b'11111 \n\n\nmi \n\n\npi \n\n\nm \n\n\niEJw^jiKwp \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nliilil \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x96\xa0\xc2\xa3.:\xe2\x96\xa0 ;\' \n\n\nfill \n\n\n\n\n\n\nH9fS \n\n\n\n\ntlKi \n\ntil \n\n\nEi \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nr 1 \xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\nM \xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0:\xe2\x96\xa0;. \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\nHi \n\n\n\noffi? \n\n\n\n\' ^\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0: : \' \' \n\n\n\n^H \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS. \n\nY>K\\^ \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\xc2\xa9^. - \xc2\xa9o^ f i^i i c \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nShelf ..!?_\xc2\xa3.. \n\n\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \n\n\n\nPROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY \n\n\n\nA CONTRIBUTION TO THE \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF \nCHRISTIAN DOCTRINES \n\n\n\nBY \n\n\n\nTHE EDITORS OF "THE ANDOVER REVIEW" \n\n\n\nPROFESSORS IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY \n\n\n\n\\\\rv*\\ \n\n\n\n. . . Till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of \nthe knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, \nunto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. \n\xe2\x80\x94 Eph. iv. 13. \n\n\n\n\'\\v*.J5* \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\\\\ \n\n\n\n\n\nBOSTON AND NEW YORK \nHOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY \n(Cfce Htoersibe $res& Camfcritige \n\n\n\n\n\n\nCopyright, 1886, \nBy HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. \n\nAll rights reserved. \n\n\n\nThe Riverside Press, Cambridge: \nElectrotyped and Printed by IL 0. Houghton & Co, \n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT. \n\nThe papers collected in this volume appeared first as \neditorial contributions to " The Andover Review," a re- \nligious and theological monthly conducted by Egbert \nC. Smyth, William J. Tucker, J. W. Churchill, \nGeorge Harris, and Edward Y. Hixcks, Professors in \nAndover Theological Seminary. They are republished \nsubstantially as first issued, with the exception of the \nfirst and seventh articles, portions of which only had \npreviously appeared. Some account of the purpose and \nmethod of the series is given in the introductory article. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. \n\nPAGE \n\nI. Introduction 1 \n\nII. The Incarnation 17 \n\nIII. The Atonement . . . . . . .41 \n\nIV. ESCHATOLOGT 67 \n\nV. The Work of the Holt Spirit . . .112 \n\nVI. The Christian 131 \n\nVII. Christianity and Missions . . . .153 \n\nVIII. The Scriptures 191 \n\nIX. Conclusion. \xe2\x80\x94 Christianity Absolute and \n\nUniversal 236 \n\n\n\nPROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. \n\nThe phrase "New Theology" is applied largely \nand loosely to a great variety of opinions advocated \nquite independently by numerous writers in many \ncountries. In its widest inclusion it embraces \ntendencies which are more or less contradictory to \nApostolic Christianity and to the general tradition \nand faith of the Church. In its more correct and \nreasonable use it covers many movements of thought \nwhich are quite distinct, one from the other, and \nare not likely immediately to coalesce or harmonize. \nEven where there is greater affinity of conception \nthere is diversity in the field which is cultivated. \nOne class of writers busies itself chiefly with the \ndogmatic problems necessitated by the growth of \nthe evolutionary Philosophy. Another is occupied \nwith questions of historical Criticism. Another is \nabsorbed in the development of the new science of \nBiblical Theology. Another seeks from a yet more \ninterior and central position to state the leading \ndoctrines of our religion in the light and under the \n\n\n\n2 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ninspiration of the revelation of God which is given \nin Christ. Perhaps the stamp which marks most \ndistinctly and comprehensively this new Divinity is \nreality ; and the phrase " real Theology " is in this \nand other respects a better designation than " new \nTheology." It is real because it deals with be- \nings more than with abstractions, with actual pro- \ncesses and their rational contents more than with \na priori assumptions, with laws of life and organic \nforces more than with mechanical combinations, \nwith wholes or parts in their relations to wholes, \nwith things more than with words, and with per- \nsons more than with things. Wherever an inves- \ntigator in the wide domain of knowledge is seeking \nfor and touching reality he is contributing to this \nTheology ; and there is consequently a strong bond \nof sympathy between all such workers, even though \nthe limitation of their labor and the narrowness of \nhuman vision may hold them apart. \n\nThe following essays are offered as such a con- \ntribution. Their special themes and the mode of \ntreatment have been determined by current discus- \nsions. They make no attempt to formulate the " New \nTheology," or to indicate its scope. Such an en- \ndeavor might be too ambitious ; it would doubtless \nbe premature. Along with a general unity of spirit \nand aim on the part of the advocates of the " New \nTheology" there exists, as we have intimated, a no- \nticeable variety of special opinions and judgments. \nNot all of these can be harmonized. Not all will \nbe able to vindicate their character as purely Chris- \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 3 \n\ntian. Some are professedly advanced as provis- \nional, hypothetic, tentative. Problems are above \nthe horizon which are not yet clearly within the \nfield of vision. Even their provisional and rela- \ntive solution is at present impracticable. Too early \nan attempt to define and systematize is likely to \ncramp and repress inquiry, and to promote a dog- \nmatic self-satisfaction which is a deadly foe to \nprogress. The aim, accordingly, of the writers of \nthese papers has been to keep clearly within the \nrange of what is immediately necessary and practi- \ncal. For the most part, a single line of inquiry has \nbeen followed, under the guidance of a central and \nvital principle of Christianity, namely, the reality \nof Christ\'s personal relation to the human race as \na whole and to every member of it, \xe2\x80\x94 the principle \nof the universality of Christianity. \n\nThis principle has been rapidly gaining of late \nin its power over men\'s thoughts and lives. It is \ninvolved in the church doctrine of the constitution \nof Christ\'s person. It is a necessary implication of \nour fathers\' faith in the extent and intent of the \nAtonement. It is an indisputable teaching of sa- \ncred Scripture. It lies at the heart of all that is \nmost heroic and self-sacrificing in the Christian life \nof our century. We have sought to apply this prin- \nciple to the solution of questions which are now \nmore than ever before engaging the attention of se- \nrious and devout minds. We have endeavored to \nfollow its guidance faithfully and loyally, and whith- \nersoever it might lead. We have trusted it wholly \n\n\n\n4 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nand practically. By the publication of this volume \nwe submit our work to the judgment of a wider \npublic. If we have anywhere overestimated or un- \nderestimated the validity and value of our guiding \nprinciple, we hope that this will be pointed out. Or \nif we have lost sight of any qualifying or limiting \ntruth, we desire that this may be shown. On the \nother hand, if we have been true to a great and car- \ndinal doctrine of our holy religion, and have devel- \noped its necessary implications and consequences, \nwe ask that any further discussion of these conclu- \nsions should recognize their connection icith the prin- \nciple from which they are derived , and, their legiti- \nmacy, unless this principle is itself to he abandoned. \nA subordinate aim of the following essays is to \npoint out, as the occasion arises, certain theological \nimprovements which we regard as already assured. \nLeaving general phrases which may easily be made \nto hold either too much or too little, we would turn \nattention to a few fundamental doctrines, and show \nin what respect there actually is improvement in \ntheir apprehension and use. The task is not an \neasy one. But no important work is, and it seems \nto us to be timely and to promise good. There has \nbeen a great change in the public mind, especially \nthat to which we are most immediately related, \neven within a brief period. The number of per- \nsons who desire information as to what the " New. \nTheology" can offer is increased. Prejudices have \nbeen overcome. Not a few friends of progress, if \nwe are not mistaken, who once were distrustful of \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 5 \n\nthis Theology, have already discovered that it has \nsomething in it desirable and helpful for them ; \nand that even if some of its positions and infer- \nences are insecure, yet, taken as a whole, it is a real \nand salutary advance in Christian thought. Such \npersons will welcome our endeavor, and will deal \nkindly with its imperfections. We cannot but hope \nthat others, at present more critical in their atti- \ntude, possibly pronounced in their opposition, may \nsee reason for a less unfavorable judgment ; may \neven discover that the new movement really signi- \nfies a better apprehension of the truth and a larger \nuse of the power of the gospel which they and we \nalike have received in faith and as a sacred trust. \nSo far, therefore, as the new thought in theology \ncommends itself to us as a real and definite gain, \nand so far as it naturally comes under review in \nprosecuting the special purpose of this volume, we \nshall endeavor to set it forth, and to indicate in \nwhat respects it is differentiated from the old. \n\nWe have retained the general title \xe2\x80\x94 "Progres- \nsive Orthodoxy " \xe2\x80\x94 under which these papers first \nappeared. The word " orthodoxy " was employed \nas a concise and convenient expression of our con- \nviction that theological progress does not involve \nor require any break with the faith of the church \ncatholic, any recasting of the primitive ecumenical \ncreeds, any departure from the fundamental prin- \nciples of the Reformation. We have no special \nregard for the epithet orthodox. It has been suf- \nficiently abused to give ground for offense. It \n\n\n\n6 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsuggests to some minds narrowness, arrogance, and \nintolerance. We much prefer to be recognized as \ndisciples of Him who is the Truth than to be cred- \nited with conformity to standards of belief of hu- \nman construction. But we are not insensible to \nthe reality and worth of character in the sphere of \nthought. Human progress would be impossible if \neverything in belief were changeable. No man \ncould hope for moral perfection if in the power of \nchoice itself there were not the possibility of a per- \nmanent preference, or if liberty were not exercised \nin a system of things which makes for stability. \nThe word orthodox designates theological character, \nrecognizes constant as well as variable elements in \nreligious belief, discriminates the position and work \nof those who are entitled to appropriate it from the \nrevolutionary aim of men who deny the historical \nbasis of Christianity, or resolve its doctrines into \nwhat are called the eternal truths of the spirit, or \nsubstitute for the divine Spirit the human reason, \nand are unable to save themselves from the method \nand consequences of rationalism. The present is \nrooted in the past. Christianity has a permanent \nbasis in historical facts, in a faith once for all de- \nlivered to the saints, in a Canon of sacred Scrip* \nture. There is a collective and continuous Chris- \ntian consciousness. Our recognition of this relation \nof the new to the old is expressed in our motto, \n" Progressive Orthodoxy.\'\' To be more definite, \nit emphasizes our belief that the positions to which \nwe have assented, the conclusions we have adopted, \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 7 \n\nare in the line of that development of Christian \ndoctrine which has been advancing in the church \nfrom the beginning. First of all, the church set- \ntled its rule of faith, confessing the fundamental \nhistoric facts of the gospel, discriminating its au- \nthoritative Scriptures, affirming against Ebionism \nand Gnosticism the distinctness, universality, and \nabsoluteness of Christianity. Impelled by the in- \nward necessities of its own life, as well as con- \nstrained by outward oppositions, it proceeded to \naffirm yet more clearly and fully its central Prin- \nciple. Everything in Christianity centres in Christ. \nFor more than a century after the church became \nfully conscious of the distinctness of its mission \nand of its catholicity, its thought was chiefly turned \nto the doctrine of the second Person named in its \nbaptismal formula and Apostles\' Creed. Then fol- \nlowed a similar, though less protracted, concentra- \ntion of interest upon the doctrine of the Holy \nSpirit; then a like, though still more restricted, \nabsorption in the question of the relation of divine \ngrace to human depravity. In this way results \nwere reached which have stood the test of time, \nand are a part of the belief to-day of the universal \nchurch. It is through the same process of inquiry, \nreflection, comparison of opinions, growth of belief \nunder the demands of successive periods in human \nhistory, disclosures of Providence, and promptings \nof the Holy Spirit, that more and more fully the \nChristian revelation has been translated into creed \nand life. Progress in theology is a progress in \n\n\n\n8 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nmethod, and then a progress in result. It may bo \nintensive when not extensive, qualitative when not \nquantitative. It is at times a matter of accent and \nemphasis more than of additional information and \nimproved statement, of interpretation rather than \nof new data, of combination and proportion as well \nas of increased knowledge, of new order and not \nsimply of new materials. There is no doctrine of \nthe Bible, however rudimentary and essential, which \nis not susceptible of illumination or higher system- \nization in the development of a scientific faith; \nand there may be an endless advance in the larger \ninclusion and better correlation of known spiritual \nfacts and truths, for these are intrinsically, not \nsimple units, or measurable quantities, or tangible \nthings, but revelations of the highest and grandest \npersonal qualities and actions, and of the vastest \nrelations and destinies. The church has always \nproclaimed that " God is love," but there can be no \nquestion that in thought and life this truth has a \nfar more commanding influence to-day than ever \nbefore. Christian faith has always accepted the \nfact of the Incarnation, but it cannot be doubted \nthat enlarged conceptions of the contents of this \nfact have been gained through centuries of earnest \ndiscussion and even bitter controversy, or that it is \nnow r more amply interpreted than was possible to \nearlier thought. Nor do we exhaust the meaning \nof progress by conceiving of it as merely formal, \nor intensive, or qualitative. There is material en- \nlargement. The church of to-day has a fuller \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 9 \n\nknowledge of the purpose of God respecting the \nextension of Christianity, a better conception of \nthe dispensation of the Spirit and of the relation \nof Christianity to human history, than it was possi- \nble to communicate to the early church. The ful- \nfillments of prophecy yield an ampler knowledge \nthan could be derived immediately from the origi- \nnal record. Events are God\'s messengers ; provi- \ndences are his interpreters ; the Christian centuries \nare the promised times of the Spirit, and unfold di- \nvine purposes. Something new is revealed in the \ngrowth of the Christian church, as indeed in all \ndevelopment. To deny such progressive unfolding \nof the Christian verities is to ignore or to falsify \nhistory. It has been actually going on from the \nbeginning. It is rooted in the necessary laws and \nestablished conditions of human thought. It is a \nwitness to the living relation which the Head of \nthe church sustains to it. It is the product of the \npresence and energy within the church of the prom- \nised Spirit of truth. To doubt that a progress \nthus provided for, pledged, and realized is jDossible \nalso in our own time is a symptom of unbelief, not \nthe sign of a Christian\'s faith. \n\nThe injunction, however, doubtless still holds \ngood : " Prove all things." There may be novelty \nof doctrine without progress, as w T ell as progress \nwithout entire novelty. The question is always le- \ngitimate and necessary whether any alleged im- \nprovement is a real advance. So far as in the \nfollowing essays we have recognized progress it has \n\n\n\n10 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nbeen under the full and constant acceptance of the \nsupreme authority of sacred Scripture. Whatever \nnew light may break forth, it will come from this \nsource, as the church is led by the Providence and \nSpirit of God to a better understanding of its teach- \nings. We have no reason to anticipate that there \nwill be opened to theology any absolutely new doc- \ntrine, or to practical piety any other way of salva- \ntion than that revealed in the beginning. If, in \nthe ensuing pages, opinions are expressed which \ncan be shown not to harmonize with the voice of \nScripture, or with the religious life that the Word \nof God instrumentally produces and sustains, they \nare thereby judged and condemned. We advocate \nthem because we believe them to be Biblical and \nChristian. We use both of these adjectives because \nthey seem to be necessary. It appears sometimes \nto be overlooked that an opinion may be Christian \nwhich cannot be grounded in, or fortified by, an ar- \nray of proof-texts. The Bible, it should be remem- \nbered, is not a collection of texts designed to estab- \nlish propositions in systematic theology. It is \nwritten after another method, for a different pur- \npose. It presents persons, events, principles, warn- \nings and promises, precepts, and examples. "Every \nScripture inspired of God is also profitable for \nteaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction \nwhich is in righteousness ; that the man of God \nmay be complete, furnished completely unto every \ngood work." The systemization of Christian doc- \ntrine proceeds under the laws of thought. Infer- \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 11 \n\nences must be regulated by the nature and scope \nof the premises. A great historical fact, a union \nof the ideal and the real, like the Incarnation, ra- \ndiates light upon all the problems of human his- \ntory and destiny. Reason, illumined by it, may \ntrust it and use it, and not be misled, even though \nit cannot quote an explicit utterance of an Apostle \nfor all that it discerns. Or, if this be thought to \nbe too bold an assumption, this much must be ad- \nmitted: Christianity is revealed as the universal \nand final religion for mankind. Whatever is le- \ngitimately and necessarily involved in this premise \nhas the authority of Scripture which attests this \nreligion, even though it be not a matter of direct \nand explicit Biblical assertion. The Scriptures \nteach, as we have just said, the principle of the \nuniversality of Christianity, but the humblest dis- \nciple of Jesus can to-day draw inferences as to the \nmeaning of this doctrine, as to its verification in \nthe progress and prospects of Christian missions, \nthat exceed anything explicitly declared in the \nApostolic preaching or writings. On a variety of \nthemes conclusions are drawn and generally ac- \ncepted in the Christian church from the revealed \ncharacter of God, from the character and spirit of \nJesus\'s teaching, from the character of his religion, \nwhich are wider or more specific than can be proved \nby any particular inspired utterance. Such in- \nferences are current and accredited respecting the \nsalvation of infants, the obligation of the Lord\'s \nday, the doctrine of the Trinity, the extension and \n\n\n\n12 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntriumph of the Christian church, the nature of the \nAtonement. The light of the gospel as a revela- \ntion of God, the light of Christianity concentrated \nin the Person and work of Christ, not only shines \nback upon ancient Scripture, giving it new mean- \ning, not only irradiates Apostolic preaching and \nprophecy, but also streams along the track of the \nChristian centuries, interpreting their significance, \nand onward into the unseen universe, whose heaven \nis the presence of Christ and all whose worlds are \nunder his sway. Single proof-texts or collected \nproof-texts are not a measure of Christianity, nor \nof our knowledge of Christianity. The greatness \nof Christ is reflected in history, as well as in Apos- \ntolic teaching; in the fulfillments of prophecy, as \nwell as in the comparatively indistinct letter of the \noriginal prediction ; in the advance of the church \nin an appropriation of the spirit of his teaching ; \nin its growing power to think after Him his \nthoughts and to be inspired by his love; in the \nlong succession of centuries which require new in- \nterpretations of the meaning of his second coming ; \nin the evolution of the economy of the Holy Spirit \nwhom He sends, and whose work is conditioned by \nhis Person, sacrifice, and reign. All these things \nput the church now in a relation to his religion \nwhich never before has been paralleled. The facts \nrevealed in the Scriptures speak with new tongues. \nWe do not honor Scripture less, but more, when we \ntrust these facts, and God\'s interpretations of them \nin reason and history. They are life ; the human \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 13 \n\nmind feels their vivifying power in the world of \nthought and theology, and cannot be held back \nfrom larger conceptions of God and his kingdom \nand human destiny, because everything it cherishes \nin hope and expectation was not definitely uttered \nby an Apostle in writing a practical letter to the \nRomans, or the Corinthians, or the Diaspora. The- \nology is the science of God. God is revealed in \nChrist. The possibility, the unity, the verification, \nof a science of divinity are given in Him. The \nultimate test of progress, therefore, is Christolog- \nical. The point always to be determined with ref- \nerence to any alleged improvement is whether it \npromotes the knowledge of the central principle of \nChristianity in itself or in its operations. \n\nWe suppose that it is a sense of the truth of this \ncriterion which underlies the frequent representa- \ntion made by the opponents of the "New Theology" \nthat their own systems are Christocentric. It is \nimplied that if they were not so the claim of this \nTheology to be a real advance would be justified. \nWe gladly recognize the full measure of truth which \nresides in such claims. The tendency of Christian \nthought has for long been in the direction of such \na method of theological construction. One of the \nmost marked characteristics of modern theology, as \ncompared with either the mediaeval or ancient, is \nthe development given to the doctrine of the Atone- \nment. This movement culminated in the "New Eng- \nland Theology." The doctrine of divine sovereignty \nhad still a formal ascendency, but this sovereignty \n\n\n\n14 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nwas thought of as sovereign grace, and as adminis- \ntered on the basis of a universal atonement. This is \nan important approach to a Christocentric system. \nThe work of Christ is exalted to a position of dig- \nnity and power never before so adequately and sci- \nentifically represented. Yet this system with all \nits excellences is still far from being Christocentric. \nIts doctrine of God and of his purposes is not yet \nthoroughly christianized, but contains unassimilated \ndeistic and pagan elements. Its theory of the \nAtonement subordinates the Person of Christ to his \nwork. Its anthropology is individualistic, and is \nnot ruled by the thought of divine sonship. Its \neschatology, with special merits, is a receptacle of \nmany imperfections and misconceptions which have \ncrept into previous parts of the system. The whole \nof it, as Dr. Henry B. Smith has said, needs to be \nChristologized. A truly Christocentric system will \nbe won when, and not until, the Person of Christ \nrather than his work is made central in redemp- \ntion, and is seen at the same time to be central also \nin creation, revelation, and the universal kingdom \nof God. For such a theology is not a mere pietis- \ntic eulogy of the historic Christ, nor even a pro- \nfound apprehension of some one or more of his \noffices or acts alone, but a systemization of religious \ndoctrine through the knowledge of God, and es- \npecially the knowledge of God\'s ethical nature, \ncommunicated by Him who is the beginning and \nend of all divine revelations. And when once this \nfundamental conception of the nature and method \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION. 15 \n\nof theology is really gained it will be discerned with \nequal clearness and necessity that the true and \nultimate test of all theological progress is its chris- \ntianization of its materials, from whatsoever source \nthey may be derived. \n\nWith reference to several of the topics consid- \nered by us, it should be borne in mind that as dis- \ntinct, specific, and absorbing questions of theologi- \ncal discussion they belong to the modern era ; one \nof them is but just beginning to attract the attention \nit deserves. Each and all, indeed, have from early \ntimes received more or less notice. Certain ele- \nments or factors of each have been made prominent. \nBut none have been discussed as now, or within a \ncomparatively brief period. The question, What is \nthe Bible ? could not earlier be investigated as in \nrecent days, for lack, apart from other reasons, of \nthe requisite critical apparatus. The doctrine of \nthe Atonement even in so late a Confession as the \nWestminster \xe2\x80\x94 the last of the great historic creeds \n\xe2\x80\x94 is merged in the larger doctrine of Redemption. \nMany questions in eschatology, now rife, have \nnever until recently received thorough considera- \ntion. The special inquiry as to the relation of ^ \nChrist\'s Person, sacrifice, final judgment, to those \nwho never hear the gospel in this life is becoming \nmore and more urgent and important, because it is ^ \nthe next and necessary one now that the Atonement \nhas become a distinct and specific doctrine, and the \ninterpretation has won general approval that it has \nan absolutely universal relation and intent. We \n\n\n\n16 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nclaim in that portion of our work which will natu- \n\\ rally attract the most criticism to be pursuing the \npath opened by our predecessors in vindicating the \nnow accepted truth that Christ\'s sacrifice on Calvary \nwas for every man. It is a reasonable request that \nthis connection and relation of what we have to say \non eschatology should be kept in view, and that the \nconclusions reached should be tested by their har- \nmony with the revelation given in and through the \nIncarnation. The ultimate question between con- \nflicting opinions must be, Which most perfectly ap- \npropriates the grace and truth revealed in Christ ? \nWe do not decline the test of orthodoxy, but it is \nobvious that, with reference to inquiries which could \nnot arise at an earlier stage of Christian knowl- \nedge or doctrinal development, and which have \nnever been adjudicated upon ecclesiastically be- \ncause never fully opened for discussion, the question \nof orthodoxy happily merges in the more profitable \nquestion of truth. \n\nWe add a single remark upon the general phil- \nosophical conception of God and his relation to the \nuniverse which underlies these essays. It is a \nmodification of a prevailing Latin conception of \nthe divine transcendence by a clearer and fuller \nappreciation (in accordance with the highest thought \nof the Greek fathers) of the divine immanence. \nSuch a doctrine of God, we believe, is more and \nmore approving itself in the best philosophy of our \ntime, and the fact of the Incarnation commends it \nto the acceptance of the Christian theologian. \n\n\n\nII. \n\nTHE INCARNATION. \n\nThe new or more developed thought respecting \nthe Incarnation which we would now consider re- \nlates to the uniqueness of Jesus\'s humanity, the \nunity of his Person, and its significance. \n\nI. The uniqueness of Jesus\'s humanity. The \nchurch has from the beginning maintained the re- \nality of this humanity. The opposition which it \nhas encountered has fastened successively upon its \nvarious elements. First it was denied that Jesus\'s \nbody was real ; then that He possessed a soul ; \nthen that his spirit or higher reason was homoge- \nneous with ours ; then that He had a human will. \nEach negation was at once confronted with an ex- \nplicit affirmation, so that no article of our faith has \nbeen more analytically and fully confessed. In \nmodern times the cultivation of history and im- \nproved methods of Biblical interpretation have \ngreatly increased the degree of attention given to \nthis subject. The "New Theology" appropriates \nthe fruits of these investigations. It seeks in every \nway to attain to a just historic appreciation of the \nactual life in Palestine of the Man of Nazareth, and \nto give a truthful representation of his personal \n2 \n\n\n\n18 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nrelations to his times and to the course of history. \nFor this purpose it enters fearlessly and fully into \nthe most critical and thorough examination of the \nproper sources of evidence. But it comes out from \nsuch an investigation with a clear, positive convic- \ntion that, regarded as a man, Jesus is not only like \nother men, but also different from other men ; that \nhis unlikeness is an aspect of the truth or reality \nof his perfect manhood, and the ground of his uni- \nversal human helpfulness, especially of his ability \nto enable men each to fulfill the idea and purpose \nof his own personality. This development of the \ndoctrine of our Lord\'s humanity is a characteristic \nand most important advance of modern theology, \nand we will therefore dwell upon it long enough to \nmake evident its import. \n\n1. The uniqueness of Jesus\'s humanity appears \nin its universality. Every other man finds a limita- \ntion of his nature more or less positive, more or less \ninfluential, in his peculiar temperament. Though \nordinarily not determinative, at least as respects \nthe higher forms of the mind\'s action, it is always \na modifying and differentiating power. Somewhat \nhigher than individualizing forces of this sort are \nthose innate mental tendencies and aptitudes which \nprompt or facilitate different kinds of labor. Each \nman finds it easier to work in certain directions or \nways than in others. And then there is an endless \nvariety of personal force and character secured \nthrough the proportion of powers which creative \nwisdom allots. An accomplished critic has pointed \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 19 \n\nout, if memory serves us, that Plato, Milton, Ed- \nwards, Napoleon, John Howard, each possessed in \na conspicuous degree the gift of imagination, and \nthat it was the modification of this common en- \ndowment by other gifts with which it was associated \nthat made one a speculative philosopher, another a \npoet, another a theologian, another a soldier, another \na philanthropist. And thus it comes about that no \none person is absolutely like or can adequately rep- \nresent any other person. This peculiarity which \ndistinguishes one man from another and from every \nother we call his individuality. It fits him for his \nplace and calling. It is his distinction. But it is \nalso his limitation. \n\nThe uniqueness of Christ\'s humanity appears in \nthis, that it was not thus circumscribed. He was \nan individual man, but his individuality is his uni- \nversality. He was " the Son of Man." x That \nwhich distinguishes Him from all other men is \nthat He represents them all. His separation from \nany one of us is that which brings Him near to \nevery one of us. His peculiarity is that no man\'s \nnature is so peculiar that He cannot comprehend it. \nHe has kinship with us all by being our common \nHead. His benevolence embraced all men of every \nrace, age, and clime. Whosoever does his will is \nhis mother, sister, brother. His words are not \nthose of any school of thought. His death was for \nevery man. The record, "in all points tempted \n\n1 On the significance of this title see note by Dr. Westcott \nin Speaker\'s Commentary, ii. 33-35. \n\n\n\n20 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nlike as we are," is as true for one reader as for \nanother. A life so comprehensive and complete \nrequires as its basis and prerequisite a nature \nequally universal. And in this \xe2\x80\x94 its recognized \nand evident universality \xe2\x80\x94 Christ\'s human nature \nis without a counterpart. \n\n2. The uniqueness of his humanity is further \nmanifest from its participation in the work of me- \ndiation between God and men. How essential is \nthe part it sustains in this work is suggested by \nthe Apostle\'s declaration, " one Mediator, also, be- \ntween God and men, himself man." This media- \ntorial office Jesus alone of all men sustains. He \nalone is Prophet, Priest, and King. So exalted, \nso transcendent, are the services He renders that it \nis sometimes difficult to make real to our minds \nthat it is through the human nature of Christ they \nare achieved. And since the Scriptures themselves \nassure us that the divine nature entered into this \npartnership by which heaven and earth are united, \nGod and man are reconciled, it is very easy, in the \neffulgence of the divine glory which invests the \nRedeemer, to lose sight of that humanity which He \never bore, and by which He accomplished his de- \nlivering and saving work. Yet if we commit our- \nselves trustingly and fearlessly to the authoritative \nScriptural representation, we shall soon discover \nthat the humanity of Christ is not set before us in \nthe New Testament as sustaining merely a con- \nditional or adminicular relation to a work whose \nintrinsic and essential value comes from another \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 21 \n\nsource. On the contrary, throughout its entire \nachievement we everywhere see as an integral and \nnecessary part of it the obedience, suffering, sacri- \nfice, victory, and glorification of a human nature \nas real as our own. That this achievement had a \nlustre and value transcending anything possible in \na merely human experience is also true, as the \nfaith of the church has ever held. But we are not \nto conceive of this as an arbitrary imputation of \nvalue. For this humanity was fashioned to be the \nperfect organ and instrument of revelation, to be \nfreely swayed and controlled in all its movements \nby the will of God, to be more and more filled with \nhis gifts as its powers expanded from infancy to \nmaturity, to receive the Spirit without measure, to \nbe transfigured by the indwelling Deity, to be glo- \nrified in God. All its experiences, whether active \nor passive, were those of a nature created capacious \nof Deity. This is true also of other men according \nto their measure. Indeed, it is the highest note \nand attribute of humanity at large. Christ could \nnot be a representative man and a mediator, if his \nhumanity were not real. But it lies also in his \nmediatorship that He is the head of the race, and \nnot a mere member of it, and that humanity in \nHim becomes receptive of the divine fullness, so \nthat there are gathered up in Him all divine gifts \nfor men. \n\n3. And this leads to a yet higher peculiarity in \nwhich the uniqueness of his humanity is evident. \nThe best gifts are personal. The gift of supreme \n\n\n\n22 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nand infinite love is personal. The divine gift to \nhumanity is the Incarnation. "The Word became \nflesh." The uniqueness of Christ\'s humanity most \nevidently appears in this, that its entire existence \nis in personal union with the divine nature. Its \ncoming into existence was by an incarnation of the \ndivine Word. We touch here the most mysterious \ndoctrine of Christianity. We approach it first of \nall as an attested fact. Certain questions respect- \ning it, problems to which it necessarily gives rise, \nwill be considered farther on. Here we deal with \nit as a revealed fact. The Word became flesh not \nat Jesus\'s baptism, not at his resurrection or as- \ncension, but this was the beginning of his life, that \nthe second Person of the Trinity was made in the \nlikeness of man, so that it was predicted that the \nholy thing which should be born should be called \nthe Son of God, and that the Son of the Virgin \nshould be named Immanuel ; and when the event \noccurred it was announced to the shepherds : \n" There is born to you this day ... a Saviour \nwhich is Christ the Lord ; " and wise men, guided \nby the star, blended their rejoicings with those of \nthe heavenly host, and when they saw the young \nchild fell down and worshiped Him. Make of \nthese accounts what we may, they are the fitting \nbeginning of the historic life that then appeared, \nand its only adequate premise, as Origen long ago. \ndiscerned. And if we pursue the narrative in \neither of the Gospels we constantly observe the \nsame phenomena. The evidences of a complete \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 23 \n\nhuman nature multiply as we read, but not less \nmanifest is the one Person who is the centre to \nwhich all attributes and acts are ever referred ; and \nso wondrously adjusted is all this that, in reviewing \nthe history of the reception which these accounts \nhave received from the great mass of readers, noth- \ning is more striking and nothing more uniform \nthan the conviction which has prevailed that, from \nthe manger to the cross and from the cross to the \nthrone, it is one and only one Person who lived, \nsuffered, died, and was believed to have risen from \nthe tomb and to have ascended on high. \n\nAnd this first distinct impression is only deep- \nened by the most critical study. In no event of \nJesus\'s history, at no moment, and in no occur- \nrence, whether in the accounts given by the synop- \ntists or in the more ideal representations of the \nfourth Gospel, is there disclosed anything like a \ndivision of his Person. If He is weary at the well \nhis weariness is that of One conscious of his power \nto give living water, of which if a man drink he \nshall never thirst. If He is tempted it is with the \nvoice still audible in the skies : " Thou art my be- \nloved Son." If He is defenseless He knows that \nwith a word legions of angels would gather for his \nprotection. If He prays we hear the words : \n"Father, glorify Thou Me . . . with the glory \nwhich I had with Thee before the world was." So \nwhen we listen to his declarations respecting him- \nself we are constantly reminded that his conscious- \nness is unlike that of any mere man. We see a \n\n\n\n24 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nhuman countenance, but as we gaze it is transfig- \nured. We look upon a human form, but as we be- \nhold it ascends and is glorified. For this Son of \nMan has power to forgive sins, and is come to save \nthe lost and to give his life a ransom, and his flesh \nis meat indeed. And in the disclosures of prophecy \nthis union of his humanity with divinity is set forth \nas indissoluble and eternal. What is commonly, \nthough in too limited a way, called his mediatorial \nkingdom will come to an end when the creation, in \nthe Person of its redemptive Head and Lord, will \nbow before the throne, and God will be all in all. \nThat cycle of history introduced by Adam\'s trans- \ngression, or earlier in the sin of angelic spirits, will \ncome to a close, and with it that form of dominion \ndetermined by the existence of unvanquished rebel- \nlion ; but the end will be not only a consummation, \nbut a new beginning, \xe2\x80\x94 the beginning of a manifes- \ntation of the divine glory before impossible and un- \nendurable. Yet still will there be a creation, and \nthat creation will be exalted through its Head ; and \nstill at its head will stand the man Christ Jesus, \nforever receiving the revelations of infinite wisdom \nand love, forever dispensing them to the universe ; \nand still to this Temple will the tribes go up, and \nin Him and through Him worship and adore. \n\nII. The unity of Christ\'s Person. The thoughts \nthus far presented introduce us to the most difficult \nproblem of Christian theology. They also, it is be- \nlieved, prepare for its more adequate treatment. \nThere are those who would dismiss it at once as \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 25 \n\ninsoluble and unpractical. But experience shows \nthat such a treatment does not leave the fact to \noperate in its integrity, but results in one-sided or \ncontradictory statements, in the practical accept- \nance of inferior and misleading theories, and in a \nloss of influential religious motives. Theories on \nsuch a subject must be imperfect and more or less \ntentative. They should be controlled by the facts, \nand should advance with increase in knowledge. \nBut some theory men always will have, for it is an \ninstinct of reason to combine, classify, and hold by \nmeans of some governing conception. As a matter \nof fact, although the more important ecumenical \ncouncils proposed no dogma on this subject, a the- \nory first authoritatively stated in the sixth century \nby a Byzantine emperor, Justin II., in his famous \n" Edict of Peace," and more fully developed in the \nsymbol of the Sixth Council, and fraught with \nmany and great practical evils, has dominated a \nlarge portion of Christendom to the present hour, \nand appears distinctly in so valuable and popular a \nwork as Canon Liddon\'s "Bainpton Lectures on \nOur Lord\'s Divinity." We cannot frame a com- \nplete theory, but there is a choice of theories, and \nmodern Theology can at least point out positive \nadvances and improvements of no inferior impor- \ntance. \n\nThe unity of Christ\'s Person needs to be consid- \nered in three relations, namely, in its connection \nwith the personality of the Being who became in- \ncarnate, with the act of Incarnation, and with the \npersonal consciousness of the historic Christ. \n\n\n\n26 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nIt is a commonplace of theology that the person- \nality of Christ is from the personality of the Logos. \nFor long this position has been understood to im- \nply the impersonality of the human nature and its \nsubjection to the divine. Canon Liddon, following \nthe theory to which we have just referred, treats \nChrist\'s manhood as a vesture or robe or instru- \nment of the eternal Word. All its volitions are \nwilled, he teaches, by God incarnate. Such a con- \nception is inconsistent with the integrity of Christ\'s \nhuman nature, with the exemplary value of his \nobedience, with revealed facts in his life. It in- \ntroduces a hopeless breach between the Jesus of \nhistory and the Christ of faith, and thus would \nbring about a decision of this leading Christologi- \ncal question of our time fatal to the claim of Chris- \ntianity. But this unfortunate exaggeration should \nnot prejudice us against the important truth that \nChrist\'s personality is directly and indissolubly \nconnected with that of the divine Word. The one \nis a true revelation and outgrowth of the other. \nThe personality of the Word originates the person- \nality realized in the life of Christ, determines its \ncharacter, gives to it its inward law, secures its \nunity, and this none the less, but rather all the \nmore, because the humanity of our Lord is ideally \ncomplete and perfect. \n\nThe Scriptures reveal to us the second Person of \nthe Trinity as the Word, and as the Son, of God. \nBoth appellations lead us to think of God in his \nethical nature. He is truth and He is love. The \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 27 \n\nsecond Person in the Trinity represents to us God\'s \ndisposition to reveal and impart himself. Why \nshould God create ? He has all the resources of \nwisdom, power, being, in himself. The reason or \nmotive cannot be found in these perfections. He \ncreates because He is love, and love in God as in \nman is self -communicative and self -imparting. Cre- \nation is divine expression, and it is something \nmore. It is realization. When a distinguished \nauthor of fiction was told that the death of a cer- \ntain character, a creation of her genius, had moved \na friend as though personally bereaved, she ex- \npressed with greatest intensity the same feeling. \nParents live again in their children. Sonship in \nits highest conception is realization, \xe2\x80\x94 the image \nand reproduction of self -hood. The Love revealed \nin the eternal Son, the mystery of the divine Son- \nship, solves \'the mystery of creation. It determines \nalso its character. The revealing and communica- \ntive purpose of the Father through the Son can \nonly find its adequate expression in a nature in \nwhich there shall be a realization of the divine na- \nture in the mode and form appropriate to crea- \ntion. An ideal humanity is the culmination of \nsuch a realization. " The Word became flesh." \nHe carries the creative \xe2\x80\x94 now also through sin \nthe redemptive \xe2\x80\x94 purpose to its height of achieve- \nment. He creates a human soul which is as real \nand true a counterpart and realization of his own \nnature as He is himself the express image of the \nFather. And there is no more mystery in this \n\n\n\n28 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthan there is in God\'s creating at all. It is but \none step farther on and higher up than that of the \nfirst creation. The self -revealing, self-communicat- \ning Love of God, the Word and Son of God who \ncreated in the beginning, creates in " the fullness \nof the time " a nature which is the perfect coun- \nterpart of his own, its human side and means of \nrealization, in order that divine revelation and im- \npartation may reach their highest possible com- \npleteness and may not be hindered even by the \nmalevolence and guilt of human sin. The mys- \ntery of the Incarnation, like that of creation, loses \nitself in the higher mystery of a Fatherhood and \nSonship in the nature of God, \xe2\x80\x94 - in other words, \nin the ineffable fullness of his love. \n\n1. We start, therefore, with a conception of the \nhuman nature of Christ as created by the Word \nand Son of God for the realization in finite form of \nthat which is his own personal characteristic, as \ncreated to express his truth and grace, and to share \nwith Him in his Father\'s love. In its very idea \nand essence the human nature of Christ is adapted \nto such a purpose. It is finite, and the Word who \ncreated it is infinite. But we do not move in our \nthinking, if we think correctly on this subject, \nmerely on this plane of contrasts. We may not \nforget them, but they are only a part of the truth. \nThe divine and human natures in Christ are essen- \ntially related to each other. The human nature is \nthe divine nature humanly expressed and realized. \nThe one should be as closely connected with the \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 29 \n\nother in our conception as a word with the thought \nit utters. The thought is unexpressed without the \nword. The word is empty save as it is the bearer \nof the thought. The relation is as intimate as this, \nbut it is of a higher kind. A word is a breath, a \ntransient, fugitive thing. Christ\'s human nature \nis a real image of the divine Word. That Word \nhas personality. His word which He utters in \ncreating the human soul of Christ is personal. The \nhuman nature of Christ is in finite form the per- \nsonal word of that eternal Word. It is not a for- \neign nature. If it were we could not possibly re- \ntain at once its integrity and its personal union \nwith the divine nature. The new and fundamen- \ntal thought in modern Christology is the essential \nrelation of the two natures, so that either can know \nand realize itself in the other. This being appre- \nhended, the standing difficulty with the doctrine is, \nif not removed, so reduced that it ceases to be an \nobjection. \n\n2. This brings us to our second point, the act of \nincarnation as constitutive of the unity of Christ\'s \nPerson. We have, as elements of the union, the \ndivine nature as possessed by the Logos, or in that \nmode of being which characterizes his existence, \nand an ideally perfect humanity. Such a human \nnature must be personal. The divine nature in the \nLogos also is personal. Yet neither in itself is a \nperson. The Logos is a person only with, in, and \nthrough the Father and the Spirit. The human \nnature is a person only with, in, and through the \n\n\n\n30 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nLogos. The central point of Christ\'s personality- \nfalls into the central point of Absolute Personality. \nOtherwise a person would be the object of supreme \nworship exterior to and additional to the one only- \nGod. Recent writers who have derived the person- \nality of Christ from the human nature, or else have \nmade it simply a resultant of the union of natures, \nhave not duly guarded this point. They have had \na truth at heart, the vindication of the reality of \nJesus\'s humanity. An impersonal human nature, \nthey have seen, is something defective and unreal. \nBut in recovering this essential truth, it is not nec- \nessary to go to either of the extremes just indicated. \nThe constitutive act for Christ\'s Person is the union \nof two natures. One of these, the human, is only \npotentially personal, and is capable, by its very \nconstitution, of entering into a divine life, of find- \ning the truth of its existence in God. The other is \na particular mode of the divine being, not in itself \na person, but the bearer of a personal principle, \nand capable of self-realization in a human life. \nThe act of incarnation is the union of these two. \n\n3. The self-consciousness of Jesus. We have \nnoticed before what it is as disclosed to us in the \nevangelical narratives. We consider it now in its \nbasis and necessary form. \n\nAll our experiences arise from our constitution \nas embodied spirits, and our entire consciousness \nreflects this union of body and soul. So Christ\'s \nhistory has for its foundation the union of two \nnatures. His personality presupposes this union. \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 31 \n\nIt is formative for his life and consciousness, just \nas the constitution of the soul in union with the \nbody is the foundation of its history. The analogy \nis not perfect, but in both cases alike two elements \nwithout confusion or loss of properties are so united \nas to be the germ of a development. The person- \nality of Christ existed primarily as a latent power, \nas does all other human personality. And as the \nbasis was complex, so the unfolding consciousness ; \nnever simply divine, never merely human ; never \nthe two in addition, or collocation, or separation, \nthe one remaining unaffected by the other ; never \nconfused, blended, interchanged. That which is \ndivine shines in and through what is human ; that \nwhich is human possesses and therefore can reveal \nwhat is divine. It is like the union in physics of \nforce and matter, only without there being on either \nside inertia. It is like the union of reason and \nunderstanding in rational thought, only it is far \nhigher than a harmony of faculties. The divine na- \nture and the human interpenetrate each the other. \nThe divine informs the human. The human re- \nceives and expresses the divine. The one in con- \ndescending love and sympathy makes everything \nbelonging to the other its own. The latter appre- \nhends whatever the former has as its own good, the \ntruth, the perfection in which it finds its own ful- \nfillment. And of this process, which is ever recip- \nrocal, there is in consciousness a centre. It is the \npersonality of the creative Word, but not simply \nthis. It is the personality of the created nature, \n\n\n\n32 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nbut not merely this. It is the one as affected by \nthe other. It is the latter fulfilled in the former. \nIt is that point of rest and union, and therefore of \nlife and power, where the divine nature realizes the \nexperiences of the human as its own, where the hu- \nman realizes that its completeness and perfection \nare in God. It is the centre of a divine-human \nconsciousness, and this personal centre is the God- \nMan. \n\nThis personality was not fully realized in the be- \nginning. There was not only growth of the hu- \nmanity of Jesus, but a progressive union with the \ndivine. Here is the truth in the theories of the \nKenotists, who maintain that the Word, at the In- \ncarnation, laid aside, or suspended the exercise of, \nhis attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and \nthe like. This is but a clumsy and somewhat vio- \nlent and unethical method of appropriating certain \nundeniable facts ; such as the limitation of Jesus\'s \nknowledge, the perfect human reality of his earthly \nlife, the veritable growth of his consciousness and \npersonality from the moment of the Incarnation. \nThe Incarnation itself, though real at the begin- \nning, was also a process which had steps which the \nrecords of Jesus\'s life enable us in some degree to \ntrace and understand. At every stage his history \nhad a meaning for himself. Not only his birth, but \nhis visit to the Temple, his baptism, his tempta- \ntion, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection, were \nepochs in his consciousness, events fraught with \nmeaning and new powers for his own Person. The \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 33 \n\nbabe of Bethlehem resting in its mother\'s arms was \nnot yet in personality the sleepless sufferer of Geth- \nsemane ; the marred and stricken victim on the \ncross was not yet the Son of Man ascending in the \ncloud of the Father\'s glory, the exalted and en- \nthroned Mediator, who is to be the fully manifested \nHead of the new creation. His life is a history. \nIt is also a divine purpose, a plan of revelation and \nimpartation which includes creation, redemption, \nand the glories of the eternal reign. On his head \nare many crowns. The Life of Jesus should be \nstudied as such a history. Everything in his \nearthly career is preparatory to the heavenly for \nhimself as for others. Everything human in it \nbrings God near to us while remaining most truly \nhuman. Everything divine in it is adjusted to such \na medium and progress of revelation, and to all its \nacts of righteousness and holy love. \n\nIII. We have already entered upon the third \nphase of our subject, the significance of his Person. \nHis advent is a part of " the purpose of creation." \nThe motive of redemption lies nearest to us in our \nconsciousness of sin and guilt. But redemption \nitself cannot be understood apart from creation \nand its end. Accordingly the apostle whose pres- \nentation, in his earlier writings, of man\'s sin and \nmisery and of Christ\'s propitiatory sacrifice has \nshaped Western theology, in his later epistles con- \nnects the entire work of redemption with Christ \nconsidered as the Creator and the Final Cause of \nthe universe. He who is the Head of the redeemed \n\n3 \n\n\n\n34 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY, \n\nbody, the church, is before all things, and in Him \nall things consist, and through Him all things are \nreconciled, whether things upon the earth or things \nin the heavens. The same conception is dominant \nin the Gospel and the Epistles of John. \n\nChrist is not only the earthly culmination, but \nalso the eternal source and principle, of revelation. \nHe who created all things is ipso facto the Re- \nvealer. In the Incarnation He has carried revela- \ntion to its highest conceivable stage and mode, how- \never augmented it may be in degree and power. \nWere the divine Being at any point in the future \nto cease to make himself known through this method \nof real manifestation there would be retrogression \nand decline in God\'s self-communication to his \ncreatures. \n\nChrist is the Head of the church. All its mem- \nbers are united to each other in Him. We cannot \nsuppose this relation to terminate in the triumph \nof his kingdom. It is moral and spiritual. Grati- \ntude for redemption can never be exhausted nor \nsuperseded. When we further reflect that redemp- \ntion recovers the image and likeness in which man \nwas created, and which were first fully shown in \nJesus, we see that his Headship has a foundation \nin the permanent constitution of the soul, and is \nfitly as enduring as its immortality. \n\nWhen, by the aid of hints and suggestions of \nrevelation, we look out still more widely upon the \nuniverse that is and is to be we see an equally \nimperishable and yet vaster unity. The essence of \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 35 \n\nall religion is communion with God. The most \nperfect realization, and therefore the most adequate \nmedium and guaranty of such fellowship, are given \nin the Incarnation. All the elements of a final, \nperfect, absolute religion for all finite spirits are \nrealized and made available in the Person of the \nGod-Man. It is fitting that such a Person should \nbe, and should always be, not only the Head of the \nredeemed, but also the Head of all other holy be- \nings in the entire creation. This is his position \naccording to the Scriptures, and nothing can be \nconceived more congruous and rational. \n\nWithin the narrower range of vision opened to \nus in the history of the earth and of man science is \nbeginning to discover the traces of a vast progress \nand development. Such an evolution looks to an \nIncarnation as its adequate goal. All things point \nto man, and man is perfected in the Son of Man. \nThe only idea which fulfills the aspirations and \nharmonizes the discords in man\'s religious history \nis such a union of transcendence and immanence, \nnecessity and liberty, idea and fact, law and grace, \nas meets us in Christ. The history of religion \nleads on and up to Him, and He possesses all the \nresources requisite for its greatest possible future \ngrowth. He is the Alpha and Omega ; the Abso- \nlute, revealed ; the Infinite, personally disclosed ; \nthe eternal Power that makes for righteousness, \nrealized in the Righteous One. The endeavor to \nChristologize theology, that is, to make Christ the \ncentre, is, in the last analysis, simply a return to \n\n\n\n36 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nreality, to the truth of fact, of history, of creation, \nof humanity, of the divine method of revelation, of \nthe actual government and the eternal kingdom of \nGod. It is thinking God\'s thoughts after Him in \nhis own disclosures of his being, character, and will. \nA theology which is not Christocentric is like a \nPtolemaic astronomy, \xe2\x80\x94 it is out of true relation \nto the earth and the heavens, to God and his uni- \nverse. \n\nWhat has been said implies the absoluteness of \nChristianity. It is the religion of the cross and of \nredemption ; and it is more. It is the religion of \nnature and reason as well. Its foundations were \nlaid in creation, in the constitution of the human \nsoul, in its essential relations to the nature of God. \nIt meets the obstacles interposed by sin and guilt, \nby acts of redeeming love which are its glory ; but \nits ultimate reason and motive are to be found in \nthe ethical nature of God, which caused Him to will \nthat the good which is original and eternal in Him \nshould be imparted to beings made to be partakers \nof the divine nature. It comes into existence \nthrough the fulfillment of an absolute purpose of \ndivine self-revelation and self-communication. As \nit is not in its origin contingent upon sin, so it is \nnot to pass away with the conquest of evil. The \nchurch has always had some sense of this truth of \nthe essential supremacy of Christianity. Cyprian \nhad never persuaded men that there is no salvation \noutside of the pale of the church had not Peter, \nfilled with the Holy Ghost, proclaimed that there \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 37 \n\nis but one name wherein we must be saved. The \ncaricature implies the original, the counterfeit the \ngenuine. The church needs to-day, in all its thought \nand life, the stiffening power and the stimulus of \nthis truth of the absoluteness of Christiauity. It \nis gained by a right apprehension of the Incarna- \ntion. And it is, in our judgment, one of the great- \nest services the " New Theology " is rendering, \nthat it is making more and more evident and fa- \nmiliar both the premise and the conclusion of this \ngreat argument, developing the Biblical teachings \nwhich authorize it and the auxiliary testimonies \nwhich are becoming available through the modern \nstudy of the history of religion and through the \nprogress of science. \n\nWe cannot dwell as we would upon the imme- \ndiately practical advantages of a theology which \nbuilds upon the fact and doctrine of the Incarna- \ntion. It is evident that the more clearly the reality \nand worth of the Person of Christ are discerned \nthe stronger becomes the motive to every Christian \nvirtue. Nothing, as we have said, at the present \ntime is more needed in this sphere than a firmer \nconviction of the solidity, the reality, the absolute \nsupremacy of the gospel. Make its central Person \ncontingent, relative, transitory, and such is the out- \nlook of men to-day, and such the whole attitude of \ntheir minds to truth, that they cannot be won to \nthat absolute devotion to Christ which is essential \nto Christian living and Christian work. All men \nand all generations that have powerfully advanced \n\n\n\n38 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nChrist\'s kingdom have first been subdued by Him. \nHe was their absolute Lord. How, with the ex- \npansion of knowledge characteristic of our age, \nhow, to-day, is the Person of Christ to fill the vis- \nion of his followers as He filled that of the martyr \nchurch ? The solution of the problem, it is be- \nlieved, is to be found in such an advanced doctrine \nof the Incarnation as that we have attempted to \noutline. With the larger knowledge of creation \nthere should be gained a truer perception of what \nDr. Westcott has felicitously called " The Gospel \nof Creation." l The gospel of redemption will not \nthereby be obscured, but it will be set in larger \nrelations. \n\nWe do not claim for the later thought upon the \nIncarnation any exclusive originality. Fruitful \nsuggestions for this doctrine, reaching beyond the \nstatements of creeds and the ordinary practice of \nthe church, lie all along the path of its history. \nFor half a century it has been specially prominent \nin theological investigations and controversies. \nOur contention is that the " New Theology " is \nappropriating the results of these discussions and \napplying them, that it is an advance upon previous \nefforts in the same field, and that its merits in this \nregard entitle it to friendly consideration, and are \na pledge of its usefulness. And for the sake of \ndistinctness we will close with a concise summary \n\n1 See his instructive and admirable essay with this title in \nThe Epistles of St. John, pp. 273-315. London : Macrnillan \n& Co. 1883. \n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION. 39 \n\nof points in which this progress appears to us to \nbe especially manifest. 1. In a better understand- \ning of Christ\'s humanity, \xe2\x80\x94 its historic reality, its \nuniversality, its essential relation to the divine \nnature, its personality. 2. In a better apprehen- \nsion of Christ\'s personality \xe2\x80\x94 the personal union \nin Him of divinity and humanity. Neither nature \nis sacrificed to the other, and such a conception \nof each is gained that their union appears as the \nnecessary basis of the one historic, personal life. \n3. In a better understanding of the actual history \nof that life, whether considered in its relation to \nthe divine plan of creation and revelation, or to the \nactual events in its earthly career, or to its state of \nexaltation and glorification. 4. In a better under- \nstanding of the revealed central position of Christ \nin the universe, and of the absoluteness of Chris- \ntianity. 5. In the consequent gain of a better po- \nsition from which to justify and develop the mo- \ntives to Christian virtue and activity. \n\nThe question which lies nearest the heart of all \nmodern disputes in theology is the one already \nstated : Is the Jesus whose life we know on its hu- \nman side the Christ in whom religious faith finds \nits appropriate and permanently satisfying object ? \nStated philosophically, all modern conceptions of \nChrist and of Christianity reduce to these three: \nWe have either the historical without the ideal, or \nthe ideal without the historical, or the union of \nboth. We maintain that the " New Theology" \n\n\n\n40 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nanswers this fundamental question more philosoph- \nically, more Biblically, more practically than any \npreceding theology. The Jesus of history is the \nChrist of faith ; the Christ of faith is God revealed \nand known. \n\n\n\nIII. \n\nTHE ATONEMENT. \n\nThe doctrine of Atonement was later in its his- \ntorical development than the doctrine of Incarna- \ntion. Not until council after council had adopted \nexact articles concerning the Person of Christ was \nthere any considerable discussion concerning the \nWork of Christ. The fact of atonement through \nthe death of the Redeemer was accepted from the \nfirst with penitence and trust, but scarcely any at- \ntempt was made to discover the reasons which made \nit necessary and right that Christ should be offered \nfor the sins of the world. Even in the eleventh \ncentury the theory was somewhat prevalent that \nChrist\'s death was a ransom paid to the devil. \nWhy the development of this doctrine should have \nbegun so late we need not now take time to in- \nquire. It suggests the fact that there has never at \nany time been such agreement concerning the phi- \nlosophy of atonement as has been secured con- \ncerning the person of our Lord. The church even \nnow waits for a doctrinal statement which shall be \ncomprehensive, satisfactory, and, at the same time, \nfree from ethical objections and from inconsis- \ntencies. It is the object of the present paper \n\n\n\n42 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsimply to indicate the lines along which intelligent \nChristian thought is moving, and to recognize some \nof the conclusions which are gaining acceptance in \nrespect to the revelation of God\'s love in the sac- \nrifice of Christ. It will be left to the reader to \nnote for himself the modification, or even disap- \npearance, of crude theories through which, at one \ntime or another, atonement has been regarded. \n\nThe starting-point from which inquiry has usu- \nally set forth has been the sin of man. Man sinned, \nand the race became corrupted. Therefore, Jesus \nwas born, suffered, and died, in order that man \nmight be saved from sin. But this view is too nar- \nrow. It puts part of the truth in place of the \n\\ whole. It virtually declares that if there had been \nno sin, we should not have known God in Christ. \nThe old Latin hymn would have been correct in \nrepresenting sin as a blessing, &felix culpa, since \nthrough it we have such and so great a Redeemer. \nThere is also a difficulty in believing that but for \nthis insignificant earth the most glorious revelation \nof God might not have been given at all. The \nprincipal defect, however, is that Christ is made \ncontingent on sin, and that sin, therefore, appears \nto be not only more fundamental than Christ, but \nan absolute necessity, in order that God might re- \nveal himself in Christ. The old sub- and supra- \nlapsarian theories are wayrnarks of the struggle of \nprofound minds with this great difficulty. \n\nBut redemption from sin, even if the most im- \nportant, is but one of the revelations of God in \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 43 \n\nChrist ; and to understand it we need to find its \nrelation and proportion. The correct and Scrip- \ntural starting-point is the mediation of Christ in its \nuniversal character. Christ mediates God to the \nentire universe. Through Christ the worlds were \nmade, and through Him they consist. In Him \nwere all things created, in the heavens and upon \nthe earth, things visible and things invisible. To \nHim ultimately not the earth only, but the whole \nuniverse is to be made subject, things in heaven \nand things in earth and things under the earth. \nJohn as well as Paul perceives this truth. Indeed, \nthe Gospel of John comes to earthly redemption \nfrom the larger view of universal mediation. First \nwe learn that all things were made by Him, and \nwithout Him was not anything made that was \nmade, \xe2\x80\x94 and not until He is known as Head of the \nuniverse do we perceive, nor can we well under- \nstand, that He is the Life and Light of men. The \nwhole truth, then, is that Christ is the revealing \nor manifesting principle ; or, more exactly, that \nthrough the Logos, the Word, the second Person \nof the Trinity, that which is absolute fullness and \ntruth in God is communicated into finite exist- \nences ; that through the Eternal Word the created \nuniverse is possible ; that therefore the universe is \nChrist\'s, the revolving worlds and they that dwell \ntherein are his, to the glory of God the Father. \nThe created universe and all rational beings are \nthrough Christ and in Christ. Therefore He me- \ndiates or reveals God to any part of his universe \n\n\n\ny \n\n\n\n44 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\naccording to the condition or need which may* exist \nin that part. If at any point his world is sick, \nweary, guilty, hopeless, there Christ is touched and \nhurt, and there He appears to restore and comfort. \nThis earth is, it may be, the sheep lost in the wil- \nderness, while the ninety and nine are safe in the \nfold. Christ cannot be indifferent to the least of \nhis creatures in its pain and wickedness, for his \nuniverse is not attached to him externally, but vi- \ntally. He is not a governor set over it, but is its \nlife everywhere. He feels its every movement, most \nof all its spiritual life and spiritual feebleness or \ndisease, and appears in his glorious power even at \nthe remotest point. If there were but one sinner, \n^ Christ would seek him. If but one planet were in- \nvaded by sin, Christ would come to its relief. It \nis, of course, true that in order to reveal God in a \nworld of sin and guilt the historical conditions, and \nespecially the suffering conditions, of our Lord\'s \nlife must have been, in important respects, what \nthey would not otherwise have been. It is also \nprobable that the profoundest disclosure of the love \nof God in Christ has been made in the redemption \nof sinful man. But only the conditions, not the \npower and reality of Christ, are contingent on sin. \nAs the redemption of men reveals to principalities \nand powers in heavenly places the manifold wisdom . \nof God, so our thought of the Person and work of \nChrist is enlarged by knowing his universal rela- \ntions, and we perceive more clearly the significance \nof his humiliation to earth. Other orders of beings \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 45 \n\nknow Christ better because He suffered on earth. \n"This planet," says Dorner, "maybe the Beth- \nlehem of the universe." But if this planet and the \nsin of man exhaust the meaning of Christ\'s media- \ntion, we are left among absurdities and confusions. \nBethlehem itself could not be a sacred name if \nthere were no Jerusalem, nor Samaria, nor utter- \nmost parts of the earth, to which from Bethlehem \nHe goes out, whose goings forth have been from of \nold, from everlasting. \n\nThe opinion, therefore, has reason in it that \nthere would have been the Incarnation even if \nthere had been no sin. It is not easv to believe \nthat the Word of God would not have become flesh \nbut for sin. Man was created a physical being. \nHe was destined for a physical, earthly develop- \nment, and to people the material world. In his \nperfection he is to have that which corresponds to \nthe body, \xe2\x80\x94 a spiritual body. His knowledge of \nGod was to come through Christ ; and the nearest \nmanifestations, we can readily imagine, would in \nany event have corresponded with the actual con- \nditions of man\'s existence and progress. It may \nbe, indeed, that the human race would have come \nearlier into the knowledge of God through Christ \nif there had been no sin ; that, while sin had much \nto do with the conditions of our Lord\'s life and \nwork, it may actually have retarded his historical \nappearance. \n\nIt would be interesting to show, if space allowed, \nthat the Incarnation itself has important relations \n\n\n\n46 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nto the reconciliation of man and God ; that the \nPerson of Christ, realizing as it does the affinity \nof divine and human, the perfection of human char- \nacter in union with God, and other possibilities of \nhumanity, has more to do with our restoration to \nGod than we have commonly supposed. And it is \nalways to be remembered that the work of Christ \nhas no meaning apart from his Person ; that his \nwork is not something set off by itself on which we \ncan depend, as if the Atonement were a thing, a \nquantity of suffering endured, an impersonal re- \nsult, " His own self bare our sins in his own body \non the tree.\'\' " God was in Christ reconciling the \nworld unto himself." \n\nHaving gained what may be called the perspec- \ntive of the earthly revelation of God in Christ, we \nare at a point where we can inquire concerning the \nspecific relations of our Lord\'s sacrifice to the re- \ndemption of sinners. The very best word the gos- \npel gives to express the complete result of Christ\'s \nwork is reconciliation, a word signifying that God \nis brought into a new relation to man and that man \nis brought into a new relation with God. The ul- \ntimate fact, however, is that God\'s relation to man \nis changed in Christ from what it otherwise could \nbe, and that therefore man\'s relation to God is \nchanged. Redemption thus originates with God, \nwho in Christ finds a way through obstacles to the \nsinner, so that He can righteously forgive and \nbless. Because God is reconciled in Jesus Christ \nman repents and begins a new life. The gospel \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 47 \n\nnever reverses this order of dependence. It does \nnot say that because man repents God is a forgiving \nGod, but because God is a forgiving God therefore \nman repents. And it teaches also that God can \nbe a forgiving God, because Christ suffered and \ndied and rose again. \n\nHow and why is this true ? Why cannot God \nforgive outright and unconditionally? What is \nthat in the Person and work, and especially in the \ndeath of Christ without which God could not for- \ngive men? What does Christ do to change the \nfeeling or attitude of God towards the sinful race ? \nWe no longer ask whether repentance is necessary \nor not, but only if repentance is not enough ; why \nshould there be more and other than the turning \naway of man from sin and folly to God ? \n\nIt might be enough to suggest, at this point, that s \nthe power and inclination to repent are not found \nexcept when God is revealed in Christ ; that only \nbecause Christ has brought God to men in a new \nlight are they stirred to penitence. But we must \nsearch for deeper truth. \n\nThere is a movement of thought which has gone \nbeneath or has gone back of the thinking which at \none time was satisfied to rest in the sovereignty of \nGod. All commands, penalties, favors, blessings \nissue, it was once thought, out of the will of God. \nIt was God\'s will to accept Christ\'s sufferings as a \nsubstitute for the punishment man deserves, and \nignorant, wicked man had no right to inquire, Why \ndoest thou thus ? But the conviction is now clear \n\n\n\n48 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthat the will of God is directed by the reason of \nGod ; that instead of saying it is right because God \nwills it we should rather say God walls it because \nit is right. Right and wrong, goodness and bad- \nness, holiness and sin, have their own intrinsic qual- \nity according to what they are. Righteousness is \ngrounded in reason, is rational. Sin is against rea- \nson, is absurd. The consequences of holiness and \nof sin cannot be set aside by the will of God. His \nfiat cannot change the right and the reason of \nthings. Therefore He does not punish man merely \n\\ because He has threatened to punish, but He \nthreatens punishment because it must in the nature \nof the case inevitably follow on sin. God cannot \nbless man in his sin ; otherwise He would not be \nGod, and sin would not be sin. Distinctions of \nright and wrong, of true and false, would disap- \npear, and moral chaos would ensue. The opinion \nthat because God is good He will not let his chil- \ndren suffer, but will forgive them and save them, \nsees only the happiness of man, and has no per- \nception of ethical well-being. What we are now \nemphasizing is the marked tendency of thought to \nrecognize the intrinsic, necessary character of law \nand right, and the inevitableness of the results of \nconduct. This necessity was present to Anselm \nwhen he formulated the theory that an exact equiv- \nalent must be rendered for the penalty of sin ; that \nGod must be satisfied completely, and could be sat- \nisfied only by the death of Christ, which takes the \nplace of the infinite penalty of sin. His use of the \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 49 \n\nprinciple was too literal and even mathematical, \nbut he opened a vein of neglected truth. He em- \nphasized the necessity which resides in the ethical \nbeing of God, and which even his will cannot con- \ntradict nor supersede. The speculative thought of \nto-day which is farthest removed from the influence \nof the gospel cannot escape this conclusion. The \nethical necessities are recognized. One writer who \nat the beginning of his book declares his indepen- \ndence of presuppositions on one side or the other \ncomes at length, in his closing chapter, to the con- \nclusion that of necessity eternal perdition awaits \nthose who transgress ethical law, and that the hand \nof omnipotence cannot snatch the wicked from their \ndoom. \n\nThe clearer recognition of ethical truth, as \ngrounded in law and reason, has been accompanied \nby important modifications in the view of atone- \nment. It is no longer believed that personal merit \nand demerit can be transferred from one to another. \nIt is not believed that an exact quantity of punish- \nment can be borne by an innocent for a guilty per- \nson. It is not believed that the consequences of sin \ncan be removed from the transgressor by passing \nthem on to another. Conduct, character, and con- \ndition are inseparable. The results of sin are part \nof the ethical personality, and cannot be detached, \nnor borne by another. \n\nBut more than this is to be remarked. Not only \nhave particular theories of atonement which are \nobviously artificial and unethical been discarded, \n\n\n\n/ \n\n\n\n/ \n\n\n\n50 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nbut atonement itself has been declared impossible. \nIt is thought that there can be no deliverance what- \never from the hard consequences of wrong-doing ; \nthat whatsoever a man soweth that must he also \nreap ; that Jesus has no other power than that of \na teacher who shows men the right way, and sum- \nmons them to such endeavor after improvement as \nthey may still be capable of making. \n\nNow the message of the gospel unquestionably is \nthat man is not bound under ethical in the sense in \nwhich he is bound under physical necessity ; that \nforces are available for the moral and spiritual life \nby which man can be delivered from the worst con- \nsequences of sin, and can become a new creature. \nTransformation may be rapid and complete. Man \nmay be translated from the dominion of merciless \nnecessity into the life of freedom and love. The \nnew and higher force is the revelation of God in \nChrist, through which the power of sin is broken \nand the penalty of sin remitted. If all this is true, \nthe gospel gains a profounder meaning than it has \never yielded before. The church comes now to \nman, well aware that he cannot be separated from \ncustom, habit, heredity, fixedness of character, the \nsocial organism of which he is part. It is seen \nthat redemption must be grounded in reason, and \nmust meet the actual conditions of life and char- \nacter and society. Atonement must express and \nreveal God as the supreme Eeason and perfect \nRighteousness, who cannot deny himself, and who \ncannot disregard nor annul the moral law which is \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 51 \n\nestablished in truth and right. Christian thought, \nhaving established itself on the intrinsic, absolute \nright and on the inexorableness of law so firmly \nthat these may be accepted as postulates in all the \ninquiry, agreeing so far forth with Anselm on the \none hand and with the latest natural ethics on the \nother, is going forward now to learn if any ethical \nends are secured by the revelation of God in Christ, \nand secured in such a way that God energizes in \nman and society for a moral transformation so rad- \nical and complete that it may be called salvation, \nredemption, eternal life, divine sonship. \n\nThe New England theology is distinguished \namong systems of religious thought in this century \nin that it took up the problem at this stage and \ntried to find the truth in this relation. It attempted \nto discover the ethical ends which are secured by \nthe atonement. It emphasized the fact that other \nmethods than punishment can express the character \nof sin in the sight of God and of the universe. It \nasked the right question, and gained part of the \nright answer. It has not held its ground, because \nit practically exhausted the significance of atone- \nment under the analogy of human governments and \ncourts of justice, which are but one result, and \nrather a rude result, of the ethical life of man, and \nalso because the approach of the penitent to God \nin Christ is more direct than it can ever be under \nthe thought of a vast universal system of govern- \nment. This is the question to-day concerning atone- \nment, \xe2\x80\x94 What moral and spiritual ends are secured \n\n\n\n52 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nby the sacrificial life and death of Christ? How \ndoes God\'s attitude towards man change, and man\'s \nattitude towards God change, so that there is effi- \ncient power for the transformation of ethical and \nspiritual life as against the tendencies of moral cor- \nruption? Evidently the result is of a kind that \ncannot be brought about by sheer omnipotence, but \nonly, if at all, by truth and love. Thought must \nmove in the spiritual, not in the physical realm. \n\nThere are two lines of approach, which converge \ntowards the same result, and both of which are de- \ntermined by the mediation of Christ in what may \nproperly enough be called his substitutionary rela- \ntion to men. \n\nOne view of atonement is gained by considering \nthe historical Christ in relation to humanity and as \nidentified with it ; in which view we see that the \nrace of men with Christ in it is essentially differ- \nent in fact, and therefore in the sight of God, from \nthe same race without Christ in it. It was found \nin our study of the Incarnation that Christ\'s unique- \nness is his universality ; that while every other man \nhas but a limited relation to his fellows Christ has \naffinity for all men ; that He draws all men unto \nHim ; that He possesses that which all men need. \nSo we have become accustomed to the thought that \nChrist has an organic relation to the race. He is \nan individual, but an individual vitally related to \nevery human being. He preferred to be called the \nSon of Man. Paul sees in Him the Head of hu- \nmanity, the second Adam. He is one who is not \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 53 \n\nhimself a sinner, yet is a man ; who is not himself \ncontending against sinful and corrupt tendencies, \nyet has so identified himself with humanity that its \nburden of suffering rested on Him, and every man \nwas within reach of his sympathy. His divinity, \nindeed, is in nothing more clearly shown than in \nhis perfect humanity ; in the fact that He was not \nmerely the ideal man, but the universal man ; his \nhumanity not something strange to his divinity, but \nits best and purest organ. \n\nHumanity may thus be thought of as offering \nsomething to God of eminent value. When Christ y ~ \nsuffers, the race suffers. When Christ is sorrowful, \nthe race is sorrowful. Christ realizes what human- \nity could not realize for itself. The race may be \nconceived as approaching God, and signifying its \npenitence by pointing to Christ, and by giving ex- \npression in Him to repentance which no words \ncould utter. Thus we can regard Him as our sub- \nstitute, not because He stands apart, not because \nHe is one and the race another, but because He is \nso intimately identified with us, and because in \nessential respects the life of every one is, or may be, \nlocked in with his. The representative power which \nbelongs to man in his various relations comes to its \nperfect realization in Christ. In the family, in y \ngovernment, in business, in society, representative \nor substitutionary relations are the rule, not the \nexception. Much more has Christ the power per- \nfectly to represent us or to be substituted for us, be- \ncause there is no point of our real life where He is \n\n\n\n54 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nnot in contact with us. Here is the truth of Mc- \n\\ Leod Campbell\'s view of atonement. The entire \nrace repents or is capable of repenting through \nChrist. It renders in Him a complete repentance. \nHe is the Amen of humanity to the righteousness \nof God\'s law, to the ill desert of sin, to the justice \nof God\'s judgments. What was dimly shadowed \nunder the old dispensation and in heathen wor- \nship, through sacrifices expressing by an act what \ncould not be expressed by a word, is taken up and \ncarried on to perfect realization by the sacrifice \nand death of Christ, in which humanity offered its \nbest, its holiest, to God. Thus all the figures and \nphraseology of the altar are properly and naturally \napplied to Christ. He is offered for our sins, in \nour stead, for our sakes. He is a propitiation to \nGod. These expressions symbolize a real truth, \nbecause Christ was made in all respects like unto \nhis brethren. \n\nBut Christ\'s power to represent or be substituted \nfor man is always to be associated with man\'s \npower to repent. The possibility of redeeming \nman lies in the fact that although he is by act and \ninheritance a sinner, yet under the appropriate in- \nfluences he is capable of repenting. The power of \nrepentance remains, and to this power the gospel \nv addresses itself. Christ suffering and sympathiz- \ning with men is able to awaken in them and express \nfor them a real repentance. It is to this power that \nChrist, the holy and the merciful, attaches himself. \nRealizing it in some, and being able to realize it in \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT 65 \n\nall, He represents humanity before God. Now the \npower of repentance, which, so far as it exists, is \nthe power of recuperation, is superior to the neces- \nsities of past wrong-doing and of present habit. It \nis the one fact which can never be estimated for \nwhat it may do, which baffles the calculation of the \nwisest observers. The penitent man, so far as he \nreally repents, is in the exercise of a freedom which \nresists and almost subjugates the forces of evil. In \nunion with Christ, who brings spiritual truth and \npower to man, repentance is radical. Man left to \nhimself cannot have a repentance which sets him \nfree from sin and death. But in Christ he is moved \nto repentance which is revolutionary ; in Christ he \ncan express repentance, for in union with Christ he \nadopts the feeling of Christ concerning sin against \nthe God of love. If man unaided could become \ntruly repentant, he would become holy, and would \nbe the child of God. This was admitted by Jona- \nthan Edwards. But it is only in Christ that he / \nhas such knowledge of God and of himself as is \nnecessary to a repentance which is revolutionary. \nIt is not true, we admit and insist, that repentance \nwithout Christ is availing for redemption, for man \nof himself cannot repent ; but, on the other hand, \nit is not true that Christ\'s atonement has value \nwithout repentance. Christ\'s sacrifice avails with S \nGod because it is adapted to bring man to repent- \nance. This gives it ethical meaning and value. \nHe is one, in with the race, who has the power of \nbringing it into sympathy w r ith his own feeling \n\n\n\n56 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntowards God and towards sin ; and so God looks on \nthe race as having this power in Christ, a power \nwhich, when realized, melts away the iron fetters \nof what we call necessity and fate. The signifi- \ncance of the gospel on this side is that the sacrifice \nof Christ is not in vain ; that on account of Christ \nman can be delivered from condemnation, and can \nhave God\'s smile instead of his frown; that the \ncaptive of nature and law can go free as a penitent, \nrestored child of God, through the love of Him who \nis the Son of God and the Son of Man. \n\nThe substitution is not of Christ standing on this \nside for the race standing on that side, but the race \nwith Christ in it is substituted for the race without \nChrist in it. This Christ in with the race is re- \ngarded by God as one who has those powers of in- \nstruction, sympathy, purity which can be imparted \nto his brethren. Likewise the individual in Christ \ntakes the place of the individual without Christ, is \nlooked on as one whom Christ can bring to repent- \nance and obedience, and so is justified even before \nfaith develops into character. All is not accom- \nplished instantly, but the result was assured when \nChrist became obedient to the death of the cross. \nHe saw Satan falling from heaven when as yet his \ndisciples had made but a beginning of the subjuga- \ntion of evil. \n\nThe race is reconstituted in Christ, and is other \nin the sight of God, because different in fact, be- \ncatise containing powers for repentance and holiness \nwhich, without Christ, it would be hopelessly desti- \ntute of. \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 57 \n\nThe other line of approach is from God to man. \nThe punishment and consequences of sin make real \nGod\'s abhorrence of sin, and the righteousness of \nlaw. The sufferings and death of his only Son also \nrealize God\'s hatred of sin and the righteous au- \nthority of law ; therefore punishment need not be \nexacted. This is a familiar line of reflection, and \nneed not be followed in detail. Its meaning is that \nGod cannot be regardless of law nor indifferent to \nsin in saving man from punishment. If the thought \nwent no farther, this, at least, would be implied : \nthat our redemption is not the act of omnipotence, \nbut that it is in accordance with the rational and \nethical being both of God and man. \n\nIt must be confessed, however, that it is not clear \nhow the sufferings and death of Christ can be sub- \nstituted for the punishment of sin ; how, because \nChrist made vivid the wickedness of sin and the \nrighteousness of God, man is therefore any the less \nexposed to the consequences of sin. We must go \non to the fact that Christ makes real very much \nmore than God\'s righteous indignation against sin. \nThe punishment of sin does not save men. It only \nvindicates God and his law. Christ, while declar- \ning God\'s righteousness, reveals God seeking men, \nand at the cost of sacrifice. He shows that God \nloves men, and energizes in Christ to bring them to \nhimself ; that really the wrath of God is only a \nmanifestation of the love of God, since God cannot \nallow the sinner to be blessed in his sin. The very \nfact, that God\'s Son cannot be among men for \n\n\n\n58 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntheir redemption except at the cost of suffering \nfrom the sin of man and of dying at their hands, \nshows both the intrinsic badness of sin and the \nundiscouraged love of God to sinners. What \nreally occurs is the approach of God to men in \nChrist, who shows by his words and life the Father \nx unto them ; who draws them back to God in recoil \nfrom sin, and whose suffering, by reason of sin, \ncondemned sin more unmistakably than the punish- \nment of it could have done. \n\nSin is to be looked on not only as an obstacle \nwhich keeps man from coming to God, but also as \nan obstacle which keeps God from coming to man. \nGod loves man, and would bless him. But sin im- \npedes God\'s love, sets it back, awakens God\'s dis- \napproval, so that instead of blessing he must con- \ndemn and punish. The ideal relation of God is \nlove, but the actual relation is wrath. The sin of \nman prevents God\'s love from flowing forth, so that \nthe God of love is in reality hostile to man. In \nChrist God can come to man in another relation, \nbecause Christ is a new divine power in the race to \nturn it away from sin unto God. \n\nGod does not become propitious because man re- \npents and amends, for that is beyond man\'s power. \nHe becomes propitious because Christ, laying down \nhis life, makes the race to its worst individual ca- \npable of repenting, obeying, trusting ; and He does \nthis in such a way that God\'s abhorrence to sin is \nrealized, the majesty of law honored, the sinner \nand the universe convinced of the righteousness of \nthe divine judgments. \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 59 \n\nThe first and the greatest punishment of sin is \nseparation from God, the withdrawal of those influ- \nences from God by which man is blessed. The \nconsequences of sin in body and character are sec- \nondary, are only results of separation from God. \nIt is because God is far away that such conse- \nquences follow. In Christ, the lowly, the suffering, \nthe triumphant, God can come near toman to bless \nhim. Christ brings God the Person to man the \nperson, and in such manner that God is known as \nthe God of holy love, the loving and holy Father. \nThe goodness of God leads man to repentance. \nMan is at peace with God, and the worst punish- \nment of sin is righteously removed. \n\nIt is true, then, that Christ suffered for our sins, \nand that because He suffered our sins are forgiven. ^ \nBut the suffering was borne because it lay in the \npath to redemption. The realization of God\'s love \nin Christ was possible only through the suffering \nand death of Christ ; and because He suffered and \ndied in bringing the knowledge and love of God to \nmen it is no longer necessary that men should suf- \nfer all the consequences of sin. The ethical ends > \nof punishment are more than realized in the pain \nand death of the Redeemer, through whom man \nis brought to repentance. His death is a new fact, \' \nan astonishing, revealing, persuasive, melting fact, \nin view of which it would be puerile to exact lit- \neral punishment of those who are thereby made \nsorry for sin and brought in penitence to God. \nBut it is all inseparable from repentance or appro- \n\n\n\n60 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\npriation. There is thus a limit to the vicarious \nprinciple. It is limited in its application by the \npersonal relation of every man to Christ. He who \nis not moved to penitence and faith by Christ is \nunder a greater condemnation. If he is incorrigible \nthe condemnation is final and irreversible. \n\nThe large truth of atonement, however illus- \ntrated, and from whatever side approached, is that \nexcept for Christ God could only punish sinners \nby withdrawing himself more and more from them ; \nthat in Christ their repentance and renewal become \npossible and God can bring them to their true des- \ntination. The race is other to God than it could \nbe without Christ, and God is other to the race \nthan He could be without Christ. That is, Christ \nis the Mediator between God and man. Starting \nfrom the human side we may say that God is the \nreconciled God, the forgiving God, because man in \nChrist, seeing God as He is, and sin as it is, is the \npenitent man, the believing man, the Christian \nman. Or reversing the order and advancing to the \nultimate fact that redemption originates with God, \nwe may say that man is the penitent and obedient \nman because God in Christ is the reconciling and \nforgiving God. In any thought of atonement and \nredemption we may not lose sight of Christ\'s vital \nrelation either with God or man. His work is one \nof reconciliation, of mediation. But the work origi- \nnates with God. Man could never have produced \nthe Christ. God so loved the world that He gave \nhis Son. It is therefore the final fact that God is \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 61 \n\nreconciled to man, and therefore man is reconciled \nto God. \n\nIt is not to be supposed, however, that God has \nbeen reconciled to the world only eighteen hundred \nyears ; that before Christ came He was the God of \njustice and since then has been the God of mercy. \nStrictly speaking, there was never a time when God \nwas not reconciled, not having been before, for the \nLamb was slain from the foundation of the world. \nIt was in the divine purpose from eternity that \nthere should be incarnation and atonement. But \nas manifested or realized in time, from our point \nof view, God\'s disposition was changed when Christ \nsuffered and died. At least, the manifestation of \nGod\'s grace waited for the manifestation of Christ \nand depended on it. Therefore we can say " be- \nfore " and " after " in relation to redemption \nthrough Christ. But considered either as histori- \ncally manifested, or as eternally purposed, it is true \nthat but for Christ God would be forever alienated \nfrom men. It is on account of Christ that God \ncan forgive, on account of Christ that men are not \nleft helpless and condemned under the necessities \nof unchangeable law. Humanity with Christ in it \nis propitiated to the divine thought from all eter- \nnity. Not till the propitiation is realized do we \nknow that a sufficient reason exists to make it right \nand possible for God to forgive sin. To the world \nbefore Christ came God was unreconciled, because \nthe world had no knowledge of God in Christ. To \nthe individual, so long as he knows God only on \n\n\n\n62 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthe side of nature and law, God is unreconciled. \nNot till he sees Christ in his sacrificial love does \nhe know that God can and will forgive. The act- \nual sufferings and death of Christ in history are \nnot, however, a mere seeming. A realized is not \nthe same as an unrealized purpose. The sacrifice \nof Christ on earth has a real value, and is not fully- \noperative until it is an accomplished fact. The \ncomplete truth is that the sacrifice of Christ is an \nindispensable condition of the forgiveness of sin. \n\nIt may be said, then, in view of our discussion, \nthat the present movement of thought seeks to find \nthe union of objective and subjective elements. At \ncertain periods the sacrifice of Christ and its re- \nsults towards God were looked on as external to \nmen, and almost independent of them. There was \na definite reality which could be measured and set \noff by itself. At other periods the results in ex- \nperience and faith have been more prominent. \nThe Atonement has been thought of as an influence \nworking in man, and as having no reality or mean- \ning apart from that. The mutual relation of the \ngreat reality of reconciliation and the appropriation \nof faith is coming to be more clearly recognized. \nGod in Christ, and Christ in man. " I in them \nand Thou in me, that they may be perfected into \none." \n\nIt may be thought that the battle was long ago \ndecided concerning the extent of atonement, that \nthe Atonement is generally believed to be universal \nin extent, not for the elect alone, but for the whole \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT. 63 \n\nworld, and that no one questions it. But all that \nis involved in its universality has not been accepted. \nCan it be considered universal if a large portion of \nthe race know nothing of the historical Christ and \nthe redemption that is in Him? The extent of \natonement resides not so much, it is to be remem- \nbered, in the thing done, in the ample provision \nmade, but rather in the personality of Christ. He \nis the universal Person, as we said at the outset. \nHis religion, therefore, is the universal, absolute \nreligion. There is no salvation in any other. He \nalone is able to bring God and man together. This s \nwould seem to lead us to the conclusion that the \nfinal word concerning destiny is not pronounced \nfor any man till he knows Jesus Christ and Him \ncrucified. Further consideration of this inference \nwill be found in connection with the discussion of \neschatology. It is mentioned now as bearing on \nthe relation of the divine justice to the divine \nmercy. The view has been taken that justice con- \ndemns the sinner to death before or until atonement \nis made, and that Christ rescues the sinner from \nhis just doom. It has been said, therefore, that \nGod must be just, and may be merciful, as if the \nexercise of mercy were not necessary to God in the \nsense in which justice is necessary. But we must \nnow conclude that justice does not pronounce its \nfinal word till God has revealed himself in all his \nintended manifestations of righteousness and love. \nJustice is concerned that every attribute of God \nshould be displayed ; is as jealous for the rights of \n\n\n\n64 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nlove as for those of holiness. If it is God\'s very \nnature to love, if it is a desire of his to save men \nfrom sin, justice sees to it that love is not deprived \nof its rights, and is not hindered in any of its im- \npulses. We may go so far as to say that it would \nnot be just for God to condemn men hopelessly \nwhen they have not known Him as He really is, \nwhen they have not known Him in Jesus Christ. \nAnd it is evidently the intent of God that all men \nshould know Him through Christ. The judgment \ndoes not come till the gospel has been preached to \nall nations. The gospel is preached to a nation, \nnot when within certain geographical boundaries it \nhas been proclaimed at scattered points, but only \nwhen in reality all individuals of all the nations \nhave known it. \n\nAtonement, that is, the gospel, is universal, ab- \nsolute. It is to be made known to every creature, \nand then cometh the end. To suppose that such \nknowledge of God as reason and conscience give \nis, in reality, the knowledge of God in Christ, is to \nreduce the historical Christ and atonement through \nhis sacrifice to an accidental, precarious position. \nThere is no evidence whatever that the race is di- \nvided into two great sections, one of which is dealt \nwith on the basis of the gospel, and the other on \nthe basis of law and natural conscience \xe2\x80\x94 one on a \nbasis of justice, the other on a basis of grace. As, \nbefore Christ came, God exercised forbearance for \nthe sins of the past and because Christ was coming, \nbut now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, \n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT, 65 \n\nso ultimately all the nations and all the genera- \ntions are to be dealt with through Him who tasted \ndeath for every man. This is admitted in prin- \nciple, but denied in fact, by those who assume that \nsalvation is possible only through Christ, but be- \nlieve that the power of the gospel is felt by those \nand may be availing for those who know nothing \nabout it. This reduces God\'s dealings with men \nto magic, and makes the cross superfluous. It is \nno longer a necessity that Christ should have suf- \nfered and died. The Atonement is only a slightly \nmore vivid exhibition of that love and grace which \nare really open to all men apart from the sacrifice \nof Christ. \n\nIt is the function of the Holy Spirit to take the \nthings of Christ, and show them unto men. The \ndispensation of the Spirit follows and assumes the \naccomplished work of the historical Christ. Before \nthis the Holy Spirit could not be given in his full- \nness, because Jesus was not yet glorified. All this \nmeans that the supreme, final, absolute revelation \nof God to men is in the Person and work of Jesus \nChrist ; that, therefore, justice does not pronounce \nthe word of destiny till love and mercy have gone \nforth to all those children who are partakers of the \nsame flesh and blood of which He took part. If no \nman cometh to the Father but by Christ, we con- \nclude that without Him \xe2\x80\x94 and almost as certainly \nwe conclude that without the knowledge of Him \xe2\x80\x94 \nno man can be brought back to God. Whosoever \ncalleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved. \n\n4 \n\n\n\n66 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nHow, then, shall they call on Him in whom they \nhave not believed, and how shall they believe in \nHim of whom they have not heard ? \n\nIn the Atonement Christ the Son of man brings \nall humanity to God. No member of the race is \nseparate from him who thus offers himself. \n\nIn the Atonement God provided redemption for \nthe world by realizing his holy love in the eyes of \nall the nations. \n\nThe ultimate fact for every man will be his re- \nlation to Christ, in whom dwelleth all the fullness \nof the Godhead bodily, and who in all things was \nmade like unto his brethren. \n\n\n\nIV. \n\nESCHATOLOGY. \n\nA theological professor, having been invited to \ngive a course of lectures on Eschatology, declined \non the ground that he could not separate that sub- \nject from the rest of his doctrinal system and discuss \nit independently. There is no doctrine, indeed, \nwhich can be taken out of its relation to other doc- \ntrines and remain intelligible. The paradox might \nbe maintained that no doctrine should be considered \nuntil all the other doctrines had been discussed. \nIt is especially true of eschatology that correct \nviews depend on the conceptions one has, not only \nof the several truths, but of the very character, \nsignificance, and tendency of the gospel as a whole. \nTo some it seems easy to give, and legitimate to \nexpect, a direct answer to any question that may \nbe asked concerning the final destinies of men. \nWhen inquiry is made, for instance, as to the time \nwithin which probation is limited, why cannot any \none express his opinion in a Yes or No ? But while \none\'s affirmative or negative may be all that his \ncontroversial opponent cares to ascertain, yet the \nreasons which lead to a given conclusion are of the \nutmost importance, for they both interpret and \n\n\n\n68 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nqualify the final answer, even if that answer is \nexpressed in a monosyllable. The view which is \ntaken of the person of Christ, of atonement, of the \nentire revelation of God in the gospel, must deter- \nmine the views which are to be held concerning the \nage which follows after this earthly period \xe2\x80\x94 con- \ncerning the destiny of individuals, nations, the \nhuman race. It may seem also that an appeal to \nScripture should be decisive on all the vexed ques- \ntions which have arisen as to the last things. But \nif there were unmistakable declarations in the Bible, \nthere would be no vexed questions. Besides, on \nthis subject as on all other subjects, Scripture is \ncumulative and progressive along the line of devel- \noping principles, so that the triumphs and judg- \nments of the future must be seen in the perspec- \ntive of the whole revelation God has given in \nJesus Christ. Christianity must be understood \nprofoundly if a comprehensive view is to be gained \nof the ultimate issues of human destiny under the \ngospel. It is our intention, however, to keep our \nreasoning well within the recognized teaching of \nthe New Testament, and to consider, so far as may \nbe necessary, particular passages which are claimed \nto be decisive of controverted points. Our method \nis to recognize first some of the great facts and \nprinciples of the gospel which must underlie any \nconclusions on this subject, leaving for the sequel \nsome discussion of a single related question about \nwhich agreement is not at present complete. \n\nTwo observations may be offered by way of pref- \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 69 \n\nace : one, that we are moving in the realm, not of \naccomplished history, but of unfulfilled prophecy. \nThe statements of Scripture which relate to judg- \nment and heaven and hell are predictive, and \ntherefore have the characteristics of prophetic teach- \ning. We find grand outline, dependence of results \non moral conditions, great spiritual contrasts, rather \nthan minute details of time and circumstance. \nThe future is not, however, all vague and undiscern- \nible. But, since the teaching is prophetic, we know \nwhere we may and where we may not look for cer- \ntainty : we may be more certain of principles than \nof the particular application of principles. For \ninstance, we know that the redeemed are to be for- \never with Christ, but we do not know what that \nunion will involve of condition and service. The \nother observation is, that these predictions are \nchiefly occupied with the coming triumphs of the \ngospel. The wicked are, indeed, frequently warned \nof their danger ; but when thought is directed on- \nwards it is almost invariably for the purpose of \ngiving assurance that the kingdom of Christ will \nreach at length a glorious consummation. The \ncondemnation of the wicked is sometimes repre- \nsented as part of that triumph and incident fo> it. \nThe dark fate of the wicked is but the shadow \ncast by the brightness of the glory. There is ac- \ncordingly a clearer disclosure of the blessedness of \nthe redeemed and the victories of the gospel than \nof the condition of the lost. The kingdom of re- \ndemption is not a point of light in the midst of sur- \n\n\n\n70 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nrounding darkness, but the wicked are a point of \ndarkness in the midst of surrounding light. Even \nso severe a thinker as Professor Shedd concludes \nthat the bottomless pit is an insignificant hole to \nwhich the refuse of mankind is consigned. 1 \n\nIt is important to learn first if there are any \ncentral facts or principles from which we can pro- \nceed in the attempt to reach sound conclusions. \n\nA. The Fact and the Principle of Judg- \nment. \n\n1. The Fact. Predictions of the future carry \nus on to the day of judgment as the time when the \nconsummation of the gospel will be accomplished. \nThen the destiny of all men will be irrevocably \nfixed. It will be the final crisis for the human \nrace. Whatever may be the decisive point in time \nfor individuals, this is unquestionably represented \nas the crisis for humanity as a whole under the \ngospel. The first advent of Christ was unto sal- \nvation. The second advent is unto judgment and \nvictory. After that time the kingdom of right- \neousness will be undisturbed by oppositions of evil. \nUntil that time men will be translated from the \nkingdom of sin into the kingdom of Christ. After \nthe judgment there is no reversal of conditions, but \nonly the fulfillment of that which is already deter- \nmined. \n\n1 " Hell is only a corner of the universe. The Gothic \netymon denotes a covered-up hole. In Scripture hell is a \' pit/ \na \' lake;\' not an \' ocean.\' It is \' bottomless,\' but not bound- \nless." \xe2\x80\x94 North American Review, February, 1885, page 170. \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 71 \n\nThe time of judgment is left uncertain. The \ngospel must first be preached to the nations, and, \ntherefore, as was observed in the preceding discus- \nsion concerning atonement, not at scattered points \nwithin each geographical empire, but in reality to \nall people. We need not take space here to delin- \neate the intervening advances of Christianity on \nearth, with regard to which prediction is not want- \ning in the New Testament. Neither do we linger \nto indicate the conditions under which the redeemed \nafter judgment will come to perfection. We are \nnow emphasizing the fact, as one of the most evi- \ndent in the Scriptural teaching, that the day of \njudgment \xe2\x80\x94 the second coming of Christ \xe2\x80\x94 is the \nfinal and supreme crisis for the human race. \n\nThe purposes, of our present discussion do not re- \nquire us to consider the belief in universal resto- \nration nor the belief in conditional immortality, \nalthough we are of course aware that a complete \ntreatment of eschatology would include the consid- \neration of those opinions. Our object at present, \nas interpreters of progressive orthodoxy, is to in- \nquire what opinion is to be maintained by those \nwho do not believe that all men will be finally re- \ndeemed, and who do not discover any Biblical war- \nrant for the expectation that any one endowed with \nrational and spiritual powers will cease to exist. \nScripture predicts, then, as a great fact to be re- \nalized in the future, that there is to be a day of \njudgment, when there will be a final separation of \nthe righteous from the wicked. \n\n\n\n72 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\n2. The Principle of Judgment. In another re- \nspect the predictions of Scripture are unmistakable. \nIt is clear that Christ is to be the judge. Christ \nis to be on the judgment seat. Again and again \nthis is plainly declared. The Son of Man is to be \njudge of the world. The Father hath given him \nauthority to execute judgment because he is the \nSon of Man. When the Son of Man shall come \nin his glory all nations shall be gathered before \nHim. That judgment is to be rendered by Christ \nis taken for granted throughout the New Testament \nin many an allusion and assumption, as if every \none who knows anything of the gospel knows that \nChrist will come to be our judge. Now this means \nmore than that in addition to his offices of Re- \ndeemer and Master Christ is also appointed Judge. \nIt means that all men are to be judged under the \ngospel ; to be judged by their relation to Christ. \nGod reveals himself in Christ for the enlightenment \nand redemption of men. This is the clearest, the \nmost gracious, the supreme revelation ; and if men \nare judged by Christ, they are judged in accord- \nance with that revelation which He brought to the \nworld. They are not to be judged under the light \nof reason and conscience alone, but under the light \nof the gospel of Christ. They are to come before his \njudgment seat, not as those who are dragged there \nforcibly to meet a judge of whose person, character, \nor even existence they know nothing, but as those \nwho are brought there as the necessary result of \nthe knowledge of God which has been given them \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 73 \n\nthrough Him before whom they stand to be judged. \nWhen we read that Christ is to be the judge, we \nare to understand that the judgment will be a \nChristian judgment. As one\'s friendships are a \ndisclosure of himself, as what one finds in any em- \nbodiment of beauty or greatness or goodness indi- \ncates what his own perceptions and aspirations are, \nso what one finds in Christ, what Christ means \nand is to him, is the complete revelation of his \ncharacter and deserving. If there is no form nor \ncomeliness that those beholding Christ should desire \nHim, this argues no defect nor lack in Christ, but \nblindness and evil in those for whom He has no \nbeauty. This principle of judgment in relation to \nChrist is one of the results of the fact that Chris- \ntianity is the universal religion, the final, supreme \nrevelation of God to men. Christ, as has been \nshown in preceding discussions, is the universal \nman. He is the Son of Man. His relationship is \nnot tribal or national, but human, as comprehen- \nsive as the race. He is the second Adam, the head \nand progenitor of renewed humanity. His invita- \ntions, commands, promises, are in universals. " If \nany man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." \n"Whosoever believeth on me shall never die." \n" No man cometh unto the Father but by me." \nHe died for the sins of the world. He tasted death \nfor every man. The uniform teaching of the New \nTestament is that there is no salvation except in \nChrist. The universality of Christianity is ac- \ncepted to-day as a postulate by nearly all schools \n\n\n\n74 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nof Christian thought. In accordance with this \nteaching of the gospel is the prediction, repeatedly \nmade, that Christ is to judge the whole world, all \nthe nations, all the dead, small and great. \n\nIt is in consequence of this principle that we be- \nlieve the knowledge of God in Christ to be finally- \ndecisive of character and destiny. Whether or not \nany knowledge of God besides that given by the \ngospel is decisive, there can be no question that the \ngospel does determine the destiny of all to whom it \nis made known. There are no higher, no more influ- \nential motives under which man can be brought to \nGod. If Christ does not, no other power can draw \nman to God. Whoever will not believe on Christ \nis incorrigible and hopelessly impenitent. There \nremaineth no more sacrifice for sin, not because \nthe divine patience but because the divine resources \nare exhausted. There is no other whom God can \nsend to those who will not reverence his Son. \nTherefore a process of judgment is already going \non. Wherever the gospel is proclaimed, Christ is \nalready testing men. Character is becoming fixed \nfor good or evil as men yield to his approaches or \nrepel them. " He that belie veth not is condemned \nalready, because he hath not believed on the only \nbegotten Son of God." For this reason the gospel \nis urgent with men. It gives them no promise of \nto-morrow. Its word is Now. Repent now. Be- \nlieve now. This is the day of grace, because God \nis revealed in Christ, and now you are moved to \nrepent of sin and believe in Christ. The urgency \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 75 \n\nis not in view of the fact that death may come \nsuddenly, though that is a solemn consideration, \nbut rather in view of the fact that to-morrow there \nmay be no inclination to respond to the love of \nGod which is offered in Christ, and which to-day \nis neglected or rejected. " To-day if ye will hear \nhis voice harden not your hearts" The fathers in \nthe wilderness were not destroyed at once. Forty \nyears long did God deal with them, but in vain. \n" Behold now is the acceptable time." Thus it \nmay be that the destiny of some is irreversibly de- \ntermined long before they die. That is a decisive \npoint whenever Christ is presented and there is an \ninclination to receive and obey Him. When ac- \nceptance of Him is real the believer is saved for- \never from sin. When rejection of Him is final, so \nthat there is no further possibility that Christ will \nwin response, there is no remaining hope of deliv- \nerance and purification from sin. It is, therefore, \na legitimate and almost necessary conclusion that \nthe destiny of all men to whom the gospel is given \nin this earthly life is decided while they are in the \nbody. The apostle, addressing those who in this \nearthly tabernacle already know Christ, reminds \nthem of the time approaching when they will be \nmade manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, \nthat each one may receive the things done in the \nbody. He implies that the earthly life is decisive \nfor those to whom he was writing, although he was \nthinking of the fidelity rather than the salvation of \nbelievers. There is much reason also, in the nature \n\n\n\n76 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nof the case, to believe that this present life is the \nmost favorable opportunity for moral renewal in \nChrist. 1 The gospel is an earthly, historical relig- \nion, wrought out in the deeds and sacrifices of the \nman Christ Jesus, who lived under the conditions \nof a human, earthly life, who dwelt in the cities and \nvillages of Judea, who walked in the valleys and on \nthe mountains of Galilee, and who died on a hill- \nside of this earth. Our bodily life is the accept- \nable time to be saved by Him who in the days of \nhis flesh offered up prayers and supplications with \nstrong crying and tears. \n\nAt this point the discussion might terminate. \nThe principle of judgment in accordance with which \nthe destinies of men are determined we believe to \nbe that which has now been defined. As to the \ncondition of those who are finally condemned the \nBible gives only obscure hints and vague imagery, \nand we certainly have no heart to speculate on either \nthe surroundings or the feelings of the lost. As \nto the condition of the redeemed, we believe that \n\n1 The words " also, in the nature of the ease " have been \ninserted in the sentence as it was first printed in the Andover \nReview. The meaning without this clause is apparent as ex- \nplained by what immediately follows. But either through \nmisunderstanding or for some other reason the sentence has \nbeen detached from its connection and satirized by some writ- . \ners as if we had no stronger word to say even concerning \nthose to whom the gospel is preached in this life. The close \nof the paragraph is merely a secondary consideration, in ad- \ndition to the urgent motives to repentance already mentioned \nin the very same paragraph. \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 77 \n\nthey are with Christ and share his glory, probably \nwith more fullness after the day of judgment than \nduring the period between death and judgment. \nBut our present discussion, as we have already in- \ndicated, does not require detailed inquiry concern- \ning the blessedness of the saved. We could stop \nhere, but for a related question which has long per- \nplexed and disturbed believers. It is a question as \nto the judgment and the destiny of those to whom \nthe gospel is not made known while they are in \nthe body. We must continue the discussion, then, \nin order to consider, as it may seem to deserve, \nthis difficult question. It is, in our opinion, to be \nlooked on as an appended inquiry, rather than as \nan essential question for theology. Still it is not \nwanting either in practical or speculative impor- \ntance, and, at any rate, is at present much in dis- \npute. \n\nB. A Related Question. \n\nWhat is the fate of those millions to whom Christ \nis not made known, in this life, and of those gener- \nations who lived before the advent of Christ ? \n\nThis may, perhaps, be only a temporary question. \nThe time may come, we think will come, when all \nwill hear the messages of the gospel during the \nearthly lifetime, and will know the gospel so thor- \noughly that knowledge and corresponding oppor- \ntunity will be decisive. Then there will be less \noccasion for perplexity, as there will be no appar- \nent exclusion from those opportunities which at \npresent are given to only part of the great human \nfamily. \n\n\n\n78 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nThe question we have raised is not new. Nor \nare any of the proposed answers new, although \nsome of the reasoning is the outcome of a more \nprofound thought of the gospel than has been \ngained in preceding periods. An instructive les- \nson for impressing the difficulty of our inquiry is \na history of the various opinions which have been \nheld during the Christian centuries by honored \nleaders and revered saints ; such an historical \nsketch, for example, as Dean Plumptre gives in his \nrecent book entitled " The Spirits in Prison." No \nanswer which has yet been given is entirely free \nfrom objections. Every one, unless he declines to \naccept any solution, has an alternative before him, \nand must rest in that conclusion which seems to \nhim most nearly in accordance with the large mean- \ning of the gospel, and which is exposed to the few- \nest serious objections. Certainly any one should \nbe slow to condemn those whose opinions on this \nvexed subject do not agree with his own hypothe- \nsis. There is no explicit revelation as to the des- \ntiny of those who on earth have had no knowledge \nof Christ. Therefore any inference that is drawn \nfrom the doctrines of the gospel, and from the in- \nterpretation of incidental allusions of Scripture, \nmust be held with confession of some remaining \nignorance on the part of the reasoner. The theory \nwhich we shall advance presently is offered under \nthese conditions. \n\nThe answers which have thus far been proposed \nmay be reduced to three, the first of which is held \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 79 \n\nby only a few, while current opinion is for the most \npart divided between the other two. 1 \n\n1. The first theory is that the heathen are hope- \nlessly lost unless they have the gospel in its historic \nform during their life on earth. This is maintained \nboth from fact and from supposed necessity. It \nbeing assumed that there is no opportunity of re- \npentance after death, facts are pointed to as con- \nclusive, for as matter of notorious knowledge the \nheathen are universally corrupt, and die in their \nsins. Thus Professor Kellogg, in his article on \nFuture Probation, printed in the "Presbyterian \nReview " for April last, distinctly says : " Whether \nthis be true " (that the Spirit of God may renew \nthe hearts of men who have never heard of Christ), \n" we greatly doubt ; never among the heathen have \nwe ever met or heard of one meeting any person \nwho gave evidence of being born again before that \nthey had heard the gospel." The final condemna- \ntion of all heathen is also argued as of necessity. \nThe argument may be reduced to this form : there \nis no salvation except through Christ ; the heathen \nhave no knowledge of Christ ; therefore the heathen \nare to be cast into hell. Thus the article which we \nhave just quoted contains also the following decla- \nration : " The plain teaching of the Holy Scrip- \n\n1 The opinion that this question presents insuperable diffi- \nculty, and that we may trust the wise and merciful God to do \nwhat is right, presents, of course, no answer to be considered, \nsince it is only a confession of ignorance. In the last section \nof the book the agnostic position is briefly noticed. \n\n\n\n80 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntures is that while the heathen have not from the \nlight of nature light enough to save them, they do \nhave enough to condemn them." That is, if the \nlanguage means what it says, it is impossible for \nany of the heathen to escape from a sinful state, \nbut nevertheless they all are condemned to ever- \nlasting woe, on account of their sins. They need \nnot have been as sinful as they are, although they \nmust have been sinful in their essential character, \nand for this additional sin, which even with the \nlight they have they might have avoided, they are \nlost for ever and ever. \n\nThis theory is a terrible impeachment of the di- \nvine goodness, not to say justice. Is it like God \nto deal thus with men ? Will He leave them in \ntheir sins, without any possible means of salvation ? \nThe most inconsequent reasoning which leads to \nsome other conclusion is preferable to the inexor- \nable logic, if it be logic, which pushes on to this \nheartless, unchristian view. We do not wonder \nthat the writer we have quoted falls back on the \nsovereignty of God. He argues that it is incom- \nprehensible to us why the offers of grace are with- \nheld from a large portion of the race. God has \nmercy on whom He will have mercy, and we have \nno right to interpose our curious inquiries. But \nthe very question at issue is precisely this, whether \nGod does withhold the offers of grace from any of \nhis wandering children. It is not denied that the \nheathen are wicked and blameworthy, that they are \nmuch worse than they need to be, that they are \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 81 \n\nguilty before God to a very large degree, that the \ndispleasure of God is upon them, but it is denied \nthat God condemns men eternally for being in a \nstate of sin from which they have no power of es- \ncape. Missions can no longer be inspired by a \nmotive springing from such considerations. The \nheathen, it used to be said, are hopelessly lost un- \nless they have the gospel before they die. This \nawful impeachment of the God of grace, who so \nloved the world that He gave his only begotten Son \nfor its salvation, cannot be sustained. This cannot \nbe the whole truth. We must find some other \nanswer, or at least must conclude that we are in \npossession of only part of the facts. There is \nenough to inspire missions without resorting to a \nmotive which is contrary to our best conceptions of \nGod, and is opposed to the Christian sentiment \nwhich is the outgrowth of the gospel. We can- \nnot trust ourselves to characterize a theory which \nwould consign millions of mankind to everlasting \nwoe only for fear that some triflers in Christian \nlands should fancy they could defer till after death \ntheir repenting and believing. It is enough to \nsay that this theory is fast disappearing from all \nbranches of the Christian church, although the ar- \nticle we have referred to is given a place in a Pres- \nbyterian quarterly, and is indorsed with unqualified \napprobation in the columns of a Congregational \nreview. 1 We do not believe that the editors of the \n" Presbyterian Review " could agree in accepting, \n1 Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1885, pp. 573-575. \n\n\n\n82 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nnor that clergymen of the Presbyterian Church \ncould concur in maintaining the view that " while \nthe heathen have not from the light of nature light \nenough to save them, they do have enough to con- \ndemn them." This theory is only a restatement of \nthe doctrine of arbitrary election and reprobation. \n\nWe turn, then, to the theories which remain, and \nwhich find a larger number of adherents. One of \nthese theories is that salvation is possible without \nany knowledge of the gospel, and yet by reason of \nthe gospel ; the other, that saving knowledge of the \ngospel may be given after death to those who in \nthis life do not obtain it. \n\n2. The former of these theories, and the theory \nwhich is the second answer we are to consider, \nwhile not destitute of support, is obliged to confront \nsome serious objections, practical as well as theo- \nretical. And if, as we shall find, it covers only \nexceptional cases, the grave problem remains un- \nsolved. The theory attempts to guard the beliefs \nthat salvation is possible without knowledge of the \ngospel, and that it is thus possible during the \nearthly life. In addition, it is maintained by some \nthat this salvation, although obtained without knowl- \nedge of the gospel, is essentially by means of the \ngospel. We must take space and patience to as- \ncertain how much this theory accomplishes towards \na satisfactory explanation of the difficulty before \nwhich it stands. \n\nAppeal is taken to facts. A few exceptional \nindividuals, scattered among the mass of heathen, \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 83 \n\nseem to show that salvation is possible without \nknowledge of the gospel. Socrates, Cato, Aure- \nlius, Buddha, and others seem to have had the \ncharacteristics of Christians. A pure and lofty \npersonage is occasionally found among the unchris- \ntian peoples to-day who, we cannot help thinking, \nis accepted of God. Such facts Scripture confirms, \nit is maintained. In every nation, says the apostle \nPeter, he that feareth God and worketh righteous- \nness is acceptable to Him. The account of judg- \nment given by Matthew leaves the impression that \nsome, because they were humane and benevolent, \nare saved, although they did not know their service \nwas really to Christ. Also, it is argued, and with \njustice, before the time of Christ, Abraham and \nmultitudes of his descendants were saved by faith, \nand, of course, without knowledge of Christ. These \nconsiderations would seem to establish the possibil- \nity of salvation without knowledge of the gospel, \nand to show that the workings of God\'s grace are \nnot limited to the revelation made in Christ. \n\nIt should not be forgotten, however, that these \nare exceptional cases. The possibility of salvation \nunder these conditions seldom becomes reality. \nThe vast majority of the heathen die in sin. Paul, \nas Professor Kellogg clearly shows, does not ad- \nmit the exceptions, but declares that all the heathen \nare under condemnation. The great apostle admits \nthat if they were righteous they would be approved \nof God, but is careful to state that as matter of \nfact they are not obedient ; that all have sinned and \n\n\n\n84 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ncome short of the glory of God. It has also been \nheld very generally that the exceptional personages, \nif there are any, are probably brought after death \nto knowledge of Christ. Socrates, it has often \nbeen said, would have been a Christian if he had \nknown of Christ. It has been supposed that the \nexceptional virtuous characters were peculiarly re- \nceptive of Christ, and probably after death had for \ntheir completion the knowledge which was lacking \nwhile they were on earth. Plato has often been \nrepresented as meeting Christ and worshiping Him \nin the world of spirits. The view, when it is thus \nenlarged, seems to be that some at death are still \ncapable of redemption, and that they will not fail \nof it, but will have the knowledge which is nec- \nessary to salvation, a view not essentially unlike \nthat which will be presently considered. A great \nmultitude not so blameless as Socrates and Buddha \nmay still be capable of redemption, as, indeed, \nproves to be the case when the gospel is preached \nto them during the earthly life. If it is main- \ntained that the number of those who are accepted \nof God is not small, but that there are many vota- \nries of religion seeking earnestly towards God ac- \ncording to the light they have, and who constitute \na better element in every nation, what is really be- \nlieved is that they are on the way to clearer knowl- \nedge, and that they will know God in Jesus Christ. \nIt is not held that no more is necessary and that \nthey will have no further knowledge, but that they \nwill be saved, in the true meaning of salvation, \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 85 \n\nthrough the knowledge of Christ. That knowl- \nedge, in the nature of the case, will be given after \nthey die. \n\nAs to Abraham and his descendants, the instance \nis clearly exceptional. They had more than the \nlight of nature. They had a special revelation \nfrom God concerning his righteousness and mercy. \nThey knew of redemption on condition of penitence \nand faith. Their knowledge of God, although ob- \nscure, was in many respects the knowledge given \nafterwards more fully by Christ. And, while their \nsalvation proves that knowledge of the historic \nChrist was not absolutely necessary, still they were \nrecipients of that which was preparatory to the gos- \npel and directly predictive of it. And, besides, it \nhas always been believed that for the completeness \nof their redemption they had clearer knowledge, \nafter death, of God\'s love revealed in Christ. It \nhas even been held by some that the patriarchs and \nprophets waited for their full salvation until Christ \nhad actually appeared on earth to realize the love \nof God to mankind, somewhat as the early martyrs \nare represented in the Apocalypse as waiting and \npraying for the triumphs of the Redeemer, without \nwhich they could not be satisfied. It is, indeed, \ndeclared that those who were saved under the old \ncovenant received not the promise, God having pro- \nvided some better thing for us, that they apart \nfrom us (of the new covenant) should not be made \nperfect. The instances cited, then, are exceptional \n\xe2\x80\x94 a few virtuous heathen, and they, perhaps, only \n\n\n\n86 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nreceptive of salvation but not actually regenerate, \nand the Jews who were under a special revelation \nwhich was preparatory to Christ, and which the \nheathen world did not share. To show that there \nare many who would accept Christ if they knew \nhim is not to show that they are saved by the light \nof nature, but would rather go far to establish the \nopinion that they will know Christ after they die. \nFrom exceptions it is not satisfactory to argue to \ngeneral conclusions. The practical difficulty re- \nmains, after all exceptions are admitted, that the \nlight of nature does not suffice for salvation in any \ncomparison with the light of the gospel ; that the \nreligions of the world, in the very broadest view, \nmust be looked on only as preparatory to the gos- \nv pel ; that as matter of fact the heathen die in their \nsins, condemned indeed for much sin they might \nhave avoided, but yet practically without the means \nof salvation from a sinful state. If this possibility, \nso seldom realized, is a satisfactory solution of the \ndark problem, it will, of course, be admitted that \ntheir probation is limited to this life. If this is all \nthat God in his love and righteousness does for \na large and thus far the vastly larger portion of \nthe race and yet gives the gospel to others, then, \ncertainly, he offers to them all he has to offer while \nthey are in the body. In apparent inconsistency \nwith this view, its advocates are sometimes heard \nsaying that God will do all that can be done for \nthe salvation of every one of his children. \n\nFor practical purposes this explanation is not \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 87 \n\nmuch better than that which preceded it. Accord- \ning to either view, the immense majority of men \ndie in their sins without hope of salvation. The \nonly advantage of the theory that salvation is pos- \nsible under the light of nature is that it is not \nquite as difficult to vindicate the divine justice in \ncondemning those who are disobedient. But the \nground gained is scarcely appreciable, and, besides, \nwe have reason to believe that God\'s dealings with \nmen will vindicate his goodness and mercy as w r ell \nas his strict justice. Indeed, justice, as was pointed \nout in the discussion of the Atonement, is the guard- \nian of all the attributes, and therefore does not pro- \nnounce the first, but rather the final, word. \n\nBut this theory is still further attenuated to mean \nthat the knowledge under which it is possible for \nmen to be saved who never hear of Christ is " es- \nsentially " knowledge of the gospel. There is no \nessential difference, it is said, between the knowl- \nedge of duty and therefore of God, which reason \nand conscience give, and the knowledge of duty \nand of God which the gospel gives. It is argued \nthat the mutual relations of men in society make \nobligatory the law of love to man, and inferen- \ntially of love to God, and that the gospel gives no \nother law, even if it enunciates that law more \nclearly ; that therefore conscientious heathen, liv- \ning up to the knowledge they have, are actually \nsaved through Christ and his atonement, although \nthey have no knowledge of the actual Christ, nor \nof his sacrifice for the sins of the world. \n\n\n\n88 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nNow, this reasoning, if it may so be called, is \nevidently resorted to in order to make the theory \nagree with the accepted view that salvation from \nsin and reconciliation to God are possible only \nthrough Christ. It is indeed true, but that is not \nwhat this explanation means, that God\'s relation to \nthe entire race in all the generations is other than \nit would be but for Christ. A race into which \nChrist is incorporated is not dealt with by God as \nit would be otherwise. Thus, while the work of \nChrist was not as yet accomplished, God exercised \nforbearance for the sins of the past. It is also true \nthat the great religions are suited to prepare the \nway for Christianity in some such sense as Juda- \nism was related to the gospel. God, we believe, is \neducating all the nations towards the gospel. But \nthe theory we are considering is of quite another \nsort. It is that the knowledge gained by reason \nand conscience is practically equivalent to the \nknowledge gained through the gospel ; not as clear, \nbut the same ; less advantageous, but really identi- \ncal. It is true enough that Christianity is har- \nmonious with reason, and commends itself to the \nrational and moral convictions. It is also certain \nthat so much truth concerning God as reason can \ndiscover is an essential part of Christianity. But \nbecause the less is part of the greater it is not \ntherefore essentially the same. Christianity is a \nsource of knowledge concerning God which is not \ngiven by the external universe nor by the constitu- \ntion of man, but only by Christ. Because reason \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 89 \n\ncomprehends this larger revelation when it is given, \nit does not follow that reason is capable of discov- \nering unaided the truths which are made known \nonly in the gospel of Christ. This extension of the \ntheory we decidedly oppose. From its premises \nsome of the most mischievous and dangerous op- \npositions to Christ have proceeded. It certainly \nhas no special claim as being sound and orthodox. \nWe consider it unevangelical and rationalistic, for \nit disparages the importance and denies the neces- \nsity of historical Christianity. It is perilously \nakin, in its postulates, to the Deism of the last cen- \ntury, which maintained that the knowledge of rea- \nson and the commands of conscience are sufficient, \nand which held Christianity to be not a supernat- \nural redemption, but only a superior system of \nmoral teaching. If the knowledge of the heathen \nis essentially Christianity, then Christianity, essen- \ntially, is little more than the knowledge of right \nand wrong, and all that men need is a clear knowl- \nedge of that which is morally obligatory. But \nChristianity is both superior and distinctive. The \ngospel not only admits, but assumes and insists \nthat men know the difference between right and \nwrong. The ethical teaching of Christianity, there- \nfore, is not unlike other codes of ethics, except as \nit is more clearly and comprehensively enunciated, \nand more beautifully exemplified in the life of \nJesus. What men lack is not the knowledge, but \nthe power of goodness. The gospel comes to men \nwho know the right but are in bondage under sin \n\n\n\n90 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY \n\nand exposed to the necessary consequences ; and it \nis a power of deliverance from sin, the power of a \nnew life. The gospel, therefore, is not so much \nsomething taught as something done; a great di- \nvine work wrought out in actual history, under the \nknowledge and power of which men are brought \ninto a new and holy life. Christianity is not an \nethics, but a redemption. It is not man seeking \nGod by the obscure light of reason and the prompt- \nings of conscience, which is the search of men in all \nthe idolatries of heathendom, but it is God seek- \ning man in the person and atoning work of Jesus \nChrist, his only Son our Lord. Jesus said to Nic- \nodemus that the need of moral renewal is well \nknown without a revelation, that it is a thing of \nearthly knowledge. But man could never know \nby reason or conscience the heavenly thing that \nGod so loved the world as to give his only begotten \nSon that whosoever believeth on Him should not \nperish, but have everlasting life. That God real- \nizes his love in Jesus Christ, and energizes through \nHim for the redemption of sinners, is the gospel, \nand this is not " essentially " the same as the grop- \ning of men after God, who has not so revealed him- \nself unto them. This dangerous theory puts the \ngospel on a level with other religions, and gives it \na precarious position. Reduced to a syllogism, the \ntheory may be summarized thus : Men cannot be \nsaved except through Christ and his gospel ; men \ncan be saved who never heard of Christ and his \ngospel ; therefore, the knowledge men have by na- \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 91 \n\nture is really the gospel of which they never heard. \nThe major premiss is almost universally accepted. \nIt is Professor Kellogg\'s postulate, and it is also \nours. But the proposition which has been slipped \nin under the guise of a minor premiss is really a \nflat contradiction of the major, while the conclusion \nis far out on the road in company with forms of \nunbelief which were long ago driven out in defeat \nand shame. \n\nHas it come to this, that within evangelical cir- \ncles the battle must be fought again on the old \nissue between natural and revealed religion ? Must \nour brethren, " whom we love while we deplore \ntheir error," again be held back from accepting \nthe opinion that Christianity is only a system of \nmoral teaching ? Evidently the theory, in this \nform of it, is open to serious objection, since it \nthreatens to undermine the foundations of the gos- \npel, by ignoring its distinctive character as a re- \ndemption from sin. \n\nApart also from the tendency of this rationalistic \ntheory to reduce Christianity from its unique posi- \ntion, the practical result apparently would be to \n" cut the nerve of missions," for the theory is, first, \nthat the heathen can be saved without the gospel, \nand, second, that they already have the gospel, \xe2\x80\x94 \nessentially. Therefore, while it may be desirable \nand commendable to send the gospel with its clearer \nlight, no imperative necessity is laid on the church \nto proclaim Christ to the heathen. \n\nWe think it will be admitted that no one would \n\n\n\n92 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ndream of saying that the heathen have the gospel \nin any real sense unless he must think so in order \nto escape some other conclusion which he has be- \nforehand determined to reject, no matter what vio- \nlence is done to reason, and even to a correct con- \nception of Christianity, to say nothing of common \nsense. Who, contemplating the heathen on the one \nhand as they really are, and pondering the divine \nand saving significance of the gospel on the other \nhand, believes that in any practical or even intelli- \ngible sense the heathen have the gospel ? It would \nbe better to take refuge in a confession of absolute \nignorance, or tb hide in the ambiguity of " uncov- \nenanted mercies." \n\nWe have dwelt at some length on this theory, \npartly because it is just now somewhat in vogue, \nand also because those who hold it denounce in \nsevere terms others who are better satisfied with a \ndifferent explanation. We do not deny liberty to \nany one to entertain this opinion, although it seems \nto us foreign to the most obvious characteristics of \nthe gospel, because we admit the problem to be a \ndark and difficult one, at the best ; but we cannot \nrefrain from expressing surprise that the adherents . \nof a view which is manifestly open to grave objec- \ntions and serious inconsistencies should be horrified \nat others who do not happen to agree with them in \nreference to a question which has always been per- \nplexing, and to which no answer yet given is en- \ntirely free from objections. \n\nThis theory has little advantage over that first \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 93 \n\nnoticed. According to that, the heathen must be \nlost. According to this, it has to be admitted that \nthe overwhelming majority are lost. A possibility \nwhich does not rise into any appreciable realiza- \ntion fails to remove the difficulty. When this pos- \nsibility is still further reduced by the attempt to \nprove that it is the gospel in another form, earnest \ninquiry is almost insulted. Such explanation in- \ncreases the perplexity which it pretends to relieve. \nWe are still confronted by the problem. Is there \nany other hypothesis which affords light ? Can no \nmore be said than that God will do what is right, \nand we must leave all in his hands ? Have we no \nreason to expect, in this life, a more definite expla- \nnation ? \n\n3. The conclusion which most naturally suggests \nitself is that those who do not know of God\'s love \nin Christ while they are in the body will have \nknowledge of Christ after death. This answer \ncertainly has the merit of simplicity and intelligi- \nbleness. If it is true, then every one will have a \nreal knowledge of the gospel, and at the day of \njudgment will be approved or condemned in view \nof his acceptance or rejection of Christ, who, either \nbefore or after death, but before the final judgment, \nhad been made known as the Redeemer from sin. \nThere would still remain the mystery of that free- \ndom which makes it possible to reject Christ, a \nmystery which remains on any supposition, but \nthere would be relief in the thought that no one \nwill perish without clear and sufficient knowledge \n\n\n\n94 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nof the Saviour. But the apparent obviousness of \nthis conclusion may be a reason for suspecting it. \nAnd we certainly have to inquire if it does not in- \nvolve other difficulties so serious that it is better to \nattempt no solution whatever, but again to confess \nignorance. \n\nThis theory is opposed for two reasons. It is \nsaid to be destitute of Scriptural sanction, and to be \nunsafe. We must consider, then, such passages of \nScripture as relate to our question, and afterwards \nnotice what maybe called the prudential objections. \n\nIt is urged that Scripture not only does not sus- \ntain, but that it is clearly opposed to the theory. \nIt is to be noted on this point that the passages \nwhich have a direct bearing are very few, that \nthose which are used inf erentially are about equally \nbalanced, as many looking one way as the other, \nand that there is wide diversity of opinion concern- \ning the interpretation of all the passages in question. \nProfessor Kellogg may be trusted to have collected \nall the passages which he thinks are decisive as \nagainst the theory we are now considering. After \ndiligent search we can discover only two such pas- \nsages in his article, nor have we ever been able to \ndiscover others in the New Testament which can \neven be claimed as unequivocal. \n\nOne is the reminder of the apostle to the Corin- \nthians that before the judgment seat of Christ they \nwill receive the things done in the body. But this \npassage is limited in its reference to those who \nhave heard the gospel, and it is not legitimate to \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 95 \n\nstretch it to a universal application. This limita- \ntion has the sanction of eminent scholars, and is ad- \nmitted by some who reject the idea of future pro- \nbation for the heathen. The passage, then, is not \ndecisive. Singularly enough Professor Kellogg \ndoes not use it in that portion of his article which \ndeals with our specific question, but in the more \ngeneral discussion of a probation for all men. It \nis worthy of remark that no other passage distinctly \nrefers to the bodily life in relation to judgment. \n\nThe only other passage which is claimed as ex- \nplicit and decisive is in the second chapter of Ro- \nmans, where Paul says that as many as have sinned \nwithout law shall also perish without law. But even \nthis statement, direct as it seems, is found in the \nmidst of a discussion the aim of which is to show \nthat all men have absolute need of the gospel ; \nthat for Gentile and Jew alike there is no hope \napart from the gospel ; that all men by reason of \ntheir sins are shut up to the gospel ; that the na- \ntions left to themselves would perish ; having not \nthe law they would perish notwithstanding, as the \nJews having the law would perish notwithstanding. \nThe apostle was describing the actual present con- \ndition of Gentiles and Jews, to show that there is \nuniversal need of the gospel. And at the end of \nthe same sentence he affirms that all men at last \nare to be judged " according to my gospel by Jesus \nChrist." What is clear is the apostle\'s teaching \nthat there is no salvation except through the gospel \nof Christ. It is not as clear, it is indeed doubtful, \n\n\n\n96 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nif he was thinking of the limits of time within which \nthe gospel might be presented. \n\nWe have reached the end so far as passages are \nconcerned which are claimed to have immediate \nrelation to our inquiry. Every one must judge \nwhether these verses, taken separately or together, \nare so unequivocal as to establish the certainty that \nthere is no hope for the heathen after death. There \nremain passages which are employed inferentially. \nSome of these look one way and some the other, \nand they are few at the most. \n\nThe parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not \nin point ; if for no other reason, because Dives and \nhis brethren had Moses and the prophets. They \nhad the exceptional advantages of the revelation \nmade to the Jews. They were not heathen. \n\nThe case of Cornelius is more pertinent, inas- \nmuch as he was a Gentile, and is said to have been \nacceptable to God before he had the gospel. But \nif not a Jewish proselyte, he was so impressed by \nhis knowledge of Judaism that he contributed lib- \nerally for its support. The history of the man is \nrelated to show how Peter was convinced that the \ngospel would find reception among the Gentiles as \nwell as among the Jews. Above all, it was of the \nutmost importance that the gospel should be \npreached to Cornelius, who when he had believed \non Christ was a very different man from Cornelius \nwithout Christ. \n\nPaul\'s question in the tenth chapter of Romans, \n" How shall they believe in Him of whom they \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 97 \n\nhave not heard, and how shall they hear without a \npreacher," is appealed to by Professor Kellogg as \nshowing that " if the heathen are to be saved, they \nmust hear of Christ from the living preacher." He \nargues that Paul was not thinking of " missionary \nwork in Hades." Probably not. But can it be \nclaimed that Paul was doing more than to state the \nconditions of salvation ? In order to be saved, men \nmust have actual knowledge of Christ. Paul\'s in- \nquiry, " How shall they believe in Him of whom they \nhave not heard," at any rate seems fatal to the \ntheory of salvation through the essential Christ as \ndistinguished from the historical Christ. It is a \nremote inference from his urgency to carry the \ngospel to living men that those who die without \nknowledge of Christ are hopelessly lost. \n\nA passage which seems to bear strongly on this \nquestion is that in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, \n" It is appointed unto men once to die, and after \nthis the judgment; " but if it means that death, as \nwe believe, is a great crisis, it seems to mean also \nthat judgment is the other great crisis for every \nman. It is silent concerning the period between \ndeath and judgment. \n\nWe have now come to the end of passages used \ninferentially as against the theory under consider- \nation. That there are no more, and that there are \nfew also to favor the theory, is what might be ex- \npected, inasmuch as the Bible is naturally occupied \nwith those, and addresses itself to those to whom \nits gospel is given, but does not discuss the con- \n\n\n\n98 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ndition of those to whom it is not given. The Bible \nis practical rather than speculative. \n\nWhat, now, are the passages which are thought \nto give encouragement to hope for the heathen ? \n\nOne of these passages is Peter\'s allusion in the \nthird chapter of his epistle to Christ\'s preaching to \nthe spirits in prison. The preponderating conclu- \nsion of scholarship is that Christ appeared in the \nabode of the dead between his crucifixion and res- \nurrection. That his message was other than the \ngospel, least of all that it was an exultant condem- \nnation of the lost, we find it impossible to believe. \nThe inference is natural, though not necessary, that \nif Christ preached to the contemporaries of Noah, \nthe wickedest of former generations, his gospel is \nalso made known to the heathen nations who have \nhad even less than the warnings of Noah. The be- \nlief of the ancient church, a belief which has held \nits ground till the present time, that Christ de- \nscended into Hades, is a legitimate inference from \nPeter\'s teaching, taken in connection with Paul\'s \nparenthetical question in the fourth chapter of \nEphesians, " Now this, he ascended, what is it but \nthat he also descended into the lower parts of the \nearth? He that descended is the same also that \nascended far above all the heavens." \n\nEven more significant is 1 Peter iv. 5, 6 : " Who \nshall give account to him that is ready to judge the \nquick and the dead. For unto this end was the \ngospel preached even to the dead, that they might \nbe judged according to men in the flesh, but live ac- \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 99 \n\ncording to God in the spirit." Here it is expressly \ntaught that, in order to make the judgment uni- \nversal, the gospel was preached to all the dead as \nwell as to the living. There is the identical con- \nnection of thought which we have indicated. Judg- \nment by Christ is preceded by the preaching of \nthe gospel to the living and the dead. The passage \nis unequivocal. It can no longer be maintained \nthat the dead referred to are the spiritually dead, \nor that any others are meant than all the dead of \nformer generations. Both the fifth and the sixth \nverses have the same general application to all the \ndead. And the very object of preaching the gospel \nto them is that they might be judged in the way \naccording to which all men are judged in respect \nto the life in the flesh, but might yet in the way \ncharacteristic of God have opportunity to live in \nthe spirit. The interpretation of Professor Kellogg \nthat the preaching to the dead was to the martyrs \nwho are now dead but who heard the gospel when \nalive is too fanciful to deserve serious consideration. \nAnother passage is that in the gospels concern- \ning the sin against the Holy Ghost, which shall not \nbe forgiven, neither in this world nor in that which \nis to come. These words of Jesus do not affirm \nthat any sins will be forgiven in the world which \nis to come ; but the inference is natural from his \nsolemn declaration that the sin against the Holy \nGhost cannot be forgiven in the world to come, \nthat other sins may be forgiven hereafter. And, \ninasmuch as this sin is generally thought to be no \n\n\n\n100 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nother than the willful rejection of Christ, the in- \nference is still more natural. It is possible, how- \never, that Christ meant only to speak strongly, and \nwas employing an "emphasized negative." Pro- \nfessor Kellogg argues that the world to come was, \nin the opinion of the Jews, to begin with the res- \nurrection, and that Christ had no reference to an \nage between death and resurrection, but to an age \nfollowing the intermediate state. If we correctly \nunderstand this explanation, the inference would \nbe that all sins can be forgiven all the way on up \nto the resurrection ; that is, in this age or world ; \nand possibly, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, \nin the period which is ushered in by and follows \nthe resurrection. This explanation the professor \nesteems better and more precisely pertinent to the \npresent issue than the " emphasized negative " the- \nory, or the "turning rhetoric into logic "theory. \n\nAgain, if the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon are \nto be condemned to everlasting woe, in what sense \ncan their judgment be more tolerable than that of \nChorazin and Bethsaida ? If Sodom, with the \nknowledge of Christ, would not have been over- \nthrown, and if Tyre and Sidon would have re- \npented, can we believe that the knowledge of Christ \nwill forever be withheld from them ? And is it \ncertain that our Lord had in mind more than the \ntemporal calamities to which those cities had been \nexposed by reason of their sins ? Was he think- \ning of the everlasting destiny of all the individuals \nwho dwelt in them ? \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 101 \n\nIn more than one place Christ is spoken of as \nthe Lord of the living and the dead, as if his \npower is not absent from the abodes of the dead. \n\nThe only remaining passage is the account in the \ntwenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, where judgment \nis based on humane and benevolent works, \xe2\x80\x94 such \nas feeding the hungry and visiting the sick. It \nwould seem to favor the second theory, especially \nthe form of it which argues for the essential Christ. \nBut some suppose that all those there described \nmust have had the knowledge of Christ, since they \nat that time know who He is ; others, that their \nsurprise is in seeing that many works they had done \nwere really for Christ ; others, that saving faith \nexpresses itself in conduct ; but Professor Kellogg \nhas relieved us from the necessity of explaining \nthe passage, for he is positive it is not an account \nof the general judgment, but only of the judgment \nof those who at the time of the second coming of \nChrist will be found living, and that all these will \nhave had the gospel preached to them. \n\nWe do not recall any other passages pertinent to \nour inquiry, either directly or indirectly. Infer- \nences from the resurrection of Lazarus and of the \nwidow\'s son, and from their subsequent opportu- \nnities, have always appeared to us very shadowy. \n\nIn admitting that there are few specific passages \nwhich relate to the subject, we would not imply that \nScripture does not strongly support our position, \nbut only that few passages are found which make \nexplicit statements. But is any teaching of the \n\n\n\n102 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nBible more unmistakable than that the world to \nits every individual is to be judged by Christ, and \nthat Christ was offered for the sins of the whole \nworld? The Scriptures plainly teach the univer- \nsality of Christ\'s work in its intent, its application, \nand its consummation. The burden of proof, even \non the Scriptural side, rests upon those who aver \nthat any portion of the race is excluded from the \nprivileges of the gospel. It is not incumbent on \nus to quote Scripture which shall show that the \nheathen do have the gospel before they are judged. \nIt is incumbent on those who oppose our view to \nquote Scripture which shall show that the heathen \ndo not have the gospel before they are judged. \nBut even in view of specific passages, although \nthey are few, we claim that no one of them is de- \ncisive against the hope which may be entertained \nfor the heathen, while there are others, especially \nthose in the epistle of Peter, which may fairly be \nclaimed to favor that hope. \n\nThe objections which are urged most strenu- \nously against the hypothesis of future probation \nfor the heathen are prudential. The consequences \nof such a hope are held to be dangerous. If it is \nadmitted, so the argument runs, that there are any \nwho may have opportunity after death, will not the \nhope be encouraged that some in Christian lands \nwill also have such opportunity ? Many are ready \nto say that they have not had a fair chance here ; \nand as men are so prone to delay, they will be more \nsecure than ever. We do not deny that there is \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 103 \n\nforce in this consideration. Such misuse might \nbe made of the breadth of the gospel. Men defer \nrepentance for various insufficient reasons, presum- \ning too much on the mercy of God, or on the more \nconvenient season. But we do not accept this ob- \njection as conclusive against the theory. It is diffi- \ncult to judge of the usefulness of a particular be- \nlief. No one can tell how many are hardened \nagainst the gospel because the opinion has been ad- \nvanced that all the heathen are hopelessly lost. \nPerhaps the harm done by encouraging delay would \nbe more than offset by the harm done through nar- \nrow conceptions of the love of God. It is certain \nthat many have been prejudiced against the gospel \nby representations of God which make Him a se- \nvere and tyrannical Sovereign. It is certain that \nconscientious, intelligent men have shrunk from \nidentifying themselves with a church and from em- \nbracing a religion whose God leaves the vast ma- \njority of the race without opportunity of salvation. \nThere is danger on both sides, and it is impossible \nto decide on which side it is greater. \n\nAnother prudential objection is that the motive \nof missions is weakened. Urgency to send the \ngospel abroad will be reduced, if it is believed that \nthe heathen can be saved after death. We deny \nthat this is the main motive of missions. Christ\'s \ncommand is explicit and urgent. The glory of his \nkingdom requires the propagation of the gospel. \nBut it is a question which has not been sufficiently \nconsidered, what the effect is likely to be with the \n\n\n\n104 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nheathen themselves, if this or that opinion is held. \nThe regard of the heathen in many nations for an- \ncestors is known to be almost their religion. Who \nis prepared to say that it would be safer to tell the \nChinese and Japanese that there is no hope for any \nof their ancestors, than to admit or even teach that \nin other worlds the same Christ may be offered to \nthem who is offered now to their descendants ? \nThe gospel is not limited to the Western nations. \nChristianity is to be Asiatic and African, as well \nas European and American. God\'s dealing with \nthe nations which have long been in darkness is \nnot determined by the false hopes which some who \nhave heard the gospel all their lives may cherish, \nand which they all the time know are not well \nfounded. We do not consent to argue the ques- \ntion on prudential grounds. These reasons have \nbeen mentioned only to show how inconclusive they \nare, and that there is much to be said on both sides \nfrom any such point of view. \n\nTo escape from a dilemma, it is surmised by \nsome that, not after death, but at the moment of \ndeath, clearer knowledge may be obtained. It is \nurged that at that supreme moment the veil of flesh \nno longer obscures, and a sudden illumination may \nbe vouchsafed. Perhaps this is true, though such \nindications as are given do not show that the mind \nis usually active at the moment of dissolution. But \nthis hypothesis is open to all the prudential objec- \ntions which are urged against enlightenment after \ndeath. If it is believed that at death knowledge is \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 105 \n\nclearer and motive stronger, men will wait for so \nfavorable an opportunity. If the heathen at death \nwill or may receive knowledge which they do not \nhave before, the urgency of missions is reduced \nquite as surely as if it is thought such knowledge \nwill be given after death. This hypothesis also \nlacks the least vestige of Scriptural support. \n\nOur view is, then, that God will reveal himself \nin Christ to all men. Those who have the gospel \nwhile they are in the body are in the decisive pe- \nriod. Neither Scripture nor the observed tendency \nof character to become permanently fixed, especially \nunder the gospel, afford any reason to hope that a \nmore favorable, or, indeed, any opportunity will be \ngiven after death. But for those who do not know \nGod in Christ during the earthly life, it seems to \nus probable that the knowledge they need will be \ngiven after death. At the same time we are not \nas positive concerning the times, seasons, or cir- \ncumstances under which God will reveal himself in \nChrist, as we are that the principle is of universal \napplication : that no man will be finally judged till \nhe knows God in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and \nthat no man will be hopelessly condemned except \nfor the willful and final rejection of Christ. The \nsin against the Holy Ghost, which is thought to be \nthat hostility to Christ which makes one incapable \nof redemption, is the only sin for which we are ex- \nplicitly told there is no forgiveness in any world or \nage. \n\nIf it is said that it is useless to present Christ to \n\n\n\n106 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nmany of the heathen because they are so corrupt \nthat they would not accept Him, it must be replied \nthat no one can be sure of that ; that the same \ncould be said of many in Christian lands ; that it \nwould amount to believing that the gospel is pre- \nsented in earnest only to those who are sure to ac- \ncept it ; and that this view is either Universalism \non the one side, or the old doctrine of arbitrary \nelection and reprobation on the other. Our belief \nis, that somewhere and sometime God will reveal \nhimself to every one in the face of Jesus Christ, \nand that the destiny of each and all is determined \nby the personal relation to Christ. If we did not \nbelieve this, Christianity would no longer be for us \nthe universal religion, and the teaching that Christ \nis Son of Man, the universal man, the Head of hu- \nmanity, would be robbed of its significance. \n\nThat man even in another world can refuse the \nproffers of grace is in accordance with that freedom \nand responsibility which are always and everywhere \nboth the glory and mystery of rational, moral be- \ning, and which create no greater perplexity of \nthought in the case of the rejection of Christ after \ndeath than in the case of the rejection of Christ be- \nfore death. \n\nIt is customary to argue from the present ex- \nistence of sin and evil in the world to the probability \nthat it may continue forever, and that some may \nbe lost who never had even the opportunity of sal- \nvation. How, it is asked, can we reconcile it with \nthe goodness of God that He should create a world \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 107 \n\nin which sin and suffering should be present for \nages ? How, then, can we decide any of these dark \nquestions from our opinion of what God might be \nexpected to do ? We submit that the argument is \nirrelevant. If sin is at length to disappear entirely, \nthere would be mental relief, and its existence now \nwould not be so mysterious. The temporary pres- \nence of sin presents no such problem as the ever- \nlasting presence of sin. The argument is one of \nthe weakest to bring against the doctrine of universal \nrestoration. So if the heathen, at present corrupt \nand ignorant, are at length to be enlightened and \nto have space for repentance, the problem is entirely \ndifferent from that which confronts us on the sup- \nposition that from their very birth they are doomed \nto everlasting woe. The existence of sin, which \ncannot be escaped nor overcome, is infinitely more \nperplexing to thought than the existence of sin from \nwhich redemption is to be made possible. That \nGod permits sin at all is indeed mysterious, but \nthe mystery darkens if the majority of the race can \nnever by any possibility be delivered from it. \n\nIt may be thought by some that the question we \nhave been discussing is not of the first importance. \nAnd it is true that, taken by itself, apart from the \nprinciples to which it is related, it cannot be con- \nsidered one of the fundamental questions. That \nis to say, one\'s opinion concerning the opportuni- \nties of the heathen after death is of secondary con- \nsequence as compared with his opinion concerning \nthe Person of Christ and other cardinal doctrines. \n\n\n\n108 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nIt is also admitted that on the practical side it \nshould not have the prominence of other subjects. \nThe preacher of the gospel has little or no occasion \nto argue his opinion publicly. When the gospel is \nactually presented it is urgent for immediate accept- \nance with those whom it addresses. In preaching \nthere is almost no occasion to debate with hearers \nthe prospects of those less fortunate than them- \nselves. But the opinion one has on this subject is \nof great consequence, when it is considered as an \nindication of his conception of the gospel of Christ. \nEven the preacher, from whose serious functions \nthis apparently speculative question seems remote, \nis affected in the tone, the breadth, the influence \nof his preaching by the thought he has of the ex- \ntent and significance of God\'s love to men as it is \nrevealed in Christ. And for the theologian, indeed \nfor every one who ponders deeply God\'s gracious \ndealings with sinful men, it makes a vast difference \nwhether he holds that cruel conception of God \nwhich means that vast multitudes of his children \ncan by no possibility be saved, or that narrow con- \nception of God which means that the gospel is little \nmore than the light of the unaided reason of mis- \nguided men, or that conception of God which recog- \nnizes the universality of the gospel of redemption \nand the supreme significance of the final judgment, \nand which means that God will not withhold from \nany of his children that knowledge and motive \nwhich alone are able to save them from their sins. \nWe do not think it necessary, therefore, to claim \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. 109 \n\nliberty in holding our opinion as among the opin- \nions which have been advanced, inasmuch as this \nopinion finds more support than contradiction from \nScripture, makes the gospel universal in fact, no \nlonger leaving that enormous exception which thus \nfar includes the large majority of mankind, and \nwhich restores to its complete value the significance \nof judgment through Christ. We both demand \nliberty to hold it, and decline to admit superior \northodoxy on the part of those who hold another \nopinion, which is open to the most serious theoret- \nical and practical objections. We are unable to \ndiscover any more piety in representing God as a \nBeing who creates millions of men to whom He \nnever offers the means of salvation, than in repre- \nsenting God as a Being who will bring all men to \nthe knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. \n\nThe vital issue of the day, old and yet ever new, \nis an issue beside which the question we have been \nconsidering seems to be of secondary importance, \nyet with which it is closely related. The real issue \nis between Christianity as a supernatural redemption \nand mere naturalism. Can Christianity be main- \ntained at the point where its adherents place it ? \nCan the doctrine be made good that Christ is a rev- \nelation from God, and the supreme, final, universal \nrevelation? Is he more than Jesus of Nazareth, \nthe teacher and founder of one religion among \nmany religions? Can all the attempts that are \nmade to reduce the significance of the Person and \nwork of Christ be successfully resisted ? Do we \n\n\n\n110 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nstand on firm ground in passing over from the \nJesus of history to the Christ of faith? The \nmovement of Christian thought with which we \nsympathize signifies, in its deepest meaning, the ex- \naltation of Jesus Christ as the Head of humanity, \nthe Son of God, the Redeemer of men, the Medi- \nator of God to the whole universe. For us He is \nall this, or else He is in no peculiar sense sent of \nGod, and we have no gospel of redemption. We \nhave accepted one side of the great alternative, with \nall it may involve. We believe Him to be the Re- \ndeemer of mankind, the Lord of the living and the \ndead, the effulgence of God\'s glory, and the very \nimage of his substance. As a corollary from this \nbelief, we are confident that all members of the \nhuman family are to know God in Christ. We be- \nlieve that all the more obscure revelations of God, \nand all the religions as truly as the religion of the \nHebrews, have been an education of the nations \npreparatory to the clear, glorious, and potent reve- \nlation of God in Christ. We believe that the \nBiblical representations of the final judgment by \nChrist and of the triumphant consummation of the \nredemptive kingdom mean that the end is not \nreached till all mankind, the least and the greatest, \nthe wisest and the most ignorant, the purest and \nthe most depraved, have the knowledge of God\'s \namazing love in Jesus Christ our Lord. We should \nbe content to expend our toil of thought, our de- \nbate and contention on the great principles of the \ngospel ; to be intent and constant in honoring our \n\n\n\nESCHATOLOGY. Ill \n\ndivine and human Redeemer and in persuading \nmen of the supremacy, authority, efficacy, and uni- \nversality of his gospel of redemption. But since \nthe issue has been joined on the question which is \nat present so warmly debated, we are willing to \nmeet it at that point, and to go back from the- \ncorollary to the principle, from a single application \nto those central truths of Christianity in the light \nof which only can the question receive a sufficient \nand a complete answer. \n\nThe question back of all is as old as the gospel \nitself. It was first asked by our Lord when He in- \nquired, " Who do men say that the Son of Man \nis ? " As of old the answer has been insufficient. \nOne of the prophets, an Elijah, a Jeremiah, one \nsent to a favored part, but to only a part of this \nsinful world. The Master\'s searching question \ncomes closer : " But who say ye that I am ? " The \nanswer was in the question as He first asked it. \nHe is the Son of Man. \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. \n\nThe mystery, which attaches to the name and \nattends the operations of the Holy Spirit, seems to \nsome minds to preclude any attempt to determine \nor even to place his work in its relation to historic \nChristianity. Other minds, we conceive, prefer to \nleave the whole subject in mystery in the supposed \ninterest of " the larger hope." The unknown is \neasily made to cover vast possibilities of mercy. \nGiven a power like that of the Holy Ghost, and \nwho may venture to put any limitations upon the \ndivine intercourse with man, the divine incentives \nto his repentance, or the divine forgiveness? Who \nmay affirm that God is not at work in some real \nand effective way for the salvation of men irrespec- \ntive of their knowledge of the Atonement ? Nay, \nwho can assert that the manifestation of the Spirit \nis not as truly a revelation of God, and there- \nfore as efficacious in human salvation, as the dis- \nclosure of his nature and love in the person of Je- \nsus Christ ? What warrant have we for attaching \nsupreme importance to the revelation of God in \nChrist? \n\nThese questions, which are presented as they \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 113 \n\nhave been offered to us, reveal a tendency on the \npart of some to find in the greatness and mystery \nof the work of the Holy Spirit an equivalent for \nwhat is known as historic Christianity, thereby \navoiding the necessity of insisting upon the offer \nof Christ to all men. Many of those who represent \nthis tendency would prefer, we are persuaded, to \nleave the matter in its large indefiniteness, but the \nthought naturally seeks definition, and when for- \nmulated it takes some such expression as this. \nRegeneration, which is the work of the Holy Spirit, \nis the moral result and test of salvation. A re- \ngenerate life is a saved life, because it shows cor- \nrespondence with God and likeness to Him in char- \nacter. But regeneration can take place without the \nknowledge of the Atonement. It is enough that \nthe Atonement has been made and is known to God. \nThe Atonement is the ground on which God can \nconsistently work in regenerating men through the \nHoly Spirit. \n\nWhatever may be thought of the reasonableness \nof this theory, it is evident that it ignores the whole \neffect of Christianity as a motive, and therefore \nraises at once the question : What is the evidence \nthat such a work is going on among men indepen- \ndently of the moral force and persuasions of the \nGospel ? What are the signs of the presence of the \nHoly Spirit in his regenerating power throughout \nheathendom ? Some of those who urge this theory \nhave given us their observations upon heathen com- \nmunities ; and these observations have been ad- \n\n8 \n\n\n\n114 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nduced to show that character in those communi- \nties is rapidly attaining final permanence in evil. \nDo the facts of heathendom, with or without this \nconclusion, justify the theory? If they do not, \nwhat is its practical value ? And on the other \nhand, if the facts of heathendom can be made to \nshow a large and sufficient work of the Holy Spirit \nwithout the knowledge or use of the life and death \nof Christ, what is the ground of Christian mis- \nsions ? Why send the gospel of Jesus Christ to \nthose who have the gospel of the Holy Spirit ? \n\nWe have thus far assumed in our interpreta- \ntion of Progressive Orthodoxy, that Christianity \xe2\x80\x94 \nx meaning by it the revelation of God in the life and \ndeath of Christ in their moral and sacrificial power \n\xe2\x80\x94 is God\'s method of salvation for the race. We \nhave not discussed, and do not care to discuss, \nthe possibilities of salvation apart from the divine \nmethod. The hope of man is in the power of God. \nWe prefer to know where and how God is at work, \nwhere and how the divine energies are going forth \nin behalf of man according to the divine purpose \nand choice. The Scriptures, as we believe, disclose \none way, a way sufficient and inclusive. They \neverywhere reveal unity of method in the moral \ngovernment of God. As we have remarked in the \ndiscussion of the Atonement, " There is no evidence \nwhatever that the race is divided into two great \nsections, one of which is dealt with on the basis of \nthe gospel, and the other on the basis of law and \nnatural conscience \xe2\x80\x94 one on a basis of justice, the \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 115 \n\nother on a basis of grace. As, before Christ \ncame, God exercised forbearance for the sins of \nthe past and because Christ was coming, but now \ncommandeth all men everywhere to repent, so ul- \ntimately all the nations and all the generations are \nto be dealt with through Him who tasted death for \nevery man." \n\nBut unity of method in the salvation of the race \ndemands as its working correlate identity of mo- \ntive. We say identity rather than equality of mo- \ntive, for absolute equality would be impossible. So, \ntoo, we should prefer to say that motives should be \nidentical rather than equivalent, because the latter \nterm is indefinite and opens endless discussion. \nIdentity of motive requires that the influences \nwhich are employed be drawn from the same source \nand urged by the same agency. Christianity, it is \nacknowledged, has brought in upon the mind of \nman a new and distinct class of facts relating to \nhis salvation. But it does not rely upon the bare \nknowledge of these facts for the accomplishment of \nits purpose in the salvation of men. It seeks to \nvitalize them with spiritual power, and make them \nconvictive and persuasive. Christianity, we are to \nremember, is more than a religion of ways and \nmeans : it is a religion of motives. If we accustom \nourselves to think of the Gospel as a plan or scheme \nwe must not overlook the power which gives it vi- \ntality and makes it efficacious. That power is the \nHoly Spirit. Historic Christianity presupposes and \nincludes the work of the Holy Spirit, as the work \n\n\n\n116 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nof the Spirit assumes and rests upon the facts of \nhistoric Christianity. The work of Christ and the \nwork of the Spirit are not simply related theolog- \nical terms ; they stand, in the practical develop- \nment of God\'s purposes, in the relation of mutual \ndependence. \n\nFor the sake of distinctness we state our position \nin the following postulates : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1. The work of the Holy Spirit, as a work in mo- \ntive, fulfills and makes effective the method of sal- \nvation proposed by Christianity. \n\n2. Historic Christianity alone offers sufficient \nmaterial in motive, in the life, death, and resurrec- \ntion of our Lord, for the natural and efficacious \nwork of the Holy Spirit. \n\nThe Christian conception of man is that of man \nunder motives from without working toward his \nsalvation. This is, perhaps, the distinguishing \ncharacteristic of Christianity. All other religions, \nit has been said, represent man as seeking God. \nChristianity alone represents God as seeking man. \nIt will be seen that the principle which is here sug- \ngested holds good under the narrowest interpreta- \ntion of the Christian system. Christianity is the \nreligion of the divine search, whether there be few \nor many sought after. If we start within the limi- \ntations of an arbitrary election we have a limited \natonement and a limited work of the Spirit, but \neven here the prominent fact is that of Christ dying \nfor the elect and the Spirit working for their sal- \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 117 \n\nvation. Universal atonement comes in to break up \nthe narrowness of the scheme, but it retains and \nmagnifies the principle. It is still Christ dying for \nmen and the Spirit working for their salvation. \nThe two go together and are coextensive. A lim- \nited atonement allows only a limited work of the \nSpirit. A universal atonement necessitates a uni- \nversal work of the Spirit. Method and motive \nare inseparable in the range and scope of their \naction. We emphasize this statement because of \nthe tendency of certain minds to rest in the sup- \nposed sufficiency of a universal atonement without \na corresponding work of the Spirit. The condi- \ntions of the divine grace seem to them to be met \nand fulfilled in the death of Christ, provided it is \nunderstood that his death was for all. Evidently \nthis was not the mind of Christ. Nothing can be \nplainer than the fact of his reliance for the impres- \nsion of his work, including his death, upon the \npower of the Holy Spirit. All his personal expec- \ntations, all his promises, all his plans for his church \nwere based upon the bestowal of this power. The \nforty days which followed his death and resurrec- \ntion, days of doubt and perplexity to the disciples, \nand of unbelief with the multitudes, were not be- \ncause of this days of disappointment to Him. Had \nHe not assured the disciples of the coming in due \ntime of One who should take of his and show it unto \nthem, under whose showing whatever had seemed \ndark and inexplicable should become plain and \nbright ? Had He not also assured them that He, \n\n\n\nV \n\n\n\n118 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nwho was to make all things clear to them, was to go \nbefore them and act through them in the convince- \nin en t of the world ? " And He, when He is come, \nwill convict the world in respect of sin, and of right- \neousness, and of judgment : of sin, because they be- \nlieve not on me ; of righteousness, because I go to \nthe Father, and ye behold me no more ; of judg- \nment, because the prince of this world hath been \njudged." It is nowhere affirmed or assumed in the \nGospels that the world with unaided vision would \ndiscern the cross, or with untroubled heart would \nseek its reliefs. The cross was yet to be revealed \nto men in the hidings of its power. When the \nexcitement of the crucifixion had passed away, and \nthe scenes attendant upon it had been forgotten, \nJerusalem was to be moved afresh and irresistibly. \nAnother Presence was to be there, unseen, impalpa- \nble, but felt, as men feel the wind and fire. Hence \nthe calmness of Christ under the postponement of \nresults. Hence, also, the tone of assurance and \ntriumph which marks his final utterances. The \nclosing pages of John\'s Gospel brighten and glow \nunder the expectation of the Spirit beyond the \npages of the prophets under the hope of the Mes- \nsiah. \n\nIn claiming, as we have done, that the Holy \nSpirit in his work represents the place of motive in \nChristianity we do not affirm that his work is irre- \nsistible. Man is his own master under Christianity \nas without. We have no wish to dispute the die- \nturn of a past generation that " God governs mind \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 119 \n\nby motive and not by force." What we wist to \naffirm and maintain is simply the Scriptural posi- \ntion that Christianity is the religion of motive, a \nfact of which the presence of the Holy Spirit is the \nunmistakable sign, and to which his work bears \nperpetual testimony. And we are the more per- \nsuaded to insist upon this position because it is so \noften practically denied. We are, for example, \ncontinually remanded back in present discussions \nto the question \xe2\x80\x94 " Shall not the judge of all the \nearth do right ? " \xe2\x80\x94 as an easy and final settlement \nof all perplexities. This is a question which Chris- \ntianity takes up and adopts as its own, and at the \nproper time asks with a significance which is deci- \nsive, but it is not the first question which it asks. \nIt does not have precedence in the order of time. \nUnless Christianity ignores its very presence in the \nworld, unless it denies the facts of its origin and \nhistory, it must present God working through mo- \ntive before it presents Him sitting in judgment. \nChristianity itself starts the question, to which it \ngives precedence, and in answer to which it invites \nthe most earnest thinking, even "high specula- \ntion," \xe2\x80\x94 What can the God and Father of men, \nwho has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, be ex- \npected to do for his children before He deals with \nthem in judgment ? When this question has been \nanswered, answered in the spirit and according to \nthe logic of Christianity, the answer to the former \nquestion comes in place, and becomes simple and \nfinal. \n\n\n\n120 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nIn like manner it is beginning to be urged by \nthose who see no necessity, in the interest of grace, \nfor a Christian opportunity for all men, that any \nlack in opportunity or motive can be made up in \nleniency of judgment : as if the Christian oppor- \ntunity and the Christian motive had their moral \nequivalent in leniency of judgment. An illustra- \ntion will expose the fallacy of this concession. A \nman is arrested for stealing. It is proved upon the \ntrial that he was born of a race of thieves, that he \nwas trained in bad associations, that he never had \nany wholesome restraints or incentives brought to \nbear upon him. In consideration of these facts \nthe judge foregoes the ordinary sentence, and dis- \ncharges the prisoner. What is the result ? Simply \nthat the man returns to his stealing. The remis- \nsion of sentence has had no moral effect. Indeed, \nin such a case, the waiving of judgment might be \nfairly interpreted to be a confession of previous \ninjustice on the part of society. Judgment, at least \nas a finality, has no remedial, no educational, power. \nIt produces no ethical result. It leaves character \nas it finds it. By no possibility, therefore, can the \nfeebler exercise of judgment be made an equivalent \nfor the use of motive. And when we apply the case \nto Christianity and consider the motives which it \nhas introduced and the provision which it has made \nfor their enforcement, what can we find with which \nto compare it in its power to reach and change the \nhuman heart ? Where shall we look for the equiv- \nalent of Christianity ? \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 121 \n\nWe have stated our belief that Christianity alone \noffers sufficient material in motive for the efficacious \nwork of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men. \nWe do not deny the presence of motive in the facts \nof nature. Neither do we deny the agency of the \nSpirit of God in the use of these facts. Neither \ndo we deny the possibility of direct access on the \npart of God to the heart and conscience of man. \n" There is a spirit in man and the inspiration of \nthe Almighty giveth him understanding." We \ngratefully accept all evidences of the wide and va- \nrious work of the Spirit in inspiration. We would \nnot belittle such statements of the Old Testament \nas that concerning Bezaleel, that he " was filled with \nthe Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, \nto devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in \nsilver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, to set \nthem, and in carving of timber." But the position \nof the New Testament is unmistakable in associat- \ning the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of \nmen with the work of Christ to the same end. \nWhat we know as the dispensation of the Spirit \nfollows and depends upon the life, death, and res- \nurrection of our Lord. The order is not simply \nthat of sequence : it is that of dependence. First \nthe revelation of God in Christ, then, and in con- \nsequence, the communication of the life of God \nthrough the Spirit. " God manifests himself," says \nVan Oosterzee, " in the Son, but communicates his \nlife by the Holy Spirit. The Son is the self -reveal- \ning God ; the Holy Ghost the self -communicating \n\n\n\n122 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nGod." This communication of the divine life in its \nfreeness and fullness follows a like free and full \nrevelation of it. The knowledge of Christ precedes \nand is necessary to the natural work of the Holy \nSpirit. Even the personality of the Spirit awaits \nthe personal revelation of Christ. Throughout the \nOld Testament the Spirit appears chiefly as an in- \nfluence ; in the New Testament He is a person. \nAnd the name by w 7 hich He is there known indi- \ncates his special work. He is invariably the Holy \nSpirit, or the Holy Ghost \xe2\x80\x94 a name used but two \nor three times in the Old Testament. Once within \nthe pages of the New Testament, we no longer \nread of inspirations like that of Bezaleel. The \ninspirations of the Holy Spirit pertain to the min- \nistry and Person of Christ. " The Comforter, even \nthe Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my \nname, He shall teach you all things, and bring \nto your remembrance all that I said unto you." \n" When the Comforter is come, whom I will send \nunto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, \nwhich proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear \nwitness of me. . . . He shall glorify me : for He \nshall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you." \nThe offices of the Spirit were to be henceforth asso- \nciated with sin and redemption. " He will convict \nthe world in respect of sin, of righteousness, and of \njudgment." " The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, \npeace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithful- \nness, meekness, temperance." The immediate gifts \nof the Spirit were such as naturally followed the \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 123 \n\nincoming of Christianity and attested its power. \n" To one is given through the Spirit the word of \nwisdom ; and to another the word of knowledge, \naccording to the same Spirit ; to another faith, in the \nsame Spirit ; and to another gifts of healings, in the \none Spirit ; and to another workings of miracles ; \nand to another prophecy ; and to another discern- \ning^ of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; \nand to another the interpretation of tongues ; but \nall these worketh the one and the same Spirit, di- \nviding to each one severally even as He will." \nAnd the permanent ministry of the Spirit in the \nsoul was to be that of comfort, hope, assurance in \nthe gospel of Christ. " The Spirit himself beareth \nwitness with our spirit, that we are children of \nGod : and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and \njoint-heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with \nhim, that we may be also glorified with him." Now \nthese and kindred passages of the New Testament \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 there are none which are not kindred with these \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 point to the same conclusion. They show the \nrelation in time and in effect of the work of the \nSpirit to the revelation of the person and ministry \nand death of Christ. As the coming of Christ in- \nvolved the gift of the Spirit, even to the disclosure \nof his personality, the designation of his offices, and \nthe assurance of his abiding presence in the world, \nso the gift of the Spirit seems to us to presuppose \nthe new facts, the new relationships, the new mo- \ntives, which centre around the Person of Christ. \nWe confess, therefore, our utter inability to under- \n\n\n\n124 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nstand the meaning of those who say that " the Holy \nSpirit is the present Christ," or " the essential \nChrist ; " and who, therefore, affirm that every man \nreally has an understanding of Christ and a Chris- \ntian opportunity. The terms, as used with this in- \nference, seem to us absolutely vague and confusing. \nThey take away at once the personality of the Holy \nSpirit, and the significance of historic Christian- \nity. To our minds the New Testament teaches, not \nthat the Holy Spirit is a substitute for the personal \nChrist, not that through his general work He makes \namends for the want of knowledge of the work of \nChrist, but that it is the distinct and glorious office \nof the Spirit to give efficacy to the life and sacrifice \nof Christ, as they are brought into direct and con- \nscious relation to men, and to bear witness in the \nheart, when once Christ has been apprehended by \nfaith, to the reality of the Christian experience. \n\nTo be more specific : What is the method of the \nHoly Spirit in the convincement of sin ? Is it not \nthrough a crucified and rejected Christ ? Is not \nthe cross the background upon which the guilt of \nthe individual life is thrown out ? And are not the \nstandards which Christianity sets up in society the \nvery ground and reason for the sense of shame over \nsocial sins ? What makes the exposure of sin pos- \nsible ? Certainly not the existence of sin, for the \nmore common and revolting the forms of sin may \nbe, the less meaning can be attached to their ex- \nposure. There can be no exposure of sin in the \nheart of Africa, in many of the islands of the sea, \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 125 \n\nin any of the great centres of heathendom. Ex- \nposure is a relative term, and derives its meaning, \nnot from the presence of sin, but from the presence \nof righteousness. Revelation must precede expos- \nure to make it of avail, to make it possible, \xe2\x80\x94 the \nrevelation of holiness, of purity, of love. Society \nis startled and aroused under the knowledge of \ngreat sins, in the form of vices and crimes, in pro- \nportion as it is Christian. Christianity, through \nits revelations of righteousness, brings out those \nmighty contrasts under which men may carry on \nthe work of exposure. Any man or organization, \nthe press, for example, may expose if the moral \nconditions are present. The Holy Spirit alone can \nreveal that righteousness through which sin be- \ncomes shameful, and that love through which the \nsinner becomes a penitent. Very much which passes \nfor conviction of sin is not conviction of sin at \nall. There is no spiritual power about it. It is \nsimply a natural fear of consequences, immediate \nor remote. It is a conviction of punishment and \nnot of sin. Conviction by the cross of Christ is \' \nconviction of sin. The first and deepest thoughts \nwhich it wakens are not of penalty, but of the ex- \nceeding sinfulness of sin. The spectacle of a right- \neous sufferer, the mingling of holiness with love, \nof justice with compassion, which his sufferings ex- \nhibit, impresses the conscience \xe2\x80\x94 not the imagi- \nnation, but the conscience \xe2\x80\x94 more than the terrors \nof the law. " There is more law," says Dr. Bush- \nnell, " in Christ, in his character and life and doc- \n\n\n\n126 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntrine, than in all statutes besides. . . . The thun- \nders of Sinai are no match for the silent thunders \nof Calvary." It would greatly simplify our idea \nof the conviction of sin to remember that there can \nbe no real conviction of sin without a correspond- \ning revelation of righteousness ; and, further, that \nrighteousness expressing itself in sacrifice is the \nmost terrible indictment possible of sin and of the \nsinner. But where can this expression be found \noutside Christianity ? Where in the realm of nat- \nural law can the Spirit find material in motive fit- \nted to this most difficult of all tasks \xe2\x80\x94 the con- \nvincement of sin ? And is it not in this union of \na holy sufferer for sin with a holy convincer of sin \nthat we have the true solution of the sin against \nthe Holy Ghost? Has not the church judged \nrightly in identifying this sin with the persistent \nrejection of Christ against the patient effort of the \nHoly Spirit? Christianity has introduced a new \nclassification of sins ; it has created a new species ; \nit points to the unforgiven, the unpardonable sin. \nWhere can we look for this save in the shadow \ncreated by its own light ? \n\nAnd if now we turn to the renewing and trans- \nforming work of the Spirit within the soul we find \nthe same direct relation to Christ. As before \nChrist was the argument, now He is the pattern. \nThe Spirit works toward Christ in the reconstruc- \ntion of character. It is enough to say of his work \nthat it is in the endeavor to make men over into \nChristians. The end is actual and manifest like- \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 127 \n\nness to Christ. Regeneration thus acquires a large \nand an exact meaning under Christianity. We \nwould not deny the existence of regenerate life \noutside Christianity; and as respects the Jewish \neconomy we admit as much in regard to regenera- \ntion as in regard to atonement. Everything can \nbe said of the Old Testament saints except that \nthey were Christians. u And these all, having ob- \ntained a good report through faith, received not \nthe promise ; God having provided some better \nthing for us that they without us should not be \nmade perfect." Our contention at this point is \nthat under Christianity the Holy Spirit works in \nhuman nature toward a higher, a more definite, and \na more available standard. Conformity to law is \nthe despair of the most obedient souls. Likeness \nto Christ is the reverent ambition of the humblest \ndisciple. There is that about the relation of Christ \nto men which makes the " imitation " of Him pos- \nsible. He is the head of the race ; we are there- \nfore enjoined to "grow up into him in all things, \nwhich is the head." He became incarnate ; He \nwas made like unto his brethren ; He was tempted \nin all points like as we are ; we are therefore en- \ncouraged to appeal to Him for help, assured that \nwe shall " find grace to help in every time of need." \nHe is the second Adam, the restorer of a lost man- \nhood, through whom we may attain a nobler nature \nand destiny ; we are therefore put in confident ex- \npectation of the completed work within us. " Be- \nhold, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not \n\n\n\n128 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nyet appear what we shall be, but we know that \nwhen He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we \nshall see Him as He is." " And every man," the \nApostle most significantly adds, "that hath this \nhope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure." \nWhere now, we ask, are there facts and assurances \nlike these, without the range of Christianity, of \nwhich the Holy Spirit can take advantage in carry- \ning on the process of regeneration ? And how \nwithout these can the process be made definite, real, \nand assuring to the soul of man ? If we say the \nleast, we can say no less than that when we pass \nbeyond the method of the conscious renewal of the \nspiritual life in Christ we pass at once into what is \nexceptional, vague, and indeterminate. \n\nWe will only specify, in further illustration of \nour position, the renovating work of the Holy Spirit \nin society. As we have already shown, it is the \nwork of the Spirit in the revelation of righteous- \nness \xe2\x80\x94 and of righteousness, as we know, and fear, \nand love it in the person of Jesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 which \nmakes the common work of the exposure of social \nsins effective, or even possible. But Christianity \noffers more than contrasts. It is more than a back- \nground for the exhibition of sin. It furnishes the \ndirect material for all progress and for all reforms. \nEspecially through its new conception and new re- \nquirements concerning man does it work for the \nrenovation of society and the elevation of the race. \nChristianity is declaring itself more and more as \nan organic force. It is entering into every rela- \n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 129 \n\ntion, and diffusing itself through every influence. \nSometimes it is destructive, and sometimes con- \nstructive, in its results. It has, for example, cast \ndown slavery and built up truthfulness, and by the \nsame principle. " Lie not one to another," says \nthe Apostle, " for ye are members one of another," \n\xe2\x80\x94 an argument which demands truthfulness from \nman to man ; and equally denies the right of the \nownership of man in man. In fact, this principle \nof membership of one in another is the great hu- \nman principle through which Christianity wages \nrelentless war against all forms of selfishness, \nwhether expressed in greed, or indifference, or un- \ntruthfulness. The principle is peculiar to Chris- \ntianity, and in the application of it through the \nSpirit God has wrought out the triumphs of the \nChristian centuries. Here, again, we ask, How \ncould the Spirit of God develop without the aid of \nChristianity those working principles for the reno- \nvation of society, which men would recognize as \nsufficient, and to which they could surrender them- \nselves with enthusiasm ? Christ has made human- \nity intelligible to itself. He has done more. He \nhas awakened in men the love of man. Nothing \ncan separate or alienate anything which is human \nfrom that which is Christian. Christian missions \nare the witness to the belief of the church in man, \nand to its love for him, as the corollary from its \nbelief in Christ and its love for Him. \n\nWe conclude, then, that the work of the Holy \nSpirit is distinctively a Christian work; that it \n\n\n\n130 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nfollows in the order of dependence upon the revela- \ntion of God in Christ ; that it draws its argument \nfrom the Person and work of the Redeemer ; and \nthat it proceeds from and toward Christ in the re- \nnewal of the life of the individual and in the reno- \nvation of society. \n\n\n\nVI. \n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. \n\nThe question is continually recurring as to the \nlegitimacy or propriety of claiming the Christian \nname and affirming the Christian hope for persons \nof exceptional character, irrespective of their Chris- \ntian experience and faith. Some person, Jew or \nGentile, becomes conspicuous for his virtues or \ncharities. In the event of his death the questions \nare quite sure to be put to the Evangelical Church, \nWhat do you call this man, and, What of his future? \nThe reply which is made is always according to the \ndictates of the moral sense. Practically, the Evan- \ngelical Church never denies the courtesy of the \nChristian name or the hospitality of the Christian \nhope to those whose lives illustrate the Christian \nvirtues. But theologically these " exceptional cases" \ncreate no little confusion. The answers which they \ncall out are apt to put a strain upon the theological \nsystems. \n\nThe most recent discussion in point has been oc- \ncasioned by the death of the eminent Jewish phi- \nlanthropist, Sir Moses Montefiore. In answer to \nthe usual question about the Christian salvation of \nsuch a man, Dr. A. A. Hodge writes as follows in \n" The Independent " of September 17, 1885 : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n132 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\n" In common with all who maintain the integrity of \nCatholic Christianity, we firmly believe that human nature \nis radically and universally corrupt and guilty before \nGod, utterly incapable of self help in the way of expiation, \nof merit, of spiritual renovation. Whenever a human \nbeing is found, as a matter of fact, to be reconciled to \nGod, and by a holy life gives evidence of possessing a \nholy nature, we with perfect confidence attribute the re- \nsult to the application to the person in question of the \nexpiating virtue of Christ\'s sacrifice and of the regener- \nating power of his Spirit. We believe, therefore, that, \nwithout exception, the acceptance of each man with God \ndepends, not upon any supposed natural goodness or per- \nsonal merit, but wholly upon the fact of the man\'s per- \nsonal relation to Jesus Christ. . . . The establishment of \nthis personal relation to our Lord, so as to constitute one \na beneficiary of his redemption, is generally conditioned \nupon personal recognition and confession of Him. This \nis even essential whenever intellectually possible. But \nit is not absolutely essential, as is proved in the case of \nthose dying in infancy, and of idiots. On like grounds \nof principle it might hold true in the case of some excep- \ntionally enlightened heathen. The charitable formula \nof \' invincible ignorance,\' used and greatly abused by \nRomanists, rests ultimately upon a true principle, and \nhas always been practically more or less recognized by \northodox Christians." \n\nThe whole communication from which this ex- \ntract is taken is thoroughly manly in its tone, and \nis most delightful reading, as a large-hearted inter- \npretation of the Calvinistic symbols in their bear- \ning upon the matter at issue. The difficulty of the \n\n\n\nTEE CHRISTIAN, 133 \n\nexplanation lies in the construction put upon the \napplication of the Atonement. We heartily agree \nwith the writer in his assertion of the necessity of \nthe Atonement to every human being. We thank \nhim for the words, " We believe that, without ex- \nception, the acceptance of each man with God de- \npends, not upon any supposed natural goodness or \npersonal merit, but wholly upon the fact of the \nman\'s personal relation to Christ." But when it \nis assumed, as it is throughout this article, that the \nAtonement can be applied to the individual and \nmade efficacious in his behalf, apart from any ap- \npreciable influence upon him, without his personal \nacceptance of it, without even his knowledge of the \nfact of an atonement, we draw back from the as- \nsumption as beyond the limits of plain reasoning. \nThe assumption carries the Atonement over into \nthe secret councils of the Most High. The cross \nmight as well have been set up in some other world. \nHistoric Christianity becomes a needless expression \nof the divine purpose and method in the salvation \nof men. We have elsewhere characterized this \nkind of salvation, wrought out independently of \nhuman consciousness, as salvation by magic. 1 It \nseems to us to be closely akin to the arts of Eo- \n\n1 An editorial writer in The Advance of November 5, 1885, \nmakes the following reference to the case in question : \n" Those who maintain this new doctrine " \xe2\x80\x94 that of a * Chris- \ntain probation for all souls \' \xe2\x80\x94 " are forbidden by it to say as \nthe rest of the church says : He " \xe2\x80\x94 Sir Moses Montefiore \xe2\x80\x94 \n" was saved by Christ because his life was Christlike, though \n\n\n\n134 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nmanism. The case of the " exceptionally enlight- \nened heathen " is compared with that of infants, \nof whom it is said that it is proved that the per- \nsonal recognition and confession of Christ is not \nabsolutely essential to entitle them to become ben- \neficiaries of his redemption. How proved ? The \nScriptures say nothing of the method of the sal- \nvation of infants. The doctrine of their salvation, \nif the demand be made for specific proof-texts, is \nextra-Scriptural. The doctrine is an inference, le- \ngitimate and necessary, as we believe, but still an \ninference from the Christian conception of God. \nThe proof of the inferential character of this belief \nlies in the historic fact that it is only with the \nwidening of the conception of God that we have \nthe belief in the salvation of all infants. Until we \nreach the Christian conception of God, we have the \nsalvation of " elect infants." And in the absence \n\nhe failed to apprehend the historic Christ." " This is in \ntheir view \' salvation by magic.\' " \n\nNo, this is not " salvation by magic " : this is more like \nsalvation by merit, or moral character, a kind of salvation \nperfectly plain and intelligible, but not as we had supposed \nthe kind accepted and advocated by " the rest of the church." \nThe church doctrine of salvation we had assumed to be that \nof justification by faith. Paul and Luther evidently did not \nrely upon personal attainments in character, but upon the \npersonal appropriation of the righteousness of Christ. \n\nWhat we have characterized as " salvation by magic " is a \nsalvation which is presumed to be effected by the Atonement, \nwhen the Atonement is taken and applied to an individual \nwithout any consenting or even conscious relation to it on his \npart. Such a process is a pure abstraction on the human side, \na secret transaction in the councils of the Most High. \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 135 \n\nof any direct statements of Scripture in regard to \nthe doctrine itself, any variation from the prescribed \nmethod of salvation is purely speculative. If we \nwaive the exercise of moral agency, and ignore the \nnecessity of a personal appropriation of Christ, \nwhat have we left but a kind of baptismal atone- \nment and baptismal regeneration ? We think it \nmore reverent, as it is certainly more reasonable, \nto believe of infants and heathen alike, that accord- \ning to the development of moral agency they are \nbrought into conscious relations to Christ, and that \naccording to their needs they are enabled to per- \nsonally appropriate his redemption. We question \nthe advantage and the right of modifying the natu- \nral and reasonable conditions of Christianity under \nthe stress of " exceptional cases." Allow Chris- \ntianity to be, what it claims to be, universal in \nits relation to the human race, and the necessity \nfor any modification of its conditions is removed. \nUnity of method becomes the ruling principle in \nthe moral government of God. We have one \nstandard of judgment for all men, one method of \nsalvation, one supreme and sufficient motive to re- \npentance. Divide the moral administration of God \ninto the departments of law and grace, and there \nwill be the constant endeavor to transfer, by some \nsecret process, first the few, then the many, who \nare under the condemnation of law, into the hope \nof grace. Salvation by Christ ceases to be the \nopen, plain, real thing it is, and becomes something \nhidden, vague, unverified and unverifiable by the \nhuman consciousness. \n\n\n\n136 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nBut the real question in respect to the Christian \nsalvation goes beyond all " exceptional cases." As \nDr. Curry remarks in the same discussion, " The \nimportant question respecting this class of cases is \nnot whether a devout and pure-minded heathen or \nJew can be saved, but whether persons of those \nclasses are, except in a very few and exceptional \ncases, such in mind and heart ; and granting that \nall such, if such there are, are 4 accepted of God,\' \nthe case, as one of fact, is not much relieved. . . . \nWe may freely admit that, of every nation, even \nJews and heathens, he that fears God and worketh \nrighteousness is acceptable to him, and yet doubt- \ningly ask respecting all these classes, \' Are there \nfew that be saved ? \' " The real and living ques- \ntion, a veritable question of flesh and blood, is not \nthat of theological hospitality toward the excep- \ntional life outside Christianity, but rather that of \nthe large and active relation of Christianity to \nevery life without. The real question is in no sense \none of hospitality at all, but one rather as to the di- \nvine right of every individual of the human race in \nChristianity. Must the Christian name remain of \nnecessity and forever an exclusive name as respects \nthe majority of mankind, a designation of privilege \nfor the few, rather than of opportunity for all? And \nare the great masses of men in the past generations \nto be simply represented in the kingdom of God by \nhere and there a soul who has climbed up some other \nway into the Christian fold, while they are to remain \nin their hopelessness and helplessness ? Whenever \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 137 \n\nthe question is raised about these " exceptional \ncases " it opens at once into the most serious ques- \ntioning about those cases which are not exceptional \nbut representative. And whenever the Atonement \nis introduced as the justification for God\'s accept- \nance of the few who may be seeking after Him, if \nhaply they may feel after Him and find Him, it \nsuggests the part which the Atonement also takes \nin the divine search for man. We accept in its / \nfullest and deepest import the sacrificial theory of \natonement. But we do not forget that the Chris- \ntian Atonement points two ways and is set forth as \nof equal avail toward God and toward man. To \nthe mind of the heathen, atonement represents ex- \nclusively the idea of propitiation. To the mind of \nthe Hebrew, it represented the same idea, though \nit became more and more suggestive of the divine \nmercy, so that God was able to make use of the \nidea to give in advance the assurance of his for- \ngiveness, saying to his people in their wanderings, \n" Return unto me, for I have redeemed thee." In \nthe sacrifice of Christ the movement is as strong \nfrom God to man as from man to God. The \nAtonement carries the message of human penitence \nto God ; it carries the message of the divine love \nto man. It gives God access to the human heart, \nand is the prevailing motive in his struggle with the \nwill of man. Christianity is incomplete in idea, \nand partial in application, in so far as this fact is \nnot recognized and acknowledged. In other words, \nthe knowledge of the Atonement may be the neces- \n\n\n\n138 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsary condition of the decisive choice of the soul for \nor against God. The knowledge of right and wrong \nmay not be the sufficient condition for such a \nchoice. If, therefore, in our charity we apply the \nRomish principle of " invincible ignorance " we \nmust extend the working of that principle beyond \nthe knowledge of right and wrong, to the knowledge \nof Christ and his salvation. 1 \n\nWe have approached the subject before us \nthrough the current discussions about the Chris- \ntian salvation because they indicate the sensitive- \nness of the Christian mind upon this matter. No \npart of the church cares to insist upon the exclu- \nsiveness of the Christian name and hope. It is \nimpossible, under the moral sense of our time, to \nmaintain the absoluteness of Christianity and its \nexclusiveness ; to affirm that the Christian is the \nonly type of man acceptable to God, and deny to \nany man the opportunity to become a Christian. \nAs we have seen, the speculation in regard to the \n\n1 The reach of this principle is indicated by Dr. Hodge in \nthese generous words : " It is obvious that there is a world- \nwide distance between an intelligent and malignant rejection \nof the historic Christ, his Person and offices clearly appre- \nhended, which is the damning sin, on the one side, and on \nthe other a failure to recognize Him as misapprehended be- \ncause of intellectual bias, or the misrepresenting character of \nthe media through which his rays are transmitted. It is cer- \ntain that a man who really rejects Christ rejects the Father \nwho sent Him. Hence the converse is true : that the man \nwho has truly recognized the Father could not have really re- \njected Christ." \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 139 \n\nAtonement as secretly applied to the "" exception- \nally enlightened heathen," whatever we may say of \nits value within its own sphere, entirely overlooks \nthe moral uses of the Atonement in the enlighten- \nment of all unenlightened souls. The only con- \nsistent and far-reaching solution of the problem, as \nwe think, lies in the principle advocated upon \nthese pages. Progressive Orthodoxy matches the \nabsoluteness of Christianity with its universality. \nIt maintains the Christian type as the only type of \nman acceptable to God, by allowing to every man \nhis right in Christianity. It affirms and magnifies \nthe Christian Judgment as the one event awaiting \nall men, and under the sense of the certainty of \nthat event, with its everlasting issues, it acknowl- \nedges the reasonableness of assuming that every \nman will first have his Christian opportunity, \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat he will know Christ in his sacrifice before he \nmeets Him in judgment. \n\nPassing, then, to the more definite considera- \ntion of the Christian, we assume that the Christian \nman is the man acceptable to God. The New Tes- \ntament proceeds upon this assumption. Its assur- \nances and promises, its present benefits and its cer- \ntainties respecting the future, are applicable only \nto the Christian. \n\nOur first inquiry is, Whence comes the Chris- \ntian ? How do we gain this type of man ? We \nmay say of the individual Christian, as we know \nhim, that he is the result of a definite religious \ntraining, or of a definite religious process, which \n\n\n\n140 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nwe call conversion. But this does not answer the \nquestion, Where do we get the type ? The Chris- \ntian was not born under the light of nature. He \nwas not developed in the school of law, albeit the \nlaw was a school-master to lead to Christ. It may \nnot be unnecessary to remind ourselves \xe2\x80\x94 unfortu- \nnately the saying is not a truism \xe2\x80\x94 that the Chris- \ntian is the product of Christianity. The type of \nlife which he represents came in with those facts \nand ideas which belong to historic Christianity. \nAnd the type is perpetuated through the prevalence \nof these facts and the supremacy of these ideas. \nChristianity invariably precedes the Christian, cre- \nating those conditions, and setting in motion those \nagencies, which need but the cooperation of the in- \ndividual will to produce the required result in \nChristian character. Christianity produces a new \nconsciousness in the race, which makes possible the \nChristian consciousness. Man is another being to \nhimself in the light of the Incarnation and Res- \nurrection. The Incarnation does not create a new \nvalue in man ; it does more : it reveals to him his \nreal value in the thought of God. The Resurrec- \ntion does not confer immortality upon man ; it \ngives him the moral advantage of immortality ; it \nputs him under the power of the endless life. \nWherever Christianity goes it speaks to men \nthrough these facts. And because it speaks through \nfacts its language is positive, awakening, and as- \nsuring. There is no uncertainty in what Chris- \ntianity says of man or to him. There is no con- \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 141 \n\ntradiction in its utterances. The certainties of \nnature are against man, not for him. He knows \nthat he must die ; he hopes that he may live again. \nHe is conscious of powers which separate him from \nall known life ; he believes, half in fear, half in \nhope, that there is a life above him to which he is \nrelated, but he does not dare to urge his kinship \nwith a holy God. The Incarnation is a revelation \npure and simple, not a confirmation of the hope or \ndream of humanity. And atonement, as has been \nsuggested, appears in natural religions only under \nthe idea of propitiation. The idea of an atonement \noriginating with God and consummated through \nsacrifice on his part is foreign to all natural re- \nligions. And the difference in the reflex influence \nof a belief in a system which expresses the cease- \nless striving of man to propitiate an angry deity, \nand belief in a system of grace working from \nabove in the ceaseless endeavor to turn the sinner \nfrom his sin, is simply incalculable. The differ- \nence gives the Christian motive to repentance and \nfaith. " We love Him, because He first loved us." \nChristianity thus reveals man to himself in a \nnew light, as it uncovers the agencies which are at \nwork toward the renovation of his moral nature \nand toward his restoration to God. Nature is con- \ntradictory in her valuation of man, now strangely \nexalting him to her high places of power, and \nagain casting him down, or trifling with him as if \nthe veriest plaything in her domain. There are \ntimes when man is obliged to take refuge from the \n\n\n\n142 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ndomination and caprice of nature in the one thought \nthat he is a conscious being. Pascal says : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Our whole dignity consists in thought. Man is but \na reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. \nIt is not necessary that the entire universe should arm \nitself to crush him. A breath of air, a drop of water, \nsuffices to kill him. But were the universe to crush him, \nman would still be more noble than that which kills him, \nbecause he knows that he dies, and the universe knows \nnothing of the advantage which it has over him." \n\nLaw elevates man to the dignity of a responsible \nagent. When he finds himself addressed in the \nlanguage of moral authority, to which he is capable \nof responding, he takes a new measure of himself. \nIt is greater to hear the " Thou shalt," and " Thou \nshalt not," of moral law than to stand in the place \nof a master among inanimate forces. But moral \nlaw can only tell man what he ought to be. It \nleaves him confronted with duty. Christianity \ncomes in to tell him what he may be. It is a rev- \nelation to him of his possibilities. It confronts \nhim, not with a legal standard, but with a Life in \nwhich he may read his possible character and des- \ntiny, and through which he may attain that char- \nacter and destiny. It assures him of help sufficient \nand unfailing. It links his struggles and aspira- \ntions, even his very repentings, to a power which \nwas at work for him before his effort for himself \nbegan, and which will go on, in his behalf, in its \nsteadiness and strength amid the fluctuations of his \nown strivings. " We," says Paul to the Christian \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 143 \n\nconverts of Asia Minor, " are his workmanship, \ncreated in Christ Jesus unto good works, which \nGod afore prepared that we should walk in them." \nAnd again, to the Christians at Philippi, " Being \nconfident of this very thing, that He which began a \ngood work in you will perfect it until the day of \nJesus Christ." \n\nChristianity thus conditions the life which is to \nbecome Christian before the process begins which \nis to make it Christian. When the Christian idea \nis apprehended, its revelation of God in his pur- \npose, its interpretation of man in his possibilities, \nas it is practically apprehended under the training \nof the Christian home and school and church, then \nthe process through which the Christian is devel- \noped, though it may be in some cases severe and \nprotracted, is simple and clear. It is all expressed \nin the personal act of repentance toward God, and \nof faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The personal \nappropriation of Christ in his life and death con- \nstitutes a sinner a Christian. Henceforth he rep- \nresents, according to the reality of his faith and \nthe seriousness of his purpose, the new type of \nmanhood. In his individual life he is called, by \nvirtue of this change, " a new creature," " a new \ncreation." As related to other men, he belongs to \nthe Christian type. \n\nOur second inquiry concerns the place of the \nChristian before God. What is the position into \nwhich he is brought by virtue of his relation, \nthrough penitence and faith, to Christ ? The New \n\n\n\nX \n\n\n\n144 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nTestament uniformly expresses this condition or \nestate by one term \xe2\x80\x94 sonsliip. It knows no other \nterm which is not included in this. The teachings \nof Christ, as indeed his personal relations with \nmen, all point to the establishment of this relation- \nship. But we are so apt to interpret the sayings \nof our Lord in some exceptional way, as if they \nwere not good when detached from his person, and \ncould not be transferred to the life of the church, \nthat we often fail to apply them in their reality \nand fullness to the more important questions of \nChristianity. So that it is only as we pass over \ninto the actual workings of Christianity as a sys- \ntem that we come to understand the practical sig- \nnificance of this idea of sonship. When we read \nthe Epistles of Paul and John, as these writers ad- \ndress themselves to the life coming in from Juda- \nism and heathenism, we see that Christianity is \nproceeding upon the one principle of building up \ncharacter and developing personality on the basis \nof the filial relation. Paul makes this principle \nmost conspicuous, by boldly transferring the work- \ning of the divine power in the training of life from \nthe legal to the filial basis. He assures those to \nwhom he writes that the place of sonship is theirs, \ntheirs by the bestowal of grace and according to \nthe rights of faith. They were in it. This was \nthe first thing for them to believe. Nothing could \nbe accomplished in them or through them, in a \nChristian way, until they believed it. The fact \nonce accepted in full and hearty assurance, the \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 145 \n\nwork in character could go on. So Paul reasons \nthroughout his epistles, striving to establish the \nidea of sonship in the minds of Christian believers, \nand to strengthen and encourage them in the as- \nsurance of its application to their own lives. \n\nChristianity, when rightly apprehended, always \nmakes the idea of sonship fundamental in per- \nsonal belief and in the upbuilding of character. \nChristian character is the outgrowth and develop- \nment of the filial relation. All the restraints and \nall the incentives which are peculiar to Christianity \ncentre about this relation of the soul to God. Why \ndoes the Christian shrink from wrong-doing ? Be- \ncause he is a child of God, acknowledged as such \nof Him, and assured of this relationship in his \nown consciousness. Inconsistency is the restraining \npower in his life, not fear. And when he falls \naway into sin, the motive to repentance is not so \nmuch the dread of things to come as the present \nsense of shame. Christ looking upon Peter in his \ndenial, and Peter going out to weep, is the type of \nChristian condemnation and repentance. In like \nmanner the working of this principle of sonship \ncomes in to take away those selfish motives which \nare often attributed to the Christian salvation. \nWhy does the Christian strive to build himself up in \nright character ? Because he is conscious that God \nis working within him " to will and to work for his \ngood pleasure," This is the motive which acts in \nadvance of all other motives toward the same end. \nThe supreme motive to right doing is gratitude, \n10 \n\n\n\n146 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nlove, the sense of God\'s partnership with him in the \nstruggle and in the result. So that here again the \nChristian is not at work simply for something to \neome to him in reward, but equally because of \nsomething which has come to him for which he \nwould make return. Heaven lies before him in \nexpectation, but the springs of his activity, the \nsources of his endeavor, lie deep in the conscious- \nness of that love which assures him that he is a \nchild of God. \n\nIt may be said that we have sketched the ideal \nChristian. We reply that we have sketched the \nreal Christian. If the average Christian life does \nnot express itself in the way which has been indi- \ncated, it is owing to the prevalence of the spirit of \nlegalism in the church. We grant the prevalence \nof this spirit. From the beginning until now it \nhas been difficult to persuade men to believe in \nChristianity, and to live according to Christianity. \nHence Paul at the first and Luther afterward. \nLegalism follows close upon Christianity in the \nceaseless endeavor to formulate its doctrines, to \nprescribe its methods, to dominate its life. If the \nchurch is to maintain the freedom of its faith and \nlife, it must be through the maintenance in faith \nand life of the idea of sonship. \n\nWe reach our third and last inquiry, as we ask, \nWhat is the office of the Christian in the world ? \nDoes Christianity withdraw him from the world or \ncarry him farther into its life ? The ruling princi- \nple of legalism, in this regard, is separation result- \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 147 \n\ning in exclusiveness. What is the ruling spirit of \nChristianity ? \n\nWhen we say that the method of legalism re- \nsults in exclusiveness we do not intend to charac- \nterize the earlier dispensation. The voice which \nsummoned Abraham from his kindred and from his \ncountry declared the purpose of this separation \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat in him all nations of the earth might be \nblessed. This separation was to be grandly inclu- \nsive in its result. The same purpose separated out \nIsrael as a people, restricting its intercourse, and \nsubjecting it to peculiar discipline, but keeping its \nspirit large and open through the development of \nthe Messianic hope. It was only as the purpose of \nthe separation was lost sight of that the national \nlife became hard and exclusive. The dwindling of \nthe hope allowed the growth of the narrower types \nof the national faith. Judaism gradually ceased to \nlook upon the world in the light of opportunity. \nThe world came to represent more and more temp- \ntation from which " the chosen people " was to de- \nfend itself. Christianity instantly reversed this \nconception of the world, and by this change of con- \nception made it safe for its disciples to go into all \nthe world in fulfillment of the command of Christ. \nThe danger or safety of one\'s relation to the world \nalways depends upon his conception of the world. \nTo the Christian the world is harmless so long as it \nrepresents the idea of opportunity. It is safe for \nhim to gain and use all which it has to offer, \nthought, wealth, or power, if he can keep this idea \nuppermost in his mind. \n\n\n\n148 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nThe office of the Christian in the world is to com- \nmunicate Christianity to the world. Self-protec- \ntion is secondary, or rather it is most completely \ngained by the fulfillment of this object. The indi- \nvidual Christian represents this purpose, and the \nchurch. The church is the Christian organized to \nthis end. There are other uses of the Christian \norganization, but this is the object which gives \nmeaning and advantage to all others. This com- \nmunication of Christianity to the world through the \nChristian, in his individual or associated life, is ef- \nfected in various ways. The earliest, as it has been \nthe most persistent, method was that of testimony. \nThe Christian stood out in the world representing \na new fact, a new principle, a new faith. Through \nhis life he advertised Christianity. The simpler \nhis life, the more natural his faith, the more he \ncalled the attention of men to his religion. Not \ninfrequently this natural and unostentatious witness \nto his faith cost him his life. Then Christianity \nwas communicated to other lives. Persecution car- \nried it even to the hearts of persecutors. Some- \ntimes the witness to the faith found expression in \nprotest against prevailing immoralities and cruel- \nties. Christianity declared itself in appreciable \nand effective ways for the rights of man. The \nChristian became the champion of humanity. The \nresult of these conflicts \xe2\x80\x94 the result was always a \ndeliverance or a reform \xe2\x80\x94 carried Christianity \nfarther and farther into society, and established it \nmore securely in the respect and affections of men. \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 149 \n\nBut the chief form in which the Christian testimony \nfound expression was the creed. Very early the \nChristian learned to say, and to say aloud, " I be- \nlieve." He seems to have been filled with the \nspirit of the Psalmist who cried out, " I have be- \ncome a believer, therefore I must let myself be \nheard." This affirmation of faith was contagious. \nNext to the life of the Christian, his creed has been, \nwithout doubt, the most effective agency in the \ncommunication of Christianity. The clear affirma- \ntion of faith, when the reasons can be adduced \nwhich support it, especially when these reasons are \ninvolved, as in the Apostles\' Creed, in the recital of \nfacts, is in itself an argument and an inspiration. \nIt is an invitation to the doubting, troubled, and \neven defiant heart of this world. The power of the \ncreed \xe2\x80\x94 the power, that is, of the believing Chris- \ntian \xe2\x80\x94 must always be a chief agent in the spread \nof Christianity. It is a noticeable fact that each \nnew apprehension of Christianity on the part of \nthe church has been the means of a larger and \ncloser contact with the world. On the whole, the \nadvance of Christianity may be traced in the prog- \nress of doctrine. \n\nPerhaps the most natural and available way, to \nthe majority, in which the Christian may fulfill his \noffice of communicating Christianity is through his \nidentification with the world. When this identifi- \ncation becomes formal, as in the alliance between \nchurch and state, it becomes dangerous. But there \nare numberless ways in which it may be vital and \n\n\n\n150 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\neven organic, without becoming formal. The \nChristian is a member of the family, a factor in \nsociety, a citizen of the state. He is a partner in \nthe affairs of men. He deals in administration. \nHe is a student, an inquirer into things of common \nconcern, an adventurer, like other men, into the \nunrevealed and unexplored realms of thought. In \nall these relations and employments he has the op- \nportunity to leave the personal impress of his \nChristianity. Probably nothing is more effective \nor helpful to Christianity than the action of the \nChristian man, when he is most unconsciously the \nChristian. But in all these relations there is need \nfor the intentional and well-considered application \nof Christianity. These are all to be Christianized \n\xe2\x80\x94 vitalized with the Christian spirit, and informed \nwith the Christian purpose. Sometimes it is dif- \nficult to cause the individual Christian to see that \nhis personal responsibility extends beyond the use \nof his personal example. " If I am a Christian \nin my business," he may ask, " have I not fulfilled \nmy duty ? " No. . It is your duty to make it easy, \nin some cases to make it possible, for others to be \nChristians in the same business. Nor is it suffi- \nciently considered that it may be easier to one\'s \nself to attempt a reform in a given business, when \nits methods have become unchristian and immoral, \nthan to attempt to maintain alone the true and \nChristian method. There may be times, under the \ncompetitions of business, when the Christian man \nmust resort to questionable methods, or succumb to \n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN. 151 \n\nfailure, if lie cannot change the method and lift the \nstandard. And when we pass from matters of more \nprivate interest to those of public concern, the ne- \ncessity for the active and cooperative communica- \ntion of Christian methods and principles becomes \napparent. Present examples are to be found in the \nmovement for the protection of the family, and in \nthat for purity in political life. \n\nThe communication of Christianity, however, as- \nsumes its large and imperative form as it finds ex- \npression in the endeavor of the Christian to fulfill \nhis Lord\'s command in the conversion of the world. \nChristianity is a salvation. That salvation is \nmeant for every man. And men are to carry it to \none another. It is to be on its human side a com- \nmunicated salvation. It has no other visible power \nof extension. The figure of the seed or the leaven \ndoes not apply to Christianity as a salvation extend- \ning from man to man. The human element is the \nactive element in its extension. There must be a \ngoing into all the world, a preaching of the gospel \nto the w T hole creation. This going into all the \nworld means searching through the city, following \nalong the track of emigration or commerce or ad- \nventure, penetrating into the dark and well-nigh \ninaccessible places of the earth. This preaching \nthe gospel to the w T hole creation means that where- \never man lives the Christian has a message for him. \nAnd we are not to forget that the known contents \nof the message are the reason for the going. Chris- \ntianity is to be carried because it is a gospel, " good \n\n\n\n152 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nnews," "glad tidings." Like his Divine Master the \nChristian is sent " not to condemn the world, but \nthat the world through him may be saved." It is \nto be feared that Christianity is suffering more at \npresent in the missionary form of expression than \nin any other. Christianity is apprehended as a \nfaith, as an institution, as an organic force in so- \nciety. We fear that it is not sufficiently appre- \nhended as a gospel. The church stands equipped \nwith organization ; it lacks, if anywhere, in the \nspirit of communication. But this lack is serious, \nand if long continued will visibly diminish the mis- \nsionary power of the church. We are wont to say \nin the consciousness of any spiritual want that the \nchurch needs a revival of religion. Let us be more \nspecific, in the sense of our present want, and say \nthat the church needs a revival of Christianity. \n\n\n\nVII. \n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. \n\nThe principles upon which we have been reason- \ning are both attested and applied in the command \nof our Lord : " All authority hath been given unto \nMe in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and \nmake disciples of all the nations." \n\nNo such commission had ever before been given ; \nnone such, we may presume, could have been. The \nend must be present in the beginning in all moral \nas in all natural development. The absolute \nethical good which holy spirits find and enjoy in \nGod can become the law and blessedness of souls \nthat have sinned only as it first becomes the means \nof their regeneration and personal conquest of evil. \nHere is the problem of human recovery, as Kant so \nplainly saw from the heights of philosophy, and all \nmen serious and earnest in the pursuit of right- \neousness have practically discovered. Christ alone \nsolved it, and for all. He is the Alpha and the \nOmega, the beginning as the goal, of human perfec- \ntion. He first brought into the world, as a living \nfactor in its religious history, a flawless and con- \nsummate righteousness, realizing it in his conduct \nno less than in his precepts, recognizing and meet- \n\n\n\n154 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ning its utmost demands in his death as well as in \nhis life, offering himself an utter sacrifice for it, \nand rising in the power of God in attestation of its \nvictory. A universal religion for a sinful and guilty \nrace implies a universal Saviour. A moral and \nspiritual recovery of mankind, even as an aim of \nbenevolent purpose, presupposes the provision of a \npower in motive and a use of this power propor- \ntionate to the evil to be confronted and the good to \nbe accomplished. " It was the good pleasure of the \nFather that in Him should all the fullness dwell." \nThe fullness was set over against the need. Chris- \ntianity is not a matter of words, but of deed and of \npower. Its salvation was not offered until it could \nbe made effectual. As its aim is human transfor- \nmation, \xe2\x80\x94 a regeneration of the individual which \nis a new creation, a moral renewal of society which \nrealizes in this world the kingdom of heaven, a com- \npleted fellowship above, which is the consummation \nin body and soul, and the eternal fellowship, of the \nholy from every generation and every realm, \xe2\x80\x94 it \nmust bear within itself all the forces requisite for \nthe achievement of such results. These powers are \nprovided and pledged in the name into which it \nbaptizes ; and not until God was thus revealed were \nthey supplied and made available and effective. \nTransient theophanies, typical sacrifices, gifts of the \nSpirit there were before ; but no Incarnation, no \nAtonement, no descent and indwelling of the Holy \nGhost. All antecedent revelations had been pre- \nparatory and partial, and all spiritual renewals no \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 155 \n\nless anticipatory, prophetic, and incomplete. Jesus \nalone lived a perfect life ; alone revealed the Father \nas the necessary and real correlative of an actual \nconscious sonship; alone entered into the entire \nrange of human need and represented it in perfect \nobedience, righteousness, and love before a merciful \nand holy God; alone drew into the race, in the \nfullness of its power to transform and save, the ab- \nsolute good there is for men in God ; alone pro- \nvided the perfect pattern which could be used in the \nmoulding of character ; alone imparted the motive \npower which could reach to all conditions of human \nlife and stages of human development, through the \npreaching of the gospel and the demonstration of \nthe Spirit. Whatever we may think of antecedent \nrevelations, the apostle teaches us the large fact and \ntruth in the case when he says, even of the days of \nJesus\'s earthly ministry, " The Spirit was not yet \ngiven, because Jesus was not yet glorified." The \nrisen exalted Christ sent the Spirit, Then, then \nfor the first time, was there in the world a religion \ncompetent to a world-wide mission. \n\nThat Christian missions thus imply and rest \nupon the absoluteness and universality of Chris- \ntianity has been evident throughout their history. \nEntire submission to Jesus\'s supreme authority, re- \nliance upon his divine power, belief in the suffi- \nciency and completeness of the gospel and in its \nnecessity for human salvation, have been the con- \nstant sources and signs of their power. Even where \nsuch principles have been restricted in their applica- \n\n\n\n156 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntion or theoretically impaired, they have been the \nheart and soul of movements which will always \ncompel admiration. If in the line of thought on \nwhich we shall now proceed attention is turned \npredominantly to what is defective, it is not be- \ncause we are unmoved by the greatness and glory of \nwhat has been achieved, but because we hope that \nby such a method lessons may be learned which \nwill be helpful in the performance of duties which \nare at hand. \n\nThe early church entered with zeal on the work \nof individual testimony to the saving power of \nChrist. The gospel was soon promulgated through- \nout the Roman Empire, and beyond its boundaries. \nThe witness of martyrdom shows how real was the \nbelief in the absolute supremacy of Christ. The \nnote expressed by the word catholic marks the \nchurch\'s sense of its wholeness or completeness \nin doctrine and membership, and, finally, of its uni- \nversality, and thus points to the universality of the \ngospel. But in various ways these predicates of \nChristianity were impaired. At the outset a crass \nmillennianism clouded the vision of very many. \nThe heathen nations were regarded as ruled by de- \nmons. The conflict between good and evil in this \nworld is a battle between Satan and Christ. The \nvictory will be won by the visible coming of Christ \nto set up his kingdom at Jerusalem. The nations \nwill be judged, not saved. Justin Martyr tells us \nthat, although those who were orthodox Christians \non all points were assured as to the truth of this \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 157 \n\ndoctrine, many true Christians thought otherwise. \nYet for more than two centuries after the apostolic \nage, with the exception of the clear-eyed Origen, \nno teacher of the church appears to have anticipated \nthat Christianity would conquer the Empire by \nvirtue of its inherent moral and spiritual forces, \nor that a divine kingdom would be established in \nthe world by the preaching of the gospel. This \nfailure to appreciate what we may call the intensive \nabsoluteness of Christianity, the absoluteness of \nits moral quality, affected injuriously its entire de- \nvelopment in the early centuries. The theory and \npractice of the church in its work of establishing \nChrist\'s kingdom ceased more and more to be ruled \nby the idea of spiritual regeneration. There was \nno vision of a world-wide civilization transformed \nby the power of the gospel. On the contrary, w r e \nsee the beginnings of a reign of asceticism and \nmonasticism. The dissolution of the Roman Em- \npire was rightly anticipated, but it was not dreamed \nof that the agents in this work of destruction would \nbe heathen tribes who would one day, converted to \nChristianity, be the chief instruments in carrying \na purer gospel to nations outside the then known \nworld, and to the very lands where the apostles es- \ntablished the matrices ecclesice. So much larger \nand more merciful is the providential unfolding of \nprophecy than what once passed for its valid and \northodox interpretation ! \n\nThe conversion of Constantine and his ascension \nto the throne as sole emperor changed men\'s \n\n\n\n158 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthoughts of the kingdom of God. The church \nstarted on a career of influence and authority in \nunion with the state. With power came the an- \nticipation of earthly dominion. Augustine became \nfor mediaeval history the exponent of the altered \nopinion. The millennium was now understood to \nhave begun with the first Advent, or at least with \nthe conquest of the Empire. The kingdom of God \nis the catholic or universal church, which may be \nknown by its historical connection with the churches \nfounded by apostles. It is an outward visible or- \nganization ; there is no salvation outside of its pale, \nalthough not all within it are true members and \nwill finally be saved. Here again was an encroach- \nment upon that spiritual quality which is essential \nto any true conception of the absoluteness of the \ngospel. With this conception of the church was as- \nsociated in Augustine\'s mind, though not as a log- \nical sequence, the doctrine of a division of mankind \ninto two classes whose final destination should illus- \ntrate two aspects of the divine character, its justice \nand its grace. He seems to have regarded the for- \nmer as a more important attribute or quality than \nthe latter ; at least he teaches that more by far are \ncondemned than saved, in order that thus may be \nshown what is due to all. The church never rati- \nfied Augustine\'s predestinationism, although it af- \nfirmed his doctrine of the prevenience and suprem- \nacy of grace. Nearly every great missionary of \nthe mediaeval era was a monk, 1 and monastic Au- \n\n1 Maclear, A History of Christian Missions during the Mid- \ndie Ages, p. 406. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 159 \n\ngustinianism was ordinarily a diluted doctrine. Two \nprinciples, however, became established in West- \nern missionary belief, \xe2\x80\x94 original sin and the ne- \ncessity of baptism. All men are by nature exposed \nand justly condemned to eternal punishment. Di- \nvine grace operates for the rescue of the lost \nthrough the visible church, by its priesthood and \nsacraments. All not saved by these instrumental- \nities perish everlastingly. At bottom there was a \nconception of God inconsistent with the absolute- \nness of Christianity, and even with his ethical per- \nfection. For it is as necessary that God should be \nbenevolent as that He should be just, and justice \nitself is deprived of its prerogative when it no lon- \nger maintains the rights of redeeming love. Un- \nless the justice as well as the compassion of God \nare pledged to Redemption, it can no longer claim \na place in the divine purposes. And if Christianity \nrepresents but a subordinate attribute or quality \nof the divine nature it is but an imperfect good, \nand can play but an inferior part in the universe. \nThe mediaeval thought of God and of Christianity \nwas profoundly dualistic, save as it gained a seem- \ning unity by an exaltation of an unethical omnipo- \ntence. In neither way could Christianity be rightly \ninterpreted. Where this thought was most ethical, \nit made Christianity something subordinate and \nlimited ; where it was least ethical, it made Chris- \ntianity arbitrary. Mediaeval missions suffered from \nthese causes. They aimed too little at spiritual con- \nquests. They were not inspired by the conception \n\n\n\n160 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nof Christianity as a revelation of universal and \nabsolute love. To the church at large the heathen \nwere but as Turks. That the former should fall \nby the sword of the divine justice was as fitting as \nthat the latter should be massacred by Crusaders. \nHappily names like those of Eaymund Lull and \nSt. Francis of Assisi rise up to qualify such state- \nments. We speak only of the general sentiment \nand practice. \n\nOne of the most striking evidences of the fail- \nure of mediaeval Christianity to appreciate the uni- \nversality of the gospel is found in one of its noblest \nproducts, the u De Imitatione Christi " of Thomas \na Kempis. This little book has had a circulation \nbeyond any other writing outside of the sacred \ncanon. It is the flower and finest fruit of mediaeval \nmysticism. One must read it often to appreciate \nits strange power, its unworldliness, its deadly hos- \ntility to pride, its austere solid sweetness, its calm \ndeep undertone of condemnation for every endeavor \nto satisfy an immortal spirit with anything but the \nlove of God. \n\nThe late Dean of St. Paul\'s, Mr. Milman, has \npassed a severe judgment on this book. Its aim, \nhe affirms, is entirely and absolutely selfish. Never \nwas there such a misnomer as its title. Much may \nbe said in mitigation of this censure. To escape \nfrom selfishness is the purpose of the practical mys- \ntical school, and although this is less pronounced \nin the " De Imitatione " than in the " Theologia \nGermanica," it is still there. The writer combats \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 161 \n\nexternalism and formalism. Deeds of charity are \nprofitless without love. " He doeth much who lov- \neth much ; he doeth much who doeth well ; and he \ndoeth much and well who constantly preferreth \nthe good of the community to the gratification of \nhis own will." \n\nYet mediaeval mysticism, with all its moral ear- \nnestness, self-renunciation, divine aspirations, and \nwith its lofty doctrine of the soul as capax Dei, \nproduced no missionary hero. Its object, as Dean \nMilman justly says, is the elevation of the individ- \nual soul, of the man wholly isolated from his kind. \nThe lauded preference of the good of the commu- \nnity is a sacrifice of self-will rather than a realiza- \ntion of an infinite good, capable of blessing all, and \nfound only as it becomes the motive to an inex- \nhaustible benevolence. This good, moreover, is not \nappreciated as redeeming love, which penetrates the \nsouls of the rebellious and guilty, and solves the \nproblem how a selfish heart can be made unselfish \nand Christlike. It is not, therefore, to be won- \ndered at that piety so deep as that of this priceless \nbook lacks aggressive and missionary power. It \nmissed as really, though in a very different way, \nthe true absoluteness of Christianity as did the for- \nmalism and scholasticism it reacted from and com- \nbated. \n\nThe Reformers remedied the essential defect of \nthe mediaeval method of piety by restoring Paul\'s \ndoctrine of faith. Faith is not mere assent to au- \nthoritative formulas, but an acceptance of forgi ve- \nil \n\n\n\n162 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nness through Christ, an acceptance of Him in his \npersonal truth and love, so that He becomes the \ninspiring principle of a new life of gratitude and \ndevotion. The doctrine of spiritual personal re- \ngeneration thus regained its rights. And more \nthan this, \xe2\x80\x94 the divinely appointed method of com- \nplete spiritual restoration again became clear. But \nas piety alone, even the profound and spiritual piety \nof the mediaeval mystics, did not produce mission- \naries, so the evangelical apprehension by the Re- \nformers of the way of salvation was equally for a \ntime inoperative. The reason, if we mistake not, \nw r as at bottom the same. In neither case was a \none-sided individualism overcome ; in neither was \nthere a due appreciation of the universality of the \ngospel. \n\nThe failure of the Reformers to grasp the mis- \nsionary idea is sometimes excused on the ground of \ntheir absorption in the task immediately obliga- \ntory. The apology is valid, perhaps, as respects \nthe actual organization of missionary movements. \nBut something more than the absence of active \nparticipation in such efforts appears. The mission- \nary idea itself \xe2\x80\x94 a recognition of the Christian duty \nto evangelize heathendom \xe2\x80\x94 is wanting. 1 In the \ncase of Luther his eschatological opinions obscured \nhis vision. He thought the end of the world was \nat hand, and that the heathen w r ere doomed to de- \nstruction. We cannot but suspect at times in his \n\n1 So Dr. Warneck in Herzog and Plitt\'s Real Encyclopadie, \nx. 37 sqq. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 163 \n\nfeeling toward Jews and Turks a slight survival of \nthe old Teutonic barbarism, as in Tertullian\'s ex- \nultation in view of the last judgment there appears \nto be something of Punic ferocity. Calvin had \na larger faith as to the extension of Christianity ; \nbut, so far as we have observed, nowhere urges the \nobligation resting upon the church to christianize \nthe heathen nations. When he comments on the \n" great commission " his thought is engrossed with \nthe equality which it implies between Jews and \nGentiles. The Apostle Paul was " not ashamed of \nthe gospel, because it is the power of God unto sal- \nvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, \nand also to the Greek," that is, to the pagan every- \nwhere. Calvin\'s thought, like Luther\'s, concerns \nitself not with heathen Gentiles but with Christian, \nwho, under the gospel, are made equal to the Jew. \nThe duty of sending missionaries to the uncon- \nverted heathen is not recognized in his comment. \nIt seemed to him to be perfectly just for God to \nconsign all the heathen to endless punishment on \naccount of original sin, apart from their actual \ntransgressions, and it was not fitting that any sub- \nject of the infinite sovereign should question his \nacts. Doubtless he would have rejoiced to hear \nthat Protestant Christianity was gaining a foothold \nanywhere, and he would not have been indifferent \n(as perhaps the Genevan support of Villegaignon \nshows) to any missionary undertaking for which \nProvidence seemed to be opening the way. But his \nconception of Christianity was colored through and \n\n\n\n164 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthrough by his conception of God as an absolute \nsovereign, who sends salvation to whom He wills \nand withholds it from whom He wills. Redemption \nis particular, not universal ; Christianity is a means \nto an end, a special remedy in a particular exi- \ngency, not the consummation of God\'s revelation \nto the universe of his ethical nature as perfect \nLove. A world-wide missionary thought and aim, \nit might be supposed, would spring up -in a mind \nso thoroughly imbued as was Calvin\'s with rever- \nence for the divine sovereignty before such a com- \nmand as that on which he comments. But it did \nnot. " The words that I have spoken unto you are \nspirit and are life." The " great commission " is \nthe outcome of the great sacrifice. If the latter is \nconceived of as limited, the former is not likely to \nbe apprehended as universal. Count Zinzendorf \ninterpreted the divine sovereignty better than Cal- \nvin when he said : " The whole earth is the Lord\'s ; \nmen\'s souls are all his ; I am debtor to all." \n\nThese words were uttered in 1741. They struck \nthe key-note of modern missions; but many dec- \nades were still . to pass away before the leading \nProtestant churches, other than the Unitas Fra- \ntrum, were moved to action. \n\nMany powerful influences conspired to bring \nabout such a movement. \n\nThe Roman Catholic powers lost the supremacy \nof the seas. The colonial power of England rose \nto an extraordinary height. Colonization and traffic \nbrought the leading Protestant nations into connec- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 165 \n\ntion with many and wide-spread peoples. Mission- \nary effort on any large scale has always been \npreceded by great advances in the means or oc- \ncasions of intercourse. The roads of the Roman \nEmpire, and the Empire itself, opened the way for \nthe first preaching of the gospel. The irruptions of \nthe barbarians prepared for and stimulated the \nTeutonic missions. The very remarkable and ex- \ntensive Roman Catholic missions of the fifteenth, \nsixteenth, and seventeenth centuries were intimately \nconnected with the maritime and colonial en- \nterprises of Portugal, Spain, and France. The \nmore sporadic and inferior efforts of the earlier \nProtestantism had a similar basis. The present \ninterest in missions arises in part from the fact \nthat the world is now open to the missionary to an \naltogether unprecedented degree. The beginnings \nof this great change in the relations of Protestant \nnations to heathendom were making themselves felt \nwhen Christians, in England and in this country, \nwere moved to those organized efforts for the spread \nof the gospel in foreign lands which have marked \nthe religious history of this century. \n\nAnother cause was the development, in the eight- \neenth century, of the sentiment of humanity. No \none can read the appeals to the Christian public \nsent forth by the founders and early friends of the \nleading missionary societies without being im- \npressed by the prominence which is given to hu- \nmaneness and pity. Those familiar with the litera- \nture of this subject will at once recall the stirring \n\n\n\n166 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\naddresses of Dr. David Bogue, who has been called, \nnot undeservedly, the father of the London Mis- \nsionary Society. As one specimen of many we cite \na few sentences from a document put forth in 1818 \nby the Church Missionary Society : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Whither can the fainting eye of misery turn but to \nthis great Protestant Empire . . . ? \n\n" Where, then, is our love to our fellow-creatures, if \nwe do not rise to communicate to them that unspeakable \nblessing, which has first visited us, that it may be sent on \nto others ? Where is our humanity, our benevolence, \nour compassion, if we spring not forth in this office of \ngrace ? What ! shall the unhappy widow still perish on \nthe funeral pile \xe2\x80\x94 shall the helpless infant still sink un- \nder the hand of its parent \xe2\x80\x94 shall the deformed orgies of \nJuggernaut continue to prevail, and the bones of the \nwretched pilgrim whiten its plains \xe2\x80\x94 shall the horrid rites \nof cannibalism yet subsist, and temples for the worship of \ndevils be openly reared \xe2\x80\x94 shall all the disgusting cere- \nmonies of impurity and blood remain in undiminished \nforce \xe2\x80\x94 shall ignorance and vice and despair brood over \nthe fairest portion of the globe, and the prostrate un- \nderstanding and savage passions of man bind him a \nslave to earth ? \xe2\x80\x94 and shall Britons hesitate to convey to \nthe several sufferers the knowledge, and grace, and life, \ncf an eternal Redemption ? " 1 \n\nA further and yet more important influence came \nfrom the religious revivals of the last century, \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe Pietism of Spener, the Moravian and Wes- \nleyan movements, the preaching of Whitefield, the \n\ni Invitation to assist the Attempts of the Church Missionary Soci- \nety for the Conversion of the Heathen. London, 1818. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 167 \n\nu Great Awakening " in this country. With these \nwere connected important doctrinal changes, par- \nticularly a clearer and more Biblical apprehension \nof conversion as a spiritual renovation wrought \nby the Holy Spirit through the influence of truth \napplied as motive, and a recognition of the Atone- \nment not merely as sufficient for the salvation \nof all men, but as intended for all. The first \norganized action which ushered in the new mis- \nsionary era came from the Calvinistic Baptists in \nEngland. When William Carey, its originator, \nat a meeting of clergymen proposed for discussion \nthe topic : " The duty of Christians to attempt the \nspread of the gospel among heathen nations," an \nelderly divine sprang to his feet, and thundered \nout, " Young man, sit down ! When God pleases \nto convert the heathen He will do it without your \naid or mine." We see the old Calvinism and the \nnew here in conflict. Carey found supporters in \nmen who adopted the principles of what abroad was \ncalled "American Theology," and is known here \nas " Edwardean " or " New School " or " New Eng- \nland" divinity. All the earlier and more impor- \ntant societies \xe2\x80\x94 the Baptist Missionary, the Lon- \ndon Missionary, the Church Missionary \xe2\x80\x94 seem to \nhave been founded and supported by men who had \nbroken more or less openly with the old Calvinism, \nand obtained larger conceptions of the Atonement \nof Christ than it afforded. Even when the old \nphraseology is retained the emphasis is different. \nIn this country, where the new doctrine had gained \n\n\n\n168 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\npowerful supporters, it became prominent at once \nin pleas for missions. In the sermon preached by \nDr. Woods in Salem, at the ordination of the first \nmissionaries of the American Board (February 6, \n1812), he urged, as a motive for " effort to seek the \nconversion of all mankind," " the plenteousness of \nthe provision which Christ has made for their sal- \nvation," an atonement not only " sufficient for \nAsiatics and Africans," but " made for them as well \nas for us." He rebuked as indicative of the lim- \nited and exclusive spirit of Judaism any lower esti- \nmate of the Christian dispensation. \n\nBesides the postulates of universal sinfulness and \nuniversal atonement, one other was generally ac- \ncepted by the founders of modern missions, namely, \nthe indispensableness of revealed truth. The last \nnamed principle, like the first, struck its roots into \nthe traditional theology. The Savoy Declaration, \nadopted by the Congregational churches in England \nand America as a Confession of Faith, affirmed \nthat the \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Promise of Christ, and salvation by Him is revealed \nonly by the Word of God ; neither do the works of crea- \ntion or providence, with the light of nature, make dis- \ncovery of Christ, or of grace by Him, so much as in a \ngeneral or obscure way ; much less that men destitute \nof the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel should \nbe enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repent- \nance." \n\nThis necessity of a knowledge of revealed truth \nis the burden of early missionary sermons preached \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 169 \n\nbefore the American Board. It will suffice to \nrefer to President Appleton\'s, whose object was to \nshow that " the true character of God is not known \nexcept by revelation." He declines to agitate the \nquestion " whether some individuals may not be \nsanctified by the Spirit who are precluded from all \nacquaintance with revealed religion." Such purely \nexceptional cases he appears to regard as of no \nserious account in the large and practical issue. \nHow much this principle of the necessity of revela- \ntion was an axiom with the fathers may be seen \nin Dr. Emmons\'s sermon on " The Hopeless State \nof the Heathen " ; it is assumed by the preacher \nwithout argument. The acceptance of the same \nprinciple by the promoters of missions in England \nmay be illustrated by a reference to a published \nsermon before the Church Missionary Society by \nRev. E. T. Vaughan. His proposition is : " The \nReception of Christ is essential to Salvation." Such \nan insistence upon opportunity for the working of \nthe motives of redemption wherever there is re- \ncovery from the guilt and power of sin was par- \nticularly appropriate and consistent on the part of \nmen who were contending against the doctrine of \npassive regeneration. \n\nThus far the new missionary movement was \nstrongly in the direction of a better understanding \nof the absoluteness and universality of the gospel, \nand indeed was largely the fruit of such an appre- \nciation. It is not strange, judging by past ex- \nperience, that it did not at once go farther. Every \n\n\n\n170 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nadvance in thought requires time to work itself \nclear, to perfect its somewhat disturbed connections \nwith the past, to measure its strength and discover \nwhat it can contribute to the future. Luther saw \nthat in the Reformation principle of justification by- \nfaith only lay the germ of a new doctrine of per- \nsonality ; but how slowly this conception has de- \nveloped its power. So, in the principle of the \nuniversality of the Atonement which introduced the \nmodern era of " world-missions," was involved the \ndoctrine, which is just beginning to make itself felt, \nof the personal relation of Jesus Christ, the incar- \nnate Redeemer, to each and every member of the \nrace. For the new and inspiring thought in the \nrise of modern missions was not simply that Christ r s \npassion is sufficient for all, \xe2\x80\x94 this was the conserva- \ntive orthodoxy of the day, \xe2\x80\x94 but that He died in \nintention and purpose for all. Intention and pur- \npose imply and establish a personal relation, and \nthis relation remained to be thought out if the \nmovement begun was not to be arrested in mid \ncareer, and the absoluteness of Christianity still \nleft in shadow and partial eclipse. \n\nThere were as usual in such cases traditional \nprepossessions and assumptions which were not yet \nadjusted to the new principle or excluded by it. \n\nOne of these was a belief in the universal doom \nof the pagan. The Reformers inherited the Au- \ngustinian doctrine of humanity as a massa per- \nditionis. Only sovereign grace rescues those who \nare elected to salvation. Christianity, instead of be- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 171 \n\ning absolute and universal, was interpreted as par- \nticular and exclusive. Luther began to break away \nfrom this mode of conception when he learned to \nread the doctrine of election in the wounds of \nChrist ; but the dogma of universal and damnable \nguilt by Adam\'s sin stood fast. The Biblical judg- \nments upon the heathen were understood to include \ntheir final doom. The means of grace were neces- \nsary to salvation, and the heathen were destitute of \nthem. There being no hope beyond the present \nlife, all were regarded as lost. A Lutheran pastor \nin Denmark was " ordered to leave the kingdom on \naccount of having preached what was condemned \nas \'the damnable heresy that by God\'s grace even \nheathens might be saved.\' " The Reformed doc- \ntrine admitted the possibility of the salvation of \nsome pagans by election, but made little or no ac- \ncount of it. In the beginning of the last century \nand the close of the preceding, religious people in \nBoston and vicinity were deeply interested in a \nseries of Tuesday lectures by the Rev. Samuel \nWillard, pastor of the South Church, and one of \nthe most eminent divines in New England history \nbefore the days of Jonathan Edwards. These lec- \ntures were published posthumously, with a preface \nby Joseph Sewall and Thomas Prince in which this \nbody of divinity is characterized as "one of the \nnoblest and choicest ... we have anywhere met \nwith, or we are apt to think has yet appeared in the \nworld." Hardly any book, we are told, has been \nmore passionately wished for. The author raises \n\n\n\n172 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthe question " whether we may have any grounded \nhopes of the salvation of such as never enjoyed the \nScriptures?" and reasons to the conclusion that \nany such hope is groundless. \n\n" There is no reason to be given for it, yea, and it \ntends to subvert the gospel and make the ordinances of it \nunnecessary, to encourage men in neglect and ignorance \nof the Scriptures ; for either they must be saved without \nChrist, which is impossible ; or by Him without believing, \nwhich takes away the new covenant condition; or be- \nlieve without knowledge of Him, which takes away the \nvery nature of Faith ; or come to the knowledge of Him \nsome other way, winch is unaccountable ; the light of \nnature will not do it \\ the only way of God\'s appointment \nis by the Scriptures ; to suppose any other is to impose \nupon God." \n\nThe further inference is drawn that but few \nare saved " compared with the rest of mankind." \nA century later, in the sermon already named, Dr. \nEmmons still reasoned in the same strain. The \nheathen have been given up to " judicial blindness \nand hardness of heart." They do not possess the \nmeans of grace without which no soul can be saved, \nand they will continue to go down to hell until \n" God sends them the gospel." In their memorial \nto the governor of Bombay, December 4, 1813, the \nfirst missionaries sent out by the American Board \nto India affirm : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" We looked upon the heathen, and alas ! three fourths \nof the inhabitants of the globe had not been told that \nJesus had \' tasted death for every man.\' We saw them \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 173 \n\nfollowing their fathers in successive millions to eternal \ndeath. The view was overwhelming. " \n\nThis conception of the doom of the pagan was \nstrengthened, as we have intimated, by a further \ntraditional dogma, that of distinct individual moral \nprobation. This survived, and indeed first defi- \nnitely appeared in Calvinistic circles, after the doc- \ntrine of the imputation to Adam\'s posterity of guilt \nfor his transgression had been abandoned. In their \ncontest with New England theologians the Prince- \nton divines w r ere fully aware that this tenet was an \ninnovation, and they pressed their opponents more \nclosely at this point than any other. " Is it not \nnecessary," they asked, "that a moral being should \nhave a probation before his fate is decided ? When \nhad men this probation ? " " A probation to be \nfair must afford as favorable a prospect of a happy \nas of an unhappy conclusion." Such a probation, \nthey argued, was given in the trial of our first par- \nents. It is not realized under the fallen condition \nof their descendants. The conception of this life\'s \nbeing the period, and this world the place where \nevery human being is undergoing, individually or \npersonally, a test by which his eternal destiny will \nbe determined, seems to have obtained footing in \nthe Western church in connection with monastic \nrules of discipline and a semi-Pelagian anthropol- \nogy. It is foreign to strict Augustinianism and \nCalvinism. It naturally found favor, in the eight- \neenth century, in the revolt from the Reformed an- \nthropology, and has a place in the development of \n\n\n\n174 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthe doctrine of free moral agency. Bishop But- \nler\'s Analogy \xe2\x80\x94 which logically, it should be no- \nticed, stops far short of the conclusion to which the \ndogma in question has been pressed, \xe2\x80\x94 helped to \nits diffusion and general acceptance. Combined \nwith the received opinions as to the necessity of re- \nvealed truth and of faith to salvation, it left open \nfor the heathen world no door of hope. Christian- \nity was excluded from the great majority of men \nwho had lived, and for whom the Saviour died, as \na motive or means of recovery. Faith turned to a \nfuture millennium, and fondly counted up the myr- \niads of the saved. But a universal atonement lim- \nited in its operation by the being who made it was \na contradiction too palpable and violent to remain \nconcealed. The great forces of progress which had \nhelped to bring in a new missionary age worked \nagainst such limitations. The sentiment of human- \nity, itself a child of the gospel, protested against \nthem. More thorough acquaintance with the Scrip- \ntures under improved methods of interpretation, \nthe heightened influence of the gospel, bringing \nmen\'s minds into, larger knowledge of the mind of \nChrist and deeper sympathy with his love to men, \nclearer and higher consequent conceptions of the \ntrue character of God, gradually changed the tone \nof Christian thought about the heathen. Their \nmoral degradation was even better understood than \nbefore. Their need of the gospel was no less clear. \nBut God\'s purpose concerning them was less and \nless dogmatically affirmed. Probably the old ap- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 175 \n\npeal from their inevitable doom never had the ef- \nfectiveness sometimes attributed to it. Dr. James \nA. Alexander, writing in the " Princeton Review" \nin 1843, affirmed that the great mass of Christians \nin America took " no real interest in Foreign Mis- \nsions," and gave as one of the reasons for this apa- \nthy a " secret skepticism as to the real danger of \nthe heathen." This "skepticism" has not been \nlong in revealing itself. " The plain truth is," re- \nmarks a brilliant orthodox New England theolo- \ngian, " that human nature and sanctified nature \ngive out." Berkeley was said by Reid to have \n" proved by unanswerable arguments what no man \nin his senses can believe." It has happened in \nthis wise again and again with theological dogmas \nnot founded in Christianity. That the heathen, as \nother men, are lost without the redemption pro- \nvided in Christ, that they need the missionary and \nthe gospel, are evident truths. For ourselves we \naccept the doctrine of the fathers of modern mis- \nsions that men everywhere need for recovery the \nmeans of grace, but the conclusion that all are \nlost who do not receive them in this life is another \nmatter. Even when such a dogma is theoretically \nheld it is no longer pressed in pleas for missions. \nThe secretaries of our missionary societies, so far \nas we are aware, with possibly here and there an \nexception, do not now touch this chord. The organ \nof the London Missionary Society, with commenda- \nble frankness, has recently remarked : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" There was a time, and this not long ago, when the \n\n\n\n176 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nmost forcible appeal for missions was drawn from the \nbelief that the heathen who did not hear of Christ must \ndrop into a hell of unending torment. The nobler \nthoughts of God which have of late taken possession of \nthe church have rendered it impossible to believe that \nmen could be eternally lost for not having believed truths \nnever offered for their acceptance." \n\nWe cannot regard this language as in any re- \nspect too strong. The intelligence and heart of \nthe Christian church not merely decline to accept \nthe old dogma of the universal perdition of the \nheathen, \xe2\x80\x94 they repudiate it. In the absence of \nany thorough reconsideration of the subject some \ntake refuge in agnosticism ; others refuse to think \non the subject ; others resort to a vague assertion \nof the divine leniency, a proportioning of judg- \nment to light and opportunity ; others are reason- \ning, along ever fading lines of moral attenuation, \nthrough the lowest supposable degree of saving \nfaith in a pious Hebrew to the dimmest spark of \nspiritual light in a pious Gentile ; others are re- \nviving the doctrine taught in the notable " Apol- \nogy " of Robert Barclay (a. d. 1675), which adds \nto a remarkable statement of the universality of \nthe Atonement the confession of an equally uni- \nversal supernatural enlightenment of mankind dur- \ning a day or opportunity of grace ; others find this \nsaving knowledge of the Father and the Son in the \nnatural conscience, a doctrine which Barclay, as \nthe church generally, has deemed " Socinian and \nPelagian." Whatever the theory or mode of re- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. Ill \n\nlief, it is practically believed that large numbers \nof the heathen will be saved, even though they die \nwithout " the outward preaching of the gospel." \n\nIf this were a mere question of the number of \nthe saved we should not think it important here to \ndwell upon it. The absoluteness and universality \nof the gospel are not dependent on the degree of \nits success in the salvation of sinners. This ques- \ntion belongs to Theodicy, which is far from be- \ning a complete science, or capable of a perfect \nsolution of the problem of evil. We believe, in- \ndeed, on Scriptural as well as rational grounds, that \nChristianity will be glorified in its triumphs over \nsin, and that the satisfaction of the Redeemer in \nthe fruit of his passion involves the perfect recovery \nto holiness of countless numbers of those for whom \nHe died. But we are not convinced that none will \nbe lost, that Satan will finally appear truly as an \nangel of light. The absoluteness and universality \nof the gospel which are assured to us in the Scrip- \ntures are ethical and spiritual, an absoluteness of \nholy love, not of mere power, a perfect expression \nand realization of the moral nature of God in his \nuniverse for its greatest possible well being. The \nhighest point which Theodicy as yet can reach is \ngiven in the touching and searching question of the \nancient parable : " What could have been done \nmore to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? " \n\nNor, if the present change of belief as to the \nnecessary doom of the pagan involved merely the \nwithdrawal or modification of one motive to Chris- \n\n12 \n\n\n\n178 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntian missions, would the problem presented be spe- \ncially difficult or urgent. The only question would \nbe, how the argument for missions shall be adapted \nto such a changed attitude of mind. But the real \nissue is much broader and deeper. The question \nof the salvation of the heathen is simply one aspect \nof the fundamental religious question of our time : \nthe claim of Christianity to be the one perfect and \nfinal religion for mankind. Involved in this issue \nare inquiries such as these : Is the final judgment \nuniversal ? Do the ultimate destinies of men turn \non their personal relation to Christ ? Is Christian- \nity essentially ethical and spiritual? Is its salva- \ntion mediated by motives, including personal in- \nfluence, addressed to and operative in the human \nreason, affections, and will? Is there one system \nof salvation for Jew and Gentile, as one final judg- \nment ? Is God\'s purpose of creation and redemp- \ntion fulfilled except as He manifests himself to \nevery human being as Redeemer as well as Judge ? \nWhat inference upon this question is legitimate \nfrom the universality of Christ\'s Person in its con- \nstitution, the universality of Christ\'s atonement, \nand the universality of Christ\'s judgment ? How \nand why is He the Son of Man, the second Adam^ \nthe Creator, Mediator, and Ruler of the universe ? \nWe cannot but think that the interests of mis- \nsions to the heathen require a readjustment of pleas \nin their behalf in the light of the Scriptural and \nrational answers which must be given to such ques- \ntions. If this is not done there is danger not \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 179 \n\nmerely of the loss of a particular motive to mis- \nsions, but of a loss of faitli in the principles which \nunderlie the whole missionary movement. The \ncause of missions hitherto has rested, as we have \nsaid, on the postulates of universal sinfulness, uni- \nversal atonement, and the indispensableness o\xc2\xa3 \nfaith. It rests ultimately on the divine command \n(Matt, xxviii. 18-20), which implies the universal- \nity and absoluteness of Christianity. The dogma \nof the damnation of the heathen is not one of these \npostulates, nor is it a Biblical teaching, but a corol- \nlary which now depends upon a dogma which is no \npart nor presupposition of the gospel \xe2\x80\x94 that of the \nlimitation of probation for all men to the present \nlife. This dogma is now working, as do all un- \ntruthful exaggerations, with a disturbing and in- \njurious effect. It is driving its advocates to posi- \ntions inconsistent with the fundamental axioms of \nChristian missions. They cannot accept the old \nconclusion of the universal perdition of the pagan. \nThey continue, however, to insist upon the limita- \ntion of probation. The only and necessary relief \nis in a reduction of Christianity, a lessening of its \nclaims, and a corruption of its ethical and spiritual \nquality. The endeavor is to find grounds of hope \nfor the heathen outside of Christianity, or outside \nof the known sphere of its operation as moral and \nspiritual truth working as a new and mighty mo- \ntive-power in the formation of character. That, \nin quarters where this limitation of probation is \ndeemed essential to orthodoxy, the drift of opinion \n\n\n\n180 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nis strongly in this direction is abundantly evident. \nThe caution, indeed, is still interposed that the evi- \ndence requires us to hold that the " hopeful " cases \nare rare and purely exceptional, but the line of \nmovement entered upon and the motive to it point \ndecisively in one direction, namely, to a very large \ninclusion in the kingdom of Christ of men who are \nsupposed to be saved by Him without knowledge \nof Him, and by none of the means or motives which \nare distinctive and characteristic in the Christian \nlife. For the movement cannot be arrested by the \nrecognition of merely exceptional cases. This \nbrings no relief. It does not meet the real diffi- \nculty. It fails to take account of the efficient cause \nof the change in men\'s views. That cause, as the \n" Chronicle of the London Missionary Society " \nasserts, is the growth in Christian consciousness of \n"nobler thoughts of God, as revealed in Jesus \nChrist." Exceptional cases are wholly incommen- \nsurate with the magnitude such a revelation intro- \nduces into the problem. To say that Christ is \nfitted by the foreordained constitution of his Person \nto sustain a personal relation to every man, that \nHe actually died in intent and purpose for every \nman, that He will judge every man, as He created \nand redeemed every man, and then to say that in- \ncalculable millions of these very men will never \nhear of the gospel as a provision of mercy for \nthem, will never have opportunity to accept it, and \nthat the comparatively few of their number who will \nbe saved will be recovered without " the establish- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 181 \n\nment of this personal relation to our Lord," \xe2\x80\x94 is \nworse than poor logic, \xe2\x80\x94 it is an insult, however \nunintentional, to Christianity, and practically de- \nrogatory to its claims to absoluteness and finality. \nWe are not insensible to the breadth and spiritual- \nity of the theory embodied in the Confession of the \nSociety of Friends, but cannot find sufficient sup- \nport for it in historical fact and reality. We rec- \nognize in its full value all that can be said about \nu elect " Chinese, or " elect " Jews in Christendom, \nas about " elect infants," and " all other elect per- \nsons who are incapable of being outwardly called \nby the ministry of the word." We recall Peter\'s \nlanguage : " God is no respecter of persons ; but \nin every nation he that feareth Him and worketh \nrighteousness is acceptable to Him." But we re- \ncall also that Peter was sent to Cornelius to teach \nhim the words by which he and his house should \nbe saved (Acts xi. 14), and that when " filled \nwith the Holy Ghost " the same Apostle affirmed \nof the historic Christ, \xe2\x80\x94 " Jesus Christ of Naza- \nreth," \xe2\x80\x94 "in none other is there salvation" (Acts \niv. 8, 10, 12) : and we cannot but think it derog- \natory to this salvation fully to identify it with \nany experience which does not include the knowl- \nedge of the Father through the Son. And if the \npresent movement, in certain orthodox circles, to \nrelieve the demand from a larger and more Chris- \ntian view of the character of God for a wide ex- \ntension of hope for the heathen, is not freed from \nthe limitations of this inferential dogma about their \n\n\n\n182 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nprobation, it will in our judgment become more and \nmore difficult to maintain in effectiveness the prin- \nciple which experience testifies lies at the very \nheart of Christian missions \xe2\x80\x94 the indispensableness \nof the gospel. \n\nA firm and practical conviction of the rightful \nand sole supremacy of Christianity has been the \nsource of the strength and the heroism of the great- \nest, the most effective missionaries from the days \nof the Apostle of the Gentiles to the present hour. \nWe are in earnest that no dogma be interposed \nwhich limits the operation of its divine power to \nconditions which exclude its exercise in any intelli- \ngible way, or on any extensive scale. We believe, \nand we think there is need of asserting the prin- \nciple, that the author of Christianity will give it in \ntime, as in all other respects, a fitting opportunity \nfor its operation. We would send out missionaries \nwho can ask men to renounce all other systems be- \ncause they are persuaded that Christianity, and this \nalone, fulfills all that is good in every other, and \nmeets the deficiencies of every other ; missionaries \nwho in the light of all of God\'s revelations of him- \nself, whether by human reason or human history \nor special inspiration of prophets and apostles or by \nIncarnation, with clear intelligence and perfect as- \nsurance of faith w r ill present Christ as the rightful \nand the only Saviour and Lord; and we would not \nweaken their message by loading it with a dogma \nof the doom of the ancestors of the men to whom \nthey preach, a dogma contradictory to the name \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 183 \n\nthey proclaim and into which they baptize, or by \naccompanying it with an apology for Christianity \nwhich lowers it in principle to the level of other \nreligions, or makes it essentially a system operative \nin some occult way and not as " the truth as it is \nin Jesus." \n\nThe historical course we have followed has \nbrought to view only a few salient features of the \nmissionary activity of the church. Many move- \nments which would deserve attention in but a brief \nsketch of missions have been wholly unnoticed. \nEnough, however, has been presented to suggest \nmost important lessons. \n\nIt is evident that the mere letter of the divine \ncommand is insufficient to awaken the spirit of mis- \nsions. This has stood before the eye of the church \nfor eighteen centuries, and yet how partial the \nresponse ! That the church has been derelict in \nduty in this matter cannot be questioned. We \nwould not write a word which could be understood \nas an attempt to condone a culpable apathy and \nunbelief. Yet it would seem that the command \nof our Lord has a fullness and grandeur of mean- \ning which require time, and varied and protracted \nexperience, for their development. However this \nmay be, the divine wisdom and grace, which over- \nrule the errors and sins of men for the sublimest \nends, have led the church from one degree of at- \ntainment in the understanding of the gospel to an- \nother, and have proportioned its opportunities for \nexpansion to its growth in intelligence and purity. \n\n\n\n184 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY, \n\nIt might almost of itself justify the introduction of \nthe Second Epistle of Peter into the Canon that it \nso deeply and spiritually interprets the delay in the \ncoming of the Lord. Time, we are taught, is of no \naccount, as measured by days or millenniums, in the \nplan of a Being who does not wish " that any should \nperish, but that all should come to repentance." \nHe will secure for his purpose of redemption fitting \nopportunity. Its character will not be changed \nby hurrying anything. Moral processes will be \ngranted the necessary periods. God has always \ncared more for the quality of faith than for its \nquantity. If his church is not ready to proclaim \nthe pure gospel of the Father, the Son, and the \nSpirit, He may allow it to work out its own salva- \ntion with fear and trembling through weary gen- \nerations before He vouchsafes to it the opportu- \nnity of a world-wide mission. \n\nIt is of importance to note that the advance of \nChristianity has been identified hitherto with a \ndeeper and wider apprehension of its absoluteness \nand universality. The first progress of the gospel \nwas arrested until the church grasped the idea of \na universal .kingdom of God in this world. When \nit was gained, Europe lay at her feet. Mediaeval \nmissions and Christianity are the outcome. The \nmovement was then debased and corrupted by form- \nalism and sacerdotalism. When recovery came, and \nthe absoluteness of divine grace \xe2\x80\x94 the immediate \ncommunication to the individual believer of the in- \nfinite good of salvation \xe2\x80\x94 was reasserted, religion \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 185 \n\ncame forth with new powers of conquest. Some- \nthing, however, still needed to be won. The abso- \nluteness of sovereign love was too much conceived \nof as the love of an absolute sovereignty, and the \npath of missions was hedged up. The universal \nlove of Christ, the passion for Christ, the obliga- \ntion of the divine command interpreted in the light \nof Christ\'s sacrifice for mankind, broke anew and \nwith clearer light upon select souls, and the church, \nmade ready thus for missionary effort, found the \ngates of new empire opened. \n\nThis result may give relief to those who fear \nthat the present expansion of thought with refer- \nence to Christ\'s personal relation to every genera- \ntion and every individual of the human race will \nweaken the motive to missionary effort. When \nfamiliar dogmas are disappearing men are apt to \nthink more of what is vanishing than of what is \ntaking its place. If the present movement of \nthought adverse to the traditional limitations of \nChrist\'s saving work for men were a reduction of \nhis claims, a lowering of the doctrine of the Incar- \nnation or the Atonement or the final Judgment, \nthere might be occasion for anxiety. But in reality \nit is only a larger appreciation of all these motives \nand powers of the gospel. It deepens the reasons \nfor an absolute devotion to Christ, increases the \nsense of sin and of the greatness of his redeeming \nlove, emphasizes the apostolic preaching of Christ \ncrucified as the power of God and the wisdom of \nGod. Negatively, it simply declines to affirm that \n\n\n\n186 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nany soul to which this wisdom has not been re- \nvealed, and this power has not been applied, is \nbeyond the pale of redemption, and that we can \nsay that such motives are limited for all men by \nthe opportunities of the present life. Positively, \nit is essentially an advance in the apprehension of \nwhat is a fundamental predicate of the gospel, \xe2\x80\x94 \nits ethical absoluteness. To suppose that progress \nin this direction, as it becomes apparent and is \ngenerally understood, will impair the claims of \nmissions or retard their progress is to miss the \nlesson of history, and to take counsel of fear rather \nthan of reason and Christian faith. The Apostle \nPaul instructs us from his own experience, as to \nwhat is the deepest and most potent motive to \nmissionary effort ; it is the constraining power \nof Christ\'s love, who " died for all, that they which \nlive should no longer live unto themselves, but \nunto Him who for their sakes died and rose again." \nThe church which beyond all others has trusted \nthe simplicity and power of this motive has most \nthoroughly wrought into its membership the mis- \nsionary idea. In his admirable lectures upon the \n" Moravian Missions," so careful and intelligent a \nhistorian as the Rev. A. C. Thompson, D. D., has \naffirmed : " If all Protestant churches had been \nequally devoted, equally enterprising, for the last \ncentury and a half, not an unevangelized man or \nwoman would now remain on earth." \n\nBut some one may possibly suggest : all, then, \nthat is necessary now for the promotion of interest \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 187 \n\nin missions is to urge the principles and maxims of \nMoravian piety. At least it is not desirable to pro- \npose any new theological questions. But this is to \noverlook two facts : Many Christians are not Mo- \nravians, and we are not raising any new questions. \nTo gain in its fullness of power the central motive \nof the Christian life each division of the church \nmust take it up for itself into the organic develop- \nment of its own life. To each true church is given \nits own line of thought, its own sphere of duty, its \nspecial task, for the good of the whole and for a \nricher and broader unity. The questions we have \ntouched upon in their bearing on missions are not \nfirst propounded by us. They are before the pub- \nlic. They come up in a movement already far ad- \nvanced. They cannot be set aside nor suppressed. \nNo greater mistake, as a matter of policy, could be \nmade by the friends of missions than to seem to \nwish to avoid them. One of the most pathetic \ntouches at the recent seventy-fifth Anniversary of \nthe American Board was the allusion of a mission- \nary to the fact that during the years of this So- \nciety\'s history two entire generations of heathen \nhad passed away. What of the unnumbered gen- \nerations, the innumerable millions, that have died \nwithout the gospel ? Once, the advocates of mis- \nsions had a definite answer. They will not repeat \nit. What will they say? What ought they to \nsay ? Our suggestion is, that they answer " ac- \ncording to Christianity." \n\nAnd one word more upon this point. No prog- \n\n\n\n188 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nress is conserved save by allowing its principles \nscope and freedom of development. Any attempt \nto arrest their growth in apprehension or practical \napplication is an expression of distrust in them, \nand tends to their overthrow. The church, having \ngained the doctrine of the universality of the Atone- \nment, cannot stop with this advance. To do so \nwould be to imperil what it has won. Nor, having \nonce learned the lesson of a universal humaneness \nfrom the " philanthropy" " of God our Saviour," 2 \ncan it now close or dull its ear to this divine teach- \ning without peculiar guilt. The Greek Church, in \nits centuries of sterility and decay, is a standing \nwarning to any body of Christians that woidd de- \ncline to follow out the principles with which it is \nintrusted to their legitimate conclusions, and thus \nfail to conserve by progress. \n\nIt is a noteworthy and auspicious fact that the \nplatforms of the older and the most important mis- \nsionary societies are pledged by their history to all \nthat is catholic in Christian belief and fellowship. \nWe believe that missions should always be con- \nducted in this large-minded and large-hearted \nspirit ; that young men should be attracted to such \nservice by the grandeur of its aim, and welcomed \nwithout scrutiny as to their theological opinions be- \nyond what is necessary to ascertain their full accept- \nance of fundamental Christianity in their beliefs \nand in their consecration of purpose. We would \nraise, as a dividing question, no issue upon the mode \n1 Titus iii. 4. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONS. 189 \n\nin which God will administer his one system of re- \ndeeming grace in its application to those of his \nchildren who are born in the darkness of heathen- \nism. But all the more are we strenuous that right \nopinions should prevail as to what the gospel is in \nits universality and completeness, and that no posi- \ntions be taken which in the end will inevitably di- \nminish men\'s convictions of its supreme authority \nand absolute necessity. And we believe that it is \nby the prevalence of truer conceptions of its univer- \nsal character and relations, in connection with the \nprovidential opening of the world to its mission \nand the promised gift of the Spirit, that the com- \ning century \xe2\x80\x94 may we not hope and expect, the \nnext quarter of a century ? \xe2\x80\x94 will show a progress \nin its extension beyond anything as yet realized. \nThe thought is full of encouragement and stimu- \nlus, that through the various missionary societies, \nnow well organized and conducted by men of large \nexperience, the church to-day might lay a hand of \npower and blessing \xe2\x80\x94 as it were, the very benedic- \ntion of Christ \xe2\x80\x94 on every island and continent of \nthe globe. All that is needed is the inspiration \nthat alone can lift the church to the level of \nits opportunity. Providence has been developing \nthrough the century the requisite organizations. It \nis now giving access to every field, however long \nclosed and sealed. The continent of Africa is be- \ncoming as open to missions as to the sunlight. \nThe remotest provinces of China will soon be in \nactive commercial relations with Western civiliza- \n\n\n\n190 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ntion. The islands of the Pacific and the continents \nof Asia and Africa will, erelong, be more thor- \noughly crossed and recrossed by routes of travel \nand traffic than was the Roman Empire when it \nwas conquered by the early church. As never be- \nfore the world is prepared for the gospel. Has the \nchurch a gospel for the world ? \n\n\n\nVIII. \n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. \n\nWhat is the Bible ? How did this collection of \nwritings come into existence ? What are its distinc- \ntive predicates ? Our inquiry assumes, of course, to \nbe made by Christians, and to concern itself with \none of the facts of a divinely established religion. \nIt professes, therefore, to depend upon Christian \nsources for the information of which it is in search. \nWc must begin by considering what those sources \nare. Evidently they consist, in part at least, of \nthe great Christian facts of which the Bible bears \nwitness. We know the immediate historical an- \ntecedents of the Scriptures, both in their outward \nappearance and in their higher significance. By \nthem we can and must, to some extent, be guided \nin forming our conceptions of how the Scriptures \nwere produced, and what they are. Are they to be \nour sole guide, or does Christianity furnish us other \nmeans of information to be used in connection with \nthem ? This is equivalent to asking whether Chris- \ntianity professes to give us as immediate revelation \ninformation as to the way in which the Scriptures \nwere produced, for evidently only information of \nthis kind could take its place beside examination \nof the facts out of which they grew. \n\n\n\n192 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nSome believe, it is true, that our religion, viewed \nas a whole in its divine character and supreme \nvalue, gives us the knowledge we are seeking. \nThey contend that the book which should convey \nto men the essential content of such a religion must \nhave been written in a certain way. For only so, \nthey claim, could it have had the power of impres- \nsion necessary to its task. We may be sure, there- \nfore, that God made just such and such a Bible. \nThe hope of reaching the goal we are seeking by \nthis short cut may be tempting. But can it be in- \ndulged when one considers the assumption it in- \nvolves as to man\'s ability to see all of the ways \nof procedure open to God in establishing his re- \nligion ? How can any finite mind think itself so \nwell acquainted with the sum of historical forces \nas to be able to declare just how a Bible must be \nproduced which would best carry the gospel to the \nworld? Some general predicates of the written \nvehicle of revelation might perhaps be assumed \nwith measurable confidence, but not such as would \nsatisfy the desire of the Christian mind and heart. \nSurely the surprises of God\'s providence should \nhave by this time taught us our inability to predict \njust the means by which He will bring his ends to \npass. \n\nBut we can know just what the Bible is from \nrevelation, if we have a revelation about the matter. \nIs this in our possession ? No ; for the Scriptures \n(to Christians the depository of revelation, what- \never else they may be) do not undertake to tell \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 193 \n\nhow they arose, how they were collected into one \nsacred volume, or precisely what they are. The \nexact conception of their distinctive qualities which \nby general consent belongs to complete Christian \nknowledge they do not profess to give. We do \nnot forget that some build on their interpretation \nof one familiar passage a different view from this. \nPaul affirms that " every Scripture inspired of God \nis also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for cor- \nrection, for instruction which is in righteousness : \nthat the man of God may be complete, furnished \ncompletely unto every good work." That this im- \nplies that in the apostle\'s view the Old Testament \nScriptures, whose canon was then settled, were in- \nspired \xe2\x80\x94 or " God-breathed" \xe2\x80\x94 writings is evident. \nBut it is also equally clear that the ascription to \nthem of this predicate does not explain to us how \nthey became entitled to it, or under what precise \nlimitations it is applied to them. Nor can a large \nand all-inclusive declaration of this sort be accepted \nas determinative in respect to a multitude of special \ninquiries which every book of the Old Testament \nsuggests, and which are essential to a true judgment \nas to its origin, nature, and value. Every book \nmay be profitable for the purposes named by the \napostle and have been divinely adapted to such \nends, and still the question may remain unanswered \nas to the method of its production and the special \nplace it occupies in the revelation of God\'s mind \nand will. We are therefore driven back to a study \nof these Scriptures, as well as of those of the later \n\n13 \n\n\n\n194 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nCanon, in the historical evidences of their origin \nand nature. \n\nPossibly, however, some may think that we have \nno right to assume that the antecedent facts fully \naccount for the Bible, since, although it is unques- \ntionably to a certain extent their product, a special \noperation of Almighty power, of which we are not \ninformed, may have given to it its highest qualities. \nBut surely in the absence of a clear revelation that \nsuch special divine power was employed, we have \nno right to assert its exercise. If without its use \nthe Bible as it stands can be accounted for, it be- \ncomes unnecessary. And more than this ; is it not \nunreasonable, not to say irreverent, to add a new \nkind of divine activity to those of whose operation \nin establishing the kingdom of God sacred history \nassures us? Christian faith finds a revealing pur- \npose of God in the manifest order and connections \nof that history. It infers from the teaching of \nprophet and apostle, and the words of One greater \nthan they, that the events recorded took place in \nconnection with such causes, natural and super- \nnatural, as are presented in the sacred narrative, to \nthe end that men might see behind the causes God \ndisclosing his disposition towards man. Its con- \nviction that this series of facts contains a divine \nobject-lesson absolutely forbids it to try to improve \nthe teaching by inventing other facts and thrusting \nthem into the representation. It says, therefore, \nthat if the forces visible in sacred history appear to \nthe best human vision to have produced the Bible, \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 195 \n\nGod must have wished men to believe that they \ndid produce it. \n\nWe must seek, then, knowledge of the distinctive \nquality and value of the Scriptures by studying \nGod\'s revelation given in history. A collection of \nliterature is before us, \xe2\x80\x94 ideas and narratives con- \nveyed by human minds to other minds in human \nlanguage. As Christians we recognize qualities in \nthese ideas and narratives which are wanting to \nother literature. We wish to obtain a knowledge \nof these qualities as exact as possible, and try to \nfind out what distinguished their authors from other \nmen that they could write such books. We know, \ntoo, from the historical knowledge which belongs \nto our faith that these writings were very intimately \nconnected with the great revealing facts. We \nwish to see as clearly as we can what this connec- \ntion was ; in other words, the process by which \nfact-revelation made the Bible. We go back, there- \nfore, to the places and times in which these Scrip- \ntures were composed, and see how they came to be \nwritten. \n\nWe must at the outset recognize the distinctness \nof the New Testament Scriptures from the Old. \nThe question of the comparative religious value of \ntheir respective contents may be left in abeyance \nwhile we direct our attention to their historical \ndiversity. They are parted by many centuries, they \ngroup themselves about different centres, they are \nunlike in structure and in language. Though they \nunite to form a higher unity, it is a unity made of \n\n\n\n196 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthe wholes constituted by the union of each group. \nThe first owes its value for the church to an event \nwhich followed its composition, the second to its \nhaving succeeded and been created by this same \nevent. We must therefore approach them sepa- \nrately to find out how they came to be. The fact \nthat the New Testament lies the nearer to us, and \nthat we are better informed respecting the circum- \nstances under which it was written, would natu- \nrally lead us to turn first to it, apart from any feel- \ning we might have as to its greater value. \n\nWe naturally begin with its oldest books, the \nearliest literary product of the life of the apostolic \nchurch, the apostolic Epistles. They are chiefly \npastoral letters, written to various Christian com- \nmunities by their respective authors, who were in \nmost cases the founders of the churches addressed. \nThey belong to the apostolic teaching, and had for \ntheir immediate readers, and all future ones, just, \nthe claim which their authors had. Whatever is \npeculiar in their composition, or extraordinary in \ntheir value, is to be found in the apostolic teaching \ngenerally. For there is not a scintilla of evidence \nthat God assumed to the minds of the apostles a \nnew relation as soon as they sat down to write, and \nthat, in consequence, what they wrote had a differ- \nent quality from what they said. St. Paul sent a \nletter to the Galatians censuring them for falling \naway from the doctrine of justification by faith \nwhich they had received from him, and vehemently \nreasserting it as the central doctrine of the gospel. \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 197 \n\nIt is absurd to suppose that he expected his read- \ners to find in the written inculcation of the doc- \ntrine a divineness which they had not perceived in \nthe oral presentation of it. " Why, then," they \nmight have fairly asked, " does he blame us so \nseverely for having lost our regard for it, since it \nwas originally communicated to us in a more earthy \nand inadequate form ? " And the tenor of the letter \nis entirely inconsistent with any such theory. It \nsays that Paul\'s preaching is the utterance of the \nrevelation of Christ, which he bore, and attaches \nto that preaching the whole weight of his apostolic \nauthority. The presumption of the truthf ulness of \nthe oral teaching, and its supreme value, underlies \nthe whole Epistle. The letter would have lost \npower by making its readers feel that it added to \nthe essential content of the instruction. " Though \nw r e, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto \nyou any gospel other than that which we preached \nunto you, let him be anathema." " Foolish Gala- \ntians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Je- \nsus Christ was openly set forth crucified ? " The \nsame assumption of identity between the oral and \nwritten teaching is found in the other letters of \nPaul. He takes pains to assure the Corinthian \nchurch that he wields the apostolic spiritual force \nquite as resolutely and effectively in bodily pres- \nence as through the pen, \xe2\x80\x94 an assertion plainly in- \ncompatible with his believing that he gave a purer \ntruth when he w r rote. In the Epistle to the Romans \nhe expresses the desire to visit his readers in order \n\n\n\n198 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nto impart a spiritual gift, which even this crowning \nletter of his life would not bring to them. We \nshould not dwell upon what seems to us so obvious \nbut for the fact that the assumption of a special \nactivity of the divine Spirit upon the apostles and \nother writers of Scripture in the act of composi- \ntion, endowing what came from their pens with \nqualities possessed by no other Christian teaching, \nis a most fruitful source of confusion in the en- \ndeavor to find out what Scripture is. It is insisted \nnot only that is there no evidence of such an act, \nbut that the supposition of its existence is contrary \nto facts which lie on the face of the Scriptures. It \nis claimed that we have no more right to discrim- \ninate between the written and the oral teaching of \nPaul as different in kind than between those of any \nother public teacher. It is asserted that the pecul- \niar and supernatural qualities which belonged to \nany one part of his teaching belonged essentially \nto it all. Not that those qualities dwelt in every \npart of it in the same degree. No doubt the stress \nof special circumstances or extraordinary impulses \nfrom the Spirit, or, still more likely, both, some- \ntimes lent unusual clearness and penetration to his \nutterance of divine truth. Passages in some of his \nletters can be pointed out, to which Christian sen- \ntiment has always attached peculiar importance. \nSome of his Epistles are more elaborate, some more \neloquent, some more complete in respect to the de- \nvelopment of certain leading truths than others. \nVery likely he always put truth into a more com- \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 199 \n\npact form when he wrote. But such incidental and \nformal peculiarities of his letters must be passed \nover if we are to ascertain what they really are. \nWe must go back to the man from whom they \ncame and study his situation, calling, and spiritual \nendowments. \n\nHe and his fellow apostles had personal ac- \nquaintance of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of them \nexcept Paul had known the mighty power of his \npersonal influence and example, culminating in his \npassion. They had been taken possession of by the \nnew divine life which poured down upon the world \nat Pentecost, and were " full of the Holy Ghost." \nPaul\'s case was different from theirs, yet not so \ndifferent as at first appears. He knew Christ in \nperson, for he saw Him before Damascus with his \nown eyes. That contact with the Lord on the out- \nward plane of life, knowing Him to be the Lord, \nwas, in its peculiar influence upon the spirit, the \nessential fact qualifying for apostleship. It gave a \ngrasp of the fact of Incarnation, it gave a tension \nto Christian conviction which could come from \nnothing else. One must have seen the old dispen- \nsation passing over into the new to have the most \nvivid possible conviction that it had done so. One \nmust have laid eyes upon Christ in order to have \nthe freshest and most stimulating possible sense of \nhis having been here. This the apostles had, \xe2\x80\x94 \nand they had besides the qualification for Christian \npreaching, only second to this, of having grown up \nas Jews. All the results of the divine revelation \n\n\n\n200 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nand training in Judea were gathered up in their \nspiritual history. They could appreciate Christ in \nhis connection with the past (without which the \nrevelation made in Him was only a glorious frag- \nment) as only Christian Jews could do. \n\nThese qualifications would have been of little \nservice had they not been made effective by the su- \npernatural gift imparted to their possessors. The \napostles were the bearers of a revelation made im- \nmediately to each of them by the Spirit of God. \nOf the fact of such revelation they were conscious ; \nby their consciousness of it the form of their teach- \ning is moulded. We turn to their religious life \nand study this wonderful experience in the light of \ntheir own testimony, in the hope of gaining such a \nknowledge of it as shall lead to an adequate con- \nception of the nature of the teaching which flowed \nfrom it. \n\nThe fundamental characteristic of the revelation \nborne by each apostle was its vitality. It was an \nessential part of the spiritual life. The gift received \nby the infant church on Pentecost was not merely \nthe bestowal of this or that capacity ; it was that \nof living in a new and higher way. Out of its \nquickened and mightily invigorated life leaped its \nnew deeds of heroic devotion. From this fresh and \never-renewed fountain flowed its teaching. The \napostles began to preach Christ because new con- \nceptions of Him had come into their hearts, and \nwere struggling for utterance there. A new type \nof teaching begins with Peter\'s Pentecostal sermon. \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 201 \n\nThe essential elements of all distinctively Christian \nutterance are found in it. It is said to be the fruit \nof the new life. " The apostles gave their witness \nof the resurrection of the Lord Jesus." Paul says \nthat the revelation of Christ which was the source \nof his preaching, and the ground of its authority, \nwas given in his conversion. " When it was the \ngood pleasure of God ... to reveal his Son in \nme that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, \n... I conferred not with flesh and blood," etc., \netc. The light into which he was born was that \nfrom which he taught. \n\nThe revelation of which each apostle was the \nbearer is not, therefore, to be thought of as a set of \nreligious ideas made over to him to be held as an \nexternal possession. The man could not be himself \nwithout having it ; he could not give it without giv- \ning his life with it. For it was in essence a per- \nsonal experience of Jesus Christ in and through \nwhom he lived. God had made his consummated \nrevelation of Himself in the Incarnation a glorious \nreality in this man\'s spirit. He appreciated the \nhistoric personality of Jesus Christ as a part of the \ndivine life, and as having most vital relations to his \nown life and that of the world. lie saw in it the \nconsummation of the theocracy to which he had be- \nlonged, and the corner-stone of the new kingdom \nof God whose foundations he was laying. He rec- \nognized in it the fulfillment of prophecy and the \nkey of history. Out of such a knowledge, a knowl- \nedge having its seat not in the mind merely or \n\n\n\n202 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nchiefly, but in the whole renewed personality, the \napostles preached and taught. \n\nThe vital nature of the knowledge is reproduced \nin the vitality of the teaching. This quality chiefly \ndistinguishes the apostolic Epistles and the other \ndistinctively spiritual books of sacred Scripture \nfrom all other Christian literature. Nothing else \never written shows personality so penetrated by the \ntruth of Christ. You may try to draw out the \nteachings of one of John\'s Epistles into other forms \nof statement, and you will find your task as hope- \nless as the endeavor to extract just the perfume of \nthe rose from its crushed petals. You may obtain \nanother very pleasant odor, but not that fragrance. \nThe truth in the Scripture statement has a delicate \naroma which we find in the Scripture alone. \n\nIn saying that the apostolic teaching is the ex- \npression of the spiritual life of its authors and \nwears the impress of their respective personalities, \nwe do not take one jot or tittle from its sacredness \nas a revelation. If God be pleased to convey truth \nto man in a way other than by the immediate con- \ntact of his Spirit with the individual human spirit, \nHe must use some external medium, and if the \ncommunication is to be of a more connected and \ninfluential kind than that made by the sign lan- \nguage of nature, the medium employed must be in \nsome sense human. It must, at least, be expressed \nin words which man has made to convey his ideas, \nand which partake, therefore, of the limitations \nand imperfections of those ideas. Now, if it should \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 203 \n\nplease God to produce a book of oracles by sheer \nand stark miracle, or to dictate the contents of one \nto a scribe or number of scribes, the teaching would \nnot come more directly from Him than when a -*^r 0%ri \nsoul in vital contact with Him freely utters, under \nthe leading of his Spirit, the truth which is the ele- \nment in which it lives. In this latter case He con- \ntrols and shapes the teaching. Whatever of man \nis in it is there as his medium of expression. If it \nis given when the man in whom it dwells pleases, \nit is when God pleases, too, for the will of this or- \ngan of revelation is gladly responsive to God\'s life. \nBut we need not argue the case on the ground \nof a \'priori possibility ; we have all that we con- \ntend for in the great Christian facts. The teach- \ning of our Lord was his, and it was the Father\'s. \nTo deny it any of the essential qualities of human \nteaching is simply to deny the essential qualities of \nhis humanity and to reject the Incarnation. If it \nwas the utterance of a human mind and heart, it \nshows that God can reveal himself through a hu- \nman life ; nay, that such a life is the best medium \nof his revelation, for there is no divineness in \nChrist\'s words which does not find expression \nthrough their humanity. And he who doubts that \nredeemed men can be so brought into the life of \nGod that they, too, shall be worthy bearers of his \nrevelation must deal with Christ\'s words : " Sanc- \ntify them in the truth : thy word is truth. As \nthou didst send me into the world, even so sent I \nthem into the world." It is, therefore, with these \n\n\n\n204 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nScriptures as with the person of our Lord, the \nunion of the divine and human in whom they im- \nperfectly resemble and typify. To deny their es- \nsential humanity is to take away their divineness. \nFor as the divine is subtracted from Christ by re- \nmoving from Him the human soul which is its \ndwelling-place and point of contact with man, so a \nmechanical view of man\'s agency in revealing di- \nvine truth implies the denial of a living connection \nof God with the Christian life, \xe2\x80\x94 yes, \xe2\x80\x94 -and the \ndenial of the central fact on which that life rests. \n\nWe do not urge this as defending a theory of the \nnature of Scripture which is on trial before the bar \nof speculative reason, but to take away any linger- \ning unwillingness to look at the plain facts of the \ncase. For the humanity of the Scripture is so ap- \nparent that no one can help finding in it the freely \nevolved product of its authors\' religious life, whose \neyes are not holden by dogmatic prejudice. The \napostolic letters are preeminent in literature for \nthe degree in which they wear the stamp of their \nauthors\' individuality. \n\nAnd this we regard an essential condition of \ntheir unequaled excellence. Our reverence for \nman is such that we can easily believe the best me- \ndium for conveying God\'s truth to the world to be \na human life filled and inspired by this truth. \nAnd when we come under the influence of the \napostolic letters we feel that their vitality penetra- \nting the truth is of the very essence of their dis- \nclosing power. It is not so much that we draw \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 205 \n\nideas about God out of them, as that we touch God \nhimself in them, because the life with which they \npalpitate is fed in its central springs by his own. \nIt is not merely in what they say that they reveal \nGod to us, but in what they suggest. The Chris- \ntian conception of things in general, of men living \ntogether in God through Christ and for Christ, a \nsociety in the world and destined to possess the \nwhole of it, yet not of the world, \xe2\x80\x94 what this means \nviewed from the interior and central point of vis- \nion, what this means when not only seen but felt \nin every fibre of the being, \xe2\x80\x94 all this, which we \ncould not find in mere didactic utterance, we do \nfind in the apostolic revelation. \n\nThen, too, the variety furnished by the personal \nelement in the teaching of the apostles contributes \nfullness and richness to the revelation. It is God \nthat is to be revealed : a life flowing out upon a \nsinful race in redeeming and self-communicating \nlove ; a life rich and manifold beyond conception \nin its connections with the life of man. \n\nThe Incarnation is the essential revelation : but \nthe Incarnation is more than the presence of the \nman Christ Jesus on earth, and the things he did \nand suffered. This the unbelieving Jews had. It \nis the fact of union between the divine and the \nhuman, the awful "mystery of godliness;" it is the \nrelation of this union to the life of man and the \nlife of God. It must take place before man can \nknow God. Man cannot know it when it has \ntaken place unless he have God\'s help. " In Christ \n\n\n\n206 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY, \n\nare hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowl- \nedge." \n\nThe Spirit showed the things of Christ unto his \napostles. The revelation must shape itself to the \npersonality of each recipient. That which is re- \nvealed in Christ is God in his work of redemption ; \nand, because the knowledge gained is vital knowl- \nedge, it must vary with the temperament of each \nwriter, for each human soul is by its constitution \nespecially fitted to appropriate certain elements of \nGod\'s character and to appreciate the revelation of \nthese made in his treatment of the world. Hence \nPaul\'s apprehension of God in Christ could not be \nidentical with John\'s. Again, we appeal to fact, \nand insist that the subtle diversity of the apostolic \nteaching is as undeniable as its fundamental unity. \nThe writings of John add no new doctrine to that \ngiven in the Pauline letters ; but if they were blotted \nout the Christian revelation would lose a very pre- \ncious element \xe2\x80\x94 the Johannean conception of the \ngospel, preeminent for ethical depth and force. \nNo other mind could so present Christianity as a \nfellowship of God with man in holy love. Through \nno other medium does the truth come with such \nsplendor as when it streams through this transparent \nspirit. We hold with Neander that Paul, John, \nPeter, and James (whom we may be permitted to \nclass among the apostles), each represents a dis- \ntinct and permanent type of character, and that, in \nmaking each the bearer of a separate revelation, \nthe design of God to give men a conception of the \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 207 \n\ntruth in Jesus rich in its manifoldness is distinctly \nmanifest. \n\nIt will be asked, "If the revelation partake of \nthe characteristics of the man through whom it is \ngiven, must it not share his imperfection ? " If by \nimperfection be meant such defect of character as \nis implied in the lack of ideal symmetry, we answer, \nYes. The many years spent in Pharisaic bondage \nmust have left an abiding influence upon St. Paul\'s \ncharacter ; for grace cannot miraculously obliterate \nslow moral growths. We could not but expect that \nhis bitter experience should have led him to find in \nthe doctrine of justification by faith a relative \nprominence which it would not wear to any who \nhad not borne a chain like his. But this feature \nof his apprehension of the gospel is not its weak- \nness, but its strength, because it is seen to belong \nto the man, and to be implied in the experience \nwhich fitted him as no one else could be fitted to \ndeclare the gospel of righteousness through faith. \n\nIf the question mean, " Must not such sin as \nstill dwelt in the apostles have tinged their relig- \nious conceptions and teaching with error ? " \xe2\x80\x94 we \nreply, This could not have been unless they w r ere \nmore under the influence of moral evil than we \nhave any reason to suppose them to have been. \nThe effect of sin upon the perceptive faculties lags \nbehind its influence upon the will. Men usually \nknow better than they do. The best of men are \nthe most penitent, for the elevation of their moral \nstandard outstrips even their improvement in con- \nduct. \n\n\n\n/ \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\n208 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nWe cannot, therefore, correctly measure the \npurity of the religious conceptions which the apos- \ntles had, by comparing their lives with the absolute \nstandard of human goodness. That their teaching \nwas not vitiated by such moral defects as still clung \nto them is plainly shown by the fact that the most \nconspicuous fault committed by any one of them \nafter Pentecost, so far as our knowledge goes, and \none which bore the closest relations to the trans- \ngressor\'s conception of a vital religious truth, was \nnot reflected in his teaching. Nothing in Peter\'s \nEpistles would lead one to infer that he had dis- \nsembled to the Judaizers at a critical juncture in \nthe history of the church. 1 \n\nWe can hardly believe, indeed, that the truth as \nrevealed through the apostles had such absolute \npurity as we must suppose it to have had if perfect \nbeings had been the media of revelation. We must \nrecognize a certain quality in the words of our Lord, \n\xe2\x80\x94 a brilliant and serene lustre, a perfectness of \nproportion, which we cannot find even in theirs. \nWe sometimes discover in their successive letters \nsigns of progress into more adequate conceptions ; \nas, for example, in Paul\'s teachings concerning \nmarriage. In some rare cases one side of a truth \nis so frankly presented that only by finding a cor- \nrelate elsewhere are we saved from misconception ; \nas in James\'s teaching concerning justification. \nBut the slight blemishes in the very finest optical \ninstruments do not prevent our obtaining from \nthem data which to the human mind of finest train- \n1 Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, ii. 424. \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 209 \n\ning are exceedingly exact ; and when we recollect \nthat the imperfection of the organ of revelation is \nthe correlate of qualities which give especial fitness \nto reveal God\'s truth to man, we may dismiss the \nquestion of absolute perfection in the apostolic \nteaching as having no living interest. Christ knew \nthe sort of revelation which would come through \nPaul and John when He chose them to reveal Him, \nand we must rest content with his selection. \n\nThe views of Christ and of his truth contained \nin the apostolic Epistles must, from the nature of \nthe case, always shape the religious and moral con- \nceptions of the church. Not that they alone pos- \nsessed the Spirit of wisdom and revelation. He is \nthe Spirit of wisdom and revelation in every soul \nin which He dwells, and there have been some souls \nin ages since the apostolic into which He has so \nabundantly shed the radiance of God\'s truth that \nthey have been the spiritual luminaries of their \nown and following centuries. But in this matter \nof revelation man is never isolated from his fellow. \nGod has so made us that every one in the brother- \nhood of believers must receive spiritual light from \nhis fellow man in the very act of receiving it from \nabove. The prophets were dependent upon the \nconceptions of God given to their predecessors ; the \napostles were continually drawing knowledge from \nthe Old Testament Scriptures and from the words \nof Christ. No teacher in the church has ever \narisen or can ever arise so filled with the Spirit as \nnot to depend upon the apostles for conceptions of \n14 \n\n\n\n210 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nGod. We can see that their situation and their \nexceptionally exalted life make following teachers \ndependent upon them as they were not dependent \nupon any predecessor except Christ ; that their \nconceptions of our Lord are the framework into \nwhich all the subsequent thoughts of his church \nabout Him and his work must be set, and the norm \nby which the teaching of the church must shape \nitself. \n\nThis follows of necessity from their historical re- \nlation to the Incarnation. They were living links \nby which God Incarnate was joined to the life of \nthe world. That the world might know Him in \nthe divine humanit}^, there must be some men inti- \nmate with Him, w r hose personal acquaintance should \nbe expanded and purified by the inner revelation \nof the Spirit, so that they could tell the world who \nit was that they had known. " That which was \nfrom the beginning, that which we have heard, that \nwhich we have seen with our eyes, that which we \nbeheld, and our hands handled, concerning the \nWord of life . . . declare we unto you also." The \nrelations in which the apostles stood to the previous \nhistory of the world and to its contemporaneous life \nwere a part of their peculiar qualification for pre- \nsenting Christ to mankind. He stood in such im- \nmediate connection with the past that no one could \nadequately know Him who did not know the facts \nof which He was on the human side a part. Juda- \nism was in its flower in Him, and no one could fully \nknow this part of Him who did not know Judaism \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 211 \n\nfrom the inside. He was the explanation of the re- \nlation which the Hebrew nation bore to the life of \nthe race, and no one could adequately give the ex- \nplanation who did not know by personal experience \nthe strength and the weakness of Hebraism. In a \nword, the Incarnation is not really apprehended \nuntil it is apprehended in its historical setting, \nand only those who saw that setting with their own \neyes could worthily describe it. We add to these \nqualifications that of preeminent endowment of the \nHoly Spirit. We would gladly cherish the thought \nthat other teachers might arise, from whom should \nflow even more copious streams of living water \nthan those which welled from the hearts of the \napostles. But we are compelled to regard the cir- \ncumstances of their lives as excluding such a hope. \nWe cannot think the gift of the Spirit a sheer mir- \nacle of power. We must believe that as a bestowal \nof the divine life it has its appropriate and essen- \ntial conditions in mutual relations existing between \nthe human life and the divine. And we cannot \nhelp believing that the conditions of its bestowment \nexisted in a degree absolutely unique in the days \njust following the resurrection of our Lord ; that \nafter the amazing act of divine love for man then \nconsummated there should follow immediately a \nsurpassing influx of divine life into the world ; \nthat the divine humanity of Jesus should, through \nthe Spirit, have its most intense power upon the \nrace at its point of historic contact with it. The \nchurch, we believe, has always felt and will always \n\n\n\n212 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nfeel that there can never be another Pentecost, as \nthere can never be another Calvary. \n\nFor these reasons we hold that the conceptions \nof Christ presented in the apostolic revelation are \nnot only the most vivid, but the most comprehensive \nand the most just which any minds in this stage of \nbeing can have. We believe that these men were \nso placed and so gifted that they saw Christ\'s na- \nture and relations to man with both more penetra- \nting and broader vision than that of any other \nseers ; that the main features of his life and mis- \nsion, the truths of his eternal being, the outlines of \nhis historical relations, were mirrored in their minds \nwith such just perspective that we must seek all \nour knowledge of Christ within the limits and un- \nder the outlines of their teaching. The church is \never adding to its knowledge of Christ, and the ex- \negetical process is certainly not the exclusive means \nof making the increment. Out of mere study of \nbooks did not come its growing knowledge of \nChrist\'s relation to God, and to mankind, nor its \nconception of the breadth of his redeeming work. \nSuch a product shows the revealing presence of the \nSpirit. But in making the revelation He has used, \nas the facts show, He could not but use, as the \nChristian reason shows, the apostolic teaching as \nthe constant medium of revelation, the ever-present \nhelper and guide of the advancing mind. The \ngreatest thinkers of the church have found them- \nselves in all their thinking, in closest sympathy \nwith and dependence upon the apostolic teaching. \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 213 \n\nThey have been able to carry out its conceptions of \nChrist into fuller form and more intricate connec- \ntions. They have never been able to correct one \nof those conceptions, nor to place another beside \nthem in the inner circle of revelation. It is the \nfulfillment of Christ\'s promise to lead his apostles \ninto the whole truth. It is the authority of his \nrepresentatives bearing its own credentials in the \nsupreme sway which their words wield over the \nChristian mind. \n\nWhat, now, of the historical books of the New \nTestament ? They are true narratives in w r hich \nthe facts described appear in spiritual content as \nwell as outward form. The synoptic Gospels con- \ntain the apostolic tradition about Christ, gathered \nfrom various sources and wrought into narratives, \nin each of which a deep religious appreciation of \nhis Person and mission is evident. The historical \nproof connecting the sayings and acts of our Lord \nwith the recollections of the apostolic circle is un- \nimpeachable. Christian faith confirms it, declar- \ning that the character showing itself in these deeds \nand words can be no other than that of the super- \nhuman person whom it calls Lord. The subtle \nblending of the materials before each evangelist \ninto a delineation of our Lord\'s life in one of its \nleading relations to the life of man shows that each \nworked from a vivid conception of Christ given by \nthe revealing Spirit. \n\nOf purely miraculous communication to these ^ \nwriters of any of their material, there is no evi- \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\n214 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ndence. We may well believe that the spiritual ex- \naltation of the apostolic circle in the early days of \nthe church would bring back to their recollection \nthe words of their Master with preternatural vivid- \nness. We must also recollect that their spiritual \nsympathy with Christ\'s teachings would certainly \nprevent them from attributing to Him any teaching \nor deed not worthy of his character. We have \nhere ample guaranty of the essential accuracy of \nthe apostolic tradition. If we cannot predicate its \nabsolute perfection, if we must attribute some de- \nviation from accuracy even to the process of trans- \nlation from Aramaic into Greek, we must remem- \nber that this living way of preserving our Lord\'s \nsayings and deeds gives these memoirs the simplic- \nity and artlessness and lifelikeness in which they \nfar surpass all other biographies. What has been \nsaid of the synoptic Gospels may be said of the \nActs. There is not the slightest internal or ex- \nternal reason for pronouncing it a history set down \nfrom miraculous divine dictation. It claims to be \na continuation of Luke\'s Gospel, and probably \nrests in part, like that, upon earlier documents. It \nis to be regarded as true to the facts and the life \nin the facts. It could only have been written by \none taught by the Spirit to know the events nar- \nrated in their true meaning and value. \n\nOf St. John\'s Gospel, written to show the out- \nlines of Christ\'s life as it lay transfigured in the \nmind of the beloved apostle, the divine glory stream- \ning through every word and deed, we have only to \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 215 \n\nsay that in it lie two distinct elements of divine \nknowledge, the two most precious of all, the teach- \ning of the Master and of the most spiritual of his \ndisciples. We need not stay to discuss the remain- \ning books of the New Testament Canon. The \nchurch has placed them beside the apostolic writ- \nings because it has believed them to possess the \napostolic qualities. That no other ground can be \nsuccessfully urged for the right of an anonymous \nscripture like the Epistle to the Hebrews to a place \nin the Canon is evident. That the general con- \nsensus of the church in the canonicity of this or \nany writing has the strongest claim to respect, all \nChristians will admit. That the judgment so given \ncan add nothing to the intrinsic value of such a \nletter, all Protestants must hold. But they also \nagree in believing it the best of reasons for de- \nvoutly seeking in such a writing the mind of \nChrist. \n\nWe cannot extend our inquiry to the Old Testa- \nment. The quantity of material to be dealt with \nhere is so great, and the unsolved problems so nu- \nmerous and intricate, that any attempt to show the \nnature of its structure from the correlated facts, not \ncovering many more pages than are left to us, would \nbe absolutely worthless. \n\nWe feel the limitation the more keenly from our \nconviction that just here the claims of our method \nneed especial vindication. A fault in discussions \nabout the nature of Scripture, which has been, per- \nhaps, more insnaring than almost any other, is the \n\n\n\n216 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nhabit of drawing its predicates from the study of \nthe New Testament alone. We must make our \nprotest against this practice by heartily acknowl- \nedging that our work is defective according to the \nstandard which we have ourselves set up. One \ncannot fitly answer the question " What is the \nBible?" until he has examined the contents of \neach Canon. He has no more right to characterize \nan Old Testament Scripture from any New Testa- \nment Scripture than to regard the office of a He- \nbrew prophet as identical with that of an apostle \nof Jesus Christ. What though he may recognize \nin the genesis of either composition a supernatural \nelement ? He has no more right to say that the \npatent historical differences do not enter into the \nvery nature of the writing than that Paul\'s work \nand Isaiah\'s were essentially the same. \n\nThe practice of interpreting the Old Testament \nby assumed New Testament canons has made the \nformer seem lifeless and unintelligible, and caused \nmany of the more inquiring minds of the church to \ncease trying to gain an intelligent and comprehen- \nsive knowledge of its contents. This has wrought \nthe great mischief of impairing the church\'s knowl- \nedge of Holy Scripture, the New Testament as \nwell as the Old ; not only because the New can-, \nnot be understood except through the help of the \nOld, but because the Old Testament rightly stud- \nied gives a weapon with which to break the crust \nof formalism w T hich had grown upon the New. \nThe thorough investigation of the former now go- \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES, 217 \n\ning on under the spur of rationalistic criticism \nwill, under God, result in a new examination of \nthe latter in its historical connections which will \ngive a great impulse to Christian thought and life. \nWhile we cannot attempt to give even in outline \nthe fresh conception of the Old Testament Scrip- \ntures in their relation to the earlier revelation, \nwhich later scholarship is creating, we cannot leave \nunnoticed the especial objections to the use of \nthe historic method upon them which just now \nare influential with some minds, lest we be sus- \npected of trying to escape difficulties. One of these \ngrows out of the belief that Christ\'s authority is \ncommitted to a certain view of the authorship of \nthe Old Testament. " It is not necessary, it is not \nreverent, to undertake to find out by searching that \nwhich He has already taught us." We are obliged \nto deny the assumed fact. Christ, we believe, did \nnot undertake to teach his disciples what the Old \nTestament was as Scripture, that is, to show how \nas written composition it is related to the revela- \ntion of which it gives information. He did wish \nhimself to be understood, we cheerfully admit, as \nregarding the sacred writings of the Jews as the \ndepository not only of instructive fact, but of relig- \nious teaching which had a peculiar connection \nwith the divine mind ; but He has neither taught \nnor intimated the existence of any special kind of \nconnection between revelation and authorship. We \nshall be reminded of his saying that David spoke \nin the Spirit when he called Him Lord. But it \n\n\n\n218 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsurely does not follow, from his teaching that a \nMessianic Psalm was written under immediate \ndivine impulse, that He held all the books of the \nOld Testament to have been composed under sim- \nilar conditions. Nor does He say what relation the \nPsalm bears to the special revelation given to its \nauthor, whether it was dictated to him, or he was \nleft to work out his inspired conception into literary \nform by conscious elaboration ; whether the con- \ntents of the Psalm came in one moment of exalta- \ntion, or had long lain in his mind. \n\n" But certainly," it may be said, " when our \nLord told the Pharisees that \' the Scripture cannot \nbe broken \' (A^w), He lent his authority to a certain \nconception of its composition. For to say that its \nevery statement carries divine authority is to say \nthat the divine mind so immediately controlled the \naction of all the human minds employed in pro- \nducing it that its authorship is simply God\'s act." \nThe argument rightly assumes that such a divine \nsanction of each statement made by these Scrip- \ntures implies a specific way of writing them ; \nnamely, by setting down words divinely dictated. \nBut we cannot accept the construction thus put \nupon this saying of Christ. For it would make \nthe saying flatly contradictory of those other teach- \nings in which He criticises and amends certain \nstatements of the Old Testament as to men\'s moral \nobligation. They are as plainly a part of its teach- \ning as the profounder spiritual teaching of the \nPsalms. We feel confident, therefore, that our \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 219 \n\nLord meant no more by the words under discus- \nsion than an explicit recognition of the Old Tes- \ntament Scriptures as the source of spiritual knowl- \nedge for the Jewish nation. \n\nAnother cause of repugnance to the historical \nway of finding out what the Old Testament is (one \nvery effective, we believe, with Christians who are \nnot professional students) is the assumed insuffi- \nciency of the data. " We are so far from the \nevents which produced even the very latest of the \nHebrew Scriptures ; no treatise has come down to \nus which throws such light upon the circumstances \nand conditions of their authorship as the Acts \nthrows upon that of the apostolic Epistles ; the \nrange which they unitedly traverse is so immense ; \nthere is so little in the books themselves that re- \nveals their structure, \xe2\x80\x94 it is hopeless to try to in- \nfer from them and from what they say how they \ncame to be written." Yes, to infer as much as we \nknow about the genesis of the Epistle to the Ro- \nmans. But many of these Scriptures only deal with \nhistorical facts, often lying remote from the au- \nthor\'s life and ascertained from secondary sources. \nThese obviously have comparatively little that is \nsubjective to be accounted for. But we find in the \nphenomena even of these writings ground for cer- \ntain large and definite inferences concerning the \nrelation of their respective authors to the facts \nnarrated, and to the great spiritual fact of which \nevery event in the history of the Hebrew people \nwas a part. We may safely infer from them that \n\n\n\n220 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\na book which describes the death of Moses was not, \nall at least, written by Moses ; that a narrative \nwhich contains two accounts of the creation was \nmade \xe2\x80\x94 to some extent, at any rate \xe2\x80\x94 by editing \nancient documents ; and that an exalted predic- \ntion of the Messianic kingdom was not written in \nthe same spiritual condition with that in which a \ncompilation of proverbs was made. And, speak- \ning generally, the phenomena of these Scriptures \nfurnish sufficient data for ascertaining the inter- \nnal relation in which their respective author or \nauthors stood towards the divine revelation car- \nried in the advancing life of the Hebrew nation. \nFor these writings all breathe the religious spirit. \nEven those of them which deal exclusively with \nhistorical events describe those events with devout \naim and pious feeling. The collection of national \nproverbs reflects a mind which viewed earthly pru- \ndence chiefly from a religious standpoint. And \nso far as an author shows a religious apprehension \nof the events of which he treats, and especially of \nthose of them with which he is in immediate con- \ntact, so far of course does it appear that the re- \nvealing Spirit dwelling in and fostering the na- \ntional life has made him its especial organ. The \nrevelation which God made in Israel consisted, as \nanother has well said, of two distinct elements : \nnational experiences, and the interpretation of these \nexperiences by men gifted with supernatural insight \ninto the meaning of Jewish history. It is the judg- \nment of the Christian church that the Old Tes- \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 221 \n\ntament historians show the possession of this gift, \nso preeminently displayed by the great prophets. \nWe infer, then, the spiritual endowment of the au- \nthor from his work, as in the case of the author of \nthe third Gospel and the Acts. Finding God\'s re- \nvealing purpose in the facts as he tells them to \nus, we find it especially manifest in the disposi- \ntion of the narrating mind. \n\nThe distinctness with which the prophetical books \nreveal the historical function and the religious life \nof their respective authors hardly needs to be \npointed out. That conception of the prophet which \nregarded him as merely a voice, uttering words \nwhich his own inner life had no share in produc- \ning, is rapidly disappearing before the intelligent \nstudy of the Old Testament. We are finding out \nthat the seat of the prophetic teaching was the \nmoral and religious nature of the inspired seer, \nalone. Studying the national exigencies which \ncalled out the teaching of the greater prophets, and \nentering into the historical relations of their words, \nwe have felt ourselves entering into the spirit of \nthe writings as we became acquainted with the wri- \nters. It is not denied that they were sometimes \nevidently conscious of receiving special messages \nfrom God. Nor would we claim that the concep- \ntions of God\'s kingdom in its present state and \ncoming development, given them by the Spirit, \nwere so fully wrought into their own thinking as \nthe apostles\' conceptions of Christ and his king- \ndom were united with their own thought. Just \n\n\n\ny \n\n\n\n222 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nhere is the inferiority of the earlier stage of rev- \nelation shown, in that the supernatural revelation \nhad not fully penetrated and appropriated the nat- \nural faculties even of those in whom God\'s Spirit \ndwelt most fully. But it is claimed that the pro- \nphetic teaching was, like the apostolic, essentially \npervaded by its authors\' personality, and that in \nproportion as we find ourselves discovering God\'s \nmind in this teaching, we find it informing and \nillumining the mind of the prophet. This shows \nus that we have only to go on learning more fully \nwhat each prophet was, in his work for his people \nand his devotion to his people\'s God, to learn more \nfully the distinctive quality of his teaching. All \nthe information we need as to the special relation \nhis writings and those of his fellow prophets re- \nspectively bore to the divine revelation to Israel, \nand bear to the larger revelation given to the \nChristian church, lies before us in the Old Testa- \nment, if only we are not too indolent or too deeply \nprejudiced to seek it there. \n\nHow plainly the self-revealing power of Scrip- \nture appears in the Psalms ! What does the church \nreally care for a theory as to the way in which they \nwere produced ? It hears the music of God\'s voice \nspeaking in the hearts whose penitence, doubt, as- \npiration, gratitude, joy, they express, and knows \nthat they came from Him. It is pure scholasti- \ncism to try to find an explanation of the fifty-first \nPsalm in any other thing than the heart whose \npenitence pulses through it. And the Messianic \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 223 \n\nPsalms will tell what they mean, and how God re- \nvealed himself in them, if we will not insist upon \ninventing a theory as to how they were made and \ntrying to get out of them an interpretation which \njustifies this theory. \n\nA third and yet more influential source of un- \nwillingness to rely on historical methods for knowl- \nedge of what the Old Testament writings specifi- \ncally are, is the belief that the free use of this \nmethod (and it is rightly assumed that any use of \nit implies the right to use it freely) imperils re- \nligious interests. It is rightly felt that problems \nof authorship cannot be solved without attempting \nthe solution of the historical problems underlying \nthem, and it is said that scholars in trying to solve \nthe latter may draw from the phenomena of the \nOld Testament conclusions prejudicial to the trust- \nworthiness of some of its writings, and so give \nChristian faith (one of whose vital elements is \nconfidence in all of them as essentially truthful) a \ndeadly wound. \n\nThis objection implies either that those who raise \nit have no faith in the capacity which historical \nscience supposes itself to possess of reaching sound \nconclusions, or that they do believe that it has this \ncapacity, and fear that if it were employed upon \nthe Old Testament Scriptures, it would draw from \nthem conclusions perilous to Christian faith. The \nlatter alternative is ruled out by our conviction that \nwe are addressing heartily believing minds. Tak- \ning the former, we ask why it should be thought \n\n\n\n224 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nthat the pursuit of historical science is an insnaring \nprocess, and that historical scholars must be dupes ? \nWhy pass such a judgment upon this single one of \nthe departments of investigation ? \n\nDo we find any reason in the nature of its sub- \nject for assuming that the mind of man, which acts \nrationally in contact with other themes, will be- \ncome insane as soon as it approaches this one ? \nSurely there seems to be no reason why men should \nall have a mental disease showing itself just here. \nDo we find, then, on examining the work of his- \ntorical students, that its manifest (though unac- \ncountable) irrationality shows that the human mind \ncannot safely touch this class of subjects ? No one \ncan answer the question in the affirmative without \nfolly who has not mastered the critical and con- \nstructive methods which modern history has fash- \nioned, and gained extensive knowledge of its em- \nployment of them. Whoever has closely watched \nthe application of those methods to Hebrew history \nwill know that the process has not been irrational. \nHe will have seen a progressing accumulation of \nsignificant facts and successive deductions steadily \nadvancing in clearness and adequacy to explain the \nfacts. As in other departments of science, he will \nhave seen theory replacing theory as the facts have \nbecome better known and their mutual relations \nmore clearly perceived. And we venture to affirm \nthat if he be not prevented by prejudice from giv- \ning to the operations of the human mind in this \ndepartment of knowledge such confidence as he \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 225 \n\nbestows on its action when applied to other depart- \nments, or to the conduct of affairs, he will conclude \nthat the facts noted are not will-of-the-wisps, but \nreal facts ; that the principles used in accounting \nfor them have been rational principles, and that in \napplying principles to facts steady progress has \nbeen made towards sound conclusions. \n\nWe are speaking now, as throughout the discus- \nsion, from the Christian point of view, and assum- \ning that those who are examining this class of facts \nhave no inaptitude for perceiving the spiritual re- \nalities immediately connected with them. Of the \nscholars who have sought to give these facts scien- \ntific construction, some have made a presentation \nwidely at variance with the conception of Hebrew \nhistory which belongs to Christian writers. But \nthese writers avowedly maintain a mental attitude \ntowards all that claims to be supernatural which is \nnot that of Christianity. We regard ourselves as \njustified in suspending judgment as to their con- \nclusions, in the suspicion that this mental bias may \nhave warped their treatment of the facts, until \nthe case shall have been fully tried before the bar \nof science. This position was taken by evangeli- \ncal scholarship a half century ago with regard to \nStrauss\'s plausible construction of the phenomena \nof the Gospels, and eventually the correctness of \nthe Christian presumption was abundantly proved, \nand Strauss\'s treatment of the facts shown to be \nunscientific. Biblical science can fairly ask for a \nsimilar suspension of judgment respecting rational- \n\n15 \n\n\n\n226 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nistic treatment of the Old Testament Scriptures. \nIt does not think that its methods can be more \nfairly distrusted because some have used them im- \nperfectly (as it hopes to show) than those of phys- \nical science can be impugned because some great \nbiologists have believed that they could establish \nmaterialism by scientific treatment of vital facts. \nThe attitude taken towards Old Testament stud- \nies in some quarters is but a denial of the claims \nof historical science. Those who adhere to and \npreach this intellectual Sadduceeism in doing so \nare fighting against Christianity, which in all its \nappeal to the human mind justifies man\'s confi- \ndence in his own faculties. They might easily \nhave learned from the experience of the church \nthat attempts to make man believe science an im- \npossibility must inevitably result in discrediting any \nsystem or faith in whose behalf they are made. \n\nWe must not assume that the prejudice felt by \nmany towards the scientific study of the Old Testa- \nment is due entirely to the distinctive positions of \nrationalistic scholars. It must be owned that the \nleading evangelical students of the Old Testament \nwho belong to the progressive school suggest \nchanges in the ordinary conception of Hebrew hisr \ntory, which, in the judgment of some, Christian \nfaith cannot consent to make. But until it has \nbeen clearly shown that Christian faith is irrevo- \ncably committed to the entire correctness of the \ntraditional view of the development of the Hebrew \nlife, the prejudice has no sound foimdation. The \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 227 \n\nrevision of the ancient interpretation of such pas- \nsages of the Old Testament as lie next the domain \nof physical science should make us very slow to be- \nlieve that advancing historical inquiry may not re- \nquire a similar modification of our view of Old \nTestament history. " But our implicit acceptance \nof Christ\'s teachings is an essential part of Chris- \ntian faith." Yes, and has evangelical Biblical \nscience come into antagonism with any teaching \nof Christ in its assertions about the composition \nor structure of the Old Testament ? " He has as- \ncribed the Pentateuch to Moses, and the later \nchapters of Isaiah to the prophet called by that \nname." No, He has made no such ascription. * \nHe has in quotation followed the Jewish habit of \nnaming the book from its reputed author. It is a \nfair question as to whether, in the act of speaking, \nthe person of the author was before his mind. \nCertainly He had no thought of making the fact of \nauthorship a part of his teaching. One might as \nwell claim that a minister commits himself to the \nview that all the book ascribed to Isaiah was writ- \nten by that prophet, in saying to a congregation \nthat he will read a chapter from the book of Isaiah. \nAnd even if one is convinced that our Lord ac- \ncepted the traditional view of the authorship of \nthe books in question, he cannot hold that His \nauthority is committed to that view until he has \nsatisfied himself that Christ claimed to be omni- \nscient during the days of his humiliation, \xe2\x80\x94 a be- \nlief irreconcilable with his own declaration that He \n\n\n\n228 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nknew neither the day nor the hour of his second \ncoming. \n\n" But has not Christ wrought into his teaching \nthe great facts of Hebrew history, and thereby \ncommitted Christianity to a certain construction of \nthat history ? " To the great constructive principles \nof Hebrew history as given in the Old Testament, \nand to certain large facts in which those principles \nare embodied, he has certainly committed it. In- \ndeed, his personality implies, as its antecedent on \nthe human side, such a national life and religious \nfaith as we find depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. \nBut it has not been shown, we believe that it cannot \nbe shown, that the traditional conception of Hebrew \nhistory in its details finds a sanction in the teachings \nof Christ. Who can maintain that He directly or \nindirectly taught that all the Pentateuchal legisla- \ntion was given in Moses\'s time ? Who can find in \nhis words light as to the real nature of the change \nin the national life which caused the establishment \nof the monarchy? Clearly, Christian faith must \nleave the settlement of such questions to historical \nscholarship. It has no reason to fear any conclu- \nsions to which science may come respecting those \nsacred facts, for it knows its own life to be some- \nthing which human opinions did not create, and \nwhich, therefore, no change of human thinking can \ndestroy. Any conceptions of history which are es- \nsential to its life it knows must be true, since God \nwho has revealed himself to it through the medium \nof these conceptions cannot lie. Therefore it should \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 229 \n\ncordially welcome all the endeavors of science to \nmake a clearer and more complete representation \nof its oldest historical sources, believing that so its \nconnection with them will be made more apparent. \nThis is the attitude which, as we have already in- \ntimated, the enlightened part of the church has \ntaken towards critical inquiry into the sources of \nour knowledge concerning the events of the life of \nChrist and those of his apostles. The central \npillar of its confidence that the apostolic picture of \nour Lord was a true representation, was the as- \nsurance that God who had presented Christ to its \nheart as it gazed on the portrait, and had so be- \ngotten it into new life, would not have deceived it \nin giving the assurance that this and no other was \nits Lord. Supported by this conviction, it wel- \ncomed the most searching scrutiny into the his- \ntorical sources of its faith. The examination was \nthorough and unsparing, and as its result the church \nhas gained such respect from the best human think- \ning, and such mastery of the precious facts which \nbelong most intimately to its life, as make it feel \nitself indebted to historical science, under God, for \nsome of its noblest possessions. It will gain like \nbenefit from the present study of the sources of \nHebrew history, if only it would maintain the same \nfearless attitude. \n\nWe can, then, without hesitation commit our- \nselves to the study of the Old Testament writings \nfor our knowledge of their authorship, of their pe- \nculiarities as literature, and the relation they re- \n\n\n\n230 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nspectively bear to the religious life of the Hebrew \npeople, and to the divine revelation which that life \ncontains. This inquiry involves, of course, the \nstudy of the historic revelation which lies back of \nthese Scriptures, and of which they are products, \njust as the study of the New Testament Scrip- \ntures involves the study of the revelation borne by \ntheir respective authors and expressing itself in \nthem. This assumption of spiritual principles run- \nning through the events of Hebrew history and \njoining them into one teaching implies that concep- \ntion of human history, as shaped by God to ends of \nrevelation and redemption, which the human mind \nhas received from Christianity. Here, as through- \nout our discussion, we assume the truth of the \nChristian view of God in his relations to man. \nThe Christian belief that Christ is the culmination \nof God\'s historic revelation implies such a con- \nception of Hebrew history as our Lord himself had. \nThis must underlie Christian study of the Old \nCovenant Scriptures. To know the ancient dispen- \nsation as the Old Covenant is to know it as both \npreparatory of and explained by the New. To study \nits Scriptures in their larger relation to its life is \nto study them in their relation to the purpose which \nshaped that life. \n\nTo try to know the Old Covenant revelation \nwithout seeking its completion in Christ is like ex- \namining a tree in midwinter. The various parts \nof the organism cannot be understood until that \nappears for which the organism exists. And the \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 231 \n\ndignity of each element of this revelation can be \nrightly estimated from the Christian point of view \nalone. If Christ is the supreme and final revela- \ntion He is the test of all preceding revelation. If \nwe accept Him as God\'s supreme and final revela- \ntion, we must bring preceding revelation to this \ntest. We cannot escape the process of comparison \nif we would. He brings us his own conception of \nGod, of life, of duty. It claims to cover the whole \nhorizon of truth, and demands possession of every \nspiritual and rational faculty. If we will have it \nas ours we must hold it separate from and above \nevery other. Whatever else comes to us as from \nGod must present its credentials to Christ\'s truth \nin our mind and hearts. This is not only the teach- \ning of Christian faith ; it is the teaching of Christ. \nWhen He told us that certain precepts of the law \nwere to be replaced by spiritual maxims more in \nharmony with the nature of God, He taught us to \napply Christian principles to all the law and proph- \nets, and to regard all in them which is not con- \nsistent with those principles as superseded by the \nnew revelation. For no one thinks, surely, that \nwhen He made exceptions to certain provisions of \nthe Mosaic code, He merely amended a law which \nwhenever not amended holds good. Such an in- \nterpretation would commit his authority to the \neternal validity of the sacrificial system. No ; we \nmust with our Lord recognize a progress in revela- \ntion, and not attempt to find in Old Testament \nsaints, even the loftiest spirits of them all, those \n\n\n\n232 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nfuller and purer conceptions of God and his ways \nwhich were brought into the world by the Incar- \nnation. And if we do not expect to find them in \nthe men, we shall not feel ourselves compelled to \ndistort facts in the endeavor to find them in the \nbooks which the men wrote. \n\nSuch use as we have been able to make of what \nwe contend to be the one method of finding out \nwhat the Bible is will have disappointed some of \nour readers by not including a precise definition of \ninspiration, or the activity of God upon the mind \ncommunicating Christian truth or fact. But such \na definition is not needed to explain sacred Scrip- \nture, and indeed cannot be adequate to the facts, \nboth because the activity in question is not sep- \narable as to kind from God\'s supernatural action \nin creating and sustaining a regenerate life, and as \na vital fact partakes of the mystery which belongs \nto that life ; and because it is not, in point of de- \ngree, a constant quality, but varies with the indi- \nvidual through whom truth is communicated, and \nthe changing conditions of his life and work. We \nhave never seen a definition of inspiration which \nwas rooted in the realities of sacred history, not \none which did not seem to us an attempt to infer \na cause for the Bible from such a product as the \ninventor desired to see in sacred Scripture. While \nwe no more venture to try to make one than to de- \nfine the relation of God\'s activity to the inspired \nwords of Christ, and do not think that the Bible, \nas a most complex and varied series of facts, can \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 233 \n\nbe compassed in a definition, we do not hesitate to \ntry to put as much of our conception of it as we \ncan into a sentence. The Bible is the representa- \ntion in writing of God\'s historical revelation of \nhimself to man, which has come immediately from \nthat revelation as it passed through its successive \nstages. We see the revealing and redeeming pur- \npose of God most strikingly manifested in the fact \nthat the unique events in which He disclosed him- \nself have left as their products documents which \nbear their immediate impress. In the Scriptures \nthemselves, regarded as sacred compositions, in \ntheir unparalleled moral and religious power and \nbeauty, we recognize the outgoing of that inspired \nlife which is the especial medium of his revelation. \nIn the living unity into which their contents, so \nrich in variety, blend, we recognize the reflection \nof that redeeming purpose which underlies and \nshapes all the events of which they bear record. \nThat the principle of that unity is Jesus Christ, \nthat Scripture is felt to be a whole in that its teach- \nings blend in showing Him in his historical rela- \ntions and spiritual function, we regard as the reflec- \ntion of God\'s purpose to make this theanthropic \nPerson the centre of the divine revelation to man. \nThat a multitude of providential and spiritual agen- \ncies, the period of whose operation extends through \nmany centuries, should have united in the produc- \ntion of this unity, we regard as affording the most \nvivid illustration of the control of history by God \nfor his redemptive purpose. \n\n\n\n*\\ \n\n\n\n234 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nWe do not deny that the immediate connection \nof sacred Scripture with the living facts of revela- \ntion has caused it to bear some of the imperfec- \ntions inherent in the nature of those facts so far \nas they belong to the life of man. This we see to \nbe incident to the method of God\'s revelation, and \nthe permanent fixing of that revelation in contem- \nporaneous Scripture. We can trust Him for the \nexcellence of the method. Nay, we can gratefully \nrecognize his adorable wisdom in selecting it; since \nthe Bible, which brings the living reflection of his \nself-revealing acts, is, in its reality and freshness, \nfar more effective in putting men into contact with \nthose acts than a perfect description of them mi- \nraculously dictated could have been. We not only \nclaim that this our conception of the Scriptures is \nlacking in no element of reverential regard for \nthem, since it presents them in their immediate \ncontact with the realities which most deeply stir \nthe Christian heart, and as the only means by \nwhich those realities are known, but we further \nclaim that it is the only Scriptural conception. \nOne who insists that the church view of Scripture \nmust be derived from a source outside Scriptural \nfacts is in this very thing unscriptural, unless he; \ncan produce some immediate declaration from the \nBible as to its own nature, which declaration we \naffirm, as at the beginning, cannot be produced. \nWe must, therefore, take the Biblical facts, to all \nChristians confessedly divine and revealing, as our \nguide in this matter, or be in spirit anti-Biblical. \n\n\n\nTHE SCRIPTURES. 235 \n\nFor the fear that the aggressive power of Chris- \ntianity would be lessened by the general prevalence \nof this conception of Scripture, we confess our- \nselves to have little respect. Christianity can never \nlose headway by coming into truer conceptions of \nanything. God will not let it suffer from finding \nout what the Bible is, and telling men what it is. \nAnd its procedure in gaining men\'s hearts must \nbe simply preaching Christ. If it be said that the \npreaching, in its full sense, implies satisfying the \nmind that He is indeed the Christ, we answer that \nmen sadly hamper themselves in their endeavor to \ndo this by undertaking to establish, as the neces- \nsary postulate of his divine nature and mission, the \nperfection of a book whose chief ground to con- \nfidence is its connection with Him and manifest \npossession of his truth. \n\nChristian Apologetics has enough work to do in \nproving Christ to reluctant minds, by moral and \nspiritual data, without entangling itself in such an \nabsurd procedure as this. \n\nWe might go further, and insist that the antag- \nonistic view of a perfect book, produced by an as- \nsumed series of miracles, superadded to the super- \nnatural events in which God\'s historical revelation \nwas made, a book to whose every statement the \ndivine authority is committed, weakens Christian- \nity by bringing it into collision with historical and \nphysical science. But this argument we will not \npress. For the issue is to be decided, not by ex- \nhibiting consequences, but by weighing facts. \n\n\n\nIX. \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. \xe2\x80\x94 CHRISTIANITY ABSOLUTE AND UNI- \nVERSAL. \n\nThe preceding series of theological papers has \nbeen a discussion of the principal doctrines of the \ngospel, in order to recognize some of the lines \nalong which advancing Christian thought has more \nrecently been moving. We have considered the In- \ncarnation, the Atonement, Eschatology, the Work \nof the Holy Spirit, the Christian, and the Bible, \nto discover in what respects clear and positive im- \nprovement has been made on statements of be- \nlief which once had general currency. We have \nnot pretended to create a theology, but only to \nmodify or to enlarge established doctrines. When \nwe have used the term New Theology it has been \nonly as a convenient designation of a fresh move- \nment in theological thought, only as the symbol \nof a quickening which we share in common with \nmany others. In the exact use of terms there can, \nof course, at this late day, be no such thing as a \nnew theology. We are not so silly as to suppose \nthat modern religious thought is independent of an \nancestry. Sturdy growth has old roots. The truth \nwe study has engaged earnest thought throughout \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 237 \n\nthe Christian centuries. We have only attempted \nto show the directions in which generally accepted \nprinciples are pushing on to new and larger ap- \nplications, and to learn also, by means of applica- \ntions which can scarcely be ignored, the real signif- \nicance of those principles which are, and always \nhave been, potential of such results. We agree \nwith Dr. Martineau when he says : " I cannot rest \ncontentedly on the past ; I cannot take a step to- \nwards the future without its support." Now that \nw r e can look back over the course which has been \ntraveled, it is easier to perceive the kind and de- \ngree of progress achieved than when we were en- \ngaged on the separate topics. \n\nA single principle has for the most part guided \nthe development of thought in the series, and this \nbecause it is the principle which is dominating \nmore and more regally the intelligent Christian \nbelief of our time; a principle which will no \nlonger be confined within limits too narrow to con- \ntain it, nor tolerate the company of theories in- \nconsistent with the truth it expresses. Readers \ncannot fail to have observed the emphasis we have \nlaid on the universality of the gospel. We have \nassumed Christianity to be the final and supreme \nrevelation of God to man, a revelation intended for \nthe whole human race and destined to supersede \nall other religions ; and all the way along our in- \nquiry has been concerning the reality of this prin- \nciple. What is involved in it ? How far does it \ncarry us? What value and power reside in the \n\n\n\nN \n\n\n\n238 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nreligious knowledge men gain apart from the gos- \npel ? How is this universal gospel related to those \nlarge numbers of the human family who are en- \ntirely ignorant of it, and to the generations that \nhave passed away without knowledge of it ? We \nhave been very far from affirming that the univer- \nsality of the gospel has been only recently recog- \nnized, or that only the few accept it. On the con- \ntrary, we have taken for granted that no one \namong so-called evangelical believers for an instant \ndenies it. It is one of those postulates which can \nbe assumed without debate in every discussion con- \ncerning the truths of the gospel. We have been \nasking ourselves, and have been asking our readers, \nnot, Do you believe that Christianity is the su- \npreme and universal revelation of God to men ? \nbut, How much do you mean by its universality \nand absolute supremacy, and can you believe as \nyou do in this respect, and at the same time en- \ntertain certain opinions which seem to be excluded \nby the claims and the scope of Christianity ? To \nbelieve that besides the name of Jesus there is \nnone other name given under heaven amongst men \nwhereby there can be salvation, to believe that our \nLord spoke truly when He said, "No man cometh \nto the Father but by me," is of necessity to have \ncorresponding opinions concerning man\'s power to \nknow God without Christ, and concerning God\'s \npurpose to give men that knowledge and motive in \nthe absence of which they cannot be saved. It is \nthis enlarging thought of the gospel in its univer- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 289 \n\nsality which is bringing embarrassment on the \ndefenders of all theological systems which would \nconfine the gospel within limited and arbitrary \nboundaries. It is this more generous recognition \nof the scope of the gospel which, while it inspires a \nlarger hope for the unchristian nations, at the same \ntime animates a great courage in proclaiming \namong them the religion of our Lord and Saviour \nJesus Christ. \n\nLet it not be forgotten, however, that only with \na great price has this freedom been obtained. Not \nto mention earlier conflicts, we are scarcely yet out \nof the sound of warfare concerning the extent of \nthe Atonement. It is not necessary to go out of \nthe present century, nor indeed back of the older \ngeneration still represented among us, to find our- \nselves by the side of those who contended earnestly \nfor a universal as against a limited atonement. \nThe greatest service of the New England Theology \nwas in gaining general assent to the universality of \natonement. In the ethical field its service was less \npermanent, though at the time more highly ex- \ntolled. While it was, perhaps, enough to expect of \none generation that it should restore to use an es- \nsential principle, yet it must be admitted that the \nNew England Theology failed to apply consistently \nthe truth it had rescued. To this generation the \ntask remained of bringing other facts and opinions \ninto harmony with the principle of universality. \nOur fathers were concerned to show that universal \natonement does not of necessity procure universal \n\n\n\n240 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsalvation. The difference was marked between \nsufficiency and efficiency, between atonement and \nredemption. The great outside world of heathen- \ndom being impenetrable and practically unknown, \nthe question had not become pressing, how an \natonement could be universal while nine tenths of \nthe human race, through many centuries, had been \nleft in total ignorance concerning it. \n\nYet, although this universal character of the \ngospel is now generally recognized, it may be \nclaimed that at the present time conviction of it is \ndeeper because its grounds are better understood. \nIn the former time, besides the quotation of spe- \ncific texts, it was customary to argue universal \natonement from the divinity of Christ. A divine \nSaviour must be a Saviour sufficient for the re- \ndemption of all men. But we also find in the \nhumanity of Christ, with equal reason, the univer- \nsality of the gospel. As shown in the article on In- \ncarnation, the characteristic of his humanity is that \nHe stands in universal relation to his brethren. \nHe is the universal man, the head of humanity, the \nSon of man. Also, and this is perhaps the most \nconsiderable of recent enlargements in Christian \nthought, we are finding in the Scriptural teaching \nof judgment by Christ confirmation of his universal \nrelation to men. We are learning that this means \nmore than that the judgment is divine and there- \nfore cannot mistake, more than that it is sympa- \nthetic and therefore will not be severe. Since \nChrist is to judge the world, we know that the \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 241 \n\ndecisive fact for every man is his relation to Christ. \nIn the supreme day the secrets of men are to be \njudged by Jesus Christ according to the gospel. \nEvery man\'s judgment, his #cptW, is in relation to \nHim who has authority to execute judgment 6e- \ncause He is the Son of man. The Redeemer is \nthe judge. Redemption and judgment are correl- \native. As redemption is the final and supreme \nrevelation to man, no more sacrifice remaining, so \nthe irreversible word of destiny is pronounced only \nin view of each individual\'s acceptance or rejection \nof Christ. Thus, on every side, as the gospel is \nbetter understood, fresh confirmation is found of \nits universality, and all theories of the condition, \nsalvability, and destiny of men must be shaped in \nconformity with the unbounded power, claim, and \npromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. \n\nWe have, therefore, reaffirmed three important \npostulates of Christian thought and effort : uni- \nversal sinfulness, universal atonement, and the in- \ndispensableness of faith in Christ. \n\nBy the first we mean that man\'s sinful state is \nsuch that he has no power of deliverance from it. \nThis consideration is more important than a de- \ntermination of the degree of his guilt. How guilty \nany man is can be known only to God. What \njudgment will be or should be passed on this or \nthat individual our knowledge is not sufficient to \nshow, although we, of course, believe that it will be \na righteous and merciful judgment. The important \nfact is that all men are so under the control of \n\n16 \n\n\n\n242 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nsinful propensity and sinful character that they \nhave not in themselves the power of renewal. Al- \nthough some are less guilty than others, although \nsome will receive a more lenient judgment than \nothers, the facts remain that all have sinned and \ncome short of the glory of God, and that left to \nthemselves there is no hope of salvation. \n\nThe universality of atonement has been insisted \non both in the treatment of that subject and in \nthe discussion of other doctrines. \n\nThe indispensableness of faith in Christ in order \nthat sinful man may be restored to sonship with \nGod has been repeatedly affirmed and continually \nassumed. \n\nWe have accepted these postulates in their length \nand breadth. We have not reduced but rather \nhave magnified their meaning. We are perfectly \naware that a tremendous claim is thus made for \nChristianity, in respect both to the sufficiency of \natonement and to the exclusion of any other way \nof salvation, but we believe the claim is explicitly \nsupported by Scripture, and inseparable from any \njust thought of Christianity as a divine revelation. \n\nA natural inference from these premises is that \nevery one will know God as He is revealed in the \nlove and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If Christ was \ngiven for the whole world, and if no one can be \nsaved except by faith in Christ, we are almost \ndriven to the conclusion that Christ will be made \nknown to every individual of the human race in all \nthe generations past, present, and future, and that \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 243 \n\neverlasting destiny is determined for every person \nby his acceptance or rejection of Christ. This con- \nclusion we have therefore gladly and unhesitatingly \nadopted. We have not, however, expressed as pos- \nitive an opinion concerning the circumstances and \nseasons within which Christ will be revealed to \nthose who do not know Him in the earthly life. \nBut we frankly admit that it seems to us probable \nthat those who in this life have no knowledge of \nChrist will not be denied that knowledge, with its \ncorresponding opportunity, after death. Still, so \nmuch that is perplexing remains in respect to God\'s \ndealing with the nations of heathendom that we \nwill not be so presumptuous as to press our opinion \non any who are not ready to receive it, nor so vain \nas to suppose that we have found a complete solu- \ntion of one of the deepest mysteries of God\'s gov- \nernment of the world. We are content to maintain \nthese three postulates, and to let them establish \nsuch conclusions as appear most reasonable in the \nlight of candid and reverent reflection. \n\nSometimes acceptance of a truth becomes more \nconfident when the alternatives to it are clearly \nrecognized. If this or that alternative must be re- \njected, the opinion which remains will have more \nprobability. The alternative is to surrender one \nor more of the three postulates we have mentioned. \nIt may be denied that man has in himself no power \nto escape from sin, or that atonement is universal, \nor that faith in Christ is indispensable to salvation. \n\nOne alternative, then, is the theory that atone- \n\n\n\n/ \n\n\n\n244 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nment was made only for the elect. God chose \nsome from all eternity unto salvation. Then He \nsent his Son to redeem them, but not to redeem \nany others. Atonement was made for only part of \nthe human family. It was sufficient for the pur- \npose. So, besides the elect who have actually \nknown Christ, there are elect infants and elect \nheathen who in some mysterious way are saved by \nmeans of the Atonement. This theory surrenders \nthe second postulate. The Atonement is not uni- \nversal. It holds that sin is universal, and that \nfaith in Christ is indispensable, but denies that the \n\nv Atonement is universal. It has the merit of con- \nsistency. There is no need to argue the question \nhow Christ could have suffered for the whole world, \nwhile yet the vast majority of men die without \nknowledge of Christ, for it is not admitted that \nChrist did suffer for the whole world. But its con- \nsistency is bought at a terrible price. The con- \nception of God is unscriptural, the doctrine of \nChrist is unchristian, and that sentiment or con- \nsciousness which is the product of the gospel is out- \nI raged. That alternative we have not even argued. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Such a gospel cannot be preached. Such a God \ncannot be loved. \n\nAnother, and really the only other, alternative is \nthe surrender of both the first and third postulates. \nBy implication it is denied that faith in Christ is \nindispensable to salvation when it is argued that \nthose who have not the gospel can be saved from \ntheir sins notwithstanding. If the light of reason \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 245 \n\nand conscience is sufficient, then man can release \nhimself from sin without the truth and love of \nChrist. This theory is argued at length in the \nchapter on Eschatology. It is enough now to em- \nphasize certain considerations which were urged \nbefore, but which seem to be overlooked in current \ndiscussions of the subject. \n\nIf this theory means that man of himself can \ncome to his normal state of holiness and likeness to \nGod, we have replied that the evidence from facts \nis meagre and extremely uncertain, and that Scrip- \nture repeatedly affirms the contrary. The instances \nof exceptional virtue usually cited are not suffi- \nciently conclusive to warrant us in abandoning be- \nlief in the necessity of faith in Christ. We are not \nyet ready to admit that there is another name given \nunder the Asiatic heaven whereby the Chinese can \nbe saved, and another way open in Africa whereby \na man can come to the Father. God may and does \nprepare conditions in the development of nations, \nand even of individuals, into which the truth of \nChrist can come and work with mighty power. \nThe soil is made ready providentially, but the seed \nis always the word of the kingdom. The truth by \nwhich man is justified and sanctified is the truth as \nit is in Jesus, who is the wisdom of God and the \npower of God to every one that believeth. \n\nBut were there not pious Jews before the time \nof Christ who were saved, and who at death entered \nimmediately into blessedness ? Whatever may be- \ncome of our theory, we can answer this question \n\n\n\n246 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nonly in the affirmative. How, then, does it appear \nthat knowledge of Christ is indispensable to sal- \nvation ? And if they were saved by living up to \nthe light they had, why may not conscientious even \nif more ignorant heathen also be saved ? To these \nquestions we must reply, as we replied before, that \nthe knowledge of God granted to the Jews was dif- \nferent in kind from the knowledge attainable by \nothers, and that we therefore are not justified in \narguing from the Jews to the Gentiles. The Jews \noccupied an exceptional position. They were the \nrecipients of a special revelation from God. They \nwere vouchsafed a knowledge of God along lines \nwhich led on to the complete revelation in Christ. \nThey knew the righteousness and compassion of \nGod. Above all, they had learned that God seeks \nman in pity and forgiveness for his redemption. \nWith Abraham in some dim but real vision they \nsaw the day of Christ. This would prove that it \nis not indispensable to salvation that one should \nknow Christ in the actual circumstances of his \nearthly work. But there was a real foreshadowing \nof Christ such as was not opened to the Gentile na- \ntions. That revelation, even now, is found to have \nbeen so intimately related to the complete revela- \ntion in Christ that we bind up the record of it with \nthe gospel to make our Bible in its indissoluble or- \nganic unity. It may also be repeated that the be- \nlief has always been cherished that devout Jews \nwere brought after death to their full salvation \nthrough the knowledge of Christ. But the Jews \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 247 \n\npresent no real exception to our principle, for sal- \nvation was made known to them through the aton- \ning and redeeming love of God, and Judaism is \ninseparable from Christianity. But when we are \nasked to go farther, to argue from the Jews to the \nheathen, from the Psalms to the Vedas, from the \nProphets to the books of Confucius, to believe that \nthe light of reason and conscience without any rev- \nelation whatever differs not in kind but in degree \nonly from Christianity, we confess ourselves unable \nto follow. When, in order to save the postulate of \nfaith in Christ (for there evidently is no other rea- \nson, since observed facts would never suggest it), \nwhen it is soberly argued that the comparatively \ngood heathen are saved by their faith in Christ, \nalthough they never heard of Him, that Christ is \nessentially known when He is not known at all, we \nreally must be excused from making so fanciful \ndiscriminations. It is intelligible that those who \ndo not know Christ during the earthly life will be \nlost, for want of that knowledge ; although we can- \nnot bring ourselves so to believe. It is intelligible \nthat those who do not know Christ during the \nearthly life may yet live so righteously that they \nwill have a place in the kingdom of the redeemed \nat last ; although such persons are confessedly sel- \ndom found, and when they are supposed to be \nfound it is believed that they ultimately know God \nin Christ, and thus only are redeemed from their \nsin. It is intelligible, and we think probable, that \nthose who do not know Christ during the earthly \n\n\n\n248 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nlife will know Him in the life beyond. The ex- \ntension of time seems necessary to the absolute and \nuniversal religion. But it is in our opinion neither \nintelligible nor probable that men are saved by a \nChrist of whom they know nothing whatever. This \ntheory we can best characterize still as salvation by \nmagic. We have pondered it well, and think it \nleaves Paul\'s question still unanswered : " How \nshall they believe in Him of whom they have not \nheard? " We are slow to conclude that men are \nsaved from their sins and restored to sonship with \nGod without knowing Christ and believing in Him. \nWe are not convinced that character becomes fixed \nin righteousness and likeness to God apart from \nthe gospel. Some conscientiousness there may be, \nsome moral amendment, some conformity to the \nlight given. In such cases men are not hopelessly \ncondemned, for they are capable of salvation. But \nare they redeemed from sin ? Are they walking in \nnewness of life ? Have they the purity and liberty \nof the children of God ? Would there not be rad- \nical changes if Christ were known and received ? \nLet us remember that the question is not concern- \ning the blameworthiness of those who have been \nobedient to the light they have. The question is \nwhether any besides those who receive Christ have \npower to become the sons of God, whether they \ncan be saved in any sufficient meaning of salvation \nunless either before death, or at death, or after \ndeath, the light of the knowledge of the glory of \nGod shines upon them in the face of Jesus Christ. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 249 \n\nNot only do we believe that character does not \nbecome permanently crystallized into holiness by \nthe aid of reason and conscience alone, even if such \nlight (in some sense unintelligible to us) is equiv- \nalent to Christianity, but we also believe that, in \nthe vast majority of cases, character does not be- \ncome permanently crystallized into wickedness, so \nthat salvation through Christ becomes impossible. \nIf the heathen are still capable of salvation through \nChrist, can we believe that because an inert church \nfails to preach Christ to them during their earthly \nlife they will therefore never have the opportunity \nof knowing Him ? It is sometimes said that if Soc- \nrates had known of Christ he would have believed \nin Him, and it is therefore supposed that after \ndeath he did know Christ. That is, Socrates at \ndeath was still capable of salvation through Christ. \nNeither more nor less than this is meant. But who \nshall draw the line between those heathen who are \nand those who are not capable of salvation ? Can \none walk up and down in heathendom, and, as he \nproceeds, point to this one, and that one, and \nanother, who have become incapable of repentance \nand renewal ? Will one stand on the threshold of \nhis little church and turn away certain persons be- \ncause he clearly perceives that even the gospel of \nJesus Christ is powerless to save them ? Certainly \nan African, a Japanese, an Australasian, sinks into \ndeep debasement. The corruption seems incurable. \nBut would any missionary board send out a preacher \nwho intends to labor only for those who show some \n\n\n\n250 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nremaining signs of moral health ? Whatever may \nbe the fact, we certainly have not a knowledge of \nmen sufficient to warrant us in affirming that any \none to whom Christ has not been made known is \nalready incapable of salvation. We do not dare \nto affirm as much of any individual who has ap- \nparently become fixed in wickedness and unbelief \nunder the full blaze of the light of the gospel. \nThe mighty working of the Holy Spirit in corrupt \nhearts has so often reversed our judgment that we \nhave learned to despair of none. Much less, then, \nis it permissible to conclude that any heathen, \nhowever wicked he may be, but who has not heard \nof Christ, is hopelessly lost. And if such a one \ngoes out of the world, as millions do, without knowl- \nedge of Christ, who shall dare to say, in the ab- \nsence of any word of Scripture to that effect, that \nthe clear light and the mighty motive of the gospel \nwill be withheld forever ? \n\nIt seems to be thought by some that our prin- \ncipal contention has been to show that no one can \nbe saved without knowledge of Christ, and that if \na few exceptions could be discovered our principle \nwould be overthrown. But we have been endeavor- \ning to show that no one can be lost without having \nhad knowledge of Christ. The Jews and the pious \nheathen have been cited to prove that salvation is \npossible without knowledge of the historic Christ, \nand consequently it has been concluded that our \nprinciple breaks down. But even if we should have \nto admit that some abatement must be made from \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 251 \n\na strict interpretation of our principle so as to make \nroom for these exceptions, we should still press the \nmain question. The real difficulty is that millions \nof men die, not only without knowledge of the gos- \npel, but also without showing signs of moral re- \nnewal, and we ask, Are all these multitudes, through \nso many generations, hopelessly lost ? Opinions \nmay differ about the salvation of the few exception- \nally virtuous heathen. But opinions cannot differ \nabout the masses of heathendom who die in their \nsins. Must we, can we, believe that they are eter- \nnally damned ? Is it possible that God will never \nbring to them the light and motive of the gospel of \nJesus Christ? We think, indeed, as we have re- \npeatedly argued, that salvation in any proper sense \nof the term is realized only by faith in Christ, that \nconscientious heathen have only a capacity more or \nless for redemption. Neither have we at any point \nso narrowly interpreted Christianity as to limit \nknowledge of Christ to acquaintance with the facts \nof the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth. We have \nmeant knowledge of God\'s atoning and redeeming \nlove, which the Jews received dimly without know- \ning the historic Christ ; which, we believe, is given \nafter death to those who, seeing Him for the first \ntime, see Him as He is, perhaps without the inter- \nvention of biography and history, but which, we \nthink, is not in any intelligible sense given to the \nheathen nations before death. Therefore, when it \nis asked, Are not some persons saved without knowl- \nedge of Christ ? we answer, Possibly ; although, ex- \n\n\n\n252 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\ncept the Jews, to whom a revelation was made, re- \ndeemed persons outside Christendom are admitted \nto be exceedingly few. But when all has been con- \nceded on that side that can possibly be claimed, the \nreal difficulty remains as grave and persistent as \nbefore. Are multitudes of men lost without knowl- \nedge of God\'s atoning and redeeming love in Jesus \nChrist ? Can they be finally and absolutely con- \ndemned if they have known nothing of God\'s final \nand absolute revelation of himself to mankind? \nCan any one be hopelessly lost who has not so \nmuch as heard of Him who tasted death for every \nman ? We, therefore, contend that universal judg- \nment by Christ means that every man is to be \njudged by his relation to Christ ; that no one will \nbe forever condemned unless he has rejected the sal- \nvation which is in Jesus Christ. \n\nIt should, perhaps, be explicitly stated, in order \nto prevent misapprehension, that our opinion that \nthe heathen after death will obtain knowledge of \nChrist does not mean that their probation con- \ntinues on and on till the day of judgment, while \nthe probation of others is limited to this life. That \nknowledge of Christ which is decisive may come \nimmediately after death, so that probation speedily \ncomes to an end. Our contention is that destiny \nis determined by one\'s relation to Christ, and that \ntherefore to every one Christ, sooner or later, will \nbe made known. The judgment day is the end of \nprobation for the race as a whole. Then every \nland, every nation, every generation, will have \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 253 \n\nknown Christ as Redeemer. But the limit of pro- \nbation for countless individuals will long since have \nbeen passed, for many who did not have the gospel \nin the earthly life, as well as for the many who did \nhave it in the earthly life. The revelation given \nin the disembodied state may be so luminous that \nthe actual time will scarcely be appreciable be- \ntween the moment of death and the moment when \nChrist is decisively accepted or rejected. And yet, \nwith some, we can easily imagine that protracted \nprocesses of education and discipline may be nec- \nessary to make them ripe for decision. We do \nnot argue, then, for a second probation, nor for a \nprobation indefinitely prolonged, but for a Chris- \ntian probation, sometime and somewhere, and for a \nChristian judgment under which all the individuals \nof all the nations, and all the generations, will re- \nceive the allotments of eternal destiny. \n\nIt is instructive to observe that nearly all who \nfor various reasons cannot believe that the heathen \nmay have knowledge of Christ after death are con- \nfessing their inability to reach any definite con- \nclusion whatever. A common answer to questions \nconcerning the destiny of the heathen is, We do \nnot know. This view is sometimes called Christian \nagnosticism. Besides our own, we believe this to \nbe the only tenable position. The manifest incon- \nsistency of the theories we have criticised is driving \nthem from the field. Christians are at least becom- \ning certain that there are some opinions they can- \nnot hold. One candid editor says that no Scrip- \n\n\n\n254 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nture denounces endless woe on heathen who have \nnever heard of Christ, and that, therefore, we can- \nnot be required to believe that their doom is hope- \nless ; that when the few sporadic instances of " pious \nheathen " are pointed to for relief they are found \nto be inadequate to solve the tremendous problem. \nHe therefore relegates the whole matter to infinite \nwisdom and justice and love. He does not believe \nthat the heathen are lost, nor that the few moral, \neven if essentially Christian, heathen relieve the \nimmense difficulty, and therefore he is a Christian \nagnostic, committing the world in triumphant \nfaith and hope to the Infinite Father. He ex- \nplicitly declares that we can neither see nor affirm \nwhat becomes of the heathen hereafter. To this \nconclusion a majority of Christians have probably \ncome. It certainly shows great progress that this \nposition is quite generally held. Much is gained \nwhen untenable theories are intelligently aban- \ndoned. It is an important discovery as well as \nadmission that the Bible nowhere teaches that \nheathen who have never heard the gospel are hope- \nlessly lost. Therefore, when it is said that the \nScripture does not teach that the heathen have op- \nportunity of salvation after death, we can at least \nreply that it does not preclude that hope, for it \nnowhere teaches that the heathen are lost, and that \ntheir opportunity is limited to this life. But we \nhave no contention with the agnostic, and we think \nhe has no reason to have contention with us. We \nare agreed in rejecting certain outworn and un- \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 255 \n\nchristian theories. He does not deny that God\'s \nway may be to give knowledge of Christ after \ndeath, only he is not at present convinced. He \nwill admit that such a method is not unworthy of \nGod nor unreasonable in itself. When ignorance \nis confessed under the saying that God will do \nwhat is right, we, of course, agree. No one be- \nlieves that God will do what is wrong. Our con- \nviction, however, is that the revelation of God in \nChrist enables us to understand in certain respects \nwhat is right for God to do or not to do. We be- \nlieve it is right for God to judge the world by \nJesus Christ, for we therefore believe that the \njudgment of men is determined by their relation \nto Him who has already been made known to them \nas Saviour. Agnosticism on this subject is likely \nto be temporary. It is a resting-place where one \nstands who has cut loose from unchristian theories. \nSearch of the Scriptures and profounder study of \nChristianity will be likely to carry him on to the \nprinciple we have so often enunciated and empha- \nsized. We think agnosticism can properly remain \nonly concerning the mode in which that principle \nwill be applied to men in the great variety of their \nmoral conditions. \n\nWe have dwelt on the relation of the heathen \nworld to the gospel longer than might seem nec- \nessary. The reason is that the gravest objection \nto the universality and absoluteness of Christianity \nis at this very point. The Scriptural representa- \ntions of the gospel, and its intrinsic character, \n\n\n\n256 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nshow it to be universal; yet, as matter of fact, \nonly a small fraction of the human race in the long \nsuccession of the ages has even heard of Jesus \nChrist. How, then, it may fairly be asked, can it \nbe considered the universal religion? The acute \nStrauss urges the force of this objection. He de- \nclares that, since so large a portion of mankind \nknow nothing of Christianity, it cannot be neces- \nsary to salvation, because not the universal re- \nligion ; and that, if certain virtuous heathen are \nsaved, then the gospel is proved not to be the uni- \nversal religion, because not necessary to salvation. 1 \nThe only reply is that until the gospel does fill the \nwhole earth knowledge of it must be given after \ndeath to those who are deprived of its blessings be- \nfore death. \n\nWe need not linger to review the several articles \nof our series in the light of the absoluteness of \nChristianity. The Incarnation shows Christ the \nuniversal man vitally related to the whole human \nrace. The Atonement shows Christ suffering with \nthe race and for the race, and thereby giving man- \nkind a power it could not otherwise have. The \nHoly Spirit uses as highest and final motive for \nevery man the truth as it is in Jesus. Man can be \nbrought to God only through Christ the Saviour of \nthe world. The Bible is the supreme authority for \nman, because it embodies the gospel of the only be-, \ngotten Son of God. \n\nWe have also endeavored to show that there can \n\n1 Christliche Glaubenslehre, i. pp. 268-274. \n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNIVERSAL. 257 \n\nbe no stronger motive to missions than a clear rec- \nognition that the gospel is absolute and universal. \nIf one believes that the heathen are doomed, and \nthat all of them who die without hearing of Christ \nare forever lost, he has, indeed, an urgent motive \nto send or carry the gospel to them. But a more \ninspiring motive is found in loyalty to Christ, in \nobedience to his last command, in laboring with \nHim for the extension of his kingdom, in gaining \nfor Him those who are his own and for whom He \ndied. At the recent great missionary meeting in \nBoston it was noticeable that the motive urged was \nthe universality of Christianity, the relation of \nChrist to the race ; and that scarcely a word was \nuttered concerning the doom of the heathen. What- \never may have been believed by the majority of \nthe assembly as to the fate of the heathen, it was \nevidently felt that the influential motive is the uni- \nversality of Christ\'s redemption and kingdom, and \nthe need all men have of entering into that king- \ndom. But we may not make inquisition into mo- \ntives, nor insist that others shall be impelled by \nthe identical motive which urges us on. Neither \nof these great motives is a selfish motive. Love \nfor men is in them both. Paul was not half as \ncareful as those would be now who can discover \nbut one motive for preaching the gospel. He knew \nthat some preached from very low motives, but he \nwould not hinder them. " Some indeed preach \nChrist even of envy and strife ; and some also of \ngood will. . . . What then? only that in every \n\n17 \n\n\n\n258 PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOXY. \n\nway, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is pro- \nclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will re- \njoice." We may not discourage those who preach \nChrist because they believe that the heathen not \nhaving the gospel in this life are hopelessly lost. \nNeither may they discourage those who go forth \nwith enthusiasm to proclaim Christ who is the only \nRedeemer and rightful King of men, and whose \nkingdom is a universal and an everlasting king- \ndom. \n\nBoth in respect to our thinking and our toil we \nmay share the expectation of the great apostle who \nwas both theologian and missionary, when he said, \n" Till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and \nof the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full- \ngrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the \nfulness of Christ." \n\n\n\nTHE ANDOVER REVIEW. \n\nA MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF RELIGION, THEOLOGY, \nSOCIAL SCIENCE, ANH LITERATURE, \n\nEdited by Egbert C Smyth, William J. Tucker, \nJ. W. Churchill, George Harris, Edward Y. \nHincks, Professors in Andover Theological Semi- \nnary, Andover, Mass., with the cooperation and active \nsupport of their colleagues in the Faculty, Professors \nJohn P. Gulliver, John Phelps Taylor, George \nF. Moore, and Frank E. Woodruff. \nTerms : $4.00 a year, net ; single numbers, 35 cents, \n\nnet Volumes 1 to 4 (each volume covering a period of \n\nsix months), 8vo, each $2.50, net Covers for binding, \n\n50 cents each, net \n\nThe Andover Review is a Religious and Theological \nMonthly, advocating the principles and methods of what is \nnow known as Progressive Orthodoxy, but its discussions are \nnot confined to the field of Theology. It is already recog- \nnized " as a strong expounder of the social questions of the \nday, promising a future of great influence. " \n\nIt considers the church\'s work of Evangelism at home and \nabroad, its educational functions, the administration of its \ncharities, its worship and instruction. A special feature of \nthe Review is the survey by competent writers of the religious \ncondition of other countries, particularly of those in which \nmissionaries are actively at work. Questions relating to the \nbuilding of society at the West, and to its reconstruction at \nthe South, are discussed by men engaged in the work. Prac- \ntical studies in Sociology are given, and Educational matters \nand methods are fully discussed. \n\nThese and other subjects are treated in the form of articles. \nIn addition to these, which occupy the body of the Review, \nthere are Departments of Archaeological, Sociological, and \nGeographical Notes, of Theological and Religious Intelli- \ngence, of Biblical and Historical Criticism, and of Book Re- \nviews. A Department of Editorial Notes contains brief dis- \ncussions of current issues and events. \n\nPostal Notes and Money are at the risk of the sender, and therefore \nremittances should be made by money-order, draft, or registered letter^ to \n\nHOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & COMPANY, \n\n4 Park Street, Boston, Mass. \n\n\n\nTHE ANDOVER REVIEW. \n\n\n\nNOTICES OF THE PRESS. \n\nThe Andover Review is making theology of interest to persons \nwho are not theologians. No religious monthly periodical that \ncomes to us is quite so interesting from a popular point of view, \nand yet without any apparent effort to be so. \xe2\x80\x94 New York Times. \n\nThe Andover Review for November opens with a paper on \n" The New Education/\' by Professor Palmer, of Harvard, which \nis a vigorous defense. It is to be followed in the succeeding num- \nbers with further discussions by other teachers. This is putting \na review to good service. The editorial work is full, rich, and \nspicy as usual. \xe2\x80\x94 The Independent (New York). \n\nPeople look with expectancy to the Andover Review for fresh \nand popular treatment of social and ethical subjects, as well as for \nscholarly criticisms and able handling of theological and philo- \nsophical problems. \xe2\x80\x94 Christian Union (New York). \n\nThe Review closes its first year with a record of work in the \nsphere of theology, philosophy, criticism, and social discussion \nwhich has never been surpassed in English periodical literature, \nand has made a strong impression upon the religious and thought- \nful life of the whole country. Its more original articles have \ngone far to instruct the minds and change the opinions of the \nleaders of thought. \xe2\x80\x94 Boston Herald. \n\nThe Andover Review of March has a very sensible editorial \narticle on Common School Methods. It would be useful to take \nthis essay, convert it into a tract, and circulate it widely among \nteachers, parents, and Boards of Education. It certainly would \ngive them something to think of. \xe2\x80\x94 New York Observer. \n\nThe Andover Review is maintaining the high position which it \ntook in the religious and intellectual world with its first number. \nIn our judgment it has no equal in the field which it occupies. -\xe2\x80\x94 \nThe Advance (Chicago). \n\nAlways liberal and progressive, it has been an honest exponent \nof modern religious thought, though none the less orthodox in \nall the essentials of Christianity. Every leading question has \' \nbeen discussed, thoughtfully and ably, by some of the preeminent \ntheological writers of the age. It not only discusses the theoret- \nical questions that agitate the time, but is strong and practical in \ndealing with the great questions rising constantly in the work of \nthe church throughout the world. \xe2\x80\x94 The Daily American (Nash\' \nville). \n\n\n\nIn its thoroughly satisfactory progress, the Andover Review \nhas become a strong expounder of social questions of the dav, \nand promises a future of great influence. It is both earnest and \nthoroughly alive to current thought, and looks to the highest in \nmorality and religion. \xe2\x80\x94 Boston Journal. \n\nWe hear no review more frequently referred to or quoted from \nnowadays than the Andover Review, which seems to have con- \nfronted the public mind \xe2\x80\x94 the thinking sides of it \xe2\x80\x94 in an un- \nusual degree, and to be awakening, if not forming, public opinions \non a good many important questions. \xe2\x80\x94 Literary World (Boston). \n\nThe Andover Review, for the average preacher, is the best in \nthis country. It is versatile, up to the times, scholarly, non-secta- \nrian, evangelical, progressive. Besides, it is a monthly; thus by \nits frequency making its appearance the more welcome. It always \ncomes to hand promptly at the first of the month. \xe2\x80\x94 Missionary \nRecord (St. Louis). \n\nIn every number we find something to be especially preserved. \n\xe2\x80\x94 The Churchman (New York). \n\nThe Andover Review, which has reached the end of the second \nyear of its life, has come to the front of periodicals of its class in \nAmerica. Primarily religious and theological, it is also literary \nand full of articles of practical worth. The sudden eminence to \nwhich this review has sprung is partly due to the frankness and \nfearlessness with which views more in accord with modern thought \nthan with ancient dogma are set forth. For though Andover is \northodox its staff of theological professors are not sleepily ortho- \ndox. \xe2\x80\x94 Morning Herald (Halifax). \n\nThe departments of Biblical and Historical Criticism and of \nTheological and Religious Intelligence are unusually good. The \nAndover Review has reached the front rank, and maintains its \nplace. \xe2\x80\x94 The Christian Advocate (New York). \n\nIn the Andover Review rational orthodoxy has a strong and \nfearless champion. While it is ready to " prove all things/\' it is \nnot afraid to " hold fast that which is good," simply because it \nhappens to be old. The great fault of most of the apostles of \nnew ideas is that they are unable to see anything good in that \nwhich is old. The Andover Review is supposed to be the mouth- \npiece of the new theology ; but it never fails to do substantial jus- \ntice to the old theology, a virtue which a great many so-called \nleaders of modern thought might do well to imitate. \xe2\x80\x94 New York \nTribune. \n\nThe first volume of the Andover Review has been, certainly, a \nbrilliant success in the patronage it has secured, in the cordial \nreception it has received from both the religious and secular \npress, and in the ability and variety of its literary and apologetic \ncontributions. \xe2\x80\x94 Zion\'s Herald (Boston). \n\n\n\nOn the whole, the Andover Review is demonstrating its raison \nd\'etre, and deserves to be, as it is, the most popular religious re- \nview in America to-day. \xe2\x80\x94 The Religious Herald (Cong.). \n\nThe Andover Review continues to be manly, frank, thoughtful, \nand progressive. It is becoming evident that the Andover the- \nology, as at present, is a new leaven rather than a new departure. \n\n*\xe2\x80\x94 Springfield Republican, \n\nNo recent religious review has assumed prominence more \nswiftly or deserved it more thoroughly. \xe2\x80\x94 Philadelphia Press. \n\nThe Andover Review is deservedly popular, because it meets \na general want and never fails to fulfill its high promise. Its \nmatter, always varied, is adapted to a variety of scholarly tastes. \n\xc2\xab\xe2\x80\x94 The Messenger (Philadelphia). \n\nFor the scholarly discussion of the most recent phases of relig- \nious thought we know of nothing superior to it. \xe2\x80\x94 Pittsburgh \nChristian Advocate. \n\nThe Andover Review well sustains the reputation generally ac- \ncorded to it amongst our neighbors ; the most valuable theolog- \nical magazine published on this continent. \xe2\x80\x94 The Week (To- \nronto, Canada). \n\nThe Andover Review, an American religious and theological \nmonthly, which deserves attention and welcome on this side the \nAtlantic. \xe2\x80\x94 The Christian World (London). \n\nThe September Andover Review brings to a close a series of \nwell-considered articles on " The Religious Problem of the Coun- \ntry Town,"\xe2\x80\x94 especially as they have it in the growingly hetero- \ngeneous towns of New England. This number of the Andover \nis, like its predecessors, an able and readable addition to our re- \nview literature. \xe2\x80\x94 The Evangelist (New York). \n\nThe Andover Review is always one of the most suggestive and \nvaluable reviews of the problems of life. \xe2\x80\x94 Evening Traveller \n(Boston). \n\n\n\nHOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY, . \n\nPublishers, \n4 PARK ST., BOSTON. \n\n\n\nIMPORTANT RELIGIOUS BOOKS \n\nPublished by \nHOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & COMPANY \n\nBOSTON AND NEW YORK \n\n\n\nRev. A. V. G. Allen. \n\nContinuity of Christian Thought. 12mo, gilt top, \n$2.00. \n\nThe Andover Review. \n\nA new Religious and Theological Review, un<ler the edi- \ntorial control of Egbert C. Smyth, William J. Tucker, J. W. \nChurchill, George Harris, Edward Y. Hincks, Professors in \nAndover Theological Seminary, Andover. Mass., and with the coop- \neration and active support of all their colleagues in the Faculty, \xe2\x80\x94 \nProfessors John P Gulliver, John P. Taylor, Geo. F. Moore, \nand Frank E. Woodruff. The fir.-t number of the Review ap- \npeared in January, 1884. Published, monthly. Terms $4.00 a year ; \nsingle copies, 35 cents. Volumes I. to IV., 8vo, each, $2.50; cov- \ners for binding, 50 cents each. \n\nThe Axdover Review, while appealing to professional readers, \naddresses itself directly to the religious public. Theologically, it ad- \nvocates the principles and represents the method and spirit of pro- \ngressive Orthodoxy. In addition to the general articles, there are \nalso departments of Archaeological and Geographical Notes, of Theo- \nlogical and Religious Intelligence, of Book Reviews and Periodical \nLiterature, and of Editorial Notes. \n\nE. E. Beardsley, D. D. \n\nThe History of the Episcopal Church in Connecti- \ncut. Fourth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, $6.00. \n\nLife and Correspondence of Samuel Seabury, D. D., \nFirst Bishop of Connecticut, and of the Episcopal Church in the \nUnited States. With portrait. 8vo, $4.00. \n\nLife and Correspondence of Samuel Johnson, D. D., \nMissionary of the Church of England in Connecticut, and First \nPresident of King\'s College in New York. With portrait. 8vo, \n$3.50. \n\nThe Bible. \n\nRiverside Parallel Bible. Containing the Authorized \nand Revised Version of both Old and New Testaments in Parallel \nColumns. With Preface, References, Lists of Revisers, and Read- \nings preferred by the American Revisers. 4to, 1742 pages, $6.00; \nPersian, $12.00;\' morocco, 18.00. \n\n\n\n2 Religious Publications of \n\nJohn Brown, B. A. \nJohn Bunyan : His Life, Times, and Works. With \nPortrait and Illustrations. 8vo, $4.50. \n\nJohn Bunyan. \nThe Pilgrim\'s Progress. New Popular Edition, from \n\nnew plates. With Archdeacon Allen\'s Life of Bunyan (illustrated), \n\nand Macaulay\'s Essay on Bunyan. 62 wood-cuts. 12mo, $1.00. \nThe Same. Holiday Edition, comprising, in addition to \n\nthe Popular Edition, a steel portrait of Bunyan, and eight colored \n\nplates. 8vo, full gilt, $2.50. \n\nLydia Maria Child. \nLooking Towards Sunset. A book for those who are \napproaching the evening of life. 12mo, gilt top, $2.50; half calf, \n$5.00. \n\nJames Freeman Clarke, D. D. \n\nTen Great Religions. An Essay in Comparative The- \nology. With an Index. 8vo, $3.00 ; half calf, $5.00. \n\nThe Same. 12mo. $2.00. \n\nContents : Ethnic and Catholic Religions ; Confucius and the \n\nChinese; Brahmanism; Buddhism, or the Protestantism of the East; \n\nZoroaster and the Zend Avesta ; The Gods of Egypt; The Gods of \n\nGreece; The Religion of Rome; The Teutonic and Scandinavian \n\nReligion ; The Jewish Religion ; Mohammed and Islam ; The Ten \n\nReligions and Christianity. \n\nTen Great Religions. Part II. A Comparison of all \n\nReligions. Svo, $3.00 ; half calf, $5.00. \nThe Same. 12mo. $2.00. \n\nContents: Description and Classification; Special Types, Law \nof Development ; Origin and Development of all Religions ; The \nIdea of God in all Religions ; Animism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Di- \ntheism, Tritheism, and Monotheism; The Soul and its Transmigra- \ntions in all Religions ; The Origin of the World in all Religions : \nEvolution, Emanation, and Creation ; Prayer and Worship in all \nReligions ; Inspiration and Art in all Religions ; Ethics in all Relig- \nions ; Idea of a Future State in all Religions ; The Future Religion \nof Mankind. \n\nThe author has given the world a book unique in design and exe- \ncution ; in its attempt to trace the doctrines we have named through \nall religions- the work has no predecessor. \xe2\x80\x94 The Churchman (New \nYork). . \n\nCommon-Sense in Religion. A Series of Essays. \n\n12 mo, $2.00. \n\nAs the common-sense of religion is the most certain reality of all \nlife, the title of these essays is admirably chosen. It must arrest at- \ntention in face of the conservative determination to relegate religion \nto the domain of darkness, dreams, disease, myths, and other uncer- \ntainties, \xe2\x80\x94 A dv ertiser (Boston). \n\n\n\nHoughton, Mifflin & Co. 3 \n\nJoseph Cook, \n\nBiology. With Preludes on Current Events. Eighteenth \n\nEdition. 3 colored illustrations. \nTranscendentalism. With Preludes on Current Events. \nOrthodoxy. With Preludes on Current Events. \nConscience. With Preludes on Current Events. \nHeredity. With Preludes on Current Events. \nMarriage. With Preludes on Current Events. \nLabor. With Preludes on Current Events. \nSocialism. With Preludes on Current Events. \n\nOccident. With Preludes on Current Events. (A new \n\nvolume.) \nOrient. With Preludes on Current Events. (A new \n\nvolume.) (In Press.) \n\nEach volume, 12mo, $1.50. \n\nMr. Cook did not take up the work he has accomplished as a trade, \nor by accident, or from impulse ; but for years he had been preparing \nfor it, and prepared for it by an overruling guidance. . . . He light- \nens and thunders, throwing a vivid light on a topic by an expression \nor comparison, or striking a presumptuous error as by a bolt from \nheaven. \xe2\x80\x94 James McCosh, D. D. \n\nRev. M. Creighton. \n\nHistory of the Papacy during the Period of the \nReformation. Vol. L The Great Schism \xe2\x80\x94 The Council of \nConstance, 1378-1418. Vol. II. The Council of Basel \xe2\x80\x94 The \nPapal Restoration, 1418-1464. 2 vols. 8vo, $10.00. \n\nThomas De Quincey. \nEssays on Christianity, Paganism, and Superstition. \n\n12mo, $1.50. \n\nThe Dhammapada. \n\nTexts from the Buddhist Canon, commonly known as \nDhammapada, with accompanying Narratives. Translated from \nthe Chinese by Samuel Beal, Professor of Chinese, University \nCollege, London. 8vo, gilt top, $2.50. \n\nProfessor J. L. Diman. \n\nThe Theistic Argument as Affected by Recent \nTheories. Edited by Professor George P. Fisher. Crown \n\n8vo, $2.00. \n\nThe author has succeeded in making it clear that recent science \nimpels us to a point where the necessity of admitting the existence of \nGod is irresistible ; that its most elevated conceptions and widest \n\n\n\n4 Religious Publications of \n\ngeneralizations render it necessary to accept the presence ana con- \nstant efficient energy of God as realities; and that the modes of oper- \nation which science discloses are in harmony with the fundamental \nprinciples and postulates of Christianity. \xe2\x80\x94 British Quarterly Review. \nDr. Diman concedes to his opponents every advantage of debate, \nadopts their phraseology, follows their methods of reasoning, grants \nto them every principle that they have established wholly or approxi- \nmately, and, indeed, a great deal that is scarcely more than conjec- \nture ; and yet he is able to present a defense of theistic doctrine that \nwill seem most admirable and most consolatory to its adherents and \nmost embarrassing to some of its enemies. He has conducted the \nwhole discussion with rare ability, and has furnished sound reasoning \nat every successive step. \xe2\x80\x94 Times (New York). \n\nOrations and Essays, with Selected Parish Sermons. \n\nA Memorial Volume, with a portrait. 8vo, gilt top, $2.50. \n\nThis volume contains, in addition to other papers, the following \nSermons : The Son of Man ; Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the \nLife ; Christ, the Bread of Life ; Christ in the Power of His Resur- \nrection ; The Holy Spirit, the Guide to Truth ; The Baptism of the \nHoly Ghost ; The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Nature ; \nand a Review entitled Religion in America, 1776-1876. \n\nJoseph Edkins, D. D. \n\nChinese Buddhism. A volume of Sketches, Historical, \n\nDescriptive, and Critical. 8vo, gilt top, $4.50. \n\nEight Studies of the Lord\'s Day. \n\n12mo, $1.50. \n\nA thoughtful examination of the Scriptural and historical grounds \nfor the observance of Sunday. \n\nHugh Davey Evans, LL. D. \nA Treatise on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage. \n\nWith a Biographical Sketch of the Author, and an Appendix con- \ntaining Bishop Andre wes\' "Discourse against Second Marriage," \netc. !2mo, $1.50. \n\nLuclwig Feuerbach. \n\nThe Essence of Christianity. Translated from the \nSecond German Edition by Marian Evans (George Eliot). 8vo, \ngilt top, $3.00. \n\nJohn Fiske. \n\nThe Destiny of Man, viewed in the Light of his \n\nOrigin. 16mo, $1.00. \nThe Unseen World, and other Essays. 12rno, $*2.00. \n\nThe Idea of God as affected by Modern Knowl- \nedge. A Sequel to u The Destiny of Man." 16mo. $1.00. \n\n\n\nHoughton, Mifflin & Co. 5 \n\nWashington Gladden. \n\nThe Lord\'s Prayer. Seven Essays on the Meaning and \nSpirit of this universal Prayer. 16mo, gilt top, $1.00. \n\nGeorge Zabriskie Gray. \nThe Crusade of the Children in the XHIth Century. \n\n12mo, $1.50. \nHusband and Wife ; or, The Theory of Marriage and its \nConsequences. With an Introduction by the Rt. Rev. F. D. Hun- \ntington, D. D. 16mo, $1.00. \n\nR. P. Hallowell. \nThe Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts. 16mo, $1.25. \nA history of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts. \n\nGeorge Herbert and Henry Vaughan. \n\nThe Poetical Works of George Herbert. With a \nMemoir and Portrait of the Author, and Notes by Rev. Robert \nAris Willmott. Also, the Sacred Poems and Private Ejacula- \ntions of Henry Vaughan, with a Memoir by Rev. F. Lyte. \nCrown 8vo, gilt top, $1.75 ; half calf, $3.50. \n\nFavorite Poems from the Works of George Her- \nbert. Together with Poems by Collins, Dryden, Marvell, \nand Herrick. Illustrated. In " Modern Classics," No. 25. 32mo, \norange edges, 75 cents. \n\nRev. S. E. Herrick. \nSome Heretics of Yesterday. Crown 8vo, $1.50. \n\nContents : Tauler and the Mystics ; Wicklif ; John Hus ; Savon- \narola ; Latimer ; Cranmer ; Melancthon ; Knox ; Calvin ; Coligny ; \nWilliam Brewster ; John Wesley. \n\nThomas Hughes. \nThe Manliness of Christ. 16mo, $1.00; paper covers, \n\n25 cents. \n\nIt is shown with great force that the " Life of Christ " was not only \na manly life, but the manly life of all history. \xe2\x80\x94 Examiner and Chron- \nicle (New York). \n\nHymns of the Ages. \n\nHymns of the Ages. First, Second, and Third Series. \nEach in one volume, illustrated with steel vignette, 12mo, $1.50 \neach ; half calf, $9.00 a set. \n\n\n\n6 Religious Publications of \n\nHenry James. \n\nThe Secret of Swedenborg. Being an Elucidation of \nhis Doctrine of the Divine Natural Humanity. 8vo, $2.50. \n\nWe admire the metaphysical acuteness, the logical power, and the \nsingular literary force of the book, which is also remarkable as car- \nrying into theological writing something besides the hard words of \nsecular dispute, and as presenting to the world the great questions \nof theology in something beside a Sabbath-day dress. \xe2\x80\x94 Atlantic \nMonthly. \n\nSociety the Redeemed Form of Man, and the Ear- \nnest of God\'s Omnipotence in Human Nature. Affirmed in \nLetters to a Friend. 8vo, $2.00. \n\nSamuel Johnson. \n\nOriental Religions, and their Relation tc Univer- \nsal Religion. By Samuel Johnson. \n\nIndia. 8vo, 810 pages, $5.00 ; half calf, $8.00. \n\nSamuel Johnson\'s remarkable work is devoted wholly to the relig- \nions and civilization of India, is the result of twenty years\' study \nand reflection by one of the soundest scholars and most acute think- \ners of New England, and must be treated with all respect, whether \nwe consider its thoroughness, its logical reasoning, or the conclusion \xe2\x80\x94 \nunacceptable to the majority, no doubt \xe2\x80\x94 at which it arrives. \xe2\x80\x94 Re- \npnblican (Springfield). \n\nChina. 8vo, 1000 pages, $5.00 ; half calf, $8.00. \n\nAltogether the work of Mr. Johnson is an extraordinarily rich \nmine of reliable and far-reaching information on all literary subjects \nconnected with China. . . . He decidedly impresses us as an author- \nity on Chinese subjects. \xe2\x80\x94 E. J. Eitel, Ph. D., Editor of The China \nReview (Hong Kong). \n\nPersia. 8vo, 829 pages, $5.00 ; half calf, $8.00. \n\nLectures, Essays, and Sermons. With a portrait, and \nMemoir by Rev. Samuel Longfellow. Crown 8vo, gilt top, \n$1.75. \n\nThis volume contains, in addition to a Memoir of Mr. Johnson arid \nother articles, Sermons on the Law of the Blessed Life, Gain in Loss, \nThe Search for God, Fate, Living by Eaith, The Duty of Delight, \nand Transcendentalism. \n\nThomas Starr King. \n\nChristianity and Humanity. Sermons. Edited, with \na Memoir, by Edwin P. Whipple. Fine steel portrait. 16mo, \n$2.00. \n\n\n\nHoughton, Mifflin & Co. 7 \n\nThe Koran. \n\nSelections from the Koran. By Edward William \nLane. Second Edition, revised and enlarged, with an Introduction \nby Stanley Lane Poole. 8vo, gilt top, $3.50. \nSee Wherry (Rev. E. M.). \n\nAlvan Lamson, D. D. \n\nThe Church of the First Three Centuries ; or, No- \ntices of the Lives and Opinions of the Early Fathers, with special \nreference to the Doctrine of the Trinity ; illustrating its late origin \nand gradual formation. Revised and enlarged edition. 8vo, $2.50. \n\nLucy Larcom. \n\nBreathings of the Better Life. " Little Classic " \n\nstyle. 18mo, $1.25; half calf, $3.00. \n\nA book of choice selections from the best religious writers of all \ntimes. \n\nHenry C. Lea. \nSacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. \n\nSecond Edition, considerably enlarged. 8vo, $4.50. \n\nOne of the most valuable works that America has produced. Since \nthe great history of Dean Milman, I know no work in English which \nhas thrown more light on the moral condition of the Middle Ages, \nand none which is more fitted to dispel the gross illusions concerning \nthat period which Positive writers and writers of a certain ecclesiasti- \ncal school have conspired to sustain. \xe2\x80\x94 W. E. H. Lecky, in History \nof European Morals. \n\nSamuel Longfellow and Samuel Johnson. \n\nHymns of the Spirit. 16mo, roan, $1.25. \nA collection of remarkable excellence. \n\nW. A. McVickar, D. D. \n\nLife of the Rev. John McVickar, S. T. D. With por- \ntrait. Crown 8vo, $2.00. \n\nWilliam Mountford. \n\nEuthanasy; or, Happy Talk towards the End of Life., \nNew Edition, 12mo, gilt top, $2.00. \n\nRev. T. Mozley. \n\nReminiscences, chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford \n\nMovement. 2 vols. 16mo, $3.00 ; half calf, $6.00. \n\nMany before now \xe2\x80\x94 Oakley, Froude, Kennard, not to mention \nNewman himself \xe2\x80\x94 have contributed to the story of the Tractarian \n\n\n\n8 Religious Publications of \n\nMovement. None of these, not even the famous Apologia, will com- \npare with the volumes now before us in respect to minute fullness, \nclose personal observation, and characteristic touches. \xe2\x80\x94 Professor \nPattison, in The Academy (London). \n\nElisha Mulford, LL. D. \n\nThe Republic of God. 8vo, $2.00. \n\nA book which will not be mastered by hasty reading, nor by a cool, \nscientific dissection. We do not remember" that this country has \nlately produced a speculative work of more originality and force. . . . \nThe book is a noble one \xe2\x80\x94 broad-minded, deep, breathing forth an \never-present consciousness of things unseen. It is a mental and moral \ntonic which might do us all good. \xe2\x80\x94 The Critic (New York). \n\nNo book on the statement of the great truths of Christianity, at \nonce so fresh, so clear, so fundamental, and so fully grasping and \nsolving the religious problems of our time, has yet been written by \nany American. \xe2\x80\x94 Advertiser (Boston). \n\nIt is the most important contribution to theological literature thus \nfar made by any American writer. \xe2\x80\x94 The Churchman (New York). \n\nRev. T. T. Munger. \n\nThe Freedom of Faith. Sermons. 16mo, $1.50. \n\nContents : Prefatory Essay : The New Theology ; On Reception \nof New Truth; God our Shield; God our Reward; Love to the \nChrist as a Person; The Christ\'s Pity; The Christ as a Preacher ; \nLand-Tenure; Moral Environment; Immortality and Science; Im- \nmortality and Nature ; Immortality as Taught by the Christ ; The \nChrist\'s Treatment of Death; The Resurrection from the Dead; \nThe Method of Penalty ; Judgment ; Life a Gain ; Things to be \nAwaited. \n\nOn the Threshold. Familiar Lectures to young peo- \nple on Purpose, Friends and Companions, Manners, Thrift, Self- \nReliance, etc. 16mo, gilt top, $1.00. \n\nLamps and Paths. Sermons for Children. 16mo, $1.00. \n\nJ. A. W. Neander. \n\nGeneral History of the Christian Religion and \nChurch. Translated from the German by Rev. Joseph Torrey, \nProfessor in the University of Vermont. With an Index volume. \nThe set, with Index, 6 vols., $20.00. Index volume, separate, $3.00. \n"Neander\'s Church History" is one of the most profound, care- \nfully considered, deeply philosophized, candid, truly liberal, and in- \ndependent historical works that have ever been written. In all \nthese respects it stands head and shoulders above almost any other \nchurch history in existence. \xe2\x80\x94 Professor Calvin E. Stowe, Andover, \nMass. \n\n\n\nHoughton, Mifflin & Co. 9 \n\nIllustrated New Testament. \n\nThe New Testament of our Lord and Saviour \nJesus Christ. With engravings on wood from designs of Fra \nAngelico, Pietro Perugino, Francesco Francia, Lorenzo di Credi, \nFra Bartolommeo, Titian, Raphael, Gaudenzio Ferrari, Daniele di \nVolterra, and others. Royal 4to, full gilt, 540 pages, $10.00 ; full \nmorocco, $20.00. \n\nTimothy Otis Paine, LL. D. \n\nSolomon\'s Temple and Capitol, Ark of the Flood and \nTabernacle ; or, The Holy Houses of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, \nSamaritan, Septuagint, Coptic, and Itala Scriptures, Josephus, \nTalmud, and Rabbis. With 42 full-page Plates and 120 Text- \nCuts, from drawings by the author. In four parts, each $5.00. \n(Sold by subscription.) \n\nBlaise Pascal. \n\nThoughts, Letters, and Opuscules. Translated from \nthe French by O. W. Wight, A. M., with Introductory Notices \nand Notes. 12mo, $2.25. \n\nProvincial Letters. A new Translation, with Histori- \ncal Introduction and Notes, by Rev. Thomas McCrie, preceded \nby a Life of Pascal, a Critical Essay, and a Biographical Notice. \n12mo, $2.25; the set, 2 vols, half calf, $8.00. \n\nPeep of Day Series. \n\nPeep of Day Series. Comprising " The Peep of Day," \n"Precept upon Precept," and "Line upon Line." 3 vols. 16mo, \neach 50 cents ; the set, $1.50. \n\nElizabeth Stuart Phelps. \nThe Gates Ajar. 16mo, $1.50. \nBeyond the Gates. 16mo, $1.25. \n\nPrayers of the Ages. \n\nPrayers of the Ages. Compiled by Caroline S. \nWhitmarsh, one of the editors of " Hymns of the Ages/\' 16mo, \n$1.50. \n\nRev. James Reed. \n\nSWEDENBORG AND THE NEW CHURCH. 16mO, $1.25. \n\nSampson Reed. \n\nObservations on the Growth of the Mind. New \nEdition. With Biographical Sketch of the Author by Rev. Jasies \nReed, and a portrait. 16mo. SI. 00. \n\n\n\nio Religious Publications of \n\nE. ReusSo \n\nHistory of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Tes- \ntament. By Eduard (Wilhelm Eugen) Reuss, Professor Ordi- \nnarius in the Evangelical Theological Faculty of the Emperor \nWilliam\'s University, Strassburg, Germany. Translated, with nu- \nmerous Bibliographical Additions, by Edward L. Houghton, \nA. M. 2 vols. 8vo, $5.00. \n\nEdward Robinson, D. D., LL. D. \n\nHarmony of the Four Gospels, in Greek. According \nto the Text of Hahn. By Edward Robinson, D. D., LL. D., \n\nProfessor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, \nNew York. With Notes. New Edition. Revised by M. B. Rid- \ndle, Professor in the Hartford Theological Seminary. 8vo, $2.00. \n\nHarmony of the Four Gospels, in English, according \nto the Common Version. With Notes. New Edition. 12mo, 75 \ncents. \n\nBiblical Researches in Palestine. 3 vols. 8vo, with \n\nmaps, $10.00. Price of the maps alone, $1.00. \n\nDean Stanley said of these volumes : " They are amongst the very \nfew books of modern literature of which I can truly say that I have \nread every word. I have read them under circumstances which riv- \neted my attention upon them : while riding on the back of a camel ; \nwhile traveling on horseback through the hills of Palestine; under \nthe shadow of my tent, when I came in weary from the day\'s journey. \nThese were the scenes in which I first became acquainted with the \nwork of Dr. Robinson. But to that work I have felt that I and all \nstudents of Biblical literature owe a debt that can never be effaced." \n\nPhysical Geography of the Holy Land. A Supple- \nment to " Biblical Researches in Palestine/\' 8vo, $3.50. \nA. capital summary of our present knowledge. \xe2\x80\x94 London Athenceum. \n\nHebrew and English Lexicon op the Old Testament, \nincluding the Biblical Chaldee. Erom the Latin of William Ge- \nsenius, by Edward Robinson. New Edition. 8vo, half russia, \n$6.00. \n\nEnglish-Hebrew Lexicon: Being a complete Verbal \nIndex to Gesenius\' Hebrew Lexicon as translated by Robinson. \nBy Joseph Lewis Potter, A. M. 8vo, $2.00. \n\nA Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testa- \nment. New Edition, revised and in great part rewritten. 8vo, \n$4.00. \n\nProfessor Josiah Royce. \nReligious Aspect of Philosophy. 12mo, $2.00. \n\nRev. Thomas Scott. \nThe Bible, with Explanatory Notes, Practical \n\n\n\nHoughto7i y Mifflin & Co. 1 1 \n\nObservations, and Copious Marginal References. By \nRev. Thomas Scott. 6 vols, royal 8vo, sheep, $15.00. \nI believe it exhibits more of the mind of the Spirit in the Scriptures \nthan any other work of the kind extant. \xe2\x80\x94 Rev. Andrew Fuller. \n\nJ. C. Shairp. \nCulture and Religion in some of their Relations. \n\n16mo, gilt top, $1.25. \n\nA. P. Sinnett. \n\nEsoteric Buddhism. With an Introduction prepared ex- \npressly for the American Edition, by the author. 16mo, $1.25. \n\nWilliam Smith. \n\nDictionary of the Bible, comprising its Antiquities, \nBiography, Geography, and Natural History. By William \nSmith. Edited by Professor Horatio Balch Hackett and \nEzra Abbot, LL. D. In four volumes, 8vo, 3667 pages, with \n596 illustrations. Cloth, beveled edges, strongly bound, $20.00 ; \nfull sheep, $25.00; half morocco, $30.00; half calf, extra, $30.00; \nhalf russia, $35.00 ; full morocco, gilt, $40.00 ; tree calf, $45.00. \nThere are several American editions of Smith\'s Dictionary of the \nBible, but this edition comprises not only the contents of the original \nEnglish edition, unabridged, but very considerable and important \nadditions by the editors, Professors Hackett and Abbot, and twenty- \nsix other eminent American scholars. \n\nThis edition has 500 more pages than the English, and 100 more \nillustrations ; more than a thousand errors of reference in the Eng- \nlish edition are corrected in this, and an Index of Scripture Illus- \ntrated is added. \n\nNo similar work in our own or in any other language is for a mo- \nment to be compared with it. \xe2\x80\x94 Quarterly Review (London). \n\nNewman Smyth, D. D. \n\nSocial Problems. Sermons to Workingmen. 8vo, paper \ncovers, 20 cents. \n\nRobert South, D. D. \n\nSermons Preached upon Several Occasions. With \na Memoir of the author. 5 vols. 8vo, $15.00. \n\nHarriet Beecher Stowe. \nReligious Poems. Illustrated. 16mo, $1.50. \n\nJoseph P. Thompson, D. D. \n\nAmerican Comments on European Questions, Inter- \nnational and Religious. 8vo, $3.00. \n\nHenry Thornton. \nFamily Prayers, and Prayers on the Ten Command- \n\n\n\n12 Religious Publications. \n\nments, with a Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, etc. \n\nBy Henry Thornton. Edited by the late Bishop Eastburn, of \n\nMassachusetts. 1 6 mo, $1 .50. \n\nProbably no published volume of family prayers has ever been the \nvehicle of so much heart-felt devotion as these. They are what \nprayers should be \xe2\x80\x94 fervent, and yet perfectly simple. \xe2\x80\x94 Christian \nWitness. \n\nProfessor C. P. Tiele. \n\nHistory of the Egyptian Religion. Translated from \nthe Dutch, with the cooperation of the author, by James Ballin- \ngal. 8vo, gilt top, S3. 00. \n\nHenry Vaughan. \n\nSee Herbert. \n\nJones Very. \n\nPoems. With a Memoir by William P. Andrews. \n\nlomo, gilt top, $1.50. \n\nPoems unique in their quality among American poetry, alike for \ntheir spiritual intensity and their absolute sincerity. \xe2\x80\x94 Charles \nEliot Norton. \n\nE. M. Wherry. \n\nA Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran : Com- \nprising Sale\'s Translation aud Preliminary Discourse, with addi- \ntional Notes and Emendations. Together with a complete Index \nto the Text, Preliminary Discourse and Notes. 3 vols. 8vo, gilt \ntop, each $4.50. \n\nJohn G. Whittier. \n\nText and Verse. Selections from the Bible and from \nthe Writings of John G. Whittier, chosen by Gertrude W. Cart- \nland. 32mo, 75 cents. \n\nJohn Woolman. \n\nThe Journal of John Woolman. With an Introduc- \ntion by John G. Whittier. 16mo, $1.50. \n\nA perfect gem. His is a beautiful soul. An illiterate tailor, he \nwrites in a style of the most exquisite purity and grace. His moral \nqualities are transferred to his writings. His religion is love. .His \nChristianity is most inviting : it is fascinating. \xe2\x80\x94 H. Crabb Robin- \nson, in his Diary. \n\nN. B. A Catalogue of all the publications of Houghton, Mifflin \n& Co., containing portraits of many distinguished authors, and a full Cat- \nalogue of their Religious Books, with critical notices and, full particulars \nin regard to them, will be sent to any address on application. \n\nHOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO., Boston, Mass. \n\n11 East Seventeenth Street, New York. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \nTreatment Date: April 2005 \n\nPreservationTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township, PA 16066 \n(724)779-2111 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2f \n\n\n\nt, \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x80\xa2--\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0\'.\xe2\x96\xa0:\xe2\x96\xa0\'\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x96\xa0;".\'\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS \n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0v \'\xe2\x96\xa0-\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x96\xa0\'\'\xe2\x80\xa2\' \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\nwfflKiflKS \n\n\n\n\n\n\nBBHH \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0V^HPl \n\n\n\nj^HHfl \n\n\n\niwiliiif H \' \'-\' \n\n\n\n013 371492 3 # \n\n\n\n^^H^^^kh \n\n\n\n\n\'\xe2\x96\xa0.\xe2\x96\xa0,- -, r ;\'j.-V;,;|-;; i ,v i \'-. \'.-/ ... \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0:fe^5;^!sr" :: \'\'\' \n\n\n\n'