largely overlap, and cover common ground. We may, indeed, SCIENCE AND TIIEOLOOY. 33 ii discover}' oi « Ohurch and tlie factH are ley cannjD be ^V'o cannot, geology liai >i' new facts, Yef, as lorn 1' ex])ositions y untouched a use theolugv known ainl f knowled''o loral nature, , be subject conceptions apart from 'liition. On ience, which province of )logian and d that each discoveries 3tting over not accord- iths which ments and 6 facts of moral and ce largely | Y, indeed, ict'ive of a religion so limited in its range of teaching, as I leave out of sight the facts of the created universe ; but ;li is not Christianity. A religion, that did not claim )d as the Author and Governor of all things, might run some [)arallel lino that would never meet the lines of lence ; but Biblical theology, which ascribes the origin id upholding of all things to Divine power and wisdom, list find room and an explanation for all attested facts id laws of matter and mind, that will place them in irmonions relation to the truths of our Christian system (locLrine. The conflict which exists between certain |icged facts of science and some interpretations of Scrip- ijlive, apart from the right or wrong of the parties, affords pactical proof that theology and science do, to some extent, Bcupy the same field ; and theicfore may come into col- JlBion. We know, beyond dispute, that the conclusions to #hich some have come, respecting facts of science, influence leir interpretations of religious truth. And the religious )nvictions of others cause them to reject, as untrue, some eductions of science. Luther called Copernicus a " silly illow " who wanted " to upset the old established astron- ly ; " and the Roman Inquisition persecuted Galileo, for caching that the sun did not move round the earth. Soon, [owever, both Protestants and Catholics were compelled to 3just thoir interpretations of Scripture, to make them jree with the demonstrated facts of Astronomy. It is no isparagement of the Bible to say that our expositions of its [octrines may, in some degree, depend on our knowledge of mguage, history, astronomy and physical science. God jveals himself in His works, as well as in His Word. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament loweth his handy work." It has been forcibly said by a 2* THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. recent writer: "All the sciences of nature so-called, are engaged in investigating the various modes in one self revelation of one God. To the student of theology the forces and laws which these sciences discover, but leave unex})lained, are modes of the divine action. They revea: not an abstract nature, but the nature of the Father who is in heaven. For the theologian then to treat disrespcctfullv any fact or law of the sciences of nature, is to treat dis respectfully that Word of God through whom all things were made." (Rev. G. T. Ladd, in New Englander.) Those who deem it derogatory to theology to admit that it may be modified by anything science has to tell, and wlio claim that Scripture should be interpreted, and its doctrines formulated, regardless of what has been found out in otlieij departments of thought, virtually claJm that an unscientific, unhistoric, unsystematic interpretation of tlie Scriptures is| more worthy of confidence, than one that gives a justj recognition to all known and verified truth from every tield] of knowledge. It is a great mistake to supp:/^e that we help the cause- of the orthodox faith, by shutting out the liglit of any truth from our teaching; or by retaining, as dogma, and imposing upon popular belief, anything that cannot be sustained by adequate proof. If the teaching of science contradicts unquestionable theological truths, it is " science falsely so-called ; " and if our theology has no place for any duly established truth of science or history, there must be something wrong with the theology. Our theology must be broad enough to recognize "Whatsoever things are I true," whether they were known to a former generation or not. We must not disparage the testimony of the works of ithi v«feiite**'>^- THE TESTIMONY OF GODS WORKS. 35 > 0- called, iiif in one self heology tlieg but leave: '-t'Jiej revea! tlier whoi) Ji-espcctfullj o treat dis- all things er.) Those h'cit it niav who claim doctrines nit in other unscientific, criptures is ^ves a just every field > the cause •lit of any dogma, and cannot be of science s " science ^ce for any e must be •logy must 'liings are lei'ation or works of creation, as if we could thus exalt Revelation. To do this IS to surrender important positions to the current Agnostic [aterialism. St. Paul declares that the created works of rod so clearly reveal His eternal power and Godhead, that even those who had not the written Revelation were [without excuse, if they did not acknowledge Him. Neither [should we disparage reason, as if it was something antago- [nistic to Revelation. Our reason is the medium tliroujjh which we receive the light of the Word and Spirit, and without which it could never illumine our dark nature. It (is sometimes objected, that some of the truths of Revelation are found in the heathen systems of religion, as if this fact d''})reciated the value of the Revelation of His will which God has given us in the Bible. But God is the Author and Revealer of all truth. The fragments of truth which we find in the writings of the sages of India, or China, do not cosne from some source that is independent of the Father of lights. These grpins of gold, found among the dross of heathenism, do not constitute any ground for disparaging the spiritual verities of the Bible. If Christianity embraces in its teaching, and presents in full-orbed splendour, all the broken rays and fragmentary truths which flash like gleams of light amid the pi-evailing darkness of other systems, is not this a proof of its claim to be from heaven, rather than an evidence that it is a nK^-e natural growth 1 Would it not be more unfavourable for Christianity if it did not embrace the best things of all other systems '? The study of comparative theology affords corroborative proof of the truth of the doctrines of Christianity ; for the characteristic ideas and worship of even the darkest systems of heathen- ism are a confession of the great soul wants and woes, for which Christianity alone offers a true and sufficient remedy. I I p I !h i'il 'ts'l If; 'I 'i m 36 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. 6. The historic evidences of the power exerted by these diflferent causes in moulding the dogmatic theology of suc- cessive periods, are numerous and indisputable. The history of the doctrine of the Atonement furnishes, perhaps, the most striking illustration of these external influences. Though in the primitive period, and in every succeeding affe, tbe great truth that Christ died for our sins, and that those who believe in Him have life through His death, was firmly held and taught by the Church ; yet there is much diversity in tlie mode of defining how the death of Christ became the procuring cause of human salvation. This doc- trine assumed a dogmatic form more slowly than any other central truth. It never was formally defined by any coun- cil whose authority could give it permanent form ; and to this day there is no one theory of the Atonement univer- sally accepted by all denominations which hold the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. The idea of a ransom from the power of the devil must have been more prominent and enduring than some writers are disposed to admit. If this were not so, we would not have Ansel m and others, in the twelfth century, lengthily combating this theory. The theory of Satisfaction was first put forth prominently by Ansel m, and the moral influence theory by Abelard. It is somewhat singular, however, that Anselm's theory, on which Calvinistic sub- stitution is founded, was sustained by arguments drawn from reason and philosophy, rather than Scripture, and regarded the Atonement as something done for the whole race ; while Abelard's scheme, which is the germ of the modern moral influence theory, was based on an exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, and limited the virtue of the atoning work of Christ to the elect. MI'-.T HISTORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 87 Time will not alio) to glance at the different me even raodifisations of the doctrine of the Atonement, by theo- logians of different schoolo of thought, Romish, Rationalist, and Protestant, from the time of Anselm down to the present. I may, however, say, that the history of this doctrine affords conclusive evidence that saving faith in Christ does not consist in the acceptance of any philosophical theory of the Atonement. I would not disparage any honest attempt to expound this great truth, in its profound relations to man and to God ; but I believe there are thou- sands now, like the Christians in the primitive Church, who could not explain the Atonement of Christ, in its relation to law and sin, and who yet have grasped by a living faith the conviction that in some way it is the pledge and proof of the infinite love of our Father in heaven, and of Christ's power and willingness " to save to the uttermost them who come unto God by him." If we deny that there has been any salutary development of doctrine since the apostolic age, we cannot justify the Protestant Reformation, which was, in a very marked degree, a development of doctrinal truth. It is true, the Reformers successfully appealed to the Bible and the patris- tic writings in proof that their teaching, unlike Romanism, was no " cunningly devised fable," invented by men. But it is none the less true, that the theology of Protestantism presented a fuller and more explicit statement of the doc- trines of Christianity than can be found in the literature of any previous age. In this sense, there was also an important development of doctrine by Wesley. Though it is true, as he claimed, that he preached nothing but what was in accordance with the Bible and the standards of the Church of England ; yet r ft -I! 111 if I' It' 38 THK DEVELOPMKNT OF DOCTRINE. his exposition of the Witness of the Spirit, and Christian Perfection — not to speak of other doctrines — was a fuller development of these Scriptural truths, which gave them a prominence and power in the preaching of the Gospel tliat they did not possess before. To deny this, is to deny that Methodism has any distinguishing theological teaching which would warrant its continued existence as an evangel- istic organization. Wesley's theology, so far as it was a new presentation of truth, was not the result of speculation, or Biblical criticism. He read the Word of God in the light of the living experience of men and women who had felt its converting and sanctifying power. The whole his- tory of the preaching of Methodism illustrates the reality of this development of Scriptural truth. 7. Though there is scarcely any disposition to deny the historical development of doctrine that has taken place in the past, many, who freely admit the fact, seem to think that this privilege belonged to some bygone golden age, but cannot be claimed as a function of the Christian intelligence of the present, or the future. There is no good ground for such a conclusion. The Rev. Wm. Arthur, in his "Tongue of Fire," clearly shows, that the Church of to-day has a Divine right to all the spiritual privileges enjoyed by the primitive Christians. Does it not follow, by parity of reason, that the Church of to-day may possess as much right and qual- ifies tion to expound and state the meaning of the Scriptures, as was possessed by the Church of any age since the apostlesi There is not a particle of evidence that the Church of this age has been deprived by her Risen Head of any privilege, function, or authority, which was possessed by the Church of any former century. A comparison of the condition of the Church of to-day with that of any former time confirms ''11 i«i* If* AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 39 this conclusion. It has been forcibly said : " The Christian intelligence of to-day possesses every right that the Christian intelligence of the fourth century, or the twelfth century, or the sixteenth century possessed. And not only has it the same rights, but there can be no doubt, that, upon the whole, it possesses a higher capacity of exercising these rights. In many respects ii has both more insight into spiritual truth, and more freedom from spiritual prejudice." (Rev. Dr. Tulloch.) In claiming the right to test all that we haye received from the past, by the standard of Scripture and reason, we in no degree disparage the work of the great thinkers of olden times, to whom we are so profoundly indebted. We may sincerely honour them, without conceding that they were divinely appointed and infallible interpreters of the revealed will of God, for all time. The right to review the doctri. ■ ; formulated in past ages, does not imply that we should reject or liglitly esteem them. We cannot believe and cherish them as we ought, if we accept them on human authority, without an intelligent conviction of their truth. A.nd we canuot attain such a conviction without candid examination. The unthinking acceptance of a doctrine, or creed, is not worthy of the name of faith. It should be remembered that the Church may possess the same authority to develop doctrine, without having ihe same necessity to do so, that formerly existed. It must not be assumed that men shall do everything they have the power and liberty to do, without regard to the necessity or expediency of their action. The exercise of this power must be governed by godly discretion. The builder does not pull down the house he has erected, merely because he may do so. Legislators do not revoke laws which have 40 THE DEVELOPMENT OP DOCTRINE. ■ III : II proved to be wise and beneficial, because they have supreme legislative authority. The best known methods in the different arts of life are not rejected, because men are not compelled to practise them. Candid and intelligent thinking — not the prohibition of liberty of thought — is the true protection against reckless change and wrong conclusions. If the spiritual ideas, handed down from past times, have been built upon just views of God's revealed will and of man's nature, they will not suffer loss, " by being taken up from the dogmatic moulds, in which they are apt to lie dead in an unenquiring age, and brought face to face once more with the living Word and with all true knowledge." If they have not been so lormed, and cannot endure this test, no reverence for great names should induce us to accept them with unquestioning faith. V. III M" It has been said, that because truth is immutable, and the canon of Revelation complete, there can be no new religious truth, and, therefore, no development of doctrine ; as whatever is true now was equally true at the beginning of Christianity. This objection is based upon a misappre- hension of what is meant by development, and is, therefore, irrelevant. Truth is unchangeable, but human conceptions of truth are not. It is a law of moral being, that as men grow in holiness and intelligence they experience a corresponding development in their ideas of religious truth. The objec- tion that all truth is unchangeable might be urged with equal force against any development of scientific truth. Matter possessed the same properties and possibilities in the time of Adam and Noah that it does now. The IMMUTABILITY OF TRUTH. 41 n grow Gliding objec- l with truth. ties in The resources of nature were as ample then as now. Fire and water could produce steam of as great force. Electricity, gravitation, and all the occult forces around us, were the same then as to-day. Yet, there has been a wonderful development in all departments of science. The original book of nature is the same, but our knowledge of what it contains is greatly enlarged. Astronomy, chemistry, geology, magnetism, and mineralogy, may be regarded as kingdoms, erected on ground which human research has reclaimed from the ocean of ignorance that once covered their vast territories from hight. There is, however, nothing true in science now that was not always true ; but no one would think of denying the possibility of any development in science, because the facts of nature have not changed since the creation. In the same way, while there is no change in the Scrip- tural truths which are the sources of our knowledge of theology, there may be important modifications of our judgment as to what the Bible teaches. " The Word of the Lord endureth forever ; " but as Christian theologians become better acquainted with the literature and times of the languages in which the Scriptures were written — as they grow in knowledge of the facts of the created universe, and of their relation to spiritual truth — and understand more perfectly the laws and powers of the human mind, they interpret the Word of God more correctly, and thus discover new truths and richer meanings in the teaching of the old Book. The same object is not the same to different minds, nor even to the same mind at different periods of its growth. The impressions received from any object of thought de{)end more upon the thinker than upon the object. The unthinking rustic sees in the starry heavens •f 'l 42 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. m mi only a brilliant display of sparkling gold. The impression they make on the mind of the intelligent student of astronomy is widely different. So is it with the starry truths which shine in the firmament of Divine Revelation. They are always the same; but their significance to us depends largely upon our knowledge, and our capacity to discern spiritual things. We cannot, therefore, accept the dictum of Lord Macaulay, that, with regard to divinity, " a Christian of the fifth century with a Bible is on a par with a Christian of the nineteenth century ; candour and natural acuteness being of course supposed eqiuil." This might be so, if the teaching of the Bible, on all the mysterious topics on which it speaks, was so uu.nistakably explicit that there could be no difference of opinion as to its meaning. But the light which progress in other branches of knowledge has shed on Biblical interpretation ; the conflicting systems of theology avowedly drawn from the Bible, and the history of actual progress in the science of theology, prove con- clusively that this is not the case. The teaching that has educated the Christian world, all along the centuries of our era, has not been the repetition of stereotyped forms and phrases. All history shows that the teaching that has moulded the religious and intellectual life of every age has borne the impress of the living thought of the times. It has been also urged against this view of the develop- ment of doctrine in the Church, that it tends to weaken confidence in the authority of the doctrines of Christianity, by representing them as fashioned by human wisdom, instead of being divinely revealed truths. Some, indeed, who fully admit the historic development of doctrine in the past, have unfairly represented this placing of old truths in a clearer light, as equivelant to inventing new doctrines that THE UNDERLYING TRUTH. 43 had not been previously held by the Church. If some have unduly exalted the doctrinal teaching of the Fathers, others have unwarrantably depreciated it, in order to destroy the force of the testimony of the primitive Church, in favour of truths they wish to discredit. It is enough to say, that while, as I have frankly admitted, the theology of the early Church was not so definite and comprehensive as the after conflicts with heresy and unbelief required; it embraced, in simple and Scri[)tural forms, the great verities that are prominent in the faith of Evangelical Christendom. The manner in which the Church in the third century dealt with Gnostic and Unitarian heresies amply vindicates her character for sound doctrine. In no instance, in the early times, was any doctrine set forth as a new truth, not already held by the Church ; but in every case, the avowed object of those who formulated any doctrinal definition was to give what they believed to be the true meaning of Scripture, as indicated by the exposi- tions of the earlier Christian writers. It is not just to maintain that because the earlier definitions of doctrinal truths were not so full and exact, in what they embraced and excluded, as the theological symbols of a later period, that the truth embodied in the more elaborate statements was not previously held by the Church and taught in the Scriptures. As a recent writer, in the British Quarterhj Review, speaking of the accepted doctrines of the Christian faith, cogently says : "They owe their vitality and power, their commanding authority over the minds of men, not to any accidental peculiarity of technical verbal structure ; but to the essential elements of Divine and eternal truth they were believed to express, and were intended to con- serve." *t Ir > ; ri ! f^ III. 44 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. I have no disposition to ascribe any undue importance to the opinions of even great and good men. I firmly adhere to the Protestant principle, that " the Holy Scriptures con- tain all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an ta'ticle of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation/ But, unquestionably, the manner in which the central doctrines of our faith have been sifted and discussed, before being scientifically defined, should give them additional claims to reverent regard, rather than discredit them. The quod semper, quod ubique, quod ah omnibus, to which Romanists and Ritualists appeal, is futile, as a practical test of orthodoxy. For no dogma can truly claim to have been believed in all times and places, by all Christiiin people. Yet this motto contains a principle, which we cannot afi^ord to disregard. Any doctrine or belief that has maintained its place in the convictions of large numbers of people, in ^videly different periods of time, must have some elements of truth and power adapted to humanity. While we maintain the right of every man to think for himself, we should place far above the opinion of any one person, the godly judgment of the representatives of a whole Christian community. Great weight must be attached to those Christian doctrines that are held in common by the different sections of the Church. la an important sense, doctrines may be vindicated by history as well as by Scrii> ture. When I speak of the sanction of history to any doctrines, I do not mean simply the prestige they acquire from having j been held by some great men ; but the authority they derive from having lived as an inspiring power through the changes OBJECTIONS TO CREEDS. 45 of ages, and having vindicated their Divine fitness for the wants of sinful, sorrowing hearts, under every variety of earthly circumstances. If, after being satisfied that a doctrine is taught in the Scriptures, we find that the same truth was defined, after years of careful study, by men of eminent gifts and piety, as the true teaching of the Bible and the Church — that it has been held by the noblest spirits of the Christian centuries — that it sustained martyrs in the agony of a painful death, and missionaries amid loneliness and barbarism — that it survived the fiercest assaults of powerful enemies — and that it nerved men to deeds of unselfish heroism in every clime of earth — do not these historic testimonies lift it up into a holier atmosphere, entitle it a more unfaltering confidence, and invest it with a more imperishable renown 1 VI. I have referred to the general outcry against theology and all definite statements of belief, as if they were things inconsistent with freedom of thouglit. It comes mainly from restless spirits, impatient of all restraint, who are against theology, because theology is against their crude fancies. We are constantly told that religion and theology are things that have no necessary connection. That religion consists in right sentiments and acts, and not in any special belief about either God or man; and that the shorter a man's creed is the better. I am thoroughly convinced these indiscriminate denunciations of all dogmatic faith are at variance with the teaching of the New Testament, the un- prejudiced dictates of reason and common sense, and the history of Christian life in all ages. 16 TUE DEVKLOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. It may be admitted that there is just enough of truth in some of the allegations against creeds to render them plausible ; and that in some creeds, at least, minor things have been exalted above things more essential, and the creed itself placed above the Divine Word. We should hold firmly the essential truths of religion ; while giving large liberty in matters of opinion which do not aflfect the spiritual life. There is good reason to think that the great liberty of opinion permitted in the primitive Chinch, accounts for its comparative freedom from heretical divisions. No one will deny that a mere profession of faith in a creed has no transforming influence upon heart or life ; yet, doubtless, the mere profession of orthodoxy has sometimes been counted for more than it was worth, and allowed to outweigh more important evidences of practical godliness. The way in which doctrines are taught in the Scripture— by biography, parable, incidental reference, and brief state- ments, rather than by any formal summary of articles of belief — while, on the one hand, it renders an explicit statement of the doctrine of Scripture necessary, it should also remind us not to unduly magnify the importance of formal and elaborate creeds. The importance of subscribing to creeds and confessions, as a means of keeping men orthodox, has been greatly overestimated. The history of Methodism has practically proved that a "'le personal experience of the saving grace ot Christ ^' more to preserve from " divers and strange dc , than sub- scription to the most elaborate Artie. of Religion or Confessions of Faith. * But, while we frankly make these concessions, we cannot, for a moment, justify the hostile onslaughts on doctrines and creeds, to which I have adverted. The very persons ■PHM9UB.J POWKIl OF BELIEF ON LIFE. i7 who denounce the creedH of others have their own unwritten creeds, and generally cling to tln^m with confident obstinacy. The belief of properly attesttd truth no more limits our freedom of thought, tliaii fixed principles of morality limit freedom of action. It is an utterly false idea of liberty of thought, which makes it consist in the right to reject every- thing, whether true or false. No man is at liberty to demy that the sun gives light and heat, without being branded as a fool. Because a mere profession of faith in a creed does not change the character, no one has a right to conclude that a living faith in the truths of the Gospel of Christ will bring forth no fruit in the life. It is still true, that *' as a man thinketh in his heart so he is." There can be no religion worth the name, that does not rest on a basis of theological truth. Love and faith towards God, and benevolence towards man, cannot exist without a belief in those truths which reveal our relations to God and men. Every one who worships and obeys God, and does good to his neighbour, must have some ground or reason for so doing. Let him state in words the reasons which prompt him to this course of life, rather than another ; these reasons will be his doctrinal beliefs — his theology. The relation between principles and acts is close and intimate. He that believes nothing will do noth- ing. Every act of a man's life, that is anything more than a mere unreasoning impulse, is the result of some belief which is related to it as its cause. The Holy Scriptures give no warrant for this disparage- ment of doctrine, or belief of the truth. To begin with the Master himself — Jesus says : " And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." St. Paul exliorts bis " son Timothy" to " hold fast the form of sound words; " 1 M',pjr»i^^"^i 48 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTIUNE. and warns him " that the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine." He tells Titus that a bishop must be one " holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsay ers." He also says : " A man that is a heretic after the fi^st and second admonition reject." St. James says : " Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth." St. Peter also ascribes regenera- tion to " the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." St. John declares : " He that abideth in the doctr* . of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not th'i doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed." St. Jude says : " It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to ihe saints." The Bible clearly gives no countenance to the sentimental latitudinarianism of the present day. The Divine organization of the Church, as a teaching and working body, and of a preaching ministry, implies and demands common principles of faith ; without which there can be no such unity of action as the institution of the Church evidently contemplates. The Church cannot teach all nations unless she has some definite message of truth to teach. "Without this, her teachers and missionaries would have no answer to give to the anxious enquirers of a sinful and enslaved world. People cannot be expected to co- operate to send missionaries to teach what they believe to be false. And it is a sufficient reply to those who falsely deny that theological teaching has any influence upon the character and conduct of men, to say, that when our Methodist missionaries go out to Japan and preach the THE HISTORIC TESTIMONY. 49 Methodist doctrines of a free, full, and present salvation, to the heathen Japanese, this teaching produces the same type of experience and character which it produces in Canada. They have joy and peace through believing the message of life, and drink of the same living water. The same correspondence be^jween teaching and results is seen in the case of missionaries of other Churches, with different doctrinal views from ours. In every case, whether the teacher is Arminian or Calvinist, Protestant or Catholic, the theological seed sown " yields fruit after its kind." If we appeal to the record of history, its evidence is overwhelmingly against those who maintain that life and character are not moulded by the doctrines believed. There may have been men better or worse than their creeds, but their teaching has in the end brought forth its natural results. The personal character of Spinoza and Loyola did not prevent their teaching from having pernicious effects. On the other hand, all the great souls whose teaching has brightened and blessed the world, and whose names are watchwords of action and progress, have been men who grasped with an unyielding faith those grand and inspiring truths that have given hope and life to the world. There can be no true peace or power, no safety from the bewilder- ing sophistries of current unbelief, no real nobility or use- fulness of life, without settled principles of religious faith. I leave these thoughts with you, simply reminding you, that what I have said in this lecture is but an expansion and enforcement of the apostolical injunction : " Prove all THINGS : HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD. » A SE orK of €^mi: A SERMON DELIVERED BEFORE THE THEOLOGICAL UNION OF VICTORIA COLLEGE, MAY 18, 1879. BY THE REV. E. A. STAFFORD. ^w^vmm^ For W] This i is the huma than dispr( destri lost, harm( poisoi hope tyran Chris know be ad sent 1 in Hi Th( estab] -•M^FT'PI"^^" ^if'" ""K f'l*V IWPH. SERMON. THE WORK OF CHRIST. '* For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. " — 1 Peter iii. 18. What was the work done by Jesus Christ in this world 1 This is no enquiry after a knowledge of historic facts. It is the question of one pierced by a misery the deepest tha human soul can know on earth, bearing a poverty worse than sickness or sorrow can create, feeling the shocking disproportion of things in this world, and conscious of destructive evil within himself; alienated from God, heaven lost, hope gone, he is told that Christ alone can bring harmony into the chaos of his being, draw the accursed poison from the deep currents of his nature, and enthrone hope once more where sin has established its enslaving tyranny. In such a condition, a person asks, ** What did Christ do for men 1 " with something more than a desire, to know the simple facts of His wondrous life. Because, if it be admitted that He can recover man from his sin and pre- sent misery and future hell, then at once these simple facts in His life are clothed with infinite importance. They take hold upon the whole universe of life. They establish a connection with the Supreme Ruler and His 54 THE WORK OF CHRIST. government, above any facts of which we can know or con- ceive. And the question, " What did Jesus do 1" is de- signed, in this discussion, to raise our thoughts into this high plane, — How was His work connected with the plans of government for the universe so as to enable Him to effect such a change as He does bring about in the condition and W^ ^f ^ sinner on this earth ? I. Our first step in the enquiry leads us behind the facts of His life to the motive from which they sprang. " He hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." His earthly life was spent in the interest of others. There is no parallel between Him and any of the race of conquerors sprung from all lands great in story, scattered along the ages from Niuirod to Napoleon ; nor any of the speculat- ing, experimenting philosophers. His was a deliberated, an intense, and sustained effort to reach and save a vast class — the unjust. " I lay down my life for the sheep " (John X. 15), is one of the many forms in which the scriptures teach, as in the text, that His life was for others. Now there are two ways in which one may lay himself out to work for another. 1. He may undertake the work as a substitute. That is, he may do something another would have done, or which affects the other in the same manner and degree as some- thing he himself must, or might have done. It is not necessary that the substitute do just the same acts as the principal would have done. Take the case of a military substitute. He goes to the seat of war to pursue, possibly, a widely different career from that one through which the principal would have gone, had he taken the field himself. The one may develop such military genius as will carry him up to the very highest orders in command. But possibly THE WORK OP CHRIST. 55 had the other gone he would have remained in the ranks all through the war. The health of the one may fail, and a large portion of his time be spent in hospital, while the other would have been able to stand in his place through the whole campaign. And yet the one is regarded as the proper substitute of the other. The law so accepts it, and human language so describes it. He takes the place of the other, and fully relieves him from doing what he must have done himself. 2. But a person may do a work for another and yet not be his substitute. The work may be simply the expression of a sentiment, the language of love or kindness ; but widely different from anything the other would have done, or thought of doing, for himself. A child weaves a garland of forest flowers, or creates some fancy article after his own conceit, and carries it to his parent, saying, " I have done this for you." It is a gift of love. Now, no parent would ever have thought of producing such a thing for himself, or anything in any way like it, so that the child does not do this in the parent's stead, nor as his substitute, but as an expression of love for the parent's happiness. Now the work of Christ has been described in some quarters as done after the first manner, and in others as after the latter. It has been said that He "suffered for the unjust," as an expression of the Divine love, and through that break made in the sky by love the character of the Deity shone forth, and when men see it, the oppo- sition caused by sin gives way, and thus a reconciliation is effected. Of course, with this presentation of the subject, the death of Christ is in no wise a necessary part of His work ; but it followed, as, in the order of nature, death by some means must follow life. A family to-day rejoices 66 THE WORK OF CHRIST. by the cradle. But that picture of domeatic happiness moans that before one hundred years have passed there will be a very different domestic picture — that somewhere a family will weep by the side of a coffin. The joy at the cradle is the prelude of sorrow at the grave. And so the death of Jesus would have occurred, because His life on earth must have an end, if this presentation of His work were the correct one. But in opposition to this view it is claimed that He was properly a substitute, doing what He did in some way in man's stead. II. To which representation shall we ally our confidence ] Let this text furnish our answer. " Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." This text is in the most perfect harmony with the general teachings of the Bible on this subject : " He was wounded for our transgresbions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of oui* peace was upon him j and with his stripes we are healed." — Isaiah liii. 5. We learn then a new fact concerning His work. It was not only in the interest of others, but was in some way connected with the sins of those for whom he gave Himself. And in this fa^t we experience our difficulties in under- standing His work. That He should have died for others, offers nothing difficult of comprehension. The same has occuired many times. Parents have died for children, friends for friends, and servants for masters. Nor would we experience any difficulty with the single statement that He died for sins. Many have died for sins, either avei)ged by nature's law, or by the laws of men. But that He should have died for others, and also on account of their sins, and in such a sense, that had it not been for their ■ ^ rw •• - THE WORK OF CHRIST. 57 sins He had not died, is calculated to tax our minds with the necessity of some thought. We may not proceed one step in the study of the work of this great life without including with it the study of man's sin. The sins of the unjust, and Christ's sufferii)g for the unjust, are inseparable parts of one great piece. The body and its shadow may as easily be removed from each other, as Christ's earthly career and death may be understood and accounted for without understanding human sin. What then is sin ? It is defined as " the transgression of the law." 1 John iii. 4. But before there can be a transgression there nuist be a temper at variance with the spirit of the law. And tliis temper may be described as opposition to God. This is the motive force, or the principle that animates every sinful act. In studying the true nature of sin, whether will I be most successful in turning my attention upon its particular manifestations, or in directing my thought to this principle which animates them all ? If F turn to the se[)arate mani- festations of sin, I find them assuming infinite forms, and in number they exceed the stars. Some of them seem so trifling in their results that men regard as monstrous the infliction upon the offender of such penalties as the Bible denounces. But, on the other hand, every one has witnessed in the course of his life some manifestations of depravity so gross and revolting, so unprovoked, and so disastrous in result, that, as a punishment, the Mil tonic hell would not be hot enough, and eternity not long enough. It is evident then, that I will make little progress while I confine myself to separate acts of sin. But if I turn to the principle from which all spring, I realize results at once. That is the same everywhere and always. There is one firmament ; 3* 58 THE WORK OF CHRIST. but many stars. The sea is one ; the waves are innumer- able. Here then, as in otlier studies, I may proceed from the little to the great. When the child at school has learned that the mark representing one, standing in the second place from tlie right hand, means not one, but ten, and in the third place not one, nor ten, but one hundred, and so on, he may say, I need not to learn the meaning of all com'-in- ations which may be made of the ten characters used in the scienco of numbers ; but, knowing their separate value, and tliis one principle, I know how finance ministers write the vast amounts of national debts, and how astronomers indi- cate the inconceivable distances of the stars. He learns the great from the little — the many particulars from the one principle. Now, we must do likewise in the study of sin. From its principle — opposition to God — we must determine the character of its individual expressions. In order then that we may understand what sin is, it is not necessary that we look into the face of a Nero, and behold a burning Rome ; that we hear the roaring of the lions, and the wailing of the Christians in the amphitheatre ; that we follow in the blazing path of devastating war, or feel the last pang that pierces a felon's heart, — it is only needful to stand in the nursery, and translate into common language the contracted fist, and vengeance-brooding coun- tenance of your child ; for these are waves of the universal sea, fruits of the common seed, and products of the one principle pervading all. And a child, in his first rebellion against the love of his parents, who then stand to him instead of God, in his deep hatred and bitter resentment, may say, I know what made Cain kill Abel, what swept away the population of the old world, what overspreads our ^pr" THE WORK OP CHRIST. 59 earth with wreck and ruin, what, with wakeful distrust, everywhere separates man from man, and all men from God. I feel it in my heart— it is sin— it is opposition to God! Sin cannot then be an indiscretion, a weakness, a mistake, or an extravagant expression of good nature. It is possible to think of any sinful act, taken by itself, and in view of its immediate consequences only, as but a mistake, or an overflow of good nature ; but when we think of the spirit of it, and the principle which controls it, we must think of sin collectively and individually as a crime. It must be a crime : it challenges God's government — it contemns His law— it defies His power — it is a principle which first animated the heart of Lucifer, and would to-day drag God from His throne, and make Him less than devil. III. Let it be admitted then that sin is a crime. We cannot think of crimes but as deserving of punishment. Nor can we conceive of the preservation of any proper balance between the ruler and those who are governed, without the infliction of penalties upon transgressors. Nor can we understand God's government to be conducted on principles wholly different from the governments with which we are familiar. Therefore, in the nature of the case, we would look for the infliction of penalties upon those guilty of the transgression of God's law. If He is a father, He is also a ruler, and, as a ruler, the infliction of punishment belongs to His prerogative. We do not see how Christ's work can be understood by us without our realizing this close connection between crime and punishment. In a work pul>lished in one of our large cities two years ago, and which received, on account of some special circum- stances, a great deal of attention, we read, " The government 60 THE WORK OF CHRIST. of God totters not by the spread of insubordination." * * '• The offences of millions can never affect the supremacy of God." These sentences are in connection with an argument which aims to dismiss all necessity of penalties from the gov- ernment of God. Now if this were correct, our relation to Him, whatever it might be, would be something different from that of the ruled to the ruler, or of child to parent. For we can find no trace of any government without the infliction of penalties. In the case of Adam, in the Jewish law, and in the New Testament, penalties are recognized as the proper treatment of offences. Leaving the Bible, in the history of nations we find no people who thought to enforce laws without penalties. The most ancient code of which the world has any knowledge recognizes the neces- sity of penal visitations. From that code to the city of New York is a tremendous sweep ; and yet in that city, after a long carnival of unavenged murders, during which criminals came to feel safe in their crimes, Stokes at last grew anxious in his prison as soon as Governor Dix restored the majesty of the law in insisting ui)on Foster's execution. That event sent an awakening thrill through all the lower classes both inside and outside of the cells ; and bad men became suddenly conscious that they could not pursue a course of crime with impunity, and people ceased to shoot each other as a means of amusement. The great city awoke to realize that if law is to be obeyed, penalties must be attached and enforced. In poetry we allow unusual liberty ; we grant certainly a very wide -ange of method to the spirit of justice, as in all other things ; but not even in this realm are we taught that intelligent creatures may be kept subject to law without penalties inflicted, either by Gods or men. Let us search THE WORK OF CHRIST. 61 then, where we will, for a conception of government which will i)re8erve order, but npi*<-^«'3r threaten, nor inflict punish- ment : we traverse all s[)aco whicii nature and art have placed under our control, we walk uj) and down the centuries of human history, but we find no such conct'ption, — neither in the Bible, nor nature, nor poetry, nor history,— absolutely nowhere except in the religious system of those who arro- gate exclusively to themselves the name of liberal Chris- tians. It is indeed true that God's government does not totter by any spread of insubordination ; that the offences of millions have not afft'cted His supremacy ; but it is because, in all His laws and dispensations, and, as we siiall see, in the work of Christ, the world has convincing testimony that the vio- lation of His law is visited with terrible penalties upon the offender. IV. We may receive as pretty free from doubt that the huaum family is subject to the government of God ; that this government has been opposed by crime; that the criminal is justly deserving of punishment. And it is evident, in the nature of things, that the penalty is due to the transgressor alone. A crime cannot be transferred from one to another; neither, with propriety, can the penalty which is due to a crime. Over the guilty sinner's head, then, the blow is suspended. Now it is just at this point the work of Jesus comes in. His life and death make it possible for God to forgive man's sin, to count him just, and to ':reat him as if he had never sinned ; and yet, at the same time, the honour, or authority i of the law is just as effectually preserved as it would have i been if the penalty had fallen with all its weight upon man who deserved it. ^ 62 THE WORK OF CHRIST. Let it be said here that it is not speculation to deal in this manner with the work of Christ. Tn stating how His life and death avail for the sinner, we do not offer con- jectures or probabilities, but just two results, both clearly declared in the Bible. 1. That He procures forgiveness of sins. Acts v. 31 : " Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a. Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive- ness of sins." The same truth is affirmed again and again. 2. And that His work also preserved the authority of the Divine Law, is a scripture statement. Although Isaiah xlii. 21, — "He will magnify the law and make it honourable," — may admit of various interpretations, yet the third chapter to the Romans does certainly connect the sinner's forgiveness with the Atonement of Christ, so as to leave no doubt that His work was necessary to preserve a just administration of the law. " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. But how was that lowly life and ignominious death connected with the government of the Deity, so as to pro- duce these effects ? It was by the substitution of what Christ did for what man must have endured had the penalty fallen upon him. It has already been shown that it is not necessary that a substitute do precisely what the principal would have done. Certainly Christ did not do what man must have done, He did not bear the sin. No accommodation was entered into by which He was led to think the sin His own ; nor THE WORK OF CHRIST. 63 did any other regard it as Christ's own sin. The crime was not transferred to one to whom it did not belong, and then the penalty laid upon that one to whom it was not due. Even a sinful heart couhl resent such shocking injustice as that. He did not suffer eternal condemnation as man would have done. He was not banished from the Father's presence, which must have been the weight of the blow had man suffered what was due to him. But what He did and suffered, taken in the place of the infliction of the penalty in full, just as effectually proclaims to the universe the in- calculable evil of sin against God, and the certain peril which attends the sinner's course. Now, is this substitution sufiicient to bring about these effects'? Summon the universe as a jury to decide. Set forth the facts. There is the criminal deserving death. To allow him to escape will destroy the authority of the law under which he lives. But then tell what Christ did — the facts of His life and death, with the motive, and that in view of this the sinner is forgiven. This jury is to decide whether other creatures under the same law are likely to feel that they may trangress with impunity. Let the pardoned sinner himself give testimony. He has felt in his soul all the evil of sin ; its bitterness and chain have been in his heart, and his escape came only through an acquain- tance with Christ's work for him, and a heartfelt reliance upon it as sufficient for his salvation. He has entered into the fellowship of his Saviour's sufferings, has felt the power of His great motive, and while the memory of that anguish of the cross lives in his mind, he must feel that to commit a sin is the greatest calamity that can befall him. We cannot conceive of such derangement of a man's moral powers as would allow that, having been saved by faith in the 64 THE WORK OF CHRIST. Redeemer, he should get from the Cross the idea of license for sin rather than God's abhorrence of it. We see many illustrations of the most exaggerated forms that evil may assume in men's characters ; but we can think of none so bad as this would indicate ! Macaulay tells us that Lord Bacon developed a degree of genius for evil that worthily renders his name an emblem of the violated altar of sacred friendship. The lust of gain, and of {>ower, led him io persecute the very friend who first placad his feet in the way of competence and influence. Can humanity show us anything worse 1 Absalom furnishes a worse type. He stained his hand in blood in one of the most unjustifi- able rebellions ever perpetrated. It is bad to be untrue to a friend, but worse to plot against an indulgent father's wealth, influence, and life. The worst possible indignity can be committed only by a child. He alone can drain his parent's heart's blood, drop by drop, and can trample under foot the best offerings of that parent's heart, while yet living, throbbing, bleeding. And all this Absalom did. But Judas must have been worse. "We find him in the singular pre-eminence of being alone marked by name for perdition. But neither Absalom not Judas saw the Cross as we do. It is possible that had even Judas realized all that was meant by his act, he might have refrained from it. But what words shall adequately set forth that type of moral perverseness, and irredeemable bondage to iniquity which could realize the nature of Christ's motive, feel the measureless depth of His sufferings, and experience deliver- ance from hell through His mediation, and then conclude that He died that men might sin with impunity ! Such a thing is inconceivable. The saved sinner must feel that the sacrifice of Christ has stamped upon his heart the great evil THE WORK OF CHRIST. 65 of sin, and the stern necessity of obedience to the law, as vividly as could be done by witnessing the perdition of ungodly men ten thousand times intensified. And let angels, and the inhabitants of other worlds, throughout the boundless creation, survey the facts, and give their testimony. Will the voluntary ofiering up of himself by Jesus Christ, being put in the stead of the inflic- tion upon man of the penalty due to his sin, preserve to their minds the authority of the law of that God under whose government they all live? Many of these know better than we the value of the sacrifice Jesus made, and in view of its [)riceless worth there must be amazement that such an offering was possible ! That cross and its victim cast forth their image against the sky in the sight of all worlds and all ages, a testimony of God's unswerving demand upon His creatures, of strict obedience to His law ; that agony ot Jesus for sin will lay its full weight upon the counsels of all creatures in the universe capable of knowing God, through the centuries, steadily bending those counsels into recognition of the Supreme authority of the one I'uler of all. But when once this end is realized, when the authority of the law is preserved, the other result of Christ's work may easily be understood. To forgive the sinner is but the heart of God reaching out after man whom He would save. There is no malice, no nursed wrath which must be appeased before He can take man back to His heart* Sometimes in speaking of this subject it is said that Christ's death satisfied the Father, and allayed His wrath so that He could forgive the sinner. But it is really only in a highly figurative sense that we may use the expression, " the wrath of God," in connection with this subject at all. 66 THE WORK OF CHRIST. What does the wrath of God truly mean ? I find in the street the victim of some fatal brawl. The mangled form, the sightless eyes protruding from their sockets, the mingled expression of anger and of pain on the countenance, impress themselves upon my mind, and having learned that some enemy, insane with rage, trampled the life out of this man, the impression lives with me as expressing what is meant by wrath. / At another time I am brought into the presence of one who has just paid the last and highest penalty of some criminal act. The mark of the rope upon the neck, the purple face, and eyes staring out of the last agony that comes upon a criminal's soul, all bring back too vividly that impression which with me means wrath. I say, "this man is a victim of wrath. I will find the wrath that has taken his life." I go to the hangman, that disguised figure whom no one knows and who scarcely knows himself. I ask the cause of his wrath against this man just now dead by his hand. But he knows no feeling of wrath against him. His hand ended the man's life, as much a machine as the rope which he tied around the victim's neck. His insi)iration was not the fascination of wrath, but of gain. I then go to the sheriff, then to the judge who pronounced the sentence, the jury which convicted, the Queen's counsel who prosecuted, the jailor who confined, the constable who made the arrest, the magistrate who issued the warrant. I ask each of these in turn the cause of his wrath against this man, through which he has reached such a dreadful death. But they answer me with sti. ige uniformity that they know no feeling of unkindncss or bitterness towards him. Some of them even did not know his name. Any of them are run • V II iiaiipiiii tinnifmjKir>m' THE WORK OF CHRIST. 67 willing to contribute to relieve his widow and- orphan children. They are simply instnimonts in the hands of a stern law against murder. They are but links in a chain which is moved along by the authority of justice. T have not yet found the wrath under which the victim suffered and died. I then go to the legislators who framed the criminal law, to the governor who, in the name of the Queen, gave the Koyal sanction to the law. I ask these the cause of their wrath, but I am answered as before. They have never seen this man. They know nothing of him. They will aid his family. In all legislation they are controlled, not by malice, but by a regard to the safety and happiness of all the people. In the end I must find the wrath which took the man's life not in any person, but by generalizing. It lies simply in the necessity that good government preserve the peace of society, and the well-being of every family and individual. j And such also is the wrath of God. The representing it as an unreasoning rage which demands satisfaction, and delights in blood, can only be explained as either ignorance, or blasphemy. His wrath is the necessity, founded it Hia nature, of preserving the peace and harmony of the uni- verse, by enforcing His own law. So that if by substitu- tion of Christ's work for man's penalty the law is enforced, \ then the forgiveness of the sinner's guilt is no longer j>revented by anything but man's continued rebellion. , V V. From these conclusions we are led upon some other questions intimately associated with this wondrous work. 1. Why are not all saved as a necessary consequence of Christ's atonement ? Why should anything farther be re- quired 1 Why should re])entance be insisted upon, and faith be demanded of all who are saved] For the very 68 THE WORK OF CHRIST. same reason which led Christ to die — that the law of God may not be dishonoured. " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." Matt. V. 17. Christ did not suffer that men might continue in sin with impunity, but that He might save them from their sin. And the word repentance de- scribes the only change in a man's mind which disposes him to separate himself from all sin. And faith in Jesus is the only condition of mind which enables a person to realize the possibility of forgiveness. Faith is not an arbitrary appointment, but stands connected, in the nature of the case, with God's glorious method of saving men into heaven, by first saving them from their sin, and so eternally en- throning His beneficent law, not only over men's wills, but in their hearts — in their deepest affections ! So that, not- withstanding all that Christ has done, if men do not repent, if they continue without faith, they are continuing to defy the law and its penalties, instead of joining with Christ to exalt and honour it by their obedience, as He did by His sacrifice. Obedience to the Divine law is the highest tribute a creature can pay to Christ's atoning work. 2. In this interpretation of Christ's work we have an explanation of the fact that His death is equally etficacious for the countless millions of the human race as for one sinner — that none of its virtue is wasted though many refuse to come, and none is wanting if all come. Christ on the cross is a testimony that the law of God must be obeyed. We have seen that every person who properly ai)prehends Jesus on the cross feels more than ever the necessity of obedience. Now, a testimony may be as effectual to millions as to one. The universe may be con- vinced by the same unequivocal testimony which brings a THE WORK OF CHRIST. 69 strong conviction to one mind. "He suffered for sins." Had there been but one transgression, a sacrifice no less in value must have been required in the interest of the law. But the offering once made for that principle which lives in every sinful act, the evil of that principle is sufficiently affirmed. The work, therefore, avails for every sinner alike, the little child in his first departure from the right, or the man grown a giant in heinous transgression. Until we can find some sin sprung from a motive different from opposition to God, Christ's sacrifice can save all, irrespective of the number or character of their sins. It is not necessary to distinguish particular sins, nor great sinners, from those not so bad, in considering this subject, since all sins have the same spirit. An American river has its source in a small spring on a hill-side. As it flows onward it is joined by hundreds of tributaries, untU at length it dashes its full volume into the mighty sea. tfome- times in a freshet that swollen river, uncontrolled by its banks, rushes through the streets of cities, bears down human habitations, and leaves ruin in its track. Where shall I lay the blame of this ruin ? Ye fountains of the hill-side, have ye destroyed the city? Ye shining snows, crowning the high mountains, pouring down your torrents, is this your work 1 Or ye rills, rippling through grassy lawns and quiet groves'? Who has wrought this ruinl Neither the mountain, nor snows, nor rills, but all — the vast current of the rushing river has done the work. So, when we ask, For what sin did Jesus suffer, we need not particularize the sin of Judas who betrayed Him, nor that of Peter who denied Him, nor of the high priests, nor of Pilate, nor my sin, nor yours, nor blasphemy, nor fraud, nor violence : but all together — every sin that is of the nature 70 THE WORK OP CHRIST. of opposition to God. Hence, He could save His own murderers, if they received Him by faith. Many have experienced difficulties with these men. Some make them too good — freeing them from all guilt whatever ; others, perhaps, judge them worse than human. Now, the charac- ter of their act is not at all affected by the consideration that they were accomplishing the purposes of God. They had no purpose to further the Divine plans, nor were they constrained to do anything against their own choice, to further them. But they had lived in the spirit of sin so long — it had so completely mastered them — that they were capable of leading out to crucifixion any man who should arouse their prejudices or inflame their anger. This was their crime, — the fact that they were bad enough to treat any person as they treated Jesus. It was no worse to treat him as they did than it would have been to treat any other in the same manner. For the same degree of evil must pre- vail in their hearts before they could be capable of such deeds in any case. 3. This presentation of Christ's work offends no sense of propriety by putting the penalty of one upon another. In the first place, Christ did not bear a penalty at all. It is the license of figurative language which describes His work as the bearing of a penalty. He bore no penalty ; but He did a work which is substituted for the penalty. The sub- stitution is not strictly the putting one person in the stead of another ; but the work of one in the place of what another should have done. It does not in any sense degrade Christ, or detract from His glory, to speak of Him as thus endur- ing for man. A minister of the Crown was once seen hold- ing a door open until a burdened porter passed through. Holding doors was not that minister's proper function ; yet ■ I ^iij|i«fmfirp^^,iiipiwni, . ,k J III -• THE WORK OP CHRIST. 71 if he voluntarily engaged in it to relieve another, it was greatly to his honour. So it was no necessary part of Christ's functions to suffer in the interest of humanity ; but voluntarily condescending to it, both angels and men glorify Him for this work. 4. This view of the Atonement is consistent with the bloody sacrifices of all lands and all ages, and does not do violence to the plain reasoning of any passage of Scripture. 5. This representation is also the legitimate answer to those commercial views of the Atonement which make sin, not a crime, but a debt ; and regard the sacrifice of Jesus as the cancelling of that debt. The legitimate conclusion from such a view must be, that Christ avails for all alike ; that no repentance is necessary ; and that faith is simply realizing for one's self that he is free, because Jesus paid his debt. And such views are yet presented in some quarters. They must deprive Christ's glorious sacrifice of a large share of its power in effecting a thorough and per- manent reformation of the whole life. Christ's death truly reveals to a man the greatness of his crime and the need of a reformation, possible to him only through Divine power. 6. It likewise shows why Deity was necessary in the offering. Nothing less could have so effectually shown the enormity of a transgression of God's law. Doubtless many are saved by simply trusting wholly to Jesus, who know little of the principles involved in the Atonement. And many, through much error, may appre- hend much truth, and so come into life. Surely their earn- est' thought on such a theme cannot be offensive to the gracious Father of all. rilP^PTpilPIIV IIL.II LI II. I I I. u» Vy Printed at the Toronto : GUARDIAN Office, 80 King Street East. Vy OFFIi^KRM FOR INTO-MO. Presidfnf, -Rrv. John S(X)rr, M.A., Carlisle, Vice Premle)it,—UE\. E. S. Rupkkt. M.A., Canton. Secretary- Trcrsurer, —llEv A. M. Phillips, B.D., Chatham. Lecturer for ISSO.—Uev. W. Jeffers, D.D., Lindsay. Preacher for lSSO,~REy. W. W. Ro.ss, Hamilton. Rev. S. S. Nklles, I.L.D Cobourg. Rev. N. Burwash, S. T. D Cobourg. Rev. W. Jeffeks, D.D Lindsay. Rev. S. D. Rice, D.D st. Mary's Rev. J. Elliott, D.D BrockviUe. Rev. E. H. Dewart, D. D Toronto. Rev. E. B. Ryckman, D.D Guelph. Rbv. a. Burns, D.D., LL.D Hamilton. Rev. E. a. Stafford Ottawa. COURSE OF READIIV«, l8y9-NO. SchaflTs Creeds of Christendom. Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith. Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed. SUBJECTS FOR THESES. Doctrinal and Historical Thesis.—" Universalism. " Exegetical Thesis.— Rom. v. 12-2L * _ V|^ LIST OF M?:MJiEKS KNHuLLKD IN TMK T^KOLOGICAL UNION SINCE ITS OKGANIZATION, MAY, 1877 AdiliHou, Rev. P. BarrasB, Kov. E., M.A Barkwell, lie v. J H., B.A. Boll. liev. J. W., B.D. Blackstock, Hev. \V. 8. Boddy, llev. J. Browii, Kov G. Brock, Rev Thoa. Burwash, Rev. N., S.T.D. Burns. Uov. A., O.I) , LL.D. Burus, Rev. R. N.. B.A. BumB, Rev. Robert Campbell, Rev. T. W., B.D. Calvurt, Rev. G. W. Chowu, Rev. S. D. Clarksou, Rev. J. B., M..\. Clarke, Kev. George Colling, Rev. T., B.A. , drnokshunk. Rev. 8. CuUen, Rev. Thoa Dewart, Rev. E. H., D.D. Ed>wardfl, Rev G. Edwards, Rev. VV. W. Fallis, Rev. J. G. Ferguson, Rev. T. A. Elliott, Rev. J., D.D. Flanders, Rev C. R. Franklin, Rev. B., B.A. Gray, Rev. J. Graham, Rev. J. Greatrix, Rev. B. G. Griffin, Rev. W. 8. Guest, Rev. J. Hanson, Rev. Chas. Hawkins, Rev. Chas., B A. Hannon, Rev. Jas. Harper, Rev. Cecil, M.A. Hewitt, Rev. E \V.,B.A. Henders, Rev. R. C. Hill, Rev. L. W. Hodson, Rev. J. M., B.A. Hunter, Rev. W. J., D.D. Isaac, Rev. J. R. Jackson, Rev. T. W. Jeffery, Rev. T. W. Jeff ers. Rev. W., D.D. Johnson, Rev. P. Johnston, Rev. H., B.D. Johnson, Rev. J. U., M A. Kay, Rev J. Laird Rev. J. Langford, Rev. Alex. Lanculey, Rev. J. &. Legato, Rev. T. Loith, Rev. T. B. liloyd. Rev. W. W. Jjueas, Rev. D. V., M.A. Manning, Rev. T., B.A. Madge, Jiev. W. VV. McClung, Rov. J. A., McCulloch, Uov. A. .M. MoDoiiagh, Rov. W. McCarroJl, Rev. J., M. I). McLean, Rev. J. McCaiiley, Rov H. Mitoholl, Rev. G. A., M.A. Morrow, Rev. C. li, Nellos, Rev. 8. R., D.D., LL.D. Parker, Rev \V. R ,M.A. Phillips, Rov. A. M , B.D. Philp, Rov. J.,M.A. Potter, Rev. A. Rieo, Rev. S. D.. D.D. Ross, Rev. W. W. Ross, Rev. J. 8, B.A. Rose, Rev. 8. P. Robison, Rev. M. Rupert, Rev. E. 8, M.A. 8cott, Rev. J., M.A. Sellory, Kev. «., B D. Shoroy, Rev. 8. J. Shilton. Rev. J. W. 8mith, Rev. W. T. Smylio, Rev. R. Sparling, Rev. W., B.A Staples, Rev. 8. Stewart, Rev. A., B D. Stafford, Rev. E. A. Stewart, Rev. J. W. Stevenson, Rev. E. B , B.A. Hutherlaud, Rev. 1). G., B.D. Sutherland, Rev. A., D.D., Swann, Rev. F. Teskey, Rev. E. Ward, Rev. Jos., B.A. Waddell, Rev. R. H., B.D. Webster, Rev. J. Wilkinson, Rev. R. C. Wilkinson, Rev. J. M. Williams, Rev. W. W. WilliamB, Rev. J. A., D.D. Wilson, Rev. J. Workmau, Rev. Geo. C, M..\. i\ m /;.^4i N.B - All members who pay their annual fee, will be presented with ft copy of the "Annual Lecture and Sermon." V V 4 n I J, . ^ #J