TM TUEOT nrv 
 
 UN InLULUlil, 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE THEOLOGICAL FACULTY 
 
 OF VANDERBIL.T UNIVERSITY. 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE FACULTY. 
 
 PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE M. E. CHUECH, SOUTH. 
 
 J. D. BARBEE, AGENT, NASUVILLE, TENN. 
 
 1890.
 
 VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY. 
 
 LANDON C. GARLAND, LL.D., CHANCELLOR. 
 
 REV. WILBUR F. TILLETT, D.D., 
 
 Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Systematic Theology. 
 
 REV. GROSS ALEXANDER, B.D., 
 
 Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis. 
 
 REV. E. E. HOSS, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 REV. W. W. MARTIN, B.D., 
 
 Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis. 
 
 COPYEIOHT, 1890.
 
 PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 IT has been the custom of the Theological Faculty of 
 Vanderbilt University, in addition to the regular work of 
 the class room, to meet the students of the Biblical De- 
 partment collectively once a week and deliver to them 
 lectures on various subjects in theology, these lectures 
 being delivered by the different members of the Faculty 
 in rotation. They consist chiefly in current discussions of 
 living topics in doctrinal and practical theology, such as 
 may be of a more general and popular nature than those 
 delivered in the lecture room. As many of the subjects 
 here discussed are of general interest to the theological 
 and religious public, the Faculty have thought it not 
 unwise to give more permanent and public form to some 
 of these lectures. This volume is, therefore, given to the 
 public in the hope that it may meet a demand which we 
 believe to exist in the Church for the discussion of such 
 subjects and problems as are here presented. 
 
 Vanderbilt University, January 1, 1890.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 MATERIALISM CHANCELLOR GARLAND. 7 
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER; OR, THE RATIONALE OF FAITH. 
 
 PROFESSOR TILLETT. 25 
 
 GERMAN HIGHER CRITICISM : THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 
 
 PROFESSOR ALEXANDER. 43 
 
 THE PRINCE OP PREACHERS : JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 PROFESSOR Hoss. 85 
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. LECTURE L 
 
 PROFESSOR MARTIN. 107 
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM PROFESSOR TILLETT. 131 
 
 A BRIEF STUDY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 PROFESSOR ALEXANDER. 161 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. . .PROFESSOR Hoss. 191 
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. LECTURE II. 
 
 PROFESSOR MARTIN. 205 
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT PROFESSOR TILLETT. 225 
 
 THE INVENTION OF MATERIAL FOR PREACHING. 
 
 PROFESSOR ALEXANDER. 257 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 PROFESSOR Hoss. 277 
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OF MUNKACSY PROFESSOR MARTIN. 297
 
 MATERIALISM. 
 
 IT cannot be doubted by any one who has watched 
 the signs of the times that the tendency of the present 
 age is to materialism. This is not surprising when we 
 consider the wonderful discoveries of the past fifty years 
 in relation to the nature of physical forces and the suc- 
 cessful applications of the same to the wants of man. 
 These applications have extended to all industrial pur- 
 suits to those of agriculture, of manufactures, and of 
 art. They have well-nigh annihilated time and space 
 through telegraphic and telephonic communication. 
 Wonderful changes have thus come over the whole in- 
 dustrial world, whereby the attention of men has been 
 directed to new avenues for the rapid accumulation of 
 wealth and for enlarged gratification of physical wants 
 and desires. Thus it is the public mind has been in a 
 great measure shut out from the contemplation of the 
 immaterial and spiritual, and unduly concentrated upon 
 the material. And when we further consider that the 
 ruin of the fall fell much more disastrously upon the 
 spiritual than upon the intellectual nature of man, we 
 are still less surprised at the materialistic tendency of 
 this age. 
 
 The intellect as contradistinguished from the soul did 
 not lose its powers of operation directed to objects of
 
 8 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 sense did not lose its capacity of observing and com- 
 paring the properties of bodies, of arranging them into 
 classes and genera and species, of carrying on the inves- 
 tigations of physical science, so as to arrive at the 
 knowledge of physical laws. The every-day business of 
 life stimulates the activities of the intellect in this direc- 
 tion, the chief office of which is to combine means for 
 the accomplishment of ends. So that the intellect may 
 be likened to a plant indigenous to our soil of the earth, 
 earthly, of rapid and hardy growth needing nothing 
 but the stimulation of man's desires and wants and the 
 culture of man's hand. On the other hand, the spiritu- 
 al that which distinguishes man from the brutes, that 
 which allies him to heaven, and which constitutes him 
 a moral and responsible being may be likened to an 
 exotic from a distant realm, of difficult and tender 
 growth, requiring not only the culture of the hand of 
 man, but of that hand from which it was originally de- 
 rived and by which it was implanted in our nature, 
 when man became a living soul. 
 
 I am not surprised, therefore, that cultivators of the 
 material sciences who have limited their thoughts and 
 studios to the outward and visible phenomena of nature, 
 to the entire neglect of the inward and the invisible, 
 should have become gross materialists and skeptics, 
 teaching that matter has existed from all eternity un-' 
 created, in self-possession of the properties and forces it 
 exhibits, and out of the operation of which, indefinitely 
 prolonged, has come the cosmos we behold. They seek
 
 for nothing back of this, and admit of no forces but 
 those they attribute to matter. Starting out with these 
 assumed inherent forces, acting uniformly in modes 
 which are called laws of nature, they have disdained to 
 inquire into the true origin and nature of these forces 
 and laws. They have no need, say they, for any Creat- 
 or other than nature. They thus attempt to hurl Jeho- 
 vah from his throne of universal empire, and to set up 
 as gods, in his stead, the supposed underived processes 
 and laws of nature. They have gone so far as to hold 
 that there is nothing but matter and its habitudes, that 
 mind is not spiritual in the sense of opposition to mat- 
 ter, but is only an emanation of matter in its most high- 
 ly organized and refined condition. 
 
 That I do not misstate the position of advanced materi- 
 alists, let a few brief extracts from their published works 
 show : Cabinis and Voght maintain that the " brain se- 
 cretes thought just as the liver secretes bile." Moleschott 
 declares that " thought is a motion of matter." Biichner 
 says that " mental activity is a function of the cerebral 
 substance emitted by the brain, as sounds are by the 
 mouth, or as music is by the organ pipe." Spencer says 
 the doctrine " that no idea or feeling arises, save as a re- 
 sult of physical force expended in producing it, is fast 
 becoming a commonplace of science." Tyndall says: 
 " Given the state of the brain, the corresponding thought 
 or feeling might be inferred." Huxley says : "All vital 
 action is the result of the molecular forces of the proto- 
 plasm which displays it."
 
 10 fclSCtfSSIOrfS Itf TtfEOLOGY. 
 
 It is not difficult to see the ruinous tendency of such 
 teachings as these ; it is to subvert the whole founda- 
 tion upon which our religion rests, and to shake our faith 
 in the truths of the Bible. A large share of the infidelity 
 of the present day is due to the wide-spread acceptance 
 of the dogmas of materialists. 
 
 I have therefore deemed it a useful service upon this 
 occasion to show that these doctrines have no foundation 
 in the light of principles universally accepted. If we were 
 allowed to discuss materialism from the stand-point of di- 
 vine revelation, we could make a short end of it. But its 
 advocates refuse to hear arguments drawn from a divine 
 source, and demand that the debate be conducted alto- 
 gether in the light of science. To this I do not object. 
 I take up the gauntlet, and shall at once proceed with 
 an endeavor to refute all forms of materialism by consid- 
 erations drawn from the true nature of matter and force. 
 
 In the outset I must come to an understanding with 
 my audience in regard to the meaning of the word cause, 
 upon which the changes have been so constantly rung 
 by materialists and atheists. Ever since the publication of 
 that immortal work, Kant's " Criticism of Pure Reason," 
 the idea of causation along with those of substance, 
 space, and time has been ranked among our primitive 
 intuitions, and held to be an a priori conception of the 
 mind, and not the result of experience. As such, it is a 
 necessary and universal truth. By Cousin it is held to 
 be logically prior, though chronologically subsequent to 
 experience. As Sir William Hamilton holds it, it is co-
 
 MATERIALISM. 11 
 
 instantaneous with the first instance of causation arising 
 in experience. Be this as it may, the proposition which 
 I wish to establish is this : that the notion of causality 
 always includes that of efficiency in the cause for the pro- 
 duction of the effect. Unless there is between successive 
 events an efficient relation perceived, the mind will not 
 entertain the relation of causality. 
 
 While the notion of causation is intuitive and univer- 
 sal, the knowledge of causes themselves must be derived 
 from experience. That no event can happen without an 
 adequate cause is a dictum of universal acceptance ; but 
 what the cause really may be experience only can show. 
 Most frequently the misapplications of the word " cause " 
 consist in mistaking either (1) the occasion of an event for 
 its efficient cause, or (2) in taking some condition in the op- 
 eration of a cause for the cause itself, or (3) some antecedent 
 event for a primary cause. Let me illustrate by a famil- 
 iar example. If I hold in my hand a stone, it will not 
 fall to the ground so long as I support it. The moment 
 I relax my hold its fall occurs. One would greatly err 
 if he should take the relaxation of the hand as the cause 
 of the fall ; and yet the relaxation is a condition necessa- 
 ry to the event. But in the mere relaxation of the hand 
 there is no potency to change the place of the stone, no 
 efficiency to cause it to fall. It only leaves the stone 
 free to yield to a proper potency having a different 
 source. So that a condition, necessary even to an event, 
 is not the cause, albeit it is often mistaken for it. Take 
 an illustration of an antecedent event reckoned improp-
 
 12 biscussiotfs itf 
 
 erly as a cause. A nail is driven by a hammer. Many 
 persons, on being asked for the cause, would state it to 
 be the impact of the hammer. This, however, is a mere 
 antecedent event, and cannot be the ultimate and true 
 cause; for the potency of the hammer is derived from 
 the muscular effort of the arm ; nor will it do to put the 
 ultimate cause in the muscles, for these act in obedience 
 to the motor nerves ; nor yet in the nerves, for these are 
 put into activity by the volition of him who wields the 
 hammer. The volition an act of the will is therein the 
 source, the originating, the efficient cause of the action 
 the true primary and efficient cause. In volition, then, 
 we have a real origin of a succession of events. For 
 though the will is acted upon by motives, there is no 
 true causality in motives, because there is no necessary 
 relation between the motive and the volition ; for if so, 
 the will would not be free, not at liberty to determine 
 between two alternatives, as is admitted to be the case. 
 Then, in our example, the will is the sole primary and ef- 
 ficient cause, and it is a misnomer or, I may say, a figure 
 of speech to call any one of the succeeding events the 
 primary cause of those that follow, and yet how com- 
 monly is this done ! With proper qualification the inter- 
 mediate events may be called secondary causes, but not 
 one of them can be regarded as the primary cause and 
 the true source of efficiency. Furthermore, between 
 true causes and their effects there is an indissoluble 
 bond ; so that if there be no hindering conditions, the 
 one must always follow the other, the cause being the
 
 MATERIALISM. 13 
 
 antecedent and the effect the consequent. This invariabili- 
 ty of succession in true causation has often led to the er- 
 roneous assumption that invariability of succession is a 
 mark of causation. This, however, is wide of the truth, 
 and is an error into which the celebrated Dr. Brown fell 
 in writing his Philosophy of the Human Mind. Besides 
 invariability of succession, there must be further a caus- 
 al relation, without the perception of which the mind re- 
 fuses to recognize the presence of a cause. 
 
 The seasons roll round in invariable succession, yet 
 who says that winter is the cause of summer, or sum- 
 mer of winter ? "What succession can bo more uniform 
 and constant than that of day and night, yet who will 
 say that night causes day, or day night? Invariable 
 succession is not, therefore, a mark of causation. At 
 most it can only create a suspicion of causal relation, 
 which must be resolved by a subsequent investigation to 
 determine whether or not the relation of efficiency sub- 
 sists between the antecedent and the invariable conse- 
 quent. 
 
 Having thus explained the true meaning of the word 
 cause, I proceed to lay down a second proposition which 
 is fundamental in this discussion namely, that inorgan- 
 ic matter is absolutely adynamic, absolutely passive, hav- 
 ing no activity inherent within itself, having in itself 
 no power to affect its own state. This is the acknowl- 
 edged basis of all systems of natural philosophy, and it 
 has been derived from the universal experience of man- 
 kind. The doctrine of the inertia of inorganic matter is
 
 14 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 older than science ; and it implies an inability in matter 
 to change in the least either its state or place by virtue 
 of an inherent efficiency. It means that all changes in 
 matter arise from an efficiency outside of and independ- 
 ent of it. It is from the absence of inherent efficiency 
 that matter is, as we know it to be, entirely obedient to 
 the forces that act on it. If a particle be acted on by a 
 thousand forces, it obeys each as if the others did not 
 exist. This is a principle of mechanics never questioned, 
 and is possible only in consequence of the absolute pas- 
 sivity of matter. 
 
 Newton's three laws of motion, universally accepted 
 as true, have no other foundation but the doctrine of in- 
 ertia, and they have proved adequate to explain every 
 phenomenon relating to the action of both molar and 
 molecular forces. Nay, more! they have transformed 
 the astronomer into the prophet. On the assumption 
 that the matter composing the sun, moon, and planets 
 is absolutely inert, and therefore without let or hinder- 
 ance, entirely obedient to the external forces that act 
 upon it, the astronomer calculates the positions and mo- 
 tions of those bodies with a precision wholly inconsist- 
 ent with the existence in matter of any inherent effi- 
 ciency whatsoever. He predicts celestial phenomena 
 centuries before they occur. He can to-day direct the 
 axis of his telescope to the point in the heavens at 
 which Jupiter or any planet will arrive a hundred 
 years hence ; so that the observer at that remote period 
 would have only to look along the axis of the undis-
 
 MATERIALISM. 15 
 
 turbed instrument to see the planet arrive at its calcu- 
 lated time and place. A theory which works out such 
 marvelously precise results has all the marks of truth, 
 and challenges the universal acceptance of mankind. 
 Such is the theory of the inertia of inorganic matter, its 
 entire deadness, so to speak, its total inability to affect 
 itself. Upon this ground we plant our batteries against 
 all the forms of materialism, with the assurance that no 
 sophistry will be able to dislodge us from it. 
 
 This principle was never questioned until certain sci- 
 entists arose, who, under the assumed properties of what 
 they called protoplasm, claimed for matter an inherent 
 activity, out of which, by development, have come all 
 the beings and forms of the universe. This claim, in 
 contradiction to the firmest established principle in sci- 
 ence, has never been made good by experiment, and, 
 until it is, will never be conceded by rational minds. 
 Spencer and his school have adroitly but vainly endeav- 
 ored to escape the logical consequences of the doctrine 
 of inertia by accepting it as true of matter in mass, but 
 denying it as to the constituent molecules of matter. Now 
 we have a mechanics of molecules under the operation of 
 molecular forces, as well as of masses under the opera- 
 tion of molar forces, based on Newton's three laws, by 
 which all the phenomena of sound, heat, and light are 
 as satisfactorily explained as those of mechanics, hydro- 
 statics, and pneumatics. The mathematical deductions 
 of these forces, molar and molecular, are alike accurate, 
 and are founded alike upon the entire passivity of mat-
 
 16 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ter, whether in the molecular or molar state. It is ab- 
 surd to claim inherent activity for every separate mole- 
 cule, and yet deny it to their aggregated state. It would 
 be just as rational to claim healthy action for every sep- 
 arate organ of the human body, and yet pronounce the 
 body as a whole to be dead. You cannot budge a step 
 in the investigation of either molar or molecular forces 
 without a recognition of the absolute inertness of all 
 forms of inorganic matter, and therefore without attrib- 
 uting all changes observed in it to the operation of exte- 
 rior forces. This is the ground, I repeat, upon which we 
 plant ourselves, from which it is impossible to drive us, 
 and upon which, making our attack, we can scatter to 
 the winds all the speculations and sophistries of materi- 
 alists. 
 
 To go yet deeper into this discussion, I lay down another 
 fundamental proposition : that our only conception of force 
 is derived from the energizing of the will. This was the 
 doctrine of Plato, of the Realists among the School-men, 
 of Descartes, and is the one held by our soundest meta- 
 physicians and our ablest writers on Force. I regard it 
 as a corollary of the proposition relative to the inertia 
 of matter. Mind and matter embrace all the objects of 
 our cognition ; and if the latter be absolutely inert, it 
 would seem absurd to look to it for the origination of 
 efficient force, which is an active agent. It would be 
 looking for the living among the dead. We must look 
 for the origin of force in that which is not matter. 
 
 1 have already shown that invariable sequence is no
 
 MATERIALISM. 17 
 
 proof of a causal relation. Hume and Mill have rea- 
 soned unanswerably to the conclusion that the idea of 
 cause, in its true sense of efficiency, could never have 
 arisen from the observation of outward phenomena. A 
 good many years ago, when I began the investigation of 
 these matters, having been educated in the school of 
 Locke, I regretted that I could not pick a flaw in Hume's 
 argument on this point. I am now glad that I cannot, 
 and that I can claim the verdict of two such subtle in- 
 tellects in behalf of the proposition I have just asserted. 
 Then if it be true that our notion of force has not come 
 to us from the observation of outward phenomena, we 
 must have derived it from the consciousness of a nisus 
 in the execution of our own volitions upon matter. The 
 child of a few days old, when the images of moving ob- 
 jects are first painted upon the retina of the eye, could 
 never have come to the notion of force as the cause of 
 motion until, in the movements of his own limbs, in the 
 tossings of his toys, he finds matter to be obedient to his 
 will ; when he experiences this power of his will over 
 matter, he comes to the conception of force. In his 
 earliest experience he comes into the possession of two 
 great concepts : the one the passivity of matter, and the 
 other the force of the will. This utterly demolishes the 
 definition of force given by modern materialists i. e., 
 that force is matter in motion. No one denies the en- 
 ergy of matter in motion i. e., capacity to do work. 
 But the question in consideration is the source of the en- 
 ergy ? It is a mere figure of speech, whereby we apply
 
 18 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the term force to any apparent energy not proceeding 
 from the will. Let me illustrate. Here is a spiral of 
 steel wire suspended from this ceiling. I take hold of 
 its lower extremity, and by a conscious volition elongate 
 it, say a foot. Herein is force, true force, originated 
 force, arising in the will. Removing my hand, I next 
 suspend a weight to the extremity of the coil of such 
 magnitude that it elongates it to the same extent. Now 
 because the weight does the same work my hand did, 
 we call it, by a figure of speech, a force. This personifi- 
 cation of the actions of bodies on each other is the tend- 
 ency of the human mind pointing unmistakably to voli- 
 tions as the origin of force. 
 
 Comte, in his " Positive Philosophy," marks the prog- 
 ress of human knowledge by three stages. The first is 
 that of superstition, or, as he sneeringly calls it, theolog- 
 ical, a stage in which mankind personified all physical 
 causes. It was, indeed, a period of ignorance in both 
 science and religion ; for in the one no valuable deduc- 
 tions from facts had been made, and in the other the 
 true idea of one Supreme Being had been lost. Never- 
 theless, in that personification there is a philosophy 
 much deeper than Comte's. It is the unbiased testimo- 
 ny of mankind to the fact that matter cannot be the 
 source of force; and hence every fountain and brook 
 and river and forest and mountain was supplied with its 
 personal deity to produce and preside over the outward 
 phenomena. Each revolving planet had its imaginary 
 deity to impel it and hold it to its orbit. This was done
 
 MATERIALISM. 19 
 
 to relieve the mind from the absurdity of attributing 
 outward phenomena to inert matter as a source of force. 
 Indeed, it is now admitted by all but materialistic phi- 
 losophers that " force is not a physical phenomenon, but a 
 mental dictum" We cannot conceive of it but as origi- 
 nating in a Will. Outward nature presents us with 
 nothing but sequence, which we have shown to be no ev- 
 idence of efficient causation. " The idea of force is home- 
 born, and born only of our own conscious effort. It is 
 only as we are agents that we believe in action. It is 
 only as there is causation within that we get a hint of 
 causation without. Not gravity, not electricity, not 
 magnetism, not chemical affinity, but Will is the typical 
 idea of force. Will is the sum total of dynamic concep- 
 tion. It either stands for that or nothing. If science 
 likes not this alternative, then it has no warrant for be- 
 lief in force at all." Hence the great anxiety of materi- 
 alists to evade this alternative; but we will not allow 
 them to escape from it. They shall not play fast and 
 loose with the terms force and matter, at one moment as- 
 signing absolute inertness to mattei*, and at the next an 
 inherent autonomy, by which they would explain all the 
 phenomena of force. We hold them to a definite choice 
 between the two ; and if they assign, as they do, an in- 
 herent efficiency to matter, let us for consistency's sake 
 hear no more about its inertia. Lot us commit to the 
 flames all our books on natural philosophy, and lay the 
 foundation of a new system upon this autonomy of mat- 
 ter.
 
 20 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Hero it may be asked, " Do you mean to say that 
 there are no inherent forces in inorganic matter ? " That 
 is just precisely what I do say. " What ! is not gravity 
 inherent in matter and the cause of the falling of bodies 
 and of the centripetal tendency of the planets to the 
 sun?" I say, no more so than the hammer is the effi- 
 cient cause of driving a nail. The author of the theory 
 of gravitation never considered gravity as an efficient 
 cause. Newton was too sound a logician and too wise a 
 philosopher to hold any such absurdity as that. He 
 warned us again and again that he did not consider 
 gravity a cause at all, but an effect. In his celebrated 
 scholium to the third book of the Principia he uses this 
 language: "Thus far I have explained the phenomena 
 of the heavens and the earth by the force of gravity, but 
 the cause of gravity I have not assigned." So that 
 gravity with him was an effect of an unassigned cause. 
 It is well known that Leibnitz and his school, misunder- 
 standing the doctrine taught by Newton, opposed it and 
 endeavored to banish the term attraction from philoso- 
 phy upon the ground of its being a revival of the ex- 
 ploded dogma of occult forces. The defense of Newton 
 was promptly undertaken by his followers, among whom 
 Clarke, Desaguilers, McLauren, and Rowning were the 
 most conspicuous in England, and Maupertuis in Franco. 
 The line of defense in common to them all was a denial 
 that Newton taught the causal nature of attraction. 
 Hear what Clarke says in his reply to Leibnitz : " It is 
 very unreasonable to call attraction anjoccultjforce after
 
 MATERIALISM. 21 
 
 it has been so often distinctly declared that by that term 
 we do not mean to express the cause of bodies tending to 
 each other, but barely the effect of a cause, whatever be 
 or be not the cause itself." Rowning, in his "Natural 
 Philosophy," says : " It is to be observed that when we 
 use the word attraction, or gravity, we do not thereby de- 
 termine a physical cause, but only use those terms to 
 signify an effect." Maupertuis, in vindicating Newton 
 before the French Academy of Sciences, uses this lan- 
 guage : " Many people have been disgusted by the word 
 attraction, expecting to see the doctrine of occult forces 
 revived in philosophy; but in justice to Newton, it 
 should be remembered that he never considered it as an 
 explanation of the cause of the gravitation of bodies to- 
 ward each other. He has frequently warned us that he 
 employs this term not to signify a cause, but only an 
 effect." 
 
 Now if it be thus with gravity, universally admitted 
 to be the remotest generalization of the so-called natural 
 forces, if it stands but for an effect, what shall we say of 
 all other known physical forces ? What else but this : 
 " That they are effects only, exponents of the existence 
 and efficiency of a cause back of them all ? " And as I 
 have shown that an efficient cause is predicablo only of 
 the volitions of mind, all the forces of nature are utterly 
 impossible to our conception without the postulate of a 
 self-existent, ever-active, ever-ruling, spiritual Power, 
 apart from matter, the maker and the upholder of all 
 things. Science cannot get rid of a self-existent, eter-
 
 22 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 nal, absolute, and all-powerful spiritual Being. " Sci- 
 ence, no less than religion, looks up to God." 
 
 Vain and absurd is the effort of materialists to frame 
 a cosmology without the recognition of an intelligent 
 Creator. In their effort to do so they demand the ex- 
 istence of atoms endowed with mutual attraction and 
 repulsion, and held in the nebular condition by that 
 form of physical energy which we call Heat. Here, 
 then, at the very outset we have inanimate matter under 
 the operation of forces. Where are the forces to come 
 from ? Force, as I have shown, is a mental datum, or it 
 is nothing. So that the system breaks down ab initio if 
 there be no intelligent and personal Creator. And grant- 
 ing even what materialists demand, it can and has been 
 shown that their methods o'f evolving out of the primi- 
 tive star dust the present condition of the solar system 
 are replete with mathematical impossibilities and logical 
 absurdities. There is an evolution which marks the suc- 
 cessive genesis of the universe as it presents itself to 
 scientific research, indicating the preconceived plan or 
 eternal pattern, according to which the Creator intended 
 to frame the universe, and which, as it is studied and 
 unfolded and comprehended, awakens in the mind of the 
 adoring creature the highest conceptions of the wisdom 
 and power of Him who spake all things into existence. 
 
 Now, in conclusion, to what ara we brought by this 
 discussion ? To this : that mind is the primal cause and 
 the eternal ruler of the universe ; and whether it hastens 
 on to its purpose, or whether it lingers upon its way, is
 
 MATERIALISM. 23 
 
 a matter of perfect indifference. Whether the world 
 was created in one moment or one day or six days or 
 six thousand years or six millions of years is of no con- 
 sequence in the discussion of the evidence that nature 
 gives of an all-powerful and personal Being who created 
 all things according to the counsel of his own will. And 
 this discussion has brought us to the true nature of 
 physical laws. They are but generalizations from ob- 
 served facts, and are only the statements of the orders 
 of co-existence and succession as determined by the Su- 
 preme Mind. They are scientific formularies, to express 
 in the briefest manner the results of observations in re- 
 gard to facts. There is no personality, no efficiency, no 
 source of power in these laws themselves. They are the 
 expressions of the modes in which divine power has 
 chosen to operate. Their efficiency comes from Him. 
 And they are invariable because He from whom they 
 have come is without variableness or shadow of turning. 
 But does not this drive us into Pantheism a Pantheism 
 as gross as that of Spinoza that God-intoxicated man, 
 as Novalis called him ? By no means. Spinoza held 
 that the visible universe was God, that all forms of mat- 
 ter were but attributes of God. But the principles I 
 have laid down in this discourse, and the arguments 
 based on them, lead to no such results. We hold that 
 matter is distinct from mind, that it is the depository of the 
 forces originating in an intelligent will. That Will is the 
 only source of force. I have no objection to the doctrine 
 of divine immanence, provided you maintain the person-
 
 24 bisctrssiofts itf THEOLOGY. 
 
 ality of God and his entire separation from and inde- 
 pendence of matter. There is nothing in this doctrine 
 contrary to either logic or religion. Nor am I opposed 
 to the doctrine of causal intermediation, or, as it is com- 
 monly called, the doctrine of secondary causes, under- 
 stood as the mere exponents of the modes of God's oper- 
 ations. This makes matter the depository of force, not 
 the source of it. We have only to guard against attrib- 
 uting to secondary causes the efficiency inherent only in 
 primal causes. 
 
 To go farther into this discussion would be a trespass 
 upon your patience, and I therefore close it, trusting that 
 enough has been said to satisfy you of the untenableness, 
 from a scientific point of view, of the doctrines of mate- 
 rialism.
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER; 
 
 Or, the Rationale of Faith. 
 
 " IT makes no difference what a man believes, provided 
 his life is right," is a sentence we often hear upon the 
 lips of a certain class of free thinking religionists who 
 are overfond of belittling creeds and decrying dogmas. 
 " What a man does, not what he believes" say they, " is 
 the test by which we are to try him in this enlightened 
 day of thought-freedom. The day of dogmas is dead. 
 Character, not creed, is what we want." 
 
 Now there is just enough of truth in this statement to 
 make it a misleading and dangerous error. For at heart 
 the statement is radically false. It does make a differ- 
 ence what a man believes, and all the difference that can 
 possibly be made. The man that has no creed has no 
 character. The only honest man is the man who does 
 what he honestly believes to be right and true, whose 
 life accords perfectly with his faith. Eight-doing is the 
 result of right-believing, not right-believing the result of 
 right-doing. The man whose faith is the outgrowth of 
 his life is wrong both in faith and life in ninety-nine 
 cases out of a hundred. Of course every man's faith, as 
 to its form, is more or less influenced by his antecedents 
 and environments ; but of this wo are not now speaking. 
 
 The great men of the earth have all been great believ-
 
 26 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 era, and their greatness of life and character is directly 
 traceable to their faith ; and this relation between faith 
 and life we believe to be true even where the greatness of 
 life and character has been in other than distinctly relig- 
 ious lines. The man who believes something, who knows 
 what he believes, who has convictions and the courage 
 of his convictions, is the man to whom we are to look for 
 great achievements. 
 
 It was the faith of Abraham that made him the found- 
 er of a race the most noted for its moral character and 
 its achievements of all the ancient nations. It was the 
 faith of Joseph that made him choose purity and a dun- 
 geon rather than guilt and freedom, and that made his 
 name a synonym of innocence and virtue, and afterward 
 made him the saviour of his people. It was the faith of 
 Moses that was the secret of his life-work and character, 
 that made him the deliverer of his race and the legisla- 
 tor of the nations. It was the faith of Daniel that made 
 him the noblest example of courage and fidelity, and one 
 of the greatest prime ministers the world has ever seen. 
 It was the faith of Paul that inspired his life-work and 
 made him the grandest missionary that ever carried the 
 gospel to the regions beyond. It was the faith of " the 
 fishermen of Galilee " that made them " turn the world 
 upside down." It was the faith of Martin Luther that 
 made the mighty reformer of the sixteenth century and 
 saved the Christian Church from the superstitions and 
 immoralities that threatened its very life. It was the 
 faith of John Wesley that made him the greatest preach-
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 27 
 
 er and reformer of modern times, and enabled him amid 
 persecutions and oppositions to inaugurate a work that 
 to-day seems destined to envelop the earth with its doc- 
 trines of free grace and full salvation. The inspiration 
 of every great man's work is his faith. 
 
 It was the faith of Paul the persecutor that caused 
 him to make havoc with the early Church. It was the 
 faith of Voltaire, the French infidel, that caused him to 
 lead an immoral life, that prostituted his intellect to base 
 purposes, and made his influence a moral poison upon 
 society. It was the faith of Thomas Paine that made 
 him write his "Age of Reason " and send it forth to sub- 
 vert the faith and corrupt the life of every unwary 
 youth that might be influenced by it. It was the faith 
 of Baur, of Strauss, and of Kenan that made them spend 
 years in trying to undermine the foundations of Chris- 
 tian faith in the inspired word of God. It was the faith 
 of the French Revolutionists that led them to attempt 
 the overthrow of all government and authority, and turn 
 peace and order into anarchy. It is the faith of the so- 
 cialist and nihilist that makes them the worst and most 
 dangerous elements in society. It is the faith of the 
 Jesuits that has caused them, though calling themselves 
 by the name of Christ, to be instigators of crime, and 
 hence to be banished from almost every country. A bad 
 faith makes a bad man. As a man believes, so is he. 
 Can a man's faith point one way and his life drift an- 
 other ? Can a man believe that there is no God and no 
 future life whose weal or woe depends upon his moral
 
 28 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGt. 
 
 conduct here, and yet it have no effect upon his life and 
 character ? 
 
 " It makes no difference what you believe, just so your 
 life is right." What stuff is preached under this text 
 of modern free thought ! and sometimes by ministers of 
 the gospel ! Just as well say that it makes no difference 
 whether a tree has any sap in it, or is planted in the 
 earth, just so it bears fruit ; or that it makes no difference 
 whether an engine has steam in it, just so it runs the 
 machinery. Just as well say that it makes no difference 
 whether the fountain be pure or impure, just so the stream 
 is pure. Nay, verily ; but make the fountain pure, and 
 the stream will be pure. Faith is the fountain ; life and 
 character the stream. Make the faith right, and the life 
 and character will be right. Faith is the condition of 
 fruitfulness in the Christian life. The fruits of the Spirit 
 "are the fruits of faith. Faith is the motive power of all 
 Christian character and life and labor. The inspiration 
 of every great life-work is a faith, a strong faith, in some 
 great truth. Let a man believe something, let him know 
 what he believes, let him feel that he must deliver his 
 message, let him have the courage of his convictions, and 
 him men will hear. 
 
 A man is never greater than his faith, or better than 
 his faith. A great faith makes a man great. Faith in 
 a great truth inspires a man to great deeds. Every 
 great man is necessarily an enthusiast. An enthusiast 
 is not a fanatic. A fanatic is one who is enthusiastic 
 over an error or over a half-truth. A great man is one
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 29 
 
 who is a believer in the truth, a great truth, and has the 
 enthusiasm of his faith. Every great man that has ever 
 lived was an enthusiast. Wesley was an enthusiast. 
 Luther was an enthusiast. Paul was an enthusiast. Je- 
 sus of Nazareth was an enthusiast. Every great man 
 that has ever done a great work in the world has been 
 an enthusiast. But they were all enthusiasts over the 
 truth, and it was what they believed in that made them 
 enthusiasts. A timid half-faith is the certain forerunner 
 of failure. An intelligent enthusiasm that is born of a 
 mighty faith and of profound convictions is the sure 
 guarantee of success. Men will listen to the man who 
 believes something, and knows what he believes, who 
 has convictions and is not afraid to state them. Such a 
 man will be heard ; he cannot be suppressed. Opposition 
 does not daunt him. Calling him a heretic and a fanatic 
 cannot destroy the power of his message or the truth of 
 his cause. Faith may bo crushed to earth ; truth may 
 be crushed to earth ; but faith in truth, though crushed 
 to earth, will rise again; it must rise again as sure as 
 there is a God in heaven. 
 
 Faith is what is needed, a faith that knows what it 
 believes, that has convictions, and imparts enthusiasm to 
 the believer. And no other faith is entitled to the name. 
 To such a faith all things are possible. "All things are 
 possible to him that believeth." "This is the victory 
 that overcometh the world, even our faith." 
 
 We have said that this principle holds true even in 
 other than distinctly religious lines. Take Columbus,
 
 30 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 for example, in his discovery of America. He believed 
 that across the waters was another world. It was a 
 faith, not a supposition, not an imagination, not a spec- 
 ulation, but a faith. The world doubted and denied; 
 but faith can stand alone, can stand against the world, 
 and overcome the world. His faith was not to be 
 crushed by discouragements and oppositions. By faith 
 he kept pleading with the king and queen until they 
 at length honored his faith and sent him forth. By 
 faith he kept sailing westward when all others had lost 
 heart, and the crew threatened to kill him if he did not 
 turn back. But faith triumphed. It is to the faith of 
 Columbus that we owe America. Many discoveries are 
 the result of accident. The discovery of America was 
 the reward of faith. The great discoverers and invent- 
 ors have all been men of faith. 
 
 It is a man's creed that determines his character, not 
 his character that determines his creed. A man's creed 
 is what he believes, and as a man believes, so is he. It 
 is a man's faith that makes him to be what he is and to 
 do what he does in life. To make a man's life and char- 
 acter and works better, work first on his faith. This is 
 the Scripture order. Make the tree good and its fruit 
 will be good. Make the faith right and the life will be 
 right. But it must be faith, not speculation or credulity. 
 Credulity is belief without evidence that means calling 
 some other man's faith yours it means that you do not 
 know what you believe or why you believe. Faith is 
 belief upon evidence that means you do your own
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 31 
 
 thinking, that you know what you believe and why you 
 believe. Credulity is not faith ; it cannot make charac- 
 ter or inspire great deeds. 
 
 Faith in the great cardinal truths of revealed religion 
 as held by evangelical Christianity has marked the 
 greatest characters and inspired the noblest lives of the 
 Christian Church. It may matter little whether a man 
 believes in this or that phase of evangelical Christianity, 
 but it does matter much whether or not he believes in 
 the cardinal truths of Christianity itself. These truths 
 are the food upon which the noblest characters and the 
 greatest workers of the Church have been fed and nour- 
 ished. The fruits of free thought in religion are not 
 good. The history of those who have drifted away 
 from the evangelical creeds of Christianity is a sad com- 
 mentary on the effects of free thought in religion. The 
 great evangelical creeds are the mighty vital and con- 
 serving forces of the Christian Church. They embody 
 the faith of the great body of believers, and have stood 
 the test of time, and have borne the noblest fruit. These 
 great creeds are not true because multitudes have be- 
 lieved in them, and because they have borne the test of 
 time; but rather multitudes have believed and do still 
 believe in them, and they have borne the test of time 
 because they are true, at least in large part, if not in 
 whole. 
 
 The history of our own and other Churches has not 
 been without sad examples of the truth of what is above 
 said, viz., that those who have drifted away from faith, in.
 
 32 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the creed of evangelical Christianity have generally suf- 
 fered deterioration in Christian character, have largely 
 destroyed their usefulness, have lost interest in person- 
 al religion, and, as a final outcome, have sometimes drift- 
 ed away from all faith in revelation. Within the past 
 decade several notable examples of this ruinous tenden- 
 cy of free-thought in religion have appeared in America, 
 representing different denominations, not to mention 
 many similar cases that have occurred in England. Only 
 a few days since it was stated in the papers that Rev. Dr. 
 
 , a prominent minister of a sister denomination, 
 
 had severed all connection with his Church, and was 
 now rarely if ever seen within any Christian house of 
 worship. A few years ago he was in good standing in 
 his Church, an honored and useful minister of Christ. 
 His usefulness and evangelical faith are gone ; his schol- 
 arship and intellectual ability remain. This change did 
 not come about in a day; it was a growth. He began 
 by making a single breach in the creed of evangelical 
 Christianity. First, he called in question the doctrine 
 of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, then denied it, 
 and later denied any and all divine inspiration in the 
 construction of the written Word. But his elimination 
 of the Church creed could not possibly stop here. One 
 after another of the cardinal doctrines of the faith came 
 under review and were ejected from his creed, until he 
 has come now perhaps to hold very little in common 
 with evangelical Christians. It is to be hoped that he 
 will go no further. Not all who start as he did go so
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 33 
 
 far, while some go further, landing in skepticism and in- 
 fidelity, and ending in the utter loss of all moral charac- 
 ter. This case, with slight variations, finds a parallel in 
 other Churches. When one begins to drift away from 
 the faith of evangelical Christianity, it is not easy to 
 calculate what the ultimate effect will be upon his own 
 character and the characters of those whom he influences. 
 There is no more unfavorable symptom in ministerial 
 character than to see a young preacher expending his 
 energies in finding fault with his Church's creed. It 
 usually foretokens degeneracy of character and loss of 
 power far more than brilliancy of intellect or superior 
 knowledge. But does the Church want to force its 
 creed down its ministers and members, and allow them 
 no right of private judgment, and no liberty of speech ? 
 By no means. No Church goes forth and captures men, 
 and then undertakes to compel them to believe its creed. 
 But rather the creed is that feature of a Church which 
 draws to its membership those who sympathize with 
 and believe in it, and the connection is entirely volun- 
 tary. A man who does not believe in a Church's creed 
 has no business joining that Church. Let him seek the 
 Church whose creed he indorses and heartily believes in. 
 But what we are more immediately contending for now 
 is loyalty to the creed of evangelical Christianity, that 
 which is common, more or less, to all Churches. And 
 what is this creed whose cardinal doctrines are the prop- 
 erty of all evangelical Churches ? Is it not the ripened 
 wisdom of the Christian Church universal in interpret- 
 3
 
 34 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ing the word of God, and explaining the way of salva- 
 tion? Has the Christian Church been studying and 
 praying over the Bible for all these centuries without 
 settling any thing as to its great cardinal doctrines? 
 Surely no set of men, or generation of men, in any day, 
 can do the thinking and creed-making for all time to 
 come. But while this is admitted, .it is also, true that 
 the consensus of Christian thought for eighteen centu- 
 ries as to what constitutes the great cardinal and essen- 
 tial doctrines of the Christian faith has in it every prob- 
 ability of truth, and furnishes every ground of confidence; 
 and he who is rash enough to deny any of these doc- 
 trines does so at the peril of his own character and use- 
 fulness. 
 
 " One of the results of the Broad Church teachings for 
 the past thirty years," says an English writer, "is the 
 tendency to go beyond the limits supposed to be laid 
 down by the leaders of this school of thought. We say 
 supposed, for the limits really cannot bo defined. Those 
 who have come under the influence of their teachings 
 have drifted by hundreds into a shoreless sea of doubt, 
 the wjiters of whose uncertainly have encompassi-d the 
 whole of their mental and spiritual life. It is willingly 
 conceded that the intention of these teachers was a sin- 
 cere and intelligent endeavor to meet the spiritual dif- 
 ficulties that have perplexed many minds; but it is af- 
 firmed with equal confidence that for every one that has 
 been helped by them, at least scores have been hindered 
 and unsettled, and for every man won to peace and rest,
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 35 
 
 a large number have perished in the black waters of 
 modern skepticism. Nor is this fatal issue the only one. 
 No thoughtful observer of the working of this school of 
 religious thought can have failed to notice how the dis- 
 ciples cling to their teachers, and herald them as modern 
 saviours, the pioneers of a new and re-adjusted gospel. 
 And in proportion to the devotion of the disciples to 
 their new creed, so is their drift from any practical 
 Christian work or fellowship in lessening the over-brim- 
 ming cup of human ignorance, sin, and sorrow that per- 
 meates our national life." 
 
 There are some writers and would-be religious teach- 
 ers who are fond of decrying Church creeds as narrow, 
 as antagonistic to honest faith, and as unproductive of the 
 highest and best results in the ethical life of individ- 
 uals and of the Church. They talk as if the Church 
 allows no liberty of religious thought, as if the only 
 honest faith was that of the man who, rejecting the 
 Church creeds, had an original, though unformulated, 
 creed of his own. They talk as if we should preach 
 the morals of Christianity, and not the doctrines found 
 in Church creeds, if we desire to see the highest ideals 
 of Christian character. As for my part, I cannot see 
 the narrowness of the Church's creeds, or any toiiilrn- 
 cy toward the suppression of religious thought that 
 is in sympathy with the spirit of evangelical Chris- 
 tianity; but I can see legitimate impatience in the 
 Church toward those who are forever decrying her 
 creed and warring against her institutions and proclaim-
 
 36 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ing themselves as martyrs to their honest convictions. 
 Nor can I see why, if I believe in the creed of my 
 Church, my faith is not just as honest and sincere as if 
 I had written it myself, or as if I had a faith of my own 
 at variance with the creed of my Church. And I hesi- 
 tate not to affirm that the highest type of piety and the 
 noblest fruits of Christian life are found among those 
 who are devout believers of and in full sympathy with 
 all the great cardinal doctrines of evangelical Christi- 
 anity. 
 
 If a Church creed becomes a substitute for one's faith 
 instead of the embodiment of it, it is a different matter. 
 It is then credulity rather than faith. I once knew a 
 man to join the Roman Catholic Church who assigned 
 as his rjeason for so doing that " it saved him the trouble 
 of thinking;" by assenting to the Church creed, the 
 Church became responsible for his faith and did his 
 thinking for him. It is to be feared that some Protest- 
 ants are no better believers, and make their Church 
 creed a substitute for a real, living, intelligent faith of 
 their own, rather than an expression of it, thoughtfully 
 accepted. Such a belief as that is a blind faith, and 
 never yet developed Christian character or inspired a 
 great and noble life. Mere assent to a creed, however 
 evangelical and orthodox the creed may be, is not faith. 
 There is more faith in honest doubt than in such sub- 
 scription as this to creeds. In order to have faith it is 
 quite as necessary to exercise reason as it is to exercise 
 the faith-faculty of the soul ; otherwise, faith would be
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 37 
 
 belief without evidence, rather than what it really is, be- 
 lief upon evidence. The creed that makes character 
 must be a living, personal faith in vital truth, not a sub- 
 stitute for faith to save the believer the trouble of think- 
 ing for himself. 
 
 The most active and aggressive periods in the history 
 of the Christian Church have witnessed the birth of 
 great creeds. The creed, however, has produced the era, 
 not the era the creed that is, activity in thinking and 
 believing creates activity in working. Activity in study- 
 ing the Bible and in discerning and appropriating its 
 spiritual truths has always produced a high state of 
 morals and an active and aggressive age in Christian la- 
 bor. The epochs of Church history have been faith- 
 epochs. Periods of degeneracy in morals have been pe- 
 riods characterized by a dead faith. The great reforma- 
 tions of Church history have all been produced by re- 
 vivals in faith and doctrine, and the permanence of every 
 reformation in the world is dependent upon the main- 
 tenance of sound doctrine and a living, personal faith 
 within the Church. And these revivals must ever char- 
 acterize the history of the Church. For whenever the 
 period comes that men allow their Church creeds to be- 
 come the substitutes for a living, personal, saving faith 
 of their own, then another revival will be needed a 
 faith revival and this no matter how rational and or- 
 thodox such creeds may be. And because there may be 
 a tendency in the human mind to accept and simply as- 
 sent to, rather than to believe, a creed long recognized as
 
 38 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 true, it is probably true that no one generation can for- 
 mulate a creed for all succeeding generations. 
 
 The success and strength of Methodism is due most of 
 all to its doctrines, its creed, its faith. The powerful 
 personality and undying influence of John Wesley, the 
 fervent piety and intense earnestness that have so large- 
 ly characterized its ministry and membership, the won- 
 derfully wise and apostolic system of an itinerant minis- 
 try, have all been elements of power, and have helped to 
 achieve the mighty results that have crowned the first 
 one hundred years of its existence. But in studying the 
 philosophy of Methodist history, none of these factors 
 are, in our judgment, to be compared with the evangelic- 
 al and Scriptural system of doctrine that has constitut- 
 ed the creed of universal Methodism. The doctrines of 
 free grace and an unlimited atonement, of human free 
 agency and responsibility, of the possibility and danger 
 of apostasy, of the witness of the Spirit and of Christian 
 holiness, are the doctrines the believing and preaching 
 of which, in conjunction with its other common and 
 cardinal doctrines, have given Methodism its success and 
 power in the world. It was the faith of John Wesley 
 that made him what he was. It is the faith of Method- 
 ism that makes it what it is, that accounts for every 
 other element of power within it. It is its doctrine of 
 free grace and an unlimited atonement in Christ that 
 gives it its evangelical and missionary spirit. It is faith 
 in the doctrine of human free agency and responsibility 
 that has given such earnestness to the religion of its
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER. 39 
 
 membership and to the preaching of its ministry. The 
 doctrine of the possibility and danger of apostasy has 
 been the most powerful preventive of backsliding. Faith 
 and experience in the doctrine of a conscious knowledge 
 of sins forgiven is that which has given courage and 
 clearness and power alike to the humblest believer and 
 the most eloquent preacher in explaining to sinners the 
 way of salvation. Its doctrine of heart-holiness and 
 perfect love is what has led its membership to seek a 
 higher and richer experience in the Christian life than 
 mere conversion. It is the faith of Methodism that 
 makes it what it is. It is the creed of a Church that 
 makes its character. 
 
 After allj have we not simply reached the starting 
 point of Scripture: "He that believeth shall be saved; 
 he that believeth not shall be damned ? " Is not the di- 
 vine wisdom of Christ shown in making faith the one 
 great condition of salvation. The more deeply we study 
 the philosophy of the plan of salvation the more pro- 
 foundly will we be convinced of the divine wisdom dis- 
 played in making faith and not works, belief and not 
 life, creed and not character, the primary and cardinal 
 condition of salvation. Christianity must have works, 
 it must bring forth life, it must produce character. 
 These things are not underrated in the Christian system. 
 Indeed, in an important sense it is the whole object of 
 Christianity to produce them. But to have demanded 
 good works, a moral life and Christian character as the 
 primary condition of salvation, without previously pro-
 
 40 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 viding and demanding faith, would have been to de- 
 mand fruit without providing the tree on which it is to 
 grow, to demand the accomplishment of a result without 
 providing the power by which alone it can be produced. 
 For faith is not only the best way to produce good 
 works, but the only way to produce them; and faith 
 that does not bring forth good works is no faith at all. 
 " Faith without works is dead." A good life can be at- 
 tained only by faith. A moral and spiritual life, involv- 
 ing self-denial to the flesh, is possible only by the power 
 of faith, and a belief that does not conform the life to 
 itself is not to be recognized as any belief at all. Nor is 
 character ever separated from creed. A man of charac- 
 ter is always a man who has a creed, who has convic- 
 tions and the ability and courage to state them. A man 
 without a creed is a man without character. And so wo 
 affirm that there is no more striking evidence of divine 
 wisdom displayed in the plan of salvation than is found 
 in the fact that faith is made the one great cardinal con- 
 dition of salvation. Make a man's faith to be just what 
 the Bible makes faith to be, and his life and character 
 will be what Christian life and character should be. 
 
 It is because of this vital and causal relation which 
 faith sustains to life and character that gives it its im- 
 portance in the Christian system and in the plan of sal 
 vation. If faith ended in itself alone, it would have no 
 importance. Considered in themselves alone, charactei 
 and life and works are far more important than faith 
 A noble character and a useful life are what pleases God,
 
 OBEED AND CHARACTER. 41 
 
 not faith. It is not said that " faith pleases God," but 
 rather " without faith it is impossible to please Him " 
 without faith it is impossible to attain unto that holiness 
 of heart, that nobility of moral character, that useful- 
 ness and consecration to His service, that love to God 
 and man, which are the real things which please Him. 
 While it is true that we are justified by faith alone, it is 
 none the less true that that faith by which we are justi- 
 fied is not alone, but is accompanied and followed by all 
 the works of faith and the fruits of the Spirit, which to- 
 gether constitute a noble character and a useful life. 
 There are two salvations : one at the beginning of the 
 Christian life, and the other at the end, at the judgment 
 day. "He that believeth shall be saved" is the first. 
 "He that endureth to the end shall be saved" is the 
 second. At the first salvation we are justified by faith, 
 and not by works ; but at the second we are justified by 
 works, and not by faith. "By thy works thou shalt 
 then be justified, and by thy works thou shalt then be 
 condemned." This is as it should be. "Works, life, char- 
 acter is what alone will stand the test of the judgment 
 day, but these can bo attained only by faith in truth, in 
 right, in God. 
 
 What to believe, why to believe, and how to believe 
 are the three great questions concerning Christian faith. 
 An eminent divine has said that ministers and religious 
 teachers err in attempting to tell sinners how to believe, 
 a thing which they already know, and concerning which 
 they need no instruction. By giving lengthy and elabo-
 
 42 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 rate explanations of how to believe, a very simple thing 
 is made to appear difficult, and the penitent mind is con- 
 fused rather than enlightened. There, is, we believe, 
 good ground for this criticism. The object of this lect- 
 ure, it will readily appear, has not been to explain how 
 to believe, nor yet to set forth what to believe, but sim- 
 ,ply to show why to believe to show why It is that 
 Christianity demands, and must necessarily demand, 
 faith as the one cardinal condition of salvation. 
 
 Away then with this sophistry of modern religious 
 free-thought: "It makes no difference what a man be- 
 lieves, provided his, life is right." With a show of truth 
 on the surface, the statement has in it the germs of most 
 fatal error, and is radically false at heart. On the con- 
 trary, it makes all the difference what a man believes. 
 A man without a faith is a man without a purpose in 
 life and without 'character. A man with a bad faith is 
 a bad man in life and character. A man with a timid, 
 weak, wavering half-faith is a weakling among men, 
 tossed about with every wind of doctrine. Faith in er- 
 ror leads to an erroneous life ; faith in truth, to a true 
 life ; faith in Christ, to a Christian life. As a man be- 
 lieves, so is he. But it must be faith; not assent, not 
 credulity, but a living, personal faith in the truth, and 
 loyalty to that faith. Would you, therefore, make a 
 man's life and character right, then make his faith right, 
 and let his life accord perfectly with that faith. This is 
 the divine relation between creed and character. This 
 is the rationale of faith.
 
 GERMAN HIGHER CRITICISM: 
 The Tubingen Theory. 
 
 IN connection with our study of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles it is necessary to give some attention to the so-called 
 Tubingen Theory of that important historical document. 
 This theory owes its origin to Dr. F. C. Baur, a German 
 professor of great intellect and imposing scholarship, and 
 its name to the Tubingen University, where Baur was 
 professor of theology from 1826 to his death in 1860. 
 Both Baur and his famous pupil, David Friedrich Strauss, 
 author of the Life of Jesus (1835), studied and adopt- 
 ed the philosophy of Hegel, and became pantheists. 
 With severe logical consistency they applied the Hege- 
 lian philosophy to the gospel and apostolic histories, and 
 the result was an entire reconstruction of the history of 
 early Christianity and the Church. Strauss applied his 
 destructive criticism to the gospel histories and origi- 
 nated the so-called mythical theory of the Life of Je- 
 sus, while Baur's principal work was with the history 
 of apostolic and post-apostolic Christianity, though, as 
 his theory necessitated, he had to dispose of all the 
 writings of the New Testament. " He starts with the 
 assumption of a fundamental antagonism between Jew- 
 ish or primitive Christianity, represented by Peter, and 
 Gentile or progressive Christianity, represented by Paul,
 
 44 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and resolves all the writings of the New Testament into 
 what he calls ' tendency writings ' ( Tejidenz-schrifteri), 
 which do not give us history pure and simple, but adjust 
 it to a doctrinal and practical aim in the interest of one 
 or the other partj, or of a compromise between the two." 
 The Epistles to the Eomans, Galatians, and Corin- 
 thians, which are admitted to be without doubt the 
 works of Paul, show the antagonism of the Pauline or 
 progressive party to the earlier and narrower Petrine 
 or Jewish form ; while the Apocalypse of John (com- 
 posed in A.D. 69), which is the only authentic document 
 proceeding from the Petrine party, exhibits the pecul- 
 iarities of older Jewish Christianity. " The other writ- 
 ings of the New Testament are post-apostolic produc- 
 tions, and exhibit the various phases of a unionistic 
 movement, which resulted in the formation of the ortho- 
 dox Church of the second and third century. Thus the 
 whole literature of the New Testament is represented as 
 the growth of a century and a half, as a collection of 
 polemical and ironical tracts of the apostolic and post- 
 apostolic ages, and the rich spiritual life of faith and 
 love of the apostolic times is resolved into a speculative 
 process of conflicting tendencies." Baur's theory, then, 
 more particularly stated, and especially in connection 
 with Acts, is as follows:* Christ in his teachings did 
 virtually do away with the ritual of the old dispensation, 
 
 * Compare Fisher, " Supernatural Origin of Christianity " (p. 
 210), to which the author of this lecture acknowledges indebt- 
 edness.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEOET. 45 
 
 and left no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. But 
 the original disciples did not advance to the conclusion 
 which lay in the teachings of their Master. They con- 
 
 
 
 tinued to believe that the way of salvation was through 
 Judaism, and that the Gentile must enter the Church by 
 the door of Judaism, and that the uncircumcised had no 
 part in the kingdom of their Messiah. 
 
 Only the 'Apostle Paul, who came later, saw that the 
 old rites were done away by the very nature of the true 
 religion, and that the Gentile stood on an equality with 
 the Jew, faith being the sole requirement. He held that 
 circumcision and the ritual were no longer admissible, 
 because they implied some other object of reliance than 
 Christ and some other condition than faith. Thus there 
 was a radical difference in doctrine between Peter and 
 the Jerusalem Christians, on the one hand, and Paul 
 and his followers, on the other. Not only so, there 
 was a personal disagreement and estrangement between 
 these two apostolic leaders, there was between the two 
 branches of the Church a radical opposition in principle, 
 and there grew up two antagonistic types of Christiani- 
 ty, two divisions of the Church, separate from each oth- 
 er and unfriendly to each other. Such was the state of 
 things at the end of the apostolic age. 
 
 Then followed attempts to reconcile the two branches, 
 and to unite Jewish and Gentile Christianity into one. 
 With this view conciliatory and compromising books 
 were written in the name of the apostles. The book of 
 Acts, for example, written in the second century by a
 
 46 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Pauline Christian, is, as Dr. Schaff says, according to 
 Baur's view, a Catholic irenicon, which harmonizes 
 Jewish and Gentile Christianity by liberalizing Peter 
 and Judaizing Paul and concealing the difference be- 
 tween them. The author represents Paul as circumcis- 
 ing Timothy (Acts xvi. 3), as conforming to the practice 
 of shaving his head* at the expiration of a vow (Acts 
 xviii. 18), and as participating in ceremonies concerning 
 a vow at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 24-26). Peter, on the 
 other hand, is represented by the author of Acts as ac- 
 knowledging the rights of the Gentiles, and as holding 
 the same views as Paul (Acts xv. 7-11). He receives 
 Cornelius into the Chur,ch without circumcision (Acts x. 
 1-48 ; xi. 3 ; especially x. 34), and eats with Gentiles. 
 But we quote the language of Baur himself: 
 It has been shown incontrovertibly by recent investigations t 
 that the Acts is not to be regarded as a purely historical work, 
 but only as a presentation of the history following a certain 
 definite tendency. The true aim of the work, then, must have 
 been to carry back the solution of the questions which were 
 then the object of universal interest, to the point of the discus- 
 sion of the Apostle Paul's relation to the older apostles. It, bow- 
 ever, decidedly asserts its Pauline character in two particulars. 
 It* holds fast the principle of Paulinism, the universal scope of 
 Christianity free from the law, by the side of Jewish Christiani- 
 ty. It carries this universalism through all the stages of the 
 
 * Though some hold, and Meyer is among them, that it was Aquila, and 
 not Paul, who shaved his head on this occasion, as the order of the w,ords 
 will allow. See the Greek of the passage, Acts xviii. 18, and Meyer and 
 Hackett in toe. 
 
 t Here he refers to Schneckenburger's work on the Acts, to his own Riu- 
 lus I., p. 4, and to Zeller on Acts.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 47 
 
 history which it deals with, beginning with the words which it 
 puts in the mouth * of the Lord before his ascension about the ut- 
 termost parts of the earth (i. 18), and ending with the final dec- 
 laration of the Apostle Paul, that the message of salvation is sent 
 to the Gentiles (xxviii. 18). In the second place, it insists on 
 the conditions without the recognition of which it was impossi- 
 ble for Christianity to fulfill its universal mission. 
 
 We must take up our position at this central point of the 
 Acts, its Paulinism, in order to appreciate aright the aim. and 
 character of the work. In the two points we have mentioned it 
 makes no compromise of Pauline principles. In every thing re- 
 lating to the person of the apostle, however, it is lax and full of 
 concessions. If we compare the account which the Acts gives 
 us of his character and conduct with the picture which he gives 
 us of himself in his own writings, we find a very remarkable 
 contrast between the Paul of the Acts and the Paul of the Pau- 
 line writings. According to the Acts, he made concessions to 
 the Jewish Christians, which, according to his own clear and 
 distinct enunciation of his principles, it is impossible he should 
 have made.* On the other side we find the same phenomenon. 
 The Acts presents Peter to us in a light in which we can no 
 longer recognize him as one of the chief representatives of Jeru- 
 salem. We are thus obliged to think * that the immediate object 
 for which the Acts was written was to draw a parallel l>etweeii 
 the two apostles, in which Peter should appear in a Pauline and 
 Paul in a Petrine character. In the doctrine of their discourses 
 and in their mode of action as apostles they not only agree 
 with each other, but appear to have actually changed parts. Be- 
 fore Paul appears at all in the book f Peter is made to baptize 
 the first Gentile, Cornelius, with the consent of the Church at 
 
 *The italics are mine. G. A. 
 
 fThis is a mistake. Paul appears in chapter ix., while the account of 
 Peter's baptism of Cornelius is given in chapter x. Comp. especially ix. 15.
 
 48 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Jerusalem, while Paul performs the rite of circumcision on Tim- 
 othy, the Gentile Christian, out of regard for his Jewish fellow- 
 countrymen, and, in general, conducts himself as an Israelite 
 pious in the law. Even amidst the most pressing business of 
 his apostolic labors he does not neglect to make the customary 
 journey to Jerusalem ; he undertakes a vow and becomes a Naz- 
 arite with the express object of refuting the calumny that he 
 taught the people to abandon the law ; he has so high a respect 
 for the theocratic privileges of his people that, from first to last, 
 he always preaches first to the Jews, and only turns to the Gen- 
 tiles when compelled by their unbelief and constrained by the 
 divine commands to do so. The two apostles are even made 
 parallel with each other in respect to their call : Peter, as well 
 as Paul, has a vision, in which he is charged with the apostolate 
 to the Gentiles. 
 
 The only possible explanation of all this is that the facts of 
 the case were deliberately altered in accordance with a certain 
 tendency. This tendency is conciliatory or irenical. With this 
 end not only were Paul and his cause to be recommended to 
 Jewish Christians, but such a conception of Christianity and of 
 the doctrine of Paul were to be made current as should remove 
 or conceal the most offensive aspects of Paulinism and render it 
 more fit for that union with Jewish Christianity to which the 
 author aspired. The Acts is thus an attempt at conciliation, the 
 overture of peace of a member of the Pauline party, who sought 
 to purchase the recognition of Gentile Christianity on the part 
 of the Jewish Christians by concessions made to Judaism on his 
 side. It deserves to be specially noted how carefully the book 
 refrains from touching the irritating element in the history of 
 either apostle. For example, it passes over in complete silence 
 the conflict at Antioch, of which the Clementines [ ! ] had BO 
 lively a remembrance, and does not even mention Titus, who, 
 according to Galatians ii. 1, caused such offense to the Christians
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 49 
 
 of Jerusalem. But instead of these two scenes it mentions the 
 strife with Barnabas as if this much less important incident 
 had been all that was wrong at the time (!). It looks as if the 
 writer felt it necessary to make up in some way for his silence 
 about the refusal to circumcise Titus, when in place of that in- 
 cident he gives the circumcision of Timothy, with regard to 
 which Paul was so ready and willing to meet the wishes of the 
 Jews. 
 
 And how careful the Acts is to bring Paul in contact with the 
 older apostles at every opportunity, thus suggesting, of course, 
 that a truly brotherly relation had existed between him and 
 them ! What the Acts desired to have people believe did actu- 
 ally come to be believed, and the belief never afterward wavered. 
 This proves how well the author of the Acts understood the age 
 he lived in, and how accurate an estimate he formed of what it 
 was necessary, for the general good of the Church, to keep hold 
 of. These same considerations were at work also in the produc- 
 tion of a number of those Epistles which bear apostolic names, 
 but which we are obliged to pronounce pseudonymous. No 
 other book of the New Testament, however, allows of so con- 
 vincing a demonstration of the tendency under which it was 
 written as the Acts of the Apostles.* 
 
 The Acts, then, according to this theory, is a produc- 
 tion of the second century, in which fiction in ingeniously 
 woven in with facts in the hope that a mutual friendliness 
 between the respective partisans of the rival apostles 
 might be brought about. Such is the theory, and there 
 is certainly no vagueness or ambiguity ajbout it. It is 
 startling in its baldness, its boldness, and its remorseless 
 
 * " Church History of the First Three Centuries " (pp. 132-137). 
 London edition, 1878. 
 4
 
 50 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 destructiveness. Let us inquire into the basis on which 
 it is founded and the materials out of which it is con- 
 structed. We shall find in it a good example of the 
 methods and the madness of that fierce criticism which 
 has turned poor Germany upside down, and would fain 
 turn Christianity upside down. 
 
 It is a matter of historical fact that in the second 
 century Jewish-Christian and anti- Jewish-Christian par- 
 ties had been developed and were in existence. The first 
 of these was called the Ebionite sect. " These," says 
 Lightfoot,* " not content with observing the Mosaic or- 
 dinances themselves, maintained that the law was bind- 
 ing on all Christians alike, and regarded Gentile Chris- 
 tians as impure because they refused to conform. They 
 branded Paul as an apostate, and pursued his memory 
 with bitter reproaches. In their theology, also, they 
 were far removed from the Catholic Church, holding 
 our Lord to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. 
 These Ebionites were the direct spiritual descendants of 
 those ' false brethren] the Judaizers of the apostolic age, 
 who first disturbed the peace of the Church at Antioch, 
 and then dogged St. Paul's footsteps from city to city." 
 They had a gospel of their own, called the " Gospel of the 
 Hebrews " (eya^eUewv xa(? *Ef3paiou<;, not now extant, but 
 referred to and quoted by the fathers), which, from the 
 remains which are found in these quotations, bore a close 
 resemblance to our Matthew, and was in all probability 
 our Matthew altered and amplified, as a comparison of a 
 * " Commentary on Galatians," p. 159.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 51 
 
 quotation from the " Gospel of the Hebrews," given in 
 Origen's " Commentary on Matthew," will show.* 
 
 On the other hand, there arose also, in the second cent- 
 ury, parties calling themselves Pauline, and repudiating 
 all forms, rites, associations connected with Judaism. 
 Such a sect was founded by Marcion, a native of Pon- 
 tus, who went to Rome about 140 A.D. Neander, says 
 Fisher, represents that the love and compassion of Christ 
 had struck deep into Marcion's soul. But, ignoring the 
 justice of God, he conceived that the representations of 
 God in the Old Testament are inconsistent with the 
 character and teachings of Christ. All the apostles ex- 
 cept Paul seemed to him to be entangled in Old Testa- 
 ment views, and to have perverted the doctrine of Jesus. 
 Hence the expressions in Paul about the Christian's free- 
 dom from the law and about free grace, imperfectly un- 
 derstood by Marcion, fell in with the current of his 
 feelings. Hence, though starting from a practical and 
 not a speculative point of view, he developed a Gnostical 
 theory, according to which the god of the Old Testa- 
 ment was a demiurge inferior to the father of Jesus. 
 He shaped his scriptural canon to suit his doctrinal sys- 
 tem. The Gospel of Luke, as written by a companion 
 of Paul, and as bringing out the Pauline doctrine, he re- 
 garded with favor. But, according to the unanimous tes- 
 timony of the fathers, he abridged and mutilated even 
 thin Gospel in order to conform it to his own system. He 
 
 *It corresponds to Matthew xix. 16 ff., and is about the rich 
 young ruler.
 
 52 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 took similar liberties with the Pauline Epistles, which 
 he also received. He may have fancied that he was re- 
 storing these documents to their original form, but he 
 changed them according to his own a priori notions of 
 what Christ and his apostles must have taught. These 
 are examples of parties that grew up in the second cent- 
 ury, but it remains to be proven, as Baur assumes, that 
 these or any similar parties constituted the Church, or 
 were even recognized and fellowshiped by the Catholic 
 Church. On the contrary, though the onus probandi is 
 upon the alleger and not upon the denier of a proposi- 
 tion, Bishop Lightfoot, in his scholarly essay on St. Paul 
 and the Three* has proved that the Church of the first 
 and second century was not Ebionite.f So far from it, 
 these parties, Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites 
 on the other, were not included in the Church, but 
 counted heretical by the Church. See that masterly 
 discussion. 
 
 Baur, however, with his preconceived Hegelian and 
 pantheistic notions, looking for some basis upon which 
 to found a denial of the apostolic history, as his pupil 
 Strauss had already, to the satisfaction of his party, de- 
 molished the foundations of the gospel history, and find- 
 
 *In his "Commentary on Galatians." 
 
 f It is an interesting fact that the Socinians, and notably Dr. 
 Priestley, held, much earlier, the view of Baur that the prim- 
 itive Church was Ebionite, especially as touching Christ's di- 
 vinity, and that modern Unitarianism comes from ancient Ebi- 
 onism.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 53 
 
 ing the existence of these parties in the second cent- 
 ury, assumes that these parties constituted the Church, 
 and then infers that this same antagonism and division 
 existed also in the apostolic Church in the form of Paul- 
 inism and Petrinism. Of this view of the condition of 
 the apostolic Church he professes to find proof in the 
 four Epistles of Paul which he accepts as genuine 
 namely, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, and 
 Komans. 
 
 Let us now examine, first, the ground of his assump- 
 tion that these Jewish and anti-Jewish parties constitut- 
 ed the Church in the second century, and secondly his 
 supposed proof of the prior existence of these parties in 
 the apostolic Church. He gets, then, his notions of the 
 Christianity of the second century mainly from a theo- 
 logical romance composed by some partisan Ebionite of 
 Rome in the second century, which has not even the 
 dignity of being anonymous, but which falsely pretends 
 to emanate from Clement, the first Bishop of the Ro- 
 man Church after the apostles, and forever wears the 
 brand of the "Pseudo-Clementine Homilies." Impelled * 
 by a love of the truth, this Pseudo-Clement journeys to 
 the East, and is introduced to Peter, whoso instruction 
 fully satisfies his mind, and who is represented, instead 
 of Paul, as the real apostle of the Gentiles, and the found- 
 er and first bishop of the Roman Church. Paul, though 
 not mentioned by name, is described, is made the adver- 
 sary of Peter, and is regarded with hostility. Peter is 
 
 * This account of this book is taken partly from Fisher.
 
 54 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 represented as teaching the doctrines and recommending 
 the practices of the Ebionites.* 
 
 "This spurious production," says Dr. Fisher, "the 
 work of an unknown author, and abounding in fantastic 
 anti-Christian ideas which could never have gained the 
 consent of any sober-minded Christian, is made by Baur 
 a text-book for the opinions of the Church generally in 
 the second century. Its authority is deemed sufficient 
 to outweigh the testimony of approved writers who 
 have always been depended on by scholars of all theo- 
 logical schools. Because this fantastic romance is Ebi- 
 onite and anti-Pauline, such must have been the prevail- 
 ing Christianity of the time." * 
 
 Dr. Schaff says : " The Bbionite author of the " Pseudo- 
 Clementine Homilies" and the "Gnostic Marcion" as- 
 sumed an irreconcilable antagonism between Jewish and 
 Gentile Christianity, just as Baur and the Tubingen 
 school have assumed in modern times; and in the eyes 
 of this Tubingen criticism these wild heretics are better 
 historians of the apostolic age than the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles."f 
 
 Satisfying himself on such authority (!) that this was 
 the state of the Church in the second century, Baur was 
 led by certain passages in the First and Second Epistles 
 
 * This work, the " Pseudo-Clementine Homilies," is translated 
 into English and is given in full with notes in Vol. VIII., pp. 
 222-346, of the " Ante-Nicene Fathers," published by the Chris- 
 tian Literature Company, 35 Bond Street, New York. 
 
 t " Church History," Vol. I., p. 211.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 55 
 
 to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians to con- 
 clude that this was the state of the Church in the apos- 
 tolic age also, and as the statements and representations 
 of the book of Acts conflict with this view and with his 
 interpretation of Paul's Epistles, he concludes that the 
 book of Acts must be a forgery gotten up in the second 
 century by some pacific Pauline Christian to reconcile 
 the two belligerent parties. 
 
 In considering this theory of the book of Acts two 
 questions present themselves : 
 
 1. Can the passages in St. Paul's acknowledged Epistles 
 which are alleged to prove that his character, doctrines, 
 and deportment are inconsistent with the representations 
 of him contained in the book of Acts be explained in a 
 way to show that they are not inconsistent with those 
 representations, but that, on the contrary, they confirm 
 those representations? 
 
 2. Are the contents of the book of Acts such as they 
 might be expected to be on the supposition that it was 
 written for the purpose alleged by Baur ? 
 
 Though * Christ himself observed, as a Jew, the ritual 
 and all the requirements of the Mosaic law, yet he both 
 implicitly and explicitly authorized the conclusion that 
 in the new era which he was introducing the ceremonies 
 of the law would no longer have place, nor be required. 
 For example, he declared that not what "goeth into the 
 mouth defileth a man ; but that which cometh out of the 
 
 * On this account of the extension of the gospel to the Gen- 
 tiles, see Fisher, " Supernatural Origin of Christianity."
 
 56 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 mouth. . . . Those things which proceed out of the mouth 
 come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. . . . 
 But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." In 
 his eyes forms had no inherent value and no abiding ex- 
 istence. He says to the woman of Samaria : " The time 
 cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall wor- 
 ship in spirit and in truth ; for God is a Spirit, and seek- 
 eth such to worship him." 
 
 He laid down great principles, and did not define ex- 
 actly what course the Gentiles were to take with refer- 
 ence to the Mosaic ritual, or what was to become of 
 ceremonial Judaism. These things the apostles were 
 left to learn by providential events and the inward illu- 
 mination of the Spirit. He left the Church to be edu- 
 cated up to the point of seeing that these things were 
 superfluous. But the twelve Apostles and the infant 
 Church at Jerusalem seem to have had no thought of 
 dispensing with circumcision and the other requirements 
 of the ritual. 
 
 Paul, on the contrary, on account of the peculiarity of 
 his experience and by means of his deep insight and the 
 logical force of his mind, together with special enlight- 
 enment from above, discerned most clearly that faith, and 
 faith alone, is the condition of salvation, and that to make 
 the soul depend for pardon upon legal observances along 
 with faith is to set the ground of salvation, partially at 
 least, outside of Christ, and to found the Christian's hope 
 on self-righteousness instead of his merits. He went 
 straight to the inevitable inference that the ritual sys-
 
 TfiE TUBINGEN THEORY. 7 
 
 tern is not to be observed as a means of salvation, and is 
 in no sense obligatory on the Gentiles. 
 
 These principles he announces, expounds, and defends 
 with profound conviction, vehement eloquence, and con- 
 clusive logic, especially in his Epistle to the Romans and 
 that to the Galatians. It is in the latter that we find the 
 following strong statements: "I do not frustrate the 
 grace of God : for if righteousness come by the law, then 
 Christ died in vain." " That no man is justified by the 
 law in the sight of God, it is evident." " The law was 
 our school-master to bring us unto Christ, . . . but 
 after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school- 
 master." " There is neither Jew nor Greek : . . . for 
 ye are all one in Christ Jesus." "Behold, I Paul say 
 unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
 you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is 
 circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 
 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you 
 are justified by the law." " For in Christ Jesus neither 
 circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision ; but 
 faith which worketh by love." Moreover, we learn from 
 Galatians that ho refused to allow Titus to be circum- 
 cised. 
 
 In Romans, the following : " If thou be a breaker of the 
 law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 
 Shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill 
 the law, judge thee, who, though in possession of the 
 letter and of circumcision, dost transgress the law?" 
 "For that is not circumcision which is outward in the
 
 58 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 flesh, but circumcision is that of the heart, in the spir- 
 it, and not in the letter." Again, in 1 Corinthians, he says : 
 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, 
 but the keeping of the commandments of God." 
 
 But notwithstanding he held these advanced views 
 concerning circumcision and the law, there is no evi- 
 dence that Paul sought to dissuade the Jews from ob- 
 serving the ritual. He only rejected the doctrine that 
 the observance of the law was essential to salvation, or 
 obligatory upon the Gentile converts. But his opposi- 
 tion to the law extended no further. On the contrary, 
 he himself says : " To the Jews I became as a Jew." He 
 respected their national feelings and customs. Hence he 
 found no difficulty in taking upon himself the vow which 
 James recommended as a visible proof that the charges 
 made against him of persuading the Greek-speaking Jews 
 to forsake the Mosaic law and to abandon circumcision 
 were false, and that he was not a traitor to his people. 
 
 Let us examine now those Epistles which Baur ac- 
 cepts as genuine, and which are said to show that St. 
 Paul's real views were irreconcilably opposed to those 
 representations of him which we find in the book of Acts. 
 Baur affirms that there was at Corinth, as shown in the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, a party claiming to be the 
 disciples of Peter, and holding an attitude of hostility to 
 Paul and his doctrine. But there were other parties in 
 the Corinthian Church also the Christ-party and the 
 Apollos-party and there is no more proof that Peter 
 headed or encouraged or even knew of this party than
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 59 
 
 there is that Apollos championed the party calling itself 
 by his name. 
 
 Again, so far is St. Paul from evincing in the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians any hostility or antagonism to the 
 other apostles, as is alleged, he represents them as fel- 
 low-laborers in a common cause. To be sure, he says he 
 was " not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 
 Cor. xi. 5.) Yet this is not saying, nor does it imply, 
 that they were not apostles or that they .taught false 
 doctrine. He says, on the contrary: "For, I think, 
 God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men 
 doomed to death : for we are made a spectacle unto the 
 world, and to angels, and to men. . . . We both 
 hunger, and thirst, and are naked, . . . and have 
 no certain dwelling-place. . . . We are made as the 
 filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even un- 
 til now." (1 Cor. iv. 9-13.) Thus associating the other 
 apostles with himself in noble service and self-sacrifice. 
 
 Again, in his enumeration of the appearances of Christ 
 after his resurrection, he says in a way not to depreciate 
 the other apostles, but himself: "And last of all he was 
 seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I 
 am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be 
 called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of 
 God." (1 Cor. xv. 8, 9.) 
 
 In 1 Corinthians, eighth chapter, Paul lays down and 
 expounds the principle that we are to consider the weak- 
 ness of the weaker brethren, and to deal with their igno- 
 rance and superstitious scruples in a spirit of love and
 
 60 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGt. 
 
 patience and helpfulness. This is precisely the principle 
 in accordance with which he caused Timothy to be cir- 
 cumcised and agreed to participate in the vow, as nar- 
 rated in the book of Acts; and the exposition and de- 
 fense of this principle are all the stronger here because 
 brought out incidentally and in the natural course and 
 order of the Epistle. 
 
 In another portion of this same Epistle, Paul not only 
 defends this principle and the duty of accommodating 
 ourselves in unessential matters to the weak consciences 
 of our weaker brethren, but he explicitly and unequiv- 
 ocally declares that it was his own practice. What 
 could be more to the point than the following words? 
 "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain 
 the Jews ; to them that are under the law, as under the law, 
 though not being myself under the law, that I might 
 gain them that are under the law" (1 Cor. ix. 20.) And 
 yet in the face of this language, in an Epistle which Baur 
 acknowledges as one of St. Paul's, he persists in declar- 
 ing that " according to the Acts Paul made concessions 
 to the Jewish Christians which he, according to the prin- 
 ciples proclaimed by himself in his Epistles in the most 
 decided manner, cannot possibly have made." 
 
 Still further, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 Paul exhorts the Christians at Corinth to assist in the 
 collection for the Christian brethren at Jerusalem, whom 
 he does not hesitate to call saints. (1 Cor. xvi. 1-4.) So 
 again, on the same subject he writes in the Second Epis- 
 tle to the Corinthians : " For as touching the minister-
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 61 
 
 ing to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you." 
 (2 Cor. ix. 1.) " While they themselves also, with suppli- 
 cation on your behalf, long after you by reason of the ex- 
 ceeding grace of God in you." (2 Cor. ix. 14.) 
 
 So, in the Epistle to the Romans, which Baur accepts 
 as genuine, he says : " Now I go unto Jerusalem to min- 
 ister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Mace- 
 donia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the 
 poor saints which are at Jerusalem. . . . And their 
 debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made 
 partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to 
 minister unto them in carnal things." (Rom. xv. 25-27.) 
 He here not only calls the Christian believers at Jerusa- 
 lem saints again, but he speaks of the Jerusalem Church 
 as the fountain whence the Gentiles and especially the 
 Romans received their Christianity. Does all this seem 
 compatible with the view that the Church at Jerusalem 
 had no fellowship with the uncircumcised Gentile believ- 
 ers and Christians ? Do these passages in St. Paul's ac- 
 knowledged Epistles leave it possible to believe that the 
 leaders of the Jerusalem Church were the enemies of 
 Paul, and that he considered them as heretics and in 
 deadly error? "If the Corinthians and Romans had 
 understood these Epistles as Baur does, how they must 
 have been surprised and puzzled at Paul's expressions of 
 brotherly regard for these Jerusalem heretics ! " 
 
 We turn now to the Epistle to the Galatians, on which 
 Baur chiefly relies for the support of his theory of the 
 antagonism between Paul and Peter, and between Gen-
 
 62 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tile and Jewish Christianity. " This Epistle," as Light- 
 foot says, " furnishes at once the New Testament ground 
 of the theory, and the ground of its refutation." That 
 there were men holding the views and entertaining the 
 hostile feelings against Paul which Baur attributes to 
 Peter and the Jewish Christians is not denied. But 
 these are, in this very passage which is Baur's main 
 reliance, sharply distinguished from the apostles and 
 sharply denounced. They are the "false brethren" 
 (roy? TtapstffdxTous </>u8adJ.<poL>s) who were trying to 
 turn Paul's converts away from his doctrine, and to 
 destroy their respect for his apostolic authority and 
 their esteem for his person. But Paul clearly distin- 
 guishes them from the apostles and from the body of 
 true believers. 
 
 Let us now examine this passage in the second chap- 
 ter of Galatiaris, which is made so much of by Baur. 
 Paul says he communicated his gospel, which he 
 preached among the Gentiles, to the apostles, men who 
 were the acknowledged leaders, men of repute (rm<; So- 
 xoufftv'), men who were falsely quoted against him by the 
 relentless and persecuting Judaizers. He communicated 
 his gospel to these Jerusalem apostles (/irj ictus efc XEVOV 
 Tpfyw r? edpafiov) not " lest " I should be running or had 
 run in vain. That interpretation of the ^/}, which is lin- 
 guistically but not contoxtually correct, would imply 
 that Paul's past success was altogether uncertain, and 
 that he himself entertained misgivings as to the correct- 
 ness of his preaching, which is hardly probable in the
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 63 
 
 case of the man who said of his gospel, " Even though 
 we or an angel from heaven. preach to you any other 
 gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed." 
 The /zrj in this case, as is absolutely required by the con- 
 text, has another meaning which is not uncommon 
 namely, whether or not. It occurs in this sense in Luke 
 xi. 35, in the sentence ffxd-xsi o5v IJ.TJ rb <?&<;, r<5 aril, GX.OTOS 
 !<mv, " See then whether or not the light that is in thee 
 is darkness." * So Paul says : " I communicated to them 
 the gospel which I preach (still) among the Gentiles, 
 that they might see (and say) whether or not I was 
 running or had run in vain." He was not, let it be re- 
 peated, uncertain or wavering as to the soundness of his 
 gospel. No mortal man was ever quite so positive as 
 St. Paul ; nor did he need their views or any instruction 
 from them. It was that they might have opportunity 
 to see that his gospel was the true gospel, the same es- 
 sentially as theirs, and that the charges of the Judaicera 
 against him were false; and that they might by indors- 
 ing his gospel make him able to silence the Judaizers 
 everywhere by quoting against them those very apos- 
 tles, the head men of the Jerusalem and Jewish Church, 
 whom they were everywhere falsely quoting against 
 him. And this is precisely the use he is now making of 
 that interview with the Jerusalem apostles. Ho is quot- 
 ing it to his Galatian converts, who had been sadly dis- 
 turbed and distracted by these wolving Judaizers. For 
 he goes on to say that from these acknowledged chiefs 
 
 * See Thayer's Lexicon, /*#.
 
 64 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the apostolic circle he received no suggestion they 
 imparted nothing to him. And why ? For the obvious 
 reason that they perfectly agreed with him in the gos- 
 pel which he was preaching to the Gentiles. There was 
 no difference whatever in their views on this point ; and 
 how perfectly this necessary implication of this passage 
 agrees with what the book of Acts records of Peter's 
 long previous reception of Cornelius and his house into 
 the Church without circumcision, and with what is said 
 in Acts xv. concerning the conference which was held at 
 Jerusalem touching this very question of the relation of 
 Gentile converts to the Mosaic law ! So far, then, is this 
 passage in Galatians, which is accepted by Baur, from 
 flatly contradicting those two passages in the Acts, as 
 he alleges ! 
 
 So then the pillar-apostles at Jerusalem, on hearing 
 Paul's gospel, made no suggestion of correction or 
 change, but on the contrary (dttd robvavriov, a double ad- 
 versative) i. e., instead of making any addition or cor- 
 rection, instead of finding any fault with my preaching, 
 they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. 
 Yes, silence those cruel, cruel Judaizers who are undoing 
 all my work among you there in Galatia by saying to 
 them that those apostles whom they refer to as the "pil- 
 lars" perceived that I had been intrusted with the gos- 
 pel for the Gentiles, recognized the grace of God which 
 had been given to me, and, without proposing any 
 change in my preaching, gave to me the right hand of fel- 
 lowship, bidding mo Godspeed in my ministry to the
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 65 
 
 Gentiles.* Moreover, these same chiefs among the apos- 
 tles requested that Paul, while preaching and working 
 among his wealthy Gentile parishioners, would remem- 
 ber the poor saints at Jerusalem, willing to put them- 
 selves thus under obligations to the Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles and his uncircumcised converts. Fisher says : " Did 
 Peter, James, and John ask for money of heretics and 
 heretical teachers? Did Paul and Barnabas labor to 
 minister to the wants of Judaizers, 'dogs,' as Paul 
 plainly calls them in another place ? Hardly, hardly. 
 The fellowship of the Jewish and Gentile teachers was 
 genuine and cordial, and so the underpinning of the 
 whole Tubingen theory falls away." 
 
 In the midst of Paul's account of the conference he 
 describes the fruitless attempt of the " false brethren " 
 to force the circumcision of Titus, who was a Greek and 
 who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, probably as a spec- 
 
 * The parenthetical remark, " Whatsoever they were, makes 
 no difference to me, God accepts no man's person," is misunder- 
 stood when it is supposed to contain irony. It is simply a re- 
 mark to guard his readers (the Galatians) from thinking that 
 from the phrase he used in describing the other apostles he 
 himself recognized or acknowledged them as his superiors. He 
 used the phrase ol do/couvref, " those who were in high repute," 
 to show the superlative esteem with which they were regarded 
 by Jewish Christians, including Judaizers, but for fear the Gala- 
 tians might understand from it that he acknowledged himself 
 inferior to them, as the Judaizers claimed he was, he adds the 
 parenthesis : " Whatsoever they were makes no difference to me, 
 God accepts no man's person." 
 5
 
 66 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 imen of his Gentile uncircumeised converts. These 
 " false brethren " " had crept in unawares," and were in- 
 truders where they did not belong. They are singled 
 out and sharply distinguished from the apostles and 
 from the true brethren and believers. 
 
 Now Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus is cited by 
 Baur to disprove the historical truth of the circumcision 
 of Timothy by St. Paul, as narrated in Acts. But it is 
 plain upon a moment's reflection, even to a superficial 
 observer, that there was a very great difference between 
 the two cases. First, Titus was a heathen by birth, and 
 secondly, his circumcision was demanded by false breth- 
 ren on doctrinal grounds and as a necessary condition of 
 salvation. His was a test case, and at a critical time. 
 To have yielded would have been to give up the rights 
 of the Gentiles, and justification by faith. 
 
 Timothy, on the contrary, was the son of a Jewish 
 mother, and was circumcised out of consideration for 
 unconverted Jews, and not Judaizers who professed to 
 be converted. Timothy's circumcision had nothing to do 
 with the question concerning the Gentiles, and did not 
 conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith. 
 
 Moreover, the occasion upon which the circumcision 
 of Titus was demanded was critical. Paul had gone to 
 Jerusalem to have this very question settled, not for 
 himself, as before said, but that by having the public 
 recognition and indorsement of those who were the chief 
 among the apostles to quote against the Judaizers, he 
 might secure his converts from peril, as he does actually
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 67 
 
 use this indorsement in this very Epistle in arguing with 
 the unsettled Galatian converts. 
 
 After this conference at Jerusalem, occurs that " scene " 
 at Antioch which Baur magnifies into a doctrinal oppo- 
 sition and a personal estrangement between Paul and 
 Peter. When Peter went to Antioch, recognizing the 
 justice and propriety of the views which Paul defended, 
 and which the conference at Jerusalem had indorsed, he 
 mingled freely with the Gentiles, and ate with them. 
 But under the momentary control of that same disposi- 
 tion which had led him in earlier years to deny Jesus in 
 the presence of apparent danger, when some of the Jews 
 from Jerusalem came to Antioch, Peter dissembled and 
 secretly withdrew from association with the Gentiles. 
 But who were these Jews from Jerusalem, and why 
 should Peter be afraid for them to see him eating with 
 Gentiles, if they knew of the decisions of the conference 
 concerning the Gentiles ? They had perhaps never been 
 associated with Gentiles, and Peter perhaps imagined 
 they would be shocked and offended at seeing him doing 
 what they had never seen a Jew doing eating with Gen- 
 tiles or, though knowing and approving the decision oi 
 the council at Jerusalem concerning the circumcision of 
 Gentile converts, they perhaps under the influence of a 
 life-long and ineradicable prejudice still held aloof from 
 associating with Gentiles on terms of social equality. In- 
 deed, we cannot even say that Peter himself would have 
 violated the terms of the arrangement concerning Gen- 
 tile converts if he had consistently and from the begin-
 
 68 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ning declined to eat with them. So then, while these 
 Jews from James most probably did understand and ac- 
 cept the decisions and decrees of the council, they shrank 
 from allowing that a Jew might in any case live on an 
 equality with the Gentiles, and this would be enough to 
 influence Peter in a moment and mood of weakness. If 
 this be hard for us to understand, we need only remind 
 ourselves that while we freely concede that many colored 
 people are Christians, and perhaps in some cases better 
 than ourselves, the force of prejudice or the fear of public 
 opinion would make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to 
 consent to live on terms of social equality with them. 
 
 " The offense, then, which Paul charged on Peter was, 
 first, that he was guilty of hypocrisy in departing from 
 the course which he pursued before the arrival of those 
 from James, since in thus altering his conduct he acted 
 against his real convictions and from fear ; and, secondly, 
 that he was guilty of a virtual attempt to lead the Gen- 
 tile converts to Judaize " that is, make them feel that, 
 as they were not on an equality with the Jews, they 
 ought to be circumcised. Peter was not, then, accused 
 of an error in doctrine. He is not represented as disa- 
 greeing with Paul in that respect ; he did not antagonize 
 Paul on that ground, as Baur alleges. He was accused 
 of an error in conduct. 
 
 " Peter behaved in a manner inconsistent with his real 
 views and convictions, and there is as little reason," it 
 has been well remarked, " for imputing to Peter Judaiz- 
 ing principles on this occasion as for imputing them to
 
 T"HE TUBINGEN THEORY. 69 
 
 Barnabas, who was also, strange to say, led away with 
 Peter." " Only if Paul in this passage had complained 
 that Peter held a false principle, and that he did not un- 
 derstand the rights of the Gentiles, could this interview 
 be urged in support of Baur's theory." But Paul did 
 not, according to his own report of the collision, make 
 any such charge or complaint against Peter. He does, 
 however, say that Peter walked not uprightly according 
 to the truth of the gospel ; he does say that Peter was 
 guilty of hypocrisy (vxoxpiaet, Gal. ii. 13) ; he does say 
 that Peter stood condemned because because of what ? 
 because he held or preached a wrong doctrine? No; 
 but because when certain Jews came from James he quit 
 associating with the Gentile believers out of fear of those 
 
 JeWS (<f>O^Ol)[J.VOq TOU? ix KEptTOfJLrjC;^. 
 
 Indeed, Peter's eating with the Gentiles before the ar- 
 rival of those Jews, which is a part of this record, ac- 
 cepted as genuine and as true by Baur, presupposes an 
 essential agreement between himself and Paul on the 
 matter in question, and so the theory which has this 
 passage for its main support falls to the ground. 
 
 The correct interpretation of this crucial passage, then, 
 shows that there was nothing in Peter's conduct on this 
 occasion at Antioch that is inconsistent with the state- 
 ment in Acts that Peter preached to the Gentile Corne- 
 lius and his house, received them into the Christian 
 Church without circumcision, and ate with them. (Acts 
 xi. 3.) Ten or fifteen years * had elapsed since the con- 
 
 *See Hackett's " Chronology of Acts," "Commentary on Acts," 
 pp. 23, 24.
 
 70 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 version of Cornelius. Pharisees had become believers, 
 and had retained their views and prejudices concerning 
 the necessity of observing the Mosaic law. And in the 
 Church at Jerusalem, isolated from all contact with Gen- 
 tiles, it would be quite probable that the prejudice against 
 social equality with the Gentiles would remain and even 
 grow among the members of the Jerusalem Church. This 
 explains how Peter, by constant contact with such peo- 
 ple, such practices, and such views, would be in a condi- 
 tion to waver at Antioch, as he actually did. 
 
 An examination of the Epistles which are accepted by 
 Baur as genuine furnishes no ground, then, for the posi- 
 tion maintained by the Tubingen critics that these Epis- 
 tles present Paul's personality in a way that is absolute- 
 ly irreconcilable with the representations which we have 
 of Paul in the book of Acts. 
 
 The only passages in the Acts which represent Paul 
 as observing the Mosaic ritual are: (1) that which nar- 
 rates his circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) ; (2) that 
 which represents him as shaving his head at the expira- 
 tion of a vow (Acts xviii. 18) ; (3) that which states that 
 he participated in ceremonies connected with a vow of 
 other men (Acts xxi. 24-26). 
 
 In regard to the circumcision of Timothy, we have 
 already shown that it was not at all inconsistent with 
 Paul's principles. Timothy was the son of a Jewish 
 mother, and to facilitate his reception among unconvert- 
 ed Jews as a preacher of the gospel and a helper of St. 
 Paul, he was circumcised. His circumcision in no way
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 71 
 
 compromised the freedom of the Gentiles, or involved St. 
 Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. Besides, it is 
 perfectly in accord with a rule of St. Paul enunciated in 
 one of the very Epistles where Baur finds proofs of the 
 impossibility of Paul's allowing such a procedure. " Unto 
 the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews ; 
 to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I 
 might gain them that are under the law." (1 Cor. ix. 20.) 
 
 The difference between the case of Timothy and that 
 of Titus has already been shown. 
 
 The passage in Acts xviii. 18 may refer to Aquila ; but 
 if it refers to Paul, it is in keeping with his attitude to- 
 ward Judaism and the law, as shown heretofore in this 
 paper. 
 
 And he who made it a rule of practice to become a 
 Jew to Jews, that he might win Jews, surely found no 
 difficulty or inconsistency in taking part in the ceremo- 
 nies concerning a vow of other Jews, in the way that 
 James recommended, as a visible proof of the falsity of 
 the charge that he was everywhere persuading the Jews 
 to forsake the Mosaic law. 
 
 It is worthy of note, too, that the Jews who assaulted 
 him about the time of the expiration of this vow were 
 not believing Jews, nor even Jerusalem Jews, but uncon- 
 verted, fanatical Jews fi'om Asia Minor, where so many 
 and cruel persecutions were stirred up against him dur- 
 ing his missionary labors there. 
 
 Now let us consider, in the second place, whether the 
 contents of the book of Acts are such as would naturally
 
 72 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 be expected on the theory that it was written for the 
 purpose alleged by the Tubingen critics. Only a few 
 points can be noticed. In Acts i. 21, 22, it is said that 
 an apostle to succeed Judas must be chosen from those 
 that "companied with the eleven all the time that the 
 Lord Jesus went in and out among them, . . . unto 
 the day that he was received up ; " and in i. 26 it is 
 stated that not Paul, but Matthias, was chosen to fill 
 the place of Judas, and " he was numbered with the elev- 
 en" making the apostolic college again complete without 
 any place for Paul. Now if the Pauline and Petrine 
 factions of the Church were such as these suspicious 
 critics declare, and if furthermore, as they represent and 
 claim, the adherents of Peter vehemently and bitterly 
 denied the apostolic authority of Paul, and so excluded 
 him from the apostolic circle, as certainly the Judaizers 
 of that day did do, and if the book of Acts was fabricat- 
 ed for the purpose of reconciling these two parties, it is 
 inconceivable that the fabricator of it should have made 
 the statements of verses 21 and 22, and verse 26. For, 
 so far from reconciling the two parties, that would only 
 confirm the partisans of Peter in the opinion that Paul 
 was no apostle, and would indeed give them additional 
 reason for denying his apostleship. 
 
 Again, if the design of the writer of Acts was to rec- 
 oncile these- two parties and heal their differences, it cer- 
 tainly would have contributed very little to that design 
 to represent that the thousands of the Jews who believed 
 were "aW" in apostolic times "zealous of the law" and
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 73 
 
 devoted to its ceremonial observances. "Thou seest, 
 brother, how many thousands of them there are among 
 the Jews which have believed ; and they are all zealous 
 for the law." (Acts xxi. 20.) Even if the writer had be- 
 lieved that to be the case, he would have concealed it; 
 for the Tubingen theory is that the writer, being a for- 
 ger, invented or omitted according to his purpose and 
 pleasure. 
 
 Again, in Acts xiii. 38, 39, Paul is represented as de- 
 claring against the Mosaic law that it could not justify 
 men, but only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. " By this 
 man every one that believeth is justified from all things, 
 from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" 
 According to Baur, the book of Acts is a forgery invent- 
 ed for the purpose of harmonizing the two factions, and 
 so it represents Paul as friendly to the law and to Juda- 
 ism, as when he has Timothy circumcised and when he 
 joins in the ceremonies attending the expiration of a 
 vow. How is it, then, that the fabricator of this same 
 book of Acts makes the blunder of saying that Paul 
 openly and squarely asserts that the law of Moses was 
 impotent to justify men? This would hardly have 
 served the writer's design, and might just as well have 
 been left out. 
 
 We notice only one more example of passages that are 
 absolutely inconsistent with the design attributed to the 
 writer of Acts by the Tubingen critics. If the object of 
 the writer was to make such a representation of the say- 
 ings and doings of Paul as would conciliate the Petrino
 
 74 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 or Jewish faction, it is inconceivable that he should not 
 have omitted those passages which represent Paul as 
 speaking in severe and denunciatory terms of the Jews 
 and to the Jews, and as turning away from them to 
 preach to the Gentiles ; as, for example : " It was neces- 
 sary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. 
 Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unwor- 
 thy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts xiii. 
 46.) "And when they [the Jews] opposed themselves, 
 and blasphemed, he [Paul] shook out his raiment, and 
 said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads ; I 
 am clean : from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." 
 (Acts xviii. 6.) After Paul said, " Well spake the Holy 
 Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers, saying, 
 Go thou unto this people, and say, By hearing ye shall 
 hear, and shall in nowise understand ; and seeing ye 
 shall see, and shall in nowise perceive : for this people's 
 heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, 
 and their eyes they have closed ; lest haply they should 
 perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and 
 understand with their heart, and should turn again, and 
 I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, 
 that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles : they 
 will also hear." 
 
 The question of the genuineness and authenticity of 
 the book of Acts, on an independent basis, is a separate 
 one, and too large to be treated at any length in this 
 place. The external testimonies are of such a character 
 as to satisfy critics of all schools but the insatiable
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 75 
 
 Tubingen school. The celebrated Muratorian Canon 
 thus speaks of the book: "Now, the Acts of all the 
 apostles were written in one book. Luke embraced in 
 his work to the most excellent Theophilus only the 
 things which were done in his presence, and this is 
 plainly proved by his omission of all mention of the 
 death of Peter and of the setting out of Paul to Spain." 
 It is also attested by name by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 " Strom.," Y. 12 ; by Tortullian, "Against Marcion" Y. 2 ; 
 "DeJejun" 10; "De Baptismo," 10; by Irenseus, "Against 
 Heresies," III. 14, I. and III. 15, 1. The book is quoted 
 also in the famous letter from the Churches of Lyons 
 and Yienne in Gaul (France), which Irenteus bore to 
 the Churches of Asia and to the bishop of Rome. (Eu- 
 sebius, H. E., Y. 1, 2.) No other but Luke is named by 
 the ancient orthodox Church as the author of the book 
 It is included in the undisputed books of the canon by 
 Eusebius, H. E., III. 25. 
 
 The moral tone of the book is opposed to the theory 
 of its being a forgery. "There is manifest throughout 
 the book of Acts a penetrating discernment of the sa- 
 credness of truth and the obligation of veracity. He 
 who set down the record'of the sin and punishment of 
 Ananias and Sapphira was incapable of palming off, as 
 a veritable history of the apostles and of the manner in 
 which they were guided by the Holy Spirit, a series of 
 fictitious stories invented by himself." * 
 
 * Schaff, " Church History," I., 739.
 
 76 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Again, a critical examination of the contents of the 
 book will prove that the author shows a microscopically 
 accurate knowledge of historical and political matters, 
 as confirmed by profane historians, such as Josephus, 
 Strabo, and Dio Cassius ; that he is thoroughly acquaint- 
 ed with the details of the geography of the extensive 
 regions which Paul traversed by sea and by land, and of 
 many other things, the accounts of which can be and 
 have been tested by the most thorough investigation, 
 both on the ground where the events are alleged to have 
 occurred and in the literary remains of those days.* 
 Many examples of the author's accurate knowledge of 
 details could be given, but one or two will serve as illus- 
 trations. In Acts xii. 1, Herod Agrippa I., son of Aris- 
 tobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, is called king. 
 "Now about that time Herod, the king, put forth his 
 hands to afflict certain of the Church." Here the au- 
 thor has shown the most remarkable accuracy in the 
 use of his terms. "There was no portion of time for 
 thirty years before," says Paley, " or ever afterward, in 
 which there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercis- 
 ing that authority in Judea, or to whom the title could 
 be applied except the last three years of Herod's life, 
 within which period the transaction here recorded took 
 place." Josephus relates that on the accession of Clau- 
 dius (A.D. 41) Herod Agrippa received the entire sover- 
 
 * On this point see Hackett's excellent Commentary passim, 
 Harman's " Introduction," pp. 637-743, and Schaff, " Church His- 
 tory," Vol. I., pp. 732-737.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 77 
 
 eignty of his grandfather, Herod the Great,* and so be- 
 came king; and he further relates that at the time of 
 his death he had completed the third year after this ex- 
 tension of his power.f 
 
 In Acts xiii. 7 Sergius Paulus is called proconsul (dvffu- 
 Traroc). This was for a long time supposed to be a mis- 
 take. Augustus Cffisar divided the provinces of the 
 empire into two classes. Those which required a mili- 
 tary force he retained in his own hands, and the others 
 he committed to the care of the senate and Roman peo- 
 ple. The governors sent to the emperor's provinces 
 were styled propraetors or legates (dmoTjoa'r^o? or npeff- 
 /Jetir^c) ; those sent into the people's provinces were called 
 proconsuls (foOvnaTos). Accordingly, at this time, Cyprus 
 must have been one of these senatorian provinces, or the 
 author of Acts has given Sergius Paulus the wrong title. 
 Strabo informs us that Augustus reserved Cyprus for 
 himself, and committed its administration to proprastors. 
 From this it was for a long time supposed that the au- 
 thor of Acts had made a mistake. But a passage was 
 discovered at length in Dio Cassius (liii. 12), which states 
 that Augustus subsequently relinquished Cyprus to the 
 senate in exchange for another province, and so proconsuls 
 (avdunaroi) began to be sent thither.]. Besides this, coins 
 have been discovered from the reign of Claudius which 
 confirm this statement. (See Akorman, " Numismatic II- 
 
 * Josephus, Ant. 19, 5, 1. 
 
 t Ibid., Ant. 19, 8, 2. See Hackett, in loc. 
 
 J See Hackett'e Commentary, in loc.
 
 78 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 lustrations," pp. 39-42.) Indeed, as Dr. Schaff says, the 
 very name of Sergius Paulus has been discovered by 
 General di Cesnola at Soli, the second city of the island, 
 in a mutilated inscription which reads, " In the procon- 
 sulship of Paulus," 'En} HaMou avOundroo. 
 
 The account of the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul, 
 contained in chapter xxvii., contains more information 
 about ancient navigation than any work of Greek or 
 Roman literature, and betrays the minute accuracy of an 
 intelligent eye-witness, who was very familiar with nau- 
 tical terms from close observation. He uses no less than 
 sixteen nautical terms, some of them rare, to describe 
 the motion and management of a ship, all of them most 
 appropriately. He is strictly correct in his description 
 of tho localities at Crete, Salmone, Fair Havens, Clauda, 
 Lasea, and Phoenix (two small places recently identified), 
 and Melita (Malta), as well as the motions and effects of 
 the north-east wind, called Euraquilo in the Mediterra- 
 nean. All this has been thoroughly tested by an expert 
 seaman and scholar, James Smith, who has made a con- 
 tribution of permanent value to the evidences of Chris- 
 tianity in his book entitled " The Voyage and Shipwreck 
 of St. Paul." * These are only three of many instances 
 which might be given. 
 
 A distinct argument for the authenticity of Acts, and 
 
 one in itself conclusive, has been constructed upon a 
 
 comparison between the contents of the Acts and the 
 
 Epistles of St. Paul. This argument has been worked 
 
 *See Dr. Schaff, " Church History," Vol. I., p. 736.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 79 
 
 out in detail in a volume by Archdeacon Paley, called 
 " Hone Paulinie," and is little short of a demonstration, 
 though Baur and his Tubingen critics betray no knowl- 
 edge of the argument. Paley says : " Between the let- 
 ters which bear the name of St. Paul in our collection 
 and the history of St. Paul in the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles there exist many notes of correspondence. The 
 study of the two writings is sufficient to prove that 
 neither the history was taken from the letters nor the 
 letters from the history. And the undesignedness of the 
 agreements (which undesignedness is gathered from 
 their latency, their minuteness, their obliquity, the suit- 
 ableness of the circumstances in which they consist to 
 the places in which those circumstances occur) demon- 
 strates that neither the history nor the Epistles have 
 been produced by meditation or any fraudulent contriv- 
 ance. Coincidences from which these causes are exclud- 
 ed, and which are too close and numerous to be accounted 
 for by accidental concurrences of fiction, must necessarily 
 have truth for their foundation." 
 
 Take one example of this undesigned coincidence. " In 
 2 Corinthians xi. 24, 25 Paul writes : ' Of the Jews five 
 times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beat- 
 en with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered ship- 
 wreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep.' Now 
 these particulars are not given in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 which proves that the Epistle was not framed from*the 
 history, nor could the history have been framed from 
 the Epistle ; otherwise, these particulars would most
 
 80 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 probably have been inserted. And yet all these particu- 
 lars are consistent with the history, which, considering 
 how numerically circumstantial the account is, is more 
 than could happen to arbitrary and independent fictions. 
 When I say that these particulars are consistent with 
 the history, I mean (1) that there is no article in the 
 enumeration which is contradicted by the history; (2) 
 that the history, though silent with respect to many of 
 the facts here enumerated, has left space for the exist- 
 ence of these facts, consistent with the fidelity of its 
 own narration. First, no contradiction is discoverable 
 between the Epistle and the history. When St. Paul 
 says, ' thrice was 1 beaten with rods,' although the his- 
 tory records only one beating with rods namely, at 
 Philippi (Acts xvi. 22) yet there is no contradiction. 
 It is only the omission in one book of what is related in 
 another. But had the history in Acts contained accounts 
 of four beatings with rods at the time of writing this Epis- 
 tle in which St. Paul says he had suffered only three, there 
 would have been a contradiction, properly so called. But 
 there is one clause in the quotation particularly deserv- 
 ing of remark because, when confronted with the histo- 
 ry, it furnishes the nearest approach to a contradiction 
 without falling into it. 'Once,' says St. Paul, in the 
 passage in 2 Corinthians, 'was I stoned.' And so the 
 history in Acts distinctly mentions one occasion on which 
 St. "Paul was stoned namely, at Lystra. ' There came 
 thither certain* Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who 
 persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 81 
 
 out of the city, supposing he had been dead.' (Acts xiv 
 19.) And this is the only occasion on which, according 
 to the history, Paul was actually stoned. But it mentions 
 also another occasion in which an assault was made ' both 
 of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to 
 use them despitefully, and to stone them ; ' but they were 
 aware of it, ' and fled into Lystra and Derbe.' Now had 
 this assault been completed, had the history related that 
 a single stone was thrown, as it does relate that prepara- 
 tions were made by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul 
 and his companions, a contradiction between the history 
 and the Epistle would have ensued ; or, had the account 
 of the transaction stopped without going on to inform 
 us that Paul and his companions were aware of the dan- 
 ger, and fled, in that case also there would have been a 
 contradiction. Truth is necessarily consistent ; but it is 
 scarcely possible that independent accounts not having 
 truth to shape them should thus advance to the very 
 brink of contradiction without falling into it." * 
 
 Lastly, among other proofs of the authenticity of the 
 book of Acts may be mentioned the surprisingly abridged 
 and abrupt ending of the book, the silence concerning 
 the last labors and fate of the Apostle Paul, and the 
 similar silence concerning the fate of Peter. It is hard- 
 ly conceivable that a writer, forging the contents of the 
 book in the second century, long after the deaths of 
 Paul and Peter, should have omitted any reference 
 thereto. The phenomena here referred to are intelligi- 
 *" Horse Paulinse," pp. 74, 75.
 
 82 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ble only on the supposition of a real and candid compan- 
 ion of the Apostle being prevented by circumstances 
 from continuing his narrative, but would be altogether 
 inconceivable in the case of an author not writing till 
 the second century, and inventing and manipulating 
 materials with a definite tendency, as Baur and the Tu- 
 bingen critics hold.* 
 
 " The Acts of the Apostles," says one of the most can- 
 did, learned, and scholarly critics of the age,f " in the 
 multiplicity and variety of its details probably affords 
 greater means of testing its general character for truth 
 than any other ancient narrative in existence, and in my 
 opinion it satisfies the tests fully." And every argu- 
 ment for the genuineness and authenticity of this mani- 
 foldly tested document is an argument against Baur's 
 audacious and mendacious theory of a second-century 
 tendency - forgery. Indeed, a most important change 
 took place in Baur's own mind shortly before his death 
 in 1860. Says Dr. Schaff, who was a student at the 
 University of Tubingen during the connection of Baur 
 and Strauss with it : "As an honest and serious skeptic, 
 he had to confess at last a psychological miracle in the 
 conversion of St. Paul, and to bow before the greater 
 miracle of the resurrection of Christ, without which the 
 
 * See Meyer, " Introduction to Acts," p. 5. 
 
 f Bishop Lightfoot, Excursus on St. Paul and the Three in 
 his Commentary on Galatians, p. 184. This Excursus refutes 
 Baur's position that the Church of the second century was Ebi- 
 onite, and not catholic. See especially pp. 172, 173.
 
 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. 83 
 
 former is an inexplicable enigma." And when Baur 
 was dying, his pantheism broke down, and, though he 
 had looked upon the idea of a personal God with con- 
 tempt, he prayed to the personal God to grant him a 
 peaceful end. " Lord, grant me a peaceful end." 
 
 And Christianity abides, the Tubingen critics * to the 
 
 * As to the later phases of this Tubingen criticism Dr. Schaff 
 says : While some pupils of Baur (Strauss and Volkmar) have 
 gone even beyond his positions, others make concessions to the 
 traditional views. [The change in Baur's own mind has already 
 been mentioned.] Holtzmann, Reuss, Weizsacker, and Keim 
 have modified and corrected many of the extreme views of the 
 Tubingen school. Even Hilgenfield, with all his zeal for " Fort- 
 schrittstheologie " (progressive theology) and against "Riick- 
 schrittstheologie " (retrogressive theology), admits seven instead 
 of four Pauline Epistles, assigns an earlier date to the synoptical 
 Gospels and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and says : " It cannot 
 be denied that Baur's criticism went beyond the bounds of 
 moderation, and inflicted too deep wounds on the faith of the 
 Church." Renan admits nine Pauline Epistles, the essential 
 genuineness of Acts, and even the narrative portions of John's 
 Gospel. Schenkel (in his Christusbild der Apostel, 1879) con- 
 siderably moderates the antagonism between Petrinism and 
 Paulinism, and confesses that he has been " forced to the con- 
 viction that the Acts of the Apostles is a more trustworthy 
 source of information than is commonly allowed on the part of 
 modern criticism." Keim, in 1878, a year before his death, came 
 to a similar conclusion, and proves in opposition to Baur, Schweg- 
 ler, and Zeller, yet from the stand-point of liberal criticism and 
 allowing later additions, the substantial harmony between the 
 Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians as regards the apostolic 
 conference at Jerusalem.
 
 84 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 contrary notwithstanding, and calmly survives this cun- 
 ningly devised form of assault, as it has survived a thou- 
 sand others. Now, as when Jesus spoke to Saul, it is 
 hard for men to kick against the goads. Christianity 
 does not suffer. It is only the men who kick that suffer. 
 And as the possibilities of hostile assault are gradually 
 exhausted, the Christian may say with ever-deepening 
 
 confidence : 
 
 " Should all the forms that men devise 
 
 Assault my faith with treach'rous art, 
 I'd call them vanity and lies, 
 And bind the gospel to my heart." 
 
 While there are thus signs of disintegration in the ranks of 
 destructive criticism, the historic truth and genuineness of the 
 New Testament writings have found learned and able defenders 
 from different stand-points, such as Neander, Dorner, Ebrard, 
 Lechler, Lange, Hoffman (of Erlangen), Luthardt, Christlieb, 
 Weiss, Godet, de Pressens6, and among Englishmen and Ameri- 
 cans, Lightfoot, Westcott, Plumptre, Sanday, Farrar, G. P. Fisher 
 Ezra Abbott. " Church History," Vol. I., pp. 211, 212.
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS: 
 John Chrysostom. 
 
 THE fourth century was one of the most remarkable 
 in the history of the Christian Church. Its intellectual 
 activity is a marvel. Until we reach the period of the 
 Eeformation, or at least until we reach the period of 
 scholasticism, we may in vain search elsewhere for so 
 many eminent names. In the West, for example, we at 
 this time find Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine three 
 of the four great Doctors of the Latin Church ; and in 
 the East, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Greg- 
 ory Nyssen, and John Chrysostom, all of whom occupy 
 an equally unrivaled eminence among the Greeks. We 
 have here another illustration of the general law ac- 
 cording to which great men come into the world, not 
 singly, but in groups. 
 
 Concerning the last mentioned of these Fathers, whom 
 the Homilies of the English Church call "that godly 
 clerk and great preacher," I wish to write as briefly as 
 the fertility of the theme will allow. The title of Chrys- 
 ostom, or Gold-mouth, by which alone he is known in 
 history, was not given him for at least a hundred years 
 after his death. His real name was simply John. He 
 was born at Antioch in Syria not earlier than A.D. 343, 
 nor later than 347, but the exact date is not known.
 
 86 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 His father, Secundus, a distinguished officer in the im- 
 perial army, died while he was yet an infant, and his 
 whole rearing and training was devolved upon his pious 
 mother, Anthusa. She was equal to the task, and dis- 
 charged it with the most scrupulous fidelity. Left a 
 widow at the age of twenty, in a generation on which 
 all moral obligations sat lightly, she was noted down to 
 the day of her death for her reverent regard for the 
 memory of her husband, and her tender devotion to the 
 interests of her son. Along with Macrina and Nona and 
 Monica she shares the high honor of having been one of 
 the "great mothers" of the early Church. Chrysos- 
 tom himself informs us that when he began to attend 
 the lectures of Libanius, his master inquired who and 
 what his parents were ; and on being told that he was 
 the son of a widow who, at the age of forty, had lost her 
 husband twenty years, he exclaimed in a tone of min- 
 gled jealousy and admiration : " Heavens ! what women 
 these Christians have ! " 
 
 When this incident took place John was eighteen 
 years old. His object in entering the school of Libanius 
 was to prepare himself to bo an advocate in the law 
 courts. He here became so well acquainted with the 
 best Greek authors, both in prose and poetry, that in 
 later life ho could always quote them with ease when he 
 wished to "point an argument or adorn a moral." He 
 was also carefully drilled in oratory, and, from the be- 
 ginning, showed that he possessed the highest ability as 
 a speaker. One of his first rhetorical efforts, a panegyric
 
 THE PEINCE OP PREACHERS: JOHN CHRY808TOM. 87 
 
 on Constantino and his sons, won unstinted praise from 
 Libanius. His entrance upon his chosen profession was 
 marked by every sign of a successful career. Fame and 
 fortune were both before him. Stephens says : " The 
 law was at that time the great avenue to civil distinc- 
 tion. The amount of litigation was enormous. One 
 hundred and fifty advocates were required for the court 
 of the Pretorian Prefect of the East alone. The display 
 of talent in the law courts frequently obtained for a man 
 the government of a province, whence the road was 
 open to those higher dignities of Vice-prefect, Prefect, 
 Patrician, and Consul." 
 
 But as John was nearing twenty-three years of age he 
 suddenly underwent a great change an out-and-out and 
 most radical conversion. The faithful religious instruc- 
 tion which he had received from childhood, and the ex- 
 traordinary influence exerted upon him by his intimate 
 friend Basil, now brought forth their legitimate fruit. 
 Half-way measures did not satisfy him. He not only 
 forswore his sins, renounced the theater, and gave up all 
 other worldly diversions, but he also abandoned the law, 
 received baptism at the hands of Bishop Meletius, who 
 had recently returned from exile, and was appointed to 
 the semi-clerical office of reader in the Church. In fact, 
 had it not been for the urgent and affectionate plead- 
 ings of his mother, he would at once have become a 
 monk. When every other argument had failed her, she 
 seated him on the very bed on which she had borne him, 
 reminded him of all that she had done and suffered for
 
 88 DISCUSSIONS IN THfcOLOGV. 
 
 his sake, and, with tears in her eyes, besought him not 
 to make her for a second time a widow by withdraw- 
 ing from her home. Let us quote her very words as he 
 has reported them to us : "I was not long permitted to 
 enjoy the virtue of thy father, my child : so it seemed 
 good to God. My travail-pangs at your birth were 
 quickly succeeded by his death, bringing orphanhood 
 upon thee, and upon me an untimely widowhood, which 
 only those who have experienced them can fairly under- 
 stand. For no description can approach the reality of 
 that storm and tempest which is undergone by her who, 
 having but lately issued from her father's home, and 
 being unskilled in the ways of the world, is suddenly 
 plunged into grief insupportable, and compelled to en- 
 dure anxieties too great for her sex and age. ... I 
 implore you this one favor only not to make me a 
 second time a widow, or to revive the grief which time 
 has lulled. Wait for my death ; perhaps I shall soon be 
 gone. When you have committed my body to the 
 ground, and mingled my bones with your father's bones, 
 then you will be free to embark on any sea you please." 
 Being naturally of an affectionate disposition, John could 
 not resist the force of such words; he yielded. At 
 the same time, and as a sort of offset to this action, he 
 insisted on subjecting himself to the most rigid asceti- 
 cism, putting on coarse garments, sleeping on the hard 
 floor, eating only the plainest food and that at long inter- 
 vals, and giving up his days and nights to incessant prayer. 
 In this " amateur monasticism " he was joined by three
 
 fcHE PRINCE OF PREACHERS: JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 89 
 
 other young friends Basil, Maximus, and Theodore 
 the four putting themselves under the superintendence 
 of Diodorus, and living by rule, much as Wesley and the 
 first Methodists did at Oxford. 
 
 When John was somewhere between twenty-five and 
 twenty-eight years of age he was singled out for ordina- 
 tion to one of the vacant bishoprics of Syria. A like 
 honor was thrust upon his friend Basil. After confer- 
 ence together, they agreed to accept the preferment and 
 submit to ordination. But John doubted his own fitness 
 for the work, and evaded his promise in a most unmanly 
 way. The defense which he subsequently undertook to 
 make of his conduct exhibits a certain suppleness of 
 conscience and a sort of Oriental freedom in dealing 
 with the truth, which are all the more amazing in a man 
 whose character is in most respects so lofty. 
 
 Not long afterward, his mother probably having died, 
 he carried out his original intention, and retired for six 
 years to a rugged mountain on the south of Antioch, 
 where, first in company with a single monk, and after- 
 ward in absolute solitude, he sought to subdue the flesh 
 and to lead an "angelical life." The rigid fasting that 
 he practiced, the loss of sleep from which he suffered, 
 and the terrible cold to which he was often exposed, 
 broke down his constitution and sowed the seeds of 
 those diseases which finally compelled him to return to 
 his home, and which afflicted him for the rest of his life. 
 I cannot stop here to discuss at any length the moral 
 quality of these excesses. It is enough to say that the
 
 90 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 whole conception of Christianity from which they spring 
 finds no warrant in the New Testament. Let us remem- 
 ber, however, in charity to Chrysostom, that it is hard for 
 a man to escape from the spirit of the age in which he 
 lives; and let us not forget that in the fourth century 
 there was an almost universal admission of the theory 
 that monasticism is the highest reach of religion. 
 
 Scarcely had John re-entered Antioch, when, at the 
 earnest solicitation of Meletius, he was ordained deacon. 
 This office he occupied for five years, enlarging mean- 
 time the scope of his knowledge, pursuing his work as 
 an author, and winning favor with the people by his 
 sanctity and by his diligence. As he approached his 
 fortieth year, having reached the full maturity of his 
 affluent intellectual energy, he was ordained elder by 
 the new bishop, Flavian, and appointed to preach in the 
 Cathedral Church. He had at last found his vocation. 
 That he did not find it sooner is a marvel. Probably no 
 man ever lived who possessed more of the elements of 
 a great popular preacher. " His personal appearance 
 was dignified, but not imposing. His stature was dimin- 
 utive, his limbs long, and so much emaciated by early 
 austerities and habitual self-denial that he compares 
 himself to a spider. His forehead was very lofty and 
 furrowed with wrinkles, expanding very widely at the 
 summit ; his head bald ; his eyes deeply set, but keen 
 and piercing; his cheeks pallid and withered; his chin 
 pointed, and covered with a short beard." He was not 
 specially profound, and he lacked the usual subtility of
 
 THE PRINCE OP PREACHERS: JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 91 
 
 the Greek race ; but he had vivid intuitions, a bright im- 
 agination, fervid sensibilities, fluent utterance, and an 
 intensely earnest and practical purpose. As we have 
 already said, his knowledge of Greek literature was 
 extensive, and he was perfectly at home in the sacred 
 Scriptures. The technical instruction, moreover, which 
 Libanius had given him in the composition and delivery 
 of discourses now proved to be of great use. With his 
 first sermon, in spite of its glaring rhetoric, he captured 
 the city, and for ten years held it a willing prisoner by 
 his eloquence. During this whole time he occupied the 
 pulpit on Saturday and Sunday of each week, besides 
 officiating daily during Lent and other Church festivals ; 
 but his audiences never grew weary of him. Whenever 
 he appeared the multitudes flocked to hear him, submit- 
 ted themselves to the gentle fascination of his speech, 
 and often broke out into rapturous applause at the beau- 
 ty and power of his periods. It was a great grief to 
 him that the same people who clapped their hands when 
 he had said a specially good thing in the Church often 
 went away and gave no further heed to his words. The 
 incessant praise that was heaped upon him did not turn 
 his head. He knew its utter emptiness, protested against 
 it, and, in language that reminds us of Frederick Robert- 
 son, bewailed the fact that his preaching did not yield 
 more substantial fruit. 
 
 To the year 387 belong his twenty-four sermons on 
 the Statues. " They constitute the most remarkable se- 
 ries of homilies delivered by him, containing his grandest
 
 92 DISCUSSIONS IN TtitiOLOGV. 
 
 oratorical flights, and evincing most strikingly his pow- 
 er over the minds and passions of men." The circum- 
 stances under which they were delivered were as follows : 
 The Emperor Theodosius the Great, being about to cel- 
 ebrate the successful termination of the first decade of 
 his reign, had demanded of the city of Antioch, as well 
 as of other provincial capitals, an enormous subsidy to 
 be used as a donative to the army. This demand was 
 met at first with murmurs of discontent, and then with 
 loud outcries of resistance. Nothing is so foolish as an 
 excited populace. In utter forgetfulness of the certain 
 consequences of their conduct, a great concourse of citi- 
 zens gathered together, attacked the Pretorium, ran- 
 sacked the public baths, and ended by tearing down the 
 statues of Theodosius and his deceased wife, Flaccilla' 
 which had been set up in various parts of the city. 
 Scarcely had they finished their work, when, realizing 
 what they had done, they were seized with a terrible 
 panic. Of a sudden all business ceased, the theaters 
 were closed, the streets almost deserted. The cruel and 
 resentful nature of Theodosius was well known. Three 
 years later, in a spasm of anger, he let loose his soldiers 
 upon the defenseless citizens of Thessalonica for a much 
 less serious offense. While the public mind was in this 
 state of suspense, the officers of the government, present- 
 ly re-enforced by two special commissioners from Con- 
 stantinople, began to arrest and punish all who were 
 known to be connected with the riot, and to subject to 
 the most terrible tortures even those who were only sus-
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS: JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 93 
 
 pected of having been implicated in it. It was rumored 
 and really feared that the emperor meditated burning 
 down the city, and giving over the inhabitants en masse 
 to the tender mercies of the army. 
 
 In such an emergency, what could be done ? All eyes 
 turned to the aged Bishop Flavian, who responded most 
 nobly to appeals of his distressed fellow-citizens. Tear- 
 ing himself from the bedside of a dying sister, he has- 
 tened to Constantinople to intercede for mercy. In the 
 meantime, Chrysostom rose to the height of the occa- 
 sion. The extraordinary circumstances gave him a 
 grand opportunity to deliver a message to the people, 
 and he used it well. Every day he was in the pulpit, 
 instructing, reproving, warning, and comforting the 
 dense throngs that crowded to hear him. It was of 
 these discourses that a learned modern preacher said : 
 " It is worth while learning to read Greek to be able to 
 peruse them in the original." At last, near the end of 
 the fourth week, Flavian returned, bearing the glad ti- 
 dings of a full amnesty. Eelieved of the pressure of anx- 
 iety, giddy and fickle Antioch, most giddy and fickle 
 perhaps of all the Greek cities of the empire, swung 
 back into its old ways, and went on in the mad pursuit 
 of pleasure, as if there were no other end in human life. 
 
 Chrysostom escaped the episcopacy in his youth, but 
 it caught him unawares in his old age. He had reached 
 fifty, and was still riding the topmost wave of populari- 
 ty in Antioch, when Nectarius, the Bishop of Constanti- 
 nople, died. There was a large and importunate pack
 
 94 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of aspirants for the vacant place, which was practically 
 at the disposal of Eutropius, a miserable eunuch who had 
 managed to push himself up from the position of a slave 
 into that of prime minister to Arcadius, the son and suc- 
 cessor in the East of Theodosius the Great. The usual 
 method of Eutropius was to dispose of all offices in the 
 Church and State to the highest bidder; but for some 
 reasons, which it is not worth while to try to find out, 
 he now turned away from the clamorous candidates, and 
 resolved that Chrysostom, whom he had heard on a re- 
 cent visit to Antioch, should be the bishop of the capital. 
 To accomplish this end, both secrecy and force were nec- 
 essary. It was divined that Chrysostom himself would 
 be averse to it; and that the people of Antioch, who 
 prized him as they would have prized a notably good 
 charioteer, for the fame he brought to their city, did not 
 want to give him up. He was therefore invited to be 
 present at some special services at the tomb of a martyr 
 outside the city walls ; and while there he was seized by 
 an imperial officer, placed under guard, and hurried off 
 on an overland journey of more than eight hundred 
 miles to Constantinople. 
 
 As further resistance would have been useless, he qui- 
 etly submitted to ordination, and entered with the ut- 
 most zeal upon the duties of his office. For a time it 
 seemed as if his influence at Constantinople was to sur- 
 pass that which he had exercised at Antioch. From the 
 emperor and the empress down to the humblest citizen, 
 everybody was his eulogist. The empress, in particular,
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS: JOHN CHRY80STOM. 95 
 
 spared no pains to do him honor, and went to exagger- 
 ated lengths for the purpose of impressing him with the 
 belief that she was a devout and earnest Christian. One 
 of her freaks was a vast torch-light procession, in which 
 were carried the relics of some martyrs to the martyry 
 of St. Thomas, situated at a considerable distance out- 
 side of the city. The procession reached its destination 
 just as day was dawning. Chrysostom at once mounted 
 the pulpit, and pronounced an almost ecstatic sermon. 
 Here is a sample of it : " What shall I say ? I am verily 
 mad with joy ; yet such a madness is better than even 
 wisdom itself. Of what shall I most discourse? the virt- 
 ue of the martyrs, the alacrity of the city, the zeal of 
 the empress, the concourse of the nobles, the worsting 
 of the demons ? Women, more delicate than wax, leav- 
 ing their comfortable homos, emulated the stoutest men 
 in the eagerness with which they made this long pil- 
 grimage on foot. Nobles, leaving their chariots, their 
 lictors, their attendants, mingled in the common crowd. 
 And why speak of them when she who wears the dia- 
 dem and is arrayed in purple has not consented along 
 the whole route to be separated from the rest oven by a 
 little space, but has followed the saints like their hand- 
 maid, with her finger upon the shrine and upon the veil 
 covering it she, visible to the whole multitude, whom 
 not even all the chamberlains of the palace are usually 
 permitted to see ? " 
 
 This was a brilliant beginning; but a prophet might 
 have foretold that it could not last. It was inevitable
 
 96 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 that the new bishop would make many enemies. The 
 best of his biographers says: "His genius was* not of 
 that practical order which displays itself in great dis- 
 cernment of character and tact in the management of 
 men; and his virtues were of that austere kind, joined 
 to a certain irritability of temper and inflexibility of 
 will, which were ill calculated to first conciliate, and then 
 delicately lead on to a purer way of life the immature 
 flock committed to his care." His first work was to 
 discipline his clergy most rigidly; he deposed numbers 
 of them from office for dishonesty, adultery, homicide, 
 and other such shameless crimes. Thoroughly a monk 
 at heart, he despised the magnificent style in which his 
 predecessor had lived, and sold for the benefit of the 
 poor the costly carpets and plate with which the Epis- 
 copal residence had been furnished. Averse to all socie- 
 ty, and especially to that of the rich and the great, he 
 gave no splendid banquets to the laity, and attended 
 none, but ate his frugal meal in solitude and silence. 
 Afflicted with disordered nerves and a deranged diges- 
 tion, he frequently lost his temper and forgot the value 
 of gentle speech and conciliatory methods in the accom- 
 plishment of his aims. Living the life of a recluse, he 
 depended too much on his archdeacon, Serapion, for in- 
 formation as to current events. This worthy was the 
 narrowest of narrow ecclesiastics, a born absolutist, a 
 believer in authority, and in nothing else. He once said 
 to Chrysostom : " You will never subdue these mutinous 
 priests, my Lord Bishop, till you drive them all before
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS : JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 97 
 
 you as with a single rod." Such advice, if followed, can 
 be productive of only one result. For a time violent 
 and repressive measures may succeed ; but they end al- 
 ways in resistance and reaction. It is not strange that 
 Chrysostom found himself confronted with multiplying 
 antagonisms. 
 
 In the year 401 he made an episcopal visitation of the 
 province of Asia Minor, and, assuming a questionable 
 metropolitan power, degraded numerous unworthy bish- 
 ops from their sees. This, of course, did not make him 
 popular. In his absence from home, moreover, he had 
 intrusted one of his suffragan bishops, Severian of Gab- 
 ala, with the discharge of his ordinary duties. This 
 prelate, unmindful of his position as a Christian minis- 
 ter and of the sacred obligations of friendship, used the 
 opportunity to promote his own interests, and to alien- 
 ate the minds of Arcadius and his wife, Eudoxia, from 
 Chrysostom. A violent scene followed on Chrysostom's 
 return. As soon as he became aware of the facts, and 
 without the slightest mixture of prudence or worldly 
 wisdom, he arraigned Severian from his pulpit as a flat- 
 terer and a parasite, and even spoke the sharpest things 
 of Eudoxia herself, his mind evidently having undergone 
 a complete change as to her character. The only strange 
 thing is that he did not correctly measure her at a much 
 earlier date ; for, notwithstanding her excessive religious- 
 ness, the flagrant and almost public licentiousness of 
 which she was guilty justly exposed her to the severest 
 criticism. Preaching on a text taken from the history 
 7
 
 98 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of Elijah, he exclaimed : " Gather together to me those 
 base priests that eat at Jezebel's table, that I may say to 
 them, as Elijah of old, ' How long halt ye between two 
 opinions ? If Jezebel's table be the table of the Lord, 
 eat at it; eat at it till you vomit.' " The allusion was 
 too plain to be misunderstood. He had not spoken for 
 the purpose of being misunderstood. He had called the 
 empress Jezebel. Affront could go no further. She at 
 once resolved to be revenged ; and with a woman's un- 
 dying persistency she did not stop till her resolution had 
 been carried into effect. 
 
 An opportunity was not long wanting. It came about 
 in this way. The latter part of the fourth century was 
 agitated by a controversy concerning the orthodoxy of 
 Origen, who had been dead for one hundred and forty 
 years. On this subject, the Egyptian Church in partic- 
 ular was divided into two hostile factions. Theophilus, 
 the Patriarch of Alexandria, was at first an ardent Or- 
 igenist, but afterward, for purely selfish and personal 
 reasons, swung round to the other side. The monks of 
 the Nitrian desert, on the upper courses of the Nile, 
 among whom " the four tall brothers " were the most 
 eminent, were steadfastly devoted to the teaching and 
 the memory of the great allegorizing father. These 
 monks Theophilus treated with the most barbarous 
 cruelty, showing the proverbial zeal of a pervert in the 
 work of persecution. Not satisfied with using ecclesi- 
 astical weapons, he sent soldiers among them, who broke 
 up their monasteries, put many of them to death, and
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS: JOHN CHRYS08TOM. 99 
 
 dispersed the rest in every direction. "The four tall 
 brothers," accompanied by fifty followers, fled to Con- 
 stantinople, where, not so much from agreement with 
 their views as from sympathy with their misfortunes, 
 Chrysostom befriended them. Theophilus raised a howl 
 of indignation. He had bitterly opposed the appoint- 
 ment of Chrysostom in the first place, and had all along 
 cherished a secret grudge against him. The monks ap- 
 pealed to the civil authorities for protection, and the 
 affair took a tortuous course ; but at last, by decree of 
 the emperor, a synod was called to settle it, and The- 
 ophilus was summoned to be present. Accompanied by 
 a long train of Egyptian sailors, who were ready to use 
 their rough fists in defense of his orthodoxy, and loaded 
 with treasures to be used as bribes, he put in his appear- 
 ance three weeks in advance of the session. With great 
 skill he had already enlisted in his cause the aged Epi- 
 phanius, Bishop of Salamis, who was everywhere much 
 revered a bigoted but honest man, and the spiritual 
 progenitor of the whole tribe of heresy hunters and he 
 left no stone unturned to secure the good-will of all 
 other influential persons who came within his reach. 
 
 To escape the possible violence of a mob in Constan- 
 tinople, the synod met at a place called the Oak, not far 
 from the city of Chalcedon, on the other side of the bay. 
 The original question was largely lost sight of, and a 
 series of twenty-nine charges was preferred against 
 Chrysostom. They ranged up and down the scale of 
 enormity. One of them was that ho had eaten a lozenge
 
 100 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 immediately after communion ; and another, that he had 
 used treasonable language against the empress. Of the 
 forty bishops present, all but seven were Egyptians, and 
 even the most of these seven were the personal enemies 
 of Chrysostom. Of course he denied their jurisdiction, 
 refused to appear before them or to recognize them in 
 any way, and called a counter-assembly of sixty bishops 
 at Constantinople. Right and justice were on his side, 
 but power was against him. Theophilus knew that 
 Eudoxia would leap at a chance to ruin her hated en- 
 emy. He, therefore, proceeded with indecent haste to 
 finish his work, pronounced Chrysostom deposed, and 
 asked the emperor to carry out the decree. 
 
 But the crafty are often taken in their own craftiness. 
 As soon as the news reached the friends of Chrysostom, 
 who were almost as numerous as the middle and lower 
 classes of the city, they rose up in resistance, and for 
 three days guarded the episcopal residence. A single 
 word from him would have produced an open rebellion, 
 but he counseled peace; and, at length, to forestall the 
 possibility of bloodshed, he stole out through the ranks 
 of his friends and gave himself up to the officers of the 
 emperor, and was transported across the bay. On that 
 very night there was a great earthquake. The super- 
 stitious empress accepted it as an omen of divine dis- 
 pleasure. God himself so it appeared to her was 
 interfering in behalf of his persecuted and outraged 
 servant. With a sudden revulsion of feeling, she threw 
 herself at her husband's feet, and asked for the recall of
 
 THE PRINCE OP PEEACHER8 : JOHN CHRY808TOM. 101 
 
 Chrysostom. Her request was at once granted. The 
 tidings of this fact rapidly spread abroad, and the surg- 
 ing populace turned out to meet and greet him on his 
 return. By night-fall the whole Hellespont was alive 
 with the barges and ablaze with the welcoming torches 
 of his friends. When the shore was reached they raised 
 him, against his will, upon their shoulders, carried him to 
 the church, and forced him to make an extemporaneous 
 speech, the character of which may be judged from one 
 of its opening sentences : " O noble flock, in the shep- 
 herd's absence ye have put the wolves to flight." He 
 would have been either less or more than human if he 
 had not been moved by such a display of the esteem in 
 which he was held. This was in the summer of 403. 
 
 Several months passed away. There was a sort of 
 armistice, but no peace. Eudoxia, as soon as her spasm 
 of superstitious fear had abated, again nursed her wrath, 
 and bided her chance. Inflamed with a mad and foolish 
 ambition, she caused a costly statue of herself to be 
 erected on a lofty porphyry pillar in front of the church 
 of St. Sophia. The unveiling of this statue was accom- 
 panied with the most unbounded revelry, the noise of 
 which even penetrated into the church and disturbed 
 the services. Chrysostom took fire. It was the day of 
 John the Baptist, and the sermon was in harmony with 
 the season. "Again," said the fearless bishop, " Horodias 
 is mad; again she rages; again she demands the head 
 of John upon a charger." After such an utterance as 
 this compromise was impossible. The signal of war had
 
 102 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 been given, and the enemies of the great preacher, drawn 
 together by the common and inextinguishable hatred 
 which they bore him, flocked into the capital from all 
 directions. A new council, carefully packed by the cun- 
 ning manipulation of Theophilus, though he himself re- 
 mained away, was speedily convened. It decreed that 
 the original deposition of Chrysostom by the synod of 
 the Oak was still valid, and that he was, therefore, guilty 
 of the additional sin of contumacy in continuing to per- 
 form the functions of his office in violation of the canons 
 of the Church. To carry out this decree, the interposi- 
 tion of the emperor was once more demanded. After 
 some temporizing, on Easter evening of 404, an armed 
 band of imperial soldiers, many of whom were pagans, 
 broke into the great church, where three thousand cate- 
 chumens were awaiting baptism, dispersed the congre- 
 gation with much bloodshed, and pursued them with 
 cruel rage through the streets. But they did not suc- 
 ceed in capturing Chrysostom. He was taken under 
 the protection of his zealous adherents, who showed so 
 formidable front that the emperor did not dare to renew 
 the attempt to lay violent hands upon him. Things 
 went so till June. 
 
 Once more the magnanimity of Chrysostom' s nature 
 displayed itself. He foresaw that there was likely to be 
 a terrible conflict, and, to avert such a catastrophe, he 
 resolved to surrender himself voluntarily to the malice 
 of his enemies. What followed is enough to make one's 
 blood boil even after the lapse of fifteen centuries. He
 
 THE PRINCE OF PEEACHEBS : JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. 103 
 
 was put under a military guard, and, though it was in the 
 heat of midsummer, he was hurried on for seventy days 
 without comforts, over the worst of roads, through the 
 most desolate of countries, to the little village of Cucusus, 
 in Lower Armenia. Of the awful sufferings that he en- 
 dured from heat and cold, from hunger and fatigue, from 
 weakness and disease, during the three years of his stay 
 at this place, I have not space to write. Even in this 
 remote region, however, he met with unexpected kind- 
 ness. One of the best houses was thrown open to him. 
 His flock at Constantinople and his former parishioners 
 at Antioch sent him supplies of money, the most of 
 which he nobly used for other purposes than to supply 
 his own wants. Letters of sympathy reached him from 
 all quarters. Leo the Great, of Rome, not only wrote 
 to him in the most brotherly spirit, but took up his 
 cause, and demanded his restoration. It is one of the 
 wonderful chapters of history that this bent and broken 
 old man, though geographically isolated from the world, 
 should have continued to be an object of affectionate re- 
 gard to many thousands of people, and should have 
 wielded an influence equal to that of any bishop in 
 Christendom. 
 
 At Constantinople his friends and adherents were sub- 
 jected to many indignities, men and women being im- 
 prisoned, tortured, and even put to death for no other rea- 
 son than their loyalty to him. Into his office was thrust 
 an old man of eighty years, Arsacius, whom Palladius 
 affirms to have been "as mute as a fish, and as incapable
 
 104 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as a frog." Against Chrysostom himself, also, still further 
 steps were taken. In 407 orders were given that he 
 should be removed to Pityus, on the north-eastern corner 
 of the Black Sea, the limit in that direction of the em- 
 pire. The whole distance of several hundred miles was 
 required to be traveled on foot, and the two soldiers who 
 accompanied$him as guards were given to understand 
 that they would be suitably rewarded if their prisoner 
 died on the way. Only the shortest delays were made. 
 The better towns, where good food could be procured, 
 were avoided, and lodgings were taken in the poorest vil- 
 lages. It could not be expected that Chrysostom would 
 bear up under such a strain. He himself did not expect 
 it. Prematurely aged (he was less than seventy), racked 
 with disease, enfeebled by a thousand cares, he broke 
 down at Comana, before the sea was reached. The end 
 was pathetic beyond measure. He begged his guards to 
 allow him to rest till eleven o'clock, but they rudely 
 pushed him forward. Even to them, however, it soon 
 became apparent that he could go no farther, and so 
 they permitted him to return. When he knew that he 
 was dying he begged to be carried into the little church, 
 and having given away his own garments to the spec- 
 tators, he requested to be clothed in the white bap- 
 tismal robes. After this he received the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper and expired, repeating with his latest 
 breath the saying that had so often before been on his 
 lips: "Glory be to God for all things!" Thirty-one 
 years later, when Proclus, one of his disciples, had be-
 
 THE PRINCE OF PREACHERS : JOHN CHRY80STOM. 105 
 
 come bishop at Constantinople, his remains were taken 
 up and translated with great pomp to that city. In less 
 than one hundred years the whole Church, Greek and 
 Latin, had learned to reverence him as a saint. So it 
 ever is. One generation murders the prophets, and the 
 next garnishes their tombs. " It is a sad story, so often 
 repeated in history, of goodness and greatness unrecog- 
 nized, slighted, injured, cut short in a career of useful- 
 ness by one generation abundantly, but too late, ac- 
 knowledged in the next ; when posterity, paying to the 
 memory and the tomb the honors which should have 
 been bestowed on the living man, can only utter the re- 
 morseful prayer : 
 
 ' His saltern accumulem donis, et fungar inani 
 Munere. . . .'" 
 
 I have said nothing of Chrysostom as a theologian. 
 On the Trinitarian question he was an orthodox Atha- 
 nasian, though it is probable that if he had lived a 
 quarter of a century later he would have leaned toward 
 Nestorianism. In common with all the great men of 
 the Greek Church, he differed from Augustine and the 
 leading Latin divines in regard to the freedom of the 
 human will, and held to a synergism in the whole proc- 
 ess of salvation. As an exegete and a commentator, he 
 set the type for many successors, adopting the gram- 
 matical and historical method of the school of Antioch, 
 instead of the allegorizing fancies of Origen and the 
 Alexandrians. His works, including nearly one thou- 
 sand sermons, fill thirteen folio volumes of Migne's Pa-
 
 106 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 trology. The two best biographies available to the En- 
 glish student are that of Neander (translated from the 
 German, and published by Harper & Brothers) and that 
 of Eev. "W. E. W. Stephens. The last mentioned work 
 was published by John Murray, London, 1872, but has 
 not yet been reprinted in this country. There is also 
 an excellent sketch in Dr. Smith's " Dictionary of Chris- 
 tian Biography," and a more than ordinarily satisfactory 
 outline in the respective histories of Milman, Neander, 
 Grieseler, and Schaff.
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILU- 
 VIAN PATRIARCHS, 
 
 Accordingtothe Hebrew Narrative in Genesis. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 OUR subject leads us to view faiths, not theories ; to 
 study them in narratives, not in theologies. The literary 
 forms in which these narratives are presented, beautiful 
 and fascinating as they are, have no claim upon our at- 
 tention in our present investigation except so far as they 
 enshrine the faiths. We seek not to study the edifice, 
 but the indwelling powers. Therefore we shall pass by 
 much which the curious questioner might wish to have 
 treated, and shall fail to notice much that some might 
 regard essential. We would allege in each case as ex- 
 cuse that our plan of treatment required none of these 
 things. 
 
 It is not to present a theology, nor a part of a the- 
 ology, which is our assumed task. We shall study faiths, 
 connected at first not with theological systems, but with 
 living men ; the faiths which Adam and Eve held ; Abel, 
 Cain, and Lamech knew; Enoch and Noah obeyed. 
 These faiths are the earliest faiths of the human heart, 
 and so constitute the great significance of these ear- 
 liest personages to the Hebrew ; they are, therefore, the
 
 108 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 chiefest glory of these patriarchs in the mind of after 
 ages. Other nations remembered only heroes who were 
 great in deeds, but the Hebrews cherished those who 
 were great in faiths. And these earliest worthies among 
 the Hebrews stand as light-towers, flashing forth faiths 
 that illumined the human heart when man directed first 
 his thoughts toward God. Briefly, then, we may sum up 
 the purpose in these investigations as a study of the 
 faiths of those who first worshiped Jehovah. These 
 faiths were the guiding faiths of their lives. They are, 
 therefore, very attractive ; yet not attractive alone, but 
 unutterably precious, since the faiths which once gave 
 light to the human heart, as it felt out in darkness after 
 God, may be ever accounted helpful to those who come 
 after, and must be so, if these faiths be a part of Eevela- 
 tion. 
 
 Our method of presentation will be simple. We will 
 treat only of the faiths of the antediluvian patriarchs. 
 There are two classes of these : those learned in Eden, 
 and those uttered after the expulsion from Eden and be- 
 fore the flood. 
 
 FAITHS TAUGHT IN EDEN. 
 
 First Faith. God is Creator, man the creature likest 
 him. 
 
 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
 
 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when 
 they were created ; in the day when Jehovah God made the 
 heavens and the earth. 
 
 These passages furnish the statement of the earliest 
 belief in God as the Creator, if we confine ourselves to
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 109 
 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. The same creative act is attrib- 
 uted, in the two passages, to God and also to Jehovah 
 God. The two names, then, refer to the same personal 
 being. The account of the creation of the heavens and 
 the earth, as portrayed in the first chapter of Genesis, 
 is simple, is sublime. It has ever awakened wonder in 
 the human mind by its beauty and comprehensiveness. 
 A study of the record of creation, as preserved in nature, 
 brings to light remarkable resemblances to this record of 
 Scripture. Many regard both accounts identical in all 
 essentials. Yet not merely to teach us the order of the 
 creative work of God was this record of creation kept, 
 but to make us aware of that fundamental faith in God 
 which was earliest with the human race, and without 
 which there could be no sure ground for faith in Jehovah 
 God. It is therefore, for our purpose, simply a side issue 
 to inquire here whether the creative day and the geolog- 
 ical period are interchangeable terms ; also whether the 
 work in a creative day and a geological period is iden- 
 tical. The primary questions are whether in this record 
 of Scripture God is worthily presented to our minds, and 
 also whether the presentation has fact at its basis. 
 
 Notice the stupendous and amazing character of the 
 Creator's works. The silent stars of the night, innumer- 
 able in number, immeasurable in distance, were made by 
 God. The vast waters, swarming with countless forms 
 of life, rising in their rage into resistless sublime powers, 
 were made by God. The fruitful earth, declaring plan 
 and pin-pose in every plant, and dazzling the mind with
 
 110 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 its infinite variety of all life, was made by God. Such 
 is the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. Alone He stands 
 in the midst of His works, and their glory declares the 
 incomprehensible majesty of their Creator. The fact of 
 the universe is the basal fact, according to the Hebrews, 
 for belief in God. The unspeakable worthiness of what 
 he made manifests the exalted worthiness of their Maker. 
 The second part of this Hebrew faith, that the creat- 
 ure man is likest God who made him, rests on the fol- 
 lowing passages : 
 
 And God said, 
 
 " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, 
 
 And let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, 
 
 And over the fowl of the heavens and over beasts, 
 
 And over all the earth and over all that creepeth on the earth." 
 
 And Jehovah God said : 
 
 " It is not good that man should be alone, 
 
 I will make for him help like to him." 
 
 Having likeness to God, man possesses fitness for do- 
 minion ; God gives him a domain. Man shall rule over 
 the fish, over the fowl, over the beasts, over the earth. 
 The likeness is found in man's personality. Dominion, 
 the exercise of the power by this person man over other 
 creatures, is but one phase of the activity of this person- 
 ality. If we define all the possibilities of this human 
 personality, then only have we an adequate and com- 
 plete understanding of this likeness. The grandeur of 
 this truth is belittled when we seek to confine it to the 
 limits of certain ethical qualities. Like God in righteous- 
 ness ? yes ; in holiness ? yes ; but still in both attributes of
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIAECH8. Ill 
 
 character we are infinitely less than he. There are, in- 
 deed, other resemblances which combine to constitute 
 this likeness. We may not limit this marvelous state- 
 ment of the Hebrew Scriptures. The likeness of man to 
 his Creator is not limited to any one or any select num- 
 ber of the powers and attributes of personality. Man is 
 like God in possessing all of them. He is unlike God, 
 however, in having the limitations of flesh. 
 
 Beautiful now appears the reciprocal relations be- 
 tween God and man. All that God has made become 
 incentives to call forth the activities of man. God calls 
 into life the luxuriant beauties of the flowers. Man 
 cannot produce them alive save from the seed, but he 
 may cut out their shape in stone, and may even give 
 them their color and form on the canvas. Man receives 
 hints from the works of God, and then creates works of 
 his own. Again, God pours down his " rain on the just 
 and the unjust." Man sees the impartiality of God in 
 caring for the necessities of his creatures, and learns 
 from this likewise to have a provident care over others 
 in matters of necessity. If man was not prompted first 
 by suggestion from God to make provision for the help- 
 less, reflection upon God's doing would teach him that 
 in so acting ho simply follows him whose likeness ho 
 bears. Such is the faith concerning man which the He- 
 brew Scriptures present. "Would we know God ? Then 
 truly know man. Would wo know man? Then truly 
 know God. Advance of reliable knowledge in either 
 realm assures advance in the other.
 
 112 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 It is not too venturesome a claim to affirm that the 
 primary condition for a universal religious faith is the 
 conviction, based on indisputable grounds, that man bears 
 the image of his Maker. Such a condition is met by the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. Its antithesis is found in the pagan 
 world. Man by nature makes God anthropomorphic ; 
 man under revelation seeks to make man Godlike. Man 
 by nature makes for himself a Pantheon, where is rep- 
 resented the deification of every mysterious power which 
 he may behold ; but man through revelation forms for 
 himself scriptures, where God becomes manifest, and 
 man, by beholding, is changed into his likeness. The 
 loving disciple John declares that "we shall be like 
 Him." Christian faith believingly cherishes his con- 
 fident utterance. The oldest hope of the human heart, 
 nourished by revelation, is that we may return to our 
 first estate, that we again may have " the image of God." 
 
 When beholding this magnificent endowment con- 
 ferred on man by his Creator, as recorded in Genesis, 
 we may not be unmindful of the characters which sep- 
 arate man, as he is related to the earth and time, from 
 his Maker. Sex, and all upon which sex is conditioned, 
 differentiates man from God and relates man to the animal 
 world at least. He is denizen of the earth, for from it 
 he was made. All with a conscious nature, dependent 
 upon a physical organism, has relationship to him. But 
 by virtue of his likeness to God he is claimant upon the 
 inhabitants of the skies. The nobler activities which 
 they pursue he is capable of in his degree, and longs to
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 113 
 
 bo participant with them in the noble services and joys. 
 His mortal coil ho will drop, he will associate with all 
 who have the likeness of God; yea, be in communion 
 with God himself, and all this because he was created 
 in the "image of God." Such is the promise enshrined 
 in this first faith of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 Second Faith. Jehovah God, the bountiful Provider, 
 gives man the earliest commandment, revealing at the 
 same time the consequences of disobedience. 
 
 And Jehovah God had made grow out of the ground 
 
 Every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food ; 
 
 And the tree of life is in the midst of the garden, 
 
 And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 
 
 And Jehovah God commanded the rnan, saying, 
 
 " Of every tree of the garden thou mayest eat freely ; 
 
 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 
 
 Thou shalt not eat from it ; 
 
 For in the day thou eatest from it, 
 
 Thou shalt surely die." 
 
 These passages in Genesis presuppose that Jehovah 
 God is known to man as Creator. This knowledge must 
 be presupposed in order that the earliest commandment 
 might have authority. The first faith is the necessary 
 forerunner to this second faith. The Hebrew heart 
 cherished the Creator who was also the bountiful Pro- 
 vider. Jehovah God lovingly cares for the creature 
 man. There is no antagonism hero between God and 
 man, such as heathen mythology and faiths present. 
 Harmony and love prevail. 
 
 Man, according to the Hebrew view, has a physical 
 8
 
 114 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 nature. He is formed from the ground. Every tree in 
 the garden, planted by Jehovah God himself, and grow- 
 ing out of the ground, is food for the nourishment of 
 this physical nature. But man also has a spiritual nat- 
 ure. Jehovah God " breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life." The bountiful, provident Creator must also pro- 
 vide for the nourishment of this spiritual nature. There 
 are two trees in the midst of the garden. It is said that 
 they grew out of the ground. It is said, also, that they 
 are different yea, sacred and must not be touched. 
 How are we to understand this narrative ? The question 
 is old. The Church is by no means a unit in its answer. 
 Any view must be tentatively held. The trend of mean- 
 ing, however, must be essentially the same, whatever be 
 the minor differences, in all views which are in harmony 
 with revealed religion. The narrative is no pretty po- 
 etic fiction; it embodies serious and momentous truth. 
 Here is enshrined the elements of a fundamental relig- 
 ious faith. The exegete must take his facts from the 
 narrative, in the most original form in which it is pre- 
 served. The data for conclusion must be drawn from 
 this source. 
 
 The Hebrew narrative requires that these two trees 
 shall have grown out of the ground. So it must at the 
 outset be conceded that there is no necessity for conclud- 
 ing these trees to be other than veritable trees. Howev- 
 er, no sure ground is thus far obtained to warrant the 
 conclusion that the two trees are not removed to the re- 
 gion of symbols. These trees are defined : one is the
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIAKCHS. 115 
 
 tree of knowledge of good and evil; the other is the 
 tree of life. Such trees cannot appeal to the sense of 
 taste. The tongue cannot taste knowledge. The forbid- 
 den fruit of these trees, then, can be tasted only by 
 mind, by spirit. Yet this tasting by the spirit is condi- 
 tioned on the physical act of tasting. It would seem, 
 therefore, the more reasonable to accept that, when the 
 narrative speaks of eating from the tree of the knowl- 
 edge of good and evil, the language is figurative. The 
 fact knowledge of good and evil is not a physical but 
 a spiritual one. The eating, then, is not a physical but 
 a spiritual process. Choice would be as much present in 
 the spiritual process of eating as in the physical. It 
 would precede. 
 
 There is significance in the fact that whatever is rep- 
 resented here is beheld only at the center of things 
 " in the midst of the garden." Elsewhere it was possi- 
 ble to acquire only the knowledge of good. All that 
 Jehovah God had made was good. One place alone fur- 
 nished the possibility of procuring the knowledge of 
 good and evil. It was at the middle of the garden, the 
 place of prohibition and of loving warning. 
 
 The compound idea good and evil must not be hur- 
 riedly passed. Jehovah God is known to man as Creat- 
 or, bountiful Provider, and loving Admonisher. Man 
 also must know good. Every thing made was good, ac- 
 cording to the judgment of the Creator himself. All 
 that man saw was good. Every judgment upon what 
 ho saw must have been good. Nothing could be looked
 
 116 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 at which was evil, yet it was possible to know good and 
 evil. Jehovah God forewarns man of this possibility, 
 and tells him of the direful consequence which such 
 knowledge would entail. If man made choice contrary 
 to the commandment, he could not thereby erase the 
 knoAvledge of good. The compound idea good and evil 
 would ever witness to him his likeness to God, would 
 ever remind him of his lineage. Yet this very com- 
 pound idea, when once learned through choice, and not 
 as warning, would bo death. 
 
 This second faith, then, teaches us that in the begin- 
 ning Jehovah God was near to man, providing for him, 
 warning him. Man could also be disloyal to him, and 
 so man could die. 
 
 Third Faith. A. personal power, named the serpent, 
 beguiles mankind. 
 
 And he (the serpent) said to the woman : 
 
 " Is it true that God said, 
 
 ' Ye shall not eat from every tree of the garden ? ' " 
 
 And the woman said to the serpent : 
 
 " From every tree of the garden we may eat ; 
 
 But from the fruit of the tree, 
 
 Which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said : 
 
 " ' Not shall ye eat from it, 
 
 And not shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' " 
 
 Then the serpent said to the woman : 
 
 " Ye shall not die, for God knows 
 
 That when ye shall eat from it 
 
 Your eyes shall be opened, 
 
 And ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil." 
 
 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 117 
 
 and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to 
 make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and 
 gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. Then the 
 eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were 
 naked. 
 
 The woman stands before the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil. The tree, as a tree, had fruit thereon. 
 The eating of such fruit would induce no other physical 
 result than the eating of fruit from any other similar 
 tree. But the tree had no special significance through 
 its appeal by means of its fruit to the physical sense of 
 taste. It bore fruit which the physical eye could not 
 see nor the physical tongue taste. This peculiar fruit 
 was desirable " to make one wise." The manner of par- 
 taking this fruit is through eating the natural fruit on 
 the trees. The fact that it could be partaken is asserted. 
 
 It should not seem strange that Jehovah God should 
 set apart two trees for special use. This peculiar pur- 
 pose would usurp the natural purpose of the trees. 
 Men dwelt in tents in later times. One tent, however, 
 was set aside for special purpose. Men entered this 
 tent, but all its uses were different from those uses to 
 which men put the common tent. Language is em- 
 ployed for this special sacred tent similar to that em- 
 ployed for other tents. If, however, a man enters this 
 sacred tent, it is with other feelings than those he has 
 when entering his own tent. The same may be said of 
 that special house set apart for the house of Jehovah. 
 Our conclusion is that these trees in the garden had as
 
 118 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 special a function as the special tent or the special house. 
 The language employed in connection with these trees 
 must likewise have special and new meaning. The eat- 
 ing from these trees must be a process different from a 
 mere physical process, yet it is contemporaneous and con- 
 ditioned on eating the fruit, which appealed to the phys- 
 ical sense of taste. 
 
 The serpent is no crawling reptile, endowed for the 
 time being with the power of speech. He is a personal- 
 ity as veritable as the woman or the man. He must 
 have assumed a form as noble yea, nobler than that of 
 man, else the woman could not have remained in con- 
 verse with him. Such supposition is necessary, else the 
 narrative contains such absurdities that it is more rea- 
 sonable to accept that the whole narrative is a poetic 
 fiction for the retainment of a spiritual truth. This 
 person, the serpent, is at variance with God. He is ac- 
 quainted with the garden. He understands the language 
 which is intelligible to the woman. These are funda- 
 mental assumptions, if the narrative deals with facts. 
 
 The serpent knew the commandment given by Jeho- 
 vah God to man. It was the commandment placed by 
 God upon all created personalities, upon himself as well 
 as upon all others. He had disobeyed the command- 
 ment. He was at that moment in punishment. He 
 was at enmity with God, and always this is punishment. 
 He who asks knew that God had given this command- 
 ment. Her answer is emphatic and certain. Not eat- 
 ing alone, but touching the tree was death. Contact
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 119 
 
 was destructive. Such was the understanding by the 
 woman. The resultant utterance of the serpent is : " Yo 
 shall not surely die." This assertion makes man as a 
 personality a battle-ground. Two mighty personalities 
 are the contestants. They are from root up antagonist- 
 ic. One expresses himself respecting an act : " Do it, 
 and thou shalt surely die." The other says, respecting 
 the same act : " Do it, and thou shalt not die." 
 
 Mankind is influenced to choice by motive. Such mo- 
 ments are ever critical to him. Two voices have spoken 
 to him. The one has said, " Thou shalt not eat ; " the 
 other has said, "Thou mayest eat." The motive pre- 
 sented by the one who commanded not to eat was that 
 death ensued upon the eating. The motive urged by 
 the other, who counseled eating, was that the eating 
 made the partaker as God. So far as experience went, 
 mankind was equally ignorant of both conditions. He 
 did not know what it was to die, or what it was to be 
 like God, except by inference. Death was the opposite 
 of life. Yet the contrast was no greater than that fur- 
 nished by the difference between man and God. These 
 are fundamental acknowledgments. 
 
 Two contradictory voices are heard by mankind. Two 
 motives are urged upon mankind the one negative, the 
 other positive. Choice brought, according to the one, 
 awful loss; according to the other, greatest gain. If 
 truth was uttered by both voices, then mankind made 
 the best choice in eating. To bo like God was to be 
 their highest ideal. But one limitation, according to
 
 120 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the serpent, separated them from this high attainment. 
 It was the knowledge of good and evil. This could bo 
 removed by eating of this tree. Seductive indeed was 
 the temptation. No penalty and to be like God were 
 the inducements. Mankind chose to be like God. 
 
 The serpent introduced the first lie into human life. 
 The act which he affirmed would make man " like God " 
 was the act which made man as unlike God as was pos- 
 sible. There is no doubt but that this understanding of 
 the narrative was accepted by Christ. The foundation 
 is here for his assertion that the devil was a " liar and 
 the father of it." The character of the serpent is un- 
 changeable. He is false at the core. His weapon in bat- 
 tle is the lie. So the Hebrew Scriptures represent him. 
 
 The fall of man may rightly suggest the question 
 whether Jehovah God had providently protected man 
 against the deceptive power of Satan. The answer is 
 clear. The hourly experience of man must have demon- 
 strated that Jehovah God, whom he knew, would have 
 withheld nothing that could have contributed to his 
 blessedness. The fullness of all the gifts of God and the 
 conscious knowledge, through experience, that these all 
 were good had as a natural sequence the awakening of 
 an absorbing love, which would have had as its peculiar 
 manifestation a perfect obedience. The only protection 
 against the fall, which was possible but was not provid- 
 ed, would have been to have made the fall impossible. 
 There are laws over our body beyond the control of man. 
 We must breathe, wo must eat, if wo would live. We
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 121 
 
 cannot walk in the air. We cannot live under water. 
 It might have been decreed that we could not have dis- 
 obeyed. Such decree, however, would have made im- 
 possible the creation of man in the image of God. Apart 
 from the enactment, which would have made it impossi- 
 ble to have disobeyed, every motive and every induce- 
 ment which Jehovah God could have employed to pro- 
 tect man was employed. Man was surrounded by every 
 object which could awaken only love for his God. He 
 fell, because he would be as the highest and best he knew, 
 because he would be as God. This is the stand-point 
 which is taken by the first book of the Hebrew Script- 
 ures. 
 
 We are not left in doubt as to the exact change which 
 took place in man by his choice to disobey Jehovah 
 God. Man knew hereby good and evil. Such knowl- 
 edge was his death. To know good alone was life; to 
 know evil alone was impossible, since his birthright gift 
 was to know good. Memory must ever have retained 
 such knowledge for man. The moment he learned good 
 and evil by experience, that moment he was transferred 
 to the realm of conflict, of struggle, of death. We are 
 now in position to give the definition of good and evil 
 according to the earliest Hebrew beliefs. The knowl- 
 edge of good is obedience to Jehovah God ; the knowl- 
 edge of good and evil is disobedience to him. 
 
 The faiths already considered have shown us that man, 
 although possessed of such knowledge of Jehovah God 
 as to win him ever to an increasing love for his Creator,
 
 122 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 had nevertheless been led to disobedience. A new phase of 
 revelation is now inaugurated. Man is to be taught the 
 attitude of Jehovah God to his disobedient creatures. 
 The next faith embodies this lesson. 
 
 Fourth Faith. Jehovah God is true and just. For 
 truth's sake he punishes disobedience ; for justice's sake 
 he punishes deception and gives promise upon confession. 
 
 This faith will be considered in this lecture only as the 
 occurrences in the garden make it manifest. 
 
 And Jehovah God called to the man and said to him : 
 
 "Where art thou?" 
 
 And he said : 
 
 " Thy voice I heard in the garden, and I feared because I was 
 naked, and I hid myself." 
 
 And he said : 
 
 "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of 
 the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not 
 eat?" 
 
 And the man said : 
 
 "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave to 
 me of the tree, and I did eat." 
 
 And the Jehovah God said to the woman : 
 
 " What is this thou hast done? " 
 
 And the woman said : 
 
 "The serpent deceived me, and I did eat." 
 
 Jehovah God calls to man. He asks : " Where art 
 thou ? " Man heard, man feared, man hid himself. The 
 new feeling experienced by man after disobedience was 
 fear of Jehovah God. The new conduct on his part was 
 the hiding of himself at the voice of God. This conver-
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 123 
 
 sation with Jehovah God has the same kind of reality as 
 the conversation with the serpent. The higher and the 
 highest order of intelligent beings may assume form and 
 so enter conversation with man. Such is the assumption 
 of this narrative. The new experience of fear, the new 
 conduct of hiding, have their sufficient cause in man's 
 disobedience. Jehovah God knew that man had diso- 
 beyed. Man therefore must answer before him, face to 
 face, for his conduct. Hence the question : " Hast thou 
 oaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee, that thou 
 shouldst not eat ? " This question faces Adam with the 
 command and also with the opportunity for confession 
 or denial. The answer was a frank confession. It was : 
 " The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave 
 of the tree, and I did eat." This is no acknowledgment 
 of the bewitching influence of womankind over mankind. 
 Such an acknowledgment is present in pagan faiths, 
 but not in the revealed faiths of Scripture. Much less is 
 it an attempt to shift responsibility. The degradation 
 of man through ages of sinful generations may have made 
 a coward of man, but it was not so at the beginning. 
 The answer has in it nobility, and reflects credit on man ; 
 else it contains elements unworthy of the dignity of the 
 record, and is contrary to the earnest nature of revealed 
 truth. Such claims at least must be made, and yielded 
 only when found impossible of establishment, by those 
 who hold to the revealed character of Scripture truth. 
 
 The response of Adam has in it two elements, which 
 had weight with Jehovah. The first is expressed in the
 
 124 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 words : " The woman whom thou gavest to be with me." 
 She was given to be a " helpmeet for him." She was 
 given by Jehovah God. The divine purpose was that 
 the two should live together. Jehovah God planned that 
 they be together in obedience. Man chose that they 
 should be together in disobedience, after the woman had 
 disobeyed. The magnanimity of the choice of Adam 
 must have commended itself to Jehovah God. The 
 choice ennobles man. It is worthy of him. Unless we 
 keep constantly in mind the revealed facts concerning 
 the creation of woman, it is difficult to find such feat- 
 ures of this narrative as will command the continued 
 respect of the reasoning mind. The basis of that won- 
 derful movement of the Middle Ages is a sentiment like 
 that which led Adam to eat of the tree. Knighthood 
 had its very essence foreshadowed in this choice of Adam. 
 The second element is the confession : " I did eat." There 
 is no hesitation. It is manfully made and without ex- 
 cuse. It awaits the threatened punishment without ask- 
 ing mercy. There is no presumption. There is no vaunt- 
 ing of man against God. Simple confession, confession 
 of disobedience, and the only motive aligned which 
 could have had any weight with God. If one may dare 
 to speak of the emotions of God at this time, basing his 
 remark on the likeness of man to his God, we may say 
 that this knightly choice of Adam commended him to 
 his Maker. But confession is ever the first step in recon- 
 ciliation and in the obtainment of mercy. The judg 
 ment upon the man is withheld until all the facts have
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 125 
 
 been clear to the knowledge of the human pair. The 
 woman is next addressed. 
 
 A similarly searching question is made to the woman 
 by Jehovah God. It is : " What is this that thou hast 
 done ? " The answer of the woman is as direct and sim- 
 ple as that of the man. " The serpent beguiled me, and 
 I did eat?" This response also has two elements in it. 
 The first becomes known in the words : " The serpent 
 deceived me." There is tremendous meaning in these 
 three words. A woman utters them. Eeflection teaches 
 us that the tragic sorrow of life, which has given basis 
 for most of the poems and dramas where women are 
 heroines, is summed up in the one word "deceived." 
 Moreover the cry of the fallen women of the world, as it 
 in agony goes up to the Father, may be gathered in one 
 word, " deceived." The first woman, as she faces Jeho- 
 vah God, suffering from the torturing consciousness that 
 she had been deceived, made as her only plea in her reply 
 to the question of her Creator : " The serpent deceived 
 me." If the manly choice of Adam commended him to 
 Jehovah, the heart-misery of the woman, when she said 
 " deceived me," kindled that love of Jehovah which finds 
 its expression in the revelation of the Old Testament and 
 has its culmination in the New Testament. Likewise 
 there is found in this answer of the woman, as its second 
 clement, confession. It is uttered in the words : "And I 
 did cat." The woman too took the first step toward 
 reconciliation. She made a frank confession. 
 
 These truths are the great gift of the narrative up to this
 
 126 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 point. The most skeptical mind cannot deny them. But 
 when we place emphasis upon the form in which they 
 are conveyed to us, and bury in our defense of the shell 
 the meat within, we are and worthily become a laughing- 
 stock to keen-minded men. Our little desire to hold 
 some mystic meaning in the form of the narrative makes 
 us little before all who investigate to find truth and are 
 willing to accept any form in which it may be conveyed. 
 Jehovah God, as true and just, declares in these pas- 
 sages his judgments upon the serpent, the woman, and 
 the man. 
 
 And the Jehovah God said unto the serpent : 
 " Because thou hast done this, 
 Thou art cursed. . . . 
 
 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, 
 And between thy seed and her seed. 
 It shall bruise thy head, 
 And thou shalt bruise his heel." 
 Unto the woman he said : 
 
 " I will greatly multiply thy sorrow in conception. . . ." 
 And unto Adam he said : 
 
 " Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, 
 And hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, say- 
 ing: 
 
 'Thou shalt not eat of it,' 
 
 Cursed is the ground on account of thee, 
 
 In sorrow thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life." 
 
 Already the relation of the serpent to Jehovah God 
 had been declared. Now his future relations to the hu- 
 man pair is made manifest. His conduct in both instances
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 127 
 
 determined his position. The narrative here simply re- 
 veals his conduct as it has reference to man. 
 
 The serpent was evil, was wicked, was malignant in 
 seeking the overthrow of man. His conduct had in it not 
 one mitigating circumstance. Jehovah God passes judg- 
 ment on so heartless, pitiless a deceiver in the words 
 " Cursed art thou." Not an upright, but a crawling per- 
 sonality shall be his portion. His realm of power shall 
 be not in the spirit domain, but in the flesh. His nourish- 
 ment shall be dust. The reciprocal relation between man 
 and the serpent is outlined in words which have been 
 characterized as the Protoevangelium. They are : 
 
 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman : 
 And between thy seed and her seed : 
 It shall bruise thy head, 
 And thou shalt bruise its heel. 
 
 Two words in this First Gospel demand careful study. 
 They are " enmity " and " bruise." The Hebrew word 
 for "enmity" is 2EBAH (fT3K). It is used but five 
 times in the Hebrew Scriptures: the present passage 
 and two in Numbers (xxxv. 22, xxxv. 21), and also two 
 in Ezekiel (xxv. 15, xxxv. 5). The passages in Num- 
 bers furnish us with the dominant element in the word. 
 The discrimination in each passage is made between the 
 man who kills another by accident and the man who 
 commits murder. The penalty of manslaughter inspired 
 by " enmity " (J"O*K) is death. Hence " enmity " be- 
 tween parties was recognized as culminating in the death 
 of one of them.
 
 128 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Ezekiol furnishes two passages. The first is : " Thus 
 saith the Lord God : Because the Philistines have dealt 
 by revenge and have taken vengeance with a despiteful 
 heart to destroy for the old hatred [f"O*N> enmity]." The 
 second is: "Because thou hast had a perpetual hatred 
 [fO'tf, enmity] and hast shed the blood of the children 
 of Israel." Here too, in Ezekiel, the essence of the word 
 is found in an hostility, culminating in death. The en- 
 mity, then, which Jehovah God places between the woman 
 and the serpent is a death-feud. 
 
 The Hebrew word translated "bruise" is also a rare 
 word. It is used in but two other passages (Job ix. 17 
 and Ps. cxxxix. 11). The passage in Job reads as follows : 
 
 For He breaketh [V|^, bruise] me with a tempest, 
 
 And multiplieth my wounds without a cause. 
 
 The passage in the Psalms is : 
 
 And should I say ; 
 
 " Surely darkness shall overwhelm [YASHUPH, bruise] me, 
 
 Yet the night shall be light about me." 
 
 It is most probable that the passage in Job should 
 have this Hebrew word translated not as "break," but 
 as " overwhelm." Then the passage in Genesis would be 
 the only one where this word has the signification of 
 " bruising." The context alone must give the meaning, 
 or at least be accordant with the definition assigned. 
 The word " bruise," or " wound " has been generally ac- 
 cepted as the correct equivalent. This meaning would 
 also suit equally the passage in Job. 
 
 We may now better apprehend the import of this first
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 129 
 
 gospel. Jehovah God places between the serpent and 
 man "enmity," a deadly feud. The advantage is with 
 man. He shall have power to bruise the serpent's head ; 
 he shall wound a mortal part ; he shall deal death-blows. 
 But, on the contrary, the serpent shall bruise the heel of 
 man ; his wounds shall produce laming. Such is the 
 word of Jehovah God to the serpent. The law of limit- 
 ation is placed 'upon the serpent. The decree of death 
 also is passed upon him. Such is the just judgment of 
 Jehovah God upon the serpent. This deceiving person, 
 who falsely told man, saying, "Thou shalt not die," is 
 told that ho must die, and that too by the hand of man 
 whom he had deceived. Such is the paradox of Jehovah 
 God. Powerlessness, inability to execute a lie upon man, 
 is the final doom of the serpent. So much, at least, is 
 here meant by the assertion that the serpent must die. 
 Ho has his doom involved in the seed of the woman. 
 This is a fundamental faith of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 Its expression in words for the first time in these Script- 
 ures constitutes the passage which utters to us the first 
 gospel promise. There is in these words hope for de- 
 ceived mankind. Their fulfillment will bo the realization 
 of the Messiah's dominion over mankind. 
 
 Jehovah God turns from this dooming of the serpent 
 to the woman and the man. She has confessed, she has 
 urged the only mitigating circumstance. Her confession 
 was: "I did eat." The mitigating circumstance was: 
 " The serpent deceived me." The man also confessed and 
 at the same time urged the motive which led him to dis- 
 9
 
 130 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 obey a motive itself God-given. His confession was: 
 "I did eat." The motive was: "The woman that thou 
 gavest to be with me." The man chose to eat, because 
 he wished to share such penalty as might be placed upon 
 the woman whom Jehovah God gave to be with him. 
 Loving pity for the deceived woman tempered the pen- 
 alty imposed on the woman, loving admiration mollified 
 the penalty meted out to man. Confession from each 
 secured them favor. Still ever disobedience to Jehovah 
 God entails punishment that cannot be escaped from. 
 
 This punishment is summed up for both in the word 
 " sorrow." Yes, sorrow shall be the lot of the woman 
 and the man. Sorrow shall be the part of the woman in 
 her home life, sorrow shall be the part of the man in 
 his work world. The words of Jehovah God to the 
 woman are : " I will surely multiply thy sorrow in con- 
 ception." His words to the man are : " In sorrow shalt 
 thou eat of the ground all the days of thy life." 
 
 These faiths and these punishments, and this promise 
 are inseparable with the Garden of Eden in the mind of 
 the Hebrews. Sorrow could not have place in Eden. 
 Hence the man and woman, who bad sorrow, must be 
 expelled from the gai'den. However, they do not go 
 forth hopeless. They are conscious that a deadly feud 
 exists between them and the personal power named 
 The Serpent, and they know that in the warfare the ad- 
 vantage would be with them. All subsequent revelation 
 is simply the helps given by Jehovah God to enable man 
 to be ever superior to the serpent, when the battle should 
 become shifted to new fields.
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 
 
 " If you have any faith, give me a share in it. If you have only 
 doubts, keep them to yourself; I have enough of my own," Goethe 
 to Eckerman. 
 
 " If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, 
 whether it be of God." Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 CAN there be such a thing as honest skepticism ? May 
 a period of religious doubt characterize an honest truth- 
 seeker among unbelievers, or a sincere and loyal disciple 
 of Christ ? I once heard an eminent divine say from the 
 pulpit that "any man that said he ever had an honest 
 doubt about the existence of God or the truth of the 
 Bible was telling a falsehood, and he knew he was telling 
 a falsehood when he made such a statement." I believe 
 that the statement made by the preacher was not only 
 false, but calculated to do a great deal of harm, and to 
 repel and drive away from all sympathy with the Church 
 many whom it is the privilege and duty of the minis- 
 ter of Christ to lead out of their spiritual darkness into 
 light. There is a great deal of dishonest skepticism in 
 the world, and especially among young men, but there 
 may be, and is unquestionably, skepticism that is honest. 
 It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the subject in 
 such a way as to show what is honest, and what is dis- 
 honest, doubt in matters of religion, and to convict the 
 dishonest doubter of his sin and lead the honest doubter
 
 132 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 out of the state which he deplores into the full assurance 
 of faith. 
 
 First let us notice the skepticism of the unregenerato 
 world. Among unregenerate men there are both believ- 
 ers and unbelievers. By the term "unregenerate un- 
 believers " we would designate those who have a positive 
 disbelief in the existence of God or the truth of the Bi- 
 ble. Such are materialists, atheists, infidels, and those 
 who under the popular epithet of agnostics conceal a 
 positive and absolute no-faith in the Christian revelation. 
 But there are also those whom we may properly desig- 
 nate as unregenerate believers not believers in the 
 sense that they have saving faith in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but simply in the sense that they believe in the 
 existence of God and in the truth of the Christian 
 Scriptures. They are nominally Christians. The great 
 majority of unconverted people in Christian lands come 
 under this class. This faith does not imply a saved re- 
 lation ; indeed, " the devils believe and tremble." It is 
 simply the faith of assent; it is with the intellect, spec- 
 ulative, dead. That faith which is the condition of jus- 
 tification and regeneration is personal trust not assent, 
 but consent. It is with the heart, not intellect, that man 
 bclieveth unto righteousness and salvation. 
 
 Now between the two classes hero designated as un- 
 regenerate believers and unbelievers, there comes a third 
 class, the skeptics those who, on the one hand, do not 
 deny the existence of a Divine Being and the truth of 
 the Scriptures, but who, on the other hand, are not fully
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 133 
 
 persuaded and convinced of the truth of these things. 
 They stand in doubt. Skeptomai I doubt. 
 
 The man who professes to be a skeptic, who boasts of 
 his skepticism and prides himself in it, is rarely, if ever, 
 an honest skeptic. Honest skepticism is humble and 
 modest; it seeks to hide itself, save as it seeks light. 
 There are a great many young men in our larger towns 
 and cities, and in the atmosphere of our colleges and 
 universities, who are professed skeptics; and some even 
 of older years pride themselves in being skeptics, as if, 
 through superior intellects, they had discovered some- 
 thing which the less intellectual and unenlightened did 
 not know viz., that the Christian religion after all may 
 not be true. But, as a matter of fact, their so-called skep- 
 ticism is simply a cloak to hide their religious dishonesty 
 and sin. It is simply one of the modes which the carnal 
 nature of unregenerale man employs to defend itself 
 against the demands of God's righteous law. A very 
 convenient, non-committal position is that of the pro- 
 fessed skeptic. Charge him with being an atheist or 
 infidel, and he indignantly repels the odium of such a 
 charge by saying that ho is not. On the other hand, 
 urge him to become a Christian, to forsake his "sins and 
 lead the self-denying life of a disciple of the Master, and 
 he retorts at once that he is a skeptic, that he has his 
 doubts about the truth of Christianity, and so denies his 
 moral obligation, as long as that state of mind continues, 
 to forsake his sins and become a Christian. By encour- 
 aging his own skepticism, and persuading himself that
 
 134 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the Christian religion may not be true, he manages to 
 ease his conscience while he continues in the indulgence 
 of those sins which the law of God forbids and which 
 his carnal nature craves. Such professed skepticism is 
 the essence of dishonesty, and is simply one of the many 
 ways in which the unregenerate nature of man seeks to 
 defend itself against the exacting moral law of God. It 
 is sin, and only that Spirit who convinces of all sin can 
 break its dominion. 
 
 But there is such a thing as honest doubt, and it has 
 this comforting assurance from the Master : " If any man 
 wills to do God's will, he shall know of the doctrine, 
 whether it be of God or whether it be of man." Not 
 " will do His will," as the old Yersion has it, and which I 
 have often thought was a hard condition for the sinner 
 to fulfill viz., to have to do a thing and not know that 
 it is of God until after it is done. But rather, " if any 
 man wills, intends, desires, purposes, is honestly striving 
 to do God's will," he shall not be left in doubt, but will 
 be made to know of the doctrine, that it is from God 
 and not from man. 
 
 If religious skepticism claims to be honest in doubting 
 the truth of Christian revelation, in whole or in part, we 
 may determine the justness of this claim by applying 
 certain infallible tests. In the first place, skepticism, if 
 honest, will make careful and earnest investigation of 
 the evidence in favor of the truth of Christianity before 
 it asserts itself. Such have been the number and char- 
 acter of those who have believed in it, such the ante-
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 135 
 
 codent preponderance of evidence in favor of its truth, 
 and so momentous are the issues involved, that nothing 
 less than this is reasonable. The man who says he has 
 doubts about the truth of Christianity, but who has not 
 carefully read and studied the Bible and made a reason- 
 able examination of the leading evidences in favor of 
 its truth, is not worthy to be listened to for a moment, 
 much less to be argued with. Such superficial skepti- 
 cism has dishonesty on its very face, and is one of the 
 marks of a carnal nature that is enmity against God. 
 Apply this righteous test, and how much of the so-called 
 honest skepticism of the day will be scattered to the 
 wind or convicted of its dishonesty. How absurd the 
 idea, what conceit of ignorance, that a man should call 
 in question the truth of the Bible that book which the 
 wisest and best men and women of all ages have believed 
 in and followed when he has never once carefully and 
 honestly read it in search of the truth ! The man that 
 has read and studied the Bible, and honestly investigated 
 the evidences of Christianity, and still has doubts, is to 
 be listened to and reasoned with. He is entitled to be 
 heard. But not so the skeptic who captiously calls in 
 question the truth of the Bible when he has nothing but 
 the most superficial knowledge of what it is. Such 
 skepticism is sin, and is to be dealt with as all other sin 
 is. How many such captious skeptics, when powerfully 
 convicted of sin and soundly converted, have scattered 
 their doubts to the wind and never once cared to have 
 their questions answered. Men may have read the Bi-
 
 136 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ble through for the purpose of criticising it, and studied 
 the evidences of Christianity for the purpose of refuting 
 them, and, characterized by such a spirit, may have 
 ended such reading and study as full of doubt as when 
 they began. But it is a question whether a man ever 
 yet read the Bible through carefully, conscientiously, 
 and prayerfully, honestly seeking the light, and inves- 
 tigated the evidences of Christianity in the same spirit, 
 but that he was richly rewarded by being relieved of all 
 his doubts. He it is for whose encouragement the Mas- 
 ter said : " If any man wills to do His will, he shall 
 know of the doctrine whether it be of God." Honest 
 skepticism may characterize the investigator and truth- 
 seeker, but not the man that is at rest. Long continu- 
 ance in a state of skepticism, without any earnest effort 
 to get out of it, proves it to be dishonest. 
 
 But again, if skepticism be honest and intelligent, it 
 ought to be able to tell just what is doubted and why it is 
 doubted. Ealph "Waldo Emerson said he could tell what 
 he believed and what he doubted ; but if any one asked 
 him why he believed or why he doubted, he was quite 
 helpless to reply. And some critic has thoughtfully ob- 
 served that if this great man of letters had trained him- 
 self through life to give the whys and wherefores of his 
 beliefs and doubts, his faith would not have diverged so 
 largely from that of evangelical Christianity. But how 
 few professed skeptics, claiming to be honest and intelli- 
 gent, can give either the what or the why of their 
 doubts! "Skeptical about what?" you ask of him.
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 137 
 
 " Tell me what you doubt in religion and why you doubt, 
 and it may be I can help you." "01 am just skeptical," 
 he replies, "skeptical generally" and that is all you 
 can get out of him. Miserable cant! What stuff is 
 sometimes palmed off by young men under the profes- 
 sion of honest skepticism ! 
 
 A skeptic was once complaining that the Bible stated 
 things too vaguely and obscurely for a book that de- 
 manded implicit faith. " For instance," he said, " if the 
 Bible meant to teach that Christ was divine, why did it 
 not declare this truth in plain and unmistakable terms, 
 such as men could not misunderstand ? " " How would 
 you have had it state this truth in order to satisfy you ? " 
 asked a Christian man. " I would have had it say that 
 'Jesus Christ is the true God,' and then there could be 
 no mistake about it." "I am happy to be able to tell 
 you," replied his friend, " that your doubts are relieved, 
 for the Bible does say this very thing." And turning to 
 the First Epistle of John, he read, Jesus Christ " is the 
 true God and eternal life." But, strange to say, the 
 skeptic manifested no pleasure at finding the Bible had 
 expressed the doctrine in his own chosen terms. He 
 rather showed confusion and regret that it was so. And 
 he was no more convinced than he was before. Yet ho 
 called himself an honest skeptic, and seemed to hold God 
 responsible for his doubts in that he had not stated 
 things plainly enough. 
 
 How profound and far-reaching was the truth the 
 Master uttered when he said : " If they believe not Mo-
 
 138 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Res and the prophets, neither would they believe, though 
 one rose from the dead." If they believe not the ev- 
 idence they have, neither would they believe though it 
 had been just what they might demand even to the 
 raising of one from the dead. They imagine that they 
 would believe if the evidence were different, but it is not 
 so. He who made the human mind, and made the Chris- 
 tian religion for it, has said that if men believe not Mo- 
 ses and the prophets that is, if they believe not with 
 the evidence they now have neither would they believe 
 though one rose from the dead. And in proof of this 
 truth, did not One rise from the dead ? and did all men 
 after that become believers ? The trouble is not that the 
 external conditions and evidences of the faith are not 
 fully provided, but rather that the carnal mind is en- 
 mity against God. " With the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness." 
 
 "How long dost thou make us to doubt?" said the 
 Jews to Christ, " If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." 
 The skeptic tries to make it appear, or at least to per- 
 suade himself, that God, or the Bible, or the Christian 
 religion, is responsible for his doubt. " How long dost 
 thou make us to doubt?" thou art responsible for our 
 doubt. The inference is that if Christ would tell them 
 plainly, they would believe on him, and become his 
 obedient disciples. Let us see if such was the case. 
 " Jesus answered them, I have told you already, and ye 
 believed not : the works that I do in my Father's name, 
 they bear witness of me." But still, as ye call for a
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 139 
 
 plain answer concerning my Messiahship and divinity, I 
 will give it : " I and my Father are one." Can any thing 
 plainer than that be spoken? But did they believe? 
 No: "Then they took up stones to stone him." This 
 reveals the animus and spirit of their skepticism. This 
 proves the truth of what Jesus had said unto them : " Ye 
 believe not because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep 
 hear my voice and follow me." The real cause of skep- 
 ticism in most instances is not that the intellectual con- 
 ditions of faith are wanting, but the heart conditions in 
 the unbeliever are wanting. " The carnal mind is enmity 
 against God." 
 
 In a certain literary circle, where skepticism was quite 
 popular, some slighting allusions were made, on a certain 
 important occasion, to the Christian religion. So un- 
 called for were these allusions and so captious the spirit 
 that prompted them, that one who was present him- 
 self a literary man and no professed defender of the 
 faith* could not resist the temptation to administer 
 the following just rebuke : " It will be found that any 
 form of Christianity, whatever its defects and imperfec- 
 tions, which has an open Bible and proclaims a crucified 
 and risen Christ, is infinitely preferable to any form of 
 polite and polished skepticism which gathers as its vota- 
 ries the degenerate sons of heroic ancestors, who, having 
 been trained in a society and educated in schools, the 
 foundations of which were laid by men of faith and 
 piety, now turn and kick down the ladder by which 
 * James Russell Lowell.
 
 140 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 they have climbed up, and persuade men to live without 
 God, and leave them to die without hope. The worst 
 kind of religion is no religion at all ; and these men, 
 living in ease and luxury, indulging themselves in the 
 amusement of going without religion-, may be thankful 
 that they live in lands where the gospel they neglect 
 has tamed the beastliness and ferocity of the men who, 
 but for Christianity, might long ago have eaten their 
 carcasses like the South Sea Islanders, or cut off their 
 heads and tanned their hides like the monsters of the 
 French Revolution. When the microscopic search of 
 skepticism, which had hunted the heavens and sounded 
 the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has 
 turned its attention to human society, and has found a 
 place on this planet ten miles square where a decent 
 man can live in decency, comfort, and security, support- 
 ing and educating his children unspoiled and unpolluted ; 
 a place where age is reverenced, infancy respected, wom- 
 anhood honored, and human life held in due regard 
 when skeptics can find such a place ten miles square on 
 this globe, where the gospel of Christ has not gone and 
 cleared the way and laid the foundations and made de- 
 cency and security possible, it will then be in order for 
 the skeptical literati to move thither and there ventilate 
 their views. But so long as these very men are depend- 
 ent upon the religion which they discard for every priv- 
 ilege they enjoy, they may well hesitate a little before 
 they seek to rob the Christian of his hope and humanity 
 of its faith in the Saviour who alone has given to man
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 141 
 
 that hope of life eternal which makes life tolerable and 
 society possible, and robs death of its terrors and the 
 grave of its gloom." 
 
 We come next to consider the skepticism of regener- 
 ate believers. May a true believer ever have any doubts 
 in matters of religion ? He may, but it is always ac- 
 companied by the prayer, "Lord, I believe, help thou 
 mine unbelief." An unbeliever's skepticism may be 
 honest or dishonest, but that of a believer must always 
 bo honest. Does the fact that a professing Christian 
 finds himself sometimes troubled with doubts concerning 
 one or many points of the faith prove that he is not a 
 regenerate child of God? Not necessarily. But the 
 religious doubts compatible with a state of saving faith 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ is a subject that requires clear 
 analysis and cautious treatment, lest it be made a stum- 
 bling-block to believers rather than what it should be, 
 and is here designed to be viz., a means of guiding all 
 such as may be troubled with doubts out of their un- 
 happy state into the clear light of a satisfying faith. 
 The question is, whether a true believer may in any de- 
 gree, or in any sense, or at any period have doubts con- 
 cerning any of the great cardinal doctrines of the Chris- 
 tian faith. Wo are not, of course, discussing whether a 
 denial of any part of the faith is compatible with a re- 
 generate state. As to how much of the truth of Chris- 
 tian revelation a man may deny, and still have a vital 
 or saving faith in Christ, is a question with which wo 
 have not here to do. To doubt is not to deny. Doubt,
 
 142 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as we shall see, may perform an important office even in 
 the evidences of Christianity. 
 
 "We wish to notice three phases of skepticism : (1) 
 that which is the outgrowth of temperament or disposi- 
 tion ; (2) that which is the outgrowth of circumstances ; 
 and (3) that which is incident to the transition period 
 between youth and manhood. 
 
 Of the first of these, the skepticism of the Apostle Thom- 
 as is a case in point. It was due to his peculiar mental 
 temperament. Some people are by nature credulous ; they 
 believe readily, and require little or no evidence. Others 
 are by nature skeptical ; they are slow to accept state- 
 ments that demand faith, and they require much and 
 strong evidence before they will believe. To the former 
 class Peter belonged ; his impulsive nature was quick to 
 believe and quick to act. Thomas belonged to the latter 
 class. He was slow to believe, and he demanded strong 
 and full evidence before he would believe. But our 
 Lord, though he somewhat chided, yet had respect unto 
 his skepticism. It was honest. The faith of the latter 
 class when once secured is stronger and more deeply 
 felt than that of the former. None of the holy apostles 
 was more faithful and firm in his loyalty to Christ than 
 Thomas. He was utterly incapable of doing what Judas 
 or Peter did. While no other apostle doubted as Thomas 
 did, yet none, when convinced, believed as he did. His 
 confession of faith and his testimony to the divinity of 
 Christ after the resurrection were clearer and stronger 
 than came from any other apostle : " My Lord and my
 
 BELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 143 
 
 God ! " I have always been glad that the skeptic Thomas 
 was among the apostles. His belief is the best evidence 
 of all. I know that if he, with his cautious and skep- 
 tical temperament, was convinced, there was certainly 
 no mistake about the resurrection. Peter might have 
 been deceived; Thomas never. Saint Augustine has 
 well said that "Thomas doubted that we might not 
 doubt." 
 
 Sometimes never to doubt means never to believe. 
 Some never doubt any thing much and never believe 
 any thing much. Intelligent doubt often leads to the 
 careful examination of evidence, which, when found con- 
 clusive, leads to the strongest faith. To believe without 
 evidence is credulity, not faith. Faith is belief upon 
 evidence. To avow belief too readily is the surest proof 
 that there is no real faith. The Scotch told King Charles 
 that if he would accept and subscribe to their creed, they 
 would support his royal cause against his political en- 
 emies. They brought the document to him to read and 
 sign, if he found that he could do so conscientiously 
 and sincerely. " it is not necessary to read it," said 
 ho ; " give me the pen ; I believe it." But the Scotch 
 were quick to see that such ready belief and acceptance 
 as that, without any examination whatever, was really 
 no belief at all ; and so they put no faith in his subscrip- 
 tion or in his fidelity. 
 
 Hence the tendency of the human mind to doubt is, 
 within reasonable limits, a safeguard against credulity 
 and superstition. The office of human reason is to for-
 
 144 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 bid tho human mind to believe any thing until the proper 
 evidence has been furnished. If, as we have said, faith 
 is belief upon evidence, then there can be no real faith 
 without the exercise of reason. Unless we were nat- 
 urally disposed to doubt until reasonable evidence is fur- 
 nished, the human mind could be easily imposed upon 
 in matters of faith. " To doubt at the right place," says 
 Dr. Bledsoe in his Theodicy, " is the best cure for doubt, 
 and to believe at the wrong place is the surest road to 
 skepticism." To doubt things that ought to be doubted 
 is the surest road to believing things that ought to be 
 believed. Truth is not afraid of a skeptic ; it rejoices to 
 meet him if he is honest. It is error that can ill afford 
 to be called in question. The Master feared not the 
 doubter with his crucial questions; He only demanded 
 that he should be sincere. Christianity has nothing to 
 lose from skepticism, but much to gain. Neither Christ 
 nor Christianity lost any thing by the skepticism of 
 Thomas, but gained much every way, and his skepticism 
 is indeed now numbered among the credentials of Chris- 
 tianity. "He doubted that we might not doubt," and 
 he also believed that we might believe. 
 
 There is a second form of skepticism that we would 
 notice as sometimes occurring in the experience of a re- 
 generate child of God. It is a skepticism that is born 
 of circumstances, or a combination of circumstances, 
 which may seem to the believer to be incompatible with 
 the infinite love of an all-wise and omnipotent God. The 
 believer here does not deny, but he finds himself ques-
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 145 
 
 tioning, the providence of God. Take the case of John 
 the Baptist in prison, sending his disciples to Jesus to 
 know if He was the Christ. John could not understand 
 how it was that, if Christ were really divine, He would 
 suffer him to be cast into a dungeon and retained there 
 for no other crime than the simple and honest discharge 
 of his duty as a preacher of righteousness. Can it be 
 that the omniscient and omnipotent Son of God will sit 
 quietly by and see a wicked and heartless tyrant im- 
 prison and put to death his own forerunner and prophet 
 who in the faithful and fearless discharge of his duty 
 has denounced the wickedness of royalty ? How can 
 Christ be divine and suffer this outrageous wrong? 
 That was the question that confronted John as he sat 
 in his loneliness amid the damp walls and foul atmos- 
 phere of the gloomy dungeon of Machasrus, awaiting his 
 execution. He did not deny that Jesus was the Christ, 
 but he was thrown into doubts, he began to question, ho 
 could not understand, he sought and needed reassurance 
 and this notwithstanding the fact that he had bap- 
 tised Christ and seen the divine attestation that accom- 
 panied that event. John's state of mind was not unnat- 
 ural in view of all the circumstances. But his doubt 
 was sincere and honest, and it is both interesting and 
 instructive to see how the Master met it. He bade the 
 messengers take their seat and wait. He was busy. 
 "And in that same hour Jesus cured many of their dis- 
 eases and plagues and evil spirits ; and on many that wore 
 blind he bestowed sight. And then he answered nnd 
 10
 
 146 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 said unto them. Go your way and tell John what things 
 ye have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, 
 the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the 
 dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached 
 unto them. And blessed is he whosoever shall not be 
 offended in me." That message was doubtless enough, 
 and was just what he needed to reassure him that Jesus 
 was the Christ. 
 
 And so it sometimes occurs in the experiences of God's 
 children that they are surrounded by circumstances that 
 seem to them for the time being to be irreconcilable with 
 the overruling providence of an all-wise and an all-good 
 God. They are thrown into a questioning state of mind. 
 It is usually trials, misfortunes, sorrows, afflictions, death 
 of loved ones under circumstances peculiarly trying, that 
 plunge the despondent believer into this species of skep- 
 ticism. While this doubt may prove that his faith is 
 not all that it ought to be, it does not necessarily prove 
 that he does not believe in and love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. I have known good people to get into such a 
 state. It is a period rather than a state. It does not 
 last long. The clouds roll away, and the doubting and 
 despondent believer not only sees the sun again, but as he 
 looks upon the receding clouds, he sees them lighted up 
 with brightness and glory from above. Faith, if thrown 
 out of its equipoise, soon reacts and reasserts itself. Such 
 skepticism I know is inconsistent with the highest ideal 
 of Christian faith ; but it is nevertheless true that such 
 experiences do sometimes occur in the lives of sincere and
 
 RLLIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 147 
 
 useful believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. If a Christian 
 ever finds himself, in a moment of misfortune and weak- 
 ness, calling in question the divine character of Chris- 
 tianity, he needs only do what Christ bade the disciples 
 of John do viz., consider the works of Christ and 
 Christianity through all the ages. They are the vindi- 
 cation of its divine claims and the unanswerable argu- 
 ment in proof of its divine origin and character. All the 
 noblest deeds of human history and all the blessings of 
 our civilization we owe to Christianity. Christianity 
 asks no surer vindication of its divine claims than that 
 it be studied and judged in the light of what it has done 
 for the human race. 
 
 Again, is there not a skepticism that pertains to youth, 
 to youth as it is turning into manhood ? Is there not a 
 skeptical period through which every thoughtful young 
 Christian, more or less, must pass before he settles down 
 into the mature faith of manhood ? Not every one, indeed, 
 but certainly many do pass through just such a period. 
 This skepticism marks the transition period between the 
 immature faith of youth and the mature faith of man- 
 hood. A youth often forms crude and childish ideas of 
 God, of heaven, of the soul, of the Bible, of all spiritual 
 doctrines and things. These crude ideas must bo aban- 
 doned and give place to more intelligent and correct ideas 
 of spiritual things. The young Christian, in giving up 
 his early formed ideas of spiritual things, is very apt to 
 feel or to fear that he is giving up his faith in these 
 things themselves. Not so certainly not necessarily
 
 148 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 so. This test of the faith, if met thoughtfully and passed 
 successfully, makes one a stronger and more intelligent 
 believer than was possible before. It oftentimes drives 
 the thoughtful young man, while his faith is thus unset- 
 tled and he is at unrest, to earnest study and careful ex- 
 amination of the evidences of his faith, and as a result 
 he is able to give thereafter an intelligent reason for the 
 hope and the faith that is in him. If the skepticism of 
 young manhood accomplishes this result, it is not an un- 
 mitigated evil in one's life. Under religious instruction 
 in the nursery, at home and at Sabbath-school, a Chris- 
 tian youth grows up into a religious faith without much 
 thinking for himself. The time comes when this intel- 
 lectual and religious creed of youth must be recast. This 
 questioning or skeptical period of young manhood seems 
 to be the occasion for doing this. 
 
 This is not only an important but a critical period in 
 a young Christian's life. For one may come out of this 
 unsettled state not only into a stronger and more ration- 
 al faith, but, unfortunately, if the other alternative bo 
 chosen, into a state of agnosticism or infidelity. The influ- 
 ences that are around a young man at this critical time 
 his companions, his spiritual advisers, the books he reads 
 have much to do with determining in which of these 
 two ways he will come out of his skepticism. If he has 
 positively Christian companions, if he is fortunate enough 
 to find sympathetic spiritual advisers who can explain 
 his state of mind to him and lead him out of it, and if 
 good books fall into his hands and occupy his thoughts,
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 149 
 
 nothing is to be feared as to the result. But if, on the 
 other hand, his companions are religious scoffers and con- 
 firmed skeptics, if he has no wise and sympathetic coun- 
 selor from whom to seek advice, if skeptical books fall 
 into his hands, then it is almost as certain that he will 
 come out a confirmed skeptic or a positive disbeliever in 
 Christianity. Such a lamentable course many young 
 men do unfortunately take. One of the most earnest 
 and Christian young men of my acquaintance years ago, 
 one who had the Christian ministry in view, became 
 skeptical when about twenty-one or two years of age. 
 Just at this critical time ho began reading the writings 
 of Matthew Arnold, John Stuart Mill, Professor Hujdey, 
 and the like. It was not long before he decided not to 
 preach, and soon thereafter abandoned all faith in the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 I have seen it stated that Peter Cooper was in his 
 youth a Methodist, but, becoming skeptical concerning 
 some of the doctrines of Christianity, he went to his 
 pastor for counsel, stating his doubts to him. But his 
 pastor met his confession of religious doubts with no 
 sympathy and replied rather roughly, telling him that he 
 must confess his sin and pray for divine forgiveness just 
 as he would for any other sin. This was poor satisfac- 
 tion to one in his state of mind. Ho turned away with 
 a sad heart. Soon thereafter ho chanced to go to wor- 
 ship in a Unitarian Church. The preacher was tolling 
 in his sermon of how that ho used to bo in his youth an 
 orthodox Christian ; but soon doubts came. Ho fought
 
 150 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOtOGt. 
 
 a long time with his doubts, thinking the orthodox faith 
 must be right; but presently it occurred to him that 
 possibly his honest doubts might bo founded in truth 
 and the orthodox faith be in error. Working along that 
 line he came to the light. It was so the preacher 
 argued the only satisfactory solution of the skepticism 
 inseparable from the orthodox creed, viz., to abandon it 
 for the rational and satisfying faith of Unitarianism. The 
 result was that young Cooper became a Unitarian. Had 
 his Methodist pastor met his doubts with sympathy and 
 consideration, and prayed with him, Peter Cooper might 
 have been saved to Methodism and his life and wealth 
 have been made a far greater blessing to humanity than 
 they were, although he was, in spite of his Unitarianism, 
 a noble man and philanthropist. 
 
 And even young ministers sometimes encounter periods 
 of skepticism, especially if they never had such an expe- 
 rience before entering the ministry. The young Chris- 
 tian grows up with the idea that the Christian religion 
 is certainly true, and that there is no argument of any 
 weight, or worthy of any consideration, against it. But 
 when he begins the study of philosophy, metaphysics, 
 science and theology, he finds that there are some real 
 arguments on the other side. They are new to him, and 
 while they shock him, yet they, in a certain sense, have 
 a fascination for him. He shudders at the consequences 
 of what opens before him as a possibility even, viz., that 
 this and that fact or doctrine of Christianity may not be 
 true after all ; and if they are not true, does not the whole
 
 ftELIQIOUS SKEPTICISM. lf)l 
 
 system of Christian Revelation likewise fall through with 
 them ? He is disturbed at his thoughts and is made very 
 unhappy. Now it is the privilege of every Christian to 
 have the witness in himself so clearly revealed and to 
 enjoy so fully the assurance of the faith that he will bo 
 in no way disturbed at the discovery of some arguments 
 against the divine character of Christianity of which he 
 had no knowledge before. But not every young Chris- 
 tian, not every young minister, lives up to this high 
 privilege as he ought. The faith of such is much un- 
 settled when such an experience comes. Happy are 
 they who, when their faith is thus sorely tried, know like 
 John the Baptist where to go for reassurance and com- 
 fort. Ofte needs only to study the works and influence 
 of Christianity in the world to be convinced of its divine 
 character. If such an experience leads the young min- 
 ister to earnest prayer and to an examination of the foun- 
 dations of his faith and if his prayers lead him to attain 
 the witness in himself, and his examinations fill his mind 
 as never before with the truth and force of all those great 
 evidences in proof of the divine origin and character of 
 Christianity that have been called forth by the opposing 
 arguments of the unbelieving world if this be the out- 
 come of his experience, as it often happily is, then he will 
 be a better and stronger Christian and a more efficient 
 minister of the gospel for having passed through such an 
 experience. 
 
 Many who at this critical period turn away from Chris- 
 tianity and spend their lives in the delusions of skopti-
 
 152 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cism yet come back in the more mature and sober reflec- 
 tions of closing life to the simple faith of their parents 
 and of their childhood. George Eliot, one of the most 
 intellectual women and most popular writers of romance 
 in the nineteenth century, was reared in the simple faith 
 of evangelical Christianity. Early in life she became 
 skeptical, and, in the pride of intellectual womanhood, 
 abandoned the faith of her youth. Throughout her brill- 
 iant literary career she was recognized as one whose in- 
 tellectual gifts were used to undermine, rather than to 
 confirm and establish, the foundations of Christian faith. 
 And yet it is said that when she came to die, she gave 
 expression to a love and sympathy for the faith of her 
 early life that showed unmistakably that, howsoever well 
 skepticism might support one in the vigor and pride of 
 active life, the heart yearned for something surer when 
 it was about to take its final leap into the dark un- 
 known. 
 
 So, too, Thomas Carlylo was in early life a consistent 
 believer in Christ, and was etfen designed by his pious 
 Scotch parents for the Christian ministry. But becom- 
 ing skeptical in early manhood, he abandoned not only 
 the ministry but also the faith of his youth and of his par- 
 ents. Throughout his long and illustrious literary career, 
 he wrote in a critical and skeptical way concerning many 
 of the vital doctrines of the Christian faith, and his in- 
 fluence was recognized as hostile to evangelical Chris- 
 tianity. But when in a ripe old age he came to die, that 
 hatred of sham and hypocrisy and that stern love of
 
 feELlGlOtS SKEPTICISM. 153 
 
 honesty and truth that he had so often given expression 
 to in life, made his honest heart yearn for something 
 more solid to rest upon, and he, too, virtually came back 
 to the simple faith that his pious parents had taught him 
 in his childhood, if his sayings were correctly reported. 
 
 Do not understand me as saying that these two illus- 
 trious persons made what is commonly called a " death- 
 bed repentance " and openly recanted their skepticism. 
 Nor do I mean to say that their biographers record the 
 facts that I mention concerning their giving evidence 
 toward their death that faith was better than doubt to die 
 with. No ; for the biographers, as well as the admirers, 
 of such skeptical and literary persons are more concerned 
 to make their heroes consistent throughout in their life 
 and sayings than they are to give due weight to what 
 is said by them when death is approaching. It is a well- 
 known fact that many skeptics and infidels when they 
 come to face the stern realities of another world, give 
 expression to those about them of their dissatisfaction 
 with their skepticism ; but rarely does a biographer, gen- 
 erally himself a skeptic, take any notice of such facts. 
 He considers them as the vagaries incident to the ap- 
 proach of death, utterly inconsistent with the man's 
 whole life. And this same pride of consistency keeps, 
 we believe, many a man from abandoning his skepticism 
 in the midst of life having committed himself, he must 
 maintain his consistency. But to be true is a great deal 
 better than being consistent. To follow truth ie the only 
 real consistency.
 
 154 DISCUSSIONS If4 THEOLOGY. 
 
 John Randolph of Roanoke is said to have filled his 
 copy of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," 
 on his first reading, with annotations on the margin, ap- 
 proving the deistical notions of Gibbon. Most of these 
 notes he obliterated in after life. The following is what 
 he wrote on the margin of the celebrated fifteenth chap- 
 ter, when, later in life, he reread the book: 
 
 " When the penciled notes to this and the succeeding 
 chapter were written the writer was an unhappy young 
 man deluded by the sophisms of infidelity. Gibbon 
 seemed to rivet what Hume, and Hobbes, and Boling- 
 broke, and Yoltaire, etc., had made fast, and Satan the 
 evil principle in our (fallen) nature had cherished ; but, 
 praised be his holy name, God sent straight to his heart 
 the sense of sin and the arrow of the angel of death, 
 ' unless ye repent,' and with it came the desire of belief; 
 but the hard heart of unbelief withstood a long time, and 
 fear came upon him and waxed great, and brought first 
 resignation to his will, and after much refractoriness 
 (God be praised, but never sufficiently, that he bore with 
 the frowardness of the child of sin, whoso wages is death), 
 God in his good time sent the pardon and peace which 
 passeth knowledge in the love which struck out fear. 
 Hallelujah." 
 
 An eminent and useful missionary to India was much 
 troubled in his young manhood with religious doubts. 
 But in the midst of his doubts he yet, strangely enough, 
 felt the call of duty to go as a missionary to India and 
 work for the salvation of the heathen. He went. Years
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 155 
 
 later he returned to America on a visit, his labors in the 
 meantime having been crowned with abundant success. 
 Some one who had known of his early spiritual troubles 
 chanced to meet him one day and asked him how he had 
 settled his religious doubts. " I went earnestly to work 
 for Christ," said he, " and I have been so busy trying to 
 save the poor heathen among whom I have been labor- 
 ing for the past several years, that I have not had time 
 to think of my doubts. I never did answer my difficul- 
 ties and questions. But they ceased to trouble me when 
 I became busy in the Master's work, and I would not 
 waste the time now that it would take to have them ex- 
 plained." There are doubts born of having nothing to 
 do, and the only way to cure them is to go to work for 
 Christ. Christians that are busy in the Lord's work, in 
 helping the poor, in seeking and saving the lost, are rarely, 
 if ever, troubled with doubts. 
 
 "Nearly every young man in civilized lands," says 
 Professor Townsend of Boston University, "has his 
 period of doubt. I passed through my period of per- 
 sonal skepticism while at college. The experience was 
 intense, lasting perhaps two years. A few sensible re- 
 marks from Dr. Lord, president of the college, suggest- 
 ing that Christianity is a system which, to a certain 
 extent, can be tested as other matters are tested, fur- 
 nished a key that subsequently opened the door leading 
 back to the faith of early boyhood." 
 
 It is to bo hoped that every Christian's religious expe- 
 rience is so deep, and his relation to Christ so close, that
 
 156 blSCTTSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 he will not need rational and theological arguments to siis^ 
 tain his faith when circumstances arise which might tend 
 to produce a state of skepticism. But, if not, some facts 
 may be mentioned that will prove helpful to such a one. 
 It is remarkable how often Christ appealed to his su- 
 pernatural works as the proof of his divine character. 
 And so there is no plainer or stronger or more satisfac- 
 tory argument in favor of the divine origin and nature of 
 Christianity than to appeal to its influence and work in 
 the world, whether upon nations, or communities, or in- 
 dividuals. What has heen the effect of Christianity upon 
 the nations that have come under its influence? Take 
 Great Britain, for example, whose inhabitants were, be- 
 fore the entrance of Christianity, as thoroughly heathen 
 people as are those of China and India to-day. What 
 has wrought this change? When Queen Victoria was 
 asked by the Japanese minister as to what was the secret 
 of England's greatness, she very truthfully replied, point- 
 ing to an open Bible : " That is the secret of England's 
 greatness." What is the effect of the Christian religion 
 upon a community that comes under its influence ? Take, 
 for example, such a notoriously wicked and lawless one 
 as " Five Points " in the city of New York. For many 
 long years it defied the law, and so strongly was crime 
 enthroned there that even policemen feared to go there. 
 It continued such until the Christian missionaries began 
 their work among the law-breakers and criminals there. 
 But through the influence of the Christian religion it has 
 been transformed into one of the most law-abiding and
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 157 
 
 moral sections of the great city. How account for the 
 transformations in moral character accomplished in the 
 thousands of individuals in almost every community on 
 any other hypothesis than the divine character of Chris- 
 tianity? Never mind about inconsistent professors of 
 religion Christianity is in no way responsible for their 
 failures, but condemns them as strongly as do the crit- 
 ics of Christianity. Judge Christianity by those who 
 do what it bids men do, not by those who fail to do what 
 it bids them do. The greatest and best men that have 
 ever lived have been believers in Christianity and have 
 ascribed all the good that was in them to the Christian 
 religion. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, 
 neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." 
 
 That Christ is the wisest and best man that has ever 
 appeared in the history of our race, all men admit, oven 
 skeptics and infidels. This wisest and best man claimed 
 to be divine : " I and the Father are one." That he made 
 this claim is as certain as that he once lived. The doc- 
 uments that prove to us that he once lived are the same 
 which assert that on many occasions and in many ways 
 he claimed to bo divine, and the Jews fully understood 
 that he " made himself equal with God." Now this claim 
 is cither true or false. If false, it must be because he 
 was a willful impostor or was himself self-deceived, a re- 
 ligious fanatic. Neither of which hypotheses is in the 
 remotest degree compatible with the universal verdict of 
 llu' human race that he is the noblest and best man 
 that has ever lived.
 
 158 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 So, loo, the Bible is universally conceded by all men, 
 whether believers in Christianity or not, to be the best 
 book, in its moral influences, in the literature of the world. 
 Now nothing is plainer than that this best of all books 
 claims to contain a series of divine revelations from God. 
 If this claim were not true, it not only could not be the 
 best of books, but it would be the worst book in the lit- 
 erature of the world, an impious fraud from beginning 
 to end. To deny the truth of the Scriptures, would be 
 not merely to affirm that one prophet, or inspired writer, 
 was a deceiver or self-deceived in claim ing a supernatural 
 communication from God, but that a succession of proph- 
 ets and writers, extending over a period of fifteen hun- 
 dred years, entered into the pious fraud, or were alike 
 victims of a common delusion to believe which would 
 require more "blind faith" than to believe the vain su- 
 perstitions of Roman Catholicism in the dark ages, not 
 to -speak of the rational and self-consistent faith of intel- 
 ligent Christianity in the nineteenth century. Before 
 one rejects Christianity he ought to consider what such 
 rejection necessitates his believing instead of it. For 
 every one difficulty that is presented to the human mind 
 in rationally accepting Christianity, there are a hun- 
 dred of a much more serious nature involved in denying 
 Christianity and accepting infidelity. A young person es- 
 pecially is apt to overlook this important and serious con- 
 sequence growing out of a rejection of the Christian faith. 
 
 Again, Christianity is universally conceded to be the 
 best institution in the world for the moral elevation of
 
 RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM. 159 
 
 the race. Now Christianity claims that all its distin- 
 guishing features and doctrines are of divine origin ; and 
 if there is any thing divine about it, it is all divine. If 
 this claim is false, it is the most gigantic fraud in exist- 
 ence on the earth. Can it be that that institution which, 
 in spite of all its alleged defects, is yet the best in exist- 
 ence, is totally or even partially false? Can it be that 
 it is the most gigantic fraud in existence ? But it must 
 be this, if it is not of divine origin and divine authority. 
 
 Skepticism makes life a failure. It robs character of 
 its chief strength. The man who does not know what he 
 believes can influence no one. It is the man who believes 
 something, who knows what he believes, who has a faith, 
 has convictions, and the courage to state them, that is 
 going to make himself heard and going to be believed 
 and to win success among men. " I don't know " is the 
 language of skepticism. " I don't know whether there is 
 a God whether Jesus Christ is divine whether there 
 is any such thing as regeneration and spiritual religion 
 whether there is any immortality for -human souls I 
 don't know." " I know " is the language of faith. " I 
 know that my .Redeemer liveth I know whom I have 
 believed I know that whereas I was blind now I see 
 I know that I have passed from darkness to light I 
 know that all things work together for good to them that 
 love God I know that if this earthly house of my tab- 
 ernacle is dissolved, I have a building of God, a house not 
 made with hands eternal in the heavens." 
 
 And as skepticism makes life a moral failure and en-
 
 160 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 velops it in gloom, so it throws darkness around the grave 
 and makes death a leap into the dark unknown. We want 
 faith, not skepticism, to die with. "Here is an argu- 
 ment," said Hannah More, " with which to answer all the 
 sophistries of skepticism : No man over yet repented of 
 the Christian religion on his death-bed." " There is one 
 thing," said a skeptic, " that mars all the pleasure of my 
 life : I am afraid the Bible might be true." And well he 
 may ; for, if it does, his case is hopeless. But if skepti- 
 cism or infidelity, or any anti-christian "ism" in exist- 
 ence, should prove true, the Christian is just as safe as 
 any one in meeting the issues of eternity. 
 
 Lord Byron was through life a skeptic, and died a 
 skeptic's death. Among his last words were these : 
 
 " My life is in the yellow leaf, 
 
 The fruit and flower of love are gone ; 
 Henceforth the canker and the grief 
 
 Are mine alone." 
 
 Paul, the Apostle, was through life a believer, and he 
 died a believer's death. Among his last words were these : 
 " I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my de- 
 parture is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have 
 finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth 
 there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which 
 the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day : 
 and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his 
 appearing." 
 
 I set before you skepticism and faith. Which will you 
 take to live with ? Which will you take to die with ?
 
 A BRIEF STUDY OF THE CANON 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 IT is not by any means my purpose to undertake in 
 this place any thing like an exhaustive treatment of the 
 canon of the New Testament, which is confessedly a 
 largo and difficult subject, but only to indicate some of 
 the methods of studying it, and some of the facts bear- 
 ing upon it. It is a subject, however, about which it is 
 our privilege to inquire and our duty to be informed. In 
 these days nothing escapes investigation, analysis, criti- 
 cism. And if we felt no personal interest in this inquiry, 
 as ministers we come in contact with reading and inquir- 
 ing men inside the Church who do feel an interest in it, 
 and whose questions we ought to be able to answer, as 
 well as with gainsaying men outside the Church who 
 have knowledge of these things, and whose cavils we 
 ought to be able to meet. 
 
 Without stopping to give the etymology of the word 
 canon, or to distinguish it from other terms, it is suffi- 
 cient to say that there is in the possession of the Church, 
 and has been for many hundreds of years, a body of 
 writings known as the New Testament, and held by all 
 branches of the Church during all these hundreds of 
 11
 
 162 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 years to be of divine origin, inspiration, and authority, 
 and so standing apart from and superior to all other 
 writings in existence. This collection of books is what 
 is known as the canon of the New Testament. It stands 
 for us complete, closed, exclusive. And yet it cannot 
 but be a matter of great interest to us to know, if wo 
 may, the history of this collection, when and how it was 
 formed, how long it has been what it is at present. It 
 would be interesting to inquire, if it be done with rev- 
 erence, what relation the books of our canon bore to the 
 great mass of so-called apocryphal literature which has 
 come down to us from a very early age, and what 
 ground we have for believing that the early Church, 
 with divinely attested qualifications and divinely ap- 
 proved tests, made a decided and rigid distinction be- 
 Cwccn the books of our canon and all other books. 
 Though we shall not be able, with entire satisfaction, to 
 answer all these questions, we need have no fear, I think, 
 that these investigations will result in damage to the 
 foundations of our faith. On the conti*ary, besides fur- 
 nishing answers to inquiries that are natural and com- 
 mendable, they will, it is believed, have a positive apolo- 
 getic value, and bring into clearer light the solid character 
 of the historical foundations of our faith. The origin of 
 Christianity will bear investigation, invites investigation. 
 And if any fact or event in the history of this world ever 
 endured investigation, the origin of Christianity more. 
 But all these investigations many-sided, microscopical, 
 irreverent, hostile, persistent as they have been so far
 
 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 163 
 
 from showing any weakness or cause for wavering, have 
 only resulted in revealing more clearly the impregnable 
 historical basis of Christianity.* 
 METHODS. 
 
 Obviously, the canon of the New Testament, as such, 
 is a different thing from the canonicity of any single 
 book, and must be treated in a different way, though a 
 discussion of the canonicity of each separate book would 
 constitute altogether a discussion of the canon of the 
 New Testament, and this would be the more thorough 
 and satisfactory way.f But the canon of the New Tes- 
 tament, as a whole, may be discussed with some degree 
 of satisfaction without descending to the discussion of 
 the canonicity of each several book. Sometimes it is 
 convenient to examine the canonicity of certain groups 
 of the New Testament books ; as, the four Gospels, the 
 catholic Epistles^ the Epistles of St. Paul, or the group 
 of books constituting the so-called antilegomena. In 
 the discussion of the canon of the New Testament as a 
 whole we make use of three well-known facts : 
 
 1. The books considered of apostolic authority and 
 counted as sacred scripture were translated into other 
 languages, as the Latin and Syriac, and so it happens in 
 
 * Compare the lecture on the Tubingen Theory in this vol- 
 ume. 
 
 f Both methods are employed by Professor Charteris in his 
 work entitled " Canonicity " (Edinburgh, 1880). This is an admi- 
 rable work, and gives the completest view of the subject any- 
 where to be found.
 
 164 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 this incidental way that wo have lists preserved to us of 
 those books. 
 
 2. It happens also that many of the early writers made 
 lists of the books which in their day were received as sa- 
 cred scriptures, were read in their assemblies, and were 
 regarded as standing apart from all other books in exist- 
 ence, while other writers make quotations from them. 
 
 3. A little later Church councils took in hand the con- 
 sideration and settlement of this question, and upon 
 large data, much of which is not now accessible to us, 
 officially declared just what books should be regarded as 
 constituting our New Testament. 
 
 The examination of these lists, then, furnished us in 
 this threefold form, is what we mean by a discussion of 
 the New Testament canon as distinguished from the 
 canonicity of any particular book or of each of the books 
 severally. . We shall find upon examination that there is 
 substantial agreement among these lists. 
 
 There are, as Dr. Addison Alexander says, two meth- 
 ods of conducting this inquiry. The first consists of a 
 historical deduction in the order of time, beginning with 
 the first notices of the books and the entire collection, 
 and continuing to the present time. The other, setting 
 out from undisputed and notorious facts belonging to 
 the present, traces up the testimony to the times of the 
 apostles. The fact from which we set out in the use of 
 this second method (which we shall follow in this lect- 
 ure) is that the book now called the New Testament is 
 the same in every language arid throughout the world.
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165 
 
 This cannot even be said of the Old Testament script- 
 ures, the canon of which is different in the opinion of 
 Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians, the former 
 accepting the Old Testament Apocrypha as Scripture, 
 while the latter do not. But, though the New Testa- 
 ment Apocrypha are more numerous than the Old Tes- 
 tament Apocrypha, no one of them is anywhere regard- 
 ed as belonging to the canon. It is not strictly correct 
 to say that this absolute identity of the canon has ex- 
 isted for fourteen hundred years and more ; for though 
 the Church, as a whole, Catholic and Protestant, has 
 held the canon to be the same, yet individual students 
 and scholars within the pale of the Church have at dif- 
 ferent times questioned, on various grounds, the canon- 
 icity of particular books; as, for example, Martin Lu- 
 ther rejected the Epistle of James, that of Jude, and the 
 Apocalypse of John ; and there are scholars at the pres- 
 ent day who question the canonicity of particular books ; 
 as, for example, Canon Farrar questions that of 2 Peter.* 
 Still, it is true that, so far as the Church as a whole is 
 concerned, it is a well-known and undisputed fact that 
 the canon of the New Testament has been what it now 
 is for nearly fifteen hundred years, back to the fourth 
 century. So that our investigation will have reference 
 to the canon previous to that time. 
 
 * See " Early Days of Christianity," p. 99/. I say he questions 
 the canonicity of it ; for though he says it is rightly accepted as 
 canonical, yet, in the discussion which follows, his facts and 
 statements lie as much against its canonicity as its genuineness. 
 See especially p. 100.
 
 166 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 THE HISTORY OP THE CANON. 
 
 FIRST PERIOD, 397-315. The complete canon of the 
 New Testament, as we now have it, was ratified at the 
 Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), in North Africa, one of 
 the most enlightened portions of the Church. The Coun- 
 cil of Hippo, in North Africa also, four years earlier (393 
 A.D.), made a definitive statement of the canon of the 
 New Testament scriptures, having previously ordered 
 that nothing shall be read in the Churches as divine 
 scriptures except the canonical scriptures (prater script- 
 uras canonicas). It then specifies these as follows : The 
 canonical scriptures are four books of the Gospels, one 
 of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, 
 and one of his also to the Hebrews, two Epistles of Pe- 
 ter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, and the 
 Apocalypse. Besides this, we have the explicit testimo- 
 ny of Rufinus, an eminent and learned Church Father 
 of Northern Italy (born, 360 ; died, 410), who enumer- 
 ates the books of the New Testament by classes, as fol- 
 lows : The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, four- 
 teen Epistles of St. Paul, two Epistles of Peter, one of 
 James, one of Jude, three of John, and the Eevelation of 
 John. This is not merely a statement of his own private 
 judgment, but he says : " These are the scriptures which 
 the Fathers have included in the canon, Hcec sunt qua; pa- 
 ir es inter canonem concluserunt." 
 
 Going now still farther back in the fourth century, 
 and to still another quarter of the Church, we find in one 
 of the letters of Athanasius (born, 296 ; died, 373) a state-
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1C7 
 
 ment of the Alexandrian canon. This contains a clear 
 and positive list of all the books of the New Testament 
 as they are now received with us. Moreover, Athanasi- 
 us adds, "These are the fountains of salvation, so that 
 whosoever thirsts may fill himself with the oracles con- 
 tained in them. Let no one add to them, or take any 
 thing away from them," which is a strong statement of 
 his view of the completeness and exclusiveness of the 
 canon. So far, we have not found the least dissent from 
 our existing canon. ]t was received in its present form, 
 us we have seen, in the Latin Church, both of Italy and 
 North Africa, in the Greek Church, as is testified by 
 Athanasius ; and the fact that Ephrem Syrus, the great- 
 est Syrian father (died 378), quotes in his extant writings 
 every one of the books of our present canon is sufficient 
 proof that at the time in question the Syrian canon was 
 the same. 
 
 The next writer that we come to in this retrogade 
 investigation is Gregory of Nazianxun, in Cappadocia 
 (born, 330 ; ordained, 361 ; died, 389). He received all 
 the books of our canon, with the exception of the Apoc- 
 alypse of St. John, which is excluded from his cata- 
 logue. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem from 350 to 381, gives 
 the following catalogue : Four Gospels, with a positive 
 exclusion of all others as spurious and injurious ((/'Eudent- 
 ypaya. xal ftta/lspa), Acts of the Apostles, seven catholic 
 Epistles, and fourteen Epistles of St. Paul. He makes 
 no mention of the Apocalypse, it will be observed. 
 
 So far, we find the canon of the New Testament to bo 
 the same as at the present day, with the single exception
 
 168 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the Apocalypse or Revelation of John, which is ex- 
 cluded from the catalogues of Gregory and Cyril. Fur- 
 ther than this, no intimation has been found of any 
 question concerning the other books. 
 
 Eusebius, 840-315. We come now to the catalogue 
 or canon of the celebrated Eusebius, the learned and 
 scholarly Church historian, who was Bishop of Csesarea 
 in Palestine from 315 to 340. He was the confiden- 
 tial friend and adviser of Constantino the Great, and 
 wrote a biography of him which is still extant. His 
 work on Church History has earned for him the distinc- 
 tion of " Father of Church History." His testimony 
 concerning the canon is full and discriminating, though 
 it is not free from difficulties. He divides the writings 
 that were current among Christians in his day, and claim- 
 ing to emanate from the apostolic age, into three great 
 classes : 
 
 1. The homologoumena, or undisputed. 
 
 2. The antilegomena, or disputed. 
 
 3. The notha, or spurious. 
 
 Perhaps it will not be improper to quote the passage 
 in full : This appears to be the proper place to give a 
 summary statement of the books of the New Testament. 
 And here among the first must be placed the holy qua- 
 ternion of the Gospels ; these are followed by the book 
 of the Acts of the Apostles ; after this must be mentioned 
 the fourteen Epistles of Paul, which are followed by the 
 acknowledged first Epistle of John, also the first of Peter, 
 to be admitted in like manner. After these is to be
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169 
 
 placed, if proper (e? ye yavEty *), the Eevelation of John. 
 These then are acknowledged as genuine (ofj.o^.o^ovfjLeva). 
 Among the disputed books (avrdeydfieva), although they 
 are well known and approved by many, is that called the 
 Epistle of James and that of Jude and also the second 
 Epistle of Peter and those called the second and third of 
 John. (He speaks of Hebrews as disputed in Bk. iii. 3.) 
 
 Among the spurious (y60a) must be numbered the 
 books called the "Acts of Paul," that called " Pastor," 
 that called the " Eevelation of Peter," the " Epistle of 
 Barnabas," and what are called the " Teachings or Insti- 
 tutions of the Apostles." Some also number among 
 these the gospel according to the Hebrews. (E. H., iii. 25.) 
 
 As has been said, Eusebius does not express any doubt 
 of his own concerning the so-called antilegomena, f but 
 only records the doubts of others and gives a statement 
 and history of the question, so to speak. 
 
 One thing must be borne in mind in examining the state- 
 ments and testimony of Eusebius concerning the books of 
 the New Testament canon, a consideration that will be 
 helpful in examining the references to New Testament 
 books found in the writings of the ages preceding Eusebius, 
 and this is, that there existed then much evidence which is 
 no longer available for us. Canon Farrar is therefore hasty 
 and inaccurate in his statement that " the Church of the 
 fourth century had not the least pretense to greater au- 
 thority than the Church of the nineteenth." J They did 
 
 * Westcott eays this seems to mean in case its authenticity is 
 admitted. 
 
 ,f Compare Bk. iii. 3. 
 t" Early Days of Christianity," p. 98.
 
 170 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 have abundantly more evidence than we have, and conse- 
 quently had a better right to judge ; and as we shall see 
 further on, they were discriminating, hesitating and cau- 
 tious to a fault in deciding upon the reception of any 
 book into the canon. 
 
 Now it is true that Eusebius does not always cite his 
 authorities, nor does he by any means enumerate or name 
 all the books which according to our certain knowledge 
 he had access to. This " silence of Eusebius " has been 
 made much of by the author of " Supernatural Religion," 
 a pretentious and plausible book, published in England 
 some years ago. The difficulty raised by this author on 
 the " silence of Eusebius " has been completely and tri- 
 umphantly laid by Bishop Lightfoot in articles of sur- 
 passing ability published in the Contemporary Review for 
 1875. The author of " Supernatural Religion " claims 
 that as Eusebius promises to bring forward every ref- 
 erence to the books of the New Testament found in 
 ecclesiastical writers (H. E., Bk. iii. 3), when he does 
 not adduce any such reference by any such author, 
 it is proof that that author had nothing concerning the 
 books of the New Testament and knew nothing of them. 
 For example, the extracts quoted from Hegesippus 
 by Eusebius contain no reference to the New Testa- 
 ment books, but only to a certain apocryphal book. 
 Therefore Hegesippus did not use our New Testament 
 books. 
 
 But this author has simply misunderstood Eusebius. 
 Eusebius does not promise to record every reference to
 
 THE CANON Of THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171 
 
 New Testament books in various writers, but only refer- 
 ences to the disputed books (the so-called antilegomena). 
 He says (H. E., Bk. iii. 3) : "As the history goes forward, 
 
 1 shall make it a business to show, along with the suc- 
 cessions of bishops, which of the ecclesiastical writers in 
 their several times used any of the antilegomena * and 
 which of them they used, and also what things have been 
 said by them concerning the canonical and acknowledged 
 writings and whatever things have been said by them 
 concerning those not such." This means that he will, for 
 the purpose of helping decide the question of the canon- 
 icity of the antilegomena, show what writers used them 
 (i. e., the antilegomena} ; but that he will only relate 
 facts and incidents concerning the universally acknowl- 
 edged books (the homologoumena'), as, for example, how 
 they came to be written and under what circumstances. 
 And this is precisely what he does. Hence he does not re- 
 fer to Polycarp's quotations of Paul, though he had Poly- 
 carp's letter and mentions it. He does not refer to Igna- 
 tius' frequent quotations from the canonical books, though 
 he had the epistles of Ignatius and gives quite a lengthy 
 account of them in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. iii. 36. 
 So again, he quotes a reference by Clement of Eome to 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it was one of the 
 antilegomena, but nowhere mentions the explicit state- 
 ment of Clement that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, be- 
 cause this was an acknowledged book and there was no 
 
 * These are, as lias already been said, James, Hebrewp, Jude, 
 
 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse.
 
 172 DISCUSSIONS IIT THEOLOGY. 
 
 need of adducing testimony from Clement for it. Now 
 it happens that we have the letter of Polycarp, those of 
 Ignatius, and that of Clement, and we see that they did 
 refer to and quote from the undisputed books repeatedly, 
 although Busebius is silent concerning these quotations. 
 
 Moreover, that this is the correct interpretation of the 
 passage where Eusebius makes his promise is abundantly 
 confirmed by his practice. For he does give accounts of 
 the manner in which the undisputed books originated or 
 any other matter of history he happened to know con- 
 cerning them, as, for example, in Bk. iii. 24, he shows in 
 what way the four Gospels came to be written and in 
 what order. This is further confirmed by what he says 
 also in Bk. v. 8, where he repeats his promise. 
 
 But when Eusebius mentions the reference of any 
 writer to uncanonical books, and does not mention that 
 writer's reference to the canonical books, the author of 
 " Supernatural Eeligion " and critics of his class jump to 
 the conclusion that that writer knew only those uncanon- 
 ical books. But we happen to have the writing's of some 
 men whoso references to disputed books Eusebius has 
 preserved, though at the same time not mentioning any 
 reference of theirs to the canonical or undisputed books ; 
 and yet in these writings, many of which we have, we 
 find that these men do refer to the canonical books. For 
 example, Eusebius mentions the reference to the Apoca- 
 lypse found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, but 
 ignores entirely his direct quotations from the Gospel of 
 John.
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173 
 
 SECOND PERIOD, 315-170. Leaving Eusebius, the next 
 period will extend from his time back to the date of the 
 earliest regular lists which remain to us of the New Testa- 
 ment books: 315-170. In thisperiod we need refer to only 
 four authors Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
 and Irenseus but the last in particular because of the 
 peculiar character and value of his testimony. If the 
 Latin translation of Origen's Homilies be trustworthy, 
 he held the same canon which we have at the present 
 time, but it is known that the Latin translator did in 
 some instances modify the teaching of Origen. " There 
 is, however, ample evidence in the untranslated writings 
 of Origen that he received all the books of our canon ex- 
 cept that he appears to have no quotations from the 
 Epistle of James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John." " He ac- 
 cepted the Apocalypse of John as the undoubted work of 
 the Apostle John." (Westcott.) The canon of Clement of 
 Alexandria, Origen's predecessor and preceptor (220 
 A.D.), was the same as that of Origen. 
 
 Tertullian (A.D. 160-222), the oldest Latin Father, and 
 with one exception the ablest and greatest, recognizes in 
 his writings, says Charteris,* all the books of our New 
 Testament except James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. 
 Moreover, besides thus recognizing the books of our New 
 Testament canon, he speaks of " the whole instrument," f 
 
 * See " Canonicity," p. 46. Charteris gives all his quotations in 
 the original languages, but generalizes and summarizes in English. 
 
 t He says that the heretical teacher, Valentinue, used " the 
 whole instrument," but perverted the meaning by his false in- 
 terpretation.
 
 174 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 meaning by that the New Testament as a whole and ac- 
 cording to Westcott " the canon of North Africa in Ter- 
 tullian's time, as shown by the Latin Version, prepared 
 there about A.D. 170, included all the books of our New 
 Testament but James and Second Peter." 
 
 Irenceus, 177. Because of the importance of the testi- 
 mony of Irenseus it will be proper to present a fuller ac- 
 count of this illustrious Gallican Father.* He was born 
 probably about A.D. 120. At any rate, the important fact 
 is that he was connected directly with the apostles and the 
 apostolic age by two distinct personal links, if not more. 
 He must have been 16 or 18 years old when Polycarp was 
 teaching and Irenseus heard him. Polycarp himself was 
 born A.D. 69, and must have been 30 years old when St. 
 John died. Irenseus says he remembered much about Poly- 
 carp's conversations, his discourses, and even his manner 
 and expressions and especially what he said about his in- 
 tercourse with St. John and other personal disciples of 
 Jesus. Then he adds that their accounts were entirely 
 in accordance with the Scriptures. 
 
 But Irenaeus was connected with the apostolic age by 
 another companionship. He was the leading elder in the 
 Church of Lyons in Gaul, of which Pothinus was bishop, 
 and he succeeded Pothinus on the martyrdom of the lat- 
 ter in 177 or 178. So he must have had almost daily in- 
 tercourse with Pothinus. But Pothinus, we know, lived 
 to be more than 90 years old, which would put his birth 
 
 * In this account of Irenseus and his testimony I have followed 
 Lightfoot's Essays in the Contemporary Review for 1875.
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175 
 
 about A.D. 87, making him at least ten years old when 
 St. John died. Moreover, there is every reason for be- 
 lieving that Pothinus, like Irenseus, went originally from 
 Asia Minor, and he must have known whether certain 
 writings attributed to the apostles and evangelists had 
 been in circulation as long as he could remember, or 
 whether they came to his knowledge only the other day, 
 when he was already advanced in life. Moreover, in his 
 work on Heresies, Bk. IV. 27, Irenaeus gives an account 
 of elaborate discourses which he had heard from a cer- 
 tain " Elder " who had himself " listened to those who 
 had seen the apostles and to those who had been disci- 
 ples," i. e., personal followers of Christ. It seems most 
 natural to identify this "Elder" with Pothinus. But if 
 this elder was not Pothinus, then he forms a third dis- 
 tinct link of connection between Irenseus and the apos- 
 tolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse 
 of Irenams with him was both frequent and intimate. 
 " The Elder used to say ; " " the Elder used to refresh us 
 with accounts of the ancient worthies ; " " the Elder used 
 to discuss" these are some of the expressions which 
 Ircnacus uses in writing of this anonymous elder. So 
 that Irenoms could not have failed to ascertain the mind 
 of the early Church with regard to the evangelical and 
 apostolic writings. Nor were these the only advantages 
 which Irenseus enjoyed. When he speaks of the recog- 
 nition of the canonical writings, his testimony represents 
 three Churches at least : 
 
 1. In youth ho was brought up in Asia Minor.
 
 176 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 2. In middle life he staid for some time in Eome, 
 wither he had gone on an important mission. One of 
 the manuscripts of the martyrdom of Polycarp says that 
 " Irenseus, being in Rome at the time of the martyrdom 
 of Polycarp, taught many." Besides, the letter of the 
 Churches of Vienne and Lyons, preserved in Eusebius, 
 was sent by Irenseus to Rome. Eccl. Hist., Bk. v. 4. 
 
 3. Before and after this he held for many years a 
 prominent position in the Church of Gaul, as, first, a 
 leading Elder and afterward Bishop of Lyons. 
 
 He was engaged in all the most important controver- 
 sies of the day. He gave lectures, as we happen to know, 
 for Hippolytus * attended his lectures on "All the Here- 
 sies," delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at 
 Rome. He was a diligent letter-writer, interesting him- 
 self in the difficulties and dissensions of distant Churches. 
 He composed several treatises whose general character 
 may be estimated from his extant works. The subjects 
 which he treated forced him to an examination of the 
 Scriptures which constituted the canon. In connection 
 with the Montanist controversy, in which he took a 
 chief part, he had to examine the doctrine of the Para- 
 clete in the fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in 
 the Paschal controversy, into which the relation between 
 the Synoptists and John entered largely. He was con- 
 tending all his life against heretics of one sort or another, 
 
 * Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus, near Rome, in the first 
 quarter of the third century. He afterward wrote himself a 
 " Refutation of All Heresies."
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177 
 
 and constantly appealed to the Scripture records for test- 
 ing and refuting their errors, as we see in his extant 
 works. 
 
 He possessed exceptional opportunities for forming an 
 opinion on the points at issue. His honesty is beyond 
 the reach of suspicion. He was a man of intelligence 
 and culture, with a considerable knowledge of classical 
 literature, though he makes no parade of it. He argues 
 against his opponents with much patience. His work is 
 systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. In 
 short, Irenseus betrays no incapacity which affects his 
 competency as a witness to a broad and comprehensive 
 fact. 
 
 So much, then, for the witness, his opportunities, qualifi- 
 cations, and competency. We are now prepared to exam- 
 ine his testimony. As to the authority, says Lightfoot, 
 attributed by Irenaus to the four Gospels, the Acts of the 
 Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, several of the catholic 
 Epistles, and the Apocalypse, it falls short in no respect of 
 the estimate of the Church catholic in the fourth or the 
 ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats them just as 
 ho does the books of the Old Testament, cites them as 
 Scripture, attributes them to the respective authors 
 whose names they boar. He regards them as handed 
 down in the Churches from the beginning ; he fills his 
 pages with quotations from them ; ho has not only a very 
 thorough knowledge of their contents himself, but ho as- 
 sumes a recognition of and an acquaintance with them 
 in his readers. 
 12
 
 178 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 For example and especially in the third book* he un- 
 dertakes to refute the opinions of his Valentinian oppo- 
 nents directly from the Scriptures, and because they added 
 other gospels to which they appealed, he relates briefly 
 the circumstances under which our four Gospels were 
 written. He points out that the writings of the evan- 
 gelists arose directly from the oral gospel of the apostles. 
 He shows that the traditions of the apostles were pre- 
 served by a direct succession of elders which in the prin- 
 cipal Churches can be traced man by man, arid he asserts 
 that this teaching accords entirely with the evangelical and 
 apostolical writings. 
 
 He maintains, on the other hand, that the doctrine of 
 the heretics was of comparatively recent growth. He 
 assumes throughout not only that our four canonical 
 Gospels alone were acknowledged in the Church, but that 
 this had been so from the beginning. The Valentinian 
 heretics accepted these, but superadded others to which 
 they appealed, while heretics of a different type, as Mar- 
 cion, for example, adopted some one Gospel to the exclu- 
 sion of all others. He argues there could not be more 
 nor less than four Gospels. There are four regions of the 
 world, and the Church must be supported by four Gos- 
 pels as by four pillars. Again there are four general 
 covenants of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It 
 is therefore audacious folly, he says, to increase or dimin- 
 
 *Irenseus "Against Heresies," Bk. III., Chapter 11, pp. 426-28, 
 Vol. I. Ante-Nicene Fathers, published by Christian Literature 
 Co., 36 Bond Street, N. Y.
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179 
 
 ish the number of the Gospels. Can we imagine, he con- 
 tinues, that these documents sprung up at once full- 
 armed from the earth, no one could say how? and 
 that they had taken their position at once by the side of 
 the Law, the Psalmist, and the Prophets as the very 
 voice of God ? 
 
 From this it appears that Irenaeus exercised the most 
 rigid discrimination and that he was as severe in exclud- 
 ing all the apocryphal trash which some " liberal " critics 
 would like to put along-side our canonical Gospels, as he 
 was vehement in defending each one of the holy four 
 against the intemperate and irreverent manipulation of 
 men who, like Marcion, ventured to mutilate them. And 
 for all this he gives the best and most satisfactory rea- 
 sons. But not only is the testimony of Irenseus explicit 
 as to the Gospels, it is so also as to nearly all the books 
 of the New Testament. The only books of our Now 
 Testament that are not quoted by him are Philemon, 
 Judo, and 3 John, which probably escaped quotation on 
 account of their brevity or the personal character of 
 their contents, or both. 
 
 When we come to the lists of which mention was made 
 in the first part of this paper, we find a remarkable 
 agreement between them and the testimony given by 
 Ironams. 
 
 The Old Latin Version, 150-170. The old Latin Ver- 
 sion (giving the canon of North Africa), which was pre- 
 pared as early as A.D. 170 and was already in existence 
 when Irenams wrote his work, had, according to Mr. West-
 
 180 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cott, " the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. 
 Paul, the three catholic Epistles of St. John, the First Epis- 
 tle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. To 
 these the Epistle to the Hebrews was added before the 
 time of Tertullian." In other words, it had all the books 
 of our existing canon except James and 2 Peter. 
 
 The Muratorian Fragment, 170. The next of these lists 
 which we shall mention is that known as the Muratorian 
 Fragment, discovered in manuscript form by Muratori in 
 the library of Milan and published by him in 1740. It is 
 very mutilated and fragmentary, and presents the most 
 perplexing difficulties. Without discussing these, we may 
 say with Chateris,* who is very cautious and candid in es- 
 timating its testimony, that it bears witness to the Gospels, 
 thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Acts, at least two Epistles of 
 St. John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. Light- 
 foot thinks that it probably bears witness also to the other 
 Epistle of John besides the two above mentioned, and 
 Westcott that a clause in it probably refers to Hebrews 
 as written by a friend of St. Paul. He also discovers in- 
 dications of two breaks in the fragment where the Epistle 
 of James and First and Second Peter may have been 
 named in the original list. 
 
 This list probably represents the Eoman canon. 
 
 The Syriac Version, 170. There is one other catalogue 
 of New Testament books dating from the second century 
 
 * He gives the Latin text of the Fragment on p. 3 of his work 
 on " Canonicity " and discusses it on p. 79 and following of his 
 Introduction to that volume.
 
 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 
 
 and representing still another quarter of the Church. 
 This is the Syriac Version of the New Testament. It 
 was probably in use before A.D. 170. " Its list of books is 
 the same as our present canon, save that it wants the 
 Apocalypse, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John." (Charteris). 
 
 Thus there is substantial agreement among the canons 
 of this period, namely, that of Irenseus,* the old Latin, 
 the Muratorian, and the Syriac. But it must be remem- 
 bered, as Bishop Lightfoot says, that the canon of the 
 New Testament was not taken up by Church councils 
 till the latter half of the fourth century. When we find, 
 therefore, this agreement on all sides in the closing 
 years of the second century, without any formal enact- 
 ment, we can only explain it as a consequence of inde- 
 pendent testimony showing that the general sense of the 
 Church had singled out the books which they had reason 
 for accepting and holding as apostolical, inspired, and ca- 
 nonical. 
 
 The Antilegomena. But what are we to say concerning 
 the omission of some of our canonical books from these 
 lists ? We have already seen from Eusebius that in his 
 day seven of the books of our canon were questioned by 
 some, and so got the name of antilegomena. These seven 
 were the Apocalypse, Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 
 
 * Not that Irenaeus gives a formal list of the books composing 
 the canon in his day. We arrive at a knowledge of his canon 
 from his quotations of the New Testament books. If he had 
 given a formal statement of the canon, it would most probably 
 have coincided exactly with our present existing canon.
 
 182 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 2 and 3 John. We find that one or more of these seven 
 books are wanting in the last four catalogues we have ex- 
 amined, namely, the old Latin Yersion, the Muratorian 
 Canon, the Canon of Irenaeus, and the Syriac Version. 
 This is probably the reason that later, or in the time of 
 Eusebius, there were still some who questioned these 
 books. It is not possible within the limits of this paper 
 to make a thorough investigation of them, but we may 
 speak of them roughly, taking up each one separately. 
 
 The Apocalypse. If we take the Apocalypse first, we 
 find it is wanting in the Syriac Version, though it stands 
 in the old Latin Version, the Muratorian Canon, and the 
 Canon of Irenseus. Its omission in the Syriac Version may 
 be accounted for by the fact that the ancient versions of 
 the Scripture were not made for general circulation, as 
 now, but to be read in the Church-service, and the Apoca- 
 lypse was thought to be unsuited to that purpose, just as, 
 until the last three or four years, the Episcopal Church 
 both of England and America omitted it almost wholly in 
 her calendar of lessons,* though expressly specifying it in 
 her articles of faith as a part of Scripture. It will be 
 remembered that the Apocalypse was excluded by some 
 Church Fathers of the fourth century .f This is explained 
 by the fact that at that time millenarian doctrines of a 
 gross form prevailed. These views were so repudiated 
 by the Church in general and by some distinguished 
 
 * This bit of information is due to a friend who is a clergyman 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 t See pages 167, 168. .
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183 
 
 teachers in particular that they rejected that portion of 
 Scripture which contained the passage held to be the 
 foundation of these erroneous doctrines, as Martin Luther 
 erected an arbitrary standard of his own and rejected the 
 Epistle of James because it seemed to conflict with Paul's 
 doctrine of justification by faith. 
 
 The testimony of Irenaeus is very important. He not 
 only testifies to the canonicity of the Apocalypse but to 
 the authorship of John the Apostle. (Bk. IV., 20. 11.) 
 Sed Joannes, Domini discipulus, in Apocalypsi gloriosum 
 regni videns adventum, . . . inquit, etc. The Apoca- 
 lypse is quoted three times in the Letter of the Church of 
 Vicnne and Lyons, once as Scripture, Iva r/ YP a< py ntypioOy, 
 etc. (Eusebius, H. E., v. 1.) This letter was sent by 
 Irenffius to Eome. Justin Martyr has an explicit quota- 
 tion of the Apocalypse, which is indeed his only citation 
 of a New Testament book by name. He says, "Ka\ avijp rt<; 
 itaf> JjfJ.lv, u> ovofj.0. 'laidvvTjs, el? Ttu\> aitoaTokiav TOO Xptffrou, iv 
 dnoxaAtHpet npoeprfTeuae rout; rijt XptaTip ntareuffavrat; -Koi^astv 
 %ttta. ETTJ v 'hpouffalijfj." "A certain man among us, 
 John by name, one of Christ's apostles, prophesied in 
 the Apocalypse that believers in Christ would spend a 
 thousand years in Jerusalem." (Dial. w. Trypho, ch. 81.) 
 "Papias, who came into contact with the early disciples, 
 and perhaps with John himself, quoted the Apocalypse 
 as inspired and trustworthy." (Charteris.) 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, it is witnessed to by the Canon of Irenffius, by 
 the Syriac Version, by the old Latin Version, though
 
 184 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 added a little after its first formation and before the time 
 of Tertullian, and it is believed by Westcott that the Mu- 
 ratorian Canon also contained it, though, on account of 
 its mutilated and fragmentary condition, it cannot be cer- 
 tainly determined. There are many undoubted instances 
 of correspondence between the Epistle of Clement of 
 Eome and Hebrews, says Charteris (p. 272), and he cites 
 also correspondences between Hebrews and Polycarp, 
 Justin Martyr, and others coming later. "That it was 
 probably written to Alexandrian Jews may have retarded 
 its reception in the Western Church, and the fact that 
 the knowledge of its authorship was lost may have con- 
 tributed to the same result." The ancient doubts had 
 reference more to its authorship than its canonicity. 
 
 The Epistle of James. The Epistle of James was ac- 
 cepted in the Eastern Church from the beginning, as is 
 shown by its place in the Syriac Version. The slowness 
 with which it was received in the Western Church is prob- 
 ably due partly to the fact of its uncertain authorship, as 
 there were three Jameses, and partly to the impression cur- 
 rent in all ages of a doctrinal divergence between James 
 and Paul on the fundamental doctrine of justification by 
 faith. It is well known that Martin Luther rejected it. 
 
 The Epistle ofJude. The Epistle of Jude is found in the 
 old Latin Version and is expressly named in the Murato- 
 rian Canoni but it is wanting in the Syriac Version, which 
 may be due to the same cause that explains the absence of 
 the Apocalypse from that version (see page 182). It is not 
 quoted by Irenseus, though that may be due to its brevity
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 
 
 and is no proof that it was not regarded by him as a ca- 
 nonical book. 
 
 2 Peter. The earliest quotation of 2 Peter is that 
 found in 2 Clement. Justin's references are worthy of 
 notice, and so are those of Irenteus. Clement of Alex- 
 andria commented on 2 Peter as a part of Scripture. 
 In estimating the evidence for the canonicity of 2 
 Peter it must not be overlooked that there is between 
 this Epistle and that of Jude a most remarkable resem- 
 blance, not only in contents and meaning, but even in 
 minute and peculiar forms of expression.* This would 
 be a cause of suspicion and hesitancy. On the natural 
 assumption that but one could be canonical and the other 
 an imitation, it is easy to see how the judgment of the 
 Church would be for a long time divided. 
 
 2 and 3 John. The Second and Third Epistles of John 
 are in the Latin Version of the second century, and are 
 probably named in the Muratorian Canon. Certainly one 
 of them is. It mentions two Epistles of John, and it is the 
 opinion of Lightfoot that these two are the Second and 
 Third, while the First is referred to in another part of the 
 fragment. Second John is certainly and professedly quot- 
 ed by Irenams (Bk. I., 16 : 3), "'0 yap Ufwv afoots" <pi)<r}, 
 (^ latdvvrjs) "%a{petv t xinvatvet TO!? e/o^of? abratv TZ? Kovi)p(ri<;" 
 which is an exact quotation of 2 John 11. Compare it. 
 These two shorter Epistles, it ought to be said also, are 
 so perfectly in the style of the Gospel and First Epistle 
 of John that it is impossible for even an untrained and 
 
 *See Farrar'a "|Early Days of Christianity," pp. 110, 111.
 
 186 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 uncritical reader to read them without marking and re- 
 marking the similarity. In accounting for the omission 
 of these from the Syriac Version and from the writings 
 of the Fathers it is to be remembered they are extremely 
 short, very personal and particular in form and design, 
 and both half-anonymous. And indeed it is true of all 
 these four last-named Epistles Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 
 John that they are all very short, and therefore furnish 
 very little matter for quotation, which will explain the 
 fewness of the references to them in the writings of the 
 Fathers of the second century. 
 
 Thus we can give a reasonable and probable account of 
 the omission of some of these seven books, the antilegom- 
 ena, from some of the canons and Fathers of the second 
 century, and these omissions in the second century will 
 account for their being questioned in later times and will 
 furnish, in particular, a sufficient explanation of the fact 
 that these same books were disputed by some in the time 
 of Eusebius, as we have already seen. 
 
 THIRD PERIOD, 170-69 AJD. It remains to make an 
 examination of references to books of the New Testament 
 to be found in authors that come before the time of Irenams 
 as Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, 
 and Barnabas, from each of whom we have one or more 
 writings. But the limits of this paper will not allow any 
 such examination in detail. We may say, however, in gen- 
 eral, that though no one of these writers has a list of the 
 books composing the New Testament and no one of them 
 quotes all the books of the New Testament, yet they all
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187 
 
 quote one or more books of the New Testament. For ex- 
 ample, there are many coincidences between Justin Mar- 
 tyr and each of our four Gospels, as well as some incidental 
 correspondences with Paul's Epistles.* There are twenty- 
 nine quotations of the New Testament books in the epistles 
 of Ignatius, one of them being from the Apocalypse. Be- 
 sides these, there are forty-three similarities of tone and 
 thought, which Charteris calls "echoes," including one 
 from the Apocalypse and one from 3 John.f In the sin- 
 gle extant letter of Polycarp there are thirty-five quota- 
 tions and twenty-four " echoes." One of the " echoes " 
 is from Jude, one from James, and one from 2 Peter, 
 though they are doubtful.J In the epistle of Clement 
 of Rome there are twenty quotations of the New Testa- 
 ment books and eleven " echoes," including two from 
 James. In the epistle of Barnabas there are twelve 
 passages that coincide in substance or form with passages 
 in the New Testament, most of them with passages in 
 the Gospel of John.|| 
 
 But the fact that we find no more references in these 
 earlier writers to the New Testament Scriptures is not 
 at all strange, but rather what was to be expected. Take 
 the Gospels, for example. " The universal recognition of 
 the four Gospels is the only fact which can explain the 
 
 * Charteris, " Canonicity," Introduction, pp. 61, 62. 
 - 
 
 d., pp. 30-33 
 J Ibid., pp. 39, 40. 
 $ Ibid., pp. 22, 23. 
 I IMA, p. 7.
 
 188 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 fragmentary notices of them and references to them in 
 these earlier writers." If there has been any questioning 
 of them or any false ones challenging equality with them, as 
 there did come to be later, in the time of Irenceus, that would 
 have occasioned discussion, as it did in the time of Irenceus, 
 and so we should find more frequent and explicit mention of 
 them in these earlier writers, as we do find in Irenceus. 
 
 As Bishop Lightfoot says in his admirable articles in 
 the Contemporary Review, Irenseus is the first extant 
 writer in whom, from the nature of his work, we have a 
 right to expect explicit information on the subject of the 
 canon. Earlier writings which have been preserved .are 
 either epistolary, like those of Ignatius and Polycarp, 
 where any references to the canonical books must nec- 
 essarily be few and incidental; or devotional, like the 
 Shepherd of Hernias, which is equally devoid of quota- 
 tion from the Old Testament and the New ; or historical, 
 like the account of the martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, 
 where any such allusion would be uncalled for ; or apol- 
 ogetic, like the great mass of Christian writings of the 
 second century, in which the reserve of the writer leads 
 him to be silent about authorities that would be of no 
 weight with his heathen or Jewish readers. The work 
 of Irenaeus is the first controversial treatise addressed to 
 Christians on the subject of Christian doctrine, where 
 the appeal is naturally to Christian documents. And 
 this clear and positive testimony of Ireneeus, giving to the 
 New Testament Scriptures an authority in no respect 
 falling short of the estimate of the Church catholic in the
 
 THE CANON OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 
 
 fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century, implies, 
 besides, as its historical background, a New Testament 
 canon virtually complete, as it was some time afterward 
 formally so pronounced by the universal Church and is 
 still so received, and not without good reasons historical 
 and internal.* 
 
 * In this paper the inquiry has been historical only, and very 
 incomplete at that. No comparison as to contents and character 
 has been made between the New Testament writings and the 
 other writings of antiquity. On this point the following verdict 
 of a great scholar is just and moderate : The Epistle of Clement 
 to the Corinthians and that of Polycarp to the Philippians come 
 nearest to the Epistles of Paul and John, but even they are sepa- 
 rated from them by a very great distance. Barnabas, Ignatius, 
 Hennas, Papias, Justin Martyr are still further off, and bear no 
 comparison with the apostles and evangelists. As to the apocry- 
 phal compared with the canonical Gospels, the difference be- 
 tween them is as between night and day. 
 
 No transition in the history of the Church is so sudden, ab- 
 rupt, and radical as that from the apostolic to the post-apostolic 
 age. God himself has established an impassable gulf between his 
 own life-giving word and the writings of mortal men, that future 
 ages might have a certain guide and standard in finding the way 
 of salvation. (Schaff's "Companion to the Greek Testament," 
 p. 81.)
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A 
 PREACHER. 
 
 IN the lectures heretofore delivered to the class in Pas- 
 toral Theology, I laid down successively, and endeavored 
 to maintain, the following propositions: 1. "Our Lord 
 Jesus Christ has himself ordained that his Church shall 
 have in all times, and under all circumstances, special 
 men appointed to the superintendence of worship and 
 the guidance of human souls." Or, to put the matter 
 differently, we have good reason to assert that the Chris- 
 tian ministry, as a distinct and permanent institution, 
 finds its warrant and justification in the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament. 2. This ministry is not to be looked 
 upon in the light of a merely human profession, which a 
 man may take up of his own choice, as he would take up 
 merchandising or law or medicine; but is, on the con- 
 trary, to be regarded as a divine vocation, upon which no 
 man should enter without a conscious and imperative im- 
 pulse from the Holy Ghost. 3. The dignity of this minis- 
 try, which is indeed very great, does not rest upon the 
 supposition of its being a sacrificing and mediating priest- 
 hood, a thing both unnecessary and impossible in a purely 
 spiritual religion ; but upon the twofold fact that it is ap- 
 pointed to expound and proclaim the word of God, and to 
 exercise a just and rational pastoral supervision over the 
 Church.
 
 192 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 It is the first of these functions concerning which I 
 wish now to speak. To be brief, my theme is: The 
 Christian Minister as a Preacher. The full and scientific 
 treatment of this theme belongs, of course, to Homiletics, 
 but in a general way, and for the purpose of emphasizing 
 its importance, it must be noticed here. There is abun- 
 dant ground for affirming that preaching is the minister's 
 highest work. Let us present in the outset a few of the 
 facts that make this declaration good. 
 
 I. Jesus Christ himself was a preacher. Soon after his 
 baptism he opened his ministry in the synagogue at Naza- 
 reth by quoting and applying to himself this passage from 
 Isaiah Ixi. 1 : " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, be- 
 cause he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; 
 he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach de- 
 liverance to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the 
 blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the 
 acceptable year of the Lord." In the course of three years 
 he delivered numerous lengthy discourses : the Sermon 
 on the Mount ; the sermon to Nicodemus ; the sermon to 
 the Samaritan woman ; the farewell sermon of the last 
 Passover. In addition to these, much of his time was 
 taken up with mere informal religious teaching, the ut- 
 terance of those brief but pregnant sayings that fell from 
 his lips as occasion called them forth. His preaching ar- 
 rested attention, and fixed itself in the memory of his 
 hearers. There was nothing about it that excited so much 
 remark as this, that " he taught them as one having au- 
 thority, and not as the scribes." He was no mere com-
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 193 
 
 mentator, repeating by rote the dull platitudes that had 
 been so often repeated before him, but an original, com- 
 manding, and inspiring Teacher, with a message of his 
 own for the world ; not an echo, but a clear, fresh, living 
 voice. He did not begin and end with, " Eabbi So-and-so 
 said so-and-so," but rather with an authoritative, " I say 
 unto you." Even toward the law of Moses, as one has 
 well said, he took up " a lofty critical and revisionary at- 
 titude.' 1 There was never the slightest wavering, hesita- 
 tion, or indecision in his words. He went forward straight 
 as an arrow to its mark, turning aside neither to the 
 right hand nor to the left. Priest and King ho was, but 
 none the less a Prophet. 
 
 II. The great commission which Jesus gave to his apostles 
 indicates not merely the extent to which he wished them to pro- 
 ceed in the propagation of the truth, but also the method accord- 
 ing to which he wished them to accomplish that work : " Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." 
 In spite, however, of a deliverance so explicit, two widely 
 differing theories of propagandism prevail among Chris- 
 tian people. The first of these, for lack of a term more ac- 
 curately descriptive, may be called the sacramental theory. 
 It is held in a modified form by High-church Episcopalians 
 and some other sects; but is found in ite fullness only 
 among the Eoman Catholics. It is, of course, correlated 
 with the doctrine of one universal, visible Church, outside 
 of which there is no hope of salvation, and with the other 
 doctrine of a mediating priesthood, which, by virtue of 
 its position in that Church, holds the keys of the king- 
 13
 
 194 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 dom of heaven. It puts the sacraments in the forefront. 
 It is sensuous, sentimental, aesthetic ; it appeals princi- 
 pally to the faculties of taste and imagination, and only 
 in a subordinate way to the intelligence and the con- 
 science. It minifies the sermon and magnifies the serv- 
 ice. Ritualism is its joy and glory. It requires of its 
 ministers, not breadth and strength of brain, nor thor- 
 oughness and richness of culture, nor power of persuasive 
 speech, but close attention to the rubrics at all seasons of 
 religious worship, and special decency of behavior at 
 weddings and funerals. It calls to its aid all the fine 
 arts: architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and man- 
 millinery. It builds Gothic cathedrals, and adorns them 
 with the best productions of the chisel and the brush. 
 It uses pipe organs and quartet choirs, not that the 
 simple folks may be led to " make melody in their hearts 
 to the Lord," but that the senses of the cultivated few 
 be regaled with " the concord of sweet sounds." It keeps 
 on hand an elaborate ecclesiastical wardrobe, so that the 
 make-believe priests who serve at its altars may be dif- 
 ferent as much as possible in appearance from their 
 brother men who plow the fields or throng the marts of 
 trade. The odors of a musty medievalism cling to it, 
 and it seems utterly out of place in the open daylight of 
 the nineteenth century. 
 
 The other theory, and the true one, is the preaching 
 theory. It insists that the Christian minister is not to be 
 a mere dumb servitor at the altar, following the fashion 
 of a pagan priest, and taking a listless and perfunctory
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 195 
 
 part in a more or less empty ritual. Such a work as 
 that would make no high demand upon his head, no su- 
 preme draft upon his heart. A greater trust is commit- 
 ted to him. He is appointed to be the bearer of a mes- 
 sage, the teacher and dispenser of an intelligible system 
 of religious truth. This message he must understand, 
 not giving it out in an unconscious and mechanical fash- 
 ion like a phonograph, nor repeating it by rote like a 
 parrot, but delivering it to the world ex corde, out of his 
 very heart. This truth he must grasp, both in its wider 
 and more abstract reaches, and in its narrower and more 
 concrete details. Nay, a mere intellectual apprehension 
 of it, however clear and penetrating, will not suffice him 
 for the effective discharge of his task. Somehow or oth- 
 er he must get the truth incorporated into his spirit, 
 woven into all the texture of his character, so that his 
 speaking of it may be as if he were yielding up the im- 
 palpable flame and essence of his own life. To him also 
 is addressed the charge of Paul to Timothy : " Preach 
 the word ; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove, 
 rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." 
 
 The philosophy of the whole matter is finely expressed 
 in Eomans x. 13, 14 : " For whosoever shall call upon the 
 name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they 
 call on him in whom they have not believed? and how 
 shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? 
 and how shall they hear without a preacher?" The 
 practice of all the apostles, moreover, was in strict ac- 
 cordance with the teaching of this passage. St. Peter
 
 196 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 opened the now dispensation of the Spirit on the Day of 
 Pentecost with a sermon that had in it all the elements 
 of exposition, application, and exhortation a sermon 
 that cut like a sword and burned like fire. St. Paul 
 said of himself (1 Cor. i. 17) : " For Christ sent me not 
 to baptize " not to make baptism, nor the performance 
 of any other visible rite, the business and object of his 
 ministry " but to preach the gospel." So small a rela- 
 tive importance did he attach to baptism and other such 
 things that he also said in the same connection : " I thank 
 God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; 
 lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. 
 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, 
 I know not whether I baptized any other." Imagine a 
 man with such a moral earnestness as this befooling 
 himself with vestments and wax candles and incense and 
 processions and bowings ! The thing is impossible. But 
 wherever he went he left the memory of his sermons ; 
 and this, too, in spite of the fact that his enemies de- 
 clared his " bodily presence " to be " weak " and " his 
 speech contemptible." "From Jerusalem and round 
 about unto Illyricum," in a wide-sweeping circle, he 
 " fully preached the gospel of Christ." In Jewish syna- 
 gogues, in the open streets of heathen cities, in the phil- 
 osophical school of Tyrannus at Ephesus, in the upper 
 chamber at Troas, on the summit of Mars' Hill at Athens, 
 on the sandy sea-shore at Miletus, he " opened his mouth 
 boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel." 
 III. It must be added that every subsequent age of great
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 197 
 
 religious activity, every age of revival and reform, has been 
 marked as a period of preaching. Not to go into wearisome 
 minuteness of detail, I will call your attention to only a 
 few examples of this fact. 
 
 In the thirteenth century preaching had fallen into 
 disuse. As a matter of theory, it was the special work 
 of the bishops. But the bishops had other tasks to 
 look after. They were busy with war or diplomacy or 
 the management of the vast estates which a prodigal 
 liberality had bestowed upon the Church. In many in- 
 stances they were engrossed with pleasure, and wallow- 
 ing in the mire of a godless licentiousness. The number 
 of them who had either the capacity or the disposition 
 to occupy the pulpits of even their cathedral churches 
 was not great ; and in the rest of their dioceses " their 
 presence was but occasional, a progress, or a visitation 
 of pomp and form rather than of popular instruction." 
 Dean Milman says : " The only general teaching of the 
 people was through the Ritual. But the splendid Ritu- 
 al, admirably as it was constituted by its words and sym- 
 bols to impress the leading truths of Christianity upon 
 the more intelligent, and in a vaguer way upon the more 
 rude and uneducated, could be administered, and was ad- 
 ministered, by a priesthood almost entirely ignorant, but 
 which had just learned mechanically, not without decen- 
 cy, perhaps not without devotion, to go through the 
 stated observances." * 
 
 The Church was in grave danger of losing its hold 
 
 *" History of Latin Christianity," Book X., Chap. IX.
 
 198 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 upon the popular mind of Europe ; for there was at this 
 time a wide and profound intellectual quickening in all 
 classes. To the great universities scholars of all degrees 
 flocked by the thousand, and outside of the universities 
 there were manifest signs of a new life. What was the 
 Church to do in order to meet this emergency ? The her- 
 etics were moving. In the south of France Peter Wal- 
 do was sending out his itinerant preachers to proclaim 
 an almost Protestant version of the gospel. If Home 
 was to maintain her hold, she must bestir herself. " Just 
 at this moment," again says Milman, " there arose two 
 men wonderfully adapted to arrest and avert the danger 
 which threatened the whole hierarchical system St. 
 Dominic and St. Francis, the founders of the Friar 
 Preachers. By them Christendom was at once over- 
 spread by a host of zealous, active, devoted men, whose 
 function was popular instruction. In a few years, from 
 the Sierras of Spain to the steppes of Eussia, from the 
 Tiber to the Thames, the Trent, the Baltic Sea, the old 
 faith, in all its fullest, medieval, imaginative, inflexible 
 rigor, was preached in almost every town and hamlet." 
 By such means the Medieval Church recovered the 
 ground that it had almost lost; and not only so, but 
 won new conquests, and made for itself a widened do- 
 main. 
 
 In the same connection, we must not omit to mention 
 the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Mar- 
 tin Luther knew the value of the pen and of the picture. 
 The newly invented printing-press was a good angel to
 
 (THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 190 
 
 him. He kept it moving day and night to turn off a suf- 
 ficient supply of his almost numberless books and tracts; 
 and, in company with his artist friend, Lucas Cranach, 
 he actually flooded Germany with his pictorial caricatures 
 of the pope and the papacy. But he also made the 
 walls of the great Wittenberg Church ring with his ser- 
 mons, and besides found time for frequent preaching 
 tours throughout Germany. There was one occasion 
 when, speaking after the manner of men, he actually 
 saved the Reformation by his sermons. During his 
 year's voluntary confinement in the castle of Wartburg 
 the so-called " prophets of Zwickau " came to Wittenberg, 
 and made a great stir. By their revolutionary views they 
 carried off even Professor Carlstadt, one of Luther's col- 
 leagues, who at once sought to introduce the most radi- 
 cal and untimely measures. Luther heard of it, and 
 could not be held in check. Though warned that he 
 could come out of the place of his concealment only at 
 the risk of his life, he dared every thing, flew to Witten- 
 berg, and for eight consecutive days and nights lifted up 
 his voice from the pulpit against the folly which seemed 
 about to wreck the fair prospects of ecclesiastical reform. 
 Only by such superhuman efforts was the plague staid. 
 
 The following quotation from John Ker (" History of 
 Preaching," p. 150) will be read with pleasure : " It is re- 
 markable that Luther was at first unwilling to preach. 
 Like Moses, he did not recognize his work. He distrust- 
 ed himself, or ho had not yet the impelling fire of Jere- 
 miah and Paul. It was at the command of his superior,
 
 200 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 under the vow of obedience, that he first preached in the 
 refectory or dining-room of the cloister at Erfurt, and 
 afterward in the little cloister church at Wittenberg. 
 But when he once began the spirit of preaching grew 
 upon him, and he agreed to preach in the town church 
 of Wittenberg, which afterwarcr became so famous, and 
 in which he lies buried side by side with Melanchthon. 
 . . . By and by came his breach with the papal system 
 through his opposition to indulgences, and this led him 
 to the simplicity of the gospel, and to the central truth 
 of his preaching -justification by faith. He now found 
 firm footing, and his preaching gained a power which 
 roused all Germany and shook the souls of men. There 
 had been nothing like it since the Day of Pentecost. On 
 his way to Worms, to meet the Diet, he could not escape 
 from the crowds. At Erfurt where he had commenced 
 in the little refectory, the great church was so crowded 
 that they feared it would fall. At Zwickau the market- 
 place was thronged by 25,000 eager listeners, and Luther 
 had to preach to them from the window. . . . Luther 
 had always pressing work the care of the Church and 
 all the controversies, the training of preachers, translat- 
 ing the Bible, writing pamphlets and volumes, giving 
 counsel to princes and people ; but nothing could keep 
 him from preaching, at home and wherever he went, on 
 Sabbath-days and during the week. He continued to 
 preach all his life long, though broken in health, and so 
 enfeebled that he often fainted from exhaustion. But to 
 the end he retained his wonderful power. The last time
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 20l 
 
 he ascended the pulpit was in February, 1546, a few days 
 before he died." 
 
 What has just been said of Luther may be said, with 
 some modification, of almost all the other leaders of the 
 Reformation. John Calvin was to Geneva what Luther 
 was to Wittenberg. No man ever led a busier life. He 
 was practically the head of the civil government of the 
 city ; he lectured constantly to his hundreds of students ; 
 he conducted an extensive correspondence with the great 
 men of the Protestants throughout all Europe ; he was 
 virtually the leader of the Reformed Church in France ; 
 he wrote commentaries, histories, etc. ; and yet it was 
 long his custom to preach on every day of alternate 
 weeks. Time would fail me were I to tell of Zwingle, 
 of John Knox, of Hugh Latimer, and of the other nota- 
 ble preachers of the Reformation, who shine like stars 
 through the mists of time. 
 
 It is hardly necessary, moreover, to refer to John Wes- 
 ley and the great revival of the last century. There is, 
 however, one erroneous opinion concerning Wesley which 
 ought to bo corrected. It is admitted on all hands that 
 he had consummate genius for organization ; and this fact 
 has overshadowed his fame as a surpassingly great pul- 
 pit orator. It is a common belief that in this respect he 
 was far inferior to Whitefield. But there was never a 
 greater mistake. The immediate effects that followed 
 his field preaching wore beyond any phenomena that 
 were produced by Whitefield's ministrations. For a sub- 
 stantial confirmation of this statement, the reader is re-
 
 202 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ferred to Dr. John H. Rigg's interesting and instructive 
 little book entitled " The Living Wesley." In the course 
 of his life he preached more than 40,000 sermons. The 
 men who were his associates and successors caught the 
 contagion of his spirit. It was this chiefly that gave 
 them such success as they achieved in the world. Pas- 
 tors they were not, and, in the ordinary sense of the 
 term, could not be. To this day, the official designation 
 of a Methodist minister is not pastor, but preacher in 
 charge. 
 
 We are sometimes told nowadays that preaching, as a 
 chief means of instructing and moving men, has had its 
 day, and must fall back into a lower place ; that in pro- 
 portion as men become more cultivated they eschew the 
 exciting methods of the pulpit, and prefer the more 
 placid and quiet culture that comes from books ; and that 
 the Church ought to re-adjust her plans to suit this al- 
 leged fact. All such talk is empty and idle ; or, at least, 
 the only truth in it is this : that the general increase of 
 intelligence makes the task of the pulpit one of increas- 
 ing care and difficulty. Yet the day will never dawn 
 when preaching, in the sense of expounding and enforc- 
 ing the word of God, will not be the mightiest of all in- 
 strumentalities for converting men from sin and building 
 them up in the faith of the gospel. Other things as, for 
 example, the religious press may be brought into co-oper- 
 ation with it ; but none of them can take its place. There 
 is a power and a vitality in spoken truth that can never be 
 transferred to the printed page. Edward Irving declared
 
 TflE CHRISTIAN MINISTER AS A PREACHER. 203 
 
 that the pulpit was " the ancient throne of power " in 
 the British realm. To make it such in every realm is 
 the manifest duty of the Christian ministry. 
 
 No other accomplishment in a minister can compensate 
 for the lack of preaching ability. It is far more important 
 to be like Apollos, " mighty in the Scriptures," than to be 
 able to manipulate a Church fair, or organize a reading- 
 club, or engineer a " praise service," or shine in literary 
 circles. It is the bounden duty of every one that is called 
 of God to try to be not only a good preacher, but the best 
 possible preacher. The mere desire to appear well before 
 men, to win popular applause, to reach a high place in 
 the Church, is, of course, all wrong ; but even this is not 
 much worse than the contemptible laziness which puts 
 on airs of humility, and converts its indifference to duty 
 and its neglect of manifest obligations into a Christian 
 virtue. And, moreover, it is not to glorify ourselves, but 
 to glorify Christ, not to promote our own ends and aims, 
 but to do good to our fellow-men, that we should culti- 
 vate to the utmost limit the gift of luminous and orderly 
 thought, and of convincing, impassioned, and moving 
 speech. 
 
 Let us hope that the history of the pulpit which is yet 
 to be written will be even more glorious than that which 
 has already gone to record. With such themes as the 
 Bible affords, and such opportunities for unfolding and 
 declaring them as we now have, we ought to begin a now 
 epoch. The ideal preacher has not yet appeared. Some- 
 where in the future he will make his advent, and do his
 
 204 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 work. The world will hail him when he comes. He 
 will be as full of faith as Abraham, as courageous as Eli- 
 jah, as lofty as Isaiah, as ardent as Peter, as gentle as 
 John, and as wide-minded as Paul. Learned in all the 
 learning of the schools, but modest as a woman ; trained 
 in the art of oratory, yet simple and unaffected in his ut- 
 terance as a child; equipped with all human resources, 
 but relying solely on the power of God ; living himself a 
 life of the loftiest and most stainless piety, and at the 
 same time moved with the tenderest compassion for the 
 faults and the follies of his fellow-men ; an absolute 
 Christian, and a real man ; God's message-bearer, God's 
 prophet when shall he come ?
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILU- 
 VIAN PATRIARCHS, 
 Accordingtothe Hebrew Narrative in Genesis. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 THE faiths presented hereafter will be those which 
 were learned anew under other conditions, or else faiths 
 newborn. There are three. Of the first, Abel furnishes 
 the historical illustration ; of the second, Cain and La- 
 mech ; of the third, Enoch and Noah. 
 
 Fifth Faith. The just Jehovah God accepts offering 
 only as it mirrors the well-doing of the offerer. 
 
 And it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the 
 ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of 
 the firstlings of the flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah 
 had respect unto Abel and to his offering ; but unto Cain and 
 his offering he had not respect. 
 
 And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell. And Je- 
 hovah said unto him : 
 
 "Why art thou wroth, 
 
 And why is thy countenance fallen ? 
 
 If thoudoest well, 
 
 Shalt thou not be accrj-led? 
 
 And if thou doeet not well, 
 
 Sin lieth at the door. 
 
 And for thee shall be his desire, 
 
 But thou mayest rule over him." 
 
 Man knew that every offering unto Jehovah must bo
 
 206 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 choice. Selection must enter into each offering. Hence 
 he chose, if a tiller of the ground, to offer its first fruits ; 
 if a keeper of the flock, to offer its firstlings. Man's 
 daily employment should yield his gifts to Jehovah. 
 Man should select from its products offerings for Jeho- 
 vah. Such are just inferences from the narrative. Yet 
 in this respect man might obey the law of offering, 
 and remain unpossessed of Jehovah's favor. Both Cain 
 and Abel brought to Jehovah the offering which had out- 
 ward conformity to the law respecting the nature of of- 
 fering. Nevertheless, "Jehovah looked kindly upon Abel 
 and his offering ; but upon Cain and his offering he looked 
 not kindly." In the narrative the person is placed before 
 the offering. Ever is this true. When Jehovah " looks 
 kindly " on a person, the offering of such a person must be 
 acceptable. Also it is a corollary that such a person will 
 conform to law as respects the choice quality of the of- 
 fering. 
 
 " Cain was very wroth." He knew there was a differ- 
 ence in character between him and Abel, also between the 
 way Jehovah regarded his offering and the offering of 
 Abel. This knowledge angered him greatly. Then we 
 are told that Jehovah came to Cain and spoke to him 
 when he was wroth. This is in accordance with the 
 nature of Jehovah. Ever he comes to man with help 
 ing words in the time of crisis. Cain was in peril. 
 He cherished a feeling as destructive to human life as 
 that " enmity " which was in the spirit of the serpent. 
 This wrath of Cain, unless laid aside, must result in
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 207 
 
 murder. His wrath arose because Jehovah "regarded 
 not his offering." This same Jehovah conies lovingly to 
 Cain and reveals the reason for the unacceptableness of 
 himself, and so of his offering. " If thou doest well, shalt 
 thou not be accepted ? " The question is grounded on a 
 fundamental religious axiom. "Well-doing" makes the 
 door acceptable to God. The human heart believes this 
 truth. But one answer could be returned. It is, Yes. 
 Faith is over on the side of well-doing. Actions which 
 are not well done in the sight of Jehovah have sin at their 
 core. " If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." 
 
 The remainder of the words of Jehovah is but the 
 manifestation of his love. "And unto thee is its desire, 
 but thou mayest rule over it." Sin is personified in the 
 passage. The ever-alertness of sin to seize him who 
 opens the door, if at that door sin is lying in wait, becomes 
 portrayed in these words. There is warning as to the 
 fell purpose of sin, yet the words of Jehovah come with 
 promise: "But thou mayest rule over it." Here is a 
 repetition of the Protoevangelium, of the first gospel : 
 "It shall wound thy heel, but thou shalt wound its 
 head." Cain has here a promise that with him was the 
 advantage. He might rule over sin. There was no pow- 
 er in sin to rule over him, unless ho so chose. 
 
 The second view given of Cain is awful. He becomes 
 the murderer of his brother. This act was the culmina- 
 tion of that wrong-doing which had made his offering 
 unacceptable. The fact of murder is simply stated. No 
 comment is made upon it to enforce its awful character,
 
 208 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 The third view has as its background not an unac- 
 cepted offering, but a murder. Jehovah again converses 
 with Cain. The question of Jehovah is : " Where is Abel, 
 thy brother?" Here is chance for confession. But 
 the wicked Cain replies : "Am I my brother's keeper ? " 
 Contrast this response with the ingenuous confession of 
 both Adam and Eve. Cain's reply is tantamount to a de- 
 nial of the whereabouts of Abel. Jehovah convicts him 
 by the words : " The voice of thy brother's blood crieth 
 from the ground unto me." 
 
 Jehovah again pronounces a curse. The first curse 
 pronounced by Jehovah was upon the serpent. There 
 was no mitigating circumstance to modify the hellish 
 purpose which prompted him to deceive the woman. 
 Hence Jehovah pronounces a curse without mitigation 
 upon him. Adam sinned in that he hearkened, under a 
 motive worthy of respect, to the voice of the woman rather 
 than to the voice of Jehovah. Still he showed in dis- 
 obedience the evidence of a nobility of spirit, which must 
 have commended him somewhat to Jehovah. Hence no 
 curse was pronounced on him, but on the ground. The 
 third curse was pronounced on Cain. His denial of his 
 deed placed him in the same defiant attitude as that of 
 the serpent. Hence a curse is pronounced on him. Tho 
 essentially new element in this curse is that Cain should 
 be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth. It was this 
 new element which forced the heart-despairing cry from 
 Cain. This cry phrased itself in the words : " My pun- 
 ishment is greater than I can bear." The sorrow in this
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIAKOHS. 209 
 
 utterance is deepest. It is expanded by Cain, thus show- 
 ing he understood its import. He beheld himself a 
 wanderer and a fugitive, and such a one as each would 
 wish to kill ; also he would be hidden from the face of 
 Jehovah. Here was punishment above bearing. Shut 
 out from earth, from man, from Jehovah. If Jehovah 
 heard the first cry of the human heart as it was forced out 
 by the consciousness that awful loss had ensued through a 
 deed whose motive power was rooted in the wish to be 
 like God, it is no surprise to learn that Jehovah again 
 hoars the cry of the human heart, as it proceeds from 
 Cain when he faces the awful consequence of his wicked 
 deed, although it was due to the wickedness of his 
 evil heart. Jehovah hears the cry of agony which 
 Cain utters. He does not remove the penalty. Com- 
 plete vengeance was taken on Cain. He must be a wan- 
 derer and a fugitive. His deed was such that ho could 
 not dwell among men. To murder a man was to place a 
 barrier between the murderer and other men, so that they 
 might not dwell together. But Jehovah did pity Cain. 
 What this murderer mostly feared was the vengeance 
 unto death, which every man would take upon him, and 
 the banishment from God. This thought rendered his 
 punishment greater than he could bear. When Cain re- 
 alized that his wicked deed made him an object of dread 
 to mankind, made him fit only to bo killed, and also 
 thrust him out from Jehovah's presence, he came near 
 drinking the cup of repentance ; and when sin makes us 
 conscious of our worthlessness, and leads us to tell it to 
 14
 
 210 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Jehovah, we may expect some promise from him. To 
 Cain help came, a promise : " Therefore whoever slayeth 
 Cain vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold." The 
 sign placed upon him was protection from mankind, and 
 also evidence that Jehovah had shown him mercy. 
 
 This Fifth Faith is related to Adam, Eve, and Cain alike, 
 in so far as they were doers of wrong. Punishment was 
 meted out to each. Hence Jehovah declared his justice. 
 Also when repentance was found in each, promise was 
 given to them. Adam and Eve had the promise that 
 they should be superior, stronger than the serpent. 
 Cain, although his evil conduct led him to be unaccept- 
 able to Jehovah, yet Jehovah, while declaring that he 
 had done evil and sin was at the door, repeated also the 
 first promise, that Cain might rule over sin. Cain, how- 
 ever, increased in wickedness, which culminated in mur- 
 der. Jehovah metes out punishment for this wrong-do- 
 ing ; but, when the heart of Cain fails him, and he says : 
 " My punishment is greater than I can bear," then Je- 
 hovah gives him promise. Thus early we are taught that 
 a heart-cry unto Jehovah is over heard, and that the an- 
 swer is always promise. 
 
 Lamech is the second murderer ; at least he is the sec- 
 ond murderer recorded in revelation. The crime of Cain 
 is given with some detail. Step by step we can trace the 
 approach to the awful deed. But otherwise is it with 
 Lamech. We know not whom he murdered. We know 
 simply that their number was two, that they were a man 
 and a boy. AH little also is given us respecting the in-
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 211 
 
 contivo to the crimes as is given us respecting the names 
 of the murdered ones. Revelation seeks not the tragic. 
 lib is not concerned with those harrowing details which 
 ever feed a morbid mind or else excite a morbid craving. 
 It is a matter of surprise to learn that this account of La- 
 mech is in poetry. The deed probably was first recorded 
 in a kind of penitential poem. The overburdened con- 
 science utters itself in secret shelter of the home, the ag- 
 onized husband pours out his penitent lament to his two 
 wives : 
 
 "Adah and Zillah, 
 
 Hear my voice, 
 
 Wives of Lainech, 
 
 Give ear to my saying." 
 
 Such are the words of the sorrow-stricken man. The 
 impartation was to be momentous. Household words, 
 names of loving associations, are first employed in the 
 announcement. "Adah and Zillah " were words precious 
 through home-memories to Lamech. Nor can love alone 
 be appealed to in this appeal for listeners. "Wives of 
 Lamech " are added. The duty of wifehood js ever to 
 hearken and not turn away in the critical moments of 
 husbands. Love and duty are addressed with petition 
 in this awful time of sorrow for Lamech. This is all that 
 revelation cares to record. We know not how Adah 
 and Zillah received the words of their husband. Such 
 record would be only the statement of attendant circum- 
 stances. The significant fact is that crime produces un- 
 rest, and that murder will out. "Adah and Zillah" must
 
 212 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 hear Lamech. But it is more than the mere fact of 
 murder that they must hear. The next two lines of this 
 fragment of poetry give us the additional something. 
 Mankind is interested to know it. It is the first uttered 
 confession of the effect of sin upon the sinner. Adam 
 and Eve sinned, but they fled from Jehovah. Cain com- 
 mitted sin, but he faced Jehovah, listened to his sentence, 
 and when he learned the full import of the sentence he 
 broke forth in the despairing cry that his punishment 
 was greater than he could bear. Lamech sinned, and ho 
 says to his wives : 
 
 " I have slain a man to my wounding, 
 
 And a youth to my hurt." 
 
 " Wound " and " hurt " are the fulcrum words of the 
 passage. Crime wounds, crime hurts. Revelation will 
 record this fact. It records all the great ethical truths 
 of human life. Measure the wound, measure the hurt, 
 then estimate the need Lamech had that "Adah and 
 Zillah" should hear. It is as if the greatly troubled 
 heart of the man was laid open for us to behold, and thus 
 warning given to us. But two lines remain. They are : 
 
 " If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold, 
 Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold." 
 
 Cain knew that every one finding him " would slay " 
 him. Much more did Lamech know the same fact, yet 
 the promise of mercy given to Cain was one assured to 
 him ; and ho could threaten a vengeance greater on the 
 one slaying him than would bo taken upon the slayer of 
 Cain. Such is the assurance of Lamech. Cain and La-
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 
 
 mech are alike in the kind of crime. Both alike bear 
 witness to the fact that Jehovah God punishes crime 
 justly. Both declare that promise is given, where crime 
 and its punishment force out the heart's despairing cry 
 or the heart's confession of the " wound " and the " hurt." 
 Both testify to this Fifth Faith. 
 
 Sixth Faith. Wickedness brings destruction, right- 
 eousness saves. 
 
 And Jehovah said : 
 
 " My spirit does not rule in man, 
 
 Forever through their erring he is flesh, 
 
 And so his days shall become one hundred and twenty years." 
 
 And Jehovah saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, 
 and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
 all liis days, and Jehovah repented that he made man in the 
 earth, and it grieved his heart, and Jehovah said : 
 
 " I will blot out the man 
 
 Whom I have created 
 
 From the face of the earth, 
 
 Yes, man and beast, 
 
 The creeping thing and the bird of heaven, 
 
 For I repent that I made them." 
 
 And Enoch walked with The-God, 
 
 And he was not, for God took him. 
 
 Noah found favor in the sight of Jehovah, 
 
 Noah, the righteous man, was perfect in his generations, 
 
 Noah walked with The-God. 
 
 And Jehovah said to Noah : 
 . " Come thou and all thy house into the ark, 
 
 For I have seen thee 
 
 Righteous before me in this generation."
 
 214 DlSCtJSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Carnality became characteristic of the conduct of the 
 children of The-God. It was then that Jehovah spoke. 
 The inference is fair, from the close connection of these 
 two facts, that The-God and Jehovah were synonyms 
 in these earliest narratives. Other reasons for this as- 
 sumption will be given later on. The words of Jehovah, 
 " My Spirit does not rule in man," reflect the account of 
 man's creation as given in the second chapter. Man there 
 as flesh was linked to the whole animal creation, but as 
 spirit was like Jehovah. Alone in man, among all created 
 things, might the spirit of Jehovah rule. Yet, in sorrow, 
 Jehovah said : " My Spirit does not rule in man." New 
 discipline must therefore be exercised to better man. 
 The former promises, the former mercies, the former 
 curses upon him for his sin did not hold man in allegiance 
 to Jehovah. One only estimate is given of him. Jeho- 
 vah says : " He is flesh." Here first appears in revelation 
 that contrast of flesh and spirit, of the carnal and the 
 spiritual, which has had its completest development in 
 the Pauline theology. The right to this definition of 
 man as carnal is given by the word of Jehovah. The 
 new discipline, introduced by Jehovah when man had 
 become flesh, was to shorten the period of human life. 
 " His days shall become one hundred and twenty years." 
 This is the new regime. The progress of man then in 
 carnality became the reason for the abridgment of his 
 days. 
 
 Another picture still of man's wickedness is drawn in 
 blacker colors. Jehovah saw " that the evil of man was
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 215 
 
 great in the earth." Man's imagination, his heart, be- 
 came evil. Jehovah again speaks. His words are : 
 
 " I will blot out the man 
 
 Whom I have created 
 
 From the face of the earth. 
 
 Yes, man and beast, 
 
 The creeping thing and the bird of heaven, 
 
 For I repent that I made them." 
 
 Such then was the awful outcome of man's wicked- 
 ness. Many questions arise while contemplating these 
 words of Jehovah. Yet these we may not suggest now, 
 much less answer. Their great teaching is that Jeho- 
 vah will not tolerate evil. He will not look upon it with 
 the least degree of allowance. He will destroy evil, all 
 who are evil yes, all which hath a nature like the evil 
 man : all flesh, man, beast, bird, and creeping thing shall 
 be blotted out. Such is the fruit of man's wickedness. 
 
 But Enoch breaks in on this dark picture. 
 
 Enoch walked with The-God. And he was not ; for God took 
 him. 
 
 His companionship was not with men. Peace with him 
 was not attained through sacrifice. By communion he 
 had peace. Beautiful must have been his daily walk. 
 His life was the first temple of The-God. His fellows 
 beheld his worship therein, and handed down to the com- 
 ing generations his great fame. Enoch was the first 
 who walked with The-God. The loving heart is as much 
 the possession of the Hebrew God as his unlimited power. 
 Adam, Eve, Cain, Lamech all had experienced his loving
 
 216 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 pity and encouragement, when they were repentant in 
 transgression. How then shall Enoch, who walked with 
 The-God, receive signal proof of his love ? Simple is the 
 record : "And he was not, for God took him." There is 
 mystery in the words " God took him." It is not to the 
 Hebrew mind identical with the thought of death. The 
 Christian mind has accepted a distinction and has uttered 
 it in the words " Enoch was translated." God's love of 
 Enoch distinguished him by making his departure from 
 life different from other men. He walked with God, he 
 was God's, and God took his own. Such is the first defi- 
 nition of salvation for the good, as found in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. Material prosperity, temporal good have no 
 place in this first allotment of God to his faithful servant. 
 Enoch first found his life in communion with his Maker. 
 God permitted no man to see that communion broken by 
 death. 
 
 Noah is type of a salvation different from that of Enoch. 
 Yet, although the salvation of each is different in mode, 
 the type of character which merits salvation is the same 
 in each case. In these words Noah is described : 
 
 Noah found favor in the Bight of Jehovah 
 
 Noah, the righteous man, was perfect in his generation. 
 
 Noah walked with The-God. 
 
 These passages teach us first that Jehovah and The- 
 God are names interchangeable in this time as in that of 
 Enoch. Noah, it must be admitted, could find favor 
 alone with that God who received his worship. It is 
 here stated that Noah walked with The-God. He, like
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 217 
 
 Enoch, communes with The-God. He also finds favor 
 with Jehovah. The inference is then well founded that 
 The-God is also Jehovah. 
 
 Another teaching is that the righteous man in the 
 earliest times was he who walked with God. At first the 
 very soul of righteousness was communion with God. 
 Then righteousness was the character wrought in man 
 by communion with God. In a deep sense communion 
 with God is always the heart of righteousness. 
 
 The third teaching is, that at this time a man was per- 
 fect in his generation only as he was righteous and so 
 had communion with God. The perfection of the Old 
 Testament was then a life of communion with God. 
 Enoch and Noah were the first perfect men according 
 to the Hebrew Scriptures. This essential element of per- 
 fection must ever be present in all definitions of perfec- 
 tion, which have their warrant in the sacred Scriptures. 
 A man with perfection of this type has ever favor in the 
 sight of Jehovah. Perfect and righteous are here but 
 different phases of the same work, accomplished in man 
 by communion with God, and so we find these words in- 
 terchanged in this period. 
 
 And Jehovah said to Noah : 
 
 " Come thou and all thy house into the Ark. 
 
 For I have seen thee 
 
 Righteous before ine in this generation." 
 
 These words tell the salvation of Noah, which Jehovah 
 accomplished, because Noah was righteous. This salva- 
 tion extended to his family. Salvation here is simply
 
 218 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 rescue. It has no reference to a salvation from the world, 
 achieved through communion with God. It stands in 
 contrast with the salvation which Enoch experienced. 
 
 These words also hold in bud all the Hebrew faith, so 
 far as it bears upon the special care of Jehovah over the 
 righteous. The unfolding of this bud gives us the man- 
 ifold beauty of the Old Testament, so far as it relates to 
 the watchful care of Jehovah over those who commune 
 with him. "Thou and thy house," Noah and his fam- 
 ily, the righteous man and those who were most inti- 
 mately associated with him, these are they whom Jeho- 
 vah will choose for a new departure in the development 
 of man in righteousness, in communion with him. The 
 message is the word " Come ; " ever a word freighted 
 with loving, attractive power when spoken by Jehovah 
 to those that commune with him. The ark is ever a 
 symbol of that salvation from physical dangers Which 
 Jehovah vouchsafes to the righteous in time of universal 
 danger. Special deliverances must ever be predicated as 
 possible in this form of religious faith, which cherishes 
 Noah as one of its earliest and brightest lights. 
 
 Enoch and Noah walked with Jehovah ; they had com- 
 panionship not with men, but with The-God. The uni- 
 verse held for these two patriarchs more than what the 
 eyes could see, the ears hear, the hands handle, the nose 
 smell, and the tongue taste. These sense-realities all 
 were subsidiary. These two believers declared other re- 
 alities. They knew another world than that of sense. 
 They therefore communed with Jehovah.
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 219 
 
 We have studied the Six Faiths which the Hebrew 
 Scriptures record as the first faiths the world knew. 
 The First Faith has two parts. One is that Jehovah God 
 is Creator. Hence the silent stars of the night, innumer- 
 able in number, immeasurable in distance, were made by 
 God. The vast waters, swarming with countless forms 
 of life, rising in their rage into resistless, sublime powers, 
 wore made by God. The fruitful earth, declaring plan 
 and purpose in every plant, and dazzling the mind with 
 its infinite variety of life, was made by God. Such is the 
 God of the Hebrew Scriptures from the first. Alone he 
 stands in the midst of his works, and their glory declare 
 the incomprehensible majesty of their Creator. The fact 
 of the universe is the basal fact, according to the He- 
 brews, for belief in God. The unspeakable worthiness of 
 what ho hath made manifests the exalted worth fulness 
 of the Maker. 
 
 The second part of this first and fundamental faith is 
 that man is the creature likest Jehovah God. Hence 
 beautiful are the reciprocal relations between God and 
 man. All that God hath made become incentives to 
 call forth the activities of man. God calls into life the 
 luxuriant beauty of the flowers. Man cannot produce 
 them alive save from the seed. But he may cut out their 
 shape in stone, and may even give their colors and form 
 on canvas, creating with their aid beautiful independent 
 works of his own. The works of God become hints to 
 man, guides to him in his own personal creative activity. 
 Again, God in blessing becomes an object of man's imita-
 
 220 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion. The impartiality of God in conferring the neces- 
 Bary gifts on all alike finds in man one who follows his 
 footsteps. The divine law is impartial ; so human law is 
 meant to be. Divine government recognizes no distinc- 
 tion in persons ; so human government, in theory at least, 
 is designed to be. In many realms the likeness of this 
 creature man to God is clearly manifest. Such is the 
 faith concerning man which the Hebrew Scriptures pre- 
 sent. Would we know God? then truly know man. 
 Would we know man ? then truly know God. Advance 
 of reliable knowledge in either realm assures advance in 
 the other. 
 
 The Second Faith appoints man to his rank in the uni- 
 verse. He alone receives commandment from God. Yet 
 not a commandment which exhibits simply the arbitrary 
 will of the Creator, nor a senseless commandment imposed 
 upon man in order to remind him constantly of his sub- 
 ordination in rank. Not a glance could have been thrown 
 by man at his surroundings but that it would have taught 
 him his place as respects the Creator of all things. The 
 love of God for the creature likest himself necessitated 
 this commandment of obedience. Man's weal or woe de- 
 pended on the knowledge given in the commandment. 
 The greatest calamity that could befall man was the 
 knowledge of good and evil. Such knowledge God for- 
 bid him to obtain. The first law, the law given in Eden, 
 was simply protection against evil. 
 
 The Third and Fourth Faiths are witnesses to the fact 
 that it is difficult to dethrone the innocence and goodness
 
 THE FAITH OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 221 
 
 of man whom God made. Beguilement alone was the ef- 
 fective means. Man chose to break the law, that thereby 
 he might become completely like God who made him. 
 Under beguilement man, thinking to choose the method 
 to bring him in closest resemblance to God, in reality 
 chose that path which led him away from God and made 
 him most unlike his Creator. This third faith gives the 
 power in us and the way of its coming, which ever works 
 unlikeness to God. This power is evil. The person in- 
 fluencing man through this power to ways of conduct 
 which produced in him unlikeness to God is Satan. 
 
 The Fifth Faith reveals the justice of Jehovah God. In 
 the Hebrew Scriptures the first portrayal of God as just 
 does not present him as concerned only in beholding of- 
 fenses against himself and punishing the culprit. This 
 side of justice is present, and in its fullest and strictest as- 
 pect. But, as just, Jehovah God also looks at the influ- 
 ences leading to the offenses and the feelings of the 
 offenders after the offenses had been committed. Pun- 
 ishment was not mitigated by the ameliorating circum- 
 stances, but loving pity was excited thereby. Sorrow 
 for the disaster to which his deed had brought man did 
 not wipe out the disaster, but it did secure promise that 
 in the end the seed of the woman should obtain triumph. 
 Jehovah God's justice is no less conspicuous by the sure 
 sequence of punishment upon man for his transgression 
 than by the equally sure sequence of pi'omiso upon the 
 presence of sorrow in the heart of man for his sin and 
 its ruin.
 
 222 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 The Sixth Faith respects character, and riot acts of man. 
 Wickedness brings destruction, righteousness saves. It is 
 the fullest expression of what might have been deduced 
 from the fourth faith. The essence of righteousness is 
 walking with God. Its effect is to restore man into like- 
 ness to him with whom he walks. The end of one of the 
 world-epochs culminates with this fundamental faith. 
 The next departure in the world's best religious develop- 
 ment commences with the man whose life was a life of 
 communion with Jehovah God. The brightest light in 
 the firmament of the heart after the flood was the faith 
 that righteous walking with Jehovah God saved. Enoch 
 translated was witness to the reward of a salvation that 
 eye had not seen nor ear heard. Noah was witness to a 
 salvation that the senses might take cognizance of. Both 
 walked with Jehovah God. Both had righteousness. 
 Both were saved. 
 
 In most brief compass we have studied the six great 
 earliest faiths of mankind, as revelation imparts them. 
 The antediluvian patriarchs possessed them. They re- 
 veal the high estate of man. They tell of his fall. The 
 subsequent darkness becomes illuminated by the light of 
 promise. The inexorable character of evil is proclaimed. 
 It bringeth destruction. The intrinsic worth of right- 
 eousness is made known. It is the condition of salvation. 
 Subsequent revelation may unfold the fuller meaning of 
 these six faiths, but it can never abrogate one of 
 them. They stand fixed stars in the firmament of man's 
 religious knowledge. They constitute the greatest im-
 
 THE FAITH OP THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 223 
 
 port to us of the first chapters of Genesis. They are the 
 granite rock, on which is builded the magnificent Chris- 
 tian temple. Step by step has the staircase been raised, 
 stone after stone has been placed in its mighty walls, 
 throughout the Old Testament. The chief corner-stone 
 in all its beauty and strength was set in its place through 
 the New Testament, while the roof above is the glory of 
 the Lord. Herein we may enter in safety, blending our 
 songs of praise with the unceasing music which thank- 
 ful burdened human hearts have made since first it was 
 revealed that Jehovah God forgives sin on account of re- 
 pentance, and saves all who by communion with him 
 possess righteousness.
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISH- 
 MENT. 
 
 I PROPOSE to discuss in this paper the subject of future 
 and eternal punishment, with especial reference to the 
 rational grounds upon which the Scripture doctrine rests. 
 The argument here given assumes the truth of the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures, and, as a consequence, the doctrine of 
 the immortality of the human soul. From time to time 
 individuals have appeared who have tried to reconcile 
 the doctrine of the annihilation of the souls of the wicked 
 at death with the teachings of the Scriptures, but this 
 cannot be done. If there is any future existence and 
 state of happiness for the good, there is a future exist- 
 ence and state of misery for the wicked. These two 
 doctrines are so presented in Scripture, are so interwoven 
 and contrasted, that to deny the one necessitates the de- 
 nial of the other, and to affirm the one necessitates the 
 affirmation of the other. Our purpose, therefore, is, as- 
 suming the truth of Scripture concerning the immortality 
 of human souls, to show that the future and eternal pun- 
 ishment of the finally impenitent and incorrigibly wicked 
 is not only a reasonable but a necessary feature of the 
 Divine government. 
 
 The teachings of Scripture concerning man in his 
 relation to time and eternity may be summed up in the 
 15
 
 226 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 following proposition : This life is a state of probation, 
 of limited duration, in which man, a free moral agent, 
 is, with full knowledge of the fact, undergoing a trial 
 that is to determine his happiness or misery in thaf' 
 future and eternal life that begins at death. That man's 
 free conduct in this life should fix irrevocably his des- 
 tiny in the world to come, is the most momentous fact 
 connected with human existence. It invests this life with 
 an infinite importance. 
 
 The trial of a free being in a state of probation, issuing 
 in a fixed and eternal state, involves five steps, or stages, 
 that may be indicated by the following words : volitions, 
 acts, habits, character, destiny. Volitions, put forth, re- 
 sult in acts ; acts, often repeated, fix habits ; habits, long 
 continued in, make character ; character, when fixed, de- 
 termines destiny. Let us consider these things in Miem- 
 solves and in their relations to each other. 
 
 Volitions are the expression of our freedom. They are 
 the decisions of our wills acting freely and uncontrolled 
 by any thing outside of themselves. Our moral account- 
 ability is based upon the fact that we are free moral 
 agents ; and our freedom consists not so much in the fact 
 that wo do what we will to do as in the power to con- 
 trol our own wills and to determine our own volitions. 
 A sin lies rather in a volition of the will than in the exter- 
 na,l act resulting from that volition. Our volitions are just 
 what we make them and just as we make them holy or 
 unholy, virtuous or vicious. Our moral free agency con- 
 sists in the conscious possession of the power to do right
 
 AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 227 
 
 or wrong just as we choose. Our volitions, the decis- 
 ions of our wills, are freer than thought ; they are free- 
 dom itself. Destiny, on the other hand, is a state or con- 
 dition irrevocably fixed and eternally unalterable. Yet 
 such is the nature of moral probation and free agency 
 that that which is volition in its origin becomes destiny 
 in its end. Let us see how this comes about. 
 
 Volitions make acts. "We control our volitions at will, 
 but when volitions have been put into execution and 
 have become acts, they have gone beyond our power of 
 control. We cannot undo an act that is done. Not even 
 the omnipotent God can undo an act that is done or un- 
 say a word that is said, although He may by His omnip- 
 otence make the act, so far as its results are concerned, 
 as though it had never been done, and the word as 
 though it had never been said. But while we cannot 
 undo an act that is done, we need not repeat the act un- 
 less we choose. If, however, the act be repeated, we find 
 ourselves in the presence of a new law, viz., that each 
 repetition of an act begets a rapidly increasing and pow- 
 erful tendency toward future repetitions. That is, acts 
 often repeated create habits, something more fixed and 
 powerful than themselves. But still a man may, such is 
 the power of the human will, break his habits, even 
 though they bo like chains of iron. But habits long con- 
 tinued in fix something stronger and more unalterable 
 than themselves, namely, character, and no man can 
 change his character. Man may change his habits, but 
 only God can change character. And when character has
 
 228 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 boon so long continued in that it becomes fixed, it passes 
 into destiny, and not even God over changes destiny. In- 
 deed wo may say that, in keeping with the laws of His 
 moral government, God cannot change destiny. 
 
 When does a sinner pass the invisible dead-line that 
 separates alterable character from unalterable destiny? 
 Before death, or only at death ? We believe that, while 
 all must pass it at death, some may and do pass it before 
 death. We believe that some sinners become so fixed in 
 their evil character that they reach a point beyond which 
 it is morally certain that they will never and can never 
 be saved not a point beyond which God cannot and 
 will not save them if they fulfill the conditions of salva- 
 tion (indeed that point is never reached beyond death or 
 throughout eternity), but a point beyond which their 
 sin-bound wills will never have the moral power to re- 
 spond to the wooings of divine grace. So Dr. J. A. Alex- 
 ander sung in his memorable lines : 
 
 " There is a time, we know not when, 
 
 A place, we know not where, 
 That seals the destiny of man 
 
 For glory or despair." 
 
 Nor is this contradicted by the no less familiar lines of 
 Dr. Isaac Watts : 
 
 " Life is the time to serve the Lord, 
 
 The time t' insure the great reward ; 
 
 And while the lamp holds out to burn, \ 
 
 The vilest sinner may return." 
 
 This is true, so far as God is concerned, and not only truo
 
 ftJTURE ANfc ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 229 
 
 " while the lamp holds out to burn," but, as we shall pres- 
 ently show, is true throughout eternity. The sinner 
 never reaches the point, either in this life or in the life to 
 come, where the reason of his not being saved is in God 
 and not in himself; but he does reach a point in the de- 
 velopment of his moral character and destiny, beyond 
 which it is morally certain that he will never thereafter 
 repent and believe; and at that point the dividing line 
 may be drawn which distinguishes character that may 
 be changed from character that is fixed in its unalterable 
 destiny. While, in the formation of character, free will 
 and volitions are the cause and character is the result, 
 yet, when character is formed, then it becomes the cause 
 and volitions the result. As a moral free agent, man be- 
 comes bad, and attains to evil character, only because he 
 freely chooses and freely does that which is wrong ; but 
 evil character, when once formed, in turn accounts for 
 and produces necessarily evil volitions and evil acts. 
 A man becomes bad because of his evil volitions, but a 
 bad man puts forth evil volitions because he is bad. So 
 that while it is true in the formation of character under 
 moral probation that free volitions make acts, and acts 
 make habits, and habits make character, and character 
 makes destiny ; yet when destiny is reached the reverse 
 relation exists, viz., that destiny fixes character, and 
 character determines the habits, the acts, and the voli- 
 tions of the moral agent. Hence it is that probation 
 comes at length to an end by its own laws, and good 
 character is made permanent and is secured in goodness
 
 230 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 forever, and vicious character is made permanent and is 
 secured in evil forever. 
 
 That there has been a change in the way the Scripture 
 doctrine of future and eternal punishment is presented 
 by the Christian Church, may be freely admitted. Many 
 passages that were once interpreted literally are now in- 
 terpreted figuratively. "Devouring fire," "everlasting 
 burnings," "unquenchable fire," "lake of fire burning 
 with brimstone," " where their worm dieth not and their 
 fire is not quenched," " weeping and gnashing of teeth," 
 " chains of darkness," " bottomless pit," " smoke of tor- 
 ment" the time was when these passages may have 
 been presented so literally that a ground was laid for in- 
 telligent and reasonable criticism of the Scripture doc- 
 trine. But, although these passages are purely figura- 
 tive, they set forth a stern and awful reality. The re- 
 ality of a place of punishment for the wicked is taught 
 by language not only figurative, but the most literal. 
 There may be no literal " fire and brimstone " and no lit- 
 eral " worm that dieth not " in the abode of the lost ; but 
 there is nevertheless a real fire there that is not quenched 
 and a real worm that dieth not. The guilty conscience 
 of the lost is a worm that dieth not, a fire that is not 
 quenched. 
 
 Suppose there be no positive pain inflicted upon the 
 souls of the lost and their only torment be such as grows 
 out of their own character and their necessary environ- 
 ments, would this rob future punishment of its most 
 awful attributes ? Nay, it would not affect in the least
 
 FUTURE ANl) ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 231 
 
 the awfulness of the condition of the lost. The next to 
 the worst penalty attached to human crime and known to 
 human law involves the infliction of no positive pain, viz., 
 imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. Indeed we 
 would infinitely prefer to be innocent, and the victims of 
 constant and painful disease, and be outside of the prison, 
 than to be the healthiest persons on the face of the earth, 
 and hopelessly confined for our guilt within penitentiary 
 walls. This shows plainly that sin, with its attendant 
 evils and terrible consequences, is far more awful than 
 mere physical pain. It is a very low and vulgar idea of 
 punishment that makes it synonymous with the suffering 
 of physical pain externally inflicted. If the future pun- 
 ishment of the wicked be nothing more than the remorse 
 of a guilty conscience and hopeless self-confinement in 
 the penitentiary of the lost, it has in it every element of 
 horror that can appeal to a rational soul. 
 
 Nor does God need to build the walls of this peniten- 
 tiary of the lost. It is character that makes hell, not 
 God. It is character that puts a man in hell and keeps 
 him there, not -God. That death shall forever separate 
 the good from the bad, the holy from the unholy, is 
 everywhere taught in Scripture, but the ground and 
 cause of discrimination and separation is in human char- 
 acter and not in the will of God. At death those who 
 believe in and love God will go to their own place; and 
 those who do not believe in and love Him will go to their 
 place. The lost are the outcasts of this world. A wicked 
 man could be made no happier by being admitted into
 
 232 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the presence of the pure and holy God it is more prob- 
 able that his misery would thereby be increased. A sin- 
 ner cannot endure the presence of God. Does the vicious 
 and confirmed criminal in this world seek out and enjoy 
 the companionship of the holy and saintly man of God, 
 and find his happiness therein ? or does he rather avoid 
 such company? Would it increase the happiness of a 
 lost soul, confirmed in evil character, to be admitted into 
 the presence of God to spend eternity ? Nay, it would 
 add to his torment. For aught we know, then, hell is a 
 less miserable place to lost souls than heaven would be, 
 for heaven is the place where that holy God is whose 
 awful presence sinners cannot endure. 
 
 Too many teachers of Christian truth have encouraged 
 the idea that God makes hell, that God determines its 
 torments by an act of his will, and that these pains and 
 torments are externally inflicted by God. It is not so. Sin, 
 a guilty conscience, evil character these are the things 
 which make hell. People this earth with saints, with those 
 whose characters are pure and holy, and you make a 
 heaven of it. People it with the incorrigibly wicked, 
 those whose characters are vicious and criminal, and you 
 make a hell, a pandemonium, of it. It is not the place 
 that makes hell, it is the people there, it is the wicked 
 character of those who are there. The future punish- 
 ment of the sinner, therefore, does not mean confinement 
 in a certain place of misery from which if he could es- 
 cape he would be happy, but it means a state of misery 
 inseparable from his wicked character, which misery
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 233 
 
 would not be diminished but rather increased if the sin- 
 ner were in the immediate presence of God and the holy 
 saints and angels. The vulgar idea of heaven and hell is, 
 that the one is a place of happiness and the other a place 
 of torment and that if perchance a sinner should get into 
 heaven he would be happy, and that if a saint should get 
 into hell, he would be miserable in short that it is the 
 place and not character that determines future weal and 
 woe. We affirm, on the other hand, that it is character 
 that makes heaven and character that makes hell. Holi- 
 ness the holy God, holy saints, holy angels these make 
 heaven. Sin Satan, evil angels, guilty sinners these 
 make hell. The sinner's misery is determined by his 
 guilty character, and is inseparable from it. He can no 
 more escape from his misery by changing his place than 
 he can escape from himself and his sinful character by 
 changing his place. 
 
 There is throughout God's creation the reign of uni- 
 versal law. God governs the universe in all its depart- 
 ments according to certain fixed and uniform laws. This 
 universe may be subdivided into the material or phys- 
 ical, the mental or intellectual, and the moral or spiritual. 
 That the material universe is governed by or according 
 to law is universally recognized. Men understand that 
 if they violate these laws they suffer the consequences. 
 They understand, moreover, that the sin of a moment 
 may be followed by an unending penalty. If a man 
 foolishly or thoughtlessly puts his limb under the wheel 
 of the coming locomotive, it is but a moment until his
 
 234 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 limb is gone and he is lame for life. He does not blame 
 the author of nature and its laws because the violation 
 of law is here followed by penalty, or because the sin of 
 a moment may be followed by a life-long penalty. He 
 recognizes that he is responsible for what he suffers. 
 And so, too, the mental or intellectual world is governed 
 according to certain laws that are well defined and easily 
 discoverable, and all systems of education are designed 
 to develop the human mind in accordance with these 
 laws. Here, also, the violation of law is inevitably fol- 
 lowed by its penalty. Nor does he who violates the laws 
 of mind say that it is God punishing him when he suffers 
 the consequences of his own violation of law. 
 
 In like manner the moral or spiritual world is gov- 
 erned uniformly by certain fixed and unalterable laws. 
 These laws are plainly revealed, well defined, and easily 
 discoverable. If we violate these laws we must here as 
 elsewhere suffer the consequences and pay the penalty. 
 Not always do we suffer the full consequences of violated 
 moral law at once the infliction of penalty in part or in 
 whole may be reserved to a future state. " Because sen- 
 tence against an evil work is not executed speedily, there- 
 fore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do 
 evil." But while men who violate the laws of the ma- 
 terial world and the laws of mind, and then suffer the 
 inevitable consequences of violated law, do not say that 
 it is God that is punishing them, but recognize the fact 
 that they are virtually punishing themselves; yet, 
 strangely enough, when they come to suffer the conse-
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 235 
 
 quences of violated moral law, they speak as if it was 
 God that was punishing them, as if their punishment was 
 now taken from without the realm of uniform and inev- 
 itable law and made to depend entirely upon the arbi- 
 trary will of God. It is not so ; but the moral world is 
 under the reign of universal law in identically the same 
 sense as are the material and mental worlds, and the future 
 and eternal punishment of the wicked is as infallibly de- 
 termined by the laws of moral character and of the mor- 
 al world, as are the penalties that follow the violation of 
 law in the world of mind or the world of matter. Ev- 
 ery man is his own punisher. 
 
 Among the laws that are to be found alike in the 
 physical, the intellectual, and the moral world is one of 
 sowing and reaping. And the law of sowing and reap- 
 ing is this : (1) that we reap what we sow, and (2) we 
 reap more than we sow. As certain as he who sows 
 wheat reaps wheat, or who sows thorns and briers reaps 
 the same as certain as he whose mind in youth is rightly 
 trained and filled with pure and ennobling thoughts will 
 reap the fruit thereof in mature and later life, or if 
 poisoned with corrupting thoughts and vicious influences 
 must reap the terrible and vicious harvest thereof just 
 so certain is it in the moral and spiritual world that 
 whatsoever a man soweth in this life, that shall he also 
 reap in the life to come; "he that soweth to the flesh 
 shall of the flesh reap corruption ; he that sowcth to the 
 Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." And as 
 the physical and mental harvest is, or may bo, a hundred-
 
 236 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOQt. 
 
 fold greater than the sowing, so it will be in perfect 
 keeping with God's universal law if the harvest in eter- 
 nity shall be far greater than the sowing in time. This 
 life is the seed time ; eternity is the harvest. The sinner 
 in eternity will reap nothing but the fruit of his own 
 sowing here. He makes his own character and fixes his 
 own destiny, and reaps his own sowing. 
 
 The ground of the sinner's punishment, therefore, 
 should not be made to rest upon the arbitrary will of God, 
 but rather upon his own willful violation of moral law, by 
 virtue of which he becomes his own punisher, reaping only 
 what he has sown. The time was when God was not only 
 represented as Himself punishing the sinner, but this pun- 
 ishment was represented as if it were vindictive as if 
 God were punishing sinners simply or chiefly because they 
 were His enemies and He was angry with them and now 
 had them in His power. Such a presentation of the 
 character of the Divine Being could but excite repulsion 
 in rational minds. The punishment of the sinner is in no 
 sense vindictive, but it is retributive and vindicatory. It 
 is only such as moral government demands and such as 
 is necessary to maintain moral law and to uphold the 
 authority of God, the moral Governor of the universe. 
 Punishment is vindictive when it is inflicted as a matter 
 of personal revenge ; it is vindicatory when it is inflicted 
 by a Governor in the interests of law and government, 
 and such alone is God's punishment of the sinners. 
 
 But it is objected that eternal punishment is too severe 
 a penalty for the sins of this short life. To this we re-
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 237 
 
 ply, first, that eternity, the time-element, is not an attri- 
 bute of punishment but of the life of the person punished. 
 If a man is placed in the penitentiary for life, and lives 
 but ten minutes, he has paid the penalty in full ; if he 
 lives a year, ten years, fifty years, a hundred years, in- 
 deed forever, he does nothing more than pay the penalty 
 that is, the time-element is not, strictly speaking, an at- 
 tribute of punishment but of life. Nor is this a distinc- 
 tion without a difference. For if it be said that it amounts 
 to the same thing in the end, we reply that it is nowhere 
 said in the Bible that the sins of this short life merit an 
 eternity of punishment. It may be true for aught we 
 know, but if it is, the Scriptures do not affirm it that 
 temporal sinning deserves eternal punishment. Con- 
 tinued sin is the ground of continued punishment ; eter- 
 nal sin and eternal sinning are alone the ground of eter- 
 nal punishment. The sinner is punished eternally not 
 because the sins of this short life merit an eternity of 
 punishment, but because he is an immortal being and 
 continues to be a sinner and to sin eternally. 
 
 But, it may be replied, although it be admitted that a 
 sinner's punishment is eternal only because he remains 
 eternally a sinner, yet it amounts to the same thing in 
 the end, seeing that his being a sinner throughout this 
 short life virtually nece "States his being a sinner forever,. 
 sinco it will be impossible for him ever to change his 
 character after life's probation has ended. To meet this 
 objection we must ask and answer this question : Is it 
 reconcilable with infinite justice to make the eternal des-
 
 238 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 I ' 
 
 tiny of an immortal soul to depend upon a limited proba- 
 tion ? It is, we reply, if the conditions of the probation 
 are favorable, and if the destiny is determined by char- 
 acter and proportioned to guilt. If there is to be any 
 such thing as creaturely holiness in God's universe, there 
 must be a moral probation ; and if there is to be any 
 moral probation at all, it must (1) be limited, (2) must 
 involve the possibility of sinning, (3) must have two final 
 issues, and (4) must be confirmed by rewards and pun- 
 ishments. A probation that should issue in another pro- 
 bation would be no probation at all. To make holiness 
 possible necessitates making sin possible to make sin 
 impossible would be to make holiness impossible. If 
 holiness has no reward and sin no punishment, there 
 can be no incentive to righteousness. The only holiness 
 possible without a moral probation would be a necessi- 
 tated holiness, a holiness divinely produced by the power 
 of God without the co-operation of the moral free agent ; 
 and such holiness as this could have no moral virtue in 
 it. All creatures would then be necessarily holy. This 
 would turn men into mere machines, would make divine 
 government to bo merely manipulating moral machines, 
 and this would be to rob God's moral universe of its chief 
 glory, of all that dignifies and ennobles it. Probationary 
 holiness is the only holiness that can really glorify God ; 
 and this cannot be developed except under conditions 
 that involve the possibility of sinning, the rewarding of 
 holiness, and the punishing of guilt. 
 
 But surely the Divine glory cannot be promoted
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 239 
 
 by any thing that involves injustice to the creature. 
 Are the conditions surrounding human probation, then, 
 favorable to a happy issue ? Are they such as render it 
 easily possible for every one to do right and to be saved 
 who desires to do so ? We answer, Yes. Such was the 
 probation of Adam, and such also is the probation of 
 fallen men; for, though fallen men are by nature pos- 
 sessed of a bias to sin, yet this bias to evil is so counter- 
 balanced by the effects of the atonement that it makes 
 their probation just as favorable to a happy issue as the 
 original probation of Adam, which, while it was without 
 original sin, was yet also without those special motives 
 and helpful influences that come from the atonement of 
 Christ. So that a fallen man has altogether just as 
 favorable conditions and just as fair opportunities for 
 salvation as the unfallen Adam had. 
 
 But this objection, that eternal punishment is too se- 
 vere a penalty, is based on a false conception of sin 
 and a false view of the ground of punishment. It is 
 based on the idea that sinful acts are the whole of sin 
 and sinful character is nothing on the idea that the sin- 
 ner who is undergoing punishment is, apart from so 
 many actual sins recorded against him, a perfectly pure 
 and holy being. It is based on the supposition that the 
 sinner is sent to the abode of the lost wholly because ho 
 has committed so many actual sins, and in no sense be- 
 cause ho is a sinner. But we will sec that this is an en- 
 tirely erroneous view of sin. An illustration will best 
 serve to show what is meant.
 
 240 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Not long since a convict in a neighboring State who 
 had served a term of years in the penitentiary for steal- 
 ing some money, upon being discharged, went openly and 
 digged up his stolen treasure. He made no secret of the 
 fact that it was the money for the stealing of which he 
 had been imprisoned. The owner came and claimed the 
 money. The convict refused to give it up, saying he had 
 paid the penalty for his theft and it was his money. 
 Whose money was it ? Why plainly the property of the 
 man from whom it had been stolen. But, be this as it 
 may, one thing is certain that convict was as guilty a 
 sinner, and as much a thief at heart, the day he came out 
 of the penitentiary as he was the day he went in. The 
 serving of penalty in itself alone does not take away 
 guilt ; it does not even touch it. The convict in question 
 spent three years in the penitentiary and came out as 
 guilty in character as he went in. Had he remained 
 there ten years, or fifty, or a hundred or forever, so far 
 as that matter may be it would have been the same 
 way. The enduring of punishment and the serving of 
 penalty leaves a criminal as guilty in person and charac- 
 ter as it found him. Had the paying of penalty wiped 
 out the stain and guilt of sin from this criminal's char- 
 acter, it would have left him an honest man, and he would 
 in that case have voluntarily restored the money that was 
 not his own. Instead, however, of its leaving him an hon- 
 est man, his character had rather been increasing in sin and 
 criminality while he was paying the penalty of his act 
 of theft, and he came out a worse man than he went in.
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 241 
 
 If such a discharged convict does not repeat his former 
 act of theft it will bo because no opportunity to do so 
 presents itself, or because he is afraid of punishment, and 
 not because he is not a thief at heart and a criminal in 
 character. 
 
 This whole objection, therefore, against the Scripture 
 doctrine of future punishment in view of its duration, is 
 based on the idea that a limited amount of punishment 
 such as would be the proper penalty for certain sins, would 
 leave the individual no longer a sinner but sinless and 
 holy in character. And this grows out of a superficial 
 and erroneous view of sin, viz., that sin is a voluntary 
 and actual transgression and never has any other mean- 
 ing that actual sin is the whole of sin. We say, nay, 
 it is not the half of sin. Acts of sin are one thing they 
 may be numbered and recorded against a man. But an 
 act of sin, voluntarily committed, does not end in itself, 
 but leaves behind it guilt, or personal criminality, that 
 inheres to the character of the wrong-doer. Repeated 
 acts of sin leave behind them the habitus of sin. This 
 creates sinful character. Sin is not simply an act, it is 
 an attribute of character. Acts of sin there are which 
 must be taken into account and dealt with ; but there is 
 also the guilt of sin, the habitus, the power, the domin- 
 ion of sin, sinful character these are the features of sin 
 that make the punishment of sinners to be something 
 more than merely dealing with actual sins. Acts of sin 
 are one thing, and sinful character is another, and a far 
 more serious result, or feature, of sin. Human law deals 
 16
 
 242 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 with man chiefly as an actual transgressor it deals with 
 acts of sin more than with sinful character. But when 
 we remember that all criminals who have served a pen- 
 alty for crime under law are forever thereafter disfran- 
 chised and denied recognition as citizens, we see that 
 in an important sense even human law says that there is 
 sinful character back of sinful acts and that when the 
 sinful act has been punished sinful character remains 
 and it virtually makes the punishment of sinful or crim- 
 inal character life-long, which is, so far as human law is 
 concerned, eternal. Divine law and government in the 
 same way, and for a stronger reason, must deal not sim- 
 ply with acts of sin, but with sinful character. It pun- 
 ishes not sins merely, but the sinner. Nor does this mean 
 that we are separating sin from sinful acts, as if there 
 could be sinful character without antecedent sinful acts. 
 We have already shown how sinful character grows out 
 of antecedent sinful acts and volitions. 
 
 Is it said, therefore, that ten, fifty, a hundred years of 
 existence in the abode of the lost, is sufficient punish- 
 ment for the sins of this short life? Sufficient in what 
 sense ? wo ask. Sufficient to atone for the sins commit- 
 ted ? Sufficient to pay the price of the crimes, as the 
 convict thought he had justly paid for his stolen 
 money? Sufficient to wipe out the stains of sin, thus 
 leaving those just discharged sinless and holy in charac- 
 ter? If serving penalty and enduring punishment has 
 this effect, then they will be ready for heaven at once, and 
 no obstacle would bo in the way of God's transporting to
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 243 
 
 heaven at onee these discharged convicts of hell whose 
 entire sanctification had been accomplished so effectually 
 by purgatorial fires, though in this fair world of moral 
 probation they lived and died confirmed sinners! If, 
 however, serving penalty does not touch moral character, 
 but leaves the criminal at the end of any period, long or 
 short, as guilty and sinful in character as when he died 
 and went to the abode of the lost if this bo the case, 
 what is to be done with such a one when he has " served 
 his time" out among the lost? He cannot be carried to 
 heaven, because he is as much a sinner as he ever was. 
 
 If now he was sent to hell because he was a sinner, 
 and possessed a sinful character, and not simply and only 
 because he had committed so many specific acts of sin, 
 then there is the same reason for his continuing there 
 that there was for his going there in the first instance; 
 because, as we have seen, ho is as guilty in character, if 
 not more confirmed in guilt, at the end of any given pe- 
 riod than ho was when he first entered the abode of the 
 lost. If this life is a probation, and the future and eter- 
 nal life its final issue, then, if there is any reason for a 
 lost soul being sent to perdition, there is the same reason 
 that he should continue there as long as his existence 
 shall last. I know it has been affirmed by teachers of 
 Christian doctrine that so exceedingly sinful is any and 
 all sin against an infinitely holy God that it merits an 
 infinite punishment, and for this reason the punishment 
 of sin is eternal. But I do not find this given in the 
 Holy Scriptures as the reason of the eternity of future
 
 244 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 punishment. Honco I do not believe it the proper way 
 to meet the objection to the Scripture doctrine now un- 
 der consideration. The sinner at death goes to the abode 
 of the lost, because he is a sinner and because his sinful 
 character properly places him there. He is an immortal 
 being. His punishment is eternal because, probation be- 
 ing over, he remains, and must remain, eternally a sin- 
 ner. When and how and by what means could he cease 
 to become a sinner ? Can he by any possible means be- 
 come a saint in perdition ? If so, God will not only do 
 nothing to keep him from it, but will take him out of 
 there and transport him to heaven the very moment he 
 becomes free from sin and holy in character and that re- 
 gardless of whether he has " served his time out " or not. 
 But how absurd and preposterous the idea! And yet 
 the position of him who argues against the future and 
 eternal punishment of the wicked, necessarily involves 
 this very absurdity if it bo clearly analyzed. 
 
 If sin, therefore, be nothing but an act of transgres- 
 sion and not also an attribute of character, and if the serv- 
 ing of penalty discharges the sinner entirely from his 
 debt of sin and leaves him sinless and holy, then I say 
 they are right who affirm that it is unjust to punish a 
 sinner eternally for the sins of this short life he should 
 in justice be punished only to the extent of the demerit 
 or ill desert of his sin and then discharged and being 
 then sinless (and that means holy) he should be sent to 
 heaven where all holy beings are and properly belong. 
 But if, on the other hand, sin be not simply an act but
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 245 
 
 also an attribute of character, and if moral government 
 must deal not merely with punishing sins but with guilty 
 sinners as subjects and if the serving of a limited pen- 
 alty leaves sinners just as guilty as they were when their 
 penalty began then the Scripture doctrine must be right 
 so far as human reason can pronounce on its justness, and 
 the sinner's punishment must be co-extensive with his 
 continued existence as a sinner. 
 
 Again we remark that the very existence of moral 
 government demands the future and eternal punishment 
 of the wicked. There can be neither a moral Governor 
 nor moral government unless sin be punished. There are 
 five things that necessarily stand or fall together viz., 
 a governor, government, laws, punishment for the viola- 
 tion of law, and adequate punishment for violated law. 
 There can be no governor without a government, and no 
 government without laws, and laws mean nothing unless 
 their violation be punished, and punishment fails unless 
 it is adequate. Punishment is said to be adequate when 
 it secures the maintenance of law and government, and 
 this is the chief object had in view by legislative bodies 
 in affixing penalties to crime. If punishment be found 
 to bo inadequate, its severity is increased. Supreme wis- 
 dom would attach such a penalty to each violation of law, 
 no greater and no less, as is at once perfectly adequate 
 and infallibly just. No punishment, in order to bo ade- 
 quate, needs to bo unjustly severe ; but unless it be ade- 
 quate, government cannot exist. Suppose the penalty 
 attached to murder, theft, and arson, wore a day's im-
 
 246 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 prisonment, or a fine of a few cents, it would be inade- 
 quate, and government would be turned into anarchy. 
 
 There are those who treat the subject of the future and 
 eternal punishment of the wicked as if it might be mod- 
 ified to any degree or entirely abolished by the arbitrary 
 will of God, if he so chose, without thereby affecting in 
 the least the nature and security of moral government. 
 It is not so ; for punishment, if inadequate, utterly fails 
 of its end, and if there is no punishment there can be no 
 law, and if no law, then no government, and if no gov- 
 ernment, then no governor and no God. God's very ex- 
 istence as a moral Governor, therefore, depends not only 
 upon the existence of moral laws, but also upon the ade- 
 quate punishment of all violated moral law. For the 
 same reason there could exist no moral government, with 
 its rewards for the good, unless there should be punish- 
 ment of the wicked. So far then from the future pun- 
 ishment of the wicked being a thing that could be mod- 
 ified or obliterated by the arbitrary will of God, we see 
 that the existence of God as a Governor, and the exist- 
 ence of moral government with its heaven for the good 
 and holy, necessarily involves the punishment of the 
 wicked. 
 
 The real design of punishment in the organization of 
 government, both human and divine, is the prevention 
 of crime, and not primarily the punishing of it. The 
 prison is one institution in the economy of government 
 which servos its highest end when it has no one in it, or 
 rather when no one is found worthy to go in it. But a
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 247 
 
 probationary system which should have no punishment 
 for sin in it would be far less favorable to the produc- 
 tion of holiness than one that should have future pun- 
 ishment in it. Indeed a probationary system devoid of 
 all punishment for sin would be utterly powerless to 
 prevent sin and to secure righteousness. If, then, under 
 moral probation as it now exists, involving the future 
 and eternal punishment of the wicked, so many are 
 found who fail to do right and to become holy, what 
 would be the effect on the development of holy char- 
 acter in the race, to abolish punishment entirely from 
 the moral system, or even materially to modify it? 
 Would it not be to make sinners of all men? Such 
 would be the unfailing tendency, if not the inevitable 
 result. We see then that not only is punishment abso- 
 lutely necessary to the existence of all government, but 
 both the design and the result of punishment in the 
 economy of moral government is to produce the min- 
 imum of sin and the maximum of holiness. 
 
 Wo have said that punishment, in order to be adequate, 
 need never be, and will never be, unjustly severe. Wo 
 go further and affirm that the future punishment of the 
 wicked will be absolutely just. No lost soul, from the 
 most wicked to the least wicked, will be punished one 
 iota more than it justly deserves. Our faith in the ab- 
 solute justice of God is as great as our faith in his exist- 
 ence. If God be not absolutely just, I have no God at 
 all there is no God. I can more easily be an atheist 
 than I can believe God to bo unjust. I would sooner bo-
 
 248 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 lieve the whole Christian Church to be in error in its in- 
 terpretation of the Bible concerning this and all other 
 doctrines, than to think that God could be unjust than 
 to think it possible for Him to punish, or to allow to be 
 punished, one single soul more than it justly deserved. 
 Does any man, therefore, pronouncing the Church doc- 
 trine concerning future punishment unjust, say that he 
 is willing to meet the issues of eternity and receive his 
 just rewards for the deeds done in this life, I say to him 
 unhesitatingly he may be assured that he is going to re- 
 ceive in the future life no greater punishment than is ab- 
 solutely just. But I also say to him : " Be not deceived, 
 God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth, that 
 shall he also reap." Suppose such a one, with a view to 
 the future life, were to begin to shape his character and 
 conduct here so that by receiving his just deserts at the 
 judgment day his future lot would be a happy one he 
 proposing to demand justice, not mercy or grace what 
 would his life here be ? Would it not be very much what 
 the Bible defines a Christian life to be ? We say it would 
 have to be not only this, but even more unblamable and 
 holy, as no Christian hopes to get to heaven on the 
 ground of justice but only through the great grace and 
 mercy of God. And what does this fact signify ? Why, 
 plainly that this argument of the unregenerate world, di- 
 rected against the doctrine of future punishment, is pre- 
 sented not in the interest of holy living in this life or of 
 justice in the life to come, nor yet to rescue the true doc- 
 trine from the misrepresentations of a false theology, but
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 249 
 
 rather in the interests of a life of sin, to furnish some pre- 
 text and ground for indulging the carnal appetites, and to 
 ease a guilty conscience, by making it to appear that the 
 whole doctrine is unjust and therefore without founda- 
 tion. It is simply this and nothing more. But still we 
 meet the charge that the future and eternal punishment 
 of the wicked is unjust, by saying that if it is, God will 
 certainly not inflict it ; for nothing that is unjust in any 
 degree can possibly occur in his administration. 
 
 But who is to determine what is just and what is un- 
 just in the matter of punishment? The sinner? or the 
 theologian? Neither. But God. Absolute justice is 
 surely located somewhere and at the judgment day 
 there will be no disagreement about what is just. Sin- 
 ners and theologians will alike then see light in God's 
 light. The sinner will then, stripped of all selfish rea- 
 sons for a warped and biased judgment, pronounce just 
 whatever God says is just, and when his soul is sent to 
 hell, his own judgment, as well as God's righteous law, 
 will approve it well; and the theologian, if he finds that 
 he has erred in interpreting God's revealed will, will re- 
 joice in any mitigation of the sinner's doom. But there is 
 not the slightest probability that the Christian Church 
 universal is wrong in its interpretation of the Bible, and 
 the sinner who spends his time and energy criticising 
 the doctrine of eternal punishment, rather than in try- 
 ing to live so that he may inherit eternal life, and in 
 trying to do what he ought to do whether there is any 
 hereafter or not, is certainly guilty of a folly that hard-
 
 250 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ly justifies his appealing to reason and justice in all 
 things. 
 
 Again, we believe the doctrine of the future punish- 
 ment of the wicked has been subjected to needless criticism 
 in that, as sometimes presented, all the lost are made to 
 be punished alike and to be equally miserable. If hell 
 be a place whose torment and misery comes from sim- 
 ply being there, and not from a guilty conscience and 
 from evil character, then it follows that all who are con- 
 signed to the abode of the lost are equally miserable 
 the youth who dies impenitent six months after he 
 reaches an ago of moral accountability, and the sinner 
 who lives for threescore and ten years and has a thou- 
 sand opportunities to repent, but rejects them all and dies 
 hardened and impenitent, one of the worst of criminals. 
 But if this view of hell be erroneous if the true doc- 
 trine be that the miseries and torments of the lost grow 
 out of their guilt and not simply out of their being in 
 the abode of the lost, and that the misery of each soul is 
 exactly proportioned to its guilt then there will be as 
 many degrees in misery represented among the lost as 
 there will be degrees in sin and guilt. This life is the 
 seed-time of which eternity is the harvest, and every lost 
 sinner will simply reap in the future life the fruit of his 
 own sowing in this life. 
 
 But it is said that justice demands that the lost should 
 have a second probation. Let us consider this matter. 
 Suppose our allotted threescore years and ten be divided 
 into seven successive decades, or periods of ten years
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 251 
 
 each. The first ten years, let us say, is the period of 
 irresponsible childhood. The remaining sixty years, in- 
 stead of constituting one long probation, may be divided 
 into six successive probations of ten years each. This is 
 perfectly legitimate. Now let us see how moral free 
 agents stand these successive probations, the last of 
 which brings them to their end. Antecedently wo would 
 say that during the first probation, from ten to twenty, 
 few if any will repent, because the pleasures of sin are 
 fascinating and death is very far off ; during the second 
 probation, from twenty to thirty years of age, a few of 
 the wise and prudent will make their calling and election 
 sure by repentance and faith ; during the third, from 
 thirty to forty years of age, a goodly number will seek 
 salvation ; during the fourth, a still larger number; dur- 
 ing the fifth, from fifty to sixty, a yet larger number ; 
 and during the sixth and last, from sixty to seventy, 
 every remaining soul that believes in moral probation 
 and in a future life, would without fail make sure of his 
 salvation, knowing that his probation would now end. 
 This is the way we would think antecedently that hu- 
 man nature and moral free agents would act under such 
 circumstances. But do wo find that the facts confirm 
 this ? By no moans. They rather confirm the opposite. 
 Prom one-half to two-thirds of all those who are saved, 
 are saved during the first probation, from ten to twenty, 
 the period during which we would naturally think very 
 few would bo saved. From one-half to two-thirds of the 
 remainder of the saved, are saved between twenty and
 
 252 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 thirty ; and from one-half to two-thirds of the remainder 
 from thirty to forty. From forty to fifty years of age, 
 it is rare for men to profess faith in Christ ; from fifty 
 to sixty, during the fifth probation, not one in a hundred 
 is ever saved ; and from sixty to seventy, the last pro- 
 bation, the period during which we had a right to think 
 that every sane moral free agent who believed in a fut- 
 ure life and was unsaved, would most surely repent and 
 believe, not one in a thousand is ever saved ! Statistics 
 will corroborate these facts. 
 
 Now suppose we grant another period of ten years for 
 a seventh probation, from seventy to eighty, how many 
 additional ones think you would be saved ? Not one in 
 ten thousand. But suppose we place this last probation 
 beyond the grave, will it change the result ? Not at all, 
 even though God should himself impose no impediment 
 in the way of the sinner's repentance. God may justly, 
 however, and will, give no positive and supernatural aid 
 in that future probation, His special supernatural influ- 
 ences being limited to this life. But if in this life where 
 the Holy Spirit was wooing, and ministers were preach- 
 ing and friends were pleading and Christians were pray- 
 ing influences without which no man would ever be 
 saved even in this world if in this life with all these 
 aids to repentance the sinner remained impenitent to the 
 last, is it not perfectly gratuitous to suppose that such a 
 one would repent and bo saved in the other world even if 
 probation continued there. For, remember, there could 
 be no churches there, no Bible there, no pleading preach-
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 253 
 
 ers and praying friends there, no wooing Spirit there 
 simply continued probation, with its further opportunity 
 to repent and be saved. 
 
 But, some one perchance interposes and says, after a 
 sinner has tasted the pains and torments of the lost, then 
 ho will certainly, if another probation be allowed, repent 
 and be saved. So indeed we would reason. And on ex- 
 actly the same grounds we would say that a man who 
 has once served a term in the penitentiary would of all 
 men be certain so to live in the future that he would 
 never get there again. But here again, as a matter of 
 fact, human nature does not do as we would antecedently 
 suppose, but quite the opposite. Facts prove that if a 
 man has once served a term in the penitentiary the 
 chances are about two out of three that he will get back 
 there if he has a chance to repeat his crime or commit a 
 new one. A larger proportion of ex-convicts are arrested 
 for crime than of any other class in society. That is, 
 serving a penalty for crime not only does not make one 
 a good man, but it rather seems to confirm in vicious 
 character, and certain it is that it does not prepare one 
 to stand successfully any future moral probation. 
 
 We say therefore that even if God should grant the 
 lost a second probation, it would not change the result, 
 because : (1) The tendency of human nature under proba- 
 tion is, as we have seen, to embrace first and early op- 
 portunities for salvation, and to reject later probations ; 
 (2) the environments of the lost, the absence of all those 
 special influences towards salvation without which no
 
 254 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 one is saved in this world, would render a second proba- 
 tion of no avail ; (3) experience in enduring punishment 
 and serving penalty for crime seems rather to unfit than 
 to fit a man for standing successfully a future probation 
 seems to have a tendency to confirm in crime rather 
 than to remove or diminish guilt. 
 
 Having now shown that a future probation could not 
 possibly change the sinner's doom, we are ready to say 
 that we not only believe in the doctrine of a second pro- 
 bation, but we believe in an eternal probation, so far as God 
 is concerned that is, God is going to do nothing to keep 
 a lost sinner from becoming a good and holy being. It 
 is to be feared that preachers have too often opposed this 
 doctrine of a future probation in such a manner as to 
 make it appear that God arbitrarily, by an act of his 
 sovereign will, makes human probation to end at death, 
 and that, but for this, sinners might repent and become 
 holy in perdition in other words, that it is God who is 
 keeping sinners in their guilt, and that but for the fact 
 that He forbids their further probation they might all bo- 
 come holy. How absurd is such an idea, and how utterly 
 incapable of defense is such a view of the doctrine of 
 future punishment ! We repeat that so far as God is 
 concerned probation lasts forever, in that He is not going 
 to forbid, or do any thing to prevent, a lost sinner from 
 becoming holy. As a matter of fact the sinner's destiny 
 is fixed and irretrievable beyond the grave ; but it makes 
 a vast difference, so far as Christian truth is concerned, 
 whether we .place the cause of his continuance in sin and
 
 FUTURE AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 255 
 
 in the abode of the lost, in the sovereign will of God or 
 in the sinner's own guilty nature and sinful character. 
 The reason why a lost sinner will not and cannot become 
 holy is in himself, in his own sinful character, and not in 
 the will of God. And we may not only say that God is 
 going to do nothing to keep a lost sinner from becoming 
 holy, but if he should by any chance become holy (which 
 is the most gratuitous of suppositions) God will take him 
 out of the abode of the lost. Indeed, if our doctrine be 
 true, he will not need to be taken out by sovereign 
 power; he will come out himself, for there is nothing 
 but guilt and sin that retains him there, and if these be 
 gone, he can no longer remain among the guilty, but will 
 seek his proper place among sinless and holy beings. It 
 is sin, and nothing but sin, that makes hell, that puts a 
 man in hell, and keeps him in hell. 
 
 We therefore conclude that "as the tree falls, so it 
 must forever lie." And not only so, but "as the tree 
 leans, so it will fall " whether it be high or low, whether 
 it bo great or small, it is all the same as it leans, so it 
 will fall. Immortal being, who may chance to read these 
 lines, which way are you leaning to-day ?
 
 THE INVENTION OF MATERIAL 
 FOR PREACHING. 
 
 SOME years ago a prominent teacher of elocution and 
 gesture was giving a course of lessons in one of our col- 
 leges, and had awakened much enthusiasm among the 
 students. One of them who had mastered the system, 
 and that of gesticulation in particular, and had acquired 
 marked grace in action, on one occasion, while practicing 
 the new and fascinating art, was encountered by a fellow- 
 student, and said : " Wouldn't I make a splendid orator, 
 McTyeiro, if I only had something to say ? " This same 
 want of something to say is the only thing in the way 
 of many a man's becoming an excellent preacher. But 
 alas ! this want is fundamental and fatal. There is noth- 
 ing that can substitute the lack of something to say. On 
 the other hand, if a man has abundance of matter, that 
 makes atonement for many faults and supplies many de- 
 fects of other kinds. Some rough and ready rustic of 
 an Englishman, with greater shrewdness of insight than 
 beauty of expression, embodied this thought in a senten- 
 tious bit of advice to a young preacher when he said : 
 " Get chock full of your subject, knock out the bung, and 
 let nature caper." That great and quaint preacher, Mr. 
 Spurgeon, turned this harsh and homely saying to good 
 account as the text of a quaint and curious but excellent 
 17
 
 258 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 lecture to his students. And what is here meant is 
 usually true. When a man really has something to say, 
 the saying it will somehow take care of itself. The how 
 is important, but the what is indispensable; and yet, 
 though indispensable, it is a far higher and more difficult 
 thing. Of making books on homiletics there is no end, 
 and the chief end of those that are made is really not to 
 teach men how to preach, but to put them in the way of 
 inventing suitable and effective matter for preaching.* 
 It is this power of invention, this fecundity of thought 
 that far more than any thing else distinguishes preach- 
 ers from each other, and determines the character and 
 success of a man's ministry. Moreover, it determines 
 whether preaching shall be a dull and intolerable task, 
 as it is to some men, or the highest and freest and glad- 
 dest privilege and exercise in the world, as it is to others. 
 The man is not to be envied who is too conscientious or 
 too weak to give up the ministry, and yet too lazy or 
 too busy to furnish his mind with great and abundant 
 thought for preaching. 
 
 In this lecture we shall consider first the process, and 
 secondly the condition of invention, thirdly helps to in- 
 vention, and lastly the Bible as a source of material. 
 
 I. The process of invention in general. And though 
 our terms may not be used with technical exactness, it 
 
 * " Invention, strictly speaking, expands itself over the whole 
 field of rhetoric. The same faculty is applied to every thing. 
 It is the whole talent, it is the whole art." (Vinet, " Hoiniletics," 
 p. 49.)
 
 THE INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOE PREACHING. 259 
 
 is sufficient if the meaning be made clear. If we ex- 
 amine the works of those who have been considered 
 original thinkers, discoverers, producers, we shall find 
 that they have presented us with views of the relations 
 of things. In some instances these views are true and 
 new ; in some they are true and not new ; and in some 
 they are new and not true. The relations that have 
 been discovered so far by men may be reduced to a fairly 
 definite classification, and grouped under a few general 
 heads. The law that makes this classification and group- 
 ing possible, and at the same time determines it, is that 
 general and familiar one known as the association of 
 ideas. And this we shall find to be the basis of the in- 
 vention of thought. If, for example, the process be the 
 analysis of a subject or term, this is simply the resolu- 
 tion of a whole into its parts, and the discovery and 
 statement of the various relations of these. So that 
 when the mind proposes to itself the analysis of any 
 term or subject, the idea of the whole will suggest the 
 parts of which it is composed, and this is in accordance 
 with a recognized law of the association of ideas, or 
 rather is an instance of that law. Again, great orig- 
 inality is often displayed in the grouping of facts in 
 nature, or events in history, or truths in morals. This 
 is an example of the operation of the associative fac- 
 ulty according to another well-known law that things 
 that are in any respect similar suggest each other in 
 the mind or occur to the mind in connection. This 
 law is the ground of classification in nature, in morals,
 
 260 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 among men, and likewise of exemplification, which is an 
 effective form of thought and feature of style. It is in 
 accordance with this principle also that there occur to 
 the mind those similarities which are the ground of 
 similes, metaphors, parables, and of illustration in gen- 
 eral, which makes up or ought to make up a large part 
 of the material of preaching. The opposite relation of 
 contrast or contrariety is the ground of that fine and 
 effective form of expression called antithesis, which is so 
 large and striking a feature in the thought and style of 
 the great orators, secular and sacred, and especially of 
 Paul and Augustine and Chrysostom. If the process bo 
 narration, whether of external events or mental expe- 
 riences, this consists of the observation and statement of 
 these events and experiences in their consecutive or 
 chronological order and depends upon the law of suc- 
 cession in time ; while if it be description, this is accord- 
 ing to the law of contiguity in space ; or lastly, if the 
 process be that of reasoning, this is putting the mind 
 upon the task of observing or inquiring the relation of 
 cause and effect, as, for example, what 'is the cause of 
 any given fact, phenomenon, or event ; or what is prob- 
 ably the cause of it ; or, on the other hand, what is the 
 effect of any given cause or what is likely to be the 
 effect of it ; or yet again, what is the design or so-called 
 final cause of any given act, procedure, institution; or, 
 in the last place, what conclusion may bo involved in 
 any known position or general principle. But all preach- 
 ing consists of analysis, which includes definition and
 
 THE INVENTION OF MATERIAL FOB PREACHING. 261 
 
 explanation ; or of reasoning in one form or another ; or 
 of new groupings of facts or events according to the 
 principle of similarity or contrast; or of illustration, 
 which depends on the principle of similarity ; or of nar- 
 ration or description. 
 
 The process of invention (in preaching), then, is either 
 reproducing what is already in the mind in (new) group- 
 ings according to the order and relations suggested by 
 the few and well-known laws governing the association 
 of ideas ; or it is advancing from what is already known 
 to those hitherto tinapprehended truths which are re- 
 lated to the known according to the laws of the associa- 
 tion of ideas, and which form the complement, so to 
 speak, of truths already known ; as the apprehension of 
 an unknown cause from a known effect, or of a more or 
 less probable effect from a known cause, or of a new 
 conclusion from a known premise. In each of those 
 processes the imagination has a necessary part ; in the 
 first the part of composition or putting together in new 
 groupings things which are already known to the mind ; 
 in the last it has the much higher function of advancing 
 beyond the jumping-off place of the known, and carrying 
 its possessor over into the possession of truth hitherto 
 unperceived, unknown, unthought of. Sometimes this 
 process is so short and swift that it is no longer recog- 
 nized as reasoning, but is called intuition or inspiration, 
 and distinguishes its achiever as a man of genius. 
 
 II. Now when no effort is made to control the suc- 
 cession of ideas in the mind they do not always or gen-
 
 262 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 erally relate to one subject even, but follow each other 
 often by very slight links of connection, and sometimes 
 in very capricious and grotesque order. But it is possible 
 by a continuous effort of the will to hold the mind upon 
 one subject and even upon a single aspect of any given 
 subject till all irrelevant thoughts cease to intrude, and 
 the succession of thoughts, thus confined to one subject^ 
 no longer proceeds by slight and capricious connections, 
 but according to truth and the real relations of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Moreover, when by this effort of the will the mind is 
 withdrawn from other subjects, and the succession of 
 irrelevant ideas is excluded, then we are surprised and 
 delighted to find that relevant thoughts abundantly mul- 
 tiply, and the mind becomes wonderfully productive. 
 As we say, the mind gets full of the subject, and rele- 
 vant and just thoughts suggest themselves with sur- 
 prising facility and rapidity. The condition of invention, 
 then, is close and continuous attention, and we may 
 change the old proverb a little and say in this connection 
 that attention is the mother of invention. 
 
 We experience this same thought-productiveness when 
 our attention, instead of being directed by an effort of 
 the will, is involuntarily drawn to and fixed upon any 
 subject by the inherent attractiveness of the subject it- 
 self. It is perfectly wonderful, for example, how pro- 
 ductive his mind becomes when " in the spring a young 
 man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of" some in- 
 teresting friend, and he daily throws off page after page
 
 THE INVENTION 01* MATERIAL tfOR J>REACftlNG. 263 
 
 of the most relevant matter without exhausting the 
 source or diminishing the supply. This explains also 
 how it is that when we are deeply interested in any sub- 
 ject we find it easy to talk about it. It is because we 
 fix our attention upon it closely and continuously, or 
 rather because it attracts and fixes our attention upon 
 itself. 
 
 Sometimes the attention is semi- voluntary, as in the case 
 of the preacher who has let the week pass by without 
 preparing his sermon, but on Saturday night finds ne- 
 cessity is upon him. And now the thoughts that would 
 not come when he did not fix his attention on his subject 
 do come when he is forced to do so. And thoughts come 
 to men when engaged in the act of preaching, and a de- 
 lightful quickening of the mind is experienced, due no 
 doubt to the intense fixing of the attention up6n the sub- 
 ject. Often this mental fructification and thought-pro- 
 duction continue after the sermon is over, and sometimes 
 in a heightened degree. What preacher has not some- 
 times in his life sat up on Sunday night to write down 
 the good thoughts that did not come to him while preach- 
 ing ? One of the greatest speakers of the English Par- 
 liament said he always lost two nights' sleep over every 
 important speech ho had made the night before in 
 thinking of what he was going to say, and the night 
 after in thinking of the good things ho might have said. 
 
 Though the production of thought in these cases seems 
 to bo automatic and involuntary, it is not so. For it is 
 due to the continued momentum of the mental energy
 
 264 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 which was in the first instance set in motion and directed 
 to the subject in hand by the determined and vigorous 
 concentration of the attention upon it. If, then, in every 
 case the condition of thought-production is close and con- 
 tinuous attention, and if attention is subject to the will 
 or may be made so by persistent and patient effort and 
 practice, it follows that any of us who are endowed with 
 ordinary powers may become thought-producers. And 
 to this agree the words of the philosophers. One of the 
 greatest of them does not hesitate to declare that the 
 power of fixing and holding the attention upon any given 
 subject determines more than any thing else the differ- 
 ences among men in respect to intellectual ability. The 
 passage is so exceptionally good that I am sure I shall 
 be excused for quoting it at length : 
 
 All commencement is difficult; and this is more especially 
 true of intellectual effort. When we turn our views for the first 
 time on any given object, a hundred other things still retain pos- 
 session of our thoughts. Even when a resolute determination or 
 the attraction of a new object has smoothed the way, still the 
 mind is continually perplexed by the glimmer of intrusive and 
 distracting thoughts which prevent it from placing that wliich 
 should exclusively occupy its view in the full clearness of an 
 undivided light. Helvetius justly observes that the very feeblest 
 intellect is capable of comprehending the inference of one math- 
 ematical position from another and even of making such an in- 
 ference itself. . . . The most difficult and complicate demon- 
 strations in the works of a Newton or a Laplace are all made up 
 of such immediate inferences. They are like houses composed 
 of single bricks. No greater exertion of intellect is required to 
 make a thousand such inferences than is requisite to make one,
 
 THE INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOR PREACHING. 265 
 
 as the effort of laying a single brick is the maximum of any in- 
 dividual effort in the construction of a house. Thus the differ- 
 ence between an ordinary mind and the mind of a Newton con- 
 sists principally in this, that the one is capable of the application of 
 a more continuous attention than the other, that a Newton is able 
 to connect inference with inference in one long series toward a 
 determinate end, while the other is soon obliged to break off or 
 let fall the thread which he had begun to spin. This is, in feet, 
 what Sir Isaac, with equal shrewdness and modesty, himself ad- 
 mitted. To one who complimented him on his genius he replied 
 that if he had made any discoveries, it was owing more to patient 
 attention than to any other talent. ... If what Alcibiades in 
 the Symposium of Plato narrates of Socrates be true, the father 
 of Greek philosophy must have possessed this faculty of contin- 
 uous attention in the highest degree. According to this report, 
 in a military expedition which Socrates made along with Alcibi- 
 ades, the philosopher was seen by the Athenian army to stand 
 for a whole day and a night until the breaking of the second 
 morning, motionless, with a fixed gaze thus showing that he 
 was uninterruptedly engrossed with the consideration of a single 
 subject. "And thus," says Alcibiades, " Socrates is ever wont to 
 do when his mind is occupied with inquiries in which there are 
 difficulties to be overcome. He then never interrupts his medi- 
 tation, he forgets to eat and drink and sleep (among the last 
 things, by the way, that many preachers forget to do) every 
 thing, in short, until his inquiry has reached its termination, or at 
 least until he has seen some light in it" In this account of Al- 
 cibiades there may be some exaggeration, but still the truth of 
 the principle is undeniable. 
 
 Like Newton, Descartes arrogated nothing to the superiority 
 of his mind. What he accomplished more than other men, that 
 he attributed to the superiority of his method. And Bacon in like 
 manner eulogizes his method in that it places all men with equal
 
 266 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 attention upon a level and leaves little or nothing to the preroga- 
 tives of genius. Nay, genius itself has been analyzed by the 
 shrewdest observers into a higher capacity of attention. " Gen- 
 ius," says Helvetius, " is nothing but a continued attention " (une 
 attention mime). I have dwelt at greater length upon the practical 
 bearings of attention, not only because this principle constitutes the 
 better half of att intellectual power, but because it is of consequence 
 that you should be fully aware of the incalculable importance of 
 acquiring, by early and continued exercise, the habit of attention.* 
 
 III. If attention thus bears so vital a relation to the 
 production of thought, it is important to know if the 
 power of attention may be cultivated, and how. It has 
 already been said, and it is true, that when one is inter- 
 ested, attention is not difficult. But it is otherwise, when 
 one is not interested. In what way, then, may the power 
 of attention be subjected to the control of the will ? Per- 
 haps few men have succeeded in accomplishing perfectly 
 this difficult task. We read amusing accounts of the 
 methods which some great men have adopted for assist- 
 ing concentration. That great German thinker and 
 preacher, Schleiermacher, in order to facilitate mental ap- 
 plication used to lean out of a window for hours together, 
 or in general to assume some constrained posturc.f Dan- 
 iel Webster could compose his best while engaged in fish- 
 ing. Whether he got the hint from Walton, "the an- 
 gling optimist whose pleasant thoughts were intuitions 
 
 *Sir William Hamilton, "Metaphysics," Ed. Bowen, pp. 
 171-174. 
 
 t Compare Broadus, " Preparation and Delivery of Sermons," 
 p. 408.
 
 TSE INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOR BREACHING. 267 
 
 that came to him while engaged in his favorite pastime," 
 I do not know. Milton thought out much of his " Para- 
 dise Lost " while lying awake in bed at night. Addison 
 used to pace up and down the long hall at Holland House 
 while composing. Burns composed often while walking 
 or riding, and wrote it down afterward. Wordsworth 
 used to compose aloud while walking in the woods and 
 fields. Balzac used to lock himself up for weeks at a 
 time, and then come forth into the world with a new 
 book. Kant, in order to preserve his mental energy and 
 clearness, took for breakfast only a cup of tea and a pipe 
 of tobacco, on which he worked for eight hours. He 
 dined at one, and ate no supper, that he might work till 
 late at night. Lord Jeffrey engaged in conversation to 
 stimulate his mind for writing a new article. I have 
 read or heard that Macaulay never wrote without the 
 immediate stimulus of reading. Sainte-Beuve never 
 spoke about any character or doctrine that he had not 
 bottomed, as far as he was able; and before beginning 
 actual composition his mind had been disciplined into a 
 state of the most complete readiness like the fingers of 
 a musician.* 
 
 These examples show that close mental application 
 never ceased to bo difficult for these great writers. And 
 this fact, so far from being a discouraging one, should 
 really have the opposite effect by inducing us to consent 
 to admit that the mental effort involved in thought and 
 
 *See "The Intellectual Life," by Hamerton, a very pleasant 
 book, and Harper's Young People for October 23, 1888.
 
 268 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 thought-production is difficult. If we could forever rid 
 ourselves of the false and fatal impression that preach- 
 ing is easy, we should then be willing to give ourselves 
 to labor, to toil, to agony, if need be, in order to preach 
 well. And to be willing to toil and suffer for it is already 
 half the battle. When we come to know the lives of 
 great preachers we find they were great toilers. Take 
 the case of two of opposite types : Frederick W. Eobert- 
 son, of England, and an eminent but not scholarly Bap- 
 tist minister in the United States. The former in one of 
 his letters incidentally gives an account of his method of 
 composing. He says : " I should say that the word ex- 
 tempore does not exactly describe the way I preach. I 
 first make copious notes. Then I draw out a form. Aft- 
 erward I write the thoughts copiously into a connected 
 whole, sometimes twice or thrice, in order to disentangle 
 them. Then I make a syllabus, and lastly a skeleton." 
 It is no wonder he was a great preacher. The Baptist 
 minister, whose preaching is described as uniformly pow- 
 erful, when asked by one who had heard him, what his 
 method of preparation was, replied : "After having pre- 
 pared my sermon in my study to the best of my ability, 
 by thought and prayer, I go over it from five to twenty 
 times while walking or riding alone in the woods, in or- 
 der to change it, reconstruct it, add to it, and fix it in 
 my mind." It is no wonder ho was a great preacher. 
 Those who think Bishop Pierce preached without labor 
 will find they are mistaken if they will read page 96 of 
 his "Life" by George G. Smith.
 
 THE INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOR PREACHING. 269 
 
 " Preaching made easy " is a delusion and a snare 
 that is, good preaching made easy. The power of direct- 
 ing and holding the attention is not of easy acquisition. 
 Let this be received and believed at the outset, and the 
 way is open to success ; otherwise not. 
 
 In general, the most effective means of cultivating the 
 capacity of attention is to subject one's self to a long and 
 severe training under a clear-headed, painstaking, critical, 
 exacting teacher.* When this is impracticable, the next 
 best thing is the close study and thorough mastery of 
 books that are difficult enough to require close applica- 
 tion^ but not so difficult as to baffle and discourage the 
 student. Howbeit, you had better read five books with 
 your understanding than ten thousand books without 
 your understanding. F. W. Robertson said to a friend 
 that he could count the religious books ho had read on 
 the fingers of his hands ; but he had made them his own, 
 and they had passed into his being like the iron atoms 
 of the blood. But in these days of multiplied methods 
 it is not necessary for an earnest, ambitious young man 
 to study without a teacher. If he cannot have a 
 teacher in person, he may have one by correspondence. 
 There are such teachers and such schools, though those 
 can never supply the place of the living teacher. It 
 would bo a good thing it' the young preachers who are 
 
 * Vinet says : " The most reliable means of invention is a truly 
 philosophical culture." (" Homiletics," p. 53.) 
 
 fSir W. Hamilton's "Metaphysics" (Bowen) is strong in 
 thought and beautifully clear in style.
 
 270 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 pursuing our Conference Course of Study could recite to 
 their examiners regularly by correspondence and receive 
 from them direction and correction and instruction, in- 
 stead of studying all through the year without guidance 
 or help and then trying to go through five or six great 
 subjects at Conference in two days. This method would 
 require some labor and self-denial on the part of the ex- 
 aminers, but would result in personal advantage to them- 
 selves sufficient to compensate for it all, besides the sat- 
 isfaction of helping their younger brethren. 
 
 In the next place practice invention. Select a subject 
 or text and set yourself to compose an essay or a sermon, 
 and when you start at it stick to it in all moods and tenses 
 and weathers, if it takes all summer and all winter. 
 Make a promise, enter into an engagement, put yourself 
 under obligation to write to write a paper for a Christian 
 Endeavor Society, or a literary club, or an article for a 
 newspaper or review. Promise an article to be furnished 
 at a certain definite time, an article that you know will 
 be seen or heard by those who will appreciate it, if it is 
 good, or criticise it, if it is not. Lay a necessity upon 
 yourself, and do it again and again. 
 
 As a special help at the time for awakening interest in 
 the subject and so fixing the attention upon it in order to 
 promote invention, I would put among the first, conver- 
 sation with some intelligent and thoughtful friend or 
 friends of inquiring and independent habits of mind. 
 Some of the clearest and most satisfactory views I have 
 gotten of the Scriptures have been those brought out in
 
 THE INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOE PREACHING. 271 
 
 free and earnest conversation with my students in the 
 University classes and with another friend who is a help- 
 meet in all the affairs of life. These, in many instances, 
 I am free to say, have, by their questions, objections, sug- 
 gestions, given quite as much help as they have received, 
 and possibly more. There is perhaps nothing in the 
 world that so rouses the mind and gives it such a pro- 
 ductive and delightful activity as free conversation with 
 well-informed or inquiring persons of quick, incisive in- 
 tellect and independent habits of thinking. Other things 
 being equal, no debating society is comparable to it. 
 Conversation not only imparts this delightful mental 
 glow of healthful activity, it likewise gives definiteness 
 and reality to views already half-possessed and urges the 
 mind forth to the grasp of views entirely new. It will 
 be quite as well or better if you will hold your conversa- 
 tions with friends who are known to differ with you in 
 their views of the subject in hand, or at least who are 
 not afraid to differ with you. 
 
 In the next place comes reading, the object of which 
 is not that you may gather together what others have 
 said about the subject far from it but that you may get 
 interested in it, and so facilitate the application of your 
 mind to it. And here again, as the design is to awaken 
 your mind and stimulate your thought, it is better to 
 read those authors who are known to have original and 
 independent views, and views that differ from the tradi- 
 tional. Wo all need to be jostled out of the ruts. Among 
 preachers, Horace Bushnell and F. W. .Robertson are
 
 272 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 original, vigorous, stimulating, suggestive. In exegesis, 
 with the exception of Meyer, whose works are too diffi- 
 cult for the English reader, Lightfoot stands easily at 
 the head. But you will find it very hard not to agree 
 with him. His comments are on the Greek text, but a 
 well-trained, wide-awake English reader can follow them, 
 for the most part. Try one volume (that on Philippians), 
 and you will want more. The advantage of reading will 
 be greatly heightened if, before reading, the subject be 
 as thoroughly studied as there is time and capacity for. 
 Another special help to invention is to have a definite ob- 
 ject in every sermon, to know just what that object is, 
 and to aim at it throughout. John Foster thinks this 
 one of the secrets of Eobert Hall's power. Some one 
 has called it the power behind the throne. 
 
 But before all and in the midst of all and above all, yet 
 never to be separated from them, the chief and highest 
 preparation for and aid to invention is prayer. 
 
 By these means conscientiously and persistently applied, 
 one may cultivate the power of attention to an indefinite 
 degree. As acquired virtues are the finest, acquired powers 
 are the best, and a man who is singularly deficient in a cer- 
 tain respect may bestow such persevering effort in that 
 direction as to surpass others in that very thing. So that 
 often one's weakness becomes one's strength. Demos- 
 thenes was by nature less fitted than any of his contem- 
 poraries for the stormy arena of Athenian oratory, but 
 the realization of his unfitness impelled him to an indus- 
 try which enabled him to outstrip them all.
 
 INVENTION OF MATERIAL FOR PRKAOiilNU. 273 
 
 IV. But before the process of thought can bo applied, 
 material must be gathered in great abundance. The 
 sources of materials are many, but we can consider hero 
 only one, that divine-human and myriad-sided book, the 
 Bible. 
 
 A man of sound and profound training, in easy com- 
 mand of the contents of the Book, would make a great 
 preacher if he confined himself to the materials furnished 
 there. The Bible is as great and wonderful as the world, 
 and more so. It is as high as the stars, and higher. It 
 is as deep as the seas, and deeper. It is as manifold and 
 multitudinous and as minute as nature. It is as various 
 and complex as man, and more so. It exhausts man and 
 brings into view beings higher and beings lower than 
 man. It is as high and difficult as God ; it is as simple 
 as a little child. It is broader than all literature; it 
 stretches farther than all history ; it is higher than all 
 philosophy. As we must study nature with various in- 
 terpreters so must we the Bible. When wo look upon 
 the face of nature in a general way, we get a general im- 
 pression of its wonderfulness, but no definite apprecia- 
 tion of its endless variegatedness, its minute and delicate 
 beauties, its complete and perfect order. To understand 
 these we must study, trees and flowers with the special- 
 ist in botany, the structure and classification of the rocks 
 with the specialist in geology, the mysteries of light and 
 sound and motion with the specialist in physics, the won- 
 ders of water from the dew-drop to the glacier with the 
 specialist in physical geography, tho number and path- 
 18
 
 274 DISCUSSIONS IN 
 
 ways of the stars with the specialist in astronomy. And 
 yet these are not the highest high-priests of nature's 
 mysteries. It is the province of the poet to lead us into 
 nature's holy of holies and interpret for us her higher 
 meanings. So that while we study nature with Dana 
 and Gray and Agassiz and Tyndall and the scientists, we 
 enter into her higher courts with Wordsworth and Ten- 
 nyson and Euskin and Browning and Shakespeare. And 
 so it is necessary to study the Bible. We shall find the 
 largest advantage if we study it minutely and microscop- 
 ically with the scientific specialist in exact grammatical 
 and historical exegesis, as Lightfoot, Ellicott, Westcott, 
 Godet, Meyer, Delitszch, Pusey; with the specialists in 
 doctrinal and systematic statement, as Pope, Martensen, 
 Luthardt, and Summers; and at the same time study it 
 prayerfully and profoundly under the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit and of men who have risen to the higher and 
 broader spiritual meaning of the sacred Word, as John 
 Wesley, Fletcher, Payson, Spurgeon, and Moody. 
 
 Combining these three methods of studying the Bible, 
 we shall find it is a store-house of materials. If we have 
 an easy familiarity with the contents of the Bible, its 
 facts, its history, its poetry, its laws, its characters, its 
 examples, its doctrines, its system, we shall find that upon 
 condition of close and patient study of any given text 
 or subject, the other parts that are relevant or in any 
 way vitally associated with the matter in hand, will, in 
 accordance with the law discussed in the first part of this 
 paper, come filing in and offer themselves for service.
 
 INVENTION OP MATERIAL FOR PREACHINO. 275 
 
 All preaching should be expository. Our standard of 
 preaching ought to bo no longer the oration, but the ex- 
 position. Even if it be a subject-sermon, the definitions, 
 the analysis, and largely the argument, will be drawn 
 from the Bible, and much of the illustration as well. 
 Much more is this true of text-sermons and expository 
 sermons, technically so called. If this be true, the man 
 who has large command of the contents of the Bible will 
 be amply furnished for his great work "All Scripture 
 is given that the man of God may be perfect, thor- 
 oughly furnished unto every good word." 
 
 But some one asks : " How can a man be fresh and orig- 
 inal, if he only expounds the Bible ? " In the first place, 
 he may have original views of Scripture. "But isn't 
 the proper interpretation of Scripture for the most part 
 already discovered, agreed upon, and settled ? " No. The 
 Scriptures bearing upon great doctrinal points are fairly 
 agreed upon, but of particular passages this is not at all 
 true. Indeed, so far as most people are concerned, an 
 exact interpretation of almost any scripture passage will 
 be new and in most cases surprising and delightful. A 
 strictly contextual interpretation of most passages would 
 also be fresh and entertaining to most people. So inex- 
 act and vague is the knowledge of the Scriptures on the 
 part of most people that it is safe to say a true inter- 
 pretation will, as a rule, be a new interpretation. The 
 thing, then, is to find out by close study the interpreta- 
 tion that is exactly true. 
 
 In the second place, one may attain a decided origi-
 
 27G DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 nality by putting the materials of the Scripture in new 
 groupings. Green had no new materials, and yet he has 
 made a fresh and original History of the English People. 
 Goodwin had no new materials, but by a grouping of his 
 own he made a new and most excellent Greek Grammar. 
 Pope had no new materials, and yet he has made a work 
 on Systematic Theology that is original and new, a won- 
 derfully entertaining book. This originality is due part- 
 ly to his exact interpretation of Scripture and partly to 
 his new grouping of passages and of doctrines. 
 
 In the third place, presenting old truth as felt and 
 seen by you will be new truth. Some men see what oth- 
 ers have said about the truth, and some see the truth it- 
 self. They who see the truth itself, see it apart from any 
 form which it may have taken before, and seeing it apart 
 from and without any form of expression, they give it a 
 form of their own, and an old truth in a new form will 
 strike as new. The forms which many truths have in the 
 Bible itself have become so familiar that they have ceased 
 to strike or impress. Take these truths into your mind 
 and heart, realize them in their naked reality, and then 
 clothe them in a form of your own, and you will be an 
 original preacher. Personality in preaching will impart 
 originality to preaching. Truth and personality are the 
 two elements of preaching, and if a man is to avoid 
 " dealing in the wretched traffic of unfelt truth " he must 
 realize the truth for himself.
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 
 
 The Iconoclastic Controversy. 
 
 IN the Christian Church of the first century there was 
 unquestionably a strong feeling of dislike for all the forms 
 of fine art. This feeling was partly an inheritance from 
 Judaism, which utterly lacked the artistic spirit, and was 
 partly derived from an exaggerated interpretation of such 
 passages of the New Testament as John iv. 24 : " God is a 
 Spirit : and they that worship him must worship him in 
 spirit and in truth." Other facts also may help to account 
 for it. In the first place, art had been for many ages the 
 obedient servant of heathenism, and had found one of its 
 chief employments in the building, furnishing, and decorat- 
 ing of heathen temples. So complete, in fact, was the alli- 
 ance between the two that it was easy to confound the 
 one with the other. This alone would have been suffi- 
 cient to raise an unfriendly suspicion. "The religious 
 consciousness easily took an opposite direction to the 
 rosthetic principle in the ancient world, and the holy dis- 
 dained the beautiful form which had been allied to the 
 unholy." Then, too, the great ' majority of the early 
 Christians were a simple-minded and uneducated people, 
 so entirely engrossed with the hard tasks of daily life as 
 to have little time or opportunity for the cultivation of 
 their aesthetic faculties ; and there was, moreover, an al-
 
 278 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 most universal expectation among them of the speedy 
 return of Christ to destroy all the vain works of man 
 and to burn up the solid globe itself. We may easily in- 
 fer what must have been the feelings of the multitude of 
 less intelligent Christians, if we consider the state of 
 mind with which so liberal a man as St. Paul looked 
 upon the magnificence of Athens. Instead of being 
 moved to wonder and admiration by its vast display of 
 beauty, " his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the 
 city wholly given to idolatry." The countless products 
 of human genius that met his eye stood to him simply as 
 the embodiments of a dominant and aggressive idolatry 
 of an idolatry which sanctioned and aggravated in- 
 stead of rebuking and relieving the inherent and awful 
 depravity of human nature. What could he do under 
 such circumstances but utter words of indignant pro- 
 test? 
 
 But manifestly this state of things could not be per- 
 manent. "The same law of Christian development," 
 says Neander, "which required that the abrupt opposi- 
 tion to the world characterizing its first period should 
 give place to the Christian appropriation of the world is 
 to be applied also to the relation of Christianity to art." 
 The ultimate design of our holy religion is not to with- 
 draw itself in cynical contempt from the ordinary walks 
 of human life, but to penetrate and sanctify them all by 
 its presence. "All things are yours," writes St. Paul him- 
 self to the Corinthians. In this declaration there is 
 wrapped up a general truth, the full significance of which
 
 CfiRISTlANITY AND ART?. 270 
 
 has not yot been apprehended. All things belong to the 
 Christian man in such sense that he may use them all for 
 the broadening and deepening of his intellectual and 
 moral being. Nothing is to be refused if it can be re- 
 ceived with thanksgiving and enjoyed with moderation. 
 Literature, science, art all the good and true and beau- 
 tiful things that our brother men have thought and said 
 and done are a part of our inheritance as the children 
 of God. For prudential reasons and as a temporary ex- 
 pediency, it may sometimes be best that we should ab- 
 stain from the use of this inheritance; but there is no 
 sufficient reason why we should be permanently excluded 
 from its occupancy. 
 
 As might have been expected, it came to pass when 
 Christianity had spread itself widely among the Greeks, 
 who were of all the people that ever lived upon the earth 
 the most artistic, that there was a gradual but radical 
 change in the temper with which objects of art were 
 viewed a change which did not stop within reasonable 
 and scriptural boundaries, but went to the last limit of 
 superstitious folly. "After the middle or close of the sec- 
 ond century," says Dr. Schaff, " we find the rude begin- 
 nings of Christian art in the form of significant symbols 
 in the private and social life of the Christians and after- 
 ward in public worship." Among the commonest of these 
 symbols was the monogram of the name of Christ made 
 by an intertwining of the letters X and P. Very often 
 the letter X ended in an anchor, and the letter P was en- 
 compassed by the letters a and to. We also meet with
 
 280 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 figures of a ship, of a dove, of an anchor, of a fisherman, 
 of a crown, of a palm-tree, of a lamb, of a cock (in allu- 
 sion to John xviii. 27), and of a phenix (as a symbol of 
 the resurrection). "By and by these symbols led to the 
 use of types. Old Testament histories were now depicted. 
 From that it required only another step to delineate New 
 Testament events." "Among the rich and noble men and 
 women in the Byzantine Empire Christianity was affect- 
 ed even in the mode of dress. When it was the fashion 
 for men and women of rank to wear garments on which 
 the whole representation of a chase was embroidered in 
 gold and silver threads, they who made pretension to pi- 
 ety, on the other hand, chose the representation of the 
 marriage-feast at Cana, of the blind man restored to 
 sight, of the man sick of the palsy who took up his bed 
 and walked, of the woman with the issue of blood, of the 
 Magdalene who embraced the feet of Jesus, of the resur- 
 rection of Lazarus. Bedizened with such figures, they 
 supposed that their dress must be well approved in the 
 sight of God." (Neander's " Church History," Vol. II., 
 p. 324.) 
 
 It was not until the close of the third century, how- 
 ever, that artistic representations of holy things, which 
 had hitherto been confined to private houses and the cat- 
 acombs, were carried into the churches. Even then it 
 was not done without much and violent opposition. The 
 Spanish Council of Elvira, which met in the year 306, 
 and which had so far declined from the purity of apos- 
 tolic doctrine as to demand a celibate clergy, nevertheless
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 281 
 
 showed some vivid apprehensions of religious truth by 
 prohibiting pictures of any sort in the churches, for fear 
 the "objects of veneration and worship should be painted 
 on the walls." But this prohibition did little good. The 
 custom was already beginning to be a general one. It 
 fell in with the current beliefs of the age, and was pow- 
 erfully re-enforced by the excessive reverence which had 
 long been felt for the names and memories of the saints. 
 The popular religion was in fact already half paganized 
 by the incorporation of alien principles and practices. By 
 the close of the fourth century nearly every one who 
 built a church wished it to be set out " with all the em- 
 bellishments of art and with the rich ornament of pict- 
 ures." 
 
 But we must not suppose that all those who acceded 
 to such arrangements were image-worshipers in the 
 coarse and gross sense of the term. Among the igno- 
 rant and the thoughtless many no doubt went even to 
 this extreme, utterly failing to apprehend the fine and 
 airy distinctions between images as instruments of devo- 
 tion and as objects of worship. But with many others 
 the case was different. By them the images were prized 
 simply as remembrances of the glorified, or as memorials 
 of great transactions in the history of the Church. Even 
 as late as the beginning of the seventh century we find 
 Gregory the Great, the last of the four great doctors of 
 the Latin Church, entering a caution against possible 
 abuses. A famous hermit had sent to him for images of 
 Christ and some of the saints. The request was granted,
 
 282 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 but with an accompanying letter which, while it praised 
 the pious wish for these holy symbols, warned the her- 
 mit against setting too much store by them. " I am well 
 aware," wrote Gregory, " that thou desirest not the im- 
 age of the Saviour that thou mayest worship it as God, 
 but to enkindle in thee the love of him whose image thou 
 wouldst see. Neither do we prostrate ourselves before 
 the image as before a deity, but we adore him whom the 
 symbol represents to our memory as born, as suffering, 
 or as seated on the throne ; and, according to the repre- 
 sentations, the correspondent feelings of joyful elevation 
 or of painful sympathy are excited in our breasts." 
 
 By the eighth century such conservative views as these, 
 though they still lingered in the West, and especially in 
 the Gallican Church, had almost entirely gone out of 
 fashion in the Eastern empire. Milman says ("Latin 
 Christianity," Book IV., Chap. 7): "Image-worship in 
 the mass of the people, of the whole monkhood at this 
 time, was undeniably the worship of the actual, material, 
 present image rather than that of the remote, formless, 
 or spiritual power of which it was the emblem or the 
 representative. The whole tendency of popular belief 
 was to localize, to embody in the material thing the su- 
 pernatural or divine power." It is difficult for us who 
 live in the nineteenth century to believe the actual facts 
 in regard to the extent to which at that time the abuse 
 had gone. Images were used as godparents in prefer- 
 ence to living men and women. A part of the coloring- 
 matter with which they had been painted was scratched
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 283 
 
 off and mixed with the sacramental wine to enhance the 
 efficiency of that life-giving fluid. The bread of the 
 Lord's Supper was likewise laid upon their holy hands 
 before being distributed to the faithful. Unnumbered 
 stories of the miracles which they had wrought were 
 circulated and believed. 
 
 In the year 716 the Emperor Leo III., called the Isau- 
 rian from the place of his birth, ascended the throne 
 of the Byzantine Empire. He was of the humblest or- 
 igin, and had pushed his way to eminence solely by his 
 unquestioned abilities as a soldier. Soon after his as- 
 cension he gained a complete victory over the Saracens, 
 who for the second time had invested Constantinople. 
 So far-reaching were the results of this victory as to 
 postpone for seven centuries the Mohammedan suprem- 
 acy in South-eastern Europe. Some ten years later, in 
 the year 726, Leo began a crusade against image-worship 
 a crusade which was carried on with varying success 
 for more than one hundred years, and whose remote con- 
 sequences were of the most important character. What 
 were the exact motives that prompted him it is at this 
 distance of time hard to toll. His enemies are his only 
 historians, and we are obliged by every consideration of 
 fairness to receive with a large discount what they may 
 say concerning him. Whether he had a genuine appre- 
 ciation of spiritual religion and sincerely believed that 
 the existing forms of worship were no better than idol- 
 atry, or whether he was anxious so far to modify the 
 prevailing principles and practices of the Christians as to
 
 284 DISCUSSIONS IN TltEOLOGtt. 
 
 take away the chief hinderances to the successful prose- 
 lyting of the Mohammedans from the faith of the proph- 
 et, or whether some yet lower consideration constrained 
 him, it is not possible for us to determine. This much at 
 least, however, may be affirmed, that his policy was the 
 product of no mere spasmodic impulse, but rather of a 
 fixed and definite purpose. 
 
 In the outset Leo proceeded with some caution, not at 
 once commanding the destruction of the images, but sim- 
 ply prohibiting their worship, and especially requiring 
 them to be placed higher up on the walls of the church- 
 es, where they could not be kissed by the superstitious 
 multitudes. In 730, goaded by the opposition which 
 these tentative measures had encountered, he issued a 
 second edict of much greater severity, decreeing the en- 
 tire removal of images from every church, and requiring 
 them to be destroyed. This raised a terrible storm. The 
 populace of Constantinople became furious, and when an 
 imperial officer undertook to throw down a much revered 
 image of Christ that stood over one of the city gates a 
 mob of pious women jerked the ladder from under his 
 feet and beat him to death with clubs. So great indeed 
 was the hatred that Leo incurred by what was regarded 
 as his sacrilegious conduct that a formidable rebellion 
 broke out in Greece and in the islands of the ^Egoan 
 Sea, and a certain Cosmos was set up as a rival emperor. 
 It did not take Leo long to put down this rebellion, nor 
 did he hesitate to make an example of its chief leaders 
 by cutting off their heads. There were other antago-
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 285 
 
 nists not so easily handled. First among these we may 
 reckon Germanus, the venerable Bishop of Constantino- 
 ple, now in his ninety-fifth year. In spite of his great 
 age he withstood all the blandishments and all the threats 
 of the emperor, and remained steadfast in the possession 
 of his beliefs and courageous in the expression of them. 
 He was finally deposed from his bishopric, and his secre- 
 tary, Anastasius a contemptible creature of whom wo 
 shall hear more by and by was put into his place. 
 Eanged with Germanus was Gregory II., the Bishop of 
 Eome, who, though likewise a subject of the emperor, 
 was too far removed to feel the pressure of his authority. 
 This prelate, one of the narrowest and most bigoted of 
 his class, wrote to Leo two most arrogant and insolent 
 letters, lecturing him as if he had been the merest school- 
 boy, and defying him to show any sign of resentment. 
 In the far East, John of Damascus, a subject and officer 
 of the Sultan, but at the same time the most eminent 
 living theologian of the Greek Church, followed the ex- 
 ample of Gregory and Germanus ; and in three formal 
 orations exhausted all the arguments, great and small, 
 that could be adduced in favor of image-worship. To 
 these great names must be added, with the rarest excep- 
 tions, the whole fraternity of monks, and, in the begin- 
 ning of the controversy, the immense majority of the 
 higher and the lower clergy. The army, on the other 
 hand, indorsed and sustained the policy of their beloved 
 commander. As time went on an increasing number of 
 bishops, led by various motives, took the same course.
 
 286 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 The most prominent of these were Constantino, Bishop 
 of Nacolia in Phrygia, and Theodosius, Bishop of Ephe- 
 sus. 
 
 For twelve years Leo labored to root out the great su- 
 perstition from his dominions. That he was only par- 
 tially successful is shown by the fact that when he died 
 the image-worshipers rose en masse and essayed to place 
 Artabasdus on the throne instead of Constantino IV., the 
 son and rightful heir of Leo. But this attempt ended in 
 failure. 
 
 Constantino (nicknamed Copronymus by his monkish 
 enemies because he was said to have defiled the font at 
 his baptism) inherited both his father's military genius 
 and his iconoclastic temper. In 744 he became absolute 
 master of the empire. To follow the winding course of 
 affairs during his reign is beyond my space. Let it be 
 sufficient to say that he convened in 754 what aspired to 
 be the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Church, for 
 the purpose of securing a deliberate and formal judgment 
 on the matters at issue. This body, which met in the 
 city of Constantinople, was composed of three hundred 
 and forty-eight bishops, the most of whom were of re- 
 cent appointment and pliable to the authority that had 
 elevated them. The Bishop of Eome sent no represent- 
 ative ; nor did the Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and 
 Alexandria. As they were under the rule of the Sara- 
 cens, they could not have done so even if they had wished. 
 Anastasius, who as we have before said had succeeded 
 Germanus in the See of Constantinople, was now in the
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 287 
 
 deepest disgrace. Having become, for the sake of un- 
 merited promotion, the obedient slave of Leo, he had aft- 
 erward abjured the cause of his patron, and had taken a 
 conspicuous part in the rebellion of Artabasdus. In ac- 
 cordance with the customs of the times, a terrible penal- 
 ty was inflicted upon him. By the order of his most 
 Christian sovereign his eyes were put out ; he was then 
 placed upon an ass with his face to the tail, and led in 
 this ridiculous posture through the most public streets of 
 the city. As therefore neither one of the five great patri- 
 archs was present, either in person or by his delegates, it 
 fell to the lot of Theodosius of Ephesus to preside. Of 
 an assembly so constituted only one thing could be ex- 
 pected that it would reach a conclusion in harmony 
 with the opinions of the emperor ; and so it did, winding 
 up its sessions, moreover, with the usual ecclesiastical 
 anathemas against all who dared to differ from it. 
 
 At this point it may be well enough to give a brief but 
 formal statement of the principal arguments used by the 
 opposing parties in the controversy. The Iconoclasts, as 
 the adherents of the emperor were called, appealed pri- 
 marily to the prohibition contained in the second of the 
 ten commandments. They also adduced the saying of 
 Paul : " Though wo have known Christ after the flesh, 
 yet now know we him no more." They assorted that 
 image-worship had not been known in the apostolic 
 Church, and that it had been condemned by the early 
 Fathers. They alleged that it involved almost all the 
 heresies of every sort that had been condemned by the
 
 288 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 six General Councils. " If the painters," said they, " only 
 represented the humanity of Christ, they were Nesto- 
 rians ; if they attempted to mingle it with the divinity, 
 they were Eutychians, circumscribing the Infinite and 
 confounding the two substances. It was impiety to rep- 
 resent Christ without his divinity, Arianism to despoil 
 him of his godhead." Not even with such strong state- 
 ments as these were the Iconoclasts satisfied. They even 
 went so far as to proscribe the art of painting itself, call- 
 ing it an impious art, and forbidding its cultivation. 
 
 To all this the image-worshipers gave quick and angry 
 response. The second commandment, so they insisted, 
 was aimed only at the idolatrous images of the heathen. 
 That Moses did not proscribe all images was evident from 
 the fact that even the tabernacle contained the golden 
 cherubim, and that Bezaleel and Aholiab had been in- 
 spired to design curiously-wrought figures for its cur- 
 tains. The partial vision of God to Moses was pressed 
 into service to support the same view. It was further 
 argued that since Christ had actually appeared in the 
 flesh it could not be wrong to represent him in that 
 guise. Nay, it was affirmed that he himself had sent one 
 of his pictures to Abgarus, King of Edessa, and that a 
 statue of him had been set up at Paneas in Palestine by 
 the woman whom he had cured of the issue of blood. 
 To crown all this, marvelous stories were solemnly told 
 of the miracles that had been wrought by the numerous 
 images of the saints throughout the Christian world. 
 The picture of St. Euphemia at Chrysopolis in Pisidia
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 289 
 
 had been known, BO the legend ran, to distill a healing 
 balsam from its right hand, though it was reluctantly 
 admitted that the phenomenon had ceased to be visible. 
 We have already alluded to the fact that the monks 
 were solidly in favor of image- worship. It is hard to 
 overestimate the influence of such an ignorant and fanat- 
 ical band of men when they are once thoroughly aroused. 
 With unanimous voice they now refused to submit to the 
 decrees of the Constantinopolitan Council. Chief among 
 them was a certain Stephen, who had his residence in a 
 rocky grotto on the Bythinian sea-shore. Drawn by that 
 subtle instinct which recognizes the qualities of leader- 
 ship, great companies of monks flocked to him for en- 
 couragement and counsel, and were inspired by him to 
 continue the most vigorous resistance. Constantino 
 sought by all possible means, but to no purpose, to con- 
 ciliate his good-will and to purchase his silence. An im- 
 perial officer of high rank, with a substantial present of 
 figs, dates, and other fruits, was sent to reason with him. 
 He not only remained deaf to the officer's appeal, but 
 also refused to receive the present, saying that he could 
 take nothing from the hands of a heretic. At a later 
 date he was brought into the presence of the emperor 
 himself. Even there his proud and stubborn spirit dis- 
 played itself. Taking a coin from under his robe, ho 
 said : " Of what penalty shall I be thought worthy if I 
 trample under foot the imago of the emperor which is 
 stamped upon this piece of money ? Judge, then, how 
 much greater punishment I should deserve if I wore to 
 19
 
 290 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 despise the image of Christ." Suiting the action to the 
 word, he threw down the coin, and contemptuously trod 
 upon it. That this dramatic scene was followed by 
 nothing more serious than his imprisonment is one of the 
 surprises of the time. We should naturally have ex- 
 pected him to be put to death. " The monks unanimous- 
 ly persisted in their opposition to the Iconoclasts. Vio- 
 lence became a necessity, and the most cruel tortures 
 were employed. Such as refused to subscribe the decrees 
 of the Council were publicly scourged without mercy, 
 were deprived of their noses, ears, or hands, or had their 
 eyes bored out. Three hundred and forty-two monks, 
 collected together from different districts and thrown to- 
 gether into one prison in Constantinople, were tortured 
 in this manner." The opprobrious terms which they 
 used concerning the emperor, characterizing him as a 
 renegade from the faith, afforded at least some pretext 
 for this treatment. It was not their religious opinions 
 solely nor chiefly, but their disloyalty, to which these se- 
 vere measures were meted out. 
 
 At the end of his reign of thirty years Constantino 
 thought that he had put an end to image-worship ; and, 
 as far as outward appearances were concerned, his judg- 
 ment seemed to be confirmed by the facts. But another 
 turn was now to come. Leo IV., surnamed Chazarus, 
 succeeded his father in the year 775. His wife Irene, an 
 Athenian lady, was of an image-worshiping family, but 
 on the occasion of her marriage she had sworn to give 
 up the practice. To describe her as one of the most od.i-
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 291 
 
 ous characters in history is to put the matter very mild- 
 ly. Neither Jezebel nor Agrippina nor Catharine de 
 Medici nor Catharine of Russia surpassed her in the ex- 
 tent and depth of her wickedness. Like many other 
 persons in high places and in low places, she looked upon 
 religion not as an inspiration to noble living, but as a 
 substitute for it. Nothing appeared to her more certain 
 than that she could atone for her frequent and flagrant 
 immoralities by an excessive display of superstitious pie- 
 ty. She resolved to win the favor of Heaven by bring- 
 ing back the images, but it was necessary for her to act 
 with sagacity and prudence. Her husband, though a 
 weak and good-natured man, was tenderly attached to 
 the memory of his father, and would not have tolerated 
 any open attempts to undo his work. So the profligate 
 queen bided her time, and did what she could. Through 
 her influence the monks were brought back from their 
 hiding-places. Many of them were promoted to the va- 
 cant bishoprics, and by every possible device the way 
 was gradually paved for the accomplishment of her pur- 
 poses. In 740 Leo died, having reigned only five years. 
 This was the signal for decisive action. Securing the re- 
 gency of the empire during the minority of her son, 
 Constantino V., who was then just ton years old, she 
 lost thenceforth no opportunity to carry out her de- 
 signs. 
 
 The Bishop of Constantinople at this time was a cer- 
 tain Paul. Ho was the fourth who had occupied the of- 
 fice since Gormanus, and was a very old man. It was
 
 292 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 suddenly announced that he had laid aside his dignities 
 and retired to a monastic cell ; and it was officially given 
 out that he had done so because of the fact that his con- 
 science troubled him for having taken part in the unholy 
 schemes of the late emperor against the images. It is 
 easy to see that an influence originating with Irene had 
 really brought about the abdication of the patriarch ; and 
 without much delay her chief counselor of state, Tarasi- 
 as, who was still a layman, was appointed to the vacant 
 place. "With well-dissembled reluctance he declined to 
 accept the advancement, stating that he could not con- 
 sent to occupy a See that was cut off by its heresies from 
 the rest of the Christian world. But at last, upon the 
 promise that a new General Council should be called to 
 re-open the matter and give it a final adjudication, he 
 was prevailed upon to waive his scruples and receive 
 consecration. These events took place in 783-4. In 786 
 the Council met in Constantinople. Over three hundred 
 members were in attendance, including representatives 
 from the Bishop of Eome and pretended proxies from 
 the Eastern patriarchs. Before the assembly got fairly to 
 work a band of soldiers, still loyal to the faith and mem- 
 ory of Constantino Copronymus, broke up its delibera- 
 tions. This rendered some delay a necessity ; but in the 
 next year the bishops re-assembled in Nicea, on the other 
 side of the Hellespont, a city already famous and sacred 
 as the place where the first great Council had been hold. 
 With an amazing unanimity they decreed the rightful- 
 ness of image-worship. Many who had been known as
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND AH?. 293 
 
 avowed Iconoclasts professed a sudden change of mind, 
 and with the most cowardly alacrity joined in anathemas 
 against the doctrines which they had so lately defended. 
 With one voice they broke out into a long acclamation : 
 " We all believe, we all assent, we all subscribe. This is 
 the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the Church, 
 this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the farth of all 
 the world. We who adore the Trinity worship images. 
 Whoever does not the like, anathema upon him ! Anath- 
 ema on all who call images idols ! Anathema on all who 
 communicate with them who do not worship images I 
 Anathema upon Theodosius, falsely called Bishop of Eph- 
 esus ! " We have not time to go farther with the curses 
 of these holy fathers, or with the acts of the Seventh 
 Ecumenical Council. 
 
 As Constantino V. approached manhood he grew rest- 
 ive under the control of his mother, and tried hard to 
 throw it off; but Irene had consummate tact, and held 
 the reins with a tightening grasp. At last, after long 
 continued recriminations, there came an open rupture. 
 Constantino, aware of the fact that he was really a pris- 
 oner in his own capital, tried to flee, and did actually 
 reach the Asiatic shore; but he was arrested, brought 
 back to Constantinople, and by his mother's express or- 
 ders, and in the very porphyry chamber in which he had 
 been born, was blinded with such circumstances of hor- 
 rible brutality as endangered his life. Well may Dean 
 Milman say: "Among the few instances in the annals of 
 mankind in which ambition and the love of sway have
 
 294 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 quenched the maternal feeling, that strongest and purest 
 impulse of human nature, is this crime committed against 
 her son by the Empress Irene." This wretched woman 
 now had undisputed sovereignty, and for five years ruled 
 the empire without a rival. 
 
 During the reigns of Nicephorus (802-811) and of Mi- 
 chael Ehangabe (811-813) the controversy was in abey- 
 ance. It broke out again when Leo YL, the Armenian 
 (813-821), came to the throne, continued during the 
 reign of Michael the Stammerer (821-829), and reached 
 the very height of its virulence under his son and suc- 
 cessor, Theophilus (829). This last-named monarch 
 shares with Constantino Copronymus the fate of being 
 the best-abused man in history. He is denounced by his 
 monkish historians as the very embodiment of all that is 
 base and vile. Upon his death his widow, Theodora, re- 
 peated the part of Irene, being enabled to do it by the 
 fact that her son Michael the Drunkard, in whose name 
 she ruled, was yet very young. Though devotedly at- 
 tached to the memory of her husband, who she avowed 
 had recanted his heresies on his death-bed, she yet threw 
 her whole soul into the work of restoring the objects 
 which it had been the supreme aim of his life to destroy; 
 and she succeeded. At a synod held in 842 the images 
 were again ordered to be introduced into the churches. 
 The day on which this decree was enacted, February 19, 
 has ever since been celebrated in the Eastern Church as 
 the Feast of Orthodoxy." 
 
 It is to be noted as a peculiar phenomenon that while
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND ART. 295 
 
 the Popes of Home, the recognized heads of the "Western 
 Church, were throughout the whole long and tedious 
 controversy on the side of the image-worshipers, yet the 
 Frankish Church, in the Frankfort Synod of 794, and in 
 the libri Carolini, which are with almost certainty as- 
 cribed to Charlemagne himself, took up the opposite po- 
 sition, though not going as far as the Eastern Iconoclasts; 
 and it was nearly two centuries before it fell into line 
 with the prevailing belief. 
 
 If now we ask for the reasons why this crusade against 
 image-worship failed, various answers may be given. In 
 the first place, the Iconoclasts were themselves inconsist- 
 ent. While opposing images of the saints, they yet al- 
 lowed and encouraged the worship of the saints them- 
 selves, and especially of the Virgin Mary. They also 
 contradicted their own fundamental principle by paying 
 special reverence to the symbol of the cross. Secondly, 
 they were premature. It was impossible to spiritualize 
 at once, and in an age of general darkness, a worship 
 that had been debased by centuries of false teaching and 
 wrong practice. Thirdly, their efforts were of a purely 
 negative character. They wished to take away some- 
 thing that was most highly prized, and to put nothing in 
 its place. They had no grand doctrine of justification 
 by faith, as the Reformers of the sixteenth century had, 
 to substitute for the mummeries of the Church. Fourth- 
 ly, they were in ignorance of the truth that great and 
 permanent religious reformation must have a popular 
 character, must proceed from below upward, and not
 
 296 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 from above downward. This was true even in the En- 
 glish reformation, for the movements of Henry VIII. 
 would never have been successful if they had not been 
 in line with the national feeling. 
 
 The consequences of this Iconoclastic controversy were 
 twofold. Without a doubt it so separated the Eastern 
 empire into parties and robbed it of its natural strength 
 as to disqualify it for successfully resisting the advances 
 of the Mohammedans. On the other hand, by alienating 
 the Bishop of Rome from the Emperors of Constantino- 
 ple it led to the introduction of Pepin and Charlemagne 
 into Italy and to the alliance between the Church and 
 the Teutons. These are mere hints. They may be fol- 
 lowed out to most interesting conclusions, for events in 
 this world are not single and alone. They are interlaced 
 with one another in the invisible but none the less real 
 bonds of cause and effect; and it is scarcely saying too 
 much to affirm that the whole course of mediteval and 
 modern politics has been affected more or less by these 
 schemes and counter schemes of the more than half- 
 heathen rulers of the Eastern Eoman Empire.
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OF 
 MUNKACSY, 
 
 OUR artist toiled for years in obscurity. He wrested 
 power to portray with color from most adverse circum- 
 stances. He ever thought, while he was employing his 
 hands, to obtain mastery of the artist's brush. His great 
 aim was to express mighty truths with fidelity and power. 
 He triumphed. This biography of the artist is definite 
 enough for our purpose. Dropping out the details of birth, 
 parents, place, time, education, and end, his biography 
 is not materially different from that of most masters. 
 
 Munkacsy's two Christ-paintings are "Christ before 
 Pilate" and "Christ on the Cross." The subjects are 
 great subjects. It was daring for an obscure artist to 
 undertake to give the theme a treatment. Only one con- 
 scious of genius would have had courage to try. Mun- 
 kacsy's success was as remarkable as his courage. Our 
 study will be directed first to his painting, 
 "CHRIST BEFORE PILATE." 
 
 Simply with the persons in the painting will we be con- 
 cerned. Yet that bit of deep-blue sky, seen through one 
 of the open archways of the Preetorium and the one- 
 storied, one-roomed house on the hill, will tell to the 
 observer that the artist understood the philosophy of con-
 
 298 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 trast. The blue of sky and the dull light of the Prseto- 
 rium, the calm of the home and the clamor of the court- 
 room are in this manner revealed. Moreover, that view 
 through this archway gives a perfect pictui-e of the life 
 of the common people of Palestine to-day. 
 
 The picture has in it seven groups, each containing 
 three persons. Our study will be an unfolding of these 
 groups. 
 
 GROUP 1. Christ, Pilate, Caiaphas. (" Whom ye 
 obey.") 
 
 The figure of Christ departs from all previous types 
 which artists have employed. There is not a single con- ' 
 ventional sign, not any symbol present. He is simply a 
 man. Yet how unlike other men! He is a man in abso- 
 lute calm. A seething storm of hateful passions is be- 
 hind him. It dashes against him as on an immovable 
 rock. His quiet, erect attitude expresses a noble, intel- 
 ligent resignation. Gethsemane had witnessed the strug- 
 gle and the victory. Thereafter, he would be unmoved 
 by what man could do. This resignation is no yielding 
 to a necessity. Christ has not braced himself to meet 
 his doom. His resignation is intelligent, for he knows 
 what must come to pass. It is noble, for he is undisturbed 
 by the vulgar hate of his foes. One emotion alone is 
 portrayed in this reposeful man. It lights up his face. 
 It is an emotion of loving pity. His searching eye is on 
 Pilate. That look reveals the struggle of the Eoman 
 governor who was " willing to release Jesus ; " he was also 
 "willing to content the people." There was no doubt
 
 THE CflRIST-fAlNTlNGS OP MUNKACSY. 299 
 
 about its issue. Yet this struggle of truth, in a heart too 
 weak for victory, awakened the tenderest sympathy and 
 love in the Christ. This emotion at such a time and to- 
 ward such a one is divine. Its presence on the face of 
 Christ is a truer symbol of his divinity than all the con- 
 ventional symbols ever employed to indicate divinity. 
 Tender pity for a struggling man is the only feeling por- 
 trayed in the Christ of Munkacsy. All else is a noble, 
 intelligent resignation. 
 
 Pilate is no weak, fickle man. He is a man of decis- 
 ion. The words of the high-priests do not move him. 
 The case before him, he knows, is one urged simply for 
 " envy." He himself " can find no fault " in the accused. 
 But as governor he must avoid a civil uprising. He well 
 knew the fanatical fury of a Jewish rabble, when excited 
 to violence. Such a result must be avoided. The death 
 of an innocent man would restore peace. It was true 
 that he quailed at the calm gravity and unmoved courage 
 of this man. He "marveled" at the answers given to 
 his questions. The message of his wife troubled him. 
 So on his fingers he seems to weigh the arguments of 
 the case. His alert eye, looking now not at men but at 
 reasons which must influence his judgment, indicate the 
 Roman prudence in political crises. He is altogether in- 
 different to the justice of what is pressed upon his atten- 
 tion in the Pnetorium. The moment of decision has ar- 
 rived. There sounds in his ear the unrelenting cry: 
 "Crucify him." Policy, not justice, rules the Roman 
 governor in his decision.
 
 300 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Caiaphas stands before Pilate in the attitude of tri- 
 umph, his right hand pointing to the clamorous people, 
 and his left hand extended in front and below, while his 
 face indicates almost intolerance of delay before such 
 proof. The oft-repeated words of the governor, " I find 
 no fault in him," seemed at first to promise a refuge for 
 the Christ. Hope, however, came when Pilate asked: 
 "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto 
 you ? " Here the judge made concession. He could not 
 retract. This is the moment seized by the artist. Pilate 
 has asked the question. The people in the background 
 answer. The high-priest triumphantly points to the re- 
 sponse. The case at that moment was adjudged. 
 
 The personages of this group are representatives of 
 highest authority. Pilate is the representative of a mili- 
 tary power; Caiaphas is the head of a most absolute 
 hierarchical power; Christ is the King of the kingdom 
 of heaven. The strength of the first power is the sword 
 and the spear; of the second, a fanatical, blind, degrading 
 devotion to religious forms ; of the third, a vital, coura- 
 geous, self-sacrificing manhood, devoted to such truth as 
 exalts all human life. The Christ in the presence of both 
 powers, arrayed in simple garments, strong in a no- 
 ble, intelligent resignation to their present supremacy, 
 touched into a tender, pitying sympathy for the struggle 
 of Pilate, becomes with each following year the conquer- 
 or ; while Caiaphas, in priestly robes of gorgeous splendor, 
 surrounded by his fanatical adherents, and Pilate, in the 
 simple toga of the Eoman people, and with the irresistible
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OF MUNKAC8Y. 301 
 
 soldier before him to do his bidding, are being forgotten, 
 or only remembered as mighty powers which have crum- 
 bled. The unity of this group is found in the represent- 
 ative character of the persons of which it is composed. 
 
 GROUP 2. The Shouting Rabble. (" Crucify him.") 
 
 Three within the Prrotorium illustrate this crowd. 
 One stands in front of the soldier. He has both arms 
 extended upward, and is shouting vociferously : " Crucify 
 him." Far back in the crowd appear another pair of 
 arms, thrown out in the same manner, and the head be- 
 tween them is that of one who makes the same outcry : 
 " Crucify him." A figure, rising above the others, stand- 
 ing apparently on one of the wall seats of this judgment- 
 hall, stretches out his arm, and, with the index finger 
 pointing scornfully to the Christ, seems to say: "Away 
 with this fellow." These are the witnesses that the 
 high-priest triumphantly refers to, in order to show Pilate 
 the wish of the people. 
 
 GROUP 3. The Whispering Mockers. ("They mock 
 him.") 
 
 They are the three immediately behind Christ. The 
 one just back of the Christ is the common Pharisee, and 
 his face and his hand seem to unite in expressing a sneer. 
 His words might almost be : " This fellow here is the one 
 who said, 'Destroy thi temple, and in three days I will 
 raise it up. 1 " The bald-headed man to the right is the 
 one who gloats over another's misfortune. He stands by, 
 listening to every utterance, and chuckles over every ad- 
 verse saying. This character is always worse than a
 
 302 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 sneerer. To the right is one vile fellow, leaning over the 
 barrier and seeking to see the effect of the trial on the 
 Christ. He is a scoffer. His soul is not large enough to 
 behold any excellence, unless it be arrayed in the gar- 
 ments of power. The idea of a man, who claimed to be 
 King of the Jews, with hands bound and a face which 
 seemed to his coarse mind like a woman's, was a matter 
 of scoffing. Those nearest to Christ in the time of his 
 public trial are mocking him. 
 
 GROUP 4. The Perplexed Beholders. (" So there was a 
 division among them.") 
 
 The three representing this group are widely separate. 
 One stands bolt upright against the wall, " his uplifted 
 face expressing a commingling of curiosity and con- 
 tempt." Another is the man of the common people, to 
 the left of the soldier. On the face of this one is a look 
 of inquiry, as if he would know the Christ. The woman 
 holding the child is the third, who "is looking compas- 
 sionately, almost believingly, on Christ." She may per- 
 haps be the wife of Pilate, who said to him : " Have thou 
 nothing to do with this just man." It seems as if she 
 had stepped into the Prsetorium, coming out of the door 
 of the palace behind her, in order to view the Christ. 
 
 Groups 2, 3, and 4 are groups of the people. They in- 
 dicate the state of the divided public opinion concerning 
 the Christ. These groups are all back of the accused, 
 and reflect as in a mirror the sentiment awakened by his 
 works and claims. There are three remaining groups, 
 and these are in front of the Christ.
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKAC8Y. 303 
 
 GROUP 5. The Debating Doctors. (" Who is this which 
 speaketh blasphemies ? ") 
 
 These three are apart in heated discussion. The vehe- 
 ment eloquence of Caiaphas does not attract them. The 
 importance of the decision of Pilate cannot hold their 
 attention. They will quibble over points and speculate 
 over the Tightness or wrongness of tenets or whatever 
 conflicts with them, even when a decision is impending, 
 that writes a death-warrant to all their little but much 
 spun out doctrines. The face of one is turned Christ- 
 ward. His left hand rests on the partition which shuts 
 them in from the rest. It is partly closed, and has the 
 position which the hand takes in moments of indecision. 
 The one opposite him is in earnest debate. The bony, 
 unnourished hand of this roasoner, with the first finger 
 protruded, tells of the irrefutable conclusions of its owner. 
 The hand and the face of this learned man are warning 
 sufficient, for all who behold them, to teach the folly and 
 the danger of such erudition as has its greatest merit in 
 disputing and establishing, after this fashion, religious be- 
 liefs. The third one of this group is far back ; he is neg- 
 ative, his beliefs are those of his compeers. He learned 
 them in the schools ; there is nothing in heaven or earth 
 that can now unsettle them. Still a discussion of doc- 
 tors is more to him than the anxiety of the high-priest 
 to secure the condemnation of the Christ. 
 
 GROUP 6. The Fanatical Priests. ("But the chief 
 priests moved the people that he should rather release 
 Barabbas unto them.")
 
 304 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 This group sit on the steps of the bema, one on the 
 left and two on the right of Pilate. The one farthest 
 from Pilate and next to the scornful Pharisee, who stands 
 high and looks down in scorn upon the Christ, is lost in 
 deep thought. He lets the whole scene pass by without 
 his observing the course of events. The life of the Christ 
 had impressed him. He was concerned with its import. 
 He seems to be one who constantly inquired of himself: 
 " What if this man be the Messiah ? " The priest nearest 
 to this one, and so to the right of Pilate, looks into the 
 face of the Roman governor. The priest on the other 
 side of Pilate is looking at Caiaphas. The faces of this 
 pair reflect the curse resting on every priesthood which 
 forgets that its function is to inspire religious character 
 in men rather than a blind devotion in them to religious 
 forms. A priesthood, shell-bound in creeds and forms, is 
 the priesthood of which these two priests are represent- 
 atives. There is not a kindly line in either face. The 
 one on the right has a face directed toward him who holds 
 the power of decision, and on it is painted an anxious 
 fear. The other is almost wolfish in his attitude ; he sees 
 the evident triumph of the high-priest, and he is ready 
 now to pounce out and add now abuse to the Christ, for 
 whose blood he thirsts. 
 
 GROUP 7. The Soldier, the Pharisee, the Sadducee. 
 ("His servants are ye.") 
 
 This group is to bo taken with the first group. The 
 six figures in the two groups display the highest art of 
 the artist. They form a kind of circle. (The soldier is
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKACSY. 305 
 
 not in the circumference, still his spear-head indicates 
 his place.) They display the secret of power. Christ is 
 bound. The one with divinest authority is Christ, yet 
 he is without a servant. Nevertheless, alone of all who 
 are clad with authority stands Christ, unmoved, confi- 
 dent, strong. Pilate, vicar of the Eoman power, has his 
 servant in the Eoman soldier. Strength and courage are 
 revealed in this servant. As a Hercules he stands, per- 
 fectly unmoved by the roar of the rabble. He is the 
 check upon that wild, shouting mob. His master, Pilate, 
 is in perplexity. Yet he has at his beck this force, which 
 he could employ to sweep clear of the presence of this 
 crowd the whole Prsetorium. Pilate is not disturbed by 
 the uproar ; he is simply weighing the gravity of the 
 present case. Shall he put to death a man in whom he 
 can find no fault, and thus prevent a religious riot ; or 
 banish the rabble and all from his presence, and save the 
 innocent ? Prudence, not justice, will rule him ; his sol- 
 dier shall not be employed to establish justice. Between 
 Christ and the high-priest sits the Pharisee. He is 
 nearest tho high-priest. He looks with scornful contempt 
 at Christ. This Pharisee is the servant of the high-priest. 
 He has wealth and religious position. Ho will not quib- 
 ble over points of the law or any doctrine which conflicts 
 with his faith. Such desiccating discussions he will 
 leave to the doctors. He will not be bound by customs, 
 except as to outward conformance. Bigoted adherence to 
 them ho leaves to the priests. The luxurious ease of his 
 life shall not be encroached upon by such fanatical servi- 
 20
 
 306 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tude. He has a deadly hatred of the Galilean who dares 
 say : " Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is 
 within the cup." Wealth and an outward observance of 
 religious forms are the strength of the servant of the 
 high-priest. The Sadducee is a type of the Hellenized 
 Jew. He has a religious faith, but it is a kind of Hebrew 
 Platonism. The refinements of life procured by wealth 
 and the imaginative pleasures of thought are all consist- 
 ent with his creed. Such a one is free of the bigotry of a 
 Pharisee and has closest kinship with Pilate. Thus we 
 find him sitting near the Roman governor, apart from 
 all the rest. He is a servant to religion, so far as it may 
 please his taste ; he is also servant to the civil power, so 
 far as it may contribute to security and pleasure. This 
 seventh group is characterized by the most expensive 
 robes and uniforms. They are arrayed in the livery of 
 the powers they serve. The meanest face of them all, if 
 we may imagine how the face of the soldier looks, is this 
 Pharisee, who holds in thought a noble creed, but only 
 outwardly conforms to it. He is the most contemptible 
 character. 
 
 The picture concentrates a whole epoch of Jewish his- 
 tory and what is contemporary to it in one assemblage. 
 It grades correctly the worthfulness of the religious faith 
 in men. It declares, in unmistakable language, that the 
 only conquering power in a religion is not its doctors, nor 
 its priests, but simply the man whose only authority is 
 his faith in his words and a worthy life wrought out 
 under the power of his faith. Such a religion the
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKACSY. 307 
 
 Christ religion is calm and kind in the presence of all 
 opposition. Surprise and admiration take hold of us at 
 beholding in a painting all this complex truth vividly 
 portrayed. Great surprise and nobler admiration fill us 
 when we see that not symbolical figures are employed, 
 but living men, to utter this truth. A work created un- 
 der such insight, and with such fidelity to eternal fact, 
 must place the author among the greatest of artists. 
 
 We now turn to consider the second great painting, 
 "CHRIST ON THE CROSS." 
 
 This picture has in it seven groups, and in each group 
 there are three persons. 
 
 GROUP 1. Christ and the Two Thieves. ("And with 
 him they crucified two thieves.") 
 
 The Christ is a dead man on the cross. Two other 
 crosses stand erected near his one on his left and one on 
 his right. On each is nailed a man still alive. These 
 are the two thieves. The absence of ail signs of muscu- 
 lar life in the Christ is proof positive that he is dead. 
 Already have been spoken the words : " Father, into thy 
 hands I commend my spirit." The knitted brow and 
 protruded, compressed lips of the thief on the left hand 
 indicate life. His face indicates hardened, desperate 
 character meeting doggedly its just reward. He must 
 hang until death. As the world disowns him, he disowns 
 it. A dying Christ does not move his stolid indifference. 
 The thief on the right holds his head turned toward the 
 Christ. This muscular effort bespeaks life. His face 
 has not a tender line in it ; all its signs are as foreboding
 
 308 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as the threatening sky above ; still on it, as on the sky, 
 some light seems breaking. This man with his face 
 darkened by a vicious life, yet with a glimmer of hope 
 breaking through the shadows of evil which obscure his 
 countenance, is the penitent thief. At least his face is 
 now in the right direction. 
 
 The Christ on the cross is a dead man. The head is 
 thrown back and to the left, the lips parted. The final 
 muscular effort was to raise the head toward heaven to 
 breathe the prayer which committed his spirit to the 
 Father. Life ended with that prayer. This dead body 
 of the Christ is aglow with light. Through the dark, 
 pall-like clouds bursts light, and it falls on him who has 
 just died. It is a double symbol: it signifies that the 
 prayer has been answered. The Father has received the 
 spirit of his well-beloved Son. It signifies also that the 
 death of Christ is light-bringing to the earth all envel- 
 oped in darkness. We may forget for a moment these 
 greater truths, and attend to a lesser one, yet one of mo- 
 mentous importance. Our eyes see three human bodies 
 exposed to view. If our bodies be " temples of God," we 
 may behold in these bodies the transforming power of 
 the worship within. We shudder at the coarseness of the 
 bodies of the thieves. They were temples of dissipation, 
 of ignoble thought, base feelings, and vile deeds. But 
 the fineness of the lines of the body of Christ impresses 
 us. The worship within this temple was moderation 
 and obedience to Nature's laws ; while holy, noble 
 thought and holy feeling had wrought their sweetness
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKACST. 309 
 
 on every line of the face. Death has no power to de- 
 stroy them. 
 
 GROUP 2. Mary the Mother, Mary the Magdalene, 
 John the Disciple. (" Let not your hearts be troubled.") 
 
 The group which we have just considered is a group of 
 three, the only common tie being outward simply and 
 expressed by the crosses. All else is different. The sec- 
 ond group of three is placed about the cross : it is Mary 
 the mother, Mary the Magdalene, John the disciple. The 
 uniting bond is a grief too deep to be moved. When the 
 Christ " cried with a loud voice " it aroused others ; it 
 left these three undisturbed. Mary the mother kneels 
 prostrate upon the cross with her hands clasped, touch- 
 ing the feet of Jesus ; she hangs her weight on the cross. 
 The right side of her face alone is seen. Helplessly her 
 head falls on her left fore-arm. Death had suspended all 
 muscular action in the body of her son above her ; grief 
 now staid all muscular action within her. The mother 
 love suffers helpless grief through loss of the son. Or if 
 it has any help, it is only in the support of the cross, 
 which keeps her from falling prostrate upon the ground. 
 Mary the Magdalene is to her left. Her figure is that of 
 a young woman. Streaming golden, hair falls down her 
 back. She is kneeling, but with the body thrown back- 
 ward. Her face is covered with her agitated hands. A 
 moment before grief had convulsed her frame. It passed, 
 and loft as if petrified the signs of its violence. One 
 might almost feel justified in concluding, from the posi- 
 tion of the head of the Christ and the attitude of the
 
 310 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Magdalene, that the loving Master in his last moments 
 had cast a kind, encouraging look to the woman whose 
 past was filled with such unspeakable sorrow, then raised 
 his head and commended his spirit to the Father ; that at 
 the moment when he raised his head toward the heavens 
 the Magdalene, deprived of its sweet encouragement, con- 
 vulsively threw her hands over her face and became mo- 
 tionless through her sorrow. John the disciple stands as 
 lifeless as a cross, his head inclined downward, as if look- 
 ing at Mary the mother. No sign of grief save its awful 
 stillness. The type of the head chosen for John portrays 
 his character. It has great depth, and from it descends 
 over the shoulders and neck abundant, wavy hair. The 
 face, as it is seen in profile, has the tenderness of a wom- 
 an, which because of his manly force is not obscured by 
 the fullness of his sorrow. He in his grief is still mind- 
 ful of the last charge given him by his Master. One al- 
 most suspects that the coloring of this group has in it a 
 secret. The dark robe of the mother suggests a sorrow 
 that well-nigh robs of life. The sword has entered her 
 heart. The blue robe of the Magdalene, deep as the heav- 
 en's blue, rightly clothes her whose love is founded on 
 deepest gratitude, and so must be as true as the beatings 
 of her heart. John is clad in a long cloak, a deep, warm 
 red, rightly suggesting a nature whose every thought 
 was love for the Christ. 
 
 GROUP 3. Mary, Wife of Cleophas, the Converted Cen- 
 turion, and the Lad. (" I am the light of the world.") 
 
 A group of three is now to be considered, who are
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKACSY. 311 
 
 widely separated in the picture. It is composed of Mary, 
 wife of Cleophas, the converted centurion, and the lad in 
 the foreground of the picture. The outward signs which 
 bind these three in a group are physical attitudes. " Jesus 
 had cried with a loud voice." Mary, wife of Cleophas, 
 rises, leans her head backward to gain a view of the 
 Christ, extends her arras upward, and holds supine her 
 hands. This attitude is natural to those in devotion. An 
 authority on gesture gives such elements as making up 
 the physical action for the expression of the words, " Hail, 
 universal Lord ! " This Mary had followed her sorrow- 
 ing sister, led by feelings of kinship. The lofty claims of 
 the one, being led to the cross, had not been acknowledged 
 through such experience as made the mother see in her 
 son also her God; by such revelation of love through 
 close friendship as taught John that his friend was also 
 his God ; by such compassionate love and divine encour- 
 agement as made the Magdalene see in her Saviour even 
 her God. Mary, wife of Cleophas, was one of the many 
 good ones of that time who waited for light. She was 
 true-hearted, so she hesitated not to follow her nephew 
 to a disgrace which he had not merited. She had as- 
 sumed the attitude of sorrow. She had been kneeling. 
 The final words of the dying relative were heard. But 
 the last words, " Father, into thy hands I commend my 
 spirit," uttered in a loud voice, opened the mystery of his 
 life to her. "M}' Father" alone justified the claims of 
 the Christ. In an instant, like a lightning flash, the 
 Messiah, the Hope of Israel, is revealed. She has found
 
 312 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the Christ, and joy and worship animate her face and 
 form. The converted centurion has his left arm extend- 
 ed and his hand vertical, the position of awe. His right 
 hand is by his ear, to catch the words, and is indicative 
 of joy. Those final words, uttered with a loud voice, have 
 reached him ; suddenly their meaning flashes upon him, 
 and awe and joy possesses him. He says: "Truly this 
 was the Son of God." The lad is the final figure in this 
 group. A vulgar curiosity has led him out of the city to 
 see the sight of men crucified. He acted under the same 
 motive as leads many to-day to see a " hanging." It was 
 all over. Most were moving away, he with them. When 
 that loud voice met his ear, he turned and became the 
 embodiment of surprise. Here, too, we trace the secret 
 of the color, if we pause. The dress of this group is a 
 shade of gray, each different in tone, but all illuminated 
 by the light which broke through the darkness and 
 falls chiefly on the body of the Christ. It is the gray of 
 dawn. The untrained, undisciplined lad is met by a sur- 
 prise in the " loud voice" from the cross, which will ever 
 abide with him, and bring day to much that must later 
 come to his mind. The thoughtful and faithful centuri- 
 on thoughtful and faithful in his calling becomes 
 through this " loud voice" the possessor of a sudden and 
 joyful faith, that voices itself in the words : " Truly this 
 was the Son of Grod." The good and sympathetic Mary, 
 wife of Cleophas, sees revealed in this " loud voice " as 
 in a moment all the meaning in the Messianic hopes of 
 her people. The dawn of a new day throws its light on
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKAC8Y. 313 
 
 this group. This is the power which binds together the 
 group. 
 
 GROUP 4. The Roman Soldier Youth, the Merchant Jew, 
 the Perplexed Scribe. (" He that is not with me is against 
 me.") 
 
 The fourth group is composed of the Roman soldier 
 sitting on the rock to the right of the cross, of the mer- 
 chant Jew to the left of the high -priest, and of the 
 thoughtful, perplexed scribe, to whom the Pharisee is 
 talking. The thoughtful seriousness on their faces binds 
 this group together. The youthful soldier is at a loss to 
 know the meaning of this complex scene. Scenes of 
 carnage he had met ; death was not new to him. But 
 the rumors about this man who is called in derision 
 the "King of the Jews ; " his followers, women weeping, 
 and a quiet, calm, grief-full man these rumors and 
 these followers, not the fact of death with which he was 
 well acquainted, were the powers which had made seri- 
 ous his face. The merchant, apparently, was walking 
 with the high-priest when the " loud voice " was heard. 
 He turns full around. Accustomed to decide on the qual- 
 ity of goods by test, of the worth of money by trial, he 
 had an instinctive habit of finding out the worth of 
 things by considering them not from prejudice, but from 
 experience. This " loud voice " came as new to him, and 
 seriously he will attend to its meaning. The last figure 
 in this group is the aged scribe. His brows are knit, 
 his eyes directed to the ground. There is almost a re- 
 sentment at the fluent words of the Pharisee, who would
 
 314 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 reason away easily the facts which had been witnessed 
 within the last few hours. The question of the identity 
 of Him who died on the cross is uppermost. A whole 
 system stands or falls with the answer. A " loud voice " 
 from the cross cannot arouse him from the intensity of 
 his reflection. The life, the teachings, the works of this 
 crucified man are louder in their voices to him than His 
 final voice on the cross. But he passes away from the 
 cross unsettled, but not unimpressed. Were we to vent- 
 ure to name this perplexed, thoughtful scribe, we would 
 call him the Pharisee Gamaliel that one who said later 
 concerning the work of the disciples of Christ : " If it be 
 of God, ye cannot overthrow it." 
 
 GROUP 5. The High -priest, the Sadducee, the Roman 
 Commander. ("By what authority dost thou these 
 things?") 
 
 We may now turn to antithetic groups. These are 
 three. The first we will consider contains the high- 
 priest, the Sadducee (falsely called the " purse-proud 
 Pharisee "), and the Eoman commander. Authority is 
 the binding tie. The "loud voice " from the cross comes 
 to each. Alone the Eoman commander hears it unmoved. 
 His visage is that of one hardened by the pleasures which 
 are always within the reach of absolute power. He is 
 present at this time only as an act of duty, that the rabble 
 may arouse no civil commotion. The anger on the one 
 side and the pathetic suffering on the other had no power 
 even to elicit any recognition. Absolute fidelity to Rome, 
 and afterward slave to every brutal passion which could
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKACSY. 315 
 
 be enjoyed through the prestige of Roman power such 
 is this commander. The high -priest had been moving 
 away. The " loud voice " reaches him. He turns, with 
 every sign of astonishment. A moment ago he was pass- 
 ing away from the scene with the look of triumph on 
 his face ; it still rests there, but the upraised face and the 
 raised hands suggest that perhaps yet this Crucified One 
 may be the real conqueror. The authority of the high- 
 priest crumbles if this one bo really the Christ. Any 
 sign, therefore, which might indicate that he was not 
 yet destroyed would disturb Caiaphas. His power was 
 not as unassailable by the Christ as that of the Roman 
 commander. So the "loud voice" painted, for the in- 
 stant, astonishment on his features. The Sadducee re- 
 mains of this group. Our reason for regarding this fig- 
 ure not as a Pharisee is grounded on the history of the 
 time. There can be no doubt that this figure is to rep- 
 resent one with great wealth. The fine horse richly ca- 
 parisoned, the costly-wrought robe which he wears set- 
 tle this fact beyond a doubt. But possession of wealth 
 does not argue a Pharisee. The color of his garment, 
 however, argues beyond doubt that the man is a Saddu- 
 cee. This garment is white. Sadducee means a "right- 
 eous one," one unspotted, one whose symbol is the color 
 white. An eminent historian of this time writes respect- 
 ing this sect that its name signifies " righteous," and its 
 members "constituted in fact the wealthy and aristo- 
 cratic portions of society." The figure of the artist and 
 the description of the historian point to but one sect, and
 
 316 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 that the Sadducees. The face of this Sadducee is also 
 turned toward the cross. He will not even stop his 
 horse, but will support himself in motion as he looks back 
 by placing his left hand on the back of his steed. His 
 authority was no more affected by the Christ than that 
 of the Roman commander ; hence he simply and haugh- 
 tily looks back. A wealthy, self-contained self-righteous- 
 ness is as hardening as the coarse deeds of a Roman com- 
 mander. The fanaticism of Caiaphas is consistent with 
 noble lines in the face. But the coarse sensuality of the 
 Roman commander and the refined dissipations of the 
 outwardly righteous Sadducee rob the human counte- 
 nance of every noble character-line. 
 
 GROUP 6. The Group of Strangers. ("Jesus of Naza- 
 reth, the King of the Jews.") 
 
 The second of the antithetic groups is found in the ex- 
 treme left of the painting, behind the Sadducee. They 
 are all strangers, drawn together by the sight of the 
 crowd. One, looking like a garrulous Bedouin, is point- 
 ing to the cross and telling the others the scraps of infor- 
 mation he had picked up. The group is negative; the 
 faces seem to bespeak simply a listening to an idle tale. 
 
 GROUP 7. The Executioner, the Pharisee, the Judas. 
 ("Whom ye have crucified.") 
 
 The third one in these antithetic groups is made up of 
 the executioner, the fleeing Judas, and, midway between 
 these, the Pharisee, who talks so confidently to the per- 
 plexed scribe. Their falseness unites them. The execu- 
 tioner is simply a butcher. Blood is not sacred to him.
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OF MUNKACSY. 317 
 
 Authority decrees death. He thereupon executes the de- 
 cree. A shriek, a groan, a sob, a tear must not deter him 
 nor touch him. Such work, although sanctioned by civil- 
 ized law, imbrutes the doer. Awful irony is employed 
 by the artist in this person. Laws thirsting for blood 
 may rid the world of criminals, yet at the same time they 
 leave in the world, characters as dead to every tender 
 emotion as the dead who have been executed. Such is 
 the awful penalty upon the executioner who must carry 
 out laws demanding blood. The retreating figure is Ju- 
 das. A horror fills his heart, paints itself on his face, 
 shows itself in the clinched hands pressed against his 
 throbbing breast, and compels a running away from the 
 place where the horror took possession of him. He knew 
 whom he had betrayed. This knowledge awoke a hell of 
 suffering within him. If but for a moment the execu- 
 tioner could have known whom he had nailed to the cross, 
 a horror would have seized him, and he too would have 
 taken flight. Still, the flight of the executioner would 
 be under a horror immeasurably less sorrow-bringing 
 than the horror of Judas. To betray love for money or 
 any value leads to an awful horror as soon as the deed 
 has been brought home to conscience. The only figure 
 remaining unconsiderod now in this group is the Phari- 
 see. He is talking to the thoughtful, perplexed scribe, 
 likewise a Pharisee. His gesture with his hands is that 
 of emphatic assertion. All his conclusions have been 
 reached. He is as undisturbed by the " loud voice " as 
 the Roman commander. The great enemy to the teach-
 
 318 DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ings of the Pharisees he sees impaled upon the cross. All 
 the declarations of the Christ die with him. Pharisaism 
 is safe. The final shout of the pretended Messiah to the 
 Father is only in line with that blasphemous boasting 
 which led this deceiver of the people to announce himself 
 while living the Son of God. His works in life could not 
 move a Pharisee, nor can his " loud voice " in the time of 
 death produce that effect. One knows that the artist 
 loved John. No heart but a loving heart could so pow- 
 erfully depict the loving disciple ; hence we are not sur- 
 prised that the Johannean account of the last days of the 
 Christ should be the favorite one with the artist. These 
 are John's words : " Judas then, having received a band 
 of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees." 
 John couples Judas and the Pharisees together ; so does 
 our artist. Judas and the Pharisees are in the same 
 group. The secret of color will also confirm us in our 
 opinion. The dress of the executioner is a blue, which 
 has become pale through long washing. It is a blue that 
 has lost its color, just like his face, which has lost its 
 character. The dress of Judas is likewise a blue, but a 
 blue that is traitor to itself. A blue it is that seems 
 ready to change into a black. The dress of the Pharisee 
 is also a blue, but not deep like the heavens above, nor 
 warm like friendship below. It is a blue like a house- 
 painter might mix not like the blue which God makes 
 in the flowers. Blue is a symbol of the true; but it 
 should deck an executioner only when it is faded, a 
 Judas only when it threatens to turn black, a Pharisee
 
 THE CHRIST-PAINTINGS OP MUNKAC8Y. 319 
 
 only when it is a mixture and no natural color, since each 
 of these charactei-s is untrue through a degrading trade, 
 or a shameful betrayal, or a distorted religious faith. 
 
 There are seven groups. Three of these groups are un- 
 der the influence of the power of the cross; three are 
 hostile or indifferent to the cross. The cross group is 
 central, and, in itself, represents all the other groups, 
 since Christ, even on the cross, divides those who are 
 crucified with him. 
 
 The picture is the work of a genius, who is not alone 
 master of the brush, but also of the passions which move 
 in men. He is also a master-genius, since in a painting 
 with about forty faces he can bring in review the con- 
 flicting age in which the Christ came as the Saviour of 
 mankind. The whole period is before us. We behold 
 its hope. We behold likewise its despair. It was an age 
 with a dark sky, broken into by the Light from heaven. 
 The picture makes us see how sublime a thing it is to 
 suffer for the cross, how hateful a thing it is to be indif- 
 ferent to the cross. All sorrow and weakness in those 
 with faith in the cross beautifies, and all strength and 
 power in those who disbelieve in the cross make ugly. 
 The truth is eternal the exhibition of it grand and mas- 
 terly, its author one of the master-painters of the world.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 A 001 002 355 4